Bringing Racial Identity Theory
and Measurement Together:
Profile Analyses
Robert T. Carter, PhD.
Teachers College, Columbia University
Presented at the Diversity Challenge Conference on
Racial Identity and Culture,
Boston College, Newton. MA.
October 23-24, 2009
I Will Discuss
 Original Propositions of Racial Identity Theory
 Group level Analyses
 Transforming Scale Scores
 Types of Racial Identity Profiles
2
© Robert T. Carter
Racial Identity Theory
 40 years of empirical work has demonstrated the reality of
within racial group psychological differences.
 Theory is about individuals not groups.
 Individuals have all the ego statuses present - some in
blends and combinations.
 Some people have dominant statuses - for others no
status is more dominant than others.
 Some statuses may not be dominant but may exert some
influence over others.
3
© Robert T. Carter
People of Color/Black Racial Identity
Statuses: Operate as Schemas 

Pre/Conf
Diss/Enc
Immersion
Int
Integ-A



4
Pre-Encounter (B)/ Conformity
(POC) Idealization of White culture;
Denigration of or distance from own
race and culture
Encounter (B) / Dissonance (POC)
Confused about personal and
cultural meaning of race and culture
Immersion/Emersion (B) + (POC)
Idealization of race and culture;
Distance and rejection of White
culture. Eventual acceptance of
group and culture
Internalization (B) + (POC)
Inner security with race and culture
and American cultural heritage
Integrative-Awareness (POC)
Values own identity and that of
others - operates from racial group
world view
© Robert T. Carter
White Racial Identity Statuses
WHITE






Contact
Denial about the personal significance of
race and unaware of cultural world view
Disintegration
First conscious acknowledgement of one’s
Whiteness and its cultural norms about
race - Confused and conflicted
Reintegration
Idealization of Whiteness and cultural
heritage; dismissal of non-White races and
cultures
Pseudo-independence
Intellectualized acceptance of one’s
Whiteness and cultural norms about race
Immersion-Emersion
Emotional and Intellectual integration of
positive sense of Whiteness and culture
Autonomy
Positive non-racist White identity -rejection
of oppression in any form
5
20%
20%
20%
20%
Disintegration
Reintegration
Pseudo-Indep
Immersi/Emersison
Autonomy
20%
© Robert T. Carter
Racial Identity
Immersion/Emersion
Encounter/ Dissonance
Pre-Encounter
 RI development is dynamic wherein
the statuses are interrelated (e.g.,
Carter, 1995; Carter & Pieterse,
2005).
 An individual can express the
beliefs, emotions, and behaviors
associated with more than one
status at a time (Thompson &
Carter, 1997).
 One may shift back and exhibit
Integrative-Awareness
Internalization
6
some aspect of the blended or
combined status attitudes
associated with less mature
statuses (Parham, 1989).
© Robert T. Carter
Racial Identity - Transform scores
The use of raw scores as group
means for each status is a
mismatch with theory
For measurement to match theory
– raw scores must be
transformed (e.g., Carter,1996;
Helms 1996)
Researchers used raw score
group means and group level
data analyses because it was
the only option available – but
that no longer is the case.
7
© Robert T. Carter
The limits of Group Level
Analyses
 loss of valuable information
about individuals.
 The single scale does not
show a person’s internal racial
identity configuration – (i.e.,
how his/her statuses are
related to one another)
 And it does not show whether
particular configurations are
shared by other people in the
participant group.
8
© Robert T. Carter
The limits of Group Level Analyses
– conclusions and distractions
 Using raw group mean scale scores leads to
misinterpretations of the theory.
 For instance in a study examining Black
participants ratings of White vs. Black
counselors, the authors noted based on a
correlation analyses, “, we discovered evidence
of an anti-Black bias among high Preencounter African Americans…” (Want et al.,
2004).
 Did not study individuals just group means and
relations of status attitudes for groups not
people.
9
© Robert T. Carter
The limits of Group Level Analyses
– distractions and trends
 Other researcher’s have failed to
adequately capture the complexity
of theory.
 People using the Multidimensional
Model of Black Racial Identity MIBI (e.g., Sellers & Shelton, 2003) and
the CRIS Cross’ revised model (e.g.,
Cokley, 2002) also use group level
means.
 Helms models are applicable to all
racial groups not just Blacks and
assume that racial identity is part of
the personality while others models
(CRIS and MIBI) do not share that
assumption.
10
© Robert T. Carter
The limits of Group Level Analyses
– conclusions
 Not using individual level analysis has led some
researchers to become distracted by psychometric
issues.
 And to conclude that the theory and measures are of
little value.
 Conclusions drawn in the face of validity evidence
that the scales and theory work well.
 Researchers have repeatedly found
- even with raw group mean scores
- that racial identity status attitudes predicted
variables in directions suggested by theory.
11
© Robert T. Carter
Transforming Raw Scores: To Capture Theory
There are several ways to transform raw scores –
One is to use normative percentile scores
or
3 Types of Profiles
1) Strength of Endorsement
2) Criterion-Related Pattern
3) T- Score Cluster Profiles
All transformations compare scores to a reference group
or scales within a person
12
© Robert T. Carter
Comparing Raw and Transformed
(Percentiles) Scores

Summary White Racial Identity Raw Scores and Percentile Scale
Scores (Carter, 1996).
Cluster 1: Racial Discomfort
N = 185
Scale
Scale
Raw
Score
PI
32
R
R
31
D
Cluster 2: Racial Acceptance
N = 320
% tile
Scale
% tile
Scale
Raw
Score
85
PI
39
PI
90
D
80
A
36
C
50
30
PI
30
C
32
A
40
A
30
C
20
D
22
R
35
C
28
A
10
R
22
D
30
Note: C = Contact, D = Disintegration, R = Reintegration,
PI = Pseudo-Independence, A= Autonomy, n= 506
13
© Robert T. Carter
Strength of Endorsement Profiles
 Focuses on individual’s as opposed to group level
analysis.
 Compares pairs of statuses within each participant for
statistical significance –
 Shows which of the racial identity status attitudes are
more strongly endorsed in relationship to the other.
14
© Robert T. Carter
Strength of Endorsement Profiles – more
 For Contact and Disintegration statuses which does
the person endorse more strongly?
 People are grouped based on shared profile
configurations. The group may be comprised of one
person or many people.
 Once each pair of adjacent racial identity status
attitude scores are labeled according to comparative
strength of endorsement, racial identity profiles can
be generated for each participant.
15
© Robert T. Carter
See Carter, Helms, & Juby (2004) or Carter, Pieterse, & Smith (2008)
in JMCD for Creation of the Profiles

In short, standard error of difference points values are used
to assess whether an individual’s scale scores are
significantly different from one another.

Scales scores are compared to one another.
 The resulting Profile provides a representation of which
statuses are used as dominant, secondary, and what blends
exist in the processing of racial information for a person or
group with the same profile.
16
© Robert T. Carter
Example of Point Values for Determining
Significant Difference Between Subscale
Scores
Scale
Con
Dis
Rei
Pse
Aut
Contact (Con)
Disintegration (Dis)
7.72
Reintegration (Rei)
7.80
7.01
Psuedo-Independence (Pse)
8.22
7.83
8.08
Autonomy (Aut)
7.81
7.34
7.48
17
7.64
© Robert T. Carter
Profiles: Strength of Endorsement

The strength of endorsement of each status is determined
by examining the degree of difference between the statuses.
In calculating profiles there are about 1024 Black or 3125 possible
combinations for Whites or People of Color.
 Three levels of difference, reflecting the strength of endorsement.
 Equal – No Significant Difference
 Less than one standard error of difference (less than 8
pts)
 High – Comparison Exceeds Point Value (8 pts)
 At least one standard error of difference.
 Very High –Comparison Exceeds Twice the Point Value (15 pts)
18
 At least two standard errors of difference.
© Robert T. Carter
White Profiles and Racism
 Sample of 100 Whites, 50 male and 50 female
 Instruments
New Racism Scale.
 White Racial Identity Attitudes Scale (WRIAS).
 Top 6 profiles contained 65% of the sample.
 General Themes of the Profiles.
 A Contact and Pseudo-Independence blended profile was the most
frequently occurring profile (20%).
 The undifferentiated or flat profile was the second most frequently
occurring profile (15%).

19
© Robert T. Carter
Summary of Frequencies of Occurrence of
White Racial Identity Statuses
Comparison
CvD
DvR
R vP

PvA
AvC
F
%
C*
=
P
=
=
4
4.0
C*
=
P*
=
=
7
7.0
C
=
P
=
A
4
4.0
C
=
P
=
=
20
20.0
C
=
P
A
=
3
3.0
C
=
P*
=
A
4
4.0
C
=
P*
=
=
9
9.0
=
=
=
=
A
3
3.0
=
=
=
=
=
15
15.0
=
=
P
=
A
7
7.0
=
=
P
=
=
7
7.0
D
=
=
=
A
3
3.0
20

Note: N=100. Racial identity
subscale abbreviations are C
= Contact,
D = Disintegration, R =
Reintegration, P = Pseudo
Independence, A =
Autonomy; Higher subscales
scores are indicated by the
first letter of the subscale
names. Symbols are (within
one standard error), * (at
least two standard errors
difference). Frequencies of
less than 3 are not shown.
© Robert T. Carter
25 year old male: Racism Score = 18
Case Example
of Flat Profile +
High Racism
Score
20%
20%
Contact
Disintegration
Reintegration
Pseudo-Independence
20%
20%
Autonomy
20%
Scale
Raw
Score
Percentile
Strength
Portion of
ego status
Comment
Contact
33
60
Equal
20%
Contact equals Disintegration
Disintegration
33
90
Equal
20%
Disintegration equals
Reintegration
31
90
Equal
20%
Reintegration equals disintegration
PseudoIndependence
28
10
Equal
20%
Pseudo Independence equals Autonomy
Autonomy
29
10
Equal
20%
Autonomy equals Contact
21
© Robert T. Carter
18 year old male: Racism Score = 18
13.30%
30%
Contact
Disintegration
Reintegration
Pseudo-Independence
30%
Autonomy
13.30%
13.30%
Case Example
of a Blended
Profile + High
Racism Score
Percentile
Strength of
Endorseme
nt
Portion
of ego
status
Comment
38
90
High
30%
Contact is higher than Disintegration
Disintegration
26
55
Equal
13.3%
Disintegration is lower than Contact and
equals Reintegration
Reintegration
27
65
Equal
13.3%
Reintegration equals Disintegration
PseudoIndependence
39
85
High
30%
Pseudo Independence is higher than
Reintegration
Autonomy
38
60
Equal
13.3%
Autonomy equals Pseudo Independence
Scale
Raw
Score
Contact
22
© Robert T. Carter
19 year old female: Racism Score = 9
Case Example
of Blended
Profile Racism
10.00%
35%
Contact
Disintegration
Reintegration
35%
Pseudo-Independence
Autonomy
10.00%
10.00%
Scale
Raw
Score
Percentile
Strength
Portion
of ego
status
Comment
Contact
38
90
Very
High
35%
Contact is higher than Disintegration
Disintegration
18
10
Equal
10%
Disintegration equals Reintegration
Reintegration
16
10
Equal
10%
Reintegration equals Disintegration
and
PseudoIndependence
37
70
Very
High
35%
Pseudo Independence is higher than
Reintegration
Autonomy
43
90
Equal
10%
23
© Robert T. Carter
Black Profiles
 Sample of 112 Blacks male and female, mean age 26.
 General severity Index of SCL-90 Scores - Hi scores greater
psychological distress
 The analysis yielded a total of 25 profiles of Black Racial Identity.
 Top 7 profiles contained 76.1% of the sample.
 The general themes of the profiles:
 Undifferentiated profiles were the largest portion of the
sample (50%).
 The smaller profiles often contained one (13) or more
statuses (23.9%).
24
© Robert T. Carter
Summary of Frequencies of
Occurrence of Black
Racial Identity Profiles
Pre vs
Enc
Enc vs
Im
Im vs Int
Int vs Pre
F
%
=
=
=
=
56
50
=
=
=
Pre
6
5.4
=
=
Im
Pre
5
4.5
=
=
Im
Pre*
5
4.5
=
=
=
Int
5
4.5
Enc
=
=
=
4
3.6
Enc*
=
=
Int
4
3.6
Note: N=112; Racial identity subscale abbreviations are Pre = Pre-Encounter, Enc =Encounter,
Im = Immersion/Emersion, Int = Internalization. Symbols are = (within one standard error band),
(within two standard error bands), * (greater than two standards error bands. Profile frequencies
of less than 3 are not shown.
25
© Robert T. Carter
33 Year Old Male:
GSI Score = 69
Case Example
Undifferentiated
–
Profile+ High
GSI
Score
25%
25%
Pre-Encounter
Encounter
Immersion-Emersion
Internalization
25%
Scale
Raw
Score
Percentiles
Pre- encounter
33
40
Encounter
17
ImmersionEmersion
Internalization
26
Strength
25%
Portion of
Ego
Status
Comment
Equal
25%
Pre-encounter is equal to Encounter
50
Equal
25%
Encounter is equal to ImmersionEmersion
30
20
Equal
25%
Immersion-Emersion is equal to
Internalization
55
50
Equal
25%
Internalization is equal to Preencounter
© Robert T. Carter
34 Year Old Male
GSI Score = 59
23.23%
23.33%
Pre-Encounter
Encounter
Immersion-Emersion
Internalization
23.33%
30.00%
Scale
Case Example
Immersion-Emersion
Dominant Profile +
Moderate GSI Score
Raw
Score
Percentile
Strength
Portion
of ego
status
Preencounter
33
40
Equal
23.3%
Pre-encounter is equal to Internalization
and is equal to Encounter
Encounter
15
30
Equal
23.3%
Encounter is equal to Pre-encounter and is
equal to Immersion-Emersion
ImmersionEmersion
38
80
High
30%
Immersion-Emersion is equal to Encounter
and is Higher than Internalization
Internalization
63
90
Equal
23.3%
Internalization is equal to ImmersionEmersion and is equal to Pre-encounter
27
Comment
© Robert T. Carter
Case Example
Pre-encounter Dominant
Profile + Moderate GSI
Score
20 Year Old Male:
GSI Scroe = 53
23.33%
30%
Pre-Encounter
Encounter
Immersion-Emersion
Internalization
23.33%
23.33%
Scale
Raw
Score
Percentile
Strength
Portion of
ego
status
Comment
Pre- encounter
45
90
High
30%
Pre-encounter is higher than
Internalization and equals Encounter
Encounter
36
99
Equal
23.3%
Encounter is equal to Pre-Encounter
and equals Immersion-Emersion
ImmersionEmersion
36
60
Equal
23.3%
Immersion-Emersion is equal to
Internalization
Internalization
48
20
Equal
23.3%
Internalization is equal to ImmersionEmersion and Pre-Encounter is higher
28
© Robert T. Carter
Black Profiles Published Studies:
Anger Expression
 Carter, et al, (2008) found the Undifferentiated or “flat” profile followed by the
Immersion-Emersion dominant profile group were related to expressing or
controlling anger.
 The Undifferentiated profile group, where no dominant status is observed, is
meaningful. It occurs in other psychological measures such as the Strong
Interest Inventory.
 In an undifferentiated profile group, individuals may have different types of
influences from various statuses. As Illustrated in the examples.
 The undifferentiated profile group had higher anger-control scores in
comparison to the Immersion-Emersion dominant profile which had more
anger-out expression, a finding consistent with theory.
29
© Robert T. Carter
Black Profiles Published Studies:
Psychological Distress and Stress
 Pieterse & Carter (in press) found that for 340 Black American adults using
the contiguous comparison method, a total of 39 profile types were
generated.
 Subsequently five main profile groups emerged: Undifferentiated Profile
(47%), Internalization Dominant Profile (16%), Pre-Encounter Dominant
Profile ( 9%), Immersion-Emersion/Pre-Encounter Blend (8%), Immersion
Dominant Profile (6 %).
 Individuals within the Pre-Encounter or Pre-encounter/Immersion blend
profile groups had more psychological distress than people in the
Undifferentiated or Internalization dominant profile groups.
 Individuals within the Internalization Dominant profile group reported less
general life stress than any of the other profile groups.
30
© Robert T. Carter
Criterion-Related Pattern Profiles
 Criterion–related pattern profiles use multiple regression
analyses is with a dependent variable.
 It has two components.
 1) is the LEVEL OF RESPONSES or total scale mean score.
 2) The second is the PATTERN or the configuration of
predictor RIA scores. Both components of the criterionrelated profiles are used in subsequent regressions as
predictor variables.
31
© Robert T. Carter
The Profile Scores Pre (.29), Enc (.80) IEM (-.30) and INT (-.80)
RIA Predictors Patterns
90
80
70
60
Above
50
40
30
20
Distress
10
0
-10
-20
Below
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
-80
PRE
ENC
IEM
INT
T-Score Cluster Profile Groups
 Raw scores and be converted or transformed to Z-
scores and then to T-scores; T has a mean of 50
and a SD of 10 – which is easy to read.
 One can use K-means cluster analyses to form
groups based on the T-score groupings.
 Like Factor analyses you have to figure out what
each group represents
33
© Robert T. Carter
T-Score Profiles
Final Cluster Centers
Cluster
1
n= 94
2
n = 12
3
n= 69
4
n=45
PRET
46.04
64.77
49.00
67.28
42.52
49.53
56.89
55.91
47.77
44.28
56.77
59.08
54.05
34.21
50.40
48.30
ENCT
IEMT
INTT
34
© Robert T. Carter
Conclusion
 Measurement of racial identity should be conducted at
individual levels.
 The use of profile analysis allows researchers to observe
the multidimensional facets
 Profile analyses can also be used to guide and support an
individual’s understanding of him/herself as a racial being.
 Researchers are urged to attend to the complexity of racial
identity as proposed in the theory and demonstrated in the
instruments.
35
© Robert T. Carter
Conclusion and Summary
 Racial identity theory has evolved since the 1970.
 Research evidence supports the theory and scales
used to assess racial identity.
 Strategies like profile analysis
(Carter, Helms,& Juby, 2004)
will provide a way to explore the depth the complexity
of racial identity.
 Profiles analysis can be used in clinical applications
and treatment.
36
© Robert T. Carter