LINDA KATHRYN LARKEY University of Arizona ...

Int. J. Intercultural

Rel., Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 483-504, 1995 Copyright 0 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in the USA. All rights reserved 0147-1767/95 $9.50 + 0.00

0147-1767(95)00030-5

A COMPARATIVE AND EUROPEAN

STUDY OF AFRICAN AMERICAN ETHNIC

LINDA KATHRYN

AMERICAN IDENTITY

LARKEY

University of Arizona Cancer Center MICHAEL

L. HECHT

Arizona State University ABSTRACT. Dtxerences between African Americans and European Americans were examined to find how ethnic identity salience was enacted in interethnic conversations. A sample of 126 African Americans and 78 European Americans was recruited from the community using a snowball sampling method. First, different factor structures for the two groups indicated that African Americans conceptualize sociocultural andpolitical identity as separate constructs while European Americans express a singular and social definition of ethnic identity and experience less identity salience than African Americans. Secondly, although our sample is small, those who used the label “African American” expressedgreaterpolitical ethnic identity salience than those who used the label “Black”. Thisfinding is consistent with others’research indicating a continuing trend toward a positive political posture for African Americans. Third, ethnic identity was found to be negatively related to interethnic communication satisfaction for European Americans. Stronger European American ethnic identity was related to less satisfying interethnic conversational outcomes in less intimate relationships. Ethnic identity salience showed no signtjicant relationship to interethnic conversational outcomes for European Americans communicating with friends nor for African Americans no matter the relational distance.

Communication between ethnic groups holds the potential for divergence, conflict, and misunderstanding. Several explanations for these communication differences and conflict have been suggested in the last two decades of research (Collier, 1988; Cooke, 1980; Hecht, Andersen, & Ribeau, 1989; Kochman, 1981; Shuter, 1982) ranging from An earlier version of this paper was presented at the International Conference for Language and Social Psychology, August, 1991, Santa Barbara, California. We thank the anonymous reviewer and Dan Landis for comments on an earlier version of this paper. Requests for reprints should be sent to Dr. Linda Larkey, University of Arizona Cancer Center, c/o Arizona Department of Health Services, 1740 W. Adams, Room 206, Phoenix, AZ 85007.

483

484

L. K. Larkey and M. L. Hecht

(a) actual communicative behavior mismatches (dialects, patterns, etc.) (Giles, Bourhis, & Taylor, 1977; Kochman, 1981; Stanback & Pearce, 1981) to (b) underlying conflict of values and interests generating such mismatches (Giles & Johnson, 1986; Jarmon, 1980).’ Thus interethnic communication is increasingly understood as a problematic event (Coupland, Wiemann, & Giles, 1991; Hecht, Collier, & Ribeau, 1993). One explanation for the differences and/or difficulties encountered is the influence of ethnic identity. Ethnic identity plays an important role in interethnic communication - identities are enacted in conversations and these enactments influence relationships and communication outcomes (Hecht, Ribeau, & Alberts, 1989). This influence may occur through either of the two routes mentioned above: ethnic identity is expressed through differences in communication behaviors serving as linguistic markers (Banks, 1987; Giles & Coupland, 1991) and through differentiating values, rules and interests (Collier, 1988; Collier, Hecht, & Ribeau, 1986; Coupland, Coupland, Giles, & Henwood, 1988; Giles & Johnson, 1986; Jarmon, 1980). The purpose of this study is to examine differences in ethnic identity for African Americans and European Americans2 and the strength or salience of those identities as they are related to relationships and interethnic conversational outcomes. In particular, in uncovering the differences in ethnic identity we will not assume that the dimensions of identity remain the same across groups, but that the construct may differ for different groups.3 In doing so, we provide a partial test of Burke’s theory of identity (Burke & Tully, 1977; White, 1989; White & Burke, 1987) relative to African Americans and European Americans. In addition, we examine the relationships among ethnic identity, relationship ‘Jarmon (1980) discusses two competing explanations for interracial conflict which dominate the literature in this area of research. “Cognitive incongruity” explains that conflict is the result of different ways of thinking based on social group patterns. The “awareness of vested interests” explanation suggests that competition for resources determines interactions between ethnic groups. 2We have chosen the term “European American” to refer to the general population of “white” Americans no matter how many generations they have been located in the U.S. This term is chosen consciously to parallel the use of terms such as African American and Chinese American as it denotes a particular cultural heritage as well as an identity with mainstream America. 3This is consistent with Jones’ (1979) suggestion that emit (or within-culture) views should be used along with the more common etic approaches that impose conceptual and structural cultural elements of the researchers’ worldview onto the culture studied. We begin with the within-culture view, that is, what comprises African American ethnic identity, and then try to find a way to “compare” it to European American ethnic identity by finding what aspects are comparable. Most comparable studies (at least those originating on the North American continent) tend to (a) use European American concepts and operationahzations, and then (b) impose those measures on other cultural or ethnic groups, assuming they are comparable.

Ethnic Identity Differences

485

intimacy, and communication satisfaction in order to begin to understand how identity is enacted in relationships and conversations.

