Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
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.
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
Fierro, Moreno / Emerging Adulthood in Mexican and Spanish Youth 479
Table 1
Selected Demographic and Social Data of Mexico,
Spain, the United States, and the World
Category Mexico Spain United States World
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
Fierro, Moreno / Emerging Adulthood in Mexican and Spanish Youth 481
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,
482 Journal of Adolescent Research
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
Fierro, Moreno / Emerging Adulthood in Mexican and Spanish Youth 483
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).
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
Fierro, Moreno / Emerging Adulthood in Mexican and Spanish Youth 485
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
486 Journal of Adolescent Research
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
Table 4 (continued)
“This period of your Level of Differences Differences by
life is a time . . . Agreement (1-4) by Country Age Group
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)
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)***
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
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
( m e a n = .0 0 0 ) (mean = .174)*** (mean = -.174)***
Figure 3
Means of Relative Level of Agreement With the Autonomy
Subscale (Factor 3), and Differences Between Countries and
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.
Total Mexico S pa in
(mean = .000) (mean = .020)*** (mean = -.020)***
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.
Fierro, Moreno / Emerging Adulthood in Mexican and Spanish Youth 493
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.
Figure 4
Means of Relative Level of Agreement With the Explorations
Subscale (Factor 4), and Differences Between Countries and
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.
Total Mexico S pa in
(mean = .000) (mean = .018)*** (mean = -.018)***
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
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 = .331)*** (mean = -.331)***
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.
496 Journal of Adolescent Research
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
-0.6
-0.9
-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.
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
Fierro, Moreno / Emerging Adulthood in Mexican and Spanish Youth 497
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
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 = .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
498 Journal of Adolescent Research
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
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.
Fierro, Moreno / Emerging Adulthood in Mexican and Spanish Youth 499
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
502 Journal of Adolescent Research
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.
Fierro, Moreno / Emerging Adulthood in Mexican and Spanish Youth 503
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.