Racial discrimination and the moderating effects of racial and ethnic socialization on the mental health of Asian American youth

Abstract

This study investigates trajectories of racial discrimination, racial and ethnic socialization (RES), and their interaction effects with social positions (nativity and gender) on mental health. A longitudinal study of 786 Filipino American and Korean American youth from the Midwestern U.S. (M_age.Wave1 = 15) confirmed that discrimination increased and significantly contributed to the upward trend of mental health distress, whereas the impact of RES differed by its type and by ethnicity. For example, promotion of mistrust and ethnic-heritage socialization were protective among U.S.-born Filipino American youth, but for Korean American youth, preparation for bias was protective regardless of nativity and gender. This study highlights the importance of considering social positions to better understand the role of RES in youth psychological adjustment.

Asian Americans face structural racism and experience racial discrimination (see Benner et al., 2018, for review). In the last few years, anti-immigrant and racist sentiments have increased dramatically. Although anti-Asian crimes are rarely reported, Asian Americans, more than 62% of whom are foreign-born (U.S. Census Bureau, 2018), have been disproportionately targeted during this period. Nationwide, racist and anti-immigrant hate crimes targeting Asian Americans grew by 30% between 2015 and 2018—increasing by 20% in particular between 2016 and 2017, more than the increase in such crimes directed against any other major racial and ethnic groups in the United States (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2018). These daily racial experiences have direct implications for Asian American youth adjustment. Even before the recent surge of racism and anti-immigration/anti-Asian sentiments, Asian American youth, including Filipino American (FA; Gee et al., 2009) and Korean American (KA; Shin et al., 2011) youth, reported the highest rate of peer harassment, perpetrated by both White youth and other racial minority youth (Fisher et al., 2000).

The adverse effect of discriminatory experiences on the mental health of Asian American youth has been documented across major Asian American subgroups (see Benner et al., 2018, for review), including FA and KA youth (Choi et al., 2020; Shin et al., 2011). Mental health issues among Asian American youth have garnered scholarly attention in recent decades, in part because of the evidence that they may excessively suffer from internalizing problems (Eisenberg et al., 2013). For example, in a study of 93,034 college students randomly selected from 108 U.S. institutions, Liu et al. (2019) found that Asian American students had the highest rates of suicidal ideation and suicide attempts among all the major racial groups in the United States. These findings may even underestimate the problem, given that Asian Americans report the lowest rates of mental health service utilization (Liu et al., 2019).

Responding to these research endeavors, developmental scientists have proposed that parental racial and ethnic socialization (RES) practices that are intended to prepare minority children to deal with racism are important protective factors for Asian American youth (Juang et al., 2017; Tran & Lee, 2010). However, there is a dearth of research investigating longitudinal trends in RES practices among Asian American families. Likewise, only a few studies have examined the moderating role of RES practices specifically on mental health outcomes of Asian American youth (as examples, see Atkin et al., 2019; Thai et al., 2017). To further muddy the waters, findings from these limited studies are often mixed in terms of how the three types of socialization messages—preparation for bias, promotion of mistrust, and ethnic-heritage socialization—operate differently in mitigating the psychological burden of racial discrimination.

The mixed and even conflicting findings are probably reflective of several methodological challenges. First, prior studies have predominantly relied on aggregated cross-sectional data that cannot account for changes in social climate (e.g., an increase in racism), RES practices, and youth maturity over time and that do not consider the variability of Asian American ethnic subgroups (Pew Research Center, 2013). Furthermore, extant research has failed to take into account other important social positions, such as nativity (i.e., place of birth) and gender, in understanding the relations between RES practices and Asian American youth development.

To fill these gaps, this study examines the longitudinal trends and direct effects of three types of RES practices, and whether and how each type of RES moderates the relations between racial discrimination and mental health outcomes of FA and KA youth. We strategically chose FA and KA youth as our study populations, not simply because these groups share key similarities in socioeconomic status (SES) indicators, but because they contrast with each other in their racial and ethnic experiences in the United States (described below). Finally, the current study examines how the efficacy of the moderating effects of RES further vary by nativity and gender within each ethnic group.

Conceptual Framework

The current study uses the integrated model for the study of developmental competencies in minority children (Coll et al., 1996) and the adapting cultural systems framework (White et al., 2018). According to the integrated model (Coll et al., 1996), the discriminatory experiences resulting from the children’s multiple marginalized social positions should be the focal point of investigation in understanding the development of minority youth, rather than peripheral factors to be controlled. The integrated model suggests that these racialized experiences have critical and negative impacts, particularly on the development of minority youth. Yet, the deleterious effects of racial discrimination may be attenuated or worsened depending on the quality of the youth’s adapting cultural systems. Specifically, the adapting cultural systems framework (White et al., 2018) provides additional specifications to the integrative model in that it identifies RES practices as an essential adapting cultural system that can help keep racial discrimination from compromising the developmental potential of minority youth. More importantly, both theoretical models posit that the effects of adapting cultural systems may vary by the social positions of minority youth. That is, social positions such as nativity (e.g., U.S.-born vs. foreign-born) and gender may be the governing factors that control how youth psychologically process and respond to negative experiences of discrimination and to RES practices.

Emerging research on Asian American youth has examined the moderating role of RES practices in the relations between racial discrimination and mental health outcomes (Atkin et al., 2019; Thai et al., 2017). However, few, if any, studies have simultaneously explored how salient social positions can further moderate these associations. In this study, we specifically select nativity and gender as potential moderators, based on several empirical findings indicating their significance in the psychological adjustment of minority youth. For example, disparities in mental health outcomes between U.S.- and foreign-born individuals (Breslau et al., 2007) and between females and males (Klonoff et al., 2000) are well documented. Despite the seemingly advantageous characteristics of U.S. natives over foreign-born immigrants—the former having higher rates of health insurance (Durden & Hummer, 2006) and living in neighborhoods with more resources (Portes & Rumbaut, 2006)—a “healthy immigrant effect” has been consistently found, regardless of racial and ethnic backgrounds (Antecol & Bedard, 2006). Similarly, the higher rate of psychiatric symptoms among females than among males is well known in both the general population (Klonoff et al., 2000) and the Asian American population (Furnham & Shiekh, 1993).

Moreover, Asian American youth may have varying levels of exposure or susceptibility to racial discrimination according to nativity status and gender. For example, extant research suggests that foreign-born Asian American youth experience more racial discrimination than their U.S.-born counterparts (Ying et al., 2000). However, regarding the moderating role of nativity, Armenta et al. (2013) found that foreign-born individuals were less vulnerable to the adverse effect of racial discriminatory experiences on internalizing problems than U.S.-born individuals. Regarding gender, males tend to report significantly more experiences of racial discrimination than females (Benner et al., 2018). According to the meta-analysis conducted by Benner et al. (2018), however, no gender difference was found in the relations between racial discrimination and mental health outcomes.

The current study adopts the integrated model and the adapting cultural systems framework to provide a more nuanced understanding of how RES influences the psychological adjustment of FA and KA youth. By examining the moderating roles of RES practices and social positions simultaneously, this study aims to provide a more accurate depiction of how the negative impact of racial discrimination can potentially be alleviated by RES and how social positions should be considered in the investigation of these moderating relations.

Racial and Ethnic Socialization and Youth Development

RES is the process whereby racial and ethnic minority children are prepared to navigate a racialized society (Hughes et al., 2006). Early studies of Asian Americans generally treated RES as a global construct, paying less attention to different types of RES practices (Juang et al., 2017). However, recent conceptual (e.g., Juang et al., 2016) and empirical studies (e.g., Atkin et al., 2019; Liu & Lau, 2013; Thai et al., 2017) have identified and used multiple subconstructs of RES, including preparation for bias (awareness of discrimination), promotion of mistrust (avoidance of out-groups), and ethnic-heritage socialization (maintenance of heritage culture). In the present study, we follow the broad trend in the literature of recognizing these three types of RES practice.

Minority children typically undergo “preparation for bias,” which involves explicit discussion of race and racism, to help them deal with future racial discrimination (Hughes et al., 2006). Empirical studies of Asian American youth development have found preparation for bias to have mixed effects, including feelings of isolation (Benner & Kim, 2009), but a positive influence on ethnic identity development (Hughes et al., 2009). Conversely, the effects of promotion of mistrust and ethnic-heritage socialization are generally straightforward. Promotion of mistrust, that is, parental practices of emphasizing wariness or distrust in relationships with other racial and ethnic groups (Hughes et al., 2006), is typically related to negative youth developmental outcomes (see Juang et al., 2017, for review). On the other hand, ethnic-heritage socialization, which includes a broad range of processes that aim to teach ethnic cultural values, norms, history, and language (Hughes et al., 2006), is usually found to be related to positive developmental outcomes (Juang et al., 2017). Liu and Lau (2013) investigated the direct effects of all three types of RES on mental health outcomes and found that preparation for bias and promotion of mistrust were related to more depressive symptoms for Black, Asian, and Latinx college students, but ethnic-heritage socialization predicted fewer depressive symptoms.

Limited emerging research suggests that parents may readjust their parenting patterns of RES as their children enter adolescence and emerging adulthood (see Hughes et al., 2016 for review). During these developmental stages, youth develop formal operational thinking (Inhelder & Piaget, 1958) that better enables them to recognize discrimination and prejudice against their own racial/ethnic group. Accordingly, parents recognizing their children’s readiness to understand the complex concepts of race may engage more in preparation for bias and promotion of mistrust (Hughes et al., 2016). On the other hand, empirical research has shown that parents of minority children utilize ethnic-heritage socialization in a similar manner regardless of their children’s developmental stage (Lee et al., 2006).

Racial and Ethnic Socialization as Moderators

Although theorists have advocated for RES practices to protect minority youth from the experiences of racial discrimination, little research has specifically explored the distress-moderating roles of RES on mental health outcomes among Asian American youth, and even less attention has been given to the FA and KA subgroups of this population. Some empirical studies have investigated the moderating effects in African American and transracial adoptive families. Findings from African American families suggest that the effects of preparation for bias and ethnic-heritage socialization for individuals facing adversity are positive. Specifically, preparation for bias overall had a stress-buffering effect, alleviating the negative impact of racial discrimination on psychological distress (Fischer & Shaw, 1999). Findings on ethnic-heritage socialization also indicated a stress-buffering effect on psychological stress (Bynum et al., 2007). The extant literature further indicates that these protective effects may be manifested in different ways. Harris-Britt et al. (2007), for example, found the stress-buffering effect of ethnic-heritage socialization on self-esteem to be linear, whereas the stress-buffering effect of preparation for bias was found to be curvilinear. That is, a linear increase in ethnic-heritage socialization weakened the association between racial discrimination and self-esteem, but a medium level (not a low or high level) of preparation for bias weakened the association between racial discrimination and self-esteem.

Research on transracial adoptees, however, shows mixed patterns. For example, among 87 transracial adoptees from diverse racial backgrounds, Arnold et al. (2016) found a stress-buffering effect of preparation for bias and ethnic-heritage socialization. Schires et al. (2020), with 456 transracially adopted Korean Americans, examined the effects of preparation for bias and ethnic-heritage socialization and found only preparation for bias to have a stress-buffering effect on depressive symptoms.

Although only a handful of studies exist, empirical studies of Asian American families also indicate mixed results. For example, among 187 Asian American pan-ethnic high school students (80% East Asian; 7% Southeast Asian) from the West Coast, Atkin et al. (2019) found a stress-buffering effect of preparation for bias and ethnic-heritage socialization but a stress-exacerbating effect of promotion of mistrust on psychological distress. Conversely, Thai et al. (2017), with 87 Asian American pan-ethnic emerging adults (47% East Asian; 30% Southeast Asian) from the mid-Atlantic region, did not find a stress-buffering effect of preparation for bias and ethnic-heritage socialization, but found a stress-buffering effect of promotion of mistrust on self-esteem.

Filipino American and Korean American Youth

In research studies, Asian Americans are often treated as a monolithic group, despite the ethnic heterogeneity within the Asian American population. For this study, we chose the FA and KA subgroups. FAs and KAs are, respectively, the third and fifth most populous communities of Asian Americans in the United States. These two subgroups share key similarities but contrast with each other in other important ways. For example, the two subgroups are similar in SES in that they are mostly middle class, with comparable median incomes, high educational backgrounds, and similar college education rates (López et al., 2017). However, studies have reported that KAs are one of the most culturally separated subgroups of Asian Americans (e.g., having low English competency mainly among first-generation adults and living in high co-ethnic concentration areas; Min, 2006) and that they actively engage in family ethnic-heritage socialization to maintain ethnic pride and core cultural values in their children (Choi & Kim, 2010), whereas FAs are the most assimilated subgroup (e.g., high English competency, residential and occupational integration; Vigdor, 2008). These differences in acculturation level may lead one to hypothesize that KA youth would experience more parental expectations to behave in specific ways that adhere to traditional gendered norms than FA youth experience. Interestingly, however, Choi et al. (2017) found that FA parents reported a significantly higher degree of adherence to traditional family values, including gendered expectations, than KA parents.

