Relationship Between Psychosocial Development and Racial Identity of Black College Students, The

Journal of College Student Development, May/Jun 1998 by Pope, Raechelle L

This study was conducted to examine the relationship between psychosocial development and racial identity of 250 Black traditional-aged undergraduate college students. The findings offered support for the notion that racial identity influences psychosocial development; however, only the specific racial identity attitude, "Internalization," was predictive of the specific psychosocial development tasks of "Establishing and Clarifying Purpose" and "Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships. " The results from this study suggest that practitioners should be mindful of possible within group differences when applying student development theories to Black students.

Student affairs professionals are often called upon to address multicultural issues and diverse populations through campus programs and services (Manning & Coleman-Boatwright, 1991; McEwen & Roper,1994; Pope & Reyolds, 1997). Ideally, their professional practice is built on and translated from student development concepts and principles (Rodgers,1991). Student affairs practitioners may use theories of student development to gain a holistic view of the student to respond to not only their intellectual growth, but their personal and social growth as well. Often the psychosocial development of college students (i.e., accomplishment of age-appropriate developmental tasks) becomes an important responsibility of student affairs practitioners (Cheatham, Slaney, & Coleman, 1990).

The evolution of student development theories of the 1960s and 1970s essentially ignored the development of students of color. Wright (1987) asserted that research and the theoretical underpinnings suffered from several liabilities and limitations: (a) the various models and theories of college student development did not take into account the culture-specific aspects of development, but assumed that all students (regardless of race or culture) experienced developmental phenomena in a similar fashion; (b) most theories of college student development were based on the assumption that growth occurs within a monolingual or monocultural environment when, in fact, many students of color live and learn in bilingual or bicultural environments; (c) most theories did not take into account acculturation and assimilation in the students' overall development, and thereby discarded the importance of adjusting to a campus environment that may differ from their cultural frame of reference; and finally, (d) most theories adhered to White values that may, in practice, have been quite different from non-White value systems.

In the 1980s, as researchers and scholars attempted to refine and advance the preceding decades' theoretical perspectives, the student body was changing dramatically. Two aspects defined this change: (a) the student body was less White and male; and (b) recognition of student subpopulations (e.g., student athletes, gay, lesbian, and bisexual students, commuter students, etc.) increased (Astin, 1982; Levine, 1989). Critics of student development theories often expressed concerns that the existing theories might not adequately address the growth and development needs of the diverse student population (Durham, Hays, & Martinez, 1994; McEwen, Roper, Bryant, & Langa, 1990; Placier, Moss, & Blockus, 1992; Wright, 1987). Others, like Branch-Simpson (1984), Taub and McEwen (1991), Gibson (1995) and Jones (1990), urged that caution be used when applying student development theories to some groups of student of color.

Specifically when focusing on the psychosocial development of college students, Chickering's (1969) initial theory has been widely accepted by many student affairs professionals (Knefelkamp, Widick, & Parker,1978; Winston, 1990). In 1993 Chickering and Reisser revised the theory offered in the first edition of Education and Identity and reordered some of the task sequences, based on various findings and criticisms of the 1969 version. Many of the criticisms suggested that Chickering's earlier work may not accurately or sufficiently describe the development of women (e.g., Greeley & Tinsley, 1988; Straub, 1987; Straub & Rodgers, 1986; Taub & McEwen, 1991) or students of color (e.g., Branch-Simpson, 1984; Gibson, 1995; Itzkowitz & Petrie, 1986; Jordan-Cox, 1987; Taub & McEwen, 1991). Despite these concerns, few researchers have published studies exploring the psychosocial development of Black students (see for example, Branch-Simpson, 1984; Cheatham, Slaney, & Coleman, 1990; Gibson, 1995; Itzkowitz & Petrie 1986, 1988; Jordan-Cox, 1987; Taub & McEwen, 1991).

Critics of student development theory, as it relates to students of color, have not necessarily suggested that the theories of college student development are not legitimate. Rather, this literature has suggested that current theories of student development may be insufficient in their explanation of growth and development of students of color. According to Miller and Winston (1990), "Because sociocultural influences are important considerations when attempting to understand and assess psychosocial development, it is paramount that student development educators incorporate such factors into their conceptualizations" (p. 106). Jones (1990) further highlighted the need to emphasize cultural or racial identity when examining the development of students of color. When examining the development of students of color and questions of racial and ethnic identity are left out of studies, these theories then fail to address the cultural context of these students and, according to Jones, are less accurate. Moreover, failure to explore within-group psychological differences (as examined in racial and ethnic identity development theories) promotes the assumption that all Black Americans, (or Asian Americans, Native Americans, or Latino and Latina Americans) have identical psychological makeups and interpret their experiences similarly (Carter,1991).