University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Opportunity beliefs and behavioral outcomes in Latinx youth: an exploration of Ogbu’s cultural-ecological model

(USC Thesis Other)

Opportunity beliefs and behavioral outcomes in Latinx youth: an exploration of Ogbu’s cultural-ecological model

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

OPPORTUNITY BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORAL OUTCOMES IN LATINX YOUTH:
AN EXPLORATION OF OGBU’S CULTURAL-ECOLOGICAL MODEL
by
Regina Ruth Brodell

A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC DANA AND DAVID DORNSIFE COLLEGE OF LETTERS, ARTS
AND SCIENCES
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF ARTS
(PSYCHOLOGY)

December 2022
ii

Table of Contents
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. iii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ iv
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... v
Chapter One: Opportunity Beliefs and Behavioral Outcomes in Latinx Youth: An Exploration of
Ogbu’s Cultural-Ecological Model ................................................................................................. 1
Current Study .............................................................................................................................. 5
Chapter Two: Methods ................................................................................................................... 6
Participants.................................................................................................................................. 6
Instrumentation and Measures .................................................................................................... 6
Analyses ...................................................................................................................................... 8
Chapter Three: Results.................................................................................................................. 10
Factor Structure of the OBS...................................................................................................... 10
Additional Results..................................................................................................................... 19
Chapter Four: Discussion.............................................................................................................. 26
Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 32
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 32
References ..................................................................................................................................... 34

iii

List of Tables
Table 1 Comparison of Fit Statistics for the Rotated 3, 4, and 5 Factor Solutions....................... 11
Table 2 Fit Statistics and Cronbach’s Alpha for Final Oblimin Rotated 3 Factor Solution ......... 15
Table 3 Factor Pattern Matrix for Oblimin Rotated Three-Factor Solution for 32 items
(N = 383) ....................................................................................................................................... 17
Table 4 Eigenvalues and Variance Explained for Rotated Factor Solution .................................. 19
Table 5 Descriptive Statistics for the 3 Factors of the Opportunity Beliefs Scale (N = 383) ....... 19
Table 6 One-Way ANOVA Statistics for Study Variables ........................................................... 21
Table 7 Two-Way ANOVA Statistics for Study Variables .......................................................... 23
Table 8 Descriptive Results for Conventional Values Between Levels of Generational Status
and Country of Origin ................................................................................................................... 24
Table 9 Pairwise Comparisons for Generational Status and Country of Origin on Conventional
Values ........................................................................................................................................... 24
Table 10 Spearman’s Rank-Order Correlation Table ................................................................... 25

iv

List of Figures
Figure 1 Graphical Representation of Key Domains in Ogbu’s Cultural Ecological Model ......... 4
Figure 2 Polychoric Correlation Matrix for the 42 Items on the Opportunity Beliefs Scale ........ 12
Figure 3 Scree Plot of Variable Eigenvalues ................................................................................ 13
Figure 4 Parallel Analysis Scree Plot............................................................................................ 14
Figure 5 Comparison between Ogbu’s Cultural Ecological model and a factor derived model
for Opportunity Beliefs ................................................................................................................. 29

v

Abstract
Latinos currently make up the largest ethnic minority group in the U.S. and comprise
27% of students enrolled in public schools (U.S. Census, 2020), yet they experience less
academic success when compared to White and Asian American students. Ogbu’s cultural
ecological theory (Ogbu, 1987) argues that ethnic disparities in youth academic trajectories is
explained in part by how different groups were incorporated into the U.S. and how they perceive
and respond to schooling in relation to their opportunity beliefs. However, there is ambiguity
regarding the theory’s relevance to Latino youth, particularly in light of the complicated cultural
histories of U.S. Latinos. Using the Opportunity Beliefs Scale (OBS), this study tested the
applicability of Ogbu’s theory for Latino youth by assessing whether factor analysis supports
Ogbu’s 5-factor model with a high school sample, and whether opportunity beliefs correlate with
academic (i.e., grades) and behavioral (i.e., delinquent behavior) outcomes. Students (N=383)
self-identifying as Latino (48% Mexican American, 45% Central American) and enrolled in a
South Los Angeles high school completed surveys assessing opportunity beliefs, gang
involvement, delinquent behavior, and academic achievement. Principal axis factor analysis
revealed three factors in this Latino sample (i.e., Opportunity Structure, Positive Dual Frame of
Reference, and Conventional Values) that overlap with Ogbu’s theorized 5-factor model.
Moreover, results supported the hypotheses that differences in opportunity beliefs occurred
across generational status and gang involvement. Although no differences were found between
country of origin (i.e., Mexico and Central America), there was a significant interaction effect
between country of origin and generational status on Conventional Values. Additionally, all three
factors were associated with GPA as well as delinquency. The current study has implications for
vi

the understanding of Ogbu’s model in relation to Latino youth as well as furthering the
psychometric development and validation of the OBS.
1

Chapter One: Opportunity Beliefs and Behavioral Outcomes in Latinx Youth: An
Exploration of Ogbu’s Cultural-Ecological Model
Latinos represent one of the fastest growing ethnic groups in the U.S. and comprise 27%
of students enrolled in public schools (American Community Survey, 2019; National Center for
Education Statistics [NCES], 2021). However, Latino youth experience less academic success
and higher dropout rates when compared to White and Asian American youth (Buenrostro, 2018;
NCES, 2021; Seroczynski & Jobust, 2016; U.S. Census, 2018). In addition, Latino youth join
gangs at greater rates than youth from most other ethnic groups, account for 46% of all youth
gang members in the U.S. (Egley et al., 2014; National Youth Gang Survey, 2012; van
Dommelen-Gonzalez et al., 2015), and are 28% more likely to be incarcerated compared to
White youth (Seroczynski & Jobust, 2016; Sickmund et al., 2021). Many models have been used
to explain these disparities (Arfaniarromo, 2001; Orozco, 2008; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001), with
some researchers arguing that differential perceptions of and responses to the “opportunity
structure” are in part responsible (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Ogbu & Matute-Bianci, 1986;
Suarez-Orozco, 1996). This study uses a cultural-ecological model to provide a deeper
understanding of academic and behavioral disparities observed for Latino youth.
Ogbu’s cultural-ecological model attempts to explain differences in educational outcomes
for various ethnic groups in the U.S., with a particular emphasis on voluntary and involuntary
minorities (Ogbu, 1987; Ogbu & Simons, 1998). Voluntary minorities are those from other
societies who have settled in the U.S. because they want to improve their economic, political, or
social status, and thus do not interpret their presence in the U.S. as forced (Ogbu & Simons,
1998). Chinese Americans fit the description of a voluntary minority group because they
willingly incorporated into American society seeking better economic and educational
2

opportunities (Ogbu, 1987; Ogbu & Simons, 1998). Because voluntary minorities contrast their
current circumstances with opportunities available in their place of origin, they typically
conclude they have more educational opportunities in the U.S. and thus, have a positive dual
frame of reference (see Figure 1; Ogbu, 1992; Ogbu & Simons, 1998). Given their positive dual
frame of reference, voluntary minorities often interpret social barriers as temporary ones that
will mostly dissipate if they excel academically and learn the dominant language (see Figure 1;
Ogbu, 1987; 1992; Ogbu & Simons, 1998). As a consequence, voluntary minorities and their
children tend to adopt adaptation patterns that reflect greater “effort optimism” toward learning
and more “academic engagement.” Further, voluntary minorities are more likely to adopt
“conventional values” instead of values deviant from the dominant culture (i.e., “oppositional
cultures”; Arfaniarromo, 2001; Barrett et al., 2013; Moore, 1978; Ogbu, 1997; Ogbu & Matute-
Bianchi, 1986; Virgil, 2002). Conventional values include learning and speaking the dominant
language, working hard in school, and avoiding engagement in delinquent behaviors (Cortes,
1986; Ogbu, 1991; 1992; Ogbu & Matute-Bianchi, 1986; ). These coping and survival strategies
are presented in the literature as being compatible with the pursuit of academic success (Ogbu,
1992; Ogbu & Simons, 1994; & Stern, 2001).
In contrast, involuntary minorities are members of marginalized groups permanently
incorporated into American society through enslavement, conquest, or colonization, and thus
interpret their presence in the U.S. as forced. African Americans fit the description of an
involuntary minority group because they were unwillingly incorporated into American society
though slavery (Ogbu, 1987; Ogbu & Simons, 1998). Further, involuntary minorities typically do
not have a country of origin with which to compare their economic and social status. Instead,
they contrast their less advantaged circumstances with those of individuals in the dominant group
3

(e.g., Europeans Americans in the U.S.) and thus, have a negative dual frame of reference (see
Figure 1; Ogbu & Matute-Bianchi, 1986; Ogbu, 1991,1994; Suarez-Orozco, 1989). Given their
negative dual frame of reference, involuntary minorities often interpret social barriers (e.g.,
denial of equal employment opportunities and unfair treatment within schools) as permanent
features of U.S. society (see Figure 1; Gibson, 1988; Ogbu & Simons, 1998). As a consequence,
involuntary minorities and their children tend to adopt coping and survival patterns that reflect
less “effort optimism” toward school, “higher school disengagement,” and “oppositional
cultures” that counter mainstream societal norms (see Figure 1; Obgu, 2002; Obgu & Simons,
1998). These patterns are manifested through various behaviors non-conducive to academic
achievement, such as skipping class, refusing to complete homework assignments, or not
participating in classroom discussions (Arfaniarromo, 2001; Barrett et al., 2013; Fordham &
Ogbu, 1986; Moore, 1978; Ogbu, 2002; Ogbu & Matute-Bianchi, 1986). Further, involuntary
minorities may resist thinking or speaking in ways that are reflective of the dominant culture
(i.e., “white ways”; Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Ogbu & Simons, 1998). This disposition toward
schooling often makes it difficult for involuntary minorities to achieve success (Ogbu, 1978;
Ogbu & Simons, 1998; Ogbu & Stern, 2001).

4

Figure 1 Graphical Representation of Key Domains in Ogbu’s Cultural Ecological Model

Much of what we know about Ogbu’s model stems from studies on African Americans
and Asian Americans in the U.S (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Foster, 2005; Ogbu, 1999; Ogbu,
2002; Ogbu, 2003; Ogbu & Matute-Bianchi, 1986; Ogbu & Simons, 1994; Suarez-Orozco,
1996). However, there is ambiguity regarding the application of the model to Latino youth. The
diverse cultural histories of Latinos in American culture complicate their identification as either
involuntary or voluntary minorities. On the one hand, some Latinos define their membership in
the U.S. through the lens of conquest or colonialism (e.g., Mexican Americans in the
southwestern U.S. or Puerto Ricans in the eastern U.S.). For this reason, researchers argue that
Latinos are best thought of as involuntary minorities (Mickelson, 1990; Ogbu & Simons, 1998).
On the other hand, a large percentage (70%) of Latinos in the U.S. are either foreign-born or
5

have a foreign-born parent, leading some researchers to conclude that Latinos are best thought of
as voluntary minorities (Current Population Survey, 2019; Matute-Bianchi, 1987; Suarez-
Orozco, 1989). Yet a third possibility is that neither label applies; a large percentage of Latino
families include migrant workers, violence refugees, and undocumented residents (American
Community Survey, 2019), and these social categories do not fit neatly within Ogbu’s
voluntary/involuntary minority framework (Ogbu & Simons, 1998). Thus, given their
complicated history of immigration and incorporation into the U.S., there is a need to better
explain existing differences in behavioral outcomes among Latinos in relation to Ogbu’s theory.
Current Study
The goal of this study was to test the applicability of Ogbu’s theory for Latino high
school students. The first aim assessed whether factor analysis of an opportunity beliefs survey
supported Ogbu’s five-factor model. I hypothesized factor analysis would capture the five core
elements of Ogbu’s framework – i.e., positive dual frame of reference, temporary social barriers,
academic engagement, effort optimism, and conventional values. The second aim assessed for
demographic differences in opportunity beliefs. I hypothesized that factor scores that reflect
voluntary minority status would be higher for youth identifying as first generation, originating
from Central America, female, and non-gang involved. The third aim assessed whether
opportunity beliefs correlated with behavioral outcomes as predicted by Ogbu’s theory. I
hypothesized that opportunity beliefs would correlate positively with grade point average and
negatively with delinquent behavior.
6

Chapter Two: Methods
Participants
Data were derived from a larger survey study of 457 students enrolled in a Los Angeles
high school (Cespedes, 2008; Chithambo et al., 2014; Vargas et al., 2021). Included were data
from a subset of 383 students self-identifying as Latino – specifically students identifying as
being of Mexican (n= 177; 48.8%), Salvadoran (n= 115; 31.7%), Guatemalan (n= 44; 11.3%),
Honduran (n= 8; 2.2%), or “Other” Latino heritage (n= 19; 6.0%). Participant ages ranged from
13-18 years old (M = 15.25). The sample was 52.9% female and 47.1% male. Regarding grade
level, 58% percent were in ninth grade, 8% tenth grade, 27% eleventh grade, and 7% 12
th
grade.
Approximately 76% were born in the U.S. and 24% were born outside of the U.S. Of the 91
participants born outside of the U.S., 39.8% were from Mexico, 33.7% were from El Salvador,
19.3% were from Guatemala, 4.8% were from Honduras and 2.4% were from another country.
Parental consent and youth assent were completed for all participants. Youth then
completed various questionnaires assessing psychological and behavioral adjustment, cultural
identification, and demographic information. For this study, we focused on survey items
assessing youth demographics, opportunity beliefs, gang involvement, delinquent behavior, and
school grades.
Instrumentation and Measures
Demographics
The demographics survey assessed information regarding participant age, self-identified
racial/ethnic background, gender, generational status (i.e., first, second, other generation
immigrant), and country of origin (e.g., Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador).

7

Opportunity Beliefs
The OBS is a 42 item self-report survey designed to assess youth perceptions of the
opportunity structure, with items reflecting multiple dimensions of Ogbu’s Cultural Ecological
Model. These dimensions include temporary social barriers (e.g., “if people speak proper
English, they can be very successful in this country”), positive dual frame of reference (e.g.,
“White people have things easier than minorities”), effort optimism (e.g., “hard work is the key
to success in life”), academic engagement (e.g., “It is important for me to get good grades in
school”), and conventional values (or oppositional culture) (e.g., “Nothing is wrong with joining
a gang”). Participants rated the 42 items on a five-point Likert scale (i.e., not at all true, a little
true, somewhat true, pretty much true, very much true), with 21 items reverse-scored.
Delinquency
The Self-Report Delinquency Scale [SRDS] is a self-report instrument assessing
delinquency during the last six months. The original SRDS consists of 24 items and
demonstrates adequate validity and test-retest reliability (Elliot et al., 1985; Huizinga & Elliot,
1985). An abbreviated 10-item version (i.e., α = .84) was used for this study and included
questions such as “during the last 6 months how many times have you stolen something from a
store or something that did not belong to you worth less than 50 dollars?” Participants reported
the number of times they engaged in delinquent acts identified in each of the 10 items.
Gang Involvement
Two items were used to measure youth gang involvement. The first item derived from the
SRDS (i.e., SRD) asked participants “how many times over the past 6 months have you been
involved in a gang fight?” Responses were coded as either 0 (i.e., not involved in a gang fight) or
8

1 (i.e., 1 or more times involved in a gang fight). The second item derived from the Eurogang
survey asked participants to respond yes or no to the question “are you a member of a street gang
or tagger crew?” An index score was created combining the responses to both items. Participants
scoring 0 were categorized as non-gang involved. Participants scoring 1-2 were categorized as
gang involved.
Academic Achievement
Self-reported grade point average (GPA) was obtained from participants. Self-reported
GPA has been shown to be a reliable measure of academic achievement (Anderman & Johnston,
1998; Eklund et al., 2015).
Analyses
Preliminary analyses were conducted to identify outliers and violations of normality on
participant responses to the Opportunity Beliefs Scale (OBS). Data trimming was used to
eliminate nine out-of-range values due to nonresponse. Bartlett’s test of sphericity and the
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy were performed. Polychoric correlations
among all possible pairs of items were carried out. Polychoric correlations measure the linear
relationships between two discrete responses assumed to be part of a latent, continuous score
(Holgado-Tello et al., 2010). Little’s Missing Completely At Random test (MCAR; Little &
Rubin, 2002) was performed to determine the nature of missing data for items in the OBS.
Pairwise deletion was used to deal with missing data, as 0.02% of the data were missing within
the sample. Though a five-factor structure for the OBS has been theorized, the structure has not
yet been examined. Thus, EFA was the analytic choice as no pre-existing empirical evidence has
examined the factorial structure for the OBS. Principal axis factoring with Oblimin rotation was
used to assess model fit for the factor solutions.
9

Following the EFA, a series of analyses were performed to explore differences in
opportunity beliefs between groups. First, participants’ responses to items were summed within
factors to create OBS factor scores. Second, a series of one-way ANOVAs were conducted to
compare OBS factor scores by categorical variables (i.e., generational status, country of origin,
gender, and gang involvement). Outliers were assessed by inspection of a boxplot. Normality
was assessed using Shapiro-Wilk’s normality test and homogeneity of variance was assessed by
Levene’s test. Finally, a two-way ANOVA was performed to determine the interaction effects of
generational status and country of origin on all three factor scores. Bonferroni post-hoc tests
were carried out for pairwise comparisons.
In addition, Spearman’s correlation was conducted to identify associations between OBS
factor scores and GPA as well as delinquency. Spearman’s correlation, the nonparametric analog
to Pearson’s r, was used given the ordinal nature of the data and because values for GPA and
delinquency were not normally distributed. Preliminary analyses indicated missing data (i.e.,
33%) for GPA. Pairwise deletion was used to deal with the missing data. The alpha level for all
tests was set at 0.05. All analyses were conducted using SPSS 27.0 and R Studio.
10

Chapter Three: Results
Factor Structure of the OBS
Barlett’s test of sphericity was significant at p < 0.001, suggesting factor analysis would
be useful to explore and reduce the 42 items on the OBS into factors (Watson, 2017). The
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin statistic was .82, suggesting that the strength of the relationships among the
items on the OBS were acceptable to proceed with factor analysis (Kaiser, 1974). The polychoric
correlation matrix revealed high intercorrelations between items within the same factor,
indicating the presence of a factorial structure underlying the OBS (see Figure 2).
For the present study, EFA was conducted with a sample of 383 participants. The
participant per variable ratio (8:1) was greater than that generally recommended for conducting
an EFA (i.e., 5:1; Bryant & Yarnold, 1995; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Multiple factor
reduction methods were used in selecting the final model. These included visual scree plot
analysis (VSP; Cattell, 1966; Howard, 2016) and parallel analysis (Horn, 1965), Results from the
scree plot analysis suggested four factors were sufficient to explain the factor loadings (see
Figure 3). The parallel analysis suggested retaining between three and seven factors (see Figure
4). An examination of model fit statistics suggested retaining three factors (see Table 1). Finally,
interpretability of the model indicated that three factors provided the most parsimonious
interpretation for the factor loadings across all potential models. Therefore, a three-factor model
was retained.

11

Table 1 Comparison of Fit Statistics for the Rotated 3, 4, and 5 Factor Solutions
Model
Measure 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor
RMSEA .05 .05 .04
RMSR .05 .05 .04
TLI .74 .78 .81
Cronbach’s alpha .82/.44/.73 .77/.77/.56/.40 .73/.62/.26/.57/.56

12

Figure 2 Polychoric
Correlation Matrix
for the 42 Items on
the Opportunity
Beliefs Scale
13

Figure 3 Scree Plot of Variable Eigenvalues

14

Figure 4 Parallel Analysis Scree Plot

15

The three factors in the final model were identified as Opportunity Structure, Positive
Dual Frame of Reference, and Conventional Values. Final fit statistics for the three-factor model
are provided in Table 2. Brief descriptions, factor loadings, and communalities for the items are
provided in Table 3. Eigenvalues and variance explained for final rotated factor solution are
provided in Table 4. Cross-loadings (i.e., items that load .32 or higher on two or more factors)
were observed for one item (i.e., item 13). Nine items (i.e., 2, 8, 17, 19, 22, 25, 28, 33, and 34)
did not adequately fit factor structures due to low factor loadings (<.32) and were removed from
subsequent analyses (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). The remaining items (n = 32) had satisfactory
loadings (i.e., .32 or higher) and were placed in one of the identified factors.

Table 2 Fit Statistics and Cronbach’s Alpha for Final Oblimin Rotated 3 Factor Solution
Model
Measure 3 Factor
RMSEA .05
RMSR .04
TLI .79
Cronbach’s alpha .82/.71/.73

An Oblimin rotation was used to obtain a simple structure while allowing the three OBS
factors to correlate. Two significant correlations were identified across the three factors.
Specifically, Conventional Values was significantly correlated with both Opportunity Structure
(r = .277) and Positive Dual Frame of Reference (r = .255). Cronbach’s α suggested adequate
internal consistency for the three-factor model (i.e., α > 0.70; Chan, 2017; see Table 5). Internal
16

consistency was very good for Opportunity Structure (α = 0.82), but only adequate for Positive
Dual Frame of Reference and Conventional Values (α = 0.71; α = 0.73).

17

Table 3 Factor Pattern Matrix for Oblimin Rotated Three-Factor Solution for 32 items (N =
383)
Factor loading
Item
Opportunity
structure
Conventional
values
Positive dual
frame of
reference Communality
1. In the United States, everybody gets an
equal chance if they put in the work 0.44 0.17 -0.15 0.17
6. If people speak proper English, they can
be very successful in this country 0.36 0.23 0.16 0.18
9. If I get a good education, I can be
whatever I want to be 0.47 -0.04 0.11 0.27
11. I have more chances to get ahead in life
than my parents did 0.45 -0.01 0.19 0.27
15. My family is better off in the U.S. than
anywhere else 0.32 0.05 0.27 0.20
20. The best thing is to ignore discrimination
and do what you have to do to succeed 0.40 -0.10 0.23 0.31
21. I can do well in school if I work hard
enough 0.59 -0.16 0.15 0.48
26. It is important for me to get good grades
in school 0.69 -0.13 0.08 0.570
27. Going to college is important to me 0.65 -0.15 -0.04 0.51
29. I really like going to school 0.48 0.03 -0.07 0.21
32. To get the kind of job I want, I need A’s
and B’s in school 0.53 0.04 -0.00 0.27
35. Hard work is the key to success in life 0.55 0.07 -0.05 0.27
36. It’s important to do your best in school 0.80 0.00 -0.06 0.63
37. It’s important to speak proper English to
get ahead 0.51 0.17 0.04 0.24
38. I think that dealing drugs is wrong 0.36 0.05 -0.10 0.11
40. I think it’s important to get married
before you have a baby 0.43 0.23 -0.17 0.17
18

Table 3 Cont’d
Factor loading
Item
Opportunity
structure
Conventional
values
Positive dual
frame of
reference Communality
7. For me, getting a good job is impossible
no matter what I do (R) 0.06 0.52 0.12 0.28
18. If I lived in another country, I’d be better
off (R) 0.03 0.34 0.09 0.15
23. Working hard in school is really a waste
of time (R) -0.21 0.50 0.04 0.37
24. Studying is for nerds (R) -0.23 0.46 0.12 0.36
30. Kids who get straight A’s are just trying
to act White (R) -0.00 0.61 0.01 0.37
31. As long as I graduate, it doesn’t matter
what grades I get (R) 0.04 0.38 0.04 0.14
39. Nothing is wrong with joining a gang (R) -0.03 0.43 -0.06 0.19
41. Going to jail is not a big deal (R) 0.09 0.48 -0.13 0.21
42. Stealing is OK as long as I don’t get
caught (R) -0.06 0.47 0.03 0.25
3. Racism will be with us forever (R) 0.06 -0.08 0.57 0.34
4. Even with a good education, I won’t be
able to get the kind of job I want (R) -0.22 0.24 0.36 0.26
5. Discrimination will always keep
minorities down (R) 0.03 0.12 0.58 0.37
10. The “rules of the game” are different for
minorities than for Whites (R) -0.10 0.00 0.58 0.32
12. White people have things easier than
minorities (R) -0.02 0.11 0.56 0.34
14. My parents had things much tougher
when they were children 0.25 -0.07 0.36 0.23
16. Minorities have a tough time in this
country (R) 0.15 -0.03 0.51 0.31

19

Table 4 Eigenvalues and Variance Explained for Rotated Factor Solution
Factors
Property Opportunity structure Conventional values
Positive dual frame of
reference
SS loadings 4.65 2.44 2.28
Proportion var 0.15 0.08 0.07
Cumulative var 0.15 0.02 0.29
Proportion explained 0.50 0.26 0.24
Cumulative proportion 0.50 0.76 1.000

Table 5 Descriptive Statistics for the 3 Factors of the Opportunity Beliefs Scale (N = 383)
No. of items M(SD) Skewness Kurtosis Cronbach’s α
Opportunity
structure 16 61.69(11.20) -1.54 4.52 .82
Positive dual
frame of
reference 7 21.75(4.77) -.19 -.35 .71
Conventional
values 9 37.97(6.48) -2.10 7.12 .73

Additional Results
For this study, I also hypothesized that there would be significant differences in the mean
OBS factor scores among multiple demographic variables. A one-way ANOVA revealed that
first-generation youth (n = 89) had significantly higher scores than second-generation youth (n =
249) on Opportunity Structure, F(1, 336) = 9.73, p = 0.00 (see Table 6). However, there were no
significant generational differences on scores for Conventional Values, F(1, 335) = 3.58, p =
20

0.05) or Positive Dual Frame of Reference, F(1, 336) = 1.75, p = 0.18). In addition, there were
no significant country of origin (Mexico [n = 163] vs. Central America [n = 175]) differences for
any of the three factors (i.e., Opportunity Structure [F(1, 336) = 2.46, p = 0.11], Conventional
Values [F(1, 335) = .070, p = 0.79] or Positive Dual Frame of Reference [F(1, 336) = .163, p =
0.68]). Although there were no country of origin differences, a two-way ANOVA indicated a
significant interaction between generational status and country of origin for Conventional
Values, F(1, 333) = 3.759, p = .05, partial η2 = .011 (see Table 7). The mean scores and
descriptive statistics of Conventional Values for generational status and country of origin are
presented in Table 8. Pairwise comparisons for generational status and country of origin
indicated that second generation Central American students had greater mean scores for
Conventional Values than first generation Central American students. This difference was
significant, p = .007 (see Table 9). There was no significant interaction between generational
status and country of origin for Opportunity Structure, F(1, 334) = .053, p = .81, partial η2 =
.000, or Positive Dual Frame of Reference, F(1, 334) = .046, p = .83, partial η2 = .000. Finally,
there were no significant differences by gender (males [n = 193] and females [ n = 193]) for any
of the three factors (Opportunity Structure, [F(1, 363) = 2.62, p = .10], Conventional Values,
[F(1, 362) = .884, p = 0.34], or Positive Dual Frame of Reference, [F(1, 362 = .202, p = 0.65; see
Table 6]).
An additional one-way ANOVA was performed to examine relationships between OBS
factor scores and gang involvement. Non-gang involved youth (n = 298) had significantly higher
scores than gang involved youth (n = 40) for Opportunity Structure ([F(1, 336) = 7.50, p = 0.00])
and Conventional Values ([F(1, 335) = 7.85, p = 0.00]), but not for Positive Dual Frame of
Reference ([F(1, 336) = .132, p = .71; see Table 6]).
21

Spearman’s rank-order correlation was applied to assess the degree of association
between OBS factors and academic achievement (i.e., GPA) as well as delinquency. Results
revealed that higher scores on all three OBS factors were associated with higher GPA’s (i.e.,
Opportunity Structure, rs = .252; Conventional Values, rs = .343; Positive Dual Frame of
Reference. rs = .153; see Table 10). Additionally, higher scores on Opportunity Structure and
Conventional Values were associated with less delinquency (rs = -.197; rs = -.252; see Table 10).

Table 6 One-Way ANOVA Statistics for Study Variables
Group
First generation Second generation
Factor M SD M SD p
Opportunity
structure 64.92 10.18 60.57 11.68 .002*
Positive dual
frame of
reference 21.18 5.28 21.97 4.65 .187
Conventional
values 36.76 7.38 38.28 6.12 .059
Central America Mexico
M SD M SD p
Opportunity
structure 62.65 9.93 60.70 12.84 .118
Positive dual
frame of
reference 21.86 5.09 21.65 4.53 .792
Conventional
values 37.97 5.80 37.78 7.20 .686

22

Table 6 Cont’d
Females Males
M SD M SD p
Opportunity
structure 62.66 11.23 60.74 11.48 .106
Positive dual
frame of
reference 21.93 5.08 21.71 4.39 .348
Conventional
values 38.25 7.00 37.61 5.90 .653
Gang Involved Non-gang involved
M SD M SD p
Opportunity
structure 57.10 11.36 62.33 11.33 .006*
Positive dual
frame of
reference 21.50 4.94 21.79 4.81 .717
Conventional
values 35.20 6.84 38.23 6.38 .005*
*p < .05.

23

Table 7 Two-Way ANOVA Statistics for Study Variables
ANOVA
Variable Effect F df p η2
Opportunity structure
Country of origin 0.97 1 .33 .00
Generational status 8.80 1 .00* .03

Country of origin*Generational
status 0.05 1 .82 .00
Positive dual frame of
reference
Country of origin 0.34 1 .56 .00
Generational status 1.93 1 .17 .01

Country of origin*Generational
status 0.05 1 .83 .00
Conventional values
Country of origin 0.29 1 .59 .00
Generational status 2.62 1 .11 .01

Country of origin*Generational
status 3.76 1 .05* .01

24

Table 8 Descriptive Results for Conventional Values Between Levels of Generational Status and
Country of Origin
Generational status Country of origin M SD N
First generation Central America 35.97 6.95 54
Mexico 37.99 7.94 35
Total 36.76 7.38 89
Second generation Central America 38.86 4.99 121
Mexico 37.72 7.01 127
Total 38.28 6.12 248
Total Central America 37.97 5.80 175
Mexico 37.78 7.20 162
Total 37.88 6.50 337

Table 9 Pairwise Comparisons for Generational Status and Country of Origin on Conventional
Values
Country of
origin
Generational
status (I)
Generational
status (J)
Mean
difference
(I-J) SD p
Lower
bound
Upper
bound
Central
America
First
generation
Second
generation -2.887* 1.057 .007* -4.966 -.808

Second
generation
First
generation 2.887* 1.057 .007* .808 4.966
Mexico
First
generation
Second
generation .261 1.233 .832 -2.687 2.164

Second
generation
First
generation -.261 1.233 .832 -2.687 2.164

25

Table 10 Spearman’s Rank-Order Correlation Table
Variable 1 2 3 4 5
1. Opportunity structure 1
2. Positive dual frame of reference -.02 (.00) 1
3. Conventional values .28** (.08) .23** (.05) 1
4. GPA .25** (.06) .15* (.02) .34** (.12) 1
5. Delinquency
-.19**
(.04)
-.10
(.01)
-.25**
(.06)
-.21**
(.04) 1

26

Chapter Four: Discussion
Longstanding disparities in the academic success of minority students appear to be
narrowing (Wu et al., 2021; Leuwerke et al., 2021); nevertheless, Latino students continue to
experience less academic success compared to White and Asian American students (Musu-
Gillette et al., 2016; Flores, 2021). Ogbu’s cultural ecological theory argues that these disparities
can be explained in part by how groups were incorporated into the U.S. and how they perceive
and respond to schooling in relation to their opportunity beliefs. Using qualitative approaches,
many researchers have explored Ogbu’s theory and found it useful on a conceptual level
(Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Foster, 2005; Gibson, 1988; Matute-Bianchi, 1986; Suarez-Orozco,
1987;1996; Valenzuela, 2008). However, the field needs valid tools to assess opportunity beliefs
among youth from diverse cultural backgrounds. The present study was the first attempt to test
the validity of Ogbu’s theoretical model of opportunity beliefs with Latino youth.
A three-factor model emerged to describe opportunity beliefs, which overlapped
conceptually with Ogbu’s theorized 5-factor model. The first factor (i.e., Opportunity Structure)
appeared to integrate three of Ogbu’s theorized dimensions (i.e., Temporary Social Barriers,
Effort Optimism, and Academic Engagement; See Figure 5). These results suggest that one
aspect of opportunity beliefs may be more adequately represented by one factor instead of three.
Theoretical support for this factor can be found in Ogbu’s cultural ecological model, which
argues that minority groups hold different theories of “making it” and thus, hold varying beliefs
about the opportunity structure in the U.S. (Ogbu & Simons, 1998; Ogbu, 1991). Further,
“opportunity structure” has been discussed in the literature as relating to a set of beliefs about the
workings of society (e.g., “getting an education leads to a good job” or “hard work is necessary
to succeed in the U.S.”; Ogbu & Simons, 1994; Ogbu & Simons, 1998; Taylor, 2001). Majority
27

of the items that loaded onto this factor are consistent with the description of opportunity
structure presented in the literature.
The second factor used to operationalize opportunity beliefs was identified as Positive
Dual Frame of Reference. Several items that loaded onto this factor were consistent with those
hypothesized in the present study. There were an additional four items that loaded onto this
factor that were hypothesized to load onto Temporary Social Barriers (see Figure 5). Examples
of these items include “the “rules of the game” are different for minorities than for Whites” and
“discrimination will always keep minorities down.” Closer examination of these items revealed
that they adequately represent this factor. According to Ogbu, a dual frame of reference is
defined as how minority groups evaluate their current situation in the U.S. (Ogbu & Simons,
1992). This comparison could either be a positive or a negative one. The items from Temporary
Social Barriers appear to reflect a more “negative dual frame of reference,” which is shaped by
experiences of discrimination and oppression. These findings suggest that Positive Dual Frame
of Reference and Temporary Social Barriers make sense as a single factor because of their
overlap in capturing minority groups’ experiences in the U.S. when compared to the dominant
group. The present results are also consistent with ethnographic research suggesting that this
factor is relevant to the Latino community and may play a role in their academic and behavioral
trajectories (Matute-Bianchi, 1986; Suarez-Orozco, 1996).
The third factor that emerged from the factor analyses was identified as Conventional
Values. Ogbu described this factor as relating to the mainstream values and behaviors that
minority groups may adopt in the U.S. (e.g., “it is wrong to join a gang”). This factor also
reflects values relating to oppositional cultures (e.g., “stealing is OK as long as I don’t get
caught”). Although multiple items loaded onto this factor as expected, there were several items
28

that did not (see Figure 5). These items were hypothesized to load onto Academic Engagement.
However, in examining these items more closely, they appeared to adequately represent
Conventional Values. These items included belief statements such as “studying is for nerds,”,
“kids who get straight A’s are just trying to act White” and “ working hard in school is really a
waste of time” which have been discussed in the socio-ecological literature as beliefs relating to
oppositional cultures (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Irving & Hudley, 2008). The overlap between
Ogbu’s model and these factors provide support for the three-factor structure identified through
the factor analysis.

29

Figure 5
Comparison
between Ogbu’s
Cultural
Ecological model
and a factor
derived model for
Opportunity
Beliefs

30

Furthermore, findings from the analyses of variance demonstrated that opportunity
beliefs varied in ways that the hypothesis suggested (with some exceptions). As expected, first-
generation students (i.e., foreign born) had higher scores on Opportunity Structure than second-
generation students (U.S. born). These findings may reflect the immigrant paradox model, which
posits that the beliefs about chances for success and academic outcomes of first-generation
students exceeds those of their second-generation peers (Diemer et al., 2004; Hofferth & Moon,
2016; Fuligni, 1997; Greenman, 2013; Kao & Tienda, 1995; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001; Portes et
al., 2005). Similarly, non-gang youth had higher scores on Opportunity Structure and
Conventional Values than gang-involved youth. These results were consistent with studies
showing that gang-involved youth experience institutions as places of limited opportunity and
may be more likely to adopt values related to “oppositional cultures,” (Arfaniarromo, 2001;
Barrett et al., 2013; Bernat, 2009; Moore, 1978; Ogbu & Matute-Bianchi, 1986; Virgil, 2002).
Together, these results suggest that first-generation students and non-gang involved youth may
possess more positive features reflecting voluntary minority status.
Contrary to predictions based on Ogbu’s theory, there were no differences in opportunity
beliefs by country of origin (i.e., Central America and Mexico). These findings informed a series
of supplemental analyses to examine the role of the interaction between generational status and
country of origin on the OBS factors. Specifically, results showed that second-generation Central
American youth had higher scores than first-generation Central American youth on Conventional
Values. These findings contradict what the immigrant paradox model posits and appear to align
more closely with the second-generation advantage hypothesis, which posits that second-
generation youth engage in more behaviors associated with success than first generation youth
31

because of benefits generated from their immigrant parents’ optimism as well as the advantage of
speaking English (Feliciano & Lanunza, 2016; Kasinitz et al., 2009; Raleigh & Kao, 2010).
More broadly, these results may suggest that second generation Central Americans may possess
more positive beliefs reflecting voluntary minority status whereas first generation Central
Americans hold more ambivalent beliefs about the dominant culture and thus, may reflect an
involuntary minority status. Taken together, these findings highlight the complexity in
characterizing Latinos as “involuntary” or “voluntary,” suggesting that they may fall on a
continuum between these two labels.
Further, although prior research has indicated that opportunity beliefs may function
differently between males and females, no differences were found (Irving & Hudley, 2004;
Taylor, 2001; 2007). These findings were surprising given that research has documented that in
Latino cultures, males are more likely to be involved in oppositional cultures than females
(Patthey-Chavez, 1993; Riegle-Crumb, 2010; Suárez‐Orozco, 1987). Additionally, studies have
shown that males tend to hold beliefs about the opportunity structure that further discourage high
achievement and effort (Buchmann & DiPrete, 2006; Jacob, 2002; Suárez‐Orozco, 1987). Given
that research in this area has been relatively limited, more research is needed to expand our
knowledge of gender differences in opportunity beliefs.
Finally, as predicted by Ogbu’s model, factors correlated in the expected direction with
GPA and delinquency. Specifically, all three OBS factors were positively associated with
academic GPA. These results were consistent with Ogbu’s model which predicted that
possessing opportunity beliefs reflecting voluntary minority status contributes to higher
academic achievement among minority groups (Ogbu, 1991). Additionally, two factors (i.e.,
Opportunity Structure and Conventional Values) were negatively associated with delinquency.
32

Limitations
The results of this study have theoretical and research implications on the Opportunity
beliefs of Latinos; however, several limitations should be noted. First, although our sample was
large, it was not sufficient to perform a supplemental confirmatory factor analysis. Future
research should apply confirmatory factor analysis to an alternative sample to provide support
for the final factor structure. Second, our study utilized only one measure to assess academic
achievement (i.e., GPA). Additionally, we had a high percentage (i.e., 33%) of missing data for
this measure and resorted to using pairwise deletion. Future research can address this limitation
by using alternative methods to deal with missing data, including multiple imputation, as well as
collect additional measures of academic achievement (e.g., teacher grade reports, official
transcripts). Third, the data are cross-sectional, and so causal inferences are limited. Future
research can address this limitation by using a longitudinal design to better assess whether
differences in opportunities beliefs disappear or hold over time. Finally, our findings should be
interpreted with some caution given that the time period in which this data was collected may not
be reflective of the more recent immigration patterns in the U.S. More research is needed to
confirm the generalizability of these findings.
Conclusion
The present study was the first attempt to test the validity of Ogbu’s theoretical model of
opportunity beliefs with Latino youth. In doing so, the study explored a potential measure for
opportunity beliefs and found three factors in a Latino sample that overlapped with Ogbu’s
theorized 5-factor model. Further, the study found that opportunity beliefs had a positive
relationship with academic achievement and negative relationship with delinquency. A validated
instrument capable of measuring the opportunity beliefs of Latino youth may serve as a
33

significant contribution to both the fields of psychology and education. These findings provide
the foundation for furthering the psychometric development and validation of the OBS
instrument and thus, assist future research on the academic and behavioral trajectories of youth.

34

References
Arfaniarromo, A. (2001). Toward a psychosocial and sociocultural understanding of
achievement motivation among Latino gang members in US schools. Journal of
Instructional Psychology, 28(3), 123.

Bartlett, M. S. (1950). Tests of significance in factor analysis. British Journal of Psychology, 3,
77–85.

Barrett, A. N., Kuperminc, G. P., & Lewis, K. M. (2013). Acculturative stress and gang
involvement among Latinos: US-born versus immigrant youth. Hispanic Journal of
Behavioral Sciences, 35(3), 370-389.

Bernat, F. P. (2009). Youth resilience: Can schools enhance youth factors for hope, optimism,
and success? Women & Criminal Justice, 19(3), 251-266.

Bortolotti, L. (2018). Optimism, agency, and success. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 21(3),
521-535.

Brown, S. M., Begun, S., Bender, K., Ferguson, K. M., & Thompson, S. J. (2015). An
exploratory factor analysis of coping styles and relationship to depression among a
sample of homeless youth. Community Mental Health Journal, 51(7), 818-827.

Bryant, F. B., & Yarnold, P. R. (1995). Principal-components analysis and exploratory and
confirmatory factor analysis.

Buchmann, C., & DiPrete, T. A. (2006). The growing female advantage in college completion:
The role of family background and academic achievement. American Sociological
Review, 71(4), 515-541.

Buenrostro, M. (2018). Latino Students in California’s K-12 Public Schools.
https://www.csba.org//media/CSBA/Files/GovernanceResources/GovernanceBriefs/2018
10FactSheetLatinoStudents.ashx?la=en&rev=622775fcd01341248494f7ec7a6206d6.

Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 1(2), 245-276.

Céspedes, Y. M., & Huey Jr, S. J. (2008). Depression in Latino adolescents: a cultural
discrepancy perspective. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 14(2), 168.

Chithambo, T. P., Huey Jr, S. J., & Cespedes-Knadle, Y. (2014). Perceived discrimination and
Latino youth adjustment: Examining the role of relinquished control and sociocultural
influences. Journal of Latina/o Psychology, 2(1), 54.

35

Chan, L. L., & Idris, N. (2017). Validity and reliability of the instrument using exploratory factor
analysis and Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Academic Research in Business
and Social Sciences, 7(10), 400-410.

Cortes, C. E. (1986). Beyond Language: Social and Cultural Factors in Schooling Language
Minority Students. Evaluation, Dissemination & Assessment Center, 5151 State
University Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90032.

Diemer, M. A., Li, C. H., Gupta, T., Uygun, N., Sirin, S., & Rogers-Sirin, L. (2014). Pieces of
the immigrant paradox puzzle: Measurement, level, and predictive differences in
precursors to academic achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 33, 47-54.

Diemer, M. A., Mistry, R. S., Wadsworth, M. E., López, I., Reimers, F. (2013). Best practices in
conceptualizing and measuring social class in psychological research: Social class
measurement. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13(1), 77–113.

Egley Jr, A., Howell, J. C., & Harris, M. (2014). Highlights of the 2012 national youth gang
survey. Juvenile justice fact sheet. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Elliott, D. S., Ageton, S. S., Huizinga, D., Knowles, B. A., & Canter, R. J. (1983). The
prevalence and incidence of delinquent behavior: 1976-1980. Boulder, CO: Behavioral
Research Institute.

Elliot, D.S., Huizinga, D., and Ageton, S. (1985). Explaining delinquency and drug use. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.

Feliciano, C., & Lanuza, Y. R. (2016). The immigrant advantage in adolescent educational
expectations. International Migration Review, 50(3), 758-792.

Flores, S. M., Carroll, T., & Lyons, S. M. (2021). Beyond the tipping point: Searching for a new
vision for Latino college success in the United States. The ANNALS of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, 696(1), 128-155.

Fordham, S., & Ogbu, J. U. (1986). Black students' school success: Coping with the “burden of
‘acting white’”. The Urban Review, 18(3), 176-206.

Foster, K. M. (2005). Narratives of the social scientist: Understanding the work of John
Ogbu. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 18(5), 565-580.

Gibson, M. A., & Bhachu, P. K. (1988). Ethnicity and school performance: A comparative study
of South Asian pupils in Britain and America. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 11(3), 239-262.

Goto, S. T., & Martin, C. (2009). Psychology of success: Overcoming barriers to pursuing
further education. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 57(1), 10-21.

36

Gottfredson, G. D., & Gottfredson, D. C. (2001). Gang problems and gang programs in a
national sample of schools.

Guo, Y. (2012). Diversity in public education: Acknowledging immigrant parent
knowledge. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue Canadienne de Education, 35(2), 120-
140.

Hofferth, S. L., & Moon, U. J. (2016). How do they do it? The immigrant paradox in the
transition to adulthood. Social Science Research, 57, 177–194.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2015.12.013

Holgado–Tello, F. P., Chacón–Moscoso, S., Barbero–García, I., & Vila–Abad, E. (2010).
Polychoric versus Pearson correlations in exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of
ordinal variables. Quality & Quantity, 44(1), 153-166.

Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor
analysis. Psychometrika, 30(2), 179-185.

Howard, M. C. (2016). A review of exploratory factor analysis decisions and overview of current
practices: What we are doing and how can we improve? International Journal of Human-
Computer Interaction, 32(1), 51-62.

Huizinga, D., & Elliott, D. S. (1986). Reassessing the reliability and validity of self-report
delinquency measures. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 2(4), 293-327.

Irving, M. A., & Hudley, C. (2008). Cultural identification and academic achievement among
African American males. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19(4), 676-698.

Jacob, B. A. (2002). Where the boys aren't: Non-cognitive skills, returns to school and the
gender gap in higher education. Economics of Education Review, 21(6), 589-598.

Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31–36.

Kao, G., Vaquera, E., & Goyette, K. (2013). Education and Immigration. Cambridge, UK: Polity
Press.

Leuwerke, W. C., Ingleby, L. D., Tillery, C. Y., Cech, T. G., & Sibaouih, C. M. (2021).
Narrowing the college readiness gap: Assessing GEAR UP Iowa's intermediate impact on
underserved students. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 26(4),
352-370.

Little, R. J., & Rubin, D. B. (2019). Statistical Analysis with Missing Data (Vol. 793). John
Wiley & Sons.

Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (2002). Statistical Analysis with Missing Data. Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley & Sons.
37

Louie, V. (2001). Parents' aspirations and investment: The role of social class in the educational
experiences of 1.5-and second-generation Chinese Americans. Harvard Educational
Review, 71(3), 438.

Matute-Bianchi, M. E. (2008). Situational ethnicity and patterns of school performance among
immigrant and nonimmigrant Mexican-descent students. Minority status, Oppositional
Culture, and Schooling, 397-432.

Mickelson, R. A. (1990). The attitude-achievement paradox among Black adolescents. Sociology
of Education, 63, 44-61.

Moore, J. W., Garcia, R., Moore, J. W., & Garcia, C. (1978). Homeboys: Gangs, drugs, and
prison in the barrios of Los Angeles (p.x). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Musu-Gillette, L., Robinson, J., McFarland, J., KewalRamani, A., Zhang, A., & Wilkinson-
Flicker, S. (2016). Status and trends in the education of racial and ethnic groups 2016.
NCES 2016-007. National Center for Education Statistics.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). Racial/Ethnic Enrollment in Public
Schools. Condition of Education. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education
Sciences. Retrieved [date], from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cge.

National Youth Gang Survey Analysis (2012). Inter-university Consortium for Political and
Social Research. Retrieved May 4, 2022, from https://nationalgangcenter.ojp.gov/survey-
analysis.

Ogbu, J. U. (1987). Variability in minority school performance: A problem in search of an
explanation. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 18(4), 312-334.

Ogbu, J. U. (1990). Minority status and literacy in comparative perspective. Daedalus, 141-168.

Ogbu, J. U. (1991). Minority coping responses and school experience. The Journal of
Psychohistory, 18(4), 433.

Ogbu, J. U. (1992). Adaptation to minority status and impact on school success. Theory Into
Practice, 31(4), 287-295.

Ogbu, J.U. (1994). Racial stratification and education in the U.S.: why inequality persists.
Teachers College Record, 96(2), 264-298

Ogbu, J. U. (1997). Understanding the school performance of urban Blacks: Some essential
background knowledge.

Ogbu, J. U. (1999). Beyond language: Ebonics, proper English, and identity in a Black-American
speech community. American Educational Research Journal, 36(2), 147-184.
38

Ogbu, J. U. (2002). “Black-American students and the academic achievement gap: what else you
need to know.” Journal of Thought 37 (4): 9–33

Ogbu, J. U. (2003). Black American students in an affluent suburb: A study of academic
disengagement. Routledge.

Ogbu, J. U. (Ed.). (2008). Minority status, oppositional culture, & schooling. Routledge.

Ogbu, J. U., & Matute-Bianchi, M. E. (1986). Understanding sociocultural factors: Knowledge,
identity, and school adjustment. Beyond language: Social and cultural factors in
schooling language minority students, 73-142.

Ogbu, J.U., & Simons, H.D. (1998). Voluntary and Involuntary minorities. A cultural ecological
theory of school performance with some implications for education. Anthropology and
Education Quarterly, 29(2), 155-188.

Ogbu, J. U., & Stern, P. (2001). 1. Caste status and intellectual development. In Environmental
effects on cognitive abilities(pp. 3-38).

Orozco, G. L. (2008). Understanding the culture of low-income immigrant Latino parents: key to
involvement. School Community Journal, 18(1), 21-37.

Patthey-Chavez, G. G. (1993). High school as an arena for cultural conflict and acculturation for
Latino Angelinos. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 24(1), 33-60.

Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (2001). Legacies: The story of the immigrant second generation.
Berkeley: University of California Press

Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (2005). Introduction: The second generation and the children of
immigrants longitudinal study. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 28(6), 983-999.

Raleigh, E., & Kao, G. (2010). Do immigrant minority parents have more consistent college
aspirations for their children? Social Science Quarterly, 91(4), 1083-1102.

Riegle-Crumb, C. (2010). More girls go to college: Exploring the social and academic factors
behind the female postsecondary advantage among Hispanic and White
students. Research in Higher Education, 51(6), 573-593.

Seroczynski, A. D., & Jobst, A. D. (2016). Latino youth and the school-to-prison pipeline:
Addressing issues and achieving solutions. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral
Sciences, 38(4), 423-445.

Shapiro, S. S., & Wilk, M. B. (1972). An analysis of variance test for the exponential distribution
(complete samples). Technometrics, 14(2), 355-370.
39

Sickmund, M., Sladky, T.J., Puzzanchera, C., & Kang, W. (2021). Easy Access to the Census of
Juveniles in Residential Placement. National Center for Juvenile Justice.
https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp/.

Solomon, R. Patrick. (1992). Black Resistance in a High School: Forging a Separatist Culture.
New York: SUNY Press.

Spiegler, T., & Bednarek, A. (2013). First-generation students: What we ask, what we know and
what it means: An international review of the state of research. International Studies in
Sociology of Education, 23(4), 318-337.

Suàrez‐Orozco, M. M. (1996). California dreaming: Proposition 187 and the cultural psychology
of racial and ethnic exclusion. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 27(2), 151-167.

Suárez‐Orozco, M. M. (1987). “Becoming somebody”: Central American immigrants in US
inner‐city schools. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 18(4), 287-299.

Suárez-Orozco, M. M. (1989). Central American refugees and US high schools: A psychosocial
study of motivation and achievement. Stanford University Press.

Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Ullman, J. B. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (Vol. 5, pp.
481-498). Boston, MA: Pearson

Taylor, A. Z. (2001). Writing off ambition: A developmental study of gender, ethnicity, and
achievement values. University of California, Los Angeles.

Taylor, A. Z., & Graham, S. (2007). An examination of the relationship between achievement
values and perceptions of barriers among low-SES African American and Latino
students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 52.

U.S. Census Bureau (2018). American Community Survey (ACS). Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs

U.S. Census Bureau (2019). Population estimates by age, sex, race and Hispanic origin,
American Community Survey, 2019. The Census Bureau.
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-kits/2020/population-estimates-detailed.html

U.S. Census Bureau (2020). Census Illuminates Racial and Ethnic Composition of the Country.
Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/08/improved-race-ethnicity-
measures-reveal-united-states-population-much-more-multiracial.html

U.S. Census Bureau (2020). About the Foreign-Born Population. Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/topics/population/foreign-born/about.html

40

van Dommelen-Gonzalez, E., Deardorff, J., Herd, D., & Minnis, A. M. (2015). Homies with
aspirations and positive peer network ties: associations with reduced frequent substance
use among gang-affiliated Latino youth. Journal of Urban Health, 92(2), 322-337.

Vargas, S. M., Calderon, V., Beam, C. R., Cespedes-Knadle, Y., & Huey Jr, S. J. (2021). Worse
for girls?: Gender differences in discrimination as a predictor of suicidality among Latinx
youth. Journal of Adolescence, 88, 162-171.

Valenzuela, A. (2008). Ogbu’s voluntary and involuntary minority hypothesis and the politics of
caring. In Minority status, oppositional culture, & schooling (pp. 528-562). Routledge.

Watson, J. C. (2017). Establishing evidence for internal structure using exploratory factor
analysis. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 50(4), 232-238.

Wu, H., Shen, J., Spybrook, J., & Gao, X. (2021). Closing achievement gaps: Examining the
roles of school background and process. Education and Urban Society, 53(8), 909-937.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Latinos currently make up the largest ethnic minority group in the U.S. and comprise 27% of students enrolled in public schools (U.S. Census, 2020), yet they experience less academic success when compared to White and Asian American students. Ogbu’s cultural ecological theory (Ogbu, 1987) argues that ethnic disparities in youth academic trajectories is explained in part by how different groups were incorporated into the U.S. and how they perceive and respond to schooling in relation to their opportunity beliefs. However, there is ambiguity regarding the theory’s relevance to Latino youth, particularly in light of the complicated cultural histories of U.S. Latinos. Using the Opportunity Beliefs Scale (OBS), this study tested the applicability of Ogbu’s theory for Latino youth by assessing whether factor analysis supports Ogbu’s 5-factor model with a high school sample, and whether opportunity beliefs correlate with academic (i.e., grades) and behavioral (i.e., delinquent behavior) outcomes. Students (N=383) self-identifying as Latino (48% Mexican American, 45% Central American) and enrolled in a South Los Angeles high school completed surveys assessing opportunity beliefs, gang involvement, delinquent behavior, and academic achievement. Principal axis factor analysis revealed three factors in this Latino sample (i.e., Opportunity Structure, Positive Dual Frame of Reference, and Conventional Values) that overlap with Ogbu’s theorized 5-factor model. Moreover, results supported the hypotheses that differences in opportunity beliefs occurred across generational status and gang involvement. Although no differences were found between country of origin (i.e., Mexico and Central America), there was a significant interaction effect between country of origin and generational status on Conventional Values. Additionally, all three factors were associated with GPA as well as delinquency. The current study has implications for the understanding of Ogbu’s model in relation to Latino youth as well as furthering the psychometric development and validation of the OBS.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Reducing gang involvement through employment: a pilot intervention

PDF

Cumulative risk as a moderator of multisystemic therapy effects for juvenile offenders

PDF

A theory-informed approach to understanding family correlates of treatment use among Latinxs with psychotic symptoms

PDF

The relationship between dating status and academic and social functioning among Latinx and Asian-American middle adolescents

PDF

Predictors of mHealth engagement in a mindful eating intervention for Type 2 diabetes

PDF

Actual and perceived social reinforcements of weight-related cognitions and behaviors in adolescent peer groups

PDF

The role of social status and gender in the composition of bully-victim dyads in early adolescence

PDF

Exploring exposures: provider perspectives of CBT with underserved, diverse youth in-person and via telehealth

PDF

Using integrative data analysis to evaluate gender differences in effects of multisystemic therapy for justice-involved youth

PDF

The scope and limitations of young children’s belief understanding

PDF

Not just talk: observed communication in adolescent friendship and its implications for health risk behavior

PDF

A "second chance" program for vulnerable young adults: a program evaluation and a randomized controlled trial of adjunctive motivational interviewing to improve retention

PDF

The impact of cultural wealth and role models on the transformation of an individual’s future self

PDF

Socio-ecological psychology of moral values

PDF

Mental health consequences of structural racism on Latine youth: moderating role of racial-ethnic socialization

PDF

Cultural influences on mental health stigma in Asian and European American college students

PDF

The egocentric social networks of Black adolescents and sources of racial socialization messages

PDF

Problems and solutions for school counselors supporting Black and Latinx students in the 21st century

PDF

The link between maternal depression and adolescent daughters' risk behavior: the mediating and moderating role of family

PDF

Contextualizing experiences and developmental stages of immigration and cultural stressors in Hispanic/Latinx adolescents

Asset Metadata

Creator Brodell, Regina Ruth (author)

Core Title Opportunity beliefs and behavioral outcomes in Latinx youth: an exploration of Ogbu’s cultural-ecological model

School College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Psychology

Degree Conferral Date 2022-12

Publication Date 09/22/2022

Defense Date 09/06/2022

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag cultural-ecological theory,exploratory factor analysis,gang involvement,generational status,Latinx youth,OAI-PMH Harvest,opportunity beliefs

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Huey, Stanley Jr. (committee chair), Margolin, Gayla (committee member), Schwartz, David (committee member)

Creator Email brodell@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC112023704

Unique identifier UC112023704

Legacy Identifier etd-BrodellReg-11242

Document Type Thesis

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Brodell, Regina Ruth

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20220925-usctheses-batch-984 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu