A number of external factors can influence how adolescents view themselves and their identity development, both generally and in specific domains. Thinking either about your current tea

Ethnic and Racial Identity During Adolescence and Into Young Adulthood: An Integrated Conceptualization

Adriana J. Uma~na-Taylor Arizona State University

Stephen M. Quintana University of Wisconsin

Richard M. Lee University of Minnesota

William E. Cross Jr. University of Denver

Deborah Rivas-Drake Brown University

Seth J. Schwartz University of Miami

Moin Syed University of Minnesota

Tiffany Yip Fordham University

Eleanor Seaton University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Ethnic and Racial Identity in the 21st Century Study Group

Although ethnic and racial identity (ERI) are central to the normative development of youth of color, there have been few efforts to bring scholars together to discuss the theoretical complexities of these constructs and provide a synthesis of existing work. The Ethnic and Racial Identity in the 21st Century Study Group was assembled for this purpose. This article provides an overview of the interface of ERI with developmental and contextual issues across development, with an emphasis on adolescence and young adulthood. It proposes a metaconstruct to capture experiences that reflect both individuals’ ethnic background and their racialized experiences in a specific sociohistorical context. Finally, it presents milestones in the development of ERI across developmental periods.

Research on ethnic and racial identity (ERI) has grown rapidly in the past several decades (see Schwartz et al., in press), and ERI are increasingly being considered central to the normative develop- ment of ethnic and racial minority youth (Lee Wil- liams, Tolan, Durkee, Francois, & Anderson, 2012).

However, there have been few efforts to bring scholars together to discuss the theoretical complex- ities of each of these constructs, provide a synthesis of the existing theoretical work, and provide spe- cific recommendations for how the field might move forward with respect to the conceptualization of these constructs (for an exception, see Ponterotto & Mallinckrodt, 2007). The Ethnic and Racial Iden- tity in the 21st Century Study Group was assem- bled to address this challenge. This article provides an analysis of the interface of ERI with salient developmental and contextual issues from early childhood to young adulthood, with the goal of highlighting key milestones in the development of ERI over time (see Table 1). We focus more heavily

This article was prepared as part of the Ethnic and Racial Identity in the 21st Century working group. Group members not listed on the author byline are: Sabine French, George P. Knight, Carol Markstrom, and Robert M. Sellers. The authors gratefully acknowledge the funding for this working group provided by the Society for Research in Child Development, Society for Research on Adolescence, APA Division 45, the Center for the Study of Ethnicity and Race in America and the Center for the Study of Human Development at Brown University, and the T. Denny Sanford School of Social and Family Dynamics at Arizona State University.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Adriana J. Uma~na-Taylor, T. Denny Sanford School of Social and Family Dynamics, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287- 3701. Electronic mail may be sent to adriana.umana-taylor@asu. edu.

© 2013 The Authors Child Development © 2013 Society for Research in Child Development, Inc. All rights reserved. 0009-3920/2014/8501-0003 DOI: 10.1111/cdev.12196

Child Development, January/February 2014, Volume 85, Number 1, Pages 21–39

T ab

le 1

E th ni c an d R ac ia l Id en tit y (E R I) D ev el op m en t: C og ni tiv

e M ile st on es ,S

oc io en vi ro nm

en ta l Fe at ur es ,a

nd P ro ce ss

an d C on te nt

of E R I D ev el op m en t

E ar ly

ch ild

ho od

M id d le

ch ild

ho od

A d ol es ce nc

e

Y ou

ng ad

ul th oo

d / Em

er gi ng

ad ul th oo

d

C og

ni tiv

e m ile

st on

es ● C og

ni tiv

e ab

ili ty

● R efi

ne m en

t A ss im

ila tio

n A cc om

m od

at io n

● R efi

ne m en

t of

co gn

iti ve

ab ili tie

s (e .g ., eq

ui ty -b as ed

re as on

in g;

so ci al

co m pa

ri so n,

pe rs pe

ct iv e- ta ki ng

ab ili tie

s)

● A bs tr ac t th in ki ng

● In tr os pe

ct io n

● M et ac og

ni tio

n ● Fu

rt he

r de

ve lo pm

en t of

so ci al -c og

ni tiv

e ab

ili tie

s

● D ee pe

r re fl ec tio

n re su

lti ng

in ab

ili ty

to co ns tr uc

t na

rr at iv es

● G re at er

fl ex ib ili ty

Ph ys io lo gi ca l

● Pu

be rt y

(b od

y im

ag e)

