Intergenerational Mobility and Goal-Striving Stress Among Black Americans: The Roles of Ethnicity and Nativity Status

Abstract

Goal-striving stress refers to the psychological consequences of seeking but failing to reach upward mobility and is more common among low-income and people of color. Intergenerational mobility—or improved socioeconomic standing relative to one's parents—may be an important predictor of goal-striving stress for Blacks. We used the National Survey of American Life to investigate the association between intergenerational mobility and goal-striving stress among U.S.-born African Americans, U.S.-born Caribbean Blacks, and foreign-born Caribbean Blacks. Intergenerational mobility was associated with lower goal-striving stress and U.S.-born African Americans and Caribbean Blacks reported lower goal-striving stress than foreign-born Caribbean Blacks. Goal-striving stress was relatively high among foreign-born Blacks, regardless of level of intergenerational mobility attained. Goal-striving is an important stressor for foreign-born Caribbean Blacks, regardless of their level of educational success. Given increasing Black migration, future studies should disaggregate the Black racial category based on ethnicity and nativity.

Introduction

The United States is heralded as a land of opportunity that affords universal access to the “American Dream,” whereby hard work is the necessary and sufficient ingredient for anyone to attain socioeconomic success. In the case of stalled social mobility, the gap between one's efforts and expectations for economic success and the actual realized indicators of success can create a source of frustration. This phenomenon has been captured in the study of goal-striving stress, first studied by Parker and Kleiner [1] and commonly defined as the “discrepancy between aspirations and achievement, weighted by the subjective probability of success, and the level of disappointment experienced if goals are not reached” (p. 21) [2]. This concept specifically measures socioeconomic goals, rather than life goals in general.

Despite facing the greatest barriers to social mobility in the United States, both immigrants and people of color are more likely than the general population to strongly believe in the American Dream, or the idea that hard work will invariably result in economic success [3]. Although it may be expected that immigrants are optimistic about economic success in this country (which would serve as a “pull” factor encouraging their migration to the U.S.), this is perhaps an unexpected finding for native-born people of color. For example, despite having experienced more than a four-fold increase in educational attainment since 1970 [4], Blacks are still almost six times as likely as Whites to suffer from stagnant mobility, as measured by remaining in the bottom quintile of income between childhood and adulthood [5]. Further, Blacks also experience higher levels of goal-striving stress than Whites. One study examining the four components that comprise goal-striving stress (i.e., aspirations for success, current achievement, chances of success, and perceived disappointment with failure) found that Caribbean Blacks and African Americans experience greater discrepancy between socioeconomic aspirations and achievement than Whites [6].

In addition to Black–White racial differences, there are important differences in goal-striving stress among Blacks as well; Caribbean Blacks exhibit higher discrepancies between current and desired SES than African Americans [6]. Although African Americans and Caribbean Blacks have significantly higher aspirations than Whites, both groups are more pessimistic than Whites when asked to rate their chances for achievement. Notably, Caribbean Blacks had the highest perceived level of disappointment if they were unable to reach their aspirations [6]. Taken together, this evidence suggests that Blacks (especially of Caribbean origin) may be especially vulnerable to the psychological consequences of impeded social mobility. Given Caribbean Blacks' larger gap between current and aspired status (relative to African Americans) and their higher level of disappointment in the case of dashed aspirations [6], it is important to study ethnic differences within the Black population.

For immigrants especially, intergenerational mobility— that is, whether or not one surpasses the socioeconomic status of their parents—may be an important subjective marker of economic success. In the present study, we investigate the relationship between intergenerational educational mobility and goal-striving stress. Although goal-striving stress has been studied in relation to current socioeconomic standing, very little research has examined the effects of socioeconomic status in a more dynamic fashion, as it unfolds across generations. Further, to the best of our knowledge, no studies have examined the role of nativity, or whether these patterns operate in a distinct fashion among foreign-born Caribbean Blacks vs. U.S.-born African Americans and U.S.-born Caribbean Blacks. Recent research has uncovered a great deal of socioeconomic heterogeneity at intersections of ethnicity and nativity status among Blacks, on the whole pointing to higher socioeconomic status among Caribbean Blacks (both U.S.-born and foreign-born) than U.S.-born African Americans [7]. These findings suggest that given their higher SES, Caribbean Blacks may be most at risk of goal-striving stress if their aspirations are not realized. Therefore, a secondary objective of this study is to investigate how the relationship between intergenerational mobility and goal-striving stress may vary by ethnicity and nativity status using representative samples of African Americans, foreign-born Caribbean Blacks, and U.S.-born Caribbean Blacks.

Theoretical Framework

Self-discrepancy theory provides a useful framework for understanding how goal-striving stress operates [8]. This theory includes three components that are relevant to the study of goal-striving stress: the “actual self” (one's self-concept or how one views themselves), the “ideal self” (one's aspired position), and the “ought self” (one's belief about the status that s/he should hold). Applied to the present study, the “actual self” represents one's perceived current socioeconomic standing (achievement) and the “ideal self” represents one's desired socioeconomic status (aspirations). The discrepancy between achievement and aspirations is most central to the concept of goal-striving stress. Intergenerational mobility—that is, whether or not an individual exceeds the educational attainment of their parents—can be characterized by the “ought self” in that it is likely a common reference point for marginalized populations who often seek to do better in life than the previous generation. According to self-discrepancy theory, if an individual experiences “belief incompatibility”—for example, holding higher aspirations than they have accomplished (actual vs. ideal selves) or having achieved less socioeconomic success than their parents (actual vs. ought selves)—it can result in various forms of distress.

Although goal-striving stress has normally been studied as a predictor of health outcomes (e.g., happiness [9], self-esteem [9], life satisfaction [9], depressive symptoms [10], psychological well-being [10]), we argue that it is an important measure of well-being that should be examined in its own regard. Most studies have investigated how goal-striving stress predicts health among various race/ethnic groups but it is equally important to understand which groups are at risk of goal-striving stress in order to help inform health and clinical interventions for populations most at risk of this phenomenon. This specific type of inquiry has received far less attention in past literature. Moreover, to the best of our knowledge, self-discrepancy theory has never been applied to the study of goal-striving stress. With this study, we seek to address these gaps in the literature.

Methods

Participants and Data Collection

We used the 2001–2003 National Survey of American Life (NSAL), a multi-stage probability sampling of African-American, Afro-Caribbean, and non-Hispanic White adults across rural and urban areas of the United States [11, 12]. The full NSAL sample included nationally representative samples of African Americans (N = 3570) and Caribbean Blacks (N = 1438). The overall response rate was 72.3%, including a response rate of 70.7% for Black respondents. For the purposes of this study, the analytic sub-sample was limited to 4045 Black respondents who identified either as U.S.-born African-American (n = 2957), U.S.-born Caribbean Blacks (n = 339) and foreign-born Caribbean Blacks (n = 749) with data on all measures. Of the 842 missing cases, more than 95% (n = 802) were missing data on parental education, the key predictor in this analysis. We excluded foreign-born African Americans (n = 64) and Hispanics due to their small sample size (n = 183). We also excluded Whites in the present analysis given our interest in investigating intra-group variability among Blacks and because they face stronger barriers in terms of socioeconomic mobility [13], likely making them far more vulnerable to experiencing goal-striving stress. This study used publicly available (de-identified) data; as such, this study was deemed exempt from human subjects review.

Measures

Dependent Variable

Goal-striving stress was a composite measure based on the following four different components: achievement, aspirations, chances, and disappointment. NSAL respondents were shown a ladder with steps ranging from 1 (low) to 10 (high) and asked a series of questions regarding their current and perceived future socioeconomic position. Based on this 10-step ladder, respondents were first asked to rate their current achievement in life (1 = worst possible way of life/10 = best possible way of life). They were then asked about their aspirations, or the step number where they would like to be “a few years from now.” Finally, respondents were asked to rate their chances of reaching their aspirations (1 = highly likely/4 = highly unlikely) and their disappointment if they found out they could never reach their aspired step (1 = very disappointed/4 = not at all disappointed). Consistent with the operationalization used by Sellers et al. [6], the equation used to compute scores of respondents on the goal-striving stress scale was (aspirations – achievement) × (chances × disappointment). Respondents who either rated their current achievement as a 10 or who rated their achievement and aspiration at the same level were assigned a goal-striving stress score of 0. Scores on the scale ranged from 0 to 144. We top-coded this measure at the 99th percentile (score of 60), with higher scores indicating higher levels of goal-striving stress.

