The Social Contexts of Cultural Identity Among Adolescents of Immigrant Descent: Separate and Interacting Relations of Family and School Ethnic-Racial Socialization

Abstract

This study explored the separate and interacting relations of family (cultural pluralism, promotion of mistrust) and school (equal treatment, intercultural learning) ethnic-racial socialization with cultural (heritage culture and German) identity among adolescents of immigrant descent. Analyses were based on survey data from 311 early to mid-adolescents in Germany (M_age = 13.85, SD = 1.82). Higher family cultural pluralism and intercultural learning at school were related to higher heritage culture identity, while higher equal treatment at school was related to lower heritage culture identity. Higher intercultural learning and equal treatment at school were related to higher German identity. Family promotion of mistrust had no direct relation to heritage culture or German identity. The interaction of family promotion of mistrust and equal treatment at school had relations to heritage culture but not to German identity. These findings expand our understanding of the complementary roles of family and school for supporting cultural identity development.

Keywords

family school ethnic-racial socialization heritage culture German identity

Introduction

Adolescents develop an understanding of their ethnic-racial identity through ethnic-racial socialization, defined as “the myriad ways that varied agents of socialization transmit messages about ethnicity and race to children (Hughes & Watford, 2021, p. 3).¹ Ethnic-racial socialization occurs in various social contexts, such as families, schools, peer groups, neighborhoods, and the internet (Byrd & Ahn, 2020; Wang et al., 2015). Most research has focused on social contexts separately. For instance, family (especially parental) (Huguley et al., 2019; Umaña‐Taylor & Hill, 2020) and school ethnic-racial socialization (Byrd & Legette, 2022; Saleem & Byrd, 2021; Schachner et al., 2021) relate to adolescents’ ethnic-racial or cultural identity development. Nevertheless, because adolescents negotiate the complex socialization messages from both family and school, it is important to examine the two contexts together. The ways adolescents understand and define their ethnic-racial or cultural identity may differ if the messages they receive in one context (e.g., family) and the messages they receive in another context (e.g., school) are congruent or incongruent (Benner & Mistry, 2007; Wang & Benner, 2016). In the current study, we explored the separate and interacting relations of family and school ethnic-racial socialization with cultural identity among adolescents of immigrant descent (i.e., adolescents who either themselves or at least one of their parents were born abroad, (Federal Government Expert Commission, 2021).

Cultural identity is a multidimensional concept referring to adolescents’ conception of their identity in relation to the values, customs, and practices of their cultural background(s). For adolescents of immigrant descent, the formation of a cultural identity happens through forming a sense of belonging to their heritage culture identities (i.e., the culture(s) of the family’s country of origin) and national identity (i.e., German identity). These aspects merge into an overarching cultural identity that includes both (Meca et al., 2019; Vietze et al., 2019). In this study, we focus on the extent to which youth endorse a sense of belonging to their heritage culture and German identities rather than an examination of how these identities together conflict or cohere. In addition, cultural identity develops through different processes such as exploration and commitment. Exploration refers to adolescents’ engagement in reflections and actions to understand their identity and eventually gain clarity about their cultural identities. Commitment refers to adolescents’ positive feelings and attachment to their cultural group(s) (Phinney & Ong, 2007). This study focuses on both exploration and commitment processes for the development of heritage culture and German identities.

The Role of Separate and Interacting Social Contexts in Ecological Theories

We drew on two ecological theories to inform the hypothesized relation between social context and identity development. First, the ecological theory of human development (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2007) posits that adolescents’ understanding of their identity is a dynamic process resulting from the interactions with their proximal social ecologies such as family and school. The ecological theory of human development argues for “the importance of goal consensus between settings at the level of mesosystem” by highlighting the importance of the interaction between proximal social ecologies (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 240). Meaning that if the messages of socialization agents are congruent across settings, this may facilitate internalization of the socialization messages. On the other hand, if the messages of socialization agents are incongruent (e.g., one context promotes positive values towards diversity and the other treats diversity as a problem), this may challenge the internalization of messages (Benner & Mistry, 2007; Wang et al., 2019; Wang & Benner, 2016). In sum, the extent to which one social context relates to adolescents’ identity might depend on factors in other contexts (Miklikowska et al., 2019).

Building on Bronfenbrenner’s consideration of multiple contexts in human development, Spencer et al.’s (2015) phenomenological variant of ecological system theory (PVEST) argues for the necessity of considering identity development in light of societal dynamics between ethnic-racial groups and inequalities. PVEST posits cultural dissonance between multiple contexts as a risk factor for identity development, especially among racially and ethnically minoritized children and adolescents. Unlike their peers who hold more privileged positions in racially and ethnically diverse societies, minoritized children and adolescents are more likely to receive incongruent messages from the society/school which fails to affirm their identities and from their families trying to promote and protect their children from discrimination (Spencer et al., 2015). Thus, PVEST also suggests proximal social ecology (e.g., family and school) may harbor risk and promotive factors that minoritized youth must negotiate to develop their identity. Therefore, the higher the cultural dissonance across contexts is, the harder it is to form a sense of identity. In sum, both theories propose that the negotiation of proximal social ecologies youth navigate (e.g., family and school) may have separate and intertwined contributions to adolescents’ understanding of their cultural identity. In the following sections, we review existing literature to explain separate and interacting relations of family and school ethnic-racial socialization to cultural identity development.

Family Ethnic-Racial Socialization and Cultural Identity

Family ethnic-racial socialization has two functions for the development of adolescents. First, it serves as a promotive tool for transmitting knowledge to children about their heritage culture(s) to foster pride in their culture(s). Second, it serves as a protective tool for families to help their marginalized children maintain a positive view of themselves while navigating societies and interactions where their identities are not affirmed and valued (Simon, 2021). This study focuses on the less studied dimensions of family ethnic-racial socialization across ethnic-racial groups in the U.S — cultural pluralism and promotion of mistrust (Hughes et al., 2006; Umaña‐Taylor & Hill, 2020).

Cultural pluralism refers to messages that value people of different cultural backgrounds and their perspectives that might be different from one’s own (Juang et al., 2021). Few studies explored parents as sources of cultural pluralism messages and, if done, most often with Asian American and Pacific Islander families (Nieri et al., 2024). In a study with Asian-American emerging adults, parental cultural pluralism was positively related to ethnic identity (Juang et al., 2021). In another study where parental cultural pluralism items combined with socialization (i.e., messages about cultural history and pride) items, cultural pluralism-socialization was related to stronger ethnic identity (Brown & Ling, 2012). Additionally, studies suggested diverse social networks as important contexts fostering identification with both heritage culture and national identity (Benet‐Martínez & Haritatos, 2005; Mok et al., 2007). Therefore, family cultural pluralism socialization as supportive of forming relationships with people of their own culture(s) and displaying openness towards other cultures (Meca et al., 2019) may facilitate a strong commitment to both heritage culture and national identities. Thus, we expected that family cultural pluralism would be positively associated with heritage culture identity (H1a) and German identity (H1b).

