Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Nov 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Psychoactive Drugs. 2021 Oct 27;53(5):384–393. doi: 10.1080/02791072.2021.1992046

Language Brokering–Stress Transition Profiles and Marijuana Use in Mexican-Origin Adolescents

Su Yeong Kim 1, Shanting Chen 1, Wen Wen 1, Jinjin Yan 1, Jiaxiu Song 1, Yang Hou 2, Minyu Zhang 1, Seth J Schwartz 3, Yishan Shen 4
PMCID: PMC9012145  NIHMSID: NIHMS1751700  PMID: 34706636

Abstract

Although Mexican-origin adolescents experience multiple contextual stressors (e.g., discrimination, economic stress, and foreigner stress) that may result in increased marijuana use, they actively engage in cultural practices (e.g., language brokering) that may protect them from adverse developmental outcomes. Yet, the joint influence of contextual stressors and language brokering on marijuana use has rarely been studied from a developmental perspective. Using a sample of 604 Mexican-origin adolescent brokers (54% female, Mage.Wave1=12.41), we examined how stability and change of language brokering–contextual stress (i.e., broker–stress) profiles across three waves are related to adolescent marijuana use. We hypothesized that adolescents with positive brokering experiences and lower contextual stress across three waves (i.e., those in the Stable Protective profile) would be the least likely to use marijuana. For brokering for mothers, the Stable Protective and the Change to Protective groups were less likely than other groups to use marijuana. For brokering for fathers, the Stable Protective group was the least likely to use marijuana and the Change to Protective group was less likely than the Risk at Any Wave group to use marijuana. Interventions could foster brokering-related positive feelings across the course of adolescence to reduce marijuana use among Mexican-origin adolescents.

Keywords: language brokering, contextual stress, profiles, marijuana use, Mexican-origin adolescents

As a common gateway drug for more dangerous illicit drugs (Hall & Lynskey 2005), marijuana is the illicit substance most widely used during adolescence (Chambers, Taylor & Potenza 2003; Wu et al. 2011). As ethnic minorities, Mexican-origin adolescents may be at increased risk of using marijuana when faced with multiple contextual stressors (e.g., ethnic minority status, low socioeconomic status) that have been associated with marijuana use (Assari et al. 2019; Lemstra et al. 2008; Steele 2016). Instead of passively experiencing contextual stress, Mexican-origin adolescents from immigrant families actively engage in cultural practices that can either exacerbate or mitigate the effects of these stressors on their developmental outcomes, such as marijuana use (White, Nair & Bradley 2018). One such cultural practice for Mexican-origin adolescents is language brokering (i.e., translating between English and their heritage language for English-limited parents). One previous study has demonstrated variations in adjustment outcomes among adolescents with different profiles that were assigned based on their contextual stressors and brokering experiences assessed at a single time point (Kim et al. 2018). Given the dramatic developmental changes during adolescence (Fuhrmann, Knoll & Blakemore 2015), such broker–stress profiles may show stability or change from early to late adolescence, and the development trajectories of these broker–stress profiles may be an effective indicator of adolescent marijuana use.

Language Brokering as an Adaptive and Maladaptive Cultural Practice

Although language brokering is considered a stressor given the demands involved, the integrative model of language brokering (Kam & Lazarevic 2014) suggests that brokering experiences are multifaceted: they include brokering frequency, positive brokering experiences (centrality, efficacy, positive emotions, and positive relationship with parents by brokering), and negative brokering experiences (negative feelings, negative emotions, brokering stress, and parental dependence on the brokering adolescent). The eco-bio developmental framework (Shonkoff et al. 2012) suggests that positive stress appraisals, such as positive brokering experiences, may be adaptive and can prevent adolescents from adverse health behaviors, whereas negative stress appraisals, such as negative brokering experiences, are often maladaptive and detrimental to long-term health. Indeed, Kam and Lazarevic (2014) found that, for Latino early adolescents, positive brokering experiences – specifically high brokering efficacy – may be a protective mechanism against alcohol use. In contrast, perceiving brokering as a burden was predictive of higher marijuana use two years later. Therefore, simultaneously considering multiple aspects of brokering can more fully illustrate its various roles, both adaptive and maladaptive, in predicting marijuana use among Mexican-origin adolescents.

The Joint Influence of Contextual Stressors and Language Brokering on Marijuana Use

Adolescents often engage in language brokering activities to facilitate their families’ adaptation to the U.S. (White, Nair & Bradley 2018); at the same time, they are also experiencing multiple contextual stressors (i.e., discrimination, economic stress, and foreigner stress), all of which can influence child development (Kim et al. 2018). Whereas the detrimental impact of discrimination and economic stress on adolescent marijuana use is well-documented (Assari et al. 2019; Lemstra et al. 2008), few studies have considered foreigner stress (i.e., stress from being treated as though one is a foreigner, such as when people notice an accent when one is speaking English) as part of contextual stress, despite its prevalence and profound influence on adolescents’ development (Huynh, Devos & Smalarz 2011).

Using latent profile analysis, Kim et al. (2018) identified four broker–stress profiles (i.e., Moderate, Protective, Risk, and Less-involved groups) in early adolescence based on brokering experiences and contextual stress. Kim et al. (2018) found that despite experiencing similar levels of contextual stress, adolescents who reported more positive and fewer negative brokering experiences (i.e., the Protective group) showed better adjustment one year later compared to youth with neutral brokering experiences (i.e., the Moderate group) or low engagement in brokering (i.e., the Less-involved group); adolescents with more negative brokering experiences, fewer positive experiences, and high contextual stress (i.e., the Risk group) were the most vulnerable to maladjustment. The current study builds on Kim et al. (2018) by examining substance use, specifically marijuana use, as an outcome. Moreover, the current study goes beyond capturing broker–stress profiles at one time point, by taking a developmental perspective and examining how broker–stress profiles across three time points relate to marijuana use in late adolescence.

Transition Profiles of Contextual Stress and Brokering Experiences and Marijuana Use

Adolescents may show stability in development by staying in the same profile from early to late adolescence (Putnick et al. 2020). If so, broker–stress profiles that are stable, either negatively or positively, may add up to influence marijuana use later in adolescence. This view is consistent with the accumulation model, in which stress experiences can accumulate over time to influence later health outcomes (Walsemann, Goosby & Farr 2016).

Given the dramatic development occurring during adolescence (Dahl et al. 2018), adolescents may also change their broker–stress profile membership across time. For example, some adolescents may develop their language proficiency through practicing dual language skills in brokering (Taie 2014), which may in turn increase positive feelings about brokering. If so, adolescents with a Moderate/Risk/Less-involved profile in early adolescence may change to the Protective profile by late adolescence, through which they may develop resilience to contextual stress and be less likely to engage in marijuana use in late adolescence compared to those who stayed in the Moderate/Risk/Less-involved profiles across time.

The Current Study

The current study aims to address two research questions. First, how do Mexican-origin youth transition in their broker–stress profiles from early to late adolescence? We hypothesized that a considerable proportion of adolescents would stay in the same profile across time; a small proportion of adolescents would fluctuate across different profiles; and others would show adaptation to their contexts and demonstrate improvement by changing to the Protective group. Second, how are transitions across broker–stress profiles related to marijuana use during late adolescence? We hypothesized that membership in the Stable Risk group would relate to the highest marijuana use, whereas being in the Stable Protective group would relate to the least likelihood of marijuana use, followed by membership in the Change to Protective group.

Methods

Participants

This study utilized a three-wave longitudinal dataset. Participants at Wave 1 were 604 Mexican-origin adolescents (Mage=12.92, SD=.92, Nfemale =328, 54.3%, Nus=455, 76%) from central Texas. At each wave, participants who did not translate for their mother or father were excluded. The median and mean annual household income was between $20,001 and $30,000, and the mean parental education level was middle/junior high school.

