Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2023 Jan 1.
Published in final edited form as: Identity (Mahwah, N J). 2021 Nov 25;22(4):282–297. doi: 10.1080/15283488.2021.1999815

Cultural Socialization and Ethnic-Racial Identity Mediated by Positive and Negative Conversations about Race: Exploring Differences among Asian American, African American, Latinx, Multiracial, and White Students

Maria J Elias 1, Eryn N DeLaney 1, Chelsea Derlan Williams 1, Sabrina Hawa 1, Chloe J Walker 1, Fantasy T Lozada 1, Jinni Su 2; The Spit for Science Working Group1, Danielle M Dick 1
PMCID: PMC9718435  NIHMSID: NIHMS1774886  PMID: 36467314

Abstract

The current study examined associations between cultural socialization and ethnic-racial identity via positive and negative conversations about one’s ethnicity/race. Ethnic-racial differences between Asian American, African American, Latinx, Multiracial, and White students were explored. College students 18–22 (M age = 18.46) participating in a university-wide study provided self-reports of childhood cultural socialization, engagement in conversations about ethnicity/race during college, and ethnic-racial identity. Cultural socialization was associated with more positive conversations about race, and, in turn, greater ethnic-racial identity exploration, resolution, and affirmation among all students. Additionally, among Multiracial and African American students, cultural socialization was associated with greater negative conversations about race and, in turn, less ethnic-racial identity affirmation. Although cultural socialization was not associated with negative conversations about race for Asian American, Latinx, or White students, the relation between greater negative conversations about race and less ethnic-racial identity affirmation was significant. Negative conversations about race also informed greater ethnic-racial identity exploration among all students, but was not associated with ethnic-racial identity resolution. The current study highlights the nuanced ways that childhood cultural socialization and conversations about one’s ethnicity/race influence college students’ ethnic-racial identity, both similarly and differently among Asian American, African American, Latinx, Multiracial, and White students.

Two items created for the current study were used to assess positive and negative conversations about one’s ethnicity/race in the past month. Response options for the positive conversation item (“In the past month, I had conversations with someone about something positive about my ethnic-racial group.”) and negative conversation item (“In the past month, I had conversations with someone about something negative about my ethnic-racial group.”) were scored using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from (1) Not at all to (5) Extremely or almost always. Higher scores indicated more frequent positive conversations and more frequent negative conversations, respectively. Initial support for the validity of the two items for positive and negative conversations about race has been provided by research with emerging adults (Delaney et al., in press).

Keywords: cultural socialization/ethnic-racial socialization, conversations about ethnicity/race, ethnic-racial identity, college students, emerging adults

Ethnic-racial identity1 is an important aspect of development across the lifespan, including the developmental period of emerging adulthood (Williams et al., 2020). Among emerging adults in college, specifically, leaving the home context, experiencing increased exposure to diverse peers, and new opportunities to participate in ethnically- and racially-focused organizations and events may stimulate ethnic-racial identity development, making it an essential period to understand these processes. A factor that has consistently been associated with ethnic-racial identity among diverse college students is cultural socialization (Brittian et al., 2013; Reynolds et al., 2017). However, less work has explored mechanisms that may contribute to this relation. A potential mediating factor is the conversations that college students have with others about their ethnicity/race. Colleges and universities around the U.S. are becoming increasingly diverse (Chen, 2017), providing students with the opportunity to connect with others who have both similar and different perspectives on the meaning of ethnicity/race in their daily lives. This increasingly diverse social context sets the stage for conversations about race to occur.

Recent work has focused on the importance of conversations about ethnicity/race in higher education as a way to better understand the experiences of diverse college students (e.g., Pierce, 2018). However, limited work has examined how conversations may play a role in how students’ cultural socialization experiences impact their ethnic-racial identity. Given the importance of conversations about race (Pierce, 2018) and ethnic-racial identity (McClain et al., 2015) to positive development in college, this is a notable gap. Thus, the current study examined whether positive and negative conversations about ethnicity/race mediated the association between childhood cultural socialization and ethnic-racial identity among diverse college students. Further, we explored whether associations varied between Asian American, African American, Latinx, Multiracial, and White students.

Cultural Socialization and Ethnic-Racial Identity

Ethnic-racial socialization involves multiple components such as parents preparing their kids for the discrimination they might face (i.e., preparation for bias), parents emphasizing the need for distrust in interracial interactions (i.e., promotion of mistrust), silence about race (i.e., egalitarianism), and cultural socialization (Hughes et al., 2006). The current study focuses on cultural socialization a form of ethnic-racial socialization in which parents transmit knowledge of one’s heritage, cultural customs, and traditions, and promote cultural, racial, and ethnic pride to their children (Hughes, et al., 2006). Ethnic-racial identity is a multidimensional construct that consists of various components that reflect content (i.e., attitudes and beliefs about one’s own ethnic-racial group and its relation to other groups) and process (i.e., the mechanisms by which individuals explore, form, and maintain their ethnic-racial identity; Umaña-Taylor et al., 2014). Grounded in social identity theory (Tajfel, 1981), and ego identity theory (Erikson, 1968), Umaña-Taylor and colleagues (2004) conceptualized that ethnic-racial identity involves three components, including exploration (seeking information about one’s ethnicity/race), resolution (gaining a sense of clarity about one’s ethnicity/race), and affirmation (the positive feelings toward one’s ethnicity/race). Each component can be assessed separately or as a composite score of overall ethnic-racial identity (Umaña-Taylor et al., 2004). Exploration and resolution are considered process components of ethnic-racial identity and affirmation is considered a content component (Umaña-Taylor et al., 2014). Importantly, these components of ethnic-racial identity have been linked with positive psychological and health outcomes, such as increased self-esteem, life satisfaction, and positive sexual health experiences, as well as decreased depressive symptoms and substance use among college students (Dunn et al., in press; Nelson et al., 2018; Walker et al., in press).

The lifespan model of ethnic-racial identity (Williams et al., 2020) posits that ethnic-racial identity development occurs throughout the lifespan, and is shaped by identity-relevant experiences (i.e., experiences that motivate individuals to consider and evaluate their ethnic-racial identity), such as cultural socialization. Although the majority of ethnic-racial identity research has focused on adolescents (Rivas-Drake, 2014 for a review), some prior work has found that cultural socialization is directly associated with greater ethnic-racial identity. For example, familial cultural socialization was associated with greater ethnic-racial identity exploration and resolution, but not affirmation among biracial college students (Brittian et al., 2013). Among Asian American emerging adults, parental cultural socialization predicted greater composite ethnic-racial identity (Brown & Ling, 2012). Similarly, among Mexican-origin youth, familial cultural socialization predicted greater composite ethnic-racial identity (Umaña-Taylor et al., 2013). Further, among African American emerging adults, familial cultural socialization informed greater composite ethnic-racial identity (Reynolds et al., 2017). These prior studies are just a few examples of work in this area that has found that cultural socialization is directly associated with greater ethnic-racial identity. Despite this direct association, we know less about the mechanisms involved in this association that may play a mediating role, such as conversations about ethnicity/race.

Conversations as Mediators and Ethnic-Racial Group Differences

Previous research has linked family cultural socialization with individuals engaging in conversations about ethnicity/race (Hughes & Chen 1997; Kim et al., 2013; Stevenson et al., 2002). For example, Stevenson and colleagues (2002) found that greater frequency of cultural socialization practices was associated with more conversations about race among African American youth. Additionally, prior research has suggested that conversations about ethnicity/race can promote ethnic-racial identity among adolescents (Aldana et al., 2012; Scottham et al., 2008), but work with college students is more limited. As part of a larger study, Scottham and colleagues (2008) examined the correlations between racial identity and conversations about race among African American adolescents. They found that higher scores on racial centrality (emphasizing race as part of self-concept) and nationalism (emphasizing the uniqueness of being African American) were associated with more frequent conversations about race.

Despite evidence of these relations, no research to date has examined the mediational process by which cultural socialization is associated with ethnic-racial identity through conversations about race. Two theoretical frameworks are helpful for understanding how cultural socialization may impact conversations about race and how these conversations may inform ethnic-racial identity. Regarding the first association, social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986) proposes that individuals can vicariously learn attitudes and behaviors from others that they internalize for themselves by modeling others in their environment (e.g., parents). Accordingly, when college students grow up with families who discuss their knowledge and experiences about their ethnic/racial group, adult family members model having positive conversations about race to children, which may set a foundation for children to have open, positive conversations about ethnicity/race and culture with others into emerging adulthood. Thus, grounded in social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986), it would be expected that greater cultural socialization in childhood would be associated with more positive conversations about race and less negative conversations about race in emerging adulthood.

Turning to the association between conversations about race predicting ethnic-racial identity exploration, resolution, and affirmation, the lifespan model of ethnic-racial identity (Williams et al., 2020) is useful. As noted, the lifespan model of ethnic-racial identity (Williams et al., 2020) posits that identity-relevant experiences that motivate individuals to think more about their ethnicity/race facilitate ethnic-racial identity. Having conversations with others may serve as an identity-relevant experience that pushes emerging adults to think more about their own feelings and behaviors regarding their ethnicity/race. Thus, grounded in the lifespan model of ethnic-racial identity (Williams et al., 2020), greater positive conversations about race would be expected to be associated with greater ethnic-racial identity exploration, resolution, and affirmation, and greater negative conversations about race would be expected to be associated with lower ethnic-racial identity exploration, resolution, and affirmation.

Ethnic-racial group differences.

In addition to exploring how conversations mediate relations between cultural socialization and ethnic-racial identity, it is important to explore whether relations vary by students’ ethnic-racial background. Research has indicated that there are ethnic-racial group differences in ethnic-racial identity (Hughes et al., 2016; Umaña-Taylor et al., 2004) and in cultural socialization (Loyd & Gaither, 2018). For example, Loyd and Gaither (2018) found that cultural socialization occurs less frequently in White families compared to families of color. Similarly, Juang and Syed (2010) found that Asian American and Latinx students reported higher cultural socialization than White students. Given that no theoretical orientation or prior empirical work suggests how relations between cultural socialization and ethnic-racial identity via conversations about race may vary between Asian American, African American, Latinx, Multiracial, or White students, testing for ethnic-racial group differences was exploratory in the current study and we made no specific hypotheses.

The Current Study

The goal of the current study was to examine whether positive and negative conversations about race mediated relations between childhood cultural socialization and ethnic-racial identity among diverse college students. Based on social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986) and previous research, it was hypothesized that childhood cultural socialization would be associated with greater positive (and less negative) conversations about race. Based on the lifespan model of ethnic-racial identity (Williams, 2020), it was expected that positive conversations would be associated with greater ethnic-racial identity exploration, resolution, and affirmation, and negative conversations would be associated with lower ethnic-racial identity exploration, resolution, and affirmation. Given that ethnic-racial identity varies by age and sex (Corby et al., 2006; Juang & Syed, 2010), students’ age and sex were included as covariates. Further, an exploratory aspect of the study included testing whether the expected associations varied across Asian American, African American, Latinx, Multiracial, and White students.

Method

Sample and Procedure

The current study used secondary data from an on-going longitudinal study that enrolled 5 cohorts of incoming first-time freshmen at a public, urban university in the Mid-Atlantic U.S. Cohorts began participating in 2011–2014 and 2017, respectively, in the fall of their first year, and completed follow-up surveys each spring semester thereafter while still enrolled at the university. Students that accessed the survey through an email link were led through an informed consent process, and completed the survey online, which took approximately 30 minutes to complete. Students received $10 compensation. Study data were collected and managed using REDCap electronic data capture tools (Harris et al., 2009). The larger study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Virginia Commonwealth University.

The current study focused on students who completed a follow-up survey in Spring 2017 because this was the only time point that included assessments of cultural socialization, conversations about race, and ethnic-racial identity. Thus, the present study included data collected when students were in their third, fourth, fifth or sixth year in college at a diverse, predominately white institution (48.9% White). The current analytic sample included 1850 emerging adults ages 18 to 22 (M = 18.46, SD = .38) who identified as White (44%), Black/African American (22.7%), Hispanic/Latino (6.1%), Asian (20.8%), or More than one race (6.4%). Students in the larger study who identified as American Indian/Alaska Native or Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander were excluded from our analytic sample because there were too few students in these two groups to statistically test ethnic-racial group differences. A majority of students identified as female (69%), lived in a residence hall on campus (74.6%) and were not currently working (65%).

Measures

Childhood cultural socialization.

One item adapted from the Familial Ethnic Socialization Measure (Umaña-Taylor, 2001, Umaña-Taylor et al., 2004) was used to assess students’ perceptions of childhood cultural socialization. The item (e.g., “Growing up, my family taught me about my ethnic/racial background.”) was scored using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from (1) Not at all true to (5) Very much true, and a higher score indicated greater familial cultural socialization. Although the one-item measure has not been used in previous work, support for validity for the full Familial Ethnic Socialization Measure has been provided by previous work with emerging adults (Brittian et al., 2013).

Positive and negative conversations about ethnicity/race.

Ethnic-racial identity.

The Ethnic Identity Scale-Brief (EIS-B; Douglass & Umaña-Taylor, 2015) was used to assess participants’ ethnic-racial identity. The EIS-B is a 9-item measure with three subscales assessing three components of ethnic-racial identity: Exploration (3 items; e.g., “I have attended events that have helped me learn more about my ethnicity.”), Resolution (3 items; e.g., “I am clear about what my ethnicity means to me.”), and Affirmation (3 items; e.g., “I feel negatively about my ethnicity.” [Reverse coded]). Participants responded using a 4-point Likert scale from (1) Does not describe me at all to (4) Describes me very well. Higher scores indicated greater ethnic-racial identity exploration, resolution, and affirmation. Cronbach’s alphas for exploration were .82 for Asian American students, .85 for African American students, .88 for Latinx students, .89 for Multiracial students, and .87 for White students. Cronbach’s alphas for resolution were .84 for Asian American students, .86 for African American students, .85 for Latinx students, .86 for Multiracial students, and .89 for White students. Cronbach’s alphas for exploration were .85 for Asian American students, .78 for African American students, .70 for Latinx students, .69 for Multiracial students, and .83 for White students.

Covariates and ethnicity/race grouping variable.

Students’ age and sex were included as covariates. Sex was coded as 1 = male and 2 = female. To test for ethnic-racial group differences, ethnicity/race was included as a grouping variable. Students were asked “Which one of these groups best describes you? (please choose only one)” The response options included: American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, More than one race, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, White, Unknown, Skip, I choose not to answer. Students who identified as Asian, Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, More than one race, or White were included in the present study.

Analytic Approach

To test hypotheses, a series of nested multiple group path analysis models were specified in Mplus version 8.1 (Muthén & Muthén, 2017), with ethnicity/race as the grouping variable. In this approach, an unconstrained model in which no paths were constrained by ethnic-racial group was compared to a fully constrained model in which all paths were constrained to be equal across ethnic-racial groups, and a chi-square difference test was conducted (Kline, 1998). A chi-square difference test that is not significant indicates that there are no significant ethnic-racial group differences in the model, and the fully constrained model is accepted as the final model. A significant chi-square difference test indicates that there are significant ethnic-racial group differences in the model. In this case, the next step is to compare the unconstrained model to a model in which only one path is constrained to be equal across ethnic-racial groups. If chi-square difference test is significant, it indicates that there are significant ethnic-racial group differences in the path, and the constraint is removed prior to testing the next path. If the chi-square difference test is not significant it indicates that there are no significant ethnic-racial group differences in the path, and the constraint is kept, and the next model is compared to this model with the one constrained path. This process was repeated to test for differences in all paths to arrive at a partially constrained final model, in which paths that are significantly different across ethnic-racial groups are left unconstrained, and paths that are not significantly different across ethnic-racial groups are constrained to be equal across groups.

Three fit indices were used to examine model fit: the comparative fit index (CFI), the root-mean-square-error of approximation (RMSEA), and the standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR). Model fit was considered to be good if the CFI was greater than or equal to .95, the RMSEA was less than or equal to .05, and the SRMR was less than or equal to .05 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Missing data were handled using full maximum likelihood (Arbuckle, 1996). Age and sex were included as covariates.

To formally test mediation, the bias-corrected bootstrap method with 10,000 samples was used to compute confidence intervals (Taylor et al., 2008). In this approach, mediation is considered significant if the confidence interval for the mediated effect does not contain zero (Fritz & MacKinnon, 2007). Unstandardized coefficients are presented below and standardized coefficients are presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Final Partially Constrained Multigroup Model of Cultural Socialization Predicting Ethnic-Racial Identity via Conversations about Race.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Note. A bolded line indicates that the path was freely estimated among Asian American, African American, Latinx, Multiracial, and White students because there was a significant difference by ethnicity/race. For any paths with significant ethnic/racial differences (bolded lines), findings are presented in the following order: Asian American students/ African American students/ Latinx students/ Multiracial students/ White students. An unbolded line indicates that the path was constrained to be equal among all students because there was not a significant difference by ethnicity/race. Coefficients are standardized. Age and sex were included as covariates predicting ethnic-racial identity, but are not displayed for ease of illustration. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

Results

Descriptive statistics included testing correlations, means, and standard deviations among all variables among our full sample of Asian American, African American, Latinx, Multiracial, and White students (Table 1). Correlations, means, and standard deviations for each group of students are provided in the Appendix for Asian American students (Table A1), African American students (Table A2), Latinx students (Table A3), Multiracial students (Table A4), and White students (Table A5). The results of the nested model comparisons to test for ethnic-racial group differences using chi-square difference tests are presented in Table 2. The final partially constrained model had good fit: χ2 (df = 64) = 89.82, p = .02; CFI = .99; RMSEA = .03 (90% C.I.: .01 - .05); SRMR = .04 (see Figure 1).

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations among Study Variables and Controls for Asian American, African American, Latinx, and Multiracial Students (N = 1850).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Cultural Socialization --
2. Positive Conversations about Race .45*** --
3. Negative Conversations about Race −.04 .26*** --
4. ERI Exploration .53*** .57*** .13*** --
5. ERI Resolution .51*** .43*** .02 .57*** --
6. ERI Affirmation .15*** .08** −.32*** .03 .17*** --
7. Age −.02 −.06* −.01 −.04 −.05* −.07** --
8. Sex .00 .11*** .09** .06** .09*** .03 −.04 --
Mean 3.04 2.58 2.38 2.23 3.01 3.74 18.46 1.69
SD 1.38 1.25 1.15 1.00 .87 .52 .38 .46
Open in a new tab

Note. Sex was coded 1 = male, 2 = female.

*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

***

p < .001.

Table 2.

Nested Model Comparisons and Chi-Square Difference Tests for Constraints Imposed Across Asian American, African American, Latinx, Multiracial, and White Students to Test for Significant Ethnic-Racial Group Differences.

Model # Models Compared Constraints CFI RMSEA SRMR χ2(df) Δχ2 (Δ df) Sig Level Constraint Kept
0 -- Unconstrained 0.99 0.05 0.03 38.67 (20)
1 0 and 1 Fully constrained 0.94 0.06 0.11 187.77 (80) 149.10 (60) 0.00 No
2 0 and 2 Positive Conversations ➔ ERI Exploration 0.98 0.06 0.03 53.74 (24) 15.07 (4) 0.00 No
3 0 and 3 Negative Conversations ➔ ERI Exploration 0.99 0.05 0.03 46.52 (24) 7.85 (4) 0.10 Yes
4 3 and 4 Age ➔ ERI Exploration 0.99 0.05 0.03 52.28 (28) 5.76 (4) 0.22 Yes
5 4 and 5 Gender ➔ ERI Exploration 0.99 0.04 0.03 54.62 (32) 2.35 (4) 0.67 Yes
6 5 and 6 Cultural Socialization ➔ ERI Exploration 0.97 0.06 0.04 87.64 (36) 33.02 (4) 0.00 No
7 5 and 7 Positive Conversations ➔ ERI Resolution 0.99 0.04 0.03 56.39 (36) 1.77 (4) 0.78 Yes
8 7 and 8 Negative Conversations ➔ ERI Resolution 0.99 0.04 0.03 58.55 (40) 2.16 (4) 0.71 Yes
9 8 and 9 Age ➔ ERI Resolution 0.99 0.04 0.03 64.92 (44) 6.38 (4) 0.17 Yes
10 9 and 10 Gender ➔ ERI Resolution 0.99 0.03 0.03 68.07 (48) 3.15 (4) 0.53 Yes
11 10 and 11 Cultural Socialization ➔ ERI Resolution 0.99 0.04 0.04 79.17 (52) 11.11 (4) 0.03 No
12 10 and 12 Positive Conversations ➔ ERI Affirmation 0.99 0.04 0.04 75.82 (52) 7.75 (4) 0.10 Yes
13 12 and 13 Negative Conversations ➔ ERI Affirmation 0.97 0.05 0.08 112.31 (56) 36.48 (4) 0.00 No
14 12 and 14 Age ➔ ERI Affirmation 0.99 0.03 0.04 79.06 (56) 3.24 (4) 0.52 Yes
15 14 and 15 Gender ➔ ERI Affirmation 0.99 0.03 0.04 81.84 (60) 2.78 (4) 0.60 Yes
16 15 and 16 Cultural Socialization ➔ ERI Affirmation 0.98 0.04 0.06 97.67 (64) 15.82 (4) 0.00 No
17 15 and 17 Cultural Socialization ➔ Positive Conversations 0.99 0.03 0.04 89.82 (64) 7.97 (4) 0.09 Yes
18 17 and 18 Cultural Socialization ➔ Negative Conversations 0.98 0.04 0.05 105.65 (68) 15.83 (4) 0.00 No
Open in a new tab

Note. Bolded font indicates a model that had significant ethnic-racial differences and unbolded font indicates a model that did not have significant ethnic-racial differences. CFI = Comparative Fit Index, RMSEA = Root-Mean-Square-Error of Approximation, SRMR = Standardized Root-Mean-Square Residual, Sig = Significance. ERI = Ethnic-Racial Identity

Results indicated that, as expected, greater childhood cultural socialization predicted more positive conversations about race (b = .30, p < .001 for all students) and, in turn, greater ethnic-racial identity exploration (b = .36, p < .001 for Asian American students; b = .32, p < .001 for African American students; b = .29, p < .001 for Latinx students; b = .33, p < .001 for Multiracial students; and b = .19, p = .00 for White students), ethnic-racial identity resolution (b = .15, p < .001 for all students), and ethnic-racial identity affirmation (b = .03, p < .001 for all students).

Contrary to expectations, cultural socialization was associated with more negative conversations about race among African American students (b = .09, p = .03) and Multiracial students (b = .25, p < .001), but this relation was not significant for Asian American, Latinx, or White students (p > .05). However, more negative conversations about race predicted greater ethnic-racial identity exploration (b = .06, p < .001 for all students) and less ethnic-racial identity affirmation (b = −.20, p < .001 for Asian American students; b = −.09, p < .001 for African American students; b = −.11, p < .001 for Latinx students; b = −.08, p = .01 for Multiracial students; and b = −.21, p < .001 for White students). The relation between negative conversations about race and ethnic-racial identity resolution was not significant (b = −.01, p = .52).

Finally, the three direct effects were significant from cultural socialization predicting ethnic-racial identity, but all three paths were significantly different based on students’ ethnic-racial background. Specifically, more cultural socialization was associated with greater ethnic-racial identity exploration among Asian American (b = .11, p < .001), African American (b = .14, p < .001), Multiracial (b = .30, p < .001), and White (b = .30, p < .001) students, but not significant among Latinx students (b = .08, p = .28). Second, cultural socialization was associated with ethnic-racial identity resolution (b = .21, p < .001 for Asian American students; b = .17, p < .001 for African American students; b = .26, p < .001 for Latinx students; b = .35, p < .001 for Multiracial students; and b = .25, p < .001 for White students). Third, cultural socialization was associated with greater ethnic-racial identity affirmation among Asian American students (b = .08, p = .01) and African American students (b = .06, p < .001), but not among Latinx students (b = −.03, p = .14), Multiracial students (b = .01, p = .81), or White students (b = .03, p = .08). Only one significant control path was significant, such that females had significantly greater ethnic-racial identity resolution than males among all students (b = .11, p < .001).

Mediation Tests

Using the bias-corrected bootstrap method to formally test for mediation, several significant mediation pathways emerged for positive conversations about race as the mediator. First, although the relation between positive conversations about race and ethnic-racial identity exploration was significantly different by ethnic-racial background, this path was significant for all students, resulting in 5 paths from cultural socialization to ethnic-racial identity exploration mediated by positive conversations about race. Specifically, positive conversations significantly mediated the relation between childhood cultural socialization and ethnic-racial identity exploration for Asian American students (unstandardized 95% confidence interval for the mediated effect [.083, .138]), African American students (unstandardized 95% confidence interval for the mediated effect [.073, .123]), Latinx students (unstandardized 95% confidence interval for the mediated effect [.043, .137]), Multiracial students (unstandardized 95% confidence interval for the mediated effect [.060, .141]), and White students (unstandardized 95% confidence interval for the mediated effect [.039, .079]). In other words, among all students, positive conversations about race was a significant mediator, such that cultural socialization was significantly associated with greater ethnic-racial identity exploration via greater positive conversations about race.

Second, positive conversations mediated the relation between childhood cultural socialization and ethnic-racial identity resolution for all students (no significant ethnic-racial differences; b = .034, p = .059). In other words, cultural socialization was significantly associated with greater ethnic-racial identity resolution via greater positive conversations about race. Additionally, positive conversations mediated the relation between childhood cultural socialization and ethnic-racial identity affirmation for all students (no significant ethnic-racial differences; b = .004, p = .017). Thus, cultural socialization was significantly associated with greater ethnic-racial identity affirmation via greater positive conversations about race.

Regarding negative conversations about race as a mediator, one significant mediation path emerged, but only for African American and Multiracial students. In particular, negative conversations significantly mediated the relation between childhood cultural socialization and ethnic-racial identity affirmation for African American students (unstandardized 95% confidence interval for the mediated effect [−.019, −.001]) and Multiracial students (unstandardized 95% confidence interval for the mediated effect [−.056, −.002]). In other words, among African American and Multiracial students, negative conversations about race was a significant mediator, such that cultural socialization was significantly associated with greater negative conversations about race and, in turn, less ethnic-racial identity affirmation.

Discussion

The primary goal of the present study was to test positive and negative conversations about ethnicity/race as mediators of the relations between childhood cultural socialization and ethnic-racial identity (exploration, resolution, and affirmation), as well as test for ethnic-racial group differences (Umaña-Taylor et al., 2014). Overall, some paths varied by ethnicity/race and others were similar across all students regardless of ethnicity/race. First, regarding direct effects, cultural socialization informed greater ethnic-racial identity resolution for all students, greater ethnic-racial exploration for all students except Latinx students, and greater ethnic-racial identity affirmation for Asian American and African American students, but not Latinx, Multiracial, or White students. Interestingly, as discussed below in more detail, positive conversations about race was a significant mediator among all students in the relation between cultural socialization and ethnic-racial identity exploration, resolution, and affirmation. This suggests that even though cultural socialization directly affected ethnic-racial identity among most students, a key factor that played a role for all students regardless of ethnic-racial background is how the cultural socialization motivated or prepared students to engage in more positive conversations about race and, in turn, experience greater ethnic-racial identity exploration, resolution, and affirmation. Below, findings are discussed in terms of (a) positive conversations about race as a mediator and (b) negative conversations about race as a mediator.

Positive Conversations about Race as a Mediator

For positive conversations, as expected, three mediation pathways emerged as significant for all students. Among all students (i.e., there were no significant ethnic-racial group differences), cultural socialization informed greater positive conversations and, in turn, greater ethnic-racial identity resolution and affirmation. Thus, consistent with previous work exploring aspects of these relations among predominantly African American adolescents (e.g., Scottham et al., 2008; Stevenson et al., 2002), our findings suggest that there is a process at play between caregivers’ efforts to culturally socialize their children, and the conversations they have with others about race, and their sense of resolve and positive affect regarding their ethnicity/race during emerging adulthood.

Interestingly, these findings were not significantly different for Asian American, African American, Latinx, Multiracial, or White families. Previous work has indicated that families of color engage in more cultural socialization than White families (Loyd & Gaither, 2018). Similarly, in our study, all students of color (i.e., Asian American, African American, Multiracial, and Latinx individuals) reported higher cultural socialization, positive conversations, and ethnic-racial identity than White students. However, our findings suggest that when White caregivers and caregivers of color engage in cultural socialization during childhood it has important implications for the ways in which their children communicate and feel about ethnicity/race in emerging adulthood.

Further, cultural socialization informed greater positive conversations, and, in turn, greater ethnic-racial identity exploration. The relation between conversations and ethnic-racial identity exploration was significantly stronger for Asian American, African American, Latinx, and Multiracial students than White students. However, despite these relations being stronger for students of color, the mediated pathways from cultural socialization to all three components of ethnic-racial identity via positive conversations about race was significant for all students.

Findings highlight the importance of more focused work and interventions with caregivers across ethnic-racial backgrounds to help them engage in cultural socialization with their children. This is particularly important given that existing research on cultural processes, such as ethnic-racial identity, has tended to focus less on Multiracial and White families (Rogers et al., 2020). Our findings suggest that cultural socialization is important for all students regardless of their background because it helps them to have more positive conversations about race with others and, in turn, a more explored, resolved, and positive ethnic-racial identity in emerging adulthood. Community workshops and programs could be offered to parents to help them become comfortable with engaging in cultural socialization with their children, and provide a supportive environment for learning or strengthening their strategies to do so. In fact, recent research indicated that African American caregivers’ competency in engaging in racial socialization was associated with more frequent racial socialization with children (Anderson et al., 2020). Thus, promoting racial socialization competency to help caregivers engage in more cultural socialization may impact their children’s later skills in having positive conversations with others about race, and, in turn, strengthen their children’s ethnic-racial identity.

Negative Conversations about Race as a Mediator

Turning to findings for negative conversations about ethnicity/race, interesting differences emerged between students. First, contrary to expectations, childhood cultural socialization predicted more negative conversations in college among African American and Multiracial students, and this relation was not significant for Asian American, Latinx, or White students. This finding might have emerged due to the type of messages that African American students received from their parents about ethnicity/race in childhood. Parents often engage in another form of ethnic-racial socialization called preparation for bias, which occurs alongside cultural socialization (Friend et al., 2011). Among African American caregivers, this conversation may involve talking with their children about bias they may encounter as an African American person in the U.S., such as discrimination and police brutality and hostility against African American people (Coard & Sellers, 2005; Hughes, 2009). Although we did not have data on Multiracial students’ specific racial backgrounds, it is possible that they are African American Multiracial, and may also have received these preparation for bias messages. Recent work has indicated that a majority of multiracial emerging adults, particularly those with minority fathers and White mothers, report high levels of cultural socialization and preparation for bias messages (Christophe & Stein, 2021). Accordingly, as African American and Multiracial students may be particularly aware of systematic oppression and discrimination due to preparation for bias socialization, they may have more conversations with others about systemic oppression and bias that they report as a “negative conversation about race” given the topic. However, because we did not assess childhood preparation for bias or the content of negative conversations, future research is warranted.

Secondly, also contrary to expectations, among all students, negative conversations predicted greater ethnic-racial identity exploration. Consistent with expectations, negative conversations informed less ethnic-racial identity affirmation (although this relation was stronger for Asian American, Latinx, Multiracial, and White students than African American students, it was significant for all students). Negative conversations did not predict ethnic-racial identity resolution. These findings suggest that the effect of negative conversations on ethnic-racial identity depends on the type of ethnic-racial identity dimension.

Prior research has indicated that racial discrimination is differentially related to dimensions of ethnic-racial identity (Brittian et al., 2015; Knowles & Peng, 2005). When college students engage in negative conversations, they may be learning more about stereotypes and racial history, which leads them to explore more about their ethnic-racial background. An important future research direction will be to test the content of negative conversations. For example, interviews could be conducted with students who report engaging in frequent negative conversations about race in order to ascertain what students report is involved in the conversations.

With continued empirical support, these findings may be useful for individuals who work with emerging adults in college (e,g., therapists, educators) to help students cope with their negative conversations about race in order to minimize negative effects on their ethnic-racial identity affirmation, and to help them have a more positive ethnic-racial identity exploration process. Findings also highlight that theoretical and empirical work in this area should continue to focus on and assess ethnic-racial identity as separate dimensions, rather than composite measures to capture nuances in these processes.

Limitations and Conclusion

There are various limitations to acknowledge. First, as part of a larger study aimed to reduce participant burden, we had one-item measures of cultural socialization and conversations about race. Findings suggest that these are important constructs for understanding ethnic-racial identity development, and need future investigation. Relatedly, the construct of conversations about race was assessed as having a conversation with “someone,” but it is unclear who students are conversing with about race, which may impact their responses. For example, students in college may have more frequent conversations about race with peers, but less frequent conversations with professors. Future research should assess conversations about race with others in a more nuanced way to clarify who the conversations are with and how frequently they occur with different individuals. Further, given that some students’ backgrounds were underrepresented (e.g., American Indian) in the larger study, we were statistically only able to test ethnic-racial differences among some of the students (i.e., Asian American, African American, Latinx, Multiracial, and White students). It will be important for future research with larger samples to test ethnic-racial differences among students from additional backgrounds to understand the generalizability of findings and emerging adults’ unique lived experiences. Additionally, given the cross-sectional design, we were unable to test these associations over time. Future longitudinal research on these associations will help build support for conversations about race as a mediator of the cultural socialization to ethnic-racial identity process.

Despite limitations, the current study provides insight into how cultural socialization is linked with conversations about ethnicity/race and ethnic-racial identity among Asian American, African American, Latinx, Multiracial, and White students. Findings highlight the importance of promoting positive conversations about ethnicity/race and helping students cope with negative conversations in order to have more positive effects on ethnic-racial identity development in college.

Acknowledgments.

Spit for Science has been supported by Virginia Commonwealth University, P20AA017828, R37AA011408, K02AA018755, P50AA022537 and K01AA024152 from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, and UL1RR031990 from the National Center for Research Resources and National Institutes of Health Roadmap for Medical Research. This research was also supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number U54DA036105 and the Center for Tobacco Products of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the views of the NIH or the FDA. Data from this study are available to qualified researchers by emailing Spit4Science@vcu.edu and via dbGaP (phs001754.v2.p1). We would like to thank the Spit for Science participants for making this study a success, as well as acknowledge The Spit for Science Working Group: Spit for Science Director: Danielle M. Dick. Registry management: Kimberly Pedersen, Zoe Neale, Nathaniel Thomas. Data cleaning and management: Amy E. Adkins, Nathaniel Thomas, Zoe Neale, Kimberly Pedersen, Thomas Bannard & Seung B. Cho. Data collection: Amy E. Adkins, Peter Barr, Holly Byers, Erin C. Berenz, Erin Caraway, Seung B. Cho, James S. Clifford, Megan Cooke, Elizabeth Do, Alexis C. Edwards, Neeru Goyal, Laura M. Hack, Lisa J. Halberstadt, Sage Hawn, Sally Kuo, Emily Lasko, Jennifer Lend, Mackenzie Lind, Elizabeth Long, Alexandra Martelli, Jacquelyn L. Meyers, Kerry Mitchell, Ashlee Moore, Arden Moscati, Aashir Nasim, Zoe Neale, Jill Opalesky, Cassie Overstreet, A. Christian Pais, Kimberly Pedersen, Tarah Raldiris, Jessica Salvatore, Jeanne Savage, Rebecca Smith, David Sosnowski, Jinni Su, Nathaniel Thomas, Chloe Walker, Marcie Walsh, Teresa Willoughby, Madison Woodroof & Jia Yan.

Appendix

Table A1.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations among Study Variables and Controls for Asian American Students (n = 385).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Cultural Socialization --
2. Positive Conversations about Race .28*** --
3. Negative Conversations about Race .05 .35*** --
4. ERI Exploration .27*** .50*** .18** --
5. ERI Resolution .40*** .29*** .03 .47*** --
6. ERI Affirmation .15** −.03 −.32*** .05 .22*** --
7. Age −.11* −.06 .07 .03 −.10* −.09 --
8. Sex .01 .15** .03 .13* .10* .05 .04 --
Mean 3.64 3.38 2.60 2.80 3.41 3.85 18.41 1.76
SD 1.13 1.14 1.00 .89 .71 .59 .43 .47
Open in a new tab

Note. Sex was coded 1 = male, 2 = female.

*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

***

p < .001.

Table A2.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations among Study Variables and Controls for African American Students (n = 420).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Cultural Socialization --
2. Positive Conversations about Race .30*** --
3. Negative Conversations about Race .10* .41*** --
4. ERI Exploration .32*** .51*** .28*** --
5. ERI Resolution .37*** .35*** .16** .52*** --
6. ERI Affirmation .20*** .01 −.17** −.01 .24*** --
7. Age .02 −.08 −.07 −.03 −.03 −.07 --
8.Sex .04 .13** .08 .09 .14** .10* .06 --
Mean 3.64 3.38 2.60 2.80 3.41 3.85 18.41 1.76
SD 1.22 1.176 1.12 .90 .70 .40 .34 .43
Open in a new tab

Note. Sex was coded 1 = male, 2 = female.

*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

***

p < .001.

Table A3.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations among Study Variables and Controls for Latinx Students (n = 112).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Cultural Socialization --
2. Positive Conversations about Race .37*** --
3. Negative Conversations about Race −.07 .18 --
4. ERI Exploration .23* .44*** .27** --
5. ERI Resolution .52*** .49*** .12 .50*** --
6. ERI Affirmation −.08 .01 −.32** −.05 .02 --
7. Age .08 .12 −.00 −.11 −.00 .04 --
8. Sex −.03 .11 .09 .05 .00 .03 −.11 --
Mean 3.78 2.93 1.90 2.43 3.32 3.91 18.56 1.62
SD 1.15 1.15 .91 .94 .68 .26 .46 .49
Open in a new tab

Note. Sex was coded 1 = male, 2 = female.

*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

***

p < .001.

Table A4.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations among Study Variables and Controls for Multiracial Students (n = 119).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Cultural Socialization --
2. Positive Conversations about Race .08 --
3. Negative Conversations about Race .15 .50*** --
4. ERI Exploration .41*** .45*** .43*** --
5. ERI Resolution .52*** .25** .21* .53*** --
6. ERI Affirmation .01 −.07 −.19* −.10 .18* --
7. Age −.20* −.08 −.02 −.02 −.08 .01 --
8. Sex .02 .26** .21* .11 .14 −.05 −.04 --
Mean 2.92 2.78 2.28 2.27 3.03 3.87 18.43 1.68
SD 1.23 1.14 1.13 .97 .84 .34 .33 .47
Open in a new tab

Note. Sex was coded 1 = male, 2 = female.

*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

***

p < .001.

Table A5.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations among Study Variables and Controls for White Students (n = 814).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Cultural Socialization --
2. Positive Conversations about Race .37*** --
3. Negative Conversations about Race −.04 .24*** --
4. ERI Exploration .51*** .40*** .10** --
5. ERI Resolution .38*** .29*** .00 .45*** --
6. ERI Affirmation .09** .05 −.41*** −.10** .06 --
7. Age .02 −.00 .02 −.00 −.02 −.06 --
8. Sex −.07* −.00 .08* −.04 .05 −.01 −.09* --
Mean 2.27 1.96 2.52 1.71 2.63 3.66 18.49 1.68
SD 1.18 1.04 1.20 .85 .90 .58 .37 .47
Open in a new tab

Note. Sex was coded 1 = male, 2 = female.

*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

***

p < .001.

Footnotes

1

Race captures the socially constructed grouping of individuals based on phenotypic attributes (e.g., skin tone, hair texture), and ethnicity captures shared cultural heritage (e.g., customs, language) that is passed down through generations. Given that individuals tend to think about race and ethnicity similarly when forming their identity, and both are similarly related to positive outcomes, we use the recommended term ethnic-racial identity (Umaña-Taylor et al., 2014).

References

  1. Aldana A, Rowley SJ, Checkoway B, & Richards-Schuster K (2012). Raising Ethnic-Racial Consciousness: The relationship between intergroup dialogues and adolescents’ ethnic-racial identity and racism awareness. Equity & Excellence in Education, 45(1), 120–137. 10.1080/10665684.2012.641863 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson RE, Jones SCT & Stevenson HC (2020). The initial development and validation of the Racial Socialization Competency Scale: Quality and quantity. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 26(4), 426–436. 10.1037/cdp0000316 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Arbuckle JL (1996). Full information estimation in the presence of incomplete data. In Marcoulides GA & Schumacker RE (Eds.) Advanced structural equation modeling: Issues and techniques (pp. 243–277). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bandura A (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. [Google Scholar]
  5. Brittian AS, Umaña-Taylor AJ, & Derlan CL (2013). An examination of biracial college youths’ family ethnic socialization, ethnic identity, and adjustment: Do self-identification labels and university context matter? Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 19(2), 177–189. 10.1037/a0029438 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Brittian AS, Kim SY, Armenta BE, Lee RM, Umaña-Taylor AJ, Schwartz SJ, Villalta IK, Zamboanga BL, Weisskirch RS, Juang LP, Castillo LG, & Hudson ML (2015). Do dimensions of ethnic identity mediate the association between perceived ethnic group discrimination and depressive symptoms? Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 21(1), 41–53. 10.1037/a0037531 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Brown CM, & Ling W (2012). Ethnic-racial socialization has an indirect effect on self-esteem for Asian American emerging adults. Psychology, 03(01), 78–81. 10.4236/psych.2012.31013 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Chen JC (2017). Nontraditional adult learners: The neglected diversity in postsecondary education. SAGE Open, 7(1). 10.1177/2158244017697161 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Christophe NK, & Stein GL (2021). A person-centered analysis of ethnic–racial socialization patterns and their identity correlates in multiracial college students. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 27(3), 332–342. 10.1037/cdp0000438 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Coard SI, & Sellers RM (2005). African American Families as a Context for Racial Socialization. In McLoyd VC, Hill NE, & Dodge KA (Eds.), African American family life: Ecological and cultural diversity. (pp. 264–284). The Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  11. Corby BC, Hodges EVE, & Perry DG (2006). Gender identity and adjustment in Black, Hispanic, and White preadolescents. Developmental Psychology, 43(1), 261. 10.1037/0012-1649.43.1.261 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Douglass S, & Umaña-Taylor AJ (2015). A brief form of the ethnic identity scale: Development and empirical validation. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 15(1), 48–65. 10.1080/15283488.2014.989442 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. DeLaney EN, Williams CD, Elias MJ, Walker CJ, Smith TH, Adkins A, Lozada FT, & Dick DM (in press). Racial discrimination and depressive symptoms mediated by conversations about race among students of color. Journal of American College Health. Advance online publication. 10.1080/07448481.2021.1998071 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Dunn C, Williams CD, Hood K & Walker CJ (in press). Sex differences in how ethnic-racial identity informs first coital affect and virginity beliefs among Black college students. Journal of American College Health. Advance online publication. 10.1080/07448481.2021.1888737 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Erikson EH (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York, NY: Norton. [Google Scholar]
  16. Friend C, Hunter A, & Fletcher A (2011). Parental racial socialization and the academic achievement of African American children: A cultural-ecological approach. Journal of African American Studies, 15(1), 40–57. 10.1007/s12111-010-9124-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Fritz MS, & MacKinnon DP (2007). Required sample size to detect the mediated effect. Psychological Science, 18, 233–239. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01882.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG (2009). Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 42(2), 377–81. 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Hu L, & Bentler PM (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. 10.1080/10705519909540118 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Hughes D, Hagelskamp C, Way N, & Foust MD (2009). The role of mothers’ and adolescents’ perceptions of ethnic-racial socialization in shaping ethnic-racial identity among early adolescent boys and girls. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(5), 605–626. 10.1007/s10964-009-9399-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Hughes D, & Chen L (1997). When and what parents tell children about race: An examination of race-related socialization among African American families. Applied Developmental Science, 1(4), 200–214. 10.1207/s1532480xads0104_4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Hughes D, Rodriguez J, Smith EP, Johnson DJ, Stevenson HC, & Spicer P (2006). Parents’ ethnic-racial socialization practices: A review of research and directions for future study. Developmental Psychology, 42(5), 747–770. 10.1037/0012-1649.42.5.747 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Hughes DL, Watford JA, & Del Toro J (2016). A transactional/ecological perspective on ethnic-racial identity, socialization, and discrimination. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 51, 1–41. 10.1016/bs.acdb.2016.05.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Juang L, & Syed M (2010). Family cultural socialization practices and ethnic identity in college-going emerging adults. Journal of Adolescence, 33(3), 347–354. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.11.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Kim OM, Reichwald R, & Lee R (2013). Cultural socialization in families with adopted Korean adolescents: A mixed-method, multi-informant study. Journal of Adolescent Research, 28(1), 69–95. 10.1177/0743558411432636 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Kline RB (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, fourth edition. New York: Guilford [Google Scholar]
  27. Knowles ED, & Peng K (2005). White selves: Conceptualizing and measuring a dominant-group identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(2), 223–241. 10.1037/0022-3514.89.2.223 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Loyd AB, & Gaither SE (2018). Racial/ethnic socialization for White youth: What we know and future directions. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 59, 54–64. 10.1016/j.appdev.2018.05.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Muthén LK, & Muthén BO (2017). Mplus: Statistical Analysis with Latent Variables: User’s Guide (Version 8). Los Angeles, CA: Authors. [Google Scholar]
  30. Nelson SC, Syed M, Tran AGTT, Hu AW, & Lee RM (2018). Pathways to ethnic-racial identity development and psychological adjustment: The differential associations of cultural socialization by parents and peers. Developmental Psychology, 54(11), 2166–2180. 10.1037/dev0000597 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Pierce D (2018). Talking about race. Community College Journal, 88(6), 10–15. Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com-/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1183408&site=eds-live&scope=site [Google Scholar]
  32. Reynolds JE, Gonzales-Backen MA, Allen KA, Hurley EA, Donovan RA, Schwartz SJ, Hudson M, Agocha B, & Williams M (2017). Ethnic–racial identity of Black emerging adults: The role of parenting and ethnic–racial socialization. Journal of Family Issues, 38(15), 2200–2224. 10.1177/0192513X16629181 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Rivas DD, Seaton EK, Markstrom C, Quintana S, Syed M, Lee RM, Schwartz SJ, Umaña TAJ, French S, & Yip T (2014). Ethnic and racial identity in adolescence: Implications for psychosocial, academic, and health outcomes. Child Development, 85(1), 40–57. 10.1111/cdev.12200 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Rogers LO, Kiang L, White L, Calzada EJ, Umaña-Taylor AJ, Byrd CM, Williams CD, Marks A, & Whitesell NA (2020). Persistent concerns: Questions for research on ethnic-racial identity development. Research in Human Development, 17(2–3), 130–153. 10.1080/15427609.2020.1831881 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Scottham KM, Sellers RM, & Nguyên HX (2008). A measure of racial identity in African American adolescents: The development of the Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity--Teen. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 14(4), 297–306. 10.1037/1099-9809.14.4.297 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Stevenson HC, Cameron R, Herrero-Taylor T, & Davis GY (2002). Development of the Teenager Experience of Racial Socialization Scale: Correlates of Race-Related Socialization Frequency from the perspective of Black youth. Journal of Black Psychology, 28(2), 84–106. 10.1177/0095798402028002002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Tajfel H (1981). Human groups and social categories. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  38. Taylor AB, MacKinnon DP, & Tein J-Y (2008). Tests of the three-path mediated effect. Organizational Research Methods, 11(2), 241–269. 10.1177/1094428107300344 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Umaña-Taylor AJ (2001). Ethnic identity development among Mexican-origin Latino adolescents living in the U.S. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, Missouri. [Google Scholar]
  40. Umaña-Taylor AJ, Quintana SM, Lee RM, Cross WE Jr, Rivas-Drake D, Schwartz SJ, Syed M, Yip T, Seaton E, & the Ethnic and Racial Identity in the 21st Century Study Group. (2014). Ethnic and racial identity during adolescence and into young adulthood: An integrated conceptualization. Child Development, 85(1), 21–39. 10.1111/cdev.12196 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Umaña-Taylor AJ, Yazedjian A, & Bámaca-Gómez MY (2004). Developing the Ethnic Identity Scale using Eriksonian and Social Identity perspectives. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 4(1), 9–38. 10.1207/S1532706XID0401_2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. 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(1), 137. 10.1037/a0031105 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Walker C, J., Williams CD, Cage J, DeLaney EN, Lozada FT, the Spit for Science Working Group, & Dick DM (in press). Associations between ethnic-racial identity and alcohol problems among diverse emerging adults. Journal of Ethnicity in Substance Abuse. Advance online publication. 10.1080/15332640.2020.1793865 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Williams CD, Byrd CM, Quintana SM, Anicama C, Kiang L, Umaña-Taylor AJ, Calzada EJ, Pabón Gautier MC, Ejesi K, Tuitt NR, Martinez-Fuentes S, White L, Marks AK, Rogers LO, & Whitesell N (2020). A lifespan model of ethnic-racial identity. Research in Human Development, 17(2–3), 99–129. 10.1080/15427609.2020.1831882 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES