The Familial Socialization of Culturally Related Values in Mexican American Families

GEORGE P. KNIGHT Arizona State University

CADY BERKEL Arizona State University*

ADRIANA J. UMANA-TAYLOR Arizona State University**

NANCY A. GONZALES Arizona State University

IDEAN ETTEKAL Arizona State University**

MARYANNE JACONIS Arizona State University*

BRENNA M. BOYD Arizona State University

The Familial Socialization of Culturally Related

Values in Mexican American Families

Research has documented a relation betweenparents’ ethnic socialization and youth’s ethnicidentity, yet there has been little research exam-ining the transmission of cultural values fromparents to their children through ethnic social-ization and ethnic identity. This study examinesa prospective model in which mothers’ andfathers’ Mexican American values and ethnicsocialization efforts are linked to their chil-dren’s ethnic identity and Mexican Americanvalues in a sample of 750 families (including467 two-parent families) from an ongoing lon-gitudinal study of Mexican American families

Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, 950 S,McAllister Ave., Tempe, AZ, 85287-1104 ([email protected]).

*Prevention Research Center, Arizona State University,900 S. McAllister Ave., Tempe, AZ, 85287-6005.

**School of Social and Family Dynamics, Arizona StateUniversity, 951 S. Cady Mall, Tempe, AZ, 85287-3701.

Key Words: cultural values, ethnic identity, ethnicsocialization, Mexican American families.

(Roosa, et al., 2008). Findings indicate that thesocialization of Mexican American values wasprimarily a function of mothers’ Mexican Amer-ican values and ethnic socialization and thatmothers’ Mexican American values were longi-tudinally related to children’s Mexican Amer-ican values. Finally, these associations wereconsistent across gender and nativity groups.

In recent years there has been an increasinginterest in the impact of the cultural adapta-tion of ethnic minority youths on their mentalhealth, academic outcomes, and resilience (seeGonzales, Fabrett, & Knight, 2009, for a review).One subset of this literature has focused on therole of ethnic or cultural socialization in theculturally related behavior of Latino children andadolescents (e.g., Hughes et al., 2006; Knight,Cota, & Bernal, 1993). Although there is arelatively small empirical literature bearing onthe changes experienced by Mexican American(or other Latino) youths resulting from ethnicsocialization, much of this has focused on the

Journal of Marriage and Family 73 (October 2011): 913 – 925 913DOI:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00856.x

914 Journal of Marriage and Family

relations between socialization experiences andethnic identity (e.g., Knight, Bernal, Garza, Cota,& Ocampo, 1993; Supple, Ghazarian, Frabutt,Plunkett, & Sands, 2006; Umana-Taylor, Alfaro,Bamaca, & Guimond, 2009; Umana-Taylor &Fine, 2004). Much less is known about thefamilial transmission of culturally related val-ues, even though such values guide behavior in awide range of contexts and are considered primetargets in the socialization of cultural orienta-tion (e.g., Knight, Bernal, Garza, & Cota, 1993;Umana-Taylor, Alfaro, et al., 2009). The presentstudy is designed to prospectively examine theprocess through which values linked to MexicanAmerican culture are transmitted from parents toMexican American youths through ethnic social-ization within the family, as well as the role thatyoung adolescents’ ethnic identity plays in theadoption of these values.

The development of a strong ethnic iden-tity has consistently been associated with posi-tive psychological outcomes among adolescents(e.g., Armenta, Knight, Carlo, & Jacobson,2010; Fuligni, Witkow, & Garcia, 2005; Phin-ney, 1990; Supple et al., 2006). There is alsoan emerging literature focused on the role ofethnic socialization in the transmission of cul-turally related values in Latino families (Berkelet al., 2010; Calderon-Tena, Knight, & Carlo,2011; Umana-Taylor, Alfaro, et al., 2009) andthe relation of these values to adjustment (e.g.,Berkel et al., 2010; Calderon-Tena et al., 2011).

This research is based on theoretical models(Knight, Bernal, Garza, & Cota, 1993; Umana-Taylor & Fine, 2004) that emphasize broadercultural and contextual factors, including bothfamilial and nonfamilial socialization agents.Given the plethora of research indicating thatfamily members, and particularly parents, arethe foremost source of information about eth-nicity for children and adolescents (Brown,Tanner-Smith, Lesane-Brown, & Ezell, 2007;Hughes et al., 2006; Knight, Bernal, Garza,Cota, & Ocampo, 1993; Umana-Taylor, Alfaro,et al., 2009), we focused on the familial context,including the parent’s nativity, the ethnic valuesendorsed by parents, and parents’ ethnic social-ization efforts. Theoretical models of ethnicsocialization also highlight developmental dif-ferences in the specific features of ethnic identitythat are salient at different development stages.During early childhood, ethnic socialization mayfoster the development of behaviors (such asSpanish language use), ethnic self-identification

(awareness that one is a member of an eth-nic group), ethnic constancy (awareness thatone’s ethnicity is permanent), ethnic knowledge,and ethnic preferences (e.g., Knight, Bernal,Garza, Cota, & Ocampo, 1993). The greatersocial and cognitive capabilities associated withadolescence may allow ethnic socialization tofoster more advanced features of ethnic identitysuch as ethnic identity exploration (the degreeto which one has tried to learn more aboutone’s ethnic group), and resolution (the degreeto which one has clarified the role that ethnicidentity plays in one’s life; e.g., Umana-Taylor,Gonzales-Backen, & Guimond, 2009). Further,the development of ethnic identity explorationand resolution (which are associated with par-ents’ ethnic socialization; e.g., Supple et al.,2006; Umana-Taylor & Fine, 2004) may fosteror be requisite for the internalization of valuesassociated with the ethnic culture. Hence, thisresearch is designed to examine a model suggest-ing that Mexican American mothers and fathersborn in Mexico are more likely to endorse Mex-ican American values and engage in more ethnicsocialization of their young adolescents. Thisethnic socialization will foster a stronger ethnicidentity in their adolescent children (particularlyethnic exploration and ethnic resolution), whichin turn will lead these adolescents to increasedendorsement of Mexican American values.

