Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Nicotine & Tobacco Research logoLink to Nicotine & Tobacco Research
. 2012 Oct 29;15(5):957–968. doi: 10.1093/ntr/nts204

A Longitudinal Analysis of Hispanic Youth Acculturation and Cigarette Smoking: The Roles of Gender, Culture, Family, and Discrimination

Elma I Lorenzo-Blanco 1,✉, Jennifer B Unger 2, Anamara Ritt-Olson 2, Daniel Soto 2, Lourdes Baezconde-Garbanati 2
PMCID: PMC3621579  PMID: 23109671

Abstract

Introduction:

Risk for smoking initiation increases as Hispanic youth acculturate to U.S. society, and this association seems to be stronger for Hispanic girls than boys. To better understand the influence of culture, family, and everyday discrimination on cigarette smoking, we tested a process-oriented model of acculturation and cigarette smoking.

Methods:

Data came from Project RED (Reteniendo y Entendiendo Diversidad para Salud), which included 1,436 Hispanic students (54% girls) from Southern California. We used data from 9th to 11th grade (85% were 14 years old, and 86% were U.S. born) to test the influence of acculturation-related experiences on smoking over time.

Results:

Multigroup structural equation analysis suggested that acculturation was associated with increased familismo and lower traditional gender roles, and enculturation was linked more with familismo and respeto. Familismo, respeto, and traditional gender roles were linked with lower family conflict and increased family cohesion, and these links were stronger for girls. Familismo and respeto were further associated with lower discrimination. Conversely, fatalismo was linked with worse family functioning (especially for boys) and increased discrimination in both the groups. Discrimination was the only predictor of smoking for boys and girls.

Conclusions:

In all, the results of the current study indicate that reducing discrimination and helping youth cope with discrimination may prevent or reduce smoking in Hispanic boys and girls. This may be achieved by promoting familismo and respeto and by discouraging fatalistic beliefs.

INTRODUCTION

Every day, about 4,000 youth in the United States try their first cigarette, and ~1,000 of these adolescents become regular smokers (SAMHSA, 2010). Among Hispanic youth, risk for smoking initiation increases with acculturation to the dominant U.S. culture, and Hispanic girls’ smoking is more strongly influenced by acculturation than the smoking of boys (Epstein, Botvin, & Diaz, 1998; Lorenzo-Blanco, Unger, Ritt-Olson, Soto, & Baezcondi-Garbanati, 2011). To date, the process by which acculturation leads to smoking is not completely understood. Cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2009). It is, therefore, vital to understand why acculturation increases Hispanic youth smoking and why this is especially true for girls. This knowledge can inform smoking prevention and intervention strategies aimed at reducing smoking among the largest and fastest growing group of young people in the United States (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010).

Acculturation, Enculturation, and Cigarette Smoking

Traditionally, Hispanic acculturation was defined as a unidimensional process in which Hispanic youth abandoned the practices, values, and identifications of their Hispanic culture to adopt those of the dominant U.S. society. Today, multidimensional acculturation theory recognizes that Hispanic youth can simultaneously acculturate and enculturate. Enculturation is the process by which Hispanic youth learn about and engage in their Hispanic cultural practices, values, and identifications (Schwartz, Unger, Zamboanga, & Szapocznik, 2010). Acculturation scholars propose that enculturation protects from and acculturation increases smoking risk (De la Rosa, 2002). Though acculturation has been linked with elevated smoking in Hispanic youth, especially for girls (Epstein et al., 1998; Lorenzo-Blanco et al., 2011), past studies are based on unidimensional models of acculturation and have seldom accounted for the simultaneous influence of acculturation and enculturation on youth smoking (Epstein et al., 1998). Also, studies have relied on proxies of acculturation (e.g., language proficiency) to represent complex lived experiences (Schwartz et al., 2010). These strategies have provided a fragmented understanding of why acculturation is linked with increased smoking. Research that investigates the experiences that accompany acculturation and that identifies acculturation-related experiences linked with smoking risk is needed. Past research has similarly treated gender as a proxy for complex gendered experiences (Cole, 2009), offering a limited understanding of why girls are more affected by acculturation than their male counterparts. Since acculturation-related experiences can differ for boys and girls, it is vital to investigate how acculturation-related experiences vary by gender to elevate or reduce smoking.

Everyday Discrimination and Family Functioning

One acculturation-related experience is everyday discrimination, defined as perceived daily experiences of unfair, differential treatment (Guyll, Matthews, & Bromberger, 2001). Hispanic youth experience discrimination, and boys report more discriminatory experiences than girls (Lorenzo-Blanco et al., 2011). Moreover, acculturation has been linked with more frequent discrimination in boys and girls (Kam, Cleveland, & Hecht, 2010), and discrimination links with elevated smoking in Hispanic boys (Wiehe, Aalsma, Liu, & Fortenberry, 2010) and girls (Lorenzo-Blanco et al., 2011). Thus, discrimination may explain the link between acculturation and smoking risk.

Hispanic youth also experience family conflict as they acculturate to the dominant U.S. culture (Céspedes & Huey, 2008), and family conflict has been linked with increased substance use (Canino, Vega, Sribney, Warner, & Alegria, 2008). Evidence indicates that Hispanic females are more negatively affected by family conflict than their male counterparts (Sarmiento & Cardemil, 2009). Consequently, increased family conflict as a result of acculturation may explain why girls’ smoking is more affected by acculturation than boys’ smoking.

In addition to family conflict and everyday discrimination, acculturation can be accompanied by a loss of family cohesion (Miranda, Estrada, & Firpo-Jimenez, 2000). Family cohesion entails perceptions of family closeness, communication, and support (Olson, Portner, & Bell, 1982). Low family cohesion relates to increased smoking in Hispanic women (Coonrod, Balcazar, Brady, Garcia, & Van Tine, 1999). Although studies have not documented gender differences in family cohesion among Hispanic youth, non-Latina White female college students reported higher levels of family cohesion than their male counterparts, and their mental health was more negatively influenced by low family cohesion than the mental health of males (Durell Johnson, Lavoie, & Mahoney, 2001). Gendered experiences of family cohesion may further shed light onto why Hispanic girls are more negatively influenced by acculturation than boys.

Hispanic Cultural Values

Hispanic youth are often raised according to Hispanic cultural values and ways of interaction that differ from those of the dominant U.S. culture (Azmitia & Brown, 2002). Hispanic cultural values are thought to protect against external stress, to discourage family conflict, and to promote a strong orientation toward the family (Gonzales, Deardorff, Formoso, Barr, & Barrera, 2006; Rivera et al., 2008). With acculturation, youth may disengage from, or not learn about, these protective cultural values, thereby increasing their smoking risk (Gil, Wagner, & Vega, 2000). The cultural value of familismo emphasizes trust between family members, loyalty to the family, and a general orientation to the family. The cultural value of respeto dictates deferential behavior toward relatives and maintains family harmony (Azmitia & Brown, 2002). Low familismo and respeto relate to more substance use, and acculturation has been linked with less familismo and respeto (Gil et al., 2000). The cultural value of fatalismo encompasses the belief that one cannot control the future. Fatalismo has been portrayed as a culturally rooted adaptive response to external stress in collectivistic cultures where it promotes social support (Neff & Hoppe, 1993), possibly by de-emphasizing personal control, responsibility, and blame for negative life circumstances or perceived failure. Although studies have failed to find a direct relationship between fatalismo and substance use (Unger et al., 2002), fatalismo may influence smoking indirectly by way of family functioning and discrimination.

Hispanic children are also frequently socialized according to traditional gender roles that afford boys more freedom than girls (Zayas, Lester, Cabassa, & Fortuna, 2005). For example, it is more acceptable for boys to smoke cigarettes and venture outside the home than it is for girls (Marsiglia, Kulis, Hussaini, Nieri, & Becerra, 2010). Scholars postulate that Hispanic girls acculturate faster than boys, embracing the liberty that comes with less traditional gender roles (Zayas et al., 2005). As a result, girls may experience more family conflict and less cohesion when parents and other relatives impose rules on them and when they rebel against these gendered restrictions. Hispanic girls endorse more liberal gender role attitudes than boys (Valenzuela, 1999), possibly leading to difficulties in the family domain (Zayas et al., 2005).

The Current Study

The current study integrated extant empirical research and theory on acculturation and substance use into a process-oriented model to better understand how diverse acculturation-related experiences influence each other and unfold in the everyday lives of Hispanic youth to influence smoking risk. We also examined how this process differed for boys and girls because acculturation-related experiences can be gendered. Based on research reviewed above, we developed the model illustrated in Figure 1. We utilized data from a three-wave longitudinal study to establish time precedence of acculturation-related experiences and smoking and because acculturation is a process that unfolds over time (Smart & Smart, 1995). Our model (Figure 1) proposes that acculturation (wave 1) is negatively associated with cultural values (wave 2), and enculturation (wave 1) is positively associated with cultural values (wave 2). We also expected cultural values (wave 2) to be positively associated with family cohesion and to be negatively associated with family conflict and discrimination (wave 2). Finally, we expected discrimination and family conflict (wave 2) to predict increased smoking (wave 3) and we anticipated family cohesion (wave 2) to predict less smoking (wave 3). We also expected to find gender effects. Specifically, we anticipated the links between cultural values and family functioning to be stronger for girls than for boys, and we expected family functioning to more strongly predict girls’ than boys’ smoking.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Hypothesized model showing all expected relationships and their predicted valence. Covariates were age, socioeconomic status, friend smoking, and adult smoking.

METHODS

Participants

Participants included 1,436 Hispanic students who participated in Project RED (Reteniendo y Entendiendo Diversidad para Salud), a three-wave study of acculturation and substance use among Southern California youth (Unger, Ritt-Olson, Wagner, Soto, & Baezconde-Garbanati, 2009). Participants self-identified as Latino/a or Hispanic. About 54% of participants were female, 85% were 14 years old, and 86% were U.S. born. The majority of the students in the current study (85%) had a Mexico-born parent, grandparent, or great-grandparent, followed by the United States (30%), El Salvador (8%), Guatemala (6%), Honduras (1%), and Spain (1%). Over half of the students (56%) reported speaking “English and another language equally” at home, 17% of the students reported “speaking mostly English” at home, 12% reported “speaking only another language at home,” and 14% reported “speaking mostly another language” at home. Likewise, about 36% of the students reported speaking “mostly English” with friends, 33% reported speaking “only English” with friends, and 29% reported speaking “English and another language equally” with friends.

Data Source and Procedure

Youth were enrolled when they were in 9th grade, attending seven high schools in the Los Angeles area. Schools were invited to participate if they contained at least 70% of Hispanic students, as indicated by the California Board of Education. Sampling included an emphasis on schools with a wide range of socioeconomic characteristics. The median annual household incomes in the ZIP codes served by the schools ranged from $29,000 to $73,000, according to 2000 census data. Because students were sampled from seven schools, we calculated intraclass correlations (ICC) that were low and did not affect the results.

The 9th grade survey (Year 1) was administered in the Fall of 2005, the 10th grade survey (Year 2) in the Fall of 2006, and the and 11th grade survey (Year 3) in the Fall of 2007. In 2005, all 9th graders attending selected schools (n = 3,218) were invited to participate in the survey. Of those, 75% (n = 2,420) provided parental consent and student assent. Of the 2,420 students who provided consent and assent, 2,222 (92%) completed the survey in the 9th grade. Of the 2,222 students who completed the 9th grade survey, 1,773 (80%) also completed surveys in the 10th and the 11th grades with 182 (8%) students completing the survey in the 10th grade but not in the 11th grade, 50 students (2%) completing the survey in the 11th grade but not in the 10th grade, and 217 (10%) students were lost to attrition before the 10th grade survey. Because the current study investigated Hispanic acculturation, we only retained data from students who self-identified as either Hispanic, Latino/a, Mexican, Mexican American, Chicano/a, Central American, South American, Mestizo, La Raza, or Spanish in Year 1 (N = 1,922). We used data from Years 1, 2, and 3, and 486 students were excluded from the analysis due to missing data. This resulted in a final sample of 1,436 students. A comparison of study variables at time 1 between the final (N = 1,436) and omitted sample (n = 486) revealed differences. While students in the final sample scored significantly higher on acculturation (M = 0.65, SD = 1.39, and M = 0.62, SD = 1.60, respectively) (p < .001; d = .26) and familismo (M = 3.36, SD = 0.57 and M = 3.23, SD = 0.65, respectively) (p < .001; d = .20), students in the omitted sample scored higher on traditional gender roles (M = 2.25, SD = .63, and M = 2.18, SD = 0.62, respectively) (p < .05; d = −.12). Students in the final sample (8.1%) were also more likely to have smoked cigarettes in the past 30 days than students in the omitted sample (5.0%) (p < .05; φ = .05) and they were more likely to report adult smoking (33.8%) than the omitted sample (23.3%) (p < .001; φ = .10).

Measures

Acculturation and Enculturation

We used 10 items from the short form of the Revised Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans (ARSMA-II; Cuéllar, Arnold, & Maldonado, 1995). Five items came from the Anglo orientation and five from the Hispanic orientation subscales (see Unger et al., 2009 for a detailed description). Adolescents indicated on a 5-point scale (1 = not at all to 5 = almost always/extremely often) how much they did or enjoyed certain activities (e.g., speaking Spanish/English, reading books in English, and watching TV in Spanish) (Cronbach’s α = .75 for the United States and .88 for Hispanic orientation).

Everyday Discrimination

Everyday discrimination was measured with 10 items (Guyll et al., 2001). A sample item was, “You are treated with less respect than other people.” Adolescents indicated the frequency of each experience (4 = often to 1 = never). Higher scores represent more experiences of everyday discrimination (Cronbach’s α = .88).

Family Cohesion

Family cohesion was assessed with six questions from FACES II (Olson et al., 1982). These were selected because they had the highest factor loadings in a study with a comparable sample (Unger, unpublished data). A sample item was, “Family members feel very close to each other.” Higher scores represent more cohesion (Cronbach’s α = .77).

Family Conflict

Family conflict was measured with six items from FACES II (Olson et al., 1982). These were selected because they had the highest factor loadings in a study with a comparable sample (Unger, unpublished data). A sample item was, “We have difficulty thinking of things to do as a family.” Response choices ranged from 1 = almost never to 6 = almost always. Higher scores represent more family conflict (Cronbach’s α = .69).

Familismo

Four items assessed familismo. Three of the items came from the familismo scale described by Sabogal, Marín, Otero-Sabogal, & Marín (1987), and one item from the familismo scale described by Cuéllar et al. (1995). The four items had the highest factor loadings in an earlier study (Unger et al., 2002). Youth indicated (1 = definitely no to 4 = definitely yes) the likelihood of their families engaging in family-oriented behaviors. Higher scores represent greater familismo (Cronbach’s α = .79).

Respeto

Four items assessed respeto. A sample item included “It is important to honor my parents.” Youth indicated their agreement on a 4-point scale (1 = definitely no to 4 = definitely yes) (Cronbach’s α = .89).

Traditional Gender Roles

Seven items assessed traditional gender roles. Items came from the MACCSF (Cuéllar et al., 1995). They were selected because they had the highest factor loadings. Adolescents indicated (1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree) their agreement with statements such as, “Boys should not be allowed to play with dolls and other girls’ toys.” Higher scores reflect more traditional gender roles (Cronbach’s α = .80).

Fatalismo

Four items assessed fatalismo. Items came from the MACCSF (Cuéllar et al., 1995). They were selected because they had the highest factor loadings on their respective scales and did not load highly on other scales. Youth indicated the degree (1 = definitely no to 4 = definitely yes) to which they endorsed fatalistic beliefs: “It’s more important to enjoy life now than to plan for the future.” Higher scores denote more fatalismo (Cronbach’s α = .78).

Past-30-Day Smoking

One item assessed youth’s smoking: “During the past 30 days, on how many days did you smoke cigarettes?” Responses were rated on a 7-point scale (1 = 0 days, 2 = 1 or 2 days, 3 = 3 to 5 days, 4 = 6 to 9 days, 5 = 10 to 19 days, 6 = 20 to 29 days, 7 = all 30 days). We recoded responses to 0 days versus all other due to skewed distributions.

Adult Smoking

One question assessed adult smoking: “Think of the two (2) adults that you spend the most time with. How many of them smoke cigarettes every day or most days?” Response options included none or 0, 1 of them, and 2 of them. We recoded responses to none or 0 adults versus 1 or 2 adults. We controlled for adult smoking to rule this out as an alternative explanation for youth smoking (Tyas & Pederson, 1998).

Friend Smoking

Adolescents were asked to think of their five best friends at school. Next, they indicated whether any of their friends had ever tried cigarettes. This variable was dummy coded as yes = 1 and no = 0. Friend smoking is the most consistent predictor of youth smoking. Thus, we controlled for friend smoking to rule this out as an alternative explanation for youth smoking (Tyas & Pederson, 1998).

Demographic Characteristics

Age, gender, and socioeconomic status (SES) were self-reported. We used father’s and mother’s education as indicators of SES. Students responded to one question (once for their father and once for their mother): “What is the highest grade completed by your father/mother?” Response options were 1 = 8th grade or less, 2 = Some high school, 3 = High school graduate, 4 = Some college, 5 = College graduate, and 6 = Advanced degree. Data from students who did not know their parents’ educational level were treated as missing.

Analytic Plan

We conducted all descriptive analyses with SPSS 19.0. We tested for gender differences with t tests for continuous and χ² tests for categorical variables. To perform structural equation modeling with latent variables, we used Mplus Version 6.1 (Muthén & Muthén, 2010). Missing data were handled in Mplus 6.1 with weighted least squares estimation. Weighted least squares estimation uses all available data, except for missing values on covariates (i.e., age, SES, friend and adult smoking in the current study). Weighted least squares estimation is superior to other missing data techniques (e.g., list-wise and pair-wise deletion) in terms of model estimation, bias, and efficiency. It is also relatively equivalent to multiple imputation techniques (Asparouhov & Muthén, 2010).

RESULTS

Descriptive Analyses

Table 1 shows descriptive characteristics for the overall sample (N = 1,436) for girls and boys. The mean age was 13.97 years (SD = 0.4), and boys were slightly older (M = 14.0, SD = 0.4) than girls (M = 13.95, SD = 0.4) (p < .05). Compared with boys, girls had higher mean scores on acculturation (p < .001), enculturation (p < .001), familismo (p < .05), respeto (p < .05), and fatalismo (p < .05). Compared with girls, boys had higher mean scores on everyday discrimination (p < .05) and traditional gender roles (p < .001). Boys were also more likely to have smoked cigarettes in the past 30 days (p < .001).

Table 1.

Descriptive Characteristics for Overall Sample, Girls, and Boys

Variables Overall sample (N = 1,436) No. (%) or M (SD) Girls (N = 775) No. (%) or M (SD) Boys (N = 634) No. (%) or M (SD)
Age
  12 years or younger – – –
  13 years 107 (7.5) 63 (8.1) 40 (6.3)
  14 years 1,220 (85.0) 667 (86.1) 531 (83.8)
  15 years 106 (7.4) 44 (5.7) 61 (9.6)
  16 years or older 3 (0.2) 1 (0.1) 2 (0.3)
Nativity
  U.S. born 1,229 (85.6) 671 (86.6) 535 (84.4)
  Foreign born 172 (12.0) 87 (11.2) 82 (12.9)
  Missing 35 (2.4) 17 (2.2) 17 (2.7)
Acculturation 0.65 (0.14) 0.68 (0.13) 0.61 (0.15)
Enculturation 0.43 (0.20) 0.45 (0.20) 0.40 (0.21)
Perceived discrimination 1.56 (0.56) 1.51 (0.54) 1.84 (0.60)
Family cohesion 3.12 (0.90) 3.15 (0.93) 3.30 (0.81)
Family conflict 2.22 (0.79) 2.24 (0.83) 2.20 (0.72)
Familismo 3.36 (0.60) 3.40 (0.55) 3.27 (0.63)
Respeto 3.71 (0.52) 3.75 (0.44) 3.69 (0.55)
Gender roles 2.04 (0.64) 1.79 (0.52) 2.46 (0.60)
Fatalismo 2.89 (0.73) 2.95 (0.71) 2.92 (0.67)
Past-30-day smoking 91 (6.3) 30 (3.9) 60 (9.5)
Father’s education
  8th grade or less 266 (18.5) 147 (19.0) 111 (17.5)
  Some high school 276 (19.2) 166 (21.4) 104 (16.4)
  High school graduate 242 (16.9) 120 (15.5) 117 (18.5)
  Some college 128 (8.9) 64 (8.3) 64 (10.1)
  College degree 63 (4.4) 35 (4.5) 27 (4.3)
  Advanced degree 21 (1.5) 11 (1.4) 9 (1.4)
  Missing 440 (30.6) 232 (29.9) 202 (31.9)
Mother’s education
  8th grade or less 287 (20.0) 168 (21.7) 111 (17.5)
  Some high school 284 (19.8) 185 (23.9) 97 (15.3)
  High school graduate 263 (18.3) 132 (17.0) 126 (19.9)
  Some college 143 (10.0) 76 (9.8) 64 (10.1)
  College degree 92 (6.4) 48 (6.2) 41 (6.5)
  Advanced degree 24 (1.7) 14 (1.8) 10 (1.6)
  Missing 343 (23.9) 152 (19.6) 185 (29.2)
Friend smoking 692 (48.2) 365 (47.1) 313 (49.4)
Adult smoking 486 (33.8) 249 (32.1) 225 (35.5)
Open in a new tab

Note: We lost 27 participants in the descriptive data by gender due to missing values on youth gender.

Table 2 shows correlations among all constructs. Although many of these correlations were statistically significant, their magnitude was small to moderate, suggesting low multicollinearity. We also conducted a multicollinearity diagnostic test in version 19 of SPSS which further indicated that multicollinearity was not a problem. The variance inflation factors (VIF) were relatively low, ranging from 1.02 to 1.61.

Table 2.

Intercorrelations Between All Study Variables

  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
1. Age _                              
2. Gender −.08* _                            
3. Acculturation −.08** .19** _                          
4. Enculturation −.02 .13** −.12** _                        
5. Discrimination .05 −.08** −.07* .04 _                      
6. Family cohesion .02 −.02 −.00** .16** −.08** _                    
7. Family conflict .05 .03 .04 −.06* .21** −.30** _                  
8. Familismo −.02 .07* .10** .09** −.14** .30** −.22** _                
9. Respeto −.05 .09** .02 .11** −.13** .33** −.28** .46** _              
10. Gender roles −.03 −.43** −.20** −.05 .05 .07** −.02 .03 .05 _            
11. Fatalismo −.07* .09** −.03 .04 .04 −.04 .09** .15** .17** .10** _          
12. Past-30-day smoking .02 −.14** −.05 −.08* .14** −.11** .11** −.09** .08* .03 .01 _        
13. Father’s education .05 −.04 −.01 −.04 −.02 −.00 −.01 −.03 −.04 .02 .01 .00 _      
14. Mother’s education .01 −.12** −.02 −.06* −.04 .03 −.02 −.01 −.02 .08** .06* .01 .63** _    
15. Friend smoking .03 −.02 −.02 −.06*  .12** −.10** .09** −.08** −.11** .05 .05  .16** −.06* −.04 −  
16. Adult smoking .04 −.04 −.00 −.06* .06* −.05** .10** −.03 −.05 .03 .04 .12** −.05 −.02 .14** –
Open in a new tab

Note. Categorical measures: Gender, past-30-day smoking, father’s education, mother’s education, friend smoking, and adult smoking. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

Overall Structural Equation Modeling

Prior to modeling, we randomly assigned and averaged items for constructs consisting of five or more items into two to three manifest indicators (Little, Cunningham, Shahar, & Widaman, 2002). For example, everyday discrimination items were randomly parceled into three indicators of the latent factor “everyday discrimination.” Next, we conducted structural equation modeling with latent variables to test our hypothesized model (see Figure 1). First, we estimated the measurement model for the latent variables to ensure that the psychometric properties of the measures were adequate and loaded on the hypothesized factors (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Hereby, we estimated a measurement model for each construct separately, then for each pair of constructs, combining them two by two before estimating the measurement model for all the constructs in one model (Jöreskog, 1993). The only exception to this procedure was with past-30-day smoking, age, SES, friend smoking, and adult smoking. We evaluated overall fit with the comparative fit index (CFI), the chi-square test of model fit (χ²), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) (Hu & Bentler, 1998).

The overall measurement model produced excellent fit indices (CFI = .972; RMSEA = .027, 90% CI [.025, .030]; χ² = 702, df = 289, p < .001). After testing the measurement model, we estimated the structural model (Figure 1) (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). The structural model provided a good fit to the data (CFI = .924; RMSEA = .027, 90% CI [.025, .030]; χ² = 872, df = 418, p < .001). As shown in Figure 2, standardized path coefficients suggested that acculturation was associated with higher familismo (β = .15) and lower traditional gender roles (β = −.27). Enculturation was also linked with higher familismo (β = .15), higher respeto (β = .14), and lower traditional gender roles (β = −.08). Familismo and respeto related with lower levels of discrimination (β = −.13 and β = −.08, respectively), lower family conflict (β = −.16 and β = −.32, respectively), and higher family cohesion (β = .25 and β = .29, respectively). Fatalismo was associated with more frequent discrimination (β = .08), more family conflict (β = .22), and lower levels of family cohesion (β = −.16). Everyday discrimination (β = .17) was the only significant predictor of past-30-day smoking.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Initial structural model. Standardized path coefficients for the overall sample (N = 1,436). Dashed lines indicate nonsignificant paths. Error variances and their respective covariances are missing from the diagram to avoid complexity. Covariates were age, socioeconomic status, friend smoking, and adult smoking.

Multigroup Structural Equation Modeling: Gender as a Moderator

We examined gender as a moderator with multigroup structural equation modeling. First, we reestimated the fit of our model with the overall sample (N = 1,436), while constraining both the measurement and structural models to equality between boys and girls. As shown in Table 3, model fit indices of the fully gender-invariant model were acceptable (Test 1 of Table 3). Nevertheless, we sought to determine whether fit could be improved and whether the form of the proposed model and/or strength of relations among the variables differed between boys and girls. Next, we permitted the measurement errors of the indicators to differ between genders (Test 2 of Table 3). This resulted in a significant improvement in model fit as indicated by a significant ∆χ². We then examined whether the strength of the structural paths depicted in Figure 1 differed for boys and girls.

Table 3.

Goodness-of-Fit Indices for the Multigroup Analysis by Gender

Model χ² df RMSEA CFI ∆χ² ∆df Sig. ∆χ²
Test 1: Fully invariant by gender 1,557 960 .03 .89      
Test 2: Gender constraint released on measurement error 1,505 933 .03 .89 92 27 yes
Test 3: Gender constraint released on measurement error and acculturation → familismo 1,503 932 .03 .89 4 1 no
Test 4: Gender constraint released on measurement error and enculturation → familismo 1,505 932 .03 .89 2 1 no
Test 5: Gender constraint released on measurement error and acculturation → respeto 1,509 932 .03 .89 2 1 no
Test 6: Gender constraint released on measurement error and enculturation → respeto 1,507 932 .03 .89 3 1 no
Test 7: Gender constraint released on measurement error and acculturation → gender roles 1,504 932 .03 .89 2 1 no
Test 8: Gender constraint released on measurement error and enculturation → gender roles 1,505 932 .03 .89 2 1 no
Test 9: Gender constraint released on measurement error and acculturation → fatalismo 1,505 932 .03 .89 3 1 no
Test 10: Gender constraint released on measurement error and enculturation → fatalismo 1,511 932 .03 .89 0 1 no
Test 11: Gender constraint released on measurement error and familismo → family conflict 1,472 932 .03 .90 13 1 yes
Test 12: Gender constraint released on measurement error and respeto → family conflict 1,469 932 .03 .90 14 1 yes
Test 13: Gender constraint released on measurement error and gender roles → family conflict 1,495 932 .03 .90 9 1 yes
Test 14: Gender constraint released on measurement error and fatalismo → family conflict 1,492 932 .03 .90 8 1 yes
Test 15: Gender constraint released on measurement error and familismo → family cohesion 1,437 932 .03 .91 19 1 yes
Test 16: Gender constraint released on measurement error and respeto → family cohesion 1,416 932 .03 .91 23 1 yes
Test 17: Gender constraint released on measurement error and gender roles → family cohesion 1,477 932 .03 .90 13 1 yes
Test 18: Gender constraint released on measurement error and fatalismo → family cohesion 1,472 932 .03 .90 14 1 yes
Test 19: Gender constraint released on measurement error and familismo → discrimination 1,529 932 .03 .89 0 1 no
Test 20: Gender constraint released on measurement error and respeto → discrimination 1,529 932 .03 .89 0 1 no
Test 21: Gender constraint released on measurement error and gender roles → discrimination 1,506 932 .03 .89 3 1 no
Test 22: Gender constraint released on measurement error and fatalismo → discrimination 1,522 932 .03 .89 0 1 no
Test 23: Gender constraint released on measurement error and family conflict → smoking 1,507 932 .03 .89 1 1 no
Test 24: Gender constraint released on measurement error and family cohesion → smoking 1,506 932 .03 .89 1 1 no
Test 25: Gender constraint released on measurement error and discrimination → smoking 1,507 932 .03 .89 1 1 no
Test 26: Gender constraint released on measurement error and familismo, respeto, gender roles, fatalismo → conflict; familismo, respeto, gender roles, fatalismo → cohesion. 1,348 925 .03 .92 74 8 yes
Open in a new tab

Note. Twenty-seven cases were dropped from the multigroup analysis due to missing values on youth gender.

CFI = comparative fit index; df = degrees of freedom; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.

To do so, we systematically removed the gender equality constraint on each individual path, and examined whether allowing paths to differ between boys and girls resulted in significant model fit improvement. Table 3 illustrates the results of this process. Test 1 examined the fully gender-invariant model, and Test 3 allowed the measurement error and the path from acculturation to familismo to vary by gender. This change did not result in significant model fit improvement when compared with Test 2. In Test 4, we removed the gender-equality constraint on the path from enculturation to familismo, and in Test 5 we allowed the path from acculturation to respeto to vary by gender. None of these changes resulted in significant model fit improvement, compared with Test 2. We continued this process until we had allowed each path depicted in Figure 1 to differ by gender. In all, we tested 26 different models. Test 26 allowed those paths to vary by gender that had resulted in significant model fit improvement (i.e., Tests 11 through 18) while keeping those paths constrained that had not resulted in significant model fit improvement (i.e., Tests 3 through 10 and Tests 19 through 25). That is, Test 26 allowed the paths from familismo, respeto, gender roles, and fatalismo to family conflict to vary by gender. It also allowed the paths from familismo, respeto, gender roles, and fatalismo to family cohesion to vary by gender. Test 26 resulted in significant model fit improvement (p < .001), compared with Test 2. Test 26 had the best model fit compared with any of the other tests. Figure 3 shows the results of the structural form of Test 26.

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Open in a new tab

Results of the multigroup model. Standardized path coefficients for girls (n = 775) are in bold type, and results for boys (n = 633) are in regular type. Dashed lines indicate nonsignificant paths (unless indicated). Twenty-seven cases were dropped from the multigroup analysis due to missing values on youth gender. Error variances and their respective covariances are missing from the diagram to avoid complexity. Covariates were age, socioeconomic status, friend smoking, and adult smoking.

As illustrated in Figure 3, acculturation was positively associated with familismo in boys and girls (p < .001), and it was negatively associated with traditional gender roles in both groups (p < .001). Enculturation was associated with higher familismo and respeto for boys and girls (p < .001). Familismo and gender roles, in turn, were linked with lower family conflict for girls (p < .001 and p < .05, respectively) but not for boys. Respeto was related with lower family conflict for both groups (p < .001), but this association was stronger for girls (β = −.343) than boys (β = −.342). Conversely, fatalismo was associated with more family conflict for both groups (p < .001) but this link was stronger for boys (β = .27) compared with girls (β = .18). Moreover, familismo and respeto were linked with lower discrimination in both genders (p < .05 and p < .05, respectively) and higher family cohesion in girls (p < .001 and p < .001, respectively) and boys (p < .05 and p < .001, respectively). However, the links of familismo and respeto with family cohesion were stronger for girls (β = .25 and β = .40, respectively) than boys (β = .23 and β = .23, respectively). Gender roles were also linked with more family cohesion in girls (p < .05) but not in boys. Fatalismo was associated with higher levels of discrimination in both groups (p < .05 and p < .05, respectively), and it was related with lower family cohesion in both genders (p < .05), but this connection was stronger for boys (β = −.17) than girls (β = −.13). Discrimination was the only predictor of smoking in both groups (p < .05).

In sum, structural multigroup analyses showed that boys and girls experience a loss in traditional gender roles as they adopt aspects of the dominant non-Latino/a White culture. This loss in traditional gender roles predisposes girls but not boys to higher family conflict and lower family cohesion. Moreover, boys and girls gain familismo with acculturation and enculturation, and both genders reported more respeto with enculturation. This gain in familismo and respeto protects boys and girls from everyday discriminatory experiences, which in turn were associated with more frequent smoking for both genders. In other words, acculturation and enculturation protect Hispanic youth from smoking by promoting familismo and respeto that were linked with less discrimination.

DISCUSSION

The present study integrated research on acculturation, culture, discrimination, and family into a process-oriented model to better understand the link between acculturation and increased smoking in Hispanic youth. We also assessed how this process differed for boys and girls to shed light onto why girls’ smoking is more negatively affected by acculturation than the smoking of boys (Epstein et al., 1998). This knowledge can guide the development of culture- and gender-sensitive smoking prevention and intervention efforts for Hispanic youth.

Our descriptive data revealed some significant gender differences. Boys were twice as likely to have smoked cigarettes in the past 30 days compared with girls. Boys also reported more frequent encounters with everyday discrimination and they scored higher on their endorsement of traditional gender roles. Girls, on the other hand, scored higher on familismo, respeto, and fatalismo. Generally, these findings indicate that Hispanic boys are at greater risk for cigarette smoking than Hispanic girls, which may in part be due to boys experiencing more frequent everyday discrimination than girls. Discrimination was the only significant predictor of youth smoking and understanding reasons for why boys experience more discrimination than girls may help in the development of smoking prevention programs tailored to the needs of Hispanic boys.

Our results further show that Hispanic boys and girls have more similar, than different, acculturation-related experiences. For boys and girls, cultural values were linked with family functioning and discrimination, and discrimination predicted smoking in both groups. However, familismo, respeto, and traditional gender roles were more strongly linked with family functioning in girls. This indicates that acculturative and enculturative processes may be more relevant for girls’ than boys’ family functioning. For boys and girls, acculturation was linked with more familismo and less traditional gender roles. However, these cultural values more strongly influenced girls’ than boys’ family functioning. Although acculturation may play a greater role for girls’ family lives than for boys’ family lives, family functioning was not linked with smoking (above and beyond discrimination). This, however, does not mean that Hispanic youth are not distressed by family-related difficulties. Strained family lives may simply manifest in other externalizing and internalizing problems.

Researchers propose that Hispanic girls acculturate faster than boys because they embrace the freedom that comes with less traditional gender roles. These greater changes in traditional gender roles in girls compared with boys are thought to lead to more strained family relations for girls (Zayas et al., 2005), possibly increasing their risk for substance use. The present study empirically tested these ideas. Gender roles were more strongly linked with family functioning in girls, but boys and girls experienced a loss in traditional gender roles with acculturation. Reasons for why girls’ family functioning is more strongly influenced by traditional gender roles, familismo, and respeto remain unclear. Girls may feel guilty when family harmony is at risk because in Hispanic culture, females are expected to be caring, nurturing, and self-sacrificing, while males are expected to protect and provide financial support to their families. These feelings of guilt may lead girls to focus more on family problems than boys, even when boys and girls experience similar levels of family conflict and harmony. Alternatively, parents may impose more control and monitoring on daughters than sons by way of familismo, respeto, and traditional gender roles (Halgunseth, Ispa, & Rudy, 2006). Hispanic parents are often more concerned about negative peer influences for girls than boys, and they use control or monitoring with their daughters more than with their sons (Azmitia & Brown, 2002). This gendered parenting may lead girls with lower endorsement of familismo, respeto, and traditional gender roles to rebel against parental control, causing family conflict and disharmony. Additionally, these gendered parenting strategies may protect girls from smoking indirectly by shielding them from everyday discrimination. Compared with boys, girls scored higher on familismo and respeto, which were associated with less discrimination (the only significant predictor of smoking).

Surprisingly, acculturation was related with higher and not lower levels of familismo. This was surprising because studies have shown negative associations between acculturation and family closeness (Miranda et al., 2000). It is possible that the association of acculturation with familismo depends on the larger sociocultural context of U.S. Hispanic families. Youth in the current study were predominantly U.S. born. The parenting of parents with U.S.-born children may differ from the parenting of parents with foreign-born youth. Parents of U.S.-born children may increasingly emphasize familismo as their children become acculturated because they may fear that their U.S.-born children never learn about or disengage from familistic values, which may be valued by parents because they promote family cohesion and support. Family support may be viewed as vital in the United States, where Hispanics experience discrimination and hostility outside the home (Kam et al., 2010). Experiences of everyday discrimination may keep families from finding social support that does not involve the family and other Hispanics, and parents may instill familistic values to their children to ensure that they have access to social support systems. That is, parents’ fear of their children lacking family support may encourage them to transmit familistic values to greater degrees than they normally would. So, youth may have had greater exposure to messages endorsing the importance of familismo as they acculturate into the U.S. culture. Parents may intuitively teach familismo in their parenting to protect their children from the adverse effects of discrimination such as cigarette smoking. Familismo was associated with lower reports of discrimination, and everyday discrimination was directly linked with elevated smoking.

Interestingly, fatalismo was linked with less family cohesion and increased conflict, and these links were stronger for boys. Youth who endorse fatalistic beliefs may experience adolescent angst, disillusionment, hopelessness, and lack of future aspirations. Youth who lack motivation and a positive attitude toward the future may experience increased family conflict and feel less supported by parents when they try to encourage their children to make responsible decisions for the future. Parents may encourage their sons more than their daughters to take advantage of available opportunities in the United States because in Hispanic culture men are responsible for the financial security of the family (Sarmiento & Cardemil, 2009). As a result of these dynamics, boys with more fatalistic beliefs may report more conflict and less cohesion. Moreover, youth who feel disillusioned and hopeless about the future may have a general pessimistic view of the world. They may also be more apt to focus on negative experiences such as discrimination and family conflict and report more of these instances (regardless of whether they experience more discrimination and family conflict) compared with youth with a more positive cognitive style. Boys may feel more hopeless about the future than girls because they may feel to never be able to meet parental standards of success in the United States where they experience more discrimination than their non-Hispanic White peers and female counterparts.

As expected, familismo and respeto were linked with less discrimination. This indicates that familismo and respeto protect youth from experiences of unfair differential treatment. Youth who endorse familismo and respeto to greater degrees may spend more time with their Hispanic families or other Hispanic friends, and consequently, they may have fewer opportunities to experience everyday discrimination against them. Contrary to expectations, fatalismo was linked with increased everyday discrimination. Reasons for why fatalismo is linked with more discrimination are not clear. It is possible that youth with fatalistic beliefs have more pessimistic views of the world, possibly focusing on negative experiences such as discrimination to greater degrees than focusing on positive experiences. Understanding the connections between fatalismo, familismo, respeto, and discrimination is important. These may be promising avenues for protecting youth from the deleterious health consequences of everyday discrimination. Discrimination was linked with more frequent smoking and thus, understanding how fatalismo, familismo, and respeto link with more or less frequent discrimination may help in reducing Hispanic youth smoking.

The current study clearly suggests that reducing discrimination against Hispanic youth is vital, and this might be especially important for Hispanic boys who reported more discrimination and more smoking than girls. Discrimination was directly linked with smoking in boys and girls, and this association remained above and beyond the protective role of family cohesion. Efforts should also be placed on helping youth learn to cope with discriminatory acts against them. This may be achieved by fostering familismo and respeto, both of which were linked with lower reports of everyday discrimination. This may also be achieved by combating youth’s fatalistic beliefs and possible negative interpretations of everyday experiences. Youth may be using cigarettes to cope with the potential distress caused by everyday discriminatory experiences. Thus, it is important to combat discrimination against Hispanic youth or help youth find ways to deal with discrimination in more healthy ways. This may ultimately lead to reduced smoking among Hispanic youth. Most studies on Hispanic youth acculturation and substance use have assessed the role of the family. In the present study, everyday discrimination predicted smoking above and beyond family functioning. These findings highlight the need to investigate the roles of culture, family, and also structural factors such as discrimination on Hispanic youth smoking.

LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

There are limitations to this study. Our integrative model captured key sociocultural variables relevant to Hispanic youth smoking, but it did not account for other factors linked with smoking. Research shows that as Hispanics acculturate into the dominant U.S. culture, their smoking norms and attitudes more closely resemble those of the dominant U.S. culture, thereby increasing Hispanic smoking (Marin, Marin, Otero-Sabogal, Sabogal, & Perez-Stable, 1990). Girls may experience greater changes in smoking norms than boys due to gendered smoking norms in Hispanic culture (Marsiglia et al., 2010). This in turn may explain why girls’ smoking is more influenced by acculturation than boys’ smoking. Smoking onset has also been linked with genetic and biological factors (Heath, Kirk, Meyer, & Martin, 1999; Li, 2003). Therefore, future research on Hispanic youth smoking should extend our sociocultural model with cognitive, genetic, and biological determinants of smoking. Moreover, all data were obtained via youth self-report preventingus from examining parents’ and teachers’ evaluations of youth smoking. Students may have underreported their cigarette use. Thus, future studies should collect data from various informants to avoid this self-report bias.

Despite these limitations, this study contributes to the research on Hispanic youth acculturation and smoking. We examined the process by which acculturation-related experiences unfold to influence each other to influence youth smoking, and we investigated how this process differed for boys and girls. We were able to identify promising areas for future prevention and intervention research. Hispanic youth are at risk for cigarette smoking, and they belong to the largest and fastest growing immigrant group in the United States. So, to the extent that acculturation leads to cigarette smoking, it is important to understand why.

FUNDING

This work was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (Grant DA016310) and the University of Michigan Substance Abuse Research Center/NIDA Predoctoral Training Fellowship (Grant T32DA007267).

DECLARATION OF INTERESTS

None declared.

REFERENCES

  1. Anderson J. C, Gerbing D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3)411 [Google Scholar]
  2. Asparouhov T, Muthén B. (2010). Weighted least squares estimation with missing data. Retrieved from http://www.statmodel.com/download/GstrucMissingRevision.pdf [Google Scholar]
  3. Azmitia M, Brown J. (2002). Latino immigrant parents’ beliefs about the “Path of Life” of their adolescent children. In Contreras J. M, Kerns K. A, Barnett N, (Eds.), Latino children and families in the United States: Current research and future direction (pp. 77–105). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers; [Google Scholar]
  4. Canino G, Vega W. A, Sribney W. M, Warner L. A, Alegria M. (2008). Social relationships, social assimilation, and substance-use disorders among adult Latinos in the U.S. Journal of Drug Issues, 38(1)69–101 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2009). Smoking attributage mortality, years of potential life lost, and productivity losses—United States, 2000–2004. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [Google Scholar]
  6. Céspedes Y. M, Huey S. J., Jr (2008). Depression in Latino adolescents: A cultural discrepancy perspective. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 14(2)168–172doi: 10.1037/1099-9809.14.2.168 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Cole E. R. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American Psychologist, 64(3)170–180doi: 10.1037/a0014564 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Coonrod D. V, Balcazar H, Brady J, Garcia S, Van Tine M. (1999). Smoking, acculturation and family cohesion in Mexican-American women. Ethnicity & Disease, 9(3)434–440 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Cuéllar I., Arnold B, Maldonado R. (1995). Acculturation rating scale for Mexican Americans-II: A revision of the original ARSMA scale. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 17(3)275–304 [Google Scholar]
  10. De la Rosa M. R. (2002). Acculturation and Latino adolescents’ substance use: A research agenda for the future. Substance Use & Misuse, 37(4)429–456 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Durell Johnson H., Lavoie J. C., Mahoney M. (2001). Interparental conflict and family cohesion: Predictors of loneliness, social anxiety, and social avoidance in late adolescence. Journal of Adolescent Research, 16(3), 302–318 [Google Scholar]
  12. Epstein J. A, Botvin G. J, Diaz T. (1998). Linguistic acculturation and gender effects on smoking among Hispanic youth. Preventive Medicine: An International Journal Devoted to Practice and Theory, 27(4)583–589 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Gil A. G, Wagner E. F, Vega W. A. (2000). Acculturation, familism and alcohol use among Latino adolescent males: Longitudinal relations. Journal of Community Psychology, 28(4)443–458doi:10.1002/1520-6629(200007) [Google Scholar]
  14. Gonzales N. A, Deardorff J, Formoso D, Barr A, Barrera M., Jr (2006). Family mediators of the relation between acculturation and adolescent mental health. Family Relations, 55(3)318–330 [Google Scholar]
  15. Guyll M, Matthews K. A, Bromberger J. T. (2001). Discrimination and unfair treatment: Relationship to cardiovascular reactivity among African American and European American women. Health Psychology, 20(5)315–325doi: 10.1037//0278-6133.20.5.315 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Halgunseth L.C, Ispa J. M, Rudy D. (2006). Parental control in Latino families: An integrated review of the literature. Child Development, 81(5)1282–1297 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Heath A. C, Kirk K. M, Meyer J. M, Martin N. G. (1999). Genetic and social determinants of initiation and age at onset of smoking in Australian twins. Behavior Genetics, 29(6)395–407doi:10.1023/A:1021670703806 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Hu L, Bentler P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4)424 [Google Scholar]
  19. Jöreskog K. G. (1993). Testing structural equation models. In Kenneth B. B, Long J. S. (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 294–316). Newbury Park, CA: Sage; [Google Scholar]
  20. Kam J.A, Cleveland M.J, Hecht M.L. (2010). Applying general strain theory to examine perceived discrimination’s indirect relation to Mexican-heritage youth’s alcohol, cigarette, and marijuana use. Prevention Science, 11, 397–410doi: 10.1007/s11121-010-0180-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Li M. D. (2003). The genetics of smoking related behavior: A brief review. The American Journal of the Medical Sciences, 326(4)168 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Little T, Cunningham W, Shahar G, Widaman K. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2)151doi: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1 [Google Scholar]
  23. Lorenzo-Blanco E. I, Unger J. B, Ritt-Olson A, Soto D, Baezconde-Garbanati L. (2011). Acculturation, gender, depression, and cigarette smoking among U.S. Hispanic youth: The mediating role of perceived discrimination. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40(11), 1519–1533 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Marin B. V., Marin G., Perez-Stable E. J., Otero-Sabogal R. (1990). Cultural differences in attitudes toward smoking: Developing messages using the theory or reasoned action. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20(6), 478–493 [Google Scholar]
  25. Marsiglia F. F, Kulis S, Hussaini S. K, Nieri T. A, Becerra D. (2010). Gender differences in the effect of linguistic acculturation on substance use among Mexican-origin youth in the southwest United States. Journal of Ethnicity in Substance Abuse, 9(1)40–63doi: 10.1080/15332640903539252 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Miranda A. O, Estrada D, Firpo-Jimenez M. (2000). Differences in family cohesion, adaptability, and environment among Latino families in dissimilar stages of acculturation. The Family Journal, 8(4)341–350doi:10.1177/ 1066480700084003 [Google Scholar]
  27. Muthén L. K., Muthén B. O. (2010). Mplus user’s guide. 6th ed Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén [Google Scholar]
  28. Neff J. A, Hoppe S. K. (1993). Race/ethnicity, acculturation, and psychological distress: Fatalism and religiosity as cultural resources. Journal of Community Psychology, 21(1)–3 [Google Scholar]
  29. Olson D. H, Portner J, Bell R. (1982). Family adaptability and cohesion evaluation scales. In Olson D. H, McCubbin H. I, Barnes H. L, Larsen A, Muxen M, Wilson M. (Eds.), Family inventories (pp. 5–24). St. Paul: University of Minnesota; [Google Scholar]
  30. Rivera F. I, Guarnaccia P. J, Mulvaney-Day N, Lin J. Y, Torres M, Alegría M. (2008). Family cohesion and its relationship to psychological distress among Latino groups. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 30(3)357–378doi: 10.1177/0739986308318713 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Sabogal F, Marín G, Otero-Sabogal R, Marín B. V. (1987). Hispanic familism and acculturation: What changes and what doesn’t? Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 9(4)397–412doi: 10.1177/07399863870094003 [Google Scholar]
  32. Sarmiento I. A, Cardemil E. V. (2009). Family functioning and depression in low-income Latino couples. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 35(4)432–445doi:10.1111/ j.1752-0606.200901139.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Schwartz S. J, Unger J. B, Zamboanga B. L, Szapocznik J. (2010). Rethinking the concept of acculturation: Implications for theory and research. American Psychologist, 65(4)237–251doi: 10.1037/a0019330 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Smart J. F, Smart D. W. (1995). Acculturative stress of Hispanics: Loss and challenge. Journal of Counseling & Develop- ment, 73(4)390–396 [Google Scholar]
  35. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Results from the 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of national findings. Retrieved from http://www.samhsa.gov/data/NSDUH/2k10NSDUH/2k10Results.pdf [PubMed]
  36. Tyas S. L, Pederson L. L. (1998). Psychosocial factors related to adolescent smoking: A critical review of the literature. Tobacco Control, 7(4)409 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Unger J. B, Ritt-Olson A., Teran L., Huang T., Hoffman B. R., Palmer P. (2002). Cultural values and substance use in a multiethnic sample of California adolescents. Addiction Research Theory, 10(3)257 [Google Scholar]
  38. Unger J. B, Ritt-Olson A., Wagner K. D, Soto D. W, Baezconde-Garbanati L. (2009). Parent-child acculturation patterns and substance use among Hispanic adolescents: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Primary Prevention, 30(3–4)293–313 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. U.S. Census Bureau (2010). U.S. Census Bureau News: Facts for features: Hispanic Heritage Month, 2010 Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/facts_ for_features_special_editions/ [Google Scholar]
  40. Valenzuela A., Jr (1999). Gender roles and settlement activities among children and their immigrant families. American Behavioral Scientist, 42(4)720–742 [Google Scholar]
  41. Wiehe S. E, Aalsma M. C, Liu G. C, Fortenberry J. D. (2010). Gender differences in the association between perceived discrimination and adolescent smoking. American Journal of Public Health, 100(3)510–516doi:10.2105/AJPH.2009.169771 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Zayas L. H, Lester R. J, Cabassa L. J, Fortuna L. R. (2005). Why do so many Latina teens attempt suicide? A conceptual model for research. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 75(2)275–287doi:10.1037/0002-9432.75.2.275 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Nicotine & Tobacco Research are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES