Racial ambivalence, racial identity and defense mechanisms in White counselor trainees

Nondefensiveness is considered one of the prerequisites for multicultural competence. Despite theoretical assertions that White counselors use defense mechanisms in counseling clients of color, virtually no empirical research has investigated the factors contributing to defensive reactions in cross-racial counseling. In addition, while much of the recent literature on contemporary forms of racism has focused on White privilege and the psychological impacts of racism, there is little research investigating the mechanisms Whites use to uphold racism. Two theories suggest factors that might influence racial defense mechanisms. Modern racism theory holds that contemporary racial attitudes are characterized by ambivalence, and that the endorsement of both positive and negative attitudes towards People of Color results in anxiety for White Americans who perceive themselves as fair and just. Racial identity theory suggests that information processing strategies, similar to defense mechanisms, help Whites process and cope with racial stimuli. The primary purpose of this investigation was to test the theories that racial ambivalence and racial identity influence the use of defense mechanisms in cross-racial situations. The literature asserting White people's defensiveness in cross-racial situations has generally not taken individual differences into account. That is, Whites are assumed to use defense mechanisms related to race without consideration of potential variation among group members in the amount or types of defenses used. Thus an additional aim of the study was to investigate individual differences in racial defenses. Participants were 236 White counseling and clinical psychologist trainees. Results demonstrated that racial ambivalence and certain racial identity statuses were associated with higher overall defensiveness in cross-racial counseling situations. Ambivalence was associated with intellectualizing and aggressive defenses and with racial identity statuses associated with racist beliefs. Results also suggested that racial defenses are becoming more sophisticated. Racial identity scores were transformed into profiles for additional exploratory analyses. Results of the profile analyses indicated that certain profile types were related to lower levels of ambivalence and defensiveness. The study's findings highlight the importance of using multiple methods to examine the complex relationship between racial identity and other race-related variables. Implications for research and practice are offered.