Perceived Discrimination, Ethnic Identity Development, and Well [PDF]

University of Miami

Scholarly Repository Open Access Dissertations

Electronic Theses and Dissertations

2014-05-15

Perceived Discrimination, Ethnic Identity Development, and Well-Being in Children: An Exploration Study Billie S. Schwartz University of Miami, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlyrepository.miami.edu/oa_dissertations Recommended Citation Schwartz, Billie S., "Perceived Discrimination, Ethnic Identity Development, and Well-Being in Children: An Exploration Study" (2014). Open Access Dissertations. 1223. https://scholarlyrepository.miami.edu/oa_dissertations/1223

This Open access is brought to you for free and open access by the Electronic Theses and Dissertations at Scholarly Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Open Access Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected].

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI

PERCEIVED DISCRIMINATION, ETHNIC IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT, AND WELL-BEING IN CHILDREN: AN EXPLORATION STUDY

By Billie S. Schwartz A DISSERTATION Submitted to the Faculty of the University of Miami in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Coral Gables, Florida August 2014

©2014 Billie S. Schwartz All Rights Reserved

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

PERCEIVED DISCRIMINATION, ETHNIC IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT, AND WELL-BEING IN CHILDREN: AN EXPLORATION STUDY

Billie S. Schwartz

Approved:

____________________________ MarieGuerda Nicolas, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Chairperson, Educational and Psychological Studies Department

__________________________ Nicholas Myers, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Educational and Psychological Studies Department

____________________________ Robert McMahon, Ph.D. Professor, Educational and Psychological Studies Department

__________________________ M. Brian Blake, Ph.D. Dean of the Graduate School

____________________________ Anabel Bejarano, Ph.D. Clinical Assistant Professor Educational and Psychological Studies Department

SCHWARTZ, BILLIE S. Perceived Discrimination, Ethnic Identity Development and Well-Being in Children: An Exploration Study

(Ph.D., Counseling Psychology) (August 2014)

Abstract of a dissertation at the University of Miami. Dissertation supervised by Professor MarieGuerda Nicolas. No. of pages in text. (184) As diversity increases in the U.S., there is a pressing need to understand ethnic identity development in children, particularly in relation to psychological well-being. Previous studies document the importance of ethnic identity development and its influence on positive development, psychological well-being, and academic adjustment in children, particularly from ethnically diverse backgrounds (Booker; 2006; Phinney, 1990, 1995; Thomson & Zand, 2005). However, limited research investigates the relationship between ethnic identity and the well-being of school-aged children, particularly during middle childhood (García Coll & Marks, 2009; Phinney, 1990). This exploratory study sought provide greater understanding of ethnic identity development in children, as well as to fill the gaps in the literature by examining the link between ethnic identity development and well-being in children, including self-concept, self-esteem, hope, and academic self-efficacy. One hundred and thirty-eight children between the ages of 8-12 were recruited for the study. Parametric and nonparametric tests were conducted to look at the study variables of racial and ethnic awareness, perceived discrimination, ethnic identity development and psychological well-being. Overall, this study found that children as young as eight reported experiencing ethnic discrimination and are aware of racial and ethnic differences. Results showed that children were more likely to identify in early stages of ethnic identity development (e.g., Identification,

Affirmation, and Commitment) over later and more adult-like stages of Exploration and Achieved Identity, and these scores were impacted differently by nativity, school level, and ethnicity. Support for the connection between ethnic identity development and psychological well-being was not found. These results suggest that more research is needed to look at ethnic identity development as multidimensional, rather than the traditional unidimensional approach of an achieved status model. Further, more research is needed in exploring the connection between ethnic identity development and psychological well-being for this age group. Keywords: ethnic identity development, perceived discrimination, psychological well-being, middle childhood, racial and ethnic awareness.

DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to my family, including my mother and father, Bruce and Marilyn Schwartz, my brother and sister-in-law, Michael and Yolanda Schwartz, and my sister, Cydney Alexis, all of whom have provided me with eternal love and support throughout this journey. Each one of you have had an important role helping to instill a sense of undying curiosity, a thirst for knowledge, and a love of people, culture, education, and above all, family. I love you all to the moon and back.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS While earning a doctoral degree is my greatest achievement in my life to date, it was not accomplished alone. I have been blessed to have many friends, family, colleagues, and mentors who have helped me pursue my dream, define my passion, and survive this long road that leads to becoming a psychologist. I am what I am, and I am where I am due to the continuous support, guidance, and love of quite a few people. To start, I would like to say thank you to my parents. Mom and Dad, I’m not even sure that a simple “thank you” will cover the immense sense of gratitude that I have for you both. From day one, you both have instilled a sense of passion and dedication in me. Your continual love, guidance, patience, and enthusiasm has shed light on some of the dark days, enhanced the celebration on the good ones, and provided much needed support on all the days in between. I feel as if this dissertation is just as much for you as it is for me. In addition, Michael and Yolanda, thank you for you love and moral support along this journey. To my big sister, Cydney, your spirit, passion, educational drive, and ambition set the bar pretty high for what I wanted to achieve in life. I am lucky to have you as a role model, a higher education warrior, and fellow academic. My gratefulness for your help in processing my thoughts and fears, editing endlessly, and listening to my tears, trials, and tribulations, is quite honestly hard to put into words. That aside, you are much more than a sister—you are my best friend. You said in your dedication of your dissertation that you feel for people who do not have a sister and the type of relationship that sisters have. I am not as great of a writer as you, so I’m just copying what you said. Ditto.

iv

Thank you for being you and being there for me in whatever way I needed at any moment of any day. We can embark on our joint research publications now. Thank you to my friends and colleagues at the University of Miami and The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. To my UM crew, cohort, and family, particularly, Darren Bernal, Daniel Birichi, Amanda Cummings, and Judy Gomez—you are all rock stars. We made it though and I certainly could not have done it without you all. Vampire soup! To Lauren Smith, thank you for the extra support, the Sunday morning process sessions, and the “tough love” roommate talk during the final stretch of this journey. You provided that final push at a critical moment of need and I am forever grateful. We are almost PhDone! To my CHOP colleagues – Julie Fiorelli, Corinn Elmore, Marilyn Sampilo, Nicole Fenton, Sonia Rubens, Sarah Backe, and Chelsey Sterling—thank you for listening to my struggles, providing me with support, and celebrating with me in style. A big thank you to the CHOP clinical and research faculty who helped me work though my “results struggles” at a point when I felt lost and needed guidance and inspiration. To the best support team a girl could ask for—Jacky Lewis, Andie Rosen, Michelle Varat, Danielle Marks, Ashley Abess—we’ve been through the world together and we are still going strong. Thank you for helping me think through ideas and providing my with much needed breaks from my academic life. Thank you to my dissertation committee, Dr. Anabel Bejarano, Dr. Nicolas Myers, and Dr. Robert McMahon. Your guidance and support kept me motivated and in the right direction—thank you for believing in me and supporting me through this rewarding and challenging process. To Shelley LueFoung and Tinisha Hollinshead, thank you for you administrative help and guidance.

v

To the children and families that participated in this research study, thank you, thank you, and thank you. Also, thank you to the Thelma Gibson Health Initiative, The Miami-Dade County Public School District, George Washington Carver Elementary School, West Lab Elementary School, Mays Middle School, The Barnyard, Virrick Park aftercare program, and Urgent Inc. for opening up your doors to allow this research to take place with your wonderful children and families. Last but certainly not least, the biggest thank you of all to Dr. Guerda Nicolas, my research advisor, dissertation chair, and mentor. I was a young, enthusiastic master’s student in 2006 when I joined your lab at Boston College. Your research, passion, and teaching are infectious and hooked me in from the beginning. You took a chance on me and have helped groomed me to be the person that I am today. Over the last eight years, you have taught me to follow my instincts, ask lots of questions, challenge the system before me, and take nothing for granted. I thank you for teaching me how to be a culturally responsible psychologist, researcher, and academic; and as I embark on the next phase of my career, I am a better practitioner, academic, and researcher from your mentorship. As I start the next chapter of my life, I will keep you all in my hearts because I could not have come this far without the key role each of you play in my life. Thank you all from the deepest part of my heart.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................... LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................

x xi

Chapter 1

2

3

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................

1

Significance of the Problem ......................................................... Overview of Identity Development in Children .......................... Ethnic Identity Development in Children ............................... Middle Childhood ................................................................... Race and Racial Identity .................................................... Ethnicity and Ethnic Identity ............................................. Ethnic Identity and Perceived Discrimination in Children ..... Ethnic Identity and Well-Being in Children ........................... Purpose of the Study .................................................................... Research Aims ........................................................................

2 3 4 7 9 11 12 14 16 17

LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................

19

Racial and Ethnic Awareness, Discrimination, and Coping Among Children ................................................................................. Racial and Ethnic Awareness and Discrimination in Children ...... Racial and Ethnic Awareness ................................................. Discrimination ........................................................................ Discrimination, EID, and Well-Being ................................... Theoretical Frameworks of Identity Development .............................. Racial and Ethnic Identity Development ............................................ Racial Identity Development ......................................................... Ethnic Identity Development ......................................................... Child Focused Ethnic Identity Models .......................................... Ethnic Identity Development and Well-Being in Children.................. Psychological Well-Being in Children ........................................ Hope ....................................................................................... Self-Concept/Self-Esteem ...................................................... Academic Self-Efficacy ......................................................... Summary .............................................................................................

20 21 22 26 29 33 40 42 44 48 52 53 58 59 61 63

METHODS ..............................................................................................

65

Preliminary Study ............................................................................... Current Study .....................................................................................

65 66

vii

4

5

Participants ................................................................................... Missing Data ................................................................................ EID Relevant Group ................................................................ EID Non-Relevant Group ........................................................ Inclusion Criteria .......................................................................... Exclusion Criteria ......................................................................... Measures ............................................................................................ Demographic Information ............................................................ Aim 1: Racial Awareness, Ethnic Awareness and Ethnic Discrimination ............................................................................... Racial Awareness ......................................................................... Ethnic Awareness and Ethnic Identification ................................ Perceived Discrimination ............................................................. Aim 2: Ethnic Identity ......................................................................... Ethnic Identity Scale .................................................................... Validity of EIS Scale .............................................................. Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure - Revised ........................... Validity of MEIM-R ............................................................... Aim 3: Psychological Well-Being: Hope ......................................... Hope ............................................................................................. Self-Concept/Self-Esteem .............................................................. Academic Self-Efficacy ................................................................. Procedure ...........................................................................................

66 68 69 71 73 73 73 74

RESULTS .................................................................................................

98

74 74 74 76 77 78 80 86 87 90 90 90 91 93

Preliminary Analysis .......................................................................... Hypothesis-testing Analysis ............................................................... Aim 1 ........................................................................................... Racial Awareness ................................................................... Ethnic Awareness ................................................................... Ethnic Discrimination ............................................................ Aim 2 ........................................................................................... Ethnic Identity Scale .............................................................. Exploration ........................................................................ Resolution ......................................................................... Affirmation ....................................................................... Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure ...................................... Exploration ........................................................................ Commitment ..................................................................... Aim 3 ........................................................................................... Hope ....................................................................................... Self-Concept .......................................................................... Academic Self-Efficacy .........................................................

98 99 100 100 100 105 107 107 108 110 110 112 112 113 114 115 115 116

DISCUSSION ...........................................................................................

117

viii

Racial and Ethnic Awareness ............................................................. Identifying With a Race or Ethnicity ........................................... Identifying As Mixed ..................................................................... Prevalence and Priority in Ethnic Awareness ................................ Discrimination ..................................................................................... Ethnic Identity Development in Middle Childhood ........................... The Status Model Approach ........................................................ A Call for Change ........................................................................ I Don’t Know Responses ............................................................... Ethnic Identity Development and Psychological Well-Being ............. Overall Summary ............................................................................... Limitations ........................................................................................... Future Directions ................................................................................. Conclusions ..........................................................................................

117 118 119 120 121 124 130 132 134 135 138 138 142 144

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................

145

APPENDIX A: Demographic Measure ..............................................................

165

APPENDIX B: Multidimensional Measure of Identity ........................................

167

APPENDIX C: Perceptions of Racism in Children and Youth ............................

169

APPENDIX D: Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure - Revised ...........................

170

APPENDIX E: Ethnic Identity Scale ..................................................................

171

APPENDIX F: Children’s Hope Scale ...............................................................

174

APPENDIX G: Revised-Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale ......................................

175

APPENDIX H: Self-Efficacy Scale – Student Version ........................................

176

APPENDIX I: Sticker Chart .................................................................................

177

APPENDIX J: University of Miami IRB Approval .............................................

178

APPENDIX K: MDCPS IRB Approval ...............................................................

180

APPENDIX L: Parental Consent ..........................................................................

182

APPENDIX M: Child Assent ...............................................................................

184

ix

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2

Graphical representation of the Buffering Hypothesis ..................

x

32

LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1

Definition of Key Terms ................................................................

4

Table 3.1

Demographic Sample of 138 Children ..........................................

67

Table 3.2

Demographics of EID Relevant Group ..........................................

70

Table 3.3

Demographics of EID Non-Relevant Group..................................

71

Table 3.4

Frequencies of Missing Values by Subscale and Total Scores ......

77

Table 3.5

EIS Item Breakdown ......................................................................

80

Table 3.6

Factor Loadings for the Rotated Factors of EIS ............................

81

Table 3.7

Item Level Breakdown for the Resolution Subscale......................

84

Table 3.8

Item Level Breakdown for the Affirmation Subscale ....................

85

Table 3.9

MEIM-R Item Breakdown for the Total Sample ...........................

87

Table 3.10

Factor Loadings for the Rotated Factors for MEIM-R ..................

88

Table 3.11

Item-Level Descriptions for the Commitment Scale on MEIM-R

89

Table 3.12

Description of Measures ................................................................

92

Table 4.1

Study Aims and Hypotheses ..........................................................

98

Table 4.2

Frequencies, Means, & Standard Deviations for Ethnic Identification and Perceived Discrimination .................................

101

Table 4.3

Chi-square Analysis of Priority of EID Labels for Large Sample .

102

Table 4.4

Chi-square Analysis of Prevalence of EID Labels by School Level for Entire Sample ...........................................................................

104

Chi-square Analysis of Prevalence of EID Labels by School Level for EID Rel Group .........................................................................

104

Table 4.6

Intercorrelations, Means, Standard Deviations of EIS Subscales ..

108

Table 4.7

Intercorrelations, Means, Standard Deviations of EID and WellBeing ..............................................................................................

114

Table 4.5

xi

Chapter 1: Introduction The population in the United States is increasingly becoming more ethnically diverse, with a range of races, ethnicities and nationalities. According to the 2010 Census Bureau, there are 74.2 million children ages 0-18 in the United States, 1.9 million more than in 2000. This number of children represents approximately 24 percent of the population and is projected to increase to 87.8 million in 2030 (Federal Interagency Forum On Child and Family Statistics, 2011). The 2010 census noted that 54 percent of these U.S. children were White, non-Hispanic; 23 percent were Hispanic; 14 percent were Black; 4 percent were Asian; and 5 percent were "All other races." It is estimated that by 2050, the U.S. demographic makeup will shift and Americans of European heritage will no longer be the majority (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005, 2011). As such, the term racial or ethnic minority may no longer apply in the future to children of color, as they will represent the majority of the population. Despite projected demographic changes, little research has been conducted that investigates the relationship between ethnic identity and psychological well-being, described as positive aspects of development in school-aged diverse children, particularly during middle childhood, ages 8-12 (García Coll & Marks, 2009; Phinney, 1990). Ethnic identity development (EID) in adolescence acts as a buffer against the negative effects of discrimination on well-being, including enhancing/increasing life satisfaction, academic concepts and achievement (Turner & Brown, 2007; Wong et al., 2003), self-esteem, self/school efficacy (Awad, 2007; Okeke, Howard, Kurtz-Costes, & Rowley, 2009) and positive coping with daily stressors (Yip & Fuligni, 2002). However, studies are limited regarding this process in children. Hence, it is important to understand children’s

1

2 awareness of their EID and the link between this understanding and the way it impacts their sense of self, which has important social, academic and clinical implications (Turner & Brown, 2007). Significance of the Problem In 2011, a study conducted with the purpose of better understanding the promises and challenges facing the nation’s youth looked at key indicators of health and wellbeing. The authors note that racial and ethnic diversity has grown dramatically in the U.S. in the last three decades and is estimated to continue to grow such that fewer than half of all children are projected to be White, non-Hispanic by the year 2023, and the percentage of ethnic and racial groups will rise by 50% in the school-aged population (Meece & Kurtz-Costes, 2001; U.S. Census Bureau, 2004). As our diversity of schoolaged youths increase, it is imperative to understand culturally relevant aspects in relation to psychological well-being, including ethnic identity. These statistics, therefore, presents a compelling argument for researchers to study how EID relates to the social and emotional lives of our nation’s children. Hirschfeld (2008) suggests that children’s understanding of ethnicity can be seen as reflective of an innate drive to detect differences among groups in their social world. Hence, despite popular myths, children are not naïve to ethnic differences; rather, they are primed to perceive and detect differences at an early age (Quintana & McKown, 2008) and use these differences to construct meaning, define themselves and create social pathways for later interactions in adulthood. This reality compels this research project’s focus on the ways in which children become aware of ethnicity and how ethnic identity development influences psychological well-being, particularly for children of color.

3 Overview of Identity Development in Children Identity development is a process through which the self changes over the course of the lifespan. An individual’s identity may be thought of as “cognitive schemata representing the individual self, the cultural self, and social roles” (Whaley & McQueen, 2010, p. 437). Beginning in infancy, individuals are formulating a sense of identity based on their characteristics, abilities, and preferences, as well as their identification with parents, peers, and social groups (Ruble et al., 2004). Hence, one of the main tasks of childhood is to develop a sense of identity in order to answer the questions, “Who am I” and “Who do I want to be?” These core questions lie at the root of the word identity and combine to form an individual’s unique sense of knowing who one is, and who one is not. Identity development, therefore, is proposed to be influential in the formation of selfconcept as well as the development of values, attitudes, and behaviors; in-group biases and self-esteem; information-seeking and personal choices; and evaluation of individual members of groups and prejudice towards out-groups (Blackmon & Vera, 2008; Ruble et al., 2004). The process of identity development is dynamic and multifaceted. As Marcelo Suárez-Orozco (2000) notes, “the idea that there is a single, coherent, and continuous identity, that is the product of a series of crises unfolding in a unilinear, stage-specific process of change can no longer explain the lived experiences of many, if not most, children” (p.14). Thus, while the period of adolescence is most associated with the cognitive and social development that leads perhaps to the maturation of identity (Phinney, 1990), childhood is also an important stage, as during this period foundations

4 are laid for later discovery and evaluation. Hence, a child’s identity filters incoming messages and experiences; a process that shapes the ways that child sees the world. Ethnic Identity Development in Children Ethnic Identity Development (EID) is a part of overall identity development and has both social and emotional implications across the life of an individual. Recent research supports similarities in the conceptual knowledge in the terms race and ethnicity among children, particularly how knowledge and awareness of race and ethnicity influences development and adjustment (Quintana & McKown, 2008; Quintana et al., 2006) (see Table 1 for a definition of terms). The age at which children can distinguish the difference between these terms is still debated, but by age nine, most children have an understanding of their ethnic identity and are able to use appropriate ethnic labels to identify themselves; understand the permanency of ethnic group membership; and participate in some of the customs, values, and traditions related to their ethnic group (Chavez et al., 1997; Aboud; 1987; Bernal, Knight, Garza, Ocampo & Cota, 1990). Table 1.1 Definition of Key Terms Key Terms Definition Ethnicity Groups based on national origin and cultural characteristics including a shared pattern of rules of social interaction, values, social customs, behavioral roles, perceptions, ancestry, and language usage. Ethnic Identity The process of identifying with an ethnic group, understanding the Development (EID) permanency of ethnic group membership and participating in some of the customs, values, and traditions related to one’s ethnic group. Race The socially constructed meaning that connotes group differences based on biological differences. Middle Childhood The period of development between the ages of 8 to 11 Well-Being Positive psychological characteristics including hope, selfconcept/self-esteem, and academic self-efficacy and the absence of other negative characteristics such as anxiety, depression, and school problems.

5

Although theories of identity development have typically pinpointed adolescence as the time in which EID becomes salient, a number of researchers have suggested that these processes happen earlier (Cooper et al., 2005; Cross & Fhagen-Smith, 2001; Hirschfeld, 1995; Phinney & Rosenthal, 1992; Rowley et al., 2008; Ruble et al., 2004). Children’s understanding of ethnic differences is an outgrowth of their understanding of the physical world, their perspective taking, and innate motivation to understand their social group (Quintana & McKown, 2008). Hence, the ways in which children develop EI along with other identity associations such as gender and class will impact their ability to navigate our multicultural society (Graves & Graves, 2008). As such, the study of EID in children has been the focus of many investigations for more than half a century with inconclusive and mixed results in terms of when, how, and why it develops in children. There is evidence that EID is in a constant state of development—starting in early childhood—and is reworked in adolescence and adulthood (Harris, 1995). For example, consider a Hispanic child who discovers that his classmates and teachers do not understand his parents’ language; or an Asian child who gets bullied in the school cafeteria for having different food in her lunchbox; or a Black child who sees messages on TV indicating that successful, powerful people are White. Examples like these can illustrate empirical research that shows that young children develop ethnic attitudes early in life (Spencer, 1984; Quintana, 2008); therefore, understanding the development of EID in young children of color is important (Reese, Vera & Paikoff, 1998). As young as age two, children can start defining themselves using labels (i.e., age, gender, race) in a way that signals the emergence of understanding of racial and ethnic

6 differences (Cross & Cross, 2008; Clark & Clark, 1939; Van Ausdale & Feagin, 2001) and racial concepts (Van Ausdale & Feagin, 1996, 2001). By age five, children can place themselves as members of racial and ethnic groups and are able to use a cognitive developmental framework of abstract reasoning skills, and between the ages of 6-10, diverse children are able to correctly identify themselves with ethnic labels (Aboud, 1988; Bernal et al., 1990; Clark & Clark, 1947; Ramsay, 2008; Stevenson & Stewart, 1958). Further, although children as young as 3 can label racial groups and by 4 and 5 can use those labels to identify themselves (Ramsay, 1991), it is not until age 7 where both awareness and consistency become prominent (García Coll & Marks, 2009). Yip (2008), building on previous research, demonstrates that EID changes over time. A study by Verkuyten, Kinket & van der Wielen (1997) found that by the age of 10, most children attribute social behaviors like name-calling, unequal sharing, and social exclusion to being a member of a particular racial or ethnic group. As such, EID facilitates social interactions by helping children understand themselves as members of cultural groups within a larger social context, which has important implications for their lives. Theoretical research, models, and interventions that only focus on EID in adolescence miss opportunities for the exploration and understanding of phenomena that are already somewhat initially formalized—with the potential for maladjustment—in adolescence. From infancy to adolescence, youths are continually formulating a sense of identity based on their individual characteristics and abilities, and their social identification with parents, peers, and social groups (Ruble et al., 2004). Middle childhood is a period between the ages of 8 and 12 and is considered a crucial time in children’s development as it sets the foundations for development to occur in adolescence

7 (Eccles, 1999; García Coll & Marks, 2009; Huston & Ripke, 2006). While the concept of identity has been supported with adults and adolescents, little is known about EID in middle childhood. Middle Childhood Middle childhood has a conflicting body of literature that wavers from defining it as, “the lull between the storms and strains of toddlerhood and teens” and the active time period where children become “increasingly independent, questioning and assertive, while at the same time open to influences from peers and the media” (Boreland et al., 1998, p.19). For example, Freud simplified middle childhood as a period of “latency” where he described an uninteresting period of development primarily focused on sexual maturity in preparation for adulthood (Ripke et al., 2008). It was thought that in these years, children were innocent and complacent: honing skills learned in early development for later, more challenging tasks in adolescence. In more recent years, scholars and policymakers have developed a renewed interest in middle childhood describing this period as a time where children “develop or fail to develop the foundations for adult competence, responsibility, and independence” (Ripke et al., 2008, p. 131). In a study by Ripke et al. (2008), they propose seven constructs or domains that they believe comprise central features of psychological, emotional, and social development in middle childhood. These domains are: a) motivation and goals for the future, b) psychological well-being and distress, c) activities and time use, d) selfregulation and control, e) social competence, f) relationships with peers and adults, and g) ability and attitudes concerning multiculturalism and diversity. These domains overlap with what other researchers have considered to be important indicators of well-being in

8 children (Lerner, 1998; More, Evans, Brooks-Gunn, & Roth, 2001). Children in this age group have been described as either “preracial” (Quintana & McKown, 2008), “racial innocent” (Hirschfeld, 2008) or “color innocent” (Park, 2004) and therefore it is often assumed that racial and ethnic differences have little significance in their lives (Van Ausdale & Feagin, 1996). However, research shows that this is simply not the case and supports the notion that by middle childhood, most children may have an understanding of their ethnic identity (Ocampo, Bernal, & Knight, 1997) and it is impacting their sense of well-being. Regardless, there remains relatively little research on EID during middle childhood (García Coll & Marks, 2009; Phinney, 1990), particularly in relation to psychological well-being. In addition, during this time children reach out beyond their families, who most likely have been the primary socializing agents up to now, and begin to explore connections with others—peers, teachers, community members—while developing differing skills and abilities. And as we know, context also plays a role in racial and ethnic awareness—interactions with families, peers and the community provide opportunities for these experiences to occur. Hence, during middle childhood children begin to examine, integrate, and internalize social relationships into their emerging selfconcept (Ruble et al., 2004). In summary, young children show signs of being able to self-categorize, select from various racial preferences and learn basic racial knowledge early in development (Cross & Cross; 2008; Bernal et al., 1990). However, early research attributes the notion that these early concepts are based on rudimentary physical and observable differences (e.g., skin color, hair textures), therefore little is actually known about their knowledge of

9 ethnic differences. What is clear is that children in middle childhood are developing their cognitive skills, such as social comparison, perspective taking, classification, and understanding (Rowley et al., 2008; Brown & Bigler, 2005). Also, children in this age bracket are better able to explain the reasons why they are members of particular groups, illustrating that complex reasoning skills are developing (Bernal et al., 1993). These findings suggest that children’s understanding of EID are salient early in life and become more sophisticated with age. However, before looking at EID in children, it is necessary to define what is meant by race and ethnicity. Race and Racial Identity. Historically, the term race is used to describe genetic and biological differences associated with racial heritage specific to a group (Smedley & Smedley, 2005; Burrow, Tubman, & Montgomery, 2006; Helms, 2007). This definition has been questioned as to its integrity in defining group differences and has been used to justify discrimination towards different groups that can be seen as “inferior” races (Quintana & McKown, 2008). For example, racial differences and disparities in academic achievement are often incorrectly linked to differences in inherited intelligence (Rushton & Jenson, 2005). Recent research posits that the idea of race as a biological divide is more commonly used—where race is a socially constructed term and has powerful implications in today’s society (Quintana & McKown, 2008). The ways in which race is defined in the United States is generally described as dichotomous—one is characterized as either Black or White based on social constructs (Falcón, 1995). For example, there sill exists the notion of the one-drop of blood rule by which if an individual can trace any heritage to Black ancestry, that person is classified as Black. While some groups can be classified using this dichotomous categorization,

10 others groups cannot be exclusively defined by observable differences like skin color. For example, in a study looking at the racial and ethnic self-identification of Puerto Ricans, Falcón (1995) found that the large majority of participants tend to see themselves as racial minorities. Therefore, they report that they do not relate, or identify with, Blacks or Whites as a group. As such, researchers have spent the last sixty years attempting to define and redefine race. The question then becomes about how one develops their sense of identity around their race—otherwise known as racial identity. Chavous et al. (2003) define racial identity as “cognitions and attitudes related to an individual’s attempt to integrate their status (e.g., Blacks) into their self-concepts” (p. 639). Racial identity typically refers to the commitment, or mental schema, made by an individual to a specific group of people based on one’s perception of sharing a common racial heritage (Helms, 1990, 2007; McAdoo, 2002). Race and racial identity, therefore, is not used here to denote biological or genetic characteristics often presumed to underlie racial differences across groups. Rather, it refers to the socially constructed meaning that connotes group differences based on biological differences (Quintana et al., 2006; Smedley & Smedely, 2005). Scholars have posited that a strong racial identification can serve as a protective factor against discrimination (Cross, Strauss, & Fhagen-Smith, 1999; Rowley, Cooper, & Clinton, 2005) and psychological well-being (Caldwell, Kohn-Wood, Schmeelk-Cone, Chavous & Zimmerman, 2004). Ethnicity and Ethnic Identity. Ethnicity—although also having various interpretations—seems to be much less controversial than race. The term ethnicity is defined as a demographic variable based on national origin and cultural characteristics

11 including a shared pattern of rules of social interaction, values, social customs, behavioral roles, perceptions, ancestry, and language usage (Canino, 1995; Helms, 2007; Obgu, 1981; Quintana & McKown, 2008; Smith, Walker, Fields, Brookins and Seay, 1999). Ethnic refers to a Greek word ethnikos, which means a people or a nation (Smith et al., 1999). Ethnicity is similar to race in that it relates to assigned categorization based upon elements of one’s background; however, it is associated with a component more specific to membership than to one’s racial heritage, as defined by socially-transmitted definitions of race (Phinney & Ong, 2007). Similar to racial identity, one comes to understand their ethnicity through a process of identifying with their ethnic group—thus developing an ethnic identity. Phinney (1991) defined ethnic identity as one’s sense of belonging, way of thinking and feeling, perceptions and behaviors that are due to group membership who share subjective beliefs about their heritage, cultural beliefs and cultural practices. Tajfel (1981) similarly defined ethnic identity as one’s self-concept related to the individuals sense of belonging and connectedness to a social group. Models of racial and ethnic identity development will be discussed later in the next chapter. As such, previous research has combined both racial and ethnic identities together for children, defining it as the acknowledgement that one’s perception of belonging to a group of people may be based on race (perceived shared physiology) as well as ethnicity (common values, beliefs and practices) and cultural heritage (Hughes et al., 2006; C. O. Smith et al., 2009; E. P. Smith et al., 1999). However, this combination does not help us to understand how children perceive and interpret differences beyond the socially constructed meaning of race.

12 Ethnic Identity and Perceived Discrimination in Children We know a fair amount about preschoolers and adolescents, and yet little regarding identity development during middle childhood (García Coll & Marks, 2009; Phinney, 1990); therefore, it is often assumed that racial and ethnic differences have little significance in the lives of children (Van Ausdale & Feagin, 1996). However, recent research findings suggest that knowledge about racial discrimination and prejudice are understood early among children and are often used to evaluate themselves and others (Rowley et al., 2008). As children begin to navigate their social world, they become confronted with messages regarding their race and ethnicity. Hence, at some point in their lives, children become aware of racial and ethnic differences—possibly due to prejudice and discrimination—and then must find ways to understand these events, which can impact their sense of self. Recent research has estimated that millions of children worldwide are affected by prejudice and discrimination due to factors such as their age, race, ethnicity, gender, ability, etc. (Child Rights Information Network, 2009; Minority Rights Group International, 2010; Save the Children, 2006). Further, minority youth are at an exceptionally increased rate of experiencing early instances of prejudice, discrimination, stereotype threat and racism. For these children, conflicts arise when they identify themselves with a devalued group and may develop negative beliefs and attitudes regarding themselves and others (Bernal, Saenz, & Knight, 1991). Without proper understanding of these occurrences, negative messages and interactions could become part of their everyday schemas about who they are, who they can become and what that means in society.