Although there is literature associating eth-nic socialization with ethnic identity and anemerging literature on the linkage between eth-nic socialization and culturally related values,there has been little examination of the waysin which the formation of ethnic identity isassociated with the development of culturallyrelated values. Social identity theory (Tajfel &Turner, 1986) suggests that the activation of anyparticular social identity in a given immediatesituation leads to attitudes, expectations, and val-ues associated with that social identity becomingthe guiding force for behavior in that situation.In addition, self-categorization theory (Turner,Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) sug-gests that the activation of a social identityincreases the tendency to self-stereotype, whichenhances perceptions of oneself as being moresimilar to a stereotypic or prototypic member ofone’s group. Self-stereotyping, in turn, enhancesthe tendency to adopt group norms and engagein behaviors that are consistent with such norms(e.g., Oyserman & Lee, 2008). Together, thesetheories suggest that Mexican American youths’

Socialization of Cultural Values 915

degree of ethnic identification may determinethe extent to which they are likely to internal-ize values associated with Mexican Americanculture because of their greater commitment to,and exploration of, their ethnic group member-ship. Indeed, this perspective is consistent withthe evidence indicating that ethnic identity andthe adoption of values associated with MexicanAmerican culture are related (Armenta et al.,2010; Umana-Taylor, Alfaro, et al., 2009). Inaddition, the search for the meaning of their eth-nic group membership (i.e., ethnic exploration)may be required to discern the nature of thecultural values associated with the ethnic group,and ethnic group membership being an importantelement of one’s self-concept (i.e., ethnic reso-lution) may be necessary to make a commitmentto these culturally related values. If so, it is rea-sonable to expect that the development of moreadvanced features of ethnic identity, such asethnic identity exploration and resolution, mayfoster the internalization of culturally relatedvalues. Indeed, Kiang and Fuligni (2009) usedlongitudinal data to support this hypothesizeddirection of the relation between ethnic identityand culturally related values.

Although there is existing research examin-ing portions of this socialization model, thisresearch has been based upon single time-pointassessments, generally based upon only singlereporter data (usually adolescents), and rarelyconsidered fathers’ contributions to the social-ization of their children’s values. The presentresearch is based upon prospective analyses oflongitudinal data because this model proscribesthat ethnic socialization leads to changes in cul-turally related values over time. In addition, thisresearch examines the role of ethnic identity inthe adoption of culturally related values. Wealso conducted multigroup analyses to examinethe degree to which this model was moder-ated by the young adolescents’ gender, becausethere is some evidence, albeit mixed, suggest-ing that ethnic socialization effects may varyacross youth characteristics (Brown et al., 2007;Hughes et al., 2006; Umana-Taylor, Alfaro,et al., 2009). Finally, to provide a more rigor-ous test of the directional effects hypothesized,several alternative models were tested as fol-lows: (a) whether mothers’ and fathers’ ethnicsocialization uniquely informed young adoles-cents’ ethnic identity or whether their interactiveinfluence was more informative; (b) whethermothers’ and fathers’ ethnic socialization efforts

informed young adolescents’ ethnic identity and,in turn, young adolescents’ values (i.e., ethnicidentity as a mediator) or whether ethnic identitywas independent of parents’ socialization effortsand independently informed the strength of theassociation between parents’ socialization andyoung adolescents’ values (i.e., ethnic identityas a moderator); and (c) whether the direction ofeffect is from young adolescents’ ethnic iden-tity to young adolescents’ values or from youngadolescents’ values to young adolescents’ ethnicidentity. The paths in our hypothesized modelwere all conceptually derived, and testing thesealternative mechanisms provided an opportu-nity to rule out alternative processes that couldexplain the associations of interest.

METHOD

Participants

Data for this study come from the first and sec-ond assessments (between 2004 and 2008) ofan ongoing longitudinal study investigating therole of culture and context in the lives of Mex-ican American families (Roosa et al., 2008).Participants were 750 Mexican American youngadolescents, their mothers, and 467 (62.3%) oftheir fathers, who were selected from rosters ofschools that served ethnically and linguisticallydiverse communities in the Phoenix metropoli-tan area. To recruit a representative sample ofMexican American families, a multiple-step pro-cess was implemented that included a stratifiedrandom sampling strategy to select neighbor-hoods diverse in cultural and economic qualities,recruitment through 47 schools across 35 neigh-borhoods, the use of culturally sensitive recruit-ment and data collection processes, interviewsin participants’ homes in English or in Spanishaccording to the participants’ preference, anda financial incentive (Roosa et al., 2008). Afterreceiving consent to contact families through aletter to the home, we attempted to contact 1,982families. Of these, 12 (0.6%) families could notbe contacted, 55 (2.8%) declined to participatebefore being screened, and 1,970 were screenedto determine if they met the eligibility require-ments. Of the 1,085 who met the eligibilityrequirements 750 (69.1%) completed the initialinterview, 270 (24.9%) declined to participate,4 (0.3%) began the interview but were unable tocomplete it, and 61 (5.6%) were not asked to par-ticipate because we had reached our recruitment


goal. Of those who were ineligible, 56 (2.8%)no longer attended the participating school, 99(5.0%) and 243 (12.3%) did not have a biologi-cal mother or father (respectively) in the home,298 (15.1%) and 106 (5.4%) did not have aMexican American biological mother or father(respectively), 16 (0.8%) were severely learningdisabled, 3 (.01%) could not speak either Englishor Spanish, and 9 (.04%) were participatingin another research project. Hence, the over-all recruitment success was 73.2% of those whowere eligible and asked to participate. The result-ing sample was diverse in cultural orientation,social class, and type of residential neighbor-hood and similar to the census description of thispopulation. The participating families includedboth a biological mother and father (if will-ing) who self-identified as Mexican or MexicanAmerican and a fifth-grade student who livedwith the mother and was not severely learningdisabled. No stepfather or mother’s boyfriendwas living with the young adolescent (unless theboyfriend was the biological father of the targetadolescent).

This sample of Mexican American familieswas diverse with respect to both SES and lan-guage (Roosa et al., 2008). Family incomesranged from less than $5,000 to more than$95,000 per year, with the average family report-ing an annual income of $30,000 – $35,000. Interms of language, 30.2% of mothers, 23.2% offathers, and 82.5% of young adolescents wereinterviewed in English. The mean age of mothersin our study was 35.9 (SD = 5.81) and mothersreported an average of 10.3 (SD = 3.67) yearsof education. The mean age of fathers was 38.1(SD = 6.26) and fathers reported an average of10.1 (SD = 3.94) years of education. The youngadolescents (48.7% female) ranged in age from9 to 12, with a mean of 10.42 (SD = 0.55; with97.6% being 10 or 11 years old) at Time 1. Amajority of mothers and fathers were born inMexico (74.3% and 79.9%, respectively), and amajority of young adolescents were born in theUnited States (70.3%).

At Time 2, approximately 2 years after Time1 data collection, most students were in the sev-enth grade. Of the 39 (5.2%) families who did notparticipate at Time 2, 16 (2.1%) refused to partic-ipate. Families who participated at Time 2 werecompared to families who did not participateat Time 2 on several Time 1 demographic vari-ables, and no differences emerged on young ado-lescents (i.e., gender, age, generational status,

language of interview), mother (i.e., maritalstatus, age, generational status), or father char-acteristics (i.e., age, generational status).

Procedure

Mothers, fathers, and young adolescents com-pleted computer-assisted personal interviews attheir home, scheduled at the family’s conve-nience, that were about 2.5 hours long. Cohabit-ing family members’ interviews were conductedconcurrently by trained interviewers in separatelocations at participants’ homes to ensure con-fidentiality. The interviewers were 80% – 90%female (depending upon the assessment year),between 23 and 60 years of age (with the excep-tion of a 19-year-old civil rights activist), fluentin both English and Spanish, recipients of amaster’s or bachelor’s degree (or the combina-tion of education and a least 2 years of profes-sional experience in a social service agency),strong in communication and organizationalskills, and knowledgeable about computers.Interviewers received at least 40 hours of train-ing that included information on the project’sgoals, characteristics of the target population, theimportance of professional conduct when visit-ing participants’ homes as well as throughout theprocess, and the critical role they would play incollecting the data. Interviewers read each sur-vey question and possible responses aloud in par-ticipants’ preferred language to reduce problemsrelated to variations in literacy levels. Familieswere compensated $45 and $50 per participatingfamily member at Times 1 and 2, respectively.

Measures

Nativity. In response to the question ‘‘In whatcountry were you born?’’ mothers and fatherswere asked to select among three possibleoptions (the United States, Mexico, or other).Mothers were also asked to report on the coun-try of birth of their participating child using theseoptions.

Mexican American values. Mothers, fathers,and young adolescents completed the Mexi-can American Cultural Values Scale (MACVS;Knight et al., 2010) to assess Mexican Americanvalues. The MACVS was developed based uponfocus groups conducted with Mexican Amer-ican mothers, fathers, and young adolescentsabout the Mexican American and mainstream


American cultures. The current study used fivesubscales from this measure to assess eachyoung adolescent’s Mexican American values:Familism – Support (six items, e.g., ‘‘Parentsshould teach their children that the familyalways comes first’’); Familism – Obligation(five items, e.g., ‘‘If a relative is having a hardtime financially, one should help them out if pos-sible’’); Familism – Referents (five items, e.g.,‘‘A person should always think about their fam-ily when making important decisions’’); Respect(eight items, e.g., ‘‘Children should always bepolite when speaking to any adult’’); and Reli-giosity (seven items, e.g., ‘‘One’s belief in Godgives inner strength and meaning to life’’). Eachfamily member indicated his or her endorsementof each item by responding on a 5-point Likertscale ranging from 1 = not at all to 5 = verymuch. Confirmatory factor analyses using thefirst assessment in this data set indicated thatthe items for each subscale fit best on the respec-tive subscale and that these subscales also loadedon a higher order factor (Knight et al., 2010). Inaddition, these confirmatory factor analyses indi-cated that the factor loading for each item andthe loading of each subscale on the higher orderMexican American values latent construct werecomparable for young adolescents, mothers, andfathers. Cronbach’s αs for mothers T1, fathersT1, young adolescents T1, and young adoles-cents T2 were .86, .89, .87, and .89, respectively.The MACVS also includes Mainstream Val-ues scales (Material Success, Independence andSelf-Reliance, and Competition and PersonalAchievement) that were not included in thisreport because we did not have assessments ofmainstream socialization or mainstream identity.

Ethnic socialization. Mothers’ and fathers’ eth-nic socialization was assessed with an adaptationof the 10-item Ethnic Socialization Scale fromthe Ethnic Identity Questionnaire (e.g., Knight,Bernal, Garza, Cota, & Ocampo, 1993). Thismeasure was designed to assess ethnic social-ization about cultural traditions, values, beliefs,and ethnic-group history. The adaptation wasdesigned to eliminate items more appropriatefor children younger than those in the presentstudy and to generate a few items specificallyfocused on the socialization of values that havebeen associated with a Mexican heritage (Knightet al., 2010). Mothers and fathers were asked toindicate, using a 4-point Likert scale rangingfrom 1 = almost never or never to 5 = a lot of

the time (frequently), how often had they social-ized their children about Mexican Americanculture. Sample items included ‘‘How often doyou: ‘tell your child to be proud of his/her Mex-ican background’; ‘tell your child that he/shealways has an obligation to help members ofthe family’; and ‘tell your child about the dis-crimination she/he may face because of her/hisMexican background.’’’ Cronbach’s αs were .76for mothers and .79 for fathers.

Ethnic identity. Young adolescents’ ethnic iden-tity was assessed with the 17-item EthnicIdentity Scale (EIS; Umana-Taylor & Fine,2004), which includes three subscales thatmeasure exploration (seven items), resolution(four items), and affirmation (six items). Youngadolescents were asked to indicate how true eachitem was using a 5-point Likert scale rangingfrom 1 = not at all true to 5 = very true. Becausethe EIS is designed to be administered to diverseethnic samples, items were slightly revised forthe current study to be specific to individuals ofMexican origin. Sample items included: ‘‘Youhave attended events that have helped you learnmore about your Mexican/Mexican Americanbackground’’ (exploration), ‘‘You have a clearsense of what your Mexican/Mexican Americanbackground means to you’’ (resolution), and‘‘You wish you were of a cultural backgroundthat was not Mexican/Mexican American’’(affirmations were reverse-scored). Cronbach’sαs for young adolescents were .73, .86, and .76for the exploration, resolution, and affirmationsubscales, respectively. Although the affirmationsubscale has a reasonable internal consistency,confirmatory factor analyses and construct valid-ity analyses have led to the suggestion that thereverse wording of all of the items on this sub-scale may be problematic among the young ado-lescents in this sample because they are young(White, Umana-Taylor, Knight, & Zeiders,2010). Hence, the affirmation subscale of theEIS was not included in the current analyses.

Analysis Plan

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) analy-ses were conducted using the full-informationmaximum-likelihood estimation proceduresavailable in Mplus Version 5.1 (Muthen &Muthen, 2008) to handle missing data. Otherthan the very small attrition of families betweenthe initial and second assessments (described


earlier), there was less than 0.2% missing datafor any single item in the assessment battery.In all models, Mexican American values, ethnicsocialization, and ethnic identity were treated aslatent variables. Adolescents’ reports of theirMexican American values at Time 1 wereincluded in the models to enable the predictionof change in Mexican American values overtime. To control the number of paths being esti-mated because of the large number of items oneach subscale other than ethnic socialization, thesubscales of each multi-subscale latent constructwere treated as observed variables. For ethnicsocialization the individual items were used tocreate the latent construct. The factor loadings ofall items on each subscale were significant andabove .50, indicating the adequacy of the mea-surements. Nativity, Mexican American values,and ethnic socialization were allowed to cor-relate across mothers and fathers within eachfamily for all models. Multiple practical fitindices (CFI, RMSEA, and SRMR) were used toevaluate the extent to which the model fit the databecause no single indicator is unbiased in all ana-lytic conditions. Model fit was considered good(acceptable) if the SRMR ≤ .05 (.08) and therewas either a RMSEA ≤ .05 (.08) or a CFI ≥ .95(.90) because simulation studies revealed thatusing this combination rule resulted in low TypeI and Type II error rates (Hu & Bentler, 1999).To more rigorously examine the hypothesized

direction of effects, several alternative mod-els were examined following the tests of thehypothesized model. The reported findings arebased upon the 750 mother/adolescent pairs and467 participating fathers; however, analyses ofonly the families with two participating parentsproduced nearly identical findings.

RESULTS

Preliminary Analyses

Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations,and correlations among all variables includedin the model. Table 2 presents the direct andindirect effects included in the proposed model.Mothers’, but not fathers’, nativity was sig-nificantly associated with their endorsement ofMexican American cultural values and their eth-nic socialization. Both mothers’ and fathers’Mexican American cultural values were posi-tively associated with their ethnic socialization.Mothers’ Mexican American values at the firstassessment were not significantly correlated withtheir 10-year-olds’ Mexican American values atthat assessment point, but they did significantlycorrelate with their young adolescents’ MexicanAmerican values assessed 2 years later (and tochanges in the young adolescents’ values fromTime 1 to Time 2). Mothers’ ethnic socializationwas positively associated with young adoles-cents’ ethnic identity; the association between

Table 1. Correlations and Descriptive Statistics for All Study Variables (N = 750)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Mother1. Nativity2. T1 Mexican American values .11∗∗

3. T1 Ethnic socialization .29∗∗∗ .35∗∗∗

Father4. Nativity .67∗∗∗ .06 .28∗∗∗

5. T1 Mexican American values .06 .21∗∗∗ .10∗ .076. T1 Ethnic socialization .11∗ .12∗∗ .23∗∗∗ .06 .30∗∗∗

Young adolescent7. T1 Mexican American values −.04 .02 −.01 .04 .06 −.038. T2 Ethnic identity .07† .02 .18∗∗∗ .11∗ −.04 .05 .17∗∗∗

9. T2 Mexican American values −.01 .14∗∗∗ .04 .00 .06 −.01 .32∗∗∗ .42∗∗∗

Percent from Mexico 74% 80%M 4.40 3.1 4.37 3.0 4.51 4.02 4.36SD 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.4

Note: T1 = Time 1, T2 = Time 2.†p ≤ .10. ∗p ≤ .05. ∗∗p ≤ .01. ∗∗∗p ≤ .001.


Table 2. Direct Effects and Indirect Effects for the Model of Mothers’ and Fathers’ Socialization of Their YoungAdolescents’ Mexican American Values (N = 750)

2 3 4 5

Mothers Fathers Mothers Fathers Mothers Fathers Mothers Fathers Adolescent

Parent1. Nativity

Direct effect .13∗∗ .08Indirect effects .06† .03 .01∗ .00 .01∗ .00

2. T1 Mexican American valuesDirect effect .47∗∗∗ .36∗∗∗

Indirect effects .11∗∗∗ .00 .05∗∗∗ .013. T1 Ethnic socialization

Direct effect .23∗∗∗ .01Indirect effects .11∗∗∗ .00

Young adolescent4. T1 Mexican American values

Direct effect .21∗∗∗

Indirect effects5. T2 Ethnic identity

Direct effect .46∗∗∗

Note: T1 = Time 1, T2 = Time 2.†p ≤ .10. ∗p ≤ .05. ∗∗p ≤ .01. ∗∗∗p ≤ .001.

fathers’ ethnic socialization and identity was inthe same direction, but did not reach significance.Young adolescents’ ethnic identity and culturalvalues at both time points were positively corre-lated. In addition, mothers’ and fathers’ nativity,Time 1 Mexican American cultural values, andTime 1 ethnic socialization were significantlycorrelated (r = .13, r = .21, and r = .23, allp < .001, respectively).

Test of the Hypothesized Model

To examine the pathways by which Mexi-can American cultural values may be trans-mitted to youth via ethnic socialization, wetested the model presented in Figure 1. Thepractical fit indices suggested good fit forthe hypothesized model, χ2(283) = 691.61,p ≤ .001; RMSEA = .04 (.04 – .05); CFI =.93; SRMR = .05. Mothers’ and fathers’ nativ-ity (β = .16, p ≤ .001, and β = .09, p ≤ .08,respectively) were positively associated withtheir Mexican American values, which werein turn positively associated with their eth-nic socialization practices (β = .47, p ≤ .001,and β = .36, p ≤ .001, respectively). Althoughmothers’ ethnic socialization was positivelyassociated with young adolescents’ ethnicidentity across 2 years (β = .22, p ≤ .001),

fathers’ ethnic socialization was not associatedwith adolescents’ ethnic identity across this timeperiod (β = .01, ns). In addition, young adoles-cents’ ethnic identity was associated with anincrease in Mexican American values over time(β = .48, p ≤ .001).

Tests of Alternative Models

Interaction between mothers’ and fathers’ eth-nic socialization. To determine if there was aninteractive or joint influence of the ethnic social-ization of mothers and fathers beyond their indi-vidual effects, we examined a model that addedthe interaction between the mothers’ and fathers’ethnic socialization. The inclusion of this inter-action did not improve model fit, χ2(306) =747.65, p ≤ .001; RMSEA = .04 (.04 – .05);CFI = .92; SRMR = .05, and the path coeffi-cient for the interaction of mothers’ and fathers’ethnic socialization on young adolescents’ ethnicidentity was not significant (β = −.02).

Moderation by gender. To determine the degreeto which the pathways in the hypothesized modelwere moderated by young adolescents’ gen-der, we examined a series of multigroup SEMmodels. In these analyses, a first model con-strained the path coefficients to be equal across

920 Journal of Marriage and FamilyFI

GU

RE

1.T

HE

MO

DE

LO

FT

HE

GE

NE

RA

TIO

NA

LT

RA

NSM

ISSI

ON

OF

ME

XIC

AN

AM

ER

ICA

NV

AL

UE

SIN

ME

XIC

AN

AM

ER

ICA

NFA

MIL

IES

Mot

hers

’ M

exic

an

Am

eric

an V

alue

sT

1

Res

pect

Obl

igat

ion

Ref

eren

tR

elig

ion

Supp

ort

Fath

ers’

Mex

ican

A

mer

ican

Val

ues

T1

Res

pect

Obl

igat

ion

Ref

eren

tR

elig

ion

Supp

ort M

othe

rs’

Eth

nic

Soci

aliz

atio

nT

1

Fath

ers’

E

thni

cSo

cial

izat

ion

T1

Ado

lesc

ents

’E

thni

cId

entit

y T

2

Exp

lora

tion

Res

olut

ion

Ado

lesc

ents

’ M

exic

an A

mer

ican

V

alue

s T

2

Res

pect

Obl

igat

ion

Ref

eren

tR

elig

ion

Supp

ort

Ado

lesc

ents

’

Mex

ican

Am

eric

an

Val

ues

T1

Res

pect

Obl

igat

ion

Ref

eren

tR

elig

ion

Supp

ort

.46*

**

.21*

**.23*

**

-.01

.47*

**

.37*

**

Mot

hers

’ N

ativ

ity

Fath

ers’

Nat

ivity

.13*

*

.08†

Not

e:χ

2(2

79)=

537.

88,p

≤.0

01;R

MSE

A=

.04

(.04

–.0

5);C

FI=

.93;

SRM

R=

.05.

†p

≤.1

0.∗∗

p≤

.01.

∗∗∗ p

≤.0

01.


gender groups, and a second model allowed thepath coefficients to vary across groups (i.e., wasunconstrained). Model fit was deemed to be dif-ferent across groups if the chi-square differencetest between these nested models was significantand if there were substantial differences in thepractical fit indices (CFI, RMSEA, and SRMR)in the constrained and unconstrained models. Ifthe model fit is significantly better for the uncon-strained model compared to the constrainedmodel then moderation exists. One can thenexamine the differences in the path coefficientsacross genders and also test partially constrainedmodels to determine exactly which pathways aremoderated by gender. The model constrainingthe path coefficients to be equal for girls andboys fit the data well, χ2(610) = 1,018.51, p ≤.001; RMSEA = .04 (.04 – .05); CFI = .93;and SRMR = .08. The unconstrained model,which allowed the path coefficients to dif-fer for girls and boys, also fit the data well,χ2(606) = 1,013.19, p ≤ .001; RMSEA = .04(.04 – .05); CFI = .93; and SRMR = .08. Inaddition to the practical fit indices being com-parable across these two models, the differencein χ2 across the constrained and unconstrainedmodels was not significant, �χ2 (�df = 4) =5.32, p = .26. Hence, there was no gender dif-ference in the fit of this socialization model.

Moderation by ethnic identity. To determinewhether young adolescents’ ethnic identity func-tioned as a moderator, rather than a mediator,we examined an alternative model that includeddirect pathways from mothers’ and fathers’ eth-nic socialization to young adolescents’ MexicanAmerican values at Time 2, with young adoles-cents’ ethnic identity as a moderator of thesepathways. Although this model fit the datareasonably well, χ2(376) = 848.89, p ≤ .001;RMSEA = .04 (.04 – .05); CFI = .93; SRMR =.05, neither interaction path was significant(β = .03 and .01 for mothers and fathers, respec-tively), nor were the direct paths from mothers’and fathers’ ethnic socialization to young ado-lescents’ Mexican American values significant(βs = .04 and −.05 for mothers and fathers,respectively). Hence, this alternative model wasless satisfactory.

Direction of the relation between young ado-lescent ethnic identity and Mexican Americanvalues. To determine whether the direction ofthe relation between the young adolescents’

ethnic identity and Mexican American valuescould be opposite that in the hypothesized model,an alternate model switching the sequence ofyoung adolescents’ ethnic identity and youngadolescents’ Mexican American values wasexamined. Although this model fit the datareasonably well, χ2(287) = 714.26, p ≤ .001;RMSEA = .05 (.04 – .05); CFI = .93; SRMR =.05, neither of the direct pathways between themothers’ or fathers’ ethnic socialization andyoung adolescents’ Mexican American valueswas significant (i.e., βs = .02 and −.06 formothers and fathers, respectively). Hence, thisalternative model was less satisfactory.

DISCUSSION

The present findings of the hypothesized andalternative models support the socializationmodel developed by Knight, Bernal, Garza,and Cota (1993) and expanded by Umana-Taylor, Alfaro, et al. (2009) by indicating that(a) mothers’ and (tentatively) fathers’ nativitywas positively related to their Mexican Amer-ican values, (b) mothers’ and fathers’ MexicanAmerican values were positively related to theethnic socialization experiences they providedfor their young adolescents, and (c) mothers’reported ethnic socialization practices at the firstassessment were positively related to young ado-lescents’ ethnic identity and Mexican Americanvalues 2 years later (at approximately 12 years ofage) and to changes in their young adolescents’Mexican American values over those 2 years.Not only are these findings consistent acrossboys and girls of Mexican descent, but the cross-reporter and longitudinal prospective nature ofthese analyses, as well as the reliance on a rela-tively diverse sample of Mexican American fam-ilies, provides greater confidence in the proposi-tion that Mexican American mothers’ culturallyrelated values are being transmitted to theiryoung adolescents. Hence, Mexican Americanyoung adolescents’ ethnic identity developmentand internalization of Mexican American valuesare facilitated by mother – child interactions andthe importance placed on Mexican Americanvalues through ethnic socialization. This evi-dence of the familial transmission of ethnic iden-tity and culturally related values is particularlyimportant given the evidence that a strong ethnicidentity and culturally related values may haveimportant and positive developmental outcomes(e.g., Berkel et al., 2010; Calderon-Tena et al.,


2011; Hughes et al., 2006; Huynh & Fuligni,2008; Umana-Taylor & Updegraff, 2007).

Also noteworthy is that the transmissionof Mexican American values appears to bebased more upon Mexican American moth-ers’ values and ethnic socialization efforts thanMexican American fathers’ values and ethnicsocialization. Although fathers’ endorsement ofMexican American values was positively asso-ciated with their reported ethnic socialization,neither their values nor their socialization wassubstantially related to their young adolescents’ethnic identity or Mexican American values.These differences in the influence of mothers’and fathers’ ethnic socialization on their youngadolescents’ cultural orientation is consistentwith the findings from several other studies offamilies from several ethnic/racial groups (e.g.,Knight, Bernal, Garza, Cota, & Ocampo, 1993;McHale et al., 2006; Su & Costigan, 2009).There are a number of potential speculativereasons for differences between fathers’ andmothers’ roles in socializing their young adoles-cents’ cultural orientation. Mothers may be morelikely to be the primary socializing agents oftheir young adolescents’ cultural orientation andhave a more direct impact on their young ado-lescents’ culturally related values. Particularlyin relatively traditional Mexican American fam-ilies, fathers may leave the direct socializationof values to the mother. Furthermore, fathers’ethnic socialization effects may occur when theiryoung adolescents are at a different age or devel-opmental state, or fathers’ ethnic socializationmay occur though some type of socializationexperience other than talking with their youngadolescents about their culture. There is evi-dence, for example, that fathering roles in Latinofamilies have traditionally included more of afocus on modeling and sanctioning than ver-bal parenting (Taylor & Behnke, 2005). Furtherexamination of this issue would make a valuablecontribution to our understanding of the familialtransmission of cultural orientation.

The present model is based upon the hypoth-esis that, to some extent, some substantial com-mitment to and understanding of the MexicanAmerican culture is a necessary precondition tothe internalization of Mexican American val-ues. Learning about Mexican American cultureis essential in identifying the values associ-ated with that culture, and a commitment tothe Mexican American ethnic group is essen-tial to having a positive vision of those values.

Hence, as expected, ethnic identity (indexed byethnic exploration and resolution) functioned asa mediator between the mother’s ethnic social-ization and their young adolescents’ MexicanAmerican values. This is consistent with socialidentity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986), self-categorization theory (Turner et al., 1987), andthe empirical evidence linking ethnic identity tocultural orientation (e.g., Armenta et al., 2010;Kiang & Fuligni, 2009; Umana-Taylor, Alfaro,et al., 2009). Given that late childhood and earlyadolescence may be a prime developmental stagefor the development of ethnic identity as well asthe internalization of culturally related values,empirical investigation of the relations amongthese constructs may be very useful in further-ing our understanding of the socialization ofcultural orientations and the mental health out-comes associated with that socialization.

Interestingly, mothers’ Mexican Americanvalues at the first assessment were not concur-rently related to their 10-year-olds’ MexicanAmerican values, but they did significantlyforecast young adolescents’ Mexican Ameri-can values 2 years later, as well as changesin Mexican American values between 10 and12 years of age. This may also have to do withthe young adolescents’ developmental readinessfor the internalization of values. Internalizationis the process whereby these values become aself-chosen guide for behavior rather than guid-ance imposed by socialization agents. Youngerchildren may behave in accordance with the cul-tural values of the parents and other socializationagents largely because of the sanctions, eitherpositive or negative, associated with behavingaccordingly. With repeated socialization expe-riences, and with advancing cognitive devel-opment, older children and early adolescentsacquire the capacity to abstract rules from theseexperiences and may begin to understand thattheir parents’ behavioral expectations have somecommon and more general threads that apply toa broader set of situations than those in whichthese socialization experiences are encountered.This abstraction and elaboration of rules may bethe beginning of the creation of a value system.Indeed, there is evidence that late childhoodor early adolescence is a time at which impor-tant changes in reasoning and values begin toemerge (e.g., Eisenberg, Miller, Shell, McNal-ley, & Shea, 1991).

There are a number of limitations in thisresearch. First, even though the theoretical


model on which this research is based (Knight,Bernal, Garza, Cota, & Ocampo, 1993; Umana-Taylor & Fine, 2004) and other socializationmodels (e.g., Arnett, 1995) described bothfamilial and nonfamilial socialization influ-ences, including the broader cultural context, wefocused only on the generational transmissionof culturally related values from parents to theirchildren. Although we believe that parents havethe greatest impact on the generational transmis-sion of cultural orientation, we also believe thatother family members and a wide array of non-familial socialization agents may also have animpact. Second, we assessed a relatively narrowset of indicators of ethnic socialization by askingparents about the kinds of things they tell theiryoung adolescents rather than assessing broaderethnic socialization such as the specific behav-ioral sanctions they impose or behaviors theymodel. The examination of these and other waysethnic parents may engage in ethnic socializationis sorely needed. However, the type of ver-bal ethnic socialization examined in this studymay be particularly important for the devel-opment of culturally related values because itmay reduce the somewhat demanding cognitiveload associated with the internalization of val-ues. Perhaps the discussion mothers have withtheir young adolescents supports the abstractionand elaboration of the rules that form the basisfor any particular value. The types of verbalexchanges assessed in this measure of ethnicsocialization may provide the context in whichethnic identity development advances and maybe necessary for the generational transmissionof culturally related values. This is consistentwith the significant longitudinal, but not con-current, relations between mothers’ and youngadolescents’ Mexican American values at thefirst assessment as well as much of the litera-ture on racial socialization that focuses on howparents talk with their children about prejudiceand discrimination and the impact of these dis-cussions on preparation for dealing with racialbias, self-esteem maintenance, and racial iden-tity (e.g., Hughes et al., 2006). Third, ethnicidentity was assessed at only one point in time,which limits our ability to address the causaldirection issue. However, evidence from earlierresearch (Kiang & Fuligni, 2009) and the alter-native models tested here strongly suggests thatthe development of ethnic identity is a precur-sor to the internalization of culturally relatedvalues.

Even given these limitations, the presentresearch makes several important contributionsto the literature. First, although portions of themodel of the generational transmission of cul-turally related values and cultural orientationhave been examined in the literature, to ourknowledge this is perhaps the only empiricalassessment of the entire process. Furthermore,our tests of hypothesized and alternative mod-els provide support for the thesis that maternalvalues are transmitted to children through anactive and developmental process. Specifically,at the transition to adolescence, parents’ valuesare associated with their ethnic socializationpractices, which support young adolescents’development of Mexican American identities,which in turn leads to the internalization ofcultural values. Second, although ethnic social-ization has been related to children’s and ado-lescents’ ethnic identity and cultural orientation(e.g., Umana-Taylor, Alfaro, et al., 2009), theexisting literature has generally relied upon datafrom a single reporter (usually the adolescentand rarely including the fathers’ self-reports),allowing the possibility of a relation betweenethnic socialization and ethnic identity becauseof common reporter effects. Third, even thoughbidirectional effect cannot be examined in thisstudy, the longitudinal nature and the prospectiveanalyses allow greater confidence in the hypoth-esized causal pathways, especially in contrastto the alternative models, relative to previousresearch. Finally, these findings provide strongsupport for the notion that the development ofethnic identity mediates the association betweenmothers’ ethnic socialization and young adoles-cents’ Mexican American values.

NOTE

This research was supported, in part, by NIMH grantMH68920 (Culture, Context, and Mexican American Men-tal Health) and NIMH Training Grant T32MH18387. Theauthors are thankful for the support of Mark Roosa, Jenn-Yun Tein, Marisela Torres, Jaimee Virgo, our CommunityAdvisory Board and interviewers, and the families whoparticipated in the study.

REFERENCES

Armenta, B. E., Knight, G. P., Carlo, G., Jacob-son, R. P. (2010). The relation between ethnicgroup attachment and prosocial tendencies: Themediating role of cultural values. European Jour-nal of Social Psychology, 40, 1 – 11.


Arnett, J. J. (1995). Broad and narrow socialization:The family in the context of a cultural theory.Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 617 – 628.

Berkel, C., Knight, G. P., Zeiders, K. H., Tein, J.-Y.,Roosa, M. W., Gonzales, N. A., & Saenz, D.(2010). Discrimination and adjustment for Mexi-can American adolescents: A prospective exam-ination of the benefits of culturally relatedvalues. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20,893 – 915.

Brown, T. N., Tanner-Smith, E. E., Lesane-Brown,C. L., & Ezell, M. E. (2007). Child, parent,and situational correlates of familial ethnic/racesocialization. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69,14 – 25.

Calderon-Tena, C. O., Knight, G. P., & Carlo, G.(2011). The socialization of prosocial behaviortendencies among Mexican American adolescents:The role of familism values. Cultural Diversity andEthnic Minority Psychology, 17, 98 – 106.

Eisenberg, N., Miller, P. A., Shell, R., McNalley, S.,& Shea, C. (1991). Prosocial development inadolescence: A longitudinal study. DevelopmentalPsychology, 27, 849 – 857.

Fuligni, A. J., Witkow, M., & Garcia, C. (2005)Ethnic identity and the academic adjustment ofadolescents from Mexican, Chinese, and Europeanbackgrounds. Developmental Psychology, 41,799 – 811.

Gonzales, N. A., Fabrett, F. C., & Knight, G. P. (2009).Acculturation, enculturation and the psychosocialadaptation of Latino youth. In F. A. Villaruel,G. Carlo, J. Grau, M. Azmitia, N. J. Cabrera,& T. J. Chahin (Eds.), Handbook of U.S. Latinopsychology: Developmental and community-basedperspectives (pp. 115 – 134). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteriafor fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:Conventional criteria versus new alternatives.Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1 – 55.

Hughes, D., Rodriguez, J., Smith, E. P., Johnson,D. J., Stevenson, H. C., & Spicer, P. (2006).Parents’ ethnic – racial socialization practices: Areview of research and directions for future study.Developmental Psychology, 42, 747 – 770.

Huynh, V. W., & Fuligni, A. J. (2008). Ethnicsocialization and the academic adjustment ofadolescents from Mexican, Chinese, and Europeanbackgrounds. Developmental Psychology, 44,1202 – 1208.

Kiang, L., & Fuligni, A. J. (2009). Ethnic identityand family processes among adolescents fromLatin American, Asian and European backgrounds.Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 228 – 241.

Knight, G. P., Bernal. M. E., Garza, C. A., & Cota,M. K. (1993). A social cognitive model ofethnic identity and ethnically based behaviors.In M. E. Bernal & G. P. Knight (Eds.), Ethnic

identity: Formation and transmission amongHispanics and other minorities (pp. 213 – 234).Albany: State University of New York Press.

Knight, G. P., Bernal, M. B., Garza, C. A., Cota,M. K., & Ocampo, K. A. (1993). Family socializa-tion and the ethnic identity of Mexican Americanchildren. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,24, 99 – 114.

Knight, G. P., Cota, M. K., & Bernal, M. E. (1993).The socialization of cooperative, competitive,and individualistic preferences among MexicanAmerican children: The mediating role of ethnicidentity. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences,15, 291 – 309.

Knight, G. P., Gonzales, N. A., Saenz, D. S.,Bonds, D., German, M., Deardorff, J., Roosa,M. W., & Updegraff, K. A. (2010). The MexicanAmerican Cultural Values Scale for adolescentsand adults. Journal of Early Adolescence, 30,444 – 481.

McHale, S. M., Crouter, A. C., Kim, J., Burton, L. M.,Davis, K. D., Dotterer, A. M., Swanson, D. P.(2006). Mothers’ and fathers’ racial socializationin African American families: Implications foryouth. Child Development, 77, 1387 – 1402.

Muthen, L., & Muthen, B. (2008). Mplus user’s guide(Version 5.1). Los Angeles: Muthen & Muthen.

Oyserman, D., & Lee, S. (2008). Does culture influ-ence what and how we think? Effects of prim-ing individualism and collectivism. PsychologicalBulletin, 134, 311 – 342.

Phinney, J. S. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescentsand adults: Review of research. Psychological Bul-letin, 108, 499 – 514.

Roosa, M. W., Liu, F., Torres, M., Gonzales, N.,Knight, G., & Saenz, D. (2008). Sampling andrecruitment in studies of cultural influences onadjustment: A case study with Mexican Americans.Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 293 – 302.

Su, T. F., & Costigan, C. L. (2009). The developmentof children’s ethnic identity in immigrant Chinesefamilies in Canada: The role of parenting practicesand children’s perceptions of parental family obli-gation expectations. Journal of Early Adolescence,29, 638 – 663.

Supple, A. J., Ghazarian, S. R., Frabutt, J. M., Plun-kett, S. W., & Sands, T. (2006). Contextual influ-ences on Latino adolescent ethnic identity andacademic outcomes. Child Development, 77,1427 – 1433.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social iden-tity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel& W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of IntergroupRelations (pp. 7 – 24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Taylor, B. A., & Behnke, A. (2005). Fathering acrossthe border: Latino fathers in Mexico and the U.S.Fathering, 3, 99 – 120.

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher,S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering


the social group: A self-categorization theory.Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Umana-Taylor, A. J., Alfaro, E. C., Bamaca, M. Y.,& Guimond, A. B. (2009). The central role offamily socialization in Latino adolescents’ culturalorientation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71,46 – 60.

Umana-Taylor, A. J., & Fine, M. A. (2004). Exam-ining ethnic identity among Mexican-originadolescents living in the United States. HispanicJournal of Behavioral Sciences, 26, 36 – 59.

Umana-Taylor, A. J., Gonzales-Backen, M. A., &Guimond, A. B. (2009). Latino adolescents’ ethnicidentity: Is there a developmental progression and

does growth in ethnic identity predict growth inself-esteem? Child Development, 80, 391 – 405.

Umana-Taylor, A. J., & Updegraff, K. A. (2007).Latino adolescents’ mental health: Exploring theinterrelations among discrimination, ethnic iden-tity, cultural orientation, self-esteem, and depres-sive symptoms. Journal of Adolescence, 30,549 – 567.

White, R. M. B., Umana-Taylor, A. J., Knight, G. P.,& Zeiders, K. H. (2010). Language measurementequivalence of the Ethnic Identity Scale with Mex-ican American early adolescents. Journal of EarlyAdolescence. doi: 10.1177/0272431610376246

Documents

The Familial Socialization of Culturally Related Values in Mexican American Families