The role of covert racial prejudice, attitudinal ambivalence, and guilt in receptivity to multicultural training


Material Information

The role of covert racial prejudice, attitudinal ambivalence, and guilt in receptivity to multicultural training
Physical Description:
vii, 106 leaves : ; 29 cm.
Shanbhag, Marnie G
Publication Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Counseling Psychology thesis, Ph.D   ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Counseling Psychology -- UF   ( lcsh )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )


Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 1998.
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 93-105).
Statement of Responsibility:
by Marnie G. Shanbhag.
General Note:
General Note:

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 029547647
oclc - 40139233
System ID:

This item is only available as the following downloads:

Full Text








I wish first to express deep appreciation to my

chairperson, Dr. Martin Heesacker. Despite difficult

initial circumstances, he agreed to supervise my

dissertation work and has handled the process with amazing

equanimity. My only regret is that our scholarly

association did not begin sooner. Special acknowledgement

also goes to Dr. Dave Suchman, who since the beginning of my

clinical training, has remained a profound mentor and

personal friend.

Next, I would like to thank the other members of my

committee, Drs. Dorothy Nevill, Lisa Brown, and Max Parker,

for their time, effort, and support. Throughout my graduate

training, Dr. Nevill handled my many questions and

bureaucratic crises with humor and grace. I also would not

have survived graduate school without Dr. Brown's

professional and personal guidance. Dr. Parker willingly

brought a much-needed perspective to my work.

Finally, I wish to acknowledge the encouragement of my

parents, L. V. and Nanda Shanbhag, whose generous financial

support particularly in the Summer of 1997, allowed me to

devote needed time to this project. A McLaughlin

Dissertation Fellowship provided additional funding.




ABSTRACT . . ... .vi


1 INTRODUCTION . .. ... 1

Overview . . 1
Purpose of the Study . .. 11
Hypotheses . . 12
Importance of the Study . .. .13


Overview . . .. .15
History . . .17
Current Approaches to Multicultural Training 21
Current State of Multiculturalism ... .28
Summary . . 42

3 METHOD . . . 44

Participants . ... .44
Manipulation of Forewarning . .. .45
Measured Variables . ... .46
Procedure . . .. .53
Planned Data Analyses . 55

4 RESULTS . . 57

Statistical Analyses Procedures . .. .57
Descriptive Statistics . .. .57
Hypotheses . . 59
Ancillary Analyses . . 64
Summary . . 67


Summary and Interpretation of the Results ... .70
Implications of Current Findings . .. .78
Limitations of the Current Study . .. .79
Suggestions for Future Research . .. .83
Conclusions . . .84









Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy



Marnie G. Shanbhag

August 1998

Chairperson: Martin Heesacker, Ph.D.
Major Department: Counseling Psychology

This dissertation identified several potential

weaknesses in the current multicultural training literature

and addressed their viability empirically. These weaknesses

centered around the possible existence in Whites of

underlying racial attitudinal ambivalence and covert

prejudicial thoughts, despite overt endorsements of

multicultural sensitivity.

It was hypothesized based on social psychological

research, that White students would engage in anticipatory

opinion shifts, in the interest of self-presentation, when

they expected to receive some type of multicultural

education. It was further hypothesized that students who

indicated that they would voluntarily attend multicultural

training presentations would be the least in need of such

training, as evidenced by their lower scores on measures of

prejudice. In addition, the relationships between race-

related ambivalence, prejudice, and guilt were examined.

Participants were 134 White undergraduate students from

one introductory psychology class. Students filled out the

Modern Racism Scale, Pro-Black Anti-Black Attitude

Questionnaire, White Racial Identity Attitudes Scale, Mosher

Guilt Scale, and a behavioral intention measure of one's

likelihood of attending a multicultural presentation. Half

the sample received a forewarning that an upcoming presenter

would lecture on racial issues; the other constituted the

control group.

Results failed to support the hypotheses. However,

ancillary analyses revealed that students actually increased

in anti-Black affect and hostile reintegration attitudes as

a result of receiving a forewarning. Furthermore, prejudice

and guilt were inversely related as were prejudice and

intention to attend a multicultural presentation.

Findings are discussed in light of previous research,

and suggestions for future research are explored, along with

the implications for current multicultural training





Although the inclusion of a multicultural perspective

to counseling psychology has been a welcome and needed

addition, this dissertation identifies several potential

weaknesses in the current multicultural training literature,

which have seldom been addressed empirically. First, the

attempt to focus multicultural training on the acquisition

of culture-specific information has been achieved at the

expense of an emphasis on prejudice-reduction. Second,

multicultural training has not sufficiently taken into

account the possibility that White people engage in overt

self-presentational strategies to appear culturally aware,

while still harboring covert racist attitudes and beliefs.

Finally, multicultural literature has failed to address the

role of White guilt in motivating Whites to adopt the patina

of multicultural sensitivity, which prevents honest dialogue

regarding their prejudicial attitudes and beliefs.

Heralded as the fourth force in psychology,

multiculturalism has confronted the reality that existing

psychological paradigms do not address the mental health

needs of ethnic-minority populations and that counselors

are not adequately prepared to facilitate the development of

their clients of color (Pedersen, 1990; Sue & Sue, 1990).

Evidence for these claims came from the under-utilization

and premature termination rates of clients of color (Mays &

Albee, 1992; Ponterotto & Casas, 1987; Sue & Sue, 1990).

Subsequently, psychology (especially counseling psychology)

underwent a dramatic transformation with a new emphasis on

understanding and helping diverse populations (Essandoh,

1996). The 1980s, in particular, witnessed an unprecedented

growth in the attention given to multicultural issues in

counseling literature and in counseling training programs

(Ponterotto & Casas, 1991). Journals began devoting space

to multiculturalism and training programs, mandated by APA,

began offering multicultural curricula designed to prepare

students for the ever-changing cultural makeup of

populations seeking services. This multicultural focus has

remained central in counseling psychology for good reason:

the United States continues to undergo dramatic demographic

changes, and projections now indicate that by the year 2050,

Americans of color will become the numerical majority.

With an eye to America's increasingly pluralistic

society, counseling psychology training programs have

invested much energy in developing ways of training

counselors (particularly White counselors) to work more

effectively with racially diverse clients (Hills & Strozier,

1992; Lee & Richardson, 1991). Concurrently, universities

around the United States have encouraged counselors to

provide "cultural diversity" training workshops to students

and staff in an effort to increase racial harmony and

decrease the incidence of racial conflict on college

campuses (McCormack, 1995; Pope-Davis & Ottavi, 1994).

Most of the training models designed to increase

cultural sensitivity aim to increase knowledge, awareness,

and skills with respect to culturally relevant variables.

They operate from three basic premises (Richardson &

Molinaro, 1996). First, in order to become more effective

in working with persons from different backgrounds,

counselors need to expand their knowledge base of various

cultural groups. Second, counselors need to recognize

cultural differences between these groups. Third,

counselors need to expand their repertoire of skills,

including skills associated with communication styles and a

broad array of interventions. Cultural diversity workshops

aimed at improving intergroup relations operate from the

same premises but deliver the information within a shorter

time-frame (i.e., a one session workshop versus a semester-

long course; Pope-Davis & Ottavi, 1994). Unfortunately, the

link between providing workshops on campus and decreasing

Whites' antipathy toward members of other racial and ethnic

groups remains undocumented. Furthermore, little evidence

exists to support the idea that training counselors in

multicultural education actually increases the quality or

availability of counseling services provided to ethnically

diverse populations (Das, 1995; Wierzbicki & Pekarik, 1993).

Several researchers have raised the concern that

providing counselors only with culture-specific information

has the deleterious effect of encouraging stereotyping

(Arbona, 1995; Patterson, 1996; Sue & Zane, 1987). Instead,

some professionals have emphasized the need (particularly in

White individuals) for learning about oneself as a racial,

ethnic, and cultural being before learning about others

(Carter, 1991; McRae & Johnson, 1991; Sue, Arredondo, &

McDavis, 1992).

One of the most widely employed models for training

both counselors and the general population involves a stage

theory of racial identity development (Corvin & Wiggins,

1989; Helms, 1984; Ridley, 1989). In particular, a minimum

level of White racial identity development has been viewed

as integral to White counselors achieving multicultural

competence (Helms, 1990; Ponterotto, 1988; Sabnani,

Ponterotto, & Borodovsky, 1991). Although none of these

models posits that only counselors who are in the end stages

of racial identity development are able to be cross-

culturally effective, model-driven research findings do

suggest that the adoption of a more advanced White racial

identity is related to Whites' increased self-reported

multicultural therapy competencies (Neville et al., 1996;

Ottavi, Pope-Davis, & Dings, 1994). According to Richardson

and Molinaro (1996), as a counselor moves through the

various stages of White racial identity, he/she is

increasingly likely to abandon racist ideology and to

develop a positive, nonracist White identity.

Despite little empirical support, the theoretical

literature suggests that exposure to multicultural training

should be associated with increased levels of multicultural

therapy competency and White racial identity development

(D'Andrea, Daniels, & Heck, 1991; Pope-Davis & Ottavi,

1994). In the only study uncovered that assessed

multicultural training and levels of competence, Neville et

al. (1996) found that completion of a multicultural

diversity course was associated with increased self-reported

multicultural competency and with White racial identity

development, an increase that remained stable over a one-

year period.

The multicultural literature, however, has only

occasionally addressed the reduction of Whites' prejudice

against ethnic-minority people and has focused instead on

the acquisition of cultural knowledge. Training workshops

often fail to address clearly how enduring attitude change

regarding race and culture will be achieved. Moreover,

measures of participants' racial and ethnic prejudice are

rarely included in studies of multicultural training


In establishing multicultural training models,

counseling psychologists have largely overlooked the

information on American racism and prejudice obtained by

social psychologists. First, social psychologists have long

understood that conscious decisions to renounce prejudice do

not eliminate prejudicial behaviors (Allport, 1954; Devine,

1989; Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986; Rokeach, 1973), and that

overcoming racially prejudicial socialization can take a

lifetime. Second, sincere expressions of, for example, pro-

Black feelings, can and often do coexist with negative

attitudes toward Blacks, commonly referred to as attitudinal

ambivalence, as White Americans' attitudes toward people of

color have become more complex and differentiated (Katz,

Wackenhut, & Hass, 1986). Third, robust findings indicate

that people who report nonprejudiced attitudes in surveys

often manifest covert prejudiced attitudes when tested via

measures of less consciously controllable responses (Crosby,

Bromley, & Saxe, 1980; Devine, 1989; Gaertner & Dovidio,

1986; McConahay, 1986). Consciously controllable verbal

reports about racial and ethnic attitudes may primarily

reflect Whites' self-presentational strategies, which can be

influenced by prevailing social norms, which sanction

overtly racist behavior.

Self-presentational strategies, however, are more than

calculated endorsements of particular attitudes or beliefs

to achieve the approval of others. Gaertner and Dovidio

(1986, 1981) have suggested that whereas most Whites harbor

some racist feelings and beliefs, most (particularly those

who view themselves as political liberals) are also invested

in viewing themselves as nonprejudiced and

nondiscriminatory. These so-called aversivee racists" do

not endorse traditionally hostile and aggressive forms of

racism; they willingly acknowledge past injustices, support

affirmative public policies, and identify with politically

liberal social agendas; however, they also typically possess

negative feelings regarding members of ethnic-minority

groups (Gaertner, & Dovidio, 1986, p. 69). Their

prejudicial feelings are usually outside of awareness, which

may function to preserve the positivity of their self-

concepts. When situations bring to consciousness this

internal conflict between their egalitarian values and their

underlying negative beliefs about people of color, aversive

racists respond with feelings of discomfort, uneasiness, and

guilt (Devine, 1996; Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986).

Because of the affective discomfort caused by the

discrepancy between beliefs and actual feelings, people

often respond in one of two ways: they either become

hypervigilant against committing perceived transgressions

indicative of racial antipathy, or they engage in avoidance

behaviors. In both cases, people are motivated to distance

these negative underlying feelings from their self-images,

in an attempt to maintain a nonprejudiced sense of self.

Instead of being able to be authentic and spontaneous,

aversive racists' vigilance leads them to amplify their

positive behavior toward minority group members so as to

reaffirm their nonracist convictions or to express "the

underlying negative portions of their attitudes but in

subtle, rationalizable ways" (Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986, p.


Finally, several studies from social psychology confirm

the existence of anticipatory attitude changes. These are

opinion shifts that occur when people expect to hear a

persuasive communication designed to influence their

opinions (Cialdini & Petty, 1981; Romero, Agnew, & Insko,

1996). The process by which people are informed of an

upcoming communication is referred to as forewarning and has

key features in common with the process by which students

typically sign up to take a multicultural workshop or

course, such as a description of the presentation or course

and the intended outcome. Several explanations exist as to

why anticipatory opinion effects occur, including a desire

to protect one's self-esteem from damage, conformity

pressures, and a motivation to appear more moderate

(Cialdini, Levy, Herman, & Evenback, 1973; McGuire &

Millman, 1965; White, 1975). These anticipatory opinion

shifts, however, are not necessarily indicative of conscious

attempts at self-presentation, but may also reflect internal

attitude change, but of an impermanent nature.

Anticipatory opinion shifts are important for

multicultural scholarship because they suggest that Whites'

self-reported attitude change following multicultural

training may not always be trustworthy or stable. Results

suggest that anticipatory shifts are either strategic in

nature or reflect only temporary attitude change. After

situational pressures are eased, people's opinions are

likely to shift back to their original positions (Cialdini,

Levy, Herman, & Evenback, 1973).

These findings from social psychological research on

prejudice, racism, and anticipatory attitude change

processes are particularly problematic for the field of

counseling psychology because they suggest that counseling

psychology's approach to multicultural counseling training

may be flawed. This multicultural approach fails to

differentiate between overt self-presentational strategies

and temporary attitude shifts from Whites' enduring race-

related attitudes and beliefs. Furthermore, counseling

psychology's current multicultural training models do not

openly acknowledge the possibility that Whites may overtly

endorse their own multicultural competence and the benefits

of multicultural training while harboring covert prejudicial

thoughts (see Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986; Katz, Wackenhut, &

Hass, 1986).

Instead, by increasing the awareness of the discrepancy

between a person's belief in his/her nonracist identity and

his/her covert prejudicial thoughts, multicultural training

actually may be encouraging an unintended outcome: those

who undergo multicultural training may respond to

multicultural situations by engaging in hypervigilant and

avoidance behaviors, driven by defensiveness and guilt.

Hypervigilant and avoidant responses are not beneficial

because the focus remains on the White person and on how

he/she is being perceived and not on any internal processes

that can reduce racist or prejudicial responses toward

people of color. Finally, the multicultural literature has

not explored the idea that those who attend multicultural

workshops voluntarily may be the persons who least need such

training. If counseling psychology fails to recognize or

address these potential occurrences and reactions, then

multicultural training may not produce fundamental

improvements in attitudes and beliefs toward people of

color. Instead, multicultural training may be teaching

Whites how to become more skilled at overt pro-multicultural

self-presentational strategies, while exerting little

influence on Whites' underlying beliefs and attitudes

regarding people of color.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to assess the viability of

these concerns, based on the four weaknesses just identified

in current multicultural training literature. First,

multicultural training has failed to address the existence

in students of both underlying attitudinal ambivalence and

covert prejudicial thoughts. In other words, the

multicultural literature has not adequately addressed the

possibility that Whites are engaging in self-presentational

strategies when they attest to their improved multicultural

awareness and skills. Second, multicultural training has

assumed that White racial identity development is an

appropriate measure of prejudicial attitudes. Third,

multicultural training has not adequately considered the

role of White guilt and its implications for multicultural

training. Lastly, the multicultural literature has not


sufficiently addressed the idea that the White students most

likely to volunteer to attend multicultural workshops or

classes may be those who least need such training.

In this dissertation, I argue that White students

engage in anticipatory opinion shifts, in the interest of

self-presentation, when they expect to receive some type of

multicultural education. In addition, I believe that

students at many levels of Helm's White racial identity

development may harbor similar amounts of prejudice when

tested by more covert measures. I also examine the

relationship between race-related ambivalence, underlying

prejudice, and guilt. Finally, I assess whether those

students who voluntarily attend multicultural presentations

may be the students who least need such information.

Ultimately, I am interested in Whites' underlying

attitudes toward people of color, generally. However, given

that the majority of the prejudice and racism literature and

virtually all of the available measures address only

attitudes toward Blacks, this study remains similarly



Hypothesis 1: Forewarning White students of racially

relevant message content should lead to anticipatory race-

based attitude shifts in the less-prejudiced direction,

increased feelings of guilt, and increased race-related

attitudinal ambivalence.

Hypothesis 2: White students at all levels of White

racial identity will endorse similar levels of covert

prejudice; there will be no significant relationship between

White racial identity level and prejudice scores.

Hypothesis 3: White students who endorse higher levels

of racial attitudinal ambivalence regarding members of

ethnic-minority groups will show significantly lower levels

of prejudice.

Hypothesis 4: White students high in racial

ambivalence will be high in guilt; there will be a

significant relationship between racial ambivalence and


Hypothesis 5: White students who express the strongest

intentions to attend multicultural training workshops will

be those who demonstrate the lowest need. That is, those

Whites with the strongest intentions will also score lowest

on measures of prejudice.

Importance of the Study

This study has important potential implications for

both the utility of offering cultural diversity workshops to

volunteer participants (e.g., though classroom

presentations) and for the effectiveness of multicultural

training as it is currently practiced in counseling

psychology. The ultimate goal of multiculturalism is not

under dispute in this study. Increasing the quality of

services offered to ethnic-minority clients and decreasing

racial majority members' racial prejudices are noble goals.

However, the multicultural literature has mostly avoided

addressing the possibility that people may be engaging in

self-presentational strategies, rather than in fundamental

self-analysis and change. Moreover, if multicultural

training does not reduce covert prejudice and attitudes,

then providing multicultural training may only serve as an

appeasement gesture to placate concerns that Whites are not

being adequately trained to work with people of color.

Finally, the multicultural literature must assess the role

of White guilt which may actually promote hypervigilant

self-presentations and avoidance behaviors, instead of

genuine self-awareness and change.



This chapter covers the relevant literature concerning

multiculturalism in psychology and the current status of

multicultural training. The chapter is divided into three

sections. The first section provides a history of

multiculturalism in counseling psychology. In the second

section, the current major multicultural training models are

discussed. The final section addresses several potential

drawbacks in current multicultural thinking that may serve

to keep multiculturalism as a fringe movement.

The literature covered in this chapter was first

sampled via a computerized search using several databases

that provided information on articles and books published

from 1966 onwards. Searches were conducted on PsychInfo,

Clinpsych, and ERIC, using the following terms:

multiculturalism, history, multicultural training, race,

ethnicity, prejudice, racism, racial ambivalence, and guilt.

Only those articles that were directly relevant to the

status of multicultural training or to the movement of

multiculturalism in psychology were retained for review.

The relevant terms were used in various combinations and

alone until the searches began producing overlapping

citations. In addition, a scan through the reference lists

of relevant articles produced additional sources. Thus, a

reasonably complete and comprehensive literature review was


For the purposes of this dissertation, prejudice is

defined as negative attitudes or sentiments towards another

person based on stereotypic attitudes held about that

person's particular ethnic/racial group (Jones, 1997).

Covert prejudice is simply prejudice that is only

acknowledged through the use of less consciously

controllable measures (Crosby, Bromley, & Saxe, 1980;

Devine, 1989; Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986; McConahay, 1986).

Attitudinal ambivalence refers to the co-existence in Whites

of both positive and negative feelings toward Blacks (Katz,

Wackenhut, & Hass, 1986). Guilt is defined as the feeling

that arises when a violation of one's internalized moral

standards occurs or is anticipated (Drake, 1995; Mosher,

1979; 1988). White guilt refers to the guilt that may arise

in Whites in response to violations of their race-related

internalized moral standards.

Despite some 40 years of a multicultural presence in

psychology, much work remains to be done. Ethnic-minority

psychologists still only make up 5% of APA's total roster,

ethnic-minority clients continue to underutilize mental

health services, and the call to increase multicultural

competencies remains somewhat unheeded by the majority of

doctoral training programs (D'Andrea & Daniels, 1995; Das

1995). Multiculturalism appears to have stalled on the

brink of achieving a lasting legitimacy in psychology, and

recent multicultural dialogues have been fraught with

dissension and tension (Eckstrom, 1997; Fowers & Richardson,

1996; Mio & Iwamasa, 1993).


It is common to date the beginning of the multicultural

movement to the mid 1960s and 1970s, in the immediate

aftermath of the civil right's movement (Casas, 1984;

Jackson, 1995; Wehrly, 1995). In fact, the first stirring

of multiculturalism in psychology date back even further

(Wehrly, 1995). Abraham Maslow, in 1954, devoted much space

in his classic text Motivation and Personality to the role

of culture in maintaining personality, and in the same year

Gordon Allport (1954) published his seminal work The Nature

of Prejudice. Soon after, George Kelly (1955) encouraged

clinicians to assess cultural variations in clients, while

also admonishing clinicians not to fall into the trap of

viewing clients through a culturally-stereotyped lens.

Other psychologists including Theodora Abel (1956) and

Gilbert Wrenn (1962) urged counselors to avoid being

culturally-encapsulated when working with clients from

different cultures.

Despite the beginnings of cultural awareness, much of

the ethnic-minority research conducted, usually on Blacks,

during this time period focused on the deficit model. Using

this model, scientists studied groups of Blacks and Whites

and focused on how these groups differed. For example,

research focused on the study of intellectual and

personality differences (Davidson, Gibby, McNeil, Segal, &

Silverman, 1950; Sperrazzo & Wilkins, 1959).

Psychology's most influential contribution to race-

related public policy fell under the rubric of the deficit

model. Kenneth Clark's "Doll Studies" (1965, 1991), which

eventually formed the basis both for Thurgood Marshall's

case arguments in favor of school desegregation and for the

Supreme Court's ensuing decision in Brown v. Board of

Education of Topeka, Kansas (1954), were used extensively to

document the detrimental effects of mandatory segregation on

Black children (Cook, 1984). Although Clark's studies were

fraught with methodological and interpretational problems

(Farrell & Olson, 1983; Semaj, 1979; Spencer, 1984), his

work was part of the initial stirring of multicultural

psychology and deserves recognition in any history of

multicultural psychology. Moreover, no other psychological

study to date has influenced national public policy to such

an extent. Clark's work is also important in multicultural

history, because his work reminds psychologists that deficit

research of ethnic-minorities was not only the domain of

White researchers but of African-American researchers as

well, influenced by the prevailing intellectual forces of

their time, a point that is sometimes overlooked by current

multicultural rhetoric.

The advent of the 1960's and 1970'S, however, gave rise

to the awakenings of multicultural psychology in its current

form, which initially relied on a Consciousness Raising

Model. Despite the contributions of psychologists prior to

the Civil Rights movement, psychological science was still

being conducted within a monocultural framework, focused on

White, Westernized values. The Civil Rights movement gave

activist psychologists the national political backing to

demand that psychology as a field broaden its theoretical

bases (Jackson, 1995; Wehrly, 1995). In short succession,

several early pioneers, including Vontress (1967, 1970) and

Attneave (1969) challenged the ethnocentrism of psychology

and of counseling in particular (see Wehrly, 1995, for a

detailed description of these early works). Instead of

viewing ethnic-minority groups as culturally deprived, a

multicultural or pluralistic model emerged which did not

view difference as evidence of pathology or inferiority

(Sue, Arredondo, & McDavis, 1992). By the 1970's the stage

was set for multicultural research to flourish (Guthrie,

1976; Pedersen, Lonner, & Draguns, 1976; Sue & Sue, 1971).

Psychologists at the organizational level followed at the

1973 Vail Conference and suggested that it was unethical to

treat culturally different clients without adequate training

(Korman, 1973). In addition, Sue and Sue (1971) encouraged

psychologists to think multiculturally in more than Black or

White terms, so that by the end of the 1970's

multiculturalism could be clearly defined as a burgeoning,

distinct movement within psychology.

Today, multiculturalism is sometimes referred to as the

fourth force in professional psychology (Pedersen, 1991;

Ponterotto & Casas, 1991), building upon the three previous

theoretical movements of psychodynamism, behaviorism, and

humanism. Although it is still arguable whether

multiculturalism has met all the epistemological

requirements to warrant fourth-force status (Essandoh,

1996), there is little doubt that for a majority of

counseling psychologists, "a multicultural perspective has

changed the way we look at counseling across fields and

theories" (Pedersen, 1991, p. 6).

With this growing recognition that culture helps to

explain human behavior has come the need to give counselors

a greater variety of counseling tools and techniques to use

with clients from different cultures, and the multicultural

movement's focus has shifted from demanding that

psychologists think critically about racial and ethnic

issues to exploring the makeup of multicultural competencies

(Hills & Strozier, 1992; Sue, Arredondo, & McDavis, 1992).

At the national level, professional groups, including the

American Psychological Association (APA) and the American

Personnel and Guidance Association (APGA) have called on

academic programs to provide their students with

multicultural counseling skills (American Psychological

Association, 1983; Casas, 1984; Carter & Qureshi, 1995).

Many counseling psychology and counselor education programs

have begun offering multicultural courses in their curricula

to address these concerns (Heath, Neimeyer, & Pedersen,

1988; Ponterotto & Casas, 1987). This focus on

multicultural training and competency has occupied much of

multicultural scholarship's priority in the 1990's.

Current Approaches to Multicultural Training

Today, most professional programs in psychology offer

some type of multicultural training for their students

(Hills & Strozier, 1992). Unfortunately, the field still

lacks consensus concerning training models (Carey, Reinat, &


Fontes, 1990; Pedersen, 1988), and the plethora of current

courses offered across the United States differ widely in

both process and content (D'Andrea, Daniels, & Heck, 1991).

"This lack of consensus reflects both our current

understanding as to what constitutes effective multicultural

counseling training as well as the individual counselor-

educator's preference regarding the type of content to be

covered by such a course" (D'Andrea, Daniels, & Heck, 1991,

p. 143).

Most multicultural experts fall into one of two camps.

They either favor a broad, universal definition of

multiculturalism, sometimes referred to as an etic

perspective, or prefer a more culture-specific or emic

perspective (Essandoh, 1996; Patterson, 1996; Sue & Sue,

1990). The terms "emic" and "etic" originate from

linguistic rules of phonemic and phonetic analysis, which

separate the specific and general aspects of language (Pike,

1966). Proponents of a broad approach define

multiculturalism to include societal and cultural variables

such as race, ethnicity, age, gender, social class, sexual

orientation, nationality, and disability (Fukuyama, 1990;

Pedersen, 1991). Culture-specific perspectives view

cultures as distinct, each requiring counselors to hold

specific knowledge, skills, and awareness in order to be

cross-culturally effective (Sue & Sue, 1990).

The universal or etic approach is the most similar to

traditional counseling theories in that its focus is on the

individual (Carter & Qureshi, 1997; Sue, 1990), and all

counseling can be referred to as multicultural in nature

(Speight, Myers, Cox, & Highlen, 1991). While etic

approaches acknowledge the existence of cultural and

societal oppressive practices, they rely on the universal

value of shared human experiences (Fukuyama, 1990). Several

advantages exist in having a universal perspective toward

counseling. First, this approach acknowledges the

uniqueness of each individual. In doing so, it avoids

stereotyping people by expecting that all individuals

belonging to a cultural group experience reality in the same

way. Second, by avoiding narrow culture-specific techniques

and skills, a universal definition aligns more closely with

a theoretical approach to counseling than a methodological

one (Pedersen, 1991). Third, etic perspectives acknowledge

the complexity of multiculturalism and recognize that

diversity is not subsumed by any one ethnographic,

demographic, or affiliative variable.

Several multiculturalists disagree with this approach

(Lee, 1991; Locke, 1990; Triandis, Bontempo, Leung, & Hui,

1990). For example, Lee (1991) has argued that an etic

definition renders the term "multicultural" almost

meaningless, because it is defined so inclusively. There is

some merit to this argument because constructs such as race,

gender, and sexual orientation may be viewed as holding

equivalent influence on daily life under an etic approach.

Triandis, Bontempo, Leung, and Hui (1990) suggested that

cultural constructs such as dialects, norms, roles, and

values overshadow virtually all other demographic variables,

such as age or gender. Moreover, most members of minority

groups still define race as the crucial factor in their

societal interactions, and an etic or universal perspective

only serves to dilute the importance of race in the everyday

lives of ethnic-minorities (Locke, 1990). Finally, a

universal approach may be used to overemphasize

similarities, which can serve to further trivialize cultural

difference (Pedersen, 1996).

Proponents of the culture-specific or emic perspective

argue that different cultural groups are best served by

different counseling approaches (Sue & Sue, 1990) and

acknowledge the value in viewing multicultural counseling as

being first and foremost about visible racial and ethnic

minorities, or VREGS (Helms & Richardson, 1997; Lee, 1991;

Locke, 1990). This approach focuses on culture-specific

education and requires that all behavioral analysis occur

within the realm of internal group criteria (Pedersen,

1995). Although some attention has been given to cultural

groups residing outside the United States (Pedersen,


Draguns, Lonner, & Trimble, 1989), most of the focus remains

on the four major ethnic-minority groups within the US:

African American, Asian American, Hispanic/Latino, and

Native American/Indian (Stone, 1997). Training programs are

structured toward increasing trainees' awareness, skills,

and knowledge and broadening theoretical, intervention, and

assessment approaches with respect to each of the four

ethnic-minority groups (D'Andrea & Daniels, 1991). Although

one can infer that culturally-specific knowledge is

sufficient for a more beneficial outcome, it is more likely

that cultural information is necessary but not sufficient

for effective treatment (Sue & Zane, 1987).

The biggest advantage to the emic approach is its

attention to the sociopolitical histories of each of the

four major ethnic-groups (Sue & Sue, 1990) and its inclusion

of the idea that trainees need to understand the varied

cultural values, behaviors, and expectations of different

clients. The emic perspective is also largely responsible

for the overall consciousness raising that has occurred in

counseling psychology with respect to cultural hegemony in

the United States (Stone, 1997).

The emic approach has several disadvantages as well.

First, the overemphasis on cultural differences can often

lead to stereotyping (Arbona, 1995) and disregards the need

for common ground and universal humanity (Patterson, 1996;


Pedersen, 1996). This overemphasis on cultural diversity in

conjunction with culture-specific counseling techniques also

has the potential of leading to chameleon-like counselors,

who change from client to client (Patterson, 1996), which

may be inconsistent with Rogers' notions of authenticity and

genuineness in counseling (Rogers, 1957). Moreover,

Patterson (1996) has argued that an emic perspective ignores

the reality of the global village phenomenon in which

cultural practices are increasingly becoming unified across

boundaries and migratory patterns. He warns that the emic

perspective's preconceived notions of client behavior could

lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy, in which clients behave

in the way that the counselor expects simply because the

counselor expects it. Finally, there "is a limit to the

degree to which the fundamental psychological-therapeutic

orientation can be compromised" (Ho, 1985, p. 1214) given

that counseling as currently envisioned in the West relies

on such qualities as verbal facility about personal problems

for success. It is potentially unwise to abandon those

aspects that are crucial to therapeutic progress, such as

the centrality of the relationship between the counselor and


Given the lack of consensus regarding appropriate

multicultural education, most counseling educators try to

offer training that combines an etic and emic focus to help


their students expand their awareness, skills, and knowledge

about culturally diverse populations (D'Andrea & Daniels,

1991; Hollis & Wantz, 1994). Much of this multicultural

training is provided through a single course, as opposed to

an integrative curriculum approach (D'Andrea & Daniels,

1991). The one-course approach may be more popular because

of budget constraints, a low number of faculty who believe

in the importance of multicultural education, a low number

of faculty capable of providing multicultural training, and

the desire to avoid revamping curricula (Reynolds, 1995;

Ridley, Mendoza, & Kanitz, 1994). Currently, 73% of

counseling psychology programs offer a multicultural course,

but fewer than 50% make the course a requirement (Quintana &

Bernal, 1995).

Despite honorable intentions, however, much of the

multicultural information provided by programs is

superficial and stereotypic (Corey, 1991; D'Andrea &

Daniels, 1991; Pedersen, 1988). Few graduating students

feel competent to work with culturally-diverse populations

(Allison, Crawford, Echemendia, Robinson, & Knepp, 1994).

It appears that multicultural training efforts to date have

yet to achieve their desired outcomes, and that much

progress remains to be made before programs systematically

provide their students the necessary training for

multicultural competence (D'Andrea & Daniels, 1991;

Reynolds, 1995).

At present, psychologists have not yet arrived at a

consensus regarding multicultural training. Although most

agree that psychologists need to receive some training to

work effectively with people from a variety of backgrounds,

little agreement exists as to how best to instantiate this

training. Sue, Arredondo, and McDavis (1992) published what

has arguably become the standard for multicultural

competence; however, APA has yet to incorporate their

suggestions into national accreditation requirements.

Current State of Multiculturalism

Despite 30 years of a multicultural presence in

psychology, the multicultural movement still appears to be

struggling for legitimacy (Das, 1995; Essandoh, 1995). In

the process of examining current multicultural literature,

potential drawbacks have surfaced that may in part shed some

light on the current struggle for legitimacy. First, the

voluminous nature of multicultural writing may leave all but

the most committed academic scholars confused as to the

direction in which to proceed. Second, much of the

multicultural literature often confuses the need for

training imperatives with multicultural politics, which

potentially alienates those who disagree with the politics

but acknowledge the need for culturally-relevant skills.

Third, multicultural literature has avoided openly

addressing the possibility that students engage in self-

presentational strategies, which raises questions as to

whether multicultural training results in internal and

enduring changes that are reflected in behavior. Finally,

the tone of some multicultural dialogues may alienate many

psychologists from entering the multicultural conversation.

These points represent a summary of an analysis of potential

drawbacks in current multicultural thinking. These

observations are offered to facilitate the development of

multiculturalism, so that it can and will one day assume its

rightful place as a legitimate and necessary theoretical

foundation in psychology.

Multicultural Conceptual Variety

Currently, myriad definitions exist of the term

"multicultural" (Stone, 1997), and multiculturalists have

yet to agree on a direction in which to proceed with the

multicultural theoretical movement. Multicultural training

may consist of universal perspectives (Patterson, 1996), a

variety of technique specific approaches (Ponterotto, Casas,

Suzuki, & Alexander, 1995), and a host of conceptual

competency models (Pope-Davis & Coleman, 1997); all of these

models contain some commonalities but also many differences

in their approach which contributes to the field's image as

lacking in theoretical consensus (Leach & Carlton, 1997;

Ponterotto, Alexander, & Grieger, 1995). "Multiculturalism"

may have been rendered an almost meaningless construct as a

result of its diversity of meanings, particularly when it

can be used to refer to "whatever particular dimension is of

interest to some advocate" (Helms & Richardson, 1997, p.

71). Without general agreement as to what constitutes both

the core definition of multiculturalism and the core

components of adequate multicultural competence, educators

are free to provide multicultural training based on their

own interpretations, supported by only part of the

multicultural literature.

The lack of multicultural theoretical and definitional

consensus directly affects the quality of multicultural

counseling research as well (Ridley, Espelage, & Rubinstein,

1997). Without a sound theoretical foundation from which to

work, much of multicultural research remains anecdotal, with

little empirical data for support (Ponterotto & Casas,

1991). Research is further hampered by a lack of adequate

assessment instruments, a reliance on analogue designs, and

an overemphasis on inter-group differences at the expense of

intra-group differences (Ponterotto & Casas, 1991; Ridley,

Espelage, & Rubinstein, 1997). Theoretical confusion and

inadequate research studies keep multicultural topics

relegated to special-issue and special-section status. In

order to enter the mainstream, multicultural researchers may

need to reach consensus on key issues of controversy in

order to achieve a more lasting impact on the larger


Distinguishing Politics from Training Imperatives

Although the multicultural political movement was the

precursor to the multicultural counseling movement, the two

are not synonymous. It was no coincidence that the

political movement coherently organized in the era of the

civil rights and antiwar movements, which were rapidly

exposing "the linkages among racism, capitalist

exploitation, and a general lack of social justice (Outlaw,

1995, p. 45). Multiculturalism as a political movement was

based, and to some extent still is, on the politics of

identity, difference, and recognition, which challenge

sacred notions of individualism, assimilation, and

democratic liberalism. These multicultural positions are

valuable in that they serve both to secure a group's rights

and to broaden cultural and economic access.

However, these multicultural political perspectives are

not universally accepted by scholars within psychology and

across disciplines (D'Souza, 1991; Fowers & Richardson,

1996; Steele, 1990), and critics often point to the former

Yugoslavia as one example of the politics of nationalism and

ethnic differences taken to an extreme (see Schlesinger's

The Disuniting of America, 1992). Those who fear the

solidarities that multicultural politics encourage may have


valid concerns, and it is irresponsible of multiculturalists

to dismiss their critics as conservative or reactionary

without seriously addressing their claims.

The differentiation between the politics of

multiculturalism and the multicultural counseling movement,

which the current multicultural literature fails to make, is

important because this distinction allows honest debate

about the philosophical foundations of the first while

leaving the need for the second intact. Advocates of

multiculturalism seldom acknowledge that the political

position may be orthogonal to the knowledge and skills

needed to work effectively with clients of color. For

example, a person's dislike of the airline pilots' union is

unrelated to his or her effectiveness in flying an airplane.

Ultimately, the training imperative to provide psychologists

with the knowledge and skills to be effective counselors

with people of all colors may be more important for the

profession than garnering political agreement from

psychologists. In addition, given the recent backlash

against political correctness, with which multiculturalism

is often closely associated, distinguishing politics from

training imperatives may be doubly necessary to ensure the

very survival of the multicultural counseling movement

(Leach & Carlton, 1997).

The Role of Self-Presentation

The multicultural literature has not directly addressed

the possibility that workshop participants may engage in

self-presentational strategies to appear more culturally

aware and less racist then they are. Yet, research from

social psychology has clearly demonstrated that people often

shift their opinions when they expect to hear a persuasive

communication, particularly when the views being presented

are different from their own (Cialdini, & Petty, 1981;

Romero, Agnew, & Insko, 1996). Reasons for these conscious

or unconscious opinion shifts include the desire to protect

one's self-esteem from damage, conformity pressures, and a

motivation to appear more moderate (Cialdini, Levy, Herman,

& Evenback, 1973; McGuire & Millman, 1965; White, 1975).

Once the situation changes, people may revert back to their

original positions (Cialdini, Levy, Herman, & Evenback,


These findings from social psychology are problematic

for multicultural training because they suggest that

students might overtly indicate their own multicultural

competence and acknowledge having benefitted from

multicultural training while covertly harboring prejudicial

thoughts. The possibility that participants engage in self-

presentational strategies is increased because of the power

differentials that are thought to influence the efficacy of

multicultural training (Stone, 1997). Frequently,

multicultural courses are taught by university faculty or

others in positions of power to directly affect a trainee's

progress in an academic training program. Because mastery

of multicultural counseling competencies often involves the

examination of personal and societally-sanctioned

prejudicial viewpoints, the likelihood that trainees engage

in self-presentational strategies to appear less prejudiced

and more multiculturally competent must be seriously

entertained in this research literature.

Given these power differentials between faculty and

students, are educators being realistic when they expect

trainees to acknowledge openly and fully their own prejudice

and racism? Faculty may underestimate their trainees when

they assume that students are not cognizant of the power

dynamics of graduate school and do not conduct themselves in

a way that furthers their own interests. Programs may need

to be willing to create safe spaces for trainees to examine

their own racism without fear of adverse consequences, and

students must be convinced of their safety before they may

be willing to engage in such exploration.

Multicultural Dissension and Dialogue

The tone of some multicultural dialogues may discourage

psychologists not previously committed to multiculturalism

from entering the field. Two examples illustrate this

discouragement. The first example comes from a symposium

held at the 1990 APA convention that subsequently made a

Counseling Psychologist special issue topic (Mio & Iwamasa,

1993), the second comes from a 1996 article by Fowers and

Richardson in the American Psychologist.

The 1990 APA convention symposium examined the role of

White researchers in addressing multicultural issues and

addressed several topics, including the historical role of

White researchers in cross-cultural psychology, the ways in

which science has reinforced stereotypic views of minority

individuals, the role of White racial identity development,

and the relationship between White and ethnic-minority

researchers (Mio & Iwamasa, 1993). In particular, Thomas

Parham discussed the feelings of resentment on the part of

some ethnic-minority researchers at the reality that it was

not until White researchers began studying people of color

that multicultural research gained an intellectual

legitimacy in the dominant culture. As a result, he

described the continued disenfranchisement in psychology of

many multicultural researchers from ethnic-minority

backgrounds and asked the question, "Who truly spoke for

multicultural counseling?" (Mio & Iwamasa, 1993; Parham,


Although Parham's frankness was valuable in honestly

describing the interactional subtleties of the relationship

between White and non-White multicultural researchers, his

comments in the symposium suggested that a new litmus test

was being developed in counseling psychology regarding who

could serve as a multicultural researcher. Being a person

of color was emerging as the necessary qualifier for

producing multicultural research that could be assured not

to derive from racist, colonial, or patriarchical


The questioning of the motivations of White researchers

who study multicultural topics sets up unfair standards in

several ways. First, although White multicultural

researchers are scrutinized as to their racial identity

development stage, guilt, racism, and colonial

underpinnings, multicultural scholars from ethnic-minority

backgrounds do not receive the same scrutiny, despite the

fact that "color, gender, and sexual orientation do not make

people diversity experts" (Hall, 1997, p. 645). Second,

discouraging White researchers from pursuing multicultural

research ultimately decreases the number of studies on a

much needed topic. Third, the question as to what drives

psychologists to spend their lives studying a particular

issue may be applied to almost all psychologists and their

respective areas of interest, although such a question is

seldom posed. Finally, many psychologists study issues with

little outward relevance to their own lives; yet, their

motivations are rarely scrutinized. For example, it seems

undoubtedly probable that those psychologists who study the

issues of poverty and homelessness belong comfortably to the

middle class themselves. To question the motives of White

multicultural researchers only serves to discourage more

Whites from pursuing this interest area.

These multicultural practices are in many ways the

result of double standards already in place in psychology.

Parham (1993) described many of these unfair practices,

including the irony that many ethnic-minority researchers

are denied tenure for studying communities of color while

White multicultural researchers receive promotion for doing

the same. In addition, journal editors often appear more

willing to publish the ethnic research of White colleagues,

yet reject similar articles from psychologists of color

(Parham, 1993).

Parham's (1993) open examination of these inequities

and honest exploration of the resentment among minority

researchers toward their majority colleagues was an

important step in the examination of multicultural

scholarship. However, multicultural researchers have fought

long to have access to scholarly productivity, and their aim

has never been to create unfair practices of their own. To

turn around and question the rights of others to engage in

multicultural research ultimately limits scholarly

competition and the search for cross-culturally effective

treatments. At a time when more multicultural research is

sorely needed, turning away willing hands, which Mio and

Iwamasa (1993) discouraged, would not only be a travesty but

also narrow the diversity of scholastic voices from which

multiculturalism develops and matures.

The second more recent example of multicultural

dissension and dialogue occurred in the pages of the

American Psychologist. Two White male psychologists, Fowers

and Richardson (1996) wrote a lengthy article on the

pitfalls of multiculturalism labeled "Why Is

Multiculturalism Good?" Although they briefly acknowledged

the multicultural value of promoting all human welfare, they

took umbrage at the anti-European, anti-White nature of

multiculturalism and demanded "that the majority culture

deserves the same presumption of moral legitimacy as any

other group" (p. 613). This article illuminates the current

status of multiculturalism in three ways. First, the

article described several perceived inconsistencies in

multiculturalism's message that multiculturalists have yet

to address. Second, the article elicited the reactions of a

variety of psychologists and showed the tensions that

currently exist in multicultural psychotherapeutic training.

Finally, the authors and those who responded in print to


their article showed how far multiculturalism in psychology

has yet to travel to achieve a lasting consensus.

Fowers and Richardson (1996) made four major points,

briefly summarized here, to illustrate several

inconsistencies in multicultural scholarship. The authors

first wondered why, if psychology were truly such a racist

discipline, had it embraced multiculturalism? Second, they

were discouraged by a multiculturalism that heightened

cultural separatism even though they acknowledged the self-

protective motives that often underlie inter-ethnic

distance. Third, the authors explored the moral conflict

involved in promoting tolerance and respect for cultural

practices that violated international standards of human

welfare; for example, virginity tests, female circumcision,

and ethnic "cleansing." Finally, Fowers and Richardson

explored the intricacies of radical cultural relativism. In

sum, the authors accused proponents of multiculturalism of

failing to be self-reflective about the inconsistencies in

multiculturalism's messages and cautioned that psychology

"confronts these issues thoughtfully rather than rushing

pell-mell to embrace multiculturalism, even in the service

of important aims" (p. 620).

The published reactions to Fowers and Richardson came

from those who agreed and disagreed with the original

authors. The first reaction came from proponents of

multiculturalism in psychology (Hall et al., 1997) who

chastised Fowers and Richardson for simplifying

multiculturalism, minimizing discrimination and racism, and

engaging in blatant ethnocentrism. Despite aptly refuting

some of Fowers and Richardson's points (1996), Hall et al.

failed to address the underlying tenor of the debate, that

is that one side held significant reservations about

multiculturalism that the other side did not.

In fact, Fowers and Richardson's (1997) subsequent

response to the comments of Hall et al. (1997) confirmed

this divisiveness and made reference to "the overwhelmingly

negative tone of their reaction. We read Hall et al.'s

(1997) statement with great regret because they find little

of value in our article (Fowers & Richardson, 1996) or in

mainstream Euro-American culture and deny any progress in

the fight against racism. Unfortunately, this confirms our

worst fears about how difficult it will be for committed

multiculturalists to engage in dialogue" (p. 660).

Interestingly, Hall et al. were the only scholars who, in

their commentary, extended no gratitude towards Fowers and

Richardson for their scholarly contribution.

Other reactions to the Fowers and Richardson article

gave further evidence of the existing distrust on the part

of some psychologists towards multicultural messages.

Ekstrom (1997) thanked Fowers and Richardson for "their


lucid and extremely balanced discussion of multiculturalism.

Everything I have read on this topic until now has been

tendentious and polemical, driving me to view such writing

with a jaundiced eye" (p.658).

It appears that despite several notations of fourth-

force status (Essandoh, 1995), several psychologists have

serious reservations about the direction multiculturalism

has taken in psychology (Eckstrom, 1997; Fowers, &

Richardson, 1996; Karp, & Sutton, 1993); yet the current

multicultural literature has done little to address their

concerns. In the end, it may be far easier to dismiss the

critics of multiculturalism as misguided (or perhaps

ethnocentric) than to engage in frank, sometimes painful

dialogue through which a meaningful and lasting

multiculturalism might be achieved.

Multiculturalism has made a valuable contribution to

both the theory and practice of psychology (Hall, 1997;

Pope-Davis & Coleman, 1997; Sue & Sue, 1990). However, the

fields' inability to acknowledge radical countervailing

views in a constructive manner keeps multicultural

scholarship as a fringe endeavor, and the status quo remains

unchanged. Committed multicultural scholars may not have

the luxury that, say, constructivist theorists do in writing

for a select group of individuals who agree on the

parameters of the theory or discussion. In order for


multiculturalists to accomplish their aim, all psychologists

need to be equally responsive to the utility of

multiculturalism. Moreover, given the continued

diversification of the United States population,

multicultural efforts may be one of the best vehicles by

which to ensure the economic survival and social relevance

of professional psychology (Hall, 1997).


This chapter presented an overview of multicultural

perspectives in psychology. The first section reviewed the

historical antecedents to current multicultural scholarship

including the influence of early thinkers such as Abel

(1954), Allport (1954), Clark (1965) and Wrenn, (1962), and

of the Civil Rights Movement. The next section discussed

three topics related to multicultural training issues: (a)

the major approaches to multicultural training including

both universal or etic perspectives and the more culture-

specific or emic models, (b) the advantages and

disadvantages of each approach, and (c) the practices

involved in offering multicultural training. The final

section explored potential drawbacks in multicultural

practices, such as the unfocused nature of much of the

multicultural scholarship, the infusion of multicultural

politics into multicultural training, the lack of focus on

the role of self-presentational processes by trainees, and


the rise of positions and processes among multiculturalists

that discourage countervailing viewpoints.

This chapter was designed to lay the foundation for the

empirical work in this dissertation, which explores several

potential weaknesses in the current multicultural training

literature. These weaknesses, explained in the empirical

portion of the dissertation, include the following: (a)

failure of multicultural training models to address the

existence in trainees of underlying attitudinal ambivalence

and covert prejudicial thoughts, (b) over-reliance on White

racial identity development as the key to cross-culturally

relevant counseling skills, (c) absence of a literature on

the role of White guilt, and (d) lack of research addressing

the possibility that trainees engage in self-presentational

strategies to appear multiculturally sensitive.



Participants were recruited from one Psychology

Department summer undergraduate class at the University of

Florida. Students were randomly assigned to two groups.

One group received a forewarning of the race-related content

of the study; the other group receive no such warning.

Students received extra course credit for their

participation. Data from non-Whites were collected but not

analyzed for this dissertation.

Of the 198 students who elected to participate,

eighteen were dropped from the data set initially because

they either neglected to fill out their racial/ethnic

background or failed to complete 90% of the questionnaire

packet. Of the remainder, 134 participants identified

themselves as White or Anglo American.

In order to ensure that all of the White participants

whose responses were to be analyzed had adequately

understood the conditions of the experiment, participants

were asked to respond to a manipulation check included at

the end of the questionnaire packet. All who failed to

answer the manipulation check item or responded with an

impossible value were dropped, leaving 105 White students

whose responses comprised the actual data set for analysis.

Students ranged in age from 17 to 44 years old, with a

mean of 19.1 years (SD=2.7). Fifty-seven percent of the

participants were first year students, 43% were upperclass

students. Females comprised 78% of the sample (n=81)

whereas men comprised 22% (n=24). Thirty-five percent of

participants identified themselves as psychology majors.

The majority of the individuals (62%) were from the state of


Manipulation of Forewarning

Whether or not participants received a forewarning,

constituted the manipulated variable. The control group

received an information sheet at the front of their packet

of materials stating that a presenter would be coming later

in the week to give a lecture on stress and was interested

in soliciting their opinions on a wide variety of topics.

The forewarned group received the identical packet, except

that the information sheet stated that a presenter would be

coming later in the week to give a lecture on racial issues

and was interested in getting an idea of participants'

opinions on a variety of topics, including attitudes on race

(see Appendix B for copies of the two information sheets).

Measured Variables

Prejudicial beliefs. As a measure of racial prejudice,

the Modern Racism Scale (MRS; McConahay, Hardee, & Batts,

1981) is designed to measure prejudicial beliefs toward

Blacks in a nonreactive fashion. The MRS consists of 22

items, seven of which are used to calculate the racism

score. For example, Item #9 reads, "Over the past few

years, blacks have gotten more economically than they

deserve." Items are scored on a Likert-type scale, from -2

(strongly disagree) to +2 (strongly agree), with a possible

range of -14 (low prejudice) to +14 (high prejudice).

The MRS's Cronbach's alphas have ranged from .76 to .83

(McConahay, Hardee, & Batts, 1981; Monteith, 1996).

Although (and perhaps because) the scale is not face valid,

the MRS has shown sound construct validity. The MRS is

significantly correlated with anti-black feeling as measured

by the Feeling Thermometer (Campbell, 1971) and the Old-

Fashioned Racism Scale (McConahay, 1982) and is

significantly negatively correlated with the scale of

Sympathetic Identification with the Underdog (McConahay, &

Hough, 1976). Finally, McConahay's experimental study of

simulated hiring decisions (1983) showed that high scorers

on the MRS were less willing to hire a Black candidate than

a White candidate with identical credentials, suggesting

that the MRS is a valid measure of racism. Discriminant

validity is evidenced by Polin (1982) who showed that

beliefs in a just world cannot be used to explain prejudiced

responses to the MRS; in two different samples, the

correlations between the MRS and the Belief in a Just World

Scale (Rubin & Peplau, 1973) were not statistically

significant. In addition, the lack of significant effects

in several studies for race of the experimenter supports the

notion of the nonreactiveness of the MRS (McConahay, 1986).

White racial identity development. The White Racial

Identity Attitudes Scale (Helms & Carter, 1993) was used to

assess level of racial development of the participants. The

WRIAS is based on Helm's (1984) five stages of White racial

identity development in which Whites increasingly abandon

racism and define a positive White identity. The stages

consist of the following: (a) Contact--limited

understanding of racial and cultural issues. Sample items

include "I hardly think about what race I am," and "I find

myself watching Black people to see what they are like;" (b)

Disintegration--awareness of race as a social construct

(e.g., "Society may have been unjust to Blacks, but it has

also been unjust to Whites," and "I do not understand what

Blacks want from Whites"); (c) Reintegration--idealization

of Whiteness and denigration of Blackness (e.g., "I get

angry when I think about how Whites have been treated by


Blacks"); (d) Pseudoindependence--acknowledgment of racism

and ability to recognize personal responsibility (e.g., "I

feel as comfortable around Blacks as I do around Whites");

and (e) Autonomy--appreciation of multiculturalism and

positive definition of Whiteness (e.g., "I value

relationships with Black friends" and "I am not embarrassed

to admit that I am White").

The overall scale consists of 50 Likert-type items,

ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Each of the five subscales contains 10 items. Higher scores

indicate greater adherence to a particular subscale. Helms

(1993) indicates that scores can be interpreted both by the

single highest subscale score suggestive of the particular

stage of development, or a profile of scores indicating the

relationship of each subscale to the others. Alpha

coefficients have been found to range from .50 for the

Contact subscale (Pope-Davis, 1994) to .80 for the Pseudo-

Independence subscale (Helms, 1993). Subscale correlations

suggest that the WRIAS is measuring different constructs

(Pope-Davis & Ottavi, 1994). In the initial construction,

each item met a minimum item-total subscale correlation of

.30, and the interscale correlations were not suggestive of

redundancy (Helms, 1993). Criterion validity was

established by obtaining adequate scale correlations (in the

hypothesized direction according to identity theory) with

other measures of personality constructs, such as the

Fundamental Interpersonal Relationship Orientation scale

(McCaine, 1986). A principal components factor analysis

confirmed that items from the same subscales had factor

loadings in the same direction; however, some items did load

significantly across more than one factor (Helms, 1993).

None of the items correlated significantly with the Crowne

and Marlowe Social Desirability scale.

Racial ambivalence. The Pro-Black and Anti-Black

Attitude Questionnaire (PAAQ; Katz & Hass, 1988) is designed

to assess racial ambivalence toward Blacks. The pro-Black

items indicate level of positive feelings toward Blacks as a

disadvantaged group while anti-Black items measure the

degree to which people are critical of Blacks.

The two scales (one pro-Black and one anti-Black) have

10 items each, with items using a Likert-type scale ranging

from 0 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). One

example of a pro-Black item states "Many Whites show a real

lack of understanding of the problems that Blacks face;" an

anti-Black item reads, "Blacks don't seem to use

opportunities to own and operate little shops and

businesses." Ambivalence scores are computed from the

product of both Pro-Black and Anti-Black scores.

In the initial construction of the PAAQ, a principal-

components factor analysis confirmed that the two scales

constituted two essentially unrelated dimensions, and a low

non-significant correlation (r=.12) attested to the

independence of the two scales (Katz & Hass, 1988). All

items that did not show significant correlations with the

total score for other items of the same type, or showed a

high correlation with the total score on items of the

opposite type were dropped. Support for the construct

validity of the PAAQ was found through tests of convergent

and discriminant validity. Both the Pro-Black and Anti-

Black scales were significantly correlated in the expected

directions with various conceptually-related racism scales,

such as the Derogatory Beliefs Scale and the Ease in

Interracial Contacts Scale (Brigham, Woodmansee, & Cook,

1976; Woodmansee, & Cook, 1967). Neither the Pro-Black nor

the Anti-Black scale correlated significantly with the

Crowne and Marlowe Social Desirability Scale. Several

additional studies have attested to the PAAQ's validity

(Hass, Katz, Rizzo, Bailey, & Eisenstadt, 1991; Hass, Katz,

Rizzo, Bailey, & Moore, 1992; Katz & Hass, 1988). Reported

Cronbach's coefficient alphas equal .73 for the Pro-Black

scale and .80 for the Anti-Black scale.

Guilt. One of the most widely used measures, the

Mosher Guilt Inventory (MGI; Mosher, 1968; 1988) was used to

measure guilt. The MGI measures three aspects of guilt:

sex-guilt, hostility-guilt, and guilty-conscience. For the

purposes of this study, only the guilty-conscience subscale

was used, which Mosher defines as the generalized expectancy

for self-mediated punishment for violating internalized

standards of moral behavior or anticipating the violation of

such standards.

The inventory has been described favorably with regard

to convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity (Fehr &

Stamps, 1979; Green & Mosher, 1985; Kelley, 1985; Mosher &

Vonderheide, 1985). Criterion validity is evidenced by the

MGI's ability to discriminate first offenders from

recidivists at the Ohio Penitentiary (Mosher & Mosher, 1966)

and delinquent boys from matched controls (Ruma, 1967). In

addition, the MGI has correlated significantly with several

other personality inventories, including the Edwards

Personality Profile Inventory (Abramson, Mosher, Abramson, &

Wochowsi, 1977) and with global clinical ratings of guilt

(Fehr & Stamps, 1979). Finally, the MGI has shown

predictive validity with respect to authoritarianism, moral

judgment, Machiavellianism, and a host of sexuality-related

attitudes including contraceptive attitudes (Drake, 1995;

Mosher & Vonderheide, 1985; Ruma & Mosher, 1967). Split-

half reliability coefficients have averaged approximately

.90 (Mosher & Vonderheide, 1985; Mosher, 1968).

The guilty-conscience subscale consists of 22 items

with higher scores indicating more guilt. For example, Item

21 reads "I detest myself for thoughts I sometimes have."

Items are scored using a 7 point Likert-type rating scale,

anchored by 0 "Not At All True for Me" and 6 "Extremely True

of Me." Scores on guilty-conscience can range from 0 to


Intent to attend a multicultural workshop. In order to

measure the degree to which students would attend a

multicultural workshop, a questionnaire was constructed.

The questionnaire was composed of three items measuring the

likelihood of attending a multicultural workshop across

varying times and contexts. These three items were summed

to form an intention measure. This general method of

measuring behavioral intention is widely employed in the

attitude literature (see Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; see

Appendix C for a copy of this questionnaire). A principle

components factor analysis of the three items revealed only

a single factor with an eigenvalue greater than 1.0. Item-

total correlations ranged from .60 to .83. Cronbach's alpha

for the measure was .82, suggesting adequate internal

consistency reliability. Intention was also dichotomized

into clear intent versus nonintent. Clear intent was

operationally defined as agreeing or strongly agreeing to

attend at least one diversity/multicultural workshop at the

university in the next month or year.


Demographics. A Demographic Questionnaire was used to

gather information on participants, including age, gender,

race, and year in college (see Appendix D for a copy of the



First, interested participants were solicited from one

of the psychology departments' undergraduate summer classes

by presenting participation in this study as a voluntary,

extra-credit opportunity. Data was collected during a

single class meeting with all class members who elected to

participate. The principal investigator supervised the

overall data collection process; however to minimize the

effects of racial priming, two White male students actually

administered the data collection.

Participants were randomly divided into two groups.

Both groups received an identical packet of materials

including an Informed Consent Form, the White Racial

Identity Attitudes Scale, the Modern Racism Scale, the Pro-

Black Anti-Black Attitude Questionnaire, the Mosher Guilt

Inventory, and the Intention to Attend a Workshop. In

addition, the first group received an information sheet at

the beginning of the packet of materials stating that a

presenter would be coming later in the week to give a

lecture on stress and was interested in soliciting opinions

on a wide variety of topics. The forewarned group received

an information sheet stating that a presenter would be

coming later in the week to give a lecture on racial issues

and was interested in getting an idea of participants'

opinions on a variety of topics, including their attitudes

on race.

At the beginning of the data collection, participants

were told that all materials would be treated anonymously

and coded only by number to protect participants'

identities. Additionally, the participants were told that

they were free to leave at any time during the

administration. All participants were then asked to read

and sign the human subjects consent form (see Appendix A).

Next, they were given a packet of materials containing, in

the following order, the Demographic Questionnaire, the

Modern Racism Scale, the White Racial Identity Attitudes

Scale, the Pro-Black Anti-Black Attitude Scale, the Mosher

Guilt Inventory, and the Intent to Attend a Workshop Form.

All responses were entered by each participant on a scanable

bubble sheet. Participants were told that the packet would

take approximately 30 minutes to complete. After completion

of the study, all participants received debriefing

instructions (see Appendix E). Extra-credit was awarded by

obtaining students' names from the Informed Consent Forms.

Planned Data Analyses

Hypothesis 1: The hypothesis that forewarning would

lead to anticipatory race-based attitude shifts, increased

feelings of guilt, and increased attitudinal ambivalence was

tested by three one-way between subjects analyses of

variance (ANOVA). Group (forewarning vs. control) served as

the independent variable and prejudice scores (MRS), racial

attitudinal ambivalence (PAAQ), and guilt scores (MGI)

served as the dependent variables.

Hypothesis 2: The hypothesis that there would be no

significant relationship between White racial identity level

and prejudice scores was tested with a one-way, between-

subjects ANOVA. White racial identity stage level (WRIAS)

served as the independent variable and prejudice scores

(MRS) served as the dependent variable.

Hypothesis 3: This hypothesis stated that White

students who endorsed higher levels of attitudinal

ambivalence regarding members of ethnic-minority groups

would show significantly lower levels of prejudice. A

Pearson product moment correlation was performed with

attitudinal ambivalence (PAAQ) and prejudice scores (MRS)

serving as the correlated variables.

Hypothesis 4: The hypothesis that a significant

relationship would exist between racial ambivalence and

guilt was tested with a Pearson product moment correlation,


with guilt scores (Guilt Inventory) and attitudinal

ambivalence scores (PAAQ) serving as the correlated


Hypothesis 5: This hypothesis stated that students who

expressed the strongest intention to attend multicultural

training workshops would also score the lowest on measures

of prejudice. To test this hypothesis, a one-way, between-

subjects ANOVA was used with the independent variable being

clear intention to attend a workshop versus no intention to

attend. The dependent variable was prejudice scores (MRS).


Statistical Analyses Procedures

This chapter presents the results of statistical

analyses designed to test the hypotheses under study.

First, descriptive data are presented. Then, the results of

the analyses to test the hypotheses follow. Finally, post-

hoc analyses are presented.

The data collected in the current study were analyzed

using SAS software (SAS Institute Inc., 1990). In order to

compensate for unequal cell sizes, the general linear model

procedure and the Type III Sum of Squares were used in all

analyses of variance.

Descriptive Statistics

Prejudice was measured using McConahay's Modern Racism

Scale (MRS; McConahay, Hardee, & Batts, 1981) employing a

Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5

(strongly agree). Obtainable scores range from 7 to 35,

with the higher scores representing more prejudice. The

mean MRS was 17.2 with a standard deviation of 4.7.

Students scores ranged from a low of 7 to a high of 29.

White racial identity was measured using Helms White

Racial Identity Attitudes Scale (Helms & Carter, 1993). The

five subscales (Contact, Disintegration, Reintegration,

Pseudoindependence, and Autonomy) consist of 10 items each

ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Higher scores indicate greater adherence to a particular

subscale. Only three students fell in the first stage

(Contact) of White racial identity development and were

eliminated because of the small sample size. Nine

individuals fell in Stages 2 and 3, which were combined

because of conceptual similarities. The majority of

individuals fell in Stage 4 (n=24 or 26%) or 5 (n=55 or


Racial ambivalence was measured using the Pro-Black

Anti-Black Attitude Questionnaire (PAAQ; Katz & Hass, 1988).

The two scales have 10 items each, with items using a

Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (strongly disagree) to 5

(strongly agree). Scores may range from 0 to 50 on each

scale. Students scores on the Pro-Black scale ranged from 3

to 44, with a mean of 26.3 (SD = 7.7). Anti-Black scale

ranged from 9 to 47, with a mean of 26.8 (SD = 8.7). Scores

on the two scales were moderately and inversely correlated

with each other (r = -.3, p = .001). Ambivalence scores,

which were computed by multiplying Pro and Anti scores,

ranged from 100 to 1710 (out of a possible 0 to 2,500), with

a mean of 682.4.

Guilt was measured using the Guilty-Conscience Subscale

of the Mosher Guilt Inventory (MGI; Mosher, 1988; 1968).

The MGI consists of 22 items, each using a Likert-type

rating scale ranging from 0 to 6. Possible scores may range

from 0 to 132. The MGI mean was 62.9 (SD = 16.2), with a

range of 5 to 94.

Intent to attend a multicultural workshop was measured

by summing a three-item questionnaire using a Likert-type

scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Scores could range from 3 to 15. Students' responses ranged

from 3 to 14 (M = 8.4, SD = 2.8). Clear intent to attend a

multicultural workshop was operationally defined as

participants having agreed or strongly agreed that they

would voluntarily attend a workshop in the next month or

year. Forty-three of the 105 participants expressed clear

intent to attend.


The first hypothesis predicted that forewarning

students of the race-based nature of the study would lead to

significant anticipatory race-based attitude shifts,

increased feelings of attitudinal ambivalence, and increased

guilt. This hypothesis was tested by three one-way,


between-subjects ANOVAs. In order to ensure that only those

students who fully understood the manipulation were included

in this analysis, students's initial forewarning group

(identified by the coded number on the front of each

questionnaire packet referring to forewarning or control)

had to match their final response on the manipulation check.

In other words, participants had to have accurately

acknowledged that they were expecting either a lecture on

racial issues or on stress, and their response had to match

the actual condition to which they were randomly assigned.

Eighty-five White students met the necessary condition, with

55 students in the forewarning group and 30 in the control.

The first one-way, between-subjects ANOVA used

forewarning as the independent variable and prejudice scores

from the Modern Racism Scale (MRS) as the dependent

variable. Results showed that prejudice did not differ

significantly by group [F(l, 84) = 0.23, p = .64].

The second one-way, between-subjects ANOVA used

forewarning as the independent variable and ambivalence

scores from the Pro-Black Anti-Black Attitudes Questionnaire

(PAAQ) as the dependent variable. No support was found to

suggest that attitudinal ambivalence differed by forewarning

group [F(l, 84) = 0.67, p = .41].

The third one-way, between-subjects ANOVA used

forewarning as the independent variable and guilty-

conscience scores from the Mosher Guilt Inventory (MGI) as

the dependent variable. Again, results showed that guilt

did not differ significantly by group [F(l, 84) = 1.73, E =

.19]. A comparison of the means for prejudice (MRS),

ambivalence (PAAQ), and guilt (MGI) for forewarning versus

control can be found in Table 1.

Table 1
Prejudice (MRS), Ambivalence (PAAQ), and Guilt (MGI) Means
by Forewarning Group

Control Forewarning
n = 30 n = 55
M 16.9 17.4
SD 4.7 4.7

M 653.1 701.2
SD 201.6 284.4

M 65.1 62.7
SD 17.1 13.5

The second hypothesis posited that students at all

levels of White racial identity would show similar levels of

prejudice scores (MRS). This hypothesis was tested by a

one-way, between-subjects ANOVA with White racial identity

stage level (WRIAS) as the independent variable and

prejudice scores (MRS) as the dependent variable. The

original planned analysis was modified slightly because only

three students fell in the first (or Contact) stage of

WRIAS; therefore, Stage 1 was eliminated for the purposes of

this analysis. Stage 2 (Disintegration) and Stage 3

(Reintegration) were combined because of their small sample

sizes and conceptual and numerical similarities. White

racial identity level now consisted of three stages for the

purpose of this analysis. Results did not support the null

hypothesis that no differences would exist in prejudice by

identity stages [F(2, 87) = 6.84, p = .002].

Follow-up Tukey comparisons showed that students in

Stages 4 and 5 endorsed significantly less prejudice than

students in Stage 2/3 [p < .05]. However, students in

Stages 4 and 5 did not significantly differ from each other

in their amount of prejudice [p > .05]. In both these

latter stages, a degree of prejudice was present, suggesting

that individuals in higher stages of White racial identity

development may not necessarily be prejudice free. Means

for each stage are presented in Table 2 (MRS obtained range

7 to 29, possible range 7 to 35).

Table 2
Mean Prejudice Scores by Level of White Racial Identity

WRI Stage n Mean MRS SD
2/3 9 22.1 4.0
4 24 17.7 5.0
5 56 16.5 3.8

The third hypothesis stated that White students who

endorsed higher levels of attitudinal ambivalence regarding

race would show lower levels of prejudice. A Pearson

product moment correlation was performed with attitudinal

ambivalence (PAAQ) and prejudice scores (MRS) serving as the

correlated variables. The correlation failed to reach

statistical significance (r = 0.08, p =.41), suggesting that

no relationship existed between ambivalence and prejudice.

However, White students's prejudice scores did correlate

significantly with their scores from the Anti-Black scale

from the PAAQ (r = .49, p < .001) and correlated

significantly in a negative direction with their Pro-Black

scores from the PAAQ (r = -.45, E < .001). These results

suggest that independently Pro-Black and Anti-Black scores

do correlate with prejudice scores, but that when Pro-Black

and Anti-Black scores are multiplied (to indicate

ambivalence), the relationship between ambivalence and

prejudice remains unclear.

The fourth hypothesis predicted that a significant

relationship would exist between racial ambivalence (PAAQ)

and guilt (MGI). To test this hypothesis, a Pearson product

moment correlation was used with guilt scores and

attitudinal ambivalence scores serving as the correlated

variables. This correlation also failed to reach

significance (r = -0.01, p =.97), indicating no relationship

existed between racial ambivalence and guilt.

The fifth and final hypothesis stated that students who

expressed the strongest intention to attend multicultural

training workshops would score the lowest on measures of

prejudice. A one-way, between-subjects ANOVA was used with

the independent variable being clear intention to attend a

workshop versus no intention to attend. The dependent

variable was prejudice scores (MRS). The results of the

ANOVA when intention was grouped in two categories (clear

expressed intent vs. no intent), failed to attain

significance [F(l, 105) = 0.26, p = .61]. In looking at

mean data, students expressed uncertainty as to the

likelihood of their attending any multicultural workshop in

the next 5 years (M = 3.1, SD = 1.2). This uncertainty

moved closer to disagreement when students were asked the

likelihood of their attending a multicultural workshop in

the next month (M = 2.6, SD = 1.0). However, an inverse

relationship did exist between intention to attend a

workshop and prejudice, with those who expressed more intent

endorsing significantly less prejudice (r = -.24, p = .02).

Ancillary Analyses

All hypotheses that involved racial ambivalence (PAAQ)

were analyzed with ambivalence separated into its two

components, Pro-Black and Anti-Black scales; thus,

Hypotheses 1, 3, and 4 were reanalyzed. The first

hypothesis, which stated in part that ambivalence would

differ by forewarning, was tested by two one-way between-

subjects ANOVAs. The first ANOVA used group (forewarning

vs. control) as the independent variable and Pro-Black

scores as the dependent variable. No significant results

were found to suggest that Pro-Black scores differed by

forewarning [F(l, 84) = 1.26, p = .26]. The second ANOVA

used group (forewarning vs. control) as the independent

variable and Anti-Black scores as the dependent variable.

In this case, results did differ significantly [F(l, 84)

5.54, p =.02], with those who received forewarning actually

reporting more anti-Black sentiment (M = 29.1, SD = 8.9)

than those who received no forewarning (M = 24.5, SD = 7.7).

The third hypothesis, which had predicted a significant

relationship between ambivalence and prejudice, was tested

by two Pearson product moment correlations looking at the

relationship between prejudice and pro-Black or anti-Black

feelings. In the first correlation, Pro-Black and prejudice

(MRS) scores served as the correlated variables. A

significant inverse relationship was found between MRS and

Pro-Black scores (r = -.45, p < .001). In the second

correlation, Anti-Black and prejudice (MRS) scores served as

the correlated variables. A significant relationship was

found between MRS and Anti-Black scores (r = .49, p < .001).

The fourth hypothesis, which had predicted a

significant relationship between ambivalence and guilty-

conscience (MGI), was reanalyzed using two Pearson product

moment correlations to assess the relationship between guilt

and Pro-Black or Anti-Black scores. Neither correlation

attained significance [MGI and Pro-Black scores, r = .12, p

= .21; MGI and Anti-Black scores, r = .07, p = .50].

Interestingly, a significant inverse relationship was found

between prejudice, as measured by the MRS, and guilt; the

more prejudice students endorsed, the lower their guilty-

conscience scores (r = -.23, p = .02).

To see if White racial identity differed by

forewarning, five one-way, between-subjects ANOVAs were run,

with group (forewarning vs. control) serving as the

independent variable in all ANOVAs and the score on each

subscale of White racial identity serving as the dependent

variable. The only racial identity level score that

differed as a function of forewarning was Reintegration,

which refers to an idealization of Whiteness and a

denigration of Blackness, [F(l, 84) = 3.96, p = .05]. Those

who received a forewarning actually expressed higher

Reintegration attitudes (M = 26.1, SD = 6.4) than those who

received no forewarning (M = 23.5, SD = 4.5), suggesting

that scores on the Reintegration subscale may be susceptible

to forewarning effects.

In order to explore whether students in different

classes expressed different amounts of prejudice, a Pearson

product moment correlation was conducted with year-in-school

and prejudice (MRS) scores serving as the two variables. A

small but statistically significant relationship existed

between MRS and year (r = -.20, p < .05).

Finally, to test for systematic gender differences in

response to the dependent variables, several one-way,

between-subject ANOVAs were run, with gender as the

independent variable and MRS, Pro-Black scores (from PAAQ),

Anti-Black scores (from PAAQ), racial ambivalence (full

PAAQ), and guilt (MGI) as the dependent variables. A gender

effect was found on guilt [F(1, 102) = 5.25, p = .02], with

women reporting significantly more guilt (M = 64.79, SD =

15.6) than men (M = 56.13, SD = 17.2). None of the other

gender analyses reached statistical significance.


In summary, data did not support the hypothesis that

people would engage in attitude shifts regarding their

prejudice, ambivalence, or guilt if they anticipated

receiving a lecture on racial issues. However post-hoc

analysis revealed that contrary to the expected direction,

students actually reported more anti-Black sentiment and

greater Reintegration attitudes when they expected to

receive a lecture on racial issues than when they expected a

lecture on an innocuous subject, in this case stress.

Second, White students at higher levels of racial

identity did report significantly less prejudice than those

at lower levels, which is consistent with Helm's theory


(1993), but contrary to Hypothesis 2. Interestingly, 85% of

the sample fell in the two, most advanced, stages of racial

identity development.

Third, no relationship existed between prejudice (MRS)

and racial ambivalence (PAAQ), or racial ambivalence (PAAQ)

and guilt (MGI); therefore, Hypotheses 3 and 4 were not

supported. A positive relationship was found between

prejudice and anti-Black sentiment (from the PAAQ), whereas

a negative relationship existed between prejudice and pro-

Black sentiment (from the PAAQ). This pair of results

supports the validity of the MRS. Although not

hypothesized, an inverse relationship was also found between

prejudice (MRS) and guilt (MRS).

Finally, although there was a significant inverse

relationship between intent to attend a multicultural

workshop and expressed prejudice, there was no significant

prejudice level difference between those who expressed clear

intent and those who did not express clear intent to attend

a multicultural workshop. Thus, Hypothesis 5 was only

partially supported.



In this chapter, the results of this study's hypotheses

are discussed along with possible explanations to account

for the findings. First, I briefly review the purpose of

the study. Then, I describe the study's findings in light

of previous research and explore the limitations in the

current study. Finally, I offer suggestions for future


This study's purpose was to assess the viability of

several potential weaknesses identified in current

multicultural literature, based on previous findings from

social psychology. These findings from social psychology

confirm that Whites harbor more prejudice toward Blacks than

they willingly admit (Crosby, Bromley, & Saxe, 1980;

Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986; McConahay, 1986), that Whites are

ambivalent about their racial attitudes (Katz, Wackenhut, &

Hass, 1986), and that Whites often selectively change their

attitudes to appear more moderate (Cialdini & Petty, 1981;

Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986).

This study looked at the possibility that White people

engage in overt self-presentational strategies to appear

culturally aware while still harboring covert prejudiced

attitudes and beliefs. Second, the study explored the role

of guilt in motivating Whites to adopt the patina of

multicultural sensitivity, while also motivating Whites to

avoid honest dialogue regarding their prejudicial attitudes

and beliefs. Finally, I suggested that Whites who

voluntarily choose to attend multicultural workshops are

potentially the persons who least need such training.

Summary and Interpretation of the Results

Hypothesis 1 stated that forewarning White students of

an upcoming racial issues lecture on prejudice would lead to

a shift in race-based attitudes. According to this

hypothesis, students who believed they were to receive a

racial issues lecture would endorse less prejudice, more

guilt, and more race-related ambivalence. Data did not

support this hypothesis. In fact, a post-hoc analysis

revealed that forewarning students of an upcoming racial

issues lecture actually led to their endorsing more anti-

Black sentiment than students who thought they were to

receive a lecture on stress. Students who received a

forewarning also showed stronger Reintegration attitudes, on

the White Racial Identity Scale. That is, forewarned

students were more likely to denigrate Blacks and over-

idealize Whites than students in the control group. These

findings suggest that anticipating the possibility of

receiving a lecture on racial issues may actually increase

anti-Black sentiment in Whites.

Although these findings are contrary to the original

hypothesis, they are consistent with some of the extant

anticipatory opinion research. Research indicates that when

people expect to receive a persuasive communication, they

often react by either moderating their views or amplifying

them towards the extreme (Agnew & Insko, 1996; Cialdini &

Petty, 1981). The students in the current study appear to

have amplified their anti-Black views in response to the

expectation of an upcoming lecture on race.

The increase in anti-Black sentiment and in

Reintegration attitudes following forewarning may also be

the result of semantic priming (Lepore & Brown, 1997).

Research has shown that both high and low prejudiced White

students exhibit more negative cognitions toward Blacks

after being primed to either the category of Blacks or the

negative stereotypic attributes about Blacks (Devine, 1989;

Wittenbrink, Judd, and Park, 1997). In this study, the

simple act of informing students of an upcoming racial

issues lecture may have activated both the category of

Blacks for participants as well as the stereotypes

associated with this category. Therefore, the increase in

anti-Black sentiment shown by the forewarning group may

simply have been a result of semantic priming. Both

potential explanations, however, have important implications

for the efficacy of multicultural training, insofar as

multicultural training is not intended to increase negative

sentiment towards members of ethnic-minority groups.

Contrary to the second hypothesis, students at all

levels of White racial identity development did not show

similar levels of prejudice; students in the combined

Disintegration and Reintegration stages, acknowledged more

prejudice than students in the latter two stages. This

finding is consistent with Helm's (1993) racial identity

developmental theory in that Whites in the Disintegration

and Reintegration stages experience anxiety about racial

issues and may denigrate Blacks, using paternalistic and

stereotypical thinking.

Interestingly, 85% of the sample fell into the two

highest stages of Helm's (1993) racial identity development.

Although published normative data from college students are

not available for the White Racial Identity Development

Scale, it seems unlikely that most of a collegiate sample

would really be so advanced in their racial identity

development. This finding, however, is consistent with


previous studies which have found that college students tend

to fall into the latter stages of racial identity

development, when a discrete stage model is utilized

(Carter, 1990; Pope-Davis & Ottavi, 1994). The possibility

that most college individuals consistently appear to fall

into only certain stages of racial identity development

raises questions about the validity of Helm's model (1993)

or the method by which White racial identity development is

measured (Tokar & Swanson, 1991).

In addition, those students in this sample who fell in

the latter two stages of racial identity development

(Pseudoindependence and Autonomy) still endorsed a degree of

prejudice. This result suggests that advances at the latter

stages of racial identity development may not necessarily be

adequate indicators of the absence of prejudice. Such a

finding may be important given that White trainees' racial

identity development has frequently been cited as a key to

multicultural competence (Neville et al., 1996; Ottavi,

Pope-Davis, & Dings, 1994; Ponterotto, 1988; Sabnani,

Ponterotto, & Borodovsky, 1991). For example, Neville et

al. found that their multicultural course (covering 45 hours

of training) encouraged trainees to adopt a more positive

White racial identity and increased students' multicultural

competencies. However, Neville et al.'s course had no

significant impact on trainees' Contact, Disintegration, or

Reintegration attitudes, suggesting further that the

adoption of a positive White racial identity may not be

linked to the abandonment of racism and prejudice (White,


Although the data did not support Hypothesis 2, the

findings raise some doubts as to the validity of using

increases in White racial identity development as an

indicator of both prejudice reduction and multicultural

competence for the reasons discussed above. Treating

prejudice and White racial identity as distinct may

encourage multicultural scholars to use both measures in

outcome research of multicultural efficacy, rather than

relying only on an increase in White racial identity level

as an adequate indicator of the benefits of training.

No significant relationship existed between White

students' level of prejudice and attitudinal ambivalence;

thus, Hypothesis 3 was not supported. Although racial

ambivalence and prejudice may simply be unrelated, the lack

of a significant relationship may lie in the way racial

ambivalence is currently measured. By simply multiplying

Pro and Anti scores, the ability to distinguish between all

but the most ambivalent people is lost. Presumably those

with high Pro and low Anti scores would have different

prejudice levels from those with low Pro and high Anti

scores. The ambivalence measure used in this study,

however, does not allow for such a differentiation, and

valuable information may be getting lost in the process.

Whereas no relationship existed between racial

ambivalence and prejudice, students who endorsed more

prejudice also endorsed more anti-Black sentiment and less

pro-Black sentiment. This finding lends support to the idea

that the prejudice measure and the Pro-Black and Anti-Black

scales of the Ambivalence Questionnaire were tapping into

related constructs, and suggests a possible inadequacy in

the method of computing ambivalence. In addition, the Pro-

Black and Anti-Black scales were only moderately correlated

with each other which may be viewed as further evidence in

favor of methodological difficulties in measuring

ambivalence and not in the presence of ambivalence itself,

consistent with Katz and Hass' (1988) theory that Whites

often hold both pro-Black and anti-Black feelings.

Hypothesis 4 failed to receive support; no relationship

was found between racial ambivalence and guilt. However,

the same cautions regarding the measurement of ambivalence

described previously may apply here. In addition, post-hoc

analysis revealed that a relationship did exist between

prejudice and guilt. The more prejudice students endorsed,

the lower their guilty-conscience scores.

This finding raises important issues for multicultural

training. If students with greater guilty-consciences

endorsed less prejudice, is it because they indeed harbor

less prejudice in conjunction with a higher moral standing,

or is it that their guilt motivates them to adopt only the

patina of greater multicultural sensitivity? At first

glance, a motivation based on guilt may seem useful in the

reduction of prejudiced responses toward clients. However,

White guilt may constitute an equally-harmful reaction to

Black clients (and all clients of color) because the

experience of guilt may generate self-preoccupation at the

expense of genuine concern for and openness to others

(Niedenthal, Tangney, Gavanski, 1994; Steele, 1990).

With respect to guilty-conscience, women in this

sample reported significantly more guilt than men. One

explanation for the difference in guilt scores may be due,

in part, to gender differences in interpersonal orientation

and moral development (Gilligan, 1982). However, no gender

differences existed in prejudice, White racial identity

scores, or racial ambivalence.

Finally, contrary to Hypothesis 5, those students who

expressed clear intent co attend a workshop did not differ

in their expressed prejudice scores from those who did not

express that intent. Clear intent was measured as agreeing

or strongly agreeing to attend at least one

diversity/multicultural workshop at the university in the

next month or year. On the cther hand, dichotomizing intent

scores into intent versus nonintent may not have adequately

captured the desired information, because when intent was

kept as a continuous variable, intent to attend a

multicultural workshop was significantly and negatively

related to prejudice. This finding suggests some support

for the idea that those who voluntarily attend multicultural

workshops may least need such training. Despite support for

the idea that current multicultural training may only be

reaching those Whites already amenable to the message of

multiculturalism, most White students in the sample

acknowledged that they would be unlikely to attend a

multicultural workshop in any case.

The lack of enthusiasm shown by the current sample

towards multicultural/diversity workshops is discouraging

given that at the graduate level, several counseling

psychology doctoral programs do not require their students

to take a multicultural course (Quitana & Bernal, 1995).

The current data suggest most students would fail to take

such a course of their own volition. Anecdotal evidence

gathered from counseling and clinical psychology doctoral

students confirms this perception of the lack of interest in

multicultural training among White individuals. The

students (and faculty) that express interest in

multicultural training are often members of ethnic-minority

groups (D'Andrea & Daniels, 1995).

Implications of Current Findings

The lack of findings supporting this study's hypotheses

suggests either that the original ideas are flawed or that

flaws exist in the research design. For example, this

study's results may suggest that forewarning of an upcoming

racial issues lecture may not affect or moderate Whites

attitudes towards Blacks. It is possible that people are

honest on self-report questionnaires of prejudice without

moderating their opinions in the face of an upcoming

diversity presentation, or in the context of multicultural

training. Perhaps White students do not engage in self-

presentational strategies to appear more sensitive on racial

issues. Although such a conclusion is consistent with the

lack of empirical support for the hypothesis, it appears

somewhat unlikely given the wealth of social psychology

research on prejudice. Such research has extensively

documented the difference between White people's explicit

and implicit manifestations of prejudice (Crosby, Bromley, &

Saxe, 1980; Dovidio & Fazio, 1992; Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986;

McConahay, 1986; Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995). A more likely

explanation is that the forewarning message in this study

did not evoke the intended reaction. This explanation is

described in detail in the following limitations section.

Second, although no hypothesis was upheld by the data,

post-hoc analyses did provide evidence to suggest some

validity for the original ideas proposed. Data supported a

link between forewarning and some shift in racial attitudes,

but in a direction different from the one predicted. White

students who received the forewarning actually increased in

their anti-Black sentiment and Reintegration attitudes. In

addition, most students fell into the two highest categories

of racial identity development, despite little difference in

their respective prejudicial attitudes, which lends support

to the idea that White racial identity development as it is

measured by the White Racial Identity Attitudes Scale

(Helms, 1990) may not be an adequate measure of prejudice

reduction. Furthermore, guilt and prejudice were inversely

related, which attests to the potential importance of guilt

in the field of multicultural training, an association that

multicultural literature often overlooks. Finally, the more

likely White students were to voluntarily attend

multicultural workshops, the lower their prejudice scores;

multicultural training may indeed be "preaching to the


Limitations of the Current Study

The limitations of the current study center around

possible flaws in the design: the forewarning message, the

sample used, and the quality of the study's measures.

First, the forewarning message may have been too weak to

evoke student's awareness. The message informed students

that an upcoming presenter would lecture on racial issues;

the control group would receive a lecture on stress.

Receiving a lecture on racial issues in a large

undergraduate class in which anonymity is present to a

certain degree differs from actively participating in a

small-group multicultural or diversity workshop. Perhaps, a

different result would have been obtained had the

forewarning informed of a diversity workshop that would be

held with the students as participants. Such a forewarning

message may not have been as believable given that data were

collected in a large class; however, this message would have

more closely resembled the scenario that students experience

when they take multicultural courses.

Second, data were collected from an undergraduate

psychology class consisting mainly of first-year students.

Using this population assumes both that first-year students

know what lectures on racial issues and, in a larger

context, what multicultural presentations entail and that

first-year students and fourth-year students do not differ

significantly in their self-report of prejudice. Yet,

several participants acknowledged after the study that they

were unclear as to what the term "multicultural workshops"

meant. If participants did not understand the terminology

used in this study, then the results may be suspect.


The number of fourth-year students in this sample were

too few to test whether their prejudice scores differed

significantly from first year students. However, one may

argue that the university experience does offer a particular

socialization regarding the acceptability of prejudice and

the openness with which racial issues may be discussed. The

racial climate on university campuses often differ markedly

from students' previous experiences, and as one moves

through a university, a "politically correct" socialization

occurs, influenced by campus life, administrative actions,

and the aftermath of race-related incidents (D'Souza, 1991;

Magner, 1988). It would be interesting to run the study

again with only fourth-year students and compare those

results with the current ones because fourth-year students

may more willingly moderate their expressions of prejudice

when forewarned. Fourth-year students may also resemble

most closely the first year graduate students in counseling

psychology programs who take multicultural training and

counseling courses.

Third, the measures used may not have been adequate to

address the hypotheses. The potential inadequacy of both

the forewarning message and the ambivalence measure have

already been discussed. In addition, the validity of Helm's

White Racial Identity Attitudes Scale is questionable, given

that its properties do not appear to support a stage-model

of racial identity development (Behrens, 1997).

Recently, J. E. Helms (personal communication, July,

1997) has been encouraging a move away from using her scale

to measure discrete stages of identity development, and

instead recommending that researchers focus on the way each

of the five subscales compare to the others. However,

Helms' model (1990) is described as a linear stage-model of

racial identity development and is taught as such in

multicultural training programs. Advancing levels is

interpreted as a sign of increasing multicultural competence

(Ottavi, Pope-Davis, & Dings, 1994; Ponterotto, 1988;

Sabnani, Ponterotto, & Borodovsky, 1991). If the WRIAS is

no longer a stage-based measure, then to continue using it

as a valid indicator of multicultural competence following

training (as shown by progressing to more advanced stages)

is not justified.

The Mosher guilty-conscience scale used in this study

measures guilt, generally, (Mosher, 1988; 1968) not

specifically White guilt regarding racial issues.

Unfortunately, I uncovered no such measure. Before the link

between prejudice, ambivalence, and White guilt can truly be

established or discounted, a measure of White guilt must be

constructed and validated.

Lastly, this study design relied on self-report

measures of sensitive personal information, such as

prejudice. Research has already documented that survey data

on prejudice often underestimate the amount of prejudice

present (Crosby, Bromley, and Saxe, 1980; Dovidio & Fazio,

1992; Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995). Despite all attempts to

ensure anonymity of the participants, time constraints led

to the next class's students coming in and to participants

being rushed to finish their questionnaires, which may have

compromised the results. Finally, the question still

remains as to the link between explicit and implicit levels

of prejudice and actual prejudiced behavior towards others

(Wittenbrink, Judd, & Park, 1997). Further research is

needed to address such a question.

Suggestions for Future Research

Because much of the research conducted in this study

was new, the first step in future research would be to

replicate this study using the present design to compare

findings. Next, use of a stronger forewarning measure is

warranted, along with use of a sample of more advanced

students to test whether a socialization process regarding

the acceptability of acknowledging prejudice exists on

university campuses. It would also be relevant to include

Mosher's Hostility-guilt scale in addition to the Guilty-

conscience scale to differentiate between these two aspects

of guilt. Conceivably, White students may have hostile

guilt in response to prejudice rather than guilt resulting

from conscience. Finally, a measure of White guilt needs to

be developed.

Long term, it would be interesting to include pre and

post measures of prejudice such as the Modern Racism Scale

(McConahay, Hardee, & Batts, 1981) and measures of White

guilt as part of the evaluation of multicultural training

effectiveness. These measures would address whether

multicultural training produces unintended outcomes such as

hypervigilant and avoidance behaviors, driven by

defensiveness and guilt, on the part of White students.

Including these measures would also shed light on whether

White students overtly endorse their own multicultural

competence while covertly harboring prejudicial thoughts.


This dissertation empirically addressed several

identified weaknesses in the current multicultural training

literature. These potential weaknesses included the idea

that Whites might engage in self-presentational strategies

to appear culturally aware, while still harboring covert,

racially-prejudiced attitudes, that White guilt might play a

role in encouraging Whites to adopt the patina of

multicultural sensitivity in order to avoid honest dialogue

regarding their own prejudice, and that White racial


identity development as a construct may not be synonymous

with prejudice.

Although the lack of anticipated findings in this study

is disappointing, the evidence gathered suggests that the

original ideas about the potential weaknesses in current

multicultural training practices are still viable. The

design of the present study may not have been the ideal

vehicle to test such ideas.


You are being asked to volunteer as a participant in a
research study conducted by M. G. Shanbhag, a doctoral
candidate in the Department of Psychology. This form is
designed to inform you about the study and to answer any
questions you may have. The purpose of this study is to
obtain people's opinions on a wide variety of topics.

Participants in this study will be asked to complete four
questionnaires. Participants will be asked not to put their
names on any questionnaires to insure their anonymity.
Instead, each questionnaire in a packet will have the same
numerical code on it for correlation purposes only. You do
not have to answer any question you do not wish to answer.
It will take approximately 30 minutes to complete this

For your participation, you will receive 2 extra-credit
points in PCO 2714. Following the study, you will have the
chance to learn more about the nature of the study. Any
questions or concerns that participants may have as a result
of participating in this study will be addressed at that

There are no risks or discomforts anticipated for
participants in this study. You may benefit by learning
more about your own opinions. If you wish to discuss any
potential discomforts you may experience, you may call the
Principal Investigator at 392-0601. Please read the
statement attached and print and sign the form. Questions
or concerns about research participants rights may be
directed to the UFIRB office, P.O. Box 112250, UF,
Gainesville, FL 32611 or call 392-0433.


I have been fully informed of the procedure in this study .
I am free to withdraw my consent and to discontinue
participation in this study at any time without consequence.
I will receive no compensation other than extra-credit for
participation in this study at any time. I agree to
participate in the procedure and have received a copy of
this description.

Participant's Name [Print] Date

Participant's Signature M. G. Shanbhag, M.S.


Students in the forewarning group received the following
message on the first page of their packet of materials:

The class lecture on racial issues will be given by a guest
speaker later this week. He is interested in getting an
idea of your attitudes on a variety of topics, including
your attitudes on race. Remember, your responses will be
completely anonymous. In no way will your answers be
traceable to you, so please be as honest as possible. Thank

Students in the non-forewarning, control group received the
following message on the first page of their packet of

The class lecture on coping with stress will be given by a
guest speaker later this week. He is interested in getting
an idea of your attitudes on a variety of topics, including
your attitudes on stress. Remember, your responses will be
completely anonymous. In no way will your answers be
traceable to you, so please be as honest as possible. Thank


Please use the following scale to indicate your degree of
agreement with each item:

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

1. I plan to attend voluntarily at least one multicultural
training workshop sometime in the next 5 years.

2. If a multicultural training workshop is offered one
evening within the next year at UF, I would volunteer
to attend.

3. If a multicultural training workshop is offered one
evening would volunteer to attend.


1. Age:

2. Gender: M

3. Ethnicity:

4. Class

5. Home State


0 F 1



African American
Asian American
Hispanic American and Latino
White or Anglo American
American Indian/ Native American
International (please specify)
Biracial (please specify)
Other (please specify)

First year
Graduate Student
Other (please specify)

0 South Florida (Dade and Broward)
1 Florida
2 Southeast
3 Midatlantic (MD,DC,DE,NJ,VA,WV)
4 Northeast
5 Mideast
6 Midwest (ID,MT,ND,SD,WY)
7 Southwest (AZ,TX,CO,NM,NV,UT)
8 West (CA,WA,OR,AL,HI)
9 Other


6. Major 0 Psychology
1 Social Science (Sociology, etc.)
2 Engineering
3 Natural Sciences (Biology,Math..
4 Humanities (English, History..
5 Business
6 Education
7 Other
8 Undecided

7. I understand that later this week a guest speaker will
lecture on

(0) time management
(1) stress
(2) racial issues
(3) sexually transmitted diseases
(4) none of the above


Thank you for your participation in this experiment. Your
responses to the questionnaires will be kept completely
anonymous; you will be identified by code number only.

The purpose of this study was to examine White people's
attitudes toward African Americans and to determine whether
racism, ambivalence toward Blacks, and guilt are related.
Moreover, this study looks at whether receiving a
"forewarning" of the multicultural intent of the
investigation influences people's responses. This study may
ultimately help clarify the benefits of providing
multicultural training to college students.

Thank you again for your participation in this study. If
you have any questions about the study, please feel free to
contact the Principal Investigator, Marnie G. Shanbhag, at


Abel, T. M. (1956). Cultural patterns as they affect
psychotherapeutic procedures. American Journal of
Psychotherapy, 10, 728-740.

Abramson, P. R., Mosher, D. L., Abramson, L. M., &
Woychowski, B. (1977). Personality correlates of the
Mosher guilt scales. Journal of Personality Assessment, 41,

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding
attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Allison, K. W., Crawford, I., Echemendia, R., Robinson,
L., & Knepp, D. (1994). Human diversity and professional
competence: Training in clinical and counseling psychology
revisited. American Psychologist, 49, 792-796.

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

American Psychological Association. (1983). Criteria
for accreditation of doctoral training programs and
internships in professional psychology. Washington, DC:

Arbona, C. (1995). Culture, ethnicity, and race: A
reaction. Counseling Psychologist, 23, 74-78.

Attneave, C. L. (1969). Therapy in tribal settings
and urban network intervention. Family Process, 8, 192-210.

Brigham, J. C., Woodmansee, J. J., & Cook, S. W.
(1976). Dimensions of verbal racial attitudes: Interracial
marriage and approaches to racial equality. Journal of
Social Issues, 32, 9-21.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483

Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID ET98SQBXE_U6WVQY INGEST_TIME 2013-09-28T01:53:06Z PACKAGE AA00014288_00001