Becoming Asian (American)? Inter-ethnic differences in racial,ethnic,and American identities for Asian American adults

Abstract

Asian Americans’ incorporation into American society is structured by interactions with a racial hierarchy that presents greater barriers for some ethnic groups more than others. The racialized assimilation framework predicts that experiences of discrimination shape incorporation into US society. This study investigates the impact of discrimination on the importance placed on three identities—racial, ethnic, American identity—relative to indicators of structural assimilation. Using the post-election wave of the 2016 National Asian American Survey (N = 3923), we estimate multivariable models to explore the centrality of racial, ethnic, and American identity among an ethnically diverse sample of Asian Americans. Regardless of ethnic group, a large majority deem American as a central identity, with greater variation in race and ethnicity centrality. Discriminatory encounters increased centrality of racial and American identity; meanwhile, educational attainment drives down the centrality of racial identity, though exerting no impact on American identity centrality. Ethnicity moderates these relationships as discrimination enhances racial identity centrality for Koreans, Indians, and Japanese but drives down racial centrality for Chinese adults. Findings reveal that racialized encounters are a distinctive component of the assimilation process resulting in variable expressions of identity among Asian Americans, revealing identity variation across Asian American ethnic groups.

Keywords

Asian American identity racialized assimilation ethnicity racial identity american identity assimilation

Asian Americans¹ are the fastest growing racial/ethnic population in the United States, expanding from 11.9 million to 20.4 million between 2000 and 2015 (Lopez et al., 2017). The ways that members of this group defines themselves in terms of either highlighting the pan-ethnic racial label “Asian”, specific ethnic origins (e.g., “Chinese”), or nationality (i.e., “American”) remains a salient indicator of this group’s adaptation and incorporation (Alba and Nee, 2003; Lee and Bean, 2010; Lee and Ramakrishnan, 2020; Louie, 2012). A recent example from Lee and Ramakrishnan (2020) notes that South Asians are often not viewed as Asian by non-Asians and other Asian ethnic groups, raising critical questions about internal claims to being “Asian” when that label may be differentially ascribed. While assertions that Asians have successfully assimilated suggest “American” identities are both meaningful and fully embraced (Alba and Nee, 2003; Gordon, 1964), the tremendous ethnic heterogeneity amongst Asians likely affects differences in expression of identity. Asian Americans encompass groups hailing from more than 20 countries. However, Chinese, Japanese, or Korean experiences are generally most well represented in research on assimilation (for example, Alba and Nee, 2003; Lee and Zhou, 2015; Portes and Rumbaut, 2001), with relatively less information on South Asians, Cambodians, or Hmong. Thus, we are limited when we speak of identity formation and assimilation among Asian Americans as a group, questioning the viability of coalescing around a particular label when describing those who fall under the pan-ethnic category. The degree to which labels such as “Asian” are universally embraced by Asian Americans remains an on-going question (Lee and Kye, 2016).

How Asian Americans engage various forms of identification is indicative of their position within American society as well as the role of race in patterning day-to-day lives. Race and racial barriers remain a salient part of Asian experiences (Chou and Feagin, 2008), limiting the likelihood of full assimilation for some Asian Americans (Chou, 2012; Lee and Kye, 2016; Xu and Lee, 2013). Asian-specific stereotypes and notions of Asians as “perpetual foreigners” represent clear barriers to full incorporation to Americanness for Asian Americans (Xu and Lee, 2013). However, these experiences may typify some Asian ethnic groups, but not all. Encountering racial discrimination or confronting stereotypes represents a strong socialization force that shapes identity of any group (Seaton et al., 2009; Strmic-Pawl, 2016), and has certainly impacted the formation and expression of Asian American identity (Chou and Feagin, 2008). Shared experiences of discrimination, regardless of ethnicity, are core to the formation of Asian American pan-ethnicity (Chou and Feagin, 2008; Espiritu, 1992; Okamoto, 2003, 2006). Early in the formation of identity, experiences of discrimination would lead to a greater emphasis placed on being Asian. Additionally, discrimination experiences by immigrants and their descendants undermine a sense of Americanness, signaling barriers to the immigrant incorporation process, resulting in a lessened attachment to American as an identity (Golash-Boza, 2006; Louie, 2012; Portes and Rumbaut, 2001).

This work addresses three important gaps in exploring identity formation among Asians and Asian Americans. First, the role of discrimination on various forms of identification has yet to be clarified, particularly vis-a-vis other identities. While we know confronting bias or encountering stereotypes may lead to an investment in identifying as Asian (Chou and Feagin, 2008; Okamoto, 2006), it is less clear if this undercuts one’s attachment to their American identity. Second, pan-ethnic, ethnic, or American/national labels are often explored as mutually exclusive statuses (Brubaker et al., 2004), even as they can (and often are) experienced jointly (Chen et al., 2006). This reflects both broader ties between race, ethnicity, and nation (Brubaker et al., 2004) and the layered nature of identity (Nagel, 1994). Identifying with a racial group does not preclude one from identifying with an ethnic group (Rodriguez-Silva, 2012), nor does it mean one is no longer attached to their “American” identity. Yet, there is less understanding of how these occur simultaneously. Finally, ethnic differences in identification are a necessary, but understudied, component of exploring Asian American identities. Understanding the salience of a pan-ethnic label requires attention to perspectives across ethnic groups. Most of what is known represents experiences of the demographically largest groups (e.g., Chinese, Koreans) with less information beyond select groups (for example, Alba and Nee, 2003; Lee and Zhou, 2015; Portes and Rumbaut, 2001). There is considerable phenotypic variation (e.g., skin color) amongst Asians and even variable recognition as Asian (Kibria, 1998; Ocampo, 2016), pointing to a wide range of encounters faced by this group and substantial ethnic differences in race, (pan)ethnic, or American identifying.

To extend our knowledge on social and symbolic aspects of immigrant assimilation, this research shifts the focus away from labels and identification and instead explores conditions that shape the attachment to ways of identifying. We focus on structural assimilation and racialized assimilation as processes that affect the importance or centrality of race (i.e., Asian/American), ethnicity, or American identity for Asian American adults. Racial, national, and ethnic identities are multifaceted and complex. American can be both ethnic or national, but is used in this research to represent belonging into a social group identified as “American.” Relative to identification (Roth, 2016; Sellers and Shelton, 2003), or the categories one employs, identity refers to the meaning these labels carry and how central individuals deem them to be. Despite a growing body of work on Asian American identification, there is relatively little research on more fluid forms of identification. This is an important shortcoming as identity formation is often most responsive to racial or ethnic socializing forces, like discrimination. Moreover, comparing this across Asian ethnic groups (Kibria, 2002) yields critical insight into the heterogeneity amongst Asian Americans’ identification patterns and the degree to which Asian American pan-ethnic identifying continues to carry a shared relevance across ethnicity.

The current work explores identity formation across a range of Asian American ethnic groups and the roles of structural assimilation and discrimination. We leverage the 2016 National Asian American Survey (NAAS), which includes nationally representative samples of ten Asian ethnic groups. We use data from the post-election sample of the 2016 NAAS. Our research addresses the following questions: Does the importance of racial, ethnic, and American identity vary across Asian American ethnic groups? Does structural assimilation explain differences in racial, ethnic, or American identity among Asian Americans? How do experiences of discrimination shape racial, ethnic, and American identity among Asian Americans?

“Asian”, “Chinese” or “American”?: Defining identity as racial, ethnic, and national

Drawing from identity theory, identity can be defined as socially constructed understandings of one’s social position, which is shaped externally and internally (Burke and Stets, 2009; Stryker and Burke, 2000). Race, ethnicity and nationality are three important dimensions that shape the ways people fit into their social world (Brubaker, 2004; Stryker, 1987). While identification conveys the label one employs (see Brunsma, 2006), identity refers to the meaning imbued and the importance it carries. Identities are multidimensional and layered (Nagel, 1994), connoting different types of affiliations that become relevant in day-to-day interactions. Ultimately, as identities are implicitly layered and complex, these dimensions all operate simultaneously and contain different aspects of how individuals understand themselves. In this study, we focus on the dimension of identity centrality, which indicates how important a particular identity is to an individual (Sellers and Shelton, 2003).

Importantly, we also interrogate racial, ethnic, and national identities as inherently interrelated (Brubaker, 2004; Roth, 2012). For Asian Americans, as is the case with other immigrant groups, group labels signal engagement with nearly all of one’s identities simultaneously (Lee and Ramakrishnan, 2020; Roth, 2016). Hyphenated terms such as Chinese-American or pan-ethnic ones such as Asian American, highlight the national identity as much as ethnic or racial identities. While this approach may signal that “Asian”, “Chinese”, or “Japanese” is central to one’s identity, “American” may also be equally central as well, highlighting its varied and shifting importance across a range of social contexts (Stets and Burke, 2000; Sellers et al., 1998; Roth, 2016).

As we frame identity as a contextually based experience, this study examines how experiences of incorporation or exclusion inform distinctive facets of identity differently (Sellers et al., 1998; Stryker and Burke, 2008), as some may amplify racial centrality while diminishing American centrality. The key contextual components that drive identity centrality extend from two different models of immigrant adaptation, one that predicts or explains the diminishing of ethnic and racial distinction and another that scopes adaptation as inherently racializing (Alba and Nee, 2003; Golash-Boza, 2006). Hence, interrogating factors that shape how Asian Americans identify racially, ethnically, and nationally is critical in moving toward a more complete understanding of identity formation. The forthcoming sections will lay out two theoretical understandings of critical forces that shape Asian American and immigrant identities: Structural Assimilation and Racialized Assimilation Theory.

Structural explanations for immigrant assimilation

Traditional assimilation theory predicts that attachment to ethnic distinction will decrease over time as immigrants integrate into American society (Alba and Nee, 2003; Jimenez, 2010; Lee and Bean, 2010; Massey and Sanchez, 2010; Portes and Rumbaut, 2001; Waters, 1990). Gordon (1964: 71) noted a distinct part of assimilation as based in identificational assimilation, the “development of a sense of peoplehood based exclusively on [the] host society.” Alba and Nee (2003: 12) provided clarity to the social body into which immigrants assimilate, termed the American Mainstream, a social body in which “racial and ethnic origins have at most minor impacts on life chances or opportunities.” According to this framework, immigrants’ assimilation leads to the “blurring” of ethnic boundaries in the US (Alba, 2005, 2009; Alba and Nee, 2003). Ethnic distinctions become less relevant with the assimilation of immigrants into the American Mainstream and “individuals on both sides of the [ethnic] boundary see themselves more and more alike” (Alba and Nee, 2003: 11). Thus, during the process of immigrant assimilation, the centrality of racial and ethnic identity decreases while identities common across all Americans, such as national identity, should increase.

To capture the assimilation process among immigrants, immigration scholars often look for evidence of structural assimilation. In the process of assimilation, immigrants develop primary and secondary relationships that embed them in institutions in the host society. Structural assimilation acts as a mechanism to foster these relationships with the host society that emerge upon socioeconomic attainment, such as intermarriage (Alba and Nee, 2004; Lee and Bean, 2004) or educational attainment (Alba and Nee, 2003; Jimenez and Horowitz, 2013; Lee and Zhou, 2015; Portes and Rumbaut, 2001; Waters and Jimenez, 2005). Furthermore, the expectation is that structural assimilation becomes more possible across generations as the assimilation of the first generation is impeded by language barriers, making them more likely to turn to ethnic enclaves and ethnic specific institutions (Alba and Nee, 2003; Portes, 2007; Telles and Ortiz, 2008). Meanwhile, second and third generations have more opportunities available to embed themselves into occupational and educational institutions.

In sum, structural mobility is part of an assimilation process that includes identificational shifts. If structural assimilation is associated with identity, we would anticipate that those who are assimilated in this way would deem their American identity as highly central and their racial or ethnic identity as peripheral. Inter-ethnic differences in racial, ethnic, and national identity, therefore, should reflect differences in socioeconomic achievement and generational status.

However, some previous research challenges the notion that socioeconomic achievement reflects an experience where racial barriers are essentially absent, translating into greater attachment to an American identity or a detachment to racial or ethnic identity. Both Jimenez and Horowitz (2013) and Lee and Zhou (2015) found that increases in educational attainment did not offset obstacles to social acceptance amongst Americans, resulting in deleterious mental health outcomes for Asian Americans. Furthermore, Xu and Lee (2013) discovered that, even perceived socioeconomic success attributed to Asians did not temper the idea of Asians as “perpetual foreigners,” linked to identities outside of the purview of being seen as American. Lee and Zhou (2015) noted that Asian immigrants and Asian Americans measure educational attainment relative to fellow co-ethnics (e.g., other Chinese, Japanese) and not other (non-Asian) Americans, signaling that socioeconomic success can result in a maintenance of ethnic distinction, as opposed to reducing its importance. Lastly, much of the previous work assessing the role of structural assimilation as a means to successful assimilation for Asian Americans as a pan-ethnic group falls short in explanation beyond a few groups (for example, Alba and Nee, 2003; Lee and Zhou, 2015; Portes and Rumbaut, 2001).

Racialized assimilation

Racialized assimilation attempts to identify the mechanisms through which immigrants to the United States adapt to American racial schemas and develop either white or non-white racial identities (Golash-Boza, 2006; Golash-Boza and Darity, 2008; Lee and Kye, 2016). Racialized assimilation emphasizes the role of racial discrimination in shaping the racial identities of immigrants. Immigrants that experience racial discrimination in the United States will be more likely to adopt a non-white racial identity, while those that encounter little racial discrimination will likely adopt a white racial identity (Golash-Boza and Darity, 2008; Quiros and Dawson, 2013; Stokes-Brown, 2012). Importantly, immigrants will be less likely to attach a hyphenated “American” label to their racial identities due to this process. Hence, experiencing racial discrimination should increase the centrality of race but decrease the centrality of an American identity.

Several studies have provided evidence to support this theory, particularly for Latinx immigrants. For example, Golash-Boza and Darity (2008) find that discrimination predicts whether immigrants adopt a black or white identity. Frank et al. (2010) argue that darker-skinned immigrants often face more income discrimination and are less likely to identify as white as a result. Other studies have found similar dynamics (Quiros and Dawson, 2013; Roth, 2010, 2012; Stokes-Brown, 2012; Vasquez, 2010, 2011). Furthermore, Golash-Boza (2006) finds that immigrants are less likely to maintain a hyphenated “American” racial identity over time. These studies lend credence to the theory that racial discrimination operates as a major driver of racial and national identities among immigrants.

Despite strong evidence that supports racialized assimilation, several aspects have been overlooked. First, it is an open question as to how this process affects ethnic identity. While racialized assimilation clearly predicts how discrimination may affect racial and national identities, it is less clear how discrimination may impact ethnic identity and an exploration of how discrimination relates to ethnic identity would provide a more complete picture of how the immigration process impacts self-understanding (Golash-Boza and Darity, 2008).

Second, racialized assimilation has been well studied among Latinx immigrants but less is known about whether these same dynamics occur for Asian immigrants (Lee and Kye, 2016; Schachter, 2014). Lien et al. (2003), a rare study that does examine the impact of discrimination on the identification of Asian Americans, finds that racial discrimination increases the likelihood of an Asian American identification but does not affect the likelihood of identifying as American. On the other hand, Schachter (2014) argues that discrimination discourages pan-ethnic identification among Indian immigrants. Given these findings, the role of discrimination in shaping the identities of Asian Americans, especially across different ethnic groups, is less clear.

This research extends previous studies regarding the ways that structural assimilation and racialized assimilation frameworks explain immigrant groups’ incorporation processes into American society. By focusing exclusively on Asian Americans, our work examines how discriminatory experiences have different impacts across Asian groups on the degree of importance that individuals place on their racial, ethnic, and American identities. Regardless of discrimination experiences at either an individual or group level, we first predict that Asian Americans will likely place more importance on their American identity but less importance on their racial and ethnic identity when they have greater exposure to the United States and structural assimilation. Conversely, we also predict that experiences of discrimination will correspond to increased racial and ethnic centrality, but decreased centrality of American identity among Asian Americans, regardless of ethnicity, level of structural assimilation, or exposure to the United States. Lastly, we predict that the impact of discrimination on the importance individuals place on their racial, ethnic, and national identities varies across generation status and ethnicity.

We do have knowledge from previous studies that Asian-specific stereotypes, such as model minority and notions of Asians as “perpetual foreigners” (Xu and Lee, 2013), explicitly resulted in the prevention of Asian Americans from fully incorporating into American society. However, what this research highlights is to what degree discrimination experiences among Asian American individuals impact how they identify themselves in terms of race, ethnicity, and nationality, rather than outsiders’ perspectives on Asian immigrants’ incorporation into American society.

Hypotheses

We seek to unpack the effects of two prominent themes in the immigration literature used to frame assimilation, structural mobility and racialized assimilation, to understand patterns of identity centrality among Asian Americans. Based on prior research, we have arrived at the following research hypotheses:
H1: Greater exposure to the United States and greater structural assimilation, as indicated by higher levels of education and generational status, will increase the likelihood that Asian Americans will deem an American identity more central, regardless of ethnic group or individual experience of discrimination. Conversely, greater exposure to the US and increased structural assimilation, measured by educational attainment, will decrease the importance of racial and ethnic identity among Asian Americans.

H2: Experiences of discrimination will correspond to greater centrality of racial and ethnic identity, regardless of ethnicity, level of structural assimilation, or exposure to the United States. Meanwhile, experiences of discrimination will be negatively associated with centrality of American identity among Asian Americans.

H3: As generational status increases, the magnitude of the association between discrimination and ethnic, racial and national identity centrality for 2+ generation Asian Americans will be significantly lessened compared to first generation Asian Americans.

H4: Exposure to discrimination will result in increased ethnic centrality for ethnic groups that are more likely to be racialized as “non-Asian”, specifically South and Southeast Asians, relative to Asian Americans who are racialized as “Asian” (e.g., East Asians).

Data and methods

The study draws on data from the post-election wave of the 2016 National Asian American Survey (NAAS). The NAAS is a repeated cross-section survey aimed to collect nationally representative information on political attitudes and participation for 18+ adults before (August–October 2016) and after (November 2016–February 2017) the 2016 United States federal election, with a focus on Asian Americans. Surveys were conducted on the telephone and the sample was drawn from using registered voter and commercial vending samples listed on Catalist.

These particular data are well suited to this study for several reasons. First, very few data sources include large samples of Asian American respondents. The NAAS includes viable samples of 10 Asian American ethnic groups: Chinese, Bangladeshi, Cambodian, Filipino, Hmong, Indian, Japanese, Korean, Pakistani, and Vietnamese (group sizes shown in the last column of Table 1). There are at least 250 individuals from each ethnic group used in this research, with the highest number of respondents identifying as Korean, Japanese, Vietnamese, and Indian. Importantly, the 2016 NAAS provides statistically viable samples of understudied ethnic groups, such as Hmong (n = 327) and Bangladeshi (n = 276). The variation across ethnic groups allows for assessment of intra-racial differences among Asian Americans for centrality of racial, ethnic and American identities. Second, the NAAS includes detailed information about racial, ethnic, and American centrality.

While the NAAS includes respondents who do not identify as Asian American, we limit the sample to those who identify as Asian American (n = 4393). Second, only respondents who provided valid answers for all measures of interest were included, leaving a final analytic sample of 3923 respondents.

Measures

Our key dependent variables capture racial, ethnic, and American centrality. To gauge racial centrality, each respondent was asked, “How important is being Asian to your identity?” The response categories, which range from 1 to 4, consist of “Not at all important”, “Somewhat important”, “Very important” and “Extremely important”, with 1 indicating “Not at all important” and 4 indicating “Extremely important”. Each respondent was asked with the same response categories to report the importance of their ethnic group, with their ethnic group (e.g., “Vietnamese”, “Cambodian”) referenced instead of Asian, and then asked to report the importance of being American to their identity.

To capture the likelihood that respondents would deem these identities as important, we formed a trichotomous variable to capture identity centrality—“not at all important”, “somewhat important,” and a third category collapsing “extremely important” and “very important”. To gauge centrality, our goal is to explore the likelihood of claiming these identities as important. We therefore collapsed “extremely” and “very” important into one category that was distinct from claiming identities as either somewhat and not at all important. This is a three-category variable: 1 (not at all important); 2 (somewhat important); and 3 (very or extremely important).

Key independent variables capture discrimination, generational status, and educational attainment. For discrimination, each respondent was asked, “In an average month, do any of the following things happen to you?” Respondents were then provided a list of experiences such as “People act as if you don’t speak English”, “People act as if they think you are dishonest”, “People mispronounce your name”, “People assume you are good at math and science”, and “People assume you are not a creative thinker”². Importantly, people were given other experiences but only these were included to operationalize our discrimination index because they represent persistent stereotypes of Asian Americans (Chou and Feagin, 2010). We then calculated the proportion of discriminatory experiences for each respondent on a scale of 0–1 on measures for which they provided a valid answer. A substantial number of respondents did not provide any information on their encounters, suggesting that we may be undercounting the extent of encounters with discrimination. Our discriminatory index score, however, allows for inclusion of all Asian Americans respondents who answered at least two of the discriminatory measures. For example, the discrimination score for a respondent who provided answers to all five discrimination questions and answered “yes” to all of the discrimination measures would have a score of 1, those who said “yes” to two of the five would have a score of .40. The discrimination index reflects the extent of discriminatory encounters among those that respondents have provided, however, non-response is presumed to reflect an absence of this as an experience. We are aware, however, that this method of dealing with missing data may impact the precision of our estimates (Raghunathan, 2004), yet did so to maximize the size and ethnic diversity in our analytical sample.

To capture generational status, we combined questions tapping into respondents’ nativity and that of their parents. Respondents born outside the US represent “first generation immigrants,” those born in the US with at least one parent born outside the US as “second generation”, and those born in the US to American-born parents as “3+ generation”. Unfortunately, the NAAS only contains a viable sample of “3+ generation” Asian Americans among respondents who identified as Japanese. Thus, we combined “second generation” with “3+ generation” respondents to form a dichotomous variable comparing “first generation” with “2+ generation” Asian Americans in our analysis.

Educational attainment represents a four-category measure of the highest level of education obtained by each respondent. The four education categories are “less than high school” (ref.), “high school graduate,” “some college,” and “4-year degree or better”. To test for ethnic differences in racial, ethnic, and American centrality among Asian Americans, we include a measure corresponding to the respondent’s ethnic identification—Chinese (ref.), Bangladeshi, Cambodian, Filipino, Hmong, Indian, Japanese, Korean, Pakistani, and Vietnamese. Lastly, we control for age (18-24 (ref.), 25-34, 35-49, 50-64, and 65 or older), region of residence (West (ref.), Northeast, South, Midwest), and sex (female) in the subsequent multivariable analyses.

Analytical strategy

All analyses were conducted using Stata 14. To assess ethnic variation among Asian Americans in our outcome measures—racial, ethnic, and American centrality—we calculated mean scores for each identity measure as well as conducting a chi-square analysis testing for significant differences across ethnicity when race, ethnicity, or American identity are seen as “extremely” or “very” important. We also ran appropriate descriptive statistics to capture the distribution and variation of key independent measures and controls. Lastly, we ran three multinomial logistic regression analyses to predict each outcome measure: racial, ethnic, and American centrality. The first model of each analysis includes ethnicity, educational attainment, generational status, and all control variables. The second model of each analysis adds the discrimination index to test for the effects of racialized assimilation. The third model includes a term interacting discrimination and generational status to test our third research hypothesis followed by a final model adding an interactive term using the discrimination index and respondent ethnicity. The presented statistics for the multinomial regression analyses are relative risk ratios (RRR). We used RRR as they reflect the ratio of the probabilities based upon conditions of the dependent variable (e.g., probability when identity is “very or extremely important”/probability when identity is “not at all important”).

Results

Ethnic variation in identity centrality

Table 1 shows the variation in reports of racial, ethnic, and American centrality measures for the full sample and by ethnic origin group. We show the mean score of the scale, ranging from 1 to 3, and the percent indicating a response of 3 (or very/extremely important). The mean score for race centrality is 2.3 among Asian Americans, between “somewhat important” and “very or extremely important” to their identity, on average. There is considerable variation in race centrality, with Indian and Chinese adults reporting the lowest centrality (Mean = 2.0 and 2.1, respectively) and Cambodian adults reporting race as central to their identity (Mean = 2.7). The dichotomous measure further disentangles these patterns. Half of the respondents (50.2%) see race as central to their identity overall, with more than 70% of Cambodians (79.3%) and Hmong (73.7%) deeming race as central, followed by Vietnamese (59.7%), Koreans (54.3%), and Filipinos (51.4%), and less than 40% of Chinese, Indian, Pakistani, and Bangladeshi adults reporting “Asian” as important to their identity.
Table 1.
Distribution of ethnic, racial, and American identity centrality by ethnic background (2016 NAAS Post-Election Wave; n = 3923).

Racial Identity Ethnic Identity American Identity n

Mean (SD) % Very Important Mean (SD) % Very Important Mean (SD) % Very Important

Full Sample 2.31 (.765) 50.24 2.39 (.751) 55.57 2.61 (.640) 69.95 3923

Bangladeshi 2.13 (.772) 37.32 2.28 (.770) 47.10 2.79 (.448) 81.16 276

Cambodian 2.72 (.596) 79.27 2.57 (.652) 66.11 2.69 (.576) 75.07 357

Chinese 2.08 (.826) 38.24 2.17 (.826) 44.19 2.36 (.751) 52.97 387

Filipino 2.38 (.711) 51.43 2.52 (.696) 63.30 2.65 (.585) 70.99 455

Hmong 2.69 (.566) 73.70 2.81 (.469) 84.71 2.79 (.505) 82.87 327

Indian 2.00 (.785) 31.00 2.28 (.773) 47.74 2.68 (.589) 73.98 442

Japanese 2.22 (.740) 40.89 2.35 (.713) 49.15 2.63 (.611) 69.92 472

Korean 2.38 (.751) 54.30 2.20 (.789) 43.19 2.37 (.747) 53.25 477

Pakistani 2.13 (.762) 36.63 2.19 (.811) 44.32 2.62 (.654) 71.43 273

Vietnamese 2.44 (.745) 59.74 2.56 (.693) 67.40 2.66 (.646) 75.93 457

Source: 2016 National Asian American Survey (Post-Election Wave).

Note: Standard deviation in parentheses.

Means for ethnic centrality revealed somewhat less variation across ethnic groups. The mean score is 2.4, with Chinese adults at the low end (Mean = 2.2) and Hmong reporting the highest (Mean = 2.8). The dichotomous measure revealed slightly more than half of Asian Americans report ethnicity as very/extremely important to their identity (55.6%), with over 80% of Hmong reporting their ethnicity as important to their identity, followed by Vietnamese (67.4%), Cambodians (66.1%), and Filipinos (63.3).

American identity, by contrast, was the most widely embraced identity, with a mean score of 2.6 and a narrow range (2.4–2.8). Almost 70% of Asian Americans rate American identity as important, with over 80% of Hmong (82.9%) and Bangladeshi (81.2%) individuals granting importance to American identity. Meanwhile, over 50% of individuals in all other groups report American as central to their identity.

Asian Americans in the 2016 NAAS

Table 2 shows descriptive statistics for key independent variables in this research. The mean score for experiences of discrimination is .34. Asian Americans in the sample have experienced discrimination for slightly more than a third of the discrimination measures used in this study (see Methods section for elaboration of the discrimination measures used in this study). The majority of respondents are 50 years of age or more (59%), with 54.4% of all participants having a 4-year college degree or better. Just over half of the respondents hail from western states (50.5%), followed by the Northeast (18.2%), South (18.2%), and Midwest (13.2%). Lastly, the majority of the sample is male (53.2%) and first generation immigrant (73.6%).
Table 2.
Proportions and means of key independent variables in the 2016 National Asian American Survey (Post-Election Wave) (n = 3923).

Percent/Mean Frequency/Standard Deviation

Age

18–24 9.15 359

25–34 14.91 585

35–49 16.95 665

50–64 26.13 1025

65 and older 32.86 1289

Education

Less than high school 17.13 672

High school graduate 16.29 639

Some college 12.21 479

4-year degree or more 54.37 2133

Region

West 50.45 1979

Northeast 18.23 715

South 18.15 712

Midwest 13.18 517

Female 46.75 1834

2+ generation 26.43 1037

Discrimination Index .337 .249

Source: 2016 National Asian American Survey (Post-Election Wave).

Structural assimilation, discrimination, and identity centrality among Asian Americans

Table 3 shows relative risk ratios predicting the importance of racial, ethnic, and American identity centrality among Asian Americans. We test our first hypothesis (H1) in Models 1, 3, and 5 that predict all measures of centrality with covariates for ethnicity, structural assimilation (i.e., education level), exposure to the United States (i.e., generational status), controlling for demographic characteristics, such as age, gender, and geography location (i.e., region). Hypothesis 1 (H1) predicts a positive relationship between educational attainment and exposure to the United States and American centrality, regardless of ethnic group. To test our second hypothesis (H2), we introduce our index of discrimination (see Models 2, 4, and 6) and gauge the association between discrimination and viewing either race (Model 2), ethnicity (Model 4) or American Identity (Model 6) as central. Hypothesis 2 (H2) predicts that discrimination will be positively related to race and ethnic centrality and negatively related to American centrality. Relative risk ratios that exceed 1 reflect a greater likelihood that Asian Americans see race, ethnicity, or American identity as “very” or “extremely” central to their identity compared to “not at all” important, net of other predictors in the model.
Table 3.
Relative risk ratios from multinomial logistic regressions predicting identity centrality (n = 3923).

Racial Centrality Ethnic Centrality American Centrality

(ref. “not at all important”)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6

Ethnicity (ref. Chinese)

Bangladeshi 1.01 .976 1.06 1.03 12.22* 11.63*

(.218) (.212) (.234) (.228) (5.92) (5.64)

Cambodian 7.51* 7.81* 4.17* 4.34* 3.84* 4.10*

(1.89) (1.98) (1.02) (1.07) (1.11) (1.19)

Filipino 3.55* 3.41* 3.40* 3.28* 3.47* 3.25*

(.712) (.688) (.697) (.676) (.903) (.852)

Hmong 8.38* 8.08* 11.36* 10.98* 5.64* 5.29*

(2.55) (2.47) (4.03) (3.90) (1.94) (1.83)

Indian .877 .842 1.46* 1.41† 3.31* 3.10*

(.162) (.157) (.277) (.269) (.845) (.797)

Japanese 2.47* 2.45* 2.69* 2.67* 2.01** 1.97*

(.517) (.512) (.587) (.583) (.539) (.529)

Korean 2.85* 2.82* 1.16 1.15 1.03 1.01

(.528) (.523) (.207) (.205) (.206) (.202)

Pakistani 1.22 1.21 .935 .931 2.17 2.15

(.263) (.262) (.197) (.196) (.579) (.575)

Vietnamese 3.51* 3.45* 3.82* 3.76* 2.76* 2.67*

(.669) (.658) (.771) (.760) (.620) (.602)

Age (ref. 18–24)

25–34 .556* .564* .911 .925 1.59 1.61

(.136) (.138) (.229) (.233) (.502) (.511)

34–49 .356* .359* .540* .545* 1.43 1.45

(.085) (.086) (.130) (.131) (.435) (.441)

50–64 .272* .278* .304* .310* 1.31 1.34

(.064) (.066) (.071) (.073) (.377) (.386)

65 an older .262* .269* .292* .300* .982 1.02

(.062) (.064) (.069) (.071) (.277) (.289)

Education (ref. less than high school)

High school graduate .861 .854 .912 .906 .778 .765

(.165) (.164) (.175) (.175) (.170) (.168)

Some college .554 .538 .742 .722 .835 .792

(.115) (.112) (.161) (.157) (.214) (.204)

Bachelor’s degree or more .641* .620** .742† .719† .942 .888

(.112) (.109) (.131) (.128) (.195) (.186)

Region (ref. West)

Northeast 1.23 1.23 1.07 1.07 1.13 1.12

(.167) (.167) (.146) (.145) (.195) (.194)

South 1.32* 1.31* 1.16 1.15 1.11 1.10

(.173) (.172) (.154) (.153) (.186) (.184)

Midwest 1.28 1.26 1.15 1.14 .944 .924

(.211) (.209) (.199) (.196) (.190) (.187)

Female 1.69* 1.71* 1.39* 1.41* 1.23† 1.26†

(.162) (.165) (.136) (.138) (.151) (.155)

2+ generation .913 .914 .930 .930 2.34* 2.35*

(.129) (.129) (.139) (.140) (.490) (.491)

Discrimination Index 1.49* 1.44† 1.93*

(.297) (.297) (.513)

Constant 3.60* 3.22* 4.21* 3.79* 2.38* 2.00†

(1.12) (1.01) (1.31) (1.20) (.883) (.755)

Source: 2016 National Asian American Survey (Post-Election Wave).

^†p < .10, p < .05; p < .01; p < .001.

Note: Standard errors in parentheses. Tables compare “very/extremely important” to “not at all important”. Results for “somewhat important” are suppressed. All models include aspects of structural assimilation (e.g., educational attainment) whereas Models 2, 4, and 6 add factors associated with racialized assimilation (e.g., discrimination).

We begin with a discussion of the inter-ethnic variation in centrality of racial, ethnic, and American identity. According to Model 1, a majority of ethnic groups in our sample see race as more significant and central to their identity than Chinese respondents. Compared to Chinese, the relative risk ratios show that Hmong (RRR = 8.4, p < .001) and Cambodians (RRR = 7.5, p < .001) are much more likely to see race as very important and central to their identity, followed by Filipinos (RRR = 3.6, p < .001), Vietnamese (RRR = 3.5, p < .001), Koreans (RRR = 2.9, p < .001), and Japanese (RRR = 2.5, p < .001). The level of racial identity centrality for Pakistani and Bangladeshi is not significantly different from Chinese respondents. Although Indians consider race as less important to their identity (RRR = .90) than Chinese, it is not statistically significant.

The role of education and exposure to the United States on race, ethnic, and American identity is somewhat consistent with the predictions of Hypothesis 1 (H1). Greater educational attainment, signaling greater structural assimilation, is associated with lowered race centrality, according to Model 1, especially for those with some college (RRR = .55, p < .01) or 4-year college degrees (RRR = .64, p < .05). Similarly, ethnic identity is less central with greater education though only to a marginal degree (Model 3; “4-year degree or better”—RRR = .74, p < .10), independent of generational status and specific ethnic group. However, educational attainment does not significantly predict increased centrality of American identity (see Model 5). Consistent with H1, Asian Americans of second generation or higher are much more likely than first-generation immigrants to see American identity as central (Model 5; RRR = 2.3, p < .001). Meanwhile, increased exposure to American society decreases the centrality of racial identity (see Model 1; not statistically significant) and has a null relationship to ethnic centrality among Asian Americans (see Model 3).

Next, we evaluate Hypothesis 2 (H2), which predicts a positive association between exposure to discrimination and racial and ethnic centrality and a negative relationship to American centrality. We also find mixed evidence for H2. According to Models 2 and 4, discriminatory experiences do significantly predict greater racial centrality (RRR = 1.5, p < .05) and ethnic centrality (RRR = 1.4, p < .10), although the latter association is only marginally significant. Interestingly, adjusting for discrimination does not narrow inter-ethnic patterns in racial or ethnic centrality, indicating that inter-ethnic differences in identity centrality are not necessarily a function of inter-ethnic differences in discrimination. However, according to Model 6, exposure to discrimination also strongly predicts increased centrality of American identity among Asian Americans (RRR = 1.9, p < .05). This suggests that, while discrimination sensitizes Asian Americans to the importance of race to their sense of self, it also bolsters their affinity with American identity as opposed to reducing it.

The remaining controls reveal that age, sex, and geography are central to the shaping of these identities. Asian American women are more likely than their male peers to deem any type of identity as central, supporting other work revealing that ethnic and racial identification is a highly gendered process (Davenport, 2016; Rockquemore, 2002). Age also has a consistent relationship across dimensions of identity, as older Asian Americans are less likely to report race or ethnicity as central relative to their younger peers. Geographically, results from Model 1 and 2 reveal that Asian Americans in the South are roughly 30% more likely than their peers living in the West to see race as central to their identity.

Table 4 shows the results of the interaction analyses testing Hypothesis 3 (H3) and 4 (H4) to test if the role of discrimination on racial, ethnic, or American centrality varies by immigrant generation or ethnicity among Asian Americans. We find little evidence that the relationship between discrimination and identity centrality varies by exposure or time in the US (e.g., generational status), refuting Hypothesis 3a (H3). We find clear evidence, however, that discrimination’s influence on racial and American centrality varies by specific Asian origin group (H4; Models 2 and 6), not so when gauging ethnic centrality across Asian origin groups (Model 4).
Table 4.
Relative risk ratios predicting identity among Asian Americans, discrimination moderating across generation and ethnicity (n = 3923).

Racial Identity Ethnic Identity American Identity

Model 1^a Model 2^b Model 3^a Model 4^b Model 5^a Model 6^b

(ref. “not at all important”)

Discrimination * generational status (ref. 1st generation)

Discrimination * 2+ generation 1.12 .749 .402

(.516) (.367) (.285)

Discrimination * ethnicity (ref. Chinese)

discrimination * Bangladeshi 3.62 .472 .218

(3.03) (.403) (.393)

discrimination * Cambodian 1.98 1.08 .768

(1.95) (1.06) (.802)

discrimination * Filipino 6.63* 2.08 5.18

(5.10) (1.63) (5.32)

discrimination * Hmong 1.53 .730 .970

(1.51) (.856) (1.05)

discrimination * Indian 7.45** 2.03 2.52

(5.80) (1.63) (2.81)

discrimination * Japanese 5.30* .642 .742

(4.21) (.525) (.757)

discrimination * Korean 13.56* 3.15 28.85*

(10.89) (2.37) (25.40)

discrimination * Pakistani 4.74† 1.83 14.29*

(4.22) (1.56) (16.72)

discrimination * Vietnamese 5.94* 2.60 13.90

(4.65) (2.21) (13.43)

Constant 3.25* 4.60* 3.78* 4.09*** 1.98† 2.59*

(1.02) (1.58) (1.20) 1.39 (.747) (1.05)

Source: 2016 National Asian American Survey Post-Election Wave.

†p < .10, p < .05; p < .01; p < .001.

^aControlling for ethnicity, age, education, region, sex, and discrimination.

^bControlling for ethnicity, age, education, region, sex, and generational status.

Note: Standard errors in parentheses.

The interactive model reveals the effect of discrimination on racial centrality is most powerful for Filipino (RRR = 6.6, p < .05), Indian (RRR = 7.5, p < .01), Japanese (RRR = 5.3, p < .05), Korean (RRR = 13.6, p < .001), and Vietnamese (RRR = 5.9, p < .05) respondents, compared to Chinese Americans. Relative to their Chinese peers, experiencing discrimination strongly increases centrality of American identity for Korean (RRR = 28.9, p < .001), Pakistani (RRR = 14.3, p < .05), and Vietnamese (RRR = 13.9, p < .01) respondents. In sum, we find evidence refuting Hypothesis 3a (H3a), yet supporting Hypothesis 3b (H3b).

To clarify the interaction effect of discrimination across ethnicity, we produce predicted probabilities for the likelihood of seeing racial identity (see Figure 1) and American identity (see Figure 2) as very/extremely important at different levels of experiencing discrimination for ethnic groups that were significantly different from Chinese (see Table 4). According to Figure 1, increased experiences of discrimination most strongly increases centrality of racial identity among Korean, Japanese, and Indian individuals. Conversely, racial centrality declines for Chinese respondents and remains relatively unchanged for Vietnamese individuals as the mean number of discriminatory experiences increase.
Figure 1.
Predicted probability of having strong racial identity across experiences of discrimination for select Asian Americans (2016 NAAS Post-Election; n = 3923).
Figure 2.
Predicted probability of having strong American identity across experiences of discrimination for select Asian Americans (2016 NAAS Post-Election; n = 3923).

Figure 2 shows predicted probabilities among select Asian Americans for seeing Americanness as very/extremely important to their identity across levels of discriminatory experiences. For those identifying as Pakistani or Korean, increases in discriminatory experiences lead to greater a likelihood of seeing American identity as central. Conversely, increased discriminatory experiences alienate Vietnamese and Chinese individuals from strong American identities. In both figures, we not only see differences in the magnitude of the effects of discrimination across ethnicity in the production of racial and American centrality among Asian Americans, but that discrimination can either promote or reduce the strength of racial and American identity across ethnicity within the Asian American community.

Discussion

While Asian Americans are a rapidly growing demographic, they remain highly ethnically heterogeneous, with ethnicity strongly shaping how group members view race, ethnicity, and nationality as important identities. We unearth substantial inter-ethnic differences in the centrality of these dimensions. A key contribution of this work is observing these issues simultaneously, with an understanding that attachment to a racial label (i.e., “Asian/Asian American”) does not preclude individuals from declaring strong affinity or importance to ethnicity (e.g., “Chinese or Japanese”) or nationality (i.e., “American”). Overall, we find the majority of all ethnic groups deem “American” as important or central to their identity. Comparatively, there is more variation in the centrality of race or ethnicity. A majority of Asian Americans among some groups (Vietnamese, Cambodians, Hmong, Korean, and Filipino) view their race as central to their identity, while individuals in other groups—Bangladeshi, Chinese, Indians, Japanese, and Pakistani—view race as a less important identity. Ultimately, we find that differences in how Asian Americans think about their racial, ethnic, and national identity, cannot be reduced to differences in class, region (e.g., South Asian, East Asian), or treatment as one monolithic group as Asian Americans.

Our research tested whether these patterns reflect inter-ethnic differences in structural assimilation (H1) or racialized assimilation (H2) (Alba and Nee, 2003; Golash-Boza and Darity, 2008). The results of the multivariable analyses revealed that structural assimilation corresponds with decreased racial centrality (educational attainment) while increasing the importance of American identity (generational status). Meanwhile, experiencing discrimination increased centrality of racial and ethnic identity, while also increasing the importance of American identity. Overall, processes that result in strongly identifying as American are distinctive from those that drive affinity with one’s race. Claiming American identity does not preclude Asian Americans from deeming race as a central facet to their lives.

Importantly, neither of these assimilation frameworks explained or reduced inter-ethnic differences in racial, ethnic, or American centrality, demonstrating that differences across Asian origin groups in these forms of identity are not fully driven by group-based differences in incorporation or encounters with discrimination. We then investigate the interaction between experiences of discrimination and generational status (H3) and discrimination experiences and ethnicity (H4) on identity centrality. Generational status is only significant when predicting increases in American identity centrality, providing some support for H1.

Furthermore, post-hoc testing in this research elucidates differences across ethnic groups regarding the effect of racial discrimination on racial and American identity centrality among Asian Americans. Findings reveal that racial discrimination more strongly predicts an important racial identity among Korean and Japanese respondents, while it is less predictive for Filipino and Indian respondents. Conversely, racial discrimination is negatively associated with holding a strong racial identity for Chinese Americans. Experiencing discrimination increases the likelihood of seeing American identity as “very/extremely important” among Pakistani and Korean adults, while decreasing the importance of a strong American identity for Vietnamese and Chinese respondents. Altogether, these results highlight the heterogeneity of the impact of discrimination on identity among individuals of the same putative racial group.

We highlight multiple implications from our study of Asian American assimilation. First, our findings align with a broader discussion of the importance of ethnic distinctions in the incorporation experiences of Asian Americans (Lee and Kye, 2016; Lee and Ramakrishnan, 2020; Ocampo, 2016; Park, 2008; Schachter, 2014). While some groups deem pan-ethnic umbrella identifiers as highly central, this is not the case for all, pointing to potentially varying experiences with the relevance of race or “Asian” in day-to-day lives. These patterns, however, do not necessarily reflect how groups are “counted as Asian”. Chinese, who are almost universally understood as Asian by outsiders, are similar to their South Asian peers to be the least likely to see Asian as central to their identity even as South Asians are not regarded as Asian by others (see Lee and Ramakrishnan, 2020). Meanwhile, all identities are deemed as central for other groups, such as Hmong, Filipinos, Vietnamese, and Cambodians. Collapsing all Asian Americans into one category can minimize or overshadow ethnic variation and the role of social processes that inform policies aiming to address differential treatment that Asian Americans encounter (Budiman et al., 2019).

Furthermore, multiple pathways that inform patterns of identity formation could explain differences across Asian American ethnic groups. Ngai (2004) notes the conundrum of model minority status ascribed to Asian Americans at large that glosses over the experiences of lower SES, working-class, contemporary Asian immigrant groups. Likewise, the distinct colonial histories of diverse Asian American groups likely shape identity formation in different ways, such as Filipinos in Southern California identifying closer to Latinx than Asian (Ocampo, 2016). Events in the social world are continually changing and shape experiences that affect identity formation, such as the uptick in racism directed at Asian Americans recently during the COVID-19 pandemic (Ruiz et al., 2020), exacerbated for some groups through proliferation of slurs used by the former president like “Chinese virus” and “kung flu” (Papenfuss, 2021). Furthermore, patterns of acculturation, wherein immigrants adopt the customs and behavior of members of the host society (Portes et al., 2009), likely differ across ethnic groups and shape upward or downward social mobility. Future work would do well to examine cultural processes as possibly contributing to differences in identity formation among Asian Americans. This study highlights the limits of using “one-size-fits-all” models to explain assimilation and identity formation, especially for an expanding and diverse population like Asian Americans.

The findings reveal underlying complexity in understanding how race and racialized encounters impact the incorporation of Asian ethnic groups into American society (Golash-Boza and Darity, 2008; Lee and Kye, 2016; Telles and Ortiz, 2008). Identifying as American, in particular, is not necessarily a function of experiences where “ethnic and racial origins have at most minor impacts” as traditional assimilation theory would suggest (Alba and Nee, 2003:12). While Asian Americans encompass tremendous socioeconomic diversity (Kochhar and Cilluffo, 2018; Lopez et al., 2017), increased economic success does not necessarily minimize the relevance of discrimination on identity. Rather, discriminatory encounters and confronting stereotypes are positively related to centrality of American identity, but not because race and racialized experiences are absent.

Finally, we find that while discrimination has indeed a clear influence of identity, that impact can take many forms, including drawing one closer to one’s American identity. The differential effect of discrimination on racial and American centrality across ethnic groups is important in showing that discrimination does not uniformly shape identity among Asian Americans. In particular, greater discrimination translates to greater identifying with American and racial identities for Korean respondents compared to other groups. Discrimination might be a mechanism that leads to the recognition and internalization among Asian Americans as “perpetual foreigners” (Xu and Lee, 2013), while drawing others closer to American identity. The complex patterns in the relationship between experiences of discrimination and American identity warrant exploration in future research, possibly affected by the multiple ways in which Asian Americans negotiate and define Americanness and their racial identity (Park, 2008). In sum, social processes (discrimination) impact assimilation into American society and need to be considered in any meaningful discussion drawing conclusions on the “success” of assimilation of immigrants, especially for contemporary immigrant groups increasingly arriving from non-European countries of origin (US Immigration Trends, 2019).

These contributions notwithstanding, there are a few limitations. First, while these data contain viable samples of 10 distinct Asian groups, the sample size of each group is still less than 500 respondents, possibly impacting our ability to detect significant differences. Although there is a viable sample for every ethnic group, few of the ethnic groups contain respondents of advanced generational status, limiting the number of 3+ generation immigrants in our sample (Ngai, 2004; Ocampo, 2016). While we do find that second generation and beyond are very likely to claim American identity as important, the interactions do not reveal that this matters differently across ethnic groups. Greater variation in generation across ethnic groups may reveal more differences in identity, particularly the centrality of American identity, across generational groups.

Second, our measure of discrimination, while tapping into encounters with a range of racialized stereotypes, is limited in some respects. First, our discrimination index may obscure some differences in the types of stereotypes individuals encounter. Previous work (Lin et al., 2005) suggests that stereotypes can be differentiated into a variety of dimensions (e.g., stereotypes that signal foreignness as opposed to competence). Parsing these out may shape identity in variable ways and directions (i.e., some forms may increase identity centrality, while others may decrease centrality). While examining the independent relationship of each measure (or type of measure) would be ideal, we are limited by the level of missing data on several measures. Given this potentially variable impact on identity, future work would benefit from further exploration of the possible multi-directional relationship between discrimination and identity. Second, the items used for the discrimination index do not directly reference race as the reason for the stereotype, suggesting that the experiences of discrimination identified may not be experiences interpreted as race-based. Despite this lack of direct mention to race, the nature of the stereotypes that respondents report on are all based on assumptions of the “myth of the model minority” (Chou and Feagin, 2008) meaning that these would likely be experienced as racialized encounters. Ultimately, our results support the notion that discriminatory experiences meaningfully impact identity centrality among Asian Americans.

Finally, racial discrimination may affect aspects of identity that are contextually based, such as racial ideology or salience, differently than aspects that are ubiquitous across different social contexts. The current study has shed light on identity centrality, the extent to which an individual is conscious of their identity that is relatively stable across different situations. But according to Sellers et al.’s (1998) Multidimensional Model of Racial Identity, we also have to take into account racial salience, racial ideology, and racial regard, which falls outside the scope of this research. Furthermore, prior research on ethnic identity development (Lee and Yoo, 2004; Phinney, 1996; Phinney and Ong, 2007) highlights the viability of the Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM) in studying ethnic identity formation. For this research, however, we chose identity centrality as it would be able to speak to the three forms of identity that center this paper—race, ethnic, and national—which may be differently impacted by events in one’s social environment.

Future research should also look into the other dynamics, such as gender and religion, that also impact the role of discrimination in the racial, ethnic, and American identity centrality for Asian Americans. For example, Pyke and Johnson (2003) examine how gender affects Asian American young women to shape the way they “do” ethnicity. In the case of our study, how might a focus on gender impact the role of discrimination in identity centrality for Asian Americans? Future research will benefit from examining how the conflation of experiences with racial and religious discrimination impacts Asian American identity centrality. Previous work has identified the racialization of certain religious traditions, such as Muslims, as “others” and part of a project situated within racial scholarship (Selod, 2018; Selod and Embrick, 2013). Future work needs to bridge religion and race research to better understand how discrimination toward Asian Americans of certain religious backgrounds affects assimilation processes and the way they consider their racial, ethnic, and American centrality.

The Asian American population is one of the fastest growing demographic groups in the United States, projected to be the largest incoming immigrant pan-ethnic group by 2030 (US Census Bureau, 2017). Hence, it is imperative to discover and understand processes that affect their racial, ethnic and American identity. This will provide important insights into the assimilation process outside of structural factors, such as income or educational attainment. This research highlights the necessity to uncover meaningful social mechanisms that either hinder or facilitate social assimilation, accentuating variation in experiences among Asian Americans. This research makes clear that processes of identity formation cannot be reduced to differences in socioeconomic status or treating Asian Americans as a monolithic group.

	Racial Identity			American Identity	n
Full Sample	2.31 (.765)	50.24	2.39 (.751)	55.57	2.61 (.640)	69.95	3923
Bangladeshi	2.13 (.772)	37.32	2.28 (.770)	47.10	2.79 (.448)	81.16	276
Cambodian	2.72 (.596)	79.27	2.57 (.652)	66.11	2.69 (.576)	75.07	357
Chinese	2.08 (.826)	38.24	2.17 (.826)	44.19	2.36 (.751)	52.97	387
Filipino	2.38 (.711)	51.43	2.52 (.696)	63.30	2.65 (.585)	70.99	455
Hmong	2.69 (.566)	73.70	2.81 (.469)	84.71	2.79 (.505)	82.87	327
Indian	2.00 (.785)	31.00	2.28 (.773)	47.74	2.68 (.589)	73.98	442
Japanese	2.22 (.740)	40.89	2.35 (.713)	49.15	2.63 (.611)	69.92	472
Korean	2.38 (.751)	54.30	2.20 (.789)	43.19	2.37 (.747)	53.25	477
Pakistani	2.13 (.762)	36.63	2.19 (.811)	44.32	2.62 (.654)	71.43	273
Vietnamese	2.44 (.745)	59.74	2.56 (.693)	67.40	2.66 (.646)	75.93	457

	Percent/Mean	Frequency/Standard Deviation
Age
18–24	9.15	359
25–34	14.91	585
35–49	16.95	665
50–64	26.13	1025
65 and older	32.86	1289
Education
Less than high school	17.13	672
High school graduate	16.29	639
Some college	12.21	479
4-year degree or more	54.37	2133
Region
West	50.45	1979
Northeast	18.23	715
South	18.15	712
Midwest	13.18	517
Female	46.75	1834
2+ generation	26.43	1037
Discrimination Index	.337	.249

	Racial Centrality	Ethnic Centrality	American Centrality
Ethnicity (ref. Chinese)
Bangladeshi	1.01	.976	1.06	1.03	12.22***	11.63***
(.218)	(.212)	(.234)	(.228)	(5.92)	(5.64)
Cambodian	7.51***	7.81***	4.17***	4.34***	3.84***	4.10***
(1.89)	(1.98)	(1.02)	(1.07)	(1.11)	(1.19)
Filipino	3.55***	3.41***	3.40***	3.28***	3.47***	3.25***
(.712)	(.688)	(.697)	(.676)	(.903)	(.852)
Hmong	8.38***	8.08***	11.36***	10.98***	5.64***	5.29***
(2.55)	(2.47)	(4.03)	(3.90)	(1.94)	(1.83)
Indian	.877	.842	1.46*	1.41†	3.31***	3.10***
(.162)	(.157)	(.277)	(.269)	(.845)	(.797)
Japanese	2.47***	2.45***	2.69***	2.67***	2.01**	1.97*
(.517)	(.512)	(.587)	(.583)	(.539)	(.529)
Korean	2.85***	2.82***	1.16	1.15	1.03	1.01
(.528)	(.523)	(.207)	(.205)	(.206)	(.202)
Pakistani	1.22	1.21	.935	.931	2.17**	2.15**
(.263)	(.262)	(.197)	(.196)	(.579)	(.575)
Vietnamese	3.51***	3.45***	3.82***	3.76***	2.76***	2.67***
(.669)	(.658)	(.771)	(.760)	(.620)	(.602)
Age (ref. 18–24)
25–34	.556*	.564*	.911	.925	1.59	1.61
(.136)	(.138)	(.229)	(.233)	(.502)	(.511)
34–49	.356***	.359***	.540*	.545*	1.43	1.45
(.085)	(.086)	(.130)	(.131)	(.435)	(.441)
50–64	.272***	.278***	.304***	.310***	1.31	1.34
(.064)	(.066)	(.071)	(.073)	(.377)	(.386)
65 an older	.262***	.269***	.292***	.300***	.982	1.02
(.062)	(.064)	(.069)	(.071)	(.277)	(.289)
Education (ref. less than high school)
High school graduate	.861	.854	.912	.906	.778	.765
(.165)	(.164)	(.175)	(.175)	(.170)	(.168)
Some college	.554**	.538**	.742	.722	.835	.792
(.115)	(.112)	(.161)	(.157)	(.214)	(.204)
Bachelor’s degree or more	.641*	.620**	.742†	.719†	.942	.888
(.112)	(.109)	(.131)	(.128)	(.195)	(.186)
Region (ref. West)
Northeast	1.23	1.23	1.07	1.07	1.13	1.12
(.167)	(.167)	(.146)	(.145)	(.195)	(.194)
South	1.32*	1.31*	1.16	1.15	1.11	1.10
(.173)	(.172)	(.154)	(.153)	(.186)	(.184)
Midwest	1.28	1.26	1.15	1.14	.944	.924
(.211)	(.209)	(.199)	(.196)	(.190)	(.187)
Female	1.69***	1.71***	1.39***	1.41***	1.23†	1.26†
(.162)	(.165)	(.136)	(.138)	(.151)	(.155)
2+ generation	.913	.914	.930	.930	2.34***	2.35***
(.129)	(.129)	(.139)	(.140)	(.490)	(.491)
Discrimination Index		1.49*		1.44†		1.93*
	(.297)		(.297)		(.513)
Constant	3.60***	3.22***	4.21***	3.79***	2.38*	2.00†
(1.12)	(1.01)	(1.31)	(1.20)	(.883)	(.755)

	Racial Identity	Ethnic Identity	American Identity
Discrimination * generational status (ref. 1st generation)
Discrimination * 2+ generation	1.12		.749		.402
(.516)		(.367)		(.285)
Discrimination * ethnicity (ref. Chinese)
discrimination * Bangladeshi		3.62		.472		.218
	(3.03)		(.403)		(.393)
discrimination * Cambodian		1.98		1.08		.768
	(1.95)		(1.06)		(.802)
discrimination * Filipino		6.63*		2.08		5.18
	(5.10)		(1.63)		(5.32)
discrimination * Hmong		1.53		.730		.970
	(1.51)		(.856)		(1.05)
discrimination * Indian		7.45**		2.03		2.52
	(5.80)		(1.63)		(2.81)
discrimination * Japanese		5.30*		.642		.742
	(4.21)		(.525)		(.757)
discrimination * Korean		13.56***		3.15		28.85***
	(10.89)		(2.37)		(25.40)
discrimination * Pakistani		4.74†		1.83		14.29*
	(4.22)		(1.56)		(16.72)
discrimination * Vietnamese		5.94*		2.60		13.90**
	(4.65)		(2.21)		(13.43)
Constant	3.25***	4.60***	3.78***	4.09***	1.98†	2.59*
(1.02)	(1.58)	(1.20)	1.39	(.747)	(1.05)

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all of those who have supported us in the writing of this paper, especially Cassidy Castiglione, and the sociology department at Rice University.

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

Funding

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

ORCID iD

Raul S Casarez

Notes

References

Alba

(2005) Bright vs. blurred boundaries: second-generation assimilation and exclusion in France, Germany, and the United States. Ethnic and Racial Studies 28(1): 20–49.

Alba

(2009) Blurring the Color Line: The New Chance for a More Integrated America. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Alba

Nee

(2003) Remaking the American Mainstream: Assimilation and Contemporary Immigration. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.

Brubaker

(2004) Ethnicity without Groups. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Brubaker

Loveman

Stamatov

(2004) Ethnicity as cognition. Theory and Society 33(1): 31–64.

Brunsma

(2006) Public categories, private identities: exploring regional differences in the biracial experience. Social Science Research 35(3): 555–576.

Budiman

Cilluffo

Ruiz

(2019) Key Facts about Asian Origin Groups in the U.S Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/22/key-facts-about-asian-origin-groups-in-the-u-s/ (accessed 11 December 2019).

Burke

Stets

(2009) Identity Theory. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

Chen

LePhuoc

Guzmán

, et al. (2006) Exploring Asian American racial identity. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 12(3): 461–476.

10.

Chou

(2012) Asian American Sexual Politics: The Construction of Race, Gender, and Sexuality. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

11.

Chou

Feagin

(2008) The Myth of the Model Minority: Asian Americans Facing Racism. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.

12.

Davenport

(2016) The role of gender, class, and religion in biracial Americans’ racial labeling decisions. American Sociological Review 81(1): 57–84.

13.

Espiritu

(1992) Asian American Panethnicity: Bridging Institutions and Identities. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

14.

Frank

Redstone Akresh

(2010) Latino immigrants and the U.S. racial order: how and where do they fit in? American Sociological Review 75(3): 378–401.

15.

Golash-Boza

(2006) Dropping the hyphen? Becoming Latino(a)-American through racialized assimilation. Social Forces 85(1): 27–55.

16.

Golash-Boza

Darity

Jr (2008) Latino racial choices: the effects of skin colour and discrimination on latinos’ and latinas’ racial self-identifications. Ethnic and Racial Studies 31(5): 899–934.

17.

Gordon

(1964) Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race, Religion, and National Origins. New York: Oxford University Press.

18.

Jiménez

(2010) Replenished Ethnicity: Mexican Americans, Immigration, and Identity. Berkeley: University of California Press.

19.

Jiménez

Horowitz

(2013) When white is just alright: how immigrants redefine achievement and reconfigure the ethnoracial hierarchy. American Sociological Review 78(5): 849–871.

20.

Kibria

(1998) The contested meanings of ‘Asian American’: racial dilemmas in the contemporary US. Ethnic and Racial Studies 21(5): 939–958.

21.

Kibria

(2002) Becoming Asian American: Second-Generation Chinese and Korean American Identities. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

22.

Kochhar

Cilluffo

(2018) Income Inequality in the U.S. Is Rising Most Rapidly Among Asians: Asians Displace Blacks as the Most Economically Divided Group in the U.S Available at: https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/3/2018/07/Pew_Research_Center_Inequality-Report_FINAL.pdf (accessed 11 December 2019).

23.

Lee

Bean

(2004) America’s changing color lines: immigration, race/ethnicity, and multiracial identification. Annual Review of Sociology 30: 221–242.

24.

Lee

Bean

(2010) The Diversity Paradox: Immigration and the Color Line in Twenty-First Century America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

25.

Lee

Zhou

(2015) The Asian American Achievement Paradox. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

26.

Lee

Ramakrishnan

(2020) Who counts as Asian. Ethnic and Racial Studies 43(10): 1733–1756.

27.

Lee

Kye

(2016) Racialized assimilation of Asian Americans. Annual Review of Sociology 42: 253–273.

28.

Lee

Yoo

(2004) Structure and measurement of ethnic identity for Asian American college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology 51(2): 263.

29.

Lien

Conway

Wong

(2003) The contours and sources of ethnic identity choices among Asian Americans. Social Science Quarterly 84(2): 461–481.

30.

Lin

Kwan

Cheung

, et al. (2005) Stereotype content model explains prejudice for an envied outgroup: scale of anti-Asian American stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 31(1): 34–47.

31.

Louie

(2012) Keeping the Immigrant Bargain: The Costs and Rewards of Success in America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

32.

Lopez

Ruiz

Patten

(2017) Key Facts about Asain Americans, a Diverse and Growing Population. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/08/key-facts-about-asian-americans/ (accessed 11 December 2019).

33.

Massey

Sánchez

(2010) Brokered Boundaries: Immigrant Identity in Anti-immigrant Times. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

34.

Nagel

(1994) Constructing ethnicity: creating and recreating ethnic identity and culture. Social Problems 41(1): 152–176.

35.

Ngai

(2004) Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

36.

Ocampo

(2016) The Latinos of Asia: How Filipino Americans Break the Rules of Race. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

37.

Okamoto

(2003) Toward a theory of panethnicity: explaining Asian American collective action. American Sociological Review 68(6): 811–842.

38.

Okamoto

(2006) Institutional panethnicity: boundary formation in Asian-American organizing. Social Forces 85(1): 1–25.

39.

Papenfuss

(2021) Trump Uses Racist Terms ‘Kung Flu’ and ‘Chinese Virus’ to Describe COVID-19. Available at: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-kellyanne-conway-coronavirus_n_5eeebc5dc5b6aac5f3a46b45 (accessed 9 September 2021).

40.

Park

(2008) Second-generation Asian American pan-ethnic identity: pluralized meanings of a racial label. Sociological Perspectives 51(3): 541–561.

41.

Phinney

(1996) Understanding ethnic diversity: the role of ethnic identity. American Behavioral Scientist 40(2): 143–152.

42.

Phinney

Ong

(2007) Conceptualization and measurement of ethnic identity: current status and future directions. Journal of Counseling Psychology 54(3): 271–281.

43.

Portes

(2007) Migration, development, and segmented assimilation: a conceptual review of the evidence. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 610(1): 73–97.

44.

Portes

Fernández-Kelly

Haller

(2009) The adaptation of the immigrant second generation in America: a theoretical overview and recent evidence. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 35(7): 1077–1104.

45.

Portes

Rumbaut

(2001) Legacies: The Story of the Immigrant Second Generation. Berkeley/New York: University of California Press and Russell Sage Foundation.

46.

Pyke

Johnson

(2003) Asian American women and racialized femininities: “doing” gender across cultural worlds. Gender & Society 17(1): 33–53.

47.

Quiros

Dawson

(2013) The color paradigm: the impact of colorism on the racial identity and identification of Latinas. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment 23(3): 287–297.

48.

Raghunathan

(2004) What do we do with missing data? Some options for analysis of incomplete data. Annual Review of Public Health 25: 99–117.

49.

Rockquemore

(2002) Negotiating the color line: the gendered process of racial identity construction among black/white biracial women. Gender & Society 16(4): 485–503.

50.

Rodriguez-Silva

(2012) Silencing Race: Disentangling Blackness, Colonialism, and National Identities in Puerto Rico. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

51.

Roth

(2010) Racial mismatch: the divergence between form and function in data for monitoring racial discrimination of hispanics. Social Science Quarterly 91(5): 1288–1311.

52.

Roth

(2012) Race Migrations: Latinos and the Cultural Transformation of Race. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

53.

Roth

(2016) The multiple dimensions of race. Ethnic and Racial Studies 39(8): 1310–1338.

54.

Ruiz

Horowtiz

Tamir

(2020) Many Black and Asian Americans Say They Have Experienced Discrimination amid the COVID-19 Outbreak. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/07/01/many-black-and-asian-americans-say-they-have-experienced-discrimination-amid-the-covid-19-outbreak/ (accessed 7 September 2021).

55.

Schachter

(2014) Finding common ground? Indian immigrants and Asian American panethnicity. Social Forces 92(4): 1487–1512.

56.

Seaton

Yip

Sellers

(2009) A longitudinal examination of racial identity and racial discrimination among African American adolescents. Child Development 80(2): 406–417.

57.

Sellers

Shelton

(2003) The role of racial identity in perceived racial discrimination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 84(5): 1079–1092.

58.

Sellers

Smith

Shelton

, et al. (1998) Multidimensional model of racial identity: a reconceptualization of african american racial identity. Personality and Social Psychology Review 2(1): 18–39.

59.

Selod

(2018) Forever Suspect: Racialized Surveillance of Muslim Americans in the War on Terror. New Brunswick, Camden, Newark: Rutgers University Press.

60.

Selod

Embrick

(2013) Racialization and muslims: situating the muslim experience in race scholarship. Sociology Compass 7: 644–655.

61.

Stets

Burke

(2000) Identity theory and social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly 63(3): 224–237.

62.

Stokes‐Brown

(2012) America’s shifting color line? Reexamining determinants of latino racial self‐identification. Social Science Quarterly 93: 309–332.

63.

Stryker

(1987) Identity theory: developments and extensions. In: Yardly

Honess

(eds) Self and Identity: Psychosocial Perspectives. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 89–103.

64.

Stryker

Burke

(2000) The past, present, and future of an identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly 63(4): 284–297.

65.

Strmic-Pawl

(2016) Multiracialism and its Discontents: A Comparative Analysis of Asian-White and Black-White Multiracials. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

66.

Telles

Ortiz

(2008) Generation of Exclusion: Mexican-Americans, Assimilation, and Race. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

67.

U.S. Census Bureau (2017) The Nation’s Population Is Becoming More Diverse. CB17-100 Press Release, U.S. Census Bureau.

68.

US Immigration Trends (2019) US Immigration Trends. Available at: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/us-immigration-trends#source (accessed 11 December 2019).

69.

Vasquez

(2010) Blurred borders for some but not “others”: racialization, “flexible ethnicity” gender, and third-generation Mexican American identity. Sociological Perspectives 53(1): 45–71.

70.

Vasquez

(2011) Mexican Americans across Generations: Immigrant Families, Racial Realities. New York; London: NYU Press.

71.

Waters

(1990) Ethnic Options: Choosing Identities in America. Berkeley: University of California Press.

72.

Waters

Jiménez

(2005) Assessing immigrant assimilation: new empirical and theoretical challenges. Annual Review of Sociology 31: 105–125.

73.

Lee

(2013) The marginalized “model” minority: an empirical examination of the racial triangulation of Asian Americans. Social Forces 91(4): 1363–1397.

	Racial Identity		Ethnic Identity		American Identity		n
	Mean (SD)	% Very Important	Mean (SD)	% Very Important	Mean (SD)	% Very Important	n
Full Sample	2.31 (.765)	50.24	2.39 (.751)	55.57	2.61 (.640)	69.95	3923
Bangladeshi	2.13 (.772)	37.32	2.28 (.770)	47.10	2.79 (.448)	81.16	276
Cambodian	2.72 (.596)	79.27	2.57 (.652)	66.11	2.69 (.576)	75.07	357
Chinese	2.08 (.826)	38.24	2.17 (.826)	44.19	2.36 (.751)	52.97	387
Filipino	2.38 (.711)	51.43	2.52 (.696)	63.30	2.65 (.585)	70.99	455
Hmong	2.69 (.566)	73.70	2.81 (.469)	84.71	2.79 (.505)	82.87	327
Indian	2.00 (.785)	31.00	2.28 (.773)	47.74	2.68 (.589)	73.98	442
Japanese	2.22 (.740)	40.89	2.35 (.713)	49.15	2.63 (.611)	69.92	472
Korean	2.38 (.751)	54.30	2.20 (.789)	43.19	2.37 (.747)	53.25	477
Pakistani	2.13 (.762)	36.63	2.19 (.811)	44.32	2.62 (.654)	71.43	273
Vietnamese	2.44 (.745)	59.74	2.56 (.693)	67.40	2.66 (.646)	75.93	457

	Racial Centrality		Ethnic Centrality		American Centrality
	(ref. “not at all important”)
	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5	Model 6
Ethnicity (ref. Chinese)
Bangladeshi	1.01	.976	1.06	1.03	12.22***	11.63***
Bangladeshi	(.218)	(.212)	(.234)	(.228)	(5.92)	(5.64)
Cambodian	7.51***	7.81***	4.17***	4.34***	3.84***	4.10***
Cambodian	(1.89)	(1.98)	(1.02)	(1.07)	(1.11)	(1.19)
Filipino	3.55***	3.41***	3.40***	3.28***	3.47***	3.25***
Filipino	(.712)	(.688)	(.697)	(.676)	(.903)	(.852)
Hmong	8.38***	8.08***	11.36***	10.98***	5.64***	5.29***
Hmong	(2.55)	(2.47)	(4.03)	(3.90)	(1.94)	(1.83)
Indian	.877	.842	1.46*	1.41†	3.31***	3.10***
Indian	(.162)	(.157)	(.277)	(.269)	(.845)	(.797)
Japanese	2.47***	2.45***	2.69***	2.67***	2.01**	1.97*
Japanese	(.517)	(.512)	(.587)	(.583)	(.539)	(.529)
Korean	2.85***	2.82***	1.16	1.15	1.03	1.01
Korean	(.528)	(.523)	(.207)	(.205)	(.206)	(.202)
Pakistani	1.22	1.21	.935	.931	2.17**	2.15**
Pakistani	(.263)	(.262)	(.197)	(.196)	(.579)	(.575)
Vietnamese	3.51***	3.45***	3.82***	3.76***	2.76***	2.67***
Vietnamese	(.669)	(.658)	(.771)	(.760)	(.620)	(.602)
Age (ref. 18–24)
25–34	.556*	.564*	.911	.925	1.59	1.61
25–34	(.136)	(.138)	(.229)	(.233)	(.502)	(.511)
34–49	.356***	.359***	.540*	.545*	1.43	1.45
34–49	(.085)	(.086)	(.130)	(.131)	(.435)	(.441)
50–64	.272***	.278***	.304***	.310***	1.31	1.34
50–64	(.064)	(.066)	(.071)	(.073)	(.377)	(.386)
65 an older	.262***	.269***	.292***	.300***	.982	1.02
65 an older	(.062)	(.064)	(.069)	(.071)	(.277)	(.289)
Education (ref. less than high school)
High school graduate	.861	.854	.912	.906	.778	.765
High school graduate	(.165)	(.164)	(.175)	(.175)	(.170)	(.168)
Some college	.554**	.538**	.742	.722	.835	.792
Some college	(.115)	(.112)	(.161)	(.157)	(.214)	(.204)
Bachelor’s degree or more	.641*	.620**	.742†	.719†	.942	.888
Bachelor’s degree or more	(.112)	(.109)	(.131)	(.128)	(.195)	(.186)
Region (ref. West)
Northeast	1.23	1.23	1.07	1.07	1.13	1.12
Northeast	(.167)	(.167)	(.146)	(.145)	(.195)	(.194)
South	1.32*	1.31*	1.16	1.15	1.11	1.10
South	(.173)	(.172)	(.154)	(.153)	(.186)	(.184)
Midwest	1.28	1.26	1.15	1.14	.944	.924
Midwest	(.211)	(.209)	(.199)	(.196)	(.190)	(.187)
Female	1.69***	1.71***	1.39***	1.41***	1.23†	1.26†
Female	(.162)	(.165)	(.136)	(.138)	(.151)	(.155)
2+ generation	.913	.914	.930	.930	2.34***	2.35***
2+ generation	(.129)	(.129)	(.139)	(.140)	(.490)	(.491)
Discrimination Index		1.49*		1.44†		1.93*
Discrimination Index		(.297)		(.297)		(.513)
Constant	3.60***	3.22***	4.21***	3.79***	2.38*	2.00†
Constant	(1.12)	(1.01)	(1.31)	(1.20)	(.883)	(.755)

	Racial Identity		Ethnic Identity		American Identity
	Model 1^a	Model 2^b	Model 3^a	Model 4^b	Model 5^a	Model 6^b
	(ref. “not at all important”)
Discrimination * generational status (ref. 1st generation)
Discrimination * 2+ generation	1.12		.749		.402
Discrimination * 2+ generation	(.516)		(.367)		(.285)
Discrimination * ethnicity (ref. Chinese)
discrimination * Bangladeshi		3.62		.472		.218
discrimination * Bangladeshi		(3.03)		(.403)		(.393)
discrimination * Cambodian		1.98		1.08		.768
discrimination * Cambodian		(1.95)		(1.06)		(.802)
discrimination * Filipino		6.63*		2.08		5.18
discrimination * Filipino		(5.10)		(1.63)		(5.32)
discrimination * Hmong		1.53		.730		.970
discrimination * Hmong		(1.51)		(.856)		(1.05)
discrimination * Indian		7.45**		2.03		2.52
discrimination * Indian		(5.80)		(1.63)		(2.81)
discrimination * Japanese		5.30*		.642		.742
discrimination * Japanese		(4.21)		(.525)		(.757)
discrimination * Korean		13.56***		3.15		28.85***
discrimination * Korean		(10.89)		(2.37)		(25.40)
discrimination * Pakistani		4.74†		1.83		14.29*
discrimination * Pakistani		(4.22)		(1.56)		(16.72)
discrimination * Vietnamese		5.94*		2.60		13.90**
discrimination * Vietnamese		(4.65)		(2.21)		(13.43)
Constant	3.25***	4.60***	3.78***	4.09***	1.98†	2.59*
Constant	(1.02)	(1.58)	(1.20)	1.39	(.747)	(1.05)