Conceptualizing Native Identity with a Multidimensional Model.

Abstract

This study reports on a Native Identity Scale (NIS) adapted from an African American identity scale (Sellers et al., 1997). American Indian (AIs) and First Nations Canadian participants (N = 199) completed the NIS at powwows in the Upper Midwest. The majority of respondents were Ojibwe, but other tribal groups were represented. A principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation revealed four factors important in self-identity: Centrality, Humanist, Public Regard, and Oppressed Minority. The correlation of respondents’ scores on items defi ning the four factors with some aspects of respondents’ behavior supports the validity of the factors. It is suggested that the NIS is a promising new tool for the study of identity dimensions in AI populations. NATIVE IDENTITY: APPLICATION OF A MULTIDIMENSIONAL MODEL According to Phinney (1990), a clear understanding of the components of ethnic identity is crucial. Phinney states “attitudes toward one’s ethnicity are central to the psychological functioning of those who live in societies where their group and its culture are at best poorly represented ... and are at worst discriminated against or even attacked verbally and physically” (p. 499). One group that has historically been impacted psychologically by discrimination is American Indians (AIs). The topic of AI identity has not been extensively studied, but it has been approached from several different perspectives. For example, scholars trained in historical methodology have attempted to describe the issue of who is AI from legal, economic, and political perspectives (Hagan, 1985 and Nagel, 1996). (In addition, see Trimble, 2000 and Trimble & Thurman, 2002 for succinct reviews of historical and contemporary problems in defi ning and identifying North American Indigenous people, and Peroff, 1997 for a discussion about the idea of Indianness and what it has meant for Native and non-Native people). Anthropological research has investigated the acculturation aspect of AI identity (see Choney, Berryhill-Paapke, & Robbins, 1995 and LaFromboise, Coleman, & NATIVE IDENTITY WITH A MULTIDIMENSIONAL MODEL 23 Gerton, 1993 for reviews). Most recently, psychological research has investigated the ethnic and cultural identity1 of AI persons, particularly adolescents (Moran, Fleming, Somervell, & Manson, 1999; Oetting & Beauvais, 1990-91; Oetting, Swaim, & Chiarella, 1998; Trimble, 2000). Trimble, Helms, and Root (2003) and Trimble and Dickson (2005) provided an extensive review of the ethnic and racial2 identity literature from a social psychological perspective. It is evident from these reviews that there is limited empirical research on AI identity compared to that of other groups. Furthermore, most empirical research on AI identity focuses on cultural identity. For example, Oetting and Beauvais (1990-1991) proposed the Orthogonal Cultural Identifi cation Theory (OCIT) which posits that identifi cation with any one culture is independent of identifi cation with any other culture. The OCIT assumes that an individual’s position along a continuum of identifi cation with one culture implies nothing about the individual’s position along a continuum of identifi cation with another culture. An individual may have any combination of degree of identifi cation with two or more cultures. Subsequent research by Oetting, Swaim, et al. (1998) and Moran et al. (1999) further validated the factor structure and validity of this type of bicultural or multicultural identity construct. (See LaFromboise et al., 1993 and Oetting & Beauvais, 19901991 for reviews on acculturation and bicultural identity models.) The application of these models was demonstrated by Whitbeck and colleagues (2001, 2002); they reported that AI youth may be protected through enculturation processes and by having a bicultural sense of identity. The authors also discussed how AI youth can benefi t academically by identifying with and participating in their traditional cultures, which suggests a sense of biculturalism. Trimble (2000) has proposed a four-part ethnic identity measurement model, which has been followed, in part, by cultural identity researchers (e.g. Oetting & Beauvais, 1990-91; Moran et al., 1999). This measurement model proposes that the assessment of ethnic identity needs to include at least four domains: natal, subjective, behavioral, and situational. Natal measures include birthplace and ethnic origins of self and family members. Subjective measures can include self-identifi cation, acculturation status, ego-involvement in group, and attitudes towards out-groups. Behavioral measures can include language use, music and food preferences, and participation in cultural and religious activities. Finally, situational-context measures can include home-family, work, or school settings. Research on cultural identity has primarily assessed the behavioral domain of Trimble’s model. Therefore, cultural identity can and should be considered a behaviorally focused identity. In essence, it is a behavioral manifestation of one’s ethnic identity. While the assessment of cultural identity in AI persons has proven useful (Moran et al., 2000; Oetting and Beauvais, 1990-91; Oetting, Swaim, et al., 1998), there is limited research investigating the development of cultural identity and ethnic identity within AI populations. 24 VOLUME 17, NUMBER 2 Trimble et al. (2003) make the salient point that ethnic identity is multidimensional and that research using only single constructs to measure ethnic identity will have shortcomings. Furthermore, Oetting, Donnermeyer, Trimble, and Beauvais (1998), discussed the multiple socializing agents, such as culture, communities, families, schools, and peers, that affect ethnic and cultural identity. These socializing agents most likely interact with and infl uence several components of AI self-identity. However, we believe the cultural identifi cation models described above mostly tap the behavioral measures domain of ethnic identity. Furthermore, we believe that cultural identity, though related to ethnic identity, is a separate construct and should be considered as a behavioral component of ethnic identity. While research investigating the cultural identity of Native people and the correlates of that construct has demonstrated different outcomes, more fundamental work needs to be done to investigate the unique components leading to the different developmental pathways of ethnic and cultural identity. Another area of research on racial identity may provide further insights into the complexity of cultural identity development. Sellers, Rowley, Chavous, Shelton, and Smith (1997) proposed the Multidimensional Model of Racial2 Identity (MMRI) as a composite theoretical approach for understanding identity. Initially proposed for African American identity, the MMRI provides an empirical strategy for studying other racial and ethnic group identities, such as AI identity. Rather than being concerned with the development of racial or ethnic identity, the MMRI is principally interested in the status of an individual’s ethnic identity and what the qualitative meaning of a group membership is within the person’s self-concept. In a later article, Sellers, Smith, Shelton, Rowley, and Chavous (1998) put forth two questions that the MMRI attempts to address: “How important is race in the individual’s perception of self?” and “What does it mean to be a member of this racial group?” (p. 23). The MMRI assumes that an individual possesses a number of hierarchically ordered, race-related identities and that these identities are both stable properties and subject to situational infl uence. The most valid indicator of ethnic identity is assumed to be the individual’s own perception. Individual differences are expected to exist in the meaning of ethnic identity. Furthermore, the MMRI does not place a value judgment about what is healthy or unhealthy as a racial or ethnic identity. Sellers et al. (1997) proposed four dimensions along which racial or ethnic identity is expected to vary. The fi rst dimension, Centrality, is a measure of the extent to which “race is a core part of an individual’s self-concept” (p. 806). A second dimension, Ideology, represents the minority person’s beliefs regarding how they should interact with their own and other groups in society. Ideology is divided into four components, each of which is a set of political attitudes about one’s own group and other groups. The Nationalist component emphasizes the importance of one’s own racial descent. The Oppressed Minority component emphasizes solidarity and communalities NATIVE IDENTITY WITH A MULTIDIMENSIONAL MODEL 25 across many oppressed groups. The Assimilationist component emphasizes the view that integrating one’s own ethnic group into the rest of society is important. The Humanist component emphasizes communalities among humans regardless of ethnicity. The third dimension of the MMRI, Regard, represents affective and evaluative judgments of one’s own ethnicity. Regard has two components: Private, the extent to which one feels positively or negatively about his/her own ethnic group, and Public, the extent to which a minority person believes that others evaluate his/her ethnic group positively or negatively. The fi nal dimension of the MMRI is Salience, the extent to which ethnicity is a relevant part of identity at a particular point in time. Salience is unlike the other three dimensions in that it is situational in nature. Salience can be strengthened or weakened by events in the person’s social environment, and its strength will affect the importance of the other three dimensions. To evaluate the MMRI, Sellers et al. (1997) created an instrument, the Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity (MIBI), which consisted of items designed to tap each of the dimensions and dimensional components. They reported the results of factor analyses and instrument revision which essentially support th