LITERATURE

REVIEW

Ethnic Identity Salience Ethnic and racial identity have been approached in a number of ways. Generally, ethnic identity is considered a complex of competing subidentities varying in description and in strength or salience (Ferdman, 1990; Hecht et al., 1993; Herman, 1970; Hofman, 1985; Staiano, 1980). Although conceptualizations of identity have ranged greatly in the number of descriptive dimensions defined (such as lazy vs. hard-working, powerful vs. powerless) (Burke & Tully, 1977; Hoelter, 1985; Lampe, 1982), there has been consistent agreement that salience is an important aspect of ethnic identity (Collier, 1989; Hinkle & Brown, 1990; Hoelter, 1983, 1985; Mackie & Brinkerhoff, 1984; Stryker, 1981; Stryker & Serpe, 1983). Others have developed a model specific to African American identity that hinges on stages of racial identity development (Cross, 1978; Helms, 1990). Briefly, these stages range from other-defined (e.g., a downgraded view of self-identity based on Eurocentric influences) to a “discovery” and glorification of African heritage, to an internalization of this identity characterized by “ideological flexibility, psychological openness, and selfconfidence about one’s Blackness” (Cross, 1978, p. 18), and finally, to a stage of being involved in activities meaningful or beneficial (i.e., politically) to one’s ethnic group. Again, this is a more descriptive model of complex experiences over time, but it is likely that strength or salience of identity would vary across the stages in important ways. There is evidence that ethnic identity is related to personal variables that can affect communication, such as self-esteem (Helms, 1990; White & Burke, 1987), readiness for social relations (Hofman, 1985), and perceptions and expectations concerning communication (Hecht & Ribeau, 1984, 1991; Hecht et al., 1989). Thus there is a likely link between salience of ethnic identity and conversational outcomes. We have chosen to focus on ethnic identity salience as an important factor in interethnic communication. Dimensions and D@erences in Ethnic Identity Burke and colleagues have posed a theory of ethnic identity suggesting two dominant themes in the experience of identity revealing both a personal and a political focus for ethnic identity (White and Burke, 1987;

486

L. K. Lmkey and M. L. Hecht

White, 1989). African American and European American respondents are asked to identify adjectives that describe self, one’s own ethnic group, and the other ethnic group. Two clusters emerge: (a) a personal or sociocultural cluster (e.g., sensitive-insensitive, neat-untidy, and loud-quiet) which is more typical of previous conceptions of ethnic identity (Hofman, 1985; Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and (b) a politically oriented cluster (e.g., powerful-powerless and leaders-followers). Interestingly, politically oriented adjectives were found to discriminate between African Americans and European Americans in the study,4 with the former group being “a liberal, a follower, having to struggle, and being powerless” (White, 1989, p. 258). Although both groups may consider political or power issues in defining ethnic identity (White, 1989; White & Burke, 1987), there may be differences in salience of this dimension of identity (is political influence of my group important to whom I am?), or in ways that power is conceptualized and acted upon. Our intent in this study is to examine the power dimension from the perspective of the groups studied, African Americans and European Americans.’ The current study extends the work of White and Burke (1987) and White (1989) by looking for differences in the factor structure and, therefore, differences in apparent conceptualization of ethnic identity for each group, leading us to: Research Question One (RQI):

Do African Americans and European Americans conceptualize ethnic identity differently for general social/personal factors and/or political factors?

4White and Burke (1987) and White (1987) developed a list of adjectives to differentially represent African American and European American identity by asking respondents from both groups to respond to the questions “Generally, Whites are.. .” and “Generally, Blacks are.. .“. These adjectives were then compared to the lists each respondent used to describe self, indicating that 93% of African Americans identified with the “Black” list and 81% of European Americans identified with the “white” list. The researchers obtained descriptives from each group for both groups in the effort to remain true to a symbohc interactionist viewpoint. This perspective, however, would theoretically require that participants generate meanings created in interaction between the groups- their method seemed removed from such interaction. The results may have been more influenced by intergroup stereotypes. White (1989) noted that the descriptives on the identity function resemble stereotypical perceptions, supporting the influence of stereotyped assessments. The symbolic interactionist perspective fits better with a research method which primes subjects’ responses by asking them to recall an interethnic conversation. 5We recognize that the European American community is quite diverse. Yet it is often treated as a single group since it represents the mainstream, dominant culture in the U.S. The theory and research upon which this study is based generally present a single conceptualization of ethnic identity for all groups. This study is designed to explore differences among groups, specifically establishing a pattern of measurement that acknowledges different conceptualizations of the ethnic identity construct between groups. Further research can profitably address diversity within the European American co~unity in addition to the age, gender and income variations addressed in this study.


487

The labels “African Americans” and “European Americans” refer to diverse communities. One way of tapping that diversity is to examine ethnic identity and this is the primary goal of this study. But other dimensions of diversity such as regional, religious, age, gender, and class exist within and intersect with these and other groups. Altman and Nakayama (1991) provide an eloquent argument for examining intersections between and among these various elements in order to understand how they combine, manifest joint effects, and play out together. While it is beyond the scope of the current research to explore all of these different elements, we did examine the intersection of ethnicity with age, gender, and income. These intersections provide a richer image of the diversity within the groups and break down conceptions of mass, homogeneous ethnic groups. Arguments for these particular intersections are available in a wide variety of sources. For example, MacLaury and Hecht (1993) argue that differences among age cohorts are strongly related to interethnic relationships and attitudes toward outgroup members. Franklin (1991) and Gilliam and Whitby (1989) discuss the importance of the interplay of class, of which income is an important indicator, and ethnicity. Blacks are overrepresented among lower income groups and, within this strata particularly, race and class are often fused (Franklin, 1991). It is within these lower socioeconomic classes that, for example, Blacks suffer from a “double status markedness”. Gilliam and Whitby (1989) coin the term, “ethclass” to reference the joint effects of these variables and stress the need to consider them together. Similar arguments have been made regarding the intersection of race and gender. For example Black women’s “dual (or triple) oppression” is examined as shaping communication style (Stanback, 1989) and involvement in feminist action (Dill, 1983). An entire issue of the journal, Sex Roles, (22: 7-8, April, 1990) was devoted to perspectives on this particular dual status. Thus these intersections not only recognize the diversity within the groups but constitute important groupings in themselves. In general, then, gender, age and income differences have all been implicated as predictors of racial attitudes (Firebaugh & Davis, 1988; Jewell, 1985) and behaviors associated with ethnic group membership (Gibbs, 1988; Mincy, 1989; Wilson, 1987). Therefore, each of these were examined as variables related to ethnic identity salience. Research Question Two (RQ2): Do gender, age, and income interact with ethnic group membership to influence identity salience?