FAs and KAs are also notably different with respect to their racialized experiences in the countries of origin and in the host society. The Philippines had a prolonged period of colonization (nearly 400 years) by Western forces (first Spain and then the United States), which resulted in the internalization of a sense of ethnic or cultural inferiority among some Filipinos (colonial mentality; David & Okazaki, 2006). In South Korea, however, the U.S. involvement significantly increased mainly after the Korean War in the 1950s and the subsequent military presence. In the United States, FAs are often mistaken for Latinx Americans because of their shared experience of Spanish colonization and because of their darker skin color in comparison with East Asian Americans (Nadal, 2008). Consequently, their racialized experiences have been similar to those of Latinx Americans. In contrast, KAs, as part of the larger East Asian American community, have had a uniquely racialized experience of simultaneously being valorized as model minority figures but ostracized as forever foreigners (Kim, 1999). These racialized experiences in both their countries of origin and the host society may have differentially shaped the racial ideology and RES practices of Filipino and Korean immigrant parents. Similarly, U.S.-born Asian American youth, most of whom have not lived in their families’ countries of origin, and foreign-born Asian immigrant youth may have been affected differentially by RES practices and the experience of racial discrimination in the United States. However, less is known about how RES practices may play different roles for FA and KA youth across nativity status in light of the varying degrees of racialized experience in their countries of origin and in the host society.

The Current Study

The current study first documented the unadjusted trends of racial discrimination and RES experiences of FA and KA youth over a 4-year period from 2014 to 2018. In addition, we examined the direct effects of racial discrimination and of each type of RES on mental health outcomes. More specifically, the direct effects were disentangled into between- and within-subjects effects. The estimates of the between-subjects effect use the average of the samples across the waves, while those of the within-subjects effect are based on changes within each individual sample over time (see Analysis Plan for details). We also examined two-way interactions (e.g., discrimination × RES) on mental health outcomes to test the distress-moderating effects of RES. Lastly, we explored whether and how the interaction effects further vary by nativity and gender in three-way interaction terms (e.g., discrimination × RES × nativity). The analyses were conducted separately for each ethnic group.

The study hypotheses were developed based on the theoretical models and empirical findings discussed earlier. First, given the uptick in racial hostility in recent years, we predicted that for both ethnic groups the unadjusted rates of racial discrimination, preparation for bias, and promotion of mistrust would increase over time, whereas the rate of ethnic-heritage socialization would not change. We predicted that FA youth would report higher rates of preparation for bias and promotion of mistrust than KA youth, given FAs’ further marginalized social status compared with East Asian Americans. We also expected that FA youth would show a lower rate of ethnic-heritage socialization than KA youth, congruent with previous research indicating the particular importance of ethnic-heritage socialization within KA families. Regarding the direct effect models, we expected that racial discrimination would predict more mental health problems regardless of ethnic background, given these groups’ shared racial minority status. In addition, based on extant literature, we hypothesized that preparation for bias and promotion of mistrust would predict more mental health problems, whereas ethnic-heritage socialization would predict fewer mental health problems in both groups.

The hypotheses regarding the two-way interaction models were somewhat challenging to establish, because of the lack of existing empirical studies and inconsistent results for the buffering effects of distinct types of RES on mental health. Nevertheless, much of the extant theoretical work (Crocker & Major, 1989; Lee et al., 2006) has postulated a buffering effect of RES to the extent that any types of RES in the family that are intended to protect minority children from racial harm would mitigate the detrimental effect of racial discrimination. That is, promotion of mistrust, although it has generally shown a direct negative impact on mental health, could still protect minority youth when they experience discrimination, thus serving as a significant buffer. Moreover, extant research, albeit limited, provides support for such buffering effects (Thai et al., 2017). Accordingly, we hypothesized that RES, regardless of its type, would buffer the negative impact of racial discrimination on the mental health of both ethnic groups. Lastly, although no prior research exists in this area, we expected that in both ethnic groups, U.S.-born and female youth, who, on average, are more vulnerable to mental health problems than their foreign-born and male counterparts, would benefit more from the protective effects of RES on mental health when experiencing racial discrimination. We did not generate hypotheses specific to the between- and within-subjects effects, because of the limited investigation in this area.

Method

Participants

The data are from the Midwest Longitudinal Study of Asian American Families (MLSAAF) project, a longitudinal survey (three waves of panel data) of FA and KA youth and their parents living in the Chicago metropolitan area. The first wave was collected in 2014 from 378 FA youth and 376 parents, and 408 KA youth and 412 parents (N = 1,574). We surveyed the baseline participants again in 2016 (79% retention) and only youth participants in 2018 (81% of Wave 1). Given the nature of the current study hypotheses, which requires at least three waves of data points, only the youth data are used in this study. The retention rates for FA youth (Wave 1; n = 378) were 74% in 2016 (Wave 2; n = 279) and 80% of Wave 1 in 2018 (Wave 3; n = 304), and the retention rates for KA youth (Wave 1; n = 408) were 80% in 2016 (Wave 2; n = 325) and 83% of Wave 1 in 2018 (Wave 3; n = 337). In Wave 1, 56% of the FA youth and 47% of the KA youth were female, and about 71% of the FA and 58% of the KA youth were U.S.-born. The average age was 15.27 years (SD = 1.88) for FA youth and 14.76 years (SD = 1.91) for KA youth, with a larger proportion of high school students (79% of the FA youth and 75% of the KA youth) than middle school students. On average, both groups reported that their overall physical health was good and that their family’s SES was middle class (see Table A2).

Recruitment and Procedures

During the initial data collection, all participants were recruited from multiple sources, including phone books, public and private schools, ethnic churches and temples, ethnic grocery stores, and ethnic community organizations in four major counties (Cook, Lake, DuPage, and Will) in the Chicago area. Inclusion criteria were (a) the family has a child between ages 12 and 17 (or in middle or high school) and (b) the adolescent’s biological mother is of Filipino or Korean descent. A single youth and the youth’s primary caretaker in each family were asked to participate. Parents were approached first, and, with the parents’ consent, youth were asked to participate. Information about the MLSAAF project and its goal of better understanding Asian American family processes and their impact on youth development was presented at initial contact and during the informed consent/assent process. Recruitment materials were available in English, Korean, and Tagalog. As a token of appreciation, youth participants received $20, $30, and $70 gift certificates at Waves 1, 2, and 3 respectively. In addition, youth participants who completed 95% or more of the survey were automatically entered into a lottery for a $100 gift card (a total of 40 and 20 gift cards in Waves 2 and 3, respectively). More details about the recruitment procedures are found elsewhere (Choi et al., 2018).

