In short, we find that African Americans are the population who have the highest levels of both group consciousness and linked fate, which is consistent with our collective knowledge of these concepts. Furthermore, we find that the three dominant dimensions of group consciousness fit the African American experience more powerfully than is the case for other groups. This same general pattern holds when we include linked fate into this analysis, where there is a high correlation between the two measures of group AZD4547 site identity within the African American case. Our analysis therefore suggests that scholars interested in exploring group identity among African Americans have fewer analytical concerns in this regard than those working with other populations where there are significant differences between the underlying purchase Pan-RAS-IN-1 factors associated with these concepts. We theorized that due to shared experiences with discrimination we would see similar patterns across group identity for Latinos and African Americans relative to Whites and Asians. While we have summarized the important differences between these two groups, we do find some support for this theory across our analysis. For example, the three dimensions of group consciousness typically used by researchers utilizing a multidimensional approach with measurement load onto one factor for both Latinos and African Americans. This implies that creating a single measure based on these dimensions to capture group consciousness is justifiable for these two groups, less so for Asian Americans or Whites. We also find that perceived discrimination is a driving force for group identity for both Latinos and African Americans, supporting the work of scholars who have theorized that discrimination is the foundation for group identity for these two minority groups. In summary, while there are some similarities between Latinos and African Americans in regard to measures of group identity, we conclude that the concepts used by scholars in the field to assess group identity need to be conceptualized and measured with knowledge that these concepts operate differently when applied to non-Blacks. For example, we strongly suggest that linked fate and group consciousness should not be used interchangeably when applied to non-Blacks. Although this article reveals some very important implications for scholars working with the concept of group consciousness and linked fate, there remains plenty of room for additional work in this area. We would like to address one of the more surprising results from our analysis in our concluding remarks, that Latinos have the lowest reported levels of linked fate across all groups in the study. Given our theory regarding similar experiences with discrimination for Latinos and African Americans, as well as the similarities between Latinos and African Americans across the dimensions of group consciousness with this data, this result requires further discussion. On one hand, this result could be driven by variation in the diverse Latino population driven by national origin, language use, nativity and citizenship status, phenotype and a host of other factors scholars have suggested may pose limitations for the formation of linked fate for Latinos.Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptPolit Res Q. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 March 01.Sanchez and VargasPageHowever, we believe that this finding highlights some of the limitations associated with the data.In short, we find that African Americans are the population who have the highest levels of both group consciousness and linked fate, which is consistent with our collective knowledge of these concepts. Furthermore, we find that the three dominant dimensions of group consciousness fit the African American experience more powerfully than is the case for other groups. This same general pattern holds when we include linked fate into this analysis, where there is a high correlation between the two measures of group identity within the African American case. Our analysis therefore suggests that scholars interested in exploring group identity among African Americans have fewer analytical concerns in this regard than those working with other populations where there are significant differences between the underlying factors associated with these concepts. We theorized that due to shared experiences with discrimination we would see similar patterns across group identity for Latinos and African Americans relative to Whites and Asians. While we have summarized the important differences between these two groups, we do find some support for this theory across our analysis. For example, the three dimensions of group consciousness typically used by researchers utilizing a multidimensional approach with measurement load onto one factor for both Latinos and African Americans. This implies that creating a single measure based on these dimensions to capture group consciousness is justifiable for these two groups, less so for Asian Americans or Whites. We also find that perceived discrimination is a driving force for group identity for both Latinos and African Americans, supporting the work of scholars who have theorized that discrimination is the foundation for group identity for these two minority groups. In summary, while there are some similarities between Latinos and African Americans in regard to measures of group identity, we conclude that the concepts used by scholars in the field to assess group identity need to be conceptualized and measured with knowledge that these concepts operate differently when applied to non-Blacks. For example, we strongly suggest that linked fate and group consciousness should not be used interchangeably when applied to non-Blacks. Although this article reveals some very important implications for scholars working with the concept of group consciousness and linked fate, there remains plenty of room for additional work in this area. We would like to address one of the more surprising results from our analysis in our concluding remarks, that Latinos have the lowest reported levels of linked fate across all groups in the study. Given our theory regarding similar experiences with discrimination for Latinos and African Americans, as well as the similarities between Latinos and African Americans across the dimensions of group consciousness with this data, this result requires further discussion. On one hand, this result could be driven by variation in the diverse Latino population driven by national origin, language use, nativity and citizenship status, phenotype and a host of other factors scholars have suggested may pose limitations for the formation of linked fate for Latinos.Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptPolit Res Q. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 March 01.Sanchez and VargasPageHowever, we believe that this finding highlights some of the limitations associated with the data.