In addition to these two research questions, two hypotheses were proposed. Hofman (1985) and McGuire and McGuire (1980) demonstrated that disempowered groups usually show stronger racial and/or


488

ethnic identity. Also, many African American community members become actively involved in bonding, cooperation, and in establishing an improved ethnic identity- for example, the Black is Beautiful movement (Cross, 1978; Fine & Bowers, 1984). Therefore, it was expected that African American investments in being aware of and reinforcing ethnic identity would be stronger than European Americans. Therefore, Hypothesis One (HI): African Americans will report higher levels of ethnic identity salience than European Americans.

A second hypothesis was posed concerning differences among African Americans’ use of ethnic labels and identity salience. Historically, there has been a cyclical change in the labels that African Americans have used to describe themselves. In early years of U.S. history, European Americans coined and used ethnic labels for African Americans based on European language terms such as Negro that often became synonymous with negative adjectives. However, the assertion of a more positive African American identity occurred with the advent of self labelling initiated by African Americans (Fairchild, 1985; Jewell, 1985; Smitherman, 1991). The term “Black” was initially used in the late 1960s and early 1970s to denote a strong, proud race in contrast to the majority group in the United States. This change marked the beginning of an identity that was actively communicated rather than passively denoted, and many positive traits began to be associated with the label Black, particularly by African Americans (Cross, 1978; Fairchild, 1985; Helms, 1990; Jewell, 1985). Similarly, the term African American has become the current leading label for many of those who are working toward building an ethnic image related to an advanced race. This “new term on the block” tends to represent those who are actively working to improve ethnic pride and perceptions (Hecht & Ribeau, 1987; Hecht et al., 1989; Smitherman, 1991). Because “African American” is the more recently adopted label, and is currently used by those who actively support identity with the African heritage, it is hypothesized that those who use this label will have a stronger ethnic identity than those who use the other prevalent label, “Black”. Hypothesis Two: Those who use the label “African American” will report higher levels of ethnic identity salience than those who use the label “Black”.

Conversational

Outcomes

and Intimacy

Ethnic identity has been shown to influence the types of problems or issues (e.g., authenticity, power, stereotyping, acceptance) raised in interethnic conversations, suggesting that ethnic identity is enacted in


489

communication (Hecht et al., 1989; Hecht & Ribeau, 1987). Further, Hecht et al. (1989) and Hecht, Larkey, and Johnson (1992) found that differences in the issues raised and expectations about how to handle these issues were predictive of more or less satisfaction in interethnic conversational outcomes. Overall, it is expected that ethnic identity salience is related to communication satisfaction in interethnic exchanges. Although previous studies have not directly tested the relationship between ethnic identity salience and communication satisfaction, variables related to ethnic identity for African Americans and European Americans suggest contradictory predictions for these relationships. First, White and Burke (1987) found that African Americans’ ethnic identity is positively related to self-esteem while European Americans’ ethnic identity is negatively related. Further, Smith and Millham (1979) note that African Americans have more positive racial and national identities than European Americans. With such positive intrapersonal perceptions associated with African American ethnic identity, it might be expected that African Americans who identify strongly with their ethnic group would enact more satisfying conversations in interethnic situations than European Americans. The problem with this prediction is that communication effectiveness in interethnic conversations may be dependent upon much more than simple intrapersonal variables. Intergroup processes such as described by Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT) may also affect communication outcomes (Gallois, Franklin-Stokes, Giles, & Coupland, 1988; Giles & Coupland, 1991). For example, accommodation (or lack of adherence to the patterns of one’s ethnolinguistic identity and adjustment to the other) is usually thought to be a strategy that leads to effectiveness or satisfaction, while divergence is seen to cause problems (Sachdev & Bourhis, 1990). Accommodation is negatively associated with salience of ethnic identity of one’s own group and of the conversational partner (Gallois et al., 1988; Giles & Johnson, 1986; Gudykunst & Hammer, 1988). Thus those who identify most strongly with their own group may be less likely to accommodate and this may lead to less satisfying conversations. With such a variety of findings, it is difficult to make a specific prediction for the effect of ethnic identity upon communication satisfaction. As a result, we posit the following question: Research

Question Three (RQ3): What is the relationship between ethnic identity salience and communication satisfaction in interethnic conversations?

To complicate this matter further, relational intimacy may affect the relationship between ethnic identity and effectiveness. Hecht et al. (1992) showed that European Americans and African Americans differ in the


490

kind of issues salient to various types of relationships. Perceptions of relationships as interpersonal rather than as more distant or intergroup may lead to variations in attuning or aligning behaviors associated with satisfaction (Gallois et al., 1988). Additionally, the closeness or relational intimacy of partners may positively affect perceptions of communication satisfaction (Gudykunst, Nishida, & Chua, 1987; Hecht, 1984; Hecht & Marston, 1987). Therefore, relational intimacy may affect conversational outcomes regardless of ethnic identity effects. So, we ask: Research

Question Four (RQ4): What effect does relational intimacy have on the relationship between ethnic identity and communication satisfaction in interethnic conversations?

METHOD Individuals were recruited using a snowball sampling method at a major university, two community colleges and community groups in a large metropolitan area in the southwestern United States. Because African Americans comprise less than 4% of the total population in this region, random sampling methods (e.g., phone surveys) were not feasible for reaching large numbers of African Americans.6 Each participant was asked to recruit an additional respondent, an African American friend or associate when possible. Of the 224 surveys returned, 204 (91%) were complete and usable: 126 (62%) from African Americans and 78 (38%) from European Americans. Approximately half (49%) of the respondents were associated with the university as student, faculty or staff and this percentage was similar for African American (47%) and European American (50%) samples. Overall, among the students 17% were communication majors, 13% were from the other social sciences, 14% were from science and engineering, 14% were from business, and 12% were from education, with the rest undeclared or other majors. The greatest proportion of the nonstudent sample were employed in state government (44%). In addition, the average age of the entire sample was 35.5 years (including many nontraditional students among the college group), 58% were female, and 50% reported family incomes of $20,000 or less while 19% reported incomes of over $50,000.

6The snowball sampling method was used for a number of reasons. First, it was our desire to recruit a sample that included people on and off the campus. Second, we hoped to recruit a large number of African Americans, so we approached community groups with larger numbers of African Americans and also asked our initial participants to recruit African Americans when possible. Third, we attempted to recruit a sample that would allow comparability of the groups. Our method allowed for this since African Americans and European Americans were recruited in the same ways from roughly the same strata of society.


491

The questionnaire asked respondents to think of a recent conversation with a person of the other ethnic or racial group, write a short description of the conversation, and then respond to several items related to communication satisfaction, relationship intimacy, and ethnic identity on 7-point Likert-type scales (strongly agree to strongly disagree). The communication satisfaction scale was constructed from items that proved reliable and valid for both European Americans and African Americans in a previous study (Hecht & Ribeau, 1984). The ethnic identity items constructed from Hofman (1985) and White and Burke (1987) included five statements meant to measure social/personal ethnic identity salience as well as five statements which addressed the political dimension of ethnic identity. Additionally, respondents answered questions about demographics (income, age, gender), and open-ended items asking about term used to describe one’s own ethnicity (this was used to define the two groups excluding members of other ethnic groups), and information about the conversational partner (age, nature of relationship) as part of a larger survey.

RESULTS Factor Structures of Scales For all factors or variables in the study, the PACKAGE program was first used to examine the internal consistency of factors using the Spearman and flatness tests7 Items deviating significantly from expected values or found to be conceptually different were iteratively deleted until a set of items were obtained with which to test parallelism. Parallelism was then checked between the factor(s) and other scales, again deleting items deviating significantly from expected values. Factor Structure for Ethnic Identity. To answer Research Question One (asking if there would be conceptual and factor differences in ethnic identity for African Americans and European Americans), CFA of ethnic identity items were run separately for each ethnic group, African Americans and European Americans, using PACKAGE (Hunter & Gerbing, 1982). Data for the African American group were first subjected to CFA for each scale separately, then for both scales together as a single factor for comparison. Analysis of the two separate scales for African ‘A copy of the complete set of items for all scales, including intimacy and communication satisfaction scales, are available from the second author. The data used for this study are part of a larger study including a larger number of variables, but the confirming of factors was done on all of the variables for all respondents, separating African Americans and European Americans for the CFA procedure. More detail on this analysis is published in a related study (Hecht et al., 1992).

492


American ethnic identity yielded two solid factors. After iterative analyses and deletions, each of the factors, political identity and social/ personal identity, were internally consistent with no deviations from the expected correlation matrices for the Spearman test. For the flatness tests, no deviations were found for the social/personal identity items, and two deviations (two out of six correlations) for the political identity factor. Parallelism was checked among these two factors and the intimacy scale producing no significant deviations from the expected matrices. This result, along with the consistency of the content of the remaining items, led us to retain the four political identity items despite the problem with flatness (Levine & McCroskey, 1990).8 The accepted political ethnic identity scale consisted of four items with an average correlation of 0.82 and a coefficient alpha reliability of 0.95. The social/personal ethnic identity scale was finalized with three items, an average correlation of 0.55 and reliability of 0.79. In contrast, when attempting to confirm all items on a single scale for the African American data, the Spearman test showed 40% significant deviations from expected values and the flatness test produced deviations on more than half of the matrix. With four of the weakest items eliminated there were still two factor loadings below 0.40 and internal consistency was poor (47% deviating correlations in the flatness matrix) indicating this scale did not represent a single factor. The accepted two-factor solution and factor loadings for African American ethnic identity salience are reported in Table 1. This solution provides a superior description to the one-factor solution of African American ethnic identity salience. The same process was used to examine two- and one-factor solutions for European American ethnic identity scales. First, a two-factor solution was obtained with iterative analyses and deletions. Although this solution produced internally consistent scales using the Spearman and flatness tests, the intercorrelations between scale items were unusually high indicating poor discriminant validity for the two factors.’ A one-factor solution was attempted, using all ten items in a confirmatory factor analysis. Several items were eliminated due to poor internal consistency, arriving at a final set of five items reported in Table 2. This one-factor solution consisted of four items from the original social/personal identity scale and one political identity item. The Spearman test had no deviations and the flatness test produced two ‘Levine and McCroskey (1990) discuss the 0.05 rule of thumb for percentage of deviations allowed for the matrices used to test internal consistency. We have obviously exceeded the 5% maximum deviations for the flatness test if we consider only this matrix but would be within range if all the tests are taken together to compute a ratio of the number of deviations to total number of correlations. We concur with Levine and McCroskey that (a) 5% would occur by chance anyway and (b) this is only a rule of thumb which may be overridden when conceptual consistency is clear.


493

TABLE 1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis for African American Ethnic Identity Two-factor Solution Factor Loadings: Political Identity Items: It is important that Blacks be political leaders in local government It is important that Blacks be political leaders in national government Blacks should play a bigger role in managing businesses Blacks should play a bigger role in public education More Blacks should be involved in the media such as TV, radio, and newspapers Personal/Social identityItems: Being Black is central to who I am Being Black is important for how I define myself Being a member of my racial/ ethnic group plays an important part in my life I often think about being Black Being Black is very important to me

.90

.a7

.96 .90 a

.65 .82 .68

a b

=ltem eliminated due to violations of internal consistency. bltem eliminated due to violations of parallelism.

deviations (i.e., 20% of the matrix correlations deviated from expected values). Parallelism with the intimacy scale was perfect with no deviations. Average correlation among the items was .65 and the alpha coefficient for reliability, .92. Despite the slight problem with flatness, this solution was deemed superior to the highly correlated two-factor solution. ‘For European Americans, intercorrelations for the three items on the political identity scale were .71, .75, and .67 with the social identity items. Intercorrelations for the four items on the social identity scale were .54, .70, .52, and .64. These intercorrelations are nearly as calling into question their dishigh as the factor loadings related to these “factors” criminability. For comparison, African American intercorrelations were much lower: .33, .33, .25 for the social identity scale with political identity items, and .33, .32, .44 and .43 for the political identity scale.


494

TABLE 2 Conffrmatory Factor Analysis for European American Ethnic ldentlty One-factor Solution Factor Loadings:

PoliticalIdentity Items:

It is important that Whites be political leaders in local government It is important that Whites be political leaders in national government Whites should play a bigger role in managing businesses Whites should play a bigger role in public education More Whites should be involved in the media such as TV, radio, and newspapers Personal/Social Identity Items: Being White is central to who I am Being White is important for how I define myself Being a member of my racial/ ethnic group plays an important part in my life I often think about being White Being White is very important to me

.66 a a

a .95 .66

.82 .94

altem eliminated due to violations of internal consistency.

The different factor structures for the two groups indicate that African Americans perceive two separate factors for ethnic identity, a sociocultural and a political focus, while European Americans in our sample perceive ethnic identity to be a unidimensional construct with a primarily social emphasis.

Communication Satisfaction and Intimacy Scales. Along with the confirmatory factor analyses run for the identity scales, CFA was conducted for the communication satisfaction and intimacy scales resulting in nine and four internally consistent and externally parallel items respectively. Items for the final communication satisfaction and intimacy measures and reliability coefficients are shown in Table 3.


495

TABLE 3 Confirmed Items for Communication Bathfaction

and lntlmacy Scales

Communication Satisfaction Cronbach’s alpha for African Americans = .89 Cronbach’s alpha for European Americans = .90 1. The other person genuinely wanted to get to know me. 2. The other person’s tone of voice indicated they were talking down to me. 3. I felt like I was talkingto the wall. 4. I felt I helped the other person feel better, at least as much as I could. 5. I would like to have another conversation like this one. 6. The look in the other person’s eye told me we wanted similar things. 7. The other person expressed a lot of interest in what I had to say. 8. I was able to trust the other person. 9. I got what I wanted. Relationship intimacy Cronbach’s alpha for African Americans = .76 Cronbach’s alpha for European Americans = .85 1. Our relationship is very close. 2. Our relationship is very intimate. 3. Our relationship is not personal at all. 4. I trust the other person.

Ethnic Identity Salience D@erences Once the factors were confirmed, differences in ethnic identity salience between African Americans and European Americans (Hl), and gender, age and income groups (RQ2) were tested with a Weighted Mean Squares Analysis of Variance (using SPSSx). Median splits were used to create age and income groups. Because the factor structure for the two ethnic groups differed, the social/personal identity factor for African Americans was compared to the single factor found for European Americans. This way only similar (though not identical) constructs would be tested for differences. The overall eta’ for the ANOVA was 0.43. A main effect was found for ethnic group only (Table 4). The mean ethnic identity salience score for African Americans was 5.53 (on a 7-point Likert scale, with 7 indicating greater salience), and for European Americans it was 3.04 (means are shown in Table 5), showing a main effect for ethnic group only, F(1,168) = 82.8, pc.01, eta* = .27. A small but significant interaction was shown for ethnic group by gender, (F( 1,168) = 8.2, p < .Ol, eta* = .03). Scheffe analyses revealed that the means for African American males and females were not significantly different from each other but were significantly different from those for European American males and females which did not differ from each other. In general, male scores were higher than female scores. As a result of the small to

496

L. K. Larkey and M. L. Hecht TABLE 4 Welghted Mean Squares Analysis of Variance for Ethnic ldentlty Salience

Main Effects Ethnic group Gender Income

MS

d.f.

F

187.9 2.5 .3

1 1 1

82.8 1.1 .l

.O

1

18.6 3.6 .3

1 1 1

Sign. of F

.oo .30 .72

.27 .oo .oo

.90

.oo

.Ol .21 .71

.03 .oo .oo

Age 2-way Ethnic Ethnic Ethnic

.O

Eta2

Interactions by gender by income by age

Explained

302.2

Total

694.6

10

8.2 1.6 .l

.43

nonsignificant findings, gender, income and age were not utilized in the remaining analyses.

Identity Salience Dzferences Among African Americans. Hypothesis Two (i.e., those who use the label “African American” would have higher ethnic identity salience than those who use the label “Black”) was examined with two r-tests. A significant difference was found in political identity salience between the two groups. Those who referred to themselves as “Black” (n = 75) averaged 6.41 on political identity salience, and “African American” respondents (n = 1l)‘O averaged 6.95, near the highest point on the seven point scale (t = 4.91, p < .Ol). In contrast, there was no significant difference between personal/social salience scores for Blacks and African Americans. So, Hypothesis Two was confirmed for only one factor of the ethnic identity measure. It must be noted that identity was highly salient for both groups although political identity was more salient among those who used the label African American. In addition, confidence in these findings is tempered by the small number of people using the label African American. Ethnic Identity Salience, Communication Satisfaction and Intimacy. Research Questions Three and Four were examined through a series of “Forty of the African American subjects either used a term other than African American or Black (e.g., Black American) or they did not give a response when asked to write their preferred ethnic label. This explains why there are only 86 respondents included in the analysis.

Ethnic

Identity

Dzxerences

497

TABLE 5 Ethnic ldentlty Salience Cell Means for Slgnlffcant Effects Ethnic Group African American European American Ethnic Group by Gender African Americana European Americana

(n = 113) (n = 71)

5.53 3.04

Male (n = 36) (n = 31)

Female 5.74 3.50

(n = 77) (n = 40)

5.44 2.64

aOnlythe difference between African American and European American groups significant at the .05 level using the Scheffe test. Differences between male and female within each group not significant. Scores represent ethnic identity salience measured on a 7-point Likert scale with higher numbers indicating greater salience.

correlations (Table 6). For each group, correlations were computed among the ethnic identity salience variable(s), communication satisfaction, and relational intimacy. African Americans reported significantly higher satisfaction when the relationship with the European American conversational partner was more intimate (r = .58, p < .Ol). No significant relationships were found between ethnic identity and communication satisfaction nor between ethnic identity and relationship intimacy. For this group then, ethnic identity salience was unrelated to intimacy and satisfaction. As with African Americans, intimacy was positively related to communication satisfaction for European Americans in interethnic conversations. In contrast to African Americans, there was a small but significant negative correlation (r = - .19, p-c .05) between ethnic identity salience and communication satisfaction for European Americans. This negative correlation becomes much stronger when controlling for intimacy through partialling (r = - .42). To further examine the source of this negative relationship, separate correlations were computed for high and low intimacy conversations. A median score split on the intimacy variable was used to create two European American groups. Communication satisfaction and ethnic identity salience were not significantly correlated for European Americans reporting high intimacy conversations (r = -.22), but a significant correlation was found for those reporting low intimacy conversations (r = - .47, p< .Ol) indicating that the stronger European Americans’ ethnic identities the less satisfied they are with their interethnic conversations in distant relationships. In addition, there is a significant moderate correlation between ethnic identity and relationship intimacy (r = - .44), although the nonsignificant

498


TABLE 6 Correlations among Ethnic Identity, Communlcatlon Satisfaction and Relatlonal lntlmacy for African Americans and European Americans African Americans S.ID

P.ID Political ID Social ethnic ID Intimacy Communication satisfaction

.52** .03 .12

-.15 .I8

INT

.58**

European Americans E.ID Ethnic ID Intimacy Communication satisfaction

INT

- .44*+ (.13) -.19* (-.42**)

.59**

() indicates partial correlations. **p < .Ol, *p < .05.

partial correlation controlling relationship is spurious.

for satisfaction

(r = .13) suggests this

DISCUSSION The findings of this paper have important implications for the conceptualization of ethnic identity. It appears that ethnic identity salience does not function the same way for all groups. Identity salience has at least two dimensions for African American respondents but is a unidimensional construct for European American respondents. In addition, differences exist in the salience of identity across ethnic groups and among African Americans in our sample. Burke and colleagues’ theory of identity posits two dimensions of ethnic identity: political and social. In the current sample the two dimensional solution was supported only among African Americans. African Americans’ continuing struggle for power apparently affects the way identity is conceptualized; for European Americans a power dimension of identity does not seem to be meaningful. Differences between African and European American factor structures for ethnic identity demonstrate the continuing need to separately validate measurement instruments for different ethnic groups. Future work examining both the content and salience of identity should take into account these differences by either creating separate measurement instruments or by analyzing the data for each group separately.

Ethnic Identity Dlferences

499

These differences also suggest that simple comparisons across groups that do not consider group distinctions may be obscuring key differences. Although comparisons become more difficult when constructs are not the same, the advantage is a clearer understanding of differences in meaning for groups. We chose to compare the constructs that were closely related in this study (i.e., social/personal identity for African and European Americans), but recognized the futility of comparing these groups on a dimension represented only by one group (i.e., the African American political identity dimension). In the future, theories of identity will have to account for group differences; studies which cannot find comparable measures will have to be recognized as useful for their descriptive and theoretical agenda when significant differences are not obtainable. This study also identified differences within the African American community. Those using the “African American” label perceived greater political ethnic identity salience than those choosing the “Black” label. Although the sample size limits our conclusions and precludes generalizability, this finding is consistent with other recent studies. Hecht and Ribeau (1987, 1991) found that those choosing the term “African American” had more political associations for their self-label and were more likely to express the importance of success in building a more positive identity than those choosing the term “Black”. Smitherman (1991) observed that the trend toward African American is concurrent with increased activities in creating a positive and more powerful ethnic identity. Rather than allow the dominant group to determine identity through negative labeling and stereotypes, the African American community is increasingly leading the trends (Larkey, Hecht, & Martin, 1993). Those on the leading edge (as exemplified by those choosing “Black” in the 1960s or African American in the 1990s) would most logically be the activists for positive and political change. It will become increasingly important to track this evolution over time for all ethnic groups (Hecht & Ribeau, 1991; Johnson, 1990; Smitherman, 1991) for a better understanding of changes in ethnic identity and its interaction with sociopolitical issues. The research questions concerned the association between ethnic identity salience and relational intimacy and communication satisfaction. Results show that identity salience is unrelated to intimacy and satisfaction among African Americans, while there exists moderate, negative relationships (after partialling) among European Americans. Thus, European Americans with stronger ethnic identities are less likely to have satisfying conversations with African Americans, particularly those who are relationally distant. In the group demonstrating stronger ethnic identity, African Americans, there is no correlation between identity and communication satisfaction. Prevailing stereotypes and media depictions of African Americans with

500


salient ethnolinguistic markers portray them as contentious and aggressive (Gray, 1989; Smith & Millham, 1979; White & Burke, 1987), traits that might be construed as problematic in interaction. Apparently this depiction is unfounded. With continuing concern that disempowered ethnic groups be able to maintain strong communities of ethnic pride and identity in order to build self-esteem, develop internal networks for promotion (Braddock, 1989; Braddock & McPartland, 1987; Ibarra, 1993; Marable, 1988) or build political power (Bonacich, 1989; Tienda, 1989), it is encouraging to find that strong ethnic identity for African Americans does not engender poorer interethnic communication, nor relational distance. Perhaps it is the African American’s membership in the larger ethnic group that is activated in interethnic conversations with European Americans. Thus, individual differences in identity salience are less relevant to African Americans’ satisfaction in such conversations. For those who might promote a similar strategy of developing ethnic pride and identity strength for European Americans, the findings of this and other studies suggest a warning. Ethnic identity salience for European Americans may be indicative of a mind-set that is not conducive to positive self-image and satisfying communication among ethnic groups (White & Burke, 1987). Fortunately, ethnic identity salience is comparatively low for European Americans, as indicated by the wide spread between the high ethnic identity scores for African Americans and low scores for European Americans. In summary, then, this study demonstrates the importance of groupspecific conceptualization and measurement of ethnic identity. Current theorizing does not seem to adequately account for group differences in ethnic identity salience and its associations with communication and relationships. Unless an overarching theory can be developed, researchers would be well advised to incorporate group differences into their research without assuming equivalency in construct definition or the role of identity in social behavior.

