Running head: Ethnic identity of interethnic adolescents
Influences on ethnic identity development of interethnic adolescents: Familial ethnic socialization practices, familial demographic variables, and peers
Anna Merlijntje Karssen Department of Education University of Amsterdam
Abstract
The present study examines whether interethnic adolescents manage to develop an ethnic identity, and if so, what kind of ethnic identity they develop. It also assesses the influence of familial ethnic socialization practices of the father and of the mother, familial demographic variables and interaction with peers on ethnic identity development. Furthermore, this study addresses whether there are ethnic backgrounds and gender differences in the familial ethnic socialization practices. Three hundred and three interethnic adolescents were recruited through an online social network in the Netherlands. All interethnic adolescents had one parent with a Dutch ethnic background. The interethnic adolescents were found to identify themselves with the ethnic group of the mother. Further, it was found that the ethnic socialization practices of the father and mother, familial demographic variables and
interaction with peers influenced the ethnic identity development. Finally, ethnic background differences were found but gender differences were not found in the ethnic socialization of the father and the mother.
Introduction
One out of seven marriages in the Netherlands is a marriage between a person with a Dutch ethnic background and a person with a foreign ethnic background (CBS, 2009). It is expected that the number of these interethnic marriages will increase. The number of interethnic marriages in the United States is increasing, and more and more people from interethnic marriages identify themselves as having an interethnic background (González, Umaña-Taylor, & Bámaca, 2006). Still, it is uncertain what effects interethnic marriages have on the ethnic self-identification of the children coming from these marriages. This study will focus on the influences on ethnic identity development of interethnic adolescents.
The development of an ethnic identity is a central theme in the period of adolescence, since it is during this period that adolescents discover who they are and who they want to become (Erikson, 1968). Ethnicity refers to any number of shared values, social customs, behavior roles, language use, and rules of social interactions that group members have (Phinney & Rotheram, 1987). Ethnic identity describes the way individuals interpret and understand their ethnicity and the degree to which they identify with an ethnic group (Phinney, Romero, Nava, & Huang, 2001). But the identification process is dependent on time, context and place. Also, people can identify with different ethnicity’s, by combining, mixing, and separating the ethnicity’s according to circumstances (Merry, 2010). Interethnic adolescents can feel confused because they belong to multiple ethnic groups. According to Root (2003), there are four ways interethnic individuals may resolve identity confusion: (a) accept the single ethnic identity that society assigns, (b) actively choose a single ethnic identity, (c) identify with two or more ethnic groups, (d) or develop a new ethnic identity. A famous example of an individual who developed a new ethnic identity is Tiger Woods, with a mixture of Asian, Native American, and African American ethnic backgrounds, he identifies himself as ‘Cablinasian’.
Marcia (1993) developed an empirical model to access identity development. Although Marcia (1993) focused on personal identity, his model also complements ethnic identity development (Phinney & Ong, 2007). Two central components in the identity development model of Marcia (1993) are exploration and commitment. Exploration refers to the extent to which an individual has been seeking information and experiences relevant to one’s ethnicity. Commitment refers to the attachment and personal investment in one’s ethnic group. These two concepts will be used in this thesis to explore the ethnic identity of interethnic
adolescents. It is during adolescence that the major changes in the development of the ethnic identity occur, through the joint processes of exploration and commitment. Adolescents are expected to move from identity diffusion (no exploration and commitment), to either foreclosure (commitment without exploration), or moratorium (exploration without
commitment), to identity achievement (exploration and commitment). Identity achievement is the best outcome for the ethnic identity formation process. This thesis will assess the ethnic identity status of the interethnic adolescents.
One of the strongest determinants for the identification of interethnic children is how parents view them and teach them to view themselves (Padilla, 2006). Umaña-Taylor & Fine (2004) developed a model, which suggests that a central component for adolescents in developing an ethnic identity is the influence that parents have via familial ethnic socialization practices. Familial ethnic socialization practices are practices, which teach children about their ethnic culture(s). These include practicing and teaching cultural
traditions, cultural values and beliefs, history, and holidays that are associated with the ethnic background of the parents at home. Familial ethnic socialization practices can be covert or overt: the first involves actively teaching one’s children about ethnicity while the latter does not. Previous research indicates a strong positive correlation between familial ethnic
Fine, 2004; Umaña-Taylor, Bhanot & Shin, 2006; Gonzalez, et al., 2006). Familial ethnic socialization can be sex-specific. Since women are often seen as culture bearers, it can be expected that girls are more socialized than boys are (Phinney, 1990; González, et al., 2006). Spencer, Icard, Harachi, Catalano and Oxford (2000) found that girls score higher on ethnic identity exploration than boys. It could be expected that the higher socialization of girls could lead to higher exploration. In a study of Gonzalez, et al., (2006), who studied the ethnic identity of Latin-European adolescents, this expectation was not supported. They found that boys score higher on familial ethnic socialization than girls. No other studies examined gender differences in familial ethnic socialization of interethnic adolescents.
According to Umaña-Taylor & Fine (2004), familial demographic variables e.g. social economical status, neighborhood, family structure and generation influence the ethnic identity through the family socialization practices. In their study among adolescents of Mexican descent living in the United States, it was found that the more family members were
immigrants, the more likely parents were to socialize their children into an ethnic identity. In a study of Phinney, et al., (2001) it was found that the socioeconomic status of the parents of immigrant adolescents was strongly related to the ethnic identity of the immigrant adolescents and to the familial ethnic socialization. Specifically, a higher SES was associated with lower familial ethnic socialization and with a higher ethnic identity achievement. In a study of Tomishima (2000) it was found that an absent or neglectful parenting influenced ethnic identity development negatively. Children in these circumstances were confused about their ethnic identity. Unfortunately, no research has been done concerning the influence of familial demographic variables on the ethnic identity development of interethnic adolescents, or concerning the influence of familial demographic variables on the familial ethnic socialization practices in interethnic families.
Peers have an important influence on the ethnic identity development during adolescence. But the relationships that adolescents have with peers are not merely a replacement or extension of relationships with parents (Root, 2003). Padilla (2006) argues that the role of peers is larger when the parental involvement towards the ethnic identity development of interethnic adolescents is weak. Although it is expected that the interaction with peers from one’s own ethnic group has an additional influence on the ethnic identity of adolescents, studies concerning the influence of peers differ. In a study of Phinney, et al. (2001), who studied the ethnic identity of immigrant adolescents, it was found that the interaction with in-group peers was positively related to ethnic identity. Yet here, too, there has been no research on the influences of the interaction with peers on the ethnic identity of interethnic adolescents.
The fact that research concerning the ethnic identity of interethnic adolescents is scarce is relevant to this study. It is important to know what variables influence the development of an ethnic identity for adolescents, since the development of an ethnic identity is most likely to occur during adolescence. The first aim of this study is to examine whether interethnic adolescents manage to develop an ethnic identity, and if so, what kind of ethnic identity they develop. Second, we will assess the influence of the familial ethnic socialization practices on the ethnic identity development. Third, we will show whether familial demographic variables influence the use of familial ethnic socialization practices and influence the ethnic identity development. The final aim of this study is to examine the influence of peers on the ethnic identity development (see Figure 1).
Insert Figure 1 about here
Recruitment
The adolescents were recruited randomly by Internet through www.hyves.nl. Hyves is a free Dutch social network site, comparable to MySpace and Facebook. The members of the FiftyFifty Hyves, a Hyves for people with interethnic backgrounds, received an e-mail with information about the research and were asked to fill in a digital survey. The respondents who filled in their e-mail address at the end of the survey had a change to win one of the two I-pods. All members who received an e-mail were asked to forward the e-mail to other people who fitted the profile. The respondents should be between the age of 16 and 25 years and should have one parent who is born in the Netherlands and one parent who is born abroad.
Since the respondents were recruited by Internet, we can’t say anything about the non-response. It is uncertain how many members received an e-mail since the members could prefer to receive no e-mails from the social network site. A total of 990 respondents used the link to the digital survey, but only 503 (50.8%) responded to the first question of the digital survey. After data screening only 303 (30.6%) respondents were included in the study.
Description of participants
The majority of the participants were woman (n = 220, 72.6%). The mean age of the
participants was 20 years (SD = 2.60), ranging from 16 to 25. Most participants did not hold a religious belief (n = 124, 58.5%). Almost all the participants were born in the Netherlands (n = 195, 93.3%) and spook most often the Dutch language at home (n=190, 92.2%). There were 131 (43.2%) participant with a Dutch father and 172 (56.8%) participants with a Dutch
mother. Of the participants with a foreign father, 65.4% (n=87) has been to the country were the father was born. Of the participants with a foreign mother, 97.7% (n=127) has been to the country were the mother was born.
Measurements
Ethnic self-description: A single open question was used to measure how the respondents
described their own ethnic background. The respondents were asked to respond to the question “I describe my ethnicity(s) as ”.
Ethnic identity: An adapted version of the Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM)
developed by Phinney and Ong (2007) was employed to measure the ethnic identity of the respondents. The respondents filled in the questionnaire twice, ones for the father’s ethnic group, and ones for the mother’s ethnic group. Before the respondents responded to the questionnaires they were asked to fill in the ethnic group of both parents. The questionnaire includes two subscales assessing ethnic identity: exploration (“I have often talked to other people in order to learn more about my fathers ethnic group”) and commitment (“I have a strong sense of belonging to my fathers ethnic group”). The questionnaire contained six items and was rated on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). A high score on the questionnaire indicated a higher developed ethnic identity. Cronbach’s alpha’s for the questionnaire about the ethnic group of the father were .844 for the subscale exploration and .833 for the subscale commitment. Cronbach’s alpha’s for the questionnaire about the ethnic group of the mother were .852 for the subscale exploration and .829 for the subscale
commitment.
Familial ethnic socialization practices: Familial ethnic socialization practices were
measured with an adapted version of the Familial Ethnic Socialization Measure (FESM) developed by Umana-Taylor (2001). Familial ethnic socialization was measured ones for the father, and ones for the mother. The questionnaire consisted of nine items. Five items
addressed overt familial ethnic socialization practices (“My father teaches me about his ethnic background”) and four items addressed covert familial ethnic socialization practices (“My father participates in activities that are specific to his ethnic group”). Participants rated the
mothers and fathers familial ethnic socialization practices on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree), with a high score indicating more familial ethnic socialization practices. Cronbach’s alpha’s for the father’s ethnic socialization were .896 for the subscale overt and .742 for the subscale covert. Cronbach’s alpha’s for the mother’s ethnic
socialization were .888 for the subscale overt and .771 for the subscale covert.
Familial demographic variables: Social economical status of the parents, neighborhood,
structure of the family composition, and number of family births in the Netherlands were measured with single questions.
Peer interaction: Adolescents should answer how many friends they have with
interethnic backgrounds, and how often they interact with friends with interethnic
backgrounds. The adolescents should also answer these questions for friends who have the same ethnic background of the mother and the same ethnic background of the father.
Analyses
To answer the research questions, structural equation modeling was performed through the computer program Mx, version 1.7.03. A correlation matrix was examined (see appendix). The analyses used in this study followed a two steps procedure (Kline, 2005). In the first step confirmatory factor analysis was used to examine whether the measurement model
demonstrated an acceptable fit to the data. In the second step the structural model was tested. Before the steps were examined, intensive analyses were performed on de independent parts of the model to find the best fitting parts for the total model (for further interested contact me please). The maximum likelihood estimation method with a constraint yields estimates of parameters, as well as chi-square (CHISQ) measure of overall goodness of fit, a root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), comparative fit index (CFI), and a standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). The CHISQ test is a measure of exact fit. A significant
chi-square value (alpha = 0.05) indicates that the model does not fit the data. The RMSEA is a measure of approximate fit. RMSEA values lower than 0.05 indicates close fit, and RMSEA values lower than 0.08 indicates satisfactory fit. The CFI is a measure of relatively
improvement in fit of the studied model compared to the null model. A CFI value higher than 0.90 indicates good model fit. The SRMR is a measure of the mean absolute correlation residual, the overall difference between the observed and predicted correlations. A SRMR value less than 0.10 indicates good model fit (Kline, 2005).
Results
Descriptive Analyses
Most participants came from a family with a medium social economical status (n = 237, 78.2%). More than half of the participants came from an urban neighborhood (n = 171, 56.4%). The majority of the participants lived with both parents in the same house (n = 246, 81.2%). Most participants had 4 members within the family, including themselves, who were born in the Netherlands (n = 240, 78.9%). There was a large variability in the ethnic
background composition of the adolescents: there were 49 different interethnic backgrounds. Two large interethnic groups emerged: Surinamese-Dutch and Indonesian-Dutch. Of the 303 adolescents, 52 adolescents had a parent who is born in Surinam and 51 adolescents had a parent who is born in Indonesia. The other interethnic groups were smaller than 19, therefore they were not included in the analysis. The variables Surinamese-Dutch and Indonesian-Dutch were included to the analysis as control variables.
Ethnic identity
Most of the adolescents described themselves as Multi-ethnic (n = 141, 46.5%), 15
a new ethnic group. Unfortunately, 145 (47.9%) adolescents did not understand the question about their ethnicity and responded with an emotion, judgment or a question mark.
Of the 303 adolescents, 85 (28.1%) achieved to develop an ethnic identity for both parents ethnic groups, but 80 (26.4%) adolescents did not achieved to develop an ethnic identity for neither of the parents ethnic groups. Furthermore, 41 (13.5%) adolescents achieved to develop a mono-ethnic identity of the ethnic group of the father, and 97 (32.0%) adolescents achieved to develop a mono-ethnic identity of the ethnic group of the mother. Table 1 summarizes the identity status according to Marcia separately for both parents.
Insert Table 1 about here
Measurement model
The fit indices for the measurement model were examined to determine whether the observed variables were reliably assessing the latent variables. The measurement model involved the estimation of eight latent variables and their covariances. All latent variable variances were fixed at 1.0. Goodness-of-fit statistics of the measurement model showed a poor fit, X2(54) = 294.662, p<0.001, RMSEA = 0.122 (90% CI [0.108, 0.135], CFI = 0.852 and SRMR = 0.100. Inspection of standardized residuals showed that the observed correlation between ethnic socialization of the father and ethic identity of the fathers ethnic group could not sufficiently be explained by the expected direct effects. Step by step modification of the model, by adding correlation residuals between ethnic socialization of the father and ethic identity of the fathers ethnic group, still yielded poor fit, X2(50) = 193.527, p<0.001, RMSEA = 0.098 (90% CI [0.083, 0.112], CFI = 0.911 and SRMR = 0.067. Further inspection of the standardized residuals showed that the observed correlation between ethnic identity and peers could not sufficiently be explained by the expected direct effects. Step by step modification of the
model, by adding correlation residuals between ethnic identity and peers, yielded poor fit,
X2(47) = 158.231, p<0.001, RMSEA = 0.089 (90% CI [0.074, 0.104], but the CFI = 0.931, and SRMR = 0.056 showed satisfactory fit. There were still high correlation residuals but they were not theoretically correct and were not included to the model. Since the CFI and SRMR showed satisfactory fit, it could be concluded that the covariances of the observed variables are satisfactory described by the latent variables. Figure 2 shows the factor loadings of the final measurement model.
