{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.07374631268436578, 'fraction_numerical': 0.021632251720747297, 'mean_word_length': 5.132530120481928, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Not Excluded From Analyses

Because research on ethnic-racial identity development largely excludes multiethno-racial youth, we used a mixed-methods approach to examine ethno-racial meanings and identification among 102 early adolescents (M = 11.45, SD = 0.70 years) with multiethno-racial (n = 45), mono-majority (i.e., European American; n = 29), or mono-minority (e.g., Latino, African American; n = 28) heritage. Results indicated more similarity than difference between multiethno-racial and mono-minority youth—most understood their heritage through tangible connections (e.g., language). Social (e.g., stereotypes) and individual (e.g., pride) meanings of ethno-racial heritage were also discussed. Last, we observed that most multiethno-racial youth identified with either one (53.3%) or all components of their heritage (35.6%), and these identification choices were linked to tangible experiences (e.g., travel or language proficiency). Developmental and contextual reasons for these findings are discussed.