National and Racial-Ethnic Identification

Abstract

This mixed-methods study explored early adolescents’ national American identification, and meanings attached to being American. Participants (N = 102; 51% female; ages 10-12, $\bar{X}$ = 11.45, SD = .70) were racially and ethnically diverse from primarily middle- to upper-middle class families (median household income = US$150,000-US$199,999; 75% had a college degree or higher). Youth attended a private, secular elementary school with practices designed to celebrate diversity. Participants associated Americans with positive trait stereotypes, symbols (e.g., American flag), nativity status, and particular racial-ethnic groups (e.g., White). Youth who self-identified as American (n = 51) frequently asserted that being American, defined by their birthplace and residence in the United States, was important. Results suggest that early adolescence is an optimal developmental period to examine the emergence of an American identity, and validate the benefits of using mixed methods in the study of youths’ national and racial-ethnic identification and the accompanying meaning-making process.

Keywords

national identification American identity racial-ethnic identification early adolescence

The U.S. is often referred to as a cultural melting-pot—a nation of individuals from different racial-ethnic groups who bring with them a variety of different customs and cultural practices. However, the current sociopolitical landscape serves as an important reminder of the ongoing tensions that exist in our nation’s conceptualizations of what it means to be American. For example, how we define what it means to be American and who fits within this definition are at the center of current political debates about immigration reform and pathways to citizenship for undocumented immigrants in the United States. This debate is exemplified by the Define American campaign, led by journalist and undocumented immigrant Jose Antonio Vargas, who has called on Americans across the United States to define what it means to be American beyond citizenship (Vargas, 2012). As another example, the strong negative reactions to the Miss America 2014 crowning of Nina Davuluri, an American of South Asian descent, draws attention to the “perpetual foreigner” stereotype that many individuals of color, especially those of Asian and Latino backgrounds are forced to confront within the U.S. context (Cheryan & Monin, 2005; Stapleton, 2013).

As the U.S. population has become more diverse in terms of racial-ethnic and immigrant origin background, do ideas of what it means to be American reflect this diversity? With about one fourth of our nation’s youth coming from immigrant families (i.e., first and second generation) and rising rates of immigration (Passel, 2011), exploring early adolescents’ emerging notions of American identity is essential. Moreover, the demonstrated importance of bicultural identity development (i.e., cohesive ethnic and national identities; Marks, Godoy, & Garcia Coll, 2013; Rodriguez, Schwartz, & Whitbourne, 2010; Schwartz, Zamboanga, Rodriguez, & Wang, 2007) for better psychological adjustment (Phinney, Horenczyk, Liebkind, & Vedder, 2001) and academic outcomes (e.g., higher educational achievement; Portes & Schauffler, 1994) necessitates a better understanding of early adolescents’ racial-ethnic and national American identification. In light of the benefits of having a strong sense of both racial-ethnic and national identities (Phinney et al., 2001; Portes & Schauffler, 1994; Rodriguez et al., 2010; Schwartz et al., 2007) and demographic shifts in U.S. society which may challenge perceptions of what it means to be American, a primary goal of the current study was to add to the literature on national American identity development among early adolescents of varying racial-ethnic and immigrant backgrounds using a mixed-methods approach. As youth in the United States, especially those from immigrant households, often hold multiple identities (e.g., Phinney et al., 2001), emerging national American identities are complex. These youth are culturally American in that they live and go to school in the United States, but their American identities are likely to also be informed by their familial and cultural heritage, including generational status and race/ethnicity.

Early Adolescence: Emerging National, Ethnic, and Racial Identities

Conceptual Issues: Nationality, Ethnicity, and Race

Before delving into the literature on American identity in particular, the present study’s focus on the American identification of early adolescents warrants discussion of important conceptual issues, including nationality, ethnicity, and race, as these terms often overlap. As this study was conducted among youth in the United States, references to nationality throughout this article refer to participants’ American national identification, and what it means to identify as such. Phinney and colleagues (2001) assert that a national American identity encompasses one’s self-identification as American as well as one’s attitudes toward Americans and their sense of belonging to U.S. American society (Phinney & Devich-Navarro, 1997). National identity often intersects with ethnic and racial identities (Phinney & Devich-Navarro, 1997), but is more complicated in the U.S. context given the size of the immigrant population and related racial-ethnic diversity. In this study, we adopt the metaconstruct of ethnic and racial identity (ERI; Umaña-Taylor et al., 2014). Ethnic and racial processes are closely intertwined in society, and are often conflated empirically in the way that researchers study these social identities. Racialized experiences often elicit the development of ethnic identities (Pahl & Way, 2006), and racial identities are commonly tied to ethnic and cultural practices (Cokley, 2005). As youths’ notions of race and ethnicity often reflect this overlap, researchers caution against making distinctions between race and ethnicity when working with children and adolescents (Umaña-Taylor et al., 2014).

Emerging American Identities During Early Adolescence

Our study on national American identification focused on a sample of youth during early adolescence (i.e., ages 10-14), the developmental period during which children transition from middle childhood into adolescence. Applying theories of personal identity development (e.g., Erikson, 1968; Marcia, 1994), Phinney’s seminal work on the ethnic identity development of youth (Phinney, 1992; Phinney et al., 2001) highlights early adolescence as a critical developmental phase during which individuals are actively exploring their identities, and establishing a sense of self and what it means to be members of different social groups (American Psychological Association [APA], 2002; Huang & Stormshak, 2011; Umaña-Taylor et al., 2014). For example, during early and middle childhood (up to age 10), children typically attach concrete, observable meanings to ethnic and racial group membership, associating race and ethnicity with skin color (Quintana, 2008), biological factors (e.g., family heritage), or language and food preferences (Rogers et al., 2012). In early adolescence, however, increasing social and cognitive capacities, such as the advancement of social categorization and comparison skills, allow youth to cultivate more comprehensive and abstract understandings of ethnic and racial group membership (Aboud & Ruble, 1987; Brown & Bigler, 2005; Quintana, 2008; Syed & Azmitia, 2008). In addition to concrete meanings (e.g., skin color, family heritage, cultural practices), early adolescents increasingly ascribe personal and collective meanings (e.g., a sense of belonging) to their emerging racial-ethnic identities.

Although considerable work has examined ERI development among older adolescents, less research is available regarding early adolescents’ sense of national identity. Extant research among British youth has shown that children are capable of applying nationality labels to themselves by age 5 (Barrett, Lyons, & del Valle, 2004). The transition from middle childhood to early adolescence, however, marks a time when nationality becomes increasingly important (Barrett et al., 2004). Youth increasingly identify with and develop a preference for their national in-group (e.g., associating it with positive stereotypes; Barrett et al., 2004), a tendency that increases during adolescence and adulthood.

In terms of national American identities in particular, researchers have taken different approaches to studying the development of both national American and racial-ethnic identities. For example, using the Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans-II, researchers have examined the bicultural orientations of Mexican-heritage and White undergraduate students who differed by generational status (Cuéllar, Arnold, & Maldonado, 1995), and the bicultural identification patterns of Mexican American and African American adolescents in high school (Phinney & Devich-Navarro, 1997). Recent studies have shed light on American identity among diverse samples of college students by examining the relationships between national American, ethnic, and personal identity (Rodriguez et al., 2010), and by validating measures of American identity to be used among those varying in ethnicity and immigrant generational status (Schwartz et al., 2012). In terms of emerging American identities earlier in development, researchers have studied European American children’s (5-11 years old) American identity (“How American do you feel?”), and asked them to rate the extent to which different criteria were benchmarks of being a “true American” (e.g., being born in America, speaking English, etc.; Brown, 2011). Far fewer studies, however, have explored national identification and the meanings associated with being American among early adolescents from diverse racial-ethnic and immigrant backgrounds. Because early adolescence is a time during which youth are still actively developing and experimenting with their identities, the current study centers on their emerging identities as Americans including self-identification and the subjective meanings associated with being American.

Self-Identification as American: Labels and Meanings

National and racial-ethnic identification labels convey specific meanings regarding one’s country of birth, family heritage, cultural background, and values, allowing individuals to characterize their own identities within society (Gillen-O’Neel et al., 2015; Kiang, Perreira, & Fuligni, 2011). Children develop an understanding of national and racial-ethnic identification labels in early childhood and begin to attach nuanced meanings to those labels as they move from middle childhood into adolescence and adulthood (Umaña-Taylor et al., 2014). Self-identification through the use of labels is indicative of one’s understandings of the social groups to which they belong, and is an important aspect of social identity development among youth (Kiang, 2008; Kiang et al., 2011).