The MLSAAF questionnaires, available in both paper-and-pencil and online formats, were collected mostly in person by bilingual interviewers (84%) in Wave 1 and self-administered in later waves. The questionnaires were available in English, Korean, and Tagalog. In addition, prior to the longitudinal data collection, the MLSAAF survey items were tested for psychometric properties and measurement quality in a pretest conducted in 2013 with a community sample in the same region (N = 682; 155 FA youth and their parents, 186 KA youth and their parents).

Measures

Unless noted otherwise, response options for all measures were on an ordinal Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5. A higher score indicates a higher level of the construct.

Depressive Symptoms

Fourteen items from the Children’s Depression Inventory (Angold et al., 1995) and the Seattle Personality Questionnaire for Children (Kusche et al., 1988) were used to assess depressive symptoms for the 2-week period just prior to the survey. Example questions include “I didn’t enjoy anything at all” and “I felt I was a bad person” (α ranging from .93 to .94 across waves for both FA and KA).

Suicidal Ideation

To measure suicidal ideation, participants were asked the following question: “During the past 12 months, did you ever seriously think about committing suicide?” The question was rated on a dichotomous scale (0 = No, 1 = Yes).

Racial Discrimination

Four items from the MLSAAF project and Phinney et al. (1998) were used to assess the frequency of being unfairly treated because of being FA or KA. Example items included “I have felt discriminated [against] by Whites” or “by racial and ethnic minorities like Blacks or Hispanics” (α ranging from .71 to .79 for FA and from .71 to .83 for KA).

Racial and Ethnic Socialization

Three scales were used to assess the parental practices of RES. Preparation for bias was measured by five questions from Tran and Lee (2010) asking about parents’ deliberate preparation for racial bias (α ranging from .81 to .90 for FA and from .81 to .92 for KA). An example is “[My parents have often] talked to me about racial and ethnic stereotypes, prejudice, or discrimination against people of my racial and ethnic group.” Promotion of mistrust was measured on the basis of three questions from Tran and Lee (2010) asking to what extent their parents have promoted mistrust of other racial and ethnic groups (α ranging from .83 to .90 for FA and from .87 to .89 for KA). Examples included “[My parents have often] told me to avoid other racial and ethnic group(s) because of their prejudice against Koreans or Filipinos” or “[My parents have often] done or said things to encourage me to keep a distance from people of other racial and ethnicities.” Finally, three items from Choi et al. (2014) version of ethnic-heritage socialization were used to measure parental practices of emphasizing ethnic pride or the heritage culture. Examples included “[My parents emphasize] feeling proud of being Korean or Filipino” or “maintaining Korean or Filipino traditions and values” (α ranging from .72 to .77 for FA and from .74 to .86 for KA).

Control Variables

Demographic control variables used were age at the baseline, gender, nativity (place of birth), self-report of general health, and youth perception of family SES. In addition, a baseline age by wave interaction term was added to account for the differential longitudinal effect of age at the baseline (i.e., age cohort effect) on outcome measures.

Analysis Plan

To investigate the study hypotheses, mixed-effects regression models (i.e., hierarchical linear modeling or multilevel models) were estimated using Stata (Version 15.1). Mixed-effects models include both fixed effects of predictors and random effects of individual variance around the population parameters (Hedeker & Gibbons, 2006). This study used random-intercept modeling for suicidal ideation and random-intercept and trend modeling for depressive symptoms. Random-intercept modeling allows varying levels of outcome for individuals at the baseline, while random-intercept and trend modeling additionally allows variation among individuals for the rate of change in outcomes. Random-intercept and trend modeling was not adopted for suicidal ideation because this modeling method did not converge properly with the suicidal ideation outcome. Mixed-effect models also allow predictors to be time-invariant (e.g., nativity) or time-varying (e.g., racial discrimination).

Between- and Within-Subjects Effects

To conduct more nuanced and robust investigation of the study hypotheses, this study examined whether the effects of racial discrimination and RES practices estimated by time-varying variables can be further disentangled into between- and within-subjects effects (Hedeker & Gibbons, 2006). That is, with the cross-sectional (i.e., time-invariant) data, we are only able to examine how predictors are related to outcomes across individuals (between-subjects relation). With the longitudinal (i.e., time-variant) data, we can also examine how each individual’s changes in predictors are related to the individual’s outcomes over time (within-subjects relation).

To provide specifics, we use the relation between racial discrimination and depressive symptoms as an example. First, to create a variable that measures the between-subjects effect of racial discrimination, a racial discrimination variable is averaged across the three waves. To create a variable that captures the within-subjects effect of racial discrimination, the unique value of racial discrimination for each subject in each wave is subtracted from the mean for the individual across three waves. To examine significant fit increments between the models (1) without and (2) with the decomposition of the racial discrimination measure, the likelihood ratio (LR) test is used. If the LR test indicates no significant difference between the models, we use the model without the decomposition. In this case, if the racial discrimination measure is significantly predictive of depressive symptoms, it is assumed that both the between- and within-subjects relations between racial discrimination and depressive symptoms are significant. In contrast, if the LR test indicates a significant difference between the models, both the between-subjects racial discrimination measure and the within-subjects racial discrimination measure are included in the models and separately tested.

Stepwise Analyses of the Mixed-Effects Regression Models

The models were hierarchically built for testing the study hypotheses on the direct, two-way, and three-way interaction models. Model 1 (i.e., direct effect model) includes racial discrimination and each predictor of RES, in addition to control variables. In Model 2 (i.e., two-way interaction model), two-way interaction terms between racial discrimination, each predictor of RES, and social position were added to Model 1. In Model 3 (i.e., three-way interaction model), a three-way interaction term [racial discrimination × each predictor of RES × social position (i.e., nativity or gender)] was added to Model 2. All of these analyses were conducted within each ethnic group. Continuous variables were centered to their means prior to analysis, to facilitate interpretation of interaction terms. Interaction terms significant at the .05 level were further graphically plotted to illustrate the relations, using methods proposed by Dawson and Richter (2006). The maximum likelihood approach was used to handle missing cases with an assumption that the data are missing at random (Hedeker & Gibbons, 2006).

Final Model Selection

First, we ran models with and without the decomposition of the between- and within-subjects effects for both racial discrimination and each RES practice in (1) the direct effect model, (2) the two-way interaction model, and (3) the three-way interaction model. Specifically, the LR test results showed that the model with the decomposition of the racial discrimination measure for depressive symptoms provided significant fit increments for both ethnic groups. However, regarding RES measures, only the decomposition of (1) ethnic-heritage socialization in the direct effect model for suicidal ideation among KA youth and (2) promotion of mistrust in the three-way interaction model for depressive symptoms among FA youth showed significant fit increments with meaningful interpretation. Accordingly, the racial discrimination variable in all models for depressive symptoms and the RES measures in the above two cases were disentangled into between- and within-subjects effects in the final model. In the rest of the models, we assumed that the between- and within-subjects effects of RES are equal.

