Okay

Journal of Counseling Psychology
2013, Vol. 60, No. 1, 1–14

© 2013 American Psychological Association
0022-0167/13/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0031275

The Relation of Racial Identity, Ethnic Identity, and Racial Socialization to
Discrimination–Distress: A Meta-Analysis of Black Americans
Debbiesiu L. Lee and Soyeon Ahn
University of Miami
This meta-analysis synthesized the results of 27 studies examining the relations of racial identity, ethnic identity, and racial socialization to discrimination– distress for Black Americans. The purpose was to uncover which constructs connected to racial identity, ethnic identity, and racial socialization most strongly correlate with racial discrimination and psychological distress. Discrimination significantly related to aspects of racial identity, including immersion-emersion, public regard, encounter, Afrocentricity/racial centrality/private regard, and internalization. Distress significantly correlated with preencounter/assimilation, encounter, public regard, immersion-emersion, and Afrocentricity/racial centrality/ private regard. Several of these relationships were significantly moderated by the measure of racial identity or demographic variables (gender or age). Implications of these findings are discussed.
Keywords: discrimination, racism, racial identity, ethnic identity, racial socialization
Supplemental materials: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0031275.supp

with more information from which to better understand and address the phenomenon.
One cluster of variables that have arguably gained the most attention in the literature as a potential healthy coping response to racial discrimination for Black Americans is the extent to which
Black Americans identify and affiliate with members of their own racial and/or ethnic group (Brondolo, Brady ver Halen, Pencille,
Beatty, & Contrada, 2009). Brondolo and colleagues identified three related variables that may be linked to discrimination— distress, including racial identity, ethnic identity, and racial socialization (collectively referred to as racial/ethnic identity and socialization in the current article). Whereas racial identity has been defined as identification with groups of people who have been socialized as belonging to a racial group (Helms, 1993), ethnic identity has been conceptualized as identification and association with others of the same ethnic group, that is, groups with shared cultural values and beliefs (Phinney, 1996). Differences between racial identity and ethnic identity reflect the distinctions between race (a socially constructed characterization of a group of people based on shared phenotypic characteristics, such as skin color and facial features) and ethnicity (a characterization of a group of people based on shared ancestory, history, and culture). Racial socialization refers to the process in which individuals are taught certain cultural values and beliefs that pertain to their racial group membership (Berkel et al., 2009). Although there has been much debate in the literature regarding how race and ethnicity (and therefore racial identity and ethnic identity) may overlap as well as differ from one another (Cokley, 2007; Helms, 2007; Trimble,
2007), Brondolo and colleagues argued that each of these con-

Research has well documented that racial discrimination is a common experience for Black Americans1 (Kessler, Mickelson, &
Williams, 1999; Sellers & Shelton, 2003) and that it leads to poor mental health outcomes (Clark, Anderson, Clark, & Williams,
1999; Sellers & Shelton, 2003). Racial discrimination has been linked with greater depression (Ashburn-Nardo, Monteith, Arthur,
& Bain, 2007; Jones, 2005; Jones, Cross, & DeFour, 2007; RivasDrake, Hughes, & Way, 2008), internalizing problems (DuBois,
Burk-Braxton, Swenson, Tevendale, & Hardesty, 2002), psychological distress (Neblett et al., 2008), and reductions in well-being
(Sellers, Copeland-Linder, Martin, & Lewis, 2006) for Black
Americans. In a meta-analysis examining the relation of racial discrimination to psychological distress for Black Americans,
Pieterse, Todd, Neville, and Carter (2012) found a positive correlation between these two variables (r .20). Anxiety, depression, and psychiatric symptoms were the strongest discriminationrelated mental health outcomes among the variables included in the overall relationship between racial discrimination and psychological distress. Because Black Americans constitute approximately 38.9 million people in the United States, about 12.6% of the total population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011), assisting Black
Americans in preventing the detrimental effects of racial discrimination on their mental health is a matter of great importance for counseling psychologists (Clark et al., 1999). Over the past 10 years, investigations into how people cope with racial discrimination have proliferated and thus provide counseling psychologists

Debbiesiu L. Lee, and Soyeon Ahn, Department of Educational and
Psychological Studies, University of Miami.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Debbiesiu L. Lee, University of Miami, Department of Educational and Psychological Studies, 312 Merrick Building, P.O. Box 248065, Coral Gables, FL
33124-2040. E-mail: [e-mail]

1
Black Americans refer to individuals whose ancestors are from Africa, including those who identify as Jamaican, Haitian, and/or African (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2011). We use the term African Americans only in relation to those studies in which African Americans were identified as the target population to remain consistent with the originating study.

1

2

LEE AND AHN

structs is important to consider in the literature on coping with racism, as they all “focus on shared history, values, and a common heritage” (p. 68).
All three variables (racial identity, ethnic identity, racial socialization) have been hypothesized to buffer the effects of racial discrimination on mental health. Proponents of this belief argue that individuals who are socialized and more strongly identify with members of their own race and/or ethnicity are protected from the negative effects of racial discrimination because it provides these individuals with the knowledge that discriminatory experiences result from societal injustice rather than personal deficits. This knowledge, in turn, prevents their self-concepts from being adversely affected when confronted with negative stereotypes or other forms of discrimination (Pascoe & Richman, 2009). In addition, racial/ethnic identity and socialization offer individuals with a sense of belonging and community when they are ostracized from other groups (Brondolo et al., 2009; Sellers et al., 2006).
Alternatively, racial/ethnic identity and socialization have also been hypothesized to be linked positively to perceptions of discrimination, and hence distress (Pascoe & Richman, 2009). Some proponents of this belief argue that individuals who more strongly identify with members of their own race and/or ethnicity are more likely to perceive experiences as discriminatory (vs. dismissing these same experiences). For example, Sellers and Shelton (2003) found that the greater degree to which African Americans endorsed race as a central aspect of their identity, the more likely they were to attribute ambiguous negative discriminatory experiences as racism. In addition, researchers have found that experiences of discrimination are likely to lead to greater affiliation with members of their own racial group (Branscombe, Schmitt, &
Harvey, 1999). Regardless of the direction, or possibly cyclical nature, of the relation between perceived racial discrimination and racial/ethnic identity and socialization, these increased perceptions of discrimination are linked to a higher likelihood of distress.
Indeed, the empirical literature on how racial/ethnic identity and socialization relate to the discrimination– distress link is inconsistent (Brondolo et al., 2009; Pascoe & Richman, 2009). Brondolo and colleagues conducted a narrative review of the literature on coping with racism, including literature on all people of color.
These authors found mixed results in how racial identity, ethnic identity, and racial socialization related to racism and distress.
Whereas some studies seemed to indicate that racial/ethnic identity and socialization were related to increased distress, others found that these variables were related to decreased distress in relation to racial discrimination. However, these authors did not examine the reasons for these different results, nor did they statistically examine how each of these variables (racial identity, ethnic identity, racial socialization) related to discrimination and distress. Pascoe and Richman (2009) conducted a meta-analysis examining three forms of discrimination, including racism, sexism, and heterosexism. They also concluded that results regarding how minority group affiliation relates to discrimination– distress were inconclusive. Similar to Brondolo and colleages (2009), these authors did not statistically examine the literature for reasons for the mixed results. In this study, we aimed to fill this gap in the literature by assessing potential reasons for the mixed results in the literature.
Although there have not been any formal empirical attempts to explain the inconsistencies in the literature, several researchers have noted that the various ways in which racial/ethnic identity

and socialization have been conceptualized and measured (Cokley,
2007; Helms, 2007; Trimble, 2007) and the multifaceted nature of these constructs (Sellers et al., 2006) may complicate the study of these constructs in relation to other psychological phenomenon.
These arguments guide us in hypothesizing various reasons behind the inconsistencies in how racial/ethnic identity and socialization relate to discrimination– distress. The first possibility that may explain the mixed findings is that there are differences in how each construct—racial identity, ethnic identity, and racial socialization—may relate to discrimination– distress. In a discussion of racial identity and ethnic identity, Cokley (2007) and Trimble
(2007) highlight the fact that race and ethnicity are often conflated in the literature. This stems from the fact that researchers use the terms interchangeably (i.e., they report that they are examining racial identity when in fact they use measures of ethnic identity, or vice versa). This creates confusion in the literature regarding what constructs are actually being assessed. Because racial identity, ethnic identity, and racial socialization are distinct constructs (despite some overlaps as mentioned previously), it is possible that these variables relate differently to discrimination– distress. However, no studies to our knowledge have examined this hypothesis.
Another possibility that may help explain the inconsistencies in the literature with respect to how racial/ethnic identity and socialization relate to discrimination– distress is the fact that each of these constructs is multifaceted. Each has several components that constitute the construct, and it may be that these various facets relate differently to discrimination– distress. For example, Cross and Vandiver’s (2001) conceptualization of Black racial identity consists of several stages that are conceptually quite distinct from one another. More specifically, Assimilation is a facet of racial identity wherein individuals are believed to adopt dominant White norms and internalize negative beliefs about Black Americans.
Internalization-Afrocentricity, however, is another facet of racial identity wherein individuals feel pride in and adopt the values and customs associated with Black Americans (Cross & Vandiver,
2001). Thus, although both of these are facets of Black racial identity, they are conceptually quite different. Similar to racial identity, ethnic identity (Phinney, 1992) and racial socialization
(Berkel et al., 2009) have also been deemed to consist of various components. Researchers have hypothesized that certain facets of racial/ ethnic identity and socialization may serve to buffer the relationship between discrimination and distress, whereas others may enhance this relation (Sellers & Shelton, 2003). To our knowledge, only two studies have assessed this hypothesis. In a study examining racial identity in Black Americans, Sellers and Shelton
(2003) found that greater endorsement of racial centrality was associated with higher levels of perceived racial discrimination.
However, in this same study, racial ideology and public regard were found to buffer the relationship between racial discrimination and psychological distress. In another study examining ethnic identity in Latinos, one facet of ethnic identity (exploration) was found to exacerbate the relation between discrimination and depression, and another facet (commitment) was found to buffer this relation (Torres & Ong, 2010). These two studies lend support to the hypothesis that some aspects of racial/ethnic identity and socialization may serve to exacerbate the discrimination– distress link, whereas others may serve to buffer this relation. Thus, it is important to examine not only each construct (racial identity,

RACIAL IDENTITY AND DISCRIMINATION–DISTRESS

ethnic identity, and racial socialization) but also the different facets associated with these constructs.
A third possibility for the mixed findings in the literature of how racial/ethnic identity and socialization relate to discrimination– distress is the fact that there are multiple measures that assess racial identity and ethnic identity. Each of these measures contains multiple subscales, each having different psychometric properties.
Thus, it is possible that measurement differences may account for the mixed results in how racial/ethnic identity and socialization relate to discrimination– distress (Cokley, 2007; Sellers, Rowley,
Chavous, Shelton, & Smith, 1997). As Cokley (2007) highlighted, ethnic identity measured by the Multigroup Ethnic Identiy Measure (MEIM; Phinney, 1992) is usually examined as a total score to represent ethnic identity, whereas the Ethnic Identity Scale (EIS;
Umaña-Taylor, Yazedjian, & Bámaca-Gómez, 2004) contains three separate subscales representing this same construct. Whereas the MEIM collapses ethnic identity exploration and resolution, the
EIS separates these constructs to allow for a more refined understanding of which facets of ethnic identity may relate positively or negatively to outcomes. Cokley (2007) further noted that some racial identity measures have undergone much scrutiny (i.e., the
Racial Identity Attitude Scale, Form B [RIAS-B]), whereas others have received more consistent support in the literature (i.e., the
Cross Racial Identity Scale [CRIS]), and calls into question the continued use of measures with questionable psychometric properties. No studies have examined whether measurement differences may account for the previous mixed results in how racial/ethnic identity and socialization may relate to discrimination– distress. Thus, in this study we sought to fill that gap.
The purpose of the current study was to statistically summarize and compare the relation of racial identity, ethnic identity, and racial socialization in the discrimination– distress link for Black
Americans. Second, we also wished to identify what aspects of racial identity, ethnic identity, and racial socialization are most strongly correlated to racial discrimination and distress. Third, because the psychometric properties of some racial identity measures have been called into question, we examined possible measurement differences in how racial/ethnic identity and socialization were found to relate to discrimination– distress. Finally, in addition to conceptual and measurement considerations, we also included demographic factors as possible sources of variations in the literature regarding the role of racial/ethnic identity and socialization in discrimination– distress, including socioeconomic status (SES), gender, and age.
Previous conceptual and empirical literature supports the hypotheses that SES, gender, and age may affect the relationship between racial discrimination and distress as well as the role of racial/ethnic identity and socialization in this relation. For instance, Clark and colleagues (1999) developed the biopsychosocial model to outline the relation between racism and health outcomes for African Americans. The authors highlighted SES, gender, and age among some of the variables that may influence how racism affects poor outcomes. Indeed, empirical studies have supported the fact that SES (Ong, Phinney, & Dennis, 2006; Scott, 2003), gender (DuBois et al., 2002; Scott, 2003), and age (Quintana,
2007) affect the relations among racial discrimination, racial/ ethnic identity and socialization, and/or distress. Thus, we included these variables in our analyses as possible moderators.

3

We chose meta-analytic techniques to address our research goals. Meta-analysis is a method used to quantitatively synthesize results from a set of primary studies so that a cohesive understanding of phenomena may be derived. Meta-analysis also enables the researcher to quantitatively examine how differences in study results may be related to study characteristics, and thus is particularly suited for investigating mixed results in the literature (Cooper, 2009). Because our primary goal was to gain a better understanding of the mixed results in the literature regarding the relation of racial/ethnic identity and socialization to discrimination and distress, we chose meta-analysis as our method of inquiry.
This investigation was the first to quantitatively assess the significant sources of variations (including conceptual and measurement) in the overall literature on racial discrimination, racial/ ethnic identity and socialization, and distress for Black Americans.
By identifying those facets of racial/ethnic identity and socialization that are most strongly linked to discrimination and distress, counseling psychologists may be better equipped to assist in developing interventions to increase the preventative components of racial/ethnic identity and socialization, and to decrease those aspects that may serve as potential risk factors for Black Americans.
Thus, we believe addressing this issue is a critical task for counseling psychologists to assist Black Americans in preventing the damaging effects of racial discrimination on mental health.

Method
Literature Search Procedures
Two series of computerized searches were conducted to locate all relevant studies for the current meta-analysis. The first set of studies was extracted from a larger database for a meta-analysis project examining coping with discrimination (not exclusive to racial discrimination) and its related outcomes. Studies included in the larger database were located using a computerized Boolean search of ERIC and PsycINFO through EBSCOhost in February
2009. The key terms used in this search were different forms of discrimination (racism, sexism, homophobia, heterosexism, ageism, classism) or discrimination (discrimination, stigma, prejudice, stereotype) related to any aspect of identity (race, ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation, religion, social status, socioeconomic status). These studies were then limited to those that related to coping or mental health, distress, or well-being. Studies also needed to be in English. This search yielded a total of 2,019 published studies, which was then limited to 448 studies based on content relevance. From the 448 studies, 245 studies were excluded for being conceptual pieces (s
33), for being only qualitative in nature (s
72), or for not containing relevant statistical information (s
140). Of the remaining 203 studies, studies that pertained to racial identity, ethnic identity, or racial socialization in relation to racial discrimination against Black
Americans were extracted. The final result was 18 published studies. The first author conducted the search and sorted articles for inclusion.
In order to ensure that our database was comprehensive, a second search was performed in July 2010 using computerized
Boolean searches of ERIC, Dissertation Abstracts, and PsycINFO through EBSCOhost, with the key terms of discrimination or racism and African or Black. Unlike the first search, the second

4

LEE AND AHN

search targeted articles related to discrimination or racism for
Black people in particular, and did not limit studies to those including coping or specific outcomes. Of the 729 studies written in English that were located from this search, only studies that provided effect sizes related to racial/ethnic identity and socialization in relation to racial discrimination were included. A total of
716 studies were excluded, as 627 did not focus on the proper content, 35 were qualitative only, 47 were conceptual only, and seven did not include relevant statistical information. Thus, a total of 13 studies, including six unpublished dissertations and seven published articles, were yielded from this search. The search and sorting were conducted by the first author and checked for accuracy by the second author. Interrater agreement between the two authors was 100%. In sum, a total of 31 studies were located through these two searches, including nine dissertations and 22 published studies.
Of the 31 studies, there were several instances in which multiple studies were written on the basis of one sample. Jones (2005) and
Jones et al. (2007) were based on the same sample, as were Rollins
(2001) and Rollins and Valdez (2006), and Scott (2003), Scott
(2004), and Scott and House (2005). We included each of these three samples only once in our current meta-analysis. Therefore, a total of 27 independent studies from 22 published studies and nine dissertations were used in the subsequent statistical analyses.

Data Coding
Study features that were crucial to answer the research questions for the current meta-analysis were identified. Specifically, all the included studies were coded for (a) sample characteristics such as age, sex, ethnicity, education, and social status; (b) study design characteristics including the total sample size and publication year and type (unpublished vs. published); and (c) study variables, incorporating racial discrimination (measures of perceived racial discrimination and/or racism), racial/ethnic identity and socialization (measures of racial identity, ethnic identity, and racial socialization), and psychological distress (measures pertaining to psychological distress or health). All study variables were coded by at least two individuals of the research team, including the first author, second author, or a doctoral-level counseling psychology student. Interrater reliability was 99% due to human error, including incorrectly coding a study as being unfunded when it was funded and the mistaken entry of correlations. All disagreements were discussed between the two authors and resolved until we reached 100% agreement, ensuring the accuracy of our data.
In order to examine how the different facets of racial identity, ethnic identity, and racial socialization may relate to racial discrimination and distress for Black Americans, it was first necessary to identify the different facets of each of these constructs in the literature. Because there is no literature to our knowledge that systematically compares and contrasts the similarities and differences in the various facets of racial/ethnic identity and socialization—that is, how might racial identity facets measured by the
RIAS-B subscales compare with racial identity facets measured by the Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity (MIBI) subscales—we used meta-analytic techniques to deduce these core facets for each construct (racial identity, ethnic identity, racial socialization). We found that, in the literature relating these constructs to racial discrimination and distress, only racial identity was

consistently examined using multiple facets with no studies reporting an overall score. Studies examining ethnic identity for Black
Americans coping with racial discrimination included only an overall score. Studies examining racial socialization were mixed; whereas some contained only a total score, others reported subscale scores.
In order to address our first research question (i.e., the relation of racial identity, ethnic identity, and racial socialization to discrimination– distress) as well as our second research question
(i.e., the relation of different facets of racial identity and racial socialization to discrimination– distress), we developed subcategories across racial identity measures and racial socialization measures to represent the different facets associated with each of these constructs. The process of theoretically and empirically developing clusters of variables to best represent concepts of interest is a practice common to meta-analysis, because the creation of these clusters enables the comparison of these constructs (Wilson,
2009). Thus, we used both theoretical and empirical means to identify the various facets of racial identity and racial socialization found in the literature starting from the ground level upward. For example, for racial identity, the two authors independently examined each study for variables (including items and/or subscales) that reflect facets of racial identity. On the basis of the similarities and differences of these variables with one another, each of the authors systematically created subcategories such that variables within the same subcategory represented a similar underlying racial identity facet, yet were distinct from facets in other subcategories. After the two authors independently derived a list of subcategories, the authors independently designated each variable to one subcategory, or racial identity facet. The authors then met and compared their respective subcategories and assignment of variables with these subcategories. This same process was used to identify the different facets of racial socialization across studies and measures. The average percentage agreement between two raters for this initial process was 94%. Prior to analysis, the authors resolved all discrepancies through discussion, such that 100% agreement was rendered on the subcategories and the coding of variables into these subcategories. More information regarding the resolution of initial interrater disagreements are included online in
Appendix A. The final results of the sorting procedure were eight subcategories representing racial identity facets, ethnic identity, and racial socialization. They included the following.
Preencounter/assimilation. This subcategory of racial identity included variables pertaining to what extent individuals affiliate with the dominant White American culture, hold color-blind attitudes, and/or adopt positive or negative stereotypes about Black culture and people. This subcategory contained variables measured by the Preencounter subscale from the RIAS-B (Helms, 1993);
Assimilation, Mis-education, and Self-hatred subscales from the
CRIS (Cross & Vandiver, 2001); the Assimilation subscale from the MIBI (Sellers et al., 1997); and an “other” measure assessing extent of racelessness (Arroyo & Zigler, 1995), which is akin to color-blind attitudes (D. B. Miller & MacIntosh, 1999). Constructs underlying some aspects of these subscales have also been referred to as internalized racism and internalized racialism in the literature (Cokley, 2002, 2005).
Encounter. This subcategory of racial identity contained racial identity variables pertaining to what extent individuals have begun to question dominant White American ideology about race

RACIAL IDENTITY AND DISCRIMINATION–DISTRESS

and explore Black culture. This variable was exclusively measured by the Encounter subscale of the RIAS-B (Helms, 1993), as no other measures were found to be similar. Thus, encounter was maintained as its own cluster.
Immersion-emersion/nationalist. This subcategory of racial identity included variables pertaining to what extent individuals are engaged in the process of immersion-emersion that is either strongly, almost exclusively affiliating with Black culture (immersion) or beginning to realize the positive and negative aspects of
Black culture (emersion). Variables included the ImmersionEmersion subscales of the RIAS-B (Helms, 1993) and the
Immersion/Anti-White subscale of the CRIS (Cross & Vandiver,
2001). This subcategory also contained the Nationalist subscale from the MIBI (Sellers et al., 1997), because this subscale contained items reflecting both Black pride and anti-White sentiments.
Although this subcategory was similar to the Afrocentricity/Racial centrality/Private regard cluster (discussed next) in this study in that both subcategories pertained to affiliation and pride in Black culture and people, there were some elements of ImmersionEmersion Nationalist, namely anti-White sentiments, that we deemed sufficiently different from the other variables contained in the Afrocentricity/Racial centrality/Private regard subcategory.
Thus, we chose to maintain separate subcategories for ImmersionEmersion/Nationalist and Afrocentricity/Racial centrality/ Private regard. Afrocentricity/racial centrality/private regard. This subcategory of racial identity contained variables indicating to what extent individuals identify and affiliate with Black American culture and people, feel proud about being Black, and/or are Afrocentric. This subcategory included racial centrality and private regard of the MIBI. This subcategory also included the
Internalization-Afrocentricity subscale, despite reflecting the racial identity status of Internalization, because this subscale reflects those who endorse an Afrocentric perspective (Vandiver, Cross,
Worrell, & Fhagen-Smith, 2002). This subcategory also included researcher-made items assessing Afrocentric attitudes and involvement (Resnicow & Ross-Gaddy, 1997). Finally, this category included the African American Acculturation Scale-Revised
(Klonoff & Landrine, 2005). Higher scores in this measure reflect greater affiliation and involvement in Black American cultural beliefs and practices. Although this last measure also seemed similar to ethnic identity (discussed below), upon further evaluation, this measure assessed affiliation and feelings about Black people and culture, and has been found in the literature to be highly related to Black racial identity (Pope-Davis, Liu, Ledesma-Jones,
& Nevitt, 2000). Thus, this measure was included under Afrocentricity/Racial centrality/Private regard.
Internalization/multiculturalist/minority. This subcategory of racial identity included variables that related to a balanced perspective of Black Americans and other racial groups, such that the relative strengths and limitations of one’s own and other’s racial group are recognized (Cross & Vandiver, 2001; Helms,
1993). Variables relevant to Internalization/Multiculturalist were ones wherein individuals endorsed recognizing that racial discrimination and societal injustice is a reality that must be confronted, but does not detract from the ability to socialize and have positive relationships with members of other racial groups, including the dominant group (Cross & Vandiver, 2001). This variable included the Internalization subscale from the RIAS-B (Helms, 1993), the

5

Internalization-Multiculturalist subscale from the CRIS (Cross &
Vandiver, 2001), and the Minority subscale of the MIBI (Sellers et al., 1997).
Public regard. This subcategory of racial identity contained variables relating to how positively or negatively an individual believes that others view Black culture and people, and the perception of racism or social constraints placed on Black people as a result of negative stereotypes of Black people. This variable was measured by the Public Regard subscale of the MIBI (Sellers et al.,
1997) as well as other researcher-made items assessing recognition of racism (Resnicow & Ross-Gaddy, 1997).
Ethnic identity. This category consisted of ethnic identity
(excluding the “other” subscale) of the MEIM (Phinney, 1992), as well as the Ethnic Pride subscale of the Ethnicity Questonnaire
(Phelps & Day, 1990), which measures levels of positive feelings toward one’s ethnic heritage or identity.
Racial socialization. This category incorporated variables relating to what extent individuals were educated about or socialized into Black culture, including being taught racial pride and/or being prepared for racial discrimination and bias. Measures that tapped into this construct included the Teenager Experience with Racial
Socialization Scale (TERS; Stevenson, Cameron, Herrero-Taylor,
& Davis, 2002) and the Scale of Racial Socialization-parent version (PERS; Stevenson, 1997). This category also contained two subscales of Hughes and Johnson’s (2001) Racial Socialization measure, including subscales of Black Pride and Preparation for
Bias.
Results of the clustering of racial socialization facets yielded two subcategories that contained multiple items, including (a) taught racial pride and (b) preparation for bias. Taught racial pride referred to the process of being taught by caregivers to have pride in being Black, being taught to appreciate Black history and culture, being exposed to Black literature and arts, and being instilled positive feelings toward Blacks. Preparation for bias, however, included items that related to how Black Americans can cope with racism and discrimination. Two singular items that were included in racial socialization that were not found to be similar to the other items included (a) egalitarianism, or items regarding interracial equality and coexistence (i.e., being taught that Blacks and Whites should try to understand each other so they could get along), and (b) self-worth, or messages emphasizing positive aspects of the self (i.e., Told you that you were special no matter what anyone says).

Dependency
There were a few instances in which multiple effect sizes were extracted from the same participant—particularly when the study reported correlations from multiple measures or subscales of the same variable—in which we faced the issue of dependency among effect sizes. For instance, Bynunm, Burton, and Best (2007) provided multiple correlations measured by the Perceived Stress Scale
(PSS) and Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI). There are several ways in which to deal with dependency in meta-analyses (see Becker,
2000); however, we chose to compute the average of reported correlations from dependent variables to represent our variable of interest as a safeguard against losing information or data. Thus, for
Bynum et al. (2007), we computed the averages from both the PSS and BSI to represent individuals’ psychological distress. In addi-

6

LEE AND AHN

tion, the reported correlations from multiple subscales of a measure were averaged. An example was in Franklin’s (2002) study, in which correlations related to individual, cultural, and institutional racism were measured. We took the average of each of these correlations to represent perceived racism. Similarly, Pieterse and
Carter (2010) reported correlations from the PSS and two subscales from the Mental Health Index, Psychological Well-being and Psychological Distress, all of which were reversed scored where appropriate and averaged to represent one’s psychological distress. Effect Size
The primary index of effect size used in the current metaanalysis is the Pearson product–moment correlation coefficient (r), which represents the relationship among racial discrimination, racial identity/ethnic identity/racial socialization, and psychological distress. Because correlation coefficients would not be normally distributed when the true correlation is not zero (Hedges &
Olkin, 1985), we transformed the extracted correlation coefficient to Fisher’s zs via zri
.5*ln 1 ri ⁄ 1 ri , where ln is the natural logarithm (Borenstein, 2009), with an associated conditional variance of vi ni 3 1, where ni is the sample size.
The transformed effect sizes zri were then used to compute the average effect (zr). Then, the estimated mean (zr) and its 95% confidence intervals were back-transformed to the r metric via r zr e2zr 1 ⁄ e2zr 1 , which can be interpreted as correlation coefficients: small (r .14; 2% of the shared variance), medium
(r .39; 13% of the shared variance), and large (r .59; 26% of the shared variance), which were suggested in Cohen (1988, pp.
412– 414).

Statistical Analyses
Statistical methods proposed by Hedges and Olkin (1985) and also outlined in Cooper, Hedges, and Valentine (2009) were used in the current meta-analysis. We estimated the overall effect using the random-effects model, with between-study variances estimated using methods-of-moments (Raudenbush, 2009), because our intent was to generalize study findings to the broader population of studies (e.g., Cooper, 2009; Quintana & Minimi, 2006; Raudenbush, 2009). We also tested the heterogeneity of effect sizes using
Qtotal statistics (Hedges & Olkin, 1985), which approximately follows a chi-square distribution ( 2) with a k – 1 degree of freedoms (df), where k is a number of effect sizes. In order to examine differences in effect sizes by measure and by demographics, we performed moderator analyses on the basis of the mixedeffects model, which accounts for additional between-study variability. Measure differences were assessed by estimating the mean effect sizes for each subscale measuring racial/ethnic identity and socialization and then comparing these effect sizes across measures. Significant Qbetween statistics indicated that, indeed, the relationships are different depending on the measure used to assess these constructs. Similarly, age differences were assessed by estimating and comparing the mean effect sizes separately for youth and adults. The mixed-effects model was also used to assess gender—a continuous variable represented by percentage of females in the sample—as a potential moderator in our study. In this instance, the contribution of a continuous predictor (gender) to

explain the variability in effect sizes was evaluated on the basis of the significance of Qmodel, which followed the chi-square distribution with a degree of freedom (i.e., number of predictor). We also evaluated the significance of the estimated slope, which delineated the average change in effect size for a one-unit change in the predictor. A significant finding in either of these cases indicated that gender was a significant moderator in the relationship among our variables of interest.
All of these statistical analyses (overall effects and moderator analyses) were performed separately for three links associating the study variables—racial discrimination, racial identity/ethnic identity/racial socialization, and distress—in the subsequent analyses:
(a) correlations between racial discrimination and psychological distress (Link a); (b) correlations between racial discrimination and racial/ethnic identity/racial socialization (Link b); and (c) correlations between racial identity/ethnic identity/racial socialization, and psychological distress (Link c). Results for each Link a–Link c are presented separately in the Results section.
Finally, in order to address each of our research questions, we had to account for differences in how racial identity, ethnic identity, and racial socialization were examined in the literature, using either facet or total scores. Thus, in addressing our first question of how racial identity, ethnic identity, and racial socialization may relate differently to discrimination– distress, we examined the relationships among discrimination and distress and the facets of racial identity (because no overall scores were reported), the total scores of ethnic identity, and the total scores of racial socialization.
In instances in which facet scores were examined for racial socialization, we averaged effect sizes related to these facets to represent a total score. For each study containing ethnic identity, only one score was used to represent the relations among ethnic identity and discrimination– distress; thus, no aggregation was necessary.
In order to answer our second research question of how different facets of racial/ethnic identity relate to discrimination– distress, we examined the different facets of racial socialization. No other analyses were necessary because differences in facets of racial identity were accounted for by addressing our first question, and there were no facets associated with ethnic identity for Black
Americans. Lastly, in order to address our third question of how measure differences may account for the variances in results in the relation among discrimination– distress and racial/ethnic identity and socialization, we examined differences in relations among variables for each of the various measures used to assess these constructs. Results
Description of Studies
There were 28 independent samples from 27 included studies because Ragsdale (2000) contained two independent samples by providing study findings by gender. A total of 129 correlation coefficients (rs) were extracted from these 28 samples, which consisted of 16 rs representing the relationship between racial discrimination and psychological distress (Link a), 70 rs representing the relationship between racial discrimination and racial/ethnic identity and socialization (Link b), and 43 rs representing the relationship between racial/ethnic identity and socialization and psychological distress (Link c).

RACIAL IDENTITY AND DISCRIMINATION–DISTRESS

The included 27 studies were published between 1991 and 2010.
Sample sizes varied from 56 to 586 (M 218.96, SD 146.61), yielding a total 6,131 participants included in the current metaanalysis. The mean age of participants ranged from 11.32 to 45 years old (M
25.18, SD
11.29). Among the 28 independent samples, eight exclusively focused on children or adolescents under the mean age of 16 years old (whom we refer to as youth), and the remaining were based on older adolescents or adults
(whom we refer to as adults). Of a total 6,131participants from 28 independent samples, females (women/girls) represented 51%, whereas males (men/boys) represented 49%. All except for six studies reported participants’ ethnic background as African American. These six studies (i.e., Franklin, 2002; Jones, 2005; Jones et al., 2007; J. L. Miller, 2000; Pieterse & Carter, 2010; Watts &
Carter, 1991) reported the composition of different ethnic groups within the study sample. The total number of participants not identifying as African American was 179, or 2.9% of our overall sample, including 29 identifying as West Indian, 41 as American, five as Black, 84 as Caribbean, 16 as African, and four as biracial.
No information was provided as to whether these participants were born in the United States or elsewhere. See Table 1 in the supplemental materials for more details regarding the study characteristics of each included study.

Publication Bias
Although our meta-analysis was based on both published studies and dissertations, as a safeguard we assessed whether publication bias was likely to be problematic in our sample of studies in two ways: the funnel plot and Egger’s regression test. First, a scatterplot of sample size against effect size (often referred to as a funnel plot in meta-analysis) is considered a useful tool for examining potential publication bias (Sutton, 2009). The premise is that, when

7

no publication bias exists, effect sizes show symmetric distribution around the true mean effect size, with more variability from studies with smaller sample sizes than studies with larger sample sizes.
Thus, a scatterplot resembling a funnel is an indication that publication bias is unlikely. In the current study, the scatterplot of 129 effect sizes against sample sizes did indeed resemble a funnel, indicating that publication bias was unlikely to be problematic in the included studies.
Egger’s regression test of intercept (Sutton, 2009) is a method of assessing publication bias that statistically examines the symmetry of the relationship between effect sizes and sample size. For the current study, this test was found to be insignificant for the total 129 extracted rs from 28 independent samples, t(127) 0.86, p .39, further indicating no potential threat due to publication bias in our sample of studies. For more information regarding each of these tests of publication bias, please refer to Sutton (2009).

Overall Relationships Among Variables by Construct
Results from the statistical analyses examining the correlations among racial discrimination, racial identity/ethnic identity/racial socialization, and psychological distress are displayed in Table 3 in the supplemental materials and Figure 1.
Racial discrimination and psychological distress. Using 16 effect sizes, the overall relationship between racial discrimination and psychological distress (Link a) was computed under the random-effects model, with the additional between-study variability ( ˆ 2) of 0.017. The estimated overall effect was statistically
.21), with a 95% confidence interval of .18 and significant (r
.24. This result indicated that racial discrimination was significantly and positively related to psychological distress, showing a

Figure 1. Correlations among racial discrimination, racial/ethnic identity and socialization, and psychological distress. Multicult. Multicultural. p .05. p .01.

8

LEE AND AHN

small to medium effect (4.4% of total variance shared between racial discrimination and psychological distress).
Racial discrimination and racial identity/ethnic identity/ racial socialization. From a total of 70 correlations representing the relationship between racial discrimination and racial identity/ ethnic identity/racial socialization (Link b), the correlations significantly differed depending on the construct (facets of racial identity, ethnic identity, or racial socialization), QB(7)
239.07,
p .01, where B indicates between study. Under the mixed-effects model, racial discrimination showed significant and positive relationships with encounter (r
.24), immersion-emersion/antiWhite (r
.29), Afrocentricity/racial centrality/private regard (r
.20), public regard (r
.24), internalization (r
.05), and racial socialization (r .17). This indicates that Black Americans who perceived more racial discrimination scored higher in these aspects of racial identity and socialization. However, racial discrimination and public regard resulted in a significant and negative relationship, indicating that those who perceived greater levels of racial discrimination were less likely to believe that others saw
Black Americans positively. Their magnitudes of relations ranged from small (i.e., 1% of variance shared with Afrocentricity/racial centrality/private regard; 3% of variance shared with racial socialization) to moderate (6% of variance shared with encounter and public regard; 8% of variance shared with immersion-emersion/ anti-White). The relationships between racial discrimination and preencounter/assimilation, internalization/multiculturalist, and ethnic identity were not found to be significant.
Post hoc comparisons using Bonferonni adjustment, which aims to control Type I error rate at a preset alpha level ( ) of .05
(Hedges, 1994), were performed. Post hoc comparisons at the alpha level of .002 (
.05/21 pairs of comparison) were conducted to examine whether there were significant differences in the correlations between racial discrimination and each of the racial/ ethnic identity and socialization variables.2 The results indicated that the relation of racial discrimination to immersion-emersion/ anti-White is statistically higher than the relation of discrimination to Afrocentricity/racial centrality/private regard (z
4.71, p
.001), preencounter/assimilation (z
5.19, p
.001), and internalization/multiculturalist/minority (z 6.65, p .001). In addition, the relationship between racial discrimination and encounter was statistically higher than preencounter/assimilation (z
3.59,
p
.001) and internalization/multiculturalist/minority (z
3.80,
p
.001). Lastly, the relation of racial discrimination to public regard was statistically higher than to preencounter/assimilation
(z
3.59, p
.001) and internalization/multiculturalist/minority
(z
3.80, p
.001). Aside from these differences, no other relationships between racial discrimination and racial/ethnic identity and socialization were significantly different when compared with one another.
Racial identity/ethnic identity/racial socialization and psychological distress. From a total of 43 effects representing the relationship between racial identity/ethnic identity/racial socialization and psychological distress (Link c), the estimated average correlations were significantly different depending on the construct (facets of racial identity, ethnic identity, and racial socialization), QB(7) 94.89, p .01. Under the mixed-effects model, preencounter/assimilation (r .14) and encounter (r .14) were significantly and positively related to psychological distress, indicating that Black Americans who had scored higher in pre-

encounter/assimilation and encounter reported more psychological distress. The magnitudes of relations were small to medium for preencounter/assimilation and encounter (2% of shared variance).
Furthermore, Afrocentricity/racial centrality/private regard was significantly related to lower levels of psychological distress (r
.04), showing a small effect (.01% of shared variance). Lastly, individuals who believed others to hold more positive views about
Black Americans in general (public regard) scored significantly lower in psychological distress (r
.11), showing a small effect
(1% of shared variance). Internalization/multiculturalist/minority, racial socialization, and ethnic identity were not found to have significant correlations with psychological distress.
Post hoc analyses using Bonferroni adjustments were conducted to determine whether the relationship between psychological distress and each of the racial/ethnic identity and socialization variables were significantly different from one another. The results indicated that the relationship between preencounter/assimilation and psychological distress was statistically higher than the relations between Afrocentricity/racial centrality/private regard (z
6.93, p
.001) to psychological distress. There were no other statistically significant differences in the relationships in these relations. Differences in Relationships by Measure
In addition to examining construct differences in the relationship among racial discrimination, racial/ethnic identity and socialization, and distress, we also examined the measure of racial/ethnic identity and socialization as a moderator in these relationships.
Table 3 and Figure 2 in the online Appendix display the results from the statistical analyses examining the correlations among racial discrimination, racial/ethnic identity and socialization, and psychological distress by different measures. In cases in which only one measure or construct captured the particular type of racial/ethnic identity and socialization (i.e., encounter for Link b and Link c and public regard for Link c), there were no further analyses of measure differences, and thus no graphical display of these relationships in Figure 2.
Racial discrimination and racial/ethnic identity and socialization. The relationship between racial discrimination and some aspects of racial/ethnic identity and socialization were found to differ significantly depending on the measure used to capture these constructs. Specifically, the relation of racial discrimination to Afrocentricity/racial centrality/private regard,
QB(3) 18.13, p .01; public regard, QB(1) 41.66, p .01; and racial socialization, QB(1)
3.42, p
.01, significantly differed by measure. First, racial discrimination was significantly and positively related to Afrocentricity/racial centrality/private regard when assessed by the CRIS (r
.33) and other measures
(r
.29), but was not significant when measured by the MIBI.
Second, the relation between racial discrimination and public regard was significantly higher when measured by the MIBI than when it was measured by a researcher-made assessment, QB(1)
41.66, p .01. Third, a significantly higher correlation, QB(1)
3.42, p
.01, between racial discrimination and racial socialization was found when TERS/PERS was used to measure racial
2
The absolute magnitude of correlations for preencounter and public regard were used for comparisons.

RACIAL IDENTITY AND DISCRIMINATION–DISTRESS

socialization (r
.22), compared with when “other” measures were used to measure racial socialization (r .13).
Measure differences were not significant for the relationships between racial discrimination and preencounter/assimilation, immersion-emersion/anti-White, or internalization/multiculturalist/ minority. Therefore, specific comparisons were not made between the measures. Lastly, the relationship between racial discrimination and encounter and racial discrimination and ethnic identity were only measured using one measure, and thus no measurement differences could be assessed.
Racial identity/ethnic identity/racial socialization and distress. The relationship between aspects of racial identity and psychological distress, and racial socialization and distress, were also found to differ depending on the measure. First, the relationships between preencounter/assimilation and psychological distress were significantly different depending on the measure,
QB(3) 13.63, p .01. Preencounter/assimilation as measured by the CRIS showed a statistically significant and positive relationship to psychological distress (r
.14), as did preencounter/ assimilation measured by the RIAS-B (r
.21) and an “other” measure (r
.21). Preencounter/assimilation as measured by the
MIBI, however, was not statistically significant.
Second, the overall effect between Afrocentricity/racial centrality/ private regard and psychological distress was significantly different depending on the measure, QB(3)
34.74, p
.01. Particularly, Afrocentricity/racial centrality/private regard showed significant and negative relations to psychological distress when assessed by the MIBI (r
.15), but it showed a significant and positive relation when assessed by the CRIS (r .15). The results also indicated no statistically significant relations between Afrocentricity/racial centrality/private regard and psychological distress when “other” (r .03) or researcher-made items (r .002) were used. Third, internalization/multiculturalist/minority had different relationships with psychological distress, depending on the measures, QB(2) 17.18, p .01. Specifically, this subcategory was found to be significantly related to psychological distress when measured by the RIAS-B (r
.23), but not when measured by the MIBI (r
.04) or CRIS (r
.04). Lastly, no comparisons by specific measure were investigated for the overall relations of immersion-emersion/anti-White or racial socialization to psychological distress because no significant variations by measure type were found. Furthermore, no comparisons were made for measure differences in the relationship between public regard and psychological distress, as this relationship was only measured by the MIBI.

Examination of Potential Demographic Moderators
In addition to examining conceptual and measurement differences in how racial/ethnic identity and socialization related to racial discrimination and distress, we intended to examine the potential moderating role of three demographic variables: age, gender, and SES. Because no samples provided effect sizes by
SES, we were unable to examine how our results may have differed by SES. However, we examined both age and gender.
Age differences. For Link a, the relationship between racial discrimination and psychological distress was found to be significantly moderated by age. Results showed that this relationship was significantly higher for children (r .25) than for adults (r .18).

9

For Link b and Link c, age was not found to be a significant moderator (most of the variations in relationships were accounted for by construct and measure differences), with five exceptions.
Age was found to significantly moderate the relationships between
(a) racial discrimination and Afrocentricity/racial centrality/private regard, (b) Afrocentricity/racial centrality/private regard and psychological distress, (c) racial discrimination and racial socialization, (d) racial discrimination and ethnic identity, and (e) ethnic identity and psychological distress. Whereas the relationship between racial discrimination and Afrocentricity/racial centrality/ private regard was significantly higher for adults (r
.18) than children (r
.04), the opposite was true for the relationship between Afrocentricity/racial centrality/private regard and psychological distress in that children (r
.14) scored significantly higher than adults (r
.003). With respect to the relationship between racial discrimination and racial socialization, adults (r
.23) were found to score significantly higher than children (r
.13). Finally, the relationship between racial discrimination and ethnic identity was higher for children (r .14) than adults (r
.03), whereas the opposite was true for the relationship between ethnic identity and psychological distress, showing higher scores for adults (r
.34) than children (r
.02). No other relationships were significantly moderated by age.
Gender differences. The only relationship that demonstrated significant gender differences was Link c, the relationship between racial identity and distress, when racial identity was measured by preencounter/assimilation, Qmodel(1) 4.26, p .04, or by Afrocentricity/racial centrality/private regard, Qmodel(1)
8.57, p
.01. In particular, our results indicated that the mean relationship between racial identity and distress when measured by preencounter/assimilation significantly decreases by .09 standard deviations as the percentage of females increases (b
.09, SE .09, z
2.06). Similarly, we found that the mean relationship between racial identity and Afrocentricity/racial centrality/private regard decreases by .40 standard deviations as the percentage of females increases (b
.40, SE .14, z
2.93).

Discussion
The purpose of our study was to quantitatively synthesize the relations of racial/ethnic identity and socialization to discrimination and distress for Black Americans in an effort to gain a cohesive understanding of how different facets of these variables relate to discrimination and distress. All eight facets of these variables were found to be significant with either racial discrimination, psychological distress, or both. We also examined whether the relationships among these variables were significantly different depending on the measures used, and indeed we found some instances in which this was the case. Thus, our findings underscored the importance of taking into account conceptual as well as measurement differences when investigating the relationship among racial discrimination, racial/ethnic identity and socialization, and psychological distress for Black Americans. Lastly, we examined whether age and gender would relate to the relations among these variables and found that this was true only for some of the relationships. Due to insufficient data from primary studies, we were unable to examine socioeconomic differences in the relations among these variables.

10

LEE AND AHN

Our results underscore the importance of taking into consideration the fact that racial identity, ethnic identity, and racial socialization are distinct constructs and that they relate to racial discrimination and psychological distress differently. Whereas ethnic identity (for our overall sample) did not relate to either racial discrimination or psychological distress, most facets of racial identity related to both racial discrimination and distress. Furthermore, racial socialization was found to be significantly related to racial discrimination, but not distress. As a whole, our findings support the hypothesis that several facets of racial identity and socialization may be related, either directly or indirectly, to increased distress related to discrimination. In particular, people who report greater affiliation or sense of belonging with Black Americans (higher immersion-emersion/anti-White, Afrocentricity/racial centrality/private regard, and racial socialization) were more likely to perceive experiences of discrimination. Hence, these aspects of racial identity and socialization are indirectly associated with greater discrimination-based distress, because increased discrimination is directly linked with distress. This hypothesis has been posited and supported in past research; those who more closely identify with their oppressed minority group are more likely to perceive discrimination experiences than those who identify less (Operario & Fiske, 2001; Sellers & Shelton, 2003).
Furthermore, preencounter/assimilation attitudes also appeared to be directly related to distress, as the greater preencounter/assimilation attitudes, the more discrimination-linked distress. Both encounter and immersion-emersion, however, were found to be related to both racial discrimination and distress, and thus support the hypotheses that both may directly and indirectly exacerbate distress. Our results also indicate that one facet of racial identity may offer a potential buffering role in the discrimination-linked distress, that is, public regard. Public regard was found to be negatively related to both racial discrimination and psychological distress, indicating that the more positively Black Americans believe others to view members of their own race, the less distress they are likely to report in relation to discrimination. Our findings seem to counter Sellers and Shelton’s (2003) conclusions that individuals who expect others to view African Americans negatively do not experience as much distress when perceiving discrimination because this experience would align with their worldview, versus those who expect others to view and treat African Americans positively. We believe the difference in our conclusions rests in the fact that Sellers and Shelton (2003) conducted a longitudinal study and thus were able to capture moderation effects, whereas our findings are inferred from correlation-based data stemming from cross-sectional designs. We conclude, therefore, that our findings merely provide a descriptive snapshot of the overall literature, and that in general public regard is negatively related to psychological distress (as is also evident in the correlations provided in Sellers and Shelton’s study), which does not discount the possible buffering effects that public regard may offer in the discrimination– distress link.
Our results regarding the role of Afrocentricity/racial centrality/ private regard in the discrimination– distress link is inconclusive, as our findings support hypotheses that this facet may serve to buffer and/or exacerbate. Afrocentricity/racial centrality/private regard was found to be significantly and positively related to racial discrimination, and significantly and negatively associated with

psychological distress. This aligns with prior arguments in the literature that those who experience discrimination may be more inclined to reach out to similar others, and vice versa, those who are more closely affiliated with members of their own racial group may be more likely to perceived incidences of racial discrimination. Because we did not assess causation, our data are limited in deciphering which is the more likely explanation. Furthermore, those who are more affiliated with members of their racial group are less likely to report experiencing distress. As mentioned previously, ingroup affiliation may serve to protect individuals from internalizing negative self-concepts resulting from experiences of racial discrimination, as well as offering individuals with significant others to process their experiences and provide a sense of belonging (Pascoe & Richman, 2009). More research, particularly those that are longitudinal in nature, are needed to better understand how this particular facet of racial identity may function to buffer and/or exacerbate the link between discrimination and distress.
In addition to clarifying how different facets of racial/ethnic identity and socialization may relate to racial discrimination and distress in the overall literature for Black Americans, we also investigated whether these relationships differed significantly by the measures used to assess these various facets. Although we found significant measure differences in several of our relationships among racial discrimination, racial/ethnic identity and socialization, and psychological distress, these measure differences did not appear to affect our overall conclusions regarding these relationships. We found significant measure differences among the established racial identity measures (RIAS-B, CRIS, MIBI); however, there did not appear to be a pattern in which any one of these measures was found to more consistently relate to racial discrimination and distress. For instance, the relationship between racial discrimination and Afrocentricity/racial centrality/private regard was significant when measured by the CRIS, but not when measured by the
MIBI. Yet, the relationship between racial discrimination and internalization/multiculturalist/minority was significant when measured by the MIBI, but not when measured by the CRIS or
RIAS-B. The fact that one racial identity measure was not found to consistently relate to discrimination and distress is surprising, given the fact that the internal reliability of the measure subscales vary widely from unacceptable (such as .62 for the Preencounter subscale of the RIAS-B) to acceptable (such as .83 for the Assimilation subscale of the CRIS). In fact, Cokley (2007) recommended that the CRIS be used over the RAIS-B due to the less than acceptable reliability of the latter.
According to Hedges and Olkin (1985), the degree to which a measure represents the underlying construct is dependent on its reliability value, based on classical test theory. Thus, a measure with lower reliability does not represent the underlying construct as well as one with higher reliability. We therefore suspected that measures with lower reliability would represent the construct of racial identity less well, and thus may be less likely to relate to discrimination and distress as hypothesized. The fact that we found measure differences unrelated to the reliability of the measures and subscales indicate the need for further refined research explicating how these measures directly compare with one another, both conceptually and psychometrically. For example, it is quite possible that— even though the construct of Afrocentricity (as measured

RACIAL IDENTITY AND DISCRIMINATION–DISTRESS

by the CRIS) overlaps with racial centrality and private regard (as measured by the MIBI)—there are aspects of the Afrocentricity subscale that are not captured as substantively by racial centrality and private regard that allows this construct to relate significantly to racial discrimination. By more closely discerning the conceptual similarities and differences among these racial identity subscales, as well as attending to the reliabilities of these measurements, researchers will be able to gain a more nuanced understanding of how each of these aspects of racial identity relate to discrimination and distress.
Although we did not find significant patterns in relation to the established racial/ethnic identity and socialization measures, we did note that variables measured by an “other” or researcher-made measure tended to result in effect sizes lesser in magnitude than those obtained with establish measures. Two exceptions were the effect sizes between racial discrimination and Afrocentricity/racial centrality/private regard and between preencounter/assimilation and psychological distress. In both of these cases, the “other” measure was significant, whereas a more established measure (the
MIBI) was not. Aside from this, the “other,” or researcher-made measures were either not significant or were lesser in magnitude than the established measures. Thus, our results highlight that it may be important for researchers to choose one of the established measures of racial identity when examining these constructs in relation to discrimination– distress.
In addition to conceptual and measurement differences, we found that the demographic variables of age and gender also significantly moderated some of the relationships among discrimination, racial/ethnic identity and socialization, and distress. In particular, the relationship between racial discrimination and psychological distress appeared to be greater for children than adults.
We hypothesize that adults may have more effective coping mechanisms than youth to better assist them in mitigating the negative effects of racial discrimination. However, this is beyond the scope of our current study, and we recommend that future studies examine this important topic in relation to the broader literature on racial discrimination and distress for Black Americans.
We also found that the relationship between racial discrimination and racial socialization was found to be significantly higher for adults than for youth. This finding is interesting in that it seems to indicate that adults who have been socialized as children to recognize racial realities may be more likely to acknowledge racial discrimination as an adult. For youth, however, this racial socialization process does not appear to be as strong or immediate in translating to perceptions of racial discrimination. Alternatively, it is also quite possible that since adults have had more experiences in general than youth, that they have also encountered greater incidences of racial discrimination and therefore report perceiving more racial discrimination than youth relative to their socialization experiences. Whereas the positive relationship between racial discrimination and Afrocentricity/racial centrality/private regard was significantly higher for adults than youth, the negative relationship between
Afrocentricity/racial centrality/private regard and psychological distress was significantly greater for youth. We interpret this finding to mean that whereas the ties that adults have with the
Black community may make them more susceptible or likely to perceive or experience racial discrimination than youth, youth actually may benefit more than adults from their associations with

11

the Black community. Thus, our findings underscore the importance of considering age when conceptualizing how racial identity and socialization relates to discrimination and distress. Whereas the patterns of these relations are similar for youth and adults, the extent to which they may respond and benefit from the different facets of racial identity and socialization may vary.
In addition to racial identity, we found significant age differences in how ethnic identity relates to racial discrimination and distress. Although our results from the overall sample seemed to indicate that ethnic identity was not as salient of a construct in relation to discrimination– distress, the relationship between racial discrimination and ethnic identity was significant for youth but not adults, and conversely, the relationship between ethnic identity and distress was significant for adults but not youth. This seems to indicate that youth who have stronger cultural ties with their community appear to have higher perceptions of racial discrimination. However, close cultural ties with the community does not seem to be related to distress for youth. For adults, stronger cultural ties are not related to increased perceptions of racial discrimination, but are related to lesser distress. This pattern seems to be opposite that of the Afrocentricity/racial centrality/private regard and discrimination– distress, as mentioned above. We are unsure of exactly why these results may be opposite for Afrocentricity/racial centrality/private regard and ethnic identity, given the seeming similarities between these constructs. It is possible that the focus on race for the racial identity facet and ethnicity for ethnic identity may explain the contradictory results. Our findings do seem to indicate the need for more research regarding how these aspects of racial identity and ethnic identity relate to discrimination– distress, and the need to consider age differences in these relationships.
Finally, we found that the relationship between two facets of racial identity (preencounter/assimilation and Afrocentricity/racial centrality/private regard) and distress significantly decrease as the percentage of females increase in the study sample. Thus, it appears that the relationship between these two aspects of racial identity and distress may not be as pronounced for women as for men. With respect to preencounter/assimilation, Black American women adopting racial identity attitudes consistent with this facet may not experience the same type of distress as their male counterparts. However, Black American women may also not receive the same type of benefits (i.e., less distress) as Black American men from endorsing attitudes related to Afrocentricity/racial centrality/private regard as men. We are uncertain as to the cause for these differences between men and women; however, based on our results, we believe that future research targeting the intersection of these aspects of racial identity (preencounter and Afrocentricity) along with discrimination– distress are clearly necessary.

Limitations
Because we relied on correlational data in the current study, we were unable to assess specific hypotheses regarding causation.
Thus, we were not able to ascertain whether racial discrimination leads to greater affiliation with the Black American community or whether greater affiliation with the Black American community may increase perceptions of discrimination. For instance, it is possible that Black Americans who experience racial discrimination are more likely to seek out support and comfort from the

12

LEE AND AHN

Black community, that is, others who also experience the same type of marginalization as they do (Helms, 1993). Alternatively, it is possible that Black Americans who affiliate with the Black community may engage in certain stigmatized behaviors that may increase their likelihood of being discriminated against, which may in turn increase their perceptions of racial discrimination (Tatum,
2003; White & Cones, 1999). As mentioned earlier, in an effort to discern the directionality in which different facets of racial identity relate to discrimination– distress, Sellers and Shelton (2003) conducted a longitudinal study and supported their proposed model specifying one facet of racial identity (i.e., racial centrality) as a precursor to racial discrimination, and another facet (i.e., public regard) as a moderator between discrimination and distress. However, further research is needed to examine how the other aspects of racial/ethnic identity and socialization uncovered in this metaanalysis may act as precursors, moderators, or mediators in the link between discrimination and distress. Again, longitudinal investigations are preferable because they allow causation to be discerned.
Another potential limitation in our study is that we developed subcategories of racial identity variables by using inductive methods (from the ground level up), based on suggestions by Wilson
(2009), which are often used in meta-analysis literature. Of course, there are other potential ways in which variables related to group identification may have been clustered that might have resulted in slightly different findings. For instance, Cokley (2002, 2005) introduced the term internalized racialism into the counseling psychology literature, differentiating this construct from internalized racism, to describe a process whereby individuals internalize both negative and positive stereotypes of African Americans. Because we were not interested in this construct in particular, we did not base our categorization of racial identity using this construct.
However, we acknowledge that in the future, researchers may wish to assess theoretically driven (as opposed to empirically derived) constructs of racial identity and how they may relate to racial discrimination and distress. Instead, our current goal was to synthesize the literature that we found regarding the different aspects of racial/ethnic identity and socialization, starting from the ground level (i.e., item or subscale level) and working up to higher order subcategories. Implications for Future Research and
Clinical Endeavors
On the basis of our findings, there are several implications regarding future research and practice in the area of racial discrimination and distress. In terms of research, we believe that an important next step in this literature is to assess a causal model that considers all facets of racial/ethnic identity and socialization so that researchers could identify which facets serve as precursors and which serve as moderators in the discrimination– distress link, similar to the Sellers and Shelton (2003) study described above. It is important for counseling psychologist to have an empirically driven theoretical framework from which to base future research and interventions in this area.
For those who are interested in continuing to research racial/ ethnic identity and socialization variables in relation to discrimination and distress, it is critical to keep in mind that some measure differences were significant. Several of our findings indicated that

measures that are established, in general, fared better than “other,” or researcher-made measures in capturing the relationships among racial discrimination, racial identity, and distress. Furthermore, we believe it is important for counseling psychology researchers to clearly identify the different facets of racial identity, ethnic identity, or racial socialization they intend to examine and to use measures that parallel their goals. Lastly, our findings of significant measurement differences underscore the need for more targeted studies explicating how the various racial/ethnic identity and socialization measures and subscales compare with one another, both conceptually and psychometrically, in how they relate to discrimination and distress.
The results of this study highlight the important role that counseling psychologists may play in combating the negative consequences of discrimination on Black American mental health. Our results support conclusions that Black Americans who adopt positive views about their race, have stronger ties with the Black
American community, and are in advanced statuses of racial identity development (internalization) are less likely to report distress in relation to discrimination. Strong affiliations with the Black
American community (greater Afrocentricity/racial centrality) were found to be particularly important for youth, as these factors were significantly related to less discrimination-related distress.
Therefore, consistent with the theoretical literature (Thompson &
Carter, 1997), it may be helpful for counseling psychologists to promote clients’ connections with the Black American community and facilitate racial identity development. It is important for counseling psychologists to keep in mind that with advancement in racial identity development and an increased sense of belongingness to the Black American community also comes the probability of increased perceptions of racial discrimination experiences, which may indirectly increase the likelihood of distress. However, our findings suggest that individuals higher in preencounter/assimilation and color-blind attitudes also report greater distress.
Lastly, our results support the possibility that it may be important for counseling psychologists to also challenge clients who solely view others as having negative perceptions of Black Americans. Furthermore, it may be beneficial for clients to associate with individuals from other races who hold favorable views of
Black Americans and who are allies, as our results indicate this is associated with decreased distress in relation to discrimination experiences. The timing of such an intervention and the consideration of individual differences, particularly that of racial identity development, must be considered before this intervention is deemed appropriate for a client. Furthermore, all of these clinical suggestions should be tested empirically, as they are based on the assumption that the relationships among these variables are causal in nature, which, as mentioned, is beyond the scope of the current study. However, our results provide a solid foundation for researchers and clinicians to further explore how to best assist Black
Americans in combating the negative effects of racial discrimination.

References
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis. Arroyo, C. G., & Zigler, E. (1995). Racial identity, academic achievement, and the psychological well-being of economically disadvantaged ado-

RACIAL IDENTITY AND DISCRIMINATION–DISTRESS lescents. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 903–914. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.903 Ashburn-Nardo, L., Monteith, M. J., Arthur, S. A., & Bain, A. (2007).
Race and the psychological health of African Americans. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10, 471– 491. doi:10.1177/
1368430207081536
Becker, B. J. (2000). Multivariate meta-analysis. In H. E. A. Tinsley & S.
Brown (Eds.), Handbook of applied and multivariate statistics and mathematical modeling (pp. 499 –525). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-012691360-6/50018-5 Berkel, C., Murry, V. M., Hurt, T. R., Chen, Y.-f., Brody, G. H., Simons,
R. L., . . . Gibbons, F. X. (2009). It takes a village: Protecting rural
African American youth in the context of racism. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 38, 175–188. doi:10.1007/s10964-008-9346-z
Borenstein, M. (2009). Effect sizes for continuous data. In H. M. Cooper,
L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 221–235) .New York, NY:
Russell Sage Foundation.
Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt, M. T., & Harvey, R. D. (1999). Perceiving pervasive discrimination among African Americans: Implications for group identification and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 77, 135–149. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.1.135
Brondolo, E., Brady ver Halen, N., Pencille, M., Beatty, D. L., & Contrada,
R. J. (2009). Coping with racism: A selective review of the literature and a theoretical and methodological critique. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 32, 64 – 88. doi:10.1007/s10865-008-9193-0
Bynum, M. S., Burton, E. T., & Best, C. (2007). Racism experiences and psychological functioning in African American college freshmen: Is racial socialization a buffer? Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority
Psychology, 13, 64 –71. doi:10.1037/1099-9809.13.1.64
Clark, R., Anderson, N. B., Clark, V. R., & Williams, D. R. (1999). Racism as a stressor for African Americans. American Psychologist, 54, 805–
816. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.10.805
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cokley, K. (2002). Testing Cross’s revised racial identity model: An examination of the relationship between racial identity and internalized racialism. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49, 476 – 483. doi:
10.1037/0022-0167.49.4.476
Cokley, K. (2005). Racial(ized) identity, ethnic identity, and Afrocentric values: Conceptual and methodological challenges in understanding
African American identity. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 517–
526. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.4.517
Cokley, K. (2007). Critical issues in the measurement of ethnic and racial identity: A referendum on the state of the field. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 54, 224 –234. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.54.3.224
Cooper, H. M. (2009). Research synthesis and meta-analysis. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cooper, H. M., Hedges, L. V., & Valentine, J. C. (2009). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Russel
Sage Foundation.
Cross, W. E., Jr., & Vandiver, B. J. (2001). Nigrescence theory and measurement: Introducing the Cross Racial Identity Scale (CRIS). In
J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.),
Handbook of multicultural counseling (2nd ed., pp. 371–393). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
DuBois, D. L., Burk-Braxton, C., Swenson, L. P., Tevendale, H. D., &
Hardesty, J. L. (2002). Race and gender influences on adjustment in early adolescence: Investigation of an integrative model. Child Development, 73, 1573–1592. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00491
Franklin, D. C. (2002). Racism related stress, racial identity and psychological health for Blacks in America (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Columbia University, New York, NY.

13

Hedges, L. V. (1994). Fixed effects models. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges
(Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (1st ed., pp. 285–299). New
York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis.
Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Helms, J. E. (1993). An overview of Black racial identity theory. In J. E.
Helms (Ed.), Black and White racial identity (pp. 9 –32). Westport, CT:
Praeger Publishers.
Helms, J. E. (2007). Some better practices for measuring racial and ethnic identity constructs. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54, 235–246. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.54.3.235 Hughes, D., & Johnson, D. J. (2001). Correlates in children’s experiences of parents’ racial socialization behaviors. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 63, 981–995. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00981.x
Jones, H. L. (2005). Experiencing, appraising and coping with racerelated stress: Black women living in New York City (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The City University of New York.
Jones, H. L., Cross, W. E., Jr., & DeFour, D. C. (2007). Race-related stress, racial identity attitudes, and mental health among Black women.
Journal of Black Psychology, 33, 208 –231. doi:10.1177/
0095798407299517
Kessler, R. C., Mickelson, K. D., & Williams, D. R. (1999). The prevalence, distribution, and mental health correlates of perceived discrimination in the United States. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 40,
208 –230. doi:10.2307/2676349
Klonoff, E. A., & Landrine, H. (2000). Revising and improving the African
American Acculturation Scale. Journal of Black Psychology, 26, 235–
261.
Miller, D. B., & MacIntosh, R. (1999). Promoting resilience in urban
African American adolescents: Racial socialization and identity as protective factors. Social Work Research, 23, 159 –169. doi:10.1093/swr/
23.3.159
Miller, J. L. (2000). Understanding achievement attribution and achievement motivation among African American youth: Racism, racial socialization, and spirituality (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). California
School of Professional Psychology, Los Angeles.
Neblett, E. W., Jr., White, R. L., Ford, K. R., Philip, C. L., Nguyén, H. X.,
& Sellers, R. M. (2008). Patterns of racial socialization and psychological adjustment: Can parental communications about race reduce the impact of racial discrimination? Journal of Research on Adolescence,
18, 477–515. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2008.00568.x
Ong, A., Phinney, J., & Dennis, J. (2006). Competence under challenge:
Exploring the protective influence of parental support and ethnic identity in Latino college students. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 961–979. doi:
10.1016/j.adolescence.2006.04.010
Operario, D., & Fiske, S. (2001). Ethnic identity moderates perceptions of prejudice: Judgments of personal versus group discrimination and subtle versus blatant bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27,
550 –561. doi:10.1177/0146167201275004
Pascoe, E. A., & Richman, L. S. (2009). Perceived discrimination and health: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 531–554. doi:10.1037/a0016059 Phelps, R. E., & Day, J. D. (1990). Ethnicity Questionnaire [Unpublished instrument]. Athens: University of Georgia.
Phinney, J. S. (1992). The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure: A new scale for use with diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7,
156 –176. doi:10.1177/074355489272003
Phinney, J. S. (1996). When we talk about American ethnic groups, what do we mean? American Psychologist, 51, 918 –927. doi:10.1037/0003066X.51.9.918
Pieterse, A. L., & Carter, R. T. (2010). The role of racial identity in perceived racism and psychological stress among Black American adults: Exploring traditional and alternative approaches. Journal of

14

LEE AND AHN

Applied Social Psychology, 40, 1028 –1053. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816
.2010.00609.x
Pieterse, A. L., Todd, N. R., Neville, H. A., & Carter, R. T. (2012).
Perceived racism and mental health among Black American adults: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59, 1–9. doi:
10.1037/a0026208
Pope-Davis, D., Liu, W. M., Ledesma-Jones, S., & Nevitt, J. (2000).
African American acculturation and Black racial identity: A preliminary investigation. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development,
28, 98 –112. doi:10.1002/j.2161-1912.2000.tb00610.x
Quintana, S. M. (2007). Racial and ethnic identity: Developmental perspectives and research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54, 259 –270. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.54.3.259 Quintana, S. M., & Minimi, T. (2006). Guidelines for meta-analyses of counseling psychology research. The Counseling Psychologist, 34, 839 –
877. doi:10.1177/0011000006286991
Ragsdale, B. L. (2000). African American identity, experience with racism, and meaning in life among Black college students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Rhode Island.
Raudenbush, S. W. (2009). Analyzing effect sizes: Random-effects models. In B. S. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 295–
316). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Resnicow, K., & Ross-Gaddy, D. (1997). Development of a racial identity scale for low-income African Americans. Journal of Black Studies, 28,
239 –254.
Rivas-Drake, D., Hughes, D., & Way, N. (2008). A closer look at peer discrimination, ethnic identity, and psychological well-being among urban Chinese American sixth graders. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 12–21. doi:10.1007/s10964-007-9227-x
Rollins, V. B. (2001). Perceived racism and career self-efficacy in African
American adolescents (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of
Denver.
Rollins, V. B., & Valdez, J. N. (2006). Perceived racism and career self-efficacy in African American adolescents. Journal of Black Psychology, 32, 176 –198. doi:10.1177/0095798406287109
Scott, L. D. (2003). Cultural orientation and coping with perceived discrimination among African American youth. Journal of Black Psychology, 29, 235–256. doi:10.1177/0095798403254213
Scott, L. D. (2004). Correlates of coping with perceived discriminatory experiences among African American adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 123–137. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2003.11.005
Scott, L. D., & House, L. E. (2005). Relationship of distress and perceived control to coping with perceived racial discrimination among Black youth. Journal of Black Psychology, 31, 254 –272. doi:10.1177/
0095798405278494
Sellers, R. M., Copeland-Linder, N., Martin, P. P., & Lewis, R. L. H.
(2006). Racial identity matters: The relationship between racial discrimination and psychological functioning in African American adolescents.
Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16, 187–216. doi:10.1111/j.15327795.2006.00128.x

Sellers, R. M., Rowley, S. J., Chavous, T. M., Shelton, J. N., & Smith, M.
(1997). Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity: A preliminary investigation of reliability and construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 805– 815. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.4.805
Sellers, R. M., & Shelton, J. N. (2003). The role of racial identity in perceived racial discrimination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1079 –1092. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.5.1079
Stevenson, H. C. (1997). Scale of Racial Socialization–Parent Version
[Unpublished intrument]. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Stevenson, H. C., Cameron, R., Herrero-Taylor, T., & Davis, G., (2002).
Teenager Experiences of Racial Socialization Scale (TERS) [Unpublished instrument]. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Sutton, A. J. (2009). Publication bias. In B. S. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, &
J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and metaanalysis (pp. 435– 452). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Tatum, B. D. (2003). Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? New York, NY: Basic Books.
Thompson, C. E., & Carter, R. T. (1997). Racial identity theory: Applications to individual, group, and organizational interventions. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Torres, L., & Ong, A. D. (2010). A daily diary investigation of Latino ethnic identity, discrimination, and depression. Cultural Diversity and
Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16, 561–568. doi:10.1037/a0020652
Trimble, J. (2007). Prolegomena for the connotation of construct use in the measurement of ethnic and racial identity. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54, 247–258. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.54.3.247
Umaña-Taylor, A. J., Yazedjian, A., & Bámaca-Gómez, M. (2004). Developing the Ethnic Identity Scale using Eriksonian and social identity perspectives. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research,
4, 9 –38. doi:10.1207/S1532706XID0401_2
U.S. Census Bureau. (March, 2011). Overview of race and Hispanic origin: 2010. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/ briefs/c2010br-02.pdf Vandiver, B. J., Cross, W. E., Worrell, F. C., & Fhagen-Smith, P. E.
(2002). Validating the Cross Racial Identity Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49, 71– 85. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.49.1.71
Watts, R. J., & Carter, R. T. (1991). Psychological aspects of racism in organizations. Group & Organization Management, 16, 328 –344. doi:
10.1177/105960119101600307
White, J. L., & Cones, J. H., III. (1999). Black man emerging: Facing the past and seizing a future in America. New York, NY: Freeman.
Wilson, D. (2009). Systematic coding. In B. S. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, &
J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and metaanalysis (2nd ed., pp. 159 –176). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Received March 20, 2011
Revision received November 7, 2012
Accepted November 9, 2012

References: Arroyo, C. G., & Zigler, E. (1995). Racial identity, academic achievement, and the psychological well-being of economically disadvantaged ado- Becker, B. J. (2000). Multivariate meta-analysis. In H. E. A. Tinsley & S. R. L., . . . Gibbons, F. X. (2009). It takes a village: Protecting rural African American youth in the context of racism Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt, M. T., & Harvey, R. D. (1999). Perceiving pervasive discrimination among African Americans: Implications for Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.) Cokley, K. (2002). Testing Cross’s revised racial identity model: An examination of the relationship between racial identity and internalized Cokley, K. (2005). Racial(ized) identity, ethnic identity, and Afrocentric values: Conceptual and methodological challenges in understanding Cokley, K. (2007). Critical issues in the measurement of ethnic and racial identity: A referendum on the state of the field Cooper, H. M., Hedges, L. V., & Valentine, J. C. (2009). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed.) Cross, W. E., Jr., & Vandiver, B. J. (2001). Nigrescence theory and measurement: Introducing the Cross Racial Identity Scale (CRIS) early adolescence: Investigation of an integrative model. Child Development, 73, 1573–1592. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00491 Franklin, D Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Helms, J. E. (1993). An overview of Black racial identity theory. In J. E. Helms, J. E. (2007). Some better practices for measuring racial and ethnic identity constructs Jones, H. L. (2005). Experiencing, appraising and coping with racerelated stress: Black women living in New York City (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) Jones, H. L., Cross, W. E., Jr., & DeFour, D. C. (2007). Race-related stress, racial identity attitudes, and mental health among Black women. Kessler, R. C., Mickelson, K. D., & Williams, D. R. (1999). The prevalence, distribution, and mental health correlates of perceived discrimination in the United States. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 40, 208 –230 Klonoff, E. A., & Landrine, H. (2000). Revising and improving the African American Acculturation Scale Miller, D. B., & MacIntosh, R. (1999). Promoting resilience in urban African American adolescents: Racial socialization and identity as protective factors