The Bidirectional Association Between Racial Discrimination and Pubertal Development: A Prospective Investigation Among Black & Latinx Adolescents

Abstract

Purpose.

Racial discrimination has been linked with pubertal development among Black and Latinx American youth. The direction of effects, however, is poorly understood. We examined bidirectional associations between exposure to racial discrimination and pubertal development among Black and Latinx boys and girls from age 9 to age 11.

Methods.

This study uses longitudinal data from the Adolescent Brain and Cognitive Development study collected from 2016 to 2020. The sample included 3,271 youth (1,470 Black youth and 1,801 Latinx youth) approximately aged 11 at Time (T) 1 and 12 at T2. Bi-directional effects were tested with cross-lagged models stratified by race/ethnicity and sex.

Results.

Results demonstrated nonsignificant associations between T1 racial discrimination and T2 pubertal status among demographic subgroups (i.e. Black girls, Black boys, Latinx girls, and Latinx boys). In contrast, we found signification prospective associations between T1 pubertal development and T2 racial discrimination among Black and Latinx girls, but not Black or Latinx boys. This effect emerged even after consideration of important confounding variables such as stressful life events and neurocognitive development.

Discussion.

Our results suggest that physical indicators of maturation among Black and Latinx girls may trigger discriminatory treatment from peers and adults. These findings underscore the influence of racist stereotypes applied to young women of color, and their potential to negatively affect youth development.

Introduction

Early adolescence marks a significant phase of development that manifests dramatic changes in biological and neurobehavioral systems associated with pubertal development ¹. The timing and experience of pubertal maturation has implications for adolescents’ development in multiple domains (e.g., mental health, identity, body image) ². Empirical investigations of adolescents consider two aspects of pubertal development. Pubertal status refers to the physical and physiological maturational levels of children at a given point in time including growth spurts in height and skin changes, body as well as breast development in girls or beard growth in boys ³. Pubertal timing refers to a child’s status relative to one’s peers in terms of being early, on-time, or late ⁴. Consistent differences in pubertal development -both status and timing-based on race/ethnicity have been observed ¹. Black American youth, who on average begin puberty around age 9, enter and complete puberty the earliest followed by Latinx American youth, who on average begin puberty around age 10, both of whom show signs of pubertal development earlier than their White or Asian American counterparts, who on average begin puberty around age 12 ^1,5-7.

Pubertal development -both status and timing-among minoritized youth has emerged as important focus for adolescent health inquiry based on two lines of research. The first considers the reasons why pubertal development occurs early among Black and Latinx children and the potential for exposure to race-related stressors to explain racial/ethnic differences ⁸. The biological “weathering” hypothesis suggest that exposure to racial discrimination may accelerate the pace of development and the aging process in general, hastening the onset of pubertal development ^8,9. A second line of research underscores the potential for indicators of pubertal development to trigger increases in racial discrimination. As minoritized youth appear more like adults, they may become increasingly subject to harsh and unfair treatment based on stereotypes and biases associated with their racial/ethnic group ^8,10. Empirical data on the links between racial discrimination and pubertal development, however, are scant and limited by a lack of prospective data.

Black and Latinx youth are systematically exposed to a disproportionate burden of stressors and opportunity limitations due to racism. Racism is defined as a system of hierarchical categorization of social groups into races for the purpose of differential allocation of status, resources, and power in ways that privilege White Americans ¹¹. Racism in the United States comprises a multi-level, multidimensional, and immersive context, systematically producing racial disparities among Black and Latinx Americans individuals’ health and well-being over the life course and across generations ¹². In this study, we focus on the interpersonal-level manifestations of racism, referred to as racial discrimination, which indexes interpersonal experiences of unfair treatment based on race from youth’s teachers, peers, and other non-familial adults ¹³. Typically assessed via self-report, individual racism can be explicit, implicit, overt, and/or covert manifesting as lack of respect, suspicion, devaluation, scapegoating, and dehumanization ¹⁴. Studies reveal that experiences of individual racism are common among Black and Latinx adolescents, and takes a toll on their mental health, physical health, and academic engagement ¹⁵.

The weathering hypothesis posits that Black and Latinx individuals experience premature aging and health deterioration due to stressors and burdens related to unjust social disadvantages ⁹. For example, using a middle-aged African American sample, Simons et al ¹⁶ found that racial discrimination predicted accelerated biological aging controlling for the influence of health risk behaviors. Similar results have been demonstrated for other stressors, such as poverty, which influences youth’s access to material resources and physiological characteristics, such as BMI ¹⁷. Recent studies have considered early pubertal development as an indicator of accelerated aging ¹⁸. These investigations documented positive cross-sectional associations between racial discrimination and early pubertal development ^18,19. Conclusions from these studies are confounded, however, by the potential for pubertal development to trigger increased exposure to racial discrimination, underscoring the need for prospective designs.

Emerging research and theory also suggest that pubertal development -both status and timing-may trigger increased racial discrimination in interpersonal interactions. This may be linked to maturing earlier than one’s peers (i.e. pubertal timing) or occur regardless of the timing as a reaction to observable characteristics of adulthood (i.e. pubertal status). The processes through which visual cues of maturation, be they on time or not, are linked to discriminatory behaviors has been the subject of recent studies referred to as perceived physiological maturity. Peers and adults frequently overestimate the developmental age of Black and Latinx American adolescents and project upon them adult roles, responsibilities, and expectations that are developmentally inappropriate and stressful for the child ^20,21. As Black and Latinx students mature physiologically, their actions and intentions are more likely to be perceived as ill-willed instead of immature, which results in multiple challenges, such as increased disciplinary infractions ²². It also may be case that regardless of whether Black and Latinx youth mature early, signs of puberty are seized upon and interpreted considering harsh stereotypes and distortions regarding Black and Latinx individuals’ behavior and intentions. For example, stereotypes suggesting that Black boys are “dangerous” become more germane to the public as they mature ²³. Thus, maturing early or simply maturing may trigger in others discriminatory behavior and inform observed increases in discrimination during adolescence ^10,24.

We consider the links between pubertal development -both status and timing- and racial discrimination separately for Black girls, Black boys, Latinx girls, and Latinx boys ²⁵. Recent research indicates that the manifestations of racial discrimination in the lives of children vary by their sex and race/ethnicity. Latinx American youth are subject to unique forms of racial discrimination, such as language prejudice, that are often not experienced by Black Americans ²⁶. Black boys report increased exposure to both structural and communal forms of racial discrimination, whereas Black girls report (a) a wider range of sources of discrimination and (b) greater variability in their subjective response to discriminatory experiences ^27,28. Moreover, there are differences in children of color’s timing and experience of pubertal development ²⁹. Taken together, these findings underscore the need for an intersectional perspective that considers each sex/ethnic group as unique.

Current Study

Informed by the weathering hypothesis and recent research on perceived physiological maturity, the current study was designed to prospectively investigate the bidirectional associations between racial discrimination and pubertal development -both status and timing-among Black girls, Black boys, Latinx girls, and Latinx boys. We considered confounding factors linked to pubertal development (e.g., body mass index [BMI], family material hardship, single parent household, and stressful life events) ^1,17 and with exposure to racial discrimination (e.g., youth externalizing symptoms) ³⁰. Neurocognitive development presents a significant potential confounder as pubertal effects on discrimination may be the result of the links between puberty and neurocognitive development which may affect youths’ report of racial discrimination; this is considered in a sensitivity analysis.

Method

Participants

This study analyzed data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study (https://abcdstudy.org) using the annual 4.0 data release, representing the most recent data at the time of analysis. Participants in the ABCD study were recruited using probability sampling at 21 sites across the United States ³¹. Youth were 9 to 10 years of age at baseline and were representative of their recruitment catchment areas ³¹. Participants provided informed consent (from parents) and assent (from the child), with minimal exclusion criteria focused on severe sensory, intellectual, medical, or neurological limitations that could impact their ability to participate in the study, including difficulties with MRI scans or lack of English or Spanish proficiency; children with diagnosed severe autism spectrum disorder, schizophrenia, or intellectual disability were typically excluded ³¹. Although ABCD Study is large and diverse ³², its representativeness of US families partial sampling bias detected in regard to parental education levels ³². Consent and assent were proved by caregiver and youth, respectively. Institutional review boards at participating universities approved all study procedures.

A measure of racial discrimination was included approximately one year after the initial ABCD assessment, which we refer to as Time 1 (T1) for this study. The current study focused on participants at T1 who identified as a member of only one of the race/ethnicity groups of interest in this study, either Black (n = 1,779) or Latinx (n = 2,194). The ABCD study documents racial/ethnic identity using two self-report questions. The first question asks participants “What is your race?” and only includes options derived from the NIH Minimum Reporting guidelines and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) standards used by the US Census Bureau (i.e. White; Black or African American; American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian; etc..). The second question asks, “Do you consider yourself Hispanic/Latino/Latina?” and again only includes the response options of 1 = Yes; 2 = No; 777 = Refuse to answer; and 999 = Don’t know. Using these two questions, we created a coding schema that collapsed these constructs into a three-level combined ethnoracial construct (categories: non-Black Latinx Youth, Black Latinx Youth, and no-Latinx Black Youth), which would allow us to better isolate racial/ethnic identity-related experiences of puberty (see Figure 1). We denote the ancestorial heterogeneity within our study sample of non-Black Latinx youth in Supplement Table 1; unfortunately, there were insufficient numbers of each sub-category to consider their influence on study paths.

Figure 1.

Flow Diagram of Study Screening and Sample Selection Process

We were unable to include date from any time point following T2, which took place approximately 1 year after T1, due to the measure of racial discrimination being removed from subsequent assessments. Additionally, some participants self-reported the presence of more maturation at T1 than T2. Known as pubertal regression, decreases in pubertal development scores between linear time points are contrary to the growth process and suggest unreliability in self-reported measures ^33,34. Following contemporary recommendations for addressing reports of pubertal regression, we restricted our sample to youth who self-reported stable or increased pubertal development from T1 to T2; 309 Black youth and 393 Latinx youth were dropped due to this restriction ³⁵. Youth excluded from this study for self-reporting pubertal regression showed no within-racial/ethnic group statistical differences on any study variable when compared to youth reporting pubertal progress. These restrictions resulted in a T1 sample of 1,470 Black youth and 1,801 Latinx youth (T1 n = 3,271) and a T2 sample of 1,109 Black youth and 1,505 Latinx youth (T2 n = 2,614). At T1 the sample was 773 Black girls, 697 Black boys, 898 Latinx boys, and 903 Latinx girls (see Table 1). At T1 participants’ ages were as follows: Black boys: M_age = 10.97, SD = .62; Black girls: M_age = 10.88, SD = .62; Latinx boys: M_age = 10.92, SD = .63; Latinx girls: M_age = 10.88, SD = .65. At T2, 586 Black girls, 523 Black boys, 751 Latinx boys, and 754 Latinx girls participated. Ages at T2 were as follows: Black boys: M_age = 12.04, SD = .64; Black girls: M_age = 11.98, SD = .65; Latinx boys: M_age = 12.02, SD = .65; Latinx girls: M_age = 11.97, SD = .67. There was a 20% overall attrition rate; however, retention status from T1 to T2 was not associated with any study variable.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics

	Boys		Girls
	Mean	SD	Range	Mean	SD	Range
Black Youth
Time 1: Puberty Development	8.19	2.54	17	9.78	3.37	17
Time 2: Puberty Development	10.66	2.58	18	13.08	3.29	18
Time 1: Racial Discrimination	9.32	4.20	31	8.51	3.39	25
Time 2: Racial Discrimination	9.07	3.78	27	8.70	3.66	33
Age (years)	10.97	.62	2	10.88	.62	25
Family Material Hardship	1.08	1.55	7	.96	1.45	7
BMI	48.11	11.97	23	45.47	10.58	24
Externalizing Problems	2.33	.55	51	2.35	.52	48
Stressful Life Events	6.49	3.69	20	6.09	3.56	22
Latinx Youth
Time 1: Puberty Development	7.75	2.59	16	8.77	3.26	17
Time 2: Puberty Development	10.26	2.79	16	12.37	3.20	16
Time 1: Racial Discrimination	8.37	3.15	27	7.96	2.53	29
Time 2: Racial Discrimination	8.01	2.76	25	8.07	2.86	33
Age (years)	10.92	.63	26	10.88	.65	25
Family Material Hardship	.59	1.18	7	.53	1.11	7
BMI	46.13	10.07	23	44.65	9.58	24
Externalizing Problems	2.69	.50	44	2.69	.49	45
Stressful Life Events	5.30	3.29	21	5.09	3.11	18

Measures

Racial Discrimination.

At T1 and T2, youth reported on their experiences of racial discrimination using a 7-item form of the Perceived Discrimination Scale, which asks youth to report their past-year experiences of being treated unfairly or feeling unaccepted due to their racial/ethnic background, that was developed for the ABCD study ³⁶³². The response scale ranged from 1 (almost never) to 5 (very often). Example items include “How often have [teachers/peers/other adults] treated you unfairly or negatively because of your racial/ethnic background?” and “[How often do you] feel that others behave in an unfair or negative way towards your racial/ethnic group.” Consistent with prior studies, items were averaged to create a mean racial discrimination score ^37-40. The Cronbach’s alphas for T1 were .73 and .77 for T2.

Pubertal Status.

AT T1 and T2 youth completed the Pubertal Development Scale (PDS)³⁴. Youth rated aspects of their pubertal development on a four-point Likert scale from 0 (had not begun) to 3 (already complete) about specific physical characteristics. Some items were administered to both boys and girls, while a subset of the items was administered based on participant sex. An example of a measure item for both boys and girls was “Have you noticed any skin changes, especially pimples?” An example of an item specific to boys includes “Have you noticed a deepening of your voice?” An example of an item specific to girls includes “Have your breast begun to grow?” Consistent with prior studies, items were summed to produce a pubertal status score ^41,42. The Cronbach’s alphas for boys at T1 was .54 and .63 for T2. The Cronbach’s alphas for girls at T1 was .63 and .65 for T2.

Pubertal Timing.

Pubertal timing was assessed using the regression residuals of youths’ chronological ages on pubertal status, so that higher scores reflect earlier pubertal development relative to same-age, same-sex peers ².

Covariates.

Participants self-reported their racial/ethnic group and sex (male/female). Covariates included T1 indicators of child age, body mass index (BMI), externalizing symptoms, stressful life events, family material hardship, cohabitating guardian status, and neurocognitive ability. BMI was calculated by dividing the child's weight by their height ¹⁷. Parents completed the externalizing subscale of the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) ⁴³. Cronbach’s alphas exceeded .80 for all subgroups. Youth completed the 26-item Life Events Scale, which assesses a variety of experiences by asking youth to report whether or not they have ever experienced a given event, and if so, to report if the event was “mostly good (1)” or “mostly bad (2)” for them ⁴⁴ We used a sum score of the total number of lifetime events that children endorsed as bad (negative), with higher scores reflecting greater exposure to negative life events. The Cronbach’s alpha for this measure was .72. Primary caregivers reported on family material hardship with a 7-item scale. Items indexed the frequency of difficulties with obtaining resources for basic needs, such as, “didn’t pay the full amount for rent or mortgage because you could not afford it?” Response options were 1 =Yes and 0 =No. The Cronbach’s alpha for this measure was .73. Parents also reported how many guardians the child lived with; this variable was coded as 1 (two or more guardians) or 0 (one guardian).

Neurocognitive Development.

We conducted a post hoc sensitive analysis to determine if neurocognitive development could account for the potential influence of pubertal development on discrimination. Neurocognitive development was assessed with the 3 measures from the NIH Toolbox⁴⁵ including the Flanker Inhibitory Control & Attention Task (executive control), the Pattern Comparison task (processing speed), and the Picture Sequence Memory task (episodic memory), psychometric details of the NIH Toolbox Cognition module, are available elsewhere ⁴⁶ In brief, the Flanker test required youth to indicate the direction of a central arrow that is flanked by arrows pointing in the same or different direction. The Pattern Comparison test required youth to indicate whether as many pairs of pictures are the same or different in 90 seconds. The Picture Sequence Memory test required youth to view a series of related scenes presented in an arbitrary order, and then to reproduce this order. Test–retest reliability of each instrument is good, with intraclass correlation coefficients ranging from 0.72 (Pattern Comparison) to 0.94 (Flanker). Convergent validity for each instrument has been demonstrated through significant, large correlations with gold-standard measures, ranging from 0.48 (Flanker) to 0.69 (Picture Sequence Memory) ⁴⁷. Per past research we constructed a reliable index of youth’s neurocognitive development, the test scores were standardized and averaged together to produce two composite indices at baseline and T2 ⁴⁸.

Analytical Plan

Descriptive statistics and correlations were calculated using SPSS. We implemented cross-lagged panel models using Mplus 8.1 ⁴⁹. Maximum likelihood estimation was used to manage missing data. To account for the complex sampling structure in the ABCD Study, we specified sandwich estimation to yield robust standard errors considering stratification by study site and clustering of siblings within families. Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) values less than or equal to .08, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) values less than or equal to .08, and Comparative Fit index (CFI) values greater than or equal to .90 as being indicative of well-fitting models ⁵⁰. All analyses included T1 indicators of BMI, externalizing symptoms, and stressful life events, as well as family material hardship and cohabitating guardian status. We first focused on pubertal status in our analyses. We tested a baseline model with the entire sample; youths’ sex and racial/ethnic identification were included among study covariates. We then stratified the model by sex and racial/ethnic identification. Lastly, we then repeated the stratified analyses using pubertal timing instead of pubertal status.

Results

Preliminary Analysis

Correlation matrices of study variables are presented in Table 2 for Black youth and Table 3 for Latinx youth. A series of independent samples t-tests comparing pubertal development and racial discrimination by race/ethnicity, sex, and a change score from T1 to T2 are presented (see Supplement Table 2). Results demonstrated that in general girls reported greater degrees of pubertal development, but less degrees of racial discrimination than boys. A cross-lagged model focused on pubertal status and racial discrimination with the whole sample (race/ethnicity and sex were included as covariates) did not fit the data well: χ²(29) = 637.62, p <.001, RMSEA = .08, SRMR= .07, and CFI = .74. Similar results were demonstrated on a model with pubertal timing: χ²(29) = 438.14, p <.001, RMSEA = .07, SRMR= .06, and CFI = .73. Given expected variability in experiences of racial discrimination and pubertal development, poor model fit was not surprising and supported our decision to focus on each group separately.

Table 2.

Two-Tailed Bivariate Correlations Among Study Variables: Black Youth

Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1 T1: Puberty Development		.67**	.08*	.11**	.27**	−.02	−.10*	.07	.02	.06
2 T2: Puberty Development	.62**		.02	.08	.32**	−.03	.03	.15**	−.01	.01
3 T1: Racial Discrimination	−.06	.05		.25**	−.04	.06	.08*	.02	−.07	.28**
4 T2: Racial Discrimination	.03	.16**	.32**		−.03	−.03	.11*	−.01	−.05	.21**
5 Age (years)	.23**	.27**	.03	−.04		.05	−.01	.08*	.04	−.08*
6 Family Material Hardship	.05	.06	.08	.04	.01		.26**	.07	−.11**	.12**
7 BMI	−.04	.04	.05	.18**	−.01	.20**		.02	−.12**	.14**
8 Cohabiting Parents/Guardians (yes/no)	.19**	.17**	.01	.05	.12**	.04	−.09*		−.07	.10*
9 Externalizing Problems	.05	.02	.04	−.01	.09*	−.11**	−.05	.02		−.12**
10 Stressful Life Events	.06	.11*	.16**	.18**	.03	.13**	.09*	.05	−.06

Note. T1 = Time 1; T2 = Time 2; *p <.05; **p<.01; Boys are below the diagonal; Girls are above the diagonal

Table 3.

Two-Tailed Bivariate Correlations Among Study Variables: Latinx Youth

Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1 T1: Puberty Development		.62**	.13**	.14**	.35**	.01	.05	.17**	−.03	.15**
2 T2: Puberty Development	.60**		.05	.14**	.33**	.06	.01	.24**	.03	.06
3 T1: Racial Discrimination	.04	−.01		.29**	.05	.06	.11**	.05	.05	.19**
4 T2: Racial Discrimination	.06	.10**	.28**		.05	.04	.07	.02	.01	.23**
5 Age (years)	.23**	.32**	−.01	.05		.06	−.06	.15**	−.03	.07*
6 Family Material Hardship	.05	.01	.06	.09*	−.01		.19**	.09*	−.10**	.09*
7 BMI	.02	−.01	.06	.10**	−.06	.11**		.04	−.09**	.15**
8 Cohabiting Parents/Guardians (yes/no)	.12**	.10**	.08*	.09*	.10**	.10**	.02		−.03	.01
9 Externalizing Problems	.01	−.09*	−.05	−.08*	−.07*	−.09*	−.04	−.08*		−.15**
10 Stressful Life Events	.11**	.01	.21**	.11**	.05	.05	.04	.10**	−.14**

Note. T1 = Time 1; T2 = Time 2; *p <.05; **p<.01; Boys are below the diagonal; Girls are above the diagonal

Stratified Pubertal Status Model

Stratified model results are presented in Figure 2. The stratified model demonstrated better model fit: χ²(36) = 119.89, p <.001, RMSEA = .05, SRMR= .03, and CFI = .94. No effects emerged linking T1 racial discrimination to T2 pubertal status for any of the groups. Consideration of the effects of pubertal status on subsequent racial discrimination revealed effects for girls but not for boys. For Black girls, T1 pubertal status was positively associated with T2 racial discrimination (β = .11, p < .05), accounting for study covariates. In other words, For Black girls, mature puberty status (T1) was linked to experiencing increased racial discrimination during the following year (T2), even when other factors were taken into account. Similarly, for Latinx girls, T1 pubertal status, was positively associated with increases in T2 racial discrimination (β = .11, p < .01). Latinx girls who were more mature at T1 reported increased racial discrimination at T2, even after considering other factors. Comprehensive structural model parameters are provided in Supplement Table 3.

Figure 2.

Standardized Bidirectional Influence of Pubertal Status and Racial Discrimination by Sex and Race/Ethnicity

Note: T1 = Time 1, T2 = Time 2. Parameter estimates for control variables not shown. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001 (2-tailed)

Stratified Pubertal Timing Model

We repeated the stratified analyses using pubertal timing (see Figure 3). This stratified model demonstrated better model fit: χ²(36) = 119.60, p <.001, RMSEA = .05, SRMR= .03, and CFI = .93. Results were consistent with the analyses using pubertal status. For Black girls, T1 pubertal timing was positively associated with T2 racial discrimination (β = .12, p < .05), accounting for study covariates. These findings suggest that Black girls who are experiencing puberty faster than their peers of the same ethnoracial group may face increasing racial discrimination over time, even when other factors are considered. Similarly, for Latinx girls, T1 pubertal timing, was positively associated with increases in T2 racial discrimination (β = .09, p < .01). These findings indicate that Latinx girls who mature earlier than their peers within the same ethnoracial group may experience more racial discrimination over time, even after accounting for other factors. Comprehensive structural model parameters are provided in Supplement Table 4.

Figure 3.

Standardized Bidirectional Influence of Pubertal Timing and Racial Discrimination by Sex and Race/Ethnicity

Note: T1 = Time 1, T2 = Time 2. Parameter estimates for control variables not shown. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Sensitivity Analysis

A sensitivity analysis was performed to test whether youth’s neurocognitive development may have influenced their ability to detect and discern racial discrimination or their pubertal development (both status and timing; see Supplement Figure 1). This analysis included the effects of youth’s neurocognitive development on increases in racial discrimination. Results were consistent with the primary analyses. Even controlling for neurocognitive development, the association between Y1 pubertal development and Y2 discrimination remain for both Black female youth (maturation: β= .10, p< .05; timing: β= .10, p< .05) and Latinx youth (maturation: β= .12, p< .001; timing: β= .12, p< .001). Comprehensive structural model parameters are provided in Supplement Tables 5 & 6.

Discussion

Multiple studies have documented increases in racial discrimination during the transition to adolescence ^28,51,52. Cross sectional evidence links increased exposure to racial discrimination to advanced pubertal status and timing ^8,19. The current study used a longitudinal cross-lagged panel design to investigate the directions of effect between racial discrimination and pubertal development by racial/ethnic group and sex using data from the ABCD study. Notably this is among the first investigations to use prospective data to scrutinize these effects simultaneously ^10,19. Our findings revealed that, in the study sample, mature pubertal status and early pubertal timing (relative to one’s peers) forecast increases in racial discrimination over the next year for Black and Latinx girls. This effect emerged even after the inclusion of important confounding variables such as externalizing problems.

Study findings are consistent with recent research suggesting that perceptions of children being more mature than they really are may trigger differential treatment from peers and adults, which can increase discrimination experiences, even after controlling for the potential confounding effects of their neurocognitive development ²⁰. When Latinx and Black girls physically mature before their peers, they may be viewed as older than they are which may explain increasing exposure to unwanted sexual advances, and disproportionately harsh treatment by schools and the juvenile justice system ^20,53. Study findings with pubertal status, however, indicate that it is not necessarily precocious development that triggers others’ racism, but signs of maturity regardless of the timing ^29,54. We speculate that when Black and Latinx girls look more mature and adult-like they become subject to increasingly dangerous and objectifying stereotypes. Maturation may also provide a distorted “permission structure” to engage in discriminatory of treatment of minoritized children. However, the limitations of the current study restricted our ability to provide direct evidence demonstrating a clear linkage between specific stereotypes or how peers and adults treat Black and Latinx girls and the discrimination they experience. More robust and intensive prospective evaluations are needed to elucidate these associations.

Contrary to expectations, we did not find that pubertal development forecast increased discrimination among boys. This was surprising given racist stereotypes about Latinx and Black males that suggest they are prone to violent behavior. It seemed likely that signs of maturation would also trigger discriminatory treatment among peers and school personnel in their lives. Two possible explanations may account for the lack of associations detected among males. First, given methodological limitations to our study, additional research is warranted to detect this pathway. In the ABCD, puberty and discrimination data were only available at the waves when youth were ages 9-10 and 11-12. This is early in the pubertal development process. Many males may have not begun to manifest publicly visible signs of development, such as increased height or deeper voices, and those that have may appear less mature than same aged females. This would limit variability needed to detect effects. Thus, additional research that leverages both subjective, and objective measures of pubertal development are warranted. Second, these divergent effects may be related to culturally-bound forms of misogyny, such as misogynoir, which highlights how the intersection of anti-Black racism and sexism uniquely expose racially marginalized girls to heightened stress, leading to physiological responses—such as accelerated pubertal development—as an adaptation to a hostile social environment ⁵⁵. Investigations that collect additional data on puberty at later ages and exposure to misogyny is needed to investigate this issue further.

Implications

Findings highlight the need for healthcare providers, educators, and mental health professionals to recognize the impact of racial discrimination on the developmental and psychological well-being of Black and Latinx youth, particularly girls. Given the study’s findings that pubertal development can increase exposure to discrimination, early screening for race-related stress and its mental health consequences should be integrated into pediatric and adolescent care. Culturally responsive interventions, such as trauma-informed therapy and school-based support programs, could help mitigate the psychological distress associated with discrimination. Additionally, clinicians should advocate for policies that address structural racism and educate caregivers on how to support children navigating both puberty and racialized experiences. By acknowledging the intersection of racial and developmental challenges, practitioners can play a crucial role in promoting resilience and long-term well-being in minoritized youth.

Limitations

Several limitations need to be noted regarding the present study. The measure used to assess racial discrimination was shortened for the ABCD study and was limited to interpersonal level experiences, thus restricting our ability to capture exposure to institutional and structural racism ⁵⁶. Self-report measures of pubertal development and racial discrimination may introduce bias associated with subject recall and social desirability. Our inclusion of individuals who self-reported as being non-Latinx Black and non-Black-Latinx excluded multiracial individuals. The findings may not fully apply to youth from different socioeconomic, geographic, or cultural backgrounds, as structural and institutional racism can manifest differently across contexts. Moreover, the study only examines early adolescence (ages 9-12), limiting insights into how these dynamics evolve in later developmental stages. Lastly, due to the limited number of time points that were available, we were unable to distinguish between potential within-person and between-person effects. Future research dedicated to disentangling these effects is warranted. Despite these limitations, the study offers valuable insights into the intersection of race, puberty, and discrimination, particularly for Black and Latinx girls, and underscores the need for further research in broader populations and over longer time frames.

Conclusion

These limitations notwithstanding, the present study provides important insights into the links between racial discrimination and pubertal development among Black and Latinx American adolescents. Specifically, among Black and Latinx girls during early adolescence, pubertal development can trigger in members of the public discriminatory behaviors. This underscores the urgent need for education and policy to eliminate racism and influence the structures and institutions that support oppression. Intervention and prevention efforts should consider puberty as a potential window in which youth may experience marked increases in racial discrimination, and are, thus, in need of intervention efforts to address its detrimental proximal health effects.

Implications and Contribution.

Using data from a large longitudinal cohort of adolescents, this study highlights that pubertal development can increase racial discrimination experiences among Black and Latinx girls during early adolescence. These findings emphasize the need for interventions to address structural racism, particularly during puberty, to mitigate its harmful developmental and health consequences. This study advances understanding of intersectional disparities affecting minoritized adolescents.

Abbreviations:

BMI

Body Mass Index

ABCD

Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development

T1

Time 1

T2

Time 2

PDS

Pubertal Development Scale

CBCL

Child Behavior Checklist

RMSEA

Root Mean Square Error of Approximation

SRMR

Standardized Root Mean Square Residual

CFI

Comparative Fit index