Procedure

Participants were recruited via school presentations, public records, and community outreach events. Families were invited if parents were of Mexican origin and had a child in middle school who translated from English to Spanish for at least one parent. The parents and children provided informed consent for participation. In the interview process, English/Spanish bilingual interviewers read survey questions aloud to participants, and their responses were recorded on a laptop. Questions about marijuana use were answered privately by adolescents. Families were compensated $60 at Wave 1 and $90 at Waves 2 and 3. Waves 1 and 2 were spaced about 1 year apart, and Wave 3 occurred about 4 years later. All study procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Texas at Austin.

Eighty percent of the families (N=483) continued participating at Wave 2, and 55% of the original study families (N=334) remained in the study at Wave 3. Attrition analyses indicated that parents from families with a higher education level were more likely to continue participating at Wave 2 (tmother (591) = 2.41, p < .05; tfather (291) = 3.13, p < .01). Adolescents who were younger at Wave 2 were more likely to remain in the study at Wave 3 (tage (481) = 2.96, p < .01].

Measures

Language Brokering Experience

At each wave, adolescents’ brokering experiences for mothers and fathers were assessed separately. Participants reported their translation frequency for each parent on a six-point scale ranging from (1) never to (6) every day. Positive brokering experiences include efficacy (e.g., translate correctly; 4 items), centrality (e.g., important to who I am; 3 items), positive relationship with parents due to brokering (e.g., understand my parents better; 4 items), and positive emotions due to brokering (e.g., feel excited; 3 items). Higher scores indicate more positive brokering experiences (αrange = .82-.93). Negative brokering experiences include negative brokering feelings (e.g., impatient; 4 items), negative emotions due to brokering (e.g., annoyed; 4 items), stress due to brokering (e.g., stress level when you translate at home; 7 items), and parental dependence due to brokering (e.g., feel I am my mother’s protector because I translate for her; 3 items). Higher scores reflect more negative brokering experiences (αrange = .64-.86).

Contextual Stressors

Adolescents’ perceptions of daily discrimination were assessed at each wave using the Everyday Discrimination scale (9 items) ranging from 1 (never) to 4 (often) (Kessler, Mickelson & Williams 1999). The foreigner stress scale (4 items) ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) was from previous research with ethnic minority adolescents (Kim et al. 2011). Adolescent perceptions of family economic stress were measured at each wave on a 5-point scale (5 items) ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always) (Mistry et al. 2009). Higher mean scores for each contextual stressor reflect a greater amount of contextual stress (αrange=.71-.88).

Lifetime Marijuana Use

Due to the small number of participants who frequently used marijuana, we recoded the original responses ( 0 = 0 times; 1 = 1 to 2 times; 2 = 3 to 9 times; 3 = 10 to 19 times; 4 = 20 to 39 times; 5 = 40 to 99 times; 6 = 100 or more times) into a dichotomous response indicating marijuana use (0=no use; 1=used at least once), following the recommended procedure in previous research (Brener et al. 2013). The percentage of adolescents who reported ever having used marijuana in their lifetime at Wave 3 was 34.5 %.

Covariates

Adolescent age, gender (male and female), nativity (US-born vs. Mexico-born), and parental education at Wave 1 were included as covariates.

Analytic Strategy

Data analyses were conducted using Mplus 8.3 (Muthén & Muthén 1998–2017). The missing data rate for the study variables range from 0% to 13% and missing data were handled by the full information maximum likelihood estimation method, as it produces unbiased parameter estimates with small variances. Analyses were conducted in three steps. First, six sets of latent profile analyses (LPA) were estimated to create broker–stress profiles for adolescent brokering experiences with both mothers and fathers across three waves. For each set of LPA, five LPA models (i.e., 1 to 5 classes) were specified to determine the optimal number of latent classes at each wave (see Nylund, Asparouhov & Muthén 2007 for detailed guidelines on selecting the most optimal solution). Second, latent transition analysis (LTA) was employed to identify stability/change of broker–stress profiles across waves. Profile membership from LTA was outputted and meaningful groups were combined. Finally, Wald tests were utilized to examine whether adolescents’ lifetime marijuana use at Wave 3 differed across the stable/change broker–stress profiles (Nylund, Muthén & Nishina 2006). A priori power analysis of ANCOVA using G power suggested that we could achieve power of 0.8 for a small effect size of 0.15 using the current sample size (N = 334).

Results

Broker–Stress Profiles

Based on a holistic evaluation of model fit indices for latent profile analyses (Table 1) and evaluation of substantive meaning of broker–stress profiles, the 4-profile solution was the optimal solution for brokering for mothers at Waves 1/2, as well as for brokering for fathers at Wave 1. The four broker–stress profiles that emerged were Less-involved (20% at W1 and W2 for mother; 16% at W1 for father), Moderate (52% at W1 and 53% at W2 for mother; 60% at W1 for father), Protective (14% at W1 and 12% at W2 for mother; 14% at W1 for father), and Risk (13% at W1 and 15% at W2 for mother; 11% at W1 for father). The Moderate group had moderate scores on all indicators. Compared to the Moderate group, the Protective group generally had higher brokering centrality, more positive brokering experiences, fewer negative experiences, and similar levels of contextual stress. The Risk group had moderate levels of brokering frequency, low efficacy, moderate levels of positive emotions and positive relationships, more negative brokering experiences and high contextual stress. The Less-involved group had low scores on brokering indicators and moderate contextual stress. For mothers at W3 and fathers at Waves 2 and 3, the 3-profile solution was optimal: Moderate/Less-involved (44% at W3 for mother; 47% at W2 and 46% at W3 for father), Protective (46% at W3 for mother; 40% at W2 and W3 for father), and Risk (9% at W3 for mother; 14% at W2 and W3 for father). The newly emerged group – Moderate/Less-involved – had scores on each profile indicator that were between the scores endorsed by the Moderate and Less-involved groups, and was thus named Moderate/Less-involved. This group had moderate scores for contextual stress, brokering frequency, and negative experiences together with low scores for centrality and positive emotions.

Table 1.

Model fit indices for latent profile analysis of brokering experiences and contextual stressors

  AIC BIC ABIC Entropy LMRT p value Distribution
W1 Brokering for mothers
 1 profile 17199.98 17305.62 17229.43 1.000 603
 2 profiles 16647.77 16810.64 16693.18 0.693 0.0294 342–261
 3 profiles 16318.88 16538.98 16380.24 0.772 0.0112 299–225-79
 4 profiles 16119.85 16397.17 16197.17 0.801 0.1035 84–316-122–81
 5 profiles 16005.85 16340.40 16099.12 0.822 0.5981 66–71-339–81-46
W1 Brokering for fathers
 1 profile 15510.64 15614.51 15538.33 560
 2 profiles 14928.51 15088.64 14971.18 0.69 0.00 285–275
 3 profiles 14603.43 14819.83 14661.11 0.78 0.14 246–70-244
 4 profiles 14419.52 14692.18 14492.19 0.80 0.33 90–335-76–59
 5 profiles 14260.54 14589.46 14348.20 0.81 0.43 78–86-325–20-51
W2 Brokering for mothers
 1 profile 13427.94 13528.26 13452.08 483
 2 profiles 13017.40 13172.06 13054.63 0.70 0.03 244–239
 3 profiles 12779.31 12988.31 12829.62 0.74 0.39 212–78-193
 4 profiles 12634.38 12897.72 12697.76 0.80 0.17 258–94-59–72
 5 profiles 12524.43 12842.11 12600.89 0.83 0.10 62–258-59–59-45
W2 Brokering for fathers
 1 profile 11729.08 11827.00 11750.83 437
 2 profiles 11250.89 11401.85 11284.43 0.73 0.00 246–191
 3 profiles 10973.36 11177.36 11018.69 0.78 0.19 203–173-61
 4 profiles 10817.11 11074.15 10874.22 0.81 0.18 198–70-149–20
 5 profiles 10730.20 11040.28 10799.09 0.79 0.33 158–160-29–71-19
W3 Brokering for mothers
 1 profile 8859.30 8950.76 8874.63 334
 2 profiles 8618.81 8759.82 8642.46 0.66 0.02 175–159
 3 profiles 8438.21 8628.76 8470.16 0.79 0.21 148–155-31
 4 profiles 8371.33 8611.44 8411.60 0.80 0.81 137–23-141–33
 5 profiles 8306.76 8596.40 8355.32 0.83 0.36 2–77-173–41-41
W3 Brokering for fathers
 1 profile 7675.25 7764.93 7688.81 310
 2 profiles 7405.21 7543.46 7426.11 0.90 0.11 266–44
 3 profiles 7220.00 7406.83 7248.25 0.77 0.00 143–44-123
 4 profiles 7164.42 7399.83 7200.02 0.80 0.23 136–49-109–16
 5 profiles 7112.90 7396.88 7155.83 0.83 0.56 131–110-49–16-4
Open in a new tab

Note. The optimal solution is bolded.

Stability and Change in Broker–Stress Profiles

Before conducting latent transition analysis, measurement invariance of the profile indicators across the three waves was investigated by comparing the full non-invariance measurement model (i.e., conditional item probabilities freely estimated across time) with the full invariance measurement model (i.e., conditional item probabilities constrained to be equal across time) using the Log Likelihood Ratio Test (LRT). The LRT indicated that there was no significant difference in model fit when measurement constraints were added (Δχ2 = 34.44, df = 33, p = 0.40 for mother; Δχ2 = 21.84, df = 48, p = 0.99 for father). This suggests that full measurement invariance can be assumed.

Based on the across-wave change patterns of brokering for mothers and fathers, respectively (Table 2), we grouped the latent transition profiles into four meaningful stability versus change profiles. Participants in the Stable Moderate/Less-involved group remained in the Moderate, Less-involved or Moderate/Less-involved groups across three waves (mothers: 39%; fathers: 32%). Participants in the Stable Protective group remained in the Protective group across time (mothers: 11%; fathers: 9%). Participants who changed to the Protective group at Wave 3 were clustered into a single Change to Protective group (mothers: 35%; fathers: 29%). Participants who did not belong to the previous groups but were in the Risk group at any time across the three waves were clustered into a single Risk at Any Wave group (mothers: 13%; fathers: 18%). A small portion of participants did not show a clear stability/change pattern (mothers: 2%; fathers: 12%) and were excluded from further comparisons.

Table 2.

Stability and Change in Language Brokering–Stress Profiles Based on Results of Latent Transition Analysis (LTA) Model

Wave 1
 Wave 2
 Wave 2
 Wave 3
Mother Moderate Protective Risk Less-involved Mother Moderate/Less-involved Protective Risk
 Moderate 0.73 0.08 0.08 0.11 Moderate 0.52 0.44 0.04
 Protective 0.14 0.77 0.10 0.00 Protective 0.11 0.89 0.00
 Risk 0.16 0.00 0.68 0.16 Risk 0.09 0.61 0.30
 Less-involved 0.37 0.00 0.07 0.57 Less-involved 0.78 0.06 0.16
Father Moderate/Less-involved Protective Risk   Father Moderate/Less-involved Protective Risk
 Moderate 0.52 0.44 0.04 Moderate/Less-involved 0.70 0.21 0.09
 Protective 0.05 0.87 0.08 Protective 0.30 0.63 0.06
 Risk 0.20 0.05 0.75 Risk 0.09 0.39 0.52
 Less-involved 0.81 0.00 0.20          
Open in a new tab

Note. Probabilities of adolescents who remained in the same profile across waves appear in boldface type, and probabilities of the most likely transition are in italic type. Wave 3 sample size (N = 334) was used to conduct latent transition analyses.

Broker–Stress Profiles and Adolescent Marijuana Use

Utilizing Wald tests, we examined whether adolescents’ lifetime marijuana use at Wave 3 differed across stable/change broker–stress profiles (see Figure 2). Results suggested that, for brokering for mothers, the Stable Protective and the Change to Protective groups were less likely to engage in lifetime marijuana use compared to the Stable Moderate/Less-involved and Risk at Any Wave profiles. For brokering for fathers, the Stable Protective group was least likely to engage in lifetime marijuana use compared to the other three groups, and the Change to Protective group was less likely to engage in lifetime marijuana use compared to the Risk at Any Wave group.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Intercept difference of Wave 3 adolescent lifetime marijuana use across stable and change profiles for mother and father. Intercepts with different superscripts were significantly different from each other (p < .05). Covariates, including adolescent, age, gender, and nativity, as well as parental education, were all grand mean centered.

Discussion

The current study took a developmental perspective and adopted a person-centered approach to investigate how contextual stressors may be coupled with brokering experiences across the course of adolescence to influence marijuana use among Mexican-origin adolescents. Findings show that remaining in the Protective group, or changing to the Protective group across the course of adolescence, was associated with lower risk for marijuana use relative to other types of stable/change profiles. Thus, while brokering is a potential source of stress among Mexican-origin adolescents experiencing contextual stressors, maintaining or developing positive brokering appraisals over time may be adaptive in reducing adolescents’ marijuana use.

Broker–Stress Profiles over the Course of Adolescence

Consistent with the expectations of a previous study (Kim et al. 2018), four broker–stress profiles (Moderate, Protective, Risk, and Less-involved) emerged for translating for mothers and fathers (Figure 1). Additionally, a new group (the Moderate/Less-involved profile) characterized by the combined features of the Moderate and Less-involved groups was identified in middle and late adolescence (i.e., Waves 2 and 3). Overall, the profiles reveal heterogeneity of language brokering experiences among Mexican-origin adolescents with similar levels of contextual stressors.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Broker–stress profiles for adolescent reports of brokering for mother and father across three waves.

The results of stability/ change in broker–stress profiles across the course of adolescence reveal that the majority of participants (40–50%) maintained a Protective or Moderate/Less-involved profile across the study period. This stability proportion is consistent with the study by Kim et al. (2020), in which transition profiles were identified according to brokering experiences at one time point in early adolescence, and previous research showing that ethnic minority adolescents often report stable levels of cultural stressors (i.e., discrimination) across time (Schwartz et al. 2015).

In addition to the stable broker–stress profiles, two change profiles (i.e., Change to Protective and Risk at Any Wave) emerged. It is worth noting that a significant proportion (i.e., more than 30%) of adolescents were grouped in the Change to Protective group, indicating that adolescents who were identified as Risk/Moderate/Less-involved in early adolescence had the potential to increase positive, and decrease negative, brokering experiences by late adolescence (Shen, Kim & Benner 2019). This transition in the Change to Protective group may be partly due to increases in language proficiency, and to adolescents’ becoming more engaged and feeling less negative about brokering across time, allowing them to broker for their parents with more ease as they age (Shen, Kim & Benner 2019; Weisskirch 2013).

Broker–Stress Transition Profiles and Marijuana Use

The current study goes beyond previous studies by taking a developmental perspective to reveal the influence of stability/change in broker–stress profiles on adolescents’ marijuana use. Echoing the accumulation model (Walsemann, Goosby & Farr 2016), we found that, for brokering for both fathers and mothers, adolescents in the Stable Protective profile, while experiencing moderate levels of contextual stressors, had the lowest risk of late-adolescence marijuana use relative to other stability/change profiles. Second to the Stable Protective profile, the Change to Protective profile had a lower probability of late-adolescence marijuana use than the Risk at Any Wave profile for both mothers and fathers, and also the Stable Moderate/Less-involved profile for mothers, suggesting that being in the Protective profile in late adolescence was protective regardless of early adolescent experiences. The importance of being in the Protective profile supports the eco-bio developmental framework (Shonkoff et al. 2012), which suggests that positive (vs. negative) appraisals of stress (i.e., language brokering) are adaptive. Our findings further extend the eco-bio developmental framework (Shonkoff et al. 2012) by revealing that the adaptive role of positive brokering appraisals can reduce marijuana use risk even when adolescents are faced with various contextual stressors, and that such effects can be manifested either across the course of adolescence or in late adolescence.

The results inform intervention strategies to reduce the probability of marijuana use in Mexican-origin adolescents. Suggestions include identifying adolescents in the Protective profile during early adolescence and providing maintenance skills to help them stay in the Protective group over time, and assisting adolescents not in the Protective group to develop skills that will enable them to transition to the Protective group (i.e., Change to Protective profile). Skills taught in the interventions could include reframing adolescents’ perceptions of contextual stressors in their environment, coupled with providing brokering skills to reduce negative brokering experiences and/or promoting positive brokering experiences. Additionally, although not tested in the current study, enhancing parents’ support during the brokering process may also help adolescents develop positive brokering appraisals, given that both parties play key roles in language brokering (Weisskirch 2017).

Limitations and Future Studies

This study has three main limitations. First, instead of treating each transition pattern as an independent stability/change profile, we grouped unclear patterns with small sample sizes into an Other profile. Future studies with a larger sample size should examine each transition pattern separately. Second, this study only measured whether or not marijuana consumption occurred during adolescence by recoding the original responses as a dichotomous variable. Future research should measure marijuana use in a multifaceted way (e.g., assessing the expectancy of marijuana use) or recruit larger sample sizes to examine the impact of broker–stress profiles on different levels of adolescents’ marijuana use frequency. Other measures of substance use (e.g., tobacco, alcohol and other illegal drug use) can also be included in future research. Last, despite the strengths of the person-centered approach, it cannot distinguish between the contributions made by contextual stressors versus brokering experiences on marijuana use. Future studies could distinguish their unique influences on marijuana use.

Conclusion

By coupling contextual stressors (i.e., economic stress, discrimination, and foreigner stress) with brokering experiences, the current study identified broker–stress transition profiles associated with different degrees of marijuana use risk among Mexican-origin adolescents across the course of adolescence. We found that adolescents who remained in the Protective group or changed from other groups to the Protective group across adolescence had a lower risk of marijuana use. Our findings suggest that language brokering, when positively appraised, may serve as a protective resource to lower adolescents’ marijuana use risk in the face of contextual stress from early to late adolescence.

