Acculturative Stress and Psychological Distress Among Latinx Youth: Moderating Role of Family Cohesion and Conflict

Abstract

This study examined family cohesion and conflict as moderators of associations between discrimination stress and adaptation stress and psychological distress among Latinx youth. Participants included 199 Latinx adolescents (Mage = 13.68). Seventy nine percent were immigrants and 73% had family origins in Mexico. Discrimination stress and adaptation stress had differential associations with psychological distress and with indices of family functioning. Hierarchical regression analysis found significant interactions of family cohesion with both adaptation and discrimination stress. High levels of family cohesion protected against negative effects of discrimination stress. Although high levels of family cohesion were associated with less distress overall, family cohesion appeared to potentiate negative effects of adaptation stress. Results suggest a complex relation of family cohesion with Latinx youths’ emotional well-being, pointing to the need for research examining the role of extra-familial support resources for helping those youth overcome acculturative stress.

Keywords

hispanic/latino/latina acculturation family relations/processes mental health

Introduction

With the Latinx population steadily increasing and now constituting the largest ethnic minority group in the United States (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2017), research has increasingly explored the effects of acculturation on the wellbeing of Latinx immigrant families. Studies have documented positive associations between acculturative stress and psychological distress among both Latinx immigrants (i.e., born outside of the U.S.) and Latinx U.S.-born children of immigrants (e.g., Hovey & King, 1996; Lorenzo-Blanco & Unger, 2015). Emerging literature supports a distinction between acculturative stress related to experiencing discrimination and adapting to cultural differences, as these experiences are differentially related to youth and adult outcomes (Driscoll & Torres, 2022; Lorenzo-Blanco & Unger, 2015; Roche & Kuperminc, 2012; Suarez-Morales et al., 2007; Suarez-Morales & Lopez, 2009).

Factors that can mitigate psychological distress among Latinx youth from immigrant families (i.e., they and/or their parent(s) are born outside of the U.S.) are particularly important in light of findings of an elevated prevalence of depression, especially among girls, and suicide attempts among Latinx adolescents (Kann et al., 2018). Additionally, studies have indicated that immigration-related stress (e.g., being questioned due to immigration policies and worry about detention and deportation of family members, respectively) predict elevated risk for both internalizing (including suicide ideation) and externalizing problems (Roche et al., 2021). As U.S.-born and immigrant youth experience the challenges associated with adolescence while also navigating the process of acculturation (Fuligni, 2001), there is a need for research to examine factors that reduce the negative effects of acculturative stress on the wellbeing of Latinx adolescents. The current study examined moderating effects of two dimensions of family functioning, cohesion and conflict, on the associations between acculturative stress and psychological distress among Latinx youth from immigrant families.

Acculturative Stress and Psychological Wellbeing

Acculturative stress has been defined as the psychological strain resulting from the experience of acculturation, or the process of coming into contact with a new, dominant culture (Berry, 1997). Hovey and King (1996) examined the association between overall levels of acculturative stress, depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation in a sample of immigrant and U.S.-born Latinx youth and found that adolescents experiencing high levels of acculturative stress were at greater risk of reporting critical levels of depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation. Further research has indicated that acculturative stress is associated with psychological distress among Latinx immigrant and U.S.-born youth (Lorenzo-Blanco & Unger, 2015; Rivera, 2005; Romero & Roberts, 2003; Sirin et al., 2013).

Recent research identifies at least two domains of acculturative stress that individuals must address in order to overcome feelings of anxiety, confusion, marginality, and conflict (Mena et al., 1987; Roche & Kuperminc, 2012). Although these dimensions (and the corresponding terminology) differ somewhat across studies, the dimensions generally reflect stress attributed to experiences of discrimination and stress attributed to the process of cultural adaptation. In this study we use the term discrimination stress to refer to perceived stress from unfair differential treatment based on group membership (e.g., getting less credit for one’s work due to being Latinx; Roche & Kuperminc, 2012). We use the term adaptation stress to refer to perceived stress that results from being away from the family’s native country and learning a new language (e.g., navigating different cultural norms, communicating in English; Roche & Kuperminc, 2012).

Research suggests that discrimination stress and adaptation stress can have differential associations with behavioral and emotional well-being. Suarez-Morales et al. (2007), using exploratory factor analysis, identified two independent factors of the Acculturative Stress Inventory for Children in a diverse sample of fifth grade students: perceived discrimination and immigration-related stress. Perceived discrimination showed stronger association with daily hassles and anxiety symptoms than did immigration-related stress. Similarly, Roche & Kuperminc (2012) study of Latinx adolescents used an exploratory factor analysis of the Societal, Attitudinal, Familial, and Environmental Acculturation Stress Scale (SAFE; Mena et al., 1987) to identify two factors, which they labeled as immigration-related (adaptation) stress and discrimination stress. They found that U.S.-born youth and immigrant youth who arrived in the U.S. at a young age experienced lower levels of adaptation stress than more recent immigrants, but that immigrants and U.S.-born youth experienced similar levels of discrimination stress (Roche & Kuperminc, 2012). Using these same dimensions, Barrett, Lewis, & Kuperminc, 2013 found that adaptation stress was negatively associated with gang involvement among a sample of Latinx youth. They also found that discrimination stress predicted higher levels of gang involvement among U.S.-born youth (Barrett et al., 2013). Thus, adaptation and discrimination stress appear to function differently in relation to behavioral and mental health outcomes. What is not known, however, is whether the associations between dimensions of acculturative stress and mental health differ in families characterized by varying levels of cohesion and conflict (Kuperminc et al., 2009).

Family Cohesion and Conflict

For the purposes of this study, family refers to the nuclear, or immediate family of the participants. We consider family cohesion and family conflict as two related, but distinct constructs describing family functioning. Family cohesion is defined as an emotional bonding between family members and typically includes feelings and behaviors of shared affection, supportiveness, helpfulness, and connectedness (Barber & Buehler, 1996; Olson et al., 2019). Family cohesion is typically conceptualized as a facet of a positive family climate and has been shown to be associated with higher levels of subjective wellbeing, as well as lower risk of aggression and emotional distress (Buehler, 2020; Fosco et al., 2012). Family conflict is defined as feelings and expressions of anger and aggression between family members (Carver & Jones, 1992). Whereas conflict is a normative aspect of family functioning, escalating family conflict (e.g., physical violence, frequent expressions of anger and resentment) is associated with negative youth outcomes, such as aggression and psychological distress (Fosco et al., 2012; Reinherz et al., 2003). Accordingly, family conflict is conceptualized as reflecting a negative family climate and is associated with overall poorer adjustment, and a greater risk of aggression and emotional distress (Buehler, 2020; Fosco et al., 2012).

Family cohesion and conflict have been shown to be important in the development of Latinx adolescents (Schwartz et al., 2005). Studies have demonstrated that emotional closeness within the family is protective against acculturative stress in Latinx adolescents (Hovey & King, 1996). Additionally, family cohesion was found to buffer the negative association between parent-adolescent conflict and self-esteem among Latinx adolescents (Li & Warner, 2015) and to be protective against externalizing behaviors in a sample of acculturating Mexican adolescents (Marsiglia et al., 2009). Hovey and King (1996) posited that within Latinx families, family closeness functions as a mechanism of social support, thereby protecting against external stressors. This is specifically noted as being salient within Latinx families as many Latinx cultures place high importance on family and family members tend to rely on each other for emotional support (Hovey & King, 1996).

Research indicates that parent-adolescent conflict is associated with internalizing symptoms among Latinx youth (Smokowski et al., 2010). Furthermore, studies have shown that among Latinx families, parent-adolescent acculturation conflict is positively associated with depressive symptoms (Huq et al., 2016), and parent-adolescent conflict is negatively associated with self-esteem (Li & Warner, 2015). As Latinx culture places a high importance on family, research suggests that family conflict has the potential to exacerbate stress within Latinx families. A recent study of Japanese adolescents revealed that family conflict moderated the relationship between acculturative stress and depression, with family conflict exacerbating the effects of acculturative stress (Roley et al., 2014). Though there is evidence of a moderating effect of family conflict, such that conflict exacerbates negative effects, this effect has not been examined among Latinx youth.

Psychological Distress

Psychological distress refers to the experience of unpleasant emotions, including depression, anxiety, and threats to self-esteem and wellbeing (Weinberger & Schwartz, 1990). Latinx youth are especially susceptible to psychological distress as they experience acculturative stress coupled with a greater likelihood of low socioeconomic resources, exposure to discrimination and violence, and low educational attainment (Kuperminc et al., 2009). Compared to their non-Latinx peers, Latinx adolescents experience higher levels of depression and anxiety (McLaughlin et al., 2007) and are more likely to report suicidal ideation (Kann et al., 2018). Although research has examined the numerous risks Latinx youth face, less is known about the specific factors that can mitigate risk for psychological distress among Latinx adolescents.

The Role of Acculturation-related Factors

The associations of acculturative stress with psychological distress among Latinx youth may vary across dimensions of acculturation (Hale & Kuperminc, 2021), including language preference, immigration status, and family national origin. Measures of language preference seek to capture the process by which immigrants integrate a second language, the language of a dominant culture (Marín & Marín, 1991). Language preference has typically been conceptualized as a primary component in the measurement of acculturation and has been shown to be directly related to mental health outcomes among youth (Hale & Kuperminc, 2021; Lawton & Gerdes, 2014). A recent systematic review of acculturative stress among U.S.-residing Latinx immigrants found that English language skills protect against acculturative stress (Bekteshi & Kang, 2018). In this study, immigration status refers to whether the individual is an immigrant (i.e., born outside of the U.S.) or was born in the U.S. to an immigrant parent. Research has shown that acculturative stress functions differently for U.S. born and immigrant Latinx youth (Romero & Piña-Watson, 2017; Sirin et al., 2013). For example, Barrett et al. (2013), found that when predicting levels of gang involvement, the effects of discrimination stress and adaptation stress differed for U.S.-born youth and immigrant youth. Finally, it is important in studies of Latinx youth to consider variation in the family’s country of origin, as such variation can account for differences in the reasons that families migrated as well as differences in their reception upon arrival to the U.S. (Kuperminc et al., 2009). These findings point to the importance of accounting for the variability posed by youths’ background when examining nuanced effects of acculturative stress.

Present Study

In summary, prior research indicates that family functioning is a critical resource in helping Latinx youth navigate acculturative stressors. Based on these findings, we examined the moderating roles of family cohesion and conflict on the associations between two dimensions of acculturative stress (adaptation stress and discrimination stress) and psychological distress in a sample of predominantly immigrant Latinx youth. To identify potential covariates, we first explored variation in the experience of acculturative stress, family cohesion, and family conflict as a function of immigration status (i.e., born outside of the U.S. or born in the U.S. to an immigrant parent), English language preference, and family national origin. The main analysis examined whether family cohesion and family conflict moderate the associations of acculturative stress with psychological distress. We hypothesized that higher levels of family cohesion would buffer the associations of cultural adaptation stress and discrimination stress with psychological distress. We also hypothesized that higher levels of family conflict would strengthen the associations of both dimensions of acculturative stress with psychological distress.

Method

Participants

The current study is a secondary analysis of data collected in 2002 and 2003. Participants included 199 Latinx students (M_age = 13.68) from an ethnically diverse middle school located in the southeastern U.S. Fifty-eight percent of the participants were female. Seventy-nine percent were immigrants, and 73% had family origins in Mexico. The remaining 27% had family origins in Central America, South America, and the Caribbean (Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, or Cuba). About half of the participants were in the seventh grade (52%). The remaining (48%) participants were in the eighth grade. Sixteen percent of participants lived in single-parent households. The public middle school from which the sample was collected served a low-income community, with about 90% of its students receiving federally subsidized school lunches.

Procedure

Study procedures were approved by the corresponding Institutional Review Boards and the school district. Researchers recruited participants at the middle school and all students who identified as either Latinx or Hispanic were invited to participate in the study regardless of their English-speaking abilities or country of birth. The recruitment strategy involved bilingual researchers presenting in students’ classrooms as well as setting up an information table in the cafeteria during mealtimes. In exchange for their participation in the study, students were offered a free movie ticket.

All forms, including parental consent forms and questionnaires, were administered in both Spanish and English. To aid in reading comprehension, questionnaires were read aloud in groups of 5-15 students, organized based on language preference. Sessions lasted about 1.5 hours. The Spanish versions of questionnaires were created via the process of initial translation, back translation, and decentering in order to control for cultural differences (Barona & Barona, 2000). Measures were pre-tested among small groups of Latinx adolescents who shared feedback about the relevance and comprehensibility of the items (see Kuperminc et al. (2013) for more detail).

Measures

Psychological Distress

Participants completed the 12-item distress scale of the Weinberger Adjustment Inventory (WAI; Weinberger & Schwartz, 1990). The overall scale (α = .78) includes items addressing anxiety, depression, well-being, and self-esteem. Sample items include “I often feel sad or unhappy” and “I feel nervous or afraid that things won’t work out the way I would like them to.” Each item was rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale, ranging from “not at all true” (1) to “very true” (4). The WAI distress scale has been validated and widely used in the U.S. and internationally among youth and adults (e.g., Shahinuzzaman et al., 2016; Wiese et al., 2019). The scale has been validated in a population of Spanish-speaking Mexican adults (González et al., 2014). Additionally, the WAI distress scale has shown evidence of discriminant and convergent validity among both clinical and non-clinical youth samples (Weinberger, 1996, 1997).

Acculturative Stress

Acculturative stress was measured using items from the Societal, Attitudinal, Familial, and Environmental Acculturation Stress Scale (SAFE; Mena et al., 1987). We elected to use a short form of the original version developed with late adolescents, because the child version of the scale has only been validated for youth aged 8 to 10 years and included a large number of items assessing general childhood stressors (Chavez et al., 1997; Hawley et al., 2007). The scale includes 24 items, which assess stress resulting from coming into contact with a new culture. Items were rated using a 4-point Likert-type format with responses ranging from “not at all true” (1) to “very true” (4). High scores indicate that the participant is experiencing high levels of stress. The SAFE Scale has demonstrated evidence of adequate construct validity among U.S.-born and immigrant Latinx youth (Roche & Kuperminc, 2012; Sirin et al., 2013).

Roche & Kuperminc (2012) used an exploratory principal axis factor analysis to examine the structure of the SAFE Scale. Based on visual inspection of the scree plot, a minimum eigenvalue of 1.0 a two factor solution accounting for 35% of the variance was selected, as it was most interpretable and yielded factors similar to those identified by Suarez-Morales and colleagues (2007). One item was omitted due to high cross-loading across the two factors. Five items were omitted due to low factor loadings (less than .30). The first subscale includes 13 items assessing discrimination stress (α = .79). An example item assessing discrimination stress is, “I feel bad when others make jokes about or put down Latinos.” The second subscale includes five items assessing adaptation stress (α = .75). An example item assessing adaptation stress states, “I don’t feel at home in the United States.”

Family Cohesion and Conflict

The original study included extensive measures of attitudes and behaviors related to family responsibility (Kuperminc et al., 2013). In order to limit the overall length of the questionnaire, the investigators compiled 26 items to assess additional family constructs. These included brief scales assessing family cohesion, conflict, parental monitoring and parenting stress that had been validated in prior studies with ethnically diverse samples (Arthur et al., 2002; Carlson et al., 2000; Gorman-Smith et al., 1996). Items were measured on a 4-point Likert scale, ranging from “never” (1) to “always” (4). In the current study, we used 7 items (α = .76) assessing youth perceptions of the extent to which immediate family members rely on one another and enjoy each other’s company. This scale was labeled family cohesion and included items such as, “My family members feel very close to each other” and “My family members ask each other for help.” We used 7 items (α = .77) assessing youth perceptions of the frequency with which immediate family members fight or argue with each other. This scale was labeled family conflict and included items such as, “We argue about the same things over and over in my family” and “In my family we often insult and yell at each other.”

Demographic and Immigration-Related Variables

Youth reported their gender (0 = female, 1 = male), family living situation (0 = lives with one parent, 1 = lives with two parents), and immigration status (0 = U.S.-born to immigrant parent(s), 1 = born outside of the U.S.). All of the U.S.-born participants were children of immigrants. Because the large majority of youth were of Mexican origin, there were insufficient numbers of youth with origins in other Latin American countries for meaningful comparisons. Thus, youth were coded as having Mexican origin if they reported that they or at least one parent was born in Mexico (0 = not Mexican origin, 1 = Mexican origin).

Youth also completed the five-item Language Preference Scale (α = .83; Marín & Marín, 1991), which assesses dominant language use in various contexts (e.g., “In general, in what language do you read?”); responses are on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (“only Spanish”) to 5 (“only English”). Higher scores indicate greater English language preference. The authors note that this brief scale has strong associations (r = .70) with other indices of immigrant acculturation, including generation status and length of residence, and works equally well with all subgroups of Latinx youth (Marín & Marín, 1991).

Plan of Analysis

To identify covariates for the main analysis, we first examined variations in the experience of acculturative stress and family functioning as a function of immigration and acculturation-related variables. Thus, we examined mean differences on psychological distress, acculturative stress, and family functioning as a function of participants’ immigration status and Mexican origin, and examined correlations of those variables with English language preference. We also examined differences by age, gender and family composition. Given that the associations of acculturative stress with family functioning and psychological distress might vary as a function of demographic, immigration, and acculturation-related variables, we also examined interaction effects. Main effects of demographic and acculturation-related variables and their interactions with acculturative stress dimensions were considered as potential covariates for subsequent analyses focused on explaining variance in psychological distress. For the main analysis, we used hierarchical linear regression to assess interactive effects of family cohesion and conflict on the associations of adaptation and discrimination stress with psychological distress.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Missing Data

There were few missing data for any study variable (≤1.0%, no more than 2 values missing for any variable). Little’s MCAR test revealed that these data were missing completely at random, X² (22 df, n = 199) = 23.91, p = .34. To maximize statistical power, we imputed the missing data using the expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm, an iterative procedure that uses other variables in the dataset to impute a value (Expectation), then uses maximum likelihood estimation to check whether that value is the value most likely (Maximization).

Differences in Acculturative Stress, Family Functioning, and Psychological Distress

Table 1displays the means and standard deviations for the measures of acculturative stress, family functioning, psychological distress, and language preference. As in previous studies with these data Roche & Kuperminc (2012), immigrant youth (M = 2.68; SD = .76) reported more adaptation stress than non-immigrant youth (M = 1.92; SD = .72), t(197) = −5.73, p = .00, d = 1.03. Immigrants also reported lower levels of family conflict (M = 1.70; SD = .52; n = 157) than non-immigrants(M = 1.98; SD = .74; n = 42), t(197) = 2.82,p = .01, d = .44. No differences indiscrimination stress, adaptation stress, family functioning, or psychological distress reached significance for youth of Mexican origin as compared to other national origins. Girls (M = 2.21; SD = .57; n = 113) reported higher levels of psychological distress than boys (M = 2.04; SD = .56, n = 86), t(197) = 2.18, p = .03, d = .30, and somewhat more discrimination stress (M = 2.48; SD = .58 for girls and M = 2.31;SD = .64 for boys), t(197) = −1.93, p = .055, d = .28. Youth in two-parent families reported less family conflict (M = 1.72; SD = .57; n = 164) than those in single-parent families (M = 1.93; SD = .64; n = 35), t(197) = 1.98, p = .049, d = .35. Also, age was weakly correlated with family cohesion, discrimination stress, sex, and Mexican origin, such that girls, r = −.16, p = .04, and youth of Mexican origin, r = −.18, p = .01, were younger than others, and older youth reported more discrimination stress, r = .17, p = .02, and less family cohesion, r = −.15, p = .04, than younger youth.

Table 1.

Means and Standard Deviations (N = 199).

Variable	Mean	SD	Min-Max	Skewness (SE)	Kurtosis (SE)
Psychological distress	2.14	0.57	1.00–3.75	0.15 (.17)	−0.66 (.34)
Adaptation stress	2.52	0.81	1.00–4.00	0.02 (.17)	−0.90 (.34)
Discrimination stress	2.41	0.61	1.00–3.70	0.01 (.17)	−0.76 (.34)
Family cohesion	2.92	0.63	1.14–4.00	−0.20 (.17)	−0.74 (.34)
Family conflict	1.76	0.58	1.00–3.86	1.01 (.17)	1.02 (.34)
Language preference	2.69	0.89	1.00–4.80	0.07 (.17)	−0.74 (.34)

We further examined whether the associations of acculturative stress and family functioning with psychological distress differed as a function of immigration and acculturation-related variables. To do this, we examined two-way interactions of immigration status, Mexican origin, and language preference with each of the measures of acculturative stress and family functioning. Interaction terms were calculated by multiplying the mean centered scores for discrimination stress and adaptation stress with immigration status and Mexican origin and with mean centered scores for English language preference. The only interaction that reached significance was that of language preference by adaptation stress, b = .15, SE = .05, ß = .19, p = .002. Simple slopes analysis revealed that the association between adaptation stress and psychological distress was positive and significant only for youth with high (1 SD above the mean) English language preference, b = .22 SE = .07, ß = .31, p = .004, and did not reach significance for youth at low (1 SD below the mean) English language preference, b = −.05, SE = .07, ß = −.07, ns.

Correlations

Table 2 displays bivariate correlations among the study variables. Psychological distress was positively associated with both dimensions of acculturative stress and family conflict, and negatively associated with family cohesion. Psychological distress was weakly positively correlated with adaptation stress and moderately positively correlated with discrimination stress. Adaptation and discrimination stress were moderately and positively correlated. Family cohesion was weakly positively associated with adaptation stress, while family conflict was positively associated with discrimination stress. There were few significant correlations of immigration and acculturation-related variables with acculturative stress, family functioning, and psychological distress. Specifically, adaptation stress was negatively correlated with English language preference and positively correlated with immigration status. Also, family conflict was negatively correlated with immigration status.

Table 2.

Correlations.

	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.	7.	8.	9.	10.
1. Psychological distress	—
2. Adaptation stress	.19**	—
3. Discrimination stress	.46***	.44***	—
4. Family cohesion	−.37***	.16*	−.07	—
5. Family conflict	.31***	−.01	.29***	−.26***	—
6. Age	.08	−.07	.17*	−.15*	.14	—
7. Gender (1 = male; 2 = female)	.15*	.01	.14	.01	.05	−.16*	—
8. Single (0) versus 2-parent family (1)	.03	−.02	−.03	.05	−.14	.01	−.03	—
9. U.S. Born (0) versus Immigrant (1)	.11	.38***	.11	.04	−.20*	.08	.01	−.07	—
10. English language preference	−.04	−.61***	−.13	−.07	.13	.11	.05	.13	−.45***	—
11. Mexican (1) versus Other origin (0)	.14	.08	.06	−.03	.01	−.18*	−.01	.10	.16*	−.15*

Note. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Main Analysis

Based on results of the preliminary analysis, we included gender, English language preference, and the interaction of English Language preference with adaptation stress as covariates in the main analysis, since significant associations of these variables with psychological distress and at least one independent variable suggested possible confounding (Jaccard et al., 2006). Hierarchical linear regression analysis was used to test associations of adaptation and discrimination stress with psychological distress as well as moderating effects of family cohesion and conflict. We included participant gender and English language preference in the first step of the model. The second step included adaptation and discrimination stress, family cohesion, and family conflict. The third step included the two-way interaction of English language preference by adaptation stress (this was done so that the interaction term was entered after first accounting for the main effects of the component variables), and of adaptation stress and discrimination stress by family cohesion and family conflict. The interaction terms were computed by multiplying the mean centered scores for adaptation stress and discrimination stress with mean centered scores for family cohesion and family conflict.

Results from the final regression model are presented in Table 3. Overall, the model explained 43% of the variance in psychological distress. Gender was related to psychological distress with girls reporting more distress than boys. In addition to the significant interaction of language preference by adaptation stress (described in the previous section), a significant interaction was observed between discrimination stress and family cohesion, ß = −.13, p = .048, and is displayed in Figure 1. Examination of simple slopes revealed that, consistent with our hypothesis, the association between discrimination stress and psychological distress was significant, ß = .21, p = .02, at high levels of family cohesion (i.e., predicted slope when family cohesion was 1 SD above the sample mean), and also significant but stronger, ß = .47, p = .00, at low levels (1 SD below the sample mean) of family cohesion. Additionally, a significant interaction was observed between adaptation stress and family cohesion, ß = .18, p = .01, as displayed in Figure 2. Examination of simple slopes revealed that, contrary to our hypothesis, adaptation stress and psychological distress were positively and significantly related at high levels of family cohesion, ß = .21, p = .01; but were unrelated at low levels of cohesion, ß = −.05, ns. The variance inflation factor (VIF) was ≤ 2.19 for each independent variable in the final model, suggesting that multicollinearity was not an issue in the analysis. When accounting for all other study variables, the interactions involving family conflict did not reach significance; however, there was a small but non-significant (p = .06) positive association of family conflict with psychological distress.

Table 3.

Regression of Psychological Distress on Acculturative stressors and Family Functioning.

	b	SE	95% CI	ß	∆R²
1.
Gender (female)	.14	.07	[.01, .27]	.12*
English Language preference	.04	.05	[-.06, .13]	.06
Step 1 ∆R ²					.03*
2.
Adaptation stress	.08	.06	[-.03, .20]	.12
Discrimination stress	.32	.06	[.20, .45]	.34***
Family cohesion	−.34	.06	[-.44, −.23]	−.37***
Family conflict	.12	.06	[.00, .24]	.12†
Step 2 ∆R ²					.33***
3.
Lang. Pref. X adapt.	.17	.05	[.08, .26]	.21***
Adapt. X cohesion	.21	.07	[.07, .35]	.18**
Discrim. X cohesion	−.19	.10	[-.38, −.00]	−.13*
Adapt. X conflict	.09	.07	[-.04, .23]	.08
Discrim. X conflict	−.16	.09	[-.34, .02]	−.10
Step 3 ∆R ²					.07***

Note. Total R² = .43, F(12, 186 df) = 11.64, p < .001. Regression weights are from the final model. †p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Figure 1.

Interaction of Discrimination Stress with Family Cohesion.Note: Lines represent predicted slopes for the association between discrimination stress and psychological distress when family cohesion is 1 SD below the mean (dotted line) and one SD above the mean (solid line).

Figure 2.

Interaction of Adaptation Stress with Family Cohesion.Note: Lines represent predicted slopes for the association between adaptation stress and psychological distress when family cohesion is 1 SD below the mean (dotted line) and one SD above the mean (solid line).

Discussion

The primary goal of the study was to examine moderating effects of family cohesion and family conflict on the association between two dimensions of acculturative stress and psychological distress. Acculturative stress resulting from experiences of discrimination and from the process of cultural adaptation had differential associations with youths’ reports of psychological distress and family functioning. The positive association between acculturative stress and psychological distress appeared stronger for discrimination stress relative to adaptation stress. Family cohesion was positively associated with adaptation stress but had no significant association with discrimination stress. In contrast, family conflict was positively associated with discrimination stress but had no significant association with adaptation stress. Thus, the dimensions of acculturative stress functioned differently and were associated with differing outcomes, pointing to the need to account for specific types of stress when considering effective supports for the experience of acculturative stress. This is consistent with emerging literature that supports a distinction among acculturative stress stemming from discrimination and adaptation, as these experiences are differentially related to outcomes (e.g., Driscoll & Torres, 2022; Lorenzo-Blanco & Unger, 2015).

As expected, family cohesion buffered the associations of discrimination stress with psychological distress. Family cohesion also moderated the association of adaptation stress with psychological distress, but not in the expected direction. Contrary to our hypothesis, family conflict failed to moderate the effects of either dimension of acculturative stress on psychological distress. Results of the study point to the importance of considering multiple dimensions of acculturative stress when considering the role of family functioning in the psychological adaptation of Latinx youth from immigrant families. Furthermore, the findings regarding immigration status and English language preference underscore the importance of recognizing within-group diversity in the acculturation experiences of Latinx youth.

Moderating Role of Family Cohesion and Family Conflict

Whereas family cohesion moderated the associations between acculturative stress and psychological distress, the findings were nuanced and somewhat unexpected. Family conflict did not moderate the associations of either dimension of acculturative stress with psychological distress; moreover, after accounting for other variables in the model, the negative association of family conflict with psychological distress did not reach significance. High levels of family cohesion buffered the effect of discrimination stress. Specifically, as expected, the positive association between discrimination stress and psychological distress was weaker at high levels compared to low levels of family cohesion (see Figure 1). Family cohesion has been found to protect against externalizing behaviors (Marsiglia et al., 2009), internalizing behaviors (Shah et al., 2021), and acculturative stress (Hovey & King, 1996) among immigrant youth. In addition, studies have consistently found strong cross-sectional and longitudinal correlations between family cohesion and other indices of family functioning, such as parent-child relationship quality, and racial-ethnic socialization (Buehler, 2020; Fosco et al., 2012; Umaña-Taylor & Hill, 2020). A recent study found that high levels of family cohesion protected immigrant youth against bias-based bullying (Shah et al., 2021). Thus, in families with high levels of family cohesion, parents may teach their children strategies for effectively coping with and navigating possible ethnicity and race-based threats.

In contrast to the findings for discrimination stress, the protective effects of family cohesion were less pronounced as adaptation stress increased (see Figure 2); adaptation stress was positively related to psychological distress, but only for youth who reported high levels of family cohesion. It is important to note that participants reporting high levels of family cohesion had lower levels of psychological distress overall, suggesting that the overall protective effects of family cohesion might weaken as youth experience increased levels of adaptation stress. Youth who experience higher levels of adaptation stress are likely to have parents who are also struggling with adaptation stress (Suárez-Orozco et al., 2018), which may affect the well-being of their children. For example, Lorenzo-Blanco et al., (2016) found that the parent’s acculturation stress was negatively associated with the mental health of their adolescent children. It is possible that when those youth are in highly cohesive families, their adaptation stress may be compounded by a sense of obligation to help their parents their parents adapt. For example, child language or cultural brokers in cohesive families might feel they have to step up to help other family members even if they feel ill equipped to do so. Whereas family cohesion functions as a resilience factor (Zimmerman et al., 2013), helping Latinx youth deal with experiences of discrimination, its protective effects are not assured when facing other challenges to well-being. These findings point to the importance of considering overall family functioning in efforts to help Latinx youth from immigrant families to manage experiences of acculturative stress.

One other possible explanation for the unexpected findings regarding the role of family cohesion merits consideration and future research. Stanton-Salazar et al. (2001) found that Latinx youth benefit from broad and diverse social networks. However, recently immigrated Latinx youth were less likely to be embedded in these social support networks than their peers. Youth who are experiencing adaptation stress in highly cohesive families may be less likely to seek social support outside of the family. It is possible that if immigrant youths primarily rely on family for connection and support (DeGarmo & Martinez, 2006; Guzman et al., 2012), this could actually limit their exposure to other opportunities to develop skills, such as code-switching between languages and cultures, that could aid in coping effectively with adaptation stress beyond the family system. Interventions to facilitate social integration of Latinx immigrants within school and community settings may then be particularly important. For example, school-based mentoring programs have been evidenced to increase feelings of school belonging, teacher support, and group cohesion (Kuperminc, Chan, Hale, Joseph, & Delbasso (2020); Oberoi, 2016).

The Importance of Accounting for Within Group Diversity

While the Latinx population has often been studied as a homogenous group, a growing number of studies indicate the importance of considering group diversity within Latinx families (Kuperminc et al., 2009). Varying national origins, immigration status, and language preference may contribute to differences in acculturative stress, family functioning, and the experience of psychological distress for Latinx youth.

Compared to their U.S.-born peers, immigrant youth reported significantly more adaptation stress and less family conflict. The positive association of adaptation stress with psychological distress was significant only for youth who reported high levels of English language preference. Previously, Barrett et al. (2013) and Roche & Kuperminc (2012), using this sample, found that immigrant youth reported higher levels of adaptation stress than their native peers. The current findings provide a more nuanced perspective. Specifically, while youth who rely on speaking Spanish rather than English report more adaptation stress overall, this stress in particular may not heighten their psychological distress. For example, such youth might be bolstered by a sense of optimism (e.g., Peguero & Bondy, 2015) in overcoming challenges in adaptation.

Adaptation stress may function differently for youth with greater English language preference, in that the experience of adaptation stress (e.g., not feeling at home in the U.S.) may be particularly distressing. Youth who endorse high levels of English language acculturation are more likely than others to be children of immigrants. Such youth often become practiced at ‘cultural frame switching’ as a means of adapting to sometimes conflicting norms of mainstream and heritage cultures (Giguère et al., 2010). Although adaptation stress is less frequent for these youth compared to immigrant or less English proficient peers, the experience of adaptation stress may be especially distressing if it reflects having to choose between the two cultures to which they belong. For example, youth may feel they do not fully fit in either with their heritage culture or with the U.S. culture or may experience difficulties when their level of acculturation is discrepant to that of their family or peers (Miranda et al., 2006; Romero & Piña-Watson, 2017).

Whereas the study found no significant differences by national origin in acculturative stress, family functioning, or psychological distress, it is important to note that we were limited to comparing youth of Mexican origin with those with family origins in other Latin American countries. Nevertheless, the lack of differences between Mexican and “other” origins suggests that there may be more similarities than differences for how the youth of differing family origins experience acculturative stress within the context of family functioning.

Limitations and Future Directions

The cross-sectional nature of this study impedes the ability to make causal inferences. The data were collected in the early 2000s, raising the possibility that these results may be less relevant to the current experience of Latinx youth; however, it should be noted that anti-immigrant attitudes and policies very much characterized the social and political context in the community where these data were collected, much as they do today (Suárez-Orozco, 2000).

Other limitations include the relatively small sample size and use of self-report measures, as well as limited ability to examine differences across multiple countries of origin. Given that all measures used in the study were self-report, it is possible that shared method variance could account for the relatively high proportion of explained variance in the regression analysis. Future research should examine additional features in the diversity of migration experiences, including documentation status, biracial identity, as well as pre- and post-migration experiences. A strength is that the current study considered the potential for distinct findings for the dimensions of adaptation and discrimination stress; future research is needed to replicate and extend these findings as well as identify other possible dimensions of acculturative stress. The shortened version of the acculturative stress measure used in the present study may not have been sufficiently comprehensive to identify additional dimensions of acculturative stress that might be present. Although all measures used in this study had been previously used with Latinx and/or multi-ethnic samples, few measures have been thoroughly examined for measurement equivalence across ethnic or cultural groups. While the measures of family cohesion and conflict used items from previously validated scales with ethnically diverse samples (Arthur et al., 2002; Carlson et al., 2000; Gorman-Smith et al., 1996), these measures in their current form were not formally validated.

The results of this study point both to the importance and potential limitations of family support for promoting the wellbeing of Latinx youth from immigrant families. Latinx youth may benefit from seeking support externally from the family in order to be adequately protected from the negative effects of adaptation stress. Future research would benefit from examining other possible sources of support, such as teacher or peer support, that might buffer the effects of adaptation stress among Latinx youth. In addition, studies could examine the effects of interventions focused on the social integration of immigrant youth (such as mentoring programs) and family focused interventions on adaptation stress among Latinx youth. Studies examining the effects of family cohesion on the associations between dimensions of acculturative stress and health behaviors as well as academic performance could further delineate the protective mechanism of family cohesion among Latinx youth. The current study examined a population from a more recently established immigrant community in the U.S.; future research would benefit from examining the effects of family cohesion and conflict on acculturative stress among participants from a more established immigrant community. Finally, future research could increase the study’s generalizability by examining the effects of family cohesion and conflict on dimensions of acculturative stress among acculturating groups of other ethnicities and age ranges. In conclusion, the findings emphasize the importance of considering specific dimensions of acculturative stress as well as the specific cultural contexts and types of stress Latinx youth are experiencing.

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 work was supported by the William T. Grant Foundation (WT Grant Scholar Award).

ORCID iD

Gabriel P. Kuperminc

Author Biographies

Eliana C. Pimentel is a recent graduate from Georgia State University with a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology. She is currently a doctoral student in clinical psychology at Mercer University. Her research interests include immigrant health and examining how sociocultural factors affect the well-being of Latinx youth as well as other racial/ethnic minority populations.

Claudia A. Delbasso is a doctoral student in the clinical and community psychology program at Georgia State University. Her research interests include positive youth development and resilience, with a focus on individual and contextual factors that inform these among Latinx immigrants and other communities of color.

Gabriel P. Kuperminc is a professor of Psychology and Public Health at Georgia State University. His research investigates the role of culture in processes of resilience and positive youth development during adolescence and the effectiveness of community-based prevention and health promotion programs.

References

Arthur

M. W.

Hawkins

J. D.

Pollard

J. A.

Catalano

R. F.

Baglioni

A. J.

(2002). Measuring risk and protective factors for substance use, delinquency, and other adolescent problem behaviors: The communities that care youth survey. Evaluation Review, 26(6), 575–601. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X0202600601

Barber

Buehler

(1996). Family cohesion and enmeshment: Different constructs, different effects. Journal of Marriage and Family, 58(2), 433–441. https://doi.org/10.2307/353507

Barona

M. S.

Barona

(2000). A model for conducting research with Hispanics. In Council of National Psychological Associations for the Advancement of Ethnic Minority Interests (Ed), Guidelines for research in ethnic minority communities (pp. 13–15). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Barrett

Alice

N. Kuperminc

Gabriel

P. Lewis

Kelly

M. (2013). Acculturative Stress and Gang Involvement Among Latinos: U.S.Born Versus Immigrant Youth. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 35, 370–389. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986313488086

Bekteshi

Kang

S. W.

(2018). Contextualizing acculturative stress among Latino immigrants in the United States: A systematic review. Ethnicity & Health, 25(6), 897–914. https://doi.org/10.1080/13557858.2018.1469733

Berry

J. W.

(1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46(1), 5–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/026999497378467

Buehler

(2020). Family processes and children's and adolescents' well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 145–174. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12637

Carlson

Uppal

Prosser

E. C.

(2000). Ethnic differences in processes contributing to the self-esteem of early adolescent girls. Journal of Early Adolescence, 20(1), 44–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431600020001003

Carver

M. D.

Jones

W. H.

(1992). The family Satisfaction scale. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 20(2), 71–83. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.1992.20.2.71

10.

Chavez

D. V.

Moran

V. R.

Reid

S. L.

Lopez

(1997). Acculturative stress in children: A modification of the SAFE scale. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 19(1), 34–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/07399863970191002

11.

DeGarmo

D. S.

Martinez

C. R.

Jr. (2006). A culturally informed model of academic well-being for Latino youth: The importance of discriminatory experiences and social support. Family Relations, 55(3), 267–278. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2006.00401.x

12.

Driscoll

M. W.

Torres

(2022). Cultural adaptation profiles among Mexican-descent Latinxs: Acculturation, acculturative stress, and depression. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 28(2), 248–258. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000503

13.

Fosco

G. M.

Caruthers

A. S.

Dishion

T. J.

(2012). A six-year predictive test of adolescent family relationship quality and effortful control pathways to emerging adult social and emotional health. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(4), 565–575. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028873

14.

Fuligni

A. J.

(2001). A comparative longitudinal approach to acculturation among children from immigrant families. Harvard Educational Review, 71(3), 566–578. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.71.3.j7046h63234441u3

15.

Giguère

Lalonde

Lou

(2010). Living at the Crossroads of Cultural Worlds: The Experience of Normative Conflicts by Second Generation Immigrant Youth: Living at the Crossroads of Cultural Worlds. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 14–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00228.x

16.

González

T. R.

Enríquez-Hernández

C. B.

del Rocío Hernández Pozo

Montalvo

M. E. R.

Castillo

R. L.

Sánchez

Y. E.

Marván

M. L.

Larralde

(2014). Validación en México del inventario de ajuste de Weinberger (WAI) = Validation of the Mexican version of the Weinberger Adjustment Inventory (WAI). Salud Mental, 37(3), 247–253. https://doi.org/10.17711/SM.0185-3325.2014.029

17.

Gorman-Smith

Tolan

P. H.

Zelli

Huesmann

L. R.

(1996). The relation of family functioning to violence among inner-city minority youths. Journal of Family Psychology, 10(2), 115–129. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.10.2.115

18.

Guzman

M. R. T.

Jung

Anh Do

(2012). Perceived social support networks and prosocial outcomes among Latino/a youth in the United States. Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 46(3), 413–424.

19.

Hale

K. E.

Kuperminc

G. P.

(2021). Associations between multiple dimensions of acculturation and psychological distress among Latinx youth from immigrant families. Youth and Society, 35, 342–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X19898698

20.

Hawley

S. R.

Chavez

D. V.

St Romain

(2007). Developing a bicultural model for academic achievement: A look at acculturative stress, coping, and self-perception. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 29(3), 283–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986307303805

21.

Hovey

J. D.

King

C. A.

(1996). Acculturative stress, depression, and suicidal ideation among immigrant and second-generation Latino adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 35(9), 1183–1192. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-199609000-00016

22.

Huq

Stein

G. L.

Gonzalez

L. M.

(2016). Acculturation conflict among Latino youth: Discrimination, ethnic identity, and depressive symptoms. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 22(3), 377–385. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000070

23.

Jaccard

Guilamo-Ramos

Johansson

Bouris

(2006). Multiple regression analyses in clinical child and adolescent psychology. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 35(3), 456–479. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp3503_11

24.

Kann

McManus

Harris

W. A.

Shanklin

S. L.

Flint

K. H.

Queen

Lowry

Chyen

Whittle

Thornton

Lim

Bradford

YamakawaLeon

Y. M.

Brener

Ethier

K. A.

(2018). Youth risk behavior Surveillance — United States, 2017. MMWR Surveillance Summary, 67(8), 1–114. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.15585/mmwr.ss6708a1externalicon

25.

Kuperminc

G. P.

Wilkins

N. J.

Jurkovic

G. J.

Perilla

J. L.

(2013). Filial responsibility, perceived fairness, and psychological functioning of Latino youth from immigrant families. Journal of Family Psychology, 27, 173-182. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031880

26.

Kuperminc

G.P.

Wilkins

N.J.

Roche

(2009). Risk, resilience, and positive development. In Villaruel

F. A.

Carlo

Grau

J. M.

Azmitia

Cabrera

Chahin

T. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of US Latino Psychology: Developmental and Community Based Perspectives (pp. 213–233). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

27.

Kuperminc

G.P.

Chan

W. Y.

Hale

K. E.

Joseph

H. L.

Delbasso

C. A.

(2020). The Role of School‐based Group Mentoring in Promoting Resilience among Vulnerable High School Students. American Journal of Community Psychology, 65, 136–148. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12347e

28.

Lawton

K. E.

Gerdes

A. C.

(2014). Acculturation and Latino adolescent mental health: Integration of individual, environmental, and family influences. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 17(4), 385–398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-014-0168-0

29.

Warner

L. A.

(2015). Parent–adolescent conflict, family cohesion, and self‐esteem among Hispanic adolescents in immigrant families: A comparative analysis. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 64(5), 579–591. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12158

30.

Lorenzo-Blanco

E. I.

Meca

Unger

J. B.

Romero

Gonzales-Backen

Piña-Watson

Cano

M. Á.

Zamboanga

B. L.

Des Rosiers

S. E.

Soto

D. W.

Villamar

J. A.

Lizzi

K. M.

Pattarroyo

Schwartz

S. J.

(2016). Latino parent acculturation stress: Longitudinal effects on family functioning and youth emotional and behavioral health. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(8), 966–976. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000223

31.

Lorenzo-Blanco

E. I.

Unger

J. B.

(2015). Ethnic discrimination, acculturative stress, and family conflict as predictors of depressive symptoms and cigarette smoking among Latina/o youth: The mediating role of perceived stress. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(10), 1984–1997. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0339-4

32.

Marín

B. V.

(1991). Research with Hispanic populations. SAGE Publications, Inc. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412985734

33.

Marsiglia

F. F.

Parsai

Kulis

(2009). Effects of familism and family cohesion on problem behaviors among adolescents in Mexican immigrant families in the southwest United States. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 18(3), 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/15313200903070965

34.

McLaughlin

K. A.

Hilt

L. M.

Nolen-Hoeksema

(2007). Racial/ethnic differences in internalizing and externalizing symptoms in adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35(5), 801–816. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-007-9128-1

35.

Mena

F. J.

Padilla

A. M.

Maldonado

(1987). Acculturative stress and specific coping strategies among immigrant and later generation college students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 9(2), 207–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/07399863870092006

36.

Miranda

A. O.

Bilot

J. M.

Peluso

P. R.

Berman

Van Meek

L. G.

(2006). Latino families: The relevance of the connection among acculturation, family dynamics, and health for family counseling research and practice. The Family Journal, 14(3), 268–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480706287805

37.

Oberoi

(2016, December). Mentoring for first generation immigrant and refugee youth. National Mentoring Resource Center Model/Population Review. https://nationalmentoringresourcecenter.org/resource/mentoring-for-first-generation-immigrant-and-refugee-youth/

38.

Olson

D. H.

Waldvogel

Schlieff

(2019). Circumplex model of marital and family systems: An update. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 11(2), 199–211. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12331

39.

Peguero

A. A.

Bondy

J. M.

(2015). Schools, justice, and immigrant students: Assimilation, race, ethnicity, gender, and perceptions of fairness and order. Teachers College Record, 117(7), 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811511700706

40.

Reinherz

H. Z.

Paradis

A. D.

Giaconia

R. M.

Stashwick

C. K.

Fitzmaurice

(2003). Childhood and adolescent predictors of major depression in the transition to adulthood. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 160(12), 2141–2147. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.160.12.2141

41.

Rivera

F. I.

(2005). Acculturation, perceived discrimination and depression among a sample of Latino youth. Psychline, 4(5), 18–29.

42.

Roche

Cathy

Kuperminc

Gabriel

P. (2012). Acculturative Stress and School Belonging Among Latino Youth. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 34, 61–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986311430084.

43.

Roche

K. M.

White

R. M. B.

Rivera

M. I.

Safa

M. D.

Newman

Falusi

(2021). Recent immigration actions and news and the adjustment of US Latino/a adolescents. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 27(3), 447–459. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000330

44.

Roley

M. E.

Kawakami

Baker

Hurtado

Chin

Hovey

J. D.

(2014). Family cohesion moderates the relationship between acculturative stress and depression in Japanese adolescent temporary residents. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 16(6), 1299–1302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-013-9959-5

45.

Romero

A. J.

Piña-Watson

(2017). Acculturative stress and bicultural stress: Psychological measurement and mental health. In Schwartz

S. J.

Unger

(Eds), The Oxford Handbook of acculturation and health (pp. 119–133). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190215217.013.8

46.

Romero

A. J.

Roberts

R. E.

(2003). Stress within a bicultural context for adolescents of Mexican descent. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 9(2), 171–184. https://doi.org/10.1037/1099-9809.9.2.171

47.

Schwartz

S. J.

Pantin

Prado

Sullivan

Szapocznik

(2005). Family functioning, identity, and problem behavior in Hispanic immigrant early adolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(4), 392–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431605279843

48.

Shah

Choi

Miller

Halgunseth

L. C.

van Schaik

S. D. M.

Brenick

(2021). Family cohesion and school belongingness: Protective factors for immigrant youth against bias‐based bullying. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2021(177), 199–217. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20410

49.

Shahinuzzaman

Saha

A. K.

Akiitar

(2016). Adolescents’ perception of inter-parental conflict and impact on psychological distress. Journal of Psychosocial Research, 11(2), 367–376.

50.

Sirin

S. R.

Ryce

Gupta

Rogers-Sirin

(2013). The role of acculturative stress on mental health symptoms for immigrant adolescents: A longitudinal investigation. Developmental Psychology, 49(4), 736–748. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028398

51.

Smokowski

P. R.

Bacallao

Rose

(2010). Influence of risk factors and cultural assets on Latino adolescents' trajectories of self-esteem and internalizing symptoms. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 41(2), 133–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-009-0157-6

52.

Stanton-Salazar

R. D.

Chávez

L. F.

Tai

R. H.

(2001). The help-seeking orientations of Latino and non-Latino urban high school students: A critical-sociological investigation. Social Psychology of Education, 5(1), 49–82. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012708332665

53.

Suarez-Morales

Dillon

F. R.

Szapocznik

(2007). Validation of the acculturative stress Inventory for children. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13(3), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1037/1099-9809.13.3.216

54.

Suarez-Morales

Lopez

(2009). The impact of acculturative stress and daily hassles on pre-adolescent psychological adjustment: Examining anxiety symptoms. Journal of Primary Prevention, 30(3-4), 335–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-009-0175-y

55.

Suárez-Orozco

(2000). Identities under siege: Immigration stress and social mirroring among the children of immigrants. In Robben

A. C. G. M.

Suárez-Orozco

M. M.

(Eds), Cultures under siege: Collective violence and trauma (pp. 194–226). Cambridge University Press.

56.

Suárez-Orozco

Motti-Stefanidi

Marks

Katsiaficas

(2018). An integrative risk and resilience model for understanding the adaptation of immigrant-origin children and youth. American Psychologist, 73(6), 781–796. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000265

57.

Umaña

T. A. J.

Hill

N. E.

(2020). Ethnic–racial socialization in the family: A decade’s advance on precursors and outcomes. Journal of Marriage & Family, 82(1), 244–271. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12622

58.

U.S. Bureau of the Census (2017). Projections of the population by race and Hispanic origin for the United States: 2017 to 2060. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/demo/popproj/2017-summary-tables.html

59.

Weinberger

D. A.

(1996). Distorted self-perceptions: Divergent self-reports as statistical outliers in the multimethod assessment of children's social-emotional adjustment. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66(1), 126–143. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6601_10

60.

Weinberger

D. A.

(1997). Distress and self-restraint as measures of adjustment across the life span: Confirmatory factor analyses in clinical and nonclinical samples. Psychological Assessment, 9(2), 132–135. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.9.2.132

61.

Weinberger

D. A.

Schwartz

G. E.

(1990). Distress and restraint as superordinate dimensions of self-reported adjustment: A typological perspective. Journal of Personality, 58(2), 381–417. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1990.tb00235.x

62.

Wiese

Cálcena

Aramayo Criniti

A. D.

Catanesi

C. I.

Folino

J. O.

(2019). Psychosocial factors and juvenile homicide in Argentina. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 63(10), 1952–1966. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X19837677

63.

Zimmerman

M. A.

Stoddard

S. A.

Eisman

A. B.

Caldwell

C. H.

Aiyer

S. M.

Miller

(2013). Adolescent resilience: Promotive factors that inform prevention. Child Development Perspectives, 7(4), 215–220. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12042