homework2
linxuhpnd594lyh
Owens-BlackandHispanicImmigrantsResilienceagainstNegative-abilityRacialStereotypesatSelectiveCollegesandUniversitiesintheUnitedStates.pdf
Black and Hispanic Immigrants’ Resilience against Negative-ability Racial Stereotypes at Selective Colleges and Universities in the United States
Jayanti Owens1 and Scott M. Lynch1
Abstract
Stereotype threat is a widely supported theory for understanding the racial achievement gap in college grade performance. However, today’s minority college students are increasingly of immigrant origins, and it is unclear whether two dispositional mechanisms that may increase susceptibility to stereotype threat are applicable to immigrants. We use survey data to examine whether and how negative-ability ster- eotypes affect the grades of 1,865 first-, second-, and third-generation or higher (domestic) minority stu- dents at 28 selective American colleges. Structural equation model results indicate that first-generation immigrants are highly resistant to both dispositional identity threat mechanisms we consider. Second-gen- eration immigrants experience only certain dispositional elements of identity threat. Drawing on research in social psychology, we suggest immigrants tend to resist stereotype threat in part due to the primacy of their immigrant identities and their connectedness to the opportunity structure of mainstream society.
Keywords
education, college performance, stereotype threat, immigrants
Social scientists have long been interested in iden-
tifying the sources of the achievement gap
between whites and racial minorities (Jencks and
Phillips 1998). Social psychology offers one of
the most empirically supported theories to explain
the gap: the theory of stereotype threat. Stereotype
threat occurs when negative-ability stereotypes
increase minority students’ cognitive psychologi-
cal load and reduce their academic effort, nega-
tively affecting academic performance. We
might expect black and Hispanic 1
students at elite
schools to be well positioned to resist stereotype
threat, given that they have achieved academic
success in secondary school and obtained admis-
sion to a selective institution. Yet stereotype threat
dampens even their academic performance.
However, considerable heterogeneity exists
within minority student populations at elite col-
leges. Today, minority immigrants comprise a rap-
idly increasing proportion of minorities at elite
colleges, despite being generally on par with
domestic minorities on most socioeconomic meas-
ures (Massey et al. 2007). 2
Does stereotype threat
theory apply to immigrant minorities? In a social
context in which domestic minority students are
1 Princeton University, NJ, USA
Corresponding Author:
Jayanti Owens, 284 Wallace Hall, Office of Population
Research, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, 08544 USA
Email: [email protected]
Sociology of Education 85(4) 303–325
� American Sociological Association 2012 DOI: 10.1177/0038040711435856
http://soe.sagepub.com
the targets of negative-ability stereotypes, minor-
ity immigrants negotiate the boundaries of their
primary identity (‘‘in’’) group perhaps differently
than their domestic minority peers. Their identi-
ties are shaped by a combination of self-categori-
zations and perceptions of categorizations made
by members of other groups (Deaux 2006). In cat-
egorizing themselves, first-generation and possi-
bly second-generation immigrants may give
primacy to their ethnic-immigrant identity rather
than their racial identity. Ethnic-immigrant identi-
ties may facilitate their resilience against the
potentially grade-depressing effects of negative-
ability racial stereotypes. On the other hand,
immigrant minorities may perceive that out-group
members (i.e., whites and Asians) categorize them
along racial lines with domestic blacks or
Hispanics. If so, second-generation immigrants—
more assimilated into minority identities than
first-generation immigrants—may experience
similar reductions in effort and lowered academic
performance, akin to domestic minorities.
This study considers the increasing heteroge-
neity of minority students at elite institutions
and offers a more nuanced conception than prior
research of two dispositional—rather than situa-
tional—mechanisms that may influence suscepti-
bility to stereotype threat. That is, much of the
experimental literature has focused on situational
stereotype threat, where ‘‘situational’’ means that
particular negative race-based stereotypes are
‘‘triggered’’ as a treatment in an experimental con-
text, and the consequence—in terms of task
performance—is then immediately measured
(Crocker and Lutskey 1986; Steele 1988, 1992,
1998; Steele and Aronson 1995). In observational
studies like ours, measures of stereotype threat
reflect how dispositional characteristics of indi-
viduals influence susceptibility to multiple expo-
sures of negative-ability stereotypes over
extended periods of time (Oyserman and Swim
2001). 3
Thus, in this study, we ask:
1. Do immigrant minority students accept
their own and others’ race-based nega-
tive-ability stereotypes in the same
way that lowers the grade performance
of domestic blacks and Hispanics?
2. How can we reconcile differences in
minority immigrants’ susceptibility to
negative-ability stereotypes with their
comparably low grade performance rel-
ative to domestic minorities?
BACKGROUND
Massey and Fischer (2005) use a survey designed
specifically to measure factors that may increase
minority students’ susceptibility to stereotype threat
across their daily academic and social encounters.
They find that minority students at selective colleges
simultaneously externalize and internalize negative
stereotypes, as shown in the conceptual model of
stereotype threat displayed in Figure 1.
Minority students recognize negative-ability ster-
eotypes in American society about their intelligence
Nega�ve Stereotypes in Society
Externaliza�on (EXT)
Internaliza�on (INT) Academic Effort (EFF)
Academic Performance Burden (APB)
Performance (GPA)
+
+
+
-
-
+ A
C
B
D
(Disiden�fica�on)
Figure 1. Conceptual model of the externalization and internalization mechanisms with expected the directions of relationships between concepts based on stereotype threat theory Note: The boxes overlaying arrows contain positive (1) and negative (–) signs that indicate the expected direction of
the effect based on the theory of stereotype threat. Positive signs (1) represent an expected positive relationship
between the two concepts; negative (–) signs represent an expected negative relationship.
304 Sociology of Education 85(4)
(Steele 1988, 1998; Steele and Aronson 1995). This
recognition—externalization—places pressure on
minority students to perform well in order to avoid
confirming the stereotypes. The psychological stress
of this added pressure is often called academic per-
formance burden (Figure 1, path A; Steele and
Aronson 1995). Performance burden tends to lead
minorities to perform more poorly than they other-
wise would in the absence of negative stereotypes
(Figure 1, path B; Massey and Fischer 2005).
In addition to recognizing that members of
other racial groups hold negative stereotypes
about them, minority students may evolve to
believe these stereotypes; this process is called
internalization. If students who identify with their
racial group begin to believe that negative stereo-
types about their racial group’s intelligence are
true, they may begin to reduce their academic
effort (Figure 1, path C) out of a fatalistic sense
that such effort is pointless. Steele and Aronson
(1995) call this type of disengagement disidentifi-
cation because students stop identifying academic
achievement as an indication of their self-worth.
Disidentification may then lead to a reduction in
grades (Figure 1, path D).
Although this theoretical schema is powerful in
understanding the achievement gap between major-
ity and domestic minority students, does this model
apply to immigrant minorities? We argue that the
model may not apply directly. Instead, immigrant
minorities negotiate their identities over time. As
they assimilate into the United States, they situate
themselves and define the boundaries of their in-
group relative to the American racial classification
scheme and its accompanying negative stereotypes
about minorities (Oyserman 2008; Oyserman,
Bybee, and Terry 2003). More specifically, as vol-
untary migrants, first-generation immigrants’ eth-
nic identities tend to be accompanied by a sense
of self-determination and hopefulness (Conzen et
al. 1992; Gans 1992). This sense of self-determina-
tion stems from and reinforces first-generation im-
migrants’ perceptions of opportunities for upward
mobility (Bean and Stevens 2003). First-generation
immigrants’ optimism is reinforced by their shorter
duration in the United States and minimal exposure
to the U.S. race-based classification system. First-
generation immigrants are also more likely than
second-generation or domestic minorities to live
in ethnic enclaves with other recently arrived immi-
grants (Grasmuck and Pessar 1991) and to maintain
stronger ties to their home (sending) communities
(Grasmuck and Pessar 1991; Menjı́var 2000). As
a result of these spatial and psychological buffers,
members of the first generation are less likely
than second-generation and domestic minority stu-
dents to be susceptible to negative stereotypes that
dampen academic performance.
Second-generation children also come from
immigrant families and communities. However,
the extent to which they experience susceptibility
to negative-ability stereotypes is debated. Some
research contests the notion of downward assimila-
tion, even among second-generation Mexican
Americans born to low-skilled Mexican immigrants
(Waldinger and Feliciano 2004). This research sug-
gests that the immigrant social networks formed by
the first generation reliably provide the second gen-
eration entrée into working-class jobs at higher rates
than those of domestic minorities. Research also
suggests that first-generation parents instill in their
children strong ethnic-immigrant identities and
a sense of self-determination (Deaux 1996;
Fernandez-Kelly and Schauffler 1994). Other
research, however, highlights that with increased
duration, and thus acculturation, in the United
States, second-generation students become more
aware of the American race-based classification sys-
tem and domestic minorities’ limited opportunities
for upward mobility (Tajfel 1981). To the extent eth-
nic-immigrant identities persist among the second
generation, they may not provide as strong of
a buffer against either the externalization or internal-
ization of negative-ability stereotypes as for their
first-generation counterparts.
The debate over the existence of a second-gen-
eration decline is best addressed through empirical
testing of the specific mechanisms through which
decline, or resilience, may occur within specific
contexts. In the context of academic performance
among elite college students, we posit that stereo-
type susceptibility may increase with duration
(i.e., generation) in the United States—much in
line with theories of generational decline. One of
the main distinguishing characteristics between
first-generation, second-generation, and domestic
students’ self-schemas is their unique reference
groups. The reference group for most first-genera-
tion immigrants is other recent immigrants and co-
ethnics in their country of origin (Barrera 1980;
Bean and Stevens 2003). For many in the second
generation, reference groups vary based on social
class and degree of residential segregation. Lower
status second-generation students in poor neigh-
borhoods outside of immigrant enclaves tend to
identify with domestic minorities, while higher
Owens and Lynch 305
status second-generation students in middle-class
neighborhoods identify with their immigrant ori-
gins (Fernandez-Kelly 1995; Suarez-Orozco and
Suarez-Orozco 2001; Tajfel 1981). Resilience
against negative-ability stereotypes may therefore
be greater among the second generation in our
sample of elite college students compared to lower
status second-generation immigrants.
Given the importance of reference groups
when measuring perceptions of negative-ability
stereotypes, our hypotheses are shaped by the ref-
erence groups specified in our survey. Items in our
study draw on questions about how members out-
side one’s racial group view members of one’s
racial (as opposed to ethnic-origin) group. The
reference to the broad racial group leads us to
expect that most students—even those of first-
or second-generation immigrant backgrounds
—will interpret the questions as pertaining to the
racial categories into which they know they are
grouped by others. As Merton (1968) highlighted
in his work on race as a master status in
American society, mainstream classification
schemes for non-European Americans tend to fol-
low racial categories based largely on phenotypic
characteristics like skin tone, hair texture, and
facial features (see also Waters 1999). For exam-
ple, black immigrants from Haiti, Jamaica, and
Nigeria are often classified uniformly as African
American while those from countries as diverse
as Mexico, Colombia, and Costa Rica tend to be
categorized as Hispanic or Latino despite the var-
ied ethnic and cultural backgrounds of each group
(Kasinitz et al. 2008; Waters 1996, 1999).
Because Americans tend to classify others based
on their racial group membership, black and
Hispanic immigrants are likely aware that they
are associated with broad race-based stereotypes
of lower academic intelligence. Therefore, even
if minority first- and second-generation immi-
grants do not identify themselves within the
framework of overarching racial categories, their
awareness of the race-based classification scheme
dominant in the United States may lead them to
report the levels of externalization, internalization,
and performance burden they perceive for blacks
or Hispanics as a whole. Thus:
Hypothesis 1: First-generation, second-genera-
tion, and domestic minority students report
similar levels of externalization, internali-
zation, and performance burden.
However, first-generation immigrants’ sense of
self-determination and connection to opportunities
in the mainstream society may be uniquely accom-
panied by the belief that hard work pays off. As
a result, first- and, to a lesser extent, second-gener-
ation immigrants may work harder (e.g., study
more hours) on average than domestic minorities
(see a related discussion in Bennett and Lutz
2009; Deaux 2006; Hagy and Ordovensky Staniec
2002). Domestic minority and some second-gener-
ation immigrant students, on the other hand, may
believe that beyond a certain high level of effort,
factors outside of their control determine which
opportunities are available to them and which are
not. Though they may value educational success
just as much as first-generation immigrants, they
may spend less time studying (Downey 2008;
Downey, Ainsworth, and Qian 2009). Thus:
Hypothesis 2: First- and, to a lesser degree,
second-generation immigrants report the
highest levels of academic effort compared
to domestic minority students.
Although we expect comparable levels of
externalization across immigrant generations, we
also suspect racial in-group exposure while grow-
ing up shapes students’ perceptions of opportuni-
ties and barriers (Sanders 2002). Ethnic enclaves
tend to increase ethnic-immigrant self-schemas
in the first generation (Grasmuck 1984; Sanders
2002). In the second generation, higher levels of
exposure to domestic minorities produce domestic
minority identities (Zhou 1997a). Domestic
minority students are likely to come from neigh-
borhoods with the highest concentrations of other
domestic minorities who maintain race-based (vs.
ethnic) self-schemas (Iceland, Weinberg, and
Steinmetz 2002; Zhou 1997a). Factors like resi-
dential segregation in domestic minority neigh-
borhoods promote strong in-group racial
identities, racially homogenous social networks,
and increased social distance from whites
(Charles 2003). This environment may foster
a perception that whites and Asians hold negative
stereotypes about blacks and Hispanics. As
a result, greater exposure to a domestic minority
racial in-group may be associated with higher lev-
els of externalization. Thus:
Hypothesis 3: In-group racial exposure is not
associated with higher levels of externalization
306 Sociology of Education 85(4)
for first-generation immigrants, slightly higher
levels for second-generation immigrants, and
significantly higher levels for domestic minor-
ity students.
In addition to differences in reference groups,
a second primary distinguishing characteristic of
first- and, to a lesser extent, second-generation im-
migrants’ ethnic-immigrant compared to domestic
minority identities is possession of a dual self-
schema (Oyserman et al. 2003). A dual self-
schema is adherence to one’s ethnic-immigrant
identity in combination with connection to the
opportunity structure of mainstream society
(Oyserman et al. 2003). These strong ethnic-
immigrant identities characteristic of minority
first-generation students (Waters 1999) are partic-
ularly powerful in orienting them toward high aca-
demic achievement when they are accompanied
by selective acculturation into middle-class
American society—as with students at elite col-
leges. Selective acculturation involves mainte-
nance of strong ties to immigrants’ native
culture, for example, via continued fluency in
their native language, coupled with the adoption
of certain elements of American culture, including
English fluency and understanding of mainstream
social norms (Portes and Rumbaut 2001; Rong
and Brown 2001). The combination of a dual
self-schema and selective acculturation is central
to first-generation immigrants’ perceptions of
opportunities for upward mobility. Perception of
these opportunities is facilitated by their belief
that the majority group does not hold negative
stereotypes about their ethnic-immigrant group.
Therefore, they are able to dissociate awareness
of negative stereotypes about African Americans
and domestic Hispanics from themselves and
how they are perceived. Externalization, then,
does not translate into academic performance bur-
den and decreased grade performance.
A similar dissociation process, enhanced by
selective acculturation, is at play for second-gen-
eration immigrants. Because their connection to
their ancestral homeland is less tangible, second-
generation immigrants may glorify their parents’
sacrifices during the immigration process as well
as imagine their families’ respected position in
their origin country (Portes and Rumbaut 2001).
This psychic connection to the origin country
may serve as a powerful motivator. High-achiev-
ing second-generation immigrants develop a sense
of agency grounded in their families’ distinct
history of migration, which facilitates their per-
ceptions of themselves as distinct from the domes-
tic minorities targeted by negative-ability
stereotypes (Deaux 2006). Their agency may
facilitate resilience against the potentially damp-
ening effects of stereotype externalization and
performance burden on grade performance. Thus:
Hypothesis 4: Stereotype externalization does
not reduce the grades of first- or second-
generation immigrants.
Self-perceptions and perceptions about one’s
in-group may have an equally significant effect
on grades as views on stereotypes held by other
groups. However, as a result of their overall belief
in the dignity of hard work for overcoming even
seemingly insurmountable barriers in the United
States, first-generation immigrants are likely resil-
ient against potential declines in effort and perfor-
mance (Portes and Rumbaut 2001). In the second
generation, however, dual self-schemas are not as
strong as for first-generation students. With
greater duration in the United States and move-
ment out of enclaves and into neighborhoods
more highly concentrated with domestic minori-
ties, second-generation students may begin to
view themselves along racial lines and begin to
believe that negative-ability stereotypes apply
to them. As a result, second-generation students
may come to believe increased academic effort
will not allow them to overcome the larger struc-
tural barriers to success, thereby leading to
a reduction in effort and, subsequently, perfor-
mance. Thus:
Hypothesis 5: The effects of stereotype inter-
nalization on effort and subsequent grades
increases across immigrant generations
(first-generation immigrants are least
affected).
Despite our hypotheses, we recognize that het-
erogeneity among immigrants based on parental
skill and social status may produce differential
levels of resistance to negative stereotypes. For
example, low-skilled immigrants are most likely
to experience blocked educational and labor mar-
ket opportunities, but first-generation low-skilled
immigrants’ connections to their home country,
combined with their aspirations for a better life
in their new home, help motivate perseverance
(Zhou 1997b). Second-generation low-skilled
Owens and Lynch 307
immigrants, however, must confront the reality
that hard work did not pay off for their first-gen-
eration parents (Zhou 1997b). Consequently,
low-skilled second-generation students may be
more likely than high-skilled second-generation
immigrants to internalize negative stereotypes,
which could lead to the development of similar
oppositional identities as for some poor and work-
ing-class domestic African Americans and
Hispanics. If oppositional identities bring low-
skilled second-generation immigrants’ faster
assimilation into domestic racial identities, sec-
ond-generation immigrants may experience ste-
reotype internalization despite their success
relative to same-race peers who did not make it
to elite colleges.
DATA AND METHOD
Sample
The data used in this study are from the National
Longitudinal Survey of Freshmen (NLSF), a strat-
ified random sample of college students who
entered 28 selective four-year colleges and univer-
sities throughout the United States in the fall of
1999. Students were interviewed in the fall of
their first year to collect a retrospective history
of their childhood experiences and then were re-
surveyed every spring regarding their college
experience. Of 4,573 students contacted, 3,924
completed the baseline face-to-face interview
(response rate of 86 percent). Of these, 96 percent
and 90 percent completed the follow-ups in the
spring of 2000 and 2001, respectively. We use
the baseline and these two follow-up waves.
We exclude white and Asian students because
stereotype threat is only relevant for explaining
underperformance among minority students. 4
Although excluded from our sample, we often ref-
erence whites and Asians together in our discus-
sion of externalization, despite Asian Americans
being minorities and predominantly immigrants
themselves, unlike whites. Nonetheless, both
groups are unsusceptible to negative-ability ster-
eotypes and therefore may be perceived by blacks
and Hispanics as out-group propagators of nega-
tive-ability stereotypes. Our analyses therefore
rely on a restricted sample of 991 black and 874
Hispanic students (n = 1,865). Multiple imputa-
tion of five data sets was used to address item non-
response (which ranged between 0 percent and 5
percent per item). All analyses were also
replicated using complete cases only; this
approach yielded the same substantive conclu-
sions (results available upon request).
The racial and ethnic heterogeneity of
Hispanics in our sample (see Appendix A1, online
at soe.sagepub.com). merits some discussion.
Mexicans constitute approximately 25 percent of
Hispanics (n = 236), with roughly 20 percent
self-identifying as white Mexican (n = 188) and
5 percent identifying as black Mexican (n = 48).
Mixed race Hispanics comprise almost 30 percent
of the Hispanic sample (n = 264) (they comprise
16 percent of the black sample, n = 172, as shown
in Appendix A2). White South Americans account
for 13 percent of Hispanics (n = 119), white
Puerto Ricans roughly 7.5 percent (n = 68), and
white Cubans roughly 4 percent (n = 35).
Ideally, our analyses would reflect this heteroge-
neity. However, subsample sizes simply do not
allow modeling using more detailed measures of
race, ethnicity, and generation than those we use.
Variables
The dependent variable in our analysis is aca-
demic performance, which is measured by stu-
dents’ GPA during the first two years. Our key
predictors of performance—externalization, inter-
nalization, academic performance burden, and
academic effort (the relevant components of ste-
reotype threat)—are measured using a series of
survey items used in prior research (see Table 1;
see Massey and Fischer 2005; Owens and
Massey 2010). Table 1 lists the items used as
measures of each concept.
Externalization is measured by respondents’
perceptions of discrimination by whites (v1) and
Asians (v2) and the extent to which instructors’
(v3) and students’ (v4) negative stereotypes affect
their assessments of individuals from particular
groups (Cronbach’s alpha = .59). Internalization
is measured by three items reflecting respondents’
perceptions of the work ethic (v5), intelligence
(v6), and persistence in completing tasks (v7) of
members of their own racial/ethnic groups
(Cronbach’s alpha = .61). Academic performance
burden is measured by five items reflecting re-
spondents’ perceptions of: whether an instructor’s
knowledge that the respondent is having difficulty
in class will lead the instructor to think less of him
or her (v8); whether excelling or doing poorly aca-
demically reflects positively (v9) or negatively
(v10), respectively, on the respondent’s racial
308 Sociology of Education 85(4)
group; whether/to what extent the respondent
fears looking foolish in class (v11); and whether/
to what extent doing poorly in class will lead peo-
ple to look down on others like him or her (v12)
(Cronbach’s alpha = .67). Finally, academic effort
is measured by the average number of hours the
respondent studies each week (v13), how much
importance the respondent places on learning
Table 1. Indicators and Dimensions Used in the Analyses to Capture Negative Ability Stereotypes and Their Effects
Externalization (EXT) 1. On a scale of 0 (treat equally) to 10 (discriminate against others), do you think whites tend to treat
members of other racial groups equally, or do they tend to discriminate against people who are not in their group?
2. On a scale of 0 (treat equally) to 10 (discriminate against others), do you think Asians tend to treat members of other racial groups equally, or do they tend to discriminate against people who are not in their group?
3. On a scale of 0 (total agreement) to 10 (total disagreement), to what extent do you agree that: If instructors hold negative stereotypes about certain groups, it will not affect their evaluations of individual students from that group.
4. On a scale of 0 (total disagreement) to 10 (total agreement), to what extent do you agree that: If other students hold negative stereotypes about certain groups, it will not affect their evaluations of individual students from that group.
Internalization (INT)a
5. On a scale of 0 (hardworking) to 6 (lazy), do members of your own racial group tend to be lazy or hardworking?
6. On a scale of 0 (intelligent) to 6 (unintelligent), do you think people in your own racial group tend to be unintelligent or intelligent?
7. On a scale of 0 (stick with it) to 6 (give up easily), in general, do you think people of your own racial group tend to give up easily or stick with a task until the end?
Academic performance burden (APB) 8. On a scale of 0 (total disagreement) to 10 (total agreement), if I let my instructors know that I am having
difficulty in class, they will think less of me. 9. On a scale of 0 (total disagreement) to 10 (total agreement), if I excel academically, it reflects positively
on my racial or ethnic group. 10. On a scale of 0 (total disagreement) to 10 (total agreement), if I do poorly academically, it reflects
negatively on my racial or ethnic group. 11. On a scale of 0 (total disagreement) to 10 (total agreement), I don’t want to look foolish or stupid in
class. 12. On a scale of 0 (total disagreement) to 10 (total agreement), if I don’t do well, people will look down
on others like me. Academic effort (EFF) 13. How many hours (between 0 and 120) do you spend studying in the average seven-day week during the
academic year? 14. In thinking about how hard to try in your college studies on a scale from 0 (no importance) to 10
(utmost importance), how important for you is it to learn the course material? 15. On a scale of 0 (no effort) to 10 (maximum possible effort), how hard would you say you have been
trying [academically] during this past year of college? 16. How many hours (between 0 and 120, reverse-coded) do you spend watching television, listening to
music for fun, attending parties, and socializing with friends outside parties during the typical seven-day week during the academic year?
Academic performance (PERF) 17. Students’ two-year grade-point-average (GPA)
a. Internalization items were reverse-coded from their original format so higher scores correspond to more internalization.
Owens and Lynch 309
course material (v14), the respondent’s subjective
rating of his or her overall academic effort during
the year (v15), and his or her hours of recreation
(reverse-coded) (v16), including time spent
watching television, listening to music for fun,
attending parties, and socializing with friends out-
side parties during the typical college week
(Cronbach’s alpha = .59).
As discussed earlier, these items measure factors
that may increase dispositional susceptibility to ste-
reotype threat. First, these survey items capture stu-
dents’ average perceptions and experiences of
identity threat across semesters as opposed to those
based on specific situational triggers. Second, the
survey items do not allow us to explicitly differenti-
ate between ungrounded versus experientially based
perceptions of stereotype susceptibility. We cannot
identify students’ precise reference when responding
to a given survey item. There is likely to be substan-
tial variation in individuals’—or groups’—points of
reference. For example, some students’ responses
may average over myriad experiences of exposure
to negative-ability stereotypes when responding to
items about whites and Asians’ treatment of other
racial groups, while others reference their most vivid
experiences. Students may even reference friends’
experiences with negative-ability stereotypes when
answering some questions and reference their own
experiences when responding to others. Given this
ambiguity in each student’s reference for any given
item, the most conservative interpretation of re-
sponses to these items is to posit that they reflect
individual differences in vigilance to a broadly
defined type of ‘‘identity threat’’ rather than stereo-
type threat in particular.
Our models also include an index of racial in-
group exposure consisting of the sum of four items
that measure respondents’ exposure to members of
their racial in-group, including: a subjective rating
(from 0 to 10) of the strength of students’ identifi-
cation with their black or Hispanic racial in-group,
the percentage of friends of the same race they had
growing up (based on an average at ages 6, 13, and
18), the percentage of their neighborhood that was
black or Hispanic while growing up, and
a (reverse-coded) subjective rating (from 0 to 10)
of their social distance to whites growing up
(Cronbach’s alpha = .68). These measures allow
us to examine the strength of respondents’
African American or Hispanic racial identities,
which is important for understanding the extent to
which students’ racial identification increases their
susceptibility to stereotype threat. For example, we
expect that first-generation immigrants are least
likely to identify as African American or
Hispanic and instead favor immigrant or ethnic-
ity-specific identities. For them, less exposure
and/or identification with blacks or Hispanics (the
‘‘in-group’’ targeted by the survey questions) may
be associated with less vulnerability to the internal-
ization and/or externalization of stereotypes.
In addition to these key variables, we include
controls for demographic and background charac-
teristics important in predicting educational out-
comes (Bankston 2004; Coleman 1988; Harris and
Sim 2002; Kao 2004; Kao and Rutherford 2007;
Massey et al. 2003; Woolley et al. 2008).
Controls include a multiracial identifier (to help
account for heterogeneity in racial identification
and experience among those who identify as mixed
race; see Brunsma 2005 for further discussion); sex;
the number of siblings in one’s childhood house-
hold; an indicator for whether the student was raised
in an intact, two-parent/caretaker household; and
family socioeconomic status (SES), measured by
parental educational attainment and percentage of
college paid for by family. This latter measure of-
fers a particularly valuable indicator of family
social status because it reflects wealth. Table 2
presents descriptive statistics for all variables used
in the analyses by race and immigration group.
Method
We use a multiple group structural equation mod-
eling (SEM) approach in our analyses. SEM meth-
ods allow for the investigation of relationships
between theoretical concepts (latent variables con-
structed through factor analysis) while simulta-
neously controlling for measurement error in
observed measures (see Bollen 1989). Such an
approach is important for two reasons. First, given
the somewhat low Cronbach’s alphas of the key
constructs in our model, SEM allows us to use fac-
tor analyses (rather than summed indexes) to mea-
sure the key constructs of our model. Second,
SEM also allows us to empirically assess how
well the key constructs represent the concepts of
interest across race and immigrant groups.
The first issue—whether the constructs of ste-
reotype threat in fact measure the same phenom-
ena for each group—has generally been ignored
in prior research on stereotype threat. Most studies
have relied on summed indexes. However, if any
differences by group in the way that the indicators
reflect the constructs of interest are ignored, then
310 Sociology of Education 85(4)
T a b
le 2 .
D e sc
ri p ti ve
S ta
ti st
ic s
o f
Id e n ti ty
T h re
at C
o n st
ru ct
s, P e rf
o rm
an ce
, an
d C
o n tr
o l V ar
ia b le
s, b y
R ac
e an
d Im
m ig
ra n t
G e n e ra
ti o n
B la
ck H
is p an
ic
C o n st
ru ct
s o f
id e n ti ty
F ir
st ge
n e ra
ti o n
S e co
n d
ge n e ra
ti o n
D o m
e st
ic F ir
st ge
n e ra
ti o n
S e co
n d
ge n e ra
ti o n
D o m
e st
ic
th re
at an
d th
e ir
e ff e ct
s M
S D
M S D
M S D
M S D
M S D
M S D
E x te
rn al
iz at
io n
(E X
T )
(a =
.5 8 8 )
W h it e s
tr e at
o th
e r
ra ce
s e q u al
ly o r
d is
cr im
in at
e (0
-1 0 )
6 .5
1 2 .3
6 7 .1
8 1 .9
9 7 .0
4 2 .2
3 6 .4
0 2 .3
9 6 .3
1 2 .2
3 6 .0
6 2 .1
3
A si
an s
tr e at
o th
e r
ra ce
s e q u al
ly o r
d is
cr im
in at
e (0
-1 0 )
5 .9
9 2 .5
7 6 .3
7 2 .4
1 6 .0
5 2 .5
1 5 .9
4 2 .3
9 5 .5
1 2 .5
4 5 .2
8 2 .4
0
In st
ru ct
o rs
’ st
e re
o ty
p e s
d o
n o t
af fe
ct e va
lu at
io n s
o f
m e m
b e rs
o f
st e re
o ty
p e d
gr o u p s
(0 -1
0 )
3 .3
8 2 .7
4 3 .2
8 3 .0
1 3 .0
3 2 .8
1 4 .1
5 3 .0
8 3 .9
8 2 .8
0 3 .7
6 2 .7
7
S tu
d e n ts
’ st
e re
o ty
p e s
d o
n o t
af fe
ct e va
lu at
io n s
o f
m e m
b e rs
o f
st e re
o ty
p e d
gr o u p s
(0 -1
0 )
3 .4
4 2 .5
8 2 .9
0 2 .6
5 2 .9
2 2 .7
2 3 .8
2 2 .7
1 3 .6
6 2 .5
5 3 .4
3 2 .4
8
In te
rn al
iz at
io n
(I N
T )
(a =
.6 1 0 )a
O w
n gr
o u p ’s
in te
lli ge
n ce
(0 -6
) 2 .3
8 1 .1
2 2 .3
7 1 .0
3 2 .3
5 1 .0
1 2 .4
5 1 .1
1 2 .5
5 1 .0
6 2 .6
6 1 .0
1 O
w n
gr o u p
is h ar
d w
o rk
in g
(0 -6
) 2 .5
1 1 .3
1 2 .4
6 1 .0
9 2 .5
1 1 .1
2 2 .4
6 1 .1
7 2 .4
1 1 .2
0 2 .3
8 1 .0
6 O
w n
gr o u p
p e rs
e ve
re s
(0 -6
) 2 .5
3 1 .4
2 2 .5
9 1 .1
3 2 .5
1 1 .1
9 2 .4
3 1 .0
9 2 .5
1 1 .1
2 2 .5
3 1 .0
3 A
ca d e m
ic p e rf
o rm
an ce
b u rd
e n
(A P B
) (a
= .6
6 5 )
In st
ru ct
o rs
th in
k le
ss o f
m e
fo r
h av
in g
d if fi cu
lt y
in cl
as s
(0 -1
0 )
2 .5
7 2 .4
2 2 .6
4 2 .5
7 2 .0
7 2 .4
8 2 .4
8 2 .5
6 2 .4
4 2 .3
9 2 .2
2 2 .2
9
E x ce
lli n g
ac ad
e m
ic al
ly re
fl e ct
s p o si
ti ve
ly o n
m y
ra ci
al /e
th n ic
gr o u p
(0 -1
0 )
6 .5
3 2 .7
5 6 .6
1 3 .2
7 6 .8
1 3 .0
3 5 .7
8 3 .2
8 5 .6
1 3 .2
7 5 .5
4 3 .0
3
D o in
g p o o rl
y ac
ad e m
ic al
ly re
fl e ct
s n e ga
ti ve
ly o n
m y
ra ci
al /
e th
n ic
gr o u p
(0 -1
0 )
5 .7
6 3 .0
3 5 .4
5 3 .3
3 5 .8
7 3 .1
7 4 .8
6 3 .3
0 4 .5
9 3 .2
4 4 .3
7 2 .9
7
I d o n ’t
w an
t to
lo o k
fo o lis
h o r
st u p id
in cl
as s
(0 -1
0 )
5 .7
9 2 .8
9 5 .9
4 3 .2
9 5 .5
0 3 .0
7 5 .3
8 3 .1
1 5 .2
7 2 .8
4 5 .0
0 2 .8
1
If I d o n ’t
d o
w e ll,
p e o p le
w ill
lo o k
d o w
n o n
o th
e rs
lik e
m e
(0 -1
0 )
4 .8
2 2 .8
1 4 .7
8 3 .1
2 4 .2
4 2 .9
3 3 .6
6 2 .8
1 3 .6
3 2 .6
8 3 .2
9 2 .7
7
A ca
d e m
ic e ff o rt
(E F F )
(a =
.5 9 2 )
(c o n ti n u ed
)
311
T a b
le 2 .
(C o
n ti
n u
e d
)
B la
ck H
is p an
ic
C o n st
ru ct
s o f
id e n ti ty
F ir
st ge
n e ra
ti o n
S e co
n d
ge n e ra
ti o n
D o m
e st
ic F ir
st ge
n e ra
ti o n
S e co
n d
ge n e ra
ti o n
D o m
e st
ic
th re
at an
d th
e ir
e ff e ct
s M
S D
M S D
M S D
M S D
M S D
M S D
A ve
ra ge
n u m
b e r
o f
h o u rs
st u d ie
d in
a se
ve n -d
ay w
e e k /1
0 (0
-1 2 )
3 .0
9 1 .5
6 3 .0
1 1 .7
8 2 .6
1 1 .4
4 3 .2
0 1 .8
0 2 .7
8 1 .5
0 2 .7
5 1 .5
3
Im p o rt
an c e
o f
le ar
n in
g co
u rs
e m
at e ri
al (0
-1 0 )
8 .7
0 1 .8
2 8 .4
7 1 .7
3 8 .2
7 1 .9
6 8 .8
1 1 .6
7 8 .3
2 1 .7
0 8 .1
6 1 .8
2
S e lf -r
e p o rt
e d
[a ca
d e m
ic ]
e ff o rt
d u ri
n g
p as
t ye
ar o f
co lle
ge (0
- 1 0 )
7 .0
7 1 .8
0 7 .1
1 1 .8
2 6 .9
8 1 .8
2 6 .9
0 1 .8
8 6 .7
9 1 .7
9 6 .8
7 1 .8
6
A ve
ra ge
n u m
b e r
o f
h o u rs
o f
re cr
e at
io n al
ac ti vi
ti e s
d u ri
n g
a se
ve n -d
ay w
e e k /1
0 (0
-1 0 )b
2 .3
4 0 .2
2 2 .2
9 0 .3
0 2 .3
1 0 .2
6 2 .3
1 0 .2
5 2 .3
3 0 .2
3 2 .3
0 0 .2
6
A ca
d e m
ic p e rf
o rm
an ce
(G PA
) A
ve ra
ge se
co n d
an d
th ir
d se
m e st
e r
G PA
3 .0
2 0 .5
6 3 .0
3 0 .4
3 2 .9
9 0 .5
1 3 .1
3 0 .4
4 3 .1
2 0 .4
7 3 .1
9 0 .4
8
C o n tr
o l va
ri ab
le s
D e m
o gr
ap h ic
(D E M
) M
al e
0 .3
3 0 .4
7 0 .3
5 0 .4
8 0 .3
4 0 .4
7 0 .4
4 0 .5
0 0 .4
0 0 .4
9 0 .4
2 0 .4
9 M
u lt ir
ac ia
l 0 .1
6 0 .3
7 0 .2
0 0 .4
0 0 .1
6 0 .3
6 0 .1
5 0 .3
6 0 .2
8 0 .4
5 0 .4
1 0 .4
9 In
ta ct
(t w
o -p
ar e n t)
fa m
ily /
h o u se
h o ld
gr o w
in g
u p
0 .5
5 0 .5
0 0 .5
8 0 .4
9 0 .5
0 0 .5
0 0 .6
2 0 .4
9 0 .6
8 0 .4
7 0 .6
6 0 .4
7
N u m
b e r
o f
d e p e n d e n ts
(0 -1
8 ye
ar s)
at h o m
e in
la st
ye ar
o f
h ig
h sc
h o o l
2 .1
2 1 .2
2 2 .0
1 1 .1
1 1 .8
4 1 .0
2 1 .8
5 1 .0
1 1 .9
2 1 .0
4 1 .9
5 0 .9
5
S o ci
o e co
n o m
ic st
at u s
(S E S )
O n e
p ar
e n t
h as
B A
(o r
e q u iv
al e n t)
0 .1
3 0 .3
4 0 .1
7 0 .3
7 0 .1
7 0 .3
7 0 .1
6 0 .3
7 0 .1
4 0 .3
5 0 .1
9 0 .3
9
T w
o p ar
e n ts
h av
e B
A (o
r e q u iv
al e n t)
0 .1
1 0 .3
1 0 .1
0 0 .2
9 0 .1
3 0 .3
3 0 .1
3 0 .3
4 0 .0
7 0 .2
6 0 .1
6 0 .3
6
O n e
p ar
e n t
h as
ad va
n ce
d d e gr
e e
0 .2
2 0 .4
2 0 .2
7 0 .4
4 0 .2
2 0 .4
1 0 .2
5 0 .4
3 0 .2
6 0 .4
4 0 .2
4 0 .4
2
T w
o p ar
e n ts
h av
e ad
va n ce
d d e gr
e e
0 .1
6 0 .3
7 0 .2
2 0 .4
2 0 .1
4 0 .3
4 0 .1
7 0 .3
7 0 .1
4 0 .3
5 0 .1
7 0 .3
8
(c o n ti n u ed
)
312
T a b
le 2 .
(C o
n ti
n u
e d
)
B la
ck H
is p an
ic
C o n st
ru ct
s o f
id e n ti ty
F ir
st ge
n e ra
ti o n
S e co
n d
ge n e ra
ti o n
D o m
e st
ic F ir
st ge
n e ra
ti o n
S e co
n d
ge n e ra
ti o n
D o m
e st
ic
th re
at an
d th
e ir
e ff e ct
s M
S D
M S D
M S D
M S D
M S D
M S D
P e rc
e n ta
ge o f
co lle
ge p ai
d fo
r b y
fa m
ily (p
e rc
e n ta
ge /1
0 )
3 .9
1 3 .7
2 4 .3
7 3 .5
9 3 .6
7 3 .5
2 4 .6
1 4 .0
3 4 .7
0 3 .8
7 5 .0
4 3 .6
5
A ve
ra ge
h o u rs
o f w
o rk
fo r
p ay
d u ri
n g
fi rs
t tw
o ye
ar s
o f
co lle
ge (/
1 0 )
0 .6
8 0 .7
5 0 .6
3 0 .8
3 0 .7
0 0 .9
8 0 .6
9 0 .9
5 0 .6
5 0 .8
2 0 .5
9 0 .9
0
In d e x
o f
ra ci
al in
-g ro
u p
e x p o su
re (I
E X
) (a
= .6
5 8 )
S tr
e n gt
h o f
in -g
ro u p
ra ci
al id
e n ti ty
(0 -1
0 )
3 .9
2 1 .8
0 4 .0
1 1 .9
6 4 .5
5 1 .8
5 3 .1
6 1 .7
6 3 .4
6 1 .8
4 3 .1
3 1 .7
8
P e rc
e n ta
ge o f
sa m
e -r
ac e
fr ie
n d s
gr o w
in g
u p
(p e rc
e n ta
ge /1
0 )
5 .6
7 3 .4
4 4 .2
7 3 .3
4 5 .9
4 3 .3
8 3 .7
7 3 .6
1 2 .6
2 2 .9
0 2 .0
7 2 .5
9
P e rc
e n ta
ge b la
ck o r
H is
p an
ic n e ig
h b o rh
o o d
co m
p o si
ti o n
gr o w
in g
u p
(p e rc
e n ta
ge /1
0 )
4 .7
1 3 .1
0 4 .2
1 2 .9
0 4 .7
4 2 .8
7 5 .3
7 3 .1
9 3 .6
1 2 .9
0 2 .7
4 2 .5
9
S o ci
al d is
ta n ce
fr o m
w h it e s
gr o w
in g
u p
(0 -1
0 , re
ve rs
e -
co d e d )
4 .7
4 1 .6
1 4 .4
4 1 .6
7 4 .5
3 1 .6
9 3 .8
0 1 .7
6 3 .7
2 1 .8
0 3 .4
6 1 .6
9
A ca
d e m
ic p re
p ar
at io
n (D
A P )
N u m
b e r
o f
A P
co u rs
e s
ta k e n
(0 -1
0 )
2 .7
4 1 .9
4 2 .7
5 1 .8
6 2 .5
5 1 .9
7 3 .0
8 1 .9
8 3 .4
5 2 .2
2 2 .9
9 2 .0
1
H ig
h sc
h o o l G
PA (0
-4 )
3 .6
5 0 .3
0 3 .6
0 0 .3
0 3 .5
8 0 .3
9 3 .7
2 0 .3
2 3 .7
0 0 .3
2 3 .7
4 0 .3
3 S e lf -r
at e d
p re
p ar
at io
n le
ve l (0
- 1 0 )
5 .3
7 1 .5
8 5 .3
8 1 .6
4 5 .6
4 1 .6
8 5 .5
4 1 .6
8 5 .5
3 1 .6
3 5 .4
3 1 .6
8
N (=
1 ,8
6 5 )
7 9
1 8 0
7 3 2
1 7 1
4 2 7
2 7 6
a. R
e sp
o n se
s w
e re
re ve
rs e -c
o d e d
so h ig
h e r
sc o re
s co
rr e sp
o n d
to lo
w e r
ra ti n gs
o f
in te
lli ge
n ce
, w
o rk
e th
ic , an
d p e rs
e ve
ra n ce
. b . R
e cr
e at
io n al
ac ti vi
ti e s
co n si
st o f
w at
ch in
g te
le vi
si o n , lis
te n in
g to
m u si
c fo
r fu
n , at
te n d in
g p ar
ti e s,
o r
sp e n d in
g ti m
e w
it h
fr ie
n d s
o u ts
id e
p ar
ti e s.
T h is
in d ic
at o r
is re
ve rs
e -c
o d e d
w h e n
in cl
u d e d
in m
o d e ls
b e ca
u se
m o re
re cr
e at
io n al
ti m
e is
as so
ci at
e d
w it h
le ss
ac ad
e m
ic e ff o rt
.
313
differences in regression coefficients between race
and immigrant groups may be biased. SEM allows
us to differentiate substantive versus measurement
differences. We can therefore more accurately test
whether different race and immigrant generation
groups experience identity threat in the same way.
To address the second issue—whether the exter-
nalization and internalization mechanisms ‘‘work’’
the same way for each race/immigrant group (i.e.,
whether regression coefficients are similar)—we
disaggregate the data by immigrant generation and
race into six groups: (1) first-generation blacks, (2)
second-generation blacks, (3) domestic blacks (third
generation or higher), (4) first-generation Hispanics,
(5) second-generation Hispanics, and (6) domestic
Hispanics. 5
We use broad racial/ethnic categoriza-
tions because subgroup cell sizes preclude their sep-
arate analyses (see Appendix A, online at
soe.sagepub.com, for details).
Figure 2 shows the SEM path diagram we use
to operationalize the conceptual model of stereo-
type threat shown in Figure 1 for each race and
immigrant generation group. Each circle in
Figure 2 represents a latent variable for one of
the key constructs of stereotype threat theory.
Double-lined arrows represent regression paths
between constructs. Squares represent observed
variables used to measure each latent variable
(variable labels are shown in Table 1). Single-
line arrows connecting observed measures to
latent constructs represent measurement relation-
ships. Dotted-line arrows indicate regression paths
between control variables and latent constructs.
As a preliminary step, we used factor analyses
and goodness-of-fit tests to assess whether sufficient
measurement error and between-group differences
existed to necessitate an SEM instead of a set of re-
gressions on summed indexes. Results established
Control Variables Demographic (DEM) -Mul�racial -Male -Intact family -Number of siblings <18 -Parental educa�onal a�ainment (one parent BA, two parents BA, one parent AD, two parents AD)
Social class (SES) -Parental educa�on -Percentage of first year of college paid by family
Index of racial ingroup exposure (IEX) -Strength of ingroup iden�ty -Percentage same-race friends growing up -Percentage of neighborhood that was black or Hispanic growing up -Social distance from whites growing up
11
1
1 1
Academic Performance
Burden
Performance
Academic Effort
Internaliza�on
Externaliza�on
V1 V2 V3
V5 V6 V7
V9
V13 V14 V15
V16
V17
V8 V10 V11
V4
V12
College prepara�on -Number high school AP courses -Cumula�ve high school GPA -Self-rated college prep.
Figure 2. Path diagram for externalization and internalization mechanisms and academic performance Note: See Table 1 for specification of measures v1 through v17.
314 Sociology of Education 85(4)
the need for an SEM approach (see Appendix B, on-
line at soe.sagepub.com; complete results available
upon request).
Our subsequent analyses employed the follow-
ing strategy. First, we estimated a full multiple-
group SEM model to test the general fit of the
model shown in Figure 2. Our goal was to deter-
mine whether the full model fit the data well for
all six race-immigrant groups. Next, we investi-
gated whether the structural model parameters dif-
fered across race and immigrant groups.
Differences in structural parameters would indicate
that the model ‘‘worked’’ differently across groups.
Third, after determining that differences in struc-
tural coefficients exist by immigrant generation
but not by race, we simultaneously estimated three
separate SEM models for the immigrant generation
groups, controlling on the background characteris-
tics shown in Table 2. Finally, we ran two sensitiv-
ity analyses to establish the robustness of the
relationships between latent constructs. Our goal
was to ensure our results were robust to slight
changes in indicator selection for each latent con-
struct (results available upon request). 6
Focusing on differences by immigrant genera-
tion, Hypotheses 1 and 2 concern expected differ-
ences in levels of internalization, externalization,
effort, and performance burden. We also examine
whether higher levels of racial in-group exposure
may be associated with higher levels of externaliza-
tion (Hypothesis 3). Finally, although we expect
relatively uniform levels of externalization, inter-
nalization, and performance burden across groups,
it is nonetheless possible that the effects of internal-
ization on effort, externalization on performance
burden, and so on vary by immigrant generation
(Hypotheses 4 and 5). Because prior research
shows both internalization and externalization
mechanisms lower the performance of domestic
minority students at elite institutions, we treat
domestic minorities as our comparison group.
RESULTS
Differences in Levels of Externalization, Internalization, Performance Burden, and Effort
Given first- and second-generation immigrants’
awareness of the salience of racial categorizations
in the United States, our first hypothesis is that
even first- and second-generation immigrants
perceive similar levels of stereotypes about blacks
and Hispanics. We hypothesize this recognition
will translate into similar levels of externalization,
internalization, and performance burden for immi-
grant and domestic blacks and Hispanics. In other
words, immigrant students’ responses will be
driven by their interpretation of the survey items
as referencing minorities overall. Based on the
means shown in Table 2, our results support this
hypothesis. We find nonsignificant differences
(p . .05) in the means of summed indexes for
externalization, internalization, and performance
burden between immigrant and domestic minority
students, net of controls (results available upon
request). However, Hispanics report roughly 9
percent and 12 percent lower mean levels of exter-
nalization and performance burden, respectively,
compared to blacks.
Our second ‘‘levels’’ hypothesis—also based
on the results shown in Table 2—is that first-
and, to a lesser degree, second-generation immi-
grants report higher levels of academic effort
than their same-race domestic counterparts. We
find some support for this hypothesis. On the basis
of summed indexes consisting of the four items
used to measure academic effort, effort among
first-generation black immigrants is 4 percent
higher than that of both second-generation and
domestic blacks, net of controls (results available
upon request). The same pattern exists for
Hispanics. First-generation Hispanics report
roughly 4 percent higher mean levels of effort
than second-generation and domestic Hispanics.
However, these differences by immigrant genera-
tion are modest in magnitude. We find no statisti-
cally significant differences in mean levels of
academic effort between second-generation immi-
grants and their same-race domestic counterparts.
A Parsimonious Model of Group Differences in Two Mechanisms of Identity Threat
Having established only modest differences in
mean levels of externalization, internalization,
performance burden, and effort between race and
immigrant generation groups, we next identify
a parsimonious model for capturing race and
immigrant generation differences in the associa-
tions between externalization and internalization
and performance. Table 3 shows the results for
the first two steps of the analyses. In the first
Owens and Lynch 315
model, all parameters were allowed to vary by
race and immigrant generation. The results indi-
cate that the model fits the data well by two of
three measures of goodness of fit: the root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA) was
.04, and the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) was
0.91, indicating good fit. Although the model
chi-square indicated poor fit (2,653.53, 1,742 df,
p \ .001), it is common for models with large sample sizes to have statistically significant chi-
squares (see Bollen 1989 for discussion of model
fit measures).
In our second model, we constrained the struc-
tural (regression) parameters to be equal across
immigrant generations but allowed them to vary
across racial groups. The fit of that model was
worse than that of Model 1 (chi-square =
2,770.84, 1779 df, p \ .001; CFI = .78; RMSEA = .05). A chi-square difference test indicated
that imposing these constraints significantly wors-
ened the fit of the model (chi-square = 117.31, 37
df, p \ .001). In model 3, we allowed parameters to vary
across immigrant generation, but not across race.
This model yielded fit measures comparable to
that of model 1 (chi-square = 2,672.40, 1,755 df,
p \ .001; CFI = .91; RMSEA = .04). A chi-square difference test between models 1 and 3 indicated
a nonsignificant difference (difference chi-square
= 18.87, 13 df, p . .05). In model 4, we con-
strained parameters to be equal for first- and sec-
ond-generation immigrants (but free for domestic
minority students). This model fit poorly (chi-
square = 2,761.43, 1,777 df, p \ .001; CFI = .85; RMSEA = .04), and a chi-square difference
test comparing model 4 to model 1 indicated a sig-
nificant loss of fit (difference chi-square = 107.90,
35 df, p \ .001). Finally, in model 5 we con- strained parameters to be equal for second-gener-
ation immigrants and domestic minorities but free
for first-generation immigrants. This model also
yielded a poorer fit (chi-square = 2,752.55,
1,778 df, p \ .001; CFI = .84; RMSEA = .04), and the chi-square difference test comparing to
model 1 indicated significant loss of fit (chi-square
= 99.02, 36 df, p \ .001). We conclude from these models that the structural (regression) parameters
in the model differ across immigrant groups but
not across racial groups. This finding lends support
to Hypotheses 3 and 5, which highlight our predic-
tion that students’ experiences of the internalization
and externalization mechanisms would vary signif-
icantly by immigrant generation.
To test Hypotheses 3, 4, and 5 in more depth,
Table 4 presents the complete results from model
3 in Table 3, in which the regression paths in
Figure 2 were allowed to vary by immigrant gener-
ation but not by race (r-square values establishing
Table 3. Changes in Structural Equation Model Fits by Estimation Strategies for All Six Race-immigrant Generation Groups (N = 1,865)a
Model Chi-square (df) Difference in
chi-square (df)b Goodness-of- fit measures
(1) All groups estimated separately 2,653.53 (1,742)*** CFI 0.91 RMSEA 0.04
(2) Blacks and Hispanics estimated separately
2,770.84 (1,779) 117.31 (37)*** CFI 0.83 RMSEA 0.04
(3) Immigrant generations estimated separately
2,672.40 (1,755)*** 18.87 (13) CFI 0.91 RMSEA 0.04
(4) First and second generations collapsed (‘‘immigrant’’) versus domestics
2,761.43 (1,777)*** 107.90 (35)*** CFI 0.85 RMSEA 0.04
(5) Second-generation and domestic students collapsed versus first-generation students
2,752.55 (1,778) 99.02 (36)*** CFI 0.85 RMSEA 0.04
Note: RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CFI = Comparative Fit Index. a. University-level fixed effects are included in all models in order to remove between-university variation, effectively fitting the model based on within-university variation between specified groups. b. Difference in chi-square statistic indicates difference from model (1) where all six race-immigrant generation groups are estimated separately. *p \ .05. **p \ .01. ***p \ .001 (one-tailed test).
316 Sociology of Education 85(4)
reliability, and factor loadings for assessing validity
are shown in Appendix C, online at soe.sagepub.-
com; because no systematic patterns were found
by race or immigrant generation, regression coeffi-
cients for the effects of control variables are shown
in Appendix D). 7
Note that although we rely on
institutional racial classifications of respondents to
preserve the 5 percent of respondents who did not
provide a racial/ethnic self-classification, model re-
sults based on student self-classification do not
change substantively from those based on students’
institutional racial classification.
The overall model fit indexes shown in Table 4
suggest the model fits well. While the model chi-
square is statistically significant (chi-square =
2,672.4, df = 1,755, p \ .001), both the RMSEA (.040) and the CFI (.91) suggest that the model
fits quite well. The first panel of Table 4 displays
estimated structural regression paths between exter-
nalization, internalization, academic performance
burden, academic effort, and academic perfor-
mance. The second panel presents regression coef-
ficients for the effect of racial in-group exposure on
each latent variable. Post hoc tests indicate that the
magnitudes of the coefficients are significantly dif-
ferent from one another across immigrant genera-
tion (results available upon request). Expected
and observed directions of the structural paths are
shown by immigrant generation in Figure 3.
Our third hypothesis that in-group racial expo-
sure is not associated with an increase in external-
ization among first-generation immigrants is
slightly positively associated for second-generation
immigrants and is strongly associated for domestic
minority students. We find support for this hypoth-
esis. A one unit increase in exposure is associated
with a small but nonsignificant .06 unit increase
in externalization among first-generation immi-
grants, a larger and statistically significant .22
unit increase in externalization among second-gen-
eration immigrants, and a still larger and highly
significant .31 unit increase in externalization
among domestic minorities.
Results generally support our fourth
hypothesis—that stereotype externalization does
not dampen the grades of first- or second-genera-
tion immigrants. Although we hypothesize—and
find—that the relationship between externaliza-
tion and academic performance burden is statisti-
cally zero for first-generation immigrants (.02, p
. .05), we also find the same holds true for sec-
ond-generation immigrants (.03, p . .05).
Furthermore, the magnitudes of association are
almost identical for both groups. As expected,
externalization is associated with a significant
increase in performance burden for domestic
minority students (.10, p \ .05). The association between academic performance burden and grade
performance is also statistically zero for both first-
and second-generation students (–.05 and –.01,
respectively, p . .05). Performance burden is
associated with a significant decrease in perfor-
mance for domestic minorities (–.08, p \ .05). The direct effect of externalization on academic
performance is statistically zero for all groups (–
.03, .04, and .07 for first-generation, second-gen-
eration, and domestic students, respectively, p .
.05), indicating that externalization is associated
with academic performance through the posited
mechanism of academic performance burden
even once measurement error has been eliminated
through SEMs.
Our fifth hypothesis is that the associations
between stereotype internalization, academic
effort, and grades increase in magnitude across
immigrant generations. As expected, we find
that first-generation immigrants are not affected
by the potentially grade-dampening effects of ste-
reotype internalization (–.03, p . .05). In fact, the
only statistically significant relationship for first-
generation students is that between academic
effort and performance (.10, p \ .05). For sec- ond-generation immigrants and domestic minori-
ties, however, a negative association between
stereotype internalization and academic effort ex-
ists. The magnitude of the negative association
between internalization and effort is less than
half as large for second-generation immigrants
(–.11, p \ .05) as it is domestic minorities (– .24, p \ .001). Interestingly, the association between effort and performance is more than
twice as strong for domestic students as it is for
first-generation immigrants and almost twice as
strong for domestic students as it is for second-
generation immigrants (.10, p \ .05 among first- generation students, .18, p \ .01 among second- generation students, and .27, p \ .001 among domestic students).
Although paths from internalization to aca-
demic effort and from effort to performance are
significant for both second-generation immigrant
and domestic students, the strength of the relation-
ships differs for the two groups. For domestic
minorities, internalization has a negative associa-
tion with effort that is twice as strong as it is
that for second-generation immigrants and
Owens and Lynch 317
a positive association between effort and perfor-
mance that is also almost twice as strong as it is
for second-generation immigrants. Furthermore,
for only domestic minorities, the direct relation-
ship between internalization and performance is
also positive and statistically significant (.13,
p \ .01). This residual direct effect suggests
internalization does not operate exclusively
through effort as it is measured here. It may oper-
ate through unobserved or unmeasured effort or
through some other factor. Overall, these results
indicate that internalization works as expected
for domestic minorities but less well for more
recent immigrant students.
Table 4. Structural Equation Model Results of Relationships between Externalization, Internalization, Performance Burden, Effort, and Performance Based on Institution’s Racial/Ethnic Categorizationa
First generation Second generation Domestic
Structural parameters for paths between constructsb
Externalization ! Academic performance burden (APB)
0.02 0.03 0.10* (0.08) (0.05) (0.05)
APB ! Academic performance (GPA) 20.05 20.01 20.08* (0.10) (0.05) (0.04)
Externalization ! Academic performance (GPA)
20.03 0.04 0.07 (0.05) (0.06) (0.05)
Internalization ! Academic effort (EFF) 20.03 20.11* 20.24*** (0.08) (0.05) (0.06)
Academic effort (EFF) ! Academic performance (GPA)
0.10* 0.18** 0.27*** (0.05) (0.07) (0.05)
Internalization ! Academic performance (GPA) 0.11 0.06 0.13** (0.08) (0.05) (0.05)
Index of racial in-group exposurec as a predictor of: Internalization (INT) 20.18 20.10 20.05
(0.14) (0.10) (0.05) Academic effort (EFF) 0.19 0.01 0.04
(0.32) (0.09) (0.05) Externalization (EXT) 0.06 0.22* 0.31***
(0.18) (0.10) (0.05) Academic performance burden (APB) 0.10 0.09 0.00
(0.17) (0.08) (0.05) Academic performance (GPA) 20.64 20.01 20.03
(1.57) (0.09) (0.05) N (=1,865) 250 607 1,008 Chi-square (df) 2,672.40 (1,755)*** RMSEA 0.04 CFI 0.91
Note: Reporting standardized coefficients. Standard errors are in parentheses. Model includes controls for the demographic, prior academic performance, and social class characteristics outlined in Table 2 and in the online appendices. Model also includes university-level fixed effects. The effects of control variables on each construct are shown in Appendix D. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CFI = Comparative Fit Index. a. Race/ethnicity based on institution classifications of ‘‘Hispanic’’ or ‘‘black.’’ A control variable is used to identify multiracial black or Hispanic students (results based on students’ racial/ethnic self-classifications do not change substantively). b. Structural residual error correlations are estimated between internalization and externalization and between academic performance burden and academic effort. Measurement error correlations are estimated between indicators v6 and v7 and v10 and v11 (see Table 1 for list of variables by number). c. The index of racial in-group exposure (IEX) includes: strength of racial in-group identity (0-10), social distance from whites growing up (0-10, reverse-coded), percentage of friends of same race as respondent while growing up, and percentage black or Hispanic neighborhood composition growing up. *p \ .05. **p \ .01. ***p \ .001 (one-tailed test).
318 Sociology of Education 85(4)
Group Differences in the Overall Effects of Threat on Performance
Finally, we present predicted GPAs to exemplify
more concretely the influence of the components
of identity threat on students of varying immigrant
generations. We calculate predicted GPAs for
three hypothetical students—a first-generation,
second-generation, and domestic minority stu-
dent—under three conditions: low, medium, and
high levels of identity threat. All covariates were
set to their means/modes. Low, medium, and
high levels of externalization, internalization,
effort, and performance burden were established
at three standard deviations below, at, and
three standard deviations above their respective
means.
Figure 4 reveals several important patterns.
First, the ‘‘average’’ second-generation student is
expected to have the highest GPA (about 3.2).
Second, the ‘‘average’’ first-generation and
domestic minority student are expected to have
comparable but lower GPAs (around 2.7). Third,
the relationship between level of identity threat
and predicted GPA differs considerably depending
on immigrant generation. First-generation ex-
pected GPA tends to increase with higher levels
of identity threat, rising from 2.6 at low levels
of threat to 2.8 at high levels of threat. Second-
generation GPA seems impervious to changes in
level of identity threat. Third-generation expected
GPA tends to decrease with higher levels of iden-
tity threat, falling from 2.9 at low levels of threat
to 2.5 at high levels of threat.
These results are very consistent with our gen-
eral hypothesis. Net of other considerations, like
level of exposure to racial in-groups and socioeco-
nomic background, domestic minority students are
most susceptible to identity threat. First- and sec-
ond-generation immigrants seem resilient to
threat. Indeed, first-generation immigrants appear
to be motivated to do better under threat. Second-
Figure 3. Directions of expected versus actual structural paths between latent construct and effects of racial in-group exposure, by immigrant generation Note: E = expected direction of effect based on stereotype threat theory; IEX = index of racial in-group exposure (see
Table 2 for index properties); 1 = first generation; 2 = second generation; 3 = domestic students. Only significant paths
are shown with a 1 or – sign; 0s indicate statistically zero coefficients.
Owens and Lynch 319
generation student response to threat, in contrast,
appears to be a ‘‘composite’’ of the response of
first-generation students and that of domestic
minority students. One explanation may be that
second-generation immigrants are in a unique
position to benefit from understanding structural
and culture features of the United States that
help them navigate the education system (com-
pared to first-generation students) but simulta-
neously suffer from recognizing—and buying
into—their position in the U.S. racial hierarchy,
albeit to a lesser extent than domestic minorities.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
In this study, we ask: Are first- and second-gener-
ation immigrants susceptible to the same grade-
lowering effects of externalization and internaliza-
tion as domestic minority students? Our hypothe-
ses suggest that they are not. Rather, we propose
that first- and, to a lesser extent, second-genera-
tion immigrant minority students may be resilient
to race-based negative-ability stereotypes. Their
resilience may be based on their unique ethnic-
immigrant identities. Our main findings are three-
fold: First, we find the importance of the factors
we use to capture externalization, internalization,
performance burden, and effort varies across
group. This lends initial support for variation in
students’ experience of each factor by race, immi-
grant generation, or both. Second, probing deeper,
we find the biggest differences in the effects of
externalization on performance burden, internali-
zation on effort, and burden and effort on grades
fall along lines of immigrant generation, not
race. Third, first-generation immigrants are the
most resilient against the effects of both the exter-
nalization and internalization mechanisms, sec-
ond-generation immigrants are only resilient
against the externalization mechanism but are sus-
ceptible to the internalization mechanism, and
domestic minority students experience both mech-
anisms in line with stereotype threat theory.
These findings provide some evidence for sec-
ond-generation decline. They point to stereotype
susceptibility as an important mechanism through
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
1st Gen 2nd Gen Domestic
Low Medium High
Figure 4. Predicted GPAs for a hypothetical studenta at low, medium, and high levelsb of externalization, internalization, performance burden, and effort, by immigrant generation a. The hypothetical student has the modal characteristics on each categorical variable and sample mean characteristics for all continuous variables. Specifically, she is a monoracial, first-generation college-going black or Hispanic female from a non-
intact family without siblings, whose parents paid the sample mean percentage of tuition, and who has the mean level of in-
group racial exposure and degree of academic preparation.
b. Low levels of internalization, externalization, effort, and performance burden correspond to three standard deviations
below the sample mean of each construct; medium levels correspond to the sample mean of each construct; and high
levels correspond to three standard deviations above the sample mean of each construct.
320 Sociology of Education 85(4)
which to understand how and why decline occurs,
even among elite college students. Results also
call into question the racial classification system
that permeates much of the education and stratifi-
cation research—and American society. Despite
its prevalence, this system overlooks significant
heterogeneity among minority students along lines
of immigrant background. Our findings call for
a more nuanced understanding of the intersection
of race and ethnicity with immigrant generation.
As America’s immigrant population expands, elite
colleges and universities adjust to these demo-
graphic changes disproportionately represented
in their ranks. They will need to consider alternate
explanations for the similarly low grades of
minority immigrants compared to domestic
minority students (Massey et al. 2007).
Our first hypothesis draws on qualitative
research suggesting that first-generation immi-
grants identify least with American racial catego-
ries (Portes and Rumbaut 2006; Waters 1999).
Why, then, do they experience similar levels of
externalization, internalization, and performance
burden as second-generation and domestic minor-
ity students? Aware of the dominance of racial
categorizations, we believe first-generation immi-
grants report based on their perceptions of nega-
tive stereotypes about their racial group as
a whole, which is dominated by domestic minori-
ties. However, unlike domestic minorities, their
ethnic-immigrant identities—grounded in a sense
of self-determination and a perception of opportu-
nities in the mainstream economy—lead them to
believe hard work pays off. As a result, they report
higher levels of academic effort than their second-
generation and domestic counterparts, in line with
our second hypothesis. Their dual self-schema of-
fers an important buffer against the potential ef-
fects of exposure to most negative stereotypes.
Overall, the first generation’s resilience against
the effects of stereotype externalization and inter-
nalization on grades is exhibited through our find-
ing that first-generation immigrants experience an
increase in grades even under high levels of expo-
sure to negative ability racial stereotypes.
However, because our study tests students’ vul-
nerability to dispositional triggers averaged over
long periods of time (i.e., multiple semesters of
college), while experimental studies test students’
vulnerability to situational triggers, we cannot
rule out the possibility that even first-generation
immigrants may be susceptible to strong situa-
tional triggers. Our conclusions therefore extend
only to immigrants’ limited dispositional sensitiv-
ities to stereotype threat when averaged over myr-
iad exposures to stereotype threat of varying
severity.
Our third hypothesis is grounded in the notion
that second-generation immigrants, unlike their
first-generation counterparts, are more assimilated
into domestic minority identities. Accompanying
their heightened exposure to domestic minorities,
the second generation may believe they are
included in the lower ability group targeted by
negative stereotypes (Crocker, Major, and Steele
1998; Oyserman et al. 2003). We find second-gen-
eration immigrants’ greater exposure to African
Americans and Hispanics while growing up is in
fact associated with an increase in second-genera-
tion immigrants’ level of externalization.
(Following a similar pattern, we also find in-group
racial exposure is associated with the largest
increase in level of externalization among domestic
minority students.) Buy-in to negative stereotypes
about themselves also facilitates the second gener-
ation’s susceptibility to the effects of stereotype
internalization on lowered effort and, subsequently,
grades. In line with our fifth hypothesis, we believe
second-generation immigrants experience stereo-
type internalization’s effects via lowered effort
and decreased grade performance because greater
assimilation into America’s racial classification
system limits their belief in their own abilities.
As a result, they are more likely to perceive limits
to the payoffs of academic effort, leading to lower
effort and dampened performance.
Even if second-generation immigrants buy into
negative stereotypes about themselves, they none-
theless believe others outside their group do not.
Instead, they believe their parents’ sacrifices to
migrate are warranted because others perceive
them as viable candidates for opportunities in
mainstream society. As such, in support of our
fourth hypothesis, we find the second generation
is resistant to the effects of externalization on per-
formance burden and grades.
Interestingly, despite their experience of the ef-
fects of internalization, we find second- rather than
first-generation immigrants earn the highest grades,
in line with prior research (Kao and Thompson
2003; Kao and Tienda 1995, 1998; Zhou and
Bankston 1998; Zhou et al. 2008). Their advantage
is facilitated by their parents’ sacrifices for their chil-
dren, their sense of responsibility for high academic
performance (Kasinitz 2008; Turney and Kao 2009),
and their familiarity with the educational norms and
Owens and Lynch 321
expectations and language systems of the United
States (Kao and Thompson 2003).
Although this study emphasizes the importance
of considering heterogeneity within racial groups
based on immigrant generation, future research
should consider the following: First, although
our inferences presume a difference between
domestic minorities’ and first- and second-genera-
tion immigrants’ self-schemas and in-group iden-
tities, we lack an explicit, empirical measure of
how immigrants define their in-group. Measure
of identification along ethnic and immigrant (in
addition to racial) lines would remedy this limita-
tion to directly address how identifying as an
immigrant may help buffer against the effects of
negative stereotypes.
Second, future research would also benefit
from having detailed measures of the mechanisms
through which the internalization of negative ster-
eotypes lowers academic performance. Our find-
ing that domestic minority students invest less
academic effort at higher levels of internalization
is reinforced by experimental work that draws the
same conclusions (Steele 1988, 1998). However,
we also find these associations are not fully ex-
plained through our hypothesized paths. We find
a strong direct path from internalization to perfor-
mance after controlling on effort. For example,
some minority students may spend less time
studying because they spend more time in
extracurricular and recreational activities that
help create and maintain community, which
combats—rather than reinforces—disidentifica-
tion (Charles et al. 2009; Charles, Torres, and
Brunn 2008; Morgan and Mehta 2004).
Extracurricular involvement may foster a sense
of belonging that increases academic self-confi-
dence and other factors that in turn are positively
associated with grades, even if not through aca-
demic effort directly.
Third, future data collection efforts would
benefit from larger and more ethnically represen-
tative samples of each immigrant generation
group. Although we treat Hispanics as a racial
group based on the fact that Hispanics/Latinos
are racialized within the American context
(Cornell and Hartmann 2007; Omi and Winant
1994; Telles and Ortiz 2008), Hispanics span
multiple racial categories. Similarly, even
same-race students reflect tremendous heteroge-
neity by national origin (Tafoya 2004). Larger
numbers of black Hispanics as well as of the larg-
est ethnic background groups—such as
Mexicans—spread over immigrant generations
would provide greater power in our analysis,
especially for the first-generation immigrants
for whom the posited mechanisms explain very
little. Combined with measures explicitly refer-
encing an ethnic-immigrant in-group, larger sam-
ples of black Hispanics as well as Mexicans,
Puerto Ricans, Cubans, and Caribbean versus
African origin immigrant blacks would also
allow for more accurate and nuanced analyses
of immigrant self-schemas and their influence
on the relationship between negative racial ster-
eotypes and performance.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Doug Massey and Camille Charles for gener-
ous use of the National Longitudinal Survey of
Freshmen data. We also thank Marta Tienda, Delia
Baldassarri, the members of the 2008-2009 Empirical
Seminar at Princeton University, and our 3 anonymous
reviewers for invaluable feedback.
FUNDING
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial
support for the research, authorship, and/or publication
of this article: Jayanti Owens acknowledges support of
a Graduate Research Fellowship and a Dissertation
Improvement Grant from the National Science
Foundation during the preparation of this manuscript.
NOTE
1. Henceforth we use the term minority in lieu of black
and Hispanic.
2. Whereas black immigrants comprise 27 percent of all
black students entering the 28 selective and highly
selective universities in our sample in 1999, the
Current Population Survey (CPS) from the same
year (March 1999) showed that only 13 percent of
18- to 19-year-old African Americans in the United
States were first- or second-generation black immi-
grants (Massey et al. 2007). Similarly, Hispanic im-
migrants comprise 73 percent of all Hispanic
students entering the 28 universities in our sample
in 1999 but only 66 percent of all 18- to 19-year-
old Hispanics in the United States.
3. Across both situational (experimental) and disposi-
tional (observational) assessments of stereotype
threat, the strength and impact of the identity threat
on grade performance across multiple exposures to
negative stereotypes depends on the features of the
setting, the severity of threat experienced, and the
322 Sociology of Education 85(4)
individual sensitivities of a given student (Fiske
1998). Therefore—as discussed later—support for
the observational model we present here does not
rule out the possibility that immigrants—even first-
generation immigrants—experience stereotype threat
in situation-specific contexts.
4. As a conceptual check, however, the full model was
estimated for whites and Asians. All paths except
that between effort and performance were nonsignif-
icant at the .05 level (results available upon request).
5. Throughout this article, we refer to foreign-born col-
lege students as first generation because of their
direct experiences of international migration.
Because members of the 1.5 generation (those who
arrived prior to age eight) are collapsed with recent
arrivals, our findings on the uniqueness of the first
generation are particularly conservative. Second-gen-
eration students were born in the United States but
have at least one foreign-born parent. We refer to
both together as immigrants because they have close
familial ties to the social, cultural, linguistic, and
financial impacts of acculturating to a new society.
In contrast, domestic underrepresented minorities
are those whose parents and grandparents are each
American-born.
6. First, to test the robustness of relationships between
the structural paths shown in Figure 2 to slight
changes in the selection of latent construct indicators,
the structural equation modeling (SEM) was re-run
16 times, each time excluding one of the 16 indica-
tors from the full model. Results indicated no sub-
stantive changes in the magnitudes or significances
of the regression paths between constructs. Second,
as an alternate to SEM, the full model was also ana-
lyzed using path analysis, with summed indexes
modeled with a single factor loading for each latent
construct. Though not allowing for differential inter-
item weighting of indicators nor controlling for mea-
surement error, results were similar to those of the
SEM presented in Table 4.
7. In order to assess the reliability of each latent con-
struct, we examined the r-square values for constit-
uent items (shown in Appendix C, online at
soe.sagepub.com). We conclude that the r-square
values of each item are sufficiently large to suggest
that each indicator contributes substantially to the
overall joint variation of the latent construct (and
only limited unique variance; Bollen 1989). To
assess construct validity, we report factor loadings
for each item in a latent construct (see Appendix
C). To assess predictive validity, we examine
whether the internalization and externalization
mechanisms are significant predictors of their corre-
sponding constructs based on the conceptual model
for domestic minority students—those shown to
be susceptible to these mechanisms of identity
threat in prior research. We find high predictive
validity.
REFERENCES
Bankston, Carl L. 2004. ‘‘Social Capital, Cultural Values,
Immigration, and Academic Achievement: The Host
Country Context and Contradictory Consequences.’’
Sociology of Education 77(2):176-79.
Barrera, Mario. 1980. Race and Class in the Southwest:
A Theory of Racial Inequality. Notre Dame, IN:
Notre Dame University Press.
Bean, Frank and Gillian Stevens. 2003. America’s
Newcomers: Immigrant Incorporation and the
Dynamics of Diversity. New York, NY: Russell
Sage Foundation.
Bennett, Pamela R. and Amy Lutz. 2009. ‘‘How African
American Is the Net Black Advantage? Differences
in College Attendance among Immigrant Blacks,
Native Blacks, and Whites.’’ Sociology of
Education 82(1):70-99.
Bollen, Kenneth A. 1989. Structural Equations with
Latent Variables. New York, NY: Wiley Press.
Brunsma, David L. 2005. ‘‘Interracial Families and the
Racial Identification of Mixed-race Children:
Evidence from the Early Childhood Longitudinal
Study.’’ Social Forces 84(2):1131-57.
Charles, Camille Z. 2003. ‘‘The Dynamics of Residential
Segregation.’’ Annual Review of Sociology 29:
167-207.
Charles, Camille Z., Mary J. Fischer, Margarita Mooney,
and Douglas S. Massey. 2009. Taming the River:
Negotiating the Academic, Financial, and Social
Currents in Selective Colleges and Universities.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Charles, Camille Z., Kimberly C. Torres, and Rachelle J.
Brunn. 2008. ‘‘Black Like Who? Exploring the
Racial, Ethnic and Class Diversity of Black
Students at Selective Colleges and Universities.’’
Pp. 247-65 in Racism in Post-race America: New
Theories, New Directions, edited by C. A.
Gallagher. New York, NY: Social Forces Publishing.
Coleman, James S. 1988. ‘‘Social Capital in the Creation
of Human Capital.’’ The American Journal of
Sociology 94:95-120.
Conzen K. N., D. A. Gerber, E. Morawska, G. E.
Pozzetta, and R. J. Vecoli. 1992. ‘‘The Invention of
Ethnicity: A Perspective from the U.S.A.’’ Journal
of American Ethnic History 1(1):3-41.
Cornell, Stephen and Douglas Hartmann. 2007.
Ethnicity and Race: Making Identities in
a Changing World. London: Pine Forge Press.
Crocker, Jennifer and N. Lutskey. 1986. ‘‘Stigma and the
Dynamics of Social Cognition.’’ In The Dilemma of
Difference, edited by S. C. Ainlay, G. Becker, and
L. M. Coleman. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Crocker, Jennifer, Brenda Major, and Claude M. Steele.
1998. ‘‘Social Stigma.’’ Pp. 504-53 in Handbook of
Social Psychology, 4th ed. Vol. 2, edited by D. T.
Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, and L. Gardner. Boston, MA:
McGraw-Hill.
Owens and Lynch 323
Deaux, Kay. 1996. ‘‘Social Identification.’’ Pp. 777-98 in
Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles,
edited by E. T. Higgins and A. W. Kruglanski.
New York, NY: Guildford Press.
Deaux, Kay. 2006. To Be an Immigrant. New York, NY:
Russell Sage Foundation.
Downey, Douglas B. 2008. ‘‘Black/white Differences in
School Performance: The Oppositional Culture
Explanation.’’ Annual Review of Sociology 34(1):
107-26.
Downey, Douglas B., James W. Ainsworth, and
Zhenchao Qian. 2009. ‘‘Rethinking the
Attitude-achievement Paradox among Blacks.’’
Sociology of Education 82(1):1-19.
Fernandez-Kelly, M. Patricia. 1995. ‘‘Social and
Cultural Capital in the Urban Ghetto: Implications
for the Economic Sociology of Immigration.’’ Pp.
213-47 in The Economic Sociology of Immigration:
Essays in Network, Ethnicity, and
Entrepreneurship, edited by A. Portes. New York,
NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Fernandez-Kelly, M. Patricia and Richard Schauffler.
1994. ‘‘Divided Fates: Immigrant Children in
a Restructured Economy.’’ International Migration
Review 28:662-89.
Fiske, Susan T. 1998. ‘‘Stereotyping, Prejudice, and
Discrimination.’’ Pp. 504-53 in The Handbook of
Social Psychology, 4th ed. Vol. 2, edited by D. T.
Gilbert and S. T. Fiske. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Gans, Herbert J. 1992. ‘‘Second-generation Decline:
Scenarios for the Economic and Ethnic Futures of
the Post-1965 American Immigrants.’’ Ethnic and
Racial Studies 15(2):173-92.
Grasmuck, Sherri. 1984. ‘‘Immigration, Ethnic
Stratification, and Native Working Class
Discipline: Comparison of Documented and
Undocumented Dominicans.’’ International
Migration Review 18:692-713.
Grasmuck, Sherri and Patricia Pessar. 1991. Between
Two Islands: Dominican International Migration.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Hagy, Alison P. and J. Farley Ordovensky Staniec. 2002.
‘‘Immigrant Status, Race, and Institutional Choice in
Higher Education.’’ Economics of Education Review
21(1):381-92.
Harris, David R. and Jeremiah J. Sim. 2002. ‘‘Who Is
Multiracial? Assessing the Complexity of Lived
Race.’’ American Sociological Review 67(4):614-27.
Iceland, John, Daniel H. Weinberg, and Erika Steinmetz.
2002. Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in
the United States: 1980-2000. Washington, DC:
U. S. Government Printing Office, U.S. Census
Bureau.
Jencks, Christopher and Meredith Phillips. 1998. The
Black-white Test Score Gap. Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution Press.
Kao, Grace. 2004. ‘‘Social Capital and Its Relevance to
Minority and Immigrant Populations.’’ Sociology of
Education 77(2):172-75.
Kao, Grace and Lindsay Taggart Rutherford. 2007.
‘‘Does Social Capital Still Matter? Immigrant
Minority Disadvantage in School-specific Social
Capital and Its Effects on Academic Achievement.
’’ Sociological Perspectives 50(1):27-54.
Kao, Grace and Jennifer S. Thompson. 2003. ‘‘Racial
and Ethnic Stratification in Educational
Achievement and Attainment.’’ Annual Review of
Sociology 29:417-42.
Kao, Grace and Marta Tienda. 1995. ‘‘Optimism and
Achievement: The Educational Performance of
Immigrant Youth.’’ Social Science Quarterly 76(1):
1-19.
Kao, Grace and Marta Tienda. 1998. ‘‘Educational
Aspirations of Minority Youth.’’ American Journal
of Education 106(3):349-84.
Kasinitz, Philip. 2008. ‘‘Becoming American, Becoming
Minority, Getting Ahead: The Role of Racial and
Ethnic Status in the Upward Mobility of the
Children of Immigrants.’’ The Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science
620(1):253-69.
Kasinitz, Philip, John H. Mollenkopf, Mary C. Waters,
and Jennifer Holdaway. 2008. Inheriting the City:
The Children of Immigrants Come of Age. New
York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation Press.
Massey, Douglas S., Camille Z. Charles, Garvey F.
Lundy, and Mary J. Fischer. 2003. The Source of
the River: The Social Origins of Freshmen at
America’s Selective Colleges and Universities.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Massey, Douglas S. and Mary J. Fischer. 2005.
‘‘Stereotype Threat and Academic Performance:
New Findings from a Racially Diverse Sample of
College Freshmen.’’ Du Bois Review 2(1):45-68.
Massey, Douglas S., Margarita A. Mooney, Camille Z.
Charles, and Kimberly C. Torres. 2007. ‘‘Black
Immigrants and Black Natives Attending Selective
Colleges and Universities in the United States.’’
American Journal of Education 113(2):243-71.
Menjı́var, Cecilia. 2000. Fragmented Ties: Salvadoran
Immigrant Networks in America. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Merton, Robert K. 1968. Social Theory and Social
Structure. New York, NY: Free Press.
Morgan, Stephan L. and Jal D. Mehta. 2004. ‘‘Beyond
the Laboratory: Evaluating the Survey Evidence for
the Disidentification Explanation of Black-white
Differences in Achievement.’’ Sociology of
Education 77(1):82-101.
Omi, Michael and Howard Winant. 1994. Racial
Formation in the United States: From the 1960s to
the 1990s. New York, NY: Routledge.
324 Sociology of Education 85(4)
Owens, Jayanti and Douglas S. Massey. 2010.
‘‘Stereotype Threat and College Academic
Performance: A Latent Variables Approach.’’
Social Science Research 40:150-66.
Oyserman, Daphna. 2008. ‘‘Racial-ethnic Self-schemas:
Multidimensional Identity-based Motivation.’’
Journal of Research in Personality 42:1186-198.
Oyserman, Daphna, Deborah Bybee, and Kathy Terry.
2003. ‘‘Gendered Racial Identity and Involvement
with School.’’ Self & Identity 2(4):307-24.
Oyserman, Daphna and Janet K. Swim. 2001. ‘‘Stigma: An
Insider’s View.’’ Journal of Social Issues 57(1):1-14.
Portes, Alejandro and Rubén G. Rumbaut. 2001.
Legacies: The Story of the Immigrant Second
Generation. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.
Portes, Alejandro and Rubén G. Rumbaut. 2006.
Immigrant America: A Portrait. 3rd ed. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press.
Rong, Xue Lan and Frank Brown. 2001. ‘‘The Effects of
Immigrant Generation and Ethnicity on Educational
Attainment among Young African and Caribbean
Blacks in the United States.’’ Harvard Educational
Review 71(3):536-68.
Sanders, Jimy M. 2002. ‘‘Ethnic Boundaries and Identity
in Plural Societies.’’ Annual Review of Sociology 28:
327-57.
Steele, Claude M. 1988. ‘‘The Psychology of
Self-affirmation: Sustaining the Integrity of the
Self.’’ Pp. 261-302 in Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology. Vol. 21, edited by L.
Berkowitz. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Steele, Claude M. 1992. ‘‘Race and the Schooling of
Black Americans.’’ Atlantic Monthly. Retrieved
December 15, 2009 (http://www.theatlantic.com/
magazine/archive/1992/04/race-and-the-schooling-of-
black-americans/6073/).
Steele, Claude M. 1998. ‘‘A Threat in the Air: How
Stereotypes Shape Intellectual Identity and
Performance.’’ Pp. 202-33 in Confronting Racism:
The Problem and the Response, edited by J. L.
Eberhardt and S. T. Fiske. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Steele, Claude M. and Joshua Aronson. 1995.
‘‘Stereotype Threat and the Intellectual Test
Performance of African Americans.’’ Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 69(5):797-811.
Suarez-Orozco, Marcelo M. and Carola Suarez-Orozco.
2001. Children of Immigration. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Tafoya, Sonya. 2004. Shades of Belonging. Washington,
DC: Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved December 20,
2009 (http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/35.pdf).
Tajfel, Henri. 1981. Human Groups and Social
Categories. London: Cambridge University Press.
Telles, Edward E. and Vilma Ortiz. 2008. Generations of
Exclusion: Mexican Americans, Assimilation, and
Race. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Turney, Kristin and Grace Kao. 2009. ‘‘Barriers to
School Involvement: Are Immigrant Parents
Disadvantaged?’’ Journal of Educational Research
102(4):257-71.
Waldinger, Roger and Cynthia Feliciano. 2004. ‘‘Will
the New Second Generation Experience
‘Downward Assimilation’?’’ Ethnic and Racial
Studies 27(3):376-402.
Waters, Mary C. 1996. ‘‘Ethnic and Racial Identities of
Second Generation Black Immigrants in New York
City.’’ In The New Second Generation, edited by
A. Portes. New York: Russell Sage.
Waters, Mary C. 1999. Black Identities: West Indian
Immigrant Dreams and American Realities. New
York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Woolley, Michael E., Andrew Grogan-Kaylor, Megan E.
Gilster, Rebecca A. Karb, Larry M. Gant, Thomas
M. Reischl, and Katherine Alaimo. 2008.
‘‘Neighborhood Social Capital, Poor Physical
Conditions, and School Achievement.’’ Children &
Schools 30(3):133-45.
Zhou, Min. 1997a. ‘‘Segmented Assimilation: Issues,
Controversies, and Recent Research on the New
Second Generation.’’ International Migration
Review 31(4): 975-1008.
Zhou, Min. 1997b. ‘‘Growing Up American: The
Challenge Confronting Immigrant Children and the
Children of Immigrants.’’ Annual Review of
Sociology 23:63-95.
Zhou, Min and Carl L. Bankston III. 1998. Growing up
American: How Vietnamese Children Adapt to Life
in the United States. New York, NY: Russell Sage
Foundation Press.
Zhou, Min, Jennifer Lee, Jody Agius Vallejo, Rosaura
Tafoya-Estrada, and Yang Sao Xiong. 2008.
‘‘Success Attained, Deterred, and Denied:
Divergent Pathways to Social Mobility in Los
Angeles’s New Second Generation.’’ The Annals of
the American Academy of Political and Social
Science 620(1):37-61.
BIOS
Jayanti Owens is a doctoral candidate in sociology and
demography at Princeton University. Jayanti’s interests
are in life course sociology, stratification, status and
prestige, social psychology, gender, family demography,
and entrepreneurship.
Scott M. Lynch is Professor of Sociology at Princeton
University. His interests are in social epidemiology,
health, gerontology, Bayesian statistics, and quantitative
methods.
Owens and Lynch 325
<< /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /None /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Dot Gain 20%) /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Error /CompatibilityLevel 1.3 /CompressObjects /Off /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages true /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /DetectCurves 0.1000 /ColorConversionStrategy /LeaveColorUnchanged /DoThumbnails false /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedOpenType false /ParseICCProfilesInComments true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams false /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize false /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments true /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveDICMYKValues true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveFlatness true /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments false /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Remove /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true /ACaslon-Bold /ACaslon-BoldItalic /ACaslon-Italic /ACaslon-Ornaments /ACaslon-Regular /ACaslon-Semibold /ACaslon-SemiboldItalic /AdobeCorpID-Acrobat /AdobeCorpID-Adobe /AdobeCorpID-Bullet /AdobeCorpID-MinionBd /AdobeCorpID-MinionBdIt /AdobeCorpID-MinionRg /AdobeCorpID-MinionRgIt /AdobeCorpID-MinionSb /AdobeCorpID-MinionSbIt /AdobeCorpID-MyriadBd /AdobeCorpID-MyriadBdIt /AdobeCorpID-MyriadBdScn /AdobeCorpID-MyriadBdScnIt /AdobeCorpID-MyriadBl /AdobeCorpID-MyriadBlIt /AdobeCorpID-MyriadLt /AdobeCorpID-MyriadLtIt /AdobeCorpID-MyriadPkg /AdobeCorpID-MyriadRg /AdobeCorpID-MyriadRgIt /AdobeCorpID-MyriadRgScn /AdobeCorpID-MyriadRgScnIt /AdobeCorpID-MyriadSb /AdobeCorpID-MyriadSbIt /AdobeCorpID-MyriadSbScn /AdobeCorpID-MyriadSbScnIt /AdobeCorpID-PScript /AGaramond-BoldScaps /AGaramond-Italic /AGaramond-Regular /AGaramond-RomanScaps /AGaramond-Semibold /AGaramond-SemiboldItalic /AGar-Special /AkzidenzGroteskBE-Bold /AkzidenzGroteskBE-BoldEx /AkzidenzGroteskBE-BoldExIt /AkzidenzGroteskBE-BoldIt /AkzidenzGroteskBE-Ex /AkzidenzGroteskBE-It /AkzidenzGroteskBE-Light /AkzidenzGroteskBE-LightEx /AkzidenzGroteskBE-LightOsF /AkzidenzGroteskBE-Md /AkzidenzGroteskBE-MdEx /AkzidenzGroteskBE-MdIt /AkzidenzGroteskBE-Regular /AkzidenzGroteskBE-Super /AlbertusMT /AlbertusMT-Italic /AlbertusMT-Light /Aldine401BT-BoldA /Aldine401BT-BoldItalicA /Aldine401BT-ItalicA /Aldine401BT-RomanA /Aldine401BTSPL-RomanA /Aldine721BT-Bold /Aldine721BT-BoldItalic /Aldine721BT-Italic /Aldine721BT-Light /Aldine721BT-LightItalic /Aldine721BT-Roman /Aldus-Italic /Aldus-ItalicOsF /Aldus-Roman /Aldus-RomanSC /AlternateGothicNo2BT-Regular /AmazoneBT-Regular /AmericanTypewriter-Bold /AmericanTypewriter-BoldA /AmericanTypewriter-BoldCond /AmericanTypewriter-BoldCondA /AmericanTypewriter-Cond /AmericanTypewriter-CondA /AmericanTypewriter-Light /AmericanTypewriter-LightA /AmericanTypewriter-LightCond /AmericanTypewriter-LightCondA /AmericanTypewriter-Medium /AmericanTypewriter-MediumA /Anna /AntiqueOlive-Bold /AntiqueOlive-Compact /AntiqueOlive-Italic /AntiqueOlive-Roman /Arcadia /Arcadia-A /Arkona-Medium /Arkona-Regular /ArrusBT-Black /ArrusBT-BlackItalic /ArrusBT-Bold /ArrusBT-BoldItalic /ArrusBT-Italic /ArrusBT-Roman /AssemblyLightSSK /AuroraBT-BoldCondensed /AuroraBT-RomanCondensed /AuroraOpti-Condensed /AvantGarde-Book /AvantGarde-BookOblique /AvantGarde-Demi /AvantGarde-DemiOblique /Avenir-Black /Avenir-BlackOblique /Avenir-Book /Avenir-BookOblique /Avenir-Heavy /Avenir-HeavyOblique /Avenir-Light /Avenir-LightOblique /Avenir-Medium /Avenir-MediumOblique /Avenir-Oblique /Avenir-Roman /BaileySansITC-Bold /BaileySansITC-BoldItalic /BaileySansITC-Book /BaileySansITC-BookItalic /BakerSignetBT-Roman /BaskervilleBE-Italic /BaskervilleBE-Medium /BaskervilleBE-MediumItalic /BaskervilleBE-Regular /Baskerville-Bold /BaskervilleBook-Italic /BaskervilleBook-MedItalic /BaskervilleBook-Medium /BaskervilleBook-Regular /BaskervilleBT-Bold /BaskervilleBT-BoldItalic /BaskervilleBT-Italic /BaskervilleBT-Roman /BaskervilleMT /BaskervilleMT-Bold /BaskervilleMT-BoldItalic /BaskervilleMT-Italic /BaskervilleMT-SemiBold /BaskervilleMT-SemiBoldItalic /BaskervilleNo2BT-Bold /BaskervilleNo2BT-BoldItalic /BaskervilleNo2BT-Italic /BaskervilleNo2BT-Roman /Baskerville-Normal-Italic /BauerBodoni-Black /BauerBodoni-BlackCond /BauerBodoni-BlackItalic /BauerBodoni-Bold /BauerBodoni-BoldCond /BauerBodoni-BoldItalic /BauerBodoni-BoldItalicOsF /BauerBodoni-BoldOsF /BauerBodoni-Italic /BauerBodoni-ItalicOsF /BauerBodoni-Roman /BauerBodoni-RomanSC /Bauhaus-Bold /Bauhaus-Demi /Bauhaus-Heavy /BauhausITCbyBT-Bold /BauhausITCbyBT-Heavy /BauhausITCbyBT-Light /BauhausITCbyBT-Medium /Bauhaus-Light /Bauhaus-Medium /BellCentennial-Address /BellGothic-Black /BellGothic-Bold /Bell-GothicBoldItalicBT /BellGothicBT-Bold /BellGothicBT-Roman /BellGothic-Light /Bembo /Bembo-Bold /Bembo-BoldExpert /Bembo-BoldItalic /Bembo-BoldItalicExpert /Bembo-Expert /Bembo-ExtraBoldItalic /Bembo-Italic /Bembo-ItalicExpert /Bembo-Semibold /Bembo-SemiboldItalic /Benguiat-Bold /Benguiat-BoldItalic /Benguiat-Book /Benguiat-BookItalic /BenguiatGothicITCbyBT-Bold /BenguiatGothicITCbyBT-BoldItal /BenguiatGothicITCbyBT-Book /BenguiatGothicITCbyBT-BookItal /BenguiatITCbyBT-Bold /BenguiatITCbyBT-BoldItalic /BenguiatITCbyBT-Book /BenguiatITCbyBT-BookItalic /Benguiat-Medium /Benguiat-MediumItalic /Berkeley-Black /Berkeley-BlackItalic /Berkeley-Bold /Berkeley-BoldItalic /Berkeley-Book /Berkeley-BookItalic /Berkeley-Italic /Berkeley-Medium /Berling-Bold /Berling-BoldItalic /Berling-Italic /Berling-Roman /BernhardBoldCondensedBT-Regular /BernhardFashionBT-Regular /BernhardModernBT-Bold /BernhardModernBT-BoldItalic /BernhardModernBT-Italic /BernhardModernBT-Roman /BernhardTangoBT-Regular /BlockBE-Condensed /BlockBE-ExtraCn /BlockBE-ExtraCnIt /BlockBE-Heavy /BlockBE-Italic /BlockBE-Regular /Bodoni /Bodoni-Bold /Bodoni-BoldItalic /Bodoni-Italic /Bodoni-Poster /Bodoni-PosterCompressed /Bookman-Demi /Bookman-DemiItalic /Bookman-Light /Bookman-LightItalic /Boton-Italic /Boton-Medium /Boton-MediumItalic /Boton-Regular /Boulevard /BremenBT-Black /BremenBT-Bold /BroadwayBT-Regular /CaflischScript-Bold /CaflischScript-Regular /Caliban /CarminaBT-Bold /CarminaBT-BoldItalic /CarminaBT-Light /CarminaBT-LightItalic /CarminaBT-Medium /CarminaBT-MediumItalic /Carta /Caslon224ITCbyBT-Bold /Caslon224ITCbyBT-BoldItalic /Caslon224ITCbyBT-Book /Caslon224ITCbyBT-BookItalic /Caslon540BT-Italic /Caslon540BT-Roman /CaslonBT-Bold /CaslonBT-BoldItalic /CaslonOpenFace /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-Black /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-BlackIt /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-Bold /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-BoldIt /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-Book /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-BookIt /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-Medium /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-MediumIt /CastleT-Bold /CastleT-Book /Caxton-Bold /Caxton-BoldItalic /Caxton-Book /Caxton-BookItalic /CaxtonBT-Bold /CaxtonBT-BoldItalic /CaxtonBT-Book /CaxtonBT-BookItalic /Caxton-Light /Caxton-LightItalic /CelestiaAntiqua-Ornaments /Centennial-BlackItalicOsF /Centennial-BlackOsF /Centennial-BoldItalicOsF /Centennial-BoldOsF /Centennial-ItalicOsF /Centennial-LightItalicOsF /Centennial-LightSC /Centennial-RomanSC /Century-Bold /Century-BoldItalic /Century-Book /Century-BookItalic /CenturyExpandedBT-Bold /CenturyExpandedBT-BoldItalic /CenturyExpandedBT-Italic /CenturyExpandedBT-Roman /Century-HandtooledBold /Century-HandtooledBoldItalic /Century-Light /Century-LightItalic /CenturyOldStyle-Bold /CenturyOldStyle-Italic /CenturyOldStyle-Regular /CenturySchoolbookBT-Bold /CenturySchoolbookBT-BoldCond /CenturySchoolbookBT-BoldItalic /CenturySchoolbookBT-Italic /CenturySchoolbookBT-Roman /Century-Ultra /Century-UltraItalic /CharterBT-Black /CharterBT-BlackItalic /CharterBT-Bold /CharterBT-BoldItalic /CharterBT-Italic /CharterBT-Roman /CheltenhamBT-Bold /CheltenhamBT-BoldCondItalic /CheltenhamBT-BoldExtraCondensed /CheltenhamBT-BoldHeadline /CheltenhamBT-BoldItalic /CheltenhamBT-BoldItalicHeadline /CheltenhamBT-Italic /CheltenhamBT-Roman /Cheltenham-HandtooledBdIt /Cheltenham-HandtooledBold /CheltenhamITCbyBT-Bold /CheltenhamITCbyBT-BoldItalic /CheltenhamITCbyBT-Book /CheltenhamITCbyBT-BookItalic /Christiana-Bold /Christiana-BoldItalic /Christiana-Italic /Christiana-Medium /Christiana-MediumItalic /Christiana-Regular /Christiana-RegularExpert /Christiana-RegularSC /Clarendon /Clarendon-Bold /Clarendon-Light /ClassicalGaramondBT-Bold /ClassicalGaramondBT-BoldItalic /ClassicalGaramondBT-Italic /ClassicalGaramondBT-Roman /CMR10 /CMR8 /CMSY10 /CMSY8 /CMTI10 /CommonBullets /ConduitITC-Bold /ConduitITC-BoldItalic /ConduitITC-Light /ConduitITC-LightItalic /ConduitITC-Medium /ConduitITC-MediumItalic /CooperBlack /CooperBlack-Italic /CooperBT-Bold /CooperBT-BoldItalic /CooperBT-Light /CooperBT-LightItalic /CopperplateGothicBT-Bold /CopperplateGothicBT-BoldCond /CopperplateGothicBT-Heavy /CopperplateGothicBT-Roman /CopperplateGothicBT-RomanCond /Copperplate-ThirtyThreeBC /Copperplate-ThirtyTwoBC /Coronet-Regular /Courier /Courier-Bold /Courier-BoldOblique /Courier-Oblique /Critter /CS-Special-font /DellaRobbiaBT-Bold /DellaRobbiaBT-Roman /Della-RobbiaItalicBT /Della-RobbiaSCaps /Del-NormalSmallCaps /Delphin-IA /Delphin-IIA /Delta-Bold /Delta-BoldItalic /Delta-Book /Delta-BookItalic /Delta-Light /Delta-LightItalic /Delta-Medium /Delta-MediumItalic /Delta-Outline /DextorD /DextorOutD /DidotLH-OrnamentsOne /DidotLH-OrnamentsTwo /DINEngschrift /DINEngschrift-Alternate /DINMittelschrift /DINMittelschrift-Alternate /DINNeuzeitGrotesk-BoldCond /DINNeuzeitGrotesk-Light /Dom-CasItalic /DomCasual /DomCasual-Bold /Dom-CasualBT /Ehrhard-Italic /Ehrhard-Regular /EhrhardSemi-Italic /EhrhardtMT /EhrhardtMT-Italic /EhrhardtMT-SemiBold /EhrhardtMT-SemiBoldItalic /EhrharSemi /ELANGO-IB-A03 /ELANGO-IB-A75 /ELANGO-IB-A99 /ElectraLH-Bold /ElectraLH-BoldCursive /ElectraLH-Cursive /ElectraLH-Regular /ElGreco /EnglischeSchT-Bold /EnglischeSchT-Regu /ErasContour /ErasITCbyBT-Bold /ErasITCbyBT-Book /ErasITCbyBT-Demi /ErasITCbyBT-Light /ErasITCbyBT-Medium /ErasITCbyBT-Ultra /Euclid /Euclid-Bold /Euclid-BoldItalic /EuclidExtra /EuclidExtra-Bold /EuclidFraktur /EuclidFraktur-Bold /Euclid-Italic /EuclidMathOne /EuclidMathOne-Bold /EuclidMathTwo /EuclidMathTwo-Bold /EuclidSymbol /EuclidSymbol-Bold /EuclidSymbol-BoldItalic /EuclidSymbol-Italic /EUEX10 /EUFB10 /EUFB5 /EUFB7 /EUFM10 /EUFM5 /EUFM7 /EURB10 /EURB5 /EURB7 /EURM10 /EURM5 /EURM7 /EuropeanPi-Four /EuropeanPi-One /EuropeanPi-Three /EuropeanPi-Two /EuroSans-Bold /EuroSans-BoldItalic /EuroSans-Italic /EuroSans-Regular /EuroSerif-Bold /EuroSerif-BoldItalic /EuroSerif-Italic /EuroSerif-Regular /Eurostile /Eurostile-Bold /Eurostile-BoldCondensed /Eurostile-BoldExtendedTwo /Eurostile-BoldOblique /Eurostile-Condensed /Eurostile-Demi /Eurostile-DemiOblique /Eurostile-ExtendedTwo /EurostileLTStd-Demi /EurostileLTStd-DemiOblique /Eurostile-Oblique /EUSB10 /EUSB5 /EUSB7 /EUSM10 /EUSM5 /EUSM7 /ExPonto-Regular /FairfieldLH-Bold /FairfieldLH-BoldItalic /FairfieldLH-BoldSC /FairfieldLH-CaptionBold /FairfieldLH-CaptionHeavy /FairfieldLH-CaptionLight /FairfieldLH-CaptionMedium /FairfieldLH-Heavy /FairfieldLH-HeavyItalic /FairfieldLH-HeavySC /FairfieldLH-Light /FairfieldLH-LightItalic /FairfieldLH-LightSC /FairfieldLH-Medium /FairfieldLH-MediumItalic /FairfieldLH-MediumSC /FairfieldLH-SwBoldItalicOsF /FairfieldLH-SwHeavyItalicOsF /FairfieldLH-SwLightItalicOsF /FairfieldLH-SwMediumItalicOsF /Fences /Fenice-Bold /Fenice-BoldOblique /FeniceITCbyBT-Bold /FeniceITCbyBT-BoldItalic /FeniceITCbyBT-Regular /FeniceITCbyBT-RegularItalic /Fenice-Light /Fenice-LightOblique /Fenice-Regular /Fenice-RegularOblique /Fenice-Ultra /Fenice-UltraOblique /FlashD-Ligh /Flood /Folio-Bold /Folio-BoldCondensed /Folio-ExtraBold /Folio-Light /Folio-Medium /FontanaNDAaOsF /FontanaNDAaOsF-Italic /FontanaNDCcOsF-Semibold /FontanaNDCcOsF-SemiboldIta /FontanaNDEeOsF /FontanaNDEeOsF-Bold /FontanaNDEeOsF-BoldItalic /FontanaNDEeOsF-Light /FontanaNDEeOsF-Semibold /FormalScript421BT-Regular /Formata-Bold /Formata-MediumCondensed /ForteMT /FournierMT-Ornaments /FrakturBT-Regular /FrankfurterHigD /FranklinGothic-Book /FranklinGothic-BookItal /FranklinGothic-BookOblique /FranklinGothic-Condensed /FranklinGothic-Demi /FranklinGothic-DemiItal /FranklinGothic-DemiOblique /FranklinGothic-Heavy /FranklinGothic-HeavyItal /FranklinGothic-HeavyOblique /FranklinGothicITCbyBT-BookItal /FranklinGothicITCbyBT-Demi /FranklinGothicITCbyBT-DemiItal /FranklinGothicITCbyBT-Heavy /FranklinGothicITCbyBT-HeavyItal /FranklinGothic-Medium /FranklinGothic-MediumItal /FranklinGothic-Roman /Freeform721BT-Bold /Freeform721BT-BoldItalic /Freeform721BT-Italic /Freeform721BT-Roman /FreestyleScrD /FreestyleScript /Freestylescript /FrizQuadrataITCbyBT-Bold /FrizQuadrataITCbyBT-Roman /Frutiger-Black /Frutiger-BlackCn /Frutiger-BlackItalic /Frutiger-Bold /Frutiger-BoldCn /Frutiger-BoldItalic /Frutiger-Cn /Frutiger-ExtraBlackCn /Frutiger-Italic /Frutiger-Light /Frutiger-LightCn /Frutiger-LightItalic /Frutiger-Roman /Frutiger-UltraBlack /Futura /FuturaBlackBT-Regular /Futura-Bold /Futura-BoldOblique /Futura-Book /Futura-BookOblique /FuturaBT-Bold /FuturaBT-BoldCondensed /FuturaBT-BoldCondensedItalic /FuturaBT-BoldItalic /FuturaBT-Book /FuturaBT-BookItalic /FuturaBT-ExtraBlack /FuturaBT-ExtraBlackCondensed /FuturaBT-ExtraBlackCondItalic /FuturaBT-ExtraBlackItalic /FuturaBT-Heavy /FuturaBT-HeavyItalic /FuturaBT-Light /FuturaBT-LightCondensed /FuturaBT-LightItalic /FuturaBT-Medium /FuturaBT-MediumCondensed /FuturaBT-MediumItalic /Futura-CondensedLight /Futura-CondensedLightOblique /Futura-ExtraBold /Futura-ExtraBoldOblique /Futura-Heavy /Futura-HeavyOblique /Futura-Light /Futura-LightOblique /Futura-Oblique /Futura-Thin /Galliard-Black /Galliard-BlackItalic /Galliard-Bold /Galliard-BoldItalic /Galliard-Italic /GalliardITCbyBT-Bold /GalliardITCbyBT-BoldItalic /GalliardITCbyBT-Italic /GalliardITCbyBT-Roman /Galliard-Roman /Galliard-Ultra /Galliard-UltraItalic /Garamond-Antiqua /GaramondBE-Bold /GaramondBE-BoldExpert /GaramondBE-BoldOsF /GaramondBE-CnExpert /GaramondBE-Condensed /GaramondBE-CondensedSC /GaramondBE-Italic /GaramondBE-ItalicExpert /GaramondBE-ItalicOsF /GaramondBE-Medium /GaramondBE-MediumCn /GaramondBE-MediumCnExpert /GaramondBE-MediumCnOsF /GaramondBE-MediumExpert /GaramondBE-MediumItalic /GaramondBE-MediumItalicExpert /GaramondBE-MediumItalicOsF /GaramondBE-MediumSC /GaramondBE-Regular /GaramondBE-RegularExpert /GaramondBE-RegularSC /GaramondBE-SwashItalic /Garamond-Bold /Garamond-BoldCondensed /Garamond-BoldCondensedItalic /Garamond-BoldItalic /Garamond-Book /Garamond-BookCondensed /Garamond-BookCondensedItalic /Garamond-BookItalic /Garamond-Halbfett /Garamond-HandtooledBold /Garamond-HandtooledBoldItalic /GaramondITCbyBT-Bold /GaramondITCbyBT-BoldCondensed /GaramondITCbyBT-BoldCondItalic /GaramondITCbyBT-BoldItalic /GaramondITCbyBT-BoldNarrow /GaramondITCbyBT-BoldNarrowItal /GaramondITCbyBT-Book /GaramondITCbyBT-BookCondensed /GaramondITCbyBT-BookCondItalic /GaramondITCbyBT-BookItalic /GaramondITCbyBT-BookNarrow /GaramondITCbyBT-BookNarrowItal /GaramondITCbyBT-Light /GaramondITCbyBT-LightCondensed /GaramondITCbyBT-LightCondItalic /GaramondITCbyBT-LightItalic /GaramondITCbyBT-LightNarrow /GaramondITCbyBT-LightNarrowItal /GaramondITCbyBT-Ultra /GaramondITCbyBT-UltraCondensed /GaramondITCbyBT-UltraCondItalic /GaramondITCbyBT-UltraItalic /Garamond-Kursiv /Garamond-KursivHalbfett /Garamond-Light /Garamond-LightCondensed /Garamond-LightCondensedItalic /Garamond-LightItalic /GaramondNo4CyrTCY-Ligh /GaramondNo4CyrTCY-LighItal /GaramondThree /GaramondThree-Bold /GaramondThree-BoldItalic /GaramondThree-BoldItalicOsF /GaramondThree-BoldSC /GaramondThree-Italic /GaramondThree-ItalicOsF /GaramondThree-SC /GaramondThreeSMSIISpl-Italic /GaramondThreeSMSitalicSpl-Italic /GaramondThreeSMSspl /GaramondThreespl /GaramondThreeSpl-Bold /GaramondThreeSpl-Italic /Garamond-Ultra /Garamond-UltraCondensed /Garamond-UltraCondensedItalic /Garamond-UltraItalic /GarthGraphic /GarthGraphic-Black /GarthGraphic-Bold /GarthGraphic-BoldCondensed /GarthGraphic-BoldItalic /GarthGraphic-Condensed /GarthGraphic-ExtraBold /GarthGraphic-Italic /Geometric231BT-HeavyC /GeometricSlab712BT-BoldA /GeometricSlab712BT-ExtraBoldA /GeometricSlab712BT-LightA /GeometricSlab712BT-LightItalicA /GeometricSlab712BT-MediumA /GeometricSlab712BT-MediumItalA /Giddyup /Giddyup-Thangs /GillSans /GillSans-Bold /GillSans-BoldCondensed /GillSans-BoldExtraCondensed /GillSans-BoldItalic /GillSans-Condensed /GillSans-ExtraBold /GillSans-ExtraBoldDisplay /GillSans-Italic /GillSans-Light /GillSans-LightItalic /GillSans-LightShadowed /GillSans-Shadowed /GillSans-UltraBold /GillSans-UltraBoldCondensed /Gill-Special /Giovanni-Bold /Giovanni-BoldItalic /Giovanni-Book /Giovanni-BookItalic /Glypha /Glypha-Bold /Glypha-BoldOblique /Glypha-Oblique /Gothic-Thirteen /Goudy /Goudy-Bold /Goudy-BoldItalic /GoudyCatalogueBT-Regular /Goudy-ExtraBold /GoudyHandtooledBT-Regular /GoudyHeavyfaceBT-Regular /GoudyHeavyfaceBT-RegularCond /Goudy-Italic /GoudyOldStyleBT-Bold /GoudyOldStyleBT-BoldItalic /GoudyOldStyleBT-ExtraBold /GoudyOldStyleBT-Italic /GoudyOldStyleBT-Roman /GoudySans-Black /GoudySans-BlackItalic /GoudySans-Bold /GoudySans-BoldItalic /GoudySans-Book /GoudySans-BookItalic /GoudySansITCbyBT-Black /GoudySansITCbyBT-BlackItalic /GoudySansITCbyBT-Bold /GoudySansITCbyBT-BoldItalic /GoudySansITCbyBT-Light /GoudySansITCbyBT-LightItalic /GoudySansITCbyBT-Medium /GoudySansITCbyBT-MediumItalic /GoudySans-Medium /GoudySans-MediumItalic /Granjon /Granjon-Bold /Granjon-BoldOsF /Granjon-Italic /Granjon-ItalicOsF /Granjon-SC /GreymantleMVB-Ornaments /Helvetica /Helvetica-Black /Helvetica-BlackOblique /Helvetica-Black-SemiBold /Helvetica-Bold /Helvetica-BoldOblique /Helvetica-Compressed /Helvetica-Condensed /Helvetica-Condensed-Black /Helvetica-Condensed-BlackObl /Helvetica-Condensed-Bold /Helvetica-Condensed-BoldObl /Helvetica-Condensed-Light /Helvetica-Condensed-Light-Light /Helvetica-Condensed-LightObl /Helvetica-Condensed-Oblique /Helvetica-Condensed-Thin /Helvetica-ExtraCompressed /Helvetica-Fraction /Helvetica-FractionBold /HelveticaInserat-Roman /HelveticaInserat-Roman-SemiBold /Helvetica-Light /Helvetica-LightOblique /Helvetica-Narrow /Helvetica-Narrow-Bold /Helvetica-Narrow-BoldOblique /Helvetica-Narrow-Oblique /HelveticaNeue-Black /HelveticaNeue-BlackCond /HelveticaNeue-BlackCondObl /HelveticaNeue-BlackExt /HelveticaNeue-BlackExtObl /HelveticaNeue-BlackItalic /HelveticaNeue-Bold /HelveticaNeue-BoldCond /HelveticaNeue-BoldCondObl /HelveticaNeue-BoldExt /HelveticaNeue-BoldExtObl /HelveticaNeue-BoldItalic /HelveticaNeue-Condensed /HelveticaNeue-CondensedObl /HelveticaNeue-ExtBlackCond /HelveticaNeue-ExtBlackCondObl /HelveticaNeue-Extended /HelveticaNeue-ExtendedObl /HelveticaNeue-Heavy /HelveticaNeue-HeavyCond /HelveticaNeue-HeavyCondObl /HelveticaNeue-HeavyExt /HelveticaNeue-HeavyExtObl /HelveticaNeue-HeavyItalic /HelveticaNeue-Italic /HelveticaNeue-Light /HelveticaNeue-LightCond /HelveticaNeue-LightCondObl /HelveticaNeue-LightExt /HelveticaNeue-LightExtObl /HelveticaNeue-LightItalic /HelveticaNeueLTStd-Md /HelveticaNeueLTStd-MdIt /HelveticaNeue-Medium /HelveticaNeue-MediumCond /HelveticaNeue-MediumCondObl /HelveticaNeue-MediumExt /HelveticaNeue-MediumExtObl /HelveticaNeue-MediumItalic /HelveticaNeue-Roman /HelveticaNeue-Thin /HelveticaNeue-ThinCond /HelveticaNeue-ThinCondObl /HelveticaNeue-ThinItalic /HelveticaNeue-UltraLigCond /HelveticaNeue-UltraLigCondObl /HelveticaNeue-UltraLigExt /HelveticaNeue-UltraLigExtObl /HelveticaNeue-UltraLight /HelveticaNeue-UltraLightItal /Helvetica-Oblique /Helvetica-UltraCompressed /HelvExtCompressed /HelvLight /HelvUltCompressed /Humanist521BT-Bold /Humanist521BT-BoldCondensed /Humanist521BT-BoldItalic /Humanist521BT-ExtraBold /Humanist521BT-Italic /Humanist521BT-Light /Humanist521BT-LightItalic /Humanist521BT-Roman /Humanist521BT-RomanCondensed /Humanist521BT-UltraBold /Humanist521BT-XtraBoldCondensed /Humanist531BT-BlackA /Humanist531BT-BoldA /Humanist531BT-RomanA /Humanist531BT-UltraBlackA /Humanist777BT-BlackB /Humanist777BT-BlackCondensedB /Humanist777BT-BlackItalicB /Humanist777BT-BoldB /Humanist777BT-BoldCondensedB /Humanist777BT-BoldItalicB /Humanist777BT-ExtraBlackB /Humanist777BT-ExtraBlackCondB /Humanist777BT-ItalicB /Humanist777BT-LightB /Humanist777BT-LightCondensedB /Humanist777BT-LightItalicB /Humanist777BT-RomanB /Humanist777BT-RomanCondensedB /Humanist970BT-BoldC /Humanist970BT-RomanC /HumanistSlabserif712BT-Black /HumanistSlabserif712BT-Bold /HumanistSlabserif712BT-Italic /HumanistSlabserif712BT-Roman /ICMEX10 /ICMMI8 /ICMSY8 /ICMTT8 /Iglesia-Light /ILASY8 /ILCMSS8 /ILCMSSB8 /ILCMSSI8 /Imago-Book /Imago-BookItalic /Imago-ExtraBold /Imago-ExtraBoldItalic /Imago-Light /Imago-LightItalic /Imago-Medium /Imago-MediumItalic /Industria-Inline /Industria-InlineA /Industria-Solid /Industria-SolidA /Insignia /Insignia-A /IPAExtras /IPAHighLow /IPAKiel /IPAKielSeven /IPAsans /ITCGaramondMM /ITCGaramondMM-It /JAKEOpti-Regular /JansonText-Bold /JansonText-BoldItalic /JansonText-Italic /JansonText-Roman /JansonText-RomanSC /JoannaMT /JoannaMT-Bold /JoannaMT-BoldItalic /JoannaMT-Italic /Juniper /KabelITCbyBT-Book /KabelITCbyBT-Demi /KabelITCbyBT-Medium /KabelITCbyBT-Ultra /Kaufmann /Kaufmann-Bold /KeplMM-Or2 /KisBT-Italic /KisBT-Roman /KlangMT /Kuenstler480BT-Black /Kuenstler480BT-Bold /Kuenstler480BT-BoldItalic /Kuenstler480BT-Italic /Kuenstler480BT-Roman /KunstlerschreibschD-Bold /KunstlerschreibschD-Medi /Lapidary333BT-Black /Lapidary333BT-Bold /Lapidary333BT-BoldItalic /Lapidary333BT-Italic /Lapidary333BT-Roman /LASY10 /LASY5 /LASY6 /LASY7 /LASY8 /LASY9 /LASYB10 /LatinMT-Condensed /LCIRCLE10 /LCIRCLEW10 /LCMSS8 /LCMSSB8 /LCMSSI8 /LDecorationPi-One /LDecorationPi-Two /Leawood-Black /Leawood-BlackItalic /Leawood-Bold /Leawood-BoldItalic /Leawood-Book /Leawood-BookItalic /Leawood-Medium /Leawood-MediumItalic /LegacySans-Bold /LegacySans-BoldItalic /LegacySans-Book /LegacySans-BookItalic /LegacySans-Medium /LegacySans-MediumItalic /LegacySans-Ultra /LegacySerif-Bold /LegacySerif-BoldItalic /LegacySerif-Book /LegacySerif-BookItalic /LegacySerif-Medium /LegacySerif-MediumItalic /LegacySerif-Ultra /LetterGothic /LetterGothic-Bold /LetterGothic-BoldSlanted /LetterGothic-Slanted /Life-Bold /Life-Italic /Life-Roman /LINE10 /LINEW10 /Linotext /Lithos-Black /LithosBold /Lithos-Bold /Lithos-Regular /LOGO10 /LOGO8 /LOGO9 /LOGOBF10 /LOGOSL10 /LOMD-Normal /LubalinGraph-Book /LubalinGraph-BookOblique /LubalinGraph-Demi /LubalinGraph-DemiOblique /LucidaHandwritingItalic /LucidaMath-Symbol /LucidaSansTypewriter /LucidaSansTypewriter-Bd /LucidaSansTypewriter-BdObl /LucidaSansTypewriter-Obl /LucidaTypewriter /LucidaTypewriter-Bold /LucidaTypewriter-BoldObl /LucidaTypewriter-Obl /LydianBT-Bold /LydianBT-BoldItalic /LydianBT-Italic /LydianBT-Roman /LydianCursiveBT-Regular /Machine /Machine-Bold /Marigold /MathematicalPi-Five /MathematicalPi-Four /MathematicalPi-One /MathematicalPi-Six /MathematicalPi-Three /MathematicalPi-Two /MatrixScriptBold /MatrixScriptBoldLin /MatrixScriptBook /MatrixScriptBookLin /MatrixScriptRegular /MatrixScriptRegularLin /Melior /Melior-Bold /Melior-BoldItalic /Melior-Italic /MercuriusCT-Black /MercuriusCT-BlackItalic /MercuriusCT-Light /MercuriusCT-LightItalic /MercuriusCT-Medium /MercuriusCT-MediumItalic /MercuriusMT-BoldScript /Meridien-Bold /Meridien-BoldItalic /Meridien-Italic /Meridien-Medium /Meridien-MediumItalic /Meridien-Roman /Minion-Black /Minion-Bold /Minion-BoldCondensed /Minion-BoldCondensedItalic /Minion-BoldItalic /Minion-Condensed /Minion-CondensedItalic /Minion-DisplayItalic /Minion-DisplayRegular /MinionExp-Italic /MinionExp-Semibold /MinionExp-SemiboldItalic /Minion-Italic /Minion-Ornaments /Minion-Regular /Minion-Semibold /Minion-SemiboldItalic /MonaLisa-Recut /MrsEavesAllPetiteCaps /MrsEavesAllSmallCaps /MrsEavesBold /MrsEavesFractions /MrsEavesItalic /MrsEavesPetiteCaps /MrsEavesRoman /MrsEavesRomanLining /MrsEavesSmallCaps /MSAM10 /MSAM10A /MSAM5 /MSAM6 /MSAM7 /MSAM8 /MSAM9 /MSBM10 /MSBM10A /MSBM5 /MSBM6 /MSBM7 /MSBM8 /MSBM9 /MTEX /MTEXB /MTEXH /MTGU /MTGUB /MTMI /MTMIB /MTMIH /MTMS /MTMSB /MTMUB /MTMUH /MTSY /MTSYB /MTSYH /MTSYN /MusicalSymbols-Normal /Myriad-Bold /Myriad-BoldItalic /Myriad-CnBold /Myriad-CnBoldItalic /Myriad-CnItalic /Myriad-CnSemibold /Myriad-CnSemiboldItalic /Myriad-Condensed /Myriad-Italic /MyriadMM /MyriadMM-It /Myriad-Roman /Myriad-Sketch /Myriad-Tilt /NeuzeitS-Book /NeuzeitS-BookHeavy /NewBaskerville-Bold /NewBaskerville-BoldItalic /NewBaskerville-Italic /NewBaskervilleITCbyBT-Bold /NewBaskervilleITCbyBT-BoldItal /NewBaskervilleITCbyBT-Italic /NewBaskervilleITCbyBT-Roman /NewBaskerville-Roman /NewCaledonia /NewCaledonia-Black /NewCaledonia-BlackItalic /NewCaledonia-Bold /NewCaledonia-BoldItalic /NewCaledonia-BoldItalicOsF /NewCaledonia-BoldSC /NewCaledonia-Italic /NewCaledonia-ItalicOsF /NewCaledonia-SC /NewCaledonia-SemiBold /NewCaledonia-SemiBoldItalic /NewCenturySchlbk-Bold /NewCenturySchlbk-BoldItalic /NewCenturySchlbk-Italic /NewCenturySchlbk-Roman /NewsGothic /NewsGothic-Bold /NewsGothic-BoldOblique /NewsGothicBT-Bold /NewsGothicBT-BoldCondensed /NewsGothicBT-BoldCondItalic /NewsGothicBT-BoldExtraCondensed /NewsGothicBT-BoldItalic /NewsGothicBT-Demi /NewsGothicBT-DemiItalic /NewsGothicBT-ExtraCondensed /NewsGothicBT-Italic /NewsGothicBT-ItalicCondensed /NewsGothicBT-Light /NewsGothicBT-LightItalic /NewsGothicBT-Roman /NewsGothicBT-RomanCondensed /NewsGothic-Oblique /New-Symbol /NovareseITCbyBT-Bold /NovareseITCbyBT-BoldItalic /NovareseITCbyBT-Book /NovareseITCbyBT-BookItalic /Nueva-BoldExtended /Nueva-Roman /NuptialScript /OceanSansMM /OceanSansMM-It /OfficinaSans-Bold /OfficinaSans-BoldItalic /OfficinaSans-Book /OfficinaSans-BookItalic /OfficinaSerif-Bold /OfficinaSerif-BoldItalic /OfficinaSerif-Book /OfficinaSerif-BookItalic /OnyxMT /Optima /Optima-Bold /Optima-BoldItalic /Optima-BoldOblique /Optima-ExtraBlack /Optima-ExtraBlackItalic /Optima-Italic /Optima-Oblique /OSPIRE-Plain /OttaIA /Otta-wa /Ottawa-BoldA /OttawaPSMT /Oxford /Palatino-Bold /Palatino-BoldItalic /Palatino-Italic /Palatino-Roman /Parisian /Perpetua /Perpetua-Bold /Perpetua-BoldItalic /Perpetua-Italic /PhotinaMT /PhotinaMT-Bold /PhotinaMT-BoldItalic /PhotinaMT-Italic /PhotinaMT-SemiBold /PhotinaMT-SemiBoldItalic /PhotinaMT-UltraBold /PhotinaMT-UltraBoldItalic /Plantin /Plantin-Bold /Plantin-BoldItalic /Plantin-Italic /Plantin-Light /Plantin-LightItalic /Plantin-Semibold /Plantin-SemiboldItalic /Poetica-ChanceryI /Poetica-SuppLowercaseEndI /PopplLaudatio-Italic /PopplLaudatio-Medium /PopplLaudatio-MediumItalic /PopplLaudatio-Regular /ProseAntique-Bold /ProseAntique-Normal /QuaySansEF-Black /QuaySansEF-BlackItalic /QuaySansEF-Book /QuaySansEF-BookItalic /QuaySansEF-Medium /QuaySansEF-MediumItalic /Quorum-Black /Quorum-Bold /Quorum-Book /Quorum-Light /Quorum-Medium /Raleigh /Raleigh-Bold /Raleigh-DemiBold /Raleigh-Medium /Revival565BT-Bold /Revival565BT-BoldItalic /Revival565BT-Italic /Revival565BT-Roman /Ribbon131BT-Bold /Ribbon131BT-Regular /RMTMI /Rockwell /Rockwell-Bold /Rockwell-BoldItalic /Rockwell-Italic /Rockwell-Light /Rockwell-LightItalic /RotisSansSerif /RotisSansSerif-Bold /RotisSansSerif-ExtraBold /RotisSansSerif-Italic /RotisSansSerif-Light /RotisSansSerif-LightItalic /RotisSemiSans /RotisSemiSans-Bold /RotisSemiSans-ExtraBold /RotisSemiSans-Italic /RotisSemiSans-Light /RotisSemiSans-LightItalic /RotisSemiSerif /RotisSemiSerif-Bold /RotisSerif /RotisSerif-Bold /RotisSerif-Italic /RunicMT-Condensed /Sabon-Bold /Sabon-BoldItalic /Sabon-Italic /Sabon-Roman /SackersGothicLight /SackersGothicLightAlt /SackersItalianScript /SackersItalianScriptAlt /Sam /Sanvito-Light /SanvitoMM /Sanvito-Roman /Semitica /Semitica-Italic /SIVAMATH /Siva-Special /SMS-SPELA /Souvenir-Demi /Souvenir-DemiItalic /SouvenirITCbyBT-Demi /SouvenirITCbyBT-DemiItalic /SouvenirITCbyBT-Light /SouvenirITCbyBT-LightItalic /Souvenir-Light /Souvenir-LightItalic /SpecialAA /Special-Gali /Sp-Sym /StempelGaramond-Bold /StempelGaramond-BoldItalic /StempelGaramond-Italic /StempelGaramond-Roman /StoneSans /StoneSans-Bold /StoneSans-BoldItalic /StoneSans-Italic /StoneSans-PhoneticAlternate /StoneSans-PhoneticIPA /StoneSans-Semibold /StoneSans-SemiboldItalic /StoneSerif /StoneSerif-Italic /StoneSerif-PhoneticAlternate /StoneSerif-PhoneticIPA /StoneSerif-Semibold /StoneSerif-SemiboldItalic /Swiss721BT-Black /Swiss721BT-BlackCondensed /Swiss721BT-BlackCondensedItalic /Swiss721BT-BlackExtended /Swiss721BT-BlackItalic /Swiss721BT-BlackOutline /Swiss721BT-BlackRounded /Swiss721BT-Bold /Swiss721BT-BoldCondensed /Swiss721BT-BoldCondensedItalic /Swiss721BT-BoldCondensedOutline /Swiss721BT-BoldExtended /Swiss721BT-BoldItalic /Swiss721BT-BoldOutline /Swiss721BT-BoldRounded /Swiss721BT-Heavy /Swiss721BT-HeavyItalic /Swiss721BT-Italic /Swiss721BT-ItalicCondensed /Swiss721BT-Light /Swiss721BT-LightCondensed /Swiss721BT-LightCondensedItalic /Swiss721BT-LightExtended /Swiss721BT-LightItalic /Swiss721BT-Medium /Swiss721BT-MediumItalic /Swiss721BT-Roman /Swiss721BT-RomanCondensed /Swiss721BT-RomanExtended /Swiss721BT-Thin /Swiss721BT-ThinItalic /Swiss921BT-RegularA /Symbol /Syntax-Black /Syntax-Bold /Syntax-Italic /Syntax-Roman /Syntax-UltraBlack /Tekton /Times-Bold /Times-BoldA /Times-BoldItalic /Times-BoldOblique /Times-Italic /Times-NewRoman /Times-NewRomanBold /TimesNewRomanPS-BoldItalicMT /TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT /TimesNewRomanPSMT /Times-Oblique /Times-PhoneticAlternate /Times-PhoneticIPA /Times-Roman /Times-RomanSmallCaps /Times-Sc /Times-SCB /Times-special /TimesTenGreekP-Upright /TradeGothic /TradeGothic-Bold /TradeGothic-BoldCondTwenty /TradeGothic-BoldCondTwentyObl /TradeGothic-BoldOblique /TradeGothic-BoldTwo /TradeGothic-BoldTwoOblique /TradeGothic-CondEighteen /TradeGothic-CondEighteenObl /TradeGothicLH-BoldExtended /TradeGothicLH-Extended /TradeGothic-Light /TradeGothic-LightOblique /TradeGothic-Oblique /Trajan-Bold /TrajanPro-Bold /TrajanPro-Regular /Trajan-Regular /Transitional521BT-BoldA /Transitional521BT-CursiveA /Transitional521BT-RomanA /Transitional551BT-MediumB /Transitional551BT-MediumItalicB /Univers /Universal-GreekwithMathPi /Universal-NewswithCommPi /Univers-BlackExt /Univers-BlackExtObl /Univers-Bold /Univers-BoldExt /Univers-BoldExtObl /Univers-BoldOblique /Univers-Condensed /Univers-CondensedBold /Univers-CondensedBoldOblique /Univers-CondensedOblique /Univers-Extended /Univers-ExtendedObl /Univers-ExtraBlackExt /Univers-ExtraBlackExtObl /Univers-Light /Univers-LightOblique /UniversLTStd-Black /UniversLTStd-BlackObl /Univers-Oblique /Utopia-Black /Utopia-BlackOsF /Utopia-Bold /Utopia-BoldItalic /Utopia-Italic /Utopia-Ornaments /Utopia-Regular /Utopia-Semibold /Utopia-SemiboldItalic /VAGRounded-Black /VAGRounded-Bold /VAGRounded-Light /VAGRounded-Thin /Viva-BoldExtraExtended /Viva-Regular /Weidemann-Black /Weidemann-BlackItalic /Weidemann-Bold /Weidemann-BoldItalic /Weidemann-Book /Weidemann-BookItalic /Weidemann-Medium /Weidemann-MediumItalic /WindsorBT-Elongated /WindsorBT-Light /WindsorBT-LightCondensed /WindsorBT-Roman /Wingdings-Regular /WNCYB10 /WNCYI10 /WNCYR10 /WNCYSC10 /WNCYSS10 /WoodtypeOrnaments-One /WoodtypeOrnaments-Two /ZapfCalligraphic801BT-Bold /ZapfCalligraphic801BT-BoldItal /ZapfCalligraphic801BT-Italic /ZapfCalligraphic801BT-Roman /ZapfChanceryITCbyBT-Bold /ZapfChanceryITCbyBT-Demi /ZapfChanceryITCbyBT-Medium /ZapfChanceryITCbyBT-MediumItal /ZapfChancery-MediumItalic /ZapfDingbats /ZapfDingbatsITCbyBT-Regular /ZapfElliptical711BT-Bold /ZapfElliptical711BT-BoldItalic /ZapfElliptical711BT-Italic /ZapfElliptical711BT-Roman /ZapfHumanist601BT-Bold /ZapfHumanist601BT-BoldItalic /ZapfHumanist601BT-Demi /ZapfHumanist601BT-DemiItalic /ZapfHumanist601BT-Italic /ZapfHumanist601BT-Roman /ZapfHumanist601BT-Ultra /ZapfHumanist601BT-UltraItalic /ZurichBT-Black /ZurichBT-BlackExtended /ZurichBT-BlackItalic /ZurichBT-Bold /ZurichBT-BoldCondensed /ZurichBT-BoldCondensedItalic /ZurichBT-BoldExtended /ZurichBT-BoldExtraCondensed /ZurichBT-BoldItalic /ZurichBT-ExtraBlack /ZurichBT-ExtraCondensed /ZurichBT-Italic /ZurichBT-ItalicCondensed /ZurichBT-Light /ZurichBT-LightCondensed /ZurichBT-LightCondensedItalic /ZurichBT-LightExtraCondensed /ZurichBT-LightItalic /ZurichBT-Roman /ZurichBT-RomanCondensed /ZurichBT-RomanExtended /ZurichBT-UltraBlackExtended ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /CropColorImages true /ColorImageMinResolution 150 /ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /ColorImageResolution 300 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages true /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages true /GrayImageMinResolution 150 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages true /MonoImageMinResolution 1200 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 1200 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict << /K -1 >> /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox false /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org) /PDFXTrapped /Unknown /CreateJDFFile false /SyntheticBoldness 1.000000 /Description << /FRA <FEFF004f007000740069006f006e00730020007000650072006d0065007400740061006e007400200064006500200063007200e900650072002000640065007300200064006f00630075006d0065006e00740073002000500044004600200064006f007400e900730020006400270075006e00650020007200e90073006f006c007500740069006f006e002000e9006c0065007600e9006500200070006f0075007200200075006e00650020007100750061006c0069007400e90020006400270069006d007000720065007300730069006f006e00200061006d00e9006c0069006f007200e90065002e00200049006c002000650073007400200070006f0073007300690062006c0065002000640027006f00750076007200690072002000630065007300200064006f00630075006d0065006e007400730020005000440046002000640061006e00730020004100630072006f0062006100740020006500740020005200650061006400650072002c002000760065007200730069006f006e002000200035002e00300020006f007500200075006c007400e9007200690065007500720065002e> /JPN <FEFF3053306e8a2d5b9a306f30019ad889e350cf5ea6753b50cf3092542b308000200050004400460020658766f830924f5c62103059308b3068304d306b4f7f75283057307e30593002537052376642306e753b8cea3092670059279650306b4fdd306430533068304c3067304d307e305930023053306e8a2d5b9a30674f5c62103057305f00200050004400460020658766f8306f0020004100630072006f0062006100740020304a30883073002000520065006100640065007200200035002e003000204ee5964d30678868793a3067304d307e30593002> /DEU <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> /PTB <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> /DAN <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> /NLD <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> /ESP <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> /SUO <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> /ITA <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> /NOR <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> /SVE <FEFF0041006e007600e4006e00640020006400650020006800e4007200200069006e0073007400e4006c006c006e0069006e006700610072006e00610020006e00e40072002000640075002000760069006c006c00200073006b0061007000610020005000440046002d0064006f006b0075006d0065006e00740020006d006500640020006800f6006700720065002000620069006c0064007500700070006c00f60073006e0069006e00670020006f006300680020006400e40072006d006500640020006600e50020006200e400740074007200650020007500740073006b00720069006600740073006b00760061006c0069007400650074002e0020005000440046002d0064006f006b0075006d0065006e00740065006e0020006b0061006e002000f600700070006e006100730020006d006500640020004100630072006f0062006100740020006f00630068002000520065006100640065007200200035002e003000200065006c006c00650072002000730065006e006100720065002e> /ENU (Use these settings for creating PDF files for submission to The Sheridan Press. These settings configured for Acrobat v6.0 08/06/03.) >> >> setdistillerparams << /HWResolution [2400 2400] /PageSize [612.000 792.000] >> setpagedevice
