Responds to the comments by C. Killian on the current authors' original article, "Rethinking the concept of acculturation: Implications for theory and research." Killian has focused on issues of selective acculturation--specifically, the ability of individuals and families to direct their own (and their children's) acculturative trajectories. Let us start by saying that we fully agree with Killian that some dimensions of acculturation are selective in some contexts. Yes, parents do encourage adolescents to gravitate toward specific aspects of their cultural heritage and to avoid specific aspects of the receiving cultural context, and vice versa, with respect to these cultural domains. Umana-Taylor, Bhanot, and Shin (2006) referred to this phenomenon as familial ethnic socialization. Umana-Taylor et al. have found familial ethnic socialization to promote identifications with one's heritage culture--and we have found in our own research (Schwartz, Zamboanga, Rodriguez, & Wang, 2007) that parental socialization is closely related to all three dimensions of heritage-cultural identity. However, in our research, parents' socialization attempts appear less effective in shaping youths' acquisition or rejection of American cultural practices, values, and identifications. Why this is the case is a matter of debate, but the presence of the heritage culture in the home does help to increase the likelihood that children and adolescents will retain or adopt it. However, this is not necessarily a guarantee, as we note immediately below.