© 2014 American Psychological Association 1099-9809/15/$ 12.00 http://dx.doi .org/10.1037/a0037820

Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 2015, Vol. 21, No. 1, 54-64

Ethnic Variations in Parental Ethnic Socialization and Adolescent Ethnic Identity: A Longitudinal Study Nicole M. Else-Quest

Emily Morse

University of Maryland, Baltimore County

University of Pittsburgh

Achievement of a positive ethnic identity has been linked to positive outcomes for ethnic minority youth and is fostered by parental ethnic socialization practices. In light of findings of variability in develop­ mental trajectories and outcomes, we examined ethnic group variations in parents’ ethnic socialization practices and adolescents’ ethnic identity. Within a sample of 370 adolescents who self-identified as White, African American, Latino/a, or Asian American, and their parents, parental ethnic socialization practices (including preparation for bias, promotion of mistrust, and cultural socialization) and adolescent ethnic identity development (including identity exploration and commitment) were assessed at 10th and 11th grades. Consistent with predictions, African American youth reported higher levels of ethnic identity exploration and commitment than youth from other ethnic groups, and parents of African American youth tended to report higher levels of ethnic socialization than other parents. Parental cultural socialization significantly predicted adolescent ethnic identity exploration and commitment 1 year later; ethnicity did not moderate this link. Findings are discussed in the context of the schools and urban community from which the sample was recruited, highlighting the importance of sociocultural context in development. Keywords: ethnic identity, socialization, racial and ethnic groups, identity formation, parenting

Nonetheless, there is variability among individuals and across time in these parent and adolescent constructs, stemming from the diverse social, familial, and historical contexts within which the constructs emerge. In the interest of understanding ethnic varia­ tions in these constructs and how they are linked over time, the current study uses a longitudinal design to examine parental ethnic socialization and subsequent adolescent ethnic identity within four major ethnic groups (i.e., White, African American, Latino/a, and Asian American) in urban Philadelphia.

For many members of ethnic minority groups, ethnic identity is a psychosocial resource that can buffer the effects of ethnic dis­ crimination and stereotypes and foster multiple positive social, emotional, and academic outcomes (e.g., Chavous, Rivas-Drake, Smalls, Griffin, & Cogbum, 2008; Fuligni, Witkow, & Garcia, 2005; Neblett, Rivas-Drake, & Umana-Taylor, 2012; Phinney, Chavira, & Tate, 1993; Rowley, Sellers, Chavous, & Smith, 1998; Sellers, Copeland-Linder, Martin, & L’Heureux Lewis, 2006; Umana-Taylor, Diversi, & Fine, 2002; Wong, Eccles, & Sameroff, 2003). The achievement of a coherent ethnic identity (i.e., an ethnic identity that has been thoroughly explored and committed to by the individual) is a crucial developmental task within adoles­ cence and can be fostered by parental ethnic socialization prac­ tices, such as teaching a child about one’s culture and the ethnic or racial biases they might encounter (Huynh & Fuligni, 2008).

Ethnic Identity Development Identity development has been theorized as the central psycho­ logical task of adolescence (Erikson, 1968; Marcia, 1966). It includes the development of ethnic identity, which refers to the evaluations of one’s own ethnic group and the emotions and cognitions attached to being a part of that group (Spencer, 1983). Two critical processes in ethnic identity development are explo­ ration, in which an individual actively questions and examines what it means to be a member of their ethnic group, and commit­ ment, in which the individual feels a sense of belonging and attachment to their ethnic group (Phinney & Ong, 2007). As with personal identity development (Marcia, 1966), these joint pro­ cesses lead to the four statuses of diffusion (i.e., low exploration and low commitment), moratorium (i.e., high exploration but low commitment), foreclosure (i.e., low exploration but high commit­ ment), and achievement (i.e., high exploration and high commit­ ment). Empirical research supports the theoretical assertion that ethnic identity exploration and commitment ebb and flow during adoles­ cence (Meeus, 2011). For example, in a longitudinal study of

This article was published Online First September 1, 2014. Nicole M. Else-Quest, Department of Psychology, University of Mary­ land, Baltimore County; Emily Morse, Department of Social Work, Uni­ versity of Pittsburgh. Any findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or the School District of Philadelphia. This research was funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation to Nicole M. Else-Quest (DRL 0910108/1153678). We are grateful to the PALS famihes for their participation and to the School District of Phila­ delphia for their cooperation. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Nicole M. Else-Quest, Department of Psychology, UMBC, 1000 Hilltop Circle, Bal­ timore, MD 21250. E-mail: [email protected]

54

PARENTAL ETHNIC SOCIALIZATION

African American, Latino/a, and European American adolescents, exploration increased significantly over a 3-year period (French, Seidman, Allen, & Aber, 2006). Similarly, longitudinal findings with Asian American, African American, and Latino/a adolescents demonstrated progression toward the status of achieved ethnic identity (Phinney & Chavira, 1992). Thus, exploration of and commitment to an ethnic identity appear to change across adoles­ cence, leading up to a status at which an individual understands the meaning of belonging to their ethnic group and feels attached to that group. Still, there is variability in the developmental trajectory of ethnic identity development (Huang & Stormshak, 2011). Variability in exploration and commitment likely stem from a combination of contextual factors, including family, peer, school, and media in­ fluences, which contribute to these identity development processes (Spencer, Fegley, & Harpalani, 2003). Garcia Coll et al. (1996) proposed an integrative conceptual model of ethnic minority child development that incorporates social context in development, tak­ ing into account the social stratification linked to ethnicity. Broadly, this model maintains that social position variables (such as ethnicity or race) and subsequent prejudice and discrimination contribute to a context (i.e., schools and neighborhoods) in which the child’s developmental competencies (e.g., ethnic identity) are fostered by culture and family processes, including parental ethnic socialization. Moreover, contexts that heighten awareness or sa­ lience of one’s ethnicity, such as attending a larger school with a more diverse student population, may foster exploration and com­ mitment of ethnic identity (French et al., 2006). Thus, the current study focuses on the development of ethnic identity exploration and commitment from 10th grade to 11th grade in students attend­ ing ethnically diverse public high schools, with the expectation of variability in ethnic identity exploration and commitment within and across ethnic groups. In addition, we examine the family process of parental ethnic socialization as a contributor to the variability in ethnic identity development. Despite apparent similarities in the general adolescent timing of ethnic identity development (Kiang, Witkow, Baldelomar, & Fuligni, 2010), some evidence suggests that adolescent ethnic iden­ tity exploration and commitment vary across ethnic groups. For example, Martinez and Dukes (1997) found that African Ameri­ can, Asian American, and Latino adolescents reported greater ethnic identity exploration, commitment, and pride than White adolescents. Similarly, several studies have found that Latino and Asian American adolescents report higher levels of ethnic explo­ ration and belonging or commitment compared with White ado­ lescents (Fuligni, Tseng, & Lam, 1999; Kiang & Fuligni, 2009; Kiang et al., 2010; Phinney, 1990). In a study of African Ameri­ can, Latino/a, and Chinese American 6th graders, African Amer­ ican youth reported greater exploration than Chinese Americans, and Latinos/as reported intermediate levels (Hughes, Hagelskamp, Way, & Foust, 2009). Although these findings demonstrate ethnic differences in ethnic identity development within cross-sectional designs, ethnic identity exploration and commitment may also differ across ethnic groups in their changes over time. For exam­ ple, French, Seidman, Allen, and Aber (2006) found that, although exploration increased across early and middle adolescence, the increase was greater among African American and Latino/a youth than for European Americans. In contrast, longitudinal research reported by Pahl and Way (2006) found that Latino adolescents

55

reported a steeper decline in ethnic identity exploration across middle to late adolescence compared to their African American peers. The general pattern in the literature is that ethnic identity ex­ ploration is higher among individuals not belonging to the domi­ nant ethnic group. Given that ethnic minority youth develop among members of the dominant ethnic group, they may struggle as they attempt to find their place among various social groups in their community (Kiang & Fuligni, 2010). Consistent with Garcia Coll et al. (1996) integrative model, developing adolescents are influenced by a variety of social contexts, including the family (Gonzales et al., 2011). These social contexts can shape the pro­ cess of identity development as well as the resulting identity in a variety of ways.

Ethnic Socialization Parents may foster ethnic identity development and prepare children to cope with potential ethnic stereotyping and discrimi­ nation via ethnic socialization practices. Broadly, ethnic socializa­ tion involves the transmission of messages to children to reinforce their sense of group identity given the possibility that they will experience oppression (Stevenson, 1995). More specifically, par­ ents’ ethnic socialization practices comprise a variety of behaviors, which Hughes and colleagues (Hughes & Chen, 1997; Hughes et al., 2006) characterized as cultural socialization, preparation for bias, and promotion of mistrust. Cultural socialization refers to teaching children about the history, culture, and heritage associ­ ated with their ethnicity and is intended to promote children’s ethnic pride; some evidence suggests this is the most common form of ethnic socialization (Kiang & Fuligni, 2009). Preparation fo r bias is the practice of promoting children’s awareness of discrimination in order to prepare them to cope with it. Promotion o f mistrust emphasizes the need for caution in interracial interac­ tions, specifically with members of the dominant group. Consistent with the theorizing of Garcia Coll et al. (1996), empirical research indicates that parental ethnic socialization prac­ tices—as reported by parents as well as by youth—play a role in aspects of ethnic identity development (e.g., Demo & Hughes, 1990; Hughes, Hagelskamp, Way, & Foust, 2009; Hughes & Johnson, 2001; Hughes et al., 2006; Marshall, 1995; Ou & McAdoo, 1993; Stevenson, 1995; Tran & Lee, 2010; Umana-Taylor, Alfrano, Bamaca, & Guimond, 2009). For example, Umana-Taylor and Guimond (2010) found that Latino adolescents’ reports of perceived ethnic socialization significantly predicted their subse­ quent ethnic identity exploration and resolution or commitment across the high school years. Because ethnic socialization practices emphasize the experience of ethnic minority status and aim to pass down one’s cultural heritage, traditions, and customs to children, they serve the purpose of fostering ethnic identity development in adolescents and perpetuating one’s culture in future generations. Some aspects of ethnic socialization will serve this purpose more effectively than others. In particular, cultural socialization, to the extent that it teaches youth about the traditions and history of their ethnic group, is likely to foster ethnic identity exploration and commitment. Indeed, Seaton, Yip, Morgan-Lopez, and Sellers (2012) found that African American adolescents reports of per­ ceived racial socialization were generally associated with their own ethnic identity exploration and commitment, as well as being

56

ELSE-QUEST AND MORSE

more likely to be classified as having an achieved ethnic identity status. In contrast, preparation for bias and promotion of mis­ trust—insofar as they emphasize the potential for tensions with other ethnic groups rather than pride in one’s own group— may be less likely to foster desire to learn about or sense of commitment to one’s ethnic group. Several studies have found that preparation for bias is linked to feeling that one’s ethnicity is an important part of one’s identity, but also to feeling that members of other ethnic groups have negative attitudes about one’s ethnic group (e.g., Rivas-Drake, 2011; Rivas-Drake, Hughes, & Way, 2009). Simi­ larly, longitudinal research with African American adolescents found that adolescent reports of parental socialization messages emphasizing racial barriers and adversity predicted later endorse­ ment of an assimilationist ideology emphasizing the ideal that African Americans should become more like White Americans (Neblett, Smalls, Ford, Nguyen, & Sellers, 2009). Of course, parents vary in their ethnic socialization practices (Hughes et al., 2006). Some parents encourage their children to understand and value their history, heritage, and culture, whereas others focus on potential discrimination. Some parents avoid any ethnicity-related socialization and instead focus on other develop­ mental issues such as the importance of academic success. Parents may replicate the nature of socialization they received as children, and factors such as immigrant status, socioeconomic status, geo­ graphical location of residence, as well as past experiences of the parent may also shape socialization practices. In addition, evidence suggests group differences in these prac­ tices, such that ethnic minority (especially African American) parents tend to engage in higher levels of ethnic socialization than White parents. For example, in one study Latino and Asian Amer­ ican families reported more cultural socialization compared with White families (Kiang & Fuligni, 2009); in another, Latino and Chinese American families engaged in more cultural socialization and preparation for bias compared with White families, and Chi­ nese American families engaged in more promotion of mistrust than White families (Huynh & Fuligni, 2008). Similarly, there is evidence that African American parents engage in more ethnic socialization of all types (i.e., cultural socialization, preparation for bias, promotion of mistrust) compared with White parents (Hughes & Chen, 1997). Phinney and Chavira (1995) found that African American parents reported providing more extensive ethnic social­ ization than Mexican American and Japanese American parents. In particular, African American parents appear to focus on preparing their children to cope with potential discrimination and stereotyp­ ing more so than parents of other ethnic groups (Demo & Hughes, 1990; Hughes et al., 2006; Marshall, 1995). In a study with 6th graders and their mothers, African American mothers reported more frequent preparation for bias compared with Chinese Amer­ ican and Latina mothers, as well as more frequent cultural social­ ization (compared with Latina mothers); yet, this pattern was not echoed in adolescents’ reports of their mothers’ socialization prac­ tices (Hughes, Hagelskamp, Way, & Foust, 2009). Relying only on adolescent reports of parental ethnic socialization, one study re­ ported that African American youth reported higher levels of cultural socialization and preparation for bias than White youth (Hughes, Witherspoon, Rivas-Drake, & West-Bey, 2009), and another found that Black and Puerto Rican youth reported receiv­ ing more cultural socialization than their White and Chinese American peers did (Rivas-Drake, Hughes, & Way, 2009). In sum,

ethnic socialization practices, which can foster the development of adolescent ethnic identity, appear to vary across ethnic groups, such that African American families report the highest levels and White families report the lowest. Still, patterns in the literature are inconsistent and replication is needed to clarify, particularly with regards to specific types of ethnic socialization. Moreover, con­ textual variables that covary with ethnicity in a given sample (e.g., belonging to the dominant ethnic group in a community, or being a recent immigrant) may contribute to variability in the findings. Finally, it must be considered that the quality and quantity of ethnic socialization will fluctuate as children develop, such that it tends to focus on fostering awareness of cultural practices and customs at younger ages (e.g., preparing and eating traditional foods) and attends to more complex and difficult topics such as ethnic discrimination and racism at older ages. Ideally, socializa­ tion practices are sensitive to the social and cognitive capacity of the child as well as to the sociocultural context in which the child develops. An adolescent’s negative experiences or encounters with discrimination or bias may facilitate or trigger discussions about one’s ethnicity and role in the community, which should then elicit ethnic socialization from parents. In other words, adolescent ethnic identity development and parental ethnic socialization are part of a dynamic, bidirectional process.

Hypotheses To our knowledge, a comprehensive study examining how ad­ olescent reports of ethnic identity exploration and commitment and parental reports of ethnic socialization practices vary and are linked across the four largest ethnic groups in the U.S. has not been described in the literature. To this end, we examined group differ­ ences among White, African American, Latino, and Asian Amer­ ican adolescents’ ethnic identity and their parents’ ethnic social­ ization practices at 10th and 11th grades. We expected to replicate previous findings that parents of African American youth would engage in the most ethnic socialization, that parents of White youth would engage in the least, and that parents of Latino/a and Asian American youth would report intermediate levels of ethnic social­ ization. We predicted a similar pattern with ethnic identity explo­ ration and commitment, such that African American adolescents would report the highest levels of exploration and commitment, followed by Latino/a and Asian American adolescents, and the lowest levels among White adolescents. We examined the link between the parental ethnic socialization practices and adolescent ethnic identity development longitudinally, hypothesizing that pa­ rental engagement in cultural socialization— but not preparation for bias or promotion of mistrust—at 10th grade (Time 1) would predict adolescent ethnic identity exploration and commitment at 11th grade (Time 2). We also assessed ethnic variations in this predictive relationship.

Method Participants Data for this report are from the Waves 1 (Tl) and 2 (T2) of the longitudinal Philadelphia Adolescent Life Study (PALS; ElseQuest, Mineo, & Higgins, 2013). A sample of 370 10th grade students (185 males, 185 females) and their parents/guardians were

PARENTAL ETHNIC SOCIALIZATION

recruited by mail from five public neighborhood (i.e., not selective/magnet or charter) mixed-sex high schools in the School District of Philadelphia. Based on self-report of ethnicity from a list, adolescent participants comprised four major ethnic groups: White, African American or Black, Latino/a or Hispanic, and Asian American participants. Because they comprised groups too small for meaningful comparisons, adolescents who reported be­ longing to other ethnic minority groups (e.g., American Indian) or to two ethnic groups (e.g., African American and Asian American) were omitted (n = 14). The mean age of the adolescents at T1 was 16.20 (SD = .74) years. The distribution and demographic char­ acteristics of the sample, by ethnic group, appear in Table 1. Three-hundred-ftfty-eight parents/guardians (representing 96.8% of the families) also participated. These included 53 men and 295 women (10 did not report their gender). Of those parents/guardians, 328 (91.6%) were a biological, adoptive, or step-parent of the ado­ lescent enrolled in the study; nine (2.5%) were grandparents; six (1.7%) were aunts/uncles; one (0.3%) was a sister; five (1.4%) reported being a legal guardian; and nine (2.5%) did not report their relationship to the adolescent. Based on socioeconomic in­ formation reported by parents/guardians, 63% were employed,

57

27.6% were unemployed, and 9.5% did not report whether or not they were employed. Regarding annual household income, 24.6% reported less than $20,000 per year, 35.7% reported $20,000$50,000 per year, 20% reported more than $50,000 per year, and 19.5% of the parent sample did not report their annual household income. Regarding number of books in the home, 5.4% reported fewer than 10, 35.6% reported 10-50, 23.3% reported 50-100, 31.4% reported more than 100, and 4.2% did not report number of books in the home. Despite living in the same neighborhoods and attending the same schools as their African American, Latino/a, and Asian American classmates, White adolescents came from homes with significantly higher income, greater parental educa­ tion, and more books (p < .05). Thus, in all analyses, a socioeco­ nomic status (SES) composite variable— computed as the mean of standardized values (z-scores) for these variables (income, parental education, and books in the home)— serves as a covariate. In addition, ethnic groups differed significantly with regards to pa­ rent’s country of origin; that is, Asian American and Latino youth were more likely than White or African American youth to have foreign-born parents (p < .05). Thus, we included parent’s country of origin (i.e., U.S.-born or foreign-bom) as a covariate.

Table 1 Demographic Characteristics o f Sample, by Adolescent’s Ethnic Group African American

White

Adolescent gender Female Male Adolescent country of origin U.S.-born Foreign-bom Adolescent native language English Other Household income $50,000 Prefer not to answer Number of books in the home 0-10

10-50 50-100 >100

Prefer not to answer Parent education £8th grade 9th- 11th grade High school graduate Some college College graduate Graduate school Prefer not to answer Parent country of origin U.S.-bom Foreign-bom Parent native language English Other Full sample Note.

Latino/a

Asian American

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

48 54

47.1 52.9

42 57

42.4 57.6

45 39

53.6 46.4

50 35

58.8 41.2

76 21

78.4 21.6

89 7

92.7 7.3

78 6

92.9 7.1

50 33

60.2 39.8

73 23

76.0 24.0

92 2

97.9 2.1

64 17

79.0 21.0

28 55

33.7 66.3

14 38 37 7

14.6 39.6 38.5 7.3

29 39 17 9

30.9 41.5 18.1 9.6

28 33 8 11

35.0 41.3 10.0 13.8

20 22 12 26

25.0 27.5 15.0 32.5

1 26 20 49 6

1.0 25.5 19.6 48.0 5.9

6 30 28 26 6

6.3 31.3 29.2 27.1 6.3

8 35 17 20 4

9.5 41.7 20.2 23.8 4.8

5 37 19 18 6

5.9 43.5 22.4 21.2 7.1

1 6 23 31 25 10 0

1.0 6.3 24.0 32.3 26.0 10.4 0.0

0 10 38 30 10 3 3

0.0 10.6 40.4 31.9 10.6 3.2 3.2

3 16 23 24 9 1 4

3.8 20.0 28.8 30.0 11.3 1.3 5.0

12 5 24 13 11 4 11

15.0 6.3 30.0 16.3 13.8 5.0 13.8

70 26

72.9 28.1

84 10

89.4 10.6

42 38

52.5 47.5

2 77

2.5 97.5

70 26 102

72.9 28.1

86 8 99

91.5 8.5

37 42 84

46.8 53.2

8 71 85

10.1 89.9

Cases with missing data included in table; columns may not sum to total sample.

ELSE-QUEST AND MORSE

58

subscale has three items that assess commitment to an ethnic identity; for example, “I have a strong sense of belonging to my own racial/ethnic group.” Participants rated items on the MEIM-R using a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Consistent with other reports of the psychometric properties of the MEIM-R in diverse groups (Yoon, 2011), the MEIM-R explora­ tion subscale demonstrated good internal consistency both in the full sample (Tl: a = .79; T2: a = .80) and within each of the four ethnic groups (Tl: White, a = .85; African American, a = .64; Latino/a, a = .81; and Asian American, a = .80; T2: White, a = .85; African American, a = .74; Latino/a, a = .84; and Asian American, a = .78). Similarly, the MEIM-R commitment subscale also demonstrated good internal consistency in the full sample (Tl: a = .79; T2: a = .77) and within each of the four ethnic groups (Tl: White, a = .83; African American, a = .68; Latino/a, a = .81; and Asian American, a = .80; T2: White, a = .80; African American, a = .74; Latino/a, a = .71; and Asian American, a = .83). Correlations among exploration and commitment and parent socialization variables at both T l and T2 appear in Table 2. Parent ethnic socialization practices. The Ethnic Socializa­ tion Scale (Hughes & Chen, 1997) assessed ethnic socialization practices, as reported by parents. It is composed of three subscales, which comprise 13 items answered on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). The cultural socialization sub­ scale, which measures parents’ emphasis on ethnic history and traditions in their socialization practices, contains two items, in­ cluding, “Taken child to cultural events for their racial/ethnic group.” This subscale demonstrated adequate internal consistency in the full sample (Tl: a = .78, r = .64; T2: a = .81, r = .69) and within each of the four ethnic groups (Tl: White, a = .79, r = .66; African American, a = .85, r = .74; Latino/a, a = .67, r = .50; and Asian American, a = .71, r = .55; T2: White, a = .81, r = .68; African American, a = .78, r = .64; Latino/a, a = .74, r = .58; and Asian American, a = .86, r = .76). The preparation fo r bias subscale, which assesses parents’ emphasis on coping with discrimination, consists of nine items, including, “Talked to child about racism.” It demonstrated good internal consistency in the full sample (Tl: a = .82; T2: a = .82) and within each of the four ethnic groups (Tl: White, a = .76; African American, a = .86; Latino/a, a = .82; and Asian American, a = .82; T2: White, a = .81; African American, a = .80; Latino/a, a = .82; and Asian