So ci al

an d

en vi ro nm

en ta l

co nt ex ts

● Fa

m ily

● M ed

ia ● Fa

m ily

● Pe

er s

● M ed

ia

● Fa

m ily

● Pe

er s

● So

ci al

d em

an d s

an d tr an

si tio

ns ● N av

ig at e

ex pa

nd ed

so ci al

w or ld

● M ed

ia

● So

ci al

w or ld

m ay

ex pa

nd fo r so m e bu

t co nt ra ct

fo r

ot he

rs ba

se d

on so ci al

po si tio

n ● E m an

ci pa

tio n

● M ed

ia C or re sp

on d in g

E R I co m po

ne nt s

P ro ce ss

● D iff er en

tia tio

n of

se lf an

d ot he

r ● C og

ni tiv

e de

ve lo pm

en t

ap pl ie d to

et hn

ic ity

an d ra ce

C on te nt

● E th ni c

la be

lin g

● E th ni c

kn ow

le d ge

● E th ni c

co ns ta nc

y

P ro ce ss

● A w ar en

es s

of bi as

● U nd

er st an

d in g

of so ci al

hi er ar ch

y

C on te nt

● Sa

lie nc

e (t ri gg

er s)

● C en

tr al ity

(im po

rt an

ce )

● A ff ec t

O w n/

in -g ro up

O th er /o

ut -g ro up

● Pu

bl ic

re ga

rd

P ro ce ss

● C on

te st at io n

● E la bo

ra tio

n ● N eg

ot ia tio

n ● In te rn al iz at io n of

cu ltu

ra l va

lu es

● E xp

lo ra tio

n/ se ar ch

● C ol le ct iv e

se lf- ve

ri fi ca tio

n

C on te nt

● Pu

bl ic

re ga

rd ● Id eo

lo gy

● A ff ec t

(a ffi rm

at io n,

pr iv at e re ga

rd )

● Sa

lie nc

e ● C en

tr al ity

● Im

po rt an

ce ● U nd

er st an

d in g of

co m m on

fa te / d es tin

y ● Id en

tit y se lf- de

ni al

● C er ta in ty

P ro ce ss

● Fu

rt he

r el ab

or at io n,

na rr ow

in g,

an d

co nt in ua

tio n of

ad ol es ce nc

e pr oc es se s

● T ra ns fo rm

at io n

(n ew

po ss ib ili tie

s)

C on te nt

● Sa

m e as

ad ol es ce nc

e

22 Uma~na-Taylor et al.

on the developmental period of adolescence due to our focus on ethnic and racial identity rather than identification (distinction elaborated upon next).

Prior to describing developmental milestones, we clarify our use of terminology. After extensive deliberation, the consensus among Study Group members was that we are recommending against making the distinctions that are sometimes made between racial identity and ethnic identity and, instead, propose a metaconstruct: ERI. Most often, whether racial or ethnic is used to describe identity is based on nominal conventions: Racial identity is used, for example, when the groups being investi- gated are considered racial (e.g., Black) and ethnic identity when the group is considered ethnic (e.g., Latinos) or, if the measure used is labeled as racial (e.g., Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity; Sellers, Rowley, Chavous, Shelton, & Smith, 1997) or ethnic (e.g., Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure, Phinney, 1992). Importantly, most racial identity and ethnic identity measures were not designed to be exclusively racial or ethnic, respectively (see Par- ham & Helms, 1981; the Racial Identity Attitude Scale as an exception). Unsurprisingly, there is con- siderable empirical and conceptual overlap (e.g., Casey-Cannon, Coleman, Knudtson, & Velazquez, 2011; Cokley, 2005). Studies (e.g., Quintana, 1998) have demonstrated that development of children’s and youth’s conceptions of ethnicity and race fol- low similar trajectories. Moreover, ethnic identity development is stimulated by processes that are typically considered racial in nature (Pahl & Way, 2006), and conversely, racial identity attitudes have been shown to be associated with embracing cultural traditions (Cokley, 2005).

Furthermore, the distinctions that North Ameri- can researchers have historically made between racial identity and ethnic identity may be outdated and overly parochial relative to new generations of youth whose experiences regarding their identities may reflect a more global perspective (Hermans & Dimaggio, 2007) and intersections of identities (Warner & Shields, 2013). For example, a racially Black Dominican adolescent may reflect on her experiences of racial oppression in the United States, her ethnic heritage from the Dominican Republic, and the cultural traditions (e.g., Spanish language) that have been passed down when iden- tifying as Dominican. In addition, there are impor- tant cultural features associated with an individual’s identification with being African Amer- ican that are lost when the identity is considered racial and not ethnic or cultural (Cokley, 2005). Consistent with this, Cross and Cross (2008) argued

that youth do not keep separate the racial from eth- nic or cultural components of their identities in their lived experiences, and suggested that the term racial–ethnic–cultural identity may be more appro- priate when attempting to accurately represent the psychological experiences of youth of color forming an identity.

In understanding how youth develop an ERI, we are interested in sociohistorical demographic dis- tinctions and the processes that result based on youth’s experiences as they relate to specific ethnic or racial groups. These identities refer to both (a) racialized experiences due to the ascription of cate- gories such as “Black,” “Asian,” “American Indian,” and “Hispanic or Latino” and (b) the con- nection and experiences that individuals have based on their particular cultural or ethnic ancestry. We recognize that the constructs of race and ethnicity are distinct and that the long U.S. history of racial- izing social groups makes it particularly important to recognize that racial categorizations play an important role in the meaning-making process of identity formation. Nevertheless, available evidence suggests considerable overlap between ERI (Casey- Cannon et al., 2011) and their links with adjustment (Iwamoto & Liu, 2010). Thus, we propose the term ERI to capture experiences that reflect both individ- uals’ ethnic background and their racialized experi- ences as a member of a particular group in the context of the United States. Importantly, similar processes may be relevant in other countries (for a cross-cultural perspective, see Berry, Phinney, Sam, & Vedder, 2006), but because the social construction of race and ethnicity is bound to the sociohistorical context, and because each nation has a unique his- tory for specific groups, specificity is important in this regard.

We define ERI as a multidimensional, psycholog- ical construct that reflects the beliefs and attitudes that individuals have about their ethnic–racial group memberships, as well as the processes by which these beliefs and attitudes develop over time. The Study Group conceptualized and operational- ized this meta-construct based on extensive discus- sions of existing models of ethnic identity and racial identity (e.g., Cokley, 2005; Cross, 1995; Knight, Bernal, Garza, & Cota, 1993; Phinney, 1992; Quintana, 1998; Sellers, Smith, Shelton, Rowley, & Chavous, 1998; Uma~na-Taylor, Yazedjian, & B�amaca-G�omez, 2004). Within this conceptualiza- tion, certain components of ERI reflect content and others reflect process (Phinney, 1993), and the two are deeply intertwined (Cross, 1971, 1991; Phinney, 1992; Quintana, 1994). Content includes, for

Ethnic and Racial Identity 23

example, attitudes and beliefs about one’s group and its relations to other groups, whereas process reflects the mechanisms by which individuals explore, form, and maintain their ERI. Because we approach ERI from multiple perspectives, we draw from broad theoretical traditions including, but not limited to, cognitive-developmental theories (e.g., Piaget & Inhelder, 1966/1973), Erikson’s (1968) the- ory of psychosocial development, Tajfel and Turn- er’s (1986) social identity theory, and nigrescence theory (e.g., Cross, 1971). Thus, ERI does not exclusively refer to the self-categorization or ethnic– racial identification label that an individual chooses (e.g., Latino, Puerto Rican, African American, Chi- nese), although we do agree that the process of ERI can lead to different choices in self-categorization (e.g., Nishina, Bellmore, Witkow, & Nyland-Gibson, 2010). Similarly, ERI does not merely reflect an end- point of how one chooses to self-identify, what one believes, or how one feels about one’s group, but also the process by which one arrives at such self- identification choices at any given moment or per- iod of life. Finally, ERI is an interaction between maturation and context, and thus takes different forms and has different meanings across the life span. As depicted in Table 1, the components of ERI that are relevant at specific developmental peri- ods can be organized with attention to whether they primarily reflect the content of one’s ERI or the process of developing an ERI.

In the sections that follow, we first present how the components of ERI can be understood and organized along a developmental timeline, and which features of development may facilitate or prompt development of certain aspects of ERI. Sec- ond, we note that the construction of ERI is not only developmentally grounded but also shaped by the social-environmental contexts within which these identities are developing. We discuss various contexts within which individuals’ lives are embed- ded and how they inform the development of ERI. Finally, we conclude by suggesting that, given the extent to which ethnicity and race are interwoven in young people’s identity constructions, a critical empirical distinction that needs to be made in future work is with respect to the specific compo- nents of ERI (e.g., exploration, centrality) that oper- ate in any given situation during a specified developmental period.

The discussion that follows represents the Study Group’s consensus regarding the central compo- nents that capture ERI formation from early adoles- cence through emerging adulthood. Accordingly, the constructs on which we focus next are not

exclusively applicable to ethnic identity or racial identity, but rather reflect those considered by the Study Group to be essential to understanding ERI among youth. Moreover, the aspects of ERI we delineate next are applicable, conceptually speak- ing, to both ethnic identity and racial identity for- mation; however, to date some aspects have been empirically examined only in relation to either eth- nic or racial identity.

ERI Formation: A Developmental Timeline

With respect to developmental influences on ERI for- mation, cognitive capabilities and socioemotional dynamics play a large role in determining what com- ponents of ERI are developing and salient during a particular developmental period. To date, there has been a dearth of discussion of the interrelation of ERI and other normative developmental processes (for a recent comment on this issue, see Lee Williams et al., 2012). Individuals reach many social and cognitive milestones during childhood and adolescence, and knowledge of these developmental periods helps to organize an understanding of how and when the dif- ferent components of ERI begin to emerge.

We specifically use the term ethnic–racial identifi- cation to describe ethnic–racial self-labeling and identifications during childhood, and reserve the term ERI for the developmental process that occurs subsequent to childhood. As noted in Table 1, the ERI components that are particularly salient during the developmental periods of early to middle child- hood are ethnic–racial labeling (self and other), eth- nic–racial knowledge (including behaviors), and ethnic–racial constancy, which largely capture the process of ethnic identification (for works covering the periods of early to middle childhood, see Aboud, 1988; Clark & Clark, 1950; Knight et al., 1993; Quintana, 1998; Semaj, 1980; Spencer, 1984). These experiences in childhood expose and prime children for ERI formation, and their advanced cog- nitive and socioemotional development in adoles- cence enables the interpretive and meaning-making capacities that result in ERI (Cross & Cross, 2008). Given our focus on identity in the current article, we elaborate next on the developmental periods of adolescence and young adulthood.

Early to Late Adolescence

As noted above, ERI formation during early to middle childhood largely involves children devel- oping the ability to identify and categorize

24 Uma~na-Taylor et al.

themselves and others according to ethnic and racial labels; however, during adolescence, with increased social-cognitive maturity and the ability to understand how one’s race–ethnicity impacts individuals’ life chances and social experiences, the process of ERI involves exploring one’s race–ethnic- ity and internalizing values from one’s ethnic and racial groups (Quintana, 1998). Just as adolescence is a time when personal identity emerges from a synthesis and exploration of sets of potential goals, values, and beliefs (Erikson, 1968), ERI develops during adolescence from children’s ethnic–racial self-identifications that developed in childhood.

Most research on ERI has focused on adoles- cence, which is not surprising given that Erikson’s (1968) theory of psychosocial development identi- fies the adolescent years as critical for identity for- mation. Although the content of ERI during adolescence involves some of the features from childhood (e.g., centrality, affect), it also evolves to include an understanding of a common fate or shared destiny based on ethnic or racial group membership, and that these shared experiences differ from the experiences of individuals from other groups (Syed & Azmitia, 2008). These dimensions of ERI content are not relevant during earlier developmental peri- ods, as children typically do not have the social exposure combined with the cognitive capabilities to understand other people’s perspectives (Quin- tana, 1994). Indeed, scholars have suggested that it is not until adolescence that individuals possess the abstract and counterfactual thinking skills necessary to consider identity issues (Marcia, 1994).

With respect to specific cognitive abilities, youth’s increasingly sophisticated perspective- taking abilities have direct implications for ERI development during adolescence (see Quintana, 1994). Adolescents have the capacity to merge their personal identity or sense of self with their refer- ence group (Cross & Cross, 2008) and develop an ethnic group consciousness (Quintana, 1998). Indi- viduals in late adolescence and young adulthood possess more advanced perspective-taking skills compared to young or middle adolescents, demon- strating an age-related developmental trend (Mosh- man, 2011). In terms of ERI, these new cognitive capacities give adolescents the ability to explore what ERI means to them with respect to their eth- nic or racial reference group, apart from what it means to their parents. Given these changes, the construct of ERI exploration or search is particularly salient during this developmental period (Uma~na- Taylor et al., 2004). Exploration captures the aspect of ERI in which youth seek information or are

exposed to information about their ethnic–racial group. Exploration can consist of thinking about one’s ethnicity, talking with others about it, and participating in activities that represent one’s ethnic group (Syed et al., 2013). It represents a quest for knowledge and understanding about one’s ethnic and racial heritage. This increased awareness can help individuals as they grapple with answering the question “Who am I?” which is considered a key developmental task of adolescence.

The construct of exploration was central in Phin- ney’s (1990) seminal work on ethnic identity, in which she extended Erikson’s (1968) and Marcia’s (1994) theoretical work on personal identity to the domain of ethnic identity. Erikson suggests it is through exploration of options, followed by firm commitments to a career choice and a set of core beliefs that individuals come to achieve a secure identity. Marcia operationalized Erikson’s ideas for empirical research by delineating four identity sta- tuses (i.e., achievement, moratorium, foreclosure, and diffusion). Achievement refers to commitments enacted following a period of exploration, morato- rium denotes active identity exploration in the absence of commitments, foreclosure represents commitments made without much prior explora- tion, and diffusion represents an absence of com- mitments coupled with an absence of systematic exploration. According to Phinney, ethnic identity is a process that takes place over time as individu- als explore and make decisions concerning the meaningfulness of their ethnicity in their lives. Indi- viduals achieve a sense of ethnic identity only after they have explored their ethnicity and what it means to them, and after they have accepted and internalized their ethnicity (i.e., enacted commit- ments).

Although the performance ramifications of an achieved status are implied rather than made expli- cit, one line of work has attempted to merge the ERI socialization literature with an identity-perfor- mance perspective based on Goffman’s (1959) con- cept of the presentation of self in everyday life. ERI socialization studies (e.g., Hughes et al., 2006) show parents preparing their youth for what Boykin (1986) calls encounters and experiences with (a) dis- crimination and stigmatization; (b) activities within the mainstream such as schooling, employment, and health care (as examples); and (c) everyday life within one’s ethnic–racial community. Youth are expected to develop transactional competencies in each of these areas, meaning that a mature achieved identity status is linked to competence in the execu- tion of a range (repertoire) of identity enactments.

Ethnic and Racial Identity 25

Increased functional autonomy and movement toward independence (e.g., being legally of age to obtain a driver’s license and to be employed) is an additional social-developmental change during adolescence that is pertinent to ERI development (Lerner, Freund, DeStefanis, & Habermas, 2001). The construction of a peer group that is distinct from the adult world is an important manifesta- tion of increased autonomy (Brown, 1990). Because of this increase in functional autonomy and the influence of peers in early adolescence, in particular, younger adolescents may rely more on peers for constructing ERI than do older adoles- cents. Increased resistance to peer pressure begin- ning in middle adolescence (Steinberg & Monahan, 2007) and increased independence in decision making, however, may lead middle and older adolescents toward more exploration about their ethnicity, rather than relying solely on tacit agreement with parental or peer socialization influences.

Other social demands and transitions, including exposure to discrimination, different groups of peo- ple, and ethnic clubs, increase during adolescence and likely stimulate exploration (Phinney, 1990), contestation, negotiation, or reexamination (e.g., Cross, 1971, 1991) of one’s ERI. Notably, the school context can play a significant role in the ERI forma- tion process and in the extent to which ERI is linked to adjustment, as evidenced by prior work focused on ERI and the ethnic composition of schools (e.g., Kiang, Witkow, Baldelomar, & Fuligni, 2010). Changes in school context (e.g., more self-segregation by ethnicity, more exposure to diversity) can lead to increases in relevance of eth- nic identity in early to middle adolescence (Huang & Stormshak, 2011). For instance, Huang and Stormshak (2011) found that among a diverse sam- ple of ethnic minority youth followed from sixth to ninth grades, the most common pattern of change in the sample was one where youth evidenced an increasing trajectory of ethnic identity (operational- ized as a composite of exploration, resolution, and affirmation) over the 4-year period. Indeed, ERI for- mation during this developmental period consists of developing a greater certainty in identification with one’s ethnic and racial group even when there are discrepancies in racial and ethnic experiences, such as discrimination and racism that could lead a person to question one’s ERI. In this respect, cer- tainty is an elaboration on ethnic labeling and con- stancy that develops with refinement of cognitive abilities and is reinforced by family and the emer- gence of peer influences.

Not surprisingly, the increased exposure to extra- familial socialization experiences, coupled with the expanded social demands and transitions that accompany adolescence, can make ethnicity-race more salient to youth. Salience specifically refers to the extent to which one’s ethnicity-race is relevant to one’s self-concept in a particular situation; importantly, salience is determined by the interface of the context of the situation and the individual’s tendency to define himself or herself in terms of ethnicity-race (Sellers et al., 1998). Thus, salience of ethnicity-race varies across individuals within the sam

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.