Profiles of identity centrality and psychological adjustment among Hispanic/Latine sexual minoritized emerging adults

Abstract

The present study examined how profiles of personal and social (i.e., religious, sexual orientation, U.S., ethnic‐racial) identity centrality were related to psychological adjustment among Hispanic/Latine sexual minoritized emerging adult (SMEA) college students (N = 229, M _age = 19.29, SD = 1.55, 74.7% female; 48.5% bisexual). Using latent profile analysis, three distinct profiles emerged: institutionally disengaged (43.4%), characterized by low religious and ethnic‐racial identity centrality; fully engaged identity (42.5%) marked by high centrality across all domains; and deindividuated assimilated (14.0%), characterized by high U.S. and religious centrality, and low personal and ethnic‐racial centrality. Profiles differed in adjustment, with the fully engaged identity profile exhibiting the highest psychological well‐being and lower depressive symptoms compared to institutionally disengaged. Deindividuated assimilated reported the lowest psychological well‐being. Findings underscore meaningful heterogeneity in how multiple identities are organized among Hispanic/Latine SMEA and suggest that multidomain identity engagement may be linked to better adjustment, helping to inform culturally responsive prevention and intervention efforts.

INTRODUCTION

Emerging adulthood is a time when young people are adapting to new social, academic, and occupational environments while making long‐term decisions (Arnett, 2007) with limited guidance, unclear social expectations, and limited supports and structures (Côté & Bynner 2008), making emerging adulthood a period of heightened vulnerability to long‐term negative outcomes (Schwartz & Petrova, 2019). Indeed, emerging adulthood has been increasingly conceptualized as a two‐faced period marked by co‐existence of both increased life satisfaction, and onset and escalation of serious psychopathology (Cleveland & Goldstein, 2019; Schwartz, 2016). A vast body of literature has evidenced that sexual minoritized emerging adults (SMEA) within the United States are particularly at risk for the development of depressive and anxiety symptoms (Miller et al., 2024). These disparities are often linked to experiences of discrimination, which have been associated with negative psychosocial outcomes (Hatzenbuehler, 2009), including negative affect (Riggle et al., 2009) and heightened depressive symptoms (Woodford et al., 2018). For ethnic‐racial minoritized SMEA, such as Hispanic/Latine SMEA, these processes are compounded as they face even greater marginalization while navigating multiple sources of oppression (e.g., racism and homophobia) that negatively impact their mental health in unique ways due to co‐occurring stigmas (Ghabrial, 2017; Toomey et al., 2017). Experiencing this “double jeopardy” has been associated with higher rates of anxiety and depression, suicide, and post‐traumatic stress in comparison with non‐Hispanic White SMEA (Ghabrial, 2017; Meyer, 2010), highlighting the need for research to attend to protective factors that may mitigate the negative effects of these stressor, such as the establishment of a positive group identity (Meca & Schwartz, 2024; Meyer, 2010).

Although the first tentative steps of identity development take place in adolescence, emerging adulthood represents a time of continued and substantive identity development (Arnett, 2007; Meca, Allison, Cruz, Ayers, et al., 2023). However, identity development unfolds within sociocultural contexts shaped by racism, heteronormativity, and exclusionary political climates (Ghabrial, 2017; Toomey et al., 2017). Hispanic/Latine SMEA often navigate multiple, and at times, conflicting cultural, familial, and social expectations related to ethnicity‐race, sexuality, and religion, which can complicate the process of developing a coherent sense of self (Garcia‐Perez, 2020). More broadly, the need to navigate multiple forms of marginalization across social contexts may shape not only which identities are salient, but also how different identity domains are prioritized and organized within the self‐concept. Developing a stable sense of self is thus both personally and contextually situated, involving not only the formation of a personal identity (i.e., one's values, beliefs, and goals), but also the integration of social identities that reflect group memberships shaped by broader systems of privilege and oppression (Kiang et al., 2008).

Prior research on Hispanic/Latine SMEA has rarely examined ethnic‐racial and sexual orientation identity in conjuncture (e.g., Algarin et al., 2025; Shramko et al., 2018; Tuthill, 2021). While these studies provide valuable insights, this narrow focus fails to capture the intersecting nature of identity development and how multiple domains collectively shape adjustment. In particular, overlooking additional domains, such as U.S., religious, and personal identity, ignores sources of meaning that empirical evidence has shown to be central to the lives of Hispanic/Latin (Calvillo & Bailey, 2015; Meca, Cruz, Veniegas, Allison, et al., 2023) and sexual minoritized populations (Cruz et al., 2025; Dahl & Galliher, 2012; Toomey et al., 2017). Moreover, it is worth noting that individuals may differentially prioritize aspects of their identity based on values, lived experiences, and sociocultural positioning (Meca et al., 2015). Without attending to these complexities, research risks obscuring important patterns of co‐occurrence and complexity that speak to the lived experiences of Hispanic/Latine SMEA, and in turn, limits the development of holistic and culturally responsive interventions and practices.

Addressing this gap, the present study leveraged latent profile analysis (LPA) to identify unique profiles of identity centrality across five domains among a sample of Hispanic/Latine SMEA: personal, sexual orientation, ethnic‐racial, U.S., religious identity. Additionally, we examined how these profiles related to psychological adjustment (i.e., symptoms of depression and anxiety, self‐esteem, well‐being) in order to holistically determine which specific identity configurations are associated with optimal functioning, in turn, adding key nuance to our understanding of the role identity as a developmental asset among Hispanic/Latine SMEA. Consistent with recommendations by the World Health Organization (2004), that defines mental health to include not just the absence of mental illness, but presence of well‐being, we included psychological adjustment as encompassing both indicators of psychological distress and positive psychological functioning. This approach may be especially important given that an exclusive reliance on variable‐centered approaches, which focus on average associations between isolated domains and outcomes, may obscure meaningful heterogeneity in how identities are jointly experienced, prioritized, and organized within individuals. As such, using LPA to understand identity development may highlight pathways for interventions and polices that affirm and support the multifaceted identities of Hispanic/Latine SMEA.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS

Individuals experience multiple minoritized identities as interrelated, interconnected, and, at times, mutually dependent components of the self (Nagoshi et al., 2014; Purdie‐Vaughns & Eibach, 2008; Shields, 2008). Thus, identity development for Hispanic/Latine SMEA is shaped by overlapping and interacting systems of marginalization, rendering their experiences complex and not adequately captured by a single theoretical framework. Consistent with prior work (Abreu et al., 2023), we draw upon multiple frameworks, including minority stress theory (MST; Brooks, 1981; Meyer, 2003, 2015), cultural stress theory (CST; Meca & Schwartz, 2024), and intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1991), to provide a comprehensive understanding of the experiences of Hispanic/Latine SMEA and the environments under which they may develop a sense of self.

MST (Brooks, 1981; Meyer, 2003) posits that mental health disparities among sexual minoritized groups emerge, in part, from exposure to unique stressors linked to their marginalized status, while also emphasizing that identity related processes can serve as both a source of stress and resilience, depending upon its salience or centrality to one's self‐concept. Within this framework, stressors are often distinguished as distal, encompassing interpersonal events such as discrimination and victimization, and proximal, which involves intrapersonal processes such as internalized stigma and identity concealment. Because proximal stressors are subjective, their impact may vary across individuals depending upon personal appraisal (Meyer, 2003). Although originally developed to understand the experiences of sexual minoritized populations, MST acknowledges that stress processes are influenced by other social identities, such as ethnicity‐race, gender, and socioeconomic status.

In a similar vein, CST (Meca & Schwartz, 2024) builds upon stress, coping, adaptation, and acculturation and assimilation frameworks (Berry, 2006; Portes & Zhou, 1993; Vega et al., 1993) to accentuate stressors associated with immigration. Indeed, central to CST is the assertion that immigrants and their descendants are exposed to multiple stressors embedded in the challenges of navigating multiple cultural streams and a context marked by otherism. Further, CST argues that identity plays an important role in our understanding of the association between cultural stress and adjustment. On one end, CST views identity as a key mechanism underlying its detrimental impact, with several studies documenting that cultural stress can compromise the capacity to establish a coherent identity (Meca et al., 2022; Oshri et al., 2014). On the other end, CST highlights that dual‐cultural identification, or biculturalism (i.e., endorsement of at least one heritage and one receiving culture; Meca et al., 2019), can be a protective factor that mitigates the negative impact of cultural stressors, positioning identity as a key factor tied to both risk and resilience in immigrants and their descendants.

Extending MST and CST, researchers have increasingly drawn on an intersectionality framework (Crenshaw, 1991) to understand the experiences of individuals with multiple marginalized identities. Emerging from Black feminist scholarship, intersectionality critically examines how simultaneous membership in multiple social categories creates unique configurations of privilege and oppression, and how systems of power reproduce and sustain these inequalities (Cole, 2009; Else‐Quest & Hyde, 2016). Further, intersectionality emphasizes that systems of oppression highlight certain identities, while rendering others invisible, thereby obscuring individuals' full and authentic experiences within these systems (Abreu et al., 2023; Crenshaw, 1991). Consistently, a growing body of research has highlighted the concept of positive intersectionality, indicating that having multiple marginalized identities may increase resilience and well‐being when facing minority stress for sexual minoritized people of color (Ghabrial, 2017). The concept suggests that a strong, positive sense of one aspect of a person's identity can lead to a strong, positive sense of another aspect of their identity. At the same time, it is worth noting that some minoritized identities (e.g., sexual orientation identity) may be concealable in varying situations and cultural contexts (Crocker et al., 1998), a factor that may play a key role in an individual's determination of what identities are central to their lives (Quinn & Earnshaw, 2013). In sum, across frameworks, it is clear that different identity domains can function as both sources of vulnerability and resilience, and that their psychological significance depends in part on the relative importance and configuration within the self‐concept. From this perspective, identity centrality may be a particularly important construct, as it reflects which aspects of the self are most salient and thus most likely to shape responses to stress and support.

IDENTITY CENTRALITY IN EMERGING ADULTHOOD

Emerging adulthood represents a unique developmental period characterized by increasing autonomy and opportunities to explore educational, occupational, relational, and ideological pathways (Arnett, 2000; Meca, Allison, Cruz, Ayers, et al., 2023). As emerging adults encounter new social roles and group memberships, they are often tasked with making meaning of who they are, making identity development particularly salient during this time (Schwartz, 2016). However, not every component of an individual's sense of self will be regarded as equally important (Settles, 2004). Rather, an individual may focus on developing one or a few facets as more central components to who they are, thereby orienting their identity development (i.e., identity centrality; Meca et al., 2015). For Hispanic/Latine SMEA, who navigate multiple social and personal identities, identifying which domains are central may be both helpful for understanding their experiences and suggest potential sources of resilience allowing for more effectively tailored intervention and prevention approaches. Indeed, endorsing multiple social identities may offer compensatory resources in the face of discrimination, allowing individuals to draw selectively on different aspects of the self to maintain a positive sense of identity (Ghabrial, 2017; Kiang et al., 2008). The following sections will review domains of identity centrality that may be particularly important for this population.

Personal identity

Personal identity refers to the aspects of the self that are experienced as unique and individually defining (Vignoles et al., 2011). Rather than reflecting group memberships or social roles, personal identity centers on one's personal characteristics, values, goals, and beliefs that distinguish oneself from others (Meca, Allison, Cruz, Ayers, et al., 2023). Prior research has demonstrated that the content of a personal identity is broad and multifaceted, encompassing, for example, one's goals and future aspirations (Luyckx et al., 2006), educational and vocational choices (Crocetti et al., 2008), moral, religious, and spiritual beliefs (Christy & Schlegel, 2024; Hardy & Carlo, 2011; MacDonald, 2011), representations of possible, hoped‐for, or feared future selves (Oyserman & Horowitz, 2023), and one's overall “life story” (McAdams, 2021). A large body of work has demonstrated personal identity development is tied to more positive psychosocial functioning and well‐being (e.g., Crocetti et al., 2014; Ritchie et al., 2013), even after controlling for identities rooted in one's marginalized group (Meca et al., 2017). Similarly, for Hispanic/Latine SMEA, prior work (Cruz et al., 2026) has found that personal identity centrality was positively associated with psychological well‐being. At the same time, it is important to note that personal identity does not develop in isolation, as it is coordinated with other aspects of the self, including social identities (Crocetti et al., 2018), highlighting the need to examine personal identity in conjunction with other key identity domains among Hispanic/Latine SMEA (Cruz et al., 2026).

Social identities

Social identity theory (SIT; Tajfel & Turner, 1986) provides a central framework for understanding social identity development. According to Tajfel (1981), social identity reflects an individual's awareness of belonging to a particular group, along with the value and emotional importance they assign to that membership. Within SIT, these identities serve not only as a framework for understanding oneself in relation to others but, particularly in the face of marginalization, as a source of belonging and self‐worth tied to group affiliation (Spears, 2011). In the current study, we examine four forms of social identity: sexual orientation, ethnic‐racial, U.S. identity, and religious identity.

Ethnic‐racial identity

Ethnic‐racial identity (ERI) represents a multidimensional construct that encompasses one's feelings and attitudes towards their ethnic‐racial group membership, as well as the developmental processes that underscore the establishment of these feelings (Umaña‐Taylor et al., 2014). For Hispanic/Latine populations, ERI is particularly salient given their positioning with the U.S. systems of racial and ethnic stratification (Meca et al., 2017). Indeed, a wealth of literature has consistently linked stronger ERI with positive adjustment, including higher self‐esteem and lower psychological distress (for review, see Meca, Allison, Cruz, Wright, et al., 2023). Further, ERI has been shown to be negatively associated with psychological distress and positively associated with self‐esteem in Latinx samples, playing a protective role in psychological well‐being (e.g., Forrest‐Bank & Cuellar, 2018).

Sexual orientation identity

Scholars have operationalized sexual orientation identity centrality as the extent to which one views their sexual orientation as an important aspect to their overall sense of self (Ashmore et al., 2004; Hinton et al., 2022). Given sociocultural contexts and exposure to minority (Meyer, 2003) and cultural stressors (Meca & Schwartz, 2024), sexual orientation identity may emerge as a particularly salient domain for Hispanic/Latine SMEA, including an understanding of what their group membership within the larger social community means to them and their sense of attachment to the community (Dillon et al., 2011). That said, prior work examining sexual orientation identity centrality has provided mixed evidence regarding how centrality specifically impacts psychosocial functioning in SMEA. For example, Mohr and Kendra (2011) indicated that a high sexual orientation identity centrality was associated with decreased concealment of sexual identity and reported strength of connection to the LGBTQ+ community, suggesting that high sexual orientation identity centrality is associated with positive psychosocial outcomes. More recently, Cruz et al. (2026) found that sexual orientation identity centrality was negatively associated with symptoms of depression among Latinx SMEA. In contrast, Tuthill (2021) found that sexual orientation identity centrality was negatively associated with mental well‐being in Latinx and Black populations, while Hinton et al. (2022) found no relationship between sexual orientation identity centrality and psychosocial outcomes across domains (e.g., mental and physical health). In sum, although the research on sexual orientation identity centrality within intersectional populations has continued to grow, our ability to fully understand this relationship is still limited.

U.S. identity

Paralleling ERI, U.S. identity (USI) has been conceptualized as an individuals' attitudes and feelings ascribed to their membership in the U.S., as well as the developmental processes that guide the establishment of these attitudes and feelings (Meca et al., 2020). Although developing a positive USI is considered a central aspect of one’ s sense of self (Erikson, 1968), this process may be especially complex for Hispanic/Latine SMEA, who face increased persecution and marginalization within the U.S. (Crenshaw, 1991; Rentería et al., 2025), wherein their heritage culture (Chavez, 2020) and sexual identity (Rentería et al., 2025) are seen as threatening to traditional American culture. As a result, Hispanic/Latine SMEA face intersecting forms of racist, sexual, and gender minority stressors (Salerno et al., 2024), all of which may lead to conflicting feelings about what it means to belong to the U.S. Despite this complexity, prior work has indicated that USI can play a positive role in promoting psychological adjustment among Hispanic/Latine (Meca et al., 2020; Meca, Cruz, Veniegas, Allison, et al., 2023) and SMEA (Cruz et al., 2025) populations.

Religious identity

Although religious identity development can be understood as the personal and, at times, conflicting ways in which individuals construct their perspectives on religious practices, beliefs, and motivations (Abo‐Zena & Ahmed, 2014), religious identity is rarely a solitary endeavor; rather, it is deeply intertwined with family expectations, cultural heritage, and communal ties among Hispanic/Latine individuals (Schiro et al., 2022). Indeed, religion has often served as a focal point for how Hispanic/Latine individuals interpret and express their values and beliefs (Revens et al., 2021). Consistently, prior work suggests that religious identity can foster belonging (Lerman et al., 2018) and provide emotional support for Hispanic/Latine (Hormazábal‐Salgado et al., 2024) and SMEA populations (Wood & Conley, 2014). At the same time, tensions arising from oppositional personal, familial, and community expectations and beliefs may create religious identity conflict, leading to adverse mental health outcomes. These dynamics become more complex for Hispanic/Latine SMEA due to the strong influence of religion on sexuality and marriage (Gattamorta et al., 2019), and its central role in shaping family systems and guiding interpersonal relationships (Abreu et al., 2023; Adames & Chavez‐Dueñas, 2016). For example, in a qualitative study of Hispanic/Latine sexual minority young adults, Gattamorta et al. (2019) found that participants reported conflicting religious and cultural identities, which prompted concealment of their sexual identities out of fear of disappointing family members, facing financial repercussions, or losing relational support. Similarly, Lockett et al. (2023) noted that while religion remained deeply tied to cultural heritage and family for Hispanic/Latine LGBTQ+ individuals, these same ties often created tension, as participants noted conflict between cultural and religious expectations and their sexual orientation. While some reported affirmation within religious communities, others struggled with concealment, mental health, and feeling forced to choose between key aspects of their identity (Lockett et al., 2023). Echoing these findings, in a quantitative study of sexual minority Latinx youth, Thamrin et al. (2022) found a complex interaction between ethnic and sexual orientation‐based discrimination and religiousness such that religiosity (i.e., adherence to a system of beliefs, engagement in religious practices and behaviors) was negatively associated with depressive symptoms but only at low level of sexual orientation‐based discrimination. Still, in a qualitative study by Garcia et al. (2008) with Latino gay, bisexual, and transgender persons (GBT), despite having experienced conflict between their sexual orientation and religion, 38% of participants who grew up Catholic remained Catholic, with differing levels of engagement. Moreover, an additional 24% converted to either Protestant or a non‐Judeo‐Christian religion. This point is further echoed in a qualitative study by Tuthill (2016), who found all Hispanic Lesbian mothers interviewed had maintained an ethnic, sexual, and religious identity. Collectively, Garcia et al. (2008) highlights that religion and spirituality remain important in the lives of Latino GBT. Taken together, existing research suggests that salient religious identity may serve as both a protective and risk factor.

THE CURRENT STUDY

Previous intersectional approaches have solely focused on ethnic‐racial and sexual orientation identity centrality, a method that, while valuable, does not account for the fact that individuals may prioritize various aspects of their identity differently, depending upon personal values, lived experiences, and sociocultural contexts (Kiang et al., 2008; Meca et al., 2015). As a result, and consistent with recent research on positive intersectionality (Ghabrial, 2017), it is necessary to investigate the unique co‐occurring patterns of multiple identity domains to broaden our understanding of identity development among Hispanic/Latine SMEA during this crucial developmental period. Such information has the potential to inform more culturally responsive and developmentally grounded intervention and prevention efforts aimed at supporting healthy identity development and psychological adjustment among Hispanic/Latine SMEA.

The present study utilized LPA to identify distinct profiles of identity centrality across five domains (i.e., personal, sexual orientation, ERI, USI, religious identity). We then examined whether these profiles differed in psychological adjustment, including depressive and anxiety symptoms, self‐esteem, and psychological well‐being. Although prior work has used person‐centered approaches among Hispanic/Latine sexual minoritized populations (e.g., Shramko et al., 2018), it is worth noting that this work focused on profiles of minority stress and victimization rather than on organization of identity centrality itself. Thus, the present study is conceptually distinct in that it focuses on specific configurations of identity centrality across domains, rather than on stress exposure. Given the limited prior work examining multidimensional identity centrality profiles among this population, no a priori hypotheses were specified regarding the number or nature of profiles that would emerge. However, drawing on identity development and social identity theories, we broadly expected that profiles characterized by high personal and social identity centrality would be associated with more favorable psychological adjustment than profiles marked by low social identity centrality.

METHODS

Research positionality

Regarding author positionality, we recognize that our identities, lived experiences, and belief systems undoubtedly shape our approach to the scientific process. Indeed, as scholars, we do not operate in a vacuum; our positionalities inform the questions we ask, the methods we employ, and the ways we interpret data. Our research team is composed of five individuals across career stages, including one Associate Professor, one Assistant Professor, one doctoral student, and two master's students. We represent a range of sexual orientations and ethnic‐racial identities. Three of us identify as sexual minoritized women and two as heterosexual men. Racially and ethnically, three team members identify as Hispanic/Latine, one as Mexican American, and one as White. Throughout the research process, we have remained reflexive and intentional in striving to conduct this study with cultural humility, ethical care, and respect for the communities to whom this work is for.

Participants

The current study used cross‐sectional online survey data from a study focused on investigating domains of identity centrality and psychological adjustment among college students. The sample consisted of 229 Hispanic/Latine SMEA aged 18–26 (M _age = 19.29, SD = 1.55). 82.5% indicated that they were religious, with a majority of our sample identifying as Roman Catholic (46.7%) or a Christian denomination (30.2%; Born‐again Christian, Charismatic Christian, Protestant). Participants self‐identified as bisexual (48.5%), asexual (13.5%), pansexual (9.6%), lesbian (8.7%), questioning (7.9%), queer (4.8%), gay (4.4%), and other (2.6%). In terms of gender identity, participants identified as female (74.7%), male (16.2%), nonbinary (4.4%), gender fluid (2.2%), agender (1.3%), transman/transmasculine (0.9%), and other (0.4%). A majority indicated that they were born in the U.S. (96.4%) and were of Mexican heritage. Participants were first‐year (58.2%), second‐year (25.4%), third‐year (10.8%), fourth‐year (3.3%), and fifth‐year (2.3%) students from a Hispanic Serving Institution in southcentral Texas.

Procedures

Data were collected through an introduction to psychology participant pool from the Fall 2021‐Spring 2023 at a Hispanic‐Serving Institution in Central Texas. Individuals between the ages of 18–26 who were enrolled as students at the recruiting institution were eligible to participate. Eligible participants completed a 60‐min online survey via Qualtrics that included self‐report measures of identity centrality and psychosocial functioning. Upon completion of the survey, participants received a research credit applied towards a university research requirement. The study was approved by the University of Texas at San Antonio's Institutional Review Board.

Measures

Personal identity centrality

The 10‐item personal identity orientation subscale of the Aspects of Identity Questionnaire‐IV (AIQ‐IV; Cheek & Briggs, 1982) was utilized to assess personal identity centrality (α = 0.86; sample item: “My personal values and moral standards”). Items were rated on a 5‐point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (Not important to my sense of who I am) to 5 (Extremely important to my sense of who I am).

Social identity centrality

Social identity centrality was assessed across four domains: ERI, sexual orientation identity, USI, and religious identity. Each domain was measured utilizing a modified version of the Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity (MIBI; Sellers et al., 1998), which have been previously utilized by in the broader social identity literature (e.g., Kiang et al., 2008). ERI centrality was assessed using the full 8‐item of the MIBI scale (α = 0.82; sample item: “Being a member of ethnic group is an important reflection of who I am.”), modified to refer to ethnicity. Sexual orientation centrality (α = 0.77; sample item: “In general, my sexual orientation is an important part of my self‐image.”) was assessed using a 5‐item version originally developed by Kiang et al. (2006) for brevity and generalizability. It is worth noting that a modified version of MIBI has been previously utilized in work with sexual minorities (e.g., Fredrick & Williams, 2021). Drawing on Kiang et al. (2008) modification of the MIBI, religious identity centrality (α = 0.87; sample item: “In general, my religion is an important reflection of who I am.”) and USI centrality (α = 0.85; sample item: “Being American is an important reflection of who I am.”) were both assessed via 5‐item scales. Across all measures, items were rated on a 5‐point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree), to 5 (strongly agree). The ERI, USI, and sexual orientation centrality scales were previously used with Hispanic/Latine SMEA populations (Cruz et al., 2026) and demonstrated good reliability.

Depressive symptoms

The 9‐item Patient Health Questionnaire‐9 (PHQ‐9; Spitzer et al., 1999) was utilized to assess depressive symptoms experienced over a period of 2 weeks (α = 0.91, sample item: “Feeling down, depressed or hopeless”). Items were rated on a 4‐point Likert scale ranging from 0 (Not at all) to 3 (Nearly every day).

Generalized anxiety symptoms

The 7‐item Generalized Anxiety Disorder‐7 (GAD‐7; Spitzer et al., 2006) was utilized to assess the severity of anxiety symptoms experienced over a period of 2 weeks (α = 0.90, sample item: “Not being able to stop or control worrying”). Items were rated on a 4‐point Likert scale ranging from 0 (Not at all) to 3 (Nearly every day).

Psychological well‐being

The 18‐item Scales of Psychological Well‐Being (SPWB; Ryff & Keyes, 1995) was utilized to assess psychological well‐being. The SPWB (α = 0.78, sample item: “When I look at the story of my life, I am pleased with how things have turned out so far”) is rated on a 6‐point Likert scale ranging from 0 (Strongly disagree) to 6 (Strongly agree).

Analytic strategy

Analyses were conducted in Mplus v8.7 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998‐2017) with a Robust Maximum Likelihood (MLR) estimator, with missing data addressed via full‐information maximum likelihood estimation. The analysis proceeded in two steps. First, a latent profile analysis (LPA) was conducted to identify patterns of identity centrality. Profile selection (i.e., model fit) was guided by theoretical interpretability, model fit indices, and the Vuong‐Lo–Mendell–Rubin likelihood ratio test (VLM LRT). The VLM LRT evaluates whether the −2‐log likelihood value for a model with k profiles is significantly smaller than corresponding values for a model with k‐1 profiles. A significant LRT value indicates that the k‐class model provides a substantive increase in model fit over the k‐1 profile model. In addition to the VLM‐LRT, we examined the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC). The AIC identifies the model expected to minimize prediction or estimation error, whereas the BIC factors the true model as sample size increases, provided the true model is included among the candidate models being considered. Lower AIC and BIC values indicate better model fit (Vrieze, 2012). Profile separation was evaluated using entropy, with ≥.80 preferred and <.70 prompting the use of posterior membership probabilities as weighting variables (Ferguson et al., 2020). To ensure stability and interpretability, profiles were retained only if they comprised more than 5% of the sample and were conceptually distinct (Masyn, 2013).

Next, we examined associations between the probability of profile membership and key indicators of adjustment (i.e., self‐esteem, psychological well‐being, symptoms of depression and anxiety) using the Block–Croon–Hagenaars (BCH) method (Asparouhov & Muthén, 2014). The BCH approach is a three‐step procedure used to examine differences in distal outcomes across latent profiles while accounting for uncertainty in profile classification. By incorporating classification error into the estimation process, the BCH method provides less biased estimates of differences between profiles while preserving the original latent profile solution.

RESULTS

Latent profile analysis

As shown in Table 1, the three‐profile solution emerged as the best‐fitting model (AIC = 3126.199, BIC = 3201.645, Entropy = 0.812), with a significant VLMR test (VLMR = 45.664, p < .001). Additionally, the mean z‐scores for the 4‐profile solution indicated that the profiles were not conceptually distinct from each other. Thus, the 3‐profile solution was advanced as the championed model (see Table 2). The first and largest profile (43.4%) was labeled Institutionally‐Disengaged as it was characterized by significantly low levels of religious and ethnic‐racial identity. Next, the second largest profile (42.5%) reflected high centrality across all five domains and was thus labeled Fully Engaged Identity, although endorsement of sexual orientation centrality did not significantly differ from zero. Finally, the last profile was marked by high U.S. and religious identity centrality coupled with low personal and ethnic‐racial identity centrality and thus labeled Deindividuated Assimilated (14.0%).

TABLE 1.

Latent profile analysis model comparisons.

# of profiles	AIC	BIC	Entropy	Smallest profile %	VLMR LRT (6)	p‐value
2	3159.863	3214.733	0.822	42%	73.262	<.001
3	3126.199	3201.645	.812	14%	45.664	<.001
4	3099.915	3195.937	0.829	11%	32.694	.065

Note: Bolded item represents chosen profile solution for the model.

Abbreviations: AIC, Akaike Information Criterion; BIC, Bayesian Information Criterion; VLMR LRT, Vuong‐Lo–Mendell–Rubin Likelihood Ratio Test.

TABLE 2.

Standardized scores on identity centrality across three profiles.

Identity centrality	Institutionally disengaged (43.4%)	Deindividuated assimilated (14.0%)	Fully engaged identity (42.5%)
Personal identity centrality	.031	−1.469*	.490*
Ethnic‐racial identity centrality	−.067	−.604*	.284*
Sexual orientation identity centrality	−.028	−.182	.094
Religious identity centrality	−.963*	.480*	.842*
U.S. identity centrality	−.449*	.376*	.330*

^* p < .050.

Differences in psychological adjustment across profiles

Next, we examined differences in psychological adjustment variables across profiles. As indicated in Table 3, the most pronounced differences were found in terms of psychological well‐being, with those in the Fully Engaged Identity (M = 4.354) profile exhibiting significantly higher well‐being compared to those in the Institutionally‐Disengaged (M = 4.015) and the Deindividuated Assimilated (M = 3.563) profiles. Utilizing standardized scores, those in the Deindividuated Assimilated were nearly a full SD below the sample average whereas participants in the Fully Engaged Identity were nearly half a SD above the sample mean. At the same time, depressive symptoms were significantly higher among those in the Institutionally Disengaged (M = 12.856) profile compared to those in the Fully Engaged Identity (M = 10.390) profile.

TABLE 3.

Comparisons of psychosocial functioning across profiles.

Parameters	Depressive symptoms		Anxiety symptoms		Psychological well‐being
	Means	SE	Means	SE	Means	SE
Institutionally disengaged	12.856 (.185)	0.727	11.301 (.182)	0.617	4.015 (−.112)	0.066
Deindividuated assimilated	10.799 (−.102)	1.438	9.228 (−.186)	1.163	3.563 (−.823)	0.096
Fully engaged identity	10.390 (−.159)	0.841	9.551 (−.126)	0.621	4.354 (.420)	0.071
χ 2 (1) Comparisons tests
1 v 2	1.565, p = .211		2.378, p = .123		14.539, p < .001
1 v 3	4.578, p = .032		3.713, p = .054		11.362, p = .001
2 v 3	.053, p = .818		.053, p = .818		39.525, p < .001

Note: Standardized scores reported in ().

DISCUSSION

The present study utilized LPA to examine how multiple domains of identity centrality are organized within Hispanic/Latine SMEA, and how these configurations relate to psychological adjustment. By identifying distinct profiles of identity centrality across personal and social domains, this work extends prior variable‐centered (e.g., Hinton et al., 2022; Tuthill, 2021) and person‐centered (Shramko et al., 2018) research by highlighting meaningful heterogeneity in how identities are organized within individuals. Because identity development remains malleable during emerging adulthood (Schwartz et al., 2016), understanding how multiple identity domains are organized may have important implications for prevention and early intervention. Specifically, identifying profiles of identity centrality that are associated with psychological adjustment may help inform strengths‐based interventions aimed at promoting adaptive identity development before maladaptive patterns become more firmly established across adulthood. Overall, three profiles of identity centrality emerged, each reflecting a different association with psychological adjustment. Below, we describe and interpret these identity centrality profiles and then discuss how they relate to indicators of psychological adjustment.

Profiles of identity centrality

Three distinct profiles of identity centrality emerged: fully engaged identity, institutionally disengaged identity, and the deindividuated assimilated profile. Consistent with prior person‐centered identity research focused on multiple identity domains more broadly (e.g., Kiang et al., 2008; Meca et al., 2015), a fully engaged identity centrality profile emerged representing high centrality across nearly all the included identity domains. It is possible that individuals in the fully engaged identity profile may experience multiple aspects of their identity as important to who they are, whether because these domains are personally meaningful or because they are made salient by social‐structural factors such as ethnicity‐race and sexuality (Syed & McLean, 2016). Indeed, Hispanic/Latine SMEA may be perceived through these identities by others regardless of personal endorsement (Meyer, 2003), rendering them salient in everyday life. As such, for individuals in this profile, multiple identity domains may be experienced simultaneously, and as part of a relatively coherent sense of self.

Next, the largest profile, institutionally disengaged identity, was characterized less by its endorsement of particular identity domains, and more by its rejection of USI and religious identity centrality. As originally noted, Hispanic/Latine SMEA's relationship with USI and religious affiliation can be a fairly complex one. In the U.S., Hispanic/Latine communities continue to be exposed to pervasive anti‐immigrant narratives that portray them as “threats” to American culture (Chavez, 2020), while also navigating ongoing stressors associated with managing multiple cultural contexts within marginalized social positions (Meca & Schwartz, 2024). Similarly, although religious identity can serve as an important source of meaning and support for some SMEA (Lockett et al., 2023), prior work suggests that religious contexts can be complex for Latinx SMEA, serving as a potential source of stress, particularly in relation to family acceptance and attitudes toward sexual minoritized identities (Gattamorta et al., 2019). Taken together, and consistent with research on the rejection‐disidentification model (Jasinskaja‐Lahti et al., 2009) which proposes individuals are likely to reject the majority culture following experiences of rejection or discrimination, individuals in the institutionally disengaged identity profile may distance themselves from these groups. That said, this profile was not marked by strong endorsement of either personal, ERI, or sexual orientation identity centrality indicating these individuals may be struggling with establishing their sense of self as a whole.

The final profile, the deindividuated assimilated profile, was characterized by high centrality of USI and religious identity coupled with a substantive rejection of ERI and a significantly low personal identity centrality. Conceptually, the deindividuated assimilated profile is consistent with the assimilation orientation of Berry's (1980) bidimensional model of acculturation, which refers to the process by which one acquires the receiving culture, and disregards the heritage culture. Although prior work has indicated that ERI and sexual orientation identity centrality may be particularly salient for Hispanic/Latine and SMEA populations (e.g., Dillon et al., 2011), it is possible that the absence of high centrality for these domains may stem from experiences of in‐group marginalization from the LGBTQIA+ (Noyola et al., 2020; Zelaya et al., 2023) and Hispanic/Latine communities (Gray et al., 2015) or from proximal stressors (e.g., internalized stigma) grounded in one's own perception and ascribed importance to their identities (Meyer, 2003). In both cases, these stressors may challenge individuals' capacity to establish a personal identity and prompt attempts to integrate into broader institutional cultures. Future research should not only seek to replicate the profiles found in our study but leverage mixed‐methods designs to more fully understand Latinx SMEA's identity configurations.

As a whole, the identification of distinct profiles of identity centrality highlights that individuals may adopt various identity configurations based on their own unique experiences (Schachter, 2004). That said, it is worth noting that there was minimal differentiation across the three extracted profiles on sexual orientation identity centrality. One possible explanation is that, even if sexual orientation identity is generally not experienced as a core or valued aspect of SMEA identity, sexual orientation may be made salient by social and structural forces (McLean & Syed, 2015), including stigma and the need to navigate disclosure and safety (Meyer, 2003). Alternatively, it is also possible that the limited differentiation in sexual orientation identity centrality may be due to measurement or sample constraints rather than the absence of meaningful heterogeneity. In particular, prior work suggests that bisexual and plurisexual individuals may experience sexual orientation in more fluid, differential ways, and be less likely to organize their self‐concept around a sexual orientation identity label (Galupo et al., 2018; Dyar et al., 2015). In this context, a unidimensional measure of identity centrality may be poorly suited to capture how sexual orientation identity centrality functions in the lives of bisexual and plurisexual individuals, which represented the majority of our sample. Future research should examine whether identity centrality operates differently across sexual orientation subgroups and develop measures that are better attuned to the complexity and fluidity of bisexual and plurisexual identity experiences.

Psychological adjustment across profiles

We also sought to examine differences in psychological adjustment across profiles. To begin, results indicated that the fully engaged identity profile reported the highest levels of psychological well‐being and the lowest symptoms of depression, although there were no significant differences in terms of internalizing symptoms between the fully functioning and the deindividuated assimilated profiles. Broadly, SIT (Tajfel & Turner, 2004) and related perspectives conceptualize social identities as reflecting individual's subjective sense of belonging and the emotional significance attached to group memberships, as well as their perceived placement within the social world alongside others who share common characteristics (e.g., Deaux, 1996; Sedikides & Brewer, 2001). A substantial body of work suggests that such forms of social identification are often protective, in part because they provide individuals with sources of fulfillment for basic psychological needs, including the need for belonging and self‐esteem (e.g., Greenaway et al., 2015; Haslam et al., 2009). At the same time, personal identity has also been regarded as a psychological resource that contributes to well‐being, given that having a clear understanding of one's sense of self and life direction may foster elements of meaningful existence and personal growth (Schwartz et al., 2005). Importantly, prior work has highlighted that both personal and social identities may play a key role in adjustment for Hispanic/Latine SMEA. For example, among a sample of Latinx SMEA college students, Cruz et al. (2026) found that personal identity and ERI centrality were positively associated with psychological well‐being, while USI centrality was negatively associated with anxiety and depressive symptoms. Tuthill (2021) reported that sexual orientation identity centrality was positively associated with well‐being among Latinx young adults. Taken together, this body of work suggests that ascribing importance to both social and personal identities may be associated with more positive psychological adjustment. From this perspective having multiple salient sources of self‐definition, both personal and social, may represent a particularly adaptive configuration of identity development (Kiang et al., 2008).

By contrast, the institutionally disengaged identity and institutionally engaged identity profiles were differentially associated with psychological adjustment in ways that highlight the importance of person‐centered analysis. Indeed, as previously noted, the deindividuated assimilated profile had the lowest levels of psychological well‐being but had comparable levels of depressive symptoms to the fully engaged identity profile. Although identification with social identities is often understood as a psychological resource (e.g., Greenaway et al., 2015), these findings highlight a much more complex relationship, and aligned with MST (Meyer, 2003), emphasize that the meanings of social identities depend on individual interpretations of how they are socially valued, regulated, and stigmatized. Indeed, whereas identification with dominant social institutions may reduce risk for depressive symptoms, it comes at the cost of positive psychological adjustment. Identification with dominant social institutions for these individuals may serve as an adaptive strategy rooted in seeking to integrate with the majority culture and downplaying their marginalized identity through forms of concealment (Pachankis, 2007). Although this may serve to diminish risk for marginalization, the de‐emphasis on identities that may affirm marginalized aspects of the self‐minimize capacity to engage authentically, which may compromise positive adjustment and substantially challenge the capacity to form a coherent personal identity.

On the other end, whereas the institutionally disengaged identity profile exhibited significantly higher levels of psychological well‐being compared to the deindividuated assimilated, it also had the highest levels of depressive symptoms. As previously noted, rejection of USI and religious identity may be rooted in experiences of discrimination. Indeed, in a qualitative study examining the experiences of immigrant gay Latinx men, Gray et al. (2015) indicated that within‐group rejection may be a common occurrence for Hispanic/Latine SMEA due to religious cultural conflict. As such, the heightened symptoms of depression may be rooted in direct experiences of marginalization from US‐majority culture and religious organizations. At the same time, the endorsement of average levels of personal, ERI, and sexual orientation identity may serve to ground individuals, allowing for some degree of psychological well‐being in the face of marginalization and discrimination.

Limitations and future directions

The present study should be interpreted in light of several limitations. To begin, the sample was comprised of college students attending a large Hispanic Serving Institution in a city in which a large proportion of the population identifies as Hispanic/Latine. Thus, the experiences of this sample may differ widely from Hispanic/Latine individuals who live in regions of the U.S. where Hispanic/Latine communities are smaller and may not be representative of Hispanic/Latine SMEA who are in different educational, occupational, or life contexts. Future research should seek to replicate these findings within community‐based samples. Second, the majority of participants self‐identified as bisexual and cisgender women. This limited our ability to examine demographic differences in profile membership and further constrains the generalizability of our findings. Further, due to limited sample sizes across gender identity groups, we were unable to assess whether gender identity was associated with profile membership or determine distribution across profiles. Future studies would benefit from recruiting a larger and more diverse sample across a wider range of gender and sexual orientation identities in order to examine potential group differences. This may be particularly important, considering that significant gender differences have emerged in the prevalence of mental health disorders (Baños & Miragall, 2024).

Beyond sample characteristics, future work should also consider sociopolitical and time‐related influences on identity. Within the past decade, Hispanic/Latine communities have endured one of the most restrictive and hostile immigration climates in modern history (Chavez‐Dueñas et al., 2019), alongside increasing anti‐LGBTQIA+ rhetoric and legislation (American Civil Liberties Union, 2026). These broader social conditions likely shape how identities are experienced, organized, and made salient. Longitudinal and qualitative research will be particularly important for examining how identity centrality and identity configurations shift over time, across developmental periods, and in response to changing sociopolitical contexts. Finally, we were unable to examine factors that may have impacted profiles of identity centrality such as cultural and minority stressors. Although prior work (Shramko et al., 2018) has examined victimization among Hispanic/Latine SMEA, few studies have aimed to assess proximal minority stressors, intersectional stressors (e.g., gendered racism, BIPOC LGBTQ+ microaggressions, etc.), and other contextual factors in order to more fully understand the processes that give rise to different identity centrality profiles among Hispanic/Latine SMEA.

Implications for practice and intervention

The present findings may have important implications for individual counseling, family‐based interventions, and higher education efforts aimed at supporting the well‐being of Hispanic/Latine SMEA. More broadly, the identification of distinct configurations of identity centrality underscores that identity development among Hispanic/Latine SMEA is heterogeneous, intersectional, and contextually shaped. As such, clinicians and educators are encouraged to avoid prioritizing a single identity domain and resist assuming that identity operates uniformly across all individuals, as this would risk overlooking how personal and social identities are jointly organized and negotiated within the self. Instead, findings from this study suggest that efforts to support Hispanic/Latine SMEA should take an individualized approach to understanding the nuance of how each individual conceptualizes and integrates their identities into their sense of self. This requires attending to the broader configurations through which Hispanic/Latine SMEA prioritize, affirm, or constrain their identities.

In counseling and mental health settings, practitioners can benefit from adopting intersectional, identity‐affirming approaches that allow clients to explore how multiple aspects of identity coexist. Through careful assessment, clinicians may find that some Hispanic/Latine SMEA experience conflict between various identity groups (e.g., between religious identification and sexual orientation), and when this happens, results from this study suggest that downplaying the importance of various identity groups may indicate a risk factor for psychological distress and depression. LGBTQ+ affirming therapy (Pachankis et al., 2022) may provide a helpful framework for discussing the impact of minority and cultural stressors on Hispanic/Latine SMEA, while also intentionally integrating and exploring how Hispanic/Latine SMEA make sense of internal conflicts with the goal to enhance integration and harmony over time. Emphasis on meaning‐making, authenticity, and coherence across identity domains may be especially important for Hispanic/Latine SMEA navigating pressures to conceal, minimize, or disengage from marginalized identities (Chaparro & Abreu, 2023).

Importantly, given the Western foundations of individualism in psychotherapy (Organista, 2019) clinicians wishing to serve Hispanic/Latine SMEA should develop appropriate familiarity with Hispanic/Latine culture and assess their own biases to avoid imposing their own cultural values on Hispanic/Latine SMEA clients. For example, when discussing identity conflicts with clients, clinicians can simultaneously validate both personal (e.g., individual authenticity) and group‐based values (e.g., familism) and empower clients to embrace all of these values in a holistic fashion in order to reduce distress associated with identity fragmentation and promote more adaptive integration of self‐concepts. Given the emphasis on Hispanic/Latine cultural on familism, therapeutic spaces may also benefit from considerations of how to incorporate family members themselves into the therapeutic interventions, suggesting that family‐based interventions may be a critical avenue to support Hispanic/Latine SMEA (Lozano et al., 2022). As with many cultural groups, Hispanic/Latine individuals vary widely in their perceptions and education regarding LGBTQ+ issues. As such, family educational programs that challenge negative stigmas about LGBTQ+ people and facilitate dialogue around culture, religion, sexuality, and acceptance may help reduce interpersonal conflict and foster supportive relational environments (Lozano et al., 2022). Even when full familial affirmation is not immediately attainable, increasing understanding and reducing rejection may meaningfully support identity development and psychological well‐being among Hispanic/Latine SMEA.

Given the focus of the present study on college students, results provide implications for higher education settings. Institutional climates play a critical role in shaping how identities are experienced and expressed. Campuses may help foster inclusive, affirming environments by offering visible support for Hispanic/Latine SMEA personal and social identities through inclusive curricula, student organizations, mentorship opportunities, and culturally responsive services. This may involve creating spaces where multiple identities can be expressed fully and authentically across academic and social settings (McField et al., 2025). At a broader level, these considerations point to the importance of policy and structural efforts that extend beyond individual‐level intervention. Reducing institutional discrimination, expanding access to affirming resources, and promoting equity across educational, religious, and civic spaces may create conditions that better support healthy identity development. Efforts to promote youth well‐being are most effective when they address not only individual coping, but also the social environments that shape identity formation and constraint.

CONCLUSION

Identity development among Hispanic/Latine SMEA unfolds at the intersection of multiple personal and social contexts, making it complex and heterogeneous. By adopting a person‐centered approach to identity centrality, this study illustrates how identities are differentially organized within individuals and how these configurations carry meaningful implications for psychological adjustment. Taken together, this work emphasizes the importance of moving beyond single‐domain or variable‐centered models of identity and toward approaches that capture the multidimensional and contextual nature of identity development. Advancing research, practice, and policy in this area will require greater attention to the configurations through which identities are prioritized, affirmed, or constrained, as well as the sociopolitical environment in which these processes unfold.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Bethany Cruz: Conceptualization; writing – original draft; methodology; writing – review and editing; formal analysis. Alan Meca: Data curation; supervision; writing – original draft; writing – review and editing. Julian D. Peña: Writing – original draft; writing – review and editing. Alexandra Graelles: Writing – original draft; writing – review and editing. Shelby B. Scott: Writing – original draft; writing – review and editing.

FUNDING INFORMATION

There are no funding sources to report for this research.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors report no actual or perceived conflict of interest.

CONSENT STATEMENT

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

ETHICAL APPROVAL STATEMENT

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of The University of Texas at San Antonio (Protocol FY20‐21‐317, Title: “Profiles of Identity Centrality and Cumulative Health in University”).

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data that supports the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.