Linked fate, cumulative discrimination, and panethnic identification: awareness and use of ‘Latinx’ among a nationally representative sample of Hispanics/Latinos

Introduction

The terms ‘Latino/a’ and ‘Hispanic’ are used interchangeably to refer to individuals of Latin American descent in the United States. Research finds that most self-identifying Hispanic/LatinosFootnote¹ do not express a strong preference for either of these terms (Martínez and Gonzalez Citation2021a; Pew Research Center Citation2013), primarily because they identify with a national origin term – for instance Mexican/Mexican American, Puerto Rican, Cuban/Cuban American. Still, research finds that ‘Hispanic’ is the preferred term among those with a clear preference by nearly a 2-to-1 margin (Martínez and Gonzalez Citation2021b; Pew Research Center Citation2013). The term ‘Hispanic’, which was first added to the US Census in 1980, has benefited from being institutionalised as an ethnic category on administrative forms for much longer when compared to the term ‘Latino’, which was not included on the US Census until 2000 (McConnell and Delgado-Romero Citation2004; Tienda and Ortiz Citation1986). A longer history of inclusion on the US Census and the lasting effects of colonialism may account for the more prevalent use of the term ‘Hispanic’ (Martínez and Gonzalez Citation2021b).

Notwithstanding the ongoing debates about Hispanic/Latino Americans’ panethnic label preferences, a relatively new term has emerged over the past decade used to describe the Latin American diaspora in the United States: ‘Latinx’. As Salinas and Lozano (Citation2019) note, though not at the same rate, the use of the term Latinx has emerged across a variety of contexts since 2015, including in academic journals, dissertations and theses, in online news media and blogs, at professional conferences, and on social media sites. Prior work has focused on the predictors of identification with panethnic group labels such as ‘Hispanic’ and ‘Latino’ (Martínez and Gonzalez Citation2021a, Citation2021b). However, research into the factors associated with awareness and use of the term ‘Latinx’ as a panethnic label remains relatively sparse (for an exception, see Mora, Perez, and Vargas Citation2022).

Though Hispanic/Latino individuals do not exhibit strong preferences for broader panethnic labels (Martínez and Gonzalez Citation2021b), an understanding of the awareness, preference, use, and institutionalisation of specific panethnic labels over others carries important implications for the sociological study of race and ethnicity. First, awareness of specific panethnic labels – even if they are intended to be more equitable and inclusive – may not translate into active use. One of our goals is to identify the potential obstacles impeding this progress.

Second, while self-asserted panethnic ‘identities’ and imposed or assigned panethnic ‘categories’ are not synonymous, there is substantial overlap and reciprocity between the two. After all, the extant literature has traced how group identity labels become institutionalised categories, and how institutionalised categories may influence the emergence and broader use of panethnic labels (Cornell and Hartmann Citation2006; Martínez and Gonzalez Citation2021a; Mora Citation2014). The institutionalisation and broader use of panethnic categories, in particular, might have implications for how a variety of resources are allocated by state officials and organisations (Mora Citation2014; Ray Citation2019). Indeed, a non-trivial proportion of Hispanic/Latinos may be systematically excluded from this resource allocation process if specific panethnic ‘categories’ are privileged over others that do not align with subgroups’ asserted identities, especially among those who are reluctant to self-identify with more inclusive yet relatively newer panethnic labels.

Third, prior research underscores the importance of panethnicity and panethnic identity in ‘reactive’ identity formation (see Glace, Dover, and Major, Citation2021; Martínez and Gonzalez Citation2021b). These ‘reactive’ identities are noteworthy because of their potential for engendering minority group mobilisation as a response to marginalisation (Fischer-Neumann Citation2014; Simon and Grabow Citation2010). In the specific case of Hispanic/Latinos, for instance, higher levels of panethnic group identification are known to motivate greater participation (Sanchez Citation2006; Stokes Citation2003).Footnote² In this way, identification with the term among some Hispanic/Latinos might point towards the group’s mobilisation along a new, more inclusive notion of group identity as a reaction against perceived discrimination.

To assess whether Latinx is truly emerging as a panethnicity, we pose four interrelated research questions: (1) among self-identifying Hispanic/Latinos, what sociodemographic characteristics predict having heard of the term? (2) What factors are associated with individuals having ever used the term as a self-identifier? (3) What factors explain believing this term should be used to describe the broader Hispanic/Latino population in the United States? and (4) What factors explain preferences for the term Latinx over other labels such as ‘Hispanic’ and ‘Latino’?

We begin with a brief overview of the emergence of the Latinx. Next, we explore the factors associated with the use of panethnic group labels such as ‘Hispanic’ and ‘Latino’, hypothesising that a number of these factors might also predict identification with the term Latinx. We then engage our research questions by drawing on the Pew Research Center’s 2019 National Survey of Latinos. After outlining our data and methods, we present the results of four regression models explicitly addressing each of our research questions. We conclude with a reflection on the significance of our findings, looking to future directions in the study of the predictors of identification with newly emerging panethnic group labels such as Latinx.

The emergence of Latinx

The precise moment that the term Latinx made its way into the U.S. lexicon is unknown (Salinas Citation2020; Salinas and Lozano Citation2019). Salinas and Lozano (Citation2019) posited that the term first emerged on the Internet and on social media sites in 2014 (302). Alternatively, Padilla (Citation2016), as referenced by Salinas and Lozano (Citation2019), claimed Latinx emerged in 2004 among ‘left-leaning and queer communities as a way to promote inclusivity in language’ ultimately becoming well-established beyond LGBTQIA+ communities by mid-2015 (para. 6). Conversely, Armus (Citation2015) argued that Latinx was first used by a Mexican American student organisation at Columbia University in December 2014 to be more gender inclusive.

Despite these subtle discrepancies regarding the origins of the term, what is clear is that Latinx emerged as more inclusive term ‘born out of a collective aim to move beyond the masculine-centric “Latino” and the gender inclusive but binary embedded “Latin@”’ (Scharrón-Del Rio and Aja Citation2015, para. 1; Salinas and Lozano Citation2019). In short, Latinx is often used to disrupt ‘traditional binary notions of gender’ (Salinas Citation2020, 153). The meaning of the term has expanded and evolved over time to be even more inclusive. As Salinas and Lozano (Citation2019) noted, Latinx is a term that ‘recognizes the intersectionality of sexuality, language, immigration, ethnicity, culture, and phenotype’ (310). Nevertheless, in a review of the literature, Salinas (Citation2020) found that ‘there are inconsistencies in how the term Latinx is meant to be inclusive’ (155).

While the term ‘Latinx’ traces its origins to ‘queer community conversations online’ (deOnís Citation2017, 78), it has gained popularity in other realms, including academic publications as well as ‘online popular press articles’ (79). In fact, in addition to an increased use of Latinx on social media, Salinas and Lozano (Citation2019) found an ‘emerging use within higher education institutions’ that is being used to not only ‘resist the gender binary’ (304) but also to ‘disrupt traditional notions of inclusivity and shape institutional understandings of intersectionality’ (302).

Nevertheless, deOnís (Citation2017) notes that opinions regarding whether Latinx should replace or supplement the term ‘Latina/o’ have been particularly divided, even among academics. Some scholars have argued ‘for its transgressive sexual, gender, and language politics’ (79), contending that ‘“Latinx” is an addition to our linguistic repertoire and that what is important is that we are aware, and that we make others aware, of what the term implies and why it exists and co-exists with other terminology’ (85). Conversely, others ‘express hesitancy or reject usages of “x” altogether, maintaining that the signifier symbolizes linguistic imperialism, poses pronunciation problems, and alienates non-English-speaking im/migrants’ (79). These important considerations aside, few studies have examined the sociodemographic correlates of knowledge and use of the term ‘Latinx’ among a nationally representative sample of Hispanic/Latinos in the United States.

Building off of the work of Salinas and Lozano (Citation2019), we assess the emergence of and increasing interest in the term ‘Latinx’ in two distinct ways: (1) by examining Google Search Trends as a proxy for the degree of public interest in the term (Mellon Citation2014), and (2) by measuring the prevalence of use of the term in academic scholarship using the Dimensions API. Section A2 of the SI file details our analysis using the Google trends and Dimensions API data. As indicated here, our examination of Google Search Trends data strongly suggests that interest in the term Latinx is on the rise among the public. Similarly, use of the term in academic contexts in the social sciences and humanities has also expanded substantially since 2016.

Factors shaping the use of panethnic group labels

‘Latinx’ joins ‘Latina/o’ and ‘Hispanic’ as another panethnic label used to describe individuals and groups with Latin American ancestry residing in the United States – albeit one that is explicit intended to be more inclusive of LGBTQIA+ individuals or groups that are non-binary or non-gender conforming (deOnís Citation2017; Salinas Citation2020; Salinas and Lozano Citation2019). However, whether Latinx is truly emerging as a panethnicity in the same way that the terms ‘Hispanic’ and ‘Latino’ have emerged in the United States is a distinct question. Recent public opinion surveys suggest this may not be the case – at least not yet. For instance, Pew Research Center’s 2019 National Survey of Latinos found that just 25% of Hispanic/Latinos had ever heard of the term Latinx, while only 3% noted that they have ever used it to refer to themselves.