Promotion of mistrust refers to messages that instill suspicion of people from other cultural groups. The motivation behind family promotion of mistrust is to protect adolescents against biased interactions. However, ethnic-racial socialization literature argues that promotion of mistrust mainly provides negative messages about cultural groups and does not offer support to cope with discrimination (Atkin et al., 2019; Simon, 2021; Umaña‐Taylor & Hill, 2020). Thus, it has been mainly associated with negative outcomes such as higher depressive symptoms and behavioral problems (Kwon et al., 2022; Umaña‐Taylor & Hill, 2020 for a review). In terms of identity, studies with Asian-American participants found that promotion of mistrust was negatively related to ethnic identity (Gartner et al., 2014; Kiang et al., 2019), and unrelated to American identity (Gartner et al., 2014). Along similar lines, in a longitudinal study with Asian-American youth, higher perceived parental promotion of mistrust decreased ethnic-racial identity among Filipino youth but increased American identity among Korean youth after a year (Woo et al., 2020). Recently, a cross-sectional study with Korean minority adolescents in China also found that parental promotion of mistrust was unrelated to ethnic identity (Shen et al., 2021). In sum, empirical studies testing the relations of promotion of mistrust to identity display mainly inconsistent results such null and negative associations for heritage culture identity, and null, negative, and positive associations for national identity. Because promotion of mistrust itself does not provide coping strategies to protect adolescents’ heritage culture identity against discrimination experiences, this may lower their identification with heritage culture identity. At the same time, promotion of mistrust messages may instill suspicion toward the society and lower their identification with German identity (Hughes et al., 2006). Thus, we expected that promotion of mistrust would be negatively associated with heritage culture (H2a) and German identity (H2b).

School Ethnic-Racial Socialization and Cultural Identity

School is another important proximal context of socialization for adolescents besides the family context. Curriculum, policies, and practices, relationships with teachers, staff, and peers, as well as discrimination experiences convey explicit and implicit messages about race, ethnicity, and culture in the school context (Graham, 2018; Hughes et al., 2011; Saleem & Byrd, 2021; Umaña-Taylor et al., 2018). Saleem and Byrd (2021, p. 1110) suggest that “the content of school ethnic-racial socialization can be conceptualized within the construct of school climate which are the norms, goals, values and interpersonal relationships, teaching and learning practices and organizational structures of a school”. Similar to this definition, informed by the socio-historical context and policies, classroom cultural diversity climate in the European context is based on how schools and main actors of the context (teachers and students) approach cultural diversity (Schachner, 2019). Therefore, we operationalized school ethnic-racial socialization as the ways that schools and teachers contribute to cultural diversity climates that are more or less supportive of diverse identities. Drawing on studies focusing on students’ perceptions of cultural diversity climate at schools with a high number of students from different cultural backgrounds, two multidimensional contents of cultural diversity climate were identified: cultural pluralism and equality/inclusion (Schachner et al., 2021).

One main approach to diversity that draws on multiculturalism and culturally responsive teaching (Gay, 2015) is cultural pluralism. It refers to treating cultural diversity as a resource in the school context. In this study, we focus on intercultural learning (a sub-dimension of cultural pluralism) as one commonly used approach at schools in Germany. It refers to learning about diverse perspectives of people from different cultures and promoting intercultural relations (Civitillo et al., 2017). Engaging in intercultural learning in the classroom may facilitate adolescents’ identification with their heritage culture (Schachner, 2019). Studies with adolescents of immigrant descent in Italy and Germany found positive associations of teachers’ support for cultural pluralism with ethnic identity (Moscardino et al., 2019; Schachner et al., 2016). However, perceived cultural pluralism at school and adolescents’ national identity were unrelated in a study in Germany (Schachner et al., 2016). Nevertheless, a school context highlighting the importance of positive intercultural relations and aiming to eliminate potential negative intergroup experiences may reduce threats to adolescents’ identities, and may facilitate the development of committing strongly to both heritage culture and national identities (Phalet & Baysu, 2020; Schachner, 2019). Thus, we expected that intercultural learning would be positively related to adolescents’ heritage culture (H3a) and German identities (H3b).

A second approach to diversity, equality and inclusion, aims to create cooperative relations among students of different cultural backgrounds and to foster a climate of equal status between cultural groups (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006; Schachner et al., 2021). In this study, we focus on equal treatment (a sub-dimension of equality/inclusion) as a commonly used approach by culturally diverse schools in relation to identity development (Schachner et al., 2021). Equal treatment refers to treating students equally regardless of their heritage culture backgrounds at school. A study with German adolescents of immigrant descent found that perceived equality/inclusion combining equal treatment and contact/cooperation in the classroom was positively related to adolescents’ national identity, but not related to their ethnic identity (Schachner et al., 2016). A study of 8–10-year-old first-, second- and third- generation Latinx adolescents of immigrant descent showed they had more positive evaluations towards their ethnic identity when they perceived their teachers behaving fair to all students in the classroom while valuing who they are (Brown, 2017). Taken together, a school context addressing culture-based fair treatment (by actively eliminating discriminatory behaviors) may establish a setting for adolescents to maintain a strong commitment to their heritage culture and national identities (Kende et al., 2021). Thus, we expected that equal treatment would be positively related to adolescents’ heritage culture (H4a) and German identity (H4b).

Interacting Relations of Two Contexts: Family and School Ethnic-Racial Socialization

Ecological theories of child development highlight the importance of understanding how socialization messages interact across contexts. These interacting messages from family and school contexts might manifest in three forms: enhancing, compensatory, and buffering (Cohen et al., 2013). Socialization messages that are congruent in terms of the content (e.g., messages both at home and school encourage positive intergroup relations) and high in frequency across contexts could enhance their effects. For example, a study of adolescents in the U.S. found that those who participated in a school-based ethnic-racial identity intervention engaged in greater ethnic-racial identity exploration compared to a control group. Moreover, this positive effect was enhanced if the adolescents in the school intervention also reported greater ethnic-racial socialization at home (Sladek et al., 2021). Another study with ethnic-racial minority adolescents in the U.S. showed that congruently high family and peer cultural socialization predicted higher well-being among adolescents compared to those who received incongruent messages and congruently low cultural socialization messages (Wang & Benner, 2016). Therefore, we expected a similar enhancing effect such that adolescents who experience greater cultural pluralism at home and intercultural learning and equal treatment socialization at school would demonstrate the highest levels of heritage culture and German identity (H5a).

When the level of endorsement regarding positive intergroup relations (i.e., congruent content) is high in one context and low in another (i.e., incongruent frequency), one context could compensate for the other. A study found that for Italian adolescents, classroom diversity climate supportive of heritage and intercultural learning mattered for adolescents’ heritage culture identity resolution (Schachner et al., 2023). But it mattered more for those who did not participate in a school-based cultural identity intervention that encouraged exploration of diverse identities as well as positive intergroup relations. In other words, this positive classroom diversity climate compensated for the lack of support that the intervention offered (Schachner et al., 2023). We therefore also expected high levels of family cultural pluralism at home to compensate for low levels of intercultural learning and equal treatment socialization at school for adolescents, allowing them to maintain high levels of heritage culture and German identity or vice versa (H5b).

Incongruency of content of socialization messages refers to the dissimilarity between messages and their purposes. For example, messages may encourage intergroup relations in one context (e.g., emphasizing intercultural learning and equal treatment in school) and urge caution against intercultural relations in another (e.g., promote mistrust at home). A longitudinal study with Swedish adolescents of non-immigrant descent showed how incongruent socialization messages between home and school made a difference for adolescents’ prejudice towards immigrants (Miklikowska et al., 2019). Adolescents whose parents were prejudiced towards immigrants were also more likely to be prejudiced themselves, but this relation was weakened if adolescents attended a highly diverse classroom. The authors argued that greater classroom cultural diversity buffered the negative effects of prejudiced attitudes of parents, presumably through positive inter-ethnic peer contact socialization (Miklikowska et al., 2019). Thus, for incongruent socialization messages and frequencies, we expected a similar buffering effect whereby socialization in the school context endorsing positive intergroup relations (i.e., intercultural learning and equal treatment) could weaken the negative effect of promotion of mistrust in the family to cultural identity (H5c, see Figure 1 for all potential theoretical combinations for the congruency of the content and frequency of the message in family and school contexts).

Figure 1.

Potential theoretical combinations for the congruency of socialization in family and school contexts. Note. We formulated hypotheses for those combinations highlighted with grey. Congruency of the content refers to those messages that aim to improve intergroup relations both at home and school. For example, intercultural learning and cultural pluralism refer to messages endorsing positive intergroup relations by emphasizing respect and engagement. Incongruency of the content refers to those messages that encourage positive intergroup relations in one context and urge caution against intergroup relations in another. For example, emphasizing equality would encourage improving intergroup relations while promotion of mistrust would discourage positive intergroup relations by highlighting the inequality between groups.

The Moderating Role of Developmental Period

Ecological theories and family ethnic-racial socialization literature suggest that the strength of the relation between socialization messages and developmental outcomes may differ depending on the developmental period (Huguley et al., 2019; Spencer et al., 2015). Adolescence is an active period for identity development due to improved complex socio-cognitive skills (e.g., abstract thinking) and the increased importance of multiple socialization contexts outside of the family, such as the school (Erikson, 1968; Hughes et al., 2011). For example, the meta-analysis by Huguley et al. (2019) found that the relation of family ethnic-racial socialization to perceptions of self (e.g., concept, esteem, efficacy) was larger during early adolescence (between 11 to 13 years old) compared to childhood (ages 6–10), middle adolescence (ages 14–17), and late adolescence/emerging adulthood (ages 18–24). However, evidence for variations in ethnic identity by developmental period for the specific family ethnic-racial socialization aspects (e.g., cultural pluralism, promotion of mistrust) is scarce (Douglass & Umaña-Taylor, 2016). Furthermore, school ethnic-racial socialization studies so far have not reported variations by developmental period. As the empirical evidence is limited, our tests for the moderating role of age for the direct and interacting relations of family and school ethnic-racial socialization to cultural identity were exploratory.

The Present Study

The present study examined the separate and interacting relations of family and school ethnic-racial socialization with adolescents’ cultural identity. We expand previous knowledge on ethnic-racial socialization and cultural identity in two ways. First, in Germany, family socialization in relation to cultural identity has been mainly researched through implicit ways of socialization such as parental prejudice, parents’ own acculturation, and parenting styles (Jugert et al., 2016; Spiegler et al., 2016) with one exception focusing on parental acculturation expectations as explicit socialization messages (Schachner et al., 2014). Thus, explicit forms of family ethnic-racial socialization in relation to adolescents’ cultural identity development in Germany are still underexplored. Second, research on the role of ethnic-racial socialization effects in multiple proximal contexts is scarce (for exceptions, see Miklikowska et al., 2019 in Sweden; Sladek et al., 2021 in the U.S.). Importantly, Germany is an immigration society and scholars have identified racism as a persisting problem (Ateş et al., 2023 for a nation-wide study; Juang et al., 2021), and studies have identified school (Schachner et al., 2021) and family ( Spiegler et al., 2016; Uygun-Altunbas, 2017) as contexts where youth receive explicit messages about culture, religion, and discrimination. Thus, we explore the interplay of ethnic-racial socialization in two proximal contexts of adolescents (family and school) in understanding cultural identity development. While testing these associations, we controlled for age, gender, and socioeconomic status (SES) and structural diversity (diversity of the heritage countries represented in the classroom) as they are related to the cultural identity.

Method

Sample and Procedure

Cross-sectional data² were collected in highly diverse, urban areas in the federal state of North-Rhine Westphalia, Germany (N = 647), as part of a cross-national study on identity in 2015/2016. This study focuses on 311 early to mid-adolescents of immigrant descent (ages 11–17, 6^th, 8^th and 10^th grade students, M_age = 13.85, SD = 1.82, 48.9 % female, 50.8% male, 0.6% gender not reported) from 29 classrooms in seven schools.³ The number of participants per school ranged from 24 to 67. We relied on adolescent’s and parents’ country of origin⁴ to determine the category of immigrant descent, which includes adolescents who were either themselves born abroad or who had at least one parent who was born abroad. The subsample of adolescents of immigrant descent thus comprised 1^st (born outside Germany, 13.8% of the sample) and 2^nd and later (born in Germany with at least one parent born abroad, 86.2% of the sample) generations. For 27.7% of the adolescents, heritage country referred to Eastern European countries (e.g., Bulgaria), for 23.9% to Turkey, and for 21.6% to regions in Asian/African continents (e.g., Sri Lanka, Morocco, Angola). When youth were asked about the cultural groups they feel they belong to, almost half (47.9%) of the adolescents in our sample self-identified as bicultural (e.g., Hungarian-German), 32.5% identified only with their heritage culture(s) (e.g., Albanian or Italian-Turkish), 15.4% identified only as German, 2.3 % identified as multicultural German (e.g., Turkish-Kurdish-German), and 1.6% did not report (see Table S1 for demographics in detail).⁵ Before conducting the study, we obtained consent of school principals, parents, and adolescents. Adolescents filled out the paper-pencil survey during class time. The adolescents first answered questions about their demographic information and their heritage culture and German identity. Then, they respectively responded to the family and school socialization questions.

Measures

Unless stated differently, the response scale of the measures used in this study ranged from 1 (do not agree at all) to 5 (definitely agree). Mean scores were calculated for all subscales, with higher values indicating higher levels of the constructs. Some items developed in the US context were adapted by replacing “ethnic-racial” with “culture” or “heritage culture” as contextually more meaningful terminologies.

Demographic Information and Covariates

Covariates included adolescents’ gender (male = 0, female = 1), age (in years), and immigration generation (0 = second or later, 1 = first). In addition, socioeconomic status (SES) was measured by assessing adolescents’ subjective social status (Goodman et al., 2001). The SES measure used a ladder drawing with 10 steps (ranging from 1 to 10). We told adolescents to imagine that on the top of the ladder, there were people who are the most educated and whose work was the most respected in Germany. At the bottom, there were people who had the lowest education degree, whose work was the least respected or that did not have a job. Comparing their current situation to the other people in Germany, we asked adolescents to report on which step of the ladder they would place themselves and their family. Finally, classroom diversity was measured by calculating Simpson’s diversity index (Graham, 2018; Simpson, 1949). This index considers both the variety (the number of different groups) and evenness (the size of each group) of diversity. We identified the number of heritage countries represented (n) and the total number of students (N) in a classroom. Simpson’s diversity index values for each classroom range from 0 to 1, with higher values indicating higher cultural diversity in the classroom. Simpson’s Diversity Index is calculated as follows:

D = 1 - (\frac{\sum n (n - 1)}{N (N - 1)})

Family Ethnic-Racial Socialization

Family cultural pluralism was measured using three items from the Adolescent Racial and Ethnic Socialization Scale in African American Families (e.g., “At home, I am encouraged to have friends from other cultural groups; α = .78 Brown & Krishnakumar, 2007). Family promotion of mistrust was measured using three items adapted from the Racial-Ethnic Socialization scale (Hughes & Johnson, 2001, e.g., “At home, I am told to keep away from people from other cultures”; α = .80). Exploratory factor analyses were conducted to ensure the scales’ factor structure (see supplemental materials Table S2).⁶

School Ethnic-Racial Socialization

Perceived intercultural learning was measured using four items developed by Schachner et al. (2016), (e.g., “We learn to respect each other even though we are from different cultures”, α = .79). Perceived equal treatment was measured using five adapted items (based on Green et al., 1988; Schachner et al., 2016, e.g., “The teachers at school treat students from different cultural groups fairly”, α = .83). Exploratory factor analyses were conducted to ensure the scales’ factor structure (see supplemental materials, Table S3).

Heritage Culture and German Identity

The revised Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM-R) was used to measure heritage culture and German identity (Phinney & Ong, 2007). This measure included items assessing two dimensions of heritage culture identity: exploration (three items, e.g., “I have often talked to other people in order to learn more about my heritage culture”) and commitment (three items, e.g., “I feel a strong attachment towards my own heritage culture”). We formed a single composite score of heritage culture identity due to a single factor structure and the high correlation between exploration and commitment (r = .79, p < .001, see Table S4). The inter-item reliability of heritage culture identity was α = .89. German identity exploration and commitment were measured using the same items used to assess heritage culture identity but replacing the word “heritage culture” with “Germany” or “German culture”. Due to a single factor structure, we also formed a single composite score of German identity, mirroring the procedure for heritage culture identity (see Table S5 and Table S7). Inter-item reliability of German identity was α = .81.

Results

Missing Data Patterns, Data Preparation, and Data Analysis Plan

The percentage of missing data was less than 12% for all of the study variables. The highest percentage of missing data was from the heritage culture identity variable. Based on Little’s test (1988), missingness was completely at random (χ² (99) = 109.82, p = .21). We used Mplus 8.0 and its default Full Information Maximum Likelihood estimation to handle missing values (Enders, 2022). As a predictor, promotion of mistrust was negatively skewed. We performed a log 10 transformation to obtain less biased statistical results. We mean-centered all predictors to reduce multicollinearity while introducing the interaction terms and used bootstrapping to generate 95% bias corrected bootstrap confidence intervals of the parameter estimates. Finally, as the data collected from students were nested in classrooms, we checked the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). ICCs were 5% for equal treatment, 9% for intercultural learning at school, and 2% for cultural pluralism and 1% for promotion of mistrust in the family (ICCs see Table S6). As ICCs above 5% variance at the classroom level are considered sufficient to account for classroom level relations, we used the “type is complex” function in Mplus to account for the variance due to between group (class) differences (Geiser, 2012). We tested the direct paths and added the interaction terms one at a time. Later, we performed simple slope analyses to explore significant interactions.

Bivariate Correlations and Model Results

We report descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations between covariates, predictors, and outcomes (see Table S6). In Model 1, we introduced covariates into the model. Lower SES was related to higher heritage culture identity and girls (M = 4.08, SD = .86) reported higher heritage culture identity than boys (M = 3.71, SD = 1.00). Model 1 explained 6.0% of variance in heritage culture identity, and 0.9% in German identity. Model 2 tested direct associations of family and school socialization with heritage culture and German identity and explained 11.5% of the variance in heritage culture identity and 10.6% in German identity (see Table 1). Higher family cultural pluralism was related to higher heritage culture identity. Family promotion of mistrust was not significantly related to heritage culture and German identity.⁷ Higher intercultural learning at school was related to higher heritage and German identity. Higher equal treatment at school was related to higher German identity and lower heritage culture identity.

Table 1.

Standardized Estimates and Standard Errors.

	Model 1: Covariates				Model 2: Predictors				Model 3: Interactions
	Heritage culture ID		German ID		Heritage culture ID		German ID		Heritage culture ID		German ID
Intercept	4.12		3.96		4.19		4.02		4.23		4.06
	β (SE)	p [95% CI]	β (SE)	p [95% CI]	β (SE)	p [95% CI]	β (SE)	p [95% CI]	β (SE)	p [95% CI]	β (SE)	p [95% CI]
Gender (0 = male, 1 = female)	.16* (.07)	.03 [.03; .58]	−.09 (.06)	.12[−.34; .03]	.13+ (.07)	.08 [−.01; .27]	−.09 (.07)	.24 [−.24; .06]	.13 (.07)	.09 [−.02; .26]	−.09 (.07)	.20 [−.41; .08]
Age	.09 (.06)	.12 [−.12; .11]	−.01 (.07)	.91[−.07; .06]	.10+ (.05)	.09 [−.01; 22]	.01 (.06)	.92 [−.15; .16]	.10 (.05)	.17 [−.03; .20]	.01 (.06)	.84 [−.80; .06]
SES	−.10* (.05)	.03 [−.13; −.01]	.01 (.07)	.94[−.06; .07]	−.12* (.05)	.03 [−.23; −.01]	.02 (.06)	.73 [−.09; .15]	−.12* (.05)	.03 [−.20; −.01]	.02 (.06)	.63 [−.04; .09]
Diversity Index	.04 (.05)	.48 [−.61; 1.10]	.02 (.06)	.73[−.95; .62]	.05 (.05)	.32 [−.05; .17]	.02 (.06)	.78 [−.10; .14]	.05 (.05)	.34 [−.05; .17]	.02 (.06)	.68 [−.59; .86]
Immigration generation (0 = second or later, 1 = first generation)	.09+ (.05)	.08 [−.04; .54]	.01 (.06)	.85[−.25; .36]	.11* (.05)	.04 [.01; .22]	−.03 (.07)	.68 [−.16; .12]	.11* (.05)	.03 [.02; .23]	−.02 (.07)	.81 [−.34; .31]
Family cultural pluralism	—	—	—	—	.09 (.04)	.08 [−.01; .19]	.04 (.07)	.73 [−.11; .17]	.14** (.04)	.03 [.01; .19]	.06 (.08)	.52 [−.09; 16]
Family promotion of mistrust	—	—	—	—	−.03 (.07)	.44 [−.18; .08]	.06 (.07)	.46 [−.87;.22]	−.04 (.07)	.38 [−.21; .05]	.04 (.08)	.58 [−.41; .77]
School equal treatment	—	—	—	—	−.14* (.06)	.04 [−.27; −.01]	.15** (.08)	.01 [.04; .28]	−.11* (.05)	.04 [−.25;−.02]	.15** (.05)	.01 [.05; .31]
School intercultural learning	—	—	—	—	.16**(.06)	.01 [.04; .29]	.23* (.09)	.02 [.03; .41]	.13** (.05)	.01 [.03; .23]	.22* (.08)	.03 [.01; .41]
F. cultural pluralism x equal treatment	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	.09 (.06)	.84 [−.12; .11]	−.09 (.06)	.19 [−.20; .37]
F. promotion of mistrust x S. equal treatment	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	.19**(.05)	.01 [.04; .22]	.07 (.07)	.28 [−.25; .1.05]
F. cultural pluralism x S. intercultural learning	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	−.13(.06)	.07 [−.25; .01]	−.11 (.06)	.22 [−.22;.47]
F. promotion of mistrust x S. intercultural learning	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	−.05(.07)	.40 [−.21; .06]	−.01 (.07)	.85 [−.60; .79]
R ²	.06		.01		.11		.10		.19		.12

Note: ^*p < .05, ^**p < .01, ^***p < .001. Both models were saturated, in other words, just identified, χ2/df (N = 311) = 0, p < .001, RMSEA = .00, CFI = 1.00, SRMR = .00. “F” = family, “S” = school.

We then added the interaction terms to the model one interaction at a time (Model 3, see Table 1). Interactions between the two contexts were significant only in relation to heritage culture identity. There was a significant negative relation between family promotion of mistrust and heritage culture identity when equal treatment at school was low. However, for those with high levels of equal treatment at school, family promotion of mistrust was not related to heritage culture identity (see Figure 2). Model 3 that included all interaction terms explained 19.1% variance in heritage culture identity and 12.5% of variance in German identity. Adolescents’ age did not moderate the direct and interacting relations of the socialization to cultural identity.⁸

Figure 2.

Interaction Effects of Family Promotion of Mistrust and Equal Treatment at School (Low = − 1 SD Below the Mean, High = 1 SD Above the Mean) on Heritage Culture Identity. Note: ⁺p < .10, ^*p < .05, ^**p < .01. Interaction effect size, d = .11.

Discussion

For adolescents with ties to multiple cultures, cultural identity development is an important developmental task (Spencer et al., 2015) and positively relates to psychological well-being and academic achievement (Miller-Cotto & Byrnes, 2016; Rivas-Drake et al., 2014). Adolescents’ cultural identities are informed by the ethnic-racial socialization messages they receive in various contexts. This study explored separate and interacting relations of family and school ethnic-racial socialization to cultural identity. Our findings demonstrated stronger direct relations of school socialization (intercultural learning, equal treatment) than family (cultural pluralism, promotion of mistrust) to adolescents’ heritage culture and German identity. Moreover, heritage culture was strongest when youth at least in one context received messages highlighting strained and preferential intergroup dynamics.

Regarding demographics, gender and SES were related to heritage cultural identity. Girls reported higher heritage cultural identity than boys. Similarly, in a recent study with mid-adolescents in Germany, 14-year-old girls also reported higher sense of belonging to their ethnic group than boys (Veerman et al., 2022). While gender variations in heritage culture identity have not been observed consistently across other age groups (Hoffman et al., 2021), one possible explanation is that gender variations could be age specific as participants in the current study were also early to mid-adolescents. Second, lower socioeconomic status was related to higher heritage culture identity. Contextual factors such as neighborhood or peer group diversity might play a role in the link between SES and ethnic-racial identity. Studies found that those who report lower socioeconomic status are more likely to live in ethnically homogenous neighborhoods and form friendships with people who have similar ethnic-racial backgrounds (Sanchez & Garcia, 2012) and thus stronger ethnic-racial identities. Similarly, Faas (2009) found that 15 year-old German youth of Turkish heritage studying in schools with a majority coming from working-class families favored their ethnic identity more than those in middle-class schools. The schools we collected data from were in a federal state with a large population of immigrant descent. Therefore, contextual factors, such as socioeconomic status of the neighborhood and school context, might have played a role in the significant relation between individual-level SES and heritage culture identity.

In line with previous studies that found positive relations between parental cultural pluralism and ethnic identity (Brown & Ling, 2012; Juang et al., 2021), greater family cultural pluralism was related to higher heritage culture identity (supporting H1a). Thus, when families explicitly encourage their children to form same and cross-cultural friendships, adolescents may develop a strong sense of belonging to their heritage culture. Based on theoretical models of acculturation, families are grouped as a private (vs. public) domain, where socialization mostly happens in relation to the heritage culture (Arends-Tóth & Van de Vijver, 2004). Therefore, it is not surprising that family messages about forming culture-based relations was related to higher heritage culture identity. However, unlike our expectations (Benet‐Martínez & Haritatos, 2005; Mok et al., 2007), family cultural pluralism was not related to German identity (not supporting H1b). Thus, a family context displaying openness to form relations with people from other cultures did not predict adolescents’ endorsement of German identity. It is possible that instead of internalizing explicit and verbal encouragement, children may develop positive intergroup relations through more implicit messages such as observation of their parents having intercultural relations (Smith et al., 2015) which may help build belonging to the broader society (Umaña-Taylor et al., 2020).

Contrary to our expectations suggesting that family promotion of mistrust is a risk factor for identity (Atkin et al., 2019; Umaña‐Taylor & Hill, 2020), it was not significantly related to heritage culture and German identity (not supporting H2a and H2b). Nevertheless, this finding reinforces some of the empirical research reporting its non-significant associations with ethnic-racial identity (Huguley et al., 2019; Shen et al., 2021) and with national identity (Gartner et al., 2014). The items for mistrust refer to people from “other cultures” thus, depending on the target cultural group of mistrust messages, its relations to cultural identity might differ. For example, if the mistrust items referred specifically to discouraging relations with people who identify as German, adolescents might have been less likely to identify with German identity. Future studies could use more targeted measures and differentiate the mistrust messages towards different groups.

Higher intercultural learning at school was positively related to higher heritage culture identity (supporting H3a). These results are consistent with previous theoretical frameworks and empirical studies supporting the positive implications of learning about different cultures at school for heritage culture identity (Civitillo et al., 2017; Gay, 2015; Schachner et al., 2016). Higher intercultural learning at school was also positively related to higher German identity (supporting H3b). While this finding was also in line with our theoretical expectations (Phalet & Baysu, 2020; Schachner, 2019), it was contradictory to previous empirical work that found no significant relations between cultural pluralism at school and German identity among adolescents (Schachner et al., 2016). Yet, Schachner et al. (2016) measured cultural pluralism as a broad dimension which included heritage learning, intercultural learning and multicultural learning. Our study only explored the relations of intercultural learning. Therefore, it might be that intercultural learning as a subscale of cultural pluralism may have stronger relations to heritage culture and national identity development among adolescents. Overall, the specific focus of intercultural learning on improving positive relations between different cultures might have the power to facilitate embracing two cultural identities (heritage culture and German) for adolescents.

Higher equal treatment was related to lower heritage identity (not supporting H4a) and higher national identity (supporting H4b). The relation of higher equal treatment to lower heritage identity was unexpected. However, Schachner et al. (2016) also reported similar negative relations between equal treatment and ethnic identity, but only at the classroom (and not individual) level. Although higher equal treatment is theoretically expected to be a protective factor and predict higher cultural identity, equal treatment messages within historical and present unequal conditions in broader society might have been perceived as not meaningful within the classroom. As representative studies show, people of immigrant descent have been disproportionately impacted by discrimination in different parts of society, such as less access to and unfair treatment in educational contexts, the healthcare system, and housing market (DeZIM, 2023; Wieland & Kober, 2023). Therefore, students might have perceived the norms concerning equal treatment of cultural groups as a promotion of sameness, ultimately endorsing a color-evasive ideology, in a context where assimilation of immigrants to German society has been the dominant discourse around culture(s) (Ehrkamp, 2006). Socialization messages promoting sameness might be one explanation for the negative relations between equal treatment and heritage identity. In sum, through the promotion of equality (i.e., sameness) at school, adolescents might have felt less rejected and thus less inclined to strongly identify with their heritage culture group and more inclined to identify with the national group. Future studies could focus on different dimensions of equality/inclusion approaches used in schools (e.g., contact/cooperation; Schachner et al., 2021).

The main effect of equal treatment should be interpreted with caution, however, considering the interaction between equal treatment at school and family promotion of mistrust. We had expected to find higher equal treatment to buffer negative relations of promotion of mistrust for adolescents to maintain high levels of heritage cultural identity. Unlike our expectations, heritage culture identity was strongest when both family promotion of mistrust and school equal treatment were low – an incongruent content combination indicating dissonance between the content of the messages yet congruent in frequency. On the other hand, heritage culture identity was weakest when family promotion of mistrust was low, and school equal treatment was high – incongruent content and frequency. In sum, our results suggested that school equal treatment may promote identity assimilation as it relates to high German identity and low heritage culture identity, unless family intervenes by promoting mistrust to other groups. Low but still a sufficient amount of parental mistrust annihilates the assimilative effect of school equal treatment, at least for heritage culture identity (buffering effect). Further, our results provided no support of enhancing or compensatory effects. Therefore, these results contradicted our theoretical expectations highlighting congruent contexts as a resource and incongruent contexts as a challenge for forming a sense of identity (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2007; Spencer et al., 2015).

Based on frequencies of the messages, adolescents perceived high family cultural pluralism, school intercultural learning and equal treatment. On the other hand, they reported low family promotion of mistrust. Thus, overall, both family and school contexts displayed congruently high support for forming positive intergroup relations. However, the relations of these messages to heritage culture and German identities differed depending on the context. Therefore, although the motivation of the messages in both contexts was similar, their separate relations to cultural identity differed. For example, while high levels of cultural pluralism at home, and intercultural learning at school was related to higher heritage culture identity, equal treatment was related to lower heritage culture identity.

As a potential moderator, age did not moderate the relations of family and school ethnic-racial socialization to heritage and German identity encompassing exploration and commitment processes. The levels of ethnic-racial socialization content and two identity processes fluctuate (exploration and commitment) throughout adolescence (Byrd & Legette, 2022; Phinney & Ong, 2007). For example, Douglass and Umaña-Taylor (2016) found that until age 15, family cultural socialization had strong relations to both ethnic-racial identity exploration and resolution. However, during later adolescence (after age 15), the relations of family cultural socialization with identity exploration became stronger while the relation with resolution weakened. Future research could test the interacting relations of family and school socialization contents with two processes of cultural identity development (exploration and commitment) separately.

Limitations and Future Directions

Our study has some limitations related to the study design and measures. The study has a correlational design therefore, we cannot claim causality among the study variables. Most of our intercultural learning and equal treatment items referred broadly to the school context, but few items specifically referred to the teachers as one of the agents within the context. A clear distinction and examination of socialization contexts and multiple agents (teachers, peers) is necessary as developmental outcomes might differ depending on the agent, for example, for discrimination (Benner & Graham, 2013; Civitillo et al., 2023). Therefore, future studies should include measures of socialization messages across multiple agents within family and school contexts. Furthermore, as Wang and Benner (2016) did in their study, using similar items across contexts could better operationalize congruent and incongruent messages and identify overlapping messages across contexts. In addition to self-report measures, observational methods using video recordings of discussions between conversation partners could be used to check the reliability of the self-reported socialization messages (Smith-Bynum, 2023). For example, observational methods could provide insights into how equality messages are conveyed at schools to better understand the negative relations of equal treatment at schools to heritage culture identity.

Heritage culture and German identity do not necessarily develop separately, but potentially interact and inform one another. Therefore, the degree to which these identities are compatible or in conflict has been the question of bicultural identity integration research (Nguyen & Benet-Martínez, 2013). Future studies could test to what extent there are direct and interacting relations of family and school ethnic-racial socialization to bicultural identity integration using recent scales (Huynh et al., 2018). As some youth identify with multiple cultural groups (e.g., Polish-Hungarian-German), measures capturing the integration of multiple identities beyond a dichotomy should be considered. In addition, future research could test the interactive effects of incongruent messages on other developmental outcomes such as well-being, family and peer relationships and school achievement. Importantly, adolescents are not just passive receivers, they display agency through reflections of these messages and when deciding whether to internalize or reject them (Jones & Rogers, 2023). Our study design did not allow us to display the process of negotiation of the incongruent messages. Future studies could use mixed method designs to identify when, where, and how adolescents assert their agency. Our data were collected in culturally diverse schools and neighborhoods of a highly diverse state in Germany. Future studies in other national contexts could center the interactions of various components of structural diversity (e.g., state, neighborhood, school, classroom) and socialization content across multiple contexts to test these relations.

Conclusion

The present study contributes to the ethnic-racial socialization literature centering the interactions between multiple social contexts (Miklikowska et al., 2019; Sladek et al., 2021, 2022). For families, our results demonstrate the benefit of promoting same and cross-cultural relations for adolescents to develop a positive heritage culture identity. For schools, the current study extends previous findings demonstrating benefits of engaging in intercultural learning for various developmental outcomes (Aral et al., 2022; Moscardino et al., 2019). Thus, it also highlights the necessity of ensuring teachers are able to create culturally inclusive classrooms. Although teachers are often inclined to foster equal treatment in culturally diverse classrooms (Civitillo et al., 2017), the contradictory (negative or null) relations of equal treatment to cultural identity in school context should be investigated further (Aral et al., 2022; Schachner et al., 2016). As long as youth receive messages highlighting strained and preferential intergroup dynamics at least in one context (in our case this was family promotion of mistrust), they may develop a stronger heritage culture identity. Given the interacting relations, understanding how adolescents construct their cultural identity while navigating various contexts will need more attention.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - The Social Contexts of Cultural Identity Among Adolescents of Immigrant Descent: Separate and Interacting Relations of Family and School Ethnic-Racial Socialization

Supplemental Material for The Social Contexts of Cultural Identity Among Adolescents of Immigrant Descent: Separate and Interacting Relations of Family and School Ethnic-Racial Socialization by Tuğçe Aral, Linda P. Juang, Miriam Schwarzenthal, Maja K. Schachner, and Byron G. Adams in The Journal of Early Adolescence

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Tuğçe Aral

Linda P. Juang

Miriam Schwarzenthal

Maja K. Schachner

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

Author Biographies

Tuğçe Aral is a Ph.D. student in the Department of Inclusive Education at the University of Potsdam, Germany. Her research focuses on ethnic-racial socialization in family and school contexts and their relations to identity development and intergroup relations.

Linda P. Juang is a Professor in the Department of Inclusive Education at the University of Potsdam, Germany. Her work focuses on how experiences of immigration relate to minoritized adolescents’ development and adjustment in school, family, and community contexts.

Miriam Schwarzenthal is a junior professor of “School Socialization Research” in the School of Education at the University of Wuppertal, Germany. Her research is situated between the fields of psychology and education and focuses on socialization processes with regards to cultural diversity and social inequity in school, family, and peer contexts.

Maja K. Schachner is a Professor of Educational Psychology with an emphasis on Socialisation and Culture at Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg. Her main research interests include cultural diversity climate in schools, school-based cultural diversity-related interventions, and acculturation and adjustment of adolescents of immigrant descent.

Byron G. Adams is an Assistant Professor at the University of Amsterdam and holds special appointments at the University of Johannesburg in South Africa and Ghent University in Belgium. He explores the complexities of identity from organizational, (cross-)cultural, social, and developmental psychological perspectives, primarily in non-Western contexts, cultures, and groups.

References

Aral

Schachner

Juang

Schwarzenthal

(2022). Cultural diversity approaches in schools and adolescents’ willingness to support refugee youth. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), Article e12458. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12458

Arends-Tóth

Van de Vijver

F. J.

(2004). Domains and dimensions in acculturation: Implicit theories of Turkish–Dutch. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28(1), 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2003.09.001

Ateş

Bouaoud

Freitag

Gahein-Sama

M. M.

Gangarova

Ionescu

Isani

M. A.

Kaneza

Kim

T. J.

Lazaridou

F. B.

(2023). Rassismus und seine Symptome. Bericht des Nationalen Diskriminierungs-und Rassismusmonitors. [Racism and its symptoms. Report of the National Discrimination and Racism Monitor]. Deutsches Zentrum für Integrations- und Migrationsforschung (DeZIM).

Atkin

A. L.

Yoo

H. C.

Yeh

C. J.

(2019). What types of racial messages protect Asian American adolescents from discrimination? A latent interaction model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 66(2), 247–254. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000297

Benet‐Martínez

Haritatos

(2005). Bicultural identity integration (BII): Components and psychosocial antecedents. Journal of Personality, 73(4), 1015–1049. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00337.x

Benner

A. D.

Graham

(2013). The antecedents and consequences of racial/ethnic discrimination during adolescence: Does the source of discrimination matter? Developmental Psychology, 49(8), 1602–1613. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0030557

Benner

A. D.

Mistry

R. S.

(2007). Congruence of mother and teacher educational expectations and low-income youth’s academic competence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 140–153. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.140

Bronfenbrenner

(1979). The Exosystem and Human Development. In The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.

Bronfenbrenner

Morris

P. A.

(2007). The bioecological model of human development. Handbook of Child Psychology, Volume I. Theoretical Models of Human Development, 1, 793–828. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470147658.chpsy0114

10.

Brown

C. M.

Ling

(2012). Ethnic-racial socialization has an indirect effect on self-esteem for Asian American emerging adults. Psychology, 3(1), 78–81. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2012.31013

11.

Brown

C. S.

(2017). School context influences the ethnic identity development of immigrant children in middle childhood. Social Development, 26(4), 797–812. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12240

12.

Brown

T. L.

Krishnakumar

(2007). Development and validation of the adolescent racial and ethnic socialization scale (ARESS) in African American families. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36(8), 1072–1085. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-007-9197-z

13.

Byrd

C. M.

Ahn

L. H.

(2020). Profiles of ethnic‐racial socialization from family, school, neighborhood, and the Internet: Relations to adolescent outcomes. Journal of Community Psychology, 48(6), 1942–1963. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22393

14.

Byrd

C. M.

Legette

K. B.

(2022). School ethnic–racial socialization and adolescent ethnic–racial identity. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 28(2), 205–216. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/cdp0000449

15.

Civitillo

Mayer

A.-M.

Jugert

(2023). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the associations between perceived teacher-based racial–ethnic discrimination and student well-being and academic outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1–93. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/edu0000818

16.

Civitillo

Schachner

Juang

van de Vijver

F. J.

Handrick

Noack

(2017). Towards a better understanding of cultural diversity approaches at school: A multi-informant and mixed-methods study. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 12, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2016.09.002

17.

Cohen

West

S. G.

Aiken

L. S.

(2013). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge.

18.

DeZIM (2023). Racist realities: How does Germany deal with racism? Preliminary study for the German national monitoring of discrimination and racism (NaDiRa). Deutsches Zentrum für Integrations- und Migrationsforschung (DeZIM).

19.

Douglass

Umaña-Taylor

A. J.

(2016). Time-varying effects of family ethnic socialization on ethnic-racial identity development among Latino adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 52(11), 1904–1912. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/dev0000141

20.

Ehrkamp

(2006). “We Turks are no Germans”: Assimilation discourses and the dialectical construction of identities in Germany. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 38(9), 1673–1692. https://doi.org/10.1068/a38148

21.

Enders

C. K.

(2022). Applied missing data analysis. Guilford Publications.

22.

Erikson

(1968). Identity: youth and crisis. W.W Norton & Company, Ltd.

23.

Faas

(2009). Reconsidering identity: The ethnic and political dimensions of hybridity among majority and Turkish youth in Germany and England. British Journal of Sociology, 60(2), 299–320. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2009.01232.x

24.

Federal Government Expert Commission . (2021). Shaping our immigration society together: Government Expert Commission on the framework for sustainable integration. Fachkommission Integrationsfähigkeit.

25.

Gartner

Kiang

Supple

(2014). Prospective links between ethnic socialization, ethnic and American identity, and well-being among Asian-American adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(10), 1715–1727. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-0044-0

26.

Gay

(2015). The what, why, and how of culturally responsive teaching: International mandates, challenges, and opportunities. Multicultural Education Review, 7(3), 123–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/2005615X.2015.1072079

27.

Geiser

(2012). Data analysis with Mplus. Guilford press.

28.

Goodman

Adler

N. E.

Kawachi

Frazier

A. L.

Huang

Colditz

G. A.

(2001). Adolescents’ perceptions of social status: Development and evaluation of a new indicator. Pediatrics , 108(2), Article e31. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.108.2.e31

29.

Graham

(2018). Race/ethnicity and social adjustment of adolescents: How (not if) school diversity matters. Educational Psychologist, 53(2), 64–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1428805

30.

Green

C. W.

Adams

A. M.

Turner

C. W.

(1988). Development and validation of the school interracial climate. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16(2).

31.

Hoffman

A. J.

Kurtz-Costes

Shaheed

(2021). Ethnic-racial identity, gender identity, and well-being in Cherokee early adolescents. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 27(1), 60–71. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000354

32.

Hughes

Johnson

(2001). Correlates in children’s experiences of parents’ racial socialization behaviors. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(4), 981–995. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00981.x

33.

Hughes

McGill

R. K.

Ford

Tubbs

(2011). Parents, peers, and schools as agents of racial socialization for African American youth. In N.E Hill, T.L. Mann, H.E. Fitzgerald (Eds.) African American children’s mental health: Development and context (pp. 95–124). Greenwood Press.

34.

Hughes

Rodriguez

Smith

E. P.

Johnson

D. J.

Stevenson

H. C.

Spicer

(2006). Parents’ ethnic-racial socialization practices: A review of research and directions for future study. Developmental Psychology, 42(5), 747–770. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.5.747

35.

Hughes

D. L.

Watford

J. A.

(2021). Racial regularities: Setting‐level dynamics as a source of ethnic‐racial socialization. American Journal of Community Psychology, 70(1–2), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12565

36.

Huguley

J. P.

Wang

M.-T.

Vasquez

A. C.

Guo

(2019). Parental ethnic–racial socialization practices and the construction of children of color’s ethnic–racial identity: A research synthesis and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 145(5), 437–458. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/bul0000187

37.

Huynh

Q.-L.

Benet-Martínez

Nguyen

A.-M. D.

(2018). Measuring variations in bicultural identity across US ethnic and generational groups: Development and validation of the Bicultural Identity Integration Scale—version 2 (BIIS-2). Psychological Assessment, 30(12), 1581–1596. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/pas0000606

38.

Jones

C. M.

Rogers

L. O.

(2023). Family racial/ethnic socialization through the lens of multiracial black identity: A M(ai)cro analysis of meaning-making. Race and Social Problems, 15(1), 59–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12552-023-09387-6

39.

Juang

L. P.

Moffitt

Schachner

M. K.

Pevec

(2021). Understanding ethnic-racial identity in a context where “race” is taboo. Identity, 21(3), 185–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/15283488.2021.1932901

40.

Jugert

Eckstein

Beelmann

Noack

(2016). Parents’ influence on the development of their children’s ethnic intergroup attitudes: A longitudinal analysis from middle childhood to early adolescence. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 13(2), 213–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2015.1084923

41.

Kende

Baysu

Phalet

Fleischmann

(2021). Dual identity in context: The role of minority peers and school discrimination. Journal of Social Issues, 77(4), 1087–1105. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12487

42.

Kiang

Supple

A. J.

Stein

G. L.

(2019). Latent profiles of discrimination and socialization predicting ethnic identity and well‐being among Asian American adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 29(2), 523–538.

43.

Kwon

Metzger

Kogan

S. M.

(2022). Racial discrimination and conduct problems among Black American youth: The moderating effect of ethnic racial socialization. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 71(4), 488–493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2022.05.007

44.

Meca

Eichas

Schwartz

S. J.

Davis

R. J.

(2019). Biculturalism and bicultural identity development: A relational model of bicultural systems. In Titzmann

Jugert

(Eds.), Youth in superdiverse societies (pp. 41–58). Routledge.

45.

Miklikowska

Bohman

Titzmann

P. F.

(2019). Driven by context? The interrelated effects of parents, peers, classrooms on development of prejudice among Swedish majority adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 55(11), 2451–2463. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000809

46.

Miller-Cotto

Byrnes

J. P.

(2016). Ethnic/racial identity and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review. Developmental Review, 41, 51–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.003

47.

Mok

Morris

M. W.

Benet-Martinez

Karakitapoğlu-Aygün

(2007). Embracing American culture: Structures of social identity and social networks among first-generation biculturals. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38(5), 629–635. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022107305243

48.

Moscardino

Musso

Lan

Miconi

Inguglia

Schachner

(2019). Prosocial behavior in multicultural classrooms: The role of adolescents’ perceived teacher support for cultural pluralism and ethnic identity [Conference Presentation]. 19th European Conference on Developmental Psychology, Athens, Greece.

49.

Nguyen

A.-M. D.

Benet-Martínez

(2013). Biculturalism and adjustment: A meta-analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(1), 122–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022111435097

50.

Nieri

Yoo

Tam

(2024). Ethnic‐racial socialization in mono‐racial Asian American and Pacific Islander families: A 21‐year systematic literature review. Sociology Compass , 18(2), Article e13185. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.13185

51.

Pettigrew

T. F.

Tropp

L. R.

(2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751

52.

Phalet

Baysu

(2020). Fitting in: How the intergroup context shapes minority acculturation and achievement. European Review of Social Psychology, 31(1), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2020.1711627

53.

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. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-0167.54.3.271

54.

Rivas‐Drake

Syed

Umaña‐Taylor

Markstrom

French

Schwartz

S. J.

Lee

Ethnic and Racial Identity in the 21st Century Study Group . (2014). Feeling good, happy, and proud: A meta‐analysis of positive ethnic–racial affect and adjustment. Child Development, 85(1), 77–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12175

55.

Saleem

F. T.

Byrd

C. M.

(2021). Unpacking school ethnic‐racial socialization: A new conceptual model. Journal of Social Issues, 77(4), 1106–1125. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12498

56.

Sanchez

D. T.

Garcia

J. A.

(2012). Putting race in context: Socioeconomic status predicts racial fluidity. In Fiske

S. T.

Markus

H. R.

(Eds.), Facing social class: How societal rank influences interaction (pp. 216–233). Russell Sage Foundation.

57.

Schachner

M. K.

(2019). From equality and inclusion to cultural pluralism – Evolution and effects of cultural diversity perspectives in schools. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 16(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2017.1326378

58.

Schachner

M. K.

Holscher

Moscardino

Ceccon

Juang

Pastore

(2023). Adolescent cultural identity development in context: The dynamic interplay of the identity project with classroom cultural diversity climate in Italy and Germany . [Manuscript submitted for publication].

59.

Schachner

M. K.

Noack

Van de Vijver

F. J.

Eckstein

(2016). Cultural diversity climate and psychological adjustment at school—equality and inclusion versus cultural pluralism. Child Development, 87(4), 1175–1191. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12536

60.

Schachner

M. K.

Schwarzenthal

Moffitt

Civitillo

Juang

(2021). Capturing a nuanced picture of classroom cultural diversity climate: Multigroup and multilevel analyses among secondary school students in Germany. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 65, Article 101971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2021.101971

61.

Schachner

M. K.

Van de Vijver

F. J.

Noack

(2014). Family-related antecedents of early adolescent immigrants’ psychological and sociocultural school adjustment in Germany. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45(10), 1606–1625. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022114543831

62.

Schwarzenthal

Juang

L. P.

Schachner

M. K.

van de Vijver

F. J.

(2019a). A multimodal measure of cultural intelligence for adolescents growing up in culturally diverse societies. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 72, 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2019.07.007

63.

Schwarzenthal

Juang

L. P.

Schachner

M. K.

van de Vijver

F. J.

(2019b). “When birds of a different feather flock together” – intercultural socialization in adolescents’ friendships. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 72, 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2019.07.001

64.

Schwarzenthal

Juang

L. P.

Schachner

M. K.

van de Vijver

F. J.

Handrick

(2017). From tolerance to understanding: Exploring the development of intercultural competence in multiethnic contexts from early to late adolescence. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 27(5), 388–399. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2317

65.

Schwarzenthal

Schachner

M. K.

Juang

L. P.

Van De Vijver

F. J.

(2020). Reaping the benefits of cultural diversity: Classroom cultural diversity climate and students’ intercultural competence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 50(2), 323–346. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2617

66.

Shen

Lee

Choi

Kim

(2021). Ethnic-racial socialization, ethnic-racial identity, and depressive symptoms in Korean adolescents in the United States and China. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 51(2), 377–392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-021-01523-y

67.

Simon

(2021). The role of race and ethnicity in parental ethnic-racial socialization: A scoping review of research. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 30(1), 182–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-020-01854-7

68.

Simpson

E. H.

(1949). Measurement of diversity. Nature, 163(4148), 688. https://doi.org/10.1038/163688a0

69.

Sladek

M. R.

Umaña‐Taylor

A. J.

Hardesty

J. L.

Aguilar

Bates

Bayless

S. D.

Gomez

Hur

C. K.

Ison

Jones

Luo

Satterthwaite-Freiman

Vázquez

M. A.

(2022). “So, like, it’s all a mix of one”: Intersecting contexts of adolescents’ ethnic‐racial socialization. Child Development, 93(5), 1284–1303. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13756

70.

Sladek

M. R.

Umaña-Taylor

A. J.

Wantchekon

K. A.

McDermott

E. R.

Updegraff

K. A.

(2021). Contextual moderators of a school-based ethnic-racial identity intervention: The roles of family ethnic socialization and ethnic-racial background. Prevention Science, 22(3), 378–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-020-01166-8

71.

Smith

Maas

Van Tubergen

(2015). Parental influence on friendships between native and immigrant adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 25(3), 580–591. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12149

72.

Smith-Bynum

M. A.

(2023). The theory of racial socialization in action for Black adolescents and their families. In Diversity and developmental science: Bridging the gaps between research, practice, and policy (pp. 59–91). Springer International Publishing.

73.

Spencer

Harpalani

Cassidy

Jacobs

C. Y.

Donde

Goss

T. N.

Wilson

(2015). Understanding vulnerability and resilience from a normative developmental perspective: Implications for racially and ethnically diverse youth. In Cicchetti

Cohen

(Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Volume one: Theory and method (pp. 627–672). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470939383

74.

Spiegler

Güngör

Leyendecker

(2016). Muslim immigrant parents’ social status moderates the link between religious parenting and children’s identification with the heritage and host culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 47(9), 1159–1177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022116665170

75.

Umaña‐Taylor

A. J.

Douglass

Updegraff

K. A.

Marsiglia

F. F.

(2018). A small‐scale randomized efficacy trial of the Identity Project: Promoting adolescents’ ethnic–racial identity exploration and resolution. Child Development, 89(3), 862–870. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12755

76.

Umaña‐Taylor

A. J.

Hill

N. E.

(2020). Ethnic–racial socialization in the family: A decade’s advance on precursors and outcomes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 244–271. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12622

77.

Umaña-Taylor

A. J.

Kornienko

McDermott

E. R.

Motti-Stefanidi

(2020). National identity development and friendship network dynamics among immigrant and non-immigrant youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49(3), 706–723. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-01181-1

78.

Uygun-Altunbas

(2017). Religiöse sozialisation in muslimischen familien—eine vergleichende studie [Religious socialization in Muslim families-a comparative study]. transcript Verlag. https://doi.org/10.14361/9783839440476

79.

Veerman

G. J. M.

Heizmann

Schachner

M. K.

(2022). Conditions for cultural belonging among youth of immigrant descent in Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Comparative analysis of intergroup experiences and classroom contexts. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 45(16), 659–683. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2022.2136010

80.

Vietze

Juang

L. P.

Schachner

M. K.

(2019). Peer cultural socialisation: A resource for minority students’ cultural identity, life satisfaction, and school values. Intercultural Education, 30(5), 579–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2019.1586213

81.

Wang

Benner

A. D.

(2016). Cultural socialization across contexts: Family–peer congruence and adolescent well-being. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(3), 594–611. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0426-1

82.

Wang

Benner

A. D.

Kim

S. Y.

(2015). The Cultural Socialization Scale: Assessing family and peer socialization toward heritage and mainstream cultures. Psychological Assessment, 27(4), 1452–1462. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/pas0000136

83.

Wang

Benner

A. D.

Kim

S. Y.

(2019). Feelings of being caught between families and peers: Linking cultural incongruence and peer ethnic/racial discrimination to adolescent well-being. In Fitzgerald

H.E.

Johnson

D.J.

Qin

D.B.

Villarruel

F.A.

Norder

(Eds.), Handbook of Children and Prejudice (pp. 331–347). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12228-7_19

84.

Wieland

Kober

(2023). Diskriminierung in der Einwanderungsgesellschaft [Discrimination in the immigration society]. Bertelsmann Stiftung. https://doi.org/10.11586/2023020

85.

Woo

Maglalang

D. D.

Park

Choi

Takeuchi

D. T.

(2020). Racial discrimination, ethnic-racial socialization, and cultural identities among Asian American youths. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 26(4), 447–459. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/cdp0000327

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.51 MB