Personal and Cultural Identity 1

Running head: PERSONAL AND CULTURAL IDENTITY

In press, Journal of Social Psychology.

The Relationships of Personal and Cultural Identity to Adaptive and Maladaptive Psychosocial

Functioning in Emerging Adults

Seth J. Schwartz

University of Miami

Byron L. Zamboanga

Smith College

Robert S. Weisskirch

California State University at Monterey Bay

Sherry C. Wang

University of Nebraska-Lincoln

____________________

We thank Bill E. Peterson for his helpful comments on previous drafts of this article.

Seth J. Schwartz, Center for Family Studies, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Leonard M.

Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami. Byron L. Zamboanga, Department of Psychology, Smith College,

Northampton, MA. Robert S. Weisskirch, Liberal Studies Department, California State University, Monterey Bay.

Sherry C. Wang, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

Correspondence and reprint requests should be sent to Seth J. Schwartz, Center for Family Studies, Department

of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Leonard M. Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, 1425 N.W.

10th Avenue, Miami, FL 33136. Electronic mail should be sent to SSchwartz@med.miami.edu.

Personal and Cultural Identity 2

Abstract

The present study examined the extent to which cultural identity would be associated with

adaptive and maladaptive psychosocial functioning, both directly and indirectly through a

personal identity consolidation. A sample of 773 White, Black, and Hispanic university students

completed measures of cultural identity, personal identity consolidation, adaptive psychosocial

functioning, internalizing symptoms, and proclivity toward externalizing symptoms. Both

heritage and American cultural identity were positively related to adaptive psychosocial

functioning, American-culture identity was negatively associated with internalizing symptoms,

and heritage-culture identity was negatively related to proclivity toward externalizing symptoms.

All of these findings were mediated by personal identity consolidation and were fully consistent

across ethnic groups. Implications are discussed in terms of broadening the study of identity to

include both personal and cultural dimensions of self.

KEY WORDS: Identity, ethnicity, adjustment, individualism, collectivism.

Personal and Cultural Identity 3

Identity has been the subject of widespread theoretical and empirical inquiry for more than

50 years, dating to Erikson’s (1950) seminal work. Erikson’s work on identity has inspired a

substantial literature base on identity development, most of which is focused on personal identity

(Côté, 2006; Côté & Levine, 2002). Much of this literature has placed primary emphasis on the

identity status model (Marcia, 1966), which posits exploration of and commitment to prospective

life alternatives as the primary processes underlying identity development. In another line of

research on personal identity, Côté and colleagues (e.g., Côté, 1996; Côté & Levine, 2002) have

focused on delineating ways in which identity is developed through transactions with society and

can be used to negotiate for social resources. Altogether, the various currents within the personal

identity literature have focused on the ways in which goals, values, and beliefs are consolidated

during the transition to adulthood (Schwartz, 2006) and on how this sense of identity

consolidation relates to indices of well-being and distress in young people (Schwartz, 2007a).

Concurrently, an entirely separate literature has developed on cultural identity and on the

ways in which individuals define themselves culturally. Constructs included under the umbrella

of cultural identity include acculturation styles (Berry, 1980), individualism and collectivism

(Triandis, 1995), independent and interdependent self-construal (Markus & Kitayama, 1991),

ethnic identity (Phinney, 1990), and familism (Sabogal, Marin, Otero-Sabogal, Marin, & Perez-

Stable, 1987). Although they index somewhat different phenomena, these constructs can be

studied under the rubric of cultural identity (Schwartz, Zamboanga, Rodriguez, & Wang, 2007).

As Côté (2006) has observed, the study of identity is quite fragmented, with each subfield

inspiring its own theoretical underpinnings, measurement instruments, and followings. A prime

example is the sparse research examining both personal identity and cultural identity. With the

exception of a small number of studies (e.g., Branch, Tayal, & Triplett, 2000; St. Louis & Liem,

Personal and Cultural Identity 4

2005) that have examined the relationships between identity status and ethnic identity, the

research literatures on personal identity and cultural identity have remained quite separate.

Moreover, studies of personal identity have generally been limited to largely White samples

(Sneed, Schwartz, & Cross, 2006), whereas studies of cultural identity have focused primarily on

ethnic minorities (e.g., Constantine, Gainor, Ahluwalia, & Berkel, 2003) or on cross-ethnic or

cross-national comparisons (e.g., Ghorbani, Bing, Watson, Davison, & LeBreton, 2003). The

interface between personal identity consolidation and cultural identity, and the ways in which

both of these aspects of identity relate to psychosocial adjustment, have been sparsely studied.

The present study was designed to address this research gap.

Personal Identity

As noted above, personal identity consolidation is a higher-order construct consisting of

Erikson’s model of identity synthesis and confusion, Marcia’s (1966) identity status model, and

the identity capital approach (Côté, 1996). Specifically, personal identity consolidation refers to

having developed a sense of self that is internally consistent and coherent (Erikson), that is based

on reflective commitments (Marcia), and that supports independent adult functioning and

integration into a validating adult community (Côté). Personal identity consolidation is therefore

a higher-order, multidimensional construct that subsumes elements of Erikson’s model, identity

status, and identity capital and creates a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts (Schwartz,

2007a). Each of these component models is reviewed briefly here.

Erikson’s Theory of Identity Development and Marcia’s Identity Status Model

Erikson’s Model. Erikson (1950) framed identity development as a balance between identity

synthesis and identity confusion. Identity synthesis represents a meshing of the various aspects of

one’s sense of self, and identity confusion refers to a lack of coherence or integration among the

Personal and Cultural Identity 5

different parts of one’s self-definition. Particularly in Western cultural contexts, this sense of

coherence or integration, both over time and across situations, is critical to healthy adjustment

(Cross, Gore, & Morris, 2003).

Identity Status. Building in part from Erikson’s conceptualization of identity development,

identity status is based on the extent to which a person has (a) sorted through potential sets of

goals, values, and beliefs and (b) committed to one or more of these sets. Marcia (1966)

dichotomized exploration and commitment into “present” versus “absent” and crossed these two

dimensions to create four identity statuses. The statuses are achievement (active exploration

following a period of moratorium), moratorium (exploration without commitment), foreclosure

(commitment without exploration), and diffusion (absence of exploration and commitment).

Although the status model consists of four different ways of addressing the task of developing a

sense of identity, the achieved status appears to be associated with the most favorable

psychosocial functioning in emerging adulthood (see Marcia, 1993; Waterman, 1999, for

reviews). As a result, the achieved status can be taken as an index of identity consolidation

(Schwartz, 2006, 2007a). Similarly, identity commitments, which underlie the achieved status

and are related to positive functioning (Luyckx, Schwartz, Soenens, Vansteenkiste, & Goossens,

in press), may also serve as an index of identity consolidation.

Identity Capital

The identity capital model (Côté, 1996, 1997) specifies both predictors and indices of

personal identity consolidation. Within the identity capital model, identity consolidation is

represented as the extent to which an emerging adult has achieved a subjective sense of

adulthood and has found a validating community (i.e., “settling down”). These identity-related

resources can then be used to negotiate for societal resources (e.g., jobs, club memberships).

Personal and Cultural Identity 6

Schwartz (2006, 2007a) has found that the indices of identity capital proposed by Côté (1996,

1997) are strongly intercorrelated with identity consolidation indices drawn from Eriksonian and

identity status approaches (i.e., commitment, achievement, identity synthesis).

Although the Eriksonian, identity status, and identity capital approaches differ somewhat in

their operational definitions and conceptualizations of identity, they all highlight a self-directed

and coherent sense of identity as important for making one’s way in the world. Moreover, the

increasing individualization of the life course in Western countries has placed young people in

charge of their own life paths, and the concomitant separation of adolescence from adulthood has

resulted in a new life stage, emerging adulthood (Arnett, 2000), during which identity is most

likely to be consolidated. All of these variables reflect a synthesized and agentic approach to

personal identity issues, and Schwartz (2007a) has shown that a higher-order identity

consolidation construct can be derived using these variables as indicators.

Personal Identity and Psychosocial Functioning

A number of studies, using individual indicators of personal identity, have explored the

relationships between personal identity and psychosocial functioning. Overall, these studies

suggest that the achieved status is associated with subjective well-being (e.g., self-esteem, life

satisfaction; Waterman, 2007), that personal identity confusion is linked with behavior problems

(e.g., Adams et al., 2001; Schwartz, Pantin, Prado, Sullivan, & Szapocznik, 2005), and that a

coherent sense of personal identity is protective against psychological distress (e.g., de Goede,

Spruijt, Iedema, & Meeus, 1999). However, the relationships of personal identity consolidation,

as a multidimensional construct comprised of identity synthesis, identity commitment, identity

achievement, and identity capital, to psychosocial functioning have only begun to be explored.

Cultural Identity

Personal and Cultural Identity 7

Cultural identity refers to the ways in which individuals define themselves in relation to the

groups to which they belong (e.g., family, religious community, nation; Berry, 1980; Markus &

Kitayama, 1991; Phinney, 1990; Triandis, 1995). Although much of the research on cultural

identity has been conducted on immigrants and their immediate descendants (Coatsworth,

Maldonado-Molina, Pantin, & Szapocznik, 2005; Trung Lam, 2005), there is evidence that

cultural identity constructs are also applicable to later generation immigrants (Ponterotto et al.,

2001) and non-immigrant minorities (Constantine et al., 2003). With particular, but not

exclusive, reference to immigrants and their immediate descendants, heritage and receiving

cultural values and practices may both exert influences on individuals’ cultural identities

(Rudmin, 2003; Schwartz, Montgomery, & Briones, 2006). The same may be true of non-

immigrant minorities such as African Americans and Native Americans (Bryant & LaFromboise,

2005; Pillay, 2005). There is also evidence that cultural constructs are relevant to Whites as well

as to other ethnic groups (e.g., Schwartz, Zamboanga, Weisskirch, & Rodriguez, in press).

The large majority of immigrants to the United States and other Western countries have their

origins in largely collectivist-oriented countries in Latin America, Asia, the Caribbean, and

Africa (Donato, Aguilera, & Wakabayashi, 2005; van de Vijver & Phalet, 2004). Cultural

adjustment for these individuals generally involves balancing their largely collectivist heritage

with the largely individualist orientation of the receiving cultural context (Schwartz,

Montgomery, & Briones, 2006). Indices of cultural identity might therefore be grouped into

those reflecting the heritage culture and those reflecting the receiving culture. In an ethnically

diverse sample of emerging adults, Schwartz et al. (2007) found this to be the case across White,

Black, and Hispanic participants. This highly consistent pattern emerged even though White,

Personal and Cultural Identity 8

Black, and Hispanic participants descended from countries characterized by highly diverse

degrees of individualism and collectivism (cf. Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002).

Using unidimensional approaches to cultural identity, where American-culture acquisition

and heritage-culture retention are cast as opposing ends of a continuum, a number of studies have

explored the relationships between cultural identity and psychosocial functioning. A well-known

finding in this line of work is that, among immigrants and their descendants, orientation toward

American culture is associated with behavior problems (Dinh, Roosa, Tein, & Lopez, 2002),

substance use (Gil, Wagner, & Vega, 2000), sexual risk taking (Ford & Norris, 1993), and other

indicators of poor health (Unger, Reynolds, Shakib, Spruijt-Metz, Sun, & Johnson, 2004).

Heritage-culture retention has been found to protect against some of these outcomes (e.g., Le &

Kato, 2006).

A small number of studies, using a bidimensional approach to cultural identity, have yielded

different conclusions from studies using a unidimensional approach. Traditionally, acculturation

has been conceptualized such that heritage and American practices are cast as opposites (Ryder,

Alden, & Paulhus, 2000). In other words, as individuals acquire the values and behaviors of the

receiving culture, they are expected to simultaneously discard those of the heritage culture.

However, a “bidimensional” approach considers heritage and American values and practices

separately, and may more accurately reflect the experiences of immigrants and their descendants

as they operate within a multicultural society (e.g., Cheng, Lee, & Benet-Martínez, 2006).

Among American youth, both individualistic (Chung & Gale, 2006) and collectivistic (Chen,

Chan, Bond, & Stewart, 2006) values have been associated with increased well-being and

decreased psychological distress. Moreover, among first and second generation Hispanic

immigrant adolescents in Miami, Coatsworth et al. (2005) and Sullivan et al. (2007) have found

Personal and Cultural Identity 9

that engagement in both Hispanic and American cultural practices was associated with the most

favorable psychosocial outcomes. Given this somewhat limited literature grounded in the

bidimensional approach, it might be assumed that attachment to the values or practices of a

cultural group – whether individualistic American society, a collectivist-oriented heritage

culture, or both – promotes well-being and inhibits distress. However, more research is clearly

needed to affirm the main effects of heritage and American cultural identities on psychosocial

functioning.

Cultural Identity and Personal Identity

An additional question arises – specifically, how do cultural values and practices relate to

psychosocial adjustment? Examining cultural identity and personal identity conjointly may help

to address this issue. In a multicultural society, defining oneself culturally may represent one

way in which personal identity can be facilitated (Schwartz, Zamboanga, & Weisskirch, 2008).

Specifically, it is possible that adoption of a specific set of cultural values and practices helps

one to consolidate a sense of personal identity, which in turn is positively related to well-being

and negatively related to distress and proclivity toward problem behavior. The present study was

designed, in part, to address this issue.

Bringing together the study of personal identity and cultural identity may also represent an

important theoretical contribution. The study of the self has been unduly fragmented (Côté,

2006; Côté & Levine, 2002), with little integration across subfields. Until recently, most personal

identity research was conducted on White Americans (Sneed et al., 2006), who were thought to

be largely unconcerned with cultural issues (DeVos & Banaji, 2005; Tsai, Mortensen, Wong, &

Hess, 2002). However, as the United States and other Western countries become increasingly

ethnically and culturally diverse (Bernstein, 2007; van de Vijver & Phalet, 2004), and as the

Personal and Cultural Identity 10

world becomes more global and international (Arnett, 2002), “majority” – as well as “minority”

– individuals are increasingly having to recognize themselves as cultural beings. As a result,

examining the consequences of cultural identification for personal identity consolidation has the

potential to considerably expand and integrate the study of identity.

Psychosocial Functioning in Emerging Adulthood

It is important to mention the significance of psychosocial functioning in emerging adults.

Indices of adaptive psychosocial functioning such as self-esteem, purpose in life, internal locus

of control, and resilience reflect not only a sense of subjective well-being (Sheldon et al., 2004)

and positive adjustment (Uchida, Norasakkunkit, & Kitayama, 2004) within a Western cultural

context, but they also reflect a sense of self-determination and agency (Côté, 1997, 2002;

Schwartz, Côté, & Arnett, 2005). These indices, measured in emerging adulthood, have been

shown to predict later life successes (e.g., job satisfaction in adulthood; Côté, 2002). Conversely,

internalizing symptoms such as anxiety and depression interfere with resolution of the

developmental tasks of emerging adulthood (Allen, Hauser, Eickholt, Bell, & O’Connor. 1994).

Impulsivity and tolerance for deviance are also important indicators because they predict a

number of maladaptive behavioral outcomes (e.g., substance abuse, criminal involvement;

Barnes, Welte, Hoffman, & Dintcheff, 2005; Brook, Balka, Rosen, Brook, & Adams, 2005).

Impulsivity and tolerance for deviance may also be somewhat responsible for the reckless

behavior often observed in emerging adults (Arnett, 1994, 2007) and can be regarded as

indicative of proclivity toward externalizing problems. Thus, if personal identity and cultural

identity relate positively to adaptive psychosocial functioning and negatively to internalizing

symptoms and to proclivity toward externalizing problems, then personal and cultural identity

Personal and Cultural Identity 11

may serve as mechanisms for enhancing well-being and preventing problematic outcomes in

young people.

Study Aims and Hypotheses

The aim of present study was to examine the extent to which cultural identity constructs

would be associated with adaptive and maladaptive psychosocial functioning, both directly and

indirectly through a consolidated sense of personal identity (cf. Schwartz et al., 2008), as well as

the extent to which these associations would be consistent across ethnic groups. Although

literature linking various conceptions of identity is scant, supportive results would help to build a

theoretical bridge between cultural and personal identity. Such findings would also suggest that

defining oneself culturally represents one way to consolidate a sense of personal identity in a

multicultural society.

We tested three primary hypotheses. First, following Chung and Gale (2006) and Chen et al.,

2006), we hypothesized that both American and heritage culture identities would be positively

related to adaptive psychological functioning and negatively related to internalizing symptoms

and to proclivity toward externalizing problems. Second, we hypothesized that personal identity

consolidation would mediate these relationships. Third, given our prior research showing that the

structures of personal (Schwartz, 2007a) and cultural (Schwartz, Zamboanga, Rodriguez, &

Wang, 2007) identity are consistent across ethnic groups, we hypothesized that all of these

relationships would be consistent across ethnicity. We also compared these relationships across

gender and between immigrant and U.S.-born participants, given that the majority of Whites in

the United States are U.S.-born, whereas many Blacks and Hispanics are not.

Method

Participants

Personal and Cultural Identity 12

Participants in the present study were 773 university students (162 men, 609 women, 2

unidentified by gender) enrolled in psychology, sociology, and human development classes at

five U.S. universities. The majority of data were collected from Florida International University

(68%) and the University of Massachusetts (21%), with smaller amounts of data collected from

the University of Miami (4%), the University of Nebraska (4%), and California State University

Monterey Bay (3%)1. The mean age of the sample was 20.44 years (SD 3.97), with 94% of

participants between the ages of 18 and 29 - corresponding to Arnett’s (2000, 2007) definition of

emerging adulthood. The sample consisted of 35% freshmen, 23% sophomores, 24% juniors,

18% seniors, and 1% graduate students.

Participants were asked to identify their ethnicity as White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, or

Other2. Although some Asian and mixed-ethnicity individuals provided data, their numbers were

too small to include in analysis. As a result, only individuals identifying as White, Black, and

Hispanic were included in the sample for the present analyses. Participants included in the

present analyses were White (38%), Black (15%), and Hispanic (47%). The majority of White

(92%), Black (75%), and Hispanic (69%) participants were born in the United States. Foreign-

born Whites were primarily from Eastern Europe; foreign-born Blacks were primarily from Haiti

and Jamaica; and foreign-born Hispanics were primarily from Cuba, Nicaragua, Colombia, and

Peru.

Procedure

1To ensure that the three smaller sites did not bias the results, we reestimated all of the study models using data only from Florida International University and the University of Massachusetts. Results were virtually identical to those reported here. 2Although we did not ask about the specific heritage cultures from which participants perceived themselves as descending, other data that we have collected suggest that participants from all ethnic groups tend to identify their family’s country or culture of origin – regardless of how many generations the family has been in the United States.

Personal and Cultural Identity 13

We invited students in introductory psychology, sociology, and family studies courses to

participate in the present study. We collected data from the University of Massachusetts,

California State University-Monterey Bay, and Florida International University using an online

data collection system. Data from the University of Miami and the University of Nebraska were

collected on hard copy because the Institutional Review Boards at these universities had

approved only hard-copy data collection. All data were collected in 2006. Given evidence that

the structure of identity and personality measures tends to be consistent across testing medium

(Chuah, Drasgow, & Roberts, 2006; Schwartz, Adamson, et al., 2006), data were pooled across

testing medium3.

