Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Jun 24.
Published in final edited form as: J Youth Adolesc. 2021 Feb 18;50(5):965–977. doi: 10.1007/s10964-021-01406-2

Directional Effects in Cultural Identity: A Family Systems Approach for Immigrant Latinx Families

Alan Meca 1, Oswaldo Moreno 2, Cory Cobb 3, Elma I Lorenzo-Blanco 3, Seth J Schwartz 3, Miguel Ángel Cano 4, Byron L Zamboanga 5, Melinda Gonzales-Backen 6, José Szapocznik 7, Jennifer B Unger 8, Lourdes Baezconde-Garbanati 8, Daniel W Soto 8
PMCID: PMC9231030  NIHMSID: NIHMS1814880  PMID: 33599938

Abstract

Although there is a substantial body of work focusing on the processes underlying cultural identity in general, less is known regarding how these processes might operate within the context of Latinx families. Moreover, among the limited research that has included the adolescent and caregiver cultural identity, most of the research has primarily focused on how caregivers influence their adolescent’s cultural identity. In the present study, the directional pathways between recently immigrated adolescents’ and caregivers’ ethnic and U.S. identity belonging were examined using data from a longitudinal study of acculturation and identity development among recently arrived Latinx immigrant families. The sample consisted of 302 primary caregivers (Mage = 41.09, SD = 7.13 at baseline; 67.5% mothers) and their adolescents (Mage = 14.51, SD = 0.88 at baseline; 46.7% female). The results indicated that caregivers’ ethnic identity belonging significantly predicted adolescents’ ethnic identity belonging over time. At the same time, adolescents’ ethnic identity negatively predicted caregivers’ ethnic identity belonging over time, whereas adolescents’ U.S. identity belonging positively predicted caregivers’ later ethnic identity belonging. The findings indicate that immigrant caregivers may retain their native culture to direct and respond to their children’s changing cultural identifications.

Keywords: Cultural identity, Family systems, Adolescence, Latinx immigrants, Longitudinal

Introduction

Immigrant youth in the United States (U.S.) are faced with the pressure and the challenge of becoming familiar with the host culture while also attempting to maintain loyalties to and competencies in their native culture (Schwartz et al., 2010a). As a result, immigrant youth are tasked with developing a cultural identity, or the degree to which individuals define themselves with the cultural groups to which they belong (Meca et al., 2017b). Although a substantial body of work has emerged focusing on the processes underlying ethnic (for a comprehensive review, see Rivas-Drake et al., 2014) and U.S. identity development (e.g., Kiang and Witkow, 2018), which represent two particularly salient components of cultural identity (Meca et al., 2020), it is also important to conceptualize these processes within the caregiver-adolescent dyad (Meca et al., 2017a). Indeed, the family not only plays a critical role in identity development for adolescents (Crocetti et al., 2014), but scholars have also argued it should represent a fundamental level of analysis (Koepke and Denissen, 2012). Despite this, little is known regarding the degree to which adolescents and caregivers influence each other’s ethnic and U.S. identity. Addressing this gap, the present study examined the directional pathways between adolescents’ and their caregivers’ ethnic and U.S. identity among a sample of recently immigrated Latinx families.

The Latinx Immigrant Experience Among Adolescent-Caregiver Dyads

The focus on recently immigrated Latinx families is driven by two keys reasons. First, within the U.S., Latinx are among the largest and fastest-growing immigrant groups. In 2014, there were approximately 55.3 million Latinx in the U.S., with immigrants comprising nearly 35% of the total Latinx population (Brown and Stepler, 2016). Second, as families migrate to a new country, caregivers and adolescents are faced with the challenge of acculturating or retaining their native culture and/or acquiring aspects of the host culture (Schwartz et al., 2010a). This process of acculturation can further be complicated in families with adolescents. The literature suggests that caregivers often adhere more strongly to their native culture and may be hesitant to embrace the unfamiliar aspects of the new culture, whereas their children often develop more ties to the culture of the host society to fit in with their new peers (Telzer, 2010). These cultural adaptation family dynamics may result in a “tug of war” between adolescents and their caregivers as both actively work to influence one another’s cultural identity (Umaña-Taylor et al., 2013). Given this ongoing series of adolescent-caregiver interactions, it is important to recognize that both adolescents and their caregivers concurrently undergo cultural identity changes that can reciprocally influence one another.

Over the past decade, research has primarily centered on caregivers encouraging their children to gravitate towards their own native culture yet engaging with the host culture (Portes and Rumbaut, 2014). Given that cultural identity is a function of both the caregiver’s and the adolescent’s cultural influence on one another, an understanding of how adolescent–caregiver interactions inform cultural identity development may help clinicians address the gap between adolescents and their parents’ cultural identity and facilitate the development of the family systems that provide caregivers and adolescents interactional skills to understand and accept each other’s identity development. In doing so, this enables caregivers and adolescents to develop their identities in ways that prevent conflict between the caregiver-adolescent dyads (Meca et al., 2017b).

Cultural Identity Development

Cultural identity captures multiple processes (e.g., cultural values, ethnic identification) that may change as immigrants retain aspects of their native culture and/or selectively acquire aspects of the host cultural context (Schwartz et al., 2010a). Although operationalizations of cultural identity have varied in the literature, within the current study, the focus was on ethnic and U.S. identity. Ethnic and the U.S. identity can each be understood as multidimensional constructs that reflect individuals’ beliefs and attitudes about their cultural group memberships, as well as how these beliefs and attitudes develop over time (Meca et al., 2020). The present study focuses on ethnic and U.S. identity belonging—that is, how youth and parents develop emotional attachments to both their ethnic group and to the United States (Schwartz et al., 2012). Although research on ethnic and U.S. identity development has highlighted both exploration (i.e., actively learning about what it means to belong to a cultural group) and resolution (i.e., an understanding of what one’s cultural group membership means to them) as key aspects of ethnic identity (Umaña-Taylor et al., 2014) development (Schwartz et al., 2012), the focus of the current study was on identity belonging as it represents having a consolidated sense of ethnic and/or U.S. identity (Schwartz et al., 2013). Indeed, within Phinney et al. (1993) ethnic identity model, establishing a sense of belonging is associated with the development of a secure ethnic identity. An extensive body of research has indicated that individuals with greater levels of ethnic identity belonging report higher levels of well-being (Rivas-Drake et al., 2014), and a growing body of work has equally found U.S. identity belonging is associated with greater positive functioning (e.g., Meca et al., 2017a).

Conceptualizing Ethnic and U.S. Identity within the Family Systems

In light of contemporary developmental perspectives, there has been a growing movement within the broader identity literature to adopt a stronger dynamic developmental perspective (Koepke and Denissen, 2012). Within these developmental frameworks, identity represents a higher-order construct that emerges out of micro-level transactions between individuals and their social environment (Koepke and Denissen, 2012). Recognizing that caregiver-adolescent relationships represent the earliest social context for identity development scholars have argued that the family systems should represent a basic level of analysis (Crocetti et al., 2014). Indeed, Schachter and Ventura (2008) argue that parents transmit their identity to their children by strategically implementing practices that convey or enhance what they believe to be proper expressions of the “self” based on their history, goals, and beliefs.

Scholars from both sociology (Portes and Rumbaut, 2014) and psychology (Szapocznik and Kurtines, 1993) have also conceptualized acculturation from a family systems perspective. For example, Portes and Rumbaut’s (2014) Segmented Assimilation Theory identified three patterns that reflect a differential endorsement of the host culture and their native culture between children and adolescents: consonant (i.e., both endorse host culture quickly), dissonant (i.e., youth endorse host culture more quickly than caregivers), and selective acculturation (i.e., a pattern of endorsement of host culture where children maintain values related to their family’s native culture). More broadly, Szapocznik and Kurtines (1993) posited that gaps in either native culture or host culture endorsement between caregivers and their adolescents might compromise family functioning (e.g., poor communication, lack of involvement). From within the lens of Szapocznik and Coatsworth’s (1999) ecodevelopmental systems framework, social interactions represent the key mechanism in the development and are influenced by behavioral, affective, and cognitive components.

Consistently, within the ethnic/racial identity literature, researchers have emphasized the role of racial and ethnic socialization or caregiver practices that promote adolescents’ retention of ethnic identity (Hughes et al. 2006). Echoing the literature on racial and ethnic socialization and the broader identity literature, scholars have argued for the need to conceptualize cultural identity within a larger developmental family systems perspective which emphasizes the bidirectional relationship between caregivers and their adolescents’ identity development (Koepke and Denissen, 2012). Indeed, it is important to note that prior studies have largely focused on how caregivers socialize their children toward (or away from) ethnic and U.S. cultural streams, but less strongly on the caregiver’s own cultural identity. Specifically, consistent with Schachter and Ventura’s (2008) conceptualization of the caregiver-adolescent identity system, caregivers’ own ethnic and U. S. identity can guide the extent to which they may encourage (or discourage) their children to gravitate towards their native culture and/or the host cultural context. Caregivers with higher ethnic belonging and lower U.S. belonging may be more restrictive and exert more control over their children (Halgunseth et al., 2006), thereby limiting adolescents’ exposure to the host culture (e.g., limitations on peer affiliations). Conversely, caregivers with a stronger sense of belonging to the U.S. may encourage their children to adopt U.S. cultural practices and attitudes (Schwartz et al. 2007).

At the same time, caregivers may alter their personal goals and parenting strategies to best fit the needs of their children (Schachter and Ventura, 2008). For example, adolescents are exposed to U.S. culture through the school system and peer networks, and such exposure may play a role in transmitting U.S. values and culture back to their caregivers (Padilla, 2006). However, adolescents’ effectiveness in doing so may be contingent on their own cultural identity. For example, adolescents with higher ethnic belonging may be more likely to have a stronger family orientation (Schwartz et al., 2010b) and more positive caregiver-child relationships (Schwartz et al., 2013). In turn, these positive family relationships may help to facilitate the development of U.S. identity among their caregivers (Schwartz et al., 2013).

The Current Study

The current study was designed to determine whether the association between adolescents’ and caregivers’ ethnic and U.S. identity belonging represents a unidirectional (i.e., one-way effects between caregivers and adolescents) or bidirectional association (i.e., two-way effects between caregivers and adolescents. Informed by the broader identity literature and the acculturation and ethnic socialization literature, it was argued that adolescents and caregivers’ own ethnic and U.S. identity guides the extent to which they may encourage (or discourage) each others’ gravitation toward their native culture and/or the host cultural context. Based on prior research, it was also anticipated that caregivers’ ethnic identity belonging would positively predict adolescents’ ethnic identity belonging. At the same time, given adolescents’ exposure to U.S. culture, it was hypothesized that adolescents’ U.S. identity belonging would positively predict their caregivers’ U.S. identity belonging because adolescents are likely to play a critical role in transmitting U.S. values and the culture back to their caregivers. Because limited studies have explored the interaction between adolescent and their caregiver ethnic and U.S. identity processes, no additional directional hypotheses were advanced.

Methods

Participants

The current study used data collected as part of a six-wave longitudinal study on acculturation, identity, family functioning, and health among recent Latinx immigrant families (Schwartz et al., 2014b). The sample consisted of 302 families in the metropolitan areas of Miami, Florida, and Los Angeles, California. Miami participants were primarily from Cuba (61%), the Dominican Republic (8%), Nicaragua (7%), Honduras (6%), Colombia (6%). Los Angeles participants were primarily from Mexico (70%), El Salvador (9%), and Guatemala (6%). At Time 1, only 7.8% of families in Miami and 25% of those in Los Angeles reported household incomes greater than $30,000 per year. Adolescents’ mean age at baseline was 14.51 years (SD = 0.88 years, range 14 to 17). A slight majority (53%) of adolescent participants were boys. As per inclusion criteria, all adolescents had arrived in the U.S. within five years of the time of data collection and were either finishing or going into the ninth grade. Caregivers were predominately mothers (67.5%) or fathers (18.2%) and the mean age at baseline was 41.09 years (SD = 7.13 years, range = 22–64). On average, the caregivers reported 3.61 years in the United States (SD = 3.06, range = 0–9).

Procedure

As reported in greater detail elsewhere (Schwartz et al., 2014a, b), participants were recruited from randomly selected public high schools in Miami and Los Angeles. Because the study was focused on recent-immigrant families, who tend to settle in heavily Hispanic areas, school selection was limited to those whose student bodies are at least 75% or more Hispanic. Of those schools that met this criterion, 10 schools were randomly selected within Miami-Dade County, the sole school district within Miami, and 13 in Los Angeles, which has several school districts from which to recruit families. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Boards at both participating universities and by the Research Review Committees for the participating school districts.

Adolescents and caregivers completed assessments on laptop computers or on touch-screen tablet PCs utilizing an audio computer-assisted interviewing (A-CASI) system (Brown et al. 2013). At baseline, due to their proximity, all Miami families were assessed at the research center (66%) or at the adolescent’s school (34%). In contrast, given the size of Los Angeles County, most Los Angeles families were assessed in their homes (46%) or convenient community locations (36%). Subsequent assessments were completed either in participants’ homes or at convenient community locations. Each participant completed the assessment in English or Spanish, depending on their preference. Although 84% of adolescents completed their baseline assessments in Spanish, this percentage decreased to 66% by 24 months post-baseline. In contrast, the over-whelming percentage of parents completed the survey in Spanish at both baselines (98%) and 24 months post-baseline (99%).

Families were assessed six times over three years, corresponding to baseline, which was gathered in the summer and fall of 2010, and 6, 12-, 18-, 24-, and 30-months post-baseline. The current study utilized data from baseline, 12 months post-baseline, and 24 months post-baseline. The decision to utilize the specific waves of data collection was based on several considerations. First, prior studies have indicated that cultural identifications precede change in cultural practices upon arrival in a new country (Lee et al., 2020). Moreover, prior studies utilizing this dataset have found that the majority of adolescents could be categorized (53%) into a profile marked by stable ethnic and U.S. belonging across the first 5 waves of data collection (Schwartz et al., 2013). The remaining 47% were classified into a profile with a change in U.S. identity but stability in terms of ethnic belonging. As such, focusing on the data collection points with 1-year intervals is not only consistent with the theoretical proposition that cultural identity develops more gradually upon the arrival in the new setting (Schwartz et al., 2006), but reduces observed stability and maximizes the capacity to explore how changes in adolescents’ and their caregivers’ ethnic and U.S. identity belonging impact each other. Second, from a statistical perspective, it is important to be cognizant of the complexity of the specified models and the relatively small sample. Indeed, 300 parameters would need to be estimated for the most complex models if all data points were utilized, resulting in a 1:1 ratio between estimated parameters and participants. For these reasons, and consistent with prior studies exploring changes in cultural identity (e.g., Meca et al., 2017b), the analysis was constrained to baseline, 12 months post-baseline, and 24 months post-baseline.

