Initial Construction and Validation of the Identity Shifting for Black Women Scale

Abstract

In this study, we aimed to develop and validate the Identity Shifting for Black Women Scale (ISBWS), which assesses the process of altering one’s speech, perceptions, behaviors, and appearance to navigate experiences of discrimination and to enhance intraracial relationships. In Study 1, data from 356 Black women in the United States were used for exploratory factor analysis. Exploratory factor analysis results supported a 15-item, two-factor solution that captured the following domains: (a) Navigating Gendered Racial Oppressive Contexts and (b) Enhancing Intraracial Relationships. In Study 2, confirmatory factor analyses were performed with data from 289 United States Black women. Confirmatory factor analyses tested a unidimensional correlated traits model, a two-factor correlated traits model, and a bifactor model. The bifactor model provided optimal fit, and internal consistency estimates for scores on the ISBWS subscales were good. The ISBWS’ construct validity was supported given its association with related measures of shifting and gendered racial microaggressions. The ISBWS also accounted for additional variance in Black women’s anxiety symptoms over and above an existing shifting measure. Our findings support the added value of the ISBWS in understanding Black women’s multifaceted experiences and can be used to inform interventions aimed to maximize the benefits and reduce the costs of shifting among Black women.

Keywords

Black women intersectionality identity shifting identity management scale validation

Black women, or women of African descent, in the United States (U.S.) experience marginalization at the intersection of racism and sexism (gendered racism; Essed, 1991). They often find themselves in settings in which their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors are devalued relative to Eurocentric standards (Jones & Shorter-Gooden, 2004). Thus, many Black women adapt to this by altering their self-presentation across professional and interpersonal contexts – a process known as identity shifting (Dickens & Chavez, 2018; Jones & Shorter-Gooden, 2004). Identity shifting has been studied extensively to understand the process by which different groups downplay their cultural distinctiveness to challenge stereotypes and navigate White supremacy culture (Dickens et al., 2018; Jones & Shorter-Gooden, 2004).

For Black women, identity shifting appears to be an important aspect of their gendered racial identity development, and it is often used to avoid conflict or discrimination (Williams & Lewis, 2021). Unfortunately, identity shifting has contributed to deleterious consequences for Black women, such as stress, depression, and anxiety symptoms (Gamst et al., 2020; Jones et al., 2021). Because identity shifting may entail embodying strategies that are inconsistent with or impede authentic self-expression, Black women may experience psychological discomfort and anxiety when engaging in identity shifting (Dickens & Chavez, 2018; Swann et al., 2009). Identity shifting can also prompt the “frozen effect” - cognitively “checking out” from situations by becoming silent to avoid confrontation (Dickens & Chavez, 2018). Thus, shifting experiences could exacerbate Black women’s reports of mental health symptoms.

Despite rich qualitative research on shifting, scholars’ ability to quantitatively assess how identity shifting might predict Black women’s life outcomes has been thwarted by the lack of psychometrically sound measures that capture this construct. Johnson et al. (2016) initially responded to this limitation by developing the groundbreaking African American Women’s Shifting Scale (AAWSS). Johnson et al. (2016) used the Multicultural Assessment-Intervention Process (MAIP) model to develop items that captured Black women’s daily shifting strategies. We extend this work by developing an identity shifting scale that explicitly incorporates an intersectionality framework – a framework that interrogates how Black women’s intersecting identities and oppressions influence identity shifting processes (Crenshaw, 1989). Whereas Johnson et al.’s (2016) scale reflected Black women’s daily shifting behaviors, our scale aims to measure the extent to which Black women modify their speech, perceptions, behavior, and appearance across professional and social contexts to navigate oppression or enhance within-group relationships. To demonstrate the full merit of this investigation, we first review the literature on Black women’s identity shifting. We then discuss the advantages of using an intersectionality framework to highlight how Black women’s gendered racial identity development and experiences with gendered racism precipitate the use of identity shifting. Third, we outline the main goals and hypotheses for the current study.

The History of Identity Shifting Scholarship

The current work on identity shifting among U.S. Black women is situated within the identity negotiation and identity interference scholarship. Ting-Toomey (1986), a communication studies scholar, has been credited as one of the first to associate identity with negotiation; she conceptualized identity negotiation as the choices one makes in cultural interactions to secure their self-image (Ting-Toomey, 1986, 1999). Thus, people may decide to show or hide aspects of themselves to seek validation and protect themselves from discrimination. Others argue that identity negotiation was coined by social psychologist William Swann (1987) who argued that identity negotiation was the agreement of roles between people in a given social interaction. According to Swann (1987), these interactions are based on competing processes of behavioral confirmation (i.e., when a person pressures another person to behave in ways that confirm expectations of the perceiver) and self-verification (i.e., the process of people developing expectations that are in alignment with self-views of the target person). To date, researchers have explored identity negotiation across cultural groups and life domains, such as work and family roles (Demers, 2013; Read & Bartkowski, 2000; Swann et al., 2009).

With specific attention on Black women, Settles (2004, 2006) expanded the identity negotiation scholarship to explore identity interference, or how Black women negotiated conflict between their race and gender identities. Settles (2004) argued that stereotypes about Blackness could conflict with stereotypes about womanhood causing Black women to feel as if performing one identity (e.g., one’s race) interfered with another (e.g., one’s gender). In the current study, we conceptualize identity shifting as a type of identity negotiation that captures the conscious and unconscious processes of shifting one’s speech, perceptions, behavior, and appearance across contexts based on feelings of exclusion, awareness of marginalization, and the expectations of others (Dickens et al., 2018; Jackson, 2002; Ting-Toomey, 1999).

We also posit that identity shifting is multifaceted. Because language is deeply intertwined with identity, code-switching is one dimension of identity shifting. Code-switching entails alternating between two or more dialects or languages, changing the volume and tone of one’s voice, or experimenting with how words are annunciated (Auer, 2013). In the U.S. context, code-switching has commonly been studied among Black people as a performative expression that includes the use of both Black English, “Euro-American speech with an Afro-American meaning, nuance, tone, and gesture” (Smitherman, 1977, p. 32), and Standard English to navigate White environments (Koch et al., 2001; Morton, 2014; Ogbu, 2004). Although some argue that code-switching perpetuates anti-Blackness racism (Baker-Bell, 2020), many Black Americans perceive code-switching as a necessary strategy to advance in professional spaces (McCluney et al., 2021). Therefore, it is not surprising that Black women discussed going back and forth between Black and White vernaculars to preserve professional networks with coworkers (Boulton, 2016; Dickens & Chavez, 2018; McDowell & Carter-Francique, 2017).

The second dimension of identity shifting entails concealing one’s identity by altering perceptions, appearances, and behaviors. This concealment can include avoiding discussions about one’s social identities or clearing one’s space of pictures and symbols representing one’s “Blackness” and womanhood (Clair et al., 2005; Madera et al., 2012). For Black women, changing their appearance could include straightening their hair or forgoing natural hairstyles (e.g., braids) in order to “blend in” and conform to Eurocentric values of professionalism (Johnson et al., 2017). Therefore, identity shifting is a multidimensional process that helps Black women navigate different cultural contexts for different purposes.

Using an Intersectionality Approach to Contextualize Black Women’s Identity Shifting

Settles’ (2004) work on Black women and identity interference highlighted the importance of situating Black women’s identity processes within their distinct cultural experiences. Toward this end, we utilize intersectionality as the main theoretical framework to contextualize the oppressive realities that facilitate identity shifting for Black women. Intersectionality originated with Black feminist scholars who voiced their unique experiences at the intersection of racism and sexism (Crenshaw, 1989; Hancock, 2016; May, 2015). Intersectionality also provides a more holistic understanding of human phenomena that is not reflected when single identity dimensions (e.g., race) are considered alone. Though race scholars, like Du Bois (1903), have highlighted how Black Americans experience a double consciousness that fuels strategies like identity shifting to retain their Black identity while living in a White society, an intersectionality framework brings Black women’s intersectional experiences to the center. An intersectional approach allows scholars to interrogate how Black women engage in identity shifting to navigate interlocking systems of racism, sexism, and misogyny, as well as to describe how intersectional experiences, like gendered racial identity development and gendered racism, give way to Black women’s identity shifting processes.

Black Women’s Gendered Racial Identity Development

According to Black feminist theorists, Black women’s shared experiences with racism and sexism give way to a “collective standpoint” regarding what it means to be a Black woman (Collins, 1996, p. 9). Williams and Lewis (2021) uncovered elements of this collective standpoint by investigating the developmental process by which Black women make meaning of their gendered racial identity. They found that Black women’s gendered racial identity development included four phases, one of which was navigation, or the need to traverse social contexts by shifting their Black woman identity (Williams & Lewis, 2021). Relatedly, previous research by Jones et al. (2021) showed that identity shifting strategies were associated with higher levels of gendered racial identity centrality (importance of one’s race and gender to their overall sense of self). That is, Black women were more likely to engage in identity shifting when they viewed their intersected race and gender identity as central to their overall sense of self.

Black Women’s Experiences of Gendered Racism, Stereotyping, and Gendered Racial Microaggressions

Williams and Lewis (2021) also found that 53% of the participants discussed shifting aspects of their Black woman identity to mitigate experiences of gendered racism and to survive oppressive environments. This finding is consistent with previous research that illustrated that women reported higher levels of identity shifting when they reported higher levels of gendered racism (Jones et al., 2021). One way gendered racism may manifest is through stereotyping. Since American enslavement, three prevalent stereotypes have caricaturized Black womanhood: Mammy, Jezebel, and Sapphire (Thomas et al., 2004; West, 2008). The Mammy stereotype describes a motherly Black woman servant who is strong, nurturing, self-sacrificing, and content in her caregiving roles. The Jezebel stereotype perpetuates beliefs that Black women are sexually promiscuous and sexually seducing, whereas the Sapphire stereotype typecasts Black women as aggressive, dominating, and angry (Reynolds-Dobbs et al., 2008; West, 2008). In recent years, the Superwoman/Strong Black woman stereotype has emerged (Thomas et al., 2004), and it perpetuates beliefs that Black women should shoulder insurmountable stress, be independent while caring for others, and suppress their emotions (Nelson et al., 2016; Watson & Hunter, 2016; Woods-Giscombé, 2010). Because of these stereotypes, Black women often feel pressure to behave in less stereotyped ways, and thus engage in identity shifting. Qualitative findings from McDowell and Carter-Francique (2017) illuminated how Black women engaged in identity shifting to resolve identity conflicts and challenge stereotypical expectations. Similarly, Mowatt et al. (2013) found that Black women often self-silenced to circumvent being labeled an “angry Black woman.” Therefore, it is evident that experiences and awareness of oppressive gendered racial stereotypes can influence Black women’s identity shifting.

Gendered racism can also manifest as gendered racial microaggressions -- subtle and everyday verbal, behavioral, and environmental experiences of oppression based on the intersection of one’s race and gender (Lewis et al., 2013). Gendered racial microaggressions are rooted in stereotypes of Black women as domineering, sexually promiscuous, and strong. These microaggressions can take the form of objectifying women’s bodies, silencing them in the workplace, and making assumptions about their communication styles, physical appearance, and body type (Lewis et al., 2016). Based on related research (Jones et al., 2021), it could be that Black women who experience gendered racial microaggressions attempt to reduce future microaggressions by engaging in more shifting behaviors. For instance, receiving comments about the size of their butt, hips, or other body parts could lead Black women to alter their dress style, whereas attempts to touch their hair could cause Black women to avoid natural hairstyles. These experiences of microaggressions support qualitative findings that revealed that Black women used identity shifting to confront body image concerns with skin tone, hair texture, and body size (Jones & Shorter-Gooden, 2004). Thus, experiences with gendered racial microaggressions likely inform Black women’s identity shifting strategies.

Black Women’s Identity Shifting in the Black Community

For many Black women, identity shifting is par for the course in predominantly White contexts. However, more recent work suggested that identity shifting can also occur within one’s cultural group (Njoku & Patton, 2017). Although Black women may find a sense of belonging and connectedness in predominantly Black communities (Thelamour et al., 2019), some Black women may feel as if they must also shift in these communities to adjust to cultural norms or “home codes” - rules of conduct based on race, gender, class, and other identities due to oppressive views against one’s group (Jones & Shorter-Gooden, 2004). In interviews with Black women, Jones and Shorter-Gooden (2004) found that Black women felt pressure to act “bougie” or talk more “proper” when around “upper class” Black people. Respectability politics, rules by which marginalized groups police their own member’s behaviors to align with dominant values (Harris, 2014), may also be a factor in these interactions. Traditionally, respectability politics in the Black community served to combat the racial prejudice and discrimination experienced by focusing on success and achievement. These rules often included altering speech and behaviors to combat racist imagery and ideology (Obasogie & Newman, 2016). Due to gendered racialized stereotypes of Black women, such as being promiscuous, those who deviate from respectability norms are portrayed as delaying racial progress (Collins, 2000; Njoku & Patton, 2017).

Jones and Shorter-Gooden (2004) also found that, in other segments of Black communities, people expect Black women to be “down to earth” and to prove they had not sold out. One of the most delicate balancing acts of navigating Black communities has been maneuvering between success and ensuring that one stays grounded to remain “part of the community.” Although this balance may look different across age groups, educational levels, socioeconomic statuses, and geographical locations, the belief about how Black women should carry themselves and present themselves to the world is deeply rooted in the Black community (Hall-Byers et al., 2020). In addition, due to gendered racism, some Black women may engage in identity shifting to facilitate romantic relationships, such as being submissive to their Black male partner (Jones & Shorter-Gooden, 2004). Johnson et al. (2016) noted that some Black women felt the need to shift as a way to not exacerbate the various negative messages and experiences that a discriminatory society subjects to some Black men. For example, Black women may feel the need to downplay their success or suppress their perspective and experiences to avoid discord in their relationships.

Further, given that Black women are often situated in professional spaces where they are the “only” ones (Dickens et al., 2019), identity shifting to engage with other Black people may be a means to amplify social capital and networks built on expectations, trustworthiness, and shared information and resources (Coleman, 1988; Farmer-Hinton, 2008). There is sufficient documentation in the literature that these networks create counterspaces for Black women, such as Sister Circles (Neal-Barnett et al., 2011), which are specific settings that support positive psychological and emotional well-being, and help with coping (Case & Hunter, 2012). Therefore, identity shifting in Black contexts may create career or social opportunities or build community in ways that might not otherwise be possible.

Identity Shifting and the African American Women’s Shifting Scale

Currently, identity shifting is quantitatively measured via the African American Women’s Shifting Scale (AAWSS; Johnson et al., 2016). The AAWSS assesses the extent to which Black women alter various parts of themselves (e.g., speech, displays of emotion) during daily activities (Johnson et al., 2016). To develop this scale, Johnson et al. (2016) used the MAIP model, which captures constructs that impact mental health treatment outcomes. This model, along with factor analytic data, led to the development of three AAWSS subscales: Strong Black Woman (i.e., pressure to manage challenges, demonstrate strength, and avoid vulnerability), Awareness of Shifting Behavior (i.e., need to alter one’s self-image across contexts), and Sensitivity to the Perceptions of Blacks (i.e., shifting around African Americans to prove one’s own African American identity). This scale’s factor structure has been validated in geographically diverse samples of Black women, and its subscale internal consistencies ranged from .73 to .78 in the original psychometric evaluation.

Although the AAWSS has moved the identity shifting literature forward, our new scale aims to address the AAWSS’s limitations in several ways. First, the AAWSS includes only one question about changes in tone, and there are no questions about altering one’s physical appearance. Our scale aims to capture the full range of identity shifting strategies, such as attempts to alter one’s speech, perceptions, behavior, and appearance. Second, the AAWSS examined awareness of identity shifting (“There is a way to act at home and a different way when I am away from home”). Yet, the item content does not capture the intersectional realities that contextualize Black women’s identity shifting experiences across contexts. Third, despite the AAWSS’s inclusion of the Strong Black Woman schema subscale, questions from this subscale reflect women’s expectations to be strong (e.g., “I cannot show weakness to my family”) rather than the use of identity shifting to circumvent a range of gendered racial stereotypes. Fourth, the AAWSS’s Sensitivity to the Perceptions of Blacks subscale captures if Black women feel pressure to prove their Black identity in Black spaces. Yet, our scale assesses how shifting may be utilized to navigate Black spaces to foster belonging and enhance social and professional relationships. Therefore, our scale aims to capture the complexity of identity shifting for Black women across both White and Black environments. Considering these goals, a quantitative measurement that measures identity shifting from an intersectional lens and that identifies additional shifting dimensions relevant to Black women’s distinct experiences is still needed.

The Present Study

Black women from different age groups, socioeconomic statuses, and educational backgrounds report attempting to attenuate the negative consequences of interlocking oppressions by engaging in identity shifting (Dickens & Chavez, 2018; Jones & Shorter-Gooden, 2004). Although the AAWSS has been used to quantitatively examine shifting, our ability to assess and interrogate the gains (e.g., career advancement) and costs (e.g., increased anxiety, inauthenticity) associated with identity shifting for Black women has been stymied by the lack of a quantitative measurement that captures the complexity of identity shifting among this population. Thus, this study employed an intersectionality framework to construct and validate a scale that assessed Black women’s identity shifting, which we define as the unconscious or conscious process of altering how one talks, perceives, appears, and behaves either to assimilate and counter discriminatory experiences in White environments or to enhance intraracial social and professional relationships in Black environments. Given this, we followed best practices for scale development research and employed the following steps: (a) item development, (b) item revision, (c) exploratory factor analysis (EFA), (d) confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and (e) reliability and validity testing (Worthington & Whittaker, 2006).

Scale Construction: Item Generation of the Identity Shifting for Black Women Scale

The item development process started with generating an operational definition for Black women’s identity shifting: the process of altering one’s language (e.g., code-switching), appearance, behavior, perceptions, and feelings to assimilate into White contexts, counteract stereotypes, and enhance intraracial social and professional relationships in Black contexts. We then performed semi-structured interviews with early career Black women to explore their experiences and perceptions of identity shifting (Dickens & Chavez, 2018). We also reviewed qualitative literature on Black women’s engagement in identity shifting. Quotes from the semi-structured interviews and quantitative and qualitative studies were transformed into 34 survey items, which focus groups and content experts reviewed.

Item Revision

Community Focus Group

An initial set of 34-items were piloted with a focus group of nine women recruited from the university (n = 7) and local community (n = 2). Recruitment methods included circulating campus flyers via community email listservs and student organizations. Participants were Black women, ages 19 to 32, who were mostly working- or middle-class. At the beginning of the focus group, participants received a brief overview of the focus group’s purpose, after which they provided informed consent. They were provided with the operational definition of Black women’s identity shifting and then asked to rate how well each item reflected identity shifting, from 1 (inadequate) to 5 (excellent). Some of the initial items include “I change my language in predominantly Black environments because I do not want to appear ‘bougie’ or that I am better than others,” and “I change my behaviors when in predominantly White environments to not appear aggressive or as an angry Black woman.” Women were also invited to suggest item revisions or new items. Based on focus group feedback, items were reworded. At the end of the focus group, women received $10 compensation and were provided food.

Expert Panel Review

We also presented the initial 34 items to two content experts to provide feedback about item quality, face validity, and content. Experts were Black women who either had research or clinical expertise relevant to Black women’s identity shifting experiences. One expert had a doctoral degree and faculty appointment in social psychology. The other expert had a doctoral degree and faculty appointment in clinical psychology. Expert panelists rated each item on a scale from 1 (inadequate) to 5 (excellent) on the degree to which it reflected identity shifting. Expert panelists suggested 10 additional items to reflect identity shifting in Black and White environments, such as “I change my physical appearance such as my attire when in predominantly White environments because people make negative assumptions about me based on my attire.” Items were also added to reflect Black women’s shifting experiences relative to Black men, White women, and White men, such as “I downplay my achievements when interacting with Black men,” “I downplay my achievements when interacting with White men,” and “I downplay my achievements when interacting with White women.”

Study 1: Initial Validation of the ISBWS

After incorporating feedback from the community focus group and expert panelists, we began our validation of the 44-item scale. For study 1, we conducted an EFA with this measure to assess the underlying factor structure of the Identity Shifting in Black Women Scale (ISBWS). Based on previous research that explored how code-switching differs from changing behaviors across various contexts (Jones & Shorter-Gooden, 2004), we hypothesized that the scale would have four factors reflecting: (a) altering speech (code-switching) in primarily White social and professional environments, (b) altering speech (code-switching) in primarily Black social and professional environments, (c) altering perceptions, behaviors, and appearance in primarily White social and professional environments, and (d) altering perceptions, behaviors, and appearance in primarily Black social and professional environments.

Method

Participants

The convenience sample included 356 self-identified African American/Black women, including students (n = 302) and community members (n = 54). Women ranged in age from 18 to 57 years (M = 22.38, SD = 6.82) and largely identified as heterosexual (81.2%) and single, never married (81.2%). Most of the participants (78.3%) identified as Christian. Many of the participants had some college experience (48.3%), with 19.6% reporting a bachelor’s degree or higher. Most participants had a family income between $30,001 and $75,000 (40.5%). See Table 1 for more demographic information.

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics for Study 1 and Study 2.

Characteristics	Study 1N = 356	Study 2N = 289
Education
Some high school	7 (1.8%)	1 (1.8%)
High school/GED/vocational training	95 (24.8%)	47 (16.3%)
Associate degree	19 (5%)	13 (4.5%)
Some college	185 (48.3%)	87 (30.1%)
Bachelor’s degree (B.A., B.S.)	26 (6.8%)	27 (9.3%)
Master’s degree (M.A., M.S.)	21 (5.5%)	47 (16.3%)
Doctoral degree	25 (6.5%)	33 (11.4%)
Graduate/professional degree	3 (.8%)	0
Other	2 (.5%)	1 (.3%)
Missing	0	33 (11.4%)
Family income
Under $15,000	31 (9.3%)	2 (0.7%
$15,001-$30,000	41 (12.3%)	29 (10%)
$30,001-$50,000	56 (16.8%)	93 (32.2%)
$50,001-$75,000	79 (23.7%)	45 (15.6%)
$75,001-$95,000	44 (13.2%)	30 (10.4%)
$95,001 or more	83 (24.9%)	58 (20.1%)
Undergraduate major
Natural & Physical Sciences	126 (35.4%)	91 (37.1%)
Social Sciences	79 (22.2%)	49 (20%)
Computer Science	38 (10.7%)	34 (13.9%)
Engineering	20 (5.6%)	36 (14.7%)
Math	17 (4.8%)	19 (7.8%)
Other majors	56 (15.7%)	9 (3.1%)
Missing	20 (5.6%)	8 (3.4%)
Sexual orientation
Heterosexual/straight	273 (81.2%)	215 (74.4%)
Bisexual	40 (11.9%)	29 (10%)
Lesbian/Gay	7 (2.1%)	5 (1.7%)
Queer	6 (1.8%)	3 (1%)
Unsure	7 (2.1%)	2 (.7%)
Other	3 (.9%)	2 (.7%)
Missing	0	33 (11.4%)
Marital status
Single/never married	273 (81.2%)	145 (50.3%)
Single, in a committed relationship	47 (14%)	58 (20.1%)
Married	12 (3.6%)	41 (14.2%)
Divorced/separated	4 (1.2%)	11 (3.8%)
Missing	0	33 (11.5)%

Procedure

This study was approved by Spelman College’s Institutional Review Board (IRB). Upon approval, Black women undergraduate and graduate students were conveniently sampled and recruited via flyers, emails, text messages, and social media accounts at two historically Black colleges/universities (HBCUs) and two predominantly White institutions (PWIs) in the U.S. southeastern region. Non-student participants were recruited from Internet sites (i.e., Facebook), personal networks, and alumna campus events. All participants affirmed their consent and then completed the survey via Qualtrics. Compensation was initially $5 for all participants, but we increased non-student compensation to $20 to boost the participation of those who were not students at the surveyed universities. The survey took 15–20 minutes to complete.

Measures

Because additional measures can contaminate participants’ responses on new scale items during the EFA process (Worthington & Whittaker, 2006), participants were asked to complete only a demographic questionnaire and the ISBWS.

Identity Shifting for Black Women Scale (ISBWS). Black women completed the 44-item ISBWS to assess altering one’s speech, perception, behaviors, and appearance to navigate experiences of discrimination and to enhance intraracial relationships. Participants were instructed to think about their experiences as a Black woman and to indicate the extent to which they agreed with the items. Women’s responses were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Factor 1 was altering speech (code-switching) in primarily White social and professional environments (6 items, “I change the way I speak to not sound ‘Black’ to adjust to norms in predominantly White environments”). Factor 2 was altering speech (code-switching) in primarily Black social and professional environments (6 items, “I change the way I speak in predominantly Black environments because I do not want to appear ‘bougie’ (that I am better than others).” Factor 3 was altering perceptions, behaviors, and appearance in primarily White social and professional environments (20 items, “I change my behaviors when in predominantly White environments to not appear aggressive or as an ‘angry Black woman’“). Factor 4 was altering perceptions, behaviors, and appearance in primarily Black social and professional environments (12 items, “I adapt the way I behave to enhance my social relationships in predominantly Black environments).” Higher scores demonstrated greater engagement in identity shifting strategies.

Results

Exploratory Factor Analysis

Before EFAs were performed, Bartlett’s test of sphericity was used to determine factorability of the correlation matrix. It was statistically significant (p < .01), supporting the data’s factorability. We then examined the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO), which measured sampling adequacy, and a value of .89 was determined (i.e., values of .60 and higher are desired; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). EFAs were then conducted using principal axis factoring. Because the underlying factors were correlated, we used an oblique (promax) rotation. We first conducted a principal components parallel analysis, which determined the appropriate number of factors by comparing the scree of factors of observed data to a random data matrix (O’Conner, 2000). Findings suggested a two-factor solution. Further, the EFA scree plot suggested either two or three factors based on how the curve leveled off. Thus, we conducted EFAs to examine one-, two-, and three-factor solutions. The two-factor solution yielded factors with higher factor loadings and fewer cross loadings, and demonstrated greater interpretability.

We then examined the two-factor structure matrix based on scale validation best practices to refine the scale items. We deleted items based on the following criteria (Worthington & Whittaker, 2006): (a) a factor loading below .40 and (b) a cross-loading of less than .15 difference from an item’s highest factor loading. Based on these criteria, we retained 15 of the original 44 items. In addition, a final two-factor EFA was conducted on the 15-item scale to ensure the factor structure remained the same after deleting the items (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Exploratory Factor Analysis Factor Loadings for the ISBWS Two-Factor Model.

Item	1	2	M	SD	h²
Factor 1: Navigating Gendered Racial Oppressive Contexts
1. I change my physical appearance such as my attire when in predominantly White environments because people make negative assumptions about me based on my attire.	0.66	0.22	2.94	1.35	0.47
2. I change my physical appearance such as my hairstyles (e.g., wear straight vs. natural hairstyles) when in predominantly White environments because people make negative assumptions about me based on my hair.	0.56	0.14	2.54	1.35	0.42
3. Due to the pressures to fit into White environments, I feel as though I can’t be myself during my social interactions in predominantly White contexts	0.63	0.12	3.18	1.23	0.51
4. Due to the pressures to fit into White environments, I feel as though I can’t be myself during my professional interactions in predominantly White contexts.	0.67	0.20	3.38	1.28	0.56
5. I change how I speak to sound “White” in predominantly White work environments.	0.62	0.25	3.02	1.31	0.42
6. I change the way I speak to not sound “Black” to adjust to norms in predominantly White environments.	0.69	0.33	3.20	1.30	0.52
7. I change the way I act to prevent being a target of discrimination as a Black woman.	0.67	0.36	3.16	1.20	0.46
8. I change the way I talk to counteract the stereotypes of Black women.	0.74	0.39	3.14	1.25	0.70
9. I change the way I act to counteract the stereotypes of Black women.	0.78	0.43	3.18	1.26	0.72
10. I intentionally try to gain approval from White peers to prove my credibility.	0.41	0.34	2.55	1.25	0.26
11. When confronted with discrimination in predominantly White environments, I keep my thoughts to myself to maintain professionalism.	0.45	0.26	3.09	1.15	0.23
Factor 2: Enhancing Intraracial Relationships
12. I adapt the way I talk to enhance my professional relationships in predominantly Black environments.	0.31	0.66	3.49	1.06	0.46
13. I adapt the way I behave to enhance my professional relationships in predominantly Black environments.	0.27	0.69	3.46	1.08	0.52
14. I adapt the way I talk to enhance my social relationships in predominantly Black environments.	0.31	0.86	3.23	1.16	0.71
15. I adapt the way I behave to enhance my social relationships in predominantly Black environments.	0.34	0.87	3.26	1.14	0.73
Eigenvalue	5.65	2.25	–	–	–
% variance	37.65	15.03	–	–	–
M	3.03	3.36	–	–	–
SD	0.85	0.93	–	–	–
Cronbach’s alpha	0.88	0.86	–	–	–

Note. N = 356. Boldfaced factor loadings indicate highest loading for each item. The Structure Matrix was used to decide factor loadings.

Naming the Factors

Factor 1, Navigating Gendered Racial Oppressive Contexts, consisted of 11 items and accounted for 37.65% of the variance. This factor reflected women’s beliefs that they had to change their speech, perceptions, appearance, and behavior to assimilate in predominantly White environments. A sample item was “I change my physical appearance such as my hairstyles (e.g., wear straight vs. natural hairstyles) when in predominantly White environments because people make negative assumptions about me based on my hair.” Higher scores indicated greater engagement in shifting based on this factor. Factor 1 demonstrated good internal consistency (α = .88). Factor 2, Enhancing Intraracial Relationships, contained four items and accounted for 15.03% of the variance. A sample item was “I adapt the way I talk to enhance my social relationships in predominantly Black environments.” Factor items captured beliefs that changing one’s speech and behavior in Black contexts could enhance personal and professional relationships with Black peers. Higher scores represented greater engagement in shifting based on this factor. The internal consistency for Factor 2 was good (α = .86). Factors 1 and 2 were positively correlated (r = .37, p < .01).

Study 2: Construct Validity of the ISBWS

The purpose of Study 2 was to further validate the ISBWS. To this end, we performed CFAs, examined the internal consistency estimates for each factor, and assessed convergent and incremental validity. Although we anticipated that CFA results would support the two-factor solution from the EFA over a unidimensional correlated traits model, the utilization of a bifactor model was a novel aspect of this study. Also, we were unaware of a bifactor model being used in other validation studies with identity shifting measures; thus, we did not have a specific a priori hypothesis about how the bifactor model would perform relative to other models. We hypothesized that the subscale scores for each factor would exhibit good to excellent internal consistency (α ≥ .80). Concerning convergent validity, we hypothesized that the ISBWS scale scores would be significantly and positively related to three theoretically similar scales: (a) the African American Women Shifting Scale (AAWSS; Johnson et al., 2016), (b) the Gendered Racial Microaggressions Scale (GRMS; Lewis & Neville, 2015), and (c) the Stereotypical Roles for Black Women Scale (SRBWS; Thomas et al., 2004). We expected ISBWS scale scores to account for unique variance in Black women’s anxiety symptoms (as measured by the Beck, Epstein, Brown, & Steer, 1988) over and above the AAWSS, supporting the ISBWS’ incremental validity.

Method

Participants

The Study 2 sample included 289 Black/African American participants, ranging from 18 to 72 (M = 29.46, SD = 10.74) years of age. Participants were primarily women (99.6%), one identifying as non-binary (0.4%). Most participants identified as heterosexual (74.4%), single (70.4%), and Christian (51.2%). Similar to Study 1, most participants had experienced higher education, with 30.1% reporting some college and 37% had at least a bachelor’s degree or higher. Almost half of the participants (47.8%) reported family incomes between $30,0001 and $75,000 per year (see Table 1).

Procedure

Like Study 1, participants were conveniently sampled and recruited via emails and text messages to personal and professional networks, student organizations, and social media postings (e.g., Facebook). All participants affirmed their consent and then completed the survey via Qualtrics. Students were compensated $15, and non-students received $20 for participating in the study. Non-students were given an additional $5 to enhance the recruitment of this sample. The survey took 30–40 minutes to complete.

Measures

Identity Shifting for Black Women Scale (ISBWS).

The revised 15-item ISBWS from the EFA was administered to measure Black women’s identity shifting. Participants were asked to think about their experiences as a Black woman and women rated their experiences using a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The total score for all items was calculated, and the mean of the items for each subscale was computed. Higher scores demonstrated higher engagement in identity shifting. Additional information regarding this scale’s factor structure, reliability, and validity is reported in the Results and in Table 2.

African American Women Shifting Scale (AAWSS).

We administered the original 13-item shifting scale created by Johnson et al. (2016) to assess women’s shifting experiences. AAWSS items were rated using a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree), with higher scores representing greater engagement in shifting. The total score for all items was calculated, and the mean of the items for each subscale was computed. The original study found support for the construct validity of three distinct factors of the AAWSS: (a) Awareness of Shifting, the need to alter one’s self-image across contexts (5 items; “I have a different self at school (or work) than at home”); (b) Strong Black Woman, the pressure to manage all challenges and to demonstrate strength (5 items; “I cannot show weakness to my family”); and (c) Sensitivity to the Perception of Blacks, shifting in the Black to prove one’s “Blackness” (3 items; “I feel pressure to prove to Black friends and family that I have not sold out”). Johnson et al. (2016) found evidence for AAWSS’s internal consistency for the total score and subscales and construct validity in a sample of African American women. In the current study, we used all subscales and the total score in our analyses. We obtained lower internal consistency estimates than in the original study: Awareness of Shifting (α =.68 vs. .80), Strong Black Woman (α =.64 vs. .74), and Sensitivity to the Perception of Blacks (α =.50 vs. .56). We calculated a total score for the AAWSS scale (α =.72); however, this was not reported in the original scale development article.

Gendered Racial Microaggressions Scale (GRMS).

We used the 26-item GRMS to measure the frequency of Black women’s microaggressive experiences (Lewis & Neville, 2015). Participants used a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (once a week or more), to indicate how frequently they experienced gendered racial microaggressions, with higher scores denoting greater frequency. The GRMS includes four subscales: (a) Assumptions of Beauty and Sexual Objectification, or women’s experiences being reduced to stereotypes about their physical appearance (e.g., hairstyles, facial features; 10 items, e.g., “Assumed I was sexually promiscuous”); (b) Silenced and Marginalized, or women’s experiences being silenced across professional settings (7 items, e.g., “Someone has tried to ‘put me in my place’“); (c) Strong Black Woman, defined as expectations to be strong, independent, and assertive (3 items, e.g., “I have been told that I am too independent”); and (d) Angry Black Woman, or experiences with being accused of fulfilling the angry Black woman stereotype (3 items, e.g., “Someone accused me of being angry when speaking calm”). In the original study, Lewis and Neville (2015) found evidence of convergent validity as GRMS was significantly and positively related to psychological distress. We used the GRMS frequency total score (mean of the value of all items in the scale), and its internal consistency estimate was excellent (α =. 92), which is similar to the original study (α = .92; Lewis & Neville, 2015).

Stereotypical Roles for Black Women Scale (SRBWS)

The 34-item SRBWS (Thomas et al., 2004) was used to assess Black women’s awareness of the following gendered racial stereotypes: Sapphire, or the stereotype that Black women emasculate Black men (10 items, e.g., “If given a chance, Black women will put down Black men”); Jezebel, or the stereotype that Black women are hypersexual (8 items, e.g., “People treat me as if I am a sex object”); Mammy, or the belief that Black women are selfless nurturers who prioritize the needs of others over their own (5 items, e.g., “I often put aside my own needs to help others”); and the Superwoman, or the stereotype that Black women should be strong, self-reliant, and suppress their emotions (11 items, e.g., “Black women have to be strong to survive”). Participants used a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), and the total score was the calculated mean of all items in the scale. Higher scores indicated greater agreement with these stereotypes. The internal consistencies reported in the original article were moderate for the subscales: Sapphire (α = .70), Jezebel (α = .72), Mammy (α = .52), and Superwoman (α = .67). We were able to establish stronger internal consistency estimates for the three subscales with our sample: Sapphire (α = .78), Jezebel (α =.72), and Strong Black Woman (α =.82). The Mammy and Superwoman subscales were combined to create the Strong Black Woman subscale, as suggested in the original article (Thomas et al., 2004). Only the SRBWS total score was used in analyses (α =.85).

Beck Anxiety Inventory

The 21-item Beck Anxiety Inventory (Beck, Epstein, Brown, & Steer, 1988) was used as a self-report measure of anxiety symptoms (e.g., “Nervousness”). Participants used a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 3 (severely - it bothered me a lot). Higher scores indicate higher levels of anxiety symptoms. The original study (Beck et al., 1988) provided evidence of convergent validity as the Anxiety Inventory was positively related to other anxiety measurements, depression, and hopelessness. The values for each item are summed, yielding an overall or total score for all 21 symptoms that can range between 0 and 63 points. A total score of 0–7 is interpreted as a minimal level of anxiety; 8–15 as mild; 16–25 as moderate; and 26 and above as severe. Our analyses included a total score, which evidenced good internal consistency (α = .89) and is similar to the original study (α = .92; Beck et al., 1988).

Results

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

We conducted CFAs using structural equation modeling (SEM) in Mplus Version 8 (Muthen & Muthen, 1998-2017). To test alternative models of the ISBWS’s underlying structure, we examined a unidimensional correlated traits model (i.e., all scale items load onto one factor), a two-factor correlated traits model (i.e., two latent factors that emerged in Study 1’s EFA), and a bifactor model (i.e., scale items load onto subscales and onto a general factor that accounts for shared variance). Our decision to test a bifactor model was informed by the notion that bifactor models are better able to disentangle dimensionality within a measure given that they allow researchers to simultaneously explore a latent common trait and additional subtraits (Reise et al., 2010).

All CFAs were conducted using the Maximum Likelihood Robust (MLR) estimator. To determine model fit, we examined the following fit indices: the chi-square test (non-significant result indicates good model fit); the Akaike information criterion (AIC), and the Bayesian information criterion (BIC; there are no recommended cutoffs for AIC and BIC values, but lower values indicate better fit; Kline, 2016); the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA <.08 for adequate fit); the comparative fit index (CFI >.90 for good fit); the Tucker Lewis Index (TLI >.90 for good fit); and the standardized root-mean square residual (SRMR <.08 for good fit; Hu & Bentler, 1999). In terms of our assessment of the three models, the chi-square test was significant for all three models. Yet, this test is sensitive to sample size, often necessitating examining other fit indices (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The one-factor model was the worst fitting model, with none of its fit indices reflecting adequate standards. The two-factor model was suboptimal; only its SRMR of .07 was lower than the minimum criterion. The bifactor model was the best fitting model, and it evidenced optimal model fit with an AIC of 11,148.82, a BIC of 11,368.10, a CFI of .94, a TLI of .92, an RMSEA of .06 (90% CI [.05, .07]), and a SRMR of .04 (Table 3). Additionally, we performed chi-square difference tests with a Satorra-Bentler scaling correction (a necessary approach when using the MLR estimator) to directly compare goodness of fit between models, where a p-value < .05 indicates a statistically significant difference in goodness of fit (Jiang & Yuan, 2017). In both tests, the bifactor model was significantly different from the one-factor, χ² (16) = 199.63, p < 0.01, and two-factor models, χ² (15) = 54.20, p < 0.01, further supporting its superior fit in this sample.

Table 3.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (N = 289).

	Model
Index	1-Factor Solution	2-Factor Solution	Bifactor Solution^a
AIC	11,641.12	11,200.31	11,148.82
BIC	11,802.89	11,311.74	11,368.10
RMSEA	0.16	0.08	0.06
90% CI of RMSEA	(0.14, 0.17)	(0.07, 0.10)	(0.05, 0.07)
CFI	0.61	0.89	0.94
TLI	0.54	0.87	0.92
SRMR	0.12	0.07	0.04
χ ²	668.72**	255.91**	145.68*
df	90	89	74

Note. AIC = Akaike Information Criterion, BIC = Bayesian Information Criterion, RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation, CFI = Comparative Fit Index, TLI = Tucker Lewis Index, SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual.

^aBest fitting model. * p < .05. ** p < .01.

Upon closer inspection of the bifactor model, 13 of the 15 items from Factor 1 only loaded significantly onto the general factor and had individually explained common variance scores (IECV) > .50. Thus, these items reflected the general factor more than the specific factor, suggesting that this subscale did not add to the conceptualization of identity shifting beyond a general score, at least in this sample. Yet, Factor 2 was relatively well-defined, revealing unique contributions (i.e., factor coefficients ranging from .72 to .92) to the conceptualization of identity shifting. We also examined the explained common variance (ECV), an index of unidimensionality that captures the proportion of common variance across items explained by the general factor. The ECV was .53; ECVs <.70 support a scale’s multidimensionality and suggest that subscales may have value (Hammer & Toland, 2016; Stucky & Edelen, 2015; Table 4).

Table 4.

Factor Coefficients of the ISBWS Bifactor Model (N = 289).

Factor	Item	Factor Coefficients	Residual Variance	R ²	IECV
General
	2	0.67	0.94	0.34	0.95
	3	0.32	0.68	0.38	0.25
	4	.19	−0.01	--	0.04
	5	0.65	0.88	0.38	0.80
	6	0.69	0.81	0.39	0.91
	7	0.62	0.82	0.35	0.87
	8	0.68	0.58	0.47	0.91
	9	0.72	0.76	0.43	0.90
	10	0.70	0.98	0.33	0.99
	11	0.54	0.94	0.24	0.99
	12	0.56	0.45	0.65	0.36
	13	0.50	0.60	0.56	0.33
	14	0.38	0.50	0.64	0.16
	15	0.44	0.36	0.75	0.19
Factor 1
	1	0.32	--	--	--
	2	0.16	--	--	--
	3	0.56	--	--	--
	4	0.99	--	--	--
	5	0.33	--	--	--
	6	0.22	--	--	--
	7	0.24	--	--	--
	8	0.22	--	--	--
	9	0.24	--	--	--
	10	0.04	--	--	--
	11	0.04	--	--	--
Factor 2
	12	0.74	--	--	--
	13	0.72	--	--	--
	14	0.87	--	--	--
	15	0.92	--	--	--

Note. Bolded loadings are significant.

Reliability

We calculated the internal consistencies of the scores for the bifactor model since it was the best fitting model (Table 5). Cronbach’s alpha estimates were good for both factors: Factor 1, Navigating Gendered Racial Oppressive Contexts, was α = .86, and Factor 2, Enhancing Intraracial Relationships, was α = .88. Because Cronbach’s alpha coefficients can be less reliable for bifactor models, we also assessed other reliability indices (Rodriguez et al., 2016). The coefficient omega levels were calculated because they account for the strength of the association between factor items (McDonald, 1999; Revelle & Zinbarg, 2009). Coefficient omega for the general factor was .94, which means that 94% of the total score variance was due to all common factors (general factor plus the two specific factors). Coefficient omegas for the specific factors were .91 and .97, meaning that 91%–97% of the subscale score variance was due to the general factor plus that specific factor. We then calculated omega hierarchical values for the general and specific factors. The omega hierarchical value for the general factor, which measured the proportion of total score variance that can be attributed to the general factor after accounting for all specific factors, was .72; general factor omega hierarchical values greater than .75 indicate that the total score predominantly reflects a single general factor. Also, the omega hierarchical values for the specific factors, which reflects the proportion of the subscale score variance that can be attributed to the specific factor after accounting for the general factor, were .19 and .73 for Factors 1 and 2, respectively. When omega hierarchical values for specific factors are less than .50, this suggests that the specific factor score’s variance is mostly explained by the general factor and that the specific factor accounts for minimal unique variance. Overall, the factor loadings, ECVs, and omega values suggest that multidimensionality is present in the ISBWS, but not severe enough to disqualify scholars from using and interpreting the measure unidimensionally.

Table 5.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Internal Consistency Estimates for Study 2 Subscales.

Measure	M	SD	α	ω	ω_H
1. Navigating Gendered Racial Oppressive Contexts	3.49	0.73	0.86	0.91	0.19
2. Enhancing Intraracial Relationships	3.26	1.01	0.88	0.97	0.73
3. Identity Shifting General Factor	--	--	--	0.94	0.72

Note. Navigating Gendered Racial Oppressive Contexts, Min = 1, Max = 5; Enhancing Intraracial Relationships, Min = 1, Max = 5. ω = Coefficient Omega (proportion of variance attributable to all sources of common variance). ω_H = Omega Hierarchical (proportion of variance in total subscale score that can be attributed to the general factor after accounting for all specific factors).

Validity

Convergent Validity

In addition to model fit and reliability, we assessed the ISBWS’s convergent validity by measuring the ISBWS’s associations with theoretically-related scales, namely the AAWSS, GRMS, and SRBWS (see Table 6). Moreover, because the bifactor model supported general and specific factors, we investigated the relations among the general and specific factors to measure if specific factors are differentially related to measures beyond the shared variance with the general factor. Our hypotheses concerning convergent validity were partially supported. The first ISBWS factor, Navigating Gendered Racial Oppressive Contexts, was significantly related to the AAWSS Strong Black Woman subscale (β = .35, p = .03), but not with the other AAWSS dimensions. Also, Enhancing Intraracial Relationships was negatively related to the AAWSS total score (β = −.60, p = .03), but not related to other AAWSS dimensions. The ISBWS general factor was not related to any AAWSS dimensions.

Table 6.

Summary of Associations Between the ISBWS and Validation Measures.

	AAWSS, Awareness of Shifting!	AAWSS, Strong Black Woman	AAWSS, Sensitivity to Blacks	AAWSS Total	GRMS Total	SRBWS Total
Navigating Gendered Racial Oppressive Contexts	0.23	0.35^a	−0.02	−0.02	−0.08	0.20
Enhancing Intraracial Relationships	0.12	0.24	0.07	−0.60^a	0.25**	−0.05
Identity Shifting General Factor	0.30	-0.04	0.23	−0.05	0.57**	0.22

Note. AAWSS = African American Women Shifting Scale; GRMS = Gendered Racial Microaggressions Scale; SRBWS = Stereotypical Roles for Black Women Scale. Correlations were conducted specifying a bifactor model, meaning all the factors were treated as orthogonal and no correlations were provided between factors. * p < .05. ** p < .01.

Further, given that research suggests that Black women engage in identity shifting to circumvent the consequences of gendered racism (Jones et al., 2021), we expected our scale to positively relate to gendered racial microaggressions. This hypothesis was partially supported. The specific factor, Navigating Gendered Racial Oppressive Contexts, was not related to gendered racial microaggression frequency (β = −.08, p = .80), suggesting that this distinct aspect of identity shifting was not related to reports of gendered racial microaggressions. However, the specific factor, Enhancing Intraracial Relationships (β = .25, p < .01), and general factor (β = .57, p < .01) were related to the frequency of gendered racial microaggressions, indicating that higher levels of identity shifting to enhance intraracial relationships as well as general identity shifting were related to higher rates of gendered racial microaggressions.

In terms of the SRBWS, because the literature purports that Black women may use identity shifting to counter negative stereotypes, we assumed that the ISBWS would significantly relate to the total SRBWS. However, none of the ISBWS factors exhibited significant relations with the SRBWS total score, and thus, this hypothesis was not supported.

Incremental Validity

We developed the ISBWS to address the limitations of the AAWSS and improve scholars’ capability to quantitatively investigate how identity shifting predicts Black women’s mental health outcomes. Therefore, we assessed incremental validity to determine if our measure predicted Black women’s self-reported anxiety symptoms over and beyond the AAWSS. Hierarchical multiple regressions were conducted, and in all models, the AAWSS was entered in the first step, the ISBWS was entered in the second step, and anxiety was the dependent variable. The ISBWS demonstrated unique predictive ability over the AAWSS and accounted for 7% additional variance in explaining Black women’s anxiety symptoms. Also, in the second step, the AAWSS was no longer associated with anxiety symptoms in the presence of the ISBWS, supporting the ISBWS as a valuable measure of identity shifting for Black women (Table 7).

Table 7.

Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Predicting Anxiety.

Predictor	B	SE B	β	t	p	95% CI
Step 1
AAWSS	0.34	0.11	0.19**	2.96	0.00	[0.11, 0.56]
Step 2
AAWSS	0.20	0.12	0.12	1.75	0.08	[−0.03, 0.43]
ISBWS	0.28	0.07	0.27**	4.13	0.00	[0.15, 0.42]

Note. AAWSS = African American Women Shifting Scale. ISBWS = Identity Shifting in Black Women Scale. CI = Confidence Interval. Step 2: R² = .11, change ∆R² = .07**. * p < .05. ** p < .01.

Discussion

Whether it is changing their speech, appearance, or behavior, U.S. Black women’s identity shifting is often twofold: effectively navigating oppressive contexts and fostering relationships with Black peers. This study extended the research on identity shifting by using an intersectionality framework to better understand the management of Black women’s intersectional identities to guide the development and validation procedures for a new measure, the Identity Shifting for Black Women Scale (ISBWS). This novel instrument is among the first to adopt an intersectional lens to capture the extent to which Black women modify their speech, perceptions, behaviors, and appearance across professional and social contexts to navigate oppression or enhance within-group relationships.

In terms of the ISBWS’s factor structure, findings from Study 1 revealed two factors: Navigating Gendered Racial Oppressive Contexts and Enhancing Intraracial Relationships. In Study 2, a bifactor model exhibited optimal fit and fit the data better than the other models. Also, the bifactor model suggested the presence of a general identity shifting factor along with a well-defined specific factor for Enhancing Intraracial Relationships, which accounted for unique variance alongside the shared variance accounted for by the general factor. In contrast, most of the items from Factor 1, Navigating Gendered Racial Oppressive Contexts, loaded onto the general factor and did not contribute uniquely to the conceptualization of identity shifting. Because previous psychometric evaluations of identity shifting measures have not used bifactor approaches, our use of this approach enhances our theory-building regarding identity shifting as a multidimensional construct.

In addition to the ISBWS’s factor structure, the second psychometric property we evaluated was internal consistency. We expected subscale scores to exhibit good internal consistency (α ≥ .80), and this hypothesis was supported. In the current investigation, alpha coefficients ranged from .86 to .88 - higher estimates than what was obtained in the original AAWSS evaluation. Further, the omega and omega hierarchical coefficients indicated that variance was explained by both the general and specific factors. Even though the exact variance attributed to either the general or specific factors cannot be fully disentangled (Watkins, 2017), omega coefficients obtained in this study support the complexity of this measure, which aligns with our conceptualization of identity shifting as a multifaceted construct. Moreover, future studies must investigate other reliability metrics, such as test-retest reliability, in order to shed light on whether identity shifting remains stable over time or whether it fluctuates based on changing environmental cues. Examining its test-retest reliability could be theoretically and empirically advantageous when evaluating how (in)consistent use of identity shifting influences Black women’s health and life outcomes.

We then focused on a third aspect of the ISBWS’s psychometric properties: its convergent and incremental validity. Regarding convergent validity, we expected significant positive relations between the ISBWS’s general and specific factors and the AAWSS’s three factors and total score; however, only some factors were interrelated. The ISBWS’s Factor 1, Navigating Gendered Racial Oppressive Contexts, showed a significant positive correlation with the AAWSS’s Strong Black Woman subscale, suggesting that shifting to navigate oppressive contexts increased as pressures to adhere to the Strong Black Woman (SBW) schema increased. SBW schema has been used by Black women to combat oppressive school and work contexts (Davis & Jones, 2021), and our findings support that identity shifting relates to women’s endorsement of this schema. However, our Factor 1 subscale was not related to the AAWSS’s Awareness of Shifting subscale, although the correlation coefficient was positive. This finding was inconsistent with our hypothesis, but it could be due to differences in the language between the AAWSS and our scale. For instance, the AAWSS focuses on awareness of the need to shift at school, work, and home around non-Black people, but it does not explicitly reference race and/or gender. Alternatively, ISBWS’s Factor 1 focuses on shifting appearance, speech, perspectives, and behaviors specifically in predominantly White professional and social spaces due to the awareness of marginalization. Factor 1 is consistent with identity negotiation literature suggesting that one’s cultural identity is negotiated when a person decides to accept or reject one’s worldviews in an intercultural interaction (Jackson, 2002). Moreover, ISBWS’s Factor 1 was not related to the AAWSS’s Sensitivity to Blacks subscale. Although both subscales reflect identity shifting, perhaps this non-significant finding illustrates that shifting to combat oppressive White spaces is different than shifting to avoid being perceived as a “sell out” in Black communities (Johnson et al., 2016).

In terms of the ISBWS’s Factor 2, Enhancing Intraracial Relationships was only significantly related to the AAWSS total score. We were most surprised that our Factor 2 was not related to the AAWSS’s Sensitivity to Blacks subscale given the theoretical similarity between these subscales. One explanation for the non-significant correlation between these subscales is that while they both touch on shifting in predominantly Black environments, the AAWSS’s Sensitivity to the Perceptions of Blacks subscale captures how Black women mainly shift in Black environments to prove one’s Blackness (Johnson et al., 2016), whereas our Factor 2 captures how Black women shift in Black environments to enrich relationships with other Black people. Although the presence of some non-significant findings could signify the conceptual distinctiveness between our scale and the AAWSS, additional examination of the construct validity of our scale is warranted.

Convergent validity was also assessed via associations between the ISBWS’s general and specific factors and the GRMS total score. Both the ISBWS general factor and Factor 2 were associated with more experiences of gendered racial microaggressions, suggesting that women engaged in more general shifting and shifting in Black spaces as they experienced more frequent microaggressions. Although we cannot infer causation, these findings support existing research that demonstrates that strategies, like forming friendships and support groups with Black peers, are ways for Black women to combat the deleterious effects of gendered racial microaggressions in interracial environments (Collins, 2000; Hall et al., 2012; Mattis, 2002). However, there was not a significant association between GRMS and ISBWS’s Factor 1 Navigating Gendered Racial Oppressive Contexts, which contradicted our hypothesis. Given that the GRMS was related to the general factor and well-defined Factor 2, perhaps this non-significant finding is the result of measurement issues with Factor 1 and the fact that its items do not account for unique variance beyond general identity shifting. Moreover, although previous research has demonstrated a positive link between experiences of gendered racism and shifting (Jones et al., 2021), perhaps there are differences regarding if and how women shift is based on if they experience more blatant forms of discrimination (e.g., gendered racism) versus more subtle forms of discrimination (e.g., gendered racial microaggressions). Nevertheless, these findings highlight the need for more research on the relations between gendered racial microaggressions and shifting among Black women.

Lastly, we expected convergent validity to be evidenced by significant positive relations between the ISBWS and the Stereotypic Roles for Black Women Scale (SRBWS), given that Black women may shift to counter negative stereotypes. However, neither of the two specific or general factors exhibited a significant association with the SRBWS. These non-significant findings may be due to the fact that the SRBWS reflects Black women’s awareness of stereotypes (e.g., “Black women are often loud and obnoxious”) rather than their experiences of being stereotyped (e.g., Jerald et al., 2017). Thus, it is possible that only knowing about these stereotypes is insufficient to prompt identity shifting strategies. A second reason is that our sample was fairly young, well-educated, and may have been socialized to be secure in their self-concept as Black women despite being constantly bombarded with stereotypical and harmful images (Coleman et al., 2020). As a result, many women in our sample may not internalize these stereotypes or view these stereotypes as unfavorable.

Finally, to investigate incremental validity, we examined whether ISBWS’s general and specific factors improved our ability to predict Black women’s mental health symptoms relative to the AAWSS. We found that the ISBWS accounted for variance over and above the AAWSS in explaining Black women’s levels of anxiety symptoms. This could be due to the fact that the ISBWS explores additional aspects of shifting, such as altering speech, perceptions, appearance, and behaviors. Our finding also supports existing research on the link between identity shifting and anxiety in Black women (Jones & Shorter-Gooden, 2004; Jones et al., 2021). Though some studies have found that there are benefits to engaging in shifting (Dickens & Chavez, 2018; Johnson et al., 2016), some Black women may feel pressured to shift as a type of anticipatory coping strategy or to minimize adverse outcomes associated with discrimination (Hill & Hoggard, 2018), which could consequently lead to higher levels of anxiety.

Limitations and Future Directions

Despite the current study’s important focus on applying intersectionality to the development of a new measure of identity shifting, some limitations of this effort deserve attention. First, the ISBWS aimed to capture Black women’s intersecting race and gender experiences; yet not all questions asked about their gendered racial experiences specifically. Although we asked participants to think about their experiences as a Black woman and to endorse items accordingly, it is possible that questions like, “I change how I speak to ‘sound White’ in predominantly White work environments” center women’s racialized experiences more than their gendered racial experiences. This in turn raises questions about whether women’s reports of identity shifting were influenced by the salience of their race or gender rather than their intersectional identity. Additionally, this raises questions about the extent to which our items reflected Black women’s unique identity shifting experiences. Although there may be common shifting experiences among Black women and men, it is important to continue to develop measures that reflect Black women’s unique identity shifting experiences. As an example, Jones and Shorter-Gooden (2004) argue that because Black women are seen as incompetent and less feminine, they suffer uniquely with being labeled as a criminal, though criminality is often labeled for Black men (Jones & Shorter-Gooden, 2004). Thus, Black women may alter how they speak to not appear angry to dispel this myth of being a criminal. Although Black men may engage in similar (or different) shifting behaviors, we do not have comparable data or empirical work to draw additional conclusions. Despite the fact that all items in the ISBWS were informed by Black women’s experience, additional testing is needed to see if these shifting strategies are exclusive to Black women or relevant to other Black people, and future identity shifting studies that include Black men are needed.

Second, we did not explicitly measure women’s gendered racial identity. Jones and Day (2018) found that Black women in the U.S. fell into four main gender-racial identity profiles: (a) intersectional engaged (similar importance on race and gender), (b) race progressive (identification as Black first and women second), (c) intersectional aware (awareness of double jeopardy of gendered racial identity), and (d) gender expressive (no association with Blackness, but solely identified as women; Jones & Day, 2018). It could be that women’s reports of identity shifting are shaped by their profile status. Therefore, future research should examine how Black women in different racial and gender identity profiles engage in identity shifting strategies.

Third, Black women hold other social identities that could influence their shifting processes; however, the ISBWS did not explicitly capture these identities. For example, our study captured family income, and the samples were skewed toward the higher end of the family income scale. Upon further investigation, it was determined that younger participants most likely answered the question based on the income of their parents or caretakers as 69% of the higher income participants were between the ages of 18–21. Future studies should provide more precise directions for reporting income to explore social class. Additionally, our study only included Black women living in the U.S. Therefore, it is unclear if our measure would adequately reflect identity shifting across other Eurocentric nations where cultural norms differ, but where gendered racism may also be pervasive. Overall, additional studies are needed to examine how various demographics, like socioeconomic status and nation of origin, shape the nuances of identity shifting for Black women (Clair et al., 2005; Dickens & Chavez, 2018).

Fourth, Studies 1 and 2 mainly included young Black women (Mage = 25.92) in college or employed in predominantly White fields of study. This limited sociodemographic diversity may have played a role in how our participants reported identity shifting. Moreover, it hinders our ability to generalize our findings to Black women who are older or who have had varying educational and employment opportunities. While the focus of this study was not to examine age differences in identity shifting, previous research conducted by the authors (Hall-Byers et al., in press) showed that Black women (aged 18–42 years) who reported experiencing more gendered racial microaggressions, and were older, engaged in less identity shifting. As generations change, so does the belief about what is considered to be a damaging portrayal of oneself. Thus, some Black women may not feel the need to engage in identity shifting and alter the way they talk, dress, or behave when presented with specific stereotypic imagery. Given the significance of intersectional identities, future research should investigate the relevance of age and endorsement of stereotypes on engaging in identity shifting and exploring the various types of coping strategies utilized specifically among Black women in both interracial and intraracial environments.

Fifth, the AAWSS evidenced low reliability estimates in our sample. This could have impacted the convergent and incremental validity analyses in our study. To remedy this, future validation studies are needed with psychometrically sound validity measures.

Practice Implications

The practical implications of this study have great promise for future research on identity shifting among Black women in educational, social, healthcare, and workplace settings. Researchers, administrators, and leaders need a more robust understanding of how Black women shift to help them manage racialized gendered experiences, beliefs, attitudes, and actions from others in their environments. For instance, Black women are underrepresented as faculty and in leadership positions within academia (U.S. Department of Education, 2020). Specifically, this disparity is illuminated in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics), which is traditionally White and male dominated (Dickens et al., 2020). Scholars can therefore use this scale to evaluate if and how identity shifting contributes to the presence and/or absence of Black women across academic disciplines. Also, the ISBWS can be a useful tool in behavioral health settings. Clinicians can use the ISBWS to help clients identify stressful shifting experiences. For instance, a Black woman who rates “When confronted with discrimination in predominantly White environments, I keep my thoughts to myself to maintain professionalism” as “strongly agree/agree” can be asked to discuss how her shifting experiences influence her life choices and experiences. Also, clinicians can use findings from this scale to develop culturally-responsive interventions to support Black women’s authentic self-expression (Dickens & Womack, 2020). Moreover, findings from the ISBWS can help to support institutions (e.g., corporate, educational, health, and STEM settings) with necessary feedback about how they can create more inclusive spaces for Black women to facilitate the need for less engagement in identity shifting.

Conclusion

Although identity shifting can be an adaptive strategy in the short term, its long-term consequences can be detrimental to one’s self-concept and psychological well-being (Dickens & Chavez, 2018). Given this, scholars must continue to study Black women’s decisions to shift and the multifaceted consequences of identity shifting across contexts and settings over time. We believe that our new quantitative measure is a foundational step to catalyze continued research to improve the lives of Black women in educational, social, healthcare, and workplace settings.

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the National Science Foundation grant #1832141 which facilitated the completion of the work described in this manuscript.

ORCID iD

Danielle D. Dickens

References

Auer

(2013). Code-switching in conversation: Language, interaction, and identity. Routledge.

Baker-Bell

(2020). Dismantling anti-black linguistic racism in English language arts classrooms: Toward an anti-racist black language pedagogy. Theory Into Practice, 59(1), 8–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2019.1665415

Beck

A. T.

Epstein

Brown

Steer

R. A.

(1988). An inventory for measuring clinical anxiety: Psychometric properties. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56(6), 893–897. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.56.6.893

Boulton

(2016). Black identities inside advertising: Race inequality, code-switching, and stereotype threat. Howard Journal of Communications, 27(2), 130–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/10646175.2016.1148646

Case

A. D.

Hunter

C. D.

(2012). Counterspaces: A unit of analysis for understanding the role of settings in marginalized individuals’ adaptive responses to oppression. American Journal of Community Psychology, 50(1–2), 257–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-012-9497-7

Clair

J. A.

Beatty

J. E.

MacLean

T. L.

(2005). Out of sight but not out of mind: Managing invisible social identities in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 78–95. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2005.15281431

Coleman

J. S.

(1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2780243

Coleman

M. N.

Reynolds

A. A.

Torbati

(2020). The relation of Black-oriented reality television consumption and perceived realism to the endorsement of stereotypes of Black women. Psychology of Popular Media, 9(2), 184–193. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000223

Collins

P. H.

(2000). Gender, Black feminism, and Black political economy. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 568(1), 41–53. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F000271620056800105

10.

Collins

P. H.

(1996). What's in a name? Womanism, Black feminism, and beyond. The Black Scholar, 26(1), 9–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00064246.1996.11430765

11.

Crenshaw

(1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139–167. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/uchclf1989&div=10&id=&page

12.

Davis

S. M.

Jones

M. K.

(2021). Black women at war: A comprehensive framework for research on the strong Black woman. Women's Studies in Communication, 44(3), 301–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/07491409.2020.1838020

13.

Demers

A. L.

(2013). From death to life: Female veterans, identity negotiation, and reintegration into society. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 53(4), 489–515. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167812472395

14.

Dickens

D. D.

Chavez

E. L.

(2018). Navigating the workplace: The costs and benefits of shifting identities at work among early career U.S. Black women. Sex Roles, 78(11–12), 760–774. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0844-x

15.

Dickens

Jones

Hall

(2020). Being a token Black female faculty member in physics: Exploring research on gendered racism, identity shifting as a coping strategy, and inclusivity in physics. The Physics Teacher, 58(5), 335–337. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.5145529

16.

Dickens

D. D.

Womack

V. Y.

(2020). Unapologetic authentic early career Black women: Challenging the dominant narrative. In Thomas

K. M.

(Ed.), Diversity resistance in organizations (pp. 21–33). Routledge.

17.

Dickens

D. D.

Womack

V. Y.

Dimes

(2019). Managing hypervisibility: An exploration of theory and research on identity shifting strategies in the workplace among Black women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 113, 153–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.10.008

18.

Du Bois

W. E. B.

(1903). The souls of Black folk: Essays and sketches. Fawcett.

19.

Essed

(1991). Understanding everyday racism: An interdisciplinary theory. Sage. 2. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483345239

20.

Farmer-Hinton

R. L.

(2008). Social capital and college planning: Students of color using school networks for support and guidance. Education and Urban Society, 41(1), 127–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124508321373

21.

Gamst

Arellano-Morales

Meyers

L. S.

Serpas

D. G.

Balla

Diaz

Dobson

Feller

Rought

Salazar

Garcia

Aldape

(2020). Shifting can be stressful for African American women: A structural mediation model. Journal of Black Psychology, 46(5), 364–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798420939721

22.

Hall-Byers

N. M.

Dickens

Guilliame

Gendered racial microaggressions, acculturation, and identity shifting among Black women in STEM majors. Journal of Negro Education. (in press).

23.

Hall-Byers

N. M.

Dickens

D. D.

Lee

A. K.

Corneille

Younge

S. N.

(2020). Colorism and racial politics at historically Black colleges/universities (HBCUs). In Woodson

K. M.

Rowe

T. D.

(Eds.), Colorism: Investigating a global phenomenon (pp. 101–121). Fielding University Press.

24.

Hall

J. C.

Everett

J. E.

Hamilton-Mason

(2012). Black women talk about workplace stress and how they cope. Journal of Black Studies, 43(2), 207–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021934711413272

25.

Hammer

J. H.

Toland

M. D.

(2016, November). Bifactor analysis in Mplus. UK College of Education. Retrieved from http://sites.education.uky.edu/apslab/upcoming-events/

26.

Hancock

A. M.

(2016). Intersectionality: An intellectual history. Oxford University Press.

27.

Harris

F. C.

(2014). The rise of respectability politics. Dissent, 61(1), 33–37. https/doi.org/10.1353/dss.2014.0010.

28.

Hill

L. K.

Hoggard

L. S.

(2018). Active coping moderates associations among race-related stress, rumination, and depressive symptoms in emerging adult African American women. Development and Psychopathology, 30(5), 1817–1835. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579418001268

29.

L. t.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

30.

Jackson

R. L.

(2002). Cultural contracts theory: Toward an understanding of identity negotiation. Communication Quarterly, 50(3–4), 359–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370209385672

31.

Jerald

M. C.

Cole

E. R.

Ward

L. M.

Avery

L. R.

(2017). Controlling images: How awareness of group stereotypes affects Black women’s well-being. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 64(5), 487–499. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000233

32.

Jiang

Yuan

K.-H.

(2017). Four new corrected statistics for SEM with small samples and nonnormally distributed data. Structural Equation Modeling, 24(4), 479–494. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2016.1277726

33.

Johnson

J. C.

Gamst

Meyers

L. S.

Arellano-Morales

Shorter-Gooden

(2016). Development and validation of the African American Women’s Shifting Scale (AAWSS). Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 22(1), 11–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000039

34.

Jones

M. K.

Day

S. X.

(2018). An exploration of Black women’s gendered racial identity using a multidimensional and intersectional approach. Sex Roles, 79(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0854-8

35.

Jones

Shorter-Gooden

(2004). Shifting: The double lives of African American women in America. Harper Collins.

36.

Jones

M. S.

Womack

Jérémie-Brink

Dickens

D. D.

(2021). Gendered racism and mental health among young adult US Black women: The moderating roles of gendered racial identity centrality and identity shifting. Sex Roles, 85(3), 221–231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-020-01214-1

37.

Kline

R. B.

(2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th edition). Guilford.

38.

Koch

L. M.

Gross

A. M.

Kolts

(2001). Attitudes toward Black English and code-switching. Journal of Black Psychology, 27(1), 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798401027001002

39.

Lewis

J. A.

Mendenhall

Harwood

S. A.

Browne Huntt

(2013). Coping with gendered racial microaggressions among Black women college students. Journal of African American Studies, 17(1), 51–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12111-012-9219-0

40.

Lewis

J. A.

Mendenhall

Harwood

S. A.

Browne Huntt

(2016). Ain’t I a woman?” Perceived gendered racial microaggressions experienced by Black women. The Counseling Psychologist, 44(5), 758–780. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000016641193

41.

Lewis

J. A.

Neville

H. A.

(2015). Construction and initial validation of the gendered racial microaggressions scale for Black women. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 62(2), 289–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000062

42.

Madera

J. M.

King

E. B.

Hebl

M. R.

(2012). Bringing social identity to work: The influence of manifestation and suppression on perceived discrimination, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 18(2), 165–170. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027724

43.

Mattis

J. S.

(2002). Religion and spirituality in the meaning–making and coping experiences of African American women: A qualitative analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(4), 309–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-6402.t01-2-00070

44.

May

(2015). Pursuing intersectionality, unsettling dominant imaginaries. Routledge.

45.

McCluney

C. L.

Durkee

M. I.

Smith

R. E.

Robotham

K. J.

Lee

S. S.-L.

(2021). To be, or not to be Black: The effects of racial code-switching on perceived professionalism in the workplace. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 97, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104199

46.

McDonald

R. P.

(1999). Test theory: A unified approach. Erlbaum.

47.

McDowell

Carter-Francique

(2017). An intersectional analysis of the workplace experiences of African American female athletic directors. Sex Roles, 77(5–6), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0730-y

48.

McGill Johnson

Godsil

R.D.

MacFarlane

Tropp

L.R.

Atiba Goff

(2017). The “good hair” study: Explicit and implicit attitudes toward Black women’s hair. https://perception.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/TheGood-HairStudyFindingsReport.pdf

49.

Morton

J. M.

(2014). Cultural code‐switching: Straddling the achievement gap. Journal of Political Philosophy, 22(3), 259–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12019

50.

Mowatt

R. A.

French

B. H.

Malebranche

D. A.

(2013). Black/female/body hypervisibility and invisibility: A Black feminist augmentation of feminist leisure research. Journal of Leisure Research, 45(5), 644–660. https://doi.org/10.18666/jlr-2013-v45-i5-4367

51.

Muthen

L. K.

Muthen

B. O.

(1998-2017). MPlus (version 8) [computer software].

52.

Neal‐Barnett

Stadulis

Murray

Payne

M. R.

Thomas

Salley

B. B.

(2011). Sister circles as a culturally relevant intervention for anxious Black women. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 18(3), 266–273. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2850.2011.01258.x

53.

Nelson

Cardemil

E. V.

Adeoye

C. T.

(2016). Rethinking strength: Black women's perceptions of the “Strong Black Woman” role. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(4), 551–563. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684316646716

54.

Njoku

N. R.

Patton

L. D.

(2017). Explorations of respectability and resistance in constructions of Black womanhood at HBCUs. In Patton

L. D.

Croom

N. N.

(Eds.), Critical perspectives on Black women and college success (pp. 157–171). Routledge.

55.

Obasogie

O. K.

Newman

(2016). Black lives matter and respectability politics in local news accounts of officer-involved civilian deaths: An early empirical assessment. Wisconsin Law Review, 3, 541–574. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/wlr2016&div=21&id=&page.

56.

O’Conner

B. P.

(2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determine the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 32(3), 396–402. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200807

57.

Ogbu

J. U.

(2004). Collective identity and the burden of “acting White” in Black history, community, and education. The Urban Review, 36(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:URRE.0000042734.83194.f6

58.

Read

J. N. G.

Bartkowski

J. P.

(2000). To veil or not to veil? A case study of identity negotiation among Muslim women in Austin, Texas. Gender & Society, 14(3), 395–417. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124300014003003

59.

Reise

S. P.

Moore

T. M.

Haviland

M. G.

(2010). Bifactor models and rotations: Exploring the extent to which multidimensional data yield univocal scale scores. Journal of Personality Assessment, 92(6), 544–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2010.496477

60.

Revelle

Zinbarg

R. E.

(2009). Coefficients alpha, beta, omega, and the glb: Comments on Sijtsma. Psychometrika, 74(1), 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-008-9102-z

61.

Reynolds-Dobbs

Thomas

K. M.

Harrison

M. S.

(2008). From mammy to superwoman: Images that hinder Black women's career development. Journal of Career Development, 35(2), 129–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845308325645

62.

Rodriguez

Reise

S. P.

Haviland

M. G.

(2016). Evaluating bifactor models: Calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychological Methods, 21(2), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000045

63.

Settles

I. H.

(2004). When multiple identities interfere: The role of identity centrality. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(4), 487–500. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203261885

64.

Settles

I. H.

(2006). Use of an intersectional framework to understand Black women’s racial and gender identities. Sex Roles, 54(9), 589–601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9029-8

65.

Smitherman

(1977). Talkin and testifyin: The language of Black America. Houghton Mifflin.

66.

Stucky

B. D.

Edelen

M. O.

(2015). Using hierarchical IRT models to create unidimensional measures from multidimensional data. In Reise

S. P.

Revicki

D. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of item response theory modeling: Applications to typical performance assessment (pp. 183–206). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

67.

Swann

W. B.

(1987). Identity negotiation: Where two roads meet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(6), 1038–1051. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.6.1038

68.

Swann Jr.

W. B.

Johnson

R. E.

Bosson

J. K.

(2009). Identity negotiation at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 29, 81–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2009.06.005

69.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.

70.

Thelamour

George Mwangi

Ezeofor

(2019). We need to stick together for survival”: Black college students’ racial identity, same-ethnic friendships, and campus connectedness. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 12(3), 266–279. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000104

71.

Thomas

A. J.

Witherspoon

K. M.

Speight

S. L.

(2004). Toward the development of the stereotypic roles for Black women scale. Journal of Black Psychology, 30(3), 426–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798404266061

72.

Ting-Toomey

(1986). Interpersonal ties in intergroup communication. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Intergroup communication (pp. 114–126). Edward Arnold.

73.

Ting-Toomey

(1999). Communicating across cultures. Guilford.

74.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2020). The condition of education 2020 (NCES 2020-144), characteristics of postsecondary faculty. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=61.

75.

Watkins

M. W.

(2017). The reliability of multidimensional neuropsychological measures: From alpha to omega. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 31(6–7), 1113–1126. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2017.1317364

76.

Watson

N. N.

Hunter

C. D.

(2016). I had to be strong” tensions in the strong Black woman schema. Journal of Black Psychology, 42(5), 424–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798415597093

77.

West

C. M.

(2008). Mammy, Jezebel, Sapphire, and their home-girls: Developing an ‘‘oppositional gaze’’ toward the images of Black women. In Chrisler

Golden

Rozee

(Eds.), Lectures on the psychology of women (4th ed., pp. 286–299). McGraw-Hill.

78.

Williams

M. G.

Lewis

J. A.

(2021). Developing a conceptual framework of Black women’s gendered racial identity development. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 45(2), 212–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684320988602

79.

Woods-Giscombé

C. L.

(2010). Superwoman schema: African American women’s views on stress, strength, and health. Qualitative Health Research, 20(5), 668–683. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732310361892

80.

Worthington

R. L.

Whittaker

T. A.

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