13 Ethnic identity development is believed to be particularly important in not only the development of identity in general, but as a self-protective strategy for coping with prejudice, discrimination, and stigmatization (Brown, 2008; Crocker & Major, 1989; Cross, 1995) so that these messages do not negatively impact their growing identity and sense of self. Although ethnic and racial prejudice and discrimination are harmful at any age, they are particularly concerning for children as the events and the messages they construe have the potential to lead to stress responses, which can have serious maladaptive effects on psychological well-being (Nesdale, 2008) in later adulthood. Previous research has shown that EID can particularly be important for selfprotective strategies for coping with these factors in adolescence (Parham & Helms, 1985) but little is know about this process for children in middle childhood. Some argue that EID is not particularly instrumental to their overall identity, but rather as a protective coping strategy for potential discrimination, prejudice and stigmatization (Blackmon & Vera, 2008; Cross, 1995; Parham & Helms, 1985). As such, the field has not yet clearly specified the role that EID plays in protecting youth from the negative consequences of discrimination and racism (Quintana and McKown, 2008). Therefore, it is imperative for researchers to further investigate the relationship among EID and perceived discrimination in middle childhood, as the ways in which children cope with discrimination will impact their sense of well-being, or sense of happiness and positive adjustment. Ethnic Identity and Well-Being in Children A majority of research on children and adolescents’ mental health focuses on forms of illness and psychopathology that focus on either internalizing disorders (e.g.,

14 depression, anxiety) or externalizing disorders (e.g., aggressive behavior, conduct disorder). Similarly, there has been an overemphasis in research regarding the negative developmental outcomes in children from diverse backgrounds (Anderson, Moore & Lippman, 2005; Kiang et al., 2006; Leong, Qin & Huang, 2008). Hence, most research on minority children tends to focus on the negative aspects of development such as school dropout rates, teenage pregnancy and risky behavior. However, results from research studies are mixed: just because youths may come from racial and ethnic minority backgrounds does not necessarily mean that their future is grim. Many youths of color prosper during middle childhood and adolescence, setting the stage for positive identity development for later adulthood. Despite projected demographic changes and calls from researchers, little research has been done specifically looking at the relationship between EID and well-being of children of color. However, the research that has been conducted has almost entirely linked the development of a strong ethnic identity with positive outcomes including increased self-esteem, self/school efficacy, life satisfaction, and academic achievement (Awad, 2007; Okeke, Howard, Kurtz-Costes, & Rowley, 2009). As such, it has been theorized that when children become aware of ethnic differences—in themselves and others—they innately construct psychological meaning to these differences, which can include ethnic pride, feelings of belonging, and ultimately achievement of a positive identity and sense of self (Blackmon & Vera, 2008). While the concept of well-being is becoming prominent in recent research, the constructs that make up well-being have yet to be fully defined. Myers and Diener (1995) describe psychological well-being with positive psychological characteristics

15 among youth including self-esteem, self-concept, resiliency, hope, self-reliance, academic self-efficacy and prosocial behavior and the absence of other negative characteristics such as anxiety, depression, loneliness, violence and school problems. These concepts are important in child development as they can lead to educational and occupational attainment. Most research focuses on achievement scores as predictors of later success. In early and middle childhood, children develop creative and endless aspirations about their future and incorporate that into their self-concept. In the past, researchers have argued that until age 11, these aspirations are fantastical in nature and do not become more based on reality until adolescence (Ripke et al., 2008). However, other research has shown that these early attitudes about achievement—as young as first grade—are related to educational outcomes later in high school and beyond (Huston & Ripke, 2006). As such, achievement is not the only important concept that needs to be taken into consideration as research has shown that a child’s attitude towards learning and school is also important. Terms such as academic engagement (Alexander, Entwistle & Kabbani, 2001) and academic self-efficacy (ASE) have been used to describe this concept. In this study, the focus of well-being will be on three main areas: self-concept and self-esteem, hope, and academic self-efficacy. In summary, children are living in a multicultural world, receiving messages at an early age and incorporating those messages into their identity and sense of self. Identity development and EID theories provide a framework for understanding the positive development of minority youth. However, youths live in a world where discrimination and racism are pervasive. These experiences are likely to affect their psychological wellbeing, leading them to develop ways in which to cope with these issues. As such,

16 developing a strong sense of self-concept and self-esteem, along with academic selfefficacy, and a sense of hope can lead to positive and healthy development and psychological well-being (Ripke et al., 2008: Lopez et al., 2000). Taken together, there is evidence to support the notion that children’s developing EID plays a critical role in how they will respond to situations of discrimination (Quintana & McKown, 2008; Yip, 2008), and this response—combined with a strong sense of EID—will affect psychological and emotional well-being in a positive manner. However, research linking these factors has yet to be consistent in the literature. Therefore, it is crucial that we develop research to gain a greater understanding of factors that lead to positive development in the face of adversity for youths of color. Purpose of the Study There is a growing body of literature documenting the importance and need for research on the nature of EID, and its relationship to psychological well-being and academic adjustment in children, particularly from diverse and ethnic backgrounds (Booker; 2006; Phinney, 1990, 1995; Thomson & Zand, 2005). Given that EID as a developmental process is considered to have its beginnings in childhood, it is both surprising and problematic that the majority of literature on identity focuses on adolescents and young adults (Ong, Fuller-Rowell, & Phinney, 2010). Therefore, this cross sectional study has two main goals: (1) to explore the nature of ethnic identity development in children in middle childhood; and (2) to fill the gaps in the literature regarding EID, perceived discrimination and their importance for well-being in children in areas such as self-concept and self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965), hope (Lopez et al., 2000), and academic self-efficacy (Hodge, Jackson, &Vaughn, 2010; Whaley &

17 McQueen, 2010). A review of the literature indicates that these factors of well-being, along with a developed sense of EID is associated with better adjustment, academically and psychologically, and may serve as a buffer against nonracial forms of stress (Ponterotto & Park-Taylor, 2007). Research Aims The primary purpose of this study is therefore, an attempt to establish a study EID in children, while exploring the relationship between EID and psychological wellbeing—as defined by high levels of hope and academic self-efficacy, and a strong selfconcept and self-esteem—in middle childhood, ages 8-12. As such, the study has three main research aims with focused research questions. The first aim explores racial and ethnic awareness and perceived discrimination. The second aim of the study focuses on ethnic identity development in children in middle childhood. The last aim describes the relationship between ethnic identity development and psychological well-being for children in middle childhood. Therefore, the three study aims are: AIM 1: To document children’s awareness of racial and ethnic differences and instances of ethnic discrimination during middle childhood. Research Question 1: Are children able to identify their ethnicity using ethnic labels? Research Question 2: Are children aware of instances of ethnic discrimination? AIM 2: To document ethnic identity among children in middle childhood in terms of the components of ethnic identification, exploration, resolution and affirmation.

18 Research Question 1: Are children are aware of their ethnic identity and can they identify themselves as part of a group? Research Question 2: Are children able to identify in the different stages of ethnic identity development? AIM 3: To examine the interrelationship between EID and EID components and psychological well-being as measured by self-concept/self-esteem, hope, and academic self-efficacy in middle childhood. Research Question 1: Will children who have a strong sense of their EID exhibit a higher sense of psychological well-being?

Chapter 2: Literature Review Beginning in infancy, individuals form a sense of identity based on the psychological self—their characteristics, abilities, and preferences—and on their social self—their identification with parents, peers, and social groups (Ruble et al., 2004). Hence, a person’s identity filters incoming messages and experiences that shape the ways in which he or she sees the world. As such, identity development is proposed to be influential in the formation of self-concept as well as the development of values, attitudes, and behaviors; in-group biases and self-esteem; information-seeking and personal choices; and evaluation of individual members of groups and prejudice towards out-groups (Blackmon & Vera, 2008; Ruble et al., 2004). Adolescence and emerging adulthood has been particularly the focus of identity research as it is thought to be the prolific time of identity exploration (Cooper at al., 2005; Cross, 1995; Cross & FhagenSmith, 2001; Helms, 1995; Hirschfeld, 1995; Phinney, 1993, 1995; Phinney & Tarver, 1988; Ruble et al., 2004). These researchers argue that by adolescence youths experience a range of interactions, which they interpret and incorporate into their identity. As such, in addition to experiences, adolescents develop coping strategies—either positive or negative—to deal with these interactions, which can be objectively measured (Phinney & Chavira, 1995). However, by focusing exclusively on adolescence, there is a dearth regarding the systematic understanding of how the ethnic self emerges in children (Akiba et al., 2004). García Coll and Marks (2009) describe several steps that must take place in order for a child to develop a stable sense of identity. First, he or she must have the cognitive capability to be aware that a category exists and that this category can be distinguished

19

20 from others. Next, that child must be able to identify with that category and see him or herself as a member. Overtime, membership in this group will highlight the stability and permanence of being in that group. Research conducted with school-aged children provides evidence that the process of identity development is taking place (Thorne, 2005) and that children are actively trying to make sense of who they are, although with little empirical support. Therefore, it is important to look at identity development prior to adolescence as children have 13 years of experiences which helped to inform their sense of self, guided their social interactions and impacted their well-being. Racial and Ethnic Awareness, Discrimination, and Coping Among Children Developmental research sought to disentangle the constructs and components associated with race, ethnicity and culture with little success (Quintana et al., 2006). For adults, these terms have different personal and social meanings and should not be used interchangeably without caution. However, with children, the distinction between these terms still remains unclear. Some researchers argue that these terms have a commonality unique to this period of development where they are seen as more similar than different (Quintana & McKown, 2008), while others argue that the clarity of these concepts matures with age and suggest that children understand racial differences first before ethnic differences (Phinney, 1990). Marks, Szalacha, Lamarre, Boyd, and García Coll (2007) conducted a longitudinal study of ethnic identity development (EID) in middle childhood and early adolescence and found that the children (ages six to 12) were consistently and accurately able to identify (with labels) their family’s nationality of origin and reported positive attitudes toward their ethnic identity and strong group pride. Further, they found

21 evidence to support the notion that older children are better able to endorse ethnic identity exploration than younger children. These findings, as well as other research studies (e.g., French, Seidman, Allan, & Aber, 2006) suggest that children in middle childhood and early adolescence endorse positive feelings about their group but they are based solely on accepting what has been taught to them rather than their own exploration of ethnic identity. The following sections of this chapter highlights early instances of awareness of ethnic differences and discrimination, how children develop an ethnic identity, and a review of the theoretical frameworks related to EID in children. Racial and Ethnic Awareness and Discrimination in Children It is difficult to understand the developmental process—specifically EID—of children of color without examining the role that early racial awareness and discrimination play in their lives. In the past, researchers have concluded that children cannot fully comprehend ethnic or racial connotations of their behavior and therefore do not have the cognitive capacity to understand the concept of ethnic/racial group membership and that those differences are primarily seen as physical differences (e.g. skin color) (Spencer, 1985; Whaley, 1993). Since identity is not thought to develop until adolescence, research focusing on EID prior to this time period places emphasis on other terms such as racial awareness and discrimination in order to look at their impact on development. Racial and ethnic awareness can occur through personal interactions and discovery, experiences of oppression, prejudice or discrimination, socialization, etc. (Blackmon & Vera, 2008). By middle childhood, children of color have mostly likely experienced discrimination based on their race, ethnicity or culture. These events are likely to create stress, and stress responses are thought to play a role in the development

22 of psychopathology and maladjustment (Cole, Teti, Zahn-Waxler, 2003). Taken together, children face a myriad of interactions and events (i.e. playground fights over ethnic differences, discrimination, etc.) that impact their sense of self. Racial and Ethnic Awareness. Seminal studies of identity and racial awareness in children were initially highlighted in the late 1930s and 1940s by the work of Mamie and Kenneth Clark in their Doll Studies. The Doll Studies were a series of investigations of the color preferences of three-to-seven year old children in the Chicago area. Children were asked to first color a picture the same color as themselves and then to color a child they wanted to have as their playmate. Original findings showed that Black children were correctly able to identify their own skin color (Clark & Clark, 1939). Later studies employed the use of black and white dolls and the children were asked to choose a doll in response to statements such as “Give me the doll that is a nice doll” and “Give me the doll that is a nice color.” The results of the 1947 study revealed that 67% of Black children preferred to play with White dolls, 59% chose the White doll as the nice doll, and 60% chose the White doll as having a nice color. Additionally, 59% chose the Black doll as being the one that “looks bad” (as cited in Jordan & Hernandez-Reif, 2009). From these studies, researchers concluded that although the children could correctly selfidentify, they had a preference to play with the White dolls while displaying negative attitudes toward their own skin color (Clark & Clark, 1947; Harris, 1995). These studies introduced the notion of racial preference, which created significant controversy as researchers concluded that Black children preferred White dolls—a phenomenon described as “White preference behavior” (Banks, 1976) and “race dissonance” (Spencer, 1982, 1985). Many theories incorporated these findings of

23 minority out-group favoritism and minority self-hatred and concluded that young Black children were already damaged by societal racism (Harris, 1995). Underlying assumptions from this work led to theories that slavery and segregation left the AfricanAmerican with no genuine racial, ethnic, or cultural identity and that the out-group preferences of Black children were a “predictable consequence of the plight of Blacks in America” (Harris, 1995, p. 5). Many researchers criticized the Clark doll studies for is methodology, questioning the “validity of associations assumed to exist between group orientation and other aspects of personal identity” (Harris, 1995, p. 5) and its connection to racial preference and selfesteem (Whaley, 1993). Despite the criticism, the Doll Studies were profoundly influential in the field of psychology and beyond, even being cited in the Brown v. the Board of Education decision (Harris, 1995), which ordered the desegregation of schools. More recent empirical studies have been conducted with mixed results. Some studies have shown that this out-group preference is not universal among Black children, and that there are great, more complex dynamics involved in the development of both individual and group identity (Harris, 1995). For example, in the late 1960s and 1970s—the era of the Black power movement—the validity of these studies were challenged and researchers argued that African American children’s preference for White behavior was not a valid phenomenon (Brand et al., 1974; Whaley, 1993). In contrast, recent replications of this seminal work found similar findings to the original study of racial preference (e.g., Fine & Bowers, 1984; Gopaul-McNicol, 1988; Powell-Hopson & Hopson, 1988; Semaj, 1980; Spencer, 1982, 1985). Davis (2007) replicated the doll study in order to look at young Black children’s self-perception and

24 preference for skin tones. The children were videotaped and asked similar questions to the original study such as “show me the doll you like best” and “which is the nice/bad doll.” Although no statistics were provided regarding the answers, Davis reported that 15 out of 21 children preferred the White doll (Jordan & Hernandez-Reif, 2009). Taken together, all these recent studies differ on their interpretations for why this phenomenon exists and its implications for minority children. Sociological studies by Van Ausdale and Feagin (1996) demonstrates that by age three, children are aware of racial and ethnic elements. Through naturalistic observation, they found that children were able to use concepts (i.e. skin color, language) in varying ways in their play. Specifically, they witness children using these concepts to include/exclude others from groups, socially control group behavior, and define themselves and others when they thought that adults were not watching them. Their study highlights that young children are not only aware of racial and ethnic differences but are incorporating them into their social interactions early in life (Blackmon & Vera, 2008). In a study by Aboud (1988), a group of kindergarteners and a group of third graders were asked what would happen if a child was made to look like a person of another race (i.e., change their skin color or hair texture). The younger group of kindergarteners incorrectly reasoned that the child’s race had indeed changed, where as third graders evidence the understanding of racial constancy. These findings are somewhat inconsistent to other identities (such as gender) in which children as young as four are able to grasp concepts of gender consistency and therefore understand that gender is not solely based on outward appearance (Gelman & Taylor, 2000). Taken

25 together, children of this age group base concepts of race and ethnicity off of observable and biological factors but yet remain unable to understand the concept of consistency or permanency (Hirschfeld, 2008). This perspective-taking ability and sense of permanency becomes more prominent in middle childhood and early adolescence where children demonstrate greater cognitive capabilities and can make connections between selfidentification, identity, culture, race, and prejudice (Quintana et al., 1999). It is, therefore, believed that one component to developing an ethnic identity involves having the cognitive capabilities to understand that membership in a group is both permanent and unchangeable (Blackmon & Vera, 2008) and this is thought to develop in middle childhood. Between the ages of four and eight, children develop strong social preferences (Porter, 1971) and awarenesses of group affiliations (Aboud & Mitchell, 1997) but by the ages of eight and ten, children’s attitudes about differences become crystallized (Goodman, 1964) and exhibit curiosity about other groups (Aboud & Mitchell, 1997). Akiba et al. (2004) demonstrated that ethnic identification represents a critical aspect in children’s ethnic identity, as this identification informs children’s selfcategorization as belonging to certain groups. Thus, children in middle childhood understand group membership and racial and ethnic constancy (Blackmon & Vera, 2008; Ocampo, Benal & Knight, 1993) and also recognize that group members share common attributes that may be distinct from others. Taken together, middle childhood is the ideal time when these concepts are moving from awareness and events to meaning, interpretation, and action. However, more research is needed to understand the developmental processes that children exhibit when acquiring their sense of group identification and ethnic attitudes (Smith et al., 2009).

26 Discrimination. It is estimated that millions of children worldwide are affected by prejudice and discrimination due to factors such as their age, race, ethnicity, gender, ability, etc. (Child Rights Information Network, 2009; Minority Rights Group International, 2010; Save the Children, 2006). Discrimination is defined as unjust negative behavior toward a particular group or a member of that group (Seaton et al., 2009). The 2011 Social Policy Report from the Society for Research in Child Development identifies four common misconceptions about discrimination and prejudice in childhood: 1) children are not aware of experiencing discrimination until adolescence, 2) teaching children to be tolerant is a top-down process that will change children’s attitudes, 3) childhood prejudice stems from imitation and learned negative attitudes, and 4) child and adult forms of discrimination are different and unrelated. These misconceptions can be seen in many early theories of identity development as these theories mainly neglected childhood experiences of discrimination. Gordon Allport (1954) defines ethnic prejudice as “an antipathy based upon a faulty and inflexible generalization. It may be directed toward a group as a whole, or toward an individual because he is a member of that group” (p.10). In the past, investigators looked at the effects of ethnic discrimination and prejudice on development (e.g., Altschul, Oyserman & Bybee, 2006; Brody et al., 2006; Pahl & Way, 2006). For adults, perceived discrimination has been linked to psychological and physiological consequences including anxiety, depression and decreases in immune functioning (Dion, 2002; Szalacha et al., 2003). For children, however, research has deemed them as unable to cognitively understand these experiences in ways to make attributions to discrimination (Stone & Han, 2005). As such, few studies specifically investigate how

27 discrimination is experience by children. Even though it has been often assumed that youth may not necessarily have the terminology to define these events as an adult would, they are still able to detect interpersonal and group differences, which informs their own feelings that may cause them to question their identity. Discrimination has many consequences (Quintana & McKown, 2008) and may foster a sense of inferiority where children could become mistrustful of their environment (Canino, 1995). Studies conclude that by age four, most children have a rudimentary concept of race and are able to identify, match and label people by racial group (Aboud, 1988; Canino, 1995; Clark & Clark, 1947; Cross, 1991; Goodman, 1964; Porter, 1971; Ramsay, 2008). By age ten, children can recognize discriminatory events and understand that they are caused by others’ stereotypes (Brown & Bigler, 2005) suggesting that middle childhood is a time for significant growth in understanding discrimination (Brown & Bigler, 2005; Quintana, 1998; Quintana & Vera, 1999; Rowley et al., 2008). McKowan and Weinstein (2003) found that children become aware of racism by age six, but by age ten, 80% of African American and Latino children and 63 % of White or Asian children are explicitly aware of racism and can recall or describe instances. Similarly, in a study by Brown (2006), she qualitatively assessed children in fourth, sixth and eighth grades about discrimination. Results demonstrated that approximately half of all children in a sample of 315 youths were able to describe an instance of discrimination (either real or imagined) on their own. Further, all participants described a child of color as the target of the discrimination in the scenario, regardless of race or ethnicity of the participant. Another study by Szalacha and colleagues (2003), they looked at two samples of Puerto Rican children. In the first sample, children in grades 1-3 (ages six-

28 eight) had a low likelihood of perceiving discrimination. However, of those children some did report knowledge of perceived discrimination and their scores were significantly higher in depression and stress. The second sample consisted of adolescents (ages 13 to 14) who were better able to report instances of perceived discrimination (over half of the sample) and those youths are also liked to higher mental health problems. In essence, they found they found that first through third graders who had perceived even a small amount of discrimination reported higher levels of depression, stress and behavioral problems. Hence, children are thought to have developed skills that allow for the understanding discrimination, racial and ethnic awareness and consistency around seven or eight years old (García Coll & Marks, 2009; Rowley, 2008). Other research studies link youths’ experiences of discrimination and perceived racism to a host of psychosocial difficulties such as low self-esteem and depressive symptoms (Caldwell et al., 2004). Perceiving discrimination is also associated with more racial mistrust, problem behaviors, anger, and depressive symptoms (Albertini, 2004; Fisher, Wallace & Fenton, 2000). However, other research suggests that perceiving discrimination—and not necessarily actual discrimination—may help youths develop a strong, positive racial and ethnic identity (Brown, 2008; Pahl & Way, 2006; Phinney & Tarver, 1988). This confusion in the literature sheds light on how little is understood about perceived discrimination, EID, and childhood well-being. Therefore, these studies indicate the children are aware of racial and ethnic discrimination at a young age and incorporating these experiences into their growing identities in ways that affect their well-being, but the exact link is not yet clear.

29 Although prejudice and discrimination are harmful at any age, it is particularly concerning for children as it has the potential to lead to inaccurate understandings of these instances which can lead to negative associations in their sense of self (Blackmon & Vera, 2008), and serious maladaptive effects on psychological well-being (Nesdale, 2008). As such, the negative impact of prejudice, discrimination, and racism on children’s development and adjustment is not well understood. Therefore it is important to understand the ways in which children cope with the notion of discrimination and the identification of belonging to a marginalized or stigmatized group. As such research has attempted to elucidate the relationship between discrimination and coping strategies by suggesting that perhaps the development of an ethnic identity is one such strategy (Phinney, 1990), and researchers argue that EID in minority children is not particularly instrumental to their overall identity, but rather as a protective coping strategy for potential discrimination, prejudice and stigmatization (Blackmon & Vera, 2008; Cross, 1995; Parham & Helms, 1985). Discrimination, EID, and Well-Being. Despite the negative effect that discrimination has on well-being, relatively little research has examined its impact on psychological well-being in children. Further, the role that ethnic identity plays in the relationship remains unclear particularly for children (Sellers, Copeland-Linder, Martin, & Lewis, 2006). The research that does exist primarily focuses on adolescence (Fisher, Wallace, & Fenton, 2000; Wong et al., 2003). Perceived discrimination alone has been negatively linked to decreased psychological well-being (Seaton, Caldwell, Sellers & Jackson, 2010) including lower life satisfaction levels, decreased self-esteem, increased depressive symptoms, increased anger and increased problem behaviors (Seaton et al.,

30 2008) among minority youth. For example, in a study by Fisher and colleagues (2000), they looked at minority adolescents’ experience of discrimination and found that all racial and ethnic groups experiences some level of distress based on perceived discrimination, particularly within educational contexts. The problem here lies in the dearth of literature focusing on the relationship between perceived discrimination and well-being in children in middle childhood—specifically as this is the time period in which they enter educational settings. The field has not yet clearly specified the role that EID plays in protecting youth from the negative consequences of discrimination and racism (Quintana and McKown, 2008). Recent research has suggested that perceived discrimination is a risk factor for youths of color that may increase vulnerability for negative psychological well-being if appropriate coping strategies and support skills are not developed (Seaton, 2010; Spencer, 2006). However, children’s EID appears to be an extremely important factor in their perceptions of discrimination (Brown, 2008). Phinney & Chavira (1995) found evidence that minority adolescents with higher levels of ethnic identity reported using proactive styles of coping and this was significantly and positively related to their selfesteem (Umaña-Taylor et al., 2008). However, even though all three variables were related, mediation was not examined. When a child faces discrimination it is most likely from some sort of prejudice or stereotype. Research of stereotypes has shown that by age six, children can understand and use stereotypes in everyday interactions (McKown & Weinstein, 2003). Hence, without accurate understandings of racial and ethnic differences, a child might either incorporate these stereotypes into their self-concept. Therefore, some researchers argue that ethnic identity exploration provides individuals

31 with ways in which one can cope with discrimination (Umaña-Taylor et al., 2008). Also, resolution (i.e. having resolved issues regarding ethnicity) may facilitate one's ability to cope because they are confident about the importance of their ethnic group membership. Further, research has also shown that having a strong connection to an EID can moderate the negative effects (Davis, Aronson & Salinas, 2006) and serve as a protective factor that compensates or buffers against the negative effects of perceived discrimination. For example, Wong, Eccles, and Sameroff (2003) found that African American seventh- and eight-graders’ connection to ethnic identity reduced the magnitude of association among perceived discrimination and decline in academic selfconcept and school achievement. These studies suggest that feeling positive about one’s ethnic group and about one’s membership in that group is associated with better psychological functioning. Over the years, researchers created frameworks in order to understand the connection among discrimination, EID and well-being. One model comes from Branscombe and colleagues (2006) and is called the Rejection Identification Model. This model suggests that when individuals perceive themselves to experience discrimination, they react by increasing their identification with their ethnic group, which increases their well-being. A second model, proposed by Sellers and colleagues (2006) is known as the Buffering Hypothesis (Figure 1), which posits that racial and ethnic identity buffer the negative effects of perceived discrimination on well-being. Hence, EID has been shown to have three roles: it can facilitate perceptions of discrimination, it can buffer negative effects of perceived discrimination, and it is affected by the perception of discrimination (Brown, 2008). All of these roles impact a child’s well-being. Pahl and Way (2006)

32 found support for the reciprocal relationship between discrimination and EID, with evidence to support a stronger pathway from discrimination to EID. Therefore, helping children understand ethnic differences can also led to understanding stereotypes, which may positively impact their psychological and academic well-being.

Perceived Discrimination

Well-Being

Ethnic Identity Figure 2. Graphical representation of the Buffering Hypothesis Despite these newer models, the directionality of relations among ethnic identity, coping with discrimination, and well-being is not well-understood (Umaña-Taylor, Vargas-Chanes, Garcia, & Gonzales-Backen, 2008). The bottom line is that children are aware of ethnic differences and potentially facing or witness discrimination early in development. Although there’s a lack of empirical conclusions regarding early racial preference, early racial attitudes, perceived discrimination and EID, these previous studies highlight the notion that regardless of skin color, children are able to comprehend complex social structures early in life and make their own meaning. Taken together, young children are not color-blind and innocent to racial prejudice (Aboud, 1988; Hirschfeld, 2008) although the intentionality of their actions and beliefs may not be fully understood by children themselves, or researchers. Thus, they may use these meanings to make judgments on themselves and on others as they move into middle childhood. EID

33 is multidimensional, and young children show signs of being able to self-categorize, select from various racial-cultural preferences, learn and comprehend complex ethnic knowledge early in life (Bernal et al., 1990; Cross & Cross; 2008). Therefore, more research is needed to better understand the relationship among perceived discrimination, EID and well-being in children. Theoretical Frameworks of Identity Development One of the important tasks of childhood involves developing a sense of who they are and how they relate to others. Children are engaging in meaningful interactions that served as building blocks for future experiences. Many early theories on child identity development take an “adultcentric” approach whereby implying that young children know little to nothing about terms like ethnicity because of their “egocentric” stage of development (Van Ausdale & Feagin, 2001). This term does not demonize a child as egotistical or selfish, rather it implies that children are unable to perceive or view a perspective other than their own. Many models of development propose a stepwise approach where an individual must complete a certain amount of requirements—either cognitively, socioemotionally, or physically—in order to move to the next “step.” However, for children racial, ethnic and cultural awareness is not a stepwise process that flows easily from one category to the next (Blackmon & Vera, 2008). Changes in models reflect these beliefs in order to see identity development as a process of change and interactions such that children are continually figuring out how to define themselves within their ethnic domains, perspectives and interactions. Although theories of identity development typically pinpointed adolescence as the time in which identity becomes reliably salient, newer research suggests that these

34 processes happen earlier (Cooper et al., 2005; Cross & Fhagen-Smith, 2001; Hirschfeld, 1995; Rowley et al., 2008; Ruble et al., 2004). However, how early this develops in children is still being debated in the literature. Early and dominating theories of child development (e.g., Piaget and Erikson) describe childhood as a combination of continuous and discontinuous time periods where children are learning new skills and incorporating them into their growing identities (Berk, 2010). Perhaps one of the most widely used theories of child development stems from Jean Piaget (1968) who conceptualized development as the cognitive and intellectual changes that occur in mental abilities (e.g., attending, perceiving, learning, thinking and remembering) that can be seen as prerequisites to the development of any form of identity. Piaget’s stage theory describes the cognitive development of children as a progression through four stages: sensorimotor (ages birth to two), preoperational (ages two to seven), concrete operations (ages seven to eleven) and formal operations (ages eleven and above) (Shaffer, 1989). According to this theory, sensorimotor children are developing foundational cognitive skills leading to an undifferentiated view of themselves, while the preoperational child expands to egocentric and unidimensional thinking where children may act on concepts without fully understanding the logic or function underlying them (Spencer, 1985; Whaley, 1993). Thus, preschool children may lack the ability to separate their view of the world and their view of themselves. By middle childhood, however, children are in the concrete operational stage, where they can think logically and systematically about objects, events and experiences (Piaget, 1968; Whaley, 1993). Piaget theorized that children are actively engaging with their physical and social environments, which increases the sophistications of representations about that

35 child’s world and his or her relation to it (Boreland et al., 1998). Combined, these concepts are thought to be necessary in the formation of identity as ethnic constancy, or a sense of permanence of ethnic identity, is one manifestation of conservation, and decentering is seen as the ability to take the perspective of others (Whaley, 1993). As such, middle childhood could be seen as the foundational years for EID even though research has typically overlooked this period. Erik Erikson (1950, 1968) has the most widely influential theory of psychosocial development. He posited that adult identity development is a lifelong process consisting of an exploration that begins during adolescence. Individuals go through eight stages of psychological conflict and if conflicts were not resolved in each stage, psychological problems are thought to be inevitable later on in life. Erikson’s theory proposed four statuses in the process of developing an identity: diffused, foreclosed, moratorium and identity achieved. A diffused status is when an individual has made no concrete commitment, nor has fully committed to exploring an identity. A foreclosed status happens when an individual has made a commitment to an identity without an exploration of other options. This can generally be described as the identity of children as parental values are placed on them with little access to self-exploration and are unbiased to cultural norms (Harris, 1995). A status of moratorium is when an individual actively engages the exploration of an identity but has not made a commitment to something stable. This is often theorized as happening during adolescence and early adulthood. Finally, the development of stable identity is through this exploration and is described as an achieved identity.

36 Although Erikson mainly focused on identity development as a product of adolescence, the concept of identity in childhood surfaced in social science research in the 1950s in his book Childhood and Society. For middle childhood, he describes that main developmental task of this time period as industry vs. inferiority. Here, he believes that children must develop a sense of industry, or a basic mastery of the tools and skills necessary for success in one’s culture (Ripke et al., 2008). For example, a child in the U.S. will enter school between the ages of 5-7. This event marks a transitional phase comprised of new experiences, people, and social conditions. From these interactions, children must learn how to evaluate themselves and judge their social world in order to find their place in it. Although academic achievement is central for many children, a feeling of competence may be derived from other skills learned in the academic setting, and not necessarily indicative of academic performance, but rather sports, playing musical instruments, leadership skills, languages, etc. Some researchers theorize that the concepts of industry and inferiority are metaphors for positive and negative aspects of self-concept and motivation which include “values for attainment of goals, an orientation to the future, attributions about the reasons for success and failure, and a sense of self-efficacy—all of which are positive indicators of well-being” (Ripke et al., 2008, p. 132). As such, if a child moves through this stage inadequately, Erikson posits that he or she will develop a sense of inferiority, particularly regarding ethnic differences, which may potentially lead to low feelings of self-worth, high levels of anxiety, and depression (Ripke et al., 2008). Although some of these competencies can be observed in early childhood, it is theorized that middle childhood is

37 the period where these constructs are not only manifested but also can be reliably measured. James Marcia (1966) is credited as truncating and operationalizing Erikson’s work into a four-status model of identity including diffusion (a state of identity confusion), foreclosed (a state of premature identity acceptance with exploration or criticism), moratorium (a state of flux without a commitment), and achieved (a state of resolution). According to Marcia, identity achievement is derived from an experience with either a crisis exploration or commitment. Evident in both Erikson and Marcia’s theories is the notion that achieving a sense if identity will determine how one fits into this world, and evaluates their personal beliefs, values and occupational choices (Quintana, 2007). Stemming from the pioneering work of Piaget and Erikson, researchers began to criticize their theories for a lack of incorporation of social contexts into child development. For example, the work of Lev Vygotsky (1978) describes children as social actors where they reflect, interpret and create patterns based on daily interactions. Based on his theory, a child’s sense of self develops only after social interactions occur and a subsequent web of interpretations based off those events (Van Ausdale & Feagin, 2001). Vygotsky’s work surmises that, like adults, children are not limited to learning only what is taught to them directly. Rather, they can take in meaning from experiences both directly and indirectly. Similarly, Tajfel (1974) describes social identity—defined as a “part of an individual’s self-concept which derives from his [or her] knowledge of his [or her] membership of a social group together with the value and emotional significance attached

38 to membership of that group” (Tajfel, 1978, p. 63)—as an understanding of the self through social and contextual interactions. His Social Identity Theory (SIT) (Tajfel, 1978) proposes that a person’s sense of who they are is based on group membership. In essence, SIT aims to help individuals understand their position in this social world. This theory can be applied to ethnic identities across different contexts (Quintana & McKown, 2008), as ethnic identities are a part of our more complex social identities. As such, a child’s social identity would include cultural group membership in addition to family, community, peer and educational contexts (Blackmon & Vera, 2008). SIT was originally developed to explain out-group discrimination and in-group favoritism in adults. However, few researchers examined these theories from a developmental perspective (Barrett & Davis, 2008). SIT is not developmental by nature, but it implies that children’s intergroup attitudes will become more biased with age as ethnic identities are incorporated into self-concept (Pfeifer et al, 2007). For example, children as young as four can demonstrate bias towards their own group until middle childhood—a finding that is consistent with other developmental theories (Aboud, 1988, Barrett & Davis, 2008;). In essence, this means that as children age, they are better able to readily identify with a group and thus make comparisons between their group and others in an effort to distinguish themselves in a positive manner. For minority children, however, findings demonstrate variability with some children favoring the in-group and some preferring the out-group (as cited in Barrett & Davis, 2008). Based off SIT, Nesdale (1999, 2004) developed a social identity developmental theory, which places importance in both social identification and social context in intergroup processes in children (Pfeifer, 2007). The theory also clarifies between bias

39 (i.e., a preference for one’s ingroup) and prejudice (a negative attitude towards outgroups). As described in Pfeifer et al. (2007), this theory hypothesizes that children are first aware of ethnic differences around age four or five. Once awareness develops, children tend to exhibit bias towards their ethnic group. Prejudice, however, only develops when children identify with social groups. As such, both of these processes become mature and prominent in middle childhood. Bronfenbrenner (1979, 1989) further highlighted social and contextual aspects in his Ecological Systems Theory. This theory is described as viewing the world of an individual through different social and environmental contexts in which he or she exists. Each layer is nested within one another, which implies that all of these factors interact and do not exist in isolation. Bronfenbrenner’s theory describes a child in the center of concentric and intervening systems of relationships, behavior settings and community contexts. For example, he argues that the family system is but one important influence in development, along with other important institutions like school and community. This developmental theory has been criticized as not incorporating culture within the “layers.” Rather, culture is seen as part of the macrosystem and asserts influence from top-down interactions in an indirect fashion (Yasui & Dishion, 2007). Many child development theories—although able to provide a general framework of development—lack in understanding the developmental processes of children of color (García Coll et al., 1998) including cultural influences such as the transmission of intergenerational traditions and values, acculturative stress and the negative impact of discrimination (Yasui & Dishion, 2007). Early research on child development relied on the experiments and observations of predominantly White children (mostly boys) from

40 middle-class families from the U.S. (Erikson, 1968). From these studies came theories about child development, which are used and generalized to describe all children across the globe. This “one-size fits all” approach of applying broad theories to other cultures unfairly sets up a comparative conundrum where ethnicities and races are compared to one another (Bronfenbrenner, 1989), further this approach aides in the establishment of norms from which we use to make these comparisons (Gilligan 1982; Leong, Quin & Huang, 2008). To contrast this, García Coll and colleagues (1996) created a model of child development that aimed to include culture as an integral part of the overall socialization process that directly exerts influence on all aspects of the developing child. In essence, García Coll applied a developmental and endogenous cultural approach to Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model address developmental competencies specific to minority children. In their model, social positions factors, defined as “attributes of individuals that societies use to stratify or place individuals in the social hierarchy and that pertain to children of color” (p. 1895), are made up of constructs such as race, social class, ethnicity and culture. These social positions effect developmental outcomes and are thought to be mediated through the social mechanisms of racism, prejudice, discrimination and oppression. As such, culture impacts a child’s development at each level from parental socialization to larger societal institutions. Racial and Ethnic Identity Development There has been an empirical focus on the role that ethnicity plays in the development of one’s identity and the definition of self for adults (Harris, 1995; Quintana & McKown, 2008;Yip, 2008) as ethnic differences will determine how a person is

41 perceived by others, including peers, but also by authority such as police and teachers (Quintana & McKown, 2008). Taken together, several researchers argue that children’s developing ethnic identity, and its relationship to who they are, plays a critical role in who they will become and how they will respond to situations in the future (Quintana & McKown, 2008; Yip, 2008). When, how and why children develop an ethnic identity and how it impacts overall psychological well-being, becomes the salient question that has been posed to researchers for half a century with extensive literature dating back to the 1930s. In essence, at some point in a child’s life, he or she becomes aware of racial and ethnic differences in themselves and/or others around them. This budding awareness is thought to trigger a coping process in children where they must begin to question themselves and develop a sense of identity in response to these events. Many frameworks were developed in an effort to understand the ways in which this impacts development but only recently there has begun research specifically applying these frameworks with children. Most models of racial and ethnic development imply that one must go through a racist or discriminatory experience in order to question and develop an identity. As such, the models generally and historically not been applied to children as it was thought that they have not encountered racism yet and therefore have no need to develop this part of their identity. Based on the controversy of the Doll Studies combined with the political and historical era of the Civil Rights Movement, researchers developed theories about how one develops a racial or ethnic identity but focused mainly in adulthood.