REFERENCES ALTMAN, K. E., & NAKAYAMA, T. K. (1991). Making a critical difference: A difficult dialogue. Journal of Communication, 41, 116128. BANKS, S. P. (1987). Achieving ‘unmarkedness’ in organizational discourse: A praxis perspective on ethnolinguistic identity. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 6, 171-189. BONACICH, E. (1989). Inequality in America: The failure of the American system for people of color. Sociological Spectrum, 9, 77-101. BRADDOCK, J. H., II (1989). Sport and race relations in American society. SociologicaI Spectrum, 9, 53-76.


501

BRADDOCK, J. H., II, & McPARTLAND, J. M. (1987). How minorities continue to be excluded from equal employment opportunities: Research on labor market and institutional barriers. Journal of Social Issues, 43, 5-39. BURGOON, J. K., & HALE, J. L. (1987). Validation and measurement of the fundamental themes of relational communication. Communication Monographs, 54, 194 1. BURKE, P., & TULLY, J. (1977). The measurement of role identity. Social Forces, 55, 886897. COLLIER, M. J. (1989). Cultural and intercultural communication competence: Current approaches and directions for future research. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13, 287-302.

COLLIER, M. J., & THOMAS, M. (1988). Cultural identity: An interpretive perspective. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp. 99-122). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. COLLIER, M. J., RIBEAU, S., & HECHT, M. L. (1986). Intercultural communication rules and outcomes within three domestic cultural groups. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10, 439457.

COOKE, B. G. (1980). Nonverbal communication among Afro-American: An initial classification. In R. L. Jones (Ed.), Black psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Harper. COUPLAND, N., COUPLAND, J., GILES, H., & HENWOOD, K. (1988). Accommodating the elderly: Invoking and extending a theory. Language in Society, 17, 141. COUPLAND, N., WEIMANN, J. M., & GILES, H. (1991). Talk as “problem” and communication as “miscommunication”: An integrative analysis. In N. Coupland, H. Giles & J. M. Wiemann, Miscommunication and problematic talk (pp. l-17). Newbury Park: Sage. CROSS, W. E., JR. (1978). The Thomas and Cross models of psychological nigrescence: A review. The Journal of Black Psychology, 5, 13-3 1. DILL, B. T. (1983). Race, class, and gender: Prospects for an all-inclusive sisterhood. Feminist Studies, 9, 131-148. FAIRCHILD, H. H. (1985). Black, Negro or Afro-American? The differences are crucial. Journal of Black Studies, 16, 47-55. FERDMAN, B. M. (1990). Literacy and cultural identity. Harvard Educational Review, 60, 181-204. FINE, M., & BOWERS, C. (1984). Racial self-identification: The effects of social history and gender. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14, 136146. FIREBAUGH, G., & DAVIS, K. E. (1988). Trends in antiblack prejudice, 19721984: Region and cohort effects. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 251-272. FRANKLIN, R. S. (1991). Shadows of race and class. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. GALLOIS, C., FRANKLYN-STOKES, A., GILES, H., & COUPLAND, N. (1988). Communication accommodation in intercultural encounters. In Y. Y. Kim (Ed.), Znterethnic communication: Current research (pp. 157-185). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. GIBBS, J. T. (1988). Young black males in America: Endangered, embittered, and embattled (pp. l-36). In J. T. Gibbs (Ed.) Young, black andmale in America: An endangered species. Dover, MA: Auburn House.

502


GILES, H., BOURHIS, R. Y., & TAYLOR, D. M. (1977). Towards a theory of language in ethnic group relations. In H. Giles (Ed.), Language, ethnicity, and intergroup relations (pp. 307-348). London: Academic Press. GILES, H., & COUPLAND, N. (1991). Language: contexts and consequences. Bristol, PA: Open University Press. GILES, H., & JOHNSON, P. (1986). Perceived threat, ethnic commitment, and interethnic language behaviour. In Y. Y. Kim (Ed.), Interethnic communication: Current research (pp. 91-116). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. GILLIAM, D., JR., & WHITBY, K. J. (1989). Race, class, and attitudes toward social welfare spending: An ethclass interpretation. Social Science Quarterly, 70, 88-100.

GRAY, H. (1989). Television, Black Americans, and the American dream. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 6, 376386.

GUDYKUNST, W., & HAMMER, M. R. (1988). The influence of social identity and intimacy of interethnic relationships on uncertainty reduction processes. Human Communication Research, 14, 569-601.

GUDYKUNST, W., NISHIDA, T., & CHUA, E. (1987). Perceptions of social penetration in JapaneseNorth American dyads. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 11, 171-189. HECHT, M. (1978). The conceptualization and measurement of interpersonal communication satisfaction. Human Communication Research, 4, 253-260. HECHT, M. (1984). Satisfying communication and relationship labels: Intimacy and length of relationship as perceptual frames of naturalistic conversations. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 48, 201-206.

HECHT, M. L., ANDERSEN, P. A., & RIBEAU, S. A. (1989). The cultural dimensions of nonverbal communication. In M. K. Asante & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Handbook of international and intercultural communication (pp. 163-185). HECHT, M. L., COLLIER, M. J., & RIBEAU, S. (1993). African American communication: Ethnic identity and cultural interpretation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. HECHT, M. L., LARKEY, L. K., & JOHNSON, J. N. (1992). African American and European American perceptions of problematic issues in interethnic communication effectiveness. Human Communication Research, 19, 209-236. HECHT, M. L., & MARSTON, P. J. (1987). Communication satisfaction and the temporal development of conversation. Communication Research Reports, 4, 60-65.

HECHT, M., & RIBEAU, S. (1984). Ethnic communication: A comparative analysis of satisfying communication. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 8, 135-l 51. HECHT, M., & RIBEAU, S. (1987). Afro-American identity labels and communication effectiveness. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 6, 319-326. HECHT, M., & RIBEAU, S. (1991). Socio-cultural roots of ethnic identity: A look at Black America. Journal of Black Studies, 21, 501-513. HECHT, M. L., RIBEAU, S., & ALBERTS, J. K. (1989). An Afro-american perspective on interethnic communication. Communication Monographs, 56, 385410.

HELMS, J. E. (1990). BZack and white racial identity: Theory, research and practice. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.


503

HERMAN, S. N. (1970). Zsruelis and Jews: The continuity of an identity. New York: Doubleday. HINKLE, S., & BROWN, R. (1990). Intergroup comparisons and social identity: some links and lacunae. In D. Abrams & M. Hogg, Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances (pp. 48-70). New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf. HOELTER, J. W. (1985). The structure of self-conception: conceptualization and measurement. Journaf of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1392-1407. HOELTER, J. W. (1983). The effects of role evaluation and commitment on identity salience. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46, 140-147. HOFMAN, J. E. (1985). Arabs and Jews, Black and whites: Identity and group relations. Journal of Multilingunl and Multicultural Development, 6, 217-237. HUNTER, J. E., & GERBING, D. W. (1982). Unidimensional measurement, second order factor analysis, and causal models. Research in Organizational Behavior, 4, 267-320.

IBARRA, H. (1993). Personal networks of women and minorities in management: A conceptual framework. Academy of Management Review, 18, 56-87. JARMON, C. (1980). Racial beliefs among Blacks and whites: An evaluation of perspectives. Journal of Black Studies, 11, 235-241. JEWELL, K. S. (1985). Will the real Black, Afro-American, Mixed, Colored, Negro, please stand up? Impact of the Black Social Movement twenty years later. Journal of Black Studies, 16, 51-75. JOHNSON, J. N. (1990). Distinguishing ethnic identity labels within the MexicanAmerican population. Unpublished master’s thesis, Arizona State University. JONES, S. E. (1979). Integrating etic and emit approaches in the study of intercultural communication. In M. K. Asante, E. Newmark & C. A. Blake (Eds.), handbook of ~nterculturul communjcat~on (pp. 57-74). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. KOCHMAN, T. (1981). BIack and white styles in conflict. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. LAMPE, P. E. (1982). Ethnic labels: Naming or name calling? Ethnic and Racial Studies, 5, 542-548.

LARKEY, L. K., HECHT, M. L., & MARTIN, J. (1993). What’s in a name?: African American ethnic identity terms and self-dete~ination. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 12, 302-3 17. LEVINE, T. R., & McCROSKEY, J. C. (1990). Measuring trait communication apprehension: A test of rival measurement models of the PRCA-24. Communication Monographs, 57, 62-72.

MACKIE,

M., & BRINKERHOFF,

M. B. (1984). Measuring ethnic salience.

Canadian Ethnic Studies, 16, 1IQ- 13 1.

MacLAURY, S., & HECHT, M. L. (1993). Interethnic relationships. In R. Kastenbaum (Ed.), Encyclopedia of adult development. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press. MARABLE, M. (September-October, 1988). The beast is back. The Black Collegian, 52-54.

McGUIRE, C. V., & McGUIRE, W. J. (1980). The spontaneous self concept as affected by personal distinctiveness. In M. D. Lynch (Ed.), Self concept advances in theory and research (pp. 147-171). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

504


MINCY, R. B. (1989). Paradoxes in black economic progress: Incomes, families, and the underclass. Journal of Negro Education, 58, 255-269. ROSE, H. M. (1988). Are non-race specific policies the key to resolving the plight of the inner city poor? Policy Studies Review, 7, 859-864. SACHDEV, I., & BOURHIS, R. Y. (1990). Language and social identification. In D. Abrams & M. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances (pp. 21 l-229). New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf. SHUTER, R. (1982). Initial interaction of American blacks and whites in interracial and intraracial dyads. The Journal of Social Psychology, 117, 45-52. SMITH, L. E., & MILLHAM, J. (1979). Sex role stereotypes among blacks and whites. The Journal of Black Psychology, 6, l-6. SMITHERMAN, G. (1991). “What is Africa to me?“: Language, ideology and African American”. American Speech, 66, 115-l 32. STAIANO, K. V. (1980). Ethnicity as process: The creation of an Afro-American identity. Ethnicity, 7, 27-33. STANBACK, M. H. (1989). Feminist theory and black women’s talk. Howard Journal of Communications, 1, 187-l 94. STANBACK, M. H., & PEARCE, W. B. (1981). Talking to “the man”: Some communication strategies used by members of “subordinate” social groups. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 67, 21-30.

STRYKER, S. (1981). Symbolic interactionism: Themes and variations. In M. Rosenberg & R. H. Turner (Eds.), Social psychology: Sociological perspectives (pp. 3-29). New York: Basic Books. STRYKER, S., & SERPE, R. T. (1983). Toward a theory of family influence in the socialization of children. In A. Kerckhoff (Ed.), Research in sociology of education and socialization (Vol. 4, pp. 47-71). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. TAJFEL, H., & TURNER, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The socialpsychology of intergroup relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. TIENDA, M. (1989). Race, ethnicity, and the portrait of inequality: Approaching the 1990s. Sociological Spectrum, 9, 23-52. WHITE, C. L. (1989). Measuring ethnic identity: An application of the BurkeTully method. Sociological Focus, 22, 249-26 1. WHITE, C. L., & BURKE, P. J. (1987). Ethnic role identity among black and white college students: An interactionist approach. Sociological Perspectives, 30,310-331.

WILSON, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy. Chicago, University of Chicago.