G youth to hang out with people from one’s own or other racial/ethnic groups, and attending concerts by artists from their heritage or the mainstream American groups (Y. Wang et al., 2015). The present study extends this work by examining the socioemotional and academic outcomes linked to peer cultural socialization. While direct evidence of this link is limited, studies examining peer contact (i.e., without assessing the content of peer interactions or socialization messages) demonstrate that both interracial and intraracial peer contact are associated with youth’s ethnic/racial identity development (Uma -Taylor, 2004; Yip, Seaton, Sellers, 2010). Theoretical work also posits that peer socialization around issues of race/ethnicity, when it involves positive messages, likely TF14016 site promotes adolescents’ positive attitudes toward racial/ethnic groups and themselves (Hughes et al., 2011; Yip Douglass, 2011). Examining family and peer cultural socialization simultaneously also enables exploration of their interactive effects on adolescent well-being. Examining interactive effects is supportedAuthor Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptJ Youth Adolesc. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 March 16.Wang and BennerPageby recent scholarship documenting the varying developmental implications of family cultural socialization by contextual factors such as family relationships and neighborhood characteristics (Hern dez, get Oxaliplatin Conger, Robins, Bacher, Widaman, 2014; Supple, Ghazarian, Frabutt, Plunkett, Sands, 2006; Tsai, Telzer, Gonzales, Fuligni, 2015). More importantly, the investigation of family-peer interactions is motivated by theoretical perspectives that emphasize the interactive nature of proximal developmental settings. According to the bioecological theory of child development (Bronfenbrenner Morris, 2006), development is driven by individuals’ interactions within their proximal environments (e.g., peers, family, school, culture). These contexts are dynamic and mutually interrelated, and, as such, proximal contexts should not be considered in isolation from one another. Adaptive adjustment is optimized, moreover, when the different proximal ecological settings are compatible in terms of their role demands and developmental goals for the child (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). In contrast, incongruent developmental settings may create difficulties for individuals to fulfill their roles and compromise individual development and psychological well-being. Informed by this work, we investigate whether the effect of family cultural socialization on adolescent adjustment may be conditioned by peer cultural socialization. Family-Peer Cultural Socialization Profiles and Adolescent Well-being Although families and peers socialize youth toward both their heritage and the mainstream American culture (Y. Wang et al., 2015), it is often assumed that these developmental settings differ in their relative endorsement of the two cultures. Indeed, limited prior work on this topic suggests that families more often emphasize the heritage culture, whereas peer groups are more oriented toward the mainstream culture (Zhou, 1997). Work on cultural transmission also considers the family as the primary transmitter of one’s heritage culture (Uma -Taylor et al., 2009), whereas socialization agents outside the family, especially peers, serve as the transmitters of the mainstream culture (Costigan Dokis, 2006). Empirically, qualitative work explo.G youth to hang out with people from one’s own or other racial/ethnic groups, and attending concerts by artists from their heritage or the mainstream American groups (Y. Wang et al., 2015). The present study extends this work by examining the socioemotional and academic outcomes linked to peer cultural socialization. While direct evidence of this link is limited, studies examining peer contact (i.e., without assessing the content of peer interactions or socialization messages) demonstrate that both interracial and intraracial peer contact are associated with youth’s ethnic/racial identity development (Uma -Taylor, 2004; Yip, Seaton, Sellers, 2010). Theoretical work also posits that peer socialization around issues of race/ethnicity, when it involves positive messages, likely promotes adolescents’ positive attitudes toward racial/ethnic groups and themselves (Hughes et al., 2011; Yip Douglass, 2011). Examining family and peer cultural socialization simultaneously also enables exploration of their interactive effects on adolescent well-being. Examining interactive effects is supportedAuthor Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptJ Youth Adolesc. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 March 16.Wang and BennerPageby recent scholarship documenting the varying developmental implications of family cultural socialization by contextual factors such as family relationships and neighborhood characteristics (Hern dez, Conger, Robins, Bacher, Widaman, 2014; Supple, Ghazarian, Frabutt, Plunkett, Sands, 2006; Tsai, Telzer, Gonzales, Fuligni, 2015). More importantly, the investigation of family-peer interactions is motivated by theoretical perspectives that emphasize the interactive nature of proximal developmental settings. According to the bioecological theory of child development (Bronfenbrenner Morris, 2006), development is driven by individuals’ interactions within their proximal environments (e.g., peers, family, school, culture). These contexts are dynamic and mutually interrelated, and, as such, proximal contexts should not be considered in isolation from one another. Adaptive adjustment is optimized, moreover, when the different proximal ecological settings are compatible in terms of their role demands and developmental goals for the child (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). In contrast, incongruent developmental settings may create difficulties for individuals to fulfill their roles and compromise individual development and psychological well-being. Informed by this work, we investigate whether the effect of family cultural socialization on adolescent adjustment may be conditioned by peer cultural socialization. Family-Peer Cultural Socialization Profiles and Adolescent Well-being Although families and peers socialize youth toward both their heritage and the mainstream American culture (Y. Wang et al., 2015), it is often assumed that these developmental settings differ in their relative endorsement of the two cultures. Indeed, limited prior work on this topic suggests that families more often emphasize the heritage culture, whereas peer groups are more oriented toward the mainstream culture (Zhou, 1997). Work on cultural transmission also considers the family as the primary transmitter of one’s heritage culture (Uma -Taylor et al., 2009), whereas socialization agents outside the family, especially peers, serve as the transmitters of the mainstream culture (Costigan Dokis, 2006). Empirically, qualitative work explo.
