Sources of self-categorization as minority for mixed race individuals

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Sources of Self-Categorization 14confidence interval = .00 - .08). We therefore felt confident that the measures designed for thecurrent study, although related, represented distinct constructs.We used path analysis to assess hypothesized relationships between minorityconnectedness and appearance, minority and White similarity, minority and White selfcategorization,and affirmative action eligibility. Analyses were conducted with EQS 6.1software using maximum likelihood estimation, and the model was specified such that cases withmissing data were deleted, which resulted in 2 cases being removed from analyses. According topast research on model fit (see Hu & Bentler, 1999), good fitting models have comparative fitindex (CFI) and nonnormed fit index (NNFI) values that exceed .95.Hypothesized ModelA path model was specified with the hypothesized paths illustrated in Figure 1. 4 Goodpractice is to include at least 5 cases per estimated model parameter (Bentler & Chou, 1987). Thehypothesized model includes 16 parameter estimates (8 paths, 3 covariances, and 5 errorvariances), necessitating a sample of at least 80 participants. The hypothesized model fit the datawell (see Figure 2, Table 3). As predicted, both minority connectedness and minority appearancesignificantly positively predicted feelings of minority similarity. Minority connectednessnegatively predicted White similarity, while minority appearance was unrelated. Also consistentwith our hypotheses, minority similarity positively predicted minority self-categorization, whileWhite similarity positively predicted White self-categorization. Only minority self-categorizationpositively predicted affirmative action eligibility; White self-categorization was unrelated.Alternative ModelsBecause the data are correlational, causal paths cannot be determined. Therefore othermodel specifications may fit the data better than or equally as well as the hypothesized model. In
Sources of Self-Categorization 15particular, SCT might also predict that after self-categorizing as minority, individuals experiencea depersonalization, whereby they view themselves as very similar to other members of thegroup, and may feel more connected to the group as well (Hogg, 2004; Hornsey, 2008; Postmes& Spears, 1998; Tajfel, 1981; Turner, 1991). Thus, minority similarity, minority appearance, andminority connectedness could be viewed as products rather than predictors of minority selfcategorization.To test this possibility, we computed alternative model A (see Figure 3). Thismodel did not fit the data well (see Table 3). In an additional test of SCT, we constructed analternative model very similar to alternative model A, but with minority appearance as apredictor of minority and White self-categorization (alternative model B, see Figure 3). Becausephysical appearance is a relatively stable, observable characteristic, we reasoned that it may notbe affected by minority self-categorization, unlike minority connectedness, which could varyaccording to self-categorization. Alternative model B also did not fit the data the data well (seeTable 3). Because the alternative models and the hypothesized model are not nested, a chi squaredifference test cannot be conducted to compare the fit of the models. However, in cases ofnonhierarchical models, fit comparisons can be made using the Akaike Information Criterion(AIC; Kline, 2005). For a set of models, the model with the lowest AIC value has a better fit tothe data. As can be seen in Table 4, the hypothesized model has a lower AIC value (-10.98) thanboth alternative models, suggesting that the hypothesized model is a superior fit to the data.DiscussionIn general, the results supported our hypotheses. Consistent with our predictions, themore minority-White biracial participants felt connected to their minority group and believedtheir appearance to be similar to other minority individuals, the more they viewed themselves assimilar to other members of that minority group. Additionally, participants who saw themselves
Page 2: Sources of Self-Categorization 2Abs
Page 5 and 6: Sources of Self-Categorization 5Bru
Page 7 and 8: Sources of Self-Categorization 7ove
Page 9 and 10: Sources of Self-Categorization 9For
Page 11 and 12: Sources of Self-Categorization 11pa
Page 13: Sources of Self-Categorization 13Wh
Page 17 and 18: Sources of Self-Categorization 17sh
Page 19 and 20: Sources of Self-Categorization 19mu
Page 21 and 22: Sources of Self-Categorization 21Re
Page 23 and 24: Sources of Self-Categorization 23Ch
Page 25 and 26: Sources of Self-Categorization 25co
Page 27 and 28: Sources of Self-Categorization 27Fo
Page 29 and 30: Sources of Self-Categorization 29Ta
Page 31 and 32: Table 3Fit Statistics for All Model
Page 33 and 34: MinorityConnectedness+MinoritySimil
Page 35: Alternative Model AMinority Self-Ca

Sources of self-categorization as minority for mixed race individuals

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?