Decoding the Ethnic Labels Used by Undergraduates of Latin American Descent

Journal of HUMANIsTIc cOUNsELING July 2014 Volume 53 101

© 2014 by the American Counseling Association. All rights reserved.

Received 07/26/12Revised 01/16/13

Accepted 02/27/13DOI: 10.1002/j.2161-1939.2014.00052.x

Decoding the Ethnic Labels Used by Undergraduates of

Latin American Descent

carlos p. Hipolito-delgado

Ethnic labels provide insights to a client’s self-definition and meaning making. Results from

a study of 500 undergraduates indicate that those who identified as Chicana/o, Latina/o,

Hispanic, “hyphenated American” (e.g., Cuban American), or who identified by nationality

differed on key psychological constructs. The importance of self-definition in counseling and

research is discussed.

Keywords: ethnic labels, identity, chicana/o, Latina/o, Hispanic

Labels convey fundamental information about the objects or persons they describe—especially in the case of ethnic labels (Gracia, 2000). Ethnic labels encode culturally symbolic information that aids group members in feel-ing positive about the self as an individual and as a member of the collec-tive (Hitlin, Brown, & Elder, 2007). Ethnic labels also describe a cultural experience and elements of a worldview shared among group members (Wang & Zamboanga, 2007). Moreover, the adoption of an ethnic label is an act of empowerment and self-definition (Gracia, 2000, 2008). As such, ethnic labels may provide information on a client’s self-definition and insights into how a client makes meaning of his or her life. Unfortunately, limited attention is given to the ethnic labels used by undergraduates of Latin American descent, neglecting information that could be valuable for understanding a client’s self-definition and potentially clouding the results of research (Hitlin et al., 2007).

There are various ethnic labels used to describe people of Latin American descent in the United states, including chicana/o, Latina/o, Hispanic, “hyphenated American” (e.g., cuban American), or national labels (e.g., Guatemalan). This article explores the origins, meanings, and values as-sociated with these ethnic labels. Furthermore, this article describes the findings of an exploratory study examining if differences existed between

Carlos P. Hipolito-Delgado, Counseling Program, University of Colorado Denver. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Carlos P. Hipolito-Delgado, Counseling Program, University of Colorado Denver, 1380 Lawrence Street, PO Box 173364, Campus Box 106, Denver, CO 80217-3364 (e-mail: [email protected]).

ACAJHC_v53_n2_0714TEXT.indd 101 6/19/2014 3:36:01 PM

102 Journal of HUMANIsTIc cOUNsELING July 2014 Volume 53

undergraduates who identified as chicana/o, Latina/o, Hispanic, hyphen-ated American, or by nationality. Because ethnic labels provide a source of strength and pride (Ortiz & santos, 2009), help establish one’s place in society (Hitlin et al., 2007), and describe values and priorities (Gracia, 2000, 2008), understanding ethnic labels in Latin American communities can lead to a more humanistic approach to counseling and research.

ETHnic laBElS and valuES

Most counselors are likely aware of the various ethnic labels used to describe undergraduates of Latin American descent. It is less likely that counselors understand the distinctions between these labels. Understand-ing within-group differences and the distinctions between these labels in communities of Latin American descent is key to avoiding reductionism, increasing understanding of self-definition, and improving understanding of clients’ meaning making (D’Andrea & Daniels, 2012). Although a full exploration of this topic is beyond the scope of this article, a brief presenta-tion of the history of and values associated with the most commonly used labels—Hispanic, Latina/o, and chicana/o—is provided.

Hispanic

Hispanic was introduced as an ethnic label during the 1970 U.s. census (shorris, 2001). Hispanic identifies people who reside in the United states and can trace their ancestry to spanish-speaking countries (Villareal de silva, 2004). However, some reject the Hispanic label, believing it overemphasizes spanish ancestry (Gracia, 2000, 2008) or because the label was imposed by the government (caldéron, 1992; Malott, 2009) and the U.s. media (Goméz, 1992).

In terms of shared political ideology, Acuña (2010) argued that the term Hispanic is most popular with political conservatives and those of middle or upper socioeconomic status. This notion was supported by caldéron (1992) and Goméz (1992), who found that business and political leaders were more likely to endorse a Hispanic identity, feeling it was less politi-cally charged and symbolized moderate, mainstream, conservative, and cooperative values. Additionally, Golash-Boza (2006) found that those who identified as Hispanic were more likely to be second- or third-generation U.s. born and primarily spoke English.

Latina/o

Little is written about the shared values and beliefs of those who identify as Latina/o. In the context of the United states, Latina/o was first used as an ethnic label in the 1970s (calderón, 1992). Also, Latina/o is an umbrella term that expresses solidarity of interest across national lines (Alaniz & cornish, 2008). In addition, U.s. residence is vital to the conceptualization of Latina/o, because the term is not used in Latin America (stavans &



Alcaraz, 2000). In fact, Torres (2004) found that U.s.-born undergraduates were more likely to identify as Latinos than their non-U.s.-born peers. In terms of shared political ideology, Latinas/os tend to hold political views and affiliations that are more consistent with the political left and center (shorris, 2001). Finally, it is argued that Latina/o is currently in vogue throughout the United states (stavins & Alcaraz, 2000).

Chicana/o

Of the labels used to describe undergraduates of Latin American descent, chicana/o is the least understood. During the civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, chicana/o was embraced as a term of empowerment (Garcia, 1997). Being chicana/o represented rejection of Eurocentrism, recognition of one’s indigenous ancestry, and a commitment to the struggle for civil rights (Garcia, 1997). chicana/o often is used interchangeably with Mexican or Mexican American; this neglects to recognize that political consciousness and social activism are vital components of chicana/o identity (Valdez, 2000). In fact, Duncan-Andrade (2005) described chicana/o as a sociopoliti-cal identity more related to political action than ethnic heritage. This notion was supported by students interviewed by Ortiz and santos (2009), who identified chicana/o as a political term. Furthermore, it is not uncommon to meet chicanas/os from central and south America (Acuña, 2010).

chicanas/os are often described as political militants and radicals who hold political beliefs consistent with the left and far left (Garcia, 1997). Additionally, Valdez (2000) found that undergraduates who identified as chicana/o were more politically active than those who identified as Hispanic. Regarding shared values and beliefs, Rodriguez (1995) noted that chicanas/os typically identify with their indigenous ancestry. In fact, Ordaz and de Anda (1996) found that chicanas/os held values and beliefs similar to those of indigenous North American populations.

From this brief review of the literature, the distinctions between Hispanics, Latinas/os, and chicanas/os begin to arise. However, most of this literature is theoretical in nature and does not examine humanistic constructs. To have a clearer understanding of the distinctions between ethnic labels in communities of Latin American descent and to assess if these distinctions are relevant to clients’ self-definition and meaning making, it is necessary to examine if differences exist based on key psychological constructs. The following section identifies key psychological constructs in counseling undergraduates of Latin American descent.

Key Psychological Constructs in Counseling Undergraduates of Latin American Descent

Humanistic counselors recognize how cultural values and sociopolitical circumstances affect their clients’ meaning making, mental health, and well-being (Brady-Amoon, 2011; D’Andrea & Daniels, 2012; scholl, McGowan,



& Hansen, 2012). In working with Latina/o clients, Arredondo et al. (2006) called for counselors to consider the ethnic identity, acculturation, and proficiency in spanish and English of their clients. Furthermore, Neimann (2001) stated that, when working with Latinos, counselors would do well to consider internalized racism and perceived racism, because these variables influence the client’s sense of self and the helping process. The following section provides a brief overview of each of these key psychological con-structs, which, when considered in concert, can help counselors to develop more individualized, culturally specific, and humanistic interventions.

Ethnic Identity

Ethnic identity is a crucial variable for providing culturally specific services to undergraduates of Latin American descent (Torres, 1999). For a Latina/o client, ethnic identity describes the degree to which she or he identifies as Latina/o; feels Latina/o; and endorses the values, beliefs, and customs traditionally held by Latinas/os (Hipolito-Delgado & Diaz, 2013). Ethnic identity is an important variable for undergraduates of Latin American descent; higher rates of ethnic identity are related to improved college ad-justment (Yazedjian & Toews, 2006) and increased academic achievement (Zarate, Bhimji, & Reese, 2005).

Acculturation and Language Proficiency

Assessing your client’s degree of acculturation is also key to the construc-tion of culturally specific interventions (Hipolito-Delgado & Diaz, 2013). Acculturation can be understood as the process of identifying with and ascribing to U.s. cultural values (Hipolito-Delgado & Diaz, 2013). It is noted that, in undergraduates of Latin American descent, acculturation is inversely related to depression (cuéllar & Roberts, 1997) and positively related to college adjustment (Yazedjian & Toews, 2006).

Language proficiency in English and spanish are also important factors in providing undergraduates of Latin American ancestry with culturally specific services. English proficiency aids Latina/o undergraduates in conveying knowledge and expressing emotions with English-dominant counselors (Arredondo et al., 2006). Furthermore, for Latinas/os, the ability to speak English is directly related to educational attainment in the United states (smith-Adcock, Daniels, Lee, Villalba, & Indelicato, 2006).

Regarding spanish proficiency, it is noted that the ability to speak spanish is likely to facilitate access to culturally specific information, institutions, and support systems (Hipolito-Delgado & Diaz, 2013). In fact, Ortiz and santos (2009) found that undergraduate Latinas/os who did not speak spanish often felt marginalized by their Latina/o peers. Additionally, those clients who are more comfortable in communicating in spanish will likely require a spanish-speaking counselor or the aid of a translator.



Internalized and Perceived Racism

Although not as widely discussed, internalized and perceived racism affects the mental health and academic performance of undergraduates of Latin American descent (Gloria & Rodriguez, 2000). In communities of African descent, internalized racism is thought to negatively affect educational attain-ment (Harper, 2006), is linked to symptoms of depression (Taylor, Henderson, & Jackson, 1991), and is related to higher levels of stress (Tull, sheu, Butler, & cornelious, 2005). In Native American communities, the perception of racism is negatively related to college persistence (Jackson, smith, & Hill, 2003). It is argued that racism permeates various social systems; because racism can be perceived in social systems, in the media, and in interpersonal interactions, this study focused on interpersonal perceived racism and perceived racism in the media. Although the findings of Harper (2006), Jackson et al. (2003), Taylor et al. (1991), and Tull et al. (2005) are not specific to undergraduates of Latin American descent, they provide some indication of the negative effects of internalized and perceived racism on communities of color.

Phinney (1996) argued that ethnic labels are not categorical variables, but that ethnic labels convey how one views the world and self. Unfortunately, limited attention is paid to ethnic labels and the self-definition and meaning making encoded in these labels. This study explored if differences exist be-tween undergraduates who self-identified as chicana/o, Latina/o, Hispanic, hyphenated American, or by national label (e.g., salvadorian) on the key psychological constructs of ethnic identity, acculturation, English competence, spanish competence, internalized racism, and perceived racism. It is hoped that these findings might lead to a more individualized, culturally specific, and humanistic counseling practice with undergraduates of Latin American descent.

METHod

Participants

Participants were recruited by way of the e-mail listservs for the Latina/o network of the Association for Multicultural counseling and Development, the Hispanic Research special Interest Group of the American Educational Research Association, and the Latin@ Network of AcPA-college student Educators International. Members of these listservs were targeted because they are likely to have contact with chicana/o, Latina/o, and Hispanic undergraduate students and student groups. Listserv members were asked to forward the researcher’s e-mail invitation to all chicana/o, Latina/o, and Hispanic students and student groups with which they had contact. Because of this research method, it is unknown how many students were contacted; thus, a response rate cannot be provided.

A total of 566 students responded to the researcher’s invitation. After participants were screened for undergraduate standing and self-reported



Latin American ancestry, a total of 500 undergraduates were included in this study. Of the total participant pool, 346 were women, 152 were men, one identified as transgendered, and one declined to state their sex (69.2%, 30.4%, 0.2%, and 0.2%, respectively). Participants ranged in age from 18 to 48 years, M = 21.1, SD = 3.44. Regarding the preferred ethnic identity label, 140 (27.9%) identified as Latina/o, 95 (19%) identified as Hispanic, 94 (18.8%) identified by nationality, 82 (16.4%) identified as a hyphenated American, 78 (15.6%) identified as chicana/o, and 11 (2.2%) identified as American (percentages do not total 100 because of rounding). The partici-pants consisted of 373 (74.6%) students who were born in the United states and 127 (25.4%) students who were not U.s. born. The sample consisted of 295 participants from the southwest, 67 participants from the Northeast, 57 participants from the Midwest, 40 participants from the Mid Atlantic, 16 participants from the south, six participants from the Pacific Northwest, one from the Rocky Mountain region, and 18 participants who declined to provide their region.

Recruitment Procedures

Prospective participants received an e-mail requesting their participa-tion in a study designed to explore the ethnic identity development of chicana/o and Latina/o undergraduate students. They were informed that their participation was voluntary and that their information would remain confidential. They were directed to a website to complete all survey instruments. The first page of the survey website contained information about informed consent. Two weeks after the initial e-mail, a reminder/thank you e-mail was circulated. In this e-mail, the investigator asked those who had yet to complete the questionnaires to complete and submit the questionnaires as soon as possible and thanked participants who had completed the questionnaires. All research was conducted in compliance with the procedures of the human subjects review board.

Instruments

Demographic questionnaire. A demographic questionnaire was used to iden-tify background characteristics of participants in the study. Participants were asked which university they attend, undergraduate class standing, gender, age, country of origin, years living in the United states, U.s.-born generational status, and their preferred ethnic label.

Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure. Ethnic identity was measured using the Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM; Phinney, 1992). The original version of this measure was selected over the MEIM–Revised (MEIM-R), because of the wealth of data indicating the reliability and validity of the MEIM and the limited data on the validity and reliability of the MEIM-R. The MEIM consists of 12 items using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging



from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). sample items of the MEIM include “I have a strong sense of belonging to my own ethnic group” and “I feel a strong attachment toward my own ethnic group.” For the purposes of this study, the composite score was examined, which is the preferred method of scoring (Phinney, 1992), with higher mean scores representing higher levels of ethnic identity development. In measuring the internal consistency of the MEIM with college students, Phinney (1992) reported a cronbach’s alpha of .90. In this study, a cronbach’s alpha of .89 was detected. The validity of the MEIM has been indicated by its correlation with the theoretically related constructs of ethnic self-concept (Phinney, chavira, & Tate, 1993) and with racial identity development (Goodstein & Ponterotto, 1997). Table 1 presents the observed means, standard devia-tions, and cronbach’s alpha scores for all instruments used in this study.

Abbreviated Multidimensional Acculturation Scale. Acculturation was assessed using the Abbreviated Multidimensional Acculturation scale (AMAs; Zea, Asner-self, Birman, & Buki, 2003). For this study, the U.s. cultural Iden-tity, English Language competence, and spanish Language competence subscales were used to assess U.s. American acculturation. The remaining subscales (Ethnic Group Identity and Ethnic Group cultural competence) were not used, because these subscales are used to assess ethnic identity, which may have introduced collinearity in this study. The U.s. cultural Identity subscale was used to assess the extent to which a person identifies as U.s. American. sample items include “Being U.s. American plays an important part in my life” and “I am proud of being U.s. American.” The English Language and spanish Language competence subscales were used to assess the extent to which a person feels competent in comprehending, speaking, and reading in English or spanish. sample items include “I speak English well in general” and “I understand the spanish language well in general.” Participants responded to each item using a 5-point Likert-type

Table 1

Means, Standard Deviations, and Cronbach alphas for Survey Instruments

Survey InstrumentMEIMAMAS

English subscale Spanish subscale US Cultural Identity subscale

Mochihua TepehuaniEPRIPEDQ-CV Media subscale

Note. MEIM = Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure; AMAS = Abbreviated Multidimensional Scale; EPRI = Everyday Perceived Racial Discrimination Index; PEDQ-CV = Perceived Racial Discrimination Questionnaire–Community Version.

1–5

1–51–51–5

1–71–71–5

Range M 4.27

4.77 4.08 3.55

2.57 3.91 2.41

SD a 0.59

0.42 0.98 1.03

0.82 1.46 0.79

0.89

0.95 0.97 0.93

0.91 0.94 0.86

Variable MeasuredEthnic identity

English competence Spanish competence

Acculturation

Internalized racismPerceived racism (interpersonal)Perceived racism (in the media)



scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). This scale was scored by taking a participant’s mean score for each of the subscales. Higher scores on each of the subscales represent either higher competence or identification.

In a study with Latina/o college students, subscales of the AMAs had cronbach’s alphas ranging from .90 to .97 (Zea et al., 2003), indicating good internal reliability. In this study, cronbach’s alphas for the AMAs subscales ranged from .88 to .97. Zea et al. (2003) argued that the AMAs demonstrated discriminant validity as a result of the correlation of the AMAs subscales with measures of Americanism and Hispanicism.

Mochihua Tepehuani scale. Internalized racism was assessed using the Mochihua Tepehuani scale. The scale is named in Nahuatl (language of the Mexica or Aztec) and translates as “to become conqueror” (Nahuatl English, n.d.). The Mochihua Tepehuani scale is a modified version of the Nadanolitization scale (NAD; Taylor & Gundy, 1996). The NAD was devel-oped to measure internalized racism in Black communities. To develop the Mochihua Tepehuani scale, the original 49 items of the NAD were modified to reflect stereotypes about the chicana/o and Latina/o community. Face validity of these modified items was established using a panel of experts on Latina/o culture; the panel was comprised of doctoral students and counselor education professors. The panel unanimously agreed that all 49 items represented stereotypes about chicanas/os and Latinas/os. An exploratory factor analysis of the 49-item Mochihua Tepehuani scale was conducted using data from a sample of 158 undergraduate Latinas/os. This analysis led to the reduction of total items on the scale from 49 to 25 and yielded a cronbach’s alpha of .85 (Hipolito-Delgado, 2010).

The Mochihua Tepehuani scale consists of 25 stereotypes of chicanas/os and Latinas/os, such as “The school dropout problem among Latinos is due to their not having the mental power of Whites” and “The number of Latinos addicted to alcohol and drugs suggests a biological weakness” (Hipolito-Delgado, 2010). Participants rated their level of agreement with these statements using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The scale was scored by taking the mean of a participant’s responses. It should be noted that higher means indicated higher levels of acceptance of internalized racism. In this study, a cron-bach’s alpha of .91 was detected. No information on the validity of this instrument is available.

Everyday Perceived Racial Discrimination Index. Perceived racism was measured, in part, by a modified version of the Everyday Perceived Racial Discrimination Index (EPRI; Jackson & Williams, 1995). The nine-item instru-ment was used to assess daily incidences of interpersonal discrimination. sample items include “Because of your ethnicity/race, you are threatened or harassed” and “Because of your ethnicity/race, you are treated with less respect than other people.” Typically, the EPRI is administered with a 5-point scale to measure the frequency of discriminatory incidences (with



the response options of never, about once a year, a few times a year, a few times a month, and at least once a week). The EPRI was modified so that participants answered using their level of agreement with items on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). This modification was done to provide a scale of measurement that is closer to an interval scale. The EPRI was scored by taking the mean score of partici-pants with higher means, indicating higher levels of perceived racism. In studying the reliability of the EPRI, Walters (2004) reported a cronbach’s alpha of .92. In this study, a cronbach’s alpha of .94 was detected. The validity of the original EPRI was indicated through the correlation of the EPRI with the theoretically related constructs of racism-related stress and skin tone (Walters, 2004). It is unknown how the modification of the EPRI affected the validity of the instrument.

Perceived Ethnic Discrimination Questionnaire–Community Version. Perceived racism was measured, in part, by the Perceived Exposure from the Media subscale of the Perceived Ethnic Discrimination Questionnaire–commu-nity Version (PEDQ-cV; Brondolo et. al, 2005). The PEDQ-cV was used to assess the degree to which participants have experienced incidences of ethnic or racial discrimination in the media. This was done using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (very often). sample items in-clude “Have you heard disrespectful comments about your ethnic/racial group on talk radio or in song lyrics?” and “Have you seen people of your ethnic/racial group made to look bad on TV or in movies?” The subscale was scored by taking the mean score of participants, with higher scores indicating higher frequency of perceived racism in the media. Brondolo et al. (2005) reported a cronbach’s alpha of .88 for the Discrimination in the Media subscale of the PEDQ-cV. In this study, a cronbach’s alpha of .86 was detected. construct validity was indicated through a series of known group comparisons, and convergent validity was established by correlat-ing the PEDQ-cV with the Perceived Racism scale (Brondolo et al., 2005).

RESulTS

This study examined if differences existed between undergraduates who self-identify as chicana/o, Latina/o, Hispanic, hyphenated American, or by national label on the key psychological constructs of ethnic identity, acculturation, English competence, spanish competence, internalized rac-ism, and perceived racism. As such, the independent variable was pre-ferred ethnic label, whether chicana/o, Latina/o, Hispanic, hyphenated American, or national label. Because of the limited number of participants who identified as American, this group was excluded from analysis. The dependent variables were ethnic identity, acculturation, internalized rac-ism, perceived racism (interpersonal), perceived racism (in the media), spanish competence, and English competence. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to assess whether a statistically significant



difference existed between ethnic labels based on the dependent variables. This is done through the creation of a linear combination of the dependent variables, known as canonical variates, and by determining if variance on the canonical variates between groups is greater than variance within groups (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). MANOVA was selected for the many advantages over conducting a series of ANOVAs, including protection against Type I error and increased power (Meyers, Gamst, & Guarino, 2006; stevens, 2009; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). As recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell (2013), Wilks’ lambda was used to assess the statistical significance of the MANOVA results. Descriptive discriminant function analysis was conducted to determine which dependent variables most contributed to the difference between groups; this was done to maintain a multivariate data analysis plan and to control for Type I error by eliminating the need for follow-up ANOVAs. Finally, a multivariate post hoc test, using a series of two-group MANOVA analyses, was used to assess pairwise differences. IBM sPss 20 was used for all statistical analyses in this study.

Multivariate normality was assessed by examining the skew and kurtosis for each dependent variable and by examining the bivariate scatter plot for each combination of dependent variables. These methods indicated the existence of multivariate normality. To assess for homogeneity of variance, a Box’s M test was conducted. A significant result was detected, Box’s M = 196.48, F(112, 311069) = 1.68, p < .001. However, the largest variance was found in the groups with the largest cell sizes (the Latina/o and Hispanic groups); the implications of this are a loss of power and a conservative Wilks’ lambda—in effect, increasing rigor (stevens, 2009; Tabachnick & Fi-dell, 2013). A statistically significant difference was detected between ethnic labels on the composite of the dependent variables, Wilks’ Λ = .73, F(28, 1659) = 5.33, p < .001, partial η2 = .08. These findings indicate that chicanas/os, Latinas/os, Hispanics, hyphenated Americans, and those who identify by nationality labels differed on the composite of the dependent variables.

Table 2 presents the results of the descriptive discriminant function analysis and indicates the correlation between the dependent variables (i.e.,

Table 2

Correlations between Dependent Variables and Canonical Variates

Dependent VariableEthnic identityAcculturationInternalized racismPerceived racism (interpersonal)Perceived racism (in the media)English competenceSpanish competence

Note. Numbers 1, 2, and 3 in column headings refer to canoncial variates.

–.64 .70 .39 –.46 .37 –.05 –.47

1 .22 .28 –.28 .32 –.75 –.01 –.41

.39 .41 –.26 –.50 .04 –.05 .56

Canonical Variate

2 3



ethnic identity, acculturation, internalized racism, perceived racism, English competence, spanish competence) and the canonical variates associated with the previous MANOVA. This was done to identify which dependent variables most contributed to the canonical variates and, consequently, to the difference between ethnic labels (stevens, 2009). Those dependent variables with the largest absolute correlations best describe the structure of a given canonical variate (stevens, 2009; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). Ethnic identity (r = –.64) and acculturation (r = .70) had the highest correlations with the first canonical variate. Because ethnic identity and acculturation describe the degree to which the participants affiliate with their ethnic culture and with the dominant U.s. culture, it appears that the first canonical variate describes the participant’s cultural identification. Perceived racism (in the media, r = –.75) was most strongly correlated with the second canonical variate. Because no other variable was highly correlated with this variate, the second canonical variate appears to describe perceived racism in the media. Perceived racism (interpersonal, r = –.50) and spanish competence (r = .56) were most highly correlated with the third canonical variate. The third canonical variate appears to describe cultural validation; those participants with higher scores on this variate indicated more spanish fluency and less perceived interpersonal racism—possibly indicating that these participants felt accepted in dominant U.s. cultural groups and in spanish-speaking groups. Because the first canonical variate accounts for most of the difference between the independent variables in the MANOVA (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013), it can be said that the differences between chi-canas/os, Latinas/os, Hispanics, hyphenated Americans, and those who identify by nationality labels were primarily a result of differing rates of ethnic identity and acculturation. It should be noted that ethnic identity was negatively correlated to the first canonical variable, meaning that, as scores on the canonical variable rise, participants are reporting lower levels of ethnic identity. Acculturation was positively correlated to the first canonical variable, implying that higher scores on the first canonical variable are related to higher rates of acculturation.

In post hoc analysis, a series of two-group MANOVAs were conducted to compare the ethnic labels, pairwise, using a composite of the dependent variables. This was done to maintain the multivariate nature of this study, to control for Type I error, and because this procedure provides more power than other multivariate post hoc methods (stevens, 2009). Table 3 presents the sample sizes, marginal means, and standard deviations for the ethnic labels on the first canonical variate and the results of the pairwise post hoc analysis. A statistically significant difference was detected between chica-nas/os and Latinas/os, Hispanics, hyphenated Americans, and those who identify by nationality labels. A statistically significant difference was also detected between Latinas/os and Hispanics and hyphenated Americans. A statistically significant difference was also detected between Hispanics and hyphenated Americans and those who identify by nationality labels.



A statistically significant difference was also detected between hyphenated Americans and those who identify by nationality labels. No difference was detected between Latinas/os and those who identify by nationality labels. On the basis of these findings, it can be said that chicanas/os, on average, reported the highest levels of ethnic identity and lowest levels of accultura-tion. Latinas/os, on average, reported higher levels of ethnic identity and lower levels of acculturation than did Hispanics and hyphenated Americans. On the other hand, hyphenated Americans reported lower levels of ethnic identity and higher levels of acculturation than did those who identify by nationality labels. Finally, Hispanics, on average, reported the lowest levels of ethnic identity and highest levels of acculturation.

diScuSSion

Often the ethnic labels of chicana/o, Latina/o, and Hispanic are used interchangeably in the counseling literature. such practice is reductionist and goes against humanistic values (cain, 2002; D’Andrea & Daniels, 2012; scholl et al., 2012), particularly when considering that endorsing an ethnic label is an act of self-definition and that ethnic labels convey fundamental information about the person they describe (Gracia, 2000, 2008).

Although this study did not identify how participants use ethnic labels to define or construct meaning in their life, this study demonstrated the distinctions that exist between undergraduates who identify as chicana/o, Latina/o, Hispanic, hyphenated American, or who identify by nationality on the composite of the key psychological constructs. The notion that ethnic labels encode for unique self-definition and meaning making is supported by Gonzalez and Ting (2008). In a study of 109 Latina/o undergraduates,

Table 3

Pairwise Post Hoc Comparisons, Cell Size, Canonical Means, and Standard Deviations

ComparisonChicana/o

vs. Latina/o vs. Hispanic vs. Hyphenated American vs. National origin

Latina/o vs. Hispanic vs. Hyphenated American vs. National origin

Hispanic vs. Hyphenated American vs. National origin

Hyphenated American vs. National origin

National origin

.94 .85 .91 .93

.91 .93 .98

.96 .90

.90

n

4.42 11.20 6.41 5.33

6.31 5.01 1.17

2.74 7.48

7.16

.001 .001 .001 .001

.001 .001 .32

.01 .001

.001

First Canonical Variate

M SD

Post Hoc Comparison

Wilks’ L F(7, 453460) p 0.98

0.95

0.99

0.99

1.10

–3.44

–3.04

–2.18

–2.41

–3.18

75

134

92

74

89



they found that students who identified as Mexican American were less likely to join panethnic Latina/o groups. Gonzalez and Ting (2008) argued that undergraduates who identified as Mexican American likely avoided panethnic Latino groups because of the perception that these groups would not be culturally relevant or welcoming to Mexican Americans students. In Gonzales and Ting’s (2008) study, Mexican American students regarded their cultural experience as being unique from the experience of other Latinas/os. The findings of the current study also suggest that ethnic labels should not be used interchangeably because of differences on the composite of the key psychological constructs.

The findings from the descriptive discriminate function analysis in-dicate that the differences between the ethnic labels were primarily a result of differing rates of ethnic identity and acculturation. As such, it appears that ethnic identity and acculturation are influential constructs in how undergraduates of Latin American descent view themselves, which is consistent with the theories of Arredondo et al. (2006) and Hipolito-Delgado and Diaz (2013). For example, those who identified as chicana/o reported the highest levels of ethnic identity and the lowest levels of acculturation. Historically, identifying as chicana/o was seen as a rejection of Eurocentrism (Alaniz and cornish, 2008; Garcia, 1997); a rejection of Eurocentrism is not found in the other ethnic labels. This may explain why participants in this study who identified as chicana/o had the lowest levels of acculturation. Dominant U.s. culture is largely reflective of European cultural and social values. As such, a rejection of these values would lead to lower levels of acculturation. Unfortunately, no previous research or theory exists that explains why chicanas/os might have the highest levels of ethnic identity.

Golash-Boza (2006) reported that self-identified Hispanics were more likely to be second- or third-generation U.s. born and were likely to speak English dominantly. This previous finding may explain why Hispanics in this study reported the lowest levels of ethnic identity and the highest level of acculturation. Being raised in the U.s. and having parents and grand-parents who are U.s. born increases the likelihood of having U.s. cultural values transmitted to you. Furthermore, Hispanic students’ limited ability to speak spanish may explain their lower levels of ethnic identity. Inability to speak spanish decreases access to spanish-speaking ancestors and cultural institutions—limiting the opportunity and ability to learn about ethnic heritage (Hipolito-Delgado & Diaz, 2013). Additionally, Ortiz and santos (2009) reported that English-speaking undergraduates felt marginalized by their spanish-speaking peers. It is possible that Hispanic students in the study experienced limited opportunity to explore their ethnic heritage or to form bonds around ethnicity because of their limited spanish competence.

It is acknowledged that humanistic counselors take a holistic view of the individual (scholl et al., 2012). Though ethnic labels are only one of the various influences on a client’s self-definition and meaning making, the



findings of this study indicate that ethnic labels warrant the attention of humanistic counselors.

Implications for Counseling

Humanistic counselors respect their client’s self-definition, believe that their clients have the capacity to construct meaning in their lives, and construct interventions to meet the needs of individual clients (Brady-Amoon, 2011; cain, 2002; D’Andrea & Daniels, 2012). To acknowledge a client’s right to self-definition, it is recommended that counselors allow their clients of Latin American ancestry to identify their preferred ethnic label. Furthermore, it is recommended that counselors refer to clients of Latin American descent using the clients’ preferred ethnic labels. Malott (2009) argued that it is disrespectful to apply an ethnic label to the client with which the client does not identify. This point was rein-forced by students in the Ortiz and santos (2009) study, who found it offensive to be misidentified. By using a client’s preferred ethnic label, a counselor embodies humanistic values by endorsing a client’s ability to self-define (cain, 2002).

Humanistic counselors respect the ways their clients make meaning of their life experiences (Brady-Amoon, 2011; scholl et al., 2012). Because ethnic labels describe cultural experiences and elements of worldview and are an act of self-definition (Gracia, 2000, 2008; Wang & Zamboanga, 2007), it is likely that ethnic labels are a reflection of how a client makes meaning of his or her life. The results of this study indicate that undergraduates who self-identify as chicana/o, Latina/o, Hispanic, hyphenated American, or by national label differ on the key psychological constructs, which likely affects how clients make sense of their lives. Thus, when working with undergraduates of Latin American ancestry, it would be wise to discuss what their preferred ethnic label means to them and how that label affects their life and presenting concern.

The counseling literature often treats communities of Latin American ancestry as a monolith, ignoring the differences that exist within this group and the need for more individualized therapy plans—a violation of human-istic philosophy (D’Andrea & Daniels, 2012). Hipolito-Delgado and Diaz (2013) argued that counselors should use ethnic identity and acculturation in developing culturally appropriate interventions for Latina/o clients. considering that the difference between undergraduates in this study was primarily a result of ethnic identity and acculturation, counselors might consider ethnic identity labels in developing more individualized and culturally specific treatment interventions. For example, the findings of this study indicate that chicanas/os had higher ethnic identity and lower acculturation. Using the framework of Hipolito-Delgado and Diaz (2013), chicanas/os would likely be more responsive to interventions that are consistent with Latina/o cultural values. Because Hispanics had higher



rates of acculturation and lower ethnic identification, the framework of Hipolito-Delgado and Diaz (2013) would recommend a western counseling intervention. Although additional research is necessary to substantiate these claims, recognizing the distinctions between ethnic labels in communities of Latin American ancestry may aid in understanding differing rates of ethnic identity and acculturation and, ultimately, in developing culturally specific and humanistic interventions.

Implications for Research

Hitlin et al. (2007) stated that failure to distinguish between ethnic labels clouds research results, renders them inaccurate, or leaves them void of practical application. The findings of this study provide some support for this statement. Because chicanas/os, Latinas/os, Hispanics, hyphenated Americans, and those who identify by nationality labels were statistically different on the key psychological constructs in this study, it can be said they are distinct populations in regard to those key psychological con-structs. Thus, it would be inappropriate for researchers to group together, for statistical analysis, the undergraduates who participated in this study. When researchers obtain data from undergraduates of different ethnic labels, for example chicanas/os and Latinas/os, it would be prudent to conduct preliminary statistical analysis to ensure that differences in de-pendent variables do not exist between these ethnic labels. If differences are detected, these ethnic labels should be treated as separate populations and reported on as such.

It is also important for researchers to be cautious when making generalizations across communities of Latin American descent. If a researcher has a sample of chicanas/os, it may not be appropriate to describe these participants as Latina/o. such actions do not respect the self-definition of participants, could be misleading, and may lead to inaccurate conclusions. To avoid these issues, it is recommended that researchers use an open-ended format to ask participants for their preferred ethnic label.

Additional Research

Further research is needed to understand the distinctions that exist within undergraduates of Latin American descent. Further research on undergraduates of Latin American descent may consider differences on key psychological and academic constructs within the group based on country of origin, nationality, place of birth, U.s.-born generational status, gender, and socioeconomic status. These dimensions of difference may lead to a greater understanding of undergraduates of Latin American descent. Research is also needed to understand what leads an individual to adopt or identify with a particular ethnic label.



Limitations

There are limitations to this study because of the participant pool recruited for this study. The participants in this study were recruited from the listservs of chicana/o, Latina/o, and Hispanic student service organiza-tions. students affiliated with these groups are likely to have considered their ethnic identity and to have stronger affiliations with their ethnic identity than students who are not active in such organizations. As such, these results may not be applicable to students who are not members of chicana/o, Latina/o, and Hispanic organizations. It should also be noted that the majority of participants in this study came from the southwest and from 4-year institutions. As such, there may be an overrepresentation of chicanas/os in this sample. Additionally, these findings may not be ap-plicable to chicanas/os, Latinas/os, and Hispanics at 2-year institutions.

Another limitation of this study was the grouping of hyphenated Ameri-cans and those why identify by national labels into a single category. It may be possible that differences existed between the various hyphenated iden-tities and national labels. An additional limitation was not accounting for geographic differences; it is possible that differences between ethnic labels were influenced by geographic location. Another limitation to this study is the inability to provide an overall response rate for this study. Given that recruitment depended on third-party members to distribute the letter of in-vitation, the researcher is unable to determine how many students received the invitation and, thus, is unable to provide a response rate. The use of the Mochihua Tepehuani scale and the modified EPRI are also limitations. These instruments were selected because of a lack of available measures of internalized racism and perceived racism. It is clear that additional research is necessary to assess the validity and reliability of these instruments.

concluSion

Ethnic labels are not categorical variables (Phinney, 1996) and are not interchangeable. Rather, ethnic labels provide individuals with a source of strength (Ortiz & santos, 2009), they help create space in society (Hitlin et al., 2007), and they describe distinct values and priorities (Gracia, 2000, 2008). As such, they likely affect the self-definition and meaning mak-ing of clients. Although additional research is necessary, these findings provide an initial understanding of the differences that exist between undergraduates who identify as chicana/o, Latina/o, Hispanic, hyphen-ated American, or who identify by nationality. A humanistic counselor allows clients to self-identify and works with clients to understand the meaning of their preferred ethnic label. Finally, prudent researchers take precautions not to make generalizations across ethnic labels, understanding and respecting the distinctions between ethnic labels in undergraduates of Latin American descent.



REfEREncES

Acuña, R. F. (2010). Occupied America: A history of Chicanos (7th ed.). columbus, OH: Pearson.Alaniz, Y., & cornish, M. (2008). Viva la raza: A history of Chicano identity and resistance. seattle,

WA: Red Letter Press.Arredondo, P., Davison Aviles, R. M., Zalaquett, c. P., Grazioso, M. D. P., Bordes, V., Hita, L.,

& Lopez, B. J. (2006). The psychohistorical approach in family counseling with Mestizo/Latino immigrants: A continuum and synergy of worldviews. Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 14, 13–27. doi:10.1177/1066480705283089

Brady-Amoon, P. (2011). Humanism, feminism, and multiculturalism: Essential elements of social justice in counseling, education, and advocacy. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, 50, 135–148. doi:10.1002/j.2161-1939.2011.tb00113.x

Brondolo, E., Kelly, K. P., coakley, V., Gordon, T., Thompson, s., Levy, E., . . . contrada, R. J. (2005). The Perceived Ethnic Discrimination Questionnaire: Development and prelimi-nary validation of a community version. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 335–365. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02124.x

cain, D. J. (2002). Defining characteristics, history, and evolution of humanistic psychothera-pies. In D. J. cain & J. seeman (Eds.), Humanistic psychotherapies: Handbook of research and practice (pp. 3–54). Washington, Dc: American Psychological Association.

calderón, J. (1992). “Hispanic” and “Latino”: The viability of categories for panethnic unity. Latin American Perspectives, 19, 37–44. doi:10.1177/0094582X9201900404

cuéllar, I., & Roberts, R. E. (1997). Relations of depression, acculturation, and socioeconomic status in a Latino sample. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 19, 230–238.

D’Andrea, M., & Daniels, J. (2012). Humanism and multiculturalism. In M. B. scholl, A. s. McGowan, & J. T. Hansen (Eds.). Humanistic perspectives on contemporary counseling issues (pp. 45– 62). New York, NY: Routledge.

Duncan-Andrade, J. M. R. (2005). An examination of the sociopolitical history of chicanos and its relationship to school performance. Urban Education, 40, 576–605.

Garcia, I. M. (1997). Chicanismo: The forging of a militant ethos among Mexican Americans. Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona Press.

Gloria, A. M., & Rodriguez, E. R. (2000). counseling Latino university students: Psychoso-ciocultural issues for consideration. Journal of Counseling & Development, 78, 145–154.

Golash-Boza, T. (2006). Dropping the hyphen? Becoming Latino(a)-American through racial-ized assimilation. Social Forces, 85, 27–55. doi:10.1353/sof.2006.0124

Goméz, L. E. (1992). The birth of the “Hispanic” generation: Attitudes of Mexican-American political elites toward the Hispanic label. Latin American Perspectives, 19, 45–58.

Gonzalez, L. M., & Ting, s. M. R. (2008). Adjustment of undergraduate Latino students at a southeastern university: cultural components of academic and social integration. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 7, 199–211.

Goodstein, R., & Ponterotto, J. (1997). Racial and ethnic identity: Their relationship and their contri-bution to self-esteem. Journal of Black Psychology, 23, 275–292. doi:10.1177/00957984970233009

Gracia, J. J. E. (2000). Hispanic/Latino identity: A philosophical perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Gracia, J. J. E. (2008). Latinos in America: Philosophy and social identity. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Harper, s. R. (2006). Peer support for African American male college achievement: Beyond

internalized racism and the burden of “acting White”. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 14, 337–358. doi:10.3149/jms.1403.337

Hipolito-Delgado, c. P. (2010). Exploring the etiology of ethnic self-hatred: Internalized rac-ism in chicana/o and Latina/o college students. Journal of College Student Development, 51, 319–331. doi:0.1353/csd.0.0133

Hipolito-Delgado, c. P., & Diaz, J. M. (2013). A conceptual approach to counseling with Latina/o culture in mind. In c. c. Lee (Ed.), Multicultural counseling: New approaches to diversity (4th ed., pp. 67–86). Alexandria, VA: American counseling Association.

Hitlin, s., Brown, J. s., & Elder, Jr., G. H. (2007). Measuring Latinos: Racial vs. ethnic clas-sification and self-understandings. Social Forces, 86, 587–611. doi:10.1353/sof.2008.0000



Jackson, A. P., smith, s. A., & Hill, c. L. (2003). Academic persistence among Native American college students. Journal of College Student Development, 44, 548–565.

Jackson, J., & William, D. R. (1995). Detroit Area Study, 1995: Social influence on health, stress, racism, and health protective resources. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.

Malott, K. M. (2009). Investigation of ethnic self-labeling in the Latina population: Impli-cations for counselors and counselor educators. Journal of Counseling & Development, 87, 179–185.

Meyers, L. s., Gamst, G., & Guarino, A. J. (2006). Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, cA: sage

Nahuatl-English basic dictionary. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.mexica.net/dictionary/ Neimann, Y. F. (2001). stereotypes about chicanas and chicanos: Implications for counseling.

The Counseling Psychologist, 29, 55–90. doi:10.1177/0011000001291003Ordaz, M., & de Anda, D. (1996). cultural legacies: Operationalizing chicano culture. Journal

of Multicultural Social Work, 4, 57–67. doi:10.1300/J285v04n03_04Ortiz, A. M., & santos, s. J. (2009). Ethnicity in college: Advancing theory and improving diversity

practices on campus. sterling, VA: stylus.Phinney, J. (1992). The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure: A new scale for use with adoles-

cents and young adults from diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7, 156–176. doi:10.1177/074355489272003

Phinney, J. (1996). When we talk about American ethnic groups, what do we mean? American Psychologist, 51, 918–927. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.51.9.918

Phinney, J., chavira, V., & Tate, J. D. (1993). The effect of ethnic threat on ethnic self-concept and own-group ratings. Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 469–478.

Rodriguez, R. (1995). Don’t call me ‘Hispanic’: chicano/chicana students at st. cloud state University end 9-day hunger strike with amicable agreement. Black Issues in Higher Education, 12, 27.

scholl, M. B., McGowan, A. s., & Hansen, J. T. (2012). Introduction to humanistic perspec-tives in contemporary counseling issues. In M. B. scholl, A. s. McGowan, & J. T. Hansen (Eds.). Humanistic perspectives on contemporary counseling issues (pp. 3–14). New York, NY: Routledge.

shorris, E. (2001). Latinos: A biography of the people. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & company.smith-Adcock, s., Daniels, M. H., Lee, s. M., Villalba, J. A., & Indelicato, N. A. (2006). cultur-

ally responsive school counseling for Hispanic/Latino students and families: The need for bilingual school counselors. Professional school counseling, 10, 92–101.

stavans, I., & Alcaraz, L. (2000). Latino USA: A cartoon history. New York, NY: Basic Books.stevens, J. P. (2009). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (5th ed.). New York,

NY: Routledge.Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. s. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). columbus, OH:

Pearson.Taylor, J., & Grundy, c. (1996). Measuring Black internalization of White stereotypes about

African Americans: The Nadanolization scale. In R. L. Jones (Ed.), Handbook of tests and measures of Black populations (Vol. 2, pp. 217–226). Hampton, VA: cobb & Henry.

Taylor, J., Henderson, D., & Jackson, B. B. (1991). A holistic model for understanding and predicting depressive symptoms in African American women. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 19, 306–320.

Torres, V. (1999). Validation of a bicultural orientation model for Hispanic college students. Journal of College Student Development, 40, 285–298.

Torres, V. (2004). Familial influences on the identity development of Latino first-year students. Journal of College Student Development, 45, 457–469. doi:10.1353/csd.2004.0054

Tull, E. s., sheu, Y. T., Butler, c., & cornelious, K. (2005). Relationships between perceived stress, coping behavior and cortisol secretion in women with high and low levels of internalized racism. Journal of the National Medical Association, 97, 206–212.

Valdez, E. O. (2000). Political activism, ethnic identity, and regional differences among chicano and Latino college students in southern california and northern New Mexico. Perspectives in Mexican American Studies, 7, 69–89.



Villareal de silva, R. (2004). Toward a new operationalization of U.S. Hispanic identity. (Doctoral disserta-tion). Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (Publication No. AAT 3143486)

Walters, J. M. (2004). Testing a biopsychological model of perceived racism among Latinos. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65 (11-A), 4107. (UMI No. 3153452).

Wang, s. c., & Zamboanga, B. L. (2007). Acculturation status and related psychological pro-cesses: What do ethnic labels reveal for Mexican origin college students? Psi Chi Journal of Undergraduate Research, 12, 76–83.

Yazedjian, A., & Toews, M. L. (2006). Predictors of college adjustment among Hispanic stu-dents. Journal of the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 18, 9–29.

Zarate, M. E., Bhimji, F., & Reese, L. (2005). Ethnic identity and academic achievement among Latina/o adolescents. Journal of Latinos and Education, 4, 95–114.

Zea, M. c., Asner-self, K. K., Birman, D., & Buki, L. P. (2003). The Abbreviated Multidimen-sional Acculturation scale: Empirical validation with two Latino/Latina samples. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 9, 107–126.


Documents

Decoding the Ethnic Labels Used by Undergraduates of Latin American Descent