Multiculturalism and Subjective Happiness as Mediated by Culturaland Relational Variables

Thao N. LeColorado State University

Mary H. LaiPennsylvania State University

Judy WallenNational Council on Crime and Delinquency, Oakland, California

A diverse ethnic context and an increasing immigrant youth population will soon become the realityacross the entire U.S. demographic landscape. Research has suggested that a multicultural contextpositively influences ethnic minority and immigrant youth by fostering ethnic identity and psychosocialdevelopment. However, it is unknown whether and how perceived multiculturalism can affect positiveyouth outcomes such as life satisfaction and subjective happiness. This study explored perceived schoolmulticulturalism among 338 ethnic minority and immigrant youth, and found a positive relation betweenperceived school multiculturalism and subjective happiness with full mediation by ethnocultural empathyfor African Americans, Asians, males, and females. Although school multiculturalism was also predictiveof ethnocultural empathy for Hispanics, ethnocultural empathy in turn, was not significantly predictiveof subjective happiness. Taken together, these results suggest that one way to facilitate psychologicalgrowth and flourishing among ethnic minority youth is to encourage multiculturalism in school settings.

Keywords: multiculturalism, youth, happiness, empathy

Population trends for Hispanic and Asian populations in theUnited States ensure an increasingly diverse context for youthdevelopment. These groups will jointly account for 61% of theU.S. population growth by 2025 (Hodgkinson, 2004). Commen-surate with this growth is an increasing public school enrollment ofimmigrant youth. Since 1968, Latino enrollment has tripled whilethe number of Black students has increased 30%. In comparison,White student enrollment has decreased 17% (Frankenberg & Lee,2002). Thus, the implications of this multicultural context foryouth developmental outcomes (e.g., well-being, academicachievement, delinquency) are noteworthy considerations.

Research has suggested that a multicultural context is influentialfor youth in positive and meaningfully adaptive ways. For exam-ple, Ramirez (1983) suggested that a multicultural context helpsindividuals develop flexibility, adaptability, and empathy for oth-ers—personality characteristics beneficial to social relationships.

A diverse ethnic context has also been shown to reduce peervictimization, promote feelings of safety, and improve intergrouprelations in a large, multicultural middle-school sample, at leastamong ethnic minority youth (Graham, 2006; Juvonen, Nishina, &Graham, 2006). Social context variables, such as ethnic composi-tion of the class, status of the group, and social norms, have beenfound to affect children’s positive evaluations of other groups(Kinket & Verkuyten, 1999).

Although a multicultural context has been shown to be posi-tively related to academic motivation (Tan, 1999), appreciation ofdiverse viewpoints (Kurlaender & Yun, 2002), and tolerance ofothers (Kinket & Verkuyten, 1999), no studies to date have ex-plored whether and how perceived multiculturalism may be relatedto psychological well-being, such as life satisfaction or subjectivehappiness. The positive youth development movement (Larson,2006; Leffert & Lerner, 1999) suggests that in addition to explor-ing psychopathology in development, researchers also need toexamine factors and processes that facilitate flourishing andgrowth. Research among adults has shown that the consequencesof being happy and satisfied with life range from greater physicalhealth, prosocial behavior and engagement, productivity, and cre-ativity to better self-regulation and coping skills, among others(Lyubomirsky, King, & Diener, 2005). As such, the primary aim ofthis study was to explore whether perceived school multicultural-ism was related to youth’s subjective happiness. We also examinedpotential cultural and relational variables as mediators in this link,and tested for gender and ethnic invariance.

Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism has been defined as the presence of a diversecontext in which no one group represents a 50% majority (Graham,

Thao N. Le, Human Development & Family Studies, Colorado StateUniversity; Mary H. Lai, Human Development & Family Studies, Penn-sylvania State University; Judy Wallen, National Council on Crime andDelinquency, Oakland, California.

This article was supported by Grant 1 U49 CE000743 from the Centersfor Disease Control & Prevention. Its contents are solely the responsibilityof the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of theCenters for Disease Control & Prevention. We thank Isami Arifuku, LilaBooth, Idean Ettekal, Gianna Tran, Chris Tsukida, and the National Coun-cil on Crime and Delinquency’s interns and field interviewers for theircontribution and assistance in conducting this study.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Thao N.Le, 1570 Campus Delivery, Fort Collins, CO 80523. E-mail: tle@cahs.colostate.edu

Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology © 2009 American Psychological Association2009, Vol. 15, No. 3, 303–313 1099-9809/09/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0015507

303

2006), or in terms of interracial exposure of Black and Hispanicstudents to White students (Frankenberg & Lee, 2002). Althoughmost studies have examined the multicultural context objectively,such as by calculating an index of ethnic diversity (Juvonen et al.,2006), multiculturalism should also be considered subjectively.Tan (1999), for instance, defined multiculturalism as “students’perceptions of whether cultural diversity is valued, utilized, andencouraged both at the organizational (school) level and in theclassroom” (p. 3). Studies that consider multiculturalism from thestudent’s perspective reveal that students who perceive their teach-ers in a positive way do better in school (Crosnoe, Johnson, &Elder, 2004). Kinket and Verkuyten (1999) found that a multicul-tural curriculum as well as students’ perception of their teacher’sresponses to harassment influenced how favorably the studentviewed other groups. If such a link exists between school multi-culturalism and youth’s subjective happiness, what are some po-tential mechanisms and processes?

Ethnic Identity, Social Support, Positive Peers, andEthnocultural Empathy as Mediators

Four potential mediators are explored in this study: ethnicidentity, social support, positive peers, and ethnocultural empathy.First, among immigrant and minority youth, a context that supportsappreciation and tolerance of all cultural groups has been shown topromote a greater sense of belonging (Tan, 1999) and ethnicidentity (Martinez & Dukes, 1997). A greater ethnic identity, inturn, has been associated with greater well-being among minorityand immigrant youth including better coping skills and decreasedaggression (McMahon & Watts, 2002). Martinez and Dukes foundthat ethnic identity was significantly related to self-esteem, self-confidence, and purpose in life. Hence, one mechanism by whichmulticulturalism may be related to well-being and happiness isthrough facilitating ethnic identity.

Social support has been found to mediate the relation betweenimmigrant children’s competence in their ethnic and host culturesand mental health outcomes (Oppedal, Roysamb, & Sam, 2004).The same study differentiated between family and friends as socialsupport for the ethnic cultural domain, and teachers and classmatesfor the host cultural domain. Although based on adult samples,social connections—particularly with friends—and a trusting en-vironment were identified as correlates of life satisfaction in sev-eral national and international data sets (Helliwell & Putnam,2005). Social connectedness has also been found to mediate therelation between acculturation and subjective well-being among asample of adult Korean immigrants (Yoon, Lee, & Goh, 2008). Forimmigrant youth, social support as a source of social capital is keyto positive adaptation and academic success (Zhou & Bankston,1994), and may be more present in a context where diversity andmulticultural perspectives are acknowledged and appreciated.

During adolescence, positive peer relations can be a criticalform of social support (Brown, Dolcini, & Leventhal, 1997). Forexample, Crosnoe, Cavanagh and Elder (2003) found that higherlevels of friends’ academic achievement and school attachmentwere associated with better academic outcomes 1 year later. Anal-yses of friendship patterns found that students primarily soughtfriendships based on racial-ethnic similarities (Crosnoe & Lopez-Gonzalez, 2005; Quillian & Campbell, 2003). Some researchersargued that same-race friendship trends may be advantageous for

students from small minority groups as it enhances their socialsupport (Quillian & Campbell, 2003). School context—such asintegrated activities and proportion of immigrants in the popula-tion—can impact the opportunities and quality of cross-racial/group interactions to occur (Crosnoe & Lopez-Gonzalez, 2005;Moody, 2001). However, research also suggested that a diversestudent population does not ensure integration of students fromdifferent racial groups (Moody, 2001). Hence, another potentialmechanism by which perceived multiculturalism may be linked towell-being and positive behavioral outcomes is through positivepeer relations.

Finally, research has shown that youth who are exposed todiverse contexts are more empathic toward members of a differentgroup (Duncan, Boisjoly, Levy, Kremer, & Eccles, 2003). Sys-tematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies examining the rela-tion of empathy and behaviors found empathy to be positivelyrelated to prosocial behaviors (Eisenberg & Miller, 1987) andnegatively related to aggression (Miller & Eisenberg, 1988). Morerecently, McMahon and Washburn (2003) found that increases inself-reported empathy among fifth to eighth graders significantlypredicted less aggressive behavior. Ethnocultural or racial empathymay also promote positive intergroup perceptions, thus decreasingthe potential for interpersonal conflict. In a study of children’sethnic attitudes, for example, Nesdale and colleagues (Nesdale,Griffith, Durkin, & Maass, 2005) found that increases in empathyfor a different ethnic out-group was significantly related to in-creases in liking for the out-group. Thus, a context that decreasesthe likelihood of peer harassment, discrimination, and interper-sonal conflict may potentially minimize the likelihood of schoolviolence, protecting youth from exposure to violence and thepossibility of their own perpetration of violence. A multiculturalenvironment that encourages youth of different racial and ethnicgroups to get along with each other is likely to foster a saferenvironment, and thus engender greater life satisfaction and well-being in general.

In summary, based on previous but limited studies showing thata multicultural context is positively associated with academicachievement, feelings of safety, lower experience of peer victim-ization, and that these factors foster better psychological adapta-tion, we hypothesize that youth’s perceived school multicultural-ism would be positively related to subjective happiness. Further,we hypothesize that ethnic identity, social support, positive peers,and ethnocultural empathy would mediate this link (see Figure 1for display of hypothesized model).

Method

Sample

The sample consisted of 338 youth (M age 12.5 years; range11–15 years old). The sample was evenly divided in terms ofgender distribution. With respect to generation status, about 20%of the youth were first generation, almost 50% were second gen-eration, and 12% were third or higher. Eighteen percent reportednot knowing their generation status. Almost half of the youthidentified as Asian (n � 158), 14% as African American (n � 47),37% as Hispanic (n � 125), and 2% as some other race (n � 7).More than 80% of the Asian youth were either Chinese (45%) orVietnamese (37%). There were slightly more males (53%) than

304 LE, LAI, AND WALLEN

females (47%) among Asians, whereas it was the reverse forHispanics. A little more than 25% of Hispanics were first gener-ation, and 46% were second generation. For Asians, 21% were firstgeneration, and 55% were second generation. Among AfricanAmericans, 6% were first generation and 17% were second gen-eration.

Procedures

Participants were recruited as part of an evaluation of acommunity-based afterschool program that included youth in theprogram as well as from the middle school at large. All youth whoparticipated in the afterschool program were asked to participate inthe study by obtaining written consent from their parents, and bygiving their written assent to engage in a 45-min survey session.Nonprogram youth (i.e., from the school at-large) were recruitedthrough random selection from a school roster by matching criteria(age, ethnicity, gender). Consent and assent were initially obtainedby phone, and then on paper. Specifically, the ethnic breakdown ofthe middle school was 46% Asians, 32% Hispanics, and 20%African Americans (California Department of Education, 2008),which closely resembled the sample population.

Survey data were collected via laptop computers in a dedicatedroom at the school site between the hours of 3 to 6 p.m. Youthwere compensated $25 for participating, and all forms and proto-cols were approved by the Committee on Human Subjects of theUniversity of California at Berkeley.

Measures

Subjective happiness. The four-item measure of Lyubomirskyand Lepper (1999) comprised the subjective happiness scale. Theitems include: “In general, I consider myself” with responsesranging from 1 (not a very happy person) to 7 (very happy person);“Compared to most of my peers, I consider myself” with responseranging from 1 (less happy) to 7 (more happy); and to what extentthe following statements describe youth: “Some people are gener-ally very happy. They enjoy life regardless of what is going on,getting the most out of everything regardless of what is going on”and “Some people are generally not very happy. Although they are

not depressed, they never seem as happy as they might be.” Youthrated these two statements on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (agreat deal). The second statement is reverse scored. The four itemswere averaged such that higher scores reflect greater subjectivehappiness.

School multiculturalism. Four items were taken from the In-ventory of School Climate–Student Version (Brand, Felner, Shim,Seitsinger, & Dumas, 2003) scale to comprise school multicultur-alism. Using a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (never), 2 (hardlyever), 3 (sometimes), to 4 (often), youth were asked how often theirteachers show they value racial harmony, students from differentraces and cultures are chosen to participate in school activities,youth get to do something to learn about different races andcultures, and youth work with students of different races andcultures in a school activity. The four items were averaged, withhigher scores reflecting greater school multiculturalism.

Social support. Seven social support items were taken fromthe California Healthy Kids Survey (WestEd, 2003) and askedyouth to respond to the following statements: “There is an adult inmy life who . . .”: “cares about me,” “respects me,” “listens to me,”“notices when I’m not there,” “tells me I am doing a good job,”“always wants me to do my best,” and “believes that I will be asuccess.” Youth responded to these items using a 4-point scaleranging from 1 (very true), 2 ( pretty much true), 3 (a little true),to 4 (not true at all). Two items asked whether youth has someonehe or she can rely on for emotional support, and whether there issomeone youth can go to when he or she is feeling sad or de-pressed. These two items are scored on a 5-point scale rangingfrom 1 (always true) to 5 (always untrue). All items were reversecoded so that higher values indicated a higher level of socialsupport. These two subscales (one with the four point questionsand one with the five point questions) were then normalized andaveraged. A higher overall score indicates greater social support.

Ethnic identity. Ethnic identity was measured using a 12-itemversion of the Multi-Group Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM; Phin-ney, 1992). Using a scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 4(strongly disagree), youth were asked to indicate their level ofagreement with a series of statements regarding ethnic identityexploration/search and ethnic identity belonging/commitment. Ex-amples of statements include: “I am happy that I am a member ofthe Group I belong to,” “I have a clear sense of my ethnicbackground and what it means for me,” and “I have a strongcommitment to improve life in my ethnic community.” All itemswere reverse coded and averaged so that higher values indicate astronger sense of ethnic identity.

Positive peers. Seven positive peer items were taken from theCalifornia Healthy Kids Survey (WestEd, 2003). Three itemsasked youth to respond based on a scale ranging from 1 (very muchtrue) to 4 (not true at all) as to whether they had friends who: “tryto do what’s right,” “do well in school,” and “feel that it isimportant to finish high school.” These items were reverse codedso that higher values indicate a higher level of positive peers. Fouritems asked youth to rate the degree to which their friends are goodstudents and have been involved in religious, extracurricular, orcommunity activities. The response options for these items werebased on a scale ranging from 1 (none of them), 2 (few of them), 3(most of them), to 4 (all of them). The mean of the items wascreated such that higher scores reflect greater positive peers.

Figure 1. Hypothesized model of school multiculturalism & subjectivehappiness.

305MULTICULTURALISM AND SUBJECTIVE HAPPINESS

Ethnocultural empathy. Ethnocultural empathy was assessedusing a 10-item scale developed by Wang et al. (2003). Youthwere asked to respond how well each statement described them ona using a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (stronglyagree), such as feeling comfortable around other races and eth-nicities, speaking out against discrimination of others, and sharingpride in other racial and ethnic groups’ achievements. The mean ofthe 10 items was calculated with higher scores reflecting greaterethnocultural empathy.

Analysis

Structural equation models (SEM) using Mplus 5.1 (Muthen &Muthen, 2008) were used to assess the theorized relations amongthe variables of interest. For each of the scales, a latent variablewas created using three item parcels as suggested by Kishton andWidaman (1994). For subjective happiness because there wereonly four items, the three item parcels included one with twoobserved variables, and the other two as single item observedvariables. Structural models (i.e., no mediation, partial mediation,full mediation) were then compared in terms of model fit andparsimony. Measurement and structural invariances were also ex-amined with respect to gender and ethnicity. Given such fewmissing data (1.8% of the items), composite scores were simplycalculated with list-wise deletion for all measures at the manifestlevel.

Results

Means, standard deviations, and alpha reliability coefficients ofthe manifest variables are shown for all ethnicity and gendergroups in Appendix A, and the intercorrelation among the manifestvariables are displayed in Appendixes B, C, and D. The alphareliabilities were mostly good: .75 or higher on all the measuresexcept for positive peers where the values ranged from .55 to .70.The highest correlations were observed for school multiculturalism

and ethnocultural empathy, ethnocultural empathy and subjectivehappiness, and social support and subjective happiness. Manifestmean comparisons revealed that African Americans and Hispanicsreported significantly higher endorsement of subjective happiness,ethnocultural empathy, and social support than Asians, and fe-males reported higher ethnocultural empathy than males.

Measurement Models

Table 1 displays the fit index values for various levels offactorial invariance by ethnicity and gender. It is important toestablish some level of measurement invariance to ensure that thescales are measuring the same construct across the differentgroups. As recommended by Hu and Bentler (1999), four primaryfit indexes were used to examine model fit: comparative fit index(CFI; values .95 or greater suggest close fit); Tucker- Lewis Index(TLI; values .95 or greater suggest close fit); standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR; values .08 less suggest close fit);and root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA; values .06or less suggests close fit). Strong factorial invariance where thefactor loadings and intercepts were constrained to be equal acrossthe groups (by ethnicity, by gender) is defensible given the ob-served fit statistics. Moving to strict factorial invariance (con-straining the error terms to also be equal across the groups)resulted in deterioration of all the fit indexes. Structural modelswere then developed with strong factorial measurement invarianceconstraints maintained. Given strong factorial invariance, directrelations among the path coefficients in the ensuing structuralmodels as well as direct mean comparisons at both the latent andmanifest levels may be made with confidence.

Structural Models

Three separate models were developed and compared that in-corporated all four mediators simultaneously. The mediators aswell as their error terms were allowed to correlate with one

Table 1Fit Indexes of Invariance Measurement and Structural Models

Model �2 df p SRMR RMSEA (90% CI) TLI CFI

EthnicityMeasurement

Model 00: Baseline (configural invariance) 474.95 360 .00 .056 .056 (.041, .069) .957 .966Model 00 � � invariant (weak factorial invariance) 579.92 396 .00 .145 .068 (.056, .079) .937 .946Model 01 � � invariant (strong factorial invariance) 545.94 396 .00 .073 .061 (.048, .073) .949 .956Model 02 � �� invariant (strict factorial invariance) 622.32 432 .00 .091 .066 (.054, .077) .940 .944

StructuralModel 01A: No mediation 575.56 416 .00 .095 .062 (.049, .073) .949 .953Model 01B: Partial mediation 566.32 405 .00 .085 .063 (.050, .075) .946 .952Model 01C: Full mediation 557.92 407 .00 .079 .061 (.048, .073) .950 .956

GenderMeasurement

Model 00: Baseline (configural invariance) 329.9 240 .00 .049 .050 (.036, .062) .968 .975Model 00 � � invariant (weak factorial invariance) 380.7 258 .00 .077 .056 (.044, .068) .959 .965Model 01 � � invariant (strong factorial invariance) 385.1 252 .00 .062 .059 (.047, .071) .954 .962Model 02 � �� invariant (strict factorial invariance) 469.4 270 .00 .070 .070 (.059, .080) .936 .944

StructuralModel 01A: No mediation 507.29 269 .00 .131 .076 (.066, .087) .924 .933Model 01B: Partial mediation 441.54 255 .00 .082 .064 (.052, .075) .954 .962Model 01C: Full mediation 412.13 257 .00 .082 .063 (.052, .074) .955 .963

306 LE, LAI, AND WALLEN

another. In the no mediation models (Model 01A), school multi-culturalism and the mediator(s) were modeled as separate predic-tors of subjective happiness. In the partial mediation model (Model01B), school multiculturalism was a predictor of both the media-tors and subjective happiness, while a path from the mediators tosubjective happiness was also specified. In the full mediationmodels (Model 01C), paths were specified from school multicul-turalism to subjective happiness through the mediators (i.e., nodirect path was specified from school multiculturalism to subjec-tive happiness).

The fit indexes of the various structural models are also shownin Table 1, and reveal that the full mediation model (Model 01C)is the most parsimonious of the three models. Indeed, the fullmediation model has better fit statistics than the partial mediationmodel (as noted by the RMSEA, TLI, and CFI index values); mostnotably, the change in the CFI index exceeded .01 between thepartial and the full mediation models for ethnicity. Cheung andRensvold (2002) suggested that changes in the CFI index that exceed0.01 are indicative of a worsening model fit. Tables 2 and 3 showthe estimated path coefficients and t values of school multicultur-alism and mediators on subjective happiness by ethnicity andgender. The results reveal that ethnocultural empathy fully medi-ated the link between school multiculturalism and subjective hap-piness for African Americans and Asians, and for both males andfemales. Although school multiculturalism was also predictive ofethnocultural empathy for Hispanics, ethnocultural empathy inturn, was not statistically predictive of subjective happiness. Formales, African Americans, and Hispanics, there was also a signif-icant path between social support and subjective happiness, and forAsians, between ethnic identity and subjective happiness. Only forAfrican Americans was there a path between school multicultur-alism and ethnic identity.

Table 4 presents the estimated explained variance (pseudo R2)for the endogenous variables (criteria). The mediators collectivelyaccounted for 13% of the variance in subjective happiness forHispanics, 38% for Asians, and 56% for African Americans.School multiculturalism had the greatest explanatory variance forethnocultural empathy (ranging from 12% among the Asians to36% among African Americans).

Effect of Mediator

Preacher and Hayes (2008) recommended bootstrapping to as-sess the effects of mediators and to obtain more precise estimates,especially with small sample sizes that may not fulfill assumptionsof normality. Bootstrapping is a nonparametric resampling proce-dure that involves constructing confidence intervals. The nullhypothesis of no direct effect is rejected if a value of 0 lies outsidethe confidence intervals. The bootstrap estimates presented inTables 5 and 6 are based on 5,000 bootstrap samples. As illustratedin these two tables, as a combined set, the mediators mediated thelink between school multiculturalism and subjective happiness forall groups. Individual inspection of the mediators, however, re-veals that only ethnocultural empathy was a significant mediator,and for all groups except Hispanics. Examination of the pairwisecontrasts revealed that there were significant effect differencesbetween ethnocultural empathy and social support (for Asiansonly), between ethnocultural empathy and ethnic identity (AfricanAmericans and males only), and between ethnic identity andpositive peers (all except Hispanics).

Discussion

This study aimed to highlight if and how perceived schoolmulticulturalism has an impact on youth’s subjective happiness.

Table 2Standardized Estimated Path Coefficients (and t-values) of Alternate Structural Models for Predicting Subjective Happiness FromSchool Multiculturalism, Positive Peers, Social Support, Ethnic Identity, and Ethnocultural Empathy, by Ethnicity

Criterion � Mediator predictor: Multiculturalism Criterion � Subjective happiness predictors

AA Asian Hispanic AA Asian Hispanic

Model 01A: No mediation throughmediators

Multiculturalism .14 (0.46) �.02 (�0.21) �.09 (�0.67)Positive peers .07 (0.33) .06 (0.83) �.12 (�0.72)Social support .46� (3.27) .04 (0.45) .28 (2.71)Ethnic identity �.07 (�0.38) .29� (3.07) �.08 (�0.63)Ethno empathy .48� (2.15) .42� (3.86) .23 (1.63)

Model 01B: Partial mediation throughmediators

Multiculturalism .15 (0.59) �.03 (�0.28) �.10 (�0.72)Positive peers �.20 (�0.77) �.06 (�0.70) �.21 (�1.21) .10 (0.43) .06 (0.87) �.13 (�0.75)Social support .23 (0.82) .34� (2.51) .15 (1.03) .46� (2.54) .04 (0.46) .28� (2.52)Ethnic identity .41� (2.16) .15 (1.14) .18 (1.27) �.10 (�0.46) .30� (3.12) �.10 (�0.65)Ethno empathy .60� (4.05) .34� (2.68) .44� (3.64) .46� (1.70) .43� (3.84) .24 (1.59)

Model 01C: Full mediation throughmediators

Positive peers �.19 (�0.71) �.06 (�0.68) �.20 (�.1.13) .06 (0.31) .06 (0.90) �.11 (�0.66)Social support .26 (0.98) .34� (2.49) .15 (1.03) .47� (2.52) .03 (0.36) .27� (2.54)Ethnic identity .41� (2.11) .14 (1.12) .17 (1.26) �.08 (�0.40) .30� (3.24) �.08 (�0.70)Ethno empathy .60� (4.12) .34� (2.67) .44� (3.60) .54� (2.50) .42� (3.96) .19 (1.34)

Note. AA � African Americans.� p .05.

307MULTICULTURALISM AND SUBJECTIVE HAPPINESS

We hypothesized that perceived school multiculturalism would bepositively associated with subjective happiness, and that this rela-tion would be mediated through positive peer relations, ethnicidentity, social support, and ethnocultural empathy. Overall, ourresults partially supported our hypothesis in that school multicul-turalism was significantly associated with youth’s subjective hap-piness, and fully mediated by ethnocultural empathy. The effect

was statistically significantly for all groups except Hispanics,although as a collective, the mediators were also significantlyimpactful for Hispanics. Literature on developmental outcomes forHispanic adolescents has identified the importance of family re-lated variables, such as family support, familism, or parent–childrelationships (Edwards & Lopez, 2006; Garcia-Preto, 1996; Gil,Wagner, & Vega, 2000; Smokowski, Rose, & Bacallao, 2008);

Table 3Standardized Estimated Path Coefficients (and t-values) of Alternate Structural Models for PredictingSubjective Happiness From School Multiculturalism, Positive Peers, Social Support, Ethnic Identity, andEthnocultural Empathy, by Gender

Criterion � Mediator predictor:Multiculturalism

Criterion � Subjectivehappiness predictors

Male Female Male Female

Model 01A: No mediation through mediatorsMulticulturalism �.04 (�0.36) �.04 (�0.30)Positive peers .02 (0.15) �.02 (�0.19)Social support .34� (3.89) .18� (1.99)Ethnic identity .02 (0.19) .09 (0.78)Ethno empathy .42� (3.51) .33� (3.01)

Model 01B: Partial mediation through mediatorsMulticulturalism �.05 (�0.41) �.08 (�0.48)Positive peers �.26 (�1.82) �.06 (�0.66) .02 (0.12) �.03 (�0.22)Social support .02 (0.79) .40� (2.86) .34� (3.83) .19 (1.81)Ethnic identity .16 (1.34) .27� (2.14) .02 (0.17) .07 (0.62)Ethno empathy .31� (2.79) .62� (7.50) .42� (3.40) .35� (2.58)

Model 01C: Full mediation through mediatorsPositive peers �.26 (�1.82) �.06 (�0.64) .03 (0.22) �.02 (�0.20)Social support .14 (1.21) .40� (2.85) .34� (3.75) .17 (1.82)Ethnic identity .16 (1.32) .27� (2.11) .02 (0.14) .08 (0.65)Ethno empathy .30� (2.77) .61� (7.40) .41� (3.37) .31� (2.85)

� p .05.

Table 4Estimated R2 Values for Subjective Happiness and Mediators

By ethnicity By gender

Outcome No med. Partial med. Full med. No med. Partial med. Full med.

African American

Subjective happiness .527 .567 .564Positive peers .038 .036Ethnic identity .169 .168Ethno empathy .354 .360Social support .053 .065

Asian Male

Subjective happiness .372 .375 .373 .349 .361 .355Positive peers .004 .003 .066 .066Ethnic identity .021 .021 .025 .025Ethno empathy .119 .116 .094 .092Social support .114 .114 .006 .018

Hispanic Female

Subjective happiness .144 .144 .134 .153 .189 .183Positive peers .042 .041 .004 .004Ethnic identity .031 .030 .073 .073Ethno empathy .194 .193 .378 .376Social support .022 .021 .159 .157

308 LE, LAI, AND WALLEN

thus, variables specific to the family domain or other unmeasuredthird variables may be central to Hispanic youth’s report of sub-jective happiness or self-concept in general.

School multiculturalism accounted for the largest explana-tory variance in ethnocultural empathy, and ethnocultural em-pathy for subjective happiness. This suggests that an importantmechanism by which multiculturalism influence positive out-comes for youth is through fostering their sense of understand-

ing, empathy, and compassion toward other groups within theschool context. Schools can influence the nature of friendshipformation and interactions through its school structure, byencouraging extracurricular activities or settings that fostercross-cultural and cross-racial interactions (Moody, 2001). Fos-tering affective ties between members of different groups canbenefit minority youth, particularly Hispanic girls (Crosnoe etal., 2004). Further studies are needed to see if this finding is

Table 5Mediation Effects by Ethnicity

Bootstrapping 95% CI

Point estimate SE Z Lower Upper

AA Asian H AA Asian H AA Asian H AA Asian H AA Asian H

Ethnic identity �.03 .04 �.02 .16 .04 .03 �0.21 1.14 �0.51 �0.34 �.03 �.07 0.28 .12 .04Ethno empathy .33 .14 .08 .17 .06 .07 1.98 2.40 1.29 0.01 .03 �.04 0.67 .26 .21Positive peers �.01 �.01 .02 .05 .01 .04 �0.24 �0.43 0.63 �0.11 �.02 �.05 0.10 .01 .10Social support .12 .01 .04 .23 .03 .04 0.51 0.35 1.00 �0.39 �.05 �.04 0.58 .07 .12Total indirect .40 .19 .13 .13 .08 .07 3.16 2.57 2.06 0.15 .05 .01 0.65 .34 .26Total .40 .19 .13 .13 .08 .07 3.16 2.57 2.06 0.15 .05 .01 0.65 .34 .26Ethnic identity versus

ethno empathy .49 .15 .13 .27 .10 .11 1.96 1.47 1.23 0.01 �.02 �.07 1.08 .39 .36Ethnic identity versus

positive peers .03 �.07 .05 .17 .06 .05 0.17 �1.14 0.95 �0.22 �.21 �.03 0.37 .04 .19Ethnic identity versus

social support .21 �.05 .07 .33 .07 .07 0.63 �0.65 1.03 �0.04 �.21 �.03 1.08 .07 .25Positive peers versus

ethno empathy .46 .21 .08 .21 .10 .11 2.21 2.12 0.71 0.10 .06 �.15 0.87 .47 .31Social support versus

ethno empathy .28 .19 .06 .41 .11 .11 0.69 1.96 0.53 �0.65 .02 �.16 0.85 .48 .28Social support versus

positive peers �.18 �.02 �.02 .30 .05 .07 �0.60 �0.43 �0.30 �1.42 �.13 �.16 0.05 .08 .13

Note. AA � African American; H � Hispanic.

Table 6Mediation Effects by Gender

Bootstrapping 95% CI

Point estimate SE Z Lower Upper

Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

Ethnic identity .01 .02 .02 .04 0.13 0.54 �.03 �.05 .04 .10Ethno empathy .12 .19 .05 .07 2.41 2.57 .02 .05 .23 .33Positive peers �.01 .00 .03 .01 �0.23 0.12 �.07 �.02 .05 .03Social support .05 .07 .04 .05 1.22 1.43 �.03 �.03 .12 .06Total indirect .17 .28 .07 .07 2.41 4.23 .03 .15 .30 .41Total .17 .28 .07 .07 2.41 4.23 .03 .15 .30 .41Ethnic identity versus

ethno empathy .16 .30 .08 .17 2.02 1.81 .03 .00 .35 .63Ethnic identity versus

positive peers �.01 �.03 .04 .07 �0.28 �0.50 �.12 �.19 .07 .07Ethnic identity versus

social support .06 .08 .05 .12 1.09 0.70 �.03 �.13 .17 .33Positive peers versus

ethno empathy .17 .33 .09 .13 1.96 2.53 .03 .11 .39 .64Social support versus

ethno empathy .10 .22 .08 .18 1.21 1.23 �.06 �.15 .27 .58Social support versus

positive peers �.07 �.11 .06 .10 �1.15 �1.19 �.19 �.37 .05 .02

309MULTICULTURALISM AND SUBJECTIVE HAPPINESS

unique to this particular ethnic minority population, or is aphenomenon that can be generalized to other populations.

Our results did not support the hypothesized mediation of socialsupport, ethnic identity, or positive peers. It could be argued thatthe early adolescents in this sample have not yet developed orexplored their sense of ethnic identity as identity explorationtypically begins in middle to late adolescence (Waterman, 1999).However, the MEIM has been validated among early adolescentsamples of the same age range as our study (Spencer, Icard,Harachi, Catalano, & Oxford, 2000) and ethnic identity was foundto be positively related to measures of psychological well-being(Roberts et al., 1999; Spencer et al., 2000). Furthermore, research-ers have argued for the contextual and dynamic nature of ethnicidentity (Cheryan & Tsai, 2007). Future research exploring the linkbetween ethnic identity and subjective happiness should addressthe effect of school context on participants’ report of ethnic iden-tity.

Although social support was significantly related to subjectivehappiness for African Americans, Hispanics, and among males, itwas not linked with school multiculturalism. Further, school mul-ticulturalism accounted for less variance in social support than forethnocultural empathy. This suggests that in the presence of eth-nocultural empathy, social support was a less meaningful mecha-nism between school multiculturalism and subjective happiness.With respect to positive peers, the low reliability of the positivepeer measure makes it difficult to discern whether the lack ofsignificant findings with school multiculturalism and subjectivehappiness was due to poor measure statistics, or the constructitself.

These results are consistent with the budding literature aboutthe effects of school multiculturalism on youth developmentaloutcomes, as well as the developmental-ecological perspectivethat youth development is embedded within a series of socialcontexts (Bronfenbrenner, 1986). Research has shown that thedevelopment and well-being of ethnic minority and immigrantyouth are affected by diverse school and classrooms (Juvonen etal., 2006), neighborhoods (Georgiades, Boyle, & Duku, 2007),and communities (Wight, Aneshensel, Botticello, & Sepulveda,2005). These studies point to the importance of a person-environment fit (Lerner & Lerner, 1983) for youth developmentand outcomes. In ethnically diverse communities and schoolcontexts, ethnic minority youth may feel a greater sense ofbelonging and greater sense of safety, leading to better schoolperformance and well-being. Indeed, we found this to be truewith respect to perceived diversity (as indicated by schoolmulticulturalism) and subjective happiness.

These results highlight the need to examine the positive dimen-sions of ethnic minority and immigrant youth development and thecontexts that may facilitate their thriving and well-being. Researchis also needed that explore the processes and mechanisms bywhich a multicultural context is related to outcomes as solidempirical evidence of the effects of multiculturalism is still lim-ited. Future research is needed on the many dimensions of multi-culturalism including its conceptual (e.g., standardized) definition,measurement, association with youth outcomes and behaviors aswell as the processes and mechanisms by which it operates. Thisresearch presents only one albeit limited possibility.

References

Brand, S., Felner, R., Shim, M., Seitsinger, A., & Dumas, T. (2003).Middle school improvement and reform: Development and validation ofa school-level assessment of climate, cultural pluralism, and schoolsafety. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 570–588.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for humandevelopment: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22,723–742.

Brown, B. B., Dolcini, M. M., & Leventhal, A. (1997). Transformations inpeer relationships at adolescence: Implications for health-related behav-ior. In J. Schulenberg, J. Maggs & K. Hurrelmann (Eds.), Health risksand developmental transitions during adolescence (pp. 161–189). NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

California Department of Education. (2008). California public school—School report. Retrieved August 11, 2008, from http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/SchEnr.asp?TheName�roosevelt&cSelect�ROOSEVELT%5EMIDDLE–OAKLAND%5EUNIFIED–0161259–6057087&cChoice�SchEnrEth&cYear�2007–08&cLevel�School&cTopic�Enrollment&myTimeFrame�S&submit1�Submit

Cheryan, S., & Tsai, J. L. (2007). Ethnic identity. In F. T. L. Leong, A. G.Inman, A. Ebreo, L. H. Yang, L. Kinoshita, & M. Fu (Eds.), Handbookof Asian American psychology (2nd ed., pp. 125–139). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fitindexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Mod-eling, 9, 233–255.

Crosnoe, R., Cavanagh, S., & Elder, G. H. (2003). Adolescent friendshipsas academic resources: The intersection of friendship, race, and schooladvantage. Sociological Perspectives, 46, 331–352.

Crosnoe, R., Johnson, M. K., & Elder, G. H. (2004). Intergenerationalbonding in school: The behavioral and contextual correlates of student-teacher relationships. Sociology of Education, 77, 68–81.

Crosnoe, R., & Lopez-Gonzalez, L. (2005). Immigration from Mexico,school composition, and adolescent functioning. Sociological Perspec-tives, 48, 1–24.

Duncan, G. J., Boisjoly, J., Levy, D. M., Kremer, M., & Eccles, J. (2003).Empathy or antipathy? The consequences of racially and socially di-verse peers on attitudes and behaviors (JCPR Working Paper No. 326).Chicago: Joint Center for Poverty Research, Northwestern University/University of Chicago.

Edwards, L., & Lopez, S. (2006). Perceived family support, acculturation,and life satisfaction in Mexican American youth: A mixed methodsexploration. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53, 279–287.

Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. A. (1987). The relation of empathy to prosocialand related behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 91–119.

Frankenberg, E., & Lee, C. (2002). Race in American public schools:Rapidly resegregating school districts. Cambridge, MA: The CivilRights Project, Harvard University.

Garcia-Preto, N. (1996). Latino families: An overview. In M. McGoldrick,J. Giordano, & J. K. Pearce (Eds.), Ethnicity and family therapy (2nd ed.,pp. 141–154). New York: Guilford.

Georgiades, K., Boyle, M. H., & Duku, E. (2007). Contextual influences onchildren’s mental health and school performance: The moderating ef-fects of family immigrant status. Child Development, 78, 1572–1591.

Gil, A. G., Wagner, E. F., & Vega, W. A. (2000). Acculturation, familism,and alcohol use among Latino adolescent males: Longitudinal relations.Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 443–458.

Graham, S. (2006). Peer victimization in school. Current Directions inPsychological Science, 15, 317–321.

Helliwell, J. F., & Putnam, R. D. (2005). The social context of well-being.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Series B, 359, 1435–1446.

Hodgkinson, H. (2004). U.S. demographic trends & implications for young

310 LE, LAI, AND WALLEN

people’s development. Paper presented at the Edward W. Hazen Foun-dation 2005–2010 Strategic Planning Teleconference.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes incovariance structural analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alterna-tives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

Juvonen, J., Nishina, A., & Graham, S. (2006). Ethnic diversity andperceptions of safety in urban middle schools. Psychological Science,17, 393–400.

Kinket, B., & Verkuyten, M. (1999). Intergroup evaluations and socialcontext: A multilevel approach. European Journal of Social Psychology,29, 219–237.

Kishton, J. M., & Widaman, K. F. (1994). Unidimensional versus domainrepresentative parceling of questionnaire items: An empirical example.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 757–765.

Kurlaender, M., & Yun, J. T. (2002). The impact of racial and ethnicdiversity on educational outcomes: Cambridge, MA school district.Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University.

Larson, R. (2006). Positive youth development, willful adolescents, andmentoring. Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 677–689.

Leffert, N., & Lerner, R. (1999). Developmental assets: A synthesis of thescientific research on adolescent development. Minneapolis, MN:Search Institute.

Lerner, J. V., & Lerner, R. M. (1983). Temperament and adaptation acrosslife: Theoretical and empirical issues. In P. B. Baltes & O. G. Brim(Eds.), Life-span development and behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 197–230). NewYork: Academic.

Lyubomirsky, S., King, L. A., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits offrequent positive affect. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 803–855.

Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness:Preliminary reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Re-search, 46, 137–155.

Martinez, R. O., & Dukes, R. L. (1997). The effects of ethnic identity,ethnicity, and gender on adolescent well-being. Journal of Youth andAdolescence, 26, 503–516.

McMahon, S. D., & Washburn, J. J. (2003). Violence prevention: Anevaluation of program effects with urban African American students.The Journal of Primary Prevention, 24, 43–62.

McMahon, S. D., & Watts, R. J. (2002). Ethnic identity in urban AfricanAmerican youth: Exploring links with self-worth, aggression, and otherpsychosocial variables. Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 411–431.

Miller, P. A., & Eisenberg, N. (1988). The relation of empathy to aggres-sive and externalizing/antisocial behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 103,324–344.

Moody, J. (2001). Race, school integration, and friendship segregation inAmerica. The American Journal of Sociology, 107, 670–716.

Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2008). Mplus, the comprehensivemodeling program for applied researches: User’s guide. Los Angeles:Author.

Nesdale, D., Griffith, J., Durkin, K., & Maass, A. (2005). Empathy, groupnorms and children’s ethnic attitudes. Applied Developmental Psychol-ogy, 26, 623–637.

Oppedal, B., Roysamb, E., & Sam, D. L. (2004). The effect of accultura-tion and social support on change in mental health among young immi-grants. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28, 481–494.

Phinney, J. S. (1992). The multigroup ethnic identity measure: A new scalefor use with diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7, 156–176.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resamplingstrategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple me-diator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.

Quillian, L., & Campbell, M. E. (2003). Beyond Black and White: Thepresent and future of multiracial friendship segregation. American So-ciological Review, 68, 540–566.

Ramirez, M. (1983). Psychology of the Americas: Mestizo perspectives onpersonality and mental health. New York: Pergamon.

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

Smokowski, P. R., Rose, R., & Bacallao, M. L. (2008). Acculturation andLatino family processes: How cultural involvement, biculturalism, andacculturation gaps influence family dynamics. Family Relations, 57,295–308.

Spencer, M. S., Icard, L. D., Harachi, T. W., Catalano, R. F., & Oxford, M.(2000). Ethnic identity among monoracial and multiracial early adoles-cents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 20, 365–387.

Tan, G. (1999). Perceptions of multiculturalism, academic achievement,and intent to stay in school among Mexican American students. Journalof Research and Development in Education, 33, 1–14.

Wang, Y.-W., Davidson, M. M., Yakushko, O. F., Savoy, H. B., Tan, J. A.,& Bleier, J. K. (2003). The scale of ethnocultural empathy: Develop-ment, validation, and reliability. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50,221–234.

Waterman, A. S. (1999). Issues of identity formation revisited: UnitedStates and the Netherlands. Developmental Review, 19, 462–479.

WestEd. (2003). California Healthy Kids survey. Retrieved from www.wested.org/chks

Wight, R. G., Aneshensel, C. S., Botticello, A. L., & Sepulveda, J. E.(2005). A multilevel analysis of ethnic variation in depressive symptomsamong adolescents in the United States. Social Science & Medicine, 60,2073–2084.

Yoon, E., Lee, R. M., & Goh, M. (2008). Acculturation, social connect-edness, and subjective well-being. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic MinorityPsychology, 14, 246–255.

Zhou, M., & Bankston, C. L. (1994). Social capital and the adaptation ofthe second generation: The case of Vietnamese youth in New Orleans.International Migration Review, 28, 821–845.

(Appendixes follow)

311MULTICULTURALISM AND SUBJECTIVE HAPPINESS

Appendix A

Mean, Standard Deviation, and Alpha Reliability of Variables

Measure M SD

MulticulturalismAfrican–American 3.29a 0.72 .83Asian 3.11a 0.62 .76Hispanic 3.16a 0.76 .82Male 3.09a 0.78 .86Female 3.22a 0.60 .71Total 3.16 0.69 .81

Subjective happinessAfrican–American 5.63b 1.32 .79Asian 4.87a 1.24 .84Hispanic 5.40b 1.37 .86Male 5.19a 1.38 .88Female 5.18a 1.29 .83Total 5.18 1.33 .85

Social supportAfrican–American 0.45b 0.61 .76Asian �0.32a 0.88 .84Hispanic 0.21b 0.79 .85Male �0.08a 0.87 .86Female 0.06a 0.86 .86Total �0.01 0.87 .86

Positive peersAfrican–American 3.00a 0.52 .55Asian 2.92a 0.48 .55Hispanic 2.90a 0.48 .69Male 2.91a 0.44 .50Female 2.94a 0.53 .70Total 2.92 0.49 .62

Ethnic identityAfrican–American 3.12a 0.65 .92Asian 3.13a 0.48 .88Hispanic 3.13a 0.61 .92Male 3.12a 0.58 .92Female 3.14a 0.54 .89Total 3.13 0.55 .91

EthnoculturalempathyAfrican–American 4.14b 1.41 .93Asian 3.73a 1.07 .90Hispanic 3.83a,b 1.34 .93Male 3.62a 1.20 .91Female 4.01b 1.24 .92Total 3.83 1.23 .92

Note. The same subscripts indicate that means are not significantly different among ethnicities/gender.

312 LE, LAI, AND WALLEN

Appendix B

Intercorrelations Among Variables

1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Multiculturalism — .36� .37� .53� .19 .082. Positive peers .09 — �.06 .37� .20 .33�

3. Ethnic identity .13 .24� — .38� .28 .38�

4. Ethno. empathy .30� .24� .36� — .15 .51�

5. Social support .30� .31� .30� .38� — .26�

6. Subjective happiness .30� .18 .22 .54� .25 —

Note. Results for Asians (n � 158) are presented below the diagonal, and for African Americans (n � 47), above thediagonal.� p .05.

Appendix C

Intercorrelations Among Variables

1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Multiculturalism —2. Positive peers .05 —3. Ethnic identity .17 .07 —4. Ethno. empathy .39� .21� .25� —5. Social support .11 .12 .19� .09 —6. Subjective happiness .03 .20� .01 .23� .25� —

Note. Results for Hispanics (n � 125) are presented below the diagonal.� p .05.

Appendix D

Intercorrelations Among Variables

1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Multiculturalism — .17� .23� .45� .30� .17�

2. Positive peers .10 — .18� .25� .24� .28�

3. Ethnic Identity .14 .04 — .34� .32� .21�

4. Ethno. Empathy .24� .22� .31� — .26� .28�

5. Social Support .10 .16� .15 .22� — .21�

6. Subj. Happiness .06 .25� .15 .48� .40� —

Note. Results for males (n � 146) are presented below the diagonal, and for females (n � 157), above the diagonal.� p .05.

313MULTICULTURALISM AND SUBJECTIVE HAPPINESS