Across the three time points, 74% of participants were retained. Adolescent participants with missing data did not differ from individuals with complete data in terms of gender [χ2 (1) = 3.025, p = 0.082, Cramer’s V = 0.100], years in the U.S. [t (229) = 1.914, p = 0.223], ethnic identity belonging [t (291) = 0.997, p = 0.329], and U.S. identity belonging [t (291) = 1.951, p = 0.052]. For caregivers, there were no significant differences between those with missing data versus those who completed the survey in terms of years in the U.S. [t (124.226) = −1.226, p = 0.223], ethnic identity belonging [t (290) = −0.934, p = 0.351], and U.S. identity belonging [t (283) = −0.363, p = 0.717]. These findings indicate sample differences were negligible and did not account for much variability in the study variables. However, a small but significant difference emerged between caregivers with versus without missing time points in terms of gender [χ2 (1) = 15.372, p < 0.001, Cramer’s V = .228]. To handle the cases with partially missing data, accommodate missing-at-random, and account for this observed difference, full-information maximum likelihood estimation (FIML; Collins et al., 2001) was utilized and caregiver’ gender was included as a covariate along with adolescents’ gender, and age and years in the U.S. for both youth and their caregivers.

Measures

The range of alpha coefficients presented is from the current sample across the relevant time points. Spanish versions of all study measures were developed using a two-step translation process (Sireci et al., 2006) whereby measures are translated by one translator from English to Spanish, back translated by a second translator (Spanish to English), and then evaluated by both translators to resolve discrepancies. Moreover, it is important to note that not only have all measures been previously validated in Spanish, but also empirical evidence has suggested that pooling acculturation data across languages of assessment likely does not introduce bias (Schwartz et al., 2014a). Additionally, as reported in the Appendix, measurement invariance was established across reporters (i.e., adolescents and caregivers) for the MEIM and AIM at baseline.

Ethnic identity belonging

The 7-item Identity Belonging subscale from the 12-item Multi-Group Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM; Roberts et al., 1999) was used to measure ethnic identity. Sample items included “I have a lot of pride in my ethnic group”, “I have a clear sense of my ethnic background and what it means for me”, and “I have a strong sense of belonging to my own ethnic group. Participants responded to these items on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Alpha coefficients in the current study ranged from 0.88 to 0.91 for adolescents and 0.87 to 0.93 for caregivers.

U.S. identity belonging

The 7-item Identity Belonging subscale from the American Identity Measure (AIM; Schwartz et al., 2012) was used to measure U.S. identity. Sample items include “I have a clear sense of what it means to be American”, “I feel good about being American”, and “I feel a strong attachment towards the United States”. The AIM was adapted from the MEIM, with “the United States” inserted in place of “my ethnic group”. Alpha coefficients in the current study ranged from 0.87 to 0.90 for adolescents and 0.84 to 0.89 for caregivers.

Analytic Strategy

Analyzes were conducted in Mplus version 7.2 (Muthén and Muthén, 1998–2012) using a sandwich covariance estimator (Kauermann and Carroll, 2001) to adjust the standard errors and account for the nesting of participants within schools. Model fit was evaluated using the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR). According to values suggested by Little (2013), a good model fit is represented as CFI ≥ 0.95, RMSEA ≤ 0.06, and SRMR ≤ 0.06 adequate fit is defined as CFI ≥ 0.90, RMSEA ≤ 0.08, and SRMR ≤ 0.08; and mediocre fit is defined as CFI ≥ 0.85, RMSEA ≤ 0.10, and SRMR ≤ 0.10. Although the χ2 value is reported, it was not used to gauge model fit because it tests a null hypothesis of a perfect fit, which is rarely plausible with large samples or complex models (Davey and Savla, 2010).

The analytic process proceeded in four steps that are detailed below. First, because longitudinal analyses assume that the same construct is assessed over time (Little, 2013), longitudinal invariance for the ethnic and U.S. belonging subscales for adolescents and their caregivers was established separately. Doing so ensured that any observed longitudinal change is the result of the true change (rather than the latent construct measuring something different at each time point) (Little, 2013). To established longitudinal invariance, configural (equal form), metric (equal factor loadings), and scalar (equal item intercepts) invariance were established. Starting with the least restrictive model, the configural model, and building towards metric invariance model by constraining factor loadings to equality across time, and then scalar invariance by constraining intercepts and factor loadings to equality across time. The configural, metric, and scalar invariance models were compared using the CFI (ΔCFI < 0.010) and RMSEA (ΔRMSEA < 0.010; Little, 2013). The assumption of longitudinal metric and scalar invariance would be satisfied if the ΔCFI < 0.01 and ΔRMSEA < 0.01.

Second, descriptive statistics and a correlation matrix for all study variables were calculated. Third, to establish the directionality of effects, an autoregressive cross-lagged panel model including baseline (T1), 1-Year Follow Up (FU1), and 2-Year Follow Up (FU2) as time points were estimated. Fourth, to establish temporal invariance or non-varying cross-lagged paths across time (Allison, 1990), equality constraints were imposed on corresponding cross-lagged relationships in the final model. In doing so, temporal invariance produces one set of lagged path estimates corresponding to Time t and Time t + 1. To evaluate the tenability of these stationarity constraints, the fit of models with and without these constraints were compared using the ΔCFI (>0.010) and ΔRMSEA (>0.010) criteria to determine whether the stationarity assumption should be statistically rejected.

Results

Preliminary Analysis

Prior to the main analysis, longitudinal invariance for the ethnic and U.S. belonging subscales for adolescents and their caregivers was examined separately. As displayed in Table 1, the configural invariance model for the caregivers’ ethnic identity belonging provided adequate to good fit [χ2 (165) = 422.967, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.909; RMSEA = 0.072]. Next, metric invariance was examined by constraining factor loadings to equality across time and comparing this model against the configural invariance model. The assumption of metric invariance was satisfied [Δχ2 (14) = 30.015, p = 0.007; ΔCFI = 0.006; ΔRMSEA = 0.001]. Scalar invariance was then examined by constraining intercepts and factor loadings to equality across time and comparing this model against the metric invariance model. The assumption of scalar invariance was supported [Δχ2 (14) = 33.625, p = 0.002; ΔCFI = 0.003; ΔRMSEA < 0.001]. The configural invariance model for the caregivers’ U.S. identity belonging was associated with good fit [χ2 (165) = 249.321, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.968; RMSEA = 0.041]. Moreover, the assumption of metric [Δχ2 (14) = 14.299, p = 0.428; ΔCFI < 0.001; ΔRMSEA = 0.001] and scalar invariance [Δχ2 (14) = 29.492, p = 0.009; ΔCFI = 0.005; ΔRMSEA = 0.001] was satisfied.

Table 1.

Model comparison for establishing longitudinal invariance

χ2 (df) Δχ2 (Δdf) CFI ΔCFI RMSEA ΔRMSEA
Caregivers
 Ethnic Belonging
 Configural 422.967 (165)* 0.909 0.072
 Metric 452.352 (179)* 30.015 (14)* 0.903 −0.006 0.071 0.001
 Scalar 486.300 (193)* 33.625 (14)* 0.900 −0.003 0.071 <0.001
 U.S. Belonging
 Configural 249.321 (165)* 0.968 0.041
 Metric 264.734 (179)* 14.299 (14)* 0.968 <0.001 0.040 0.001
 Scalar 291.241 (193)* 29.492 (14)* 0.963 −0.005 0.041 −0.001
Adolescence
 Ethnic Belonging
 Configural 285.892 (165)* 0.950 0.049
 Metric 306.243 (179)* 19.492 (14)* 0.947 −0.003 0.049 <0.001
 Scalar 323.465 (193)* 13.088 (14)* 0.946 −0.001 0.047 0.002
 U.S. Belonging
 Configural 333.582 (165)* 0.939 0.058
 Metric 354.191 (179)* 19.516 (14)* 0.936 −0.003 0.057 0.001
 Scalar 401.539 (193)* 54.905 (14)* 0.924 −0.012 0.060 −0.003
Open in a new tab
*

p < 0.001

For adolescents, the configural invariance model for ethnic identity belonging was also associated with good fit [χ2 (165) = 285.892, p <0.001; CFI = 0.950; RMSEA =0.049]. Moreover, the assumption of metric [Δχ2 (14) = 19.492, p = 0.147; ΔCFI =0.003; ΔRMSEA < 0.001] and scalar [Δχ2 (14) = 13.088, p = 0.520; ΔCFI = 0.001; ΔRMSEA = 0.002] invariance was satisfied. Similarly, the configural model for U. S. identity belonging was also associated with good fit [χ2 (165) = 333.582, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.939; RMSEA = 0.058] and the assumption of metric [Δχ2 (14) = 19.516, p = 0.146; ΔCFI = 0.003; ΔRMSEA = 0.001] invariance was satisfied. However, the assumption of scalar invariance was not supported [Δχ2 (14) = 54.905, p < 0.001; ΔCFI = 0.012; ΔRMSEA = 0.003]. Additional analyzes were conducted to identify indicators that violated the assumption of scalar invariance. None of the individual item intercepts were considered nonequivalent providing evidence for partial scalar invariance. In sum, results provided evidence for longitudinal invariance for adolescents and their caregivers’ ethnic and U.S. identity belonging indicating any observed longitudinal change is a result of true change rather than change in the meaning of the latent constructs (Little 2013).

Table 2 provides means and standard deviations and a zero-order correlation matrix for the caregiver and adolescent identity processes. Results from these bivariate correlations indicated significant positive cross-reporter associations between adolescents and their caregivers’ U.S. identity belonging. Specifically, adolescents’ U.S. belonging at Time 1 was positively correlated with their caregivers’ U.S. identity belonging at T1 (r = 0.26), FU1 (r = 0.21), and FU2 (r = 0.16) and their ethnic identity belonging at T1 (r = 0.15). Similarly, caregivers’ U.S. identity belonging at T1 (r = 0.21) and FU2 (r = 0.14) were positively correlated with adolescents’ U.S. identity belonging at FU2. In addition, results indicated significant within-reporter correlations between ethnic and U.S. identity belonging for adolescents (r = 0.14 to 0.48) and caregivers (r = 0.14 to 0.40).

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlation

Mean (SD) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Ethnic Belonging (A) (T1) 19.79 (5.68) 0.22** 0.33*** 0.16** 0.14* 0.15* 0.08 −0.02 0.07 0.12* 0.07 0.01
Ethnic Belonging (A) (FU1) 19.79 (6.04) – 0.47*** 0.11 0.34*** 0.27*** 0.09 0.08 −0.01 −0.01 0.07 0.01
Ethnic Belonging (A) (FU2) 19.85 (5.88) – 0.07 0.32*** 0.48*** 0.09 0.09 0.13 0.07 0.06 0.04
U.S Belonging (A) (T1) 16.65 (4.98) – 0.48*** 0.34*** 0.09 0.08 0.15* 0.26*** 0.21** 0.16*
U.S Belonging (A) (FU1) 17.83 (5.33) – 0.59*** 0.02 −0.04 0.07 0.10 0.12 0.07
U.S Belonging (A) (FU2) 18.96 (5.41) – 0.05 −0.07 0.08 0.21** 0.13 0.14*
Ethnic Belonging (C) (T1) 20.89 (4.93) – 0.43*** 0.32*** 0.23*** 0.32*** 0.27***
Ethnic Belonging (C) (FU1) 20.35 (4.88) – 0.60*** 0.14* 0.37*** 0.35***
Ethnic Belonging (C) (FU2) 19.98 (5.13) – 0.14* 0.31*** 0.40***
U.S Belonging (C) (T1) 17.82 (3.30) – 0.60*** 0.58***
U.S Belonging (C) (FU1) 17.78 (3.74) – 0.72***
U.S Belonging (C) (FU2) 18.16 (3.94) –
Open in a new tab

A adolescent, C caregiver. T1 baseline, FU1 1-year follow up, FU2 2-year follow up

*

p < 0.05

**

p < 0.01

***

p < 0.001

The Interplay between Adolescent and Caregiver’s Ethnic and U.S. Belonging

Consistent with the primary focus of the study, a cross-lagged model was estimated to examine the directional nature (i.e., unidirectional or bidirectional) of the association between adolescents’ and caregivers’ ethnic and U.S. identity belonging. The model provided good fit to the data [χ2(36) = 57.921, p = 0.012; CFI = 0.966; RMSEA = 0.048; SRMR = 0.043]. Building on this model, stationarity constraints were imposed on the cross-lagged relationships between adolescent and caregiver ethnic and U.S. belonging. Invariance tests suggested that the stationary model provided significantly better fit [Δχ2(12) = 7.057, p = 0.854; ΔCFI = −0.010; ΔRMSEA = −0.013]. Given these stationarity constraints, the findings could be simplified to comparing the path coefficients between Times t and t + 1.

As reported in Table 3, caregiver ethnic identity belonging at Time t significantly predicted adolescent ethnic identity belonging (β = 0.094, p = 0.013, 95% CI = 0.020 to 0.167) at Time t + 1. Adolescent ethnic identity belonging at Time t negatively predicted caregiver ethnic identity belonging (β = −0.114, p = 0.015, 95% CI = −0.207 to −0.022) at Time t + 1. On the other hand, adolescent U.S. identity belonging at Time t positively predicted caregiver ethnic identity belonging (β = 0.104, p = 0.009, 95% CI = 0.026 to 0.182) at Time t + 1. In addition to these findings, there was a notable within-reporter relationship between ethnic and U.S. identity belonging. Specifically, ethnic identity belonging at Time t positively predicted adolescents’ U.S. identity belonging for both adolescents (β = 0.071, p = 0.013, 95% C.I. = 0.015 to 0.127) and caregivers (β = 0.133, p = 0.006, 95% C.I. = 0.039 to 0.228) at Time t + 1. Additionally, it is important to note there were significant positive within-time correlations between ethnic and U.S. identity processes for both adolescents (r = 0.284) and caregivers (r = 0.268).

Table 3.

Standardized path estimates for general model

Outcome (t + 1) Predictor (t) Estimate p value 95% CI
Ethnic Belonging (A) Ethnic Belonging (A) 0.215 0.020 0.034 to 0.396
U.S. Belonging (A) 0.088 0.104 −0.018 to 0.194
Ethnic Belonging (C) 0.094 0.013 0.020 to 0.167
U.S. Belonging (C) −0.067 0.081 −0.143 to 0.008
U.S. Belonging (A) U.S. Belonging (A) 0.396 <0.001 0.296 to 0.496
Ethnic Belonging (A) 0.071 0.013 0.015 to 0.127
Ethnic Belonging (C) −0.065 0.059 −0.134 to 0.003
U.S. Belonging (C) 0.051 0.431 −0.076 to 0.179
Ethnic Belonging (C) Ethnic Belonging (C) 0.440 <0.001 0.323 to 0.557
U.S. Belonging (C) 0.034 0.579 −0.087 to 0.155
Ethnic Belonging (A) −0.114 0.015 −0.207 to −0.022
U.S. Belonging (A) 0.104 0.009 0.026 to 0.182
U.S. Belonging (C) U.S. Belonging (C) 0.491 <0.001 0.368 to 0.614
Ethnic Belonging (C) 0.133 0.006 0.039 to 0.228
Ethnic Belonging (A) −0.032 0.460 −0.119 to 0.054
U.S. Belonging (A) 0.050 0.301 −0.044 to 0.144
Open in a new tab

A adolescent, C caregiver

Discussion

In the last few decades, a substantial body of work has emerged focusing on the processes underlying ethnic and U.S. identity and its association with psychosocial functioning (Meca et al., 2020; Rivas-Drake et al., 2014). However, although several contemporary developmental perspectives (e.g., Ecodevelopmental Systems Framework) and acculturative theoretical frameworks (e.g., Segmented Assimilation Theory) have conceptualized acculturation and cultural identity development from a family systems perspective, limited research has explored the degree to which adolescents and caregivers influence each other’s ethnic and U.S. identity. In the present study, the directional relationship between recently immigrated Latinx adolescents’ and caregivers’ ethnic and U.S. belonging was examined. The current findings provided evidence for important bidirectional relationships between adolescents’ and their caregivers’ ethnic and U.S. identity belonging. These findings are not only consistent with contemporary models positing that identity emerges out of micro-level transactions between individuals and their social environment (Koepke and Denissen, 2012), but also represents an important step towards situating ethnic and U.S. identity development within the family system.

The broader cultural identity literature has emphasized the importance of familial ethnic socialization, which posits that caregivers (and other family members) play a role in socializing adolescents towards the values and behaviors of their native culture (Umaña-Taylor et al., 2013). However, as noted by Hughes and colleagues (2006) and by Schachter and Ventura (2008), caregivers’ ethnic socialization efforts are largely driven by their motivations to pass on values and help children learn about their history. As such, caregivers’ own ethnic identity is likely to fuel these socializing efforts. Consistent with this proposition, in the present study, caregivers’ ethnic identity belonging significantly predicted adolescents’ ethnic identity belonging over time. This finding is also consistent with sociological work by Rumbaut (2008) who argued that immigrant Latinx adolescents’ ethnic identity tended to mirror the perceptions of their parents’ own ethnic identity, as “if they were reflections in an ethnic looking-glass” (p. 790). Given that caregivers are often the primary sources of information about ethnicity for many adolescents (Knight et al., 2011), future research is necessary to further explore how caregivers’ own ethnic identity fuels their active socializing efforts, and in turn, how such efforts affect adolescents’ ethnic identity.

Although extensive research literature has emerged focusing on how caregivers affect their children’s cultural identifications, research exploring how adolescents impact their parents’ cultural identities is scarce. In the current study, contrary to our hypothesis, adolescents’ ethnic identity belonging negatively predicted caregivers’ ethnic identity belonging over time. Said differently, adolescents with lower ethnic identity belonging appears to lead to caregivers embracing higher ethnic identity belonging at subsequent timepoints. This finding is consistent with Szapocznik and Kurtines (1993)’s Acculturation Gap Theory and associated work with primarily Cuban families in Miami. Indeed, Szapocznik et al. (1984) found that, among families with poor communication and cohesion, when parents saw their child as losing traction with the family’s cultural heritage, parents were likely to perceive certain behaviors and/or attitudes adopted by their children as a rejection of the “old” valued ways. In response, these caregivers often entrenched themselves in their native culture and imposed restrictions on their children, attempting to prohibit acculturation to the destination society. In addition, the present results indicated that adolescents’ U.S. identity belonging positively predicted caregivers’ ethnic identity belonging. This finding is also consistent with Szapocznik et al.’s (1984) work with Cuban immigrant families in Miami. Both of these findings may indicate that immigrant caregivers may remain faithful to their cultural heritage in response to their children’s destination cultural identification and loss of heritage cultural identification. In both of these scenarios, the intercultural and intergenerational conflict that emerges as parents entrench themselves results in both parents and teens taking more extreme positions (Szapocznik et al., 1984) and results in greater dissonance between caregivers’ and their adolescents’ endorsement of the heritage culture and destination cultures, consistent with Segmented Assimilation Theory (Portes and Rumbaut, 2014).

Such an interpretation may also help to explain the negative and marginally significant effect of caregivers’ ethnic identity belonging on adolescents’ later U.S. identity belonging. Caregivers with higher ethnic belonging may be more restrictive and exert more parental control, thereby limiting adolescents’ access to Americanized peers and therefore their endorsement of U.S. culture (Halgunseth et al., 2006). More traditionally oriented immigrant parents may view the more egalitarian, and less hierarchical, ways of relating to others in U.S. society as disrespectful (e.g., Pantin et al. 2003). At the same time, it is possible that adolescents, in reaction to caregivers’ increased ethnic belonging, may seek to slow the pace of their own “Americanization.” Indeed, in a study by Umaña-Taylor et al. (2013), US-born Mexican American adolescents’ own ethnic identity positively predicted their reports of their caregivers’ ethnic identity socialization two years later. Future research is necessary to implement a mixed methods approach to better capture the dynamic interaction between adolescents’ and their caregivers’ ethnic and U.S. identity and socialization efforts over time.

In addition to these findings, it is also important to note within-reporter relationships between ethnic and U.S. belonging. Indeed, both the bivariate and within-time correlations indicated significant and positive correlations between ethnic and U.S. identity belonging for both adolescents and their caregivers. These findings are consistent with research on biculturalism, or the retention of both one’s heritage culture and the host culture (Sam and Berry 2010). Biculturalism is not only considered the most advantageous strategy (Nguyen and Benet-Martínez 2013) but affords recent Latinx immigrants with the capacity to successfully live in two worlds (Meca et al., 2019). Although within-time correlations were significant between ethnic and U.S. identity belonging, results indicated a unidirectional relationship for both adolescents and their caregivers such that greater ethnic belonging predicted greater U.S. belonging. This unidirectional relationship may reflect a specific progression for caregivers’ cultural adaptation. Consistent with social identity theorists (Tajfel and Turner, 1986), individuals from minority groups derive their well-being from identification with their in-group. As such, an early first task of many recently immigrated Latinxs may be to seek acceptance from other Latinxs in the United States. Once Latinx immigrants have established a sense of ethnic belonging, they may be more likely to adopt aspects of the host culture (e.g., Phinney et al. 2001). More research is needed to determine the specific mechanisms and conditions that may mediate and moderate these identity pathways.

Implications for Intervention

These findings can inform family intervention research and the dissemination of family interventions in multiple ways. For example, our findings suggest that caregivers’ ethnic identity belonging significantly predicted adolescents’ ethnic identity belonging over time, and adolescents’ U.S. identity belonging positively predicted caregivers’ later ethnic identity belonging. As a result, family-based interventions and family intervention research might clinically explore both sides of this transactional process (e.g., both caregivers’ and adolescents’ ethnic and U.S. belonging trajectories), as well as assessing how they impact each other via family systemic mechanisms. Family-related interventions can also decrease family conflict and promote greater similarity in parents’ and adolescents’ cultural identity trajectories. Additionally, given that our findings suggest that these identity processes are bi-directional, increased family conflicts may cause parents’ and adolescents’ cultural identity trajectories to separate further. Indeed, these results may select a cyclical process in which poor family functioning leads to divergence in parents’ and adolescent’s identity/cultural trajectories, and vice versa. Therefore, family-related intervention research may be able to address these differences in cultural identity trajectories between parents and adolescents by improving family collaboration. Further, preventive and intervention research can benefit from focusing on positive parenting skills and family cohesion as a means for alleviating and addressing family conflict and for decreasing cultural identity discrepancies between parents and youth. Preventive and family-based intervention research can also benefit from a deeper understanding of the cultural and contextual mechanisms that contribute to the development of ethnic and U.S. identity belonging within immigrant family systems. Finally, family-related intervention research can also benefit from further examining how parents influence their adolescents and vice versa.

Limitations and Future Directions

Despite the promising findings, the present results should be interpreted in light of several limitations. First, although ethnic and U.S. identity belonging are important components of one’s cultural identity development (Meca et al. 2020; Schwartz et al. 2013), the focus on these two cultural identity processes represents a narrow representation of cultural identity among adolescents and their caregivers. As such, future work must attend to exploring how various aspects of adolescents and their parent’s cultural identity systems influence each other over time. Second, although the study found associations between caregivers and adolescents’ ethnic and U.S. identity belonging, future research is necessary to determine additional cultural and contextual mechanisms that interact with these associations. As hypothesized, identity likely guides the extent to which caregivers’ and adolescents encourage (or discourage) each other to gravitate towards their native culture and/or the host cultural context but it is important to note that interpersonal processes and family interactional skills may facilitate or impede effective socialization (Szapocznik and Coatsworth 1999).

Third, it is worth noting that participants were recent immigrant Latinx families who indicated that they planned to stay in South Florida or Southern California for the duration of the study. Thus, findings may not have generalized to seasonal workers or other highly mobile families. Moreover, given that recently immigrated adolescents likely maintain vivid memories of their lives before migration (Portes and Rumbaut, 2014), it is unknown whether these findings generalize to immigrant families who migrated earlier in their children’s lives or to immigrant families with U.S.-born adolescents. In addition, because the study was conducted only in large multicultural cities (Los Angeles and Miami), results may have been different in other cities or in “new destination communities” where many Latinx immigrants are settling (e.g., Kiang et al., 2011). Future studies should examine the interplay between caregiver-adolescent identity processes in different types of Latinx communities. Finally, due to the limited sample size, the restriction to three-waves of data limited the capacity to determine the replicability of the observed effects. Future studies are necessary to further ensure the reliability of the findings at varying time points.

Conclusion

There has been growing recognition within the literature on identity (Koepke and Denissen, 2012) and acculturation (Meca et al., 2017a) that cultural identity development must be contextualized within the family system. Aligned with these recommendations, and consistent with research on familial ethnic socialization (Hughes et al., 2006), findings from the current study suggest that caregivers’ own ethnic identity belonging positively predicted their adolescents’ ethnic identity belonging. At the same time, and consistent with Acculturation Gap Theory (Szapocznik and Kurtines 1993) and segmented assimilation theory (Portes and Rumbaut, 2014), adolescents’ identification with U.S. culture—or loss of heritage identification—resulted in greater ethnic identity belonging among caregivers. Taken together, this study represents a step forward in conceptualizing caregivers’ and adolescents’ cultural identities as interrelated and as directly (and indirectly) affecting each other. Understanding how this normative process unfolds within a family-systems developmental context has important implications for Latinx adolescents’ future personal, social, and cultural adaptation. It is hoped that the present study will inspire attention to this important topic in the identity literature and that researchers will increasingly include family socialization variables and parents’ experience in future cultural identity research.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Maria-Rosa Velazquez, Tatiana Clavijo, Mercedes Prado, Alba Alfonso, Aleyda Marcos, Daisy Ramirez, Lissette Ramirez, Perlita Carrillo, Monica Pattarroyo, Daniel Soto, Juan A. Villamar, and Karina M. Lizzi for their work in conducting assessments, building rapport, and tracking families.

Funding

This study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, co-funded by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (Grant DA026594; Seth J. Schwartz, PI; Jennifer B. Unger, Co-PI).

Biographies

Alan Meca is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychology at Old Dominion University but transition to the Department of Psychology at the University of Texas, San Antonio, Fall 2021. His research program focuses on identity development, particularly personal and cultural identity, and the impact identity development has on psychosocial functioning and health disparities.

Oswaldo Moreno is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychology at Virginia Commonwealth University. His research program focuses on cultural and contextual approaches to psychopathology, help seeking behaviors, psychology of religion, Latinx psychology, and health disparities.

Cory Cobb is a research fellow in the Department of Educational Psychology at the University of Texas at Austin. His research interests include collaborative research approaches that seek to promote positive adjustment among underserved populations such as Hispanics. He is interested in identifying sources of resilience and well-being for immigrant communities with a focus on the psychosocial factors that permit these communities to thrive during adversity.

Elma I. Lorenzo-Blanco is an assistant professor in the Department of Human Development and Family Sciences at the University of Texas at Austin. She received her PhD in clinical psychology and women’s studies at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Her research focuses on the role of socio-cultural and gender-related risk and protective factors on the emotional and behavioral well-being of Hispanic populations with the goal of developing tailored preventive intervention programs for Hispanic youth and families.

Seth J. Schwartz is currently a Professor in the Department of Kinesiology, Health Education, and Education Psychology at the University of Texas, Austin. His research interests are in personal and cultural identity processes, family relationships, health risk behaviors, and well-being and positive youth development.

Miguel Ángel Cano is an Associate Professor in the Department of Epidemiology at Florida International University. His program of research examines sociocultural determinants, and stress and coping resources in relation to substance use behavior and mental health.

Byron L. Zamboanga is a Professor in the Department of Psychological Science at the University of Arkansas. His research program examines cognitive and sociocultural determinants of risky drinking practices among adolescents and young adults in the U.S. and abroad.

Melinda Gonzales-Backen is an Associate Professor in the Department of Family and Child Sciences at Florida State University. Her research interests focus on how cultural stressors and strengths predict adolescent adjustment in the areas of self-esteem, depressive symptoms, and substance use.

José Szapocznik is a Professor in the Department of Public Health Sciences at the University of Miami. His conducted pioneering research on acculturation, biculturalism and their relationship to family and individual outcomes with Hispanic population. His current research interest focuses on family-based interventions, HIV and substance use treatment with racial/ethnic minority populations.

Jennifer B. Unger is a Professor in the Department of Preventive Medicine at the University of Southern California. Her research interests include psychological, social, and cultural influences on health-risk and health-protective behaviors in diverse populations.

Appendix

Given our focus on exploring the association between ethnic and U.S. belonging subscales for adolescents and their caregivers, measurement invariance was examined across reporters to evaluate the degree to which these items were equally appropriate for adolescents and caregivers. Consistent with our longitudinal invariance analysis, configural (equal form), metric (equal factor loadings), and scalar (equal item intercepts) invariance across reporters was examined. To do this, the analytics steps began with the least restrictive model, the configural model. Building on this model, metric invariance model was examined by constraining factor loadings to equality across time, and then scalar invariance by constraining intercepts and factor loadings to equality across reporters. The configural, metric, and scalar invariance models were compared using the CFI (ΔCFI < 0.010) and RMSEA (ΔRMSEA < 0.010; Little 2013). The assumption of longitudinal metric and scalar invariance would be satisfied if the ΔCFI < 0.01 and ΔRMSEA < 0.01. To reduce model complexity, this was done separately for the MEIM and the AIM.

As indicated in Table 1, for the MEIM, the configural model was associated with adequate-to-good model fit [χ2 (76) = 176.450, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.927; RMSEA = 0.066; SRMR = 0.049]. Upon imposing metric constraints, there was a significant decline in model fit [Δχ2 (7) = 41.011, p < 0.001; ΔCFI = 0.023; ΔRMSEA = 0.007]. However, further probing indicated that no single factor loading was significantly different across reporters. Similarly, although there was a significant decline upon imposing scalar constraints [Δχ2 (7) = 30.858, p < 0.001; ΔCFI = 0.013; ΔRMSEA = 0.002], no one intercept was found to vary across reporters indicating partial metric and scalar invariance. For the AIM, the configural model was also associated with mediocre-to-good model fit [χ2 (76) = 232.759, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.911; RMSEA = 0.083; SRMR = 0.048]. Results indicated full metric [Δχ2 (7) = 8.934, p = 0.257; ΔCFI = 0.002; ΔRMSEA = 0.003] and scalar invariance [Δχ2 (7) = 20.417, p = 0.005; ΔCFI = 0.007; ΔRMSEA < 0.001].

Table 4

Table 4.

Measurement invariance across adolescent and caregivers for MEIM and AIM at baseline

Model χ2 (df) Δχ2 (7) CFI ΔCFI RMSEA ΔRMSEA SRMR
MEIM
Configural 176.450 (76)* 0.927 0.066 0.049
Metric 215.686 (83)* 41.011* 0.904 −0.023 0.073 −0.007 0.209
Scalar 241.360 (90)* 30.858* 0.891 −0.013 0.075 −0.002 0.244
AIM
Configural 232.759 (76)* 0.911 0.083 0.048
Metric 242.330 (83)* 8.933 0.909 −0.002 0.080 0.003 0.072
Scalar 262.747* (90)* 20.417* 0.902 −0.007 0.080 <0.001 0.094
Open in a new tab
*

p < 0.001.

Footnotes

Conflict of Interest The authors declared no potential conflict of interests with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical Approval All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

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

References

  1. Allison PD (1990). Change scores as dependent variables in regression analysis. In Clogg C (ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 93–114). Oxford: Basil Blackwell. [Google Scholar]
  2. Brown A & Stepler R (2016). Statistical portrait of the foreign-born population in the United States. Pew Research Center, Hispanic Trends. [Google Scholar]
  3. Brown JL, Swartzendruber A, & DiClemente RJ (2013). Application of audio computer-assisted self-interviews to collect self-reported health data: an overview. Caries Research, 47(Suppl 1(0 1)), 40–45. 10.1159/000351827. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Collins LM, Schafer JL, & Kam CM (2001). A comparison of inclusive and restrictive strategies in modern missing data procedures. Psychological Methods, 6, 330–351. 10.1037/1082-989X.6.4.330. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Crocetti E, Meeus WHJ, Ritchie RA, Meca A, & Schwartz SJ (2014). Adolescent identity: the key to unraveling associations between family relationships and problem behaviors? In Scheier LM & Hansen WB (Eds.), Parenting and teen drug use. New York: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  6. Davey A, & Savla J (2010). Statistical power analysis with missing data: a structural equation modeling approach. New York, NY: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  7. Halgunseth LC, Ispa JM, & Rudy D (2006). Parental control in Latino families: an integrated review of the literature. Child Development, 77(5), 1282–1297. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00934.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Hughes D, Rodriguez J, Smith EP, Johnson DJ, Stevenson HC, & Spicer P (2006). Parents’ ethnic-racial socialization practices: a review of research and directions for future study. Developmental psychology, 42(5), 747–770. 10.1037/0012-1649.42.5.747. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Kauermann G, & Carroll RJ (2001). A note on the efficiency of sandwich covariance matrix estimation. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 96(456), 1387–1396. 10.1198/016214501753382309. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Kiang L, Perreira KM, & Fuligni AJ (2011). Ethnic label use in adolescents from traditional and non-traditional immigrant communities. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40(6), 719–729. 10.1007/s10964-010-9597-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Kiang L, & Witkow MR (2018). Identifying as American among adolescents from Asian backgrounds. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(1), 64–76. 10.1007/s10964-017-0776-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Knight GP, Berkel C, Umaña-Taylor AJ, Gonzales NA, Ettekal I, Jaconis M, & Boyd BM (2011). The familial socialization of culturally related values in Mexican American families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73, 913–925. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00856.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Koepke S, & Denissen JA (2012). Dynamics of identity development and separation–individuation in parent–child relationships during adolescence and emerging adulthood—a conceptual integration. Developmental Review, 32(1), 67–88. 10.1016/j.dr.2012.01.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Lee TK, Meca A, Unger JB, Zamboanga BL, Baezconde-Garbanati L, Gonzales-Backen M, Lorenzo-Blanco EI, Cano MA, Des Rosiers SE, Soto DW, Villamar JA, Pattarroyo M, Lizzi KM, Szapocznik J, & Schwartz SJ (2020). Dynamic transition patterns in acculturation among Hispanic adolescents. Child Development, 91, 78–95. 10.1111/cdev.13148. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Little TD (2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  16. Meca A, Eichas K, Schwartz SJ, & Davis R (2019). Biculturalism and bicultural identity development: a relational model of bicultural systems. In Titzmann PF & Jugert P (eds.), Youth in superdiverse societies: growing up with globalization, diversity, and acculturation (pp. 41–57). Routledge/Psychology Press. [Google Scholar]
  17. Meca A, Gonzales-Backen M, Davis R, Hassell T, & Rodil J (2020). Development of the United States Identity Scale: unpacking affirmation and commitment. Journal of Latinx Psychology, 8(2), 127–141. 10.1037/lat0000135. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Meca A, Reinke LG, & Scheier LM (2017a). Acculturation and tobacco/illicit drug use in hispanic youth. In Schwartz SJ & Unger J (Eds.), Oxford handbook of acculturation (pp. 281–300). New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190215217.013.20. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Meca A, Sabet RF, Farrelly C, Benitez CG, Schwartz SJ, Gonzales-Backen M, Lorenzo-Blanco EI, Unger JB, Zamboanga B, Baezconde-Garbanati L, Picariello S, Des Rosiers SE, Soto DW, Pattarroyo M, Villamar JA, & Lizzi KM (2017b). Personal and cultural identity development in recently immigrated Hispanic adolescents: links with psychosocial functioning. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 23, 348–361. 10.1037/cdp0000129. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Muthén LK & Muthén BO (1998-2012). Mplus User’s Guide (5th Edition). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. [Google Scholar]
  21. Nguyen A-MD, & Benet-Martínez V (2013). Biculturalism and adjustment: a meta- analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(1), 122–159. 10.1177/0022022m435097. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Padilla AM (2006). Bicultural social development. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 28(4), 467–497. 10.1177/0739986306294255. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Pantin H, Schwartz SJ, Sullivan S, Coatsworth J, & Szapocznik J (2003). Preventing substance abuse in Hispanic immigrant adolescents: an ecodevelopmental, parent-centered approach. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 25(4), 469–500. 10.1177/0739986303259355. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Phinney JS (1993). A three-stage model of ethnic identity development in adolescence. In Bernal ME & Knight GP (Eds.), Ethnic identity: formation and transmission among Hispanics and other minorities (pp. 61–79). New York: State University of New York Press. [Google Scholar]
  25. Phinney JS, Horenczyk G, Liebkind K, & Vedder P (2001). Ethnic identity, immigration, and well-being: an interactional perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 57(3), 493–510. [Google Scholar]
  26. Portes A, & Rumbaut RG (2014). Immigrant America: a portrait. 4th ed. Berkeley: University of California Press. Raffaelli. [Google Scholar]
  27. Rivas-Drake D, Seaton EK, Markstrom CA, Quintana SM, Syed M, & Lee RM, Ethnic and Racial Identity in the 21st Century Study Group. (2014). Ethnic and racial identity in childhood and adolescence: implications for psychosocial, academic, and health outcomes. Child Development, 85, 40–57. 10.1111/cdev.12200. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Roberts RE, Phinney JS, Masse LC, Chen YR, Roberts CR, & Romero A (1999). The structure of ethnic identity in young adolescents from diverse ethnocultural groups. Journal of Early Adolescence, 19, 301–322. 10.1177/0272431699019003001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Rumbaut RG (2008). Reaping what you sew: Immigration, youth, and reactive ethnicity. Applied Developmental Science, 22, 108–111. 10.1080/10888690801997341. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Sam DL, & Berry JW (2010). Acculturation: when individuals and groups of different cultural backgrounds meet. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 472–481. 10.1177/1745691610373075. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Schachter EP, & Ventura JJ (2008). Identity agents: Parents as active and reflective participants in their children’s identity formation. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 18, 449–476. 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2008.00567.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Schwartz SJ, Benet-Martínez V, Knight GP, Unger JB, Zamboanga BL, Des Rosiers SE, & Szapocznik J (2014a). Effects of language of assessment on the measurement of acculturation: measurement equivalence and cultural frame switching. Psychological Assessment, 26, 100–114. 10.1037/a0034717. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Schwartz SJ, Des Rosiers S, Huang S, Zamboanga BL, Unger JB, Knight GP, Pantin H, & Szapocznik J (2013). Developmental trajectories of acculturation in Hispanic adolescents: associations with family functioning and adolescent risk behavior. Child Development, 84, 1355–1372. 10.1111/cdev.12047. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Schwartz SJ, Montgomery MJ, & Briones E (2006). The role of identity in acculturation among immigrant people: theoretical propositions, empirical questions, and applied recommendations. Human Development, 49(1), 1–30. 10.1159/000090300. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Schwartz SJ, Park IJK, Huynh Q, Zamboanga BL, Umaña-Taylor AJ, Lee RM, & Agocha VB (2012). The American identity measure: development and validation across ethnic group and immigrant generation. Identity, 12, 93–128. 10.1080/15283488.2012.668730. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Schwartz SJ, Unger JB, Des Rosiers SE, Lorenzo-Blanco EI, Zamboanga BL, Huang S, & Szapocznik J (2014b). Domains of acculturation and their effects on substance use and sexual behavior in recent Hispanic immigrant adolescents. Prevention Science, 15, 385–396. 10.1007/s11121-013-0419-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Schwartz SJ, Unger JB, Zamboanga BL, & Szapocznik J (2010a). Rethinking the concept of acculturation: implications for theory and research. The American Psychologist, 65, 237–251. 10.1037/a0019330. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Schwartz SJ, Weisskirch RS, Hurley EA, Zamboanga BL, Park IJ, Kim SY, & Greene AD (2010b). Communalism, familism, and filial piety: are they birds of a collectivist feather? Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16, 548–60. 10.1037/a0021370. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Schwartz SJ, Zamboanga BL, Rodriguez L, & Wang SC (2007). The structure of cultural/ethnic identity in an ethnically diverse sample of emerging adults. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29, 159–173. 10.1080/01973530701332229. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Sireci SG, Wang Y, Harter J, & Ehrlich EJ (2006). Evaluating guidelines for test adaptations: a methodological analysis of translation quality. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 557–567. 10.1177/0022022106290478. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Szapocznik J, & Coatsworth JD (1999). An ecodevelopmental framework for organizing the influences on drug abuse: a developmental model of risk and protection. In Glantz MD & Hartel CR (Eds.), Drug abuse: origins & interventions (p. 331–366). American Psychological Association. 10.1037/10341-014. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Szapocznik J, & Kurtines WM (1993). Family psychology and cultural diversity: opportunities for theory, research and application. American Psychology, 48, 400–407. 10.1037/0003-066X.48.4.400. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Szapocznik J, Santisteban D, Kurtines W, Perez-Vidal A, & Hervis O (1984). Bicultural effectiveness training: A treatment intervention for enhancing intercultural adjustment in Cuban American families. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 6, 317–344. 10.1177/07399863840064001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Tajfel H, & Turner JC (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 5, 7–24. 10.1177/053901847401300204. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Telzer EH (2010). Expanding the acculturation gap-distress model: an integrative review of research. Human Development, 53(6), 313–340. 10.1159/000322476. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Umaña-Taylor AJ, Quintana SM, Lee RM, Cross WE, Rivas-Drake D …, & Seaton E (2014). Ethnic and racial identity during adolescence and into young adulthood: an integrated conceptualization. Child Development, 85, 21–39. 10.1111/cdev.12196. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Umaña-Taylor AJ, Zeiders KH, & Updegraff KA (2013). Family ethnic socialization and ethnic identity: a family-driven, youth-driven, or reciprocal process? Journal of Family Psychology, 27, 137–146. 10.1037/a0031105. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES