First and foremost it is important to note that what is considered “family” can vary by culture. Among certain ethnic groups the family is mostly made up of immediate family members (as is portrayed in the media of the typical Caucasian family). In other cultures the family is made up of not only the immediate family members (mom, dad, and siblings) but also extended family members and in some instances multiple generations may be strongly present within the family unit (e.g., grandparents may live with their adult children and grandchildren; uncles, aunts, and cousins may live with or in very close proximity—e.g., within the sample apartment complex or next door—with the adolescent, their siblings and parents). And yet in other cultures, the single-parent family is the norm. As we discuss in a moment supervision carries a large impact on adolescent development and therefore those families that have multiple adults available for supervision may confer a great number of advantages for the adolescent in terms of outcome.

As mentioned above in some cultures the family unit will consist of a single mother (or even father) and there may or may not be a lot of contact and proximity with extended family members. In fact, nonmarital births accounted for 39.7 % of all US births in 2007 (Ventura, 2009) (although half of these were makeup of cohabitating parents: Kennedy & Bumpass, 2008), which is a substantial increase over the last 40 (or even 20) years (Martin et al., 2009). This has been observed to be the highest among African Americans, American Indians, and Hispanics (respectively) and the lowest among Asian Americans (Hummer & Hamilton, 2010).

As indicated above, family has been established as a context that carries an impact on adolescent health. For example, research has indicated that parental connectedness (i.e., feelings of warmth, love, and caring from parents) and perceived parental expectations for school completion predict multiple risk behaviors (e.g., alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana use and early sexual activity; Resnick et al., 1997). Furthermore, parental support influences health risk behavior through a variety of pathways (e.g., adaptive coping, academic competence, and fewer deviant peer affiliations; Wills & Cleary, 1996). Research has also indicated that the connection between the parent and the adolescent can influence health risk behavior (Resnick et al., 1997) as can the amount of parental monitoring (e.g., parental monitoring influences the degree of adolescent heavy drinking; Reifman, Barnes, Dintcheff, Farrell, & Uhteg, 1998).

Because parent-adolescent dynamics vary by culture, family dynamics and parent-adolescent relationships and their relationship to adolescent health may vary as well. For example, differential acculturation levels between the adolescent and the parent can carry a large impact on the adolescent. If the parents have not adapted to the host culture, the adolescent may be encouraged to stay within the ethnic community and not doing so may be perceived as a betrayal of the parents’ cultural and traditional values. The adolescent may also be called upon to act as a navigator to his or her parents thus resulting in a dyad that contradicts traditional family values whereby the parents are expected to guide the children (Roth, 2004), e.g., the adolescent may be called upon to act as a translator, to guide the parent through the US school and/or health care system etc. This “parentification” of the adolescent can result in the adolescent later forming codependent relationships (Wells, Glickaf-Hughes, & Jones, 1999). Differential levels of acculturation have also been found to impact family stress and the use of effective parenting practices, i.e., a greater discrepancy in acculturation between parents and youth is associated with increases in family stress and decreases in effective parenting practices (Martinez, 2006). Finally, beyond creating complexities in the parent-adolescent relationship, differences in level of acculturation between parents and adolescents has actually been associated with the development of certain psychological disorders, e.g., conduct-disordered behavior, substance abuse (Martinez, 2006; Szapocznik, Ladner, & Scopetta, 1979; Szapocznik & Kurtines, 1989).

Simply put peers greatly impact adolescent development and research has indicated that adolescents tend to seek friendships based on racial-ethnic similarities (Crosnoe & Lopez-Gonzalez, 2005; Quillian & Campbell, 2003). Generally speaking, peer influence can be positive or negative. In terms of the former, peers are a critical form of social support (Brown, Dolcini, & Leventhal, 1997) and can carry a positive influence on the adolescent specifically with regard to academic achievement and school attachment (Crosnoe, Cavanagh, & Elder, 2003). In contrast peers can also carry a negative impact on adolescent behavior (e.g., substance use; Curran, Stice, & Chassin, 1997; sexual risk behavior; Black, Ricardo, & Stanton, 1997; Romer et al., 1994). For example, Williams, Holmbeck, and Greenley (2002) discuss how peer influence is related to risk behavior via cognitive variables such as perceived norms (e.g., perceiving the prevalence of substance use among peers to be high and thus interpreting this as being “normal”). Such perceived norms have been consistently related to adolescent substance use (Chassin, Presson, Sherman, Corty, & Olshavsky, 1984; Donaldson, Graham, & Hansen, 1994). If we consider that research has indicated that adolescent substance use varies by ethnic group (Johnston, O’Malley, & Bachman, 2001) as does number of sexual partners and age of sexual initiation (Kirby, 2001) we can see how perceived norms can vary by culture and result in negative outcomes for the cultural minority adolescent, i.e., if certain cultural groups perceive adolescent substance use or teenage pregnancy as the norm, adolescents that belong to these cultural groups are at a higher risk for engaging in these “normed” behaviors. On the contrary it is important to keep in mind that the reverse could also be true—that is if a cultural group creates norms that are positive (i.e., in the case of Asian cultures education is viewed as of utmost importance) the cultural minority adolescent is likely to increase their involvement in these positive, “normed” behaviors.

It is also important to note that to a large extent SES determines peer interactions, i.e., adolescents who come from economically advantaged backgrounds tend to develop friendships with other adolescents from economically advantaged backgrounds (e.g., wealthy adolescents are more likely to attend private schools, engage in extracurricular activities that have a cost associated with them etc.) whereas adolescents from economically disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to attend schools with less resources and to develop friendships with other adolescents from economically disadvantaged backgrounds.

Connectedness with school has been found to be a protective factor in the development of risk behavior (Jessor, Van Den Bos, Vanderryn, Costa, & Turbin, 1995; Resnick et al., 1997), whereas academic difficulties and low commitment to school are predictive of higher levels of risk behavior (Bailey & Hubbard, 1990; Elliott, Huizinga, & Ageton, 1985; Jessor & Jessor, 1977) which may be a function of the quality of school the adolescent attend and thus related to SES. If we consider that there are ethnic differences in high school graduate rates (Rumberger & Rotermund, 2009), i.e., Asians have the highest school graduation rate (91.7 %) followed by Whites (79.7 %), Hispanics (60.3 %), and African Americans (59.4 %), we can expect risk behaviors to vary by ethnicity as well (which as we have established thus far, variations do exist). Also if we consider the perceived norm perspective discussed above, we can again see how varying graduation rates can either carry a positive impact on adolescent behavior (as in the case of Asians the norm is a high school diploma) or a negative impact on behavior (as might be the case in Hispanics and African Americans whereby a large number of adolescents from these cultural groups do not graduate).

It is also worth mentioning that the type of school the adolescent attends can carry an impact on their performance, success etc. which brings into play other components of socioeconomic status. Compared to suburban schools, inner-city schools are usually overcrowded and understaffed thus offering an inferior level of education (Orfield & Yun, 1999), which does not promote success for the adolescents who attend these schools. This may be in part related to the disparities noted in college enrollment as 62.3 % of students enrolled in a degree-granting institution in 2009 were White, 14.3 % were Black, 12.5 % were Hispanic, 6.5 % were Asian/Pacific Islander, and 1 % were American Indian/Alaskan Native (US Department of Education, 2011).

The majority of the literature has indicated that negative outcomes for the employed adolescent are few so long as the adolescent works less than 15 h/week (Hirschman & Voloshin, 2007). In fact when time spent working is less than 15 h per week better educational outcomes are observed in student workers than in those students who do not work at all (Carr, Wright, & Brody, 1996). However, working more than 20 h per week is a consistent predictor of risk behavior (Resnick et al., 1997) and employment at high levels of intensity reduces time spent on school-related activities resulting in poor educational outcomes (Lillydahl, 1990). While generally speaking, ethnic differences in student employment are small (Hirschman & Voloshin, 2007) these results may be slightly confounded by the higher high school graduation rates of Whites. In fact, Fuligni and Pedersen (2002) explored changes in the sense of obligation to assist, support, and respect the family among an ethnically diverse sample and found that Filipino and Latin American families reported the strongest sense of familial duty during young adulthood, which partially explained their tendency to live with and contribute financially to their families.

Generally speaking adolescence is a time during which social acceptance is highly sought. If adolescents are rejected by their peers etc. consequences can ensue. Further complications for the ethnic minority adolescent may develop as he or she may be seeking acceptance from two distinct cultural groups (i.e., the culture of origin and the host culture). If the ethnic minority adolescent feels rejected on both ends or observes his or her culture to be devalued and denigrated, he or she may identify and internalize these negative perceptions, leading to ethnic self-hate (Vega, Hough, & Romero, 1983). Roth (2004) discusses how the adolescent (specifically the Hispanic adolescent) may respond by being passive and thus developing depression and substance abuse. On the other hand, the adolescent may decide to defy the majority culture, which can lead to poor social and financial outcomes and marginalization. If the adolescent is unable to embrace their culture of origin and also rejects the host culture they may join gangs, which may provide a sense of belonging, solidarity, protection, discipline, and warmth.

While the above outlines the negative impact that acculturation or biculturalism can have on the adolescent, research has also suggested that a multicultural context can carry a positive impact by aiding in the development of flexibility, adaptability, and empathy for others—these personality characteristics can be beneficial to social relationships (Ramirez, 1983). In fact research has shown that a diverse ethnic context can reduce peer victimization, promote feelings of safety, and improve intergroup relations among ethnic minority youth (Graham, 2006; Juvonen, Nishina, & Graham, 2006); can be positively related to academic motivation (Tan, 1999); and foster an appreciation of diverse viewpoints (Kurlaender & Yun, 2002). Furthermore, ethnic composition of the class, status of the group, and social norms, have been found to affect children’s positive evaluations of other groups (Kinket & Verkuyten, 1999). The above can promote a greater sense of belonging (Tan, 1999) and greater ethnic identity (Martinez & Dukes, 1997) which has been associated with the development of better coping skills and decreased aggression (McMahon & Watts, 2002) and higher levels of self-esteem, self- confidence, and purpose in life (Dukes & Martinez, 1994).