The purpose of this investigation was to develop a conceptually grounded scale to assess cognitive aspects of color-blind racial attitudes. Five studies on the Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale (CoBRAS) with over 1,100 observations provide initial reliability and validity data. Specifically, results from an exploratory factor analysis suggest a 3-factor solution: Unawareness of Racial Privilege, Institutional Discrimination, and Blatant Racial Issues. A confirmatory factor analysis suggests that the 3-factor model is a good fit of the data and is the best of the competing models. The CoBRAS was positively related to other indexes of racial attitudes as well as 2 measures of belief in a just world, indicating that greater endorsement of color-blind racial attitudes was related to greater levels of racial prejudice and a belief that society is just and fair. Self-reported CoBRAS attitudes were sensitive to diversity training. Over the past 25 years, psychologists have articulated theories and developed corresponding scales to assess modern racial attitudes, many of which have focused on racial prejudice. These new theories and corresponding scales have contributed to how psychologists understand and assess racial attitudes. Three of the most common theories used to describe racial attitudes are the interrelated conceptualizations of symbolic racism (McConahay & Hough, 1976), modern racism (McConahay, 1986), and aversive racism. These theories were developed to understand post-Civil Rights movement expressions of individual racism. They all underscore that racial prejudice is manifested in (a) negative attitudes toward racial and ethnic minority groups, primarily Blacks; (b) "ambivalence between feelings of nonprejudice or egalitarianism and those

Synthesizing the interdisciplinary literature, we characterize color-blind racial ideology (CBRI) as consisting of two interrelated domains: color-evasion (i.e., denial of racial differences by emphasizing sameness) and power-evasion (i.e., denial of racism by emphasizing equal opportunities). Mounting empirical data suggest that the color-evasion dimension is ineffective and in fact promotes interracial tension and potential inequality. CBRI may be conceived as an ultramodern or contemporary form of racism and a legitimizing ideology used to justify the racial status quo. Four types of CBRI are described: denial of (a) race, (b) blatant racial issues, (c) institutional racism, and (d) White privilege. We discuss empirical findings suggesting a relationship between CBRI and increased racial prejudice, racial anger, and racial fear. Implications for education, training, and research are provided.

The literature indicates that perceived racism tends to be associated with adverse psychological and physiological outcomes; however, findings in this area are not yet conclusive. In this meta-analysis, we systematically reviewed 66 studies (total sample size of 18,140 across studies), published between January 1996 and April 2011, on the associations between racism and mental health among Black Americans. Using a random-effects model, we found a positive association between perceived racism and psychological distress (r = .20). We found a moderation effect for psychological outcomes, with anxiety, depression, and other psychiatric symptoms having a significantly stronger association than quality of life indicators. We did not detect moderation effects for type of racism scale, measurement precision, sample type, or type of publication. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

The purpose of this study was to develop a measure of gendered racial microaggressions (i.e., subtle and everyday verbal, behavioral, and environmental expressions of oppression based on the intersection of one's race and gender) experienced by Black women by applying an intersectionality framework to Essed's (1991) theory of gendered racism and Sue, Capodilupo, et al.'s (2007) model of racial microaggressions. The Gendered Racial Microaggressions Scale (GRMS), was developed to assess both frequency and stress appraisal of microaggressions, in 2 separate studies. After the initial pool of GRMS items was developed, we received input from a community-based focus group of Black women and an expert panel. In Study 1, an exploratory factor analysis using a sample of 259 Black women resulted in a multidimensional scale with 4 factors as follows: (a) Assumptions of Beauty and Sexual Objectification, (b) Silenced and Marginalized, (c) Strong Black Woman Stereotype, and (d) Angry Black Woman Stereotype. In Study 2, results of confirmatory factor analyses using an independent sample of 210 Black women suggested that the 4-factor model was a good fit of the data for both the frequency and stress appraisal scales. Supporting construct validity, the GRMS was positively related to the Racial and Ethnic Microaggressions Scale (Nadal, 2011) and the Schedule of Sexist Events (Klonoff & Landrine, 1995). In addition, the GRMS was significantly related to psychological distress, such that greater perceived gendered racial microaggressions were related to greater levels of reported psychological distress. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.

Advancing beyond individual-level approaches to coping with racial trauma, we introduce a new psychological framework of radical healing for People of Color and Indigenous individuals (POCI) in the United States. We begin by providing a context of race and racism in the United States and its consequences for the overall well-being of POCI. We build on existing frameworks rooted in social justice education and activism and describe a form of healing and transformation that integrates elements of liberation psychology, Black psychology, ethnopolitical psychology, and intersectionality theory. We briefly review these conceptual foundations as a prelude to introducing a psychological framework of radical healing and its components grounded in five anchors including: (a) collectivism, (b) critical consciousness, (c) radical hope, (d) strength and resistance, and (e) cultural authenticity and self-knowledge. We conclude with a discussion of the applications of radical healing to clinical practice, research, training, and social justice advocacy.