Ainstream culture and peer socialization of heritage and mainstream culture. The

Ainstream culture and peer socialization of GW856553X clinical trials heritage and mainstream culture. The four socialization types were moderately related with each other (rrange: .46 to .78). We also compared mean differences between MG-132 site family and peer heritage cultural socialization and then family and peer mainstream cultural socialization using paired sample t-tests. Results indicated higher heritage cultural socialization in families (M = 3.79, SD = .89) than that in peer groups (M = 3.47, SD = 1.05), t (235) = 5.06, p < .001. There were no significant differences in mainstream cultural socialization at home (M = 3.28, SD = .95) and in peer groups (M = 3.27, SD = 1.08), t (233) = .24, p = .81. We then examined mean differences between heritage and mainstream cultural socialization, first within family and again in peer groups. Paired sample t-tests showed that adolescents reported greater socialization toward the heritage culture than the mainstream American culture, regardless of socialization agent (t (235) = 9.14, p < .001 for family socialization, t (233) = 4.33, p < .001 for peer socialization). Regarding associations between cultural socialization and adolescents' demographic characteristics, we observed very few significant relations. Latino youth and youth from immigrant families (i.e., at least one parent was foreign born) reported less mainstream cultural socialization from their families than their non-Latino peers and those from nativeborn families. Additionally, adolescents whose parents had a higher education level reported greater family mainstream cultural socialization than those whose parents had lower education levels. Family Cultural Socialization, Peer Cultural Socialization, and Adolescent Well-being: A Variable-Centered Approach Our primary analyses first investigated the independent and conjoint effects of family and peer cultural socialization for adolescent well-being using a variable-centered approach. The measurement model for the socioemotional and academic well-being latent variables fit the data well (2 (4, N = 236) = 1.279, p = .87, CFI = 1.000, RMSEA = .000, SRMR = .010), and all adjustment indicators exhibited adequate loadings on the latent constructs (range = .J Youth Adolesc. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 March 16.Wang and BennerPage48 to .86, p < .001). Coefficient estimates for the main effects and interaction effects of family and peer socialization are presented in Table 3. Concerning cultural socialization toward the heritage culture, we did not observe significant main effects of family or peer socialization on adolescents' socioemotional distress, but a significant linear interaction effect emerged. Simple slope analyses (see Figure 1a) indicated that greater family heritage cultural socialization was linked to lower socioemotional distress when peer heritage cultural socialization was high ( = -.30, p < .05). In contrast, this relationship was not significant when peer socialization was low ( = -.03, p = .81). More specifically, based on the Johnson-Neyman technique, the protective effect of family heritage cultural socialization on adolescents' socioemotional distress was significant when peer heritage cultural socialization was 3.68 or higher (i.e., socialization practices occurring, on average, between sometimes and most of the time; 41 of the sample). Moving to the link between heritage cultural socialization and adolescents' academic adjustment, greater family socialization and greater peer sociali.Ainstream culture and peer socialization of heritage and mainstream culture. The four socialization types were moderately related with each other (rrange: .46 to .78). We also compared mean differences between family and peer heritage cultural socialization and then family and peer mainstream cultural socialization using paired sample t-tests. Results indicated higher heritage cultural socialization in families (M = 3.79, SD = .89) than that in peer groups (M = 3.47, SD = 1.05), t (235) = 5.06, p < .001. There were no significant differences in mainstream cultural socialization at home (M = 3.28, SD = .95) and in peer groups (M = 3.27, SD = 1.08), t (233) = .24, p = .81. We then examined mean differences between heritage and mainstream cultural socialization, first within family and again in peer groups. Paired sample t-tests showed that adolescents reported greater socialization toward the heritage culture than the mainstream American culture, regardless of socialization agent (t (235) = 9.14, p < .001 for family socialization, t (233) = 4.33, p < .001 for peer socialization). Regarding associations between cultural socialization and adolescents' demographic characteristics, we observed very few significant relations. Latino youth and youth from immigrant families (i.e., at least one parent was foreign born) reported less mainstream cultural socialization from their families than their non-Latino peers and those from nativeborn families. Additionally, adolescents whose parents had a higher education level reported greater family mainstream cultural socialization than those whose parents had lower education levels. Family Cultural Socialization, Peer Cultural Socialization, and Adolescent Well-being: A Variable-Centered Approach Our primary analyses first investigated the independent and conjoint effects of family and peer cultural socialization for adolescent well-being using a variable-centered approach. The measurement model for the socioemotional and academic well-being latent variables fit the data well (2 (4, N = 236) = 1.279, p = .87, CFI = 1.000, RMSEA = .000, SRMR = .010), and all adjustment indicators exhibited adequate loadings on the latent constructs (range = .J Youth Adolesc. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 March 16.Wang and BennerPage48 to .86, p < .001). Coefficient estimates for the main effects and interaction effects of family and peer socialization are presented in Table 3. Concerning cultural socialization toward the heritage culture, we did not observe significant main effects of family or peer socialization on adolescents' socioemotional distress, but a significant linear interaction effect emerged. Simple slope analyses (see Figure 1a) indicated that greater family heritage cultural socialization was linked to lower socioemotional distress when peer heritage cultural socialization was high ( = -.30, p < .05). In contrast, this relationship was not significant when peer socialization was low ( = -.03, p = .81). More specifically, based on the Johnson-Neyman technique, the protective effect of family heritage cultural socialization on adolescents' socioemotional distress was significant when peer heritage cultural socialization was 3.68 or higher (i.e., socialization practices occurring, on average, between sometimes and most of the time; 41 of the sample). Moving to the link between heritage cultural socialization and adolescents' academic adjustment, greater family socialization and greater peer sociali.