University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Cross-ethnic friendships, intergroup attitudes, and intragroup social costs among Asian-American and Latino-American youth

(USC Thesis Other)

Cross-ethnic friendships, intergroup attitudes, and intragroup social costs among Asian-American and Latino-American youth

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running Head: CROSS-ETHNIC FRIENDSHIPS AND GROUP ATTITUDES 1

Cross-Ethnic Friendships, Intergroup Attitudes, and Intragroup Social Costs Among Asian-
American and Latino-American Youth
Annemarie R. Kelleghan
University of Southern California
Department of Psychology

Submitted to the Faculty of the USC Graduate School
of the University of Southern California in fulfillment
of the requirements for the Degree of
Master of Arts in Psychology
August 2018
CROSS-ETHNIC FRIENDSHIPS AND GROUP ATTITUDES 2

Table of Contents
Abstract 3
Introduction 4
Methods 17
Participants 17
Procedure 19
Measures 19
Results 21
Descriptive Analyses and Bivariate Correlations 21
Inferential Statistical Analyses 22
Discussion 25
Conclusions 31
References 32
Tables 42

CROSS-ETHNIC FRIENDSHIPS AND GROUP ATTITUDES 3

Abstract
The current study examines the short-term longitudinal impact of cross-ethnic friendships on
positive peer attitudes towards cross-ethnic classmates and negative attitudes by same-ethnic
peers. A total of 524 students (54.8% female; Mage=15.06 years, SD=.75; 47% Latino, 53%
Asian-American) were followed for one academic year. Students provided demographic
information and responded to peer nomination inventories assessing friendship, positive peer
attitudes (liking and popularity) and negative peer attitudes (disliking and unpopularity). Youth
who had a larger number of cross-ethnic friends at the beginning of data collection reported
greater liking of cross-ethnic peers over time. Cross-ethnic friendship also positively predicted
perceptions of popularity among cross-ethnic peers, and ethnicity moderated the relation such
that Latino students had a stronger positive association between cross-ethnic friendships and
perceptions of cross-ethnic peers as popular. Asian-American students were more likely than
Latino-American students to endorse liking and popularity of cross-ethnic peers. We also
examined whether students with many cross-ethnic friends experienced same-ethnic social
sanctions. We found that there was no association between cross-ethnic friendships and received
disliking nominations for boys. For girls, there was a negative association between cross-ethnic
friendships and disliking by peers. Cross-ethnic friendships did not predict unpopularity
nominations in our sample. Our findings suggest that youth who have cross-ethnic friendships
experience positive attitudes towards cross-ethnic peers without enduring social sanctions by
same ethnicity peers.
Keywords: cross-ethnic friendships, adolescence, ethnicity, peer attitudes

CROSS-ETHNIC FRIENDSHIPS AND GROUP ATTITUDES 4

Introduction
This study examines the role of cross-ethnic friendships in predicting positive intergroup
attitudes and negative intragroup attitudes in the context of a multiethnic high school setting.
During adolescence, peer relationships become more salient and intimate than during childhood
(Brechwald & Prinstein, 2011). Friendships predict adolescents’ social, emotional, and cognitive
development (Newcomb & Bagwell, 1995). Accordingly, examining friendships during this
developmental period takes on a great level of significance. Furthermore, changing ethnic
compositions in schools necessitate additional research examining the links between cross-ethnic
friendships and attitudes during adolesence. The current study focuses on understanding how
cross-ethnic friendships (i.e., friendships that exist between two individuals who belong to
different ethnic groups) among ethnic minority youth predict liking and popularity towards
cross-ethnic peers as well as disliking and unpopularity with same-ethnic peers.
Researchers often focus on understanding friendship selection and composition of
friendship networks to better appreciate adolescent development. Homophily (i.e., similarity
within friendship dyads) is one common component of friendships (Lazarsfeld & Merton, 1954;
McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001). That is, friendships are likely among youth who share
common interests, ethnicity, religion, abilities, age, and gender (French, Purwono, & Rodkin
2012; Maccoby, 2002; McPherson, et al., 2001). Homophily in friendship formation can occur
through a number of different mechanisms: youth may actively construct their peer groups with
youth similar to themselves (i.e., active selection; Caspi, 2002; Kandel, 1978), become more like
their peers over time (i.e., socialization; Caspi, 2002; Kandel, 1978), or simply be embedded in a
shared context (i.e., propinquity; Baerveldt, van de Bunt, & de Federico de la Rúa, 2010;
Bellmore, Nishina, Witkov, Graham, & Juvonen, 2007; Kandel, 1978; Mouw & Entwisle, 2006).
CROSS-ETHNIC FRIENDSHIPS AND GROUP ATTITUDES 5

Regardless of how friendships develop, there is extensive evidence suggesting that
homophily with regard to ethnicity is one of the strongest predictors of friendship formation;
children and adolescents typically form more same-ethnic friendships than cross-ethnic
friendships (Bellmore, et al., 2007; Goldsmith, 2004; Moody, 2001). Despite this propensity for
same-ethnic friendships, however, research also indicates that children in diverse environments
develop cross-ethnic friendships (Bagci, Kumashiro, Smith, Blumberg, & Rutland, 2014; DuBois
& Hirsch, 1990). Cross-ethnic friendships have been uniquely associated with improved social
competence, prosocial behavior, leadership skills, and sense of safety (e.g., Kawabata & Crick,
2008; Graham, Munniksma, & Juvonen, 2014). However, understanding how adolescent cross-
ethnic friendships influence intergroup and intragroup attitudes among ethnic minorities has
gone largely unstudied. Therefore, the current research aims to fill this gap by focusing on cross-
ethnic friendships and associated group attitudes in a diverse school community.
Adolescent Friendships
During the adolescent years, peer social interactions, and especially friendships, take on
great importance as youth increase both autonomy from parents and intimacy with peers
(Collins & Steinberg, 2006). Adolescent friendships are mutual, dyadic relationships
characterized by high levels of companionship, help, security, and closeness, and low levels of
conflict (Bukowski, Hoza, & Newcomb, 1994). It is important to emphasize that friendships are
different from other peer relationships which are not necessarily mutual (i.e., an adolescent can
think a peer is popular without that peer viewing the adolescent as popular). Furthermore, some
researchers have studied friendships as perceived only by one study particpiant (i.e., potential
friendship), which may or may not reflect a reciprocated, mutual relationship.
CROSS-ETHNIC FRIENDSHIPS AND GROUP ATTITUDES 6

Researchers studying outcomes of cross-ethnic friendships have carried out analyses
predominantly examining potential friends, rather than evaluating true, dyadic friendships.
Unreciprocated friendship nominations (i.e., students write down the names of individuals they
consider to be their friends) or single item questions (e.g. “How many friends do you have from
a different ethnic background?”) are often used to identify potential friends (Bagci & Celebi
2016; Baysu, Phalet, & Brown, 2014; Chen & Graham, 2015; Knifsend & Juvonen 2013).
Researchers using these methods have found that minority youth who nominate cross-ethnic
potential friends have increased feelings of social-emotional safety (Munniksma & Juovenen,
2012). Furthermore, student endorsement of sensitivity to race-based exclusion among minority
students moderates the relationship between potential cross-ethnic friends and school outcomes.
Minority students who were sensitive to exclusion, but also had a potential cross-ethnic friend,
reported lower levels of dissatisfaction with school and greater belonging compared to students
without potential cross-ethnic friendships (Mendoza-Denton & Page-Gould, 2008). Additionally,
specifically among Asian-American youth, those with cross-ethnic potential friendships
demonstrate more positive behavioral intergroup attitudes (Chen & Graham, 2015).
However, using unreciprocated potential friendship nominations does not reflect the
existence of a true dyadic friendship, or even interaction, between two peers. That is, one student
can report a peer as a friend because they want to be friends with that student, even if they do not
have a current relationship with the nominated peer. In one of the few studies to use reciprocated
friendship nominations, Vaquera and Kao (2008) found that cross-ethnic friendships are less
likely to be reciprocated than same-ethnic friendships; thus, using potential friends or other
nomination methods that do not directly assess dyadic friendships may not properly reflect true
cross-ethnic friendships. Specifically asking students to nominate their closest friends and using
CROSS-ETHNIC FRIENDSHIPS AND GROUP ATTITUDES 7

reciprocated nominations to assess the dyadic nature of the relationship will more appropriately
measure actual friendships. In the current study, we focus on actual, reciprocated friendships,
rather than potential frienships, as we expect the contact and interaction with mutual cross-ethnic
friends to uniquely predict more positive intergroup attitudes.
Most of the research examining reciprocated, dyadic cross-ethnic friendships have
focused on prevalence and comparisons to same-ethnic friendships. In a short-term longitudinal
study, Schneider, Dixon, & Udvari (2007) found that cross-ethnic friendships were characterized
by less closeness and less conflict compared to same-ethnic friendships, although there was a
noticeable increase in conflict if the friendship survived 6 months. Kawabata and Crick (2008)
discovered that Latino youth engaged in fewer cross-ethnic friendships compared to European,
African, and Asian American youth. Furthermore, research conducted by Aboud, Mendelson,
and Purdy (2003) revealed that cross-ethnic friendships decreased throughout elementary school
and were less stable than same-ethnic friends.
Although the majority of research analyzing dyadic cross-ethnic friendships has focused
on the descriptive analyses of these relationships rather than on examining social or
psychological outcomes predicted by cross-ethnic friendships, there are a few exceptions.
Children with cross-ethnic friends have been shown to have greater levels of relational inclusion
and leadership compared to peers who did not engage in cross-ethnic friendships (Kawabata &
Crick, 2008). Notably, a study examining the cross-ethnic friendships and intergroup attitudes of
white and black Canadian students found that particularly high-quality, cross-ethnic friendships
were associated with less bias (i.e., less negative and more positive evaluations of white, black,
and Chinese students as assessed by the Multi-response Racial Attitudes measure) for white
Canadian elementary school students (Aboud, Mendelson, & Purdy, 2003). Aside from this
CROSS-ETHNIC FRIENDSHIPS AND GROUP ATTITUDES 8

study, we are not aware of any research focused on studying reciprocated cross-ethnic
friendships as a predictor of intergroup and intragroup attitudes during adolesence.
In multiethnic schools, it is vital to identify which factors predict inter- and intraethnic
positive attitudes. The changing ethnic composition and diversity of schools in the United States
further motivate research specifically examining cross-ethnic relationships among adolescent
students. In 2014, the White student population in public elementary and secondary schools in
the United States fell below 50% for the first time since demographic statistics have been
recorded (McFarland et al., 2017). In the same year, approximately 30% of K-12 students
attended schools where minority (non-White) groups comprised 75% or more of the school’s
enrollment and approximately 48% of schools in the United States consist of at least 50%
minority students (McFarland et al., 2017). Historically under-represented ethnic groups are
starting to outpace White students as the statistical majority.
Nonetheless, much of the available research that focuses on cross-ethnic friendships
examines the relationships between ethnic minority students compared to white majority students
(Baysu, Phalet, & Brown, 2014; Feddes, Noack, & Rutland, 2009; Graham, Taylor, & Ho, 2009;
Tropp, Hawi, Van Laar, & Levin, 2011). Furthermore, some studies purposefully disregard
cross-ethnic friendships between two minority students to achieve their research goals (Vervoort,
Scholte, & Scheepers, 2011). However, as the ethnic composition of schools in the United States
moves away from a Caucasian majority, new studies must also shift away from comparing
traditional minority groups to Caucasian students. The current study addresses this gap in cross-
ethnic friendship research by examining cross-ethnic friendship dynamics that arise among
Latino- and Asian- American ethnic minority students.
Cross-ethnic Friendships in the Development of Group Attitudes
CROSS-ETHNIC FRIENDSHIPS AND GROUP ATTITUDES 9

Two main theories, social identity theory and contact theory, motivate research in the
area of group attitudes and provide a framework for understanding how individuals interact with
others who may be different from themselves. This research is especially important in
multicultural school settings where children from different ethnic groups compose the peer group
and must interact with each other on a regular basis, as is the case in many urban schools.
Intergroup attitudes. Social identity theory suggests that individuals have a tendency to
perceived their group positively and to differentiate themselves from other groups (Tajfel &
Turner, 1979). In fact, a robust finding in research on intergroup attitudes posits that in-group
members will regard their own group in a more positive light (i.e., in-group bias), and other
groups will be less favored (Aboud, 2003; Baron & Banaji, 2006; Messick & Mackie, 1989;
Powlishta, 1995). In-group preferences develop in early childhood, even when the selection of
the “in-group” is random or divided in an arbitrary way (Bigler, Jones, & Lobliner, 1997;
Dunham, Baron, & Carey, 2011). Dunham and colleagues (2011) found that even when group
membership is determined based on meaningless or random classifications, such as assignment
into a “red group” or “blue group”, the in-group bias persists. Furthermore, when groups are
divided into more meaningful categories (e.g., based on ethnic or gender lines), the in-group bias
becomes even stronger in magnitude (Bigler, Jones, & Lobliner, 1997; Cameron, Alvarez, Ruble,
& Fuligni, 2001). Therefore, we anticipate that adolescents’ attitudes (i.e., nominations of peers
they like and view as popular) towards ethnic in-group members will be more positive than their
attitudes towards out-group members.
Researchers have found that many adolescents develop friendships that cross ethnic lines
(Bagci, Kumashiro, Smith, Blumberg, & Rutland, 2014; DuBois & Hirsch, 1990; Hunter &
Elias, 1999). However, researchers have not yet determined if having friends ethnically different
CROSS-ETHNIC FRIENDSHIPS AND GROUP ATTITUDES 10

from oneself changes the way these youth view their cross-ethnic peers. Allport’s (1954) contact
theory suggests that increased contact among equal individuals from different groups will
improve intergroup attitudes and decrease prejudices. More contact between members of
different groups results in one’s realization that individuals in the out-group are heterogeneous.
This leads to the understanding that stagnant, prejudice beliefs of an entire group cannot apply to
each unique member within the group, and intergroup attitudes often improve (Rothbart & John,
1985). While Allport’s contact theory does not specifically refer to cross-ethnic friendships, this
theory helps to inform our hypothesis that cross-ethnic friendships provide an opportunity for
individuals to establish relationships with out-group members that predict more positive
intergroup attitudes. Furthermore, a meta-analysis of 515 studies found that reduction of
intergroup prejudice resulting from contact with a few out-group members can generalize to the
full out-group (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006), and increased contact with out-group members
decreases anxiety about intergroup contact and increases knowledge of and empathy for the other
group (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008).
Chen and Graham (2015) specifically applied concepts related to contact theory to
intergroup attitudes among different ethnic groups. Their analyses focused on investigating out-
group attitudes of Asian-American students towards students of other ethnicities. They found
that Asian-American students who had at least one cross-ethnic friendship showed improved
intergroup attitudes towards white, Hispanic, and black students in at least one domain (e.g.,
more positive emotions, decreased desire for social distance, more positive cognitive
evaluations; Chen & Graham, 2015). However, students’ self-reported friendship nominations,
and not reciprocated friendships, were used to conduct these analyses; therefore, it is unknown if
these findings would be similar when examining dyadic cross-ethnic friendships. Although Chen
CROSS-ETHNIC FRIENDSHIPS AND GROUP ATTITUDES 11

& Graham’s research provides an initial step into studying intergroup attitudes among students
with cross-ethnic friendships, the current study aims to build on previous research by utilizing
reciprocated cross-ethnic friendship nominations to understand the impact of true friendships on
adolescents’ intergroup attitudes. Additionally, we will examine specific intergroup attitudes
(i.e., liking and popularity) instead of assessing more general attitudes, as these are especially
salient constructs for adolescents who begin to care more about peer perceptions during
adolescence.
Intragroup attitudes. In addition to studying intergroup attitudes, we will also examine
negative intragroup attitudes (i.e., disliking and unpopularity) to investigate the extent to which
having cross-ethnic friendships is associated with intragroup social costs. Research regarding
cross-ethnic friendships has predominantly focused on identifying the unique intergroup benefits
of sustaining friendships that extend beyond one’s own ethnic affiliation (Bagci, Rutland,
Kumashiro, Smith, & Blumberg, 2014; Chen & Graham, 2015; Graham, et al., 2014; Mendoza-
Denton & Page-Gould, 2008). However, it is important to investigate potential intragroup social
costs of maintaining cross-ethnic friendships as well. To begin to address this understudied
aspect of cross-ethnic friendships, we aim to explore whether students with cross-ethnic friends
are more disliked and viewed as unpopular among their own in-group members compared to in-
group members who have only same-ethnic friendships. Unpopularity and disliking nominations
measure different dimensions of a youth’s social status. Unpopularity is a dimension of power,
prestige, and visibility. Students who are nominated as unpopular are highly visible in their peer
group but tend to be low in power and prestige (Cillessen & Marks, 2011). It is important to note
that we are not suggesting that maintaining cross-ethnic friendships will have negative long-term
outcomes for students or that having cross-ethnic friendships causes negative intragroup
CROSS-ETHNIC FRIENDSHIPS AND GROUP ATTITUDES 12

attitudes. However, we are interested in obtaining a comprehensive view of peer relationships, as
they exist in a multicultural setting.
Some researchers suggest that youth with ethnically integrated friendships are more
emotionally well-adjusted and have better leadership skills than children with more same-ethnic
friendships, which would presumably make these children more well-liked by peers (Kawabata
& Crick, 2008; Lease & Blake, 2005). However, other researchers have found that African-
American and European-American children are better liked by their same-ethnicity peers when
they have more same-ethnicity friendships. African-American students, but not European-
American students, were rated as more popular by their same-ethnicity peers when they had
more same-ethnic friends and less popular when they had more cross-ethnic friends (Wilson &
Rodkin, 2011). Additional research suggests that children who rate more same-ethnicity peers,
rather than cross-ethnicity peers, as “liked most” are more likely to be nominated as “well-liked”
by same-ethnicity peers (Bellmore, et al., 2007; Hamm, Brown, & Heck, 2005). These findings
suggest that children with same-ethnic friendships are highly visible within their peer group and
well-regarded as “liked” and “popular”. We propose that adolescents with cross-ethnic
friendships will also be highly visible among their same-ethnic peers, as their cross-ethnic
friendships contradict the affinity for in-group peers argued by the social identity theory, but not
well-regarded. Therefore, we anticipate that they will be viewed as “disliked” and “unpopular”.
While there are intergroup benefits to having cross-ethnic friendships, there may also be negative
intragroup correlates. The current study intends to test the hypothesis that children who have
more cross-ethnic friendships will be viewed as unpopular and disliked by same-ethnicity peers
compared to students who only have same-ethnic friendships.
Gender as a Moderator
CROSS-ETHNIC FRIENDSHIPS AND GROUP ATTITUDES 13

We supplemented our primary research goals with an analysis of gender as a potential
moderator. In early adolescence, gender disparities in friendships and group attitudes begin to
evolve. Boys have larger friend groups in older grades, and girls develop smaller, more intimate
friendship networks as they get older (Aboud et al., 2003; Cairns, Leung, Buchanan, & Cairns.,
1995; Graham & Cohen, 1997). In regards to cross-ethnic friendships specifically, most of the
research suggests that boys have larger friend networks and therefore engage with more cross-
ethnic friends compared to girls (Bagci, et al., 2014, Kawabata & Crick, 2008). However,
females, compared to males, report more closeness, attentiveness, and intimacy with their best
friends and report a greater emphasis on trust and confidence in their relationships (Buhrmester
& Prager, 1995; Shulman, Laursen, Kalman, & Karpovsky, 1997; Soenens, Vansteenkiste,
Goossens, Duriez, & Niemec, 2008). This gender effect has been demonstrated in cross-ethnic
friendships, with girls reporting higher quality cross-ethnic friendships compared to boys (Bagci
et al., 2014).
Researchers have also identified gender differences regarding in-group attitudes. Despite
having larger friend groups that often include cross-ethnic peers, researchers have found that
boys have a stronger ethnic in-group bias compared to girls (Phinney, Fergueson, & Tate, 1997;
Powlishta et al., 1994; Thijs & Verkuyten, 2012; Verkuyten & Thijs, 2001). It is hypothesized
that racial name-calling and ethnic exclusion during play seen among boys contributes to more
negative intergroup attitudes among cross-ethnic boys (Verkuyten & Thijs, 2001).
We hypothesize that although boys will presumably report more cross-ethnic friendships
given their larger friend networks, girls who have cross-ethnic friendships will have more
positive intergroup attitudes compared to boys. Although boys generally have more cross-ethnic
friends, when girls do develop these friendships, the intimate nature of their friendships is
CROSS-ETHNIC FRIENDSHIPS AND GROUP ATTITUDES 14

expected to contribute to more positive intergroup attitudes. Additionally, given the research
finding that boys have stronger in-group bias, we anticipate that boys with cross-ethnic
friendships will be viewed as more unpopular and disliked by their ethnic in-group for violating
the ethnic in-group bias found among boys.
Ethnic Identity as a Moderator
Ethnic identity also plays an important role in the development of cross-ethnic
friendships and intergroup attitudes. Ethnic identity is the extent to which an individual has
explored his or her culture, along with his or her sense of belonging to the specific ethnic or
cultural group (Phinney & Ong, 2007). Researchers have found that adolescents who are more
secure in their own ethnic identity are more likely to hold positive attitudes towards individuals
of other ethnic backgrounds (Cross, 1991; Phinney 1993). Supporters of this view suggest that
once adolescents solidify their own ethnic identity and are comfortable within their own group,
they are better positioned to openly engage with individuals of other ethnic backgrounds.
Furthermore, other researchers have found that individuals with a secure sense of their own
culture and ethnic identity are more accepting of cross-ethnic peers and perceive them in a more
positive light (Berry, 1984; Lambert, Mermigis, & Taylor, 1986; Wang et al., 2003).
A more recent, though smaller scale, study of Latino and Asian-American college
students found that those with higher scores on the ethnic identity measure were more likely to
endorse higher ratings of ethnocultural empathy, a measure of positive, sensitive, and empathic
feelings towards cross-ethnic peers (Rivera, 2014). Thus, we hypothesize that ethnic identity will
moderate the relationship between cross-ethnic friendship and intergroup attitudes such that
individuals with stronger ethnic identities and cross-ethnic friendships will hold more positive
intergroup attitudes. We have no a priori hypothesis regarding the moderating role of ethnic
CROSS-ETHNIC FRIENDSHIPS AND GROUP ATTITUDES 15

identity in the relationship between cross-ethnic friendships and intragroup attitudes based on
existing research, but will conduct exploratory analyses to begin to address this area of inquiry.
Ethnicity as a Moderator
We suggest that cultural and ethnic differences among ethnic groups may also moderate
the relations between cross-ethnic friendships and group attitudes. The ethnic diversity of the
sample in this study, predominated by Asian-American (mostly Vietnamese-American) and
Latino (mostly Mexican-American) students, is a typical feature of schools in urban areas.
Despite the prevalence of this diversity in school settings, few researchers have studied cross-
ethnic friendships among multiple minority ethnic groups. Therefore, this context provides an
interesting perspective from which to study the links between ethnicity, cross-ethnic friendships,
and group attitudes. Thus, we will conduct a series of exploratory analyses studying the role of
ethnicity in moderating the relations between cross-ethnic friendships and group attitudes.
Cultural values and ethnic differences between Asian-American and Latino students may
impact the development of cross-ethnic friendships and the extent to which these friendships
predict group attitudes. In a prior study conducted within the same larger project as the current
study, researchers found that Vietnamese-American students were more likely to develop cross-
ethnic friendships with achievement-oriented peers and to view achievement more positively
than their Mexican-American classmates (Duong, Schwartz, McCarty, 2014). Another study
assessing ethnic similarity in peer preference among preschool-aged Latino and Chinese children
in diverse classroom settings found that Latino, but not Chinese children, displayed more same-
ethnic preferences in reciprocated liking nominations, which the authors used as the operational
definition for cross-ethnic friendship (Lee, 2016). The authors speculated that the cultural
emphasis on respect among Chinese children and other cultural norms may have biased
CROSS-ETHNIC FRIENDSHIPS AND GROUP ATTITUDES 16

children’s responses to survey questions. However, it is crucial to note that this study was
examining social adjustment and peer preference among young children, and these exact results
cannot be extrapolated to adolescent cross-ethnic friendships. Nonetheless, these findings
suggest that ethnicity may act as an indicator of other unassessed values and cultural norms that
may either bias the data or uncover true cultural differences. Due to the inconclusive nature of
the extant literature and the lack of research examining ethnicity and group attitudes strictly
among minority groups, we do not have an a priori hypothesis but plan on carefully examining
ethnicity as a possible moderator.
The Current Study
This study examines the impact of cross-ethnic friendships on a youth’s positive
perceptions of cross-ethnic peers as liked and popular. We hypothesized that youth with more
cross-ethnic friendships would hold more positive intergroup attitudes (i.e., would be more likely
to nominate cross-ethnic peers as liked and popular). Furthermore, we considered gender,
ethnicity, and ethnic identity as possible moderators in these relations. Specifically, we proposed
that the positive association between intergroup attitudes and cross-ethnic friendship would be
stronger for girls and for youth with a strong ethnic identity. We also conducted exploratory
analyses focusing on the moderating effects of ethnicity in these relations. Secondly, we consider
how cross-ethnic friendships influence intragroup attitudes (i.e., a youth’s evaluation as disliked
or unpopular by same-ethnic peers). Overall, we hypothesized that youth with more cross-ethnic
friendships would be viewed as more disliked and more unpopular by their same-ethnic peers.
Again, we examined the moderating roles of gender, ethnicity, and ethnic identity in these
associations. We hypothesized that the associations between intragroup attitudes and cross-ethnic
CROSS-ETHNIC FRIENDSHIPS AND GROUP ATTITUDES 17

friendship would be stronger for boys compared to girls, but we had no a priori hypothesis
regarding the moderating effects of ethnicity or ethnic identity.
Methods
Participants
The current study was conducted using a subset of data collected as part of the University
of Southern California Academic Success Project (ASP), a longitudinal study examining
academic success, peer relationships, and mental health in an ethnically diverse sample of middle
and high school students in semi-urban, southern California schools. The ASP followed youth
throughout their middle and high school years (6
th
-11
th
grades). The students predominately
identified as Mexican-American or Vietnamese-American. The neighborhoods surrounding the
schools are classified as lower middle-class, and 72 percent of the students attending the school
received free or reduced-price lunches during the first two years of the study (2008-2010; U.S.
Census Bureau, 2000). As is the case in many lower middle-class neighborhoods, a majority of
the parents (96.0 percent of fathers and 75.4 percent of mothers) were employed, based on
student reports during middle school.
All 921 adolescents in the middle school (grades six through eight) were invited to
participate in the first wave of data collection in Spring 2009. All classrooms in which 80% or
more of the class completed the consent form, whether they agreed to participate or not, received
a pizza party. Of the recruited students, 79.3 percent (N = 730; M age = 12.7 years) returned
parental consent, assented to participate, and attended school on the days of data collection. The
students participating in the 2009 data collection self-reported their ethnicity: 46.3 percent
Vietnamese-American, 3.6 percent other Asian, 25.9 percent Mexican-American, 1.9 percent
CROSS-ETHNIC FRIENDSHIPS AND GROUP ATTITUDES 18

other Hispanic, 1.8 percent non-Hispanic White, 0.3 percent African-American, 18.2 percent
mixed, and 2.2 percent not classified.
Following the first wave of data in Spring 2009, data were collected each spring for three
additional years (7
th
and 8
th
graders in 2010, 9
th
and 10
th
graders in 2011, 10
th
and 11
th
graders in
2012). The current analyses focus on the last two years of data collection (2011 and 2012), at
which point the students were attending the local public high school. For the purpose of the
current study, T1 refers to the 2011 data collection when youth were in 9
th
and 10
th
grades. T2
refers to the 2012 data collection when students were in 10
th
and 11
th
grades. These analyses
focus on the later adolescent years, as this developmental period is associated with increased
peer intimacy and increasing importance of peer social interactions that are particularly salient
when examining friendships and group attitudes (Collins & Steinberg, 2006).
Data were collected from 735 students (412 girls) in the spring of 2011 (T1) and 632
students (349 girls) in the spring of 2012 (T2). Among the participating students, 568 had
complete data, including ethnicity, available from T1 and T2. To address the current research
questions, student data were included in analyses if the student self-identified, at least in part, as
Asian-American or Latino-American. Any student who reported belonging to an Asian ethnic
group (Vietnamese, Chinese, Korean, etc.) or any student who reported being part Asian-
American (Vietnamese and Caucasian, Japanese and Caucasian, etc.) was included in analyses as
Asian-American. Any student who reported belonging to a Latino ethnic group (Mexican,
Peruvian, etc.), or any student who reported being part Latino (Mexican and Caucasian, Peruvian
and Caucasian, etc.) was included in analyses as Latino. Students simultaneously identifying
with both an Asian and Latino ethnic group (e.g., multi-ethnic students identifying as half
Mexican and half Vietnamese) were excluded from analyses. Therefore, a final sample of 524
CROSS-ETHNIC FRIENDSHIPS AND GROUP ATTITUDES 19

students was used in analyses. Latino students comprised approximately 47% of the final sample,
and 53% was Asian-American.
Procedure
Students completed self-report measures, including demographic information (e.g.,
ethnicity, gender), and peer-nominations during 70-minute group-administered data collection
sessions. Trained graduate and undergraduate researchers facilitated the data collection and read
standardized instructions aloud to the student participants. The research team and a teacher
remained in the classroom during data collection to answer questions.
Measures
Number of cross- and same-ethnic friendships. Each student received an alphabetized
roster with the names of the students in their grade level. Students identified their “very best
friend” and up to 10 peers whom they considered to be their “really close friends.” Two students
were classified as friends if both students nominated each other on either friend item (Schwartz,
Gorman, Duong, & Nakamoto, 2008). If the friends’ ethnicities differed, the friendship was
considered cross-ethnic. Cross-ethnic friendship was used as a dimensional variable measuring
the total number of cross-ethnic friends each participant had.
Assessment of group attitudes. Students completed a peer nomination inventory during
each wave of data collection. Nominations from the inventory were used to assess intergroup and
intragroup attitudes. For these nominations, researchers provided each student an alphabetized
roster with the names of 50 randomly selected grademates per the recommendations of Bellmore,
Juvonen, and Jiang (2010). The students were asked to nominate up to nine grademates who
embodied each descriptor of one of the constructs below. A proportion score for each attitude
variable was created, indicating the total number of nominations made on the random list divided
CROSS-ETHNIC FRIENDSHIPS AND GROUP ATTITUDES 20

by the total possible number of nominations on that list. A small number of students may have
appeared on the random list they received. Therefore, self-nominations were removed from
calculations of each variable and the total number of possible nominations was adjusted
accordingly.
Positive, intergroup attitude variables. Two scores of each construct were calculated for
each student. Proportions were created to represent the number of same- or cross-ethnic peers
nominated as “liked” or “popular” divided by the total possible number of same- or cross-ethnic
nominations for each variable. Students nominated peers who are “students that you really like”
(i.e., liking), and who are “popular” (i.e., popularity).
Negative, intragroup attitude variables. Proportions were created to represent the total
number of nominations received from same-ethnic peers, divided by the total possible number of
nominations a student could have received. Students nominated peers who are “students that you
don’t like that much” (i.e., disliked) and who are “unpopular” (i.e., unpopular). Analyses were
conducted separately for disliking and unpopularity.
Ethnic identity. Ethnic identity was assessed using the Multigroup Ethnic Identity
Measure (MEIM), a 2-factor measure reflecting ethnic identity search and affirmation,
belonging, and commitment (Phinney, 1992). Ethnic identity scores were calculated using the
sum of the 12-item measure, with answers ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 7 (very much true).
The measure was found to be highly reliable (α=0.75).

CROSS-ETHNIC FRIENDSHIPS AND GROUP ATTITUDES 21

Results
Descriptive Analyses and Bivariate Correlations
Table 1 summarizes means and standard deviations for all variables. Ethnicity (0=
Latino; 1= Asian-American) and gender (0=male; 1=female) were coded for pairwise
comparisons. There were no statistically significant differences between Latino and Asian
American students on any variables. All bivariate correlations are summarized in Table 2. Cross-
ethnic friendship was stable across years and was negatively correlated with number of same-
ethnic friendships but positively correlated with cross-ethnic liking and increased nominations of
popularity among cross-ethnic peers. Disliking by same ethnic peers was moderately stable
across time. Disliking by same ethnic peers at T2 was positively correlated with cross-ethnic
friendship at T2, but no other correlations with disliking were significant. Unpopularity by same-
ethnic peers was also moderately stable across time. Unpopularity at T1 was positively correlated
with disliking at T1, and same-ethnic unpopularity at T2 was negatively correlated with cross-
ethnic liking at T1, but no other variables were correlated with unpopularity among same-ethnic
peers.
We examined the distribution of all variables prior to conducting inferential analyses.
Typical of most peer nomination variables, the variables assessing liking, popularity, disliking,
and unpopular were all strongly skewed. Therefore, square root transformations were applied to
cross-ethnic liking, cross-ethnic popularity, disliking by same-ethnic peers, and unpopularity by
same-ethnic peers. Transformations reduced the severity of skewness, kurtosis, and extreme
scores.

CROSS-ETHNIC FRIENDSHIPS AND GROUP ATTITUDES 22

Inferential Statistical Analyses
Associations between same- and cross-ethnic friendships and positive attitudes. We
conducted a series of paired t-tests to determine whether there was a difference in students’ mean
levels of friendship, liking, and popularity towards their same-ethnic peers compared to their
cross-ethnic peers. There was a significant difference in the number of same-ethnic (M = 4.17,
SD = 3.30) and cross-ethnic friends (M=0.86, SD=1.35) at T1, t(523)= 20.33, p < 0.001. These
results suggest that youth had more same-ethnic friends than cross-ethnic friends. This pattern of
results was also found at T2, t(480)=21.95, p<0.001. Adolescents reported liking same-ethnic
peers (M= 0.18, SD= 0.14) more than cross-ethnic classmates (M= 0.06, SD= 0.07) at T1, t(523)
= 15.99, p < 0.001. This difference was also found at T2; t(489)=17.30, p<0.001). Differences
between nominating a same-ethnic (M=0.12, SD=0.10) and cross-ethnic peer (M=0.04, SD=0.07)
as popular were also found at T1; t(302)= 12.21, p<0.001. This pattern was maintained at T2;
t(334)= 11.71, p<0.001.
Cross-ethnic friendships and positive intergroup attitudes. We conducted a series of
hierarchical regression analyses to examine associations between cross-ethnic friendships and
positive intergroup attitudes across time. T2 intergroup attitudes (liking or popularity) towards
cross-ethnic peers were predicted from T1 cross-ethnic friendships, T1 intergroup attitude,
ethnicity, ethnic identity, and gender. To assess the moderating effects of ethnic identity, gender,
and ethnicity, we predicted T2 intergroup attitude from the main effects of T1 cross-ethnic
friendships, gender, ethnicity, ethnic identity and T1 liking/popularity as a stability term (Step 1);
two-way interactions between cross-ethnic friendships and each potential moderator (gender,
ethnicity, and ethnic identity; Step 2); and three-way interactions between T1 cross-ethnic
friendships, ethnicity, and ethnic identity or gender (Step 3). This process was completed
CROSS-ETHNIC FRIENDSHIPS AND GROUP ATTITUDES 23

separately, once for liking attitudes and once for popularity. Results from hierarchical
regressions predicting positive intergroup attitudes are found in Table 3.
Liking. On Step 1 we found a significant association for the overall model predicting T2
cross-ethnic liking from T1 liking, ethnicity, gender, ethnic identity, and T1 cross-ethnic
friendships. After controlling for T1 liking, ethnicity, gender, and ethnic identity, T1 cross-ethnic
friendships predicted cross-ethnic liking at T2. Ethnicity also significantly predicted cross-ethnic
liking at T2, after adjusting for the other variables in the model. Specifically, Asian-American
students were more likely than Latino students to like cross-ethnic peers. No significant two-way
or three-way moderation effects were found with gender, ethnicity, or ethnic identity.
Popularity. The overall model predicting T2 cross-ethnic popularity from T1 popularity,
ethnicity, gender, ethnic identity, and T1 cross-ethnic friendships was significant. On Step 1
there was a main effect of T1 cross-ethnic friendships in predicting T2 cross-ethnic popularity,
but no other main effects were found. However, ethnicity did moderate the relation between
cross-ethnic friendships and T2 cross-ethnic popularity. The model including the two-way
interaction of ethnicity by cross-ethnic friendship and the interaction term were significant. To
elucidate this interaction, we specified separate models for Latino- and Asian- American
students. The association between cross-ethnic friends and T2 popularity was stronger for Latino
students (β=0.39, p<0.001), than it was for Asian students (β=0.18, p<0.05). No other significant
two- or three- way interactions were found.
Cross ethnic friendships and negative intragroup attitudes. We conducted multiple
hierarchical regressions to examine associations between cross-ethnic friendships and negative
intragroup attitudes across time, considering the two- and three-way moderating effects of ethnic
identity, gender, and ethnicity by cross-ethnic friendship. Negative intragroup perceptions
CROSS-ETHNIC FRIENDSHIPS AND GROUP ATTITUDES 24

(disliking/unpopularity) at T2 were predicted from the main effects of T1 cross-ethnic
friendships, ethnicity, ethnic identity and gender, and T1 disliking/unpopularity as a stability
term (Step 1); the two-way interactions between cross-ethnic friendships and each potential
moderator (gender, ethnicity, and ethnic identity; Step 2); and the three-way interactions between
T1 cross-ethnic friendships, ethnicity, and ethnic identity or gender (Step 3). This process was
completed separately for disliking and unpopularity by peers. Results from hierarchical
regressions predicting positive intergroup attitudes are found in Table 4.
Disliking. On Step 1 of the model examining disliking by same-ethnic peers, only the T1
disliking stability term significantly contributed to the model. No other variables were found to
be main effects in predicting T1 received disliking nominations. However, gender was found to
have a moderating effect on the link between cross-ethnic friendship and disliking by same-
ethnic peers. Therefore, we specified models separately for boys and girls. For boys, the
association between cross-ethnic friendships and disliking by same-ethnic peers at T2 was not
significant when controlling for T1 disliking, ethnicity, and ethnic identity (β=0.10, ns). For
girls, on the other hand, there was a significant, negative association between cross-ethnic
friendship and disliking by same-ethnic peers (β=-0.13, p=0.03). No other two-way interactions
and no three-way interactions were found to significantly predict T1 received disliking
nominations.
Unpopular. A significant association was found for the Step 1 model predicting
nominations as unpopular by same-ethnic peers from T1 unpopularity, ethnicity, gender, ethnic
identity, and T1 cross-ethnic friendships. After controlling for the other variables in the model,
only ethnicity significantly contributed to the model. Number of cross-ethnic friendships did not
significantly predict nominations of unpopular received by same-ethnic peers. No two- or three-
CROSS-ETHNIC FRIENDSHIPS AND GROUP ATTITUDES 25

way interactions of cross-ethnic friendship with gender, ethnicity, or ethnic identity were found
to moderate the relation between cross-ethnic friendship and nomination as unpopular by same-
ethnic peers.
Discussion
The goal of the current study was to conduct an investigation into cross-ethnic
friendships in a multi-ethnic school setting predominately populated by Latino- and Asian-
American students. Research examining friendships in adolescent peer groups has found that
cross-ethnic friendships are less prevalent than same-ethnic friendships, with some researchers
concluding that cross-ethnic friendships are rare in adolescent samples (e.g., Schneider et al.,
2007). Our main goal was to understand how cross-ethnic friendships are related to perceptions
towards same- and cross-ethnic classmates. To this end, we investigated the associations between
cross-ethnic friendships and positive attitudes towards cross-ethnic peers. We also explored
associations between cross-ethnic friendships and negative attitudes received from same-ethnic
peers. Subsequently, we examined the prevalence of same- and cross-ethnic friendships and
positive group attitudes in an ethnically diverse school environment. Overall, our results
highlight that an increased number of cross-ethnic friendships predicts improved attitudes
towards cross-ethnic peers. Furthermore, our data suggest that students with cross-ethnic friends
do not experience same-ethnic social sanctions, specifically disliking or unpopularity by same-
ethnic peers.
Friendships and in-group bias in a diverse adolescent environment
In this study we used reciprocated friendship nominations to examine true dyadic
friendships in a diverse school setting. As school populations become more ethnically diverse,
and Caucasian students no longer make up the numerical majority in classrooms across the
CROSS-ETHNIC FRIENDSHIPS AND GROUP ATTITUDES 26

country, it is crucial to examine cross-ethnic friendships among minority groups. This study
contributes to the existing literature by focusing on cross-ethnic friendships between traditional
minority groups. Consistent with prior research, we found that youth had more same-ethnic and
fewer cross-ethnic friends across time. Although Asian- and Latino- American students did
report being friends with students from the other ethnic group, approximately half of the students
in the sample did not have a cross-ethnic friend. This finding supports the homophily hypothesis
which proports that ethnicity is one of the strongest indicators of homophily and that youth
develop friendships with others who are like them in some way.
Not only are youth more likely to have same-ethnic friends, but they are also more likely
to report positive attitudes towards their same-ethnic peers compared to their cross-ethnic peers.
Our findings are consistent with Tajfel and Turner’s social identity theory, stating that
individuals view their own group more highly than they do other groups. Overall, we found that
youth reportedly liked their same-ethnic peers more than cross-ethnic peers. This trend also held
for popularity, with youth overreporting their same-ethnic peers as more popular than cross-
ethnic peers. This pattern was maintained for both Latino and Asian-American youth. Taken
together, these findings are particularly interesting and novel, as they suggest that youth not only
view their same-ethnic peers more highly in an affective perception (i.e., more liked) but also in
reputational constructs (i.e., more popular).
Cross-ethnic friendships and positive intergroup attitudes
Although youth have more same-ethnic friends, we’ve found that those who do have
cross-ethnic friends report more positive attitudes towards cross-ethnic peers. Having more
cross-ethnic friends was related to increased liking of cross-ethnic peers and increased
nomination of cross-ethnic peers as popular. Specifically, after controlling for liking at T1 and
CROSS-ETHNIC FRIENDSHIPS AND GROUP ATTITUDES 27

ethnicity, youth who had more cross-ethnic friendships at T1 liked a greater proportion of cross-
ethnic peers at T2. A similar pattern was also found for popularity. Consistent with contact
theory, these findings suggest that having more cross-ethnic friends can improve youths’
attitudes towards cross-ethnic peers. It is likely that increased contact with and exposure to
individuals from different groups improves intergroup attitudes over time.
It is important to note that ethnicity was also a significant predictor of cross-ethnic liking,
with Asian-American students, the majority group at the school, reporting more liking of Latino
peers. Some researchers have found that youth in the majority are more likely to experience
group-threat when they fear losing their dominant status and therefore report less positive
attitudes towards the minority group (Vervoort et al., 2011; Quillian, 1995). Findings like these
are often used in dissenting opinions against ethnic mixing in schools. However, our results add
to the growing body of literature (e.g., Stark, Mäs, & Flache, 2015) that does not support the
group-threat theory. In the current study, the majority group did not demonstrate decreased liking
towards the minority group as would be expected in group threat theory.
We suggest that additional factors, such as the ethnic composition of the school,
orientation towards academic achievement, or acculturation status might account for this finding.
First, although Asian-Americans make up the majority in the school, they are not the historical or
numerical majority in the greater Los Angeles area. Therefore, they might not identify as a
threatened majority group. Alternatively, there could be other factors such as academic
achievement or acculturation status that might contribute to this finding. A study using a subset
of the youth from our sample found that academic functioning was more strongly linked for
Vietnamese- compared to Mexican-American students and that Vietnamese-American youth
were more likely to admire high-achieving peers (Duong et al., 2014). It could be that academic
CROSS-ETHNIC FRIENDSHIPS AND GROUP ATTITUDES 28

achievement rather than ethnicity is a stronger indicator of homophily for at least a subset of
Asian-American students. Future research could systematically evaluate these other factors to
elucidate this pattern. However, there were no moderating effects of ethnicity, ethnic identity, or
gender in the relation between cross-ethnic friendships and liking of cross-ethnic peers.
For predictive links between cross-ethnic friendship and popularity, we found a
moderated association between cross-ethnic friendship and ethnicity such that the positive
relation between cross-ethnic friendship and perceptions of cross-ethnic peers as popular was
stronger among Latino students than it was for Asian-American students. Therefore, Latino
students, who made up the numerical minority in the classroom, were more likely to report cross-
ethnic peers as popular if they had more cross-ethnic friends, but this finding was weaker among
Asian-American youth. As mentioned previously, these effects of ethnicity could be investigated
in more detail in future research, but we hesitate to develop any conclusions from these findings
given that no a priori hypothesis was developed regarding the effects of ethnicity. No other
moderating effects of ethnic identity or gender were found.
Cross ethnic friendships and negative intragroup attitudes
Although prior researchers have evaluated the potential intergroup benefits of cross-
ethnic friendships, few studies have thoroughly examined possible intragroup social sanctions
that may develop in association with increased cross-ethnic friendships. Because intragroup
preference is observed universally, it could be that youth who do not conform to this social
identity theory are viewed less favorably (i.e., disliked) and receive negative reputational
evaluations (i.e., unpopular) by their in-group peers. Specifically, we were interested in
examining whether or not having more cross-ethnic friendships might be associated with greater
disliking and unpopularity by same-ethnic peers. Contrary to our expectations, we found that
CROSS-ETHNIC FRIENDSHIPS AND GROUP ATTITUDES 29

increased cross-ethnic friendships at T1 did not significantly predict increased disliking or
unpopularity by same-ethnic peers. Furthermore, we found no effect of ethnicity or ethnic
identity in these relations. However, having more cross-ethnic friends predicted a decrease in
being disliked by same-ethnic peers for girls but not boys. Taken together, these results provide
evidence that there are no same-ethnic social sanctions associated with increased cross-ethnic
friendships. Furthermore, there is tentative evidence suggesting that, at least for girls, having
more cross-ethnic friendships may be associated with decreased same-ethnic disliking.
Although these findings did not support our hypothesis, they are consistent with a
proposed theory that youth with cross-ethnic friendships may be more emotionally and socially
well-adjusted which might make them more well-liked by all peers (Kawabata & Crick, 2008;
Lease & Blake, 2005). Some researchers argue that well-adjusted youth might be better equipped
with the skills and confidence to navigate social and cultural nuances to initiate cross-ethnic
friendships. If youth with cross-ethnic friendships are more confident and socially skilled, it is
likely that all peers will view these individuals more favorably. As we found no same-ethnic
social sanctions associated with increased cross-ethnic friendship, we therefore recommend that
future research consider directly examining emotional and social adjustment of youth with cross-
ethnic friends to understand possible underlying mechanisms that may position youth with more
cross-ethnic friends in more favorable social positions.
Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions
Despite the strengths of the current study, there are some limitations that must be
considered. This study was one of very few studies to have used reciprocated friendship
nominations when assessing cross-ethnic friendships. This conceptualization is particularly
important when examining cross-ethnic friendships and intergroup attitudes. The theories central
CROSS-ETHNIC FRIENDSHIPS AND GROUP ATTITUDES 30

to the association between attitudes and cross-ethnic friendship rely on friendly, intimate contact
between youths, which is best characterized through reciprocated friendship nominations rather
than other similarly related constructs such as potential friends. Furthermore, this study examines
cross-ethnic friendships among minority groups that have been largely overlooked in prior
research (see Chen & Graham, 2015 for an exception). This is an important shift in cross-ethnic
friendship research which has predominately focused on cross-ethnic friendships between
Caucasian majority students and one minority group. As our communities become increasingly
diversified, it is crucial that our research reflects the diversity of the communities in which we
live. Finally, our use of peer nominations to assess group attitudes is an advantageous study
design as our data is less likely to be biased by social desirability compared to surveys or
questionnaires that directly elicit beliefs about cross-ethnic attitudes.
However, our study is not without limitations. Because our analyses examine data from a
single school, we were not able to consider how the ethnic composition of the school may impact
findings. It could be that youth in the numerical majority have different experiences of cross-
ethnic friendship from youth in the numerical minority. Therefore, additional research on
classroom ethnic composition is warranted. Furthermore, because we only compared Asian-
American and Latino students, our findings cannot be generalized to other ethnic groups.
Additionally, because of the size and ethnic composition of our sample, we categorized youth
broadly as Latino-American or Asian-American. This dichotomization neglects the diversity
found within each group and prevents us from making more nuanced comparisons of youth who
were assigned to the same category. Because of these combined limitations, it is unclear whether
some of the effects by ethnicity we found are truly effects of ethnic variability, third variables
such as academic achievement or generational status, or effects of classroom or school ethnic
CROSS-ETHNIC FRIENDSHIPS AND GROUP ATTITUDES 31

composition. Given the ethnic diversity of our school which has a unique combination of Latino
and Asian-American youth, it is important for future research to test whether the patterns found
in the current study replicate in school settings with differing ethnic diversity. Finally, another
promising avenue of research would be to more systematically examine social and emotional
adjustment of youth with cross-ethnic friendships to better understand if more adaptive youth
adjustment contributes to the negative association between cross-ethnic friendship and same-
ethnic disliking or unpopularity.
Conclusions
Overall, these research findings present a very optimistic picture of cross-ethnic
friendships in diverse middle school settings. Consistent with our hypotheses, our analyses
suggest that having cross-ethnic friendships significantly predicts positive attitudes towards
peers, specifically more liking and popularity of cross-ethnic peers over time. Furthermore, we
found that Latinos with cross-ethnic friendships reported more cross-ethnic peers as popularity,
whereas this association was not as strong for Asian-American students.
Contrary to what we hypothesized, we found that youth with more cross-ethnic
friendships did not experience greater disliking or unpopularity by same-ethnic peers. In fact, for
girls, cross-ethnic friendships predicted decreased disliking and unpopularity by same-ethnic
peers. Although we found that youth were less likely to have cross-ethnic friendships compared
to same-ethnic friendships, our findings suggest that youth who do have cross-ethnic friendships
experience positive attitudes towards cross-ethnic peers without enduring same-ethnic social
sanctions.

CROSS-ETHNIC FRIENDSHIPS AND GROUP ATTITUDES 32

References
Aboud, F. E. (2003). The formation of ingroup favoritism and outgroup prejudice in young
children: Are they distinct attitudes? Developmental Psychology, 39(1), 48–60.
doi:10.1037/0012-1649.39.1.48
Aboud, F., Mendelson, M., & Purdy, K. (2003). Cross-race peer relations and friendship quality.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27, 165–173.
doi:10.1080/01650250244000164
Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor.
Baerveldt, C., van de Bunt, G. G., & de Federico de la Rúa, A. (2010). Why and how selection
patterns in classroom networks differ between students. The potential influence of
networks size preferences, level of information, and group membership. REDES, 19,
272–298.
Bagci, S. C., & Çelebi, E. (2016). Cross-group friendships and outgroup attitudes among
Turkish-Kurdish ethnic groups: Does perceived interethnic conflict moderate the
friendship-attitude link? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 47, 59-73.
Bagci, S. C., Kumashiro, M., Smith, P. K., Blumberg, H., & Rutland, A. (2014). Cross-ethnic
friendships: Are they really rare? Evidence from secondary schools around London.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 41, 125–137.
doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2014.04.001
Bagci, S. C., Rutland, A., Kumashiro, M., Smith, P. K., & Blumberg, H. (2014). Are minority
status children’s cross-ethnic friendships beneficial in a multiethnic context? British
Journal of Developmental Psychology, 32, 107–115.
CROSS-ETHNIC FRIENDSHIPS AND GROUP ATTITUDES 33

Baron, A. S., & Banaji, M. R. (2006). The development of implicit attitudes: Evidence of race
evaluations from ages 6 and 10 and adulthood. Psychological Science, 17(1), 53–58.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01664.x
Baysu, G., Phalet, K., & Brown, R. (2014). Relative group size and minority school success: The
role of intergroup friendship and discrimination experiences. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 53(2), 328–349. doi:10.1111/bjso.12035
Bellmore, A., Jiang, X. L., & Juvonen, J. (2010). Utilizing peer nominations in middle school: A
longitudinal comparison between complete classroom‐based and random list methods.
Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20(2), 538-550.
Bellmore, A. D., Nishina, A., Witkow, M. R., Graham, S., & Juvonen, J. (2007). The influence
of classroom ethnic composition on same- and other-ethnicity peer nominations in middle
school. Social Development, 16(4), 720–740. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00404.x
Berry, J. W. (1984). Multicultural policy in Canada: A social psychological analysis. Canadian
Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 16,
353-370.
Bigler, R. S., Jones, L. C., & Lobliner, D. B. (1997). Social Categorization and the formation of
intergroup attitudes in children. Child Development, 68(3), 530. doi:10.2307/1131676
Brechwald, W. A., & Prinstein, M. J. (2011). Beyond homophily: A decade of advances in
understanding peer influence processes. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(1), 166–
179. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00721.x
Buhrmester, D., & Prager, K. (1995). Patterns and functions of self-disclosure during childhood
and adolescence. In K. Rotenberg (Ed.), Disclosure Processes in Children and
CROSS-ETHNIC FRIENDSHIPS AND GROUP ATTITUDES 34

Adolescents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
doi:10.1017/CBO9780511527746.002
Bukowski, W. M., Hoza, B., & Newcomb, A. F. (1994). Using rating scale and nomination
techniques to measure friendship and popularity. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 11, 485-488. doi:10.1177/0265407594113012
Cairns, R.B., Leung, M.C., Buchanan, L., & Cairns, B.D. (1995). Friendship and social networks
in childhood and adolescence: Fluidity, reliability, and interrelations. Child Development,
66, 1330–1345.
Cameron, J. A., Alvarez, J. M., Ruble, D. N., & Fuligni, A. J. (2001). Children’s lay theories
about ingroups and outgroups: Reconceptualizing research on prejudice. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 5(2), 118–128. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0502_3
Caspi A. (2002). Social selection, social causation, and developmental pathways: Empirical
strategies for better understanding how individuals and environments are linked across
the life-course. In Pulkkinen L., Caspi A. (Eds.), Paths to successful development:
Personality in the life course (pp. 281–301). New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511489761.012
Chen, X., & Graham, S. (2015). Cross-ethnic friendships and intergroup attitudes among Asian
American adolescents. Child Development, 86(3), 749–764. doi:10.1111/cdev.12339
Cillessen A. H. N., Marks P. E. L. (2011). Conceptualizing and measuring popularity. In
Cillessen A. H. N., Schwartz D., Mayeux L. (Eds.), Popularity in the Peer System (pp.
25-56). New York, NY: Guilford.
Collins, W. A., & Steinberg, L. (2006). Adolescent development in interpersonal context. In W.
Damon & R. M. Lerner (Series Eds.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of Child
CROSS-ETHNIC FRIENDSHIPS AND GROUP ATTITUDES 35

Psychology: Vol:3. Social, Emotional, and Personality Development (6th ed., pp. 1003-
1067). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Cross, W. (1991). Shades of Black: Diversity in African-American Identity. Philadelphia: Temple
University Press.
DuBois, D. L., & Hirsch, B. J. (1990). School and neighborhood friendship patterns of blacks
and whites in early adolescence. Child Development, 61, 524-536.
Dunham, Y., Baron, A. S., & Carey, S. (2011). Consequences of “minimal” group affiliations in
children. Child Development, 82(3), 793–811.
Duong, M., Schwartz, D., McCarty, C. (2014). Associations between social adjustment and
academic achievement among Mexican American and Vietnamese American early
adolescents. Social Development. 23, 196-214.
Feddes, A. R., Noack, P., & Rutland, A. (2009). Direct and extended friendship effects on
minority and majority Children’s Interethnic attitudes: A longitudinal study. Child
Development, 80(2), 377–390. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01266.x
French, D. C., Purwono, U. & Rodkin, P. C. (2012). Religiosity of adolescents and their friends
and network associates: Homophily and associations with antisocial behavior. Journal of
Research on Adolescence, 22.2, 326-32.
Goldsmith, P.A. (2004). Schools’ role in shaping race relations: Evidence on friendliness and
conflict. Social Problems, 51(4), 587–612. doi:10.1525/sp.2004.51.4.587
Graham, S., Munniksma, A., & Juvonen, J. (2014). Psychosocial benefits of cross-ethnic
friendships in urban middle schools. Child Development, 85(2), 469–483.
doi:10.1111/cdev.12159
CROSS-ETHNIC FRIENDSHIPS AND GROUP ATTITUDES 36

Graham, S., Taylor, A., & Ho, A. (2009). Race and ethnicity in peer relations research. In K.
Rubin, W. Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds.), Handbook of Peer Interactions,
Relationships, and Groups (pp.394-413). New York: Guilford Press.
Graham, J.A. & Cohen, R. (1997). Race and sex as factors in children’s sociometric ratings and
friendship choices. Social Development, 6, 355–372 .
Hamm, J. V., Bradford Brown, B., & Heck, D. J. (2005). Bridging the ethnic divide: Student and
school characteristics in African American, Asian-Descent, Latino, and white
adolescents’ cross-ethnic friend nominations. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 15(1),
21–46. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2005.00085.x
Hunter, L., & Elias, M. J. (1999). Interracial friendships, Multicultural sensitivity, and social
competence. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 20(4), 551–573.
doi:10.1016/s0193-3973(99)00028-3
Kandel, D. (1978). Homophily, selection, and socialization in adolescent friendships. American
Journal of Sociology, 84(2), 427-436.
Kawabata, Y., & Crick, N. R. (2008). The role of cross-racial/ethnic friendships in social
adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 44(4), 1177–1183. doi:10.1037/0012-
1649.44.4.1177
Knifsend, C. A., & Juvonen, J. (2013). Social identity complexity, cross-ethnic friendships, and
intergroup attitudes in urban middle schools. Child Development, 85(2), 709-721.
doi:10.1111/cdev.12157
Lambert, W. E., Mermigis, L., & Taylor, D. M. (1986). Greek Canadians' attitudes toward own
group and other Canadian ethnic groups: A test of the multiculturalism hypothesis.
CROSS-ETHNIC FRIENDSHIPS AND GROUP ATTITUDES 37

Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du
comportement, 18(1), 35.
Lazarsfeld, P.F., Merton, R.K. (1954). Friendships a social process: A substantive and
methodological analysis. In M Berger (Ed.), Freedom and Control in Modern Society
(pp. 18–66). New York: Van Nostrand.
Lease, A. M., & Blake, J. J. (2005). A comparison of majority-race children with and without a
minority-race friend. Social Development, 14(1), 20–41. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9507.2005.00289.x
Lee, L. S. (2016). Peer relations and social adjustment of Latino and Chinese children in head
start classrooms. Early Education and Development, 27(1), 1-17.
Maccoby, E.E. (2002). Gender and group process: A developmental perspective. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 11(2):54-58.
McFarland, J., Hussar, B., de Brey, C., Snyder, T., Wang, X., Wilkinson-Flicker, S., ... &
Bullock Mann, F. (2017). The Condition of Education 2017. NCES 2017-144. National
Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/coe_cge.pdf.
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social
networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415–444.
doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415
Mendoza-Denton, R., & Page-Gould, E. (2008). Can cross-group friendships influence minority
students’ well-being at historically white universities? Psychological Science, 19(9),
933–939. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02179.x
Messick, D. M., & Mackie, D. M. (1989). Intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology,
40(1), 45–81. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.40.020189.000401
CROSS-ETHNIC FRIENDSHIPS AND GROUP ATTITUDES 38

Moody, J. (2001). Race, school integration, and friendship segregation in America. American
Journal of Sociology, 107(3), 679–716. doi:10.1086/338954
Mouw, T., & Entwisle, B. (2006). Residential segregation and interracial friendship in schools.
American Journal of Sociology, 112(2), 394–441. doi:10.1086/506415
Munniksma, A., & Juvonen, J. (2012). Cross-ethnic friendships and sense of social-emotional
safety in a Multiethnic middle school: An exploratory study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,
58(4), 489–506. doi:10.1353/mpq.2012.0023
Newcomb, A. F., & Bagwell, C. L. (1995). Children's friendship relations: A meta-analytic
review. Psychological Bulletin, 117(2), 306-347. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.117.2.306
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-
analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(6), 922–
934. doi:10.1002/ejsp.504
Phinney, J. S. & Ong, A. D. (2007). Conceptualization and measurement of ethnic identity:
Current status and future directions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54:271–281.
Phinney, J. S., Ferguson, D. L., & Tate, J. D. (1997). Intergroup attitudes among ethnic minority
adolescents: A causal model. Child Development, 68(5), 955-969.
Phinney, J. (1992). The multigroup ethnic identity measure: A new scale for use with diverse
groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7, 156–176.
Phinney, J. (1993). A three-stage model of ethnic identity development. In M. Bernal & G.
Knight (Eds.), Ethnic identity: Formation and transmission among Hispanics and other
minorities (pp. 61–79). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Powlishta, K. K. (1995). Gender bias in children’s perceptions of personality traits. Sex Roles,
32(1-2), 17–28. doi:10.1007/bf01544755
CROSS-ETHNIC FRIENDSHIPS AND GROUP ATTITUDES 39

Quillian, L. (1995). Prejudice as a Response to Perceived Group Threat: Population Composition
and Anti-Immigrant and Racial Prejudice in Europe. American Sociological Review,
60(4), 586-611.
Rivera, D. S. (2014). How school diversity, peer-relations, and ethnic identity shape
ethnocultural empathy among Latino and Asian American students. McNair Scholars
Journal, 15.
Rothbart, M., & John, O. P. (1985). Social Categorization and behavioral episodes: A cognitive
analysis of the effects of intergroup contact. Journal of Social Issues, 41(3), 81–104.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1985.tb01130.x
Schneider, B. H., Dixon, K., & Udvari, S. (2007). Closeness and competition in the inter-ethnic
and co-ethnic friendships of early adolescents in Toronto and Montreal. The Journal of
Early Adolescence, 27(1), 115–138. doi:10.1177/0272431606294822
Schwartz, D., Gorman, A., Duong, M., Nakamoto, J. (2008). Peer relationships and academic
achievement as interacting predictors of depressive symptoms during middle childhood.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology. Vol. 117, pp. 289-299.
Shulman, S., Laursen, B., Kalman, Z., & Karpovsky, S. (1997). Adolescent intimacy revisited.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26(5), 597–617.
http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024586006966
Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Goossens, L., Duriez, B. and Niemiec, C. P. (2008), The
intervening role of relational aggression between psychological control and friendship
quality. Social Development, 17: 661–681. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00454.x
CROSS-ETHNIC FRIENDSHIPS AND GROUP ATTITUDES 40

Stark, T. H., Mäs, M. , & Flache, A. 2015. Liking and disliking minority-group classmates:
Explaining the mixed findings for the influence of ethnic classroom composition on
interethnic attitudes. Social Science Research, 50,164-176.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin
& S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 33-47).
Monterrey, CA: Brooks / Cole.
Thijs, J., & Verkuyten, M. (2012). Ethnic attitudes of minority students and their contact with
majority group teachers. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 33, 260–268.
Tropp, L. R., Hawi, D. R., Van Laar, C., & Levin, S. (2011). Cross-ethnic friendships, perceived
discrimination, and their effects on ethnic activism over time: A longitudinal
investigation of three ethnic minority groups. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51(2),
257–272. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02050.x
US Census Bureau (2010). 2010 Census of population: General population characteristics of the
United States. Bureau of the Census: Washington, DC.
Vaquera, E., & Kao, G. (2008). Do you like me as much as I like you? Friendship reciprocity and
its effects on school outcomes among adolescents. Social Science Research, 37(1), 55–
72. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2006.11.002
Verkuyten, M., & Thijs, J. (2001). Ethnic and gender bias among Dutch and Turkish children in
late childhood: The role of social context. Infant and Child Development, 10(4), 203-217.
doi:10.1002/icd.279
Vervoort, M. H. M., Scholte, R. H. J., & Scheepers, P. L. H. (2011). Ethnic composition of
school classes, majority–minority friendships, and adolescents’ intergroup attitudes in the
CROSS-ETHNIC FRIENDSHIPS AND GROUP ATTITUDES 41

Netherlands. Journal of Adolescence, 34, 257–267.
doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.05.005
Wang, Y-W.M., Davidson, M., Yakushko, O.F., Savoy, H.B., Tan, J.A., & Bleier, J.K.
(2003).The scale of ethnocultural empathy: Development, validation, and reliability.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50, 221-234.
Wilson, T., & Rodkin, P. C. (2011). African American and European American children in
diverse elementary classrooms: Social integration, social status, and social behavior.
Child Development, 82, 1454–1469. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01634.x

CROSS-ETHNIC FRIENDSHIPS AND GROUP ATTITUDES 42

Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations
Ethnicity
Total Sample
(n=524)
Latino-American
(n=248)
Asian-American
(n=276)
Variable Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
Gender (female) 56.5% 53.3% 54.8%
T1 Ethnic Identity 55.13 (15.20) 56.17 (14.42) 55.68 (14.79)
T2 Ethnic Identity 54.27 (16.48) 55.38 (15.55) 54.86 (15.98)
T1 Friendship
Same-ethnic 4.20 (3.36) 4.15 (3.25) 4.17 (3.30)
Cross-ethnic 0.91 (1.53) 0.81 (1.18) 0.87 (1.35)
T2 Friendship
Same-ethnic 4.12 (3.03) 4.57 (3.08) 4.36 (3.06)
Cross-ethnic 0.94 (1.73) 0.85 (1.33) 0.89 (1.53)
T1 Liking
Same-ethnic 0.16 (0.14) 0.19 (0.15) 0.18 (0.14)
Cross-ethnic 0.06 (0.07) 0.07 (0.09) 0.06 (0.08)
T2 Liking
Same-ethnic 0.16 (0.12) 0.18 (0.12) 0.17 (0.12)
Cross-ethnic 0.05 (0.07) 0.07 (0.07) 0.06 (0.07)
T1 Popularity
Same-ethnic 0.11 (0.10) 0.12 (0.10) 0.12 (0.10)
Cross-ethnic 0.05 (0.07) 0.04 (0.07) 0.04 (0.07)
T2 Popularity
Same-ethnic 0.11 (0.11) 0.13 (0.12) 0.12 (0.11)
Cross-ethnic 0.04 (0.08) 0.04 (0.05) 0.04 (0.06)
T1 Disliking by
same-ethnic peers
0.04 (0.06) 0.05 (0.07) 0.04 (0.07)
T2 Disliking by
same-ethnic peers
0.04 (0.06) 0.04 (0.06) 0.04 (0.06)
T1 Unpopular among
same-ethnic peers
0.09 (0.08) 0.08 (0.08) 0.08 (0.08)
T2 Unpopular among
same-ethnic peers
0.09 (0.08) 0.08 (0.08) 0.09 (0.08)
Note. Liking, popularity, disliking, and unpopularity are standardized values.

CROSS-ETHNIC FRIENDSHIPS AND GROUP ATTITUDES 43

Table 2
Bivariate Correlations

Variables 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.
1. T1 Same-ethnic
friendship
1.00 0.54
***
-0.14
**
-0.11
*
-0.06 -0.07 -0.09 -0.11
*
-0.01 -0.05 -0.06 -0.04 0.10
*
0.11
**

2. T2 Same-ethnic
friendship
1.00 -0.14
**
-0.03 -0.08 -0.04 -0.07 -0.08 -0.03 -0.02 -0.07 -0.04 .06 0.11
*

3. T1 Cross-ethnic
friendship
1.00 0.69
***
0.40
***
0.42
***
0.40
***
0.45
***
0.03 0.00 -0.01 0.03 -0.07 -0.03
4. T2 Cross-ethnic
friendship
1.00 0.34
***
0.47
***
0.37
***
0.51
***
0.05 0.10
*
-0.05 0.02 -0.11 -0.07
5. T1 Cross-ethnic
liking
1.00 0.34
***
0.45
***
0.38
***
0.03 0.04 -0.06 -0.11
**
-0.03 -0.11
*

6. T2 Cross-ethnic
liking
1.00 0.34
***
0.62
***
-0.05 0.02 -0.06 0.00 0.00 0.04
7. T1 Cross-ethnic
popularity
1.00 0.43
***
0.02 0.08 -0.06 -0.15 -0.10 -0.08
8. T2 Cross-ethnic
popularity
1.00 0.01 0.09 -0.07 -0.10 -0.09 -0.06
9. T1 Disliking by same-
ethnic peers
1.00 0.39
***
0.12
**
-0.04 0.01 -0.03
10. T2 Disliking by
same-ethnic peers
1.00 0.01 0.08 0.01 -0.02
11. T1 Unpopular
among same-ethnic
peers
1.00 0.30
***
-0.13
**
-0.12
**

12. T2 Unpopular
among same-ethnic
peers
1.00 -0.05 -0.05
13. T1 Ethnic Identity 1.00 0.60
***

14. T2 Ethnic Identity 1.00
Note. * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001.
CROSS-ETHNIC FRIENDSHIPS AND GROUP ATTITUDES 44

Table 3
Summary of Simple Linear Regression Analyses Predicting Intergroup Attitudes from Cross-ethnic Friendships
T2 Cross-ethnic liking T2 Cross-ethnic popularity
Step β t sr
2
F R
2
β t sr
2

F R
2

1 T1 Stability variable .18 3.95 .03
***
.22 3.44 .04
***

Ethnicity .16 3.77 .02
***
.05 0.82 .00

Gender -.01 -0.35 .00 .00 0.03 .00

Ethnic identity .06 1.45 .00 -.03 -0.50 .00

T1 Cross-ethnic friendship .30 6.48 .07
***
.34 5.08 .09
***

2 T1 Cross-ethnic friendship X gender -.07 -1.26 .00 -.09 -1.16 .00

T1 Cross-ethnic friendship X ethnicity .00 -0.06 .00 -.18 -2.26 .02
*

T1 Cross-ethnic friendship X ethnic identity .03 0.72 .00 .09 1.17 .00

3 T1 Cross-ethnic friendship X gender X ethnicity -.08 -0.98 .00 12.92 .18
***
.04 0.39 .00

8.20 .23
***

T1 Cross-ethnic friendship X ethnic identity X ethnicity .01 0.16 .00 12.69 .18
***
-.06 -0.68 .00

8.66 .24
***

Note. * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001.

CROSS-ETHNIC FRIENDSHIPS AND GROUP ATTITUDES 45

Table 4
Summary of Simple Linear Regression Analyses Predicting Intragroup Attitudes from Cross-ethnic Friendships
T2 Disliking by same-ethnic peers T2 Unpopular among same-ethnic peers
Step β t sr
2
F R
2
β t sr
2
F R
2

1 T1 Stability variable .36 8.38 .13
***
.28 6.40 .08
***

Ethnicity -.01 -0.30 .00 -.11 -2.54 .01
*

Gender -.01 0.18 .00 -.03 -0.68 .00
Ethnic identity -.02 -0.36 .00 -.01 -0.18 .00
T1 Cross-ethnic friendship .01 0.30 .00 -.01 -0.21 .00
2 T1 Cross-ethnic friendship X gender -.15 -2.70 .01
**
-.01 -0.13 .00
T1 Cross-ethnic friendship X ethnicity .08 1.23 .00 -.05 -0.86 .00
T1 Cross-ethnic friendship X ethnic identity .02 0.47 .00 -.04 -0.78 .00
3 T1 Cross-ethnic friendship X gender X ethnicity .07 0.42 .00 9.00 .13
***
.24 1.34 .00 7.15 .10
***

T1 Cross-ethnic friendship X ethnic identity X ethnicity -.05 -0.71 .00 8.10 .12
***
.05 0.75 .00 6.24 .09
***

Note. * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The current study examines the short-term longitudinal impact of cross-ethnic friendships on positive peer attitudes towards cross-ethnic classmates and negative attitudes by same-ethnic peers. A total of 524 students (54.8% female

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Academic achievement, same- and cross-ethnic positive peer regard among Asian American and Latinx adolescents

PDF

Differential associations between same- and cross-ethnicity negative peer attitudes and adjustment outcomes among Vietnamese and Mexican American adolescents

PDF

Meta-accuracy as a moderator of the association between social experience and emotional adjustment during childhood

PDF

Adolescents who have never dated: friendship attributes as predictors of prolonged romantic development among Asian American and Latine youths

PDF

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

PDF

Peer Coach Training for disruptive youth

PDF

Social status, perceived social reputations, and perceived dyadic relationships in early adolescence

PDF

Targeting sexism with cognitive dissonance

PDF

Stigma-based peer aggression and social status in middle adolescence: the unique implications of weight-related aggression

PDF

Examining the associations of respiratory problems with psychological functioning and the moderating role of engagement in pleasurable activities during late adolescence

PDF

The role of primary care in the use of specialty mental health services: an investigation of utilization patterns among African Americans and non-Hispanic Whites

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Friendship as a protective factor in adolescence

PDF

Interpersonal coping responses during adolescence: implications for adjustment

PDF

A self-knowledge model of social inference

PDF

Investigating discrimination and depression within a couple context

PDF

Dynamics of victimization, aggression, and popularity in adolescence

PDF

Community violence exposure and children's subsequent rejection within the school peer group: the mediating roles of emotion dysregulation and depressive symptoms

PDF

Conceptually permissive attitudes

Asset Metadata

Creator Kelleghan, Annemarie (author)

Core Title Cross-ethnic friendships, intergroup attitudes, and intragroup social costs among Asian-American and Latino-American youth

School College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Psychology

Publication Date 07/26/2018

Defense Date 04/23/2018

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

Tag adolescence,cross-ethnic friendships,Ethnicity,OAI-PMH Harvest,peer attitudes

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Schwartz, David (committee chair), Huey, Stan (committee member), Manis, Frank (committee member)

Creator Email akelleghan@gmail.com,kellegha@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-23824

Unique identifier UC11669403

Identifier etd-KelleghanA-6483.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-23824 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-KelleghanA-6483.pdf

Dmrecord 23824

Document Type Thesis

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Kelleghan, Annemarie

Type texts

Source 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 a...

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