THE ACTING WHITE ACCUSATION, SOCIAL ANXIETY, AND BULLYING AMONG BLACK GIRLS IN A STEM AND NON-STEM SCHOOL A dissertation submitted to Kent State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Martale J. Davis August, 2019 © Copyright All rights reserved Except for previously published materials Dissertation written by Martale J. Davis B.A., The Ohio State University, 2011 M.A., Kent State University, 2016 Ph.D., Kent State University, 2019 Approved by Angela Neal-Barnett , Chair, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Josefina Grau , Members, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Clarissa Thompson , Robert Stadulis , I. Richmond Nettey , Carla Goar , Accepted by Maria Zaragoza , Chair, Department of Psychological Sciences James L. Blank , Dean, College of Arts and Sciences TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………………………………..iii LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………………...v LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………………………vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………………….……….viii I. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………….1 a. ACTING WHITE AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE……………………....2 b. ETHNIC/RACIAL IDENTITY………………………………………………….6 c. STEM STUDENTS AND THE AWA…………………………………………..10 d. BLACK FEMALES AND ANXIETY………………………………………….12 e. THE AWA AND BOTHER……………………………………………………..14 f. THE AWA AND BULLYING VICTIMIZATION……………………………..15 g. BULLYING VICTIMIZATION AND SOCIAL ANXIETY…………………...16 h. THE ACTING WHITE TRAP…………………………………………………..17 i. ACTING WHITE AND ERI…………………………………………………….18 II. CURRENT STUDY……………………………………………………………………..21 III. METHODS………………………………………………………………………………22 a. PARTICIPANTS………………………………………………………………...22 b. PROCEDURE…………………………………………………………………....22 c. MEASURES……………………………………………………………………..23 d. DATA ANALYSIS PLAN………………………………………………………26 IV. RESULTS………………………………………………………………………………..28 V. DISCUSSION…………………………………………………………………………....36 VI. LIMITATIONS……………………………………………………………….………….42 iii VII. FUTURE DIRECTIONS………………………………………………………...............43 REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………………..46 iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Moderation analyses with AWA, ERI and social anxiety………………………..…...34 Figure 2: Moderation analyses with AWA, ERI, and bullying………………………………….35 Figure 3: The acting White conceptualization …………………………………………………..37 Figure 4: Bother Composite Scores……………………………………………………………...64 Figure 5: Frequency Composite Scores………………………………………………………….65 Figure 6: Social Anxiety Total Scores…………………………………………………………...66 Figure 7: Bullying Composite Scores............................................................................................67 Figure 8: Centrality Composite Scores………………………………………………………….68 Figure 9: Private Regard Composite Scores……………………………………………………..69 Figure 10: Exploration Composite Scores..……………………………………………………...70 Figure 11: Commitment Composite Scores..…………………………………………………….71 v LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Frequency means and standard deviation on the AWEQ……………………………...29 Table 2: Five most commonly endorsed AWEQ items among STEM participants…………….30 Table 3: Five most commonly endorsed AWEQ items among Non-STEM participants……….30 Table 4: Score ranges, means, and standard deviations………………………………………....31 Table 5a: Multivariate Analysis of Variance between STEM and Non-STEM schools..……….59 Table 5b: Multivariate Analysis of Variance between STEM and Non-STEM schools………...60 Table 6: Moderation Analysis with AWA, centrality, and an interaction term predicting social anxiety…………………………………………………………………61 Table 7: Moderation Analysis with AWA, private regard, and an interaction term predicting social anxiety………………………………………………...……………….61 Table 8: Moderation Analysis with AWA, exploration, and an interaction term predicting social anxiety………………………………………...……………………….61 Table 9: Moderation Analysis with AWA, commitment, and an interaction term predicting social anxiety…………………………………………………………………62 Table 10: Moderation Analysis with AWA, centrality, and an interaction term predicting bullying……………………………………………………………………….62 Table 11: Moderation Analysis with AWA, private regard, and an interaction term predicting bullying…………………………………………………………………...…..62 Table 12: Moderation Analysis with AWA, exploration, and an interaction term predicting bullying…………………………………………………………………...…..63 Table 13: Moderation Analysis with AWA, commitment, and an interaction term predicting bullying…………………………………………………………………...…..63 vi Table 14: Non-STEM age range…………………………………………………………………63 Table 15: STEM age range……………………………………………………………………....63 vii Acknowledgements I would like to thank my mother, Diane Davis-Johnson, who has been my biggest supporter in life. I cannot say thank you enough and will always love you. I would also like to thank my brothers, Michael Davis II and Quandale Johnson, my sister, Teresa Davis, my father, Michael Davis Sr., and my grandmothers, Annie Davis and Ruth Hawley. I would also like to thank my mentor and advisor, Dr. Angela Neal-Barnett. You have encouraged me throughout my graduate experience and always provided support not just professionally but personally as well. I would also like to thank a host of family and friends who have supported me on this journey. Thank you to my aunts, uncles, and cousins who constantly encourage and motivate me. Thank you to my best friend, Jasmine Adams, who has been there for me throughout everything. I would also like to thank Victoria Williams, Hayat Kore, Nicole Maxwell, Ga’nell Smith, Dana Maurice Pugh, Delilah Ellzey, Elizabeth Jean, and Tiffany Rowell. I am grateful for all your support and encouragement. I want to thank Dr. Robert Stadulis for serving as a mentor throughout my graduate career as well. Your guidance has helped me in ways you can only imagine. I would also like to thank everyone on my dissertation committee; Dr. Josefina Grau, Dr. Clarissa Thompson, Dr. I. Richmond Nettey, and Dr. Carla Goar for their time and willingness to help complete this process. Finally, I would like to thank the Akron Community Foundation and Division 29 of the American Psychological Association for funding this project. Thank you all. viii Introduction Previous research indicates that the acting White accusation (AWA) is one of the most pertinent and detrimental accusations a Black adolescent can encounter (Bergin & Cooks, 2002; Davis, Stadulis, & Neal-Barnett, 2018; Durkee & Williams, 2013; Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Murray, Neal-Barnett, Demmings, & Stadulis, 2012; Neal-Barnett, 2001; Ogbu, 2004). The AWA arises when a Black adolescent’s ethnic/racial identity (ERI) is perceived as being not Black enough by another Black adolescent or group of adolescents (Neal-Barnett, Stadulis, Singer, Murray & Demmings, 2010). Ethnic/racial identity perception is conceptualized in part by actions and behaviors, and therefore can be called into question in various ways (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Neal-Barnett, 2001; Neal-Barnett et al., 2010). The acting White accusation may be experienced either directly, “you are acting White,” or indirectly, “you talk like a White boy.” The indirect accusation is a subtler form of the AWA that circumvents explicitly stating someone acts White, yet accuses him or her of possessing characteristics similar to White individuals with statements such as “you dress like a White girl.” Regardless of whether it is direct or indirect, many accused adolescents experience the accusation as an attack on their ERI which leads to distress among this population (Neal-Barnett, 2001; Neal-Barnett et al., 2010). The AWA is one of the most harmful accusations a Black adolescent can hurl at another because it is an attack against one’s ERI and can occur during a time when identity development is most salient (Kunjufu, 1988; Murray et al., 2012; Neal-Barnett, 2001; Steele, 1992; Steinberg, Dornbusch, & Brown, 1992; Tyson, 2002). Given that the AWA is embedded in ERI, it has implications for the psychological well-being of Black adolescents. 1 Acting White and Academic Performance The existence of the acting White phenomenon has been a controversial topic due to the mixed research findings throughout the literature. Researchers have debated whether the fear associated with being accused of acting White led to Black adolescents devaluing academic achievement—a sequence of actions more commonly known as the acting White phenomenon. However, the fact remains that Black students still receive the accusation, which means they are being told that they are not members of the Black race (Neal-Barnett, 2001). While there has been debate surrounding the phenomenon, no one can argue that Black adolescents have never received the accusation. More recent literature has focused on the psychological implications of receiving the accusation (Davis et al., 2018; Durkee & Williams, 2013; Durkee & Williams, 2015; Murray et al., 2012). With this being said, it is important to understand the history of the phenomenon and how it has shaped current literature that focuses on the accusation. For decades, the acting White phenomenon was associated with low academic achievement among Black students. It was originally framed within the oppositional identity theory, which asserts that Black adolescents form their ERI in direct opposition to the dominant culture, in this case White Americans (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986). The theory espouses the belief that Blacks must remain in direct opposition to the dominant culture, and as such, devalue what they perceive as Eurocentric or White values (e.g., academic achievement). Black adolescents commonly form fictive kin networks (social ties not determined by blood or marriage)