42 Racial Identity Development Although the focus on this study is on EID, the researchers and theories associated with racial identity development contributed significantly to the understanding of ethnic identity. William Cross created one of the first theoretical models of racial identity development. In 1978, Cross developed the Nigrescence Model—a multistage model of identity development that breaks down the process with which one comes to understand their racial identity. The model consists of five stages (Cross, 1995): the preencounter stage, where individuals hold attitudes about race that are low in importance—or salience—or neutral to anti-Black; the encounter stage where an individual will experience some sort of encounter that affects one’s sense of self as a racial and ethnic being, the immersion-emersion stage—which is characterized by a complete immersion into the world of Blackness; the internalization stage where Blackness becomes a “backdrop for life’s transactions” (p. 68); and the internalizationcommitment stage where there is a continued and integrated interest and commitment in one’s Black identity. In essence, Cross’s model attempts to operationalize racial identity development from ignorance to self-acceptance (Marks et al., 2007). While foundational in the field of racial identity research, the theory has been criticized as not applicable to other minority groups in the United States (Atkinson, Morten & Sue, 1983) or to other Black people outside the U.S. (Verkuten, 2008). Janet E. Helms (1989, 1990, 1995) proposed another model of racial identity similar to Cross’s model for both Black and White individuals known as the People of Color Racial Identity model. This model identifies five statuses of racial identity development: conformity, dissonance, immersion-emersion, internalization and

43 integrative awareness. Conformity refers to individuals who identify with White American—or dominant—culture and reject their own racial group. Dissonance applies to those who experience conflict between cultures. The Immersion-emersion status refers to an individual who shifts to identify with one’s own race while rejecting the dominant culture. Internalization describes those who are able to integrate their membership with their own race while maintaining a relationship with the dominant culture. Finally, integrative awareness refers to the final status where an individual maintains and identifies with his or her own culture while acknowledging similarities across other oppressed groups. One is said to achieve a racial identity by moving through these statuses. Parham (1989) expanded on Cross’ and Helms’ models stating that racial identity development is a lifelong process suggesting that individuals may move through this process in a cyclical fashion over time. In essence, he posits that people may face multiple events throughout their lifetime that may challenge their sense of racial and ethnic identity. Hence, the earlier one develops a sense of racial identity does not necessarily mean that the perceptions of being racial beings will not ever be challenged again, but rather require a process of moving through these stages in a different but yet meaningful way throughout the course of a lifespan. Therefore, Parham’s revisions of these theories attempt to make them more cyclical rather than a one-time occurrence (Cross, 1995). One of the more recent models of racial identity development stems from Robert Sellers and colleagues. Sellers, Rowley, Chavous and Smith (1997) developed the Multidimensional Model of Racial Identity (MMRI) for African Americans. Four

44 dimensions are evaluated: salience, centrality, ideology and regard. The dimension of salience is intended to understand the importance that race places in one’s self-concept at any given moment in time. Centrality, on the other hand, looks at how one defines themselves in terms of their race at any given moment. The dimension of ideology seeks to understand the individuals’ beliefs, opinions and attitudes of the ways in which a person of a race should act. Finally the dimension of regard refers to an individuals’ affective and evaluative perspective about being a member of their race (Ruble et al., 2004). Many criticisms of the aforementioned theories focus on the notion that they only relate to a specific racial group. In an attempt to be more inclusive of different groups, Atkinson, Morten and Sue (1993) developed the Minority Identity Development (MID) Model based on the premised that previous culture-specific theories can be generalized and applied to other minority groups due to their shared experience of oppression. This model is cyclical in nature and consists of five stages similar to the models described above: conformity, dissonance, resistance and immersion, introspection, and synergetic articulation and awareness. One difference in this theory is that the authors argue that it is not guaranteed that all individuals will attain each stage within a lifespan. Further, given the controversy and inaccuracies surrounding race in society, there is a shift away from race towards a more inclusive concept: ethnicity. Ethnic Identity Development The concept of ethnic identity was been prominently studied using Phinney’s (1993) Ethnic Identity Development (EID) Model, which helps to understand how members of ethnic groups evolve a sense of themselves as members of socially ascribed

45 groups. Basing her theory off Erikson and Marcia’s work, as well as calls for theories to move away from racial categorizations only, she created a modified version of Marcia’s identity statuses in relation to ethnic identity. In the ethnic-diffusion status, the primary focus is that of ethnic identity confusion or negativity. The ethnic-foreclosed status refers to acceptance of an ethnic identity without critique—often molded by others. The third status, ethnic-moratorium, is a state of introspection and deconstruction and the last stage, ethnic-achieved is comprised of integrated and internalized ethnic identity. Phinney’s model has received an impressive amount of empirical support (Yip, Seaton and Sellers, 2006), particularly in relation to achieving an ethnic identity and well-being, including a positive self-concept and dearth of negative psychological distress (Phinney & Kohatsu, 1997). Ethnic identity is thought to combine three universal components: the extent of exploration and resolution of ethnic identity issues, the sense of belonging and positive attitudes towards one’s ethnic group (affirmation), and the extent of involvement in ethnic practices (behaviors) (Phinney, 1992). From the theoretical perspective, the concepts of exploration and resolution stem from Eriksonian/Marcia frameworks, where as affirmation stems from Tajfel (SIT). Exploration, according to Erikson (1968), is considered a critical part of identity formation, as it is believed that an achieved identity comes after one has explored their ethnic identity (Umaña-Taylor et al., 2009). Further, existing work suggests that context plays a role in exploration. Specifically, research has shown that Latino and Black adolescents report increases in perceived discrimination simultaneously with increases in exploration (Pahl & Way, 2006). As such, higher levels of ethnic identity exploration are associated with higher levels of self-esteem among

46 diverse high school and college students (Umaña-Taylor et al., 2004). Ethnic identity resolution, on the other hand, is defined as the commitments made to a particular ascribed ethnic identity (Marcia, 1980). In essence, resolution refers to the role that ethnic identity plays in their lives (Umaña-Taylor et al., 2004) and this can change over time. There is one other important component, specifically critical for children that often get overlooked in the literature: identification. Hence, the fourth child-specific component of EI involves ethnic identification, which refers to the awareness that a child belongs to an ethnic group represented by a label (Aboud, 1987; Akiba et al., 2004). This key step has often proved difficult for children below a certain age. Bernal and colleagues (1990) suggest that ethnic identification represents the ways in which children see themselves as belonging to groups where common attributes are shared and there is a distinction between membership in groups. Research identifies that children can develop ethnic identification by age three to four years old (Akiba et al., 2004). Different researchers use different methods in order to examine ethnic identification. For example, Aboud (1987) suggested the use of ethnic labels and allowing children to choose labels that best describe them. Akiba and colleagues (2004) continued this process by adding in labels that can not only define ethnic differences but also gender and other social roles. They suggest that using labels this way can allow for a more "organic" process of understanding the salience of labels in children's growing identities. In their study, they promote the use of a labeling method because of its flexibility allowing for both qualitative and quantitative explorations, as children can "rank-order" their labels suggesting both centrality and salience. Akiba et al (2004) and Marks et al. (2007) conducted separate studies

47 examining ethnic identification using labels and suggest that it may be developmentally appropriate for children in middle childhood. This sort of task is useful and potentially broadly informative because it allows a variety of issues (e.g., salience, multiplicity, priority, and conceptualization) to be addressed. As such, there is a need for research to explore the unique contributions that each component of ethnic identity (i.e., exploration, resolution/commitment, affirmation and identification) to other outcomes, as well as to proactive coping strategies for dealing with discrimination (Umaña-Taylor et al., 2004). Some researchers argue that original theories of racial identity—such as Cross (1991) and Helms (1990) which were anchored in historical movements of the 1970s and 1980s—could also be termed “racial-cultural” identity models from the start. Upon closer inspection of subscale items on measures designed for these theories ask about things other than race such as culture and ethnic events (Cross & Cross, 2008). In essence, the Nigresence Theory could be best understood as a theory of racial and cultural identity development; and its associated survey measures aspects of both racial and cultural identity (Cross & Cross, 2008). The same case can be made for the Ethnic Identity Development (EID) Theory and its associated instrument, the MEIM, which also looks at both racial and ethnic concepts. Taken together, the common thread among racial and ethnic identity development models is that they each seek to understand how the development of an racial or ethnic identity affects internal reflections of group membership and the emotional response from that identification (Graves & Graves, 2008). Criticism of these models, however, is that they do not relate to children or take a developmental perspective. Thus far, it seems as if there is a empirical dearth in the field of developmentally and culturally appropriate

48 models of identity development and overall development for children: developmental models of child development lack an integration of racial, ethnic and cultural factors and racial and ethnic identity models lack a developmental perspective. However, some newer models attempt to bridge this gap. Child Focused Ethnic Identity Models The process of ethnic identity development begins at birth and continues throughout one's life (Spencer, 1985). EID models are based on the hypothesis of a developmental sequence of racial ideologies (Quintana, 2008; Sellers, et al., 1997). However, the term development here refers to that of one’s EID and not necessarily that of a child. To date, there is not one single unifying framework guiding identity work with children as these models often take one of three approaches: 1) they are adapted from existing theories related to EID in adults, 2) they stem from a developmental framework where a lifespan approach is employed, or 3) a combination or collaboration of multiple theories looking a intersecting aspects of identity from gender, to social to ethnic identity. Phinney’s work most closely resembles the discourse of EID in children (Cross & Cross, 2008) but other researchers created models that attempt to integrate a bottom-up perspective. The one concept common among all theories is that as a child matures—both cognitively and socially—she or she will develop a better understanding of his or her own EID. For example, ethnic constancy—the knowledge that one cannot change his or her ethnicity—begins to appear in middle childhood around age ten (Aboud & Doyle, 1993). This development is important in the formation of ingroup and outgroups social biases (Marks et al., 2007), which impacts a child’s awareness of, identification with, and

49 preference for ethnic categories. As such, recent research (e.g., Aboud, 2003; Bernal et al., 1990; Cross and Cross; 2008; Quintana, 1998) has empirically shifted from using these earlier models to the creation of new models that incorporate a developmental perspective. One of the first documented theories to attempt to combine development with ethnic terms is Aboud (1988, 2003), who used a Piagetian framework to understand prejudice and racial-ethnic identification and perspectives in children. This theory suggests that children increase in cognitive capabilities such as object permanence and conservation tasks as they age. They also mature in their ability to understand constancy (Semaj, 1980). This understanding is linked to the positive attitudes about their own group (Aboud & Doyle, 1995; Quintana & Vera, 1999; Smith et al., 2009). Therefore, as children age through middle childhood, they begin to develop the necessary cognitive abilities required to both perceive and understand ethnic differences. They then use these understandings to evaluate themselves as well as others. Bernal and colleagues (1990) proposed another model that consists of three stages in ethnic identity development for children. Preschool is the first stage, where children are thought to understand ethnic labels based on simple, concrete, and physical characteristics but lack in more complex concepts like meaning, constancy and preference. The second stage is the Early school level (ages 6-8), where children see ethnic labels as more salient and permanent, along with group identification. The Later school level (ages 8-10) is the third stage where there is a higher understanding of ethnic constancy, knowledge, preference and behaviors. This model is one of the first ones to break down the early childhood years and specifically related them to EID.

50 Quintana (1998), proposed his Racial and Ethnic Perspective-Taking Theory, which is based on the notion that children understand race and ethnicity in a developmentally parallel way to how they understand their social world. As such, Racial Perspective-Taking Ability (RPTA) is a process whereby children apply their social cognitive knowledge to the racial aspects of their environment (Quintana, 1998). The theory is based of the work of Selman (1980) whose model of social perspective-taking ability (SPTA) was used to describe four interpersonal domains for children: peer group, individual, family, and friendship. In essence, Quintana’s model combines this sequence of development with a fifth domain of race, such that when developmental transitions occur, children are able to take on a new perspective and thus able to understand new dimensions of their interactions (Quintana, 1998). These cognitive changes do not replace old ones; rather, it supplements their previous perceptions and allows for a new vantage point in understanding their social and cultural world (Quintana, 2005). Levels of RPTA range from 0 (early childhood and preschool ages) to 3 (late adolescence). At level 0, physical and egocentric perspectives prevail and children are characterized as having an understanding of race and ethnicity primarily based on physical manifestations such as skin color and hair texture. Quintana provides an example of a kindergartener’s explanation of racial differences at this stage: “a Black child has two Black parents, a White child has two White parents, and a Mexican child has one Black parent and one White parent.” Here, the child is using rudimentary reasoning skills that brown skin is a product of mixing black and white complexions. Similarly, a child a this stage can be seen as using idiosyncratic racial terms on par with their developmental ability to perceive physical differences. For example, a Black child

51 in this level may refer to his skin as “brown” instead of “black” as that may be a better description but is devoid of a deeper meaning. At level one (ages 3-6), children take a literal perspective and are able to understand nonphysical and unobservable components of race such as racial heritage and food. As such, children become less egocentric and more able to infer perspectives as their social cognitive capabilities mature. Children at this level understand the permanence of race, as well as that the essence of racial status must be inferred rather than merely observed. At level 2 (ages 6-10) or middle childhood, the primary changes in the understanding of race are associated with social perspectives. Here, they can connect social processes with race such as social norms and friendships, which supplements their literal understanding of race and ethnicity. A child at this level is now able to see themselves through the eyes of others—thus perspective taking. At the third level (ages 10 to adolescents), adolescents can integrate their observations of events and experiences into patterns and infer meaning based of their perspective of racial groups. This level is theorized as the place where there is a merging of personal and racial identity. Research has shown that this theory can be applied across other cultural groups including African American (Quintana, 2008), Korean (Lee & Quintana, 2005), Latin American and Native Hawaiians (Quintana et al., 2000, 2004). In summary, these newer models all propose that having a lifespan approach to EID could improve interventions with children related to ethnic issues. These models argue that children are capable of acquiring and understanding their ethnic identity prior to adolescence, particularly in middle childhood when their cognitive abilities become more sophisticated (Aboud & Doyle, 1993; Bernal et al., 1990; Marks et al., 2007). As

52 such, there remains no unifying perspective as to which theory best ties these concepts together. Ethnic Identity Development and Well-Being in Children A majority of research on children’s mental health focuses on forms of illness and psychopathology that looks at internalizing disorders (e.g., depression, anxiety) and/or externalizing disorders (e.g., aggressive behavior, conduct disorder, etc.). This research tends to be negative in nature and concentrates on the “what is wrong” instead of the “what is right.” Further, there has been an overemphasis in research regarding the negative developmental outcomes in children from diverse backgrounds (Leong, Qin & Huang, 2008). In addition to the negative focus, many indicators of child well-being become caught between attempts to describe the child in the present while aiming to predict future outcomes as an adult (Ripke et al., 2008). Many of these future predictors are negative by definition, including high school dropouts, poverty, teenage and/or unplanned pregnancy and crime. Although these are absolutely useful indicators of maladjustment, they do not tell the whole story. Despite many calls to understand normative development for youths of color (García Coll et al., 1996), there still remains a strong empirical focus on pathology (MacPhee, Kreutzer & Fritz, 1994; Quintana et al., 2006). An alternate to the “pathology” models has become a recent focus in an effort to enhance functioning and development. This movement, known as positive psychology, focuses less on mending what is broken and more on building upon existing strengths in individuals (Anderson Moore & Lippman, 2005; Keyes, 2002). Positive psychology assumes that all people have strengths and weaknesses and understanding one’s strengths can lead to overcoming

53 adversity (Seligman, 2002). Further, even less research has specifically looked at ethnic identity development in children in relation to their well-being. Some research has demonstrated that children develop strong associations between their feelings regarding their ethnicity and the underlying factors that affect one’s sense of psychological wellbeing (Arroyo & Zigler, 1995; Clark, 1939; Helms, 2007; Smith et al., 1999; Vertuyken & Lay, 1998; Wakefield & Hudley, 2007). However, other research has found that whether children’s sociocultural identity is focused on racial, ethnic or cultural terms do not matter (i.e. predict psychological outcomes); rather the investment of developing an identity has greater influence (Fuligni, Wikko & Garcia, 2005; Quintana & McKown, 2008). Psychological Well-Being in Children In 2002, the National Research Council and Institute of Medicine released a report called Community Programs to Promote Youth Development where they brought in experts on youth health and development to identify key aspects of positive development. They put forth a framework of four categories: a) physical development, which includes good health and health risk management skills; b) intellectual development, which includes knowledge of essential life skills, vocational skills, cultural contexts, school success, and good decision making skills; c) psychological and emotional development, which includes good mental health and coping skills, confidence in self-efficacy, and strong moral character; and d) social development, which includes connectedness to parents, peers, and other adults, and a commitment to civic engagement. By integrating these components of wellness into research, the field could better

54 understand how to adequately address the growing concern regarding the mental health of this nation’s children. Since 1994, there has been a significant increase in research around the topic area of well-being in children and adolescents (Stagner & Zweig, 2008). Historically, this look into well-being has had somewhat of a contradicting body of literature: while the definition of well-being is generally described as understanding the strengths of an individual, the operational variables used in studies are generally negative in nature (e.g. risky behavior, substance use, etc.) telling us how “bad” youth are, particularly at-risk and minority youth (Stagner & Zweig, 2008). This dichotomous focus of positive and negative factors has led to the assumption that if one exits, the other does not. For example, if a child displays aggressive behavior (e.g. aggressiveness) in a situation, this is simply not the opposite of being skilled at problem solving. That child may be able to successfully resolve conflicts in other settings or not always be aggressive. In an attempt to avoid the focus on the negative in well-being, Ripke et al. (2008) suggest four indicators to measure in children: low anxiety, a positive self-image, a positive and realistic level of self-esteem, and a lack of depression. However, there remains no consistent way to consistently measure well-being and thus, it seems as if researchers pick and choose constructs based on preferences. Most studies of well-being primarily focus on understanding physical health in relation to well-being. Only recently—since around 2005—has there been a focus on mental and emotional heath in the study of well-being in youth (Stagner & Zweig, 2008). However, some argue that this is because there is less agreement in the field regarding what makes up positive development (Ripke et al., 2008; Moore, 1997). In 2003, Child

55 Trends—an annually updated databank where users can look at over 100 indicators or child and youth well-being—brought together experts to identify key aspects of positive development including character, spirituality, life satisfaction, hope, positive behaviors and relationships, school engagement and connectedness and social identity (see Stagner and Zweig (2008) for a full account). They also suggest ways in which to measure these constructs in the population. Other researchers such as Moore (1997) proposed indicators necessary to study psychological and emotional well-being, including both positive and negative outcomes, striking a balance between emphasizing a child’s present well-being and future as an adult, recognizing that social behavior is context specific, and adopting a multicultural and developmentally appropriate perspective. Taken together, there is confusion in the literature regarding the best way to measure well-being in children. Some researchers suggest that best efforts to understand well-being in children require a combination of a measurement of overall psychological well-being with individual measures of certain constructs that makeup well-being such as depression, self-concept, and so on, while others imply that one overall measure of wellbeing is sufficient over individual measures of certain constructs (Ripke et al., 2008). Other researchers focus on the concept of Subjective Well-Being (SWB), defined as is the scientific term for happiness (Diener, Eunkook & Lucas, 1999) consisting of three constructs: life satisfaction, positive affect and negative affect (Diener, 2000). In summary, the field of positive psychology is young and there is an empirical effort to operationalize certain constructs such as hope, optimism, perseverance and social intelligence in an effort to better understand their relationship to psychological well-being. Given the projected changes in the racial, ethnic and cultural makeup of

56 children in the U.S. in the next fifty years, it is important to look at how constructs of well-being look different across cultures. Nevertheless, there remains confusion in the field regarding the exact nature of EID and it’s impact on well-being in youths. One vantage point argues that an enmeshment in one’s group to the point of exclusion of mainstream culture can be detrimental (Mautute-Bianchi, 1986), while others argue that group identification may serve as protective factors that motivate achievement and foster positive emotional, social and behavioral development (C.O. Smith et al., 2009; E.P. Smith, Atkins, & Connell, 2003; Umaña-Taylor, 2004), academic expectations and school achievement (Arellano and Padilla, 1996) and the ability to handle racism and discrimination (Chavira and Phinney, 1991; Phinney and Chavira, 1995; Ponterotto & Park-Taylor, 2007; Wong, Eccles, & Sameroff, 2003). EID reflects not only membership to a particular group, but also attitudes, feelings of pride and centrality to ones own sense of self (Marks, 2007; Nesdale & Mak, 2003; Phinney, 1990). Empirical evidence, then, seems to be dependent on which outcomes are included in the study (e.g. self-esteem, academic achievement, risky behavior) and the age of the respondents (French, Kim, & Pillado, 2006; French, Seidman, Allen, & Aber, 2000). Newer studies document the association between having an ethnic identity and positive psychological well-being for youths of color, including higher self-esteem (Buckley & Carter, 2005; Rowley et al., 1998), lower psychological stress (Caldwell, Sellers, Bernat, & Zimmerman, 2004), lower depressive symptomatology (Stevenson, Reed, Bodison & Bishop, 1997; Yip, Seaton & Sellers, 2006), and psychological wellbeing (Booker; 2006; Phinney, 1990, 1995, 1997; Seaton, Scottham & Sellers, 2006; Thomson & Zand, 2005). Within educational contexts, EID has been empirically linked

57 with self-esteem, self/school efficacy, life satisfaction and academic achievement (Awad, 2007; Okeke, Howard, Kurtz-Costes, & Rowley, 2009) and greater school adjustment (Chavous et al., 2003). Phinney & Chavira (1992) conducted a research study with adolescents and found that those that had a stronger sense of ethnic identity had higher self-esteem and used more active coping strategies to deal with discrimination than those with low ethnic identity. Stemming from her research, Phinney (1993) postulated that an increase in ethnic identity is predicted to result in an increase in psychological well-being and since the formation of an identity develops over time, ethnic identity is also predicted to increase with age. These studies that link psychological well-being and relationships are beginning to be well documented in their importance in child development (Ripke et al., 2008), particularly in middle childhood, where children develop the ability to take perspectives of others, including cultural and individual differences. Taken together, there is clear support for the notion that the establishment of an EID in middle childhood has positive effects for adjustment and psychological wellbeing; however, exactly what constitutes psychological well-being is still up for debate. Myers and Diener (1995) describe psychological well-being with positive psychological characteristics among youth including self-esteem, resiliency, hope, self-reliance, and prosocial behavior and the absence of other negative characteristics such as anxiety, depression, loneliness, violence and school problems. For the purpose of this study, psychological well-being is defined as a sense of hope, positive self-concept/self-esteem and positive academic self-efficacy.

58 Hope. Hope has received both theoretical and empirical attention (Snyder, 1994, 2002; Seligman, 1990, 2002). Hope theory posits three distinct facets that make up the construct: goals, pathways (the perceived abilities to reach one’s goals) and agency (cognitive energy used to reach goals). Taken together, his theory argues that higher levels of hope reflect a raised sense of cognitive energy combined with multiple pathways for goals. This definition suggests that a child’s sense of hope is important in understanding how that child deals with stressors and develops coping strategies in their everyday lives (e, Brown, Johnson & Reinke, 2002). As such, hopeful thinking is based upon a child’s perceived proficiency in a setting and achieving goals; and as such is consistent with self-efficacy (Snyder, 2005). The cognitive foundation needed for hopeful thinking is established by two years of age but due to language development, children are not able to self-report accurate levels of hope until around age seven (Snyder, 2005). Much of the literature on hope focuses on adjustment to chronic or medical illness (Roberts et al., 2002). As such, research on hope combined with the understanding of ethnic differences and coping with discrimination or acculturative stressors has been scarce. Lopez et al. (2000) posit that hope is impacted by cultural factors including prejudice, stereotyping, socioeconomic and environmental factors. Further, Valle et al. (2006) found significant differences for race in their study with diverse children ages 10-18, where Black students reported higher levels of hope than White students. Studies also shown that higher hope is related to better academic performance and positive psychotherapy outcomes (Lopez, Snyder & Pedrotti, 2003; Snyder et al., 2002). However, the research to connect hope to the

59 psychological well-being of diverse children remains largely unstudied with diverse children. Self-Concept/Self-Esteem. The process of EID includes the development of selfconcept—which are the perceptions and beliefs that one has about him or herself—and self-esteem—which is the judgment regarding how one feels about him or herself (Graves & Graves, 2008; Harter, 2006; Rosenberg, 1979). There is confusion regarding which terminology best defines the concepts of self (Byrne, 1996). As such, the terms self-esteem, self-concept and self-efficacy are often used interchangeably. Shavelson et al. (1976) define self-concept as a person’s perception of self that are formed through experiences with the environment and influenced by social interactions. This definition includes beliefs of self-worth—otherwise known as self-esteem—and perceived competence—otherwise known as self-efficacy. Therefore, using this definition assumes that self-concept subsumes both self-esteem and self-efficacy. In their review of selfconcept and self-esteem measures for use with children, Butler and Gasson (2005) conclude that the global view of the self is regarded as ‘self-concept’ while the evaluative aspect relates to worth, or ‘self-esteem.’ Problems arise in the measurement of selfconcept, as it is a nebulous construct and often is assessed with measures of self-esteem. While this is problematic for adults and adolescents, research demonstrates that the understanding of self-concept and self-esteem do not vary greatly in children (Butler & Gasson, 2005). For the purpose of this study, the term self-concept will include the concept of self-esteem. Self-concept development begins early in childhood and continues throughout the lifespan. It consists of two main components: a personal and social self (Ruble et al.,

60 2004). The personal self is defined as having a sense that the self is different from others, while the social self is a sense that one is connected to others. Between the ages of 8-11, children begin to integrate developed traits in their self-concept in a constructive fashion. For example, a child may perceive him or herself as popular in school because he or she is described as “nice to people,” “helpful,” and “good with secrets” (Harter, 2006). They can also understand that they can have both positive and negative parts of themselves, as well as understand that others can have differing perspectives on who they are. Thus, as previously mentioned, children in middle childhood can begin to develop perspectivetaking skills and incorporate others’ expectations into their self-descriptions affecting their overall self-concept (Berk, 2010). Early research by Phinney (1991) asserts that ethnic identity is crucial to the development of self-concept, self-esteem, and psychological functioning of individuals. Similarly, Helms (1990) explained that the denial of one’s ethnic heritage might lead to a negative self-concept. Further, ethnic and cultural identity can be seen as a form of social identity, which is also a key component of self-concept and self-esteem (Cross & Cross, 2008). To date, few researchers investigate the relationship between EID and selfconcept/self-esteem in preadolescent children (Phinney, 1991; Whaley, 1993). One study from Smith et al. (1999) found that one’s positive sense of ethnic identity along with high self-esteem, contributed to a youth’s perceptions of self, academic ability and future goal achievement. Early research in this area indicated that minority children displayed lower levels of self-concept in comparison to majority children (Osborne & LeGette, 1982); but these studies have been contested (Crain & Bracken, 1994; Spencer, 1985) such that the

61 self-concepts of students’ of color were higher than White students (Lay & Wakestein, 1985). In summary, researchers agree that self-concept and self-esteem are fluid and systemic—it is a product of the interaction between individuals as they age and their environments and life experiences (Cross & Markus, 1994; Harter, 1996). Ethnicity provides youths with different life experiences that shape their sense of self. Although minority children live in a society continually struggling with negative stereotypes and discrimination, there is evidence to suggest that they do not have lower or negative selfconcepts (Crocker & Major, 1989). Taken together, although the research has investigated the relationship among racial awareness, racial preference and self-concept, there is a lack consensus regarding the exact nature of these constructs. Academic Self-Efficacy. A major developmental task in middle childhood is mastering at art of school (García Coll & Marks, 2009). Understanding processes during these early years will help children prepare for future success in school and beyond. Some research has shown that early attitudes and achievement, as young as first grade, are related to educational outcomes later in high school and beyond (Huston & Ripke, 2006). However, achievement is not the only important concept that needs to be taken into consideration as research demonstrates that a child’s attitude towards learning and school is also important. Terms such as academic engagement (Alexander, Entwistle & Kabbani, 2001) and academic self-efficacy (Gore, 2006) are used to describe this concept. Long before a child gets a grade in the class, he or she will form attitudes about school, as well as his or her ability to do well at school. Martin (2002) suggested that a

62 student’s academic success is largely influenced by his or her own academic abilities (self-efficacy) and the amount of control that student has over his or her academic environment. Thus, the term academic self-efficacy (ASE) refers to the beliefs and perceptions one has regarding their abilities to do well in academic tasks. Previous research has linked ASE with academic performance, persistence and task motivations (Bembenutty, 2007; Chemers et al., 2001; Pajares, 1996; Schunk, 1991). Liew, McTigue, Barrois and Hughes (2008) studied kindergarteners and first graders and found that ASE was correlated to achievement and college students’ later success (Gore, 2006). This body of research suggests that it is not just an individual’s ability that contributes to their academic success but rather a combination of ability and their perception about their ability. For example, if a child feels as if he or she is good a science and has the potential to get an “A”, he or she will be more likely to show up and participate in class. Despite little previous research, recent studies found that higher EID is associated with higher ASE (Kerpelman, Erygit & Stephens, 2008; Smith, et. al., 1999). Chavous et al. (2003) found that students who had higher levels of ethnic group centrality, pride and favorable societal views of their ethnic group were more likely to have positive academic beliefs and greater attachment to school. Kerpelman and Mosher (2004) found that rural African American adolescents’ future orientation—including goals and aspirations—was positively correlated with their identity development and ASE. Further, Phinney et al. (2006) hypothesizes that having a secure EID not only buffers against stereotypes but also provides a sense of purpose that may led to academic engagement and personal motivation.

63 Conversely, Saunders, Davis, Williams and Williams (2004) found that although academic self-efficacy and school importance was related to higher intentions to complete high school, it was negatively associated with GPA. Their explanation for this finding was that minority students may not see their education as instrumental in the types of opportunities that are available to them and therefore distance themselves from school. Further confusing the link between EID and academic self-efficacy, Evans and Herr (1994) found no significant relationship among perceived discrimination, EID or self-efficacy and future career aspirations in adults. Evans and Herr stated that these findings may result from not associating one’s identity to career aspirations, and perhaps associating discrimination as a “way of life” thereby insinuating a form of learned helplessness. As such, there is no clear relationship established relating academic selfefficacy to EID in children. Summary Previous research with ethnic identity puts forth different dimensions based on theoretical models and historical time periods. However, many of these models have not been developed for and tested with children. This leads to a lack of clarity regarding the importance of EID in child development, particularly for diverse youth who experience discrimination early in life and must incorporate these events into their growing sense of self. Therefore, it is necessary to look at the four main components of ethnic identity— identification, exploration, resolution, and affirmation—in children in terms of how they identify and the relationship these constructs have in relation to their psychological wellbeing. Similarly, despite existing empirical evidence supporting the connection between EID and psychological well-being, little research has been devoted to understanding how

64 this develops prior to adolescence, particularly for children of color. Therefore, this study also sought to elucidate the relationship between EID and psychological well-being in middle childhood.

Chapter 3: Methods This study contains original data investigating children’s ethnic identity development and psychological well-being. This chapter provides an overview of the study’s methodology, including the preliminary study, the current study aims and hypotheses, participants, measures, and procedures. Preliminary Study Over the last three years, the CRECER research team has implemented the Kulula Project with ethnically diverse children age six to twelve. The Kulula program (Swahili word meaning to excel and achieve) seeks to enhance the ethnic identity of Black youths in the Black community. The program is grounded in the cultural values and beliefs of African culture using the principles of Kwanza. The primary goals of the project are: 1) increased leadership skills, 2) increased self-efficacy, 3) increased community involvement and volunteerism on behalf of children’s issues through civic involvement and advocacy, 4) improved decision-making, coping and problem-solving, and 5) increased connection to school, and 6) increased awareness of their African American heritage and the role it plays in their neighborhoods and overall community. Through the implementation of the Kulula program, a strong measurement program has been developed to test the efficacy of the program. In the past two years, the process of choosing and administering measures to ethically diverse children has been refined to assure valid data collection.

65

66 Current Study Participants An a priori power analysis was performed to determine the minimum estimated sample size required for a medium effect size (f2 = 0.15) for a regression analyses. Using GPower (GPower 3.1; Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009), a preliminary power analysis indicated that a sample size of 118 participants would be needed in order to detect medium effect sizes with the number of parameters and an alpha of .05. One hundred and fifty-two (N = 152) children between the ages of 8 to 12 were recruited and completed the questionnaires. Due to lack of endorsement of ethnic identity descriptions (e.g., answering “I do not know my ethnicity” or “I do not know what ethnicity is”) and then failure to answer any additional items over the course of three ethnic identity development measures, 11 participants were removed from the study. Further, three participants were identified as outliers with scores higher that 75% or lower than 25% of the bulk of the data using the outlier labeling rule with a g of 2.2, which has been suggested as the best way to estimate outliers (Hoaglin & Iglewicz, 1987). Therefore, the refined data set consisted of 138 (N = 138) children. There were a larger proportion of females (n = 99) to males (n =39) from multiple sites in the MiamiDade County area, including two elementary schools, one middle school, two summer camps, and three after school programs. The majority of the group was Black/African American (38.4%), or Hispanic/Latino (31.2%). The third largest self-identified group in the sample was kids who labeled themselves as “Mixed” (18%) where they felt like they belonged in two or more categories on the demographic sheet. Five other children identified as “other,” verbally describing themselves as another ethnic identity that was

67 not on the list (e.g., Persian, Pakistani, Welsch, etc.). Sixty-one percent off the sample was in elementary school, or grades 1-5, while the remaining children (39%) were in middle school, or grades 6-8). The majority of the sample was born in Florida (84%). Table 3.1 shows the frequencies and percentages of students by gender, age, ethnicity, school level, grade, nativity, and parent ethnicity. Table 3.1 Demographic sample of 138 children Characteristic n (%) M (SD) Gender Male 39(28.3) Female 99(71.7) Age 9.99 (1.40) 8 27(19.6) 9 29(21.0) 10 24(17.4) 11 34(24.6) 12 24(17.4) Grade 4.77 (1.48) 1 1(.7) 2 6(4.3) 3 22(15.9) 4 38(27.5) 5 17(12.3) 6 38(27.5) 7 14(10.1) 8 2(1.4) School Level Elementary (1-5) 84(60.9) Middle (6-8) 54(39.1) RE Asian 1(.7) B/AA 53(38.4) H/L 43(31.2) White 7(5.1) AI/NA 3(2.2) PI 1(.7) Mixed 25(18.1) Other 5(3.6) IDK 0

68 IDK_E Father RE Asian B/AA H/L White AI/NA PI Mixed Other IDK IDK_E Mother RE Asian B/AA H/L White AI/NA PI Mixed Other IDK IDK_E Nativity Born in Florida Outside Florida

0 1(.7) 56(40.6) 51(37.0) 7(5.1) 3(2.2) 1(.7) 6(4.3) 3(2.2) 8(5.8) 0 2(1.4) 51(37.0) 51(37.0) 7(5.1) 3(2.2) 1(.7) 6(4.3) 6(4.3) 9(6.5) 1(.7) 116(84.1) 22(15.9)

Missing Data. Since the administration of the measures was done in an interview format, the interviewer obtained an answer to every question item. Therefore, there was no “missing” data. However, given the complicated nature of asking children self-report questions as previously described, as well as questions about their ethnic identity development in general, the primary investigator felt that is was necessary to include an answer options of “I don’t know (IDK)” for all measures. These responses were originally coded as a “9” and then subsequently treated as missing data in SPSS in order to statistically account for the answer rather than inflate the scale scores. The IDK option presents both a theoretical and statistical conundrum on how to move forward with

69 missing values in data analysis. In modern missing data analysis literature, three main ways of dealing with missing data are presented: listwise deletion, mean substitution, or imputation (Enders, 2010; Graham, 2009; Schafer & Graham, 2002). Missing data was examined and analyses were conducted to look for patterns. The data in this study is not missing completely at random, or MCAR, as patterns of missing data are not consistent across the entire data. Across the participant pool, 42.8% of children said “IDK” to at least one item on the ethnic identity questionnaires. These participants (n = 59) chose to use an “I don’t know” at least once to answer EID items indicating that the question either was not relevant to them or they did not understand the meaning. Therefore, imputing values for these responses using the aforementioned missing data techniques is not warranted for this study. Therefore, for some of the later analyses, the data is separated into two groups: those who were able to answer the EID questions to completion (e.g., without choosing “IDK”) and those who elicited an “IDK” response at least once. They will be referred to as the EID Relevant Group and EID Non-Relevant Group. EID Relevant Group. Seventy-nine children were able to answer all EID questions to completion, indicating that these questionnaires were relevant to their identity. There were a larger proportion of females (n = 59) to males (n = 20) from second to eighth grade. 40% of this group identified as Black or African American (n = 32), 35% as Hispanic or Latino (n = 28), and 15% identified as “Mixed” (n = 12). Other races/ethnicities in this group included 4 White children, 1 Native American child, 1 Pacific Islander child, and 1 child who identified as “Other.” The average age increased (e.g., from 9 to 10) in comparison to the entire sample, as some of the youngest

70 participants demonstrated difficulty in answering the items to completion. Table 3.2 contains demographic data for this relevant group. Table 3.2 Demographics of EID Relevant Group Characteristic n (%) M (SD) Gender Male 20(25.3) Female 59(74.7) Age 8 9 10 11 12 Grade 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 School Level Elementary (1-5) Middle (6-8) RE B/AA H/L White AI/NA PI Mixed Other Father RE B/AA H/L White AI/NA PI Mixed Other IDK

10.24(1.36) 11(13.9) 15(19.0) 14(17.7) 22(27.8) 17(21.5) 5(1.43) 3(3.8) 9(11.4) 21(26.6) 11(13.9) 25(31.6) 8(10.1) 2(2.5) 44(55.7) 35(44.3) 32(40.5) 28(35.4) 4(5.1) 1(1.3) 1(1.3) 12(15.2) 1(1.3) 31(39.2) 31(39.2) 4(5.1) 7(5.1) 2(2.5) 1(1.3) 5(6.3) 1(1.3)

71 IDK_E Mother RE B/AA H/L White AI/NA PI Mixed Other IDK IDK_E Nativity Born in Florida Outside Florida

3(3.8) 31(39.2) 29(36.7) 6(7.6) 1(1.3) 1(1.3) 4(5.1) 2(2.5) 3(3.8) 1(1.3) 65(82.3) 14(17.7)

EID Non-Relevant Group. Fifty-nine children were not able to answer all EID questions to completion, indicating that there were some questions that were either not understood or not relevant to their identity. As with the relevant group, there were a larger proportion of females (n = 40) to males (n = 19) from first to seventh grade. 35.6% of this group identified as Black or African American (n = 21), 25.4% as Hispanic or Latino (n = 15), and 22% identified as “Mixed” (n = 13). Other races/ethnicities in this group included 3 White children, 1 Asian child, 2 Native American children, and 4 children who identified as “Other.” The average age (M = 9.66) is similar to the entire sample, as some of the youngest participants demonstrated difficulty in answering the items to completion. Table 3.3 contains demographic data for this non-relevant group. Table 3.3 Demographics of EID Non-Relevant Group Characteristic n (%) M (SD) Gender Male 19(32.2) Female 40(67.8) Age 9.66(1.39) 8 16(27.1) 9 14(23.7)

72 10 11 12 Grade 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 School Level Elementary (1-5) Middle (6-8) RE Asian B/AA H/L White AI/NA Mixed Other Father RE Asian B/AA H/L White AI/NA Mixed Other IDK Mother RE Asian B/AA H/L White AI/NA PI Mixed Other IDK Nativity Born in Florida Outside Florida

10(16.9) 12(20.3) 7(11.9) 4.5(1.51) 1(1.7) 3(5.1) 13(22.0) 17(28.8) 6(10.2) 13(22.0) 6(10.2) 40(67.8) 19(32.2) 1(1.7) 21(35.6) 15(25.4) 3(5.1) 2(3.4) 13(22.0) 4(6.8) 1(1.7) 25(42.4) 20(33.9) 3(5.1) 1(1.7) 1(1.7) 2(3.4) 5(8.5) 2(3.4) 20(33.9) 22(37.3) 1(1.7) 1(1.3) 4(5.1) 2(3.4) 4(6.8) 6(10.2) 51(86.4) 8(13.6)

73 Statistical analyses were conducted to look at demographic differences between the two groups. Because age is an ordinal variable in this study, Mann-Whitney U tests were performed. The EID relevant group had significantly higher mean ranks (76.44) than the EID non-relevant group (60.21) in age, U = 1782.5, p = .02, r = -.21, which according to Cohen (1988), is a small to medium effect size. A series of chi-square analyses were also conducted for group differences in gender, nativity, ethnicity, and school level and were all not significant. Inclusion Criteria. All participants read and spoke English fluently, although English did not have to be their dominant or first language. In addition, they were between the ages of 8 and 12 and lived in South Florida. Although middle childhood extends down towards 6 years of age, personal experiences administering these types of assessments with children (e.g., as part of the preliminary study) demonstrated that children younger than eight have difficulty with completing the measures, even with assistance. However, by age eight, children were able to complete measures with assistance as described in the procedures section. Exclusion Criteria. Participants with special needs, developmental disabilities, cognitive delays and/or emotional difficulties were excluded from the study. Since youths were recruited from places with well-established relationships, staff personnel, teachers, and mentors already had identified students that met exclusion criteria prior to the obtaining consent. Measures Measures were selected to explore each of the study aims: 1) to understand children’s awareness of racial and ethnic differences and instances of ethnic

74 discrimination; 2) to describe ethnic identity among children in middle childhood; and 3) to study the interrelationship between ethnic identity development and psychological well-being as measured by hope, self-concept, and academic self-efficacy in middle childhood. Demographic Questionnaire Background information was gathered using a brief demographic questionnaire, which asked participant questions regarding age, gender, grade in school, nativity, and self/parent(s) ethnicity. See Appendix A. Aim 1: Racial Awareness, Ethnic Awareness, and Ethnic Discrimination Racial Awareness. Information regarding racial identification and awareness were collected with the demographic questionnaire, which was the participants’ first chance to choose a racial or ethnic descriptor to identify what is their race (e.g., “Are you Black or African-American, Latino or Hispanic, etc.”). All of the 138 participants were able to identify with one of the racial awareness labels presented (e.g., Black or AfricanAmerican, Native American, White, etc.). Ethnic Awareness and Identification. In order to assess how children identify their ethnicity in middle childhood, participants were administered a variation of a measure proposed by Alarcón, Erkut, and García Coll (2000) called the Multidimensional Measure of Identity. The original measure contained 92 identity labels presented that pertain to gender, role and basic cultural markers (e.g., race, ethnicity, religion, etc.) in a checklist format. The authors stated that these labels could be modified/reduced/tailored to accommodate any population being studied (Akiba et al., 2005; Marks et al., 2007). For the purpose of this study, ethnic identity labels used were categorized into terms of

75 nationality (i.e., Cuban, Jamaican), hyphenated (i.e., Jamaican-American), panethnic (i.e., Latino, Asian), “American,” and racial (i.e., Black, White). The final list for this study contained 50 labels that pertain to ethnicity as described above, as well as gender, role (e.g., son, daughter, sister, etc.), and nativity. See Appendix B. For this measure, children were read out loud a list of words and had to inform the interviewer if the item is “about you or not.” The interviewer circled the items that the participant said “yes” and wrote in any additional items that child stated if the label was not on the list. After reading the entire list, the interviewer asked the child to rank-order the top four labels. To do this, the interviewer first asked the child, “if you had to pick one label that describes you the best, which one would it be?” and the interviewer recorded that answer. This process was repeated three more times until four answers were chosen. This measure was used in two previous studies with children, and authors provided instructions on how to use this measure, which were followed in the current study (Akiba et al., 2005; Marks et al., 2007). Of the original 152 participants, 11 children did not include any labels that related to ethnic identity. These five participants were removed from the study dataset, as they were also unable to answer any other questions related to their ethnic identity. This measure procures two scores from its questions. The first variable is a priority score, which captures whether or not the child included at least one ethnic identity label in their top 4. The second variable produced is the prevalence score, which captures the total amount of ethnic identity labels used to create their top 4 labels. This score ranges from 0-4.

76 Perceived Discrimination. The Perceptions of Racism in Children and Youth (PRaCY – Younger; Pachter et al., 2010) is a 10-item self-report questionnaire that assesses the perceptions of racism and discrimination in youth between the ages of 7 and 13. The PRaCY uses a “yes/no” scale to ask youths questions regarding situations in which they think they have been discriminated against because of their skin color, language, accent, and/or culture/country of origin. Examples of questions are, “Have you ever been watched closely or followed around by a security guard or store clerk at a store in the mall?” and “Have you ever got treated badly or unfairly by a teacher?” The PRaCY has been shown to have strong internal consistency reliability (alpha = 0.78) and is reported to be a reliable and valid instrument to use with children from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds (Pachter et al., 2010). For this sample, the overall PRaCY had high reliability, Chronbach’s α =.74. However, this questionnaire posed challenges during the administration. The child was read aloud the directions that included them to consider whether the following scenarios occurred because of their race, ethnicity, or culture of origin. After the first few items (e.g., “Have you even been watched closely or followed in a mall or store?”), one question asks, “Have you ever been called a rude or insulting name?” Almost every child said, “yes” to this question; when asked a follow up question linking the inquiry to perceived discrimination (e.g., “Was this because of your race, ethnicity, or culture of origin?), many of the children changed their original answer to “no” stating that they forgot the directions. Therefore, despite the high reliability for this measure, the response pattern indicated to the primary investigator that the entire PRaCY scale might not be valid as a summative score of the 10 items. However, there are two items on assessment

77 tool that specifically use the words “race,” “ethnicity,” and “culture or origin” in the questions (question 8 and 10; see Appendix C). As such, only these two questions will be used for further analysis to create a dichotomous variable of children who have instances of perceived discrimination and those who have not. See Appendix C. Aim 2: Ethnic Identity A measure of ethnic identity is most useful when it accommodates a multitude of identity dimensions rather than a single construct (Akiba et al., 2004). Therefore, participants were administered three different measures of the ethnic identity in order to assess the four proposed dimensions of ethnic identity in children: identification (as described above in the Ethnic Identification measure), exploration, resolution/commitment, and affirmation. Given the importance related to the “I don’t know” answers, table 3.4 provides means, frequencies and distribution of missing data across the EID items. Table 3.4 Frequencies of Missing Values by Subscale and Total Scores Measure Subscale Questions Total # Missing Possible (%) EIS Exploration 2, 4, 5, 6, 6 30 (20.4) 8, 15

EIS

Resolution

3, 12, 14, 17

4

15 (10.2)

EIS

Affirmation

1, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 16

7

29 (19.7)

Range of IDKs 0 = 117 1=19 2=6 3=3 4=2 0 = 132 1 = 11 2=2 3=1 4=1 0 = 118 1 = 21 2=6 3=1 4=1

78 EIS

Total

1-17

17

52 (35.4)

MEIM-R

Exploration

1, 4, 5

3

18 (12.2)

MEIM-R

Commitment

2, 3, 6

3

25 (17.0)

MEIM-R

Total

1-6

6

37 (25.2)

0 = 95 1 = 26 2 = 11 3=8 4=4 5=1 6=1 11 = 1 0 = 129 1 = 16 2=2 0 = 122 1 = 21 2=4 0 = 110 1 = 28 2=7 3=1 4 =1

As previously mentioned, the missing data was felt to be meaningful given the connection to the answer of “I don’t know” as opposed to a forced choice. Therefore, the data was separated into two aforementioned groups for selected analyses: EID relevant and EID non-relevant based on whether they were able to answer all EID questions to completion. Ethnic Identity Scale. The components of exploration, resolution and affirmation in ethnic identity were assessed with the Ethnic Identity Scale (EIS; Umaña-Taylor et al., 2004). The EIS is a 17-item measure that has three subscales [i.e., explorations (7-items), resolution (4-items), and affirmation (6-items)]. Responses are recorded on a 4-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (does not describe me at all) to 4 (describes me very well). Sample items include “I have attended events that have helped me learn more about my ethnicity” (exploration), “I have a clear sense of what my ethnicity means to me” (resolution), and “I wish I were of a different ethnicity” (affirmation, reverse

79 scored). Responses were coded so that higher scores represent greater exploration, resolution or affirmation. The initial scale development study demonstrated acceptable fit indices for the correlated three-factor structure (GFI = .86, CFI = .91, RMSEA = .09). These subscales have obtained moderately strong coefficient alphas ranging from .82 to .91 for exploration, from .76 to .92 for resolution, and from .34 to .86 for affirmation (Umaña-Taylor et al., 2004; Umaña-Taylor et al., 2008; Yoon, 2011). The EIS subscales have been reported to be consistent with Erikson’s theory and allow for valence distinction in the affirmation scale (Yoon, 2011). In addition, the EIS allows for both categorical and dimensional approaches to understanding ethnic identity development, with the exception of using the scale to create 8 types (2 x 2 x 2) of high versus low, as research does not support this factor structure (Yoon, 2011). For this data, the EIS three subscales here highly reliable, but differentially skewed. The exploration subscale consisted of 7 items (α = .71; skewedness = -0.31), the resolution subscale consisted of 4 items (α = .84, skewedness = -1.35), and the affirmation subscale consisted of 6 items (α = .71, skewedness = -4.50). Cronbach’s alpha for the entire measure was .74. Further analyses indicated that removal of certain questions would improve reliability (e.g., item 1 from the affirmation subscale and item 2 from the EIS exploration subscale). The reliability analysis also indicated that removal of the affirmation scale in total would increase reliability. Given the difficult nature of assessing EID in children, and the notion that one has to move through all four stages of ethnic identity development in order to have an “achieved identity,” the factor structure of each subscale must be analyzed in comparison

80 to original scale development. For ease of reference, item-level descriptives, frequencies, range, skewedness, kurtosis, and reliability for the EIS are in table 3.5. Table 3.5 EIS Item Breakdown Variable M(SD) N(Missing) Range Skd Kur Reliability EIS1_Aff 3.74(.65) 132(6) 1-4 -2.92* 8.58 EIS2_Exp 3.38(1.00) 128(10) 1-4 -1.54* 1.06 EIS3_Res 3.44(.76) 133(5) 1-4 -1.03* -.13 EIS4_Exp 3.47(.86) 136(2) 1-4 -1.43* .88 EIS5_Exp 2.55(1.04) 134(4) 1-4 0.43 -1.17 EIS6_Exp 2.47(1.14) 133(5) 1-4 .163 -1.39 EIS7_Aff 3.89(.50) 132(6) 1-4 -5.12* 26.14 EIS8_Exp 2.57(1.16) 129(9) 1-4 -0.90 -1.44 EIS9_Aff 3.85(.54) 137(1) 1-4 -4.07* 17.09 EIS10_Aff 3.93(.39) 138(0) 1-4 -5.73* 33.49 EIS11_Exp 2.73(1.08) 135(3) 1-4 -.164 -1.28 EIS12_Res 3.54(.63) 136(2) 2-4 -1.58* 1.30 EIS13_Aff 3.73(.68) 128(10) 1-4 -2.74* 7.10 EIS14_Res 3.54(.75) 136(2) 1-4 -1.39* .63 EIS15_Exp 2.74(1.10) 133(5) 1-4 -.28 -1.26 EIS16_Aff 3.96(.32) 135(3) 1-4 -7.89* 65.11 EIS17_Res 3.52(.73) 133(5) 1-4 -1.29* .53 EIS_Aff_Tot 23.25(1.84) 118(20) 10-24 -4.50* 12.54 α =.713** EIS_Exp_Tot 20.17(4.38) 112(26) 7-28 -.31 -.21 α =.71*** EIS_Res_Tot 14.19(2.33) 126(12) 8-16 -1.35* .72 α =.836 EIS_Tot_Sum 54.55(5.30) 94(44) 40-64 -.32 -.27 α =.744**** *Indicates problematic skewedness **If item 1 deleted, alpha would increase to .753 *** If item 2 deleted, alpha would increase to .753 **** Items that could be removed to increase alpha – 1a(.749), 13a(.758), 2e(.759) Validity of EIS Scale. Principal axis factor analysis with varimax rotation was conducted to assess the underlying structure for the 17 items of the EIS. The assumption of independent sampling was met, as where the assumptions of normality, linear relationships between pairs of variables, and the variables’ being correlated at a moderate level. Three factors were requested, based on the fact that the items were designed to index three constructs: affirmation, exploration, and commitment. After rotation, the first

81 factor accounted for 15.17% of the variance, the second factor accounted for 12.63%, and the third factor accounted for 8.97%. Table 3.6 displays the items and factor loadings for the rotated factors, with loadings less that .40 omitted to improve clarity. Table 3.6 Factor Loadings for the Rotated Factors of EIS Item EIS14_Res: I know what being ____ means to me. EIS12_Res: I understand how I feel about being ______. EIS3_Res: I am clear about what being ___means to me. EIS17_Res: I have a clear sense about what being ___ means to me. EIS4_Exp: I have experienced things that reflect being ___, such a eating food, listening to music, and watching movies. EIS15_Exp: I have participated in activities that have taught me about being ______. EIS8_Exp: I have participated in activities that have exposed me to being _______. EIS5_Exp: I have attended events that have helped me learn more about being _____. EIS6_Exp: I have read books/mag/newsp or other materials that have taught me about being ____. EIS11_Exp: I have learned about being ___ by doing thing such as reading, searching the internet, or keeping up with current events. EIS1_Aff: My feelings about being ___ are mostly negative. EIS7_Aff: I feel negatively about being _____. EIS16_Aff: I dislike being ____. EIS10_Aff: I am not happy with being ____. EIS9_Aff: I wish I were different from

1

Factor Loading 2

3

Communality

.93

.89

.73

.56

.68

.51

.64

.44

--

--

--

.24

.80

.68

.71

.56

.55

.41

.51

.40

.47

.40

--

--

--

.20

--

--

--

.16

.93

.53

.58

.47

**

.33

82 being ____. EIS13_Aff: If I could choose, I would prefer to be different that _____. EIS2_Exp: I have not participated in any activities that would teach me -about being _____. Eigen values 2.58 % of variance 15.17 -- Factor did not load **Rotated Factor Loading < .40 are omitted.

**

.23

--

--

.19

2.15 12.62

1.53 8.97

The first factor, which seems to index resolution, had strong loadings on the four items (e.g., EIS14, EIS12, EIS3 and EIS17). All items index high resolution. The second factor, which was intended to index exploration, had high loadings from five of the seven items (EIS15, EIS8, EIS5, EIS6, and EIS11). The third factor, which was intended to index affirmation, had high loadings from two out of six items (EIS16 and EIS10). Four items (EIS4, EIS1, EIS7, and EIS2) did not load on any of the factors and one item (EIS9) had a factor loading lower than .40 and was omitted. Further, EIS13 and EIS2 were particularly problematic, as they were also the questions that had the highest rates of “I don’t know” answers (N = 10) across the entire measure. A second principal factor analysis was conducted using mean substitution instead of listwise deletion. If mean substitution were used, some of the non-loading factors would load (e.g., EIS4 on Exploration (.40) and EIS13 and EIS 19 would load on the Affirmation factor). Item 2, item 7 and item 1 would not load on any designated factor. Based on these findings, items 1, 2, 4, and 7 from the EIS scale could be dropped; or affirmation and resolution subscales could be dropped from the analysis (with items 2 and 4 from exploration). Taken together, the three-factor structure of the EIS does not hold up, and the skewedness suggest removing the affirmation and resolution items from further analyses as these scales are not normally distributed and present a statistical

83 problem. In addition, item 2, which is negatively worded, and item 4 were dropped from the measure, even though further analyses of these items suggest that these items were strongly endorsed. Therefore, for this sample the 17-item questionnaire demonstrated poor fit indices for the correlated three-factor structure (TLI = .80, CFI = .83, RMSEA = .09, SRMR = .11). These results suggest that using a summative score across all EIS items is not appropriate for this sample, and that subscale scores need to be interpreted with caution, which will be discussed in greater detail in chapter 4 (see Appendix E). Exploration. Of the three subscales, the exploration subscale was the only normally distributed variable, (M = 20.17, SD = 4.38, skewness = -.31, kurtosis = -.21). This 7-item subscale had a Cronbach’s alpha of .71. However, based on both the reliability and factor analyses, two items were dropped. Therefore, for the purposes of this study the exploration subscale consists of 5 items (items 5, 6, 8, 11, 15) and has a Cronbach’s alpha of .76, which suggests high reliability. Resolution. For this study, the resolution scale (M = 14.19, SD = 2.33) was negatively skewed, -1.35, which indicated that participants generally endorsed stronger positive feelings about their commitment to their ethnic identity (e.g., “I have a clear sense of what being _____ means to me” and “I understand how I feel about being _____”). Kurtosis was .72. 67.4% of participants sampled scored at or above a 14 on a range of 8-16. The resolution scale also had the highest reliability score, α =.84 across the three subscales. While these scores present a statistical problem and markedly skew the data, they suggest that children generally had little difficulty answering these questions and by in large felt considerably strong about their commitment to their ethnic identity. Further item level analysis of the Resolution items are in Table 3.7.

84

Table 3.7 Item Level Breakdown for Resolution Subscale Variable Response 3 – I am clear about what being _____ Does not describe me at all means to me. Describes me a little Describes me well Describes me very well I don’t know 12 – I understand how I feel about Does not describe me at all being _____. Describes me a little Describes me well Describes me very well I don’t know 14 – I know what being _____ means Does not describe me at all to me. Describes me a little Describes me well Describes me very well I don’t know 17 – I have a clear sense of what being Does not describe me at all ____ means to me. Describes me a little Describes me well Describes me very well I don’t know *Negatively skewed

Freq(%) 1(.7) 19(13.8) 34(24.6) 79(57.2) 5(3.6) 0 11(8.0) 26(18.8) 99(71.7) 2(1.4) 1(.7) 18(13.0) 23(16.7) 94(68.1) 2(1.4) 1(.7) 16(11.6) 29(21.0) 87(63.0) 5(3.6)

Skd -2.92*

-1.58*

-1.39*

-1.29*

Affirmation. The Affirmation subscale had a mean of 23.25 and a standard deviation of 1.84. It was also strongly negatively skewed, -4.50, which presents a statistical problem with a high reliability score of .71. All items on this scale are negatively worded, and are therefore reversed coded so that higher scores indicated a greater positive feeling towards their ethnic identity (e.g., “Feeling negative about being _____ does not describe me at all.”). Closer look at item-level details (see table 3.8) suggests that not only are kids able to answer these questions, but they feel very strongly connected to their ethnic identity as evidence by the significantly negatively skewed scores and kurtosis.

85

Table 3.8 Item Level Breakdown for Affirmation Subscale Variable Response 1 – My feelings about being ____ are Does not describe me at all mostly negative. Describes me a little Describes me well Describes me very well I don’t know 7 – I feel negatively about being Does not describe me at all _____. Describes me a little Describes me well Describes me very well I don’t know 9 – I wish I were different from being Does not describe me at all ______. Describes me a little Describes me well Describes me very well I don’t know 10 – I am not happy with being ___. Does not describe me at all Describes me a little Describes me well Describes me very well I don’t know 13 – If I could choose, I would prefer Does not describe me at all to be different than _______. Describes me a little Describes me well Describes me very well I don’t know 16 – I dislike being ___________. Does not describe me at all Describes me a little Describes me well Describes me very well I don’t know

Freq(%) 109(79.0) 16(11.6) 3(2.2) 4(2.9) 6(4.3) 6(4.3) 125(90.6) 3(2.2) 1(.7) 3(2.2) 124(89.9) 8(5.8) 2(1.4) 3(2.2) 1(.7) 133(96.4) 1(.7) 3(2.2) 1(.7) 0(0) 106(76.8) 13(9.4) 5(3.6) 4(2.9) 10(7.2) 132(95.7) 1(.7) 1(.7) 1(.7) 3(2.2)

Skd -1.03*

-5.12*

-4.07*

-5.73*

-2.74*

-7.89*

Based on these findings, the EIS total sum score will not be used. The Affirmation and Resolution subscales will be explored only through descriptive analyses. The new 5-item Exploration subscale will be used in hypothesis testing only. When looking at the within the IDK relevant group of 79 participants, the EIS structure was similar to the large sample descriptions above. The Affirmation subscale

86 (M = 26.19, SD = 1.45) was still negatively skewed although much lower than the total sample (-.86). The Resolution subscale scale (M = 14.37, SD = 2.23) was also negatively skewed (-1.45) in comparison to the Exploration subscale (M = 17.82, SD = 3.69, skewness = -.34). Chronbach alphas for the Affirmation, Exploration, and Resolution subscales in the relevant group were .42 and .72, and .85, respectively. Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure - Revised. The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure-Revised (MEIM-R; Phinney & Ong, 2007) is a revised version of the MEIM (Phinney, 1992) and has a total of six items grouped into two subscales: exploration (3items) and commitment (3-items). The MEIM-R was created in response to critiques regarding the 3-factor EIS structure, and particularly the affirmation scale, such that the two subscales have been demonstrated to be equivalent to the EIS exploration and resolution subscales, respectively (Yoon, 2011). Items are rated on a five point Likerttype scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), with higher scores representing greater exploration or commitment. According to the original scale development, the MEIM-R demonstrated adequate fit indices (CFI = .98, SRMR = .05, RMSEA = .04). The two subscales were separate but highly correlated to each other (r = .74). Phinney and Ong recommend that the MEIM-R be used as both a categorical and continuous measure of ethnic identity. Cronbach’s alphas were .76 for exploration, .78 for commitment, and .81 for the combined six-item scale (Phinney & Ong, 2007). For this study, the MEIM-R Likert scale was changed from 1-5 to 1-4 based on previous administration and adaptation of this measure from the CRECER research team. Also, the wording of the Likert values was changed from “strongly disagree” to “not at all,” “disagree” to “not really,” “agree” to “a little,” and “strongly agree” to “a lot.” The

87 “neither agree nor disagree” was dropped in the scale. For this data, the MEIM-R subscales had moderate-to-poor reliability, and were also differentially skewed. The exploration subscale consisted of 3 items (α = .64; skewedness = -.57) and the resolution subscale consisted of 3 items (α = .49, skewedness = -1.30). Cronbach’s alpha for the entire measure was .60. In this sample, the 6-item questionnaire demonstrated poor fit indices for the correlated two-factor structure (TLI = .86, CFI = .02, RMSEA = .09, SRMR = .07). For ease of reference, item-level descriptives, frequencies, range, skewedness, kurtosis, and reliability for the MEIM-R are in table 3.9. As with the EIS, the commitment subscale, which is reported to be identical to the resolution subscale from the EIS (Yoon, 2011), was also negatively skewed indicating that participants generally endorsed stronger positive feelings about their commitment to their ethnic identity. Table 3.9 MEIM-R Item Breakdown for the Total Sample Variable M(SD) N(Missing) Range Skewness MEIM 1_Ex 2.83(.93) 133(5) 1-4 -.288 MEIM 2_Co 3.45(.81) 126(12) 1-4 -1.38* MEIM 3_Co 3.60(.71) 134(4) 1-4 -1.85* MEIM 4_Ex 3.13(.83) 132(6) 1-4 -.65 MEIM 5_Ex 2.68(1.05) 134(4) 1-4 -.25 MEIM 6_Co 3.47(.84) 131(7) 1-4 -1.40* MEIM_Ex_Tot 8.77(2.0) 124(14) 3-12 -.57 MEIM_Co_Tot 10.65(1.5) 117(21) 6-12 -1.30* MEIM_Total 19.50(2.83) 106(32) 12-24 -.51 *Indicates problematic skewness **Item 3 not corr (.05); alpha would increase to .632 if deleted

Kurtosis -.82 1.12 3.10 -.26 -1.11 .77 1.01 -.14 -.23

Reliability

α =.636 α =.485** α =.603

Validity of MEIM-R. Principal axis factor analysis with varimax rotation was conducted to assess the underlying structure for the 6 items of the MEIM-R. The assumption of independent sampling was met, as where the assumptions of normality,

88 linear relationships between pairs of variables, and the variables’ being correlated at a moderate level. Two factors were requested, based on the fact that the items were designed to index two constructs: exploration and commitment. After rotation, the first factor accounted for 20.1% of the variance and the second factor accounted for 16.7%. Table 3.10 displays the items and factor loadings for the rotated factors, with loadings less that .40 omitted to improve clarity. Table 3.10 Factor Loadings for the Rotated Factors for MEIM-R Factor Loading 1 2

Item MEIM 5_Ex: I have often talked to other people in order to learn more about being _____. MEIM4_Ex: I have often done things that will help me understand being _____ better. MEIM1_Ex: I have spent time trying to find out more about being _____, such as its history traditions and customs MEIM3_Co: I understand pretty well what being _____ means to me. MIEM6_Co: I feel a strong attachment toward my ____ group. MEIM2_Co: I have a strong sense of belonging to my own _____ group. Eigen values % of variance **Rotated Factor Loading < .40 are omitted.

.64

**

Communality .26

.63

.21

.53

.19

**

.10

1.21 20.11

.69

.26

.66

.23

1.00 16.70

The first factor, which seems to index exploration, had strong loadings on the all three items (e.g., MEIM5, MIEM4, and MEIM1). All items index high exploration. The second factor, which was intended to index commitment, had high loadings from two items (MEIM6 and MEIM2). Commitment item 3 did not load on to the subscale. A second principal factor analysis was conducted using mean substitution instead of listwise deletion. No significant differences were found. These results also suggest that

89 using a summative score across all MEIM-R items is not appropriate for this sample, and that subscale scores need to be interpreted with caution. Based on these findings, the commitment subscale will be dropped from the hypothesis testing and will only be explored descriptively. The exploration subscale (M = 8.77, SD = 2.0, skewdness = -.57, kurtosis = -.14) was moderately reliable (α = .64) across the three items. The commitment scale was strongly negatively skewed indicating that participants felt strongly committed to their ethnic identity in comparison to the exploration items (see table 3.11). Table 3.11 Item-level descriptions for the Commitment Scale on the MEIM-R Item Response 2 – I have a strong sense of belonging to my own Not at all ____ group Not really A little A lot I don’t know 3 – I understand pretty well what being _______ Not at all means to me. Not really A little A lot I don’t know 6 – I feel a strong attachment toward my _______ Not at all group. Not really A little A lot I don’t know

Frequency(%) 4(2.9) 13(9.4) 31(22.5) 78(56.5) 12(8.7) 3(2.2) 8(5.8) 29(21.0) 94(68.1) 4(2.9) 4(2.9) 18(13.0) 21(15.2) 88(63.8) 7(5.1)

The skewdness suggests removing the commitment subscale from further analysis, as it is not normally distributed and present a problem statistically. Of note, 70% of participants scored at or above 10 on a range of 6-12 of this scale. When looking at the within the IDK relevant group of 79 participants, the MEIMR structure was similar to the large sample descriptions above. The Commitment scale (M = 10.80, SD = 1.42) markedly negatively skewed (-1.35) in comparison to the

90 Exploration subscale (M = 8.73, SD = 2.01, skewness = -.62). Chronbach alphas for the Exploration and Commitment subscales in the relevant group were .59 and .55, respectively. See Appendix D. Aim 3: Psychological Well-Being. Hope. The Children’s Hope Scale (Snyder et al., 1997) is a 6-item self-report questionnaire formatted in a 6-point Likert scale ranging from “none of the time” to “all of the time.” The scale scores range from 6 to 36, where a score of 29 or higher indicates higher levels of hope and a score of 21 or below indicates low hope. Total level of hope is a sum of both scales. The Children’s Hope Scale has demonstrated satisfactory reliability and validity among 8-16 year old populations. Test-retest over a one-month period was found to be significant r (359) = .71, p < .001 and r (89) = .73, p < .001 (Snyder et al., 1997). The Scale validation study reported Chronbach’s alphas ranging from .72 to .86, with a median alpha of .77. For this study, the CHS was highly reliable (α = .76). For the EID relevant group, the CHS also had high reliability (α = .75). See Appendix F. Self-Concept/Self-Esteem. Self-concept/self-esteem was measured with the Revised Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (R-RSES, Simmons, Rosenberg, & Rosenberg, 1973). The R-RSES is a 6-item Likert type scale that measures global self-concept. The revised scale is a child-friendly version of the popularly used original 10-item scale (McCreary et al., 1996; Rosenberg, 1965). The 6-item revised scale is intended for use with children under 11 years old but is also suitable for those up till age 13 (Butler & Gasson, 2005). Responses range on a 4-point scale from None of the Time (0) to All of the Time (3). The scale ranges from 0-18, with 18 representing a high degree of self-

91 esteem/self-concept. The original RSES has been used in research with ethnically diverse groups and has a test-retest reliability of .85. The RSES has adequate internal consistency (Chronbach’s alpha = 0.78) when used with ethnic and culturally diverse adolescents (McCreary et al., 1996). In addition, the RSES is one of the most widely used measures of global self-esteem and self-concept (Byrne, 1996), particularly for its simplicity, high face validity and succinctness. For this data, the R-RSES had adequate reliability (α = .69) and negatively skewed at -1.35. Further analyses on reliability indicated that Cronbach’s alpha would improve if item 1 (e.g., “Do you think you are good, bad, or both about the same”) were deleted (from .69 to .71). Similar findings were found for the EID relevant group with a Chronbach’s alpha of .69 that would improve to .74 if item 1 were deleted. The RRSES was also negatively skewed for this small group (skewness = -1.75, kurtosis = 4.16). See Appendix G. Academic Self-Efficacy. Academic Self-Efficacy was measured with the SelfEfficacy Scale – Student Version (SES-SV; Fall and McLeod, 2001). The SES-SV was developed as an early screening tool to identify students at-risk for low self-efficacy. The SES-SV is a nine-item scale that measures efficacious behaviors and beliefs (e.g. “When teachers give me new assignments or projects, I believe I can do them”) on a four-point Likert scale, which ranges from “Like me” to “Not like me.” Fall and McLeod (2001) report reliability coefficients of .64. For this data, the SES-SV had poor reliability (α = .50) in the entire sample as well as in the EID relevant group. See Appendix H.

92

Table 3.12 Description of Measures Aim Measure Publication

Construct

Scale

Psychometrics Previous Current None reported N/A – used in two studies with diverse children (Akiba et al., 2005; Marks et al., 2007) Reliability: α =.74 internal consistency = .78

1, 2

Multidimen sional Measure of Identity

Alarcón, Ethnic Erkut, and Identificat García Coll ion (2000)

N/A

1

Perceptions of Racism in Children and Youth (PRaCY) – Younger Short Form Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure Revised (MEIM-R)

Pachter et al., (2010)

10 items; “yes/no”

Phinney & Ethnic Ong (2007) Identity (two subscales, can be used as both a categorica l and continuou s measure)

6 items; 5-pt Likert ranging from 1-5

Cronbach’s alphas = .76 for exploration, .78 for commitment, and .81 for the combined sixitem scale

Ethnic Identity Scale (EIS)

UmañaTaylor et al. (2004)

17 items; 4-pt Likert ranging from 1-4

Coefficient alphas ranging from .82 to .91 for exploration, from .76-.92 for resolution, and from .34 to .86 for affirmation

2

2

Perceived Discrimin ation

Ethnic Identity (3 subscales, intended for use with subscales only)

α = .64 for explora tion, .49 for commit ment, and .60 for the combin ed sixitem scale α = .71 for explora tion, .83 for resoluti on, .71 for affirmat ion, and .74 for

93

3

Children’s Hope Scale (CHS)

Snyder et al. (1997)

WellBeing – Hope (2 subscales)

6 items; 6-pt Likert ranging from 1-6: total range = 6 to 36

3

RevisedRosenberg SelfEsteem Scale (RRSES)

Simmons, Rosenberg, & Rosenberg (1973)

WellBeing – SelfConcept

3

SelfEfficacy Scale – Student Version (SES-SV)

Fall and McLeod (2001)

WellBeing – Academic SelfEfficacy

6 items; 4-pt Likert (Strongly agree to Strongly disagree) range 018 9 items; 4-pt Likert scale, which ranges from “Like me” to “Not like me.”

the 17 items α = .76

Reliability: internal consistency = .77, temporal stability = .71, test-retest = .71; Validity: Cronbach’s alphas ranging from .72 to .86; satisfactory reliability and validity Reliability: α = .69 internal consistency = .78; test-retest = .85

Reliability coefficients = .64.

α =.50

Procedure Recruitment. The University of Miami’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved this study in April 2012 (See Appendix J). After approval, the principal investigator contacted elementary and middle school principals, leaders, administrators

94 and community members in an effort to recruit participants for this study. In order to conduct recruitment in the public schools, this study also went through the IRB process for Miami Dade County Public Schools, where it was approved in January of 2013 (See Appendix K). In addition to the public schools, children were recruited from local organizations with already well-established partnerships such as the Thelma Gibson Health Initiative, Project Hope, Elizabeth Virrick Park, and Urgent Inc. In total, participants were recruited from 8 different sites across the Miami-Dade County area. Emails and flyers were sent to community partners in an effort to recruit additional participants. Recruitment strategies involved meeting with principals, parent advisory committees, youth organizational leaders and school personnel. Recruitment for this study was on-going and lasted for approximately one year. Screening. After consent forms were obtained from parents and caregivers, the principal investigator and/or research assistant met with the various community agencies and schools to obtain the parent consent forms and screened the youths for inclusion/exclusion criteria. Interviews were conducted promptly after screening processes were complete. Data Collection. After participants were screened and parental/guardian consent (See Appendix L) and child assent (See Appendix M) was obtained, all measures were administered in a semi-structured, one-to-one interview format. Although the principal investigator conducted most of the interviews, trained research assistants also conducted some interviews. There were seven of these research assistants, and they were recruited through already established partnerships (e.g., undergraduate and graduate students in the School of Education). The research assistants were trained on the study materials in a

95 two-hour training given by the principal investigator. Researchers often assumed that obtaining reliable self-report data from preadolescents is limited at best (Harter, 1996). This study carefully took developmental and culturally sensitive factors into consideration in the administration of assessments in order to obtain reliable and valid data, including interviews and self-report instruments and will be described below. Interviews are critical for obtaining information in a way that “appreciates children’s unique perspectives” while establishing rapport (La Greca, 1990, p. 4). In order to structure these interviews in a developmental and culturally sensitive way, a semistructured style allow children to ask questions if they do not understand what is being asked. The method also allows for specific use of culturally sensitive language (i.e. “How has your Jamaican-American identity…” or “Being Latino means…”). Self-report measures are psychometrically sound ways to assess aspects of children’s internal psychological states and self-perceptions (La Greca, 1990). Studies demonstrate that children as young as seven can provide accurate and reliable reports when questions were phrased in a manner that children could understand as well as a minimization of verbal information (La Greca, 1990). Whether answering questions in an interview, or circling responses on paper, the accuracy of measurement with children largely depends on cognitive and social cognitive skills (Stone & Lemanek, 1990). Hence, as demonstrated in the previous chapters, children in middle childhood have the cognitive capabilities to produce accurate responses in terms of identity and social- and self-evaluations (Stone & Lemanek, 1990). Interviews were conducted at the sites where the children were recruited. For example, if the child was recruited from an after-care site, the interview was conducted at

96 that site during after school hours. Similarly, if the interviewee was recruited from a school, the interview was conducted at that school either during a “free period,” a time designated by the school, or after school. In the rare instance that these procedures described above could not be met, the principal investigator met the child at their home or another location agreed upon with the parent/caregiver. During the interview, all measures were read aloud, as this method facilitated the optimal understanding of language suitable to children’s vocabulary and reading abilities (Stone & Lemanek, 1990). Interviewees were informed that their participation in the study is voluntary, and that they could withdraw from the study at any time. In order to protect the identity of participants, participants were assigned a numerical code and no names were used in any data collection materials other than the locked consent/assent forms and the original study list sheet. Upon starting the interview, all participants were read the assent form and asked for their participation. Then, the child was given a sticker chart that had colorful boxes corresponding to the colors of the measures (i.e. blue box for the MEIM-R) (See Appendix I). The participants were explained that when they complete a measure, they would place a sticker in that box to signify the completion of that measure. They were also explained that they got to keep this sticker chart upon finishing the interview. This tool was used as a motivational tracker, as well as a rapport building exercise with the child. Establishing good rapport and engagement prior to and throughout assessments is important with children, particularly with children of different ethnic minority backgrounds and backgrounds that differ from the interviewer (Sattler, 2002). Upon receiving the chart and writing his or her name, the child immediately got to put a sticker

97 in one of the boxes in an effort to help them understand the usage of the chart, as well as to elicit engagement and cooperation in the process. An example of this chart can be seen in Appendix J. In addition, testing procedures were flexible, allowing for breaks when needed, and encouragement with verbal praise. After the sticker chart and explanation, demographic data (e.g., age, gender, ethnicity, race, grade, etc.) were obtained from the Demographics Questionnaire located in the front of each packet of questionnaires. All instructions on the questionnaires were read out load to the children and the principal investigator or research assistant was available to answer all questions throughout testing. The remainder of the questionnaires were administered in this order: Multidimensional Measure of Identity, Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure - Revised, Ethnic Identity Scale, Perceptions of Racism in Children and Youth (PRaCY) – Younger Short Form, Children’s Hope Scale, RevisedRosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, and Self-Efficacy Scale – Student Version. The duration of the interview lasted approximately 20-30 minutes. All questionnaires were coded prior to distribution to maintain confidentiality. Upon completion of all measures or withdrawal from the study, the participant received a small toy or plastic bracelet as a “thank you” for participation. In addition, the child’s study number was entered in a raffle and two families received a gift certificate to a local grocery store in their respective community.

Chapter 4: Results This chapter is devoted to providing results for each of the study’s aims. Variables chosen for this study were: ethnic awareness, ethnic discrimination, ethnic identity, psychological well-being and coping behaviors. Demographic variables are also included in the analysis. After collecting all assessment materials, data was analyzed in two steps in relation to the four main research questions: preliminary analyses and hypothesis-testing analyses. Data analyses were conducted using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 19. The goals and hypotheses to be tested in the current study are presented in Table 4.1 below. Table 4.1 Study Aims and Hypotheses Aim 1 To document children’s awareness of racial and ethnic differences and instances of ethnic discrimination during middle childhood. RQ 1 Are children able to identify their ethnicity using ethnic labels? RQ 2 Are children aware of instances of ethnic discrimination? Aim 2 To document ethnic identity among children in middle childhood in terms of the components of ethnic identification, exploration, resolution and affirmation. RQ 1 Are children are aware of their ethnic identity and can they identify themselves as part of a group? RQ 2 Are children able to identify in the different stages of ethnic identity development? Aim 3 To examine the relationships between EID and EID components and psychological well-being as measured by self-concept/selfesteem, hope, and academic self-efficacy in middle childhood. RQ 1 Will children who have a strong sense of their EID exhibit a higher sense of psychological well-being?

Preliminary Analysis Preliminary analyses were conducted to: a) examine demographic characteristics of the data, b) examine the psychometric properties of the measures (i.e., reliability and

98

99 validity), c) check for potential confounding variables, and d) test the assumptions of the statistics that will be used for data analyses (Cone & Foster, 2006). Missing Data. As previously described, there was no “missing” data. However, given the complicated nature of asking children self-report questions as previously described, participants had the option to answer, “I don’t know (IDK)” for all measures creating a measurement issue. Therefore, the sample was split into two separate groups (EID relevant and non-relevant) for certain analyses. This method was used in order to preserve the original relationship among the variables, although it will reduce power and may yield bias parameter estimates (Graham 2009; Wothke, 2000). Normality. The next step of the preliminary analyses checked for assumptions, reliability, unintended confounds, and distribution of scores. Reliability estimates were reported in chapter three, along with SPSS-suggested items targeted for removal to increase reliability. Item removal was dealt with on a case-by-case basis, as previously mentioned. Skewness also presented a problem with certain variables (as reported in chapter 3) and was dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Hypothesis-Testing Analyses Each aim consists of the possible methods for analysis. The first two aims are exploratory in nature in an effort to define and describe awareness of racial and ethnic differences, as well as ethnic identity development for children in middle childhood. The last aim explores the role ethnic identity development plays in psychological well-being. Demographic Characteristics. The demographic characteristics used in these analyses are gender (2 levels), age (5 levels), school level (2 levels), ethnicity (3 levels), parent ethnicity (3 levels) and nativity (2 levels).

100 AIM 1: To document children’s awareness of racial and ethnic differences and instances of ethnic discrimination during middle childhood. Racial Awareness. Racial awareness was measured from the questions on the demographic questionnaire. All participants (N = 138) were able to choose a racial label from the 7 options on the demographic sheet (e.g., “I am Black or African American, Latino or Hispanic, etc.), indicating that children are indeed aware of their race in middle childhood. Of note, many children were not aware of what the word “ethnicity” means and responded “I don’t know” when directly asked. However, when provided with the descriptives about each category (e.g., “Black or African American such as Caribbean, Haitian, Jamaican, etc.), participants were able to use one of the ethnic descriptors to define their race. The predominant labels chosen were Black or African-American (38.4%), Hispanic or Latino (31.2%), and Mixed (e.g., more than one ethnic group) (18.1%). Ethnic Awareness. Quantitative descriptive statistics of the frequency distribution, including the means and standard deviations of the prevalence and priority for the Multidimensional Measure of Identity (Akiba et al., 2004) are provided in table 4.2. This data describes the topic area of ethnic awareness in two categories for the entire sample: prevalence and priority. Prevalence is the proportion of ethnic labels chosen out of the total number of labels selected, while priority describes the relevant importance of ethnic labels in identity construction (i.e., the order of the placement of the labels). In this sample, results of the priority variable (e.g., chosen ethnic labels) indicated that 75% of participants included at least one ethnic identity label in their top four categories (e.g., “brother,” “Cuban,” “boy,” “Floridian”). Within that group of 103 children, prevalence

101 data indicated that 44 participants included one label (e.g., “Cuban”), 33 included two labels (e.g., “Cuban” and “Hispanic”), 19 included 3 labels (“Jamaican-American,” “Jamaican,” and “Black”) and 7 children choose all four labels with ethnic identity descriptors (e.g., “Black,” “Haitian,” “Haitian-American,” and “Black-American”). Closer qualitative analyses of the prioritized labels indicated that there were 74 different combinations created across the participants. Table 4.2 Frequencies, Means, & Standard Deviations for Ethnic Identification and Perceived Discrimination Entire Sample Variable Freq.(%) M(SD) MMI Ethnic Labels Chosen/Priority Any label in the top four 103(74.6) No labels in the top four 35(25.4) Prevalence of EID Labels 1.41(1.16) No EID labels 35(25.4) 1 EID label 44(31.9) 2 EID labels 33(23.9) 3 EID labels 19(13.8) 4 EID labels 7(5.1) Ethnic Labels Chosen: 74 different combinations ranging from 1 label (e.g., Spanish, or Black-American) to 4 labels (e.g., Multi-racial, mixed, Hispanic, Caribbean; or HaitianAmerican, Haitian, Black-American, Black)

EID Relevant Freq.(%) M(SD) 65(82.3) 14(17.7) 1.61(1.16) 14(17.7) 27(34.2) 19(24.1) 14(17.7) 5(6.3)

Priority. To investigate whether gender, nativity, school level or ethnicity differ on their priority score, different analyses were conducted using parametric and nonparametric tests including chi-square goodness-of-fit, Fisher’s exact test, Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test, and independent samples t-test. Assumptions for each analysis were checked and met. Table 4.3 shows the Pearson chi-square results and indicates that gender (χ2 = 1.83, df = 1, N = 138, p = .18), nativity (χ2 = 0.96, df = 1, N = 138, p = .50),

102 and school level (χ2 = .46, df = 1, N = 138, p = .32) were not significantly different on whether or not participants prioritized an EID label for the entire sample. Phi, which indicates the strength of the association between the variables, is -.12, .03, and .06, respectively. Practically identical results were found for the EID relevant group: gender (χ2 = .97, df = 1, N = 79, p = .32), nativity (χ2 = .14, df = 1, N = 79, p = .71), and school level (χ2 = .51, df = 1, N = 179, p = .48). Participant ethnicity was the only significant indicator on whether or not they chose an EID label (χ2 = 7.91, df = 2, N = 138, p = .02 for the whole sample and χ2 = 6.73, df = 2, N = 79, p = .04 for the EID relevant group). In the whole sample, of the 53 children who identified as Black or African American, 75% of those participants chose at lease one ethnic label. Thirty-eight out of 43 (88%) of Hispanic or Latino kids chose at least one label, and 62% (n = 42) of all other participants (e.g. kids who identified as Mixed, White, Asian, etc.) also chose at least one ethnic identity label. Phi associated with ethnicity was .24. Table 4.3 Chi-square Analysis of Priority of EID Labels for Large Sample Gender Variable n Males Females MMI Priority No labels 35 13 22 At least 1 103 26 77 Totals 138 39 99 Ethnicity Variable n B/AA H/L All Other MMI Priority No labels 35 14 5 16 At least 1 103 39 38 26 Totals 138 53 43 42 Nativity Variable n Florida Outside FL MMI Priority

χ2 1.83

p .18

χ2 7.91

p 0.02

χ2 0.96

p .50

103 No labels At least 1 Totals

35 103 138

30 5 116

Variable MMI Priority No labels At least 1 Totals

n

5 17 22 School Level Elementary Middle

35 103 138

23 61 84

χ2 .462

p .318

12 42 54

Prevalence. To investigate whether gender, nativity, school level or ethnicity differ on their prevalence score, different analyses were conducted using parametric and non-parametric tests including chi-square goodness-of-fit, Kruskal Wallis, and one-way ANOVAs. Assumptions for each analysis were checked and those that were not met were dealt with on a case-by-case basis. The prevalence variable violates the assumption of normality and therefore, we fail to reject the null on the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, p = .00, and Shapiro-Wilk, p = .000. Therefore, this score was treated as an ordinal variable. Using the Kruskal Wallis test, the collapsed ethnic identity variable was not significant for the large sample, p =.08, or EID relevant group, p = .17. Two one-way ANOVAs were conducted to examine parent ethnicity (mother and father) and age with prevalence score, and were both found to be not significant: mother: F(10, 127) = 1.55, p = .13; father: F(9, 128) = 1.65, p = .11; and age: F(4, 133) = .63, p = .64 for the overall sample. Similar non-significant findings were found in the EID relevant group. Next, Pearson chi-square analyses indicated that nativity was not significant for either the whole sample or EID relevant group (χ2 = 2.82, df = 4, N = 138, p = .59 and χ2 = 4.19, df = 4, N = 79, p = .38, respectively). School level was significant (χ2 = 22.68, df = 4, N = 138, p = .00) for the entire sample, as well as for the EID relevant group (χ2 = 16.08, df = 4, N = 79, p

104 < .05). Cramer’s V, which indicates the strength of the association between the two variables is .45. See tables 4.4 and 4.5 for more details. Table 4.4 Chi-square Analysis of Prevalence of EID Labels by School Level for Entire Sample Prevalence of EID Labels Variable n 0 1 2 3 4 χ2 p School Level 22.68 0.00 Elementary 84 23 20 26 15 0 Middle 54 12 24 7 4 7 Totals 138 35 44 33 19 7 Table 4.5 Chi-square Analysis of Prevalence of EID Labels by School Level for EID Rel Group Prevalence of EID Labels Variable n 0 1 2 3 4 χ2 p School Level 16.08 0.00 Elementary 44 9 10 15 10 0 Middle 35 5 17 4 4 5 Totals 79 14 27 19 14 5 To investigate the relationship between prevalence and priority scores, Kendall’s tau-b was conducted. The analysis indicated a significant positive association between the prevalence and priority of ethnic identity labels for the overall sample, tau (138) = .71, p < .001, and the EID relevant group, tau (79) = .62, p < .001. Both taus are considered to be a large effect size (Cohen, 1988) suggesting a strong positive relationship between including at least one EID label and the overall amount of EID labels chosen. In order to investigate any differences between the EID relevant and non-relevant group, Mann-Whitney U tests were performed to compare the ordinal prevalence score, U = 1809.50, p = .02, r = -0.26, and chi-square analyses were performed to compare the

105 nominal priority score, (χ2 = 5.70, df = 1, N = 138, p = .02). These tests indicate that these groups differ significantly on their ethnic awareness and identification scores. Overall, data from the MMI suggests that the majority of children in this sample chose at least one ethnic identity label, and up to four, when given a task that asks them to define their identity out of a list of words that could describe them. In the overall sample, 40% of the sample chose an EID label as their first label descriptor. In the smaller EID relevant group, 48% of participants included an EID label as their first descriptor and 82% chose at least 1 label across the 4 spots. This data suggests that although children may not initially recognize the word ethnicity or use an EID label as the primary descriptor of their identity, when given a list of words that contain many aspects of identity, 75% of children used at least one EID to describe who they are stating that they are indeed aware of their ethnic identity and can use EID labels to define themselves. Ethnic Discrimination. When given a measure that asks questions regarding instances of perceived discrimination, children as young as 8 indicated that they experienced a negative event related to their race or ethnicity. Out of 138 children, 47 participants (34%) indicated that someone had made a bad or insulting remark about their race, ethnicity, language or culture of origin. A smaller portion of the sample (17%) indicated that they witnessed or remembered a family member insulted or treated badly based on their race, ethnicity, language, or culture of origin. In the EID relevant group, 34 participants out of 79 (43%) identified as having experienced at least one instance of ethnic discrimination, with 37% stating that they personally felt discriminated against and 15% stating that they witnessed discrimination of a family member.

106 To investigate the relationship between perceived discrimination and demographic variables, parametric and nonparametric tests were conducted. A KruskalWallis nonparametric test was conducted to test for significant differences between ethnic identity and perceived discrimination because of the ordinal nature of the dependent variable. The test indicated that the three ethnic identity groups (e.g., Black/AfricanAmerican, Hispanic/Latino, and all other) did not differ significantly on perceived discrimination for the large sample or EID relevant group, χ2 (2, N = 138) = 1.49, p = .48 and χ2 (2, N = 79) = 4.27, p = .12. The same nonparametric test was used to test for significance with parent ethnicity and age. The amount of perceived discrimination differed significantly with age, χ2 (2, N = 138) = 10.89, p = .03 in the entire sample, but not in the EID relevant group, χ2 (4, N = 79) = 8.56, p = .07. Parent ethnicity was not significant in either group. Because the dependent variable was ordinal and the variances were unequal, Mann-Whitney U tests were performed to compare gender, school level, and nativity with perceived discrimination. Perceived discrimination scores did not differ by gender (U = 1682, p = .18, r = -0.11 for the large group, and U = 502, p = .26, r = -0.13 for the small group), or nativity (U = 1264, p = .94, r = -0.01 for the large group, and U = 450, p = .94, r = -0.08 for the small group). However, not surprisingly, school level had significant findings. For the total sample, 84 elementary students had significantly lower mean ranks (62.57) than the 54 middle schoolers (80.29) on the measure of perceived discrimination, U = 1685.5, p = .004, r = -0.25, which, according to Cohen (1988), is a small to medium effect size. For the EID relevant group, 44 elementary students had significantly lower mean ranks (34.80) than the 35 middle schoolers (46.54) on the

107 measure of perceived discrimination, U = 541, p = .01, r = -0.29, which, according to Cohen (1988), is a small to medium effect size. Finally, to investigate if there was a significant association between prevalence scores and perceived discrimination, a correlation was computed. Since both variables are ordinal and violate the assumption of normality, the Spearman rho statistic was calculated and was not statistically significant, r(138) = .02, p = .84 for the entire sample or for the EID relevant group, r(79) = -.08, p = .49. Taken together, children in middle childhood are able to identify instances of ethnic discrimination in their lives. Their levels of identified perceived discrimination are associated with age such that older children are more likely to report higher levels of perceived discrimination. AIM 2: To document ethnic identity among children in middle childhood in terms of the components of ethnic identification, exploration, resolution and affirmation. As previously mentioned, the topic of ethnic identity development in middle childhood is not widely understood. For this aim, participants were administered two measures of ethnic identity—the Ethnic Identity Scale (EIS) and the Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure-Revised (MEIM-R)—as described in chapter three. This section will discuss the statistical findings of ethnic identity development in middle childhood. It will also address some of the difficulties in assessing ethnic identity development in children. Ethnic Identity Scale In this study, the Ethnic Identity Scale (EIS) had interesting findings. Of the 17items, 94 participants (68%) were able to answer the entire measure to completion, with a mean of 54.55 and a standard deviation of 5.30 (see table 3.5 in chapter 3 for the EIS items breakdown). To investigate if there was a statistically significant association

108 between each of the three EIS subscales for the entire sample, a correlation was computed (see table 4.6). The affirmation and resolution subscales were skewed (skewness = -4.50 and -1.35, respectively), which violated the assumption of normality. Thus, the Spearman rho was calculated for Affirmation and Exploration, r(138) = .52, p ≤.01; Affirmation and Resolution, r(138) = .29, p ≤.01; and Exploration and Resolution, r(138) = .39, p ≤.01. The directions of the correlations were all positive and significant (see table 4.6), indicating that children who had higher scores on one scale tend to have higher scores on the other scales. Using Cohen’s (1998) guidelines, the effect sizes were in the medium range for studies in this area. Table 4.6 Intercorrelations, Means, and Standard Deviations for EIS subscales Subscale 1 2 3 M 1. Exploration -.39** .52** 13.15 2. Resolution --.29** 14.19 3. Affirmation ---25.97 **p < .01

SD 3.89 2.33 2.04

For the EID relevant group, only the Resolution subscale was markedly negatively skewed, therefore both Pearson correlations and Spearman rho were calculated in order to look at significant relationships among the EIS subscales. Affirmation and Exploration were significantly positively correlated, r(79) = .48, p ≤.01, with a medium effect size. Using Spearman’s rho, Resolution was significantly positively correlated with Exploration (r(79) = .31, p ≤.01), but not with Affirmation (r(79) = .18, p = .10). Exploration. Exploration denotes the degree to which one is exploring or searching for meaning or connection to their ethnic identity. Based on the factor analysis of the total sample, two items of the exploration subscale were dropped in the total score. However these two items warrant individual attention, at least at the descriptive level.

109 Item 2 (e.g., “I have not participated in any activities that would teach me about being _______.”) were the only negatively worded question in the subscale, and it had the highest amount of “IDKs” across the measure (N = 10). It was also highly negatively skewed, -1.54, indicating that participants felt strongly that this question did not described them. In fact, 60% (N = 83) of participants chose the answer “Does not describe me at all,” and 19% chose the next option, “Describes me a little.” Together, 79% of participants strongly did not identify with this question suggesting that children are participating in activities that are teaching them about their ethnic identity. Item 4 (e.g., “I have experienced things that reflect being _____, such as eating food, listening to music, and watching movies.”) was also strongly endorsed (N = 92), such that 68% of participants thought that this described them very well. These two items might seem counterintuitive to childhood activities, in that children do not seem likely to seek out experiences at this young of an age; however, the opposite was found. T-tests were conducted across the total sample in order to assess for differences among school level (p = .36), nativity (p = .69) and gender (p = .21) with Exploration scores, and were not statistically significant. Two one-way ANOVAs were conducted with age and ethnicity and were also found to be non significant, F (4, 115) = .73, p = .21 and F (2, 117) = 2.04, p = .13, respectively. In the smaller EID relevant group, t-tests were conducted across the total sample in order to assess for differences among school level (p = .49), nativity (p = .08) and gender (p = .28) with Exploration scores and were also not statistically significant. Two one-way ANOVAs were conducted with age and ethnicity and were also found to be non significant, F (4, 74) = 1.59, p = .19 and F (2, 76) = 1.90, p = .16, respectively.

110 Resolution. The resolution subscale assessed the degree to which one has demonstrated a commitment to their ethnic identity. Because the Resolution subscale is negatively skewed in both groups, and the variances were unequal, Mann-Whitney U tests were first performed on the total sample to compare gender, nativity, and school level, which were not significant U = 1502, p = .51; U = 1051, p = .73; and U = 1781, p = .58, respectively. A Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test was conducted to test for significant differences between ethnicity and age, which were also not significant, χ2 = (4, N = 138) = 6.17, p = .19 and χ2 = (2, N = 138) = 2.91, p = .86, respectively. For the EID relevant group, Mann-Whitney U tests were also performed on the total sample to compare gender and school level, which were not significant U = 514, p = .39 and U = 692, p = .44, respectively. Nativity was significant, U = 301, p = .05, r = .22, which is a small to medium effect size. A Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test was conducted to test for significant differences between ethnicity and age, which were also not significant, χ2 = (2, N = 79) = 4.43, p = .11 and χ2 = (4, N = 79) = 7.26, p = .12, respectively. Affirmation. Affirmation is a controversial subscale that assesses the degree to which one feels about their ethnic identity (e.g., “My feelings about being _____ are mostly negative” and “I am not happy being _____”). It was hypothesized that children would identify strongly with this scale and evidence higher levels of connection to suggest that these questions do not describe them either a little or at all, and this study demonstrates evidence to support that hypothesis. In the total sample, the Affirmation subscale was highly negatively skewed (M = 25.97, SD = 2.04, skewness = -2.77, kurtosis = 12.54). Eighty-four percent of the total sample scored at or above 25 out of 28

111 on the subscale sum score indicating an extremely high degree of connection to positive feelings about their ethnic identity. Because the Affirmation subscale is negatively skewed in total sample, and the variances were unequal, Mann-Whitney U tests were first performed on the total sample to compare gender and nativity, which were not significant U = 1094, p = .10; U = 696, p = .16, respectively. School level was statistically significant, U = 1230, p = .03, r = -.19, which is a small effect size. A Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test was conducted to test for significant differences between ethnicity and age, which were also not significant, χ2 = (2, N = 138) = 3.93, p = .14 and χ2 = (4, N = 138) = 8.80, p = .06, respectively. However, of the 138 participants, 23 cases were identified as “missing” based off the amount of IDK responses, therefore it is important to look at the EID relevant group. For the EID relevant group, the Affirmation subscale was no longer significantly negatively skewed (M = 26.19, SD = 1.45, skew = -.86, kurtosis = .99). Although these descriptive statistics signify the usage of parametric statistics, the range of the scores are still on the higher end as 78% of this smaller group scored at or above 25 out of 28 in the summative score. Therefore, parametric tests were conducted with this smaller group. To assess whether ethnicity or age seem to have an effect on Affirmation scores, two oneway ANOVAs were conducted. Ethnicity [F(2, 76) = 1.13, p = .33] and age [F(4, 74) = 1.07, p = .38] were both not statistically significant. T-test with gender (.12), nativity (.14), and school level (.18) were also not significant. Finally, a t-test was conducted to look at the difference between the relevant and non-relevant group in relation to their Affirmation scores and it was not significant, .19.

112 Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure Out of the 138 sampled, only 106 participants were able to answer questions on the MEIM-R to completion suggesting that children also had some degree of difficulty in answering these questions. For the entire sample, 117 participants were able to answer the Commitment subscale to completion (M = 10.65, SD = 1.53, skew = -1.30, kurtosis = 1.01), while 124 were able to answer the Exploration subscale to completion (M = 8.77, SD = 2.01, skew = -.57, kurtosis = -.14). See table 3.9 in chapter 3 for more details. To investigate if there was a statistically significant association between each of the two MEIM-R subscales for the entire sample, a correlation was computed. The Commitment subscale was skewed, which violated the assumption of normality. Thus, the Spearman rho was calculated and was statistically significant for Commitment and Exploration, r(138) = .29, p ≤.01. The direction of the correlation was positive, indicating that children who had higher scores on one scale tend to have higher scores on the other scale. Using Cohen’s (1998) guidelines, the effect sizes were in the medium range for studies in this area. For the EID relevant group, the Commitment subscale was also markedly negatively skewed (-1.35); therefore the Spearman rho was also calculated in order to look at significant relationships among the MEIM-R subscales. The correlation was not significant, r(79) = .21, p = .06. Exploration. For the Exploration subscale, T-tests were conducted to across the total sample in order to assess for differences among school level (p = .85), nativity (p = .60) and gender (p = .37) with Exploration scores and were not statistically significant. Two one-way ANOVAs were conducted with age and ethnicity and were also found to be

113 non significant, F (4, 119) = 1.37, p = .25 and F (2, 121) = .75, p = .47, respectively. In the smaller EID relevant group, t-tests were conducted to across the total sample in order to assess for differences among school level (p = .85), nativity (p = .97) and gender (p = .93) with Exploration scores and were also not statistically significant. Two one-way ANOVAs were conducted with age and ethnicity and were also found to be non significant, F (4, 74) = 1.2, p = .32 and F (2, 76) = .79, p = .46, respectively. Commitment. Because the Commitment subscale is negatively skewed in total sample, and the variances were unequal, Mann-Whitney U tests were first performed on the total sample to compare gender, school level, and nativity, which were not significant U = 1334.5, p = .63; U = 1609.5, p = .84, U = 940, p = .82, respectively. A KruskalWallis nonparametric test was conducted to test for significant differences between ethnicity and age, which were also not significant, χ2 = (2, N = 138) = .51, p = .78 and χ2 = (4, N = 138) = 5.20, p = .27, respectively. However, of the 138 participants, 21 cases were identified as “missing” based off the amount of IDK responses, therefore it is important to look at the EID relevant group. For the EID relevant group, the Commitment subscale was still significantly negatively skewed (M = 10.80, SD = 1.42, skew = -1.35, kurtosis = 1.09). MannWhitney U tests were performed to compare gender, school level, and nativity, which were not significant U = 526.5, p = .45; U = 602, p = .08, U = 390.5, p = .38, respectively. A Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test was conducted to test for significant differences between ethnicity and age, which were also not significant, χ2 = (2, N = 79) = .61, p = .74 and χ2 = (4, N = 79) = 5.60, p = .23, respectively.

114 AIM 3: To examine the relationship between EID and EID components and psychological well-being as measured by self-concept/self-esteem, hope, and academic self-efficacy in middle childhood. The third aim of the study examined the relationship between ethnic identity development and psychological well-being. Ethnic identity development was measured using the Exploration subscales of the EIS and MEIM-R (as defined in chapter 3), and Affirmation from the EIS. For this aim, only the EID relevant group (N = 79) was used. Because the three EID variables, hope, and academic self-efficacy were normally distributed and the assumption of linearity was not markedly violated, Pearson correlations were computed to examine the intercorrelations of the variables. Spearman’s rho was calculated for the EID variables and self-concept. Table 4.7 shows that of the six variables presented, 4 out of the 6 were significantly correlated including hope and academic self-efficacy (r = .34) and hope and self-concept (r = .33). These results are considered a small to medium effect size and generally indicate that individuals with high levels of hope were likely to have high levels of academic self-efficacy and self-concept. None of the EID variables were significantly correlated with the well-being measures. Table 4.7 Intercorrelations, Means, and Standard Deviations for EID and Well-Being Subscale 1 2 3 4 5 6* M SD 1. EIS Exp -- .47** .45** .16 .14 -.09 13.51 3.83 2. EIS Aff -- -.11 -.00 .09 .09 26.19 1.45 3. MEIM-R Exp -- --.10 -.01 -.11 8.73 2.01 4. Hope -- ---.34** .33** 27.99 4.98 5. ASE -- ----.13 22.01 2.34 6. S-C* -- -----13.34 2.05 * Using Spearman’s Rho, **p < .01

115 T-tests were conducted to examine group differences between the MMI dichotomous priority score and the well-being measures and were all not statistically significant (CHS =.15, SSVS = .72, and RRSES = .69). Hope. Hope was measured using the Children’s Hope Scale (CHS) with a mean of 29.99 and a standard deviation of 4.98 (skewness = -.41, kurtosis = -.23) and had a range from 14 -36. T-tests were conducted to assess for differences among school level (p = .17), nativity (p = .97) and gender (p = .93) with hope scores and were also not statistically significant. Two one-way ANOVAs were conducted with age and ethnicity. Age was not significant, F (4, 73) = 1.52, p = .21 but ethnicity was statistically significant F (2, 75) = 3.08, p = .05. Since a statistically significant difference was found among the three levels of ethnicity on hope, post hoc Tukey HSD tests indicated that Black/AfricanAmerican and Hispanic/Latino children differed significantly on this levels of hope (p < .05). To investigate how EID scores predict levels of hope, after controlling for ethnicity, a hierarchical linear regression was computed. The assumptions of linearity, normally distributed errors, and uncorrelated errors were checked and met. When ethnicity was entered alone, it did not significantly predict hope, F(1, 77) = 1.42, p = .24, adjusted R2 = .01. When the EID variables were added, they also did not significantly improve the prediction, R2 = -.00, F(4, 74) = .79, p = .50. Self-Concept. Because self-concept is negatively skewed, and the variances were unequal, Mann-Whitney U tests were first performed to compare gender and school level, which were not significant U = 494, p = .26; U = 725.5, p = .65, respectively. Nativity was significant, U = 283, p = .02. A Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test was conducted to

116 test for significant differences between ethnicity and age, which were also not significant, χ2 = (2, N = 79) = 3.18, p = .20 and χ2 = (4, N = 79) = 3.23, p = .52, respectively. Since self-concept was markedly skewed, thus violating the assumption of normality, and not correlated to any EID variables, no other analyses were conducted with this variable. Of note, further exploration of descriptives and frequencies indicated that participants generally scored high on self-concept. 75% of people in the sample had a score at or above 12 out of 15. This indicates that participants generally had a strong sense of self regardless of any demographic variables. Academic Self-Efficacy. Academic self-efficacy (ASE) had a mean of 22.01 and a standard deviation of 2.34 (skewness = -.34, kurtosis = -.55). T-tests were conducted to assess for differences among school level (p = .18), nativity (p = .82) and gender (p = .98) with ASE scores and were not statistically significant. Two one-way ANOVAs were conducted with age and ethnicity. Age was not significant, F (4, 67) = 1.63, p = .18 but ethnicity was statistically significant F (2, 69) = 5.60, p = .01. Since a statistically significant difference was found among the three levels of ethnicity on ASE, post hoc Tukey HSD tests also indicated that Black/African-American and Hispanic/Latino children differed significantly on this levels of academic self-efficacy (p < .05). To investigate how EID scores predict levels of ASE, after controlling for ethnicity, a hierarchical linear regression was computed. The assumptions of linearity, normally distributed errors, and uncorrelated errors were checked and met. When ethnicity was entered alone, it did not significantly predict ASE, F(1, 77) = 1.79, p = .38, adjusted R2 = -.00. When the EID variables were added, they also did not significantly improve the prediction, R2 = -.01, F(3, 74) = .79, p = .55.

Chapter 5: Discussion This study contributes significant findings to the growing body of literature related to ethnic identity development in children and overall positive development. Overall, findings suggest that children are aware of their ethnic identity and ethnic discrimination as young as eight years old; are able to use ethnic identity labels to describe themselves as part of a group; and have a strong sense of psychological wellbeing, as measured by hope, self-esteem, and academic self-efficacy.

Another key

finding of this study suggests that researchers cannot accurately assess children's awareness of their ethnic identity unless they provide children with labels to choose from, rather than presenting them with a global question that requires a more mature set of language-based skills and vocabulary. Racial and Ethnic Awareness Previous research has suggested, contrary to this study’s findings, that the components that separate race, ethnicity, and culture in children are relatively unknown and largely dependent on adult-like descriptors and abstract qualities such as personal beliefs, private regard, etc., rather than more simplistic observable differences (Quintana et al., 2006). It has also been suggested that children in early childhood are better able to understand racial differences before ethnic differences (Phinney, 1990), largely due to the fact that before age 8 race is still typically described as observable and socially constructed phenotypical differences that are easier for children to identify (e.g., skin color and hair texture). This study indicates that children between the ages of 8-12 are aware of their racial and ethnic identity. All 138 participants were able to pick out and

117

118 use a racial or ethnic label to define themselves demonstrating that EID starts early and therefore needs to be better understood aside from the adult-based models. Identifying With A Race or Ethnicity. Although the exact meaning and concepts of race and ethnicity are still not widely known in children, this study found evidence to support the notion that although children might not know the definition for the actual word “ethnicity,” they were able to choose at least one label when provided with examples or descriptors of different racial and ethnic groups. For example, many children gave an initial response of “I don’t know” when directly asked to answer the question, “What is your race or ethnicity?” Children were then given a list of 9 different choices of racial labels (e.g., “Hispanic or Latino”), followed by ethnic identity descriptors (e.g., “such as Mexican, Cuban, Venezuelan, Puerto Rican, etc.), and an additional option of “I don’t know what I am” and “I don’t know what ethnicity is.” Research in cognitive theories suggests that the first step of identity development is awareness (Byrd, 2012). Given that all participants were able to choose a response, the findings of this study suggest that kids are aware of racial and ethnic differences at an early age, which contradicts current theories about such awareness and necessitates further exploration of how this awareness develops and how it is experienced and perceived. Ethnic identification (EI), an additional component of ethnic awareness, was assessed with the labeling task. Compared to the self-report measures, this measure was different; it was more hands-on and child friendly, as it asked participants to sort cards filled with labels to construct a rank-ordered list that “best described” them.

Not only

did this task ask children to choose as many labels as fit, but also mental and physical

119 manipulation were required to sort these cards into a prioritized list. Sitting one-to-one with an interviewer also allows for questions and support, rather than a forced-choice answer. Results demonstrated that regardless of age, ethnicity, nativity, and school level, 75% of children interviewed were able to use at least one EI label to describe themselves. Further, when given the option to choose four labels that “describe you the best,” seven children choose all four labels as ethnic descriptors, over other demographic options such as “sister,” “child,” or “American.” Thus, for these children ethnic identity is a strong and salient, if not major component, of their overall identity. These findings differ from previous research by suggesting that for some children, if given one word that best describes them, they may or may not use an ethnic label first. However, when given four chances, children will choose ethnic labels as an important component to their overall identity, and some children feel so strongly connected to their EID that all four labels describe EID alone. Identifying As Mixed. It is becoming increasingly important to look at children who identify as “mixed” as research is still unclear about whether the EID process looks more similar to White children versus children of color (Syed & Azmitia, 2008). The “mixed” group was the third largest demographic group of participants. As such, this study took steps to allow choice and flexible labels for mixed children (e.g., I am WelshRussian American, or I am Haitian and Haitian-American at the same time”), rather than forcing participants to only identify with one group, or with group they identify with the most, which has been done in previous research. Children in this study chose a combination of 74 different ways to describe themselves. Given the growing amount of “mixed” children, perhaps future research should focus on treating this “mixed” group in

120 their own right with their own measurement and developmental models (Hitlin, Brown, & Elder, 2006; Phinney, 2006; Syed & Azmitia, 2008). One model, and a few ways of quantitative measurement, might not be able to best capture the importance and salience of this group. Prevalence and Priority in Ethnic Awareness. Demographic variables each played a unique role in priority (total amount of ethnic labels chosen) and prevalence (at lease one ethnic label chosen) scores, and there was no pervasive difference found across any of the categories of age, ethnicity, school level or nativity. One significant finding suggested that level in school (e.g., elementary vs. middle) is correlated with the prevalence of ethnic labels chosen. Hence, school level impacts whether or not a child chooses at lease one ethnic label. When looking at the overall relationship between prevalence and priority, the participant’s ethnicity significantly impacted priority scores, suggesting a statistical connection between ethnic group membership and total amount of labels chosen. Within the sample, the majority of children who identified as Black or African American or Hispanic or Latino included at least one ethnic label into their top four. Taken together, children in middle childhood are able to choose ethnic labels— 75% of children used at least one EID to describe who they are, which demonstrates that they are indeed aware of their ethnic identity and can use EID labels to define themselves. To date, little research exists that specifically focuses on ethnic identification. This study contributes to the literature advancing the field of ethnic awareness and identification in early childhood. Future research should aim to explore the next step in ethnic identity development: the meaning children make their

121 membership as part of an ethnic group and the ways in which they feel connected to their ethnic identity. Discrimination Results of this study demonstrate that children as young as eight have experienced either personal discrimination or vicarious discrimination, through a discriminatory act against a family member.

Large-scale studies suggest that 87% of African American

adolescents (Seaton, Caldwell, Sellers, & Jackson, 2008) and 50% of Latino adolescent and young adults (Pérez, Fortuna, & Alegría, 2008) report having experienced discrimination in the past year (Neblett Jr., Rivas-Drake, & Umaña-Taylor, 2012). This study found similar results to the large-scale studies. Regardless of ethnicity, nativity, or school level, youths in this study reported that discrimination exists and is prevalent in their lives. Age was the only significant demographic factor that impacted the amount of perceived discrimination reported; children in elementary schools reported significantly lower mean rank discrimination scores than those in middle school. These findings are consistent with previous research that demonstrates that by middle childhood, youth are able to recall and reflect on instances of discrimination and these experiences are reported differently by age (Brown, 2006; McKowan & Weinstein, 2003; Szalacha et al., 2003). In this study, age was the only significant finding in relation to perceived discrimination scores, such that older children older are more likely to endorse higher levels perceived discrimination. Given the prevalence and significance of perceived discrimination on psychological well-being as discussed in chapter two, more studies are needed in the region of ethnic discrimination, particularly in the areas of measuring discrimination in

122 children. Some research has argued that EID may bolster self-esteem against some of the negative messages in ethnic discrimination (Brody et al., 2006; Romero & Roberts, 2003), while others suggest that EID may buffer the internalization of discriminatory attributions of discrimination, thereby protecting self-concept (Seaton, Caldwell, Sellers, & Jackson, 2008; Sellers et al., 2006). More research is needed regarding ethnic identity and the protective or promotive role it plays in the relationship between discrimination and psychological well-being. Finally, most models of racial and ethnic development imply that one must go through a racist or discriminatory experience in order to question and develop an identity, and past research has used this argument to exclude children from the EID literature since they are “too young” to experience and reflect on these events. The findings of this study confer with more recent research that suggests that discrimination exists in children and needs to be further explored to better understand when EID develops and what role it plays the meaning children make from these early instances of discrimination into their sense of self. Of note, the perceived discrimination measure produced a conflicting pattern of results that was realized during data collection, thus warranting truncating the measure from ten items to two. In the directions, children were asked if they could recall having experienced discriminatory events because of the color of their race/ethnicity (e.g., color of skin, language or accent, culture of origin, etc.) and were given a list of 10 yes/no items. The first seven items asked the child to consider potential events where they felt discriminated against (e.g. shopping in a store, a teacher being rude). However, children displayed difficulty following directions. For example, one question asks the child, “has

123 a teacher ever been mean to you” and most children said “yes.” The principal investigator followed up the question (off protocol) to clarify whether or not this was because of race or ethnicity. Most children changed their answer to “no” and stated that they forgot the directions. Therefore, for the purposes of this study, only two questions of the measure were used. Both questions actually used the words “race” and “ethnicity” in the wording of the discriminatory event, rather than relying on memory of the directions. One question pertained to personal discrimination and the other to vicarious discrimination of a family member or other close relative. Because of this perceived barrier to obtain valid results, only those two items, as described in chapter three, were used, reducing the variation and total possible score on the scale. The topic of racial and ethnic awareness has been well documented both in previous literature and this study. Given past research, it is important to move past the question of whether children are aware of racial and ethnic differences, into what meaning children are making from their awareness. This study provides evidence that we can no longer rely on a child to materialize an answer to the question “What is my ethnicity?” which remains the predominant way for researchers to assess ethnic identity, as the actual word “ethnicity” might not be known. However, when provided with qualitative descriptors, all children were able to pick a label that best described them. This technique should be studied further as it might provide more information about how to accurately understand how children identify with or understand a racial or ethnic label. Results of this study demonstrated that children need continual prompting to answer questions about their race, ethnicity, and perceived discrimination and including their

124 ethnic label in the question helps to maintain the integrity of the measures rather than relying on memory. Ethnic Identity Development in Middle Childhood There remains a pervasive notion in the empirical world that little racial and ethnic identity development happens before adolescence (Erickson, 1968; Marcia, 1980; Phinney, 1989, 1990), and that what does occur reflects parental socialization rather than identity development (Corenblum & Armstrong, 2012; Cross, Jr., & Fhagen-Smith, 2001). Results of this study demonstrate that ethnic identity development is occurring in middle childhood. However, these results suggest that ethnic identity development looks different than how it is measured in previous theoretical and measurement models, and will be discussed in detail below. In relation to ethnic identity development, this aim of the study was meant to take an in-depth look at what the process of EID looks like in children in middle childhood. Results showed that children are aware of their ethnic identity and can not only identify themselves as part of a group, but also reflect on membership in meaningful ways, focusing on the behavioral and abstract aspects of ethnicity, such as language and heritage/ancestry (Quintana, 1998; Rogers et al., 2012). Of importance, not all answers that participants provided were able to be reflected in the results due to any “I don’t know” (IDK) answers, which were treated as missing data. Therefore, although the small relevant group only consisted of 79 participants, all 138 were able to answer questions about their ethnic identity development to a certain extent. In this study, children were more likely to identify with the “earlier” stages of ethnic identity development, such as diffusion or foreclosure, which indicates low levels

125 of exploration and varying levels of commitment. They were less likely to report greater exploration and overall achieved identity, which implies a full cycle of an adult-like process of development. These are new findings in the field, as studies have yet to look at the importance of the early aspects of EID, rather than focusing on an “achieved” identity, or total summative score. Explanations for this finding will be discussed in detail below in an effort to posit the idea that the achieved model is no longer solely relevant for studying EID in children. This study’s model instead tests the meaning children are making of their ethnic identity. Some researchers argue that the meaning that adolescents and adults make of their ethnic identity are attributed to language, cultural behaviors, family heritage, and experiences of discrimination, pride, and physical appearance (Neimann et al., 1999; Rogers et. al., 2012; Torres & Magolda, 2004; Way et al., 2008). Less is known about children’s meaning-making, but it is surmised that such endeavors involve children’s feelings regarding group pride, language, skin color, and discrimination. Prior research has demonstrated that each one of these factors has differential valence and importance depending on cultural group. For example, Latino youth describe group pride and cultural events as more salient, while Black youth identify skin color and discrimination (Phinney & Tarver, 1988; Rogers et al., 2012; Way et al., 2008). In this study, many demographic factors were looked at to find significant relationship among the EID variables. Of all the factors, nativity and school level significantly impacted EID in different ways. Nativity was related to resolution scores, indicating that where participants are born impacts their level of commitment to their ethnic identity. Similarly, school level significantly impacted affirmation scores, indicating that feelings

126 of belonging to one’s ethnic identity is impacted by school level. Hence, results highlighted the importance of EID components and the unique demographic variables that influence identity. Taken together, this study found that EID components are important to look at independent of the total scaled score. Until recently, EID research generally looked at the idea that an achieved identity could be measured as a continuous variable, rather than categorical. This study proposed that EID consists of four main components: ethnic identification, exploration, resolution, and affirmation. These components were measured in part through the self-reported labeling tasks of MEIM-R and the EIS. Both of these self-report assessments measured exploration and commitment/resolution, and one measure additionally assessed levels of affirmation. Overall, findings suggest that the meaning of ethnic identity may look different at different ages and vary according to a child’s ethnic background. Further, ethnic identity development may in fact vary by ethnicity (Syed & Azmitia, 2008). For example, children in different ethnic groups have been shown to attribute different factors to their ethnic identity: Latinos associate language or cultural rituals (Torres & Magolda, 2004) where as Black or African American children tend to link family heritage, skin color, or discrimination as more salient (Rogers et al., 2012; Syed & Azmitia, 2010). Hence these results demonstrated that ethnic identity is different for difference ethnic groups. Since the subscales were all significantly positively correlated to each other, this study also supports previous research that states that these components of EID are related. Each variable will be discussed individually, as another significant overall finding was that the demographic variables had separate significant impacts on individual EID components.

127 Affirmation. Evidence from this study suggests that Affirmation is important for kids and warrants its own individual attention in relation to ethnic identity development, despite recent controversy over the use of the affirmation subscale (Syed et al., 2013; Yoon, 2011), which is negatively worded for all question items (e.g., “My feelings about being _____ are mostly negative.”). Research posits that this subscale may measure a separate aspect of EID, as it is rooted in Tajfel’s Social Identity Theory versus Erikson’s and Marcia’s theories (Yoon, 2011). Affirmation scores, as assessed by the EIS, highlighted significant meaning in item-level connections to ethnic identity development. Overall, scores on individual items on the Affirmation scale were highly negatively skewed, which indicates that participants felt strongly about their sense of belonging to their EID. As previously mentioned, 84% of participants scored at or above a 25 out of 28 on this scale, which indicated a high degree of strong responses to negatively worded questions about their connection to their ethnic identity (e.g., “I dislike being….” or “If I could choose, I would want to be different than …”). School level was the only significant demographic variable on the Affirmation subscale, which suggests that being in elementary or middle school impacts one’s level of affirmation towards their ethnic identity. Romero and Roberts (2003) found that among Latino youth who experienced high levels of ethnic discrimination, those who had high levels of affirmation still reported higher levels of self-esteem in comparison to their peers who had lower levels of affirmation. Phinney and Ong (2007) critiqued the Affirmation scale, stating that differences could be attributed to method variance because all of the items in the affirmation scale are worded negatively and thus need to be reverse scored. Affirmation,

128 separated from exploration and resolution, has been shown as a predictor in self-esteem, coping with discrimination, and school performance (Supple et al., 2006; Umaña-Taylor et al., 2008; Umaña-Taylor & Shin, 2007; Umaña-Taylor et al., 2004; Yoon, 2011). Taken together, Affirmation is an important, and possibly separate aspects of EID that warrants individual attention. Commitment/Resolution. The scales for Commitment and Resolution were also highly negatively skewed, although not as significantly as the Affirmation subscale. This variable was hypothesized to be the least relevant to children but also highly endorsed, as children would most likely feel strongly committed to their ethnic identity but not necessarily have the meaning or exploration behind the commitment that one might find in an adult (e.g., I am committed to being XXXX because I have search and found this connection, etc.) For this variable, nativity was significant; being from Florida, for example, played an important role in many participants’ commitment to ethnic identity. These findings, as well as other studies (e.g., French, Seidman, Allan, & Aber, 2006), suggest that children in middle childhood and early adolescence endorse positive feelings about their group, and therefore exhibit a strong connection; however, those feelings might be based on either the meaning they made about their EID, or on accepting what has been taught to them rather than their own exploration of ethnic identity. More developmentally appropriate research is needed in this area to better understand what commitment and resolution look like for children in middle childhood. Exploration. In this study, Exploration was hypothesized to be endorsed the least among the EID variables, and evidence was found to support his hypothesis and thus contribute to the literature on EID. From a qualitative perspective, the increased

129 variation in responses (e.g. the larger range of scores) indicated that children might be beginning to have exploratory experiences in relation to their EID, but perhaps this varies for the individual child, family, and context. For example, Exploration questions asked participating children how much they participate in activities that taught them meaning about their EID and asked them how often they read books/magazines or join clubs related to learning more about it. Perhaps these questions are not relevant to the child experience, since an eight-year-old may not have the means to read or buy a book related to their EID, and thus need to be adapted for exploration activities that are relevant to children. Overall, the findings of this study support the notion that Exploration could benefit from a more developmentally appropriate approach. Another important question to note in relation to the exploration items is that one of the questions on the exploration subscale is also negatively worded (e.g., “I have not participated in any activities that would teach me about being _____.”) To date, no research study has specifically looked at this question; but in this analysis, this item was flagged by SPSS reliability analyses based on participants’ responses, and it was removed in order to increase reliability. Exploration can also be linked to exposure. It has been suggested that young children might not have had enough contact with people of different races to form their own opinions in relation to exploration and overall EID (Byrd, 2012). In essence, this study suggests a similar finding that kids generally feel connected to their ethnic identity, but they have not explored to learn more about their ethnic identity, as defined by adult standards. Further, some studies argue that exploration is more consistently related to

130 self-esteem than commitment or affirmation (Umaña-Taylor, Gonzales-Backen, & Guimond, 2009). More recent research has specifically focused on how the two predominant measures—the MEIM-R and the EIS—each assess exploration. Syed and colleagues (2013) demonstrated through their factor analyses that in a college-age sample, the tools are actually measuring different constructs of exploration—participation and searching— and call for researchers to use these subscales independently, as they are fundamentally different constructs. Given that this exploration might be measurable from this adult-like perspective, more research is needed to look at what exactly exploration looks like in children and how it differs from newer models that separate exploration into participation in events and searching for meaning. The Status Model Approach. As previously described, EID is based off theoretical research that explain EID in the traditional manner of status models. In the identity status models, it is often proposed that individuals must move through all stages in order to get to an “achieved” goal, or identity. In the Phinney model (1989), children and early adolescents are described as being in the diffused (no exploration or commitment) or foreclosed (commitment but little exploration) (Corenblum & Armstrong, 2012), while older children can move more freely within the stages. Therefore, EID is generally thought to be a progression from less advance, or not explored, to fully committed, accounting for cognitive development and environmental or situational influences (Corenblum & Armstrong, 2012; Phinney, 1989). However, for children—where cognitive development does not follow an identical trajectory for every child and situational factors are relatively individualized to the personal or familiar

131 experience—EID reflects a combination of developing emotional reactions and the reactions of significant others (e.g., parents, friends, siblings, community members, teachers, etc.). This process also includes parent ethnic socialization and more systemic acculturation processes in the community and school context (Corenblum & Armstrong, 2012; Cross, Jr., & Fhagen-Smith, 2001; Erickson, 1968; Marcia, 1980; Parham, 1989). In this study, little evidence was found to support that children are moving freely through these stages of EID in order to get to an achieved identity. Subscale scale scores were more relevant to children in comparison to their overall summative score. The MEIM uses the total summative score rather than subscales, which has been criticized as potentially masking the specific components important to EID (Cokley, 2007; Yoon, 2011). In addition, the subscales scores, when used as continuous variables, can be used to examine relationships between the constructs, as well as their relations to other variables of interest (Yoon, 2011). This study provides support for these statements. Given the lack of knowledge regarding EID in children, perhaps the focus on summative scores masks the importance of these subscales, and therefore allowed researchers to make the claim that ethnic identity development does not happen until adolescence. These status models have overemphasized the process of ethnic identity formation rather than focusing on the content of ethnic identity, which might be more relevant to children (Syed & Azmitia, 2008). However, this study provides evidence that for children, the real meaning is in the subscales, and that important meaning making is happening within the subscales of is ethnic affirmation, exploration and commitment. Recent research suggests that EID status models indicate fail to understand the role that early attitudes play in ethnic identity development, and that these early stages

132 are largely independent of each other and of EID in adolescents and adults (Corenblum & Armstrong, 2012). Thus, EID reflects a relatively independent set of traits, attitudes, believes and associations about the self and group differently that what is typically thought of for adolescents and adults (Corenblum & Armstrong, 2012). Recent research found that children in middle childhood can make meaning about ethnic identity and its contents are similar, yet not as mature, to those of adolescence and adults (see Rogers et al., 2012), specifically in the areas of physical appearance, cultural experiences, group pride, and an awareness of group differences. Developmentally appropriate questions regarding the aforementioned topics might yield a more accurate portrayal of what ethnic identity looks like in middle childhood. A Call for Change. Newer research on EID argues that there are three main components salient for children’s EID: awareness, identification, and attitudes (Byrd, 2012). Awareness refers to the recognition of overall group and individual differences related to the social constructs of race and ethnic definitions. Identification refers to the ability to categorize oneself into one of these groups, and attitudes reflect feelings or beliefs about one’s connection or characteristics to their group. As ethnic identity is thought to stabilize in adolescence and adulthood, research argues that it’s the components of awareness and identification that are stable, while attitudes can fluctuate (Byrd, 2012). For younger children, however, awareness and identification can vary by ability, context, and cognitive development. These processes are not reflected in current theoretical and measurement models of EID development in children. Therefore, results of this study suggest that newer research must focus on the creation of developmental appropriate models to both understand and evaluate EID in children.

133 Leading researchers in EID argue that for children, ethnic identity is an attitude associated with a connection, or affirmation, and sense of belonging to a group (UmañaTaylor et al., 2009) and that these early emotions form the basis for later, more mature ethnic identity development that fits more closely with the adolescent and adult-based models (Corenblum & Armstrong, 2012; Phinney, 1992). Given the importance of awareness and identification, it is important to note that most pencil-and-paper measures of EID are created to assess attitudes, and not awareness or self-identification (Byrd, 2012). Also, these measures were created for adolescents/adults and then adapted for use with children (Byrd, 2012). As such, adolescents might have better abstract skills that younger children, which have yet to develop and therefore questions of validity regarding what these measures are assessing in middle childhood are warranted. Research suggests semi-structured interviews are better ways to assess awareness, self-identification and attitudes in children (Byrd, 2012). This study used these suggested techniques, such as one-to-one, semi-structured interviews and constructive measures, in order to assess awareness and identification (e.g. the labeling task), in addition to traditional self-report measures. Further, developmentally appropriate steps were taken to secure that all self report measures were read aloud, a list of “difficult” words was created in advance in the instance that children had difficulty understanding a word (e.g., “bad” instead of “insulting”), and measures were run through focus groups in an effort to make the measure more culturally and developmentally appropriate. These administration efforts were cruicial in obtaining reliable and valid data from children Taken together, children’s EID are qualitatively different from that of adolescents and adults and in need of their own, better developed theoretical and measurement

134 models in order to accurately understand ethnic identity development in children. Therefore, this study provides evidence to support the notion that the field should move to a multidimensional theoretical and measurement model of ethnic identity—one that includes ethnic behaviors, values, beliefs, affect and ethnicity related experiences (Rogers et al., 2012; Syed & Azmitia, 2008) rather than ideologies and stage models (e.g., Phinney, 1993; Sellers et al., 1998). I Don’t Know Responses. Researchers have found that younger children are prone to say “I don’t know” more often than older children, reflecting that even in middle childhood, some children under 12 still struggle with abstract ideas, particularly in thinking beyond mere categorization for ethnicity (Rogers et al., 2012), while others can make more mature and sophisticated connections by the age of 5. Rogers and colleagues (2012) conducted a qualitative study looking at the meaning making of ethnic identity for children in middle childhood and found that younger children in their sample frequently used the “I don’t know” response. They posit that the frequent use of the IDK response does not necessarily imply that children are devoid of meaning making capabilities, but rather these children may still be formulating the vocabulary needed to express meaning. In other words, children are still experiencing discrimination and events related to their ethnic identity, and these experiences are impacting the way they think about themselves and their ethnic group. However, children in the age period have yet to develop the cognitive skills, or matured vocabulary, to be able to discuss these feelings when asked. This study sought to better understand children’s ethnic identity development. It found that traditional status models of an “achieved” identity are not relevant to the child experience and therefore newer models need to be developed that look at a

135 multidimensional approach to understanding ethnic identity development in children. Further, this study highlighted the important administration techniques that were successful in collecting this information with children (e.g., semi-structured, one-to-one interviewing, using stickers charts as motivators, etc.). Ethnic identity development is multifaceted and current measurement and theoretical models do not capture the nuanced importance of each EID component and its relevance in children’s lives. Data from this study suggests that to date, measurement tools created to assess meaning of EID in children do not fully capture the multidimensional constructs. In relation to research implications, most participants in this study were able to answer questions about their ethnic identity, however they struggled with knowing some of the vocabulary, as well as with the abstract reasoning, suggesting issues with cognitive development. In addition, questions that assess important constructs in the current models (e.g., exploration) are not relevant to children. For example, an eight-year-old may not have the physical ability to attend an event, buy a book, or search the Internet. These questions were created for use with adolescents and adults and are therefore not only not relevant, but also not appropriate for use with children. Ethnic Identity Development and Psychological Well-Being In relation to well-being, many studies have demonstrated a positive association between EID and psychological well-being (Smith & Silva, 2011); however most of these studies examine EID as a single, unidimensional construct even though there is grown belief in the notion of it being multidimensional (Phinney & Ong, 2007; Syed et al., 2013; Umaña-Taylor, Yazedjian, & Bámaca-Gómez, 2004). In a recent study (Syed et al., 2013), the authors argue that different types of exploration relates to well-being

136 differently, with one related to positive well-being and another with negative associations. In this study, evidence to support the positive connection between ethnic identity development and psychological well-being was not substantiated. None of the ethnic identity variables were correlated with the well-being measures. This is not surprising, given the complexity of examining EID among this age group. However, one’s ethnicity was important in their sense of hope and academic self-efficacy. Taken together, given that EID variables and well-being variables were not correlated in this study provides evidence that more research is needed to look at this multidimensional construct in children. A “strong” ethnic identity has been associated with positive outcomes (Castle, Knight, & Waters, 2011), including educational attainment (Eccles, Wong, & Peck, 2006), self-esteem (Phinney, Cantu, & Kurtz, 1997), and self-efficacy (Smith, Walker, Fields, Brookins, & Seay, 1999). But this is often after one has “achieved” or mastered an identity, which is proposed to happen much later than middle childhood. Therefore, if the field of ethnic identity measurement is not capturing this idea in middle childhood, then how could it be related to well-being as we describe it now? Studies have shown an association between “strong” ethnic identities, as evidenced by high overall scores on the MEIM, and positive psychological outcomes including higher self-esteem, optimism, and coping (Castle, Knight, & Waters, 2011; Roberts et. al., 1999; Yasui et. al., 2004). Results from this study argue that previous research results are based on levels of high identity achievement, or the overall score. To date, no studies have examined outcomes at the subscale score level and their relationship to overall positive development. Hence,

137 the notion of an “achieved” identity may not be relevant to children as previously mentioned. Finally, past research asserted that cognitive development is imperative for EID in children (Corenblum & Armstrong, 2012). However, cognitive development only tells part of the story. At the child level, the connection one feels to their ethnic identity and ethnic group (e.g., the meaning, value, and importance attached to identity) can also be related to their budding social identity (Rogers et al., 2012; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Social identity theory, as previously discussed, argues that self-esteem can be enhanced by bridging the gap between self and groups that are held in high regard. As such, children in this study felt overwhelmingly strong about their feelings and commitment to their ethnic identity. They also had strong levels of self-concept, hope, and academic self-efficacy. Therefore, the participants’ high levels of EID, as measured by their levels of affirmation and commitment, are related to the overall high levels of self-esteem and self-concept. Results of this study did not find support for the connection between ethnic identity development and any of the psychological well-being variables. However, this does not mean that one does not exist. Children in this study were able to answer selfreport questions about their sense of hope, academic self-efficacy, and self-esteem. Participants generally had high self-esteem and moderate to high levels of hope and academic self-efficacy. This data suggests that children generally feel good about themselves, regardless of their EID. Researchers may want to explore other aspects of psychological well-being, such as subjective well-being, positive affect, and issues of mood, and perceived coping with discrimination, in addition to larger-scale studies with

138 the same variables measured in this study. Overall, more research is needed to elucidate the role that ethnic identity development plays in psychological well-being, particularly in the areas of promotive versus protective factors of EID. Overall Summary In regards to ethnic identity development in middle childhood, it may be that children’s own cultural practices or ethnic-related behaviors might be also be “invisible” at this age (Rogers et al., 2012), such that these behaviors are seen as normal rather than cultural or ethnic. For example, a fourth grader might not realize that not everyone celebrates Kwanza, eats plantanos or rice and beans, or celebrates Carnival. This does not mean that one does not have an ethnic identity, but rather the ways that we are asking the questions do not accurately assess cultural differences, or deviations from the “cultural norm.” Bottom line, many children can answer these questions, indicating the there no longer needs to be a question of if, but rather, why, how, and what does it mean? Findings from this study urge the field to move past the traditional stage-status model of EID and create one that is more developmentally relevant and multidimensional. In addition, there is evidence to support the notion that an overall “achieved identity” score is not appropriate for children and much more attention should be paid to the subscales as an overall picture of identity development. Limitations This study has a few important limitations to note. First, even though the initial sample size met the a priori analyses criteria for medium effect sizes, the total size was limited relative to what statistical analyses could be used. Of the 138 participants, only 79 were able to answer the ethnic identity questions to completion. The decision was

139 made to preserve the original relationship of the variables by dropping people who responded to an EID question with an “IDK” response. While this was done in an effort to maintain theoretical integrity, it might have reduced overall power and introduced bias into the results. With a larger sample size, findings might have greater significance in relation to the importance of ethnic identity development and psychological well-being. Similar to sample size, the amount of “missing data” is a limitation in this study. The primary investigator felt that it was important to allow children to use an “IDK” response if they were unclear or unsure of an answer. While this is theoretically important, modern statistics has yet to find a way to capture the meaning of this data. As such the ways to deal with this data were to either drop/listwise delete, or imputate, and thus ascribe meaning to an answer were no meaning was given. Because dropping the participants reduced power and might have introduced bias, results should be interpreted with caution. Additionally, this study relied mainly on self-report measures. Although meaningful results were obtained, future studies would benefit from the inclusion of qualitative methods or multiple informants (e.g., parents/caregivers) of racial and ethnic socialization. Further, all self-report measures used at least a four-point Likert scale format of responses. Children in this study tended to answer on the ends of the scale (e.g. either “no” or “Not like me” or “Yes” or “Always like me”) and used little of the gradation of answers in the middle. Therefore, what seems like strong connections or feelings to questions could also reflect a lack of understanding of the all the answer choices. For example, the Children’s Hope Scale has a 6-point Likert scale. Most children chose answers on either end of the scale (e.g., a “0” or a “5/6”). Qualitative

140 follow-up questions would be important to elucidate whether they indeed truthfully chose the polarized ends or if they did not understand the difference between points (e.g., “some of the time,” “a little of the time,” “ much of the time,” etc.) Location might also be a limitation to this study and therefore might reduce generalizability to the broader population. This study was conducted in Miami—a city known for its cultural and linguistic diversity, as well as its discrimination, segregation and neighborhood isolation. The sample was drawn from pockets of neighborhoods intended to draw from more of a purposive minority sample, rather than a representative “normal” sample (e.g., less children of color). There is something unique about Miami— often referred to as “Miaminess” where it is not uncommon for children to speak multiple languages (e.g. predominantly Spanish, or “Spanglish”) or for children in certain areas to remain in a neighborhood of only a few blocks without venturing to different parts of the city. Another unique factor about Miami and it’s predominantly Latino culture is that many children who identify as Latino or Hispanic often also identify as White, and also might develop their ethnic status later than other minority children (Bernal et al., 1993; Quintana & Scull, 2009). Therefore having a participant choose an ethnic label between those two options might be confusing or misleading. In essence, there is something unique to Miami in the amount of diversity in parental nationality and language. Children of immigrants, particularly those who speak another language, might inherently know or have an early awareness of difference— knowing that their families come from, and perhaps still live in, a different country that may or may not speak another language (Berry et al., 2006; Rogers et al., 2012). Thus, the impact of family on ethnic and cultural identity is ever important. Also in Miami,

141 Spanish is commonly spoken at home, in schools, and on TV to the extent that speaking Spanish is fairly common among Miami children, and that alone might not signify an ethnic difference or ethnic behavior. These findings, therefore, might not be typically generalizable to a broader population. Similarly, this study did not look at socioeconomic status or socialization factors that influence ethnic identity development—both of which have been shown to play an important role in many outcomes related to child development. Socioeconomic status could impact many factors of ethnic identity development, from access to heterogeneous environments to the availability of having a parent or caregiver present to answer questions related to ethnicity due having multiple jobs or limited time. Socialization refers to the messages children are received about their race or ethnicity. Since parents are children’s’ primary contact with questions about the outside world, understanding when and were children are receiving messages about their race are important. They were not assessed in this study but should be a component of future research. Another limitation involved the recruitment of study participants. Participants were included in the study only if parental consent was obtained. This common procedure, while ethically necessary for human subjects research, might leave out certain participants. In person presentations and email flyers were sent to parents of the different schools and organizations for study participation. As such, the parents that returned the consent form might represent a different type of parent/family—one that connects to the study topic, and other types of families were hesitant to allow their child to participate in research.

142 Finally, this study was cross-sectional and quantitative in nature. Because of the cross-sectional nature of the study design, this study can be interpreted as results a “snapshot” of what EID might look like in middle childhood. As such, there is no evaluation of the temporal order or relationship among the study variables. Since EID is thought to be dynamic and change over time, a cross-sectional design might not capture the full picture of EID in middle childhood. , In relation to the quantitative methodology, this study design did not ask follow-up questions or allow children to elaborate on answers. Perhaps a qualitative or mixed-method approach could illustrate greater indepth understanding of the meaning making behind EID. Thus, limiting the amount of time collecting data and also limited the type of responses given which could have impacted the generalizability of the results. Future Directions Promotive factors refer to predictors of better outcomes across all levels of risk, such as discrimination, whereas protective factors play a unique role in adverse situations (Neblett Jr., Rivas-Drake, & Umaña-Taylor, 2012; Masten, Cutuli, Herbers, & Reed, 2009). Studies regarding the promotive effects of ethnic identity have been well document, little is known about the protective nature of EID (see Neblett Jr., RivasDrake, & Umaña-Taylor, 2012). Hence, we need to move away from merely describing EID in children but relate it to positive development. In addition, we need to take a better look at the impact of ethnic discrimination is important to understanding the meaning children make of their ethnic identity (Rivas-Drake, Hughes, & Way, 2009) and the role it plays on their psychological well-being.

143 Other factors, such as parent ethnic socialization (e.g., Hughes et al., 2006) might also be considered in examining the social forces and parental impact on ethnic identity development. Ethnic identity is influenced by socialization in which the primary component is family influences (Umaña-Taylor & Fine, 2004), thus children learn about their ethnic background from their parents. Despite the theoretical expectations that support the same patterns between ethnic identity and family satisfaction across diverse ethnic groups, differences can be expected to vary across ethnic background (Kiang & Fuligni, 2009). Even though those differences across groups exist, researchers support the idea that ethnic identity is developed through family socialization, in which the individuals imitate their family values (Hughes, 2003). Researchers have argued that racial and ethnic socialization can influence various youth outcomes, including selfesteem and ethnic affirmation (French, Coleman, & DiLorenzo, 2013; Hughes et al., 2009). Therefore, future studies should look at socialization to understand where children are receiving messages regarding their race and ethnic identity. Finally, future studies are implored to look at longitudinal approaches to understanding ethnic identity development, as well as qualitative and projective methods. Longitudinal methods will look how this change over time and across different developmental factors. For as much as we know about what this looks like in adults, we know very little regarding the dynamic and shifting process for children. Longitudinal studies would better capture the EID process in relation to how children explore, construct, revisit, and adapt/change their opinions regarding ethnic identity over time. Similarly, qualitative methods and follow-up questions to IDK responses would also help

144 elucidate the role of cognitive development versus ethnic identity development in general. Conclusions Children are active consumers of their surroundings and make meaning of their experiences at an early age. This study demonstrates those as young as eight, children are perceiving instances of discrimination, and are aware of racial and ethnic differences in themselves. Further, results from this data suggest that components of ethnic identity development, particularly Affirmation and Identification, are more important for children than overall summative scores. The way in which children process and make meaning of their ethnic identity is still relatively unknown, but they are able to answer questions about their connection to their ethnic identity. A call has been made for future research to address theoretical and measurement models to address this issue. In terms of psychological well-being, this study did not find support to link ethnic identity development to increased psychological well-being. However, it did find evidence to suggest that ethnic group membership is important for children’s sense of hope and academic self-efficacy. Taken together, this study is an important step to better understanding ethnic identity development in middle childhood and how it relates to psychological well-being and overall positive development.

References Aboud, R. D. (1987). The development of self-identification and attitudes. In J. S. Phinney & M. J Rotheram (Eds.), Children’s ethnic socialization (pp. 32-55). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. Aboud, F. E. (1988). Children and prejudice. New York: Blackwell. Aboud, F. E. (2003). The formation of in-group favoritism and out-group prejudice in young children: Are they distinct attitudes? Developmental Psychology, 39, 48– 60. Aboud, F. E., & Doyle, A. B. (1993). The early development of ethnic identity and attitudes. In M. E. Bernal & G. P. Knight (Eds.), Ethnic identity: Formation and transmission among Hispanics and other minorities. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Aboud, F. E. & Doyle, A. B. (1995). The development of in-group pride in Black Canadians. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26(3), 243-254. Aboud, F. E. & Mitchell, F. G. (1997). Ethnic role taking: the effects of preference and self-identification. International Journal of Psychology, 12, 1-17. Akiba, D., Szalacha, L. A., & García Coll, C. T. (2004). Multiplicity of ethnic identification during middle childhood: conceptual and methodological considerations. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 104, 4560. Albertini, V. L. (2004). Racial mistrust among immigrant minority students. Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal, 21, 311-331. Alarcón, O., Szalacha, L. A., Erkut, S., Fields, J. P., & García Coll, C. (2000). The color of my skin: A measure to assess children’s perceptions of their skin color. Applied Developmental Science, 4(4), 208–221. Alexander, K. L., Entwistle, D. R., & Kabbani, N. S. (2001). The droupout process in life course perspective: early risk factors at home and school. Teachers College Record, 103(5, 760-822. Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. New York: Doubleday Press. Altschul, I., Oyserman, D., & Bybee, D. (2006). Racial–ethnic identity in midadolescence: content and change as predictors of academic achievement. Child Development, 77, 1155–1169.

145

146 Anderson Moore, K. & Lippman, L. H. (2005). Introduction and conceptual framework. In K. Anderson Moore and L. H. Lippman (Eds.). What do children need to flourish? Conceptualizing and measuring indicators of positive development. New York: Springer. Arellano, A. R. & Padilla, A. M. (1996). Academic invulnerability among a select group of Latino university students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 18(4), 485-507. Arroyo, C. G., & Zigler, E. (1995). Racial identity, academic achievement, and the psychological well-being of economically disadvantaged adolescents. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 903-914. Atkinson, D. R., Morten, F., & Sue, D. W. (1993). Counseling American minorities: a cross-cultural perspective (4th ed.). Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown. Awad, G. A. (2007). The role of racial identity, academic self-concept, and self–esteem in the prediction of academic outcomes for African American students. Journal of Black Psychology, 33, 188-207. Banks, W. C. (1976). White preference in Blacks: a paradigm in search of a phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 1179-1186. Barrett, M. & Davis, S. C. (2008). Applying social identity and self-categorization theories to children’s racial, ethnic, national, and state identifications. In S. Quintana & C. McKown (Eds.), Handbook of race, racism, and the developing child. (pp. 72-110). Hoboken, NJ US: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Bembenutty, H. (2007). Self-regulation of learning and academic delay of gratification: Gender and ethnic differences among college students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18(4), 586-616. Berk, L. E. (2010). Exploring lifespan development (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Bernal, M. E., Knight, G. P., Garza, C. A., Ocampo, K. A., & Cota, M. K. (1990). The development of ethnic identity in Mexican-American children. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Science, 12, 3-24. Bernal, M .E., Knight, G. P., Ocampo, K. A., Barza, C. A., & Cota, M. K. (1993). Development of Mexican American identity. In M. E. Bernal & G. P Knight (Eds.), Ethnic identity: formation and transmission among Hispanics and other minorities (pp. 31-46). Albany State University of New York Press. Bernal, M. E., Saenz, D. S., & Knight, G. P. (1991). Ethnic identity and adaptation of Mexican American youth in school settings. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 13(2), 135-154.

147

Blackmon, S. A. & Vera, E. M. (2008). Ethnic and racial identity development in children of color. In J. K. Asamen, M. L. Ellis, & G. L. Berry (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of child development, multiculturalism, and media (pp. 47-61). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. Booker, C. B. (2006). School belonging and the African American adolescent: What do we know and where should we go? The High School Journal, 1-7, The University of North Carolina Press. Boreland, M., Laybourn, A., Hill, M., & Brown, J. (1998). Middle childhood: the perspectives of children and parents. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Brand, E. S., Ruiz, R. A., & Padilla., A. M. (1974). Ethnic identification and preference: a review. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 860-890. Branscombe, N., Schmitt, M., & Harvey, R. (2006). Perceiving pervasive discrimination among African Americans: Implications for group identification and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 135-149. Brody, G., Chen, Y., Murry, V. M., Ge, X., Simons, R. L., Gibbons, F. X., et al. (2006). Perceived discrimination and the adjustment of African American youths: A fiveyear longitudinal analysis with contextual moderation effects. Child Development, 77, 1170–1189. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: experiments by mature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological systems theory. Annals of Child Development. Greenwhich: JAI Press. Brown, C. S. (2006). Beyond the ABCs: how teachers, peers, and school context affect social identity and achievement. Unpublished manuscript. Brown, C. S. (2008). Children’s perceptions of racial and ethnic discrimination. In S. Quintana & C. McKown (Eds.), Handbook of race, racism, and the developing child. (pp. 133-153). Hoboken, NJ US: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Brown, C. S., & Bigler, R. S. (2005). Children’s perceptions of discrimination: A developmental model. Child Development, 76, 533-553. Buckley, T. & Carter, R. (2005). Black adolescent girls: do gender role and racial identity impact their self-esteem? Sex Roles, 53(9-10), 647-661.

148 Burrow, A. L., Tubman, J. G., & Montgomery, M. J. (2006). Racial identity: Toward an integrated developmental psychological perspective. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 6, 317-339. Butler, R. J. & Gasson, S. L. (2005). Self esteem/self concept scales for children and adolescents: A review. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 10(4), 190-201. Byrne, B. M. (1996). Measuring self-concept across the life span: issues and instrumentation. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Caldwell, C. H., Kohn-Wood, L., Schmeelk-Cone, K., Chavous, T., & Zimmerman, M. (2004). Racial identity, parental support, and alcohol use in a sample of academically at-risk African American high school students. American Journal of Community Psychology, 33(1/2), 91-105. Canino, I.A. (1995). Coping with stress through art. In H. W. Harris, H. C. Blue & E. E. H. Griffith (Eds.), Racial and ethnic identity: psychological development and creative expression (pp. 115-134). Florence, KY: Taylor & Frances/Routledge. Chavez, D. V., Moran, V. R., Reid, S. L., & Lopez, M. (1997). Acculturative stress in children: a modification of the SAFE scale. Hispanic Journal o f Behavioral Sciences, 19(1), 34-44. Chavira, V. & Phinney, J. S. (1991). Adolescents’ ethnic identity, self-esteem, and strategies for dealing with ethnicity and minority status. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 13(2), 226-227. Chavous, T. M., Bernat, D. H., Schmeelk-Cone, K., Caldwell, C., Kohn-Wood, L., & Zimmerman, M. A. (2003). Racial identity and academic attainment among African American adolescents. Child Development, 74(4), 1075-1090. Chemers, M. M., Hu, L., & Garcia, B. F. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first-year college student performance and adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 55-64. Child Rights Information Network. (2009). Guide to non-discrimination and the CRC. Retrieved from http://www.crin.org/docs/CRC_Guide.pdfx Clark, M. L. (1982). Racial group concept and self-esteem in black children. The Journal of Black Psychology, 8(2), 75-88. Clark, K. B. & Clark, M. P. (1939). The development of consciousness of self and the emergence of racial identification in Negro pre-school children. Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 591-599.

149 Clark, K. B., & Clark, M. P. (1947). Racial identification and preference in Negro children. In T. M. Newcomb & E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Cole, P. M., Teti, L. G., & Zahn-Waxler, C. (2003). Mutual emotion regulation and the stability of conduct problems between preschool and early school age. Development and Psychopathology, 15, 1-18. Cone, J. D., & Foster, S. L. (2006). Dissertations and theses from start to finish: Psychology and related fields (2nd ed.). Washington, DC US: American Psychological Association. Cooper, C. R., Garcia Coll, C. T., Thorne, B., & Orellana, M. F. (2005). Beyond demographic categories: How immigration, ethnicity, and “race” matter for children’s identities and pathways through school. In C. R. Cooper, C. T. Garcia Coll, W. T. Bartko, H. Davis, & C. Chatman (Eds.), Developmental pathways through middle childhood: Rethinking contexts and diversity as resources (pp. 181–206). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Crain, R. M. & Bracken, B. A. (1994). Age, race, and gender differences in child and adolescent self-concept: evidence from a behavioral-acquisition, context dependent model. School Psychology Review, 23, 496-511. Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: the self-protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608-630. Cross, S. E., Markus, H. R. (1994). Self-schema, possible selves, and competent performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 423-438. Cross, W. E. (1978). The Thomas and Cross models on psychological Nigrescence: a literature review. Journal of Black Psychology, 4(1), 13-31. Cross, W. E. (1991). Shades of Black: diversity in African-American identity. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Cross, W. E. (1995). In search of Blackness and Afrocentricity: the psychology of Black identity change. In H. W. Harris, H. C. Blue & E. E. H. Griffith (Eds.), Racial and ethnic identity: psychological development and creative expression (pp. 5372). Florence, KY: Taylor & Frances/Routledge. Cross, W. E. & Cross, T. B. (2008). Theory, research, and models. In S. Quintana & C. McKown (Eds.), Handbook of race, racism, and the developing child. (pp. 154181). Hoboken, NJ US: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Cross, W. E. & Fhagen-Smith, P. (2001). Patterns of African American identity development: A life span perspective. In C. L. Wijeyesinghe & B. W. Jackson, III

150 (Eds.), New perspectives on racial identity development: A theoretical and practical anthology (pp. 243–270). New York: New York University Press. Cross, W.E., Strauss, L., & Fhagen-Smith, P. (1999). African American social identity development across the life span: educational implications. In R. H. Sheets & E. R. Hollins (Eds.), Racial and ethnic identity in school practices: Aspects of human development (pp. 29-47). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Davis, K. (2007). A girl like me [Documentary film]. Retrieved January 2012 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0BxFRu_SOw Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55, 34-43. Diener, E., Eunkook, M., & Lucas, R. E. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276-302. Dion, K. L. (2002). The social psychology of perceived prejudice and discrimination. Canadian Psychology, 43(1), 1-10. Du Bois, W. E. B. (1903). The Souls of Black Folk. New York: Vintage Books. Eccles, J. S. (1999). The development of children ages 6 to 14. Future of children, 9(2), 30-44. Erikson, E. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: Norton. Erikson, E. (1968). Identity, Youth and Crisis. New York: W.W. Norton. Evans, K., & Herr, E. (1994). The influence of racial identity and the perception of discrimination on the career aspirations of African American men and women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44, 173-184. Falcón, A. (1995). Puerto Ricans and the politics of racial identity. In H.W. Harris, H.C. Blue & E.E.H. Griffith (Eds.), Racial and ethnic identity: psychological development and creative expression (pp. 193-207). Florence, KY: Taylor & Frances/Routledge. Fall, M. & McLeod, E. H. (2001). Identifying and assisting children with low selfefficacy. Professional School Counseling, 4, 334-341. Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. America's Children: Key National Indicators of Well-Being, 2011. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

151 Fisher, C. B., Wallace, S. A. & Fenton, R. E. (2000). Discrimination distress during adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29, 679-695. French, S., Kim, T. E., & Pillado, O. (2006). Ethnic identity, social group membership, and youth violence. In N. Guerra & E. P. Smith (Eds.), Preventing youth violence in a multicultural society (pp. 47–73). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. French, S. E., Seidman, E., Allen, L., & Aber, J. L. (2000). The development of ethnic identity during adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 42, 1-10. Fuligni, A. J., Witkow, M., & Garcia, C. (2005). Ethnic identity and the academic adjustment of adolescents from Mexican, Chinese, and European backgrounds. Developmental Psychology, 41, 799-811. Garcia Coll, C., Crnic, K., Lamberty, G., & Wasik, B. (1996). An integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in minority children. Child Development, 67, 1891-1914. García Coll, C., Lamberty, G., Jenkins, R., McAdoo, H. P., Crnic, K., Wasik, B. H. et al., (1998). An integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in minority children. Philadelphia: Brunner/Mazel. García Coll, C. & Marks, A. K. (Series Eds.), (2009). Immigrant stories: ethnicity and academics in middle childhood. Oxford: University Press. Gelman, S. A. & Taylor, M. G. (2000). Gender essentialism in cognitive development. In P. H. Miller & E. K. Scholnick (Eds.), Toward a feminist developmental psychology (pp. 169-190). Florence, KY: Taylor & Francis/Routledge. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Goodman, M.E. (1964). Race awareness in young children (rev. ed.). New York: Collier. Gopaul-McNicol, S. (1988). Racial identification and racial preference of Black preschool children in New York and Trinidad. Journal of Black Psychology, 14, 65-68. Gore, P. (2006). Academic Self-Efficacy as a Predictor of College Outcomes: Two Incremental Validity Studies. Journal of Career Assessment, 14, 92-115. Graves, D. A. & Graves, S. B. (2008). Multicultural issues in the lives of developing children in the 21st century. In J. K. Asamen, M.L. Ellis, & G. L. Berry (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of child development, multiculturalism, and media (pp. 8399). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

152 Harris, H. W. (1995). Introduction: A conceptual overview of race, ethnicity, and identity. In Harris, H. (Ed.), Blue, H. (Ed.), & Griffith, E. (Ed.). (1995). Racial and ethnic identity: psychological development and creative expression (pp. 114). Florence, KY: Taylor & Frances/Routledge. Harter, S. (1996). Historical roots of contemporary issues involving self-concept. In B.A. Bracken (Ed.), Handbook of self-concept: developmental, social and clinical considerations (pp. 1-37). New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Harter, S. (2006). The self. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional and personality development (pp. 505-570). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Helms, J. E. (1989). Cycles of psychological nigrescence. The Counseling Psychologist, 17, 227-252. Helms, J. E., (1990). Black and White racial identity: theory, research and practice. New York: Greenwood. Helms, J. E. (1995). An update of Helms’ White and people of color racial identity models. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki & C. M. Alexander (Eds.) Handbook of multicultural counseling (pp. 181-198). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Helms, J.E. (2007). Some better practices for measuring racial and ethnic identity constructs. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54(3), 235-246. Hirschfeld, L. (1995). The inheritability of identity: Children’s understanding of the cultural biology of race. Child Development, 66(5), 1418–1437. Hirschfeld, L.A. (1996). Race in the making: cognition, culture, and the child’s construction of human kinds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hirschfeld, L.A. (2008). Children’s developing conception of race. In S. Quintana & C. McKown (Eds.), Handbook of race, racism, and the developing child. (pp. 37-54). Hoboken, NJ US: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Hodge, D. R., Jackson, K. F., & Vaughn, M. G. (2010). Culturally sensitive interventions for health related behaviors among Latino youth: A meta-analytic review. Children And Youth Services Review, 32(10), 1331-1337. Hughes, D., Rodriguez, J., Smith, E. P., Johnson, D. J., Stevenson, H. C. & Spicer, P. (2006). Parents’ ethnic-racial socialization practices: a review of research and directions for future study. Developmental Psychology, 42(5), 747-770. Huston, A. C. & Ripke, M. N. (2006). Developmental contexts in middle childhood: bridges to adolescence and adulthood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

153

Jordan, P., & Hernandez-Reif, M. (2009). Reexamination of young children's racial attitudes and skin tone preferences. Journal Of Black Psychology, 35(3), 388-403. Kerpelman, J., Eryigit, S., & Stephens, C. (2008). African American adolescents' future education orientation: Associations with self-efficacy, ethnic identity, and perceived parental support. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 997-1008. Kerpelman, J. L., & Mosher, L. S. (2004). Rural African American adolescents’ future orientation: The importance of self-efficacy, control and responsibility, and identity development. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 4, 187–208. Keyes, C. L. M. (2002). The mental health continuum: From languishing to flourishing in life. Journal of Health and Social Research, 43, 207-222. Kiang, L., Yip, T., Fuligni, A. J., Gonzales-Backen, & Witkow, M. (2006). Ethnic identity and the daily psychological well-being of adolescents from Mexican and Chinese backgrounds. Child Development, 77, 1338 – 1350. La Greca, A. M. (1990). Issues and perspectives on the child assessment process. In A. M. La Greca (Ed.), Through the eyes of the child: Obtaining self-reports from children and adolescents (pp. 3-17). Needham Heights, MA US: Allyn & Bacon. Lay, R. & Wakstein, J. (1985). Race, academic achievement, and self-concept of ability. Research in Higher Education, 22, 43-64. Lee, D. C., & Quintana, S. M. (2005). Benefits of cultural exposure and development of Korean perspective-taking ability for transracially adopted Korean children. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 11, 130-143. Lerner, R. M. (1998). Theories of human development: contemporary perspectives. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (5th ed., pp. 1-24). New York: Wiley. Leong, F. T. L., Quin, D. B., & Huang, J. L. (2008). Research methods related to understanding multicultural concepts. In J. K. Asamen, M.L. Ellis, & G. L. Berry (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of child development, multiculturalism, and media (pp. 63-80). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. Liew, J., McTigue, E. M., Barrois, L., & Hughes, J. N. (2008). Adaptive and effortful control and academic self-efficacy beliefs on achievement: A longitudinal study of 1st through 3rd graders. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23(4), 515-526. Lopez, S. J., Gariglietti, K. P., McDermott, D., Sherwin, E. D., Floyd, R. K., Rand, R., et al. (2000). Hope for the evolution of diversity: On leveling the field of dreams. In

154 C. R. Snyder (Ed.), Handbook of hope: Theory, measures, and applications (pp. 223-242). San Diego: Academic Press. Lopez, S. J., Snyder, C. R., & Pedrotti, J. T. (2003). Hope: may definitions, many measures. In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Positive psychological assessment: Handbook of models and measures (pp. 91-107). Washington DC: American Psychological Association. MacPhee, D., Kreutzer, J. C., & Fritz, J. J. (1994). Infusing a diversity perspective into human development courses. Child Development, 65, 699 – 715. Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation ego identity status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 551-558. Marcia, J. E. (1980). Identity in adolescence. In J. Adelson (Ed.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (pp. 156-187). New York: Wiley. Marks, A. K., Szalcha, L. A., Lamarre, M., Boyd, M. J. & García Coll, C. (2007). Emerging ethnic identity and interethnic group social preferences in middle childhood: findings from the Children of Immigrants Development in Context (CIDC) study. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31(5), 501-513. Martin, A. (2002). Motivation and academic resilience: developing a model for student enhancement. Australian Journal of Education, 46, 34-49. McAdoo, H. (Ed.). (2002). Black children: Social, educational, and parental environments (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA US: Sage Publications, Inc. McCreary, M. L, Slavin, L. A., & Berry, E. J. (1996). Predicting problem behavior and self-esteem among African American Adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 11, 216-234. McKown, C. & Weinstein, R. S. (2003). The development and consequences of stereotype consciousness in middle childhood. Child Development, 74(2), 498515. Meece, J. L. & Kurtz-Costes, B. (2001). The schooling of ethnic minority children and youth. Educational Psychologist, 36(1), 1-7. Minority Rights Group International. (2010). Promoting the rights of minority children and women: A review of UNICEF’s policies and practices. Retrieved from http://www.minorityrights.org/10423/briefing-papers/promoting-the-rights-ofminority-children-and-women-a-review-of-unicefs-policies-and-practices.html.

155 Moore, K. (1997). Criteria for indicators of child well-being. In R. M. Hauser, B. Brown, & W. Prosser (Eds.), Indicators of children’s well-being (pp. 36-44). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Myers, D. G., & Diener, E. (1995). Who is happy? Psychological Sciences, 6,10-19. National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. (2002). Community programs to promote youth development (J. Eccles & J.A. Gootman, Eds.). Washington, DC: National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. Nesdale, D. (1999). Developmental changes in children’s ethnic preferences and social cognitions. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 20, 501–519. Nesdale, D. (2004). Social identity processes and children’s ethnic prejudice. In M. Bennett & F. Sani (Eds.), The development of the social self (pp. 219 –246). East Sussex, England: Psychology Press Nesdale, D. (2008). Social identity development and children’s ethnic attitudes in Australia. In S. Quintana & C. McKown (Eds.), Handbook of race, racism, and the developing child. (pp. 313-338). Hoboken, NJ US: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Nesdale, D., & Mak, A. S. (2003). Ethnic identification, self esteem, and immigrant psychological health. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 23–40. Ocampo, K. A., Bernal, M. E., & Knight, G. (1993). Gender, race, and ethnicity: the sequencing of social constancies. In M.E. Bernal & G.P. Knight (Eds.), Ethnic Identity (pp. 11-30). New York: State University of New York Press. Ocampo, K. A., Knight, G. P., & Bernal, M. E. (1997). The development of cognitive abilities and social identities in children: The case of ethnic identity. International Journal Of Behavioral Development, 21(3), 479-500. Okeke, N. A., Howard, L. C., Kurtz-Costes, B., & Rowley, S. J. (2009). Academic race stereotypes, academic self-concept, and racial centrality in African American youth. Journal of Black Psychology, 35, 366-387. Ong, A. D., Fuller-Rowell, T. E., & Phinney, J. S. (2010). Measurement of ethnic identity: Recurrent and emergent issues. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 10, 39-49. Osborne, W. L. & LeGette, H. R. (1982). Sex, race, grade level, and social class differences in self-concept. Measurement and Evaluation in Guidance, 14, 195201.

156 Pachter, L. M., Bernstein, B. A., Szalacha, L. A., & Coll, C. (2010). Perceived racism and discrimination in children and youths: An exploratory study. Health & Social Work, 35(1), 61-69. Pachter, L. M., & Coll, C. (2009). Racism and child health: A review of the literature and future directions. Journal Of Developmental And Behavioral Pediatrics, 30(3), 255-263. Pachter, L. M., Szalacha, L. A., Bernstein, B. A., & Coll, C. (2010). Perceptions of Racism in Children and Youth (PRaCY): Properties of a self-report instrument for research on children's health and development. Ethnicity & Health, 15(1), 33-46 Pahl, K. & Way, N. (2006). Longitudinal trajectories of ethnic identity among urban Black and Latino adolescents. Child Development, 77(5), 1403-1415. Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66, 543–578. Parham, T. A. (1989). Cycles of psychological nigrescence. The Counseling Psychologist, 17, 187-226. Parham, T. A. & Helms, J. E. (1985). Relation of racial identity attitudes to selfactualization and affective states of black students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32(3), 431-440. Park, N. (2004). The role of subjective well-being in positive youth development. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591, 25-39. Pfeifer, J. H., Ruble, D. N., Bachman, M. A., Alvarez, J. M., Cameron, J. A., & Fuligni, A. J. (2007). Social identities and intergroup bias in immigrant and nonimmigrant children. Developmental Psychology, 43(2), 496-507. Phinney, J. S. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: Review of research. Psychological Bulletin, 9, 34-49. Phinney, J. S. (1991). Ethnic identity and self-esteem: A review and integration. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 13, 303-321. Phinney, J. S. (1992). The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure: A new scale for use with diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7, 156-176. Phinney, J. S. (1993). A three-stage model of ethnic identity development in adolescence. In M. E. Bernal & G. P. Knight (Eds.), Ethnic identity: Formation and transmission among Hispanics and other minorities (pp. 61-79). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

157 Phinney, J. S. (1995). Ethnic identity and self-esteem. In A. M. Padilla (Ed.), Hispanic psychology: Critical issues in theory and research (pp. 57-70). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Phinney, J. (2007). The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM). Retrieved from http://www.calstatela.edu/academic/psych/ftp/meim.doc Phinney, J.S. & Chavira, V. (1992). Ethnic identity and self-esteem: an exploratory longitudinal study. Journal of Adolescence, 15, 271-281. Phinney, J.S. & Chavira, V. (1995). Parental ethnic socialization and adolescent coping with problems related to ethnicity. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 5, 31-53. Phinney, J. S., Dennis, J., & Osorio, S. (2006). Reasons to attend college among ethnically diverse college students. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 12(2), 347-366. Phinney, J. S., & Kohatsu, E. L. (1997). Ethnic and racial identity development and mental health. In J. Schulenberg, J. L. Maggs, & K. Hurrelmann (Eds.), Health risks and developmental transitions during adolescence (pp. 429-443). New York: Cambridge University Press. Phinney, J. S. & Ong, A. D. (2007). Conceptualization and measurement of ethnic identity: Current status and future directions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54(3), 271-281. Phinney, J. S., & Rosenthal, D. R. (1992). Ethnic identity in adolescence: Process, context, and outcome. In G. Adams, T. Gullotta, & R. Monetmayor (Eds.), Adolescent identity formation: Advances in adolescent development (pp. 145172). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Phinney, J. S. & Tarver, S. (1988). Ethnic identity search and commitment in Black and White eight graders. Journal of Early Adolescence, 8(3), 265-277. Piaget, J. (1968). Six psychological studies. New York: Basic Books. Ponterotto & Park-Taylor (2007). Racial and ethnic identity theory measurement and research in counseling psychology: Present status and future directions Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54(3), 282-294. Porter, J. D. R. (1971). Black child, White child: the development of racial attitudes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Powell-Hopson, D., & Hopson, D. S. (1988). Implications of doll color preference among Black preschool children and White preschool children. Journal of Black Psychology, 14, 57-64.

158

Quintana, S. M. (1998). Development of children’s understanding of ethnicity and race. Applied & Preventative Psychology: Current Scientific Perspectives, 7, 25-45. Quintana, S. M. (2007). Racial and ethnic identity: Developmental perspectives and research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54, 259-270. Quintana, S.M. & McKown, C. (2008). Introduction: race, racism, and the developing child. In S. Quintana & C. McKown (Eds.), Handbook of race, racism, and the developing child. (pp. 1-15). Hoboken, NJ US: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Quintana, S. M., & Scull, N. C. (2009). Latino ethnic identity. In F. A. Villarruel, G. Carlo, J. M. Grau, M. Azmitia, N. J. Cabrera, & T. J. Chahin (Eds.), Handbook of U.S. Latino psychology: Developmental and community-based perspectives (pp. 81-98). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Quintana, S. M. & Vera, E. M. (1999). Mexican American children’s ethnic identity, understanding of ethnic prejudice, and parental ethnic socialization. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 21(4), 387-404. Ramsay, P. G. (1991). The salience of race in young children growing up in an all-white community. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 28-34. Ramsey, P. G. (2008). Children's Responses to Differences. NHSA Dialog 11(4): 225237. Reese, L.E., Vera, E.M., & Paikoff, R.L. (1998). Ethnic identity assessment among inner-city African American children: evaluating the applicability of the Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure. Journal of Black Psychology, 24(3), 289304. RightCode. (2005). U.S. Diversity Map. Retrieved from: http://www.rightcode.net/development/beyonddiversity/articlefiles/map.pdf on January, 12, 2012. Ripke, M., Huston, A.C., Eccles, J., & Templeton, J. (2008). The assessment of psychological, emotional, and social development indicators in middle childhood. In B.V. Brown (Ed.), Key indicators of child and youth well-being (pp. 131-165). New York: Erlbaum. Roberts, M. C., Brown, K. J., Johnson, R. J., & Reinke, J. (2002). Positive psychology for children: Development, prevention, and promotion. In C. R. Snyder, S. J. Lopez, C. R. Snyder, S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 663-675). New York, NY US: Oxford University Press.

159 Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books. Rowley, S. J., Burchinal, M. R., Roberts, J. E., & Zeisel, S. A. (2008). Racial identity, social context, and race-related social cognition in African Americans during middle childhood. Developmental Psychology, 44(6), 1537-1546. Rowley, S. J., Cooper, S. M., & Clinton, Y. C. (2005). Family and school support for healthy racial identity development in African American youth. In H. Fitzgerald, R. Zucker, & K. Freeark, (Series Eds,), Crisis in youth mental health: Volume 3. Issues for families, schools, and communities. Westport: Praeger. Rowley, S. A., Sellers, R. M., Chavous, T. M., & Smith, M. A. (1998). The relationship between racial identity and self-esteem in African American college and high school students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), 715-724. Ruble, D. N., Alvarez, J., Bachman, M., Cameron, J., Fuligni, A., Garcia Coll, C., et al. (2004). The development of a sense of “we”: the emergence and implications of children’s collective identity. In M. Bennett & F. Sani, (Eds.), The development of the social self (pp.29-76). New York: Psychology Press. Rushton, J. & Jenson, A. (2005). Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 11(2), 235-294. Sattler, J. M. (2002). Assessment of children: Behavioral and clinical applications (4th ed.). La Mesa, CA US: Jerome M Sattler Publisher. Saunders, J., Davis, L., Williams, T., & Williams, J. (2004). Gender differences in selfperceptions and academic outcomes: A study of African American high school students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33, 81–90. Save the Children (2006). The state of the world’s children: Excluded and invisible. New York, NY: UNICEF. Schunk, D. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 207-231. Seaton, E. K. (2010). The influence of cognitive development and perceived racial discrimination on the psychological well-being of African American youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 694-703. Seaton, E. K., Caldwell, C. H., Sellers, R. M., & Jackson, J. S. (2008). The prevalence of perceived discrimination among African American and Caribbean Black youth. Developmental Psychology, 44(5), 1288-1297.

160 Seaton, E. K., Caldwell, C. H., Sellers, R. M., & Jackson, J. S. (2010). Developmental characteristics of African American and Caribbean Black adolescents’ attributions regarding discrimination. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20(3), 774-788. Seaton, E., Scottham, K., & Sellers, R. (2006). The status model of racial identity development in African American adolescents: evidence of structure, trajectories, and well-being. Child Development, 77, 1416-1426. Seaton, E. K., Yip, T., & Sellers, R. M. (2009). A longitudinal examination of racial identity and racial discrimination among African American adolescents. Child Development, 80(2), 406-417. Seligman, M. E. P. (1990). Learned optimism. New York: Simon & Schuster Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness. New York: Free Press. Sellers, R. M., Copeland-Linder, N., Martin, P. P., & Lewis, R. L. (2006). Racial identity matters: The relationship between racial discrimination and psychological functioning in African American adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16(2), 187-216. Sellers, R. M., Rowley, S. A., Chavous, T. M., Shelton, J. N., & Smith, M.A. (1997). Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity: a preliminary investigation of reliability and construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(4), 805-815. Selman, R.L. (1980). The growth of interpersonal understanding: developmental and clinical analyses. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Semaj, L. (1980). The development of racial evaluation and preference: a cognitive approach. Journal of Black Psychology, 6, 59-79. Shaffer, D.R. (1989). Developmental psychology: childhood and adolescence (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove: Brooks-Cole. Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, J. J. & Stanton, G. C. (1976). Self-concept: validation of construct interpretation. Review of Educational Research, 46, 407-441. Simmons, R. G., Rosenberg, F., & Rosenberg, M. (1973). Disturbance in the self-image at adolescence. American Sociological Review, 38, 553-568. Smedely, A. & Smedley, B. (2005). Race as biology is fiction, racism as a social problem is real: anthropological and historical perspectives on the social construction of race. American Psychologist, 60, 16-26.

161 Smith, C.L., Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T.L., Chassin, L., Morris, A.M., Kupfer, A., Liew, J., Cumberland, A., Valiente, C., and Kwok, O.M. (2006). Children’s coping strategies and coping efficacy: Relations to parent socialization, child adjustment, and familial alcoholism. Development and Psychopathology, 18, 445-469. Smith, C., Levine, D. W., Smith, E., Dumas, J., & Prinz, R. J. (2009). A developmental perspective of the relationship of racial–ethnic identity to self-construct, achievement, and behavior in African American children. Cultural Diversity And Ethnic Minority Psychology, 15(2), 145-157. Smith E., P., Walker, K., Fields, L., Brookins, C. C., & Seay, R. C. (1999). Ethnic identity and its relationship to self-esteem, perceived efficacy and prosocial attitudes in early adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 867-880. Snyder, C. R. (1994). The psychology of hope. New York: The Free Press. Snyder, C. R. (2002). Hope theory: rainbow in the mind. Psychological Inquiry, 13(4), 249-275. Snyder, C. R. (2005). Measuring hope in children. In K.A. Moore & L.H. Lippman (Eds.), What do children need to flourish: conceptualizing and measuring indicators of positive development (pp. 61-73). New York: Springer Science. Snyder, C. R., Hoza, B., Pelham, W. E., Rapoff, M., Ware, L., Danovsky, M., et al. (1997). The development and validation of the Children’s Hope Scale. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 22, 399-421. Snyder, C. R., Shorey, H. S., Cheavens, J., Pulvers, K. M., Adams, V. H. & Wiklund, C. (2002). Hope and academic success in college. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 820-826. Spencer, M. B. (1982). Preschool children’s social cognition and cultural cognition: a cognitive developmental interpretation of race dissonance findings. Journal of Psychology, 112, 275-286. Spencer, M. B. (1984). Black children’s race awareness, racial attitudes, and selfconcept: a reinterpretation. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 25, 433441. Spencer, M. B. (1985). Cultural cognition and social cognition as identity factors in Black children’s personal-social growth. In M.B. Spencer, G.K. Brookings, & W.R. Allen (Eds.), Beginnings: Social and affective development of Black children (pp. 215-230). New York: Erlbaum. Spencer, M. B. (2006). Phenomenology and ecological systems theory: Development of diverse groups. In W. Damon & R. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology,

162 vol. 1: Theoretical models of human development (6th ed., pp. 829–893). New York: Wiley. Stagner, M. W. & Zweig, J. M. (2008). Indicators of youth health and well-being: taking the long view. In B.V. Brown (Ed.), Key indicators of child and youth well-being (pp. 47-63). New York: Erlbaum. Stevenson, H. C., Reed, J., Bodison, P. & Bishop, A. (1997). Racism stress management: racial socialization beliefs and the experiences of depression and anger in African American youth. Youth and Society, 29, 172-222. Stevenson, H. W. & Stewart, E. C. (1958). A developmental study of racial awareness in young children. Child Development, 20(3), 399-409. Stone, S., & Han, M. (2005). Percieved school environments, perceived discrimination and school performance among children of Mexican immigrants. Children and Youth Servies Review, 27(1), 51-66. Stone, W. L., & Lemanek, K. L. (1990). Developmental issues in children's self-reports. In A. M. La Greca (Ed.) , Through the eyes of the child: Obtaining self-reports from children and adolescents (pp. 18-56). Needham Heights, MA US: Allyn & Bacon. Suárez-Orozco, M. (2000). Everything you ever wanted to know about assimilation but were afraid to ask. Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 129(4), 1-30. Szalacha, L. A., Erkut, S., García Coll, C., Fields, J. P., Alarcon, O., & Cedar, I. (2003). Perceived discrimination and resilience. In S.S. Luthar (Ed., Resilience and vulnerability: adaptation in the context of childhood adversities( pp. 414-435). New York: Cambridge University Press. Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behavior. Social Science Information/sue les Sciences Sciales, 13(2), 65-93. Tajfel, H. (1978). Social categorization, social identity and social comparison. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp.61-76). London: Academic Press. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Thomson, N. R., & Zand, D. H. (2005). Academic achievement among African American adolescents: Direct and indirect effects of demographic, individual, and contextual variables. Journal of Black Psychology, 31, 352-368.

163 Thorne, B. (2005). Unpacking school lunchtime: structure, practice, and the negotiation of differences. In C.R. Cooper, C.T.G.Coll, W.T. Barko, H. Davis, & C. Chatman (Eds.), Developmental pathways through middle childhood: rethinking contexts and diversity as resources. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Turner, K. L., & Brown, C. (2007). The centrality of gender and ethnic identities across individuals and contexts. Social Development, 16(4), 700-719. Umaña-Taylor, A. J., & Fine, M. A. (2004). Examining ethnic identity among Mexican origin adolescents living in the United States. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 26, 36-59. Umaña-Taylor, A. J., Gonzales-Backen, M. A., & Guimond, A. B. (2009). Latino adolescents’ ethnic identity: Is there a developmental progression and does growth in ethnic identity predict growth in self-esteem?. Child Development, 80(2), 391-405. Umaña-Taylor, A. J., Vargas-Chanes, D., Garcia, C. D., & Gonzales-Backen, M. (2008). A longitudinal examination of Latino adolescents’ ethnic identity, coping with discrimination, and self-esteem. Journal of Early Adolescence, 28, 16-50. Umaña-Taylor, A. J., Yazedjian, A., & Bamaca-Gomez, M. (2004). Developing the Ethnic Identity Scale using Eriksonian and social identity perspectives. Identity, 4, 9–38. U.S. Census Bureau. (2004). U.S. interim projections by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin. Retrieved December, 22, 2011, from http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/usinterimproj/natprojtab01a.xls U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Maternal and Child Health Bureau. (2010). The National Survey of Children's Health 2007. Rockville, Maryland: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Van Ausdale, D. & Feagin, J. R. (1996). Using racial and ethnic concept: the critical case of very young children. American Sociological Review, 61, 779-793. Van Ausdale, D. & Feagin, J. R. (2001). The first R: how children learn race and racism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Valle, M. F., Huebner, E. S. & Suldo, S. M. (2006). An analysis of hope as a psychological strength. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 393-406. Verkuyten, M., Kinket, B., & van der Wielen, S. (1997). The understanding of ethnic discrimination among preadolescents. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 158, 97112.

164

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. (Eds.), M. Cole, V. John-Steinger, S. Scribner, and E. Souberman. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wakefield, W. D., & Hudley, C. (2007). Ethnic and racial identity and adolescent wellbeing. Theory into Practice, 46, 147-154. Whaley, A. L. (1993). Self-esteem, cultural identity, and psychosocial adjustment in African American children. Journal of Black Psychology, 19(4), 406-422. Whaley, A. L., & McQueen, J. P. (2010). Evaluating cohort and intervention effects on Black adolescents' ethnic-racial identity: a cognitive-cultural approach. Evaluation and Program Planning, 33(4), 436-45. Wong, C. A., Eccles, J. S. & Sameroff, A. (2003). The influence of ethnic discrimination and ethnic identification on African American adolescents’ school and socioemotional adjustment. Journal of Personality, 71, 1197-1232. Yasui, M. & Dishion, T. J. (2007). The ethnic context of the child and adolescent problem behavior: implications for child and family interventions. Clinical Child and Family Psychology, 10(2), 137-179. Yip, T. (2008). Everyday experiences of ethnic and racial identity among adolescents. In S. Quintana & C. McKown (Eds.), Handbook of race, racism, and the developing child. (pp. 182-202). Hoboken, NJ US: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Yip, T. & Fuligni, A. J. (2002). Daily variation in ethnic identity, ethnic behaviors, and psychological well-being among American adolescents of Chinese descent. Child Development, 73(5), 1557-1572. Yip, T., Seaton, E. K. & Sellers, R. M. (2006). African American racial identity across the lifespan: identity status, identity content and depressive symptoms. Special Issue of Child Development: Race, Ethnicity and Development, 77(5), 1504-1517.

APPENDIX A: Demographic Measure

All About Me! 1. How old are you? ____________ 2. When is your birthday? (month/day/year): ___________ 3. Gender

1 ( ) Female

2 ( ) Male

4. What grade are you in? ______________ 5. What is your Race/Ethnicity? 1. ( ) Asian or Asian American, including Chinese, Japanese, and others 2. ( ) Black or African American, including Caribbean, Haitian, African, and others 3. ( ) Hispanic or Latino, including Cuban American, Mexican American, and others 4. ( ) White, Caucasian, Anglo, European American, not Hispanic 5. ( ) American Indian/Native American 6. ( ) Pacific Islander including Tongan, Samoan, and others 7. ( ) Mixed, Parents are from two different groups 8. ( ) Other (write in): ________________________ 9. ( ) I don’t know what I am 10. ( ) I don’t know what ethnicity is My father’s ethnicity is (use numbers above) _____ My mother’s ethnicity is (use numbers above) _____ 6. Were you born in Florida?

165

166 1. ( ) Yes

2. ( ) No. If no, where were you born?

______________________ 7. How many people live at home with you? __________ 8. Write in the box the number of people who live in your home. Mom

Sister

Grandma

Aunt

v Cousin

Dad

Brother

Grandpa

Uncle

Other

APPENDIX B: Multidimensional Measure of Identity

My Word List Interviewer: I am going to say some words. I want you to tell me if each word is about you. If you aren’t sure what a word means or if it’s about you, LET’S NOT PICK IT, cuz it’s probably not about you. There are no right or wrong answers, but I want you to do a good job telling me which words are really about you. Circle those words that the child says is about them. If the child is clearly of one ethnic group, only use two descriptors of ethnic groups to which the child does not belong. Are you? Boy Girl Child Parent Sister Brother Daughter Son Floridian Miamian American White

American Indian Multi-Racial Biracial Mixed Latino Hispanic Hispanic-America Central American Mexican Mexican-American Guatemalan Honduran

Cuban Cuban-American Spanish Dominican Dominican-American Puerto Rican Asian Asian-American Japanese Chinese Pacific Islander South American

Ecuadorian Columbian Venezuelan Venezuelan-American Argentinian Argentinian-American Brazilian Brazilian-American Black Black-American African African-American

Caribbean Caribbean-American Jamaican Jamaican-American Haitian Haitian-American Bahamian Bahamian-American Trinidadian Trinidadian-American Barbadian Barbadian-American

Is there any other word that is about you? ________________________________________________ You have picked these words to describe you. As you say each descriptor take it from your set of index cards and display them in front of the child, but not in a straight line. If the child has given you a new descriptor then use a blank index card to write it down in similar handwriting. Allow the child to physically order the cards with you. You picked (##) words. Which word is most important to who you are? Tell me which word would be #1, #2, etc (up to 4). No ties allowed. #1________________ Tell me why you think you are, [label, S’s name]. Try to give me ONE very good reason. PROMPT: When you say someone is [label], what makes the person [label]? What is a [label] person like? #2________________ Tell me why you are [label]. Remember, I want you to give me ONE very good reason. [Use prompts as necessary. #3________________ Tell me why you are [label].

167

168 #4________________ Tell me why you are [label].

APPENDIX C: Perceptions of Racism in Children and Youth –Younger Short Form

Events in my Life When people are racially discriminated against, they are treated badly, not given respect, or are considered inferior because of the color of their skin, because they speak a different language or have an accent, or because they come from a different country or culture. For each of the following situations, think whether you have ever in your life felt discriminated against because of the color of your skin, language or accent, or because of your culture or country of origin: Have you ever: Been watched closely or followed around by security guards or store clerks at a store or mall? Gotten poor or slow service at a restaurant or food store? Gotten poor or slow service at a store? Been accused of something you didn’t do at school? Been treated badly or unfairly by a teacher? Had the feeling that someone was afraid of you? Been called an insulting name? Had someone make a bad or insulting remark about your race, ethnicity, or language? Had someone be rude to you? Seen your parents or other family members treated unfairly or badly because of the color of their skin, language, accent, or because they came from a different country or culture?

169

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

No No No No No No No

Yes Yes

No No

Yes

No

APPENDIX D: Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure - Revised

My Ethnicity Child’s avowed ethnicity _________________ Interviewer: When we asked you before to tell us what your ethnicity is, you chose ____________ (add in avowed ethnic identity). Is this still your answer? If yes, continue. If no, provide the child with the list of choices from the demographic form. Now, I am interested in how you feel about different things. This is not a test. There are no right or wrong answers. After each question, you will first need to think about if you agree or disagree with the statement. If you really agree say or circle “1.” If you agree but not as strongly, say or put ‘2.’ If you disagree, say or circle ‘3.’ If you disagree strongly with the statement, say or circle ‘4’ and if you don’t know an answer, say or circle ‘0.’ Remember, there are no right or wrong answers. Here are some questions for you to practice. I like chocolate ice cream I like to read I like carrots I know how to ride a bike

Not at all Not at all Not at all Not at all

Not Really Not Really Not Really Not Really

A little A little A little A little

A lot A lot A lot A lot

I don’t know I don’t know I don’t know I don’t know

Now I am going to read you some statements. Remember, this is not a test. There are no right or wrong answers. I have spent time trying to find out more about being ________, such as its history traditions and customs I have a strong sense of belonging to my own ________ group I understand pretty well what being ________ means to me I have often done things that will help me understand being ________ better I have often talked to other people in order to learn more about being ____ I feel a strong attachment toward my ________ group

Not at all Not at all Not at all Not at all Not at all Not at all

170

Not Really

A little

A lot

Not Really

A little

A lot

Not Really

A little

A lot

I don’t know I don’t know I don’t know I don’t know

Not Really

A little

A lot

Not Really

A little

A lot

Not Really

A little

A lot

I don’t know I don’t know

APPENDIX E: Ethnic Identity Scale

My Ethnicity My feelings about being _______ are mostly negative

I have not participated in any activities that would teach me about being _____ I am clear about what being _______ means to me

I have experienced things that reflect being _____, such as eating food, listening to music, and watching movies I have attended events that have helped me learn more about being _____ I have read books/magazines/newspapers or other materials that have taught me about being ________ I feel negatively about being _______

I have participated in activities that have exposed me to being ______

Does Not Describe Me At All Does Not Describe Me At All Does Not Describe Me At All Does Not Describe Me At All Does Not Describe Me At All Does Not Describe Me At All Does Not Describe Me At All Does Not Describe Me At 171

Describe Describes Describe s me me a little s me well very well

I don’t know

Describe Describes Describe s me me a little s me well very well

I don’t know

Describe Describes Describe s me me a little s me well very well

I don’t know

Describe Describes Describe s me me a little s me well very well

I don’t know

Describe Describes Describe s me me a little s me well very well

I don’t know

Describe Describes Describe s me me a little s me well very well

I don’t know

Describe Describes Describe s me me a little s me well very well

I don’t know

Describe Describes Describe s me me a little s me well very well

I don’t know

172

I wish I were different from being ______

I am not happy with being ________

I have learned about being _______ by doing things such as reading (books, magazines, newspapers), searching the internet, or keeping up with current events I understand how I feel about being ________

All Does Not Describe Me At All Does Not Describe Me At All

Does Not Describe Me At All Does Not Describe Me At All If I could choose, I would prefer to Does be a different than _______ Not Describe Me At All I know what being _______ means Does to me Not Describe Me At All I have participated in activities that Does have taught me about being Not _______ Describe Me At All I dislike being _________ Does Not Describe Me At All I have a clear sense of being Does _______ means to me Not Describe Me At All

Describe Describes Describe s me me a little s me well very well

I don’t know

Describe Describes Describe s me me a little s me well very well

I don’t know

Describe Describes Describe s me me a little s me well very well

I don’t know

Describe Describes Describe s me me a little s me well very well

I don’t know

Describe Describes Describe s me me a little s me well very well

I don’t know

Describe Describes Describe s me me a little s me well very well

I don’t know

Describe Describes Describe s me me a little s me well very well

I don’t know

Describe Describes Describe s me me a little s me well very well

I don’t know

Describe Describes Describe s me me a little s me well very well

I don’t know

173

Is there anything else about being _________________ (child’s avowed ethnicity) that we did not ask you? ________________________________________________________________________ ______

APPENDIX F: Children’s Hope Scale

Questions About Your Goals The six sentences below describe how children think about themselves and how they do things in general. Read each sentence carefully. For each sentence, please think about how you are in most situations. Circle the word that describes YOU the best. There are no right or wrong answers. I think I am doing pretty well I can think of many ways to get the things in life that are most important to me I am doing just as well as other kids my age When I have a problem, I can come up with lots of ways to solve it I think the things I have done in the past will help me in the future Even when others want to quit, I know that I can find ways to solve the problem

None of the Time None of the Time None of the Time None of the Time None of the Time None of the Time

A Little of the Time A Little of the Time A Little of the Time A Little of the Time A Little of the Time A Little of the Time

174

Some of the Time Some of the Time Some of the Time Some of the Time Some of the Time Some of the Time

A Lot of the Time A Lot of the Time A Lot of the Time A Lot of the Time A Lot of the Time A Lot of the Time

Most of the Time Most of the Time Most of the Time Most of the Time Most of the Time Most of the Time

All of the Time All of the Time All of the Time All of the Time All of the Time All of the Time

APPENDIX G: Revised-Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale

How I Feel About Myself The six sentences below describe how children feel about themselves. Read each sentence carefully. For each sentence, please think about how you feel in most situations. Circle the answer that describes YOU the best. There are no right or wrong answers. Everyone has some things about him or her, which are good and some things, which are bad. Are more of the things about you…GOOD, BAD or BOTH about the same? _______________________ Another kid says, “I am no good.” Do you ever feel like this? A kid told me: “There’s a lot wrong with me.” Do you ever feel like this? Another kid said, “I’m not much good at anything.” Do you ever feel like this? Another kid said, “I think I am no good at all.” Do you ever feel like this?

None of the Time None of the Time None of the Time

A Little of the Time A Little of the Time A Little of the Time

A Lot of the Time A Lot of the Time A Lot of the Time

All of the Time All of the Time All of the Time

None of the Time

A Little of the Time

A Lot of the Time

All of the Time

How happy are you with the kind of person you are? Are you…

Not at All Happy

A Little Happy

A Lot of Happy

Always Happy

175

APPENDIX H: Self-Efficacy Scale – Student Version

Questions About School Please listen to the following statements and tell me (or circle) the box that is most like you. I keep trying when I can’t figure out an answer to a problem Even though my teachers think I can do certain projects or assignments, sometimes I can’t It’s easy to make choices. Sure, I make mistakes sometimes, but it’s not my fault I know I can do many things at school When teachers give me new assignments or projects, I believe I can do them I give up on my schoolwork easily I like tough schoolwork I get excited when I start new projects or assignments

Not Like Me

Somewhat Like Me

A Lot Like Me

A Lot of the Time

I Don’t Know

None of the Time

A Little of the Time

Some of the Time

A Lot of the Time

Most of the Time

None of the Time None of the Time

A Little of the Time A Little of the Time

Some of the Time Some of the Time

A Lot of the Time A Lot of the Time

Most of the Time Most of the Time

None of the Time None of the Time

A Little of the Time A Little of the Time

Some of the Time Some of the Time

A Lot of the Time A Lot of the Time

Most of the Time Most of the Time

Not Like Me Not Like Me Not Like Me

Somewhat Like Me Somewhat Like Me Somewhat Like Me

A Lot Like Me A Lot Like Me A Lot Like Me

A Lot of the Time A Lot of the Time A Lot of the Time

I Don’t Know I Don’t Know I Don’t Know

176

APPENDIX I: Sticker Chart

's Sticker C hart

Events and How I Deal

All about me!

Questions about your goals

My Word List

Feelings about myself

My Ethnicity

Feelings about school

Thank you!

177

APPENDIX J: University of Miami IRB Approval

178

179

APPENDIX K: MDCPS IRB Approval

180

181

APPENDIX L: Parental Consent

University of Miami CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN A RESEARCH STUDY The following information describes the research study in which your child is being asked to participate. Please read the information carefully. At the end, you will be asked to sign if you agree to participate and/or to allow your child to participate. PURPOSE OF STUDY You are being asked to allow your child to participate in a research study. The purpose of this study has two goals: 1) to understand how children think about ethnic identity, and 2) to understand the role that ethnic identity plays in psychological well-being. PROCEDURES Your child will be asked to complete a demographic information sheet and multiple questionnaires during this interview. The questions will be read aloud to your child; and then he or she will make appropriate responses on a corresponding answer sheet. The questionnaires will cover topics including ethnic identity, perceived discrimination, protective coping behaviors, hope, self-esteem and academic self-efficacy. The length of time your child is expected to participate in the study is approximately 30 minutes in a one-time interview. RISKS AND/OR DISCOMFORTS We do not anticipate that your child will experience any personal risk or discomfort from taking part in this study. RIGHT TO DECLINE OR WITHDRAW Your child’s participation in the study is voluntary. Refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of benefits to which your child are otherwise entitled. Your child may choose to withdraw from the study at any time, without any penalty or loss of benefits. In addition, your child may skip any question if he/she does not wish to answer, without any penalty or loss of benefits. The investigator reserves the right to remove your child without your child’s consent at such time that they feel it is in the best interest for your child. BENEFITS No benefit can be promised to your child from your participation in this study. The study is expected to benefit psychological science by understanding the role that ethnic identity plays in the lives of ethnically diverse children.

182

183 CONFIDENTIALITY Every effort will be made to maintain confidentiality. Names will only be included on the demographic information sheet. Randomly assigned identification numbers will take the place of names on each questionnaire. All documents with identifying information will be kept separate from the questionnaires. In addition, all relevant research materials will be stored in a locked file cabinet. COMPENSATION Your child will receive a small plastic toy for his/her participation in the study, whether or not he/she withdraws from the study. In addition, all participants who complete the survey will be entered into a raffle for a $50.00 gift certificate to a local grocery store. The raffle will be conducted after data collection has been completed in or before May of 2013. The study is expected to interview approximately 200 children, therefore the chances of winning this raffle prize is approximately 1 out of 200. No purchase is necessary in order to be entered in the raffle; however, only participants who complete the survey will be entered into the raffle. Funds for the raffle are supported by a private donation. CONTACT INFORMATION You can contact the project coordinator, Billie Schwartz at (305)-898-0483 or Dr. Guerda at (305) 284-9124, who will gladly answer any questions you may have concerning the purpose, procedures, and outcome of this project. If you have questions about your rights as a research subject you may contact Human Subjects Research Office at the University of Miami, at (305) 243-3195. PARTICIPANT AGREEMENT I have read the information in this consent form and agree to allow my child to participate in this study. I have had the chance to ask any questions I have about this study, and they have been answered for me. I am entitled to a copy of this form after it has been read and signed.

____________________________ Name of Child

____________________________ Signature of Parent/Guardian

__________________ Date

____________________________ Signature of person obtaining consent

__________________ Date

APPENDIX M: Child Assent Consent

University of Miami ASSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN A RESEARCH STUDY Investigator: Billie Schwartz We are doing a research study about ethnic identity and the ways you feel about certain things. A research study is a way to learn more about people. If you decide you want to be part of this study, you will be asked to answer some questions for about 30 minutes. There are some things about this study you should know. If you decide you want to be part of this study, you will be asked to some questions and fill out some sheets about you and the way you feel. The questions will be read aloud to you, and then you will say or write down your answers on the responses sheet given to you. There are some things about this study you should know. Some of the papers you have to fill out may take you a little while to complete. Even though it may feel like what you do in school, there is no right or wrong answers! We just want to learn more about your and get your opinion on some things. Not everyone who takes part in this study will benefit. A benefit means that something good happens to you. We think these benefits might be that you will learn more about yourself and your background; you will feel positive about yourself. You will not be paid for being in this study. When we are finished with this study we will write a report about what was learned. This report will not include your name or that you were in the study. You do not have to be in this study if you do not want to be. If you decide to stop after we begin, that’s okay too. No one will be mad at you if you decide not to do this study. You may ask questions about the study at any time. Do you have any questions? If you decide you want to be in this study, please sign your name. I agree _______I do not agree ________to participate in this study which I have read or which has been explained to me by ____________________. ___________________________________ (Sign your name here)

_______________ (Date)

___________________________________ (Signature of Person Obtaining Assent)

_______________ (Date)

184