To ensure that our decision to examine the linear relations between study variables did not compromise the study findings, we also examined whether each type of RES practice was curvilinearly related to mental health outcomes and whether it also curvilinearly moderated the effects of racial discrimination, given emerging empirical evidence of curvilinear relations between RES and youth outcomes (e.g., Seol et al., 2016). In our data, there was no evidence of curvilinear relations between RES practices and mental health outcomes and the interactions of RES with racial discrimination and social positions (i.e., nativity status and gender).

Results

Descriptive Statistics and the Unadjusted Trajectory of Study Variables

The correlations of the study variables at Wave 1, Wave 2, and Wave 3 can be found in Table A1. Mean (SD) and sample number (percentage) of the study variables by nativity and ethnicity across the three waves are provided in Table A2. Statistical differences by nativity and ethnicity were tested by using an independent-samples t-test. In addition, unadjusted trajectories of the study variables are documented in the last column of Table A2, using a mixed-effects regression model with each study variable as an outcome.

Regarding mean score differences of the study variables in Wave 1, Wave 2, and Wave 3, respectively, we found no significant differences by nativity among KA youth. However, the U.S.-born FA youth reported significantly higher rates of racial discrimination and lower rates of ethnic-heritage socialization than their foreign-born counterparts (see Table A2). With respect to ethnicity, we found that the rates of racial discrimination and ethnic-heritage socialization were significantly higher among KA youth than among FA youth, whereas preparation for bias and promotion of mistrust did not vary by ethnicity. Female youth generally reported more ethnic-heritage socialization and more mental health problems regardless of ethnic backgrounds (see Table A1). For both FA and KA youth, racial discrimination and RES practices significantly changed over the 4 years of data collection. Specifically, the rates of racial discrimination and promotion of mistrust increased, while preparation for bias decreased over time for both ethnic groups, although the increase in promotion of mistrust was not statistically significant among FA youth. We also found that ethnic-heritage socialization decreased for FA youth, whereas it increased for KA youth. Finally, both depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation increased significantly over time, and we found no subgroup differences by nativity and ethnicity.

Direct Effect Models

The results of the mixed-effects regressions in Model 1 across three RES practices are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. As expected, we found significant between- and within-subjects relations between racial discrimination and mental health problems, regardless of ethnic backgrounds. Specifically, racial discrimination that is higher than the average for the study samples across the three waves increased mental distress (i.e., significant between-subjects effect). In addition, an increase in racial discrimination within samples over time during the study period also increased mental distress (i.e., significant within-subjects effect). In terms of RES practices, promotion of mistrust, but not preparation for bias, predicted more mental health problems among both ethnic groups. Conversely, the between-subjects effect of ethnic-heritage socialization was also significant, showing that a higher rate of ethnic-heritage socialization predicted less suicidal ideation among KA youth (see Table A3).

Table 1.

Mixed-Effects Regression Results for Depressive Symptoms

Types of Socialization	Filipino Americans			Korean Americans
	Bias	Mistrust	Ethnic	Bias	Mistrust	Ethnic
	b (SE)	b (SE)	b (SE)	b (SE)	b (SE)	b (SE)
Model 1
Wave	0.09***	0.09***	0.09***	0.13***	0.13***	0.14***
	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.02)
Baseline age	0.06***	0.06***	0.06***	0.06***	0.06***	0.06***
	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.02)
Wave × Baseline age	−0.05***	−0.04***	−0.05***	−0.04**	−0.04***	−0.04**
	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)
Female (0 = Male; 1 = Female)	0.30***	0.29***	0.30***	0.22***	0.22***	0.23***
	(0.06)	(0.06)	(0.06)	(0.05)	(0.05)	(0.06)
Nativity (0 = Foreign; 1 = U.S.)	−0.06	−0.03	−0.08	0.17**	0.17**	0.17**
	(0.07)	(0.06)	(0.07)	(0.06)	(0.06)	(0.06)
General health	−0.25***	−0.23***	−0.24***	−0.19***	−0.18***	−0.18***
	(0.03)	(0.03)	(0.03)	(0.03)	(0.03)	(0.03)
Family socioeconomic status	−0.09*	−0.09*	−0.09*	−0.05	−0.05	−0.05
	(0.04)	(0.04)	(0.04)	(0.03)	(0.03)	(0.03)
Socialization	0.01	0.16***	−0.03	0.03	0.08**	−0.04+
	(0.03)	(0.03)	(0.03)	(0.03)	(0.03)	(0.03)
Discrimination (Between)	0.46***	0.35***	0.47***	0.47***	0.45***	0.49***
	(0.07)	(0.07)	(0.07)	(0.06)	(0.06)	(0.05)
Discrimination (Within)	0.13*	0.09	0.14*	0.13**	0.11*	0.15**
	(0.06)	(0.06)	(0.06)	(0.05)	(0.05)	(0.05)
Model 2 (Two-Way)
Socialization × Between	−0.03	0.03	−0.05	−0.12*	−0.10+	0.05
	(0.05)	(0.05)	(0.06)	(0.05)	(0.05)	(0.05)
Socialization × Within	0.01	−0.19**	−0.06	−0.08	−0.05	0.03
	(0.06)	(0.06)	(0.06)	(0.05)	(0.05)	(0.06)
Nativity × Between	0.28+	0.40*	0.26	0.23*	0.26*	0.25*
	(0.16)	(0.16)	(0.16)	(0.11)	(0.11)	(0.11)
Nativity × Within	−0.28+	−0.18	−0.31*	−0.02	0.00	−0.02
	(0.15)	(0.15)	(0.15)	(0.10)	(0.10)	(0.10)
Nativity × Socialization	−0.02	−0.11	−0.04	0.11*	−0.00	−0.03
	(0.06)	(0.07)	(0.06)	(0.05)	(0.06)	(0.05)
Model 3 (Three-Way [Nativity])
Socialization × Between	−0.02	−0.04	−0.52**	−0.01	0.11	0.06
	(0.13)	(0.12)	(0.17)	(0.11)	(0.11)	(0.10)
Socialization × Within	−0.30	−0.11	−0.27	−0.13	−0.13	0.09
	(0.20)	(0.23)	(0.20)	(0.11)	(0.12)	(0.11)

Note. Discrimination (Between) or Between = the between-subjects effect of racial discrimination; Discrimination (Within) or Within = the within-subjects effect of racial discrimination; Ethnic = ethnic-heritage socialization. The findings from Model 1, Model 2, and Model 3 are combined in such a way that the top of the column shows coefficients from Model 1 and the bottom of the column shows interaction coefficients from Model 2 and Model 3 (see Tables A5 and A6 for full Model 2 and 3 mixed-effects regression results).

^***p < .001.

^**p < .01.

^*p < .05.

⁺p < .1.

Table 2.

Mixed-Effects Regression Results for Suicidal Ideation

Types of Socialization	Filipino Americans			Korean Americans
	Bias	Mistrust	Ethnic	Bias	Mistrust	Ethnic
	OR	OR	OR	OR	OR	OR
Model 1
Wave	1.33+	1.33+	1.29	1.38*	1.35*	1.38*
Baseline age	0.91	0.91	0.92	1.20	1.22+	1.18
Wave × Baseline age	0.96	0.96	0.97	0.87+	0.85*	0.87+
Female (0 = Male; 1 = Female)	2.50*	2.62*	2.71*	1.95*	1.95*	2.02*
Nativity (0 = Foreign; 1 = U.S.)	1.09	1.17	1.04	1.18	1.18	1.17
General health	0.52**	0.55**	0.52**	0.71*	0.71*	0.74+
Family socioeconomic status	0.66+	0.65+	0.65+	0.85	0.87	0.86
Socialization	1.20	1.74*	0.96	1.14	1.37+	0.73*
Discrimination	2.48**	2.16**	2.76***	1.96**	1.81**	2.12***
Model 2 (Two-Way)
Socialization × Discrimination	0.90	0.75	1.01	0.87	0.81	1.19
Nativity × Discrimination	0.70	0.63	0.75	1.16	1.59	1.18
Nativity × Socialization	1.15	1.76	1.49	1.27	0.50*	1.13
Model 3 (Three-Way [Nativity])
Socialization × Discrimination	0.47	2.60	0.13*	0.81	1.71	1.03

Note. Ethnic = ethnic-heritage socialization; OR = odds ratio. The findings from Model 1, Model 2, and Model 3 are combined in such a way that the top of the column shows coefficients from Model 1 and the bottom of the column shows interaction coefficients from Model 2 and Model 3.

^***p < .001.

^**p < .01.

^*p < .05.

⁺p < .1.

Two-Way Interaction Models

The results of the interactions between racial discrimination and RES practices indicated that preparation for bias significantly moderated the between-subjects relation between racial discrimination and depressive symptoms among KA youth, although it was not a significant predictor of depressive symptoms in the direct effect model (Model 1) for either ethnic group. More specifically, when KA youth reported higher rates of preparation for bias, the between-subjects relation between racial discrimination and depressive symptoms was significantly attenuated in comparison with the between-subjects relation when KA youth reported lower rates of preparation for bias (Figure A1). Second, promotion of mistrust significantly predicted more mental health problems for both ethnic groups (Model 1). However, as shown in Model 2 for FA youth, promotion of mistrust moderated the within-subjects relation between racial discrimination and depressive symptoms (see Table 1). Specifically, the impact of increased racial discrimination on depressive symptoms was significant only for FA youth who reported lower (vs. higher) rates of promotion of mistrust (b = .41, p < .01; Figure A2). Although the between-subjects effect of ethnic-heritage socialization predicted less suicidal ideation among KA youth in the direct effect model (Model 1), no significant two-way interaction effects were found.

Three-Way Interaction Models

We examined whether the impact of discrimination on mental health may differ by social positions (i.e., Model 2) and found that the between-subjects relation between racial discrimination and depressive symptoms was significantly moderated by nativity, but not by gender, among both ethnic groups. Follow-up slope tests showed that racial discrimination was a significant predictor of depressive symptoms only among the U.S.-born FA youth (see Figure A3), and, while it was significant in both foreign-born and U.S.-born KA youth, the negative impact was significantly stronger among the U.S.-born KA youth (see Figure A4).

Results for the three-way interaction models (i.e., Model 3) for both ethnic groups are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. No significant three-way interaction effects were found for KA youth. For FA youth, however, we found significant three-way interaction effects by nativity, but not by gender. For example, we found a significant three-way interaction for depressive symptoms, that is, the within-subjects effect of racial discrimination × the within-subjects effect of promotion of mistrust × nativity status (b = −.66, p < .05; Table A4). More specifically, for the U.S.-born FA youth, the within-subjects relation between racial discrimination and depressive symptoms was significant only when youth reported lower (vs. higher) rates of promotion of mistrust (b = .26, p < .01; Figure A5). However, for the foreign-born FA youth, this within-subjects relation was significant only when youth reported higher (vs. lower) rates of promotion of mistrust (b = .44, p < .05; Figure A5).

Ethnic-heritage socialization was not a significant predictor of mental health outcomes in the direct and two-way interaction models among FA youth. However, we found that the between-subjects relation between racial discrimination and ethnic-heritage socialization on both mental health outcomes varied significantly by nativity status, i.e., the between-subjects effect of racial discrimination × ethnic-heritage socialization × nativity status (depressive symptoms: b = −.52, p < .01; suicidal ideation: OR = .13, p < .05). Specifically, for the foreign-born FA youth, the relations between racial discrimination and both mental health outcomes were significant when youth reported higher (vs. lower) rates of ethnic-heritage socialization (Figure A6). However, for the U.S.-born FA youth, the relation between racial discrimination and depressive symptoms was significantly attenuated when youth reported higher (vs. lower) ethnic-heritage socialization. The relation between racial discrimination and suicidal ideation did not vary by the rate of ethnic-heritage socialization (Figure A7).

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to document the dynamic process of racial discrimination and parental engagement in RES practices across youth developmental stages among FA and KA youth, the distress-moderating effects of RES practices on mental health outcomes, and how the examined relations further vary by salient social positions. This study is the first to examine these associations in both between- and within-subjects effects with large-scale community samples of Asian American subgroups. Most notably, the study confirmed the upward trend of racial discrimination and the psychological burden from it in both groups of youth, whereas the trend and impact of parental RES practices differed by the type of RES and by ethnic backgrounds. In addition, parental RES practices as a stress moderator were shown to be instrumental for reducing depressive symptoms, but not suicidal ideation. The findings also suggest that these moderating effects may depend on important indices of social position.

Trajectory of the Study Predictors

Our first set of hypotheses for trajectories of the predictors was largely supported with a couple of exceptions. As expected, both FA and KA youth reported having experienced more racial discrimination over time between 2014 and 2018, a result that accords with extant data (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2018; Greene et al., 2006; Mathias, 2017). Regarding RES, both FA and KA youth reported that, during the study period, their parents increased the practice of promotion of mistrust but not preparation for bias. However, the average level of preparation for bias was much higher than that of promotion of mistrust across all three waves. This finding that Asian American parents engage generally more in preparation for bias than in promotion of mistrust is consistent with previous research (see Hughes et al., 2016, for review). Nonetheless, given the worsening racial climate and the disproportionate targeting of Asian Americans during this period, Asian American parents might have intensified their promotion of mistrust, which involves avoidance and caution with regard to other racial groups, to protect their children from immediate harm (Thai et al., 2017) but might not have increased preparation for bias, which addresses general navigation of a racialized society (Hughes et al., 2016).

Our hypothesis that ethnic-heritage socialization would remain stable over time (Lee et al., 2006; McHale et al., 2006) was supported with a combined sample but only partially when we took ethnicity into account. That is, KA youth reported an increase in ethnic-heritage socialization during the study period, but FA youth reported the opposite. In addition, KA youth reported a higher rate of ethnic-heritage socialization than FA youth in all waves (Table A2). These differences may be attributable to the different levels of acculturation to U.S. society across the two ethnic groups. The patterns found in this study are consistent with existing literature that describes KA parents—generally a less acculturated and more socioculturally segregated group—as proactively practicing ethnic-heritage socialization more than FA parents do (Choi & Kim, 2010; Min, 2006; Vigdor, 2008). This study adds that the already higher engagement in ethnic-heritage socialization among KA parents increases even more during their children’s late adolescence and young adulthood, likely to preserve heritage culture as their children get more exposure to mainstream society (Choi & Kim, 2010) and also perhaps in response to the intensified racial exclusion in recent years. Conversely, FA parents might have reduced this practice that could underscore differences rather than similarities between Filipino culture and mainstream American culture. In this study, the reduction in ethnic-heritage socialization was particularly salient among FA families with foreign-born youth (Table A2). Although foreign-born FA youth reported significantly higher rates of ethnic-heritage socialization than U.S.-born FA youth across the waves, the rate of decrease in ethnic-heritage socialization was more prominent among foreign-born FA youth.

Discrimination, RES, and Mental Health

As expected, we found a consistent negative effect of both between- and within-subjects effects of racial discrimination on mental health outcomes for both ethnic groups, corroborating earlier findings (Greene et al., 2006). However, our hypotheses on the direct effects of RES were partially supported. Specifically, we found that promotion of mistrust, but not preparation for bias, predicted more mental health problems for both ethnic groups. In addition, ethnic-heritage socialization predicted fewer mental health problems, but only among KA youth. When the experience of racial discrimination is controlled at an average level in the regression models, the results suggest that teaching children to avoid or keep a distance from others of different racial and ethnic backgrounds (i.e., promotion of mistrust) may be unhealthy, possibly because it could prevent children from forming trusting relationships with important others, such as teachers or peers. Discussing race and racism in a relatively objective manner (i.e., preparation for bias), however, may have no harmful impact on mental health. Likewise, we found no significant protective effect of ethnic-heritage socialization on any of the mental health outcomes for FA youth. Although ethnic-heritage socialization was beneficial among KA youth as existing research has suggested, its effects may be indirect, potentially mediated by ethnic identity (Choi et al., 2014; Tran & Lee, 2010) or moderated by social positions, especially among FAs.

Distress-Alleviating RES Practices

We found that RES practices may alleviate the psychological burden of racial discrimination on depressive symptoms, but the distress-alleviating effects are specific to RES types and ethnicity. That is, we found significant distress-moderating effects on depressive symptoms from (a) preparation for bias for KA youth (between-subjects effect) and (b) promotion of mistrust for FA youth (within-subjects effect). Specifically, if an individual KA youth reported a higher incidence of racial discrimination than other KA youth, the individual benefited from preparation for bias in dealing with the overall experience of racial discrimination. Conversely, if an individual FA youth experienced an increase in racial discrimination over time during the study period, promotion of mistrust was instrumental in helping the individual to better process the detrimental impact of racial discrimination. We also found that these variant moderating roles of distinct RES practices found in this study are further nuanced by nativity, as discussed below.

We did not find similarly significant buffering effects of RES on suicidal ideation. It may be because suicidal ideation is more serious than depressive symptoms and that RES practices are less influential in mitigating more serious forms of mental distress. Given the extensively detrimental impact of racial discrimination and a drastic increase in suicidal ideation among the study populations (Choi et al., 2020), future research is essential to identify buffering factors to mitigate the negative effects of racial discrimination.

Social Positions

The findings of this study provide empirical support for the integrative model and the adapting cultural systems framework, which emphasize the necessity of considering social positions in understanding minority youth development. For example, accounting for critical social positions such as nativity in this study enabled a more nuanced understanding of how RES moderates the significant impact of racial discrimination on mental distress. Specifically, we found that nativity (i.e., whether youth are U.S.-born or foreign-born) can be a particularly salient social position factor in understanding the role of RES practices for FA youth. That is, among FA youth, promotion of mistrust and ethnic-heritage socialization were protective only among the U.S.-born. Notably, no significant direct and two-way interaction effects of ethnic-heritage socialization were found among FA youth until nativity was accounted for in the three-way interaction models. In addition, although racial discrimination showed a robust and harmful effect on mental health in this study, we found that foreign-born FA youth were less affected by racial discrimination (e.g., statistically nonsignificant effect on depressive symptoms; see Figure A3). U.S.-born KA youth were also more vulnerable to discrimination than foreign-born KA youth, although the latter group too was adversely affected. These findings are consistent with our hypotheses and with the previous literature (Armenta et al., 2013) that U.S.-born youth may be more vulnerable than their foreign-born ethnic counterparts to the psychological impact of racial discrimination and thus may benefit more from ethnic-heritage socialization than foreign-born youth.

Although we hypothesized that preparation for bias and promotion of mistrust would attenuate the impact of racial discrimination on mental health problems regardless of ethnicity, we found that promotion of mistrust was protective for FA youth and preparation for bias was protective for KA youth. Promotion of mistrust may be particularly beneficial to FA youth because FAs may have the additional psychological burden of having to live in and navigate their previous colonizer’s country (David & Okazaki, 2006). Moreover, they are regarded as one of the more marginalized subgroups within the Asian American community because of their cultural practices and phenotypical traits that are distinct from those of other Asian subgroups, in particular East Asians (Nadal, 2008). Consequently, their experiences of racial discrimination may be harsher than those of other Asian subgroups, and a more extreme form of RES such as promotion of mistrust may protect FA children from the harm of racial discrimination. A similar pattern was found in a study with a significant proportion of Southeast Asian Americans that identified promotion of mistrust as a protective factor (Thai et al., 2017). In addition, FA youth, compared with KA youth, report a stronger sense of affiliation to the mainstream society (Choi et al., 2018). It is plausible that U.S.-born FA youth, who potentially see themselves strongly as American, might have become more vulnerable when they experienced racial exclusion, and the parental message of not trusting those who inflict discrimination might have validated these emotions and helped these youth cope with adverse experiences.

Contrary to our expectation, no three-way interaction effects were found to be significant among KA youth. That is, preparation for bias attenuated the negative impact of racial discrimination on depressive symptoms regardless of nativity or gender. Similarly, ethnic-heritage socialization was beneficial for KA youth regardless of their social positions and whether or not they experience high rates of racial discrimination. As suggested in previous research (Choi & Kim, 2010; Min, 2006), it may be that for KA youth, ethnicity constitutes a main social position that determines the effects of RES practices more than any other social position factors do.

We expected that RES practices would be more beneficial for female youth than for male youth in protecting them from the harmful impact of racial discrimination on mental health. Although we found higher rates of mental health problems among females in both ethnic groups as expected, we did not find either the direct or moderating effects to vary by gender, congruent with some prior research (Kessler et al., 1999). It is possible that gender may not matter in these study relations; that is, the impact of racial discrimination may be equally harmful for males and females, and the ways in which RES practices alleviate distress may be invariant across gender groups. Alternatively, we may consider the intersectionality of multiple social positions. According to intersectionality theory (Cole, 2009), individuals hold multiple social positions and these positions may have additive detrimental influences when they are associated with stigmatized identities. Although we could have expanded the study to examine the multiplicative effects of nativity, gender, and ethnicity (e.g., foreign-born female FA youth vs. U.S.-born female FA youth), the strength of this study lies in the examination of the effects of social positions across the two ethnic groups. We already examine four-way interaction effects in a conceptual sense by investigating the concurrent effects of two social positions (i.e., ethnicity and nativity or ethnicity and gender) in moderating the relations between racial discrimination and each type of RES. Adding another layer of intersectionality (i.e., ethnicity, nativity, and gender) could have complicated the interpretations by constraining the sample sizes of each intersectional group. Future research could investigate the multiplicative effects of multiple social positions, preferably with substantial sample sizes to accurately discern the effects.

Limitations and Implications

The study findings are not without limitations. First, the RES scales used in the present study mainly assess children’s understanding of how their parents perform RES practices. We also did not include RES experiences outside of the family. It would be critical to examine RES in school settings, especially because Asian American youth experience racial discrimination mostly in schools (Fisher et al., 2000). The RES measures in this study did not specify an exact time period of the parental RES practices received by youth participants and thus could have introduced participant recall bias in assessing longitudinal changes over time. In addition, the racial discrimination measures in this study assessed the general experience of discrimination and did not differentiate between various types (e.g., subtle vs. overt). The MLSAAF team plans to significantly expand the repertoire of discrimination measures in future data collection. Future studies with extended discrimination measures may produce more specific information on how parents can adjust their RES practices to address the specific type or types of racial discrimination that their children might be experiencing. Last, the conclusions from this study are based on the experiences of a regional sample and cannot be generalized to those in other areas of the country with different demographic, economic, legal, or cultural factors affecting receptivity to immigrants and Asian Americans. For example, among the Northeast, Midwest, South, and West regions, Asian Americans (11%), including FAs (9%) and KAs (11%), have the smallest presence in the Midwest, while the largest proportion of Asian Americans (47%), including FAs (66%) and KAs (45%), live in the West (Pew Research Center, 2013). The racial/ethnic composition of neighborhoods or schools may influence youth’s understanding of their own and others’ race and ethnicity (Atkin et al., 2018; Hughes et al., 2016), and the distinct traits of the Midwest may limit the generalizability of the current study.

Despite these limitations, this study provides crucial clinical implications and several specific parenting suggestions. For example, FA and KA parents should pay closer attention to the racial experiences of their children. To mitigate the detrimental impact of racial discrimination, parents should consider more actively engaging in RES practices at home. However, this study cautions that not all RES practices are universally beneficial to Asian American youth. To address the racialized experiences of Asian American children more effectively, parents should develop an accurate understanding of not only the children’s unique experiences due to their social positions (e.g., ethnicity and nativity) but also what kinds of RES practices may be most adaptive in helping children cope with discrimination given their social positions. For example, this study would offer different sets of recommendations for FAs and KAs. First, nativity should be considered among FA families. Specifically, foreign-born FA youth may be psychologically better off if their parents focus less on maintaining heritage culture and more on learning to acculturate. In contrast, parents of U.S.-born FA youth should consider engaging more in teaching heritage culture within the family. Although promotion of mistrust is harmful to mental health and parents should be cautious in practicing it, parents of U.S.-born FA youth should know that it can buffer the negative impact of racial discrimination when their children experience an increase of discrimination over time. Nevertheless, as the main effect models show, promotion of mistrust is the only subtype of RES practice that consistently demonstrates a negative influence on youth development under normal conditions regardless of ethnic backgrounds. Thus, promotion of mistrust should be prudently practiced even among U.S.-born FA youth. On the other hand, KA families should be encouraged to continue practicing ethnic-heritage socialization and preparation for bias, knowing that while the former would enhance youth mental health, the latter would buffer the negative impact of discrimination when it occurs, without increasing mental distress. Notably, KA parents should be advised against encouraging their children to mistrust out-groups, because this practice may be harmful to their children. This advice is particularly important in light of the strong ethnic cohesion among Korean immigrant adults, which may come with exclusionary practices against out-groups (Min, 2006).

Similarly, clinicians and other helping professionals working with FA and KA families should guide parents in gaining a greater awareness of the various forms of racism that their children may experience in the current society as well as how certain RES practices and social positions influence how their children internalize racist experiences. In addition, helping parents facilitate familial conversations about race, ethnicity, and other social positions will likely foster an environment where children can openly share their own experiences and perspectives, thereby enhancing RES. Providing support for such a familial context will encourage parents to be aware of not only the specific content of their RES messages but also whether they are conveying these messages in a manner that is readily received and understood by the child.

In summary, this study contributes to the literature by confirming the persistent and pernicious effect of racial discrimination on mental health and documenting the longitudinal patterns of RES practices of FA and KA youth. Using rare longitudinal data and advanced statistical methods, this study is one of the few to test the between- and within-subjects effects of racial discrimination and RES practices and investigate the psychological impact of discrimination and each type of RES practice. Furthermore, the present study demonstrates that RES is not universally positive but rather conditional, depending on its types and the roles that it plays and on the social positions that individual youth hold in society. To provide a more comprehensive understanding of how RES practices could serve as protective factors for minority children, these nuances and specificities need to be thoroughly considered.