Cultural Identity Configurations: A Latent Profile Analysis of Ethnic/Racial and U.S. Identity Process and Content

• In Event: Identity Development Among Minoritized and Marginalized Populations

Abstract

For ethnic-racial minoritized youth within the United States, the establishment of a cultural identity represents a particularly salient developmental task (Meca et al., 2017). Although the operationalizations of cultural identity have varied, the current study focuses on ethnic/racial identity (ERI) and U.S. identity (USI), two identity domains particularly salient for ethnic/racial minoritized youth (Schwartz et al., 2012). ERI and USI can both be understood as multidimensional constructs encompassing the processes through which individuals develop their identity as well as the beliefs and feelings individuals have about their ethnic–racial background and membership within the U.S. (Meca et al., 2019). Although research has largely suggested ERI and USI are associated with positive adjustment (see Meca et al., in press), the majority of this research has been variable centered – failing to acknowledge that process and content dimensions of both of these cultural identity domains co-exist and function within unique configurations (Wantchekon & Umana-Taylor, 2021). Addressing this gap, the current study sought to identify unique profiles of ERI and USI process and content among Hispanic/Latinx emerging adults and determine whether psychological and academic adjustment varied as a function of profile membership separately and jointly.

The sample consisted of 376 Hispanic/Latinx college students age (82.4% female, 61.2% U.S. Born, Mage=20.58, SD=2.69) collected from a large public Hispanic-serving institution in the Southeastern region of the United States between Spring 2018 and Spring 2019. Using latent profile analysis (LPA), we identified three distinct ERI profiles (see Table 1): Diffused & Negative, Diffused & Neutral, and Developed & Positive. Similarly, we found three distinct USI profiles: Diffused & Negative, Diffused & Positive, and Developed & Positive. Although there was concordance between ERI and USI classification for the majority of participants (70.05%), there was still important differences across classification patterns. Additionally, as indicated in Table 2, participants with a Developed & Positive ERI/USI exhibited the highest psychological and academic adjustment.

The identification of these unique profiles of process and content dimensions of both ERI and USI provide important information regarding the structure and dynamics of Hispanic/Latinx’ cultural identity. Indeed, although prior work has established that process and content dimensions represent unique and independent dimensions, the Developed & Positive profiles indicates a strong connection between these dimensions. On the other hand, the diffused profiles provided evidence for the independence of ERI/USI process and content domains. In essence, an absence of an established ERI/USI does not preclude positive feelings of ones’ group membership, however, in contrast to arguments made by Umaña-Taylor et al. (2004), the development of ERI/USI vis-à-vis exploration and resolution seems to fuel the establishment of positive feelings towards ones’ group membership. Additionally, the substantive overlap in the structure of ERI and USI provide further evidence for the parallelism between these identity domains. Finally, consistent with variable-centered approach (see Rivas-Drake et al., 2014), findings largely indicated a developed and positive ERI and USI was associated with positive adjustment.

Authors

• Alan Meca, University of Texas at San Antonio
  Presenting Author

• Bethany Cruz, University of Texas at San Antonio

• Taryn Veniegas, The University of Texas at San Antonio

• Kelsie Allison, Old Dominion University

• Lauren Santibanez, University of Texas at San Antonio

• Melinda A Gonzales-Backen, Florida State Univeristy