Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2023 Jul 4.
Published in final edited form as: J Youth Adolesc. 2021 Sep 3;50(12):2412–2426. doi: 10.1007/s10964-021-01487-z

Antecedents and Consequences of Discrepant Perceptions of Racial Socialization between Parents and Adolescents within Mexican-Origin Families

Shanting Chen 1, Elizabeth Jelsma 1, Yang Hou 2, Aprile Benner 1, Su Yeong Kim 1
PMCID: PMC10319340  NIHMSID: NIHMS1908443  PMID: 34480295

Abstract

Parents and adolescents often have different views regarding parental racial socialization practices; however, studies documenting such discrepancies remain scarce. Using a person-centered approach, this study investigated patterns of parent–adolescent discrepant views on racial socialization (i.e., cultural socialization, bias coping, bias awareness) as well as antecedents and consequences of the discrepancy profiles. Participants were 604 adolescents (54% female, Mage = 12.41, Rangeage = 11–15) and their mothers and fathers. The results showed distinct discrepancy patterns and suggested that more maternal/paternal warmth was associated with profiles that have smaller discrepancies or profiles in which adolescents reported higher socialization than parents. Adolescents who reported higher or similar socialization as parents demonstrated better adjustment. Implications for interventions aimed at strengthening parent–child relationships and communication about race and culture are discussed.

Keywords: Parental racial socialization, Mexican-origin families, Discrepancy between parent and adolescents, Adolescent well-being

Introduction

Racial socialization is commonly practiced within Latina/x/o families to promote positive child development and to combat the harmful effects of discrimination (García Coll et al., 1996; Williams et al., 2020). For example, one nationally representative study showed that 46% of Latina/x/o parents reported talking to their children about ethnic/racial heritage culture several times a month or more (Lesane-Brown et al., 2010). However, parents’ communication about race and ethnicity may not be uniformly successful, as it is a dynamic and complex process involving verbal, nonverbal, intended, and unintended messages regarding race/ethnicity. Children can also misinterpret, ignore, or even reject the socialization messages that are delivered by their parents (Hughes, Hagelskamp, et al., 2009). Thus, discrepancies may emerge between the messages that parents transmit and those that adolescents receive. Empirical knowledge regarding the discrepancies between parents’ and adolescents’ perceptions of the racial socialization process is generally limited, however, even more so for Latina/x/o families.

Based on the modified Operations Triad Model (De Los Reyes & Ohannessian, 2016), a framework for understanding discrepancies among multiple informants’ reports, there may be unique patterns of parent–adolescent discrepancies in perceived parental racial socialization practices, and these discrepancies may reflect meaningful aspects of family functioning and have significant implications for Latina/x/o adolescents’ adjustment. The current study aimed to identify distinct patterns of parent–adolescent discrepancies in their perceptions of racial-ethnic socialization as well as the antecedents and consequences of the observed discrepancy profiles. The current study focused on Mexican-origin families in the United States, as they are the largest subset of the growing Latina/x/o population in the U.S. (U.S. Census, 2017), and racial socialization practices are particularly salient with Mexican-origin families (Park et al., 2020).

Racial Socialization in Mexican-origin Families

The integrative model of minority child development suggests that family members play a key role in socializing children around heritage culture, values, and practices (García Coll et al., 1996). This process, termed racial socialization, is an important cultural asset for ethnic/minority families as it plays a central role in promoting developmental competencies for children of color (García Coll et al., 1996; Hughes et al., 2006). A recent meta-analysis found that, among Latina/x/o adolescents, racial socialization is positively related to self-perception and interpersonal relationship quality (Wang, Henry, et al., 2020).

Racial socialization is a complex and multidimensional construct (Umaña-Taylor & Hill, 2020), with the two most commonly researched dimensions being cultural socialization and preparation for bias. Cultural socialization refers to the practices that instill ethnic pride in children by emphasizing the history and accomplishments of their culture. Cultural socialization is generally associated with positive youth development as it cultivates within youth a strong ethnic identity and higher self-esteem (Hughes et al., 2006; Umaña-Taylor & Hill, 2020) and has been linked to adaptive outcomes such as lower substance use (Guilamo-Ramos, 2009; Marsiglia et al., 2001) and psychological distress (Umaña-Taylor et al., 2014) as well as increased academic self-efficacy and social competence among Latina/x/o and Mexican-origin youth (Umaña-Taylor et al., 2014).

Preparation for bias refers to messages that promote children’s understanding of and skills for coping with racial prejudice and discrimination. Prior research has produced mixed findings regarding the consequences of preparation for bias for adolescent adjustment (Wang, Henry, et al., 2020). Although some scholars have found that preparation for bias is associated with favorable Latina/x/o youth outcomes, such as increased academic self-efficacy and social competence as well as decreased depressive symptoms and externalizing behaviors (Huynh & Fuligni, 2008; Umaña-Taylor et al., 2014), others found that frequent preparation for bias messages from parents put Mexican-origin adolescents at risk for lower self-esteem when faced with familial race-related stressors (Espinoza et al., 2016). A recent meta-analysis on racial socialization suggested that one possible reason for such mixed findings is the failure to differentiate between awareness-inducing and coping-focused components of preparation for bias (Wang, Henry, et al., 2020). Indeed, parents who talk to children about racial bias do not always inform children about cognitive and behavioral coping strategies to deal with discrimination, and most studies treat preparation for bias as a unidimensional rather than a multidimensional construct. Thus, heeding the call raised by this meta-analysis (Wang, Henry, et al., 2020), the current study examined the awareness-inducing and coping-focused aspects of preparation for bias separately.

Parent–Adolescent Discrepancies in Racial Socialization

The Operations Triad Model, a framework for understanding discrepancies among multiple informants’ reports (De Los Reyes & Ohannessian, 2016), suggests that informants may converge (i.e., Converging Operations) or diverge (i.e., Diverging Operations) in their reports of parenting behaviors. It is possible that adolescents may also differ from their parents in what they perceive and interpret as racial socialization messaging. Adolescents demonstrate an increased need for autonomy and independence compared to younger children (Collins & Laursen, 2004), which may give rise to communication difficulties between parents and adolescents. Thus, it is possible for parents’ communication about race/ethnicity to be misinterpreted, ignored, or rejected by the adolescents, resulting in adolescents reporting a lower level of racial socialization messages than their parents. However, with advancing cognitive skills, adolescents develop better perspective-taking and critical thinking skills (Collins & Laursen, 2004), which may actually help them gain a deeper understanding of their parents’ intentions in the socialization messages. In this case, adolescents may endorse higher levels of parental socialization than their parents do. Therefore, it is important to investigate possible congruent and discrepant patterns to gain a more comprehensive understanding of racial socialization processes during adolescence.

Empirical studies examining the correspondence between parents’ and adolescents’ perceptions of parental socialization processes in Latina/x/o families are quite limited; thus, the current study turns to research with African American samples, racially diverse samples, and sometimes White samples for further insights. The few prior studies that include reports of parental racial socialization from both parents and children have found that the relations between parent and youth reports were weak (Hughes, Hagelskamp, et al., 2009; Thomas & King, 2007). For example, a study with African American mother–daughter dyads found that the correlations between mothers’ and daughters’ reports of cultural pride reinforcement and alertness to discrimination were small and non-significant (Thomas & King, 2007). Similarly, a qualitative study with a diverse ethnic/racial sample including Latina/x/o youth found that it was common for adolescents to describe messages that their mothers did not report having communicated while also not recalling messages that their mothers described in great detail (Hughes et al., 2007).

Parent–Adolescent Relationship Quality Predicting Discrepancy Profiles

To advance the understanding of the potential processes underlying parent–adolescent discordance in views of parental racial socialization, it is important to understand why such discrepancies may occur. The Diverging Operations concept of the Modified Operations Triad Model (De Los Reyes & Ohannessian, 2016) suggests that divergence in parents’ and adolescents’ perceptions of parenting may reveal meaningful dynamics related to parent–adolescent relationship quality. Similarly, the integrative model of parenting suggests that parent–child relationship can influence children’s willingness to be socialized and thus may influence the efficacy of parental socialization effort (Darling & Steinberg, 1993). Consistent with these theories, a study with an ethnically diverse sample including Latina/x/o youth found that parent–adolescent discordance in ratings of parenting reflected poorer parent–adolescent relationship quality, indicated by high levels of alienation and a lack of communication and trust between parents and adolescents (Maurizi et al., 2012). Similarly, another study found that discrepancies in parent and adolescent reports of family functioning were related to more negative outcomes among Latina/x/o adolescents (Córdova et al., 2012). Regarding the current study, when parents and youth have higher quality relationships, racial socialization messages may be better transmitted and received, resulting in higher levels of concordance and thus smaller discrepancies in perceptions of parental racial socialization practices.

Discrepancies in Parent and Adolescent Reports of Racial Socialization: Adaptive or Maladaptive for Adolescent Adjustment?

The modified Operations Triad Model (De Los Reyes & Ohannessian, 2016) proposes that parent–adolescent discrepancies in parenting (e.g., racial socialization) can either be adaptive or maladaptive for adolescent adjustment. If discrepancies are related to adolescents’ assertion for independence and autonomy (Guion et al., 2009), such discrepancies may reflect normative developmental processes that occur during adolescence. In contrast, if discrepancies reflect problematic family functioning (De Los Reyes & Ohannessian, 2016), they would likely be maladaptive for adolescent adjustment. Empirical evidence documenting implications of parent–adolescent discrepancies in parenting perceptions is inconsistent. For example, a study with a sample of Israeli families found that greater mother–daughter discrepancies in perceptions of maternal parenting behaviors were associated with higher levels of daughters’ individuality (Sher-Censor et al., 2012). However, another set of studies found that discrepancies between parents and adolescents were related to worse adolescent outcomes, including more substance use behaviors (Abar et al., 2015) in a majority White sample as well as higher levels of internalizing problems and lower social competence in a majority Black sample (Guion et al., 2009).

These inconsistent findings may be explained, at least in part, by the various approaches used in conceptualizing discrepancies between parent and youth reports (Hou et al., 2020). Most of the previously mentioned studies use a difference score (i.e., a variable-centered approach) between parents’ and adolescents’ reports in determining discrepancies (Abar et al., 2015; Guion et al., 2009). This approach, however, provides redundant statistical information with the two-component scores and thus adds little information about the psychological construct of discrepancy (De Los Reyes & Ohannessian, 2016; Hou et al., 2020). Recently, a few studies have adopted a person-centered approach to examine parent–adolescent discordance in perceptions of parenting (e.g., De Los Reyes et al., 2010 used a majority Black sample; Hou et al., 2018 used a Mexican American sample; Rote & Smetana, 2016 used a majority White sample). Although these studies examined different aspects of parenting (i.e., warmth, monitoring, reasoning), they consistently identified three distinct patterns of parents’ and adolescents’ reports of parenting: minimal discrepancies, adolescent overreporting compared to parents, and adolescents underreporting compared to parents. The findings also suggested that negative adjustment was more common when adolescents underreported relative to their parents, whereas positive adjustment was more common for adolescents who overreported relative to their parents.

These studies, however, used difference scores as indicators of discrepancies, which has been critiqued by some scholars (De Los Reyes & Ohannessian, 2016) and can create challenges in differentiating low versus high levels of parenting within the convergence group (i.e., the group wherein adolescents and parents display minimal discrepancies). To address these issues, the current study adopted a person-centered approach using raw scores for parent and adolescent reports (rather than discrepancy scores) to identify more nuanced convergence and divergence patterns across multiple dimensions of racial socialization, an important aspect of parenting in Mexican-origin families (Williams et al., 2020) and then linked those patterns (i.e., profiles) to adolescent adjustment. The current study examined both adolescents’ socioemotional and academic outcomes to gain a comparative and comprehensive understanding of the influence of discrepancies in reports of racial socialization on adolescent development, as parent–adolescent discrepancies in general parenting were differentially related to adolescents’ socioemotional and academic outcomes in prior work (Hou et al., 2018).

Current Study

The current study was designed to answer three main research questions using a longitudinal dataset of Mexican-origin adolescents and their parents. First, the current study used a person-centered approach to identify distinct discrepancy profiles of mother–adolescent and father–adolescent dyads related to perceptions of three dimensions of parental racial socialization practices simultaneously (i.e., cultural socialization, bias awareness, bias coping). Based on the parenting dissonance literature, it was hypothesized that four profiles in parent–adolescent discrepancies on racial socialization practices would emerge: one group where adolescents have higher ratings than parents, one group showing the reverse pattern, one group where adolescents and parents converged on high levels of socialization, and one group converging on low levels of socialization. Second, guided by recent research suggesting the importance of distinguishing parental warmth from parental hostility as they represent two orthogonal dimensions of parent–child relationships, the current study examined whether parental warmth and hostility influenced membership in the discrepancy profiles. It was hypothesized that parent–child relationships that were warmer and less hostile would be more likely to have high levels of or little disagreement in their perceptions of parental racial socialization practices compared to other profiles. Lastly, the current study examined the influence of parent–adolescent discrepancy profiles on adolescents’ socioemotional and academic outcomes. Based on the past literature, it was hypothesized that adolescents in the profile that is characterized by adolescents underreporting racial socialization compared to their parents would have worse adjustment, and adolescents in the profile converging on high levels of socialization would have better adjustment compared to the other profiles.

Method

Participants

Data for the current investigation were from a two-wave longitudinal study of 604 Mexican American immigrant families (Nadolescents = 604, Nmothers = 595, Nfathers = 293) residing in and around a metropolitan city in central Texas. At Wave 1, data were collected when adolescents were in sixth through eighth grades (Mage= 12.41, SD = 0.97). Around 80% of the families remained at Wave 2 one year later. Slightly over half of the adolescents in the sample were female (N = 328, 54.3%), and most adolescent participants were born in the U.S. (N = 455, 75.3%). Both the mean and median annual family income was between $20,001 to $30,000, with a majority of the families (89%) reporting annual family incomes lower than $50,001. For both fathers and mothers, the mean and median highest education level were finished middle school. The majority of the parents were born in Mexico (father 98.6%, mother 99.3%). Attrition analyses were conducted to compare families who participated in both waves to those who had dropped out at Wave 2 on demographic variables. No differences were found between groups except that for families that continued participating, parents tended to have higher education (t mother (591) = 2.41, p < 0.05; t father (291) = 3.13, p < 0.01).

Procedures

Participants were recruited through public records, school presentations, and community recruitment from 2012 to 2015. To qualify for participation, parents were required to be of Mexican origin with a child in middle school who translated for at least one parent. A family visit was scheduled to obtain parents’ consent and adolescents’ assent after families were screened for eligibility. Bilingual and bicultural interviewers read questions aloud and entered participants’ responses on a laptop computer with the survey available in both English and Spanish languages. Families that participated were compensated $60 and $90 at Wave 1 and 2.

Measures

Racial socialization and parent–child relationship indicators were measured at Wave 1. Adolescents’ socioemotional and academic outcomes were measured at Wave 2. Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations of the study variables are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive of studied variables

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 N Mean SD
1. Cultural socialization (PR) − 0.20** 0.33** −0.01 0.33** 0.03 0.09 0 0.03 0.07 0.01 0.02 −0.03 −0.04 −0.07 288 3.30 0.86
2. Cultural socialization (AR) 0.06 − 0.01 0.49** −0.01 0.49** 0.49** −0.07 0.12** 0.19** 0.21** −0.14** −0.09 0.20** 0.18** 566 3.04 1.00
3. Bias coping (PR) 0.21** 0.09* − 0.05 0.50** 0.01 0.13* 0 0.02 −0.01 −0.02 0.08 0.02 0.04 0.00 288 3.99 0.88
4. Bias coping (AR) 0 0.37** 0.16** − −0.04 0.572** 0.45** −0.03 0.10* 0.18** 0.17** −0.15** −0.10* 0.14** 0.17** 562 3.48 1.24
5. Preparation for bias (PR) 0.37** 0.13** 0.42** 0.12** − 0.04 −0.03 0.08 −0.09 −0.08 −0.04 0.06 −0.03 −0.01 0.01 288 3.35 1.17
6. Preparation for bias (AR) −0.02 0.35** 0.08* 0.50** 0.12** − 0.31** 0.05 0.12* 0.10* 0.15** −0.03 0.01 0.12* 0.10* 561 2.62 1.27
7. Warmth 0.04 0.48** 0.10* 0.47** 0.12** 0.28** − −0.22** 0.24** 0.24** 0.25** −0.27** −0.24** 0.22** 0.26** 558 4.95 1.47
8. Hostility 0.04 −0.15** 0.07 −0.09* 0 −0.01 −0.28** − −0.02 −0.13** −0.09 0.10* 0.14** −0.09 −0.13** 559 2.31 1.04
9. Self-reported grades 0.10* 0.10* 0.02 0.09 0.05 0.07 0.21** −0.11* − 0.25** 0.42** −0.17** −0.04 0.15** 0.11* − − −
10. Effortful control −0.02 0.20** −0.02 0.14** −0.01 0.14** 0.33** −0.22** 0.25** − 0.60** −0.29** −0.23** 0.33** 0.35** − − −
11. School engagement −0.05 0.17** 0.02 0.17** 0 0.13** 0.30** −0.17** 0.42** 0.60** − −0.30** −0.24** 0.38** 0.39** − − −
12. Depressive symptoms 0.01 −0.06 0.04 −0.07 0.07 0.01 −0.27** 0.22** −0.17** −0.29** −0.30** − 0.63** −0.30** −0.34** − − −
13. Anxiety 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.01 0.03 0.02 −0.17** 0.23** −0.04 −0.23** −0.24** 0.63** − −0.20** −0.26** − − −
14. Life meaning 0.06 0.13** 0.02 0.17** 0.02 0.14** 0.30** −0.13** 0.15** 0.33** 0.38** −0.30** −0.20** − − − −
15. Resilience 0.08 0.08 0.05 0.14** 0.05 0.09* 0.25** −0.09* 0.11* 0.35** 0.39** −0.34** −0.26** 0.51** − − − −
N 593 603 590 599 589 603 604 604 482 483 483 483 483 483 483
Mean 3.24 3.23 4.31 3.63 3.64 2.57 5.18 2.76 3.49 3.74 3.88 1.55 1.72 3.69 3.54
SD 0.85 0.86 0.77 1.15 1.24 1.23 1.27 1.12 0.8 0.63 0.58 0.39 0.65 0.78 0.65
Open in a new tab

Statistics above the diagonal are for father-child dyads; statistics below the diagonal are for father-child dyads PR parent report, AR adolescent report

*

p<0.05;

**

p<0.01

Racial socialization

Three racial socialization subscales were adapted from existing measures (Umaña-Taylor et al., 2004). Mothers and fathers reported their own racial socialization practices, and adolescents separately reported their father’s and mother’s racial socialization practices on parallel items. Cultural socialization consisted of three items such as “I teach my child about his/her ethnic/cultural background” for the parental report and “My mother (or father) teaches me about my ethnic/cultural background” for the adolescent report. The rating scale ranged from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). Mean scores were created, with higher scores indicating higher levels of cultural socialization. The internal consistency of cultural socialization across reporters was high (α range = 0.77 to 0.84). Bias awareness was measured by one item: “I talk to my child about the possibility that some people might treat him/her badly or unfairly because he/she is Mexican” for the parental report and “My mother (or father) talks to me about the possibility that some people might treat me badly or unfairly because I am Mexican” for the adolescent report with a scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (very often). Bias coping was measured by one item: “I talk to my child about what to do if someone insults or harasses him/her” for the parent report and “My mother (or father) talks to me about what to do if someone insults or harasses me” for the adolescent report. The scale ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (very often).

Psychometric properties (e.g., item-total correlations, inter-item correlations, and criterion validity) of the three racial socialization measures were examined. For cultural socialization, the item-total correlations ranged from r = 0.78 to 0.92 across adolescents’, fathers’, and mothers’ reports. The inter-item correlations ranged from r = 0.44 to 0.78 across adolescents’, fathers’, and mothers’ reports. As bias awareness and bias coping only had one item, item-total correlations and inter-item correlations were not available. For criterion validity, the links between the three racial socialization scales with adolescents’ reports of ethnic identity (i.e., centrality, exploration, and resolution) were examined. The results suggest that the three racial socialization scales were related in expected ways to ethnic identity (see Table 4 in the appendix), such that higher levels of cultural socialization, bias coping, and preparation for bias were generally associated with a stronger sense of centrality, exploration, and resolution for adolescents. Together, this information suggests that the three racial socialization measures demonstrated adequate psychometric validity.

Parent–child relationship

Adolescents self-reported two aspects of parent–child relationship at Wave 1. Items assessing perceived parental warmth and hostility were adapted from the Iowa Youth and Families Projects (Ge et al., 1996). Adolescents reported their perception of parental warmth and hostility separately for fathers and mothers using a scale ranging from 1 (never) to 7 (always). Parental warmth was measured with seven items (e.g., act supportive and understanding) and parental hostility was measured with six items (e.g., get into a fight or argument) with high internal consistency (α range = 0.84 to 0.93). Higher mean scores represented higher levels of warmth and hostility.

Adolescent academic outcomes

Adolescents reported on three academic outcomes at Wave 2. Adolescents self-reported their grades on a scale ranging from 1 (excellent) to 5 (very below average). The scale was reverse coded so that higher scores indicated better academic performance. Effortful control was measured using four items (e.g., I can stick with my plans and goals; Valiente et al., 2008). School engagement was assessed using four items (e.g., I am motivated to get good grades in school; Hou et al., 2018b). All measures, except for self-reported grades, were assessed using a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and were averaged across items with higher mean scores representing better academic outcomes. Cronbach’s alphas for these measures ranged from 0.76 to 0.82.

Adolescent socioemotional outcomes

Adolescents reported four socioemotional outcomes at Wave 2. Depressive symptoms were measured using the 20-item Center for Epidemiologic Studies of Depression Scale (CESD; Radloff, 1977). Adolescents reported on how often during the past week they experienced symptoms such as “bothered by things usually not bothered by” with a scale ranging from 1 (rarely or none of the time) to 4 (most or all of the time). Anxiety was measured using four items e.g., how often were you bothered by feeling nervous (Hou et al., 2018) on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (nearly everyday). Life meaning was measured with three items adapted from the Meaning in Life questionnaire (e.g., “I understand my life’s meaning,” Steger et al., 2006). Resilience was measured using three items from the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (e.g., “I tend to recover easily after an illness or hardship,” Connor & Davidson, 2003). Both life meaning and resilience were assessed using a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Mean scores were created for all measures with higher scores indicating greater endorsement of the socioemotional indicators. All measures had high internal consistency (α range = 0.73 to 0.84).

Analysis Plan

First, to identify distinct discrepancy profiles of parent–adolescent perceptions of parental racial socialization, latent profile analyses (LPA) were conducted separately for mother- and father-adolescent dyads on their reports of three racial socialization indicators (i.e., cultural socialization, preparation for bias, and bias coping) using Mplus 8.2 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998). Mplus uses the full information maximum likelihood (FIML) estimation method to handle missing data. A series of models were specified (i.e., one to six profiles). Decision criteria for class enumeration included (1) smaller values on Bayesian information criterion (BIC) and adjusted Bayesian information criterion (ABIC); (2) a statistically significantly Lo Mendell-Rubin (LMR) test (indicating that the optimal k-class solution better fits the data than the k-1-class solution); and (3) substantive meaning of the identified classes.

Next, the three-step approach within Mplus 8.2 was used to examine the predictors and distal outcomes associated with class membership (Nylund-Gibson et al., 2014). Specifically, the first step is to estimate the best-fitting unconditional model, the second step is to assign each participant to the latent classes, and the third step is to integrate the assigned class membership and predictors or distal outcomes in the same model while correcting the classification error introduced in step 2. The R3STEP command with Mplus (Asparouhov & Muthén, 2014) was used to examine indicators of the parent-child relationship (i.e., warmth, hostility) as predictors of profile membership using, which uses multinomial logistic regression for the third step of the three-step process. To examine the associations between class membership and adolescent socioemotional and academic outcomes at Wave 2, the BCH command in Mplus (Asparouhov & Muthén, 2014) was used, which adopts a weighted multiple group analysis to examine differences in outcome variables across class membership.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

As seen in Table 1, the correlations between parents’ and adolescents’ reports on the same racial socialization construct ranged from r = 0.04 to r = 0.20, suggesting generally low levels of correspondence across parent and child reports.

Latent Profile Modeling of Racial Socialization Discrepancies

Model fit indices of latent profile analyses are presented in Table 2. Based on the model fit indices and the identification of conceptually meaningful and interpretable profiles, the 4-profile solution and the 3-profile solution were identified as the optimal solution for mother- and father-adolescent dyads, respectively. Specifically, for mother–adolescent discrepancies, the ABIC and BIC values started to level off after the four-profile solution. The 4-profile solution had an LMR p value smaller than 0.05 as well as a reasonably high entropy. For father–adolescent discrepancies, the ABIC and BIC values started to level off after the 3-profile solution. The 3-profile solution had an LMR p value smaller than 0.05 and a reasonable sample size in each profile.

Table 2.

Model fit indices for latent profile analysis of racial socialization discrepancies

Log-likelihood N of parameters BIC ABIC Entropy p of LMR Distribution (%)
Mother-adolescent discrepancies in racial socialization
1 profile −5028.656 12 10133.975 10095.878 1.000 n/a 1
2 profiles −486.059 19 9841.502 9781.182 0.865 0.000 28–72
3 profiles −4793.305 26 9752.712 967.170 0.783 0.018 25–18-57
4 profiles −4731.294 33 9673.411 9568.646 0.805 0.007 20–21-9–50
5 profiles −4689.087 40 9633.717 9506.729 0.783 0.004 9–10-18–43-19
6 profiles −4659.67 47 9619.602 947.391 0.802 0.0201 7–17-42–10-5–19
Father-adolescent discrepancies in racial socialization
1 profile −2555.462 12 5179.085 5141.030 1.000 n/a 1
2 profiles −2464.481 19 5036.885 4976.632 0.752 0.000 38–62
3 profiles −2411.311 26 497.306 4887.853 0.839 0.000 8–62-30
4 profiles −2374.526 33 4936.497 4831.845 0.798 0.024 21–29-9–41
5 profiles −2347.129 40 4921.465 4794.614 0.799 0.038 20–9-20–41-9
6 profiles −2322.204 47 4911.375 4762.326 0.804 0.1003 8–14-18–40-9–11
Open in a new tab

The optimal solution was in bold

Figure 1 presents a graphical summary of the racial socialization discrepancies profiles. For the mother–adolescent dyads, the largest class was characterized by high scores on the racial socialization dimensions across mother and adolescent reports with small differences (“High Racial Socialization;” N = 300, 50%). In the second-largest class, mothers reported higher scores across the three racial socialization dimensions than adolescents (“Mother Higher than Adolescent;” N = 123, 21%). In the third-largest class, adolescents reported higher scores across the three racial socialization dimensions than mothers (“Adolescent Higher than Mother;” N = 120, 20%). In the smallest class, both adolescents and mothers reported low scores for the racial socialization dimensions (“Low Racial Socialization;” N = 52, 9%).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Discrepancy profiles of racial-ethnic socialization among mother–adolescent and father–adolescent dyads. A adolescent, M mother, F father

For the 3-profile solution of father–adolescent discrepancies, the largest class was characterized by high scores across racial socialization dimensions for both father and adolescent reports (“High Racial Socialization;” N = 182, 62%), followed by the class in which fathers reported higher scores across racial socialization dimensions than adolescents (“Father Higher than Adolescent;” N = 87, 30%). The smallest class was characterized by low scores for racial socialization across father and adolescent reports (“Low Racial Socialization;” N = 24, 8%).

Predictors of Racial Socialization Discrepancy Profiles

Results from the multinomial logistic regression using the three-step procedure to predict class membership are presented in Table 3. In general, findings suggested that better parent–child relationships (i.e., higher paternal and maternal warmth) were associated with profiles with smaller discrepancies or profiles where adolescents reported higher racial socialization. Specifically, for mother–adolescent dyads, adolescents with higher levels of maternal warmth had a greater likelihood of being in the High Racial Socialization class compared to all other classes. Higher maternal warmth was also associated with a greater likelihood of being in the Adolescent Higher than Mother class compared to Mother Higher than Adolescent and Low Racial Socialization classes. A similar pattern was observed in father–adolescent dyads, wherein adolescents with higher levels of paternal warmth tended to be in the High Racial Socialization class than the Father Higher than Adolescent and Low Racial Socialization classes. Hostility was not predictive of profile memberships across mother–adolescent or father–adolescent dyads.

Table 3.

Logistic regression predicting parent—adolescent racial socialization discrepancy profiles by parent—child relationship quality indicators

MHA vs AHM
 LRS vs AHM
 HRS vs AHM
 LRS vs MHA
 HRS vs MHA
 HRS vs LRS
b OR OR 95% Cl b OR OR 95% Cl b OR OR 95% Cl b OR OR 95% Cl b OR OR 95% Cl b OR OR 95% Cl
Maternal warmth −0.74*** 0.48 (0.35, 0.66) −1.04*** 0.36 (0.23, 0.55) 0.33* 1.39 (1.03, 1.88) −0.30 0.74 (0.52, 1.05) 1.07*** 2.90 (2.18, 3.86) 1.37*** 3.9 (2.65, 5.82)
Maternal hostility −0.20 0.S2 (0.58, 1.17) −0.10 0.90 (0.56, 1.45) 0.07 1.07 (0.81, 1.42) 0.10 1.10 (0.71, 1.7) 0.27 1.30 (0.92, 1.85) 0.17 1.19 (0.77, 1.84)
HRS vs FHA LRS vs FHA HRS vs LRS
Paternal warmth 0.80*** 2.23 (1.61, 3.09) 0.34 1.40 (0.92, 2.13) −0.47* 1.60 (1.06, 2.41)
Paternal hostility 0.29 1.33 (0.92, 1.94) 0.16 1.17 (0.72, 1.9) −0.13 1.14 (0.73, 1.79)
Open in a new tab

Significant findings were in bold

MHA mother higher than adolescent, AHM adolescent higher than mother, LRS low racial socialization, HRS high racial socialization, FHA father higher than adolescent

*

p<0.05;

***

p< 0.001

Racial Socialization Discrepancy Profiles and Adolescent Outcomes

Results from the three-step procedure (i.e., BCH) examining profile membership and educational outcomes suggested that, for mother–adolescent dyads (see Fig. 2a), adolescents in the High Racial Socialization and Adolescent Higher than Mother classes had significantly higher effortful control, school engagement, and school connectedness than adolescents in the Mother Higher than Adolescent class. In addition, adolescents in the High Racial Socialization class had significantly higher self-reported grades than adolescents in the Mother Higher than Adolescent class. For father–adolescent dyads (see Fig. 2b), adolescents in the High Racial Socialization class had significantly higher school engagement than adolescents in the Father Higher than Adolescent class, but no other significant group differences in academics were observed.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Results for association between racial-socialization discrepancy profiles and adolescent outcomes for mother–adolescent dyads (upper) and father–adolescent dyads (lower). Groups with different subscripts differ at p < 0.05 based on a chi-square test. Groups that share a common subscript do not significantly different from each other. AHM Adolescent Higher than Mother, MHA Mother Higher than Adolescent, FHA Father Higher than Adolescent

For socioemotional outcomes (see Fig. 2a), results from the three-step procedure suggest that among mother-adolescent dyads, adolescents in the Mother Higher than Adolescent class had significantly higher depressive symptoms than those in the Adolescent Higher than Mother class. In terms of the positive socioemotional outcomes, adolescents in the High Racial Socialization class reported greater psychological resilience than those in the Mother Higher than Adolescent class and the Low Racial Socialization. Those in the High Racial Socialization also exhibited higher life meaning than those in the Mother Higher than Adolescent class. No significant differences in anxiety were observed across the four classes.

For father–adolescent dyads (see Fig. 2b), adolescents in the High Racial Socialization class had significantly lower levels of depressive symptoms than adolescents in the Father Higher than Adolescent and Low Racial Socialization classes. In terms of the positive socioemotional outcomes, adolescents in the High Racial Socialization class had a stronger sense of life meaning than adolescents in the Father Higher than Adolescent class. No other significant differences across classes were observed.

Discussion

Racial socialization plays a central role within Mexican immigrant families in the United States (Hughes et al., 2006). It is a dynamic and complex process in which adolescents can misinterpret, ignore, or even reject their parents’ socialization messages (Hughes, Hagelskamp, et al., 2009; Umaña-Taylor & Hill, 2020). However, empirical research regarding the discrepancies between parents’ and adolescents’ perceptions of the racial socialization process is generally very limited, even more so for Latina/x/o families. The current study makes a significant contribution to the literature by demonstrating distinct patterns of parent–adolescent discrepancies in perceptions of parental racial socialization across Mexican-origin mother–adolescent and father–adolescent dyads and identifying familial antecedents and adolescent developmental outcomes corresponding with these patterns.

Patterns of Parent–Adolescent Discrepancies

Moving beyond prior studies that utilized difference scores in latent profile analyses (De Los Reyes et al., 2010; Hou et al., 2018; Rote & Smetana, 2016), our person-centered analyses with raw scores uncovered more nuanced patterns of parent–adolescent discrepancies in reports of parental racial socialization within Mexican-origin families. Aligned with the Converging Operations concept of the Modified Operations Triad Model (De Los Reyes & Ohannessian, 2016), the current study uncovered two converging patterns. Specifically, 50% of the mother–adolescent and 62% of the father–adolescent dyads converged into High Racial Socialization profiles, wherein both parents and adolescents reported high parental racial socialization, and 9% of mother–adolescent and 8% of father–adolescent dyads converged as Low Racial Socialization profiles, characterized by reports of low parental racial socialization across parents and adolescents. Taken together, these findings suggest that, in our sample of Mexican-origin families, the majority of adolescents and parents concurred regarding the level of racial socialization transmitted from parents. The Converging Operations concept of the Modified Operations Triad Model (De Los Reyes & Ohannessian, 2016) suggests that converging reports at high levels of protective factors (i.e., high racial socialization) reflects consonance in the understanding of family dynamics and understanding in the relationship, and previous studies of parent–adolescent dyads also mostly find evidence of convergence (Rote & Smetana, 2016). The findings reported here are consistent with other discrepancy research conducted with Latina/x/o families—Hou et al. (2018) and Córdova et al., (2012) found that parents and adolescents generally converged in their reports of general parenting and parent–adolescent communication (not race-related communication). As a result of our person-centered analyses, the current study was able to consider the level of racial socialization being transmitted and identify different types of converging profiles.

Aligned with the Diverging Operations concept of the Modified Operations Triad Model (De Los Reyes & Ohannessian, 2016) and prior studies (Hou et al., 2018; Rote & Smetana, 2016), the current study also identified distinct patterns of diverging reports of parental racial socialization between adolescents and their parents. Specifically, 21% of mother–adolescent dyads were characterized by adolescents reporting higher racial socialization than their mothers. Conversely, 20% of mother–adolescent dyads and 30% of father–adolescent dyads were characterized by parents reporting higher socialization than their adolescents. Within the Adolescent Higher than Mother profile, adolescents may be over-estimating the racial nature of their mothers’ messaging, or perhaps mothers are speaking more honestly and openly about race with their child as their child is maturing. Adolescents in our sample did not report higher racial socialization than their fathers, perhaps suggesting more closeness and communication between mother–adolescent dyads rather than father-adolescent dyads. This may reflect Latina/x/o culture, which views parenting primarily as the mothers’ role (Dumka et al., 2009; Toth & Xu, 1999), and thus Mexican-origin mothers may have more communication, closeness, and opportunity to act as socializing agents compared with fathers. Given that our sample comprised of early adolescents at the time of data collection (6th through 8th grade), it is also possible that young adolescents have not developed the necessary executive functions which aid with perspective-taking and thus may misinterpret or ignore the communications they have with their fathers.

Predictors of Parent–Adolescent Discrepancies

Results from the current study demonstrated that adolescents who reported more maternal warmth were more likely to be in the Adolescent Higher than Mother and High Racial Socialization profiles compared with the other two profiles, and there was a similar pattern for father-adolescent dyads (i.e., adolescents who reported more paternal warmth were more likely to be in the High Racial Socialization profile). Previous research with ethnically diverse samples including Latina/x/o adolescents has identified parental warmth and affection as a facilitator for parent–child communication (Maurizi et al., 2012), and the current study demonstrates that parental warmth can also foster the transmission of racial socialization messages from parent to child. Previous studies have also documented that parental warmth can encourage adolescent receptivity to parental racial socialization (Hernández et al., 2014) and adolescents’ ethnic identity exploration (Umaña-Taylor & Guimond, 2012). A parent–adolescent relationship characterized by parental warmth appears to foster more positive communication and transmission of positive messaging surrounding race and ethnicity for adolescents.

Contrary to our hypotheses, neither maternal nor paternal hostility was useful in distinguishing across the different parent–adolescent classes. Because the early years of adolescence are characterized by dramatic cognitive, social, and emotional changes, research indicates that conflict between early adolescents and their parents is prevalent, often evident in everyday interactions (Allison, 2000). It is possible that as conflict and hostility between adolescents and parents become common during these years, adolescents may become desensitized or less bothered by what they perceive as parental hostility. More research is needed to definitively identify whether parental hostility influences the transmission of race-related messaging from parent to adolescent. In the meantime, in conjunction with previous findings (e.g, Hernández et al., 2014), our results suggest that interventions aimed at promoting parental warmth in order to encourage communication may also be beneficial in promoting the transmission of racial socialization messages from parent to child.

Parent–Adolescent Discrepancies and Subsequent Adolescent Adjustment

In the current study, adolescents who reported high parental racial socialization (High Racial Socialization and Adolescent Higher than Mother profiles) demonstrated better academic (i.e., higher effortful control, school engagement, grades) and socioemotional outcomes (i.e., fewer depressive symptoms, higher life meaning and resilience). In contrast, youth who reported low socialization from their parents (i.e., Mother/Father Higher than Adolescent and Low Racial Socialization) generally demonstrated the poorest academic and socioemotional outcomes. The importance of receiving parental racial socialization for positive youth adjustment has been well-documented (Umaña-Taylor & Hill, 2020; Wang, Henry, et al., 2020; Wang, Smith, et al., 2020), and the current study highlights particular vulnerability for academic difficulty and socioemotional distress among youth who perceive low parental racial socialization. Adolescents who do not receive adequate socialization from their parents may not be as prepared to combat and cope with racial bias and prejudice, and thus may struggle emotionally and academically when faced with race-related stress. Indeed, adequate parental racial socialization (e.g., high cultural socialization and bias coping messaging) has been shown to buffer against the deleterious effects of racial discrimination on the developmental outcomes of racial/ethnic minority generally and Latina/x/o youth specifically (Hughes, Witherspoon, et al., 2009; Huynh & Fuligni, 2008; Umaña-Taylor et al., 2014). Without this buffer of parental communication, which brings awareness of racial bias and coping strategies, racial and ethnic minority youth with low parental racial socialization may incur race-related stress without adequate coping capabilities, and thus they may struggle academically and emotionally. Therefore, educational interventions and mental health practitioners serving racial minority youth could integrate strategies to encourage and facilitate more effective parent–child conversations around racial socialization to bolster academic success and socioemotional well-being, particularly among Mexican-origin youth.

It is also important to note that our results shed light on the mixed findings of the effects of preparation for bias on adolescents outcomes (Wang, Henry, et al., 2020). Specifically, findings reported here suggest that when preparation for bias is communicated in conjunction with higher cultural socialization and bias coping, it seems to be promotive of Mexican-origin adolescents’ well-being. This finding suggests that when parents convey messages that raise awareness of racism and discrimination with their children, they should also be encouraged to share the strategies on how to cope with racism as well as messages of heritage culture and traditions to reap the most benefits from socialization practices.

Within this sample, profile membership was not associated with anxiety symptoms for adolescents. A large proportion of previous studies exploring racial socialization and adolescent socioemotional well-being has solely examined depressive symptoms as the outcome of interest (Liu & Lau, 2013; Park et al., 2020), therefore, less is currently known about the relation between racial socialization and adolescent anxiety. It is possible that anxiety is less related to the facets of racial socialization included in this study and is perhaps more strongly related to other racial experiences, such as discrimination (Kim et al., 2018). More research is needed with Mexican-origin families and more encompassing measures of race-related experiences and conversations to uncover whether different domains of race-related communication may influence Mexican-origin youth anxiety symptoms.

Strengths and Limitations

The current study contributes to the existing literature in several ways. First, the current study focused on Mexican-origin families, which addresses an important gap in the existing parenting discrepancy literature that has mostly centered on White non-Hispanic families (Hou et al., 2020). Second, the current study examined the role of both mothers and fathers in the racial socialization process and found that both parents are important socializing agents in adolescents’ lives. Future research should continuously examine fathers’ involvement to gain a comprehensive understanding of adolescents’ racial socialization experiences within the family. Third, recognizing the multidimensional nature of racial socialization, the current study investigated multiple dimensions of racial socialization simultaneously (i.e., cultural socialization, preparation for bias, and bias coping) and gained a more comprehensive and holistic understanding of the racial socialization processes occurring in Mexican-origin families. Results of the study also contribute to addressing the mixed findings of the effects of preparation for bias on adolescents’ outcomes.

Several caveats, however, should be considered when interpreting the findings reported here. First, although the current study advances racial socialization research by differentiating bias coping from bias awareness (Wang, Henry, et al., 2020), each of these was measured by a single item, thus potentially limiting measurement validity. Future studies should include more comprehensive measures to evaluate these constructs and replicate the current study’s findings. Second, the measures of adolescent outcomes were self-reported, and thus the results may be subjective to same-reporter bias. Future research would benefit from more objective measures such as teacher-reported school engagement or grades drawn from school records. Third, this is a correlational study, and the directionality between the parent–adolescent racial socialization discrepancy profiles and adolescent outcomes cannot be fully ascertained. It is possible that adolescents with better adjustment may have closer relationships with their parents (Laursen & Mooney, 2008), and thus they may show smaller discrepancies in their perceptions of parental racial socialization compared to their parents’ reports. Thus, future studies should examine the potential bidirectional relations between parent–adolescent racial socialization discrepancy and adolescent outcomes. Finally, the generalizability of the findings is influenced by the fact that the sample is comprised of Mexican immigrant families living in Texas, a state with a large Mexican American population, and that adolescent participants in the study had to translate on behalf of a parent. Racial socialization may be practiced differently in areas with larger minority concentrations, among monolingual families, and single-parent or grandparent-headed households. More research is needed to include other geographic areas as well as non-traditional and non-language broker families. That said, prior studies with diverse samples indicated that 71–89% of Mexican-origin youths translated for their parents (Chao, 2006), suggesting this sample is likely reflective of many Latinx/a/o adolescents in the U.S. Moreover, it also is valuable to illuminate the processes and challenges faced by this important segment of the U.S. population using a within-group methodological approach.

Conclusion

Even though racial socialization is commonly practiced within Mexican immigrant families in the United States, parents and adolescents often have discrepant perceptions about parental racial socialization practices. Studies documenting such discrepancies remain scarce. Using a person-centered approach, this study found various patterns of parent–adolescent discrepant views on racial socialization. In addition, the current study found that maternal and parental warmth fosters the transmission of racial socialization messaging from parent to child, as well as high adolescent perceptions of parental racial socialization being beneficial for adolescent well-being and achievement. Parent–adolescent discrepancies in reports of racial socialization can provide important information about family processes, which are useful in understanding adolescent outcomes. Strengthening parent–child communication and closeness as well as encouraging conversations about race and culture between Mexican-origin adolescents and their parents may be important for promoting flourishing and resilience for minority youth and families.

Acknowledgements

Support for this research was provided through awards to Su Yeong Kim from (1) National Science Foundation, Division of Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences, 1651128 and 0956123, (2) National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities 1R21MD012706-01A1 and 3R21MD-012706-02S1, (3) Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development 5R03HD060045-02, (4) Russell Sage Foundation, 2699, (5) Spencer Foundation, 10023427, (6) Hogg Foundation for Mental Health JRG-102, (7) Office of the Vice President for Research and Creative Grant and Special Research Grant from the University of Texas at Austin, (8) College of Natural Sciences Catalyst Grant from the University of Texas at Austin, and (9) Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development 2P2CHD042849-19 grant awarded to the Population Research Center at The University of Texas at Austin. These funding sources had no role other than financial support.

Biographies

Shanting Chen is a doctoral student in the Department of Human Development and Family. Her research interests center on unpacking the physiological and emotional toll of stress (e.g., discrimination) on ethnic minority adolescents’ well-being.

Elizabeth Jelsma is a doctoral student in Human Development and Family Sciences at The University of Texas at Austin. Elizabeth’s research investigates how racial discrimination influences health and well-being for racial/ethnic minority youth and adult populations. She studies the effects of racial discrimination on human development from multiple contextual perspectives.

Yang Hou is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Family Sciences at the University of Kentucky. Her program of research seeks to comprehensively understand how environmental (i.e., sociocultural, family, school, and peer) factors and biological factors (e.g., sex, gene, disease) influence child and adolescent development in socioemotional, behavioral, cognitive, academic, and health domains.

Aprile Benner is an associate professor at the University of Texas at Austin. Her major research interests focus on the development of low-income and race/ethnic minority youth, investigating how social contexts influence experiences of marginalization and discrimination, school transitions, and developmental outcomes during adolescence.

Su Yeong Kim is a Professor in the Department of Human Development and Family Sciences at the University of Texas at Austin. Her research interests include the role of cultural and family contexts that shape the development of adolescents in immigrant and minority families in the U.S.

Appendix

Table 4.

Correlations of racial socialization constructs with ethnic identity

Centrality Exploration Resolution
Cultural socialization (FR) 0.059 0.080 0.138*
Cultural socialization (ARF) 0.277** 0.455** 0.399**
Bias coping (FR) 0.041 0.025 0.018
Bias coping (ARF) 0.184** 0.296** 0.259**
Preparation for bias (FR) 0.018 −0.033 0.027
Preparation for bias (ARF) 0.153** 0.328** 0.259**
Cultural socialization (MR) 0.086* 0.061 0.056
Cultural socialization (ARM) 0.296** 0.522** 0.436**
Bias coping (MR) 0.055 0.065 0.072
Bias coping (ARM) 0.157** 0.272** 0.294**
Preparation for bias (MR) 0.067 0.090* 0.101*
Preparation for bias (ARM) 0.151** 0.311** 0.236**
Open in a new tab

FR father report, MR mother report, ARF adolescent report of father, ARM adolescent report of mother

*

p < 0.05;

**

p < 0.01

Footnotes

Conflict of Interest The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical Approval All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this type of study formal consent is not required.

Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Data Sharing and Declaration

Data for this manuscript’s data will not be deposited.

References

  1. Abar CC, Jackson KM, Colby SM, & Barnett NP (2015). Parent–child discrepancies in reports of parental monitoring and their relationship to adolescent alcohol-related behaviors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(9), 1688–1701. 10.1007/s10964-014-0143-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Allison BN (2000). Parent–adolescent conflict in early adolescence. Research and implications for middle school programs. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education, 18(2), 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  3. Asparouhov T, & Muthén B (2014). Auxiliary variables in mixture modeling: Three-step approaches using Mplus. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(3), 329–341. 10.1080/10705511.2014.915181. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Chao RK (2006). The prevalence and consequences of adolescents’ language brokering fortTheir immigrant parents. In M.H. Bornstein & L.R. Cote (Eds.), Acculturation and parent–child relationships: measurement and development (pp. 271–296). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  5. Collins WA, & Laursen B (2004). Changing relationships, changing youth: Interpersonal contexts of adolescent development. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 24(1), 55–62. 10.1177/0272431603260882. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Connor KM, & Davidson JRT (2003). Development of a new resilience scale: the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Depression & Anxiety (1091–4269), 18(2), 76. 10.1002/da.10113. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Córdova D, Huang S, Pantin H, & Prado G (2012). Do the effects of a family intervention on alcohol and drug use vary by nativity status? Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 26(3), 655–660. 10.1037/a0026438. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Darling N & Steinberg L (1993). Parenting style as context: an integrative model. Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 487–496. [Google Scholar]
  9. De Los Reyes A, Goodman KL, Kliewer W, & Reid-Quiñones K (2010). The longitudinal consistency of mother–child reporting discrepancies of parental monitoring and their ability to predict child delinquent behaviors two years later. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(12), 1417–1430. 10.1007/s10964-009-9496-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. De Los Reyes A, & Ohannessian CM (2016). Introduction to the special issue: discrepancies in adolescent–parent perceptions of the family and adolescent adjustment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(10), 1957–1972. 10.1007/s10964-016-0533-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Dumka LE, Gonzales NA, Bonds DD, & Millsap RE (2009). Academic success of Mexican origin adolescent boys and girls: the role of mothers’ and fathers’ parenting and cultural orientation. Sex Roles, 60(7–8), 588–599. 10.1007/s11199-008-9518-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Espinoza G, Gonzales NA, & Fuligni AJ (2016). Parent discrimination predicts Mexican-American adolescent psychological adjustment 1 year later. Child Development, 87(4), 1079–1089. 10.1111/cdev.12521. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. García Coll C, Lamberty G, Jenkins R, McAdoo HP, Crnic K, Wasik BH, & García HV (1996). An integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in minority children. Child Development, 67(5), 1891–1914. 10.2307/1131600. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Ge X, Conger RD, Cadoret RJ, Neiderhiser JM, Yates W, Troughton E, & Stewart MA (1996). The developmental interface between nature and nurture: A mutual influence model of child antisocial behavior and parent behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 32(4), 574–589. 10.1037/0012-1649.32.4.574. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Guilamo-Ramos V (2009). Maternal influence on adolescent self-esteem, ethnic pride and intentions to engage in risk behavior in Latino youth. Prevention Science, 10(4), 366–375. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Guion K, Mrug S, & Windle M (2009). Predictive value of informant discrepancies in reports of parenting: relations to early adolescents’ adjustment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37(1), 17–30. 10.1007/s10802-008-9253-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Hernández MM, Conger RD, Robins RW, Bacher KB, & Widaman KF (2014). Cultural socialization and ethnic pride among Mexican-origin adolescents during the transition to middle school. Child Development, 85(2), 695–708. 10.1111/cdev.12167. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Hou Y, Benner AD, Kim SY, Chen S, Spitz S, Shi Y, & Beretvas T (2020). Discordance in parents’ and adolescents’ reports of parenting: A meta-analysis and qualitative review. American Psychologist, 75(3), 329–348. 10.1037/amp0000463. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Hou Y, Kim SY, & Benner AD (2018). Parent–adolescent discrepancies in reports of parenting and adolescent outcomes in Mexican immigrant families. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(2), 430–444. 10.1007/s10964-017-0717-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Hughes D, Hagelskamp C, Way N, & Foust MD (2009). The role of mothers’ and adolescents’ perceptions of ethnic-racial socialization in shaping ethnic-racial identity among early adolescent boys and girls. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(5), 605–626. 10.1007/s10964-009-9399-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Hughes D, Rivas D, Foust M, Hagelskamp C, Gersick S, & Way N (2007). How to catch a moonbeam: A mixed-methods approach to understanding ethnic socialization processes in ethnically diverse families. In Quintana SM & McKown C (Eds.), Handbook of race, racism, and the developing child (pp. 226–277). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  22. Hughes D, Rodriguez J, Smith EP, Johnson DJ, Stevenson HC, & Spicer P (2006). Parents’ ethnic-racial socialization practices: a review of research and directions for future study. Developmental Psychology, 42(5), 747–770. 10.1037/0012-1649.42.5.747. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. 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 and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 15(2), 112–124. 10.1037/a0015509. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Huynh VW, & Fuligni AJ (2008). Ethnic socialization and the academic adjustment of adolescents from Mexican, Chinese, and European backgrounds. Developmental Psychology, 44(4), 1202–1208. 10.1037/0012-1649.44.4.1202. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Kim SY, Hou Y, Song J, Schwartz SJ, Chen S, Zhang M, Perreira KM, & Parra-Medina D (2018). Profiles of language brokering experiences and contextual stressors: Implications for adolescent outcomes in Mexican immigrant families. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(8), 1629–1648. 10.1007/s10964-018-0851-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Laursen B, & Mooney KS (2008). Relationship network quality: adolescent adjustment and perceptions of relationships with parents and friends. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 78(1), 47–53. 10.1037/0002-9432.78.1.47. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Lesane-Brown CL, Brown TN, Tanner-Smith EE, & Bruce MA (2010). Negotiating boundaries and bonds: Frequency of young children’s socialization to their ethnic/racial Hhritage. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41(3), 457–464. 10.1177/0022022109359688. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Liu LL, & Lau AS (2013). Teaching about race/ethnicity and racism matters: an examination of how perceived ethnic racial socialization processes are associated with depression symptoms. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 19(4), 383–394. 10.1037/a0033447. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Marsiglia FF, Kulis S, & Hecht ML (2001). Ethnic labels and ethnic identity as predictors of drug use among middle school students in the Southwest. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 11(1), 21–48. 10.1111/1532-7795.00002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Maurizi LK, Gershoff ET & & Aber JL. (2012). Item-level discordance in parent and adolescent reports of parenting behavior and its implications for adolescents’ mental health and relationships with their parents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41(8), 1035–1052. 10.1007/s10964-011-9741-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Muthén LK, & Muthén BO (1998). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Muthén & Muthén. [Google Scholar]
  32. Nylund-Gibson K, Grimm R, Quirk M, & Furlong M (2014). A latent transition mixture model using the three-step specification. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21 (3), 439–454. 10.1080/10705511.2014.915375. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Park IJK, Du H, Wang L, Williams DR, & Alegría M (2020). The role of parents’ ethnic-racial socialization practices in the discrimination–depression link among Mexican-origin adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 49(3), 391–404. 10.1080/15374416.2018.1547969. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Radloff LS (1977). The CES-D scale: a self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1(3), 385–401. 10.1177/014662167700100306. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Rote WM, & Smetana JG (2016). Patterns and predictors of mother–adolescent discrepancies across family constructs. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(10), 2064–2079. 10.1007/s10964-016-0515-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Sher-Censor E, Oppenheim D, & Sagi-Schwartz A (2012). Individuation of female adolescents: Relations with adolescents’ perceptions of maternal behavior and with adolescent–mother discrepancies in perceptions. Journal of Adolescence, 35(2), 397–405. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.07.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Steger MF, Frazier P, Oishi S, & Kaler M (2006). The meaning in life questionnaire: assessing the presence of and search for meaning in life. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(1), 80–93. 10.1037/0022-0167.53.1.80. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Thomas AJ, & King CT (2007). Gendered racial socialization of African American mothers and daughters. The Family Journal, 15(2), 137–142. 10.1177/1066480706297853. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Toth JF, & Xu X (1999). Ethnic and cultural diversity in fathers’ involvement: a racial/ethnic comparison of African American, Hispanic, and White fathers. Youth & Society, 31(1), 76–99. 10.1177/0044118X99031001004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Umaña-Taylor AJ, & Guimond AB (2012). A longitudinal examination of parenting behaviors and perceived discrimination predicting Latino adolescents’ ethnic identity. Journal of Latina/o Psychology, 1(S), 14–35. 10.1037/2168-1678.1.S.14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Umaña-Taylor AJ, & Hill NE (2020). Ethnic–racial socialization in the family: a decade’s advance on precursors and outcomes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 244–271. 10.1111/jomf.12622. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Umaña-Taylor AJ, O’Donnell M, Knight GP, Roosa MW, Berkel C, & Nair R (2014). Mexican-origin early adolescents’ ethnic socialization, ethnic identity, and psychosocial functioning. The Counseling Psychologist, 42(2), 170–200. 10.1177/0011000013477903. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Umaña-Taylor AJ, Yazedjian A, & Bámaca-Gómez M (2004). Developing the ethnic identity scale using Eriksonian and social identity perspectives. Identity, 4(1), 9–38. 10.1207/S1532706XID0401_2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. U.S. Census. (2017). 2017 National population projections tables: Main series. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/demo/popproj/2017-summary-tables.html.
  45. Valiente C, Lemery-Chalfant K, Swanson J, & Reiser M (2008). Prediction of children’s academic competence from their effortful control, relationships, and classroom participation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 67–77. 10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.67. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Wang M-T, Henry DA, Smith LV, Huguley JP, & Guo J (2020). Parental ethnic-racial socialization practices and children of color’s psychosocial and behavioral adjustment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. American Psychologist, 75(1), 1–22. 10.1037/amp0000464. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Wang M-T, Smith LV, Miller-Cotto D, & Huguley JP (2020). Parental ethnic-racial socialization and children of color’s academic Success: a meta-analytic review. Child Development, 91 (3), e528–e544. 10.1111/cdev.13254. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Williams CD, Bravo DY, Umaña-Taylor AJ, Updegraff KA, Jahromi LB, Martinez-Fuentes S, & de Elias MJ (2020). Intergenerational transmission of cultural socialization and effects on young children’s developmental competencies among Mexican-origin families. Developmental Psychology, 56(2), 199–207. 10.1037/dev0000859. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data for this manuscript’s data will not be deposited.

RESOURCES