Insert Figure 2 about here
Structural model
The structural model tested whether the latent variables and observed variables could explain ethnic identity (see Figure 3). All first factor loadings were fixed at 1.0. The goodness-of-fit statistics showed satisfactory fit, X2(107) =241.110, p<0.001, RMSEA = 0.064 (90% CI [0.054, 0.075], CFI =0.923 and SRMR = 0.055. Estimation of the structural model parameters are given in Table 2.
Insert Figure 3 about here
Firstly, the structural model indicated that the ethnic socialization practices of the father had a negative effect on ethnic identity development. The ethnic socialization practices of the mother had a positive effect on ethnic identity development. Secondly, neighborhood and family structure had a positive effect on the ethnic socialization practices of the father but a negative effect on the ethnic identity development. If the adolescent was born in an urban neighborhood then they reported more ethnic socialization practices of the father and a lower ethnic identity achievement. If both parents raised the adolescent, then the adolescent reported
more ethnic socialization practices of the father and lower ethnic identity achievement. Social economical status of the parents had a positive effect on the ethnic socialization practices of the mother, and a positive effect on ethnic identity development. The higher the social economical status of the parents, the greater the ethnic socialization practices of the mother, and the higher the ethnic identity achievement. The other familial demographic variables did not significantly effect the ethnic socialization practices of the father or mother. Thirdly, peers with interethnic background influenced the ethnic identity development of the adolescent. Interaction with peers who have interethnic backgrounds had a positive effect on ethnic identity development. Interaction with peers who have the same ethnic background as the father or mother did not influenced the ethnic identity development of the adolescent. Further, no gender differences were found for the ethnic socialization practices of the mother and of the father. Finally, it was found that if the adolescent had a parent with a Surinamese
background he or she reported lower on ethnic socialization practices of the father. This effect was not found for the ethnic socialization practices of the mother. If the adolescent had one parent with an Indonesian background he or she reported lower on ethnic socialization practices of the father and the mother. Furthermore, the model accounted for 99.3% of the variance in ethnic identity development.
Insert Table 2 about here
Discussion
This study examined the ethnic identity development of interethnic adolescents. First, it was assessed whether interethnic adolescents achieve to develop an ethnic identity and what kind of interethnic identity they develop. Second, it was tested whether familial ethnic socialization practices of the father and of the mother, familial demographic variables and peers influence
the ethnic identity development. Additionally, the variables gender, Surinamese-Dutch and Indonesian-Dutch were included to the model to test whether they influenced the ethnic socialization of the father and mother.
Although it was found that most interethnic adolescent described themselves as multi-ethnic, they did not develop an interethnic identity. Most interethnic adolescents identify themselves with the ethnic group of the mother. Furthermore, it was found that the ethnic socialization practices of the father and mother both influenced the ethnic identity
development. The ethnic socialization practices of the mother had a positive effect and the ethnic socialization practices of the father had a negative effect on ethnic identity. Only some of the familial demographic variables influenced ethnic socialization practices. An urban neighborhood and parenthood with both parents lead to more ethnic socialization practices of the father and lower ethnic identity achievement. High social economical status leads to more ethnic socialization practices of the mother and a higher ethnic identity achievement.
Furthermore, interaction with peers who have interethnic backgrounds positively influenced the ethnic identity development of the adolescents. Finally, adolescents with a Surinamese-Dutch background reported lower on ethnic socialization practices of the father. Adolescents with an Indonesian-Dutch background reported lower on ethnic socialization practices of the father and of the mother.
An explanation for the finding that most interethnic adolescents developed a single ethnic identity towards the mother’s ethnic group is that more than half of the mothers had a Dutch ethnic background. Since almost all adolescents were born in the Netherlands and spook the Dutch language at home, it can be expected that they identify with the Dutch ethnic group. Furthermore, in a Dutch study on interethnic families it was found that in families with a Dutch mother the Dutch language and food is dominant and Dutch values and norms are standards (Botman, 2005). In addition, mothers have a larger role than fathers do in ethnic
socialization and ethnic socialization influences the ethnic identity development. This was found in this study but also in a study of González, et al. (2006). Also 97,7% of the adolescent went to the to the country were the foreign mother was born, whereas 65.4% has been to the country were the foreign father was born. This is a large difference and it could explain the ethnic socialization differences of the father and the mother. Future studies should study the effect of visiting the country of the foreign parent. The finding that a large number of adolescents did not achieved to develop an ethnic identity for the father’s or mother’s ethnic group can reflect the idea that interethnic adolescents do not feel connected to one or both of the ethnic groups of the parents. Moreover, adolescents could receive mixed messages about their ethnicity or about cultural norms and values, which could lead to confusion.
It was found that ethnic socialization practices of the mother had a positive effect and the ethnic socialization practices of the father had a negative effect on ethnic identity
development. The finding that mothers have a larger influence on ethnic identity development than fathers can be explained by the traditional role of mothers in the family. The finding that the ethnic socialization practices of the father had a negative effect on ethnic identity
development can be explained by the low factor loadings of exploration and commitment towards the father’s ethnic group on ethnic identity. It seems that exploration and
commitment towards the mother’s ethnic group only explain ethnic identity. It could be that the ethnic identity development of interethnic adolescents is less influence by the father in general. Another explanation is that the assumption that interethnic adolescent feel connected to both ethnic groups of the parents is wrong. This study measures ethnic identity as an interethnic identity, with exploration and commitment towards the ethnic groups of the parents, but it could be that the ethnic groups of the parents do not exclusively explain ethnic identity. There could be other factors that assess ethnic identity.
Only some of the familial demographic variables effected ethnic socialization practices. This could be explained by the low variability within the variables. It could be expected that families in urban neighborhoods use more ethnic socialization practices. Urban
neighborhoods are more multicultural than countryside neighborhoods, whereby families have more room to express their culture. But this was only found for the father’s ethnic
socialization practices. This can be explained by the fact that a lot of mother’s had a Dutch ethnic background and the adolescents are broad up in the Netherlands. Also, mothers socialize more than fathers do, and it could be that there are just no differences between how much mothers socialize in urban and countryside neighborhoods. Since women are often seen as culture bearers they are expected to teach their children about their culture. Further, if the adolescents were born in an urban neighborhood then they reported lower ethnic identity achievement. Since urban neighborhoods are more multicultural than countryside
neighborhoods, other factors than parents can influence the ethnic identity development. Thus, it could be that ethnic identity development should be measured with other factors than only the factors of the parents. Another explanation is that a multicultural society leads to confusion. Adolescents do not know what to choose since there is so much to choose from. The finding that parenthood with both parents lead to more father’s ethnic socialization practices but not to more mother’s ethnic socialization practices can be explained by the fact that the respondents who lived in a divorced family, lived with their mother. Only one adolescent lived with their father. An explanation for the finding that parenthood with both parents lead to lower ethnic identity achievement, is that growing up with both parents can confuse the ethnic identity of adolescents. Furthermore, it was found that a high social economical status of the parents lead to more ethnic socialization practices of the mother and a higher ethnic identity achievement. This contradicts the finding of Phinney, et al., (2001) who found that a higher SES is associated with lower familial ethnic socialization practices
and with a higher ethnic identity achievement. An explanation for the finding of the present study is that parents with high SES have more resources for culture maintenance.
Only the interaction with interethnic peers influenced the ethnic identity development. This could be explained by the assessment of ethnic identity. Ethnic identity is assessed with exploration and commitment for both parents, since I expected that interethnic adolescents have an interethnic background influenced by the parents. The model showed that the ethnic identity development of the adolescents is most influenced by the mother and therefore it could be expected that peers with the same ethnic background of the mother also influence their ethnic identity development. This was not the case. An explanation for this is small variability in peers with the same ethnic background as the mother. A lot of mothers had a Dutch ethnic background and children who live in the Netherlands almost always have peers with a Dutch ethnic background.
Adolescents with a Surinamese-Dutch or Indonesian-Dutch background reported lower on ethnic socialization practices. Surinam and Indonesia are former colonies of the
Netherlands. Therefore it could be that parents with a Surinamese or Indonesian background teach less about their own culture than parents from other cultures, such as Morocco.
There were no gender differences found in ethnic socialization practices. This could be explained by the small variability in gender, there were two times more girls than boys.
This study is the first to test the differences between socialization practices of the father and the mother, differences in the influence of interaction with peers from different ethnic backgrounds and differences in the influence of familial demographic variables on the socialization of the father and mother. It is also the first to test the influence of all these factors on ethnic identity development of interethnic adolescents. The results of this study are helpful for clinical and community practitioners all over the world who work with interethnic adolescents.
The present study has several limitations. Firstly, because of relatively small numbers of specific interethnic groups, all the interethnic adolescents were included in one group.
Theoretically it is better to test separate models for the specific interethnic groups since ethnic groups differ in history, culture and situation. In previous studies it was found that there are differences in ethnic groups for factors that influence the ethnic identity development (Phinney, et al., 2001; Umaña-Taylor, et al., 2006). Secondly, the respondents did not
understand the conception of ethnicity in the first question of the survey. This could influence the results since other measures also used this concept. Before the respondents filled in the questionnaire about ethnic socialization they had to fill in the ethnic group of the father and mother and all respondents did seem to understand the question (there were no missing data). Thirdly, the present study assumes that interethnic adolescents feel connected to the ethnic group of the parents. In a multicultural society, like the Netherlands, there are several cultural environments that could influence the ethnic identity. Further, it is unclear whether Dutch parents teach the Dutch culture and Turkish parents teach the Turkish culture. It could be that the Dutch parent teaches the Turkish culture if the father is not at home or the other way around. Moreover, do Dutch parents teach their children the Dutch culture when the children are already brought up in a Dutch society? These are important questions, which should be further studied. Furthermore, it is important to note that socialization is bi-directional. If children want to learn more about a certain culture they can motivate the parents to teach them about the culture. This also holds for the interaction with peers. Fourthly, there is a change that the respondents participated since they were interested in their ethnic identity. This could bias the results. Additionally, since participants responded to the survey on Internet it is unclear where they filled in the survey: at school, at home or at work. The environment could influence their answers, since identity is dynamic; it changes over time, place and context. Finally, the model is complicated because of correlation residuals and the
multimethod model of peers. The correlation residuals and the multitrait-multimethod model for peers were needed to find a satisfactory model fit. Future studies should include more indicators for the factors, by including more subscales, so the models can be identified without equality constraints and hopefully a simpler model can be found.
Since there are differences between the reported ethnic socialization practices of the father and the mother, future research should make a distinction between the ethnic
socialization practices of the father and the mother. Also other environment factors should be included, for example: representation of the ethnic groups in schools and in the neighborhood.
In closing, although the present study has some limitations, findings are useful for future research. It is important that the ethnic identity of interethnic adolescents and the influences on the ethnic identity is studied since research towards these topics is scare. Not only in the Netherlands, but all over the world inter-ethnicity emerge. It is important that we pay attention towards inter-ethnicity.
References
Botman, M. (2005). "Eigen, Cultuuroverdracht in interetnische families", In I. Hoving, H. Dibbits, & M. Schrover (Eds.) Veranderingen van het alledaagse 1950-2000. Den Haag: SdU Uitgeverij.
CBS (2009). Huwen; huwelijkssluitingen en huwende personen naar diverse kenmerken. Heerlen/Den Haag: Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek.
Erikson, H. E. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: W. W. Norton. González, A. G., Umaña-Taylor, A. J., & Bámaca, M. Y. (2006). Familial Ethnic
Socialization Among Adolescents of Latino and European Descent: Do Latina Mothers Exert the Most Influence? Journal of Family Issues, 27, 184-207.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Kuhn, M. H., &, McPartland T. S. (1954). An Empirical Investigation of Self-Attitudes.
American Sociological Review, 19, 68-76.
Marcia, J. E. (1993). The ego identity status approach to ego identity. In J. E. Marcia, A. S. Waterman, D. R. Matterson, S. L. Archer, & J. L. Orlofsky (Eds.), Ego identity: A
handbook for psychosocial research (pp. 3-21). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Merry, M. S. (2010). Identity. University of Amsterdam.
Padilla, A. M. (2006). Bicultural Social Development. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral
Sciences, 28, 467-497.
Phinney, J. S., & Rotheram, M. J. (1987). Introduction: definitions and perspectives in the study of children’s ethnic socialization. In J. S. Phinney, & M. J. Rotheram (Eds.), Children’s
ethnic socialization: pluralism and development (pp. 10-31). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Phinney, J. S. (1990) Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: Review of research.
Psychological Bulletin, 108, 499-514.
Phinney, J. S., & Rosenthal, D. A. (1992). Ethnic identity in adolescence: Process, context, and outcome. In G. R. Adams,T. P. Gullota, & R. Montemayor (Eds.), Adolescent
identity formation (pp. 145-172). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Phinney, J. S., Romero, I., Nava, M., & Huang, D. (2001). The role of language, parents, and peers in ethnic identity among adolescents in immigration families. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 30, 135-153.
Phinney, J. S., & Ong, A. D. (2007). Conceptualization and measurement of ethnic identity: Current status and future directions. Journal of counseling psychology, 54, 271-281.
Root, M. P. P. (2003). Multiracial Families and Children: Implications for Educational Research and Practice. In J. A. Banks and C. A. McGee Banks (eds.), Handbook of research
on multicultural education (second edition), pp. 110-124. San Francisco: Jossewy-Bass.
Root, M. P. P. (1996). The multiracial experience: racial borders as the new frontier. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Spencer, M. S., Icard, L. D., Harachi, T. W., Catalano, R. F., & Oxford, M. (2000). Ethnic identity among monoracial and multiracial early adolescents. Journal of Early
adolescents, 20, 365-387.
Tomishima, S. A. (2000). Factors and experiences in biracial and biethnic identity development. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61, 1114.
Umaña-Taylor, A. J. (2001). Ethnic identity development among Mexican-origin Latino
adolescents living in the U.S. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri,
Columbia.
Umaña-Taylor, A. J., Diversi, M., & Fine, M. A. (2002). Ethnic identity and self-esteem among Latino adolescents: Making distinctions among the Latino populations. Journal of
Adolescent Research, 17, 303-327.
Umaña-Taylor, A. J., & Fine, M. A. (2004). Examining a model of ethnic identity development among Mexican-origin adolescents living in the U.S. Hispanic Journal of
Behavioral Sciences, 26, 36-59.
Umaña-Taylor, A. J., Bhanot, R., &, Shin, N. (2006). Ethnic Identity Formation During Adolescence: The Critical Role of Families. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 390-414.
Verkuyten, M. (1991). Self-definition and ingroup formation among ethnic minorities in the Netherlands. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54, 280-286.
Father’s ethnic socialization Ethnic identity Peers Family demographic variables Mother’s ethnic socialization Exploration Commitment Overt Covert Overt Covert
EID E x pl oF E x pl o M Co m m iM Co m m iF FESPF O v e rt F C ov er tF FESPM O v e rt M C ov er tM e e e e e e e e .81 .81 .81 .81 .17 -.03 .80 .72
Father Mother Inter
Number Time
Nr F Time F Nr M Time M Nr I Time I
.14 -.07 .20 .24 .31 .27 .86 .86 .85 .85 .74 .74 e e e e e e
Figure 2. Measurement model
Note. The covariances between Number and EID, FESPF, FESPM and between Time and
EID, FESPF, FESPM are not shown for clarification of the model.
FESPF = familial ethnic socialization practices of the father. FESPM = familial ethnic socialization practices of the mother. EID = ethnic identity development.
Ngb SES Gen Fam SuN InN CommiF EID
ExploF ExploM CommiM
Mother Inter
Time
Time F Nr M Time M Nr I Time I
Nr F O v e rt M C ov er tM FESPF O v e rt F C ov er tF FESPM e e e e e e e e Father Number e e e e e e Gender
Figure 3. Structural model
Note. FESPF = familial ethnic socialization practices of the father. FESPM = familial ethnic
Table 1. Identity status according to Marcia
Father’s ethnicity Mother’s ethnicity Number Percentage Number Percentage Identity diffusion 76 25.1 36 11.9 Foreclosure 40 13.2 44 14.5 Moratorium 49 16.2 28 9.2 Achieved 126 41.6 182 60.1 Neutral 12 4.0 13 4.3 Total 303 100 303 100 Note. N = 303
Table 2. Maximum likelihood parameter for structural model
Direct effects
Parameter Standardized 95% Confidence interval Lower Upper FESPF EID -0.032** -0.067 -0.012 FESPM EID 0.155** 0.053 0.288 Father EID 0.002 -0.002 0.057 Mother EID -0.003 -0.029 0.076 Inter EID 0.041** 0.011 0.074 SES FESPF 0.060 -0.026 0.142 Neighborhood FESPF 0.081* 0.042 0.164 Family structure FESPF 0.125** 0.092 0.208 Generation FESPF -0.041 -0.123 0.044 SES FESPM 0.283** 0.189 0.367 Neighborhood FESPM -0.020 -0.114 0.076 Family structure FESPM -0.089 -0.180 0.007 Generation FESPM -0.017 -0.110 0.077 Surinamese-Dutch FESPF -0.125** -0.210 -0.037 Surinamese-Dutch FESPM -0.041 -0.137 0.057 Indonesian-Dutch FESPF -0.151** -0.233 -0.064 Indonesian-Dutch FESPM -0.120* -0.214 -0.023 Gender FESPF 0.004 -0.081 0.078 Gender FESPM 0.031 -0.065 0.124 Indirect effects
Parameter Standardized 95% Confidence interval Lower Upper
SES FESPF EID -0.002 -0.007 0.001 Neighborhood FESPF EID -0.003* -0.006 -0.001
Family structure FESPF EID -0.004** -0.009 -0.001 Generation FESPF EID 0.001 -0.002 0.006 SES FESPM EID 0.044** 0.034 0.087 Neighborhood FESPM EID -0.003 -0.021 0.013 Family structure FESPM EID -0.014 -0.033 0.001 Generation FESPM EID -0.003 -0.016 0.009
Variances and covariances
Parameter Standardized 95% Confidence interval Lower Upper
DFESPF 0.616** 0.551 0.673
DFESPM 0.527** 0.455 0.598
DFather 0.755** 0.735 0.797
DInter 0.586** 0.539 0.700 DEID 0.007** 0.003 0.026 FESPF ↔ FESPM 0.137** 0.061 0.206 Mother ↔ Father -0.342** -0.468 -0.253 Mother ↔ Inter 0.072 -0.171 0.175 Inter ↔ Father 0.155* 0.097 0.242 Number ↔ Time -0.087 -0.210 0.094 SES ↔ Father -0.285* -0.752 -0.045 SES ↔ Mother -0.615* -1.000 -0.078 SES ↔ Inter -0.485* -0.952 -0.042 SES ↔ Neighborhood 0.169** 0.059 0.272 Neighborhood ↔ Father -0.087 -0.206 0.093 Neighborhood ↔ Mother -0.415* -1.000 -0.035 Neighborhood ↔ Inter -0.211 -0.911 0.108 Family structure ↔ Father 0.170 -0.057 0.449 Family structure ↔ Mother 0.092 -0.442 0.710 Family structure ↔ Inter 0.025 -0.380 0.385 Family structure ↔ SES -0.023 -0.133 0.089 Family structure ↔ Neighborhood 0.019 -0.093 0.129 Generation ↔ Father -0.114 -0.114 0.060 Generation ↔ Mother -0.146 -0.659 0.182 Generation ↔ Inter -0.198 -0.340 0.132
Generation ↔ SES -0.003 -0.115 0.109
Generation ↔ Neighborhood 0.012 -0.100 0.123 Generation ↔ Family structure 0.013 -0.099 0.125 Surinamese-Dutch ↔ Father 0.0213 -0.2668 0.273 Surinamese-Dutch ↔ Mother -0.051 -0.646 0.518 Surinamese-Dutch ↔ Inter -0.011 -0.470 0.458 Surinamese-Dutch ↔ SES -0.061 -0.171 0.051 Surinamese-Dutch ↔ Neighborhood 0.029 -0.082 0.140 Surinamese-Dutch ↔ Family structure 0.019 -0.094 0.130 Surinamese-Dutch ↔ Generation -0.073 -0.182 0.040 Indonesian-Dutch ↔ Father 0.256* 0.075 0.561 Indonesian-Dutch ↔ Mother 0.247 -0.131 1.000 Indonesian-Dutch ↔ Inter 0.209 -0.131 0.968 Indonesian-Dutch ↔ SES -0.093 -0.200 0.020 Indonesian-Dutch ↔ Neighborhood -0.032 -0.142 0.080 Indonesian-Dutch ↔ Family structure 0.106 -0.006 0.213 Indonesian-Dutch ↔ Generation -0.020 -0.131 0.092 Indonesian-Dutch ↔ Surinamese-Dutch -0.206** -0.306 -0.096 Gender ↔ Father 0.039 -0.135 0.419 Gender ↔ Mother 0.183 -0.206 1.000 Gender ↔ Inter 0.133 -0.199 0.839 Gender ↔ SES -0.053 -0.163 0.059 Gender ↔ Neighborhood 0.072 -0.041 0.181 Gender ↔ Family structure -0.050 -0.160 0.061 Gender ↔ Generation -0.032 -0.143 0.080
Gender ↔ Surinamese-Dutch -0.134* -0.239 -0.022 Gender ↔ Indonesian-Dutch 0.037 -0.075 0.147
Measurement error variances and covariances
Parameter Standardized 95% Confidence interval Lower Upper Overt father 0.327** 0.281 0.383 Covert father 0.327** 0.281 0.383 Overt mother 0.361** 0.310 0.421 Covert mother 0.361** 0.310 0.421 Exploration father 0.979** 0.961 0.990 Commitment father 1.000** 1.000 1.000 Exploration father ↔ Commitment father 0.606** 0.542 0.661 Exploration mother 0.386** 0.261 0.509 Commitment mother 0.475** 0.361 0.591 Exploration father ↔ Overt father 0.525** 0.450 0.588 Exploration father ↔ Covert father 0.337** 0.248 0.419 Commitment father ↔ Overt father 0.413** 0.329 0.486 Commitment father ↔ Covert father 0.308** 0.216 0.392 Number Father 0.380** 0.353 0.489 Time Father 0.413** 0.413 0.511 Number Mother 0.236** 0.192 0.285 Time Mother 0.245** 0.203 0.296 Number Inter 0.201** 0.000 0.292 Time Inter 0.243** 0.209 0.333
Number Father ↔ Commitment father 0.206** 0.128 0.284 Time father ↔ Commitment father 0.128** 0.048 0.212 Time mother ↔ Commitment mother 0.111** 0.060 0.181
Note. Factor loadings are not shown since almost all are zero because of scaling and the
equality constraints. Variances and covariances with single indicators of factors Number and Time are not shown since these factors are less interesting.
EID = ethnic identity development. FESPF = familial ethnic socialization practices of the father. FESPM = familial ethnic socialization practices of the mother.
Neighborhood: 0 = country, 1 = urban. Family structure: 0 = divorced, 1 = together. Surinamese-Dutch: 0 = other, 1 = Surinamese-Dutch. Indonesian-Dutch: 0 = other, 1 = Indonesian-Dutch. Gender: 0 = boy, 1 = girl. N = 303, *p < .05, **p < 0.01.
Appendix Correlation matrix 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 1. Overt Father 1 2. Covert Father .671 1 3. Overt Mother .162 .105 1 4. Covert Mother .175 .224 .636 1 5. Exploration Father .511 .336 .025 .103 1 6. Commitment Father .386 .297 -.046 -.002 .598 1 7. Exploration Mother .069 .086 .549 .376 .194 .004 1 8. Commitment Mother .026 .031 .470 .521 .079 -.060 .569 1 9. Number Father .025 .058 -.026 -.202 -.027 .277 .022 -.172 1 10. Time Father .122 .142 -.004 -.171 .068 .262 .087 -.139 .739 1 11. Number Mother .078 -.017 -.034 .151 .131 -.033 -.069 .082 -.352 -.400 1 12. Time Mother -.008 -.046 -.019 .186 .017 -.174 .033 .229 -.445 -.371 .639 1 13. Number Inter .195 .156 .184 .042 .082 .042 .227 .054 .142 .120 .121 -.020 1 14. Time Inter .128 .174 .190 .061 -.010 -.067 .302 .108 .083 .154 -.061 .049 .497 1 15. SES .068 .092 .310 .286 .001 -.075 .084 .150 .009 -.093 .091 .045 .160 .013 1 16. Neighborhood .055 .056 .047 .004 -.071 -.107 .001 -.025 .040 .012 -.110 -.028 .068 .100 .168 1 17. Family structure .174 .058 -.113 -.105 .009 .077 -.077 -.121 .155 .145 .032 -.002 -.012 -.079 -.021 .020 1 18. Generation .008 .020 -.013 -.016 .071 .064 -.014 -.105 -.011 -.005 .070 .136 .010 .041 -.003 .011 .014 1 19. Gender .030 .017 .034 .006 .036 .007 .032 .042 -.118 -.024 -.154 -.077 -.155 -.074 -.056 .072 -.049 -.033 1 20. Surinamese-Dutch -.114 -.095 -.008 -.054 -.066 .049 -.017 -.054 .029 .063 -.057 -.051 -.010 -.006 -.062 .029 .018 -.073 -.133 1 21. Indonesian-Dutch -.067 -.082 -.168 -.142 .076 .130 -.009 -.051 .148 .164 -.059 -.035 -.031 -.065 -.094 -.032 .104 -.019 .039 -.205 Note. N = 303.
