Objectives: The current study contributes to the field's limited knowledge about the sociopolitical consequences of internalized Model Minority Myth (MMM) among Asian Americans. In particular, we examine how the MMM serves as a legitimizing ideology, in which the perpetuation of beliefs about society as fair ultimately maintain racial inequality. Methods: Using path analysis with 251 Asian American college students, we tested a model linking internalized MMM (i.e., attitudes towards Asian Americans as achievement oriented and as having unrestricted mobility, compared to other racial minorities) to anti-Black attitudes and opposition to affirmative action for Black Americans. We examined direct effects of internalized MMM on such outcomes, as well as indirect effects through other legitimizing ideologies, including just world beliefs and racial colorblindness. Results: Findings demonstrated that greater levels of internalized MMM among Asian American college students predicted greater anti-Black attitudes and opposition to affirmative action. Greater internalized MMM achievement orientation and unrestricted mobility also directly predicted greater just world beliefs and colorblindness. Results from our test of indirect effects showed that internalized MMM achievement orientation and unrestricted mobility both indirectly predicted opposition to affirmative action through colorblindness, and unrestricted mobility also indirectly predicted anti-Black attitudes through colorblindness. Also, achievement orientation and unrestricted mobility indirectly predicted anti-Black attitudes through just world beliefs. Conclusions: Our findings have implications for research and practice that promotes awareness of and seeks to challenge the MMM, anti-Blackness, and beliefs about affirmative action among Asian Americans. Public Significance StatementInternalizing the Model Minority Myth (MMM), or the belief that Asian Americans are more hardworking and high-achieving compared to other racial minorities, has negative sociopolitical consequences. Specifically, this study suggests that such beliefs among Asian American college students are linked to more anti-Black attitudes and opposition to affirmative action.

Scholars have proposed 2 separable dimensions of racial colorblind ideology: the first is centered on "not seeing color" (i.e., color evasion), and the second is centered on denying racism (i.e., power evasion). Yet, to date, there is no psychometric evidence for this distinction. In this article, we aim to fill this gap by establishing the presence of and characterizing differences between these 2 dimensions using both variable-centered and person-centered approaches. Study 1A (n ϭ 707) provides exploratory factor analytic evidence supporting the separability of power and color evasion. Study 1B (n ϭ 710) provides confirmatory evidence of this factor structure and evidence of discriminant validity. In Study 1B, 3 latent profiles based on power and color evasion were identified: acknowledgers (low color evasion, low power evasion), evaders (high color evasion, average power evasion), and deniers (average color evasion, average power evasion), which differed on relevant variables (e.g., modern racism, support for affirmative-action). In Study 2 (n ϭ 546), these profiles were replicated and extended by examining differences in attitudes and desire to engage in campus diversity activities. Implications for racial colorblind ideology theory and practical applications are discussed. Public Significance StatementThis study advances the idea that racial colorblindness has at least 2 separate dimensions: denying racism (i.e., power evasion) and avoiding race (i.e., color evasion). This highlights the need for researchers and practitioners to consider this distinction in theory, research, and practice to advance scholarship and action related to colorblindness.

One critical role counseling psychologists can play in dismantling anti-Blackness and eradicating systemic racism is to build on the field's strength in understanding individual-level processes (i.e., systems are created and maintained by individual actors). Drawing on antiracism scholarship, we aimed to better understand how colorblind racial ideology (CBRI), or the denial and minimization of race and racism, may serve as a barrier to engaging in antiracist praxis. Specifically, we conducted a meta-analysis to determine if color evasion (ignoring race) and power evasion (denying structural racism) CBRI were differentially associated with anti-Blackness and processes linked to antiracism. Findings based on 375 effects drawn from 83 studies with more than 25,000 individuals suggest different effects based on CBRI type. As hypothesized, we found that power evasion CBRI was related to increased endorsement of anti-Black prejudice (r = .33) and legitimizing ideologies (r = .24), and negatively associated with a range of other variables associated with antiracism, including social justice behaviors (r = −.31), multicultural practice competencies (r = −.16), diversity openness (r = −.28), and racial/ethnocultural empathy (r = −.35). Consistent with theory, color evasion CBRI was related to increased diversity openness (r = .12). We discuss limitations of our study, as well as outline future directions for research and practice to focus on the role of CBRI in sustaining and perpetuating anti-Blackness and systemic racism. Thus, this meta-analysis has implications for pushing the field of counseling psychology to build the bridge between individual ideologies and creating structural change. Public Significance StatementIn this article, we synthesized results from 83 studies that examined colorblind racial ideology (i.e., denying and minimizing the importance of race and racism). We found that endorsing colorblind racial ideology, particularly power evasion (denying racism) rather than color evasion (ignoring race), was associated with higher anti-Black prejudice, lower racial/ethnocultural empathy, and lower multicultural competencies.

Highlights• This study examines the association between racial colorblindness and inaction to address prejudice.• We conceptualized colorblindness as a type of legitimizing ideology that maintains inequality.• Affective variables helped to explain the links between colorblindness and action.• Such links function similarly across White, Underrepresented, and Asian American students.

Highlights Opposition to sexual and gender minority (SGM) rights persists in the United States. Christian conservatism and political conservatism are linked to opposition to SGM rights. In this study, support for Christian hegemony helped to explain this link. Our results suggest that a system of Christian power and privilege is a barrier to SGM rights.