Procedures We recruited 10th grade students from across five ethnically diverse urban public neighborhood high schools (i.e., schools that included a 10% of each of four major ethnic groups in the student population, were coeducational, were not selective/magnet or char­ ters, and were default schools for children in a given geographical area) in Philadelphia during the spring semester of the school year. We mailed letters to the students’ parents/guardians, inviting them and their 10th graders to participate in a study of student academic and social development. Parents/guardians provided informed con­ sent and permission for their and their child’s participation. Sur­ veys and student assent forms were mailed to students’ homes and students returned these materials by mail. Students received $100 for completing surveys, which included demographics items, mea­ sures of ethnic identity, and measures of academic attitudes, as well as other measures not contained in this report. In addition, parent surveys were mailed to homes and parents returned these materials by mail. Parents received $100 for completing surveys, which included demographics items and measures of ethnic iden­ tity and ethnic socialization practices, as well as other measures not contained in this report. Families were contacted a second time one year later (T2), to complete identical surveys as at T l; they were also compensated in the same manner as at T l. At T2, 89.2% (n = 330) of the adolescents and 90.5% (n = 324) of the parents from T l participated. Parents and youth who participated at both T l and T2 were not significantly different from those who only participated at T l on any study variables (p > .05), except that U.S.-born parents were less likely to have participated at T2 than parents bom outside of the U.S. (x2 = 3.94, p < .05). All materials were written in English.

Measures Adolescent ethnic identity. Adolescent ethnic identity was assessed via self-report at T l and T2 using the Multi-Group Ethnic Identity Measure-Revised (MEIM-R; Phinney & Ong, 2007), which is consistent with the developmental theorizing of Erikson (1968) and Marcia (1966) and includes two subscales. The explo­ ration subscale has three items that assess exploration of ethnic identity, such as “I have often done things that will help me understand my racial/ethnic background better.” The commitment

Table 2 Correlations Among Adolescent and Parent Outcome Variables at T l and T2 1 Adolescent ethnic identity 1. Tl exploration 2. Tl commitment 3. T2 exploration 4. T2 commitment Parental ethnic socialization 5. Tl preparation for bias 6. Tl promotion of mistrust 7. Tl cultural socialization 8. T2 preparation for bias 9. T2 promise of mistrust 10. T2 cultural socialization *p

< .05.

**p < .01.

.56*' .58" .41** .17" -.01 .25" .14* -.0 2 .27”

2

3

4

5

6

-.0 2 .49" .62** .03 .32"

.08 -.0 2 .56" .14*

7

8

9

.39" .49" .57** .14" .03 .27" .18" -.0 3 .32"

.11 .00 .27** .19" .06 .34"

.09 -.01 .26" .14* -.0 5 .30"

.39" .05 .67"

.10 .48'

PARENTAL ETHNIC SOCIALIZATION

American, a = .84). The promotion o f mistrust subscale, which measures parents’ transmission of cautiousness about members of other ethnicities to their children, contains two items, including “Told child to distrust people of other racial/ethnic groups.” This subscale demonstrated good internal consistency in the full sample (Tl: a = .79, r = .66; T2: a = .87, r = .77). In general, it performed well within the four ethnic groups, with the exception of T l for parents of African American youth (Tl: White, a = .81, r = .68; African American, a = .43, r = .39; Latino/a, a = .81, r = .68; and Asian American, a = .83, r = .73; T2; White, a = .78, r = .64; African American, a = .98, r = .97; Latino/a, a = .83, r = .72; and Asian American, a = .89, r = .81). Correlations among these parent socialization variables and adolescent explo­ ration and commitment at both T l and T2 appear in Table 2.

Results Mean Ethnic Group Differences To examine ethnic group differences in ethnic identity (i.e., exploration and commitment) at T l and T2, we conducted two multivariate analyses of covariance (MANCOVA) with the com­ posite SES variable and parent’s country of origin (U.S.-born or foreign-bom) serving as covariates. For T l, the multivariate test of ethnic group was significant, F(6, 684) = 3.13, p = .005; Table 3 shows group means and standardized deviations for this analysis. Follow-up univariate tests indicate significant ethnic group differ­ ences on both exploration, F{3, 342) = 5.05, p = .002, t)j; = .04, and commitment, F{3, 342) = 4.74, p = .003, r\j = .04. Post hoc comparisons show that, as predicted, African American adoles­ cents reported significantly greater ethnic identity exploration and commitment than adolescents from the other three ethnic groups (p < .05); effect sizes for significant pairwise comparisons (i.e., African Americans compared with the other ethnic groups) in exploration and commitment tended to be small (ds = .10—.38). By contrast, at T2, the multivariate test of ethnic group was not significant, F(6, 630) = 1.55, p > .05. In sum, ethnic groups

59

differed in adolescent ethnic identity exploration and commitment at T l, but not at T2, such that African American adolescents reported higher levels of ethnic identity exploration and commit­ ment in 10th grade. To examine ethnic group differences in parental ethnic social­ ization practices (i.e., preparation for bias, promotion of mistrust, and cultural socialization) at T l and T2, we conducted two MANCOVAs with the composite SES variable and parent’s coun­ try of origin (U.S.-born or foreign-bom) serving as covariates. The multivariate test was significant at T l, F(9, 1026) = 6.47, p < .001, and T2, F(9, 945) = 6.11, p < .001; see Table 3 for group means and standard deviations for these analyses. Follow-up uni­ variate tests indicated significant group differences on prepa­ ration for bias at T l: F(3, 342) = 6.81, p < .001, rij; = .06, and T2: F(3, 315) = 8.50, p < .001, rip = .08; promotion of mistrust at T l: F(3, 342) = 4.62, p = .003, = .04, and T2: F(3, 315) = 5.15,/? = .002, tip = .05; and cultural socialization a tT l: F(3, 342) = 11.78, p < .001, Tip = .09, and T2: F(3, 315) = 6.27, p < .001, r)p = .06. Post hoc comparisons showed that, consistent with analyses of T l adolescent ethnic identity, parents of African American adolescents reported significantly more preparation for bias than parents of adolescents from each of the three other ethnic groups at both T l and T2 (p < .01). Regarding promotion of mistrust, parents of Asian American and White adolescents re­ ported significantly more of this practice than parents of African American adolescents (p < .01), and parents of Asian American adolescents reported significantly more than parents of Latino/a adolescents (p < .01). At T2, the pattern was largely similar, in that parents of Asian American and White adolescents reported significantly more promotion of mistrust than parents of African American adolescents and Latino adolescents (p < .01). With regards to cultural socialization, parents of African American and Asian American adolescents reported significantly more of this practice than parents of White adolescents at both T l (p < .05) and T2 (p < .001). At T l only, parents of African American adoles­ cents reported significantly more cultural socialization than par­ ents of Latino adolescents (p < .05), as predicted. Effect sizes for

Table 3

Mean (SD) Adolescent Ethnic Identity (at T l and T2) and Parental Ethnic Socialization (at Tl) Within Ethnic Groups

Adolescent ethnic identity Tl Ethnic exploration Ethnic commitment T2 Ethnic exploration Ethnic commitment Parental ethnic socialization Tl Preparation for bias Promotion of mistrust Cultural socialization T2 Preparation for bias Promotion of mistrust Cultural socialization Note.

White

African American

Latino

Asian American

-.18(1.11) -.13(1.07)

.20 (.83) .21 (.88)

-.12(1.03) -.14(1.08)

.10 (.92) .03 (.92)

-.21 (1.13) -.12(1.09)

.09 (.99) .05(1.00)

-.11 (.93) -.1 0 (.94)

.24 (.94) .17 (.99)

-.1 5 (.83) .05(1.02) -.44(1.00)

.49(1.04) -.2 8 (.53) .31 (.93)

-.1 0 (.96) -.0 9 (.84) -.1 0 (.87)

-.2 4 (.97) .39(1.40) .27 (.98)

-.2 5 (.91) .17(1.09) -.3 5 (1.01)

.51 (.94) -.2 9 (.65) .17 (.91)

-.1 2 (.89) -.1 9 (.62) -.0 5 (.92)

-.14(1.07) .38(1.39) .33(1.04)

Data are standardized (z-scores).

ELSE-QUEST AND MORSE

60

significant pairwise comparisons on ethnic socialization practices were generally medium to large (ds = .48-76).

Parental Ethnic Socialization Predicts Adolescent Ethnic Identity Two multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine how parental ethnic socialization practices at T1 predicted adoles­ cent ethnic identity at T2; the first model predicted exploration and the second predicted commitment. In both models, the first step included SES and dummy-coded parent country of origin (U.S.born or foreign-bom), as well as T1 adolescent ethnic identity exploration (in Model 1) or commitment (in Model 2). The second step included socialization practices (i.e., cultural socialization, preparation for bias, and promotion of mistrust). The third step included dummy-coded ethnic group variables, and the fourth step included ethnic group by socialization practices interaction terms. Table 4 reports change statistics for Model 1 predicting T2 ethnic identity exploration. Step 1 explained 32% of the variance in T2 ethnic identity exploration, which was significantly predicted by parent country of origin ((3 = —.13, SE = . 10, p = .005) and T1 exploration ((3 = .53, SE = .05, p < .001), but not the SES composite ((3 = .03, SE = .07, p > .05). Parent country of origin was coded 0 (bom outside o f the U.S.) or 1 (bom in the U.S.)\ thus, the negative standardized regression coefficient in Step 1 indicates that children of immigrant parents reported higher levels of explo­ ration at T2 than children of U.S.-bom parents. In Step 2, regard­ ing ethnic socialization practices, T2 exploration was significantly predicted by T1 cultural socialization (3 = .13, SE = .05, p = .01), but not by T1 preparation for bias (3 = .00, SE = .05, p > .05) or promotion of mistrust (3 = —.01, SE = .05, p > .05). In Step 3, there was no significant change in R2 and none of the three dummy-coded ethnic group variables significantly predicted T2 exploration (White: 3 = —-03, SE = .16, p > .05; African American: 3 = 02, SE = .18, p > .05; Latino/a: 3 = -01, SE = .15, p > .05). In Step 4, only one of the interactions was signifiTable 4 Change Statistics for Regression Models Predicting T2 Adolescent Ethnic Identity Exploration Exploration Step 1 SES, parent country of origin, T1 exploration Step 2 SES, parent country of origin, T1 exploration Ethnic socialization practices Step 3 SES, parent country of origin, T1 exploration Ethnic socialization practices Ethnic group Step 4 SES, parent country of origin, T1 exploration Ethnic socialization practices Ethnic group Ethnic group X Socialization *p < .05.

***p < .001.

AR2 = .32; F(3, 318) = 50.43***

AR2 = .02; F(3, 315) = 2.74*

AR2 = .00; F(3, 312) = 0.26

AR2 = .03; F(9, 303) = 1.42

cant, that of African American ethnicity and cultural socialization (3 = -.16, SE = .16, p = .04), indicating that the link between parents’ cultural socialization and adolescent ethnic identity ex­ ploration was stronger for African American adolescents. The effects of T1 exploration and parental cultural socialization re­ mained significant (p < .05) in Step 4, but parent country of origin no longer significantly predicted T2 ethnic identity exploration. The full model explained 33% of the variance in T2 exploration. Table 5 reports change statistics for Model 2 predicting T2 ethnic identity commitment. Regarding the variables entered in Step 1, T2 ethnic identity commitment was significantly predicted by parent country of origin (3 = —.11, SE = .10, p = .03) and T1 commitment (3 = .46, SE = .05, p < .001), but not the SES composite (3 = .06, SE = .08, p > .05). In Step 2, regarding ethnic socialization practices, T2 commitment was significantly predicted by T1 cultural socialization (3 = .13, SE = .06, p = .03), but not by T1 preparation for bias (3 = —.01, SE = .06, p > .05) or promotion of mistrust (3 = —.05, SE = .05, p > .05). In Step 3, none of the three dummy-coded ethnic group variables significantly predicted T2 commitment (White: 3 = —.02, SE = .17, p > .05; African American: 3 = —02, SE = .19, p > .05; Latino/a: 3 = .00, SE = .16, p > .05). The effect of parental cultural socialization remained significant (p < .05) in Step 3, but parent country of origin no longer significantly predicted T2 commitment. In Step 4, none of the interactions was significant, indicating that the link between parents’ ethnic socialization prac­ tices and adolescent ethnic identity commitment did not vary across the four ethnic groups (p > .05). The effect of T1 commit­ ment remained significant ip < .05) in Step 4. The full model explained 28% of the variance in T2 commitment.

Discussion Our first aim with the current study was to describe variations in parental ethnic socialization practices and adolescent ethnic iden­ tity development across four major ethnic groups. Broadly, we predicted that parents of African American youth would engage in the greatest amount of ethnic socialization, that parents of White youth would engage in the least, and that parents of Latino/a and Asian American youth would report intermediate levels of ethnic socialization. These predictions were somewhat supported by our data: Parents of African American youth reported significantly more cultural socialization than parents of White and Latino youth, and more preparation for bias than parents of youth from all other ethnic groups; yet, parents of White and Asian American youth engaged in significantly higher levels of promotion of mistrust compared to other parents. In reviewing the major limitations of the literature on ethnic socialization, Hughes et al. (2006) under­ scored the need for more comparative research across multiple ethnic groups and for increased use of longitudinal designs with multiple informants. Thus, the current study contributes to the literature on ethnic socialization practices by addressing these needs; notably, we found links between parent reports of ethnic socialization practices and subsequent adolescent reports of ethnic identity, across four major ethnic groups. We also predicted that African American youth would report the highest levels of exploration and commitment, that White youth would report the lowest, and that Latino/a and Asian American youth would report intermediate levels of these constructs. To

PARENTAL ETHNIC SOCIALIZATION

Table 5

Change Statistics for Regression Models Predicting T2 Adolescent Ethnic Identity Commitment Commitment Step 1 SES, parent country of origin, T1 commitment Step 2 SES, parent country of origin, T1 commitment Ethnic socialization practices Step 3 SES, parent country of origin, T1 commitment Ethnic socialization practices Ethnic group Step 4 SES, parent country of origin, T1 commitment Ethnic socialization practices Ethnic group Ethnic group X Socialization

AR2 = .25; F(3, 317) = 34.25***

AR2 = .02; F(3, 314) = 2.10

AR2 = .00; F(3, 311) = 0.50

AR2 = .02; F(9, 302) = 0.96

* " > < .001.

some extent, results supported our predictions. African American adolescents reported higher levels of ethnic identity exploration and commitment than adolescents from any of the other ethnic groups at T l, yet there were no other significant ethnic group differences at T l or T2. In sum, our data indicate a pattern in which African American families tend to report higher levels of ethnic socialization and identity development compared to families from other ethnic groups. This pattern of results may stem from unique characteristics of the PALS sample and the sociocultural context of Philadelphia. That is, the sample is distinctive, and this offers both advantages and disadvantages with regards to generalizability. We recruited from schools with ethnically diverse student populations in order to reflect the diversity of the school district and broader metropol­ itan area, and to make inferences about variability across the four major ethnic groups in the United States. Demographic informa­ tion for the five schools sampled (at the time of recruitment) indicates that 56.2% of enrolled students were African American, 18.6% were Latino, 14.1% were White, 7.4% were Asian Amer­ ican, and 3.8% of students were of other ethnicities. Despite this diversity, African American students were still the majority ethnic group in each school sampled, which may have played a role in their higher ethnic identity exploration and commitment at T l. That is, although the ethnic diversity of the school makes one’s ethnicity salient for all of the adolescents, being a member of the majority ethnic group within that environment offers a rich social network with heterogeneous opportunities for African American identity exploration and commitment. In other words, within these schools, the African American population is large enough to nur­ ture a strong African American peer network for adolescents, but not so large that their ethnicity becomes invisible. This explanation is consistent with Grossman and Charmaraman’s (2009) findings comparing White adolescents from multicultural and White schools and blends the conclusions of French et al. (2006) and Kiang, Witkow, Baldelomar, and Fuligni (2010) in our emphasis

61

on the role of the salience of one’s ethnicity in an ethnically diverse school context. It is also consistent with Bronfenbrenner’s (1989) ecological theory, in which individual characteristics and sociocultural context variables interact to shape developmental processes, and indicates a need for more research on contextual factors that foster the development of psychosocial resources such as ethnic identity. For example, research on undergraduates’ per­ ceptions of ethnic student organizations suggests that such groups may support ethnic identity for ethnic minority students in diverse contexts (Negy & Lunt, 2008). In sum, our findings suggest that the ethnic composition of these schools and the broader commu­ nity provides a context that may be especially supportive for African American families at this stage in adolescent development. Our second aim with this study was to examine how parent’s ethnic socialization practices predicted subsequent adolescent eth­ nic identity exploration and commitment. To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine this longitudinal link between parent report of ethnic socialization and adolescent report of ethnic iden­ tity across families of four major U.S. ethnic groups; thus, we made no strong predictions for ethnic variations in the regression models. Our findings indicated that, although ethnic groups dif­ fered in mean levels of the parent and adolescent variables (at Tl), the amount of variance in adolescent ethnic identity explained by parental ethnic socialization practices did not differ across ethnic groups. In other words, despite mean ethnic group differences in ethnic socialization and identity, the process whereby ethnic so­ cialization predicts later ethnic identity appears similar across the four groups. Parents’ cultural socialization significantly predicted adolescents’ ethnic identity exploration and commitment 1 year later. In contrast, neither preparation for bias nor promotion of mistrust predicted ethnic identity exploration or commitment. Eth­ nic socialization practices such as promotion of mistrust and preparation for bias, which can incorporate distrusting, suspicious, and oppositional attitudes about other ethnic groups, may foster negative attitudes about others more than positive attitudes about oneself or one’s group. Although adolescents whose parents so­ cialize them with an emphasis on potential discrimination tend to demonstrate more effective strategies for coping with such bias (Hughes et al., 2006), parents’ overemphasis on discrimination can promote distrust of and anger toward the dominant society, which could potentially lead to maladaptive behaviors (Hughes & Chen, 1997). Our findings echo previous research that socialization fo­ cused on understanding and appreciating one’s cultural heritage, traditions, and customs can foster a positive sense of ethnic iden­ tity in adolescents (Huynh & Fuligni, 2008), and extends that literature to the four largest ethnic groups in the U.S. Nonetheless, it is important to acknowledge that, just as parental socialization efforts shape adolescent identity, adolescent identity shapes parental socialization practices. That is, these parental ethnic socialization and adolescent ethnic identity are part of a bidirectional and dynamic process in which sensitive parenting practices respond to adolescent behaviors and attitudes, fluctuating over time and development and across a variety of contexts (Hughes et al., 2006). As an example, Umana-Taylor, Zeiders, and Updegraff (2013) examined adolescents’ reports of ethnic identity (i.e., a composite of exploration and resolution or commitment) and perceived ethnic socialization in a sample of Mexican-origin families. They found that, for youth with immigrant parents, the family drove the process of ethnic identity development, such that

ELSE-QUEST AND MORSE

62

ethnic socialization predicted later ethnic identity. Yet, for youth with U.S.-born parents, the process was youth-driven, such that ethnic identity predicted ethnic socialization. These findings by Umana-Taylor et al. (2013) suggest that immigrant parents may push more strongly for preserving and transmitting their home culture to their children. Thus, although the links between T1 ethnic socialization practices and T2 ethnic identity development found in the current study are consistent with a causal model, the actual process is more dynamic and complex. Our sample includes a diversity of families with regards to ethnicity as well as nativity, which likely contributes to greater variability in the links between parental ethnic socialization practices and adolescent ethnic iden­ tity exploration and commitment.

Study Strengths and Limitations Our study has many strengths—notably, our longitudinal design and sample representation of adolescents and parents from across four major ethnic groups. Our sample included a substantial pro­ portion of first- and second-generation Americans; for these indi­ viduals, the psychosocial resource of ethnic identity can be par­ ticularly valuable (American Psychological Association, 2012). However, there were significant ethnic group differences with regards to immigrant status; that is, Asian American and Latino/a youth were more likely than White or African American youth to have parents born outside of the United States. Because a deeper investigation into the role of immigration on ethnic socialization and identity was beyond the scope of the current study, we chose to maintain our focus on differences among ethnic groups but included parent country of origin as a covariate in all analyses. Parent’s country of origin significantly predicted ethnic identity development, such that children of immigrants reported higher levels of ethnic identity exploration and commitment. In their review of research of parental ethnic socialization practices, Hughes et al. (2006) reported that recent immigrants are more likely to discuss discrimination with their children and to engage in cultural socialization (e.g., communicating with their children in their native language and teaching children about native traditions) than same-ethnicity counterparts who resided in the United States longer. Still, ethnic socialization practices explained a unique proportion of variance in exploration beyond that explained by parent’s country of origin, indicating that both variables are vital to modeling adolescent ethnic identity development. Thus, future investigations should further examine ethnic identity development at the intersection of ethnicity and immigrant status. One measure did not perform equally well across the four ethnic groups and across both times. That is, the promotion of mistrust subscale of the ethnic socialization measure displayed poor inter­ nal consistency within our African American subsample at T l, but not at T2. As can be seen in Table 3, there was less variability in scores on this scale among parents of African American youth. This finding is likely an anomaly, given that it performed better at T2 and that it has performed well with African American samples in other studies. Still, the question of measurement variance across subsamples is an important question to pursue in future research on ethnic variations in ethnic socialization practices. Due to con­ straints in our resources, we were unable to provide translationally equivalent measures in languages other than English and all par­ ticipants needed to read English to participate. Thus, sample re­

cruitment—particularly for Latino/a and Asian American families, who are less likely to be native English speakers—may overrep­ resent households which are more acculturated. This is a salient limitation in the context of a sample recruited for its ethnic diversity and should be considered when generalizing our results to broader populations and when planning future studies. An important strength of this research was that all participants came from several schools within one school district, so geograph­ ical or regional factors (e.g., adolescents came from urban, public, nonmagnet schools within one city), as well as ethnic composition of the adolescents’ schools, were similar across ethnic groups. Despite these similarities across the ethnic groups, White families reported higher SES (i.e., more books in the home, higher annual income, and higher parental education) than ethnic minority fam­ ilies. To address this limitation, we included SES as a covariate in all analyses; nonetheless, SES alone did not explain ethnic group differences or significantly predict ethnic identity exploration or commitment. Other reports on the association of SES and parental ethnic socialization practices have been mixed (Hughes et al., 2006). Prior research has demonstrated links between ethnic socializa­ tion and positive psychological, social, and academic outcomes (Rodriguez, Umana-Taylor, Smith, & Johnson, 2009) and between ethnic identity and positive psychosocial outcomes (Hughes et al., 2006). Although the current study did not assess such outcomes, future research should continue to examine the short- and long­ term sequelae of parental ethnic socialization practices and ado­ lescent ethnic identity, whether those vary across ethnic groups, how ethnic socialization practices might be used to optimize psy­ chological resources and outcomes—including ethnic identity— among adolescents, and under which circumstances these practices are most effective.

Conclusions In sum, we found variability in both parental ethnic socialization and adolescent ethnic identity among four major ethnic groups in urban Philadelphia. Although we often speak of ethnic minorities as different from Whites, particularly as groups with a history of experiencing marginalization and discrimination, these data rein­ force the premise that ethnic minorities are not a homogenous group of non-Whites. Ethnic minority youth (and their parents) comprise diverse cultural and subcultural groups that deserve research attention as unique populations. In our efforts to avoid overgeneralization of findings, differences among ethnic minori­ ties, as well as differences between ethnic minorities and Whites, should be neither assumed nor overlooked in the study of parenting and adolescent development.

References American Psychological Association, Task Force on Immigration. (2012). Report o f the APA presidential task force on immigration. Retrieved from http://www.apa.Org/topics/immigration/report.aspx# Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological systems theory. Annals of Child Development, 6, 187—249. Chavous, T. M., Rivas-Drake, D., Smalls, C., Griffin, T., & Cogburn, C. (2008). Gender matters, too: The influences of school racial discrimi­ nation and racial identity on academic engagement outcomes among African American adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 44, 637654. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.44.3.637

PARENTAL ETHNIC SOCIALIZATION Demo, D. H., & Hughes, M. (1990). Socialization and racial identity among black Americans. Social Psychology Quarterly, 53, 364-374. doi: 10.2307/2786741 Else-Quest, N. M., Mineo, C. C., & Higgins, A. (2013). Math and science attitudes and achievement at the intersection of gender and ethnicity. Psychology o f Women Quarterly, 37, 293-309. doi: 10.1177/0361684313480694 Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York, NY: Norton. French, S. E., Seidman, E., Allen, L., & Aber, J. L. (2006). The develop­ ment of ethnic identity during adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 42, 1-10. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.42.1.1 Fuligni, A. J., Tseng, V., & Lam, M. (1999). Attitudes toward family obligations among American adolescents from Asian, Latin American, and European backgrounds. Child Development, 70, 1030-1044. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00075 Fuligni, A. J., Witkow, M., & Garcia, C. (2005). Ethnic identity and the academic adjustment of adolescents from Mexican, Chinese, and European backgrounds. Developmental Psychology, 41, 799-811. doi: 10.1037/00121649.41.5.799 Garcia Coll, C., Lamberty, G., Jenkins, R., McAdoo, H. P., Crnic, K., Wasik, B. H., & Garcia, H. V. (1996). An integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in minority children. Child Develop­ ment, 67, 1891-1914. doi:10.2307/l 131600 Gonzales, N. A., Coxe, S., Roosa, M. W., White, R. M. B., Knight, G. P., Zeiders, K. H„ & Saenz, D. (2011). Economic hardship, neighborhood context, and parenting: Prospective effects on Mexican-American ado­ lescent’s mental health. American Journal o f Community Psychology, 47, 98-113. doi: 10.1007/s 10464-010-9366-1 Grossman, J. M., & Charmaraman, L. (2009). Race, context, and privilege: White adolescents’ explanations of racial-ethnic centrality. Journal o f Youth and Adolescence, 38, 139-152. doi.T0.1007/sl0964-008-9330-7 Huang, C. Y., & Stormshak, E. A. (2011). A longitudinal examination of early adolescence ethnic identity trajectories. Cultural Diversity & Eth­ nic Minority Psychology, 17, 261-270. doi:10.1037/a0023882 Hughes, D., & Chen, L. (1997). When and what parents tell children about race: An examination of race-related socialization among African Amer­ ican families. Applied Developmental Science, 1, 200-214. doi:10.1207/ sl532480xads0104_4 Hughes, D., Hagelskamp, C., Way, N., & Foust, M. D. (2009). The role of mothers’ and adolescents’ perceptions of ethnic-racial socialization in shaping ethnic-racial identity among early adolescent boys and girls. Journal o f Youth and Adolescence, 38, 605-626. doi:10.1007/sl0964009-9399-7 Hughes, D., & Johnson, D. J. (2001). Correlates in children’s experiences of parents’ racial socialization behaviors. Journal o f Marriage and the Family, 63, 981-995. doi:10.1111/j.l741-3737.2001.00981.x Hughes, D., Rodriguez, J., Smith, E. P., Johnson, D. J., Stevenson, H. C., & Spicer, P. (2006). Parents’ ethnic-racial socialization practices: A review of research and directions for future study. Developmental Psy­ chology, 42, 747-770. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.42.5.747 Hughes, D., Witherspoon, D., Rivas-Drake, D., & West-Bey, N. (2009). Received ethnic-racial socialization messages and youths’ academic and behavioral outcomes: Examining the mediating role of ethnic identity and self-esteem. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 15, 112-124. doi:10.1037/a0015509 Huynh, V. W., & Fuligni, A. J. (2008). Ethnic socialization and the academic adjustment of adolescents from Mexican, Chinese, and European back­ grounds. Developmental Psychology, 44, 1202-1208. doi:10.1037/00121649.44.4.1202 Kiang, L., & Fuligni, A. J. (2009). Ethnic identity and family processes among adolescents from Latin American, Asian, and European back­ grounds. Journal o f Youth and Adolescence, 38, 228-241. doi:10.1007/ s i 0964-008-9353-0

63

Kiang, L„ & Fuligni, A. J. (2010). Meaning in life as a mediator of ethnic identity and adjustment among adolescents from Latin, Asian, and European American backgrounds. Journal o f Youth and Adolescence, 39, 1253-1264. doi:10.1007/sl0964-009-9475-z Kiang, L., Witkow, M. R., Baldelomar, O. A., & Fuligni, A. J. (2010). Change in ethnic identity across the high school years among adoles­ cents with Latin American, Asian, and European backgrounds. Journal o f Youth and Adolescence, 39, 683-693. doi: 10.1007/s 10964-0099429-5 Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 551-558. doi: 10.1037/ h0023281 Marshall, S. (1995). Ethnic socialization of African American children: Implications for parenting, identity development, and academic achieve­ ment. Journal o f Youth and Adolescence, 24, 377-396. doi:10.1007/ BF01537187 Martinez, R. O., & Dukes, R. L. (1997). The effects of ethnic identity, ethnicity, and gender on adolescent well-being. Journal o f Youth and Adolescence, 26, 503-516. doi:10.1023/A:1024525821078 Meeus, W. (2011). The study of adolescent identity formation 2000-2010: A review of longitudinal research. Journal o f Research on Adolescence, 21, 75-94. doi.TO. I l l 1/j. 1532-7795.2010.00716.X Neblett, E. W., Rivas-Drake, D., & Umana-Taylor, A. J. (2012). The promise of racial and ethnic protective factors in promoting ethnic minority youth development. Child Development Perspectives, 6, 295303. doi:10.1111/j.l750-8606.2012.00239.x Neblett, E. W., Smalls, C. P., Ford, K. R., Nguyen, H. X., & Sellers, R. M. (2009). Racial socialization and racial identity: African American par­ ents’ messages about race as precursors to identity. Journal o f Youth and Adolescence, 38, 189-203. doi:10.1007/sl0964-008-9359-7 Negy, C., & Lunt, R. A. (2008). What college students really think about ethnic student organizations. Journal o f Diversity in Higher Education, 1, 176-192. doi: 10.1037/a0012751 Ou, Y., & McAdoo, H. P. (1993). Socialization of Chinese American children. In H. P. McAdoo (Ed.), Family ethnicity: Strength in diversity (pp. 245-270). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pahl, K., & Way, N. (2006). Longitudinal trajectories of ethnic identity among urban Black and Latino adolescents. Child Development, 77, 1403-1415. doi: 10.1111/j. 1467-8624.2006.00943.X Phinney, J. S. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: Review of research. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 499-514. doi:10.1037/0033-2909 .108.3.499 Phinney, J. S., & Chavira, V. (1992). Ethnic identity and self-esteem: An exploratory longitudinal study. Journal o f Adolescence, 15, 271-281. doi: 10.1016/0140-1971 (92)90030-9 Phinney, J. S., & Chavira, V. (1995). Parental ethnic socialization and adolescent coping with problems related to ethnicity. Journal o f Re­ search on Adolescence, 5, 31-53. doi:10.1207/sl5327795jra0501_2 Phinney, J. S., Chavira, V., & Tate, J. D. (1993). The effect of ethnic threat on ethnic self-concept and own-group ratings. The Journal o f Social Psychology, 133, 469-478. doi:10.1080/00224545.1993.9712171 Phinney, J. S., & Ong, A. D. (2007). Conceptualization and measurement of ethnic identity: Current status and future directions. Journal o f Coun­ seling Psychology, 54, 271-281. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.54.3.271 Rivas-Drake, D. (2011). Ethnic-racial socialization and adjustment among Latino college students: The mediating roles of ethnic centrality, public regard, and perceived barriers to opportunity. Journal o f Youth and Adolescence, 40, 606-619. doi:10.1007/sl0964-010-9564-z Rivas-Drake, D., Hughes, D., & Way, N. (2009). A preliminary analysis of associations among ethnic-racial socialization, ethnic discrimination, and ethnic identity among urban sixth graders. Journal o f Research on Adolescence, 19, 558-584. doi:10.1111/j.l532-7795.2009.00607.x Rodriguez, J., Umana-Taylor, A., Smith, E. P., & Johnson, D. J. (2009). Cultural processes in parenting and youth outcomes: Examining a model of

64

ELSE-QUEST AND MORSE

racial-ethnic socialization and identity in diverse populations. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 15, 106-111. doi:10.1037/ a0015510 Rowley, S. J., Sellers, R. M., Chavous, T. M., & Smith, M. A. (1998). The relationship between racial identity and self-esteem in African American college and high school students. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 715-724. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.715 Seaton, E. K., Yip, T., Morgan-Lopez, A., & Sellers, R. M. (2012). Racial discrimination and racial socialization as predictors of African American adolescents’ racial identity development using latent transition analysis. Developmental Psychology, 48, 448-458. doi:10.1037/a0025328 Sellers, R. M., Copeland-Linder, N., Martin, P. P., & L ’Heureux Lewis, R. (2006). Racial identity matters: The relationship between racial discrim­ ination and psychological functioning in African American adolescents. Journal o f Research on Adolescence, 16, 187-216. doi: 10.1111/j. 15327795.2006.00128.x Spencer, M. B. (1983). Children’s cultural values and parental child rearing strategies. Developmental Review, 3, 351-370. doi:10.1016/0273-2297 (83)90020-5 Spencer, M. B., Fegley, S. G., & Harpalani, V. (2003). A theoretical and empirical examination of identity as coping: Linking coping resources to the self processes of African American youth. Applied Developmental Science, 7, 181-188. doi:10.1207/S1532480XADS0703_9 Stevenson, H. C. (1995). Relationship of adolescent perceptions of racial socialization to racial identity. Journal o f Black Psychology, 21, 49-70. doi: 10.1177/00957984950211005

Tran, A. G., & Lee, R. M. (2010). Perceived ethnic-racial socialization, ethnic identity, and social competence among Asian American late adolescents. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16, 169— 178. doi: 10.1037/a0016400 Umana-Taylor, A. J., Alfrano, E. C., Bamaca, M. Y., & Guimond, A. B. (2009). The central role of familial ethnic socialization in Latino ado­ lescents’ cultural orientation. Journal o f Marriage and Family, 71, 46 -6 0 . doi:10.1111/j.l741-3737.2008.00579.x Umana-Taylor, A. J., Diversi, M., & Fine, M. S. (2002). Ethnic identity and self-esteem of Latino adolescents. Journal o f Adolescent Research, 17, 303-327. doi: 10.1177/0743558402173005 Umana-Taylor, A. J., & Guimond, A. B. (2010). A longitudinal examina­ tion of parenting behaviors and perceived discrimination predicting Latino adolescents’ ethnic identity. Developmental Psychology, 46, 636-650. doi:10.1037/a0019376 Umana-Taylor, A. J., Zeiders, K. H., & Updegraff, K. A. (2013). Family ethnic socialization and ethnic identity: A family-driven, youth-driven, or reciprocal process? Journal o f Family Psychology, 27, 137-146. doi: 10.1037/a0031105 Wong, C. A., Eccles, J. S., & Sameroff, A. (2003). The influence of ethnic discrimination and ethnic identification on African American adoles­ cents’ school and socioemotional adjustment. Journal o f Personality, 71, 1197-1232. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.7106012 Yoon, E. (2011). Measuring ethnic identity in the ethnic identity scale and the Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure-Revised. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17, 144-155. doi:10.1037/a0023361

E-Mail Notification of Your Latest Issue Online! W ould you like to know w hen the next issue o f y our favorite A P A jo u rn al w ill be available online? T his service is now available to you. Sign up at h ttp://notify.apa.org/ and you w ill be notified by e-m ail w hen issues o f interest to you becom e available!

Copyright of Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology is the property of American Psychological Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.