Are They Political? Examining Asian American College Students’ Civic Engagement

Abstract

Despite some research to the contrary, many hold the “model minority” stereotype that Asian American youth are civically unengaged. To highlight their diverse experiences, we examined profiles of civic engagement in 3,556 Asian American students from the 2008 University of California Undergraduate Experience Survey. Using 7 indicators of political and community participation, latent class analysis revealed 3 subgroups: Highly Involved (11%), Voting Involved (57%), and Uninvolved (32%). Compared to Chinese Americans, Filipino and East Indian/Pakistani American students were most likely to be Voting Involved. First-generation immigrants were least represented, and students with more educated parents most represented, in the Voting Involved group. Campus experiences including climate of respect, freedom of expression, academic engagement, cultural identity development, and religious participation were uniquely associated with civic engagement typologies. Findings advance research on heterogeneity among Asian American youth and offer implications for colleges and universities that aim to promote civic development among Asian American students.

Full text

Asian American College Students’ Civic Engagement 1
Are They Political? Examining Asian American College Students’ Civic Engagement
Laura Wray-Lake
University of California, Los Angeles
Julia Tang
Mount Saint Mary’s University – Los Angeles
Christine Victorino
University of California, Riverside
Citation:
Wray-Lake, L., Tang, J., & Victorino, C. (2016). Are they Political? Examining Asian American
college students’ civic engagement. Asian American Journal of Psychology.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/aap0000061
This version does not include minor changes made in the final proofing stages of publication.
Author Note
Laura Wray-Lake, Department of Social Welfare, Luskin School of Public Affairs,
University of California, Los Angeles. Julia Tang, Department of Psychology, Mount Saint
Mary’s University – Los Angeles. Christine Victorino, Associate Chancellor, University of
California, Riverside. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Laura
Wray-Lake, Luskin 3250 Public Affairs Building, University of California, Los Angeles, CA.
90095. Email: wraylake@ucla.edu.

Asian American College Students’ Civic Engagement 2
Abstract
Despite some research to the contrary, many hold the “model minority” stereotype that Asian
American youth are civically unengaged. To highlight their diverse experiences, we examined
profiles of civic engagement in 3,556 Asian American students from the 2008 University of
California Undergraduate Experience Survey. Using 7 indicators of political and community
participation, latent class analysis revealed three subgroups: Highly Involved (11%), Voting
Involved (57%), and Uninvolved (32%). Compared to Chinese Americans, Filipino and East
Indian/Pakistani American students were most likely to be Voting Involved. First-generation
immigrants were least represented, and students with more educated parents most represented, in
the Voting Involved group. Campus experiences including climate of respect, freedom of
expression, academic engagement, cultural identity development, and religious participation
were uniquely associated with civic engagement typologies. Findings advance research on
heterogeneity among Asian American youth and offer implications for colleges and universities
that aim to promote civic development among Asian American students.
Keywords: political behavior, election, volunteering, college students, college climate

Asian American College Students’ Civic Engagement 3
Are They Political? Examining Asian American College Students’ Civic Engagement
Civic engagement consists of behaviors and related knowledge, skills, values, and
motivation aimed at making a difference in one’s community (Ehrlich, 2000). A healthy
democracy depends on civic engagement across all social groups, and civic engagement also
enhances individuals’ socioemotional skills and well-being (Flanagan & Levine, 2010). As
adolescents transition to adulthood, civic engagement becomes more heterogeneous and includes
various actions such as volunteering to help others, voting, participating in political campaigns,
discussing political issues, and protesting (Finlay, Flanagan, & Wray-Lake, 2010). Civic
engagement is especially salient during college, as youth in college are more exposed to diverse
perspectives, community service opportunities, and political issues (Bowman, 2011; Checkoway,
2001). Importantly, youth civic engagement is rooted in cultural background and experiences
(Lerner et al., 2014), a tenet not always well-recognized in research. Examining civic
engagement within a particular ethnic group is essential for shedding light on that group’s unique
pattern of behaviors and experiences (García Coll et al., 1996).
The goal of this study was to document heterogeneity in Asian American1 college
students’ civic engagement. Historically, scholars of civic engagement have devoted relatively
little attention to studying Asian Americans, likely because of assumptions that they are a small,
homogenous, and relatively apolitical group (Junn & Masuoka, 2008). Asian Americans are a
rapid growing proportion of the U.S. population and the fastest growing segment of college
attendees (Chang et al., 2007; Pew Research Center, 2013), and thus, their civic engagement
merits further empirical investigation (Wong, Ramakrishnan, Lee, & Junn, 2011). We examined
1 Throughout the paper, we use the term “Asian American” for brevity and parsimony. We are examining
a sample of Asian students attending universities in the U.S., and our sample includes Asian American
immigrants, Asian non-residents, and U.S. citizens of Asian descent.

Asian American College Students’ Civic Engagement 4
typologies of civic engagement among Asian American college students; disaggregating civic
engagement into distinct subtypes is useful for illustrating heterogeneity in Asian Americans’
civic engagement. We also investigated demographic factors and college experiences that predict
these typologies, which illustrate individual differences among Asian Americans and shed light
on ways that colleges can enhance civic engagement among this growing population of students.
The Model Minority Stereotype and Asian Americans’ Civic Engagement
Asian Americans often face stereotypes of being high achieving, hard-working, smart,
and successful; given the generally positive nature of these stereotypes, Asian Americans are
often referred to as the model minority (Junn, 2007; Lee, 2009). Asian Americans have also long
been stereotyped as uninformed, uninterested, and uninvolved in politics (Hing, 1993). The
model minority stereotype helps perpetuate the view of Asian Americans as apolitical in at least
three ways. First, the assumption that Asian Americans prioritize hard work, achievement, and
success may lead to views that Asian Americans do not value or have interest in civic
participation. Colleges and universities often perpetuate stereotypes of Asian Americans by
overemphasizing achievement and under-representing civil rights achievements and collective
actions (Chang et al., 2007). Second, the assumption that Asian Americans are conformists leads
to expectations that Asian Americans will be passive observers rather than active political
participants (Lien et al., 2004; Park et al., 2008). Finally, Asian Americans are thought to
experience greater social and economic integration and less stigmatization than other ethnic
minority groups (Sánchez-Jankowski, 2002). This idea may lead to erroneous assumptions that
there are no shared causes or injustices that bind Asian Americans together (Wong et al., 2011).
In reality, Asian Americans are often racialized and have a long history of racial exclusion and
discrimination (Wong, 2006). They are seen as perpetual foreigners (Junn & Masuoka, 2008) and

Asian American College Students’ Civic Engagement 5
remain challenged by popular perceptions that they are un-American, even if they are American
born (Park et al., 2008). There is an urgent need to move beyond the model minority stereotype
in civic research with Asian Americans. This stereotype is problematic because it fails to
recognize barriers to civic engagement for Asian Americans (e.g., citizenship, voter registration,
discrimination, language barriers; Lien, 2004; Wong et al., 2005) and ignores examples of Asian
Americans who are highly civically engaged (Kwon, 2008; Wong et al., 2011).
Existing research paints a mixed picture of Asian Americans’ civic engagement. Some
research supports a view of Asian Americans as apolitical, showing that Asian Americans,
including youth, are least likely to vote and register to vote in presidential elections compared to
other ethnic groups (Godsay, Nover, & Kirby, 2010; Lien, 2004; Pew Research Center, 2013).
The low voting rate among Asian Americans is paradoxical given that education is strongly
linked to greater civic engagement (Campbell, 2009) and Asian Americans tend to be more
highly educated than other ethnic groups on average (Pew Research Center, 2013). Whereas
some attribute Asian Americans’ low voting rate to cultural and attitudinal factors, others point
to structural barriers such as voter registration, citizenship status, and language (Wong et al.,
2005; Xu, 2005). Political participation such as campaign work, donating to political parties or
campaigns, and writing to government officials also tends to be lower among Asian Americans
than Black and non-Latino White individuals (Wong et al., 2005).
Other research, particularly among college students, challenges the characterization of
Asian Americans as uninformed, uninterested, and apolitical: Compared to previous generations,
today’s Asian American college students show increasing rates of community service upon
entrance to college and increased priorities to influence politics, become political leaders, and
support affirmative action (Chang et al., 2007; Park et al., 2008). From 2004 to 2008, Asian

Asian American College Students’ Civic Engagement 6
American youth voter turnout increased from 32 to 43% (Godsay et al., 2010). In 2012, Asian
Americans were more likely to say they worked on a community problem than the general U.S.
population (Pew Research Center, 2013). Asian Americans were more likely than others to be
politically liberal and prefer an activist government (Kuo, Malhotra, & Mo, 2016; Pew Research
Center). Although sparse in published work, there are powerful examples of Asian Americans
being deeply politically engaged (Chen & Philip, 2009; Kwon, 2008; Lien, 2010). For instance,
Asian American students led early efforts to pass H.R. 333, authorizing grants to higher
education institutions to better serve Asian American and Pacific Islanders (Park & Teranishi,
2008). Findings suggest considerable heterogeneity in Asian Americans’ civic involvement.
To best understand the complexities of who becomes civically engaged and why, many
argue that the types of civic engagement must be disaggregated (Amnå, 2012; Haste & Hogan,
2006; Wray-Lake, Metzger, & Syvertsen, 2016). Youth in particular vary on which types of civic
engagement they gravitate toward, in part depending on available opportunities and supports
(Westheimer & Kahne, 2004; Wray-Lake & Sloper, 2015). For example, McAdam (1986)
distinguished between low- versus high-cost political actions: Low-cost actions such as signing a
petition or engaging in political discussions reflect engagement that takes relatively little time,
energy, or money; high-cost activities such as working for a political campaign or participating
in a long-term community organizing effort require significant time, energy, or money and tend
to be borne out of a longer process of socialization.
Past research on young adults’ civic engagement has revealed distinct typologies, such
that some youth were highly engaged in many types of civic engagement, whereas other college
students only engaged in non-political forms of community participation and some were
unengaged (Finlay et al., 2011; Kawashima-Ginsberg, 2011; Voight & Torney-Purta, 2013;

Asian American College Students’ Civic Engagement 7
Weerts et al., 2013; Wray-Lake et al., 2014). In a national sample, Kawashima-Ginsberg (2011)
found that Asian American young adults were found in all civic typologies, but were
overrepresented in alienated and marginalized subgroups. Building on previous work, our
study’s goal was to advance understanding of Asian American college students’ civic
engagement by identifying typologies of civic engagement using latent class analysis. Using
reports of high- and low-cost political behaviors during the 2008 election season and community
service activities, we aimed to demonstrate that Asian American college students are diverse and
gravitate to different types of engagement.
Variations by Background and Demographics
According to contemporary developmental contextual theories, a thorough understanding
of ethnic minority youth’s experiences requires carefully studying the individual and contextual
factors that differentiate youth within a broad ethnic group (García-Coll et al., 1996; Spencer,
2008). The vast heterogeneity in Asian American ethnic groups’ experiences suggests that
cultural background and demographic factors may help to contextualize Asian American
students’ civic engagement, although past research is inconclusive and research is lacking (Diaz,
2012). We examined the role of ethnic group, immigrant status, parent education, age, gender,
and political orientation in relation to Asian American college students’ civic engagement.
Ethnic Group
Asian Americans’ civic engagement tends to be motivated by issues important to their
particular ethnic communities (Ballard et al., 2015; Chan, 2011; Yeh et al., 2015). With more
than 20 nationalities represented, Asian Americans are incredibly diverse (Chen & Philip 2009).
Ethnic minority youth’s civic commitments are partly formed in the context of their own ethnic
subgroup’s immigration patterns, democratization of one’s country of origin, and cultural and

Asian American College Students’ Civic Engagement 8
political experiences (Sánchez-Jankowski, 2002; Wong et al., 2011). The extent to which their
ethnic group experiences exclusion, discrimination or privilege in U.S. society can shape
individuals’ knowledge of the political system, attitudes, and patterns of participation (Sánchez-
Jankowski, 2002). For example, many East Indian American undergraduates have university-
educated parents who came to the U.S. in the 1960s and they tend to be report higher levels of
volunteering (Sundeen et al., 2007), whereas second-generation Vietnamese American students
who descended from refugees in the 1970s and 1980s tend to be more involved in political
activism (Nguyen & Gasman, 2015). Japanese Americans tend to be more involved in electoral
politics compared to other Asian American groups, perhaps due to assimilation processes set in
motion after World War II (Chen & Phillip, 2009). Scholars have argued against the treatment of
Asian Americans as a homogenous group (e.g., Museus & Chang, 2009; Wong et al., 2011), and
call for greater attention to heterogeneity among Asian Americans to best understand their
experiences. However, despite reasons to believe that Asian American ethnic groups have
different experiences with civic engagement, some scholars posit no ethnic group differences for
Asian Americans, arguing that other factors are more distinguishing (Ecklund & Park, 2005).
Immigrant Status
Across studies, first generation immigrants have shown lower rates of electoral
participation than second generation immigrants who were born in the U.S., a finding that
appears to hold for Asian Americans (Wong et al., 2011). First generation immigrants may have
lower voting and electoral political participation given relative lack of exposure to U.S. politics
(Lien, 1997; Xu, 2005). Youth who are not naturalized citizens are ineligible to vote and may
feel particularly disconnected from electoral politics (Uslaner & Conley, 2003; Xu, 2005).
However, an immigrant paradox has been also documented for civic engagement, showing that

Asian American College Students’ Civic Engagement 9
second generation immigrants tend to report less community engagement than first generation
youth (Wray-Lake et al., 2015), perhaps due to longer duration of experiences of marginalization
(Jensen, 2010). Undocumented status can be a motivating factor for political activism, and some
first generation immigrants are highly politically active (Perez et al., 2010; Suárez-Orozco et al.,
2015). Thus, first generation status may predict low involvement in electoral political actions and
high involvement in community service or activism.
Other Demographic Factors
Extensive research has shown that socioeconomic status (SES) indicators such as parent
education are associated with greater civic engagement (Schlozman, Verba, & Brady, 2012).
SES has been linked to Asian Americans’ civic engagement (Uslaner & Conley, 2003), although
Lien (2004) found that neither education nor income explained Asian American voter turnout.
Age is associated with greater agency and identity consolidation during young adulthood
(Schwartz, Côté, & Arnett, 2005), and the political life cycle model posits that civic engagement
should increase with age across young adulthood as individuals take on more adult
responsibilities (Kinder, 2006). Thus, age may relate to higher civic involvement. We also
examined gender. Men are more likely to vote and be politically involved; women are more
likely to volunteer (Jenkins, 2005; Lopez, Kirby, & Sagoff, 2005; Marcelo, Lopez, & Kirby,
2007). Some find no gender differences in Asian Americans’ civic engagement (Diaz, 2012).
Others note strong gender norms in Asian countries, where traditions tend to emphasize
patriarchy (Espiritu, 2008); these norms may reinforce expectations that females should take on
caring roles via volunteering and men should hold political power. Regarding political
orientation, Asian Americans tend to be more politically liberal than the general population (Kuo
et al., 2016), although group variations have been noted. For example, Indian, Chinese, and

Asian American College Students’ Civic Engagement 10
Japanese Americans tend to be more politically liberal than other Asian Americans (Pew
Research Center, 2013). Research with youth has shown an association between being politically
liberal and high-cost political behavior as well as voting (CIRCLE, 2016; Pascarella et al., 2012),
but it is unclear whether these associations hold for Asian American youth.
College Experiences that Foster Civic Engagement
College environments offer a rich context for civic growth (Pascarella & Terenzini,
2005). Knowledge of links from campus experiences to civic engagement for Asian American
youth can inform universities’ decisions about how to best support Asian American students. We
focus on aspects of campus climate (freedom of expression, respect for diversity) and
opportunities (cultural identity development, academic engagement, religious participation) that
may predict civic engagement typologies.
Campus Climate
Democratic climates that offer youth a chance to voice their views in environments where
they are valued, heard, and respected are key ingredients for civic engagement (Campbell, 2008;
Hess, 2009; Flanagan, 2013). Thus, college students who endorse freedom to express their views
on campuses should be more likely to engage in civic life. Campus climates where students
respect diversity and treat students equally regardless of race/ethnicity, religion, social class,
gender, or other characteristics are central to university mission statements and important for
creating safe non-discriminatory environments (Park et al., 2012). When youth feel like they are
respected regardless of their background, they are more likely to feel included in the community
and its political process and more likely to become civically engaged (Flanagan, 2013). Among
Asian American immigrant youth, beliefs that people are generally treated fairly are related to
higher civic engagement (Wray-Lake et al., 2015). However, some argue that ethnic minorities

Asian American College Students’ Civic Engagement 11
are motivated to become civically engaged by experiences of injustice (Watts, Diemer, &
Voight, 2011). Diemer and Rapa (2016) found that perceptions of inequality linked to more
protesting and less voting for Latino adolescents, revealing complex relations between
perceptions of inequality and civic engagement. Thus, for Asian American students, competing
hypotheses suggest that endorsing a climate of respect for diversity could predict greater civic
engagement or that perceiving a lack of respect may fuel greater political action.
Campus Opportunities
Academic engagement in college may foster greater civic engagement. This link is
supported by several meta-analyses of service-learning studies (e.g., Novak et al., 2007; Warren,
2012), and associations are likely bidirectional, as studies find that civic engagement in the
context of service-learning spurs academic learning and achievement, particularly when
accompanied by reflection or in-depth processing of community experiences (van Goethem et
al., 2014). Academic engagement may foster civic engagement in at least two ways. First,
academic engagement in and out of classrooms is likely to build a sense of community and
enhance social capital (Coleman, 1988; Putnam, 2000). When students build social networks of
faculty and students, feelings of community cohesion may motivate contributions to the larger
community, a tenet of social capital theory. Second, academic engagement should create more
exposure to knowledge about social issues and diverse opinions. This exposure to information
and diverse perspectives should spark more dialogue about community and political issues and
spur political actions (Campbell, 2008; Hess, 2009). Thus, when Asian American students
experience deep academic engagement in courses, they should report higher civic engagement.
College contexts are ripe with opportunities for cultural identity development, such as
ethnic clubs and organizations and cultural events and celebrations. Participation in ethnic clubs

Asian American College Students’ Civic Engagement 12
and organizations fosters positive connections with one’s ethnic group, facilitates positive ethnic
identity, and offers support and belonging that enables students to more fully integrate into
campus communities (Diaz, 2012). Engagement in cultural activities likely deepens
commitments to interests and causes of one’s ethnic group (Inkelas, 2004; Museus, 2008),
prompting higher civic engagement. In support of this idea, analyses using propensity score
matching found that involvement in ethnic student organizations predicted more civic
engagement six years after college (Bowman, Park, & Denson, 2015). Whereas most research
finds that campus cultural opportunities enhance diversity (e.g., Bowman & Park, 2014; Kim,
Park, & Koo, 2015), some argue that ethnic organizations that promote in-group segregation
could hinder civic engagement (e.g., Uslaner & Conley, 2003). We expected positive link
between cultural identity development opportunities and high civic engagement.
Religious participation is a robust, consistent predictor of greater volunteerism, voting,
and political participation (Campbell, 2013). Religious participation likely creates a dense
network of people with shared beliefs and values that can influence each other to express
behaviors like civic engagement; religious participation also directly involves serving
communities (Campbell, 2013). Religious participation predicted more volunteerism among
Asian Americans, despite the diverse religions represented (Ecklund & Park, 2005).
The Current Study
Applying stereotypes to Asian American youth could stifle nuanced understanding of
how and why Asian American youth are civically engaged. Research is lacking that identifies
typologies of Asian American college students’ civic engagement, which are important for
illuminating the different ways Asian American youth are civically engaged and the experiences
that relate to such differences. More precise knowledge of Asian American college students’

Asian American College Students’ Civic Engagement 13
civic engagement is relevant to colleges that aim to cultivate engagement, educators who must
get to know this diverse and growing population to better serve them, and political and
community organizations that want to interface more with Asian American youth. This study
aimed to first describe heterogeneity in Asian Americans’ civic engagement using latent class
analysis among a large sample of Asian American University of California college students.
Second, we examined the role of ethnicity, immigrant status, SES, gender, and political
orientation in predicting Asian Americans’ civic engagement typologies to identify relevant
cultural and background factors. Third, we linked college climate of respect for diversity,
freedom of expression, cultural identity development opportunities, academic engagement, and
religious participation to Asian Americans’ civic engagement to offer insights into which
experiences offer the most potential for civic growth.
Method
Data were drawn from the 2008 University of California Undergraduate Experience
Survey (UCUES), an online survey on undergraduate academic and co-curricular experiences,
including civic engagement. The UCUES is an annual census of undergraduate students in the
University of California system conducted each spring; students ages 18 and older are invited to
participate. The survey took approximately 25 minutes to complete. Participating students were
entered into raffles that varied by campus location. A response rate of 36 to 38% is achieved
across years (UCUES, 2016). Besides core questions, each student who took the 2008 survey
was randomly assigned to one of three modules; 36% received the civic engagement module.
The sample was restricted to students who self-identified as Asian and received the civic
engagement module (N = 3,556). Respondents ranged in age from 17 to 25 (M 19.6, SD = 1.6);
57% were female. The sample was distributed across freshman (19%), sophomores (24%),

Asian American College Students’ Civic Engagement 14
juniors (25%), and seniors (33%). Asian ethnicities included 41.3% Chinese, 14.8% Vietnamese,
12.6% Korean, 12.1% Filipino, 4.8% Japanese, 0.9% Pacific Islander, 6.6% other Asian, and
6.8% East Indian/Pakistani. Approximately 34% of the sample was born outside of the U.S.;
most were likely first generation immigrants as 97% were living in the U.S. before college; the
rest were international students. According to student reports, approximately half of parents had
either four year college degrees (29.7%) or post graduate education (25.9%). The mean for
political orientation was 3.40 (SD = 1.30), which was between slightly liberal and moderate.
Measures
Civic engagement was assessed with seven items. Five items pertained to election-based
participation during the 2008 election season and asked how often students had: worked for a
campaign, contributed money to a campaign, privately urged others to vote a particular way, paid
attention to candidates and issues, or talked about the campaign with other students. The first two
items represent high-cost behaviors; the others require fewer resources (money, time, effort).
Responses ranged from 1 (a great deal) to 5 (none). Participants rated the personal importance of
voting from 1 (not important) to 3 (very important). Participation in community service on or off
campus during the past academic year was measured as 0 (no) or 1 (yes). The first three items –
work for campaign, contribute money to campaign, and privately urged to vote – were positively
skewed, with 89%, 90%, and 69% of participants, respectively, reporting no engagement in these
behaviors. Due to this skew, and to enhance parsimony and facilitate interpretation of latent class
analysis, items were dichotomized (none (0) or any (1) participation).
Climate of respect for diversity assessed perceptions that students were respected on
campus regardless of background (α = .91). Six items began with “Students are respected here
regardless of their…”: economic or social class, gender, race or ethnicity, religious beliefs,

Asian American College Students’ Civic Engagement 15
political beliefs, and sexual orientation. Responses ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6
(strongly agree). Factor analysis supported a one-factor solution. Responses were averaged.
Freedom of expression was assessed by averaging three items (α = .81). Students rated
whether they could freely express their political opinions, political beliefs, and religious beliefs
on campus on a response scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree).
Academic engagement was assessed by averaging 16 items about deep engagement in
learning through assignments and peer or faculty interactions in the past year (e.g., “talked with
instructor outside of class,” “worked on class projects or studied as a group with other classmates
outside of class”, “found a course so interesting that you did more work than was required”; α =
.90). Responses ranged from 1 (never) to 6 (very often). Factor analysis supported one-factor.
Opportunities for cultural identity development were assessed with a single item, “My
experience on this campus provides adequate opportunity to explore my cultural identity”, with
responses ranging from response scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree).
Religious group participation was assessed with a single item asking whether students
participated in a religious group on campus during the past academic year. Responses were
coded such that 0 = no participation and 1 = participant or leader.
Demographic and background factors. Asian ethnicity was grouped into 7 categories:
Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, East Indian/Pakistani, and Other. Given the
small sample size, Pacific Islanders were grouped with students who listed “Other”. Age in years
was self-reported and entered as a continuous variable. For immigrant status, we used a proxy
variable of non-U.S. born (1) and U.S. born (0); most non-U.S. born students were likely first
generation immigrants, but some were international students. Other demographics included
immigrant status (first generation=1; second generation and higher=0) and gender (female=1,

Asian American College Students’ Civic Engagement 16
male=0). Parent education was a proxy for SES: the highest report of either parent was used.
Responses ranged from 0 (no high school) to 6 (post-graduate education). Students rated
political orientation on a 7-point scale from 1 (very conservative) to 7 (very liberal); higher
scores indicate greater political liberalism.
Analysis Plan
Latent class analysis (LCA) on the 7 civic items was conducted using Mplus 7.11
(Muthén & Muthén, 2008-2012). LCA is a model-based method designed to identify subgroups
in a sample by maximizing similarities among individuals in a subgroup and maximizing
differences between subgroups on indicators (Nylun, Asparouhov, & Muthén, 2007). Models
with 1 through 5 latent classes were compared on several model fit indices: lower values on the
Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC) and Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) indicate better
fitting models, with the BIC being one of the best indicators for determining number of classes.
Lo-Mendell-Rubin Adjusted Likelihood Ratio Test (LMR-LRT) and the bootstrap likelihood
ratio test (BLRT) compare each model to a model with one fewer classes, with significant p-
values indicating better fit of larger model; and entropy, with higher values indicating greater
certainty in class membership. Other considerations included parsimonious interpretation and
avoidance of small class sizes (<5% of sample; Nylun et al., 2007). After identifying classes, a
full model was run in which demographics and college experiences predicted class membership.2
Results
The 3-class LCA model was selected as best-fitting (see Table 1): AIC and BIC leveled
2 Mplus handles missing data in mixture models by excluding cases with missing data on predictors.
Thus, the full model excluded 329 cases from analysis. The meaning of latent classes remained the same
when these cases were excluded. Additional analyses available upon request examined each predictor
separately to maximize number of cases used, and verified that associations between predictors and latent
classes were comparable.

Asian American College Students’ Civic Engagement 17
off at 4+ classes, and entropy was highest in the 3-class model, suggesting 88% of individuals
could be assigned to a group with certainty (Nylund et al., 2007). Although significant LMR-
LRT and BLRT values suggested that 4 and 5-class models were good fitting, the 5-class model
had a very small class size and the 4-class model had low entropy.
The three classes were named Highly Involved, Voting Involved, and Uninvolved (see
Table 2). Highly Involved youth, 11% of the sample, had a high likelihood of engagement in all
measured civic behaviors. Highly Involved youth were distinctive from the other two groups in
their high rates of high-cost electoral engagement (working for a campaign, 83%; contributing to
a campaign, 81%). Highly Involved youth were also very likely to urge others to vote a certain
way (97%) and serve communities (74%) relative to the other groups.
Voting Involved youth, 57% of sample, reported very high rates of paying attention to
candidates (99%) and talking about candidates with others (96%); the majority also endorsed the
importance of voting (83%). The proportion of Voting Involved youth who privately urged others
to vote a certain way (36%) was higher than the sample average but much lower than the Highly
Involved class. Voting Involved youth were very unlikely to work for or contribute money to a
campaign and were slightly lower than average on community service. Thus, Voting Involved
participated in a limited number of voting-related activities at a high rate, and were less likely to
engage in higher-cost electoral participation or community service.
The Uninvolved class, 32% of the sample, was comprised of youth who were uninvolved
in a relative sense; this group had lower than rates of participation on all measured civic
engagement indicators. Almost none of the Uninvolved worked for or contributed money to a
campaign or privately urged voting. Although 57% and 51% of Uninvolved youth, respectively,
reported community service and voting importance, these proportions were lower than average.

Asian American College Students’ Civic Engagement 18
Next, we conducted a full model with all predictors of the civic engagement LCA
simultaneously entered (see Table 3). For ethnicity, Chinese Americans were the reference
group, given that this was the largest ethnic group in the sample. Filipino American and East
Indian/Pakistani American youth were more likely than Chinese Americans to be Voting
Involved class relative to Uninvolved. Age was not associated with class membership.
Non-U.S. born Asian Americans were least likely to be Voting Involved compared to the
other two groups; they were equally likely to be Uninvolved and Highly Involved. Females were
more likely than males to be Voting Involved relative to Highly Involved. Youth with more
educated parents were more likely to be Voting Involved than the other two groups and were
more likely to be Uninvolved than Highly Involved. Asian Americans who reported being
politically liberal were less likely to be Uninvolved relative to the other classes and more likely
to be Highly Involved than Voting Involved.
Youth reporting a climate of respect for diversity were more likely to be Uninvolved than
in the other groups. Freedom of expression on campus was related to being Voting Involved
relative to the other groups. Highly academically engaged students were more likely to be Highly
Involved than in the other groups and more likely to be Voting Involved than Uninvolved.
Individuals reporting more cultural identity opportunities were more likely to be Highly Involved
or Voting Involved than Uninvolved. Religiously involved students were more likely to be Highly
Involved than in the other groups and more likely to be Voting Involved than Uninvolved.
In sum, Highly Involved youth were more likely to be male, politically liberal, have less
educated parents, and be academically and religiously engaged; they were also higher on cultural
identity development opportunities and lower on climate of respect, relative to Uninvolved only.
Voting Involved youth were more likely to be Filipino or East Indian/Pakistani (than

Asian American College Students’ Civic Engagement 19
Uninvolved), be U.S. born, have more educated parents, and be politically liberal. Voting
Involved youth were highest on perceived freedom of expression; they were highly academically
and religiously engaged and reported cultural identity development opportunities (relative to
Uninvolved only). Uninvolved youth were politically conservative, high on campus climate of
respect, and low on academic and religious engagement.
Discussion
The present study helps to dispel the myth that Asian Americans are apolitical by
documenting distinct typologies of college students’ civic engagement. The cultural and
demographic differences in typologies we identified point to several sources of heterogeneity in
Asian American youth’s civic engagement. By demonstrating that civic engagement typologies
are linked to college climate and opportunities, this study contributes to theory and practice
regarding potential ways to stimulate civic engagement among Asian American college students.
From Apolitical to Political
After identifying three distinct civic subgroups, we can confidently claim that Asian
American college students are not a monolithic group and instead vary substantially in civic
engagement. The large proportion of Voting Involved Asian American youth is notable relative to
the broader young adult population of 2008 who felt alienated or marginalized (Kawashima-
Ginsberg, 2011). The small number of Highly Involved Asian Americans aligns with national
samples showing few youth are highly civically engaged (Kawashima-Ginsberg, 2011). Thus, we
conclude that many Asian American college students are politically involved, although many in
lower-cost activities. Community service and voting importance was endorsed by more than half
of the Uninvolved, and thus they were only unengaged in a relative sense. Our study builds on
prior research (e.g., Wong et al., 2011) in debunking the stereotype that Asian Americans are

Asian American College Students’ Civic Engagement 20
civically unengaged. A person-oriented approach is particularly useful for dispelling this
stereotype by demonstrating diverse patterns of Asian Americans’ civic engagement.
Describing subgroups of civic engagement advances developmental and political science
research that seeks to better understand Asian American youth. Our work could spark new
theorizing on factors that explain why some Asian American youth get involved in low- versus
high-cost political behavior, community service, or a combination. Developmental contextual
theories call for investigating the role of culture, contexts, and individual factors within ethnic
groups to best understand ethnic minority development (García-Coll et al., 1996; Spencer, 2008).
Our study made significant inroads into understanding background and college contextual factors
that may explain different paths to Asian American’s civic engagement.
Insight into Cultural and Demographic Differences
Although a growing body of research documents heterogeneity in civic engagement
among Asian American ethnic groups (e.g., Lien, 2004; Sundeen et al., 2007; Wong et al., 2011),
we observed few ethnic differences. Filipino and East Indian and Pakistani American youth were
identified as most likely to be Voting Involved. Filipino Americans have a long history of active
civic involvement (Ford & Piper, 2007), and research has documented East Indian Americans’
commitments to American politics through political party membership, voting, and community
activism (Wong et al., 2011). In analyses not pictured, other ethnic group differences
disappeared after including covariates; in particular, religious participation and political
orientation likely accounted for ethnic group differences and are key dimensions on which ethnic
groups vary (Pew Research Center, 2013). Asian American youth also likely differ on civic
engagement in part based on their ethnic group’s relationship with and reception from U.S.
society (Sánchez-Jankowski, 2002). For example, many Vietnamese Americans have faced

Asian American College Students’ Civic Engagement 21
exclusion and discrimination stemming from other Americans’ negative residual feelings about
the Vietnam War (Chan, 2006). This exclusion, coupled with a history of fighting for status and
rights as refugees, may lead Vietnamese Americans to political activism rather than to
conventional forms of civic engagement (Nguyen & Gasman, 2015). Thorough analysis of the
historical, political, and cultural context of specific Asian American ethnic groups would yield
greater insight into reasons for differences in civic engagement.
First generation immigrants were equally likely to be Uninvolved and Highly Involved.
This intriguing non-linear pattern sheds light on disparate past findings. Some studies suggest
that first generation immigrants have significant barriers to electoral political involvement, such
as language, knowledge, skills, and citizenship (Lien, 1997; Xu, 2005; Wong et al., 2011). Some
found that first generation immigrant youth were more civically engaged than second generation
immigrant youth (e.g., Wray-Lake et al., 2015), and qualitative studies have documented high
political engagement among first generation Latino immigrants (Perez et al., 2010; Suárez-
Orozco et al., 2015). We conclude that some first generation Asian American youth are highly
civically engaged whereas others are uninvolved. Future work should explore explanations for
the divergent paths, such as reason for immigrating; acculturation; and community, school, or
family supports.
Parent education findings unexpectedly showed that youth with more educated parents
were likely to be Voting Involved, and youth with less educated parents were among the Highly
Involved. The latter finding is compatible with the idea that socioeconomic disparity fuels
participation in politics and community service for some ethnic minority youth (Watts et al.,
2011). Some research finds the expected positive linear association between parent education
and civic engagement among Asian Americans, whereas others find no link (Lien, 2004; Uslaner

Asian American College Students’ Civic Engagement 22
& Conley, 2003). Our findings merit replication, and future work should explore non-linear
associations between parent education and civic engagement for Asian Americans.
Gender results revealed that males were more likely to be Highly Involved. This finding
aligns with research on broader samples suggesting that males tend to be more politically
engaged than females (Marcelo et al., 2007). Asian cultures tend to have strong gender norms
and a climate of patriarchy (Espiritu, 2008), yet gender dynamics likely differ across ethnic
groups, and future research could consider testing gender by ethnicity interactions.
College Climate and Opportunities
Building on previous work that has linked campus climates and opportunities to college
students’ civic engagement (e.g., Bowman, 2011; Jacoby, 2009), our study continues to advance
theory and research by identifying aspects of college campus life that are instrumental for the
civic development of Asian American students.
When Asian American students endorsed a campus climate where beliefs are freely
expressed, they were more likely to be Voting Involved. This finding aligns with research on
youth voice, showing that when youth feel that their opinions are respected, heard, and valued,
they are more empowered to express and act on their views (Campbell, 2008; Zeldin et al.,
2013). Civic education research has already begun enumerating strategies that can create such
climates (Billig & Waterman, 2014; Hess, 2009). Yet, our findings suggest that perceiving
freedom of expression alone may be insufficient to motivate high-cost political actions. This
pattern should be explored in more depth and with a wider array of high-cost political actions
Asian American students who had lower endorsements of climate of respect on campus
were more likely to be Voting Involved or Highly Involved. In other words, perceiving some
inequality or discrimination on campus may spark more low and high-cost engagement around

Asian American College Students’ Civic Engagement 23
national election and campaign issues as well as community service. This finding fits with
sociopolitical development theory arguing that critical consciousness, including perceptions of
inequality, motivates political development, particularly among ethnic minority youth (Watts et
al., 2011; Diemer & Rapa, 2016). We hope our work sparks more research on perceptions of
inequality and civic engagement among Asian American youth. Future research should consider
Asian Americans’ personal experiences of discrimination in relation to civic engagement, as
mixed findings have emerged in linking discrimination to civic engagement among ethnic
minority youth (Ballard, 2015; Hope & Jagers, 2014).
Asian American students who were the most deeply engaged in academic learning were
also the most highly civically engaged. This finding further dispels stereotypes of Asian
American students as focused on academics to the exclusion of other pursuits. Our measure of
academic engagement reflected immersing oneself in course material in and out of the
classroom, going well beyond a focus on achievement or grades. The positive link from
academic engagement to high civic engagement is especially notable because Asian American
college students tend to have low levels of engagement with faculty (Kim, Chang, & Park,
2009). Academic engagement likely has civic benefits due to strengthening social networks
among faculty and students, which increases social capital (Putnam, 2000). Exposure to diverse
views or issues relevant to course may also spark civic interest and action (Campbell, 2008).
Service-learning research posits the alternative causal view that civic engagement sparks more
academic engagement (Warren, 2012), which we cannot tease out given cross-sectional data.
Future research could use longitudinal or quasi-experimental designs and rigorously control for
selection effects to further clarify directionality of these links.
Cultural identity development opportunities and participation in campus religious groups

Asian American College Students’ Civic Engagement 24
predicted high civic involvement. Connections to one’s cultural roots – including cultural
identity and religious traditions – can promote expression of cultural traditions and connect
youth to the causes that most matter to their ethnic group. These activities offer key ingredients
that motivate civic engagement and may even directly involve civic engagement as a core
component (Diaz, 2012; Museus, 2008; Stepick & Stepick, 2002). Further, religious participation
and cultural identity development may be interconnected and mutually influential for civic
development (Ecklund & Park, 2005). Especially given that our measure was crude and non-
precise in capturing cultural identity development opportunities, in-depth exploration of the
specific campus opportunities that facilitate cultural identity development would be an important
next step. Events or courses that foster intergroup dialogue, cultural clubs and organizations, and
campus diversity initiatives are examples of experiences that have been empirically linked to
cultural identity development and may foster Asian Americans’ civic engagement.
Implications for Colleges
Our results offer at least five tangible recommendations for colleges and universities.
First, colleges should more fully recognize the diversity that exists among Asian American
students and avoid practices or messaging that promotes common stereotypes. Higher education
institutions have been described as buying into or promoting stereotypes of Asian American
students as hard working and high achieving (Park et al., 2008), which may inadvertently
deemphasize other opportunities, such as civic engagement. Recognizing that some Asian
American students are highly civically engaged and seeking to understand why will put college
administrators, staff, and faculty more in tune with their student body. Second, in light of our
findings, colleges could enhance efforts to emphasize freedom to express religious and political
beliefs, which may be particularly impactful around election times, given the link between

Asian American College Students’ Civic Engagement 25
freedom of expression and being Voting Involved. Third, deepening academic engagement can
benefit civic life; colleges that emphasize active learning techniques, critical thinking, and
faculty-student interactions may see greater civic engagement among Asian Americans on their
campuses. Fourth, when Asian American students perceive inequality or discrimination on
campus, they are more likely to be Highly Involved or Voting Involved. For colleges and
universities, this finding showcases the importance of bringing issues of campus disrespect and
discrimination to light. Perhaps giving students a forum to learn about and discuss issues of
inequality can foster different types of civic engagement, as others have suggested (Hess, 2009).
Finally, Asian American students who take advantage of campus opportunities for cultural
identity development may become highly civically engaged. Thus, colleges should recognize the
value of diverse activities, groups, and events that promote cultural identity.
Limitations and Future Directions
Although this study advances knowledge of Asian American college students’ civic
engagement, several limitations are notable. First, our data were cross-sectional and thus offered
limited insight into civic development. Longitudinal analyses would be an ideal next step to map
developmental pathways of civic engagement for Asian American youth. Causality cannot be
determined and directionality of findings was not established; for example, campus opportunities
could be an outgrowth of civically engaged students or may be associated with civic engagement
due to a third variable of general engagement. Second, use of secondary data offered only a
cursory examination of several factors and necessarily excluded others. We measured religious
participation with a single item, and future research that delves into specific religions may find
more nuanced associations with Asian Americans’ civic engagement (Ecklund & Park, 2005).
There is more heterogeneity within Asian American ethnic groups than we were able to explore,

Asian American College Students’ Civic Engagement 26
such as distinct groups of Chinese Americans with different experiences and identities (Lien,
2008). Our civic measures adequately covered political participation during a historically
significant time of the 2008 election; measures of political activism were not available but would
be important to examine. Citizenship and immigrant status were too conflated (i.e., almost none
of the first generation immigrants were citizens) and we could not include both in analyses;
research with larger samples of naturalized citizens would allow for disaggregating the two
(Wong et al., 2005). Refugee status and democratization of country of origin are additional
factors that may distinguish Asian American immigrant youth and color their civic experiences.
The third limitation pertains to generalizability. Our study only generalizes to Asian Americans
in the University of California system and may not be representative of Asian American college
students at other institutions and not representative of Asian American youth not attending
college. Non-college attendees tend to be less civically engaged and have fewer opportunities for
civic development (Finlay et al., 2010). Also, engaged youth could have been oversampled due
to response bias. Some findings may transcend Asian American students and generalize to other
ethnic groups, yet we make no such claims and leave cross-group comparisons to other studies.
Conclusion
This study represents a step forward for interdisciplinary research, theory, and practice on
Asian American youth’s civic engagement by describing heterogeneity in college students’ civic
engagement and identifying demographic and contextual factors that predict civic engagement
typologies. In a political climate where policymakers are reluctant to stratify Asian Americans
and thus risk masking crucial differences (Wang, 2015), our research aligns with the work of
others showing the necessity of disaggregation in order to truly understand Asian Americans.
Scholars refer to “awakening the sleeping giant” to point out Asian Americans’ potentially

Asian American College Students’ Civic Engagement 27
potent but unused influence in American politics (Park et al., 2008, p. 92). More research, media,
and political attention should be devoted to patterns of Asian American civic engagement in an
effort to avoid stereotyping, marginalizing, and ignoring this growing population.

Asian American College Students’ Civic Engagement 28
References
Amna, E. (2012). How is civic engagement developed over time? Emerging answers from a
multidisciplinary field. Journal of Adolescence, 35, 611–627. doi:10.2478/s13374-
012-0024-1
Ballard, P.J., Malin, H., Porter, T.J., Colby, A. & Damon, W. (2015). Motivations for civic
participation among diverse youth: More similarities than differences. Research for
Human Development, 12, 63-83.doi: 10.1080/15427609.2015.1010348
Ballard, P. J. (2015). Longitudinal links between discrimination and civic development among
Latino and Asian Adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence. doi:
10.1111/jora.12221
Billig, S. H., & Waterman, A. S. (Eds.). (2014). Studying service-learning: Innovations in
education research methodology. Routledge.
Bowman, N.A. (2011). Promoting participation in a diverse democracy: A meta-analysis of
college diversity experiences and civic engagement. Review of Educational Research, 81,
29-68. doi: 10.3102/0034654310383047.
Bowman, N.A., Park, J.J. & Denson, N. (2015). Student involvement in ethnic student
organizations: Examining civic outcomes six years after graduation. Research in Higher
Education, 56, 127-145. doi: 10.1007/s11162-014-9353-8
Bowman, N.A. & Park, J.J. (2014). Interracial contact on college campuses: Comparing and
contrasting predictors of cross-racial interaction and interracial friendship. The Journal of
Higher Education, 85(5), 660-690. doi: 10.1353/jhe.2014.0029
Campbell, D. E. (2009). Civic engagement and education: An empirical test of the sorting model.
American Journal of Political Science, 53(4), 771-786. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-
5907.2009.00400.x
Campbell, D. E. (2008). Voice in the classroom: How an open classroom climate fosters political
engagement among adolescents. Political Behavior, 30(4), 437-454. doi:
10.1007/s11109-008-9063-z.
Campbell, D.E. (2013). Social networks and political participation. Annual Review of Political
Science, 16, 33-48. doi: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-033011-201728
Chan, S. (2006). The Vietnamese American 1.5 generation: Stories of war, revolution, flight,
and new beginnings. Philadelphia, US: Temple University Press.

Asian American College Students’ Civic Engagement 29
Chan, W.Y. (2011). An exploration of Asian American college students’ civic engagement.
Asian American Journal of Psychology, 2, 197-204. doi: 10.1037/a0024675
Chang, M. J., Park, J. J., Lin, M. H., Poon, O. A., & Nakanishi, D. T. (2007). Beyond myths: The
growth and diversity of Asian American college freshmen, 1971-2005. Los Angeles:
Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.
Checkoway, B. (2001). Renewing the civic mission of the American Research University. The
Journal of Higher Education, 72(2), 125-147. doi: 10.2307/2649319
Chen, K.Y. & Philip, C.L. (2009). Asian American activism, advocacy, and public policy. In N.
Tewari & A. Alvarez (Eds.), Asian American Psychology: Current Perspectives (pp. 483-
498). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
CIRLCE. (2016). Youth voting in the 2016 primaries. FACT Sheet. Retrieved on August 1, 2016
from http://civicyouth.org/youth-voting-in-the-2016-primaries/
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of
Sociology, S95-S120. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2780243
Diaz, M.D. (2012). Asian embeddedness and political participation: Social integration and
Asian-American voting behavior in the 2000 presidential election. Sociological
Perspectives, 55, 141-166. doi: 10.1525/sop.2012.55.1.141
Diemer, M.A. & Rapa, L.J. (2016). Unraveling the complexity of critical consciousness, political
efficacy, and political action among marginalized adolescents. Child Development, 87,
221-238. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12446
Ecklund, E.H. & Park, J.Z. (2005). Asian American community participation and religion: Civic
“model minorities?” Journal of Asian American Studies, 8(1), 1-21. doi:
10.1353/jaas.2005.0027
Ehrlich, T. (2000). Civic responsibility and higher education. Westport, Connecticut:
Greenwood Publishing Group.
Espiritu, Y.L. (2008). Asian American women and men: Labor, laws, and love. Lanham:
Rowman & Littlefield.
Finlay, A.K., Wray-Lake, L., & Flanagan, C.A. (2010). Civic engagement during the transition
to adulthood: Developmental opportunities and social policies at a critical juncture. In L.
Sherrod, J. Torney-Purta, & C. Flanagan (Eds.), Handbook of research on civic
engagement in youth (pp. 277-305). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Asian American College Students’ Civic Engagement 30
Finlay, A. K., Flanagan, C. A., & Wray-Lake, L. (2011). Civic patterns and transitions over
eight years: The AmeriCorps National study. Developmental Psychology, 47, 1728-1743.
doi: 10.1037/a0025360
Flanagan, C. A. (2013). Teenage citizens: The political theories of the young. Harvard University
Press.
Flanagan, C.A., & Levine, P. (2010). Civic engagement and the transition to adulthood. The
Future of Children, 20(1), 159-179. doi: 10.1353/foc.0.0043
Ford, M. & Piper, N. (2007). Southern sites of female agency: Informal regimes and female
migrant labour resistance in East and Southeast Asia. In J.M. Hobson & L. Seabrook
(Eds.), Everyday Politics of the World Economy (pp. 63-79). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
García-Coll, C.G., Lamberty, G., Jenkins, R., McAdoo, H.P., Crnic, K., Wasik, B.H., & García,
H.V. (1996). An integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in
minority children. Child Development, 67(5), 1891-1914. doi: 10.2307/1131600
Godsay, S., Nover, A., & Kirby, E. (2010). The minority youth vote in the 2008 presidential
election. The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement.
Retrieved on July 1, 2016 from http://civicyouth.org/wp-
content/uploads/2010/10/fs_race_09_final1.pdf
Haste, H., & Hogan, A. (2006). Beyond conventional civic participation, beyond the moral-
political divide: Young people and contemporary debates about citizenship. Journal
of Moral Education, 35, 473–493. doi:10.1080/03057240601012238
Hess, D. E. (2009). Controversy in the classroom: The democratic power of discussion. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Hing, Bill O. 1993. Making and Remaking Asian America through Immigration Policy 1850–
1990. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Hope, E. C., & Jagers, R. J. (2014). The role of sociopolitical attitudes and civic education in the
civic engagement of black youth. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 24(3), 460-470.
doi: 10.1111/jora.12117
Inkelas, K.K. (2004). Does participation in ethnic cocurricular activities facilitate a sense of
ethnic awareness and understanding? A study of Asian Pacific American undergraduates.
Journal of College Student Development, 45, 285-302. doi: 10.1353/csd.2004.0037

Asian American College Students’ Civic Engagement 31
Jacoby, B. (2009). Civic engagement in higher education: Concepts and practices. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Jenkins, K. (2005). Gender and civic engagement: Secondary analysis of survey data. College
Park, MD: Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement.
Jensen, L. A. (2010). Immigrant youth in the United States: Coming of age among diverse civic
cultures. In L. R. Sherrod, J. Torney-Purta, & C. A. Flanagan (Eds.), Handbook of
research on civic engagement in youth (pp. 425–443). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Junn, J. (2007). From coolie to model minority: U.S. immigration policy and the construction of
racial identity. DuBois Review, 4, 355-373. doi: 10.1017/S1742058X07070208
Junn, J. & Masuoka, N. (2008). Asian American identity: Shared racial status and political
context, Perspectives on Politics, 6, 729-740. doi: 10.1017/S1537592708081887
Kawashima-Ginsberg, K. (2011). Understanding a diverse generation: Youth civic engagement
in the United States. The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and
Engagement. Retrieved on August 10, 2016 from http://www.civicyouth.org/wp-
content/uploads/2011/11/CIRCLE_cluster_report2010.pdf
Kim, Y.K., Chang, M.J., & Park, J.J. (2009). Engaging with faculty: Examining rates, predictors,
and educational effects for Asian American undergraduates. Journal of Diversity in
Higher Education, 2(4), 206-218. doi: 10.1037/a0017890
Kim, Y. K., Park, J. J., & Koo, K. K. (2015). Testing self-segregation: Multiple-group structural
modeling of college students’ interracial friendship by race. Research in Higher
Education, 56(1), 57-77. Doi: 10.1007/s11162-014-9337-8
Kinder, D. R. (2006). Politics and the life cycle. Science, 312(5782), 1905-1908. doi:
10.1126/science.1127891
Kuo, A., Malhotra, N., & Mo, S. (2016). Social Exclusion and Political Identity: The Case of
Asian American Partisanship. Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions. Retrieved
on July 27, 2016 from http://www.vanderbilt.edu/csdi/research/Mo_workingpaper_1_2016.pdf
Kwon, S.A. (2008). Moving from complaints to action: Oppositional consciousness and
collective action in a political community. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 39, 59-
76. doi: 10.1111/j.1548-1492.2008.00005.x
Lee, S. (2009). Unraveling the “model minority” stereotype: Listening to Asian American Youth.
New York: Teachers College Press.

Asian American College Students’ Civic Engagement 32
Lerner, R. M., Wang, J., Champine, R. B., Warren, D. J., & Erickson, K. (2014). Development of
civic engagement: Theoretical and methodological issues. International Journal of
Developmental Science, 8(3), 69–79. doi:10.3233/DEV-14130
Lien, P. (1997). Does under-participation matter: An examination of policy opinions among
Asian Americans. Asian American Policy Review, 7, 38-54.
Lien, P., Conway, M.M., & Wong, J. (2004). The politics of Asian Americans: Diversity and
community. New York, Routledge.
Lien, P. (2004). Asian Americans and voting participation: Comparing racial and ethnic
differences in recent U.S. elections. The International Migration Review, 38, 493-517.
Lien, P. (2008). Homeland origins and political identities among Chinese in Southern California.
Ethnic and Racial Studies, 31, 1381-1403.
Lien, P. T. (2010). Making of Asian America: Through Political Participation. Temple
University Press.
Lopez, M. H., Kirby, E., & Sagoff, J. (2005). Voter turnout among young men and women [Fact
sheet]. College Park, MD: Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and
Engagement.
Marcelo, K. B., Lopez, M. H., & Kirby, E. H. (2007). Civic engagement among young men and
women [Fact sheet]. College Park, MD: Center for Information and Research on Civic
Learning and Engagement.
McAdam, D. (1986). Recruitment to high-risk activism: The case of freedom summer. American
Journal of Sociology, 64-90.
Museus, S. D., & Chang, M. J. (2009). Rising to the challenge of conducting research on Asian
Americans in higher education. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2009(142),
95-105. doi: 10.1002/ir.299
Museus, S. D. (2008). The role of ethnic student organizations in fostering African American and
Asian American students' cultural adjustment and membership at predominantly White
institutions. Journal of College Student Development, 49(6), 568-586.
Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (1998–2012). Mplus user's guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA:
Muthen & Muthen.

Asian American College Students’ Civic Engagement 33
Nguyen, T. & Gasman, M. (2015). Cultural identity and allegiance among Vietnamese students
and their organizations at the University of California, Irvine: 1980-1990. Teachers
College Record, 117, 1-22.
Novak, J.M., Markey, V., & Allen, M. (2007). Evaluating cognitive outcomes of service learning
in higher education: A meta-analysis. Communication Research Reports, 24(2), 149-157.
Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muth´en, B. O. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in
latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study.
Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 535-569. doi: 10.1080/10705510701575396
Pascarella, E.T. & Terenzini, P.T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of
research (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Park, J.J., Denson, N., & Bowman, N.A. (2012). Does socioeconomic diversity make a
difference? Examining the effects of racial and socioeconomic diversity on the campus
climate for diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 50, 466-496.
Park, J.J., Lin, M.H., Poon, O.A., & Chang, M.J. (2008). Asian American college students and
civic engagement. In P.M. Ong (Ed.), The state of Asian America: Trajectory of civic and
political engagement (pp.75-97). Los Angeles, CA: LEAP Asian Pacific American Public
Policy Institute.
Park, J. J., & Teranishi, R. T. (2008). Asian American and Pacific Islander serving institutions:
Historical perspectives and future prospects. In M. Gasman, B. Baez, & C.S. Viernes
Turner (Eds.), Understanding minority-serving institutions (pp. 111-126). Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Perez, W., Espinoza, R., Ramos, K., Coronado, H., & Cortes, R. (2010). Civic engagement
patterns of undocumented Mexican students. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 9,
245-265.
Pew Research Center. (2013). The rise of Asian Americans. Washington, DC.
Putnam, R.D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New
York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Sánchez-Jankowski, M. (2002). Minority youth and civic engagement: The impact of group
relations. Applied Developmental Science, 6, 237-245.
Schlozman, K. L., Verba, S., & Brady, H. E. (2012). The unheavenly chorus: Unequal political
voice and the broken promise of American democracy. Princeton University Press.

Asian American College Students’ Civic Engagement 34
Schwartz, S. J., Côté, J. E., & Arnett, J. J. (2005). Identity and agency in emerging adulthood
two developmental routes in the individualization process. Youth & Society, 37(2), 201-
229. doi: 10.1177/0044118X05275965
Spencer, M. B. (2008). Phenomenology and ecological systems theory: Development of diverse
groups. In W. Damon & R. Lerner (Eds.), Child and adolescent development: An
advanced course (pp. 696-740). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Stepick, A., & Stepick, C. D. (2002). Becoming American, constructing ethnicity: Immigrant
youth and civic engagement. Applied Developmental Science, 6(4), 246-257.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S1532480XADS0604_12
Suárez-Orozco, C., Hernández, M.G., & Casavnova, S. (2015). “It’s sort of my calling”: The
civic engagement and social responsibility of Latino immigrant-origin young adults.
Research in Human Development, 12, 84-99.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15427609.2015.1010350
Sundeen, R.A.., Garcia, C., & Wang, L. (2007). Volunteer behavior among Asian American
groups in the United States. Journal of Asian American Studies, 10, 243-281.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jaas.2007.0031
University of California. (2016). University of California Undergraduate Experience Survey
(UCUES; Data file). Retrieved on May 10, 2016 from
http://studentsurvey.universityofcalifornia.edu/welcome.html
Uslaner, E.M. & Conley, R.S. (2003). Civic engagement and particularized trust: The ties that
bind people to their ethnic communities. American Politics Research, 31, 331-360.
van Goethem, A., van Hoof, A., Orobio de Castro, B., Van Aken, M., & Hart, D. (2014). The
role of reflection in the effects of community service on adolescent development:
A meta‐analysis. Child Development, 85(6), 2114–2130. doi:10.1111/cdev.12274
Voight, A. & Torney-Purta, J. (2013). A typology of youth civic engagement in urban middle
schools. Applied Developmental Science, 17, 198-212.
Wang,K. (2015, October, 9). California governor vetoes bill aimed at addressing disparities in
AAPI communities. NBC News. Retrieved May 19, 2016 from:
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/california-governor-vetoes-bill-aimed-
addressing-disparities-aapi-communities-n441671
Warren, J. L. (2012). Does service-learning increase student learning?: A meta-analysis.

Asian American College Students’ Civic Engagement 35
Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 18(2), 56-61.
Watts, R. J., Diemer, M. A., & Voight, A. M. (2011). Critical consciousness: Current status and
future directions. New directions for child and adolescent development, 2011(134), 43-
57.
Weerts, D.J., Cabrera, A.F., & Pérez Mejías, P.P. (2014). Uncovering categories of civically
engaged college students: A latent class analysis. The Review of Higher Education, 37(2),
141-168.
Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for
democracy. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 237–269.
doi:10.3102/00028312041002237
Wong, J. (2006). Democracy’s promise: Immigrants and American civic institutions. Ann Arbor,
MI: University of Michigan Press.
Wong, J., Ramakrishnan, S. K., Lee, T., & Junn, J. (2011). Asian American Political
Participation: Emerging Constituents and Their Political Identities. Russell Sage
Foundation
Wong, J.S., Lien, P., & Conway, M.M. (2005). Group-based resources and political participation
among Asian Americans. American Politics Research, 33, 545-576. Doi:
10.1177/1532673X04270521
Wray-Lake, L., Metzger, A., & Syvertsen A.K. (2016). Testing multidimensional models of
youth civic engagement: Model comparisons, measurement invariance, and age
differences. Applied Developmental Science. doi:0.1080/10888691.2016.1205495
Wray-Lake, L., Rote, W., Victorino, C., & Benavides, C.M. (2014). Examining developmental
transitions in civic engagement across adolescence: Evidence from a national U.S.
sample. International Journal of Developmental Science, 8, 95-104. Doi: 10.3233/DEV-
14142
Wray-Lake, L., & Sloper, M. (2015). Youth civic engagement and the role of experiences
across contexts. Applied Developmental Science. Doi: 10.1080/10888691.2015.1114888
Wray-Lake, L., Rote, W., Gupta, T., Godfrey, E., & Sirin, S. (2015). Examining correlates of
civic engagement among immigrant adolescents. Research on Human Development.
12(1-2), 10-27. Doi: 10.1080/15427609.2015.1010343
Xu, J. (2005). Why do minorities participate less? The effects of immigration, education, and

Asian American College Students’ Civic Engagement 36
electoral process on Asian American voter registration and turnout. Social Science
Research, 34, 682-702. Doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2004.11.002
Yeh, C.J., Borrero, N.E., Lusheck, C., Plascencia, L., Kiliona, K., Mase, M.,…Tito, P. (2015).
Fostering social support, leadership competence, community engagement, and resilience
among Samoan American youth. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 6, 145-153.
Doi: 10.1037/a0038545
Zeldin, S., Christens, B. D., & Powers, J. L. (2013). The Psychology and Practice of Youth‐
Adult Partnership: Bridging Generations for Youth Development and Community
Change. American journal of community psychology, 51(3-4), 385-397. Doi:
10.1007/s10464-012-9558-y

Asian American College Students’ Civic Engagement 37
Table 1. Model Fit Indices for Latent Class Analysis Solutions
Model
AIC
BIC
LMR-LRT
BLRT
Entropy
One group
26254.2
26297.44
Two group
22875.8
22968.45
3343.288***
3394.4***
0.852
Three group
21496.37
21638.43
1374.419***
1395.431***
0.879
Four group
21399.89
21591.36
110.79***
112.484***
0.782
Five groupa
21381.64
21622.52
33.73**
32.246***
0.767
Note. AIC = Akaike Information Criteria; BIC = Bayseian Information Criterion; LMR-LRT =
Lo Mendall Rubin likelihood ratio test; BLRT = Bootstrap likelihood ratio test. The row in bold
represents the selected model.
***p < .001, **p < .01; significant values indicate that the number of classes represents a
statistically significant better fit compared to a model with one fewer class.
a smallest class n = 58, or 1.6% of sample

Asian American College Students’ Civic Engagement 38
Table 2. Item response probabilities for the full sample and by civic engagement typology
Civic Engagement Indicators
Full
Sample
(N=3556)
Highly
Involved
(n=403)
Voting
Involved
(n=2008)
Uninvolved
(n=1145)
Worked for a campaign
10.8
83.4
1.7
1
Contributed money to a campaign
10.3
80.7
1.3
1.4
Privately urged others to vote a particular
way 31.5 97.4 35.5 .4
Paid attention to candidates and issues
74.1
98.4
99
20.2
Talked about candidates with others
69.7
97.9
96
11.8
Importance of voting
73.3
84.7
83.3
51
Community service
58.7
74.1
56.8
56.7
Note. Response probabilities represent the percentage of youth in each group who endorsed
participating in each civic activity. Probabilities in bold best define the activities of each
subgroup that were higher than the sample average.

Asian American College Students’ Civic Engagement 39
Table 3. Full Model with Predictors of Civic Engagement Classes
Predictors
Highly Involved
(vs. Uninvolved)
Voting Involved
(vs. Uninvolved)
Voting Involved
(vs. Highly
Involved)
Demographics
Ethnicity a
Filipino
1.543
1.575**
1.021
Japanese
1.015
1.192
1.747
Korean
.849
.804
.946
Vietnamese
.812
1.117
1.377
East Indian/Pakistani
1.600
2.082**
1.301
Other Asian
.751
1.099
1.462
Age
1.050
1.001
.953
Immigrant status
.969
.637***
.657**
Gender: Female
.754*
1.133
1.504**
Parent education
.914*
1.075**
1.175***
Liberal political orient
1.320***
1.108**
.840**
College Experiences
Climate of respect
.708***
.822**
1.607
Freedom of expression
.868
1.370***
1.578***
Academic engagement
2.038***
1.206**
.592***
Cultural identity opp
1.156*
1.014
.877*
Religious participation
2.320***
1.350*
.582**
Note. Odds ratios are reported; values above one represent higher odds of being a class, and
values lower than one represent lower odds. aReference Group = Chinese. *p < .05, **p < .01,
***p ≤ .001.