Independent Variables

The key independent variable in this analysis was intergenerational mobility, a comparison between a respondent's level of education and that of their parent(s). In addition to reporting their own highest year of education, respondents were asked to separately report the number of years of schooling their mother (or the woman who raised them) and father (or the man who raised them) completed. For respondents who only reported information for one parent, we used that parent's level of education. For respondents who reported having two parents, we focused on the parent with the highest level of education, whether mother or father. These two measures (educational attainment of the respondent and the respondent's mother or father) were each then collapsed into four categories for intermediate schooling or less (8 years of education or less); some high school (9–11 years); high school graduate (12 years); or some college or more (13 years or more). The resulting composite measure of intergenerational mobility included categories for: (1) lower education than their parents (reference group); (2) equal education as their parents; (3) higher education than their parents.

Ethnicity/nativity status was based on two survey items. Race was originally measured using four categories for non-Hispanic White, African American, Afro-Caribbean, and all other Hispanic and nativity status was measured as a dummy variable for whether or not respondents were born in the United States. We combined these two measures into an ethnicity/nativity variable for Black respondents only, with three categories for: U.S.-born African American, U.S.-born Caribbean Black, and foreign-born Caribbean Black (reference group).

Control Variables

Gender was measured using a dummy variable for male and age was measured in years. Socioeconomic status was measured using household income in dollars (transformed using a started logarithm to reduce skew) and a scale for material hardship. The material hardship scale included eight items asking respondents whether or not they experienced certain events in the past 12 months (e.g., did not meet basic expenses, did not pay full rent or mortgage, had telephone disconnected). These items were summed into a measure ranging from 0/no hardship events to 8/eight hardship events. Ten items were used to measure the frequency of everyday discrimination (e.g., treated with less courtesy, perceived as not smart, followed in stores) [14]. Response categories ranged from 0/never through 5/almost every day. These ten items were combined to create a summary scale, with higher scores indicating higher levels of everyday discrimination (α = 0.90). A similar approach was used for lifetime discrimination, which asked respondents whether or not they had ever experienced nine major unfair events in their lifetime (e.g., unfairly fired, not hired for a job, unfairly stopped/searched/questioned/physically threatened or abused by the police) [15]. All events were summed into a scale ranging from 0 to 9 (α = 0.64). Marital status included three categories for married/cohabiting (reference), divorced/separated/widowed, or never married. Self-rated health was measured using four categories for excellent (reference), very good, good, and fair/poor and region was measured using four categories for Northeast, Midwest, South (reference), and West.

Analytic Strategy

After conducting descriptive and bivariate statistics to describe the analytic sample, an sktest in Stata found that the goal-striving stress measure was significantly positively skewed (16.8% of U.S.-born African Americans, 12.7% of U.S.-born Caribbean Blacks, and 12.0% of foreign-born Caribbean Blacks had goal-striving stress scores of 0). Therefore, we employed a series of multivariate negative binomial regression models, a type of count model that is preferred in cases of overdispersion of the dependent variable [16]. Model 1 assessed the impact of intergenerational mobility and ethnicity/nativity status on goal-striving stress, net of all controls. Model 2 added interaction terms between ethnicity/nativity and intergenerational mobility. All analyses were weighted and adjusted for the complex sampling design using the survey estimation procedures in Stata 15.0.

Results

Characteristics of the analytic sample can be found in Table 1. U.S.-born African Americans represented 73% of the sample, 8% were U.S.-born Caribbean Black, and 19% were foreign-born Caribbean Black. Roughly 44% were men and the mean age of the sample was 40.6 years old (SD = 15.2). The mean household income was roughly $38,500 per year, although both U.S.-born and foreign-born Caribbean Blacks out-earned U.S.-born African Americans (p < 0.001 for both). However, foreign-born Caribbean Blacks exhibited less material hardship than both U.S.-born African Americans and U.S.-born Caribbean Blacks (p < 0.05 for both). U.S.-born Caribbean Blacks experienced the highest levels of everyday and lifetime discrimination, followed by U.S.-born African Americans and foreign-born Caribbean Blacks (p < 0.001 for all). Foreign-born Caribbean Blacks were more likely than both groups to be married (p = 0.001) and report excellent self-rated health (p < 0.001). The majority of U.S.-born and foreign-born Caribbean Blacks lived in the Northeast while most U.S.-born African Americans lived in the South (p < 0.001). Roughly 42.4% of respondents reported having achieved higher education than their parents, 42.0% had equal education, and 15.5% had lower educational attainment than their parents. The average goal-striving stress score was 10.6 (SD = 10.9). There were no bivariate ethnicity/nativity differences in intergenerational mobility or goal-striving stress.

Table 1. Descriptive and bivariate statistics of Black Americans, National Survey of American Life (N = 4045).

	U.S.-born African Americans (n = 2957)	U.S.-born Caribbean Blacks (n = 339)	Foreign-born Caribbean Blacks (n = 749)	Total (N = 4045)
	%	%	%	%
Male	44.0	44.9	54.6	44.4
Age (mean, SD)***	(40.7, 15.4)	(36.4, 14.5)	(40.6, 13.2)	(40.6, 15.2)
Household income ($1 k; mean, SD)***	(37.8, 29.5)	(54.3, 35.7)	(46.5, 35.1)	(38.5, 31.6)
Material hardship (mean, SD)**a	(1.0, 1.6)	(1.0, 1.7)	(0.9, 1.5)	(1.0, 1.6)
Everyday discrimination (mean, SD)***b	(12.9, 8.8)	(15.2, 8.8)	(11.7, 8.2)	(12.9, 8.8)
Lifetime discrimination (mean, SD)***c	(1.5, 1.7)	(1.8, 1.7)	(1.4, 1.4)	(1.5, 1.6)
Marital status**
Married or cohabiting	41.7	35.7	57.7	42.1
Divorced, separated, or widowed	25.5	18.9	18.4	25.1
Never married	32.9	45.7	23.9	32.8
Self-rated physical health***
Fair/poor	18.8	19.3	12.0	18.6
Good	30.0	37.0	18.3	30.0
Very good	35.5	31.0	36.5	35.5
Excellent	15.7	12.7	33.2	16.2
Region***
Northeast	15.2	53.2	60.3	17.5
Midwest	19.5	6.9	3.2	18.7
South	55.2	22.3	30.3	53.7
West	10.1	17.6	6.3	10.1
Intergenerational mobility
Lower education than parents	15.5	20.3	11.7	15.5
Equal education	41.9	48.9	41.9	42.0
Higher education than parents	42.6	30.8	46.4	42.4
Goal-striving stressd	(10.6, 11.1)	(12.0, 9.5)	(11.3, 10.5)	(10.6, 10.9)

^*p < 0.05;

^**p < 0.01;

^***p < 0.001

^aMaterial hardship scale ranges from 0 to 8

^bEveryday discrimination scale ranges from 0 to 50

^cLifetime discrimination scale ranges from 0 to 9

^dGoal-striving stress scale ranges from 0/low to 60/high

Table 2 displays results from multivariate negative binomial regression models predicting goal-striving stress. In Model 1, having achieved more educational attainment than one's parent(s) was generally associated with less goal-striving stress. Specifically, those who attained equal education as their parents had a rate of goal-striving stress that was 20% lower than those who had less education than their parent(s) (IRR = 0.80; p < 0.001). Similarly, those who achieved higher education than their parent(s) had a 17% lower rate of goal-striving stress than those with less education than their parent(s) (IRR = 0.83; p = 0.006). In terms of ethnicity/nativity, both U.S.-born Caribbean Blacks (IRR = 0.86; p = 0.024) and U.S.-born African Americans (IRR = 0.88; p = 0.032) had lower rates of goal-striving stress than foreign-born Caribbean Blacks. Older respondents and those with higher income had lower rates of goal-striving stress, relative to younger respondents and those with less income. Material hardship, lifetime discrimination, and worse self-rated health were associated with higher rates of goal-striving stress in Model 1.

Table 2. Multivariate negative binomial regression models for goal-striving stress, National Survey of American Life (N = 4045).

	Model 1		Model 2
	IRR	95% CI	IRR	95% CI
Intergenerational mobility (ref = lower education)
Equal education	0.80***	0.71, 0.90**	1.31	0.88, 1.93
Higher education	0.83**	0.73, 0.95**	1.23	0.89, 1.70
Ethnicity/nativity (ref = Foreign-born Caribbean Blacks)
U.S.-born Caribbean Blacks	0.86*	0.76, 0.99*	1.59	0.77, 3.29
U.S.-born African Americans	0.89*	0.80, 0.99*	1.32	0.91, 1.92
Control variables
Male	0.97	0.90, 1.05	0.97	0.90, 1.04
Age	0.99***	0.98, 0.99***	0.99***	0.98, 0.99***
Household income (+$1 k)	0.94*	0.89, 0.99*	0.94*	0.89, 0.99*
Material hardship	1.09***	1.07, 1.12***	1.10***	1.07, 1.12***
Everyday discrimination	1.01***	1.01, 1.02***	1.01***	1.00, 1.02***
Lifetime discrimination	0.99	0.97, 1.02	0.99	0.97, 1.02
Marital status (ref = married/cohabiting)
Divorced/separated/widowed	1.07	0.95, 1.22	1.07	0.94, 1.22
Never married	1.04	0.95, 1.14	1.04	0.95, 1.14
Self-rated health (ref = excellent)
Very good	1.11	0.98, 1.25	1.11	0.98, 1.25
Good	1.34***	1.17, 1.53***	1.34***	1.17, 1.53***
Fair/poor	1.86***	1.62, 2.15***	1.86***	1.61, 2.14***
Region (ref = south)
Northeast	1.07	0.96, 1.19	1.07	0.96, 1.19
Midwest	0.97	0.84, 1.10	0.96	0.85, 1.10
West	0.97	0.83, 1.14	0.97	0.83, 1.14
Interactions
U.S.-born Caribbean Blacks * equal education			0.48+	0.20, 1.15+
U.S.-born Caribbean Blacks * higher education			0.48	0.18, 1.24
U.S.-born African Americans * equal education			0.61*	0.40, 0.92*
U.S.-born African Americans * higher education			0.68*	0.48, 0.97*
Constant	27.45			18.38

Goal-striving stress scale ranges from 0/low to 60/high

⁺p < 0.10;

^*p < 0.05;

^**p < 0.01;

^***p < 0.001

Model 2 (Table 2) added interaction terms to test whether the association between intergenerational mobility and goal-striving stress is different between U.S.-born African Americans, U.S.-born Caribbean Blacks, and foreign-born Caribbean Blacks. All of the prior control variables remained significant in this model. Figure 1 presents adjusted means with all covariates held at the mean. For both U.S.-born Caribbean Blacks and U.S.-born African Americans, there was a general trend whereby those with downward mobility (i.e., those who attained less education than their parents) had the highest levels of goal-striving stress, with lower levels of goal-striving stress among those with equal or higher educational attainment than their parents. However, goal-striving stress scores were relatively high among foreign-born Caribbean Blacks, regardless of level of intergenerational mobility. In fact, foreign-born Caribbean Blacks with stable or upward mobility displayed higher levels of goal-striving stress than foreign-born Caribbean Blacks with downward mobility, the opposite trend that was found for U.S.-born Caribbean Blacks and U.S.-born African Americans. Taken together, the interaction results suggest that the association between goal-striving stress and intergenerational mobility is stronger for U.S.-born Caribbean Blacks and U.S.-born African Americans. Conversely, foreign-born Caribbean Blacks maintain relatively high levels of goal-striving stress, regardless of level of intergenerational mobility.

Fig. 1.

Mean goal striving stress by ethnicity/nativity and intergenerational mobility, National Survey Of American Life (N = 4045)

Discussion

Our objective in this paper was to investigate the association between intergenerational mobility and goal-striving stress using national data from a diverse group of U.S.-born African Americans, U.S.-born Caribbean Blacks, and foreign-born Caribbean Blacks. In general, as intergenerational educational mobility increased, goal-striving stress scores decreased. We also found lower levels of goal-striving stress among U.S.-born Caribbean Blacks and African Americans relative to foreign-born Caribbean Blacks. However, a series of statistical interactions uncovered a much weaker relationship among foreign-born Caribbean Blacks in that higher levels of educational mobility did little to quell their goal-striving stress. These findings suggest that Caribbean Black immigrants face a great deal of pressure to succeed in American society despite their higher overall socioeconomic standing relative to African Americans and U.S.-born Caribbean Blacks [7, 17]. We also found higher levels of goal-striving stress among younger respondents and those with lower household incomes, high levels of material hardship, greater everyday discrimination, and those with lower self-rated health. These findings suggest that mental health care practitioners should be attentive to these vulnerable subgroups within the Black population.

This study has important implications given the present political climate in the United States. Depending on documentation status and various federal/state guidelines, immigrants have typically either been restricted from social service benefits (e.g. Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, welfare) and other governmental benefits (e.g., Social Security, college loans or grants) or must serve lengthy waiting periods in order to access them. These examples represent but a few important barriers to upward mobility for many immigrants; given the current conservative administration, we can unfortunately expect that goal-striving stress will become an even greater psychosocial burden in immigrants' lives.

Additionally, although not a new phenomenon, anti-immigrant sentiment has intensified considerably since the 2016 presidential election, compounding the stress and mobility barriers immigrants often face. The current presidential administration has demonstrated a strong commitment to increased deportation enforcement, including recent targeted efforts to dismantle programs such as the Delayed Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), a program providing work permits and protecting undocumented adults brought to this country as children from deportation. Studies have found that the initial implementation of DACA in 2014 was associated with reduced psychological distress [18] and less stress/nervousness/anxiety, negative emotion, and worry about family deportation [19] among those who were DACA-eligible. These findings suggest that any revocation of deportation relief programs will both sharply diminish employment opportunities (and therefore opportunities for social mobility) while simultaneously increasing levels of vigilance-related stress among vulnerable immigrants.

Anti-immigrant policies also limit immigrant mobility through its effects on labor market discrimination. One study found worsening labor market outcomes among Latin American immigrants after increases in immigration-related law enforcement after 2011 [20]. Another nationally representative study found that both U.S.-born and foreign-born Latinos living in states with strong anti-immigrant policies reported greater discrimination than those living in states with less restrictive legislation regarding immigrants [21]. Future research should replicate these highly instructive studies among Black immigrants.

There are many strengths to this study. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study examining the relationship between intergenerational mobility and goal-striving stress among Blacks. Second, past research has focused on goal-striving stress as a predictor of physical and mental health outcomes; however, we argue that goal-striving stress should also be studied as a mental health outcome in its own right. This approach led to novel findings in the present study that high levels of household income predicted lower goal-striving stress, while high levels of material hardship and everyday discrimination predicted higher levels of goal-striving stress.

Third, most past research on social mobility in the United States examines intergenerational mobility based on occupational status [22, 23] or income [24], we focused on educational attainment, arguably the most stable measure of socioeconomic status. Fourth, by examining within-group differences among Blacks (by ethnicity and nativity status), we build upon important previous work that either examines Blacks as a singular racial category [2, 25] or focuses primarily on ethnic differences between African Americans and Caribbean Blacks, with no examination of nativity status [6]. Finally, with the use of statistical interactions, we assessed how the relationship between intergenerational mobility and goal-striving stress varies among the three ethnicity/nativity subgroups of Blacks.

Nonetheless, this inquiry has important limitations to consider. First, interviews were only conducted in English, which omitted respondents from Caribbean countries that are not fluent in English. Given the small sample size, we were unable to consider individuals who were African-born. Additionally, approximately 29% of respondents only reported educational data for one parent. Sensitivity tests for this population (available upon request) found similar yet slightly weaker results for this population, suggesting that the findings may be somewhat less generalizable for this group. Finally, despite a substantial proportion of foreign-born respondents, the sample was fairly acculturated, with roughly 41% of foreign-born Caribbean Blacks in the analytic sample having lived in the U.S. for at least 10 years. Supplemental analysis (available upon request) found similar patterns among immigrants with longer lengths of stay but more varied patterns among more recent immigrants. Although further inquiry in this regard is beyond the scope of the current paper, future research should investigate the role of acculturation (e.g., length of stay, age at arrival) on goal-striving stress among foreign-born Blacks.

In terms of self-discrepancy theory [8], these findings suggest that beyond belief incompatibility between the “actual self” and the “ideal self” (achievement and aspirations, respectively), discrepancy involving measures of the “ought” self (e.g., intergenerational mobility) are equally imperative to consider in future studies of goal-striving stress studies. Future research should also examine various attributions for perceived racial discrimination. For example, past research has found finds that the psychological cost of impeded mobility is weakened among those who attribute their failures to system-level factors (i.e., racism, sexism) than those who attribute their failure to personal factors such as lack of ability [2]. This distinction between self-blame and system-blame is crucial but understudied among African Americans and has not yet been studied among Caribbean Blacks. Finally, where possible, future research should disaggregate the foreign-born Black population (e.g., African-born, Caribbean Black, and Black European immigrants) [26, 27].