Homework Help is Here – Start Your Trial Now!
Social Science
Psychology
What were the primary theory, research questions, and hypotheses?

What were the primary theory, research questions, and hypotheses?

Ciccarelli: Psychology_5 (5th Edition)
Ciccarelli: Psychology_5 (5th Edition)
5th Edition
ISBN:9780134477961
Author:Saundra K. Ciccarelli, J. Noland White
Publisher:Saundra K. Ciccarelli, J. Noland White
Chapter1: The Science Of Psychology
Section: Chapter Questions
Problem 1TY
See similar textbooks
icon
Related questions
Question

What were the primary theory, research questions, and hypotheses? 

Umaña-Taylor & Guimond, 2010), African Ameri- can late (but not middle adolescents; Seaton et al., 2009), and Chinese early (but not late) adolescents (Hou, Kim, Wang, Shen, & Orozco-Lapray, 2015). Regarding public regard, scholars have sug- gested both that discrimination experiences increase awareness of low public regard and individuals who have lower public regard may be more likely to perceive ambiguous situations as ethnic-racial discrimination. Four longitudinal studies have examined the relation between discrimination and public regard during adolescence. Seaton et al. (2009) found that African American middle adoles- cents who reported more discrimination reported lower public regard 1 year later. In addition, between the second and third assessments, those who reported lower public regard reported higher discrimination later on. Butler-Barnes et al. (2018) found that school-based discrimination was associ- ated with lower public regard among adolescent girls but not among adolescent boys. However, non-significant relations between discrimination and public regard have also been reported among African American college freshmen (Sellers & Shel- ton, 2003) and among Latino high school students (Stein, Taylor, Kulish, & Gonzalez, 2017). In sum, the small body of literature that has examined relations over time between discrimina- tion and content components of identity have pro- duced varied results. Notably, these studies differ from each other in critical ways, including sample characteristics (ethnic-racial background, immigrant status, stage of adolescence), sample size (from under 200 to over 1,000), study design (from two to six waves), and analytic approach (within-person vs. between-person analysis). As a result, studies have provided empirical support for multiple exist- ing frameworks that pose contradictory proposi- tions. Thus, substantial work is required to further understand the pattern of extant findings. Peer Versus Non-Peer Sources of Ethnic-Racial Discrimination and Ethnic-Racial Identity Peers are pivotal actors in adolescents' social worlds. Adolescents are more interested in spend- ing time and fitting in with their peers than with other people with whom they have relationships (Brown & Larson, 2009), and their sense of affirma- tion and belonging is closely tied to peer acceptance and approval (Blakemore, 2008). Peers also play an important role in shaping adolescents' ethnic-racial identities (Umaña-Taylor et al., 2014). Studies have found that the presence of co-ethnic peers can Ethnic-Racial Identity and Discrimination e109 support and affirm youths' ethnic-racial identities (Kiang, Witkow, Baldelomar, & Fuligni, 2010; Phin- ney, Romero, Nava, & Huang, 2001), that a more ethnically racially diverse friend group is associated with increased exploration (Rivas-Drake, Umaña- Taylor, Schaefer, & Medina, 2017), and that schools' ethnic-racial diversity can modulate peers' influence on adolescents' identity regard (Santos, Kornienko, & Rivas-Drake, 2017). A handful of studies have found that discrimina- tion from peers may be especially relevant to iden- tity processes relative to discrimination from adults. For example, more frequent discrimination from peers but not from adults has been found to predict greater exploration among ninth and tenth grade Black and Latino adolescents (Pahl & Way, 2006), less favorable private regard among Black, Latino, and Asian sixth grade adolescents (Rivas-Drake et al., 2009), and lower public regard among White, Black, and Latino high school students with an achieved identity statuses (Douglass & Umaña-Tay- lor, 2017). Douglass and Umaña-Taylor (2017) sug- gested that adolescents may be less well-equipped to disregard negative and harmful messages embedded in discrimination when such discrimina- tion comes from peers as opposed to adults, due to the fact that peers are considered to be highly credi- ble sources. Collectively, these studies suggest that discrimination from peers may play an especially important role in shaping adolescents' ethnic-racial identity development relative to discrimination from adults. Ethnic-Racial Group Differences Experiences of marginalization differ among eth- nic-racial minority groups in the United States (Gar- cia Coll et al., 1996). Thus, relations between ethnic- racial discrimination and identity may also vary across groups. Three studies that have examined the discrimination-identity link among multiple ethnic- racial groups have found group differences. Pahl and Way (2006) found that peer discrimination was more strongly associated with identity exploration for Black youth than for their Latino peers. Cheon and Yip (2019) found inter-relations between identity process components and discrimination for Asian youth (but not for Latino youth) and inter-relations between identity content components and discrimi- nation for Latino youth (but not for Asian youth). In Douglass and Umaña-Taylor (2017)'s study of Black, Latino, and White youth, ethnic-racial group differ- ences were documented within identity statuses for the association between peer/adult discrimination e110 Del Toro, Hughes, and Way and public regard. Additionally, across the literature taken as a whole, different findings have emerged in studies of different ethnic-racial groups. For exam- ple, profiles of identity process components were unrelated to discrimination for Black youth (Seaton, Yip, Morgan-Lopez, & Sellers, 2012), but process components predicted discrimination for Latino youth (Gonzales-Backen et al., 2018). The Present Study We explored the longitudinal cross-lagged rela- tions between ethnic-racial discrimination from peers versus adults vis-à-vis four identity compo- nents that have been central to the ethnic-racial identity literatures concerning developmental pro- cess (exploration and commitment) and content (private regard and public regard). Due to the fact that myriad and conflicting empirical findings exist on the nature of ethnic-racial discrimination-iden- tity relations, our study was exploratory. In the pre- sent study, we had two primary goals. The first goal was to examine the temporal ordering of rela- tions between ethnic-racial discrimination and eth- nic-racial identity during early adolescence, when both become increasingly salient. We examined cross-lagged models, which are designed to esti- mate directional influences between variables over time by comparing the relation between variable X at Time 1 and variable Y at Time 2 to the relation between variable Y at Time 1 and variable X at Time 2. We also formally tested whether a parame- ter estimate for prior discrimination to later identity was reliably different from that for prior identity to later discrimination. The second goal was to explore whether ethnic- racial discrimination from peers versus non-school adults was differentially associated with the four ethnic-racial identity components. Due to the cen- tral importance of peers in providing a sense of affirmation and belonging during early adolescence (Dumontheil, Wolf, & Blakemore, 2016; Way & Sil- verman, 2012), we were especially interested in exploring whether differential relations emerged for commitment and private regard, the two aspects of identity that reflect adolescents' ethnic-racial affect, or how "good, happy, and proud" (Rivas-Drake et al., 2014) youth feel about their ethnicity-race. Specifically, we expected that discrimination from peers would be more strongly associated with commitment and private regard compared to discrimination from adults. However, we did not necessarily expect to find such differential relations for exploration and public regard, due to the possibility that the information contained in dis- crimination, regardless of its source, prompts both exploration and awareness of low public regard. We also hypothesized that early adolescents who were exploring their identities more often and had lower public regard would later report more fre- quent ethnic-racial discrimination from both peers and adults, under the assumption that exploration and public regard would yield greater knowledge about and awareness of the existence of discrimina- tion. Finally, because our sample included Black, Dominican, and Chinese American youth, we explored ethnic-racial group differences. Because no unified pattern emerged among studies that have found ethnic-racial group differences in relations between discrimination and identity (Cheon & Yip, 2019; Douglass & Umaña-Taylor, 2017; Pahl & Way, 2006), we did not generate a priori hypothe- ses regarding group differences; thus, these analy- ses were exploratory. The present study had several strengths that may shed light on existing inconsistencies in several ways. First, the inclusion of identity constructs from both process and content models enabled us to examine whether inconsistencies across studies are a function of different identity frameworks underly- ing different studies. Second, the inclusion of youth from multiple ethnic-racial groups, including Afri- can American, Dominican, and Chinese enabled us to examine whether some of the inconsistencies across studies are a function of differential pro- cesses in different ethnic-racial groups. Third, rather than drawing inferences about directionality by comparing the size or significance of cross-lagged paths, we formally tested whether or not these paths were reliably different. Finally, whereas prior studies have examined discrimination-identity rela- tions longitudinally over the course of mid- and late-adolescence, the fact that our sample was uni- formly 11-12 years of age at baseline permitted us to partially investigate whether such inconsistencies may be attributed to age-specific patterns. Method Participants The early adolescents in the present study partici- pated in the Early Adolescent Cohort (EAC) study of the Center for Research on Culture, Development, and Education at New York University. The EAC study was a large mixed methods longitudinal study of ado- lescents' experiences across peer, school, family, and
Transcribed Image Text:Umaña-Taylor & Guimond, 2010), African Ameri- can late (but not middle adolescents; Seaton et al., 2009), and Chinese early (but not late) adolescents (Hou, Kim, Wang, Shen, & Orozco-Lapray, 2015). Regarding public regard, scholars have sug- gested both that discrimination experiences increase awareness of low public regard and individuals who have lower public regard may be more likely to perceive ambiguous situations as ethnic-racial discrimination. Four longitudinal studies have examined the relation between discrimination and public regard during adolescence. Seaton et al. (2009) found that African American middle adoles- cents who reported more discrimination reported lower public regard 1 year later. In addition, between the second and third assessments, those who reported lower public regard reported higher discrimination later on. Butler-Barnes et al. (2018) found that school-based discrimination was associ- ated with lower public regard among adolescent girls but not among adolescent boys. However, non-significant relations between discrimination and public regard have also been reported among African American college freshmen (Sellers & Shel- ton, 2003) and among Latino high school students (Stein, Taylor, Kulish, & Gonzalez, 2017). In sum, the small body of literature that has examined relations over time between discrimina- tion and content components of identity have pro- duced varied results. Notably, these studies differ from each other in critical ways, including sample characteristics (ethnic-racial background, immigrant status, stage of adolescence), sample size (from under 200 to over 1,000), study design (from two to six waves), and analytic approach (within-person vs. between-person analysis). As a result, studies have provided empirical support for multiple exist- ing frameworks that pose contradictory proposi- tions. Thus, substantial work is required to further understand the pattern of extant findings. Peer Versus Non-Peer Sources of Ethnic-Racial Discrimination and Ethnic-Racial Identity Peers are pivotal actors in adolescents' social worlds. Adolescents are more interested in spend- ing time and fitting in with their peers than with other people with whom they have relationships (Brown & Larson, 2009), and their sense of affirma- tion and belonging is closely tied to peer acceptance and approval (Blakemore, 2008). Peers also play an important role in shaping adolescents' ethnic-racial identities (Umaña-Taylor et al., 2014). Studies have found that the presence of co-ethnic peers can Ethnic-Racial Identity and Discrimination e109 support and affirm youths' ethnic-racial identities (Kiang, Witkow, Baldelomar, & Fuligni, 2010; Phin- ney, Romero, Nava, & Huang, 2001), that a more ethnically racially diverse friend group is associated with increased exploration (Rivas-Drake, Umaña- Taylor, Schaefer, & Medina, 2017), and that schools' ethnic-racial diversity can modulate peers' influence on adolescents' identity regard (Santos, Kornienko, & Rivas-Drake, 2017). A handful of studies have found that discrimina- tion from peers may be especially relevant to iden- tity processes relative to discrimination from adults. For example, more frequent discrimination from peers but not from adults has been found to predict greater exploration among ninth and tenth grade Black and Latino adolescents (Pahl & Way, 2006), less favorable private regard among Black, Latino, and Asian sixth grade adolescents (Rivas-Drake et al., 2009), and lower public regard among White, Black, and Latino high school students with an achieved identity statuses (Douglass & Umaña-Tay- lor, 2017). Douglass and Umaña-Taylor (2017) sug- gested that adolescents may be less well-equipped to disregard negative and harmful messages embedded in discrimination when such discrimina- tion comes from peers as opposed to adults, due to the fact that peers are considered to be highly credi- ble sources. Collectively, these studies suggest that discrimination from peers may play an especially important role in shaping adolescents' ethnic-racial identity development relative to discrimination from adults. Ethnic-Racial Group Differences Experiences of marginalization differ among eth- nic-racial minority groups in the United States (Gar- cia Coll et al., 1996). Thus, relations between ethnic- racial discrimination and identity may also vary across groups. Three studies that have examined the discrimination-identity link among multiple ethnic- racial groups have found group differences. Pahl and Way (2006) found that peer discrimination was more strongly associated with identity exploration for Black youth than for their Latino peers. Cheon and Yip (2019) found inter-relations between identity process components and discrimination for Asian youth (but not for Latino youth) and inter-relations between identity content components and discrimi- nation for Latino youth (but not for Asian youth). In Douglass and Umaña-Taylor (2017)'s study of Black, Latino, and White youth, ethnic-racial group differ- ences were documented within identity statuses for the association between peer/adult discrimination e110 Del Toro, Hughes, and Way and public regard. Additionally, across the literature taken as a whole, different findings have emerged in studies of different ethnic-racial groups. For exam- ple, profiles of identity process components were unrelated to discrimination for Black youth (Seaton, Yip, Morgan-Lopez, & Sellers, 2012), but process components predicted discrimination for Latino youth (Gonzales-Backen et al., 2018). The Present Study We explored the longitudinal cross-lagged rela- tions between ethnic-racial discrimination from peers versus adults vis-à-vis four identity compo- nents that have been central to the ethnic-racial identity literatures concerning developmental pro- cess (exploration and commitment) and content (private regard and public regard). Due to the fact that myriad and conflicting empirical findings exist on the nature of ethnic-racial discrimination-iden- tity relations, our study was exploratory. In the pre- sent study, we had two primary goals. The first goal was to examine the temporal ordering of rela- tions between ethnic-racial discrimination and eth- nic-racial identity during early adolescence, when both become increasingly salient. We examined cross-lagged models, which are designed to esti- mate directional influences between variables over time by comparing the relation between variable X at Time 1 and variable Y at Time 2 to the relation between variable Y at Time 1 and variable X at Time 2. We also formally tested whether a parame- ter estimate for prior discrimination to later identity was reliably different from that for prior identity to later discrimination. The second goal was to explore whether ethnic- racial discrimination from peers versus non-school adults was differentially associated with the four ethnic-racial identity components. Due to the cen- tral importance of peers in providing a sense of affirmation and belonging during early adolescence (Dumontheil, Wolf, & Blakemore, 2016; Way & Sil- verman, 2012), we were especially interested in exploring whether differential relations emerged for commitment and private regard, the two aspects of identity that reflect adolescents' ethnic-racial affect, or how "good, happy, and proud" (Rivas-Drake et al., 2014) youth feel about their ethnicity-race. Specifically, we expected that discrimination from peers would be more strongly associated with commitment and private regard compared to discrimination from adults. However, we did not necessarily expect to find such differential relations for exploration and public regard, due to the possibility that the information contained in dis- crimination, regardless of its source, prompts both exploration and awareness of low public regard. We also hypothesized that early adolescents who were exploring their identities more often and had lower public regard would later report more fre- quent ethnic-racial discrimination from both peers and adults, under the assumption that exploration and public regard would yield greater knowledge about and awareness of the existence of discrimina- tion. Finally, because our sample included Black, Dominican, and Chinese American youth, we explored ethnic-racial group differences. Because no unified pattern emerged among studies that have found ethnic-racial group differences in relations between discrimination and identity (Cheon & Yip, 2019; Douglass & Umaña-Taylor, 2017; Pahl & Way, 2006), we did not generate a priori hypothe- ses regarding group differences; thus, these analy- ses were exploratory. The present study had several strengths that may shed light on existing inconsistencies in several ways. First, the inclusion of identity constructs from both process and content models enabled us to examine whether inconsistencies across studies are a function of different identity frameworks underly- ing different studies. Second, the inclusion of youth from multiple ethnic-racial groups, including Afri- can American, Dominican, and Chinese enabled us to examine whether some of the inconsistencies across studies are a function of differential pro- cesses in different ethnic-racial groups. Third, rather than drawing inferences about directionality by comparing the size or significance of cross-lagged paths, we formally tested whether or not these paths were reliably different. Finally, whereas prior studies have examined discrimination-identity rela- tions longitudinally over the course of mid- and late-adolescence, the fact that our sample was uni- formly 11-12 years of age at baseline permitted us to partially investigate whether such inconsistencies may be attributed to age-specific patterns. Method Participants The early adolescents in the present study partici- pated in the Early Adolescent Cohort (EAC) study of the Center for Research on Culture, Development, and Education at New York University. The EAC study was a large mixed methods longitudinal study of ado- lescents' experiences across peer, school, family, and
neighborhood contexts during the middle school years, which has been described elsewhere (Hughes et al., 2008). The analytic sample consisted of 387 ado- lescents who identified as Black (n = 149; 38.5%), Dominican American (n = 114; 29.5%), and Chinese American (n = 124; 32.0%; see Supporting Information for exclusionary criteria). Table 1 presents the demo- graphic characteristics for each ethnic-racial group by sex, maternal education, school, and immigrant status. There were no differences in the gender composition of adolescents from the three ethnic-racial groups, x²(2) = 2.47, p = ns. Relative to Black and Dominican American youth, Chinese American youth were more likely to come from households with mothers who were less well educated, F(2, 388) = 9.38, p <.001. Black and Dominican American youth in the sample were represented at all six schools, and Chinese American youth were represented at three of the six schools. Black youth were significantly more likely to identify as native-origin (third generation) than were their Dominican American and Chinese American peers, x²(2) = 165.74, p <.001. Procedure The procedure for the present study is described in detail elsewhere (Hughes et al., 2008). Principal investigators first identified public middle schools in which at least three of the four ethnic-racial Table 1 Demographic Characteristics in Percent of the Analytic sample (n = 387) Presented by Ethnicity-Race Demographic characteris- tics Gender %Girls %Boys Schools (diversity score) %School 1 (0.74) %School 2 (0.69) %School 3 (0.44) %School 4 (0.33) %School 5 (0.70) %School 6 (0.50) Maternal education %Less than high school %High school %Some college %Bachelors or beyond Generation status %Native-origin %Immigrant-origin Black (n = 149) 56.4 43.6 2.0 45.0 25.5 9.4 10.7 7.4 4.0 23,5 19.5 53.0 66.4 33.6 Dominican (n = 114) 50.0 50.0 0.9 36.8 5.3 8.8 19.3 28.9 11.4 24.6 14.0 50.0 6.1 93.9 Chinese (n = 124) 47.6 52.4 15.3 8.1 0.0 75.8 0.8 0.0 17.7 34.7 10.5 37.1 4.8 95.2 Ethnic-Racial Identity and Discrimination e111 groups initially targeted for the larger study (i.e., Black, Dominican American, Chinese American, and White) constituted 20% or more of the student population. Each of the six schools we initially approached agreed to participate in the study and all had a sixth-through-eighth-grade structure. We recruited students in all non-English as a second language sixth grade classrooms at the first assess- ment. For the seventh and eighth grade assess- ments, we permitted non-participating students to enter the study. Research assistants distributed and collected consent forms for a 2- to 3-week period in students' homeroom classes. The principal investi- gators provided students with a small non-mone- tary incentive for their participation. Overall, 77% of recruited adolescents returned parental consent forms and 78% of those had affirmative parental consent. We administered surveys in the spring of sixth, seventh, and eighth grades during two class periods that the school principal and teachers deemed appropriate. We collected data from two cohorts of adolescents; Cohort 1 was recruited in 2005 when students were sixth_graders (n = 188), and Cohort 2 included adolescents recruited as sixth graders in 2006 (n 199). Measures Ethnic-Racial Identity Exploration We used a four-item measure, derived from the Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM; Phin- ney, 1992), to assess ethnic-racial identity explo- ration. Adolescents indicated the extent to which they questioned or sought information about their ethnicity-race using a 5-point Likert scale (e.g., "In order to learn more about my ethnic/racial back- ground, I have often talked to other people about my ethnic/racial group"; 1= strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Internal consistency/reliability of the four-item measure was adequate across the three waves of study for each ethnic-racial group (αtime-range Black = .66-.84; time-range Domini- can = .69-.75; otime-range Chinese = .70-.81). A con- firmatory factor analysis of the four items across the three waves indicated configural invariance as indicated by the acceptable fit indices, comparative fit index (CFI) = .97; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .04, 90% CI [.03, .06]. A chi-square difference test indicated that constraining the factor loadings to be equivalent across time did not diminish model fit, indicating metric invariance, Ax²(6)= = 10.18, p = ns. We assessed exploration using an observed mean score across the four items, e112 Del Toro, Hughes, and Way which were coded such that higher values indicated more exploration. Ethnic-Racial Identity Commitment We assessed commitment using a four-item mea- sure derived from the MEIM identity achievement subscale, which assessed ethnic-racial identity com- mitment and affirmation (Phinney, 1992). We omit- ted the three affirmation items from the original seven-item achievement measure because they were redundant with items that assessed private regard (e.g., "I am happy that I am a member of the eth- nic/racial group I belong to"). Thus, the items cap- tured the construct of commitment only (e.g., "I have a strong sense of belonging to my own eth- nic/racial group"). Students rated each item on a 5- point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5= strongly agree). The internal consistency/reliability was ade- quate across the three waves of study for each eth- nic-racial group (time-range Black = .83-.85; atime range Dominican = .88-89; time-range Chi- nese = .77-.85). A confirmatory factor analysis of these items across the three assessments indicated configural invariance, CFI= .98; RMSEA = .06, 90% CI [.04, .07]. A chi-square difference test indicated metric invariance, as constraining the factor load- ings to be equivalent across time did not result in a significant decrement in model fit, Ax²(6) = 6.44, p = ns. The measure was a unit-weighted mean score across the four items, which were coded such that higher values indicated higher commitment. Private Regard We used the private regard subscale of the Mul- tidimensional Inventory of Black Identity (MIBI)- Teen (Scottham, Sellers, & Nguyên, 2008) which consisted of three items, with minor revisions such that references to "Black" were re-worded as refer- ences to "my ethnic/racial group." Students rated items on a 5-point Likert scale (e.g., "I feel good about people from my ethnic/racial group"; 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The internal consistency/reliability was acceptable across the three assessments for each ethnic-racial group (time-range Black = .76-.78; time-range Domini- can = .81-.85; %time-range Chinese = .79-87). A con- firmatory factor analysis indicated configural invariance across the three assessments, CFI = .99; RMSEA = .04, 90% CI [.02, .06]. A chi-square differ- ence test indicated metric invariance as factor load- ings constrained to be equivalent across time did not result in a significant decrement in model fit, Ax² (4) = 5.97, p = ns. The resulting measure was an observed mean score of the three items, which were coded such that higher values indicated positive evaluations toward one's ethnic-racial group. Public Regard We assessed public regard using three items from the MIBI-Teen (Scottham et al., 2008). Adoles- cents indicated the extent to which they felt others value their group on a 5-point Likert scale (e.g., "A lot of people don't expect my ethnic/racial group to do well in life"; 1 = strongly disagree, 5= strongly agree). The internal consistency was adequate across the three waves of the study and across the three ethnic-racial groups (time-range Black = .76–.87; time-range Dominican = .74-0.86; time-range Chi- nese = .79-.85). Fit indices from a confirmatory fac- tor analysis met the criteria for configural invariance across the three assessments, CFI = .99; RMSEA = .02, 90% CI [.00, .04]. A chi-square differ- ence test indicated metric invariance, as constrain- ing the factor loadings to be equivalent across time did not result in a significant decrement in model fit, Ax²(4) = 1.67, p = ns. The resulting measure was a unit-weighted average of the three items, which were coded such that higher values indicated ado- lescents' perceived positive evaluations of others toward one's ethnic-racial group. Ethnic-Racial Discrimination Items assessing perceived ethnic-racial discrimi- nation were adapted from measures used in prior studies (Greene, Way, & Pahl, 2006; Hughes, Del Toro, Harding, Way, & Rarick, 2016; Hughes & Johnson, 2001; Williams, Neighbors, & Jackson, 2003). Adolescents responded to items that assessed varied manifestations of covert and overt discrimi- nation. We used the term covert discrimination to refer to perceptions that one has been the target of often unconscious negative attitudes and stereo- types pertaining to one's ethnic-racial group (e.g., others seeming uncomfortable around or afraid of you because of race or ethnicity), whereas we use the term overt discrimination to refer to instances of concrete and visible discrimination (e.g., name call- ing, bullying). The wording of items explicitly spec- ified the source of ethnic-racial discrimination (peers, adults in school, adults outside of school), but items regarding different sources appeared in separate parts of the survey. The measure of dis- crimination from adults in school had substantial missing data in sixth grade as well as a low mean
Transcribed Image Text:neighborhood contexts during the middle school years, which has been described elsewhere (Hughes et al., 2008). The analytic sample consisted of 387 ado- lescents who identified as Black (n = 149; 38.5%), Dominican American (n = 114; 29.5%), and Chinese American (n = 124; 32.0%; see Supporting Information for exclusionary criteria). Table 1 presents the demo- graphic characteristics for each ethnic-racial group by sex, maternal education, school, and immigrant status. There were no differences in the gender composition of adolescents from the three ethnic-racial groups, x²(2) = 2.47, p = ns. Relative to Black and Dominican American youth, Chinese American youth were more likely to come from households with mothers who were less well educated, F(2, 388) = 9.38, p <.001. Black and Dominican American youth in the sample were represented at all six schools, and Chinese American youth were represented at three of the six schools. Black youth were significantly more likely to identify as native-origin (third generation) than were their Dominican American and Chinese American peers, x²(2) = 165.74, p <.001. Procedure The procedure for the present study is described in detail elsewhere (Hughes et al., 2008). Principal investigators first identified public middle schools in which at least three of the four ethnic-racial Table 1 Demographic Characteristics in Percent of the Analytic sample (n = 387) Presented by Ethnicity-Race Demographic characteris- tics Gender %Girls %Boys Schools (diversity score) %School 1 (0.74) %School 2 (0.69) %School 3 (0.44) %School 4 (0.33) %School 5 (0.70) %School 6 (0.50) Maternal education %Less than high school %High school %Some college %Bachelors or beyond Generation status %Native-origin %Immigrant-origin Black (n = 149) 56.4 43.6 2.0 45.0 25.5 9.4 10.7 7.4 4.0 23,5 19.5 53.0 66.4 33.6 Dominican (n = 114) 50.0 50.0 0.9 36.8 5.3 8.8 19.3 28.9 11.4 24.6 14.0 50.0 6.1 93.9 Chinese (n = 124) 47.6 52.4 15.3 8.1 0.0 75.8 0.8 0.0 17.7 34.7 10.5 37.1 4.8 95.2 Ethnic-Racial Identity and Discrimination e111 groups initially targeted for the larger study (i.e., Black, Dominican American, Chinese American, and White) constituted 20% or more of the student population. Each of the six schools we initially approached agreed to participate in the study and all had a sixth-through-eighth-grade structure. We recruited students in all non-English as a second language sixth grade classrooms at the first assess- ment. For the seventh and eighth grade assess- ments, we permitted non-participating students to enter the study. Research assistants distributed and collected consent forms for a 2- to 3-week period in students' homeroom classes. The principal investi- gators provided students with a small non-mone- tary incentive for their participation. Overall, 77% of recruited adolescents returned parental consent forms and 78% of those had affirmative parental consent. We administered surveys in the spring of sixth, seventh, and eighth grades during two class periods that the school principal and teachers deemed appropriate. We collected data from two cohorts of adolescents; Cohort 1 was recruited in 2005 when students were sixth_graders (n = 188), and Cohort 2 included adolescents recruited as sixth graders in 2006 (n 199). Measures Ethnic-Racial Identity Exploration We used a four-item measure, derived from the Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM; Phin- ney, 1992), to assess ethnic-racial identity explo- ration. Adolescents indicated the extent to which they questioned or sought information about their ethnicity-race using a 5-point Likert scale (e.g., "In order to learn more about my ethnic/racial back- ground, I have often talked to other people about my ethnic/racial group"; 1= strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Internal consistency/reliability of the four-item measure was adequate across the three waves of study for each ethnic-racial group (αtime-range Black = .66-.84; time-range Domini- can = .69-.75; otime-range Chinese = .70-.81). A con- firmatory factor analysis of the four items across the three waves indicated configural invariance as indicated by the acceptable fit indices, comparative fit index (CFI) = .97; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .04, 90% CI [.03, .06]. A chi-square difference test indicated that constraining the factor loadings to be equivalent across time did not diminish model fit, indicating metric invariance, Ax²(6)= = 10.18, p = ns. We assessed exploration using an observed mean score across the four items, e112 Del Toro, Hughes, and Way which were coded such that higher values indicated more exploration. Ethnic-Racial Identity Commitment We assessed commitment using a four-item mea- sure derived from the MEIM identity achievement subscale, which assessed ethnic-racial identity com- mitment and affirmation (Phinney, 1992). We omit- ted the three affirmation items from the original seven-item achievement measure because they were redundant with items that assessed private regard (e.g., "I am happy that I am a member of the eth- nic/racial group I belong to"). Thus, the items cap- tured the construct of commitment only (e.g., "I have a strong sense of belonging to my own eth- nic/racial group"). Students rated each item on a 5- point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5= strongly agree). The internal consistency/reliability was ade- quate across the three waves of study for each eth- nic-racial group (time-range Black = .83-.85; atime range Dominican = .88-89; time-range Chi- nese = .77-.85). A confirmatory factor analysis of these items across the three assessments indicated configural invariance, CFI= .98; RMSEA = .06, 90% CI [.04, .07]. A chi-square difference test indicated metric invariance, as constraining the factor load- ings to be equivalent across time did not result in a significant decrement in model fit, Ax²(6) = 6.44, p = ns. The measure was a unit-weighted mean score across the four items, which were coded such that higher values indicated higher commitment. Private Regard We used the private regard subscale of the Mul- tidimensional Inventory of Black Identity (MIBI)- Teen (Scottham, Sellers, & Nguyên, 2008) which consisted of three items, with minor revisions such that references to "Black" were re-worded as refer- ences to "my ethnic/racial group." Students rated items on a 5-point Likert scale (e.g., "I feel good about people from my ethnic/racial group"; 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The internal consistency/reliability was acceptable across the three assessments for each ethnic-racial group (time-range Black = .76-.78; time-range Domini- can = .81-.85; %time-range Chinese = .79-87). A con- firmatory factor analysis indicated configural invariance across the three assessments, CFI = .99; RMSEA = .04, 90% CI [.02, .06]. A chi-square differ- ence test indicated metric invariance as factor load- ings constrained to be equivalent across time did not result in a significant decrement in model fit, Ax² (4) = 5.97, p = ns. The resulting measure was an observed mean score of the three items, which were coded such that higher values indicated positive evaluations toward one's ethnic-racial group. Public Regard We assessed public regard using three items from the MIBI-Teen (Scottham et al., 2008). Adoles- cents indicated the extent to which they felt others value their group on a 5-point Likert scale (e.g., "A lot of people don't expect my ethnic/racial group to do well in life"; 1 = strongly disagree, 5= strongly agree). The internal consistency was adequate across the three waves of the study and across the three ethnic-racial groups (time-range Black = .76–.87; time-range Dominican = .74-0.86; time-range Chi- nese = .79-.85). Fit indices from a confirmatory fac- tor analysis met the criteria for configural invariance across the three assessments, CFI = .99; RMSEA = .02, 90% CI [.00, .04]. A chi-square differ- ence test indicated metric invariance, as constrain- ing the factor loadings to be equivalent across time did not result in a significant decrement in model fit, Ax²(4) = 1.67, p = ns. The resulting measure was a unit-weighted average of the three items, which were coded such that higher values indicated ado- lescents' perceived positive evaluations of others toward one's ethnic-racial group. Ethnic-Racial Discrimination Items assessing perceived ethnic-racial discrimi- nation were adapted from measures used in prior studies (Greene, Way, & Pahl, 2006; Hughes, Del Toro, Harding, Way, & Rarick, 2016; Hughes & Johnson, 2001; Williams, Neighbors, & Jackson, 2003). Adolescents responded to items that assessed varied manifestations of covert and overt discrimi- nation. We used the term covert discrimination to refer to perceptions that one has been the target of often unconscious negative attitudes and stereo- types pertaining to one's ethnic-racial group (e.g., others seeming uncomfortable around or afraid of you because of race or ethnicity), whereas we use the term overt discrimination to refer to instances of concrete and visible discrimination (e.g., name call- ing, bullying). The wording of items explicitly spec- ified the source of ethnic-racial discrimination (peers, adults in school, adults outside of school), but items regarding different sources appeared in separate parts of the survey. The measure of dis- crimination from adults in school had substantial missing data in sixth grade as well as a low mean
Expert Solution
trending now

Trending now

This is a popular solution!

steps

Step by step

Solved in 3 steps

SEE SOLUTIONCheck out a sample Q&A here
Blurred answer
Recommended textbooks for you
Ciccarelli: Psychology_5 (5th Edition)
Ciccarelli: Psychology_5 (5th Edition)
Psychology
ISBN:
9780134477961
Author:
Saundra K. Ciccarelli, J. Noland White
Publisher:
PEARSON
Cognitive Psychology
Cognitive Psychology
Psychology
ISBN:
9781337408271
Author:
Goldstein, E. Bruce.
Publisher:
Cengage Learning,
Introduction to Psychology: Gateways to Mind and …
Introduction to Psychology: Gateways to Mind and …
Psychology
ISBN:
9781337565691
Author:
Dennis Coon, John O. Mitterer, Tanya S. Martini
Publisher:
Cengage Learning
Psychology in Your Life (Second Edition)
Psychology in Your Life (Second Edition)
Psychology
ISBN:
9780393265156
Author:
Sarah Grison, Michael Gazzaniga
Publisher:
W. W. Norton & Company
Cognitive Psychology: Connecting Mind, Research a…
Cognitive Psychology: Connecting Mind, Research a…
Psychology
ISBN:
9781285763880
Author:
E. Bruce Goldstein
Publisher:
Cengage Learning
Theories of Personality (MindTap Course List)
Theories of Personality (MindTap Course List)
Psychology
ISBN:
9781305652958
Author:
Duane P. Schultz, Sydney Ellen Schultz
Publisher:
Cengage Learning
SEE MORE TEXTBOOKS