The Ethnic Identity, Other-Group Attitudes, and ...online.sfsu.edu/devpsych/juang/juang, nguyen & lin, 2006.pdf · Psychosocial Functioning of Asian American ... those in a culturally

542

The Ethnic Identity, Other-Group Attitudes, andPsychosocial Functioning of Asian American

Emerging Adults From Two ContextsLinda P. Juang

San Francisco State UniversityHuong H. NguyenBrandeis University

Yunghui LinSan Francisco State University

Drawing from two samples of Asian American emerging adults, one in an ethnically-concentrated context (n = 108) and the other in an ethnically-dispersed, mainly White con-text (n = 153), we examined (a) how ethnic identity and other-group attitudes were relatedto psychosocial functioning (i.e., depression, self-esteem, and connectedness to parents)and (b) how these relations were moderated by context. Results (direct effects) indicatedthat ethnic identity predicted more positive functioning in terms of self-esteem and con-nectedness to parents, whereas other-group attitudes predicted more positive functioning interms of self-esteem and depression. Furthermore, moderated effects indicated that thelinks with other-group attitudes did not vary with context but that the links with ethnic iden-tity did. Ethnic identity was linked to more positive functioning in terms of depression andconnectedness to parents only for those in the ethnically-concentrated context. These find-ings demonstrate how different types of functioning are differentially influenced by ethnicidentity and other-group attitudes and by the contexts in which these identities and attitudesare embedded.

Keywords: ethnic identity; Asian; context; emerging adults

Ethnic identity is central to the development of one’s overall identity, espe-cially for ethnic minority youth (e.g., Phinney & Rosenthal, 1992; Rumbaut,1994). In fact, ethnicity was rated as one of the main identity concerns forminority youth, more so than any other aspect of their identity (such as politicaland religious identity; Phinney & Alipuria, 1990). For youth of color, especiallythose in a culturally pluralistic society as the United States, the developmentof a strong ethnic identity may be critical to their psychosocial functioning(Rosenthal & Feldman, 1992; Spencer & Markstrom-Adams, 1990).

Theoretically, it has been argued that different contexts—such as the family,neighborhood, and larger society—play an important role in the developmentof one’s ethnic identity (Berry, 1980; Phinney, 1990). Empirically, however,few studies have explicitly tested how contextual factors shape the meaning and

Journal of Adolescent Research, Vol. 21 No. 5, September 2006 542-568DOI: 10.1177/0743558406291691© 2006 Sage Publications

Juang et al. / ETHNIC IDENTITY, ATTITUDE, AND FUNCTIONING 543

development of ethnic identity. As such, much of the research on ethnic iden-tity has been acontextual. To address this limitation, the current study adopts anecological approach (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; García-Coll et al., 1996; Lerner,1996) and examines the context in which ethnic identity develops.

Specifically, we examined (a) how ethnic identity and other-group attitudesrelate to psychosocial functioning (i.e., depression, self-esteem, and connect-edness to parents) and (b) how context moderates these relations. We drew fromtwo samples of Asian American emerging adults, one from an ethnically dis-persed context, and the other, from an ethnically concentrated context (Birman,Trickett, & Buchanan, 2005). The first context, in the Midwest, is predomi-nantly White with few Asians (dispersed). The second context, on the WestCoast, is ethnically diverse, with a substantial Asian community (concentrated).

Ethnic Identity and Psychosocial Functioning

Ethnic identity is defined as “a dynamic, multidimensional construct thatrefers to one’s identity or sense of self as a member of an ethnic group”(Phinney, 2003, p. 63). It embodies the level and kind of involvement withone’s ethnic group and involves cognitive, emotional, and behavioralaspects concerning the role of ethnicity in one’s life.

Some studies have found that ethnic identity is significantly linked topsychosocial adjustment, whereas others have found no such link. In stud-ies of Asian, Mexican, and African American adolescents and emergingadults, for instance, ethnic identity was linked to more positive adjustmentin terms of loneliness, depression, self-esteem, academic self-confidence,and a sense of purpose in life (feeling that one is achieving one’s goals, thatlife is filled with good things, and that it is under one’s control; Crocker,Luhtanen, Blaine, & Broadnax, 1994; Lee, 2003; Martinez & Dukes, 1997;Phinney, 1992; Phinney & Alipuria, 1990; Roberts et al., 1999). Similarly,in a study of Chinese American emerging adults, cultural orientation (e.g.,being proud of one’s culture) was positively linked to self-esteem (Tsai,Ying, & Lee, 2001). Taken together, these findings suggest that—for manyracial and ethnic minority groups—ethnic identity promotes adjustment.

However, several studies also showed that ethnic identity does not alwayspromote adjustment. One review of Latino samples, for example, showed thatethnic identity was related to adjustment in some studies, but not others(Umana-Taylor, Diversi, & Fine, 2002). A review of African American samplesalso showed that ethnic identity was unrelated to self-esteem (Phinney, 1990).Still, other studies of Asian Indian adolescents (Farver, Narang, & Bhadha,2002) and minority adolescents in Europe (Valk, 2000; Verkuyten, 1995)showed that ethnic identity was unrelated to self-esteem and anxiety.Furthermore, a longitudinal study of 1st-year college students (African

544 JOURNAL OF ADOLESCENT RESEARCH / September 2006

American, Latino, Asian, American Indian, and mixed students) showed thatethnic identity was unrelated to their social life, physical health, and collegeadjustment 1 year later (Saylor & Aries, 1999). As such, these studies suggestthat ethnic identity does not always predict functioning.

In sum, findings about the links between ethnic identity and psychoso-cial functioning are inconsistent. These inconsistencies could be due, inpart, to the different contexts from which the samples were drawn. Despitetheir importance, contextual factors such as ethnic density, status, and cohe-siveness were rarely included in the analyses or interpretation of results.This oversight impedes our ability to discern why ethnic identity is linkedto functioning in some instances and not others.

Other-Group Attitudes and Psychosocial Functioning

Like ethnic identity, other-group attitudes have important implicationsfor the well-being of minority adolescents (Berry, 1980; Phinney, 1990).Other-group attitudes refer to one’s attitudes and openness toward ethnicgroups different than one’s own. Such attitudes include being open to othercultures and making an effort to meet people from other groups.

Although there are very few studies on other-group attitudes and well-being,the studies that do exist offer a consistent picture. They suggest that amongLatino, Asian, and African American youth, those who have more positiveother-group attitudes have more positive self-esteem and self-concepts (Lee,2003; Phinney, Cantu, & Kurtz, 1997; Phinney & Devich-Navarro, 1997).Moreover, these studies were conducted in Texas and southern California—twocontexts that most likely differed in ethnic diversity. As such, it is possible thathaving positive attitudes toward other groups is beneficial across contexts. Inthe current study, we tested whether the benefits of other-group attitudes to psy-chological functioning is indeed consistent across contexts.

Why Context Matters

Theoretically, as the goodness-of-fit framework suggests (Lerner &Lerner, 1983; Thomas & Chess, 1977), the more individuals’ characteristicsmatch the demands of their context, the more positive their developmentand psychosocial functioning. Subsequently, the consequences (e.g., func-tioning) of identifying with one’s ethnic group may depend on how one’sethnic identification (values, beliefs, behaviors) and other-group attitudesfit with the demands and resources in the context. For example, Asian youthliving in an ethnically dense context may experience a better “fit” with thecontext’s norms and values. This fit, in turn, may lead to greater well-being.


Some studies, in fact, have demonstrated that “cultural fit” promoteswell-being (Nguyen, 2000; Ward & Chang, 1997). Nguyen (2000; in prepa-ration), for example, demonstrated that cultural fit was positively related tothe well-being of Vietnamese and Mexican youth. The more youth felt asense of fit with their context (that their cultural behaviors and values fitwith the demand and resources in their context), the better they did on anarray of psychological, social and academic indices (i.e., symptomatology,depression, self-esteem, life satisfaction, math scores, academic aspira-tions, and family, peer, and teacher relations).

Still another study—one involving Chinese immigrants—further demon-strated the importance of fit, this time by showing how the links between lan-guage and self-esteem and cultural participation and self-esteem varied withcontexts (Schnittker, 2002). Specifically, Schnittker showed that only in pre-dominantly non-Chinese neighborhoods was English fluency positivelyrelated to self-esteem. Conversely, only in predominantly Chinese neighbor-hoods was participating in Chinese activities positively related to self-esteem.Taken together, these findings suggested that the English fluency and cul-tural behaviors of Chinese immigrants related differently to their self-esteem, based on how well their behaviors fit with the demands in theircontext. These findings demonstrated the goodness-of-fit theory; they sug-gested that in the presence of a numerically strong, supportive ethnic community, one may be more likely to maintain and benefit from a strongethnic identity.

In addition to goodness of fit, social identity theory is also relevant.Social identity theory proposes that a fundamental human motivation is tobelong to a group and to derive positive feelings and emotions as amember of that group (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). In such an ethnicallydiverse context as the United States, one’s ethnic group is an especiallyimportant group (Phinney, 1990). Members of an ethnic group can oftentake pride in belonging to their group, by drawing from their rich culturalbackground, history, and traditions (Hutnik, 1991). Moreover, their iden-tification with the ethnic group (their ethnic identity) can promote a pos-itive self-concept, especially when the group is socially valued (i.e.,respected or held in high esteem).

Based on these theories, we predicted that in an ethnically concentratedcontext, the ethnic group is more likely to have political power and positiverole models and thereby more social value than a group in an ethnically dis-persed context. In such a concentrated, more socially valued context then,identification with one’s ethnic group (one’s ethnic identity) is more likelyto promote a positive self-concept.


Context and Ethnic Identity

Three characteristics of the context are especially relevant to the develop-ment of one’s ethnic identity: the degree of “institutional completeness”(Breton, 1964; Rosenthal & Hrynevich, 1985), the density of the ethnic group(Garcia & Lega, 1979), and the power and status of the ethnic group (Berry,Poortinga, Segall, & Dasen, 1992). First, institutional completeness refers towhether the churches, schools, media, and other institutions in the commu-nity context mutually reinforce each other in their cultural messages toethnic group members. Some studies have found that the more cohesive andstructured the ethnic group in the community, the more ethnic individuals val-ued their ethnicity (Driedger, 1976; Rosenthal & Hrynevich, 1985). In thistype of community, there are a greater number of positive role models avail-able and, consequently, younger members are more likely to grow up with apositive evaluation of one’s ethnic group and ethnic behavior (Kvernmo &Heyerdahl, 1996). Thus, we hypothesized that Asian Americans living in acontext characterized by a tightly knit, highly structured Asian network (highinstitutional completeness) would report stronger ethnic identities than thosein a less institutionally complete context.

Second, the density of the ethnic group (i.e., the size of the ethnic popu-lation in the community) is also important to the development of one’s eth-nic identity (Garcia & Lega, 1979). Theory and empirical evidence suggestthat being part of a large ethnic minority group could lead to stronger ethnicidentities (Phinney & Rosenthal, 1992). For instance, researchers in Norwayfound Sami adolescents (Aborigines) who lived in an ethnically dense con-text (80% to 90% of the population were Samis), were more likely to iden-tify as Samis. In contrast, adolescents who lived in a less ethnically densecontext (10% of the population were Samis) were more likely to identifyas Norwegian or as bicultural (Kvernmo & Heyerdahl, 1996). As such,we hypothesized that living in an ethnically dense and vibrant communitywould strengthen one’s ethnic identity because it provides youth with moreopportunities, resources, role models, and reinforcements to be “ethnic.”

Finally, group power and status refer to whether the ethnic group is polit-ically and institutionally visible in the community—for example, the extentto which they hold political offices (Berry et al., 1992). Social identity theory(Tajfel & Turner, 1986) suggests that identification with higher status groupsmay lead to higher self-esteem. Consequently, we predicted that Asian youthliving in a community where Asians have greater power and status (such asthose in the concentrated context) will report stronger ethnic identities thanthose in a more dispersed (and less ethnically powerful) context.

Context and Other-Group Attitudes

The contact hypothesis (Miller & Brewer, 1984) suggests that youthliving in an ethnically diverse context have many opportunities for contact(interactions) with other groups and, subsequently, will hold more positiveother-group attitudes. Indeed, Phinney, Ferguson, and Tate (1997) foundthat minority adolescents who lived in an ethnically diverse neighborhoodreported more other-group interactions (e.g., hanging out with or spendingrecess with adolescents of a different ethnic group) compared to those fromless diverse neighborhoods. Furthermore, there was a positive relationbetween engaging in other-group interactions with other-group attitudes.Thus, adolescents living in a more diverse context were more likely toendorse more positive other-group attitudes.

In addition, multicultural theory suggests that individuals who are morecomfortable with their own ethnicity (i.e., have a stronger ethnic identity) mayhold more positive other-group attitudes (Berry, 1984). Phinney et al.’s (1997)study also supports this theory; they found a positive association between eth-nic identity and other-group attitudes; that is, adolescents who were morecomfortable and secure about their own ethnic group were more likely to holdfavorable attitudes toward people of other ethnic groups. Similarly, Valk(2000) found that among minority adolescents in Europe, ethnic pride waspositively related to other-group attitudes. Consequently, based on the contacthypothesis and multicultural theory, we predicted other-group attitudes will bemore positive for those in the concentrated (rather than dispersed) context

Why Emerging Adults?

The current study focuses on emerging adults primarily because thedevelopment and achievement of a secure, coherent identity is a critical tasknot only during adolescence (Erikson, 1968) but also during emergingadulthood—a period that includes the typical college student age range of 18to 25 years (Arnett, 2000). The period of emerging adulthood may afford thegreatest opportunity for individuals to explore and develop their identityin key areas such as work, love, and worldviews, more so than during ado-lescence (Arnett, 2000). Another key area for ethnic minorities, more so thanfor majority group members, is exploration into the meaning of one’s ethnic-ity (Phinney & Alipuria, 1990). Phinney (2006) argued that ethnic minorities’“sense of membership in an ethnic, racial, or cultural group is an underlyingissue that pervades and influences progress toward adulthood” (p. 118) Forethnic minorities in particular, then, exploration of one’s ethnic identity islikely to continue into the period of emerging adulthood.



Hypotheses

Drawing from two samples of Asian American emerging adults—one inan ethnically concentrated context and the other in an ethnically dispersed,mainly White context, we examined: (a) how ethnic identity and other-group attitudes were related to psychosocial functioning (i.e., depression,self-esteem, and connectedness to parents) and moreover (b) how contextmoderated these relations. We chose connectedness with parents to reflectthe idea that family relationships may be an especially important aspect offunctioning for our samples, given the Asian culture’s emphasis on collec-tivism and filial piety (Kwan, Bond, & Singelis, 1997).

Our hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: The ethnic identity of Asians in the concentrated context wouldbe stronger than those in the ethnically dispersed context.

Hypothesis 2: Ethnic identity would be positively related to functioning for bothsamples, but,

Hypothesis 3: The relation between ethnic identity and functioning would bemore robust for those in the concentrated (rather than dispersed) context.

Hypothesis 4: Other-group attitudes would be more positive for those in the eth-nically concentrated (rather than dispersed) context.

Hypothesis 5: Other-group attitudes would be positively related to functioning(and equally so) for both contexts.

METHOD

Ethnically Dispersed Versus Concentrated Contexts

In the current study, we sampled Asian American students from two con-texts, one from the Midwest (dispersed context) and the other from the WestCoast (concentrated context). These contexts differed from each other inthree important ways: institutional completeness, ethnic group density, andgroup power and status. First, the ethnic density (or density of Asians) in theconcentrated context was greater than that in the dispersed context. In theconcentrated context (at the community level), 31% of the total population(239,565 of 776,733) were Asians and Pacific Islanders, in contrast to only8% (3,819 of 46,525) in the dispersed context (U.S. Bureau of the Census,2000). The two contexts also differed widely in their race and ethnic diver-sity, with the concentrated context being much more diverse. Whites in thiscontext constituted 44% of the population, African Americans 8%, LatinoAmericans 14%, and Native Americans < 1%. Conversely, in the dispersed


context, Whites constituted an overwhelming 81%, with smaller percentagesof African Americans (7%), Latino Americans (3%), and Native Americans(< 1%).

Second, the status and political power of Asians were much more pro-nounced in the concentrated context than in the dispersed context. Asians in theconcentrated context had a strong political influence as demonstrated by themany positions they occupied as members on the Board of Supervisors, ascommanders and deputies of police, and as school teachers and principals.Furthermore, the celebration of Asian cultures was highly visible as evidencedby the annual Chinese New Year Parade, the Korean and Japanese street fairsand festivals, and the rebuilding of an Asian Art Museum in the inner city. Incontrast, Asians in the dispersed context did not have many positions of powernor any festivals or museums that celebrated Asian cultures.

Finally, institutional completeness was greater for Asians in the concen-trated context than dispersed context. Asians in the concentrated contextwere highly organized and had considerable institutional support in theform of churches, language schools and ethnic enclaves (Japantown,Chinatown, etc.). In fact, a vibrant Chinatown, one of the largest in thecountry, provided a focal point for many community members (Wong,1998). In contrast, Asians in the dispersed context were more fragmentedand diffuse. They had very few institutional supports to help maintain theAsian culture; there were no language schools or ethnic enclaves and veryfew churches geared toward Asians.

University Context (Dispersed vs. Concentrated)

The universities from which these samples were drawn also differed inthe same ways. First, the ethnic density of those in the concentrated uni-versity context was much greater—as 39% of students in this universitywere of Asian descent in contrast to only 4% in the other university (in thedispersed context).

Second, the group’s power and status were also greater in the concen-trated university context. This is evidenced by the 15% of Asian adminis-trators and faculty members in the university and even a past universitypresident who was Asian. In contrast, the university in the dispersed con-text had fewer Asian administrators or faculty members (9%) and never anAsian university president.

Finally, the level of institutional completeness and resources availablewas far greater for those in the concentrated university context. There weremany more Asian student groups (and these groups were more diverse) in

this context; 25 groups versus 6 in the dispersed context. Furthermore, therewas a well-established department in Asian American studies, which offeredmore than 50 sections of Asian American courses (with 30+ faculty) and abachelor’s and master’s in Asian American studies. In contrast, the univer-sity in the dispersed context did not have a department or offer any degreesin Asian American studies. Although there was an Asian Studies Center, itwas difficult to tell how many Asian American courses there were, as theywere scattered throughout various departments. Support for students inter-ested in Asian studies was not as unified in the dispersed context.

In sum, the two university contexts (dispersed vs. concentrated) differedin the same way as the two community contexts. We recognize, however,that the university and community contexts were not necessarily the same.It is likely then that our samples were more similar to each other than wouldhave been if we recruited participants from the community. For instance,college students share the similar experience of being exposed to a widerange of classes (such as courses focusing on race and ethnicity), persons,and ideas that may challenge them to think about their ethnic identity andother-group attitudes. Nonetheless, at the community and university level,the concentrated contexts showed more ethnic density, political power, andinstitutional completeness than the dispersed contexts.

Participants

The sample consisted of 261 emerging adults, 108 from the dispersedcontext (M age = 19.8 years, SD = 1.56, 51% females), and 153 from theconcentrated context (M age = 21.3 years, SD = 2.35, 66% females).Although some students were recruited from Asian student groups, themajority of participants (more than 95%) were recruited from psychologyclasses on campus. The first author met with the psychology classes andstudent group leaders to explain the purpose of the study (to understand theAsian American experience) and to ask for volunteers to participate. Aftersubmitting their informed consent, students completed the self-report ques-tionnaires in classrooms in groups of 2 to 10. Lotteries were held so thatseveral students were monetarily compensated. In the dispersed commu-nity, three randomly chosen participants received U.S. $25, $25, and $50.In the concentrated community, two randomly chosen participants received$100 each. All study procedures and measures were approved by both uni-versities’ human subjects review boards.

See Table 1 for a comparison of the two samples. The two samples weresimilar in their distribution of sex, birth order, generational status, father andmother education, and years in the United States. The largest ethnic group in



the dispersed (26%) and concentrated (49%) contexts was of Chinese origin(this included individuals who used the term Chinese in their self-label). Theremaining percentages consisted of students who self-labeled, for example, asFilipino, Japanese, Korean, Thai, Hmong, Vietnamese, Malaysian, Burmese,and mixed Asian origin.

The two samples however, differed in age, year in college, and familystructure. Students from the concentrated context were older, t(259) = 6.03,p < .001, were of a later year in college, t(248) = 2.78, p < .01, and were morelikely to grow up in single-parent families (χ2 = 5.11, df = 1, p < .05) thanthose in the dispersed context. These variables, with the exception of year incollege, were controlled for in later analyses. We did not control for year incollege as it correlated highly with age, r(250) = .77, p < .001. Finally, amajority of those from the dispersed sample grew up in the Midwest (80%)and the rest on the West Coast (13%), East Coast (5%), and South (< 1%). Incontrast, a majority of those from the concentrated sample grew up on theWest Coast (96%) and the rest in the Midwest (3%) and East Coast (< 1%).

Measures

Demographic variables. Demographic information was collected on age,sex, generational status, length of U.S. residence, family structure (e.g., whodid they grow up with), and parents’ education level. For second and later gen-erations, years in the United States was equal to their age.

Self-label of ethnicity. Respondents’ self-label of ethnicity was measuredby an open-ended question that asked “What is your ethnic identity?”

Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM; Phinney, 1992). The MEIMmeasured the strength of one’s overall ethnic identity, along with its threedimensions: (a) sense of belonging to and attitudes toward one’s ethnic group,(b) ethnic identity achievement based on exploration and commitment, and(c) ethnic behaviors and customs. Participants responded on a scale of 1(strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree) to items such as: “I have spent timetrying to find out more about my own ethnic group such as its history, tradi-tions, and customs.” Negatively worded items were recoded and an overallmean score calculated so that a higher overall score indicated a strongerethnic identity. Cronbach‘s alphas were .90 and .82 for the dispersed and con-centrated contexts, respectively. This 14-item scale has been used with ethni-cally diverse samples, including Asian adolescents and college students,and has demonstrated reliability and validity, for example, in predicting


self-esteem and academic self-confidence (Lee, 2003; Martinez & Dukes,1997; Phinney, 1992; Phinney & Chavira, 1992).

Positive Other-Group Attitudes (Phinney, 1992). This 6-item scaleassessed attitudes and openness toward other ethnic groups. Using a 4-point

TABLE 1. Comparison of Ethnically Dispersed and Concentrated Samples(in percentages)

Dispersed (n = 108) Concentrated (n = 153)Mean age (SD)a 19.8 years (SD = 1.56) 21.3 (SD = 2.35)

GenderMale 49 37Female 51 63

Birth orderFirst 41 36Second 33 38Third or later 26 26

Year in collegeb

First 25 22Second 30 12Third 20 27Fourth 18 23Fifth or more 7 17

GenerationFirst 19 28Second 82 66Third or later 0 6

Family structurec

Both parents 95 87Mother alone 1 3One parent w/ stepparent 2 3Other 2 7

Mother educationLess than high school 25 26High school 27 20Some college 49 54

Father educationLess than high school 19 21High school 18 18Some college 62 61

Average years lived in 16 years, SD = 4.90 16 years, SD = 6.42United States (range: less than 1 (range: 1 year to

year to 24 years) 30 years)Where in United States 80% Midwest 96% West Coast

grew up

a. Significantly different, t(259) = 6.03, p < .001.b. Significantly different, t(248) = 2.78, p < .01.c. Significantly different in distribution between samples (χ2 = 5.11, df = 1, p < .05).

Likert-type scale, participants rated items such as, “I like meeting and get-ting to know people from ethnic groups other than my own.” Negativelyworded items were recoded and the mean score calculated so that a higherscore indicated more positive attitudes toward other groups. Cronbach’salphas were .70 and .79 for the dispersed and concentrated contexts, respec-tively. This scale has demonstrated reliability and predictive validity withsocial connectedness and self-esteem among Asian American collegesamples (Lee, 2003).

Global self-esteem from the Self-Perception Profile for College Students(Neemann & Harter, 1986). This 6-item subscale measured how positivelyindividuals felt about themselves overall. It included items such as: “Somestudents like the kind of person they are. Other students wish that they weredifferent.” Participants were asked to decide which statement was most likethemselves and then whether the statement was “sort of true or false” or“really true or false.” A mean score was calculated so that a higher score indi-cated a higher level of self-esteem. Cronbach’s alphas were .85 and .87 forthe dispersed and concentrated contexts, respectively. This self-esteem scalehas been associated positively with parental nurturance (Hopkins & Klein,1993) and negatively with depression among Asian students (Kwak & Kim,1997).

Center for Epidemiological Studies–Depression (CES-D; Radloff, 1977).This 20-item scale measured psychological depression. Using a 4-point scale(from 1 = rarely to 4 = most of the time), participants indicated how often theyfelt or behaved during the past week. They responded to items such as: “I wasbothered by things that usually don’t bother me.” Positively worded itemswere reverse-coded and mean scores were calculated so that a higher scoreindicated higher levels of depression. Cronbach’s alphas were 90. and .89, forthe dispersed and concentrated contexts, respectively. This scale has demon-strated adequate reliability with various Chinese-, Korean-, Japanese-, andFilipino American samples (Kuo, 1984; Ying, 1988)

Connectedness to Parents (Stutman & Lich, 1984). This 11-item scalemeasured the extent to which the respondents felt close to and supported bytheir parents. Using a 4-point scale, respondents indicated how strongly theyagreed or disagreed with statements such as: “When I am feeling bad I cancount on my parents to remind me of my worth.” Mean scores were calcu-lated so that a higher score indicated feeling more connected to parents.Cronbach’s alphas for the dispersed and concentrated contexts were .89 and.88, respectively.



RESULTS

Preliminary Analyses

Self-label. Participants’ responses to “What is your ethnic identity?”were grouped into four categories, based on those proposed by Portes andRumbaut (2001):1 national-origin (e.g., Chinese, Filipino, Japanese), hyphen-ated American (e.g., Chinese American, Filipino American, JapaneseAmerican), Panethnic (Asian and Asian American), and mixed (e.g.,Filipino Irish, Chinese Hispanic, Chinese African American). The twosamples did not differ in their distribution of self-labels. Of the combinedsample, 62% reported a national origin identity, 32% a hyphenated Americanidentity, 3% a Panethnic identity, and 3% mixed identity.

Psychosocial functioning (dependent variables). Results (t tests) indi-cated that the two samples did not differ in their psychosocial functioning;they had similar levels of depression, self-esteem, and connectedness toparents (see Table 2). Table 3 shows bivariate correlations for ethnic iden-tity, other-group attitudes, and psychosocial functioning.

Demographic variables, ethnic identity, and other-group attitudes.Results (correlations) also suggested that for both samples, ethnic identityand other-group attitudes were not related to parental education or familystructure, and furthermore, that ethnic identity was not related to age, sex,or years of U.S. residence.

Other-group attitudes, however, were related to age, sex, and years of U.S.residence, although somewhat differently for the two samples. Specifically,other-group attitudes were positively correlated with age for those in the con-centrated context, r(153) = .16, p < .05, but negatively correlated for thosein the dispersed context, r(108) = –.22, p < .05. Moreover, females tended tohave more positive other-group attitudes than males in the concentrated con-text (t = –2.86, df = 151, p < .01); there was a similar trend in the dispersedcontext but not significantly so (t = -1.62, df = 106, p = .11). And finally, yearsof U.S. residence was positively related to other-group attitudes for the con-centrated, r(153) = .27, p < .01, and dispersed, r(108) = .32, p < .01, contexts.

Testing the Hypotheses

For Hypotheses 1 and 4, t test results showed that the two samples did notdiffer in their mean levels of ethnic identity and other-group attitudes (seeTable 2). They differed only in their standard deviation of ethnic identity,


with greater deviation in the dispersed (SD = .48) than concentrated sample(SD = .36) (Levene statistic = 6.31, df = 1, p < .05).

For Hypotheses 2, 3, and 5, multiple hierarchical regressions were used toexamine how youth’s ethnic identity and other-group attitudes’ were relatedto their psychosocial functioning and how context moderated these relations.In all the analyses, control variables (i.e., age, sex, U.S. residence, familystructure, and parent education) were entered in the first step, ethnic identityand other-group attitudes in the second step, and interaction terms, in the thirdstep. The interaction terms were created by multiplying the context dummyvariable with the ethnic identity and other-group attitude variables (the twopredictors). The raw scale scores of these predictors were centered in theanalyses to reduce the collinearity between the main effect and interactionterms (Aiken & West, 1991). Regressions were conducted separately for thethree dependent variables: depression, self-esteem, and connectedness withparents.

Results (simple effects) indicated that ethnic identity was related tobetter functioning in terms of self-esteem and connectedness to parents (butnot to depression). Other-group attitudes were related to better functioningin terms of self-esteem and depression (but not to connectedness withparents; see Table 4).

Moreover, interactive effects and post-hoc analyses indicated that ethnicidentity was related to more positive functioning (in terms of depression andconnectedness to parents), only for the ethnically concentrated sample.Specifically, ethnic identity was negatively related to depression for those inthe concentrated context (β = –.22, p < .01) but not the dispersed context(β = –.02, p = .85; see Figure 1). Ethnic identity was also positively related toconnected with parents only for those in the concentrated contexts (β = .34,p < .001) but not the dispersed context (β = .14, p = .17; see Figure 2). Finally,there were no interactive effects with other-group attitudes, showing that

TABLE 2. Means and Standard Deviations of Study Variables

Dispersed Concentrated Response(n = 108) (n = 153) Scale

Ethnic identity 2.98 (.48) 2.95 (.36) 1-4Other-group attitudes 3.24 (.41) 3.14 (.47) 1-4Depression 1.83 (.54) 1.77 (.47) 1-4Self-esteem 2.85 (.60) 2.93 (.68) 1-4Connectedness with parents 2.92 (.53) 2.99 (.49) 1-4

Note: No significant differences between the two samples.


the links between other-group attitudes and functioning did not vary bycontext.

DISCUSSION

The current study examined how ethnic identity and other-group attitudeswere related to psychosocial functioning (i.e., depression, self-esteem, andconnectedness to parents) and, moreover, how these relations varied by con-text. One context was predominately White with few Asians (dispersed), andthe other context ethnically diverse with a dense, more cohesive, and struc-tured network of Asians (concentrated).

Overall, findings suggested that ethnic identity was related to more pos-itive functioning in terms of self-esteem and connectedness to parents.Other-group attitudes were related to more positive functioning in terms ofself-esteem and depression. Furthermore, moderated effects showed thatalthough the links between other-group attitudes and functioning did notvary with context, the links between ethnic identity and depression and eth-nic identity and connectedness with parents did. Specifically, ethnic iden-tity was related to more positive functioning only for those in the ethnicallyconcentrated context.

Ethnic Identity and Other-Group Attitudes inDispersed Versus Concentrated Contexts

Contrary to predictions (Hypotheses 1 and 4), we found that AsianAmericans in the concentrated context did not report higher levels of ethnicidentity or more positive other-group attitudes than did their peers in thedispersed context. We expected such differences because, as past findingsshowed, adolescents would be more likely to engage in ethnic behaviors andto identify with their ethnic group in the presence of a strong, cohesive eth-nic community with many successful role models (Kvernmo & Heyerdahl,1996; Phinney & Rosenthal, 1992) and because adolescents would be morelikely to report positive other-group attitudes than those in a less diverse com-munity (Phinney et al., 1997).

In the current study, the lack of findings (i.e., the similarity in ethnic iden-tity and other-group attitudes) could be due, in part, to the possibility that thesamples grew up in an area different from where they are now attending col-lege, an area more similar to each other than hypothesized. For example, theconcentrated sample may have grown up in a similar, ethnically dispersedneighborhood as those in the dispersed sample. Indeed, these students may


have self-selected a more ethnically diverse university based on their preex-isting ethnic identity and communities of origin. However, our analyses indi-cated that the samples grew up in a region similar (at least roughly) to wherethey were currently living, as 80% of the dispersed sample grew up in theMidwest and 96% of the concentrated sample grew up on the West Coast.Either way, future research should assess more specifically their samples’community of origin.

It could also be that the two samples did not differ in ethnic identitybecause on a national level, Asian Americans are still of minority status.Although our concentrated sample had significantly greater power, status,and visibility than their dispersed peers (at the university and/or communitylevel), it is still the case that on a national level, Asians are a distinct minor-ity, constituting only 4% of the U.S. population (U.S. Bureau of the Census,2000). Asians do not experience institutional completeness, power, or status

Mean Score of Ethnic Identity

4.03.53.02.52.01.51.0

Mea

n s

core

of

Dep

ress

ion

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

.5

Context

Dispersed

Concentrated

Figure 1. Interaction of ethnic identity and depression by context. Post-hocanalyses indicated that ethnic identity was negatively related todepression for those in the concentrated context (ββ == –.22, p << .01)but not the dispersed context (ββ == –.02, p == .85).


at the national level. Hence, it may be their minority status at this level thatprompts both samples to identify with their ethnic background, regardlessof the composition of their more immediate contexts (see Phinney, 2006).Future studies should examine how these multiple levels of context (i.e.,immediate neighborhood to national context) differentially affect the devel-opment of ethnic identity.

Finally, although the samples had similar levels of ethnic identity, theymay have arrived at this identity through different pathways. In the currentstudy, we speculated that the institutional completeness, ethnic density, andgroup power and/or status of Asians in the concentrated context wouldstrengthen their ethnic identities, more so than in the dispersed context. Thismay still be true. However, perhaps for those in the dispersed context, othermechanisms (pathways) may be more relevant to their ethnic identity—for

Mean Score of Ethnic Identity

4.03.53.02.52.01.51.0

Mea

n s

core

of

Co

nn

ecte

dn

ess

wit

h P

aren

ts

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

Context

Dispersed

Concentrated

Figure 2. Interaction of ethnic identity and connectedness with parents bycontext. Post-hoc analyses indicated that ethnic identity was positively relatedto connected with parents for those in the concentrated context (ββ == .34,p << .001) but not the dispersed context (ββ == .14, p == .17).


TABLE 3. Bivariate Correlations Between Main Study Variables – ConcentratedContext (n == 153) Above and Dispersed Context (n == 108) BelowDiagonal

Ethnic Other-Group ConnectednessIdentity Attitudes Depression Self-Esteem With Parents

Ethnic identity — .10 –.22** .23** .35***Other-group –.05 — –.13 .15 .04

attitudesDepression .06 –.13 — –.51*** –.30***Self-esteem .09 .24* –.71*** — .20*Connectedness .15 .12 –.17 .17 —

with parents

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

TABLE 4. Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis for Ethnic Identity andOther-Group Attitudes Predicting Functioning (N == 261)

Step and Variable b SE b β R2

Dependent variable: DepressionStep 1: Covariatesa ns .01Step 2: Ethnic identity –.11 .08 –.09 .05

Other-group attitudes –.19 .08 –.17*Step 3: Contextb × Ethnic Identity .30 .15 .19† .07

Context × Other-Group –.20 .16 –.10Dependent variable: Self-esteem

Step 1: Covariates .03Family structurec –.28 .13 –.14*

Step 2: Ethnic identity .24 .09 .17** .09Other-group attitudes .27 .09 .20**

Step 3: Context × Ethnic Identity –.20 .18 –.10 .10Context × Other-Group .25 .19 .10

Dependent variable:Connectedness to parentsStep 1: Covariates ns .03Step 2: Ethnic identity .28 .07 .23*** .08

Other-group attitudes .04 .07 .04Step 3: Context × Ethnic Identity –.33 .15 –.20* .10

Context × Other-Group .18 .15 .09

a. Covariates (control variables) were age, sex, years lived in the United States, familystructure, and parent education.b. Context coded 0 = concentrated context, 1 = dispersed context.c. Family structure coded 1 = grew up with both parents, 0 = other. ns = Covariateswere not statistically significant at .05 alpha level.†p = .05, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.


example, mechanisms related to their experiences of discrimination andheightened awareness as a distinct minority. Given their predominantly Whitecontext, Asians in the dispersed context may stick out as a distinct minority,more so than those in the concentrated context. Given their distinctiveness,those in the dispersed sample may be more likely to be discriminated against.

It may be this discrimination and distinctiveness and/or heightenedawareness that strengthens their ethnic identity (Rosenthal & Feldman,1992). In fact, studies have shown that individuals who experienced dis-crimination identified more with their ethnic or racial group (Operario &Fiske, 2001) Indeed, maintaining a strong ethnic identity is an importantsource of resilience or self-protective strategy to defend against the nega-tive effects of discrimination (Phinney, 2003). Furthermore, other studieshave shown that in a context with few ethnic-group members (and high dis-tinctiveness), ethnic minorities turn to each other for support to maintainstrong ethnic ties (e.g., Padilla’s study of Mexican-Americans, 1980). Evenwith their ethnically dispersed contexts, Mexican Americans in these com-munities maintained a high level of cultural awareness and ethnic loyalty.

In sum, the samples’ similar levels of ethnic identity do not necessarilymean that context is unimportant. It could be that our samples developedtheir identities through different pathways, shaped by different contextualfactors. Future research should identify how various factors such as dis-crimination and distinctiveness, institutional completeness, ethnic density,group power and status, and so on, may differentially shape ethnic identityin dispersed and concentrated contexts.

Ethnic Identity and Psychosocial Functioning

With regard to Hypothesis 2, we found that ethnic identity was relatedto more positive functioning in terms of self-esteem and connectednesswith parents. It appears that youth who identified more strongly with theirethnic culture enjoyed higher self-esteem and closer relationships with theirparents. Perhaps youth with stronger ethnic identities share more culturalsimilarities, and thus, better relationships with their parents. Or perhapsclose relationships with parents foster youths’ willingness to identify withtheir parents and consequently, with their parents’ cultural heritage.

Previous studies have also established a positive link between ethnicidentity and well-being among Asian American youth (Lee, 2003; Martinez& Dukes, 1997; Phinney & Alipuria, 1990; Phinney & Chavira, 1992; Tsaiet al., 2001). We have extended these findings by showing that ethnic iden-tity is related not only to individual functioning (i.e., higher self-esteem asother studies have found) but also to interpersonal functioning, as assessedby youths’ connectedness to their parents.


With regard to moderated effects (Hypothesis 3), we found that ethnicidentity was related to more positive functioning (in terms of depressionand connectedness to parents) only for those in the concentrated context.In contrast, ethnic identity was not related to functioning in the dispersedcontext. Thus, similar to past findings, our results indicated that the rela-tion between ethnic identity and adjustment varies with contexts (Phinney,1990; Umana-Taylor et al., 2002).

These findings suggested that participating in and identifying with one’s eth-nic group may be particularly advantageous for individuals who live in ethni-cally concentrated contexts that reflect the values and behaviors of the ethnicgroup and, moreover, where the ethnic group is cohesive and enjoys a highstatus. As social identity theory suggests, identifying positively with a particu-lar group—especially if the group is socially valued—provides a basis for thedevelopment of a positive self-concept (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Conversely, ina context where the ethnic group is not cohesive or valued, the positive out-comes associated with identifying with the group may not emerge.

Our results were also consistent with Schnittker’s (2002) finding thatcultural participation related to functioning only in certain neighborhood con-texts. In his study, Chinese individuals who engaged in greater cultural par-ticipation also reported greater self-esteem—but only in predominantlyChinese neighborhoods. Our results, along with Schnittker’s, suggest that inthe presence of a numerically strong, supportive ethnic community, individ-uals who identify strongly with their ethnic group experience a better fit totheir community and, consequently, better functioning. These findings sup-port the importance of cultural consonance between the individual and his orher context—an aspect of goodness of fit (Lerner & Lerner, 1983; Thomas &Chess, 1977) or more specifically, cultural fit (Nguyen, 2000). In sum, AsianAmericans with a strong ethnic identity may fit better into an ethnically con-centrated rather than dispersed context. It could be this sense of fit that leadsto better functioning, as some researchers have demonstrated (Nguyen, 2000;Ward & Chang, 1997).

Other-Group Attitudes and Psychosocial Functioning

Finally, with regard to Hypothesis 5, we found that other-group attitudeswere related to more positive functioning in terms of self-esteem and depres-sion; that is, youth who viewed other groups more positively were morelikely to have high self-esteem and less likely to be depressed. It could bethat those who view other groups more positively are more likely to interactand connect with others. Perhaps it is this connection that promotes theirwell-being—especially so in a context with a strong presence of other groups.It could also be that those who feel better about themselves also feel better


about others and, therefore, will view other groups more positively. Eitherway, these findings are consistent with past work documenting a positive linkbetween other-group attitudes and self-esteem and/or self-concept (Lee,2003; Phinney & Devich-Navarro, 1997; Phinney et al., 1997).

Although youth’s attitudes about other groups were related to self-esteem and depression, they were unrelated to connectedness with parents.Taken together, our findings suggest that it is the youths’ ethnic identity,and not other-group attitudes, that is important to their relationships withparents. The more youth identify with their cultural backgrounds, the closerthey tend to be with their parents. However, youths’ attitudes about othergroups may be important to their relationships outside the family—forexample, with teachers and peers whose cultural backgrounds differ fromtheir own. Future studies should also examine these other, important rela-tionships, as they may be more relevant to other-group attitudes.

As predicted, we also found that the relations between other-group atti-tudes and functioning were not moderated by context. They were equallyrobust in the dispersed and concentrated samples. Why no moderation? Eventhough there are vast differences between the two contexts (in institutionalcompleteness, ethnic density, and group power and status), these differencesmay be more reflective of ethnic-group factors and, therefore, have moreimplications on ethnic identity than on other-group attitudes. This notion issubstantiated by the fact that ethnic identity’s link with functioning variedwith context; however, other-group attitudes’ link did not.

It could also be that the salience or percentage of other groups is sub-stantial for both contexts (92% and 69% in the dispersed and concentratedcontexts, respectively) and therefore, one’s attitudes about other groupsmay be important to functioning for both samples.

A final reason why context did not moderate the relation between other-group attitudes and outcomes is that although the two contexts are different intheir salience and percentage of other groups, these differences may not bestrong enough to moderate how other-group attitudes affect functioning. Tobetter test this moderation, future work could choose contexts that vary morewidely in their percentage of other groups—for example, contexts with 95%versus 5% other groups. In the current study, however, it seems that other-groupattitudes is important to functioning for dispersed and concentrated samplesperhaps because of the salience of other groups in both contexts.

Limitations

As interesting as these findings may be, the current study is not withoutlimitations. Four, in particular, merit mention. The first limitation is the


aggregation of different Asian groups. Doing so masks how different fac-tors such as history of immigration, religion, culture, and generation statuscan shape one’s ethnic identity and other-group attitudes.

The second limitation is the correlational nature of the data. We exam-ined how ethnic identity and other-group attitudes predicted psychosocialfunctioning. However, functioning can also predict ethnic identity andother-group attitudes. For example, youth who are closer with their parentsmay desire to be culturally similar to their parents and thus have strongerethnic identities. Or, youth who have lower self-esteem may view othergroups less positively. Future studies can employ longitudinal designs toexamine the direction of cause and effect.

A third limitation is the unequal sample size of the two samples, as the dis-persed sample had 30% fewer participants. Hence, it could be that in the dis-persed sample (with its smaller sample size), there was not enough power todetect an association between ethnic identity and functioning. Previous stud-ies have shown that such associations are very weak in magnitude (Lee, 2003;Phinney & Chavira, 1992) and thus, may be difficult to detect as they are.

A fourth limitation is that the samples differed in age. Given the posi-tive correlation between age and ethnic identity exploration, for example(Phinney & Rosenthal, 1992), we know that ethnic identity is a developmen-tal process. As such, the age difference in our samples may obscure matura-tional and context-related findings and make it difficult to discern whether thepatterns were due to contextual rather than developmental factors. Though wecontrolled for age in our analyses, future research should include samples thatare more similar in age to better isolate contextual differences.

Future Research

Future research could establish more precise definitions and measure-ments of the community context (Sampson, Morenoff, & Gannon-Rowley,2002). For instance, is it the number of Asian people, the subjective percep-tions of support for one’s ethnic group, or the availability of role models inleadership positions that are most important to the development of one’s eth-nic identity and other-group attitudes? Future research could measure com-munity in these more concrete and exact ways to identify how the communityshapes the development and consequences of ethnic identity and other-groupattitudes.

Another direction is to compare individuals living in ethnicallyconcentrated versus dispersed neighborhoods from the same urban regioninstead of comparing from different regions. Doing so would control forpossible confounding variables such as economic differences and total


population differences between the two cities and allow for a more preciseassessment of how more proximal variables, such as the neighborhood’sethnic density, relate to ethnic identity and other-group attitudes.

CONCLUSIONS

In sum, our findings demonstrated that the association between ethnicidentity and psychosocial functioning may be context-specific, whereas other-group attitudes and functioning may be less so, at least for our two contexts.Consistent with an ecological perspective (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; García-Collet al., 1996, Lerner, 1996), the current study highlights how individuals developin relation to their cultural context. It suggests how contextual factors—such asinstitutional completeness, ethnic density, and group power and status—con-tribute to outcomes associated with ethnic identity. Moreover, it suggests howdifferent types of functioning (connectedness to parents vs. depression and self-esteem) can be context specific, as they are differentially influenced by ethnicidentity and other-group attitudes and by the contexts in which these identitiesand attitudes are embedded.

NOTE

1. The first three categories are based on those proposed by Portes and Rumbaut (2001) intheir large-scale study of second-generation immigrant adolescents in the United States. Theyidentified four different types of identities (self-labels): a national-origin identity (e.g., Chinese,Filipino), a hyphenated American identity (e.g., Chinese American, Filipino American), a plainAmerican identity, and a Panethnic minority-group identity (e.g., Asian). As Portes andRumbaut (2001) explained,

The first two of these types [identities] identify with the immigrant experience andoriginal homeland, if at different degrees of closeness, whereas the last two types areexclusively identities “made in the USA.” The first three also involve chiefly nationalidentifications (past or present or a bridging of both); the fourth reflects a denational-ized identification with racial-ethnic minorities in the U.S. and a self-conscious differ-ence in relation to the white Anglo population. (p. 154)

It is interesting to note, in our sample not one person labeled themselves as plain American.

REFERENCES

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.


Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens throughthe twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469-480.

Berry, J. (1984). Cultural relations in plural societies: Alternatives to segregation and theirsociopsychological implications. In N. Miller & M. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in contact: Thepsychology of desegregation (pp. 11-29). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Berry, J. W. (1980). Acculturation as varieties of adaptation. In A. Padilla (Ed.), Acculturation:Theory, models and some new findings (pp. 9-25). Boulder, CO: Westview.

Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (1992). Cross-cultural psychol-ogy: Research and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Birman, D., Trickett, E. & Buchanan, R. M. (2005). A tale of two cities: Replication of a study onthe acculturation and adaptation of immigrant adolescents from the former Soviet Union in adifferent community context. American Journal of Community Psychology, 35(1/2), 87-101.

Breton, R. (1964). Institutional completeness of ethnic communities and the personal relationsof immigrants. American Journal of Sociology, 70, 193-205.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Crocker, J., Luhtanen, R., Blaine, B., & Broadnax, S. (1994). Collective self-esteem and psy-chological well-being among White, Black, and Asian college students. Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 503-513.

Driedger, L. (1976). Ethnic self-identity: A comparison of ingroup evaluations. Sociometry,39, 131-141.

Erikson, E. (1968). Identity, youth and crisis. New York: Norton.Farver, J. A. M., Narang, S. K., & Bhadha, B. R. (2002). East meets West: Ethnic identity, accul-

turation, and conflict in Asian Indian families. Journal of Family Psychology, 16(3), 338-350.

Garcia, M., & Lega, L. (1979). Development of Cuban ethnic identity questionnaire. HispanicJournal of Behavioral Sciences, 4, 295-314.

García-Coll, C., Lamberty, G., Jenkins, R., McAdoo, H., Crnic, K., Wasik, B., et al. (1996).An integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in ethnic minoritychildren. Child Development, 67, 1891-1914.

Hopkins, H. R., & Klein, H. A. (1993). Multidimensional self-perception: Linkages to parentalnurturance. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 154(4), 465-473.

Hutnik, N. (1991). Ethnic minority identity: A social psychological perspective. New York:Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press.

Kuo, W. H. (1984). Prevalence of depression among Asian-Americans. Journal of Nervousand Mental Disease, 172(8), 449-457.

Kvernmo, S., & Heyerdahl, S. (1996). Ethnic identity in aboriginal Sami adolescents: The impactof the family and the ethnic community context. Journal of Adolescence, 19, 453-463.

Kwak, K.-J., & Kim, G. (1997). Self-concept development (II): The relationships betweengeneral self-worth, depression, and delinquency. Korean Journal of DevelopmentalPsychology, 10(1), 15-26.

Kwan, V. S., Bond, M. H., & Singelis, T. (1997). Pancultural explanations for life satisfaction:Adding relationship harmony to self-esteem. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 73(5), 1038-1051.

Lee, R. (2003). Do ethnic identity and other-group orientation protect against discriminationfor Asian Americans? Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50(2), 133-141.

Lerner, R. (1996). Relative plasticity, integration, temporality, and diversity in human devel-opment: A developmental contextual perspective about theory, process, and method.Developmental Psychology, 32(4), 781-786.


Lerner, R. M., & Lerner, J. V. (1983). Temperament and adaptation across life: Theoretical andempirical issues. In P. B. Balters & O. G. Brim, Jr. (Eds.), Life-span development andbehaviors (Vol. 5, pp. 197-231). New York: Academic Press.

Martinez, R. O., & Dukes, R. L. (1997). The effects of ethnic identity, ethnicity, and genderon adolescent well-being. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26(5), 503-516.

Miller, N., & Brewer, M. (1984). Groups in contact: The psychology of desegregation.Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Neeman, J., & Harter, S. (1986). Manual for the self-perception profile for college students.Denver, CO: University of Denver.

Nguyen, H. H. (2000). Testing an ecological model of acculturation: The role of cultural fit,competence and belongingness as links to the acculturation and adjustment of Vietnameseand Mexican adolescents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University,East Lansing.

Nguyen, H. H. (in preparation). Acculturation in context: The adaptation of Mexican andVietnamese youth. In S. Gold & R. Rumbaut (Eds.), The new Americans: Immigration andAmerican society. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing.

Operario, D., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). Ethnic identity moderates perceptions of prejudice:Judgments of personal versus group discrimination and subtle versus blatant bias.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(5), 550-561.

Padilla, A. M. (1980). The role of cultural awareness and ethnic loyalty in acculturation. InA. M. Padilla (Ed.), Acculturation: Theory, models, and some new findings (pp. 47-84).Boulder, CO: Westview.

Phinney, J. S. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: Review of research. PsychologicalBulletin, 108(3), 499-514.

Phinney, J. S. (1992). The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure: A new scale for use withdiverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7, 156-176.

Phinney, J. S. (2003). Ethnic identity and acculturation. In K. M. Chun, P. B. Organista, & G. Marin (Eds.), Acculturation: Advances in theory, measurement, and applied research(pp. 63-81). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Phinney, J. S. (2006). Ethnic identity in emerging adulthood. In J. J. Arnett & J. L. Tanner(Eds.), Emerging adults in America: Coming of age in the 21st century (pp. 117-134).Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Books.

Phinney, J. S., & Alipuria, L. (1990). Ethnic identity in older adolescents from four ethnicgroups. Journal of Adolescence, 13, 171-183.

Phinney, J. S., Cantu, C. L., & Kurtz, D. A. (1997). Ethnic and American identity as predic-tors of self-esteem among African American, Latino, and White adolescents. Journal ofYouth and Adolescence, 26(2), 165-185.

Phinney, J. S., & Chavira, V. (1992). Ethnic identity and self-esteem: An exploratory longitu-dinal study. Journal of Adolescence, 15, 271-281.

Phinney, J. S., & Devich-Navarro, M. (1997). Variations in bicultural identification amongAfrican American and Mexican American adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence,7(1), 3-32.

Phinney, J. S., Ferguson, D. L., & Tate, J. D. (1997). Intergroup attitudes among ethnic minor-ity adolescents: A causal model. Child Development, 68(5), 955-969.

Phinney, J. S., & Rosenthal, D. (1992). Ethnic identity in adolescence: Process, context, andoutcome. In G. Adams, T. Gulotta, & R. Montemayor (Eds.), Identity formation duringadolescence (pp. 145-172). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. (2001). Legacies: The story of the immigrant second generation.Berkeley: University of California Press.


Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the gen-eral population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1(3), 385-401.

Roberts, R. E., Phinney, J. S., Masse, L. C., Chen, Y. R., Roberts, C. R., & Romero, A. (1999).The structure of ethnic identity of young adolescents from diverse ethnocultural groups.Journal of Early Adolescence, 19, 301-322.

Rosenthal, D. A., & Feldman, S. (1992). The nature and stability of ethnic identity in Chineseyouth: Effects of length of residence in two cultural contexts. Journal of Cross-CulturalPsychology, 23, 214-227.

Rosenthal, D. A., & Hrynevich, C. (1985). Ethnicity and ethnic identity: A comparative studyof Greek-, Italian-, and Anglo-Australian adolescents. International Journal of Psychology,20, 723-742.

Rumbaut, R. G. (1994). The crucible within: Ethnic identity, self-esteem, and segmented assim-ilation among children of immigrants. International Migration Review, 28(4), 748-794.

Sampson, R. J., Morenoff, J. D., & Gannon-Rowley, T. (2002). Assessing “neighborhoodeffects”: Social processes and new directions in research. Annual Review of Sociology, 28,443-478.

Saylor, E. S., & Aries, E. (1999). Ethnic identity and change in social context. Journal ofSocial Psychology, 139(5), 549-566.

Schnittker, J. (2002). Acculturation in context: The self-esteem of Chinese immigrants. SocialPsychology Quarterly, 65(1), 56-76.

Spencer, M. B., & Markstrom-Adams, C. (1990). Identity processes among racial and ethnicminority children in America. Child Development, 61(2), 290-310.

Stutman, S., & Lich, S. (1984). The development and utilization of the parental relationshipinventory. Unpublished manuscript.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. InS. Worchel & W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago:Nelson-Hall.

Thomas, A., & Chess, S. (1977). Temperament and development. New York: Brunner/Mazel.Tsai, J. L., Ying, Y.-W., & Lee, P. A. (2001). Cultural predictors of self-esteem: A study of

Chinese American female and male young adults. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic MinorityPsychology, 7, 284-297.

Umana-Taylor, A. J., Diversi, M., & Fine, M. (2002). Ethnic identity and self-esteem of Latinoadolescents: Directions among the Latino populations. Journal of Adolescent Research,17(3), 303-327.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2000). State and County QuickFacts. Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office.

Valk, A. (2000). Ethnic identity, ethnic attitudes, self-esteem, and esteem toward others amongEstonian and Russian adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15(6), 637-651.

Verkuyten, M. (1995). Self-esteem, self-concept stability, and aspects of ethnic identity amongminority and majority youth in the Netherlands. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24,155-175.

Ward, C., & Chang, W. C. (1997). “Cultural fit”: A new perspective on personality and sojourneradjustment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 21(4), 525-533.

Wong, B. (1998). Ethnicity and entrepreneurship: The new Chinese immigrants in the SanFrancisco bay area. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Ying, Y. W. (1988). Depressive symptomatology among Chinese-Americans as measured bythe CES-D. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44(5), 739-746.


Linda P. Juang is an associate professor of psychology at San Francisco StateUniversity. She received her PhD in developmental psychology. Her research focuseson issues of ethnic identity, acculturation, and well-being among adolescents andparents of immigrant families.

Huong H. Nguyen is an assistant professor in the Institute for Child, Youth, and FamilyPolicy at the Heller School at Brandeis University. She received her PhD in clinicalpsychology, with a specialization in children and families. Her research examines howprocesses of acculturation, identity, and oppression affect the health and well-being ofimmigrant children.

Yunghui (Vivien) Lin earned her master's degree in developmental psychology fromSan Francisco State University. Her research focuses on cross-cultural patterns ofadolescent-parent attachment and adolescents' psychological well-being. She is cur-rently a lecturer in the Psychology Department at San Francisco State University.

Documents

The Ethnic Identity, Other-Group Attitudes, and ...online.sfsu.edu/devpsych/juang/juang, nguyen & lin, 2006.pdf · Psychosocial Functioning of Asian American ... those in a culturally