For online data collection, participants were directed to the study website through

introductory psychology participant pools or as extra credit assignments in specific classes. For

hard-copy data collection, research assistants passed out consent forms and research surveys in

classrooms, and participants completed their measures at home and brought them back to their

instructors. Across all sites, informed consent was obtained before any data were collected.

Measures

All measures used in the present study were administered using a five-point Likert-type

response scale. Unless otherwise noted, higher scores on each measure indicate greater

endorsement of the construct in question. Internal consistency estimates reported here were

computed using the present dataset.

Personal Identity Consolidation. We measured personal identity consolidation using

indicators taken from the Eriksonian (identity synthesis), identity status (identity commitment

and achievement), and identity capital approaches. Identity synthesis was measured using the

3Model fit and parameter estimates were equivalent in models estimated using the entire sample and using only participants who completed their surveys on the Internet. As a result, we pooled data across testing medium.

Personal and Cultural Identity 14

Erikson Psychosocial Stage Inventory (12 items, α = .77; Rosenthal, Gurney, & Moore, 1981)

and the Ego Identity Scale (12 items, α = .78; Côté, 1984), both of which assess the presence of a

coherent and internally consistent sense of self. Both instruments have been shown to be

appropriate for multi-ethnic samples (Schwartz, 2006; Schwartz, Pantin, et al., 2005). Although

the Ego Identity Scale is unpublished, its psychometric properties have been examined in some

published studies (Schwartz, 2006, 2007a). Sample items include “I've got a clear idea of what I

want to be” (Erikson Psychosocial Stage Inventory) and “I feel pretty sure that I know what I

want to do in the future, and I have some definite goals” (Ego Identity Scale).

We assessed identity commitment (α = .76) and achievement (α = .77) using the Ego Identity

Status Questionnaire (EIPQ; Balistreri, Busch-Rossnagel, & Geisinger, 1995) and the Extended

Objective Measure of Ego Identity Status II (EOM-EIS-II; Bennion & Adams, 1986),

respectively. Although the EIPQ also assesses exploration, and although the EOM-EIS also

assesses diffusion, moratorium, and achievement, for these analyses we used only commitment

and achievement – those indices representing a consolidated sense of identity that can be used to

negotiate for societal resources. Sample items include “My beliefs about dating are firmly held”

(identity commitment) and “It took me a while to figure it out, but now I really know what I want

for a career” (identity achievement).

We summed commitment and achievement scores across content domains. The EIPQ and

EOM-EIS-II share six of their eight content domains in common (politics, religion, occupation,

friendships, dating, and gender roles). The EIPQ adds personal values and family relationships as

additional domains, whereas the EOM-EIS-II adds lifestyle and recreation. The EIPQ and the

EOM-EIS-II have both been shown to be appropriate for multi-ethnic samples (Schwartz,

Adamson, Ferrer-Wreder, Dillon, & Berman, 2006; Schwartz & Montgomery, 2002).

Personal and Cultural Identity 15

To assess identity capital acquisition, we utilized the two identity capital subscales from

Côté’s (1997) Identity Stage Resolution Index. This instrument is designed to assess the extent to

which participants have reached a subjective sense of adulthood and of community integration.

Both subjective adult status and a sense of community integration are taken as indications that

the person has developed a coherent and functional sense of identity (Côté, 1996; Côté & Levine,

2002). The Identity Stage Resolution Index consists of the Adult Identity Resolution Scale

(AIRS; 3 items, α = .69, e.g., “I consider myself to be an adult.”) and the Community Identity

Resolution Scale (CIRS; 4 items, α = .66, e.g., “I have found a ‘community’ in which to live for

the remainder of my life”). The AIRS and CIRS have been shown to be appropriate for multi-

ethnic samples (Côté & Schwartz, 2002; Schwartz, 2006).

Cultural Identity. We assessed cultural identity in terms of heritage-culture identity and

American-culture identity. Corresponding to the factor structure of cultural identity that we

found with an earlier dataset (Schwartz, Zamboanga, Rodriguez, & Wang, 2007), heritage-

culture identity was operationalized using vertical and horizontal collectivism, interdependence,

orientation toward heritage culture practices, familism, ethnic identity exploration, and ethnic

identity affirmation. American-culture identity was operationalized using horizontal and vertical

individualism, independence, and orientation toward American cultural practices.

We used the Stephenson Multigroup Acculturation Scale (Stephenson, 2000) to assess

orientation toward heritage (17 items, α = .92, e.g., “I listen to music of my ethnic group”) and

American (15 items, α = .86, e.g., “I like to eat American foods”) in areas such as language use,

food, and entertainment. We measured horizontal (α = .77; e.g., “I’d rather depend on myself

than on others”) and vertical individualism (α = .72; e.g., “It is important that I do my job better

than others”) and horizontal (α = .68; e.g., “The well-being of my coworkers is important to me”)

Personal and Cultural Identity 16

and vertical (α = .69; e.g., “It is my duty to take care of my family, even when I have to sacrifice

what I want”) collectivism using corresponding four-item subscales developed by Triandis and

Gelfand (1998). We assessed independence (12 items, α = .68; e.g., “Being able to take care of

myself is a primary concern for me”) and interdependence (12 items, α = .73; e.g., “I will

sacrifice my self-interest for the benefit of the group I am in”) using the Self-Construal Scale

(Singelis, 1994). Singelis (1994) has provided evidence for the internal and factorial validity of

scores on this measure.

We measured ethnic identity using the Multi-Group Ethnic Identity Measure (Roberts et al.,

1999). This instrument assesses two aspects of ethnic identity: exploration and affirmation.

Exploration represents having considered the subjective meaning of one’s ethnicity (7 items, α =

.78; e.g., “I have spent time trying to find out more about my ethnic group, such as its history,

traditions, and customs”). Affirmation represents identifying with and valuing one’s ethnic group

(5 items, α = .91; e.g., “I have a lot of pride in my ethnic group”).

We assessed familism using the 18-item Attitudinal Familism Scale (α = .83; Lugo Steidel &

Contreras, 2003). Sample items include “A person should be a good person for the sake of his or

her family.” Schwartz (2007b) has shown that the measure is appropriate for emerging-adult

university students from various ethnic backgrounds, and that the factor structure is equivalent

across ethnicity.

Adaptive Psychosocial Functioning. Following Côté (2002), we operationalized adaptive

psychosocial functioning in terms of self-esteem, purpose in life, internal locus of control, and

ego strength (resilience and persistence in the face of adversity). We measured self-esteem using

the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Scale (25 items, α = .87; Coopersmith, 1981), which assesses

participants’ overall self-worth. Sample items include “I’m a lot of fun to be with” and “I have a

Personal and Cultural Identity 17

low opinion of myself” (reversed). Purpose in life was measured using the Purpose in Life Scale

(12 items, α = .72; Crumbaugh & Maholick, 1969). Sample items include “In life, I have very

clear goals and aims for myself.” We measured internal locus of control using Côté’s (1997)

adaptation of Rotter’s (1966) Locus of Control Scale (α = .63), with a five-point Likert scale

used in place of the traditional forced-choice format. This adapted version consists of five items.

Sample items include “What happens to me is my own doing.” Ego strength was measured using

the Ego Strength Scale (26 items, α = .81; Epstein, 1983), which assesses the extent to which

participants cope well, are resilient, and persevere in the face of adversity. Sample items include

“I don’t fall apart under stress as easily as most people do.” These scales have been shown to

function equivalently across ethnic groups (Schwartz, Côté, & Arnett, 2005).

Maladaptive Psychosocial Functioning. Four scales were used to index maladaptive

psychosocial functioning. Following Achenbach’s (e.g., Achenbach, Dumenci, & Rescorla,

2002) partitioning of maladaptive behaviors into “internalizing” and “externalizing” symptoms,

two scales were used to assess internalizing symptoms (depression and anxiety), and two scales

were used to assess proclivity toward externalizing symptoms (impulsivity and tolerance for

deviance). Depression was assessed using the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression

Scale (CES-D, α = .91; 20 items; Radloff, 1977), which was designed to assess depressive

symptoms in the general population. Anxiety was assessed using the Beck Anxiety Inventory (18

items, α = .92; Beck, Epstein, Brown, & Steer, 1988). Sample items include “I have felt down

and unhappy this week” (CES-D) and “I have been worrying a lot this week” (Beck Anxiety

Inventory). Impulsivity was measured using eight items (α = .83) taken from Brook, Balka,

Rosen, Brook, and Adams (2005). Sample items include “I often say and do things without

thinking.” Tolerance for deviance was measured using seven items (α = .80) developed in line

Personal and Cultural Identity 18

with Donovan, Jessor, and Costa (1999). These items were worded in the form of “It is wrong to

_______”, with a different negative behavior (e.g., smoke marijuana, drive while intoxicated, get

into fist fights) listed for each item. Responses were reverse-scored so that higher scores

indicated greater tolerance for deviance.

Results

Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations

Descriptive statistics for all measured variables, across both gender and ethnicity, are

presented in Table 1. To ascertain differences in study variables across gender and across

ethnicity, we conducted five separate multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) – one for

American culture identity variables, one for heritage culture identity variables, one for personal

identity consolidation variables, one for adaptive psychosocial functioning variables, and one for

maladaptive psychosocial functioning variables. Separate MANOVAs were conducted because

MANOVA assumes that the dependent variables are theoretically and/or empirically interrelated

(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). None of the Gender X Ethnicity interaction effects were

statistically significant at either the multivariate or univariate levels, so only main effects of

gender and of ethnicity are reported in Table 1.

Consistent with Schwartz and Montgomery (2002) and with Schwartz, Zamboanga,

Rodriguez, and Wang (2007), there were few significant and noteworthy mean differences in

study variables by gender or ethnicity. The most noteworthy ethnic differences emerged for

ethnic identity exploration and affirmation, for which Blacks scored highest and Whites lowest.

In terms of noteworthy gender differences, men scored higher on vertical individualism, and

women scored higher on the Ego Identity Scale. There were very few gender or ethnic

differences in adaptive or maladaptive psychosocial functioning. Those differences that did

Personal and Cultural Identity 19

emerge were limited to proclivity toward externalizing symptoms: men scored higher than

women on impulsivity and tolerance for deviance; and Whites scored highest, and Hispanics

lowest, on tolerance for deviance.

Bivariate correlations among observed study variables are reported in Tables 2 and 3. As

reported by Schwartz, Zamboanga, Rodriguez, and Wang (2007), indices of heritage-culture

identity were more strongly intercorrelated than were indices of American-culture identity.

Moreover, indices of cultural values (independence-interdependence and individualism-

collectivism) were more strongly correlated with one another than with measures of cultural

practices. The indices of personal identity consolidation were all closely intercorrelated, as

reported by Schwartz (2006, 2007a). Indices of heritage and American cultural identity were

moderately related to adaptive psychosocial functioning (positively) and to proclivity toward

externalizing problems (negatively). Personal identity consolidation was strongly related to both

positive and negative psychosocial functioning.

Tests of Study Hypotheses: Structural Equation Modeling

All of the structural equation models estimated for the present study were evaluated

according to standard model fit criteria. The chi-square statistic (χ2) tests the null hypothesis of

perfect fit to the data. Given that this null hypothesis is generally implausible and is almost

always rejected (Tomarken & Waller, 2003), the chi-square index is reported but was not used to

evaluate model fit (Keith, 2006; Kline, 2006). The comparative fit index (CFI) assesses the

extent to which the specified model provides a better fit to the data than a null model with no

paths or latent variables. The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) assesses the

extent to which the covariance structure implied by the model deviates from the covariance

structure observed in the data.

Personal and Cultural Identity 20

There are a number of differing perspectives on acceptable values for the CFI and RMSEA

indices (Marsh, Hau, & Wen, 2004; Vandenberg, 2006). Nonetheless, it might be stated that CFI

values of .95 or higher and RMSEA values of .05 or lower represent excellent fit (Tomarken &

Waller, 2003), with .90 representing the lower bound for an acceptable CFI value and .08

representing the upper bound for an acceptable RMSEA value (Kline, 2006; Quintana &

Maxwell, 1999).

We followed several steps in testing the study hypotheses. In each of these steps, we defined

latent variables representing American culture identity, heritage culture identity, personal

identity consolidation, adaptive psychosocial functioning, and maladaptive psychosocial

functioning. Following Schwartz, Zamboanga, Rodriguez, and Wang (2007), the American

culture identity latent variable was defined as independence, horizontal and vertical

individualism, and American cultural orientation; whereas the heritage culture identity latent

variable was defined as interdependence, horizontal and vertical collectivism, heritage cultural

orientation, ethnic identity exploration, ethnic identity affirmation, and familism. Following

Schwartz (2007a), personal identity consolidation was defined in terms of those Eriksonian (Ego

Identity Scale and Erikson Psychosocial Stage Inventory), identity status (identity commitment

and achievement), and identity capital (subjective sense of adulthood and of a validating

community) indices that reflect a consolidated and agentic sense of self. Following Schwartz,

Côté, and Arnett (2005), adaptive psychosocial functioning was defined as self-esteem, purpose

in life, internal locus of control, and ego strength. Following Achenbach, Dumenci, and Rescorla

(2002), maladaptive psychosocial functioning was separated into latent variables for

internalizing (anxiety and depression) and proclivity toward externalizing (impulsivity and

tolerance for deviance) symptoms.

Personal and Cultural Identity 21

First, we estimated a measurement model in which these latent variables were defined by

their respective indicators and were allowed to correlate freely. This model represents a form of

conformatory factor analysis (Brown, 2006) and was designed to evaluate the extent to which the

configuration of latent variables, as defined by their observed indicators, reproduced the data

reasonably well. No directional paths were drawn in this model. The model provided an adequate

fit to the data, χ2 (135) = 539.28, p < .001; CFI = .90; RMSEA = .062 (90% CI = .057 to .068).

Bivariate correlations among latent variables are presented in Table 4.

Within this model, we estimated the reliability of each latent variable. We used the formula

proposed by Fornell and Larcker (1981), where reliability is posited as the ratio of the variability

explained by the latent variable to the total variability among the indicators. Reliability estimates

for the latent constructs used were in analysis were: American culture identity, .63; heritage

culture identity, .76; personal identity consolidation, .81; and adaptive psychosocial functioning,

.80. Like Cronbach’s alpha, the Fornell and Larcker formula may be most applicable to latent

variables with three or more indicators. As a result, we report reliability here in terms of the

correlations among the indicators for internalizing symptoms (r = .85, p < .001) and for

proclivity toward externalizing symptoms (r = .27, p < .001). Because the correlation between

impulsivity and tolerance for deviance was modest, we reestimated all of the models twice – first

with proclivity toward externalizing symptoms operationalized as a single-indicator latent

variable with impulsivity as the only indicator; and second with tolerance for deviance with the

only indicator. The results reported here are highly similar to those in which impulsivity was

used as the only indicator. However, in theoretical terms, both impulsivity and tolerance for

deviance represent important markers of proclivity toward externalizing problems (Arnett, 1994,

2007; Barnes et al., 2005; Brook et al., 2004). As a result, we retained both indicators.

Personal and Cultural Identity 22

Second, we estimated a “direct-effects” model, in which only cultural identity and

psychosocial functioning were included. Directional paths were drawn from the cultural identity

constructs to the psychosocial functioning constructs. Given the strong and significant

correlations among the psychosocial functioning constructs, we allowed the error terms for these

constructs to correlate. This model fit the data adequately, χ2 (133) = 487.80, p < .001; CFI = .92;

RMSEA = .059 (90% CI = .053 to .064). American culture identity was most strongly and

positively related to adaptive psychosocial functioning, and heritage culture identity was most

negatively related to proclivity toward externalizing problems (see numbers in parentheses in

Figure 1).

Third, we conducted multigroup invariance tests to examine the extent to which the direct-

effects model fit the data equivalently across the three ethnic groups included in the present

study. A finding of invariance would suggest that the relationships of cultural identity to

psychosocial functioning were largely consistent across Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics; whereas

a finding of noninvariance would indicate the presence of differences by ethnicity in these

relationships. Invariance testing is conducted by comparing (a) a model in which all paths are

free to vary across ethnic groups to (b) a model in which all paths are constrained to be equal

across ethnic groups (Vandenberg & Lance, 2000). Nonsignificant and trivial differences

between the fit of these two models to the data would indicate that the model fits equivalently

across ethnic groups.

The null hypothesis of invariance was evaluated according to three standard indices (see

Vandenberg & Lance, 2000, for a review of the measurement invariance literature): the chi-

square difference (Δχ2), which tests the hypothesis that the two models fit the data exactly

equally; the difference in CFI values; and the difference in non-normed fit index (NNFI) values.

Personal and Cultural Identity 23

Although the NNFI was not used here to evaluate the fit of a single model to the data, it is

extremely sensitive to small deviations or differences in model fit and is a useful tool in

invariance testing (Little, 1997). The null hypothesis of invariance across ethnic groups would be

rejected if at least two of the following three criteria were satisfied: Δχ2 significant at p < .05

(Byrne, 2001); ΔCFI ≥ .01 (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002); and ΔNNFI ≥ .02 (Vandenberg &

Lance, 2000). Results of the invariance test indicated that the direct-effects model fit equally

well across gender, Δχ2 (20) = 25.22, p = .19; ΔCFI = .001; ΔNNFI < .001; and across ethnic

groups, Δχ2 (40) = 40.31, p = .46; ΔCFI < .001; ΔNNFI < .001. The model also fit equivalently

between U.S.-born and immigrant participants, Δχ2 (21) = 34.96, p < .03, ΔCFI = .002, ΔNNFI <

.001.

Fourth, we examined a “mediational” model, in which personal identity consolidation was

entered as an intervening variable between cultural identity and psychosocial functioning. Direct

paths from cultural identity to psychosocial functioning constructs were retained in this model.

Mediation was examined using methods proposed by Holmbeck (1997) and by MacKinnon,

Lockwood, Hoffman, West, and Sheets (2002). First, the direct paths would have to be reduced

to nonsignificance (or at least significantly reduced) in the presence of the mediator (Holmbeck,

1997). Second, following MacKinnon et al. (2002), a confidence interval is constructed around

the product of the unstandardized path coefficients that comprise each mediating pathway.

Mediation is assumed in those cases where the confidence interval does not include zero.

Together, these two methods provide evidence for the magnitude of the indirect effect and for the

extent to which the direct effect is reduced in the presence of the mediator.

The mediational model provided an adequate fit to the data, χ2 (248) = 848.28, p < .001; CFI

= .90; RMSEA = .056 (90% CI = .052 to .060). The model is presented in Figure 1. Tests for the

Personal and Cultural Identity 24

strength of the mediated effects are presented in Table 5. All of the indirect effects were

significant, suggesting that personal identity consolidation at least partially mediated all of the

relationships between cultural identity and psychosocial functioning. Although full mediation is

implausible because the direct effect is never reduced completely to zero (MacKinnon, Krull, &

Lockwood, 2000; MacKinnon, Lockwood, & Williams, 2004), in all but two cases the direct

effect was no longer significant once the mediator had been added to the model. The two

exceptions were (a) American-culture identity and adaptive psychosocial functioning and (b)

heritage-culture identity and proclivity toward externalizing symptoms. In the other four cases,

the relationships between cultural identity and psychosocial functioning operated only indirectly

through personal identity consolidation.

Finally, we examined the extent to which the mediational model fit the data equivalently

across gender and across ethnic groups. Tests of invariance indicated that the model was

equivalent across gender, Δχ2 (31) = 41.52, p = .10; ΔCFI = .002; ΔNNFI < .001; and across

ethnicity, Δχ2 (62) = 76.10, p = .11; ΔCFI = .002; ΔNNFI < .001. The model also fit equivalently

between U.S.-born and immigrant participants, Δχ2 (31) = 33.79, p = .33; ΔCFI = .001; ΔNNFI <

.001.

Estimation of a Competing Model

It should be noted that structural equation modeling is a confirmatory technique (Tomarken

& Waller, 2005). Structural equation modeling is designed to ascertain the fit of a specified

model to the data – not to identify the model that would provide the best possible fit.

Accordingly, it is important to compare the specified model to competing models that posit

different directional paths (Tomarken & Waller, 2003). If these models can be rejected in favor

of the specified model, more support can be assumed for the specified model. This is especially

Personal and Cultural Identity 25

important in cross-sectional research, where sequentiality and directionality cannot be

empirically tested (Kraemer, Yesavage, Taylor, & Kupfer, 2000).

In the present study, we compared our specified model to a model where the mediation was

reversed (i.e., cultural identity mediating the relationship of personal identity consolidation to

psychosocial functioning). In comparing the specified and competing models, we removed all

direct paths and allowed only indirect relationships through the intervening variable(s). We did

this because retaining all of the paths in the specified model, and simply reversing the direction

of some of these paths, would automatically produce identical fit across all of the models

estimated (Keith, 2006). Further, for the assumption of strong mediation to be tenable, the model

should fit well with only indirect paths included (Holmbeck, 1997). Because the specified and

competing models were not nested, they were compared using the Akaike Information Criterion

(AIC; Keith, 2006), which was designed to compare non-nested models (Burnham & Anderson,

2004). A smaller AIC value indicates a better fitting model.

The specified model, including only indirect paths, provided a better fit to the data than did

the competing model, ΔAIC = 59.80. Raftery (1995) suggests that an AIC difference of 10 points

or greater is strong, implying that the competing model should be rejected in favor of the

specified model.

Discussion

The present study examined the relationships of cultural identity indices to adaptive and

maladaptive psychosocial functioning, as well as the extent to which personal identity

consolidation may have mediated these relationships. This allowed us to examine the extent to

which, in an increasingly multicultural society, defining oneself culturally may help to

consolidate a sense of personal identity in emerging adulthood (cf. Schwartz et al., 2008). We

Personal and Cultural Identity 26

also ascertained the extent to which these relationships would be consistent across three

prominent U.S. ethnic groups – Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics – as well as between immigrant

and U.S.-born participants. These issues are important given (a) the segregation of various

aspects of identity from one another in the literature (Côté, 2006) and (b) increasing ethnic

diversity and multiculturalism with the United States (Day, 1996; Larsen, 2004) and other

Western nations (van de Vijver & Phalet, 2004). A finding of invariance across ethnicity would

affirm the relevance of personal identity for both White majority group members, in whom it has

been most commonly studied (Sneed et al., 2006), and non-White minority group members. Such

a finding would also reinforce the importance of cultural identity across ethnic groups, including

Whites. Although cultural constructs have most often been studied in ethnic minority groups,

with Whites sometimes used as a comparison group, globalization and the decreasing importance

of national boundaries have rendered cultural identity important for both majority and minority

group members (Arnett, 2002; Jensen, 2003). It is therefore imperative to study personal identity

and cultural identity together, both for “majority” and “minority” group members.

As we found in an earlier study (Schwartz, Zamboanga, Rodriguez, & Wang, 2007),

indicators of heritage-culture identity clustered together more strongly than indicators of

American-culture identity. Collectivism and interdependence clustered with heritage-culture

practices for all three ethnic groups studied. Individualism and independence also clustered with

American cultural practices across ethnic groups. Although the countries from which participants

descended likely vary in terms of individualism and collectivism (Oyserman et al., 2002), these

results provide additional evidence that value-based and behavioral indicators of cultural identity

cluster together.

Personal and Cultural Identity 27

In line with prior research (Chen et al., 2006; Chung & Gale, 2006), both individualistic

(American) and collectivistic (heritage) aspects of cultural identity were associated with adaptive

psychosocial functioning. American cultural identity was inversely associated with internalizing

symptoms, and heritage cultural identity was inversely associated with proclivity toward

externalizing symptoms. These findings affirm that attachments to both heritage and American

cultural values and practices are important for psychosocial well-being across ethnic groups.

These findings also suggest that, although cultural identity indices have traditionally been

studied in first and second generation immigrants and in non-immigrant minorities, these

constructs are also applicable to later-generation immigrants (cf. Ponterotto et al., 2001).

The present findings are somewhat inconsistent with prior research suggesting that

orientation toward American cultural practices is associated with negative psychosocial

outcomes (e.g., behavior problems, drug use, sexual risk taking, poor nutrition; Dinh et al., 2002;

Ford & Norris, 1993; Gil et al., 2000; Unger et al., 2004). It should be noted, however, that the

studies suggesting this association used unidimensional models of cultural identity where

heritage and American cultural orientations are cast as opposing ends of a continuum. The

present results are more consistent with studies that have examined heritage and American

cultural orientations as independent constructs.

The current findings also suggest that heritage and American cultural identities (representing

both cultural values and practices) relate to psychosocial functioning, at least in part, through a

consolidated sense of personal identity. In multicultural societies, identifying with one or both

sets of cultural values and practices may contribute to helping to consolidate a sense of self in

emerging adulthood. In turn, a consolidated sense of self may contribute to positive functioning

Personal and Cultural Identity 28

and may protect against distress and against proclivity toward externalizing problems (cf.

Schwartz, 2007a).

At the broadest level, the present results call for the simultaneous study of personal identity

and cultural identity in young people. A major task of emerging adulthood involves exploring

and consolidating a sense of identity (Schwartz, 2007a; Schwartz, Côté, & Arnett, 2005). As

Côté (2006) has implied, this task may refer to cultural identity as well as personal identity.

Understanding who one is at both the personal and sociocultural levels is of critical importance

for successful transition into adulthood, especially in the face of increasing globalization and

ethnic and cultural diversity (Schwartz, Montgomery, & Briones, 2006; van de Vijver & Phalet,

2004). Contact between individuals from different ethnic and cultural backgrounds may lead to

exploration (and perhaps consolidation) of both personal and cultural aspects of identity.

Limitations

The present results should be considered in light of several important limitations. First, the

cross-sectional design used in the present study does not allow for conclusions regarding

directionality or sequentiality (Kraemer et al., 2000). Although we were able to dismiss a model

positing a different sequence of effects, this does not substitute for longitudinal data. Because we

hypothesized directionality in this study, it is necessary to follow up the present results

longitudinally to provide added confidence in the direction of effects. Understanding how

cultural identity and personal identity change over time and influence psychosocial functioning is

an important research direction.

A second limitation concerns the use of a university student sample. Although many

emerging adults attend university, it is not known how university students differ from the

“forgotten half” (Halperin, 2001) of emerging adults who do not attend university. In particular,

Personal and Cultural Identity 29

the university environment is especially conducive toward identity exploration and consolidation

(Montgomery & Côté, 2003), and university student samples may underrepresent individuals

with intellectual, emotional, social, learning, linguistic, or financial difficulties. A community

sample would have provided a greater degree of generalizability.

Third, data on all variables were gathered from the same reporter, potentially introducing

issues related to shared method variance (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003).

Although self-reports are clearly the most appropriate way to gather data on personal identity and

on cultural identity, objective or independent reports of behavioral outcomes (e.g., academic

success) would have allowed us to ascertain whether our results were robust across reporters. It

is also important to gather data on externalizing problems (e.g., drug use, violent behavior) in

addition to impulsivity and tolerance for deviance.

Despite these limitations, the present study has helped to bridge the literatures on personal

identity and cultural identity, which have traditionally been treated separately, in the service of

predicting adaptive and maladaptive psychosocial functioning. The study has shown that the

relationships among cultural identity, personal identity consolidation, and psychosocial

functioning are robust and equivalent across three prominent U.S. ethnic groups. This suggests

that basic identity processes operate similarly across ethnicity, at least in American emerging

adults, and that adopting diverse sets of cultural practices and values may be one way to help

explore and consolidate a sense of personal identity in emerging adulthood. The present results

may be increasingly important as the populations of Western countries become more diverse. It

is hoped that the present results inspire more work integrating multiple conceptions of identity in

the service of predicting and intervening to influence various aspects of psychosocial adjustment.

Personal and Cultural Identity 30

References

Achenbach, T. M., Dumenci, L., & Rescorla, L. A. (2002). Ten-year comparisons of problems

and competencies for national samples of youth: Self, parent, and teacher reports. Journal of

Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 10(4), 194-203.

Adams, G. R., Munro, B., Doherty-Poirer, M., Munro, G., Petersen, A., & Edwards, J. (2001).

Diffuse-avoidance, normative, and informational identity styles: Using identity theory to

predict maladjustment. Identity, 307-320.

Arnett, J. J. (1994). Sensation seeking, aggressiveness, and adolescent reckless behavior.

Personality and Individual Differences, 20, 693-702.

Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through

the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469-480.

Arnett, J. J. (2002). The psychology of globalization. American Psychologist, 57, 774-783.

Arnett, J. J. (2007). Suffering, selfish slackers? Myths and reality about emerging adults. Journal

of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 23-29.

Balistreri, E., Busch-Rossnagel, N. A., & Geisinger, K. F. (1995). Development and preliminary

validation of the Ego Identity Process Questionnaire. Journal of Adolescence, 18, 179-190.

Barnes, G. M., Welte, J. W., Hoffman, J. H., & Dintcheff, B. A. (2005). Shared predictors of

youthful gambling, substance use, and delinquency. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 19,

165-174.

Beck, A. T., Epstein, N., Brown, G., & Steer, R. A. (1988). An inventory for measuring clinical

anxiety: Psychometric properties. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 893-

897.

Bennion, L. D., & Adams, G. R. (1986). A revision of the extended version of the Objective

Personal and Cultural Identity 31

Measure of Ego Identity Status: An identity instrument for use with late adolescents. Journal

of Adolescent Research, 1, 183-198.

Bernstein, R. (2007). Minority population tops 100 million. Retrieved May 17, 2007 from

http://www.census.gov/popest/estimates.php.

Berry, J. W. (1980). Acculturation as varieties of adaptation. In A. M. Padilla (Ed.),

Acculturation: Theory, models, and some new findings (pp. 9-25). Boulder, CO: Westview.

Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An

International Review, 46, 5-34.

Branch, C. W., Tayal, P., & Triplett, C. (2000). The relationship of ethnic identity and ego

identity status among adolescents and young adults. International Journal of Intercultural

Relations, 24, 777-790.

Brook, J. S., Balka, E. B., Rosen, Z., Brook, D. W., & Adams, R. (2005). Tobacco use in

adolescence: Longitudinal links to later problem behavior among African American and

Puerto Rican young adults. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 166, 133-151.

Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford.

Bryant, A., Jr.., & LaFromboise, T. D. (2005). The racial identity and cultural orientation of

Lumbee American Indian high school students. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority

Psychology, 11, 82-89.

Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2004). Multimodal inference: Understanding AIC and BIC

in model selection. Sociological Methods and Research, 33, 261-304.

Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications,

and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Chen, S. X., Chan, W., Bond, M. H., & Stewart, S. M. (2006). The effects of self-efficacy and

Personal and Cultural Identity 32

relationship harmony on depression across cultures: Applying level-oriented and structure-

oriented analyses. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 643-658.

Cheng, C.-Y., Lee, F., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2006). Assimilation and contrast effects in cultural

frame switching: Bicultural identity integration and valence of cultural cues. Journal of

Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 742-760.

Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing

measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233-255.

Chuah, S. C., Drasgow, F., & Roberts, B. W. (2006). Personality assessment: Does the medium

matter? No. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 359-376.

Chung, H., & Gale, J. (2006). Comparing self-differentiation and psychological well-being

between Korean and European American students. Contemporary Family Therapy, 28, 367-

381.

Coatsworth, J. D., Maldonado-Molina, M., Pantin, H., & Szapocznik, J. (2005). A person-

centered and ecological investigation of acculturation in Hispanic immigrant youth. Journal

of Community Psychology, 33, 157-174.

Constantine, M. G., Gainor, K. A., Ahluwalia, M., & Berkel, L. A. (2003). Independent and

interdependent self-construals, individualism and collectivism, and harmony control in

African Americans. Journal of Black Psychology, 29, 87-101.

Coopersmith, S. (1981). The Self-Esteem Inventories. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists

Press.

Côté, J. E. (1984). The identity crisis: A formulation and empirical test of Erikson’s theory of ego

identity formation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, York University, Toronto, Canada.

Côté, J. E. (1996). Sociological perspectives on identity formation: The culture-identity link and

Personal and Cultural Identity 33

identity capital. Journal of Adolescence, 19, 419-430.

Côté, J. E. (1997). An empirical test of the identity capital model. Journal of Adolescence, 20,

421-437.

Côté, J. E. (2002). The role of identity capital in the transition to adulthood: The

individualization thesis examined. Journal of Youth Studies, 5(2), 117-134.

Côté, J. E. (2006). Identity studies: How close are we to developing a social science of identity?

An appraisal of the field. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 6, 3-26.

Côté, J. E., & Levine, C. (1988). A critical examination of the ego identity status paradigm.

Developmental Review, 8, 147-184.

Côté, J. E., & Schwartz, S. J. (2002). Comparing psychological and sociological approaches to

identity: Identity status, identity capital, and the individualization process. Journal of

Adolescence, 25, 571-586.

Cross, S., Gore, J., & Morris, M. (2003). Relational-independent self-construal, self-concept

consistency, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 933-944.

Crumbaugh, J. C., & Maholick, L. T. (1969). Manual of instructions for the Purpose in Life Test.

Munster, IN: Psychometric Affiliates.

Day, J. C. (1996). Population projections of the United States by age, sex, race, and Hispanic

origin (Current Population Report P25-1130). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

de Goede, M., Spruijt, E., Iedema, J., & Meeus, W. (1999). How do vocational and relationship

stressors and identity formation affect adolescent mental health? Journal of Adolescent

Health, 25, 14-20.

DeVos, T., & Banaji, M. R. (2005). American = White? Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 88, 447-466.

Personal and Cultural Identity 34

Dinh, K. T., Roosa, M. W., Tein, J. Y., & Lopez, V. A. (2002). The relationship between

acculturation and problem behavior proneness in a Hispanic youth sample: A longitudinal

mediation model. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 295-309.

Donato, K., Aguilera, M., & Wakabayashi, C. (2005). Immigration policy and employment

conditions of U.S. immigrants from Mexico, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic.

International Migration, 43(5), 5-29.

Donovan, J. E., Jessor, R., & Costa, F. M. (1999). Adolescent problem drinking: Stability of

psychosocial and behavioral correlates across a generation. Journal of Studies on Alcohol,

60, 352-361.

Epstein, S. (1983). The Ego Strength Scale. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and Society. New York: Norton.

Ford, K., & Norris, A. E. (1993). Urban Hispanic adolescents and young adults: Relationship of

acculturation to sexual behavior. Journal of Sex Research, 30, 316-323.

Fornell, C. R. & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Two structural equation models with unobservable

variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.

Ghorbani, N., Bing, M. N., Watson, P. J., Davison, H. K., & LeBreton, D. L. (2003).

Individualism and collectivism: Evidence of compatibility in Iran and the United States.

Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 431-447.

Gil, A., Wagner, E., & Vega, W. (2000). Acculturation, familism and alcohol use among Latino

adolescent males: Longitudinal relations. Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 443-458.

Halperin, S. (Ed.) (2001). The forgotten half revisited: American youth and young families,

1988-2008. Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Personal and Cultural Identity 35

Holmbeck, G.N . (1997). Toward terminological, conceptual, and statistical clarity in the study

of mediators and moderators: Examples from the child-clinical and pediatric psychology

literatures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 4, 599-610.

Jensen, L. A. (2003). Coming of age in a multicultural world: Globalization and adolescent

cultural identity formation. Applied Developmental Science, 7(3), 189-196.

Keith, T. Z. (2006). Multiple regression and beyond. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Kline, R. B. (2006). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New

York: Guilford.

Kraemer, H. C., Yesavage, J. A., Taylor, J. L., & Kupfer, D. (2000). How can we learn about

developmental processes from cross-sectional studies, or can we? American Journal of

Psychiatry, 157, 163-171.

Kroger, J. (2000). Ego identity status research in the new millennium. International Journal of

Behavioral Development, 24, 145-148.

Larsen, L. J. (2004). The foreign-born population in the United States: 2003 (Current Population

Report P20-551). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

Le, T. N., & Kato, T. (2006). The role of peer, parent, and culture in risky sexual behavior for

Cambodian and Lao/Mien adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 38, 288-296.

Little, T. D. (1997). Mean and covariance structures (MACS) analyses of cross-cultural data:

Practical and theoretical issues. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32, 53-76.

Lugo Steidel, A. G., & Contreras, J. M. (2003). A new familism scale for use with Latino

populations. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 25, 312-330.

Luyckx, K., Schwartz, S. J., Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., & Goossens, L. (in press). The path

from identity commitments to adjustment: Motivational underpinnings and mediating

Personal and Cultural Identity 36

mechanisms. Journal of Counseling and Development.

MacKinnon, D. P., Krull, J. L., & Lockwood, C. M. (2000). Equivalence of the mediation,

confounding, and suppressor effect. Prevention Science, 1, 173-181.

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A

comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects.

Psychological Methods, 7, 83-104.

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect

effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral

Research, 39, 99-128.

Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego identity status. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 5, 551-558.

Marcia, J. E. (1993). The ego identity status approach to ego identity. In J. E. Marcia, A. S.

Waterman, D. R. Matteson, S. L. Archer, & J. L. Orlofsky (Eds.), Ego identity: A handbook

for psychosocial research (pp. 1-21). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion,

and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.

Marsh, H. W., Hau, K., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-

testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu

and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320-341.

Montgomery, M. J., & Côté, J. E. (2003). The transition to college: Adjustment, development,

and outcomes. In G. R. Adams & M. D. Berzonsky (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of

adolescence (pp. 179-194). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and

Personal and Cultural Identity 37

collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological

Bulletin, 128, 3-72.

Phinney, J. S. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: A review of research.

Psychological Bulletin, 108, 499-514.

Pillay, Y. (2005). Racial identity as a predictor of the psychological health of African American

students at a predominantly White university. Journal of Black Psychology, 31, 46-66.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method

biases in behavioral research: Critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.

Ponterotto, J. G., Rao, V., Zwieg, J., Rieger, B. P., Schaefer, K., Michelakou, S., Armenia, C., &

Goldstein, H. (2001). The relationship of acculturation and gender to attitudes toward

counseling in Italian and Greek American college students. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic

Minority Psychology, 7, 362-375.

Radloff, L. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general

population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385-401.

Raftery, A. E. (1995). Bayesian model selection in social research (with discussion).

Sociological Methodology, 25, 111-195.

Roberts, R. E., Phinney, J. S., Masse, L. C., Chen, Y. R., Roberts, C. R., & Romero, A. (1999).

The structure of ethnic identity in young adolescents from diverse ethnocultural groups.

Journal of Early Adolescence, 19, 301-322.

Rosenthal, D. A., Gurney, R. M., & Moore, S. M. (1981). From trust to intimacy: A new

inventory for examining Erikson’s stages of psychosocial development. Journal of Youth and

Adolescence, 10, 525-537.

Personal and Cultural Identity 38

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external locus of reinforcement.

Psychological Monographs, 80 (1, Whole No. 609).

Rudmin, F. W. (2003). Critical history of the acculturation psychology of assimilation,

separation, marginalization, and integration. Review of General Psychology, 7, 3-37.

Ryder, A. G., Alden, L. E., & Paulhus, D. L. (2000). Is acculturation unidimensional or

bidimensional? A head-to-head comparison in the prediction of personality, self-identity, and

adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 49-65.

Sabogal, F., Marin, G., Otero-Sabogal, R., Marin, B. V., & Perez-Stable, E. (1987). Hispanic

familism and acculturation: What changes and what doesn’t? Hispanic Journal of Behavioral

Sciences, 9, 397-412.

Schwartz, S. J. (2006). Predicting identity consolidation from self-construction, self-discovery,

and agentic personality. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 777-793.

Schwartz, S. J. (2007a). The structure of identity consolidation: Multiple correlated constructs or

one superordinate construct? Identity, 7, 27-49.

Schwartz, S. J. (2007b). The applicability of familism to diverse ethnic groups: A preliminary

study. Journal of Social Psychology, 147, 101-118.

Schwartz, S. J., Adamson, L., Ferrer-Wreder, L., Dillon, F. R., & Berman, S. L. (2006). Identity

status measurement across contexts: Variations in measurement structure and mean levels

among White American, Hispanic American, and Swedish emerging adults. Journal of

Personality Assessment, 86, 61-76.

Schwartz, S. J., Côté, J. E., & Arnett, J. J. (2005). Identity and agency in emerging adulthood:

Two developmental routes in the individualization process. Youth and Society, 37, 201-229.

Schwartz, S. J., & Montgomery, M. J. (2002). Similarities or differences in identity

Personal and Cultural Identity 39

development? The impact of acculturation and gender on identity process and outcomes.

Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31, 359-372.

Schwartz, S. J., Montgomery, M. J., & Briones, E. (2006). The role of identity in acculturation

among immigrant people: Theoretical propositions, empirical questions, and applied

recommendations. Human Development, 49, 1-30.

Schwartz, S. J., Pantin, H., Prado, G., Sullivan, S., & Szapocznik, J. (2005). Family functioning,

identity, and problem behavior in Hispanic immigrant early adolescents. Journal of Early

Adolescence, 25, 392-420.

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, 364-

373.

Schwartz, S. J., Zamboanga, B. L., Rodriguez, L., & Wang, S. C. (2007). The structure of

cultural identity in an ethnically diverse sample of emerging adults. Basic and Applied Social

Psychology, 29, 159-173.

Schwartz, S. J., Zamboanga, B. L., & Weisskirch, R. S. (2008). Broadening the study of the self:

Integrating the study of personal identity and cultural identity. Social and Personality

Psychology Compass, 2, 635-651.

Schwartz, S. J., Zamboanga, B. L., Weisskirch, R. S., & Rodriguez, L. (in press). The

relationships of personal and ethnic identity exploration to indices of adaptive and

maladaptive psychosocial functioning. International Journal of Behavioral Development.

Sheldon, K. M., Elliot, A. J., Ryan, R. M., Chirkov, V., Kim, Y., Wu, C., Demir, M., & Sun, Z.

(2004). Self-concordance and subjective well-being in four cultures. Journal of Cross-

Personal and Cultural Identity 40

Cultural Psychology, 35, 209-223.

Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 580-591.

Sneed, J. R., Schwartz, S. J., & Cross, W. E., Jr. (2006). A multicultural critique of Eriksonian-

based research and theory: A call for integration. Identity, 6, 61-84.

St. Louis, G. R., & Liem, J. H. (2005). Ego identity, ethnic identity, and the psychosocial well-

being of ethnic minority and majority college students. Identity, 5, 227-246.

Stepick, A. & Stepick, C. D. (2002). Power and identity: Miami Cubans. In M. M. Suárez

Orozco & M. Páez (Eds.), Latinos: Remaking America (pp. 75-92). Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Stephenson, M. (2000). Development and validation of the Stephenson Multigroup Acculturation

Scale (SMAS). Psychological Assessment, 12, 77-88.

Sullivan, S., Schwartz, S. J., Prado, G., Pantin, H., Huang, S., & Szapocznik, J. (2007). A

bidimensional model of acculturation for examining differences in family functioning and

behavior problems in Hispanic immigrant adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 27,

405-430.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn

and Bacon.

Tomarken, A. J., & Waller, N. G. (2003). Potential problems with “well fitting” models. Journal

of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 578-598.

Tomarken, A. J., & Waller, N. G. (2005). Structural equation modeling: Strengths, limitations,

and misconceptions. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1, 31-65.

Triandis, H. C. (1995). The psychological measurement of cultural syndromes. American

Personal and Cultural Identity 41

Psychologist, 51, 407-415.

Triandis, H. C., & Gelfand, M. J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical

individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 118-128.

Trung Lam, B. (2005). Self-construal and depression among Vietnamese-American adolescents.

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 239-250.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights. (2002). Annual Report, 2002. Accessed

March 1, 2003 at http://www.ed.gov/offices/OCR/minorityinst-col-ny.html.

Uchida, Y., Norasakkunkit, V., & Kitayama, S. (2004). Cultural conceptions of happiness:

Theory and empirical evidence. Journal of Happiness Studies, 5, 223-239.

Unger, J. B., Reynolds, K., Shakib, S., Spruijt-Metz, D., Sun, P., & Johnson, C. A. (2004).

Acculturation, physical activity, and fast food consumption among Asian American and

Hispanic adolescents. Journal of Community Health, 29, 467-481.

van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Phalet, K. (2004). Assessment in multicultural groups: The role of

acculturation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53, 215-236.

Vandenberg, R. J. (2006). Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends: Where, pray

tell, did they get this idea? Organizational Research Methods, 9, 194-201.

Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance

literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research.

Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4-70.

Waterman, A. S. (1999). Identity, the identity statuses, and identity status development: A

contemporary statement. Developmental Review, 19, 591-621.

Waterman, A. S. (2007). Doing well: The relationship of identity status to three conceptions of

well-being. Identity, 7, 289-307.

Personal and Cultural Identity 42

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables

Variable Male M (SD) Female M (SD) F Ratio (Gender) White M (SD) Black M (SD) Hispanic M (SD) F Ratio (Ethnicity)

American Culture Identity

Multivariate Testa 9.78*** (η2 = .05) 8.10*** (η2 = .04)

Independence 42.36 (5.95) 43.02 (5.60) 2.26 (η2 < .01) 42.21a (5.87) 42.67ab (4.83) 43.43b (5.68) 4.70*** (η2 = .01)

Horizontal Individualism 16.15 (2.63) 16.23 (2.60) 0.87 (η2 < .01) 15.74a (2.73) 16.72b (2.17) 16.43b (2.56) 5.82*** (η2 = .02)

Vertical Individualism 13.45 (3.17) 11.87 (2.83) 31.01*** (η2 = .04) 12.35 (2.94) 12.22 (2.94) 12.10 (3.01) 0.13 (η2 < .01)

American Cultural Practices 59.65 (8.52) 60.41 (7.95) 0.48 (η2 < .01) 62.90a (7.88) 57.79b (7.28) 58.91b (7.89) 13.01*** (η2 = .04)

Heritage Culture Identity

Multivariate Testa 2.23* (η2 = .02) 10.15*** (η2 = .09)

Interdependence 39.71 (6.25) 38.99 (5.92) 1.65 (η2 < .01) 39.14 (6.37) 38.24 (5.17) 39.38 (5.89) 1.00 (η2 < .01)

Horizontal Collectivism 14.93 (2.50) 15.24 (2.13) 1.87 (η2 < .01) 14.96a (2.07) 14.67a (2.35) 15.45b (2.25) 4.77** (η2 = .01)

Vertical Collectivism 14.59 (2.78) 14.55 (2.60) 0.16 (η2 < .01) 14.03 (2.66) 14.70 (2.27) 14.90 (2.65) 10.76*** (η2 = .03)

Heritage Cultural Practices 54.93 (13.83) 57.10 (14.33) 4.50*** (η2 = .01) 52.75a (16.74) 58.69b (12.18) 58.94b (12.00) 13.93*** (η2 = .04)

Ethnic Identity Exploration 15.31 (4.29) 15.33 (3.94) 0.03 (η2 < .01) 14.02a (4.06) 18.25b (3.16) 15.55c (3.75) 34.49*** (η2 = .09)

Ethnic Identity Affirmation 26.42 (5.37) 26.56 (5.27) 0.78 (η2 < .01) 24.20a (5.28) 28.91b (4.25) 27.62c (4.90) 34.31*** (η2 = .09)

Familism 62.78 (8.69) 63.52 (8.13) 3.71 (η2 = .01) 60.77a (8.35) 64.35b (7.65) 64.99b (7.87) 17.69*** (η2 = .05)

Personal Identity Consolidation

Personal and Cultural Identity 43

Multivariate Testa 4.21*** (η2 = .04) 1.52 (η2 = .02)

Identity Synthesis 24.18 (3.22) 24.47 (3.13) 0.64 (η2 < .01) 23.93 (3.25) 24.15 (2.96) 24.76 (3.17) 2.62 (η2 = .01)

Ego Identity Scale 40.00 (5.24) 42.51 (5.79) 15.46*** (η2 = .03) 41.84 (5.70) 41.37 (5.76) 42.22 (5.80) 0.66 (η2 < .01)

Identity Commitment 52.70 (6.96) 54.10 (6.76) 4.94* (η2 = .01) 52.55 (6.46) 54.38 (7.55) 54.41 (6.75) 2.12 (η2 = .01)

Identity Achievement 54.82 (8.61) 55.89 (7.40) 2.81 (η2 = .01) 54.49 (7.67) 55.18 (7.79) 56.50 (7.56) 2.94 (η2 = .01)

Adult Identity Resolution 10.13 (2.36) 10.04 (2.41) 0.01 (η2 < .01) 10.04 (2.27) 9.76 (2.44) 10.15 (2.46) 1.27 (η2 < .01)

Community Identity Resolution 12.31 (3.00) 12.17 (2.93) 0.68 (η2 < .01) 12.12 (3.10) 11.84 (2.93) 12.35 (2.85) 0.52 (η2 < .01)

Adaptive Functioning

Multivariate Testa 2.10 (η2 = .02) 2.51* (η2 = .02)

Self-Esteem 87.41 (15.13) 86.49 (14.34) 0.29 (η2 < .01) 86.42 (13.81) 87.95 (14.91) 86.47 (14.76) 0.29 (η2 < .01)

Purpose in Life 42.59 (7.35) 43.77 (6.57) 1.75 (η2 < .01) 42.02 (6.67) 43.81 (6.32) 44.21 (6.81) 2.32 (η2 = .01)

Internal Locus of Control 17.71 (3.64) 18.08 (3.43) 1.39 (η2 < .01) 17.34a (3.64) 17.45a (3.38) 18.50b (3.34) 4.66* (η2 = .02)

Ego Strength 90.51 (12.00) 88.28 (12.65) 1.34 (η2 < .01) 86.18 (11.86) 89.93 (12.86) 89.73 (12.64) 2.45 (η2 = .01)

Maladaptive Functioning

Multivariate Testa 8.02*** (η2 = .05) 2.33* (η2 = .02)

Depression 46.14 (13.06) 48.70 (13.74) 2.10 (η2 < .01) 48.67 (13.69) 47.30 (13.79) 48.07 (13.60) 0.32 (η2 < .01)

Anxiety 37.99 (12.65) 41.54 (13.86) 4.37* (η2 = .01) 41.47 (14.04) 38.86 (14.18) 40.88 (13.32) 0.45 (η2 < .01)

Impulsivity 20.90 (6.10) 19.08 (5.38) 11.80** (η2 = .02) 20.08a (5.58) 18.50bc (5.84) 19.35c (5.50) 3.13* (η2 = .01)

Tolerance for Deviance 16.57 (5.37) 14.40 (4.66) 14.49*** (η2 = .02) 16.46a (4.63) 15.06b (4.21) 13.83c (4.97) 7.94*** (η2 = .03)

aUsing Wilks’ lambda. Within each row, means with different subscripts differ at p < .05. * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001

Personal and Cultural Identity 44

Table 2

Intercorrelations among Observed Personal and Cultural Identity Variables

Variable 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

American Culture Identity

1. Independence .40*** .14*** .35*** .18*** .30*** .28*** .16*** .12 .22*** .22*** .43*** .33*** .32*** .34*** .29*** .18***

2. Horizontal Individualism ------- .20*** .23*** .05 .16*** .20*** .13 .07 .18*** .15*** .30*** .19*** .19*** .31*** .17*** .13

3. Vertical Individualism ------- .18*** .05 -.05 .15*** -.04 .01 .01 .07 -.02 -.05 .05 .11 .07 .07

4. American Cultural Practices ------- .17*** .20*** .16*** -.03 .01 .03 .06 .16*** .17*** .16*** .24*** .18*** .16***

Heritage Culture Identity

5. Interdependence ------- .34*** .43*** .23*** .20*** .15*** .38*** -.02 .02 .13 .10 .11 .04

6. Horizontal Collectivism ------- .41*** .22*** .19*** .27*** .32*** .24*** .26*** 19*** .26*** .17*** .13

7. Vertical Collectivism ------- .27*** .21*** .34*** .65*** .21*** .13 .29*** .24*** .19*** .10

8. Heritage Cultural Practices ------- .32*** .40*** .31*** .20*** .16*** .24*** .19*** .18*** .14***

9. Ethnic Identity Exploration ------- .67*** .32*** .09 .01 .11 .17*** .11 .13

10. Ethnic Identity Affirmation ------- .43*** .29*** .17*** .31*** .25*** .13 .17***

11. Familism ------- .20*** .11 .27*** .20*** .13 .17***

Personal Identity Consolidation

12. Identity Coherence ------- .58*** .54*** .44*** .34*** .42****

13. Ego Identity Scale ------- .45*** .39*** .26*** .34***

Personal and Cultural Identity 45

14. Identity Commitment ------- .58*** .32*** .46***

15. Identity Achievement ------- .31*** .46***

16. Adult Identity Resolution ------- .47***

17. Community Identity

Resolution

---- ---

*** p < .001 Note: To control for Type I error risk, only correlations significant at p < .001 are flagged as significant.

Personal and Cultural Identity 46

Table 3

Bivariate Correlations between Identity and Psychosocial Functioning Variables

Variable Self-Esteem Purpose in

Life

Internal Locus

of Control

Ego Strength Depression Anxiety Impulsivity Tolerance for

Deviance

American Culture Identity

Independence .38*** .38*** .29*** .31*** -.20*** -.16*** -.04 -.26***

Horizontal Individualism .22*** .36*** .34*** .26*** -.13 -.10 -.09 -.17***

Vertical Individualism -.02 .02 .10 -.02 .06 .06 .24*** .09

American Cultural Practices .22*** .22*** .12 .17*** -.08 -.07 -.03 -.08

Heritage Culture Identity

Interdependence -.01 .06 .11 .07 .03 .10 -.04 -.23***

Horizontal Collectivism .23*** .27*** .21*** .19*** -.14 -.10 -.11 -.28***

Vertical Collectivism .22*** .27*** .22*** .18*** -.13 -.08 -.06 -.23***

Heritage Cultural Practices .22*** .33*** .19*** .17*** -.07 -.06 -.12 -.25***

Ethnic Identity Exploration .06 .16*** .03 .02 .02 .04 .04 -.11

Ethnic Identity Affirmation .20*** .32*** .21*** .12 -.09 -.11 -.03 -.25***

Familism .16*** .25*** .17*** .12 -.05 -.09 -.05 -.09

Personal Identity Consolidation

Identity Coherence .62*** .59*** .32*** .50*** -.41*** -.38*** -.28*** -.29***

Personal and Cultural Identity 47

Ego Identity Scale .55*** .56*** .31*** .45*** -.42*** -.36*** -.25*** -.25***

Identity Commitment .37*** .51*** .35*** .34*** -.24*** -.19*** -.18*** -.33***

Identity Achievement .22*** .49*** .40*** .24*** -.12 -.09 -.09 -.28***

Adult Identity Resolution .36*** .35*** .25*** .35*** -.21*** -.11 -.14 -.21***

Community Identity Resolution .34*** .37*** .28*** .28*** -.16*** -.11 -.10 -.18***

*** p < .001 Note: To control for Type I error risk, only correlations significant at p < .001 are flagged as significant.

Personal and Cultural Identity 48

Table 4

Bivariate Correlations among Latent Variables

Variable 2 3 4 5 6

1. American Culture Identity .50*** .65*** .67*** -.25*** -.37***

2. Heritage Culture Identity ----------------- .54*** .50*** -.18*** -.58***

3. Personal Identity Consolidation ----------------- .87*** -.46*** -.60***

4. Adaptive Psychosocial Functioning ----------------- -.60*** -.64***

5. Internalizing Symptoms ----------------- .36***

6. Proclivity Toward Externalizing

Symptoms

-----------------

Note: N=773. * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001

Personal and Cultural Identity 49

Table 5

Summary of Mediational Effects

Independent Variable Dependent Variable Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients

Point Estimate 95% CI Indirect Original

Directa

Mediated

Directb

American Culture Identity Adaptive Psychosocial Functioning 5.30 3.23 to 7.36 .42*** .58*** .19*

American Culture Identity Internalizing Symptoms -5.43 -12.23 to -5.44 -.30*** -.23** .07

American Culture Identity Proclivity toward Externalizing

Symptoms

-1.50 -2.15 to -0.85 -.28*** -.14 .14

Heritage Culture Identity Adaptive Psychosocial Functioning 0.45 0.27 to 0.64 .17* .16* -.03

Heritage Culture Identity Internalizing Symptoms -0.46 -0.65 to -0.27 -.13* -.04 .09

Heritage Culture Identity Proclivity toward Externalizing

Symptoms

-0.13 -0.19 to -0.07 -.12* -.47*** -.37***

* p<.05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001 aDirect path when the mediator was not included in the model. bDirect path when the mediator was included in the model.

Personal and Cultural Identity 50

Figure 1. Mediational Model.

American Culture Identity

.48***

Adaptive Psychosocial Functioning

Internalizing Symptoms

.09 (-.04)

.07 (-.23**)

.14 (-.14)

-.03 (.16**)

Personal Identity Consolidation

-.51***

-.55***

.76***

.55*** .23***

Proclivity toward

Externalizing Symptoms

-.48***

.60*** .28***

Heritage Culture Identity

.19*

(.58***) -.37***

(.47***)

Note: Dashed lines represent direct relationships between cultural identity and psychosocial functioning. Values in parentheses denote direct paths when the mediator is not included in the model.