"African Americans must forsake the white man's [cultural orientation] ... and return, as far as possible, to genuine African values and identity.... I make this plea, not only for you who are Black, but for myself(and my son, and other people) who are white.... [as] we continue to look to Blacks to create an alternative to our culture.

Michael Bradley (1992, 243-244)

The poignancy of Michael Bradley's quote presupposes the necessityof racial identity assessment which, in turn, presupposes adequate underlying theory. We are critical of the conceptual edifice underlying so-called nigrescence and multidimensional models that prevail in counselor education. Instead, we promote the conceptualization of racial identity as psychological Africanity (Azibo, 2006a) which generates a distinction between ordered/appropriate and disordered/inappropriate racial identity functioning. A longstanding literature, albeit heretofore ignored in Western psychology, addresses the latter as a psychological MISorientation to reality. We begin by plumbing this construct and then address appropriate racial identity functioning under the rubric of psychological Africanity. Then, hypotheses about the validity of three measures consonant with the psychological Africanity formulation, two of appropriate and one of inappropriate racial identity functioning, are investigated.

Psychological Misorientation: Roots, Definition, Assessment

Roots. The great disaster perpetrated on African descent people (ADP) by past colonization and enslavement schemes of European descent people and Eurasian Arabs as well as the neocolonialism and unrelenting, devastating Eurasian domination of ADP that has ensued is known as the Maafa (Ani, 2004). It is important to understand Maafa as warfare against ADP (Chinweizu, 2010; Obadele, 1968, 2003). One result of the pogroms and daily dehumanization of the Maafa/war is that mental afflictions have beset ADP worldwide (Azibo, 2011a, 2011b; Sutherland, 1997, 2005). Recognition for mental afflictions that stem from the contact with and hegemony of Western cultures on non-Eurasian victimsabounds (Danieli, 1998). How odd, however, the propounding by Cross (1998) denying the same type of afflictions in African-U.S. people (descendents of Africans enslaved in the United States).

Contradistinctively, 19th century (Blyden cited in Carruthers, 1999, 253; Douglas, 1855/1966, 216-217; Tubman cited in Baruti, 2005, 115; Walker, 1829/1965;) and contemporary analyses (Association of Black Psychologists, n.d.; Atwell & Azibo, 1991; Azibo, 1989, 2011a, 2011b; Eyerman, 2001; Fanon, 1963; Harrell, 1999; Jennings, 2003; Khoapa,1980; Leafy, 2005; Morrow, 2003; Sutherland, 1989; Welsing, 1991, i-vii, 239-258) attest to the major psychological debilitation visited upon ADP that results from debasement occurring in colonization, enslavement, and the aftermath of each. Nowhere is it suggested the mental afflictions die with the individual. These mental afflictions as they affect African-U.S. people have been organized into an African-centered culture-focused, free standing nosology of mental disorders (Azibo, 1989, 2001b). These disorders would appear to discombobulate African-U.S. people's racial group identity functioning in particular and personality and social psychological functioning in general (see case studies by Abdullah, 1998; Atwell & Azibo, 1991; Denard, 1998).

Regarding the afflictions pertaining to African-U.S. racial identity, a cogent explanation is that they began in enslavement and persist to the present circumscribing racial identity "From Nigger-to-Negro" (Jennings, 2003, 51). These volatile terms represent psychological orientations forged in the Maafa and warrant understanding to use diagnostically. "Negro" carries pejorative connotations in Jennings's usage which is post 1960s (Harris, 1990) where it came to refer to a mentality that acquiesces and adheres to Caucasian social and cultural dictates and definitions (ben-Jochannan, 1973; Williams, 1976). It became paradigmatic in African-U.S. culture referring to African-U.S. people who find glory, purpose, and fulfillment in "how We help White people.... in exchange for some little place in [Western civilization]" (Obadele, 1984, 319). "Nigger" is also a pejorative, not a banner.In Jennings's usage it is "an epithet that assaults and insults the nature, quality, and capability of the American African" (264). Thus,the proper professional conceptualization of the term "nigger" for understanding behavior of ADP refers to a vulgar, debased psycho-behavioral orientation historically spawned in enslavement. The orientation refers to "a New World Commodity, a degraded and dehumanized group of people" (251).

We do not advocate the term's usage except in the psycho-historical sense as depicted by Jennings. Given these dysfunctional beginningsof identity for New World Africans, the terms slave mentality (Olomenji, 1996) and slave consciousness (Wilson, 1999) are apt colloquialisms useful to psychologists. They indicate that contemporary African-U.S. people still operate with the same definitional and belief systems and, therefore, the same reality structure for inference making and ideation as did their enslaved ancestors. This point is not minutiae. According to Wilson (1999) African-U.S. people

have never escaped slavery [and].... still share

the slave consciousness.... hav[ing] not advanced

beyond these people. (95)

Wilson points out:

[1] the language we speak at this moment [English, Spanish, French, and so forth] is the slave language ... that our slave ancestors were forced to learn .... [2] What kind of food do you eat?.... Soul food.... [is] Slave food.... [that] we learned to eat in the slave quarters.... [3] What kind of clothes are we wearing? Were these the clothes of Afrikan people?.... [4] Why is it that Afrikan names sound strange to us as a people[?].... [and 5] Ultimately.... I ask you: What kind of god do you worship?.... Is this the religion you had before you were brought to these shores? Can you name one Afrikan god?.... Then how can you say that you exist in another consciousness from thosepeople [enslaved ancestors]? (Wilson, 1999, 95-97, original emphases)

To be oriented to reality with a slave consciousness/ mentality, anigger-to-negro bounded psychological orientation, militates againstracial group maintenance by African-U.S. people. This is in sharp contrast to New World Africans oriented to reality with African cultural traditions in which racial group maintenance was preeminent (e.g., Counter & Evans, 1981). Slave consciousness was, however, the rule asde Africanization was enforced. Thus, the kind of cultural oppression (Schiele, 2005) visited upon African-U.S. people generates in them a slave consciousness the upshot of which is people who themselves are anti-ADP, ambivalent or neutral regarding the survival of ADP, or who approach collective African group survival as subordinate to Eurasian descent people's survival. Denouement in racial identity development like this would seem to be an abnormal psychology phenomenon in otherwise normal individuals (Azibo, Johnson, & Robinson, 2007; Azibo & Robinson, 2004). Although not a psychological disorientation, slaveconsciousness seems patently psychopathological as it undermines self-preservation. Slave consciousness behavior is even more inappropriate/abnormal when the self is conceived as a collective, corporate entity in which the me-myself-I component is subordinate to the we-us-group component (Azibo, 1996c) as it is in African culture (Emy, 1973; Holdstock, 2000; Khoapa, 1980).

This pathological orientation of slave consciousness is in psychological parlance best regarded as a psychological misorientation to reality (Atwell & Azibo, 1991; Azibo, 1989, 2006b; Baldwin, 1985; Kambon, 1996). This occurs when reality is negotiated with that part of the African-U. S. person's individual consciousness which determines his or her unique racial identification being bereft of cognitions thatwould orient him or her with a psychological functioning geared toward prioritizing the maintenance of ADP. In short, psychological misorientation infers "the artificial fabrication of [ADP's] consciousness[t]hat could only take place when the previous [mental] database ...could be deleted ... and trashed" (Morrow, 2003, 34; Wilson, 1993). Indeed the database was with the implanting of slave consciousness circumscribed from "nigger-to-Negro". In fact, slave consciousness orients the African-U.S. person in a manner that prioritizes the maintenance of Eurasian cultures and people to the detriment of ADP.

Four examples spanning 243 years can make the psychological misorientation concept and its intergenerational, psychopathological character plain. Enslaved and university educated, Jacobus E. Capitein (akaRafael Septien) was an advocate of enslaving ADP who argued in his 1742 dissertation that it was consistent with Christianity. He subsequently served the European enslavement of Africans as Chaplain to Elmina Castle, a famous slave dungeon (Thompson, 1987). Neptune Small accompanied the elder son of his enslaver into battle in the Civil War. He heroically rescued his body when Confederate soldiers refused to out of danger and returned it to the plantation. Small returned to battle again on the Confederate side accompanying the planter's younger son. The state of Georgia has named a park--Neptune Park--in his honor (St. Simons, 2010). African-U.S. William Keyes accepted a $390,000 a year contract to lobby the U.S. Congress on behalf of apartheid South Africa to counteract the antiapartheid movement. He lobbied against one-person-one-vote and all the reforms advocated for undoing apartheid (Williams, 1985). Courtney Mann is an African-U.S. advocate for the Ku Klux Klan who served over 3 years as its Pennsylvania state director. She assisted Grand Dragon David Duke in organizing "White rights" conventions in Florida (Mann has destruction, 1997).

But for the psychological misorientation (disorder) and psychological Africanity (normalcy) concepts, each person would seem normal from the Caucasian societal perspective of the time. This bears emphasizing as these examples make clear how "the condition of psychological misorientation refers to the acquisition of a pseudo European-American or Eurocentric self-consciousness by African-Americans [and].... isa grossly psychopathological condition ... masquerading as functional normalcy" (Baldwin, 1985, 220). Here lies a great danger of psychological misorientation vis-a-vis psychological disorientation. Personsafflicted with the latter are readily seen as suffering a dysfunction whereas persons with the former affliction appear normal or as functioning appropriately when viewed from the lens of Caucasian hegemony. However, they do be grossly pathological in violating the race-maintenance or self extension dictate as posited in African-centered nature of human nature theory (Azibo, 1991a, 1996c). Also, alienation from matters African is associated with many dysfunctional personal outcomes for African-U.S. people (Taylor, et al. 1998).

Indeed, psychological misorientation fits criteria for disorder attributions referred to as

The harmful dysfunction analysis [which posits disorder].... When the individual lacks an ability that human beings are designed to possess.... A person ought to be able to do something if the person would be able to do that thing if the person's mental mechanisms were functioning as designed. (Wakefield, 1997, 252-253, original emphases)

We reiterate, but for the Maafa, ADP would develop psychological Africanity which means self-consciousness of oneself as an African descent person prioritizing the defense, development, and maintenance ofAfrican life and culture. Theory says ADP by nature are designed to possess psychological Africanity (Azibo, 1989, 1990a, 1991a, 2006a; Khoapa, 1980). With psychological Africanity intact, ADP then would possess the psychological gearing needed to pursue the self-extension/race-maintenance function of human nature, something all human groups "ought to be able to do". This, however, is not the case overwhelmingly for ADP (Azibo, 2011a, 2011b; Baruti, 2005; Sutherland, 1989, 1997). Eventually, where Caucasian hegemony prevails, psychological misorientation can overtake psychological Africanity in an individual's consciousness (Azibo, 2006b).

It appears that psychological misorientation is reinforced by providing afflicted ADP with financial rewards, notoriety, and positions of influence. Witness the examples of Capitein, Small, Keyes, and Mann. Psychological misorientation accurately depicts the psyche of Capitein, Small, Keyes, and Mann (and African-U.S. people overall). It takes into account the violent (Ginzburg, 2006; King, 1977; Patterson, 1971; Warren, 2007; Williams-Myers, 1995) imposition and maintenance of the Caucasian civilization frame of reference. This qualifies as deAfricanization of the psyche and prevention of psychological Africanity development. Since the content of the resulting consciousness is imposed with force from without, implanted with falsified/fabricated information, and harvested with reinforcers and punishers, it is a psychological misorientation and not assimilation, bi- or multi-cultural orientation, diversity, and acculturation that is ingrained in the individual psyche.

These latter concepts represent false concepts when applied to African-U.S. social reality. A false concept is one that seems applicable at first glance, like assimilation and so forth, but in actuality obfuscates and misleads into the Eurocentric conceptual universe. However, when the African-centered conceptual universe is employed to explain African-U.S. reality there may be more conceptual accuracy because it may generate concepts truer than the false Eurasian concepts. Witness that multiculturalism does not capture Mann's behavior, nor diversity Keyes's, nor acculturation Small's, nor assimilation Capitein's, but psychological misorientation does.

Psychological misorientation has been discussed as far back as 1976 by Baldwin. Its incorporation into the Azibo Nosology of mental disorders peculiar to ADP in 1989 by Azibo substantially increased its visibility and utility. Psychological misorientation is defined as a state in African Americans whereby the individual, in his or her own mind, is neither confused about his/her identity nor dysfunctional in his/her behavior according to the standards prescribed by the European American worldview.... Because the (African American) person is operating in the manner of a European American [with].... a pseudoEurocentric self-consciousness ... regarded as functionally normal in the American social reality. (Kambon, 1996, 62)

The Azibo nosology (Azibo, 1989a) defines psychological misorientation as a state of

genetic Blackness minus psychological Blackness

[in which ADP negotiate reality or] proceed

with a cognitive definitional system that is non-Black

.... the cognitive structure (generally the

constellation of beliefs, attitudes, values, etc.) of the

[psychologically] misoriented African is depleted of

concepts of psychological Blackness [psychological

Africanity] and consequently is composed of alien

(i.e., non-African) concepts [like] psychological

Europeanism and psychological Arabism. (184-185).

Psychological misorientation is assessed in two ways: diagnostically using the Azibo nosology (Abdullah, 1998; Atwell & Azibo, 1991; Denard, 1998) or the Cultural Misorientation Scale (Kambon, 1997). In contrast, there are many instruments that assess psychological Africanity.

Psychological Africanity (racial identity): Importance and Assessment

The development of psychological Africanity, defined as a self-conscious prioritizing of the defense, development, and maintenance of African life and culture, is effectively militated against by forcing slave mentality/consciousness on past and present ADR Because of thisthe African personality (Azibo, 1991a, 2001b; Khoapa, 1980; Osei, 1981; Sofola, 1973), to which psychological Africanity is integral, in African-U.S. people is daunted with an imposed stupefaction. In turn,African-U.S. psychological functioning is hardly authentic and exceedingly non-ideal (Sutherland, 1989, 1997). Overturning this state typically has required a psychological metamorphosis in adults depicted in stages ranging from "Negro-to-Black" (Cross, 1978). The metamorphosis appears captured in five stages with the fifth stage denouement being a sophisticated regression to the deracinated, psychologically misoriented, negro mentality first stage (Azibo, Johnson, & Robinson, 2007; Azibo & Robinson, 2004). In testing Milliones's (1980) four stage model, the pattern repeated (Robinson & Azibo, 2003). Sophisticated regression means that in returning to a stage 1 identity after attaining a (theorized) stage of ultimate denouement much rank anti-Africanism is significantly lessened, but simultaneously highlighted in the person's consciousness is a paean and inclining to Caucasians and their civilization. The tragedy in all this is that the typical African-U.S. racial identity scholar continues to conceptualize this identity regression as identity progression (Azibo, 1998; Azibo, Johnson, &Robinson, 2007; Azibo & Robinson, 2004).

If Harris (1992) is correct that all African-U.S. maintenance are characterized by the quest for freedom (the ability to conceptualize the world in ways contiguous with one's history) and literacy (the application of this freedom in living), then the quest for freedom and literacy is at once inseparable from the attainment of psychological Africanity, and precludes interpreting identity permutation into sophisticated regression as normalcy (as do most nigrescence referencing racial identity theories). Thence comes the importance of psychological Africanity/racial identity. Indeed, African-U.S.-on-African-U.S. comity may depend on it and the counselor's gestalt should expand to incorporate the indispensability of psychological Africanity for ADP (Azibo, 1990b).

In addition, psychological Africanity has mental health correlates(Carter, 1995, 139-149; Chambers, et al. 1998; Constantine, et al. 2006; Croasdale & Mate-Kole, 2006; Cross, Parham, & Helms, 1998; Houston, 1990; Jones, 1998; Schultz, 2003; Taylor, 1998; Tomes, et al. 1990) which dovetail on the theme that "Blackness [psychological Africanity/racial identity] is a tonic.... curative of the ... identity odyssey of deAfricanization" (Azibo, 2006a, 152). This theme is found with children and adolescents too (Belgrave, et al. 2009; Townsend & Belgrave, 2000; Mandara, et al. 2009). Phillips (1996) developed a psychotherapy for fixing broken psychological Africanity and psychologicalmisorientation (the two concepts overlap, but are distinct: Azibo, 2006b). Strategies for addressing these types of problems have been articulated (Azibo, 1990b; Baruti, 2009; Taylor, et al. 1998). Case studies clearly reveal that fixing broke psychological Africanity is doable and indispensable in psychotherapy (Abdullah, 1998; Atwell & Azibo, 1991; Denard, 1998). Racial socialization studies reveal the tonicof psychological Africanity too (Sutherland, 1995; Townsend & Lanphier, 2007). Bynum, Burton, and Best (2007) found that cultural pride transmission predicted less psychological distress. Murray and Mandara(2003) found race empowering socialization yielded higher self-esteem. Arguably, cultural orientation to reality is the single most important matter in the community mental health of African-U.S. people (Azibo, 1990b; Nobles, 1976) as it apparently differentiates those who do versus do not adopt African-U.S. kids (Hollingsworth, 2000), support reparations down payments for improving African-U.S. life chances (Azibo, 2008), perpetrate anti-social behavior as youth (Whaley, 1993), display behavior problems and strengths in school (Thomas, Townsend, & Belgrave, 2003) and so forth.

The Assessment Imperative

Our disquisition into psychological misorientation and psychological Africanity is not only in keeping with Bradley's plea but also thevision of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. who saw it as "urgent" to study the "psychological and ideological changes in Negroes" (King, 1968,183). When joined with the call to deepen understanding of the varieties of normal human consciousness (Shweder & Sullivan, 1993), the call for instrumentation that assesses the spoliated African-U.S. consciousness Africentrically for amelioration activities and exploration of intra-race or emic sources of variance (Azibo, 1996d; Dana, 1998, 2001; Morgan, 1991) is clarion. This is Celebrating the [African-U.S.] Other (Sampson, 1993) in a practical way.

There are numerous instruments that assess psychological Africanity (racial identity) and related constructs with varying psychometric properties, conceptual foundations, and shared pitfalls (Azibo, 1989b; Burlew, Bellow, & Lovett, 2000; Burlew & Smith, 1991; Jones, 1996; Sabnani & Ponterotto, 1992). The three we selected for validation arerace- and culture-specific as opposed to a generalized minority or ethnicity focus. These latter types of scales may be implicated in notdetecting relationships (e.g., Townsend, et al. 2006) because generalized "ethnic identity may be based on racialized beliefs or may be inversely related to racialized beliefs" (Cokely, 2005, 523).

Since disputing race as a concept implies the racial identity/psychological Africanity construct is anachronistic, perhaps to be displaced by ethnic identity, we advance Bradley's (1992) definition of race as

Major Genetic Group/Major Group--a human

population, usually before the 16th century

characteristic of a geographic region, which,

by genetic amalgamation or genetic isolation

developed visually obvious physical characteristics

(and, perhaps, not visually obvious physiopsychological

characteristics) distinguishing it from

other groups (10)

and cultural/ethnic group as

a human population, belonging to one of the

aforementioned racial/major groups, which,

through a certain amount of geographic isolation,

has developed certain social values and behaviors

which make it distinctive. (11-12)

By these definitions the conjecture that race is neither real nor relevant is turned over. An ethnic or cultural group it seems cannot be separated from its racially biogenetic origins and neither can norshould its functioning. Plus, since "race remains a principal determinant of social organization" (Wilkinson, 1995, 168) racial realism is to be faced (Bell, 1992; Curry, 2008), not denied. Therefore (1) the deficiency in applying ethnic identity scales of a generalized nature cross racially is suspected as the practice precludes grounding the scale in ADP's racial reality. Also, (2) for the Black race/major genetic group, the racial identity/ psychological Africanity construct, including broken, impaired psychological Africanity, and its assessment is apropos, nay imperative, to proceed with. In "A call to the mental health profession" Carter (1995, 267-268) made it plain that "race as part of personality ... just is [and] Race can be understood by way of racial identity [psychological Africanity] theory, and, by using it, one can grasp race's role in human development". Before proceeding, however, the conceptualization of construct validity for racial identity must be plumbed some more as scholars still seem to get it wrong.

The Contradiction in Construct Conceptualization Issue

Psychological Africanity conceptualized rudimentarily is in our view the root of racial identity as a construct. It states

racial identity is seen as a variable on a unidimensional continuum ranging from low to high psychological Africanity [ergo].... any uni- or multi-dimensional conceptualization of African racial identity would be seen as erroneous if it were incongruous with this rudimentary model [ergo].... both conceptual models and indices of higher (lower) African racial identity levels [must] actually depict greater (lesser) orientation to defend, develop, and maintain African life and culture as a conscious psychological priority. (Azibo, 2006a, 153-154)

Therefore, all formulations and operationalizations of racial identity that are incongruous with this rudiment are off base (Azibo, 2006a). By definition, they could never be construct valid. Most formulations of racial identity do conceptually frame incongruous with the rudimentary conceptualization (Azibo, 1998). We label this the contradiction in construct conceptualization issue. Many examples can be found in reviews of these formulations (Azibo, 1990; Duncan and McCoy, 2007; Jones, 1998). The error common to all these formulations is conceptualizing racial identity as a function of the vicissitudes that impact it in a given society at a given epoch. In other words, for mostformulations racial identity only stems from how a society buffets people about around race. These formulations maintain "racial identityis a construct that is based on socially-defined characteristics of an individual that are largely regulated by social and political forces" (Duncan & McCoy, 2007, 44). From this thinking has emerged a framework on African-U.S. racial identity as profoundly reaction, troubled reaction at that likened to a storm (Parham, 1993). "Even here", however, "to be [completely] reactive is to be nonproductive" (Goodman,1976, 154).

In contrast, our rudimentary conceptualization is not reactive, but is based on the premises that (1) race, as defined earlier, is realand (2) own-race maintenance is a phylogenetic categorical imperative (Azibo, 1991 a, 1996c; Azibo & Robinson, 2004). Thus, the rudimentary conceptualization of psychological Africanity withstands interpretations of racial identity behavior that derive from prevailing "social and political forces". Consequently, behavior by African-U.S. people that is hurtful to ADP is inappropriate and represents disorder regardless of epoch and the impacting vicissitudes. Neptune Small's and Courtney Mann's actions can be regarded only as incorrect in the rudimentary conceptualization. But, incongruous formulations like the Cross model (Cross, 1991; Worrell, et al. 2001) can view their actions as appropriate idiosyncratic coming to grips with their Americaness. This is because theories like this interpret African-U.S. behavior based on the individual's self-declarations in response to whatever social and political forces hold sway over him/her at the time (see Duncan & McCoy, 2007). This boxes racial identity as ontogenetic reaction.As a result, discrepant identity orientations are rendered as equally appropriate entirely dependent on point of view. The contradiction is whopping and cannot be swallowed that, for instance, Capitein's, Small's, and Mann's behavior pertaining to race is as appropriate as Queen Nzinga's, Frederick Douglas's, and Rosa Parks's, respectively.

This contradiction in construct conceptualization must be understood before psychometrically appraising racial identity instruments because it is manifested in the item content of most scales developed outside the rudimentary conceptualization. Of these, multidimensional measures are especially vulnerable to incorporating this contradictionin their scale content. As examples, the Cross Racial Identity Scale(CRIS, Psychological nigrescence, 2001, 202) measures identity orientations that incline toward (Black nationalist) and away from (multicultural inclusive) psychological Africanity as equally appropriate indices of the same subscale (internalization) and the MIBI (Sellers, et al. 1998) contains an ideological dimension based on a philosophy that refuses to take a position whether assimilationist (fit in) and humanist (everybody is the same) ideologies for how African-U.S. people should orienteer in society are more optimal or less optimal than nationalist (own-race reliance to secure ADP's interests) ideology. And, the construct underlying the MIBI's oppressed minority subscale (ideology of common ground with other oppressed groups) explicitly approves taking as much interest in the cultures of other groups as the African-U.S. culture. Necessarily, significant item content in these and similarly framed scales is both contradictory and irrelevant to psychological Africanity such as emphasizing connectedness to gays, lesbians, Jews, and various non-ADP as part and parcel of African-U.S. racial identity. Perspectives on psychological Africanity like these so distend it as to be warped and warrants the warning that "if Blackness [racial identity/psychological Africanity] is everything, then itis nothing" (Wright, 1982).

We hammer the point of the contradiction first because the psychometric soundness of scales should not cloud concerns about theoreticalsoundness that we raise. Nevertheless, most work proceeds without attention to the contradiction (e.g., Cokely, 2002; Simmons, Worrell, &Berry, 2008; Vandiver, et al. 2002; Vandiver, Worrell, & Delgado-Romero, 2009; Worrell & Watson, 2008). Whether the underlying construct is formulated sensibly and without contradiction would seem the preeminent issue (Azibo, 1998) presupposed by measurement matters. Second,the contradiction underlies the spectacular misinterpretation of African-U.S, regression and dysfunction in racial identity/psychologicalAfricanity as progression (Azibo, et al. 2007; Azibo & Robinson, 2004; Robinson & Azibo, 2003). We do not know of any modern day construct in psychology where mental health workers err like this, confusing inappropriate regression-based functioning with appropriate progression in functioning. If parent theory or construct is flawed fundamentally, then, a fortiori, from get so are instruments that reflect it, irrespective of their psychometric merits. Construct validity, in effect, is not possible for psychological Africanity measures open to this criticism like the so-called Nigrescence models reviewed over the years (Azibo, 1990a; Azibo & Robinson, 2004; Constantine, et al. 1998;Cross, et al. 1998; Duncan & McCoy, 2007).

A case in point is Jones, Cross, and DeFour (2007). Using the CRIS, which has extensive psychometric investigations, they found less depression for racism-related events for persons with high versus low multicultural attitude scores and proposed that multicultural attitudes protect against depression. These results seem to align with the psychological Africanity is a tonic theme. Alas they do not because CRIS multicultural attitudes measure "the degree to which Blacks accept and connect with others from diverse cultures and worldviews" (214, emphases ours) and thereby embody the contradiction of regression-based racial identity functioning masquerading as progression-based. Thatis, in the confused logic of the CRIS's parent theory (see Azibo & Robinson, 2004), "multicultural" orientation is as equal an index of racial identity internalization (the most advanced, progressive status) as "Afrocentric" orientation defined as "Black nationalist attitudes characterized by empowerment and awareness of Black culture" (214).However, when racial identity logic is approached from Azibo's (2006a) psychological Africanity framework, which begets the rudimentary conceptualization, from which the correct-diffused-incorrect psychological Africanity orientation position derives, this contradiction is precluded and multicultural is seen to be diffusion born of identity regression. Thus we can plausibly answer the query of Jones et al. (2007, 228) "why they [multicultural attitudes] protect against race-related stress" because multicultural orientation is a sophisticated return/regression mentally to deracination without or with reduced anti-Black denigration and without too much African-centeredness, but nonetheless highlighting pro-White/pro-other-than African descent thinking which results in denial and downplaying of racism-related realities. Ergo, less race-related depression is manifested. This finding, then, from Jones et al., though real, is not positive and illustrates the preclusion of construct validity of instruments that incorporate the contradiction, impressive psychometric standing of the instrument notwithstanding. Why scholars do not get this is befuddling: postulating states of psychological Africanity that actually depict what Semaj(1981) termed diffused identity, described here as absence, minimization or (more likely) subordination of pro-Africanness, a maximized or prioritized pro-Whiteness, and minimized or depressed anti-Blackness (Azibo, et al. 2007; Azibo & Robinson, 2004), whether uni- or multi-dimensional, as progressed, advanced, or appropriate is the quintessence of contradiction in construct conceptualization as these states lie more toward the lower end of the psychological Africanity continuum than the higher and cannot qualify as advanced or progressed.

Hypotheses

Scale details are given in the instruments section. The African American Multidimensional Racial Identity Scale (AAMRIS) and the Black Personality Questionnaire (BPQ) are multidimensional psychological Africanity measures which yield 4 and 6 subscale scores, respectively. Also, a unidimensional total score is calculable from each. Moreover,their scores, total and subscale, are consistent with the rudimentary conceptualization. This contrasts with many theoretical (e.g., Cross, 1991; Helms, 1995; Milliones, 1980; Parham, 1993; Sellers, et al. 1998; Taylor, 1998; Vandiver, et al. 2001) and empirical (Cokely, 2005) models which violate this fundamental tenet of the rudimentary model. The rudimentary conceptualization (Azibo, 2006a) compels taking asecond look at theories and instruments that commit this violation (Azibo, 1998).

The Cultural Misorientation Scale measures psychological misorientation. It thus is a measure of psychological Africanity disorder. It yields a total and six subscale scores, all congruous with the rudimentary conceptualization (inversely).

Our first hypothesis is that total scores from the psychological Africanity measures will correlate positively with each other and inversely with total scores of psychological misorientation. Second, subscale scores from each psychological Africanity measure should correlate positively with the total scale scores from its counterpart measure and negatively with total scores of psychological misorientation. And, subscale scores of psychological misorientation should inversely correlate with total psychological Africanity scores.

When regressing the three total scale scores on subscale scores from the other two instruments, we hypothesize thirdly that significantamounts of variance will be explained. This should occur if our conceptual models be valid.

Additionally, the unidimensional conceptualization affords three states of psychological Africanity orientation that can be derived empirically. A correct psychological Africanity orientation is a state in which the person's self consciousness inclines to behavior in accord with the definition of psychological Africanity given earlier. Thisstate is highest on the unidimensional continuum. A state of consciousness inclining in a way that is inconsistent with and contradictoryto the psychological Africanity construct would be an incorrect psychological Africanity orientation. This state is lowest on the unidimensional continuum. The labels correct and incorrect reflect the explicit value basis of African-centered Black psychology (see Azibo, 1996a; Karenga, 1982) in which setting afoot aright the African personality via therapy and socialization (Azibo, 1990b, 2001b; Sutherland, 1995) is deemed preeminent. In the context of the universal mental health and organismic survival maintenance propensity dictates of human nature (Azibo, 1996c), labeling states of individual consciousness that incline to psychological Africanity and oppose it as correct and incorrect, respectively, is logically defensible. A state of consciousness inclining in both the correct and incorrect directions representsa diffused psychological Africanity orientation (Azibo, et al. 2007;Azibo & Robinson, 2004; Semaj, 1981) which lies between the correct and incorrect orientations on the unidimensional continuum.

Research using this correct-diffused-incorrect schema has yielded theoretically supportive findings. Dixon and Azibo (1998) studied African-U.S. crack cocaine addicted, homeless men. Those with incorrect psychological Africanity orientation were significantly more likely to use exploitative means to earn a living detrimental to the African-U.S. community compared to those classified as diffused and correctlyoriented. A study of African descent college students' support for reparations found that correct and diffused orientation failed to predict nonsupport whereas incorrect orientation was associated with nonsupport (Azibo, 2008). Also, college students with correct psychological Africanity orientation structured their personal space with Africentric and pro-African artifacts more than peers with diffused and incorrect psychological Africanity orientations (Azibo, et al. 2010). Thus, the fourth hypothesis is that correct psychological Africanity orientation persons will have greater psychological Africanity scores and lower scores of psychological misorientation compared to diffused and incorrect psychological Africanity orientation persons. Hypotheses 1 and 2 pertain to convergent validity and 3 and 4 to construct validity.

Method

Participants

One hundred and two African-U.S. undergraduates at a southeastern historically ADP university volunteered. They were recruited from general psychology classes and received credit toward their grade. Demographic information was not recorded.

Instruments

African American Multidimensional Racial Identity Scale. The 29-item, 7-point Likert formatted AAMRIS was developed by Vetta Sanders Thompson (1995a, 1999). Most of her studies employed fairly large community samples (Myers & Thompson, 1994; Thompson, 1991, 1992, 1995b, 2001, 2006). Alpha reliability computed for the total scale was .80. The four factors underlying the scale with definition and alpha coefficients in parentheses are psychological identity (concern for and commitment to and pride in African-U.S. people, .87), physical identity (acceptance and comfort with African-U.S. people's physical attributes, .81), sociopolitical identity (awareness of and commitment to the resolution of social, economic, and political issues affecting African-U.S. people, .75), and cultural racial identity (awareness and knowledge of and commitment to African-U.S. people's cultural traditions, .30). The mean interitem correlation (MIC) for this subscale was .22 which exceeds the .20 cutoff for scales with low alphas and fewer than 10 items (Pallant, 2001).

Sex differences on the dimensions appear absent overall (Thompson,1995a, 2001), although African-U.S. males show lower scores for physical identity (Thompson, 2006). Psychological and cultural racial identity appear more sensitive to sociocultural influences/trends in society (Thompson, 1995b). Scores correlate positively with racial salience (Thompson, 1999) and racial socialization (Thompson, 1994). Generally, scoring has been consistent across dimensions as persons scoring high, medium, or low on one dimension score similarly on the others(Thompson, 2001). Sanders-Thompson emphasizes the dimensions and is "not convinced that the composite score has much meaning or value" (personal communication, 9/1/2010).

Black Personality Questionnaire. The BPQ is a 50-item measure of psychological Africanity/racial identity developed in the 1970s (Wright & Isenstein, 1978). In contrast to the AAMRIS, the composite score has always been emphasized along with the subscale scores (Azibo, 1996b). Respondents indicate agree, disagree, or cannot say to each item. Convergent validity has been indicated as the BPQ correlates positively with other psychological Africanity measures (Azibo, 2006a; Robinson & Azibo, 2003) and inversely with the CMS measure (Azibo, 2006b). Research shows overall that high BPQ scoring is associated with psychologically healthy and African-centered culturally appropriate behavior and low scoring relates in an opposite manner (Azibo, 1983, 1991a, 2008; Azibo & Dixon, 1998; Azibo, et al. 2007; Azibo, Melton-Arnold, & Dale, 2006; Azibo & Robinson, 2004; Robinson & Azibo, 2003).

There are several scoring methods (Azibo, 1996b). One point for each item endorsement is usually given. The sum of the subscale items gives the subscale score. The total score was computed as [2x(AW+PB+PA+TW)] + [PW+AB]. The subscales affirming of psychological Africanity are weighted so that when subscales are combined using this formula, higher scores will indicate higher psychological Africanity consonantwith the rudimentary conceptualization.

Computed alpha reliability was .77 for the total scale. The BPQ contains six factor analytically derived subscales. With definitions, alpha, and MIC (where appropriate) in parentheses, they are Pro-White (PW, acceptance and approval of White American cultural and societal standards and a favorable attitude to Whites in general, .48, MIC = .14), Anti-Black (AB, negativism toward an African-U.S. cultural orientation including ideology, institutions, and denial of personal Africanity, .51), Anti-White (AW, negation of Whiteness, White people, andWhite American orientation, .72), Pro-Black (PB, personal and collective African-U.S. identity including personal commitment to the success of African-U.S. people, .48, MIC = .14), Pan African (PA, orientation toward the plight of ADP, continental and diasporan, .59, MIC = .23), and Third World (TW, orientation to ameliorate oppression of allpeople, .69, MIC = .31). Also, there are two other subscale scores that reflect a conceptual (as against empirical) derivation. The Africentric score (alpha = .82) is computable as the (unweighted) sum of the PB, AW, PA, and TW subscales (subscales affirming of psychologicalAfricanity) and the sum of the PW and AB subscales yields an Anglocentric score (alpha = .46). Reliability analyses using .70 and .20 as cutoffs for adequate alpha and MIC respectively are problematic, yet mixed for BPQ subscales. Additionally, TW scores have correlated withsocial desirability (Azibo, et al. 2006).

The Cultural Misorientation Scale. The CMS measures disordered psychological Africanity as distinguishable from low or diminished psychological Africanity (Azibo, 2006b). Containing 53 items using a 5-point Likert format, the computed CMS alpha reliability is .76. It has correlated inversely with psychological Africanity measures (Azibo, 2006b; Jamison, 1999; Kambon, 1997). Its six subscales with definitions, alpha, and MIC in parentheses are materialism (valuation emphasizing physical characteristics, clothes, money, things, etc., .63, MIC = .18), individualism (emphasizes me-myself-I over group or collective considerations, .29, MIC = .10), alien-self (displays Eurocentric worldview orientation including a distancing from African-centered conceptualizing, .45), anti-self (an alien-self orientation with hostilityand nullification toward African-U.S. life and culture added, .40), integration (emphasizes the involvement of Caucasians in numerous aspects of the life of African-U.S. people, .76), and self-destructive disorder (engaging in behavior and thinking that is overtly hurtful ofADP and often criminal, .79). Because this last scale appears to index abnormalcy exceeding ordinary psychological misorientation, it is excluded from our analyses.

A note on reliability. The poor subscale reliabilities of the BPQ and CMS warrant caution. Still, research cited indicates they tend toyield theoretically supportive results as do the total scale scores which show adequate reliability. The subscale problems may not be purely psychometric, but part of the pitfalls inherent in measuring psychological Africanity (Azibo, 1989b). Psychological Africanity is fluid changing nightly for the multitudes of ADP who do not resist the influences constantly emerging from the American ecosystem (e.g., Azibo, 2010). It can be difficult for scale items to keep up without frequent updating. Therefore, we recommend caution but do not discourage, however, continued usage of psychological Africanity subscale scores evincing low internal consistency from instruments that have a history of empirical validity in combination with adequate total scale score reliability. Scale versions with poor subscale reliability should be abandoned only upon its updating or when it ceases generating theoretically sensible results. Formulaic reliance on internal consistencyfor evaluating the use of racial identity measures as in Ponterotto,Gretchen, and Chauhan (2001) needs tempering as validity is more important. Generally, "[i]f there is evidence of validity", even in faceof poor reliability, "the test is useful ... to the extent that the consumer's intended use overlaps with the evidence supporting the purported use of the test" (Sawilowsky, 2003, 113). This view would seemapplicable here, doubly so given the aforementioned fluid nature of psychological Africanity. Thus, there is an argument that "low alpha reliability coefficients may not be sufficient to infer that the racial identity items are not accessing the corresponding construct" (Carter, Pieterse, & Smith, 2008, 105). The Association of Black Psychologists (1984, v) anticipated this rationale and warned about "conform[ing lockstep] to certain conventionalized paradigms of ... instrumentation, and measurement" as an impediment to scholarship.

Procedure

During week 2 of the Spring 2000 term, participants gathered in a large classroom. After informed consent, a packet containing the instruments in random order was provided. That there were no right or wrong answers, only participant's views, was pointed out.

Operationalizing Psychological Africanity Orientation Groups. There are three sets of groups possible with each set containing correct orientation, incorrect orientation, and diffused orientation. First, using the AAMRIS and the BPQ, correct orientation was operationalizedas AAMRIS > Mdn=5.41 and BPQ > Mdn=28; incorrect orientation as AAMRIS < 5.41 and BPQ < 28; diffused as all others, specifically AAMRIS >= 5.41 and BPQ <= 28 or AAMRIS <= 5.41 and BPQ >= 28. Second, using the AAMRIS and the CMS, correct orientation was operationalized as AAMRIS > 5.41 and CMS < Mdn=2.25; incorrect orientation as AAMRIS < 5.41and CMS > 2.25; diffused as AAMRIS >= 5.41 and CMS >= 2.25 or AAMRIS<=5.41 and CMS <=2.25. Third, using the BPQ and the CMS, correct orientation was operationalized as BPQ > 28 and CMS < 2.25; incorrect orientation as BPQ < 28 and CMS > 2.25; diffused as BPQ >= 28 and CMS >= 2.25 or BPQ <= 28 and CMS <= 2.25. Conceptualizing each set unidimensionally, the correct orientation group is highest on the continuum,the incorrect orientation group is lowest, and the diffused orientation group falls between them.

Results

The mean and SD for AAMRIS scores were 5.39 and .53 (n=98), for BPQ scores 28.90 and 10.26 (n=97), and for CMS scores 2.29 and .32 (n=99). Correlational analyses addressing the first and second hypothesesare found in Table 1.

Convergent Validity Analyses

First hypothesis. Hypothesis 1 was supported as total psychological Africanity scale scores correlated positively with each other and negatively with psychological Africanity disorder scale scores. The AAMRIS-BPQ r = .56 is sizeable and indicates these scales overlap in measuring psychological Africanity/racial identity. Their inverse correlations with CMS scores are smaller, yet still reliable at r = -.41 (AAMRIS) and r = -.28 (BPQ). Although these latter two correlations are not significantly different from each other, t (91) = -1.448, p > .05, the AAMRIS explains over twice as much variance in CMS scores ([r.sup.2] = .168) than the BPQ ([r.sup.2] = .78). Also, the AAMRIS-BPQ correlation is significantly larger than the AAMRIS-CMS correlation, t (91) = 7.352, p < .01, and necessarily the smaller BPQ-CMS correlation.

Second hypothesis. Results were mixed as not every subscale correlated with total scale scores as hypothesized. Of the AAMRIS subscales, the psychological identity, physical identity, and sociopolitical identity correlate in descending order with total BPQ scores, but cultural identity did not. Neither cultural nor sociopolitical identity inversely correlated with CMS scores whereas physical (r = -.51) and psychological identity (r = -.23) did with the physical identity correlation over twice that of psychological identity.

Regarding the six individual BPQ subscales, the four which affirm psychological Africanity (AW, PB, PA, TW) correlated with total AAMRIS scores as hypothesized. The Africentric score derived from them does too. Also, the Africentric, AW, PB, and PA scores correlate inversely with total CMS scores as hypothesized. TW scores, however, did not. Interestingly none of the BPQ subscale scores that negate psychological Africanity (AB, PW, Anglocentric) inversely correlate with totalAAMRIS scores. However, PW and Anglocentric did positively correlatewith total CMS scores as expected indicating an overlapping of low psychological Africanity and disordered, broken psychological Africanity (as measured by the CMS). AB scores failed to correlate with either AAMRIS or CMS total scores.

Of the CMS subscales, alien-self and anti-self inversely correlated with both AAMRIS and BPQ total scores. Integration correlated inversely with the BPQ, but not the AAMRIS. And, materialism correlated inversely with the AAMRIS, but not the BPQ. Individualism failed to inversely correlate with either psychological Africanity measure.

The average size of the subscale-total scale correlations reflectsthe total scale score intercorrelation pattern in Table 1 where the psychological Africanity measures show reliably larger correlations with each other than with the psychological misorientation measure. Specifically, averaging the 4 AAMRIS subscale-BPQ total correlations and the 6 BPQ subscale-AAMRIS total correlations gives a value of r = .31 for the average size of the subscale-total scale correlations for the psychological Africanity measures. In contrast, the average size of the remaining 20 subscale-total scale correlations between psychological Africanity and psychological misorientation measures is r = .23.

Construct Validity Analyses

Third hypothesis. Table 2 contains the regression models pertaining to hypothesis 3. Eleven of the 12 simultaneous models were reliableat p < .01. The average adjusted [R.sup.2] values were .27 when the AAMRIS subscales were used as predictors, .26 with the BPQ subscales,and. 17 for CMS subscales. The greater variance accounted for by theAAMRIS and BPQ subscales appears influenced by the fact that in two of the four models these psychological Africanity measures predict each other. Both AAMRIS and BPQ subscales explain less variance when the CMS score is the criterion.

In the lone nonreliable model, AAMRIS subscales failed to predict BPQ Anglocentric scores. This finding seems consistent since neither the Anglocentric nor its component PW and AB subscales correlated with total AAMRIS scores. Of the four AAMRIS subscales, psychological identity alone predicted BPQ and Africentric scores (p < .000) althoughphysical identity approached significance. And, physical identity alone predicted CMS scores.

Of the six BPQ subscales, PB, AB (inversely), and PA predicted AAMRIS scores in descending order. Only PW predicted CMS scores. The Africentric composite predicted AAMRIS and CMS (inversely) scores, but the Anglocentric composite only predicted CMS scores. Anglocentric approached significance predicting the AAMRIS score.

Of the five CMS subscales, two inversely predicted AAMRIS scores: alien- and anti-self. Alien-self only, however, predicted BPQ (inversely). Alien-self also predicted BPQ Africentric scores inversely as did the integration subscale. BPQ Anglocentric scores were predicted by integration and materialism. Alien-self predicts in three of the four CMS subscale models, integration in two, and anti-self in only one. Of note, the variance accounted for when predicting AAMRIS (15.7%) and BPQ (15.4%) from CMS subscales is equivalent.

Psychological Africanity orientation groups (correct, diffused, and incorrect) were operationalized three ways using score combinationsof the AAMRIS and BPQ, AAMRIS and CMS, and BPQ and CMS (see Procedure or Table 4 for details). Crosstabulations of the operationalized groups were analyzed to see if they were consistent in classifying participants into categories. Based on reliable [[??].sup.2]s and strong contingency coefficients, the operationalizations were highly consistent with each other (Table 3).

Fourth hypothesis. Four 1-way ANOVAs using correct, diffused, and incorrect psychological Africanity orientation groups as the independent variable were performed. For each ANOVA, scores from the scale not used in the operationalization of the psychological Africanity orientation groups served as the dependent variable. Each ANOVA, displayed in Table 4, was reliable (p < .01). In each analysis using a psychological Africanity dependent variable, the cell means were largest for the correct psychological Africanity orientation group followed in order by the diffused and incorrect orientation groups. This pattern reversed when the psychological Africanity disorder CMS score was thedependent variable: the incorrect psychological Africanity orientation group had the highest cell mean followed in order by the diffused and correct orientation groups. Using strict Bonferroni correction, Fisher's LSD tests show that the incorrect orientation group has significantly lower psychological Africanity scores than the correct orientation group (first 3 ANOVAs in Table 4) as well as psychological Africanity disorder scores that are significantly higher than both the diffused and correct orientation groups. The incorrect orientation group did not reliably differ from the diffused group on the BPQ dependent variable. The diffused and correct orientation groups only differed on the AAMRIS dependent variable.

There was over twice as much variance accounted for with the AAMRIS dependent variable (omega squared = .298) than with the Africentric(omega squared =. 147) and over three times as much than the BPQ (omega squared = .093) and CMS (omega squared = .091). More variance wasexplained with the BPQ Africentric subscale than the total BPQ score.

Discussion

The numerous measures of psychological Africanity/racial identity are not indefectible. This fact is reason enough for continual psychometric appraisal of them. It is, moreover, the vicissitudes of identification as African descent in a world and nation that indefatigably and inter-generationally attacks "Africanity" or "Blackness" (Baldwin, 1985; Jennings, 2003; Jones, 1997; Kambon, 1996; Waiters, 2003) that wreaks havoc on an individual's psychological Africanity. Psychological Africanity can be seen to be affected by societal developments like desegregation, war with another nation, assassination of a national icon, Ku Klux Klan resurgence, and so on. Thus, the item content of racial identity instruments like always rooting for the contestant of African descent, agreeing that preachers of African descent are preying on ADP, or believing all ADP should speak an African language in common, and so forth may index psychological Africanity in one epoch and not in another. Consequently, psychological Africanity scale items may require frequent updating.

This applies to the AAMRIS, BPQ, and CMS. A strength of these is being formulated congruously with the rudimentary conceptualization: higher scoring on the AAMRIS and BPQ represents greater psychological Africanity and on the CMS greater psychological Africanity disorder. We do not claim inerrancy for these scales, but applaud their formulations which renders construct validity possible as they avoid the contradiction in construct conceptualization.

The results support construct validity in that they can be used tooperationalize correct, diffused, and incorrect psychological Africanity orientation groups as demonstrated with the ANOVAs. The chi square analyses show these scales classify people into orientation groupsconsistently. The mean of the diffused group is consistently below that of the correct group and above that of the incorrect group when psychological Africanity score is the dependent variable. And, the diffused group mean is above the correct group's mean and below the incorrect group's mean when the dependent variable is psychological Africanity disorder score. Consistent with the unidimensional continuum conceptualization, the upper boundary of the diffused (middle) group may overlap the lower boundary of the correct group as discernable fromthe ANOVA simple effects results (significant LSD for AAMRIS, but not BPQ total and Africentric). Apparently, the boundary between the diffused and incorrect groups is sharper. By analogy, we imagine that General Harriet Tubman would have to execute Neptune Small (incorrect orientation) whereas many enslaved ADP (suffering a diffused orientation) could be convinced with argument. The regression analyses indicate nonchance accounting for variance in psychological Africanity and psychological Africanity disorder by the measures in accord with hypotheses. Convergent validity appears supported as correlations using total and subscale scores evince the predicted pattern overall. It would seem safe given the overall validation to use these scales in research and practice cautiously so regarding the BPQ and CMS while recognizing these two need psychometric improvement.

Additionally, we update Azibo's (1991b) earlier thinking about a metatheory and propose his rudimentary conceptualization and its correct-diffused-incorrect unidimensional continuum as the metatheory for organizing the psychological Africanity/racial identity literature. Afew metatheory propositions consonant with the rudimentary model have been tested (Azibo, 1991 a), and scholars of racial identity entreated to rethink in the direction of the rudimentary conceptualization (Azibo, 1998; Azibo & Robinson, 2004). Agreement exists that an overarching theory of psychological Africanity/racial identity is desirable (e.g., Worrell, Cross, & Vandiver, 2001).

Additional Observations

That the AAMRIS and BPQ measures relate to and predict one anothermore than the CMS may be more an indication of construct validity than weakness in the CMS. Measures of psychological Africanity order ornormalcy perhaps ought to relate stronger to each other than to a psychological Africanity disorder measure. Given the numerous psychological Africanity measures and call for a metatheory, a metainstrument or super scale might make sense. It might be constructed from the ites of existing measures. Research should also report whether social desirability affects psychological Africanity measures (Azibo, et al. 2006).

Apparently, alien-self and integration are the most consistent CMSsubscale predictors, consistent with an analysis showing they represented the deepest, most severe permeations of the psyche (Azibo, 2006b). Anti-self misorientation is usually thought of as a deeper disorder because it sometimes has spectacular anti-ADP manifestations as with Mann and Capitein (presumably). However, ADP are socialized to negate their Africanness wherever Eurasian hegemony exists (Welsing, 1991). Thus, anti-self orientation is probably normative (not normal!) as it pervades African-U.S. people's psyche on a gradient, however, with hateful and destructive emotions at one end and a more prevalent but veneered inclination to be pejorative regarding matters African atthe other. Alien-self and integration orientations in comparison arenot surface and can therefore be seen to be more serious disturbances in psychological Africanity than veneered anti-self. It makes sensethen that alien-self and integration orientations consistently relate inversely to psychological Africanity more than anti-self (Azibo, 2006b).

Regarding the AAMRIS, the psychological and physical identity subscales appear to be the strongest based on consistently relating in the expected manner with psychological Africanity and psychological Africanity disorder measures. Perhaps these subscales are less vulnerable to the vicissitudes impacting psychological Africanity in the ecosystem at large than sociopolitical and cultural identity. It seems reasonable that a person would either like or dislike or be ambivalent about being of ADP irrespective of societal (sociopolitical and cultural) trends. That is the nature of identity. Comfort with physical blackness as assessed by the physical identity subscale may be an essential component of psychological Africanity. As it inversely predicts psychological misorientation, physical identity appears to buffer against the unrelenting, worldwide negation of physical blackness (Azibo,2011a, 2011b; Hall, 1995; Imarogbe, 2003; Jones, 1997).

The Africentric orientation of the BPQ and its constituent AW, PB,PA subscales seem to affirm a general psychological Africanity perhaps resistant to ecosystem vicissitudes similarly to AAMRIS' physical and psychological identity subscales. The status of TW is pending. Interestingly, the disconfirming Anglocentric orientation and its PW and AB subscales seem less consistent inverse indices of a general psychological Africanity. Perhaps ecosystem vicissitudes can affect theseorientations more than the affirming orientations. Under Western hegemony PW is presented as a desideratum. And, American Africanism, thedepiction of ADP pejoratively within the White psyche (Morrison, 1992), is integral to PW orientation. Therefore BPQ PW among African-U.S. persons is perhaps more psychological misorientation than it is low, truncated psychological Africanity as the correlation and regression data indicate. Also, BPQ AB orientation has some basis in social reality in that, for example, to agree that "Black preachers are pimping off the Black community" may indicate more reality perception todaythan the community denigration/race disparagement of yesterday. Yesterday it may have carried the same sentiment that "n-word ain't s-- -- --" attitude carries. Therefore, surface elements of African-U.S. culture addressing AB thinking as measured by the BPQ may be embraced by persons across the psychological Africanity spectrum. That may explain the low correlation coefficients with both AAMRIS and CMS scores.

The major limitation of this study is small sample size, especially when viewed in isolation. However, as a part in the first author's 28 years of research investigating the measures and nomological net of psychological Africanity, the present results are part of a confirming planking. Future studies should employ larger and community samples and extend to African descent students at historically White colleges.

In conclusion, an uptick in the use of psychological Africanity order and disorder measures is inevitable. Movement for multicultural competence (Azibo, 2003) in the spirit of celebration of the other (Sampson, 1993) using the other's own emic cultural/racial idiom (Dana, 1998, 2001; Schultz, 2003; Strickland, 2000) ensures this. As counselor education purposefully engages these issues, the following are inevitable: the mental health worker's gestalt will expand to incorporate the perspectives that slave consciousness/mentality runs rampant amongst African-U.S. people, that psychological Africanity is a tonic for that, that a culture-focused nosology based on correct versus incorrect psychological Africanity rudiments (Azibo, 1989a) and guiding principles (Azibo, 1990b; Baruti, 2009) are available, and researcherswill realize there likely are numerous nontrivial correlates of psychological Africanity (Azibo, 1996d). Doubtlessly, additional psychometrically acceptable instrumentation for psychological Africanity and psychological Africanity disorder, including projective techniques (Azibo, 2006a), will be welcome.