Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2014

Identity, Cohesion, and Enmeshment AcrossCulturesSummer Brooke Gómez

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact lib-ir@fsu.edu

FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF HUMAN SCIENCES

IDENTITY, COHESION, AND ENMESHMENT ACROSS CULTURES

By

SUMMER BROOKE GÓMEZ

A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Family and Child Sciences

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Awarded: Spring Semester, 2014

`

ii

Summer Brooke Gómez defended this dissertation on April 7, 2014.

The members of the supervisory committee were:

Ronald L. Mullis

Professor Directing Dissertation

Tomi Gomory

University Representative

Ann Mullis

Committee Member

Lenore McWey

Committee Member

The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and

certifies that the dissertation has been approved in accordance with university requirements.

`

iii

For any kid who ever felt controlled and not supported. And for any kid that has suffered because their strengths were blithely overlooked or discouraged. For my clients, who have been and continue to be the best mentors I could ever dream of. And for the ghosts that haunt the Dade County hallways of my youth.

`

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I appreciatively acknowledge Sigmund Freud, Erik Erikson, James Marcia, Seth Schwartz, and all dedicated identity scholars for teaching me how to place careful value on the examined lives of others. I am grateful to my committee for their unique contributions: Ann Mullis for her frankness and her dedication to precision; Lenore McWey for her ability to meet each student as a person and still uncompromisingly command her students’ personal bests; Nick Mazza for his example of leadership, and his rare ability to function as a scholar-practitioner; Tomi Gomory for his dedication to critical thought and his strong personal commitment to his students’ professional development. Thank you all. I also want to thank my major professor, identity scholar Ron Mullis, first and foremost for his patience with me with regard to both my sometimes stubborn nature and also with regard to sticking with me well into his retirement. Thank you, Dr. Ron, for your guidance and for going the distance, literally, to prove that you believed in me and my work. I have had the luxury and pleasure of a wonderful education in the great State of Florida. Highlights for me have included the gifted program in Miami-Dade and Broward County Public Schools, which kept me interested in learning; the Dade County Police Benevolent Association, whose scholarship started me on my way not only with financial support but also with a deeply appreciated vote of confidence and sense of purpose and pride; the Honors College at Florida International University, which gave me a liberal arts experience and a level of personal development support I now know I could not have done without; the National Student Exchange program, which pushed me out of my comfort zone and fueled a sense of daring and adventure that I am still gleefully cultivating to this day; and of course the Florida State University, forever my alma mater and the beautiful moss-draped backdrop of my becoming. I am grateful to so many influential mentors from my past, especially Linda Meehan for grounding me with an appreciation for the unique ecology of my home state; Shearon Lowery for helping me to pinpoint my academic and professional passions; Bill Kurtines for introducing me to the field of identity scholarship and encouraging me to move toward it; Neil Kressel for inspiring me to ask the questions that I believe matter most; Connor Walters for teaching me about all humans by starting with children; Judge Kathleen Kearney and Katrina Boone for preparing me well to deal with the real world; and Larry and Sandy Barlow as well as Lenore McWey and Robert E. Lee for top notch clinical training. Finally, I extend my deepest gratitude to my incredible family and friends: my grandparents Guillermo and Angelina Gómez for funding my undergraduate education, for championing the overall value of education, and for exemplifying the import of community; my Uncle Charlie for inspiring me with his bright blend of ambition, creativity, and talent, and for always introducing me to others in the context of my capability; my Aunt Donna and Uncle Ed for showing me how to balance sanity and ambition with family and art; my Aunt Sandra, the Chafins, and my cousins for keeping me in touch with my roots and core values; Nany, Glen, Nelly, Benji, Mardele, Tony, Ronnie, Sylvia, Kenny, Trevor, Katrina, and Chelsie for being vocally proud of me; and

`

v

my bold, brave, and uniquely brilliant friends for always asking about me with genuine interest and unconditionally encouraging me. Most important, I am grateful to my parents, Joy and Bill Gómez as well as my husband, Joe Anson. Thank you, Mom and Dad, for giving in every conceivable way from a seemingly bottomless well fed by faith and love and for teaching me what’s worth fighting for in life. And thank you, Joe, for teaching me that love is a choice you make each moment every day for over thirteen years. I would not exist in any recognizable way without the three of you and my gratitude and love for each of you knows no bounds. Thank you from the bottom of my heart for every second I am blessed to have with you all.

`

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................x List of Figures ........................................................................................................................ xi Abstract ................................................................................................................................. xii

1. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1

Basis for Research......................................................................................................1 Study Overview .........................................................................................................1 Key Variables.............................................................................................................2 Rationale for Study ....................................................................................................2 Theoretical Underpinnings of the Research ...............................................................4 Research Questions ....................................................................................................5 Hypotheses .................................................................................................................5

2. LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................................7 Theoretical Frameworks ............................................................................................7 Ego Identity Theory .........................................................................................7 Overview of Marcian identity statuses ..................................................8 Identity diffusion ....................................................................................8 Identity foreclosure ................................................................................8 Moratorium ............................................................................................8 Identity achievement ..............................................................................9 Rationale for using the ego identity development framework ...............9 Life Course Theory ........................................................................................10 Norms, position, and roles ...................................................................10 Family stages .......................................................................................11 Transition .............................................................................................11 Family life course ................................................................................11 Multiple dimensions of time ................................................................12 Rationale for using family life course development framework .........13 Family Differentiation: One-dimensional versus Two-dimensional model ......................................................................13 Critical Review of Theoretical Frameworks ..................................................17 Marcian ego identity theory .................................................................17 Family life course development framework ........................................18 Relations between Family Differentiation and Ego Identity ...................................18 Relations between Family Differentiation and Psychological Well-Being .............19 Relations between Ego Identity and Psychological Well-Being .............................20 The Role of Culture and Ethnicity ...........................................................................21 Importance of Comparing Ethnic Groups ......................................................21 Ethnoracial Groups in the Research .........................................................................23 Rationale for Focus on White Non-Hispanic Participants .............................23 Rationale for Focus on Hispanic Participants ................................................25

`

vii

Research Participants ...............................................................................................29 Summary Descriptions of Variables ........................................................................30 Family Differentiation ...................................................................................30 Cohesion ..............................................................................................30 Enmeshment .........................................................................................30 Ego Identity ....................................................................................................30 Commitment ........................................................................................30 Exploration ...........................................................................................31 Psychological Well-Being .............................................................................31 Life Satisfaction ...................................................................................31 Depressive symptoms ..........................................................................31 State anxiety .........................................................................................31 Review of Relationships among Variables in the Research ..........................32 Cohesion and commitment ..................................................................32 Cohesion and exploration ....................................................................32 Enmeshment and commitment .............................................................32 Enmeshment and exploration ...............................................................33 Commitment and psychological well-being ........................................33 Exploration and psychological well-being...........................................34 Family differentiation and psychological well-being ..........................34 Family differentiation, identity formation, and psychological well-being ................................................................35

3. METHOD ..........................................................................................................................37 Sampling and Participant Recruitment ....................................................................37 Selection of Recruitment Sites .......................................................................37 Age Range of Participants .............................................................................37 Participant Recruitment .................................................................................38 Ethnoracial Criteria for Participants ..............................................................38 Descriptive Statistics and Frequencies...........................................................38 Combined sample.................................................................................38 Hispanic subsample .............................................................................39 Non-Hispanic subsample .....................................................................40 Measures ..................................................................................................................41 Family Differentiation ...................................................................................41 Ego Identity ....................................................................................................42 Psychological Well-Being .............................................................................42 Reliability Statistics .................................................................................................43 Participant Demographic Information .....................................................................43 Analysis....................................................................................................................44 Assumptions of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) ..................................45 Model specification ..............................................................................45 Exogenous variables measured without error ......................................45 Completeness of data set ......................................................................45 Multivariate normality .........................................................................45

`

viii

Overall assessment of assumptions ......................................................46 Structural Equation Model Identification ......................................................46 Structural Equation Models ...........................................................................46 Model 1: Configural model ..................................................................46 Model 2: Measurement invariance model............................................47 Model 3: Hypothesized model .............................................................47 Model 4: Modified model ....................................................................48 Power Analysis, Sample Size, and Missing Data ..........................................48 Statistical Predictions ...............................................................................................49 Ethical Considerations .............................................................................................52

4. RESULTS ..........................................................................................................................54 Structural Equation Models .....................................................................................54 Model 1: Configural Model ...........................................................................54 Model 2: Measurement Invariance Model .....................................................55 Model 3: Hypothesized Model.......................................................................55 Model 4: Modified Model ..............................................................................60 Research Questions & Hypotheses ..........................................................................61 Mean Differences by Gender, College Major, and Data Collection Site .................62

5. DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................................63 Review of Notable Findings ....................................................................................63 Theoretical Implications of Findings .......................................................................63 Ethnoracial Differences .................................................................................64 Implications for the Role of Family Differentiation in Ego Identity Theory ..................................................................................66 Effect of cohesion on commitment ......................................................67 Effect of cohesion on exploration ........................................................68 Effect of enmeshment on commitment ................................................68 Effect of enmeshment on exploration ..................................................68 Direct Effects of Family Differentiation on Psychological Well-Being ........69 Relational Clinical Implications of Theoretical and Empirical Findings ................70 Limitations of the Research .....................................................................................71 Measurement and Comparability of Family Differentiation across the Literature .............................................................................................71 Limitations of Sample ....................................................................................71 Exclusion of non-students ....................................................................71 Restriction of age range .......................................................................72 Regional bias ........................................................................................72 Model Fit ........................................................................................................73 Mediation in the Structural Equation Models ................................................73 Future Research .......................................................................................................74 Future Study 1: Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) ..................................74 Future Study 2: The Role of Gender in Ego Identity Development ..............74

`

ix

Future Study 3: Replication with Nationally Representative ........................75 Sample of Hispanic Participants ...............................................................75 Summary and Conclusions ......................................................................................75 APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................78 A. INFORMED CONSENT FOR FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY ............................78

B. INFORMED CONSENT FOR FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY ........77 C. PARTICIPANT PACKET ...........................................................................................81 D. FACTOR LOADING ESTIMATES FOR MODEL 3:

HYPOTHESIZED MODEL ........................................................................................87

E. FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL LETTER ............................................................99

F. FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL LETTER ...........................100

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................101 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...........................................................................................109

`

x

LIST OF TABLES

1 Demographic Variables by Ethnoracial Subsample ..........................................................41

2 Statistically Significant Path Coefficients for Model 3: Hypothesized Model ..................57

3 Percentage of Variance Explained by Model 3: Hypothesized Model ..............................58

4 Latent Variables Included in the Structural Equation Models: Descriptive Statistics and Reliability. Non-Hispanic N = 233; Hispanic N = 330 .......59

5 Measurement Items for Cohesion and Enmeshment .........................................................89

6 Measurement Items for Commitment ................................................................................90

7 Measurement Items for Exploration ..................................................................................91

8 Measurement Items for Depressive Symptoms .................................................................92

9 Measurement Items for Life Satisfaction and Anxiety ......................................................93

10 Cohesion and Enmeshment Factor Loading Estimates for Model 3: Hypothesized Model ................................................................................94 11 Commitment Factor Loading Estimates for Model 3: Hypothesized Model .....................95 12 Exploration Factor Loading Estimates for Model 3: Hypothesized Model .......................96 13 Depression Factor Loading Estimates for Model 3: Hypothesized Model ........................97 14 Life Satisfaction and Anxiety Factor Loading Estimates for Model 3: Hypothesized Model.....................................................................................98

`

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

1 Structural equation modeling (SEM) diagram reflecting the statistical predictions of the study .................................................................................................49

2 Structural equation modeling (SEM) Model 3: Hypothesized Model, with standardized parameters .....................................60

`

xii

ABSTRACT

The impact of family differentiation (cohesion and enmeshment), as measured by the Colorado

Self-Report of Family Functioning Inventory, on ego identity development (exploration and

commitment), as measured by the Ego Identity Process Questionnaire, was examined. This study

also examined the impact of family differentiation on psychological well-being, both directly and

indirectly via ego identity development. The psychological well-being variables were life

satisfaction, measured by the Satisfaction with Life Scale; depressive symptoms, measured by

the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D); and state anxiety, measured

by a short form of the state-trait anxiety inventory (STAI-6). The research questions were: 1) Do

cohesion and enmeshment influence commitment and exploration? 2) Do cohesion and

enmeshment influence psychological well-being (anxiety, depressive symptoms, and life

satisfaction)? 3) Do these relationships differ between non-Hispanic white participants and

Hispanic participants of any race? Participants were undergraduate college students at two public

universities in the southeastern United States. The total sample size was N = 563. Structural

equation modeling (SEM) was used to examine the hypothesized relationships. This study also

examined indirect effects via commitment and exploration, identity formation variables drawn

from the ego identity development paradigm. Results show that, consistent with the study

predictions, cohesion had significant positive effects on commitment and life satisfaction, and

significant negative effects on depressive symptoms and anxiety (both directly and indirectly via

by commitment). Also as predicted, commitment had a significant positive direct effect on life

satisfaction, and significant negative direct effects on depressive symptoms and anxiety.

However, no effects were observed for enmeshment or exploration, and no differences were

observed in these relationships between the Hispanics and non-Hispanics. Implications for ego

identity theory and family relations theory are discussed, as well as limitations of the study

methodology and proposals for future research.

`

1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Basis for Research

This study expanded upon a European study by Manzi, Vignoles, Regalia, and Scabini

(2006). Manzi et al. (2006) used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to establish the concept of

family differentiation as consisting of two dimensions (cohesion and enmeshment). Manzi et al.

(2006) used structural equation modeling (SEM) to examine the impact of both cohesion and

enmeshment on identity threat and on measures of psychological well-being. Manzi et al. (2006)

also compared a model generated from Italian participants with a model generated from British

participants. They found significant differences in the impact of family differentiation across

cultures.

Study Overview

This study examined the relational concept of family differentiation in the context of ego

identity formation and the relevance and function of the two-dimensional model of family

differentiation. However, instead of investigating the impact of family differentiation on identity

threat, this study examined the effect of family differentiation on the identity development

processes outlined within the Marcian identity status paradigm (Marcia, 1966) by using the

Marcian concepts of commitment and exploration. This study is a response to a long-standing

call within the literature for better understanding of the relational underpinnings of ego identity

development (Marcia, 1989). This study examined the impact of family differentiation on

identity development using the same outcome measures of life satisfaction, depressive symptoms

and anxiety reported by Manzi et al. (2006).

In addition to five race categories, the United States Census Bureau (USCB) recognizes

two ethnic categories: Hispanic and Non-Hispanic (Humes, Jones, & Ramirez, 2011). This study

compares two ethnoracial groups based on racial and ethnic categories used in the 2010 United

States Census: non-Hispanic whites and Hispanics of any race. Thus, the present study serves as

a United States counterpart to the work of Manzi et al. (2006) by highlighting the relevance and,

subsequently, the function of family differentiation across United States ethnoracial groups of

late adolescent and early adult participants in a theoretically comparable life stage.

`

2

Key Variables

The impact of four independent variables was studied. These include two family

differentiation variables: cohesion and enmeshment. The other two independent variables are

identity formation variables: commitment and exploration. However, commitment and

exploration (representing identity formation) are also dependent variables in the study. Cohesion

and enmeshment (representing family differentiation) are the only independent variables that are

exogenous to the study's model. Three dependent variables were used to measure psychological

outcomes: life satisfaction, depressive symptoms, and anxiety. These variables serve as broad

measures of psychological well-being. Moreover, research has shown these three particular

outcome variables to be associated with identity threat, an important variable relevant to the

understanding of ego identity (Manzi et al., 2006).

Rationale for Study

Family and identity scholars have acknowledged family differentiation as a possible key

factor underlying the emotional development of older adolescents and young adults. Family

differentiation is the extent and nature of emotional interdependence among family members.

Scholars have often described family differentiation as a one-dimensional construct, with

estrangement (low interdependence) and enmeshment (high interdependence) as opposite poles

of a single spectrum (e.g., Campbell, Adams, & Dobson, 1984; Minuchin, 1974; Olson, 1982).

Each of these extremes has been theoretically associated with maladaptive family functioning

(e.g., Campbell et al., 1984; Minuchin, 1974; Olson, 1982). Moderate values on this spectrum

correspond to cohesion and have been theoretically associated with more adaptive outcomes.

(e.g., Campbell et al., 1984; Minuchin, 1974; Olson, 1982).

In recent years, scholars (e.g., Manzi et al., 2006) have criticized this one-dimensional

model in two important ways. Some researchers have challenged the generalizability of the one-

dimensional model of family differentiation across ethnic groups (e.g., Chun & MacDermid,

1997; Fuhrman & Holmbeck, 1995). Other scholars have proposed that a two-dimensional model

(e.g., Barber & Buehler, 1996; Manzi et al., 2006; Scabini, 1985) would be a more accurate way

of describing family differentiation. The two-dimensional model of family differentiation

represents cohesion and enmeshment as distinct dimensions.

Addressing these criticisms, Manzi et al. (2006) compared family differentiation among

Italian and British participants. Manzi et al. (2006) found that cohesion and enmeshment were

`

3

best represented as two distinct dimensions in both British and Italian samples. These two

dimensions were positively correlated in the Italian sample. However, they were uncorrelated for

the British sample. Manzi et al. (2006) also found that higher family cohesion led to decreased

identity threat across groups. This in turn led to higher levels of life satisfaction and lower levels

of depressive symptoms and anxiety.

The findings for family cohesion were very similar in the Italian and British samples.

However, cultural differences were observed for enmeshment. For British participants

enmeshment levels led to significantly increased identity threat. This in turn led to lower levels

of life satisfaction and higher levels of depressive symptoms and anxiety. In contrast, for Italian

subjects, there were no significant effects of enmeshment on identity threat, life satisfaction,

depressive symptoms, or anxiety. This cultural difference is consistent with the stronger

emphasis on individual autonomy in British compared to Italian culture.

The findings of Manzi et al. (2006) provide evidence that the two-dimensional model of

family differentiation more accurately represents the nature of family differentiation. The finding

applies across cultural groups. Thus, this study will assume the two-dimensional model rather

than the one-dimensional model of family differentiation.

A major purpose of this study is to examine the indirect effects of family differentiation

on psychological well-being via identity formation variables drawn from the ego identity

development paradigm (Marcia, 1966). This is justified because Manzi et al. (2006) found that

family differentiation affected psychological outcomes indirectly via identity threat. Manzi et al.

(2006) measured identity threat levels at a time when their older adolescent and young adult

participants were experiencing major life stage transitions. However, this study examines

indirect effects via identity formation variables (cohesion and enmeshment) rather than via

identity threat. Thus, this study will be the first to investigate the indirect effects of family

differentiation on psychological outcomes via cohesion and enmeshment.

Freud (1933) proposed that ego identity development was the product of relational

dynamics in the family of origin. Marcia (1989) has also urged study of the impact of relational

dynamics on ego identity development. There are several attempts in the literature to address the

relationship between family relational dynamics and the Marcian ego identity statuses (e.g.,

Adams, Dyk, & Bennion,1987; Arseth, Kroger, Martinussen, & Marcia, 2009; Campbell et al.,

1984; Faber, Edwards, Bauer, & Wetchler, 2003; Jackson, Dunham, & Kidwell, 1990; Marcia,

`

4

1966; Mullis, Brailsford, & Mullis, 2003; Watson & Protinsky, 1988). However, none of these

studies have yielded decisive findings or succeeded in explaining the variance in ego identity

variables using family dynamics variables. Moreover, no study has used the two-dimensional

model of family differentiation to explain the ego identity development processes of older

adolescents or young adults.

In summary, the present study used structural equation modeling [SEM] to examine the

impact of family differentiation (cohesion and enmeshment) on the ego identity variables

(commitment and exploration). This study also examined the impact of the ego identity variables

on psychological well-being outcomes (anxiety, depressive symptoms, and life satisfaction) and

tested whether these relationships vary across the two ethnoracial groups studied.

Theoretical Underpinnings of the Research

Family life course development theory and ego identity development theory are the two

theoretical frameworks used in the present research. Family life course development theory is a

synthesis of family development theory and the life course perspective (White & Klein, 2002).

Family life course development theory posits that society imposes certain norms governing

behavior within a family. The resulting within-system expectations depend upon system

member's stages of development and positions within the family, as well as upon the entire

system's place in the developmental process. Transitions at the level of the family or the

individual from one stage of development to another are key components of this framework.

Problems are presumed to arise when these transitions are off-time (too early or too late).

The use of the family life course development theoretical framework will enhance the

theoretical generalizability of the findings across cultures and eras (e.g., Hammer, 2003).

Specific norms related to life stage transitions vary across cultures and eras. However, life course

development theory facilitates comparison of the results of this study with those of studies on

other populations. This is because it is possible to discuss psychological outcomes in terms of

life course transitions across cultures.

The Marcian ego identity status paradigm (Marcia, 1966) holds that individuals may be

classified into one of four ego identity statuses: achievement, moratorium, diffusion, and

foreclosure. An individual’s identity status is determined by two underlying dimensions:

commitment and exploration. Commitment is the extent to which an individual’s decisions

reflect a stable pattern of identity. Exploration is the extent to which an individual engages in

`

5

active, reflective construction of their own identity. Achievement status indicates high

commitment and high exploration. Moratorium status indicates low commitment and high

exploration. Diffusion status indicates low commitment and low exploration. Foreclosure status

indicates high commitment and low exploration.

Identity commitment is presumed to provide individuals with a sense of purpose

(Crocetti, Klimstra, Keijsers, Hale, & Meeus, 2009) and thus expected to enhance overall

psychological well-being: Commitment is expected to reduce anxiety because it reduces

uncertainty about life goals. Commitment is expected to reduce depressive symptoms because a

sense of purpose reduces feelings of helplessness. Finally, commitment is expected to increase

life satisfaction because it implies that the individual is living according to their own self-

selected standards.

By contrast, exploration is expected to have a positive impact on psychological well-

being outcomes for white non-Hispanic participants. This is supported by empirical evidence

using various measures of adaptive functioning (e.g., Arseth et al., 2009; Crocetti et al., 2009;

Hardy & Kisling, 2006). However, it is expected that the impact of exploration will be less

positive for Hispanics of any race, due to cultural differences in the function of individual

autonomy (e.g., McAdoo, 1981; Watson & Protinsky, 1988). This prediction is also consistent

with the findings of Manzi et al. (2006) regarding British and Italian cultures; Italian participants

were less affected by exploration when compared to British participants.

Research Questions

The present study addresses the following research questions:

1. Does family differentiation (cohesion and enmeshment) relate to identity formation

(commitment and exploration levels) of adolescents and/or young adults?

2. Does family differentiation predict psychological well-being?

3. Do the findings above differ between non-Hispanic whites and Hispanics of any race?

Hypotheses

1. Family differentiation (cohesion and enmeshment), will relate to the identity formation

(commitment and exploration levels) of adolescents and/or young adults by explaining a

significant amount of variance in ego identity status scores, which will be measured by

the Ego Identity Process Questionnaire (EIPQ; Balistreri, Busch-Rossnagel, & Geisinger,

1995).

`

6

2. Family differentiation (cohesion and enmeshment) will both directly and indirectly

predict psychological well-being (anxiety, depressive symptoms, and life satisfaction).

Indirect effects will occur via ego identity variables (commitment and exploration).

3. Differences between ethnic groups will be found with regard to the determinants of

psychological well-being (anxiety, depressive symptoms, and life satisfaction). For

participants who identify themselves as Hispanic, higher levels of enmeshment will be

less associated with diminished psychological well-being. Psychological well-being was

represented in terms of anxiety, depressive symptoms, and life satisfaction as measured

by the Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985); the

Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977); and the

short form of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-6; Marteau & Bekker,

1992), respectively. Similarly, for participants who identify as Hispanic (compared to

those who identify as non-Hispanic whites), higher levels of exploration will be

significantly less associated with diminished psychological well-being (anxiety,

depressive symptoms, and life satisfaction as measured by the instruments mentioned

above).

`

7

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter reviews literature regarding connections among family differentiation,

identity formation (independent variables) and psychological well-being (dependent variables).

In addition, this chapter will focus on evidence for the role of indirect effects via identity status

in explaining the impact of family differentiation on psychological well-being. Theoretical

frameworks used in this study are first discussed to help in the conceptualization of the major

variables.

Theoretical Frameworks

Ego identity theory (e.g., Marcia, 1995; Schwartz, 2001) and family life course

development theory (Elder, 1985; White & Klein, 2002) are used as theoretical frameworks for

this study in conceptually explaining relationships between family differentiation, identity status,

and the psychological well-being of older adolescents and young adults.

Ego Identity Theory

Rooted in the work of Sigmund Freud and Erik Erikson, identity theory is relevant across

social science and humanities disciplines (Bosma, Graafsma, Grotevant, & de Levita, 1994;

Marcia, 1966; Schwartz, 2001; and Society for Research on Identity Formation [SRIF], 2013).

Ultimately basing his foundational theoretical work on the Freudian notion that one’s concept of

self can be traced to early child-parent interaction (Schwartz, 2001), Erikson was the first

researcher to use the phrase “ego identity” in the 1960s in describing the resolution of one of his

most well-known crisis stage; identity vs. role confusion (Kroger, 2003). This crisis stage is

associated with adolescents. Assuming a period of intrapsychic destructuring and, ultimately,

crisis resolution, the crisis stages that theoretically follows is intimacy vs. isolation and it is

associated with young adults (Erikson, 1959). In midcentury, Erikson built on Freudian concepts

by expanding his focus of the then-emerging body of research on personality throughout the life

course, depicting the ideal emergence of adult identity as the result of a series of resolutions to

staged crises (Thomas, 2005). James Marcia, in turn, is the intellectual progenitor of most

modern research on identity development (Schwartz, 2001; Waterman, 1988).

There has been some debate in the literature about how directly compatible Marcia’s

(1966) seminal work on identity status is with the Eriksonian concepts it is presumed to be built

`

8

upon (Blasi & Glodis, 1995; Côté & Levine, 1988; van Hoof, 1999). However, it is undeniable

that Marcia’s work has been influential among identity theorists beyond Erikson for half a

century (Kroger, 2003; Schwartz, 2001; Waterman, 1988). Schwartz (2001) referred to the works

of Freud, Erikson, and Marcia as “the fundamentals of identity theory” (p. 8).

Overview of Marcian identity statuses. Marcia (1966) is best known for establishing

four basic identity statuses: Diffusion, foreclosure, moratorium, and achievement. Marcia’s four

basic identity statues differ from Erikson’s psychological stages in that they are not construed as

stages at all, but ways of summarizing personality traits that may or may not describe a person at

any point in life. Further, these four stages represent a unique combination of either higher or

lower levels of exploration and commitment. Exploration refers to the degree to which an

individual leads an examined life, or makes personal choices with an eye toward the active

construction of the self. Commitment refers to an individual’s ability to consistently identify with

those values and roles one has chosen to represent oneself and to make new choices that reflect a

stable and consistent pattern of self-selected identity.

Identity diffusion. A status of identity diffusion reflects low commitment and low

exploration. That is, a person that could be described as identity diffused would lack both

stable conception of self and a current sense that she ought to be seeking such a conception. An

example of this might be a young adult child, living with her parents, not attending school, not

finding a group of peers that she has much in common with, not pursuing any particular career

path, and not expressing any interest in any change with regard to these matters.

Identity foreclosure. A status of identity foreclosure represents high commitment and

low exploration. That is, a person that could be categorized as identity foreclosed would, without

significant consideration of other possible lifestyles, adopt a role, a set of values, and likely a set

of peers and hobbies consistent with a lifestyle that was modeled for them or expected of them,

often by elders or authority figures. An example of this status might be an adolescent who

decides on a career path that her parents want for her even though she is unsure as to the

importance of this career for herself.

Moratorium. Moratorium is an identity status characterized by low commitment and

high exploration. People best described as having this identity status are currently engaged in

questioning any previous assumptions, are constructing a sense of self, and are not immediately

interested in defining themselves, their most appropriate roles, or the type of lifestyle that best

`

9

fits them. For example, if the adolescent noted above decides that she will go to college to pursue

the career path her parents want for her now, but also plans to explore other careers once she

leaves home for college. In this case, she does not want to challenge her parents now on the issue

of careers and will wait until she is emotionally ready to decide for herself.

Identity achievement. This identity achievement status is unique in that it arguably

implies that a person that could best be described as identity achieved has been through a

moratorium stage and that what she has achieved is the ability to make and consistently stick

with lifestyle and identity choices with awareness. This status implies at least a previous period

of high exploration as well as a high level of commitment.

Rationale for using the ego identity development framework. Given the theoretical

role of family differentiation in foundational descriptions of ego identity formation ranging from

Freud (1933) to Marcia (1966), it is worth specifically considering what the observable

connection might be between the two-dimensional model of family differentiation, including the

dimensions of cohesion and enmeshment, and the identity formation process. In general, it is

appropriate to examine family differentiation in terms of its impact on identity formation because

youth within families are theoretically presumed to be struggling to take on the demands of

adulthood by identifying their own values and needs as separate from parents who socialize them

(Grotevant, 1983).

Further, the use of the identity development as a theoretical framework in the context of

this study also provides an opportunity for a theoretical contribution. This study is intended to

address a long-standing call within the literature for enhanced cultural literacy on the part of

identity scholars (e.g., Côté and Levine, 1988). Scholars have frequently implied or suggested

that identity foreclosure is associated with less favorable outcomes than identity achievement

(e.g., Arseth et al., 2009). Schwartz (2001) combined multiple perspectives on the identity

foreclosure status as part of an effort to offer a broad historical overview of Marcian identity

scholarship. He cited Marcia (1980) in describing the identity foreclosed individual as being

“associated with some degree of closed-mindedness, smug self- satisfaction, and rigidity” and (p.

12), going on to say that “foreclosed individuals tend to become increasingly attached to their

current circumstances and to the individuals who have helped to put those circumstances in

place, and they tend to resist change at almost any cost” (p.12). Schwartz (2001) explains that

the identity foreclosed individual has a high degree of commitment “in the relative absence of

`

10

prior exploration” (p.12), arguably implying some contextual level dysfunction inherent in an

individual that enters into a higher commitment status without exploration. This study will

critically examine the argument that the negative connotation exemplified by this language

reflects culturally relevant assumptions across the identity literature. To this end, this study

examined whether the impact of enmeshment on exploration and also on psychological well-

being is less negative for Hispanics than for non-Hispanic whites.

Life Course Theory

The family life course development framework represents a synthesis of two theoretical

frameworks: a) Family development theory, and, b) The life course perspective (White & Klein,

2002; see also Bengston & Allen, 1993; Elder, 1998; Elder, Johnson, & Crosnoe, 2003; Rodgers

& White, 1993). Family development theory emerged in the 1950s. It is rooted in an interest in

the family as a unit of analysis. The life course perspective evolved in the 1970s and is based on

the notion of life stages that are tied more to the timing of significant events (e.g., birth of a child

or marriage) than to chronological time. White and Klein (2002) argued that these two theories

can be construed as different aspects of a single framework. The integration of family

development theory with the life course perspective affords the researcher an organized way to

consider the development of not just the individual but the family in the context of history,

society, stage of life, and family-specific life changing events.

Norms, positions, and roles. Norms are societal rules that regulate group and individual

behavior. The family life course development framework acknowledges that while some norms

are constant across the life span, such as the societal prohibition of theft, others are tied to an age

and stage graded continuum. For example, in the U.S. we do not generally expect adolescents to

maintain steady employment; at the onset of adulthood or completion of education, that

expectation changes.

Position refers to an individual's place in a family structure relative to others. This

concept is useful in differentiating families from within and between other groups. For example,

in U.S. society, we generally conceptualize families as being comprised of mothers, fathers,

sons, daughters, sisters, and brothers. These primary positions allow us to conceptualize other

culturally relevant positions, such as grandmothers, grandfathers, aunts, uncles, and cousins.

Thus, a grandmother can be thought of as a mother or father’s mother and an aunt can be thought

of as a mother or father’s sister.

`

11

A role is the set of norms applicable to a family position. Roles, like the norms they are

tied to, can be age and stage graded. For example, in many societies, when people think of the

concept of a son, they think of somebody that is financially dependent on a father or mother.

Indeed, as a child or adolescent, a son may be likely to be largely dependent on his parent(s) for

financial support. However, as that son ages, his role may change in accordance with societal

norms (e.g., adult sons become gainfully employed and achieve financial independence). In this

example, the role of the son position evokes societal norms about gender as well as autonomy.

Family stages. As opposed to Erikson’s (1968) or Marcia’s (1966) identity

developmental categories, which focus more on individual development, a family stage

represents a period of time with distinct expectations for changing interdependent family roles.

Individual roles and role interaction within the family generally change with passing family

stages. For example, after a family has entered the stage of launching children, steady

employment is associated with autonomy for a young adult son. Therefore, steady employment

is an appropriate element for the role a young adult son. In the context of the family stage

immediately prior to this, however, primary identification with the role of an employee during

adolescence is correlated with criminality and antisocial behavior (Wright, Cullen, & Williams,

2002).

Transition. In the family life course development framework, a transition is the passage

from one individual or family stage to another. A transition may be on-time or off-time. Off-

time transitions are associated with deleterious consequences for family units and family

members. Timing is regulated by age and stage graded social norms. For example, if the

transition from adolescence into the adjacent phase of adulthood is too early, or off time, due to a

financial necessity for employment during adolescence, antisocial behavior such as theft,

vandalism, or physically violent outbursts may be more likely to follow (Wright et al., 2002).

The family life course development framework holds that transitions, such as the

individual transition from high school or college student to high school or college graduate or

dropout are formally marked by distinct events (e.g., graduation day or day of formal withdrawal

from school), but can be characterized by a prolonged transition process.

Family life course. Family life course is family development, conceptualized as an

unending series of individual and group transitions form one stage to another. The family life

course is organized along the lines of on-time and off-time transitions and roles are regulated by

`

12

societal and cultural norms. Interaction within a family and the interaction of the family and

society keep development continuous.

Multiple dimensions of time. Scholars rooted in the family life course development

recognize that although the measurement of time may be uniformly regimented, the experience

of time is quite the opposite. This framework also posits that people experience time not so much

a function of precisely calculated minutes, hours, weeks and years, but in terms of significant

events. This framework appreciates that the family developmental process is not based solely on

an unfolding of biological events. Development is directly influenced by historical factors as

well as societal norms about the order in which specific events are to take place. Further, this

framework recognizes the tendency of people to intentionally organize their individual and

familial growth along the lines of these sequencing norms. Family stages of development are not

just sequential but they also influence one another. For example, the more time an adolescent

spends engaging in behaviors such as studying and participating in extracurricular activities that

lead her to become embedded in the high school phase of her life, the more likely she is to

graduate high school (Alexander, Entwisle, & Kabbani, 2001). This refers not only to the amount

of total time spent in a phase, but also to the way the behavior and events that occur during a

given stage predict future transitions. Although individuals and families certainly stray from

expected sequences, the life course development framework assumes that this has consequences

that can often be measured and predicted.

In an examination of the effects of unemployment on the transition from adolescence to

adulthood in Norway, Hammer (1996) found that young, unemployed men were more likely than

their female counterparts to remain living at home with their parents and also had more of a

tendency to behave according to traditional gender roles. From a family life course development

perspective, this could be explained by assuming that these young men, perceiving pressure to

conform to a societal norm of adult financial independence and autonomy, behave in ways that

are especially consistent with and age and stage appropriate gender roles in an effort to

compensate and self-regulate the family developmental process. This is consistent with and

relevant to more recent empirical findings (e.g., Haid et al., 2010). Hammer (2003) and his

multinational team followed up with this work, offering a more thorough exploration of the

effects of unemployment on young people in the context of European and Western society.

Employing concepts from the family life course development framework, they were able to

`

13

organize a complex discussion of the potential longitudinal family and individual consequences

of unemployment among 15 to 24 year old males and females within the broader social context

of time-limited opportunities, poverty, and marginalization.

Rationale for using family life course development framework. Employing concepts

from the family life course development framework in this study will afford an opportunity to

organize and address the complexity of relevant societal and cultural expectations for the

purpose grasping as much as possible about the perspectives of participants that live within the

ever-evolving context of U.S. society. This framework will also help to bridge the gap between

the inevitable limitations of a study that only addresses a sample of participants living in Florida

and in U.S. society at a given point in history and the international community of identity

research consumers. For example, by employing this framework in this study to conceptualize

participant age in terms of life stage and generally expected major transitions in socio-economic

and broader societal context, a researcher studying a different population in another time may be

able build on this work by using the life course development framework to also explain those

participants' ages in terms of life stage and generally expected major transitions in

socioeconomic and broader societal context. Employing the family life course development

framework in this research project offers a strong opportunity for theoretical generalizability. In

short, the family life course development framework facilitates comparison of the results of this

study to those of research on other populations, because although specific transition-related

norms vary across cultures, it is possible to discuss the family and individual experience in terms

of life course transitions and family life course transitions regardless of culture or broader

societal setting.

Family Differentiation: One-dimensional versus Two-dimensional Model

The concept of family differentiation, or the extent and nature of emotional

interdependence among family system members, has been extensively addressed by relational

social scientists and researchers. Historically, researchers (e.g., Minuchin, 1974 & Olson, 1982)

have used a single dimension to explain family differentiation where an ideal balance of

autonomy is indexed as a single dimensional construct. This model of differentiation has been

termed the one-dimensional model (Manzi et al., 2006), and historically it has gone relatively

unchallenged by identity and family science scholars.

`

14

In recent years, however, the one-dimensional model of differentiation has been criticized

as not fully capturing family differentiation. For example, some researchers have challenged the

model's generalizability across cultural and ethnic boundaries (e.g., Chun & MacDermid, 1997;

Fuhrman & Holmbeck, 1995). Others have suggested that a two-dimensional model better

accounts for the nature of family differentiation (e.g., Barber & Buehler, 1996; Manzi et al.,

2006; Scabini, 1985). Such a model would reflect two separate dimensions of differentiation

including family cohesion and family enmeshment.

Previous research has further highlighted the distinction between a one- versus two-

dimensional model. For example, Campbell et al. (1984) conducted a study on cohesion and

enmeshment that has been cited often in identity formation literature. The study explored the

relationships between two independent variables, identity status and gender, and four outcome

variables: connectedness, communication, individuality, and satisfaction with independence.

Campbell et al. asserted that their research was a response to Grotevant's contributions

(Grotevant, 1983; Cooper, Grotevant, & Condon, 1984) regarding the family differentiation

constructs, stating “our interpretation of Grotevant's position is that a moderate degree of

connectedness, reflected through shared affection and an acceptance of individuality, provides

the psychological foundation and security to begin the searching process of self-defined

commitments” (p. 512).

This statement is consistent with the one-dimensional model of cohesion and

enmeshment. In effect, the authors define enmeshment as a high level of cohesion, or

connectedness: they use the term “enmeshment” to explain that “extreme affection

(enmeshment) between adolescents and their parents and limited family-based tolerance for

individuality might enmesh adolescents and encourage foreclosure in identity formation” (p.

512). The authors further concluded that the one- dimensional model of cohesion and

enmeshment is supported.

However, the authors' hypotheses themselves, specifically the supported ones, actually

appear to be more consistent with a two-dimensional model of family differentiation. Consider

what it would have looked like had Campbell et al. (1984) constructed hypotheses designed to

test a two-dimensional model of family differentiation. They might have predicted that high-

commitment (foreclosed or identity-achieved) adolescents would have more affectionate

relationships with their parents than those in low commitment statuses (moratorium or diffuse).

`

15

In fact Campbell et al. did predict this; and the hypothesis was supported. They might have also

predicted that high-exploration adolescents (identity-achieved or moratorium) would have more

perceived independence (lower enmeshment) from their parents than their lower exploration

counterparts (foreclosed or diffused). Campbell et al. predicted this as well; and this hypothesis

was also supported.

To focus on both family differentiation and identity development, Watson and Protinsky

(1988) examined family interactions and their relationship to adolescent identity development in

black U.S. families. They assumed a one dimensional model of enmeshment and set out to

explore the extent to which enmeshment predicted identity status. The researchers theorized that

a higher enmeshment status would be predictive of identity foreclosure, and that hypothesis was

supported by their study. However, contrary to their stated expectations, the researchers also

concluded that high enmeshment levels were predictive of identity achievement status.

Support of a two-dimensional model of family differentiation including cohesion and

enmeshment comes from Fuhrman and Holmbeck (1995) who examined relationships between

adolescent emotional autonomy and parent child relationships. Participants included 96

adolescents at an urban Catholic school in a large city in the eastern United States (U.S.). The

mothers and teachers of subjects also participated in the study. The authors employed multiple

regression to test this relationship and to test eight moderating variables. Ultimately, the authors

concluded that the effect of emotional autonomy on the parent-child relationship varies

according to the unique qualities of the relationship, specifying that emotional autonomy

predicted a reduction in adjustment only when the parent-child relationship could be

characterized as warm and low conflict. Emotional autonomy actually predicted higher

adjustment if the parent-child relationship could be considered cold or high conflict.

As a more direct test of both the one-dimensional and two-dimensional models, Barber

and Buehler (1996) examined the viability of the two-dimensional model compared to the one-

dimensional model of cohesion and enmeshment among U.S. children. In measuring the

independent variables, Barber and Buehler (1996) used the cohesion and enmeshment subscales

of the Colorado Self Report of Family Functioning Inventory [CSRFFI]. Each CSRFFI subscale

consists of five 4-point items. They used exploratory factor analysis with oblimin (non-

orthogonal) rotation, an analysis that allows factors to be correlated. The authors' analysis

established a two-factor solution, which explained 54 percent of the variance in item responses.

`

16

In measuring outcomes, the authors utilized four subscales of the Child Behavior Checklist

Youth Self Report (CBC): Withdrawn (α =.57), Anxious-Depressed (α =.87), Delinquent

(α =.62), and Aggressive (α =.79). The researchers further identified the moderating variables of

grade in school and gender. The researchers drew from a population of white, middle income,

fifth, eighth, and tenth grade children in suburban Tennessee. The authors recruited the entire

population of school children within a selection of grade levels and schools, with a 65 percent

response rate (N = 471). In their analysis, the researchers employed multiple regression to

compare both linear (two-dimensional) and curvilinear (one-dimensional) models of cohesion

and enmeshment. Linear models yielded nine significant results related specifically to cohesion

and enmeshment, while the curvilinear models yielded only one significant result, supporting the

conclusion that cohesion and enmeshment are best conceptualized as two distinct dimensions,

each having a unique linear relationship with relevant outcomes.

Barber and Buehler (1996) concluded that a two-dimensional model was supported by

their analysis. In this study, the authors measured cohesion and enmeshment separately and

found differences in the ways that cohesion and enmeshment predicted an established set of

outcomes. In addition, the authors noted that the independent variables, cohesion and

enmeshment, interacted with one another, adding further support to their conclusion that a two-

dimensional model was a more reasonable and accurate understanding of the nature of cohesion

and enmeshment.

It is noteworthy that Barber and Buehler (1996) made a point of attempting to isolate

white, middle income children within their sample for study to the extent of removing fully 53

potential participants, roughly ten percent of their overall sample, explaining only that they did

this because the vast majority of their sample size was comprised of white, middle income

children. This study cannot be taken to explain the relevance of the cohesion and enmeshment

constructs in a cross cultural or minority culture context, especially with regard to outcomes.

Chun and MacDermid (1997) studied the implications of what they referred to as

differentiation and individuation levels for 170 Korean adolescents in what would be the US

equivalent of ninth or tenth grade. They directionally hypothesized that Korean adolescents'

individuation levels would be negatively correlated with self-esteem. They also hypothesized

that gender would play an important role in interrelationships between individuation and that

differentiation between and adolescent and his or her same-sex parent would be more strongly

`

17

related to adolescent individuation than differentiation among parents or in the adolescent's

relationship with the opposite sex parent. These hypotheses were supported. In addition, the

influence of father-adolescent differentiation on adolescent individualization (beta = .32) was

found to be much stronger than the influence of mother-adolescent differentiation; for girls the

converse was true (beta=.61). Considered in the context of our non-homogenous society, this

study is a powerful argument for studying and understanding the implications of family

differentiation outside of a narrow cultural or ethnic reference group.

Critical Review of Theoretical Frameworks

Marcian ego identity theory. Though Marcia (1966) did not present his ego identity

theory as a stagewise model, he developed his identity statuses by expanding upon Erik

Erikson’s stagewise psychosocial crisis resolution paradigm. Further, the Marcian identity status

of identity achievement arguably implies that an individual has passed through a period of

moratorium on her way to achievement. Therefore, a stagewise element of the theory appears to

be implied. This stagewise element may contribute to a tendency for scholars in the field to

assume a high value of exploration. Empirically, this valuation may not be universal.

Additionally, some findings suggest that commitment may be associated with positive outcomes

even in the absence of exploration. In other words, commitment, inclusive of identity

achievement as well as identity foreclosure, may be associated with positive outcomes (e.g.

Arseth, Kroger, Martinussen, & Marcia, 2009); Crocetti, Klimstra, Keijsers, Hale, & Meeus,

2009; Mullis et al., 2003; Watson & Protinsky, 1988). Yet, due to a theoretically inherent

emphasis on the value of exploration as opposed to commitment, it is possible that the data that

supports this may be at risk for being under-acknowledged.

Much of the research that has been done on ego identity development has not addressed

the inter-related issues of culture, race, and ethnicity. Historically, many studies in this area have

used data from participants that predominantly identify as white (Schwartz, 2005). Côté and

Levine (1988) issue a call for a richer contextual understanding of the impact of culture on the

study of ego identity formation. However, more recent findings support the notion that ethnic

identity is a legitimate and stand-alone domain of ego identity and further suggest that a strong

personal sense of ethnic identity may be associated with positive outcomes (Schwartz et al.,

2010; Umaña-Taylor et al., 2009).

`

18

Family life course development framework. The family life course development

framework has been criticized in important ways (Hutchinson, 2011). The underlying theory may

have difficulty in accommodating heterogeneity within a society. The usefulness of the theory

may be questioned with regard to societies where individuals’ lives follow highly diverse

patterns, such as the United States. This is because the theory presupposes the existence of

patterns in development over the life course. However, life course development theory does not

presuppose that individuals’ lives follow any one particular pattern. Therefore the theory is

flexible enough to be adapted to describe the life course across many cultures. A second, perhaps

more serious criticism of life course development theory is that it does not address the

connections between individuals and large institutions. This may be particularly relevant for

Hispanic participants, whose ethnic identity is potentially being molded in part by institutions

such as the United States Census Bureau. However, although this theory taken alone may not

emphasize these connections, the present study explicitly does accomplish this emphasis without

particular impediment from the family life course developmental framework.

Relations between Family Differentiation and Ego Identity

Regardless of whether the concept is represented as one dimensional or two dimensional,

and regardless of whether the one or two dimensions are termed cohesion, enmeshment,

differentiation, emotional autonomy, attachment, or independence, it is both theoretically and

empirically clear that relational dynamics within the family system of an older adolescent or

young adult are predictive of identity status (Adams et al., 1987; Arseth et al., 2009; Campbell et

al., 1984; Faber et al., 2003; Jackson et al., 1990; Marcia, 1966; Watson & Protinsky, 1988).

Further, a review of the literature and the chronologically progressive nature of

conclusions about the underlying constructs have revealed a compelling case for assuming a two-

dimensional model of family differentiation. This is underscored by the explicit testing of a two-

dimensional model (Barber & Buehler, 1996; Manzi et al., 2006).

It is also established that the concept of Marcian identity status is of practical value in

part because the Marcian identity statuses can be predictive of measurably positive outcomes and

prosocial behaviors, especially in older adolescents or younger adults (Arseth et al., 2009;

Crocetti et al., 2009; and Hardy & Kisling, 2006). It would therefore be worthwhile to pursue a

detailed understanding of the potential effect of family differentiation on psychological well-

being via Marcian ego identity variables.

`

19

Although there are several Marcian identity status-specific examples of scholarly

attempts to isolate these underlying family relational dynamics in the literature (Adams et al.,

1987; Arseth et al., 2009; Campbell et al., 1984; Faber et al., 2003; Jackson et al. 1990; Marcia,

1966; Mullis et al., 2003; Watson & Protinsky, 1988), none to date have assumed or tested a

specific, two-dimensional model of family differentiation in relation to the Marcian identity

statuses.

Further, despite strong support of the contextual relevance and function of a two-

dimensional model of family differentiation, there is no discernible trend in the literature of

moving toward any universal, operationalized language to describe the relational dynamics that

may quantifiably explain the evolution of commitment and exploration statuses in older

adolescents and young adults. This is the case despite the Freudian notion of ego identity

evolving as a consequence of relational dynamics within an individual's family of origin (Freud,

1933) and the inherent relational processes embedded in the Eriksonian intimacy vs. isolation

crisis associated with adolescents moving toward young adulthood (Erikson, 1959).

Relations between Family Differentiation and Psychological Well-Being

The present study uses three measures of psychological well-being as outcome

(dependent) variables: life satisfaction, as measured by the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SLS;

Diener et al., 1985); depressive symptoms, as measured by Center for Epidemiological Studies –

Depression Scale (CES- D; Radloff, 1977) and anxiety, as measured by a short form of the State-

Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-6; Marteau & Bekker, 1992).

These variables were selected for several reasons. First, Manzi et al. (2006) used these

same measures to show that these outcomes are related to identity threat. The present research

instead hypothesizes that these psychological well-being outcomes will be related to identity

formation variables (commitment and exploration). Second, Manzi et al. (2006) also used these

same measures to show that these psychological well-being outcomes were related to family

differentiation (cohesion and enmeshment). The present research hypothesizes the same

relationships.

Manzi et al. (2006) found family differentiation to be related to the particular

psychological well-being variables that are to be examined in this study. Specifically, in the

British sample, cohesion was negatively related to depressive symptoms and positively related to

`

20

life satisfaction. Enmeshment was positively related to both anxiety and depressive symptoms. In

the Italian sample, cohesion was negatively related to both anxiety and depressive

symptoms, and was positively related to life satisfaction. Manzi et al.’s (2006) results show the

impact of identity development and psychological well-being. These results also form the basis

of the hypotheses in this study.

In related findings, Fuhrman and Holmbeck (1995) concluded that the effect of emotional

autonomy on the parent-child relationship varies according to the quality of the relationship.

Emotional autonomy predicted a reduction in adjustment only when the parent-child relationship

could be characterized as warm and low conflict. Emotional autonomy actually predicted higher

adjustment if the parent-child relationship could be considered cold or high conflict. Emotional

autonomy is conceptually opposed to enmeshment. If the impact of emotional autonomy depends

on the quality of the relationship, this impact may also depend on cultural differences, as

hypothesized in this study and as actually found by Manzi et al. (2006).

Relations between Ego Identity and Psychological Well-Being

Manzi et al. (2006) used the same measures of psychological well-being selected for this

study to show that these outcomes are related to identity threat. The present research builds on

this finding by hypothesizing that these psychological well-being outcomes will be related to

identity formation variables (commitment and exploration).

Barber and Beuhler (1996) found that higher enmeshment predicted less desirable

outcomes for a combined depressive symptoms-anxiety variable as well as for withdrawal and

aggression. Regression slopes ranged from .14 to .26. In contrast, higher cohesion predicted

more desirable outcomes for depressive symptoms-anxiety, withdrawal, aggression, and

delinquency. Regression slopes ranged from -.24 to -.30.

Furthermore, researchers used growth mixture modeling (GMM) to show that adolescents

could be categorized into two classes: those whose anxiety began high and increased; and those

whose anxiety began low and declined. Those in the high anxiety class tended to show lower

levels of commitment over time (Crocetti et al., 2009).

More broadly, ego identity status has been found to predict adaptive psychological

functioning and prosocial behaviors in young adults as well as older adolescents. A meta-

analysis of fourteen studies found that secure attachment (the most adaptive attachment style) is

more frequently observed among individuals with identity-achieved status than foreclosed or

`

21

diffuse status (Arseth et al., 2009). Securely attached individuals “are comfortable depending on

others and having others depend on them.” (Arseth et al., 2009, p. 5). Another meta-analysis of

twenty-one studies found that individuals with high-exploration identity statuses also

experienced greater levels of intimacy (Arseth et al., 2009).

Hardy and Kisling (2006) found three measures of prosocial behavior to correlate with

ego identity status. “Community service, prosocial activities, and prosocial behavioral

tendencies” each correlated positively with identity achievement (p. 363). Each of these three

measures also correlated negatively with identity diffusion. Moreover, the higher commitment

statuses (achievement and foreclosure) were associated with higher levels of affection between

parent and child (Campbell et al., 1984).

The Role of Culture and Ethnicity

Côté and Levine (1988) called for a richer contextual understanding of the impact of

culture and ethnicity on the study of ego identity formation. This study represents a relatively

early appeal for identity scholars to acknowledge the perils of an inherent culture of reference

bias across the literature. It also argues that cultural and ethnic literacy incorporated into identity

research as well as related intervention programs could ultimately benefit clinicians and clients.

Importance of Comparing Ethnic Groups

One goal of this study is the preliminary isolation of a possible culture of reference

within the family differentiation and identity literature. The United States is different from

Europe in its governmental structure: States have some independence from the Federal

government, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [U.K.] and Italy are

a part of the European Union, but states in the U.S. are not separate, sovereign, or formal

countries with unique, established cultural roots, norms, and expectations extending back in

excess of a thousand years (Côté & Levine, 1988). The modern civic and legal nationality of a

Floridian, for example, is identical to that of a Georgian or a Californian. For this reason, it

would not be sufficient or justifiable to simply compare participants from one state versus

another state in the present study, because to do so would not capture the contrast in cultural

norms and expectations as described by Manzi et al. (2006). The present study will accomplish

this by focusing on participants who identify themselves as non-Hispanic Whites and Hispanics

of any race.

`

22

Field (2002) describes the melting pot perspective as optimistic, but as Glazer (1993) and

Vertovec (2010) have asserted, one important criticism of the melting pot perspective is that it

was inherently ethnocentric in prioritizing the ultimately British Colonial cultural values of the

early U.S. power elite over the values of residents from other backgrounds. Another criticism of

the melting pot perspective is that even when its proponents did place significant value on the

contributions of early European immigrants, they still often ignored the contributions of other

minority groups in the U.S., notably African-Americans (Baldwin, 1955; DuBois, 1925; and

Glazer, 1993).

Glazer (1993) explained that as professionals continued to explore the value of the

melting pot perspective, eventually the trend in the literature moved away from a debate about

the ideal balancing point on an assimilation continuum ranging from amalgamation to

acculturation, or Americanization (e.g., Hollinger, 2006; Vought, 2004), aided by the metaphor

of the melting pot, to advocacy for cultural pluralism (Kallen, 1956), or the idea that it is

worthwhile for persons of varied ethnic backgrounds to hold on to their unique cultural

identities.

Hollinger (2006) is a post-multiculturalist scholar that has articulated the concept of post-

ethnicity and argued that U.S. citizens should ideally retain and receive respect for expressing a

cultural identity but, in case of immediate conflict, prioritize national, non-ethnic, ideologically-

based norms and expectations where possible in an effort to preserve peaceful societal progress.

Hollinger's post-ethnicity concept is open to criticism about the risk of unwitting, myopically

inherent ethnocentrism in defining those supposedly non-ethnic, ideologically-based norms and

expectations.

As Baldwin (1955) noted, whether one is exploring the benefits of a more assimilationist

or more multiculturalist worldview, separateness can be forcefully imposed on the individual by

the reaction of others to physiological differences in the power elite as distinct from

ethnominorities, despite any intellectual or individual desire to transcend ethnicity. Thus, as

Vertovec (2010) explained, begins another, more modern post-multiculturalist cycle of debate

between the optimistic idealism originally present in the melting pot perspective and the risks of

excessive emphasis on cultural separateness.

It is in this post-multiculturalist context, then, that the present study examined the value

of family differentiation and identity development in furthering a broad academic understanding

`

23

of cross-cultural relations. This will be accomplished by the explicit and contextual justification

of the two comparison groups. This represents an important methodological advance, but it is in

line with contemporary professional standards because in the context of understanding cultural

and ethnic diversity, identity scholars have given greater consideration of post-

multiculturalism. For example, Glazer (1993) credited the Eriksonian concept of ego identity

with giving diversity scholars and historians a language with which to explore the experience of

the individual as a separate entity and as a member of a group. In addition, Glazer (1993)

attributed the notion of modern “American identity and its avoidance of explicit ethnic

reference” (p. 125) in part to Erikson's own experiences with Americanization as something that

Erikson acknowledged helped him in his initial conceptualization of ego identity.

Ethnoracial Groups in the Research

The present study featured a comparison of two ethnoracial groups based on the racial

and ethnic categories used in the 2010 United States Census: non-Hispanic whites and Hispanics

of any race (Humes et al. 2011). This methodological choice stands in contrast to comparing

groups from different countries or states (Manzi et al., 2006). The goal of the present study is to

capture potential differences between a societal culture of reference and a culture, ethnicity,

ethnominority, ethnoracial group, or as Emerson (Field, 2002) described it, a U.S. group that is

not yet fully assimilated into ethnocultural majority norms.

Rationale for Focus on White Non-Hispanic Participants

British-Americans are not necessarily representative of ethnocultural U.S. majority or

reference group norms. Vertovec (2010) explained that current immigration and emigration

patterns represent unprecedented, accelerated movement and freedom of movement of different

national and ethnic groups within Western, democratic societies, including in the U.K. Vertovec

(2010) argued that despite this “superdiversity” (p. 86) in the U.K., a power elite-driven culture

of reference and even frank xenophobia currently culturally co-exists with accepted societal

sentiments to the contrary, possibly as a result of the influence of the multiculturalist paradigm.

Thus, it is not currently reasonable to assume anything about the culture of self-identified

British-Americans, in part because they may be part of the new British superdiversity trend and

not steeped in British majority cultural norms, and in part because British citizens are themselves

undergoing a tremendous shift in the definition and implications of majority ethnocultural norms

and roles. Given that the U.S. culture of reference is arguably based on British Colonial majority

`

24

ethnocultural norms from nearly two and a half centuries ago (Glazer, 1993), the argument must

be made that any modern U.S. resident that identifies specifically as British-American might be

more a product of any segment of present-day U.K. culture than a U.S. culture of reference.

Given Manzi, et. al's (2006) decision to study Italian participants and highlight Italian

culture, Italian-Americans in the context of this study represents a convenient, and by no means

exhaustive, example of the ambiguous concept of whiteness in the U.S.: In isolating participants

for the present study that identify per USCB guidelines as white alone, and not ethnically

Hispanic, as a potential representative for the U.S. culture of reference, it is important to consider

the field of academic whiteness studies (e.g., Jacobson, 1999; Kolchin, 2002; Taylor, 2004),

which, in a post-multiculturalist context, implies that U.S. whiteness is more of a complex,

socially constructed privilege status as opposed to a product of an individual's genetic lineage.

For example, the USCB (Humes et al., 2011) allowed census respondents to select one of

five races, or to write in their race in their own words. The USCB then categorized respondents

that asserted via free-response that they were Italian, Italian-American, or even European-

American as white. Assuming that the USCB's categorization policies represent one institutional,

bureaucratic, standardized definition of whiteness in the U.S. today, Italian-Americans can in an

important respect be considered white in the present-day U.S. and, therefore, per the assumptions

of whiteness studies (e.g., Jacobson, 1999; Kolchin, 2002; Taylor, 2004), afforded a privileged

social status and by extension the right to further co-construct the meaning of the term white in

the U.S. moving forward, making Italian-Americans an active part of the culture of reference in

the U.S. Of course, this argument could also be made for Irish-American census respondents,

Polish-American census respondents, or any number of groups that the USCB (Humes et al.,

2011) has decided to categorize as white, even if, like Italian-Americans, those groups were not

historically afforded a socially privileged status in the U.S. (e.g., Behdad, 2005; Guglielmo,

2004).

The legacy of discrimination against Italian immigrants, particularly in the twentieth

century U.S. (e.g., Behdad, 2005; Guglielmo, 2004), is one example of the difficulties in cultural

assimilation. Today, people in the U.S. who identify with their Italian heritage have the option of

celebrating their heritage openly and, if they desire to do so, simultaneously working to

incorporate their ideas of what it means to be Italian-American into the notion of what it means

to be part of U.S. culture or white in general. In this way, modern self-identified Italian-

`

25

Americans, like other USCB-defined white groups, are afforded an opportunity to retain and

refine a personal sense of cultural separateness while maintaining an identity as a part of a U.S.

culture of reference and a unified national culture. This process has led scholars to assert that the

Italian- American identity is unique, distinct from the Italian or Italian immigrant identity, and a

recognizable contributor to the overall modern national identity and culture of reference (e.g.,

Guglielmo, 2004; Guglielmo & Salerno, 2003).

The present study featured U.S. participants of different ethnicities, and as such may be

in a unique position to offer insight into that balance. In the context of an evolving post-

multiculturalist perspective, this study will focus on all participants that identify or are classified

per USCB (2011) standards as white alone in an effort to capture members of a present-day,

actively co-constructed culture of reference that are afforded the opportunity to keep, define, and

celebrate their separateness while simultaneously contributing to the idea of whiteness in the

U.S.

Rationale for Focus on Hispanic Participants

There are five USCB categories that allow respondents to identify themselves as non-

white: a) black or African-American; b) American Indian or Alaska Native; c) Asian, or d)

Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander groups, or e) some other race (Humes et al., 1999,

p. 2). Researchers have offered recent confirmation that ethnic identity achievement is not only

reasonably conceived of as a dimension of ego identity, it is reliably measurable and even

specifically associated with positive outcomes (e.g. Schwartz, Zamboanga, Weisskirch, & Wang,

2010; Umaña-Taylor, Gonzales-Backen, & Guimond, 2009).

Yet in recent empirical studies, researchers have also found that participants that self-

identify as Hispanic, as opposed to other racial or ethnocultural groups, stand out in the realm of

ethnocultural identity exploration and commitment. For example, Juang and Syed (2010)

compared multiple ethnocultural groups and found that participants that did not identify as white

were more likely than white participants to engage in cultural socialization, or social activities

that increased a sense of belonging to an ethnocultural group, with their families, and that this

type of socialization was particularly likely to predict an increased a sense of ethnocultural

identity for white participants, who, ostensibly, as members of a privileged social group, may not

otherwise have been prompted to think about their cultural uniqueness. However, Juang and

`

26

Syed (2010) also found that self-identified Hispanic participants were the only group that

differed significantly from white participants in that Hispanic participants demonstrate

significantly more cultural identity exploration than their white-identified counterparts.

Schwartz, Mason, Pantin, and Szapocznik (2009) analyzed longitudinal data of Hispanic

early to middle adolescents with a variety of national heritage backgrounds and found that for

participants that tended to experience increasing levels of identity confusion as they moved

toward later adolescence and identity development, family functioning initially predicted identity

confusion at earlier ages, but at older ages, increased levels of identity confusion in turn

predicted lower levels of family functioning. Further, Syed and Azimitia (2008) found that self-

identified Latino/Chicano and self-identified Asian participants tended to have a stronger sense

of ethnocultural identity achievement as opposed to white and mixed-ethnicity participants, and

indicated in open-ended narratives that they had spent more time contemplating an overall sense

of ethnocultural identity in the first place.

Taken in concert, recent research has indicated that that there is a unique component to

the intergenerational transmission of ideas about U.S. Hispanic self-identification (e.g., Juang &

Syed, 2010), that there is evidence that, for Hispanic families specifically, identity confusion of a

mid-adolescent can predict a decrease in family functioning (Schwartz et al., 2009), and that

people that specifically identify as Hispanic in the U.S. have spent more time thinking about

what their ethnocultural identity means to them than their white, mixed-ethnicity, and other non-

white identified counterparts (Juang & Syed, 2010; Syed & Azimitia, 2008). This is in line with

Phinney's (1990) assertion that ethnocultural identity develops concurrently with ego identity

and, if an individual decides that her ethnocultural identity is an important part of her overall

identity, it becomes an integral part of her overall ego identity, ostensibly due to an intense

period of ethnocultural identity exploration that preceded ethnocultural identity achievement.

Phinney (1990) asserted that this is evident because people with a developed sense

of ethnocultural identity often demonstrate this by raising the issue of ethnocultural identity

themselves, often in everyday social interactions.

Consistent with the post-multiculturalist perspective, evidence suggests that a bicultural

worldview may be beneficial (e.g., Chae & Foley, 2010). In addition, evidence suggests that

ethnocultural ego identity achievement is associated with positive outcomes (e.g., Schwartz et

al., 2010; Umaña-Taylor et al., 2009). Nevertheless, people in the U.S. who identify as Hispanic

`

27

or partly Hispanic tend to struggle with the relevance of taking on a Hispanic identity (e.g., Syed

& Azimitia, 2008), or else expend more effort exploring their ethnocultural identity than other

people in the U.S. (e.g., Juang & Syed, 2010; Schwartz et al., 2009; Syed & Azimitia, 2008).

One possible explanation for this pattern of recently published results is that the

Hispanic-identified people in the U.S. occupy a unique position in the current U.S. ethnoracial

spectrum. Although a Hispanic person in the U.S. may consider themselves white-alone, or some

other race, or a mix of races, they may or may not think of their status as Hispanic, non-

Hispanic, or mixed Hispanic and non-Hispanic as relevant to their race or ethnocultural identity.

This may create a kind of ethnocultural ego identity cognitive dissonance between an

individual’s cultural views about race that have been handed down through generations to a

Hispanic-identified person and the conflicting messages that U.S. society is currently sending

them about identifying as ethnically Hispanic.

As Boyd (2010) explains, the term Hispanic describes a broad range of people with

varied national, racial, and ethnic origins, most notably outside of the U.S. Further, the person

that is described as Hispanic in the U.S. may have simply identified as white or black in her

home country, or her grandparent's or great-grandparent's home country. Boyd's (2010)

assertions about the strong cultural legacy of European Colonialism, most notably Spanish

Colonialism in Latin America, combined with the legacy of brutality, oppression, and slavery

suffered by persons of African and/or indigenous heritage in the many parts of the world touched

by Spanish Colonialism are an excellent example of why the specific Hispanic racial identity of a

Hispanic-identified person in the U.S. is essential to understanding the rich, multinationally

relevant U.S. ethnocultural Hispanic identity.

In attempting to grasp the possible impact of racial constructs and discrimination and

brutality against Hispanic persons that were not labeled as white before immigrating to the

United States, whether in this generation or a previous generation, it may be helpful to consider

the broader implications of DuBois' (1925) suggestion that:

the race problem is the other side of the labor problem; and the black man's burden is the

white man's burden. At least it will be of absorbing interest, to step within these distant

world shadows, and, looking backward, to view the European and white American labor

problem from this wide perspective, remembering always that empire is the heavy hand

of capital abroad. (p. 386)

`

28

Although the USCB (Humes et al., 2011) allows participants to identify as any race and

either Hispanic or non-Hispanic, conforming respondents are not permitted to identify as, for

example, white-alone without deciding to describe themselves as Hispanic or non-Hispanic. This

is because the USCB defines the term Hispanic as an ethnicity and not a race. This is, in fact, the

only ethnic category that the USCB employed in its most recent census, making a respondent's

self- identification as either a Hispanic or a non-Hispanic a unique experience.

Further, respondents that opted to ignore the five main race categories as well as the

Hispanic ethnicity prompt and simply write in as a free response that they were Hispanic or

Mexican, Mexican-American, Chicano, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Latino, Spanish, or any other pre-

identified Hispanic group (p. 2), were in effect labeled as non-white, or “some other race” (p. 2),

as opposed to, for example, a person that might have written in that they were Italian-American

and subsequently categorized by the USCB as white. This speaks to a nation that is at odds with

the possibly strong expectation of a Hispanic person in the U.S. that they have a right to describe

themselves as white, black, or any other race without consideration of their status as ethnically

Hispanic or not Hispanic.

People in the U.S. who identify as both Hispanic and any race are essentially being asked

to choose between those two identities in cases where doing so does not necessarily fit with their

conception of ethnocultural identity. Thus, the USCB's decision to recognize Hispanic vs. non-

Hispanic as a sole ethnic category places respondents that identify as Hispanic in a uniquely

ambiguous category that may in many cases be very much at odds with ethnocultural aspects of a

respondent's established sense of identity and may arguably represent and even partially create a

presently transitional, unique, and ambiguous U.S. ethnoracial status.

Although the discussion here is not empirical proof of the mechanisms that facilitate a

unique ethnocultural status for self-identified Hispanic persons in the U.S., or even proof of the

unique general ambiguity of the Hispanic ethnoracial status, it does lend strong and sufficient

literature support of the methodological choice to target participants that identify as Hispanic.

The goal of the present study is to isolate participants that are less likely to represent an ethnic or

national culture of reference, and self-identified Hispanic participants in the U.S. are empirically,

bureaucratically, and philosophically more likely to capture that dynamic, arguably even more so

than established minority groups, perhaps as a direct result of their currently ambiguous

ethnoracial status.

`

29

Research Participants

Participants for this study were students at one of two large state universities in the

southeastern United States within the age range 18-26. Marcia (1980) posited that a large amount

of ego identity development takes place for older adolescents that ranged from the ages of 18-21,

consistent with the Eriksonian identity vs. role confusion crisis. Marcia (1989) also asserted that

shifts in Eriksonian ego identity crisis stages took place after an interval of intrapsychic

destructuring and crisis resolution. This is in line with the family life course development

framework concept of family stages.

However, it has also been theoretically posited and empirically supported that U.S.

women may be more likely to commence work on the Eriksonian identity vs. role confusion

crisis only after they have resolved the intimacy vs. isolation crisis (e.g., Campbell et al., 1984;

Grotevant, 1983; Schiedel & Marcia, 1985; Mullis et al., 2003), or may possibly work through

both crises concurrently (e.g., Archer & Waterman, 1994).

Moreover, based on the family life course development framework, the status of college

student in itself may represent a transitional stage and further encourage ego identity crisis

development, resolution, and periods of intrapsychic destructuring (Erikson, 1959) as the U.S.

students, like their counterparts in the study by Manzi et al. (2006), prepare for an adult life after

building a foundation for it in college in their late adolescence and/or early adulthood, although it

should be noted that this does not reflect the adulthood preparation experiences of all U.S.

adolescents.

Finally, there are ethnocultural considerations. For example, Manzi et al. (2006) reported

that 71.6 % of British participants in their study planned on living away from home in the near

future and, by contrast, only 8.5% of their Italian counterparts had the same intention (p.

679). There may be a cognate dynamic in Hispanic vs. white participants, and dynamics may

differ in older adolescents vs. young adults. Marcia (1980) asserted that persons ranging in age

from 21-24 may have resolved the identity vs. role confusion Eriksonian crisis. Therefore,

allowing participants' ages to range from 18-26, or in other words, to target older adolescents and

young adults, should sufficiently allow the present study to capture and feature an empirical

exploration of the relevance of all of these factors.

`

30

Summary Descriptions of Variables

Based on the previous research outlined in the literature review, the present study uses a

two-dimensional assessment of family differentiation. Unlike previous research (e.g., Manzi et

al., 2006), the present study examines the effect of family differentiation on psychological well-

being, both directly and indirectly via identity formation. Moreover, two separate ethnic groups

were used as samples for this study. The variables examined in this research are described below.

Each of these variables and their theoretical underpinnings has been discussed in the preceding

sections of this chapter.

Family Differentiation

Cohesion. Cohesion is the extent to which family members share supportive emotional

bonds. As reflected in the items on the Cohesion subscale of the Colorado Self-report of Family

Functioning Inventory, cohesive families share a “feeling of togetherness,” “help and support

one another,” and “get along well with each other.” (Bloom, 1985, p. 232, Table 3). Members of

cohesive families are able to rely on one another for emotional support. A lack of cohesiveness

results in a sense of isolation which may lead to poor psychological outcomes.

Enmeshment. Enmeshment is the extent to which the family restricts the autonomy of

its members. As reflected in the items on the Enmeshment subscale of the Colorado Self-report

of Family Functioning Inventory, members of enmeshed families feel “pressured to spend most

free time together.” They feel “guilty if they wanted to spend some time alone.” (Bloom, 1985,

p. 234, Table 3). Members of enmeshed families may have difficulty establishing independent

identities, since individual activities and interests must be subordinated to family goals and

values.

Ego Identity

Commitment. Commitment is an individual’s ability to consistently identify with those

values and roles one has chosen to represent oneself and to make new choices that reflect a stable

and consistent pattern of self-selected identity (Marcia, 1966). An individual with a high level of

commitment in a particular domain will pursue relatively consistent goals within that domain.

For example, a person with a high level of commitment within the professional domain will

pursue positions that advance a particular career path, rather than applying for miscellaneous

jobs selected haphazardly. As reflected in the Ego Identity Process Questionnaire, individuals

with a high level of commitment in the professional domain “are unlikely to alter [their]

`

31

vocational goals.” Those with a high level of commitment in the family domain have “firmly

held views concerning [their] role in [their] family.” (Balistreri et al., 1995, p. 192).

Exploration. Exploration is the degree to which an individual leads an examined life, or

makes personal choices with an eye toward the active construction of the self. An individual with

a high level of exploration in a particular domain would have put time and effort into considering

various options within that domain, rather than selecting the most obvious option presented by

their family or other circumstances. As reflected in the Ego Identity Process Questionnaire,

individuals with a high level of exploration in the ideological domain “have considered different

political views thoughtfully.” (Balistreri et al., 1995, p. 192).

Psychological Well-Being

Life satisfaction. Life satisfaction is the cognitive component of subjective well-being,

in contrast with positive affect and negative affect, which are the emotional components (Diener

et al., 1985). Satisfaction with life involves an individual’s evaluation of their own life as whole

by their own personal standards. It is “a global assessment of a person's quality of life according

to his chosen criteria” (Shin & Johnson, 1978, p. 478, cited in Diener et al., 1985, p. 71). The

Satisfaction with Life Scale is “narrowly focused to assess global life satisfaction and does not

tap related constructs such as positive affect...” (Diener et al., 1985, p. 71).

Depressive symptoms. Depressive symptoms are behaviors, emotions, and thoughts

which are associated with a clinical diagnosis of a depressive disorder, but which are also

observed to a lesser extent in individuals who do not meet diagnostic criteria for such a disorder.

As reflected in the CES-D, depressive symptoms include crying spells, feeling sad, poor appetite,

and feelings of inferiority. “The CES-D scale is designed to measure depressive symptomatology

in the general population (Radloff, 1977, p. 385).” This scale is contrasted with other depressive

symptoms scales which are designed for clinical settings. Individuals with a score of 16 or higher

on the CES-D may be at risk for clinical depression. (Lewinsohn, Seeley, Roberts, & Allen,

1997).

State anxiety. State anxiety is an attribute of the individual's current emotional state, in

contrast to trait anxiety, which is an individual's general tendency toward anxiety across a wide

range of situations. As measured by the short-form of the state scale of the STAI-6, state anxiety

involves feeling “tense,” “upset,” and “worried.” (Marteau & Bekker, 1992).

`

32

Review of Relationships among Variables in the Research

This section reviews the predicted relationships among the variables in this study, and

highlights the key theoretical and empirical arguments for these predictions. Relevant theoretical

and empirical arguments have been discussed in detail in earlier sections of this chapter.

Cohesion and commitment. Cohesion was hypothesized to have a positive direct effect

on commitment across ethnoracial groups. Identity theorists, as early as Freud (1933) and

including Marcia (1989), have asserted the impact of family dynamics on identity development.

A cohesive family theoretically provides adolescents with a sense of emotional security that

allows them to feel confident in committing to particular identity choices. Empirical work has

borne this out. Campbell et al. (1984) found that high commitment (identity-achieved or

foreclosed) adolescents had more affectionate relationships with their parents than adolescents in

lower commitment statuses; affectionate relationships are conceptually similar to family

cohesion. Watson and Protinsky (1988) found that cohesion predicted identity achievement and

foreclosure. Both articles asserted a one-dimensional model of family differentiation; this study

will be the first to use the two-dimensional model of family differentiation to empirically

examine the possibility that cohesion influences commitment. This will represent a significant

advance in the literature if the two-dimensional model is supported, as it was in Manzi et al.

(2006).

Cohesion and exploration. Cohesion was hypothesized to have a direct positive effect

on exploration, the same across ethnic groups. Watson and Protinsky (1988) found that high

cohesion levels were predictive of identity achievement status, which is consistent with high

exploration. These authors used a one-dimensional model of family differentiation; the present

research will be the first to use the two-dimensional model to empirically examine the

possibilities that cohesion influences exploration.

Enmeshment and commitment. Enmeshment was hypothesized to have a direct positive

effect on commitment across ethnic groups. Enmeshment may foster commitment by pushing

adolescents and young adults to make identity choices in accordance with family norms. Watson

and Protinsky (1988) found that high enmeshment levels were predictive of identity achievement

and identity foreclosure statuses which are consistent with high commitment. Since these authors

were using the one-dimensional model, high enmeshment levels are equivalent to high cohesion

`

33

levels. The present research will be the first to use the two-dimensional model to empirically

examine the possibility that cohesion influences exploration.

Enmeshment and exploration. For non-Hispanic whites, enmeshment was hypothesized

to have a direct negative effect on exploration. Enmeshment limits the autonomy of adolescents

and young adults; therefore it was expected to reduce opportunities for exploration. Consistent

with this notion, Campbell et al. (1984) found that high-exploration adolescents (identity-

achieved or moratorium) had greater perceived independence from their parents, corresponding

to lower enmeshment levels, compared to their foreclosed or diffused counterparts. Again, these

authors used a one-dimensional model of family differentiation; the present study will be the first

to use the two-dimensional model to empirically examine the possibility that cohesion influences

exploration.

However, for Hispanics, the effect of enmeshment on exploration was hypothesized to be

less negative (meaning a smaller negative effect, zero effect, or a positive effect) than for whites.

This is because, for Hispanics, enmeshment was expected to be less distinct from cohesion

(consistent with an oblique model of family differentiation) than it is for white non-Hispanics,

perhaps due the value of autonomy in cultural context (e.g., Fuhrman & Holmbeck, 1995; Chun

& MacDermid, 1997; Manzi et al., 2006).

Commitment and psychological well-being. Commitment was hypothesized to have

positive direct effects on each of the three psychological well-being outcomes: anxiety,

depressive symptoms, and life satisfaction. These effects were expected to be the same across

ethnoracial groups. These predictions are based on the premise that identity commitment

provides individuals a sense of purpose (e.g., Crocetti et al., 2009) that enhances psychological

well-being in general, which may be manifest in a wide range of outcome variables.

Commitment was expected to reduce anxiety because it reduces uncertainty about life

pursuits. Commitment was expected to reduce depressive symptoms because a sense of purpose

reduces feelings of helplessness. Finally, commitment was expected to increase life satisfaction

because it implies that the individual is pursuing goals in accordance with the standards he or she

has firmly accepted. With regard to anxiety, there is empirical support for the prediction: in a

large longitudinal study, Crocetti et al., (2009) found that increases in commitment predicted

decreases in anxiety. These particular psychological well-being outcomes have been selected in

part because they are of general interest: depressive symptoms and anxiety are related to

`

34

important clinical diagnoses and are probably the most widely studied affective states;

satisfaction with life is one of the most highly general psychological well-being outcomes. In

addition, the psychological well-being outcomes outcomes have been selected because they are

the same outcomes examined in Manzi et al. (2006), allowing for comparability between the

present study and the study on which it is modeled.

Exploration and psychological well-being. For white non-Hispanic participants,

exploration was hypothesized to have a positive effect on each of the psychological well-being

outcomes: anxiety, depressive symptoms, and life satisfaction. Empirical evidence supports the

positive

effects of exploration on a wide array of measures of adaptive functioning (e.g., Arseth et al.,

2009; Crocetti, et. al, 2009; Hardy & Kisling, 2006). However, none of these studies considered

cultural differences; and all of them included a large majority of participants described as white

or European-American. For Hispanic participants, exploration was hypothesized to have less

positive effect (meaning a smaller positive effect, no effect, or a negative effect) compared to

white non-Hispanic participants. It was expected that due the culturally relevant value of

autonomy, exploration will be less influential outside of the contextual culture of reference (e.g.,

McAdoo, 1981; Watson & Protinsky, 1988).

Family differentiation and psychological well-being. The present study posits that

family differentiation, conceptualized in terms of both cohesion and enmeshment, directly

predicts three facets of psychological well-being. The preceding subsections of this study have

detailed how psychological well-being will be conceptualized in terms of life satisfaction; level

of depressive symptoms; and state anxiety, as measured by the satisfaction with life scale

(Diener et al., 1985); the CES-D scale (Radloff, 1977); and the short-form of the state scale of

the STAI-6 (Marteau & Bekker, 1992). Empirically, each of these predictions is directly

supported (e.g., Manzi et al. 2006). Theoretically, family differentiation was hypothesized to

directly predict these facets of psychological well-being because ego identity status is known to

predict a variety prosocial behaviors and adaptive psychological functioning in older adolescents

and young adults (e.g., Arseth et al., 2009; Crocetti et al., 2009; and Hardy & Kisling, 2006), and

identity theorists have long held that a better understanding of the relational and cultural

dynamics underlying the ego identity development process could only serve to strengthen the

`

35

predictive and practical value of the Marcian ego identity status paradigm (e.g., Marcia, 1989;

Côté & Levine, 1988).

The direct effects of cohesion on each of the three psychological well-being outcomes

(anxiety, depressive symptoms, life satisfaction) were expected to be beneficial, and the same

across ethnic groups. These predictions are based on the premise that cohesiveness in a family

system provides individuals a sense of stability that enhances adaptive functioning in general,

which may be manifest in a wide range of psychological outcome variables. These predictions

are supported theoretically (e.g., Minuchin, 1974; Olson, 1982; Scabini, 1985) as well as

empirically (e.g., Barber and Buehler; Campbell et al., 1984; Manzi et al., 2006; and Watson &

Protinsky, 1988). For white non-Hispanic participants, enmeshment was expected to have a

detrimental direct effect on each of the psychological well-being outcomes: anxiety,

depressive symptoms, and life satisfaction. These predictions are also supported theoretically

(e.g., Minuchin, 1974; Olson, 1982; Scabini, 1985) as well as empirically (e.g., Barber and

Buehler; Campbell et al., 1984; Manzi, et al., 2006; and Watson & Protinsky, 1988).

However, for Hispanic participants, enmeshment was expected to have a less

detrimental effect (meaning a smaller detrimental effect, no effect, or a beneficial effect)

compared to white non-Hispanic participants. For Hispanic participants, it was expected that

enmeshment will be less distinct from cohesion (consistent with an oblique model of family

differentiation) than it is for white non-Hispanics, possibly due to the value of autonomy in

cultural context (e.g., Fuhrman & Holmbeck, 1995; Chun & MacDermid, 1997; Manzi et al.,

2006).

The facets of psychological well-being used in the present study are justified in the

methods chapter of this study on their own merits as established, valid, and reliable ways to

predict practical aspects of adaptive psychological functioning. Furthermore, the measurement of

these variables will yield greater generalizability of results. This study represents only the second

effort in the literature (Manzi, et. al., 2006) to determine the extent to which the two dimensional

model family differentiation directly predicts adaptive psychological functioning and the first

effort to investigate the indirect effect of family differentiation on psychological functioning via

the ego identity development process.

Family differentiation, identity formation, and psychological well-being. The two-

dimensional model of family differentiation will be examined in this study. The two-

`

36

dimensional model of family differentiation is based upon strong empirical evidence from

scholars that have explicitly tested this model (e.g., Barber & Buehler, 1996; Manzi et al., 2006).

This study will be the first to use the two-dimensional model to empirically examine the

possibility that family differentiation will predict psychological well- being (anxiety, depressive

symptoms, and life satisfaction) both directly and indirectly via ego identity variables. Although

the call for greater evidence of the relational underpinnings of the identity development process

in older adolescents and young adults is as long-standing (e.g., Freud, 1933; Marcia, 1989) as the

scholarly call for a richer contextual understanding of the practical import of complex cultural

literacy on the part of identity scholars, (e.g., Côté and Levine, 1988), no scholars to date have

been able to isolate these underlying relational dynamics. Further, among those who have

conducted research citing this goal explicitly, (e.g., Adams et al., 1987; Arseth et al., 2009;

Campbell et al., 1984; Faber et al., 2003; Jackson et al. 1990; Marcia, 1966; Mullis et al., 2003;

Watson & Protinsky, 1988), none to date have assumed or tested a specific, two-dimensional

model of family differentiation in relation to the Marcian identity statuses.

The present analysis involves considering the direct relationships between family

differentiation and identity development; identity development and various aspects of

psychological well-being; and family differentiation and various aspects of psychological well-

being because the hypothesized relationships are empirically and theoretically supported. This

approach justifies the question of whether the effect of family differentiation on practical

psychological outcomes may occur, at least in part, indirectly via the ego identity development

process. Comparing two carefully selected ethnic groups will contribute to understanding the

implications of how different ethnic groups reflect the adulthood preparation experiences of all

U.S. adolescents. Finally, there are ethnocultural considerations. For example, Manzi et al.

(2006) reported that 71.6 % of British participants in their study planned on living away from

home in the near future and, by contrast, only 8.5% of their Italian counterparts had the same

intention (p. 679). There may be an analogous dynamic in Hispanic vs. white participants, and

dynamics may differ in late adolescents vs. young adults. Marcia (1980) asserted that persons

ranging in age from 21-24 may have resolved the identity vs. role confusion Eriksonian crisis.

Therefore, allowing participants' ages to range from 18-26, i.e., to target late adolescents and

young adults, should allow the present study to capture and feature an empirical exploration of

the relevance of all of these factors.

`

37

CHAPTER THREE

METHOD

This chapter includes a discussion of the sample, measures, procedures and analyses used

for this study. Statistical predictions for the structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis and

ethical considerations for this study also are presented.

Sampling and Participant Recruitment

This study used purposive, nonprobability sampling of two state universities in the

southeastern United States: the Florida State University (FSU), located in Tallahassee, Florida;

and the Florida International University (FIU), located in Miami, Florida.

Selection of Recruitment Sites

These universities were selected based on the demographic profiles of their enrolled

students to yield adequate numbers of participants in each of the ethnoracial groups examined in

the study. FSU (2012) reports total enrollment of 72.1% white; 13.6% Hispanic; 9.2% black,

2.9% Asian; American Indian 0.4%; two or more races 1.8%. FIU (2012) reports total enrollment

of 61% Hispanic; 15% white non-Hispanic; 13% black; 4% Asian or Pacific Islander; 7% other

minority groups. Thus, FSU’s student body has self-identified as majority white (but also has a

significant minority of Hispanics) and FIU’s student body has self-identified as majority

Hispanic (but also has a significant minority of white non-Hispanics). Therefore, it was expected

that recruitment from these two universities would yield sufficient numbers of participants in

each of the ethnoracial groups to be studied, and indeed this was the case.

Age Range of Participants

Participants for this study were students within the age range 18-26. As discussed in

Chapter Two, this age range is theoretically grounded and is intended to capture participants

whose ages roughly correspond to two Eriksonian crisis states (Erikson, 1959). For that reason,

references to those two subgroups are reflected by the use of the phrases older adolescent and

young adult, in order to distinguish between these two groups. From a family life course

perspective, this entire group might be referred to as emerging adults (e.g., Schwartz et al., 2009;

Schwartz et al., 2010). However, this is potentially subject to debate because, as detailed in

Chapter 2, it remains unclear in what order people confront the Eriksonian crisis states.

`

38

Participant Recruitment

Upon approval from the institutional review boards (IRBs) of both universities,

(Appendices E & F) participants were recruited by reviewing public records to determine the

names and email addresses of university instructors teaching classes at both universities.

Instructors of these classes were asked for their permission to visit their classes in order to

request that their students voluntarily participate in the study. Students in these classes received a

brief oral explanation of the purpose of study and then were given the opportunity to receive a

copy of the informed consent form (Appendix A and B for FSU and FIU, respectively) and a

copy of the participant packet (Appendix C). In order to prevent oversampling, data were

collected in phases, reviewing the number of study relevant participant packets after each phase,

and commencing a new phase of data collection only if necessary.

Ethnoracial Criteria for Participants

Participants were asked (anonymously) to self-identify their race and ethnicity using

United States Census Bureau (Humes et al., 2011) categories. The 2010 Census prompted all

respondents to self-identify as one or more of five races: a) white; b) black or African-American;

c) American Indian or Alaska Native; d) Asian; or e) Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander

groups. In addition, respondents were permitted to identify as “some other race” (p. 2).

Respondents were also given the option to write in a race in a free-response fashion; however,

free responses were subsequently categorized by the USCB as falling into one of these six

categories. The present study followed the same procedure.

The USCB allowed respondents to describe a multiple-race background, and categorized

the number of respondents in any particular category as either that category alone or that

category alone-or-in-combination (p.4). In addition to race, the USCB prompted respondents to

choose between two ethnic categories: a) Hispanic; and b) non-Hispanic. Ethnoracial categories

were defined by the combination of racial and ethnic categories. All data analyzed in this study

were from participants that identified as either 1) white alone and non-Hispanic or 2) Hispanic,

regardless of race. Data collected from other participants were not analyzed.

Descriptive Statistics and Frequencies

Combined sample. There were 723 total participants, (individuals that submitted a

signed informed consent form as well as a participant packet that was at least partially

completed): 326 participants were from Florida State University (FSU) in North Florida and 397

`

39

were from Florida International University (FIU) in South Florida. Of these, 131 participant

packets were excluded from the analysis because the participant did not identify themselves as a

member of an ethnoracial category targeted by this study. Of the total participants, 12.03% were

black or African-American; 3.6% were Asian; 2.07% selected multiple races; and 0.41%

identified as some other race. In addition, 11 participants (1.52%) were excluded based on their

age; 4 (0.55%) because they did not report their race, age, or both; and 14 (1.94%) because they

left more than 40% of items blank on at least one measurement scale.

The resulting final sample size of valid cases used for all analyses was N=563 (See Table

1). Of these, 305 (54.17%) packets were collected at FIU; and 258 (45.83%) packets were

collected at FSU. Of the total valid cases, 364 (64.65%) participants were female and 199

(35.35%) were male. Of the total valid cases, 330 (58.61%) participants identified as Hispanic

and 233 (41.39%) identified as non-Hispanic. According to MacCallum, Browne, and Sugawara

(1996), this sample size yields power exceeding .95 for the SEM analyses conducted.

By design, participants who reported any race other than white, or who did not report a

race, were only included in the analysis if they identified as Hispanic. Of the 563 total valid

cases, 481 (85.44%) participants identified as white; 9 (1.60%) as black or African–American; 4

(0.71%) as Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander; 2 (0.36%) as Asian; 51 (9.06%) as “some other

race;” and 2 (0.36%) selected more than one race. Fourteen participants (2.49%) did not report a

race.

Among the 563 total valid cases, the mean age was 19.96 (SD = 1.97); the median was

19; and the mode (27.89%) was 18. The minimum age for inclusion in the analysis was 18; and

the maximum was 26. Most of the participants in the sample were under 21 years old (68.21%);

93.78% were under 24 years old.

Of the 563 total valid cases, 175 (31.08%) participants listed majors in professional

fields (e.g., law, medicine, or nursing); 121 (21.49%) in psychology; 105 (18.65%) in other

social science fields; 69 (12.26%) in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics; 50

(8.88%) in humanities or arts; 17 (3.02%) had multiple majors that included more than one of

these categories; 23 (4.09%) indicated they had not declared a major; and 3 (0.53%) did not

report their major.

Hispanic subsample. Of the 330 valid cases in the Hispanic subsample, 271 (82.12%)

participant packets were collected at FIU and 59 (17.88%) were collected at FSU. Of the valid

`

40

cases in the Hispanic subsample, 214 (64.85%) participants were female and 116 (35.15%) were

male. Of the Hispanic valid cases, three quarters (248; 75.15%) participants identified as white; 9

(2.73%) as black or African–American; 4 (1.21%) as Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander; 2

(0.61%) as Asian; 51 (15.45%) as “some other race;” and 2 (0.61%) selected multiple race

categories. Fourteen participants (4.24%) identified as Hispanic, but did not report a race.

Among the 330 valid cases in the Hispanic subsample, the mean participant age was

20.19 (SD = 2.12); the median was 20; and the mode (26.97%) was 18. The minimum age was

18 and the maximum was 26. Most participants (62.73%) were under the age of 21 and 91.82%

of participants were under 24.

Non-Hispanic subsample. Of the 233 valid cases in the non-Hispanic subsample, 199

(85.14%) participant packets were collected at FSU in North Florida and 34 (14.59%) were

collected at FIU in South Florida. Of the valid cases in the non-Hispanic subsample, 150

(64.38%) participants were female and 83 (35.62%) were male. All of the 233 non-Hispanic

valid cases identified as white; this was inevitable due to the study inclusion criteria.

Among the 233 valid cases in the non-Hispanic subsample, the mean age was 19.69 (SD

= 1.76); the median was 19; and the mode (29.18%) was 18. The minimum age was 18 and the

maximum was 26. Three quarters of participants in this subsample were under 21 (75.97%);

96.57% were under 24.

`

41

Table 1

Demographic Variables by Ethnoracial Subsample

Hispanic Non-Hispanic Combined ______________________________________________________________________________ Site FSU 59 (17.88%) 199 (85.14%) 258 (45.83%)

FIU 271 (82.2%) 34 (14.59%) 305 (54.17%)

Gender Female 214 (64.85%) 150 (64.38%) 364 (64.65%)

Male 116 (35.15%) 83 (35.62%) 199 (35.35%)

Race White 248 (75.15%) 233 (100%) 481 (85.45%)

Black 9 (2.73%) 0 (0%) 9 (2.73%)

NHPI 4 (1.21%) 0 (0%) 4 (1.21%)

Asian 2 (0.61%) 0 (0%) 2 (0.61%)

Other 51 (15.45%) 0 (0%) 51 (15.45%)

Multiple 2 (0.61%) 0 (0%) 2 (0.61%)

Unreported 14 (4.24%) 0 (0%) 14 (4.24%)

Age (Mean) 20.19 (S.D. = 2.12) 19.69 (S.D. = 1.76) 19.96 (S.D. = 1.97)

______________________________________________________________________________

Note. Data are frequencies except where specified. Percentages shown are percentages of the

ethnoracial group represented in the demographic category at hand. NHPI = Native Hawaiian or

Pacific Islander. By design, 100% of the non-Hispanic subsample identified as white.

Measures

The measurement instruments used for this study are found in the participant packet

(Appendix C). Following the recommendation of Dillman (2007), spacing and similarity of

visual elements are used in the participant packet to enhance readability.

Family Differentiation

Following Barber & Buehler (1996) and Manzi et al. (2006), cohesion and enmeshment

were measured by the appropriate subscales of the Colorado Self- Report of Family Functioning

Inventory (Bloom, 1985). Each subscale contains five 6-point items ranging from 1 (strongly

disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Manzi et al. (2006) reported acceptable or good reliability for

both scales (cohesion: Italy = .78; U.K.. = .88; enmeshment: Italy = .74; U.K., = .65). An

example of an item measuring cohesion is “family members really helped and supported one

`

42

another.” An example of an item measuring enmeshment is “family members found it hard to get

away from each other.”

Ego Identity

Commitment and exploration were measured by the Ego Identity Process Questionnaire

(EIPQ; Balistreri, et. al, 1995). The present study employed this instrument instead of another

instrument used widely by identity scholars, the Extended Objective Measure of Ego Identity

Status II (Bennion & Adams, 1986), because the latter measures each of the Marcian identity

statuses as a distinct continuous variable, rather than treating commitment and exploration as

variables.

The EIPQ includes 32 items. There are eight domains within the EIPQ, and four items

per domain. Two items per domain measure commitment; the other two items measure

exploration. The eight domains measured by the EIPQ may be broken down into four ideological

domains and four interpersonal domains. The four ideological domains are politics, religion,

occupation, and values. The four interpersonal domains are friendships, dating, gender roles,

and family (Schwartz, 2004).

Each item on the EIPQ presents the respondent with 6 Likert-type points, ranging from

strongly disagree to strongly agree. Twenty of these items are positively worded; twelve are

negatively worded (Balistreri et al., 1995). The EIPQ is typically used to assign individuals to

Marcian identity statuses (achievement, foreclosure, diffusion, and moratorium) using median

splits on the commitment and exploration subscales. The present research does not involve

assignment of identity statuses. Instead, this study treats commitment and exploration as

continuous variables in all SEM analyses.

Schwartz (2004) provided construct validation of the EIPQ by relating it to a measure of

psychological agency, the Multi-Measure Agentic Personality Scale (Côté, 1997). Balistreri et

al., (1995) reported an acceptable EIPQ reliability of α = .75 for commitment and α = .76 for

exploration. Balistreri et al., (1995) also reported one week test-retest reliability of r = .90,

p < 0.01; and a correlation between exploration and commitment of r = - 0.35, p < 0.05.

Psychological Well-Being

Three measures comprise psychological well-being. Life satisfaction was measured by

the Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener et al., 1985), consisting of five 7-point items. This

`

43

measure is intended, as Manzi et al. (2006) describe it, “to assess global life satisfaction” (p.

679). Manzi et al. (2006) reported good reliability for this measure (Italy, α = .83; U.K., α =.80).

Depression was measured by the CES-D (Radloff, 1977), an instrument that requires

participants to indicate how frequently they have experienced each of twenty depressive

symptoms on a 4-point scale. In Manzi et al., both Italian and British samples had reliability of α

= .89.

Anxiety about an upcoming life stage transition was measured by a short form of the

State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-6), an instrument developed by Marteau & Bekker (1992).

This measure presents respondents with words that participants are asked to rate for how well or

poorly their mood has been described with regard to their upcoming life stage transition. It has

six 4-point items. Manzi et al. (2006) report good reliability for this measure (Italy, α = .85;

U.K., α =.83).

Reliability Statistics

Alpha reliability statistics were computed for all latent variables. These computations

were performed for the full sample of valid cases (n=563) and also for each of the ethnoracial

groups separately (Hispanic, n=330; non-Hispanic, n=233). Alpha statistics ranged from

adequate to very good for all scales. Differences between the ethnoracial subsamples were small.

Alpha-if-item deleted (AID) scores did not indicate any poorly performing items on any of the

scales.

For the full sample of valid cases, alpha reliability scores were: cohesion, α = .88;

enmeshment, α =.76; commitment, α = .75; exploration, α = 70; life satisfaction, α =.83;

depressive symptoms, α =.89; anxiety, α =.84. For the non-Hispanic subsample, alpha values

were: cohesion, α =.88; enmeshment, α = .77; commitment, α = .73; exploration, α = 73; life

satisfaction, α =.84; depressive symptoms, α = .88; anxiety, α = .84. For the Hispanic

subsample, alpha values were: cohesion, α = .88; enmeshment, α =.73; commitment, α = .75;

exploration, α = .67; life satisfaction, α = .83; depressive symptoms, α = .89; anxiety, α = .84.

Participant Demographic Information

Participants were asked to indicate their gender (male or female); race (white; black or

African-American; American Indian & Alaskan Native; Asian; Native Hawaiian and other

Pacific Islander; or some other race); ethnicity (indicated by a yes or no response to the question

“Are you of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin?”); and age (free response).

`

44

Analysis

The data analysis for this study featured multiple-groups structural equation modeling

(SEM). This study used a full measurement model (including all of the items from the

measurement instruments in the model) rather than a simple path analysis. Scale items were

treated as observed variables whereas the family differentiation, ego identity, and psychological

well-being variables were treated as latent variables. Following the recommendation of Kenny

(2011b), the raw data were inputted rather than analyzing the correlation matrices, because of the

likelihood that groups would differ in their variances. The SEM analysis tested the hypotheses

that cohesion and enmeshment have indirect effects on psychological well-being via

commitment and exploration. Some of the paths were set equal across groups, whereas others

were allowed to vary, in accordance with the study hypotheses detailed later. The path

coefficients and model fit were examined to determine whether the study hypotheses were

supported. Finally, the model was adjusted on the basis of modification indices and the two

models will be compared in terms of fit, parsimony, and theoretical implications. SEM analyses

were conducted using MPlus software (Muthén & Muthén, 2012). Descriptive statistics,

frequencies, and alpha reliability statistics were computed using SPSS.

SEM was used to examine relationships among family differentiation, ego identity, and

psychological outcomes for the two ethnic groups. The diagram representing the structural paths

for the SEM Models is found in Figure 1. The measurement model has been omitted from the

figure for clarity. All measurement items are found in the participant packet (Appendix C). The

model indicates effects of both cohesion and enmeshment on each of the ego identity variables,

commitment and exploration. In turn, commitment and exploration were hypothesized to have

direct effects on each of the psychological outcome variables.

Four structural equation models were analyzed; each was evaluated using the test of close

fit, which tests the null hypothesis that the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) is

less than an arbitrary cut-off value (McCullum, Browne, & Sugawara, 1996). The cut-off value

selected for this study was 0.8; values between 0.5 and 0.8 are considered to be a “fair fit” by

these authors.

`

45

Assumptions of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)

Structural equation modeling (SEM) relies on several assumptions which, if violated,

may undermine the conclusions drawn from the analysis (Kline, 2012). Below, the major

assumptions of SEM are discussed in relation to the data used in this study.

Model specification. SEM assumes that the model is properly specified. This means that

all relevant variables are included in the model. It is never possible to identify all variables that

may affect the outcomes, which renders this assumption is unrealistic. For practical purposes, it

is crucial that the variables included be theoretically justified (Kline, 2012). Chapter 2 explains

the theoretical justification for the variables included in the SEM models of this study. Therefore,

this assumption is met to the extent that could be reasonably expected.

Exogenous variables measured without error. SEM assumes that the exogenous

variables (in this case cohesion and enmeshment) are measured without error: that their

reliability scores are equal to one. This is an inherently unrealistic assumption in the

measurement of latent constructs. However, biases are generally only slight when reliability

scores are greater than .90 (Kline, 2012). The reliability of cohesion was close to this value (α =

.88 for each of the ethnoracial subsamples); however the reliability of enmeshment was α = .76

and α = .73 for the non-Hispanic and Hispanic subsamples respectively. This suggests the

possibility of bias caused by measurement error with regard to enmeshment.

Completeness of data set. If a raw data file is analyzed in SEM (as it is in this study)

there must be no missing data. This assumption was met. As discussed later in this chapter,

participants with excessive missing data were excluded from the study; missing data for other

participants was substituted using the mean-person method (Roth, Switzer, & Switzer, 1999).

Multivariate normality. Endogenous variables must have a multivariate normal joint

distribution. The endogenous variables in this study were Commitment, Exploration, Depression,

Anxiety, and Life Satisfaction. The following steps were taken in order to test the assumption of

multivariate normality (Kline, 2012). Univariate kurtosis and skewness statistics were examined

for each of the endogenous variables. The most kurtotic variable was Depression (1.28, S.E. =

.21). Kurtosis was small for all other variables, with no absolute value exceeding .26. Depression

was also the most skewed variable (1.13, S.E. = .10), with no other absolute value exceeding .77.

These values show only small to moderate violations of multivariate normality (Kline, 1998).

Bivariate scatterplots were examined for each of the ten possible pairings of the endogenous

`

46

variables. None of these scatterplots suggested a non-linear relationship, and none appeared to fit

a curvilinear trend line. Further, none of the scatterplots revealed the cone shape characteristic of

heteroscedasticity. Mardia’s coefficient was calculated using the PAST statistical software

(Hammer, Harper, & Ryan, 2001) to assess the multivariate skewness and kurtosis of the

endogenous variables. Mardia’s coefficient of skewness was 2.633 (247.1, d.f. = 35), below the

threshold of 3 recommended by Kline (1998) for excessive skewness. However, Mardia’s

coefficient of kurtosis was 38.14 (4.453, d.f. = 35), exceeding the threshold of 10 recommended

by Kline (1998).

Overall assessment of assumptions. For the most part, the assumptions of SEM were

met in the current data set. However, the moderately large kurtosis and skewness values for

Depression may be problematic for the interpretation of the results regarding Depression. The

large Mardia’s coefficient for kurtosis may be problematic for the model as a whole. Violations

of multivariate normality tend to result in underestimates of standard errors, increasing the risk

of Type I errors in the testing of path coefficients. On the other hand, these violations also tend to

inflate the chi-square statistic, making the model seem like a worse fit than it actually is.

However, under some circumstances these violations may instead make a model seem like a

better fit than it actually is, and there is no way to determine the direction of the bias. (Kline,

2012). The reliability values for enmeshment may not be large enough to guard against bias

arising from measurement error. This suggests the need for improved measurement of this

construct in future research.

Structural Equation Model Identification

SEM requires that both the structural model and the measurement model be

overidentified in order to obtain meaningful results. Based on the guidelines provided by Kenny

(2011a), the measurement model used in this study is overidentified because for each latent

variable there are at least two observed variables. The structural model is overidentified because,

for each pair of latent variables, no more than one of the following is the case: a) one directly

causes the other; b) the two variables have a correlated disturbance; or c) the two are correlated

exogenous variables.

Structural Equation Models

Model 1: Configural model. A configural model (Kenny, 2011b) was used to determine

whether the hypothesized model would be reasonable with a minimum of constraints. The

`

47

configural model applies the same factor and path structure to the Hispanic and non-Hispanic

groups. In accordance with the hypotheses of the study, this model included direct effects of each

of cohesion and enmeshment on each of commitment and exploration. The model also included

direct effects of each of commitment and exploration on each of anxiety, depressive symptoms,

and life satisfaction.

The model also included indirect effects of each of cohesion and enmeshment on each of

anxiety, depressive symptoms, and life satisfaction levels, via commitment and exploration.

Cohesion and enmeshment were allowed to co-vary. In the configural model, all parameters

were allowed to vary across groups, except that, in both groups, factor means were fixed at zero

and scale variances are fixed at one. These fixed parameters were necessary in order for the

model to be identified. (Kenny, 2011a).

Model 2: Measurement invariance model. Since the configural model was acceptable,

a measurement invariance model was used to determine whether it was reasonable to assume that

the measurement instruments functioned in the same manner for Hispanics and non-Hispanics

(Kenny, 2011b). This model used the same factor and path structure as the configural model, but

held the factor loadings and intercepts constant across groups.

Model 3: Hypothesized model. Model 3 was designed to test the substantive hypotheses

of this study. The path structure was identical to that in Models 1 and 2. Factor loadings and

intercepts were held constant across groups, consistent with the measurement invariance found in

Model 2. Structural paths, however, were either set equal or allowed to vary across ethnoracial

groups in accordance with the statistical predictions of the study.

The paths from cohesion to exploration and to commitment were held constant across

groups (Predictions 1 & 2), as was the path from enmeshment to commitment (Prediction 3);

however, the path from enmeshment to exploration was allowed to vary across groups

(Predictions 4 & 5). The paths from commitment to each of the psychological outcomes

(Prediction 6) were held constant across groups. However, the paths from exploration to each of

the psychological outcomes (Predictions 7 & 8) were allowed to vary across groups.

The indirect paths from cohesion to each of the psychological outcomes via commitment

were held constant across groups (Prediction 9). However, the paths from cohesion to each of the

psychological outcomes via exploration were allowed to vary (Predictions 10 & 11). Similarly,

the indirect paths from enmeshment to each of the psychological outcomes via commitment were

`

48

held constant across groups (Prediction 12); whereas the analogous paths via exploration were

allowed to vary (Predictions 13 & 14). The direct paths from cohesion to the psychological

outcomes will be held constant across groups (Prediction 15); the direct paths from enmeshment

to these outcomes will be allowed to vary across groups (Predictions 16 & 17).

Model 4: Modified model. Model 4 was identical to Model 3, except that additional

paths were estimated on the basis of modification indices computed from Model 3. Any paths

with modification index (M.I.) of 10 or above in Model 3 were added for Model 4. These were:

1. The direct effect of cohesion on life satisfaction, which was allowed to vary across

ethnoracial groups.

2. 57 inter-item covariances in the non-Hispanic group.

3. The following covariances in the non-Hispanic group:

a. Exploration with commitment.

b. Satisfaction with commitment.

4. 80 inter-item covariances in the Hispanic group.

5. Four intercepts in the non-Hispanic group.

6. Four intercepts in the Hispanic group.

Power Analysis, Sample Size, and Missing Data

MacCallum, Browne, and Sugawara (1996) provide a framework for determining

statistical power for SEM based on sample size and the degrees of freedom of the model. The

sample of the present study (N = 563, df = 35) provided power > .95 for rejecting the null

hypothesis that RMSEA < .08 in the test of close fit.

Mean-person substitution was used for any missing data points on any of the

measurement scales. This method substitutes for each missing data point the mean value for that

item across all study participants. A Monte Carlo simulation study found this method to be less

biased than other methods for addressing missing data (Roth, Switzer, & Switzer, 1999). These

results held for situations where up to 40% of items were missing for each scale. Therefore, any

participant for whom more than 40% of the items were missing for any measurement scale was

excluded from the analysis. Finally, any participant who did not report their race or did not report

their ethnicity was excluded from the analysis. This was necessary because the design required

that participants be divided into ethnoracial groups for the analysis.

`

49

Figure 1. Structural equation modeling (SEM) diagram reflecting the statistical predictions of the study. Cohesion and enmeshment are allowed to co-vary. Cohesion and enmeshment (family differentiation) directly predict commitment and exploration (identity status components); commitment and exploration (identity status components) directly predict anxiety, depressive symptoms, and life satisfaction levels. Cohesion and enmeshment (family differentiation) directly affect anxiety, depressive symptoms, and life satisfaction levels, and indirectly affect these variables via commitment and exploration. (Direct paths from cohesion and enmeshment to the psychological variables are represented by dashed lines for clarity.) In order to test the study hypotheses regarding differences between the two ethnoracial groups (white non-Hispanic; Hispanic), the paths from cohesion to each of the ego identity variables, as well as the paths from commitment to each of the psychological well-being variables, were set equal across groups (Model 3). The paths from enmeshment to each of the ego identity variables, and from exploration to each of the psychological variables, were allowed to vary across groups.

Statistical Predictions

This section states the statistical predictions tested by the SEM analysis. In all hypotheses

involving psychological well-being variables, life satisfaction was measured by the Satisfaction

with Life Scale (SLS; Diener et al., 1985); depressive symptoms was measured by the Center for

Epidemiological Studies – Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977) and anxiety was measured

by a short form of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-6; Marteau & Bekker, 1992).

`

50

1. Cohesion, as measured by the Cohesion subscale of the Colorado Self-Report of Family

Functioning Inventory (Bloom, 1985) will have a positive direct effect on commitment,

as measured by the Commitment subscale of the Ego Identity Process Questionnaire

(Balistreri, Busch-Rossnagel, & Geisinger, 1995). This effect will be the same across

ethnoracial groups.

2. Cohesion, as measured by the Cohesion subscale of the Colorado Self-Report of Family

Functioning Inventory (Bloom, 1985), will have a positive direct effect on exploration, as

measured by the Exploration subscale of the Ego Identity Process Questionnaire

(Balistreri, et. al, 1995). This effect will be the same across ethnoracial groups.

3. Enmeshment, as measured by the Enmeshment subscale of the Colorado Self-Report of

Family Functioning Inventory (Bloom, 1985) will have a positive direct effect on

commitment, as measured by the Commitment subscale of the Ego Identity Process

Questionnaire (Balistreri, et. al, 1995). This effect will be the same across ethnoracial

groups.

4. For white non-Hispanic participants, enmeshment, as measured by the Enmeshment

subscale of the Colorado Self-Report of Family Functioning Inventory (Bloom, 1995),

will have a negative direct effect on exploration, as measured by the Exploration

subscales of the Ego Identity Process Questionnaire (Balistreri, et. al, 1995).

5. For Hispanic participants, the effect of enmeshment, as measured by the Enmeshment

subscale of the Colorado Self-Report of Family Functioning Inventory (Bloom, 1985), on

exploration, as measured by the Exploration subscale of the Ego Identity Process

Questionnaire (Balistreri, et. al, 1995), will be less negative (i.e., a smaller negative

effect, zero effect, or a positive effect) than for non-Hispanic whites.

6. Commitment, as measured by the Commitment subscale of the Ego Identity Process

Questionnaire (Balistreri, et. al, 1995), will have a positive direct effect on life

satisfaction and negative direct effects on anxiety and depressive symptoms. These

effects will be the same across ethnoracial groups.

7. For white non-Hispanic participants, exploration, as measured by the Exploration

subscale of the Ego Identity Process Questionnaire (Balistreri, et. al, 1995), will have a

positive direct effect on life satisfaction and negative direct effects on anxiety and

depressive symptoms.

`

51

8. For Hispanic participants (as compared to white non-Hispanic participants), the direct

effect of exploration, as measured by the Exploration subscale of the Ego Identity

Process Questionnaire (Balistreri, et. al, 1995), will be less positive on life satisfaction

and less negative on depressive symptoms and anxiety.

9. Cohesion, as measured by the Cohesion subscale of the Colorado Self-Report of Family

Functioning Inventory (Bloom, 1985) will have a positive indirect effect on life

satisfaction and a negative indirect effect on depressive symptoms and anxiety, via

increases in commitment, as measured by the Commitment subscale of the Ego Identity

Process Questionnaire (Balistreri, et. al, 1995). These effects will be the same across

ethnoracial groups.

10. For white non-Hispanic participants, cohesion, as measured by the Cohesion subscale of

the Colorado Self-Report of Family Functioning Inventory (Bloom, 1985), will have a

positive indirect effect on life satisfaction and a negative indirect effect on depressive

symptoms and anxiety, via increases in exploration, as measured by the Exploration

subscale of the Ego Identity Process Questionnaire (Balistreri, et. al, 1995).

11. For Hispanic participants, in comparison to white non-Hispanics, cohesion, as measured

by the Cohesion subscale of the Colorado Self-Report of Family Functioning Inventory

(Bloom, 1985), will have a less positive indirect effect on life satisfaction and a less

negative indirect effect on depressive symptoms and anxiety, via increases in exploration,

as measured by the Exploration subscale of the Ego Identity Process Questionnaire

(Balistreri, et. al, 1995).

12. Enmeshment, as measured by the Enmeshment subscale of the Colorado Self-Report of

Family Functioning Inventory (Bloom, 1985), will have a positive indirect effect on life

satisfaction and a negative indirect effect on depressive symptoms and anxiety, via

increases in commitment, as measured by the Commitment subscale of the Ego Identity

Process Questionnaire (Balistreri, et. al, 1995). This effect will be the same across

ethnoracial groups.

13. For white non-Hispanic participants, enmeshment, as measured by the Enmeshment

subscale of the Colorado Self-Report of Family Functioning Inventory (Bloom, 1985),

will have a negative indirect effect on life satisfaction and a negative indirect effect on

depressive symptoms and anxiety, via reductions in exploration.

`

52

14. For Hispanic participants, in comparison to non-Hispanic white participants,

enmeshment, measured by the Enmeshment subscale of the Colorado Self-Report of

Family Functioning Inventory (Bloom, 1985), will have a less negative indirect effect on

life satisfaction and a less positive indirect effect on depressive symptoms and anxiety,

via reductions in exploration, as measured by the Exploration subscale of the Ego Identity

Process Questionnaire (Balistreri, et. al, 1995).

15. Cohesion, as measured by the Cohesion subscale of the Colorado Self-Report of Family

Functioning Inventory (Bloom, 1985) will have a positive direct effect on life satisfaction

and negative direct effects on anxiety and depressive symptoms. These effects will be the

same across ethnoracial groups.

16. For white non-Hispanic participants, enmeshment, as measured by the Enmeshment

subscale of the Colorado Self-Report of Family Functioning Inventory (Bloom, 1995),

will have a negative direct effect on life satisfaction and positive direct effects on anxiety

and depressive symptoms.

17. For Hispanic participants, in comparison to non-Hispanic whites, enmeshment,

measured by the Enmeshment subscale of the Colorado Self-Report of Family

Functioning Inventory (Bloom, 1985), will have a less negative direct effect on life

satisfaction and less positive direct effects on anxiety and depressive symptoms.

Ethical Considerations

The present study required the participation of human subjects in the collection of survey

data. This research was conducted with the intention of future publication. In accordance with

university rules for both data collection sites, the researcher obtained permission from the

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) of both universities where participants were recruited (FSU

and FIU), before beginning data collection. Individuals were required to sign an informed

consent form in order to participate in the study. There was one informed consent form for FSU

(Appendix A) and another for FIU (Appendix B); each of these forms was approved by the IRB

of the university for which it was used.

This study required the creation of a new data set, and although this study employed

purposive sampling, the researcher did collect some data from participants outside of the target

populations. The researcher's intention was to collect data from entire university classes, to avoid

any potential undue stress to participants that would have occurred had they been informed their

`

53

data would not be used for this study if they fell outside of the target population demographics

(e.g., age 27 or older; non-targeted racial/ethnic demographic responses). The time and efforts of

these participants will not be wasted; all data were compiled into a larger data set that may be

used for further study. The only people that were asked to refrain from study participation during

data collection are students that are under the age of majority in the state of Florida (age 18).

`

54

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS

This chapter reports the results of the present study. The first section reports the results

from structural equation modeling (SEM). Four models are reported: 1) a configural model; 2) a

measurement invariance model; 3) a hypothesized model (based on the statistical predictions of

the study); and 4) a modified model (based on the addition of parameters to the hypothesized

model based on modification indices). The second section evaluates each of the study

hypotheses. The third section reports statistically significant mean differences in the latent

variables by gender and college major, and by data collection site with each ethnoracial group.

This study focused primarily on substantive questions rather than on measurement issues. Factor

loadings for all measurement items are reported in Appendix D (Tables 10-14). The text of the

measurement items is cross-referenced with the item numbers in Appendix D (Tables 5-9).

Structural Equation Models

Model 1: Configural Model

A configural model (Kenny, 2011b) was used to determine whether the hypothesized

model would be reasonable with a minimum of constraints. The configural model applies the

same factor and path structure to the Hispanic and non-Hispanic groups. In accordance with the

hypotheses of the study, this model included direct effects of each of cohesion and enmeshment

on each of commitment and exploration. The model also included direct effects of each of

commitment and exploration on each of anxiety, depressive symptoms, and life satisfaction.

The model also included indirect effects of each of cohesion and enmeshment on each of

anxiety, depressive symptoms, and life satisfaction levels, via commitment and exploration.

Cohesion and enmeshment were allowed to co-vary. In the configural model, all parameters

were allowed to vary across groups, except that, in both groups, factor means were fixed at zero

and scale variances were fixed at one. These fixed parameters are necessary in order for the

model to be identified. (Kenny, 2011a).

The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) for the configural model was

0.054 (90% CI = 0.052, 0.055). This allows rejection of the null hypothesis for the test of close

fit, since the confidence interval falls entirely below the cut-off value of 0.8. Thus, Model 1 was

acceptable. The RMSEA is however above the 0.05 level generally considered the cutoff for a

`

55

“good” fit.(MacCullum, Browne, and Sugawara, 1996). The other fit indices for the configural

model were: χ2 = 8908.551, df = 4928, p < .0001; Akaike (AIC) = 119705.685; CFI = 0.707;

SRMR = 0.083.

Model 2: Measurement Invariance Model

Since the configural model was acceptable, a measurement invariance model was used to

determine whether it was reasonable to assume that the measurement instruments functioned in

the same manner (Kenny, 2011b) for Hispanic and non-Hispanic identified participants. This

model used the same factor and path structure as the configural model, but held the factor

loadings and intercepts constant across groups.

RMSEA for the measurement invariance model was 0.054 (90% CI=0.052, 0.056).

Again, this allows rejection of the null hypothesis for the test of close fit; thus Model 2 was also

acceptable, and measurement invariance was supported. The other fit indices for Model 2 were:

χ2 = 9173.753, df = 5058, p < .001; Akaike (AIC) = 119710.888; CFI = 0.697; SRMR = 0.085.

Model 3: Hypothesized Model

Model 3 was designed to test the substantive hypotheses of the research. The path

structure was identical to that in Models 1 and 2. Factor loadings and intercepts were held

constant across groups, consistent with the measurement invariance found in Model 2. Structural

paths, however, were either set equal or allowed to vary across ethnoracial groups in accordance

with the statistical predictions of the study.

The paths from cohesion to exploration and to commitment were held constant across

groups (Predictions 1 & 2), as was the path from enmeshment to commitment (Prediction 3);

however, the path from enmeshment to exploration was allowed to vary across groups

(Predictions 4 & 5). The paths from commitment to each of the psychological outcomes

(Prediction 6) were held constant across groups. However, the paths from exploration to each of

the psychological outcomes (Predictions 7 & 8) were allowed to vary across groups.

The indirect paths from cohesion to each of the psychological outcomes via commitment

were held constant across groups (Prediction 9). However, the paths from cohesion to each of the

psychological outcomes via exploration were allowed to vary (Predictions 10 & 11). Similarly,

the indirect paths from enmeshment to each of the psychological outcomes via commitment were

held constant across groups (Prediction 12); whereas the analogous paths via exploration were

allowed to vary (Predictions 13 & 14). The direct paths from cohesion to the psychological

`

56

outcomes will be held constant across groups (Prediction 15); the direct paths from enmeshment

to these outcomes will be allowed to vary across groups (Predictions 16 & 17).

RMSEA for Model 3 was 0.054 (90% CI = 0.052, 0.055). Once again, this allows

rejection of the null hypothesis for the test of close fit, since the confidence interval falls entirely

below the cutoff value of 0.8. Thus Model 3 was acceptable. The RMSEA was however above

the 0.05 level generally considered the cutoff for a good fit. The other fit indices for Model 3

were: χ2 = 9182.115, df = 5070, p < .001; Akaike (AIC) = 119695.249; CFI = 0.697; SRMR =

0.085.

The statistical significance and path coefficients of structural paths in Model 3 were

examined to evaluate the statistical predictions of the study. Although the model represents a

reasonable fit to the data, the results of the model specification were mixed. Table 2 reports the

standardized and unstandardized path coefficients for Model 3; Figure 2 is a diagram of the

structural paths with the standardized direct effects and covariances for Model 3. The results

indicate a positive direct effect of cohesion on commitment (0.175, S.E. = 0.037, p < .001). This

provides support for Hypothesis 1.

The results indicate the predicted direct effects of commitment on each of the

psychological outcomes: depressive symptoms (-0.128, S.E. = 0.047, p < .007); and anxiety (-

0.182, S.E. = 0.080, p = 0.022); life satisfaction (.518, S.E. = 0.140, p < .001). These findings

provide support for Prediction 6.

The results indicate the predicted direct effects of cohesion on the psychological

outcomes: depressive symptoms (-0.139, S.E. = 0.023, p < .001); anxiety (-0.151, S.E. = 0.036, p

< .001); and life satisfaction (0.533, S.E. = 0.061, p < .001). These findings provide support for

Prediction 15.

Finally, the results of Model 3 indicate the predicted indirect effects of cohesion on each

of the psychological outcomes via commitment: depressive symptoms (-0.024, S.E. = 0.009, p =

.008); and anxiety (-0.032, S.E. = 0.014, p = 0.022); life satisfaction (0.091, S.E. = 0.024, p <

.001). These findings provide support for Prediction 9.

However, the remaining predictions (2-5, 7, 8, 10-14, 16 & 17) were not supported. The

associated paths were non-significant. In the case of paths that were allowed to vary across

ethnoracial groups, the paths were non-significant for both groups.

`

57

Model 3 explained a statistically significant percentage of the variance in commitment as

well as each of the psychological variables (life satisfaction, depressive symptoms, and anxiety)

for each of the ethnoracial groups (Hispanic and non-Hispanic). The percentage of variance in

exploration explained by the model was not statistically significant. Detailed results for

percentages of variance explained are found in Table 3. The factor loadings for Model 3, along

with their standard errors and p values, are reported in Appendix D. All factor loadings were

statistically significant at the .05 level with the exception of one item on the exploration scale.

Table 2

Statistically Significant Path Coefficients for Model 3: Hypothesized Model.

Direct effect of Unstd. Unstd. S.E. Std. Std. S.E. p

Cohesion on

Commitment 0.175 0.037 0.339 0.053 < .001

Depressive -0.139 0.023 -0.354 0.052 < .001

Anxiety -0.151 0.036 -0.241 0.053 < .001

Satisfaction 0.533 0.061 0.464 0.048 < .001

______________________________________________________________________________

Commitment on

Depressive -0.128 0.047 -0.177 0.060 .003

Anxiety -0.182 0.080 -0.149 0.061 .014

Satisfaction 0.518 0.140 0.241 0.057 < .001

______________________________________________________________________________

Indirect effect of

Cohesion

via Commitment on

Depressive -0.024 0.009 .008

Anxiety -0.032 0.014 .022

Satisfaction 0.091 0.024 < .001

______________________________________________________________________________

Note. All coefficients shown were held equal across ethnoracial groups; the values in this table

apply to both groups. Unstd. = Unstandardized. Std. = Standardized.

`

58

Table 3.

Percentage of Variance Explained by Model 3: Hypothesized Model.

Variable Variance Explained S.E. p

Non-Hispanic Commitment 11.5% 3.3% < 0.001

Exploration 0.0% 0.5% n.s.

Satisfaction 34.2% 4.9% < 0.001

Depressive 18.9% 3.9% < 0.001

Anxiety 10.8% 3.5% 0.002

______________________________________________________________________________

Hispanic Commitment 12.7% 3.5% < 0.001

Exploration 0.6% 1.1% n.s.

Satisfaction 30.3% 4.1% < 0.001

Depressive 19.9% 3.7% < 0.001

Anxiety 14.7% 3.8% 0.001

`

59

Table 4.

Latent Variables Included in the Structural Equation Models: Descriptive Statistics and

Reliability. Non-Hispanic N = 233; Hispanic N = 330

Variable M SD Range α

Non-Hispanic Cohesion 4.90 0.99 1.40 – 6.00 .88

Enmeshment 2.12 0.84 1.00 – 5.80 .77

Commitment 4.06 0.64 2.31 – 5.69 .73

Exploration 4.02 0.65 2.13 – 6.00 .73

Satisfaction 5.13 1.24 1.40 – 7.00 .84

Depressive 1.70 0.48 1.00 – 3.47 .88

Anxiety 1.89 0.66 1.00 – 4.00 .84

______________________________________________________________________________

Hispanic Cohesion 4.91 1.04 1.60 – 6.00 .88

Enmeshment 2.51 0.97 1.00 – 6.00 .73

Commitment 4.18 0.66 2.00 – 5.94 .75

Exploration 4.06 0.60 1.81 – 5.81 .67

Satisfaction 4.88 1.29 1.00 – 7.00 .83

Depressive 1.74 0.51 1.00 – 3.79 .89

Anxiety 1.80 0.65 1.00 – 3.83 .84

`

60

Figure 2. Structural equat ion model ing ( SEM) Model 3: Hypothesized Model, with standardized parameters. Standardized coefficients are shown for statistically significant structural parameters. Cohesion and enmeshment are allowed to co-vary. Cohesion and enmeshment (family differentiation) directly predict commitment and exploration (identity status components); commitment and exploration directly predict anxiety, depressive symptoms, and life satisfaction levels. Cohesion and enmeshment directly affect anxiety, depressive symptoms, and life satisfaction levels, and indirectly affect these variables via commitment and exploration. (Direct paths from cohesion and enmeshment to the psychological variables are omitted from the figure for clarity.) In order to test the study hypotheses regarding differences between the two ethnoracial groups (white non- Hispanic; Hispanic), the paths from cohesion to each of the ego identity variables, as well as the paths from commitment to each of the psychological well-being variables, were set equal across groups. The paths from enmeshment to each of the ego identity variables, and from exploration to each of the psychological variables, were allowed to vary across groups. However, none of the parameters that were allowed to vary across groups were statistically significant.

Model 4: Modified Model

Model 4 was identical to Model 3, except that additional paths were estimated on the

basis of modification indices computed from Model 3. Any paths with a modification index

(M.I.) of 10 or above in Model 3 were added for Model 4. These were: 1) the covariance of

exploration and commitment in the non-Hispanic group; 2) 53 inter-item covariances in the non-

Hispanic group; 3) 60 inter-item covariances in the Hispanic group; 4) four item intercepts in the

non-Hispanic group; and 5) four item intercepts in the Hispanic group.

`

61

RMSEA for Model 4 was 0.040 (90% CI = 0.038, 0.042). Yet again, this allows rejection

of the null hypothesis for the test of close fit, since the confidence interval falls entirely below

the cutoff value of 0.8. The confidence interval falls entirely below the .05 cut-off for a good fit.

(MacCullum, Browne, and Suguwara, 1996). The other fit indices for Model 4 were:

χ2 = 7137.268, df = 4954, p < .0001; Akaike (AIC) = 117882.402; CFI = 0.839; SRMR = 0.077.

Although the model fit was improved in Model 4 over Model 3, no theoretical basis was

found for any of the modifications made. Therefore it was decided that Model 3 was more

informative and useful, as well as parsimonious, and Model 4 was rejected.

Research Questions & Hypotheses

This study posed three research questions, and posited a hypothesis for each of them. The

first research question asked how family differentiation (cohesion and enmeshment) would relate

to ego identity status. The corresponding hypothesis predicted that family differentiation would

explain a significant amount of variance in ego identity status.

This hypothesis was partly supported: the results of Model 3 indicate a positive direct

effect of cohesion on commitment (0.175, S.E. = 0.037, p < .0001). However, there was no

significant effect of either family differentiation variable on exploration; nor was there any

significant effect of enmeshment on either identity formation variable.

The second research question asked how family differentiation would relate to

psychological well-being (anxiety, depressive symptoms, and life satisfaction). The

corresponding hypothesis predicted that family differentiation would affect psychological well-

being both directly and indirectly via ego identity variables. This hypothesis was also partly

supported: the results indicate the predicted direct effects of cohesion on the psychological

outcomes: depressive symptoms (-0.139, S.E. = 0,023, p < .001); anxiety (-0.151, S.E. = 0.036, p

< .001); and life satisfaction (0.533, S.E. = 0.061, p < .001).

Further, the results of Model 3 indicate the predicted indirect effects of cohesion on each

of the psychological outcomes via commitment: depressive symptoms (-0.022, S.E. = 0.008, p =

.006); anxiety (-0.032, S.E. = 0.014, p = 0.022); and life satisfaction (0.091, S.E. = 0.024, p <

.001). However, the predicted indirect effects of enmeshment on the psychological variables

were not observed, nor were the predicted direct effects exploration on the psychological

variables observed.

`

62

The final research question asked whether there would be differences between the

ethnoracial groups studied. The study hypothesized that, for Hispanic participants, higher levels

of enmeshment were predicted to be less associated with diminished psychological well-being.

Similarly, for participants who identify as Hispanic (compared to those who identify as non-

Hispanic whites), higher levels of exploration were predicted to be less associated with increased

psychological well-being (anxiety, depressive symptoms, and life satisfaction). Thus, the third

hypotheses was not supported in that there were no significant differences found between

ethnoracial groups.

Mean Differences by Gender, College Major, and Data Collection Site

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to examine mean differences in each of the

latent variables (cohesion, enmeshment, commitment, exploration, depressive symptoms,

anxiety, and life satisfaction) by gender and college major for the full sample, and by data

collection site within each ethnoracial group. Differences statistically significant at the .05 level

are reported in this section.

Two variables differed significantly by gender: commitment (F = 5.8, 562, p = .02) and

depressive symptoms (F = 3.82, 562, p = .05). Women reported mean commitment of 4.18,

slightly greater than men’s mean commitment of 4.04. Women reported mean depressive

symptoms of 1.75, slightly greater than men’s mean depressive symptoms of 1.67.

Two variables differed significantly by category of college major: commitment (F = 3.34,

562, p < .01) and life satisfaction (F = 2.57, 562, p = .01). Psychology majors reported the

highest mean level of commitment (4.2), followed by humanities and arts majors (4.19) and

professional majors (4.19). Undeclared majors reported the lowest levels of commitment (3.6).

Humanities and arts majors reported the highest levels of life satisfaction (5.13), followed by

non-psychology social science majors (5.12), and professional majors (5.06). The lowest levels

of life satisfaction were reported by students with multiple majors (3.85).

For non-Hispanic white participants, two variables differed significantly by data

collection site: exploration (F = 8.59, 232, p < .01) and anxiety (F = 4.09, 232, p = .04). Among

this ethnoracial group, FIU students reported higher levels of exploration (4.31) than FSU

students (3.96). On the other hand, FSU students reported higher levels of anxiety (1.93) than

FIU students (1.68). For Hispanic participants, no variables differed significantly by data

collection site.

`

63

CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to apply a two-dimensional model of family differentiation

to understanding the relational underpinnings of ego identity development. The study also

examined the impact of both family differentiation and ego identity development on

psychological well-being of older adolescent and young adult Hispanic and non-Hispanic white

people in the U.S. This chapter discusses the findings of this study in relation to its theoretical

frameworks, previous research on this topic, and implications for clinical practice. Finally, this

chapter will present limitations of the study and discuss future directions for research.

Review of Notable Findings

The third model of the structural equation analysis explained a significant portion of the

variance in four of the five endogenous variables (Table 3). This was true for both the Hispanic

and the non-Hispanic white subsamples. For the Hispanic subsample, the portions of variance

explained were: commitment, 12.7%; satisfaction, 30.3%; depressive symptoms, 19.9%; and

anxiety, 14.7%. For the non-Hispanic white subsample, the portions of variance explained were:

commitment, 11.5%; life satisfaction, 34.2%; depressive symptoms, 18.9%; anxiety, 10.8%. The

largest portion of variance explained in both ethnoracial groups was for life satisfaction 30.3%

for the Hispanic subsample; 34.2% for the non-Hispanic subsample. Exploration was the only

endogenous variable for which no significant portion of variance was explained by the model.

These large portions of variance explained in variables of such practical importance as life

satisfaction, depressive symptoms, and anxiety underscore the value of the model. The largest

standardized effects in the model were the direct effects of commitment on life satisfaction and

cohesion on life satisfaction.

Theoretical Implications of Findings

This study builds upon Freud’s (1933) proposal that ego identity development was the

product of relational dynamics in the family of origin, and also upon Marcia’s (1989) call for

study of the impact of relational dynamics on ego identity development. There have been some

efforts to explore the link between these relational dynamics and Marcia’s ego identity statuses

(e.g., Adams et al., 1987; Arseth et al., 2009; Campbell et al., 1984; Faber et al., 2003; Jackson et

al. 1990; Marcia, 1966; Mullis et al., 2003; and Watson & Protinsky, 1988). However, this study

`

64

is the first effort to explain the variance in ego identity variables using the two-dimensional

model of family differentiation. This study is also the first to compare the nature and function of

family differentiation processes among Hispanic-identified and white non-Hispanic participants

in the U.S.

Ethnoracial Differences

Manzi et al (2006) reported that enmeshment was predictive of anxiety and depressive

symptoms for British participants, but not predictive of psychological well-being for Italian

participants. The researchers argued that these differences were attributable to cultural

differences. Specifically, they asserted that British youth are socialized to place greater value on

individual autonomy than Italian youth, making enmeshment, or limited individual autonomy,

more problematic for British youth. This study subsequently predicted that, in these respects,

non-Hispanic white youth would resemble British youth, while Hispanic-American youth would

resemble Italian youth. However, the results of this study revealed that enmeshment had no

significant impact on psychological well-being for either of these two U.S. ethnoracial groups.

If Manzi et al. (2006) are correct in arguing that a culture’s level of individualism

determines whether enmeshment will be harmful to psychological well-being, then the results of

this study, contrasted with those of Manzi et al. (2006) suggest that the culture of non-Hispanic

white people in the U.S. is at present less individualistic than British culture. This statement is

subject to several caveats. First, there may be factors other individualism that determine the

relationship between enmeshment and psychological well-being. Second, it is not clear in the

Manzi et al. (2006) study what percentage of their participants would have identified as white, or

what cultural groups may have been represented in their sample. Third, non-Hispanic white

people in the U.S. are themselves a diverse group: they include many groups (such as Italian-

Americans) who, based on their cultural heritage, may have less individualistic attitudes than

people in the U.S. of Anglo heritage, and may therefore experience less adverse consequences

from enmeshment. Further, there may be relevant cultural differences by region within the

United States, or relevant socio-economic differences that were not captured in this study. This

research does not include data on participants’ cultural heritage beyond race and ethnicity (with

the latter being limited to Hispanic vs. non-Hispanic), nor on participants’ regional origin or

regional cultural influences. Finally, as a heterogenous society, the dominant culture of the U.S.

`

65

may be strongly influenced by its British Colonial history, but that clearly does not imply that the

multiple cultures that contribute to the culture of majority are without influence.

Hispanic-identified people in the U.S. are a culturally diverse group. They include people

of dozens of national origins; various levels of acculturation; speakers of English, Spanish, and

Portuguese; recent immigrants and those whose families have lived in the United States for

generations. A large majority of Hispanic-identified people in the U.S. (69%) endorse the view

that “U.S. Hispanics have many different cultures” over the view that “U.S. Hispanics share a

common culture.” (Taylor, Lopez, Martínez, & Velasco, 2012).

The present study did not ask participants to identify their national ancestry, although it is

reasonable to assume that Hispanic participants in the present study were probably

predominantly of Cuban ancestry: the participants in this study are exclusively from two

universities in Florida, yet this study compares Hispanic-identified participants of any race with

White, non-Hispanic-identified participants. The Hispanic-identified participants in this study

therefore are not necessarily representative of the Hispanic population of the United States.

Whereas people of Cuban ancestry are only 3.5% of the Hispanic population nationwide, they

are 46.2% of the total population in Miami-Dade County, where FIU is located. This means that

Cuban-Americans are highly overrepresented among Hispanic-Americans in Miami-Dade

County, making it possible they are overrepresented among the participants in the present study.

In contrast, nearly two thirds (63%) of Hispanic Americans in the United States are of Mexican

ancestry (Ennis, Ríos-Vargas, & Albert, 2011).

Cuban-Americans in Miami-Dade County may be more likely to see themselves as the

culture of reference than Hispanic-Americans elsewhere. Hispanic-Americans in Miami-Dade

may be less likely to encounter routine discrimination, since they are more likely to regularly

interact with persons that to a large extent share are their own ethnicity and culture. The

everyday experience of these Hispanic-identified people in the U.S. may be different in the

following ways: 1) They may live in communities where they are considered a minority group;

2) They may often face discrimination; and 3) They may feel more targeted by anti-immigrant

sentiment in the U.S. and policies to combat illegal immigration when compared with people in

the U.S. of Cuban immigrants. These differing experiences may foster different attitudes among

Cuban-Americans and Mexican-Americans.

`

66

Further, a large majority (85%) of the Hispanic participants in this study identified as

white, compared to just over half (53%) of Hispanic Census respondents nationwide (Humes et

al., 2011). This suggests that the Hispanic participants in the present study may see their ethnic

and cultural identity in a way that is not representative of Hispanics nationwide, and that may be

more consistent with the cultural norms associated with white people in the U.S. in some

important ways.

Further, the literature review of this study revealed that the data from other various other

studies reveals that the predictive value of enmeshment may be culturally bound, and specifically

beneficial or less detrimental to cultures that are not strongly influenced by Western, Anglo, or

ultimately British Colonial norms. For example, in the United States, Watson & Protinsky

(1988) found that enmeshment predicted identity achievement as well as identity foreclosure, or

high commitment statuses, among African-Americans. It is possible that enmeshment may be

beneficial to psychological well-being among some Hispanic-Americans (such as Mexican-

Americans) more than others. Additionally, whether or not members of a given demographic see

themselves as a minority may be a relevant factor.

Implications for the Role of Family Differentiation in Ego Identity Theory

Previous research has linked identity achievement to psychological well-being (Arseth et

al., 2009; Hardy & Kisling, 2006). Identity scholars (e.g., Arseth et al., 2009) have frequently

stated or suggested that identity foreclosure is a less desirable outcome than identity

achievement. In contrast to this, the results of this study indicate that commitment, which can

include identity foreclosure, has a large, beneficial impact on psychological outcomes. Higher

levels of commitment were associated with reduced anxiety and depressive symptoms and

increased life satisfaction. Model 3, which tested the substantive hypotheses of the study, found

significant direct effects of commitment on each of the psychological outcomes including

depressive symptoms, anxiety and life satisfaction.

Results show that the largest direct effect of commitment was on life satisfaction

followed by depressive symptoms and anxiety. This suggests that commitment to ego identity

roles is a major determinant of whether older adolescent and young adults are satisfied with their

lives. Since the relevant structural paths were held equal ethnoracial groups, this finding is

equally applicable to both Hispanic and non-Hispanic white participants in the study.

`

67

In contrast, there was no link between exploration and psychological well-being. None

of the direct paths from exploration to psychological well-being were significant, nor were there

significant indirect effects via exploration. It may be that, at least for some cultural groups,

commitment is the key process that makes identity achievement beneficial to psychological well-

being and that many or all of the same benefits can be obtained from identity foreclosure

(commitment without exploration). Consistent with the present results, Crocetti et al. (2009), in a

large study of Dutch adolescents, found that “whereas commitment was negatively related

to…anxiety, in-depth exploration and reconsideration of commitment were positively related to

adolescent anxiety. These findings were consistent across…gender, age, and ethnic sub-samples

(p. 841).”

Effects of family differentiation on psychological well-being via commitment and

exploration Scholars have provided both theoretical (e.g., Minuchin, 1974; Olson, 1982; Scabini,

1985) and empirical (e.g., Barber and Buehler; Campbell et al., 1984; Manzi et al., 2006; and

Watson & Protinsky, 1988) support for the idea that family cohesion enhances psychological

well-being. However, no previous studies have examined the possible role of commitment or

exploration in this relationship.

The present study supports the idea that cohesion has beneficial effects on psychological

outcomes, in part indirectly via commitment. The results indicated the predicted indirect effects

of cohesion on the psychological outcomes via commitment for depressive symptoms, anxiety

and life satisfaction. In contrast, the present study found no indirect effects of cohesion on

psychological well-being via exploration.

Effect of cohesion on commitment. Scholars have long maintained that ego identity

development was profoundly shaped by the dynamics of the family of origin (Freud, 1933;

Marcia, 1989). Campbell et al. (1984) found that adolescents with high commitment identity

statuses (identity achieved or foreclosed) had more affectionate relationships with their parents

than adolescents in the moratorium or diffusion statuses. Similarly, Watson and Protinsky (1988)

found that higher levels of family cohesion were associated with the identity achievement and

foreclosure statuses. However, no study has previously directly examined the relationship

between cohesion and commitment.

The present study predicted that higher levels of cohesion would be associated with

higher levels of commitment and this prediction was supported. The standardized path

`

68

coefficient from cohesion to commitment was significant and suggests that family cohesion is

one of the main determinants of ego identity commitment. Moreover, the model explained 11.5%

of the variance in cohesion. Theorists have argued that a cohesive family environment gives

adolescents and young adults the stability they need to commit to their identity choices. The

present results provide empirical support for that idea for both ethnoracial groups examined.

Effect of cohesion on exploration. Watson and Protinsky (1988) determined that

identity achievement (which involves high exploration as well as high commitment) was

associated with higher levels of cohesion. However, no previous study had directly explored the

possible link between cohesion and exploration. The present study hypothesized that higher

levels of cohesion would be associated with higher levels of exploration. However, the results

did not bear this out in that the path from cohesion to exploration was non-significant. Thus,

although an emotionally supportive family of origin encourages firm decisions regarding identity

choices, it does not appear to have any bearing on whether adolescents examine their identity

choices carefully. This was true for both Hispanic and non-Hispanic participants, though this

path was allowed to vary across ethnoracial groups.

Effect of enmeshment on commitment. Watson and Protinsky (1988) found that high

enmeshment levels were associated with the identity achievement and identity foreclosure

statuses; the common element of these statuses is a high level of commitment. In keeping with

this finding, the present study hypothesized that high levels of enmeshment would be associated

with high levels of commitment. However, this was not found to be the case in that the path from

enmeshment to commitment was non-significant.

Effect of enmeshment on exploration. Enmeshment restricts the autonomy of

adolescents and young adults; therefore it is expected to limit opportunities for exploration.

Campbell et al. (1984) found that adolescents in high-exploration statuses (identity-achieved or

moratorium) saw themselves as more independent from their parents compared to their

foreclosed or diffused counterparts. Therefore, the present study hypothesized that higher levels

of enmeshment would be associated with lower levels of exploration for non-Hispanic white

participants. However, for Hispanics, the effect of enmeshment on exploration was predicted to

be less negative, because enmeshment was expected to be less distinct from cohesion consistent

with an oblique model of family differentiation (Manzi et al., 2006). This prediction was not

`

69

supported in that paths from enmeshment to exploration were non-significant for both

ethnoracial groups.

Direct Effects of Family Differentiation on Psychological Well-Being

Cohesion was predicted to have beneficial effects on each of the three psychological

well-being outcomes (anxiety, depressive symptoms, and life satisfaction), across ethnoracial

groups. Family cohesion was expected to provide a sense of stability that enhances adaptive

functioning in general, which may be manifest in a wide range of psychological outcome

variables (e.g., Minuchin, 1974; Olson, 1982; Scabini, 1985). Empirical findings have

supported this (e.g., Barber and Buehler; Campbell et al., 1984; Manzi et al., 2006; and Watson

& Protinsky, 1988). The present results are consistent with past findings in this regard. The

results yielded the predicted direct effects of cohesion on the psychological outcomes for

depressive symptoms, anxiety and life satisfaction.

The largest impact of cohesion was on life satisfaction indicating that an increase of one

standard deviation in cohesion is associated with an increase in life satisfaction of nearly one half

standard deviation. The standardized path coefficients of cohesion on depressive symptoms and

anxiety indicated that an increase of one standard deviation in cohesion is associated with

reductions of more than one third of a standard deviation in depressive symptoms and nearly one

quarter standard deviation in anxiety. These are very large effects, and suggest that family

cohesion is a major determinant of psychological well-being among older adolescents and young

adults, independent of its impact on commitment.

For white non-Hispanic participants, enmeshment was predicted to have a detrimental

effect on each of the psychological well-being outcomes: anxiety, depressive symptoms, and life

satisfaction. These predictions have theoretical support (e.g., Minuchin, 1974; Olson, 1982;

Scabini, 1985) and empirical support (e.g., Barber & Buehler; Campbell et al., 1984; Manzi, et

al., 2006; Watson & Protinsky, 1988). However, for Hispanic participants, enmeshment was

expected to have a less detrimental effect, meaning a smaller detrimental effect, no effect, or a

beneficial effect, compared to white non-Hispanic participants. Again, this was because, for

Hispanic participants, it was expected that enmeshment would be less distinct from cohesion,

consistent with an oblique model of family differentiation (Manzi et al., 2006). However, this

was not found to be the case: enmeshment had no effect on psychological well-being for either

ethnoracial group.

`

70

There may be two reasons that the predicted ethnoracial differences were not observed.

First, the participants in this study were not necessarily representative of the Hispanic population

of the United States. Hispanic-identified persons arguably occupy a cultural majority status in

Miami-Dade County, where FIU is located, and the majority of the FIU student body, they may

not be subject to the same sociocultural dynamics as are Hispanics in other parts of the United

States. Second, from a co-constructionist perspective (e.g., Kurtines, 1999) as well as in a post-

multiculturalist context (Vertovec, 2010), the increasing percentage of Hispanics in the United

States population may be influencing the norms of the broader culture, reducing differences

between white and Hispanic perspectives.

Relational Clinical Implications of Theoretical and Empirical Findings

There is strong and recent evidence in the literature that identity achievement predicts

positive outcomes (e.g., Arseth et al., 2009; Crocetti, et. al, 2009; Hardy & Kisling, 2006). A

prediction to this effect in an empirical study would be consistent with the theoretically inherent

tendency to presume that the therapeutic fostering of and emphasis on identity achievement is a

valuable goal, and these predictions are borne out in the literature. However, research also

supports the therapeutic value of fostering family cohesion (e.g., Mullis et al., 2003; Protinsky &

Shuts, 1990). Further, recent findings support the value of fostering ego identity commitment,

including both identity foreclosure and identity achievement (Arseth et al., 2009; Crocetti et al.,

2009; and Mullis et al., 2003), as opposed to simply fostering identity exploration, including only

identity moratorium and identity achievement. The results of this study are in line with these

trends in the literature. Further, this study underscores the importance of cohesion in predicting

both commitment and the psychological well-being of older adolescents and young adults.

Marcia (1989) encouraged researchers to explore the complex factors that may ultimately

explain the Marcian identity statuses, and imagined that a successful identity-rooted intervention

would likely offer a clear rationale of the predictors for the statuses themselves, as opposed to

just sorting and attempting to understand clients according to the larger commitment and

exploration conceptual components. This study's contributions to the understanding of this

process could be of direct use to a relationally trained clinician with training in a framework

informed by family systems theory or an understanding of family differentiation. Moreover, this

study's findings might be of use in informing a relationally trained scholar-practitioner in

`

71

answering Marcia's (1989) call to develop an identity-rooted intervention informed by the

relevant underlying relational processes.

The results of this study support the notion that family differentiation is best conceived of

as two dimensions. The results further suggest that facilitating the dimension of family cohesion

in particular may be extremely valuable in relational interventions across cultures. These

findings could contribute to future efforts to develop a manualized, evidence-based approach to

training relational clinicians. This possibility need not be limited to theories that rely heavily on

an understanding of family differentiation: an empirically-based understanding of which

relational dynamics are predictive of psychological well-being outcomes would arguably add

value to the education of any relational clinician in training. This holds especially true given the

apparent cultural literacy value of training relational clinicians to foster family cohesion across

cultures.

Limitations of the Research

Measurement and Comparability of Family Differentiation across the Literature

The assumption of the two-dimensional model of family differentiation in this study is

based on a critical review of the literature as well as explicit empirical evidence (Barber &

Buehler, 1996; Manzi et al., 2006). However, the use of the one-dimensional model of family

differentiation in relevant earlier studies is not always explicit or at least is not measured in a

uniform way, because the two-dimensional model was not identified until just before the turn of

the millennium (Barber & Buehler, 1996; Manzi et al., 2006). This study's assumption of the

two-dimensional model could be further supported by an empirical review of all the measures

used in earlier studies that implicitly or more directly measure what Manzi et al. (2006)

described as the one-dimensional model of family differentiation. Such a study might feature an

exploratory factor analysis with the goal of determining whether pooled measure items from

relevant studies were, in fact, loading onto and therefore measuring cognate concepts. This

would make any endeavor to compare studies that implied or assumed a one-dimensional model

with studies that imply or assume a two-dimensional model much more straightforward.

However, at present, no such study has been conducted.

Limitations of Sample

Exclusion of non-students. The sample from this study is comprised of older

adolescents and young adults who were 18-26 years of age and is intended per the theoretical

`

72

contributions of Marcia (1989) and Erikson (1959) to capture participants in a theoretically

grounded stage and state of intrapsychic destructuring. The participants' status as students

similarly allows for life stage comparability to data from student study participants in other

sociohistorical settings (e.g., Manzi, 2006) per the family life course development framework.

However, although this study may be comparable to the participants in many studies of

students within a similar age range, it does not address the possible differences that might be

found in a population of that is inclusive of similarly aged non-student, even if they were still

going through a theoretically relevant and marked period of intrapsychic destructuring. This

distinction is important because the identity development process of students is a unique

experience in part due to the culture and values of an educational environment (e.g.,

Montgomery & Côtè, 2003) and cannot necessarily be considered comparable to the processes of

similarly aged non-students. This limitation becomes even more noteworthy when considered in

the context of the possibilities for using research relevant to the ego identity process to develop

interventions intended to combat marginalization and oppression, as marginalized and oppressed

persons cannot be assumed to have access to higher education.

Restriction of age range. The restriction of age of the study participants is a limitation in

that it prevents generalization to other age groups. However, the age range of the study was

selected for theoretical reasons, as discussed earlier. It would be fruitful to examine identity

development across the lifespan, and to empirically challenge the notion of stagewise

progression.

Regional bias. Participants in this study are exclusively from two public universities in

Florida, yet this study compares Hispanic-identified participants of any race with white, non-

Hispanic-identified participants. The Hispanic participants in the present study were not

representative of the Hispanic population of the United States. Whereas people of Cuban

ancestry are only 3.5% of the Hispanic population nationwide, they are 46.2% of the total

population in Miami-Dade County, where FIU is located (USCB, 2010). This means that Cuban-

Americans are highly overrepresented among Hispanic-Americans in Miami-Dade County, and

probably highly overrepresented among the participants in the present study. Generalization to

the broader Hispanic population of the United States would require a sample representative of

that population.

`

73

Model Fit

RMSEA was the primary model fit statistic examined for this study. RMSEA values

suggested fair to good fit for all models examined, based on the guidelines provided by

MacCallum, Browne, and Sugawara (1996). However, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) values did

not reach the .95 level recommended by Hu and Bentler (1999) to indicate good fit. Future

research should consider models that include additional variables to reduce specification error

and improve model fit.

Mediation in the Structural Equation Models

This study examines the effect of family differentiation (cohesion and enmeshment) on

psychological well-being both directly and indirectly via ego identity variables (commitment and

exploration). This raises the question of whether the relationship between family differentiation

and psychological well-being is mediated by the ego identity variables. According to the

seminal work of Baron and Kenny (1986), a series of three regression analyses may be used to

test for mediation; four criteria must be met to establish a mediational effect. First, when the

mediator (e.g., commitment) is regressed on the independent variable (e.g., cohesion), the

independent variable must be found to have an effect on the mediator. Second, when the

dependent variable (e.g., life satisfaction) is regressed on the independent variable, the

independent variable must be found to have an effect on the dependent variable. Third, when the

dependent variable is regressed on both the independent variable and the mediator, the mediator

must have an effect on the dependent variable. Fourth, the inclusion of the mediator in the

regression equation must reduce the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable.

In order to claim full mediation, this effect must be completely eliminated by the inclusion of the

mediator.

Baron and Kenny’s (1986) regression procedure was not applied in the present study to

assess potential mediational effects. This is a limitation of the present study, since Baron and

Kenny’s procedure is widely accepted among scholars. However, Brown (1997) argues that

structural equation modeling (SEM) may be used in lieu of Baron and Kenny’s procedure. In the

SEM approach to mediation, Baron and Kenny’s first two criteria are met, respectively, by 1) a

significant path coefficient from an exogenous variable (e.g. cohesion) to a mediator (e.g.,

commitment); and 2) a significant path coefficient from the exogenous variable to an

endogenous variable (e.g., life satisfaction). Baron and Kenny’s third and fourth criteria are

`

74

implicitly met by the presence of significant specific indirect effects in the structural equation

model (Brown, 1997). In this study, these criteria for mediation are met for the effects of

cohesion on depressive symptoms, anxiety, and life satisfaction, via commitment. Specific

indirect effects are reported in Table 2. According to Brown (1997) these effects indicate the

magnitude of the mediational effects in the model. However, the application of Baron and

Kenny’s (1986) procedure would provide greater rigor and more persuasive evidence of

mediational effects.

Future Research

Future Study 1: Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

This study relates the two-dimensional model of family differentiation to the Marcian ego

identity paradigm. The results challenge long-standing assumptions within the fields of ego

identity theory and family relations theory, raising many questions of theoretical and practical

interest. This study assumes an oblique two-dimensional model of family differentiation

(cohesion and enmeshment are allowed to co-vary), building on the theoretical and empirical

work of Manzi et al. (2006). Those researchers used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to

compare one-dimensional, orthogonal, and oblique models of family differentiation for British

and Italian youth.

Future Study 1 would do the same for Hispanic-American and non-Hispanic white youth,

using the data already collected for the present study. This could provide further testing of the

two-dimensional model of family differentiation. For each ethnoracial group, one-dimensional,

orthogonal two-dimensional, and oblique two-dimensional models of family differentiation

would be considered. In all models, factor loadings and error variances would be estimated for

the family differentiation scales (cohesion and enmeshment). The one-dimensional model of

family differentiation assumes that cohesion and enmeshment form a single dimension. This

assumption would be reflected by setting the correlation between these variables equal to 1. The

orthogonal model assumes that cohesion and enmeshment are two uncorrelated dimensions;

therefore the correlation between them would be set equal to 0. The oblique model assumes that

cohesion and enmeshment are correlated, but not perfectly, and therefore the correlation between

them would be allowed to vary freely. For each ethnoracial group separately, the three CFA

models described above would be compared to select the best model based on fit and parsimony,

using the test of close fit (MacCallum, Brown, and Sugawara, 1996).

`

75

Future Study 2: The Role of Gender in Ego Identity Development

This study focuses on race and ethnicity, with only minimal attention to the issue of

gender. The second proposed future study would use the data from the present study to explore

the role of gender in ego identity development. Some theorists have argued that women may be

more likely to work toward a resolution of the Eriksonian identity vs. role confusion crisis only

after they have resolved the intimacy vs. isolation crisis, reversing the order that is expected of

men (Campbell et al., 1984; Grotevant, 1983; Schiedel & Marcia, 1985; Mullis et al., 2003).

Others have suggested that women may address both crises concurrently (Archer & Waterman,

1994; Lacombe & Gay, 1998).

Future Study 2 would use the data from the present study to calculate separate scores for

the interpersonal and ideological domains, corresponding to the identity vs. role confusion and

intimacy vs. isolation crises, respectively. The study would use analysis of variance (ANOVA) to

test whether 1) exploration would be higher for the interpersonal domain for women for the

younger age group; and 2) commitment would be lower for the interpersonal domain for women

for the younger age group.

Future Study 3: Replication with Nationally Representative Sample of Hispanic

Participants

As discussed earlier, Cuban-Americans may be overrepresented among the Hispanic

participants in the present study, relative to Cuban-Americans in the general population of the

United States. Hispanic Americans may vary in their patterns of family differentiation and ego

identity development due to cultural differences associated with national origin. Of particular

interest are Mexican-Americans, since they represent 63% of the Hispanic population in the

United States (USCB, 2010).

Future Study 3 would replicate the methodology of the present study with a sample

representative of the Hispanic-identified population of the United States, which would include an

intentionally representative proportion of Mexican-American participants. Participants could be

most easily recruited from a university located in the southwestern United States, or an area of

the country that has a large Mexican-American population.

Summary and Conclusions

This study is the first scholarly attempt to specifically assume and test the impact of a

two-dimensional model of family differentiation in relation to the Marcian identity statuses. The

`

76

results strongly suggest that family cohesion is a major relational dynamic underlying the

identity development process, and that it is both directly predictive of psychological well-being

and indirectly predictive of psychological well-being via commitment.

This study answers the call of Schwartz (2005) in that it carefully takes the role of

ethnoracial identity into account as a part of an effort to understand ego identity in a broader

theoretical context. This analysis found no difference in the two ethnoracial groups studied, and

the different outcomes hypothesized for the two different ethnoracial groups studied were not

borne out in the data. However, the lack of support for these hypothesized relationships may be

telling still.

Due to the possible relevance of the underrepresentation of Mexican-Americans in the

present study, it is reasonable to plan for furthering this line of research by repeating a similar

study with a population more representative of the total Hispanic-identified population of the

U.S. The USCB is currently considering changes to how Hispanic-identified people in the U.S.

are prompted to designate their ethnic and racial identities. This is based in part on their finding

that Mexican-Americans specifically are responsible for shifts in how Hispanics in the U.S. self-

identify (Krogstad & Cohn, 2014).

It is established that people in the contemporary U.S. who identify as partly Hispanic or

Hispanic are likely to go to a greater effort than their non-Hispanic counterparts in considering

their ethnocultural identity (e.g., Juang & Syed, 2010; Schwartz et al., 2009; Syed & Azimitia,

2008). These people may further struggle with the decision of whether or not it is relevant for

them to take on a Hispanic identity at all (e.g., Syed & Azimitia, 2008). Currently, the sole

ethnicity measured by the USCB requires respondents to identify as either Hispanic or non-

Hispanic. It has been reported that changes to the 2020 Census may involve collapsing this sole

ethnicity into one question that captures this self-identification alongside the designated race

categories (Krogstad & Cohn, 2014). This may ultimately influence nationwide perceptions in

the U.S. about the meaning of self-identifying as Hispanic.

Therefore, the period between the time of publication of this study and the 2020 Census

may represent a unique time period for ego identity scholars to gather data and study Hispanic-

identified people in the U.S. and relevant differences between Hispanic-identified people in the

U.S. of varying backgrounds. Further, this period of time may also be an unusual opportunity for

researchers to examine the role and function of the ethnoracial domain of ego identity overall,

`

77

and in a way that is potentially generalizable across eras and cultures given the lens of Family

Life Course Development theory.

This study has contributed important information about the relational dynamic underlying

the identity development process. Further, by offering data that can be compared with data from

subsequent studies of a Hispanic-identified U.S. population in flux, the present study will

contribute to the growing body of identity scholarship that has been carried out in service of

furthering theoretical knowledge in the context of a broader academic understanding of cross-

cultural relations.

It is clear that identity scholars are still in a position to understand and foster healthy ego

identity development, even in our globally connected, post-multiculturalist world. However, it is

also clear that the benefits of this potential can only be realized when identity scholars recognize

the bidirectional nature of influence inherent in interventions designed to foster this healthy

development, and when those same interventions are rooted in empirical data that, ideally,

represents the real world of adolescents and young adults in all its complexity.

`

78

APPENDIX A

INFORMED CONSENT FOR FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

`

79

APPENDIX B

INFORMED CONSENT FOR

FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY

`

80

`

81

APPENDIX C

PARTICIPANT PACKET

`

82

`

83

`

84

`

85

`

86

`

87

`

88

`

89

APPENDIX D

FACTOR LOADING ESTIMATES FOR

MODEL 3: HYPOTHESIZED MODEL

Table 5

Measurement Items for Cohesion and Enmeshment

Cohesion

1. Family members really helped and supported one another.

2. There was a feeling of togetherness in or family.

3. Our family didn’t do things together.*

4. We really got along well with each other.

5. Family members seemed to avoid contact with each other when at home.*

Enmeshment

1. Family members found it hard to get away from one another.

2. It was difficult for family members to take time away from the family.

3. Family members were pressured to spend most free time together.

4. Family member felt guilty if they wanted to spend some time alone.

5. It seemed like there was never any place to be alone in our house.

*Reverse-scored.

`

90

Table 6

Measurement Items for Commitment

Commitment

1. I have definitely decided on the occupation I want to pursue.

2. I don’t expect to change my political principles and ideals.

3. I have considered adopting different kinds of religious beliefs.*

4. I am very confident about what kinds of friends are best for me.

5. I will always vote for the same political party.

6. I have firmly held views concerning my role in the family.

7. My values are likely to change in the future.*

8. I am not sure about what type of dating relationship is best for me.*

9. Regarding religion, my beliefs are likely to change in the near future.*

10. I have definite views regarding the ways in which men and women should behave.

11. I think what I look for in a friend could change in the future.*

12. I am unlikely to alter my vocational goals.

13. My ideas about men’s and women’s roles will never change.

14. I am not sure that the values I hold are right for me.*

15. The extent to which I value my family is likely to change in the future.*

16. My beliefs about dating are firmly held.

*Reverse-scored.

`

91

Table 7

Measurement Items for Exploration

Exploration

1. There has never been a need to question my values.*

2. My ideas about men’s and women’s roles have changed as I got older.

3. I have engaged in several discussions concerning behaviors regarding dating relationships.

4. I have considered different political views thoughtfully.

5. I have never questioned my views concerning what kind of friend is best for me.*

6. When I talk to people about religion, I make sure to voice my opinion.

7. I have not felt the need to reflect on the importance I place on my family.*

8. I have tried to learn about different occupational fields to find the best one for me.

9. I have undergone several experiences that made me change my views on men’s and women’s

roles.

10. I have consistently re-examined many different values in order to find the ones which are

best for me.

11. I have questioned what kind of date is right for me.

12. I have evaluated many ways in which I fit into my family structure.

13. I have never questioned my political beliefs.*

14. I have many experiences that have led me to review the qualities which I would like my

friends to have.

15. I have discussed religious matters with a number of people who believe differently than I do.

16. I have never questioned my occupational aspirations.*

*Reverse-scored.

`

92

Table 8

Measurement Items for Depressive Symptoms

Depressive Symptoms

1. I was bothered by things that usually don’t bother me.

2. I did not feel like eating; my appetite was poor.

3. I felt that I could not shake off the blues even with help from my family or friends.

4. I felt that I was just as good as other people.*

5. I felt depressed.

6. I felt that everything I did was an effort.

7. I felt hopeful about the future.*

8. I thought my life had been a failure.

9. I felt fearful.

10. My sleep was restless.

11. I was happy.*

12. I talked less than usual.

13. I felt lonely.

14. People were unfriendly.

15. I enjoyed life.*

16. I had crying spells.

17. I felt sad.

18. I felt that people dislike me.

19. I could not get “going.”

*Reverse-scored.

`

93

Table 9

Measurement Items for Life Satisfaction and Anxiety

Life Satisfaction

1. In most ways, my life is close to ideal.

2. The conditions of my life are excellent.

3. I am satisfied with my life.

4. So far, I have gotten the important things I want in life.

5. If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing.

Anxiety

1. I feel calm.*

2. I am tense.

3. I feel upset.

4. I am relaxed.*

5. I feel content.*

6. I am worried.

*Reverse-scored.

`

94

Table 10

Cohesion and Enmeshment Factor Loading Estimates for Model 3: Hypothesized Model.

Estimate S.E. Est./S.E. p

Cohesion

Item 1* 1.000 0.000

Item 2 1.227 0.045 27.346 0.000

Item 3 0.985 0.049 20.179 0.000

Item 4 0.891 0.050 17.942 0.000

Item 5 0.835 0.049 17.029

_____________________________________________________________________________

Enmeshment

Item 1* 1.000 0.000

Item 2 1.071 0.102 10.553 0.000

Item 3 1.164 0.112 10.427 0.000

Item 4 1.208 0.120 10.103 0.000

Item 5 1.072 0.115 9.323 0.000

______________________________________________________________________________ *Factor loading fixed at 1.

`

95

Table 11

Commitment Factor Loading Estimates for Model 3: Hypothesized Model.

Estimate S.E. Est./S.E. p

Commitment

Item 1* 1.000 0.000

Item 2 1.105 0.217 5.092 0.000

Item 3 1.081 0.230 4.702 0.000

Item 4 1.157 0.203 5.708 0.000

Item 5 0.881 0.202 4.353 0.000

Item 6 1.053 0.199 5.298 0.000

Item 7 1.598 0.287 5.567 0.000

Item 8 1.068 0.215 4.967 0.000

Item 9 1.083 0.210 5.153 0.000

Item 10 1.245 0.238 5.239 0.000

Item 11 1.105 0.225 4.911 0.000

Item 12 0.888 0.182 4.887 0.000

Item 13 1.301 0.236 5.509 0.000

Item 14 0.957 0.181 5.296 0.000

Item 15 1.056 0.215 4.918 0.000

Item 16 1.454 0.256 5.687 0.000

*Factor loading fixed at 1.

`

96

Table 12

Exploration Factor Loading Estimates for Model 3: Hypothesized Model.

Estimate S.E. Est./S.E. p

Exploration

Item 1* 1.000 0.000

Item 2 3.213 1.070 3.004 0.003

Item 3 2.170 0.777 2.794 0.005

Item 4 2.437 0.837 2.911 0.004

Item 5 1.166 0.466 2.500 0.012

Item 6 0.501 0.349 1.436 0.151

Item 7 1.037 0.454 2.287 0.022

Item 8 1.713 0.608 2.816 0.005

Item 9 3.932 1.308 3.006 0.003

Item 10 3.713 1.228 3.023 0.003

Item 11 2.680 0.911 2.940 0.003

Item 12 2.614 0.902 2.899 0.004

Item 13 1.914 0.658 2.907 0.004

Item 14 1.936 0.682 2.838 0.005

Item 15 1.947 0.697 2.793 0.005

Item 16 0.779 0.367 2.123 0.034

*Factor loading fixed at 1.

`

97

Table 13

Depression Factor Loading Estimates for Model 3: Hypothesized Model.

Estimate S.E. Est./S.E. p

Depression

Item 1* 1.000 0.000

Item 2 0.843 0.111 7.604 0.000

Item 3 1.781 0.162 10.980 0.000

Item 4 0.891 0.125 7.131 0.000

Item 5 1.670 0.150 11.115 0.000

Item 6 0.724 0.122 5.947 0.000

Item 7 1.063 0.118 8.971 0.000

Item 8 0.944 0.096 9.847 0.000

Item 9 1.068 0.116 9.182 0.000

Item 10 1.163 0.137 8.483 0.000

Item 11 1.380 0.130 10.605 0.000

Item 12 0.987 0.117 8.414 0.000

Item 13 1.616 0.151 10.699 0.000

Item 14 0.671 0.097 6.898 0.000

Item 15 1.322 0.130 10.185 0.000

Item 16 0.896 0.098 9.132 0.000

Item 17 1.669 0.150 11.157 0.000

Item 18 1.137 0.117 9.695 0.000

Item 19 1.304 0.130 10.049 0.000

*Factor loading fixed at 1.

`

98

Table 14

Life Satisfaction and Anxiety Factor Loading Estimates for Model 3: Hypothesized Model.

Estimate S.E. Est./S.E. p

Satisfaction

Item 1 1.000 0.000

Item 2 0.958 0.056 17.168 0.000

Item 3 1.071 0.057 18.711 0.000

Item 4 0.963 0.062 15.608 0.000

Item 5 0.979 0.074 13.284 0.000

Anxiety

Item 1 1.000 0.000

Item 2 0.909 0.059 15.534 0.000

Item 3 0.548 0.047 11.718 0.000

Item 4 1.156 0.060 19.321 0.000

Item 5 0.887 0.062 14.392 0.000

Item 6 0.890 0.065 13.739 0.000

*Factor loading fixed at 1.

`

99

APPENDIX E

FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD

HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL LETTER

`

100

APPENDIX F

FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY

INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD

HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL LETTER

`

101

REFERENCES

Adams, G. R., Dyk, P. A. H., & Bennion, L. D. (1987). Parent–adolescent relationships and identity formation. Family Perspective, 21, 249-260.

Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Kabbani, N. S. (2001). The dropout process in life course perspective: Early risk factors at home and school. Teachers College Record, 103(5), 760-822.

Archer, S.L., & Waterman, A.S. (1994). Adolescent identity development: Contextual perspectives. In C.B. Fisher & R.M. Lerner (Eds.), Applied Developmental Psychology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Arseth, A. K., Kroger, J., Martinussen, M., & Marcia, J. E. (2009). Meta-analytic studies of identity status and the relational issues of attachment and intimacy. Identity: An

International Journal of Theory and Research, 9(1), 1-32.

Baldwin, J. (1955). Notes of a native son. Boston: The Beacon Press.

Balistreri, E., Busch-Rossnagel, N. A., & Geisinger, K. F. (1995). Development and validation of the Ego Identity Process Questionnaire. Journal of Adolescence, 18, 179-192.

Barber, B. K., & Buehler, C. (1996). Family cohesion and enmeshment: Different constructs, different effects. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 433-441.

Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Behdad, A. (2005). A forgetful nation: On immigration and cultural identity in the United States. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Bengston, V.L., & Allen, K.R. (1993). The life course perspective applied to families over time. In P. G. Boss, W.J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W.R. Schumm, & S.K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach (pp. 469-499). New York. NY: Plenum Press.

Bennion, L.D., & Adams, G.R. (1999). A revision of the extended version of the Objective Measure of Ego Identify Status: An identity instrument for use with late adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 1, 183-198.

Blasi, A. & Glodis, K. (1995). The development of identity: A critical analysis from the perspective of the self as subject. Developmental Review, 15, 404-433.

Bloom, B. L. (1985). A factor analysis of self-report measures of family functioning. Family

Process, 24, 225 – 239.

`

102

Bosma, T. L., Graafsma, G., Grotevant, H. D., & de Levita, D. J. (1994). Identity and

development: An interdisciplinary approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

Boyd, A.O. (2010). The Latin American identity and the African diaspora: Ethnogenesis in

context. Amherst, NY: Cambria Press.

Brown, R.L. (1997). Assessing specific mediational effects in complex theoretical models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 4, 142-156.

Campbell, E., Adams, G. R., & Dobson, W. R. (1984). Familial correlates of identity formation in late adolescence: A study of the perceived utility of connectedness and individuality in family relations. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 13, 509-525.

Chae, M. H., & Foley, P. F. (2010). Relationship of ethnic identity, acculturation, and psychological well-being among Chinese, Japanese, and Korean Americans. Journal of

Counseling & Development, 88(4), 466-476.

Chun, Y., & MacDermid, S. M. (1997). Perceptions of family differentiation, individuation, and self-esteem among Korean adolescents. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59(2), 451-462.

Cooper, C.R., Grotevant, H.D., & Condon, S.M. (1984). Individuality and connectedness: Both foster adolescent identity formation and role-taking skills. In H. D. Grotevant and C.R. Cooper (Eds.), Adolescent development in the family: New directions for child

development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Côté, J.E. (1997). An empirical test of the identity capital model. Journal of Adolescence, 20, 421-137.

Côté, J.E. & Levine, C. (1988). A critical examination of the ego identity status paradigm. Developmental Review, 8(2), 147-184.

Crocetti, E., Klimstra, T., Keijsers, L., Hale, W., & Meeus, W. (2009). Anxiety trajectories and identity development in adolescence: A five-wave longitudinal study. Journal of Youth

and Adolescence, 38(6), 839-849.

Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71 – 75.

Dillman, D.A. (2007). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

DuBois, W.E.B. (1925). The negro mind reaches out. In A. Locke (Ed.), The new negro. (pp. 385-414). New York, NY: Albert and Charles Boni

Elder, G.H. (1985). Life course dynamics: Trajectories and transitions, 1968-1980. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

`

103

Elder, G.H. (1998). The life course and human development. In W. Damon & R. M. Learner, (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 1): Theoretical models of human development (pp. 939-992). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Elder, G.H., Johnson, M.K., & Crosnoe, R. (2003). The emergence and development of life course theory. In J.T. Mortimer & M.J. Shanahan (Eds.), Handbook of the life course (pp. 3-19). New York, NY: Springer.

Ennis, S.R., Ríos-Vargas, M., & Albert, N.G. (2011). The Hispanic population: 2010. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-04.pdf

Erikson, E.H. (1959). Identity and the life cycle. New York, NY: Norton.

Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York, NY: Norton.

Faber, A. J., Edwards, A. E., Bauer, K. S., & Wetchler, J. L. (2003). Family structure: Its effects on adolescent attachment and identity formation. The American Journal of Family

Therapy, 31, 243-255.

Field, P.S. (2002). Ralph Waldo Emerson: The making of a democratic intellectual. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.

Florida International University. (2012). About us. Retrieved from www.fiu.edu/about- us/index.html.

Florida State University. (2012). Florida State University Factbook 2011-12: Student Characteristics, Fall 2011. Retrieved from www.ir.fsu.edu/Factbooks/2011-12/students.pdf.

Freud, S. (1933). New introductory lectures on psychoanalysis. New York, NY: Norton.

Fuhrman, T., & Holmbeck, G. N. (1995). A contextual-moderator analysis of emotional autonomy and adjustment in adolescence. Child Development, 66(3), 793-811.

Glazer, N. (1993). Is assimilation dead? Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social

Science, 530, 122–136.

Grotevant, H.D. (1983). The contribution of the family to the facilitation of identity formation in early adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 3, 225-237.

Guglielmo, T.A. (2004). White on arrival: Italians, race, color, and power in Chicago, 1890-

1945. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Guglielmo, J., & Salerno, S. (2003). Are Italians white? How race is made in America. New York, NY: Routledge.

`

104

Haid, M.L., Seiffge-Krenke, I., Molinar, R., Ciairano, S., Karaman, N. G., & Cok, F. (2010). Identity and future concerns among adolescents from Italy, Turkey and Germany: Intra- and between-cultural comparisons. Journal of Youth Studies, 13(3), 369-389.

Hammer, T. (1996). Consequences of unemployment in the transition from youth to adulthood in a life course perspective. Youth and Society, 27(4), 450-468.

Hammer, T. (2003) Youth unemployment and social exclusion in Europe. Bristol, United Kingdom: The Policy Press, University of Bristol.

Hammer, O., Harper, D.A.T., & Ryan, P.D. (2001). PAST: Paleontological Statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica 4(1), 9.

Hardy, S. A., & Kisling, J. W. (2006). Identity statuses and prosocial behaviors in young adulthood. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 6, 363-369.

Hollinger, D. A. (2006). Postethnic America: Beyond multiculturalism. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling,

6(1), 1-55.

Humes, K.R., Jones, N.A., & Ramírez, R.R. (2011). Overview of race and Hispanic origin: 2010. Retrieved from http//www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf.

Hutchison, E.D. (2011). A life course perspective. In Dimensions of human behavior: The

changing life course, E.D. Hutchison, ed., pp. 1-38. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA.

Jackson, E. P., Dunham, R. M., & Kidwell, J. S. (1990). The effect of family cohesion and adaptability on identity status. Journal of Adolescent Research, 5, 161-174.

Jacobson, M.F. (1999). Whiteness of a different color: European immigrants and the alchemy of

race. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Juang, L., & Syed, M. (2010). Family cultural socialization practices and ethnic identity in college-going emerging adults. Journal of Adolescence, 33(3), 347-354.

Kallen, H. M. (1956). Cultural pluralism and the American idea. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Kenny, D.A. (2011a). Identification: Overview. Retrieved from www.davidakenny.net/cm/identify.htm

Kenny, D.A. (2011b). Structural equation modeling: Multiple groups. Retrieved from www.davidakenny.net/cm/mgroups.htm

`

105

Kline, R.B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.

Kline, R.B. (2012). Assumptions in structural equation modeling. In R. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook

of Structural Equation Modeling. New York: Guilford Press.

Kolchin, P. (2002). Whiteness studies: The new history of race in America. The Journal of

American History, 89(1), 154-173.

Kroger, J. (2003). Identity development during adolescence. In G. R. Adams, & M. D. Berzonsky (Eds), Blackwell handbook of adolescence. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Krogstad, J.M., and Cohn, D. (2014). U.S. Census looking at big changes in how it asks about race and ethnicity. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/us-census-looking-at-big-changes-in-how-it-asks-about-race-and-ethnicity

Kurtines, W.M. (1999). A co-constructivist perspective on human behavior and development. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Lacombe, A.C. & Gay, J. (1998). The role of gender in adolescent identity and intimacy decisions. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 27(6), 795-802.

Lewinsohn, P.M., Seeley, J.R., Roberts, R.E., & Allen, N.B. (1997). Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale (CES-D) as a screening instrument for depression among community-residing older adults. Psychology and Aging, 12, 277-287.

MacCallum, R.C., Browne, M.W., and Sugawara, H.M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods,

1(2), 130-149.

Manzi, C., Vignoles, V. L., Regalia, C., & Scabini, E. (2006). Cohesion and enmeshment revisited: Differentiation, identity, and well-being in two European countries. Journal of

Marriage and Family, 68(3), 673-689.

Marcia, J.E. (1966). Development and validation of ego identity status. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 3(5), 551-558.

Marcia, J. E. (1980). Identity in adolescence. In J. Adelson (Ed.), Handbook of adolescent

psychology (pp. 109–187). New York, NY: Wiley & Sons.

Marcia (1989). Identity and intervention. Journal of Adolescence, 12, 401-410.

Marcia, J. (1995). The empirical study of ego identity. In H.A. Bosma, L.G. Tobi, H.D. Grotevant, & D.J. de Levita (Eds.), Identity and development: An interdisciplinary

approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

`

106

Marteau, T. M., & Bekker, H. (1992). The development of a six-item short-form of the state scale of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). British Journal of Clinical

Psychology, 31, 301 – 306.

McAdoo, H.P. (1981). Patterns of upward mobility in black families. In H.P. McAdoo (Ed.), Black families (pp. 155-170). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Montgomery, M. J., & Côté, J. E. (2003). The transition to college: Adjustment, development, and outcomes. In G. R. Adams & M. D. Berzonsky (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of

adolescence (pp. 179–194). Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishers, Ltd.

Mullis, R. L., Brailsford, J. C., & Mullis, A. K. (2003). Relations between identity formation and family characteristics among young adults. Journal of Family Issues, 24(8), 966-980.

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus user's guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

Olson, D. H. (1982). Circumplex model of marital and family system. In F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal

family processes (pp. 115 – 132). New York, NY: Guilford.

Phinney, J.S. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: Review of research. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 499-514.

Protinsky, H. & Shuts, L. (1990). Adolescent substance use and family cohesion. Family

Therapy: The Journal of the California Graduate School of Family Psychology, 17(2): 173-175.

Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401.

Rodgers, R.H. & White, J.M. (1993). Family development theory. In Boss, P. G., Doherty, W. J., LaRossa, R., Schumm, W. R., & Steinmetz, S. K. (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories

and methods: A contextual approach (pp. 225-258). New York, NY: Plenum.

Roth, P.L., Switzer, F.S., and Switzer, D.M. (1999). Missing data in multiple item scales: A Monte Carlo analysis of missing data techniques. Organizational Research Methods,

2(3); 211-32.

Scabini, E. (1985). Family organization between crisis and development. Milano, Italy: Franco Angeli.

Schiedel, D. G. , & Marcia, J. E. (1985). Ego identity, intimacy, sex role orientation, and gender. Developmental Psychology, 21(1), 149-160.

`

107

Schwartz, S. J. (2001). The evolution of Eriksonian and neo-Eriksonian identity research: A review and integration. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 1(1), 7-58.

Schwartz, S.J. (2004). Brief report: Construct validity of two identity status measures: the EIPQ and the EOM-EIS-II. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 477-483.

Schwartz, S.J. (2005). A new identity for identity research: Recommendations for expanding and refocusing the identity literature. Journal of Adolescent Research, 20(3), 293-308.

Schwartz, S. J., Mason, C. A., Pantin, H., & Szapocznik, J. (2009). Longitudinal relationships between family functioning and identity development in hispanic adolescents: Continuity and change. Journal of Early Adolescence, 29(2), 177-211.

Schwartz, S.J., Zamboanga, B.L, Weisskirch, R.S. & Wang, S.C. (2010). The relationships of personal and cultural identity to adaptive and maladaptive psychological functioning in emerging adults. Journal of Social Psychology, 150(1), 1-33.

Shin, D.C., & Johnson, D.M. (1978). Avowed happiness as an overall assessment of the quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 5, 475-492.

Society for Research on Identity Formation (2013). SRIF: Identity resources. Retrieved from http://w3.fiu.edu/srif/IdentityResources.htm

Syed, M. & Azmitia, M. (2008). A narrative approach to ethnic identity in emerging adulthood: Bringing life to the identity status model. Developmental Psychology, 44(4): 1012-27.

Taylor, G. (2004). Buying whiteness: Race, culture, and identity from columbus to hip hop. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Taylor, P., Lopez, M.H., Martínez, J., and Velasco, G. (2012). When labels don’t fit: Hispanics and their views of identity: II. Identity, pan-Ethnicity, and race. Retrieved from www.pewhispanic.org/2012/04/04/ii-identity-pan-ethnicity-and-race/

Thomas, R.M. (2005). Erikson’s variation on Freud’s theme. In R.M. Thomas, Comparing

theories of child development (pp. 86-117). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Umaña-Taylor, A. J., Gonzales-Backen, M. A., & Guimond, A. B. (2009). Latino adolescents’ ethnic identity: Is there a developmental progression and does growth in ethnic identity predict growth in self-esteem? Child Development, 80(2), 391-405.

van Hoof, A. (1999). The identity status approach: In need of fundamental revision and qualitative change. Developmental Review, 19, 497-556.

Vertovec, S. (2010). Towards post-multiculturalism? Changing communities, conditions and contexts of diversity. International Social Science Journal, 61(199): 83-95.

Vought, H.P. (2004). The bully pulpit and the melting pot. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press.

`

108

Waterman, A. S. (1988). Identity status theory and Erikson’s theory: Commonalities and differences. Developmental Review, 8(2), 185-208.

Watson, M. F., & Protinsky, H. O. (1988). Black adolescent identity development: Effects of perceived family structure. Family Relations, 37, 288-292.

White, J.M & Klein, D.M. (2002). Family theories: An introduction (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Wright, J. P., Cullen, F. T., & Williams, N. (2002). The embeddedness of adolescent employment and participation in delinquency: A life course perspective. Western

Criminology Review, 4, 1-19.

`

109

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Summer Brooke Gómez earned her Bachelor of Science degree in Psychology in 2002 from the

Florida State University and her Master of Social Work degree in 2005, also from the Florida

State University. Ms. Gómez is a Florida native and was born and raised in Miami, Florida.

Ms. Gómez has been interested in the study of ego identity development since she began her

academic career as an undergraduate in psychology at Florida International University, studying

under Dr. William M. Kurtines. Ms. Gómez went on to study under identity scholar Dr. Ronald

L. Mullis for her doctorate. Ms. Gómez is a trained clinician and an active mental health

professional and has owned a private practice in Tallahassee, Florida since 2009. It is her

intention to continue functioning as a scholar-practitioner.