Family Members’ Relationship Qualities and Prosocial Behaviors in U.S. Mexican Young Adults: The Roles of Familism and Ethnic Identity Resolution

Abstract

Scholars have asserted that family relationships may have a prominent role in fostering prosocial behaviors. However, there is limited research on the quality of relationships with fathers and siblings in predicting prosocial behaviors, particularly in U.S. Mexican samples. Furthermore, culture-related mechanisms are rarely considered in examining these relations. The present study examines the associations between family relationship quality and U.S. Mexican young adults’ prosocial behaviors. Participants included 186 U.S. Mexican young adults who completed measures of parental acceptance, sibling intimacy, familism values, ethnic identity resolution, and prosocial behaviors. Relationship quality was positively associated with greater endorsement of familism values. In turn, familism values were positively associated with ethnic identity resolution, and ethnic identity resolution was associated with multiple forms of prosocial behaviors. These results highlight the importance of examining multiple sources of socialization and culture-related processes as mechanisms that may predict positive social outcomes in U.S. Mexican young adults.

Keywords

parents siblings ethnic identity familism prosocial behaviors

Prosocial behaviors (i.e., actions intended to benefit others) are important to study because such actions have been negatively linked to internalizing problems, illegal substance use, aggression, and delinquency and are considered a marker of health, well-being, and positive social functioning (Carlo, 2014). Although various socializing agents have been theoretically linked to the development of prosocial behaviors, scholars have asserted that parents play a prominent role in fostering these behaviors (Carlo, 2006; Eisenberg, Fabes, & Spinrad, 2006). Parents are believed to foster prosocial tendencies in their children through parental sensitivity, parental control, and various socializing mechanisms such as observational learning, direct tuition, use of discipline practices, and the use of rewards (Grusec & Goodnow, 1994; Krevans & Gibbs, 1996). However, the bulk of the existing socialization research on prosocial behaviors has focused on the role of mothers (Hastings, Utendale, & Sullivan, 2007). Social ecology and social cognitive theorists, though, posit that other family members, including fathers and siblings also socialize youth (Carlo & Randall, 2002; Eisenberg et al., 2006). Thus, there is a need to examine the influences of multiple family members on young adults’ prosocial development beyond the effects of mothers.

Similar to mothers, fathers are believed to model prosocial behaviors, express warmth and sensitivity, use inductive disciplining strategies, and use specific parenting practices (e.g., use of rewards) aimed at nurturing prosociality in their children (Carlo, 2006). There is limited research that considers the role of fathers, and the positive parenting practices and behaviors that fathers employ in fostering prosocial behaviors (e.g., Padilla-Walker, Carlo, Christensen, & Yorgason, 2012). Further, evidence on the links between paternal practices and children’s prosocial behaviors is mixed. For example, some research findings with European American samples suggest no significant paternal effects on children’s prosocial behaviors (see Hastings et al., 2007, for a review) but recent studies show some modest significant effects (see Padilla-Walker, 2014). Because the research on this issue is relatively sparse and the few studies are quite varied in their study characteristics, it is challenging to draw firm conclusions regarding the effects of fathers on young adults’ prosocial behaviors. Moreover, research on the role of fathers in socializing prosocial behaviors in U.S. Mexican (individuals of Mexican decent living in the United States) young adults is lacking (Carlo, 2014). In addition, as the family and family cohesion are highly valued by many Latino families (Grau, Azmitia, & Quattlebaum, 2009), research on the role of fathers and other family members in predicting prosocial behaviors is needed. Further, there is particular value in considering the development and socialization of prosocial behaviors in ethnic minorities, as scholars have advocated for the consideration of positive social functioning among minority groups (Cabrera, Beeghly, & Eisenberg, 2012; Coll et al., 1996; McLoyd, 1998). Therefore, one aim of the present study is to examine the contributions of maternal and paternal acceptance to young adults’ prosocial behaviors in a sample of U.S. Mexicans.

Furthermore, the literature on the socialization of prosocial behaviors is limited in considering the role of family members beyond parents. Unlike parents and other socializing agents (e.g., media, peers), siblings provide unique socialization contexts. Siblings, like peers, provide a more egalitarian social context to explore notions of cooperation, fairness, and kindness (Youniss, 1994). The relatively more equal social status and power may foster a less intimidating environment and provide social opportunities that could facilitate prosocial behaviors. However, in contrast to peers, sibling relationships are uniquely enduring and researchers have suggested that siblings can influence a variety of positive developmental outcomes throughout the life span (Conger & Little, 2010; L. White, 2001).

Although there is sparse prior research on the role of siblings in fostering prosocial behaviors in early childhood (e.g., Dunn, 1983), recent findings suggest that sibling affection is both directly and indirectly (via sympathy) associated with prosocial behaviors in adolescence (Harper, Padilla-Walker, & Jensen, 2014; Padilla-Walker, Harper, & Jensen, 2010). These studies suggest that siblings have unique effects on prosocial behaviors, even when accounting for parent–adolescent relationship quality. Furthermore, scholars suggest that sibling relationships become more positive and less conflictual after firstborns leave home (Whiteman, McHale, & Crouter, 2011); therefore, examining the role of sibling relationships in prosocial development during young adulthood might be particularly important. Moreover, among adults, sibling support has been linked to greater well-being, including lower levels of depression and higher life satisfaction (Hollifield & Conger, 2014; Milevsky, 2005), suggesting that sibling relationships in young adulthood may have implications for positive development. However, studies of the relations among parenting, sibling relationships, and prosocial behaviors have focused on predominately European American youth and families. Therefore, it is unclear what role these family relationships might play in fostering prosocial behaviors among U.S. Mexican young adults.

Family Relationships and Prosocial Behaviors in U.S. Mexican Families

There are several reasons why U.S. Mexican family relationships are an important field of research. U.S. Mexican families are among the largest and fastest growing populations in the United States (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014), and there is a need to understand different aspects of U.S. Mexican young adults’ development. Additionally, we might expect U.S. Mexican young adults’ to continue to rely on family relationships, given cultural values of family connection, cohesion, and obligation (Fuligni & Pederson, 2002; Knight et al., 2010). Therefore, one might expect that parents and siblings may continue to exert influence on U.S. Mexican young adults, even as they attend college.

Scholars have theorized that U.S. Mexican parents’ behaviors and practices are influenced by cultural values and beliefs, and that there might be unique links between aspects of U.S. Mexican parenting and their youths’ prosocial behaviors (de Guzman, Brown, Carlo, & Knight, 2012; Halgunseth, Ispa, & Rudy, 2006). For example, de Guzman et al. (2012) examined European American and U.S. Mexican mothers’ beliefs about prosocial behaviors and the parenting behaviors believed to foster prosocial behaviors. Although there was considerable overlap between European American and U.S. Mexican mothers, U.S. Mexican mothers held several culturally motivated beliefs, such as the importance of respect. Parental acceptance (or warmth; i.e., positive affection and support in the parent–child relationship) has been identified as a relatively consistent predictor of children and adolescents’ prosocial behaviors (Deković & Janssens, 1992; Padilla-Walker, 2014; Padilla-Walker & Christensen, 2011). Accepting or warm parents likely model positive behaviors and well-regulated emotions and this may foster young adults’ prosocial behaviors directly and via the development of moral emotions and cognitions (e.g., sympathy and perspective taking; Eisenberg et al., 2006). Moreover, parental acceptance likely facilitates young adults’ acceptance of parental messages and the internalization of values, which may foster prosocial behaviors (Grusec & Goodnow, 1994).

There is limited supportive evidence for the associations between parent–child relationship quality and prosocial behaviors in U.S. Mexican young adults. Researchers have previously examined the relations among parent and peer attachment and prosocial behaviors in U.S. Mexican young adults (Carlo, McGinley, Hayes, & Martinez, 2011). Results from this study indicated that the relations between parent and peer attachment and multiple forms of prosocial behaviors and aggression were indirect, via empathy. Specifically, parent and peer attachment were positively associated with U.S. Mexican young adults’ empathy, which, in turn, were positively associated with multiple forms of prosocial behaviors and negatively associated with aggressive behaviors (Carlo, McGinley, et al., 2011).

Research on the parental socialization of prosocial behaviors among Latino youth and families is often limited because the majority of studies only examines the role of mothers (e.g., Calderón-Tena, Knight, & Carlo, 2011; Carlo, Knight, McGinley, & Hayes, 2011). However, as previously described, fathers might be particularly influential in U.S. Mexican young adults because Latino families often stress familism (i.e., having a strong connection to the family and viewing the family as part of one’s identity; Knight et al., 2010) and family cohesion (Knight, Virdin, & Roosa, 1994). Consistent with this notion, research on Latino parenting has demonstrated support for high levels of involvement among Latino fathers (R. White, Zeiders, Gonzales, Tein, & Roosa, 2013; Yeung, Sandberg, Davis-Kean, & Hofferth, 2001). Specifically, scholars have demonstrated that may Latino fathers spend more time with their children than European American or African American fathers (Yeung et al., 2001), thereby disputing images of disengaged or uninvolved Latino fathers. These findings are consistent with the notion that Latino fathers may be highly involved in their youth’s lives and may continue to influence their youth outcomes. In one of the few studies to consider the unique role of fathers in fostering prosocial behaviors in Latino samples, researchers demonstrated that, similar to maternal warmth, paternal warmth was concurrently associated with Spanish early adolescents’ global prosocial behaviors (Carlo, Mestre, Samper, Tur, & Armenta, 2010), but we know of no studies that have examined these associations in young adulthood or with multidimensional measures of prosocial behaviors. Moreover, studies on the roles of other family members (e.g., siblings) in predicting young adults’ prosocial behaviors in U.S. Mexican families are nonexistent.

According to U.S. Census data, youth from Latino families are more likely to have siblings than youth from European American families (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). Additionally, there is evidence that U.S. Mexican youth spend more time with their siblings during adolescence than they do with other family members (including parents) and more time together than European American adolescents spend with their siblings (Updegraff, McHale, Whiteman, Thayer, & Delgado, 2005). Furthermore, given the saliency of family cohesion and interconnectedness among Latinos (Knight et al., 1994), the sibling relationship might be particularly relevant among U.S. Mexican young adults and have an important role in models of the socialization of positive developmental outcomes. Additionally, it is important to examine the sex constellation of the sibling dyad, particularly when examining sibling influence (McHale, Updegraff, & Whiteman, 2012). Social learning principles posit that individuals are more likely to imitate someone’s behaviors when they are more similar to that person (e.g., same gender; Bandura, 1977). Thus, we anticipated that the associations among sibling intimacy, familism values, ethnic identity resolution, and prosocial behaviors would be stronger for same-sex versus mixed-sex sibling dyads. As previously mentioned, however, there are no known studies that have directly considered the role of sibling relationships in fostering prosocial behaviors among U.S. Mexican families. Thus, based primarily on prior theory and research with European American populations (Harper et al., 2014; Padilla-Walker et al., 2010), we expected that positive sibling relationship quality would be positively associated with prosocial behaviors in U.S. Mexican young adults. Moreover, beyond examining direct relations between parenting and sibling effects on young adults’ prosocial behaviors, scholars have noted the need for research that examines individual differences in culture-related processes to better explain Latino young adults’ prosocial development (Knight & Carlo, 2012).

Family Relationships, Familism, and Ethnic Identity

Familism (also commonly referred to as familismo) is an important cultural value among many U.S. Mexican young adults and families and reflects a strong connection and desire to maintain supportive and close relationships with family members, obligation to family members, and viewing the family as a part of the self (Knight et al., 2010). Familism is a salient traditional value among many Latino/Latinas and there is conceptual and empirical support for the role of family relationships in fostering familism (Calderón-Tena et al., 2011; Knight et al., 2010). Scholars have demonstrated support for the role of specific parenting practices (i.e., prosocial parenting practices) in promoting U.S. Mexican early adolescents’ endorsement of familism values and, in turn, several forms of prosocial behaviors (Armenta, Knight, Carlo, & Jacobson, 2011; Calderón-Tena et al., 2011). Parental acceptance and responsive parenting practices in Latino families may stem from parents’ own endorsement of the importance of the family unit and its members, and through parenting practices, young adults are socialized to strongly value the family (Grau et al., 2009).

Similarly, sibling relationships may also have an effect on the development of familism values among U.S. Mexican young adults. Specifically, as parents encourage young adults to build close and harmonious sibling relationships, young adults may be more likely to endorse cultural values that emphasize the importance of family bonds and obligation to family members. There is suggestive evidence that U.S. Mexican adolescent siblings’ endorsement of familism values is associated with sibling intimacy in adolescence (Updegraff et al., 2005) and in young adulthood (S. K. Killoren, Wheeler, Updegraff, Rodríguez de Jesús, & McHale, 2015). Thus, given the importance of sibling relationship for U.S. Mexican young adults and the role of familism in these relationships, we examined the associations of sibling relationships, as well as both father and mother relationships to young adults’ familism values.

Researchers have also considered the role of ethnic identity in understanding Latino/Latina youth’s prosocial development (Knight, Bernal, & Carlo, 1995). Ethnic identity has been conceptualized as a multifaceted construct, including affirmation (e.g., affect for ethnic group), exploration (e.g., efforts to learning more about ethnicity), and resolution (e.g., sense of commitment; Umaña-Taylor, Yazedjian, & Bámaca, 2004). Scholars have advocated for the consideration of ethnic identity affirmation, exploration, and resolution as unique dimensions, which may be differentially linked to outcomes.

Ethnic identity resolution might be particularly relevant among young adults who may be more likely to have a sense of commitment to their identity during this age period. Tsai and Fuligni (2012) have documented decreases in ethnic identity exploration among Asian, Latin American, and European American youth following the transition to college. It may be that during this time, young adults have a more committed and resolved sense of their ethnic identity, characterized by less exploration. Furthermore, there is evidence that some aspects of ethnic identity might be more sensitive to family-level socialization. Specifically, findings suggest that resolution might be more strongly associated with family ethnic socialization than affirmation (Umaña-Taylor et al., 2004). Given these findings, ethnic identity resolution might be particularly important to examine in a model that considers family relationship quality and familism values in a sample of young adults. Additionally, although few researchers have considered associations between ethnic identity and prosocial behaviors, prior work examining specific dimensions of ethnic identity to other positive outcomes (e.g., self-esteem) suggests that high scores on resolution (i.e., commitment) tend to be associated with high scores on self-esteem (see Umaña-Taylor, Diversi, & Fine, 2002). As such, ethnic identity resolution might be particularly relevant in examining to positive outcomes for young adults.

Additionally, endorsement of familism values may foster a stronger sense of ethnic identity resolution. Researchers have theorized that families serve as an influential socialization agent in the development of ethnic identity (Kiang & Fuligni, 2009). It is possible that this socialization occurs via cultural values, such as familism values. Internalizing cultural values, such as familism, might present more opportunities to learn about and commit to one’s ethnic identity (i.e., resolution). In one study that directly examined these relations, Armenta et al. (2011) found that U.S. Mexican early adolescents’ ethnic group attachment (i.e., belonging and commitment) was positively associated with endorsement of familism values. As ethnic group attachment includes aspects of ethnic identity resolution, this study provides some support for examining the associations between young adults’ endorsement of familism values and resolution.

Culture-Related Processes and Prosocial Behaviors

Familism and ethnic identity resolution have both been identified as mechanisms that may further explain individual differences in U.S. Mexican young adults’ prosocial behaviors. For example, familism values are believed to orient individuals toward a consideration of others’ needs and emphasize an expectation of helping family members, which may provide opportunities for prosocial behaviors (Carlo, Knight, Basilio, & Davis, 2014). As individuals become more aware and sensitive to the needs of others, they may be more likely to engage in prosocial behaviors. There is evidence that familism values are directly (Armenta et al., 2011; Calderón-Tena et al., 2011) and indirectly (via perspective taking; Knight Carlo, Basilio, & Jacobson, 2015) associated with multiple forms of prosocial behaviors in U.S. Mexican adolescents.

Furthermore, scholars have theorized that ethnic identity, which reflects a strong orientation to one’s ethnicity, may facilitate engagement in behaviors consistent with one’s ethnic culture (Knight, Carlo, Mahrer, & Davis, 2016). Specifically, Latino young adults who more strongly identify with their ethnic group are more likely to engage in prosocial actions encouraged by their ethnic group. Similarly, based on social identity theory, strong ethnic group attachment, as assessed by ethnic identity resolution, might be associated with more positive self-evaluations, which may promote prosocial behaviors (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Despite conceptual links for the associations between ethnic identity resolution and prosocial behaviors (Knight et al., 2016), empirical support for these associations are mixed and we know of few studies that have examined these associations. Armenta et al. (2011) has demonstrated positive associations between ethnic identity and several forms of prosocial behaviors (e.g., emotional prosocial behaviors, compliant prosocial behaviors; see also Knight et al., 2016). In contrast, when using a global measure of prosocial behaviors, ethnic identity (including achievement and affirmation) was unrelated to prosocial behaviors (Schwartz, Zamboanga, & Jarvis, 2007). Taken together, these findings suggest that ethnic identity may only be associated with specific forms of prosocial behaviors (Armenta et al., 2011; Knight et al., 2016) and the null findings demonstrated by Schwartz et al. (2007) may have been due to the use of a global measure of prosocial behaviors, which may have attenuated the results. Therefore, more research is needed to examine the relations between ethnic identity resolution and specific forms of prosocial behaviors.

Meditational Roles of Familism and Ethnic Identity Resolution

Although we expect family relationship quality to be significantly related to prosocial behaviors, we also expected several indirect relations via familism and ethnic identity resolution. Several scholars note that ethnic identity results from enculturative and acculturative process that stem from socializing agents (Umaña-Taylor & Guimond, 2010). For example, family socializing agents (e.g., mothers, fathers, siblings) teach and reinforce familism values that, in turn, may become part of Latino young adults’ ethnic identity (Carlo & de Guzman, 2009). Specifically, as previously discussed, young adults’ endorsement of familism values may facilitate ethnic identity resolution, as internalizing the expectations, values, and beliefs of one’s culture may promote commitment to one’s ethnic identity. In turn, theorists have posited that endorsement of familism values can foster prosocial behaviors because such values promote other-oriented considerations of need (Calderón-Tena et al., 2011; Knight & Carlo, 2012). Indeed, there is empirical support for the associations between qualities of family relationships and familism (Calderón-Tena et al., 2011; Updegraff et al., 2005), familism and ethnic identity (Armenta et al., 2011), and ethnic identity and prosocial behaviors (Knight et al., 2016) in U.S. Mexican youth. Based on these conceptual models and empirical evidence, we expected both familism and ethnic identity resolution to mediate relations between relationship quality and prosocial behaviors.

The Present Study

The present study aimed to examine the associations between mother, father, and sibling relationships and U.S. Mexican young adults’ prosocial behaviors (see Figure 1 for the conceptual model). Additionally, we considered the role of familism values and ethnic identity resolution as potential mechanisms in the relations between family relationships and prosocial behaviors. Based on recent conceptual models (Padilla-Walker & Carlo, 2014), we examined prosocial behaviors as a multidimensional, rather than a unidimensional, construct. Researchers have identified several types of prosocial behaviors, reflecting different motivations for helping (Carlo, Knight, McGinley, Zamboanga, & Jarvis, 2010; Carlo & Randall, 2002). Dire prosocial behaviors reflect helping others in emergency situations. Emotional prosocial behaviors include helping in emotionally evocative situations. Compliant prosocial behaviors include helping when asked (Carlo, Hausmann, Christiansen, & Randall, 2003). Consistent with previous research, we expected that these forms of prosocial behaviors might be particularly relevant for U.S. Mexican young adults (Armenta et al., 2011; Calderón-Tena et al., 2011). Specifically, cultural values endorsed in U.S. Mexican households, such as familism, might encourage young adults to be responsive to family emergencies (dire prosocial behaviors), facilitate emotional support toward others (emotional prosocial behaviors), and raise expectations so that their young adults contribute and help with household chores (compliant prosocial behaviors). Therefore, we examined the aforementioned relations to dire, emotional, and compliant prosocial behaviors.

Figure 1.

Conceptual model depicting the tested models.

Although there is evidence for the mediating role of culture-related processes in the relations between family relationships and prosocial behaviors (Calderón-Tena et al., 2011), much of the prior work, and the present study, rely on cross-sectional data. Given the prior evidence that endorsement of familism values may foster more positive family relationships (e.g., Updegraff et al., 2005), consideration of possible alternative models are needed to further support the proposed relations. Thus, we considered an alternative reverse causal model wherein family relationships and ethnic identity resolution were considered as potential mechanisms in the relation between familism values and prosocial behaviors.

Method

Participants

The current study uses data from a larger study that examined young adults’ positive development and sibling relationships (N = 243). Data were collected from a predominately Hispanic (i.e., 91%) university in Texas (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). The current sample is restricted to U.S. Mexican young adults (N = 186) ranging in age from 18 to 25 years (M = 21.56 years, SD = 1.60) who reported having at least one sibling.

Participants were predominately female (n = 146, 78.5%), which is consistent with previous work demonstrating a significantly higher proportion of Latino females in higher education (Hurtado, Saáenz, Santos, & Cabrera, 2008). Most participants (n = 156, 85.2%) reported that they were born in the United States. The majority of participants reported that their mothers (n = 109, 59.6%) and fathers (n = 105, 57.4%) were born outside of the United States. Less than half of participants reported that their mothers (n = 51, 27.4%) or fathers (n = 38, 20.5%) had earned a college degree. Participants reported having between one and nine siblings (M = 2.45, SD = 1.46). A total of 45% (n = 84) of participants were in same gender sibling dyads and 47.8% (n = 89) of participants reported on their relationship with a younger sibling.

Procedures

Participants were recruited through course instructors. Flyers were sent to university instructors who were asked to distribute the flyers to students enrolled in their courses and/or post the flyer to their course websites. Participants completed a self-administered online questionnaire in a campus computer lab. The questionnaire took approximately 45 minutes to complete and instructors compensated students with extra credit points for their participation.

Measures

Maternal and Paternal Acceptance

Participants completed the eight-item subscale of the Child Report of Parental Behavior Inventory (CRPBI) for both mothers and fathers (Schwarz, Barton-Henry, & Pruzinsky, 1985). Participants used a 5-point scale (1 = almost never to 5 = almost always) to rate the frequency with which their mothers and fathers engage in a variety of behaviors. Sample items include the following: “My mother/father makes me feel better after talking over my worries with her or him” and “My mother/father tells or shows me that she or he likes me just the way I am.” Separate maternal acceptance (α = .94) and paternal acceptance (α = .95) scores were created, with higher values indicating greater acceptance. Previous research has demonstrated cross-ethnic measurement equivalence in the use of the CRPBI, specifically the parental acceptance subscale, among Latino samples (Knight, Tein, Shell, & Roosa, 1992). Researchers have demonstrated equivalence in the factor structure of the acceptance scale and evidence of functional equivalence when comparing use by Latino and European American samples. In previous studies using the CRPBI with Latino samples, Cronbach’s alphas have ranged from .79 to .86 (Davidson, Updegraff, & McHale, 2011; S. K. Killoren et al., 2015; Nair, White, Knight, & Roosa, 2009).

Sibling Intimacy

Sibling intimacy was assessed through an eight-item scale developed by Blyth and Foster-Clark (1987). Using a 4-point Likert-type scale (1 = not at all, 4 = very much), participants rated the extent to which statements described their sibling relationship. Sample items include the following: “How much does your sibling accept you no matter what you do?” and “How much do you go to your sibling for advice or support?” If participants had multiple siblings, they were instructed to report on their relationship with the sibling closest in age to themselves. This scale has demonstrated adequate reliability in samples of U.S. Mexican adolescents and young adults (alphas ranging from .80 to .85; S. E. Killoren, Thayer, & Updegraff, 2008; Updegraff et al., 2005). Cronbach’s alpha was .86 in the present study.

Familism Values

Participants completed the 16-item familism subscale of the Mexican American Cultural Values Scale (Knight et al., 2010). This scale assesses three domains of familism values (a) support (six items; sample item: “Family provides a sense of security because they will always be there for you”), (b) obligations (five items; sample item: “A person should share their home with relatives if they need a place to stay”), and (c) family as referent (five items; sample item: “Children should be taught to always be good because they represent the family”). Participants were asked to rate how strongly they endorsed each statement on a 5-point scale (1 = not at all; 5 = strongly agree). Scores across all items were averaged to create a global familism score, with higher scores indicating greater endorsement of familism values (α = .95). This scale has been used in a number of studies and has demonstrated adequate reliability, with alphas ranging from .80 to .86 when used with Latino adolescents and young adults (Knight et al., 2010; Roosa et al., 2011; Umaña-Taylor, Updegraff, & Gonzales-Backen, 2011).

Ethnic Identity Resolution

Participants completed four items, reflecting ethnic identity resolution, from the Ethnic Identity Scale developed by Umaña-Taylor et al. (2004). Sample items include “I have a clear sense of what my ethnicity means to me” and “I understand how I feel about my ethnicity.” Participants responded to items on a 4-point Likert-type scale (1 = does not describe me at all to 4 = describes me very well). Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .94, and scholars have previously demonstrated alphas ranging from .83 to .92 for the resolution subscale of this measure (Umaña-Taylor et al., 2004; Umaña-Taylor & Guimond, 2010).

Prosocial Tendencies

Participants completed nine items from the Prosocial Tendencies Measure (Carlo & Randall, 2002), which assesses how likely individuals are to engage in multiple forms of prosocial behaviors. Using a 5-point scale (1 = does not describe you at all; 5 = describes you very well), participants were asked to rate the extent to which each statement described themselves. For the current study, three types of prosocial behaviors were examined: dire (three items; α = .83; e.g., “I tend to help people who are in a real crisis or need”), emotional (four items; α = .80; e.g., “I tend to help others particularly when they are emotionally distressed”), and compliant (two items; α = .78; e.g., “When people ask me to help them, I do not hesitate”). There is evidence of ethnic measurement equivalence and validity of the Prosocial Tendencies Measure in samples of U.S. Mexicans and European Americans (Carlo, Knight et al., 2010; Carlo, Knight et al., 2011; McGinley et al., 2009).

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Table 1 shows descriptive statistics and the relations among the main study variables. Sibling intimacy, maternal acceptance, and paternal acceptance were positively associated with familism values (rs ranged from .21 to .32, ps < .01). Among the family relationship variables, only maternal acceptance was related to ethnic identity resolution (r = .16, p < .05). Familism, however, was positively associated with ethnic identity resolution, as expected (r = .23, p < .01). There were limited direct associations between prosocial behaviors and the various family relationships. Sibling intimacy and maternal acceptance were positively associated with compliant helping (rs = .15, ps < .05), but not emotional or dire helping. Paternal acceptance was associated with dire helping (r = .17, p < .05), but not emotional or compliant helping. There were also direct positive associations between ethnic identity resolution and all three prosocial behaviors (rs ranged from .16 to .19, ps < .05) and positive interrelations among the prosocial behaviors as expected (rs ranged from .60 to .69, ps < .01).

Table 1.

Descriptives and Correlation Matrix of Main Study Variables.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Maternal acceptance
2. Paternal acceptance	.43**
3. Sibling intimacy	.23**	.32**
4. Familism values	.32**	.23**	.21**
5. Ethnic identity resolution	.16*	.13	.01	.23**
6. Emotional prosocial behaviors	.03	.06	.05	.00	.16*
7. Dire prosocial behaviors	.12	.17*	.13	.10	.17*	.69**
8. Compliant prosocial behaviors	.15*	.13	.15*	.07	.19*	.60**	.62**
M (SD)	4.01 (0.99)	3.54 (1.23)	2.75 (0.67)	4.20 (0.76)	3.03 (0.90)	3.65 (0.92)	3.50 (0.98)	3.83 (0.99)

p < .05. **p < .01.

Main Analyses

Path analyses were conducted using maximum likelihood estimation in Mplus version 7.2 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2010). Direct paths from relationship quality to familism, ethnic identity resolution, and prosocial behaviors were included. Additionally, direct paths from familism to prosocial behaviors were included. Indirect effects between relationship quality, familism, ethnic identity resolution, and prosocial behaviors were also examined. The error variances of participants’ prosocial behaviors were allowed to correlate with one another. The analyzed model, with all tested paths, is depicted in Figure 1. In order to avoid multicollinearity between the exogenous variables, which has been linked to increased statistical errors and reduces the number of paths included in the model, separate models were analyzed for each relationship (Grewal, Cote, & Baumgartner, 2004; Kutner, Nachtsheim, Neter, & Li, 2005). For all models, participants’ gender was included as a statistical control. Due to the limited number of male participants (N = 40), gender was not examined as a moderator.

Furthermore, we considered sibling structural characteristics (i.e., living with sibling and having an older vs. younger sibling) as possible controls. Independent sample t tests indicated that there were no significant mean-level differences in study variables between participants living with their sibling and those not living with their sibling (ts ranged from ±0.28 to 1.45, ps > .05). Additionally, independent sample t tests indicated that there were no mean-level differences in study variables for participants reporting on their relationship with an older sibling when compared with those reporting on younger siblings (ts ranged from ± 0.05 to 1.44, ps > .05). Therefore, these variables were not included as a control in further analyses.

In path analysis, model fit is considered good if the comparative fit index (CFI) is greater than or equal to .95, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) is less than or equal to .06, and the standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) is less than or equal to .08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). All three models fit the data well, mother acceptance model: χ²(2) = 0.67; p > .05; CFI = 1.0; RMSEA = .00; SRMR = .01; paternal acceptance model: χ²(2) = 1.51; p > .05; CFI = 1.0; RMSEA = .00; SRMR = .02; sibling intimacy model: χ²(2) = 1.57; p > .05; CFI = 1.0; RMSEA = .00; SRMR = .02.

Standardized path coefficients for each model are shown in Figure 2 (maternal acceptance), Figure 3 (paternal acceptance), and Figure 4 (sibling intimacy). A consistent pattern of relations emerged across all three models, such that a more positive family relationship (i.e., parental acceptance and sibling intimacy) was positively associated with greater endorsement of familism values. In turn, familism values were positively associated with ethnic identity resolution. In the maternal acceptance and sibling intimacy models, ethnic identity resolution was positively associated with dire, emotional, and compliant helping. For paternal acceptance, ethnic identity resolution was positively associated with compliant helping. Moreover, sibling intimacy was directly positively related to compliant prosocial behaviors and paternal acceptance was direct positively related to dire prosocial behaviors.

Figure 2.

Model of maternal acceptance, cultural processes, and prosocial behaviors.

Figure 3.

Model of paternal acceptance, cultural processes, and prosocial behaviors.

Figure 4.

Model of sibling intimacy, cultural processes, and prosocial behaviors.

Bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals (CIs) were used to test indirect effects and direct and indirect effects are presented in Table 2 (MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002). In the maternal acceptance model, indirect effects were significant for the relations between familism values and compliant prosocial behaviors (indirect effect = .04, CIs [.01, .10], p < .05) and maternal acceptance and ethnic identity (indirect effect = .06, CIs [.02, .10], p < .05). In the paternal acceptance model, indirect effects were significant for the relation between paternal acceptance and ethnic identity (indirect effect = .05, CIs [.02, .09], p < .05). In the sibling intimacy model, indirect effects were significant for the relations between familism values and dire prosocial behaviors (indirect effect = .04, 95% CIs [.01, .07], p < .05), familism values and compliant prosocial behaviors (indirect effect = .05, CIs [.01, .08], p < .05), and the relations between sibling intimacy and ethnic identity (indirect effect = .05, CIs [.01, .09], p < .05).

Table 2.

Direct, Sum of Indirect, and Total Effects of Relationship Quality and Familism Values on Ethnic Identity Resolution and Young Adults’ Prosocial Behaviors.

Predictor	Variable
Predictor	Ethnic Identity Resolution	Emotional Prosocial Behaviors	Dire Prosocial Behaviors	Compliant Prosocial Behaviors
Maternal Acceptance
Direct effects	.10	.01	.10	.12
Indirect effects	.06*	.00	.03	.01
Total effects	.16*	.01	.13	.13
Familism values
Direct effects	—	−.04	.05	.00
Indirect effects	—	.04	.03	.04*
Total effects	—	.00	.08	.04
Paternal Acceptance
Direct effects	.08	.06	.15*	.12
Indirect effects	.05*	.00	.02	.01
Total effects	.13	.06	.16	.13
Familism values
Direct effects	—	−.03	.07	.03
Indirect effects	—	.04	.03	.05
Total effects	—	.01	.10	.08
Sibling Intimacy
Direct effects	−.04	.06	.13	.15*
Indirect effects	.05*	.00	.02	.01
Total effects	.01	.06	.15	.16
Familism values
Direct effects	—	−.05	.05	.00
Indirect effects	—	.04	.04*	.05*
Total effects	—	−.01	.09	.06

Note. Indirect effects between relationship quality and prosocial behaviors included multiple mediators (familism values and ethnic identity resolution), while all other indirect effects included a single mediator.

p < .05.

Follow-up multigroup analyses for sibling gender constellation effects were conducted to examine differences based on having a same gender versus different gender sibling in the sibling intimacy model. The Santorra–Bentler scaled chi-square difference test was conducted to examine significant change in the chi-square statistic for the constrained model (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2010). Model fit was also examined for the constrained and unconstrained models. The unconstrained model, χ²(2) = 1.57; p > .05; CFI = 1.0; RMSEA = .00; SRMR = .02, and the constrained model, χ²(27) = 30.51; p > .05; CFI = .99; RMSEA = .04; SRMR = .10, were not significantly different. Because the chi-square values, χ²(25) = 28.94; p > .05, did not differ significantly when constrained, the sibling intimacy model did not differ by the gender constellation of the sibling dyad.

Alternative Model Testing

Given that the current analyses rely on cross-sectional data and that there is supportive evidence for alternative configurations of the model (e.g., Updegraff et al., 2005), we examined an alternative model. In this model, young adults’ endorsement of familism values was set to predict family relationships, which in turn was set to predict ethnic identity resolution, and ultimately three forms of prosocial behaviors. Models were run separately for maternal acceptance, paternal acceptance, and sibling intimacy. For each model, the model fit was acceptable, mother acceptance model: χ²(2) = 2.33; p > .05; CFI = 1.0; RMSEA = .03; SRMR = .02; paternal acceptance model: χ²(2) = 0.84; p > .05; CFI = 1.0; RMSEA = .00; SRMR = .01; sibling intimacy model: χ²(2) = 0.32; p > .05; CFI = 1.0; RMSEA = .00; SRMR = .01.

In all three models, there was a positive association between familism values and relationship quality (maternal acceptance, paternal acceptance, and sibling intimacy), and between familism values and ethnic identity resolution. Furthermore, ethnic identity resolution was positively associated with all three forms of prosocial behaviors in all models. There were also direct positive associations between paternal acceptance and dire prosocial behaviors and sibling intimacy and compliant prosocial behaviors. There were no significant associations, in any of the models, between familism values and prosocial behaviors, or between relationship quality and ethnic identity. Given the nonsignificant relations between relationship quality and ethnic identity resolution, there was no evidence for relationship quality as a mediator of the relations between young adults’ endorsement of familism values and ethnic identity resolution, and subsequent prosocial behaviors.

Discussion

Despite theoretical foundations for expected socialization effects of mothers, fathers, and siblings on young adults’ prosocial behaviors in U.S. Latino families, empirical research on these links is sparse. Overall, the pattern of relations between quality of mothers, fathers, and siblings relationships and U.S. Mexican young adults’ prosocial behavior was distinct. Additionally, the findings yield evidence that familism values and ethnic identity resolution may serve as mechanisms through which family relationship variables might be related to prosocial behaviors. Moreover, the present findings build on prior research by demonstrating associations between family relationships and young adults’ endorsement of familism values in U.S. Mexican college students. These findings address several gaps in research on the roles of mothers, fathers, and siblings in young adults’ prosocial behaviors among U.S. Mexicans.

Scholars have increasingly advocated for the inclusion of culturally related processes in examining youth development, including prosocial development (Knight & Carlo, 2012). The present findings suggest that familism values and ethnic identity resolution may act as mechanisms through which family relationships are associated with prosocial behaviors. We found that young adults who reported more parental acceptance and sibling intimacy were also more likely to endorse cultural values that reflect maintaining close ties to family members. In turn, endorsement of familism values was associated with greater commitment to one’s ethnic identity, which, in turn, was associated with multiple prosocial behaviors. Some caution should be used in interpreting familism values and ethnic identity resolution as mediators through which family relationship quality may affect prosocial behaviors, given the limited number of significant indirect effects as assessed via formal mediation tests. These findings, however, underscore the importance of considering cultural processes as variables through which family relationships might contribute to positive social developmental outcomes in U.S. Mexican young adults.

The findings suggest that relationships with fathers and siblings, two often overlooked sources of socialization, may be associated with U.S. Mexican young adults’ prosocial behaviors. Paternal acceptance was directly associated with youth’s dire prosocial behaviors. Consistent with traditional gender roles, it is possible that fathers may model instrumental helping and risky helping behaviors (Eagly, 2009); therefore, fathers may have a unique role in socializing (perhaps via modeling) prosocial behaviors related to helping in dire situations. Further research is needed, however, to understand the role of U.S. Mexican fathers in young adults’ prosocial behaviors. The existing literature on fathers and young adults’ prosocial behaviors is sparse and scholars have previously suggested that mothers may play a more consistent and predictive role in prosocial development (see Hastings et al., 2007). However, prior research directly examining the role of fathers on their children’s prosocial behaviors has been conducted with European American samples and with younger children. Given the importance of family cohesion and interconnectedness in Latino families (Knight et al., 1994), fathers might be important in predicting prosocial behaviors for Latino young adults. Thus, our findings contribute to the existing literature by providing suggestive evidence that fathers may have a direct and indirect (via cultural processes) effect on U.S. Mexican young adults’ prosocial behaviors.

Moreover, there was a significant direct association between sibling intimacy and compliant prosocial behaviors. It is possible that among U.S. Mexican siblings, intimate sibling relationships involve caretaking behaviors and helping within the home, and these behaviors may help promote prosocial behaviors that include helping when asked. The role of siblings in predicting young adults’ prosocial behaviors may be highlighted in Mexican culture, which emphasizes the role of helping around the household and contributing to the good of the family unit (Knight et al., 2010). There is limited research that examines prosocial behaviors among siblings, particularly beyond childhood (Padilla-Walker et al., 2010), and we know of no studies that have considered the role of siblings in predicting prosocial behaviors among U.S. Mexican samples. The current findings serve as a preliminary step in extending our understanding of the role of siblings in U.S. Mexican young adults’ prosocial development.

Sibling researchers have suggested that sibling interactions may differ based on the gender constellation of the dyad. Although we examined the moderating role of sibling gender constellation (same gender vs. mixed gender), these results were not significant. It is possible that our relations would have been stronger among sister–sister dyads, as researchers have demonstrated that sister–sister dyads are more intimate (Buhrmester & Furman, 1990; Updegraff et al., 2005) and spend more time together than other dyads (Updegraff et al., 2005). However, given the limited number of men in our sample, and number of sister–sister dyads (n = 61), these analyses were not feasible.

Scholars have theorized that family relationships are associated with greater endorsement of familism values and the present findings showed positive relations between maternal acceptance, paternal acceptance, and sibling intimacy and young adults’ endorsement of familism values. These findings are consistent with previous research that has examined the transmission of familism values to youth via mothers’ endorsement of familism values and their parenting practices (Calderón-Tena et al., 2011) and other research that has demonstrated associations between sibling intimacy and familism values (S. K. Killoren et al., 2015; Updegraff et al., 2005). Supportive family relationships may encourage individuals to maintain a connection with, and obligation to, family members. Our findings demonstrate the importance of familism values in U.S. Mexican young adults, even when many of these young adults did not live with their parents or siblings (51% of current sample was not living with their sibling). The present findings add to the growing evidence on the importance of considering multiple family members, including parent and sibling relationships.

Furthermore, our findings suggest associations between ethnic identity resolution and prosocial behaviors. We chose to examine one dimension of ethnic identity, as resolution might be especially salient during this developmental period in which young adults might be particularly likely to have made a commitment to their ethnic identity, rather than engaging in exploration (Tsai & Fuligni, 2012). Researchers have largely examined ethnic identity among adolescent samples (e.g., Kiang & Fuligni, 2009; Umaña-Taylor & Updegraff, 2007) and our inclusion of young adults contributes to the literature on ethnic identity resolution in other developmental periods.

Additionally, scholars have previously theorized that family relationships are believed to contribute to the socialization of ethnic identity, which might be more salient among those who endorse familial connection (Kiang & Fuligni, 2009). It may be that ethnic identity resolution is especially tied to youth’s endorsement of familism values. Scholars have previously demonstrated that ethnic identity resolution and exploration (but not affirmation) are associated with family ethnic socialization (Umaña-Taylor et al., 2004). The present findings demonstrated that young adults’ endorsement of familism values consistently mediated the relations between relationship quality (mothers, fathers, and siblings) and ethnic identity resolution, and we know of no prior work that has demonstrated these associations. Although further work and replication is needed, our findings suggest that positive family relationships may not directly foster ethnic identity, but operate via young adults’ endorsement of cultural values. Specifically, as parents, and perhaps siblings, socialize individuals toward endorsing cultural practices and values, which may include familism values, young adults may be more likely to have a clear and committed sense of their ethnic identity. It may be particularly beneficial to understand the process through which young adults resolve their ethnic identity, as ethnic identity has been shown to buffer the negative effects of discrimination (Umaña-Taylor, Wong, Gonzales, & Dumka, 2012) and has been consistently positively associated with self-esteem (e.g., Umaña-Taylor et al., 2002).

Our findings also yielded positive associations between ethnic identity resolution and multiple forms of prosocial behaviors. Prior research shows mixed relations between ethnic identity and prosocial behaviors. For example, ethnic identity, including achievement (similar to resolution) and affirmation, was previously unrelated to a global measure prosocial behaviors (Schwartz et al., 2007) and positively associated with several forms of prosocial behaviors (Armenta et al., 2011; Knight et al., 2016). These inconsistencies may be due in part developmental differences in the samples used (early adolescents vs. college students) which may affect the stages of ethnic identity individuals may be experiencing. These inconsistent relations may also be due in part to differences in the measures used (global vs. multidimensional measures of prosocial behaviors). Our findings contribute to the current literature by demonstrating positive relations between ethnic identity resolution and the prosocial behaviors of U.S. Mexican youth. Perhaps having a resolved ethnic identity promotes more coherent and committed in-group social attachments, which might serve to foster more positive behavioral outcomes. Future research is needed to further replicate these findings, and to examine the possible explanations for this effect.

Although our directional model was developed based on evidence from theory and prior research, our data are cross-sectional, and some caution is also needed in interpreting the direction of effects. To account for this, we considered alternative models, such that family relationships and ethnic identity resolution mediated the relations between familism values and prosocial behaviors. In these models, there was support for the positive association between familism values and maternal acceptance, paternal acceptance, and sibling intimacy, which is consistent with prior work that suggests that endorsing connection and commitment to one’s family may foster more positive family relationships (Updegraff et al., 2005). However, there were no significant associations between family relationships and ethnic identity resolution, suggesting that the original model presented better accounts for the associations between family relationships and cultural processes. Furthermore, the supported proposed model is consistent with prior evidence that family relationships may facilitate the endorsement of cultural values, which may, in turn, foster prosocial behaviors (Calderón-Tena et al., 2011). Despite conceptual and empirical support for the proposed model, longitudinal designs are needed to better examine the direction of effects and to better test the posited mediation models. Similarly, although the alternative model was selected based on prior empirical support (e.g., Updegraff et al., 2005), given the cross-sectional nature of the data, there might be additional configurations that could be considered and tested in future work.

The present study has several methodological limitations. For example, this study relies on self-reported survey measures completed by the young adult for all the constructs of interests. Therefore, shared method variance is a concern and future research should include measures obtained from multiple reporters or behavioral measures to reduce this possible bias. Moreover, the sample was limited to individuals attending college. As a result, we know little about these relations in a broader and more representative (e.g., from low socioeconomic status groups), noncollege sample of U.S. Mexicans (or from other Latino/Latina subgroups). Finally, as our sample was predominately women (78.5%), we were limited in our abilities to examine more nuanced gender effects (e.g., female–female sibling dyads vs. male–male sibling dyads), which researchers have suggested may play a role in examining sibling relationship quality (e.g., Updegraff et al., 2005).

Despite these limitations, the present study extends research on the development of prosocial behaviors among U.S. Mexican young adults. Our findings suggest that cultural processes might be explanatory mechanisms through which family relationships influence prosocial behaviors. Our findings emphasize the need to examine multiple family relationships and culture-related processes in understanding the development of U.S. Mexican young adults’ prosocial development. Moreover, this study extends the current literature on U.S. Mexican young adults’ by considering positive social functioning, rather than maladjustment, as advocated in research on minorities by several scholars (Cabrera et al., 2012; Coll et al., 1996; McLoyd, 1998). Research that focuses on positive social functioning may help us better understand retention and success among Latino college students.

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.

References

Armenta

B. E.

Knight

G. P.

Carlo

Jacobson

R. P.

(2011). The relation between ethnic group attachment and prosocial tendencies: The mediating role of cultural values. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 107-115.

Bandura

(1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Blyth

D. A.

Foster-Clark

(1987). Gender differences in perceived intimacy with different members of adolescents’ social networks. Sex Roles, 17, 689-718.

Buhrmester

Furman

(1990). Perceptions of sibling relationships during middle childhood and adolescence. Child Development, 61, 1387-1398.

Cabrera

N. J.

Beeghly

Eisenberg

(2012). Positive development of minority children: Introduction to the special issue. Child Development Perspectives, 6, 207-209.

Calderón-Tena

C. O.

Knight

G. P.

Carlo

(2011). The socialization of prosocial behavioral tendencies among Mexican American adolescents: The role of familism values. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17, 98-106.

Carlo

(2006). Care-based and altruistically based morality. In Killen

Smetana

J. G.

(Eds.), Handbook of moral development (pp. 551-579). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Carlo

(2014). The development and correlates of prosocial moral behaviors. In Killen

Smetana

J. G.

(Eds.), Handbook of moral development (2nd ed., pp. 208-234). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Carlo

de Guzman

M. R. T.

(2009). Theories and research on prosocial competencies among US Latinos/as. In Villaruel

Carlo

Azmitia

Grau

Cabrera

Chahin

(Eds.), Handbook of U.S. Latino Psychology (pp. 191-211). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

10.

Carlo

Hausmann

Christiansen

Randall

B. A.

(2003). Sociocognitive and behavioral correlates of a measure of prosocial tendencies for adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 23, 107-134.

11.

Carlo

Knight

G. P.

Basilio

C. D.

Davis

A. N.

(2014). Predicting prosocial tendencies among Mexican American youth: The intersection of cultural values, social cognitions, and social emotions. In Padilla-Walker

Carlo

(Eds.), The multidimensionality of prosocial behavior: Biological, socialization, and contextual perspectives (pp. 242-257). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

12.

Carlo

Knight

G. P.

McGinley

Hayes

(2011). The roles of parental inductions, moral emotions, and moral cognitions in prosocial tendencies among Mexican American and European American early adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 31, 757-781.

13.

Carlo

Knight

G. P.

McGinley

Zamboanga

B. L.

Jarvis

L. H.

(2010). The multidimensionality of prosocial behaviors and evidence of measurement equivalence in Mexican American and European American early adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20, 334-358.

14.

Carlo

McGinley

Hayes

R. C.

Martinez

M. M.

(2011). Empathy as a mediator of the relations between parent and peer attachment and prosocial and physically aggressive behaviors in Mexican American college students. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29, 337-357.

15.

Carlo

Mestre

M. V.

Samper

Tur

Armenta

B. E.

(2010). The longitudinal relations among dimensions of parenting styles, sympathy, prosocial moral reasoning, and prosocial behaviors. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35, 116-124.

16.

Carlo

Randall

B. A.

(2002). The development of a measure of prosocial behaviors for late adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31, 31-44.

17.

Coll

C. G.

Crnic

Lamberty

Wasik

B. H.

Jenkins

Garcia

H. V.

McAdoo

H. P.

(1996). An integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in minority youths. Child Development, 67, 1891-1914.

18.

Conger

K. J.

Little

W. M.

(2010). Sibling relationships during the transition to adulthood. Child Development Perspectives, 4, 87-94. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2010.00123.x

19.

Davidson

A. J.

Updegraff

K. A.

McHale

S. M.

(2011). Parent/peer relationship patterns among Mexican-origin adolescents. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35, 260-270. doi:10.1177/0165025410384926

20.

de Guzman

M. R. T.

Brown

Carlo

Knight

G. P

. (2012). What does it mean to be prosocial? A cross-ethnic study of parental beliefs. Psychology and Developing Societies, 24, 239-268.

21.

Deković

Janssens

J. M.

(1992). Parents’ child-rearing style and child’s sociometric status. Developmental Psychology, 28, 925-932.

22.

Dunn

(1983). Sibling relationships in early childhood. Child Development, 54, 787-811.

23.

Eagly

A. H.

(2009). The his and hers of prosocial behavior: An examination of the social psychology of gender. American Psychologist, 64(8), 644-658.

24.

Eisenberg

Fabes

R. A.

Spinrad

T. L.

(2006). Prosocial development. In Damon

Lerner

R. M.

(Series Ed.) & Eisenberg

(Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality development (Vol. 3, pp. 646-718). New York, NY: Wiley.

25.

Fuligni

A. J.

Pederson

(2002). Family obligation and the transition to young adulthood. Developmental Psychology, 38, 856-868.

26.

Grau

Azmitia

Quattlebaum

(2009). Latino families: Parenting, relational, and developmental processes. In Villarruel

F. A.

Carlo

Grau

J. M.

Azmitia

Cabrera

Chahin

(Eds.), Handbook of U.S. Latino psychology: Developmental and community-based perspectives (pp. 153-169). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

27.

Grewal

Cote

J. A.

Baumgartner

(2004). Multicollinearity and measurement error in structural equation models: Implications for theory testing. Marketing Science, 23, 519-529.

28.

Grusec

J. E.

Goodnow

J. J.

(1994). Impact of parental discipline methods on the child’s internalization of values: A reconceptualization of current points of view. Developmental Psychology, 30, 4-19.

29.

Halgunseth

L. C.

Ispa

J. M.

Rudy

(2006). Parental control in Latino families: An integrated review of the literature. Child Development, 77, 1282-1297.

30.

Harper

J. M.

Padilla-Walker

L. M.

Jensen

A. C.

(2014). Do siblings matter independent of both parents and friends? Sympathy as a mediator between sibling relationship quality and adolescent outcomes. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 26, 101-114.

31.

Hastings

P. D.

Utendale

Sullivan

(2007). The socialization of prosocial development. In Grusec

J. E.

Hastings

P. D.

(Eds.), Handbook of socialization (pp. 638-664). New York, NY: Guildford Press.

32.

Hollifield

C. R.

Conger

K. J.

(2014). The role of siblings and psychological needs in predicting life satisfaction during emerging adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 3, 143-153.

33.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.

34.

Hurtado

Saáenz

V. B.

Santos

J. L.

Cabrera

N. L.

(2008). Advancing in higher education: A portrait of Latina/o college freshmen at four-year institutions: 1975–2006. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.

35.

Kiang

Fuligni

A. J.

(2009). Ethnic identity and family processes among adolescents from Latin American, Asian, and European backgrounds. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 228-241.

36.

Killoren

S. E.

Thayer

S. M.

Updegraff

K. A.

(2008). Conflict resolution between Mexican origin adolescent siblings. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 1200-1212.

37.

Killoren

S. K.

Wheeler

L. A.

Updegraff

K. A.

Rodríguez

Jesús

S. A.

McHale

S. M.

(2015). Longitudinal associations among parental acceptance, familism values, and sibling intimacy in Mexican-origin families. Family Process, 54, 217-231. doi:10.1111/famp.12126

38.

Knight

G. P.

Bernal

M. E.

Carlo

(1995). Socialization and the development of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic behaviors among Mexican American children. In Garcia

E. E.

McLaughlin

(Eds.), Meeting the challenge of linguistic and cultural diversity in early childhood education (pp. 85-102). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

39.

Knight

G. P.

Carlo

(2012). Prosocial development among Mexican American youth. Child Development Perspectives, 6, 258-263.

40.

Knight

G. P.

Carlo

Basilio

C. D.

Jacobson

R. P.

(2015). Familism values, perspective taking, and prosocial moral reasoning: Predicting prosocial tendencies among Mexican American adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 25, 717-727.

41.

Knight

G. P.

Carlo

Mahrer

N. E.

Davis

A. N.

(2016). The socialization of culturally related values and prosocial tendencies among Mexican-American adolescents. Child Development, 87, 1758-1771.

42.

Knight

G. P.

Gonzales

N. A.

Saenz

D. S.

Bonds

D. D.

German

Deardorff

. . . Updegraff

K. A.

(2010). The Mexican American Cultural Values Scales for adolescents and adults. Journal of Early Adolescence, 30, 444-481.

43.

Knight

G. P.

Tein

J. Y.

Shell

Roosa

(1992). The cross-ethnic equivalence of parenting and family interaction measures among Hispanic and Anglo-American families. Child Development, 63, 1392-1403.

44.

Knight

G. P.

Virdin

L. M.

Roosa

(1994). Socialization and family correlates of mental health outcomes among Hispanic and Anglo American children: Consideration of cross-ethnic scalar equivalence. Child Development, 65, 212-224.

45.

Krevans

Gibbs

J. C.

(1996). Parents’ use of inductive discipline: Relations to children’s empathy and prosocial behavior. Child Development, 67, 3263-3277.

46.

Kutner

M. H.

Nachtsheim

C. J.

Neter

(2005). Applied linear statistical models (5th ed.). Chicago, IL: McGraw-Hill.

47.

MacKinnon

D. P.

Lockwood

C. M.

Hoffman

J. M.

West

S. G.

Sheets

(2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83-104.

48.

McGinley

Carlo

Crockett

L. J.

Raffaelli

Torres Stone

R. A.

Iturbide

M. I.

(2009). Stressed and helping: The relations among acculturative stress, gender, and prosocial tendencies in Mexican Americans. Journal of Social Psychology, 150, 34-56.

49.

McHale

S. M.

Updegraff

K. A.

Whiteman

S. D.

(2012). Sibling relationships and influences in childhood and adolescence. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74, 913-930. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.01011.x

50.

McLoyd

V. C.

(1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. American Psychologist, 53, 185-204.

51.

Milevsky

(2005). Compensatory patterns of sibling support in emerging adulthood: Variations in loneliness, self-esteem, depression and life satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 743-755.

52.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998-2010). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles, CA: Author.

53.

Nair

R. L.

White

R. B.

Knight

G. P.

Roosa

M. W.

(2009). Cross-language measurement equivalence of parenting measures for use with Mexican American populations. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 680-689. doi:10.1037/a0016142

54.

Padilla-Walker

L. M.

(2014). Parental socialization of prosocial behavior: A multidimensional approach. In Padilla-Walker

L. M.

Carlo

(Eds.), Prosocial behavior: A multidimensional approach (pp. 131-155). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

55.

Padilla-Walker

L. M.

Carlo

(2014). The study of prosocial behavior: Past, present, and future. In Padilla-Walker

L. M.

Carlo

(Eds.), Prosocial development: A multidimensional approach (pp. 3-16). New York, NY: Oxford.

56.

Padilla-Walker

L. M.

Carlo

Christensen

K. J.

Yorgason

J. B.

(2012). Bidirectional relations between authoritative parenting and adolescents’ prosocial behaviors. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 22, 400-408.

57.

Padilla-Walker

L. M.

Christensen

K. J.

(2011). Empathy and self-regulation as mediators between parenting and adolescents’ prosocial behavior toward strangers, friends, and family. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 545-551.

58.

Padilla-Walker

L. M.

Harper

J. M.

Jensen

A. C.

(2010). Self-regulation as a mediator between sibling relationship quality and early adolescents’ positive and negative outcomes. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 419-428.

59.

Roosa

M. W.

Zeiders

K. H.

Knight

G. P.

Gonzales

N. A.

Tein

Saenz

. . . Berkel

(2011). A test of the social development model during the transition to junior high with Mexican American adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 47, 527-537. doi:10.1037/a0021269

60.

Schwartz

S. J.

Zamboanga

B. J.

Jarvis

L. H.

(2007). Ethnic identity and acculturation in Hispanic early adolescents: Mediated relationships to academic grades, prosocial behaviors, and externalizing symptoms. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13, 364-373.

61.

Schwarz

J. C.

Barton-Henry

M. L.

Pruzinsky

(1985). Assessing child-rearing behaviors: A comparison of ratings made by mother, father, child, and sibling on the CRPBI. Child Development, 56, 462-479.

62.

Tajfel

Turner

J. C.

(1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Austin

W. G.

Worchel

(Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

63.

Tsai

K. M.

Fuligni

A. J.

(2012). Change in ethnic identity across the college transition. Developmental Psychology, 48, 56-64.

64.

Umaña-Taylor

A. J.

Diversi

Fine

M. A.

(2002). Ethnic identity and self-esteem of Latino adolescents: Distinctions among the Latino populations. Journal of Adolescent Research, 17, 303-327.

65.

Umaña-Taylor

A. J.

Guimond

A. B.

(2010). A longitudinal examination of parenting behaviors and perceived discrimination predicting Latino adolescents’ ethnic identity. Developmental Psychology, 46, 636-650.

66.

Umaña-Taylor

A. J.

Updegraff

K. A.

(2007). Latino adolescents’ mental health: Exploring the interrelations among discrimination, ethnic identity, cultural orientation, self-esteem, and depressive symptoms. Journal of Adolescence, 30, 549-567.

67.

Umaña-Taylor

A. J.

Updegraff

K. A.

Gonzales-Backen

M. A.

(2011). Mexican-origin adolescent mothers’ stressors and psychosocial functioning: Examining ethnic identity affirmation and familism as moderators. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 140-157.

68.

Umaña-Taylor

A. J.

Wong

J. J.

Gonzales

N. A.

Dumka

L. E.

(2012). Ethnic identity and gender as moderators of the association between discrimination and academic adjustment among Mexican-origin adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 35, 773-786.

69.

Umaña-Taylor

A. J.

Yazedjian

Bámaca-Gómez

M. Y.

(2004). Developing the Ethnic Identity Scale using Eriksonian and social identity perspectives. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 4, 9-38.

70.

Updegraff

K. A.

McHale

S. M.

Whiteman

S. D.

Thayer

S. M.

Delgado

M. Y.

(2005). Adolescent sibling relationships in Mexican American families: Exploring the role of familism. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 512-522.

71.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Projections of the total resident population by 5-year age groups, race, and Hispanic origin with special age categories: Middle series, 2001 to 2005. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/population/projections/files/natproj/summary/np-t4-b.pdf

72.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2013). State and county quick facts: Hidalgo County, Texas. Retrieved from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48/48215.html

73.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2014). Annual estimates of the resident population by sex, race, and Hispanic origin for the United States, States, and Counties: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2013. Washington, DC: Author.

74.

White

(2001). Sibling relationships over the life course: A panel analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 555-568. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.005555.x

75.

White

Zeiders

K. H.

Gonzales

N. A.

Tein

J. Y.

Roosa

M. W.

(2013). Cultural values, US neighborhood danger, and Mexican American parents’ parenting. Journal of Family Psychology, 27, 365-375.

76.

Whiteman

S. D.

McHale

S. M.

Crouter

A. C.

(2011). Family relationships from adolescence to early adulthood: Changes in the family system following firstborns’ leaving home. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 461-474.

77.

Yeung

W. J.

Sandberg

J. F.

Davis-Kean

P. E.

Hofferth

S. L.

(2001). Children’s time with fathers in intact families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 136-154.

78.

Youniss

(1994). Children’s friendship and peer culture: Implications for theories of networks and support. In Nestmarm

Hurrelmann

(Eds.), Social networks and social support in childhood and adolescence (pp. 75-88). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.