Ethnic Identity,Self-Efficacy,and Intercultural Attitudes in East African and U.S. Youth

Abstract

Positive intercultural attitudes and civic action are increasingly important for youth around the world given the economic, social justice, and environmental challenges they face. Among U.S. youth and emerging adults, ethnic identity and self-efficacy are related to positive intercultural attitudes and may prompt civic engagement. Youth’s efficacy and civic involvement are critically important in sub-Saharan Africa, where rates of civil conflict are among the highest in the world. However, little research has been conducted with East African youth. In this paper, we discuss contextual challenges facing East African youth and the potential role of ethnic identity and self-efficacy in promoting peaceful and sustainable societies. We report qualitative results and scores on standard measures of self -efficacy, ethnic identity, and intercultural attitudes for 554 youth members of environmental clubs in Tanzania, Uganda, and the United States. Ethnic identity was associated with enhanced self-efficacy in East African, but not U.S. participants. East Africans scored higher on ethnic identity compared to U.S. youth and were more likely to reference intercultural attitudes in open-ended responses. Results provide some support for construct relevance in East Africa, however psychometric results, including internal consistency, validity, and factor structure, were mixed. Our results provide a cautionary tale about the import of measures across cultures and contexts. There is a need for international research, measurement development, and further explication of the meaning and function of ethnic identity across cultures.

Keywords

ethnic identity self-efficacy intercultural attitudes youth East Africa

Rapidly occurring changes in the contexts of youth development call attention to young people’s capacity to address challenges such as interethnic conflict and climate change (American Psychological Association [APA], 2009; Limber & Kaufman, 2002). Today’s youth are coming of age in a society that is more multicultural, globally connected, and interdependent than ever. Increasing population rates and mobility combined with diminishing resources create new contexts, demands, and opportunities for youth civic participation. Although society stands to benefit from increased diversity, cultural differences can easily give rise to ethnocentrism, racism, interethnic conflict, and at worse, genocide. Dwindling natural resources and the climate crisis present formidable environmental challenges to interethnic relations as cultural ideology based on ethnicity, race, or religion is often used to frame debates over resources or supply a justification for violence. Struggles over land rights, mineral use, and water access are drawn along ethnic lines and manipulated by those in power (Fairhead, 2000; Kibanja, Kajumba, & Johnson, in press).

The potential for interethnic conflict related to resource and power inequities is particularly high in economically developing countries which also suffer the gravest and most immediate effects of climate change (Maathai, 1995, 2008). In sub-Saharan Africa, poverty and war have exacerbated the situation, making the cradle of humankind one of the least hospitable places for youth (Johnson, Kibanja, & Abdelali, in press). African countries lag behind in meeting basic human development indicators outlined in the United Nations Millennium Developmental Goals (MDGs), including school attendance, literacy, and most health-related targets (United Nations, 2010). According to the Global Peace Index (GPI), Africa is the least peaceful region in the world (Visions of Humanity, 2010), and 20 countries in sub-Saharan Africa have experienced at least one civil war since their independence (Yartey, 2004). Although tribalism was once implicated in the high rates of violence, contemporary views identify poverty, dependence on natural resources, and ineffective governments as the main roots (Elbadawi & Sambanis, 2000). In fact, ethnic diversity can contribute to the stability of nations, providing a means of resource exchange that results in multiple sources of knowledge, perspectives, and skills.

Models of youth development indicate that healthy attitudes towards diverse cultures and identification with one’s ethnic heritage can build cognitive and behavioral flexibility, promote mental health and well-being, protect against behavioral problems, and prompt civic engagement (Flanagan & Faison, 2001; Scales, Benson, & Leffert, 2000). Civic engagement may be especially critical for youth living in poverty and whose daily lives are threatened by environmental degradation or civil unrest (Limber & Kaufman, 2002). Moreover, “youth bulges” in communities influence nations, moving them either toward social cohesion or toward ethnic divisions, extremism, and violence (Fuller, 1995). With a high percentage of young people in Tanzania and Uganda (45% under 15 years of age, Central Intelligence Agency, 2009), there is great potential for youth to work for equitable development and harmonious social relations. Scholars and activists, such as Nobel Peace Prize winner Wangari Maathai of Kenya, advocate for increased participation by youth to advance social cohesion with a culture of peace based on shared identities that transcend ethnic affiliations (Maathai, 2008; Naker, Mann, & Rajani, 2007; Torney-Purta, Schwille, & Amadeo, 1999).

Essential assets and skills are needed for youth to contribute to intercultural harmony and community viability. However, a lack of international research on youth assets, including self-efficacy and ethnic identity, leaves researchers and policy makers questioning the meaning and value of these assets as they relate to youth development and intercultural relations across cultures. In this article, we explore the concepts of ethnic identity and self-efficacy in relation to intercultural attitudes among youth and emerging adults in Uganda, Tanzania, and the United States. We report psychometric results from standard measures and qualitative data to explore the viability of the constructs and measures in an East African context.

Diversity Attitudes and Ethnic Identity

Youth activism for intercultural harmony will be affected by attitudes about one’s own cultural group and other groups. In the United States, respect for cultural differences and the ability to take others’ perspectives into account are key aspects of personal and social adjustment (Ripke, Huston, Eccles, & Templeton, 2008). Valuing diversity is one of the seven indicators of healthy youth development (Scales, Benson, & Leffert, 2000) and may motivate activism to address interethnic conflict (Moely, Mercer, Ilustre, Miron, & McFarland, 2002b). Research on the development of ethnic identity in U.S. youth has demonstrated that adolescents with more established ethnic identity have higher awareness of diversity issues and positive regard toward members of different ethnic groups compared to those with a less developed ethnic identity (Phinney, Jacoby, & Silva, 2007).

Though ethnic identity is considered a developmental strength in the United States and touted in models of youth development, it is premature and perhaps controversial to make this claim for youth in other nations. Although some assert benefits, others argue that a strong ethnic identity may highlight interethnic tensions (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). In Rwanda, for example, 10 years after the genocide, the concept of ethnicity was outlawed for fear it would cause intergroup tensions to resurface between the Hutu, Tutsi, and Twa ethnic groups (Hilker, 2009). Similarly, President Museveni of Uganda has indicated that Uganda will be “fully evolved” when tribal, clan, and religious identities are inconsequential (Museveni, 1997).

The relevance and meaning of ethnic identity will differ based on cultural, contextual and individual differences that include histories, values, and experiences of oppression and discrimination (Aponte & Johnson, 2000). For example, ethnic identity is highly salient for U.S. ethnic minorities, where race remains a powerful force in allocating goods and services, and where racism is a daily and chronic stressor for individuals of color (Helms, 1995). In comparison, ethnic identity may be less salient to majority groups. Studies with Whites in the United States indicate reduced relevance (e.g., Roberts et al., 1999; Yancey, Aneshensel, & Driscoll, 2001). In one of the few studies using a standard measure of ethnic identity outside of the United States, Worrell and colleagues concluded that ethnic identity may not be important among the Shona majority in Zimbabwe, who comprise 82% of the population (Worrell, Conyers, Mpofu, & Vandiver, 2006). With world-wide intercultural contact increasing, identities are evolving as individuals and societies undergo processes of acculturation and experience the changing dynamics of majority-minority group relations. For example, in the United States we may see that demographic shifts resulting in a White minority by 2050 might increase the salience of ethnicity among White youth in the near future. Ongoing studies of ethnic identity are necessary among U.S. youth and should be expanded to include youth residing in other nations.

Ethnicity and Intercultural Relations in Tanzania and Uganda

Like other African nations, Uganda and Tanzania have suffered from poverty, wars, and conflict over natural resources since their independence. The two neighboring countries have different histories and sociopolitical situations impacting ethnic identity and intercultural relations.

The Uganda population is made up of four main ethnolinguistic groups (Bantu, Nilotic, Nilo-Hamitic, and Sudanites) and about 44 different tribes, with the Buganda accounting for 17% (Fearon, 2003). Although Uganda did not experience the same degree of colonization as other African countries, territories (hence resources) were developed along ethnic lines laying the foundation for current tensions and conflicts (Kibanja et al., in press). In the past decades, Uganda has been fighting in the Congo and, in northern Uganda, with the Lords Resistance Army (LRA), which has killed tens of thousands of people, displaced close to two million, and led to more than 60,000 children conscripted as soldiers (Horowitz, 2000). Although the fighting is related to resources (e.g., minerals in the Congo and water in the North; Fairhead, 2000) interethnic conflicts fuel the struggles. Government involvement in the Hema-Lendu conflict on the Congolese border has resulted in accusations of Uganda’s involvement in ethnic cleansing. In the Kibale region, ethnic fighting between the Bakiga and Banyoro has been on the rise since the 1990s, and in 2003 resulted in two Banyoro children being beheaded (Green, 2007). More recently, fighting between the Buganda and the central government has been on the rise. President Museveni has advocated for a strong national identity, yet attempts to reduce ethnic tensions have been unsuccessful and are predicted to increase, as Museveni continues differential recognition of tribes.

Unlike Uganda, Tanzania is known for its “remarkably harmonious society and its success at forging tolerance and unity out of diversity” (Fitzpatrick, 2007, p. 36). Tanzania is comprised of 130 tribes, largely Bantu in origin, with the Maasai and a few smaller tribes in the north of Nilotic or Nilo-Hamitic origin. The two largest ethnic groups are the Sukuma and Nyamwezi, accounting for about 13% and 8% of the population. In addition to indigenous groups, Tanzania takes in more refugees than any other country in Africa (Central Intelligence Agency, 2009). Historically, tribes were pressured to collapse under former President Julius Nyerere’s “ujamaa” policies (Owens, 2005). Translated as collective work and responsibility, the policy emphasized national unity through the creation of a family-like system of collective farms, increased literacy, and promotion of intergroup communication by supporting Kiswahili as the national language. In the 1980s, the socialist government relocated over 80% of Tanzania’s rural populations into planned agricultural communities. Individuals learned the cultural customs and languages of other groups and intermarriage became frequent. Positive attitudes toward diverse groups are normative and intercultural conflict is rare.

Self-Efficacy and Civic Participation

Positive attitudes towards diverse cultures and a firm ethnic identity will not guarantee youth engagement. According to U.S. models, self-efficacy is among the core competencies needed for sustained and effective civic engagement (e.g., Eccles & Gootman, 2002; Roth-Herbst, Borberly, & Brooks-Gunn, 2008; Scales et al., 2000). Belief in one’s power to accomplish goals and capacity for success will influence whether or not youth champion intercultural harmony, the amount of time and effort they are willing to devote to social justice concerns, and their resolve (Lerner, 2004; Lerner, Fisher & Weinberg, 2000).

Is self-efficacy important for East African youth? Cultural variables contribute to the concept of the self and self-efficacy (Oettingen, 1995). The individualistic nature of U.S. culture emphasizes personal achievement and individual mastery; whereas cultures with a more collectivist or group-oriented sense of self, such as African cultures, may not separate an individual’s aspirations or accomplishments from those of the group (Triandis, 1995). Collectivist cultures could temper the importance of self-efficacy, bringing into question the cross-cultural validity of this construct, which has been strongly associated with positive youth outcomes in the United States (e.g., Catalano, Berglund, Ryan, Lonczak, & Hawkins, 2004). However, self-related constructs, such as self-efficacy, likely exist along with group-related aspects. This is supported by Gyekye (1988) who states, “it would be more correct to describe that order as amphibious, for it manifests features of both communality and individuality. . . . African social thought seeks to avoid the excesses of the two exaggerated systems” (pp. 31-32).

Cultural differences in self-efficacy may also result from power differentials and role expectations related to age, birth order, or gender. Cultural values that view youth as equal, deserving of voice, as agentive or ‘originators’ result in youth’s efforts being reinforced thereby contributing to greater self-efficacy in youth (Oettingen, 1995). In East Africa, youth are valued by their communities and they are afforded responsibilities that could facilitate the development of confidence and mastery, such a herding goats or taking care of siblings (Grigorenko & O’Keefe, 2004). However, published research on self-efficacy in African youth is sorely lacking. A few studies have demonstrated its important role in health and health behaviors in emerging adults (e.g., Beaudoin, 2007; Fortenberry, Brizendine, Katz, & Orr, 2002; Vaughan, Rogers, Singhal, & Swalehe, 2000). In accord with the UNMDGs, young girls and youth in sub-Saharan Africa are important targets for intervention and education. Self-efficacy is increasingly included as an outcome of such interventions (Health Communication Partnership, 2007; United Nations, 2009a; United Nations Children’s Fund, 2004).

The Current Study

In this study, we aimed to (a) explore concepts of self-efficacy and ethnic identity and their relation to intercultural attitudes in East African and U.S. youth members of an environmental club; (b) examine properties of standard psychometric measures of these constructs; and (c) identify potential similarities and differences among Ugandan, Tanzanian, and U.S. youth as a means of exploring the cross-cultural utility of constructs and the potential for larger scale studies using standard measures. We used mixed methods to explore ethnic identity, self-efficacy, and diversity attitudes among youth and emerging adults from Tanzania, Uganda, and the United States.

Our approach emphasizes youths’ developmental strengths and potential for social contribution (e.g., Lerner et al., 2000; Limber & Kaufman, 2002); highlights a neglected and marginalized population (Arnett, 2008), Tanzanian and Ugandan youth; and examines the use of standard quantitative measures to advance research with East African youth. Although the focus of our study is on East African youth, ongoing studies of ethnic identity are important in the United States due to the changing ethnic make-up of the United States and also the global context in which U.S. youth are developing their ethnic identity. The inclusion of the U.S. group is informative given the exploratory nature of the study and lack of comparative data, norms, and research studies with East African youth. Moreover, previous studies using standard measures of ethnic identity and self-efficacy in the U.S. have not been conducted with environmental club members who may be different than other youth on these constructs.

Method

Participants

Participants were 554 school students from Tanzania (231), Uganda (242), and the United States (81) who were members of an environmental club, either Roots & Shoots (R&S), a program of the Jane Goodall Institute (JGI), or Wildlife Clubs of Uganda (WCU), a Ugandan government program. R&S and WCU have similar missions to educate youth about the environment, animals and their communities, and prompt them to take action. The programs are based on service-learning models (Eyler & Giles, 1999) that promote involvement in hands-on activities to improve the environment, connect with communities, and foster personal development. Both programs promote cross-cultural respect and create opportunities for diverse youth to work together on common goals (Johnson-Pynn & Johnson, 2005; 2010).

Clubs were school-based and participants reflected a wide age range (11-27). This is common in Africa due to differential entry points and access to school, pervasive disruptions due to staff shortages, infrastructure problems, lack of money for school fees, high rates of illness, environmental conditions such as floods and droughts, civil conflict/war, and competing needs of families to have youth help with daily tasks at home (Chigunta, 2002). As school students, participants were presumed unmarried and although the age range includes emerging adults, they fall into the category of youth in an African context, the United Nations includes youth up to 24, while the African Union uses a more expansive definition that extends to 35 (African Union, 2006; United Nations, 2009b). Participants were recruited through their clubs in a variety of locales within each country. Just over half the East African participants attended schools in rural areas that rely on subsistence farming. Fifty youth were from two refugee camps in Lugufu, Tanzania, home to some 80,000 refugees. Others attended urban schools in the coastal city of Dar es Salaam and the Ugandan capital, Kampala, or Jinja, an industrial city at the source of the Nile. U.S. youth represented a range of regions including the Northeast, California, the Four Corners region, and the Southeast. Demographic data are shown in Table 1. Groups differed significantly in demographic features, most notably economic situation, with 43% of Tanzanians and 39% of Ugandans indicating their families did not have enough money for basic living needs. East Africans spoke more languages than the U.S. group. Tanzanians were about 1 year older on average than the others, while Ugandans had about 1 year more of school. Because data were collected from school students, we did not ask about martial status or children, as these questions would have been stigmatizing. Moreover, African youth who were married or with children would likely be working if male, or if female, would be working or raising the child at home, rather than in school. Additionally male school students would be unlikely to have attained bride wealth commonly needed for securing a marriage proposal.

Table 1.

Sociodemographic Characteristics

	National group
	Tanzania (n = 231)	Uganda (n = 242)	United States (n = 81)	Total (n = 554)
Age (M, SD)**	18.04 (2.07)	16.94 (2.18)	16.79 (3.27)	17.37 (2.40)
Gender (percent female)**	53%	71%	69%	63%
Years in school (M, SD)*	10.49 (2.17)	11.10 (2.49)	11.12 (3.19)	10.85 (2.50)
Languages spoken (M, SD)**	2.06 (.63)	2.30 (1.14)	1.23 (.59)	2.03 (.95)
Economic situation**
We do not have enough money to meet basic needs (food & shelter)	43%	39%	0%	35%
We usually have enough money . . .	36%	38%	9%	37%
We always have enough money . . .	11%	21%	42%	20%
We have more than enough money . . .	less than 1	2%	49%	9%
Father’s education**
None	7%	7%	0%	6%
Elementary/primary/grade school	25%	19%	1%	19%
High school/secondary school	36%	21%	6%	25%
Some college or technical school	14%	13%	26%	15%
College graduate	12%	15%	24%	15%
“Do not know”	7%	26%	43%	20%

Note: Asterisks indicate significant differences between groups, **p < .001, *p < .05.

Procedures

Members of R&S or WCU were invited to participate by their club coordinator at a meeting. Researchers introduced themselves, the purpose of the research, and the questionnaire. Assent forms were reviewed. Clarification of items was provided by Tanzanian, Ugandan and U.S. colleagues. African participants kept the pencils provided as an incentive and all clubs were entered into a raffle to win US$50 to support a project.

Measures

Measures were administered in the national language of each country (English in Uganda and the United States, Kiswahili in Tanzania). For Tanzanians, the measures were initially translated from English into Kiswahili and then blind back translated by two anthropologists fluent in Kiswahili (a Tanzanian national and U.S. American with a long history of work in the region). The two versions were evaluated for equivalence and cultural appropriateness (Brislin, 1970).

Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM)

The MEIM (Phinney, 1992) is a measure of ethnic identity used in numerous studies. Scores are reliable, with alphas of .80 across different ethnic groups and ages. Based on a multiethnic sample the 12-item MEIM yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of .85 for the total score, and .84 and .70 for factors one and two (Roberts et al., 1999). A factor analysis of a large sample produced two factors: (a) ethnic identity search/exploration, and (b) affirmation, belonging, and commitment. Participants respond to statements regarding their ethnicity (e.g., “I have a clear sense of my ethnic background and what it means for me”) by indicating agreement with each statement on a 1-4 Likert-type scale. Scores are averaged to compute a mean for the total score and the two subscales. Studies with the MEIM have demonstrated ethnic identity’s positive relationship with self-esteem (e.g., Phinney, 1992; Roberts et al., 1999, & Smith, Walker, Fields, Brookins, & Seay, 1999).

Diversity Attitudes Scale of the Civic Attitudes and Skills Questionnaire (DA Scale, CASQ)

The Civic Attitudes and Skills Questionnaire (Moely, McFarland, Miron, Mercer, & Ilustre, 2002a) is a 44-item questionnaire with six scales about one’s civic attitudes. We used the DA Scale, which asks respondents to describe their attitudes about relating to culturally different people, for example, “I enjoy meeting people from different cultures.” Five items are presented and respondents choose their level of agreement, from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). A mean is calculated; three items on the DA Scale are reverse coded to control for face validity. Moely et al. (2002a; 2002b) found internal consistencies in the .70 range, and reported that the subscale was negatively correlated with a measure of racism in U.S. youth.

General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES)

The GSES (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995) was first published in German and has been translated into 26 languages. Its purpose is to assess self-efficacy with questions such as, “I can always manage to solve difficult problems if I try hard enough” and “I can remain calm when facing difficulties because I can rely on my coping abilities.” It contains 10 items, each with a 4-point Likert-type response (1 = not at all true, to 4 = exactly true). The majority of Cronbach’s alphas in 23 nations were in the upper .80s with none falling below .76 (i.e., Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995).

Services Experiences Survey (SES)

The SES (Eyler & Giles, 1999) assesses young people’s experiences in service learning programs. Participants indicate the extent to which they engaged in experiences rated on a 1-4 scale and what they learned from their service rated on a 1-5 scale. In this study, we selected two items related to diversity (e.g., “I interacted with diverse others” and “I learned to appreciate diverse cultures”) to examine in relation to the MEIM and DA Scale and two items related to self-efficacy (“I had important responsibilities” and “I felt I made a real contribution”) to examine in relation to the GSES.

Open-ended questions

Three questions prompted participants to reflect on how participation in their club had changed their (a) thoughts/feelings about themselves; (b) thoughts/feelings about their community and environment; and (c) daily life or behavior. Answers were reviewed for identity, diversity, and efficacy themes.

Design and Analyses

Given the dearth of research on East African youth, we chose a mixed-methods approach, combining standard quantitative measures with open-ended questions. Mixed methods are helpful when conducting research in a new culture and also for illuminating aspects of human development that are contextually and culturally situated, such as self-efficacy and identity (Yoshikawa, Wesiner, Kalili, & Way, 2008). The study was discovery-oriented due to the lack of international and comparative research. Nonetheless, we had some predictions, such as that ethnic identity would be related to positive diversity attitudes and to self-efficacy within and across groups (Blash & Unger, 1995; Phinney et al., 2007; Roberts et al., 1999). Regarding national differences, we expected that Ugandan and Tanzanian youth would define their ethnicity by tribe and U.S. youth by their ethnic or racial group (e.g., White/Caucasian, African American/Black, Latino/a). In light of differing sociopolitical contexts, we expected Tanzanians to define ethnicity in terms of nationhood compared to Ugandans, whom we thought would hold greater tribal-based loyalties. We expected ethnic identity would be higher among Ugandan youth, while Tanzanian youth would have more positive diversity attitudes. In terms of United States and East African differences, we surmised that U.S. participants could have less developed ethnic identification due to the majority (i.e., White) make-up of the sample. We had no basis for expecting national differences in self-efficacy.

For the entire sample and each country we report psychometric properties for the MEIM, GSES, and DA measures with Cronbach’s alphas, bivariate correlations, and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA). The goal of CFA was to examine whether the data fit the purported structure of the measures, and for the MEIM, to examine the one and two factor structures (Roberts et al., 1999; Worrell et al., 2006). We examined bivariate correlations to determine the relationships between self-efficacy, diversity attitudes, and ethnic identity. To examine group differences we performed a Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) on the MEIM, DA, and GSES, followed by Tukey’s Post Hoc Tests for significant group differences.

To examine our hypotheses about national differences in how ethnicity is conceptualized. We categorized answers to the question, “what is your ethnicity?” by the general concept provided (e.g., nationality, tribe, racial/ethnic group) and by specific categories within each theme (e.g., Ugandan, Buganda; Ratner, 2006). Frequency counts and percentages are provided. To look for evidence of contextual relevance, the first and second authors examined qualitative data from open-ended questions for references to self-efficacy or diversity. Sentences or phrases reflecting relevant content were highlighted and then further reviewed and organized to illustrate participants’ views on diversity or self-efficacy in relation to their program involvement (Ratner, 2006). Sample comments pertaining to the constructs are provided an additional perspective on psychometric results.

Results

First we present qualitative results for the question “what is your ethnicity?” This is followed by psychometric properties, including reliability, validity, and confirmatory factor analysis. Relations among the measures and national differences are explored, and finally, we provide sample qualitative responses.

What is Your Ethnicity?

We assessed whether participants used national origin, linguistic group, tribe, clan, race, or other term to describe their ethnicity. In support of our hypothesis, East African participants primarily defined their ethnicity by tribe compared to U.S. youth who used ethnoracial categories. In our Ugandan sample, 176 participants answered this question, listing 40 different ethnicities. The most common were tribal categories accounting for 53% and representing 29 of the 44 different ethnic groups in Uganda. This was followed by ethnolinguistic group (37%), national identity (5%) and finally, pan-national (3%). The most frequent ethnicity was Bantu (58), a language group, while Mutoro (35), Muganda (24), and Musoga (35) reflected dominant tribes in the data collection sites. Nine youth described their ethnicity as nation-based (e.g., Ugandan), while five used the pan-African identity (African), and three used a racial designation (Black or Black African). Seven others, in addition to those listing Bantu, used ethnolinguistic designations (e.g., Nilotic).

Among Tanzanian participants, 61 ethnic designations based on tribes were mentioned. Muha (47) was the largest group represented, followed by Mbembe (24), Muhasa (14), Mugoni (11), and Mpare and Sukuma. Two youth described themselves as Arab, while four were KiKongo (i.e., Congolese). Given the historical political importance of collective identity under Nyerere, we were surprised to find that no Tanzanians described themselves as Tanzanian.

The U.S. sample was primarily composed of Whites (78%), followed by two participants each identifying as Asian American, African American, and Latino. One participant indicated American Indian, six reported being from a multicultural/mixed background, and two noted “other.” When asked to state their ethnicities, the majority reported Caucasian or White. A few White youth noted countries of origin of parents or ancestors (e.g., Irish/Hungarian/Scottish, Irish/Italian/British), while those indicating a bicultural or mixed ethnicity indicated combinations of ethnicities (e.g., Irish/English/Native American) or multicultural or slang terms, such as Hapa (i.e., part Asian).

Results on Measures of Ethnic Identity, Self-Efficacy, and Diversity Attitudes

Descriptives

Mean scores for the DA Scale, MEIM, and the GSES are presented in Table 2. The results on the MEIM are comparable to scores seen with the normative sample (Roberts et al., 1999), where participants reported a mean of 2.71 (SD = .59), with higher scores for minorities. Compared to a sample of 19,120 participants from 25 countries, scores on GSES from the current sample appear similar with scores falling in the high 2 to low 3 range (Scholz, Gutierrez-Dona, Sud, & Schwarzer, 2002). With the exception of the U.S. sample, results from the diversity attitudes scale (DA) were similar to established studies that report scores in the 3.90 to 4.05 range (e.g., Moely et al., 2002b).

Table 2.

Diversity Attitudes, MEIM, and General Self-Efficacy by Nation

	National group
	Tanzania (n = 231)	Uganda (n = 242)	United States (n = 81)	Total (N = 554)
Diversity attitudes	4.02 (0.78)	3.70 (0.76)	3.36 (0.89)	3.78 (0.82)
MEIM total*	3.03 (0.39)	3.12 (0.37)	2.81 (0.54)	3.03 (0.43)
Affirmation*	3.22 (0.49)	3.28 (0.43)	2.89 (0.70)	3.19 (0.51)
Exploration	2.76 (0.46)	2.89 (0.47)	2.70 (0.58)	2.81 (0.50)
Self-efficacy*	3.45 (0.37)	3.06 (0.46)	3.32 (0.34)	3.26 (0.45)

Note: * indicate a significant difference between groups, p < .001. Analyses for exploration and diversity attitudes are not reported due to low internal consistencies.

Reliability and validity

The internal consistency reliability coefficients of the MEIM were calculated for the overall sample and each national group (Table 3). The internal consistency of the MEIM was higher in the U.S. sample compared to the Tanzania and Uganda samples. Reliability coefficients were consistently lower for exploration, in the overall sample and in each group, ranging from .39 for Tanzanians to .66 for the U.S. participants. Other studies using the 12-item MEIM have shown similar patterns, in which Cronbach’s alphas for affirmation/belonging were consistently above .80, while coefficients for search/exploration were below .60 for ethnic minority groups (Roberts et al., 1999).

Table 3.

Internal Consistency Reliability for the MEIM, GSES, & DA Scales

	National group
	Tanzania	Uganda	United States	Total
Measure	(n = 231)	(n = 242)	(n = 81)	(N = 554)
Diversity attitudes*	0.48	0.47	0.72	0.54
12-item MEIM	0.68	0.69	0.89	0.74
Affirmation (Factor 1)	0.68	0.70	0.91	0.75
Exploration (Factor 2)*	0.39	0.47	0.66	0.47
GSES	0.78	0.72	0.80	0.78

Note: Asterisks indicate unacceptable internal consistency reliability for the diversity attitudes and exploration scales.

Bivariate correlations were calculated for the MEIM and two questions from the SES: (a) “I worked with people from diverse ethnic backgrounds” and, (b) “I learned to appreciate different cultures.” Although the MEIM total score was positively correlated with the second item (r = .11, p < .05), no significant correlation was found between the total MEIM score and the first item. Bivariate correlations between the GSES and two SES questions related to competence and accomplishment: (a) “I had important responsibilities,” and (b) “I felt I made a real contribution.” resulted in positive correlations with both items (r = .12, r = .19, p < .01).

Confirmatory factor analyses

CFA were conducted using AMOS 6 software and employing maximum likelihood estimation. A variety of fit indices were used to determine whether our data fit a given model. The fit indices for the one and two factor models of the MEIM and the GSES are presented in Table 4. These values generally range from 0 to 1.0, where larger values (at least 0.90 and ideally in excess of 0.95) suggest reasonable model fit. For the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA; Steiger, 1990) lower values are suggestive of reasonable model fit (0.06 and smaller).

Table 4.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis for the MEIM and GSES

MEIM: One factor	National group
Fit indices	Tanzania (n = 231)	Uganda (n = 242)	US (n = 81)	Total (N = 554)
RMSEA	0.07	0.07	0.12	0.07
GFI	0.93	0.93	0.82	0.95
AGFI	0.90	0.90	0.75	0.92
NFI	0.77	0.73	0.79	0.84
TLI	0.83	0.80	0.85	0.85
CFI	0.86	0.84	0.87	0.88
MEIM: Two factors
χ²/df	2.06	1.71	1.96	3.31
RMSEA	0.07	0.05	0.11	0.06
GFI	0.93	0.94	0.85	0.95
AGFI	0.90	0.91	0.77	0.93
NFI	0.77	0.78	0.81	0.85
TLI	0.83	0.86	0.87	0.87
CFI	0.86	0.89	0.90	0.89
Factor 1: Affirmation
RMSEA	0.06	0.09	0.20	0.07
GFI	0.97	0.96	0.86	0.97
AGFI	0.94	0.91	0.71	0.95
NFI	0.90	0.84	0.84	0.93
TLI	0.92	0.83	0.81	0.92
CFI	0.95	0.89	0.87	0.95
Factor 2: Exploration
RMSEA	0.05	0.08	0.06	0.08
GFI	0.99	0.98	0.97	0.99
AGFI	0.96	0.94	0.91	0.95
NFI	0.85	0.82	0.92	0.86
TLI	0.87	0.73	0.95	0.77
CFI	0.93	0.87	0.98	0.89
GSES: One factor
RMSEA	0.06	0.04	0.10	0.04
GFI	0.95	0.96	0.87	0.98
AGFI	0.92	0.94	0.79	0.96
NFI	0.85	0.84	0.72	0.93
TLI	0.91	0.93	0.80	0.95
CFI	0.93	0.94	0.84	0.96

Note: RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation, GFI = Goodness of Fit Index, AGFI = Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index, NFI = Normed Fit Index, TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index, CFI = Comparative Fit Index.

The data on the MEIM were mixed, whether viewed by total sample or by national group. For example, with respect to the MEIM one-factor model, Normed Fit Index (NFI; Bentler & Bonett, 1980), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI; Bentler & Bonett, 1980) and the Comparative Fit Index (CFI; Bentler, 1990), tended to be low, while the RMSEA (Steiger, 1990) tended to be slightly high. Fit tended to be better for the Tanzanian and Ugandan participants as compared to the U.S. group, see for instance, Goodness of Fit Index (GFI; Jöreskog, & Sörbom, 1981), Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI; Jöreskog, & Sörbom, 1989) and the RMSEA. As for the MEIM two-factor model, with subscales of affirmation and exploration, a similar trend was noted among the fit indices, with a few exceptions (e.g., RMSEA in the Ugandan sample was consistent with the recommended cutoff). Neither model appeared to fit the overall sample reasonably well.

Because some data were suggestive of reasonable fit while others were not, additional analyses were performed to examine the MEIM subscales. As seen in Table 4, the MEIM affirmation subscale fit the data in terms of the total sample and the Tanzanian sample. Data were mixed for the Ugandan sample and were not supportive of model fit in the U.S. sample. With respect to the MEIM exploration factor, data were mixed in the Tanzanian and Ugandan samples (more support was found with Tanzanians), as well as the total sample; however the model fit the U.S. data well. These data speak to the structural validity of the scales when used with these respective samples.

As for the GSES (Table 4), data were supportive of the measure with the Tanzanian and Ugandan samples, as well as the overall sample. However, with regard for the U.S. sample, fit indices were not suggestive of reasonable model fit. This finding is unusual and stands in contrast to the psychometric literature on the GSES. It is possible that the small sample size and more variable nature of the U.S. group contributed to these results.

Relationships Between Ethnic Identity, Self-efficacy, and Diversity Attitudes

We expected that ethnic identity would correlate positively with self-efficacy and diversity attitudes in the overall sample and in each group. The MEIM total score was positively correlated with the GSES (r = .14, p < .01) in the overall sample. In partial support of our hypotheses, significant correlations were found for Tanzanian (r = .13, p < .01) and Ugandan (r = .19, p < .01) participants, but not for the U.S. group. Given the ethnic make-up of the U.S. participants (78% White), our results are consistent with the notion that majority groups may not base feelings of self-worth on ethnic identity achievement (i.e., Phinney, 1989; Phinney & Alipuria, 1990). We hypothesized that ethnic identity would correlate positively with the DA Scale in all groups. The affirmation subscale was positively correlated with DA (r = .11, p < .01) in the overall sample, however, contrary to our predictions, no significant correlations were found between DA and the total MEIM or the exploration subscale. This may be associated with the low reliability of the DA Scale in the African samples.

Exploration of National Differences

National differences were explored on measures. We report our analyses on measures with adequate internal consistency, including the MEIM total, MEIM affirmation, and GSES, but not the MEIM exploration or DA Scale. Still, results must be considered in light of the psychometric properties that vary in acceptability. We hypothesized that the Ugandans would present significantly higher ethnic identity compared to Tanzanians and that the U.S. sample would be lowest. As expected, East African youth scored higher on the MEIM compared to U.S. youth, however they did not differ from one another. A MANOVA revealed group differences for the total MEIM score, F(2, 545) = 16.85, p < .0001, n² = .06, although the effect was small (see Table 2). Tukey’s post hoc tests revealed lower ethnic identity scores in the U.S. sample (p < .05). In addition, the U.S. participants scored lower on the affirmation subscale compared to Tanzanian and Ugandan participants (p < .0001), while the latter two groups did not differ. We surmised that lower salience of ethnic identity among our U.S. participants could be accounted for by the majority percentage of Whites. We compared the scores for our ethnic minority and majority participants. Independent t-tests revealed no significant differences in the MEIM or GSES for ethnic minority versus White U.S. participants. Although research would suggest that ethnic minorities typically score higher on measures of ethnic identity (i.e., Avery, Tonidandel, Thomas, Johnson, & Mack, 2007; Phinney & Alipuria, 1990; Roberts et al., 1999), this was not the case for our sample.

Although we had no hypotheses about national differences in self-efficacy, moderate group differences were found on the GSES, F(2, 545) = 55.87, p < .001, n² =.17. U.S. participants scored lower on the GSES compared to the Tanzanian sample, p < .05; however, the U.S. sample scored higher than the Ugandan sample, p < .0001. Differences were also found between Tanzanian and Ugandan youth with Tanzanians scoring higher, p < .0001. The lower results in the Uganda group may be an artifact of sampling. Though students in both R&S and WCU have opportunities for community service and active learning, the R&S model particularly stresses youth leadership and voice and it is possible that this translates into more opportunities for growing self-efficacy (Johnson-Pynn & Johnson, 2005; 2010). We had predicted that Tanzanian youth would have higher scores on diversity attitudes than Ugandans and that both would score higher than the U.S. sample. Although the scores appear consistent with our results, we do not include this analysis due to low internal consistency and lack of other psychometric support for the DA Scale.

In this study, we included participants attending environmental clubs in secondary school settings which constituted a wide age range. Bivariate correlations revealed that age was significantly correlated with the GSES (r = 0.21, p < .01) but not with the MEIM. Although Phinney (1992) found that high school students had higher scores on ethnic identity achievement compared to middle school students, other studies did not find such a developmental trend (e.g., Branch, 2001; Branch, Tayal, & Triplett, 2000). Years in school was not significantly correlated with the MEIM or GSES. Given that the Tanzanians were older, on average by 1 year, and Ugandans had one more year of school, we examined national differences controlling for age and school. With a Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA), national group differences remained, F(2, 532) = 19.52, p < .01, n² = .16. Significant differences were found between groups on the MEIM total score and F(2, 532) = 17.60, p < .05, n² = .06 and GSES, F(2, 532) = 43.27, p < .05, n² = .14.

Qualitative Responses

In open-ended questions about experiences in their clubs, Tanzanian and Ugandan participants indicated gains in diversity attitudes and self-efficacy, but not explicitly in their ethnic identity. U.S. participants mentioned efficacy and confidence but did not refer to diversity, ethnicity, cultural or racial awareness or skills (Although four mentioned a better realization of the global nature of environmental issues, and three stated that they had grown in awareness of struggles faced by people living in poverty). However, East African youth explicitly stated they had gained positive attitudes and skills for interacting with diverse groups (see Table 5). Some youth reflected on gains in self-competence and leadership skills that would be important for working with others in a multicultural environment (e.g., “This change is attributed to the fact that I have been a leader and in leadership one learns many things; how to deal with others, self control, being transparent, tolerating others and interpersonal relationships”).

Table 5.

Open-Ended Responses Indicate Gains in Intercultural Attitudes and Skills

Theme	Sample quote
Knowledge and skills for intercultural interactions	I have learned how to deal with people of different backgrounds I learned how to associate with people of different ethnicities It (the club) made me to learn how to cooperate with people from different areas . . . I can associate with different races of people from different backgrounds
Attitudes and behaviors toward diverse others	It has changed my feelings about others. I have learned that there’s much to get from them and I can help with what I have. I have learned that there is much to share from each other regardless of race, tribe, color, and so on I have changed my behavior towards different ethnicities or tribes because the group consists of different tribal backgrounds.
Relationships with others	I have got new friends who made me learn about ethnicity and backgrounds I have learned to respect everyone in his own capacity and how also to make friends easily

Participant statements reflected changes in diversity attitudes and in self-efficacy. For example, “WCU has changed my life because I have got to learn new things, visit many places concerning wildlife and have also learned to associate with many different backgrounds.” The benefits of socialization in the group were further evidenced in statements of increased self-confidence and commitment to action, for example, “I feel I need to attain my goals, care about my community and also to solve my problems and also to face my challenges. I have learned to work with a group of people of different ethnic groups in my community. It has greatly made me more social to people.” We should note that the British-influenced pedagogical style in most East African schools encourages rote memorization and dictation, and does not readily reinforce student voice or leadership in the classroom. As such, participation in groups, such as WCU and R&S, affords a rare opportunity for the development of youths’ social skills and confidence in a less structured format in which learning is experiential and youth ownership of ideas and projects is encouraged (Johnson-Pynn & Johnson, 2010).

Although East Africans referenced other tribes and cultural groups, no explicit statements were made referring to participant’s own ethnic identity development, such as connection or belonging to one’s tribe or nation. However, youth’s knowledge about community concerns and expressions of commitment to community may be seen as an expression of connection, pride, and belonging to a particular group (affirmation), suggesting identity development. For example, one youth expressed, “I have got a feeling that I should help my fellow students, community, culture, country and my home and people outside.” Moreover, youth’s many remarks about other groups suggest increased awareness and knowledge with regards to other cultural groups and new levels of openness toward them; both important aspects in the development of ethnic identity (Ripke et al., 2008).

Discussion

Our results show support for the applicability of the interrelated constructs of ethnic identity, self-efficacy, and intercultural attitudes in different contexts and some promise for existing measures. East African participants stated that getting along with other tribes and enhanced efficacy were positive benefits of club involvement, revealing the universal importance of cross-cultural interactions in young people’s lives. Still, there is a need to proceed with caution when transferring specific concepts and measures across settings and populations. Below we discuss the relevance of the constructs, the reliability and validity of the measures, implications, and limitations.

Self-Efficacy

The GSES, showed respectable psychometric properties, including internal consistency reliability, correlations with other indices, and underlying factor structure in Tanzanian and Ugandan participants. Unlike other cross-national studies and the general conceptualization of self-efficacy as a rather stable construct (e.g., Scholz et al., 2002), we found a positive correlation with age and self-efficacy. This may be related to the African context, where learning is more experiential and that, as one grows older, they are given increasing opportunities and responsibilities that build self-efficacy. Moreover, in their environmental programs, older students in all countries are given more chances to develop confidence and skills through hands-on planning and program implementation which bolster self-efficacy over time (Johnson-Pynn & Johnson, 2005, 2010; Johnson & Johnson-Pynn, 2007). Open-ended remarks supported the relevance of self-efficacy in East Africa and indicated an increase in confidence as a result of club involvement. Because our sample consisted of youth and young adult members of environmental programs it is possible that their self-efficacy is higher than youth who do not have such opportunities. Given the apparent viability of the GSES measure in both East African settings, including the Kiswahili version, we suggest that future studies be conducted with the GSES and expanded to a wider range of participants, including vulnerable populations such as internally displaced youth in conflict ridden environments (street children, AIDS orphans, former child soldiers). Given the collectivist orientations of most African societies, we suggest that social or collective efficacy (i.e., a belief in the group’s ability to approach shared problems and accomplish shared goals) (Bandura, 2001) may be equally or even more relevant for East Africans and should be included in future studies.

Ethnic Identity: Affirmation and Exploration in East Africa

Overall, some qualitative support was shown for the importance of positive intergroup attitudes and the relationship of ethnic identity to those attitudes in our East African sample. The MEIM had mixed psychometric results and fit indices that were about the same for the one and two factor models. The DA Scale had questionable internal consistency reliability. Findings associated with the MEIM exploration subscale and the diversity (DA) scale raise questions about their current utility and limitations in an East African context. More research is needed in the adequate conceptualization of ethnic identity and intercultural attitudes and their reliable measurement.

Although the psychometric properties of measures were variable, we can offer some explanations. Affirmation had stronger psychometric support than the Exploration factor, and may be more contextually relevant. In East Africa, one’s culture or ethnicity may be particularly salient for youth, as it is evident in daily life, expressed through dress, music, craft, languages, religions, and relational styles. This idea is supported by the fact that the affirmation factor was higher in East African youth compared to U.S. youth and particularly high in Tanzania (e.g., in items such as “I feel good about my cultural or ethnic background”). Thus, Tanzanians have not abandoned their tribal identities in favor of national identity, but instead appear to be holding both in tandem. This is consistent with a bicultural/multicultural approach to identity which is considered psychologically and behaviorally adaptive for U.S. youth and others living in multicultural societies (Johnson & Tucker, 2008).

Exploration, however, showed weaker psychometric support and might be less relevant in East Africa, where, unlike the United States, there is no hugely dominant majority ethnic group. Both Tanzanian and Ugandan participants indicated their lowest scores on the same two items of the exploration subscale that asked about their ethnic history and being active in organizations that include mostly members of their ethnic group. These actions may be necessary in the United States, where there is a need to explore ethnicity, especially for minorities in the context of a dominant (White) majority culture. Perhaps in East Africa, in the midst of a more obvious and mutual cultural diversity, where multiple languages are spoken, varieties of traditional dress are donned, and different religious customs are practiced, tribal and clan identities are simply a fact of life (i.e., affirmed) that need not be searched for or explored.

Changing Contexts, Changing Identities

Around the world, youths contexts are changing. Despite the developmental benefits of youth-community connections, the idea of community has become more fragile in the United States in the last half of the 20th century (Benson, Scales, & Mannes, 2003). Survey-based studies of hundreds of U.S. youth in suburban, rural, and urban communities found that reports of community support are relatively uncommon regardless of gender, grade, parental education, or race and ethnicity (Benson et al., 2003). The full impact, positive and/or negative, of the rise in social networking and “virtual communities” on youth’s identities and sense of community have yet to be discovered. On-line networking, for example, may offer youth the chance to connect with others in meaningful ways, such as around a common cause, and also offer empowerment tools, attributes that could cultivate shared identity, efficacy, and provide a platform for civic engagement. Increased multiculturalism in the United States and an emerging White minority, combined with the current economic downfall, have implications for youth’s identities and intercultural interactions, for better or worse. Opportunities for U.S. youth to interact with and work alongside diverse others should be encouraged, as should an educational curriculum that is not only relevant and inclusive of multicultural groups in the United States, but is internationalized for relevance in a global context.

In sub-Saharan Africa, one of the most profound changes impacting youth is a loss of cultural customs and local community support as a consequence of industrialization, technological advances, and rural to urban migration. Economic strains have forced parents to leave their families to find work, while children attend boarding schools far from their villages. Displacement and/or loss of families and communities due to poverty, war and pandemics, such as AIDS, have weakened social supports for youth. Reduced contact with village elders, customs, and values may leave gaps in youth’s cultural knowledge and values resulting in community disconnect and disengagement (Maathai, 2008). Indeed, among U.S. youth, it is this loss of community that is implicated in the decline in civic engagement (Benson et al., 2003; Limber & Kaufman, 2002). Supporting youth development in contexts besides villages, such as at schools, is needed to enhance traditional cultural education and to cultivate engagement.

Another major sociocultural shift in East Africa is a changing notion of youth” which today, can extend from childhood into the 30s and beyond. This was seen in the age range of our East African participants. Although the United Nations defines youth by age (United Nations, 2009b), African concepts tend to rely on sociodevelopmental status and cultural milestones, rather than age (African Union, 2006). Youth traditionally became young adults when they were marriageable, which meant economical viability to support a family and pay for bride wealth (Cheney, 2007; Chigunta, 2002). In countries with rampant poverty and pervasive school disruptions, this transition has become increasingly difficult extending the “youth class” in sub-Saharan Africa well into young adulthood. However, child soldiers and street children have forced policy makers to include younger children in that definition in order to deal with the challenges that go with “youth status” (e.g., HIV and other STDs, rape, unwanted pregnancies, substance abuse, violence; Cheney, 2007). In both cases, African children, adolescents, and emerging adults vie for inclusion in NGO and government sponsored programs offering education, resources and opportunities through “youth programs.”

Future studies should pay attention to shifting multicultural dynamics and shifting identities. Some African leaders, including Museveni, have espoused a shift from community (i.e., tribal or clan identities) to national identity and loyalty to the nation state. However, loyalties to the nation state are fragile in East Africa and the governments are not yet stable, transparent, or cohesive enough to promote trust or a sense of security among the citizens (Maathai, 2008). Culturally competent service models in the United States urge against such “color-blind” or “culture-blind” approaches as devaluing the important roles of culture, race, and ethnicity in human development and behavior. In the United States, multicultural education competencies and diversity awareness have made their way into educational systems and most youth-serving programs. It is argued that, for advances to be made, socially constructed and harmful constructs such as “race” must be recognized for the powerful influence they exert through access to goods and services and, in the denial of basic human rights (Helms, 1990). We agree that acknowledging the complexities of identity and developing an appreciation of various ethnic, tribal, and community identities are crucial processes in the development of just and democratic societies (Johnson et al., in press; Kibanja et al., in press).

Implications and Future Directions

Different aspects of ethnic identity were emphasized in each locale (tribe, clan, or linguistic group in East Africa and ethnicity based on skin color in the United States). Although we expected Tanzanians to espouse a shared, national identity, tribal categories dominated. Responses to open-ended questions of ethnicity will be affected by the “context of the asking” (e.g., who is asking, where the asking is taking place). Different concepts of identity have implications for visibility and mutability of chosen and ascribed identities. Visible ethnic groups (e.g., based on phenotypic features) may face oppression or receive power and privilege in different ways and, to a different extent than identity characteristics that can be hidden or changed (e.g., there has been a recent string of attacks on person with Albinism in Tanzania). Previously in Uganda, it was not uncommon for persons to move from one location to another, learn a new language, and take on a new ethnic identity, one that was more tied to place and occupation than phenotype or tribal heritage. Therefore, multiple identities should be explored. Interactions between ethnic and sexual orientation identity present unique challenges for youth and would be important to explore cross-contextually (Johnson & Tucker, 2008). This is critical in Uganda, where efforts are underway to punish gay and lesbian persons, and those that do not turn them in, with severe punishments including death (Sharlet, 2009). We argue that the targeting of sexual minorities in Uganda, spurned by United States-based evangelical movements represents a new form of intercultural conflict resulting from identity politics (Johnson et al., in press). There is an unfulfilled need in the literature to incorporate diverse sociocultural aspects of identity and their interactions in understanding youth development and civic engagement.

In light of youth’s statements related to community and the fact that ethnicity in East Africa has historically been tied to geographic origin, we suggest that ethnic identity may be more inclusive than in the United States. Place identity, for example, or sense of community (e.g., Newbrough & Lorion, 1996; Proshansky, Fabian, & Kaminoff, 1983) may be particularly important aspects of young people’s emerging sense of self. Spiritual or religious identity is also an integral aspect of ethnicity in an East African context. Furthermore, in societies with great reliance on natural resources and subsistence agriculture, environmental identity and connection to nature (e.g., Opotow & Clayton, 2003) are identity constructs that should be explored due to their growing implications for civic and social engagement (APA, 2009).

To advance identity literature, research should proceed with multiethnic and majority populations across a range of cultural environments (Sneed, Schwartz, & Cross, 2006). Future research should aim for an understanding of ethnicity that is both locally relevant and, to the extent possible, universally understood or compared. A better understanding of the meaning of ethnic identity should include top-down and bottom-up inquiry to ensure cross-cultural and contextual accountability. Ethnographic, focus group, or key informant interviews with village elders, parents, teachers, and youth could elucidate the constructs, their value, and relationship to other youth outcomes. Qualitative approaches to data analysis, such as grounded theory, may further our understanding of the meaning of ethnicity, identity, and intergroup attitudes and how they contribute to the concept of what it means to emerge as a healthy and productive young adult. Tribal, religious, and other cultural traditions could be explored for values, lessons, songs, or other content that has been used to reinforce positive intercultural attitudes, social justice attitudes, or sustainable choices regarding natural resources. For example, among the Chaaga and Mpare tribes, traditional rivals in the Mt. Kilimanjaro region of Tanzania, Mpare were traditionally responsible for assistance with funerary tasks upon the death of a Chaaga, which helped to reinforce intercultural bonds and resource sharing (V. Temu, personal communication, July 27, 2009).

In order to promote harmonious relations between cultures, positive diversity attitudes must be encouraged. Youth programs can provide a nurturing context for the exploration and formation of ethnic identity. In so doing, they can facilitate contact and group interaction among youth from different tribes, increase youth’s knowledge of environments and cultures, and enhance appreciation and respect for diverse tribes, language groups, and regions (Ripke et al., 2008). Our results indicate that youth programs, such as R&S and WCU, offer opportunities for connecting across cultures, developing confidence, and engaging young people in their communities. Although we did not conduct a program evaluation, youth’s statements are consistent with research on youth development and service learning in the United States, indicating that programs can enhance self-efficacy and positive attitudes towards diverse groups in society (Catalano, et al., 2002; Myers-Lipton, 1996). Youth programs are growing in East Africa, however, membership is not the norm, nor is it available to most. With so many African families living in poverty, many cannot secure adequate resources such as school fees or uniforms, let alone time or fees for extracurricular activities that might preclude youth’s contribution to their families’ subsistence.

Limitations

This study had a number of limitations. The analysis was based on data collected as part of a larger study on youth civic engagement, so more in-depth qualitative accounts of ethnicity are not available. Selection bias could have resulted in higher scores from our participants (who were given opportunities to participate in environmental programs) compared to youth not involved in such programs. Data were collected from youth attending school which presents limits related to selection bias and external validity, especially in East Africa where we would expect drastic differences in the situations and resources of those attending and not attending school (e.g., degree of poverty, marital status, employment). Compared to nonmembers, youth who are involved in such programs may present characteristics (e.g., higher socioeconomic status, ambition, openness to experience) that may not be the norm. Moreover, R&S and WCU are designed to enhance personal and social development so scores could be inflated due to program effects and thus, not applicable to those who have less access to resources and opportunities. However, this common feature (environmental club members) aids in our cross-national comparisons. Another limitation is the smaller U.S. sample. Although the U.S. group’s responses to measures yielded adequate internal consistency reliabilities, Levene’s tests for equality of variance were significant. However, our results should be robust to the differences in variability. Although studies of the GSES have been conducted in a range of countries, research with the MEIM has been largely limited to samples within the United States. Given the suspect psychometric properties of these standard measures, findings based on them should be interpreted with caution.

Conclusion

Our results lend support to the notion that ethnic identity and self-efficacy are relevant concepts among East African youth. East African participants considered attitudes towards different tribes to be a positive aspect of their personal and social development. Participants expressed behaviors and feelings, such as interacting with other tribes, being more comfortable with other cultures, and an increased valuing of what other groups had to offer as club benefits. This reveals the universal importance of intercultural attitudes and cross-cultural interactions to young people’s abilities and lives. Despite the potential relevance of these constructs, there is a need to proceed with caution. The exploration scale of the MEIM and the diversity attitudes scales had unacceptable internal consistency and factor structures. Researchers need to be aware of the limits of these measures and the diversity with which identity may be viewed across cultural and sociopolitical landscapes. An international research agenda based on multiple paths of inquiry is essential to understand youth ethnic identity and interactions in a global, multicultural society.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Richard Odoi of Wildlife Clubs of Uganda, and Japhet Jonas, Felix Mbogella, Augustino Lunyange, and Shadrach Meshach of Roots & Shoots, Tanzania. Mr. Vitalis Temu also provided helpful comments.

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

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The U.S. Fulbright Foundation, the National Geographic Conservation Trust, and the University of Mississippi provided funds to support this study.

References

African Union. (2006). African youth charter. Retrieved from http://www.africa-union.org/root/au/Documents/Treaties/Text/African_Youth_Charter.pdf

American Psychological Association. (2009). Psychology and global climate change: Addressing a multi-faceted phenomenon and set of challenges (Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force Report on the interface between psychology and global climate change).

Aponte

J. F.

Johnson

L. R.

(2000). The impact of culture on the intervention and treatment of ethnic populations. In Aponte

J. F.

Wohl

(Eds.), Psychological interventions and cultural diversity (pp. 18-39). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Arnett

(2008). The neglected 95%: Why American psychology needs to become less American. American Psychologist, 63, 602-614.

Avery

D. R.

Tonidandel

Thomas

K. M.

Johnson

C. D.

Mack

D. A.

(2007). Assessing the Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure for measurement equivalence across racial and ethnic groups. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67, 877-888.

Bandura

(2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentive perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1-26.

Beaudoin

C. E.

(2007). HIV prevention in sub-Saharan Africa: a multilevel analysis of message frames and their social determinants. Health Promotion International, 22, 198-206.

Benson

P. L.

Scales

P. C.

Mannes

(2003). Developmental strengths and their sources: Implications for the study and practice of community building. In Lerner

R. M.

Jacobs

Wertlieb

(Eds.), Handbook of applied developmental science: Vol. I. Applying developmental science for youth and families: Historical and theoretical foundations (pp. 369-406). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

Bentler

P. M.

(1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.

10.

Bentler

P. M.

Bonett

D. G.

(1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.

11.

Blash

Unger

(1995). Self-concept of African-American male youth: Self-esteem and ethnic identity. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 4, 359-373.

12.

Branch

C. W.

(2001). The many faces of the self: ego and ethnic identities. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 162, 412-429.

13.

Branch

C. W.

Tayal

Triplett

(2002). The relationship of ethnic identity and ego identity status on adolescence and young adults, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24, 777-790.

14.

Brislin

R. W.

(1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 185-216.

15.

Catalano

R. F.

Berglund

M. L.

Ryan

J. A. M.

Lonczak

H. S.

Hawkins

J. D.

(2004). Positive youth development in the United States: Research findings on evaluations of positive youth development programs. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591, 98-124.

16.

Central Intelligence Agency. (2009). The world factbook. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html

17.

Cheney

(2007). Pillars of the nation: Child citizens and Ugandan national development. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

18.

Chigunta

(2002, September). The socio-economic situation of youth in Africa: Problems, prospects and options. Paper presented at the Youth Employment Summit, Alexandria, Egypt.

19.

Eccles

Gootman

(2002). Community programs to promote youth development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, Institute of Medicine.

20.

Elbadawi

Sambanis

(2000). Why are there so many civil wars in Africa? Understanding and preventing violent conflict. African Economics, 9, 244-269.

21.

Eyler

Giles

(1999). Where’s the learning in service learning? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

22.

Fairhead

(2000). The conflict over natural and environmental resources. In Nafziger

E. W.

Stewart

Vayrynen

(Eds.), War, hunger, and displacement: The origins of humanitarian emergencies (pp. 147-178). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

23.

Fearon

(2003). Ethnic and cultural diversity by country. Journal of Economic Growth, 8, 195-222.

24.

Fitzpatrick

(2007). Tanzania. In Monie

Wall

(Eds.), Lonely planet (4th ed., pp. 103-265.). Victoria, Australia: Lonely Planet.

25.

Flanagan

Faison

(2001). Youth civic development: Implications of research for social policy and programs. Social policy report: A publication of the society for research in child development, 15, 3-15.

26.

Fortenberry

J. D.

Brizendine

E. J.

Katz

B. P.

Orr

D. P.

(2002). The role of self-efficacy and relationship quality in partner notification by adolescents with sexually transmitted infections. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 156, 1133-1137.

27.

Fuller

(1995). The demographic backdrop to ethnic conflict: A geographic overview. In CIA (Ed.), The challenge of ethnic conflict to national and international order in the 1990s (pp. 151-154), Washington, DC: Central Intelligence Agency.

28.

Green

E. D.

(2007). Demography, diversity and nativism in contemporary Africa: Evidence from Uganda, in nations and nationalism. Journal of the Association for the Study of Ethnicity and Nationalism, 13, 717-736.

29.

Grigorenko

E. L.

O’Keefe

P. A.

(2004). What do children do when they cannot go to school? In Sternberg

R. J.

Grigorenko

E. L.

(Eds.), Culture and competence: Contexts of life success (pp. 23-53). Washington, D C: American Psychological Association.

30.

Gyekye

(1988). The unexamined life: Philosophy and the African experience. Accra: Ghana Universities Press.

31.

Health Communication Partnership. (2007). African transformation engenders self-efficacy, improves gender norms, and increases community participation. Baltimore, MD: Health Communication Partnership.

32.

Helms

J. E.

(1990). Black and White racial identity: Theory, research and practice. New York, NY: Greenwood.

33.

Helms

J. E.

(1995). An update of Helms’s White and People of Color racial identity models. In Ponterotto

J. G.

Casas

J. M.

Suzuki

L. A.

Alexander

C. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (pp. 181-198). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

34.

Hilker

L. M.

(2009). Everyday ethnicities: Identity and reconciliation among Rwandan youth. Journal of Genocide Research, 11, 81-100.

35.

Horowitz

D. L.

(2000). Ethnic groups in conflict (2nd ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.

36.

Johnson

L. R.

Johnson-Pynn

(2007). Cultivating compassion and youth action around the globe: A preliminary report on Jane Goodall’s Roots and Shoots Program. Journal of Youth Development: Bridging Research and Practice. Retrieved from www.nae4ha.org

37.

Johnson

L. R.

Kibanja

Abdelali

(in press). African perspectives on invasion and personal engagement. In Malley-Morrison

Hines

D. A.

McCarthy

(Eds.). International Handbook on war, torture and terrorism. Springer.

38.

Johnson

L. R.

Tucker

(2008). Cultural issues. In Hersen

Gross

A. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of clinical psychology, vol 2: Children and adolescents (pp. 789-832). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

39.

Johnson-Pynn

J. S.

Johnson

L. R.

(2005). Successes and challenges in east African conservation education. Journal of Environmental Education, 36, 25-39.

40.

Johnson-Pynn

J. S.

Johnson

L. R

(2010). Exploring environmental education for East African youth: Do program contexts matter? Children, Youth and Environments, 20(1). Retrieved from http://www.colorado.edu/journals/cye

41.

Jöreskog

K. G.

Sörbom

(1981). LISREL V: Analysis of linear structural relationships by the method of maximum likelihood. Chicago, IL: National Educational Resources.

42.

Jöreskog

K. G.

Sörbom

(1989). LISREL 7 user’s reference guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software.

43.

Kibanja

Kajumba

M. M.

Johnson

L. R.

(in press). In R. Albert and D. Landis (Eds), Handbook of ethnopolitical conflict. Springer.

44.

Lerner

R. M.

(2004). Liberty: Thriving and civic engagement among American youth. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

45.

Lerner

R. M.

Fisher

C. B.

Weinberg

R. A.

(2000). Toward a science for and of the people: Promoting civil society through the application of developmental science. Child Development, 71, 11-20.

46.

Limber

S. P.

Kaufman

N. H. K.

(2002). Civic participation in children and youth. In Kaufman

N. H.

Rizzini

(Eds.), Globalization and children: Exploring potentials for enhancing opportunities in the lives of children and youth (pp. 81-90). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

47.

Maathai

(2008). Tribal clashes, healing and reconciliation; how and when? Retrieved from www.greenbeltmovement.org

48.

Moely

B. E.

McFarland

Miron

Mercer

S. H.

Ilustre

(2002a). Changes in college students’ attitudes and intentions for civic involvement as a function of service-learning experiences. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 9, 18-26.

49.

Moely

B. E.

Mercer

S. H.

Ilustre

Miron

McFarland

(2002b). Psychometric properties and correlates of the Civic Attitudes and Skills Questionnaire (CASQ): A measure of students’ attitudes related to service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 8, 15-26.

50.

Museveni

(1997). Sowing the mustard seed: The struggle for freedom and democracy in Uganda. Oxford, UK: Macmillan.

51.

Myers-Lipton

S. J.

(1996). Effect of service learning on college students’ attitudes toward international understanding. Journal of College Student Development, 37, 659-668.

52.

Naker

Mann

Rajani

(2007). The gap between rhetoric and practice: Critical perspectives on children’s participation. Children, Youth and Environments, 17, 99-103.

53.

Newbrough

J. R.

Lorion

R. P.

(1996). Sense of community: A theory’s evolution over a decade. Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 311-438.

54.

Oettingen

(1995). Cross-cultural perspectives on self-efficacy beliefs. In Bandura

(Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 149-176). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

55.

Opotow

Clayton

(Eds.). (2003). Identity and the natural environment: The psychological significance of nature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

56.

Owens

G. R.

(2005). The secret history of TANU: Rumor, historiography and Muslim unrest in contemporary Dar es Salaam. History and Anthropology, 16, 441-463.

57.

Phinney

(1989). Stages of ethnic identity development in minority group adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 9, 34-49.

58.

Phinney

(1992). The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure: A new scale for use with diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7, 156-176.

59.

Phinney

Alipuria

(1990). Ethnic identity in college students from four ethnic groups. Journal of Adolescence, 13, 171-183.

60.

Phinney

Jacoby

Silva

(2007). Positive intergroup attitudes: The role of ethnic identity. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31, 478-490.

61.

Proshansky

H. M.

Fabian

A. K.

Kaminoff

(1983). Place-identity: Physical world socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 57-83.

62.

Ratner

(2006). Cultural psychology: A perspective on psychological functioning and social reform. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

63.

Ripke

Huston

A. C.

Eccles

Templeton

(2008). The assessment of psychological, emotional, and social development indicators in middle childhood. In Brown

B. V.

(Ed.), Key indicators of child and youth well-being (pp.131-163). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

64.

Roberts

Phinney

Masse

Chen

Roberts

Romero

(1999). The structure of ethnic identity in young adolescents from diverse ethnocultural groups. Journal of Early Adolescence, 19, 301-322.

65.

Roth-Herbst

J. L.

Borberly

C. J.

Brooks-Gunn

(2008). Developing indicators of confidence, character, and caring in adolescence. In Brown

B. V.

(Ed.), Key indicators of child and youth well-being: Completing the picture (pp. 167-196). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

66.

Scales

P. C.

Benson

P. L.

Leffert

(2000). Contribution of developmental assets to the prediction of thriving among adolescents. Applied Developmental Science, 4, 27-46.

67.

Scholz

Gutierrez-Dona

Sud

Schwarzer

(2002). Is general self-efficacy a universal construct? Psychometric findings from 25 countries. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18, 242-251.

68.

Schwarzer

Jerusalem

(1995). Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale. In Weinman

Wright

Johnston

(Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35-37). Windsor, UK: Nfer-Nelson.

69.

Sharlet

(2010, September). Straight man’s burden: the American roots of Uganda’s anti-gay persecutions. Harper’s magazine, pp 36-48.

70.

Smith

E. P.

Walker

Fields

Brookins

C. C.

Seay

(1999). Ethnic identity and its relationship to self-esteem, perceived efficacy and prosocial attitudes in early adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 867-880.

71.

Sneed

J. R.

Schwartz

S. J.

Cross

W. E.

(2006). A multicultural critique of Eriksonian-based research and theory: A call for integration. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 6, 61-84.

72.

Steiger

J. H.

(1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173-180.

73.

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.

74.

Torney-Purta

Schwille

Amadeo

J. A.

(1999). Civic education across countries: Twenty-four case studies from the IEA Civic Education Project. Amsterdam, Netherlands: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA).

75.

Triandis

H. C.

(1995). Individualism and collectivism. San Francisco, CA: Westview.

76.

United Nations. (2009a). The Millennium Development Goals Report 2009. New York, NY: Author.

77.

United Nations. (2009b). Youth at the United Nations. Questions and answers. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unyin/qanda.htm

78.

United Nations Children’s Fund. (2004). Annual report 2003. New York, NY: UNICEF.

79.

United Nations. (2010). Assessing Africa’s progress toward the millenium developmental goals (MDG Report 2010). Retrieved from www.uneca.org/mdgreports/2010/2010MDGR.pdf

80.

Vaughan

P. W.

Rogers

E. M.

Singhal

Swalehe

R. M.

(2000). Entertainment-education and HIV/AIDS prevention: a field experiment in Tanzania. Journal of Health Communication, 5, 81-100.

81.

Visions of Humanity (2010). The Global Peace Index. Retrieved from www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi-data

82.

Worrell

F. C.

Conyers

L. M.

Mpofu

Vandiver

B. J.

(2006). Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure scores in a sample of adolescents from Zimbabwe. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 6, 35-59.

83.

Yancey

A. K.

Aneshensel

C. S.

Driscoll

A. K.

(2001). The assessment of ethnic identity in a diverse urban youth population. Journal of Black Psychology, 27, 190-208.

84.

Yartey

C. A.

(2004). The economics of civil war in sub-saharan Africa. In Clement

J. A. P.

(Ed.), Postconflict economics in sub-saharan Africa: Lessons from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (pp. 87-128). Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.

85.

Yoshikawa

Weisner

T. S.

Kalil

Way

(2008). Mixing qualitative and quantitative research in developmental science: Uses and methodological choices. Developmental Psychology, 44, 344-354.