Self-Identification Label Types

To understand early adolescents’ self-identification as American, we draw upon the findings from previous research examining national and racial-ethnic self-identification patterns among adults and older adolescents. Adults and adolescents in the United States tend to self-identify using four main types of labels: (a) ethnic labels (e.g., German, Vietnamese), (b) panethnic labels (e.g., Asian, Latino/a), (c) ethnic American labels (e.g., German American, Vietnamese American), and (d) panethnic-American labels (e.g., Asian American, Latin American; Kiang, 2008; Kiang et al., 2011).

Research points to individual differences in the ways in which people self-identify as American, based on immigrant status. Namely, U.S.-born adults and adolescents are more likely than foreign-born adults and adolescents to self-identify as American by using hyphenated American labels, including both ethnic (e.g., Chinese American) and panethnic (e.g., Asian American) American labels (Kiang, 2008; Kiang et al., 2011). Note that although these labels are called “hyphenated American labels,” they may or may not include a literal hyphen. In contrast, recent immigrants to the United States are less likely to use any form of American when self-labeling; instead, foreign-born adults and adolescents are more likely to employ ethnic (e.g., Chinese, Mexican) or panethnic labels (e.g., Asian, Latino; Kiang et al., 2011). Our study assessed whether early adolescents from native-born and immigrant families similarly self-identify as American. Based on previous research, we hypothesized that youth from immigrant families would be less likely than their later generation peers to self-identify as American.

Self-Identification Labels and Subjective Meanings

The meanings that individuals attach to identification labels are an important aspect of identity development among early adolescents (Gillen-O’Neel et al., 2015; Kiang et al., 2011; Rogers et al., 2012). Thus, our study also qualitatively examined the subjective meanings that early adolescents attach to their self-identification as American. Although identification labels may connote specific meanings in broader society (e.g., social status, personality or physical traits, etc.), children and adolescents are still developing nuanced understandings of what those identification labels mean (Rogers et al., 2012; Ruble et al., 2004). Youth often associate self-identification labels with overt, physical characteristics (e.g., skin color, eye color), as well as behavioral characteristics (e.g., language) and abstract components (e.g., family heritage) that are associated with particular social groups (Quintana, 1994). During early adolescence, youth are actively engaged in this meaning-making process as they begin to form their own social identities (Rogers et al., 2012).

What It Means to Be American

Empirical evidence suggests that there are common themes when assessing the meanings associated with Americans (Park-Taylor et al., 2008). For example, European American children (Brown, 2011) and undergraduate students of diverse racial-ethnic backgrounds (Devos & Banaji, 2005) frequently indicated that, to be an American, one must love America and abide by its laws. In rating the criteria for a “true American,” loving America and living by its rules was rated significantly higher than speaking English, being born in America, and living in America for a long time Brown, 2011; Devos & Banaji, 2005). Research has also shown that among college students of differing ethnic backgrounds, being American is strongly linked to speaking English, American symbols or emblems (e.g., American flag, bald eagle, apple pie) and respecting U.S. holidays (e.g., Independence Day; Bush, 2005).

Beyond the themes discussed above, there is also some evidence that being American is associated with a particular racial-ethnic heritage. For example, in studies with both children and adults, White Americans were rated as more prototypically American than those from other racial-ethnic groups (e.g., African Americans, Asian Americans, Latino Americans; Brown, 2011; Devos & Banaji, 2005), suggesting that the notion of American may often be synonymous with being White. In contrast, when assessed qualitatively through open-ended prompts such as “When you think of the word American, what characteristics or traits do you think of?” some undergraduate students suggested that racial-ethnic diversity was an essential aspect of being American considering the growing immigrant population and changing demographics of the United States (Rodriguez et al., 2010).

Because previous research has indicated similarities between children’s (Brown, 2011) and young adults’ (Bush, 2005; Devos & Banaji, 2005) beliefs about Americans, we predicted that early adolescents’ spontaneous associations with the word “American” would yield similar results to previous studies (i.e., participants would mention things like symbols, holidays, speaking English, and embracing American ideology). Given the racial-ethnic and immigrant status diversity of our sample, we were especially interested in whether our participants associated being American with any particular racial-ethnic heritage. We qualitatively evaluated early adolescents’ notions of what it means to be American in two ways. First, among all participants who self-identified as American, we investigated the meanings that they personally associate with their national American identification. Second, we asked all youth in our sample to describe their spontaneous associations upon hearing the word “American” in general.

To supplement our qualitative findings and further understand early adolescents’ conceptualizations of what it means to be American, we quantitatively assessed their stereotypic beliefs about Americans. Researchers have documented that adults in the United States endorse both positive (e.g., assertive) and negative (e.g., disagreeable) stereotypes about Americans (Terracciano et al., 2005). Still, young adults from multiple racial-ethnic backgrounds (i.e., White/European American, African American and Asian American) generally tend to be positive in their evaluations of Americans (Devos & Banaji, 2005), although there is some research indicating slightly less positive perceptions of Americans among African American and Latino emerging adults (Rodriguez et al., 2010). Endorsement of positive stereotypes about one’s national in-group may result from in-group bias as suggested by social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 2004), or from exposure to favorable information about their national group from an early age (Bennett, Lyons, Sani, & Barrett, 1998). Considering these findings, we hypothesized that early adolescents in our sample would similarly favor positive stereotypes about Americans.

The Current Study

The primary research aims for the current study informed the concurrent mixed-methods design (Mertens, 2010), with equal priority given to the quantitative and qualitative data collected (Creswell, 2009). The central goal of the current study was to understand early adolescents’ conceptions of what it means to be American by addressing two research aims. The first aim was to examine the extent to which a sample of early adolescents from diverse racial-ethnic backgrounds, and of varying immigrant generational statuses, self-identified as American. The study’s second aim was to investigate, among early adolescents who identify as American, the meanings that they personally associate with being American, and to more generally explore the meanings associated with and stereotypic beliefs about Americans. Inclusion of the meanings associated with and stereotypes about Americans in general allowed us to ascertain conceptualizations of Americans across all participants (including those who did not spontaneously self-identify as American), and afforded the opportunity to understand whether decontextualized associations with Americans were different from or similar to the meanings that early adolescents personally attach to being American.

Method

Research Site

The study was conducted at a secular private elementary school in Los Angeles County, California. The school is tuition-based, with scholarships available on a sliding scale to students whose families demonstrate financial need (approximately 25% of the student body). This particular school was chosen as the primary research site because of its commitment to diversity. The school’s approach to celebrating diversity is essential when considering the present study findings. The school’s mission states that it strives to provide a learning environment that honors diversity across multiple domains including race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status (SES), language, and nationality. School programs are designed to create an environment where students learn to value and respect the cultural heritage of their classmates. Such school programs include a dual language (i.e., Spanish and English) track, and regular opportunities for students to share their family’s racial-ethnic heritage and cultural practices (e.g., inviting parents to share cultural or religious celebrations such as Diwali or the Persian and Chinese New Year with the classroom community). In addition to celebrating the diversity of all students’ cultural backgrounds, the school also embodies school-wide practices designed to promote an appreciation of more global connections and awareness. To illustrate, issues of social justice and diversity are integrated throughout the curriculum, including a civil rights unit taught across multiple grade levels that encourages students to write biographies about civil rights leaders from around the world. Students in the early grades participate in a self-discovery unit that involves exploration of the personal self through art based projects about the self, including skin color, as well as the social self through discussions about heritage. For example, each student’s family is invited to participate in a “Family of the Week” activity in which parents and grandparents are invited to come and discuss their families’ cultural practices and heritage. In addition, each spring the school hosts a “Together in Music and Dance” celebration wherein every class in the school performs a dance celebrating a cultural community, in the United States and from around the world.

Students at this school are of diverse racial-ethnic backgrounds (n = 450): 32% of students are European American, 23% Latin American, 10% African American, 10% Asian American, 4% Native American, 18% Multiethnic, and 3% Other. Parental education levels range from less than a high school degree to professional degrees, with a majority of parents (75%) report having a college degree or higher. The median household income for students at this school is between US$150,000 and US$199,999 annually, with family household incomes ranging from less than US$10,000 to more than US$1,000,000. While school-level median household incomes appear to be relatively high, Los Angeles County is 1 of the 10 most expensive counties in the nation (DeSenne, 2013), and these figures are comparable with median household incomes in nearby neighborhoods (range = US$74,830-US$141,527; Zip Atlas, 2014). These family background characteristics are important to bear in mind as the findings presented may be specific to a population of immigrant youth who come from well-educated and financially well-off families.

Participants

The sample for the current study included 102 students (51% female) and their parents. Signed parental consent and child verbal assent was obtained for all participants. Students were in the upper elementary school grades (4th, 5th, and 6th) and ranged in age from 10.03 to 12.61 years ( $\bar{X}$ = 11.45, SD = .70). Participant reports indicated a racially and ethnically diverse sample: Multiracial (38%), European American (25%), Latin American (17%), Asian American (8%), African American (3%), and Other (9%). Because only a few participants themselves were foreign-born (n = 3), generational status was classified based on parents’ birthplace: 51 youth had at least one parent who was foreign-born (first and second generation), 38 youth had two parents who were U.S.-born (third and fourth generation), and 13 adolescents did not have enough information to classify their generational status (Table 1).

Table 1.

Sample Participants by Race/Ethnicity and Parental Birthplace.

	Early adolescents from immigrant families^a		Early adolescents from native-born families^a
Early adolescent’s race/ethnicity	First generation	Second generation	Third generation	Fourth generation	Total (%)
Multiracial	2	16	8	9	35 (39)
White or European American	1	6	5	10	22 (25)
Latin American	0	12	1	1	14 (16)
Asian American	0	5	1	1	7 (8)
Black or African American	0	2	0	1	3 (3)
Other	0	7	0	1	8 (9)
Total (%)	3 (3)	48 (54)	15 (17)	23 (26)	N = 89

Note. Racial-ethnic backgrounds are based on participants’ responses to the open-ended interview question which asked youth to describe their racial or ethnic group.

Some early adolescents of foreign-born (3.9%) and U.S.-born (2.6%) parents could not be categorized by race or ethnicity based on participant reports (e.g., participant self-identified as Jewish, Christian, Atheist, or American only).

Procedures

The data presented here were collected as part of a larger study examining early adolescents’ social identities. Students completed (a) a survey covering topics such as self-concept and trait-stereotypic beliefs and (b) an open-ended interview regarding racial-ethnic identification, family background, and friendships. All measures were administered to participants individually in a private room at the school. Participants responded orally to all open-ended questions and completed survey items on their own. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed by members of the research team. In all instances, participants were asked social group identification questions first (i.e., How would you describe yourself in terms of your race or ethnicity?), and then open-ended questions about spontaneous associations with particular social groups (e.g., Americans). Trait-stereotypic beliefs questions were administered to participants in a latter portion of the interview protocol.

Measures

Self-identification of race, ethnicity, and nationality

Open-ended labels

The following prompt was presented to determine the extent to which early adolescents identify as American:

Now, I’d like to know a little bit more about your ethnic group. In this country people come from a lot of different places and there are many different words to describe the different backgrounds, or ethnic groups that people come from. So, when I say ethnic group or race, do you know what I mean by that?

Researchers provided detailed explanations of the terms “ethnic group or race,” and provided participants with examples to ensure that they understood the prompt. Researchers then asked: How would you describe yourself in terms of your ethnic group or race? Drawing upon previous research regarding self-identification (Kiang, 2008; Kiang et al., 2011), two independent coders documented all instances in which participants identified as American (100% agreement). We also coded the different ways in which youth self-identified as American (i.e., American and hyphenated American self-identification labels; 92% agreement). Youth with multiple racial-ethnic self-identification labels were asked: Is there one that is more important to you than others? Two researchers independently coded their responses to gauge the importance of American identity among youth (99% agreement).

What it means to be American: Subjective meanings and general conceptualizations

Meaning of labels: Focus on American label

After participants provided self-identification labels, they were asked: What does it mean to be [insert self-identification label]? The current study focused on participants whose self-identification label(s) included the term American, either using the term on its own (i.e., American) or in combination with a racial-ethnic label (e.g., hyphenated American labels such as Korean American). To highlight the meanings that youth attach to being American, we used an open-coding procedure and relied on previous research on American identity (Brown, 2011; Bush, 2005; Devos & Banaji, 2005; Rodriguez et al., 2010) to inform our coding scheme. Two researchers independently coded participant responses and identified all relevant themes after the final coding scheme was developed. We allowed coding for as many themes as were present in participants’ responses. Two independent coders agreed on 93% of the codes, and resolved the remaining disagreements by consensus.

General perceptions of Americans: Spontaneous associations and trait stereotypes

Open-ended associations

Participants were asked, “What do you think of when you hear the word/phrase “American”?” An open-coding procedure was used (Strauss & Corbin, 1998), and previous research on American identity (e.g., Rodriguez et al., 2010) was used to develop the coding scheme. Two researchers independently coded participant responses, identifying all relevant themes. Themes were not applied exclusively; we coded for as many themes as were present in participants’ responses. Two independent coders agreed on 87% of the codes and resolved the remaining disagreements by consensus.

Stereotypes about Americans

A trait-stereotypic beliefs measure, comparable with the Multiresponse Racial Attitude measure (MRA; Doyle & Aboud, 1995) and the Preschool Racial Attitude Measure (PRAM II; Williams, Best, Boswell, Mattson, & Graves, 1975), used in studies with school-age youth and adolescents, measured youths’ stereotypes about Americans. The measure included 12 counterbalanced attributes: 6 positive (smart, hardworking, clean, good, honest, polite) and 6 negative (dumb, lazy, dirty, bad, liars, rude). For each of the attributes, participants were asked to rate the statement: How many Americans are [insert attribute]? Responses were based on a Likert-type scale (1 = none to 5 = almost all). Consistent with prior studies and based on results from exploratory factor analyses using principal axis factoring with Promax rotations, two trait stereotype scores were created by averaging responses for each of the positive (α = .79) and negative attributes (α = .81), separately.

Results

Aim 1: Early Adolescents’ Self-Identification as American

A considerable number of participants (n = 51) described themselves as American. Youth in this subsample identified as American in two distinct ways: by using separated American labels (n = 29; i.e., American) and by using hyphenated American labels (n = 16; for example, Mexican American, African American, Korean American; Table 2). A few participants (n = 6) identified as American using both label types (i.e., Korean American and also American).

Table 2.

American Label Types: Early Adolescents From Immigrant Families Versus Early Adolescents From Native-Born Families.

American label type	Definition	Example response	Early adolescents from immigrant families (n = 51)	Early adolescents from native-born families (n = 38)	Total (N = 89)
Hyphenated American label	A label which combines the term American with an ethnic or panethnic label	“I’m a mixture—I’m African American and I’m Latina.”	11 (40.7%)	16^a (59.3%)	27 (50.9%)
Separated American label	A label which includes the term American used on its own to identify where one lives and/or where one was born	“[I’m] Latino, and I’m a little bit American ’cause I was born here in California.”	17 (65.4%)	9 (34.6%)	26 (49.1%)
None		Participant did not use any variant of American.	25 (49.0%)	17 (44.7%)	42 (47.2%)

Note. The above table does not include the full sample, as information regarding generational status was not available for all participants. In addition, youth who used both label types were counted in both categories (i.e., Hyphenated and Separated American label).

Chi-square analyses indicated a significant difference between early adolescents from immigrant families and early adolescents from native-born families in the type of American label (i.e., Hyphenated or Separated American label) used, χ²(1, N = 89) = 4.35, p = .04.

We assessed group-related differences in the ways in which early adolescents identified as American using chi-square analyses. Results indicated racial-ethnic differences in the frequency of using an American label. Compared with youth of European American descent, those from racial-ethnic minority backgrounds were more likely to use an American label, χ²(1, N = 102) = 4.21, p = .04. Whereas 58% of racial-ethnic minority youth self-identified as American, only 35% of European American youth did so. It is important to note that youth who self-identified using the term American on its own, and those who used a hyphenated American label were included within this category.

There were no significant differences by generational status in the frequency with which participants identified as American, χ²(1, N = 89) = 0.16, p = .69. Youth from immigrant families were just as likely as youth from native-born families to use an American label to identify their racial-ethnic heritage. There was, however, a difference in the type of American label (i.e., hyphenated or separated American label) used by early adolescents depending on their generational status: χ²(1, N = 89) = 4.35, p = .04 (Table 2). Youth from native-born families tended to use hyphenated American labels, whereas youth from immigrant families frequently used separated American labels (e.g., Latina and American).

Importance of an American and/or hyphenated American identity

Among early adolescents who identified as American (n = 51), the importance of being American did not differ by generational status, χ²(4, N = 51) = 5.02, p = .29, or race/ethnicity, χ²(2, N = 51) = 2.26, p = .32. Many participants in this subsample (47%) asserted that either their American or hyphenated American (e.g., “African American”) identity was most important. A self-identified Lebanese and American student said,

If I could I would go more with I think American because I just kind of feel a little more comfortable cuz it’s a little bit harder to be Lebanese cuz you have to learn this whole new language and you have to like get used to how it is like there and I’m more used to America.

Another similarly asserted, “I might say that I was European if um, my mom and dad were born in Europe, but I would say American because they’ve been in this country for so long.”

Another cluster of participants (39%) who identified as American expressed that no single part of their identity was most important. For some in this category (65%), all aspects of identity were equally important in describing their racial-ethnic heritage. A girl explained, “I’m both, Latina and American. Because I’m not really one . . . I’m happy to be from two places and not just one.” Others in this category (35%) stated that no aspect of their identity was more important than others. One participant asserted, “I’m a mixture- I’m African American and I’m Latina. I was born here which makes me American too. [Is there one that you identify most strongly with?] No.”

The remaining participants who self-identified as American (14%) indicated that some other aspect of their racial-ethnic and national identification was most important. When asked about her self-identification, a 12-year-old girl said, “I would call myself Hispanic . . . and American. [And which do you see yourself more as?] Hispanic.” Early adolescents who acknowledged another aspect of their racial-ethnic and national identification as most important often described cultural practices (e.g., language, religion) as critical components of their racial-ethnic group membership. While these youth identified as American, other aspects of their emerging racial-ethnic identities were clearly more important.

Aim 2: What It Means to Be American Among Early Adolescents

Our second research aim explored what it means to be American. First, we focused on the subsample of early adolescents who self-identified as American, and we examined what being American means to them. For this section, we start by presenting results for youth who used a separated American label to identify as American (n = 35), and then we present findings for youth who identified as American using a hyphenated American label (e.g., African American; n = 22). Participants (n = 6) who used both national and hyphenated American labels were included in both sets of analyses. Second, after focusing on the participants who identified as American, we turned our attention to all participants’ spontaneous associations with and stereotypes about Americans to shed light on what it means to be American among early adolescents more generally.

Meanings for youth identifying as American (n = 35)

Youth who used a separated American label most often associated being American with (a) country of birth or residence, (b) belonging/pride in American goodness, (c) personality traits related to American ideals, and (d) cultural behaviors (Table 3). Some were unable to articulate what it means to be American (i.e., “I don’t know”; 14%).

Table 3.

What It Means to Be American Among Early Adolescents.

Meaning	Definition	Example response	Total (n = 29)
Country of birth or residence	To be from a country	“I live in the United States and I was born here.”	21 (72.4%)
Belonging/pride in American goodness	Proud to be from America, or to feel a sense of belonging among Americans	“In the United States . . . we’re a good group of states and . . . I feel good to be an American.”	8 (27.6%)
Personality traits related to American ideals	To exhibit particular traits; often stereotypes linked to American ideals	“I like being like a free person.”	5 (17.2%)
Cultural behaviors	Engaging in cultural behaviors of the United States including speaking English, eating American foods, and possessions	“I like American music I guess. Um. I have an American accent I guess . . . I do American sports. And I like play American things.”	4 (13.8%)

Note. Because codes were not exclusively applied, percentages do not add to 100%.

Country of birth or residence

Participants in this category overwhelmingly identified themselves as American because they were born and/or live in the United States (e.g., “I live in the United States and I was born here”; 72%). Chi-square analyses revealed that attributing one’s identification as American to country of birth or residence did not significantly differ according to generational status, χ²(1, N = 31) = 0.04, p = .84, or race/ethnicity, χ²(1, N = 34) = 0.99, p = .32.

Belonging/pride in American goodness

Several participants who identified as American indicated that being American triggered a sense of pride or belonging (28%). Youth in this category declared that they were proud to be American, or felt a sense of belonging among Americans (e.g., “ . . . to be part of a country”). One participant who only identified herself as American explained, “ . . . we’re a good group of states and . . . I feel good to be an American.” Assessing group differences, children of U.S.- and foreign-born parents were equally likely to discuss American pride, χ²(1, N = 31) = 1.78, p = .18. In contrast, racial-ethnic minority youth were slightly more likely than their European American peers to associate being American with a sense of pride and belonging, χ²(1, N = 34) = 3.22, p = .07. While 44% of racial-ethnic minority youth who identified as American expressed a sense of American pride, no European American youth who identified as American conveyed feelings of pride related to their American identity.

Personality traits related to American ideals

For some early adolescents, being American was tied to specific traits (e.g., “everyone’s nice here,” “strong and fair”; 17%). These traits were often linked to what researchers have termed “American ideology” (Rodriguez et al., 2010). For example, participants mentioned, “I like being like a free person,” and being American meant, “ . . . to be free.” Responses related to specific traits and American ideology were similarly mentioned regardless of participant generational status, χ²(1, N = 31) = 0.05, p = .82, and race/ethnicity χ²(1, N = 34) = 1.80, p = .18.

Cultural behaviors

A few participants referenced cultural behaviors when communicating their ideas about what it means to be American (e.g., “speaking English” and “eating American foods”; 14%). A 10-year-old boy shared that being American involved “[doing] American things.” He said, “ . . . I like American music . . . I have an American accent . . . I do American sports. And I like play American things . . . I just do some American things . . . like soccer.” Of those who related specific cultural behaviors to being American, all but one participant specifically mentioned speaking English as an important aspect of being American. Chi-square analyses demonstrated that links between being American and specific cultural behaviors did not systematically differ as a function of generational status, χ²(1, N = 31) = 1.83, p = .18, or race/ethnicity, χ²(1, N = 34) = 1.40, p = .18.

Meanings for youth identifying as American using a hyphen (n = 22)

Of the participants who used a hyphenated American label, two were not able to communicate the meanings that they attached to their respective labels (e.g., “I don’t know”). All others associated their hyphenated American identities with (a) family heritage, (b) pride/belonging, and (c) country of birth or residence.

Family heritage

Most early adolescents communicated that their hyphenated American identity was tied to family heritage (81%), regardless of immigrant, χ²(1, N = 19) = 0.05, p = .83, or racial-ethnic background, χ²(1, N = 22) = 0.73, p = .39. While these youth associated their hyphenated American identities with concepts such as country of birth or residence, their hyphenated American identity was largely connected to family heritage, and the birthplace of family members (i.e., parents and/or grandparents’ birthplace(s)). When asked to describe what it means to be African American, a girl stated, “Nothing really, that’s just the culture my father is from.” Another participant similarly articulated, “I’m like Mexican American because my parents were born here but my grandma was born from Chilala, Mexico and my other grandma was also born in Mexico and my grandpa’s also Spaniard.”

Belonging/pride

A number of participants expressed a sense of pride, or belonging among peers who share their hyphenated American identity (56%). Youth responded with phrases such as, “I’m kind of proud of being Mexican American,” or “I’m proud of it, because it’s like I’m also a Native American princess, because my grandpa is a chief, so I’m proud of it. I like to learn about my heritage because it’s like interesting.” Although these racial-ethnic identification labels incorporate the term American (i.e., hyphenated American labels), the youth captured in this category expressed pride with regard to their specific racial-ethnic backgrounds. This sense of pride or belonging was not necessarily tied to their identification with the nation as a whole (i.e., all Americans in the United States). Pride in one’s hyphenated American identity did not systematically vary as a function of one’s generational status, χ²(1, N = 19) = 0.01, p = .91, or racial-ethnic background, χ²(1, N = 22) = 0.60, p = .44.

