Family cultural socialization practices and ethnic identity in college ...

ARTICLE IN PRESS Journal of Adolescence xxx (2010) 1–8

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Adolescence journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jado

Family cultural socialization practices and ethnic identity in college-going emerging adults Linda Juang a, *, Moin Syed b a b

Department of Psychology, San Francisco State University, 1600 Holloway Ave., San Francisco, CA 94132, United States Psychology Department, University of Minnesota, N218 Elliott Hall, 75 East River Road, Minneapolis, MN 55455-0344, United States

a b s t r a c t Keywords: Ethnic identity Cultural socialization Family Emerging adults

We examined how family cultural socialization related to the ethnic identity of Asian American, Latino, White, and Mixed-Ethnic emerging adults (N ¼ 225). Greater family cultural socialization was related to greater ethnic identity exploration and commitment. Ethnic minority students reported higher levels of family cultural socialization and ethnic identity compared to White students. The family cultural socialization-ethnic identity link was more pronounced for females compared to males, and for White compared to ethnic minority students. The findings highlight the importance of the family for identity development beyond adolescence. Ó 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The Association for Professionals in Services for Adolescents.

Introduction Ethnic identity refers to an individual’s sense of self as a member of an ethnic group (Phinney, 2003). A strong ethnic identity is linked to positive psychological adjustment in terms of self-esteem, life satisfaction, happiness, and less loneliness and depression (Kiang, Yip, Gonzales-Backen, Witkow, & Fuligni, 2006; Lee & Yoo, 2004; Martinez & Dukes, 1997; Roberts et al., 1999; Tsai, Ying, & Lee, 2001). Because ethnic identity relates to a variety of psychological adjustment indicators, it is important to illuminate the conditions under which ethnic identity develops. The overarching aim of this study, then, is to focus on how family cultural socialization contributes to ethnic identity in diverse emerging adult students.

Ethnic identity and emerging adulthood Because many emerging adults (roughly between the ages of 18 and 30 years) have not yet entered into adult roles concerning family (e.g., marriage and parenthood) and work (e.g., established career), this developmental period is characterized by a focus on the self (Arnett & Tanner, 2006). Consequently, emerging adulthood is also a critical time for identity work (Arnett & Tanner, 2006; McAdams, 2001; Phinney, 2006). College-going emerging adults, in particular, are exposed to new contexts and experiences that may serve as catalysts for identity development (Azmitia, Syed, & Radmacher, 2008; Eccles, Templeton, Barber, & Stone, 2003). Thus, the confluence of development at the individual level (e.g., advanced cognitive abilities, Habermas & Bluck, 2000) with shifts in contexts that afford opportunities for an increasing awareness of ethnicity, implies that emerging adulthood is a particularly dynamic time for ethnic identity development.

* Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (L. Juang), [email protected] (M. Syed). 0140-1971/$ – see front matter Ó 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The Association for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.11.008

Please cite this article in press as: Juang, L., Syed, M., Family cultural socialization practices and ethnic identity in college-going emerging adults, Journal of Adolescence (2010), doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.11.008

ARTICLE IN PRESS 2

L. Juang, M. Syed / Journal of Adolescence xxx (2010) 1–8

Family as a key socialization agent Ecological systems theories (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Lerner, 1996) highlight the need for understanding development within multiple layers of context. For ethnic identity, these contexts can range from macro-level factors such as societal prejudice and ethnic representation (Berry, 2003; Phinney, 2003; Portes & Rumbaut, 1996) to micro-level factors involving ˜ a-Taylor, Yazedjian, & Ba´maca-Go´mez, 2004). This multipeers and families (Phinney, Romero, Nava, & Huang, 2001; Uman level perspective converges with Erikson (1968), who maintained that the key mechanism through which identity develops is interaction with others – first with family members (mainly parents) and subsequently, with members in the community and larger society. Erikson stressed the primary role of parents in shaping children’s identity, initially through identification and modeling and then, in adolescence and later life through supporting, challenging, accepting, or protesting their child’s developing identity. Contemporary scholars also argue that the family provides the primary foundation for ethnic identity development ˜ a-Taylor, Bhanot, & Shin, 2006). Family ethnicthrough the process of ethnic-racial socialization (Hughes et al., 2006; Uman racial socialization refers to the ‘‘transmission of information from adults to children regarding race and ethnicity’’ (Hughes et al., 2006, p. 748). Importantly, Hughes et al. (2006) distinguish between racial and cultural socialization. Racial socialization refers to the ways in which parents teach their children how to cope with the fact that one’s racial group is devalued in society, focusing on issues of discrimination, racism, and barriers to opportunities. Most studies on racial socialization have focused on African American children and their families. Cultural socialization, on the other hand, highlights the preservation and transmission of cultural practices and traditions. Most studies of cultural socialization have focused on immigrant families of Latino and Asian backgrounds. Both types of socialization serve similar functions: to help children understand the role of ethnicity in their lives, foster a strong ethnic identity, and develop a sense of pride in their ethnic/cultural/racial background (Hughes et al., 2006; Johnson, 2003). In their review of 46 studies examining racial and cultural socialization, Hughes et al. (2006) highlighted key limitations. The most striking was that samples were predominately African American, with seven including Latinos (mostly Mexican), three of Asians, two including Mixed-ethnic, and one with White participants. Thus, apart from African American families, we know very little about how parents communicate cultural values, practices, and traditions to their children. Furthermore, we know little about how this socialization process is related to ethnic identity development for diverse groups. Family cultural socialization and ethnic identity: beyond childhood and adolescence Family socialization practices contribute to ethnic identity development during childhood and adolescence (Hughes et al., ˜ a-Taylor, et al., 2006). However, research on the role of the family in emerging adulthood is scarce. There is 2006; Uman evidence, however, that families continue to play an important role for emerging adults’ identity development. For instance, emerging adults view their parents as an important source of emotional support (Aquilino, 2006). Being able to turn to parents for emotional support may provide a context suitable for identity exploration and resolution (Luyckx, Goossens, Soenens, & Beyers, 2006). However, while studies confirm that family relationships do matter during emerging adulthood, most of this literature is based solely on majority White populations. One study that did include ethnically diverse emerging adults found that family cultural socialization was related positively to identifying with one’s cultural heritage (Schwartz, Zamboanga, Rodriquez, & Wang, 2007), but their measure of cultural heritage encompassed aspects of acculturation, cultural values (such as familism) and ethnic identity, all related yet distinct constructs. As a result, the specific association between cultural socialization and ethnic identity was untested. Therefore, the first aim of the present study is to test the hypothesis that greater family cultural socialization will be linked to higher levels of ethnic identity in an ethnically diverse sample of emerging adults. The second aim is to explore whether family cultural socialization can account for frequently observed ethnic differences in ethnic identity. One robust finding is that ethnic minority adolescent and college students report higher levels of ethnic identity compared to White Americans (Phinney, 1992; Phinney & Alipuria, 1990; Phinney, Cantu, & Kurtz, 1997; Roberts et al., 1999; Syed & Azmitia, 2009). However, we do not know what accounts for this consistent finding. One factor may be that ethnic minority families engage in greater cultural socialization, and, consequently, foster greater awareness of and curiosity about ethnic identity. Notably, by focusing on practices and behaviors (such as family cultural socialization) associated with different ethnicities to explain group differences, we move away from conceptualizing ethnicity as a static category in our study. Moderating effects of gender and ethnicity Individual characteristics, such as gender and ethnicity, may shape how socialization is experienced (Cheng & Kuo, 2000). Thus, the third aim of the study is to explore how gender and ethnicity moderate the relation between family cultural socialization and ethnic identity. Concerning gender, studies of immigrant families (that include Latino and Asian American youth) show that parents socialize their daughters more than their sons to preserve traditional cultural ideals (Dion & Dion, 2001; Sua´rez-Orozco & Qin, 2006). Studies of African American families suggest that racial/cultural socialization and transmission of cultural values is primarily carried out by females (the ‘‘kin keepers’’) (Stack, 1974). Finally, research with Asian American and Latino youth suggest that parents may monitor and limit peer interactions in girls more than boys, and, as Please cite this article in press as: Juang, L., Syed, M., Family cultural socialization practices and ethnic identity in college-going emerging adults, Journal of Adolescence (2010), doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.11.008

ARTICLE IN PRESS L. Juang, M. Syed / Journal of Adolescence xxx (2010) 1–8

3

a result, family effects may be stronger for girls (Ping & Berryman, 1996; Way & Chen, 2000). Accordingly, we expect that family cultural socialization will show a stronger link to ethnic identity for females compared to males. Concerning ethnicity, we know little of how Asian American, Latino, Mixed-ethnic, or White American families engage in cultural socialization and how this might relate to ethnic identity development. Given that ethnic minority families tend to emphasize ethnic and cultural traditions more than does the majority culture, and that ethnic identity is more salient to ethnic minority individuals (Phinney, 1992), we expect that family cultural socialization will show a stronger link to the ethnic identity of ethnic minority students compared to White students. We also note there are differences in ethnic identity among ethnic minority groups. For example, African Americans tend to report the highest levels of ethnic identity, followed by Latinos and Asian Americans (Phinney & Alipuria, 1990; Schwartz, et al., 2007). Further, Mixed-ethnic youth (i.e., youth reporting more than one ethnic background such as Asian/White or Black/Latino) tend to report lower ethnic identity than ˜ a-Taylor, 2004; Syed & Azmitia, 2008). Thus, it is important to examine monoethnic minority youth (Bracey, Ba´maca, & Uman variations among ethnic minority groups and to consider Mixed-ethnic youth in their own right. Exploration and commitment: two key processes Marcia (1980) highlighted exploration and commitment as two key processes for achieving a stable, secure identity. Concerning ethnic identity, exploration refers to seeking out information and experiences that lead to greater insight and understanding of one’s ethnicity. Commitment entails choosing important life values to live by concerning one’s ethnicity and is marked by a strong attachment, or affirmation of one’s ethnic group (Phinney & Ong, 2007). Although related, these processes are distinct and should be examined separately, rather than using a global score (Cokley, 2007). Furthermore, because ethnic identity exploration and commitment are usually highly correlated, we isolate the effects of each component to better understand how family socialization contributes to ethnic identity. Summary of hypotheses The purpose of the study is to investigate the association between family cultural socialization and ethnic identity in ethnically diverse emerging adults. We hypothesized that: a) greater family cultural socialization will be associated with greater ethnic identity exploration and commitment, b) family cultural socialization will account for ethnic differences in ethnic identity exploration and commitment, and c) for females and ethnic minorities, the relation between family cultural socialization and ethnic identity will be stronger than for males and White students, respectively. Method Participants and setting Students were invited to participate in a study advertised as ‘‘Ethnic Identity in Everyday Experiences’’ through the Psychology Department’s human subjects research pool for course credit. Participants attended a large public university in northern California with a long tradition of a commitment to ethnic diversity. It is the first university in the U.S. to have a College of Ethnic Studies, is one of the top 15 universities for campus diversity (U.S. News and World Report, 2009), and ranks 15th nationwide in awarding undergraduate degrees to minorities (Diverse Issues in Higher Education, 2008). A total of 290 students participated. Students were classified into six pan-ethnic groups based on their self-reported ethnicity: Asian American (n ¼ 77, 27%), Latino (n ¼ 35, 12%), Mixed-ethnic (n ¼ 63, 22%), White (n ¼ 80, 29%), Black (n ¼ 20, 7%), and Other (n ¼ 11, 4%). One person did not report their ethnicity. The ethnic distribution generally reflects the university’s undergraduate student population with 35% Asian American, 18% Latino, 33% White, 7% Black, and 5% other (the university does not track Mixed-ethnic heritage). Because the numbers for Black and Other students were too small for meaningful analyses, we focused on the four largest pan-ethnic groups. Thus, the participants in this study were 225 emerging adults between the ages of 18–30 (M ¼ 22.11, SD ¼ 2.81). The pan-ethnic distribution consisted of Asian American (32%), Latino (15%), Mixed-ethnic (23%), and White (30%). The sample was 60% female, with 82% of the participants born in the U.S. (M years lived in the U.S. ¼ 13.40, SD ¼ 7.5, 97% lived in U.S. more than 4 years). Socioeconomic status (SES) was computed as a composite of parent education and occupation using the Hollingshead Two-Factor Index of Social Position (Hollingshead, 1957). This measure ranges from 1 to 5, and was reverse-coded so that higher numbers indicated higher SES (M ¼ 3.14, SD ¼ 1.03, range 1–5). Measures Ethnic identity The revised 12-item Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM) was used to measure ethnic identity (Phinney, 1992; Roberts et al., 1999). This version has two subscales: five items measuring exploration (e.g., ‘‘I have spent time trying to find out more about my own ethnic group such as its history, traditions, and customs’’) and seven items measuring commitment (e.g., ‘‘I feel a strong attachment to my ethnic group’’). Participants responded on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Mean scores were calculated so that a higher score indicated greater exploration (a ¼ .82) and commitment Please cite this article in press as: Juang, L., Syed, M., Family cultural socialization practices and ethnic identity in college-going emerging adults, Journal of Adolescence (2010), doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.11.008

ARTICLE IN PRESS 4


(a ¼ .90). The MEIM has been used widely with ethnically diverse college students and has demonstrated reliability and validity (Lee & Yoo, 2004; Martinez & Dukes, 1997; Phinney, 1992). Family ethnic socialization ˜ a-Taylor, 2001) consists of 12 items measuring various cultural socialiThe Family Ethnic Socialization Scale (FES; Uman zation behaviors by the family. Participants responded on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much) to items such as ‘‘My family celebrates holidays that are specific to my ethnic/cultural background’’. The mean score was calculated so that a higher score indicated greater family cultural socialization (a ¼ .93). The FES has been used with ethnically diverse adolescents (including ˜ a-Taylor, et al., 2004, 2006). White youth) and has demonstrated reliability and validity (Uman Results Demographic variation in family cultural socialization Table 1 presents descriptive information on demographic and study variables by ethnicity. We first examined whether family cultural socialization varied by gender, immigrant status, ethnicity, age, and SES. Mean levels of family cultural socialization did not differ by gender or immigrant status, nor was it correlated with age. A one-way ANOVA indicated that family cultural socialization differed by ethnicity, F(3, 219) ¼ 10.73, p < .001, with Asian American and Latino students higher than White students and Asian American students higher than Mixed-ethnic students (post-hoc Bonferonni). Finally, SES was negatively correlated with family cultural socialization (r ¼ .14, p ¼ .04). Primary analyses For the remaining analyses, family cultural socialization was dichotomized into high and low, based on a median split. This was done in order to test for interactions with ethnicity (4 levels) and gender (2 levels), which can become cumbersome in a multiple regression framework. To confirm that dichotomizing did not affect the results, we also ran all analyses within a multiple regression framework with the continuous family cultural socialization variable. There were no differences between the regression results and the ANCOVA results presented here. We conducted our primary analyses in three steps. All three steps consisted of ANCOVAs controlling for SES, and identical sets of models were tested separately for ethnic identity exploration and commitment. The first step was to test for ethnic and gender differences in levels of ethnic identity. In the next step, we added family cultural socialization to the previous model to address our three hypotheses. Because ethnic identity exploration and commitment are highly correlated (r ¼ .66), the third step tested the unique aspects of exploration and commitment by alternately controlling for one variable while testing the other (i.e., the exploration model controlled for commitment and vice versa). We built custom factorial models, in which we included all main effects and only the interactions pertaining to the goals of the study, namely interactions between family cultural socialization and ethnicity and family cultural socialization and gender. Post-hoc comparisons were conducted with Bonferroni correction. The sample size precluded reliable tests of three-way interactions. Exploration The 4 (ethnicity) 2 (gender) ANCOVA with ethnic identity exploration as the dependent variable showed there was a significant main effect for ethnicity, F(3, 213) ¼ 3.82, p ¼ .01, h2p ¼ .05, with post-hoc comparisons revealing that the White group reported significantly less exploration than the Latino group (mean difference ¼ 0.40, p ¼ .01). We next added the family cultural socialization variable to create a 4 (ethnicity) 2 (gender) 2 (family cultural socialization) ANCOVA. As hypothesized, the main effect for family cultural socialization was significant, F(1, 207) ¼ 41.74, p < .001, h2p ¼ .17. Furthermore, after adding family cultural socialization to the model the previously significant main effect for ethnicity became non-significant, F(3, 207) ¼ 1.32, p ¼ .27, h2p ¼ .02. No other effect reached significance.

Table 1 Descriptives of demographic and study variables by ethnicity. Variable

Asian American

Latino

Mixed-ethnic

White

Age Female (%) U.S. Born (%) Socioeconomic statusa Explorationb Commitmentb Family cultural socializationa

21.78 (2.62) 66 71 3.13 (1.01) 2.58 (0.55) 3.02 (0.62) 3.59 (0.97)

22.67 (2.76) 55 76 2.52 (1.20) 2.75 (0.49) 3.46 (0.45) 3.54 (1.08)

21.63 (2.90) 63 92 3.06 (0.99) 2.63 (0.64) 3.04 (0.61) 3.12 (0.96)

22.57 (2.92) 55 90 3.51 (0.87) 2.36 (0.58) 2.68 (0.54) 2.81 (0.85)

Note. Standard deviations are in parentheses next to mean score. a Range ¼ 1 – 5. b Range ¼ 1 – 4.



5

Ethnic Identity Exploration

3.00

2.80

2.60

2.40 Ethnicity Asian American Latino Mixed-ethnic White

2.20

2.00 Low

High

Family Cultural Socialization Fig. 1. Family cultural socialization and ethnic identity exploration by ethnicity.

Lastly, when we added ethnic identity commitment as a covariate, despite the fact that commitment accounted for a large share of the variance in exploration (h2p ¼ .35), the main effect of family cultural socialization remained significant, F(1, 204) ¼ 15.54, p < .001, h2p ¼ .07. The addition of commitment as a covariate revealed two additional effects that were not found in the previous model. The Ethnicity x Family Cultural Socialization interaction was significant, F(3, 204) ¼ 2.67, p ¼ .05, h2p ¼ .04, indicating that White students reported the biggest difference in exploration by levels of family cultural socialization (Fig. 1). Thus, although the interaction was significant as hypothesized, the direction of the interaction was opposite of what we expected. Lastly, there was a main effect for gender, F(1, 204) ¼ 4.26, p ¼ .04, h2p ¼ .02, where females (Adj. M ¼ 2.63, SE ¼ .04) reported higher levels of exploration than males (Adj. M ¼ 2.51, SE ¼ .05), but contrary to our hypothesis, there was not a significant interaction between gender and socialization. Commitment First we ran a 4 (ethnicity) 2 (gender) ANCOVA, which indicated a main effect for ethnicity, F(3, 211) ¼ 13.56, p < .001, h2p ¼ .16. Comparisons indicated that the Latino group reported significantly higher levels of commitment than all other groups and the White group reported significantly lower levels of commitment than all other groups. In the next step we added family cultural socialization to the model to create a 4 (ethnicity) 2 (gender) 2 (family cultural socialization) ANCOVA. Although family cultural socialization was significantly related to commitment as hypothesized, F(1, 205) ¼ 24.26, p < .001, h2p ¼ .11, contrary to our hypothesis this association did not account for the ethnic differences in commitment, which remained significant, F(3, 205) ¼ 11.53, p < .001, h2p ¼ .14. However, when we added exploration as a covariate to the previous model the main effect for family cultural socialization became non-significant, F(1, 204) ¼ 1.85, p ¼ .18, h2p ¼ .01, whereas the main effect for ethnicity was virtually unchanged, F(3, 204) ¼ 11.64, p < .001, h2p ¼ .15. Furthermore, controlling for exploration revealed a Gender x Family Cultural Socialization interaction, F(1, 204) ¼ 4.52, p ¼ .04, h2p ¼ .02. As hypothesized, females reported greater levels of commitment at higher levels of family cultural socialization, but males did not (Fig. 2). Discussion The overarching aim of this study was to examine how perceptions of family cultural socialization related to the ethnic identity of Asian American, Latino, White, and Mixed-ethnic emerging adults. In line with an ecological systems approach (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Lerner, 1996), our findings suggest that perceptions of the family context still matter for ethnic identity beyond adolescence.

Family cultural socialization and ethnic identity: a multidimensional approach The first aim was to examine how family cultural socialization was related to ethnic identity. Our study is unique in that we separated out the overlap between ethnic identity exploration (i.e., seeking out information/experiences related to ethnicity) and commitment (i.e., strong attachment to one’s ethnic group). This was important to do in order to pinpoint how family cultural socialization related uniquely to each. Although greater family cultural socialization related to ethnic identity exploration and commitment (as hypothesized), family cultural socialization was more closely tied to exploration. Our findings support another study also showing that family cultural socialization related to ethnic identity exploration, but not Please cite this article in press as: Juang, L., Syed, M., Family cultural socialization practices and ethnic identity in college-going emerging adults, Journal of Adolescence (2010), doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.11.008

ARTICLE IN PRESS 6


3.15

Ethnic Identity Commitment

3.10

3.05

3.00

2.95 Gender Male

2.90

Female

2.85 Low

High

Family Cultural Socialization Fig. 2. Family cultural socialization and ethnic identity commitment by gender.

affirmation (Supple, Ghazarian, Frabutt, Plunkett, & Sands, 2006). Thus, parents’ socialization practices may be effective in prompting their children to explore their ethnic backgrounds, but may not necessarily instill a sense of commitment. Commitment may be associated with a broader array of influences, such as affiliating with same-ethnic peers or engaging directly in cultural practices. It is also possible that the exploration process precedes commitment, and therefore socialization is linked to commitment indirectly via exploration. Longitudinal studies explicitly exploring causal pathways are needed to test this proposal. Moving beyond static representations of ethnicity: family cultural socialization The second aim of the study was to replicate and explain the frequently observed difference in ethnic identity among different ethnic groups. In line with previous studies, we found that ethnic minorities reported higher ethnic identity compared to their White counterparts. Further, the results showed that family cultural socialization accounted for differences in ethnic identity exploration, but not commitment. More specifically, Asian American and Latino (but not Mixed-ethnic) students reported higher levels of family cultural socialization than White students. These higher levels of family cultural socialization, in turn, were related to higher levels of ethnic identity exploration. These findings suggest that ethnicity represents more than a static category. Indeed, ethnicity is best conceptualized as involving behaviors, practices, and experiences which may vary across different groups (Rogoff et al., 2007). A focus on behaviors, practices, and experiences (such as family cultural socialization) allows researchers to study ethnicity as a dynamic and developmental variable – behaviors, practices, and experiences can change over time, but ethnic categories do not (although choice of ethnic label can change over time, see Fuligni, Kiang, Witkow, & Baldelomar, 2008). Future research could continue to focus on the processes and practices that can explain ethnicity differences in ethnic identity, particularly for commitment, as we did not find family cultural socialization to be directly related to commitment. The moderating role of gender and ethnicity The third aim of the study was to explore the moderating effects of gender and ethnicity on the relation between family cultural socialization and ethnic identity. As hypothesized, the link between family cultural socialization and ethnic identity was stronger for females compared to males (at least for commitment). Because there is a greater expectation for daughters to preserve and carry on cultural traditions than sons (Dion & Dion, 2001; Sua´rez-Orozco & Qin, 2006) and because family relationships may have more influence on females than males (Ping & Berryman, 1996; Way & Chen, 2000) it makes sense that the effects of family cultural socialization are more pronounced for females. Because males may be allowed greater freedom to interact with their peers (Way & Chen, 2000), peer cultural socialization, compared to family, may be more salient for males’ ethnic identity. More research that includes measures of both family and peer contexts is needed to confirm whether this is indeed the case. Contrary to the hypothesis, the relation between family cultural socialization and ethnic identity was not stronger for ethnic minorities compared to Whites. Ethnicity interacted with family cultural socialization such that White emerging adults reported the biggest difference in exploration by level of family cultural socialization. In fact, at higher levels of family cultural socialization, White students reported even higher levels of exploration compared to Asian, Latino, and Mixed-ethnic Please cite this article in press as: Juang, L., Syed, M., Family cultural socialization practices and ethnic identity in college-going emerging adults, Journal of Adolescence (2010), doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.11.008


7

students. We explored whether White American students who identified with a specific nationality (e.g., Italian) accounted for high exploration at high levels of family cultural socialization. A majority of students labeled themselves with the term ‘‘Caucasian’’ and ‘‘White’’ (73%), and only a handful identified with a specific nationality. Thus, we could not determine whether specific White ethnic groups accounted for the unexpected pattern. Perhaps because it may be more uncommon for White families to socialize their children to explore their cultural background, the effects are amplified, particularly at a university with such a high level of ethnic diversity and White students are in the minority. Or, it may be the case that ethnic minorities have a greater variety of experiences, such as discrimination (Garcia-Coll et al., 1996), awareness of ethnic underrepresentation (Syed & Azmitia, 2008), or cultural conflict (Portes & Rumbaut, 1996), in addition to family cultural socialization, that may prompt an exploration of one’s ethnic background. We speculate that for White students, because the ‘‘triggers’’ for ethnic identity exploration may be fewer, exploration may depend more on whether the family emphasizes cultural socialization. Nonetheless, to test this proposition, future research should include other important college contexts, such as student organizations or peer relationships, to assess the relative contribution of the family. Limitations and future research This study had several limitations. The first limitation was the aggregation of different ethnic groups. Future research should consider both the similarities as well as differences in ethnic identity within the pan-ethnic groups. For instance, variations within the Mixed-ethnic group needs to be explored in greater detail, such as considering the specific ethnic combination (e.g., Asian-White versus Asian-Black). The second limitation was the correlational nature of the study. Perhaps individuals with stronger ethnic identities demonstrate a greater interest in their ethnic background and, consequently, solicit greater cultural socialization from their families. Longitudinal research is needed to clarify the direction of effects. The third limitation was that the family cultural socialization measure did not explicitly define ‘‘family’’. Future research with emerging adults should clarify to the participants that the items refer to the family they grew up with. It would also be worthwhile to examine how racial socialization, in conjunction with cultural socialization (Hughes et al., 2006), uniquely contributes to ethnic identity. Anecdotal evidence suggests that for some ethnic groups, parents are not likely to engage in racial socialization (Garrod & Kilkenny, 2007). What are the consequences to youth’s ethnic identity development in the absence of this type of socialization? Finally, in addition to self-report data, future research could gather data from parents to corroborate emerging adults’ perceptions of their family cultural socialization. Conclusions Our study extends the literature on ethnic identity by examining family cultural socialization in a diverse group of emerging adults. The finding that family cultural socialization accounts for the frequently observed ethnic differences in exploration helps to advance a dynamic conceptualization of ethnic identity. Furthermore, by highlighting the continued importance of the family for identity development beyond adolescence, we hope to contribute to the growing understanding of how ethnic identity develops within multiple interpersonal contexts. References Aquilino, W. S. (2006). Family relationships and support systems in emerging adulthood. In J. J. Arnett, & J. L. Tanner (Eds.), Emerging adults in America: Coming of age in the 21st century (pp. 193–217). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. Arnett, J. J., & Tanner, J. L. (2006). Emerging adults in America: Coming of age in the 21st century. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. Azmitia, M., Syed, M., & Radmacher, K. A. (2008). On the intersection of personal and social identities: introduction and evidence from a longitudinal study of emerging adults. In M. Azmitia, M. Syed, & K. A. Radmacher (Eds.), The intersections of personal and social identities: New directions for child and adolescent development (pp. 1–16). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Berry, J. W. (2003). Conceptual approaches to acculturation. In K. Chun, P. Balls-Organista, & G. Martin (Eds.), Acculturation: Advances in theory, measurement, and applied research (pp. 17–37). Washington: American Psychological Association Press. ˜ a-Taylor, A. J. (2004). Examining ethnic identity and self-esteem among biracial and monoracial adolescents. Journal of Bracey, J. R., Ba´maca, M. Y., & Uman Youth and Adolescence, 33, 123–132. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard. Cheng, S. H., & Kuo, W. H. (2000). Family socialization of ethnic identity among Chinese American pre-adolescents. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 31(4), 463–484. Cokley, K. (2007). Critical issues in the measurement of ethnic and racial identity: a referendum on the state of the field. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54, 224–234. Dion, K., & Dion, L. (2001). Gender and cultural adaptation in immigrant families. Journal of Social Issues, 57(3), 511–521. Diverse Issues in Higher Education (2008). Top 100 graduate degree producers. Retrieved from http://diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_11265. shtml Eccles, J., Templeton, J., Barber, B., & Stone, M. (2003). Adolescence and emerging adulthood: the critical passage ways to adulthood. In M. H. Bornstein, L. Davidson, C. L. M. Keyes, & K. A. Moore (Eds.), Well-being: Positive development across the lifespan (pp. 383–406). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Erikson, E. (1968). Identity, youth and crisis. New York: Norton. Fuligni, A. J., Kiang, L., Witkow, M. R., & Baldelomar, O. (2008). Stability and change in ethnic labeling among adolescents from Asian and Latin American immigrant families. Child Development, 79, 944–956. Garcia Coll, C., Crnic, K., Lamberty, G., Wasik, B. H., Jenkins, R., Garcia, H. V., et al. (1996). An integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in minority children. Child Development, 67, 1891–1914. Garrod, A., & Kilkenny, R. (2007). Balancing two worlds: Asian American college students tell their life stories. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Habermas, T., & Bluck, S. (2000). The emergence of the life story in adolescence. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 248–269. Hollingshead, A. B. (1957). Two factor index of social position. New Haven, CT: Yale Station.


ARTICLE IN PRESS 8


Hughes, D., Rodriquez, 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 Psychology, 42(5), 747–770. Johnson, D. (2003). The ecology of children’s racial coping: family, school, and community influences. In T. Weisner (Ed.), Discovering successful pathways in children’s development (pp. 84–109). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kiang, L., Yip, T., Gonzales-Backen, M., Witkow, M., & Fuligni, A. J. (2006). Ethnic identity and the daily psychological well-being of adolescents from Mexican and Chinese backgrounds. Child Development, 77(5), 1338–1350. Lee, R., & Yoo, H. C. (2004). Structure and measurement of ethnic identity for Asian American college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51(2), 263– 269. Lerner, R. (1996). Relative plasticity, integration, temporality, and diversity in human development: a developmental contextual perspective about theory, process, and method. Developmental Psychology, 32(4), 781–786. Luyckx, K., Goossens, L., Soenens, B., & Beyers, W. (2006). Unpacking commitment and exploration: validation of an integrative model of adolescent identity formation. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 361–378. Marcia, J. (1980). Identity in adolescence. In J. Adelson (Ed.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (pp. 159–197). New York: Wiley. Martinez, R. O., & Dukes, R. L. (1997). The effects of ethnic identity, ethnicity, and gender on adolescent well-being. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26(5), 503–516. McAdams, D. (2001). The psychology of life stories. Review of General Psychology, 5, 100–122. Phinney, J. S., & Alipuria, L. L. (1990). Ethnic identity in college students from four ethnic groups. Journal of Adolescence, 13(2), 171–183. Phinney, J. S. (1992). The multigroup ethnic identity measure: a new scale for use with diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7, 156–176. Phinney, J. S. (2003). Ethnic identity and acculturation. In K. M. Chun, P. B. Organista, & G. Marin (Eds.), Acculturation: Advances in theory, measurement, and applied research. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. Phinney, J. S. (2006). Ethnic identity exploration in emerging adulthood. In J. J. Arnett, & J. L. Tanner (Eds.), Emerging adults in America: Coming of age in the 21st century (pp. 117–134). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Phinney, J. S., Cantu, C., & Kurtz, D. (1997). Ethnic and American identity as predictors of self-esteem among African American, Latino, and White adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26(2), 165–185. Phinney, J. S., & Ong, A. D. (2007). Added conceptualization and measurement of ethnic identity: current status and future directions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54(3), 271–281. Phinney, J. S., Romero, I., Nava, M., & Huang, D. (2001). The role of language, parents, and peers in ethnic identity among adolescents in immigrant families. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 30(2), 135–153. Ping, Y., & Berryman, D. L. (1996). The relationship among self-esteem, acculturation, and recreation participation of recently arrived Chinese immigrant adolescents. Journal of Leisure Research, 28, 251–273. Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (1996). Immigrant America: A portrait (2nd ed.). Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. Roberts, R. E., Phinney, J. S., Masse, L. C., Chen, Y. R., Roberts, C. R., & Romero, A. (1999). The structure of ethnic identity of young adolescents from diverse ethnocultural groups. Journal of Early Adolescence, 19, 301–322. Rogoff, B., Moore, L., Najafi, B., Dexter, A., Correa-Cha´vez, M., & Solis, J. (2007). Children’s development of cultural repertoires through participation in everyday routines and practices. In J. Grusec, & P. D. Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of socialization: Theory and research (pp. 490–515). New York: Guilford Press. Schwartz, S., Zamboanga, B. L., Rodriquez, L., & Wang, S. C. (2007). The structure of cultural identity in an ethnically diverse sample of emerging adults. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29(2), 159–173. Sua´rez-Orozco, C., & Qin, D. (2006). Gendered perspectives in psychology: immigrant origin youth. International Migration Review, 40(1), 165–198. Stack, C. (1974). All our kin: Strategies for survival in a black community. New York: Basic Books. Supple, A., Ghazarian, S. R., Frabutt, J. M., Plunkett, S. W., & Sands, T. (2006). Contextual influences on Latino adolescent ethnic identity and academic outcomes. Child Development, 77(5), 1427–1433. Syed, M., & Azmitia, M. (2008). A narrative approach to ethnic identity in emerging adulthood: bringing life to the identity status model. Developmental Psychology, 44, 1012–1027. Syed, M., & Azmitia, M. (2009). Longitudinal trajectories of ethnic identity during the college years. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 19(4), 601–624. Tsai, J. L., Ying, Y.-W., & Lee, P. A. (2001). Cultural predictors of self-esteem: a study of Chinese American female and male young adults. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 7, 284–297. ˜ a-Taylor, A. J. (2001). Ethnic identity development among Mexican-origin Latino adolescents living in the U.S. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Uman University of Missouri, Columbia. ˜ a-Taylor, A. J., Bhanot, R., & Shin, N. (2006). Ethnic identity formation during adolescence: the critical role of families. Journal of Family Issues, 27(3), Uman 390–414. ˜ a-Taylor, A. J., Yazedjian, A., & Ba´maca-Go´mez, M. (2004). Developing the ethnic identity scale using Eriksonian and social identity perspectives. Uman Identity, 4(1), 9–38. U.S. News and World Report (2009). America’s best colleges: campus ethnic diversity. Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/bestcolleges/2009/03/17/americas-best-colleges-campus-ethnic-diversity.html Way, N., & Chen, L. (2000). Close and general friendships among African American, Latino, and Asian American adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15, 274–301.
