Ethnic Identity, Psychology of
Zwernemann J 1983 Culture History and African Anthropology.
A Century of Research in Germany and Austria. Uppsala
Studies in Cultural Anthropology 6, University of Uppsala,
Uppsala, Sweden
M. Dı! az-Andreu
Ethnic Identity, Psychology of
Ethnic identity is a dynamic, multidimensional con-
struct that refers to one’s identity, or sense of self, as a
member of an ethnic group. An ethnic group can be
thought of as a subgroup within a larger context that
claims a common ancestry and shares one or more
of the following elements: culture, race, religion,
language, kinship, and place of origin. Ethnic identity
is a central defining characteristic of many individuals,
particularly those who are members of minority or
lower status groups (Liebkind 1992, Phinney 1990).
Ethnic identity has traditionally been most salient in
immigrant-receiving countries like the USA and
Australia, but it has become an increasingly important
issue throughout the world, as social and political
changes have increased the amount of contact among
people from different ethnic groups and, in some cases,
have led to ethnic conflict. Social scientists have
attempted to understand ethnic identity from a variety
of perspectives. This article examines the development
of ethnic identity and the ways in which ethnic identity
changes over time and contexts. It concludes with a
discussion of the implications of ethnic identity.
1. The Formation of Ethnic Identity
1.1 The Beginnings of Ethnic Identity
An ethnic identity is developed and modified as
individuals become aware of other groups and of the
ethnic differences between themselves and others, and
attempt to understand the meaning of their ethnicity
within the larger setting. Ethnic identity may have its
origins in the infant’s attachment to caregivers and the
fear of strangers that is experienced early in life. The
family provides the initial bases for feelings about
what is normal and comfortable, and these feelings are
generally supported in the immediate community. In
homogeneous settings, familiar practices are not
recognized as ethnic.
Once children encounter others who are different in
appearance, language, behaviors, or attitudes, they
begin to categorize themselves and others. Frances
Aboud (1987) has shown that children learn their
ethnic self-label between the ages of four and seven
years, although the age varies with the group and the
amount of contact with other groups. By eight or ten
years of age, children develop an understanding of
ethnic constancy (the fact that their ethnicity does not
change over time or superficial changes). Cognitive
developmental level influences the way in which
children understand ethnicity. Young children under-
stand ethnicity in literal and concrete terms, defined by
food, customs, and language. With increasing cog-
nitive competence, children begin to develop a group
consciousness and to understand ethnicity in terms of
norms and values (Quintana 1998).
Socialization plays an important role in the content
and meaning children attach to their own ethnicity.
Children acquire knowledge about their ethnic culture
through the process of enculturation (Bernal and
Knight 1993). Children’s feelings about their ethnicity
are influenced from an early age by the family and
community. When families provide strong positive
images of their ethnicity, children’s early feelings
about their ethnic group are likely to be positive. A
vital ethnic community also provides a context in
which children can form a positive sense of their
group.
Children are influenced as well by messages from
other groups and the larger society. When a group is
held in lower esteem or is disparaged by others, these
negative messages may become internalized. Children
may then hold conflicting or negative feelings about
their ethnicity and express the desire to belong to
another group. However, in childhood ethnic identity
remains largely unexamined; that is, children have not
thought through for themselves the meaning of their
ethnic group membership (Phinney 1989).
1.2 The Search for a Meaningful Ethnic Identity
Beyond childhood, the process of ethnic identity
development becomes more complex. During adol-
escence, identity formation is a critical developmental
task, particularly in complex modern societies. Like
ego identity, the process of ethnic identity has been
conceptualized in terms of stages, with an individual
moving from the unexamined attitudes of childhood,
through a moratorium or period of exploration, to a
secure achieved ethnic identity at the end of ado-
lescence (Phinney 1989). The moratorium period
begins for adolescents as a result of their increasing
cognitive ability, their growing understanding of social
and historical processes, and in some cases, personal
experiences of discrimination. As ethnic identity
becomes a salient issue, many youths, especially those
from ethnic groups with lower status or power,
question the meaning of their ethnicity and its place in
the larger context (Phinney 1989).
This search for a meaningful ethnic identity can lead
to a wide range of emotional reactions, both positive
and negative. Individuals may become deeply involved
in learning about their ethnicity. This process may
lead to exaggerated claims about their group. It may
4821
Ethnic Identity, Psychology of
result in constructive and creative actions aimed at
affirming the value and legitimacy of one’s group and
establishing a positive basis for a group identity (Tajfel
and Turner 1986).
Conversely, the process of examining and dealing
with the social implications of one’s ethnicity may
lead to feelings of insecurity, confusion, or anger.
Individuals who are confused or ambivalent about
their ethnic identity are likely to react more strongly to
perceived threats to their ethnicity (Worchel 1999).
They may experience strong negative feelings toward
other groups, particularly in cases where a group has
been the victim of negative or exploitative intergroup
behaviors or where group members feel that their
needs and aspirations are being thwarted. Such
attitudes can lead to violence when legitimate means
of ethnic affirmation are seen as ineffective. Much
interethnic violence results from feelings of threat to
one’s ethnic identity. This process is assumed to be
relevant primarily to disadvantaged minority groups,
but it can apply as well to members of a dominant
group who feel threatened by changing demographics,
for example as a result of large-scale immigration.
1.3 The Achie
ement and Internalization of Ethnic
Identity
The optimal outcome of the ethnic identity formation
process is the achievement of a secure and confident
sense of one’s ethnicity. This mature sense of self as an
ethnic group member is assumed to include positive
feelings about one’s group and to be a source
of personal strength and positive self-evaluation
(Phinney 1989, Tajfel and Turner 1986). Feeling secure
about one’s own ethnic identity is also assumed to be
associated with more positive attitudes toward other
groups. An achieved ethnic identity may be related to
the ability to assume the perspective of other groups,
to adopt a multicultural perspective, and to see the
place of one’s own group in a larger perspective.
2. Ethnic Identity Across Time and Contexts
Although developmental processes underlie the
formation of ethnic identity, ethnic identity may be
renegotiated throughout life in response to individual,
contextual, and historical changes. Ethnic identity
varies in the short term over differing contexts, with
strong ethnic feelings emerging in settings where
ethnicity is highly salient, such as traditional ethnic
celebrations, and receding in settings which de-
emphasize ethnicity. Many bicultural individuals ex-
perience variation in the strength of their group
identities as they move between ethnic and nonethnic
contexts, such as home, school, and workplace, and
change their language and behaviors to suit the
context.
4822
2.1 Ethnic Identity and Immigration
Group identity issues are raised most dramatically
when individuals and groups move across national
and cultural borders, or when political borders change
around stable groups. As migrants, refugees, guest
workers, and other travelers come in contact with
other cultures, questions of identity are raised both for
the mobile groups and for the societies where they
settle. These processes are highly dependent on the
environmental context, including the size and struc-
ture of ethnic communities, the history and current
status of ethnic groups in the larger society, and
attitudes of other members of the society toward
diversity.
For immigrants, changes in ethnic identity over time
depend on a number of influences, including age at
time of immigration and generation of immigration
(that is, whether one is an immigrant, child of
immigrants, grandchild of immigrants, etc.). Adult
immigrants typically retain a strong identity with their
culture of origin without identifying strongly as
members of the larger society. Children who migrate
at a young age adapt more quickly than their parents
to a new setting and are likely to become bicultural,
identifying with both the ethnic group and the larger
society.
2.2 Retention of Ethnic Identity
For later generations of immigrants, that is, the
children and grandchildren of immigrants, and for
stable ethnic groups within larger societies, the re-
tention of ethnic identity depends both on factors
within the ethnic group and on the broader societal or
historical context. Ethnic group members differ in the
extent to which they desire to retain their culture and
the degree to which they wish to become part of the
larger society. Societies differ widely in their relations
with minority groups, their policies toward ethnic
groups, and the attitudes of members of society toward
immigrants and minorities.
As a result of these varied influences, ethnic groups
and their individual members may adopt different
group identity modes, similar to modes of accultura-
tion (Berry 1990). When individuals or groups wish to
retain their ethnic identity and maintain their ethnic
language and customs, and when ethnic institutions
support such activities, ethnic identity can remain
strong over long periods. If they also develop a sense
of belonging to the larger society, they become
bicultural or integrated. If they retain a strong ethnic
identity and do not become part of the larger society,
either by choice or because of nonacceptance, they
may be described as separated. On the other hand,
individuals and groups who give up their ethnic
identity and become identified with the larger society
are assimilated. Finally, those who give up their ethnic

identity but do not become part of the larger society
are seen as marginalized.
The ways in which these patterns play out over time
is highly variable. Ethnic communities may be main-
tained over many generations and can be revitalized
when circumstances permit. Groups that are culturally
or phenotypically different from the larger society, or
that experience prejudice and discrimination, may
remain separated over many generations, as in the case
of gypsies in Europe or African Americans in the
USA. For these groups, ethnic identity typically
remains strong and salient over time. In contrast,
when distinctive cultural or phenotypic markers are
absent and when there is little desire to maintain one’s
ethnic culture, assimilation is likely in the third and
later generations, as has been the case for most
European Americans in the USA (Waters 1990).
3. Implications of Ethnic Identity
Because of the centrality of ethnic identity for group
members, together with social and political processes
that support or threaten such an identity, ethnic
identity can have positive or negative implications for
the individual and for the larger society.
Most psychological research has shown that ethnic
identity is positively associated with psychological
well-being, but the relationship is complex, and the
impact is likely to depend on the particular aspect
of ethnic identity being considered. A widely used
measure of ethnic identity (Roberts et al. 1998)
suggest two distinct components of ethnic identity: an
affective component, comprising a sense of belonging
and positive feelings about one’s group; and a
developmental component, involving the extent to
which one has explored and resolved ethnic identity
issues (Phinney 1990). The affective component shows
a consistent though modest correlation with self-
esteem; those who feel more positive about their own
ethnicity have higher self-esteem and lower levels of
depression. Conversely, internalized negative feelings
about one’s own group are related to negative feelings
about oneself. The developmental component has a
weaker relationship with psychological well-being,
perhaps because of the variability of attitudes that
occur during development. Nevertheless, the attain-
ment of a secure and confident identity appears to be
the basis of positive feelings about oneself and others.
Feelings of belonging to the larger society also
contribute to well-being. Research with immigrants
has shown a bicultural identity to be the most adaptive,
and a marginal identity to be the least adaptive (Berry
1990). When individuals and groups have the freedom
to express their values and practice their ethnic
customs, ethnic identity can be the basis of powerful
positive feelings. Societies that thwart the desire of
ethnic group members to affirm and express their
Ethnic Identity, Psychology of
group identity may experience turmoil and violence
(Worchel 1999).
The study of ethnic identity is relatively recent in
psychology. The knowledge that we have is based on a
limited amount of research, and there are many areas
in need of study. Longitudinal studies are needed to
provide deeper insight into the processes by which
ethnic identity changes over time. Links to other
aspects of identity need to be explored, to determine
the extent to which ethnic identity is similar to or
different from national, racial, cultural, or other group
identities. Research has focused on relatively few
groups and situations; future research should extend
the range of groups studied and the national and
regional settings that provide contexts for ethnic
identity development and expression. Increased col-
laboration among researchers from different countries
would be valuable in exploring whether the current
findings apply to the wide diversity of ethnic groups in
the world. Finally, because the study of ethnic identity
remains fragmented, there is need for conceptual
models that can integrate research across different
settings. Because of the growing importance of eth-
nicity throughout the world, it is imperative for the
behavioral sciences to gain a better understanding of
ethnic identity and its implications for society.
See also: Ethnic Groups\Ethnicity: Historical As-
pects; Ethnicity: Anthropological Aspects; Ethnicity,
Sociology of; Gender, Class, Race, and Ethnicity,
Social Construction of; Social Psychology: Research
Methods; Urban Ethnography
Bibliography
Aboud F 1987 The development of ethnic self-identification and
attitudes. In: Phinney J, Rotheram M (eds.) Children’s Ethnic
Socialization: Pluralism and De
elopment. Sage, Newbury
Park, CA, pp. 32–55
Bernal M, Knight G (eds.) 1993 Ethnic Identity: Formation and
Transmission Among Hispanics and Other Minorities. State
University of New York Press, Albany, NY
Berry J 1990 Psychology of acculturation. In: Berman J (ed.)
Nebraska Symposium on Moti
ation. University of Nebraska
Press, Lincoln, NE, vol. 37, pp. 201–34
Liebkind K 1992 Ethnic identity: Challenging the boundaries of
social psychology. In: Breakwell G (ed.) Social Psychology of
Identity and the Self-concept. Academic Press, London,
pp. 147–85
Phinney J 1989 Stages of ethnic identity development in minority
group adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence 9: 34–49
Phinney J 1990 Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: A
review of research. Psychological Bulletin 108: 499–514
Quintana S 1998 Children’s developmental understanding of
ethnicity and race. Applied and Pre
enti
e Psychology 7:
27–45
Roberts R, Phinney J, Masse L, Chen Y, Roberts C, Romero A
1998 The structure of ethnic identity in young adolescents
from diverse ethnocultural groups. Journal of Early Ado-
lescence 91: 301–22
4823
Ethnic Identity, Psychology of
Tajfel H, Turner J 1986 The social identity theory of intergroup
behavior. In: Worchel S, Austin W (eds.) Psychology of
Intergroup Relations. Nelson-Hall, Chicago, IL, pp. 7–24
Waters M 1990 Ethnic Options: Choosing Identities in America.
University of California Press, Berkeley, CA
Worchel S 1999 Written in Blood: Ethnic Identity and the Struggle
for Human Harmony. Worth, New York
J. S. Phinney
Copyright # 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd.
All rights reserved.
Ethnicity: Anthropological Aspects
The concept of ‘ethnicity’ derives from the ancient
Greek ethnos, referring to human collectivities living
and acting together. It is typically translated today as
‘people’ or ‘nation.’ Since the 1900s, the linked
concepts of ethnicity and ethnic group have passed
into everyday discourse. They have become central to
the politics of group differentiation and advantage in
the culturally diverse social democracies of Europe
and North America. With notions of ‘race’ in disre-
pute since 1945, ethnicity has become a rallying cry in
the bloody re-ordering of the post-Cold War world:
‘ethnic cleansing’ stands shoulder to shoulder with
earlier euphemisms such as ‘racial hygiene’ and ‘the
final solution.’ In the markets of the affluent west and
north, to call a commodity ‘ethnic’ is to imply the
value of ‘authenticity.’ In the social sciences, eth-
nicity—including related topics such as ‘race,’
‘nationalism,’ and ‘difference’—has become a
rapidly expanding specialism.
1. Corporate Groups and Cultural Differences
One of anthropology’s earliest ambitions as a com-
parative scientific enterprise was to explain and under-
stand human diversity. This aspiration has remained
central to the social and cultural anthropological
imagination—and to the limited, but significant, unity
of purpose that divergent national and intellectual
anthropological traditions have succeeded in main-
taining—ever since. The different approaches to this
quest which have characterized the discipline’s
twentieth-century history have, for most of that
period, been rooted in two interrelated anthropo-
logical axioms. On the one hand, there is an under-
standing of human social life as based in membership
in definite, bounded corporate groups. On the other,
the basic unity of humankind is understood as criss-
crossed by patterns of cultural differentiation.
These fundamental concepts emphasize similarity
(corporate groups) and difference (cultural different-
iation), the two basic dimensions of all processes of
social identification. In groups, we are both together
(as us) and apart (from them). Although the two
notions, and their implication in each other, remain
constant, how they are defined, and the relationship
4824
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences
between them, has changed since the nineteenth
century. This process can be understood as a gradual
shift from documenting the social structure and
customs of ‘tribes,’ to attempting to understand the
complex dynamics of ‘ethnic groups.’
During the colonial and immediately postcolonial
eras, anthropology’s theoretical preoccupation with
corporate groups was manifest in the assumption that
‘primitive peoples’ were characteristically organized
into tribal groups. In one move, the concept of ‘the
tribe’ distanced tribal society from civilized society, in
both common-sensical and analytical discourse, and
provided the anthropologist with a theoretical model
of the nature of ‘noncivilized’ social organization
which could organise ethnographic data and function
as a framework for cross-cultural comparison. At the
same time as the difference between ‘them’ and ‘us’
was established, the basic similarity between different
sorts of ‘them’ was proclaimed. This ‘tribe-group’
model was not, however, an explicit analytical frame-
work; it was, rather, implicit in most ethnographic
studies, neither examined nor questioned.
2. The Anthropology of Ethnicity
One of the earliest anthropologists to doubt the
usefulness of the notion of the tribe was Leach (1954),
who argued, in his study of highland Burma, that
tribes, as discrete bounded entities, were essentially
models developed by outsiders, for their own pur-
poses, not locally meaningful principles of everyday
social organization. Locals might talk about them-
selves as if there were clear-cut collective identities and
entities, but everyday interaction and organization
revealed a more complex pattern of overlap, variation,
and fluidity.
By the 1960s, the notion of ‘the tribe’ was gradually
being replaced in British social anthropology by the,
perhaps less colonial-sounding, ‘ethnic group.’ How-
ever, the underlying assumptions about corporate
groups and cultural difference had probably not
changed much. Within American anthropology, the
increasing use of an ethnicity model, over the same
period, can also be understood as part of a long-term,
incremental shift in the discipline’s axiomatic meta-
theoretical model of difference: from ‘race,’ to ‘cul-
ture,’ to ‘ethnicity’ (Wolf 1994).
2.1 Ethnic Groups and Boundaries
The paradigm shift towards a social constructionist
model of ethnic groups followed the publication of the
Norwegian symposium edited by Barth (1969). The
subtitle of this collection of essays—The Social Organ-
ization of Culture Difference—tells us a great deal
ISBN: 0-08-043076-7