Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Jun 1.
Published in final edited form as: Asian Am J Psychol. 2019 Nov 21;11(2):59–68. doi: 10.1037/aap0000168

Daily academic satisfaction and ethnic/racial identity of Asian American adolescents: The role of objective and subjective peer diversity at school

Yuen Mi Cheon 1,*, Li Niu 2, Alexandra Ehrhardt 3, Tiffany Yip 4
PMCID: PMC7989802  NIHMSID: NIHMS1060346  PMID: 33777326

Abstract

The purpose of the current study was to examine the association between daily academic satisfaction and ethnic/racial identity of Asian American adolescents. Based on ecological systems theory and social comparison theory the moderating roles of objective and subjective peer diversity at school in this association were also examined. Daily diary and survey responses of 102 Asian American adolescents were included in this study (Age: M=15.26, SD=0.71; Female=70.60%; US-born=74.50%). Using hierarchical linear modeling, no direct association between daily academic satisfaction and ethnic/racial identity was observed in the full sample. However, when objective and subjective peer diversity at school were considered a positive association was observed among the adolescents who perceived a high percentage of Asian American peers at school. The interpretation and implications for the results are discussed.

Keywords: academic satisfaction, ethnic/racial identity, private regard, Asian American adolescents, subjective school diversity

Model minority stereotype (MMS) assumes Asian Americans are “smart, overachieving, humble, quiet, and stoic” (Kim, 2012; Museus & Kiang, 2009). This stereotype has placed high academic expectations on Asian American individuals as a pan-ethnic group (i.e., a collective group encompassing a range of groups perceived to share some cultural traits despite considerable differences in ethnic or national origins; Kim & White, 2010). In fact, in a study of Asian American adolescents from six public schools in the southeastern United States, over 99% reported being targets of the MMS (Thompson & Kiang, 2010). While this stereotype connects academic experiences and one’s identification as Asian American, there has been a limited empirical focus on the association between Asian American adolescents’ academic experiences and ethnic/racial identity (ERI) development considering peer diversity in their school context.

Asian American adolescents’ academic experiences and ethnic/racial identity (ERI)

As adolescents self-search and construct a sense of self, academic experiences and school contexts provide a meaningful context for identity development. For instance, academic success can inform identity development broadly. Indeed, previous research has shown that academic experiences are associated with adolescents’ self-esteem and educational identity (Pop, Negru-Subtirica, Crocetti, Opre, & Meeus, 2016). Similarly, academic experiences are also likely to impact ERI development, particularly for Asian American adolescents who are pervasively exposed to the MMS.

Stereotypes inform adolescents’ ERI development (Armenta, 2010; Lee, 1994; McGlone & Aronson, 2006). On the one hand, academic stereotypes about Asian Americans suggest that they should excel by virtue of being Asian American. On the other hand, when Asian American adolescents do not perform well academically, the MMS provides added pressure to conform to the stereotype. In her qualitative work on Asian American high school students, Lee (1994) observed that Asian American students who struggled academically have been referred to as “mutant Asian[s]” by their peers. These experiences, feelings and interactions that are targeted at Asian pan-ethnic membership likely impacts their ERI development. However, we know little about how these experiences contribute to Asian American students’ ERI development as most of the previous studies focused on the impact of ERI on academic outcomes.

In the existing literature, the degree to which Asian American adolescents identify with Asian pan-ethnic membership has been found to be tied to better academic motivation, achievement, and test scores (Fuligni, Witkow, & Garcia, 2005; Tran & Birman, 2010). ERI has also been linked to academic goals, expectations, and value of school utility (Kiang, Supple, Stein, & Gonzalez, 2012), as well as better performance on a math test following a stereotype threat cue (Armenta, 2010). One study conducted among Mexican, Chinese, and European American ninth-grade students found that Chinese American students had more positive academic attitudes compared to European American peers, and that this ethnic difference was explained by the higher levels of ERI among Chinese American students (Fuligni et al., 2005).

While these studies provide valuable information about the positive role of ERI in Asian American adolescents’ academic experiences, there is a need to consider academic experiences as a developmental context for ERI development. Given the MMS’s focus on academic success and Asian American group membership, it seems especially important to explore how Asian American adolescents’ academic experiences may inform ERI development. In particular, ERI private regard appears to be especially relevant to the academic experiences of Asian American adolescents. Private regard refers to a sense of pride or positive feelings about one’s ethnic/racial group (Sellers, Rowley, Chavous, Shelton, & Smith, 1997) and has important implications for a number of developmental outcomes such as self-esteem, positive well-being, academic engagement, and greater school success (Rivas‐Drake et al., 2014; Rowley, Sellers, Chavous, & Smith, 1998). Previous studies suggest that for Asian American adolescents exposed to the MMS, the development of ERI private regard may be particularly sensitive to their academic experiences (Oyserman & Sakamoto, 1997; Thompson & Kiang, 2010). In Asian cultures, one’s achievement brings honor to the parents or in-group members and creates a feeling of social honor or pride (Mascolo, Fischer, & Li, 2003; Mesquita & Karasawa, 2004). Therefore, meeting societal and parental expectations could be associated with pride in identifying as Asian American, while on the other hand, feeling that they are not fitting the stereotype may result in low levels of pride in their ethnic/racial group (Lee, 1994).

Academic outcomes (e.g., receiving grades, developing feelings about those grades) and ERI (e.g., how proud they feel about being Asian Americans) are both related to adolescents’ daily experiences (Hughes, Way, & Rivas‐Drake, 2011; Seaton, Yip, & Sellers, 2009; Shavelson, Hubner, & Stanton, 1976). In previous studies, academic and ERI experiences have demonstrated considerable daily within-person variations (Hughes et al., 2011; Seaton et al., 2009; Shavelson et al., 1976; Yip & Fuligni, 2002), suggesting that each adolescent’s ERI private regard may vary from day to day along with changes in their situational contexts, such as the academic settings and experiences (Hughes et al., 2011; Seaton et al., 2009). Although various dimensions of ERI have often been examined as a stable quality, an increasing number of studies have argued that ERI also responds to situational contexts and that individuals with different characteristics create different meanings (e.g., identity) in different situations (Douglass, Wang, & Yip, 2016; Matute-Bianchi, 1991; Sellers et al., 1997; Yip, 2005). For these reasons, we adopt repeated measurements for each adolescent to examine within-person associations between daily experience of academic satisfaction and ERI private regard. Because adolescents’ daily lives tend to be organized by weekly schedules, we examine these associations across seven consecutive days to capture a general account of daily experiences.

Based on the existing literature, we expect to find a positive relationship between daily academic satisfaction and daily ERI private regard. While many of the previous studies have demonstrated ERI as a predictor of academic achievement (Fuligni et al., 2005; Kiang et al., 2012; Tran & Birman, 2010), we examine academic experiences as a predictor of ERI for Asian American adolescents. In other words, we expect that on days in which Asian American adolescents are more academically satisfied, they may be more likely to have positive feelings about their ethnic/racial group.

Theoretical Framework

We use ecological systems theory as a developmental framework to guide the understanding of how social contexts influence daily processes associated with ERI (Bronfenbrenner, 1999). This framework suggests that the extent to which adolescents’ ERI is influenced by their academic satisfaction is not static but depends on the specific context in which they are embedded. More specifically, our study is informed by social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954), emphasizing that individuals compare themselves with others in the immediate context to evaluate themselves. Children and adolescents belong to multiple social categories (e.g., female, Asian, etc.), and the interplay between a person and the immediate structural context (e.g., the ethnic makeup of a student’s school) determines which of those categories is most salient at a specific point in time (Yip, Douglass, & Shelton, 2013). This means that the interplay between each adolescent and the developmental context may generate differences in the way Asian American adolescents’ academic experiences are related to their ERI development.

Ethnic/racial peer diversity at school

As one of the most important developmental contexts, we explore the extent to which ethnic/racial peer diversity at school has an impact on the daily-level associations between academic satisfaction and ERI development. Research suggests that the ethnic/racial composition of the school context meaningfully contributes to identity development in ethnic/racial minority adolescents (Juvonen, Nishina, & Graham, 2006; Umaña-Taylor, 2004; Yip et al., 2013). Some studies have found that attending ethnically/racially diverse schools (e.g., relatively equal numbers of white and minority students) significantly improved students’ intergroup attitudes in all major pan-ethnic groups such as African American, Asian, Latinx, and White groups (Juvonen et al., 2006). In another study examining Latinx adolescents, attending predominantly non-Latinx schools was associated with higher levels of ERI than adolescents in predominantly Latinx or balanced Latinx/non-Latinx schools (Umaña-Taylor, 2004). Yip et al. (2013) focused on Asian American adolescents and found that school ethnic/racial composition interacts with personal factors to affect youth ERI private regard. Specifically, in predominantly White or heterogeneous schools, Asian American adolescents who strongly identified with their own ethnic/racial group reported feeling better about their ethnic/racial group on days that they had more contact with same ethnic/racial peers (Yip et al., 2013); however, in the same school setting, Asian American adolescents who were less identified with their ethnic/racial group reported feeling worse about their ethnic/racial group on days that they were surrounded by other Asian Americans.

These findings support both ecological systems theory and social comparison theory and suggest that ethnic/racial composition of peers at school is an important context in which daily experiences shape the organization and development of adolescents’ ERI. In schools where Asian Americans are the numeric majority, they are more likely to compare themselves to same-ethnic/racial peers based on nuanced characteristics (e.g., academic achievement) to create in-group distinctions. In this context, Asian American students who are more satisfied with their academic achievement and experience consistency with MMS may distinguish themselves as fitting better as Asian Americans and develop more positive feelings about their in-groups than other Asian American peers who are discordant with MMS and feel that they have failed to live up to the social expectation. Thus, with increased levels of academic satisfaction, increased levels of ERI private regard are likely to be observed in Asian American students attending predominately Asian schools. In the minority context, however, there may be a lack of desire for Asian American students to distinguish or represent themselves as the stereotypic Asian Americans, because they are already different (Fitzpatrick & Hwang, 1992). Instead, they may feel a greater pressure to conform to the majority group than to evaluate themselves on the basis of the stereotype about their ethnic/racial group. In this context, the relationship between Asian American adolescents’ academic satisfaction and ERI private regard may be diminished. Taken together, we expect that the association between daily academic satisfaction and ERI private regard would be stronger in schools with a higher percentage of Asian American peers than in schools with a lower percentage of Asian Americans.

Objective versus subjective peer diversity at school

In assessing the role of peer diversity at school, we consider and distinguish how objective (ethnic/racial composition of the school based on actual count of students) and subjective peer diversity (adolescents’ perception of ethnic/racial composition of their schools) influence the way individuals’ daily academic experiences are associated with ERI private regard. Research has shown that individual perceptions of the school context may be different from the objective context of the school (Wilcox, Augustine, Bryan, & Roberts, 2005). Research has also shown that subjective perception may be more influential than objective context in predicting individual outcomes (Singh-Manoux, Marmot, & Adler, 2005). Examining both objective and subjective peer diversity will provide useful information for developing relevant and effective programs and policies at the structural as well as at the personal level. Therefore, we examine both the roles of objective and subjective peer diversity in the daily-level relationship between academic satisfaction and ERI private regard for Asian American adolescents. In line with previous findings, we hypothesize that compared to objective peer diversity, subjective peer diversity will be a stronger moderator for the daily-level association between academic satisfaction and ERI private regard for Asian American adolescents.

Current Study

Although MMS is widely experienced by Asian American adolescents, little is known about how it affects the ERI development among Asian Americans with varying academic experiences and within different school contexts. Although academic experiences and ethnic/racial private regard are sensitive to both daily situational contexts and larger school contexts, few studies have examined Asian American adolescents’ within-person daily associations or tested the moderating role of the school racial/ethnic composition (both objective and subjective) in such associations. The goal of this study was to address these gaps in the literature and examine the within-person daily association between academic satisfaction and ERI private regard among Asian American adolescents. Based on the literature and the content of the MMS, our first research question was, “On days in which Asian American adolescents experienced higher levels of academic satisfaction do they experience higher levels of ERI private regard?” Our hypothesis was that there would be a positive association between daily academic satisfaction and ERI private regard. Our second research question was, “Does the within-person association between Asian American adolescents’ daily academic satisfaction and daily ERI private regard vary by objective and subjective ethnic/racial diversity at school? Our hypothesis was that the relationship between daily academic satisfaction and ERI private regard would be stronger among the adolescents who perceive a relatively high percentage of Asian American peers in their schools, and this moderating effect would be stronger for subjective than objective peer diversity at school.

Method

Participants

Participants were drawn from a 3-wave longitudinal study of adolescents in New York City public schools. From a total sample of 405, adolescents who identified with Asian ethnicity (n=139) were included in this study. Of these 139 adolescents, those without all 7 days of data (n=37) were excluded from the study. There was a total of 102 adolescents who primarily identified themselves as one of the following categories: Asian or Asian American (6.82%), Asian or Asian American-Chinese (77.45%), Asian or Asian American-Korean (2.94%), Asian or Asian American-Japanese (0.98%), Asian or Asian American-Other (11.76%). Those who indicated Asian or Asian American-Other specified their primary ethnicity as Bangladeshi (n=1), Filipino (n=5), Hispanic/Colombian (n=1), Indo-Guyanese (n=1), Indonesian (n=2), Malaysian (n=3), Moroccan (n=1), Thai (n=1), and Tibetan (n=1). A total of 10 (9.80%) considered themselves to be a member of more than one ethnic/racial group. The majority of the participants were born in the United States (n=76, 74.50%).Those who were born outside the United States reported having been born in Bangladesh (n=1), Brazil (n=1), China (n=17, of which n=1 from Hong Kong), Colombia (n=1),, Indonesia (n=1), Malaysia (n=1), Peru (n=1), Philippines (n=2), and Singapore (n=1). Their mean age was 15.26 (SD=0.71), and 71.60% were female (n=73). Almost half of the participants indicated that they did not know the highest level of education completed by their mothers (n=52, 50.98%) or fathers (n=51, 50.00%) with some missing data (mother: n=3, 2.94%; father: n=4, 3.92%). Of those who responded, the largest percentage responded that the highest level of education completed by their mothers (n=16, 15.67%) and fathers (n=16, 15.67%) was high school. The languages spoken at home were Arabic (n=1), Chinese-Cantonese (n=15), Chinese-Mandarin (n=36), English (n=43), Korean (n=3), Malay (n=1), and Spanish (n=1) with two missing responses.

Procedure

The larger study’s data was initially collected from five public schools in New York City in the fall and spring of each year over 3 waves and focused on examining adolescents’ development over time. The overall diversity scores measured by Simpson’s Index (Simpson, 1949) ranged from 0.55 to 0.74, which were relatively high compared to the New York City average score of 0.37 and the national average of 0.32. This index reflects the probability that two randomly chosen individuals within the same school are from different ethnic/racial groups. Participants were recruited in the fall of 2008 and the fall 2009. Participants were given parental consent forms through the mail or their school mailboxes in English, Spanish, and/or Chinese/Mandarin as determined by participant and school demographic data. Completed parental consent forms were returned in self-addressed postage-paid envelopes or to the school liaison. Student assent forms were also collected. Parents who did not give consent or students who did not assent were not included in the research study. Researchers visited schools to administer demographic surveys in groups of 10 to 30 students. The surveys asked students about their demographic information along with their experiences with social relationships, health, academics, and ethnicity/race. Upon the completion of the demographic survey, participants were asked to complete the nightly surveys for the following 7 days. Students were contacted daily via phone (both text message and/or voice call) and email whether or not they completed the previous night’s survey. Those who completed previous night’s survey were encouraged to continue, while those who did not complete the previous night’s survey were encouraged to do so by providing them with information about sample average social norms related to completion. For this study, we used the data collected during the first year, which contained the largest number of participants. Including only the first year data was sufficient to address the current study’s research questions as this study focused on the micro-longitudinal data that were collected from each individual repeatedly over a 7-day period reflecting students’ schedules that tend to repeat on a weekly basis. As we were interested in adolescents’ daily experiences, we used both the demographic and nightly surveys. Students were compensated $50 for the participation. For the 7-day nightly survey, students participated on an average of 6.90 days, ranging from 5 to 7 days. All of these procedures have been approved by the Internal Review Board of the authors’ institution.

Measures

Daily-level variables

Daily ERI private regard.

Daily ERI private regard was measured everyday over 7 days using the Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity (MIBI; Sellers et al., 1997). The subscale was revised to be used for diverse ethnic/racial groups with the term “my ethnic/racial group” (Fuligni et al., 2005). On a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), 7 items were asked about how positively adolescents personally viewed their ethnic/racial group (e.g., “I believe that because I am a member of my racial/ethnic group, I have many strengths”). The reliability of this measure was α=0.74. The intraclass correlation (ICC) was 0.67, meaning that approximately 67% of the total variation in private regard could be explained by between-person variances (i.e., individual differences) and 33% could be attributed to within-person variances (i.e., daily level variability).

Previous day’s ERI private regard.

In order to control for any carry-over effects from the previous day, previous day’s ERI private regard was controlled for in the analyses. In order to reflect previous day’s reports, a separate variable was created with lagged scores of daily ERI private regard by shifting each day’s response to the following day.

Daily academic satisfaction.

Daily academic satisfaction was also measured everyday over 7 days with a scale revised from the Academic Satisfaction Scale (Lent, Singley, Sheu, Schmidt, & Schmidt, 2007). Each day, adolescents were first asked whether they received any grades that day; on days in which they did receive any grades, they were then asked about how satisfied they were with those grades. All other days that they did not report the receipt of any grades were treated as missing and estimated using restricted maximum likelihood estimation method. On a Likert scale ranging from 0 (very unsatisfied) to 4 (very satisfied), they were asked, “How satisfied are you with your grade?” The ICC was 0.48, meaning that approximately 48% of the total variance of academic satisfaction could be explained by between-person variances, or individual differences, while approximately 52% could be explained by within-person variances.

Weekday versus weekend.

According to our data, students reported that they received grades both on weekdays and weekends which is conceivable since schools currently employ online grading tools. Therefore, whether the participant responded to the nightly survey during a weekday or weekend was coded as 0=weekday and 1=weekend and included in the analyses.

Individual-level variables

Subjective peer diversity.

Adolescents’ perception of peer diversity at school was assessed using the self-reported percentage of Asian American/Asian students in their school. The adolescents were asked, “What percentage of people in your school are Asian American/Asian?” The percentage ranged from 0% to 93%. The mean percentage was 38% (SD=17%).

Objective peer diversity.

The objective percentage of peer diversity at each school was also considered in the analyses. The information on the percentage of Asian American /Asian students in each school was obtained from the New York Department of Education website around the same time in the same year as the data collection for each of the five schools. The percentage ranged from 10% to 58%. The correlation between subjective and objective peer diversity within the adolescents’ schools is presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Bivariate correlations among main study variables

1 2 3 4 5
1. 7-day mean of daily ERI private regard   −
2. 7-day mean of daily academic
satisfaction		   0.29**   −
3. Gender   0.04 −0.03   −
4. Nativity   0.06   0.17 −0.03   −
5. Subjective peer diversity   0.07 −0.09   0.07   0.01   −
6. Objective peer diversity −0.03 −0.10 −0.04 −0.08   0.43**
Open in a new tab

Notes.

*

p<0.05,

**

p<.0.01. ERI = ethnic/racial identity; Gender: 0=female, 1=male; Nativity: 0=foreign-born, 1=United States-born; Subjective peer diversity (0~100); Objective peer diversity (0~1).

Gender.

Adolescents’ sex/gender was self-reported and coded as 0=female and 1=male.

Nativity.

Whether adolescents were born in the United States was coded as 0=born outside of the United States and 1=born in the United States.

Analytic Approach

Considering the nested nature of the data (i.e., the data collected over 7 days were nested within each individual), hierarchical linear modeling (HLM; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002) was conducted. Specifically, the data collected over 7 days were considered level-1, which was nested within each individual—a higher level, level-2 data. In order to examine within-person changes over time, the predictor variable was centered at the group-mean and a random intercept was employed. For the purpose of removing any carry-over effects from the previous day, previous day’s ERI private regard was controlled for in all analyses.

First, using HLM 6.0 software (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002) we examined daily associations between adolescents’ daily academic satisfaction and daily ERI private regard, controlling for weekday versus weekend effects (e.g., due to differences in the structure, frequency, and context in which academic experiences occur) and previous day’s ERI private regard (Level-1 Model). Second, we included individual characteristics (i.e., gender, nativity, subjective peer diversity, and objective peer diversity) in level-2 of the equation to predict the intercept of the daily academic satisfaction (Level-2 Intercept Model). Third, in order to examine how daily associations may vary by individual differences, the individual characteristics were added to predict both the intercept and the slope for the daily academic satisfaction (Level-2 Intercept and Slope Model). All missing data were treated with full information maximum likelihood (FIML) estimation.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Participants’ mean daily ERI private regard across the 7 days was 3.82 (SD=1.25), ranging from 0 to 6. The mean daily academic satisfaction across the 7 days was 2.33 (SD=1.43), ranging from 0 to 4. Table 1 presents the correlation between subjective and objective peer diversity. A positive bivariate correlation was observed between the 7-day mean of daily ERI private regard and the 7-day mean of daily academic satisfaction. Subjective peer diversity and objective peer diversity were also positively correlated.

Daily academic satisfaction and ERI private regard (Level-1 Model)

We first examined daily within-person associations (level-1) between academic satisfaction and ERI private regard, controlling for previous day’s ERI private regard and weekday versus weekend effects (Table 2, Level-1 Model). The results did not support an association (b= 0.13, SE=0.19, p=n.s.). However, the variance component of the association was significant (variance component=0.26, SD=0.51, p<0.001), indicating that the slope may vary by individual characteristics (level-2).

Table 2.

Results of hierarchical linear model examining the association between daily academic satisfaction and daily ERI private regard: Individual differences by peer diversity

Variables Level-1 Model
B(SE)		 Level-2
Intercept Model
B(SE)		 Level-2
Intercept and
Slope Model
B(SE)
Intercept   3.67 (0.18)***   3.14 (0.45)***   3.21 (0.46)***
   X Gender   0.26 (0.37)   0.27 (0.38)
   X Nativity −0.08 (0.41) −0.04 (0.41)
   X Subjective peer diversity   0.02 (0.01) −0.29 (1.13)
   X Objective peer diversity −0.42 (1.12)   0.01 (0.01)
Daily academic satisfaction   0.13 (0.19)   0.20 (0.18) −0.69 (0.42)
   X Subjective peer diversity   0.03 (0.01)**
   X Objective peer diversity −0.19 (0.98)
Weekday/weekend   0.30 (0.58)   0.50 (0.45)   0.41 (0.69)
Previous day’s ERI private regard −0.53 (0.17)** −0.53 (0.17)** −0.57 (0.16)**
Variance of intercept   1.88***   1.82***   1.83***
Variance of random slope
(daily academic satisfaction)		   0.26***   0.27***   0.17***
Variance at daily level   0.14   1.14   0.11
Open in a new tab

Notes.

*

p<0.05,

**

p<.0.01,

***

p<0.001. ERI = ethnic/racial identity; Gender: 0=female, 1=male; Nativity: 0=foreign-born, 1=United States-born; Subjective peer diversity (0~100); Objective peer diversity (0~1); Weekday=0, weekend=1; ERI private regard range=1–7.

Variations by gender, nativity, and subjective and objective peer diversity (Level-2 Intercept Model)

In order to consider the possible effect of individual characteristics, gender, nativity, and subjective and objective peer diversity were included in the intercept of the equation (Table 2, Level-2 Intercept Model). The results demonstrated no association between individual characteristics and daily ERI private regard among these adolescents.

Variations by gender, nativity, subjective and objective peer diversity (Level-2 Intercept and Slope Model)

Next, examining how the daily association between academic satisfaction and ERI private regard may vary by subjective and objective peer diversity, these variables were included as a predictor of the intercept as well as the slope of daily academic satisfaction (Table 2, Level-2 Intercept and Slope Model). The results indicated that while the interaction effect of objective peer diversity was not significant (b=−0.19, SE=0.98, p=n.s.), a significant interaction effect of subjective peer diversity was observed (b=0.03, SE=0.01, p<.01; Figure 1). The simple intercepts and simple slopes tests were conducted to examine whether the intercepts and slopes for different values of the moderator (i.e., subjective peer diversity) were significantly different from 0. The test revealed that while the intercepts for both groups (low, −1SD: approximately 20%; high, +1SD: approximately 55%) were significantly different from 0 (p<0.001), the slope was significantly different from 0 only for adolescents who perceived a high percentage of Asian American students at their school (b=1.61, SE=0.64, t=2.52, p<0.05). Adolescents who perceived that they were surrounded by many Asian American peers at school associated their academic satisfaction more strongly with their ERI private regard.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Daily academic satisfaction and daily ERI private regard among Asian American adolescents: Variations by subjective percentage of Asians American peers at school (low vs. high).

Sensitivity Analysis: ERI private regard predicting academic satisfaction

As a sensitivity analysis to examine the temporal sequence of daily academic satisfaction and ERI private regard, we also examined an alternative model which considered the daily within-person association of daily ERI private regard predicting daily academic satisfaction. The results revealed that within-person changes in daily ERI private regard did not contribute to the same day’s response of academic satisfaction. Moreover, although the coefficient of interaction effect seems to be relatively small, the effect size of the overall analytic model for the two groups (low vs. high % Asian) was approximately 0.47, which was close to medium (0.50) effect size (Carson, 2012).

Discussion

The model minority stereotype (MMS) associates academic excellence with being Asian American. While this stereotype is widely experienced by Asian American adolescents in the United States (Ng, Lee, & Pak, 2007; Wing, 2007), previous studies have focused on its effect on academic achievement (Cheryan & Bodenhausen, 2000; Kao, 1995; Worrell, 2007) and less on implications for how academic experiences contribute to the development of their ERI. Moreover, most of the previous studies have focused on the stable aspect of ERI, while other studies have started to observe within-person changes in ERI responding to situations. In an effort to address these gaps, we examined the daily within-person association between academic satisfaction and ERI private regard among Asian American adolescents.

Overall, there was no evidence for a within-person association between daily academic satisfaction and ERI private regard. However, this association varied depending on subjective perceptions of school-based peer diversity. Specifically, a positive relationship between academic satisfaction and ERI private regard was found among Asian American adolescents who perceived a high percentage of Asian American/Asian students at school. In this section, we interpret and discuss each finding in detail with the consideration of limitations and contributions of the study.

Our results suggest that ERI private regard can be explained by both between-(67%) and within-person (33%) variations. In other words, while there are aspects of ERI private regard that tends to be stable for each individual, there are also aspects that tend to change within-person possibly through responding to situational contexts. This is in line with previous studies that have found situational changes in ERI (Douglas, Wang, & Yip, 2016; Matute-Bianchi & Sellers et al., 1997; Yip, 2005). This is particularly important to note as adolescence is known as an active period of identity development (Erikson, 1994), and implies that what adolescents experience day to day through their cultural and social contexts meaningfully contribute to their identity formation.

Although there was no overall within-person association between daily academic satisfaction and ERI private regard, individual differences were observed. This result implies that the association between academic satisfaction and ERI private regard may not be uniform across individuals. Consistent with social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954), we found that subjective peer diversity mattered for how academic satisfaction was associated with ERI private regard on a daily basis. The difference in the ERI private regard levels on days that adolescents experienced high levels of academic satisfaction between low versus high diversity schools was 1.11 units. This is important to note because previous studies have found 1 unit of increase in ERI private regard to be associated with a significant decrease in the level of depressive symptoms (Bynum, Best, Barnes, & Burton, 2008). For those who perceived that their schools had a low proportion of Asian American/Asian peers, daily experience of academic satisfaction was not associated with feelings about their ethnic/racial group. Through social comparison (Festinger, 1954), the adolescents who perceived themselves as minority may have disregarded the Asian stereotype and hesitated to associate their academic experiences with their ethnicity/race in an effort to conform to the non-Asian majority culture. In fact, not only was academic satisfaction unrelated to ERI private regard for this group of adolescents who perceived themselves as ethnic/racial minority at school, but also the overall level of ERI private regard remained relatively low regardless of the level of academic satisfaction.

As ERI private regard has been found to have important implications for adolescent development including the development of self-esteem (Rivas‐Drake et al., 2014; Rowley et al., 1998), our results suggest that policies and programs are needed to develop ERI private regard especially for the adolescents who perceive themselves as ethnic/racial minority at school. For example, schools with a small number of Asian American students may help these students develop positive ERI private regard by staffing Asian American teachers. It is also possible to invite Asian American guest speakers at the schools. Schools should also recognize the importance of knowing and embracing one’s heritage and integrate this idea into academic and non-academic curriculum and programs.

Our results also suggest that in schools with a relatively high percentage of Asian American peers, Asian American adolescents may be at risk of developing low levels of ERI private regard on days in which they were not satisfied with their academic performance. Their sense of ethnic/racial self was closely related to their perception of academic performance, which hints at the potential pervasiveness of MMS effect in predominantly Asian schools. Again, social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954) helps us understand this result. For Asian American adolescents who perceived that their schools had a high proportion of Asian American peers, academic satisfaction may have been used as a tool to distinguish themselves from other ethnically/racially similar Asian American adolescents. In these schools, on days in which the Asian American adolescents experienced higher levels of academic satisfaction, they may have tried to distinguish themselves from other Asian American adolescents and viewed themselves as fitting better with the Asian American group, reporting higher levels of ERI private regard than other days. However, on days in which they were not academically satisfied, they may have felt that they have failed to live up to the expectations for being Asian Americans and reported lower levels of ERI private regard.

While previous studies have demonstrated a positive role of ERI in adolescents’ academic experiences (Armenta, 2010; Fuligni et al., 2005; Kiang et al., 2012; Tran & Birman, 2010), these adolescents also seemed to need highly satisfying academic experiences in their daily lives in order to develop the positive ERI needed for their academic achievement. This, in turn, places them at risk of developing less positive ERI private regard especially on days in which they were less satisfied with their academics. As our results pertain to perceptions of academic satisfaction, a product of both actual academic experiences (e.g., grades received on exams and assignments, feedback from teachers and peers, etc.) and how adolescents interpret and respond to these daily academic-related events (i.e., feelings about the actual scores and feedback), suggestions can be made to help these adolescents set reasonable goals and expectations, appreciate their efforts and be satisfied with their performance. Nevertheless, and ultimately, finding ways to reduce the potential effect of MMS is needed to protect Asian American adolescents’ ERI private regard from being largely affected by the ups and downs of their daily academic experiences. Protecting ERI from environmental and situational risk factors is critical to adolescents’ healthy development because the ability to embrace this aspect of self (i.e., ERI) is an important part of accepting oneself holistically. According to research on self-concept development, cultivating a steady and positive sense of self is important for one’s well-being (Shavelson et al., 1976). Our results call for the need to find ways both in research and practice to protect Asian American adolescents from the risk of developing low levels of ERI private regard on days in which they experience low levels of academic satisfaction.

One of the primary ways to respond to this issue is to become aware of the prevalence of MMS experiences that may have both positive and negative impact on Asian American adolescents depending on personal, situational and environmental characteristics (Kiang, Huynh, Cheah, Wang, & Yoshikawa, 2017; Kiang, Tseng, & Yip, 2016; Lee, Park, & Wong, 2017). Schools and parents could benefit from recognizing the heterogeneity among Asian American adolescents’ developmental experiences resulting from the differential impact of diversity across various contexts such as school, home, and neighborhood. Upon this recognition, active efforts need to be made in order to avoid endorsing this stereotype in teaching, parenting, policies and programs as well as in daily conversations and encounters. Specifically, workshops, cultural sensitivity trainings and discussion groups for mental health professionals, students, parents, teachers, and other school staff on these topics would be very helpful.

Another implication of this study is that instead of the objective peer diversity measure, adolescents’ subjective perception of peer diversity had an impact on making the difference in the association between academic satisfaction and ERI private regard. Although many studies find the important role of objective diversity at schools (e.g., Clayton, 2011), the current study results are consistent with the literature demonstrating the difference between the actual ethnic/racial diversity and individual perceptions of diversity (Mislevy, 2009). Our results emphasize the important role adolescents’ subjective perception of developmental context plays in the formation of their identity. Diversity at the experiential level (i.e., subjective peer diversity), rather than the structural level (e.g., objective peer diversity), seemed to be more meaningful to their development (Yip, Cheon, & Wang, 2019). At the same time, though, it should be noted that in order for diversity to be subjectively experienced, it first needs to exist at the objective structural level. Our results speak to the fact that the existence of diversity at the structural level may remain less effective for adolescent development if it is not translated into the subjective experience. As the next step, understanding the process in which objective diversity is translated into subjective diversity will help elucidate their respective roles. We suggest that future studies continue to examine the impact of and the relationship between objective and subjective peer diversity as adolescents’ developmental contexts to ultimately design and implement effective diversity policies and programs.

The current study also suggests that the experience of varying levels of diversity across different contexts may create differences in adolescents’ developmental outcomes. Asian Americans belong to a minority ethnic/racial group in the United States (5.8%; U.S. Census Bureau, 2017). However, even within the same national context, subjective experiences at schools with varying levels of diversity created differences in adolescents’ ERI development (Bronfenbrenner, 1997; Krieger, 2008; Whipple et al., 2010). In other words, while one group belonged to a minority group both in the school and the country, another group belonged to a majority group in the school while belonging to a minority group in the country. The differences found between these groups call for discussions on how different combinations of diversity experiences across contexts or shifting from one diversity context to another may contribute to adolescent development.

Limitations and future directions

All of these findings need to be considered with limitations of the study in mind. First, peer diversity was measured by the static proportion of their own ethnic/racial (Asian) peers at school. Future studies could expand the findings of this study and include adolescents’ actual friend networks and day-to-day interactions with same and different ethnic/racial peers. Moreover, instead of comparing peer diversity as low versus high, investigating a potentially non-linear relationship among low, middle, and high peer diversity levels may provide a novel perspective into the role of peer diversity in Asian American adolescents’ ERI development. Second, this study focused on one of many dimensions of ERI, private regard. Future studies could expand on how Asian American adolescents’ academic experiences may have implications for other ERI dimensions. Additionally, ERI private regard focuses mainly on the positive outcomes, such as adolescents’ positive feelings about their ethnic/racial group, and does not take into account the potentially negative feelings that may be concurrently present with the positive feelings. Subsequent studies that account for the negative feelings about their ethnic/racial group will also advance the current findings. Third, the assessment of how these daily processes cumulatively relate to various long-term outcomes will provide practical and useful information for policies and programs. Fourth, with 71.60% of the sample identifying as female, and no significant associations between gender and ERI private regard were found. Since the sample was majority female, future studies should consider accounting for gender differences with balanced gender distributions. Despite large cultural and ethnic differences within the pan-ethnic Asian American group, the study was not sufficiently powered to examine within-ethnic group differences, and we did not find significant effects of nativity on ERI private regard. This is possibly because the adolescents in this data were predominantly born in the United States (74.50%), and those who were born outside the United States may not have been sufficiently represented. This is in line with similar research which also had an insufficient representation of foreign-born adolescents and found no differences by immigration status for other aspects of ERI (exploration, affirmation, and belonging) (Pahl & Way, 2006). Further studies need to examine potential differences and similarities in the level of various ERI dimensions by adolescents’ nativity status. Furthermore, the associations between academic achievement and identity development need to be investigated for those with large achievement gaps and those who are exposed to slightly different types of MMS stereotypes.

Conclusion

Despite these limitations, the current study contributes to the understanding of Asian American adolescents’ ERI development, specifically on the association between daily experience of academic satisfaction and development of ERI private regard. The findings of this study are expected to be especially valuable for unpacking the possible impact of MMS which is widely experienced among Asian American adolescents in varying levels across different diversity contexts. Specifically, the association between academic satisfaction and ERI private regard, which was found among adolescents who perceived that their schools had a high percentage of Asian American peers, provides support for ecological systems theory and social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954), and highlights the heterogeneity of experiences among Asian American adolescents. These findings also demonstrate the importance of considering school context and diversity both at the experiential and structural level in designing policies and programs that promote adolescents’ healthy development of ERI private regard.

Public Significance Statement.

For Asian American adolescents who perceived that they were in a school with a high percentage of Asian peers, their daily experience of academic satisfaction was positively associated with the same-day’s ethnic/racial identity private regard, while no association was found for those who perceived a relatively low percentage of Asian peers in the school. These findings demonstrate the importance of considering school diversity both at the experiential and structural levels in devising ways to promote adolescents’ healthy development of ethnic/racial identity.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a grant awarded to Tiffany Yip and J. Nicole Shelton of Princeton University from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD055436). The first author was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (R21MD011388) awarded to Tiffany Yip.

Contributor Information

Yuen Mi Cheon, Department of Child Development and Education Myongji University, 34 Geobukgol-ro, Seodaemun-Gu, Seoul 03674, Korea.

Li Niu, Department of Psychology Fordham University, 441 East Fordham Rd. Bronx, NY 10458.

Alexandra Ehrhardt, Department of Psychology Fordham University, 441 East Fordham Rd. Bronx, NY 10458.

Tiffany Yip, Department of Psychology Fordham University, 441 East Fordham Rd. Bronx, NY 10458.

References

  1. Armenta BE (2010). Stereotype boost and stereotype threat effects: The moderating role of ethnic identification. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16, 94–98. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bronfenbrenner U. (2014). The ecology of cognitive development: Research models and fugitive findings. In Altbach PG, Arnold K, & King IC (Eds.), College student development and academic life: psychological, intellectual, social and moral issues (pp. 295–336).New York, NY: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bronfenbrenner U. (1999). Environments in developmental perspective: Theoretical and operational models. In Friedman SL & Wachs TD (Eds.), Measuring environment across the life span: Emerging methods and concepts (pp. 3–28). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association [Google Scholar]
  4. Bynum MS, Best C, Barnes SL, & Burton T. (2008). Private regard, identity protection and perceived racism among African American males, Journal of African American Studies, 12(2), 142–155. [Google Scholar]
  5. Carson C. (2012). The effective use of effect size indices in institutional research. Citováno Dne, 11, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  6. Cheryan S, & Bodenhausen GV (2000). When positive stereotypes threaten intellectual performance: The psychological hazards of “Model Minority” status. Psychological Science, 11(5), 399–402. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Clayton JK (2011). Changing diversity in US schools: The impact on elementary student performance and achievement. Education and urban society, 43(6), 671–695. [Google Scholar]
  8. Corbeil RR, & Searle SR (1976). Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation of variance components in the mixed model. Technometrics, 18(1), 31–38. [Google Scholar]
  9. Douglass S, Wang Y, & Yip T. (2016). The everyday implications of ethnic-racial identity processes: Exploring variability in ethnic-racial identity salience across situations. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(7), 1396–1411. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Erikson EH (1994). Identity: Youth and crisis (No. 7). WW Norton & Company. [Google Scholar]
  11. Festinger L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140. [Google Scholar]
  12. Fitzpatrick KM, & Hwang SS (1992). The effects of community structure on opportunities for interracial contact. The Sociological Quarterly, 33, 51–61. [Google Scholar]
  13. Fuligni AJ, Witkow M, & Garcia C. (2005). Ethnic identity and the academic adjustment of adolescents from Mexican, Chinese, and European backgrounds. Developmental Psychology, 41, 799–811. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Hughes D, Way N, & Rivas‐Drake D. (2011). Stability and change in private and public ethnic regard among African American, Puerto Rican, Dominican, and Chinese American early adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 861–870. [Google Scholar]
  15. Juvonen J, Nishina A, & Graham S. (2006). Ethnic diversity and perceptions of safety in urban middle schools. Psychological Science, 17, 393–400. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Kiang L, Huynh VW, Cheah CS, Wang Y, & Yoshikawa H. (2017). Moving beyond the model minority. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 8, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  17. Kiang L, Supple AJ, Stein GL, & Gonzalez LM (2012). Gendered academic adjustment among Asian American adolescents in an emerging immigrant community. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41, 283–294. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Kiang L, Tseng V, & Yip T. (2016). Placing Asian American child development within historical context. Child Development, 87, 995–1013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Kim AH, & White MJ (2010). Panethnicity, ethnic diversity, and residential segregation. American Journal of Sociology, 115(5), 1558–1596. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Kim J. (2012). Asian American racial identity development theory. In Wijeyesinghe CL & Jackson BW III (Eds.), New perspectives on racial identity development: Integrating emerging frameworks (138–160). New York, NY: NYU Press. [Google Scholar]
  21. Krieger N. (2008). Proximal, distal, and the politics of causation: what’s level got to do with it? American Journal of Public Health, 98, 221–230. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Lee SJ (1994). Behind the model‐minority stereotype: Voices of high‐and low‐achieving Asian American students. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 25(4), 413–429. [Google Scholar]
  23. Lee SJ, Park E, & Wong J-HS (2017). Racialization, schooling, and becoming American: Asian American experiences. Educational Studies, 53, 492–510. [Google Scholar]
  24. Lent RW, Singley D, Sheu H-B, Schmidt JA, & Schmidt LC (2007). Relation of social-cognitive factors to academic satisfaction in engineering students. Journal of Career Assessment, 15, 87–97. [Google Scholar]
  25. Mascolo MJ, Fischer KW, & Li J. (2003). Dynamic development of component systems of emotions: Pride, shame, and guilt in China and the United States. In Davidson RJ, Scherer K, & Goldsmith HH (Eds.), Handbook of affective science. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  26. Matute-Bianchi ME (1991). Situational ethnicity and patterns of school performance amongimmigrant and nonimmigrant Mexican-descent students. In Gibson MA & Ogbu JU (Eds.),Minority status and schooling: A comparative study of immigrant and involuntary minorities(pp. 205–247). New York: Garland. [Google Scholar]
  27. McGlone MS, & Aronson J. (2006). Stereotype threat, identity salience, and spatial reasoning. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 27, 486–493. [Google Scholar]
  28. Mesquita B, & Karasawa M. (2004). Self-conscious emotions as dynamic cultural processes. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 161–166. [Google Scholar]
  29. Mislevy J. (2009). Objective and subjective measures of diversity: How they relate to one another and climate perceptions. University of Maryland Institutional Research, Planning & Assessment website. Retrieved from https://www.irpa.umd.edu/Publications/pub_presentations.html. [Google Scholar]
  30. Museus SD, & Kiang PN (2009). Deconstructing the model minority myth and how it contributes to the invisible minority reality in higher education research. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2009, 5–15. [Google Scholar]
  31. Oyserman D, & Sakamoto I. (1997). Being Asian American: Identity, cultural constructs, and stereotype perception. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 33, 435–453. [Google Scholar]
  32. Pahl K, & Way N. (2006). Longitudinal trajectories of ethnic identity among urban Black and Latino adolescents. Child Development, 77(5), 1403–1415. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Pop EI, Negru-Subtirica O, Crocetti E, Opre A, & Meeus W. (2016). On the interplay between academic achievement and educational identity: A longitudinal study. Journal of Adolescence, 47, 135–144. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Raudenbush SW, & Bryk AS (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (Vol. 1): Sage. [Google Scholar]
  35. Rivas‐Drake D, Seaton EK, Markstrom C, Quintana S, Syed M, Lee RM, et al. (2014). Ethnic and racial identity in adolescence: Implications for psychosocial, academic, and health outcomes. Child Development, 85, 40–57. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Rowley SJ, Sellers RM, Chavous TM, & Smith MA (1998). The relationship between racial identity and self-esteem in African American college and high school students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 715. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Seaton EK, Yip T, & Sellers RM (2009). A longitudinal examination of racial identity and racial discrimination among African American adolescents. Child Development, 80, 406–417. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Sellers RM, Rowley SA, Chavous TM, Shelton JN, & Smith MA (1997). Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity: A preliminary investigation of reliability and constuct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 805–815. [Google Scholar]
  39. Shavelson RJ, Hubner JJ, & Stanton GC (1976). Self-concept: Validation of construct interpretations. Review of Educational Research, 46, 407–441. [Google Scholar]
  40. Simpson EH (1949). Measurement of diversity. Nature, 163, 688. [Google Scholar]
  41. Singh-Manoux A, Marmot MG, & Adler NE (2005). Does subjective social status predict health and change in health status better than objective status? Psychosomatic Medicine, 67, 855–861. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Thompson TL, & Kiang L. (2010). The model minority stereotype: Adolescent experiences and links with adjustment. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 1, 119. [Google Scholar]
  43. Tran N, & Birman D. (2010). Questioning the model minority: Studies of Asian American academic performance. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 1, 106. [Google Scholar]
  44. Umaña-Taylor AJ (2004). Ethnic identity and self-esteem: Examining the role of social context. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 139–146. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. U.S. Census Bureau (2017) Projected population by single year of age, sex, race, and hispanic origin for the United States: 2016 to 2060. Retrived from: https://www.census.gov.
  46. Whipple SS, Evans GW, Barry RL, & Maxwell LE (2010). An ecological perspective on cumulative school and neighborhood risk factors related to achievement. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31, 422–427. [Google Scholar]
  47. Wilcox P, Augustine MC, Bryan JP, & Roberts SD (2005). The “reality” of middle-school crime: Objective vs. subjective experiences among a sample of Kentucky youth. Journal of School Violence, 4, 3–28. [Google Scholar]
  48. Worrell FC (2007). Ethnic identity, academic achievement, and global self-concept in four groups of academically talented adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 23–38. [Google Scholar]
  49. Yip T. (2005). Sources of situational variation in ethnic identity and psychological well-being: A palm pilot study of Chinese American students. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(12), 1603–1616. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Yip T, Cheon YM, & Wang Y. (2019). The diversity paradox: Opportunities and challenges of “contact in context” across development. Research in Human Development, 16, 51–75. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Yip T, Douglass S, & Shelton JN (2013). Daily intragroup contact in diverse settings: Implications for Asian adolescents’ ethnic identity. Child Development, 84, 1425–1441. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Yip T, & Fuligni AJ (2002). Daily variation in ethnic identity, ethnic behaviors, and psychological well–being among American adolescents of Chinese descent. Child Development, 73, 1557–1572. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES