The impact of discrimination on parent–adolescent relationships in U.S. Mexican families

Abstract

The Family Stress Model (FSM) posits that environmental stressors disrupt key parenting and family processes via increases in parents’ psychological distress. Few studies, however, have examined whether Latinx parents’ perceptions of discrimination, a salient environmental stressor for Latinx populations, disrupt parent–child relationships. It is particularly important to examine acceptance and conflict in the parent–child relationship during children’s adolescence as this is a time when the parent–child relationship can be particularly vulnerable. The current study examined whether parents’ perceptions of discrimination predicted lower acceptance and higher conflict in the parent–adolescent relationship, via elevated parental depressive symptoms. Data were from a longitudinal study of 749 U.S. Mexican families with adolescents (48.9% female; mean age = 10.42, SD = 0.55 at Wave 1) and were examined using path analyses. Mother’s discrimination experiences predicted higher levels of mother-reported mother–adolescent conflict through higher levels of maternal depressive symptoms. Additionally, maternal discrimination directly predicted declines in mother-reported acceptance for boys, but not for girls. Paternal discrimination experiences were positively associated with paternal depressive symptoms, but paternal depressive symptoms were not associated with father–adolescent relationship processes. The current study underscored discrimination as a salient stressor for U.S. Mexican mothers’ and fathers’ psychological wellbeing, and, for mothers, these experiences may influence their relationships with their adolescents.

Keywords

discrimination parental warmth parent–adolescent conflict parental depressive symptoms Latinx families

Racism is conceptualized as “beliefs, attitudes, institutional arrangements, and acts that tend to denigrate individuals or groups because of phenotypic characteristics or ethnic group affiliation” (Clark et al., 1999, p. 805). Within the context of attitudinal, behavioral, and structural racism, discrimination is a stressor faced by many families of color generally and Latino/a/x/é (hereafter Latinx)¹ families specifically (Ayón et al., 2017; Frabutt et al., 2002). Indeed, 52% of U.S. Latinx adults say that they have experienced discrimination at some point in their lives (Krogstad & López, 2016). Institutionally, Latinx individuals face discrimination within employment, health care, judicial, housing, and police systems (Benner et al., 2018; National Public Radio et al., 2017). Interpersonally, Latinxs can experience discrimination in forms of racial or ethnic slurs, doubts about nativity or citizenship, and criticism relative to languages preferred and spoken (Lopez et al., 2018; National Public Radio et al., 2017). Enduring anti-immigrant sentiment and policies (e.g., the “immigration detention quota” in 2010 and zero tolerance policy in 2018; Barajas-Gonzalez et al., 2018) have exacerbated and legitimized discrimination toward Latinxs (Almeida et al., 2016; Ayón & García, 2019). As discrimination is a salient stressor faced by Latinx adults and family is a salient Latinx context, discrimination may have important implications for parent–adolescent relationship processes.

Indeed, the Family Stress Model (FSM; Masarik & Conger, 2017) posits that stressors can disrupt critical family processes by elevating parents’ psychological distress. Researchers have successfully adapted the FSM to examine a range of stressors, including economic hardship, neighborhood danger, English language pressures, and cultural adaptation stress among U.S. Latinx families (Helms et al., 2014; White et al., 2009). Few studies, however, have used the FSM to examine whether parents’ exposure to discrimination disrupts key family processes in this group (c.f., Conger et al., 2012). Recent increases in anti-immigrant climate and racism (Ayón & García, 2019), alongside the numeric significance of the Latinx population to the United States (60.1 million; U.S. Census Bureau, 2020), highlight the need for advancing research on U.S. Latinx family processes in the context of parental discrimination.

It is particularly important to explore discrimination-based disruptions to acceptance and parent–adolescent conflict in the parent–adolescent relationship context and among U.S. Mexican families. Acceptance assesses the relational bond between parents and youth, including the emotional support, understanding, and trust that parents provide to their children (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987). Parent–adolescent conflict refers to the disagreement and arguments between parents and adolescents (Ruiz et al., 1998). During adolescence, youth gradually gain independence from parents, but acceptance and parent–adolescent conflict continue to play important roles for successful late adolescent and early adult development (De Goede et al., 2009; Rodríguez et al., 2014). Prior FSM works suggest that these parent–adolescent relationship processes are susceptible to stress disruptions (Benner & Kim, 2010; Conger et al., 2010), but these works have not focused on discrimination as the stressor. Additionally, U.S. Mexicans are a large segment of the Latinx population (37.4 million; U.S. Census Bureau, 2020). Thus, the aim of this study is to examine whether discrimination and psychological distress experienced by U.S. Mexican mothers and fathers would predict acceptance and conflict in the parent–adolescent relationship context over time.

The Integrative Family Stress Model

According to the original FSM, the psychological and behavioral functioning of parents are negatively impacted by economic stress (Conger & Elder, 1994). The model specifically suggested that economic stress would be associated with increased parent psychological distress (e.g., depressed mood, alienation, and anxiety), which, in turn, would be associated with disruptions to parenting processes (Conger et al., 2010). Subsequent extensions of this model, which have incorporated the Integrative Model for minority youth development (García Coll et al., 1996), have expanded beyond economic stress to recognize additional stressors that are salient for minority families (White, Liu, et al., 2015). Specifically, the integrative model (García Coll et al., 1996) recognizes that individuals face stressors associated with their racial and ethnic social positions, including discrimination, and that these stressors can impact relational processes in minority family systems. Together, an “integrative family stress model” (White, Liu, et al., 2015, p. 650), suggests that discrimination will be associated with higher parent psychological distress, which, in turn, can lead to disrupted family processes. Additionally, and contrary to the FSM, the integrative model recognizes the potential that a stressor may not lead to parenting disruptions because some parents may be able to respond to stressors—particularly discrimination—with parenting adaptations aimed at mitigating the impact of the stressor on their children (White, Liu, et al., 2015, 2018).

Parent–adolescent relationship processes, such as acceptance and conflict, have been shown to be central family processes in tests of the FSM among diverse populations (Masarik & Conger, 2017). According to the FSM, disrupted family relationship processes can include both declines in positive relationship processes (e.g., acceptance) and increases in negative relationship processes (e.g., parent–adolescent conflict). Acceptance and parent–adolescent conflict have been identified as important for successful adolescent adjustment and adaptation (Delgado et al., 2013; Weymouth et al., 2016). Meanwhile, parents’ psychological distress has been a consistent mediator explaining the association between environmental stressors and disrupted family processes across diverse family structures (Masarik & Conger, 2017). The FSM has been somewhat successful in explaining the implications of environmental stressors for U.S. Latinx families and adolescents in prior work (e.g., Conger et al., 2012; Lorenzo-Blanco et al., 2017; White et al., 2019). However, that work has not focused on whether discrimination, a salient stressor in Latinx families, leads to lower acceptance and higher parent–adolescent conflict via elevations in parents’ psychological distress.

Discrimination, parental psychological distress, and parent–adolescent relationships

Discrimination is a salient stressor that parents in ethnic minority families often have to contend with in the context of structural racism (Frabutt et al., 2002). Researchers have examined part of the FSM mechanism by establishing a positive link between discrimination and psychological distress in U.S. Latinx adults (Finch et al., 2000; Ornelas & Perreira, 2011; Negi, 2013), and by identifying the disruptive effects of psychological distress on a number of parent–adolescent relationship processes in U.S. Latinx families, including harsh parenting (White et al., 2019), acceptance and consistent discipline (White et al., 2009), and monitoring, communication, and academic involvement (Prelow et al., 2010). Scant work, however, has attended to this important explanatory mechanism of discrimination influencing Latinx parent–adolescent relationships via parents’ poor psychological functioning. A cross-sectional test of key FSM hypotheses with U.S. Mexican families found support for disruptions to parent–adolescent relationship processes associated with general discrimination (Conger et al., 2012). Lorenzo-Blanco and colleagues (2017) found that “cultural stress,” which was operationalized as a latent construct encompassing individuals’ perceptions about (a) negative context of reception, (b) acculturative stress, and (c) discrimination, prospectively disrupted family processes via increases in parent depressive symptoms in a sample of recently immigrated U.S. Latinx families with adolescents. However, this work combined cultural stress with discrimination stress. Viruell-Fuentes and colleagues (2012) suggest that the overuse of culture-based explanations for U.S. immigrant outcomes might obscure the impact of social inequalities associated with racism. Consistent with this concern, one study highlighted the distinct role discrimination plays relative to cultural stressors for Latinxs (Zeiders et al., 2015). Therefore, assessing discrimination as a part of broader cultural stressors, as done in the Lorenzo-Blanco et al. (2017) study, might mask the effects of racism on U.S. Latinx families. Instead, it is necessary to consider discrimination specifically and distinctly from cultural stressors.

Selected work has focused on parents’ workplace discrimination experiences. Using the daily diary method in Mexican immigrant parents with young children, Gassman-Pines (2015) found that, on days when parents perceived workplace discrimination, they experienced worse mood and engaged in negative interactions with their children. Parents’ perceived discrimination, however, did not disrupt their partners’ interactions with their children. In a sample of U.S. Mexican mothers, fathers, and adolescents, Wheeler and colleagues (2015) examined workplace discrimination experienced by parents, which was associated with higher levels of maternal and paternal depressive symptoms, and predicted disruptions to mother–adolescent relationship processes, but not father–adolescent relationship processes. These existing studies suggest that discrimination may negatively impact Latinx parent–adolescent relationships via increasing parents’ psychological distress, but more prospective studies that examine discrimination as a distinct stressor in a broad social context are needed. Further, none of these works focused on acceptance and conflict within the parent–adolescent relationship during late adolescence, despite the importance of these processes during this developmental period.

The roles of gender, nativity, and household structure

Gender and nativity are important social position variables that stratify individuals and families into different environments and developmental trajectories. Additionally, household structure, which is associated with flexibility of roles and adaptive responses to environmental stressors, could be a source of variability in the associations between discrimination, depressive symptoms, and parent–adolescent relationship processes (García Coll et al., 1996). Therefore, researchers should consider whether putative FSM associations between discrimination, psychological distress, and parent–adolescent relationship processes are qualified by gender, nativity, and household structure among U.S. Mexican parents.

Much of the existing literature on the linkage between discrimination and family relationship processes relies on Latinx mothers’ or caregivers’ (predominantly biological mothers’) exposure to discrimination and its relations with mothers’ mental health and family relationships (e.g., Ayón & García, 2019; Ornelas & Perreira, 2011). However, previous research suggests that males and females react differently to stressful experiences (Taylor et al., 2000). More importantly, Latinx mothers and fathers tend to play different parental roles and engage in different patterns of parenting practices and relationships with youth (Crockett et al., 2007; Cruz et al., 2011). Youth described more affectionate and emotional relationships with mothers relative to fathers in a qualitative study with U.S. Mexican adolescents, with the closest relationships shared by mothers and daughters (Crockett et al., 2007). Compared to sons, daughters reported more conflicts with mothers, in a multi-ethnic adolescent sample (Laursen, 2005). Thus, tests of the FSM focused on these relationship processes should consider whether child gender qualifies key FSM associations. Adolescents with single mothers reported more mother–adolescent conflicts than adolescents in 2-biological parent families. Single motherhood may be associated with elevated levels of mother–adolescent conflict (Laursen, 2005). In light of these mean differences, it may be that the association between psychological distress and parent–adolescent conflict is stronger in single-mother families. In addition, empirical evidences suggested that U.S. Latinxs’ experiences of discrimination varied by nativity (Pérez et al., 2008). Specifically, U.S. born Latinxs were more likely to report discrimination compared to foreign-born Latinxs (Brondolo et al., 2005; Pérez et al., 2008). However, none of the previous work that examined the disruptive effects of discrimination on Latinx parent–adolescent relationships tested whether such associations varied by nativity (Conger et al., 2012; Lorenzo-Blanco et al., 2017; Wheeler et al., 2015).

The current study

This study used an integrative FSM (White, Liu, et al., 2015) to examine an intervening variable model whereby exposure to discrimination and the higher psychological distress expected to come along with it predicted key parent–adolescent relationship processes in a sample of U.S. Mexican mothers and adolescents and a subsample of fathers and adolescents (Figure 1). We hypothesized that greater levels of exposure to discrimination would be associated with elevated parental psychological distress and that these, in turn, would predict lower levels of acceptance and higher levels of conflict in the parent–adolescent relationship. Psychological distress was operationalized as depressive symptomology, including items assessing depressed mood, alienation, and anxiety (Radloff, 1977). To address the similarities and differences in patterns of parents’ discrimination experiences and parent–adolescent relationships, the current study tested the hypothesized intervening variable model in the full sample of mothers and the subsample of fathers separately. To address key sources of variability among U.S. Mexicans, like gender, nativity, and household structure, which can set families on different pathways (García Coll et al., 1996), we examined whether the hypothesized model applied equally well to boys and girls, U.S. born and Mexico-born parents, and single-mother versus two-parent family contexts. To recognize that both parents’ and adolescents’ have unique views on parent–adolescent relationship processes (Tein et al., 1994), our design solicited parent–adolescent relationship process data from both parents and adolescents. These reports were used as replications of the hypothesis testing.

Figure 1.

Proposed Family Stress Model describing the impact of discrimination on acceptance and parent–adolescent conflict via parental depressive symptomatology.

Method

Data were from a longitudinal study of the influence of culture and context in the lives of 749 U.S. Mexican families from Phoenix metropolitan area in the United States (see Roosa et al., 2008, for more detail). A stratified random sampling strategy was used to identify economically, culturally, and socially diverse communities served by 47 public, religious, and charter schools throughout the metropolitan area. Recruitment materials were sent home with all fifth graders in these schools. Eligible families met the following criteria: (a) there was a fifth-grade youth who attended a sampled school that was not severely learning disabled and was the biological child of a Mexican-origin mother and Mexican-origin father; (b) the biological mother lived with the youth; and (c) no step-father or mother’s boyfriend (other than the biological father) lived with the youth. Of all eligible families, 73% (N = 749) were interviewed. Out of the initial 749 families, 579 families were two-parent households; the remaining 170 families were single-parent, female-headed households. Fathers in the 579 two-parent households were also eligible to participate; 467 (82%) of them agreed. All study materials were available in English and Spanish. Each family member completed computer assisted personal interviews and was paid $45, $50, $55, and $60 at W1–W4, respectively.

At the first wave in fifth grade, 30.1% of mothers, 23.2% of fathers, and 82.4% of adolescents (48.9% female) chose to be interviewed in English and the remaining in Spanish. Adolescent gender was collected as binary with 48.9% identified as girls, and 51.1% as boys. A majority of mothers (74.3%) and fathers (79.9%) were born in Mexico and a majority of adolescents were born in the United States (70.3%). Mothers were 25–54 years old (M = 35.9, Mdn = 35, SD = 5.81). Fathers were 27–63 years old (M = 38.1, Mdn = 37, SD=6.26). Adolescents were 9–12 years old (M = 10.42, Mdn = 10, SD = .55). Both parents reported about 10 years of education (SD_M = 3.67; SD_F = 3.94). Annual family incomes ranged from less than $5000 to more than $95,000 (mean: $30,000–$35,000). Due to the salience of acceptance and parent–adolescent conflict in middle to late adolescence (De Goede et al., 2009; Rodríguez et al., 2014), and to the increasing availability of high-quality measures of discrimination for use with the Latinx population at the time (Brondolo et al., 2005), the current study used data from the third (W3, 10th grade, collected Fall 2009 to Spring 2011) and fourth (W4, 12th grade, collected Fall 2011 to Spring 2013) waves. Of the original 749 families, 85.2% participated in W3, and 83.8% participated in W4.

Attrition analyses examined whether families who participated at W3 and W4, differed on W1 child demographic (i.e., age, nativity, gender, and language at interview), mother demographic (i.e., age, nativity, family annual income, language at interview, and household structure), father demographic (i.e., age, nativity, family annual income, and language at interview) variables, and main study variables from those that did not. Most demographic and main variable comparisons were nonsignificant, though families who participated in W3 (n = 640) reported higher family annual income [t(730) = −2.962, p = .003] and adolescents were more likely to be born in the United States [χ2 (1) = 4.681, p = .041] compared to those who did not participate at W3 (n = 109). Families who participated in W4 (n = 636) reported higher family annual income [t(730) = −3.172, p = .002], adolescents were more likely to be female [χ2 (1) = 8.431, p = .004] and to have completed the baseline interview in English [χ2 (1) = 4.69, p = .043] compared to those who did not (n = 113). Attrition analyses revealed that families who remained in the sample had higher mother-reported mother–adolescent conflict [t(746) = −1.932, p = .054] and higher adolescent-reported acceptance in the father–adolescent relationship [t(502) = −2.345, p = .019] at W1.

Measures

Parental experiences of discrimination (W3)

Parents reported on their experiences of discrimination in past 12 months using the Brief Perceived Ethnic Discrimination Scale–Community Version (Brief PEDQ-CV; Brondolo et al., 2005). The 17-item scale assessed the various social and interpersonal contexts in which Mexican-origin parents might experience discrimination (i.e., Exclusion/Rejection, Stigmatization/Discrimination, Threat/Aggression, Discrimination at Work/School, and Discrimination from Police). This scale was tested and demonstrated good reliability across Latinx college students and adults (e.g., “Have others hinted that you are dishonest or can’t be trusted because you are Mexican or Mexican American?”). Response options ranged from 1 (almost never or never) to 5 (almost always or always). The overall scale Cronbach’s alpha in the current study was .90 for both mothers and fathers.

Parental depressive symptoms (W3)

Consistent with past FSM research (Benner & Kim, 2010; White et al., 2019), parents’ psychological distress was assessed using the 20-item Center for Epidemiological Studies scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977), designed to measure depressive symptomatology in the general population. The measure includes items assessing depressed mood, alienation, and anxiety, which are major psychological distress dimensions specified in FSM (Conger et al., 2010). The CES-D has been used with U.S. Mexican adults (Moscicki et al., 1989). Parents reported on the frequency of depressive symptoms they experienced during the past month (e.g., “You were bothered by things that usually don’t bother you.”), with response options ranging from 1 (rarely or none of the time) to 4 (most or all of the time). Cronbach’s alphas were .92 and .89 for mothers and fathers, respectively.

Acceptance (W3, W4)

Parents and youth reported on acceptance using an 8-item subscale from the Spanish/English language equivalent (Nair et al., 2009) Children’s Report of Parental Behavior Inventory (Schaefer, 1965). Acceptance assessed warmth in the parent–adolescent relationship context (e.g., “Your mother/father made you feel better after talking over your worries with her/him.”), with response options ranging from (1) almost never to (5) almost always. Mothers (W3: α = .88; W4: α = .89) and fathers (W3: α = .85; W4: α = .86) reported on their own acceptance; youth reported on acceptance in the maternal (W3: α = .94; W4: α = .94) and paternal (W3: α = .94; W4: α = .95) relationship context separately.

Parent–adolescent conflict (W3, W4)

Parents and adolescents reported on the frequency of general disagreements and conflicts using the 10-item frequency assessment of Parent-Adolescent Conflict Scale (Ruiz et al., 1998). This scale has previously demonstrated good reliability and construct validity in work with U.S. Mexicans (Gonzales et al., 2018). Participants responded to the scale (e.g., “You and your Mom became very frustrated with each other.”) with options ranging from (1) almost never or never to (5) almost always or always. Mothers (W3: α = .87; W4: α = .88) and fathers (W3: α = .84; W4: α = .91) reported on their perceptions of conflict with youth; youth reported on their conflict levels with mothers (W3: α = .88; W4: α = .87) and fathers (W3: α = .91; W4: α = .93) separately.

Demographics (W1)

Parents reported their nativity (W1), household structure (W3), annual family income (1 = $0.000–$5000 to 20 = $95,001+; W3) and adolescent gender (W1).

Data analyses

Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations were examined for all study variables. The hypothesized intervening variable model (Figure 1) was examined in the full sample of mothers (N = 749) and the subsample of fathers in two-parent households at W1 (n = 579), addressing maximum variability in both samples. Out of the initial 749 families, if the current study only used the 579 two-parent households, then 170 single-parent, female-headed households would have been lost. Since each relationship process was reported by both the parents and adolescents, the hypothesized associations were examined using four separate models: mother-reported relationship processes, adolescent-reported relationship processes with mothers, father-reported relationship processes, and adolescent-reported relationship processes with fathers. Within each model the following associations were examined: the association between discrimination and depressive symptoms (a-path), the associations between depressive symptoms and parent–adolescent relationship processes (b-paths), and the associations between discrimination and parent–adolescent relationship processes (c-paths). Path analysis conducted in Mplus version 8 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2017) was used to estimate all models. Maximum likelihood estimation was used to address missing data (Enders, 2010). We controlled for acceptance and parent–adolescent conflict at W3, offering a test of prospective effects. Family income (W3) was included as a covariate in all models. We included the following W1 variables as auxiliary variables based upon results from the attrition analysis: family income, mother-reported mother–adolescent conflict, and adolescent-reported paternal acceptance.

Multiple group structural equation analyses were used to test (a) whether the full model (a-, b-, and c-paths) generalized across parent nativity or household structure and (b) whether associations between parent discrimination and parent–adolescent relationship processes (c-paths) or parent depressive symptoms and parent–adolescent relationship processes (b-paths) were moderated by adolescent gender. (We did not expect that adolescent gender would moderate the a-path association between parent discrimination and parent depressive symptoms.) All fathers were recruited from two-parent households at W1, resulting in limited variability in household structure in the father subsample at W3; thus, generalizability across household structure was not examined in the father models. Unconstrained models estimated parameters freely across nativity, household structure, or gender. Constrained models estimated a-, b-, and c-path parameters fixed across nativity or household structure, and b- and c-path parameters fixed across adolescent gender. A Satorra–Bentler scaled chi-squared difference test was conducted to determine whether there was a significant difference between the unconstrained and constrained models. A nonsignificant chi-square suggested invariance of the hypothesized paths across parent nativity, household structure, or adolescent gender. A significant chi-square test suggested that associations between variables differed by nativity, household structure, or gender. Because data cannot be missing on a grouping variable, the household structure multiple group models were limited to the 629 mothers who provided data on household structure at W3. Overall model fit was assessed using chi-square χ2 tests (Hu & Bentler, 1999); root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; values less than .05 indicate good fit; values between .05 and .08 indicate fair fit; values greater than .10 indicate poor fit; Browne & Cudeck, 1992); standardized root mean square residual (values less than .08 indicate good fit; SRMR; Hu & Bentler, 1999); and comparative fit index (values greater than .95 indicate good fit; CFI; Hu & Bentler, 1999). We examined the indirect effects of parents’ experiences of discrimination on parent–adolescent relationship processes via higher levels of parental depressive symptoms using the test of joint significance (Leth-Steensen & Gallitto, 2016). Prior research suggests that the test of joint significance holds more power than bias-corrected bootstrapping and produces reasonable Type-I errors rates (Leth-Steensen & Gallitto, 2016).

Results

Preliminary analyses

Descriptive statistics and correlations are presented in Table 1 and Table 2 for mothers and fathers, respectively. Though parents’ average depressive symptoms were at moderately low levels (Mother: M = 1.78, SD = .55; Father: M = 1.58, SD = .43), we used the scoring algorithm produced by Moscicki et al. (1989) and corresponding scale cut-points to characterize the sample relative to risk for clinical depression. Using their approach, 38.0% of mothers and 14.5% of fathers in the sample, were considered at risk for past month clinical depression.

Table 1.

Mothers intervening variable model descriptive statistics and correlation matrix.

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
1. Family income W3	—
2. Discrimination (M) W3	−.10*	—
3. Depressive Sx (M) W3	−.31*	.30*	—
4. Maternal Acc (A) W3	.02	−.12*	−.10*	—
5. Maternal Acc (M) W3	−.06	−.15*	−.10*	.28*	—
6. Maternal Acc (A) W4	.04	−.13*	−.08	.60*	.18*	—
7. Maternal Acc (M) W4	−.08	−.09*	−.05	.25*	.61*	.29*	—
8. M-A conflict (A) W3	.07	.06	.06	−.47*	−.19*	−.28*	−.17*	—
9. M-A conflict (M) W3	.03	.19*	.17*	−.31*	−.41*	−.23*	−.30*	.40*	—
10. M-A conflict (A) W4	.01	.09*	.07	−.38*	−.15*	−.48*	−.23*	.55*	.33*	—
11. M-A conflict (M) W4	.00	.17*	.20*	−.22*	−.27*	−.29*	−.41*	.33*	.59*	.45*	—
Mean	6.96	1.21	1.78	3.79	4.31	3.92	4.29	2.47	2.13	2.27	2.06
SD	4.68	0.35	0.55	0.91	0.58	0.87	0.59	0.73	0.63	0.65	0.63

Note. A = adolescent reported, M = mother reported, Depressive Sx = depressive symptoms, Acc = acceptance, M-A = mother–adolescent, Category 7 in family income = $30,001–35,000. ^* p < .05.

Table 2.

Fathers intervening variable model descriptive statistics and correlation matrix.

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
1. Family income W3	—
2. Discrimination (F) W3	−.10	—
3. Depressive Sx (F) W3	−.22*	.37*	—
4. Paternal Acc (A) W3	.03	−.06	−.09	—
5. Paternal Acc (F) W3	.05	−.02	−.22*	.14*	—
6. Paternal Acc (A) W4	.04	−.05	−.11	.66*	.14*	—
7. Paternal Acc (F) W4	.09	−.06	−.13*	.19*	.62*	.26*	—
8. F-A conflict (A) W3	.07	.01	.02	−.42*	−.06	−.25*	−.03	—
9. F-A conflict (F) W3	.08	.20*	.25*	−.18*	−.17*	−.18*	−.12	.27*	—
10. F-A conflict (A) W4	−.03	.03	.05	−.31*	−.08	−.42*	−.13*	.55*	.31*	—
11. F-A conflict (F) W4	.14*	.13*	.11	−.15*	−.08	−.22*	−.18*	.24*	.60*	.43*	—
Mean	8.12	1.29	1.58	3.55	4.09	3.55	3.99	2.17	1.75	2.04	1.73
SD	5.20	0.41	0.43	1.03	0.63	1.00	0.64	0.77	0.52	0.73	0.52

Note. A = adolescent reported, F = father reported, Depressive Sx = depressive symptoms, Acc = acceptance, F-A = father–adolescent, Category 8 in family income = $35,001–40,000. ^* p < .05.

Mothers intervening variable model

Adolescents’ reports on relationship processes

We present the results using adolescents’ reports on mother–adolescent relationship processes in Figure 2a. Model fit was good by most indicators: χ2 (4) = 17.92, p <.01; CFI = .98; RMSEA = .07; SRMR = .03. Maternal discrimination was positively associated with maternal depressive symptoms, but depressive symptoms did not predict adolescent-reported acceptance or mother–adolescent conflict. Multigroup modeling indicated equivalence across mother nativity [Δχ2 (5) = 5.74, ns], adolescent gender [Δχ2 (4) = 7.18, ns], and household structure [Δχ2 (5) = .06, ns].

Figure 2.

Path models of maternal discrimination, maternal depressive symptomatology, and (a) adolescent and (b) mother reports of acceptance and mother–adolescent conflict. Family income (W3) was included as a covariate. Reported coefficients are standardized. Dashed lines without coefficients were estimated but nonsignificant in the model (N = 749). Note there were gender differences in the association between maternal discrimination and mother-reported acceptance in the multigroup model presented in text.† p < .10, * p < .05, *** p < .001.

Mothers’ reports on relationship processes

We present the results using mothers’ reports on mother–adolescent relationship processes in Figure 2b. Model fit was good by most indicators: χ2 (4) = 16.88, p <.01; CFI = .98; RMSEA = .07; SRMR = .04. Maternal discrimination was positively associated with maternal depressive symptoms; depressive symptoms at W3, in turn, were associated with higher mother–adolescent conflict at W4, after accounting for W3 mother–adolescent conflict. The indirect effect was significant (B = .03 (.01), p < .05). Mothers’ depressive symptoms at W3 were not associated with acceptance at W4, after accounting for W3 acceptance. On average in the sample, discrimination did not have a significant main effect on either maternal acceptance or conflict with adolescents, after accounting for the intervening variable pathways. Multigroup modeling indicated equivalence across mother nativity [Δχ2 (5) = 3.06, ns] and household structure [Δχ2 (5) = 3.11, ns]. For adolescent gender, the nested model comparison identified evidence of gender differences in the model [Δχ2 (4) = 13.34, p < .01], such that the direct association between maternal discrimination and acceptance was significant for boys (B =−.17 (.06), p < .01), but not for girls (B = .03 (.04), ns). The final multigroup model with this path free to vary across the groups represents a good fit to the data by most indicators: χ2 (11) = 26.09, p <.01; CFI = .98; RMSEA = .06; SRMR = .04.

Fathers intervening variable model

Adolescents’ reports on relationship processes

We present the results using adolescents’ reports on father–adolescent relationship processes in Figure 3a. Model fit was good: χ2 (4) = 4.77, p = .31; CFI = .99; RMSEA = .02; SRMR = .02. Paternal discrimination was positively associated with paternal depressive symptoms, but depressive symptoms were not associated with adolescent-reported acceptance or father–adolescent conflict. Multigroup modeling indicated equivalence across father nativity [Δχ2 (5) = 4.07, ns]², and adolescent gender [Δχ2 (4) = 4.77, ns].

Figure 3.

Path models of paternal discrimination, paternal depressive symptomatology, and (a) adolescent and (b) father reports of acceptance and father–adolescent conflict. Family income (W3) was included as a covariate. Reported coefficients are standardized. Dashed lines were estimated, but nonsignificant in the model (n = 579).*** p < .001.

Fathers’ reports on relationship processes

We present the results using fathers’ reports on father–adolescent relationship processes in Figure 3b. Some model fit indicators suggested a good-to-fair fit: χ2 (4) = 29.79, p < .001; CFI = .92; SRMR = .05, while one indicator suggested a poorer fit: RMSEA = .11. Paternal discrimination was positively associated with paternal depressive symptoms, but depressive symptoms were not associated with father-reported acceptance or father–adolescent conflict. Multigroup modeling indicated equivalence across father nativity [Δχ2 (5) = 5.91, ns]², and adolescent gender [Δχ2 (4) = 7.02, ns].

Discussion

Within the context of racism (Clark et al., 1999), discrimination is a stressor faced by many Latinx families (Ayón et al., 2017; Frabutt et al., 2002). In this study, we examined an integrative family stress model whereby U.S. Mexican parents’ exposure to discrimination was expected to predict higher levels of conflict and lower levels of acceptance in the parent–adolescent relationship via elevations in parental depressive symptomatology. We tested the hypothesized model in a full sample of mothers from single- and two-parent households (N = 749) and a subsample of fathers in two-parent households (n = 579) to address the salient role of mothers’ and fathers’ experiences of discrimination on their relationships with their adolescents. We found partial support for the hypothesized model. First, maternal experiences of discrimination were associated with higher maternal depressive symptoms and these, in turn, predicted higher mother-reported mother–adolescent conflict two-years later. Additionally, for boys, mothers’ experiences of discrimination predicted declines in mother-reported acceptance 2 years later that were not explained by elevations in maternal depressive symptoms. We also found that, like mothers, paternal experiences of discrimination were associated with higher depressive symptoms. Fathers’ depressive symptoms, however, did not predict father–adolescent relationship processes, and this pattern replicated across reporters. Finally, with the exception of the boy-only findings for the direct association between maternal experiences of discrimination and acceptance, all other findings in the mother and father models generalized across parent nativity and adolescent gender. Additionally, the mother models generalized across household structure.

Evidence of indirect and direct associations between maternal exposure to discrimination and mother–adolescent relationships

Consistent with the integrative FSM, elevated maternal depressive symptoms accounted for the association between maternal exposure to discrimination and higher levels of mother-reported mother–adolescent conflict. This finding extends prior FSM research that focused on other stressors (Helms et al., 2014; White et al., 2009) and highlights discrimination as a salient stressor for U.S. Mexican mothers with implications for disruptions in important family relationship processes, especially increases in mother–adolescent conflict. It also extends current work on Latinx families by demonstrating the prospective effect of discrimination as a distinct stressor in a broad social context on parent–adolescent relationships (Conger et al., 2012; Lorenzo-Blanco et al., 2017; Wheeler et al., 2015). Overall, discrimination operated as an important stressor that disrupted the mother–adolescent relationship by corresponding to higher maternal depressive symptoms and, in turn, mother–adolescent conflict.

The integrative FSM finding, however, was not replicated with adolescents’ reports on mother–adolescent conflict. Prior work suggested that adolescents may report on the general parent–adolescent relationship context instead of reflecting on a particular parent’s behavior (Tein et al., 1994). Thus, adolescents’ reports may reflect a combination of maternal and paternal relationship processes. To the extent that hypothesized associations differed by parenting role, which is theoretically plausible (White et al., 2018), adolescent reports may not have been the best instruments to detect such patterns. Finally, though the mother report model relied on a single reporter for all study constructs, which commonly prompts concerns for shared method variance, this is less likely a substantial confound in the current models because we controlled for earlier levels of maternal reports on mother–adolescent conflict and because reports were separated by 2 years. These design aspects substantially reduce, but may not eliminate, the influence of shared method variance.

Inconsistent with the integrative FSM, maternal exposure to discrimination predicted decreases in mother-reported acceptance toward boys, but not girls. This association was not explained by higher levels of maternal depressive symptoms. The negative association between maternal discrimination and acceptance in the mother-son relationship context may not be a disruption, as expected by the FSM, because the association was not explained by higher levels of depressive symptoms. Instead, consistent with the integrative model, declines in maternal acceptance toward sons in response to mothers’ earlier exposures to discrimination might be a parenting adaptation (García Coll et al., 1996; White et al., 2018). Mothers’ exposures to discrimination might prompt them to display less acceptance toward their sons as a way to “toughen up” boys and prepare them for future racism-related challenges. Alternatively, the FSM intervening variable pathway tested in the current study, depressive symptomatology, might not be sufficient in explaining variability in the association between maternal exposure to discrimination and later declines in acceptance for boys in U.S. Mexican families. Future studies might want to consider other FSM intervening mechanisms, such as interparental conflict.

Evidence that discrimination is associated with higher levels of parents’ depressive symptoms

Consistent with findings in U.S. Latinx adults (Finch et al., 2000; Ornelas & Perreira, 2011; Negi, 2013), both bivariate correlations and path analyses demonstrated that U.S. Mexican parents’ exposure to discrimination was concurrently associated with elevated levels of depressive symptoms. The current results suggest that the experience of discrimination was a salient stressor for U.S. Mexican mothers and fathers. Despite the positive association between parents’ exposure to discrimination and depressive symptoms, and contrary to the FSM, depressive symptoms did not predict later maternal and paternal acceptance or paternal parent–child conflict. This finding is inconsistent with the FSM, which suggests that parental psychological distress associated with exposure to environmental stressors will disrupt family relationships (Conger et al., 2012).

In the case of these U.S. Mexican parents, their depressive symptoms did not lead to decreases in acceptance or increases in father–adolescent conflict. This finding coincides with previous work with a separate sample of U.S. Mexican parents with adolescents, which showed that workplace discrimination experiences and associated depressive symptoms predicted some disruptions to mother–adolescent relationships, but no disruptions to father–adolescent relationships (Wheeler et al., 2015). Thus, some alternative processes, ones that are protective in the putative links between parental depressive symptoms and parent–adolescent relationships, may exist for U.S. Mexican families to maintain high levels of acceptance and, for fathers and adolescents to maintain lower levels of parent–adolescent conflict despite parents’ elevated depressive symptomatology. In light of this early replication of findings across the current study and the Wheeler et al. (2015) study, additional work is needed to understand the mechanisms via which U.S. Mexican families, on average, protect the parent–adolescent relationship context from parents’ depressive symptomatology. Some possible moderation mechanisms should be investigated, for example, acculturation (Gassman-Pines, 2015), parents’ familism values (White, Knight, et al., 2015), and adolescent age (Pérez et al., 2018). Past research showed that the associations between parents’ workplace discrimination experiences, parents’ anxious moods, and parent–child interactions varied by parents’ acculturation levels among Mexican immigrant parents with young children (Gassman-Pines, 2015). Acculturation may alter parents’ psychological reactions and parenting in the face of discrimination, as greater cultural competence in the dominant culture may enable parents to better address discrimination experiences and buffer its effects on family (García Coll et al., 1996; Gassman-Pines, 2015). Theoretically, U.S. Mexican families’ strong emphasis on familism values, specifically focusing on perceiving family as an important part of self and providing tangible care to family members, may attenuate the negative effects of parental depressive symptoms on family relationships (White, Knight, et al., 2015), but an initial investigation of this hypothesis, one not focused on acceptance or parent–child conflict, did not find such evidence (White et al., 2019). Additionally, the extent to which familism attenuates such effects might depend on proximal family context (Kapke et al., 2017) and environmental stresses such as discrimination (Umaña-Taylor et al., 2011). Highly familistic parents tend to receive more childrearing support from extended family, which might help relieve some of their parenting stress (Calzada et al., 2013). The association between parental depressive symptoms and disrupted parent–adolescent relationship processes may also differ by adolescent age (Pérez et al., 2018), as parenting demands may vary at different developmental stages. Examining the roles of these moderators might help improve family scholars’ understanding of processes that can prevent these parents’ psychological distress from disrupting critical aspects of the parent–adolescent relationship.

Limitations, conclusions, and future directions

Extending beyond previous examinations of discrimination and Latinx family processes, this study examined an integrative FSM of discrimination disrupting key aspects of the parent–adolescent relationship in U.S. Mexican families using a prospective and broad social contextual framework. Though the findings advanced understanding of discrimination as a distinct stressor and its influence on parental depression and parent–adolescent relationships in U.S. Mexican families, they should be interpreted in light of limitations. First, data on parental discrimination and depressive symptoms were collected concurrently. Therefore, we were not able to test the full mediational effect of discrimination predicting parent–adolescent relationship processes via changes in depressive symptoms. Future work should examine these associations using three waves of data. Second, to recognize both parents’ and adolescents’ views and address issues of causal ordering, we used parents’ and adolescents’ reports of relationship processes and controlled for relationship processes at the earlier wave. However, all significant associations observed in the path models were based on same-reporter data. Third, the model of fathers’ reports on father–adolescent relationship processes demonstrated a poorer fit according to one index and should, therefore, be interpreted cautiously. Fourth, because mothers were from both single- and two-parent households, we conducted separate analyses for mothers and fathers in the current study. We also found that our hypothesized associations did not differ by mothers’ household structure. This method, however, did not allow for statistical comparisons between mothers’ and fathers’ experiences. Future studies might want to examine partner and actor effects within two-parent households (e.g., Gassman-Pines, 2015), or compare the experiences of fathers in single-father versus two-parent households.

The current study only assessed acceptance and conflict as key parent–adolescent relationship processes. Future work should examine additional aspects of the parent–adolescent relationship, especially any underexplored aspects that may be particularly salient in the U.S. Mexican father–adolescent relationship context, to gain a more comprehensive understanding on how U.S. Mexican families are influenced by discrimination. In addition to more general forms of parent–adolescent conflict, future research should examine forms of conflict that may be particularly salient in first-generation immigrant family context, like intergenerational cultural conflict (Lui, 2015). Since the majority of parents in this sample were Mexico-born and adolescents were U.S.-born, intergenerational cultural conflict might be an important aspect of parent–adolescent relationship processes. We did not collect detailed sample demographic information on gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, or race. Future research should collect information on these social position variables to gain a more comprehensive understanding of sample diversity and positionality. Finally, the most advanced version of the FSM recognizes parental psychological distress as the primary FSM mechanism linking environmental stressors to family processes disruptions (Masarik & Conger, 2017). Considering that our sample included both two-parent households and single-parent, female-headed households, we focused on parental psychological distress as an FSM explanatory mechanism that can be relevant for both family types (Masarik & Conger, 2017). Though our measure of depressive symptoms has been used in prior FSM scholarship (Benner & Kim, 2010; White et al., 2019) and included items that assessed major psychological distress aspects of depressed mood, alienation, and anxiety as specified in the FSM (Conger et al., 2010; Radloff, 1977), the CES-D is not a comprehensive assessment of psychological distress. Future research may want to assess the broader psychological distress construct to test similar models. Because the association between maternal discrimination and mother-reported acceptance was not explained by maternal depressive symptoms, future studies may want to examine whether interparental conflict, another salient FSM construct (Masarik & Conger, 2017), can help explain this association.

The current study examined an integrative FSM of parental discrimination on parent–adolescent relationship processes via parental depressive symptoms. Overall, the findings underscored discrimination as a salient stressor that is associated with higher levels of depressive symptoms for U.S. Mexican mothers and fathers. Maternal exposure to discrimination might further trigger higher levels of mother–adolescent conflict via higher depressive symptoms. The disruptive effect of maternal discrimination on acceptance for only boys was not explained by maternal depressive symptoms, suggesting that other mechanisms may be at play. Altogether, this study’s findings suggest that discrimination is an important concern for family providers, researchers, and policymakers. With better understanding of how discrimination impacts U.S. Mexican family relationships, including the parent–adolescent relationship, future studies can examine how to support families in the context of racism. It will also be important to examine the ways in which U.S. Mexican families are mitigating the longitudinal implications of elevated parental depressive symptomatology for disruptions to the parent–adolescent relationship. Extending beyond the current findings, future work should continue to examine the influence of structural barriers, such as anti-immigrant policies, labor practices, and institutional discrimination, that situate many Latinxs in socially vulnerable and inequitable positions.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study is supported by William T. Grant Foundation (ID 182878) and National Institute of Mental Health and (R01-MH68920).

Authors’ note

Part of this paper was presented at the National Council on Family Relations Annual Conference, November 20–23, 2019, Fort Worth, TX.

Open research statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the authors have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered. The data used in the research are not available. The materials used in the research are not available.

ORCID iDs

Chang Zhao

Rebecca M. B. White

Notes

References

Almeida

Biello

K. B.

Pedraza

Wintner

Viruell-Fuentes

(2016). The association between anti-immigrant policies and perceived discrimination among Latinos in the U. S: A multilevel analysis. SSM - Population Health, 2, 897–903. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2016 .11.003

Armsden

G. C.

Greenberg

M. T.

(1987). The inventory of parent and peer attachment: Individual differences and their relationship to psychological well-being in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16(5), 427–454. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02202939

Ayón

García

S. J.

(2019). Latino immigrant parents’ experiences with discrimination: Implications for parenting in a hostile immigration policy context. Journal of Family Issues, 40(6), 805–831. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X19827988

Ayón

Valencia-Garcia

Kim

S. H.

(2017). Latino immigrant families and restrictive immigration climate: Perceived experiences with discrimination, threat to family, social exclusion, children’s vulnerability, and related factors. Race and Social Problems, 9(4), 300–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12552-017-9215-z

Barajas-Gonzalez

R. G.

Ayón

Torres

(2018). Applying a community violence framework to understand the impact of immigration enforcement threat on Latino children. Social Policy Report, 31(3), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/sop2.1

Benner

A. D.

Kim

S. Y.

(2010). Understanding Chinese American adolescents’ developmental outcomes: Insights from the family stress model. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20(1), 1–12.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2009.00629.x

Benner

A. D.

Wang

Shen

Boyle

A. E.

Polk

Cheng

Y.-P.

(2018). Racial/ethnic discrimination and well-being during adolescence: A meta-analytic review. American Psychologist, 73(7), 855–883. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000204

Brondolo

Kelly

K. P.

Coakley

Gordon

Thompson

Levy

Cassells

Tobin

J. N.

Sweeney

Contrada

R. J.

(2005). The perceived ethnic discrimination questionnaire: Development and preliminary validation of a community version. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(2), 335–365. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02124.x

Browne

M. W.

Cudeck

(1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 230–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005

10.

Calzada

E. J.

Tamis-LeMonda

C. S.

Yoshikawa

(2013). Familismo in Mexican and Dominican families from low-income, urban communities. Journal of Family Issues, 34(12), 1696–1724. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X12460218

11.

Clark

Anderson

N. B.

Clark

V. R.

Williams

D. R.

(1999). Racism as a stressor for African Americans: A biopsychosocial model. American Psychologist, 54(10), 805–816. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.10.805

12.

Conger

R. D.

Conger

K. J.

Martin

M. J.

(2010). Socioeconomic status, family processes, and individual development. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 685-704. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00725.x

13.

Conger

R. D.

Elder

G. H.,

Jr. (1994). Families in troubled times. DeGruyter.

14.

Conger

R. D.

Song

Stockdale

G. D.

Ferrer

Widaman

K. F.

Cauce

A. M.

(2012). Resilience and vulnerability of Mexican origin youth and their families: A test of a culturally informed model of family economic stress. In Kerig

P. K.

Schulz

M. S.

Hauser

S. T.

Kerig

P. K.

Schulz

M. S.

Hauser

S. T.

(Eds.), Adolescence and beyond: Family processes and development (pp. 268–286). Oxford University Press. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199736546 .003.0017

15.

Crockett

L. J.

Brown

Russell

S. T.

Shen

(2007). The meaning of good parent-child relationships for Mexican American adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17(4), 639–668. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2007.00539.x

16.

Cruz

R. A.

King

K. M.

Widaman

K. F.

Leu

Cauce

A. M.

Conger

R. D.

(2011). Cultural influences on positive father involvement in two-parent Mexican-origin families. Journal of Family Psychology, 25(5), 731–740. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025128

17.

De Goede

I. H. A.

Branje

S. J. T.

Meeus

W. H. J.

(2009). Developmental changes in adolescents’ perceptions of relationships with their parents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(1), 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-008-9286-7

18.

Delgado

M. Y.

Killoren

S. E.

Updegraff

K. A.

(2013). Economic hardship and Mexican-origin adolescents’ adjustment: Examining adolescents’ perceptions of hardship and parent–adolescent relationship quality. Journal of Family Psychology, 27(5), 827–837. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033737

19.

Enders

C. K.

(2010). Applied missing data analysis. Guilford Press.

20.

Finch

B. K.

Kolody

Vega

W. A.

(2000). Perceived discrimination and depression among Mexican-origin adults in California. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 41(3), 295–313. https://doi.org/10.2307/2676322

21.

Frabutt

J. M.

Walker

A. M.

MacKinnon-Lewis

(2002). Racial socialization messages and the quality of mother/child interactions in African American families. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 22(2), 200–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431602022002004

22.

García Coll

Lamberty

Jenkins

McAdoo

H. P.

Crnic

Wasik

B. H.

Vázquez García

(1996). An integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in minority children. Child Development, 67(5), 1891–1914. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131600

23.

Gassman-Pines

(2015). Effects of Mexican immigrant parents’ daily workplace discrimination on child behavior and family functioning. Child Development, 86(4), 1175–1190. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12378

24.

Gonzales

N. A.

Knight

G. P.

Gunn

H. J.

Tein

J. Y.

Tanaka

White

(2018). Intergenerational gaps in Mexican American values trajectories: Associations with parent-adolescent conflict and adolescent psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 30(5), 1611–1627. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579418001256

25.

Helms

H. M.

Supple

A. J.

Rodriguez

Cavanaugh

A. M.

Hengstebeck

N. D.

(2014). Economic pressure, cultural adaptation stress, and marital quality among Mexican-origin couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 28(1), 77-87. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035738

26.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

27.

Kapke

T. L.

Grace

M. A.

Gerdes

A. C.

Lawton

K. E.

(2017). Latino early adolescent mental health: Examining the impact of family functioning, familism, and global self-worth. Journal of Latina/o Psychology, 5(1), 27–44. https://doi.org/10.1037/lat0000057

28.

Krogstad

J. M.

López

(2016). Roughly half of Hispanics have experienced discrimination. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/29/roughly-half-of-hispanics-have-experienced-discrimination/

29.

Laursen

(2005). Conflict between mothers and adolescents in single-mother, blended, and two-biological- parent families. Parenting: Science and Practice, 5(4), 347–370. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327922par0504_3

30.

Leth-Steensen

Gallitto

(2016). Testing mediation in structural equation modeling: The effectiveness of the test of joint significance. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 76(2), 339–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164415593777

31.

Lopez

M. H.

Gonzalez-Barrera

Krogstad

J. M.

(2018, October 25). Latinos and discrimination. https://www.pewhispanic.org/2018/10/25/latinos-and-discrimination/

32.

Lorenzo‐Blanco

E. I.

Meca

Unger

J. B.

Romero

Szapocznik

Piña‐Watson

Cano

M. Á.

Zamboanga

B. L.

Baezconde-Garbanati

Des Rosiers

S. E.

Soto

D. W.

Villamar

J. A.

Lizzi

K. M.

Pattarroyo

Schwartz

S. J.

(2017). Longitudinal effects of Latino parent cultural stress, depressive symptoms, and family functioning on youth emotional well‐being and health risk behaviors. Family Process, 56(4), 981–996. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12258

33.

Lui

P. P

(2015). Intergenerational cultural conflict, mental health, and educational outcomes among Asian and Latino/a Americans: Qualitative and meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 141(2), 404–446. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038449

34.

Masarik

A. S.

Conger

R. D.

(2017). Stress and child development: A review of the family stress model. Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 85–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.05.008

35.

Moscicki

E. K.

Locke

B. Z.

Rae

D. S.

Boyd

J. H.

(1989). Depressive symptoms among Mexican Americans: The hispanic health and nutrition examination survey. American Journal of Epidemiology, 130(2), 348–360. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a115341

36.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998-2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Muthén, & Muthén.

37.

Nair

R. L.

White

R. M. B.

Knight

G. P.

Roosa

M. W.

(2009). Cross-language measurement equivalence of parenting measures for use with Mexican American populations. Journal of Family Psychology, 23(5), 680–689. https://doi.org/:10.1037/a0016142

38.

National Public Radio, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, & Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health . (2017, October).Discrimination in America: Experiences and views of Latinos. https://legacy.npr.org/documents/2017/oct/discrimination-latinos-final.pdf

39.

Negi

N. J.

(2013). Battling discrimination and social isolation: Psychological distress among Latino day laborers. American Journal of Community Psychology, 51(1–2), 164–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-012-9548-0

40.

Ornelas

I. J.

Perreira

K. M.

(2011). The role of migration in the development of depressive symptoms among Latino immigrant parents in the USA. Social Science & Medicine, 73(8), 1169–1177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.07.002

41.

Pérez

J. C.

Coo

Irarrázaval

(2018). Is maternal depression related to mother and adolescent reports of family functioning? Journal of Adolescence, 63, 129–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2017.12.013

42.

Pérez

D. J.

Fortuna

Alegría

(2008). Prevalence and correlates of everyday discrimination among U.S. Latinos. Journal of Community Psychology, 36(4), 421–433. https://doi.org/:10.1002/jcop.20221

43.

Prelow

H. M.

Weaver

S. R.

Bowman

M. A.

Swenson

R. R.

(2010). Predictors of parenting among economically disadvantaged Latina mothers: Mediating and moderating factors. Journal of Community Psychology, 38(7), 858–873. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20400

44.

Radloff

L. S.

(1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1(3), 385–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662167700100306

45.

Rodríguez

S. A.

Perez-Brena

N. J.

Updegraff

K. A.

Umaña-Taylor

A. J.

(2014). Emotional closeness in Mexican-origin adolescents' relationships with mothers, fathers, and same-sex friends. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(12), 1953–1968. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-0004-8

46.

Roosa

M. W.

Liu

F. F.

Torres

Gonzales

N. A.

Knight

G. P.

Saenz

(2008). Sampling and recruitment in studies of cultural influences on adjustment: A case study with Mexican Americans. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(2), 293–302. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/0893-3200.22.2.293

47.

Ruiz

S. Y.

Gonzales

N. A.

Formoso

(1998). Multicultural, multidimensional assessment of parent-adolescent conflict. Paper presented at the Seventh. Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research on Adolescence.

48.

Schaefer

E. S.

(1965). Children's reports of parental behavior: An inventory. Child Development, 36(2), 413–424. https://doi.org/10.2307/1126465

49.

Taylor

S. E.

Klein

L. C.

Lewis

B. P.

Gruenewald

T. L.

Gurung

R. A. R.

Updegraff

J. A.

(2000). Biobehavioral responses to stress in females: Tend-and-befriend, not fight-or-flight. Psychological Review, 107(3), 411–429. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.107.3.411

50.

Tein

Roosa

M. W.

Michaels

(1994). Agreement between parent and child reports on parental behaviors. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56(2), 341–355. https://doi.org/10.2307/353104

51.

Umaña-Taylor

A. J.

Updegraff

K. A.

Gonzales-Backen

M. A.

(2011). Mexican-origin adolescent mothers’ stressors and psychosocial functioning: examining ethnic identity affirmation and familism as moderators. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40(2), 140–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-010-9511-z

52.

U.S. Census Bureau . (2020), June 25). 65 and older population grows rapidly as baby boomers age . https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2020/65-older-population-grows.html

53.

Viruell-Fuentes

Miranda

P. Y.

Abdulrahim

(2012). More than culture: Structural racism, intersectionality theory, and immigrant health. Social Science & Medicine, 75(12), 2099-2106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.12.037

54.

Weymouth

B. B.

Buehler

Zhou

Henson

R. A.

(2016). A meta‐analysis of parent–adolescent conflict: Disagreement, hostility, and youth maladjustment. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 8(1), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12126

55.

Wheeler

L. A.

Updegraff

K. A.

Crouter

(2015). Mexican-origin parents’ work conditions and adolescents’ adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 29(3), 447–457. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000085

56.

White

R. M. B.

Liu

Nair

R. L.

Tein

J. Y.

(2015a). Longitudinal and integrative tests of family stress model effects on Mexican origin adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 51(5), 649–662. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038993

57.

White

R. M. B.

Knight

G. P.

Roosa

M. W.

(2015b). Using culturally informed theory to study Mexican American children and families. In Caldera

Y. M.

Lindsey

E. W.

(Eds.), Mexican American children and families: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 27–43). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

58.

White

R. M. B.

Nair

R. L.

Bradley

R. H.

(2018). Theorizing the benefits and costs of adaptive cultures for development. American Psychologist, 73(6), 727–739. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000237

59.

White

R. M. B.

Pasco

M. C.

Gonzales

N. A.

Knight

G. P.

Burleson

(2019). U.S. Mexican parents’ use of harsh parenting in the context of neighborhood danger. Journal of Family Psychology, 33(1), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000447

60.

White

R. M. B.

Roosa

M. W.

Weaver

S. R.

Nair

R. L.

(2009). Cultural and contextual influences on parenting in Mexican American families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71(1), 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00580.x

61.

Zeiders

K. H.

Umaña-Taylor

A. J.

Updegraff

K. A.

Jahromi

L. B.

(2015). An idiographic and nomothetic approach to the study of Mexican-origin adolescent mothers’ socio-cultural stressors and adjustment. Prevention Science, 16(3), 386–396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-014-0502-2