None

Article Critique

In the first half of the critique (objective analysis):

  • Are the title and abstract representative of the article?
  • Is the purpose of the article clear in the introduction?
  • Is all of the discussion relevant?
  • Have any ideas been over- or underemphasized in your opinion? What revisions would you suggest?
  • Should some sections of the manuscript be elaborated on, condensed, or omitted?
  • Are the author’s statements clear? Challenge ambiguous statements. Suggest by examples how clarity can be achieved, but do not merely substitute your style for the author’s.
  • What underlying assumptions does the author have?
  • Does the author or do the authors appear objective in the writing and discussion of the article?

In the second half of the critique (subjective analysis):

 

  • Why did you select this article to critique? What interested you about it?
  • After reading the article, what did you like and dislike about it?
  • Based on your understanding to date, what is the possible practical applicability of the article?

PSY 216 Milestone Two Guidelines and Rubric: Article Critique

Use the resources available on the Shapiro Library website to find an article from a relevant psychology journal to critique. Provide your choice to your instructor and ask any additional questions you have regarding this task after you have reviewed the main elements of the assignment, APA format guidelines, and the rubric. Expectations:

1. You are expected and required to use a minimum of three academic or peer-reviewed sources in your critique. The textbook can be one of those sources.

2. You are expected to demonstrate an academic level of writing. This means minimal grammatical and spelling errors and no use of abbreviated words (e.g., 24/7 as opposed to daily or thru in place of the correct through).

3. You are expected to demonstrate critical thinking abilities in writing this paper. Main Elements Part I of the Critique – Objective Analysis In your critique of the article, address the following questions:

1. Are the title and abstract representative of the article? 2. Is the purpose of the article clear in the introduction? 3. Is all of the discussion relevant?

3.1. Have any ideas been over- or underemphasized in your opinion? 3.2. What revisions would you suggest? 3.3. Should some sections of the manuscript be elaborated on, condensed, or omitted?

4. Are the author’s statements clear? 4.1. Challenge ambiguous statements. 4.2. Suggest by examples how clarity can be achieved; however, do not merely substitute your style for the author’s.

5. What underlying assumptions does the author have? 6. Does the author or do the authors appear objective in the article analysis and discussion?

Part II of the Critique – Subjective Analysis

1. Why did you select this article to critique? What aspect of personality theory interested you in the article? 2. After reading the article, what did you like and dislike about it? 3. Based on your understanding to date, what is the possible practical applicability of the article?

APA Format Guidelines Required APA Document Format:

 Font: Times New Roman font, size 12, black

 First page header “NAME: Title” (no bold, no underline)

 Spacing: double-spaced throughout: o In Word, click “Page Layout” -> click “Margins” -> select “Normal” o In Word, click “Page Layout” -> look for Indent and Spacing -> make sure that Left, Right, Before, and After all say “0” or “0 pt”

 Paragraphs: o Indent the first line of each paragraph. o Ensure that there are no extra lines between the paragraphs.

 Click “Enter” just once to start a new paragraph.

 Click “Tab” to indent the first line of the paragraph. APA Reference Format You are expected and required to use a minimum of three academic or peer-reviewed sources in your critique. The textbook can be one of those sources.

 In-text citation: (Shultz & Shultz, 2013)

 Reference: Shultz, D. P., & Shultz, S. E. (2013). Theories of personality (10th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

 If you want to mention the author/textbook but are not quoting the material (what you write is completely in your own words): According to Shultz and Shultz (2013), ______

 If you want to quote something (using the author’s exact words or paraphrasing) from the author/textbook: According to Shultz and Shultz (2013), ______ (p. xx).

 References on a separate page at the end of the critique

 Heading “References” centered (no bold, no underline)

Rubric Guidelines for Submission: Written components of the project must follow these formatting guidelines: double spacing, 12-point Times New Roman font, one- inch margins, and APA formatting including citations. A minimum of three academic or peer-reviewed sources must be cited in your critique. The textbook can be one of those sources. Instructor Feedback: This activity uses an integrated rubric in Blackboard. Students can view instructor feedback in the Grade Center. For more information, review these instructions.

Critical Elements Exemplary (100%) Proficient (85%) Needs Improvement (55%) Not Evident (0%) Value

Article Critique – Objective Analysis

Meets “Proficient” criteria substantiated with research

Critiques the key elements of the article explaining examples of bias or faulty reasoning found in the article

Critique of the key elements of the article explaining examples of bias or faulty reasoning found in the article is insufficient

Does not critique any of the key elements of the article

25

Article Critique – Subjective Analysis

Meets “Proficient” criteria substantiated with research to support rationale

Critiques the article based on the aspect of personality theory of interest, highlighting positive and negative aspects

Insufficiently critiques the article based on the aspect of personality theory of interest, highlighting positive and negative aspects

Does not critique the article based on the aspect of personality theory of interest

25

Integration of Theories of Personality

Meets “Proficient” criteria substantiated with rationale to support aspects of different personality theories

Integrates relevant aspects of different theories of personality

Minimally integrates relevant aspects of different theories of personality

Does not integrate relevant aspects of different theories of personality

25

Articulation of Response

Submission is free of errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, and organization, and is presented in a professional and easy-to- read format

Submission has no major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization

Submission has major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that negatively impact readability and articulation of main ideas

Submission has critical errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that prevent understanding of ideas

25

Earned Total 100%

http://snhu-media.snhu.edu/files/production_documentation/formatting/rubric_feedback_instructions_student.pdf

Racism at the Intersections: Gender and Socioeconomic Differences in the Experience of

Racism Among African Americans

Naa Oyo A. Kwate Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey

Melody S. Goodman Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine

Several studies investigating the health effects of racism have reported gender and socioeco- nomic differences in exposures to racism, with women typically reporting lower frequencies, and individuals with greater resources reporting higher frequencies. This study used diverse measures of socioeconomic position and multiple measures and methods to assess experienced racism. Socioeconomic position included education and financial and employment status. Quantitative racism measures assessed individual experiences with day-to-day and with major lifetime incidents and perceptions of the extent to which African Americans as a group experience racism. A brief qualitative question asked respondents to describe a racist incident that stood out in recent memory. Participants comprised a probability sample of N � 144 African American adults aged 19 to 87 residing in New York City. Results suggested that women reported fewer lifetime incidents but did not differ from men on everyday racism. These differences appear to be partly because of scale content. Socioeconomic position as measured by years of education was positively associated with reported racism in the total sample but differently patterned across gender; subjective social status showed a negative association. Qualitative responses describing memorable incidents fell into 5 key categories: resources/opportunity structures, criminal pro- filing, racial aggression/assault, interpersonal incivilities, and stereotyping. In these narratives, men were more likely to offer accounts involving criminal profiling, and women encountered incivilities more often. The findings highlight the need for closer attention to the intersection of gender and socioeconomic factors in investigations of the health effects of racism.

I n How to Read the Air (Mengestu, 2010), Jonas Wolde-mariam, a second generation Ethiopian immigrant, visits ahistorical site in the Midwestern United States. He is met by a security guard at the entrance, and is viewed with suspicion.

I play my role perfectly, standing nonchalantly while he takes his notes. I know that we’re all supposed to be wary these days, of strangers and strange bags and especially of strangers carrying strange bags, and I want to do my part in easing some of the collective tension

as best I can . . . I say and do nothing, however, hoping as I always do for the best—that perhaps he will find a measure of comfort in my prep-school uniform of khaki pants and dark blue shirt, of which I have a suitcase full . . .” pp. 121–122.

Jonas’ surveillance and racial scrutiny are inflected by his race, gender, nativity, and class—both real and perceived—and are contextualized by a social moment in which people are intensely concerned with the threat of terrorism. African Americans’ expe- rience with interpersonally mediated racism is fraught with the expenditure of psychological resources Jonas deploys to anticipate, decode, and cope with subtle subordination. Research has shown that this environment takes a toll; encounters with interpersonally mediated racism exact substantial health costs encompassing men- tal health, physical health, and health behaviors (Mays, Cochran, & Barnes, 2007; Paradies, 2006; Pascoe & Smart Richman, 2009; Williams & Mohammed, 2009). The scales used in these studies have been developed and validated with Black U.S. populations, but they may not have dealt as fully with sociodemographic inflections in the experience of racism, particularly with regard to gender and socioeconomic position.

Studies investigating the health effects of racism often find that women report less racism than men (Paradies, 2006), but the source of gender differences is unclear. A parsimonious explana-

Naa Oyo A. Kwate, Departments of Human Ecology and Africana Studies, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey; Melody S. Goodman, Division of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine.

This research was funded by the NIH Director’s New Innovator Award Program, Award DP2 OD006513 from the Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health or the National Institutes of Health.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Naa Oyo A. Kwate, Department of Human Ecology, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, 55 Dudley Road, Cook Office Building, New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8520. E-mail: [email protected]

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an Ps

yc ho

lo gi

ca l

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or on

e of

its al

lie d

pu bl

is he

rs .

T hi

s ar

tic le

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

American Journal of Orthopsychiatry © 2015 American Orthopsychiatric Association 2015, Vol. 85, No. 5, 397–408 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ort0000086

397

mailto:[email protected] http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ort0000086

tion is that men’s higher scores reflect actual differences in the prevalence of experienced racism. But also possible are measure- ment processes that tend to inflate men’s scores. Men may be more willing than women to respond affirmatively to questions about racism, despite equivalent experiences. Or, measures may empha- size incidents that men experience more frequently or that are gendered as male, making women less likely to endorse them. If so, measures of racism would fail to capture how racism is mod- ified by gender (Jackson, Phillips, Hogue, & Curry-Owens, 2001; Moradi & Subich, 2003). Black feminist scholarship tells us that Black women’s subordination lies in occupying “a position whereby the inferior half of a series of binaries converge” (Collins, 2000, p. 71). Goff and Kahn (2013) argue that experimental psychology has often not been invested in the intersection of race and gender in thinking through the construction of social identities, therefore undertheorizing the lived experience of individuals. To the extent that commonly used measures are less attentive to intersecting identities, observational studies may also leave critical gaps in our understanding of the experience of racism. For exam- ple, if the kinds of experiences that are found at the convergences that Collins (2000) articulates are underrepresented in measures, the scope of experiences that respondents are able to report is restricted, limiting our ability to assess racism’s impact on health. In one study, men endorsed more forms of racism, but associations with poor mental and physical health were stronger among women than in men—in some instances, the estimates for women were twice as high (Borrell et al., 2007).

Similarly, reports of racism vary by socioeconomic position, but associations are not consistent, and may be attributed at least in part to the nature of the questions in commonly used measures. A review of studies across multiracial and multiethnic samples re- vealed that self-reported racism is generally positively related to socioeconomic position (measured with income or education), though there are also inverse associations (Paradies, 2006). Sub- sequent studies have conveyed variation in associations between reported racism and socioeconomic position, depending on which domains are queried. For example, in one sample, middle- and low-income African American respondents differed little when asked about work and housing. However, high-income respon- dents were more likely to report incidents related to education and service, while low-income respondents were more likely to report incidents related to police and the courts (Williams et al., 2012). Brondolo et al. (2009) explicitly tested dimensions of individual- level socioeconomic position (income, education, occupational prestige, and assets) and neighborhood income as determinants of experienced racism among Black and Latino New York City residents. In both the total sample and Black subsample, socioeco- nomic position was not associated with overall lifetime discrimi- nation, but interaction effects revealed income to be inversely related to threat/harassment, and positively related to workplace discrimination. As well, individuals with low socioeconomic po- sition reported more discrimination over the past week.

Study Objectives We sought to test and tease apart gender and socioeconomic

differences in reports of racism. To do so, we used multiple measures and multiple methods. Studies reporting demographic differences tend to use only one measure to operationalize expe-

riences with racism, making it a challenge to tease out the source of observed disparities (Brondolo et al., 2009). We sought to improve extant work by including varied operationalizations of both constructs. In assessing experiences with racism, we used two measures each for interpersonally mediated everyday racism, and major lifetime racism. We also assessed beliefs about the preva- lence of racism in the lives of African Americans in general. Most studies of the health effects of racism include only quantitative self-report measures; only a few studies (e.g., see Rooks, Xu, Holliman, & Williams, 2011) include qualitative questions that plumb the kinds of racist experiences faced by Black women and men. Such data are useful in illuminating how scale content may operate across gender, and the potential mechanisms by which racism harms health. Thus, our research goals were to investigate with quantitative data the extent to which gender and socioeco- nomic position are associated with reports of racism; and, using brief qualitative reports, to conduct exploratory analyses of how Black women and men encounter racism, and whether gender differences emerge in brief narratives about racism.

Method

Sample and Study Design

Data were generated from The Black LIFE Study (Linking Inequality, Feelings and the Environment), a longitudinal investi- gation of the health effects of racism, and that took place in two predominantly Black New York City (NYC) neighborhoods. Data were collected between December 2011 and June 2013. N � 144 participants (52% female, with a mean age of 44.6) were recruited from a probability sample of African American residents in the two neighborhoods. Participants were randomly selected from randomly selected households, and eligible respondents were aged 18 or older, English speaking, self-identified as Black/African American, and grew up in the United States. Because other por- tions of the project involved blood draws, exclusion criteria were surgery or blood transfusions within the past 6 months. Overall response rates to initial recruitment across the two neighborhoods were 30–35%, reflecting difficulty in making household contact for screening; rates for successfully interviewing people were about 60% once a household was known to have an eligible person. Trained African American interviewers conducted face-to- face Computer-Assisted Personal Interviews (CAPI). Participants were followed for two additional visits: a 2-month follow up, which comprised a brief telephone interview; and a 1-year follow up, a second in-person CAPI that was somewhat shorter than that at baseline. The present analyses focus on quantitative self-reports from baseline, and qualitative short-answer responses from base- line and the 1-year follow-up.

Measures

Socioeconomic position comprised years of education, employ- ment status, financial strain, and subjective social status. Employ- ment status assessed whether participants were currently working (labeled fully employed); unemployed but had worked at some point during the prior year (partially employed); and unemployed over the course of the past year (unemployed). Financial strain was

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an Ps

yc ho

lo gi

ca l

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or on

e of

its al

lie d

pu bl

is he

rs .

T hi

s ar

tic le

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

398 KWATE AND GOODMAN

a 1-item measure that asked participants how comfortably their household lived on income received, whether they “always have enough money for the things you need,” “sometimes don’t have enough money,” or “often don’t have enough money.” Subjective social status was assessed with a commonly employed ladder (Adler, Epel, Castellazzo, & Ickovics, 2000), which asked respon- dents to indicate where they fell on a 10-rung ladder depicting social positions ranging from the least to best money, education, and jobs.

We assessed experiences with racism in different domains. Beliefs about the extent of racism faced by African Americans were measured with the Group Impact scale (Harrell, 1997); day- to-day experiences with racism and discrimination were assessed with the Everyday Discrimination Scale (Williams, Yu, Jackson, & Anderson, 1997) and the Racism and Life Experiences Scales (Harrell, 1997); referred to hereafter as Daily Life Experiences; and major lifetime experiences were assessed with the Experiences of Discrimination Scale (Krieger, Smith, Naishadham, Hartman, & Barbeau, 2005) and the Major Experiences of Discrimination Scale (Williams et al., 1997). At baseline, Cronbach’s alpha values were: .94 for Group Impact, .89 for Everyday Discrimination, .91 for Daily Life Experiences, .79 for Experiences of Discrimination, and .66 for Major Experiences of Discrimination.

Finally, participants gave open-ended descriptions of recent racist incidents. Because the extensive nature of the quantitative questionnaire precluded an in-depth interview on these experi- ences alone, respondents were asked, “We have been talking a lot about how frequently you encounter racism. Can you give me examples of some of the incidents that stick out in your recent memory? Describe what happened.” Participants gave responses ranging in length from a few sentences to a short paragraph. Though brief, several participants described in rich detail several racist incidents.

Analytic Plan

Quantitative analyses were weighted to take into account non- response and poststratification adjustments for age and gender and the stratified sampling design by neighborhood. Regression anal- yses for survey data with complex sampling designs were con- ducted using Stata MP/13.1; significance was assessed as p � .01, a conservative Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons. Weighted linear regression models for complex survey data were used to assess the impact of gender and socioeconomic position. For each of the five assessments of racism, we fit regression models where explanatory variables were age, gender, years of education, employment status, financial strain, and subjective so- cial status. Age, years of education, and subjective social status were modeled continuously; gender, financial strain, and employ- ment status were categorical.

Qualitative analyses were completed for the majority of the sample that articulated at least one racist incident in response to the open-ended question (22 people, 15% did not report any). Using an Excel worksheet, the first author organized and coded response content by identifying the settings, incidents, perpetrators, and reactions to the reported experiences, and then assigning category codes to all unique portions of responses to represent the full range of discussed material. The approach was inductive in nature, attempting to draw out the themes that characterized participant

responses with an eye on the kinds of experiences with racism that African Americans face in the United States. Analyses sought to faithfully describe important details and organize the data to reveal underlying patterns (Barg & Kauer, 2005; Brent & Slusarz, 2003). Initial readings of participant responses allowed a broad demarca- tion of the domains in which racism took place (e.g., in public space), and these were refined through subsequent readings to produce more precise descriptions (e.g., accessing resources). Us- ing a parsimonious set of categories that echoed scientific litera- ture and public discourse fostered accurate characterization of the breadth of participant experiences.

Responses were coded in their entirety, assigning multiple codes where appropriate. For example, if a respondent reported police harassment and poor restaurant service, both incidents were incor- porated in extracting common underlying themes. Narratives were analyzed in the aggregate, and were characterized by five under- lying themes: resources, criminal profiling, aggression/assault, in- civilities, and stereotyping.

Results

Descriptive Quantitative Results

Sample characteristics appear in Table 1. We first examined relationships among the set of measures assessing experiences with racism. Bivariate correlations (see Table 2) suggest that the measures of racism are related but not redundant; the two measures of lifetime major experiences were most highly correlated (r � .766).

Gender and Socioeconomic Position Differences

Table 3 shows reports of racism by gender and categorical measures of socioeconomic position across all measures at the baseline interview. Men scored higher, though differences were slight for some measures, and generally not statistically signifi- cant. Consistent patterning was not evident for financial strain; on some measures those with fewer resources had higher scores, and on others they had lower scores. To operationalize education categorically, we use receipt of a bachelor’s degree (yes/no). Studies investigating the health effects of racism have used other dichotomous or trichotomous categories such as some college, or high school diploma versus less than a high school degree (e.g., see Brondolo et al., 2009; Chae et al., 2014; Cunningham et al., 2012; Krieger, Kosheleva, Waterman, Chen, & Koenen, 2011). In the present sample, using a college degree as a cutpoint was more appropriate given the relatively high education levels, and allowed us to split the sample approximately in half. Those with a degree were higher on all scales save Major Discrimination. The differ- ences for the Experiences of Discrimination Scale, t(110) � �2.09, p � .04, the Daily Life Experiences, t(118) � �2.35, p � .02, and Group Impact, t(118) � �2.47, p � .02, were statistically significant. Employment status was also associated with reported racism; those who were fully employed reported the most, fol- lowed by those who were partially employed, and the lowest prevalence by those who were unemployed.

In Table 4 we look at gender differences across the nine do- mains comprising major lifetime events. Women were more likely

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an Ps

yc ho

lo gi

ca l

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or on

e of

its al

lie d

pu bl

is he

rs .

T hi

s ar

tic le

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

399GENDER, SEP, AND RACISM

to report having experienced discrimination in school settings, though the disparity differed across the two scales. Women were also more likely to experience discrimination in housing contexts, in stores, or with neighbors. Men gave higher levels of endorse- ment for all remaining experiences; marked differences were ev- ident for hiring/work, encounters with the police, and obtaining capital and medical care.

Primary Quantitative Results

We first investigated gender differences alone, conducting re- gression models that adjusted for age. As shown in Table 5, with men as the reference group, women reported 1.50 and 1.16 fewer incidents on the two measures of major lifetime discrimination, but no differences emerged on day-to-day discrimination or group impact. Weighted linear regressions modeling the impact of gender and socioeconomic position together show that the effects of these factors vary across measures (see Table 6). Controlling for socio- economic factors, gender was still associated with lifetime racism, though the effect was attenuated compared to the age-adjusted model. No gender differences emerged on either measure of day- to-day racism.

Controlling for gender, socioeconomic position was associated with both lifetime and day-to-day racism. Education was positively associated with lifetime racism, while subjective social status was inversely related. Each additional “rung” of social status was associated with approximately 1/3 of an incident less on the lifetime scales. Results differed on measures of day-to-day racism. Subjective social status was not associated, but years of edu-

cation were again positively related, though only on the Daily Life Experiences Scale. To further explore the variable associ- ations between socioeconomic position and reported racism, we graphed the association between both subjective social status and education and day-to-day racism. The negative association between perceived social rank and racism persisted for both men and women.

However, education had opposite effects across gender. We conducted an additional regression to assess the effect of an interaction between gender and education. With day-to-day racism as the outcome, and age, gender, years of education, and a gender- education interaction as explanatory variables, the interaction (b � .108, 95% CI � .105–.206) was statistically significant. As shown in Figure 1, for men, more years of education was associated with less frequent day-to-day racism; for women, more education car- ried a higher prevalence of racism.

Finally, men and women were similar in their ratings of the degree to which African Americans as a group experience racism. As with individual experiences, respondents with more years of education were more likely to declare racism is a problem for African Americans. As well, individuals under greater financial strain gave stronger ratings.

Qualitative Results

For some respondents, the incidents that were uppermost in their minds were racist injuries sustained during childhood or much earlier in life, including during the era of Jim Crow. For some younger respondents, childhood and early adolescence may not be

Table 1. Sample Characteristics

Men Women Total n � 69 n � 75 N � 144

Age 43.70 (17.10) 45.43 (15.95) 44.59 (16.48) Years of education 13.46 (2.77) 13.60 (3.13) 13.53 (2.95) Subjective social status 4.32 (1.80) 4.43 (1.69) 4.38 (1.74) Financial strain

Always has enough 35% 24% 29% Sometimes does not have enough 41% 53% 48% Often does not have enough 24% 23% 23%

Employment status Fully employed 54% 53% 53% Partially employed 23% 17% 20% Unemployed 23% 29% 26%

Bachelor’s degree Yes 62% 44% 53% No 38% 55% 47%

Table 2. Bivariate Correlations Among Measures

Experiences of discrimination

Major discrimination

Everyday discrimination

Daily life experiences

Group impact

 

"Are you looking for this answer? We can Help click Order Now"

Article Critique

In the first half of the critique (objective analysis):

  • Are the title and abstract representative of the article?
  • Is the purpose of the article clear in the introduction?
  • Is all of the discussion relevant?
  • Have any ideas been over- or underemphasized in your opinion? What revisions would you suggest?
  • Should some sections of the manuscript be elaborated on, condensed, or omitted?
  • Are the author’s statements clear? Challenge ambiguous statements. Suggest by examples how clarity can be achieved, but do not merely substitute your style for the author’s.
  • What underlying assumptions does the author have?
  • Does the author or do the authors appear objective in the writing and discussion of the article?

In the second half of the critique (subjective analysis):

 

  • Why did you select this article to critique? What interested you about it?
  • After reading the article, what did you like and dislike about it?
  • Based on your understanding to date, what is the possible practical applicability of the article?

PSY 216 Milestone Two Guidelines and Rubric: Article Critique

Use the resources available on the Shapiro Library website to find an article from a relevant psychology journal to critique. Provide your choice to your instructor and ask any additional questions you have regarding this task after you have reviewed the main elements of the assignment, APA format guidelines, and the rubric. Expectations:

1. You are expected and required to use a minimum of three academic or peer-reviewed sources in your critique. The textbook can be one of those sources.

2. You are expected to demonstrate an academic level of writing. This means minimal grammatical and spelling errors and no use of abbreviated words (e.g., 24/7 as opposed to daily or thru in place of the correct through).

3. You are expected to demonstrate critical thinking abilities in writing this paper. Main Elements Part I of the Critique – Objective Analysis In your critique of the article, address the following questions:

1. Are the title and abstract representative of the article? 2. Is the purpose of the article clear in the introduction? 3. Is all of the discussion relevant?

3.1. Have any ideas been over- or underemphasized in your opinion? 3.2. What revisions would you suggest? 3.3. Should some sections of the manuscript be elaborated on, condensed, or omitted?

4. Are the author’s statements clear? 4.1. Challenge ambiguous statements. 4.2. Suggest by examples how clarity can be achieved; however, do not merely substitute your style for the author’s.

5. What underlying assumptions does the author have? 6. Does the author or do the authors appear objective in the article analysis and discussion?

Part II of the Critique – Subjective Analysis

1. Why did you select this article to critique? What aspect of personality theory interested you in the article? 2. After reading the article, what did you like and dislike about it? 3. Based on your understanding to date, what is the possible practical applicability of the article?

APA Format Guidelines Required APA Document Format:

 Font: Times New Roman font, size 12, black

 First page header “NAME: Title” (no bold, no underline)

 Spacing: double-spaced throughout: o In Word, click “Page Layout” -> click “Margins” -> select “Normal” o In Word, click “Page Layout” -> look for Indent and Spacing -> make sure that Left, Right, Before, and After all say “0” or “0 pt”

 Paragraphs: o Indent the first line of each paragraph. o Ensure that there are no extra lines between the paragraphs.

 Click “Enter” just once to start a new paragraph.

 Click “Tab” to indent the first line of the paragraph. APA Reference Format You are expected and required to use a minimum of three academic or peer-reviewed sources in your critique. The textbook can be one of those sources.

 In-text citation: (Shultz & Shultz, 2013)

 Reference: Shultz, D. P., & Shultz, S. E. (2013). Theories of personality (10th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

 If you want to mention the author/textbook but are not quoting the material (what you write is completely in your own words): According to Shultz and Shultz (2013), ______

 If you want to quote something (using the author’s exact words or paraphrasing) from the author/textbook: According to Shultz and Shultz (2013), ______ (p. xx).

 References on a separate page at the end of the critique

 Heading “References” centered (no bold, no underline)

Rubric Guidelines for Submission: Written components of the project must follow these formatting guidelines: double spacing, 12-point Times New Roman font, one- inch margins, and APA formatting including citations. A minimum of three academic or peer-reviewed sources must be cited in your critique. The textbook can be one of those sources. Instructor Feedback: This activity uses an integrated rubric in Blackboard. Students can view instructor feedback in the Grade Center. For more information, review these instructions.

Critical Elements Exemplary (100%) Proficient (85%) Needs Improvement (55%) Not Evident (0%) Value

Article Critique – Objective Analysis

Meets “Proficient” criteria substantiated with research

Critiques the key elements of the article explaining examples of bias or faulty reasoning found in the article

Critique of the key elements of the article explaining examples of bias or faulty reasoning found in the article is insufficient

Does not critique any of the key elements of the article

25

Article Critique – Subjective Analysis

Meets “Proficient” criteria substantiated with research to support rationale

Critiques the article based on the aspect of personality theory of interest, highlighting positive and negative aspects

Insufficiently critiques the article based on the aspect of personality theory of interest, highlighting positive and negative aspects

Does not critique the article based on the aspect of personality theory of interest

25

Integration of Theories of Personality

Meets “Proficient” criteria substantiated with rationale to support aspects of different personality theories

Integrates relevant aspects of different theories of personality

Minimally integrates relevant aspects of different theories of personality

Does not integrate relevant aspects of different theories of personality

25

Articulation of Response

Submission is free of errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, and organization, and is presented in a professional and easy-to- read format

Submission has no major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization

Submission has major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that negatively impact readability and articulation of main ideas

Submission has critical errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that prevent understanding of ideas

25

Earned Total 100%

http://snhu-media.snhu.edu/files/production_documentation/formatting/rubric_feedback_instructions_student.pdf

Racism at the Intersections: Gender and Socioeconomic Differences in the Experience of

Racism Among African Americans

Naa Oyo A. Kwate Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey

Melody S. Goodman Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine

Several studies investigating the health effects of racism have reported gender and socioeco- nomic differences in exposures to racism, with women typically reporting lower frequencies, and individuals with greater resources reporting higher frequencies. This study used diverse measures of socioeconomic position and multiple measures and methods to assess experienced racism. Socioeconomic position included education and financial and employment status. Quantitative racism measures assessed individual experiences with day-to-day and with major lifetime incidents and perceptions of the extent to which African Americans as a group experience racism. A brief qualitative question asked respondents to describe a racist incident that stood out in recent memory. Participants comprised a probability sample of N � 144 African American adults aged 19 to 87 residing in New York City. Results suggested that women reported fewer lifetime incidents but did not differ from men on everyday racism. These differences appear to be partly because of scale content. Socioeconomic position as measured by years of education was positively associated with reported racism in the total sample but differently patterned across gender; subjective social status showed a negative association. Qualitative responses describing memorable incidents fell into 5 key categories: resources/opportunity structures, criminal pro- filing, racial aggression/assault, interpersonal incivilities, and stereotyping. In these narratives, men were more likely to offer accounts involving criminal profiling, and women encountered incivilities more often. The findings highlight the need for closer attention to the intersection of gender and socioeconomic factors in investigations of the health effects of racism.

I n How to Read the Air (Mengestu, 2010), Jonas Wolde-mariam, a second generation Ethiopian immigrant, visits ahistorical site in the Midwestern United States. He is met by a security guard at the entrance, and is viewed with suspicion.

I play my role perfectly, standing nonchalantly while he takes his notes. I know that we’re all supposed to be wary these days, of strangers and strange bags and especially of strangers carrying strange bags, and I want to do my part in easing some of the collective tension

as best I can . . . I say and do nothing, however, hoping as I always do for the best—that perhaps he will find a measure of comfort in my prep-school uniform of khaki pants and dark blue shirt, of which I have a suitcase full . . .” pp. 121–122.

Jonas’ surveillance and racial scrutiny are inflected by his race, gender, nativity, and class—both real and perceived—and are contextualized by a social moment in which people are intensely concerned with the threat of terrorism. African Americans’ expe- rience with interpersonally mediated racism is fraught with the expenditure of psychological resources Jonas deploys to anticipate, decode, and cope with subtle subordination. Research has shown that this environment takes a toll; encounters with interpersonally mediated racism exact substantial health costs encompassing men- tal health, physical health, and health behaviors (Mays, Cochran, & Barnes, 2007; Paradies, 2006; Pascoe & Smart Richman, 2009; Williams & Mohammed, 2009). The scales used in these studies have been developed and validated with Black U.S. populations, but they may not have dealt as fully with sociodemographic inflections in the experience of racism, particularly with regard to gender and socioeconomic position.

Studies investigating the health effects of racism often find that women report less racism than men (Paradies, 2006), but the source of gender differences is unclear. A parsimonious explana-

Naa Oyo A. Kwate, Departments of Human Ecology and Africana Studies, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey; Melody S. Goodman, Division of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine.

This research was funded by the NIH Director’s New Innovator Award Program, Award DP2 OD006513 from the Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health or the National Institutes of Health.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Naa Oyo A. Kwate, Department of Human Ecology, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, 55 Dudley Road, Cook Office Building, New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8520. E-mail: [email protected]

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an Ps

yc ho

lo gi

ca l

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or on

e of

its al

lie d

pu bl

is he

rs .

T hi

s ar

tic le

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

American Journal of Orthopsychiatry © 2015 American Orthopsychiatric Association 2015, Vol. 85, No. 5, 397–408 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ort0000086

397

mailto:[email protected] http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ort0000086

tion is that men’s higher scores reflect actual differences in the prevalence of experienced racism. But also possible are measure- ment processes that tend to inflate men’s scores. Men may be more willing than women to respond affirmatively to questions about racism, despite equivalent experiences. Or, measures may empha- size incidents that men experience more frequently or that are gendered as male, making women less likely to endorse them. If so, measures of racism would fail to capture how racism is mod- ified by gender (Jackson, Phillips, Hogue, & Curry-Owens, 2001; Moradi & Subich, 2003). Black feminist scholarship tells us that Black women’s subordination lies in occupying “a position whereby the inferior half of a series of binaries converge” (Collins, 2000, p. 71). Goff and Kahn (2013) argue that experimental psychology has often not been invested in the intersection of race and gender in thinking through the construction of social identities, therefore undertheorizing the lived experience of individuals. To the extent that commonly used measures are less attentive to intersecting identities, observational studies may also leave critical gaps in our understanding of the experience of racism. For exam- ple, if the kinds of experiences that are found at the convergences that Collins (2000) articulates are underrepresented in measures, the scope of experiences that respondents are able to report is restricted, limiting our ability to assess racism’s impact on health. In one study, men endorsed more forms of racism, but associations with poor mental and physical health were stronger among women than in men—in some instances, the estimates for women were twice as high (Borrell et al., 2007).

Similarly, reports of racism vary by socioeconomic position, but associations are not consistent, and may be attributed at least in part to the nature of the questions in commonly used measures. A review of studies across multiracial and multiethnic samples re- vealed that self-reported racism is generally positively related to socioeconomic position (measured with income or education), though there are also inverse associations (Paradies, 2006). Sub- sequent studies have conveyed variation in associations between reported racism and socioeconomic position, depending on which domains are queried. For example, in one sample, middle- and low-income African American respondents differed little when asked about work and housing. However, high-income respon- dents were more likely to report incidents related to education and service, while low-income respondents were more likely to report incidents related to police and the courts (Williams et al., 2012). Brondolo et al. (2009) explicitly tested dimensions of individual- level socioeconomic position (income, education, occupational prestige, and assets) and neighborhood income as determinants of experienced racism among Black and Latino New York City residents. In both the total sample and Black subsample, socioeco- nomic position was not associated with overall lifetime discrimi- nation, but interaction effects revealed income to be inversely related to threat/harassment, and positively related to workplace discrimination. As well, individuals with low socioeconomic po- sition reported more discrimination over the past week.

Study Objectives We sought to test and tease apart gender and socioeconomic

differences in reports of racism. To do so, we used multiple measures and multiple methods. Studies reporting demographic differences tend to use only one measure to operationalize expe-

riences with racism, making it a challenge to tease out the source of observed disparities (Brondolo et al., 2009). We sought to improve extant work by including varied operationalizations of both constructs. In assessing experiences with racism, we used two measures each for interpersonally mediated everyday racism, and major lifetime racism. We also assessed beliefs about the preva- lence of racism in the lives of African Americans in general. Most studies of the health effects of racism include only quantitative self-report measures; only a few studies (e.g., see Rooks, Xu, Holliman, & Williams, 2011) include qualitative questions that plumb the kinds of racist experiences faced by Black women and men. Such data are useful in illuminating how scale content may operate across gender, and the potential mechanisms by which racism harms health. Thus, our research goals were to investigate with quantitative data the extent to which gender and socioeco- nomic position are associated with reports of racism; and, using brief qualitative reports, to conduct exploratory analyses of how Black women and men encounter racism, and whether gender differences emerge in brief narratives about racism.

Method

Sample and Study Design

Data were generated from The Black LIFE Study (Linking Inequality, Feelings and the Environment), a longitudinal investi- gation of the health effects of racism, and that took place in two predominantly Black New York City (NYC) neighborhoods. Data were collected between December 2011 and June 2013. N � 144 participants (52% female, with a mean age of 44.6) were recruited from a probability sample of African American residents in the two neighborhoods. Participants were randomly selected from randomly selected households, and eligible respondents were aged 18 or older, English speaking, self-identified as Black/African American, and grew up in the United States. Because other por- tions of the project involved blood draws, exclusion criteria were surgery or blood transfusions within the past 6 months. Overall response rates to initial recruitment across the two neighborhoods were 30–35%, reflecting difficulty in making household contact for screening; rates for successfully interviewing people were about 60% once a household was known to have an eligible person. Trained African American interviewers conducted face-to- face Computer-Assisted Personal Interviews (CAPI). Participants were followed for two additional visits: a 2-month follow up, which comprised a brief telephone interview; and a 1-year follow up, a second in-person CAPI that was somewhat shorter than that at baseline. The present analyses focus on quantitative self-reports from baseline, and qualitative short-answer responses from base- line and the 1-year follow-up.

Measures

Socioeconomic position comprised years of education, employ- ment status, financial strain, and subjective social status. Employ- ment status assessed whether participants were currently working (labeled fully employed); unemployed but had worked at some point during the prior year (partially employed); and unemployed over the course of the past year (unemployed). Financial strain was

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an Ps

yc ho

lo gi

ca l

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or on

e of

its al

lie d

pu bl

is he

rs .

T hi

s ar

tic le

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

398 KWATE AND GOODMAN

a 1-item measure that asked participants how comfortably their household lived on income received, whether they “always have enough money for the things you need,” “sometimes don’t have enough money,” or “often don’t have enough money.” Subjective social status was assessed with a commonly employed ladder (Adler, Epel, Castellazzo, & Ickovics, 2000), which asked respon- dents to indicate where they fell on a 10-rung ladder depicting social positions ranging from the least to best money, education, and jobs.

We assessed experiences with racism in different domains. Beliefs about the extent of racism faced by African Americans were measured with the Group Impact scale (Harrell, 1997); day- to-day experiences with racism and discrimination were assessed with the Everyday Discrimination Scale (Williams, Yu, Jackson, & Anderson, 1997) and the Racism and Life Experiences Scales (Harrell, 1997); referred to hereafter as Daily Life Experiences; and major lifetime experiences were assessed with the Experiences of Discrimination Scale (Krieger, Smith, Naishadham, Hartman, & Barbeau, 2005) and the Major Experiences of Discrimination Scale (Williams et al., 1997). At baseline, Cronbach’s alpha values were: .94 for Group Impact, .89 for Everyday Discrimination, .91 for Daily Life Experiences, .79 for Experiences of Discrimination, and .66 for Major Experiences of Discrimination.

Finally, participants gave open-ended descriptions of recent racist incidents. Because the extensive nature of the quantitative questionnaire precluded an in-depth interview on these experi- ences alone, respondents were asked, “We have been talking a lot about how frequently you encounter racism. Can you give me examples of some of the incidents that stick out in your recent memory? Describe what happened.” Participants gave responses ranging in length from a few sentences to a short paragraph. Though brief, several participants described in rich detail several racist incidents.

Analytic Plan

Quantitative analyses were weighted to take into account non- response and poststratification adjustments for age and gender and the stratified sampling design by neighborhood. Regression anal- yses for survey data with complex sampling designs were con- ducted using Stata MP/13.1; significance was assessed as p � .01, a conservative Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons. Weighted linear regression models for complex survey data were used to assess the impact of gender and socioeconomic position. For each of the five assessments of racism, we fit regression models where explanatory variables were age, gender, years of education, employment status, financial strain, and subjective so- cial status. Age, years of education, and subjective social status were modeled continuously; gender, financial strain, and employ- ment status were categorical.

Qualitative analyses were completed for the majority of the sample that articulated at least one racist incident in response to the open-ended question (22 people, 15% did not report any). Using an Excel worksheet, the first author organized and coded response content by identifying the settings, incidents, perpetrators, and reactions to the reported experiences, and then assigning category codes to all unique portions of responses to represent the full range of discussed material. The approach was inductive in nature, attempting to draw out the themes that characterized participant

responses with an eye on the kinds of experiences with racism that African Americans face in the United States. Analyses sought to faithfully describe important details and organize the data to reveal underlying patterns (Barg & Kauer, 2005; Brent & Slusarz, 2003). Initial readings of participant responses allowed a broad demarca- tion of the domains in which racism took place (e.g., in public space), and these were refined through subsequent readings to produce more precise descriptions (e.g., accessing resources). Us- ing a parsimonious set of categories that echoed scientific litera- ture and public discourse fostered accurate characterization of the breadth of participant experiences.

Responses were coded in their entirety, assigning multiple codes where appropriate. For example, if a respondent reported police harassment and poor restaurant service, both incidents were incor- porated in extracting common underlying themes. Narratives were analyzed in the aggregate, and were characterized by five under- lying themes: resources, criminal profiling, aggression/assault, in- civilities, and stereotyping.

Results

Descriptive Quantitative Results

Sample characteristics appear in Table 1. We first examined relationships among the set of measures assessing experiences with racism. Bivariate correlations (see Table 2) suggest that the measures of racism are related but not redundant; the two measures of lifetime major experiences were most highly correlated (r � .766).

Gender and Socioeconomic Position Differences

Table 3 shows reports of racism by gender and categorical measures of socioeconomic position across all measures at the baseline interview. Men scored higher, though differences were slight for some measures, and generally not statistically signifi- cant. Consistent patterning was not evident for financial strain; on some measures those with fewer resources had higher scores, and on others they had lower scores. To operationalize education categorically, we use receipt of a bachelor’s degree (yes/no). Studies investigating the health effects of racism have used other dichotomous or trichotomous categories such as some college, or high school diploma versus less than a high school degree (e.g., see Brondolo et al., 2009; Chae et al., 2014; Cunningham et al., 2012; Krieger, Kosheleva, Waterman, Chen, & Koenen, 2011). In the present sample, using a college degree as a cutpoint was more appropriate given the relatively high education levels, and allowed us to split the sample approximately in half. Those with a degree were higher on all scales save Major Discrimination. The differ- ences for the Experiences of Discrimination Scale, t(110) � �2.09, p � .04, the Daily Life Experiences, t(118) � �2.35, p � .02, and Group Impact, t(118) � �2.47, p � .02, were statistically significant. Employment status was also associated with reported racism; those who were fully employed reported the most, fol- lowed by those who were partially employed, and the lowest prevalence by those who were unemployed.

In Table 4 we look at gender differences across the nine do- mains comprising major lifetime events. Women were more likely

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an Ps

yc ho

lo gi

ca l

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or on

e of

its al

lie d

pu bl

is he

rs .

T hi

s ar

tic le

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

399GENDER, SEP, AND RACISM

to report having experienced discrimination in school settings, though the disparity differed across the two scales. Women were also more likely to experience discrimination in housing contexts, in stores, or with neighbors. Men gave higher levels of endorse- ment for all remaining experiences; marked differences were ev- ident for hiring/work, encounters with the police, and obtaining capital and medical care.

Primary Quantitative Results

We first investigated gender differences alone, conducting re- gression models that adjusted for age. As shown in Table 5, with men as the reference group, women reported 1.50 and 1.16 fewer incidents on the two measures of major lifetime discrimination, but no differences emerged on day-to-day discrimination or group impact. Weighted linear regressions modeling the impact of gender and socioeconomic position together show that the effects of these factors vary across measures (see Table 6). Controlling for socio- economic factors, gender was still associated with lifetime racism, though the effect was attenuated compared to the age-adjusted model. No gender differences emerged on either measure of day- to-day racism.

Controlling for gender, socioeconomic position was associated with both lifetime and day-to-day racism. Education was positively associated with lifetime racism, while subjective social status was inversely related. Each additional “rung” of social status was associated with approximately 1/3 of an incident less on the lifetime scales. Results differed on measures of day-to-day racism. Subjective social status was not associated, but years of edu-

cation were again positively related, though only on the Daily Life Experiences Scale. To further explore the variable associ- ations between socioeconomic position and reported racism, we graphed the association between both subjective social status and education and day-to-day racism. The negative association between perceived social rank and racism persisted for both men and women.

However, education had opposite effects across gender. We conducted an additional regression to assess the effect of an interaction between gender and education. With day-to-day racism as the outcome, and age, gender, years of education, and a gender- education interaction as explanatory variables, the interaction (b � .108, 95% CI � .105–.206) was statistically significant. As shown in Figure 1, for men, more years of education was associated with less frequent day-to-day racism; for women, more education car- ried a higher prevalence of racism.

Finally, men and women were similar in their ratings of the degree to which African Americans as a group experience racism. As with individual experiences, respondents with more years of education were more likely to declare racism is a problem for African Americans. As well, individuals under greater financial strain gave stronger ratings.

Qualitative Results

For some respondents, the incidents that were uppermost in their minds were racist injuries sustained during childhood or much earlier in life, including during the era of Jim Crow. For some younger respondents, childhood and early adolescence may not be

Table 1. Sample Characteristics

Men Women Total n � 69 n � 75 N � 144

Age 43.70 (17.10) 45.43 (15.95) 44.59 (16.48) Years of education 13.46 (2.77) 13.60 (3.13) 13.53 (2.95) Subjective social status 4.32 (1.80) 4.43 (1.69) 4.38 (1.74) Financial strain

Always has enough 35% 24% 29% Sometimes does not have enough 41% 53% 48% Often does not have enough 24% 23% 23%

Employment status Fully employed 54% 53% 53% Partially employed 23% 17% 20% Unemployed 23% 29% 26%

Bachelor’s degree Yes 62% 44% 53% No 38% 55% 47%

Table 2. Bivariate Correlations Among Measures

Experiences of discrimination

Major discrimination

Everyday discrimination

Daily life experiences

Group impact

 

"Are you looking for this answer? We can Help click Order Now"

Article Critique

In the first half of the critique (objective analysis):

  • Are the title and abstract representative of the article?
  • Is the purpose of the article clear in the introduction?
  • Is all of the discussion relevant?
  • Have any ideas been over- or underemphasized in your opinion? What revisions would you suggest?
  • Should some sections of the manuscript be elaborated on, condensed, or omitted?
  • Are the author’s statements clear? Challenge ambiguous statements. Suggest by examples how clarity can be achieved, but do not merely substitute your style for the author’s.
  • What underlying assumptions does the author have?
  • Does the author or do the authors appear objective in the writing and discussion of the article?

In the second half of the critique (subjective analysis):

 

  • Why did you select this article to critique? What interested you about it?
  • After reading the article, what did you like and dislike about it?
  • Based on your understanding to date, what is the possible practical applicability of the article?

PSY 216 Milestone Two Guidelines and Rubric: Article Critique

Use the resources available on the Shapiro Library website to find an article from a relevant psychology journal to critique. Provide your choice to your instructor and ask any additional questions you have regarding this task after you have reviewed the main elements of the assignment, APA format guidelines, and the rubric. Expectations:

1. You are expected and required to use a minimum of three academic or peer-reviewed sources in your critique. The textbook can be one of those sources.

2. You are expected to demonstrate an academic level of writing. This means minimal grammatical and spelling errors and no use of abbreviated words (e.g., 24/7 as opposed to daily or thru in place of the correct through).

3. You are expected to demonstrate critical thinking abilities in writing this paper. Main Elements Part I of the Critique – Objective Analysis In your critique of the article, address the following questions:

1. Are the title and abstract representative of the article? 2. Is the purpose of the article clear in the introduction? 3. Is all of the discussion relevant?

3.1. Have any ideas been over- or underemphasized in your opinion? 3.2. What revisions would you suggest? 3.3. Should some sections of the manuscript be elaborated on, condensed, or omitted?

4. Are the author’s statements clear? 4.1. Challenge ambiguous statements. 4.2. Suggest by examples how clarity can be achieved; however, do not merely substitute your style for the author’s.

5. What underlying assumptions does the author have? 6. Does the author or do the authors appear objective in the article analysis and discussion?

Part II of the Critique – Subjective Analysis

1. Why did you select this article to critique? What aspect of personality theory interested you in the article? 2. After reading the article, what did you like and dislike about it? 3. Based on your understanding to date, what is the possible practical applicability of the article?

APA Format Guidelines Required APA Document Format:

 Font: Times New Roman font, size 12, black

 First page header “NAME: Title” (no bold, no underline)

 Spacing: double-spaced throughout: o In Word, click “Page Layout” -> click “Margins” -> select “Normal” o In Word, click “Page Layout” -> look for Indent and Spacing -> make sure that Left, Right, Before, and After all say “0” or “0 pt”

 Paragraphs: o Indent the first line of each paragraph. o Ensure that there are no extra lines between the paragraphs.

 Click “Enter” just once to start a new paragraph.

 Click “Tab” to indent the first line of the paragraph. APA Reference Format You are expected and required to use a minimum of three academic or peer-reviewed sources in your critique. The textbook can be one of those sources.

 In-text citation: (Shultz & Shultz, 2013)

 Reference: Shultz, D. P., & Shultz, S. E. (2013). Theories of personality (10th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

 If you want to mention the author/textbook but are not quoting the material (what you write is completely in your own words): According to Shultz and Shultz (2013), ______

 If you want to quote something (using the author’s exact words or paraphrasing) from the author/textbook: According to Shultz and Shultz (2013), ______ (p. xx).

 References on a separate page at the end of the critique

 Heading “References” centered (no bold, no underline)

Rubric Guidelines for Submission: Written components of the project must follow these formatting guidelines: double spacing, 12-point Times New Roman font, one- inch margins, and APA formatting including citations. A minimum of three academic or peer-reviewed sources must be cited in your critique. The textbook can be one of those sources. Instructor Feedback: This activity uses an integrated rubric in Blackboard. Students can view instructor feedback in the Grade Center. For more information, review these instructions.

Critical Elements Exemplary (100%) Proficient (85%) Needs Improvement (55%) Not Evident (0%) Value

Article Critique – Objective Analysis

Meets “Proficient” criteria substantiated with research

Critiques the key elements of the article explaining examples of bias or faulty reasoning found in the article

Critique of the key elements of the article explaining examples of bias or faulty reasoning found in the article is insufficient

Does not critique any of the key elements of the article

25

Article Critique – Subjective Analysis

Meets “Proficient” criteria substantiated with research to support rationale

Critiques the article based on the aspect of personality theory of interest, highlighting positive and negative aspects

Insufficiently critiques the article based on the aspect of personality theory of interest, highlighting positive and negative aspects

Does not critique the article based on the aspect of personality theory of interest

25

Integration of Theories of Personality

Meets “Proficient” criteria substantiated with rationale to support aspects of different personality theories

Integrates relevant aspects of different theories of personality

Minimally integrates relevant aspects of different theories of personality

Does not integrate relevant aspects of different theories of personality

25

Articulation of Response

Submission is free of errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, and organization, and is presented in a professional and easy-to- read format

Submission has no major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization

Submission has major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that negatively impact readability and articulation of main ideas

Submission has critical errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that prevent understanding of ideas

25

Earned Total 100%

http://snhu-media.snhu.edu/files/production_documentation/formatting/rubric_feedback_instructions_student.pdf

Racism at the Intersections: Gender and Socioeconomic Differences in the Experience of

Racism Among African Americans

Naa Oyo A. Kwate Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey

Melody S. Goodman Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine

Several studies investigating the health effects of racism have reported gender and socioeco- nomic differences in exposures to racism, with women typically reporting lower frequencies, and individuals with greater resources reporting higher frequencies. This study used diverse measures of socioeconomic position and multiple measures and methods to assess experienced racism. Socioeconomic position included education and financial and employment status. Quantitative racism measures assessed individual experiences with day-to-day and with major lifetime incidents and perceptions of the extent to which African Americans as a group experience racism. A brief qualitative question asked respondents to describe a racist incident that stood out in recent memory. Participants comprised a probability sample of N � 144 African American adults aged 19 to 87 residing in New York City. Results suggested that women reported fewer lifetime incidents but did not differ from men on everyday racism. These differences appear to be partly because of scale content. Socioeconomic position as measured by years of education was positively associated with reported racism in the total sample but differently patterned across gender; subjective social status showed a negative association. Qualitative responses describing memorable incidents fell into 5 key categories: resources/opportunity structures, criminal pro- filing, racial aggression/assault, interpersonal incivilities, and stereotyping. In these narratives, men were more likely to offer accounts involving criminal profiling, and women encountered incivilities more often. The findings highlight the need for closer attention to the intersection of gender and socioeconomic factors in investigations of the health effects of racism.

I n How to Read the Air (Mengestu, 2010), Jonas Wolde-mariam, a second generation Ethiopian immigrant, visits ahistorical site in the Midwestern United States. He is met by a security guard at the entrance, and is viewed with suspicion.

I play my role perfectly, standing nonchalantly while he takes his notes. I know that we’re all supposed to be wary these days, of strangers and strange bags and especially of strangers carrying strange bags, and I want to do my part in easing some of the collective tension

as best I can . . . I say and do nothing, however, hoping as I always do for the best—that perhaps he will find a measure of comfort in my prep-school uniform of khaki pants and dark blue shirt, of which I have a suitcase full . . .” pp. 121–122.

Jonas’ surveillance and racial scrutiny are inflected by his race, gender, nativity, and class—both real and perceived—and are contextualized by a social moment in which people are intensely concerned with the threat of terrorism. African Americans’ expe- rience with interpersonally mediated racism is fraught with the expenditure of psychological resources Jonas deploys to anticipate, decode, and cope with subtle subordination. Research has shown that this environment takes a toll; encounters with interpersonally mediated racism exact substantial health costs encompassing men- tal health, physical health, and health behaviors (Mays, Cochran, & Barnes, 2007; Paradies, 2006; Pascoe & Smart Richman, 2009; Williams & Mohammed, 2009). The scales used in these studies have been developed and validated with Black U.S. populations, but they may not have dealt as fully with sociodemographic inflections in the experience of racism, particularly with regard to gender and socioeconomic position.

Studies investigating the health effects of racism often find that women report less racism than men (Paradies, 2006), but the source of gender differences is unclear. A parsimonious explana-

Naa Oyo A. Kwate, Departments of Human Ecology and Africana Studies, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey; Melody S. Goodman, Division of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine.

This research was funded by the NIH Director’s New Innovator Award Program, Award DP2 OD006513 from the Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health or the National Institutes of Health.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Naa Oyo A. Kwate, Department of Human Ecology, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, 55 Dudley Road, Cook Office Building, New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8520. E-mail: [email protected]

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an Ps

yc ho

lo gi

ca l

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or on

e of

its al

lie d

pu bl

is he

rs .

T hi

s ar

tic le

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

American Journal of Orthopsychiatry © 2015 American Orthopsychiatric Association 2015, Vol. 85, No. 5, 397–408 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ort0000086

397

mailto:[email protected] http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ort0000086

tion is that men’s higher scores reflect actual differences in the prevalence of experienced racism. But also possible are measure- ment processes that tend to inflate men’s scores. Men may be more willing than women to respond affirmatively to questions about racism, despite equivalent experiences. Or, measures may empha- size incidents that men experience more frequently or that are gendered as male, making women less likely to endorse them. If so, measures of racism would fail to capture how racism is mod- ified by gender (Jackson, Phillips, Hogue, & Curry-Owens, 2001; Moradi & Subich, 2003). Black feminist scholarship tells us that Black women’s subordination lies in occupying “a position whereby the inferior half of a series of binaries converge” (Collins, 2000, p. 71). Goff and Kahn (2013) argue that experimental psychology has often not been invested in the intersection of race and gender in thinking through the construction of social identities, therefore undertheorizing the lived experience of individuals. To the extent that commonly used measures are less attentive to intersecting identities, observational studies may also leave critical gaps in our understanding of the experience of racism. For exam- ple, if the kinds of experiences that are found at the convergences that Collins (2000) articulates are underrepresented in measures, the scope of experiences that respondents are able to report is restricted, limiting our ability to assess racism’s impact on health. In one study, men endorsed more forms of racism, but associations with poor mental and physical health were stronger among women than in men—in some instances, the estimates for women were twice as high (Borrell et al., 2007).

Similarly, reports of racism vary by socioeconomic position, but associations are not consistent, and may be attributed at least in part to the nature of the questions in commonly used measures. A review of studies across multiracial and multiethnic samples re- vealed that self-reported racism is generally positively related to socioeconomic position (measured with income or education), though there are also inverse associations (Paradies, 2006). Sub- sequent studies have conveyed variation in associations between reported racism and socioeconomic position, depending on which domains are queried. For example, in one sample, middle- and low-income African American respondents differed little when asked about work and housing. However, high-income respon- dents were more likely to report incidents related to education and service, while low-income respondents were more likely to report incidents related to police and the courts (Williams et al., 2012). Brondolo et al. (2009) explicitly tested dimensions of individual- level socioeconomic position (income, education, occupational prestige, and assets) and neighborhood income as determinants of experienced racism among Black and Latino New York City residents. In both the total sample and Black subsample, socioeco- nomic position was not associated with overall lifetime discrimi- nation, but interaction effects revealed income to be inversely related to threat/harassment, and positively related to workplace discrimination. As well, individuals with low socioeconomic po- sition reported more discrimination over the past week.

Study Objectives We sought to test and tease apart gender and socioeconomic

differences in reports of racism. To do so, we used multiple measures and multiple methods. Studies reporting demographic differences tend to use only one measure to operationalize expe-

riences with racism, making it a challenge to tease out the source of observed disparities (Brondolo et al., 2009). We sought to improve extant work by including varied operationalizations of both constructs. In assessing experiences with racism, we used two measures each for interpersonally mediated everyday racism, and major lifetime racism. We also assessed beliefs about the preva- lence of racism in the lives of African Americans in general. Most studies of the health effects of racism include only quantitative self-report measures; only a few studies (e.g., see Rooks, Xu, Holliman, & Williams, 2011) include qualitative questions that plumb the kinds of racist experiences faced by Black women and men. Such data are useful in illuminating how scale content may operate across gender, and the potential mechanisms by which racism harms health. Thus, our research goals were to investigate with quantitative data the extent to which gender and socioeco- nomic position are associated with reports of racism; and, using brief qualitative reports, to conduct exploratory analyses of how Black women and men encounter racism, and whether gender differences emerge in brief narratives about racism.

Method

Sample and Study Design

Data were generated from The Black LIFE Study (Linking Inequality, Feelings and the Environment), a longitudinal investi- gation of the health effects of racism, and that took place in two predominantly Black New York City (NYC) neighborhoods. Data were collected between December 2011 and June 2013. N � 144 participants (52% female, with a mean age of 44.6) were recruited from a probability sample of African American residents in the two neighborhoods. Participants were randomly selected from randomly selected households, and eligible respondents were aged 18 or older, English speaking, self-identified as Black/African American, and grew up in the United States. Because other por- tions of the project involved blood draws, exclusion criteria were surgery or blood transfusions within the past 6 months. Overall response rates to initial recruitment across the two neighborhoods were 30–35%, reflecting difficulty in making household contact for screening; rates for successfully interviewing people were about 60% once a household was known to have an eligible person. Trained African American interviewers conducted face-to- face Computer-Assisted Personal Interviews (CAPI). Participants were followed for two additional visits: a 2-month follow up, which comprised a brief telephone interview; and a 1-year follow up, a second in-person CAPI that was somewhat shorter than that at baseline. The present analyses focus on quantitative self-reports from baseline, and qualitative short-answer responses from base- line and the 1-year follow-up.

Measures

Socioeconomic position comprised years of education, employ- ment status, financial strain, and subjective social status. Employ- ment status assessed whether participants were currently working (labeled fully employed); unemployed but had worked at some point during the prior year (partially employed); and unemployed over the course of the past year (unemployed). Financial strain was

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an Ps

yc ho

lo gi

ca l

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or on

e of

its al

lie d

pu bl

is he

rs .

T hi

s ar

tic le

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

398 KWATE AND GOODMAN

a 1-item measure that asked participants how comfortably their household lived on income received, whether they “always have enough money for the things you need,” “sometimes don’t have enough money,” or “often don’t have enough money.” Subjective social status was assessed with a commonly employed ladder (Adler, Epel, Castellazzo, & Ickovics, 2000), which asked respon- dents to indicate where they fell on a 10-rung ladder depicting social positions ranging from the least to best money, education, and jobs.

We assessed experiences with racism in different domains. Beliefs about the extent of racism faced by African Americans were measured with the Group Impact scale (Harrell, 1997); day- to-day experiences with racism and discrimination were assessed with the Everyday Discrimination Scale (Williams, Yu, Jackson, & Anderson, 1997) and the Racism and Life Experiences Scales (Harrell, 1997); referred to hereafter as Daily Life Experiences; and major lifetime experiences were assessed with the Experiences of Discrimination Scale (Krieger, Smith, Naishadham, Hartman, & Barbeau, 2005) and the Major Experiences of Discrimination Scale (Williams et al., 1997). At baseline, Cronbach’s alpha values were: .94 for Group Impact, .89 for Everyday Discrimination, .91 for Daily Life Experiences, .79 for Experiences of Discrimination, and .66 for Major Experiences of Discrimination.

Finally, participants gave open-ended descriptions of recent racist incidents. Because the extensive nature of the quantitative questionnaire precluded an in-depth interview on these experi- ences alone, respondents were asked, “We have been talking a lot about how frequently you encounter racism. Can you give me examples of some of the incidents that stick out in your recent memory? Describe what happened.” Participants gave responses ranging in length from a few sentences to a short paragraph. Though brief, several participants described in rich detail several racist incidents.

Analytic Plan

Quantitative analyses were weighted to take into account non- response and poststratification adjustments for age and gender and the stratified sampling design by neighborhood. Regression anal- yses for survey data with complex sampling designs were con- ducted using Stata MP/13.1; significance was assessed as p � .01, a conservative Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons. Weighted linear regression models for complex survey data were used to assess the impact of gender and socioeconomic position. For each of the five assessments of racism, we fit regression models where explanatory variables were age, gender, years of education, employment status, financial strain, and subjective so- cial status. Age, years of education, and subjective social status were modeled continuously; gender, financial strain, and employ- ment status were categorical.

Qualitative analyses were completed for the majority of the sample that articulated at least one racist incident in response to the open-ended question (22 people, 15% did not report any). Using an Excel worksheet, the first author organized and coded response content by identifying the settings, incidents, perpetrators, and reactions to the reported experiences, and then assigning category codes to all unique portions of responses to represent the full range of discussed material. The approach was inductive in nature, attempting to draw out the themes that characterized participant

responses with an eye on the kinds of experiences with racism that African Americans face in the United States. Analyses sought to faithfully describe important details and organize the data to reveal underlying patterns (Barg & Kauer, 2005; Brent & Slusarz, 2003). Initial readings of participant responses allowed a broad demarca- tion of the domains in which racism took place (e.g., in public space), and these were refined through subsequent readings to produce more precise descriptions (e.g., accessing resources). Us- ing a parsimonious set of categories that echoed scientific litera- ture and public discourse fostered accurate characterization of the breadth of participant experiences.

Responses were coded in their entirety, assigning multiple codes where appropriate. For example, if a respondent reported police harassment and poor restaurant service, both incidents were incor- porated in extracting common underlying themes. Narratives were analyzed in the aggregate, and were characterized by five under- lying themes: resources, criminal profiling, aggression/assault, in- civilities, and stereotyping.

Results

Descriptive Quantitative Results

Sample characteristics appear in Table 1. We first examined relationships among the set of measures assessing experiences with racism. Bivariate correlations (see Table 2) suggest that the measures of racism are related but not redundant; the two measures of lifetime major experiences were most highly correlated (r � .766).

Gender and Socioeconomic Position Differences

Table 3 shows reports of racism by gender and categorical measures of socioeconomic position across all measures at the baseline interview. Men scored higher, though differences were slight for some measures, and generally not statistically signifi- cant. Consistent patterning was not evident for financial strain; on some measures those with fewer resources had higher scores, and on others they had lower scores. To operationalize education categorically, we use receipt of a bachelor’s degree (yes/no). Studies investigating the health effects of racism have used other dichotomous or trichotomous categories such as some college, or high school diploma versus less than a high school degree (e.g., see Brondolo et al., 2009; Chae et al., 2014; Cunningham et al., 2012; Krieger, Kosheleva, Waterman, Chen, & Koenen, 2011). In the present sample, using a college degree as a cutpoint was more appropriate given the relatively high education levels, and allowed us to split the sample approximately in half. Those with a degree were higher on all scales save Major Discrimination. The differ- ences for the Experiences of Discrimination Scale, t(110) � �2.09, p � .04, the Daily Life Experiences, t(118) � �2.35, p � .02, and Group Impact, t(118) � �2.47, p � .02, were statistically significant. Employment status was also associated with reported racism; those who were fully employed reported the most, fol- lowed by those who were partially employed, and the lowest prevalence by those who were unemployed.

In Table 4 we look at gender differences across the nine do- mains comprising major lifetime events. Women were more likely

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an Ps

yc ho

lo gi

ca l

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or on

e of

its al

lie d

pu bl

is he

rs .

T hi

s ar

tic le

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

399GENDER, SEP, AND RACISM

to report having experienced discrimination in school settings, though the disparity differed across the two scales. Women were also more likely to experience discrimination in housing contexts, in stores, or with neighbors. Men gave higher levels of endorse- ment for all remaining experiences; marked differences were ev- ident for hiring/work, encounters with the police, and obtaining capital and medical care.

Primary Quantitative Results

We first investigated gender differences alone, conducting re- gression models that adjusted for age. As shown in Table 5, with men as the reference group, women reported 1.50 and 1.16 fewer incidents on the two measures of major lifetime discrimination, but no differences emerged on day-to-day discrimination or group impact. Weighted linear regressions modeling the impact of gender and socioeconomic position together show that the effects of these factors vary across measures (see Table 6). Controlling for socio- economic factors, gender was still associated with lifetime racism, though the effect was attenuated compared to the age-adjusted model. No gender differences emerged on either measure of day- to-day racism.

Controlling for gender, socioeconomic position was associated with both lifetime and day-to-day racism. Education was positively associated with lifetime racism, while subjective social status was inversely related. Each additional “rung” of social status was associated with approximately 1/3 of an incident less on the lifetime scales. Results differed on measures of day-to-day racism. Subjective social status was not associated, but years of edu-

cation were again positively related, though only on the Daily Life Experiences Scale. To further explore the variable associ- ations between socioeconomic position and reported racism, we graphed the association between both subjective social status and education and day-to-day racism. The negative association between perceived social rank and racism persisted for both men and women.

However, education had opposite effects across gender. We conducted an additional regression to assess the effect of an interaction between gender and education. With day-to-day racism as the outcome, and age, gender, years of education, and a gender- education interaction as explanatory variables, the interaction (b � .108, 95% CI � .105–.206) was statistically significant. As shown in Figure 1, for men, more years of education was associated with less frequent day-to-day racism; for women, more education car- ried a higher prevalence of racism.

Finally, men and women were similar in their ratings of the degree to which African Americans as a group experience racism. As with individual experiences, respondents with more years of education were more likely to declare racism is a problem for African Americans. As well, individuals under greater financial strain gave stronger ratings.

Qualitative Results

For some respondents, the incidents that were uppermost in their minds were racist injuries sustained during childhood or much earlier in life, including during the era of Jim Crow. For some younger respondents, childhood and early adolescence may not be

Table 1. Sample Characteristics

Men Women Total n � 69 n � 75 N � 144

Age 43.70 (17.10) 45.43 (15.95) 44.59 (16.48) Years of education 13.46 (2.77) 13.60 (3.13) 13.53 (2.95) Subjective social status 4.32 (1.80) 4.43 (1.69) 4.38 (1.74) Financial strain

Always has enough 35% 24% 29% Sometimes does not have enough 41% 53% 48% Often does not have enough 24% 23% 23%

Employment status Fully employed 54% 53% 53% Partially employed 23% 17% 20% Unemployed 23% 29% 26%

Bachelor’s degree Yes 62% 44% 53% No 38% 55% 47%

Table 2. Bivariate Correlations Among Measures

Experiences of discrimination

Major discrimination

Everyday discrimination

Daily life experiences

Group impact

 

"Are you looking for this answer? We can Help click Order Now"

Article Critique

Article Critique

In the first half of the critique (objective analysis):

  • Are the title and abstract representative of the article?
  • Is the purpose of the article clear in the introduction?
  • Is all of the discussion relevant?
  • Have any ideas been over- or underemphasized in your opinion? What revisions would you suggest?
  • Should some sections of the manuscript be elaborated on, condensed, or omitted?
  • Are the author’s statements clear? Challenge ambiguous statements. Suggest by examples how clarity can be achieved, but do not merely substitute your style for the author’s.
  • What underlying assumptions does the author have?
  • Does the author or do the authors appear objective in the writing and discussion of the article?
  • Are the title and abstract representative of the article?
  • Is the purpose of the article clear in the introduction?
  • Is all of the discussion relevant?
  • Have any ideas been over- or underemphasized in your opinion? What revisions would you suggest?
  • Should some sections of the manuscript be elaborated on, condensed, or omitted?
  • Are the author’s statements clear? Challenge ambiguous statements. Suggest by examples how clarity can be achieved, but do not merely substitute your style for the author’s.
  • What underlying assumptions does the author have?
  • Does the author or do the authors appear objective in the writing and discussion of the article?
  • In the second half of the critique (subjective analysis):

     

    • Why did you select this article to critique? What interested you about it?
    • After reading the article, what did you like and dislike about it?
    • Based on your understanding to date, what is the possible practical applicability of the article?
  • Why did you select this article to critique? What interested you about it?
  • After reading the article, what did you like and dislike about it?
  • Based on your understanding to date, what is the possible practical applicability of the article?
  • PSY 216 Milestone Two Guidelines and Rubric: Article Critique

    Use the resources available on the Shapiro Library website to find an article from a relevant psychology journal to critique. Provide your choice to your instructor and ask any additional questions you have regarding this task after you have reviewed the main elements of the assignment, APA format guidelines, and the rubric. Expectations:

    1. You are expected and required to use a minimum of three academic or peer-reviewed sources in your critique. The textbook can be one of those sources.

    2. You are expected to demonstrate an academic level of writing. This means minimal grammatical and spelling errors and no use of abbreviated words (e.g., 24/7 as opposed to daily or thru in place of the correct through).

    3. You are expected to demonstrate critical thinking abilities in writing this paper. Main Elements Part I of the Critique – Objective Analysis In your critique of the article, address the following questions:

    1. Are the title and abstract representative of the article? 2. Is the purpose of the article clear in the introduction? 3. Is all of the discussion relevant?

    3.1. Have any ideas been over- or underemphasized in your opinion? 3.2. What revisions would you suggest? 3.3. Should some sections of the manuscript be elaborated on, condensed, or omitted?

    4. Are the author’s statements clear? 4.1. Challenge ambiguous statements. 4.2. Suggest by examples how clarity can be achieved; however, do not merely substitute your style for the author’s.

    5. What underlying assumptions does the author have? 6. Does the author or do the authors appear objective in the article analysis and discussion?

    Part II of the Critique – Subjective Analysis

    1. Why did you select this article to critique? What aspect of personality theory interested you in the article? 2. After reading the article, what did you like and dislike about it? 3. Based on your understanding to date, what is the possible practical applicability of the article?

    PSY 216 Milestone Two Guidelines and Rubric: Article Critique

    Use the resources available on the Shapiro Library website to find an article from a relevant psychology journal to critique. Provide your choice to your instructor and ask any additional questions you have regarding this task after you have reviewed the main elements of the assignment, APA format guidelines, and the rubric. Expectations:

    1. You are expected and required to use a minimum of three academic or peer-reviewed sources in your critique. The textbook can be one of those sources.

    2. You are expected to demonstrate an academic level of writing. This means minimal grammatical and spelling errors and no use of abbreviated words (e.g., 24/7 as opposed to daily or thru in place of the correct through).

    3. You are expected to demonstrate critical thinking abilities in writing this paper. Main Elements Part I of the Critique – Objective Analysis In your critique of the article, address the following questions:

    1. Are the title and abstract representative of the article? 2. Is the purpose of the article clear in the introduction? 3. Is all of the discussion relevant?

    3.1. Have any ideas been over- or underemphasized in your opinion? 3.2. What revisions would you suggest? 3.3. Should some sections of the manuscript be elaborated on, condensed, or omitted?

    4. Are the author’s statements clear? 4.1. Challenge ambiguous statements. 4.2. Suggest by examples how clarity can be achieved; however, do not merely substitute your style for the author’s.

    5. What underlying assumptions does the author have? 6. Does the author or do the authors appear objective in the article analysis and discussion?

    Part II of the Critique – Subjective Analysis

    1. Why did you select this article to critique? What aspect of personality theory interested you in the article? 2. After reading the article, what did you like and dislike about it? 3. Based on your understanding to date, what is the possible practical applicability of the article?

    APA Format Guidelines Required APA Document Format:

     Font: Times New Roman font, size 12, black

     First page header “NAME: Title” (no bold, no underline)

     Spacing: double-spaced throughout: o In Word, click “Page Layout” -> click “Margins” -> select “Normal” o In Word, click “Page Layout” -> look for Indent and Spacing -> make sure that Left, Right, Before, and After all say “0” or “0 pt”

     Paragraphs: o Indent the first line of each paragraph. o Ensure that there are no extra lines between the paragraphs.

     Click “Enter” just once to start a new paragraph.

     Click “Tab” to indent the first line of the paragraph. APA Reference Format You are expected and required to use a minimum of three academic or peer-reviewed sources in your critique. The textbook can be one of those sources.

     In-text citation: (Shultz & Shultz, 2013)

     Reference: Shultz, D. P., & Shultz, S. E. (2013). Theories of personality (10th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

     If you want to mention the author/textbook but are not quoting the material (what you write is completely in your own words): According to Shultz and Shultz (2013), ______

     If you want to quote something (using the author’s exact words or paraphrasing) from the author/textbook: According to Shultz and Shultz (2013), ______ (p. xx).

     References on a separate page at the end of the critique

     Heading “References” centered (no bold, no underline)

    APA Format Guidelines Required APA Document Format:

     Font: Times New Roman font, size 12, black

     First page header “NAME: Title” (no bold, no underline)

     Spacing: double-spaced throughout: o In Word, click “Page Layout” -> click “Margins” -> select “Normal” o In Word, click “Page Layout” -> look for Indent and Spacing -> make sure that Left, Right, Before, and After all say “0” or “0 pt”

     Paragraphs: o Indent the first line of each paragraph. o Ensure that there are no extra lines between the paragraphs.

     Click “Enter” just once to start a new paragraph.

     Click “Tab” to indent the first line of the paragraph. APA Reference Format You are expected and required to use a minimum of three academic or peer-reviewed sources in your critique. The textbook can be one of those sources.

     In-text citation: (Shultz & Shultz, 2013)

     Reference: Shultz, D. P., & Shultz, S. E. (2013). Theories of personality (10th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

     If you want to mention the author/textbook but are not quoting the material (what you write is completely in your own words): According to Shultz and Shultz (2013), ______

     If you want to quote something (using the author’s exact words or paraphrasing) from the author/textbook: According to Shultz and Shultz (2013), ______ (p. xx).

     References on a separate page at the end of the critique

     Heading “References” centered (no bold, no underline)

    Rubric Guidelines for Submission: Written components of the project must follow these formatting guidelines: double spacing, 12-point Times New Roman font, one- inch margins, and APA formatting including citations. A minimum of three academic or peer-reviewed sources must be cited in your critique. The textbook can be one of those sources. Instructor Feedback: This activity uses an integrated rubric in Blackboard. Students can view instructor feedback in the Grade Center. For more information, review these instructions.

    Critical Elements Exemplary (100%) Proficient (85%) Needs Improvement (55%) Not Evident (0%) Value

    Article Critique – Objective Analysis

    Meets “Proficient” criteria substantiated with research

    Critiques the key elements of the article explaining examples of bias or faulty reasoning found in the article

    Critique of the key elements of the article explaining examples of bias or faulty reasoning found in the article is insufficient

    Does not critique any of the key elements of the article

    25

    Article Critique – Subjective Analysis

    Meets “Proficient” criteria substantiated with research to support rationale

    Critiques the article based on the aspect of personality theory of interest, highlighting positive and negative aspects

    Insufficiently critiques the article based on the aspect of personality theory of interest, highlighting positive and negative aspects

    Does not critique the article based on the aspect of personality theory of interest

    25

    Integration of Theories of Personality

    Meets “Proficient” criteria substantiated with rationale to support aspects of different personality theories

    Integrates relevant aspects of different theories of personality

    Minimally integrates relevant aspects of different theories of personality

    Does not integrate relevant aspects of different theories of personality

    25

    Articulation of Response

    Submission is free of errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, and organization, and is presented in a professional and easy-to- read format

    Submission has no major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization

    Submission has major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that negatively impact readability and articulation of main ideas

    Submission has critical errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that prevent understanding of ideas

    25

    Earned Total 100%

    http://snhu-media.snhu.edu/files/production_documentation/formatting/rubric_feedback_instructions_student.pdf

    Rubric Guidelines for Submission: Written components of the project must follow these formatting guidelines: double spacing, 12-point Times New Roman font, one- inch margins, and APA formatting including citations. A minimum of three academic or peer-reviewed sources must be cited in your critique. The textbook can be one of those sources. Instructor Feedback: This activity uses an integrated rubric in Blackboard. Students can view instructor feedback in the Grade Center. For more information, review these instructions.

    Critical Elements Exemplary (100%) Proficient (85%) Needs Improvement (55%) Not Evident (0%) Value

    Article Critique – Objective Analysis

    Meets “Proficient” criteria substantiated with research

    Critiques the key elements of the article explaining examples of bias or faulty reasoning found in the article

    Critique of the key elements of the article explaining examples of bias or faulty reasoning found in the article is insufficient

    Does not critique any of the key elements of the article

    25

    Article Critique – Subjective Analysis

    Meets “Proficient” criteria substantiated with research to support rationale

    Critiques the article based on the aspect of personality theory of interest, highlighting positive and negative aspects

    Insufficiently critiques the article based on the aspect of personality theory of interest, highlighting positive and negative aspects

    Does not critique the article based on the aspect of personality theory of interest

    25

    Integration of Theories of Personality

    Meets “Proficient” criteria substantiated with rationale to support aspects of different personality theories

    Integrates relevant aspects of different theories of personality

    Minimally integrates relevant aspects of different theories of personality

    Does not integrate relevant aspects of different theories of personality

    25

    Articulation of Response

    Submission is free of errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, and organization, and is presented in a professional and easy-to- read format

    Submission has no major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization

    Submission has major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that negatively impact readability and articulation of main ideas

    Submission has critical errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that prevent understanding of ideas

    25

    Earned Total 100%

    http://snhu-media.snhu.edu/files/production_documentation/formatting/rubric_feedback_instructions_student.pdf

    Racism at the Intersections: Gender and Socioeconomic Differences in the Experience of

    Racism Among African Americans

    Naa Oyo A. Kwate Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey

    Melody S. Goodman Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine

    Several studies investigating the health effects of racism have reported gender and socioeco- nomic differences in exposures to racism, with women typically reporting lower frequencies, and individuals with greater resources reporting higher frequencies. This study used diverse measures of socioeconomic position and multiple measures and methods to assess experienced racism. Socioeconomic position included education and financial and employment status. Quantitative racism measures assessed individual experiences with day-to-day and with major lifetime incidents and perceptions of the extent to which African Americans as a group experience racism. A brief qualitative question asked respondents to describe a racist incident that stood out in recent memory. Participants comprised a probability sample of N � 144 African American adults aged 19 to 87 residing in New York City. Results suggested that women reported fewer lifetime incidents but did not differ from men on everyday racism. These differences appear to be partly because of scale content. Socioeconomic position as measured by years of education was positively associated with reported racism in the total sample but differently patterned across gender; subjective social status showed a negative association. Qualitative responses describing memorable incidents fell into 5 key categories: resources/opportunity structures, criminal pro- filing, racial aggression/assault, interpersonal incivilities, and stereotyping. In these narratives, men were more likely to offer accounts involving criminal profiling, and women encountered incivilities more often. The findings highlight the need for closer attention to the intersection of gender and socioeconomic factors in investigations of the health effects of racism.

    I n How to Read the Air (Mengestu, 2010), Jonas Wolde-mariam, a second generation Ethiopian immigrant, visits ahistorical site in the Midwestern United States. He is met by a security guard at the entrance, and is viewed with suspicion.

    I play my role perfectly, standing nonchalantly while he takes his notes. I know that we’re all supposed to be wary these days, of strangers and strange bags and especially of strangers carrying strange bags, and I want to do my part in easing some of the collective tension

    as best I can . . . I say and do nothing, however, hoping as I always do for the best—that perhaps he will find a measure of comfort in my prep-school uniform of khaki pants and dark blue shirt, of which I have a suitcase full . . .” pp. 121–122.

    Jonas’ surveillance and racial scrutiny are inflected by his race, gender, nativity, and class—both real and perceived—and are contextualized by a social moment in which people are intensely concerned with the threat of terrorism. African Americans’ expe- rience with interpersonally mediated racism is fraught with the expenditure of psychological resources Jonas deploys to anticipate, decode, and cope with subtle subordination. Research has shown that this environment takes a toll; encounters with interpersonally mediated racism exact substantial health costs encompassing men- tal health, physical health, and health behaviors (Mays, Cochran, & Barnes, 2007; Paradies, 2006; Pascoe & Smart Richman, 2009; Williams & Mohammed, 2009). The scales used in these studies have been developed and validated with Black U.S. populations, but they may not have dealt as fully with sociodemographic inflections in the experience of racism, particularly with regard to gender and socioeconomic position.

    Studies investigating the health effects of racism often find that women report less racism than men (Paradies, 2006), but the source of gender differences is unclear. A parsimonious explana-

    Naa Oyo A. Kwate, Departments of Human Ecology and Africana Studies, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey; Melody S. Goodman, Division of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine.

    This research was funded by the NIH Director’s New Innovator Award Program, Award DP2 OD006513 from the Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health or the National Institutes of Health.

    Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Naa Oyo A. Kwate, Department of Human Ecology, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, 55 Dudley Road, Cook Office Building, New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8520. E-mail: [email protected]

    T hi

    s do

    cu m

    en t

    is co

    py ri

    gh te

    d by

    th e

    A m

    er ic

    an Ps

    yc ho

    lo gi

    ca l

    A ss

    oc ia

    tio n

    or on

    e of

    its al

    lie d

    pu bl

    is he

    rs .

    T hi

    s ar

    tic le

    is in

    te nd

    ed so

    le ly

    fo r

    th e

    pe rs

    on al

    us e

    of th

    e in

    di vi

    du al

    us er

    an d

    is no

    t to

    be di

    ss em

    in at

    ed br

    oa dl

    y.

    American Journal of Orthopsychiatry © 2015 American Orthopsychiatric Association 2015, Vol. 85, No. 5, 397–408 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ort0000086

    397

    mailto:[email protected] http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ort0000086

    Racism at the Intersections: Gender and Socioeconomic Differences in the Experience of

    Racism Among African Americans

    Naa Oyo A. Kwate Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey

    Melody S. Goodman Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine

    Several studies investigating the health effects of racism have reported gender and socioeco- nomic differences in exposures to racism, with women typically reporting lower frequencies, and individuals with greater resources reporting higher frequencies. This study used diverse measures of socioeconomic position and multiple measures and methods to assess experienced racism. Socioeconomic position included education and financial and employment status. Quantitative racism measures assessed individual experiences with day-to-day and with major lifetime incidents and perceptions of the extent to which African Americans as a group experience racism. A brief qualitative question asked respondents to describe a racist incident that stood out in recent memory. Participants comprised a probability sample of N � 144 African American adults aged 19 to 87 residing in New York City. Results suggested that women reported fewer lifetime incidents but did not differ from men on everyday racism. These differences appear to be partly because of scale content. Socioeconomic position as measured by years of education was positively associated with reported racism in the total sample but differently patterned across gender; subjective social status showed a negative association. Qualitative responses describing memorable incidents fell into 5 key categories: resources/opportunity structures, criminal pro- filing, racial aggression/assault, interpersonal incivilities, and stereotyping. In these narratives, men were more likely to offer accounts involving criminal profiling, and women encountered incivilities more often. The findings highlight the need for closer attention to the intersection of gender and socioeconomic factors in investigations of the health effects of racism.

    I n How to Read the Air (Mengestu, 2010), Jonas Wolde-mariam, a second generation Ethiopian immigrant, visits ahistorical site in the Midwestern United States. He is met by a security guard at the entrance, and is viewed with suspicion.

    I play my role perfectly, standing nonchalantly while he takes his notes. I know that we’re all supposed to be wary these days, of strangers and strange bags and especially of strangers carrying strange bags, and I want to do my part in easing some of the collective tension

    as best I can . . . I say and do nothing, however, hoping as I always do for the best—that perhaps he will find a measure of comfort in my prep-school uniform of khaki pants and dark blue shirt, of which I have a suitcase full . . .” pp. 121–122.

    Jonas’ surveillance and racial scrutiny are inflected by his race, gender, nativity, and class—both real and perceived—and are contextualized by a social moment in which people are intensely concerned with the threat of terrorism. African Americans’ expe- rience with interpersonally mediated racism is fraught with the expenditure of psychological resources Jonas deploys to anticipate, decode, and cope with subtle subordination. Research has shown that this environment takes a toll; encounters with interpersonally mediated racism exact substantial health costs encompassing men- tal health, physical health, and health behaviors (Mays, Cochran, & Barnes, 2007; Paradies, 2006; Pascoe & Smart Richman, 2009; Williams & Mohammed, 2009). The scales used in these studies have been developed and validated with Black U.S. populations, but they may not have dealt as fully with sociodemographic inflections in the experience of racism, particularly with regard to gender and socioeconomic position.

    Studies investigating the health effects of racism often find that women report less racism than men (Paradies, 2006), but the source of gender differences is unclear. A parsimonious explana-

    Naa Oyo A. Kwate, Departments of Human Ecology and Africana Studies, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey; Melody S. Goodman, Division of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine.

    This research was funded by the NIH Director’s New Innovator Award Program, Award DP2 OD006513 from the Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health or the National Institutes of Health.

    Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Naa Oyo A. Kwate, Department of Human Ecology, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, 55 Dudley Road, Cook Office Building, New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8520. E-mail: [email protected]

    T hi

    s do

    cu m

    en t

    is co

    py ri

    gh te

    d by

    th e

    A m

    er ic

    an Ps

    yc ho

    lo gi

    ca l

    A ss

    oc ia

    tio n

    or on

    e of

    its al

    lie d

    pu bl

    is he

    rs .

    T hi

    s ar

    tic le

    is in

    te nd

    ed so

    le ly

    fo r

    th e

    pe rs

    on al

    us e

    of th

    e in

    di vi

    du al

    us er

    an d

    is no

    t to

    be di

    ss em

    in at

    ed br

    oa dl

    y.

    American Journal of Orthopsychiatry © 2015 American Orthopsychiatric Association 2015, Vol. 85, No. 5, 397–408 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ort0000086

    397

    mailto:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ort0000086

    tion is that men’s higher scores reflect actual differences in the prevalence of experienced racism. But also possible are measure- ment processes that tend to inflate men’s scores. Men may be more willing than women to respond affirmatively to questions about racism, despite equivalent experiences. Or, measures may empha- size incidents that men experience more frequently or that are gendered as male, making women less likely to endorse them. If so, measures of racism would fail to capture how racism is mod- ified by gender (Jackson, Phillips, Hogue, & Curry-Owens, 2001; Moradi & Subich, 2003). Black feminist scholarship tells us that Black women’s subordination lies in occupying “a position whereby the inferior half of a series of binaries converge” (Collins, 2000, p. 71). Goff and Kahn (2013) argue that experimental psychology has often not been invested in the intersection of race and gender in thinking through the construction of social identities, therefore undertheorizing the lived experience of individuals. To the extent that commonly used measures are less attentive to intersecting identities, observational studies may also leave critical gaps in our understanding of the experience of racism. For exam- ple, if the kinds of experiences that are found at the convergences that Collins (2000) articulates are underrepresented in measures, the scope of experiences that respondents are able to report is restricted, limiting our ability to assess racism’s impact on health. In one study, men endorsed more forms of racism, but associations with poor mental and physical health were stronger among women than in men—in some instances, the estimates for women were twice as high (Borrell et al., 2007).

    Similarly, reports of racism vary by socioeconomic position, but associations are not consistent, and may be attributed at least in part to the nature of the questions in commonly used measures. A review of studies across multiracial and multiethnic samples re- vealed that self-reported racism is generally positively related to socioeconomic position (measured with income or education), though there are also inverse associations (Paradies, 2006). Sub- sequent studies have conveyed variation in associations between reported racism and socioeconomic position, depending on which domains are queried. For example, in one sample, middle- and low-income African American respondents differed little when asked about work and housing. However, high-income respon- dents were more likely to report incidents related to education and service, while low-income respondents were more likely to report incidents related to police and the courts (Williams et al., 2012). Brondolo et al. (2009) explicitly tested dimensions of individual- level socioeconomic position (income, education, occupational prestige, and assets) and neighborhood income as determinants of experienced racism among Black and Latino New York City residents. In both the total sample and Black subsample, socioeco- nomic position was not associated with overall lifetime discrimi- nation, but interaction effects revealed income to be inversely related to threat/harassment, and positively related to workplace discrimination. As well, individuals with low socioeconomic po- sition reported more discrimination over the past week.

    Study Objectives We sought to test and tease apart gender and socioeconomic

    differences in reports of racism. To do so, we used multiple measures and multiple methods. Studies reporting demographic differences tend to use only one measure to operationalize expe-

    riences with racism, making it a challenge to tease out the source of observed disparities (Brondolo et al., 2009). We sought to improve extant work by including varied operationalizations of both constructs. In assessing experiences with racism, we used two measures each for interpersonally mediated everyday racism, and major lifetime racism. We also assessed beliefs about the preva- lence of racism in the lives of African Americans in general. Most studies of the health effects of racism include only quantitative self-report measures; only a few studies (e.g., see Rooks, Xu, Holliman, & Williams, 2011) include qualitative questions that plumb the kinds of racist experiences faced by Black women and men. Such data are useful in illuminating how scale content may operate across gender, and the potential mechanisms by which racism harms health. Thus, our research goals were to investigate with quantitative data the extent to which gender and socioeco- nomic position are associated with reports of racism; and, using brief qualitative reports, to conduct exploratory analyses of how Black women and men encounter racism, and whether gender differences emerge in brief narratives about racism.

    Method

    Sample and Study Design

    Data were generated from The Black LIFE Study (Linking Inequality, Feelings and the Environment), a longitudinal investi- gation of the health effects of racism, and that took place in two predominantly Black New York City (NYC) neighborhoods. Data were collected between December 2011 and June 2013. N � 144 participants (52% female, with a mean age of 44.6) were recruited from a probability sample of African American residents in the two neighborhoods. Participants were randomly selected from randomly selected households, and eligible respondents were aged 18 or older, English speaking, self-identified as Black/African American, and grew up in the United States. Because other por- tions of the project involved blood draws, exclusion criteria were surgery or blood transfusions within the past 6 months. Overall response rates to initial recruitment across the two neighborhoods were 30–35%, reflecting difficulty in making household contact for screening; rates for successfully interviewing people were about 60% once a household was known to have an eligible person. Trained African American interviewers conducted face-to- face Computer-Assisted Personal Interviews (CAPI). Participants were followed for two additional visits: a 2-month follow up, which comprised a brief telephone interview; and a 1-year follow up, a second in-person CAPI that was somewhat shorter than that at baseline. The present analyses focus on quantitative self-reports from baseline, and qualitative short-answer responses from base- line and the 1-year follow-up.

    Measures

    Socioeconomic position comprised years of education, employ- ment status, financial strain, and subjective social status. Employ- ment status assessed whether participants were currently working (labeled fully employed); unemployed but had worked at some point during the prior year (partially employed); and unemployed over the course of the past year (unemployed). Financial strain was

    T hi

    s do

    cu m

    en t

    is co

    py ri

    gh te

    d by

    th e

    A m

    er ic

    an Ps

    yc ho

    lo gi

    ca l

    A ss

    oc ia

    tio n

    or on

    e of

    its al

    lie d

    pu bl

    is he

    rs .

    T hi

    s ar

    tic le

    is in

    te nd

    ed so

    le ly

    fo r

    th e

    pe rs

    on al

    us e

    of th

    e in

    di vi

    du al

    us er

    an d

    is no

    t to

    be di

    ss em

    in at

    ed br

    oa dl

    y.

    398 KWATE AND GOODMAN

    tion is that men’s higher scores reflect actual differences in the prevalence of experienced racism. But also possible are measure- ment processes that tend to inflate men’s scores. Men may be more willing than women to respond affirmatively to questions about racism, despite equivalent experiences. Or, measures may empha- size incidents that men experience more frequently or that are gendered as male, making women less likely to endorse them. If so, measures of racism would fail to capture how racism is mod- ified by gender (Jackson, Phillips, Hogue, & Curry-Owens, 2001; Moradi & Subich, 2003). Black feminist scholarship tells us that Black women’s subordination lies in occupying “a position whereby the inferior half of a series of binaries converge” (Collins, 2000, p. 71). Goff and Kahn (2013) argue that experimental psychology has often not been invested in the intersection of race and gender in thinking through the construction of social identities, therefore undertheorizing the lived experience of individuals. To the extent that commonly used measures are less attentive to intersecting identities, observational studies may also leave critical gaps in our understanding of the experience of racism. For exam- ple, if the kinds of experiences that are found at the convergences that Collins (2000) articulates are underrepresented in measures, the scope of experiences that respondents are able to report is restricted, limiting our ability to assess racism’s impact on health. In one study, men endorsed more forms of racism, but associations with poor mental and physical health were stronger among women than in men—in some instances, the estimates for women were twice as high (Borrell et al., 2007).

    Similarly, reports of racism vary by socioeconomic position, but associations are not consistent, and may be attributed at least in part to the nature of the questions in commonly used measures. A review of studies across multiracial and multiethnic samples re- vealed that self-reported racism is generally positively related to socioeconomic position (measured with income or education), though there are also inverse associations (Paradies, 2006). Sub- sequent studies have conveyed variation in associations between reported racism and socioeconomic position, depending on which domains are queried. For example, in one sample, middle- and low-income African American respondents differed little when asked about work and housing. However, high-income respon- dents were more likely to report incidents related to education and service, while low-income respondents were more likely to report incidents related to police and the courts (Williams et al., 2012). Brondolo et al. (2009) explicitly tested dimensions of individual- level socioeconomic position (income, education, occupational prestige, and assets) and neighborhood income as determinants of experienced racism among Black and Latino New York City residents. In both the total sample and Black subsample, socioeco- nomic position was not associated with overall lifetime discrimi- nation, but interaction effects revealed income to be inversely related to threat/harassment, and positively related to workplace discrimination. As well, individuals with low socioeconomic po- sition reported more discrimination over the past week.

    Study Objectives We sought to test and tease apart gender and socioeconomic

    differences in reports of racism. To do so, we used multiple measures and multiple methods. Studies reporting demographic differences tend to use only one measure to operationalize expe-

    riences with racism, making it a challenge to tease out the source of observed disparities (Brondolo et al., 2009). We sought to improve extant work by including varied operationalizations of both constructs. In assessing experiences with racism, we used two measures each for interpersonally mediated everyday racism, and major lifetime racism. We also assessed beliefs about the preva- lence of racism in the lives of African Americans in general. Most studies of the health effects of racism include only quantitative self-report measures; only a few studies (e.g., see Rooks, Xu, Holliman, & Williams, 2011) include qualitative questions that plumb the kinds of racist experiences faced by Black women and men. Such data are useful in illuminating how scale content may operate across gender, and the potential mechanisms by which racism harms health. Thus, our research goals were to investigate with quantitative data the extent to which gender and socioeco- nomic position are associated with reports of racism; and, using brief qualitative reports, to conduct exploratory analyses of how Black women and men encounter racism, and whether gender differences emerge in brief narratives about racism.

    Method

    Sample and Study Design

    Data were generated from The Black LIFE Study (Linking Inequality, Feelings and the Environment), a longitudinal investi- gation of the health effects of racism, and that took place in two predominantly Black New York City (NYC) neighborhoods. Data were collected between December 2011 and June 2013. N � 144 participants (52% female, with a mean age of 44.6) were recruited from a probability sample of African American residents in the two neighborhoods. Participants were randomly selected from randomly selected households, and eligible respondents were aged 18 or older, English speaking, self-identified as Black/African American, and grew up in the United States. Because other por- tions of the project involved blood draws, exclusion criteria were surgery or blood transfusions within the past 6 months. Overall response rates to initial recruitment across the two neighborhoods were 30–35%, reflecting difficulty in making household contact for screening; rates for successfully interviewing people were about 60% once a household was known to have an eligible person. Trained African American interviewers conducted face-to- face Computer-Assisted Personal Interviews (CAPI). Participants were followed for two additional visits: a 2-month follow up, which comprised a brief telephone interview; and a 1-year follow up, a second in-person CAPI that was somewhat shorter than that at baseline. The present analyses focus on quantitative self-reports from baseline, and qualitative short-answer responses from base- line and the 1-year follow-up.

    Measures

    Socioeconomic position comprised years of education, employ- ment status, financial strain, and subjective social status. Employ- ment status assessed whether participants were currently working (labeled fully employed); unemployed but had worked at some point during the prior year (partially employed); and unemployed over the course of the past year (unemployed). Financial strain was

    T hi

    s do

    cu m

    en t

    is co

    py ri

    gh te

    d by

    th e

    A m

    er ic

    an Ps

    yc ho

    lo gi

    ca l

    A ss

    oc ia

    tio n

    or on

    e of

    its al

    lie d

    pu bl

    is he

    rs .

    T hi

    s ar

    tic le

    is in

    te nd

    ed so

    le ly

    fo r

    th e

    pe rs

    on al

    us e

    of th

    e in

    di vi

    du al

    us er

    an d

    is no

    t to

    be di

    ss em

    in at

    ed br

    oa dl

    y.

    398 KWATE AND GOODMAN

    a 1-item measure that asked participants how comfortably their household lived on income received, whether they “always have enough money for the things you need,” “sometimes don’t have enough money,” or “often don’t have enough money.” Subjective social status was assessed with a commonly employed ladder (Adler, Epel, Castellazzo, & Ickovics, 2000), which asked respon- dents to indicate where they fell on a 10-rung ladder depicting social positions ranging from the least to best money, education, and jobs.

    We assessed experiences with racism in different domains. Beliefs about the extent of racism faced by African Americans were measured with the Group Impact scale (Harrell, 1997); day- to-day experiences with racism and discrimination were assessed with the Everyday Discrimination Scale (Williams, Yu, Jackson, & Anderson, 1997) and the Racism and Life Experiences Scales (Harrell, 1997); referred to hereafter as Daily Life Experiences; and major lifetime experiences were assessed with the Experiences of Discrimination Scale (Krieger, Smith, Naishadham, Hartman, & Barbeau, 2005) and the Major Experiences of Discrimination Scale (Williams et al., 1997). At baseline, Cronbach’s alpha values were: .94 for Group Impact, .89 for Everyday Discrimination, .91 for Daily Life Experiences, .79 for Experiences of Discrimination, and .66 for Major Experiences of Discrimination.

    Finally, participants gave open-ended descriptions of recent racist incidents. Because the extensive nature of the quantitative questionnaire precluded an in-depth interview on these experi- ences alone, respondents were asked, “We have been talking a lot about how frequently you encounter racism. Can you give me examples of some of the incidents that stick out in your recent memory? Describe what happened.” Participants gave responses ranging in length from a few sentences to a short paragraph. Though brief, several participants described in rich detail several racist incidents.

    Analytic Plan

    Quantitative analyses were weighted to take into account non- response and poststratification adjustments for age and gender and the stratified sampling design by neighborhood. Regression anal- yses for survey data with complex sampling designs were con- ducted using Stata MP/13.1; significance was assessed as p � .01, a conservative Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons. Weighted linear regression models for complex survey data were used to assess the impact of gender and socioeconomic position. For each of the five assessments of racism, we fit regression models where explanatory variables were age, gender, years of education, employment status, financial strain, and subjective so- cial status. Age, years of education, and subjective social status were modeled continuously; gender, financial strain, and employ- ment status were categorical.

    Qualitative analyses were completed for the majority of the sample that articulated at least one racist incident in response to the open-ended question (22 people, 15% did not report any). Using an Excel worksheet, the first author organized and coded response content by identifying the settings, incidents, perpetrators, and reactions to the reported experiences, and then assigning category codes to all unique portions of responses to represent the full range of discussed material. The approach was inductive in nature, attempting to draw out the themes that characterized participant

    responses with an eye on the kinds of experiences with racism that African Americans face in the United States. Analyses sought to faithfully describe important details and organize the data to reveal underlying patterns (Barg & Kauer, 2005; Brent & Slusarz, 2003). Initial readings of participant responses allowed a broad demarca- tion of the domains in which racism took place (e.g., in public space), and these were refined through subsequent readings to produce more precise descriptions (e.g., accessing resources). Us- ing a parsimonious set of categories that echoed scientific litera- ture and public discourse fostered accurate characterization of the breadth of participant experiences.

    Responses were coded in their entirety, assigning multiple codes where appropriate. For example, if a respondent reported police harassment and poor restaurant service, both incidents were incor- porated in extracting common underlying themes. Narratives were analyzed in the aggregate, and were characterized by five under- lying themes: resources, criminal profiling, aggression/assault, in- civilities, and stereotyping.

    Results

    Descriptive Quantitative Results

    Sample characteristics appear in Table 1. We first examined relationships among the set of measures assessing experiences with racism. Bivariate correlations (see Table 2) suggest that the measures of racism are related but not redundant; the two measures of lifetime major experiences were most highly correlated (r � .766).

    Gender and Socioeconomic Position Differences

    Table 3 shows reports of racism by gender and categorical measures of socioeconomic position across all measures at the baseline interview. Men scored higher, though differences were slight for some measures, and generally not statistically signifi- cant. Consistent patterning was not evident for financial strain; on some measures those with fewer resources had higher scores, and on others they had lower scores. To operationalize education categorically, we use receipt of a bachelor’s degree (yes/no). Studies investigating the health effects of racism have used other dichotomous or trichotomous categories such as some college, or high school diploma versus less than a high school degree (e.g., see Brondolo et al., 2009; Chae et al., 2014; Cunningham et al., 2012; Krieger, Kosheleva, Waterman, Chen, & Koenen, 2011). In the present sample, using a college degree as a cutpoint was more appropriate given the relatively high education levels, and allowed us to split the sample approximately in half. Those with a degree were higher on all scales save Major Discrimination. The differ- ences for the Experiences of Discrimination Scale, t(110) � �2.09, p � .04, the Daily Life Experiences, t(118) � �2.35, p � .02, and Group Impact, t(118) � �2.47, p � .02, were statistically significant. Employment status was also associated with reported racism; those who were fully employed reported the most, fol- lowed by those who were partially employed, and the lowest prevalence by those who were unemployed.

    In Table 4 we look at gender differences across the nine do- mains comprising major lifetime events. Women were more likely

    T hi

    s do

    cu m

    en t

    is co

    py ri

    gh te

    d by

    th e

    A m

    er ic

    an Ps

    yc ho

    lo gi

    ca l

    A ss

    oc ia

    tio n

    or on

    e of

    its al

    lie d

    pu bl

    is he

    rs .

    T hi

    s ar

    tic le

    is in

    te nd

    ed so

    le ly

    fo r

    th e

    pe rs

    on al

    us e

    of th

    e in

    di vi

    du al

    us er

    an d

    is no

    t to

    be di

    ss em

    in at

    ed br

    oa dl

    y.

    399GENDER, SEP, AND RACISM

    a 1-item measure that asked participants how comfortably their household lived on income received, whether they “always have enough money for the things you need,” “sometimes don’t have enough money,” or “often don’t have enough money.” Subjective social status was assessed with a commonly employed ladder (Adler, Epel, Castellazzo, & Ickovics, 2000), which asked respon- dents to indicate where they fell on a 10-rung ladder depicting social positions ranging from the least to best money, education, and jobs.

    We assessed experiences with racism in different domains. Beliefs about the extent of racism faced by African Americans were measured with the Group Impact scale (Harrell, 1997); day- to-day experiences with racism and discrimination were assessed with the Everyday Discrimination Scale (Williams, Yu, Jackson, & Anderson, 1997) and the Racism and Life Experiences Scales (Harrell, 1997); referred to hereafter as Daily Life Experiences; and major lifetime experiences were assessed with the Experiences of Discrimination Scale (Krieger, Smith, Naishadham, Hartman, & Barbeau, 2005) and the Major Experiences of Discrimination Scale (Williams et al., 1997). At baseline, Cronbach’s alpha values were: .94 for Group Impact, .89 for Everyday Discrimination, .91 for Daily Life Experiences, .79 for Experiences of Discrimination, and .66 for Major Experiences of Discrimination.

    Finally, participants gave open-ended descriptions of recent racist incidents. Because the extensive nature of the quantitative questionnaire precluded an in-depth interview on these experi- ences alone, respondents were asked, “We have been talking a lot about how frequently you encounter racism. Can you give me examples of some of the incidents that stick out in your recent memory? Describe what happened.” Participants gave responses ranging in length from a few sentences to a short paragraph. Though brief, several participants described in rich detail several racist incidents.

    Analytic Plan

    Quantitative analyses were weighted to take into account non- response and poststratification adjustments for age and gender and the stratified sampling design by neighborhood. Regression anal- yses for survey data with complex sampling designs were con- ducted using Stata MP/13.1; significance was assessed as p � .01, a conservative Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons. Weighted linear regression models for complex survey data were used to assess the impact of gender and socioeconomic position. For each of the five assessments of racism, we fit regression models where explanatory variables were age, gender, years of education, employment status, financial strain, and subjective so- cial status. Age, years of education, and subjective social status were modeled continuously; gender, financial strain, and employ- ment status were categorical.

    Qualitative analyses were completed for the majority of the sample that articulated at least one racist incident in response to the open-ended question (22 people, 15% did not report any). Using an Excel worksheet, the first author organized and coded response content by identifying the settings, incidents, perpetrators, and reactions to the reported experiences, and then assigning category codes to all unique portions of responses to represent the full range of discussed material. The approach was inductive in nature, attempting to draw out the themes that characterized participant

    responses with an eye on the kinds of experiences with racism that African Americans face in the United States. Analyses sought to faithfully describe important details and organize the data to reveal underlying patterns (Barg & Kauer, 2005; Brent & Slusarz, 2003). Initial readings of participant responses allowed a broad demarca- tion of the domains in which racism took place (e.g., in public space), and these were refined through subsequent readings to produce more precise descriptions (e.g., accessing resources). Us- ing a parsimonious set of categories that echoed scientific litera- ture and public discourse fostered accurate characterization of the breadth of participant experiences.

    Responses were coded in their entirety, assigning multiple codes where appropriate. For example, if a respondent reported police harassment and poor restaurant service, both incidents were incor- porated in extracting common underlying themes. Narratives were analyzed in the aggregate, and were characterized by five under- lying themes: resources, criminal profiling, aggression/assault, in- civilities, and stereotyping.

    Results

    Descriptive Quantitative Results

    Sample characteristics appear in Table 1. We first examined relationships among the set of measures assessing experiences with racism. Bivariate correlations (see Table 2) suggest that the measures of racism are related but not redundant; the two measures of lifetime major experiences were most highly correlated (r � .766).

    Gender and Socioeconomic Position Differences

    Table 3 shows reports of racism by gender and categorical measures of socioeconomic position across all measures at the baseline interview. Men scored higher, though differences were slight for some measures, and generally not statistically signifi- cant. Consistent patterning was not evident for financial strain; on some measures those with fewer resources had higher scores, and on others they had lower scores. To operationalize education categorically, we use receipt of a bachelor’s degree (yes/no). Studies investigating the health effects of racism have used other dichotomous or trichotomous categories such as some college, or high school diploma versus less than a high school degree (e.g., see Brondolo et al., 2009; Chae et al., 2014; Cunningham et al., 2012; Krieger, Kosheleva, Waterman, Chen, & Koenen, 2011). In the present sample, using a college degree as a cutpoint was more appropriate given the relatively high education levels, and allowed us to split the sample approximately in half. Those with a degree were higher on all scales save Major Discrimination. The differ- ences for the Experiences of Discrimination Scale, t(110) � �2.09, p � .04, the Daily Life Experiences, t(118) � �2.35, p � .02, and Group Impact, t(118) � �2.47, p � .02, were statistically significant. Employment status was also associated with reported racism; those who were fully employed reported the most, fol- lowed by those who were partially employed, and the lowest prevalence by those who were unemployed.

    In Table 4 we look at gender differences across the nine do- mains comprising major lifetime events. Women were more likely

    T hi

    s do

    cu m

    en t

    is co

    py ri

    gh te

    d by

    th e

    A m

    er ic

    an Ps

    yc ho

    lo gi

    ca l

    A ss

    oc ia

    tio n

    or on

    e of

    its al

    lie d

    pu bl

    is he

    rs .

    T hi

    s ar

    tic le

    is in

    te nd

    ed so

    le ly

    fo r

    th e

    pe rs

    on al

    us e

    of th

    e in

    di vi

    du al

    us er

    an d

    is no

    t to

    be di

    ss em

    in at

    ed br

    oa dl

    y.

    399GENDER, SEP, AND RACISM

    to report having experienced discrimination in school settings, though the disparity differed across the two scales. Women were also more likely to experience discrimination in housing contexts, in stores, or with neighbors. Men gave higher levels of endorse- ment for all remaining experiences; marked differences were ev- ident for hiring/work, encounters with the police, and obtaining capital and medical care.

    Primary Quantitative Results

    We first investigated gender differences alone, conducting re- gression models that adjusted for age. As shown in Table 5, with men as the reference group, women reported 1.50 and 1.16 fewer incidents on the two measures of major lifetime discrimination, but no differences emerged on day-to-day discrimination or group impact. Weighted linear regressions modeling the impact of gender and socioeconomic position together show that the effects of these factors vary across measures (see Table 6). Controlling for socio- economic factors, gender was still associated with lifetime racism, though the effect was attenuated compared to the age-adjusted model. No gender differences emerged on either measure of day- to-day racism.

    Controlling for gender, socioeconomic position was associated with both lifetime and day-to-day racism. Education was positively associated with lifetime racism, while subjective social status was inversely related. Each additional “rung” of social status was associated with approximately 1/3 of an incident less on the lifetime scales. Results differed on measures of day-to-day racism. Subjective social status was not associated, but years of edu-

    cation were again positively related, though only on the Daily Life Experiences Scale. To further explore the variable associ- ations between socioeconomic position and reported racism, we graphed the association between both subjective social status and education and day-to-day racism. The negative association between perceived social rank and racism persisted for both men and women.

    However, education had opposite effects across gender. We conducted an additional regression to assess the effect of an interaction between gender and education. With day-to-day racism as the outcome, and age, gender, years of education, and a gender- education interaction as explanatory variables, the interaction (b � .108, 95% CI � .105–.206) was statistically significant. As shown in Figure 1, for men, more years of education was associated with less frequent day-to-day racism; for women, more education car- ried a higher prevalence of racism.

    Finally, men and women were similar in their ratings of the degree to which African Americans as a group experience racism. As with individual experiences, respondents with more years of education were more likely to declare racism is a problem for African Americans. As well, individuals under greater financial strain gave stronger ratings.

    Qualitative Results

    For some respondents, the incidents that were uppermost in their minds were racist injuries sustained during childhood or much earlier in life, including during the era of Jim Crow. For some younger respondents, childhood and early adolescence may not be

    Table 1. Sample Characteristics

    Men Women Total n � 69 n � 75 N � 144

    Age 43.70 (17.10) 45.43 (15.95) 44.59 (16.48) Years of education 13.46 (2.77) 13.60 (3.13) 13.53 (2.95) Subjective social status 4.32 (1.80) 4.43 (1.69) 4.38 (1.74) Financial strain

    Always has enough 35% 24% 29% Sometimes does not have enough 41% 53% 48% Often does not have enough 24% 23% 23%

    Employment status Fully employed 54% 53% 53% Partially employed 23% 17% 20% Unemployed 23% 29% 26%

    Bachelor’s degree Yes 62% 44% 53% No 38% 55% 47%

    Table 2. Bivariate Correlations Among Measures

    Experiences of discrimination

    Major discrimination

    Everyday discrimination

    Daily life experiences

    Group impact

    to report having experienced discrimination in school settings, though the disparity differed across the two scales. Women were also more likely to experience discrimination in housing contexts, in stores, or with neighbors. Men gave higher levels of endorse- ment for all remaining experiences; marked differences were ev- ident for hiring/work, encounters with the police, and obtaining capital and medical care.

    Primary Quantitative Results

    We first investigated gender differences alone, conducting re- gression models that adjusted for age. As shown in Table 5, with men as the reference group, women reported 1.50 and 1.16 fewer incidents on the two measures of major lifetime discrimination, but no differences emerged on day-to-day discrimination or group impact. Weighted linear regressions modeling the impact of gender and socioeconomic position together show that the effects of these factors vary across measures (see Table 6). Controlling for socio- economic factors, gender was still associated with lifetime racism, though the effect was attenuated compared to the age-adjusted model. No gender differences emerged on either measure of day- to-day racism.

    Controlling for gender, socioeconomic position was associated with both lifetime and day-to-day racism. Education was positively associated with lifetime racism, while subjective social status was inversely related. Each additional “rung” of social status was associated with approximately 1/3 of an incident less on the lifetime scales. Results differed on measures of day-to-day racism. Subjective social status was not associated, but years of edu-

    cation were again positively related, though only on the Daily Life Experiences Scale. To further explore the variable associ- ations between socioeconomic position and reported racism, we graphed the association between both subjective social status and education and day-to-day racism. The negative association between perceived social rank and racism persisted for both men and women.

    However, education had opposite effects across gender. We conducted an additional regression to assess the effect of an interaction between gender and education. With day-to-day racism as the outcome, and age, gender, years of education, and a gender- education interaction as explanatory variables, the interaction (b � .108, 95% CI � .105–.206) was statistically significant. As shown in Figure 1, for men, more years of education was associated with less frequent day-to-day racism; for women, more education car- ried a higher prevalence of racism.

    Finally, men and women were similar in their ratings of the degree to which African Americans as a group experience racism. As with individual experiences, respondents with more years of education were more likely to declare racism is a problem for African Americans. As well, individuals under greater financial strain gave stronger ratings.

    Qualitative Results

    For some respondents, the incidents that were uppermost in their minds were racist injuries sustained during childhood or much earlier in life, including during the era of Jim Crow. For some younger respondents, childhood and early adolescence may not be

    Table 1. Sample Characteristics

    Men Women Total n � 69 n � 75 N � 144

    Age 43.70 (17.10) 45.43 (15.95) 44.59 (16.48) Years of education 13.46 (2.77) 13.60 (3.13) 13.53 (2.95) Subjective social status 4.32 (1.80) 4.43 (1.69) 4.38 (1.74) Financial strain

    Always has enough 35% 24% 29% Sometimes does not have enough 41% 53% 48% Often does not have enough 24% 23% 23%

    Employment status Fully employed 54% 53% 53% Partially employed 23% 17% 20% Unemployed 23% 29% 26%

    Bachelor’s degree Yes 62% 44% 53% No 38% 55% 47%

    Table 2. Bivariate Correlations Among Measures

    Experiences of discrimination

    Major discrimination

    Everyday discrimination

    Daily life experiences

    Group impact

    "Are you looking for this answer? We can Help click Order Now"

    Answers

    Related Questions

    None...

    DON MARIANO MARCOS MEMORIAL STATE UNIVERSITYMID LA UNION CAMPUSPresented to : Dr. Generose ValdezIn Partial Fulfillment of the SubjectManagement Probl...

    charts of accounts...

    charts of accountsWhat is the difference of the charts of accounts for a service and a merchandising companies I need this for an assignment.Answer: A...

    Inventory Management Systems...

    Assignment #1: "Inventory Management Systems"Your nameYour Instructors nameCourse Id:Your Institutions nameDate:AbstractThis paper provides a detailed...

    None...

    BAB ILAPORAN KASUSI. IDENTITASNama: Ny. RUsia: 27 tahunJenis kelamin: perempuanAlamat: -Agama: KristenPendidikan: D3Pekerjaan: PerawatStatus: MenikahT...

    None...

    I. INTRODUCTIONNEPHROLITHIASISIs a kidney stone disease common to both men and women that affect kidneys. The risk of forming a stone can be minimized...

    None...

    GENERAL OBJECTIVES:The study intends to improve the knowledge of the students regarding Choledocholithiasis. It gives the student the chance to be tra...

    None...

    Southern Luzon State UniversityLucban, QuezonCollege of Allied MedicineA Case study onBETA THALASSEMIAin Partial Fulfillment of theCourse Bachelor of...

    History : Juli Us...

    SURNAME 1NAMECOURSE NAME AND NUMBERINSTRUCTORS NAMEDATEANALYSIS OF THE HISTORY OF THE USSlavery in the US shows its impact on the social, political an...

    Writing : Bible Doctrines Edited...

    Surname 1Surname:Instructors Name:Institutional Affiliation:Course Code:Date:Biblical DoctrineGeneral Revelation and Special RevelationRevelation in t...

    None...

    Wesleyan University- Philippines Mabini Extension, Cabanatuan CityCase StudyCardiomyopathySubmitted by:Kristal M. Orpilla (Bsn4-4 SN14)Submitted To: C...

    Business : Assessment 5 Global Leadership Developm...

    GLOBAL LEADERSHIPDEVELOPMENT PLANPresented By:Professor:INTRODUCTIONCHARACTERISTICS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF EFFECTIVE GLOBAL LEADERSGlobal leaders can...

    Biology : momentum_q_and_answers.docx...

    Gigabit Ethernet versus ATMATM shortened for asynchronous exchange mode is a devoted-connection exchanging technology that composes computerized infor...

    Biology : assessing_police_practices_and_the......

    FLEXIBLE AND INELASTIC TRAFFICFlexible traffic does not have any sensitivity to delay. Metaphorically talking, it is able to spread in time. This sort...

    Biology : asia_american_studies.docx...

    How to Fly a KiteFlying a kite can be a lot of fun. It can also be very difficult. If you follow the procedures in this article, you will be flying a...

    Biology : america_s_age_of_imperialism.docx...

    Human Resource Management and Team DynamicsI agree on his dynamics and believe that his way was one of the very unique strategies which mostly affect...

    Biology : leinbach_marquis_view_on_john_muir......

    Manifest Destiny and American ExceptionalismName:University:America's Age of ImperialismQ1. Explain Manifest Destiny and American ExceptionalismMa...

    Biology : introduction._h.complete_docx.docx...

    Momentum Q and AQuestion:A 275lb cannon fires a 4 lb cannon ball at 79 m/s. Solve for the recoil velocity of the cannonAnswer:Momentum = mass x veloci...

    Biology : india_s_sacred_cow_by_marvin_harri......

    Leinbach Marquis View on John Muir's Attitude towards Nature.The author Leinbach Marquis in "a Mountain calling" explains John Muir's attitude...

    Accounting : acc_210_week_1_dq_3.doc...

    Week 2 DQsACC 210 Week 2 DQ 1What are some of the hardware components of your PC at work? When I had a job at the bank, the hardware components that I...

    Accounting : acc_210_week_1_dq_3.doc...

    Entity-relationship (E-R) Social Security1 Hourly Pay Date of Rate1 Hire12 22 Salesperson1Sales3 Is made Salesperson2 by4 1Ovals denote attributes (Ba...

    Accounting : acc_210_week_1_dq_3.doc...

    ACC 210 Week 5 DQ 3Identity theft is an issue that affects many people. What steps can an individual take to prevent identify theft? Below are a few s...

    Accounting : acc_210_week_1_dq_3.doc...

    ACC 210 Week 5 DQ 2Describe, in detail, the steps an organization should take to protect itself from a computer virus or hacker attack. Is this simply...

    Accounting : acc_210_week_1_dq_3.doc...

    interoffice memorandumto:from:subject:Time and expense ticketsdate:cc: Our companys accounting software was just updated recently due to being extreme...

    Accounting : acc_210_week_1_dq_3.doc...

    ACC210 Week 3 DQ 3Please make sure your response is at least 100 200 word response that is substantive.The steering committee for any systems implemen...

    If you didn't find the right answer

    Ask Your Questions, We'll notify you once someone answers it