Racial rejection sensitivity moderates the effect of ethnic identity on institutional identity

1. C.U. Self C.U. Self Self C.U. Self C.U. Self Self C.U. C.U. Self C.U. Self C.U. Self Self C.U. C.U. HYPOTHESIS Institutional identity after priming If an important identity is seen as devalued in the superordinate group, there may be resistance to embracing the values of that superordinate group EI should be negatively correlated with institutional identity only if ethnicity is devalued There should be no correlation if ethnicity is not devalued Low RS-race (1-10) High RS-race F(1, 27)=4.71, p<.05 Simpleslopes: BH=-0.55, ns BL=2.16, p=.08 The Inclusion of Institution in the Self “circles” measure Circle the picture below that best describes your relationship with C.U. STUDY 1: Correlational Institutional identity in sophomore/junior year • Survey study of 69 Black undergraduates • Measures: • RS-race • ethnic identity (MEIM, Phinney, 1992) • institutional ID (circles) High RS-race (1-10) Low RS-race Institutional identity F(1,56)=4.62, p<.05 Simpleslopes: BH=-3.63, p=.07 BL = 1.86, ns Somatic symptoms after a NRI “hardly ever” High RS-race Low RS-race (1-10) What underlies this difference? High RS-race (1-5) Low RS-race Prior experiences of rejectiondue to race characteristics Anxious expectations of rejection F(1, 64)=4.68, p<.05 Simple slopes: BH= -1.96, p<.05 BL= 0.26, ns “never” F(1, 57)=4.01, p=.05 Simple slopes: BH=-.57, p=.07 BL=.26, ns Ready perceptions of rejection • mistrust of the majority and its institutions • difficulties in pursuit of valued goals at those institutions • underachievement Intense (hot) reactions to perceived rejection Racial Rejection Sensitivity (RS-race) CONCLUSIONS We suggest that members of social groups that have been devalued by the superordinate group in the past will be sensitized to rejection by the superordinate group, feel devalued by it, and will develop expectations of discrimination. These expectations will lead to a conflict of values between ethnic and institutional identities. • EI is in itself not a protective factor nor is it a risk factor • EI coupled with discrimination expectations • can impede development of an institutional identification • can provide some buffer qualities for health after discrimination F88 Racial rejection sensitivity moderates the effect of ethnic identity on institutional identity Jasia Pietrzak1 Rudy Mendoza-Denton2 and Geraldine Downey1 1Columbia University 2UC-Berkeley INTRODUCTION STUDY 2: Experimental Effects of ethnic identity (EI) Can we manipulate ethnic identity to show causality? 36 Black undergrads • EI has been linked to • Many positive outcomes(e.g. Contrada et al. 1991; Cross et al 1991) • but also • Perceptions of subtle prejudice(Operario & Fiske, 2001) • Poorer relations with authorities(Huo, Smith, Tyler, & Lind, 1996) • Lower superordinate identity(e.g. Sidanius, Feshbach, Levin & Pratto, 1997) RS-race, MEIM (2-3 months) Neutral prime Ethnic prime Circles • But superordinate identity (SI) is GOOD: • Better relations with authorities • More out-of-role and cooperative behaviors • Reduced intergroup bias STUDY 3: Longitudinal Is there a relationship between EI and SI? Two cohorts, 79 Black entering freshmen total Before freshman year: RS-race and ethnic identity At end of second/third year: Institutional ID At end of third/fourth year: Somatic symptoms after negative racial incident What if expectations are confirmed? Will the protective effects of EI (James, Lovato, & Khoo, 1994;Porter & Washington, 1993; Williams, Spencer & Jackson, 1999) depend on expectations of discrimination? Superordinate identity Ethnic identity Superordinate identity Ethnic identity No relationship typical for high status minorities Negative relationship typical for low status minorities