References

  1. Assari S; Mistry R; Lee DB; Caldwell CH & Zimmerman MA 2019. Perceived racial discrimination and marijuana use a decade later: Gender differences among Black youth. Frontiers in Pediatrics 7(78):1–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Brener ND; Kann L; Shanklin S; Kinchen S; Eaton DK; Hawkins J & Flint KH 2013. Methodology of the youth risk behavior surveillance system — 2013. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report: Recommendations and Reports 62(1):1–20. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Chambers RA; Taylor JR & Potenza MN 2003. Developmental neurocircuitry of motivation in adolescence: A critical period of addiction vulnerability. American Journal of Psychiatry 160(6):1041–1052. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Dahl RE; Allen NB; Wilbrecht L & Suleiman AB 2018. Importance of investing in adolescence from a developmental science perspective. Nature 554(7693):441–450. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Fuhrmann D; Knoll LJ & Blakemore S-J 2015. Adolescence as a sensitive period of brain development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 19(10):558–566. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Hall WD & Lynskey M 2005. Is cannabis a gateway drug? Testing hypotheses about the relationship between cannabis use and the use of other illicit drugs. Drug and Alcohol Review 24(1):39–48. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Huynh Q-L; Devos T & Smalarz L 2011. Perpetual foreigner in one’s own land: Potential implications for identity and psychological adjustment Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 30(2):133–162. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Kam JA & Lazarevic V 2014. The stressful (and not so stressful) nature of language brokering: Identifying when brokering functions as a cultural stressor for Latino immigrant children in early adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 43(12):1994–2011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Kessler RC; Mickelson KD & Williams DR 1999. The prevalence, distribution, and mental health correlates of perceived discrimination in the United States. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 40(3):208–230. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Kim SY; Hou Y; Song J; Schwartz SJ; Chen S; Zhang M; Perreira KM & Parra-Medina D 2018. Profiles of language brokering experiences and contextual stressors: Implications for adolescent outcomes in Mexican immigrant families. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 47(8):1629–1648. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Kim SY; Wang Y; Deng S; Alvarez R & Li J 2011. Accent, perpetual foreigner stereotype, and perceived discrimination as indirect links between English proficiency and depressive symptoms in Chinese American adolescents. Developmental Psychology 47(1):289–301. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Kim SY; Zhang M; Chen S; Song J; Lopez BG; Rodriguez EM; Calzada EJ; Hou Y; Yan J & Shen Y 2020. Bilingual language broker profiles and academic competence in Mexican-origin adolescents. Developmental Psychology 56(8):1582–1595. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Lemstra M; Bennett NR; Neudorf C; Kunst A; Nannapaneni U; Warren LM; Kershaw T & Scott CR 2008. A meta-analysis of marijuana and alcohol use by socio-economic status in adolescents aged 10–15 years. Canadian Journal of Public Health 99(3):172–177. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Mistry RS; Benner AD; Tan CS & Kim SY 2009. Family economic stress and academic well-being among Chinese-American youth: The influence of adolescents’ perceptions of economic strain. Journal of Family Psychology 23(3):279–290. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Muthén LK & Muthén BO 1998–2017. Mplus user’s guide. Eighth edition Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén [Google Scholar]
  16. Nylund KL; Asparouhov T & Muthén BO 2007. Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 14(4):535–569. [Google Scholar]
  17. Nylund KL; Muthén B & Nishina A 2006. Stability and instability of peer victimization during middle school: Using latent transition analysis with covariates, distal outcomes, and modeling extensions: Unpublished manuscript, Department of Education, University of California, Santa Barbara https://www.statmodel.com/download/LTA_DP_FINAL.pdf.
  18. Putnick DL; Hahn CS; Hendricks C & Bornstein MH 2020. Developmental stability of scholastic, social, athletic, and physical appearance self-concepts from preschool to early adulthood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 61(1):95–103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Schwartz SJ; Unger JB; Baezconde-Garbanati L; Zamboanga BL; Lorenzo-Blanco EI; Des Rosiers SE; Romero AJ; Cano MÁ; Gonzales-Backen MA; Córdova D; Piña-Watson BM; Huang S; Villamar JA; Soto DW; Pattarroyo M & Szapocznik J 2015. Trajectories of cultural stressors and effects on mental health and substance use among Hispanic immigrant adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health 56(4):433–439. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Shen Y; Kim SY & Benner AD 2019. Burdened or efficacious? Subgroups of Chinese American language brokers, predictors, and long-term outcomes. Journal of Youth & Adolescence 48(1):154–169. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Shonkoff JP; Garner AS; Siegel BS; Dobbins MI; Earls MF; Garner AS; McGuinn L; Pascoe J & Wood DL 2012. The lifelong effects of early childhood adversity and toxic stress. Pediatrics 129(1):e232–e246. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Steele JL 2016. Race and general strain theory: Examining the impact of racial discrimination and fear on adolescent marijuana and alcohol use. Substance Use & Misuse 51(12):1637–1648. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Taie M 2014. Skill acquisition theory and its important concepts in SLA. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 4:1971–1976. [Google Scholar]
  24. Walsemann KM; Goosby BJ & Farr D 2016. Life course SES and cardiovascular risk: Heterogeneity across race/ethnicity and gender. Social Science & Medicine 152:147–155. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Weisskirch RS 2017. Language brokering in immigrant families: Theories and contexts New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. [Google Scholar]
  26. Weisskirch RS 2013. Family relationships, self-esteem, and self-efficacy among language brokering Mexican American emerging adults. Journal of Child and Family Studies 22(8):1147–1155. [Google Scholar]
  27. White RMB; Nair RL & Bradley RH 2018. Theorizing the benefits and costs of adaptive cultures for development. American Psychologist 73(6):727–739. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Wu L-T; Woody GE; Yang C; Pan J-J & Blazer DG 2011. Racial/Ethnic variations in substance-related disorders among adolescents in the United States. Archives of General Psychiatry 68(11):1176–1185. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES