minority identity and self-esteem

8/3/2019 Minority Identity and Self-Esteem

1/24

Minority Identity and Self-Esteem

Author(s): J. R. Porter and R. E. WashingtonReviewed work(s):Source: Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 19 (1993), pp. 139-161Published by: Annual ReviewsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2083384 .

Accessed: 06/01/2012 15:13

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toAnnual Review of

Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annrevshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2083384?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2083384?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annrevs


2/24

Annu.Rev. Sociol. 1993. 19:139-61Copyright? 1993 byAnnual Reviews Inc. All rightsreserved

MINORITYIDENTITYANDSELF-ESTEEMJ. R. Porter and R. E. WashingtonDepartment of Sociology, Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania 19010KEY WORDS: minorityself-esteem, Hispanicself-esteem, Asian Americanself-esteem,Black self-esteem, ethnic/racial dentityandself-image

AbstractWe review the theoreticalmodels and the researchon self-esteem amongHispanicand Asian Americansubgroupsand comparethese findings to theexisting literatureon AfricanAmerican self-image. Groupself-esteemrefersto how the individual eels aboutracialor ethnicgroupmembership.Personalself-esteemrefersto how the individual eels about he self in a comprehensivemanner. We describe the major paradigmsof ethnic/racialand personalself-esteem utilized in studies of Hispanics and Asian Americans. Theseparadigmsare largely informedby the literatureon ethnicityand stress themacrostructuralorces that affect self-concept. Paradigmsof AfricanAmeri-canself-image,however, tendto focus more on the psychologicalmechanismsthat transform ocial contextintopersonal dentity.We also review empiricalevidence on both dimensions of self-esteem among Hispanics and AsianAmericans,andwe contrast hese findingsto researchon African Americans.We conclude by suggesting parallels between the theories dealing withethnicity and those dealing with race, and we suggest areas for furthertheoretical ntegrationandempiricalresearch.

Racial and personal self-esteem have been extensively investigated forAfrican Americanpopulations Porter& Washington1979, 1989). There is,however, no synthesis of the literatureon self-esteem among AmericanHispanicandAsian subgroups,norhave these findings been compared o theliterature n AfricanAmericanself-image.We reviewthe theoryandresearchthat have either direct or indirect implications for Hispanic and AsianAmericanself-esteem. Althoughthe literatureon these topics is growing, thediscussionof HispanicandAsian Americanself-esteemtends to be informed

1390360-0572/93/0815-0139$02.00


3/24

140 PORTER& WASHINGTONby theoreticalmodelsthatview self-esteemas a derivativeof groupprocesses,withoutdirectlytestingthese relationships.We brieflycomparethe HispanicandAsian American iterature o the workon AfricanAmericanself-conceptandconclude by suggestingways thatthese literatures an informone anotherboth theoreticallyand empirically.Though the ethnic and race literatureshave some convergences, theyemploy largely differenttheoreticalparadigms n the area of psychologicalidentity. An ethnic group is a subgroupwhose membersare perceived bythemselves and others to have a common origin and culture, and sharedactivities in which the common origin or cultureis an essential ingredient(Yinger 1985). While ethnicity is constructedprimarilyaroundsocial andculturalcharacteristics,race is based primarilyon physical characteristics.HispanicandAsianAmericanareviewed bothas ethnicandracialcategories;in the case of Hispanics, Americanblack/whiteracialdistinctionsare oftenimposedon themby others.Self-esteemrefersto how one evaluatesthe self. Forpurposesof analysis,we divide self-esteem into two components:group and personal. Groupself-esteemrefersto how the individual eels abouthis or her ethnicor racialgroup membership. By personal self-esteem we mean esteem for one'sindividuality,regardlessof racial or ethnic group;how one feels about theself in a comprehensivemanner Porter& Washington1979, 1989). Althoughthe researchon African American dentityhas shiftedin the last decade froman investigationof racialto an investigationof personalself-esteem, most ofthe discussion of Hispanic and Asian Americanidentity focuses on ethnicgrouprather hanpersonalself-esteem.CATEGORIZATIONOF HISPANICAND ASIANAMERICANSUBGROUPSThe global categories "Hispanic"and "Asian" are socially constructedcategories.Theuse of globaltermsto encompassdisparategroups s of limitedutilitybecauseof the demographicandculturaldifferences amongthe variousAsianAmericanandHispanicsubgroups, ncludingdifferences n immigrationhistoryand mode of incorporationnto Americansociety. Among Hispanics,Mexican-Americansare the most heterogeneoussubgroup n termsof socio-economic characteristicsand generationalcomposition. PuertoRicans havethe lowest laborforceparticipationate,highestunemploymentevel, highestincidence of poverty, and lowest level of education among the Hispanicsubgroups.Cubanshave the highest medianincome, the lowest unemploy-ment, and the lowest incidenceof povertycompared o Mexican Americansand Puerto Ricans. These Hispanic populationsalso differ in geographicdistribution,with MexicanAmericansconcentratednthewest and southwest,


4/24

MINORITYSELF-ESTEEM 141PuertoRicans in the Northeast, andCubans n Florida(Bean & Tienda 1987,Maldonado 1991). Among Asian Americans,KoreansandIndochinesehavethehighestproportion f foreign-born;VietnameseandotherIndochinesehavethe lowest level of educationandincomeandthehighestrate of poverty(Vega& Rumbaut1991).At present,national oyalties aretoo deeply internalizedandthe social andculturalexperiencesandhistoryof each nationalityaretoo divergentfor theseglobal terms to be the basis of identity and group self-image. MexicanAmericans, Cubans, and Puerto Ricans may be aware that they share acommonlanguageandculturalroots, but this fact does not suffice to producestrongintergroupethnic solidarity.Among Asians, the gap between globalethnic labels andreality is even greaterbecause these groupsdo not share acommon language(Bean & Tienda 1987, Portes & Rumbaut1990, Aguirre& Saenz 1991, Maldonado1991). The terms"Hispanic"and "Asian Ameri-can" are related more to government labels and to the perceptions ofAnglo-Americansociety than they are to common experiences or identityamongthe individualsso designated(Portes& Truelove 1987). These globallabels are essentially political ratherthan cultural ethnic labels. They mayserve the function of mobilizing individualsin diverse groupsto solve theircommon problems and to gain access to governmentalprogramsearmarkedfor disadvantagedracial and ethnic groups. Thus both a nationalorigin anda pan-ethnicidentity are possible. Which is most salient is determinedbysituational and contextual factors, but currently the pan-ethnic identityprobablyhas less personalrelevancefor self-esteem than does the subgroupidentity(Padilla 1985, Bean & Tienda 1987, Kendis 1989, Murguia1991).This may change in the next several decades. Research on identity andself-esteem focuses on particularnationalitysubgroups,not on Asian Ameri-cans or Hispanicsas a whole; in fact, these subgroupsare typically studiedin isolation fromone another.Hispanic and Asian subgroupsdiffer from white ethnics and AfricanAmericans.Unlikewhiteethnics, HispanicsandAsianshave beenthe objectsof racialdiscrimination.This racial discriminationaccountsin partfor theirretention of an ethnic identitydespite their long years of settlementin theUnited States and loss of ethnic language by some members of the group(Arce 1981, Bean & Tienda 1987, Rodriguez1989). Unlike African Ameri-cans, many membersof these groupsvoluntarilyimmigrated o the UnitedStates,utilizedethniclanguages,andthoughsubjected o economichardships,lacked the experience of enslavement. Also, circularmigrationbetween theUnited States and the countryof origin for some subgroupsand the recentarrivalof new streamsof immigrationorothersfurtherdifferentiateHispanicsand Asians fromwhiteethnicsand AfricanAmericans(Bean & Tienda 1987,Portes & Truelove 1987).


5/24

142 PORTER& WASHINGTONWe concentrate n this review on the subgroupsmost frequentlystudiedinterms of self-esteem:Mexican Americans,PuertoRicans, and CubansamongHispanicsand Chinese, Japanese, andKoreanAmericansamong Asians. OfAsian-origin groups in the United States, the 1990 census indicates thatapproximately23% are of Chinese origin, 12% are of Japaneseorigin, and11% are of Korean origin, as well as 19% Filipino, 8% Vietnamese, 11%Asian Indian,and 16%Hawaiian, Pacific Islanderor "otherAsian." AmongmainlandHispanic groups, approximately60% are of Mexican origin, 12%are Puerto Rican, 5% are Cuban, and 23% are "other Hispanic" (WorldAlmanac 1991).

GROUP IMAGE:ETHNIC/RACIALSELF-ESTEEMHispanics and Asian Americans:EthnicityParadigmsofGroup ImageLiteratureon self-esteem amongHispanics and Asian Americanshas tendedto focus on the group-imagecomponent,or how the individual feels abouthis or her group identity. We summarize major cultural and structuralparadigmsof ethnicitythat have been used to analyze groupidentity amongHispanics and Asian Americans, and thereafter,we briefly contrast theseparadigmsto the racial paradigmsused to explain group identity amongAfricanAmericans.ACCULTURATION/ASSIMILATIONARADIGM OF GROUP IMAGE Among His-panics and Asian Americans, the acculturationand assimilationparadigmshave been among the most prevalentparadigms nformingthe literatureonethnicityand group self-image. The most widely used model is Milton Gor-don's (1964) paradigm,whichviews assimilationas being composedof sevendimensions includingcultural, structural,and identificationalassimilationaswell as several other dimensions. Another widely used conceptualization sKeefe & Padilla's (1987) division of acculturationnto culturalawarenessandethnic loyalty, which differfrom structuralmeasuresof incorporation.Three basic approaches o acculturation/assimilationnd their explicit orimplicit effects on ethnic self-esteem have been used most often to studyHispanicand Asian Americansubgroups.The first is the "single continuummodel," in which ethnic and mainstreamcultures are treated as mutuallyexclusive. In thisparadigm,acculturation efers to the loss of traditionalraitsand acceptance of new cultural traits. Assimilation refers to economic,political, and social integrationof the ethnic group into the mainstreamsociety. Moreover, this model assumes that acculturationprecedes assimila-tion (Yinger 1985). As alternate norms and associations are acquired,traditional nes arerelinquished Martinez& Mendoza1984, Keefe & Padilla


6/24

MINORITYSELF-ESTEEM 1431987). Ethnicidentification s viewed as a separatedimensionfrom accultur-ationand structural ssimilation:t is the feeling aboutgroup membershipandidentitywiththegroup.Studiesof theMexicanAmerican,ChineseAmerican,and JapaneseAmericancommunitieshave used this paradigm(for instance,Kitano1969, Grebleret al 1970, Montero1981, Shih-Shan1986). This singlecontinuummodel implies that unilinearassimilationand acculturationwillresult in a loss or weakening of ethnic identity. It assumes that the moreacculturated ndassimilatedthe individuals,the less positive theirresponseswill be to the groupimage componentof self-esteem.A second model of assimilation and acculturation s the bi-culturalortwo-dimensionalmodel. This modelregards dentitywiththe host cultureandthe cultureof originas separatedimensions;each cultureexists along a singlecontinuumand individualsmay vary not only in their adherenceto the twocultures but also in their social associations within the two groups. Theindividualcan accommodateto the host cultureor social structureand stillretainthe cultureor associationsof the originalethnic group(Padilla 1980,Szapocznik& Kurtines 1980, Martinez& Mendoza 1984, Keefe & Padilla1987, Rodriguez1989). This model, however, has been replacedrecentlybya third model, the multidimensional r pluralisticmodel of acculturationandassimilation,in which acculturation nd assimilationare treatedas complex,multifacetedphenomena. The acceptance of new cultural traits or socialassociationsand retentionof traditional ultural raits and social associationsareviewed as varyingfrom trait to trait,with the resultthatassimilationandacculturationare regardedas complex and situationallydictated processes.Forinstance,anindividualmay speaktheethniclanguageathomeandEnglishatwork,orassociatewithAngloAmericans n the work situationbutmembersof the ethnicgroupathome. Thereis some suggestionthatthesepatternsmayform a new culturalvariantrather hanan amalgam,but this position is notclearlyarticulatedLevine& Montero1973, Martinez& Mendoza1984, Hurh& Kim 1984, Keefe & Padilla 1987, Murguia1989). In both the biculturalandthe multidimensionalor pluralisticperspectives,ethnic prideand identi-ficationcanpersisteven when awarenessof traditional ultureweakens (Keefe& Padilla 1987), due to factors like the importanceof ethnic voluntaryorganizationsand for some groups,an influxof new immigrants Hirschman& Wong 1981, Romo & Romo 1985, Masseyet al 1987, Padilla1987, Fugita& O'Brien 1991). Typologiescombiningthe dimensionsof acculturation ndethnic identificationhave been proposed by several investigators (Padilla1980, Martinez& Mendoza1984, Keefe & Padilla 1987).Althoughthe assimilation/acculturationodelhasbecome a popularmodelfor explaining the group-imagecomponentof self-esteem among Hispanicand Asian Americansubgroups,it has several shortcomings.Acculturation,which denoteschangingvalues, is often measuredby structural ariables ike


7/24

144 PORTER& WASHINGTONfamily form, intermarriage, r social associationrather hanby componentsof culture.Also, the implicationsof these models for group imagearepoorlyarticulated; hey fail to explain the psychological processes that maintainethnic loyaltyorgrouppride. Finally,they fail to addressadequately he socialcontext of acculturation, assimilation, and group identity. Though theparadigmsfocus on culture or social associations, they do not articulatesufficiently the differentmacro-socialcontexts experiencedby the varioussubgroupsand the possible effects of these contexts on the group imagecomponentof self-esteem.INTERNALCOLONIALISMPARADIGMOF GROUP IMAGE The internalcolonial-ism perspectiveaddresses he effect of macrostructuralorces on group imagespecifically. Stimulatedby Memmi's (1965) and Fanon's (1968) writingsonthe effects of Europeancolonialism, the model applies the core/peripheryanalysisof worldsystemstheoryto groupswithina single country.It suggeststhat economic imperialismis reinforced by culturalimperialism, with theresult thatcolonized groups who arerelegatedto low statusand low rewardoccupationsdevelop a negative groupimage. Because of the convergenceofshared experiences and class interests, internal colonialism eventually pro-duces ethnic solidarity. These movementsoccurprimarilyamongthe secondor thirdgeneration Olzak 1983, Vigil 1984, Murguia 1989). Blauner(1972)has appliedthis colonial perspectiveto black/whiterelations in the UnitedStates. However, this model, as evidencedin the literature,has been used farmore frequently to explain group image and identity of some Hispanicsubgroupsthan of Asian subgroupsor of African Americans. The internalcolonialismmodel was widely utilizedto analyzeChicanonationalism n the1960s (Moore 1972, Barrera1979) when ethnicculture andpride were usedas symbolicforcesforpromoting ocial change.The stressonboththeSpanishlanguage and ethnic identification labels (Chicano rather than MexicanAmerican)emergedas pervasive signs of alteredgroup consciousnessand assymbols for mobilizinga decolonizationmovement(Vigil 1984, Blea 1988,Gomez-Quinones1990, Murguia1991). Internalcolonialism was also usedto explain a resurgenceof ethnic militancyamongPuertoRicans in the late1960s (Maldonado-Denis1976, Padilla 1987).This paradigm s applied primarily o groupslike MexicanAmericansandPuertoRicans who have experiencedextensive labor marketdiscriminationandhighrates of poverty.Murguia 1989) hassuggestedthat a decolonizationmovementoccurs among subgroupswhose main mode of entryis followingconquest,whose populations largein size, who are numericallypredominantin certaingeographicalareas, and whose race, culture, and religion divergefromthe dominantsociety. This paradigm s inapplicable o Cubans becauseof theirmode of entryas politicalrefugeesand the protectionaffordedby an


8/24

MINORITYSELF-ESTEEM 145ethnic enclave economy (Acosta-Belen 1988). Nor has it been a salientparadigm n addressing dentitymovementsamong Chinese, Japanese, andKoreanAmericansubgroups.Despite its appeal to Chicano and PuertoRican groups, this theoreticalmodel has a numberof problemsas an explanationof the rise of movementspromotingethnicself-esteem. It does not takeinto accountthe mode of entryor labormarket ncorporation f variousethnicgroups.Itviews class interestsas being expressedin ethnicterms;however, factors like circularmigration,location in segmentedjob sectors, and residentialsegregationmay sustainethnic community, culture, and pride among those who are not politicallymilitant (Rodriguez 1989). Also, the paradigmfails to explain why theChicanoandPuertoRican identitymovementsof the 1960swerenotsustainedover time (Munoz 1989).ETHNICCOMPETITIONPARADIGMOF GROUP IMAGE A recentmodel explain-ing the maintenanceof ethnicidentityandself-esteem is the ethnicresilienceor ethnic competitionmodel. Portes (1984) suggests that it is contact andcompetition with outside groups rather than confinement in one's owncommunitythat leads to ethnic awarenessand mobilization. A heightenedsense of ethnicsolidarityoccurs amongminority mmigrantgroupswho haveachievedconsiderable ocioeconomicassimilationbutwhose pathwayto totalacceptanceand equality remains blocked (Olzak 1983, Portes & Rumbaut1990). Either explicitly or implicitly, this model is used to explain thecontinuationor resurgenceof ethnicidentityandself-esteemamong upwardlymobile Cubans (Rogg & Cooney 1980, Portes & Bach 1985); MexicanAmericans Hurtado& Gurin1987), PuertoRicans(Rogler 1972, Safa 1988);JapaneseAmericans (Feagin & Fujitaki 1972, Takaki 1989); and ChineseAmericans (Yee 1973, Fong 1973, Wong 1982).The ethnic competitionmodel has both similaritiesand differences fromthe internalcolonialismmodel in explaininggroupself-esteem. Both modelsview ethnic solidarity and by implication group esteem as a reaction todiscrimination hat shapes the identityof the second generationof variousethnicgroups.Butthetwo modelsdifferin theirperspectiveon the class basisof ethnicpride;the ethniccompetitionparadigmviews ethnicmobilizationasbeing greater in a socially mobile group, while the internal colonialismparadigmviews it as being greater n lower class groups. Also, the internalcolonialism model is linked more directly to class conflict and exploitationand the ethnic competitionparadigm o economic competitionand discrimi-nation.Neitherparadigmaddressesethnicself-esteem as a phenomenonthatcan be generatedby ethnic enclosure or recency of immigration(Keefe &Padilla 1987). Moreover, neither considers the psychological mechanismsthroughwhich groupmobilization s transformednto individualself-esteem;


9/24

146 PORTER& WASHINGTONrather, heyemphasizeethnicmobilizationwhile regarding ndividualself-es-teem as merely derivativeof group process. Sources of ethnic self-esteemwithin any ethnic subgroupmay differ; for example, both first generationimmigrantsandresidentiallyor economicallyisolated subgroupsmay derivea positive group image from their lack of assimilation. Overall, the ethniccompetitionmodelmight best explainethnicself-esteemamongthe upwardlymobile, while the internalcolonialism model may more effectively explainethnicself-esteemamongyoung, second generation, ow incomepopulations.In anycase, the implicationsof boththe ethniccompetitionparadigmandtheinternalcolonialismparadigm or the group-imagecomponentof self-esteemneed to be studiedempiricallyby measuringdimensions like group image,assimilationand acculturation n a varietyof traits, perceptionof prejudiceanddiscrimination,andalienation romAngloAmericansociety. Bothinternalcolonialism and ethnic competition presupposemulticulturalassimilation;however, they do not distinguishthe differentdimensionsof eitheraccultur-ationor assimilation,and theyfail to explainthe way these dimensionsaffectgroupmobilizationand identification.LABORMARKETINCORPORATION ARADIGMOF GROUPIMAGE Anotherprev-alentparadigmutilizes economictheories hatexplainthepersistenceof ethnicboundariesby stressing herole of ethniceconomicinstitutionsn maintaininggroup identity. These paradigmsimply that ethnic solidarity created byeconomicrelationswill have a positive impacton the groupimagedimensionof self concept. Also, they assumethatsegregation ntoethnicallycontrolledoccupations impedes assimilationto the larger society and creates ethnicsolidarity(Olzak 1983).This paradigms exemplifiedby the growingliterature n ethniceconomicenclaves, or areas of concentratedimmigrantentrepreneurship. n theseimmigrant nterprises,groupmembersdo nothave to go beyondthe physicaland social limits of the ethnic enclave to carryout their routine activities.Simply put, economic mobilitydoes not entailcultural ntegration,since theenclave develops an arrayof institutionsto preserve and defend culturalidentity againstexternalpressure Portes& Bach 1985, Bean& Tienda 1987,Safa 1988). This causal relationshipamong ethnic organizations,languageretention, and ethnic solidarity in an ethnic economic enclave may beenhancedby the degreeof discriminationminoritygroupmembersencounterin the largersociety (Olzak 1983). According to this paradigm,the groupimage componentof self-esteem will be positive for workerslocated in anethnic enclave economy. Ethnic enclave economies of this type characterizethelabormarketncorporationf Cubans Portes&Bach 1985, Bean &Tienda1987), and of Chinese, Japanese,andsome groupsof Koreans(Wong 1985,Light & Bonacich 1988, Portes & Rumbaut1990).


10/24

MINORITYELF-ESTEEM 147Tightly integrated ethnic economic enclaves are not, however, the onlydomains of ethnic entrepreneurship. orexample, where the concentrationofan ethnic group is less dense, ethnicentrepreneursmay take over businessescateringto low income groups in innercities (Portes & Rumbaut1990). This"middlemanminority"business nichemay also reinforceethnic solidarityandethnic self-esteem, because these businesses tend to employ fellow ethnicsand oftendependon ethnic structures uch as credit associations (Light 1972,Bonacich & Modell 1980) and values such as ethnic honor (Light 1972).Middlemanminorities end to be recent mmigrants.The relationshipbetween"middlemanminority"enterprisesandethnic solidarityhas been reported orChinese Americans(Light 1972, Takaki 1989); Japanese Americans (Light1972; Bonacich & Modell 1980; Takaki1989); and Koreans outside of LosAngeles (Takaki 1989). However, thisparadigmhas been criticized as havingmore applicability o Korean hanto Chineseor JapaneseAmericanenterprises(Wong 1985).Although incorporation nto ethnic enterprisehas implicationsfor ethnicsolidarityand positive self-concept, theeffect of economic incorporationntosecondary abor marketson ethnic self-esteemis less clear. Groupsthatentersecondary labor markets in economies that are in structuraldecline are

economicallyvulnerableandexperiencehighrates of povertyandunemploy-ment and other deprivations.This pattern s evident among PuertoRicans inthe northeast (Portes & Truelove 1987, Rodriguez & Melendez 1992) andamong some Mexican Americansubgroups (Grebleret al 1970). There is,however, little researchon the effect of such forms of laborforce incorporationon feelings about group image.The formof labormarket ncorporations auseful perspective or analyzingvariation n the group image componentof self-esteem; however, discussionsbased on suchparadigmshaveproblemswhenthey are extrapolatedo explainindividual-levelvariables.Individualsmay vary in the group mage dimensionof self-esteem even when theirsubgroup s characterizedby a high degreeofeconomic and ethnic solidarity.These discussions also fail to explain whyethnic loyalty persists even when economic solidarity evaporates (Keefe &Padilla 1987). That is because the effect of ethnic loyalty on self-esteem isinferredrather hanempiricallydemonstrated.SUMMARY:ETHNICPARADIGMS:HISPANICAND ASIAN GROUP IMAGE The ac-culturation/assimilation aradigmsand the explicitly structuralmodels likeinternal colonialism, ethnic competition, and labor market incorporationprovide mportantnsights ntoprocessesthatformthe group mage componentof self-concept. They explicitlyaddressthe culturalandstructural orces thatdetermine how the groupviews itself and is viewed by others. All of theseethnic paradigms also have limitations, however. They do not clearly


11/24

148 PORTER&WASHINGTONdistinguishethnic mobilization,ethnic solidarity,andethnic self-esteem, nordo they explain the psychologicalmechanismsthat link personalidentitytoculture and social structure.In short, they fail to explain why individualsexposed to the same social forces within a given ethnic group vary in theiridentificationwith and evaluationof the group. To some extent, this is alsotrue of the ethnic assimilation/acculturationaradigmswhich addressthem-selves to ethnic solidaritybut do not providegeneralpsychological modelsthat explain how group identityis transformednto individualidentity. Theeffect of the explicitly structural actors on personal identity has not beenthoroughly ested, nor has therebeen anattempt o combinethe structural ndassimilation/acculturationaradigmsinto a more general model predictingself-esteem.AfricanAmericans:Racial Paradigmsof GroupImageThe ethnicityparadigmsdescribedaboveare the majormodelsthat havebeenused to explain the group image componentof self-esteem among AsianAmericans and Hispanics. Although there is an extensive sociologicalliteratureon African Americans and a growing sociological literatureonself-esteem, the specific body of literature n AfricanAmericangroupimagehas been informed argelyby models fromthe field of psychology.Althoughearlyresearchon African Americanself-esteemassumedthattheracial self-esteem of African Americans was invariably damaged, recentstudies have been guided by three major social-psychological paradigms;relativedeprivation,alienation,andthe role of subculture.Relative deprivation heorywas a popularparadigmduringthe 1960s and1970s, proposedmainly by social psychologists. This theory assumed thatrapidsocioeconomicchangeled to risingexpectationsanda shift in referencegroups. Blacks, comparingtheir groupwith whites, felt relatively deprivedof prestigeand powerand consequentlybecamedissatisfied,raciallymilitant,and as a resultdevelopedhighracial self-esteem(Porter& Washington1979,1989).Anothertheoreticalparadigmof the rise in racial self-esteem focuses onsocializationinto a changingsubculture.Accordingto this paradigm,whenblackconsciousnessbeganto be stressed n the late 1960s, individualsbecamesocialized directly into in-group identification and black pride; this wasreinforcedby emerginginstitutionswithin the black community. Especiallyamongblack social scientists, the black consciousnessmovementis viewednot as a new phenomenonbut as buildingon existing culturaland structuralstrengthswithin the black community (Jones 1980, Gwaltney 1980). Forinstance,thissubcultural aradigms thecentral hemeof the JournalofBlackPsychology, a majorsource of researchon the group image componentofblack self-esteem. Racial self-esteem is treated by some psychological


12/24

MINORITYSELF-ESTEEM 149theoristsas a developmentalprocessprogressing hroughstages of identifica-tion withblackcommunityand culture,culminatingn the linkageof theblackexperienceanduniversalvalues (Porter& Washington1979, 1989).The alienationparadigm,popularamongsociologists and social psycholo-gists in the late 1960s andearly 1970s, is the paradigmof racialself-esteemmostclosely linkedto sociologicaltheory.Itproposed hatbecauseof feelingsof powerlessnessandisolation, alienationamongblack lower-incomegroupswould lead to attraction o black identitymovements(Porter& Washington1979, 1989).Apart from theoretical considerations, empirical research supports theexistence of black identificationandhigh racialself-esteem for most AfricanAmericans,although iterature n veryyoungchildrenrevealsmixedfindings.Studiesof adolescentsandadults indicate a clearshift over time towardmorepositiveracialself-esteem. Highracialself-esteemis reportedamongmiddle-class groups,butthe findingson lower-incomegroupsareinconsistent(Porter& Washington1979, 1989).Comparisonof Ethnicand Race Paradigms of Group ImageConvergencesexist between the paradigmsused to explain ethnic and racialself-esteem. The social psychologicalmechanisms n the race paradigmsarethe explanationsthat link the culturaland structuralorces describedin theethnicityliterature o variations n individualethnic identity. Relative depri-vation is the psychologicalprocess that explains the relationbetween ethniccompetitionand self-esteem. Alienationis the psychologicalunderpinning fthe internal colonialism model. The assimilation/acculturationmodels areexplainedin partby the "effectof subculture"paradigm; he developmentalmodels of a more integratedracial and universal identity are particularlyappropriate or theories that deal with multidimensionalassimilation andacculturation.The psychological effect on self-esteem of incorporationntoethnic labor marketsis also explainedin partby the effect of socializationinto a subculturewith its supportingnstitutional tructure.Majordifferencesalso exist between the race and ethnic literatureon thegroupimage componentof self-esteem. The ethnicityparadigmsemphasizeculturaland structural orrelatesof groupimage. For example, factors suchas the role of migration,labor market ncorporation, he differencebetweenassimilation and ethnic identification, and the multidimensionalnature ofassimilation and acculturationare basically ignored in the race paradigms.Also, in much of the racial self-esteem literature,African Americans areviewed as beingacculturatednto Americansociety. Aside from a smallgroupcomposedprimarilyof black psychologists and anthropologists, ew peopleview black cultureas a separate,alternate orm of culturalexperience, as isethnicculture.But, on theotherhand,mostof thestudies of racial self-esteem


13/24

150 PORTER& WASHINGTONstressthe social psychologicalprocess of identitytransmission,whether it besocialization, relative deprivation, or alienation phenomena the ethnicityliteraturedoes not directlyaddress.ResearchFindings on Group Image:Hispanics and AsianAmericansThereis no standard esearch nstrument o measureethnic self-esteemamongeither Hispanic or Asian American subgroups. Ethnic identity has beenmeasured by unidimensional behavioral scales (Garcia & Lega 1979),language ability (Ortiz & Arce 1984), and generation (Kitano 1969), orrespondentshave been askedfor their self-identity(Garcia 1982). Othershavedeveloped scales based on semantic differential ratings and backgroundinformation (Olmedo et al 1978). Several studies measure the differencebetween acculturation nd ethnicidentification Masudaet al 1970, Clark etal 1976, Connor1977, Szapocznik& Kurtines1980, Keefe & Padilla 1987,Montgomery 1992). Among young children, a variety of picture and linedrawingtechniquesareutilized.Some studies of children reportthat Mexican American children showhigher group identificationand preferencethan whites or blacks (Rice et al1974, Goebel & Cole 1975, Rohrer 1977, Levine & Ruiz 1978), but somereport lower ethnic/racialself-esteem (Weiland & Coughlin 1979, Teplin1976, ladicola 1981, Newman et al 1983). Researchon Chinese Americanchildrenfinds strong ethnic identity (Sung 1987), but other researchreportsthat Chinese American children show less racial self-esteem than AfricanAmericansor whites (Fox & Jordan1973). In a studyof high school students,Bowler et al (1986) indicate that African Americanshave a more positivegroupimage dimension of self-esteem than do Hispanics,butHispanicshavemore positive self-esteem than Asians. It is difficult, however, to interpretthese studies. The samples are often small, there is little control for ethniccontext, and social class andregion are rarelycontrolled and sometimes noteven specified.Some studies of adults indicatesupportfor the unidimensionalassimila-tion/acculturationmodel(Fong 1973, Montero1981, Levine & Rhodes 1981).The multidimensionalassimilation/acculturationr pluralist paradigmhasreceivedmoresupport.Particularly otable hasbeen thepersistenceof a highdegree of ethnic identificationand/or association even when awarenessofelements of ethnic culturehas declined; this result has been noted amongJapaneseAmericans(Clarket al 1976, Woodrum1981, Kendis 1989, Fugita& O'Brien 1991), ChineseAmericans(Yao 1983), and Mexican Americans(Clarket al 1976, Garcia 1982, Keefe & Padilla 1987). Chinese Americanstudents have more positive ethnic identities than do Japanese Americanstudents(Sue & Kirk 1973), andCubanAmericanshave demonstratedmore


14/24

MINORITYSELF-ESTEEM 151positive ethnic identities than Mexican Americans (Portes & Bach 1985),offering some indirectsupportfor the effect of ethnic economies on groupimage.Althoughculturalawarenessdeclines over generations,ethnicloyalty maypersist amongboth Asian Americans(Masudaet al 1970, Connor1977) andHispanics, although ethnic identity among succeeding generations is some-whatweakerthan in the immigrantgeneration Padilla1980, Keefe & Padilla1987). Birthplace s also associatedwith ethnicself-esteem;the foreign bornhave a better group image than the native born (Buriel & Vasquez 1982,Martinez & Mendoza 1984, Rodriguez 1989). Lower socioeconomic statusandbarrioresidencearerelated o morepositive ethnic esteemamongMexicanAmericans (Keefe & Padilla 1987). However, upwardly mobile Cubans(Portes & Bach 1985) and JapaneseAmericans(Feagin & Fujitaki1972) aremore aware of discrimination,andethnic identity is strong. City of residencemay also affect ethnic self-esteem; individualswho live in cities where theirethnic groupis less segregatedare more likely to develop an ethnopoliticalidentity, and those who live in more ethnically segregatedcities are morelikely to retain a traditional,nonpolitical identity with fewer social classdifferences in group image (Grebleret al 1970, Sanchez-Jankowski1986).Lowerclass MexicanAmericanyouths who live in less ethnicallysegmentedcities, however, aremorealienated romthe host society (Sanchez-Jankowski1986). These findings supportvariantsof the internalcolonialism, assimila-tion/acculturation, nd ethniccompetitionmodels.Hispanics, Asian Americans, andAfricanAmericans show a high degreeof identificationwith the groupandpositive evaluationof the self as a memberof the group. All groups, especially the young and socially mobile, havemoved towarda positive ethnopolitical dentity. The literatureon sources ofvariation n group identityis not consistent for any group, thoughresearchsuggests that middle class AfricanAmericanshave the most positive groupidentity among blacks. The findings on social class and group identity forHispanics andAsians, however, have been less clear.The literatureon the groupimage componentof self-esteem for Hispanicsand Asian Americans does not disaggregate the effects of a consonantstructuraland a consonant subculturalcontext; for instance, the effect ofeconomic incorporation n an enclave is not disaggregatedfrom lack ofacculturation.Group nteractions sometimes used to measure dentity,whichis a psychological construct. Ethnopolitical identity is often not clearlydistinguishedfrom a traditionalethnic identity. Both may be positive, butthey areresponsesto different nfluences. The effects of migration,sojournerstatus, and age also need to be distinguishedmore clearly in the empiricalliterature,and more systematic controls for social class arenecessary. These


15/24

152 PORTER&WASHINGTONethnic paradigms have implications for the group image component ofself-esteem, but theimplicitconnectionshavenot beenclearlyspecified eithertheoreticallyor empirically.The psychological mechanisms inking structuraland culturalfactors to self-esteem need more careful articulation.Researchon Hispanic and AsianAmericanpopulationsneeds to be directedspecificallyto the investigationof correlatesof self-esteem rather haninferring self-es-teem as a derivativeof groupprocesses.PERSONALSELF-ESTEEMDistinct from feelings about being a memberof a racial or ethnic group, anindividualacquiresa generalevaluativeview of the self. We call this personalself-esteemwhich, if high, comprises eelingsof intrinsicworth,competence,and self-approval rather than self-rejection and self-contempt (Porter &Washington1979). Although a large body of literaturerelatesethnicity andmental illness (Vega & Rumbaut1991), few studies among Hispanics andAsianAmericansdealwith generalpersonalself-esteemamong thosewho arenot mentallyill. Among AfricanAmericans,however, personalself-esteemhas replaced racial self-esteem as the major focus of research on blackpersonality. Because this area has received far less attention than ethnicself-esteemamong Hispanicsand AsianAmericans,we brieflysummarize hethree basicparadigmsof personalself-esteem utilized for Hispanicand AsianAmericanpopulationsand then comparethem to the threemajorparadigmsused to explainpersonalself-esteemamong blacks.Paradigms of Personal Self-Esteem:Hispanics and AsianAmericans.CULTURECONFLICT,MARGINALITY,AND PERSONALSELF-ESTEEM Thiswidelyusedparadigmof personalself-esteemamongHispanicsand Asian Americansassumes a unilinearassimilationmodel;ethnic and hostcultureare viewed asincompatible.In short, it suggests that individualscannot tolerate culturalmarginalitywhich leads to psychological distress and a poor personal selfimage. As the individualassimilates and acculturates,there is less conflictand greater psychological health (Martinez & Mendozo 1984). Alternatemodels are the biculturaland the pluralismmodels, which hypothesize thatethnic/racialgroupscan neverfully assimilate; hus, individualsalignedwithtraditionalculturedo not as readilysuccumb to the effects of racism andareable to explore new culturalavenues. Alignmentwith both host and ethniccultureand institutionsprovidesthe individualwith psychological flexibilityandadaptability ndgoodpersonalself-esteem(Sue&Wagner1973, Martinez


16/24

MINORITYELF-ESTEEM 153& Mendoza 1984). Implicit in all of these models is the notion that groupand personal identity are isomorphic;positive group esteem will lead topositivepersonalself-esteem.SOCIAL MOBILITYPARADIGMOF PERSONALSELF ESTEEM According to thisparadigm,which is frequentlyutilizedto explainpersonalself-esteem amongHispanicsand Asian Americans, social mobility and economic success willlead to feelings of competence,abilityto cope with acculturative tress, andgood personalself-esteem(Takaki1989, Vega & Rumbaut1991, Moyerman& Forman 1992). The "modelminority" hesis is a variantof this approach:ethnic groups with values that stress hard work and achievement will besuccessfuleconomically, and thusmanifesta high personalself-esteem. Thismodelminorityparadigms frequentlyappliedto AsianAmericansubgroups.However, the model minoritythesis has been criticized for neglecting theexistenceof ethnic/racialdiscrimination,ncomeinequality,inadequate und-ing for social services, and socioeconomicheterogeneitywithin the relevantgroup(Wong 1985, Takaki1989).FAMILYAND COMMUNITYSTRUCTUREPARADIGMOF PERSONALSELF-ESTEEMThis paradigmexplainingpersonalself-esteem among Hispanics and AsianAmericans suggests thatthe individualmay find personalsupportnetworks,economic opportunities,and social acceptancein ethnic communities(Vega& Rumbaut 1991). Kin networks are also importantfor mutual aid andsupport.Individualswho have social associationswithinethniccommunitiesor extendedethnic kin networks may experiencemore personal self-esteem(Keefe & Padilla 1987).Paradigmsof Personal Self-Esteem:AfricanAmericansMuch researchhas demonstrated hat personal self-esteem among AfricanAmericans is not lower than it is among whites. Middle-class AfricanAmericanshavehigherpersonalself-esteemthan ower incomegroups(Porter& Washington1979, 1989). The threemajorparadigmsused to explainthesefindingsare theories of social evaluation,locus of control, and socializationand the strengthof community.THESOCIALEVALUATIONPARADIGMOF PERSONALSELF-ESTEEM This theorymaintains hathumanbeingslearnabout hemselvesby comparing hemselvesto others.A consonantracialcontextwill cause AfricanAmericansto utilizetheir own communityfor social comparisonsand is protective of personalself-esteem. Alternatively,a dissonantracial contextwill cause poorpersonal


17/24

154 PORTER&WASHINGTONself-image (Porter & Washington 1979, 1989). Although developed bypsychologists, this paradigmhas also been utilized in sociological literature.THE LOCUS OF CONTROLPARADIGM OF PERSONALSELF-ESTEEM This para-digm suggests thatinternalcontrolis a perceptionthat reward is contingenton one's own behavior; external control is the notion that rewards arecontrolledby external orces. Thistheorypostulates hathighexternalcontrol,involving blaming the system of racial discriminationratherthan the self,leads to high self-esteem for blacks (Porter& Washington1979, 1989).THE SOCIALIZATIONAND THE STRENGTH OF COMMUNITYPARADIGMOF PER-SONALSELF-ESTEEMThe lower class blackcommunityhas been characterizedby social and family disorganizationwith consequent negative effects onself-image;however, a contrastingparadigmviews the black communitynotas a deficient or pathological environment but as an alternativeculture,containing its own distinctive institutionsand family forms. It suggests thatindividuals in this culture are actively socialized into a positive, supportivetradition.Althoughthis model also exists in the sociological literature,themajorproponentsof this paradigmof personalself-esteem have been AfricanAmericanpsychologists, whohavecriticizedwhitepsychologistsfor ignoringthe black experience and interpretingt in the context of white norms andculture(Porter& Washington1979, 1989).Comparisonof Race and EthnicParadigms:PersonalSelf-EsteemThe ethnic paradigms stress the role of culture and structure n personalself-esteem. In contrastthe race paradigms, whose majorproponents havebeen psychologists, emphasizepsychological mechanisms ike socialization,self evaluation,andlocus of control. There are clearconvergences,however.Social psychological mechanismsdescribedin the literatureon race are themediatorsbetween the sociocultural actors discussedin the ethnic literatureandpersonalself-esteem. Thecommunitysocializationparadigm ound in therace literatureanalyzes psychological mechanisms that help to explain therelationshipbetweenfamily andcommunitystructureandself-esteem, whichis often highlighted n the ethnicliterature.The psychological mechanism ofsocial evaluation is assumedrather han specified in the ethnic assimilationtheories. In contrast,the locus-of-controlparadigmfocuses on mechanismsthatcanexplainthe ethnic socialmobilitymodelwithoutthe "modelminority"implications. Economic competitionproducesawareness of discrimination,with the result that social mobility is likely to lead to system ratherthanself-blame, higherself-esteem, and ethnic revitalizationmovements.Also, the race and ethnicityparadigmsdiverge in significant ways. The


18/24

MINORITYELF-ESTEEM 155supportiveroles of ethniccommunityandfamily structurehave been stressedfor Hispanicsand Asian Americansbut have received less emphasis in theliteratureon blacks. In this literatureon blacks, however, more attentionispaidto personalself-esteem, and the underlyingsocial psychological modelsare more clearly articulated,whereas in the ethnic literature,the effects ofculture conflict and social mobility are more explicitly treated. Subgroupculture for Hispanics and Asians is seen as being different from the hostculture ratherthan as being deviant or pathological, the way it is oftencharacterizedn the literatureon AfricanAmericans.ResearchFindings on Personal Self-EsteemAmong Hispanicsand AsianAmericansPersonalself-esteem is most often measuredby the RosenbergSelf-EsteemScale or the Piers-HarrisChildren'sSelf ConceptScale (Porter& Washington1989). Some studies of childrenindicate that Mexican American childrenhave lower personal self-esteem than do Anglo Americans and/or blackAmericans(Knightet al 1978, Stephen& Rosenfeld 1978, Grossmanet al1985). Otherstudiesfind no differencebetween black, Anglo, and MexicanAmericanchildren(Samuels& Griffore1979, Lamed& Muller1979, Franco1983). Several studies reportthat Koreansand JapaneseAmericanshave apoor body image componentof personalself-esteem comparedto blacks orwhites. Ingeneral,researchon children ndicates hatAsian Americanchildrenhave lower personal self-esteem than do Anglos, blacks, and/or MexicanAmericans (Chang 1975, Henkin & Nguyen 1984, Pang et al 1985, Bowleret al 1986). These findings are difficult to interpretbecause few of thesestudiescontrolfor the effects of class, region, or ethniccontact.Studies of adults indicate that biculturalismis related to psychologicaladjustmentamongAsian (Vega & Rumbaut1991) andHispanic(Szapocznik& Kurtines1980, Phinney 1991) subgroups;however, personalself-esteemamongHispanicandAsianAmericanadultshasnotbeenwidely investigated.Relationshipbetween Groupand Personal Self-EsteemMost of the ethnic paradigmsalreadydiscussedposit a reciprocalrelationshipbetween racial and personalself-esteem. Positive groupimage is viewed asprotective of personal self-esteem, and high personal self-esteem leads toability to cope with racial and ethnic discriminationmore successfully.Researchindicates that high personalself-esteem is related to good groupimage among Hispanic and Asian subgroups(Garcia 1982, Padilla 1987,Chavira & Phinney 1991, Phinney 1991). However, recent research onAfricanAmericanpopulationsprovidesevidence thatthe two dimensionsdonot necessarilyvary together(Porter& Washington1989). Furtherresearchon this relationship s needed.


19/24

156 PORTER& WASHINGTONCONCLUSIONImplicationsor TheoryHispanics, Asian Americans,and AfricanAmericansall have experiencedahistory of discriminationand negative stereotypes directed against them.Ethnicity is the salient defining characteristicof Hispanics and AsianAmericans. Racial categoriesare imposed on them by the host society, butdifferences n language,a clearlydefinedsubculture,andcontinuingmigrationstreamsas well as in skin colorhelp perpetuateubgroup thnic identification.Legal discriminationagainstAfrican Americanshas been longer and moresevere than that experiencedby other groups. With the erosion of Africansubgroupdifferences under slavery, skin color becamethe definingattributeof African Americans.Until recently, most literatureon AfricanAmericanstreated them as acculturatednto Americansociety and as having no viablesubcultureof their own, other than one characterizedby pathology(Porter&Washington1989).Empirical investigation of self-esteem has been far more extensive forAfrican Americansthan for Hispanic and Asian subgroupsbecause of theseverity of racial discriminationhistorically experienced by blacks in theUnited States. In addition,this researchwas stimulatedby legal challengesseeking to demonstrate hatlow self-esteem was an effect of racialdiscrimi-nation. Much of the early research on African Americans was done bypsychologists;since self-esteem is a majorfocus of psychological research,there is a traditionof direct empirical investigationof self-esteem amongAfrican Americansthatexists to a lesser extent among Hispanicsand AsianAmericans. In the Asian American and Hispanic literature,self-esteem isoften a derivativebased on implicit assumptionsof a connection betweengroup or personal self-esteem and sociocultural forces. In short, manyresearchersfail to investigate this relationshipdirectly. Recent paradigms(Keefe & Padilla 1987), however, begin to make a cleardistinction betweenculture, structure,andpsychologicalidentification.Generallyspeaking,recent paradigmsand findingson ethnic/racialgroupshave been characterized y emphasison therise of ethnicracial consciousnessand its effects on identityforyoungergenerations, hepresenceof groupprideand high personal self-esteem in ethnic subgroups, and the effect of asupportivesubcommunityn maintaininga positive groupidentity.They alsofocus on heterogeneity n self-esteemwithin any subgroupby factorssuch associoeconomic status, age, and consonanceof context. Because the numberof black, Hispanic, and Asian Americansocial scientists has increasedandthe interestin ethnic consciousness stimulatedby the 1960s movementshas


20/24

MINORITYELF-ESTEEM 157become professionallyinstitutionalized,researchon both racial and ethnicself-esteem has focused increasinglyon the structureand internalvariationsof ethnic subcommunities.Empiricalresearchhas confirmedthe importanceof the variables high-lighted by all of the paradigms.First,culturaland structural luralism,ethniccompetition,and relativedeprivationare linkedto the rise of an ethnopoliticalconsciousness in all of these groups, especially amongtheirmiddle classes.Second, the assimilation, ethnic economy, and subculturalparadigmsaresupportedby evidence linking high ethnic/racialself-esteem to a consonantethnic/racialcontext. Third, while the alienation and internal colonialismparadigmsexplain some of the recent findings on the group image of lowerclass youngpeople, group dentitydoes not conformto one model, but varieswith time, place, and social location. In general, these findings suggest thata multidimensionalmodel would be more appropriate or explaining therelationshipbetween racial/ethnic dentityand social context. The complexrelationshipof context, group self-image, and personalself-esteem warrantsfurthernvestigation.Althoughthe AfricanAmericanrace literatureandthe HispanicandAsianAmerican literatureon ethnicity draw upon largely differentparadigmstoexplain self-esteem, an integrationof these perspectives is possible. Thesocial-psychologicalmodels of racialself-esteemcan adda useful correctiveto the ethnicityliterature,which does not clearlyarticulate he psychologicalprocesses interveningbetween culturalandstructuralheories andgroupandpersonalself-image. Incorporatingmodels of personalself-esteem from theliteratureon African Americans would shift the focus of the Hispanic andAsian literature o a varietyof personalityresponseswider than the presentfocus on mental illness. Conversely,the acculturation/assimilationaradigmsin the ethnicity literaturefruitfully can be applied to African Americanpersonaland groupimage. A deficit model currentlycharacterizesmuch ofthe social science treatmentof African Americanculture;blacks are viewedas being either assimilatedor orientedto an inferiorreplica of mainstreamculture.Researchon AfricanAmericans n the last decade stressesthepositiverole of black cultureas the sourceof supportandbehavioralorientation hatstrengthensthe identity and self-esteem of black Americans (Jones 1980,Gwaltney 1980), a conclusionconsistentwith both the social evaluationandthe supportive subcommunity paradigms. Yet the pluralism paradigm ofacculturation/assimilationan be usefully applied to research on AfricanAmericans.Because of its emphasison culturaldifference rather hanculturaldeficits and its use of a multidimensional ontextualframework,this modelcould provide a more effective perspectivefor analyzingAfrican Americanself-esteem by helpingto explainwhy both groupandpersonal mage among


21/24

158 PORTER& WASHINGTONAfrican Americansdo not differ from those of whites (Porter& Washington1979).Implications or ResearchResearchon HispanicandAsianAmericanself-esteem needsto addressclearlythe difference between the racial and personal dimensionsof self-image andto develop adequate measures of these constructs which are culturallyappropriate.Research on Hispanic group image is currentlybeginning toaddress these issues. Studies of African Americanself-image need to beinformed by socioculturalvariables; the effects on self-esteem of socialmobility and social contextualvariables ike form of labormarket ncorpora-tion need to be explicitly addressed.Personal self-esteem needs far moreresearch among Hispanics and Asians. Also, attention must be paid in allgroups o the situationalnatureof ethnicity, the salience andintensityof ethnicidentity, and the reciprocalrelationshipbetween personaland group image.The effect of Americanracialcategorizationon Latinoidentity needs specialinvestigation (Montalvo 1991, Rodriguez 1989). More research should beconductedon self-esteem among other Hispanic and Asian American sub-groups, andthese models should be thoroughly ested onracial/ethnicgroupsoutsidethe United StatesWe have stressed theoreticalparadigmsof self-esteem in part becauseempirical research explicitly investigating Hispanic and Asian Americanself-esteem is still not as extensive as the literatureon this topic for AfricanAmericans. Also, futureresearch on personal and group self-esteem for aparticularpopulationcan benefit from the awarenessof models applied toother racial/ethnicsubgroups.From the 1950s to the 1970s, researchon theeffect of social forces on self-esteem focused on AfricanAmericans. Muchof the explicitly sociological literature n AfricanAmericansdoes not addressthe specific dimensionof self-esteem. The paradigms nforming researchonAfrican Americanself-esteem are largely psychological, undoubtedlyreflect-ing both the origin and the long traditionof this particularbody of researchin the fields of psychology and social psychology. The extensive body oftheorythatgroundsthe discussion of Hispanic and AsianAmericanself-es-teem, on the other hand, frequently treats self-esteem as derivative ofsocioculturalprocesses without directly testing these relationships.There isan importantand growing empirical literature nvestigatingself-esteem andits correlatesamong Hispanicpopulations. Yet there is a critical need formore empiricalresearchon self-esteem that directly tests the implicationsofthese theoreticalparadigms,especially amongAsian Americans where thereis less research on self-esteemthan thereis among othersubgroups.As theinterest n Hispanicand Asian studies increases, investigationsof self-esteem


22/24

MINORITYSELF-ESTEEM 159among these groupscan both benefit from and inform our understandingofAfricanAmericanself-concept.LiteratureCitedAcosta-Belen, E. 1988. From settlersto new-comers:TheHispanicExperiencenthe U.S.In The HispanicLegacyin the U. S., ed. E.Acosta-Belen,B. A. Sjostrum,pp. 81-106.New York:PraegerAguirre, B. E., Saenz, R. 1991. A futuristicassessment of Latino ethnic identity. Lat.Stud. J. 2:19-32Arce, C. H. 1981. A reconsiderationof Chi-cano culture and identity. Daedalus 110:171-91Barrera, M. 1979. Race and Class in theSouthwest:A Theory of Racial Inequality.Notre Dame, Ind:Univ. NotreDame PressBean, F. D., Tienda, M. 1987. TheHispanicPopulationof the UnitedStates. New York:RussellSageBlauner, R. 1972. Colonized and immigrantminorities. In Nation of Nations, ed. P. I.Rose, pp. 243-58. New York: Random

HouseBlea, I. I. 1988. Towarda Chicano SocialScience. New York:PraegerBonacich, E., Modell, J. 1980. TheEconomicBasis of EthnicSolidarity:SmallBusiness inthe Japanese-AmericanCommunity.Berke-ley, Calif:Univ. Calif. PressBowler, R., Rauch, S., Schwarzer,R. 1986.Self-esteemand interracial ttitudesn blackhighschool students:A comparisonwith fiveotherethnicgroups. UrbanEduc. 21:3-19Buriel, R., Vasquez, R. 1982. StereotypesofMexican descent persons. J. Cross-Cult.Psychol. 13:59-70Chang,T. 1975. The self-conceptof childrenin ethnic groups:Black American and Ko-rean American children. Elem. School J.76:52-58Chavira,V., Phinney,J. S. 1991. Adolescents'ethnic identification,self-esteem, andstrat-egies for dealingwithethnicityandminoritystatus.Hisp. J. Behav. Sci. 13:226-27Clark, M., Kaufman, S., Pierce, R. C. 1976.Explorations of acculturation:Toward amodel of ethnic identity. Hum. Organ.35:231-38Connor, J. 1977. Tradition and Change inThree Generationsof JapaneseAmericans.Chicago:Nelson Hallde la Garza,R. O., Bean, F. D., Bonjean,C.M., Romo, R., Alvarez, R., eds. 1985. TheMexican-American xperience:AnInterdis-ciplinary Anthology. Austin, Tex: Univ.TexasPress

Fanon, F. 1968. Wretchedof the Earth. NewYork: GroveFeagin, J., Fujitaki,N. 1972. On the assimi-lation of JapaneseAmericans.Amerasia J.1:13-30Fong, S. L. M. 1973. Assimilationand chang-ing social roles of Chinese Americans. J.Soc. Issues 29:115-27Fox, D. J., Jordan,V. B. 1973. Racialprefer-ences andidentificationof black, AmericanChinese,and whiteAmericanchildren.Gen.Psychol. Monogr. 88:229-86Franco, J. N. 1983. A developmentalanalysisof self-concept in Mexican American andAnglo school children.Hisp. J. Behav. Sci.5:207-18Fugita, S. F., O'Brien, D. J. 1991. JapaneseAmerican Ethnicity: the Persistence ofCommunity.Seattle, Wash: Univ. Wash.PressGarcia,J. 1982. EthnicityandChicanos:mea-surementof ethnic identification, identity,and consciousness. Hisp. J. Behav. Sci.4:295-314Garcia,M., Lega, L. 1979. Development of aCubanethnic dentityquestionnaire.Hisp. J.Behav. Sci. 1:247-61Goebel, J., Cole, S. 1975. Mexican-Americanand white reactions to stimuluspersons ofthe same anddifferent race: Similarityandattractionas a function of prejudice. Psy-chol. Rep. 36:827-33Gomez-Quinones,J. 1990. ChicanoPolitics:Realityand Promise 1940-1990. Albuquer-que, NM: Univ. New Mexico PressGordon,M. M. 1964. Assimilationin Ameri-can Life. New York: Oxford Univ. PressGrebler, L., Moore, J. W., Guzman, R. C.1970. TheMexican- American People: TheNation's Second Largest Minority. NewYork:Free PressGrossman, B., Wirt, R., Davids, A. 1985.Self-esteem, ethnic identity and behavioraladjustmentsamongAnglo and Chicanoad-olescents in West Texas. J. Adolesc. 8:57-

68Gwaltney, J. 1980. Drylongso. New York:RandomHouseHenkin,A. B., Nguyen, L. T. 1984. Develop-ment of self concept among Indochineserefugee students. Int. Rev. Mod. Sociol.14:23-34Hirschman,C., Wong, M. G. 1981. Trends nsocial and economic achievement among


23/24

160 PORTER& WASHINGTONimmigrant ndnativebornAsianAmericans,1960-1976. Sociol. Q. 22:495-514Hurh, W. M., Kim, K. C. 1984. KoreanImmigrants nAmerica:A StructuralAnaly-sis of Ethnic Confinement and AdhesiveAdaptation.Washington,DC: Assoc. Univ.PressesHurtado, A., Gurin, P. 1987. Ethnicidentityand bilingualismattitudes.Hisp. J. Behav.Sci. 9:1-18ladicola, P. 1981. Schooling and social con-trol: Symbolic violence and Hispanicstudents' attitudes towardtheir own ethnicgroup. Hisp. J. Behav. Sci. 3:369-83Jones, R., ed. 1980. BlackPsychology. NewYork:Harper& Row. 2nd ed.

Keefe, S. E., Padilla, A. M. 1987. ChicanoEthnicity. Albuquerque,NM: Univ. NewMexico PressKendis, K. 0. 1989. A Matter of Comfort:EthnicMaintenanceand EthnicStyleAmongThird Generation Japanese. New York:AMS PressKitano,H. L. 1969. Japanese Americans:TheEvolution of a Subculture. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: PrenticeHallKnight, G. P., Kagan, S., Nelson, W., Gumbi-ner, J. 1978. Acculturationof second andthirdgenerationMexicanAmerican hildren:Field independence,locus of control, self-esteem, and school achievement.J. Cross-Cult.Psychol. 9:87-97Lamed,D. T., Muller,D. 1979. Developmentof self-concept in Mexican AmericanandAnglo students.Hisp. J. Behav.Sci. 1:279-85Levine, E. S., Ruiz, R. A. 1978. An explora-tion of multicorrelates of ethnic groupchoice. J. Cross-Cult.Psychol. 9:179-91Levine, G. N., Montero,D. M. 1973. Socio-economic mobility amongthreegenerationsof JapaneseAmericans.J. Soc. Issues 29:33-48Levine, G., Rhodes, C. 1981. TheJapaneseAmericanCommunity:A ThreeGenerationStudy.New York:PraegerLight, I. 1972. EthnicEnterprise n America.Berkeley, Calif:Univ. Calif. PressLight, I., Bonacich, E. 1988. ImmigrantEn-trepreneurs:Koreans n LosAngeles.Berke-ley, Calif: Univ. Calif. PressMaldonado, L. A. 1991. Latino ethnicity:Increasingdiversity.Lat. Stud.J. 2:49-57

Maldonado-Denis,M. 1976. TheEmigrationDialectic: Puerto Rico and the USA. NewYork: Int. Publ.Martinez,J. L., Mendoza, R. N. 1984. Chi-cano Psychology. New York: AcademicPress. 2nd ed.Massey, D.S., Alarcon, R., Durand,J., Gon-zalez, H. 1987.Return oAztlan: TheSocialProcess of International Migration from

Western Mexico. Berkeley, Calif: Univ.Calif. PressMasuda,M., Matsumoto,G. H., Meredith,G.M. 1970.Ethnic dentity n threegenerationsof Japanese Americans. J. Soc. Psychol.81:199-207Memmi, A. 1965. The Colonizer and theColonized. Boston: BeaconMontalvo,F. F. 1991. Phenotyping,accultur-ation, and biracial assimilationof MexicanAmericans. In EmpoweringHispanicFami-lies: A Critical Issue for the 90's, ed. M.Sotomayor, pp. 97-120. Milwaukee,Wisc:FamilyService Am.Montero, D. M. 1981. The Japanese Ameri-cans:Changingpatternsof assimilationoverthreegenerations.Am. Sociol. Rev. 46:829-39Montgomery,G. T. 1992. Comfortwithaccul-turationstatus among students from southTexas. Hisp. J. Behav. Sci. 14:201-23Moore, J. W. 1972. Colonialism:The case ofMexicanAmericans.In Nation of Nations,ed. P. I. Rose, pp. 232-42. New York:RandomHouseMoyerman, D. R., Forman, B. D. 1992.Acculturationand adjustment:A meta-ana-lytic study. Hisp. J. Behav. Sci. 14:163-200Munoz, C. 1989. Youth,Identity, Power: TheChicanoMovement.New York: VersoMurguia,E. 1989. Assimilation, Colonialism,and the Mexican American People. NewYork: Univ. PressAm.Murguia,E. 1991. OnLatino/Hispanic thnic-ity. Lat. Stud. J. 2:8-18Newman, M. A., Liss, M. B., Sherman, F.1983. Ethnic awarenessin children: Not aunitary concept. J. Genet. Psychol. 143:103-12Olmedo, E. L., Martinez,J. L., Martinez,S.R. 1978. A Measure of acculturationforChicanoadolescents.Psychol.Rep. 42:159-70Olzak, S. 1983. Contemporary thnic mobili-zation.Annu. Rev. Sociol. 9:355-74Ortiz, V., Arce, C. H. 1984. Languageorien-tation and mental health statusamong per-sons of Mexican descent. Hisp. J. Behav.Sci. 6:127-43Padilla,A. M., ed. 1980. Acculturation:The-ory, Models, and New Findings. Boulder,Colo:WestviewPadilla, F. M. 1985. On the natureof Latinoethnicity. See de la Garza et al 1985, pp.332-45Padilla, F. M. 1987. Puerto Rican Chicago.NotreDame, Ind:Univ. NotreDame PressPang, V., Mizokawa, K., Morishima, J.,Olstad, R. 1985. Self-conceptsof JapaneseAmericanchildren. J. Cross-Cult.Psychol.16:99-109Phinney,J. S. 1991. Ethnicidentityand self-


24/24

MINORITYSELF-ESTEEM 161esteem: A review and integration.Hisp. J.Behav. Sci. 13:193-208Porter,J. R., Washington,R. E. 1979. Blackidentityandself-esteem: A review of studiesof black self-concept: 1968-1978. Annu.Rev. Sociol. 5:53-74Porter,J. R., Washington,R. E. 1989. Devel-opments in research on black identity andself-esteem: 1979-88. Rev. Int. Psychol.Social. 2:341-53Portes, A. 1984. The rise of ethnicity:Deter-minantsof ethnicperceptionsamongCubanexiles in Miami. Am. Sociol. Rev. 49:383-97Portes, A., Bach, R. L. 1985. LatinJourney:Cuban and Mexican Immigrants in theUnitedStates. Berkeley, Calif: Univ. Calif.PressPortes, A., Rumbaut, R. 1990. ImmigrantAmerica: A Portrait. Berkeley, Calif:Univ.Calif. PressPortes, A., Truelove, C. 1987. Makingsenseof diversity: Recent research on Hispanicminorities in the United States. Annu.Rev.Sociol. 13:359-85

Rice, A., Ruiz, R., Padilla,A. S. 1974. Personperception, self-identity and ethnic grouppreference in Anglo, Black, and Chicanopreschool andthird-gradehildren.J. Cross-Cult. Psvchol. 5:100-8Rodriguez, C. E. 1989. Puerto Ricans: Bornin the USA. Boston: Unwin HymanRodriguez,C. E., Melendez, E. 1992. PuertoRican povertyand labor markets:An intro-duction.Hisp. J. Behav. Sci. 14:4-15Rogg, E. M., Cooney, R. S. 1980.AdaptationandAdjustmentof Cubans:WestNew York,N.J. New York:FordhamUniv. Hisp. Res.Cent.Rogler, L. H. 1972. Migrant in the City. NewYork:Basic BooksRohrer,G. K. 1977. Racialand ethnic identi-fication and preference in young children.YoungChild. 32:24-33Romo, R., Romo, H. 1985. Introduction.Seede la Garza et al 1985, pp. 317-31Safa, H. 1. 1988. Migrationand identity:Acomparison of Puerto Ricanand Cuban mi-grantsin the U.S. In TheHispanic Experi-ence in the U. S., ed. E. Acosta-Belen, B.Sjostrum,pp. 137-50. New York:PraegerSamuels, D. A., Griffore, R. J. 1979. Ethnicand sex differences in self-esteem of pre-school children. J. Genet. Psychol. 135:33-36Sanchez-Jankowski,M. 1986. UrbanLifeand

Political AttitudesAmong Chicano Youth.Albuquerque,NM:Univ. New Mexico PressShih-Shan, H. T. 1986. The Chinese Experi-ence in America. Indianapolis, Ind: Univ.Ind. PressStephan,W. G., Rosenfield, D. 1978. Effectsof desegregationon race relations and self-esteem. J. Educ. Psychol. 70:670-79Sue, D., Kirk,B. 1973. Differentialcharacter-istics of Japanese-Americanand Chinese-American college students. J. Couns.Psvchol. 20:142-48Sue, S., Wagner, N. N. 1973. Asian-Ameri-cans:PsychologicalPerspectives. PaloAlto,Calif: Sci. Behav. BooksSung, B. L. 1987. ChineseImmigrantChildrenin New YorkCity. StatenIsland, NY: Cent.ImmigrationStud.Szapocznik,J., Kurtines,W. 1980. Accultur-ation, biculturalism,and adjustmentamongCuban Americans. See Padilla 1980, pp.139-59Takaki, R. 1989. Strangers rom a DifferentShore. Boston:Little, BrownTeplin,L. L. 1976. A comparisonof racial/eth-nic preference among Anglo, Black, andLatino Children. Am. J. Orthopsychiatr.46:702-9Vega, W. A., Rumbaut,R. G. 1991. Ethnicminorities and mental health. Annu. Rev.Sociol. 17:351-83Vigil, J. D. 1984. FromIndians to Chicanos:The Dynamics of Mexican American Cul-ture. ProspectHeights, Ill: WavelandWeiland, A., Coughlin, R. 1979. Self-identi-fication and preferences:A comparisonofwhite andMexican-American irst and thirdgraders.J. Cross-Cult.Psychol. 10:356-65Wong, B. P. 1982. EconomicAdaptationandEthnic Identityof the Chinese. New York:Holt, Rhinehart& WinstonWong, E. 1985. Asian Americanmiddlemanminority heory:The frameworkof an Amer-ican myth. J. Ethn. Stud. 3:51-88Woodrum,E. 1981. Anassessmentof JapaneseAmericanassimilation,pluralism,and sub-ordination.Am. J. Sociol. 87:157-69World Almanac and Book of Facts, 1992.1991. New York: WorldAlmanacYao, E. L. 1983. Ethnicawarenessof ChineseAmericans.UrbanEduc. 18:71-81Yee, A. H. 1973. Myopic perceptions andtextbooks: Chinese American search foridentity.J. Soc. Issues 29:99-113Yinger, J. M. 1985. Ethnicity. Annu. Rev.Sociol. 11:151-80

minority identity and self-esteem

Documents