Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2025 May 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Lat Psychol. 2024 Jan 25;12(2):186–200. doi: 10.1037/lat0000251

Acculturation Stress Magnifies Child Depression Effect of Stressful Life Events for Latinx Youth 3 Years Later

Ashley A Walsdorf 1, Margaret O’Brien Caughy 2, Kimberly R Osborne 3, Carmen R Valdez 4, Victoria A King 2, Margaret Tresch Owen 5
PMCID: PMC11245282  NIHMSID: NIHMS1948781  PMID: 39006970

Abstract

Introduction:

Experiences of stressful life events (SLEs) during childhood are associated with greater risk for youth psychopathology. Although SLEs are reported in greater frequency by Latinx families, Latinx populations remain largely absent in the SLE literature. Furthermore, Latinx populations face added stressors related to socio-political climate, acculturation, and racism and discrimination. The purpose of this study was to explore the intersection between parent-reported SLEs and acculturation (i.e., socio-political climate-related) stressors for Latinx youth. Greater frequency of caregiver reported SLEs were hypothesized to predict higher depressive symptoms in their children three years later, and acculturation stress was hypothesized to amplify these effects.

Method:

The community-recruited, low-income sample for this study consisted of 198 Latinx caregivers (98.5% mothers, 77.3% foreign-born) and their children (Mage = 7.4, 47.5% female). Study hypotheses were tested using MPlus.

Results:

Consistent with prior literature, more SLEs reported at age 7 by parents were associated with more child-reported depressive symptoms at age 10 but only among boys. However, for both boys and girls, there was a significant interaction between acculturation stress and family SLEs. Specifically, as the amount of acculturation stress reported at age 7 increased, the negative impact of family SLEs on child-reported depressive symptoms at age 10 was magnified, regardless of gender.

Conclusion:

Adding to the literature on SLEs within Latinx families, these results indicate that acculturation and socio-political climate stressors need be considered in discussions of the effects of life stress on Latinx youth and their families.

Keywords: stressful life events, acculturation stress, child depression, gender differences, Latinx youth

Stressful life events (SLEs) occurring during the formative period of early childhood are well-documented precursors to child and adolescent psychopathology (Brown et al., 2016; Kushner et al., 2016; March-Llanes et al., 2017; Platt et al., 2016; Willard et al., 2016). For example, McLaughlin and colleagues (2012) found that early life stress predicted 28% of all onsets of psychiatric disorders in their national sample of adolescents. SLEs, also known as negative life events or childhood adversities, include occurrences experienced as disruptive, challenging, and/or upsetting but differ from traumatic life events in level of severity and absence of a diagnosable trauma-related disorder. Specifically, a diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) requires “exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence” (American Psychiatric Association, 2013, p. 271), whereas examples of SLEs may include family conflict, divorce, or problems in school. Although all youth are at risk of experiencing SLEs, Latinx youth are particularly vulnerable given that they may be more likely to encounter these events as well as to experience discrimination and acculturative stressors (Kilmer et al., 1998; Fisher et al., 2000). Despite a substantive body of research supporting the negative effects of SLEs and discrimination and/or acculturative stressors separately, little research to date has explored the intersection of these burdens on children. Thus, the present study examines the multiplicative and longitudinal effects of acculturation stress and other SLEs on Latinx child depressive symptoms.

Implications of Early Life Stress for Child Well-Being

A significant body of research has identified direct effects of negative and/or stressful events on increased risk for child psychopathology, particularly internalizing and externalizing problems (Brown et al., 2016; Dougherty et al., 2013; March-Llanes et al., 2017; Willard et al., 2016). McLaughlin et al. (2012) noted that 60% of a national sample of adolescents reported exposure to multiple stress-inducing events. SLEs are unavoidable, and most youth will encounter at least some of these events during their childhood. However, much of this literature focuses on non-Latinx, White, middle-class samples (e.g., Brown et al., 2016; Willard et al., 2016). Importantly, negative life events are reported more frequently by racial/ethnic minority groups, such as Latinx (Hatch & Dohrenwend, 2007), and the prevalence of childhood adversities among Latinx children appears to differ by immigrant status (Loria & Caughy, 2018).

For Latinx families, SLEs are rarely the only stressor with which families must contend. In addition to SLEs, Latinx families in the U.S. face stressors related to socio-political climate, documentation status, acculturation factors, and racism and discrimination (Barajas-Gonzalez et al., 2021; García Coll et al., 1996; Roche et al., 2018; Vargas et al., 2017; Viruell-Fuentes, 2007). Specifically, socio-political climate factors that translate to threat and deprivation for Latinx youth are rarely conceptualized as SLEs in the literature (Barajas-Gonzalez et al., 2021). Peters and Massey (1983) coined the term “mundane extreme environmental stress” to capture the ubiquity and pervasiveness of the racism and discrimination in the lives of African Americans in the U.S., and this concept can be similarly applied to Latinx families. A systematic review of the literature documented the negative effects of racism and discrimination on children and youth of color, primarily in the form of higher levels of internalizing problems such as anxiety and depression (Priest et al., 2013).

Alongside race and ethnicity, gender also appears to be an important factor in the conceptualization of SLEs and their effects on children. Existing research has documented gender as moderator of the association between SLEs and reactive aggression, an externalizing symptom, with SLEs being associated with aggression for boys only (Brown et al., 2016). Others have suggested that boys are also at a greater risk for internalizing problems due to increased pressure to perform societal norms surrounding gender (Hoffman et al.,1993). In addition to differential effects of SLEs based on child gender, research suggests that Latinx male youth may have stronger responses to experiences of discrimination than their female counterparts, particularly as it relates to their adjustment in school (Alfaro et al., 2009; Umaña-Taylor et al., 2012).

Acculturation Stress and Latinx Child Development

Acculturation refers to the multidimensional process of socializing and adapting between two or more cultures (Berry, 1997; Cervantes & Cordova, 2011; Hurwich-Reiss & Gudiño, 2016). Although acculturation stress may affect all immigrant groups, it is magnified by the ethnic-based discrimination and systemic poverty that Latinx families face in the U.S. (Garcia Coll et al., 1996; Mendoza et al., 2017). Scholars have identified various broad types of acculturation stress including immigration, communication/language, school/academic, peer, family, and social/economic that capture the variety of ways that the stress associated with the acculturation process can pervade an individual’s experiences (Cervantes & Cordova, 2011).

Acculturation stress is a process inherent to immigration and is related to natural stressors such as separation from family and other support networks in the country of origin. However, for Latinx immigrants, acculturation processes may not follow the same normative pattern as other immigrants to the U.S. (Viruell-Fuentes, 2007). Latinx foreign and U.S.-born families alike face discrimination and anti-immigrant sentiment based on assumed immigrant status that is unlikely to attenuate over time. In fact, Viruell-Fuentes’ (2007) work on the immigrant paradox demonstrates that rather than “acculturating,” children of immigrants who have been in the U.S. for longer periods of time simply develop more attuned consciousness around the discrimination and “othering” of Latinx people. Likewise, it is important to acknowledge that “acculturation stress” includes discrimination and work-related challenges, which are dimensions related to socio-political climate and not simply matters of navigating a change in culture. For Latinx youth, the combination of higher rates of economic hardship paired with acculturation stress is a robust predictor of both internalizing and externalizing behaviors—important markers of mental health in young children (Mendoza et al., 2017), and these relations have been seen for both preschool-aged Latinx children (Zeiders et al., 2016), as well as older Latinx youth (Castro-Olivo et al., 2014; Kulis et al., 2009).

Combined Effects of Stressful Life Events and Acculturation Stress

It remains an open question whether SLEs, such as family hardship, and stresses unique to Latinx populations, such as acculturation stress, represent independent sources of risk for children or whether they may interact in some way. While some researchers argue for additive or cumulative effects of children’s exposure to multiple risk factors (Rutter, 1979; Sameroff, 2010), others note multiplicative and other nonlinear effects of multiple risk factors (Appleyard et al., 2005; Lima et al., 2010). The possibility of multiplicative effects between common family stressors and the acculturative stress unique to Latinx children has not been examined empirically, and yet, it is theoretically supported. For example, applying the Dimensional Model of Childhood Adversity and Psychopathology (DMAP; McLaughlin & Sheridan, 2016; Sheridan & McLaughlin, 2020), Barajas-Gonzalez and colleagues (2021) illustrate how restrictive immigration policies and enforcement as well as threat of enforcement disrupt family stability, mental health, and preservation, and contribute to a pervasive sense of vulnerability. Experiences fall along axes of threat and deprivation due to immigration policies and an anti-immigrant climate and vary according to both the child and family members’ legal statuses, the child’s developmental stage, and outside exposures and interactions. At its most basic level, this theoretical framework argues for the addition of immigration and socio-political climate-related factors in the conceptualization of adverse childhood experiences or in this case, SLEs.

Between the 2010 and 2020 census, growth in the U.S. Latinx population accounted for nearly half of all the growth in the U.S. population as a whole, and in 18 states and counting, more than 20% of all kindergartners are Latinx (Funk & Lopez, 2022). By the early 2040s, the U.S. is projected to become a majority-minority country, and the Latinx subpopulation will comprise the largest minoritized group in the country (Hernandez-Nieto et al., 2017). With this rapidly increasing population, the well-being of Latinx youth is an important determinant of the health of the nation, underscoring the critical importance of increasing our understanding of the implications of acculturative stress and other SLEs for Latinx child well-being.

The Current Study

To date, no empirical research has examined the possible multiplicative relation between SLEs and acculturation stress. Although there exists an abundance of work documenting the long-term (i.e., longitudinal) patterns of harm brought about by SLEs (Broeren et al., 2014; Tessner et al., 2011) and acculturation stress and discrimination (Zeiders et al., 2016) separately, research has yet to explore these pathways together. To address this gap in the literature, we examined the following research questions using a longitudinal framework. First, we asked whether SLEs were associated with child socio-emotional well-being in early elementary school in a sample of low-income Latinx children. We hypothesized that higher levels of SLEs reported by a family would be associated with increased child depressive symptoms three years later. Second, we examined the independent and multiplicative impact of family experience of acculturative stress. We hypothesized that the positive association between SLEs and child depressive problems would be magnified in the presence of acculturation stress. Finally, as an exploratory research question, we examined whether these relations differed by child gender.

Method

Participants

Participants were drawn from a larger longitudinal study of school readiness among low-income African American and Latinx children (Mills et al., 2019). Eligible children were between the ages of 29 and 31 months (2.5 and 2.7 years) of age at time of enrollment and had at least one parent who self-identified as African American or Latinx. Participants were recruited from an urban area of a southwestern state in the U.S. through the targeted distribution of study information in local organizations in the community such as recreational centers, day care centers, churches, local WIC (Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children) clinics and Head Start programs as well as by word of mouth. In addition to child age at time of enrollment, eligibility criteria included (1) household income below 200% of the federal poverty level; (2) child hospitalized fewer than 7 days after birth1; and (3) family intended to remain in the metropolitan area for at least one year.

Data collection was completed when the target child was 2.5 years old (Time 1), 3.5 years old (Time 2), 6 years old (Time 3), 7 years old (Time 4), and 10.5 years old (Time 5). The current analysis focused on data collected with Latinx families at Time 4 (when stressful life events and acculturation stress data were collected) and Time 5 (when child-reported depressive symptoms were first collected). Data collection for Time 4 occurred between October 2014 and November 2015. Data collection for Time 5 occurred between February and July 2018.

Of the 407 families enrolled in the study, 212 (52%) included a child and primary caregiver who were both Latinx. Of those, five were excluded from follow-up after Time 2 due to a diagnosis of significant developmental disability in the target child, and nine families voluntarily withdrew from the study. Of the remaining 198 Latinx families, 174 (86.4%) completed the data collection home visit at Time 4. Those who completed data collection at Time 4 did not differ from those who did not in terms of child gender, household income, or caregiver education. However, caregivers who were born outside the U.S. were more likely to complete the Time 4 data collection compared to those born in the U.S., 89.5% versus 75.6%, χ2 (1) = 5.78, p < .02. Starting at Time 5, the study implemented a planned missing design such that families were randomly assigned to participate or not at each time point, and those who were assigned to data collection were assigned either to a home visit or a phone visit (Rhemtulla et al., 2014). Of the 198 families included in this analysis, 133 (67.2%) were assigned to participate in data collection during Time 5. Of those, 89 families (66.9%) completed data collection at Time 5. Among those who were assigned to data collection at Time 5, those who completed data collection did not differ from those who did not in terms of child gender, household income, caregiver education, or caregiver nativity.

Demographic characteristics for the 198 families included in this analysis are displayed in Table 1. The vast majority of the primary caregivers (98.5%) were mothers of the target child, although two grandmothers and one father were also primary caregivers. Henceforth, all caregivers will be referred to as parents. Almost 80% of the parents were foreign-born, with the majority coming from Mexico. Almost two-thirds (59.6%) spoke predominantly Spanish, and another third were bilingual. Nearly 60% of the households had an average income below the federal poverty level. The average age of children at Time 4 was 7.4 years (SD = .33, range 6.8 – 8.1), and the average age of children at Time 5 was 10.7 years (SD = .22, range 10.2 – 11.1)

Table 1.

Characteristic of Study Sample (N = 198)

N (%)
Child gender
 Boy 104 (52.5)
 Girl 94 (47.5)
Caregiver relationship to child
 Mother 195 (98.5)
 Grandmother 2 (1.0)
 Father 1 (0.5)
Family structure
 Nuclear 121 (61.1)
 Nuclear extended 48 (24.2)
 Single parent 7 (3.5)
 Single extended 18 (9.1)
 Single parent plus partner 2 (1.0)
 Other 2 (1.0)
Average household income
 <50% of the federal poverty level 18 (9.1)
 50–99% of the federal poverty level 100 (50.5)
 100–149% of the federal poverty level 55 (27.8)
 150%+ of the federal poverty level 25 (12.6)
Caregiver’s level of education
 Less than 8 years 35 (17.7)
 9–12 years, no diploma 51 (25.8)
 High school/GED 72 (36.4)
 More than high school 40 (20.2)
Caregiver language
 Spanish-dominant 118 (59.6)
 English-dominant 9 (4.5)
 Bilingual 64 (32.3)
 Missing 7 (3.5)
Caregiver nativity
 U.S. born 45 (22.7)
 Foreign born, came to U.S. as a child 54 (27.3)
 Foreign born, came to U.S. as an adult 96 (48.5)
 Foreign born, time of immigration unknown 3 (1.5)
Country of origin (foreign-born caregivers)
 Mexico 146 (95.4)
 Central America 6 (3.9)
 South America 1 (0.7)
Open in a new tab

Data Collection Procedures

Parent interviews at Time 4 were completed during a home visit lasting approximately 1.5–2 hours. At Time 5, 58% of the parent interviews were conducted in the home, and the remaining 42% were conducted by phone. At Time 5, all youth completed interviews in a self-administered format on a tablet with assistance from a research assistant as needed. All researchers who conducted home visits or phone interviews with Latinx families were fully bilingual. At Time 4, 88% of parent interviews were conducted in Spanish, and at Time 5, 76% of parent interviews were conducted in Spanish. At Time 5, 21% of youth interviews were conducted in Spanish. Written consent was obtained from parents at all home visits, and verbal consent was obtained for phone visits. Youth assent was obtained at both time points. Finally, all study procedures were reviewed and approved by the institutional review boards of the authors’ institutions.

Measures

The measures included in the current study were first forward-translated from English to Spanish by a native speaker, and then back-translated from Spanish to English by two, separate research team members, one a native and one a non-native speaker. Disagreements were resolved by consensus.

Stressful Life Events

The Events in My Life self-report questionnaire was administered at Time 4 and adapted from the Life Experiences Survey (LES; Sarason et al, 1978) for the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development (NICHD SECCYD, 2000). The 57-item version used in the SECCYD was adapted for the current study by removing items deemed not relevant to the study population and also adding a few items identified by our home visiting team as important issues in the lives of our families. Examples of items deleted from the measure include, “Major change in usual type and/or amount of recreation” and “Major change in financial status.” Examples of items added included, “Delinquent/late payments on mortgage or rent” and “Your or anyone in your family was the victim of a violent crime.” The resulting 47-item inventory is displayed in Table 2. For each item, parents first responded if their family had experienced that event in the last year, and for those experienced, respondents rated the level of stress caused on a three-point Likert scale (Not at All Stressful, Somewhat Stressful, Very Stressful).

Table 2.

Stressful Life Events Inventory

Stressful Life Events Inventory
Aftermath of divorce/breakup Husband/partner detained in jail for law violation
Arguments or conflicts with close friend Major change in living conditions
Arguments or conflicts with in-laws or other family members Major personal injury or illness
Argument or conflict with husband/partner Marital separation (due to conflict)
Birth or adoption of a child Marriage
Change in child custody arrangements/visitation Minor law violation (e.g., traffic tickets)
Change in husband’s/partner’s work Needed to care for aging family member
Change in work situation Outside personal achievement
Change of address Pregnancy
Child started school Problem with children (e.g., school, discipline)
Death of a close family member Problems with transportation (bus route, car, etc.)
Death of a close friend Reconciliation with husband/boyfriend/partner
Death of a husband/partner Return to work
Delinquent/late payments on mortgage or rent Returned/began school/training program
Detained in jail for law violation Separated from husband/partner due to work, travel etc.
Divorce or break up with boyfriend/partner Serious illness or injury of a close family member
Family violence or abuse Serious illness or injury of a close friend
Fired or laid off from job Stopped working outside home
Future of husband’s/partner’s job is insecure Took prescription drugs monthly to help with mental problems
Gained a new household member (i.e., someone moved in) Trouble with employer
Gunshots or violence in neighborhood You or anyone in your family, victim of a property crime
Had a miscarriage You or anyone in your family, victim of a violent crime
Had an abortion Other recent, noteworthy experiences which have had an
Had counseling or therapy impact on your life
Open in a new tab

The average number of SLEs identified by respondents was 5.06 (SD = 3.64, range 0 – 18, mode = 4). The questions regarding whether an event had occurred were combined with the questions rating stressfulness of the event to create a single variable ranging from 0 (Did Not Occur) to 3 (Occurred, Very Stressful). The individual stressfulness variables were summed (α = .73). The average SLEs score was 10.62 (SD = 8.10, range 0 – 43).

Acculturative Stress

The Riverside Acculturation Stress Inventory (RASI; Benet-Martínez, 2003), also administered at Time 4, covers five life domains (three items each) for which perceived acculturation stress may have an impact: language skills, work challenges, intercultural relations, discrimination, and the cultural/ethnic makeup of the community. Parents were asked to indicate how much they agree on a scale of 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree) with each of the 15 statements. Items include, “I have felt discriminated against by Americans because of my Hispanic/Latinx background;” “In looking for a job, I sometimes feel that my Hispanic/Latinx background is a limitation;” and “I often feel misunderstood or limited in daily situations because of my English skills.” For the sample as a whole, the internal reliability coefficient for the acculturation subscales were as follows: cultural isolation (.58), discrimination (.83), intercultural relations (.72), language skills (.85), and work challenges (.68). Scale composites were created by averaging the items in the scale, with higher scores representing higher levels of stress in that domain. The average subscale scores were 1.84 (SD = 8.10), 2.00 (SD = 1.09), 1.74 (SD = .85), 2.28 (SD = 1.23), and 2.52 (SD = 1.20) for cultural isolation, discrimination, intercultural relations, language skills, and work challenges, respectively.

Child Psychological Well-Being

The Child Depression Index, Second Edition Short Form (CDI-2S) is a youth-report questionnaire used to assess internalizing symptoms in children (Kovacs, 2011). The scale is comprised of 12 items, each assessed on a 3-point scale (e.g., “I am sad once in a while”, “I am sad many times,” “I am sad all the time”). The internal reliability of the CDI-2S was .73, although other authors have reported .68 for the Spanish version (Cumba-Avilés et al., 2020). Item-level data are scored using software provided by the scale developer and norm-referenced to create t-scores and percentile rankings.

Demographic Characteristics

Demographic characteristics used in this analysis included child gender and average household income-to-needs ratio. Child gender was reported by parents at the time of recruitment and coded 0 for male and 1 for female. At each of the first four data collection points, household income was divided by the current poverty threshold for a family of similar size to obtain the household income-to-needs ratio. The four time points were averaged to obtain the average household income-to-needs ratio over the study period (α = .86). To adjust for child’s negative mood, we included parent-reported internalizing problems at age 7 using the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL, Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001). A t-score for internalizing problems is generated by the CBCL scoring program, with higher values indicating more parent-reported internalizing problems.

Analytic Approach

Before analyses commenced, all missing data were imputed using auxiliary variables extracted using principal components analysis (PCA) from a block of approximately 100 representing all domains of data across all time points of the larger study as well as interactions between auxiliary variables and study variables (Howard, 2015). These auxiliary variables were then used to impute 100 data sets of the study variables, and the quality of the imputations was determined by comparing the distribution of imputed data with the distribution of observed data. The 100 imputed data sets were combined to create a grand mean data set that was used for all analyses.

Pearson correlation and t-tests/ANOVA were used to examine the bivariate relations between SLEs, acculturation stress, child depressive symptoms and covariates. Structural equation modeling in Mplus (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2017) was used to examine the relation between family stressors assessed at age 7 and child depressive symptoms at age 10 adjusted for covariates, and multigroup modeling was used to examine differences by child gender. For the structural equation models, acculturation stress was modeled as a latent variable using the five ASI scores as indicators. A confirmatory factor model indicated this latent variable fit the data well, χ2 (5) = 25.10, p < .001, CFI = .94, TLI = .87, SRMR = .04.

Significant interaction effects were probed using the Johnson and Neyman (1936) procedure for plotting interactions between two continuous variables. With this technique, the interaction effect and its 95% confidence intervals are plotted using all possible scores of the moderator. The point at which the confidence intervals around the effect no longer include zero signifies the minimum amount of the moderator required for the interaction to be significant and any amount of the moderator beyond this limit comprises the region of significance for the effect. For examples in the social sciences using this procedure, see Carlson et al. (2015) or Osborne (2021).

Results

Bivariate Relations Between Stressful Life Events, Acculturation Stress, and Child Behavior

The average score on the CDI at age 10 was 45.52 (SD = 7.73, range 33 to 77). Child depressive symptoms at age 10 differed significantly by gender, with girls reporting more symptoms, M = 47.24, SD = 8.70, than boys, M = 43.97, SD = 6.40, t (169) = 2.98, p < .01. Bivariate correlations between child depressive symptoms at age 10 and family stressors at age 7 are displayed in Table 3. SLEs and acculturation stress reported by parents when children were 7 years old were associated with higher child-reported depressive symptoms at age 10, although these bivariate associations appeared to be significant for boys but not girls.

Table 3.

Correlations Between Child Depressive Symptoms at Age 10 with and Family Stress Variables at Age 7

Full Sample Boys Girls
Stressful life events .24** .47** .07
Acculturation stress
 Cultural isolation		 .16* .27** .10
 Discrimination .12 .25* .00
 Intercultural relations −.01 .13 −.13
 Language skills .15* .25* .12
 Work challenges .13 .24* .07
Average family income-to-needs ratio .00 .09 .00
Open in a new tab
*

p < .05

**

p < .01

Multivariate Analyses

We fit a multi-group structural equation model to examine gender differences. Child-reported depressive symptoms at age 10 were regressed on parent-reported SLEs and acculturation stress at age 7 as well as the interaction between the two. In addition, family income-to-needs and parent-reported internalizing problems at age 7 were included in the model as covariates.

The significance of differences between gender-specific coefficients was assessed by systematically constraining each to be equivalent across groups and evaluating the change in the model fit log likelihood. If the log likelihood increases, this indicates the quality of model fit has declined. The difference between the log likelihoods of the unconstrained and constrained models, multiplied by two, follows a chi square distribution with degrees of freedom equal to the difference in the degrees of freedom between the two models. The results of these model comparisons are displayed in Table 4. The only coefficient that differed significantly by child gender was the relation between SLEs and child depressive symptoms, χ2 (1) = 4.59, p < .05.

Table 4.

Model Constraint Results Probing Gender Differences

Model Log Likelihood df ΔLog Likelihood Δdf p-value
Dully unconstrained −1950.81 36 --- --- ---
SLE main effect constrained −1953.10 35 −4.59 1 .032
SLE x ASI interaction constrained −1950.96 35 −0.30 1 .584
CBCL main effect constrained −1951.39 35 −1.17 1 .208
SLE, SLE x ASI interaction, and CBCL constrained −1954.41 33 −7.20 3 .066
SLE and SLE x ASI constrained −1953.46 34 −5.30 2 .071
Open in a new tab

In the final model, all coefficients except the coefficient for SLEs were constrained to be equal across child gender (see Table 5). As can be seen in the table, more SLEs reported at age 7 by parents were associated with more child-reported depressive symptoms at age 10 but only among boys. However, for both boys and girls, there was a significant interaction between acculturation stress and family SLEs. Specifically, as the amount of acculturation stress reported at age 7 increased, the negative impact of family SLEs and child-reported depressive symptoms at age 10 was magnified. The interaction between SLEs and acculturation stress is depicted in Figure 1. The Johnson-Neyman technique (Johnson & Neyman, 1936) was used to determine the point at which the interaction effect became significant, and the associated region of significance, separately for boy and girls. For boys, the region of significance was at or above .7 SD below the mean of acculturation stress. That is, at relatively low levels of acculturation stress, the relation between family stressors and increased depressive symptoms among boys was magnified. For boys, the effect sizes of acculturation stress were moderate to high, ranging from .27 at low levels of SLEs to .68 at high levels of SLEs.

Table 5.

Regression of Child Depression Index at Age 10 on Family Stressful Life Events and Acculturation Stress at Age 7

Boys Girls
b se(b) t b se(b) t
Intercept 39.49 2.68 14.76*** 43.10 2.77 15.55***
Stressful life events (age 7) 0.36 0.07 5.26*** 0.04 0.11 0.38
Acculturation Stress Index (age 7) 0.39 0.91 0.43 0.39 0.91 0.43
SLE x ASI interaction 0.23 0.11 2.19* 0.23 0.11 2.19*
Average family income to-needs-ratio −0.01 0.03 −0.32 −0.01 0.03 −0.32
CBCL internalizing problems (age 7) 0.09 0.05 1.72+ 0.09 0.05 1.72+
Open in a new tab

Note. Stressful Life Events centered at the grand mean.

+

p < .10

*

p < .05

***

p < .001

Figure 1. Relation Between Family Stressful Life Events at Age 7 and Child Depressive Symptoms at Age 10 at Different Levels of Family Acculturation Stress.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Note. ASI = Acculturation Stress Index Inventory; CDI = Child Depression Index. High and Low ASI were defined as 1.5 SD above and below the mean, respectively. The Johnson-Neyman technique was used to determine the region of significance. For boys, the region of significance was at or above .7 SD below the mean of the ASI, which is indicated in the by the light grey line in the figure for boys. For girls, the region of significance was at or above 1.5 SD above the mean, as indicated by the High ASI line.

For girls, the region of significance was at or above 1.5 SD above the mean of acculturation stress. As noted in Table 4, there was no main effect for SLEs and depressive symptoms for girls. However, the significant interaction indicates that when high levels of acculturation stress were also reported, SLEs were associated with higher depressive symptoms among girls. At high levels of acculturation stress, the effect size of SLEs ranged from very small at average levels of SLEs (ES = .04) to moderate at high levels of SLEs (ES = .34).

Discussion

Study findings corroborate the existing literature regarding the relation between SLEs in early childhood and poor socio-emotional functioning for children (Brown et al., 2016; Dougherty et al., 2013; March-Llanes et al., 2017; Willard et al., 2016). Specifically, more frequent and stressful life experiences during early elementary school were consistently associated with higher levels of child-reported depressive symptoms three years later, even after controlling for baseline levels of child negative mood; however, this finding was true for boys only. This was a surprising finding given that previous studies documenting direct pathways between SLEs and internalizing and/or externalizing symptoms report no differences between boys and girls, with the exception of reactive aggression, which appears to be heightened in the presence of increased life stress only for boys (Brown et al., 2016). One study did find that in adult samples, life threatening SLEs tend to be more common for men than for women (Hatch & Dohrenwend, 2007). Thus, level of severity of SLEs experienced in this sample may differ for boys versus girls, but this was not measured. Nevertheless, the documented direct effect between SLEs and child depression for boys three years later adds to the relatively limited longitudinal research on the impact of SLEs in early childhood.

Surprisingly, acculturation stress was not independently associated with higher depressive symptoms for this developmental period as was hypothesized; however, this is an effect that may emerge as the sample grows older, as suggested by research documenting the effects of racism and discrimination on youth (Heard-Garris et al., 2018). Despite the lack of independent association, acculturation stress did appear to exacerbate the relation between SLEs and child-report depressive symptoms for both boys and girls. Again, this multiplicative effect appeared stronger for boys who were more likely to report higher depression even at lower levels of acculturation stress. Given gender socialization patterns, it may be that girls have more support to voice their emotions, whereas boys are taught to not express their emotions and keep them inside, thereby increasing depressive symptoms (Hoffman et al., 1993; Raffaelli & Ontai, 2004). Interestingly, one study of college students also found multiplicative effects of acculturation stress on depression symptoms for men only, although this was true for only one pathway in the model (Castillo et al., 2015).

Another possible explanation for these gender differences may lie in greater vulnerability to depression for boys exposed to stressors. Research has documented significant gender differences in the prevalence of depressive symptoms as well as clinical diagnoses of depression emerging in early adolescence. Although internalizing problems increase for both boys and girls starting in middle childhood, they increase more quickly among girls such that girls report higher rates of depression relative to boys by early adolescence (Salk et al., 2016). The stronger association between SLEs and depressive symptoms among boys in our sample may reflect the fact that boys have a lower base rate of depression at this age. Indeed, girls reported a higher level of depressive symptoms relative to boys in the present sample.

Overall, while existing empirical evidence supports a direct association between acculturation stress and youth internalizing problems, particularly in cross-sectional studies (Hurwich-Reiss & Gudiño, 2015), the potential for acculturative stress to magnify the impact of everyday life stressors is a new finding. Based on this finding, acculturation and contextual stressors appear to be a decisive factor in Latinx youth well-being and cannot be ignored when considering life stress. This critical finding is supported by the theoretical work of Barajas-Gonzalez and colleagues (2021) who argue that immigration and socio-political climate-related experiences are necessary elements to factor into discussions of adverse or stressful childhood experiences among Latinx communities. It seems that to examine the impact of SLEs on Latinx child depression without attending to the multiplicative nature of acculturation and socio-political climate stress misses the mark for this significant portion of the U.S. population.

Finally, it is important to note that in this sample of Latinx parents and their children, acculturation stress may be a bit of a misnomer, as described in Viruell-Fuentes’ (2007) work with first- and second-generation Mexican immigrants. Specifically, acculturation frameworks initially conceptualized this phenomenon as a process of negotiation between culture-of-origin and host-culture that occurs over time. However, for many Latinx families, discrimination and work-based challenges are the result of a toxic socio-political climate rather than processes of cultural negotiation (Viruell-Fuentes, 2007). The first time point of data for this study were collected in 2014–2015, when the anti-immigrant political discourse situating Latinx immigrant as “invaders” and “criminals” was increasing (Epps & Furman, 2016; Esses et al., 2013). By the second time point, in 2018, these discourses were in full swing. Thus, the relatively high levels of acculturation stress reported by families may be due to the shifting political climate and may have differed had the data been collected during a time of less anti-immigrant sentiment.

Study Limitations

A number of limitations should be kept in mind when interpreting the study findings. First, due to the age of the children in early waves of the study, we were unable to ask children themselves about their experiences of both SLEs and acculturation-related stressors, so we cannot determine children’s degree of awareness of these issues. We are continuing to follow the children in this sample including measures of child and parent report of these stressors as well as child behavior outcomes, which will allow us to continue exploring these important issues. Another important consideration for interpreting the study findings is the unique ecological context of Texas, the location of the study sample, which limits generalizability to other contexts. Again, early acculturation stress models proposed a normative acculturation pattern through which immigrants steadily “adjust” to life in a new country, including learning a new language and customs in addition to interacting with the host country society (Berry, 1997). Although approximately 75% of the sample were foreign-born—and largely from Mexico—Texas is home to many Latinx families who have lived there for generations. Thus, the “out group” sentiment experienced by many immigrants may be different in Texas compared to other states. For example, a large portion of the sample (57%) continues to be Spanish-dominant despite having lived in the U.S. for many years and may circumvent the need to learn English by living in immigrant enclaves and/or working with largely Spanish-speaking colleagues. Despite this, participants reported high levels of ethnic- and language-based discrimination in addition to work-related difficulties that impeded their ability for upward mobility. Although this type of stress may not be true acculturation stress as much as reflective of political climate factors, the need to address them through cultural shifts that foster pro-immigrant sentiment and inclusivity remains.

Conclusion

Stressful life events have significant negative implications for child well-being and functioning, particularly internalizing symptoms such as depression (Brown et al., 2016; Dougherty et al., 2013; March-Llanes et al., 2017; Willard et al., 2016). The repercussions of these events may have compounded effects for Latinx families due to the added effects of acculturation stress, which may be synonymous with socio-political climate factors for these families (Viruell-Fuentes, 2007). The findings of the current study underscore the importance of including stressors that may be unique to particular groups when examining the impact of early child adverse experiences on child well-being. Not including these group-specific stressors portrays an incomplete picture of the adverse early life experiences (Barajas-Gonzalez et al., 2021). This is of particular importance because although everyday life stress can rarely be avoided, the socio-political conditions that contribute to acculturation stress can, and should be addressed.

Public Significance Statement.

Latinx youth face acculturative stress in addition to the typical life stress all children face; however, acculturation stress has been largely absent from the stressful life events literature. This study found that acculturation stress, including discrimination, magnified the influence of stressful life events on Latinx children’s depressive symptoms three years later.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Development (Grant number 2R01HD075311).

Footnotes

CRediT author statement

Ashley Walsdorf: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing-Original Daft; Margaret Caughy: Data Analysis and Curation, Funding Acquisition; Resources, Supervision, Writing-Original Draft; Kimberly Osborne: Data Curation, Investigation, Writing-Original Draft; Carmen Valdez: Writing-Reviewing; Victoria King: Data Analysis and Curation, Investigation; Margaret Owen: Funding Acquisition; Resources, Supervision, Writing-Reviewing.

1

Postnatal hospitalizations of 7 or more days can be an indication of more serious health concerns that may not be diagnosed until later in development, and parents are reliable reporters of this (NICHD ECCRN, 1997).

References

  1. Achenbach TM, & Rescorla LA (2001). Manual for the ASEBA school-age forms & profiles. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, & Families. [Google Scholar]
  2. Alfaro EA, Umaña-Taylor AJ, Gonzales-Backen M, Bámaca MY, & Zeiders K. (2009). Discrimination, academic motivation, and academic success among Latino Adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 32, 941–962. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.08.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington D.C.: Author. [Google Scholar]
  4. Appleyard K, Egeland B, van Dulmen MHM, & Alan Sroufe L. (2005). When more is not better: The role of cumulative risk in child behavior outcomes. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46(3), 235–245. 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00351.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Barajas-Gonzalez RG, Ayón C, Brabeck K, Rojas-Flores L, & Valdez CR (2021). An ecological expansion of the adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) framework to include threat and deprivation associated with U.S. immigration policies and enforcement practices: An examination of the Latinx immigrant experience. Social Science & Medicine, 282, 114–126. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114126 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Benet-Martínez V. (2003). The Riverside Acculturation Stress Inventory (RASI): Development and psychometric properties. Technical Report, Department of Psychology, University of California at Riverside. [Google Scholar]
  7. Berry JW (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology, 46(1), 5–34. 10.1111/j.1464-0597.1997.tb01087.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Broeren S, Newall C, Dodd HF, Locker R, & Hudson JL (2014). Longitudinal investigation of the role of temperament and stressful life events in childhood anxiety. Development and Psychopathology, 26(2), 437–449. 10.1017/S0954579413000989 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Brown S, Fite PJ, & Poquiz J. (2016). Moderating effects of gender on outcomes associated with SLEs among elementary school-age youth. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 47(4), 593–602. 10.1007/s10578-015-0592-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Carlson M, Oshri A, & Kwon J. (2015). Child maltreatment and risk behaviors: The roles of callous/unemotional traits and conscientiousness. Child Abuse & Neglect, 50, 234–243. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.07.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Castillo LG, Navarro RL, Walker JEO, Schwartz SJ, Zamboanga BL, Whitbourne SK, ... & Caraway SJ (2015). Gender matters: The influence of acculturation and acculturative stress on Latino college student depressive symptomatology. Journal of Latina/o Psychology, 3(1), 40–55. 10.1037/lat0000030 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Castro-Olivo SM, Palardy GJ, Albeg L, & Williamson AA (2014). Development and validation of the Coping with Acculturative Stress in American Schools (CASAS-A) Scale on a Latino adolescent sample. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 40(1), 3–15. 10.1177/1534508413500983 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Cervantes RC, & Cordova D. (2011). Life experiences of Hispanic adolescents: Developmental and language considerations in acculturation stress. Journal of Community Psychology, 39(3), 336–352. 10.1002/jcop.20436 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Cumba-Avilés E, López-Robledo YM, Caro-González W, & Rosario-Nieves I. (2020) Pilot validation study for the Spanish-language CDI-2 among adolescents from Puerto Rico. Revista Puertorriqueña de Psicología, 31(1), 110–126. PMCID: PMC9262378 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Dougherty LR, Tolep MR, Bufferd SJ, Olino TM, Dyson M, Traditi J, ... & Klein DN (2013). Preschool anxiety disorders: Comprehensive assessment of clinical, demographic, temperamental, familial, and life stress correlates. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 42(4), 577–589. 10.1080/15374416.2012.759225 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Epps D, & Furman R. (2016). The “alien other”: A culture of dehumanizing immigrants in the United States. Social Work and Society, 14(2). https://ejournals.bib.uni-wuppertal.de/index.php/sws/article/view/485/990 [Google Scholar]
  17. Esses VM, Medianu S, & Lawson AS (2013). Uncertainty, threat, and the role of the media in promoting the dehumanization of immigrants and refugees. Journal of Social Issues, 69(3), 518–536. 10.1111/josi.12027 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Fisher CB, Wallace SA, & Fenton RE (2000). Discrimination distress during adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29(6), 679–695. 10.1023/A:1026455906512 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Funk C, & Lopez MH (2022). Hispanic Americans’ trust in and engagement with science. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2022/06/PS_2022.06.14_hispanic-americans-science_REPORT.pdf [Google Scholar]
  20. García Coll C, Lamberty G, Jenkins R, McAdoo HP, Crnic K, Wasik BH, & Garcia HV (1996). An integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in minority children. Child Development, 67(5), 1891–1914. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01834.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Hatch SL, & Dohrenwend BP (2007). Distribution of traumatic and other SLEs by race/ethnicity, gender, SES, and age: A review of the research. American Journal of Community Psychology, 40(3–4), 313–332. 10.1007/s10464-007-9134-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Heard-Garris NJ, Cale M, Camaj L, Hamati MC, Dominguez TP (2018) Transmitting Trauma: A systematic review of vicarious racism and child health. Social Science & Medicine, 199, 230–240. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.04.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Hernandez-Nieto R, Gutierrez MC, & Moreno-Fernandez F. (2017). Hispanic Map of the United States: 2017. Boston, MA: Instituto Cervantes, Harvard University. Retrieved from http://cervantesobservatorio.fas.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/hispanic_map_2017en.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  24. Hoffman MA, Levy-Shiff R, Ushpiz V. (1993). Gender differences in the relation between stressful life events and adjustment among school-aged children. Sex Roles, 29(7–8), 441–455. 10.1007/BF00289320 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Hurwich-Reiss E, & Gudiño OG (2016). Acculturation stress and conduct problems among Latino adolescents: The impact of family factors. Journal of Latina/o Psychology, 4(4), 218–231. 10.1037/lat0000052 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Johnson PO, & Neyman J. (1936). Tests of certain linear hypotheses and their application to some educational problems. Statistical Research Memoirs, 1, 57–93. [Google Scholar]
  27. Kilmer RP, Cowen EL, Wyman PA, Work WC, & Magnus KB (1998). Differences in stressors experienced by urban African American, white, and Hispanic children. Journal of Community Psychology, 26(5), 415–428. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Kovacs M. (2011). Children’s Depression Inventory 2nd edition (CD1–2): Technical manual. Multi-Health Systems. [Google Scholar]
  29. Kulis S, Marsiglia FF, & Nieri T. (2009). Perceived ethnic discrimination versus acculturation stress: Influences on substance use among Latino youth in the Southwest. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 50(4), 443–459. 10.1177/002214650905000405 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Kushner M, Barrios C, Smith V, Dougherty L, Kushner MR, Smith VC, & Dougherty LR (2016). Physiological and behavioral vulnerability markers increase risk to early life stress in preschool-aged children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 44(5), 859–870. 10.1007/s10802-015-0087-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Lima J, Caughy MO, Nettles SM, & O’ Campo PJ (2010). Effects of cumulative risk and effects on behavioral adjustment in first grade: Moderation by neighborhood context. Social Science & Medicine, 71(8), 1447–1454. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.06.022 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Little RJA (1986). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83(404), 1198–1202. 10.1080/01621459.1988.10478722 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Loria H. & Caughy MO (2017). Prevalence of adverse childhood experiences in low-income Latino immigrant and non-immigrant children. Journal of Pediatrics, 192, 209–215. 10.1016/j.jpeds.2017.09.056 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. March-Llanes J, Marqués-Feixa L, Mezquita L, Fañanás L, & Moya-Higueras J. (2017). Stressful life events during adolescence and risk for externalizing and internalizing psychopathology: A meta-analysis. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 26(12) 10.1007/s00787-017-0996-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. McLaughlin KA, Green JG, Gruber MJ, Sampson NA, Zaslavsky AM, & Kessler RC (2012). Childhood adversities and first onset of psychiatric disorders in a national sample of US adolescents. Archives General Psychiatry, 69(1), 1151–1160. 10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.2277 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. McLaughlin KA, Sheridan MA (2016). Beyond cumulative risk a dimensional approach to childhood adversity. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(4), 239–245. 10.1177/0963721416655883 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Mendoza MM, Dmitrieva J, Perreira KM, Hurwich-Reiss E, & Watamura SE (2017). The effects of economic and sociocultural stressors on the well-being of children of Latino immigrants living in poverty. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 23(1), 15–26. 10.1037/cdp0000111 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Mills B, Dyer N, Pacheco D, Brinkley D, Owen MT, & Caughy MO (2019). Developmental transactions between self-regulation and academic achievement among low income African American and Latino children. Child Development, 90(5), 1614–1631. 10.1111/cdev.13091 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Muthén B, & Muthén L. (1998–2017). Mplus User’s Guide (Eighth ed.). Muthén and Muthén. http://www.statmodel.com/download/usersguide/MplusUserGuideVer_8.pdf [Google Scholar]
  40. NICHD ECCRN. (1997). The effects of infant childcare on infant-mother attachment security: Results of the NICHD Study of Early Child Care. Child Development, 68(5), 860–879. 10.2307/1132038 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Osborne KR, Caughy MO, Oshri A, Smith EP, & Owen MT (2021). Racism and preparation for bias within African American families. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 27, 269–279. 10.1037/cdp0000339 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Peters MF, & Massey G. (1983). Mundane extreme environmental stress in family stress theories: The case of Black families in White America. Marriage & Family Review, 6(1–2), 193–218. 10.1300/J002v06n01_10 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Platt R, Williams SR, & Ginsburg GS (2016). Stressful life events and child anxiety: Examining parent and child mediators. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 47(1), 23–34. 10.1007/s10578-015-0540-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Priest N, Paradies Y, Trenerry B, Truong M, Karlsen S, & Kelly Y. (2013). A systematic review of studies examining the relationship between reported racism and health and wellbeing for children and young people. Social Science & Medicine, 95, 115–127. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.11.031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Rhemtulla M, Jia F, Wu W, & Little TD (2014). Planned missing designs to optimize the efficiency of latent growth parameter estimates. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 38(5), 423–434. 10.1177/0165025413514324 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Roche KM, Vaquera E, White RM, & Rivera MI (2018). Impacts of immigration actions and news and the psychological distress of US Latino parents raising adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 62(5), 525–531. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.01.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Rubio-Stipec M, Bird B, Canino G, & Gould M. (1990). The internal consistency and concurrent validity of a Spanish translation of the Child Behavior Checklist. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 18(4), 393–406. 10.1007/BF00917642 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Rutter M. (1979). Protective factors in children’s responses to stress and disadvantage. In Kent WM & Rolf JE (Eds.), Primary prevention of psychopathology (Vol. 3, pp. 49–74). Hanover, NH: University Press of New England. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Salk RH, Petersen JL, Abramson LY, & Hyde JS (2016). The contemporary face of gender differences and similarities in depression throughout adolescence: Development and chronicity. Journal of Affective Disorders, 205, 28–35. 10.1016/j.jad.2016.03.071 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Sameroff AJ (2010). A unified theory of development: A dialectic integration of nature and nurture. Child Development, 81(1), 6–22. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01378.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Sarason IG, Johnson JH, Siegel JM (1978). Assessing the impact of life changes: Development of the Life Experiences Survey. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46(5), 932–946. 10.1037/0022-006X.46.5.932 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Sheridan MA, & McLaughlin KA (2020). Neurodevelopmental mechanisms linking ACEs with psychopathology. In Asmundson GJG & Afifi TO (Eds.), Adverse childhood experiences: Using evidence to advance research, practice, policy, and prevention (pp. 265–285). Elsevier Academic Press. 10.1016/B978-0-12-816065-7.00013-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development: Phase III, 2000–2004 [United States]. ICPSR21942-v1. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research; [distributor], 2010–01-08. 10.3886/ICPSR21942.v1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. Tessner KD, Mittal V, & Walker EF (2011). Longitudinal study of stressful life events and daily stressors among adolescents at high risk for psychotic disorders. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 37(2), 432–441. 10.1093/schbul/sbp087 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Umaña-Taylor AJ, Wong JJ, Gonzales NA, & Dumka LE (2012). Ethnic identity and gender as moderators of the association between discrimination and academic adjustment among Mexican-origin adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 35, 773–86. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.11.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Vargas ED, Sanchez GR, & Juárez M. (2017). Fear by association: Perceptions of anti-immigrant policy and health outcomes. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 42(3), 459–483. 10.1215/03616878-3802940 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Viruell-Fuentes EA (2007). Beyond acculturation: immigration, discrimination, and health research among Mexicans in the United States. Social Science & Medicine, 65(7), 1524–1535. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.05.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Willard VW, Long A, & Phipps S. (2016). Life stress versus traumatic stress: The impact of life events on psychological functioning in children with and without serious illness. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 8(1), 63–71. 10.1037/tra0000017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Zeiders KH, Umaña-Taylor AJ, Jahromi LB, Updegraff KA, & White RB (2016). Discrimination and acculturation stress: A longitudinal study of children’s well-being from prenatal development to 5 years of age. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 37(7), 557–564. 10.1097/DBP.0000000000000321 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES