LOW CULTURAL IDENTIFICATION, LOW PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT AND ADVERSE PEER INFLUENCES AS RISK FACTORS FOR DELINQUENT BEHAVIOUR AMONG FILIPINO YOUTH IN HAWAI’I

Abstract

Background:

Among Filipino youth in Hawai’i, low Filipino cultural identification and low family support may be important risk factors for delinquency.

Aims:

To examine, in a sample of Filipino youth in Hawai’i, correlations between delinquent behaviour and the aforementioned – as well as other, potentially mediating – variables.

Methods:

A youth risk survey and Filipino Culture Scale were administered to Filipino students (N = 150) in Hawai’i. A parent risk survey was administered to available and consenting parents.

Results:

Delinquent behaviour correlated positively with acculturative stress, low cultural identification and adverse peer influences; and negatively with total Filipino Culture Scale score. Structural equation modelling suggested that absent/ineffective adults and adverse peer influences might be more important variables compared to low self-esteem and less religiosity, linking low cultural identification to delinquent behaviour.

Conclusions:

Although further studies are warranted, to be effective, efforts to prevent delinquency by enhancing Filipino youths’ cultural connectedness may also need to enhance family connectedness and address adverse peer influences.

INTRODUCTION

Although Filipino-Americans are currently the second-largest Asian ethnic group in the US, they are relatively under-researched in terms of potential health and mental health disparities (Javier et al., 2007). In Hawai’i, where Filipino Americans comprise 14.1% of the entire population and are one of the largest ethnic groups in the state (US Census Bureau, 2002), demographic data suggest that Filipinos may be at risk for mental health concerns. As reviewed in Cunanan et al. (2006), the majority of Filipinos in Hawai’i are immigrants. The average per capita income for Filipinos in Hawai’i is significantly lower than that of other Asian groups and the whole state population. They continue to be under-represented in higher-paying managerial and professional jobs and over-represented in lower-paying farming, cleaning and building-service jobs (Infante Nii et al., 1999).

These findings of lower socioeconomic status (SES) may be significant in view of previous findings (Guerrero et al., 2006) that low SES correlates with poor school performance and behavioural and emotional difficulties among Filipino adolescents in Hawai’i. Of interest, although Filipinos comprise only 14.1% of Hawaii’s population, they represent more than 47% of the gang membership on the island of O’ahu (Chesney-Lind et al., 1995). In addition, Mayeda et al. (2006) found that, among adolescents in Hawai’i, Filipino, Native Hawaiian and Samoan youth demonstrated higher rates of disruptive behaviour than Japanese youth. To this point, there have been few studies examining the potential causative factors for disruptive behaviour among Filipino youth in Hawai’i or the US in general.

In a previous study, Guerrero et al. (2006) found that, among Filipino adolescents in Hawai’i, family support and higher SES were important protective factors against academic, behavioural and emotional difficulties. In addition, indirect measures of cultural identification, such as speaking a language other than English or learning one’s genealogy, might be protective against certain difficulties, such as substance abuse and poor school performance. In another study, focus group data suggested that risk factors for violence among Filipino youth in Hawai’i included low ethnic pride, lack of adult supervision and acculturative stress, while important protective factors included religion and connections to family and Filipino culture (Cunanan et al., 2006).

These findings are consistent with the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health’s results that significant protective factors against subsequent violence perpetration include connectedness with parents and other adults and religiosity (Resnick et al., 2004). In addition, these findings are also consistent with previous studies on ethnic similarities and differences in risk for youth violence. In a study of predominantly African-American, Puerto Rican and other Hispanic, white, and Mexican-American youth, Gonzales et al. (2007) found that ethnic differences in youth violence risk were best explained by neighbourhood conditions (e.g. degree of disadvantage and segregation), parents’ marital status and (for certain ethnicities) recent family immigration. With regards to the role of cultural identification, Soriano et al. (2004) found, in a review of studies on youth violence in African-American, Latino and Asian-American youth, that ethnic identity and bicultural self-efficacy were likely protective factors, while acculturation (e.g. the degree to which one’s culture is modified by exposure to another) was a potential risk factor.

McNulty and Bellair (2003) reported that minority youths’ increased risk for youth violence might be mediated by different factors for different ethnic groups: community disadvantage for African-Americans; gang involvement for Hispanics; social bonds for Native Americans; and situational variables for Asians.

Given the relative paucity of research on Filipino-American youth, we chose, in this present study, to investigate potential causal mechanisms by which putative risk factors for behavioural and emotional difficulties may ultimately result in violent and delinquent behaviour in Filipino youth, and to further clarify the role of cultural identification as a risk or protective factor. Our hypotheses for this study were as follows: (1) acculturative stress, absent or ineffective adults, low religiosity, adverse peer influences, and low self-esteem would positively correlate with delinquent behaviour among Filipino youth; and (2) a structural equation model would suggest that acculturative stress, low self-esteem, absent or ineffective adults, and adverse peer influences may be mediating variables by which low cultural identification might ultimately predispose Filipino youth to delinquent behaviour. The present study also piloted an instrument called the Filipino Culture Scale (FCS), which was intended to quantify the degree of Filipino cultural identification and which was used in selected correlations.

METHODS

The Asian/Pacific Islander Youth Violence Prevention Centre (APIYVPC) administered a quantitative, cross-sectional survey to adolescents from three Hawai’i high schools that had relatively high percentages of Native Hawaiian, Filipino and Samoan youth (who were the groups of interest for this study). This survey focused on risk and protective factors for youth violence.

Survey instrument

The research instrument was adapted from the survey used in the Denver Youth Study, Pittsburgh Youth Study and Rochester Youth Development Study (see Thornberry et al., 2003). Additional scales were added to supplement the survey. The instrument consisted of 24 sections (e.g. demographics, self-reported delinquency, self-reported substance use, family background) and 296 items.

To elicit feedback for revision on the proposed research instrument, focus groups were conducted in the spring of 2002 with Native Hawaiian, Samoan and Filipino community leaders and youth. For each ethnicity, at least one focus group included community leaders and at least one focus group included teenagers. For all ethnicities combined, the focus groups included a total of 25 community leaders and 13 teenagers. The Filipino focus groups (see Cunanan et al., 2006) included four separate groups: community leaders (seven participants, included in the 25 above); teenagers (four participants, included in the 13 above); parents (10 participants); and professional young adults (three participants). Review of the focus group data revealed the need to modify the instrument (e.g. adding items to a standardized scale to possibly increase comprehension). Thereafter, the instrument was field-tested with adolescent participants (N = 20) of Native Hawaiian, Samoan and Filipino ancestry in autumn 2002. Final revisions incorporated minor formatting changes.

In the late 1990s, a group of Filipino researchers met several times to develop the FCS, which was modelled after the Hawaiian Culture Scale – Adolescent Version (Hishinuma et al., 2000), originally developed by the National Centre on Indigenous Hawaiian Behavioural Health (NCIHBH; formerly the Native Hawaiian Mental Health Research Development Programme). This 78-item scale, developed through consensus among the Filipino researchers, was intended to assess the degree to which youth know of, believe in, value and practise elements of Filipino culture. Through exploratory factor analyses (PROMAX, simple factor structure, 0.30 standardized loading cut-off), seven subscales were derived from the scale: (1) Social orientation; (2) Family–Community orientation; (3) Ethnic affiliation; (4) Ethnic knowledge; (5) Filipino media; (6) Cultural activities; and (7) Gender roles. Appendix 1 details the seven subscales, corresponding items, rating scales, and psychometrics properties (i.e. standardized factor loadings, Cronbach and inter-factor correlations). Given the differences in the rating scales within a subscale, subscale composites were based on item z-scores. The total FCS score was derived using the mean of the seven factors, providing each factor with equal weight.

Measures

The operational definitions of the five demographic variables, nine independent variables, and one outcome variable were listed (Table 1). The nine independent variables were theoretically derived as: measures of acculturative stress; remoteness of immigration; socioeconomic hardship; absent adults; corporal discipline; adverse peer influence; low self-esteem; less religiosity; and low cultural identification. Items were selected from the Youth and Parent versions of the survey as indicators of each factor (or construct). The demographic information of the students consisted of: gender; ethnicity; generational status; birth country; and blood quantum. Composite scores were calculated using standardized scores (z-scores, mean = 0, SD = 1) for the social risk dimensions. The outcome measure was delinquent behaviour as self-reported by the youth.

Table 1.

Operational definitions of the independent and dependent variables

Construct	Variable	Description and references
Demographic variables
Demographic	Gender	‘Gender’ of the student: 0 = ‘male’; 1 = ‘female’
	Ethnic background	‘How would you describe your ethnic background (“nationality” or “race”)?’ Students were allowed to choose all that applied. For the purposes of this study, only those who selected Filipino were included.
	Youth’s generational status and parents’ generational status	Students were asked: ‘Do you, your parents or grandparents come from another country?’ Parents were asked: ‘What generation are you?’ 1 = ‘1st generation: I was born in Asia/Pacific or country other than US. What country? (specify)’; 2 = ‘2nd generation: I was born in the US; one or both parents born in Asia/Pacific or non-US country’; 3 = ‘3rd generation: I was born in US; both parents born in US, and all grandparents born in Asia/Pacific or non-US country’; 4 = ‘4th generation: I was born in US, both parents and at least 1 grandparent born in US’; 5 = ‘5th generation: I was born in US, both parents were born in US, and at least 1 great grandparent also born in US’; 6 = ‘indigenous: My family’s ancestors are originally from Hawai’i (or continental US)’; ‘don’t know: Don’t know what generation best fits since I lack some information’ was later changed to a missing score.
	Blood quantum	If students identified themselves as having any Filipino blood, they were further asked which response best described them 1 = ‘less than 50% Filipino blood’; 2 = ‘50% Filipino blood’; 3 = ‘100% Filipino blood’
	Birth country	‘Where were you born?’ Student: 1 = ‘Hawai’i/US mainland’ or ‘Other [country]’; 2 = ‘Philippines’
Construct	Description and references
Independent variables: Social risk factors
Acculturative stress	Parent/child cultural discordance was measured by comparing the following question for parents and children: ‘If you feel there is ONE ethnic group that you identify with MOST, please write below.’ 0 = the parent and child’s ethnic identity were the same; 1 = the parent and child did not have the same ethnic identity Ethnic and cultural identity: mean of 10 items as reported by the student (Dahlberg et al., 2005) Example: ‘I have spent time trying to find out more about my own ethnic group, such as its history, traditions, and customs’ Student: 1 = ‘strongly agree’; 2 = ‘somewhat agree’; 3 = ‘somewhat disagree’; 4 = ‘strongly disagree’ Cultural stress and conflict with other groups: mean of three items as reported by the student (Dahlberg et al., 2005) Example: ‘I sometimes feel it would be better if different ethnic groups didn’t try to mix together’ Student (reverse-scored): 1 = ‘strongly disagree’; 2 = ‘somewhat disagree’; 3 = ‘somewhat agree’; 4 = ‘strongly agree’
	Parental stressors: mean of two items as reported by the parent (1) ‘Different racial/cultural groups not getting along with each other’; (2) ‘Generation/cultural gaps’ Parent: 1 = ‘not a problem’; 2 = ‘somewhat of a problem’; 3 = ‘big problem’
Remoteness of immigration	Generational status was re-coded to reflect 0 = 1st generation and 1 = 2nd generation or higher, including indigenous Students of 1st generation status reported number of years in the US or Hawai’i. A longer period of time yielded a higher score. Parents of 1st generation status reported number of years in the US or Hawai’i. A longer period of time yielded a higher score.
Socioeconomic hardship	Difficulty adjusting: mean of seven items as reported by the student Example: ‘Getting used to life in the United States’ Student: 1 = ‘don’t know/NA’; 2 = ‘very little difficulty’; 3 = ‘some difficulty’; 4 = ‘a lot of difficulty’ Difficulty adjusting: mean of eight items as reported by the parent Example: ‘Since moving to the US how much difficulty have you had getting a job?’ Parent: 1 = ‘don’t know/NA’; 2 = ‘very little difficulty’; 3 = ‘some difficulty’; 4 = ‘a lot of difficulty’ ‘Experienced discrimination due to race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender?’ Student: 0 = ‘never’; 1 = ‘longer than a year’; 2 = ‘within the last year’; 3 = ‘in the past three months’ Inequality: mean of two items Example: ‘It is so hard for people of my ethnic background to succeed in this country that I sometimes wonder what is the use in even trying’ Student: 1 = ‘strongly disagree’; 2 = ‘somewhat disagree’; 3 = ‘somewhat agree’; 4 = ‘strongly agree’ (second item reverse-scored (Dahlberg et al., 2005)) ‘How many jobs do you currently have?’ Parent: number of full-time jobs reported was multiplied by 1; number of part-time jobs was multiplied by 0.5 ‘Which of the following best describes your home?’ Parent: 1 = ‘single family house (nuclear family lives in one house);’ 2 = ‘a multiple family home (many families or extended family living in one house)’; 3 = ‘condo/apartment’; 4 = ‘mobile home/trailer’; 5 = ‘low-income public housing’; 6 = ‘other (specify)’ Total annual income for the household Parent: 1 = ‘less than $12,000’; 2 = ‘$12,001-$20,000’; 3 = ‘$20,001–$30,000’; 4 = ‘$30,001–$40,000’; 5 = ‘$40,001–$50,000’; 6 = ‘greater than $50,000’; ‘don’t know’ (changed to missing) ‘How many individuals live in the house?’ Parent: numeric value; a higher number suggested a greater strain on limited financial resources and greater socioeconomic hardship ‘What is your (or primary caretaker’s) highest education level in US?’ Parent: 0 = ‘high school/GED’; 1 = ‘associate’s degree’; 2 = ‘bachelor’s degree’; 3 = ‘master’s degree’; 4 = ‘PhD/MD/JD’ (scores were then reverse-scored to indicate lower academic achievement contributing to socioeconomic hardship) ‘Have you or any family member ever been treated badly because of your race or ethnicity (nationality)?’ Parent: 0 = ‘no’; 1 = ‘yes’
Absent/ ineffective adults	Family closeness: mean of four items Example: ‘How often do/does your [parent(s)/guardian] talk with you about what is going on in your life?’ Student: 1 = ‘often’; 2 = ‘sometimes’; 3 = ‘never’ ‘Is there a set time that you have to be home by on school nights?’ Student: 0 = ‘don’t go out’; 1 = ‘yes’; 2 = ‘no’ ‘How often do you and your (parent(s)/guardian) do fun things together?’ Student: 1 = ‘often’; 2 = ‘sometimes’; 3 = ‘never’ Family understanding: mean of three items Example: ‘My parent(s)/guardian(s) understand my problems’ Student: 1 = ‘strongly agree’; 2 = ‘agree’; 3 = ‘disagree’ ‘Are parents or other adults usually around when you are hanging out with friends?’ Student: 0 = ‘yes’; 1 = ‘sometimes’; 2 = ‘no’ Setting limits: mean of two items (1) ‘Does (youth subject) have a certain time to be home on school nights?’ (2) ‘Does (youth subject) have a certain time to be home on weekend nights?’ Parent: 1 = ‘always a set time’; 2 = ‘sometimes a set time’; 3 = ‘no set time’ Parental monitoring: mean of 15 items Example: ‘If you or another adult are not at home, how often does your child leave you a note or call you to let you know where s/he is going?’ Parent: 1 = ‘often’; 2 = ‘sometimes’; 3 = ‘almost never’ Parental involvement with friends: mean of two items (1) ‘How many of his/her friends do you know?’ Parent: 1 = ‘all of them’; 2 = ‘most of them’; 3 = ‘some of them’; 4 = ‘none of them’ (2) ‘In a given week, about how much time do you spend doing something together with your child (e.g. eating, talking, going out)?’ Parent: 1 = ‘more than 10 hours’; 2 = ‘5–10 hours’; 3 = ‘1–5 hours’; 4 = ‘less than 1 hour’ Parental supervision: mean of three items Example: ‘Where is your child usually in the evening on a weekend night?’ Parent: 1 = ‘home, supervised’; 2 = ‘somewhere else, supervised’; 3 = ‘home, unsupervised’; 4 = ‘somewhere else, unsupervised’; 5 = ‘don’t know’
Corporal or inconsistent discipline	Corporal punishment as reported by the student: mean of four items Example: ‘If you do something that you are not allowed to do or that your parents don’t like, how often do your parents slap you?’ Student: 1 = ‘never’; 2 = ‘sometimes’; 3 = ‘often’ (Items 3 and 4 were reverse-scored) Corporal punishment as reported by the parent: mean of five items Example: ‘If (subject) does something that you disapprove of or do not like, how often do you slap or spank him/her?’ Student: 1 = ‘never’; 2 = ‘sometimes’; 3 = ‘often’ (Items 3 and 4 were reverse-scored)
Adverse peer influences	Negative peer influences: mean of five items Example: ‘If your group of friends was getting you into trouble with the police, how likely is it that you would still hang out with them?’ Student: 1 = ‘not at all likely’; 2 = ‘a little likely’; 3 = ‘somewhat likely’; 4 = ‘likely’; 5 = ‘very likely’ (the last item was reverse-scored) ‘Are you in a gang?’ Student: 0 = ‘no’; 1 = ‘yes’
	Positive peer influences: mean of four items Example: ‘How many of your friends are good students?’ Student: 1 = ‘all of them’; 2 = ‘most of them’; 3 = ‘few of them’; 4 = ‘none of them’ Delinquent behaviour with peers: mean of 16 items Example: ‘Purposely damaged or destroyed property that did not belong to them’ Student: 1 = ‘none of them’; 2 = ‘few of them’; 3 = ‘most of them’; 4 = ‘all of them’ ‘[Student] Has close relationships with non-delinquent friends [in past year to now]’ Parent: 1 = ‘strongly agree’; 2 = ‘agree’; 3 = ‘disagree’ Parental approval of peers: mean of four questions (two of which had follow-up questions) (1a) ‘Do you currently disapprove of any of your child’s friends?’ (1b) ‘If YES, does he/she still hang out with them?’ (2a) ‘In the past, have you ever disapproved of any of your child’s friends?’ (2b) ‘If YES, were any of them a bad influence on (youth subject)?’ (3) ‘Do you know/suspect that (youth subject) is affiliated with a gang?’ (4) ‘Do you know/suspect that (youth subject) has friends affiliated with a gang?’ Parent: 0 = ‘no’; 1 = ‘yes’
Low self-esteem	Items were adapted from the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965); the factor structure was validated with Asian/Pacific Islander students (Miyamoto et al., 2000): mean of two factors consisting of eight items Example: ‘I feel that I have a number of good qualities’ Student: 1 = ‘strongly disagree’; 2 = ‘somewhat disagree’; 3 = ‘somewhat agree’; 4 = ‘strongly agree’ (positively worded items were reverse-scored)
Less religiosity	’Are you a member of a particular religious or spiritual group?’ Student: 0 = ‘yes’; or 1 = ‘no’ Importance of religion: mean of two items as reported by the student (1) ‘How important is religion/spirituality to you?’ (2) ‘How important is religion/spirituality to your parent?’ Student: 1 = ‘highly important’; 3 = ‘fairly important’; 5 = ‘not important at all’ Frequency of religious activities: mean of three items as reported by the student Example: ‘About how often do you attend church, temple, mosque, or formal gathering?’ Student: 0 = ‘1–2x/day’; 1 = ‘1–2x/week’; 2 = ‘1–2x/month’; 3 = ‘1–2x/year’; 4 = ‘never/rarely’ Importance of religion: mean of two items as reported by the parent (1) ‘How important is religion/spirituality to you?’ (2) ‘How important is religion/spirituality to your child?’ Parent: 1 = ‘highly important’; 3 = ‘fairly important’; 5 = ‘not important at all’ Frequency of religious activities: mean of three items as reported by the parent Example: ‘About how often do you pray or meditate?’ Parent: 0 = ‘1–2x/day’; 1 = ‘1–2x/week’; 2 = ‘1–2x/month’; 3 = ‘1–2x/year’; 4 = ‘never/rarely’ Use of ‘a minister, priest, or other religious person’ to help deal with problems Parent: 0 = ‘yes’; 1 = ‘no’
Low cultural identification	Two items were taken from the Filipino Cultural Scale (1) ‘How much do you value Filipino beliefs, behaviours, and attitudes?’ (2) ‘How important is it to you to maintain Filipino cultural traditions?’ Student: 1 = ‘very much’; 3 = ‘somewhat’; 5 = ‘not at all’
Outcome variable: delinquent behaviour
Delinquent behaviour	Mean of nine items (1) ‘Hit a family member or boyfriend/girlfriend’ (2) ‘Thrown objects such as rocks or bottles at people’ (3) ‘Robbed someone’ (4) ‘Attacked someone with the idea of seriously hurting them or killing them’ (5) ‘Used a weapon or force to get money or things from people’ (6) ‘Physically hurt or threatened to hurt someone to get them to have sex with you’ (7) ‘Purposely set fire to a house or building or tried to do so’ (8) ‘Made threatening or nasty phone calls’ (9) ‘Been involved in gang fights’ Student: 0 = ‘no’; 1 = ‘yes’ ‘Have you ever been arrested?’ Student: 0 = ‘no’; 1 = ‘yes’ ‘Have you ever used any of these substances listed below in your life?’ cigarettes/tobacco, beer, hard liquor, steroids, diet pills/fat burners, marijuan (pakalolo), cocaine/crack, LSD (Acid), tranquilizers, pain killers excessively, inhalants, ecstacy, heroin, ice (batu) Student: 0 = ‘no’; 1 = ‘yes’

Procedures

Students from the three aforementioned Hawai’i public high schools on the island of O’ahu were randomly selected based on their ethnic background (Native Hawaiian, Samoan, Filipino, Caucasian and Japanese) as identified through school records for which parents or guardians had already chosen one ethnic background for their child.

After eligible students were informed of the standard information via a school presentation (e.g. purpose, protocol, confidentiality and voluntary participation), those interested signed an assent form and were asked to provide parent permission to participate in the study. Parents received a written parental permission form that included standard information on the study. Based on completed permission forms, trained research associates scheduled interviews with the consenting student. Teachers and school administrators excused students from approved classes to attend a one-on-one interview with a trained research associate. Researchers reviewed the contents of the assent form, which reminded participants: (1) that all information was confidential; (2) that they could skip questions; and (3) that they could stop taking the survey at any time if they felt uncomfortable, without penalty. Individual researchers read the youth survey to students. On average, the interviews lasted approximately one hour. If the student identified his or her ethnicity as being Filipino, he or she was eligible to fill out the FCS. On rare occasions, selected words were translated into participants’ native language by interviewers due to language barriers. The overall participant inclusion rate for students was 37.3% (339 surveys collected out of 908 participants recruited) with Filipinos having a 34% participation rate.

Following the completion of the student interview, three attempts were then made to schedule the parent interview; if attempts were unsuccessful (e.g. the parent did not show), no further attempts were made to reschedule interviews. Of the students who were surveyed, 59% (199/339) of the parents also participated in the survey. Parent interviews typically took place either at the school or in a local community centre. All participants were provided with a $25.00 money order as compensation for agreeing to participate in the survey. The University of Hawai’i Committee on Human Studies (Institutional Review Board) approved all research procedures.

Participants

The overall sample consisted of survey responses from 339 participants, who over-represented Hawaiian, Filipino and Samoan adolescents compared to their proportions in the total population.

For the present study, only students who identified their ‘ethnic background’ as having any Filipino were included. Therefore, the final sample for this study consisted of 150 participants, of which 74 were students reporting mixed ethnicity (of which 40 also had Native Hawaiian ancestry) and 76 reporting full Filipino ancestry (χ² = 0.03, df = 1, p = 0.8703). A χ² test of significance indicated that significantly more females (N = 93) were included in the sample, compared to males (N = 57) (χ² = 8.64, df = 1, p = 0.0033). While all high school grade levels were represented, the numbers per grade level were not equal (χ² = 11.46, df = 3, p = 0.0095). Specifically, 24.2% (N = 36) were 9th graders, 36.2% (N = 54) were 10th graders, 22.2% (N = 33) were 11th graders, and 17.5% (N = 26) were 12th graders.

RESULTS

Correlations among hypothesized risk factors for delinquent behaviour in Filipino youth

There were significant positive correlations (p < 0.05) among the various hypothesized risk factors studied (Table 2), including: acculturative stress and socioeconomic hardship; acculturative stress and absent adults; acculturative stress and adverse peer influence; acculturative stress and low self-esteem; acculturative stress and less religiosity; acculturative stress and low cultural identification; remoteness of immigration and less religiosity; remoteness of immigration and low cultural identification; absent adults and corporal discipline; absent adults and adverse peer influence; absent adults and low self-esteem; absent adults and less religiosity; corporal discipline and adverse peer influence; corporal discipline and low self-esteem; adverse peer influence and low self-esteem; adverse peer influence and low cultural identification; and low religiosity and low cultural identification. Of interest, there were significantly negative correlations (p < 0.05) between remoteness of immigration and socioeconomic hardship, remoteness of immigration and absent adults, and remoteness of immigration and corporal discipline.

Table 2.

Correlation matrix among demographic variables, Filipino Culture Scale scores, sociocultural risk factors, and delinquency

	Disruptive behaviour	Generational statusa	Blood quantumb	Birth country	Acculturative stress	Remoteness of immigration	Socioeconomic hardship	Absent adults	Corporal discipline	Peer influence	Low self-esteem	Less religiosity	Low cultural identification
Generational statusc	−0.07
Blood quantumb	−0.12
Birth country	−0.01
Acculturative stress	0.21**	0.01	0.03	0.08
Remoteness of immigrationa	0.04	0.33***	−0.26**	−0.42***	−0.09
Socioeconomic hardshipa	0.08	−0.22**	0.09	−0.05	0.25**	−0.19*
Absent adultsa	0.15	−0.05	0.07	0.27	0.27**	−0.17*	0.08
Corporal disciplinea	0.12	−0.06	0.01	0.13	0.10	−0.16*	0.04	0.47***
Peer influencea	0.54***	−0.07	−0.02	−0.01	0.33***	0.00	0.13	0.34***	0.29**
Low self-esteema	0.08	0.08	−0.03	0.14	0.32***	−0.13	0.01	0.27**	0.24**	0.16
Less religiositya	0.10	0.07	−0.20*	−0.13	0.18*	0.16*	−0.12	0.16*	0.14	0.12	0.03
Low cultural identificationb	0.22*	0.32**	−0.37***	−0.34**	0.20*	0.27**	−0.01	0.12	0.05	0.22*	0.12	0.30**
Social orientationb	0.00	−0.06	0.13	0.00	−0.39***	0.16	−0.11	−0.31**	−0.18	−0.06	−0.25**	−0.18	−0.29**
Family–community orientationb	−0.13	−0.07	0.21*	0.10	−0.23*	0.02	0.02	−0.24**	−0.18	−0.08	−0.30**	−0.10	−0.47***
Ethnic affiliationb	−0.17	−0.35**	0.23*	0.32**	0.27**	−0.31**	0.11	0.29**	0.17	0.14	0.15	−0.09	−0.22*
Ethnic knowledgeb	−0.25**	−0.25*	0.39***	0.36***	−0.31**	−0.29**	0.02	−0.13	−0.02	−0.30**	−0.18	−0.30**	−0.83***
Filipino mediab	−0.24**	−0.40***	0.38***	0.35**	−0.02	−0.46***	0.12	0.04	0.14	−0.16	0.05	−0.18	−0.35**
Cultural activitiesb	0.00	−0.24*	0.43***	0.43***	0.02	−0.08	−0.03	0.02	0.11	0.00	0.02	−0.02	−0.35**
Gender rolesb	0.08	−0.11	−0.14	0.19	0.37***	−0.23*	0.13	0.27**	0.27**	0.16	0.33**	0.06	−0.04
Total Filipino Culture Scaleb	−0.19	−0.40***	0.50***	0.47***	−0.03	−0.34**	0.08	0.03	0.11	−0.07	−0.01	−0.20*	−0.64***

^aMaximum N = 150 (total number of respondants for the Filipino Culture Scale).

^bMaximum N = 109 (total number of respondants for the Parent Survey).

^cMaximum N = 141 (reported generational status from the Youth Survey).

^*p < 0.05

^**p < 0.01

^***p < 0.0001.

Correlations between cultural identification, hypothesized risk factors and delinquent behaviour

Correlational analyses were also performed between the FCS subscales and total score, hypothesized risk factors, and delinquent behaviour (Table 2). Among the characteristics studied, only acculturative stress, low cultural identification and adverse peer influences were found to have significantly positive correlations with delinquent behaviour (p < 0.05). Correlations between delinquent behaviour and absent adults trended towards significance (r = 0.15, p = 0.0739). In addition, delinquent behaviour was negatively correlated with ethnic knowledge and Filipino media subscales from the FCS and the total FCS score (p < 0.05). We did not find a significant correlation between disruptive behaviour and either low self-esteem or less religiosity.

Structural equation model to investigate potential mediating variables between low cultural identification and delinquent behaviour

Structural equation modelling (SEM) was performed on a possible etiologic pathway (Figure 1) that considered the findings of the correlational analyses (see above). As compared to a simple bivariate correlation analysis (A → B), SEM allows for the investigation of the relationship between more than two variables at a time, as well as multiple levels of variables with mediators (A → B → C). Because the low cultural identification construct had more significant correlations with the putative risk factors than the total FCS score did, and was more parsimonious (made up of only two items) as compared to the total FCS, we chose to use the former rather than the latter in the structural equation model. Separate analyses were then performed on competing components of the model in order to determine which pathway seemed to fit better with delinquent behaviour.

Figure 1. Hypothesized pathway describing how low cultural identification and other risk factors ultimately cause delinquent behavior.

N = 150

χ² = 51.1

df = 16

p < 0.0001

RMSEA = 0.121 (0.085–0.159)

R² = 0.29 (of delinquent behaviour)

Note: Coefficients in parentheses are not statistically significant.

Figure 1 depicts the hypothesized pathway describing how low cultural identification and other risk factors might ultimately lead to delinquent behaviour. The initial hypothesis, with all components included, yielded χ²[150] = 51.1, df = 16, p < 0.0001, RMSEA = 0.121 (90% Conference Interval (CI) = 0.085–0.159). Goodness-of-fit is most robustly measured by the Root-Mean-Square-Error Approximation (RMSEA), with RMSEA < 0.10 being an adequate fit and RMSEA ≤ 0.05 being a good fit (Bentler & Bonnett, 1980; Nevitt & Hancock, 2000). RMSEA 90% CI indicates a range of fit.

Due to the misfit of Figure 1, the model was then generally broken down into two components. The ‘top half’ (including Low cultural identification, Socioeconomic hardship, Absent/Ineffective adults, Adverse peer influences on delinquent behaviour) was run as one model (Figure 2). The ‘bottom half’ (Low cultural identifi cation, Acculturative stress, Low self-esteem, Low religiosity on delinquent behaviour) was run as another (not shown). The results for the ‘top half’ pathway were χ²[150] = 8.3, df = 6, p = 0.2157, RMSEA = 0.051 (0.000–0.125). The fit of this ‘top half’ pathway was superior to the fit of the ‘bottom half’ pathway: χ²[150] = 11.4, df = 4, p = 0.0224, RMSEA = 0.111 (0.038–0.189).

Figure 2. Analysis of the ‘top half’ pathway, derived from the upper half of the initial diagram (which yielded a fit superior to the ‘bottom half’ pathway, derived from the lower half).

N = 150

χ² = 8.3

df = 6

p = 0.2157

RMSEA = 0.051 (0.000–0.125)

R² = 0.30 (of delinquent behaviour)

Note: Coefficients in parentheses are not statistically significant.

DISCUSSION

To our knowledge, this is the first published description of a moderately sized community-based sample of Filipino adolescents in the US to demonstrate correlations between specifically measured cultural variables, putative risk factors for delinquent behaviour, and delinquent behaviour. This is also, to our knowledge, the first published study to employ structural equation modelling to describe a possible pathway towards delinquency among Filipino youth in the US.

With regard to our first hypothesis, among the direct correlations between nine hypothesized risk factors and delinquent behaviour, only three of the factors (acculturative stress, low cultural identification and adverse peer influences) were significant. While the significant correlations supported most of our hypotheses and previous findings as discussed in the introduction (Cunanan et al., 2006; Guerrero et al., 2006), we did not find a significant correlation between delinquent behaviour and either low self-esteem or less religiosity. In addition, while it had been hypothesized that remoteness of immigration might lead to low cultural identification, and therefore be a risk factor for delinquent behaviour, the variable directions of correlation of this factor with other hypothesized risk factors (e.g. positive direction with low cultural identification and less religiosity, but negative direction with socioeconomic hardship, absent adults and corporal discipline) highlight the complexity of this one variable and the likelihood that recent immigration may be a risk factor if associated with socioeconomic hardship, less caregiver availability, or tendency to use corporal discipline.

Consistent with our hypotheses, one important and novel finding was that lower Filipino cultural affiliation, as measured by the low cultural identification construct and the FCS, appeared to correlate positively with delinquent behaviour among the Filipino and part-Filipino youth in this study. Of interest,Yuen et al. (2000) found that Hawaiian cultural affiliation was a marker for suicide attempts among a predominantly Native Hawaiian sample of adolescents in Hawai’i. These authors suggested that acculturative stress might be the mediating variable between cultural identification and psychopathology. In the case of Filipino youth in Hawai’i, it is possible that higher Filipino cultural affiliation might not necessarily lead to acculturative conflict with either ‘local’ or ‘American’ culture in Hawai’i, while the situation might be different for other ethnic groups in different cultural historical contexts. Bhugra (2005) reviewed how cultural identity, if it contributes to discordance between (or concordance with) the individual’s social characteristics and the surrounding population’s characteristics, might be a risk factor for (or protective factor against) distress among immigrants. Umaña-Taylor and Shin (2007) found that ethnic identity might contribute to self-esteem among multiple ethnic groups in the US, but that ethnic identity might vary in importance depending on the geographical context, even within the same ethnic group. Finally, Rieckmann et al. (2004) found that cultural identity was protective against depression among Navajo adolescents. We believe that more research is needed on the dynamics of cultural identification as a risk or protective factor for both internalizing and externalizing forms of psychopathology, particularly in youth of immigrant, ethnic minority and indigenous backgrounds.

Our second hypothesis incorporated the possibility that low cultural identification among the youth (together with lower SES) might be associated with absent or ineffective adults, who might, in turn, not adequately prevent their children from being adversely influenced by peers. While some of the relevant correlations were not statistically significant, and while it was not possible from the analyses to make any definite statements about causality, the pathway that emphasized family and social factors was more strongly supported by the structural equation model than the alternative and more individually focused pathway, which hypothesized that low cultural identification leads to delinquent behaviour via acculturative stress, low self-esteem and less religiosity.

In the overall model (Figure 1), low cultural identification significantly correlated with acculturative stress, which in turn significantly correlated with low self-esteem. In addition, low cultural identification significantly correlated with less religiosity. However, neither low self-esteem nor less religiosity correlated as robustly with delinquent behaviour as did adverse peer influences, which in turn correlated significantly with (among the hypothesized risk factors) acculturative stress, absent/ineffective adults, and corporal discipline.

These findings are consistent with previous results that family support appears to be protective against psychopathology among lower SES Filipino youth (Guerrero et al., 2006) and with Filipino focus group data, indicating that lack of adult supervision is a risk factor for youth violence, while family connection is a protective factor (Cunanan et al., 2006). In addition, our results are very similar to findings by Dinh et al. (2002) that, among Hispanic youth, acculturative stress results in problem behaviour more from a negative impact on parental involvement than on self-esteem. Finally, this hypothesis is consistent with findings by Costello et al. (2004) that inadequate parental supervision is an important mediating variable between poverty and psychopathology, and with clinical evidence (reviewed in Steiner, 1997) that family and community-based interventions are more effective than solely individual approaches for conduct and other externalizing disorders in childhood.

Limitations of this study include: the small sample size; relatively low participant inclusion rate (34% for Filipinos); lack of precision of the available measures for certain concepts (e.g. remoteness of immigration item did not specifically inquire about immigration from the Philippines); unavailability of specific data that might have enabled further clarification of certain hypotheses; limited validation of the new culture rating scale method used; and reliance on adolescent self-reports, which ideally should be corroborated by others (e.g. parents, friends) and other objective measures.

Notwithstanding these important limitations, these findings suggest the need for further studies and the need to support the importance of family and social interventions in preventing delinquent behaviour among Filipino youth in Hawai’i. While there is a dearth of published studies on delinquency prevention programmes among Filipino-American youth in general, in reviewing various websites, it appears that there have been programmes, mainly from California, designed to reduce the risk of substance abuse and other risk behaviours among Filipino youth. The Asian Youth Alliance Programme (US Department of Health and Human Services Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration, 2007) employed an individual curriculum as well as culturally relevant family-strengthening intervention, and was found to increase cultural pride, lower tolerance for drugs, and decrease social anxiety among targeted Filipino and Chinese youth. The Asian Youth Prevention Services Consortium (Japanese Community Youth Council, 2008) utilizes bilingual outreach efforts to various Asian-American communities, education of youth and their parents, and group activities for high-risk youth to facilitate development of cultural pride and other social competencies.

Based on our findings, we propose that efforts to prevent delinquency by enhancing Filipino youth’s cultural connectedness become optimally effective if they also enhance family connectedness, assist parents in implementing effective behavioural management strategies, and address adverse peer influences. At our institution, we hope to test this hypothesis by developing, implementing and evaluating the effectiveness of culturally competent family and peer interventions designed to prevent further violence and delinquency among at-risk Filipino youth.

APPENDIX 1

Psychometric properties of the Filipino Culture Scale (FCS)

			Inter-factor correlations
	Factor loadings	Cronbach’s α	Family- community orientation	Ethnic affiliation	Ethnic knowledge	Filipino media	Cultural activities	Gender roles
Social orientation		0.76	0 42***	−0.01	0.24**	−0.13	0.05	−0.28**
You put the needs and desires of others before your own needsa	0.30
Elders and authority figures should be respecteda	0.40
You would be deeply hurt if your friends doubted your sinceritya	0.38
Treat older people with respectb	0.54
Independentb, r	0.37
Friendlyb	0.66
Hospitableb	0.60
Uniqueb, r	0.46
Humorousb	0.50
Easy-goingb	0.57
Sweetb	0.55
Sensitiveb	0.45
Family–community orientation		0.57		0.09	0.38***	0.05	0.24**	−0.05
Children should not answer back to their parentsa	0.62
Devoted to family, neighboursb	0.32
Take care of family’s prestige/honourb	0.58
Take care of elders and sick relatives at homec, r	0.52
Ethnic affiliation		0.77			0.20*	0.29**	0.19*	0.53***
It is best to date someone of the same ethnic/racial backgrounda	0.91
It is best to marry someone of the same ethnic/racial backgrounda	0.97
If you need to see a professional (e.g. doctor, dentist, lawyer etc.) you would choose one from your own race or ethnic groupa	0.35
Ethnic knowledge		0.67				0 42***	0.36***	0.00
How much do you value Filipino beliefs, behaviors, and attitudes?d	0.68
How important is it to you to maintain Filipino cultural traditions?d	0.75
You should preserve your ethnic heritage and cultural traditionsa	0.35
Familiar with Filipino folkloree	0.45
Knowledgeable of Philippine history and geographye	0.51
Filipino media		0.76					0.34**	0.29**
Watch Filipino television programmesc, r	0.72
Watch Filipino moviesc, r	0.89
Listen to Filipino musicc, r	0.56
Cultural activities		0.57						0.26**
Attend Filipino cultural events like beauty contestsc, r	0.55
Take trips to the Philippinesc, r	0.60
Attend/celebrate Filipino fiestae	0.52
Gender roles		0.57
When having children, sons are preferred especially since they carry the family namea	0.45
Men should have the final word in decision makinga	0.91
A wife’s career is just as important as the husband’s careera, r	0.38

^*p < 0.05

^**p < 0.01

^***p < 0.0001.

^aRating scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree.

^bRating scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = not sure, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree.

^cRating scale: 1 = often, 2 = sometimes, 3 = never.

^dRating scale: 1 = not at all, 2 = (blank), 3 = somewhat, 4 = (blank), 5 = very much.

^eRating scale: 1 = unfamiliar, 2 = aware of, 3 = practice custom.

^rReverse-scored for the composite.

Note: Subscale composites were based on z-scores. The total FCS score was the mean of the seven subscale composites.