Development and validation of a Coping with Discrimination Scale: Factor structure, reliability, and validity.

Abstract

Four studies were conducted to develop and validate the Coping With Discrimination Scale (CDS). In Study 1, an exploratory factor analysis (N = 328) identified 5 factors: Education/Advocacy, Internalization, Drug and Alcohol Use, Resistance, and Detachment, with internal consistency reliability estimates ranging from .72 to .90. In Study 2, a confirmatory factor analysis (N = 328) provided cross-validation of the 5-factor model as well as evidence for validity of the scale. The validity evidence was similar across racial groups and for males and females. In Study 3, the estimated 2-week test-retest reliabilities (N = 53) were between .48 and .85 for the 5 factors. Education/Advocacy, Internalization, Drug and Alcohol Use, and Detachment were positively associated with active coping, self-blame, substance use, and behavioral disengagement, respectively, providing further support for validity of the CDS. Finally, incremental validity evidence was obtained in Study 4 (N = 220), where it was shown that the CDS explained variance in outcome variables (i.e., depression, life satisfaction, self-esteem, and ethnic identity) that could not be explained by general coping strategies.

Everyday Confrontation of Discrimination: The Well-Being Costs and Benefits to Women over Time

“…Initially, using angered confrontation predicted lower well-being than when using indirect confrontation. This is consistent with non-diary work examining confrontation at one point in time, showing confrontation is associated with decreased victim well-being (Bergman et al, 2002;Foster, 2009a;Wei et al, 2010). This may not be surprising given the social costs of confronting a perpetrator (e.g., Kaiser & Miller, 2001); if confrontation elicits negativity from the perpetrator and observers, then the victim may suffer interpersonal repercussions again.…”

“…In particular, Pennebaker and others have shown that by expressing emotions, well-being improves over time (e.g., Campbell & Pennebaker, 2003;Frisina, Borod & Lepore, 2004;King & Miner, 2000). As such, although confrontations that involve direct communication to the perpetrator may be difficult initially and may lower well-being at one point in time (e.g., Bergman et al, 2002;Foster, 2009a;Wei et al, 2010) the benefits of direct confrontations may be seen after some time to the extent that such confrontations involve being able to express oneself. As such, Hypothesis 1 states: continued use of direct confrontations will be associated with increasing well-being over time.…”

“…First, the social costs of confrontation literature provides only indirect support for the notion that confrontation decreases well-being. Second, it is unclear whether the correlational studies (Bergman et al, 2002;Wei et al, 2010) were in fact examining confrontations that women used on an everyday basis. For example, the instructions given to participants in Wei et al's (2010) study do not clarify whether confrontations were recalled from a behavioral repertoire that women actually used or whether they study was measuring anticipated confrontations in response to hypothetical discrimination (i.e., what would they would use).…”

“…For this reason, Lazarus and Folkman (1984) argue that stress responses are best assessed over time so that changing relationships can be captured. However, most research on confrontation and well-being has been examined only in the context of experimental or correlational paradigms, both conducted at one point in time (e.g., Becker et al, 2011;Bergman et al, 2002;Cocking & Drury, 2004;Foster, 2013;Wei et al, 2010;van Zomeren et al, 2012).…”

Analytic Approaches to the Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM)

“…Structural equation models were used to fit the separate regressions for each of the consumer behaviors using as a predictor (a) MEIM-Total, (b) AEI alone, and (c) AEI and BEI together. Maximum likelihood (ML) estimation was carried out using Mplus version 6.1 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2010. Each application of the MEIM was evaluated as a predictor of the consumer behaviors, with effect size measured by adjusted R 2 , the proportion of variance accounted for in the outcome: Adjusted R 2 = (1 2 residual variance)/sample variance of Y. Two-tailed tests with Bonferroni adjustments were applied to the nine consumer behavior items (each test evaluated at a = .05/9 = .0056) and the two language preference items (each test evaluated at .05/2 = .025).…”