Fierro y Moreno - Emerging Adulthood in Mexican and Spanihs Youth

Journal of Adolescent
Research
Volume 22 Number 5
September 2007 476-503
Emerging Adulthood in © 2007 Sage Publications
10.1177/0743558407305774
Mexican and Spanish Youth http://jar.sagepub.com
hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com
Theories and Realities
Daniel Fierro Arias
Amparo Moreno Hernández
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain
A delay in the end of the adolescent period, and hence the onset of common
adult roles, is a trend in most of today’s Western industrialized societies.
Related to this fact, in recent years emerging adulthood has been proposed as
a distinct developmental period between adolescence and young adulthood.
Typical normative markers of adulthood are seemingly being replaced by
more personal ones, defining the transition in more individualistic terms.
This study applied an adaptation of the Inventory of Dimensions of Emerging
Adulthood (Reifman, Arnett, & Colwell, 2006) to 720 Mexican and Spanish
males and females aged 16 to 34, whose educational level ranged from high
school to postgraduate work, to investigate their agreement with descriptions
of the stated period as regarding their own lives. Factor analysis revealed
seven subscales related to transition to adulthood. Developmental and
national differences are also linked to Mexican and Spanish realities. These
youths’ representations of adolescence and adulthood support to some extent
the concept of a new period between these stages. Findings are discussed in
terms of cultural and theoretical implications.
Keywords: emerging adulthood; transition to adulthood; young adulthood;

developmental theories; late adolescence; adult development;
Mexico; Spain
A dolescence is nowadays a very long transitional stage between childhood

and adulthood. From a biological, psychological, and sociological per-
spective, this stage has been enlarging in recent times, at both its onset and its
Authors’ Note: We thank Dr. José Luis López-Taboada, Department of Developmental and
Educational Psychology at the Autonomous University of Madrid, for his invaluable assistance
in the statistical analysis. Please address all correspondence to Daniel Fierro at C/Berruguete
4, bajo F, 28039, Madrid, Spain; e-mail: danyfe74@yahoo.com.mx.
476
Fierro, Moreno / Emerging Adulthood in Mexican and Spanish Youth 477
end. Arnett (2004) has proposed that adolescence is clearly concluded in the
U.S. majority culture at around age 18, when high school education is fin-
ished by most young people, legal independence is reached, and the
parental home is left—a “rite of passage” signaling a conclusion that might
not take place the same way in other settings. What is seemingly general-
ized in many Westernized societies is a delay on adulthood’s onset.
The crucial point is what happens, for example, when a 22-year-old person
lives with his or her parents and is still studying: Is he or she an adolescent,
an adult, or something in between? Clearly, many young people today do not
feel identified with either adolescent or adult typical phenomena, attributes,
and subjective feelings. Which terms and theories fit this reality?
Psychological, sociological, and anthropological models suggest differ-
ent terms: late adolescence, youth, young adulthood, and transition to
adulthood. Scabini (2000; Scabini, Marta, & Lanz, 2006), for example, has
mentioned young adulthood as the period compatible with this difficult
contiguity. The concept of youth has also been proposed as the one which
might fit, but it seems to be too vague. Some years ago, Zárraga (1985)
advised that youth was such an abstract term that it fits any discourse.
Giving up such debates, most researchers can agree that youth is not ado-
lescence nor, more important, is it adulthood. Young people certainly are in
a youth phase, not passing through it (Martín, 2002).
Several descriptions of life stages, especially of young adulthood, stress
how principal tasks and roles develop through the 20s and 30s, but the delay
in the transition, so important nowadays, has not been studied in depth.
Theories usually point out traditional normative markers of adulthood: fin-
ishing education, entering work life, getting married, and becoming a
parent. However, these milestones and one’s age are not enough to define
many present developmental realities. Young people’s trajectories are nei-
ther unique nor linear (Craig, 2001; Marini, 1984), and transitions are
numerous, reversible, complex, and contradictory (Revista de Estudios de
Juventud, 2002; Schroots, 1996), though there are debates about this
subject. Some researchers have proposed that the shifting contours of mod-
ernization have paradoxically resulted in transitions that are increasingly
standardized by age (Shanahan, 2000, cited by Berkowitz, 2005). Machado
Pais (2002) has explained this paradox: Youth policies tend to standardize
transitions as young people fight to find autonomous paths.
Because of its focus on the transition and less normative features, the
concept of emerging adulthood (Arnett, 2000, 2004) seems to offer a new
approach. Arnett describes this period as occurring basically from ages 18
to 25, though it may be extended to the late 20s or even beyond, depending
478 Journal of Adolescent Research
on the time taken to settle down in long-term adult roles. Certainly the idea
of being “settled down,” behaving as an adult, depends on what is stressed
about the meaning given to adult roles contextually.
Several researchers (Arnett, 1997, 2000, 2004; Greene, Wheatley, &
Aldava, 1992; Scheer, Unger, & Brown, 1994) have stated as well that the
transition to adulthood occurs in more psychological and individualistic
terms. Particularly, Arnett has proposed some psychological features that
characterize the emerging adulthood period: identity explorations, instabil-
ity, self-focusing, open possibilities, and feeling in between adolescence
and adulthood. These traits might suit quite well the transition to adulthood
in the cultural reality in which this theory has been created. Yet we know
that all developmental stages are cultural constructions as much as natural
determinations. This implies that contextual differences between nations or
groups require a more cultural view, congruent with the realities lived
locally. As Nsamenang (1995) has affirmed, indigenous paradigms are nec-
essary to explain developmental realities contextually, for most empirical
research and theoretical approaches have been accomplished in European
and North American contexts.
At first sight, we might have the impression that young people world-
wide share the same challenges, interests, and concerns, but in fact, there
are rather different pathways (Brown, Larson, & Saraswathi, 2002). Cook
and Furstenberg (2002, cited by Weisner & Lowe, 2004) illustrate this fact
with a comparative study in four developed countries: Italy, Sweden,
Germany, and the United States. These nations share many demographic,
educational, and social features, “but, between 15 and 35, each country
shows variations in how youth traverse the pathways they find” (Cook &
Furstenberg, 2002, cited by Weisner & Lowe, 2004, pp. 20-21). We can
imagine what might happen in less comparable contexts.
Focusing on this transition from adolescence to adulthood, the emerging
adulthood period cannot be considered a universal one in human develop-
ment, but a stage that exists under certain conditions that have occurred only
quite recently and only in some cultures (Arnett, 2004, p. 21). Moreover, we
would stress that national and cultural differences could give a turnover to
data and theoretical descriptions coming from different origins. Torres and
Zacarés (2004), for example, found that whereas an American sample
(Arnett, 1998) gave more importance to financial, legal, and chronological
criteria for the transition, Spaniards underlined psychological aspects—
emotional and sexual criteria.
We have wondered which sociocultural conditions could affect Mexican
and Spanish young people’s representations of emerging adulthood. To
explore this issue, it is important to consider briefly the Mexican and

Spanish general and specific contexts that could shape transition to adult-
hood in these countries and the psychosocial experience of youth through-
out this period.
It is well known that Mexico and Spain share important characteristics:
language, past history, cultural values, and welfare regimes. Spain, and to
some extent Mexico, have developed a welfare regime called family ori-
ented. This regime implies a strong ideological and practical involvement
of family and kinship networks in protecting their members against eco-
nomic and social risk (Blossfeld, Klijzing, Mills, & Kurz, 2005). In both
countries, university students tend to stay in the parental home until they
conclude a degree or even beyond. Also, both countries have been affected
by globalization processes. Family support and globalization have impor-
tant consequences in the transition to adulthood. The latter could, for
instance, generate insecurity, which could be to some extent filtered by the
family institution. On the other hand, these countries belong to different
social contexts—Latin America and Europe—and they also present idio-
syncratic features. Table 1 presents some comparative data related to youth
in relevant countries and worldwide.
In addition, during recent decades, both Mexico and Spain have experienced
significant social, educational, and political changes that have affected their
entire populations, and especially young people. Regarding Spain (Del Barrio,
Moreno, & Linaza, 2006), social changes linked to employment, schooling,
marriage, and parenthood have produced an important deferment in the
attainment of adult status. Nowadays, 55% of Spanish people aged 16 to 29 are
college students (Instituto de Juventud España, 2007). Economic independence
occurs at about age 30. In relation to the transition to work life, recent cohorts
of Spanish young people tend to wait longer until a first job is found (Simó,
Castro, & Soro, 2005); from 2000 to 2004, the rate of working young people
(15-29 years old) has declined 8% (Instituto de Juventud España, 2004).
Unemployment also is connected with the fact that most young people
remain in the parental home, and as mentioned earlier, the transition to
adulthood in Spain is characterized by a prolonged stay in the original
home. After Italy, it is the country where people remain the longest in the
“nest.” This is defined as a Mediterranean pattern of transition: longer stay
in parental home, increasing rate of enrollment in higher education, delayed
entrance into workforce, and older marriage age. In the case of Spanish
youth, Douglass (2005; cited by Arnett, 2006) has underlined that they feel
good living with their parents, but Martín (2002) has not expressed the
same opinion. Taking into account data offered by the Instituto de Juventud
Table 1
Selected Demographic and Social Data of Mexico,
Spain, the United States, and the World
Category Mexico Spain United States World
Percentage of world population 1.66 0.66 4.59 100

Life expectancy at birth 75.19 79.52 77.71 64.33
Median age of population 24.95 39.51 36.27 27.60
Population under 18 (%) 39.0 17.6 25.9 35.1
Population older than 65 (%) 5.6 17.6 12.4 7.3
Gross enrollment in 22 62 81 n.a.
tertiary education (%)a
Median age at marriage, women 24.4 28.6 25.3 n.a.
Median age at marriage, men 27.2 30.6 27.1 n.a.
Human Development .814 (53) .928 (21) .944 (10) .741
Index (ranking)b
Years of schooling 7.23 7.28 12.05 6.66
(of population > 15 years of age)
Note: n.a. = not available.

a. This rate refers to all entrants to diverse postsecondary programs. The percentage includes
all enrolled people regardless of their age. Many people enrolled are older than 24, so this rate
does not reflect the real percentage of 18- to 24-year-olds enrolled.
b. The Human Development Index ranges from 0 to 1 and takes into account per capita
income, life expectancy at birth, adult literacy rate, and combined gross enrollment rates in all
educational levels.
España, he maintains that young Spaniards live with their parents because
they cannot attain financial autonomy, and only 9% of them remain there
because they feel at ease. On the other hand, there is a strong interconnec-
tion between leaving the parental home and getting married, even at older
ages. Finally, the pattern of late marriage and parenthood resembles that of
most other European countries.
In the Mexican case, 25% of the those aged 16-29 are college students
(Instituto Mexicano de la Juventud, 2005). Mean age for leaving the
parental home is 18-19, though most people, as in Spain, stay at home until
marriage or, especially among indigenous populations, even marry and
share it extendedly with other family members. The effect of globalization
on first-union formation and childbearing is very modest and contradicts
the experience of most industrialized societies, especially those in southern
Europe (Parrado, 2005), at least in the majority and lower classes of this
North American country. In this sense, we find, for example, that 42% of
18- to 20-year-old Mexicans are married or forming a union, and 50% of
Mexican women aged 15-24 have already been pregnant. Also, 50% of 15-
to 18-year-olds (and 24% of adolescents aged 13-14) have found a first job
(Instituto Mexicano de la Juventud, 2005).
There are, of course, important differences related to socioeconomic
status: Mexicans in higher and university classes (only some 20% of
Mexican young people attain higher education; see Table 1) tend to share
traits and life patterns of most Westernized countries. As a matter of fact,
their lifestyles, at least in the aspects related to the transition to adulthood,
may be more similar to those of people in the same socioeducational situa-
tion from other latitudes than to those of their compatriots.
Taking into account this short sociodemographic description and the the-
oretical framework developed by Arnett, our empirical study aimed to iden-
tify which aspects of the emerging adulthood construct Mexican and
Spanish youths consider the most relevant ones. As an exploratory study, it
began with the formulation of some research questions. The first one is
related to the appropriateness of this framework to describe representations
of transition to adulthood in Mexicans and Spaniards: Will our samples
agree with the main features of emerging adulthood regarding their own
lives? Another question refers to the correspondence between representa-
tions of emerging adulthood in both countries. We want to know whether
Mexican and Spanish sociocultural differences are somehow reflected in
the principal aspects of the period of emerging adulthood. And the third
question examines developmental differences in these representations: If
the transition to adulthood is a very long period, will the emerging adult-
hood construct fit some ages better than others? Is it stressed in the late
teens to mid-or-late 20s? Expanding the research field to more and more
diverse countries, cultures, and ages allows one to identify whether emerg-
ing adulthood’s boundaries and descriptions are shared by different groups,
so that institutions may be enabled to make appropriate decisions.
Method
Participants
A questionnaire was administered to 720 16- to 34-year-old college, for-
mer college, or postgraduate students (high school students in the case of
16- and 17-year-olds) from public universities and high schools. Both gen-
ders and countries were represented in equal proportions. We surveyed nine
age groups, starting with 16- and 17-year-olds, then 18- and 19-year-olds,
Table 2
Educational Level and Job Situation of Participants by Nationality,
Gender, and Age Groups (percentages of total)
Less Than Full-
Bachelor’s Bachelor’s Postgraduate Time Temporary
Degree Degree or Doctor Workers Workers Nonworkers
By nationality
(n = 360)
Mexicans 41.67 10.56 36.11 34.72 18.61 45.00
Spaniards 51.39 22.22 14.72 56.11 17.50 25.83
By age groups
(n = 80)a
16:00-17:11b 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.25 11.25 80.00
18:00-19:11 100.00 0.00 0.00 16.25 30.00 52.50
20:00-21:11 100.00 0.00 0.00 16.25 26.25 55.00
22:00-23:11 82.50 6.25 11.25 31.25 23.75 43.75
24:00-25:11 45.00 15.00 38.75 48.75 20.00 30.00
26:00-27:11 31.25 20.00 47.50 58.75 15.00 26.25
28:00-29:11 23.75 30.00 46.25 71.25 16.25 12.50
30:00-31:11 20.00 36.25 41.25 78.75 10.00 11.25
32:00-34:11 16.25 40.00 43.75 81.25 10.00 7.50
Total (N = 720) 46.53 16.39 25.42 45.42 18.06 35.42
Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 because not all participants provided answers.
a. Ages are given in years and months, separated by a colon (i.e., 17:11 = 17 years and
11 months).
b. All 16- and 17-year-olds (11.11% of total sample) were high school students.
and so on (the last group included 32-, 33- and 34-year-olds). Each of the
subsamples comprised 80 youths. Thus we had 9 age groups × 2 genders ×
2 countries × 20 participants = 720 participants. Tables 2 and 3 show
social and demographic characteristics of each group.
We included 16- and 17-year-olds, who are in fact still adolescents, to
compare their life situations with older groups’ and therefore discuss
whether the emerging adulthood paradigms proposed could also be found
for late adolescents. An affirmative finding would open a discussion about
the extent to which emerging adulthood is in fact really peculiar to those
aged 18 to 25 or older (Arnett 2000, 2004).
Measures
Our survey was based on the Inventory of Dimensions of Emerging
Adulthood (Reifman, Arnett, & Colwell, 2006), as well as on the principal
Table 3
Parental, Economic, and Living Situation of Surveyed Participants
by Nationality, Gender, and Age Group (percentages of total)
Living Economically
Living With Parents Independent
Have With or Original From Parents or
Children Partnered Partner Family Original Family
By nationality (n = 360)
Mexicans 8.06 55.56 17.50 74.72 42.22
Spaniards 3.61 56.67 20.83 62.78 40.83
By age group (n = 80)a
16:00-17:11 1.25 32.50 0.00 100.00 10.00
18:00-19:11 0.00 32.50 0.00 92.50 10.00
20:00-21:11 0.00 48.75 1.25 95.00 16.25
22:00-23:11 5.00 60.00 7.50 88.75 12.50
24:00-25:11 1.25 57.50 12.50 75.00 31.25
26:00-27:11 5.00 67.50 21.25 62.50 45.00
28:00-29:11 10.00 68.75 33.75 42.50 80.00
30:00-31:11 6.25 68.75 41.25 37.50 77.50
32:00-34:11 23.75 68.75 55.00 25.00 91.25
Total (N = 720) 5.83 56.11 19.17 68.75 41.53
Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of other possibilities not listed or participants
who did not answer. Participants living with partner and parents simultaneously were catego-
rized as Living With Parents or Original Family.
a. Ages are given in years and months, separated by a colon (i.e., 17:11 = 17 years and 11 months).
ideas and affirmations of Arnett’s theoretical proposals of the emerging

adulthood period (Arnett, 2000; 2004).
The content of the items proposed was standardized through a pilot
study of 100 Spanish students (mean age = 21.94; standard deviation =
2.94). We applied each item in affirmative and negative ways (two versions
applied in all) to correct confirmatory biases based on differences of agree-
ment levels.
A first section of the final version applied referred to realities that might
be present in participants’ personal lives—37 attributes of the emerging
adulthood period. These included characteristic features of youths’ lives,
particularly in the U.S. context, related to diverse dimensions but mostly to
the supposed distinguishing elements in the life of an emerging adult
described earlier, including instability, open possibilities, identity explo-
rations, self-focusing, and feeling in between adolescence and adulthood.
The subsequent sections explored participants’ level of agreement with dif-
ferent statements, as proposed by Arnett, about the meaning of entering
adult life; the contiguity between the adolescent and adult stages; the
importance of some tasks to become an adult, and diverse markers of ado-
lescence’s end and adulthood’s onset. In the final section, we asked partic-
ipants about the perceived appropriate ages for several developmental
events (marriage, parenthood, adolescence’s end, adulthood’s onset, and
those which comprise “youth”). In this article we present only the results of
agreement with emerging adulthood traits, organized in diverse subscales
resulting from factor analysis.
The proposed emerging adulthood items were introduced to the partici-
pants through the phrase “This period of your life is a time . . . ,” followed
by diverse sentences that depict the life of a typical emerging adult as
described by Arnett, to be answered by means of an ordinal Likert scale.
The options for answering ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree,
with two intermediate levels (agree and disagree).
Procedure
Questionnaires were answered in high school or university groups of
students (mainly by those aged 16 to 25, and some older), in classrooms
and during lessons when possible. In other cases (roughly 40%), the test
was administered individually, either through asking participants person-
ally to fill it in or through e-mailing a request to which the questionnaire
was attached. In these cases, an extra page of specific instructions was
added—for instance, to answer individually, to answer from the beginning
to the end without interruptions, and so on. The reason for the two differ-
ent administration conditions was the considerable difficulty finding people
older than 25.
Data were analyzed according to the nine age groups described before.
We also made comparisons between countries and genders, though in this
article we show only differences or similarities between Mexicans and
Spaniards. In the case of comparisons by ages, we present the results of the
overall differences and specify those between contiguous age groups.
An exploratory factor analysis was carried out to consolidate the data
into broader categories and to generate some subscales. First, a factor
analysis for each country was done to look at similarities and differences
between them, even though the data in this article refer to the analyses done
for both countries together, for they allow us to make richer and more pre-
cise comparisons, which is the basic aim of this research.
To explore significant differences between countries’ medians in indi-
vidual items, we used Mann-Whitney U (nonparametric) tests, and in the
case of age groups, grouped medians were compared using the Kruskal-
Wallis test. When differences were found between age groups, we made
repeated ANOVAs, variance homogeneity tests, and post hoc tests
(Minimal Significant Difference and Tamhane considered) to find those
among contiguous ages. To study differences by country, age groups, and
the interaction of both in the resulting subscales, univariate lineal models
with MANOVAs were displayed.
Results
We first present the agreement level with some relevant individual items,
then the emerging adulthood subscales produced by factor analysis, and a
table with the factors that result from the analysis by country. Finally, we
present the comparisons made between countries and age groups.
Agreement level with individual items. The use of factor analysis requires
all means to equal 0 and all standard deviations to equal 1 to generate z, or
standardized scores, because of the use of an ordinal scale in the question-
naire. Therefore, the means and differences shown for factors reflect only rel-
ative values, not levels of agreement categorically measured and as responded
in the survey. For this reason, in Table 4 we show the grouped median scores
for all the items of the emerging adulthood scale, with the overall differences
between age groups and also between the two nations, to give a general idea
of the agreement shown by the samples and the differences.
A general overview of the table reflects that in many cases (55.6%), par-
ticipants have a high level of agreement (values more than 3) with the pro-
posed sentences. From another perspective, few items show a tendency
toward disagreement, with only 16.7% of them under the mean value of
2.50. Considering differences by countries, many items (58.3%) show dif-
ferences, and Mexicans tend to be consistently more often in accordance
with what is stated, as can be seen in the differences column. In general,
Spaniards are more in accordance only with matters of instability, identity
moratorium, and freedom in relation to other times. The scarce differences
in agreement related to normative transitions—such as considerations about
marriage, parenthood, leaving parents’ home, and other—do not represent
significant differences.
From a more developmental perspective, we can see that responses to a
substantial number of questions show significant differences across ages
(77.8%). Normative changes related to age or social development reflect a
clearly ascending or descending pattern. To decide which type of pattern
Table 4
Summary of Grouped Median Level of Agreement for the Total
Sample and of Differences Between Countries and Age Groups, on
Emerging Adulthood Items in the Questionnaire Applied
“This period of your Level of Differences Differences by
life is a time . . . Agreement (1-4) by Country Age Group
(between agree and strongly agree)

. . . you take your decisions by yourself” 3.49 ***(Mx > Sp) *(irregular)
. . . not to have children yet” 3.49 n.s. ***(descending)
. . . of exploring possibilities in 3.47 **(Mx > Sp) ***(descending)
education or training”
. . . not to get married yet” 3.42 n.s. ***(descending)
. . . of possibility explorations in work” 3.28 n.s. ***(inverted U)
. . . of bigger possibilities than ever 3.26 *(Mx > Sp) ***(inverted U)
to transform your life”
. . . you trust and believe you’ll 3.26 ***(Mx > Sp) n.s.
get where you want”
. . . much different from adolescence” 3.24 ***(Mx > Sp) ***(ascending)
. . . freer than it would’ve been in 3.24 ***(Sp > Mx) n.s.
another historical time”
. . . you’re permitted to take adult 3.21 ***(Mx > Sp) ***(ascending-
responsibilities at your own pace” stable)
. . . you’re less worried about your peers’ 3.18 ***(Mx > Sp) n.s.
and friends’ opinion about you”
. . . better than any other to 3.16 n.s. n.s.
understand yourself”
. . . life seems to be less simple than before” 3.12 ***(Mx > Sp) ***(descending)
. . . of possibility explorations in love” 3.12 n.s. ***(inverted U)
. . . you don’t need parental assistance 3.12 ***(Mx > Sp) ***(ascending)
anymore to take care of yourself”
. . . your love relationships tend 3.07 n.s. n.s.
to be gradually deeper”
. . . to leave parents’ home” 3.07 n.s. ***(ascending)
. . . you’re still clarifying and 3.05 ***(Sp > Mx) ***(descending)
constructing your identity”
. . . adolescent upheavals have 3.01 **(Mx > Sp) ***(ascending-
been left behind” stable)
. . . of higher satisfaction and overall 3.00 ***(Mx > Sp) ***(ascending)
well being than before”
(between disagree and agree)
. . . you’re still defining your preferences” 2.91 ***(Sp > Mx) ***(descending)
. . . you consider yourself to be self-sufficient” 2.88 *(Mx > Sp) ***(ascending)
. . . specially self-centered” 2.86 n.s. n.s.
(continued)
Table 4 (continued)
“This period of your Level of Differences Differences by
life is a time . . . Agreement (1-4) by Country Age Group
. . . you have already outlined a 2.86 ***(Mx > Sp) ***(ascending)

life plan for the future”
. . . of more freedom than 2.83 n.s. n.s.
in a couple of years”
. . . of pressure and general concern” 2.71 n.s. n.s.
. . . of uncertainty on the future” 2.67 ***(Sp > Mx) **(descending)
. . . you don’t consider yourself 2.66 n.s. ***(descending)
adolescent nor adult”
. . . much different from adulthood” 2.60 **(Mx> Sp) ***(descending)
. . . not to be in charge of others yet” 2.56 *(Mx > Sp) ***(descending)
. . . in which physical changes 2.49 n.s. n.s.
have less importance”a
. . . of unstable or short term jobs” 2.36 ***(Sp > Mx) ***(stable-
descending)
. . . you still aren’t settled down 2.31 n.s. ***(descending)
in most areas”
. . . less anguishing and difficult 2.20 n.s. *(irregular)
than the high school years”b
. . . you do changeable or 2.09 n.s. ***(descending-
non-enduring choices” stable)
(between strongly disagree and agree)
. . . more unstable than any other life stage” 1.95 ***(Sp > Mx) ***(descending)
. . . in which adult obligations aren’t 1.69 n.s. ***(descending)
to be taken yet”
Percentage of items with 58.3 77.8
significant differences
Note: Sp = Spain; Mx = Mexico; n.s. = not significant.

a. This item was not based on Emerging Adulthood theory or considered for further analyses.
b. This item was not answered by the 16- to 17-year-old sample.
*p = .05. **p = .01. ***p = .001.
matches each item, an analysis of the overall and age-to-age differences

with simple ANOVAs was carried out. As can be seen in the cases in which
no developmental differences were found, many theoretically supposed
age-linked behaviors or feelings (e.g., pressure and general concern or spe-
cial self-centeredness) are not specific to an age range, for example, from
18 to 25. In many cases, the youngest sample (16- to 17-year-olds) agreed
or disagreed most with the statements. Only the inverted-U patterns show a
significant increase from late adolescence to the late teens and the early
20s, decreasing in older ages, which corresponds to the typical pattern of
emerging adulthood theory.
Emerging adulthood attributes (subscales). The use of the factor analy-

sis technique for data reduction was endorsed by tests’ resulting data and
the anti-image correlation matrix. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkins Test reported a
value of .84, and the Bartlett Sphericity Test a χ² (630, N = 720) =
4574.33; p < .001. Factor extraction was made through the principal com-
ponents method, and by varimax rotation, because correlations between the
items were not high (Norusis, 2003). Taking Eigenvalues ≥ 1.20 as the cri-
terion to include the factors, we found seven of them, which explained
46.03% of the total variance. For each of the generated subscales, we cal-
culated internal reliability using Cronbach’s alpha statistics, including all
items saturating from 0.350 to the factor’s explained variance. The reliabil-
ity test for the whole emerging adulthood scale reported an α = .68.
In factor analysis by countries, the subscales’ structures were rather similar
to each other. In Table 5 are shown the factor saturation and reliabilities for
each subscale for both nations. A peculiarity of this structure is that for Spain,
many items related to personal freedom and unconcern clearly constituted a
factor (i.e., this period of your life is . . . specially self-centered, less anguish-
ing than in high school years, less worrisome than before about peers’ opin-
ion, better than any other to know yourself, and so on). Another interesting
aspect explaining variance is the Spanish participants’ association of instabil-
ity matters with difficulties (uncertainty about the future, unsettledness in most
areas, changing choices, more instability than at any other time, pressure, and
general concern). For Mexicans, instability is more associated with identity
issues (still defining preferences or constructing identity, changing choices,
more unstable than any other time, neither adolescent nor adult) or with trans-
formation (more freedom than in the future, still unsettled in most areas, fac-
ing more possibilities than ever to transform your life, unstable jobs).
As said before, richer and deeper comparisons between countries and age
groups can be made with the general factor analysis, that is, taking data from
Mexico and Spain together. All subscales’ reliabilities for each country (of the
factors taking data from both) had mid to high α scores (α = .40 or more;
see Table 5).
In the following subscales, we will indicate the percentage of explained
variance (saturation) for each one after factor rotation and the saturation
contribution to the factor of the listed most outstanding items, both statisti-
cally and theoretically. Resulting F values for differences between coun-
tries and ages are analyzed.
1. Adulthood postponement (8.44% of explained variance). In this case,

items are related to key events for adult life and the possible attainments or
Table 5
Factor Saturation and Reliabilities of the Seven Subscales by
Country, Generated by Factor Analysis of Emerging Adulthood
Attributes in the Questionnaire Applied
Factors for Both
Factors for Mexico Factors for Spain Countries (% of Explained
(% of Explained (% of Explained Variance; Reliability; Reliability
Variance; Reliability) Variance; Reliability) for Mexico; for Spain)
1. Adulthood postponement 1. Instability—difficulties 1. Adulthood postponement

(9.02%; α = .76) (9.56%; α = .77) (8.45%; α = .78;
α = .79; α = .76)
2. Autonomy 2. Adulthood 2. Instability (7.85%;
(8.20%; α = .68) postponement α = .73; α = .70;
(8.12%; α = .76) α = .73)
3. Identity moratorium— 3. Autonomy 3. Autonomy (7.59%; α = .66;
instability (7.01%; (7.69%; α = .70) α = .67; α = .65)
α = .69)
4. Vision of future and 4. Explorations 4. Explorations (6.09%; α = .61;
possibilities (6.56%; α = .65) α = .59; α = .62)
(6.86%; α = .68)
5. Explorations 5. Personal freedom and 5. Vision of future and
(6.04%; α = .61) unconcern (5.23%; possibilities (6.07%; α = .63;
α = .55) α = .66; α = .57)
6. Worries 6. Vision of future and 6. Worries (5.88%; α = .53;
(3.53%; α = .57) possibilities α = .51; α = .55)
(4.94%; α = .40)
7. Instability— 7. Identity moratorium 7. Identity moratorium
transformation (3.33%; (4.48%; α = .42) (4.66%; α = .47; α = .44;
α = .57) α = .40)
Total (47.12%; α = .71) Total (46.57%; α = .66) Total (46.03%; α = .68)
retardations in them, depending on participants’ perceptions of the ade-

quateness of their age for them:
This period of your life is a time . . .

. . . not to have children yet (0.691)
. . . not to get married yet (0.681)
. . . not to be in charge of others yet (0.651)
. . . much different from adulthood (0.582)
. . . in which adult obligations aren’t to be taken yet (0.558)
. . . to leave parents’ home (−0.535)
. . . you don’t consider yourself adolescent or adult (0.474)
Figure 1
Means of Relative Level of Agreement With the Adulthood
Postponement Subscale (Factor 1), and Differences Between
Countries and Age Group Samples (***p ≤ .001)
1.2
0.946***
0.9
0.6
0.397
0.344
0.3
0.454 0.058
0
-0.122
-0.3
-0.610 -0.559
-0.6
-0.9
-0.909**
-1.2
16-17 y.o. 18-19 y.o. 20-21 y.o. 22-23 y.o. 24-25 y.o. 26-27 y.o. 28-29 y.o. 30-31 y.o. 32-34 y.o.
Total Mexico S pa in
(mean = .000) (mean = .111)*** (mean = -.111)***
A striking decrease throughout the period can be seen in Figure 1. Big

differences were found not only for overall data of age groups, F(8, 711) =
43.05, p < .001, but also between contiguous age groups, as can be seen
from the broken lines in the Total curve: The statistical differences point up
big changes between the values of the 16-17 and 18-19 age groups and
those in the 26-27 and 28-29 age groups (p < .001). Changes are also sig-
nificant from the 30-31 group to 32-34 group (p < .01) and from the 22-
23 group to the 24-25 group (p < .05).
The values for Spain remain lower in all except the last group. The
Adulthood Postponement differences test shows that there is considerably
higher agreement with this aspect in the Mexican sample, F(2, 718) =
13.23, p > .001. On the other hand, similarity in the evolution of agree-
ment level followed by the participants in both countries is relevant, result-
ing in a rather parallel pattern.
2. Instability (7.85% of explained variance). Referring to the futility and

uncertainty that might characterize participants’ present stage, the items
which saturate this subscale the most are the following:
Figure 2
Means of Relative Level of Agreement With the Instability
Subscale (Factor 2), and Differences Between Countries and
Age Group Samples (***p ≤ .001).
1.2
0.9
0.6
0.436***
0.165
0.3
0.262 0.032
0 -0.156 -0.124
-0.199
-0.074
-0.3
-0.341***
-0.6
-0.9
-1.2
( m e a n = .0 0 0 ) (mean = .174)*** (mean = -.174)***
This period of your life is a time . . . (factor saturation)

. . . [when] you make changeable or nonenduring choices (0.671)
. . . [when] you still don’t settle down in most areas (0.661)
. . . of unstable or short-term jobs (0.565)
. . . [that is] more unstable than any other life stage (0.548)
. . . of uncertainty about the future (0.519)
As reflected in Figure 2, the mean value for Spaniards was significantly

higher than the one for Mexicans, F(2, 718) = 23.66, p < .001. The figure
also shows a descending pattern, with overall clear differences between age
groups, F(8, 711) = 5.32, p < .001, but none among contiguous ages.
Youths up to 22-23 years old are above the medium level of Instability,
although for the older participants, the values are below that level in all
cases (no differences between any of these groups).
An overview of the pattern shows a systematic decline up to the 26-27
age group and then relative stability before a decrease for the oldest
group.
Figure 3
Means of Relative Level of Agreement With the Autonomy
Age Group Samples (***p ≤ .001).
1.2
0.9
0.6
0.286 0.305***
0.282
0.3
0.096
0.091
0.211
0
-0.189
-0.376
-0.3
-0.6
-0.703***
-0.9
-1.2
16-17 y.o. 18-19 y.o. 20-21y.o. 22-23 y.o. 24-25 y.o. 26-27 y.o. 28-29 y.o. 30-31 y.o. 32-34 y.o.
(mean = .000) (mean = .020)*** (mean = -.020)***
3. Autonomy (7.59% of explained variance). Results in this subscale

show perceived independence, self-reliance, and withdrawal from the ado-
lescent period while the transition to adulthood is gradually occurring:

. . . you consider yourself to be self-sufficient (0.579)
. . . you’re permitted to take adult responsibilities at your own pace (0.560)
. . . adolescent upheavals have been left behind (0.555)
. . . much different from adolescence (0.532)
. . . you don’t need parental assistance anymore to take care of yourself (0.522)
. . . you make your decisions by yourself (0.504)
. . . freer than it would’ve been in another historical time (0.430)
. . . to leave parents’ home (0.389)
. . . of more freedom than in a couple of years (0.384)
No differences were found between the countries, F(2, 718) = 0.32, p >
.05. As can be noticed in Figure 3, the curves are rather similar throughout
the period, certainly with a very low F value.
Throughout the age groups, a gradual increase occurs up to the 26-27

group, after which the values tend to remain stable. Differences between
them as a whole are outstanding, F(8, 711) = 10.88, p < .001, but none
are found for contiguous ages, because the increase in the scores from one
to the other appears rather gradually. According to ANOVA scores, partici-
pants from 16 to 19 years of age report big differences with all the groups
aged 24-25 and older in the perception of being autonomous.
4. Explorations (6.09% of explained variance). This subscale is satu-

rated principally with items related to issues about identity explorations and
open possibilities, which the theoretical background proposes to be impor-
tant in the transition’s extension:

. . . of exploring possibilities in education or training (0.680)
. . . of possibility explorations in work (0.668)
. . . of possibility explorations in love (0.596)
. . . not to get married yet (0.386)
. . . of bigger possibilities than ever to transform your life (0.380)
. . . [that is] especially self-centered (0.284)
This is the subscale in which the last listed item saturates the most; it
was included because of its theoretical relevance, and it does not affect the
reliability of the factor.
Explorations occur significantly more often starting with the 18-19 age
group, remaining higher than the mean value of the total sample until
the 26-27 age group, as seen in Figure 4. A systematic and significant
decrease among those older can be clearly observed. Noticeable differences
are found only between the first two contiguous age groups (the broken por-
tion of the Total curve). For the whole, there is a high value of F(8, 711) =
10.49 (p < .001). So in the Explorations subscale, there are big changes
throughout the period.
On the other hand, differences were not found between the countries, F(2,
718) = 0.27, p > .05, the total value being only slightly higher for Spain,
and with intersections between age groups of both nations. These reflect a
significant and interesting interaction of age and country, F(8, 711) = 2.15,
p < .05, with higher levels of exploration for Spaniards in their early and
mid-20s and slightly higher levels for Mexicans thereafter.
5. Vision of future and possibilities (6.07% of explained variance). The

items that saturate this factor the most are the following:
Figure 4
Means of Relative Level of Agreement With the Explorations
Age Group Samples (***p ≤ .001)
1.2
0.9
0.6
0.345***
0.309
0.3 0.304
0.199 0.137
0 -0.112
-0.256
-0.3
-0.282
-0.6
-0.646***
-0.9
-1.2
16-17y.o. 18-19 y.o. 20-21 y.o. 22-23 y.o. 24-25 y.o. 26-27 y.o. 28-29 y.o. 30-31 y.o. 32-34y.o.
(mean = .000) (mean = .018)*** (mean = -.018)***

. . . you have already outlined a life plan for the future (0.708)
. . . you trust and believe you’ll get where you want (0.675)
. . . better than any other to understand yourself (0.465)
. . . of higher satisfaction and overall well-being than before (0.452)
. . . your love relationships tend to be gradually deeper (0.448)
. . . of bigger possibilities than ever to transform your life (0.397)
Figure 5 reveals marked differences between Mexicans and Spaniards,

F(2, 718) = 90.15, p < .001, the values being noticeably higher for the
former at all ages.
The test for age differences reflects a substantial stability in this matter
along age groups, as the resulting value reported no differences for the
whole, F(8, 711) = 0.95, p > .05, and these differences were not even sig-
nificant between the highest and lowest values (those for ages 16-17 and
28-29, respectively). This fact points out the modest relationship between
this aspect of emerging adulthood and specific ages.
Figure 5
Means of Relative Level of Agreement With the Vision of Future and
Possibilities Subscale (Factor 5), and Differences Between Countries
and Age Group Samples (***p ≤ .001)
1 .2
0 .9
0 .6
0 .3
0.168 0.086 0.062 0.061
0
-0.012 -0.029
-0.082 -0.114 -0.139
-0.3
-0.6
-0.9
-1.2
(mean = .000) (mean = .331)*** (mean = -.331)***
6. Worries (5.88% of explained variance). Referring to the difficulties

and concerns that might be present in participants’ lives, the following
items saturate this subscale the most:

. . . less anguishing and difficult than the high school years (−0.616)
. . . of pressure and general concern (0.612)
. . . [when] life seems to be less simple than before (0.570)
As the participants in the 16-17 age group were high school students and
did not answer the item related to their worries in these years, they were not
included in the analysis of this factor. We found no differences, either
between Spaniards and Mexicans, F(2, 718) = 2.04, p < .05, or between
age groups, F(8, 711) = 1.13, p > .05, as can be seen in Figure 6.
The highest score was found in the 26-27 age group and the lowest in
the 32-34 group, this being the only case in which differences between two
groups were significant.
Figure 6
Means of Relative Level of Agreement With the Worries
Subscale (Factor 6), and Differences Between Countries
and Age Group Samples
1.2
0.9
0.6
0.3 0.061 0.150

0.076 0.044 0.088
0
-0.005 -0.215
-0.141
-0.3
-0.6
-0.9
-1.2
Total Mexico Spain

(mean = .000) (mean = .053)*** (mean = -.053)***
7. Identity moratorium (4.66% of explained variance). This subscale

includes the following items that clearly relate to the question of achieved
identity or a moratorium situation:

. . . you’re still defining your preferences (0.695)
. . . you’re still clarifying and constructing your identity (0.660)
. . . you’re less worried about your peers’ and friends’ opinion of you (−0.426)
. . . adolescent upheavals have been left behind (−0.360)
Data analysis reveals important differences between age groups, F(8, 711) =
2.85, p < .01. The irregular pattern of results notwithstanding, there is a clear
tendency through the entire sample toward declining moratorium in identity
formation. Significant differences are found only between the two extreme
values (i.e., between the 16-17 and 24-25 age groups).
Mexicans are much less in accord in this aspect, as shown in Figure 7
and the tests results, F(2, 718) = 42.78, p < .001, and tend to separate
Figure 7
Means of Relative Level of Agreement With the Identity
Moratorium Subscale (Factor 7), and Differences Between
Countries and Age Group Samples (**p ≤ .01, ***p ≤ .001).
1.2
0.9
0.6
0.254**
0.200
0.3
0.047 0.056
0.138
0
-0.142 -0.088
-0.3 -0.199
-0.265**
-0.6
-0.9
-1.2
(mean = .000) (mean = .236)*** (mean = -.236)***
from the Spanish young people as they age, especially from age 24 upward.
It is interesting to notice, for instance, that Spaniards aged 26 and older
report values of agreement in this moratorium higher than those reported by
Mexicans 10 years younger.
Table 6 summarizes the results of all subscales. Strong differences
between Mexico and Spain are found in the subscales of Adulthood
Postponement, Instability, Identity Moratorium, and Vision of Future and
Possibilities. In the aspects of postponing the entry into adult roles and the
view of open possibilities and a plan for their future, the values are higher
for Mexicans, whereas in the postponement of identity achievement and
settlement and stability aspects, Spaniards had significantly higher scores.
No differences were found in the other three subscales, Autonomy,
Explorations, and Worries, as can be observed in Table 6.
Developmental differences were not relevant for Worries and Vision of
Future and Possibilities. This means that in these aspects, there is no signifi-
cant trend or correlation with ages. Adulthood Postponement and Instability
had a descending pattern, Autonomy showed an ascending one, and Identity
Table 6
Summarized Differences Between Countries and Age Groups, and
Covariation, Country-Ages, of the Resulting Subscales From the
Analysis of Traits of the Emerging Adulthood Period
Factors (% of Relative Differences Interaction,
Explained Variance; Level Differences by by Ages Country-
Reliabilities) of Agreement Countries (General) Age
1. Adulthood Mexico = .111 F = 13.23*** F = 43.05*** F = 1.43 (n.s.)

Postponement Spain = −.111
(8.45%; α = .78)
2. Instability Spain = .174 F = 23.66*** F = 5.32*** F = 0.94 (n.s.)
(7.85%; α = .73) Mexico = −.174
3. Autonomy Mexico = .020 F = 0.32 (n.s.) F = 10.88*** F = 0.61 (n.s.)
(7.59%; α = .66) Spain = −.020
4. Explorations Spain = .018 F = 0.27 (n.s.) F = 10.49*** F = 2.15*
(6.09%; α = .61) Mexico = −.018
5. Vision of Future Mexico = .332 F = 90.15*** F = 0.95 (n.s.) F = 1.54 (n.s.)
and Possibilities Spain = −.332
(6.07%; α = .63)
6. Worries Spain = .053 F = 2.04 (n.s.) F = 1.13 (n.s.) F = 0.79 (n.s.)
(5.88%; α = .53) Mexico = −.053
7. Identity Spain = .236 F = 42.78*** F = 2.85** F = 1.15 (n.s.)
Moratorium Mexico = −.236
(4.66%; α = .47)
Note: All means equal zero; n.s. = not significant.

*p = .05. **p = .01. ***p = .001.
Moratorium depicted a rather irregular shape. Finally, Explorations had a

inverted U pattern, that is, ascending through the late teens and early 20s, then
descending gradually thereafter.
The covariation between countries and age groups was significant only
for Explorations, as its intertwisted pattern (Figure 4) shows. For the rest of
the factors, there is no interaction between country and age group.
Discussion
The goal of this study was to examine, according to the emerging adult-
hood theory, the experiences of Mexican and Spanish young people and
their views about the transition from adolescence to adulthood. In addition,
we were interested in cultural and developmental differences.
First of all, analyses of agreement levels with the questionnaire’s items

show that in general, participants consider their period of life as one of free-
dom, independence, and possibilities. Most items have a relatively high
level of accordance, and a clear “dose” of personal decision characterizes
the items with highest agreement, such as those reflecting deferment of
adult roles or definitive choices. As predicted by the theoretical back-
ground, obvious patterns of increase and decrease result as people age,
entering adulthood. Yet surprisingly stable patterns throughout age groups
result in diverse situations of this period, such as self-centeredness and con-
cern. It seems that these traits might be more related to personalistic vari-
ables than to ages or developmental stages. Regarding differences between
countries, Mexicans tend to be more resolute in their expectations and view
of the future. It is indeed clear, when analyzing items separately, how
Mexico’s young people are more in accordance with numerous descriptions
of emerging adulthood.
When studying the resultant matrix of principal components by country,
it is clear that more variance is explained by matters of instability, auton-
omy, and leaving adolescence while at the same time postponing the
entrance into adulthood. Reliabilities of these subscales were noticeably
higher than those of the rest of the factors (Table 5).
As stated earlier, the results for Spain exhibit significantly more insta-
bility and a moratorium situation in identity whereas Mexicans had higher
scores in the view of a planned future, possibilities, and a situation of not
assuming adulthood yet. Surprisingly, Spaniards are higher in this last
aspect. This result could be linked to the situation in which more of the sur-
veyed Mexicans live, according to social, familial, and economic status, as
reflected in Tables 2 and 3: A considerable number of them are nonworkers
and still live with their parents. It would be certainly necessary to calculate
other correlation measures, not displayed here, with these variables.
We mentioned in the introduction that Spain’s youth is characterized by
a Mediterranean pattern of transition, implying longer stays at parents’
home, remarkable difficulty finding long-term employment, assumption of
adult roles at older ages, and a growing gap between an earlier biosocial
development and the attainment of adult independence (Martín, 2002). It
seems as if Spanish young people were more pressed to assume grown-up
roles, but at the same time with less autonomy and fewer defined solutions.
It is also fair to point out that many more of the Spanish participants were
workers than was the case in the Mexican sample.
In Mexico, where many people enter the labor market as adolescents and
leave the parental home, marry, and have children earlier, it might be that
contextually, the people we surveyed are therefore pressed to psychosocial

maturity. But when given the opportunity to study for a university degree,
many of them would opt for and invest in this more personal life project,
which implies postponement of the assumption of adult social roles. So the
rather exceptional situation of more highly educated people, such as the
sample studied here, may mean they are more likely to be in accordance
with particular phenomena of the emerging adulthood period, as seen in
their responses to items related to its characteristic dimensions, such as
looking at their present stage as simultaneously different from both adoles-
cence and adulthood. These responses could reflect ongoing transforma-
tions, trends, and also aspirations of Mexican youth, constantly exposed to
and influenced by U.S. culture and values.
Spaniards reflect lower levels for Worries and Explorations and higher
levels for Autonomy than do Mexicans, although these differences are not
significant. In fact, in only four of the seven subscales were the differences
between the two countries significant. To a certain extent, it could also be
stated that the two samples share more or less similar responses to the pro-
posed statements, dimensions, and factor structure. In many of the figures,
we can see that developmental patterns for the two samples are strikingly
similar, with several parallelisms and crosses, reminding us of the cultural
variables that result in these communalities. Certainly, other comparisons
not displayed here, for example, gender, employment, or independent liv-
ing situation, might reveal more contrast.
From a developmental perspective, not all factors followed the pattern pro-
posed in the emerging adulthood theory: Open possibilities, a visualized
future, and sensations of worry are unrelated to age. Also, 16- to 17-year-olds
had higher levels of instability and lower levels of autonomy and adult
assumption than did other groups. Although this could reflect general devel-
opmental trends of late adolescence, it also highlights the importance of
expanding this research to other ages, both younger and older, to investigate
more consistently whether these factors are experiences particular to people
in their 20s, and how. In factors such as Adulthood Postponement and
Explorations, where big differences between the 16-17 and 18-19 age groups
were found, it may be that age of majority or entering tertiary education
determined to a certain extent the significant changes shown (see Figures 1
and 2)—that is, the differences reflect less a postponement of the assumption
of adulthood and more the opportunity to explore diverse domains.
From another perspective, in ages older than those we surveyed, emerging
adulthood phenomena could also display higher agreement levels, related, for
example, to issues not visualized by the theory, such as regressive behaviors
or peculiar difficulties in the 30s that for certain periods might identify people
more closely with the theoretical descriptions. The Identity Moratorium,
Worries, and Vision of Future and Possibilities subscales did not show a con-
tinued or regular pattern of decrease for the older groups. Explorations was the
only factor that showed a pattern of increase specifically from the late teens to
the mid-20s (especially for Spaniards).
The variables of country and age do not appear to interact very much, as
reflected in the low F scores (Table 6), except in exploratory behaviors.
Overall, findings reveal noteworthy features of young people’s concep-
tions of the nature of this period of life: Both Mexicans and Spaniards seem
to be rather sure about adolescence’s end, but they have doubts about adult-
hood’s onset, personally and by age. We must carefully take into account
the extent to which these results are generalizable. From a global perspec-
tive, as shown in Table 1, most of the world’s indicators are much more
similar to the realities of undeveloped countries (only 18.86% of human
beings live in industrialized societies, and by the year 2050, this percentage
will decrease to 13.55%, according to the Population Reference Bureau,
2004). And higher education is not attained by large majorities, not even in
developed countries. Only 28% of the 25- to 34-year-old population in the
member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (2004), most of which are highly developed, had achieved
tertiary education by the year 2002. Furthermore, enrollment in tertiary
education is only around 8% in Africa, 16% in Asia, and 55% in North
America, reaching 59% in Europe (Statistical Institute of the United
Nations Education, Science and Culture Organization, 2005). So in this
sense, we would stress that the emerging adulthood descriptions are rather
particular to certain conditions and social groups, as Arnett (2004) has
warned. If Mexican, Spanish, and other nations’ idiosyncrasies, living con-
ditions, and psychosocial realities stress other values, the conclusions about
what is proper are conditioned to them. The main worries and concerns of
urban samples of Western Hispanics, highly educated and exposed to glob-
alization and new technologies, might accord with the characteristics of
emerging adulthood to a considerable extent. But relying on college student
samples is indeed a limitation of this study.
A good second step would be doing a confirmatory analysis of the extent
to which new samples are in accordance with the factors resulting from our
analyses. Certainly our conclusions have to be taken with caution, given the
α reliability scores, which did not have especially high levels. With more
samples, we would also be able to discuss more theoretically the precise
end of adolescence and entrance into young adulthood, and even concepts
such as adulthood, transition, and developmental period, from a more cul-

tural point of view. In the puzzle of developmental paths, the noncorre-
spondence between these two stages opens a crevice that requires new
formulations and explanations and which the concept of emerging adult-
hood seems to fit well.
References
Arnett, J. J. (1997). Young people’s conception of the transition to adulthood. Youth & Society,
29(1), 3-23.
Arnett, J. J. (1998). Learning to stand alone: The contemporary American transition to adult-
hood in cultural and historical context. Human Development, 41(5-6), 295-315.
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens thor-
ough the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469-480.
Arnett, J. J. (2004). Emerging Adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the
twenties. New York: Oxford University Press.
Arnett, J. J. (2006). Emerging adulthood in Europe: A response to Bynner. Journal of Youth
Studies, 9(1), 111-123.
Del Barrio, C., Moreno, A., & Linaza, J. L. (2006). Adolescence in Spain. In J. J. Arnett (Ed.),
International encyclopedia of adolescence: A historical and cultural survey of young
people around the world. New York: Routledge.
Berkowitz, R. (2005). The case of American women. Globalization and transition to adulthood
in an individualistic regime. In H. P. Blossfeld, E. Klijzing, M. Mills, & K. Kurz (Eds.),
Globalization, uncertainty and youth in society (pp. 305-326). New York: Routledge.
Blossfeld, H. P., Klijzing, E., Mills, M., & Kurz, K. (Eds.). (2005). Globalization, uncertainty
and youth in society. New York: Routledge.
Brown, B. B., Larson, R., & Saraswathi, T. S. (Eds.). (2002). The world’s youth: Adolescence
in eight regions of the globe. London: Cambridge University Press.
Craig, G. (2001). Human development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Greene, A. L., Wheatley, S. M., & Aldava, J. F. (1992). Stages on life’s way: Adolescents’
implicit theories of the life course. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7(3), 364-381.
Introducción: Jóvenes y transiciones a la vida adulta en Europa. (2002). Revista de Estudios
de Juventud, 56, 7-9.
Instituto de Juventud España. (2004). Informe juventud en España 2004. Madrid, Spain:
Instituto de Juventud.
Instituto de Juventud España. (2007). Informe juventud en España 2006. Madrid, Spain:
Instituto de Juventud.
Instituto Mexicano de la Juventud. (2005). Encuesta nacional de juventud 2005. México,
D. F.: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios sobre Juventud.
Machado Pais, J. (2002). Laberintos de vida: Paro juvenil y rutas de salida (jóvenes portugue-
ses). Revista de Estudios de Juventud, 56, 87-101.
Marini, M. M. (1984). The order of events in the transition to adulthood. Sociology of
Education, 57, 63-84.
Martín, M. (2002). La prolongación de la etapa juvenil de la vida y sus efectos en la social-
ización. Revista de Estudios de Juventud, 56, 103-118.
Norusis, M. J. (2003). SPSS 12.0 statistical procedures companion. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Nsamenang, A. B. (1995). Theories of developmental psychology for a cultural perspective: A
viewpoint from Africa. Psychology & Developing Societies, 7(1), 1-19.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2004). Education at a glance:
OECD indicators 2004 (Table A3_4b). Retrieved September 26, 2006, from http://www
.oecd.org/dataoecd/52/38/33669031.xls
Parrado, E. A. (2005). Transition to adulthood in Mexico. In H. P. Blossfeld, E. Klijzing, M. Mills,
& K. Kurz (Eds.), Globalization, uncertainty and youth in society. New York: Routledge.
Population Reference Bureau. (2004). 2004 world population data sheet. Retrieved July 8,
2007, from http://www.prb.org/pdf04/04WorldDataSheet_Eng.pdf
Reifman, A., Arnett, J. J., & Colwell, M. J. (2006). Emerging adulthood: Theory, assessment,
and application. Journal of Youth Development, 1, 1-12.
Scabini, E. (2000). Parent-child relationship in Italian families: Connectedess and autonomy
in the transition to adulthood. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, 16(1), 23-30.
Scabini, E., Marta, E., & Lanz, M. (2006). Transition to adulthood and family relations: An
intergenerational perspective. London: Psychology Press.
Scheer, S., Unger, D., & Brown, M. (1994, February). Adolescents becoming adults: Attributes
for adulthood. Poster presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research on
Adolescence, San Diego, CA.
Schroots, J. F. (1996). Theories of aging: Psychological. In J. E. Birren (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
gerontology: Age, aging and the aged (Vol. 2). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Simó, C. S., Castro, T., & Soro, A. (2005). Transition to adulthood: The Spanish case. In H. P.
Blossfeld, E. Klijzing, M. Mills, & K. Kurz (Eds.), Globalization, uncertainty and youth
in society. New York: Routledge.
Statistical Institute of the United Nations Education, Science and Culture Organization.
(2005). Compendio mundial de la educación 2005 (total by continents). Retrieved July 16,
2007, from http://www.uis.unesco.org/template/pdf/ged/2005/ged2005_sp.pdf
Torres, F., & Zacarés, J. J. (2004, April). La adultez emergente: ¿Una nueva fase en el ciclo
vital?. Paper presented at the IV Congreso Internacional de Psicología y Educación,
Almería, Spain.
Weisner, T. S., & Lowe, E. (2004). Globalization and the psychological anthropology of childhood
and adolescence. Retrieved July 16, 2007, from http://cultureandhealth.ucla.edu/tweisner/
pdf_files/Weisner_2004_Globalization.pdf
Zárraga, J. L. (1985). Informe juventud en España. Barcelona, Spain: Publicaciones de
Juventud y Sociedad.
Daniel Fierro Arias is a Mexican PhD student in Developmental and Educational Psychology in
the Department of Developmental and Educational Psychology of the Autonomous University of
Madrid. He is currently finishing his thesis work in the field of the cultural differences in the tran-
sition from adolescence to adulthood, particularly between Mexicans and Spaniards.
Amparo Moreno Hernández is a Spanish professor in the Department of Developmental

and Educational Psychology of the Autonomous University of Madrid. She teaches in the
fields of early cognitive development and adolescent development. Her research program also
includes the field of gender differences and motherhood development.

Fierro y Moreno - Emerging Adulthood in Mexican and Spanihs Youth

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Fierro y Moreno - Emerging Adulthood in Mexican and Spanihs Youth

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Journal of Adolescent

Keywords: emerging adulthood; transition to adulthood; young adulthood;

A dolescence is nowadays a very long transitional stage between childhood

explore this issue, it is important to consider briefly the Mexican and

Percentage of world population 1.66 0.66 4.59 100

Note: n.a. = not available.

ideas and affirmations of Arnett’s theoretical proposals of the emerging

(between agree and strongly agree)

. . . you have already outlined a 2.86 ***(Mx > Sp) ***(ascending)

Note: Sp = Spain; Mx = Mexico; n.s. = not significant.

matches each item, an analysis of the overall and age-to-age differences

Emerging adulthood attributes (subscales). The use of the factor analy-

1. Adulthood postponement (8.44% of explained variance). In this case,

1. Adulthood postponement 1. Instability—difficulties 1. Adulthood postponement

retardations in them, depending on participants’ perceptions of the ade-

This period of your life is a time . . .

A striking decrease throughout the period can be seen in Figure 1. Big

2. Instability (7.85% of explained variance). Referring to the futility and

This period of your life is a time . . . (factor saturation)

As reflected in Figure 2, the mean value for Spaniards was significantly

3. Autonomy (7.59% of explained variance). Results in this subscale

This period of your life is a time . . .

Throughout the age groups, a gradual increase occurs up to the 26-27

4. Explorations (6.09% of explained variance). This subscale is satu-

This period of your life is a time . . .

5. Vision of future and possibilities (6.07% of explained variance). The

This period of your life is a time . . .

Figure 5 reveals marked differences between Mexicans and Spaniards,

6. Worries (5.88% of explained variance). Referring to the difficulties

This period of your life is a time . . .

0.3 0.061 0.150

Total Mexico Spain

7. Identity moratorium (4.66% of explained variance). This subscale

This period of your life is a time . . .

1. Adulthood Mexico = .111 F = 13.23*** F = 43.05*** F = 1.43 (n.s.)

Note: All means equal zero; n.s. = not significant.

Moratorium depicted a rather irregular shape. Finally, Explorations had a

First of all, analyses of agreement levels with the questionnaire’s items

contextually, the people we surveyed are therefore pressed to psychosocial

such as adulthood, transition, and developmental period, from a more cul-

Amparo Moreno Hernández is a Spanish professor in the Department of Developmental

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi

. . . you have already outlined a 2.86 (Mx > Sp) (ascending)

1. Adulthood Mexico = .111 F = 13.23* F = 43.05* F = 1.43 (n.s.)