THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF HUMAN SCIENCES

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FAMILIAL AND EXTRAFAMILIAL VOICE AND

SUPPORT FOR VOICE AND IDENTITY EXPLORATION

IN AFRICAN AMERICAN EMERGING ADULTS

By

AMBER GOLDEN-THOMPSON

A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Family and Child Sciences

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Awarded: Spring Semester, 2006

Copyright © 2006 Amber Golden-Thompson

All Rights Reserved

ii

The members of the Committee approve the dissertation of Amber Golden-Thompson defended on March 24, 2006.

Ann K. Mullis Professor Directing Dissertation

Stephen A. Rollin, Outside Committee Member

Mary W. Hicks Committee Member

Ronald L. Mullis Committee Member

Received: ___________________________________________________ Kay Pasley, Chair, Department of Family and Child Sciences ____________________________________________________ Penny Ralston, Dean, College of Human Sciences The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would first like to give honor and thanks to my ancestors whom have helped to guide

me on this journey.

This project was funded by the American Association for University Women American

Fellowship. Support for this project was also received from Florida State University.

Dr. Ann Mullis, I truly appreciated your constant support and responsiveness. Thank you

for the personal touch you gave to every meeting. Drs. Hicks, R. Mullis, and Rollin, thank you

for your time and commitment to helping me complete this process.

I have a deep and heartfelt appreciation for my family. I could not have done it without

you. Mommy, thank you for providing a safe haven, encouragement, and superb childcare.

Donna, your creativity and passion for your art are a constant source of inspiration. Seymour, I

could not have made through these final miles without your teamwork and support. Kymani and

Amarachi, you two are my shining jewels. Your hugs, kisses, and bedtime rituals kept my heart

open and helped me to relax during the most stressful of times. To my bundle of joy on the way,

thank you for keeping me motivated, focused, and health conscious.

To my soul sister, Maria, your friendship and sisterhood have been an invaluable source

of strength. Thank you for being such a wonderful Auntie and consistently helping to enrich my

children’s lives. To the Elephant House, Onye, Maria, and Nzinga, thank you for being there

through everything! Judith, thank you for helping me find that lost crown and encouraging me to

continue to aspire for the very best in everything. Ayana, my late night telephone study partner,

thank you for being a constant source of positive affirmations and encouragement. Taiye, thank

you for all those late night talks and helping me to manage the mommy juggling act too.

I have a heart full of love and gratitude for the many professors across the FAMU

campus for sharing your entire class period with me. Thank you to Ms. Abdullah and Drs. Drum,

Robertson, Hobbs, Chambers, Singleton, Sherrod, Jackson-Lowman, Jackson, and Shotwell. I

would like to thank Cheidu Ozuzu for your editorial comments. Special thanks also goes to

Isaiah and Patrick of the All Saints Café. You two provided superb service and all of the

amenities a pregnant student needs in an office away from home.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................................................... vi

ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................. vii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1

Sample Rationale ............................................................................................................................ 4

Cultural Relevance of Erikson and Marcia..................................................................................... 7

The Role of Extended Family......................................................................................................... 8

Focus of Study and Research Questions......................................................................................... 9

Definitions..................................................................................................................................... 10

Abbreviations................................................................................................................................ 12

Delimitations................................................................................................................................. 12

Assumptions.................................................................................................................................. 12

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE................................................................................. 13

Theoretical Perspective................................................................................................................. 13

Erik Erikson and James Marcia’s Identity Status Model ................................................. 14 Symbolic Interactionism................................................................................................... 15 Application of Erikson/Marcia and Symbolic Interactionism.......................................... 16

Authenticity................................................................................................................................... 17

Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 20 Identity Development and African American Youth.................................................................... 20

Identity and Interpersonal Relationships ...................................................................................... 23

Communication and Identity ............................................................................................ 23 Support and Identity ......................................................................................................... 24 African American Identity and Family Context............................................................... 26

The Contemporary African American Family: Influential Networks of Extended Family and Non-familial Adults in the Lives of African American Youth ..................................................... 26 Conclusions................................................................................................................................... 31

CHAPTER 3 METHODS............................................................................................................. 33

Sample........................................................................................................................................... 33

Instrumentation ......................................................................................................................... 35 Extended Objective Measure of Ego Identity (EOM-EIS II)........................................... 35 Level of Voice .................................................................................................................. 36 Support for Voice ............................................................................................................. 37 Familial Relationships ...................................................................................................... 38 Demographic Sheet .......................................................................................................... 39

v

Data Collection ......................................................................................................................... 39 Data Analyses ........................................................................................................................... 40

Scale Psychometrics ......................................................................................................... 40 Research Questions .......................................................................................................... 42

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS............................................................................................................... 44

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION......................................................................................................... 50

Explanatory Factors.......................................................................................................... 52 Ancillary Findings ............................................................................................................ 57 Summary .......................................................................................................................... 58 Limitations........................................................................................................................ 59 Implications: Theoretical, Empirical, and Practical ......................................................... 61

APPENDIX A Human Subject Approval .................................................................................... 64

APPENDIX B Tables – Sample Demographics ........................................................................... 67

APPENDIX C Scale Summary Sheet With Factors & Corresponding Survey Item Numbers ... 71

APPENDIX D Survey Packet...................................................................................................... 73

APPENDIX E Scantron Form ...................................................................................................... 85

APPENDIX F Permission for Measurement Use ......................................................................... 88

APPENDIX G Personal Communication with Dr. Susan Harter ................................................ 92

APPENDIX H Verbal Script ....................................................................................................... 94

APPENDIX I Informed Consent Cover Letter ............................................................................ 97

APPENDIX J Tables – Scale Psychometric Properties................................................................ 99

APPENDIX K Tables – Research Questions.............................................................................. 104

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 115

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...................................................................................................... 122

vi

LIST OF TABLES

1. Sample Demographic Characteristics ............................................................................... 68

2. Percentage of Family Roles Identified as Parental Figures and Primary Caregivers ....... 69

3. Percentage of Roles Identified as Adult Relatives and Fictive Kin.................................. 70

4. Summary of Scale and Factor Structure by Survey Packet Item Numbers ............... Error!

Bookmark not defined.

5. Scale Reliability Coefficients, Means, and Standard Deviations ................................... 100

6. EOM-EIS II Subscale Intercorrelations .......................................................................... 101

7. LOV Factor Loadings for Total Sample ......................................................................... 102

8. Correlation of SFV with LOV in each Relational Context............................................. 103

9. Correlation of SFV Scales with Ideological Exploration for the Total Sample and by Gender............................................................................................................................. 105

10. Summary of Regression Analysis for Familial SFV Variables on Ideological Exploration for the Total Sample and by Gender ............................................................................... 106

11. Summary of Regression Analysis for Extrafamilial SFV Variables on Ideological Exploration for the Total Sample and by Gender ........................................................... 107

12. Correlation of LOV scales with Ideological Exploration for the Total Sample and by Gender............................................................................................................................. 108

13. Summary of Regression Analysis for Familial LOV Variables on Ideological Exploration for the Total Sample and by Gender ........................................................... 109

14. Summary of Regression Analysis for Extrafamilial LOV Variables on Ideological Exploration for the Total Sample and by Gender ........................................................... 110

15. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Extrafamilial and Familial LOV Variables Entered as Sets for Predicting Ideological Exploration by Gender ................ 111

16. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Extrafamilial and Familial LOV and Familial SFV Variables Entered as Sets for Predicting Ideological Exploration for Females ........................................................................................................................... 112

17. Summary of the Research Questions, Hypotheses and Findings.................................... 113

vii

ABSTRACT

The purposes of the study were to a) examine the relationship between level of voice

(LOV) and support for voice (SFV) and ideological identity exploration, and b) to expand the

theoretical and empirical discussion regarding identity development and socialization forces in

African American emerging adults. The study built on the empirical work of Grotevant and

Cooper (1985), that established a relationship between ideological exploration, the expression of

one’s thoughts and opinions to parents, and the corresponding levels of support received from

each parent. In keeping with Grotevant and Cooper’s study, ideological identity exploration was

conceptualized in the current study using Marcia’s (1966) identity status model. The ability to be

true to oneself, conceptualized and measured as Level of Voice (LOV) or the ability to express

one’s thoughts and opinions, was based on Harter’s empirical work on authentic self-behavior.

Support, conceptualized and measured as the perception of respect and interest in what one has

to say or support for voice (SFV), was also drawn from this body of literature.

Examining ideological identity and various socialization forces in African Americans

was an expansion on the wider body of identity literature that predominantly focuses on

racial/ethnic identity in this population. The conceptualization of familial socialization forces

was expanded to include mother (figures), father (figures), adult relatives, as well as fictive kin.

Furthermore, the inclusion of extrafamilial socialization forces expanded the broader body of

identity literature. The relationships of peers and instructors/advisors included in this

investigation were selected based on the theoretical writings of Erikson (1968).

viii

The final sample included 373 participants (67.3% female and 32.7% male) of whom

92.4% were between the ages of 18 and 23. Gender differences emerged relative to the collective

influence of LOV and SFV on exploration, as well as to the influence of the various relational

contexts under investigation. Males with higher levels of exploration had higher LOV with father

(figures) and lower LOV with instructors/advisors. Females with higher exploration levels

indicated increased LOV with fictive kin but lower LOV with adult relatives when controlling

for the effects of familial SFV.

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The expansion of social networks and social roles in adolescence is accompanied by

increasingly differentiated descriptions of self-attributes across relational contexts (Harter, 2003;

Harter & Monsour, 1992). For example, interactions with close friends may elicit descriptions of

irresponsibility and boisterous behavior, while one is shy on dates and moody with parents. As

adolescents mature, cognitive developments allow for an increase in the ability to cognitively

process attributes that appear to be contradictory, such as boisterous versus shy (Harter, 1998).

There is a tendency for early adolescents to base self-generalizations on in-the-moment attention

given to either positive or negative attributes. The recognition of opposing attributes often leads

to cognitive conflicts within middle adolescents. Consequently, many young people indicate an

increasing concern with determining which attributes are authentic representations of their true

thoughts/emotions as they seek to develop a coherent sense of self (true self-behavior; Harter,

Marold, Whitesell, & Cobbs, 1996; Harter & Monsour, 1992; Harter, Waters, Whitesell, &

Kastelic, 1998). Late adolescents begin to establish a more balanced understanding of self, as

they are able to process that different attributes emerge in different relational contexts and that

this can be normal and desirable. This understanding, however, does not eliminate the internal

conflict that arises when youth are unable to align their behavior with their true thoughts and

intentions (Harter & Monsour, 1992).

The ability to display true self-behavior is nurtured in supportive interpersonal

interactions and varies across relational contexts. An adolescent’s engagement in behavior not in

line with their true self (false self-behavior) is dependent upon with whom they interact, such as

a mother, father, peers, or instructors. Additionally, the likelihood of false self-behavior is

influenced by the adolescent’s perception of support and respect from the other person (Harter et

al., 1996). That is, young people are more likely to engage in false self-behavior with someone

who is not perceived to be supportive or accepting of who they are. In contrast, adolescents who

believe that the other person respects them as they are indicate that they are more likely to

2

engage in behavior consistent with their true thoughts and emotions. The relationship of

true/false self-behavior and perceived support were consistent across a variety of relational

contexts (e.g., parents, peers, classmates, teachers) and age ranges (e.g., 9th – 11th graders &

adults aged 18 – 55; Harter et al., 1996; Harter, Waters et al., 1997).

One manifestation of true self-behavior is “level of voice,” which is the ability to

verbally express one’s true feelings and opinions (Harter et al., 1998, p. 893). Low level of voice

is equated with the suppression of one’s thoughts and emotions. Thus, it is considered by most

adolescents to be an act of false self-behavior (Harter et al., 1998). As with the broader construct,

false self-behavior, level of voice is mediated by relational context and the perception of support.

Support for voice is the extent to which the youth perceives that a person respects and wants to

hear what he/she has to say (Harter et al., 1998).

Prior to Harter’s research, level of voice and support for voice were implicated in

adolescent identity development. Grotevant and Cooper (1985) conducted a study grounded in

the works of Erikson (1968) and Marcia (1966) and found that identity exploration, reflecting on

and considering ones values and beliefs, was linked to an adolescent’s expression of their

thoughts and opinions to their parents and the corresponding levels of support they received.

Grotevant and Cooper (1985) observed adolescents and their parents were observed

during a family planning task and the conversations were analyzed across parent-child dyads.

The identified gender differences suggested that males higher in identity exploration were

assertive in expressing their views and had fathers who acknowledged and provided the

opportunity for the son’s opinion to be heard. Conversely, females who were engaged in identity

exploration were more likely to have parents challenge their contributions. It was hypothesized

that challenging females was a tool used by parents to foster agency and counteract traditional

feminine gender roles where displays of self-expression are suppressed (Grotevant & Cooper,

1985). These results underscore the importance of examining the relational context in

conjunction with the gender of the youth as has been demonstrated in both true self-behavior and

identity status research (Bartle-Haring, 1997; Bartle-Haring, Brucker, & Hock, 2002;

Fullinwider-Bush & Jacobvitz, 1993; Grotevant & Cooper, 1985; Harter et al., 1998; Imbimbo,

1995; Perosa, Perosa, & Tam, 1996).

Previous research by Harter (Harter et al., 1996; Harter & Monsour, 1992; Harter et al.,

1998) supports several conceptual, developmental, and relational propositions asserted by

3

Erikson (1968) related to the tasks and social involvement that work in concert to facilitate

identity development. Identity, as characterized by Erikson (1968), is a multifaceted task that

becomes increasingly salient throughout adolescence, particularly as youth approach adulthood.

Although this process peaks during adolescence, it is continuously revisited throughout one’s

lifetime as necessary by changes in social, economic, and environmental conditions. The

overarching task during this period is to develop a coherent sense of self. This level of self-

understanding provides the foundation for individuals to successfully manage their eventual

integration into adult society and handle the associated tasks and responsibilities of adulthood.

Two dimensions of this stage of development include exploring and committing to ideological

values and beliefs and being true to one’s self in the presence of significant others. The strength

of one’s sense of self and commitments are influenced by the support received by the community

of one’s peers and leaders (Erikson, 1968).

The insights Harter (2002, 2003) gained through her research program on self-

representations and authenticity corroborate Erikson’s (1959, 1968) propositions on the

developmental timing and the conceptual importance of developing of a coherent sense of self,

sense of authenticity, and support in various relational contexts in the lives of adolescents. The

age related increase in the recognition of various self-attributes across relational contexts and

attempts to develop a balanced and holistic understanding of how these self-representations are

in line with one’s true-thoughts and emotions parallel Erikson’s comments on age related

developments. The positive correlation between context specific support and true self-behavior

provides initial validation to Erikson’s idea that support and acceptance from others, specifically

non-family members, is essential to identity. As will be discussed in more depth in chapter 2,

level of voice was highest in contexts with one’s peers and instructors (Harter et al., 1998).

Furthermore, in a study of authentic behavior in intimate relationships, perceived support also

influenced authenticity in adults’ aged 18-55+ (Harter, Waters et al., 1997). These findings

underscore the importance of peer support and the continued importance of authenticity and

support throughout adulthood.

Grotevant and Cooper (1985) established a relationship between the expression of one’s

thoughts and opinions, support, and identity exploration. Grotevant and Cooper chose

exploration as they believed it to be the status category most amenable to development in

relational contexts (Grotevant & Cooper, 1985). Support, in a general sense, has been the focus

4

of few inquiries (Adams, 1985; Imbimbo, 1995; Meeus & Dekovic, 1995; O'Connor, 1995;

Sartor & Youniss, 2002). In the studies reviewed, the differences in sampling, measurement, and

grouping methods do not allow definitive statements regarding the relationship between support

and identity exploration. However, Meeus and Dekovic (1995) supported Erikson’s (1959)

argument that extrafamilial support is most important to the process of identity exploration and

commitment. Intimate friend, classmate, and collegial support were the strongest predictors in

various identity domains including relational, school, and occupational identity in a Dutch

sample of adolescents and emerging adults aged 12-24.

The inquiry into the connection between level of voice as a manifestation of true self-

behavior, support for voice, and identity status is of interest to further test the validity of

Erikson’s assertions. Erikson believed that any person could develop a viable identity regardless

of their culture of origin (Côté & Levine, 2002). The important components facilitating the

development of identity include community integration as evidenced by sustained commitments

and role validation (Côté & Levine, 2002). Therefore, it is also of interest to determine if the

relationships previously described are replicable in other racial/ethnic groups, specifically

African-Americans.

Sample Rationale

Research on adolescent development in African-American youth and their families has

focused on low-income or at-risk populations and/or centered on self-esteem or ethnic/racial

identity (Spencer & Markstrom-Adams, 1990; Taylor, Chatters, Tucker, & Lewis, 1990). In

general, research including African Americans has primarily taken the form of comparison

studies with whites, rarely is a sample completely comprised of African Americans. In a

systematic review of the literature related to identity rooted in Erikson’s works published

between 1993 and 2003 slightly less than half of the researchers reported the ethnic diversity of

the sample (Sneed, Schwartz, & Cross, In press). Of the studies with an account of sample

ethnicity, 63% of the studies were comprised of samples where Caucasians made up 70% of the

sample or more. Samples of the studies not documenting the respondent’s ethnic composition

were primarily drawn from university settings where ethnic diversity tends to be low (Sneed et

al., In press).

5

In a targeted search of this body of literature published between 1990 and 2005 only two

studies investigating the influence of the parent-child relationship that discuss the results by

race/ethnicity in studies (Mullis, Brailsford, & Mullis, 2003; Watson & Protinsky, 1988).

Researchers of studies with a sampling of people of color often aggregate the data of all

racial/ethnic groups or create a ‘minority’ category to compare to Caucasian participants.

Aggregating the data in either fashion assumes that the hypothesized relationship between the

observed variables universally apply to all of the ethnic groups in the sample. Biased information

and invalid interpretations are often the result as such practices do not account for cultural

differences in the interpretation, value, or construct validity of variables (Caldwell, Jackson,

Tucker, & Bowman, 1999; Spencer & Markstrom-Adams, 1990). In addition, data aggregation

masks within group variability and does not allow for the exploration of important relationships

that may be population specific (Caldwell et al., 1999; Spencer & Markstrom-Adams, 1990).

As previously mentioned, there has been a concentrated focus on self-esteem and racial

identity in African American populations for over forty years in effort to shed light on how these

aspects of identity develop and impact psychosocial functioning given the overwhelming

exposure to negative stereotyping, prejudice, and racism pervasive throughout the country.

Several theorists have advanced the fields understanding of the processes, socialization practices,

and challenges involved with African-Americans developing a positive sense of self in this

society (see works of N. Akbar, A.W. Boykin, W. E. Cross, K.K.K. Kambon a.k.a. J. Baldwin,

and J. S. Phinney). Many racial/ethnic identity theories focus on the content or content/process of

one’s racial identity and do not address other identity developmental domains.

Although “race” is a defining characteristic embedded in the institutional structure of this

society, it is only one aspect of an individual’s self-concept. Great variability is possible in the

degree of exploration and integration of racial/ethnic identity with other aspects of one’s self-

definition. Phinney (1989) developed a multiethnic measure of ethnic identity exploring the

levels of related exploration and commitment based on Marcia’s (1966) identity status

categories. Using this measure, Branch, Tayal, and Triplett (2000) compared ego identity to

ethnic identity in a multiethnic sample of adolescents and emerging adults aged 13 years and

older from a large northeastern city. The relationship between these two variables differed based

on ethnicity. For African Americans, there was no correlation between the total ethnic identity

score and composite identity status (ideological and interpersonal). However, in a separate study

6

of African American adolescents from rural, low-income areas, ethnic identity was moderately

related to ideological identity achievement (Markstrom & Hunter, 1999). The means of

comparison may account for the differences found between these two studies. The striking

difference in the diversity of the populations from which the samples were drawn may also be a

confounding variable. Ethnic identity may be more salient in rural areas where minority status in

terms of representation and treatment does not parallel that found in a diverse metropolitan area.

Racial/ethnic identity is now being discussed as one aspect a composite identity in the

same vein as political, dating, occupational, etc., domains (Sneed et al., In press). It may also be

the case that identity development is not a straightforward task for African American youth.

Boykin and Ellison (1995) argued with the Triple Quandary Theory that African Americans

engage in three social realms: mainstream, Afrocultural, and minority, each of which has its own

set of values, beliefs, and behavioral patterns. Socialization messages and, in time, internalized

values emanate from the dominant white American culture (mainstream), intergenerational

transmission of African traditions (Afrocultural), and from the demands and burdens of

oppression (minority). Cognitively processing these three social realities leads to a state of triple

consciousness. The dilemma lies in how to integrate or balance the psychosocial expressions of

each social experience as some expressions may be deemed inappropriate and penalized if cross-

utilized.

Boykin and Ellison (1995) focused their discussion on cultural or racial socialization and

suggested that future research must address a wide array of socialization pathways. They

suggested that this effort should begin by examining what makes socialization effective. Similar

to Erikson (1959; 1968), Boykin and Ellison consider emotional and supportive bonds integral to

the process and looked beyond the family for agencies of socialization (i.e., schools, peers, and

the media). Another relevant similarity to Erikson is Boykin and Ellison’s notion of expressive

individualism. Expressive individualism, one of the nine dimensions associated with the

Afrocultural realm, reflects the importance of genuine self-expression (Boykin & Ellison, 1995).

Even though there are numerous investigations on parental racial socialization, there is a dearth

of empirical work examining a wider array of identity domains and the influence of various

socialization agents in African American youth and emerging adults. Erikson’s work is pivotal in

this respect as both intrapersonal and social/societal factors are identified as reciprocal

contributors to healthy identity development in a variety of domains.

7

Cultural Relevance of Erikson and Marcia

Erikson based his theory of human development, particularly ego identity, on

observations of Europeans, Americans, and American Indians in both natural and clinical

settings (Côté & Levine, 2002). Côté and Levine (2002) have continued to support Erickson

assertions that his propositions are applicable across cultures. Côté and Levine believe that a

person of any culture can develop an coherent sense of self provided there is integration within a

community via stable commitments and corresponding validation of an individuals chosen roles.

However, Erikson’s works have been criticized as being Eurocentric, androcentric, and class

based (see Côté & Levine, 2002). Because there are few studies directly focused on Erikson’s

work to support or refute his propositions on identity, how can it then be determined that support

from others outside the family system, being true to self, and the commitments to values and

belief are salient concerns for African Americans?

Parallels drawn from Boykin and Ellison’s (1995) Triple Quandary Theory in the

previous section provide theoretical backing that authentic self-expression and support from both

familial and extrafamilial relationships are important socialization forces for African Americans.

As will be discussed in detail in chapter 2, there are empirical studies of adolescent and adult

retrospective accounts that corroborate the important influence of family and nonfamilial

relationships on development and academic/ professional achievement (Hirsch, Mickus, &

Boerger, 2002; Hunter, Pearson, Ialongo, & Kellam, 1998; Manns, 1997). Cross-cultural

validation of exploration and commitment to various values and beliefs has been established

through studies using Marcia’s (1966) identity status model (e.g. Matos, Barbosa, Milheiro de

Almeida, & Costa, 1999; O'Connor, 1995; Schwartz & Montgomery, 2002).

Schwartz and Montgomery (2002) examined the factor structure of the several measures

(i.e., Extended Objective Measure of Ego Identity – EOM-EIS II, Identity Style Inventory, and

Ego Identity Process Questionnaire) based on Marcia’s model with an aggregated multiethnic

sample comprised predominantly of Hispanic/Latino students, followed by Caucasian, African

American, Asian, and others. Factor structures were compared by gender and immigration

generation status. The resulting factor structure and intercorrelations between the status

categories followed the predicted patterns and did not differ based on the aforementioned

8

characteristics. Research including ethnically diverse samples is necessary to further assess the

applicability of Erikson and Marcia as universal development theories and as theories applicable

to specific aspects of Western culture (Côté & Levine, 2002; Sneed et al., In press).

It is also important to note the relevance of changes in the broader social milieu. Societal

changes resulting since the civil rights era has included an expansion of the African American

middle and upper classes. In addition, increases in post-secondary educational access and

funding opportunities has opened the doors for many African Americans from diverse

socioeconomic backgrounds to explore a wider range of occupational, ideological, and

interpersonal values and beliefs previously believed to be limited to middle and upper class

Caucasians. Given the predominant focus of research on problem groups in the African

American community, normative samples of emerging adults and those navigating socially

sanctioned pathways such as college attendees have become the silent populations for this group

(Taylor et al., 1990).

The Role of Extended Family

Investigations of the relational influences on identity development typically focus on

both parents. However, there has been a call for an expansion of the nuclear family model to

include members of the extended family system (Caldwell et al., 1999; Wilson, 1989). This is

particularly important for African American families for two reasons. First, extended kin often

are the nucleus of a family’s social network and are relied upon for multiple forms of social

support (Ellison, 1990; Taylor et al., 1990). Second, there is a cultural legacy of role flexibility in

many African American families such that if a biological mother or father is unable to fulfill

her/his parental responsibilities another family member may assume the role of mother/father

(Hill, 1999; Watts-Jones, 1997). Current research on the extended family has focused on support

to parents, the elderly, or the family as a whole. However, there are few studies linking extended

family support to the development and well-being of late adolescents (Taylor & Roberts, 1995;

Taylor, Chatters, & Jackson, 1993).

It is also important to note that African American family networks often include

individuals that are not related by blood or marriage yet are still treated as family (Taylor, 2000).

The incorporation of such individuals into the family system is based on the reciprocal

9

involvement meeting in the emotional and instrumental needs of others in the system. These

family members are affectionately referred to as play family in conversation and fictive or

functional kin in academic writing. Fictive kin have been recognized as influential in writing on

family therapy but have received little attention in empirical studies (Watts-Jones, 1997).

Therefore, the extension of the nuclear family model must consider both the role and relation

(biological vs. fictive/functional) of extended family members.

Focus of Study and Research Questions

The proposed study will examine the relationship of ideological identity exploration, as

operationalized by Marcia’s (1966) identity status model, to level of voice and support for voice

in the contexts of one’s mother, father, adult relatives, fictive kin, peers, and instructors/advisors

using a sample of African American emerging adults. Unique contributions of this study include

the investigation of the relationship of the looking-glass self to identity development, the

inclusion of extended and extra-familial relational contexts, and the use of a normative sample

from an underrepresented research population (Spencer & Markstrom-Adams, 1990).

Whereas Grotevant and Cooper (1985) employed outside observers to classify the

behavior and interactions of the parents and their children, this study will rely solely upon the

youth’s self-perceptions and their perceptions of the opinions of others (looking-glass self,

Cooley, 1902/1956). Although the perceptions of the behavior or intentions of others may not be

completely accurate, research has demonstrated that associated outcomes (e.g. identity, self-

worth) have an equal or stronger relationship to one’s perceptions of an actor than to the actor’s

self-reports (Adams, 1985; Harter et al., 1996; LaRossa & Reitzes, 1993; Tice & Wallace, 2003).

For example, Adams (1985) examined adolescent daughter’s perceptions and parent self-reports

of various parent-child relational characteristics such as support and rejection. There was no

statistically significant relationship between the daughter’s perceptions and her father’s self-

reported behavior. For two of the five variables under investigation, there was a modest positive

relationship between the mother’s self-reports and her daughter’s perceptions. This led Adams

(1985) to conduct separate analyses for the mother and father’s self-reported behavior and the

daughter’s perceptions of their behavior. There were a greater number of statistically significant

relationships between parental behavior and identity identified using of the perceptions of the

10

adolescents. Although fewer in number, the significant results based on the parent’s self-reports

corroborated these findings.

The purposes of the study were to a) examine the relationship of level of voice (LOV)

and support for voice (SFV) to ideological identity exploration, and b) to expand the theoretical

and empirical discussion regarding identity development and socialization forces in African

American emerging adults. The relational contexts under investigation were familial: mother

(figures), father (figures), adult relatives, and fictive kin, and extrafamilial: peers and

instructors/advisors.

A. Were support for voice (SFV) and level of voice (LOV) in familial and extrafamilial

contexts determinants of ideological identity exploration? Were there differences by

gender?

B. Which familial and extrafamilial relational contexts of SFV and LOV were important

determinants of ideological exploration?

C. Were SFV and LOV in extrafamilial contexts stronger determinants of ideological

exploration than SFV and LOV in familial contexts? Were there differences by gender?

D. What was the combined influence of SFV and LOV in familial and extrafamilial contexts

on ideological identity exploration?

Definitions

1. Emerging Adult – is a distinct developmental period of people between the ages of 18-25.

This period is considered to be different from adolescence and young adulthood because by

the age of 18 many people are transitioning from secondary school and moving away from

home. However, this is a constantly changing time characterized by semi-autonomy, diverse

demographic characteristics (e.g. residence, work, education), and increased identity

exploration that occurs prior to the perception and adoption of adult roles and responsibilities

(Arnett, 2000).

2. Exploration – See Identity Moratorium.

3. Extrafamilial context – is inclusive of the relationships with one’s peers and

instructors/advisors.

11

4. Familial context - includes the relationships with one’s mother (figure), father (figure), adult

relatives, and fictive kin.

5. Family – “…an intimate association of two or more people related to each other by blood,

marriage, formal or informal adoption, or appropriation. The latter term refers to the

incorporation of persons in the family who are unrelated by blood or marital ties but are

treated as though they were family.” (Taylor, 2000)

6. Fictive-kin – this is a term coined by anthropoligists to denote non-biologically related

individuals given the status of kin (a.k.a. functional kin or ‘play-family’; see family; (Taylor,

2000).

7. Functional-kin – This is an alternative term for fictive kin, chosed to highlight the functional

and emotional ties associated with family role functions rather than only biology (Watts-

Jones, 1997).

8. Identity Achieved/Achieved is characterized by a person having considered a range of

possible beliefs, values, or opportunities and adopting a personal set of values and beliefs

(Marcia, 1966).

9. Identity Diffused/Diffused is characterized by an individual who has given little to no

consideration of possible beliefs, values or opportunities and has not commited to a set of

beliefs and values at this time (Marcia, 1966).

10. Identity Foreclosed/Foreclosed is characterized by a person who has not considered

alternative values, beliefs, or opportunities but has made commitments most likely endorsed

by a parent or other authority figure (Marcia, 1966).

11. Identity Moratorium/Exploration is characterized by a person in the process of considering

alternative values, beliefs, and opportunities to adopt (Marcia, 1966). This will be measured

for ideological domains using the Extended Objective Measure of Ego Identity Scale (EOM-

EIS II; (Adams, 1998).

12. Level of Voice is the ability to express one’s true thoughts, emotions, and opinions (Harter et

al., 1998). Harter’s (1995) measure entitled “Teenage Voice” will serve as the index for this

construct.

13. Play-family – see fictive-kin

12

14. Support for Voice is the perceived level of respect for or interest in what one has to say

(Harter et al., 1998). Harter’s (1995) measure by the same name will serve as the index for

this construct.

Abbreviations

1. EOM-EIS II– The Revised Extended Objective Measure of Ego Identity Status

2. HBCU – Historically Black College or University

3. LOV – Level of Voice

4. SFV – Support for Voice

5. SI – Symbolic Interaction Theory

Delimitations

1. The sample will be limited to African Americans college student respondants.

2. Only the influence of social relationship on ideological identity exploration will be

investigated as opposed to contextual influences, such as media (e.g., music, television,

cinema, print, etc.).

3. The quality and frequency of involvement with extended family members will not be

included as control variables.

Assumptions

1. The theoretical propositions set forth by Erikson (1959; 1968 ), James (1892/1984), and

Cooley (1902/1956) are appropriate explanations for development and interaction among

African American college students.

2. The participants will interpret the questionnaire items in the manner intended by the authors.

3. The respondents will answer questions honestly and with their full attention.

13

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Adolescence is a time where young people are continuing to define themselves as unique

individuals and prepare for autonomous functioning of adult life. Developing a sense of identity

involves weaving together the many role-related characteristics that emerge in interpersonal

relationships to form a personally recognized authentic self. Gaining awareness of one’s true self

is accompanied by the need act in a manner consistent with this understanding (Erikson, 1968;

Harter, 2002). Healthy adult functioning involves self-reflection, exploration, and commitments

to personal beliefs and aspirations (Erikson, 1959). The ability to internalize values and

standards related to ideological and interpersonal ideals is inextricably tied to experiences shaped

by one’s family and community (Erikson, 1959; 1968). The affective bonds and encouragement

provided by family members throughout childhood are essential to helping an individual

navigate and find a place in the larger social order. However, it is the affirmation and support of

the community that is most sought after by emerging adults when forming a sense of identity

(Erikson, 1968).

The proceeding sections commence with the theoretical foundation of this research

followed by a review of authentic self-behavior research. The next sections reviews the literature

pertaining to identity development in African Americans, identity and interpersonal

relationships, and conclude with a discussion on the contemporary African American family and

the influence of familial and non-familial adults in the lives of African American youth.

Theoretical Perspective

The concept of identity will be grounded in the works of Erik Erikson (1959; 1968) and

James Marcia (1966). Erikson’s work highlights the impact of the social influences on

psychological development but does not clearly delineate the mechanisms of this process. Marcia

14

expands and operationalizes Erikson’s ideological identity concept with the identity status

model. Symbolic Interactionism (Kline & White, 1996) focuses on human interaction and the

creation of shared meanings. This theoretical framework provides a fitting set of propositions

and concepts to explore how the perceived evaluation of others may influence self-concept and

behavior.

Erik Erikson and James Marcia’s Identity Status Model

Erikson, a psychoanalyst, expanded the psychosexual stages formulated by Sigmund

Freud to address the ecological factors that affect the development of the human psyche. Erikson

(1959) recognized that both the familial and social milieu supported human growth and

development. Families provide grounding in emotional attachment, trust, autonomy, and

initiative, which serve as the foundation of healthy interactions with others. However,

individuals mature in and must be prepared to adapt to ever-changing natural, historical, and

technological aspects of society. It is adult society’s collective responsibility to provide structure,

continuity, and validation to facilitate the healthy development and integration into adult society

of younger generations (Erikson, 1959).

Erikson’s fifth stage, identity versus identity confusion, is a multifaceted task associated

with adolescence. Youth must synthesize previous experiences and relationships to develop a

personal sense of individuality, determine their place in the larger social arena, and maintain a

sense of continuity between who they were as children and who they have the potential to

become as an adult (Erikson, 1959). In the process of forming a sense of identity, emerging

adults are looking to embrace and commit to values and beliefs related to ideological ideals (i.e.

religion, philosophy of life, and politics) and occupational pursuits (Erikson, 1968). In addition,

one must learn how to be true to self in the presence of those who are most important in their

lives. Erikson emphasized that identity is a process of mutual recognition between an adolescent

and his/her community. The adolescent acknowledges and validates the community/society by

seeking a meaningful place therein. The complimentary component aiding the resolution of this

stage is the recognition and acceptance of the individual’s chosen commitments by the

community of one’s peers and leaders (Erikson, 1959).

Marcia’s research expanded Erikson’s idea of ideological identity commitment to include

the additional process of exploration, which taps whether young people are in the process

evaluating/reflecting upon their values and beliefs (Marcia, 1966). The presence or absence of

15

each process, exploration and commitment, yields four categories: identity achievement,

moratorium, foreclosure, and diffusion (Marcia, 1966). Diffusion is the identity status where the

youth have made little to no attempt to evaluate their beliefs or make commitments. Foreclosed

youth have made commitments without having explored alternative beliefs or values. It is most

likely that this group has adopted the values and beliefs of their parents or other respected

individuals. Moratorium reflects the process of exploring the different possibilities, however

clear or stable commitments have not been made. Identity achievement characterizes an

adolescent who has explored his/her beliefs as well as alternatives and has made commitments in

various domains.

Erikson did not believe that identity is something that is ever “achieved” in a static sense

(Erikson, 1968). Even though possibilities are explored and commitments are made, forming a

sense of identity evolves as possibilities and commitments are revisited and revised throughout

one’s life. Thus, it is important to note that Marcia’s terms and/or the ability to categorize

individuals may imply that identity is fixed. However, maintaining this perception would be

theoretically inaccurate.

Research on Marcia’s statuses has extended from early adolescence to emerging young

adulthood. Erikson recommended that studies of identity include samples of older adolescents, as

they are most active in resolving this stage (Erikson, 1968; Marcia, 1993; Waterman, 1982). For

identity status researchers, college students have been central figures in the research because they

are in a social environment where they are expected to make ideological commitments and

develop a sense of identity (Marcia, 1993). Research over the past 20-30 years has shown a

developmental shift in identity status beginning in the senior year of high school and a marked

change in college students. The number of college youth classified in achieved and moratorium

status increases and there is a decrease in foreclosed status. This change results in a shift toward

a more balanced distribution in each the status category than is common in high school students

who are predominantly in the foreclosed status (Erikson, 1968; Marcia, 1993).

Symbolic Interactionism

Erikson (1959; 1968) highlighted the need for members of the community to accept and

validate the meaning and identity an individual adopts. How the interaction with others is

translated into personal meaning and motivation for behavior is a line of inquiry evaluated by

those following the Symbolic Interactionist (SI) theoretical tradition. SI is a family of theorists

16

exploring the connection between shared meanings created as humans communicate through a

series of verbal and nonverbal gestures (LaRossa & Reitzes, 1993; McCall, 2003). It is in the

process of interaction that human beings come to understand their world and gain a sense of

whom they are (LaRossa & Reitzes, 1993; Weigert & Gecas, 2003).

William James, a psychologist, is credited with introducing the concept of the self as a

social object (Hart, 1988; Harter, 1996; Tice & Wallace, 2003). James (1892/1984)

conceptualized the self in terms of that which is known, Me-self, and that which knows, I-self.

This duality is also interpreted where the I-self represents the active agent and processor of self.

The me-self is the observed, the object of one’s knowledge and evaluation (Harter, 1988). The

Me-self is not limited to the physical body and mental abilities but includes the things over

which one may claim possession, such as material acquisitions, family, intimate partners and

offspring, reputation, and work (James, 1892/1984). James believed that the various constituents

of the Me-self have the power to arouse feelings of self-appreciation and self-dissatisfaction

based upon one’s perception of success and social standing. Consequently, these emotions

prompt people to act in ways to develop and enhance the various aspects of the Me-self.

Cooley (1902/1956), considered the first symbolic interactionist, built upon the work of

James and introduced the concept of the reflected or looking-glass self. With this term, Cooley

suggested that a person constructs a sense of self in part by reflecting the opinions and views that

are attributed to those with whom he/she interacts. This type of self-idea has three main

elements: (a) the perception of one’s appearance to another, (b) the perception of the other’s

judgment of that appearance, and (c) an emotional reaction such as self-esteem and honor or

shame and humiliation (Cooley, 1902/1956).

As children, humans recognize how their actions inspire changes or consistent reactions

in others. Cooley (1902/1956) asserts that both children and adults use this personal power over

others to elicit the visible displays and mental states of positive regard. The dependence of one’s

self concept on the esteem perceived from others is most notable in early to late adolescents

(Cooley, 1902/1956). Not until adulthood is one expected to maintain a positive sense of self that

is robust to the influence of the fluctuating opinions of others.

Application of Erikson/Marcia and Symbolic Interactionism

To Erikson, identity is a multidimensional process that involves mutual recognition

between the individual and their community. There is an extensive body of literature examining

17

the individual’s effort at finding a place in society and the associated antecedents and

consequences as evidenced by nearly four decades of research on Marcia’s (1966) identity status

model. However, research examining concurrent levels of perceived support from the

community in response to the individual’s identity development is virtually absent. Erikson is

clear that there is an interrelationship, however he does not outline how community support

affects the psychological processes within the individual. The premises asserted by symbolic

interaction theorists, particularly Charles Cooley, are a useful supplement to explain how the

perceived support from others may be internalized and incorporated into one’s sense of self.

Authenticity

Erikson believed that it was essential for young people to learn how to be themselves in

the presence of significant others (Erikson, 1968). There is empirical evidence providing

preliminary support for this premise. Susan Harter serendipitously came across the importance of

authentic self-behavior to adolescents when researching self-representations in various relational

contexts. Drawing on Symbolic Interactionism and empirical research, Harter presents authentic

or true self-behavior as a dual process: the acceptance of one’s thoughts and experiences and

engaging in behavior and self-expression in accordance with those thoughts and beliefs (Harter,

2002).

In Harter and Montour’s (1992) study, 9th, 10th, and 11th graders created a list of self-

attributes in variety of contexts (i.e. in the classroom, with friends, with parents, and in romantic

relationships). Participants then identified self-attributes personally considered to be in

opposition with each other (e.g., open vs. not open, sarcastic vs. caring, a good student vs. lazy).

Questions were posed about conflict and the affective reactions experienced in relation to the

opposing attributes. With a primary interest in negative responses, Harter and Monsour queried

the youth using internal conflict descriptors for emotional and cognitive reactions such as anger,

embarrassment, anxiety, shame, and confusion.

There was a curvilinear relationship between grade and both the identified number of

opposing attributes and the conflict experienced. Ninth graders were most sensitive to opposing

attributes, and there was only a slight decline for 11th graders. Ninth graders had a higher mean

number of opposing attributes and mean number of attributes identified as conflicting with each

18

other than 7th graders (Harter & Monsour, 1992). There was slight decline in mean number of

opposites and conflicts for 11th graders in comparison with the 9th graders. There was no

difference between the 11th graders and either the 7th or the 9th graders on the mean number of

opposites identified. The lowest means on these indices were for 7th graders. The protocols for

this group indicated that there were several pairs that could be labeled as oppositional (e.g.,

uptight vs. carefree, talkative vs. shy) but not identified as such.

In regards to cognitive conflict, 79% of the 9th graders and 70% of the 11th graders

reported experiencing conflict in relation to the opposing pairs identified. Forty-eight percent of

ninth graders found that the contradictions were confusing or left them feeling mixed-up. This

percentage was significantly higher than both the 7th (29%) and 11th (40%) graders. Non-clashing

attributes were considered normative in the sense that different relational contexts may elicit

divergent responses from an individual. However, conflicts were attributed to the perception that

one’s overt behavior did not match their intentions or there was an internal conflict regarding

what one “wanted” to do and what “should” be done (Harter & Monsour, 1992).

From this research, Harter began a systematic inquiry into how youth defined behaving

in a manner consistent with their true self (Harter et al., 1996). Their responses centered on

behaving and speaking in a manner that reflected internally based thoughts and emotions as

opposed to acting in a manner consistent with someone else’s desires. Measures and models of

false self-behavior, a general measure authentic behavior, and level of voice (LOV), a specific

measure of verbally expressing one’s authentic thoughts and opinions, emerged out of these

responses. Both false self-behavior and LOV are relationship specific and related to support

received in the corresponding relational context (Harter, Buddin, & Whitesell, 1997; Harter et

al., 1996; Harter & Monsour, 1992; Harter et al., 1998).

Gender, grade, and context differences were evaluated in a study examining LOV in a

sample of 307 high school students. The relational contexts under investigation were teachers,

parents, male classmates, female classmates, and a close friend (Harter et al., 1998). Females had

higher LOV scores than males. Females also endorsed higher LOV with female classmates and

close friends than males. There were no gender differences for teachers, parents, and male

classmates. Within the male participants, LOV was higher with close friends than any other

relational context. Females voice was higher with close friends than all other contexts and higher

with female classmates than with male classmates, parents, and teachers (Harter et al., 1998).

19

Support for voice (SFV) scores were found to be significantly correlated with LOV

scores in the same relational context (rs between 0.46 and 0.70; ps > 0.01). To examine mean

levels of SFV, participants were divided into one of three levels of support: low, moderate, and

high. Within each relational context, participants with lower levels of voice reported significantly

lower levels of support than those who receive moderate support. Those receiving high levels of

support had higher LOV than those with moderate support. The effects for support were the same

for males and females (Harter et al., 1998). Because level of voice emerged as a type of true/false

self-behavior through student interviews, respondents answered a set of objective items to verify

this association. The suppression of voice was equated with false self-behavior by nearly three-

fourths of youth surveyed. The remaining respondents may have felt that suppression of voice

was an act of true self-behavior due to shyness or fear of saying something disrespectful or

socially inappropriate (Harter et al., 1998). These results were replicated using an objective

measure created to assess if suppression of voice is considered as act of false self-behavior

(Buddin, 1997).

The relationship between support and authentic self-behavior was replicated in a study on

autonomy and connection among adult couples (Harter, Waters et al., 1997). The sample

consisted of 2527 women and 755 men solicited through the local newspaper. The age of the

respondents ranged from 18 years to over 55 years. Over half of the sample (53%) was between

the ages of 35 – 54. Participants 18 - 34 years old comprised 25.4% of the sample and 20.7%

were individuals 55 years or older. The study evaluated relationship styles among partners: self-

focused autonomy, other-focused connection, or mutuality. For other-focused individuals

connection is most important in the relationship. They often let their partner make decisions for

them and place the needs and desires of their partner above their own. Self-focused individuals

have clearly defined personal boundaries, are extremely independent, and often the dominant

person in the relationship. Individuals with a style of mutuality have a good balance of intimacy

and independence in relation to their partner.

As predicted, the researchers found a positive relationship between the ability to show

one’s authentic self within the relationship and the level of validation received from their partner

(Harter, Waters et al., 1997). Authentic self-behavior and partner validation were positively

correlated (r = .55, p = < 0.001). Additional support for this hypothesis was garnered through

20

mean comparisons made for authentic self-behavior and validation based on pairings of

relationship style. Regardless of the respondent’s perceived style, any person paired with a self-

focused partner perceived less validation than those with those with mutual or self-focused

partners. Correspondingly, mutual and other-focused individuals displayed less authentic self-

behavior if partnered with a self-focused person than with someone with one of the other two

relationship styles. Levels of authentic self-behavior did not vary among self-focused individuals

when their partner’s relationship style was considered (Harter, Waters et al., 1997).

Conclusions

Harter et al.’s work on authenticity provides empirical support for Erikson’s (1968)

propositions regarding identity development (Harter, 2002; Harter, Bresnick, Bouchey, &

Whitesell, 1997; Harter et al., 1996; Harter & Monsour, 1992; Harter, Waters et al., 1997; Harter

et al., 1998). First, the task of representing one’s authentic self became increasingly important in

the successive adolescent age groups investigated. Second, the resolution of such issues is a

process that continues throughout adulthood. Third, the perceived recognition and acceptance of

others influences the behavior of both adolescents and adults.

Identity Development and African American Youth

There is a limited understanding of the processes of exploration and commitment in

African Americans, due in part to a dearth of literature. Only two studies found to date have

evaluated within group differences on identity status for African Americans (Forbes & Ashton,

1998; Watson & Protinsky, 1991). Watson and Protinsky (1991) studied 237 low-income African

American high school students using the Ideological subscale of the Extended Objective

Measure of Ego Identity Scale (EOM-EIS II). The researchers found that few students had

solidified their identity commitments. Nearly 47$ of the sample was classified as transitional.

That is, they scored above the cut-off score (1 standard deviation above the mean) on two or

more of the four status scale scores. Moratoriums or low-profile moratoriums comprised 21% of

the sample. Low-profile moratorium youth have scale scores that are below the specified cut-off

on each status scale. Only 2% of the sample could be classified as foreclosed.

Forbes and Ashton (1998) conducted a replication study with 49 middle adolescents. On

the ideological subscale, only 19 % of the high school students sampled could be considered

21

transitional. The majority of the students (60%) were classified as moratoriums or low-profile

moratoriums. More students were classified as foreclosed (6.8%) than in Watson and Protinsky’s

(1991) study. Nineteen percent of the sample was in the transitional status on interpersonal

issues. Exploration of interpersonal issues was most common as 68% of the sample were either

moratoriums or low-profile moratoriums. The remaining 12% were in the achieved (6%),

foreclosed (2%), and diffusion (4%) statuses.

Gender differences also emerged in these two studies. There were relatively few youth

classified as identity achieved; females were significantly more likely than males to be classified

as such (Forbes & Ashton, 1998; Watson & Protinsky, 1991). There was a pattern of age-based

increases in youth classified as identity achieved and decreases of identity diffuse (Watson &

Protinsky, 1991). Tests to assess age differences did not reach the significance criterion.

However, this may have been a result of an untested gender by age interaction.

Rotheram-Borus (1989) examined identity development in black, Filipino, Puerto Rican,

and white high school students. The EOM-EIS II ideological subscale served as the index for

identity development. Observation of the mean scale scores by gender for African Americans

reflected higher identity achieved scores in 11th and 12th grade females than females in the 9th

and 10th grades. Moratorium and foreclosed scores were lower for upper-grade girls and diffuse

scores appeared consistent. A different pattern emerged in the males. Identity achieved,

moratorium, and diffuse scores were higher for males in lower-grades. Foreclosure scores were

higher in upper-grade males. No statistical tests were run for age or gender-based comparisons

within ethnic groups.

The focus of Rotheram-Borus’ (1989) study was ethnic differences in identity status and

other psychosocial measures. Tests for between group differences on status scale scores did not

detect any main effects by race/ethnicity. Only one ethnicity by grade interaction emerged where

white students in the 11th or 12th grades had higher Ideological Moratorium scores and the

reverse was true for each of the other ethnic groups. When classified into status categories, 46%

of the total sample scored as low-profile moratoriums, and 14% were transitional. These

participants were excluded from further analyses. As with the scale scores, no differences were

detected in the distribution of identity statuses by ethnicity (Rotheram-Borus, 1989).

The occurrence of differences in identity status based on ethnicity generally finds no

differences for the achieved, moratorium or diffuse scale scores. Results indicating similarity

22

across all identity status scores for various ethnic groups (African American, Asian/Asian

American, Caucasians, Latino/Hispanic, and other) have been presented by Branch, Tayal &

Triplett (2000) in a sample of emerging adults students. Streitmatter (1988) found that White

early adolescents had lower ideological and interpersonal foreclosure scores than the aggregated

sample of all other ethnic groups (Hispanic, Black, Native American, Asian, and other). There

were no differences found on any of the other status scale scores in Streitmatter’s study.

Contrary to these studies, it is often reported that African Americans are over represented

in the foreclosure status, less likely than whites to engage in exploration and attain identity

achieved status, or have a negative and impoverished sense of self (Markstrom-Adams &

Adams, 1995; Rotheram-Borus, 1989; Waterman, 1993). Hauser’s (1972) study was used to

support these comments without a discussion of the caveats of his research.

Hauser (1972) conducted a 4-year longitudinal study of 22 Black and White

nondelinquent males with no college aspirations from poor working-class families. Participants

were excluded from the study if there was a change in their socioeconomic status or college

aspirations. Hauser used the terms diffusion, foreclosure, and moratorium, among others; he

operationalized these constructs in terms of structural integration and temporal stability of one’s

self-attributes. The importance of structural integration and temporal stability to healthy identity

development was drawn from an early publication of Erikson’s work The problem of ego identity

(see Erikson, 1968).

Interviews served as one form of data collection, and Hauser (1972) described his

interview as “loosely structured…[focusing on areas of] work, family relations, future plans,

significant relationships, and peer relationships” (p. 115). These interviews were not said to be

based on Marcia’s identity status interview nor designed to capture the aspects of Marcia’s status

model. It has been reported that Hauser (1972) used Marcia’s status interview (Forbes & Ashton,

1998; Watson & Protinsky, 1991) and that he conducted two studies (Hauser, 1972, 1973) to

support prevalence of identity foreclosure in African Americans (Markstrom & Hunter, 1999).

Hauser (1973) compared psychiatric patients and college students. The inclusion of African

Americans in the sample was not overtly stated in the paper. In each of the aforementioned

studies/reviews, Hauser’s (1972) results were generalized to all African Americans without

mention of the differences in operation definitions or sampling limitations. There was an 18-year

23

lapse between the publication of Hauser’s study and another study on African American identity

development was identified in the literature (i.e., Rotheram-Borus, 1989; Streitmatter, 1988).

One critique of the identity status model is that it is often presented in the literature as an

operationalization of Erikson’s identity construct even though many aspects are not assessed by

the model (van Hoof, 1999a, 1999b). The status model does not explicitly address concepts such

as temporal stability or ego synthesis. The idea that the status model is an underrepresentation of

Erikson’s full construct has been acknowledged by leading proponents (Berzonsky & Adams,

1999; Waterman, 1999). However, Marcia’s work is useful as it does attend to the processes of

exploration and commitment (Berzonsky & Adams, 1999). In addition, the status model

highlights that commitments can be made with or without the exploration of one’s options.

Identity and Interpersonal Relationships

Research linking identity formation and interpersonal relationships predominately

focuses on parent-child characteristics such as attachment, differentiation, autonomy, rejection,

and rigid/balanced emotional boundaries. The expression of one’s true thoughts and opinions and

the corresponding support received has theoretical importance but has not received attention in

this body of literature. There are a few national or international studies examining the effects of

communication, support, or rejection. In spite of the importance Erikson placed on acceptance by

peers and community leaders, research lead by Meeus et al. (1995; 2002) has been the only work

found to date to explore the conjoint influence of parent and peer support. This section will

commence with a discussion of identity literature pertaining to family communication and

support/rejection. A review of the family correlates of African American identity development

will follow.

Communication and Identity

Three studies were identified that link parent-child communication and identity

development. It is generally believed that family environments encouraging of self-expression

and respect for the youth’s unique viewpoints enhance adolescent development (Adams, Dyk, &

Bennion, 1990). Findings of North American research on the relationship between expressive

family environments and identity have yielded no support for this proposition (Willemsen &

Waterman, 1991). Conversely, male youth from India with higher levels of identity achievement

24

indicate more openness and better overall communication with both their mother and father than

those with lower levels of identity achievement (Bhushan & Shirali, 1992).

Grotevant and Cooper (1985) examined displays of individuation and connectedness in

the communication patterns of 84 families with high school students. In their model, the

expression of one’s viewpoints is an integral part of an adolescent’s developmental process

(Grotevant & Cooper, 1985). The researchers focused on exploration as they viewed it as a

process that could be facilitated through interpersonal relationships (Grotevant & Cooper, 1985).

Using the rating score for exploration from their Identity Status Interview, the researchers found

that the level of exploration was related to the support/criticism received in response to the

verbalization of the youth’s ideas and opinions. Males with higher levels of exploration were

more likely to have fathers who frequently expressed respect and sensitivity to their son’s views.

Their fathers also refrained from asserting their own views or disagreeing with the views of his

son. Mother-son communication did not emerge as a significant influence. On the contrary,

exploration was more likely in daughters whose mothers and fathers frequently disagreed with

their views.

Support and Identity

The conceptualization of support in the identified studies was holistically rather than to

specified behaviors as in Grotevant and Cooper’s (1985) study. Generally, it is expected that

higher levels of support lead to advanced adolescent development (Adams et al., 1990). The

support for this proposition is equivocal due to gender differences. Sartor and Youniss (2002)

found that maternal support was related to identity achievement in both males and females.

However, O’Connor (1995) detected a positive relationship between maternal and paternal

support and achieved identity for males only. Males in the diffuse status received less support

from both parents In females, emotional support from both parents was associated with greater

foreclosure, however the perception of parental rejection was positively associated with

moratorium (O'Connor, 1995).

Adams (1985) compared the perceptions of 45 female college students and both of their

parents on the relationship of parental behavior and identity status. Because of the low

intercorrelations between each parent’s self-reported behavior and the daughter’s perceptions of

parental behavior, each perspective was analyzed separately. The young women were classified

25

into three groups: crisis (achieved and moratorium), noncrisis (diffuse and foreclosure), and low-

profile (scores of 1 standard deviation below the mean on all status scale scores).

The daughters in Adams (1985) study who had not undergone a period of crisis perceived

significantly less support (i.e. trust, interest, general support) from their fathers than those in the

crisis and low-profile groups. In addition, noncrisis youth felt that both parents were significantly

more rejecting and controlling (Adams, 1985). That it is their mothers and fathers were more

critical and tried to dictate their behavior. Crisis and low-profile youth believed that their fathers

were more involved in their lives in the form of companionship, physical affection, and support

than non-exploratory youth. Parental reports of behavior were not as telling of their daughters

identity development (Adams, 1985). Mothers of noncrisis daughters reported that they were less

likely to talk and spend time (companionship) together than mothers of participants in the two

other groups. In addition, noncrisis daughters were more likely to have attention and support

withdrawn if they disappointed their fathers than crisis and low-profile daughters.

Imbimbo (1995) evaluated identity development and maternal behavior in college

students whose parents were divorced. Males reported mothers to be more accepting than

females; however, maternal acceptance had no bearing on their identity development. Mothers

were most accepting of foreclosed daughters and least accepting of daughters in moratorium.

The studies on nonfamilial support and identity are limited. Erikson’s (1959) assertion

that peer support is more important during late adolescence than parental support is bolstered by

the results. In a longitudinal study of Dutch adolescents ages 12 to 24, the magnitude of the

influence of intimate friend and general peer support was larger than parental support and in each

identity domain investigated (Meeus & Dekovic, 1995). Best friends or partners had the

strongest influence on relational identity commitment and exploration accounting for 52% and

36% of the variance respectively. School identity commitment was best predicted by classmate

support with 17% of the variance predicted followed by a positive additive affect of parental

support, which accounted for an additional 6% of the variance. This pattern was consistent for

school exploration as well. Classmates accounted for 19% of the variance and parents an

additional 7%. Intimate friends only accounted for an addition 1% of the variance in school

exploration scores. Occupational identity commitment was predicted by support from one’s

colleagues (35%) and parents (an additional 4%). Finally, colleagues and intimate friends

26

collectively accounted for 26% of the variance in occupational exploration with colleagues

accounting for 21% alone. Parents explained an additional 2% of the variance.

African American Identity and Family Context

Mullis, Brailsford, and Mullis (2003) and Watson and Protinsky (1988) were the only

published studies found to date to examine familial characteristics and identity status in African

American youth. Both studies evaluated family cohesion (closeness) and adaptability (flexibility)

in relation to identity development using the EOM-EIS II. Watson and Protinsky (1988) found

that family cohesion was positively related to both ideological foreclosure and commitment in

high school students. The inclusion of self-esteem in regression analyses highlighted personality

differences between these two groups. Youth with higher foreclosure scores had low self-esteem,

whereas high self-esteem scores were characteristic of youth with higher levels of identity

achieved scores (Watson & Protinsky, 1988).

Mullis et al. (2003) measured concurrent levels of commitment and exploration in Black

and White college students using the Ego Identity Process Questionnaire (EIPQ). The EIPQ is

comprised of two subscales: exploration and commitment. Foreclosure and diffusion statuses are

not measured directly but derived based on cut of scores on each of the subscales. These

researchers found that Black emergent adults with cohesive families were more likely to be

engaged in ideological exploration and have higher levels of interpersonal commitment. High

levels of family cohesion and family adaptability were associated with lower levels of

interpersonal exploration. This pattern was not the same for White youth. For White emerging

adults, there was no relationship between family flexibility and commitment or exploration

levels, although family cohesion was important for both interpersonal and ideological

commitment (Mullis et al., 2003). Racial differences are highlighted here to draw attention to the

differences in developmental outcomes across ethnic groups with apparently similar family

characteristics.

The Contemporary African American Family: Influential Networks of Extended Family and

Nonfamilial Adults in the Lives of African American Youth

The African American family is historically rooted in a consanguine family system that

traces back to their ancestral African civilizations (Hill, 1999). A conjugal family unit was

27

embedded both structurally and residentially within the paramount extended family network. The

extended family worked together to provide for the socialization, economic, emotional, and

material needs of all its members. Conjugal family units were provided housing within the

family compound of either spouse depending on the matrilineal or patrilineal traditions of the

culture. Membership to the clan came with expectations of reciprocity and contributions to the

stability and fortification of the group – not just an individual family unit (Hill, 1999). The

shared caring and rearing of the children was a benefit of this extended family system that

extended to the larger community. The concept of communal care giving is the foundation of a

now popularized African proverb ‘It takes a village to raise a child’ (Somé, 1998). As a result,

any adult in the community may serve as a surrogate parent and affectionately be acknowledged

by the youth as if there was a biological role relation.

Africans enslaved in the United States recreated this complex system of community and

family care. The extended networks of kin and nonkin were an invaluable resource to provide for

the emotional, educational, recreational, and material needs in the face of the harsh realities of

enslavement (Taylor, 2000). This care giving system helped to protect individuals against the

impacts of death or the sale and relocation of a loved one, either child or family member. Family

roles were both adaptable and flexible (Taylor, 2000). Specifically, roles and responsibilities

could be assumed as needed by members of the network and were not dictated by gender roles or

biological ties (Hill, 1999; Taylor, 2000). Therefore, any female or male member of the network

could assume or share the responsibility for the care and guidance of a young child, for example,

if the biological parents were unable to fulfill their responsibilities. This could result in an

individual having a biological or nonrelated family member filling the role of mother figure.

Under this type of family system, it is also possible that an individual has multiple mother

figures as a result of shared parenting efforts from kin and nonkin alike. Mother figure is only an

example here; the role flexibility may occur for any family position (e.g., father, aunt,

grandparent, etc.).

Extended family networks and community ties in childrearing have persisted for many

African American families. Consequently, scholars of this population have expanded the

definition of the family to account for these networks:

[The family is] an intimate association of two or more persons related to each other by

blood, marriage, formal or informal adoption, or appropriation. The latter term refers to

28

the incorporation of persons in the family who are unrelated by blood or marital ties but

are treated as though they are family (Taylor, 2000, p. 233).

This definition allows for the inclusion of family members not bound by blood or marital

ties as viable members of the family network. The academic terminology coined by

anthropologists to identify this type of family member is fictive kin. However, to move away

from the notion that biology equals family Watts-Jones (1997) suggests using the term functional

kin. In casual conversation, often play is stated before the appropriated role (e.g. play-brother) to

refer to fictive kin. In this writing the terms functional and fictive kin will be used

interchangeably.

Fictive or functional kin relationships develop through reciprocal involvement in the care

and support on one or more members of a consanguine family. Interaction and performance are

the foundations of a functional kin relationship. Thus, due to the nature of the relationship are

considered as emotionally close. Biologically related family members may be expected to

provide support to other family members but may not consistently do so, if at all. Therefore,

there is the potential for diverse levels of emotional closeness with biological kin, even with

those functioning in the role of a caregiver (Watts-Jones, 1997).

Even though fictive kin are a part of many African American families, geographic and

social changes have resulted in a loss of this cultural tradition for some adolescents and emerging

adults. Tatum (1997) investigated the experiences of upper-middle class African American

families and their children who live in predominately Caucasian suburbs. Seven of the 15

adolescents interviewed could not readily identify with the concept of fictive kin and once

explained did not understand the benefits of such relationships. Likewise, most of the parents of

this subgroup had not maintained these types of connections in their personal lives. Many of the

parents in this sample did maintain close ties with family and fictive kin and provided

opportunities and encouragement for their children to do the same. Parents who encouraged

with-in group socialization experiences were also more likely to have children to seriously

consider attending a Historically Black College or University (Tatum, 1997).

The role of extended family care was highlighted in 1970’s due to simultaneous

developments in scholarly discourse and foster care policy. Social welfare systems were under

pressure to reform long held practices of refusing or under serving African American children

and were faced with an increasing number of children slated for out-of-home placements.

29

Scholars were documenting the practice and strengths of extended family care. Child welfare

policy makers began to advocate extended family placements when possible (Hegar &

Scannapieco, 1995).

The level of support an involvement of extended family systems is overlooked when

examining only the nuclear family system. Consequently, some researchers are working to move

beyond the centrality of the nuclear family and calling for inclusion of the extended family

system in research of all ethnic groups, Caucasian Americans included (Bengtson, 2001;

Caldwell et al., 1999; Wilson, 1989). Although few in number, there are empirical studies

documenting the integral role of extended family in the African American families particularly

as it relates to support (Caldwell et al., 1999; Hirsch et al., 2002; Hunter et al., 1998; Manns,

1997; Spencer & Markstrom-Adams, 1990; Taylor, 1995; Taylor, Casten, & Flickinger, 1993;

Wilson, 1989).

African American parents in urban settings often rely on cross-household parenting

arrangements for assistance with childrearing activities (Hunter et al., 1998). Parents rely upon

extended family members for help with childcare and management, rule setting, enforcement,

discipline, and the provision of emotional support to children. Of the mothers that Hunter et al.

interviewed, grandparents were identified second only to fathers as sources of practical and

emotional support. These mothers also indicated that their children were able to turn to their

aunts and uncles to talk about their feelings and problems (Hunter et al., 1998). According to

Hunter et al., African Americans with higher incomes were more likely to have help with

providing emotional support for the children. There were no differences in emotional support

based on family structure or the gender of the child.

African American youth also note the influence of extended family as they develop.

Hirsh et al. (2002) queried Black and White youth on the most influential grandparent and the

most influential male other than their father. Seventy percent of black participants identified their

maternal grandmother as the most influential grandparent. Of the portion of the sample

identifying an adult male, Black youth were more likely than Whites (26% vs.8%, respectively)

to select an uncle or adult brother as a person who had some or a lot of influence over them. The

influential adults nominated were available to discuss issues related to teen-parent relationships,

peer relationships, and personal growth (Hirsch et al., 2002). Approximately one-fourth of

30

African Americans selected a relative as an influential male other than their father and the

remaining 74% specified a nonrelative.

The role of extended family and nonfamilial adults in the development of emerging

adults is further supported through a retrospective study of support received by Black social

work professionals (Manns, 1997). Of the Blacks sampled, 34% of all of the significant people

identified were parents or relatives. Parents were most noted for achievement socialization,

modeling commitment, work ethic, and service to others, meeting material needs, and providing

emotional support. The roles of relatives were similar to parents except relatives were looked

upon as models of behaviors, such as the effort, planning, personal qualities, and/or lifestyle that

makes the achievement of one’s goals possible. Manns noted the possibility of social class

differences in the choice and roles of a parent as a significant. More middle-class respondents

identified a parent as a significant influence and indicated that they were instrumental with

achievement socialization. Lower class respondents commented on the provision of material

resources more often. These differences may have been a function of the interpersonal

environments where middle-class families are in contact with others with higher education levels

more often; therefore, more attention was drawn to educational achievement. A second

hypothesis was that lower class respondents did not take the material resources provided to them

for granted (Manns, 1997).

Similar to the Hirsh et al. (2002) study, the majority of the people named (64%) in

Manns’ (1997) study were not related to the respondent. Significant nonrelatives identified were

primarily counselors and administrators from educational institutions (47%), followed by people

from the workplace (18%), religious leaders (8%), and leaders of extracurricular activities (2%;

i.e., camp, girl/boy scouts). These community members were most often viewed as a model of

someone having reaching a desired level of achievement (35%). This is not surprising as they

were more likely to have higher education levels, income, and community standing than the

respondents were. Nonkin were noted for providing valuable information regarding educational

and occupational goals as well. This was particularly true for lower class respondents who may

have needed more information on the options available to them (Manns, 1997). Another

important role of nonrelatives was validating the respondent by reminding them of their worth or

heritage. In essence, reminding them that they had a strong historical legacy to draw from and

important place in society. Other noted contributions were providing material resources and

31

eliciting learning. The role of nonrelatives was not all positive. Fifteen percent of the respondents

noted that the identified community member was disapproving. It is not clear how these negative

interactions influenced the respondent, only that they were recalled as significant to the

respondent’s development.

The final notable finding from Manns (1997) study relates to the periods of influence

across the lifespan. Respondents recalled that the majority of their family’s influence occurred

between the ages of 6 and 17. However, almost one-fourth of the respondents who were in the

40th decade of life indicated that their family was still a significant influence. Nonkin were said

to play significant roles throughout childhood, adolescence, and into young adulthood.

Conclusions

Erikson’s view of healthy identity development does not rest solely on the shoulders of

the individual (Erikson, 1959; 1968). The family of the youth and community members plays an

integral part in facilitating the process. Emerging adults must make commitments to ideological

values and beliefs as well as reflect upon their abilities and opportunities to find a place in the

larger social order. Youth must also learn how to be true to themselves in the presence of the

significant people in their life. Parents lay the foundation by providing an environment where

trust, autonomy, and industry thrive. The community of one’s peers and leaders provide support

and acceptance as the emerging adult presents him/herself as an active member of the

community.

Harter’s research provides support to the relevance of true self-behavior in the lives of

adolescents and adults, as well as the importance of the perceived support and acceptance from

other’s to one’s presented self (Harter, 2002; Harter, Bresnick et al., 1997; Harter, Buddin et al.,

1997; Harter et al., 1996; Harter & Monsour, 1992; Harter, Waters et al., 1997; Harter et al.,

1998). Furthermore, that issues of authentic behavior and support become increasingly salient

during adolescence and remain throughout adulthood corroborates Erikson’s notion that identity

development is a lifelong process that takes on increased importance as people prepare to

transition into adulthood.

Grotevant and Cooper (1985) presented evidence that verbal expression of adolescent’s

thoughts/opinions and the corresponding level of support received impact identity exploration.

32

While there is scant research evaluating the relationship of communication or support to identity,

it is clear that parental relationships must be evaluated separately as the parent-child gender

configuration often leads to different developmental outcomes. Meeus and Dekovic’s (1995)

work corroborates Erikson’s (1968) assertion that peer support is most important during

adolescence and emerging adulthood to identity development over parental support.

How the process of exploring and committing to ideological ideals proceeds or is

influenced by interpersonal relations in blacks is an underresearched area. There are theoretical

and methodological issues that have emerged based on the findings of extant research. The

acceptance and validation from both extended family and community members is perceived to

affect the development of African American youth during adolescence and emerging adulthood

(Hirsch, Boerger, Levy, & Mickus, 1994; Hunter et al., 1998; Manns, 1997). The stated

significance of familial and nonfamilial adults by study participants supports the conceptual

validity of the variables to be examined through the proposed study. Thus, relational contexts

beyond one’s biological parents must be incorporated to develop an understanding of African

American family life and socialization. The impact of support should not be generalized across

the various identity domains.

33

CHAPTER 3

METHODS

This study was designed to examine the relationship of level of voice and support for

voice in familial and extrafamilial contexts to ideological identity exploration. The study was

also designed to expand the theoretical and empirical discussion regarding identity development

and socialization forces in African American emerging adults. Erikson (1959) suggested that

identity development is rooted in supportive relationships with caregivers and affirmed by peers

and community leaders. Using this theoretical guidance supported by the work of Boykin and

Ellison (1995), the relational contexts included both familial and extrafamilial relationships:

mother, father, adult relatives, fictive kin, peers, and instructors/advisors. The research questions

under investigation were as follows:

A. Are support for voice (SFV) and level of voice (LOV) in familial and extrafamilial contexts

determinants of ideological identity exploration? Are there differences by gender?

B. Which familial and extrafamilial relational contexts of SFV and LOV are important

determinants of ideological exploration?

C. Are SFV and LOV in extrafamilial contexts stronger determinants of ideological exploration

than SFV and LOV in familial contexts? Are there differences by gender?

D. What is the combined influence of SFV and LOV in familial and extrafamilial contexts on

ideological identity exploration?

Sample

Theoretical and empirical evidence supports studying identity development toward the

end of youth (Erikson, 1968; Marcia, 1993). As young people emerge into adulthood and the

associated responsibilities, they are more active in resolving the issues connected with identity

development. A convenience sample was drawn from history, psychology, biology, and dance

classes at Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University (FAMU), a historically Black

University. The study sample was limited to students who identified themselves as Black/African

American and spent most of their childhood and adolescent years in the United States. Exclusive

34

sampling of this group allowed for the examination of gender differences. A range of majors and

ages was represented through these courses, however, there is a loss of generalizability to other

emerging adults attending college given the nature of sampling methods. The Institutional

Review Boards of both Florida State University and FAMU approved the request to conduct this

study (see Appendix A).

In concern for minimizing both Type I and Type II error, the sample size was estimated

based on each analyses potential to reach power of 0.08, as suggested by Cohen (1977), reject a

false null with 95% accuracy, and detect moderate effects. Considering these parameters, the

target sample size was estimated to be 266 participants. A final sample included 373 participants

(122 males and 251 females). Variations in the sample size for various analyses resulted from

missing data. In all analyses, cases were excluded listwise. All participants were aged 18 and

older: 18 – 19 (46.2%), 20 – 21 (36.3%), 22 – 23 (9.9%), and 24 and older (6.2%). The majority

of the sample indicated that they were in their sophomore (31.6%) or junior (28.7%) year. The

median family income was $50,000. See Table B1 for detailed information on age, classification

and family income.

As expected, many of the participants indicated multiple people serving as parental

figures and having fictive kin involved in their lives (see Tables B2 & B3). Biological mothers

were most frequently (90.1%) identified as the primary female caregiver. However, 45.2% of the

sample identified two or more females as mother figures. Females traditionally classified in the

roles of grandmother (60.2%), aunt (26.6%), and other female relative (14.2%) were most often

identified as mother figures, after biological mother (91.4%). Only 1.9% of the sample did not

select any females as serving as a mother figure (see Table B2).

The primary male caregiver selected most often was biological father (63.5%) followed

by stepfather (9.4%). It was not as common for participants to identify multiple father figures

(26.6%). Individuals most commonly serving dual roles included uncle (18.4%), grandfather

(15.4%), stepfather (11.6%), and other male relatives (11.1%). Biological fathers were involved

in the upbringing of 64.2% of the sample, while 16.6% did not identify any males involved in

raising them (see Table B2).

Adult relatives and fictive kin were involved in the majority of the participant’s lives

(96.6% and 76.3% respectively; see Table B3). Over 80% of the sample had grandmother(s),

aunt(s), uncle(s) or cousin(s) in their lives. The most frequently selected fictive kin roles

35

included godmother (52%), play-cousin (47.0%), and play-aunt (42.6%). In addition, over 30%

of the sample noted the involvement of a godfather, second or play mother, or play-uncle.

Instrumentation

Participants responded to three questionnaires and a demographic form. The survey was

administered in a double-sided booklet consisting of 173 items (see Appendices C & D). To

improve participant response rates, items were aligned vertically on the page and in two columns

when possible (Dillman, 2000). Two 10-option, 120 item optical scan forms were used to record

participant responses (see Appendix E). Each optical scan form was labeled with identical record

numbers by the researcher to ensure proper record matching. The entire packet was generally

completed in 30 - 45 minutes. Permission was obtained to use each of the measures mentioned

below (see Appendix F).

Extended Objective Measure of Ego Identity (EOM-EIS II)

Ideological exploration was measured using the ideological moratorium subscale of the

EOM-EIS II (Adams, 1998; Bennion & Adams, 1986). The EOM-EIS II is a 64-item extension

of the 32-item Objective Measure of Ego Identity (OM-EIS) scale. Originally, the OM-EIS was

designed to provide an alternative testing format to examining Marcia’s (1966) identity status

types (achievement, moratorium, foreclosure, and diffusion) related to ideological domains. The

measure was expanded to include an additional domain: interpersonal identity. Each domain

consists of 32 items and 4 subcategories. The ideological domain subcategories are occupation,

religion, politics, and philosophical life-style. The interpersonal domain items tap friendship,

dating, sex roles, and recreation and leisure. Participants rate the extent to which they strongly

agree or strongly disagree with each statement on a six-point scale. The EOM-EIS II is

appropriate for use in samples aged 13 – 30.

To create subcategory and domain scores for each identity status, all items are reverse

coded so higher scores are indicative of higher levels of the respective identity status type. Then,

the sum of all of the items related to each subcategory or domain is calculated. The resulting raw

scale scores can be used for analyses or participants can be classified into single status category

(“pure” identity type) group. To be classified into a pure status type, an individual’s raw status-

36

type subscale score must fall one standard deviation above the mean and the remaining status-

type subscale scores must fall below the appropriate cut-off score.

In the 25 years since the introduction of the OM-EIS, continual efforts have been made to

increase the psychometric properties of the instrument. The obtained alpha coefficients for the

EOM-EIS II were as follows: Interpersonal – Achieved 0.62, Moratorium 0.75, Foreclosed 0.75,

Diffusion 0.62, and Ideological – Achieved 0.60, Moratorium 0.58, Foreclosed 0.80, and

Diffusion 0.64 (Bennion & Adams, 1986). A factor analysis of the EOM-EIS II supported the

theoretical distinctions between status categories with one exception; the Diffusion and

Moratorium subscale loaded on the same factor. Achievement and Foreclosure were distinct

factor scores (Adams, 1998). Bennion and Adams (1986) examination of the measure’s

psychometric properties revealed the expected results when assessing for convergent validity.

Specifically, the interpersonal status-type scores were most highly correlated with the

corresponding ideological status-type score. Assessing the results of the factor analysis and

convergent validity led Bennion and Adams (1986) to conclude that diffusion and moratorium

measure overlapping but distinct concepts. Concurrent validity was assessed by comparing the

EOM-EIS II with the identity measure by Rosenthal et al. (1981). As expected, ideological and

interpersonal identity achieved subscales were positively correlated with Rosenthal et al.’s

identity subscale score, rs = 0.38 and 0.47 respectively (Bennion & Adams, 1986).

Level of Voice

This scale measured the young people’s ability to express their point of view, important

thoughts, and opinions with various people (Harter, 1995). There is a set of five statements

grouped and adapted to reflect the relational context of interest. Previous studies have examined

mother, father, male friends, female friends, close friends, romantic others, special adult in your

life, and teachers. The contexts of interest in this study include mother, father, adult relatives,

fictive kin, peers, and instructors/advisors. To minimize the tendency of socially desirable

responses, the items use a structured alternative format. A sample item reads: “Some students

share what they are really thinking with [particular other] BUT Other students find it hard to

share what they are thinking with [particular other].” First, the respondent selects the part of the

statement that best describes them. Next, they decide if the statement is sort of true or really true

for them. Approximately one-half of the items begin by indicating the presence of voice and the

others indicate the absence of voice. Items are scored on a 4-point scale where 4 represents

37

higher levels of voice. The average of the five scores is calculated and used for subsequent

analyses.

In its original format, this scale addressed the respondents as teenagers in each item to

correspond with the age group sampled (high school students). The term teenager will not apply

to older college students recruited to participate in this study. Dr. Harter, the author of the

measure, indicated that the wording could be changed to “students” without any threat to the

validity of the items (S. Harter, personal communication, August 25, 2004, see Appendix G).

This change makes the wording consistent with that used in measures (e.g. Self-Perception

Profile for College Students) designed by the same author for college populations.

To confirm that level of voice varied across relational contexts and establish construct

validity, Harter and her colleagues (Harter et al., 1998) conducted an exploratory factor analysis

using an oblique rotation. Five factors emerged that corresponded to the relationships under

investigation (parents, teachers, male classmates, female classmates, and close friends), and there

were no crossloadings larger than 0.20. The alpha coefficients associated with these contexts

were .84, .92, .92, .92, .92, respectively.

Support for Voice

This instrument measured whether the respondent perceives that a particular other

respects their opinions, wants to hear what they have to say, and makes an effort to understand

their point of view (Harter, 1995). There are five base questions adapted to reflect each relational

context. The order of the items and the contexts is varied and presented as one continuous

measure. Items follow the structured alternative format as described above. A sample item reads

“My [particular other] respect(s) my ideas even if they don’t agree or My [particular other] don’t

(doesn’t) usually respect my ideas, especially when they disagree. Items are scored on a 4-point

scale where four represents higher levels of perceived support. The average of the five scores is

calculated and used for subsequent analyses.

To examine the predictive validity, a series of correlations were conducted to confirm

that support for voice in a specified relational context was most highly correlated with level of

voice in the same relational context (Harter et al., 1998). In each relational context, SFV was

most correlated with LOV in the same context, (rs = .48, .59, .46, .51 for voice with teachers,

parents, male classmates, and female classmates, respectively). Each was significant with the ps

between .01 and .001. As a second index of predictive validity, participants were categorized

38

based on the mean level of support: low (1.0 – 1.9), medium (2.5 – 3.0), and high (3.5 – 4.0)

(Harter et al., 1998). Analyses indicated that in each relational context those with low SFV

indicated lower LOV than those with moderate SFV. Those with moderate SFV reported

significantly lower LOV than those with high SFV.

Familial Relationships

To identify the people involved in the upbringing of the participants, several questions

were asked to determine who served in the roles of mother, father, adult relatives, and fictive kin.

These items preceded the LOV and SFV scales. This allowed the respondent to identify and

consider all of the individuals responsible for raising them when responding to these scales.

Based on the work of Nancy Boyd-Franklin (1989) with African American families in therapy,

participants were asked “Which of the following females raised you?” to allow individuals to

acknowledge all of the females who reared them. Respondents were asked to respond yes or no

to each of the following relationships: biological mother, step-mother, grandmother, aunt, other

female relative, adoptive mother, foster mother, other female non-relative, and none. This list is

intended to be exhaustive; none was included to insure clarity that the respondent did not

perceive anyone to fill the stated role. Based on the consistent questions received by respondents

about this item and the response inconsistency, the researcher determined that this variable did

not serve this purpose. Therefore, a person was considered to have no role figure in a given

relational context if they responded no to each option listed in the given category. Participants

were instructed to think of all of the people identified when answering questions regarding LOV

and SFV. This question was rephrased to identify the males who served in the role of father

(figure): biological father, stepfather, grandfather, uncle, other male relative, adoptive father,

foster father, other male non-relative, and none.

To identify adult relatives the following statement was listed “Which of the following

adult relatives have been a part of your life?” Respondents were asked to respond yes or no to

each of the following relationships: grandmother(s), grandfather(s), aunt(s), uncle(s), cousin(s),

other(s), and none. Instructions were given that the people (person) identified, with the exception

of anyone considered to be a mother (figure) or father (figure), would be referred to as adult

relatives in future items. To identify fictive kin, the following statement was given “For many

students, there are people who are considered as family or like family, even though they’re not

biologically related. Do you think of any adults in the following ways even though they are not

39

related to you by birth or marriage?” (Watts-Jones, 1997). Respondents were asked to respond

yes or no to each of the following relationships: godmother, godfather, second or play mother,

second or play father, play aunt, play uncle, play cousin, play-grandmother, play-grandfather,

other, and none. Instructions were given that the people (person) identified, with the exception of

anyone considered to be a mother (figure) or father (figure), would be referred to as adult

relatives in future items.

Demographic Sheet

The demographic sheet was designed to collect information regarding the participant’s

age, gender, race, ethnicity, birth in U.S. or in a foreign country as a U.S. citizen, classification,

relationship status, primary female caregiver during most of their childhood and adolescence

years (1st 18 yrs), highest education level of primary female caregiver, primary male caregiver

during most of their childhood and adolescence years (1st 18 yrs), highest education level of

primary male caregiver, and family income. Respondents were also asked to “write and bubble

the two letter abbreviation of the state followed by a space and the name of the city where they

spent most of their childhood and adolescent years” on form one. This instruction was given

when reviewing the scale instructions (see Appendix H).

Data Collection

Professors of psychology, biology, engineering, history, business, business

administration and dance at FAMU were solicited to allot class-time for the distribution and

completion of the survey packet. A consent cover letter, the survey packet, two 10-item optical

scan forms, and a no. 2 pencil were distributed to the class. Potential participants were informed

of Institutional Review Board approval of the study, their right to withdraw at anytime without

penalty, ensured confidentiality, and provided with an overview of the instructions as specified

in the verbal script (see Appendixes I & J). Individuals who were not interested or had

participated in the study at another time were excused after the instructions were reviewed.

40

Data Analyses

The goals of the proposed study were a) to expand the theoretical and empirical

discussion regarding identity development and socialization forces in African American

emerging adults, and b) to test the interrelationship of level of voice and support for voice in

familial and extrafamilial contexts with ideological identity exploration by gender. The

relationships assigned to each context are familial: mother (figure), father (figure), adult

relatives, fictive kin, and extrafamilial: peers, and instructors/advisors. The theoretical writings

of Erikson (1959, 1968) guided the hypotheses associated with each research question when

possible.

Scale Psychometrics

The study sample is exclusively comprised of emerging adults who identified themselves

as Black or African American and spent most of their childhood and adolescent years living in

the United States of America. The EOM-EIS II has been used in various national and

international samples. Research using LOV and SFV measures has drawn samples from

predominantly white high school students. To verify the scale properties in this sample, the

convergent validity analyses for the EOM-EIS II, construct validity for LOV, and the predictive

validity for SFV were replicated in addition to reliability coefficients.

Extended Objective Measure of Ego Identity (EOM-EIS II). The ideological moratorium

subscale of the EOM-EIS II was used to measure ideological exploration in this study. The

reliability coefficient for this subscale was α = .640 (see Table J1 for the reliability coefficients

for each subscale). This is slightly higher than reported by Bennion and Adams (1986). Bennion

and Adams established convergent validity by documenting that each ideological identity status

would have the largest correlation coefficient with the corresponding identity status in the

interpersonal domain. These results were replicated in this sample (see Table J2).

Level of Voice (LOV). The participants were questioned on their ability to express their

true thoughts and opinions and their perceptions of respect and interest in what they had to say in

six relational contexts: mother (figure), father (figure), adult relatives, fictive kin, peers, and

instructors. An exploratory factor analysis with an oblique rotation was conducted as specified in

Harter et al (1998). Using the Bartlett’s test of sphericity, the correlation matrix was determined

not to be an identity matrix and therefore fit for a factor analysis. The six-factor structure that

41

emerged for this sample did not correspond exactly to the specified relational contexts (see Table

J3). To examine the fit of the model, the residual correlations were reviewed to determine the

percentage larger than .05. Thirty percent of the correlation residuals were larger than the

determined cutoff. Having multiple residual correlation coefficients larger than .05 may be an

indication that the model is not a good fit for the data (Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991).

The first factor was predominantly comprised of items that required reverse coding. The

item loadings for father (figure) and instructors were all less than .40. The positively scored

items for adult relatives and fictive kin loaded onto the second factor. Three of the negatively

coded items had low loadings (< .4) on this factor. Factor 3 corresponded with all of the items

associated with father (figure). There were no cross loadings higher than .20. The items

corresponding to mother (figure) loaded onto factor 4. The positively scored items for adult

relatives had low loadings onto this factor (< .3). Factors 5 and 6 corresponded to

Instructor/Advisors and Peers. No other items loaded onto these factors.

The first factor may be an artifact of this sample’s responses to the instrument. It could

also be indicative of a filtering process occurring in a portion of the sample. Some student may

result in filtering their thoughts and opinions in various relational contexts. This can be

considered developmentally appropriate as many emerging adults have the understanding that

presenting selected aspects of their self is desirable and fitting in various situations (Harter &

Monsour, 1992). An examination of the item loading highlights several crossloadings on the

other factors, thus this factor is redundant. After examining the fit, the factor loadings, and the

correlation of the original LOV scale scores with SFV, the research determined it appropriate to

retain the original scale structure for the proceeding analyses. The reliability coefficients for the

LOV relational contexts as indicated by alpha ranged from .685 to .842 (see Table J1).

Support for Voice (SFV). SFV reliability coefficients ranged from .717 to .831 (see Table

J1). The verify predictive validity for SFV, scale scores were correlated with LOV to determine

if SFV in each relational context was most correlated to the LOV in the corresponding relational

context. The expected results occurred for mother (figure), father (figure), and fictive kin.

Support for voice with fictive kin was slightly more correlated with level of voice for adult

relatives, peers, and instructors/advisors (see Table J4). The difference between coefficients

ranged between .001 and .065.

42

The relationship between fictive kin and the other non-parental contexts may be due to

the dual roles of fictive kin. Fictive kin relationships are established with non-biologically related

individuals because of interactions built upon mutual exchanges of emotional and instrumental

support. By choosing to participate in this relationship, fictive kin may also serve as the most

influential generalized others discussed by symbolic interactionists and influence an individual’s

interactions with those not considered as parental figures.

Research Questions

Histograms and scatterplots were reviewed for outliers and patterns of a normal

distribution of scale scores. Based on the percentage of participants not selecting any father

figure (16.6%) and the range of scores on LOV and SFV – father (figure), a correlation was

conducted to examine the relationship between ideological exploration and a dummy variable

indicating the presence or absence of a father figure. No linear relationship between the two

variables was detected for males (r = .151, ns) or females (r = -.049, ns). The research questions

and hypotheses outlined below were assessed using a series of multiple regression analyses run

separately for males and females indicating 1 or more father figures and for all participants who

did not indicate any father figures. Gender differences will no be investigated separately in this

subgroup due to the sample size.

A. Were support for voice (SFV) and level of voice (LOV) in familial and extrafamilial contexts

determinants of ideological identity exploration? Were there differences by gender?

1. Did SFV in familial contexts contribute to the prediction of ideological identity

exploration? Were there differences by gender?

2. Did SFV in extrafamilial contexts contribute to the prediction of ideological exploration?

Were there differences by gender?

3. Did LOV in familial contexts contribute to the prediction of ideological exploration?

Were there differences by gender?

4. Did LOV in extrafamilial contexts contribute to the prediction of ideological exploration?

Were there differences by gender?

B. Which familial and extrafamilial relational contexts of SFV and LOV were important

determinants of ideological exploration?

43

1. Did SFV in each of the relational contexts (mother (figure), father (figure), adult

relatives, and fictive kin) individually contribute to the prediction of ideological identity

exploration? Were there differences by gender?

2. Did SFV in each of the extrafamilial contexts (peers and instructors/advisors)

individually contribute to the prediction of ideological identity exploration? Were there

differences by gender?

3. Did LOV in each of the relational contexts (mother (figure), father (figure), adult

relatives, and fictive kin) individually contribute to the prediction of ideological identity

exploration? Were there differences by gender?

4. Did LOV in each of the extrafamilial contexts (peers and instructors/advisors)

individually contribute to the prediction of ideological identity exploration? Were there

differences by gender?

C. Were SFV and LOV in extrafamilial contexts stronger determinants of ideological

exploration that SFV and LOV in familial contexts? Were there differences by gender?

1. Did extrafamilial SFV account for more of the variance in ideological exploration than

familial SFV? Were there differences by gender?

2. Did extrafamilial LOV account for more of the variance in ideological exploration than

familial LOV? Were there differences by gender?

D. What was the combined influence of SFV and LOV in familial and extrafamilial contexts on

ideological identity exploration?

1. Did SFV and LOV in familial and extrafamilial contexts each explain a statistically

significant amount of the variance in ideological identity exploration? Were there

differences by gender?

44

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship of level of voice (LOV) and

support for voice (SFV) in familial and extrafamilial contexts and ideological identity

exploration in African American emerging adults. The study was also designed to expand the

theoretical and empirical discussion regarding identity development and socialization forces in

this population. The relationships assigned to each context were familial: mother (figures), father

(figures), adult relatives, fictive kin, and extrafamilial: peers and instructors/advisors. The final

sample included 373 participants (67.3% female and 32.7% male) of whom 92.4% were between

the ages of 18 and 23. The significance levels for all tests were set to p = .05.

The first two research questions (A & B) addressed the collective and context specific

impact of SFV and LOV in familial and extrafamilial contexts as determinants of ideological

exploration and potential gender differences. Research sub-question A1 explored if SFV in

familial contexts would explain a statistically significant portion of the variance in ideological

identity exploration. Research sub-question B1 explored if SFV with mother (figures), father

(figures), adult relatives, and fictive kin would each have a statistically significant effect on

ideological identity exploration. Bivariate correlations were performed to test for linear

relationships between the SFV variables and ideological exploration for the total sample and

separately by gender (see Table K1). For the total sample and females, all of the variables were

significantly (p < .05) and negatively correlated with exploration. The results of the total sample

masked gender differences. For males, only SFV with fictive kin was negatively correlated with

ideological exploration. These data can be interpreted to suggest that females with higher levels

of exploration perceive less support for voice in all of the familial contexts. Males with higher

levels of exploration perceive less support for voice from their fictive kin.

Each of the family contexts was determined to be conceptually important in the

explanation of ideological exploration based on theory and extant literature. Therefore, to test the

research sub-questions A1 and B1, gender and all of the familial SFV variables were

45

simultaneously entered into a regression equation with ideological exploration as the dependent

variable (see Table K2). The portion of the variance in exploration (Adj. R2 = 5.2%) explained

by the model was statistically significant, F (5, 365) = 5.018, p < .000. An examination of the

beta coefficients revealed that only the effect of gender on exploration emerged as statistically

significant., Thus the regression was rerun separately by gender (see Table K2). The portion of

the variance explained by SFV in familial contexts (Adj. R2 = 3.9%) was statistically significant

for females, however none of the specific relational contexts independently had a statistically

significant effect on exploration. This model was not statistically significant for males. In

relation to sub-question A1, the data can be interpreted to suggest that SFV in familial contexts

collectively contributed to the explanation of ideological exploration for females. The data does

not support the relationships asserted in sub-question B1.

Sub-question A2 addressed the contribution of extrafamilial SFV to explaining a portion

of the variance in ideological exploration and possible gender differences. Sub-question B2

addressed the effect of SFV with peers and instructors/advisors on ideological identity

exploration and potential gender differences. Again, the bivariate correlations for the total

sample masked gender differences (see Table K1). There was no linear relationship between

exploration and either extrafamilial context for males. Females with higher levels of exploration

perceived lower levels of support for voice from their peers.

To test sub-questions A2 and B2, gender and SFV with peers and instructors/advisors

were simultaneously entered into a regression on exploration (see Table K3). Extrafamilial

support for voice collectively explained a statistically significant portion of the explained

variance in ideological exploration (Adj. R2 = 3.8%), F (3, 369) = 5.922, p < .001. Gender was

the only variable to emerge as having a statistically significant effect on exploration. The

regression model was repeated separately for each gender. Neither of the regression models

contributed to the prediction of ideological exploration for males or females.

Sub-question A3 explored the contribution of familial LOV to explaining a portion of the

variance in ideological exploration and potential gender differences. Sub-question B3 explored

the effects of LOV with mother (figures), father (figures), adult relatives, and fictive kin on

ideological identity exploration and potential gender differences. Modest, negative linear

relationships were detected for the total sample between ideological exploration and LOV with

mother figures, adult relatives, and fictive kin (see Table K4). For males, the familial

46

relationships negatively correlated with exploration included adult relatives and fictive kin. The

following relationships were negatively correlated to ideological exploration in females: mother

(figures), father (figures), and adult relatives. Thus for males, lower levels of voice with adult

relatives and fictive kin were associated with higher levels of exploration. Lower levels of voice

with mother (figures), father (figures), and adult relatives were associated with higher levels of

exploration in females.

To test sub-questions A3 and B3, gender and LOV in the context of one’s mother

(figures), father (figures), adult relatives, and fictive kin were simultaneously regressed on

ideological exploration (see Table K5). The portion of the variance (Adj. R2 = 4.7%) in

exploration explained by gender and LOV in familial contexts was statistically significant, F (5,

363) = 4.605, p < .000. The effects of both gender and adult relatives on exploration were found

to be statistically significant. Based on the beta coefficients, it can be said that males were more

likely to have lower LOV with adult relatives as their levels of exploration increased.

To detect the gender specific patterns, the regressions were run again by gender. The

portion of the variance explained (Adj. R2 = 3.5%) by regressing familial LOV on exploration

was statistically significant for females, F (4, 242) = 3.222, p < .05. The effect of LOV with

adult relatives on exploration was statistically significant. Females with higher levels of

exploration were less likely to express their true thoughts and opinions with their adult relatives.

For males, the portion of the variance explained by this model (9.1%) was statistically

significant, F (4, 117) = 4.025, p < .01. LOV with one’s father (figures) and fictive kin predicted

exploration. Males with higher levels of exploration were more likely to express their true

thoughts and opinions to their father (figures) and less likely to do so with their fictive kin. In

regards to sub-question A3, the data can be interpreted to suggest that LOV in familial contexts

collectively explained a statistically significantly portion of the explained variance in exploration

in both males and females. The relational contexts with a statistically significant effect on

exploration were LOV with adult relatives for females and LOV with father (figures) and fictive

kin for males (sub-question B3).

Sub-question A4 addressed the role of extrafamilial LOV in explaining a portion of the

variance in ideological exploration and possible gender differences. Sub-question B4 addressed

the effects of SFV with peers and instructors/advisors on ideological identity exploration and

potential gender differences. The bivariate correlation analyses for the total sample masked

47

gender differences (see Table K4). For males, statistically significant negative correlations were

detected between exploration and LOV with both peers and instructors/advisors. However, only

LOV in the instructor/advisor relationship was related to exploration in females, such that higher

levels of exploration were associated with lower levels of voice. Similarly, lower levels of voice

with males’ instructors/advisors and peers were associated with higher levels of exploration.

Gender and LOV with peers and instructors/advisors were simultaneously regressed on

ideological exploration to test sub-questions A4 and B4 (see Table K6). The portion of the

variance (Adj. R2 = 5.7%) accounted for by this model was statistically significant, F (3, 369) =

8.552, p < .000. Gender and LOV with one’s instructors/advisors had a statistically significant

effects on exploration. The regression model was run separately by gender (see Table K6).

Again, LOV with instructors/advisors was the only relational context to have a statistically

significant effect on exploration for males and females. Increased levels of exploration were

associated with decreased levels of LOV with instructors/advisors for both genders. The portion

of the variance accounted for by the model for females was 1.9%, F (2, 248) = 3.394, p < .05.

For males, the portion of the variance in exploration explained by this model was 8%, F (2, 119)

=6.2694, p < .01).

The third and fourth research questions (C & D) addressed the incremental and collective

contribution of extrafamilial and familial SFV and LOV to the explained variance in ideological

exploration. The third question (C) specifically considered whether SFV or LOV in extrafamilial

contexts would be a stronger determinant of ideological exploration than SFV and LOV in

familial contexts and potential gender differences. The two sub-questions generated for question

C were as follows:

1. Did extrafamilial SFV account for more of the variance in ideological exploration than

familial SFV? Were there differences by gender?

2. Did extrafamilial LOV account for more of the variance in ideological exploration than

familial LOV? Were there differences by gender?

Neither extrafamilial nor familial support for voice were instrumental in explaining a

statistically significant portion of the variance in exploration for males. Only familial SFV

collectively explained a statistically significant portion of the explained variance for females.

Thus, regressions to assess which relational set accounted for more variance (sub-question C1)

were not conducted. To test sub-question C2, LOV in extrafamilial contexts and LOV in familial

48

contexts were entered as sets into a hierarchical regression. Because of the gender differences

that emerged in the previous analyses, the regression models were tested for both genders (see

Table K7).

For females, the portion of the explained variance (∆Adj. R2 = 1.7%) attributed to

extrafamilial LOV was statistically significant, F (2, 244) = 3.185, p < .05. In the final model,

the portion of the variance attributed to the addition of familial LOV was not statistically

significant, F (4,240) = 2.208, n.s. However, one or more of the variable’s beta coefficients was

determined to be significantly different from zero, F (6, 240) = 2.555, p < .05. Level of voice

with adult relatives was the only variable to have a statistically significant effect on exploration.

Females with higher levels of exploration had lower LOV with their adult relatives. In full

model, the effect of LOV with instructors/advisors on exploration was no longer statistically

significant once familial LOV was taken into account.

The portion of variance in exploration accounted for by extrafamilial voice was larger

than the portion of variance attributed to familial voice in males (∆Adj. R2 = 8.0% and 5.1%

respectively). Both were found to be statistically significant, F (2, 119) = 6.269, p < .05 and F (4,

115) = 2.732, p < .05, respectively). LOV with instructors/advisors and father (figures) had a

statistically significant effect on exploration. An examination of the beta coefficients suggested

that males higher in exploration were less likely to express their true thoughts and opinions with

their instructors/advisors but more likely to do so with their father figures. Extrafamilial voice

explained a larger portion of the variance in exploration than familial LOV for both males and

females based on the model tested in relation to sub-question C2.

The final research question (D) focused on the combined influence of LOV and SFV in

familial and extrafamilial contexts on ideological identity exploration. Sub-question D1

addressed the contributions of LOV and SFV in familial and extrafamilial contexts to explaining

a statistically significant portion of the variance in exploration and potential gender differences.

SFV in both extrafamilial and familial contexts were not instrumental in explaining the variance

in exploration for males. Because only familial SFV collectively explained a statistically

significant portion of the variance in exploration for females, only extrafamilial LOV, familial

LOV, and familial SFV were entered as sets into a hierarchical regression (see Table K8).

Extrafamilial LOV collectively explained a statistically significant portion (Adj. R2 = 1.7%) of

the variance in exploration, F (2, 244) = 3.185, p < .05. LOV with instructors/advisors had a

49

statistically significant effect on exploration. The addition of LOV in familial contexts did not

explain a statistically significant portion of variance in exploration, F (4, 240) = 2.208, n.s.

However, one of the familial relational contexts, LOV with adult relatives, was determined to

have a statistically significant effect on exploration, F (6, 240) = 2.555, p < .05. No additional

variance was explained by the addition of familial SFV in the final model. Based on the

significance test of the beta coefficients LOV with adult relatives and fictive kin were identified

as having a statistically significant effect on exploration, F (10, 236) = 2.330, p < .05). Females

with higher levels of exploration were less likely to express their true thoughts and opinions with

adult relatives but more likely to do so with fictive kin. LOV with instructors and advisors no

longer had a statistically significant effect on exploration once familial contexts were included

into the regression model. In relation to sub-question D1, the data from this model can be

interpreted to suggest that only LOV in extrafamilial contexts contributed to the explained

variance of exploration for females. A summary of the research questions and results are

summarized in Table K9.

50

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION

The purposes of the study were to a) examine the relationship of level of voice (LOV)

and support for voice (SFV) to ideological identity exploration, and b) to expand the theoretical

and empirical discussion regarding identity development and socialization forces in African

American emerging adults. The study built on the empirical work of Grotevant and Cooper

(1985), which established a relationship between ideological exploration, the expression of one’s

thoughts and opinions to parents, and the corresponding levels of support received from each

parent. In keeping with Grotevant and Cooper’s study, ideological identity exploration was

conceptualized in the current study using Marcia’s (1966) identity status model. The ability to be

true to oneself, conceptualized and measured as Level of Voice (LOV) or the ability to express

one’s thoughts and opinions, was based on Harter’s empirical work on authentic self-behavior.

Support, conceptualized and measured as the perception of respect and interest in what one has

to say or support for voice (SFV), was also drawn from this body of literature.

Examining ideological identity and various socialization forces in African Americans

was an expansion on the wider body of identity literature that predominantly focuses on

racial/ethnic identity in this population. Using the theoretical, conceptual, and empirical

discussions related to the role of extended family and fictive kin in child rearing, the

conceptualization of familial socialization forces was expanded to include mother (figures),

father (figures), adult relatives, as well as fictive kin (see the works of Boykin & Ellison, 1995;

Caldwell, Jackson, Tucker, & Bowman, 1999; Ellison, 1990; Hill, 1999; Taylor, 1990; Watts-

Jones, 1997). Furthermore, the inclusion of extrafamilial socialization forces expanded the

broader body of identity literature. The relationships of peers and instructors/advisors included in

this investigation were selected based on the theoretical writings of Erikson (1968) and

supported for use in this population by the empirical work of Manns (1997).

A multistage analyses was designed to account for the individual and collective influence

of familial and extrafamilial SFV and LOV on ideological exploration. First, familial and

51

extrafamilial LOV and SFV voice were each regressed on ideological exploration as a set to

identify the individual contribution of each model on exploration. The model using SFV in

familial contexts collectively explained a statistically significant portion of the variance in

exploration for females. However, none of the specific relational contexts had a statistically

significant effect on exploration. The models using familial and extrafamilial LOV both

collectively explained a significant portion of the variance in exploration for both males and

females. The relationship of the ability to express one’s true thoughts and opinions (LOV) in

specific relational contexts had a different relationship to identity exploration based on gender.

Females with higher levels of exploration were less likely to express their thoughts and opinions

with their adult relatives. Males were more likely to express their voice with their father (figures)

and less likely to do so with their instructors/advisors. For both males and females, the model

using LOV in the familial contexts explained a larger portion of the variance in exploration than

the extrafamilial contexts (Adj. R2 = 9.1% vs. 8.0% and 3.5% vs. 1.9%, respectively).

Second, LOV in familial and extrafamilial contexts were regressed as sets on exploration

to examine the combined influence of both relational contexts on ideological exploration. In

accordance with the theory, extrafamilial voice was entered first into the equation as these

relationships were expected to have the greatest impact during emerging adulthood. For females,

familial LOV did not account for an additional portion of the variance in exploration over what

was accounted for by extrafamilial LOV (Adj. R2 = 1.7%). However, in the full model LOV with

instructors/advisors no longer made a unique contribution to the explained variance in

exploration, while LOV with adult relatives continued to do so. When controlling for all of the

relational contexts, females with higher levels of exploration were less likely to express their true

thoughts and opinions (LOV) to their adult relatives.

Both extrafamilial and familial LOV explained a significant portion of the variance in

exploration for males. Extrafamilial LOV explained a larger portion of the explained variance in

exploration in this regression model (Adj. R2 = 8.0%). When all of the relational contexts were

considered, instructors/advisors and father (figures) were the only relational contexts to have a

statistically significant effect on exploration. The influence of fictive kin was no longer

statistically significant when controlling for all other relational contexts. Males with higher

levels of exploration were more likely to express their true thoughts and opinions with their

father (figures) and less likely to do so with instructors/advisors.

52

The third stage of analyses was used to examine the collective influence of familial and

extrafamilial LOV along with familial SFV on exploration for females. This stage of analysis

was not explored for males as neither familial nor extrafamilial SFV collectively contributed to

the explained variance in exploration. Extrafamilial LOV was entered as a set into the regression

first followed by familial LOV, and then familial SFV. Familial LOV and SFV did not contribute

to the explanation of any additional variance above what was accounted for by extrafamilial

LOV. Individual relational contexts continued to have an effect on exploration at each stage of

the regression. In the first model, LOV with instructors/advisors was statistically significant.

When LOV in all relational contexts were considered simultaneously, only LOV with adult

relatives emerged as statistically significant. In the final model, which accounted for the

influence of familial SFV, both LOV with adult relatives and fictive kin contributed to the

explained variance in exploration. Females with higher levels of exploration were more likely to

express their true thoughts and opinions with their fictive kin and less likely to do so with adult

relatives when controlling for the SFV received in all familial contexts in addition to LOV in the

other relational contexts.

In review, the findings of the final models tested can be interpreted to suggest a) males

with higher levels of exploration have higher LOV with their father (figures) and lower LOV

with instructors/advisors, and b) females with higher exploration levels have higher LOV with

fictive kin and lower LOV with adult relatives when controlling for familial SFV. These findings

highlight a complex interaction of the variables under investigation that were not expected based

on the bivariate correlations or the first stage regression models examining the independent

contribution of the relational contexts as sets. The following sections address possible

explanatory factors, ancillary findings, and theoretical, empirical, and practical implications.

Explanatory Factors

As males’ level of exploration increases so does the ability to express true thoughts and

opinions with one’s father (figures). During this time as young men transition into manhood,

fathers may provide unique perspectives that make them optimal sounding boards and sources of

guidance. The SFV provided by fathers may indirectly support the process of exploration

through the reassurance provided that his son’s voice will be respected in the midst of

considering values and beliefs that may even be contradictory to those promoted at home. This

relationship is likely to be built on the iterative process of openness and assistance. The father

53

(figures) seeks to assist in their son’s development. The son, striving to articulate and make sense

of his thoughts and experiences on his journey to manhood, in turn is also open to the assistance

from his father (figures). Although measured at a specific point in the time of their emerging

adulthood, it is believed that this type of open reciprocal relationship would have been

established at some point earlier in the parent-child relationship (Erikson, 1959, 1968).

The reduction in males’ LOV with instructors/advisors may have to do with the nature of

the interactions. Given the academic setting, exchanges with instructors/advisors may

predominantly focus on issues related to academic and occupational choices. Thus, males’ may

not have established a relationship on a wide scale with various instructors/advisors around a

broader array of issues. If occupational exploration were examined independently, the role of

LOV and SFV may be determined to have a different influence than found when subsumed

under ideological exploration. An alternative hypothesis could also be that lowered LOV was the

result of the male choosing to selectively share his true thoughts and opinions with his

instructors/advisors. However, the data from the factor analysis do not support the argument that

filtering is an issue with either instructors/advisors or father (figures).

The female respondents perceptions of lowered LOV with adult relatives and higher

LOV with fictive kin does not seem to relate to filtering given the difference in the direction of

the correlational relationship between exploration and LOV with adult relatives and fictive kin.

Based on the final regression model, SFV may be an explanatory factor. SFV may in fact have

an indirect effect on this relationship. The data supported the positive relationship between SFV

and LOV. These data also support the, albeit small, negative bivariate relationship between SFV

with adult relatives, as well as, fictive kin and exploration. It would be simple to explain

females’ relationships with adult relatives in terms of the influence of SFV with LOV. Females

in this study may experience lower levels of SFV, which in turn result in lowered LOV. This

explanation would be in line with the results Grotevant and Cooper (1985) published related to

White adolescent females and both parents. Females’ instances of self-expression were met with

challenging or critical responses from both parents. Bivariate correlations in the current study

support the argument that females with higher levels of exploration have lowered LOV with

mother (figures), father (figures), as well as adult relatives. There was no correlation between

LOV with fictive kin and exploration. Thus, LOV did not vary based on exploration level even in

the face of reduced SFV. The significant influence of adult relatives and fictive kin observed in

54

these data when all relational contexts are accounted for may be the result of whom the female is

least and most likely to open up to given the experience of lowered SFV.

In addition to explaining the significance of individual relational contexts, consideration

must also be given to the amount of explained variance accounted for in the various regression

models and why SFV had little influence at all. No more than 9.1% for males and 3.5% for

females of the adjusted variance in ideological exploration was accounted for by any of the

regression models under investigation. Even less variance was accounted for in models where

more than one relational set was included. Based on the extant literature and previous

explanations of the data, this section will focus on the influence of narrow construct definitions

and possible model specification errors.

Construct definition limitations. When compared to the extant literature on identity

development and parental characteristics, the range of explained variance found in this study is

similar to other regression studies conducted in the United States of America (USA). In this body

of literature, the range of variance explained by the various regression models was as low as 3%

(Bartle-Haring et al., 2002) and as high as 55% (Perosa, Perosa, & Tam, 2002). It is important to

note that in most studies where more than 20% of the variance was accounted for the total model

controlled for one or all of the status scores not being used as the dependent variable or non-

family related variables (Bartle-Haring et al., 2002; Perosa et al., 2002; Perosa & Perosa, 1993).

These findings could be used to suggest that influences outside the parent-child relationship may

be more important to identity development.

However, the overarching issue in the current study may actually be the

conceptualization of the variables under investigation. In the study by Meeus and Dekovic

(1995), support from best friends, partners, peers, classmates, and coworkers accounted for 17 -

52% of the variance in various domains of identity exploration and commitment. One difference

in the Meeus and Dekovic study and the studies conducted in the USA, current study included,

was the focus on exploration was the aggregation of identity domains. Meeus and Dekovic

examined specific domains, which included relational, school, and occupational identity.

Another difference between Meeus and Dekovic and the current study was the use of general

measure of support.

The plausibility of construct underrepresentation is further supported by Manns’ (1997)

study. The respondents of Mann’s study identified a variety of supports, such as material,

55

psychological, personal development, and professional, which varied by the role relationships

(e.g., parents, extended family, coworkers, and advisors). Thus, it could be suggested that this

specific type of support was inappropriately applied to every relational concept. Limiting support

to the perception of respect and interest in what one has to say may have reduced the explanatory

power of SFV, which may have been further reduced by aggregating the ideological identity

domains. A similar argument could also be made for LOV. LOV is only one type of true self-

behavior. The use of a more general conceptualization may have produced different results.

Model misspecifications. Another influence on the relatively low level of explained

variance and lack of significance may be the model specification. In the current study,

exploration was chosen based on the empirical evidence provided in the Grotevant and Cooper

(1985) study. They believed that exploration was important for study because of the potential

influence of interpersonal relationships. The model tested in the current study predicted that SFV

and LOV would have direct effects on exploration (see Figure 1a.). Based on the data, it was

suggested that SFV may more accurately be considered as having an indirect influence on

ideological exploration through LOV (see Figure 1b.). This may have impacted the lack of

statistical significance for SFV, but does little to explain the low levels of explained variance

from LOV. Considering the previous comments on construct conceptualization, Erikson’s (1959,

1968) work will be revisited to identify additional model alternatives.

Marcia’s (1966) distinction between exploration and commitments based on a period of

exploration and reflection were slightly different from the assertions made by Erikson (1959,

1968). Erikson made broad descriptions of youth who have explored potential possibilities and

committing to their values and beliefs versus those with no integrated sense of self. Erikson did

not specifically focus his descriptions on the period of moratorium (exploration) that he

suggested is provided to young people by society. Different results may have emerged if identity

achieved was the dependent variable as this construct is more in line with the focus of Erikson’s

writings (see Figure 1c.). The results may have varied if the commitments in specific domains

(e.g., occupation, religion, gender roles, etc.) were considered.

56

Furthermore, Erikson’s (1959, 1968) discussions on the interrelationship of these

components of identity can be interpreted in a variety of ways. In the current study, LOV and

SFV were tested as influences on identity exploration as supported by Grotevant and Cooper’s

57

(1985) empirical work. However, Erikson also discussed individuals as having a sense of self

which is developed/manifested in part by the ability to be true to self, the support from the

community of one’s peers and leaders, and exploration and commitment to values and beliefs in

a variety of domains (see Figure 1d.).

Ancillary Findings

By allowing respondents to select multiple mother and father figures, as well as identify

the involvement of fictive kin, empirical evidence was offered to support the assertion that the

cultural legacy of extended family involvement and flexible family roles continues for many of

the respondents in this sample. Multiple mother figures were selected by 45.2% of the sample.

Only 3.5% of the respondents included adoptive or foster mothers in this category. Multiple

father figures were selected by 26.6% of the sample. Adoptive or foster fathers were included in

this category by 2.1% of the sample. The primary caregivers most often selected were biological

mothers (90.1%) and fathers (63.5%). To consider that multiple individuals were responsible for

one’s upbringing supports the calls by Caldwell (1999), Wilson (1989), and Bengston (2001) to

expand the focus of theoretical and empirical work beyond biological parents or primary

caregivers. These results also support the call to delve deeper into the understanding of family

roles and flexible role boundaries that support the child rearing process and child development

(Taylor & Roberts, 1995; R. J. Taylor et al., 1993).

In previous studies, the influence of extended family has been studied primarily in

relation to parental support and functioning (Taylor & Roberts, 1995; R. J. Taylor et al., 1993).

The data from the current study provide preliminary evidence that the involvement of extended

family and fictive kin influences emerging adult well-being and development. Consequently,

further study is required to gain a deeper understanding of how the relationships between the

youth and their relatives/fictive kin develop and relate to adolescent and emerging adult well-

being, particularly in terms of relationship quality, interactions, and relative to geographical

location. A fundamental question would seek to clarify the meanings of being “raised” and how

these standards relate to the identification of someone other than a primary caregiver as serving

in this role.

Another study on relationship quality could focus on the possible differences between

biological relatives and fictive kin. As previously stated the fictive kin relationship is established

on the basis of mutually provided emotional support. This implies a level of closeness that may

58

not be present in relationships with all biological relatives. However, the cross loading of adult

relative and fictive kin in the factor analysis of LOV is preliminary evidence that there is some

level of overlap in these relationships in spite of the distinction of biology. The predictive

validity analysis for the LOV and SFV measures also supports the differences between these

relationships. The correlation between SFV with fictive kin and LOV with adult relatives was

virtually the same as the relationship of SFV and LOV with adult relatives. Contrary to the

findings stated by Harter and her colleagues (1998), SFV with fictive kin had higher, although

relatively similar, correlations with LOV with both peers and instructors/advisors. This was not

true for SFV with adult relatives.

It could be suggested that the reflected appraisal of SFV from fictive kin may set the

standard for the reflected appraisals in extrafamilial relational contexts. Unlike biological

relatives, fictive kin maintain reciprocal relationships out of choice rather than obligation (Watts-

Jones, 1997). This voluntary relationship may help to shape one’s self-concept in such a way that

it influences how one self-perception with other nonrelatives.

Summary

The results of this study support Erikson’s (1959, 1968) assertions that individuals other

than mothers and fathers (figures) are influential in the identity development of emerging adults.

Even though Erikson only looked to community members as sources of influence, extended

family members and fictive kin were important in this sample of African Americans. Gender

differences emerged relative to the collective influence of LOV and SFV on exploration, as well

as to the influence of the various relational contexts under investigation. Males with higher levels

of exploration had higher LOV with father (figures) and lower LOV with instructors/advisors.

Females with higher exploration levels indicated increased LOV with fictive kin but lower LOV

with adult relatives when controlling for the effects of familial SFV. These results support the

gender differences found in much of the extant literature on identity development.

Unexpectedly, SFV had a limited influence of on ideological exploration. Additionally,

familial and extrafamilial LOV accounted for a relatively small amount of the variance in

exploration. The connection between SFV and exploration may be better conceptualized as an

indirect relationship through LOV. It was also suggested that the use of LOV and SFV may have

been too restrictive as a measure of support given the variety of relational contexts considered

and the aggregation of exploration levels across various domains (i.e., occupation, religion,

59

philosophical lifestyle, and politics). When considering the model under investigation, the use of

ideological achieved, which taps the presence of commitments to values and beliefs after a

period of exploration, may have yielded results consistent with Erikson’s (1968) assertions. An

alternative model may involve using more general measures of support and true self-behavior,

along with commitments, as indicators of an individuals overall sense of self.

Limitations

Some of the design limitations of the study have been discussed in previous sections as

they serve an explanatory function in interpreting the results. These limitations included narrow

construct definitions of support and true self-behavior, the aggregation of ideological identity

domains, and possible model misspecifications. Additional design limitations to be addressed

include issues of generalizability, measurement error, and Type II errors.

The sample of this study was drawn from cross section of African American emerging

adults attending a Historically Black University. The results may not be generalizable to

noncollegiate emerging adults, adolescents, or youth of different ethnic or cultural groups. The

identity development process of emerging adults not attending college may be impacted

differently by familial and extrafamilial relationships. Additional extrafamilial relationships,

other than instructors/advisors, would have to be considered for both relevance and influence.

The cultural traditions and family interaction patterns of Blacks throughout the Diaspora vary

based on the evolution and retention of the various African traditions transmitted across the

generations, as well as the influences of other cultures as a result of colonization. It would be

faulty to treat these diverse groups of Blacks as homogenous. It is equally faulty to assume that

empirical results and theoretical assertions can be indiscriminately applied to other cultural

groups.

Another generalization issue is the age of respondent. Although, the results have

similarities with Grotevant and Cooper’s (1985) study on White high school students it would be

premature to generalize these findings to other age groups. The developmental progression of

identity development, evolution of parent-child/family interactions, and the increased

involvement with individuals outside the family system may have different interrelationships

based on age. Only longitudinal studies can adequately track the development and

interrelationships of these developmental issues.

60

The moderate reliability coefficients for all of the subscales and the poor fit of the factor

structure of LOV in this sample may have limited the power to detect statistically significant

relationships in this study. One consequence of these measurement errors may have been the

inability to detect small but statistically significant effects of LOV and SFV on ideological

exploration. Refined measures may help to control for Type II errors in future studies.

In Harter and her colleague’s (1996; 1998) studies, multiple people were considered in

various relational contexts (e.g., peers, teachers, parents, classmates, etc.) and the factor structure

supported the distinctions between these groups. However, in the current study, the positively

worded LOV items for fictive kin and adult relatives loaded onto the same factor and a new

factor emerged that was suggested to relate to a filtering process. For emerging adults, it is

developmentally appropriate to selectively share one’s thoughts and opinions and remain true-to-

self (Harter & Monsour, 1992). Given the gender differences that emerged in the study, it is

plausible that the factor structure may be different based on gender as well. The relatively poor

fit of the factor structure may be influenced by maturation, gender variations, item content

deficiencies, or a combination of them all. The exclusion of information on the level of

involvement of the respondents with caregivers may have influenced the factor structure and the

ability to detect small effects as well.

Another measurement issue to consider is the correlations between many of the LOV and

SFV relational contexts. Many of the variables were found to be moderately correlated with the

other independent variables entered into the regression equations, as evidenced by the tolerance

coefficients. This was particularly true for LOV and SFV with fictive kin and adult relatives.

Tolerance levels serve as an indicator of multicolinearity and specify the unique contribution of

each variable by accounting for the correlation of the variable in question to all other

independent variables included in the regression. Tolerance indicators of 0.10 or less generally

serve as an indicator of serious multicollinearity issues (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). In

this study, the lowest tolerance level coefficient was .459. The presence of multicollinearity can

result in an underestimation of the beta coefficients, inflated standard error, and a corresponding

reduction in the amount of explained variance. This may have been a concern for the regression

models including SFV as the lowest tolerance levels were detected among some of the relational

contexts on this variable.

61

Implications: Theoretical, Empirical, and Practical

As previously stated, the results of this study support the inclusion of various sources of

influence on identity development. During emerging adulthood, the role of the family and

particularly the community shifts to providing support as the young person seeks to find their

place in adult society. This requires expanding the theoretical and empirical discussion to include

additional familial and extrafamilial relationships in addition to one’s biological parents.

Specifically, studies could be designed to evaluate the relationship of support (in a general sense)

and true self-behavior in various relational contexts to levels of exploration and commitment in

specific domains. Various models could also be tested whereby support, true self-behavior, and

commitments are determinants of a coherent sense of self. The latter model would require deeper

exploration into the developmental variations in meaning and manifestation of these constructs:

What does it mean to emerging adults to be true to self? How is true self-behavior manifested,

supported, and hindered? What types of support do various individuals provide to emerging

adults that facilitate identity development? How can a coherent sense of self be conceptualized

and measured? Measures related to these questions should form the basis of creating reliable

measures to reduce the potential for Type II errors.

Regardless of the model tested, inclusion of additional relational contexts also requires

further exploration into interpersonal dynamics. Some related questions include the following:

Does level of involvement with caregivers or other individuals mediate the relationship between

true self-behavior, support, and identity development? Does the education level of the primary

caregivers influence the relationship between these variables? How does being a first generation

college attendee influence these relationships? In addition, future studies should test these

models with equivalent numbers of males and females.

The inclusion of additional theories such as the Triple Quandary Theory (Boykin &

Ellison, 1995) or Ecosystemic Theory (Allen-Meares & Lane, 1987) may prove useful in

expanding the theoretical discussion on social influences and identity development as they offer

considerations to multiple intra- and interpersonal influences. The Triple Quandary Theory

addresses the intersection of three cultural realities: American mainstream, Afrocultural, and

minority. The theory considers interpersonal variations in the level of exposure, fluency,

comfort, and affective responses to the interactions within each realm (Boykin & Ellison, 1995).

The theory also supports the exploration of the socialization influences of school, peers, and the

62

media. Similarly, Ecosystemic Theory requires the consideration of the multiple domains that

may influence adolescent development, such as the family, community, and school (Allen-

Meares & Lane, 1987).

Research incorporating these theories could explore individual’s perceptions of having to

deal with the demands and burdens of oppression (minority), their comfort levels in having to

deal with such experiences, and their positive or negative affective response to these experiences.

These perceptions, in conjunction with support and true self-behavior, could then be compared to

identity development. Furthermore, an individual’s perceptions of their experience in each of the

cultural realities (i.e., Mainstream, Afrocultural, and minority), with various socialization

influences (e.g., school, media, radio, individuals not directly known by the respondent), or in

different domains (e.g., family, community, school, work) could be explored. Such research

would also be useful contribution to discussions on the historical and societal influences that

Erikson (1959, 1968) asserted to be influential to the identity development process. The identity

literature on African Americans would also be extended as the conceptualization of racial/ethnic

identity would be expanded and explored in tandem with a variety of identity domains.

In addition to expanding the identity literature, research is needed to gain a deeper

understanding of the dynamics of extended family involvement and flexible family roles. The

multiple meanings of being raised could be explored. It would be interesting to learn more about

how and why some individuals are considered to be instrumental in this process. In the current

study, it was assumed that mother and father figures were equated with those who were involved

in raising the respondent. It is possible that other individuals may be considered as a mother or

father figure due to a specific type of support or guidance provided but not be classified as

involved in the child rearing process. A fruitful line of research could examine the similarities

and differences between adult relatives and fictive kin and the impact on child rearing and

development in children, adolescents, and emerging adults.

Even though identity development may best be investigated using general measures of

support, it would be interesting to examine Grotevant and Cooper’s (1985) argument that the

comments of the parents to their daughters were challenging in order to encourage their

daughters to move beyond traditional feminine roles. Qualitative data was not presented to verify

the plausibility of this thesis. Given the demonstrated bivariate and multivariate relationships

between exploration, SFV, and LOV, a study could be developed to investigate if this rational is

63

replicable across various relational contexts and in diverse populations of adolescents and

emerging adults. The bi-directional influences of the youth and the particular other should also

be considered. There may be issues related to the presentation of one’s ideas that results in

lowered support. There could also be the perception of lowered SFV because responses aimed at

gaining clarity of the youth’s stated ideas and opinions are interpreted from defensive posture.

The data from the current study can be used to highlight the role of multiple family and

nonfamily members on identity development. Services to address personal and identity

development must also be expanded to incorporate the involvement of multiple family members

and address the perceptions of reduced support during periods of exploration into ideological

ideals. Family service providers and college counselors/advisors could develop and disseminate

resource materials and programs to help parents and relatives, as well as instructors/advisors

learn new ways to interact with adolescents and emerging adults during this exploratory period.

The focus would be to help young people critically evaluate the various messages related to

ideological ideals (e.g., politics, philosophy of life, religion, occupation). Community and

campus programs targeting personal development and leadership skills could be designed to

include components where young people can present and discuss diverse perspectives on

ideological ideals in a supportive environment. In this context, it may be useful to arrange for

intergenerational discussion groups. This is important as the experiences of older participants can

be used to expand the understanding of the younger participants regarding expectations of

adulthood and the rationale behind personal beliefs and decisions.

64

APPENDIX A

Human Subject Approval

65

66

67

APPENDIX B

Tables – Sample Demographics

68

Table B1

Sample Demographic Characteristics

% %

Gender Classification Male 32.7 Freshman 18.5 Female 67.3 Sophomore 31.6 Junior 28.7

Senior 21.2

Agea Family Incomea 18 19.6 Under $10,000 4.9 19 26.6 $10,001 – $20,000 7.9 20 22.3 $20,001 – $30,000 12.6 21 14.0 $30,001 – $40,000 14.8 22 6.7 $40,001 – $50,000 9.3 23 3.2 $50,001 – $60,000 9.6 24 3.5 $60,001 – $70,000 6.6 25 1.3 $70,001 – $80,000 6.8 26 .5 $80,001 – $90,000 8.7 27 or older 2.1 $90,001 + 18.9 Median income $50,000

N = 323 (unless specified otherwise)

a N = 372

69

Table B2

Percentage of Family Roles Identified as Parental Figures and Primary Caregivers

Who Raised You?-Mother (figure)

Yes No Primary Female Caregiver

Biological mother 91.4 8.6 Biological mother 90.1 Stepmother

a 4.6 95.4 Stepmother 1.3

Grandmother a 60.2 39.8 Grandmother 4.8

Aunt a 26.6 73.7 Aunt 1.1

Other female relative a 14.2 85.8 Other female relative .5

Adoptive mother a 2.4 97.6 Adoptive mother 1.1

Foster mother a 1.1 98.9 Foster mother .0

Other female nonrelativeb 9.7 90.3 Other female nonrelative .3

None .8

Total # of mother (figures) %

0 1.9 1 52.8 2 20.1 3 or more 25.1

Who Raised You?-Father (figure)

Yes No Primary Male Caregiver

Biological father

b 64.2 35.8 Biological father 63.5 Stepfather

c 11.6 88.4 Stepfather 9.4

Grandfather d 15.4 84.6 Grandfather 3.8

Uncle c 18.4 81.6 Uncle 2.7

Other male relative c 11.1 88.9 Other male relative .8

Adoptive father c 1.6 98.4 Adoptive father 1.1

Foster father d .5 99.5 Foster father .3

Other male nonrelative c 8.6 91.4 Other male nonrelative .5

None 18.0

Total # of father (figures) %

0 16.6 1 56.3 2 14.2 3 or more 12.4

N = 323, (unless specified otherwise), a N = 372, b N = 371, c N = 370, d N = 369

70

Table B3

Percentage of Roles Identified as Adult Relatives and Fictive Kin

Adult Relatives Yes No Fictive Kin Yes No

Grandmother(s) 88.2 11.8 Godmother c 52.0 48.0 Grandfather(s) 63.5 36.5 Godfather c 33.1 66.9 Aunt(s) 90.9 9.1 Second or ‘play’ mother b 34.3 65.7 Uncle(s) 83.4 16.6 Second or ‘play’ father a 19.7 80.3 Cousin(s) 88.2 11.8 Play-aunt a 42.6 57.4 Other(s) a 71.7 28.3 Play-uncle a 34.8 65.2 Play-cousin b 47.0 53.0

Play-grandmother a 27.2 72.8 Play-grandfather a 17.3 82.7 Other b 29.5 70.5

Total # Adult Relatives % Total # of Fictive Kin % 0 3.2 0 23.7 1 2.9 1 12.4 2 2.9 2 15.4 3 or more 90.8 3 or more 48.5

N = 323, (unless specified otherwise), a N = 371, b N = 370, c N = 369

71

APPENDIX C

Scale Summary Sheet With Factors & Corresponding Survey Item Numbers

72

Scale/subscale Survey Packet Item Numbers

EOM-EIS II Items 1 – 64

Ideological Moratorium 9,12, 26, 32, 34, 36, 48, 57

Interpersonal Moratorium 5, 11, 14, 31, 43, 47, 54, 61

Other EOM-EIS II subscales

Ideological Foreclosed 17, 24, 28, 41, 44, 50 58, 64

Ideological Achieved 8, 18, 20, 33, 40, 42, 49, 60

Ideological Diffuse 1, 2, 4, 10, 16, 25, 52, 56

Interpersonal Achieved 13, 15, 22, 35, 45, 46, 51, 55

Interpersonal Foreclosed 3, 21, 27, 37, 38, 39, 62, 63

Interpersonal Diffuse 6, 7, 19, 23, 29, 30, 53, 59

Level of Voice Items 101 – 120 & 1 – 10 (p. 7)

Mother (figure) 101 – 105

Father (figure) 105 – 110

Adult Relatives 111 – 115

Fictive Kin 116 – 120

Peers 1 – 5

Instructors/advisors 6 – 10

Support for Voice Items 11 – 40 (p.8 – 10)

Mother (figure) 11, 23, 26, 34, 37

Father (figure) 12, 20, 27, 35, 38

Adult Relatives 13, 16, 24, 31, 39

Fictive Kin 14, 17, 25, 28, 40

Peers 15, 18, 21, 29, 32

Instructors/advisors 19, 22, 30, 33, 36

Figure C1

Summary of Scale and Factor Structure by Survey Packet Item Numbers

73

APPENDIX D

Survey Packet

Order of Measures: Extended Objective Measure of Ego Identity Scale (EOM-EIS II)

Familial Characteristics Level of Voice

Support for Voice Demographic Form

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

APPENDIX E

Scantron Form

86

87

88

APPENDIX F

Permission for Measurement Use

89

Subj: RE: scale permission request

Date: 3/6/2004 11:42:36 AM Eastern Standard Time

From: sharter@nova.psy.du.edu

To: AmberGT73@cs.com

Received from Internet: click here for more information

Actually, my last memo was inaccurate. I meant to say that NONE of materials have been copywrited to make it easier for people to modify the instrument for their own use. You have my permission to use the measure. I should note that there is low endorsement of the reasons for voice. They are somewhat higher for those who report low levels of voice. Good luck with your project.

Susan Harter Department of Psychology University of Denver 2155 S. Race St. Denver, Colorado 80208

FAX: (303) 871-4747

-----Original Message----- From: AmberGT73@cs.com [mailto:AmberGT73@cs.com]

Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 10:23 AM

To: sharter@du.edu Subject: Re: scale permission request

Hello Dr. Harter, As per you request, I gained clarification from the Graduate Studies Office of Florida State University. All that is required is a statement from you granting permission for the scales of which you are the copyright holder or author to be reproduced in my dissertation. The scales I intend to use are as follows: 1) Level of Voice, 2) Reasons for Low Levels of Voice, 3) Support for voice, and 4) Self-Perception Profile for College Students. The requested permission extends to any future revisions and editions of my dissertation, including non-exclusive world rights in all languages. These rights will in no way restrict republication of the material in any other form by your or by others authorized by you. This authorization is extended to University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, Michigan, for the purpose of reproducing and distributing copies of this dissertation. Your statement affirming the terms listed in this letter will also confirm that your own the copyright the to the above described material and/or this work is an original product of your creative efforts. If you are not the author or copyright owner to one (or more) of the scales, will you please

90

specify the scale(s) and provide the contact information of the author/copyright owner so I may request permission from them directly. Thank you again for your time. Sincerely, Amber Golden-Thompson Doctoral Candidate Family Relations Florida State University In a message dated 3/2/2004 9:37:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, sharter@nova.psy.du.edu writes:

One of these instruments has been copyrighted so I am not sure what I can provide to you. Please advise. Susan Harter Department of Psychology University of Denver 2155 S. Race St. Denver, Colorado 80208 FAX: (303) 871-4747

-----Original Message----- From: AmberGT73@cs.com [mailto:AmberGT73@cs.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 10:52 AM To: sharter@du.edu Subject: scale permission request

Dr. Harter, Thank you for your permission to use the following scales 1) Level of Voice, 2) Reasons for Low Levels of Voice, 3) Support for voice, and 4) Self-Perception Profile for College Students for my dissertation research. In accordance with the policies of Florida State University, I must also request permission for University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, Michigan to reproduce and distribute copies of the instrument(s) in the dissertation. This authorization also confirms that you own the copyright to the scales mentioned above. Thank you again for your assistance with my research. Please email your response to ambergt73@cs.com. Amber Golden-Thompson Doctoral Candidate Family Relations Florida State University

91

Subj: Re: Scale permission request

Date: 2/20/2004 11:33:15 AM Eastern Standard Time

From: gadams@uoguelph.ca

To: AmberGT73@cs.com

Received from Internet: click here for more information

As the sole owner and copyright holder of the Objective Measure of Ego-Identity Status I give permission for the use, reproduction, and distribution of copies of the instrumentation in the Florida State University dissertation publications. Gerald R. Adams February 20, 2004 AmberGT73@cs.com wrote: > Dr. Adams, > > Thank you for your permission to use Objective Measure of Ego-Identity > Status Scale for my dissertation research. In accordance with the > policies of Florida State University, I must also request permission for > University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, Michigan to reproduce > and distribute copies of the instrument(s) in the dissertation. This > authorization also confirms that you own the copyright to the Objective > Measure of Ego-Identity Status Scale. > > Thank you again for your assistance with my research. Please email your > response to ambergt73@cs.com. > > > Amber Golden-Thompson > Doctoral Candidate > Family Relations > Florida State University Gerald R. Adams, Ph.D A Distinguished Professor of Teaching Department of Family Relations & Applied Nutrition Program in Family Relations & Human Development University of Guelph Guelph Ontario N1G 2W1 Office: 519-824-4120 ext. 3967 Fax: 519-766-0691

92

APPENDIX G

Personal Communication with Dr. Susan Harter

93

Subj: RE: Question: Level of voice scale

Date: 8/23/2004 5:11:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time

From: sharter@nova.psy.du.edu

To: AmberGT73@cs.com

Received from Internet: click here for more information

We haven't used the instrument with college students but it should work (maybe with a check on wording) and just changing the items to read "college students". Do you have the original instrument?

Susan Harter Department of Psychology University of Denver 2155 S. Race St. Denver, Colorado 80208

FAX: (303) 871-4747

-----Original Message-----

From: AmberGT73@cs.com [mailto:AmberGT73@cs.com] Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 12:38 PM

To: sharter@du.edu; sharter@nova.psy.du.edu

Subject: Question: Level of voice scale

Dr. Harter, My name is Amber Golden-Thompson. I am interested in using the Level of Voice scale with college students. However, I am a bit reserved about using the term teenager with this population. In your research, have you used this scale with college students? If so, did using "teenager" make a difference? What are your thoughts and suggestions? Thank you very much for your time. Sincerely, Amber Golden-Thompson

94

APPENDIX H

Verbal Script

95

Verbal Script

Re/introduce self and say I am going to hand out the questionnaire packet and go over the consent letter and some important instructions before you begin.

[HAND OUT QUESTIONNAIRE BATTERY, PENCILS, RESPONSE FORMS, AND

CONSENT LETTER]

Good Morning (Afternoon, Evening). My name is Amber Golden-Thompson. I am a doctoral candidate in the Family Relations Program at Florida State University. I am working with Dr. John Chambers, professor of psychology at FAMU. I am conducting a research study entitled “Self-Concept and Social Relationships.” Has anyone already participated in this study? Please come and see me. It is very

important that you do not complete the survey again. (If someone has participated say

‘Come and see me after I have reviewed the instructions with the class. Thank you.’)

On the inside of the first page, you will find an informed consent letter. Please follow along while I read the consent letter that describes this research project.

This project has been approved by the Institutional Review Board for projects involving human subjects at Florida A & M University. If you choose to participate in the project, you will be asked questions regarding your feelings about various people with whom you interact and about yourself.

I am requesting that you complete four questionnaires, which should take about 30-45

minutes to complete. Your participation is voluntary and you may stop at anytime without prejudice, penalty, or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. All your responses will be kept confidential and only group findings will be reported.

While there is no anticipated risk in participating, you may experience anxiety when

thinking about your future, plans, or your relationships with the people in your life. I will be available to talk with you about any emotional discomfort that arises while participating. If you need further assistance, you may go to the FAMU Student Counseling and Assessment Center, Sunshine Manor, 599-3145. You are also free to withdraw from the study at any time.

As a benefit, you may gain an increased awareness regarding your beliefs about your

relationships with others and yourself. In addition, you will be providing researchers with valuable insights into young adults’ perceptions of their personal relationships and how these relationships are associated with self-concept.

Feel free to ask any questions that you may have concerning this research or your

participation at this time. Group results will be sent to you upon request. Should questions arise

96

once the study is complete, you may contact myself, Dr. John Chambers, or Dr. Perry Brown as listed on your letter. Return of the packet will be considered your consent to participation. Are there any questions? Please keep the cover letter for future reference. For the first set of questions on pages 1-3, read each item carefully. It is important that you

respond to the total item and not just a certain part of it. Using the range of responses from strongly agree to strongly disagree, indicate to what degree it fits your own impressions about yourself. You may begin by thinking about whether you agree or disagree. Then you can decide how strongly you feel about it. Darken the circle with the same number on the response sheet. Remember, we are interested in how these items either reflect or don’t reflect how you perceive your own situations. Begin answering on the optical scan form marked FORM 1 which is located behind the first page. On the response sheet marked FORM 1 in the space marked “PRINT LAST NAME FIRST”– Print and bubble in the 2-LETTER ABBREVIATION FOR THE STATE you lived in during most of your childhood and adolescent years followed by a space and the name of the city. If you did not live in one of the 50 states, print and bubble in the name of the island or country you lived in during most of your childhood and adolescent years. Please turn to page 5, the remaining items allow students to describe themselves and their relationships. There are no right or wrong answers since students differ markedly. Please read the entire sentence across. First, decide which one of the two parts of each statement best describes you; then, go to that side of the statement and check whether that is just sort of true for you or really true for you. Darken the circle with the same number on the response sheet. You will choose one answer for each item. Think about what you are like in general as you read and answer each one. The instructions on when to use FORM 2 are located on page 7 and you will notice that the numbers restart at ‘1’. Please do not write on the questionnaire booklet. Answer all of the questions on the optical scan forms. Please answer every item and make sure that the item number and response number on your response form matches the item and response numbers in the survey packet. Are there any questions? Please begin.

97

APPENDIX I

Informed Consent Cover Letter

98

Dear Participant:

My name is Amber Golden-Thompson, MS. I am a doctoral candidate in the Family Relations Program at Florida State University. I am working with Dr. John Chambers, professor of psychology at Florida A&M University. I am conducting a research study entitled “Self-Concept and Social Relationships.” This project has been approved by the Institutional Review Board for projects involving human subjects at Florida A & M University. If you choose to participate in the project, you will be asked questions regarding your feelings about various people with whom you interact and about yourself.

I am requesting that you complete four questionnaires, which should take about 25

minutes to complete. Your participation is voluntary and you may stop at anytime without prejudice, penalty, or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. All your responses will be kept confidential and only group findings will be reported.

While there is no anticipated risk in participating, you may experience anxiety when

thinking about your future, plans, or your relationships with the people in your life. I will be available to talk with you about any emotional discomfort that arises while participating. If you need further assistance, you may go to the FAMU Student Counseling and Assessment Center, Sunshine Manor, 599-3145. You are also free to withdraw from the study at any time.

As a benefit, you may gain an increased awareness regarding your beliefs about your

relationships with others and yourself. In addition, you will be providing researchers with valuable insights into young adults’ perceptions of their personal relationships and how these relationships are associated with self-concept.

Feel free to ask any questions that you may have concerning this research or your

participation at this time. Group results will be sent to you upon request. Should questions arise once the study is complete, you may contact any of the following individuals:

Amber Golden-Thompson, MS 850-212-3563 goldenlineresearch@yahoo.com Dr. John Chambers 850-561-2541 GEC-C rm. 304-A Psychology Department Florida A&M University Tallahassee, FL 32307

Dr. C. Perry Brown, Chair, IRB 850-412-5246 Division of Research Office of Animal Care and Regulatory Compliance Room 130 Dyson Building Tallahassee, FL 32307-3800

Return of the packet will be considered your consent to participation. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Amber Golden-Thompson, M.S.

99

APPENDIX J

Tables – Scale Psychometric Properties

100

Table J1

Scale Reliability Coefficients, Means, and Standard Deviations

α Mean SD

EOM-EIS II Ideological

Moratorium .640 23.14 6.03 Achieved .620 33.42 5.94 Foreclosed .666 22.10 6.30 Diffuse .487 22.09 5.24

Interpersonal

Moratorium .566 25.02 5.62 Achieved .649 32.75 5.92 Foreclosed .758 19.71 6.53 Diffuse .607 21.78 5.83

Level of Voice Mother (figure) .760 3.09 .684 Father (figure) .842 2.73 .877 Adult Relatives .783 2.98 .687 Fictive Kin .810 3.11 .707 Peers .685 3.37 .634 Instructors/Advisors .774 2.73 .703

Support For Voice

Mother (figure) .825 3.26 .733 Father (figure) .831 2.95 .825 Adult Relatives .766 3.16 .643 Fictive Kin .793 3.14 .687 Peers .717 3.22 .609 Instructors/Advisors .733 2.93 .627

N = 373

101

Table J2

EOM-EIS II Subscale Intercorrelations

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Ideological 1. Achievement - 2. Moratorium -.065 -

3. Foreclosure -.054 .058 - 4. Diffusion -.139** .427** .123* Interpersonal 5. Achievement .508** -.076 .034 -.097 - 6. Moratorium .117 .433** .151** .295** .125* - 7. Foreclosure -.078 .166* .598** .105* .088 .125* - 8. Diffusion -.124* .276** .217** .444** -.271** .178** .126*

Coefficients are in bold to identify the corresponding identity status type.

N = 373

* p < 0.05, ** p < .01

102

Table J3

LOV Factor Loadings for Total Sample

Factor

Context & Subscale Item # Filtering

Fictive Kin/ Adult

Relatives Father (figure)

Mother (figure)

Instructors/ Advisors Peers

Mother (figure)1 .769 Mother (figure)3 .807 Mother (figure)4 .716 Father (figure)1 .810 Father (figure)3 .822 Father (figure)4 .751 Adult relatives1 .576 .243 Adult relatives3 .618 .276 Adult relatives4 .543 .203 Fictive kin1 .770 Fictive kin3 .201 .801 Fictive kin4 .698 Peers1 .758 Peers3 .763 Peers4 .729 Instructors/advisors1 .817 Instructors/advisors3 .736 Instructors/advisors4 .212 .667 Mother (figure)2 .565 .463 Mother (figure)5 .612 .543 Father (figure)2 .297 .752 Father (figure)5 .336 .743 Adult relatives2 .660 Adult relatives5 .768 .213 Fictive kin2 .659 .376 Fictive kin5 .729 .326 Peers2 .510 .573 Peers5 .545 .534 Instructors/advisors2 .206 .716 Instructors/advisors5 .291 .643

N = 373

103

Table J4

Correlation of SFV with LOV in each Relational Context

Level of Voice

Support for Voice Mother (figure)

Father (figure)

Adult Relatives

Fictive Kin Peers

Instructors/ Advisors

Mother (figure) .521** .109* .290** .252** .268** .231** Father (figure) .212** .535** .208** .237** .190** .194** Adult Relatives .342** .195** .388** .356** .253** .296** Fictive Kin .346** .235** .389** .549** .430** .360**

Peers .183** .167** .221** .337** .365** .263** Instructors/Advisors .206** .099 .089 .194** .146** .349**

Coefficients are in bold to identify corresponding relational contexts.

Coefficients in italics are to identify the largest coefficient when it is not with the corresponding

relational context.

N = 373

** p < 0.01

104

APPENDIX K

Tables – Research Questions

105

Table K1

Correlation of SFV Scales with Ideological Exploration for the Total Sample and by Gender

Support for Voice

Familial Contexts Extrafamilial Contexts

Mother (figures)

Father (figures)

Adult Relatives

Fictive Kin b

Peers Instructors/ Advisors

Total Samplea -.174** -.124* -.197** -.173** -.156** -.139** Males -.148 -.006 -.121 -.187* -.100 -.164 Femalese -.176** -.165**f -.205** -.134*g -.141* -.110

aN = 323, (unless specified otherwise), b N = 372, c N = 371

dn = 122

en = 251, (unless specified otherwise), fn = 250, gn = 249

* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01

106

Table K2

Summary of Regression Analysis for Familial SFV Variables on Ideological Exploration

for the Total Sample and by Gender

Variable R2/Adj. R2 B SE B β Tolerance

Total Samplea .064/.052***

Gender -1.677* .663 -.130 .963 Mother (figures) -.699 .520 -.085 .646 Father (figures) -.336 .415 -.046 .799 Adult Relatives -.795 .676 -.084 .497 Fictive Kin -.363 .587 -.041 .576

Femalesb .054/.039**

Mother (figures) -.725 .621 -.088 .682 Father (figures) -.673 .485 -.096 .814 Adult Relatives -1.124 .837 -.118 .502 Fictive Kin .064 .709 .007 .610

Malesc 0.44/.011

Mother (figures) -.670 .988 -.083 .539 Father (figures) .756 .825 .096 .742 Adult Relatives -.173 1.144 -.019 .512 Fictive Kin -1.390 1.070 -.160 .541

a N = 371, b n = 249, c n = 122

** p < .01, *** p < .001

107

Table K3

Summary of Regression Analysis for Extrafamilial SFV Variables on Ideological

Exploration for the Total Sample and by Gender

Variable R2/Adj. R2 B SE B β Tolerance

Total Samplea .046/.038***

Gender -1.63** .667 -.127 .959 Peers -.916 .569 -.092 .784 Instructors/Advisors -.824 .545 -.086 .808

Femalesb .024/.016

Peers -1.187 .697 -.116 .849 Instructors/Advisors -.618 .646 -.065 .849

Malesc .027/.011

Peers -.186 1.003 -.020 .728 Instructors/Advisors -1.499 1.033 -.154 .728

a N = 373, b n = 251, c n = 122

** p < .01, *** p < .001

108

Table K4

Correlation of LOV scales with Ideological Exploration for the Total Sample and by Gender

Level of Voice

Familial Contexts Extrafamilial Contexts

Mother (figures)

Father (figures)

Adult Relatives

Fictive Kin

Peers Instructors/ Advisors

Total Samplea -.118* -.075b -.197** -.109*c -.128* -.200** Malesd -.053 .064 -.232** -.262** -.200* -.303** Femalese -.126* -.127*f -.177** -.015g -.048 -.163**

a N = 323, (unless specified otherwise), b N = 370, c N = 371

dn = 122

en = 251, (unless specified otherwise), f n = 248, g n = 249

* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01

109

Table K5

Summary of Regression Analysis for Familial LOV Variables on Ideological

Exploration for the Total Sample and by Gender

Variable R2/Adj. R2 B SE B β Tolerance

Total Samplea .060/.047*** Gender -1.875** .666 -.146 .967 Mother (figures) -.200 .516 -.023 .766 Father (figures) -.092 .375 -.013 .878 Adult Relatives -1.692** .593 -.191 .579 Fictive Kin .280 .533 .033 .668

Femalesb

Mother (figures) .051/.035* -.467 .606 -.054 .802 Father (figures) -.632 .455 -.092 .902 Adult Relatives -1.679* .696 -.195 .603 Fictive Kin 1.094 .641 .128 .696

Malesc

Mother (figures) .121/.091** .878 .965 .095 .683 Father (figures) 1.321* .639 .198 .816 Adult Relatives -2.168 1.112 -.236 .512 Fictive Kin -1.933* .928 -.223 .657

a N = 369, b n = 247, c n = 122

* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

110

Table K6

Summary of Regression Analysis for Extrafamilial LOV Variables on Ideological

Exploration for the Total Sample and by Gender

Variable R2/Adj. R2 B SE B β Tolerance

Total Samplea .065/.057*** Gender -1.886** .663 -.147 .951 Peers -.341 .519 -.036 .852 Instructors/Advisors -1.617*** .458 -.189 .891

Femalesb

Peers .027/.019* -.068 .670 -.007 .934 Instructors/Advisors -1.356* .545 -.161 .934

Malesc

Peers .095/.080** -.578 .832 -.069 .764 Instructors/Advisors -2.331** .864 -.269 .764

a N = 373, b n = 251, c n = 122

* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

111

Table K7

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Extrafamilial and Familial LOV

Variables Entered as Sets for Predicting Ideological Exploration by Gender

Variable R2/Adj. R2 ∆ R2

/Adj. R2 B SE B β Tolerance

Femalesa Model 1

Peers .025/.017 .025/.017* -.047 .676 -.004 .935 Instructors/Advisors -1.340* .553 -.158 .935

Model 2

Peers .060/.037 .035/.020 .100 .733 .010 .781 Instructors/Advisors -.916 .589 -.108 .807 Mother (figures) -.291 .616 -.034 .775 Father (figures) -.537 .459 -.078 .884 Adult Relatives -1.533* .716 -.178 .568 Fictive Kin 1.166 .664 .137 .647

Malesb

Model 1 Peers .095/.080 .095/.080** -.578 .832 -.069 .764 Instructors/Advisors -2.331** .864 -.269 .764

Model 2

Peers .174/.131 .079/.051* -.556 .924 -.067 .585 Instructors/Advisors -2.182* .909 -.252 .653 Mother (figures) 1.519 .981 .165 .633 Father (figures) 1.456* .631 .219 .799 Adult Relatives -1.729 1.104 -.188 .496 Fictive Kin -1.162 1.004 -.134 .537

a n = 247, b n = 122

* p < .05, ** p < .01

112

Table K8

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Extrafamilial and Familial LOV and Familial SFV

Variables Entered as Sets for Predicting Ideological Exploration for Females

Variable R2/Adj. R2 ∆ R2/Adj. R2 B SE B β Tolerance

Model 1 .025/.017 .025/.017* LOV-Peers -.047 .676 -.004 .935 LOV-Instructors/Advisors -1.340* .553 -.158 .935

Model 2 .060/.037 .035/.020

LOV-Peers .100 .733 .010 .781 LOV-Instructors/Advisors -.916 .589 -.108 .807 LOV-Mother (figure) -.291 .616 -.034 .775 LOV-Father (figure) -.537 .459 -.078 .884 LOV-Adult Relatives -1.533* .716 -.178 .568 LOV-Fictive Kin 1.166 .664 .137 .647

Model 3 .090/.051 .030/.014 LOV-Peers .313 .742 .030 .749 LOV-Instructors/Advisors -.721 .593 -.085 .785 LOV-Mother (figure) .228 .691 .026 .605 LOV-Father (figure) -.184 .538 -.027 .634 LOV-Adult Relatives -1.472* .724 -.171 .546 LOV-Fictive Kin 1.538* .723 .180 .538 SFV-Mother (figure) -.621 .699 -.075 .535 SFV-Father (figure) -.562 .570 -.080 .588 SFV-Adult Relatives -.807 .858 -.084 .478 SFV-Fictive Kin -.406 .816 -.046 .459

n = 247

* p < .05

113

Table K9

Summary of the Research Questions, Hypotheses and Findings

Research Question

Sub-question Results

A. Were support for voice (SFV) and level of voice (LOV) in familial and extrafamilial contexts determinants of ideological identity exploration? Were there differences by gender?

1) Did SFV in familial contexts contribute to the prediction of ideological identity exploration? Were there differences by gender?

• Familial SFV in females explained a statistically significant portion (∆Adj. R2 = 3.9%) of the variance in exploration.

2) Did SFV in extrafamilial contexts contribute to the prediction of ideological exploration? Were there differences by gender?

No evidence to support this relationship

3) Did LOV in familial contexts contribute to the prediction of ideological exploration? Were there differences by gender?

• Familial LOV collectively explained a statistically significant portion of the variance in exploration for males and females (∆Adj. R2 = 9.1% and 3.5%, respectively).

4) Did LOV in extrafamilial contexts contribute to the prediction of ideological exploration? Were there differences by gender?

• Extrafamilial LOV collectively explained a statistically significant portion of the variance in exploration for males and females (∆Adj. R2 = 8.0% and 1.9%, respectively).

B. Which familial and extrafamilial relational contexts of SFV and LOV were important determinants of ideological exploration?

1) Did SFV in each of the relational contexts (mother (figure), father (figure), adult relatives, and fictive kin) individually contribute to the prediction of ideological identity exploration? Were there differences by gender?

No evidence to support this relationship

2) Did SFV in each of the extrafamilial contexts (peers and instructors/advisors) individually contribute to the prediction of ideological identity exploration? Were there differences by gender?

No evidence to support this relationship

114

Table K9 continued

Summary of the Research Questions, Hypotheses and Findings

Research Question

Sub-question Results

3) Did LOV in each of the relational contexts (mother (figure), father (figure), adult relatives, and fictive kin) individually contribute to the prediction of ideological identity exploration? Were there differences by gender?

• LOV with adult relatives had a statistically significant effect on exploration for females.

• LOV with father (figures) and fictive kin had a statistically significant effect on exploration for males.

4) Did LOV in each of the extrafamilial contexts (peers and instructors/advisors) individually contribute to the prediction of ideological identity exploration? Were there differences by gender?

• LOV with instructors/advisors had a statistically significant effect on exploration for both genders.

C. Were SFV and LOV in extrafamilial contexts stronger determinants of ideological exploration that SFV and LOV in familial contexts? Were there differences by gender?

1) Did extrafamilial SFV account for more of the variance in ideological exploration than familial SFV? Were there differences by gender?

Not Supported

2) Did extrafamilial LOV account for more of the variance in ideological exploration than familial LOV? Were there differences by gender?

• Extrafamilial LOV explained more variance than familial LOV for both genders. Extrafamilial and familial LOV collectively explained a significant proportion of the variance in exploration for males. Only extrafamilial LOV explained a significant portion of the variance in exploration for females.

D. What was the combined influence of SFV and LOV in familial and extrafamilial contexts on ideological identity exploration?

1) Did SFV and LOV in familial and extrafamilial contexts each explain a statistically significant amount of the variance in ideological identity exploration? Were there differences by gender?

• Extrafamilial LOV collectively explained a statistically significant portion of the variance in exploration for females (∆Adj. R2 = 1.7%).

115

REFERENCES

Adams, G. (1998). Objective measure of ego identity status: A reference manual. Guelph, Canada: University of Guelph.

Adams, G., Dyk, P., & Bennion, L. D. (1990). Parent-adolescent relationships and identity

formation. In B. Barber & B. Rollins (Eds.), Parent-adolescent relationships (pp. 1-18). Lanham: University Press of America.

Adams, G. R. (1985). Family correlates of female adolescents ego identity development. Journal

of Adolescence, 8(1), 69-82. Allen-Meares, P., & Lane, B. A. (1987). Grounding social work proctice in theory: Ecosystems.

Social Casework: The Journal of Contemporary Social Work, 515-521. Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood - A theory of development from the late teens through the

twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469-480. Bartle-Haring, S. (1997). The relationships among parent-adolescent differentiation, sex role

orientation and identity development in late adolescence and early adulthood. Journal of

Adolescence, 20, 553-565. Bartle-Haring, S., Brucker, P., & Hock, E. (2002). The impact of parental separation anxiety on

identity development in late adolescence and early adulthood. Journal of Adolescent

Research, 17, 439-450. Bengtson, V. L. (2001). Beyond the nuclear family: The increasing importance of

multigenerational bonds. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 63, 1-16. Bennion, L. D., & Adams, G. R. (1986). A revision of the extended version of the objective

measure of ego identity status: An identity instrument for use with late adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 1, 183-198.

Berzonsky, M. D., & Adams, G. R. (1999). Reevaluating the identity status paradigm: Still useful

after 35 years. Developmental Review, 19, 557-590. Bhushan, R., & Shirali, K. A. (1992). Family types and communication with parents: A

comparison of youth at different identity levels. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 21, 687-697.

116

Boyd-Franklin, N. (1989). Black families in therapy: A multisystems approach. New York: Guilford Press.

Boykin, A. W., & Ellison, C. M. (1995). The multiple ecologies of Black youth socialization: An

afrographic analysis. In R. L. Taylor (Ed.), African-American youth: Their social and

economic status in the United States (pp. 93-128). West Port, CN: Praeger. Branch, C. W., Tayal, P., & Triplett, C. (2000). The relationship of ethnic identity and ego identity

status among adolescents and young adults. International Journal of Intercultural

Relations, 24, 777-790. Buddin, B. J. (1997). Dimensions of parent behavior as predictors of adolescent level of voice,

Paper presented at Society for Research on Child Development. Washington, DC. Caldwell, C. H., Jackson, J. S., Tucker, M. B., & Bowman, P. J. (1999). Culturally-competent

research methods. In R. L. Jones (Ed.), Advances in African American psychology (pp. 101-127). Hampton, VA: Cobb & Henry.

Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (Revised ed.). New York:

Academic Press. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation

analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cooley, C. H. (1902/1956). Human nature and the social order, The Two Major Works of Charles

H. Cooley. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press. Côté, J. E., & Levine, J. G. (2002). Identity formation, agency, and culture: A social psychological

systhesis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New

York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Ellison, C. G. (1990). Family ties, friendship, and subjective well-being among Black Americans.

Journal of Marriage & the Family, 52, 298-310. Erikson, E. H. (1959). Identity and the life cycle. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Forbes, S., & Ashton, P. (1998). The identity status of African Americans in middle adolescence:

A reexamination of Watson and Protinsky (1991). Adolescence, 33, 845-849. Fullinwider-Bush, N., & Jacobvitz, D. B. (1993). The transition to young adulthood: Generational

boundary dissolution and female identity development. Family Process, 32, 87-103.

117

Grotevant, H. D., & Cooper, C. R. (1985). Patterns of interaction in family relationships and the development of identity exploration in adolescence. Child Development, 56, 415-428.

Hart, D. (1988). The adolescent self-concept in social context. In D. K. Lapsley & F. C. Power

(Eds.), Self, ego, and identity (pp. 71-90). New York: Springer-Verlag. Harter, S. (1988). The construction and conservation of the self: James and Cooley revisited. In D.

K. Lapsley & F. C. Power (Eds.), Self, ego, and identity: Integrative approaches (pp. 43-70). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Harter, S. (1995). Teenage voice. Dever, CO: University of Denver. Harter, S. (1996). Historical roots of contemporary issues involving self-concept. In B. A. Bracken

(Ed.), Handbook of Self-Concept: Developmental, Social, and Clinical Considerations (pp. 1-37). New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Harter, S. (1998). The development of self-representations. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of

Child Psychology (5th ed., Vol. 3, pp. 553-617). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Harter, S. (2002). Authenticity. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive

psychology (pp. 382-394). London: Oxford University Press. Harter, S. (2003). The development of self-representations during childhood and adolescence. In

M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 610-642). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Harter, S., Bresnick, S., Bouchey, H. A., & Whitesell, N. R. (1997). The development of multiple

role-related selves during adolescence. Development and Psychopathology, 9, 835-853. Harter, S., Buddin, B. J., & Whitesell, N. R. (1997). Dimensions of parent behavior as predictors

of adolescent level of voice, Paper presented at meeting of the Society for Research in

Child Development. Washington, DC. Harter, S., Marold, D. B., Whitesell, N. R., & Cobbs, G. (1996). A model of the effects of

perceived parent and peer support on adolescent false self behavior. Child Development,

67, 360-374. Harter, S., & Monsour, A. (1992). Developmental analysis of conflict caused by opposing

attributes in the adolescent self-portrait. Developmental Psychology, 28, 251-260. Harter, S., Waters, P., Pettitt, L., Whitesell, N. R., Kofkin, J., & Jordan, J. (1997). Autonomy and

connectedness as dimensions of relationship styles in adult men and women. Journal of

Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 147-164.

118

Harter, S., Waters, P. L., Whitesell, N. R., & Kastelic, D. (1998). Level of voice among female and male high school students: Relational context, support, and gender orientation. Developmental Psychology, 34, 892-901.

Hauser, S. T. (1972). Black and white identity development: Aspects and perspectives. Journal of

Youth and Adolescence, 1, 113-130. Hauser, S. T. (1973). Differentiation of adolescent self-images. Archives of General Psychiatry,

29, 63-68. Hegar, R., & Scannapieco, M. (1995). From family duty to family policy: The evolution of kinship

care. Child Welfare, 74, 200-216. Hill, R. B. (1999). The strengths of African American families: Twenty-five years later. Lanham,

MD: University Press of America, Inc. Hirsch, B. J., Boerger, R., Levy, A. E., & Mickus, M. (1994). The social networks of adolescents

and their mothers: Influences on blacks and whites in single- and two-parent families. In F. Nestmann & K. Hurrelman (Eds.), Social networks and social support in childhood and

adolescence (pp. 305-322). Oxford, England: Walter de Gruyter. Hirsch, B. J., Mickus, M., & Boerger, R. (2002). Ties to influential adults among Black and White

adolescents: Culture, social class, and family networks. American Journal of Community

Psychology, 30, 289-303. Hunter, A. G., Pearson, J. L., Ialongo, N. S., & Kellam, S. G. (1998). Parenting alone to multiple

caregivers: Child care and parenting arrangements in Black and White urban families. Family Relations, 47, 343-353.

Imbimbo, P. V. (1995). Sex differences in the identity formation of college students from divorced

families. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24, 745-761. James, W. (1892/1984). Psychology: The briefer course. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press. Kline, D. M., & White, J. M. (1996). Family Theories: An introduction. Thousand Oaks: Sage

Publication, Inc. LaRossa, R., & Reitzes, D. (1993). Symbolic interactionism and family studies. In P. Boss & W. J.

Doherty & R. LaRossa & W. R. Schumm & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of Family

Theories and Methods: A contextual approach (pp. 135-163). New York: Plenum Press. Manns, W. (1997). Supportive roles of significant others in African American families. In H. P.

McAdoo (Ed.), Black families. Newbury Park: Sage.

119

Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego identity status. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 3, 551-558. Marcia, J. E. (1993). The status of the statuses: Research review. In J. E. Marcia & A. S.

Waterman & D. R. Matteson & S. L. Archer & J. L. Orlofsky (Eds.), Ego identity: A

handbook for psychosocial research (pp. 22-41). New York: Springer-Verlag. Markstrom, C. A., & Hunter, C. L. (1999). The roles of ethnic and ideological identity in

predicting fidelity in African American and European American adolescents. Child Study

Journal, 29, 23-38. Markstrom-Adams, C., & Adams, G. R. (1995). Gender, ethnic-group, and grade differences in

psychosocial functioning during middle adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,

24, 397-417. Matos, P. M., Barbosa, S., Milheiro de Almeida, H., & Costa, M. E. (1999). Parental attachment

and identity in Portugese late adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 805-818. McCall, G. J. (2003). Interaction. In L. T. Reynolds & N. J. Herman-Kinney (Eds.), Handbook of

symbolic interactionism. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press. Meeus, W., & Dekovic, M. (1995). Identity development, parental and peer support in adolescence

- Results of a national Dutch survey. Adolescence, 30, 931-944. Meeus, W., Oosterwegel, A., & Vollebergh, W. (2002). Parental and peer attachment and identity

development in adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 25, 93-106. Mullis, R. L., Brailsford, J. C., & Mullis, A. K. (2003). Relations between identity formation and

family characteristics among young adults. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 966-980. O'Connor, B. P. (1995). Identity development and perceived parental behavior as sources of

adolescent egocentrism. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24, 205-227. Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated

approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Perosa, L. M., Perosa, S. L., & Tam, H. P. (2002). Intergenerational systems theory and identity

development in young adult women. Journal of Adolescent Research, 17, 235-259. Perosa, L. M., Perosa, S. L., & Tam, H. R. (1996). The contribution of family structure and

differentiation to identity development in females. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 25, 817-837.

Perosa, S. L., & Perosa, L. M. (1993). Relationships among Minuchin's structural family model,

identity achievement, and coping style. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 40, 479-489.

120

Phinney, J. S. (1989). Stages of ethnic identity development in minority group adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 9, 34-49.

Rosenthal, D. A., Gurney, R. M., & Moore, S. M. (1981). From trust to intimacy: A new inventory

for examining Erikson's stages of psychosocial development. Journal of Youth and

Adolescence, 10, 525-537. Rotheram-Borus, M. J. (1989). Ethnic-differences in adolescents identity status and associated

behavior problems. Journal of Adolescence, 12, 361-374. Sartor, C. E., & Youniss, J. (2002). The relationship between positive parental involvement and

identity achievement during adolescence. Adolescence, 37, 221-234. Schwartz, S. J., & Montgomery, M. J. (2002). Similarities or differences in identity development?

The impact of acculturation and gender on identity process and outcome. Journal of Youth

and Adolescence, 31, 359-372. Sneed, J. R., Schwartz, S. J., & Cross, W. E. (In press). A multicultural critique of identity status

theory and research: A call for integration. Identity:An International Journal of Theory and

Research. Somé, M. (1998). The healing wisdom of Africa. New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam. Spencer, M. B., & Markstrom-Adams, C. (1990). Identity processes among racial and ethnic

minority children in America. Child Development, 61, 290-310. Streitmatter, J. L. (1988). Ethnicity as a mediating variable of early adolescent identity

development. Journal of Adolescence, 11, 335-346. Tatum, B. D. (1997). Out there stranded? Black families in White communities. In H. P. McAdoo

(Ed.), Black families. Newbury Park: Sage. Taylor, R. D. (1995). Identity formation in Turkish and American late adolescence. Journal of

Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26, 8-22. Taylor, R. D., Casten, R., & Flickinger, S. M. (1993). Influence of kinship social support on the

parenting experiences and psychosocial adjustment of African-American adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 29, 382-388.

Taylor, R. D., & Roberts, D. (1995). Kinship support and maternal and adolescent well-being in

economically disadvantaged African-American families. Child Development, 66, 1585-1597.

Taylor, R. J. (1990). Need for support and family involvement among Black Americans. Journal

of Marriage & the Family, 52, 584-590.

121

Taylor, R. J., Chatters, L. M., & Jackson, J. S. (1993). A profile of familial relations among three-generation Black families. Family Relations, 42, 332-341.

Taylor, R. J., Chatters, L. M., Tucker, M. B., & Lewis, E. (1990). Developments in research on

Black families: A decade review. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 993-1014. Taylor, R. L. (2000). Diversity within African American families. In D. H. Demo & K. R. Allen &

M. A. Fine (Eds.), Handbook of family diversity (pp. 232-251). New York: Oxford University Press.

Tice, D. M., & Wallace, H. M. (2003). The reflected self: Creating yourself as (you think) others

see you. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 91-105). New York: The Guilford Press.

van Hoof, A. (1999a). The identity status approach: In need of fundamental revision and

qualitative change. Developmental Review, 19, 622-647. van Hoof, A. (1999b). The identity status field re-reviewed: An update of unresolved and

neglected issues with a view on some alternative approaches. Developmental Review, 19, 497-556.

Waterman, A. S. (1993). Developmental perspectives on identity formation: From adolescence to

adulthood. In J. E. Marcia & A. S. Waterman & D. R. Matteson & S. L. Archer & J. L. Orlofsky (Eds.), Ego Identity: A handbook for psychosocial research (pp. 42-68). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Waterman, A. S. (1999). Identity, the identity statuses, and identity status development: A

contemporary statement. Developmental Review, 19, 591-621. Watson, M. F., & Protinsky, H. (1991). Identity status of Black-adolescents: An empirical

investigation. Adolescence, 26, 963-966. Watson, M. F., & Protinsky, H. O. (1988). Black-adolescent identity development: Effects of

perceived family-structure. Family Relations, 37, 288-292. Watts-Jones, D. (1997). Toward an African American genogram. Family Process, 36, 375-383. Weigert, A. J., & Gecas, V. (2003). Self. In L. T. Reynolds & N. J. Herman-Kinney (Eds.),

Handbook of Symbolic Interactionism. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press. Willemsen, E. W., & Waterman, K. K. (1991). Ego identity status and family environment: A

correlational study. Psychological Reports, 69, 1203-1212.

Wilson, M. N. (1989). Child-development in the context of the Black extended family. American

Psychologist, 44, 380-385.

122

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Ms. Golden-Thompson has worked in research for the past 13 years. Her areas of

research have included blood pressure and psychosocial reactions to stress, premarital education,

and now adolescent identity development. During her tenure at Florida State University, she took

a special interest in program evaluation and measurement and statistics. As a result, she was

selected to participate in the American Evaluation Association/Duquesne University Graduate

Evaluation Internship. Ms. Golden-Thompson’s post-graduate interests include working as a

program evaluator in national and international settings and engaging in a research agenda

focused on the familial and social impacts on adolescent development with cross-cultural

populations, African American family dynamics, and health equity in African American

populations.