Prior research finds that group consciousness (Masuoka Citation2006; Miller et al. Citation1981) represents an important aspect of the formation of panethnicity, with linked fate constituting a key dimension of group consciousness (Dawson Citation2020; Sanchez Citation2006; Sanchez and Masuoka Citation2010; Sanchez and Vargas Citation2016). As such, we would expect respondents who report higher levels of linked fate with other Hispanic/Latinos to be more likely to have heard of the term Latinx, more likely to have ever used the term as a self-identifier, and more likely to believe that it should be used to describe the broader Hispanic/Latino population. In addition to linked fate, research finds that panethnicity and panethnic label preference may also emerge among marginalised ethnoracial groups as a reactive identity in response to discrimination (Masuoka Citation2006; Portes and Rumbaut Citation2001; Portes and Zhou Citation1993) and racialisation in US society (Martínez and Gonzalez Citation2021a). Given these findings, we expect respondents who report higher rates of discriminatory experiences will also be more likely to be aware of and use the term Latinx.

Much like ‘Latino’ and ‘Latina/o’, the term Latinx recognises the ethnic, racial, and cultural diversity of Latin America (e.g. Indigenous, African, and Asian influences and groups throughout the Western Hemisphere) (Martínez and Gonzalez Citation2021b). However, the term Latinx is also inclusive of non-binary and non-gender conforming individuals. For these reasons, we conceptualise ‘Latinx’ as being a progressive extension of the terms ‘Latino’ and ‘Latina/o’, particularly when compared to other panethnic labels such as ‘Hispanic’. As such, similar factors previously shown to shape preference for the term ‘Latino’ over ‘Hispanic’ may likewise be associated with awareness and use of the term Latinx.

Among these factors is education. For instance, Martínez and Gonzalez (Citation2021b) found that college graduates have higher relative odds of preferring ‘Latino’ over ‘Hispanic’. Therefore, we anticipate that higher levels of educational attainment will be associated with awareness and use of the term Latinx. Indeed, prior research has noted that college campuses represent critical sites for raising awareness of panethnic identity labels as well as their meanings and histories (Padilla Citation1997; Reyes Citation2018). In fact, while Salinas (Citation2020) found that just over 60% college students interviewed first heard of the term Latinx on social media, nearly 40% first learned of the term in class or from peers on campus.

Prior research has also noted that racialisation may also shape panethnic label preference. Martínez and Gonzalez (Citation2021b) found that respondents who identified racially as ‘Hispanic/Latino’ also opted for ‘Latino’ over ‘Hispanic’, which suggests preference for the term ‘Latino’ is associated with racialisation in the US context. For this reason, we expect that non-White respondents will be more likely to be aware of and use the term Latinx.

Though quantitative research on the term Latinx sparse, Mora, Perez, and Vargas (Citation2022) examined Latinx identification among a sample of US-born Californians. This work is only extant study to examine the sociodemographic correlates of this specific panethnic label. While their study did not include first-generation immigrants, respondents outside of California, nor measures of linked fate and discrimination experiences, we assess the extent to which their central findings hold when drawing on a nationally representative sample of US Hispanic/Latinos. Overall, Mora, Perez, and Vargas (Citation2022) found that political progressives, Generation Z respondents, and second-generation immigrants (relative to third-generation-plus respondents) were most likely to identify with the label Latinx. Considering these findings, we hypothesise that self-identifying Democrats, younger respondents (e.g. those 18–29 years old), and second- and third generation-plus respondents (relative to first-generation immigrants) will be more likely to have heard of Latinx, ever used the term to self-identify, more likely to believe it should be used as a broad panethnic label, and more likely to prefer the term over others such as ‘Hispanic’ and ‘Latino’.

Finally, we also assess the extent to which use of the term Latinx is affected by the interaction between factors such as discrimination experiences, linked fate, immigrant generation, age, and educational attainment. We specifically examine whether the effects of linked fate and discrimination experiences are moderated by these other key factors. Doing so will offer greater sociological insight on whether the processes of reactive identity formation (Martínez and Gonzalez Citation2021a) and political mobilisation are dependent upon other conditions rather than uniform.

Data and methods

We address our research questions by drawing on data from Wave 58 of Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP). The American Trends Panel is a nationally representative online panel of non-institutionalised persons aged 18 or over living in any of the 48 contiguous US states, as well as Alaska or Hawaii. Wave 58, also known as the 2019 National Survey of Latinos, was conducted between December 3, 2019, and December 22, 2019, on behalf of Pew by Ipsos. Altogether, 3,030 Hispanic/Latino panelists completed the survey. Population weights were also constructed by Pew, which are used in Table 1 so that our descriptive estimates are generalisable to the adult Hispanic/Latino population.

Results

Table 2 presents the logit coefficients, odds ratios (ORs), standard errors, and significance levels from three models examining the relationships between our dependent and independent measures. The analytic samples are not weighted, as we include several demographic controls that were used in the construction of the survey weights. In what follows, we highlight the key findings from each of our first three analyses: (1) Heard of Latinx? (Model 1), (2) Has Used Latinx to Describe Self (Model 2), and (3) Should Latinx be used to Describe Latino-Hispanic Population? (Model 3).

Model 1: heard of Latinx?

We begin first with Model 1, the results of which are presented in the first column of Table 2. As evidenced here, linked fate (p < .001) and discrimination experiences (p < .01) are both associated with higher odds of a respondent having heard of the term Latinx. Because our measures of linked fate (ordinal) and discrimination experiences (nominal) are non-dichotomous, we use postestimation to plot the predicted probability that a respondent has heard of the term Latinx as their levels of linked fate increase, or as they report a higher number of instances of discrimination. The results of the postestimation are graphed in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Predicted probabilities of dependent measures as a function of linked fate and discrimination experiences.

Notes: Points represent the predicted probability of a respondent hearing of Latinx, using Latinx to describe self, and using Latinx to describe the Hispanic/Latino population, as a function of linked fate and discrimination experiences. The dashed lines are 95 percent confidence intervals. Predicted probabilities calculated by holding all other variables in models constant or at their respective mean values.

Display full size

The top left panel of Figure 1 graphs the predicted probability of a respondent having heard of the term Latinx as a function of linked fate. A respondent with the lowest level of linked fate has just a .14 predicted probability of having heard of the Latinx label. By contrast, a respondent with the highest level of linked fate has a .27 predicted probability of having heard of the term Latinx. Therefore, moving from the lowest to highest level of linked fate is associated with a .13 increase in the predicted probability of a respondent having heard of the term Latinx. Moving to the top right panel, we see that a respondent who reported no instances of discrimination has just a .18 predicted probability of having heard of the term Latinx, while a respondent with four separate experiences of discrimination has a .26 predicted probability of having heard of the term Latinx. Thus, increases in the number of personal discrimination experiences are associated with an 8-point increase in the predicted probability of a respondent having heard of the term Latinx.

For Model 1, Table 2 also reveals a number of significant covariates beyond the linked fate and discrimination experience measures. For instance, we find that respondents who are Spanish dominant have 62.5 percent lower odds of having heard of Latinx compared to English dominant respondents (p < .001), while the odds of having head of the term are 1.5 times higher for second-generation respondents compared to third-plus-generation respondents (p < .05). In addition, the odds of having heard of Latinx are 1.6 times higher among respondents with a partisan affiliation with the Democratic Party compared to those affiliated with the Republican Party (p < .01).

We also observe significant effects associated with racial identity, with the odds of having heard of Latinx being 1.6 times higher among mixed-race respondents compared to non-mixed-race respondents. A similar pattern holds among indigenous-identifying respondents. The odds of having heard of Latinx are 1.6 times higher among indigenous respondents compared to non-indigenous respondents. Respondents aged 30 and older all have a lower likelihood of having heard of the term Latinx relative to those aged between 18 and 29 (p < .001). Finally, Table 2 reveals that higher rates of educational attainment are associated with an increased likelihood of a respondent having heard of the term Latinx. The odds of having heard of Latinx are 1.7 times higher among respondents with some college education but no formal degree than those with a high school education or less to (p < .001), while the odds of having heard of the term are 3.2 times higher among those with a college degree (p < .001).

Model 2: has used Latinx to describe self

Model 2: baseline model

We now turn to present the results of Model 2, the results of which are presented in the second column of Table 2. The analytic sample used in Model 2 is limited to the subsample of respondents who have heard of the term Latinx. Beginning with linked fate and discrimination experiences, we see that the latter measure is a significant predictor (p < .01) of a respondent having ever used the term Latinx to describe themselves. However, the former measure is not a significant predictor of the dependent measure. A more substantive interpretation of this significant effect through discrimination experiences can be seen in the centre-right panel of Figure 1. As indicated by Figure 1, a respondent who reported zero experiences of discrimination over the past year has just a .8 predicted probability of having ever used the term Latinx to describe themselves. Contrastingly, a respondent who reported four instances of discrimination over the past twelve months has a .19 predicted probability of having ever used the Latinx label to describe themselves. Consequently, increases in the number of reported instances of personal discrimination are associated with an 11-point increase in the predicted probability of a respondent having ever used Latinx to describe themselves.

Beyond the significant effect on the outcome measure through respondents’ personal discrimination experiences, Table 2 reveals that only two other measures are significant predictors of a respondent having ever used the term Latinx to describe themselves – namely, Afro-Latino racial identity and gender. Among respondents who have heard of Latinx, the odds of having ever used the term to describe oneself are 2.5 times higher for self-identifying Afro-Latino respondents relative to non-Afro-Latino identifying respondents. Furthermore, the odds of having ever used the term Latinx to describe oneself are 1.8 times higher among female respondents compared to male respondents.

Model 2: interactive modelsFootnote⁶

In this section, we present the results of a series of models examining the interactions between discrimination experiences, linked fate, immigrant generation, and age. Figure 2 displays changes in average adjusted predictions for ‘Has Used Latinx to Describe Self’ for each of the different generation groups across values of discrimination experiences in the past year. All other covariates are set at their observed values. The results from the interactive models reveal two key findings regarding the interplay between discrimination and immigrant generation.

Figure 2. Average adjusted predictions for ‘Has Used Latinx to Describe Self’ by discrimination and generation (other covariates at observed values)

Display full size

First, we find that marginal increases in levels of discrimination experiences are associated with increasing probabilities of ‘Has Used Latinx to Describe Self’ among second-generation and third-generation-plus respondents, but not among first-generation immigrants. For instance, a third-generation-plus respondent with four discrimination experiences in the past year has a .43 probability of having ever used the term to self-identify compared to .10 among third-generation-plus respondents with no such experiences, with these predicted probabilities being statistically significantly different from each other.Footnote⁷ A same general pattern holds for second-generation respondents, though the magnitudes of the effects are smaller compared to their third-generation-plus counterparts. However, we failed to find statistically significant differences among first-generation respondents across various levels of discrimination experiences. Simply put, an accumulation of discrimination experiences does not have the same impact on first-generation immigrants as it does for second- and third-generation-plus respondents. Additional experience with discrimination in the past year results in a higher probability of having ever used Latinx to self-identify among second- and third-generation-plus respondents but not first-generation immigrants.

Second, Figure 2 reveals how the immigrant generational gaps in predicted probabilities for ‘Has Used Latinx to Describe Self’ also vary across levels of the discrimination measure. For example, we find no evidence of generational differences in the probabilities for respondents that did not report any discrimination experiences in the past year. For all three groups, the predicted value is around .10. However, the diverging trajectories described above result in increasing gaps such that the predicted probabilities for first-generation, second-generation, and third-generation-plus respondents equal .12, .24, and .43, respectively, for respondents that report four discrimination experiences. Nevertheless, in this example, only the differences in probabilities between first-generation and third-generation-plus respondents are statistically significantly different from each other.

We also detect significant moderation between discrimination experiences within the past year and age (Figure 3). First, marginal increases in levels of discrimination experiences increase the probability of ‘Has Used Latinx to Describe Self’ among respondents 30–49 years of age and those 50–64. However, this effect does not hold for respondents 18–29-years-old nor those ages 65+. Second, respondents 30–49 and those 50–64 with no discrimination experiences have statistically significant lower probabilities of having ever used the term Latinx as a self-identifier relative to their 18–29-year-old counterparts (.07 and .04 versus .17, respectively). These findings hold when moving from no discrimination experiences to one, but disappear at two discrimination experiences. In sum, Figures 2 and 3 suggest that an accumulation of discrimination experiences among second- and third-generation-plus respondents as well as those 30–49 and 50–64 years of age seem to have a particularly profound impact on these subgroups’ probabilities of having ever used the term Latinx to describe themselves.

Figure 3. Average adjusted predictions for ‘Has Used Latinx to Describe Self’ by discrimination and age (other covariates at observed values)

Display full size

Finally, though linked fate is not statistically significant in our baseline model (see Table 2, Model 2), we detect statistically significant moderation between linked fate and immigrant generation. As illustrated in Figure 4, we failed to find statistically significant differences across levels of linked fate among first-generation immigrants on the probability of ‘Has Used Latinx to Describe Self’. Nevertheless, as a sense of linked fate increases among second-generation and third-generation-plus respondents, so do the probabilities of having ever used the term Latinx to self-identify. For example, third-generation-plus and second-generation respondents who report the highest levels of linked fate (i.e. ‘A lot’) have substantively higher probabilities of ‘Has Used Latinx to Describe Self’ relative to their first-generation immigrant counterparts (.32 and .20 versus .08, respectively).

Figure 4. Average adjusted predictions for ‘Has Used Latinx to Describe Self’ by linked fate and age (other covariates at observed values)

Display full size

Model 4: panethnic label preferences

Table 3 presents the multinomial logit coefficients, relative odds ratios, standard errors, and significance levels from a multinomial logit model examining the relationships between our set of independent measures and outcome measure of interest. In what follows, we examine differences between respondents who prefer ‘Latinx’ as a panethnic label descriptor to ‘Hispanic’, as well as differences between those who prefer ‘Latinx’ to ‘Latino’.Footnote⁸

Table 3. Multinomial Logit Models for ‘Latinx’ vs ‘Hispanic’ and ‘Latinx’ vs ‘Latino’.

Download CSVDisplay Table

We begin by examining differences between respondents who prefer ‘Latinx’ as a panethnic label descriptor to ‘Hispanic’. These differences can be seen in the first column in Table 3. As evidenced here, we find that respondents with salient levels of linked fate – or a feeling that what happens to Hispanics in the country overall also affects what happens in respondents’ own lives – have higher relative odds of preferring the term ‘Latinx’ to ‘Hispanic’ as a primary panethnic descriptor (β = .456, p < .05). Because the linked fate measure is ordinal, interpretation of the relative magnitude of these effects using relative odds ratios is somewhat cumbersome. To get a better approximation of these effects, we plot the predicted probability of a respondent preferring ‘Latinx’ to ‘Hispanic’ as a function of linked fate.

The effects of linked fate on the likelihood of a respondent preferring ‘Latinx’ to ‘Hispanic’ as a primary panethnic descriptor can be seen more clearly below in the left panel of Figure 5. At the lowest level of linked fate, a respondent has just a .001 predicted probability of preferring ‘Latinx’ to ‘Hispanic’. By contrast, at the highest level of linked fate, a respondent has a .029 predicted probability of preferring ‘Latinx’ to ‘Hispanic’. Therefore, moving from the lowest to highest level of linked fate is associated with a 2.8-point increase in the predicted probability of a respondent preferring ‘Latinx’ to ‘Hispanic’. While these effects through linked fate were significant and in the expected direction, it is worth pointing out the relatively low predicted probabilities of a respondent preferring ‘Latinx’ to ‘Hispanic’ as a panethnic descriptor even at the highest levels of linked fate.

Figure 5. Predicted probabilities of preferring ‘Latinx’ to ‘Hispanic’ and ‘Latino’ as a function of linked fate. Notes: Points represent the predicted probability of a respondent preferring ‘Latinx’ as a primary panethnic descriptor to ‘Hispanic’ and ‘Latino’ as a function of linked fate. The dashed lines are 95 percent confidence intervals. Predicted values calculated by holding all other variables in model constant or at their respective mean values.

Display full size

Beyond linked fate, Table 3 indicates that respondents who identify as mixed race have higher relative odds of preferring the term ‘Latinx’ to ‘Hispanic’. Specifically, the odds of a respondent with a mixed-race identity preferring ‘Latinx’ to ‘Hispanic’ are 2.203 times higher (relative OR = exp( $\text{β}\kappa$)) than those who do not identify as mixed race (p < .01). On the other hand, respondents aged between 30 and 49 have significantly lower relative odds of preferring prefer ‘Latinx’ to ‘Hispanic’ than those aged between 18 and 29 (p < .01). Interestingly, respondents with some college education but no formal degree have lower relative odds of preferring ‘Latinx’ to ‘Hispanic’ compared to respondents with a high-school education or less (p < .01).

Table 3 also presents the multinomial logit estimates for preferring ‘Latinx’ to ‘Latino’. As indicated by the second column in Table 3, respondents with high levels of linked fate have higher relative odds of preferring ‘Latinx’ to ‘Latino’ to describe the Hispanic/Latino population overall ( $\text{β}$ = .379, p < .01). Once again, a more substantive approximation of the relative magnitude of the effects can be seen in the right panel of Figure 5. As indicated, at lowest level of linked fate, a respondent has just a .26 predicted probability of preferring ‘Latinx’ to ‘Latino’. Conversely, at the highest level of linked fate, a respondent has a .70 predicted probability of preferring ‘Latinx’ to ‘Latino’ to describe the Hispanic population overall. Consequently, moving from the lowest to the highest levels of linked fate is associated with a 4.4-point increase in the predicted probability of a respondent preferring ‘Latinx’ to ‘Latino’. In contextualising these results, it is important to note that, even at the lowest levels of linked fate, the likelihood of a respondent preferring ‘Latinx’ to ‘Latino’ are remarkably similar to those of a respondent with the highest levels of linked fate preferring ‘Latinx’ to ‘Hispanic’. This finding lends weight to the argument that those with higher levels of linked fate have a higher likelihood of preferring panethnic descriptors that are more progressive than ‘Hispanic’, including Latino and its even more progressive extension ‘Latinx’.

In addition to the importance of linked fate, Table 3 indicates that first-generation immigrants have lower relative odds of preferring ‘Latinx’ over ‘Latino’ compared to third generation-plus respondents (p < .01). Similar to the pattern of results to preferences for ‘Latinx’ vs ‘Hispanic’, the relative odds of a respondent with a mixed-race identity preferring ‘Latinx’ to ‘Latino’ are 1.776 times higher than those who do not identify as mixed race. Likewise, those aged between 30 and 49 have lower relative odds of preferring ‘Latinx’ to ‘Latino’.

Discussion

The term ‘Latinx’ emerged in the latter half of the 2010s as a panethnic label used to identify individuals of Latin American descent in the United States. In many ways, the term is more analogous to, and possesses similarities with, the terms ‘Latino’ or ‘Latina/o’ than ‘Hispanic’, in that it is more inclusive of ethnoracial diversity of Latin America, acknowledges the (neo)colonial history of the Western Hemisphere, and places less emphasis on Spanish aspects of Latin American identities (Martínez and Gonzalez Citation2021b; Salinas Citation2020; Salinas and Lozano Citation2019). Still, Latinx constitutes a more progressive term than ‘Latino’ or ‘Latina/o’ in that it is more inclusive of non-binary and non-gender-conforming individuals (deOnís Citation2017; Salinas Citation2020; Salinas and Lozano Citation2019). Nevertheless, the 2019 National Survey of Latinos found that just one-fourth of self-identifying Hispanic/Latinos had ever heard of the term Latinx, and only 3% had ever used the term to identify themselves (Pew Research Center Citation2020). Moreover, little is known about the factors associated with awareness of the term Latinx, as well as those that influence its use as a self-identifier or as a panethnic label used to describe the Latin American diaspora.

The present study represents an important step attempting to fill this gap in the literature. Our findings have a number of important implications for the sociological study of race and ethnicity. First, we find some evidence that Latinx is emerging as a panethnic group label to describe individuals of Latin American descent residing in the United States. A crucial indicator that Latinx might be emerging as a panethnic label is our finding that higher levels of linked fate – a critical dimension of group consciousness (Dawson Citation2020; Sanchez Citation2006; Sanchez and Masuoka Citation2010; Sanchez and Vargas Citation2016) – is associated with higher odds of having heard of the term Latinx (Model 1) as well as believing that the term should be used as a panethnic label to describe the broader Latino-Hispanic population among respondents with knowledge of the term (Model 3). Moreover, we find that the effect of linked fate on the probability of having ever used the term Latinx to self-identify is moderated by immigrant generation (Model 2c in A5). Specifically, as linked fate increases among second-generation and third-generation-plus respondents, so does each group’s probability of having ever used the term Latinx as a self-identifier. Intuitively, this finding does not hold for first-generation immigrants. After all, a sense of linked fate with other Hispanic/Latinos likely does not fully develop until the second generation as the children of Latin American immigrants integrate into an ethnoracially stratified social system such as the U.S. Overall, these findings are consistent with previous work, which finds that group consciousness represents a critical domain in the emergence of panethnicity (Martínez and Gonzalez Citation2021a). In this respect, Latinx does appear to be emerging as a panethnic identity with a basis in group consciousness, though, as indicated by the fact that just 3% of Hispanic/Latinos have ever used the Latinx to describe themselves (Pew Research Center Citation2020), not yet to the same extent as other identities such as ‘Latino’ or ‘Hispanic’.

Second, we find some evidence that ‘Latinx’ may be emerging as a reactive identity in response to Hispanic/Latinos’ marginalised status in the United States. Several studies note that panethnicity may emerge as a reactive identity to real or perceived prejudice or discrimination and alienation from society (Martínez and Gonzalez Citation2021a; Portes and Rumbaut Citation2001; Portes and Zhou Citation1993). In this sense, the rise of a collective identity among residents of Latin American ancestry in the United States from diverse backgrounds, which traces its origins to both assignment (i.e. government classificatory systems) and assertion (i.e. claims-making by group members themselves) (Cornell and Hartmann Citation2006), might represent a critical case study of panethnicity. Consistent with these studies, we find that Hispanic/Latinos who report a higher number of discrimination experiences exhibit higher odds of having ever used the term Latinx to describe themselves. Nevertheless, this relationship is not uniform across all respondents. We find that both immigrant generation and age moderate the effects of discrimination experiences on the probability of having ever used Latinx as a self-identifier. Among second-generation and third-generation-plus respondents as well as those aged 50–64, higher rates of discrimination experiences in the past year are associated with increasing probabilities of having ever used the term to self-identify. In short, second-generation and third-generation-plus respondents, and those 50–64-years-old, appear to be much more impacted by the accumulation of discrimination experiences compared to their first-generation and 18–29-year-old counterparts.

Third, our analyses reveal that university and college campuses represent important sites for raising awareness of the term Latinx. As noted, we find that college graduates as well as those with some college, but no degree have higher odds of having heard of the term when compared to those with a high school degree or less. This finding is consistent with discussions describing the emergence of the term Latinx on college campuses (Salinas Citation2020; Salinas and Lozano Citation2019). This finding also corresponds with prior work which finds that colleges and universities represent key institutions in which students begin to learn, interpret, and articulate the meanings of specific panethnic labels (Reyes Citation2018). Still, we do not find that university or college experience is positively associated with having ever used the term Latinx to identify oneself, believing that it should be used as a panethnic label used to describe the broader Hispanic/Latino population, or preference for the term Latinx over labels such as ‘Hispanic’ or ‘Latino’. In fact, we find that respondents with ‘some college no degree’ have lower relative odds of preferring ‘Latinx’ over ‘Hispanic’ compared to those with a ‘high school degree or less’. These findings are consistent with those from qualitative research conducted by Salinas (Citation2020) who notes that ‘participants perceived higher education as a privileged space where they only used the term to be inclusive. Once they returned to their communities, they did not use the term’ (162).

In this sense, institutions of higher educations are succeeding in raising awareness of the term Latinx, but are not having much success in converting that awareness into action as measured through self-identification, believing that the term should be used as a panethnic label to describe the Hispanic/Latino population, or preference for ‘Latinx’ over other terms such as ‘Hispanic’ or ‘Latino’. These findings stand in stark contrast to those from prior research that examined the factors associated with preferring the terms ‘Latino’ versus ‘Hispanic’ versus no preference at all. For instance, Martínez and Gonzalez (Citation2021b) found that college graduates had higher odds of preferring the term ‘Latino’ over ‘Hispanic’ when compared to respondents without a college degree. The authors also found that college graduates were more likely than those without a college degree to report ‘no preference’ for either over preference for ‘Hispanic’. Future research should consider further exploring the disconnect between having heard of the term Latinx and actually putting the term to use among those with college degrees.

Conclusion

Identities are subjective, contextual, and fluid, meaning that the labels to which many individuals attach themselves are dynamic and constantly evolving. In the case of ‘Latinx’, Salinas and Lozano (Citation2019) hypothesised that its use will become more prevalent among ‘high education scholars, practitioners, activists, students, faculty, and staff’ (312). While our analyses find that the university/college experience may raise awareness the term, there is a gap between knowledge of the term and its active use. Notwithstanding the increasing use of Latinx in collegiate contexts and within the academy itself, interviewees asked about the viability of the term in deOnís’s Citation2017 study do not fret too much about academic scholars ‘dictating’ the use of Latinx since, ultimately, ‘the term will be … accepted or not, regardless of what the RAE (Real Academia Española) or academics say’ (83). Still, there is perhaps something important to gain through engaging with the term directly; namely, to: ‘bring into discussion … [the] issues faced by marginalized communities within the binary o/a of traditional culture/language/society’ (deOnís Citation2017, 83). Moreover, we must keep in mind that much like identities, language is fluid and can change or evolve over time. It is certainly possible that the term Latinx will gain broader acceptance and increased use among Hispanic/Latinos as it becomes normalised and increasingly used in colloquial contexts.

Lastly, a limitation of the data we analyze is that the 2019 National Survey of Latinos does not include an item asking whether a respondent identifies as nonbinary or LGBTQI+. This is a notable limitation considering the status of Latinx as gender-neutral term as well as its use among the LGBTQ+ community. Future studies should ideally use survey data containing a more comprehensive measure of gender identity to assess nonbinary and LGBTQ+ Hispanic/Latinos’ attitudes towards and use of the term.