Country of birth or residence

Another common meaning attached to hyphenated American identities, irrespective of immigrant status, χ²(1, N = 19) = 1.38, p = .24, or race/ethnicity, χ²(1, N = 22) = 1.83, p = .18, was country of birth or residence (50%). Youth under this category communicated ideas such as, “I just consider myself partially American because I was born here,” or “Like, my parents are from Korea, but I was born here, so it just makes me feel like I’m part of two groups.” These youth frequently associated their hyphenated American identities with being born or living in the United States.

Early adolescents’ general perceptions of Americans

Associations with Americans in general

To further understand ideas about what it means to be American among all early adolescents in our sample, we assessed their spontaneous associations with and stereotypes about Americans (i.e., What do you think of when you hear the word/phrase “American”?). Although a few participants could not articulate their spontaneous associations with the word American (4%), a majority of the responses converged around several common ideas. Youth most often associated Americans with (a) symbols/emblems, (b) country of birth or residence, (c) race/ethnicity, (d) personality traits related to American ideals, (e) cultural behaviors, and (f) belonging/pride in American goodness (Table 4).

Table 4.

Spontaneous Associations With Americans in General.

Meaning	Definition	Example response	Total (n = 102)
Symbol/emblems	Evoking symbols, emblems, places, and historical events	“President. American Revolution. I can go on, and on, and on . . . Civil War. Valley Forge. Constitution. Declaration of Independence. Um, Liberty Bell. And Independence Hall in Philadelphia.”	49 (48%)
Country of birth or residence	To be from a country	“To be from America and live in America.”	34 (33.3%)
Race/ethnicity	To be of a certain race or ethnicity	“I think of White people probably. I think that’s it.”	22 (21.6%)
Personality traits related to American ideals	To exhibit particular trait characteristics; often related to American ideology	“ . . . like some of them are bad people- they steal things and stuff but also a lot of Americans are really good people so it kind of varies.”	21 (20.6%)
Cultural behaviors	Enjoying in cultural behaviors of the United States including speaking English, eating American foods, and possessions	“ . . . eating hamburgers . . . English.”	14 (13.7%)
Diversity	Americans come from many different racial and cultural backgrounds	“I just think of everybody from different backgrounds. I think of Japanese, Mexican, African American. It’s not all like Caucasian and stuff. It’s mixed around.”	9 (8.82%)
Belonging/pride in American goodness	Proud to be from America, or to feel a sense of belonging among Americans	“You get to make a lot of friends and well I’m proud to be an American because we have a good country here. It’s strong and it’s fair.”	4 (3.9%)

Note. Because codes were not exclusively applied, percentages do not add to 100%.

Symbols and emblems

Many of the study participants (48%) spontaneously associated the word American with specific symbols, emblems, places, and historical events, regardless of generational status, χ²(1, N = 87) = 0.18, p = .67, or racial-ethnic background, χ²(1, N = 100) = 0.34, p = .56. For example, a boy who identified as White and Jewish with family from Russia and Poland responded, “President. American Revolution. I can go on, and on . . . Civil War. Valley Forge. Constitution. Declaration of Independence. Liberty Bell. And Independence Hall in Philadelphia.” A number of participants also mentioned that hearing the word American, led them to think of the American flag.

Country of birth or residence

Another common theme was country of birth or residence (33%). This theme captured all responses that described Americans as people who are born and/or live in the United States. A girl of Mexican and Columbian heritage said, “[Americans are] people who were born in America or have lived most of their lives in America.” Similarly, a boy who identified as Spanish Armenian, European, and American stated, “People who live in the United States are Americans. American citizens and people [who] live in the United States.” Country of birth or residence was similarly discussed among youth in our sample irrespective of race and ethnicity, χ²(1, N = 100) = 0.83, p = .36, and immigrant status, χ²(1, N = 87) = 2.08, p = .15.

Race/ethnicity and diversity

The third most common theme was race/ethnicity (22%). Youth who expressed the belief that Americans are of a particular race or ethnicity were assigned this code. A multiracial girl, who identified as, “really mixed, Swedish, Polish, Cuban, Costa Rican and German,” explained, “I think of White people probably. I think that’s it.” For a few youth (3%), hearing the word American spurred thoughts about Native Americans, “Well, actually that kind of makes me think of Native Americans compared to present Americans like us.” Other participants (9%) expressed the idea that Americans are people from many different racial, ethnic and cultural backgrounds. A Mexican American child illustrated this belief about Americans, “I just think of everybody from different backgrounds. I think of Japanese, Mexican, African American. It’s not all like Caucasian and stuff. It’s mixed around.” This theme was not significantly related to immigrant/generational status, χ²(1, N = 87) = 0.00, p = .99. However, associations between Americans and race/ethnicity were marginally related to participants’ racial-ethnic backgrounds, χ²(1, N = 100) = 3.44, p = .06. Whereas some racial-ethnic minority youth in our sample (26%) explained that hearing the word “American” elicited thoughts of particular racial-ethnic groups, very few European American youth (8%) communicated these ideas.

Personality traits related to American ideals

A number of participants also described Americans as exhibiting particular traits or characteristics (21%). Among these youth, most described positive traits (e.g., “proud . . . freedom”; n = 8), often similar to what previous researchers have termed “American ideology” (Rodriguez et al., 2010). Some early adolescents described negative traits (e.g., “lazy . . . aren’t really focusing on some of the bigger problems we have,” “think about material things”; n = 5). Others identified Americans as exhibiting both positive and negative traits (n = 5). A child who identified as Muslim, half Lebanese, and half American articulated, “ . . . like some of them are bad people—they steal things and stuff. But also a lot of Americans are really good people, so it kind of varies.” Though youth did not commonly describe specific traits, those who were assigned this code expressed that Americans exhibit either positive or negative traits or both. Few early adolescents described neutral trait stereotypes (e.g., “Average or normal”; n = 3). This theme was not significantly related to generational status, χ²(1, N = 87) = 2.87, p = .09, or race/ethnicity, χ²(1, N = 100) = 0.31, p = .58.

Cultural behaviors

Some participants communicated that being American means engaging in the cultural behaviors of the United States (e.g., “speaking English” and “eating American foods”; 14%). A youth who identified as Latina and American with parents from the United States. and Mexico said that hearing the word “American” elicited thoughts about: “[being] White, social, eating hamburgers, um . . . English.” Similar to other associations with Americans in general, mentioning cultural behaviors was not significantly related to one’s nativity status, χ²(1, N = 87) = 0.37, p = .54, or racial-ethnic heritage, χ²(1, N = 100) = 0.84, p = .36.

Belonging/pride in American goodness

A few youth indicated that the word “American,” elicited a sense of pride and belonging (4%). For example, a boy who identified as half American and half Mexican, explained: “You get to make a lot of friends and well I’m proud to be an American because we have a good country here. It’s strong and it’s fair.” Feelings of pride were not related to participants’ generational status, χ²(1, N = 87) = 0.06, p = .80, or race/ethnicity, χ²(1, N = 100) = 0, p = .96.

Stereotypes about Americans

For our last analysis, we explored the extent to which early adolescents endorsed positive and negative stereotypes about Americans. We conducted a repeated-measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with one within-subject factor: the valence of the attribute (positive and negative) and two covariates (participants’ gender and parent education level), to control for factors other than race/ethnicity or generational status that may be associated with systematic differences in youths’ American stereotypes. Overall, participants associated more positive than negative traits with Americans, t (98) = 10.70, p < .001. On average, youth indicated that some to most ( $\bar{X}$ = 3.61, SD = 0.50, range = 2.33-5.00) Americans exhibit positive attributes (i.e., smart, hardworking, clean, good, honest, polite), while few to some ( $\bar{X}$ = 2.67, SD = 0.55, range = 1.50-4.17) Americans embody negative attributes (i.e., dumb, lazy, dirty, bad, liars, rude).

To examine whether early adolescents’ stereotypes of Americans vary as a function of generational status and race or ethnicity, we conducted two separate mixed-factorial ANCOVAs. The model investigating differences by generational status included one within-subject factor: the valence of the attribute (positive and negative), one between-subject factor with two levels: youth from immigrant families (i.e., at least one foreign-born parent) and youth from native-born families (i.e., both parents were born in the United States), and two covariates: participant’s gender and parent’s education level. The model testing differences by racial-ethnic background included one within-subject factor: the valence of the attribute (positive and negative), one between-subject factor with two levels: youth from racial-ethnic minority groups (i.e., Latino, Asian American, African American, other) and racial-ethnic majority groups (i.e., European American), and two covariates: participant’s gender and parent’s education level. Youths’ endorsement of positive and negative stereotypes about Americans did not differ as a function of racial-ethnic background, F(1, 99) = 1.079, p = .30, or generational status, F(1, 87) = .926, p = .34.

Discussion

The aim of this mixed-methods study was to examine early adolescents’ racial-ethnic and national American identification and emerging notions about what it means to be American. Our results replicated and extended findings from previous studies on American identity which have included samples of European American children (Brown, 2011), adolescents in high school (Phinney & Devich-Navarro, 1997), and young adults in college (Rodriguez et al., 2010; Schwartz et al., 2012). We also observed important differences based on participants’ generational status and racial-ethnic background. These findings provide new insights on the emerging racial-ethnic and national American identities of early adolescents from diverse racial-ethnic and immigrant backgrounds.

Early Adolescents’ Self-Identification as American

Consistent with prior studies, the current study suggests that early adolescents from racially and ethnically diverse backgrounds are thinking about the multiple social groups to which they belong, particularly with regard to nationality and race/ethnicity. These results have important implications for bicultural identity development (i.e., cohesive national and racial-ethnic identities), and may in turn have implications for well-being among youth, as biculturalism is often linked to positive health and academic outcomes (e.g., Marks et al., 2013). Many of the youth in our sample spontaneously self-identified as American while simultaneously invoking their racial-ethnic heritage, suggesting that early adolescence is an ideal developmental period to systematically examine the emergence of bicultural identities.

Differing patterns of American self-identification

Our results also revealed important differences in the self-identification patterns of youth based on sociodemographic characteristics. In our sample, early adolescents from immigrant families were more likely to use separated American labels, whereas youth from native-born families were more likely to use hyphenated American labels. These results are somewhat consistent with previous research demonstrating that immigrant youth and adults frequently use ethnic heritage (e.g., Chinese, Mexican) or panethnic (e.g., Asian, Latino) labels, whereas U.S.-born adolescents more often self-identify using hyphenated American labels (e.g., Asian American, Mexican American; Kiang et al., 2011). Our study provides a unique contribution to the literature by establishing that youth from immigrant families do identify as American in addition to identifying with other aspects of their racial-ethnic heritage. However, unlike U.S.-born adolescents who tended to identify as American using hyphenated American labels, youth of foreign-born parents seemed to distinguish being American from other aspects of their racial-ethnic identification. Extending the work of Kiang and her colleagues (2011), our findings suggest that invoking hyphenated American labels (i.e., combining racial-ethnic and national American identification labels) may be indicative of bicultural identification (Berry, 2003) among later generation youth in our sample (i.e., third and fourth generation). On the other hand, the distinct use of the term American among youth from immigrant families (i.e., separating national identification from racial-ethnic labels) may be an artifact of the immigrant experience making one’s country of origin a more salient aspect of youths’ identities (Kiang et al., 2011; Phinney, 2003). It is worth noting, however, that the youth from immigrant families in our sample consisted primarily of immigrants from higher-SES backgrounds who attend a secular private school. Thus, results may not be generalizable to all immigrants.

In addition to differences by generational status, we found that youth from ethnic-minority backgrounds were more likely than their European American peers to identify as American, and to associate their American identities with a sense of American pride and belonging. Though European American youth in our sample were less likely to spontaneously identify as American using either the term American on its own or in combination with a racial-ethnic label (i.e., hyphenated American label), this may be because they tended to self-identify as White. Drawing on previous research demonstrating that racial-ethnic identity is less salient among White adolescents (Charmaraman & Grossman, 2008; French, Seidman, Allen, & Aber, 2000), European American youth may identify as White instead of identifying with a particular ethnic group and/or being American, because they see themselves as the norm. This is plausible given that European American participants in our study were less likely than other youth to associate being American with race/ethnicity (e.g., being White, Native American). Alternatively, it may be that early adolescents from ethnic minority backgrounds differentiate between what they think about Americans in general and what it means to personally identify as American. In other words, their spontaneous associations with Americans reflect their stereotypic beliefs about prototypical Americans (e.g., symbols/emblems, race/ethnicity), whereas the personal meanings that they attach to being American are related to being born in or living in the U.S., and a sense of American pride. This result is similar to past research which revealed that general beliefs about Americans were related to physical or racial characteristics (e.g., White, blonde hair, blue eyes) and symbols (e.g., McDonald’s, baseball, etc.), whereas personal beliefs about being American were attributed to being born in the United States among White, Black, and Latino emerging adults (Rodriguez et al., 2010). Our observation of these differences in early adolescents’ conceptualizations of what it means to be American, as a function of both generational status and racial-ethnic heritage, are significant contributions to the study of American identity. Perhaps being in a context which explicitly taught youth to value their own cultural heritage, as well as the cultural heritage of others, provided improved opportunities for youth from diverse racial-ethnic and immigrant backgrounds to develop a positive sense of self in terms of both their racial-ethnic and national identities. Amid the changing demographics in the United States, it is important for researchers to understand how youth make sense of what it means to be both American and members of their respective racial-ethnic group(s) as this may help us understand how to better support the development of positive social identities among early adolescents.

What It Means to Be American Among Early Adolescents

Overall, results from the present study point to early adolescence as an important developmental period during which individuals are beginning to express complex understandings about what it means to be American. In line with previous research on the meanings attached to ethnic and racial identities throughout development (Brown & Bigler, 2005; Gillen-O’Neel et al., 2015; Quintana, 2008; Rogers et al., 2012; Syed & Azmitia, 2008; Umaña-Taylor et al., 2014), the meanings attached to being American spanned both concrete (e.g., speaking English, being born in the United States), and abstract meanings (e.g., pride, personality traits/American ideology). Comparing their beliefs about Americans in general and the personal meanings that they attached to being American, there are some similarities and differences. Country of birth or residence in the United States, pride, American ideology, and cultural behaviors were similarly mentioned in terms of youths’ general associations with Americans, and the personal meanings that they attached to their identification as American. However, country of birth or residence in the United States and a sense of American pride were mentioned more often when they talked about the personal meanings that they attached to being American. This finding is consistent with research among emerging adults in college who indicated that being born and/or raised in the United States was an essential part of being American (Rodriguez et al., 2010). As expected, youth in this study also overwhelmingly endorsed positive stereotypes about Americans. This replicated findings from previous research that demonstrated that young adults tend to have favorable perceptions of Americans (e.g., Devos & Banaji, 2005) often as a result of long-term exposure to positive stereotypes about their national in-group (Bennett et al., 1998).

Study Limitations, Strengths, Implications, and Future Directions

As with all research, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of the current study. While this study was conducted in a diverse school setting with students from a broad range of racial, ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds, the findings are based on early adolescents living in a southern California metropolis who are overwhelmingly second-generation immigrants or later. Thus, our results regarding youth from immigrant families may not hold true for youth who are foreign-born. First-generation youth who have spent less time in the United States, and have more direct experience living and being socialized in a country other than the United States, may not have identified as American in the same ways as our current study participants did.

In addition to the youths’ generational status, a majority of the participants in our study are from middle to upper-middle class families (i.e., high levels of parental education and household incomes), potentially limiting the generalizability of the study findings. While less research has investigated social class differences in youths’ identification as American, some have found that middle and upper-middle class African American and Mexican American high school students adopt bicultural identification patterns which acknowledge aspects of both racial-ethnic heritage and national American identities (Phinney & Devich-Navarro, 1997). More recent work has also revealed that social status is related to the identification patterns of multiracial adults—those from working class backgrounds were more likely to adopt a singular ethnic minority self-identification label, whereas those from middle class backgrounds were more likely to identify as biracial (Townsend, Fryberg, Wilkins, & Markus, 2012). A study among multiracial early adolescents yielded similar results with more than one third of participants identifying with all aspects of their racial-ethnic heritage (Gillen-O’Neel et al., 2015). Given the multiracial backgrounds of many of the youth in our sample, perhaps they were embracing similar patterns of identification that were inclusive of all parts of their racial-ethnic and national American identification.

Despite limitations in the potential generalizability of our results, this study has several strengths that help to advance understanding of early adolescents’ emerging social identities. First, our sample of youth represent a broad range of sociodemographic characteristics who attended a sociodemographically diverse school that actively promoted racial, ethnic, and cultural diversity. Because the student diversity at this school mirrors the increasingly diverse population of school-age youth in California, this is a particularly interesting context to explore self-identification and what it means to be American among early adolescents. Though similar to that of older adolescents and emerging adults, the meanings that early adolescents attach to their emerging American identities were beginning to reflect the idea that Americans can come from a range of different racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds. That these ideas about diversity are already surfacing among such a young sample has implications for the importance of school settings, which provide explicit support for students from all walks of life.

The school’s socialization practices around acceptance and celebrating ethnic diversity (e.g., explicit discussions about family heritage and cultural practices) likely influenced participants’ responses, and may have prompted youth to feel positively about identifying with multiple parts of their identity (e.g., racial-ethnic and American identities). A previous study among Mexican-heritage children showed evidence of positive ethnic identities among immigrant youth in schools and classrooms that valued their diverse backgrounds and allowed them opportunities to discuss their cultural heritages (Brown & Chu, 2012). Further research is warranted to understand how meaningful and relevant these various cultural activities are to children in the school and how effective the school is in their efforts to incorporate culturally responsive pedagogy. Some researchers suggest that approaches to multicultural education (Banks, 1993) and culturally relevant pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1995) can inadvertently encourage only surface-level understandings of cultural differences and may potentially promote positive stereotypes about Americans. It is important that future research systematically explores the role of schools and classrooms in the racial-ethnic and national identity development of youth to more fully understand the development of an American identity (Marks et al., 2013).

A second strength of the study was the use of a mixed-methods design. While quantitative measures showed that youth were overwhelmingly positive toward Americans, qualitative measures revealed that these youth were more neutral in their candid responses and personal attachments to being American. Using qualitative methods allowed youth to spontaneously describe their race and ethnicity in their own words, without imposing particular self-identification labels or meanings typically associated with racial-ethnic and national identities. We found that being American is an important aspect of early adolescents’ developing social identities. Even though they were not prompted to discuss their nationality or birthplace, this was an important aspect of their racial-ethnic identification, particularly among those from ethnic minority backgrounds.

Results from this study also suggest a number of directions for future research. First, because our sample of immigrant youth were primarily second-generation immigrants, a critical next step is to investigate whether our findings about early adolescents’ patterns of American identification hold true for first-generation immigrants, and how this changes with the length of time in the United States and across successive generations. Second, given that a number of youth described Americans as being of racially and ethnically diverse backgrounds, future research should extend the findings from existing research (e.g., Devos & Banaji, 2005) to explore whether youth from diverse backgrounds more readily associate being American with particular racial-ethnic groups (e.g., White, or European American). To further understand early adolescents’ stereotypes about Americans, future research should also investigate whether stereotypes differ depending on the particular group of Americans they are asked to rate. For example, youths’ stereotypic beliefs about Americans may differ from their beliefs about Asian Americans, African Americans, Mexican Americans or other racial-ethnic groups in the United States. Finally, although the present study provides insight into emerging American identities during early adolescence, longitudinal research is needed to systematically investigate how these complex social identities develop over time, as well as what predicts American identity development and how it relates to other aspects of well-being for youth across a variety of domains (e.g., academic and psychosocial outcomes). Future research which examines early predictors of and outcomes associated with American identity may inform our understandings about this complex process, and may have implications for how we can best support positive identity development among youth learning to navigate a social world in which they hold multiple social identities.

Conclusion

The findings from the current mixed-methods study suggest that early adolescents from diverse racial-ethnic and immigrant backgrounds have budding ideas of what it means to be American and an emerging sense of their own American identity. This is a significant contribution to the literature on American identity which has previously focused on perceptions about what it means to be American among adults, older adolescents, and European American children only (Brown, 2011; Phinney & Devich-Navarro, 1997; Rodriguez et al., 2010; Schwartz et al., 2012). In line with previous research, the youth in this study stated that being American invoked notions of nativity status, cultural behaviors (e.g., speaking English), and a sense of American pride. However, youth also demonstrated differences in how they self-identified as American—some opted for a separated American label over and above their racial-ethnic label while others favored use of a hyphenated American label which incorporated both their racial-ethnic and American self-identification labels. That these results differed as a function of generational status suggests that, in comparison with those from native families, forming an American identity may be a distinct process for youth from immigrant families. Moreover, our finding that racial-ethnic minority youth were significantly more likely than their European American peers to self-identify as American serves as an important reminder that the definition of what it means to be American and who gets included in this group is a multifaceted and constantly evolving concept. In efforts to reduce prejudice targeted at immigrants in the United States, broadening our definitions of what it means to be American to be more inclusive of those from varying demographic backgrounds is especially important (APA, 2002).

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.

Author Biographies

Victoria C. Rodriguez, MA, is a doctoral student in education (Human Development & Psychology Division) at the University of California, Los Angeles. Her research interests center on youths’ social identity development, specifically as it relates to race, ethnicity, nationality, and social class. She is also interested in understanding the relationship between youths’ social identity and educational outcomes, particularly among ethnic minority youth.

Cari Gillen-O’Neel, PhD, is assistant professor of psychology at Macalester College. Her research focuses on how children develop their social identities and how they come to understand the stereotypes or stigmas that may be associated with these identities. She is also interested in the role that social identities play in academic achievement and the factors that contribute to the academic success of children from academically stigmatized groups.

Rashmita S. Mistry, PhD, is associate professor of education (Human Development & Psychology Division) at the University of California, Los Angeles. Her researches focuses on understanding the consequences of family socioeconomic resources and disadvantage (i.e., poverty) on children’s development, children’s reasoning about socioeconomic stratification, and assessing the implications of school-level socioeconomic diversity on teaching, learning, and children’s social development.

Christia Spears Brown, PhD, is an associate professor of psychology at the University of Kentucky in the Children at Risk Research Cluster. Her research examines how children’s perceptions of discrimination and social identities influence their academic outcomes and social development. Her work also examines children’s stereotype development and their perceptions of social inequality and immigration.

Kirby A. Chow, PhD, is a Society for Research in Child Development/American Association for the Advancement of Science (SRCD/AAAS) Policy fellow. She received her doctorate in Education (Human Development & Psychology Division) at the University of California, Los Angeles. Her research interests are in the areas of family homelessness and children’s educational outcomes, youth homelessness, children’s reasoning about socioeconomic stratification, and human services policy.

Elizabeth S. White, PhD, is an assistant professor of child development in the College of Education, School of Teaching and Learning, at Illinois State University. Her research interests include children’s civic engagement and sense of social responsibility, teacher practices in diverse classroom contexts, and children’s understanding and experience of poverty and inequality.

References

Aboud

F. E.

Ruble

D. N.

(1987). Identity constancy in children: Developmental processes and implications. In Honess

Yardley

(Eds.), Self and identity: Perspectives across the lifespan (pp. 95-107). New York, NY: Routledge.

American Psychological Association. (2002). Developing adolescents: A reference for professionals. Washington, DC. Retrieved from www.apa.org/pi/cyf/develop.pdf

American Psychological Association, Presidential Task Force on Immigration. (2012). Crossroads: The psychology of immigration in the new century. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/topics/immigration/report.aspx

Banks

J. A.

(1993). The canon debate, knowledge construction, and multicultural education. Educational Researcher, 22(5), 4-14.

Barrett

Lyons

del Valle

(2004). The development of national identity and social identity processes: Do social identity theory and self-categorisation theory provide useful heuristic frameworks for developmental research? In Bennett

Sani

(Eds.), The development of the social self (pp. 29-76). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Bennett

Lyons

Sani

Barrett

(1998). Children’s subjective identification with the group and in-group favoritism. Developmental Psychology, 34, 902-909.

Berry

J. W.

(2003). Conceptual approaches to acculturation. In Chun

K. M.

Organista

P. B.

Marin

(Eds.), Acculturation: Advances in theory, measurement, and applied research (pp. 17-37). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Brown

C. S.

(2011). American elementary school children’s attitudes about immigrants, immigration, and being an American. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32, 109-117. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2011.01.001

Brown

C. S.

Bigler

R. S.

(2005). Children’s perceptions of discrimination: A developmental model. Child Development, 76, 533-553. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00862.x

10.

Brown

C. S.

Chu

(2012). Discrimination, ethnic identity, and academic outcomes of Mexican immigrant children: The importance of school context. Child Development, 83, 1477-1485.

11.

Bush

(2005). Breaking the code of good intention: Everyday forms of Whiteness. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.

12.

Charmaraman

Grossman

J. M.

(2008, April). Relationship between racial/ethnic composition of school and centrality of race/ethnicity to adolescent identity. Poster presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.

13.

Cheryan

Monin

(2005). “Where are you really from?” Asian Americans and identity denial. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 717-730.

14.

Cokley

K. O.

(2005). Racial(ized) identity, ethnic identity, and Afrocentric values: Conceptual and methodological challenges in understanding African American identity. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 517-526. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.4.517

15.

Creswell

J. W.

(2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

16.

Cuéllar

Arnold

Maldonado

(1995). Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans-II: A revision of the original ARSMA scale. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 17(3), 275-304.

17.

Devos

Banaji

M. R.

(2005). American = White? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 447-466.

18.

DeSenne

(2013). Most expensive U.S. cities to live in. Retrieved from http://www.kiplinger.com/slideshow/real-estate/T006-S001-most-expensive-u-s-cities-tolive-in/

19.

Doyle

A. B.

Aboud

F. E.

(1995). A longitudinal study of White children’s racial prejudice as a social cognitive development. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 41, 209-228.

20.

Erikson

E. H.

(1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.

21.

French

S. E.

Seidman

Allen

Aber

J. L.

(2000). Racial/ethnic identity, congruence with the social context, and the transition to high school. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15, 587-602. doi:10.1177/0743558400155004

22.

Gillen-O’Neel

Mistry

R. S.

Brown

C. S.

Rodriguez

V. C.

White

Chow

K. A.

(2015). Not excluded from analyses: Ethnic and racial meanings and identification among multiethnic/racial early adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 30(2), 1-37. doi:10.1177/0743558414560626

23.

Huang

C. Y.

Stormshak

E. A.

(2011). A longitudinal examination of early adolescence ethnic identity trajectories. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17, 261-270.

24.

Kiang

(2008). Ethnic self-labeling in young adults from Chinese American backgrounds. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 97-111.

25.

Kiang

Perreira

K. M.

Fuligni

A. J.

(2011). Ethnic label use in adolescents from traditional and non-traditional immigrant receiving sites. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 719-729.

26.

Ladson-Billings

(1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 159-165.

27.

Marcia

J. E.

(1994). Identity and psychotherapy. In Archer

(Ed.), Interventions for adolescent identity (pp. 29-46). Chicago: Sage.

28.

Marks

A. K.

Godoy

Garcia Coll

(2013). An ecological approach to understanding immigrant child and adolescent developmental competencies. In Gershoff

E. T.

Mistry

R. S.

Crosby

D. A.

(Eds.), Societal contexts of child development: Pathways of influence and implications for practice and policy (pp. 75-89). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

29.

Mertens

(2010). Research and evaluation in education and psychology (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

30.

Pahl

Way

(2006). Longitudinal trajectories of ethnic identity among urban Black and Latino adolescents. Child Development, 77, 1403-1415. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00943.x

31.

Park-Taylor

Ventura

A. B.

Kang

A. E.

Morris

C. R.

Gilbert

. . . Androsiglio

R. A.

(2008). What it means to be and feel like a “true” American: Perceptions and experiences of second-generation Americans. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 14, 128-137. doi:10.1037/1099-9809.14.2.128

32.

Passel

J. S.

(2011). Demography of immigrant youth: Past, present, and future. Future Child, 21(1), 19-41.

33.

Phinney

J. S.

(1992). The multigroup ethnic identity measure: A new scale for use with diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7, 156-176. doi:10.1177/07435589272003

34.

Phinney

J. S.

(2003). Ethnic identity and acculturation. In Chun

K. M.

Organista

P. B.

Marin

(Eds.), Acculturation: Advances in theory, measurement, and applied research (pp. 63-81). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

35.

Phinney

J. S.

Devich-Navarro

(1997). Variations in bicultural identification among African American and Mexican American adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 7, 3-32.

36.

Phinney

J. S.

Horenczyk

Liebkind

Vedder

(2001). Ethnic identity, immigration, and well-being: An interactional perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 493-510.

37.

Portes

Schauffler

(1994). Language and the second generation: Bilingualism yesterday and today. International Migration Review, 28, 640-661.

38.

Quintana

S. M.

(1994). A model of ethnic perspective-taking ability applied to Mexican American children and youth. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18, 419-448. doi:10.1016/0147-1767(94)90016-7

39.

Quintana

S. M.

(2008). Racial perspective taking ability: Developmental, theoretical, and empirical trends. In Quintana

S. M.

McKown

(Eds.), Handbook of race, racism, and the developing child (pp. 16-36). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

40.

Rodriguez

Schwartz

S. J.

Whitbourne

S. K.

(2010). American identity revisited: The relation between national, ethnic and personal identity in a multiethnic sample of emerging adults. Journal of Adolescent Research, 25, 324-349. doi:10.1177/0743558409359055

41.

Rogers

L. O.

Zosuls

K. M.

Halim

M. L.

Ruble

Hughes

Fuligni

(2012). Meaning making in middle childhood: An Exploration of the meaning of ethnic identity. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 18, 99-108.

42.

Ruble

D. N.

Alvarez

Bachman

Cameron

Fuligni

García Coll

C. T.

Rhee

(2004). The development of a sense of “we”: The emergence and implications of children’s collective identity. In Bennett

Sani

(Eds.), The development of the social self (pp. 29-76). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

43.

Schwartz

S. J.

Park

I. J. K.

Huynh

Q. L.

Zamboanga

B. L.

Umaña-Taylor

A. J.

Lee

R. M.

. . . Agocha

V. B.

(2012). The American identity measure: Development and validation across ethnic group and immigrant generation. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 12, 93-128.

44.

Schwartz

S. J.

Zamboanga

B. L.

Rodriguez

Wang

S. C.

(2007). The structure of cultural identity in an ethnically diverse sample of emerging adults. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29, 159-173.

45.

Stapleton

A. C.

(2013, September 17). Miss America crowns 1st winner of Indian descent. CNN. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/showbiz/miss-america-racist-reactions/

46.

Strauss

Corbin

(1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

47.

Syed

Azmitia

(2008). A narrative approach to ethnic identity in emerging adulthood: Bringing life to the identity status model. Developmental Psychology, 44(4), 1012-27. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.44.4.1012

48.

Tajfel

Turner

(2004). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Sidanius

Jost

(Eds.), Political psychology: Key readings (pp. 276-293). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

49.

Terracciano

Abdel-Khalek

A. M.

Ádám

Adamovová

Ahn

C. K.

Ahn

H. N.

. . .McCrae

R. R.

(2005). National character does not reflect mean personality trait levels in 49 cultures. Science, 310, 96-100.

50.

Townsend

S. S. M.

Fryberg

S. A.

Wilkins

C. L.

Markus

H. R.

(2012). Being mixed: Who claims a biracial identity? Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 18, 91-96.

51.

Umaña-Taylor

A. J.

Quintana

S. M.

Lee

R. M.

Cross

W. E.

Jr. Rivas-Drake

Schwartz

S. J.

. . . Seaton

E. K.

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

52.

Vargas

J. A.

(2012, June 14). Undocumented Americans: Inside the immigration debate. Time. Available from http://www.defineamerican.com

53.

Williams

J. E.

Best

D. L.

Boswell

D. A.

Mattson

L. A.

Graves

D. J.

(1975). Preschool Racial Attitude Measure II. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 35, 3-18. doi:10.1177/001316447503500101

54.

Zip Atlas. (2014). Zip code atlas, area code, city & state profiles. Retrieved from http://zipatlas.com/