Gender Typicality,Felt Pressure for Gender Conformity,Racial Centrality,and Self-Esteem in African American Adolescents

Abstract

Using a sample of 203 African American late adolescents aged 16 to 19 years (M_age = 17.77 years), we examined whether two aspects of gender identity—gender typicality and felt pressure for gender conformity—were related to self-esteem. Racial centrality (i.e., the importance of race to the individual’s self-concept) and gender were tested as moderators of these relations. Compared to girls, boys reported that they were more typical of their gender group (i.e., gender typicality) and that they experienced greater pressure to conform to traditional gender norms (i.e., felt pressure). Multiple linear regression analyses showed that gender typicality was positively related to self-esteem among girls and boys and that the relation was stronger for girls. Racial centrality moderated the relation between gender typicality and self-esteem, such that the relation was weaker for youth who reported higher levels of racial centrality. Felt pressure was negatively related to self-esteem for both boys and girls. These results underscore the importance of considering both gender and race as social identities as we seek to understand African American adolescents’ psychological adjustment.

Keywords

gender identity self-esteem racial centrality African American adolescents

Gender as a social identity emerges early in development and has implications for multiple outcomes across the life course (Galambos, Berenbaum, & McHale, 2009; Ruble, Martin, & Berenbaum, 2006). Gender may be particularly salient during adolescence because of physical maturation during puberty, increased awareness of the gendered positions that men and women occupy in society, and changes in family and peer dynamics that may include pressure to conform to traditional gender roles (Galambos et al., 2009). Consistent with the salience of gender during adolescence, gender identity has been linked to important psychological outcomes during this period, including depression, anxiety, body image, and self-esteem, (Rogers, Scott, & Way, 2015; Smith & Leaper, 2006); and some studies have shown variations in these relations according to youth’s gender (Corby, Hodges, & Perry 2007; Jewell & Brown, 2014).

Although knowledge about the role of gender identity in development is growing, little research has investigated relations between gender identity and indices of well-being in African American adolescents (Skinner, Perkins, Wood, & Kurtz-Costes, 2016). The dearth of research in this area stands in stark contrast to the plethora of work focused on African American youth’s racial identity (e.g., Hoffman, Kurtz-Costes, Adams, & Rowley, 2017; Rivas-Drake et al., 2014; Rowley, Varner, Ross, Williams, & Banerjee, 2012). Furthermore, even fewer studies (Rogers et al., 2015) have included an analysis of ways in which race and gender identities work together to shape African American youth’s adjustment, despite theoretical frameworks that highlight the importance of examining multiple categories of social group memberships to understand individuals’ adjustment. For instance, according to social identity theory, individuals have multiple social identities that vary in salience and value and that operate simultaneously to influence perceptions of the self and others (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Race and gender, both of which have been identified as social position variables that influence ethnic minority youth’s experiences and well-being (Garcia-Coll et al., 1996), are especially important social identities for some African American adolescents (Rogers et al., 2015). Although certain dimensions of gender identity might operate in concert with dimensions of racial identity to support youth’s well-being, other dimensions of these identities might compete with one another (Rogers et al., 2015; Settles, 2006). However, evidence regarding these processes is sparse. The present research sheds light on these processes and responds to recent calls for studies that move beyond examining social identity categories, such as race and gender, in isolation (Ghavami, Katsiaficas, & Rogers, 2016; Skinner et al., 2016).

Gender Typicality and Felt Pressure for Gender Conformity

Gender identity is a multidimensional construct encompassing individuals’ thoughts and feelings about their gender category membership (Egan & Perry, 2001). Egan and Perry’s (2001) multidimensional model encompasses five components. Membership knowledge refers to the knowledge of one’s biological sex, which is learned early in childhood. Gender typicality is defined as the perception that one is a typical member of his or her gender group, with skills and interests that are similar to those of same-gender peers. Gender contentedness is a reflection of individuals’ satisfaction with their gender assignment, whereas felt pressure for gender conformity refers to the extent to which one experiences pressure to conform to traditional gender norms. Intergroup bias refers to same-gender favoritism. We assessed youth’s gender typicality and felt pressure for gender conformity in the present study because these two dimensions focus on evaluations of the self and have been shown to be related to adjustment (DiDonato & Berenbaum, 2013; Egan & Perry, 2001; Jewell & Brown, 2014).¹

Across childhood and adolescence, boys tend to report higher levels of gender typicality and felt pressure for gender conformity than girls (Corby et al., 2007; Egan & Perry, 2001; Hoffman, Dumas et al., 2017; Smith & Leaper, 2006). These findings are consistent with a long history of research showing that expectations for conformity to gender norms are more flexible for girls and women than for boys and men (Heilman & Wallen, 2010; Ruble et al., 2006; Twenge, 1997). This flexibility is apparent in African American families in which girls are socialized to be strong and independent (Hill & Zimmerman, 1995; Sharp & Ispa, 2009; Thomas & King, 2007). Scholars have also suggested that greater flexibility is afforded to girls because characteristics associated with men (e.g., agentic, capable, and logical) tend to be more valued by society than those associated with women (e.g., submissive, caring, and gentle). Traditional stereotypes that depict boys and men in a positive light may, however, come at a price: Social sanctions are often greater for boys who appear feminine than for girls with stereotypically masculine-typed traits and interests (Jewell & Brown, 2014; Katz & Ksansnak, 1994; Kreiger & Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2013). These traditional gendered expectations may therefore have implications for the ways in which gender identity is related to youth’s adjustment, including their self-esteem.

Gender Typicality, Felt Pressure, and Psychological Adjustment

Both gender typicality and felt pressure for gender conformity have been linked to youth’s psychological and social adjustment. Gender typicality, in particular, is positively associated with self-worth, social competence, and peer acceptance (Egan & Perry, 2001; Jewell & Brown, 2014; Smith & Leaper, 2006; Yunger, Carver, & Perry, 2004) and is negatively associated with internalizing problems (Yunger et al., 2004). For youth who are not typical of their gender, feelings of inadequacy, lack of acceptance, and even victimization may be pathways through which gender typicality shapes adjustment. For example, in a study of middle school adolescents, gender-based teasing mediated associations between gender typicality and depression for both boys and girls and between gender typicality and body image for boys (Jewell & Brown, 2014).

In contrast to gender typicality, which is positively related to well-being, felt pressure for gender conformity has been associated with adjustment difficulties. Research conducted with samples in which a majority of children were White with up to 40% of the sample from other racial/ethnic groups has shown that youth who reported higher levels of felt pressure also reported lower levels of global self-worth and higher levels of internalizing symptoms (Carver, Yunger, & Perry, 2003; Egan & Perry, 2001; Yunger et al., 2004). Youth who experience pressure from parents and peers to conform to gender norms might cultivate gender-typed talents and interests in an effort to feel accepted and to neglect experiences that might be more personally fulfilling (Egan & Perry, 2001).

Dimensions of gender identity have been linked to psychological adjustment in U.S. samples with mostly White participants, but less is known about whether and how aspects of gender identity might be related to well-being in African American children and adolescents (Skinner et al., 2016). In one study with Black, White, and Hispanic preadolescents, Corby et al. (2007) found variations in the relations between gender identity (as measured by Egan & Perry’s, 2001, typicality, felt pressure, and contentedness scales) and psychological adjustment across racial/ethnic groups. Consistent with Egan and Perry’s (2001) model, gender typicality was positively related, whereas felt pressure was negatively related, to self-worth among White boys and girls (Corby et al., 2007). Among African American children, however, gender typicality was positively related to self-worth for girls but not for boys and felt pressure for gender conformity was not related to self-worth or other measures of adjustment (e.g., internalizing and externalizing problems) for either boys or girls. Among Hispanic youth, global self-worth was positively related to gender typicality and negatively related to felt pressure among girls but not boys. Corby and colleagues suggested that Egan and Perry’s model may not apply across racial/ethnic groups. They also suggested that gender identity might be less important for self-worth and other psychological outcomes among African American youth than among Whites because of the salience of racial identity among African American youth.

More recently, however, Rogers et al. (2015) found in their study of African American high school boys that gender private regard (i.e., how one feels about being male or female) was negatively related to depressive symptoms and gender centrality was positively related to valuing of school; in addition, boys rated both race and gender as important aspects of their identity. Taken together, findings from these two studies suggest that relations between gender identity and adjustment among African American youth might depend on the dimension of gender identity examined and that these relations may vary depending on youth’s age and gender. Furthermore, examination of these relations while accounting for aspects of racial identity may also be warranted.

Racial Centrality and Adolescent Adjustment

For many African American youth, adolescence is a period of increased racial/ethnic identity exploration culminating in variations in the content of racial identity (Umaña-Taylor et al., 2014). Much like gender identity, racial identity is a multidimensional construct, encompassing the overall significance and meaning that individuals attribute to membership in their racial group (Sellers, Smith, Shelton, Rowley, & Chavous, 1998). In the present study, we measured youth’s racial centrality—the “extent to which an individual normatively defines himself or herself with regard to race” (Sellers et al., 1998, p. 25). Just as there is variability in the importance people attach to other domains of identity (e.g., political or religious affiliation), the importance that African American adolescents attach to race as a defining or central characteristic of the self is variable (Hoffman, Kurtz-Costes et al., 2017; Rogers et al., 2015). As pointed out by Sellers et al. (1998), some African American women might consider gender to be a more important defining aspect of their identity than race, whereas others might consider race to be more important in defining their identity.

Adolescents’ racial centrality might moderate the relation between self-esteem and aspects of gender identity for two reasons: First, given ordering among social identities, it might be expected that when one identity is particularly central, others may be less central (Ashmore, Deaux, & McLaughlin-Volpe, 2004; Sellers et al., 1998). Behavioral outcomes, then, as well as aspects of general adjustment such as self-esteem, are more likely to be affected by issues tied to highly central identities than to those associated with less central identities (Stryker & Serpe, 1982). Thus, to the extent that race is very important to identity, being typical of one’s gender may be less important for self-esteem. Instead, self-esteem might be tied more closely to behaviors, relationships, and other aspects of the self that are linked to race.

Second, a strong connection to one’s racial group might buffer an adolescent from negative feedback in other domains, including domains linked to gender. Several studies have shown that racial centrality is positively related to school outcomes for boys and can be protective in the face of stressors such as racial discrimination (Chavous, Rivas-Drake, Smalls, Griffin, & Cogburn, 2008; Wong, Eccles, & Sameroff, 2003). For example, Neblett, Rivas-Drake, and Umaña-Taylor (2012) designed a model and reviewed supporting literature showing that culturally informed factors such as aspects of racial/ethnic identity and racial socialization buffered youth from the negative effects of racial discrimination. Consistent with Neblett et al.’s model, we reasoned that high racial centrality might serve a protective function, thereby weakening the relations between the two gender identity variables and self-esteem.

The Present Study and Hypotheses

As of now, there is limited research examining gender identity among African American adolescents, and even fewer studies examining how race and gender may work together to shape youth’s adjustment. To address these limitations, the present study focused on contributions of two dimensions of gender identity—gender typicality and felt pressure for gender conformity—to youth’s self-esteem. Based on research suggesting that boys face stronger sanctions than girls for not adhering to traditional gender norms (Heilman & Wallen, 2010; Ruble et al., 2006) and that point to gender differences in relations between gender identity and youth’s adjustment (Corby et al., 2007; Jewell & Brown, 2014), we tested gender differences in gender typicality and felt pressure for gender conformity and in relations between these variables and self-esteem. Drawing from the tenets of social identity theory and arguments that some aspects of gender identity might work in concert with dimensions of racial identity (Rogers et al., 2015), we also tested whether racial centrality moderated the relations between these aspects of gender identity and self-esteem.

We hypothesized the following:

Boys would report higher levels of gender typicality and felt pressure than girls.

Among both boys and girls, gender typicality would be positively related to self-esteem, whereas felt pressure for gender conformity would be negatively related to self-esteem.

Gender would moderate relations between gender identity variables and self-esteem, such that self-esteem would be more strongly related to gender typicality and felt pressure for gender conformity among boys than among girls.

Racial centrality would moderate the relation between gender identity and self-esteem, such that relations between gender identity variables and self-esteem would be weaker among adolescents with stronger racial centrality than among those for whom race was a less central aspect of their identity.

Method

Data Source and Sample

Participants were part of a longitudinal study that followed youth from Grades 5 through 12 and that focused on predictors of academic success for African American youth. Of the 203 students included in the present study, 106 were recruited from general education fifth-grade classrooms at their respective elementary schools during the first wave of data collection, and 97 were recruited when the sample was expanded in Grade 10. All data used in this article were collected during youth’s 12th-grade year, which is the only study wave in which gender identity variables were measured.

The present study is based on reports from 203 African American adolescents (45% boys; 55% girls; M_age = 17.77 years, SD = 0.50; age range = 16.24-19.06 years) who participated in Grade 12 data collection. Participating youth attended 12 high schools in one urban school district in the Southeastern region of the United States. In the participating high schools, 35.6% to 91% of students were African American (Mdn = 44%). The median annual household income reported by participants’ parents was between $30,000 and $39,000 (ranging from less than $10,000 [17.2%] to more than $100,000 [3.9%]), and the median parental educational level was some postsecondary education (ranging from less than high school [2.3%] to doctoral degree [0.8%]).

Procedure

Consent documents were distributed to participating youth at school or mailed home to the primary caregiver. Because the main purpose of the project was to identify factors linked to academic motivation, the recruitment materials mentioned academic success but did not refer to gender identity. After signing informed consent documents, students completed surveys in a single 30-minute session. Some youth completed the survey during a free period at school and others met the researchers in a public location (e.g., local library).

Participants read the surveys on their own and were encouraged to ask questions if they had difficulty understanding any of the items. The surveys included several measures that are not reported here. Two forms of the survey were used to address possible order effects. Participants received a $10 gift card to a merchant of their choice (e.g., Amazon, Target, McDonald’s). All research procedures met the ethical standards of the university’s institutional review board and the American Psychological Association.

Measures

Gender Typicality

We used a modified version of Egan and Perry’s (2001) scale to assess gender typicality. In the original measure, children were asked to select one of two contrasting statements (e.g., “Some girls think they are a good example of being a girl,” vs. “Other girls don’t feel they are a good example of being a girl.”). Egan and Perry (2001) asked children to choose one of the two opposing statements and then to indicate whether the chosen statement was very true for me or sort of true for me. In our adapted version, youth indicated their agreement with each item (e.g., “The kinds of things I’m good at are similar to what most girls/boys are good at.”) on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). This modification is consistent with revisions made by other researchers in their studies with adolescents (Hoffman, Dumas, et al., 2017; Kornienko, Santos, Martin, & Granger, 2016; Leaper, Farkas, & Brown, 2012). Some items were negatively worded and therefore were reverse-coded. This measure has been found to demonstrate acceptable internal consistency of the scores among adolescents (e.g., Cronbach’s α = .66; Smith & Leaper, 2006). Egan and Perry (2001) showed that their gender typicality measure, from which ours was adapted, had good discriminant and criterion validity with a racially diverse (68% White, 18% African American, 13% Hispanic, and 1% Asian) sample of fourth through eighth graders.

Felt Pressure

Felt pressure for gender conformity was assessed using a similarly adapted version of Egan and Perry’s (2001) measure. Thus, instead of selecting one of two opposing statements and then designating whether the statement was very true or sort of true, youth rated agreement with each of 10 items (e.g., “My parent would be upset if I acted like a boy/girl.”) on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Researchers have found acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach’s alphas >.70) of the scores and good discriminant validity of this measure with college students (Dinella, Fulcher, & Weisgram, 2014).

Self-Esteem

We used the 10-item Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1979) to measure general self-esteem. Youth rated their agreement with each item (e.g., “On the whole, I am satisfied with myself.”) on a 4-point Likert-type scale 1 = strongly disagree, 4 = strongly agree. Self-esteem scores were calculated for each student by reverse coding negatively worded items and averaging responses across items. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale is widely used with African American adolescents, demonstrates strong internal consistency (Cronbach’s alphas ranging from .81 to .85; Scheier, Botvin, Griffin, & Diaz, 2000; Tynes, Umaña-Taylor, Rose, Lin, & Anderson, 2012; Whiteside-Mansell & Corwyn, 2003), and has strong construct, discriminant, and concurrent validity (e.g., Robins, Hendin, & Trzesniewski, 2001).

Racial Centrality

We used items from the racial centrality subscale of the Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity (MIBI; Sellers et al., 1998) to assess racial centrality, or the extent to which being Black is central to adolescents’ definition of themselves. Because the MIBI was designed for adults and we focused on adolescents², some items were modified and negatively worded items were dropped from the scale to improve reliability of the scores. Youth rated the extent to which they agreed with each of the six items (e.g., “Being Black is an important part of my self-image.”) on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Item scores were averaged to create a single aggregate score, such that a higher score indicated that race was a more central aspect of the individual’s definition of self. Several authors have adapted the MIBI for use with adolescents and have reported adequate internal consistency (Cronbach’s αs ranging .67-.81) and discriminant validity of this measure (Hoffman, Kurtz-Costes et al., 2017; Sellers, Caldwell, Schmeelk-Cone, & Zimmerman, 2003).

Plan for Statistical Analyses

Before testing our hypotheses, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis using all 16 items from the measures of gender typicality and felt pressure for gender conformity. We used maximum likelihood estimation to extract two factors, for which the geomin rotated solution was obtained. We used independent samples t tests to test Hypothesis 1 regarding gender differences in gender identity. These analyses were conducted using SPSS Version 23.

To test Hypotheses 2 to 4 regarding relations among gender identity, gender, racial centrality, and self-esteem, we estimated multiple linear regression models using Mplus Version 7.1 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2008). Missing data were addressed through the use of full information maximum likelihood estimation. Model parameters produced with full information maximum likelihood are considered less biased than those generated by ad hoc methods for dealing with missing data such as listwise deletion or mean imputation (Schafer & Graham, 2002). As recommended by Aiken and West (1991), continuous predictor variables were centered at their means before using them in the analyses. In the first block of the regression model, gender (0 = girls, 1 = boys), racial centrality, felt pressure, and gender typicality were entered as predictors of youth’s self-esteem. In the second block, we entered four interaction terms: gender typicality × gender, felt pressure × gender, gender typicality × racial centrality, and felt pressure × racial centrality. Only interactions that reached statistical significance were retained in the final model (Aiken & West, 1991). Statistically significant interactions were probed using the online utility developed by Preacher, Curran, and Bauer (2006), which generates simple slopes for relations between the predictor variable and dependent variable at selected levels of the moderator variable. An alpha level of .01 was used in all analyses.

Results

Descriptive Statistics and Preliminary Analyses

Results from the exploratory factor analysis showed that one item in the gender typicality measure (i.e., “I am a lot like other girls/boys my age”) had a factor loading of less than .40 (factor loading = .21) and was therefore dropped from the final measure. In addition, one item from the felt pressure measure (i.e., “My friends would think it’s fine if I acted like a boy/girl”) had a larger loading on the typicality factor (factor loading = .42) than on the felt pressure factor (factor loading = .25). This item was also dropped from the final measure of felt pressure. Factor loadings for the remaining items ranged from .47 to .66 for the gender typicality factor and .57 to .84 for the felt pressure factor. Responses to the five gender typicality items were averaged to create a single gender typicality score for each adolescent (Cronbach’s α = .71). Composite felt pressure scores were calculated by averaging responses across the remaining nine items (Cronbach’s α = .89). In the present sample, internal consistency of the scores was also adequate for the self-esteem and racial centrality measures (Cronbach’s αs = .83 and .85, respectively).

Bivariate correlations and means and standard deviations of gender typicality, felt pressure for gender conformity, racial centrality, and self-esteem are presented in Table 1. Absolute values for bivariate correlations ranged from .10 to .47 (Mdn = .18). We used t tests and chi-square analyses to shed light on possible group differences within our sample. An independent samples t test revealed that boys and girls did not differ with respect to age, t(197) = 0.94, p = .349. In addition, the ratio of boys to girls who participated in Grade 12 data collection did not differ from the ratio of boys to girls in the full longitudinal sample, χ²(1, N = 362) = 0.01, p = .935.

Table 1.

Sample Statistics and Bivariate Correlations Between Study Variables for Boys (n = 91) and Girls (n = 112).

Variables	1	2	3	4	Minimum	Maximum	Skewness	Kurtosis
1. Gender typicality	—	.25	.05	.27	1	5	−.12	−.31
2. Felt pressure	.04	—	.21	−.10	1	5	.21	−.69
3. Race centrality	.10	.14	—	.17	1	5	−.60	.64
4. Self-esteem	.47*	−.19	.16	—	1	4	−.93	.31
M for boys (SD)	3.87 (0.76)	3.43 (0.67)	3.41 (0.90)	3.44 0.50)
M for girls (SD)	3.38 (0.59)	2.44 (0.54)	3.60 (0.73)	3.46 (0.45)

Note: Correlation values below the diagonal are for girls and values above the diagonal are for boys. Minimum, maximum, skewness, and kurtosis are shown for the entire sample.

p < .01.

Based on previous studies (e.g., Jewell & Brown, 2014), we expected a medium to large effect size (R²: .02 = small; .13 = medium; .26 = large). Based on establishing power at .90, a medium to large effect size, and an alpha level of .01, results from a power analysis using the G*Power calculator showed that our sample size of 203 was adequate (Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009). Finally, before interpreting results of the regression analyses described below, we confirmed that our data met the parametric assumptions for multiple linear regression laid out by Williams, Grajales, and Kurkiewicz (2013; i.e., independence of residuals, homoscedasticity, and normal distribution of residuals) and verified that models were free of problematic multicollinearity and multivariate outliers.

Gender Differences in Gender Identity Variables

Our first hypothesis was that boys would report higher gender typicality and felt pressure for gender conformity than girls. Results from independent samples t tests showed significant gender differences in both variables. Boys reported higher levels of gender typicality (M_B = 3.87; M_G = 3.38) and felt pressure for gender conformity (M_B = 3.43; M_G = 2.44) than girls, t(194) = 4.97, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 0.78, and t(191) = 11.12, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 1.74, respectively.

Relations Between Gender Identity and Self-Esteem

According to Hypothesis 2, gender typicality would be positively related and felt pressure would be negatively related to self-esteem. Results of the regression analyses, depicted in Table 2, showed that gender typicality positively predicted self-esteem (Β = 0.35, SE Β = 0.06, p < .001), whereas felt pressure for gender conformity negatively predicted self-esteem (Β = −0.17, SE Β = 0.05, p = .001). With racial centrality in the model and controlling for gender, these variables (i.e., Block 1 of the regression model) accounted for 19% of the variance in self-esteem.

Table 2.

Unstandardized and Standardized Coefficients and R² Values for Regression Models Predicting Self-Esteem (N = 203).

	B (SE B)	β	p	R ²	B (SE B)	β	p	R²
Block 1: Focal predictors
Gender (0 = girl; 1 = boy)	0.06 (0.08)	0.07	.42		0.03 (0.08)	0.03	.70
Gender typicality	0.23 (0.04)	0.38	<.001		0.35 (0.06)	0.56	<.001
Felt pressure	−0.19 (0.05)	−0.31	<.001		−0.17 (0.05)	−0.27	.001
Racial centrality	0.10 (0.04)	0.17	.01	.19*	0.09 (0.04)	0.15	.02
Block 2: Interaction terms
Gender typicality × youth gender					−0.20 (0.08)	−0.25	.01
Gender typicality × racial centrality					−0.11 (0.04)	−0.19	.003	.23*

Note: Model, adjusted R² = .19, z = 3.50, p < .001 for Block 1 and R² = .23, z = 4.31, p < .001 for Block 2; change in R² from Block 1 to Block 2 = .04.

p < .001.

According to Hypothesis 3, the relations between the two gender identity variables and self-esteem would be moderated by gender, such that each of the dimensions of gender identity would be more strongly related to self-esteem among boys than among girls. The significant effect of gender typicality was qualified by a gender typicality × gender interaction (Β = −0.20, SE Β = 0.08, p = .01). Analyses of simple slopes for the relation between gender typicality and self-esteem revealed that gender typicality was positively related to self-esteem for all youth, but the relation was stronger for girls (Β = 0.35, SE Β = 0.06, p < .001) than for boys (Β = 0.14, SE Β = 0.06, p = 0.01; see Figure 1). In addition, contrary to our hypothesis, the felt pressure × gender interaction in predicting self-esteem was not statistically significant (B = 0.02, SE B = 0.10, p = .88), indicating that the strength of the negative relation between felt pressure and self-esteem did not differ for boys as compared to girls.

Figure 1.

The relation between gender typicality and self-esteem for boys (n = 91) and girls (n = 112).

Hypothesis 4 stated that the relation between the gender identity variables and self-esteem would also be moderated by racial centrality. As shown in the regression model in Table 2, the relation between gender typicality and self-esteem was also qualified by a statistically significant gender typicality × racial centrality interaction (Β = −0.11, SE Β = 0.04, p = .003). Simple slopes were computed for youth who reported high (1 SD above the mean), average (at the mean), and low (1 SD below the mean) levels of racial centrality. These analyses showed that gender typicality positively predicted self-esteem for all youth, as illustrated in Figure 2, but the strength of this relation varied depending on youth’s racial centrality. In particular, the relation between gender typicality and self-esteem was stronger for youth who reported low racial centrality (Β = 0.44, SE Β = 0.08, p < .001) versus average (Β = 0.35, SE Β = 0.06, p < .001) or high (Β = 0.25, SE Β = 0.07, p < .001) racial centrality. The felt pressure × racial centrality interaction was not statistically significant (Β = 0.01, SE Β = 0.05, p = .77). The final model (i.e., Block 1 and Block 2 of the regression model), which included the two significant interaction terms, accounted for 23% of the variance in self-esteem.

Figure 2.

The relation between gender typicality and self-esteem for youth with high, average, and low levels of racial centrality (N = 203).

Discussion

In the present study, we sought to expand knowledge about gender in the lives of African American adolescents by examining gender differences in youth’s reports of two dimensions of gender identity—gender typicality and felt pressure for gender conformity—and by testing relations between these dimensions of gender identity and youth’s self-esteem. In addition, we examined if racial centrality moderated these relations, reasoning that gender identity might be less important for self-esteem in African American youth for whom race is highly central to identity. Our focus on self-esteem as an outcome is important because it is positively associated with adjustment and mental health, including anxiety and depression (Harter, 2006). For example, among African American youth, self-esteem is related to eating disordered behaviors among girls (Rhea & Thatcher, 2013) and is protective in the face of racial discrimination (Tynes et al., 2012). Overall, our results suggest that some dimensions of Egan and Perry’s (2001) model of gender identity are useful for characterizing African American adolescents’ adjustment and illustrate the potential utility of considering both race and gender in efforts to understand individual differences in social identity and adjustment in African American adolescents.

Gender Typicality, Felt Pressure for Gender Conformity, and Self-Esteem in African American Adolescents

Consistent with our hypotheses and with previous research with African American preadolescents (Corby et al., 2007) and youth from other racial/ethnic groups (Hoffman, Dumas et al., 2017), boys’ ratings of gender typicality and felt pressure for gender conformity were higher than those of girls. These gender differences in gender typicality and felt pressure are not surprising given that boys are more heavily sanctioned for violating gender norms than girls and because traits associated with masculinity continue to be more valued than traits associated with femininity in U.S. society (Auster & Ohm, 2000; Ruble et al., 2006).

Our finding that gender typicality was positively related to self-esteem supports the tenets of social identity theory, which predicts positive relations between strong identification with a social group and self-worth (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Thus, adolescents who view themselves as typical of their gender group may derive self-esteem from feelings of belonging to their gender group. Moreover, youth who are typical of their gender and who view themselves as such are likely to experience greater acceptance and affirmation from peers and adults in their social environments, which in turn enhances self-esteem. Corby et al. (2007) did not find a significant relation between gender typicality and self-worth among African American preadolescents; however, these divergent findings might reflect developmental differences in Corby’s sample as compared to our sample, given the possibility of greater awareness of gender roles and norms during late adolescence (Galambos et al., 2009).

Contrary to our hypothesis, the relation between gender typicality and self-esteem was stronger among girls than among boys. Although we had expected the relation to be stronger among boys, Corby et al. (2007) found that gender typicality was related to self-esteem among girls but not boys in a sample of African American preadolescents. Our result may have emerged because of gender differences in social relationships during adolescence. Peer relationships and friendships are increasingly important during this developmental period, especially for girls (Arnett, 2014). Girls who perceive that they are not like other girls may feel distant from other girls during a developmental period when peer relationships are highly salient (Arnett, 2014). It is important, however, for researchers to examine factors that are potentially unique to African American adolescents that might account for this finding. Replications of this unexpected result using longitudinal and experimental methods are needed before stronger conclusions can be made.

In contrast to gender typicality, and consistent with previous findings (e.g., Yunger et al., 2004), youth’s experiences of felt pressure for gender conformity were negatively related to self-esteem. If adolescents experience felt pressure as a rejection of their behavioral preferences, then such pressure entails social rejection that might lead to lower self-esteem. Alternatively, felt pressure may cause adolescents to neglect their true interests and talents in order to feel accepted, and turning away from their interests (e.g., a boy who gives up ballet) might lead to lower self-esteem (Yunger et al., 2004). Another possibility is the opposite causal path: Adolescents with lower self-esteem may be more likely than their peers with higher self-esteem to experience psychological distress that could lead to greater perceptions of felt pressure.

It is noteworthy that the correlation between felt pressure and gender typicality was positive among boys, indicating that boys who reported being more typical of their gender were more likely to experience felt pressure, even though these two aspects of gender identity were related to self-esteem in opposite ways. Corby et al. (2007) also found a positive relation between gender typicality and felt pressure among African American boys in early adolescence. These findings may mean that boys who experience greater pressure to conform to traditional gender norms respond by emphasizing masculine traits within their identities.

Racial Centrality as a Moderator Between Gender Typicality and Self-Esteem

Despite its prominence in individual identity, gender is only one of many social identities. For many African American adolescents, race may supersede gender in shaping some identity processes. However, the importance of race to personal identity varies across both adolescents and adults (Hoffman, Kurtz-Costes et al., 2017). On average, youth in our sample reported high levels of racial centrality. Thus, in addition to viewing themselves as typical members of their gender group, these adolescents tended to view being Black as an important part of their self-conception. Nonetheless, there were individual differences in the extent to which youth reported that race was central to their identities and, as we had hypothesized, the relation between gender typicality and self-esteem was weaker among youth who reported higher racial centrality than their peers. This result demonstrates the importance of considering multiple social identities in understanding well-being in African American youth (Ghavami et al., 2016).

Contrary to our expectations, racial centrality did not moderate the relation between felt pressure for gender conformity and self-esteem. This finding suggests that social pressure to behave in a particular manner—in this case, to behave in gender-typed ways—might pose a threat to adolescents’ self-esteem regardless of the degree to which race is an important aspect of identity (Santor, Messervey, & Kusumakar, 2000). Thus, in our sample, high racial centrality did not serve as a protective factor in buffering the self-esteem of youth who experienced high felt pressure for gender conformity. The fact that racial centrality moderated effects of gender typicality and not felt pressure might have emerged because gender typicality and racial centrality are both based on individuals’ self-appraisals of their identities. In contrast, felt pressure is more heavily linked to social experiences with others. Adolescents who view themselves as atypical of their gender might draw from other aspects of their identities—in this case, racial identity—to protect their self-esteem. In contrast, reports of felt pressure may reflect adolescents’ experiences of social rejection that are detrimental to self-esteem regardless of other aspects of identity. It is also possible that the felt pressure measure showed the extent to which adolescents in our sample experienced a more general lack of acceptance or social sanctioning from parents, peers, and others, and it was this social rejection or sanctioning rather than pressure specifically linked to traditional gender norms that drove this result. This pattern should be substantiated through further research.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

As noted above, conclusions about causality cannot be drawn from our results because the data were correlational and from a single time point. Thus, a limitation of the study is its design. It is possible, for example, that youth with lower self-esteem are more sensitive than peers with higher self-esteem to what is perceived as negative or corrective feedback from peers and parents. In that case, low self-esteem could lead to greater perceptions of felt pressure as well as lower gender typicality, rather than the reverse. Longitudinal and experimental research designs could shed light on the direction of this association.

Another limitation of the study is the reliance on the traditional binary contrast between boys and girls rather than conceptualizing gender in a more flexible manner. Although most research on gender has relied on the traditional gender binary, gender scholars are increasingly recognizing the fluidity of gender (e.g., Diamond, 2013). Such fluidity is particularly important in understanding gender identity development during adolescence, when youth are typically in an important stage for identity exploration and development, and many youth are learning—because of cognitive development and social influence—that they might not fit traditional gender norms (Diamond, 2013; Steensma, Kreukels, de Vries, & Cohen-Kettenis, 2013). Many adolescents and young adults identify as nonbinary rather than male or female (Katz-Wise, 2015). Our measures were limited in terms of reliance on the traditional concepts of male and female, and a related limitation was our exclusive focus on gender typicality and pressure for conformity rather than including additional aspects of gender identity.

A third limitation has to do with external validity. Data for this study were gathered in the southeastern part of the United States, a region that has experienced greater racial tension than other parts of the country. Moreover, the urban area where data were collected is a community where African Americans have enjoyed considerable wealth and prominence in local businesses and politics. Both of these factors might cause racial identity to be more salient among members of this community than elsewhere in the country. Different patterns might emerge in regions of the United States that do not share the history of slavery and segregation. In addition, what is viewed as gender typical and the rigidities of gender boundaries are shaped by culture; thus, the patterns we observed might be different for youth who reside in regions where norms regarding gendered behavior are more flexible (Swank, Fahs, & Frost, 2013). Contextual factors might also influence the relative importance of adolescents’ gender and racial identities as youth move across settings with different racial and gender characteristics. For example, school transitions that make racial group membership highly salient might increase the importance of both racial and gender identities (Kurtz-Costes & Rowley, 2012). Similarly, adolescents’ perceptions of their similarity to same gender peers and their reports of felt pressure might increase if they participate in extracurricular activities such as sports teams, dance, or other groups that tend to be highly gender segregated.

Research is also needed to understand factors that shape African American adolescents’ appraisals of gender typicality. Some scholars have suggested that gender roles are flexible in African American families and that macrosystem factors such as racial discrimination are related to the ways that African American girls and boys are socialized (Hill, 2001, 2002; Thomas & King, 2007; Varner & Mandara, 2013). Thus, the characteristics and behaviors that African American adolescents use to appraise their gender typicality (and that of others) might vary in comparison to youth from other racial/ethnic groups. Finally, in addition to examining multiple identities, research using an intersectional approach that considers how membership in multiple social categories (e.g., race, gender, social class; Cole, 2009; Else-Quest & Hyde, 2016) characterizes African American youth’s experiences may provide a more comprehensive understanding of their development and adjustment, as well as illuminate risk and protective factors for these youth.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by the National Science Foundation under grants DRL-1251862 and DRL-1251736 to Beth Kurtz-Costes and Stephanie J. Rowley.

Notes

References

Aiken

L. S.

West

S. G.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Arnett

J. J.

(2014). Adolescence and emerging adulthood. New York, NY: Pearson Education.

Ashmore

R. D.

Deaux

McLaughlin-Volpe

(2004). An organizing framework for collective identity: Articulation and significance of multidimensionality. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 80-114. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.1.80

Auster

C. J.

Ohm

S. C.

(2000). Masculinity and femininity in contemporary American society: A re-evaluation using the Bem sex-role inventory. Sex Roles, 43, 499-528.

Carver

P. R.

Yunger

J. L.

Perry

D. G.

(2003). Gender identity and adjustment in middle childhood. Sex Roles, 49, 95-109. doi:10.1023/A:1024423012063

Chavous

T. M.

Rivas-Drake

Smalls

Griffin

Cogburn

(2008). Gender matters, too: The influences of school racial discrimination and racial identity on academic engagement outcomes among African American adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 44, 637-654. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.44.3.637

Cole

E. R.

(2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American Psychologist, 64, 170-180. doi:10.1037/a0014564

Corby

B. C.

Hodges

E. V.

Perry

D. G.

(2007). Gender identity and adjustment in Black, Hispanic, and White pre-adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 43, 261-266. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.1.261

Diamond

L. M.

(2013). Sexual-minority, gender-nonconforming, and transgender youths. In Bromberg

D. S.

Donohue

W. T.

(Eds.), Handbook of child and adolescent sexuality: Developmental and forensic psychology (pp. 275-300). Oxford, England: Elsevier.

10.

DiDonato

M. D.

Berenbaum

S. A.

(2013). Predictors and consequences of gender typicality: The mediating role of communality. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 429-436. doi:10.1007/s10508-012-9955-1

11.

Dinella

L. M.

Fulcher

Weisgram

E. S.

(2014). Sex-typed personality traits and gender identity as predictors of young adults’ career interests. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 493-504. doi:10.1007/s10508-013-0234-6

12.

Egan

S. K.

Perry

D. G.

(2001). Gender identity: A multidimensional analysis with implications for psychosocial adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 37, 451-463. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.37.4.451

13.

Else-Quest

N. M.

Hyde

J. S.

(2016). Intersectionality in quantitative psychological research: I. Theoretical and epistemological issues. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40, 155-170. doi:10.1177/0361684316629797

14.

Faul

Erdfelder

Buchner

Lang

A. G.

(2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149-1160. doi:10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149

15.

Galambos

N. L.

Berenbaum

S. A.

McHale

S. M.

(2009). Gender development in adolescence. In Lerner

R. M.

Steinberg

(Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology: Vol. 1. Individual bases of adolescent development (3rd ed., pp. 305-357). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. doi:10.1002/9780470479193.adlpsy001011

16.

Garcia-Coll

Lamberty

Jenkins

McAdoo

H. P.

Crnic

Wasik

B. H.

Vasquez-Garcia

(1996). An integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in minority children. Child Development, 67, 1891-1914. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01834.x

17.

Ghavami

Katsiaficas

Rogers

L. O.

(2016). Toward an intersectional approach in developmental science: The role of race, gender, sexual orientation, and immigrant status. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 50, 31-73. doi:10.1016/bs.acdb.2015.12.001

18.

Harter

(2006). The self. In Damon

Lerner

R. M.

(Series Eds.) & Eisenberg

(Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp. 505-570). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

19.

Heilman

M. E.

Wallen

A. S.

(2010). Wimpy and undeserving of respect: Penalties for men’s gender-inconsistent success. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 664-667. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.01.008

20.

Hill

S. A.

(2001). Class, race, and gender dimensions of child rearing in African American families. Journal of Black Studies, 31, 494-508. doi:10.1177/002193470103100407

21.

Hill

S. A.

(2002). Teaching and doing gender in African American families. Sex Roles, 47, 493-506. doi:10.1023/A:1022026303937

22.

Hill

Zimmerman

(1995). Valiant girls and vulnerable boys: The impact of gender and race on mothers’ caregiving for chronically ill children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 43-53. doi:10.2307/353815

23.

Hoffman

A. J.

Dumas

Loose

Smeding

Kurtz-Costes

Régner

(2017). Development of gender typicality and felt pressure in European French and North African French adolescents. Child Development. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/cdev.12595

24.

Hoffman

A. J.

Kurtz-Costes

Adams

E. A.

Rowley

S. J.

(2017). Bidirectional influence between African American mothers’ and children’s racial centrality from elementary through high school. Developmental Psychology, 53, 1130-1141. doi:10.1037/dev0000307

25.

Jewell

J. A.

Brown

C. S.

(2014). Relations among gender typicality, peer relations, and mental health during early adolescence. Social Development, 23, 137-156. doi:10.1111/sode.12042

26.

Katz

P. A.

Ksansnak

K. R.

(1994). Developmental aspects of gender role flexibility and traditionality in middle childhood and adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 30, 272-282. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.30.2.272

27.

Katz-Wise

S. L.

(2015). Sexual fluidity in young adult women and men: Associations with sexual orientation and sexual identity development. Psychology & Sexuality, 6, 189-208. doi:10.1080/19419899.2013.876445

28.

Kornienko

Santos

C. E.

Martin

C. L.

Granger

K. L.

(2016). Peer influence on gender identity development in adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 52, 1578-1592. doi:10.1037/dev0000200

29.

Kreiger

T. C.

Kochenderfer-Ladd

(2013). Gender behaviors as predictors of peer acceptance and victimization. Personal Relationships, 20, 619-634. doi:10.1111/pere.12003

30.

Kurtz-Costes

Rowley

S. J.

(2012). School transitions and African American youth. In Karabenick

Urdan

(Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: Transitions across schools and cultures (Vol. 17, pp. 27-54). Bingley, England: Emerald Group.

31.

Leaper

Farkas

Brown

C. S.

(2012). Adolescent girls’ experiences and gender-related beliefs in relation to their motivation in math/science and English. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41, 268-282. doi:10.1007/s10964-011-9693-z

32.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998-2008). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

33.

Neblett

E. W.

Rivas-Drake

Umaña-Taylor

A. J.

(2012). The promise of racial and ethnic protective factors in promoting ethnic minority youth development. Child Development Perspectives, 6, 295-303. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2012.00239.x

34.

Preacher

K. J.

Curran

P. J.

Bauer

D. J.

(2006). Computational tools for probing interaction effects in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437-448. doi:10.3102/10769986031004437

35.

Rhea

D. J.

Thatcher

G. W.

(2013). Ethnicity, ethnic identity, self-esteem, and at-risk eating disordered behavior differences of urban adolescent females. Eating Disorders, 21, 223-237. doi:10.1080/10640266.2013.779177

36.

Rivas-Drake

Seaton

Markstrom

Schwartz

S. J.

Umaña-Taylor

A. J.

French

. . . ERI Study Group. (2014). Ethnic and racial identity in adolescence: Implications for psychosocial, academic, and health outcomes. Child Development, 85, 40-57. doi:10.1111/cdev.12200

37.

Robins

R. W.

Hendin

H. M.

Trzesniewski

K. H.

(2001). Measuring global self-esteem: Construct validation of a single-item measure and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 151-161.

38.

Rogers

L. O.

Scott

M. A.

Way

(2015). Racial and gender identity among Black adolescent males: An intersectionality perspective. Child Development, 86, 407-424. doi:10.1111/cdev.12303

39.

Rosenberg

(1979). Group rejection and self-rejection. Research in Community Health, 1, 3-20.

40.

Rowley

S. J.

Varner

Ross

L. L.

Williams

A. D.

Banerjee

(2012). Toward a model of racial identity and parenting in African Americans. In Sullivan

J. M.

Esmail

A. M.

(Eds.), African American identity: Racial and cultural dimensions of the Black experience (pp. 273-288). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

41.

Ruble

D. N.

Martin

C. L.

Berenbaum

S. A.

(2006). Gender development. In Damon

Lerner

R. M.

(Series Eds.) & Eisenberg

(Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp. 858-932). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

42.

Santor

D. A.

Messervey

Kusumakar

(2000). Measuring peer pressure, popularity, and conformity in adolescent boys and girls: Predicting school performance, sexual attitudes, and substance abuse. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29, 163-182. doi:10.1023/A:1005152515264

43.

Schafer

J. L.

Graham

J. W.

(2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7, 147-177. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.7.2.147

44.

Scheier

L. M.

Botvin

G. J.

Griffin

K.W.

Diaz

(2000). Dynamic growth models of self-esteem and adolescent alcohol use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 20, 178-209.

45.

Scottham

K. M.

Sellers

R. M.

Nguyên

H. X.

(2008). A measure of racial identity in African American adolescents: The development of the Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity-Teen. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 14, 297-306. doi:10.1037/1099-9809.14.4.297

46.

Sellers

R. M.

Caldwell

C. H.

Schmeelk-Cone

K. H.

Zimmerman

M. A.

(2003). Racial identity, racial discrimination, perceived stress, and psychological distress among African American young adults. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 44, 302-317.

47.

Sellers

R. M.

Smith

M. A.

Shelton

J. N.

Rowley

S. J.

Chavous

T. M.

(1998). Multidimensional model of racial identity: A reconceptualization of African American racial identity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 18-39. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0201_2

48.

Settles

I. H.

(2006). Use of an intersectional framework to understand Black women’s racial and gender identities. Sex Roles, 54, 589-601. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9029-8

49.

Sharp

E. A.

Ispa

J. M.

(2009). Inner-city single Black mothers’ gender-related childrearing expectations and goals. Sex Roles, 60, 656-668. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9567-3

50.

Skinner

O. D.

Perkins

Wood

Kurtz-Costes

(2016). Gender development in African American youth. Journal of Black Psychology, 42, 394-423. doi:10.1177/0095798415585217

51.

Smith

T. E.

Leaper

(2006). Self-perceived gender typicality and the peer context during adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16, 91-104. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2006.00123.x

52.

Steensma

T. D.

Kreukels

B. P.

de Vries

A. L.

Cohen-Kettenis

P. T.

(2013). Gender identity development in adolescence. Hormones and Behavior, 64, 288-297.

53.

Stryker

Serpe

R. T.

(1982). Commitment, identity salience, and role behavior: Theory and research example. In Ickes

W. J.

Knowles

E. S.

(Eds.), Personality, roles, and social behavior (pp. 199-218). New York, NY: Springer.

54.

Swank

Fahs

Frost

D. M.

(2013). Region, social identities, and disclosure practices as predictors of heterosexist discrimination against sexual minorities in the United States. Sociological Inquiry, 83, 238-258. doi:10.1111/soin.12004

55.

Tajfel

Turner

J. C.

(1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Worchel

Austin

(Eds.), Psychology of inter-group relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago, IL: Nelson Hall.

56.

Thomas

A. J.

King

C. T.

(2007). Gendered racial socialization of African American mothers and daughters. The Family Journal, 15, 137-142.

57.

Twenge

J. M.

(1997). Changes in masculine and feminine traits over time: A meta-analysis. Sex Roles, 36, 305-325. doi:10.1007/BF02766650

58.

Tynes

B. M.

Umaña-Taylor

A. J.

Rose

C. A.

Lin

Anderson

C. J.

(2012). Online racial discrimination and the protective function of ethnic identity and self-esteem for African American adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 48, 343-355. doi:10.1037/a0027032

59.

Umaña-Taylor

A. J.

Quintana

S. M.

Lee

R. M.

Cross

W. E.

Rivas-Drake

Schwartz

S. J.

. . . ERI Study Group. (2014). Ethnic and racial identity during adolescence and into young adulthood: An integrated conceptualization. Child Development, 85, 21-39. doi:10.1111/cdev.12196

60.

Varner

Mandara

(2013). Discrimination concerns and expectations as explanations for gendered socialization in African American families. Child Development, 84, 875-890. doi:10.1111/cdev.12021

61.

Whiteside-Mansell

Corwyn

R. F.

(2003). Mean and covariance structures analyses: An examination of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale among adolescents and adults. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63, 163-173. doi:10.1177/0013164402239323

62.

Williams

M. N.

Grajales

C. A. G.

Kurkiewicz

(2013). Assumptions of multiple regression: Correcting two misconceptions. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 18, 1-14.

63.

Wong

C. A.

Eccles

J. S.

Sameroff

(2003). The influence of ethnic discrimination and ethnic identification on African American adolescents’ school and socioemotional adjustment. Journal of Personality, 71, 1197-1232. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.7106012

64.

Yunger

Carver

Perry

(2004). Does gender identity influence children’s psychological well-being? Developmental Psychology, 40, 572-582. doi:10.1037/0012-1649