1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Over the past twenty years, we have seen major shifts in the racial and
ethnic composition of cities and towns across the United States. In 1990, White
Americans (non-Hispanic) represented 71.3 percent of the general population,
African Americans represented 12.1 percent, Asian/Pacific, 2.9 percent, Native
American, 0.8 percent, and “Other race,” 3.9 percent. More recently, in 2006
(Census Bureau, 2006), 66.2 percent of the general population identified
themselves as White (non-Hispanic), 12.4 percent identified as African American,
4.5 percent, Asian/Pacific Islander, 0.8 percent, Native American, 6.3 percent,
“Other race,” and 2 percent, multiracial. As the population of the United States
continues to become increasingly diverse, we are witnessing more research on
racial and ethnic minorities and their psychological processes. Research spans a
spectrum of topics addressing areas such as psychological well being (Arroyo &
Zigler, 1995; Kiang, Yip, Gonzales-Backen, Witkow, & Fuligni, 2006), prosocial
behavior (Schwartz, Zamboanga & Jarvis, 2007), efficacy and self-esteem (Smith,
Walker, Fields, Brookins, & Seay, 1999; Swenson & Prelow, 2005), depression
(Beiser & Hou, 2006; Umaña-Taylor & Updegraff, 2006), stress and coping
(Dubow, Pargament, Boxer, & Tarkeshwar, 2000; Gonzales, Tein, Sandler, &
Friedman, 2001), discrimination (Mossakowski, 2003), family support (Phinney,
Romero, Nava, & Huang, 2001), acculturation (Oyserman & Sakamoto, 1997),
and ethnic identity (McMahon & Watts, 2002; Phinney, 1990; Phinney, Jacoby, &
2
Silva, 2007; Phinney & Ong, 2007; Phinney et al., 2001; Spencer, Icard, Harachi,
Catalano, & Oxford, 2000; Yip & Fuligni, 2002).
One line of research involves examining social and psychological
correlates of at-risk behaviors. This line of research is a reflection of the
challenges ethnic minority youth face, especially in urban environments, to stay
away from at-risk behaviors. These behaviors include any activities that
negatively impact the health and well-being of youth (Benson & Donahue, 1989).
Recent lines of research examine positive psychological mechanisms that can
serve as protective factors against the adversities faced by racial and ethnic
minority youth, including the pressure to participate in at-risk behaviors.
One proposed protective factor is ethnic identity, which refers to people’s
psychological awareness of their ethnic group membership and encompasses the
attitudes, values, and beliefs of one’s own group (Phinney, 1990). Ethnic identity
is especially relevant in early adolescence when individuals begin to form their
identities through a process of exploration and make decisions and commitments
about many areas of their identities (Erikson, 1968). Ethnic minority youth, in
particular, have added challenges of defining themselves in the context of their
ethnicity and minority status while striking a balance between their own ethnic
group and the dominant cultural group (Umaña-Taylor & Updegraff, 2007). These
challenges exist for ethnic minorities who are more identified with the dominant
culture and for those who are more identified with their culture of origin. Two
factors that may contribute to variations in ethnic identity involve the generational
3
status of one’s family (i.e., first, second generation) and one’s level of
acculturation (Oyserman & Sakamoto, 1997). Studies have shown that the
development of a positive ethnic identity can have important implications for
psychological processes such that it can serve as a buffer against stressors in life
(Yip & Fuligni, 2002). For example, individuals who have a developed sense of
ethnic identity seem to have lower anxiety and a greater ability to manage
stressful or problematic situations such as perceived discrimination (Kiang et al.,
2006; Swenson & Prelow, 2005; Umaña-Taylor & Updegraff, 2007). Other
research has shown that it is an integral protective factor against participation in
violent behaviors such as drug use and other delinquent behaviors (Soriano,
Rivera, Williams, Daley, & Reznik, 2004).
Early adolescents exploring their ethnic identity may experience a shift in
their perceptions of control. During adolescent development, individuals begin to
understand their own talents, abilities, and limitations as they develop ideas about
their ability to be successful in different settings, including academics, career
goals, and social interactions (Bandura, 1990). Factors such as race,
socioeconomic status (SES), age, and gender can influence these control beliefs as
these factors present opportunities and challenges (Skinner, 1995). Their
perceptions of their abilities, referred to as self-efficacy, can influence the settings
they participate in (Bandura, 1977). As young as junior high school, individuals
develop and adopt more concrete ideas about their academic and career goals that
4
influence their academic, social, and self-regulatory self-efficacy (Bandura,
Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 1996).
For youth growing up in impoverished areas, the development of an
achieved ethnic identity and self-efficacy can be more difficult and problematic.
Yet previous research has shown that ethnic identity and self-efficacy can serve as
protective factors that buffer negative experiences and promote prosocial behavior
(Bandura, 1993; Bandura et al., 1996; Bandura, Caprara, Barbaranelli, Pastorelli,
& Regalia, 2001; Caprara, Regalia, & Bandura, 2002; Dubow, Pargament, Boxer,
& Tarakeshwar, 2000; Phinney & Alipuria, 1990; Smith, Walker, Fields,
Brookins, & Seay, 1999; Umaña-Taylor & Updegraff, 2007). This study aims to
understand the relationship between ethnic identity and self-efficacy, and how
these constructs serve to reduce participation in at risk behaviors.
I will first review the literature on ethnic identity examining theoretical
frameworks and the implications of its role as a positive psychological correlate
and protective factor. I will then examine the development of control beliefs,
specifically self-efficacy, exploring cross-cultural variations, and its position in
reducing at-risk behaviors. Finally, I will examine national statistics of adolescent
participation in violent behaviors, along with literature that explores protective
factors that may buffer negative experiences and reduce participation in at-risk
behaviors for ethnic minority youth.
5
Chapter 2
ETHNIC IDENTITY
With the increasing racial and ethnic diversity in the U.S., researchers have
been paying more attention to “the psychological impact of such diversity”
(Phinney, 1990, p. 511). Ethnic identity, particularly in youth, has become an
important area of research to capture the changing population and the experiences
of minority individuals at the psychological level. Research shows that ethnic
minority group members tend to be more aware of their ethnicity and hence
emphasize their ethnic identity more so than do White Americans in the U.S.
(Kim-Ju & Liem, 2003; McGuire, McGuire, Child, & Fujioka, 1978; Roberts,
Phinney, Masse, Chen, Roberts, & Romero, 1999). This section examines
definitions of ethnic identity, theoretical frameworks, and its role as a protective
factor.
Defining Ethnic Identity
Ethnic identity is a multifaceted concept that encompasses many aspects of
an individual, but many researchers have struggled to define ethnic identity in a
manner that conveys its complexity. In general, ethnic identity refers to one’s
psychological awareness of ethnicity (Phinney, 1990). The development of one’s
ethnic identity is complex and involves internal and external factors that shape and
define one’s understanding of ethnicity. For example, studies have shown that it
reflects one’s a sense of pride and belonging (Rotheram & Phinney, 1987),
perceptions, attitudes, and feelings toward one’s ethnic group (Phinney & Ong,
6
2007; Rotheram & Phinney, 1987), as well as cultural practices, behaviors, and
language (Phinney & Rosenthal, 1992). Two general frameworks have guided
much of the research on ethnic identity: social identity and developmental theory.
Approaches to Ethnic Identity
Scholars consider ethnic identity to be one component of a larger concept
of identity (Erikson, 1968). Ethnic minority adolescents face the normal
challenges of exploring and establishing their identity, but they also experience
the challenge of defining themselves in relation to the majority population
(Phinney & Rosenthal, 1992; Umaña-Taylor & Updegraff, 2007). When
examining ethnic identity, scholars have approached it from two broad
perspectives: social identity and developmental theory. The former theorizes that
identity is driven by a desire to belong to a social group and the latter theorizes
that individuals are compelled to explore their own identity over time to better
understand who they are in relation to their ethnicity. Rather than competing
perspectives, these can be seen as an integrated understanding of ethnic identity.
Social Identity Theory
From a social psychological perspective, Tajfel (1981) advanced the social
identity theory which proposes that people are driven by a desire to seek
membership with and be a part of a larger social group. The second component is
that people are then influenced by their affective experiences with the group.
From this perspective, social identity is defined as “that part of the individual’s
self-concept which derives from his knowledge of his membership of a social
7
group together with the value and emotional significance attached to that
membership” (Tajfel, 1981, p. 255). As part of this process, Tajfel argued that
people accept values and ideals that define the group, and that a positive
association with their group can contribute to their self-concept and self-esteem.
Under the social identity theory, it was believed that ethnic minority group
members were presented with unique challenges in forging a positive identity in a
context where their own ethnic group faced stigmatization from the dominant
cultural group.
According to this view, ethnic minority group members would potentially
be faced with a negative ethnic identity because of the negative views the
dominant cultural group held of their group. In turn, Tajfel and others (1981;
Tajfel & Turner, 1979) argued that ethnic minority group members would have
several paths to resolve their negative ethnic identity such as passing, cultural and
psychological insulation, and social change/social creativity. Passing involves
identifying with the dominant group and rejecting one’s own ethnic group.
Cultural and psychological insulation allows ethnic minority group members to
isolate themselves from the dominant group’s cultural and social influences. In
social change/social creativity, ethnic minority group members seek to change
their situation or reframe characteristics of their group to gain self-respect (e.g.,
“Black is Beautiful”).
When ethnic identity is approached from the social identity perspective,
the dynamics of social groups within a society becomes critical to understand the
8
experiences of ethnic minority group members. The assumption is that these social
groups vary in power and status and the relative positioning of each group defines
the social structure of society and affords varying experiences for different social
groups. Ethnic minority group members would identify within this social structure
and have different experiences depending on where their group is situated along
this structure. In its formulation of ethnic identity, this perspective emphasizes the
links between the individual and society (i.e., social categories).
A large body of work examining ethnic identity has been influenced by the
social identity perspective. While identity development often focuses on the self
and is characterized by the use of words like “I” or “me”, social identity focuses
on the self being defined in terms of a group and the greater social context and
uses “we” and “our” (Cameron & Lalonde, 1994; Turner, Oakes, Haslam &
McGarty, 1994). This group identification helps people feel that they are part of a
larger social context and are connected to others through shared values and
experiences. Social identity involves subjective self-categorization, and people
can identify with multiple groups (Gurin, Hurtado, & Peng, 1994; Turner et al.,
1994). For example, a person may identify herself as a woman, a mother, a doctor,
and a Buddhist. She chooses to categorize herself in this way because she feels
connected to these groups because of shared experiences and values. Similar to
other forms of identity, social identity changes over the lifespan as selfconceptualization or social roles change. Social identity can also vary across
contexts (Gurin, Hurtado, & Peng, 1994; Liu, Lawrence, Ward, & Abraham,
9
2002; Turner et al., 1994). Sociopolitical contexts, for example, can shape social
identities for groups. Liu, Lawrence, Ward, and Abraham (2002) found that
Malaysians and Singaporeans consider their fight for freedom as an important part
of the groups’ identity; however, other groups like the Maori look to their unique
history to contextualize their group today. All of the groups endured hardships,
however, how they integrated that history into their social identity differed. This
illustrates the power of context and in particular the social, political, and historical
influence on a groups’ identity. The conceptualization of the self as a member of a
larger social context is consistent with collectivist views. This approach stands in
contrast to the developmental approach which tends to focus on the individual.
Developmental Perspective
Using the developmental contributions of Erikson’s (1968) theory of
identity development and Marcia’s (1980) ethnic identity development, Phinney
(1989) proposed a model of ethnic identity formation that characterized ethnic
identity development in three stages. In this model, the first stage, referred to as
“unexamined ethnic identity,” describes individuals who have not yet explored
their ethnicity. There are two subcategories for this stage: diffusion and
foreclosure. In diffusion, adolescents have not yet contemplated their ethnicity and
may be disinterested in the topic. In foreclosure, adolescents’ ethnic identity is
defined by what their parents and family believe, with little exploration of their
own beliefs concerning their ethnicity. Both of these categories can result in the
10
internalization of negative beliefs and stereotypes of their own group and others
(Holcomb-McCoy, 2005).
The next stage, “ethnic identity search,” involves adolescents actively
seeking to learn and understand about their ethnicity through various means (e.g.,
literature, talking to friends, attending cultural events; Phinney & Rosenthal,
1992). This exploration is often triggered by a discriminatory incident or racial
event that makes individuals aware of their ethnicity and compels them to learn
more about their ethnicity. Individuals begin to explore and compare beliefs,
values, and social practices of their own ethnic group and other ethnic groups, as
well as any issues related to their status as minority group members such as
discrimination and prejudice (Arroyo & Zigler, 1995; Phinney et al., 2001). This
exploration sometimes causes them to reject the values of the dominant culture
(Phinney, 1989).
The goal of this exploration is ethnic identity achievement, the third and
final stage. Ethnic identity achievement occurs when individuals internalize their
own ethnic identity and display a “sense of ethnic pride, belonging and
confidence” (Holcomb-McCoy, 2005, p. 122). This stage involves a clear
personal understanding and internalization of what their ethnic group membership
means to them, and is characterized by a sense of commitment or attachment to
their ethnic group (Phinney, 1990; Phinney et al., 2007; Phinney & Ong, 2007;
Phinney & Rosenthal, 1992). The pride and sense of belonging associated with an
achieved ethnic identity are linked with increased self-worth (Phinney &
11
Rosenthal, 1992). Two issues are of importance in this last stage. One issue
involves being comfortable with one’s own ethnic group. The other involves
recognizing and reconciling any differences between one’s own ethnic group and
that of the dominant society (Phinney, 1990; Phinney & Ong, 2007). Phinney et
al. (2007) found that individuals with an achieved ethnic identity have greater
intergroup and intercultural awareness. It is important to point out that an
individual’s ethnic identity is a fluid construct that is continuously being shaped
throughout a person’s life (Mossakowski, 2003).
Ethnic Identity and Psychological Correlates
Research on ethnic identity has shown a correlation with other
psychological variables such as psychological well-being. In particular, research
has shown that ethnic identity can serve as a protective factor to buffer stress and
provide better coping skills for managing discrimination and prejudice (Dubow et
al., 2000; Phinney & Alipuria, 1990). It appears that having a greater sense of
belonging to and pride in one’s group and internalizing the values and beliefs of
one’s group can be a “source of personal strength and positive self-evaluation”
(Phinney et al., 2001, p.137). Studies have furthermore shown that a stronger
ethnic identity is related to positive self image, greater self-esteem, and improved
psychological well-being (Kiang et al., 2006; Mossakowski, 2003; Phinney, 1992;
Phinney, et al., 1997; Roberts et al., 1999; Schwartz et al., 2007; Umaña-Taylor &
Updegraff, 2007).
12
Research on ethnic identity has shown a link with self-esteem such that a
greater sense of belonging to and pride in one’s ethnic group can increase selfesteem (Phinney, 1992). Umaña-Taylor and Updegraff (2007) proposed that a
developed ethnic identity leads to a positive sense of self, which, in turn, leads to
higher self-esteem and self-confidence. The individual then is able to manage
discrimination and be more resilient in dealing with issues related to one’s
ethnicity. When individuals have negative attitudes or are unclear about their
ethnicity, they tend to have lower self-esteem (Phinney et al., 1997).
Similarly, ethnic identity can foster the development of a positive selfimage and psychosocial adjustment. Studies have demonstrated a positive
relationship between ethnic identity and self-efficacy, self-esteem, and prosocial
behaviors (Schwartz et al., 2007; Smith et al., 1999). For example, a greater sense
of self and increased self-confidence in combination with a more developed ethnic
identity was related to individuals feeling proud of themselves and more confident
in their own abilities. Individuals who have a strong identification to their ethnic
identity were more aware of their attitudes and beliefs, more inclined to follow ingroup norms and values, and less inclined to defy or act contrary to their group
values (Smith et al., 1999).
Research has also shown that individuals who have a strong ethnic identity
and high self-esteem are less likely to experience negative psychological issues,
such as depression or behavioral problems. Many studies have demonstrated a
positive relationship between ethnic identity and psychological well being such
13
that a greater ethnic identity correlates with greater positive affect, lower anxiety,
and less depressive symptoms (Kiang et al., 2006; Mossakowski, 2003; Phinney et
al., 1997; Roberts et al., 1999; Umaña-Taylor & Updegraff, 2007). Thus, ethnic
identity may serve as a buffer for stress, particularly related to perceived
discrimination (Mossakowksi, 2003). For example, in the face of discrimination,
the individual would better understand the context under which discrimination
may occur (e.g., majority vs. minority) and be equipped with the coping skills to
deal with discriminatory behavior. Thus, it appears that individuals with a strong
ethnic identity and high self-esteem have developed better coping strategies for
dealing with adverse experiences (Holcomb-McCoy, 2005).
Other positive outcomes have been connected with a stronger ethnic
identity. For example, it has been correlated with a reduction in the use of illicit
drugs during adolescence (Kulis, Napoli, & Marsiglia, 2002). African American
and Latino adolescents with a stronger ethnic identity reportedly endorsed more
non-violent behaviors for solving conflicts (Arbona, Jackson, McCoy, & Blakely,
1999). Other studies have found that more active coping skills from a more
developed ethnic identity may result in fewer beliefs supporting aggression and
fewer aggressive behaviors (McMahon & Watts, 2002) and better social and
emotional adjustment with youth (Yasui, Dorham, and Dishion, 2004). It should
be noted that although these studies have demonstrated that ethnic identity can
serve as a protective factor against violence, recent literature has noted the
nuanced effects of ethnic identity. For example, one study has shown that a
14
stronger ethnic identity may predict lower physical threats but greater verbal
threats against others (Choi, Harachi, Gillmore, & Catalano, 2006).
As this brief review shows, ethnic identity can be an important
psychological resource for ethnic minority individuals shaping psychological
correlates such as self-esteem and psychological well-being. One growing area of
research that examines this relationship between ethnic identity and psychological
correlates involves control beliefs to which I turn my attention.
15
Chapter 3
CONTROL BELIEFS
Perceptions of control are the beliefs individuals hold about their ability to
produce desired outcomes and prevent undesired outcomes (Patrick, Skinner, &
Connell, 1993; Rotter, 1966; Seligman, 1975). Control beliefs are important
aspects of people’s lives, subconsciously influencing their “behavior, emotion,
motivation, performance, success and failure” (Skinner, 1995, p. 3). Motivation is
driven by the change people believe they can have on a desired outcome. This
belief can influence people to exert effort to produce results. Furthermore,
motivation and perceptions of success and failure incite emotional repercussions
such as changes in self-esteem. Subsequent successes and failures are related to
previous experiences and people’s perceptions of control concerning desired
outcomes (Bandura, 1977; Bialer, 1961). Control beliefs are related to how people
interact with others, how they approach new situations, their sense of selfefficacy, how success-driven they are, the roles they take in society, and how
much resilience they have in managing stress (Bandura, 1977, 1986, 1995).
People with perceptions of high personal control believe they can make success
happen. When people believe they can influence outcomes, they tend to stay
engaged in challenging activities, which leads to a higher level of competency in a
given task. People who believe they cannot influence outcomes tend to be more
passive, avoid difficult tasks, and thus do not develop the same skills (Bandura,
1977; Skinner, 1995).
16
Theories of Control Beliefs
As discussed above, perceptions of control influence all aspects of life and
have both positive and negative repercussions (Bandura, 1977; Seligman, 1975;
Skinner, 1995). Performance in school, work success, motivation, problemsolving, parenting, marital satisfaction, health, and emotions are some areas that
are strongly influenced by people’s perceptions of how much control they have in
a situation. Other psychological issues influenced by perceptions of control
include self-esteem, anxiety, depression, phobias, coping mechanisms, and
adjustments during major life events (Skinner, 1995). Four main theories
conceptualize the different components and effects of control beliefs, two of
which are locus of control (Rotter, 1966) and self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977).
Locus of Control Theory
Locus of control refers to people’s causal attributions of good and bad
outcomes in their lives. It was formulated from a bipolar construct of internal and
external loci of control. Internal locus of control refers to the belief that one’s
efforts will contribute to a particular outcome. In contrast, an external locus of
control involves the belief that an outcome occurs outside of one’s efforts (Rotter,
1966). Much of the earlier research showed that people with an internal locus of
control feel responsible for bad events and tend to be more resilient to stressors.
Those with an external locus of control tend to have more frustration and give up
more easily because they believe they lack control to change outcomes (Lefcourt,
1976; Rotter, 1966).
17
Variations by Culture and Ethnicity. More recent research examining
cross-cultural variations has shown that children in Western societies may have
different perceptions of control about academics than children in non-Western
societies because early on they are taught that their accomplishments and abilities
such as grades and intellect are a direct result of their work and effort (Edelstein
Grundmann, & Mies, 2000). This internal locus of control develops throughout
childhood (Skinner & Chapman, 1987), and coincides with social values of
individualism where there is an emphasis on the self (Brown, Aoshima, Bolen,
Chia, & Kohyama, 2007). However, in American children, this internal locus of
control does not influence other aspects of their life until later in their
development when they begin to understand how their sense of control is directly
contributing to situations. Once they have this understanding, children begin to
understand their own strengths and limitations. Research has shown that children
begin to develop a stronger internal locus of control in settings with friends and
interpersonal relationships between the ages of 12 and 15; for intellectual abilities,
the internal beliefs develop by age 9 (Edelstein et al., 2000). In East Asian
countries, specifically Japan and Taiwan, students had a higher external locus of
control than did American students (Brown et al., 2007). Taiwanese youth also
had a greater external locus of control than did youth from Japan. This external
locus of control is consistent with collectivist cultural values that emphasize the
group and includes an external frame of reference.
18
In addition to culture, researchers have examined ethnicity and control
beliefs. One study examined the relationship between control beliefs related to
health, ethnicity, and socio-economic status and found that among individuals
with low SES there were no differences in control beliefs by ethnicity (Malcarne,
Drahota, & Hamilton, 2005). However, in middle class participants, more African
American and Latino children believed in fate, chance, and luck than did White
American children. White American children also believed less in the idea of
powerful people influencing outcomes than did African American children. Thus,
these studies demonstrate how cultures and ethnic groups may hold different types
of control beliefs.
Theory of Self-Efficacy
A growing area of research on control beliefs involves perceived selfefficacy, defined as “people’s beliefs about their capabilities to produce effects”
(Bandura, 1994, p. 71). Bandura (1977) posited that individuals have a need to
feel that they can influence outcomes of particular events. He emphasized that
people’s success is not based solely on innate ability, but also the belief and
conviction that they can be successful in ascertaining a desired outcome (Bandura,
1993). When individuals believe they have the control to influence an outcome,
they are motivated to exert more effort to make a desired outcome occur. If
individuals believe they cannot influence an outcome, they are less inclined to try
(Bandura, 1977). For example, those who believe they can go to college will try
harder in school, participate in extracurricular activities, and work toward the goal
19
of attending college. Those who believe that college is not in their future are less
inclined to make an effort in school.
Since perceived self-efficacy is a personal judgment about the self, people
may overestimate or underestimate their true abilities. Regardless of the accuracy,
people’s perceptions of their own capabilities directly influence their behavior and
performance (Bandura, 1977). Accordingly, individuals who believe in a higher
possibility of success have increased coping strategies to overcome challenges
when compared to those with diminished beliefs concerning their success. Those
who believe they can achieve their goal will work harder to attain success
regardless of hurdles they may encounter. In contrast, those who do not believe
they will be able to succeed are inclined to give up more easily (Bandura, 1993).
Although these ideas are based on people’s perceptions of their own capabilities,
research has shown that these perceptions can affect people’s performance and
behavior (Bandura, 1977).
Self-Efficacy as a Protective Factor. Self-efficacy has been shown to
decrease psychological distress among children (Bandura, Pastorelli, Barbaranelli,
& Caprara, 1999) and impact academic settings. Previous research has shown that
children’s perceptions of their ability to be successful in different academic
subjects can predict their motivation and success in academics (Bandura, 1993;
Patrick et al., 1993). Additionally, self-efficacy has been linked with greater
resistance of peer pressure, a decreased likelihood in participating in at-risk
behaviors such as substance abuse and aggression. It has also been linked with an
20
increased likelihood of prosocial behaviors, including kindness, helpfulness,
sharing, and cooperation (Bandura, 1993; Bandura et al., 1996; Bandura et al.,
2001; Caprara et al., 2002; Smith et al., 1999).
Self-Efficacy and Ethnic Identity. Recent research has shown how selfefficacy may be related to ethnic identity. Many studies have examined the
relationship between ethnic identity and career self-efficacy or self-efficacy in
relation to career-related choices. One such study explored the relationship
between ethnic identity and academic and career self-efficacy in early adolescents
(Smith et al., 1999). They found that ethnic identity in combination with selfesteem positively influenced academic and career self-efficacy for ethnic minority
participants. Additionally, increased ethnic identity, academic and career selfefficacy were correlated with greater prosocial attitudes.
Studies examining this relationship of ethnic identity with self-efficacy
among ethnic minorities have supported these findings. In African Americans,
ethnic identity and self-efficacy, in combination with maternal support, were
significantly related to future goals and academic achievement (Kerpelman,
Eryigit, & Stephens, 2008). Another study showed similar findings in that African
American adolescents had higher levels of ethnic identity when they had
supportive parents. These youth reported feeling more capable in challenging
situations and had fewer depressive symptoms, both of which were attributed to
their more developed ethnic identity, greater self-efficacy, and higher self-esteem
(Swenson & Prelow, 2005). Research on adolescent Latinas showed a positive
21
relationship between ethnic identity and self-efficacy regarding career decisionmaking (Gushue, 2006).
These studies are promising in that they explore and identify a relationship
between ethnic identity and perceived self-efficacy. However, only a few studies
have examined the relationship between ethnic identity and self-efficacy,
especially in early adolescence. The few studies that have examined self-efficacy
have focused on academic and career efficacy, which raises questions about
general self-efficacy and its relationship to ethnic identity.
22
Chapter 4
AT-RISK BEHAVIORS
Activities that put individuals in danger of physical or mental harm or even
death are considered at-risk behaviors (Benson & Donahue, 1989). These may
include fighting, gang involvement, sexual behavior, alcohol consumption, drug
use, reckless driving, and many others. In 2007, findings from the National Youth
Risk Behavior Survey (NYRBS; 2007) illustrated a trend in violent behaviors
among high school students. Eighteen percent of high school students reported
carrying a weapon on at least one day in the thirty days prior to participating in the
survey, a rate that has been about the same since 1999. Almost six percent of
students reported carrying a gun at school. Thirty-five-and-a-half percent of the
high school students reported participating in at least one fight during the twelve
months prior to taking the survey, with 12.4 percent of these fights occurring at
school. These statistics have remained unchanged since 2003. As a follow up, 4.2
percent of students reported that they were injured badly enough to need
professional medical help at least one time in the past twelve months. Findings
from the NYRBS (2007) furthermore showed that 5.5 percent of students did not
go to school because they felt unsafe at least one time in the thirty days prior to
completing the survey. This number has increased from 4.4 percent in 1993.
Finally, 7.8 percent of students reported being threatened or injured with a weapon
on school property at least once during the twelve months before the survey. This
finding has remained about the same since 1993.
23
Although violence can affect all social and cultural groups, studies have
shown disparities by ethnicity. For example, one study found that that both native
and immigrant Latinos participated in more at-risk behaviors than did White
adolescents (Brindis, Wolfe, McCarter, & Ball, 1995). More recent studies have
shown that African American and Latino high school students compared to White
American students are more likely to be involved in a physical fight and to
threaten or injure with a weapon on school property (Eaton, Brener, Kann, &
Pittman, 2007). They are also more likely to feel unsafe on their way to or at
school. Research on Asian Americans tends to be more difficult to interpret given
the lack of studies that include Asian Americans. Research often points to Asian
Americans as the “model minority” with low rates of participation in at-risk
behaviors; however, this image may not accurately reflect disparities among the
Asian American subgroups. For example, one study disaggregated violence data
on Asian American and Pacific Islander adolescents and found that Southeast
Asians and Pacific Islanders had higher rates of violence compared to East Asians
such as the Japanese and Chinese (Mayeda, Hishinuma, Nishimura, GarciaSantiago, & Mark, 2006). The violence issues of Asian Americans are often
ignored or masked, which may disguise the higher rates of delinquent behaviors,
especially with certain subgroups.
In light of these statistics concerning at-risk behaviors, there has been an
increase in studies that attempt to understand what psychological correlates factors
may help minimize these behaviors and protect students from engaging in them in
24
the first place. Researchers have found many external factors that play into
adolescents’ ability to resist peer pressure and not engage in at-risk behaviors. For
example, relationships with parents, family acceptance, and family support serve
to protect youth in the face of delinquent peers (Germán, Gonzales & Dumka,
2009), reduce drug use (Broman, Reckase, & Freedman-Doan, 2006), and protect
youth who are exposed to community violence (Hammack, Richards, Luo,
Edlynn, & Roy, 2004). Social support with peers also can protect youth. One
study showed that early adolescents with stronger relationships with peers
participated in bullying less than did others (Bollmer, Milich, Harris, & Maras,
2005). Positive support from the community can be a protective factor in
bolstering psychological assets such as self-esteem and ethnic identity, and
promote positive behavior (Swenson & Prelow, 2005). Additionally, religion and
spirituality can protect against female gang membership (Marsal, 2009), reduce
substance abuse and externalizing behaviors at school (Milot & Ludden, 2009),
and aide youth in resisting peer-pressure to engage in at-risk behaviors (Regnerus
& Elder, 2003). Finally, Soriano et al. (2004) demonstrated the importance of
culture and factors associated with cultural orientation in reducing youth violence.
Their findings showed that cultural values, higher academic achievement,
bicultural adjustment, and ethnic pride can be important protective factors for
ethnic minority adolescents. Although this list is not exhaustive, these studies
show an array of resources that can assist in preventing participation in at-risk
behaviors.
25
In addition to external resources, much research has been done on
psychological factors such as self-esteem, coping strategies, and self-confidence.
As stated earlier, ethnic identity and self-efficacy have been shown to be
psychological assets for adolescents. Research has shown that a greater ethnic
identity is correlated with decreased use of drugs such as marijuana and alcohol
consumption (Love, Yin, Codina, & Zapata, 2006; Pugh & Bry, 2007), greater
disapproval of drug use, and greater self-efficacy in their ability to refuse sex
(Corneille & Belgrave, 2007). Much of the research on self-efficacy has focused
on academic and career self-efficacy and has demonstrated that students who
believe in their capabilities to be successful in school and achieve their career
goals tend to engage in more prosocial behaviors (Smith et al., 1999).
Additionally, self-efficacy can strengthen adolescents’ ability to build positive
social relationships, resist peer pressure, and refrain from participating in at-risk
behaviors and substance abuse (Bandura et al., 1996; Caprara et al., 1998).
Although the studies described above have shown the effectiveness of
ethnic identity and self-efficacy independently, a limited number of studies have
shown how these two factors may work together to reduce at-risk behavior.
Soriano et al. (2004) showed that ethnic identity and bicultural self-efficacy can
serve together as protective factors in preventing youth violence. A study of sixth
graders showed that those who more closely identified with the values of their
ethnic group had greater prosocial attitudes and reported participating in fewer atrisk behaviors (Jagers & Mock, 1993). These and other studies suggest that ethnic
26
identity and self-efficacy, individually and collectively, can play important roles
in how youth cope with the pressure to participate in at-risk behaviors and can
contribute to positive youth development.
27
Chapter 5
THE PRESENT STUDY
Given the rise in at-risk behaviors among ethnic minority adolescent, it is
important to examine psychological factors that can serve as protective factors to
help youth cope with the pressures to participate in these behaviors. A review of
several bodies of literature shows the growing importance of ethnic identity for
ethnic minority groups and how it may serve as a psychological resource for them
where it can buffer them against negative experiences. These bodies of literature
also suggest that ethnic identity may be related to psychological correlates such as
perceived self-efficacy. In particular, the literature demonstrates that perceived
self-efficacy is greater for those individuals with a stronger ethnic identity. When
positive self-efficacy is fostered such that adolescents believe they can influence
their world, they are more inclined to be proactive in their choices, which can lead
to future success and reduced involvement in antisocial activities (Bandura, 1993;
Bandura et al., 1996). Past research has found links among adolescents’ control
beliefs, ethnicity, and socio-economic status, as well as relationships between
ethnic identity and self-efficacy in academic and career-related domains
(Malcarne et al., 2005; Smith et al., 1999). However, there is a dearth of
information regarding ethnic identity and perceived self-efficacy, especially
generalized self-efficacy and their relationship to at-risk behaviors.
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship among ethnic
identity, self-efficacy, and at-risk behavior among adolescents from diverse ethnic
28
and socio-economic backgrounds. In particular, this study focused on adolescents’
strength of ethnic identity and how it may be related to their level of self-efficacy.
Additionally, this study examined the roles of ethnic identity and self-efficacy in
adolescents’ involvement in at-risk behaviors. This study examined the following
questions: a) What is the relationship between ethnic identity and self-efficacy? In
particular, does the strength of ethnic identity predict the level of self-efficacy?
How might this relationship between ethnic identity and self-efficacy vary for
different domains? b) What is the interrelationship among ethnic identity, selfefficacy, and at-risk behaviors? Does the level of ethnic identity in combination
with self-efficacy predict adolescent participation in at-risk behaviors? Through
the investigation of these questions, this study aims to build upon current literature
by exploring ethnic identity and perceived self-efficacy in relation to at-risk
behavior among Asian American and Latino adolescents.
Hypotheses
The literature reviewed above suggests that both ethnic identity and selfefficacy can serve as psychological resources that can buffer or reduce
involvement and potential involvement in high risk behaviors in adolescents. 1) It
is hypothesized that a stronger ethnic identity will predict lower levels of atbehaviors. 2) It is hypothesized that a stronger ethnic identity will predict an
increased level of general self-efficacy as well as increased levels of self-efficacy
in the specific domains of academic, social, and self-regulatory. 3) It is
hypothesized that increased levels of general self-efficacy will predict lower levels
29
of participation in at-behaviors such that a more developed ethnic identity will
help increase self-efficacy and reduce at-risk behaviors. If there is a deficit in
general self-efficacy, there will be an increased likelihood of participation in atrisk behaviors. 4) Thus, it is expected that self-efficacy will serve to mediate the
relationship between ethnic identity and at-risk behaviors (see Figure 1).
30
Figure 1. A model of how self-efficacy mediates the relationship between ethnic
identity and at-risk behaviors.
Self-Efficacy
Ethnic Identity
At-Risk Behaviors
31
Chapter 6
METHOD
Participants
Two-hundred and five participants were recruited from a public middle
school in northern California. One-hundred and twelve participants were from 7th
grade (52 males and 60 females) and 93 participants were from 8th grade (42
males and 51 females). The sample was composed of Asian Americans1 (n = 120)
and Latinos (n = 85). Twenty-five percent of the participants were first generation
immigrants to the U. S., and 64.8 percent were second generation. Using parental
education as an indicator of SES level, only 25 percent of the parents had some
college education while 44.6 percent had at least completed high school (see
Table 1).
Procedure
Participation in the study was voluntary. Prior to participating, students
were informed of their rights and privacy. Participants were informed that their
responses would not be connected with their identity in order to protect their
anonymity. They were instructed that they could decline from answering any
questions or resign from the study at any point if they did not feel comfortable
with any items.
1
The Asian American group included participants who self-identified as Chinese, Vietnamese,
Hmong, Mien, Cambodian, Laotian and Filipino. However, the majority of the sample just
identified as Asian American.
32
Consent was obtained through student and parent informed consent forms
that were sent home with students. Students were administered the packet of
measures if they returned both signed consent forms. After participants completed
the packet of questionnaires, they were given a debriefing form that explained the
study. At this time, they were given the opportunity to ask questions about this
study to the researcher.
Table 1
Characteristics of Sample by Ethnic Group
Asian American
N %
Latino
N
%
Total
N
%
Gender
Male
Female
56 (27.3)
64 (31.2)
38 (18.5)
47 (22.9)
94 (45.9)
111 (54.1)
Grade Level
7th
8th
66 (32.2)
54 (26.3)
46 (22.4)
39 (19.0)
112 (54.6)
93 (45.4)
Generation
1st
2nd
3rd or Higher
28 (14.3)
81 (41.3)
6 (3.1)
22 (11.2)
46 (23.5)
13 (6.7)
50 (25.5)
127 (64.8)
19 (9.7)
Parental Education
Less than 8th grade
Completed 8th Grade
Some High School
Completed High School
Some College
College Degree
25 (14.0)
6 (3.4)
22 (12.3)
19 (10.6)
16 (8.9)
14 (7.8)
15 (8.4)
7 (3.9)
23 (12.8)
15 (8.4)
12 (6.7)
5 (2.8)
40 (22.3)
13 (7.3)
45 (25.1)
34 (19.0)
28 (15.6)
19 (10.6)
Demographic Variable
33
Measures
Ethnic Identity. Ethnic identity was assessed using the Multigroup Ethnic
Identity Measure (MEIM; Phinney; see Appendix A). This twelve item instrument
assesses ethnic identity based on two components: exploration and belonging.
Items are rated on a four-point rating scale from strongly agree to strongly
disagree. Scores are determined by summing across 12 items and calculating the
mean. Sample items include: “I have spent time trying to figure out more about
my ethnic group, such as its history, traditions, and customs”, “I have a lot of
pride in my ethnic group and its accomplishments”, and “I feel good about my
cultural or ethnic background”. Significant differences between ethnic groups
have been found, but no reported gender differences have been noted (Roberts et
al., 1999). The Cronbach’s alpha values of the MEIM are .83 for exploration and
.89 for belonging (Phinney et al., 2007). Cronbach’s alpha values for this study
were .60 for exploration and .82 for belonging. Prior research has demonstrated
acceptable construct validity such that participants with higher ethnic identity
scores had higher self-esteem (Goodstein & Ponterotto, 1997; Phinney & Alipura,
1996), greater coping skills, and were more optimistic. Additionally, ethnic
identity scores were negatively related to loneliness and depression (Roberts et al.,
1999).
Self-Efficacy. Self-efficacy was assessed using the Children’s Perceived
Self-Efficacy scales (CPSE; Bandura, 1990; see Appendix B). The CPSE is a
thirty-seven item measure used to assess three broad areas of adolescent self-
34
efficacy: a) academic, b) social, and c) self-regulatory. Examples of academic
self-efficacy questions include “How well can you learn general mathematics”
(includes items for each subject), “How well can you organize your school work?”
and “How well can you concentrate on school subjects?” Social self-efficacy was
assessed using questions such as “How well can you stand up for yourself when
you feel you are being treated unfairly?”, “How well can you carry on
conversations with others?” and “How well can you make and keep male/female
friends?” The self-regulatory self-efficacy subscale includes items such as “How
well can you resist peer pressure to smoke cigarettes?” and “How well can you
stand firm to someone who is asking you to do something unreasonable or
inconvenient?” The three domains can be broken down further into 1) academic
achievement, 2) self-regulated learning, 3) leisure and extracurricular activities, 4)
resistance to peer pressure, 5) social capabilities, 6) assertiveness, and 7) meeting
others’ expectations (Pastorelli, Caprara, Barbaranelli, Rolo, Rozsa, & Bandura,
2001). However, three scores reflecting these academic, social, and selfregulatory self-efficacy domains were generated by taking the mean score from
items assessed by a five-point Likert scale. The three broad areas have relatively
high reliability coefficient alphas: academic self-efficacy, .87, social self-efficacy,
.75, and self-regulatory efficacy, .80 (Pastorelli et al., 2001). For this study, the
alpha coefficients were comparable, .85 for academic self-efficacy, .82 for social
self-efficacy, and .81 for self-regulatory self-efficacy.
35
At-Risk Behavior. At-risk behavior was captured using the Asian/Pacific
Islander Youth Violence Prevention Center Kailua High School Survey (Mayeda,
Hishinuma, Nishimura, Garcia-Santiago, & Mark, 2006; Thornberry, Lizotte,
Krohn, Smith, & Tobin, 2003; see Appendix C). Thirty-three items from this
questionnaire measure attitudes and participation in at-risk behaviors relevant to
youth. Two questions ask how many fights students have participated in during
the past 30 days, and one inquires about the number of times they have brought a
weapon to school in the same period. Ten questions ask how often students bullied
other students by overt (e.g., physical violence or teasing) and covert acts (e.g.,
excluding peers from group activities). Eight questions inquire about experiences
of victimization, specifically the number of times in the past month that students
had been bullied. Scores for each area of violence (fights, weapons, bullying of
others, and victimization) were generated with these items. In addition to actual
at-risk behaviors, twelve questions focus on attitudes about fighting, as well as
participants’ perceptions of their family endorsement of their participation in atrisk behaviors. Because the study focused on actual behaviors, these 12 attitude
items were not included in any analyses.
Demographics Sheet. Participants were also asked to answer questions
regarding demographic information including gender, ethnicity, age, generation,
and parental education (see Appendix D). For parental education, many of the
respondents checked multiple boxes or left the question blank, so this variable was
omitted from any analyses.
36
Chapter 7
RESULTS
The results of this study are organized in the following manner. The first
section reports preliminary findings with demographic variables and main study
variables (ethnic identity, self-efficacy, and at-risk behaviors). The latter portion
of this section presents the results of the demographic variables, ethnic identity
and self-efficacy in relation to each of the four at-risk behaviors under
examination using hierarchical regression. For all analyses, the sample was
separated into Asian Americans and Latinos given the main research questions in
this study.
Preliminary Analyses
Preliminary analyses with demographic variables (e.g., Gender,
Generational Status, Grade, and Ethnicity) and Ethnic Identity, Self-Efficacy, and
At-Risk Behaviors were conducted. We used bivariate correlational analyses (twotailed) if the demographic variables were ordinal and multivariate analyses of
variance (MANOVA) if variables were nominal.
Descriptive analyses of the variables are reported in Table 2. Findings
showed that the most frequent type of at-risk behavior was experiencing
Victimization, followed by Bullying, then Fighting, with the least frequent being
carrying a Weapon. Specifically, the results showed that in the past thirty days,
82.4 percent of participants reported experiencing some Victimization, 77.1
percent of participants admitted to Bullying others, 46.8 percent of participants
37
reported engaging in Fights, and 12.7 percent of participants reported carrying a
Weapon on school property.
A MANOVA revealed significant differences in at-risk behaviors by
Ethnicity and Gender. Further examination using a one-way ANOVA showed that
rates of Fighting, F(1, 201) = 7.55, p < .01, and Bullying, F(1, 203) = 5.76, p <
.05, varied by Ethnicity; however, Victimization, F(1, 200) = .35, p > .05, and
carrying a Weapon did not, F (1, 201) = 2.24, p > .05. Asian Americans scored
significantly lower than did Latinos in rates of Fighting and Bullying (see Table
2). A one-way ANOVA with Gender as the independent variable showed a
significant effect on participation in Fights, F(1, 201) = 12.86, p < .001, where
boys participated in more Fights (M = 1.99, SD = 3.20) than did girls (M = .75, SD
= 1.58).
Table 2
Mean Differences in Participation in At-Risk Behaviors between Ethnic Groups
Asian Americans
M (SD)
Latinos
M (SD)
Fighting
.91 (2.08)
1.89 (2.97)*
Bullying
.57 (.66)
.80 (.71)*
Weapons
.19 (.95)
.40 (1.03)
Victimization
.71 (.76)
.78 (.87)
Note. *p < .05
38
Bivariate correlational analyses with Generational Status along with the
four At-Risk Behaviors showed a significant relationship between Generational
Status and both Bullying and the number of Fights students participated in.
Participants whose families were more recent immigrants (e.g., first or second
generation) were less likely to participate in Fights (r = .16, p < .05) and Bully
others (r = .16, p < .05) than older generations (third and above generations; see
Table 3).
Table 3
Bivariate Correlations between At-Risk Behaviors and Demographic Variables
Variable
1
2
3
4
5
1. Generational Status
1.0
2. Fights
.16*
1.0
3. Weapons
.13
.38***
1.0
4. Bullying
.16*
.42***
.18**
1.0
5. Victimization
.06
.24***
.20**
.46***
1.0
M
1.91
1.32
.28
.67
.74
SD
.77
2.53
.98
.69
.80
Note. *p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.
A MANOVA examining the relationship between the demographic and
Ethnic Identity variables showed no significant relationships. Bivariate
correlational analyses of Ethnic Identity subscales and demographic variables
39
showed a significant negative relationship between Generational Status and
Exploration (r = -.18, p < .05). The results showed that participants who were first
or second generation immigrants in the U.S. actively sought information about
their ethnic group more so than did those whose families had been in the U.S. for
many generations (see Table 4).
Table 4
Correlations between Demographic Variables and Ethnic Identity Subscales
Variable
1
2
3
1. Generational Status
1.0
2. Belonging
-.14
1.0
3. Exploration
-.18*
.61***
1.0
M
1.91
3.20
2.77
SD
.77
.52
.47
Note. *p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.
A MANOVA examining the effects of demographic variables on
Academic, Social, and Self-Regulatory Self-Efficacy revealed significant
differences by Ethnicity. Further examination with ANOVAs showed a significant
difference for Social Self-Efficacy, F(1, 204) = 5.33, p <.05, such that Latinos had
greater Social Self-Efficacy (M = 3.87, SD = .60) than did Asian American
participants (M = 3.64, SD = .72).
40
Bivariate correlational analyses between Generational Status and the SelfEfficacy scales revealed a significant relationship with Self-Regulatory SelfEfficacy (r = .17, p < .05). This finding showed that adolescents whose families
were more recent immigrants (e.g. first or possibly second generation) had lower
confidence in their ability to control their actions and resist peer pressure (see
Table 5).
Table 5
Bivariate Correlations between Demographic Variables and Self-Efficacy
Variables
Variable
1
2
3
4
1. Generational Status
1.0
2. Academic
-.08
1.0
3. Social
.10
.51***
1.0
4. Self-Regulatory
.17*
.36***
.43***
1.0
M
1.91
3.45
3.74
3.85
SD
.77
.66
.68
1.04
Note. *p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.
With Ethnic Identity, Self-Efficacy, and At-Risk Behaviors among youth,
correlational analyses showed that the ethnic identity subscale of Exploration was
significantly correlated with Academic (r = .31, p < .001) and Social (r = .23, p =
.001) Self-Efficacy. Specifically, participants who explored their ethnicity were
41
likely to have greater confidence in their academic and social abilities. The ethnic
identity subscale of Belonging was significantly correlated with Academic SelfEfficacy, (r = .32, p < .001), Social Self-Efficacy, (r = .31, p < .001), and SelfRegulatory Self-Efficacy (r = .21, p < .01). That is, students with a greater sense
of Belonging to their ethnicity were more likely to have greater Academic, Social,
and Self-Regulatory Self-Efficacy. Neither Exploration nor Belonging was
significantly correlated with any of the At-Risk Behaviors.
An examination of the Self-Efficacy variables demonstrated that SelfRegulatory Self-Efficacy was negatively correlated with number of Fights
students participated in (r = -.15, p < .05) and number of times they carried a
Weapon (r = -.23, p = .001). That is, students with a greater sense of SelfRegulatory Self-Efficacy were less likely to Fight and carry a Weapon compared
to those with lower Self-Regulatory Self-Efficacy. Social Self-Efficacy was
significantly correlated with number of Fights (r = .14, p = .05) and Bullying (r =
.17, p <.05). Participants with greater beliefs in their social skills reported more
Fights and more Bullying of others (see Table 6). Given that Grade, Gender, and
Generational Status were significant in the preliminary analyses, these were used
as control variables for subsequent analyses.
42
Table 6
Bivariate Correlations and Descriptives among Main Study Variables
Variable
1
1. Actual Fights
1.0
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2. Weapons
.38***
1.0
3. Bullying
.42***
.18**
1.0
4. Victimization
.24***
.20**
.46***
1.0
5. Exploration
.03
-.03
.07
.11
1.0
6. Belonging
-.01
-.06
.06
.02
.61***
1.0
7. Academic
-.09
-.08
-.10
.09
.31***
.32***
1.0
8. Social
.14
-.11
.17*
.11
.23**
.31***
.51***
1.0
9. SelfRegulatory
-.15*
-.23*
-.04
-.02
.12
.21**
.36***
.43***
1.0
M
1.32
.28
.67
.74
2.77
3.20
3.45
3.74
3.85
SD
2.53
.98
.69
.80
.47
.52
.66
.68
1.04
Note. *p < .05; **p < .01; *** p < .001.
Hierarchical Regression
Hierarchical regression was employed to assess the degree to which Ethnic
Identity and Self-Efficacy variables predicted At-Risk Behaviors. A hierarchical
regression model was used to control for demographic variables to measure the
effect of Ethnic Identity and Self-Efficacy variables on At-Risk Behaviors. The
demographic variables (Gender, Grade, and Generational Status) that showed
significant relationships with outcome variables in the preliminary analyses were
entered in the first block as control variables. This was followed by the second
43
block of Ethnic Identity variables, Exploration and Belonging, and the third block
of Self-Efficacy variables, Academic, Social, and Self-Regulatory. We conducted
four multiple hierarchical regression analyses with the following sets of At-Risk
Behaviors: a) Fighting, b) Weapons, c) Bullying, and d) Victimization. Separate
multiple regression analyses were conducted for Asian Americans and Latinos.
Fighting. The regression equation conducted with Fighting failed to show
any significant effect of Ethnic Identity Belonging or Exploration on the number
of Fights Asian American students were involved in (see Table 7). However, the
results showed that Social Self-Efficacy and Academic Self-Efficacy significantly
predicted Fighting, R2= .17, adjusted R2 = .11. For Latinos, the results showed that
neither the Ethnic Identity nor the Self-Efficacy variables had an impact on
Fighting. The only variable that predicted Fighting was Gender such that more
male Latinos than female Latinos were involved in Fighting, R2 = .15, adjusted R2
= .09 (see Table 8). It appears that the degree to which respondents explored or
experienced a sense of belonging to their own ethnic group did not impact the
number of Fights they participated in. The degree to which Self-Efficacy predicted
Fighting was greater than Ethnic Identity but somewhat mixed given that Social
and Academic Self-Efficacy predicted the number of Fights for Asian American
respondents but not for their Latino counterparts.
Weapons. Findings from the regression equation for rates of carrying a
Weapon showed that Grade and Generational Status significantly predicted the
carrying of Weapons for Asian American respondents. When these variables were
44
controlled for, Ethnic Identity Belonging significantly predicted the carrying of
Weapons, R2 = .10, adjusted R2 = .06, as did Self-Regulatory Self-Efficacy, R2=
.22, adjusted R2 = .15, with the latter having more of an impact with this outcome
variable. For the Latino group, the results failed to show any of the Ethnic Identity
or Self-Efficacy variables predict the carrying of Weapons. It appears that one
component of Ethnic Identity, Belonging, impacted the carrying of Weapons more
so than the other, Exploration. However, Self-Regulatory Self-Efficacy predicted
this At-Risk Behavior more so than did Ethnic Identity. These results, though,
were mixed given that they were applicable only to the Asian American sample.
Bullying. The results from the regression equation with Bullying failed to
show any significance with Ethnic Identity Belonging or Exploration in relation to
the Bullying of others for the Asian American respondents. However, the results
showed that Social Self-Efficacy and Academic Self-Efficacy predicted the
Bullying of others, R2= .23, adjusted R2 = .17. With Latinos, the results for
Bullying showed that Generational Status and Exploration accounted for a
significant portion of the variability, R2 = .15, adjusted R2 = .09. However, none of
the Self-Efficacy variables significantly predicted the Bullying of others for the
Latino respondents. These findings showed that Ethnic Identity Exploration
predicted the Bullying of others but only for the Latino respondents. Consistent
45
Table 7
Hierarchical Regression Analyses Using Ethnic Identity and Self-Efficacy to
Predict At-Risk Behaviors in Asian Americans
Step and Variable
B
SE B
β
p
∆R2
Total R2
.06
.06
.01
.07
.10
.17
Dependent variable: Actual Fights
Step 1
Gender*
Grade
Generational Status
Step 2
Gender*
Grade
Generational Status
Exploration
Belonging
Step 3
Gender
Grade
Generational Status
-.90
-.09
-.17
.35
..34
.32
-.25
-.03
-.05
.01
.79
.60
-.90
-.05
-.12
.36
.35
.32
-.25
-.10
-.04
.01
.90
.72
.50
-.11
.47
.46
.12
-.03
.29
.82
-.59
.11
-.28
.35
.34
.33
-.16
.03
-.08
.10
.74
.40
Exploration
Belonging
.51
-.05
.45
.49
.12
-.01
.26
.91
Academic*
Social*
Self-Regulatory
-.80
.90
-.26
.32
.30
.19
-.28
.34
-.15
.01
.00
.17
46
Step and Variable
B
SE B
β
p
∆R2
Total R2
.07
.07
.03
.10
.12
.22
Dependent variable: Carrying Weapons
Step 1
Gender
Grade
Generational status
.11
.33
.29
.17
.17
.16
.06
.19
.17
.51
.05
.06
Step 2
Gender
Grade
Generational status
.04
.31
.28
.17
.17
.16
.02
.18
.17
.84
.06
.07
.20
-.42
.22
.22
.10
-.21
.37
.05
.12
.40
.40
.17
.16
.16
.07
.22
.24
.46
.01
.01
Exploration
Belonging
.12
-.08
.21
.23
.06
-.04
.59
.72
Academic
Social
Self-regulatory*
-.13
-.02
-.29
.15
.14
.09
-.09
-.02
-.33
.39
.90
.00
Exploration
Belonging
Step 3
Gender
Grade*
Generational status*
47
Step and Variable
B
SE B
β
p
∆R2
Total
R2
.02
.02
.01
.03
.20
.23
Dependent variable: Bullying
Step 1
Gender
Grade
Generational status
Step 2
Gender
Grade
Generational status
Exploration
Belonging
Step 3
Gender
Grade
Generational status
-.08
-.17
-.02
.13
.13
.12
-.06
-.13
-.02
.54
.19
.84
-.04
-.15
-.02
.13
.13
.12
-.03
-.12
-.01
.78
.23
.89
-.09
.22
.17
.17
-.06
.15
.60
.20
.10
-.11
-.14
.12
.12
.11
.07
-.08
-.11
.43
.37
.23
Exploration
Belonging
-.02
.18
.16
.17
-.01
.13
.91
.29
Academic*
Social*
Self-regulatory
-.54
.46
-.01
.12
.11
.07
-.51
.48
-.01
.00
.00
.91
48
Step and Variable
B
SE B
β
p
∆R2
Total R2
Dependent variable: Victimization
Step 1
Gender
Grade
Generational status
-.12
-.09
-.02
.15
.15
.14
-.08
-.06
-.02
.42
.52
.87
Step 2
Gender
Grade
Generational status
-.14
-.10
-.02
.15
.15
.14
-.09
-.06
-.01
.35
.52
.88
.10
-.14
.20
.20
.06
-.08
.62
.49
-.09
-.06
.00
.16
.15
.15
-.06
-.04
.00
.57
.69
.99
Exploration
Belonging
.06
-.08
.20
.22
.04
-.05
.77
.70
Academic
Social
Self-regulatory
-.04
.15
-.13
.15
.14
.09
-.03
.14
-.18
.80
.29
.13
Exploration
Belonging
Step 3
Gender
Grade
Generational status
.01
.01
.00
.01
.03
.04
49
Table 8
Hierarchical Regression Analyses Using Ethnic Identity and Self-Efficacy to
Predict At-Risk Behaviors in Latinos
Step and Variable
B
SE B
β
p
∆R2
Total R2
.12
.12
.01
.13
.05
.18
Dependent variable: Actual Fights
Step 1
Gender*
Grade
Generational Status
-1.40
1.02
.47
.68
.65
.33
-.23
.17
.16
.04
.12
.17
Step 2
Gender*
Grade
Generational Status
-1.48
1.07
.44
..69
.68
.34
-.24
.18
.15
.04
.12
.20
.69
-.87
.94
.73
.11
-.17
.47
.24
-1.44
.88
.55
.69
.69
.35
-.24
.15
.18
.04
.21
.12
Exploration
Belonging
.90
-.80
.98
.73
.15
-.16
.36
.28
Academic
Social
Self-Regulatory
-.53
.89
-.64
.65
.72
.38
-.11
.18
-.22
.42
.22
.09
Exploration
Belonging
Step 3
Gender*
Grade
Generational Status
50
Step and Variable
B
SE B
β
p
∆R2
Total R2
.06
.06
.00
.06
.12
.14
Dependent variable: Carrying Weapons
Step 1
Gender
Grade
Generational status
-.47
.22
.03
.24
.23
.12
-.22
.10
.03
.51
.05
.06
Step 2
Gender
Grade
Generational status
-.47
.20
.03
.25
.25
.12
-.22
.10
.03
.84
.06
.07
-.06
.11
.34
.27
-.03
.06
.37
.06
-.49
.14
.09
.25
.25
.12
-.23
.07
.08
.46
.01
.01
Exploration
Belonging
.07
.10
.35
.26
.03
.06
.59
.72
Academic
Social
Self-regulatory*
.40
-.47
-.16
.23
.26
.13
.25
-.27
-.16
.39
.90
.00
Exploration
Belonging
Step 3
Gender
Grade*
Generational status*
51
Step and Variable
B
SE B
β
p
∆R2
Total R2
.09
.09
.05
.14
.01
.15
Dependent variable: Bullying
Step 1
Gender
Grade
Generational status*
.09
.16
.20
.16
.16
.08
.07
.11
.18
.56
.31
.02
Step 2
Gender
Grade
Generational status*
.03
.10
.21
.16
.16
.08
.02
.07
.30
.88
.54
.01
.46
-.20
.22
.17
.31
-.16
.04
.26
.03
.08
.23
.17
.17
.08
.02
.06
.32
.86
.64
.01
Exploration
Belonging
.48
-.19
.24
.18
.33
-.16
.05
.28
Academic
Social
Self-regulatory
.04
.02
-.08
.16
.17
.09
.04
.01
-.12
.79
.92
.37
Exploration*
Belonging
Step 3
Gender
Grade
Generational status*
52
Step and Variable
B
SE B
β
p
∆R2
Total R2
.02
.02
.06
.08
.03
.11
Dependent variable: Victimization
Step 1
Gender
Grade
Generational status
-.12
.14
.08
.21
.20
.10
-.07
.08
.09
.57
.47
.46
Step 2
Gender
Grade
Generational status
-.21
.06
.10
.21
.20
.10
-.12
.04
.11
.33
.77
.34
.59
-.24
.28
.22
.33
-.17
.04
.27
-.17
.12
.09
.21
.21
.10
-.10
.07
.10
.41
.58
.41
Exploration
Belonging
.46
-.27
.30
.22
.25
-.19
.13
.22
Academic
Social
Self-regulatory
.28
-.01
.01
.20
.22
.11
.21
-.01
.01
.16
.96
.92
Exploration*
Belonging
Step 3
Gender
Grade
Generational status
with results for the previous two At-Risk Behaviors, Self-Efficacy predicted the
Bullying of others for the Asian American respondents. Again, these findings are
mixed given the differences between our two ethnic groups with this At-Risk
Behavior.
Victimization. The results from the regression equation with Victimization
failed to show any significance with the Ethnic Identity or Self-Efficacy variables
53
for both the Asian American and Latino respondents. Of the four At-Risk
Behaviors, Victimization was impacted the least by the Ethnic Identity and SelfEfficacy variables included in this study.
Table 9
Predictors of At-Risk Behaviors for Asian American and Latino Respondents
At-Risk
Behavior
Fighting
Asian American
Predictors
Academic Self-Efficacy
Social Self-Efficacy
Weapons
Grade
Generational Status
Ethnic Identity Belonging
Self-Regulatory Self-Efficacy
Bullying
Academic Self-Efficacy
Social Self-Efficacy
Latino
Predictors
Gender
Generational Status
Ethnic Identity Exploration
Victimization
In summary, our findings were mixed given that the Ethnic Identity and
Self-Efficacy variables did not clearly predict At-Risk Behaviors for our Asian
American and Latino respondents. The results did show that Ethnic Identity
predicted only the risk behaviors of carrying of Weapons for the Asian American
respondents and the Bullying of others for the Latino respondents (Table 9). SelfEfficacy was a stronger predictor for Fighting, carrying of Weapons, and the
Bullying of others for Asian Americans but not for Latinos.
54
Self-Efficacy as a Mediator
Our findings thus far have shown two different models of the
interrelationship among Ethnic Identity, Self-Efficacy, and At-Risk Behaviors for
Asian American and Latino adolescents. As previously stated, we were interested
to examine whether or not Self-Efficacy mediates the relationship between Ethnic
Identity and At-Risk Behaviors such as Fighting, carrying a Weapon, and
Bullying of others. To determine whether Self-Efficacy mediated the relationship
between Ethnic Identity and various types of At-Risk Behaviors, a three-step
statistical approach was used following the procedures described by Baron and
Kenny (1986). Using multiple regression analyses, mediation occurs if Ethnic
Identity significantly predicts At-Risk Behaviors (Step 1), Ethnic Identity predicts
Self-Efficacy (Step 2), and Self-Efficacy predicts At-Risk Behaviors (Step 3). In
Step 3, mediation occurs when the effect of Ethnic Identity is controlled for and
any previous significant relationship between Ethnic Identity and At-Risk
Behaviors is reduced or is no longer significant.
To test this meditational model, we entered Ethnic Identity and SelfEfficacy variables into multiple regressions for each of the four At-Risk
Behaviors: Fighting, Weapons, Bullying, and Victimization. The variables were
entered as blocks in the following order: a) demographic control variables, b)
Ethnic Identity variables, and c) Self-Efficacy variables. In Step 1, the results
showed that Ethnic Identity Belonging predicted only carrying Weapons for Asian
Americans and that Ethnic Identity Exploration predicted only Bullying of others
55
for Latinos. Thus, Step 1 was partially satisfied for one of the four At-Risk
Behaviors for both Asian Americans and Latinos in the meditational model. In
Step 2, the results showed that Ethnic Identity Belonging predicted Academic,
Social, and Self-Regulatory Self-Efficacy for Asian Americans and that Ethnic
Identity Exploration predicted Academic Self-Efficacy and Social Self-Efficacy
for Latinos. Thus, Step 2 was partially satisfied in the meditational model for all
of the Self-Efficacy variables for Asian Americans and two of the three SelfEfficacy variables for Latinos. In Step 3, findings showed that Academic, Social,
and Self-Regulatory Self-Efficacy predicted Fighting, carrying Weapons, and
Bullying of others for Asian Americans only. Thus, Step 3 was partially satisfied
in the meditational model for three of the four At-Risk Behaviors for Asian
Americans. As shown by the reduction of beta weights associated with the Ethnic
Identity variables and the significance of the Self-Efficacy variables, our findings
indicated that Self-Efficacy in part mediated the relationship between Ethnic
Identity and At-Risk Behaviors with Asian Americans. All of the regression
models that were significant showed the influence of a developed Ethnic Identity
and increased Self-Efficacy in reducing participation in At-Risk Behaviors.
In general, support was found for the indirect effect of Ethnic Identity on
At-Risk Behaviors but only for our Asian American sample. It appears that Ethnic
Identity influenced participants’ Self-Efficacy which then predicted At-Risk
Behaviors. That is, the more our Asian American participants learned about their
ethnic background and identified with it, the greater confidence they held in their
56
own abilities, the less likely they were to engage in Fights, carry Weapons, or
Bully others.
We furthermore tested this mediation model through the Sobel test (Sobel,
1990). The Sobel test is a more conservative test than the hierarchical regression.
It isolates the variables, which allows the mediation to be examined more closely.
This test was used to determine whether the reduction in the relationship between
Ethnic Identity and At-Risk Behaviors was significant. For both Asian Americans
and Latinos, we selected the independent and mediator variables that were
significant in steps one and two of the regression equations. For Asian Americans,
Belonging served as the predictor variable, and Academic, Social, and SelfRegulatory Self-Efficacy served as mediators separately. With Latinos,
Exploration served as the independent variable, and Academic and Social SelfEfficacy served as mediators separately. For both groups, all four dependent
variables (Fighting, Weapon, Bullying and Victimization) were examined. Thus,
12 separate tests were conducted for Asian Americans and 8 separate tests were
conducted for Latinos. The results based on the Sobel test showed that Academic
Self-Efficacy mediated the relationship between Belonging and Bullying (p < .05)
for the Asian American sample (see Figure 2). Additionally, the relationship
between Belonging and rates of carrying a Weapon was marginally mediated by
Self-Regulatory Self-Efficacy (p = .05) for this sample (Table 10). None of the
mediation tests were significant for the Latino sample.
57
Figure 2. A model of how academic self-efficacy mediates the relationship
between ethnic identity belonging and bullying.
Academic
Self-Efficacy
.34
.51
Ethnic Identity
Belonging
.20
Bullying
Table 10
Self-Efficacy as a Mediator between Ethnic Identity and At-Risk Behavior for
Asian Americans
β
SE B
p
Sobel test
z-score
1 Belonging (predictor)  Academic Self-Efficacy
(mediator)  Bullying (outcome)
-.14
.06
.02
-2.30*
2 Belonging (predictor)  Regulatory Self-Efficacy
(mediator) Weapons (outcome)
-.14
.07
.05
-1.92a
*p < .05; ap = .05
58
Chapter 8
DISCUSSION
This study set out to explore the interrelationship among ethnic identity,
self-efficacy and at-risk behaviors among Asian American and Latino youth. A
strong ethnic identity has been linked with greater levels of self-esteem, selfconfidence, and improved mental health (Kiang et al., 2006; Mossakowski, 2003;
Phinney et al., 1997; Roberts et al., 1999; Umaña-Taylor & Updegraff, 2007). It
can also serve as a buffer against negative experiences, including stress and
discrimination (Mossakowksi, 2003). The literature on self-efficacy demonstrates
its importance as a psychological resource. While much of the literature has
focused on academic self-efficacy, a growing body of work focuses on the role of
self-efficacy to reduce substance abuse and participation in aggressive behaviors
and to increase prosocial behaviors (Bandura, 1993; Bandura et al., 1996; Bandura
et al., 2001; Caprara et al., 2002; Smith et al., 1999). Drawing on these bodies of
work, we tested four hypotheses. In the first hypothesis, we expected that ethnic
identity would reduce the amount of participation in at-risk behaviors. In the
second hypothesis, we anticipated that a stronger ethnic identity would lead to
greater academic, social, and self-regulatory self-efficacy. For our third
hypothesis, we believed that greater self-efficacy would reduce participation in atrisk behaviors. Finally, we anticipated that self-efficacy would mediate the
relationship between ethnic identity and at-risk behaviors.
59
Hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to test these hypotheses
for our Asian American and Latino sample. Demographic variables (Gender,
Grade, and Generational Status) were entered as control variables, followed by
Ethnic Identity variables (Exploration and Belonging), and finally Self-Efficacy
variables (Academic, Social, and Self-Regulatory). These analyses looked at the
influence of these variables on four at-risk behaviors (Fighting, carrying a
Weapon, Bullying and Victimization). Separate regression analyses were
conducted for Asian American and Latino groups. The Sobel test (Sobel, 1990)
was used to assess the meditational role of self-efficacy in the relationship
between ethnic identity and at-risk behaviors.
The results of these analyses are organized in the following manner. The
first section presents findings concerning the role of ethnic identity in at-risk
behaviors. The second section focuses on the role of ethnic identity in selfefficacy. The next section shares the results on self-efficacy and its role in at-risk
behaviors and the role of self-efficacy as a mediator between ethnic identity and
at-risk behavior. The final section addresses limitations and directions for future
research.
Ethnic Identity and At-Risk Behavior
The first goal was to examine the role of ethnic identity in at-risk
behaviors. Our expectation that ethnic identity would decrease participation in atrisk behaviors was partially supported, with one of the four at-risk behaviors
reaching significance. Specifically, Belonging was significant in predicting
60
carrying a weapon in Asian Americans. The relationship showed that as our Asian
American respondents developed a greater sense of belonging to their own ethnic
group, they were less likely to carry a weapon at school. However, none of the
other at-risk behaviors were predicted by either this ethnic identity component or
exploration for this group. Belonging refers to a sense of attachment and
commitment to one’s ethnic group, which may help to reduce social isolation.
This sense of belonging can lead to intergroup camaraderie where group members
stick together and defend each other, potentially reducing the need to carry a
Weapon at school. Surprisingly, ethnic identity exploration significantly predicted
bullying, but did not predict other at-risk behaviors, for our Latino respondents.
One possible explanation for the increase in bullying with exploration in Latinos
is that they may feel the need to engage in external display and be more
aggressive and bully others as they become more identified with their group.
Another possible explanation is that they are trying to prove themselves to their
peers to seek identification with a group, which may result in more aggressive
behavior.
The other findings that failed to show a significant relationship between
ethnic identity and at-risk behaviors were surprising given that previous studies
have demonstrated the benefits of a developed ethnic identity in relation to at-risk
behavior. Prior studies have found that a stronger ethnic identity can reduce use of
illicit drugs (Kulis et al., 2002) and involvement in aggressive behaviors
(McMahon & Watts, 2002). Ethnic identity has also been related to increased non-
61
violent strategies to manage problems (Arbona et al., 1999), and better coping
strategies for dealing with negative experiences such as discrimination
(Mossakowski, 2003). The differing results may be due to the age of the
participants. Ethnic identity development begins in early adolescence and
continues to develop with increasing age (Phinney, 1990). Given the age of the
participants in this study, they may still be in the earlier stages of their ethnic
identity development and may not experience the benefits of a well-developed
identity. This may have been the case with our Latino respondents but not with
our Asian American respondents who reported a greater sense of belonging to
their ethnic group.
Ethnic Identity and Self-Efficacy
Our next goal was to examine the role of ethnic identity in self-efficacy.
The results supported our expectations that a stronger ethnic identity would
predict increased levels of academic, social, and self-regulatory self-efficacy.
Findings showed that a sense of belonging predicted academic, social, and selfregulatory self-efficacy for the Asian Americans respondents, whereas exploration
predicted academic and social self-efficacy for the Latinos respondents.
According to Phinney (1990), exploration means that one is still exploring and in
the process of becoming more identified with one’s own ethnic group while
belonging suggests that one has a stronger sense of bond to one’s ethnic group.
These results suggest that our Latino respondents may still be in the process of
understanding more about their ethnic group, while our Asian American
62
respondents may have a stronger sense of belonging to their ethnic group. Our
Asian Americans sample may have had more opportunities to explore and
internalize beliefs about their culture. Related to this, it is possible that the Asian
American sample is more collectivistic than its Latino counterpart and engages in
less at-risk behaviors to protect family reputation. In other words, the more
collective nature of Asian Americans with the emphasis on harmony and saving
face may lead to greater self-efficacy in school and deter behaviors that would
bring shame (Triandis, 1995; Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998) The Latinos in this
sample may have had fewer opportunities to explore their ethnicity, and may lack
a cohesive community to foster their ethnic identity development in this setting.
In general, though, these findings demonstrate a relationship between
ethnic identity and self-efficacy and support previous research that shows ethnic
identity is related to increased self-efficacy (Smith et al., 1999; Swenson &
Prelow, 2005).
Self-Efficacy and At-Risk Behavior
We next examined the role of self-efficacy in at-risk behavior. The third
hypothesis stating that an increased self-efficacy would reduce participation in atrisk behaviors was only partially supported. The results revealed significant
relationships between self-efficacy variables and three of the four at-risk
behaviors, fighting, carrying a weapon, and bullying of others, for the Asian
American sample. Greater levels of social self-efficacy predicted increased reports
of fighting and bullying. In contrast, greater levels of academic self-efficacy
63
predicted reduced fighting and bullying and greater levels of self-regulatory selfefficacy predicted lower rates of carrying a weapon. None of the self-efficacy
variables predicted participation in any of the at-risk behaviors for Latinos. These
differences on self-efficacy are surprising but may be related to the different types
of self-efficacy adolescents may be operating with. It appears that those with
greater social self-efficacy feel they can negotiate different social situations, even
potentially risky ones. They may find themselves engaging in more aggressive
behavior because they believe they can handle difficult or risky situations. A
person with low social self-efficacy would most likely shy away from these
situations. Another possibility is that those with greater social self-efficacy may be
trying to prove themselves or show off their social skills in front of their peers to
earn respect and social status. This maybe a social skill that is both necessary
among and respected by peers in more urban settings where more direct
confrontations may be observed. These findings suggest that academic and selfregulatory can serve as protective factors by reducing fighting, bullying, and
carrying a weapon. Individuals with high levels of self-regulatory self-efficacy
believe in their self-control and are less inclined to carry a weapon. Those who
believe they can be successful in school are more focused on their academics and
are less inclined to participate in aggressive behaviors. These findings with
academic and self-regulatory self-efficacy are consistent with previous studies
showing that greater self-efficacy can lead to a greater ability to resist peer
64
pressure and reduce at-risk behaviors such as aggression (Bandura, 1993; Bandura
et al., 1996; Bandura et al., 2001; Caprara et al., 2002).
Self-Efficacy as a Mediator
Our final question focused on the role of self-efficacy as a mediator
between ethnic identity and at-risk behavior. Our expectations that self-efficacy
would mediate the relationship between ethnic identity and at-risk behaviors were
only partially supported. Specifically, social and academic self-efficacy mediated
the relationship between ethnic identity variables and both fighting and bullying
for our Asian American sample. Self-regulatory self-efficacy mediated the
relationship between belonging and carrying a weapon. The role of self-efficacy
as a mediator was evident in the reduction of the beta weights in the ethnic
identity variables. Though there were some significant relationships with the
Asian American sample, none of the relationships were significant for Latinos.
Using the Sobel test to verify the results, findings showed that the relationship
between belonging and bullying for Asian Americans was mediated by academic
self-efficacy but not by other self-efficacy variables. The relationship between
belonging and carrying a weapon was marginally mediated by self-regulatory selfefficacy for Asian Americans. The Sobel test failed to show any significant
models for Latinos.
It was difficult to assess the mediating role of self-efficacy between ethnic
identity and at-risk behaviors given the limited number of variables that were
significant for one ethnic group in the overall sample. Although previous research
65
has not examined the meditational effect of self-efficacy on the relationship
between ethnic identity and at-risk behaviors, some research has demonstrated
that the relationship between ethnic identity and self-efficacy can have positive
impact on a number of dimensions. For example, studies have shown that they
may be related to career goals and academic achievement (Kerpelman et al., 2008;
Gushue, 2006), greater prosocial attitudes (Smith et al., 1999), fewer depressive
symptoms, and a greater ability to manage challenging situations (Swenson &
Prelow, 2005).
Limitations & Implications of this Research
Given the lack of clarity in our findings, they should be viewed with
caution. One possible limitation is that students’ responses were based on selfreport. While this is an issue that affects all populations, adolescents may be at
greater risk to over or under report their behavior or attitudes, especially with atrisk behavior. We may have verified some forms of at-risk behavior with school
or district data collected annually, but there were limitations to the amount and
type of data we could acquire. Additionally, some of the experiences like personal
reports of bullying, victimization, and even carrying a weapon would be hard to
capture in an objective report because they would only convey incidents that were
substantive enough to warrant a written report. Many daily experiences of
bullying and victimization are subjective and often involve passive-aggressive
circumstances, which would most likely not show up in a district report. For
example, starting rumors or leaving people out of a group constitute bullying;
66
however, they may not reach an adequate threshold to be reported, even though
they are pervasive behaviors in schools. Similarly, carrying a weapon would be
hard to measure through a school or district because it would only capture those
individuals who were caught, and would not accurately reflect how many students
may have actually carried a weapon. However, it would be helpful for future
research to include student data from schools or districts that may capture rates of
aggressive behavior to note any similarities or differences in information.
An issue related to this involves the at-risk measure employed in this
study. The survey was created to asses a variety of at-risk behaviors at a particular
high school, but has not been validated on large samples (Mayeda, Hishinuma,
Nishimura, Garcia-Santiago, & Mark, 2006; Thornberry, Lizotte, Krohn, Smith, &
Tobin, 2003). Additionally, two of the four behaviors were assessed using only
one or two items. Two items were used to assess fighting, and inquired about the
number of times students participated in fights in the previous thirty days. The
assessment of carrying a weapon only consisted of one item that directly asked
students how many times in the previous month they had carried a weapon on
school property. This item does not clarify what constitutes a weapon, so students
could potentially have interpreted weapon differently. Although there is some
benefit to the open interpretation, it may have been helpful to have students write
in what type of weapon they carried to get an understanding of what they thought
was a weapon.
67
Another limitation concerns the SES level of the participants. This sample
consisted primarily of low SES ethnic minority seventh and eighth graders, which
limits the generalizability of the information. While attempts were made to
include a diverse range of participants, the sample was heavily Asian Americans
and Latinos. Future research should include a more diverse array of SES and more
participants from other groups to allow for comparisons between groups.
This study provides insight into protective factors such as ethnic identity
and self-efficacy in the formative years of early adolescence. Specifically, we
examined ethnic identity and self-efficacy in relation to rates of participation in atrisk behaviors. Although our findings only partially supported our hypotheses, this
study did demonstrate the importance of youth developing their ethnic identity as
well as self-efficacy to help protect against negative experiences.
Ethnic minority adolescents incur many social challenges daily, and
external and internal resources can provide strength to negotiate these challenges.
Although youth are still developing their identities and learning their strengths and
limitations, having a greater understanding of their ethnic identity and a greater
sense of academic, social, and self-regulatory self-efficacy can serve to protect
them against negative experiences and encourage prosocial behaviors. For those
working with youth, it would be important to support adolescents going through
identity development as it can serve to buffer them from negative experiences they
may incur at school or with peers.
68
APPENDIX A
Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure
In this country, people come from many different countries and cultures, and there are many
different words to describe the different backgrounds or ethnic groups that people come from.
Some examples of the names of ethnic groups are Hispanic or Latino, Black or African
American, Asian American, Chinese, Filipino, American Indian, Mexican American, Caucasian
or White, Italian American, and many others. These questions are about your ethnicity or your
ethnic group and how you feel about it or react to it.
Please fill in: In terms of ethnic group, I consider myself to be
Use the numbers given below to indicate how much you agree or disagree with each
statement.
strongly disagree
disagree
agree
strongly agree
1
2
3
4
1. I have spent time trying to find out more about my ethnic group,
such as its history, traditions, and customs.
2. I am active in organizations or social groups that include mostly
members of my own ethnic group.
3. I have a clear sense of my ethnic background and what it means
for me.
4. I think a lot about how my life will be affected by my ethnic group
membership.
5. I am happy that I am a member of the group I belong to.
6. I have a strong sense of belonging to my own ethnic group.
7. I understand pretty well what my ethnic group membership means
to me, in terms of how to relate to my own group and other groups.
8. In order to learn more about my ethnic background, I have often
talked to other people about my ethnic group.
9. I have a lot of pride in my ethnic group and its accomplishments.
10. I participate in cultural practices of my own group, such as special
food, music, or customs.
11. I feel a strong attachment towards my own ethnic group.
12. I feel good about my cultural or ethnic background.
SD
1
D A
2 3
SA
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
69
APPENDIX B
Children’s Perceived Self-Efficacy Scale
Use the numbers given below to indicate how much you agree or disagree with each
statement.
Strongly
Strongly
disagree
disagree
neutral
agree
agree
1
2
3
4
5
1. Learn general mathematics?
2. Learn geography?
3. Learn science?
4. Learn English literature?
5. Learn English grammar?
6. Learn History
7. Learn foreign languages?
8. Finish homework assignments by deadlines?
9. Study when there are other interesting things to do?
10. Concentrate on school subjects?
11. Take class notes of class instruction?
12. Use the library to get information for class assignments?
13. Organize your school work?
14. Plan your school work?
15. Remember information presented in class and textbooks?
16. Arrange a place to study without distractions?
17. Motivate yourself to do school work?
18. Participate in class discussions?
19. Learn sport skills?
20. Learn regular physical education activities?
21. Learn the skills needed for team sports (for example: basketball, volleyball, swimming,
football, soccer)?
22. Resist peer pressure to do things in school that can get you in trouble?
23. Stop yourself from skipping school when you feel bored or upset?
24. Resist peer pressure to smoke cigarettes?
25. Resist peer pressure to drink beer, wine or liquor?
26. Stand firm to someone who is asking you to do something unreasonable or
inconvenient?
27. Live up to what your parents expect of you?
28. Live up to what your teachers expect of you?
29. Live up to what your peers expect of you?
30. Live up to what you expect of yourself?
31. Make and keep female friends?
32. Make and keep male friends?
33. Carry on conversations with others?
34. Work in a group?
35. Express your opinions when other classmates disagree with you?
36. Stand up for yourself when you feel you are being treated unfairly?
37. Deal with situations where others are annoying you or hurting your feelings?
70
APPENDIX C
Asian/Pacific Islander Youth Violence Prevention Center Kailua High School
Survey
During the past 30 days...
0 Days 1 Day 2 or 3 Days 4 or 5 Days 6 or More Days
1. How many times did you carry a weapon such as a gun, knife or club on school
property?
2. How many times days did you not go to school because you felt you would be unsafe
at school or on your way to or from school?
-----------------During the past 30 days...
Never Once 2 or 3 times 4 or 5 times 6 or 7 times 8 or 9 times 10 or 11 times 12
or more times
3. How many times has someone threatened or injured you with a weapon such as a gun,
knife or club on school property?
4. How many times has someone stolen or deliberately damaged your property such as
clothing or books on school property?
5. How many times were you in a physical fight?
6. How many times were you in a physical fight on school property?
-----------------Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree about the following
statements about violence.
Strongly Disagree Disagree
1
2
Neutral
3
Agree
4
Strongly Agree
5
7. If a kid teases me or "disses" me, I usually cannot get them to stop unless I hit them.
8. It's ok to hit someone who hits you first.
9. If a student hits me first, my family would want me to hit them back.
10. My family would be mad at me if I got in a fight with another student, no matter the
reason.
11. Anyone who won't fight is going to be "picked on" even more.
12. If a kid at school hits me, it is harder to report them to a teacher or other adult than
it is to just hit them back.
13. It matters a lot to me what older students I look up to think of me.
14. If my friends are fighting, I have to back them up by getting involved in the fight.
15. Fights make school interesting.
16. By getting into fights, I can earn respect.
17. If a family member is fighting, I have to back them up by getting involved in the
fight.
18. If I get into a fight, some members of my family feel it is important for me to win to
hold up the family name.
71
In the last 30 days, how many times have you...
Never
Once
2-3 Times
4 or More
19. Not let another student be in your group anymore because you were mad at them?
20. Told another student you wouldn't like them unless they did what you wanted them
to do?
21. Tried to keep others from liking another student by saying mean things about
him/her?
22. Left another student out on purpose when it was time to do an activity?
23. Spread rumors or gossip to create drama?
24. Made up rumors because you were mad at the person?
25. Teased other students?
26. Called other students names?
27. Said you would hit a student?
28. Pushed, shoved or hit a student from your school?
29. Been teased by a student?
30. Been pushed, shoved or hit by a student?
31. Been told you were going to be hit by a student?
32. Been left out on purpose by a student?
33. Had something made up about you by a student?
72
APPENDIX D
Demographics Questionnaire
Please answer the following questions.
1. Your gender (check one):
Male
.
Female
.
2. Your ethnicity (please check all those that apply):
African American
Asian American / Pacific Islander
White (non-Latino/a)
Latino/Latina
Native Indian / Alaskan Native
Other (please specify):
3. Year in School (7th, 8th, etc.):
.
4. Please check ONE of the following that best describes your family history in the
U.S.
a. You, your parents, and your grandparents were born in another country
other than the U.S.
b. You were born in the U.S.; either or both parents, as well as grandparents,
were born in another country.
c. You were born in the U.S., both parents were born in the U.S. and all grandparents
were born in another country.
d. You were born in the U.S., both parents were born in the U.S. and at least
one grandparent was born in another country.
e. You, your parents, and all grandparents were born in the U.S.
5. If you chose (a) on question 4, where were you born?
6. If you chose (a) on question 4, how long have you lived in the U.S.?
7. How many years of school did your parents complete? (check one)
Less than 8th grade
8th grade
Some high school
Completed high school
Some college
Completed college
73
REFERENCES
Arbona, C., Jackson, R. H., McCoy, A., & Blakely, C. (1999). Ethnic identity as a
predictor of attitudes of adolescents toward fighting. The Journal of Early
Adolescence, 19(3), 323-340.
Arroyo, C. G., & Zigler, E. (1995). Racial identity, academic achievement, and
the psychological well-being of economically disadvantaged adolescents.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 903-914.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unified theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory.
Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 359-373.
Bandura, A. (1990). Multidimensional scales of perceived academic efficacy.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and
functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28, 117-148.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
human behavior (pp.71-81). New York: Academic Press.
Bandura, A., Barbarenelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996).
Multifaceted impact of self-efficacy beliefs on academic functioning.
Child Development, 67, 1206-1222.
74
Bandura, A., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., & Regalia, C. (2001).
Sociocognitive self-regulatory mechanisms governing transgressive
behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(1), 125-135.
Bandura, A., Pastorelli, C., Barbaranelli, C., & Caprara, G. V. (1999). Selfefficacy pathways to childhood depression. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 76(2), 258-269.
Beiser, M. N. M. N., & Hou, F. (2006). Ethnic identity, resettlement stress and
depressive affect among Southeast Asian refugees in Canada. Social
Science & Medicine, 63(1), 137-150.
Benson, P. L., & Donahue, M. J. (1989). Ten-year trends in at-risk behaviors: A
national study of Black adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 4,
125-139.
Bialer, I. (1961). Conceptualization of success and failure in mentally retarded and
normal children. In W. J. Perrig (Ed.), & A. Grob (Ed.), Control of Human
Behavior, Mental Processes, and Consciousness. Mahwah, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bollmer, J. M., Milich, R., Harris, M. J., & Maras, M. A. (2005). A friend in need:
The role of friendship quality as a protective factor in peer victimization
and bullying. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(6), 701-712.
Brindis, C. Wolfe, A. L. McCarter, V., & Ball, S. (1995). The associations
between immigrant status and risk-behavior patterns in Latino adolescents.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 17(2), 99-105.
75
Broman, C. L., Reckase, M. D., & Freedman-Doan, C. R. (2006). The role of
parenting in drug use among Black, Latino and White adolescents. Journal
of Ethnicity in Substance Abuse, 5(1), 39-50.
Brown, M. B., Aoshima, M., Bolen, L. M., Chia, R., & Kohyama, T. (2007).
Cross-cultural learning approaches in students from USA, Japan and
Taiwan. School Psychology International, 28(5), 592-604.
Cameron, J. E., & Lalonde, R. N. (1994). Self, ethnicity, and social group
memberships in two generations of Italian Canadians. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 514-520.
Caprara, G. V., Regalia, C., & Bandura, A. (2002). Longitudinal impact of
perceived self-regulatory efficacy on violent conduct. European
Psychologist, 7(1), 63-69.
Caprara, G. V., Scabini, E., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., Regalia, C., &
Bandura, A. (1998). Impact of adolescents' perceived self-regulatory
efficacy on familial communication and antisocial conduct. European
Psychologist, 3(2), 125-132.
Choi, Y., Harachi, T.W., Gillmore, M.R., & Catalano, R.F. (2006). Are multiracial
adolescents at greater risk? Comparisons of rates, patterns, and correlates
of substance use and violence between monoracial and multiracial
adolescents. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 76(1), 86-97.
Corneille, M. A., & Belgrave, F. Z. (2007). Ethnic identity, neighborhood risk,
and adolescent drug and sex attitudes and refusal efficacy: The urban
76
African American girls’ experience. Journal of Drug Education, 37(2),
177-190.
Dubow, E. F. Pargament, K. I., Boxer, P., & Tarakeshwar, N. (2000). Initial
investigation of Jewish early adolescents’ ethnic identity, stress, and
coping. Journal of Early Adolescence, 20, 418-441.
Eaton D.K., Brener N.D., Kann L., & Pittman V. (2007). High school student
responses to different question formats assessing race/ethnicity. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 41, 488–494.
Edelstein, W., Grundmann, M., & Mies, A. (2000). The development of internal
versus external control beliefs in developmentally relevant contexts of
children’s and adolescents’ lifeworlds. In W. J. Perrig & A. Grob (Eds.),
Control of Human Behavior, Mental Processes, and Consciousness.
Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. Oxford, England: Norton & Co.
Germán, M., Gonzales, N. A., & Dumka, L. (2009). Familism values as a
protective factor for Mexican-origin adolescents exposed to deviant peers.
The Journal of Early Adolescence, 29(1), 16-42.
Gonzales, N. A., Tein, J., Sandler, I. N., & Friedman, R. J. (2001). On the limits
of coping: Interaction between stress and coping for inner-city adolescents.
Journal of Adolescent Research, 16(4), 372-395.
77
Goodstein, R., & Ponterotto, J. (1997). Racial and ethnic identity: Their
relationship and their contribution to self-esteem. Journal of Black
Psychology, 23, 275–292.
Gurin, P., Hurtado, A., & Peng, T. (1994). Group contacts and ethnicity in the
social identities of Mexicanos and Chicanos. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 20, 521-532.
Gushue, G. V. (2006). The relationship of ethnic identity, career decision-making
self-efficacy and outcome expectations among Latino/a high school
students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(1), 85-95.
Hammack, P. L., Richards, M. H., Luo, Z., Edlynn, E. S., & Roy, K. (2004).
Social support factors as moderators of community violence exposure
among inner-city African American young adolescents. Journal of Clinical
Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33(3), 450-462.
Holcomb-McCoy, C. (2005). Ethnic identity development in early adolescence:
Implications and recommendations for middle school counselors.
Professional School Counseling, 9(2), 120-127.
Jagers, R. J., & Mock, L. O. (1993). Culture and social outcomes among innercity African American children: An Afrographic exploration. Journal of
Black Psychology, 19(4), 391-405.
Kerpelman, J. L., Eryigit, S., & Stephens, C. J. (2008). African American
adolescents' future education orientation: Associations with self-efficacy,
78
ethnic identity, and perceived parental support. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 37(8), 997-1008.
Kiang, L., Yip, T., Gonzales-Backen, M., Witkow, M., & Fuligni, A. J. (2006).
Ethnic identity and the daily psychological well-being of adolescents from
Mexican and Chinese backgrounds. Child Development, 77(5), 1338-1350.
Kim-Ju, G. M., & Liem, R. (2003). Ethnic self-awareness as a function of ethnic
group status, group composition, and ethnic identity orientation. Cultural
Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 9(3), 289-302.
Kulis, S., Napoli, M., & Marsiglia, F. F. (2002). Ethnic pride, biculturalism, and
drug use norms of urban American Indian adolescents. Social Work
Research, 26, 101-112.
Lefcourt, H. M. (1976). Locus of control and the response to aversive events.
Canadian Psychological Review 17(3), 202-209.
Liu, J. H., Lawrence, B., Ward, C., & Abraham, S. (2002). Social representations
of history in Malaysia and Singapore: On the relationship between national
and ethnic identity. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 3-20.
Love, A. S., Yin, Z., Codina, E., & Zapata, J. T. (2006). Ethnic identity and risky
health behaviors in school-age Mexican-American children. Psychological
Reports, 98(3), 735-744.
Malcarne, V. L., Drahota, A., & Hamilton, N. A. (2005). Children’s health-related
locus of control beliefs: Ethnicity, gender and family income. Children’s
Heath Care, 34(1), 47-59.
79
Marcia, J. (1980). Identity in adolescence. In J. Adelson (Ed.), Handbook of
adolescent psychology (pp. 159-187). New York: Wiley.
Marsal, E. S. (2009). Spirituality as a protective factor against female gang
membership. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment,
19(3), 231-241.
Mayeda, D. T., Hishinuma, E. S., Nishimura, S. T., Garcia-Santiago, O., & Mark,
G. Y. (2006). Asian/Pacific Islander Youth Violence Prevention Center:
Interpersonal violence and deviant behaviors among youth in Hawai’i.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 39(2), 1-11.
McGuire, W. J., McGuire, C. V., Child, P., & Fujioka, T. (1978). Salience of
ethnicity in the spontaneous self-concept as a function of one’s ethnic
distinctiveness in the social environment. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 36(5), 511-520.
McMahon, S. D., & Watts, R. J. (2002). Ethnic identity in urban African
American youth: Exploring links with self-worth, aggression, and other
psychosocial variables. Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 411-431.
Milot, A. S., & Ludden, A. B. (2009). The effects of religion and gender on wellbeing, substance use, and academic engagement among rural adolescents.
Youth & Society, 40(3), 403-425.
Mossakowski, K. (2003). Coping with perceived discrimination: Does ethnic
identity protect mental health? Journal of Health and Social Behavior,
44(3), 318-331.
80
Oyserman, D., & Sakamoto, I. (1997). Being Asian American: Identity, cultural
constructs, and stereotype perception. Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 33(4), 435-453.
Pastorelli, C., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Rolo, J., Rozsa, S., & Bandura, A.
(2001). The structure of children's perceived self-efficacy: A crossnational study. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17(2), 8797.
Patrick, B. C., Skinner, E. A., & Connell, J. P. (1993). What motivates children’s
behavior and emotion? Joint effects of perception control and autonomy in
the academic domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
65(4), 781-791.
Phinney, J. S. (1989). Stages of ethnic identity in minority group adolescents.
Journal of Early Adolescence, 9, 34-39.
Phinney, J. S. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: Review of
research. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 499-514.
Phinney, J. S. (1992). The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure: A new scale for
use with diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7, 156-176.
Phinney, J. S. & Alipuria, L. (1990). Ethnic identity in college students from four
ethnic groups. Journal of Adolescence, 13, 171-184.
Phinney, J. S., Cantu, C. L., & Kurtz, D. A. (1997). Ethnic and American identity
as predictors of self-esteem among African American, Latino, and White
adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26(2), 165-185.
81
Phinney, J. S., Jacoby, B., & Silva, C. (2007). Positive intergroup attitudes: The
role of ethnic identity. International Journal of Behavioral Development,
31(5), 478-490.
Phinney, J. S., & Ong, A. D. (2007). Conceptualization and measurement of
ethnic identity: Current status and future directions. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 54(3), 271-281.
Phinney, J. S., Romero, I., Nava, M., & Huang, D. (2001). The role of language,
parents, and peers in ethnic identity among adolescents in immigrant
families. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 30(2), 135-153.
Phinney, J. S., & Rosenthal, D. A. (1992). Ethnic identity in adolescence: Process,
context, and outcome. In G. R. Adams (Ed.), T. P. Gullotta (Ed.), & R.
Montemayor (Ed.), Adolescent Identity Formation (pp. 145-172).
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Pugh, L. A., & Bry, B. H. (2007). The protective effects of ethnic identity for
alcohol and marijuana use among Black young adults. Cultural Diversity
and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13(2), 187-193.
Regnerus, M. D., & Elder, G. H. (2003). Religion and vulnerability among lowrisk adolescents. Social Science Research, 32(4), 633-658.
Roberts, R. E., Phinney, J. S., Masse, L. C., Chen, R., Roberts, C. R., & Romero,
A. (1999). The structure of ethnic identity of young adolescents from
diverse ethnocultural groups. Journal of Early Adolescence, 19(3), 301322.
82
Rotheram, M. J., & Phinney, J. S. (1987). Introduction: Definitions and
perspectives in the study of children’s ethnic socialization. In J. S. Phinney
& M. J. Rotheram (Eds.), Children’s ethnic socialization: Pluralism and
development (pp. 10-28). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control
of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General & Applied, 80(1),
1-28.
Schwartz, S. J., Zamboanga, B. L., & Jarvis, L. H. (2007). Ethnic identity and
acculturation in Hispanic early adolescents: Mediated relationships to
academic grades, prosocial behaviors, and externalizing symptoms.
Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13(4), 364-373.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development, and death.
New York, NY: W H Freeman/Times Books/ Henry Holt & Co.
Skinner, E. A. (1995). Perceived control, motivation, and coping. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Skinner, E. A., & Chapman, M. (1987). Resolution of a developmental paradox:
How can perceived internal increase, decrease, and remain the same across
middle childhood. Developmental Psychology, 23(1), 44-48.
Smith, E. P., Walker, K., Fields, L., Brookins, C. C., & Seay, R. C. (1999). Ethnic
identity and its relationship to self-esteem, perceived efficacy and
prosocial attitudes in early adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 867880.
83
Sobel, M. E. (1990). Effect analysis and causation in linear structural equation
models. Psychometrika, 55, 495–515.
Soriano, F, I., Rivera, L. M., Williams, K. J., Daley, S. P., & Reznik, V. M.
(2004). Navigating between cultures: the role of culture in youth violence.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 34(3), 169-176.
Spencer, M. S., Icard, L. D., Harachi, T. W., Catalano, R. F., & Oxford, M.
(2000). Ethnic identity among monoracial and multiracial early
adolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 20(4), 365-387.
Swenson, R. R., & Prelow, H. M. (2005). Ethnic identity, self-esteem, and
perceived efficacy as mediators of the relation of supportive parenting to
psychosocial outcomes among urban adolescents. Journal of Adolescence,
28, 465-477.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict.
In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup
Relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.
Thornberry, T. P., Lizotte, A. J., Krohn, M. D., Smith, C. A., & Porter, P. K.
(2003). Causes and consequences of delinquency: Findings from the
Rochester Youth Development Study. In T. P. Thornberry & M. D. Krohn
(Eds.), Taking stock of delinquency: An overview of findings from
84
contemporary longitudinal studies (pp. 11-46). New York: Kluwer
Academic/ Plenum Publishers.
Ting-Toomey, S., & Kurogi, A. (1998). Face-work competence in intercultural
conflict: An updated face-negotiation theory. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 22, 187-225.
Triandis, H. C. (2001). Individualism-collectivism and personality. Journal of
Personality 69(6), 907-924.
Ting-Toomey, S., & Kurogi, A. (1998). Face-work competence in intercultural
conflict: an updated face-negotiation theory. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 22, 187-225.
Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & McGarty, C. (1994). Self and
collective: Cognition and social context. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 20, 454-463.
Umaña-Taylor, A. J., & Updegraff, K. A. (2007). Latino adolescents’ mental
health: Exploring the interrelations among discrimination, ethnic identity,
cultural orientation, self-esteem, and depressive symptoms. Journal of
Adolescence, 30, 549-567.
Yasui, M., Dorham, C. L., & Dishion, T. J. (2004) Ethnic identity and
psychological adjustment: A validity analysis for European American and
African American adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19(6),
807-825.
85
Yip, T., & Fuligni, A. J. (2002). Daily variation in ethnic identity, ethnic
behaviors, and psychological well-being among American adolescents of
Chinese descent. Child Development, 73(5), 1557-1572.