 

meats
'//
Jaw/1-
a 03 3 #033

This is to certify hat the
dissertation entitled

MEDIATING AND MODERATING PROCESSES IN THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SOCIOCULTURAL STRESS AND
MENTAL HEALTH FOR LATINA/O STUDENTS AT A
PREDOMINATELY WHITE UNIVERSITY

presented by

Duranda Cosette Orellana

has been accepted towards fuifillment
of the requirements for the

PhD . degree' In PsychologL

 

 

#1in

Major Professor's Signature

75/3/100/

Date

MSU Is on W We! Oppcrumlty Won

- — —.-.-a--a-----n-o--n--n-.--.-.-.-.-A-.---.-o-o-n-a-n-o-c-----o---.-

 

 

LIBRARY

Michigan State

University

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

MAP 1 9 2006

 

0427 06

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJCIRC/DateDuepSS-ots

MEDIATING AND MODERATING PROCESSES IN THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN SOCIOCULTURAL STRESS AND MENTAL HEALTH FOR LATINA/O
STUDENTS AT A PREDOMINATELY WHITE UNIVERSITY
By

Duranda Cosette OreIIana

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial ﬁIlﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Psychology

2004

\IE
BET“ E'

 

 

" it“;
hipptrztx

The s
Stale [..
mea'uyh
“35C02c

”1&ng . P

V

“ 9dr! T
34167 n

ABSTRACT
MEDIATING AND MODERATING PROCESSES IN THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN SOCIOCULTURAL STRESS AND MENTAL HEALTH FOR LATINA/O
STUDENTS AT A PREDOMINATELY WHITE UNIVERSITY
By
Duranda Cosette Orellana

This study examined a culture-speciﬁc adaptation of Taylor and Aspinwall’s (1996)
model of Mediating and Moderating Processes in Psychosocial Stress with Latina/o
undergraduate students at a predominantly White university. The adapted model
included concepts of previous researchers who have tested the relationships between
stressors, mediators, moderators, and mental health outcomes. Appraisal of sociocultural
stress (i.e., acculturative stress, minority status stress), individual cultural characteristics
(i.e., ethnic identity, acculturation level), perceived social support (i.e., perceived
informal support, perceived formal support), and coping (i.e., direct and indirect coping)
were hypothesized to predict mental health (i.e., wellbeing, distress) among Latina/o
undergraduates. In addition several relationships among these constructs were
hypothesized.

The sample consisted of 201 Latina/o/Hispanic undergraduate students at Michigan
State University. Students completed a questionnaire packet which included self-report
measures of the various constructs in the model. Structural equation modeling (SEM)
was conducted to test moderators and the hypothesized relationships in the adapted
model. Post hoc analyses were conducted to improve the overall ﬁt of the adapted
model. The modiﬁed adapted model produced a good overall ﬁt [)8 (df 167, N=201) =

241.67, p > 0.001, GFI = 0.90, AGFI = 0.86, RMSEA = 0.05, CFI = 0.94, NNFI = 0.93,

dcmonv

tires:

 

 

 

Berth;
\v
frieze: I

fizzai mod

PNFI = 0.68, PGFI = 0.65]. Direct signiﬁcant positive and negative relationships were
demonstrated. Statistically signiﬁcant indirect relationships were also demonstrated.

Result revealed that neither gender nor SES moderated the relationships speciﬁed
in the model. However, several relationships among the constructs in the model
Signiﬁcantly differed for heritage groups (i.e., mono-ethnic, bi-ethnic). For mono-ethnic
participants, the relationship between individual cultural characteristics and wellbeing
was found to be mediated only by appraisal of sociocultural stress, indirect coping, and
distress. Perceived social support was found to promote both high and low levels of
wellbeing for bi-ethnic participants but not for mono-ethnic participants. Analyses also
revealed that there were group mean differences on several of the latent variables of the
ﬁnal model.

This study focused on dimensions found to be salient for Latina/o ethnicity and
culture as it expanded the literature on stress-mental health by being the ﬁrst to
empirically test the mediational processes by which individual cultural characteristics and
perceived social support facilitate coping with sociocultural stress and consequently
mental health. Findings suggest that university service providers consider and integrate
contextual and ethnically relevant constructs into their service delivery. Furthermore,
results indicate that for bi-mono-ethnic and bi-ethnic Latina/o individuals attending

predominantly White universities identity development is a lifelong process.

Copyright by
Duranda Cosette Orellana
2004

 

'm“-v‘
..
bi...\ll.-

.
"mun ‘
s.n.ib$\‘

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to thank Robert Caldwell, Ph.D., Neal Schmitt, Ph.D., Israel Cuellar, Ph.D., and
Fransisco Villarruel, Ph.D. for their direction and support which they provided during the
process of conducting and completing this doctoral dissertation. I also wish to thank Seka
Remsing for her assistance in the data collection stage. Finally, I wish to thank my

ﬁancee, Marcel, and family for their emotional support throughout my graduate years.

REY F4
{\TROZ
CHAPI.

LITER 1.
Rea '

The
RC";

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................... x

LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................... xii

KEY FOR THE MEASURMENT MODEL ............................................. xiii

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 1

CHAPTER 1

LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................... 6

Review of Stress-Illness Models ..................................................... 7

Life Events: Sources, Adaptations, and Outcomes .......................... 7
Integrative Stress and Coping Model .......................................... 10
The Stress Mediation Outcome Model ........................................ 13
Stress Mediation-Depression Model ........................................... 15
Model of Minority Status and Distress ........................................ 18

Model ofLatino College Student Adjustment......... 20
Model of Mediating and Moderating Processes in

Psychosocial Stress ....................................................... 23

The Adapted Model ................................................................... 25
Review of the Constructs in the Adapted Model .................................. 3O
Appraisal of Sociocultural Stress ................................................. 30
Appraisal ofMinority Status Stress 34
Appraisal of Acculturative Stress ......................................... 36
Mediating and Moderating Variables .......................................... 38

Individual Cultural Characteristics.................. 4O
Acculturation Level41

Ethnic Identity... 44

Perceived Social Support . 46

Perceived Informal Social Support .................................. 49

Perceived Formal Social Support... 50

Coping ........................................................................ 51

Direct and Indirect Coping 54

Mental Health ..................................................................... 55

Distress. .. 55

Subjective Well- Being ...................................................... 57

Subjective Happiness .................................................. 57

Life Satisfaction.............................................................58

Integration of the Literature ....................................................... 59

Review of the Literature Supporting the Hypothesized Paths in the

Proposed Model ..................................................................... 59
Path A: The inﬂuence of individual cultural characteristics

on perceived social support ..................................... 60

vi

 

CHAPI
PATIO‘
H51?

CHAPII
IEIIICI
PEI

PTO-C

 

 

IZS‘CZL'T‘! :
Dee
3::

IWQ,

PCV

\.

CHAPT]
RESL'LI
PE

p5,,

Path B: The inﬂuence of individual cultural characteristics on

appraisal ofsociocultural stress. .....6...1
Path C: The inﬂuence of perceived social Support on appraisal
of sociocultural stress ............................................ 62
Path D: The inﬂuence of individual cultural characteristics on
coping... .............................................................................. 63
Path E: The inﬂuence of perceived social support on coping ........ 64
Path F: The inﬂuence of appraisal of sociocultural stress on
coping ............................................................. 66
Path G: The inﬂuence ofcoping on mental health...68
CHAPTER 2
RATIONALE ............................................................................ 70
Hypotheses ................................................................................. 77
CHAPTER 3
METHOD .................................................................................... 79
Participants ............................................................................. 79
Procedure .................. . ............................................................. 80
Instruments ................................................................................... 84
Demographic Information Form ..................................................... 84
Appraisal of Cultural Stress ........................................................... 84
Minority Student Stresses Scale ................................................ 84
Social, Attitudinal, Familial, and Environmental Acculturative
Stress Scale ................................................................. 85
Individual Cultural Characteristics .................................................. 86
Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans-Revised .............. 86
Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure .......................................... 88
Perceived Social Support .............................................................. 89
Perceived Social Support from Family and Friends ......................... 89
Perceived Social Support from University Personnel ....................... 90
Coping ................................................................................... 90
The Brief Cope Inventory ....................................................... 90
Problem Focused Style of Coping .............................................. 93
Mental Health ........................................................................... 94
DSM Scale for Depression-26 ................................................... 94
Satisfaction with Life Scale ....................................................... 95
Subjective Happiness Scale ....................................................... 97
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS .................................................................................... 98
Phase One ................................................................................ 98
Phase Two .............................................................................. 98
Phase Three ............................................................................. 100
Individual Cultural Characteristics

ARSMA-II ......................................................... 1 06

vii

MEIM .............................................................. 107

Appraisal of Sociocultural Stress ....................................... 109
MSSS .................................................................... 109
S.A.F.E .................................................................... 112
Coping ....................................................................... 114
BCOPE .................................................................... 114
PF -SOC ................................................................. 116
Perceived Social Support ................................................. 118
PSS-F A .................................................................. 118
PSS-FR .................................................................. 120
PSS-UP .................................................................. 122
Mental Health .............................................................. 124
DSD-26 .................................................................. 124
SWLF ................................................................... 126
SHS ............................................................................ 129
Phase Four ............................................................................... 129
Results of the Hypotheses ........................................................ 132
Hypotheses 1-2 ............................................................... 132
Hypotheses 3-6 .......................................................... 133
Hypotheses 7-8 .......................................................... 134
Model I: Results of the overall adapted Latina/o student
stress-mental health model ........................................... 134
Model 2 .................................................................. 135
Model 3 .................................................................. 138
Model 4 .................................................................. 142
Moderators .................................................................. 147
Gender ................................................................... 148
SES ...................................................................... 151
Heritage ................................................................. 155
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION ............................................................................... 163
Limitations ................................................................. l 69
Conclusions and Implications ........................................... 172
APPENDIX A. Demographic Information Form ....................................... 182
APPENDIX B. Minority Student Stresses Scale ........................................ 184

APPENDIX C. Social, Attitudinal, Familial, and Environmental Acculturative

Stress Scale ................................................................ 186

APPENDIX D. Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans-Revised ...... 188

APPENDIX E. Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure .................................... 190

viii

APPENDIX F. Perceived Social Support from Family ................................. 191

APPENDIX G. Perceived Social Support from Friends ................................. 193
APPENDIX H. Perceived Social Support from University Personnel ................ 195
APPENDIX 1. The Brief Cope Inventory ................................................. 197
APPENDIX J. Problem Focused Style of Coping ........................................ 199

APPENDIX K. DSM Scale for Depression-26...... 200

APPENDIX L. Satisfaction with Life Scale .............................................. 203
APPENDIX M. Subjective Happiness Scale ............................................. 204
REFERENCES ................................................................................ 205

ix

ILIL

 

Iris:

 

-4
r; .
hi“

1 .

 

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Demographic Information: Age, Year in College, and GPA

of Participants ...................................................................... 81
Table 2. Demographic Information: Self Identiﬁcation of Participants ............... 81
Table 3. Demographic Information: Place of Birth, Citizenship, and

Residency of Participants ......................................................... 81
Table 4. Demographic Information: Participants families’ ﬁnancial

status compared to other students’ families at MSU .......................... 81
Table 5. Demographic Information: Ethnic/Racial Group Identiﬁed for

Fathers and Mothers ................................................................ 82
Table 6. Demographic Information: Speciﬁc Ethnic/Racial Group

Identiﬁed for Fathers and Mothers .............................................. 82
Table 7. Demographic Information: Place of Birth of Mothers and Fathers .......... 83
Table 8. Demographic Information: Level of Education of Mothers and Fathers. . .83

Table 9.

Table 10.

Table 11.

Table 12.

Table 13.
Table 14.

Table 15.

Table 16.
Table 17.

Table 18.

Intercorrelations and Reliability Coefﬁcients for Reported Subscales

of Measures ......................................................................... 101
Goodness of Fit Indices for Conﬁrmatory Factor Analyses
of Hypothesized Scales ......................................................... 103
Means, Standard Deviations, and Range of Derived Scales ............... 105
Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans-Revised
(ARSMA-II) ..................................................................... 108
Multi- Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM) ..................................... 110
Minority Status Stress Scale (MSSS) ....................................... 113
Social Attitudinal Familial & Environmental (S.A.F.E.)
Acculturation Stress Scale ................................................... 115
The Brief COPE Inventory (Brief COPE) ................................. 117
Problem-Focused Style of Coping (PF-SOC) ........................... 119
Perceived Social Support from Family (PSS-FA) ........................ 121

Table I9 Perez"

Table 20

Table:

Table 32.

T351623

Peres

 
   

The D‘

lmerc
E\pl0'

Good“.-
Mode}

lnterce
Model

.. Imam;

Mod 3} .

ImeTCQ‘

" , IIIIETCO

Interco
Interco

Inierm

- Intercg

Table 19.

Table 20.

Table 21.

Table 22.

Table 23.

Table 24.

Table 25.

Table 26.

Table 27.

Table 28.

Table 29.

Table 30.

Table 31.

Perceived Social Support from Friends (PSS-FR) ........................ 123

Perceived Social Support from University Personnel (PSS-UP) ........ 125

The DSM Scale forDepreSSion-26 (DSD-26)............ 127
Intercorrelations and Reliability Coefﬁcients for Scales Produced by
Exploratory Factor Analysis .................................................. 130
Goodness of Fit Indices for Measurement and Structural

Models ........................................................................... 136
Intercorrelations and Reliability Coefﬁcients for Scales used in
Mode12.... ........................................................................................ 139
Intercorrelations and Reliability Coefficients for Scales used in

Model 4 ........................................................................... 144
Intercorrelations and Reliability Coefﬁcients for Males .................. 149
Intercorrelations and Reliability Coefﬁcients for Females ............... 150
Intercorrelations and Reliability Coefﬁcients for Low SES ............. 153
Intercorrelations and Reliability Coefﬁcients for High SES ............ 154
Intercorrelations and Reliability Coefﬁcients for Mono-ethnic ......... 156
Intercorrelations and Reliability Coefficients for Bi—ethnic .............. 157

xi

figure 1. Life Es
Figcrel [mega
Tigire 3. The St:
Tigare4 Stress!
Figure 5. Model
Flgure6 Model
Tigare'l Medial
Figure 8. Adapts
Figure 9 Ada?“
Figure 10 \Ieas
Figure 11. Adar;
Figure 12

RESpe

Figure 13 Mode

Fit." '7'
Our 8 T4 Resp“

TIL”; "

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Life Events: Sources, Adaptations, and Outcomes ................... 9
Figure 2. Integrative Stress and Coping Model .................................. 12
Figure 3. The Stress-Mediation—Outcome Model .................................. 14
Figure 4. Stress-Mediation-Depression Model .................................... 17
Figure 5. Model of Minority Status and Distress ................................. 19
Figure 6. Model of Latino College Student Adjustment ........................ 22
Figure 7. Mediating and Moderating Processes in Psychosocial Stress ...... 24
Figure 8. Adaptation of Taylor & Aspinwall’s (1996) Model ................... 26
Figure 9. Adapted Model for Latina/o Students .................................... 27
Figure 10. Measurement and Structural Model .................................... 72
Figure 11. Adapted Model Results ................................................ 131
Figure 12. Respeciﬁed Model 2 Results .......................................... 140
Figure 13. Model 4 Results ......................................................... 145
Figure 14. Respeciﬁed Model for Bi-Ethnic Participants Results ............. 161
Figure 15. Respeciﬁed Model for Mono-ethnic Participants Results ......... 162

xii

mjiLQLL‘

ﬂ

 

Minority Status
Appraisal or
Appraisal of

Social Attitudinz
Alien iron 3
Interperstm

.- 2.34.. I ..‘c
lejiv.gdal Cg..-.l

Acculmration R;
Latino Orie:
Association

\Iultigroup Ezhr.
Reecgriiiicr
Exploration

Pinched Socia
Remixed F.
Family Inri:

Perceived Socia.
Receixed f:
PTOVIdIng F
Peer ClOSer

Perceiyed SOCIa
etched L
ElalionSh

The B °
Tie“
Icope
ACTIVe C
Seeking

KEY FOR THE MEASURMENT MODEL
Appraisal of Cultural Stress

Minority Status Stress Scale (MSSS)

Appraisal of Discrimination MSSSI
Appraisal of Campus Culture MSSSZ
Social, Attitudinal, Familial, and Environmental Acculturative Stress (S.A.F.E)
Alienation due to Cultural Barriers SAFE]
Interpersonal Stress SAFE2

Individual Cultural Characteristics

 

Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans-Revised (ARSMA-II)

 

Latino Orientation ARSMAl
Association with Anglos ARSMA2
Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM)
Recognition of Ethnicin MEIM]
Exploration of Ethnicity MEIMZ
Perceived Social Support
Perceived Social Support from Family (PSS-FA)
Received Family Support PSSFAI
Family Intimacy PSSFA2
Perceived Social Support from Friends (PSS-F R)
Received Peer Support PSSFRl
Providing Peer Support PSSFR2
Peer Closeness PS SF R3
Perceived Social Support from University Personnel (PSS-UP)
Providing University Personnel Support PSSUPl
Received University Personnel Support PS SUP2
Relationship to University Personnel PS SUP3
Coping
The Brief Cope Inventory (BCOPE)
Active Coping BCOPE]
Seeking Support BCOPEZ
Passive Coping BCOPE3

xiii

  
  
   

heilem Focus:
Assertix :
Aioidar

\lerﬁal Health

DSM Scale for I
Emotion;
Phisml '_
Sandal 5

Satistaction

Su‘qiecriie IJ

 

Problem Focused Style of Coping (PF-SOC)

Assertive Coping PF SOCl
Avoidant Coping PFSOC2
Mental Health
DSM Scale for Depression-26 (DSD-26)
Emotional Depressive Symptoms DSDl
Physical Depressive Symptoms DSD2
Suicidal Symptoms DSD3
Satisfaction with Life Scale SWLS

Subjective Happiness Scale SHS

xiv

   
  
  

Accord : ' A
Striated at apt
recent increase
of the total pop;

the majority. 63"

 

Census. DELHI) .'
minority groups
American C can
underrepresente
educational gar
significant disc
Latinos are dis
0f non~Latina .
OTLatinos had
Saduating ﬁg
‘Cabie'ra & X.
emironllients
educational SI

For m
and adjust”)?E

that Latin 0 ‘

Latin“ “th

INTRODUCTION

According to the U. S. Census, the Hispanic or Latina/o population for 2000 was
estimated at approximately 35 million or 12.5% of the total US. population, a 57.9%
percent increase from 1990 estimates. In the state of Michigan, approximately 324,000
of the total population of 10 million reported being of Hispanic or Latina/o descent, with
the majority, 68%, indicating that they were of Mexican heritage (U. S. Bureau of the
Census, 2000). According to census reports, Latinos constitute one of the fastest growing
minority groups in this country (U .8. Bureau of the Census, 2000). However, the
American Council on Education (ACE; 2001) has reported that Latinos continue to be
underrepresented in higher education. According to ACE (2001), although the
educational gap between Latinos and non-Latina/o Whites has narrowed in recent years,
signiﬁcant discrepancies continue to exist. For example, the college completion rates for
Latinos are disproportional when compared to non-Latina/o Whites. In 1998, 28 percent
of non-Latina/o Whites ages 25-29 had earned a bachelor's degree while only 10 percent
of Latinos had done so. Previous research indicates that the low rate of Latinos
graduating from four-year colleges can in part be accounted by cultural incongruencies
(Cabrera & Nora, 1994; Gloria & Robinson-Kurpius, 1996), nonsupportive university
environments (Cabrera & Nora, 1994; Cervantes, 1988; Ponterotto, 1990), and
educational stereotypes (Retish & Kavanaugh, 1992).

For many students the transition into a university environment involves challenge
and adjustment to the college atmosphere. However, ﬁndings of several studies indicate
that Latina/o college students experience higher levels of stress in comparison to non-

Latina/o White students (Bourassa, 1991; Cervantes, 1988; McCormack, 1995;

 

0c.-

  
  
 

Lq addition to tin
face ismes that '
These issues in;
immigrant and t'
ethnic or culture
iP-hinney. I991. .

Within th
regarding their cr
ot‘culzural incong
silo grevt up in l
Others of mainst.
Latina'o student
TIISI time may q
acculturated an:
Students must a}
Gloria & Robin
ime’Personal 1e-
{Smedley et al ‘
diSCriiitinatiorr

and intemalizati

C“litir

Oﬁentat

Ponterotto, 1990; Quintana, Vogel, & Ybrarra, 1991; Smedley, Myers, & Harrell, 1993).
In addition to the adjustments that must be made by all college students, Latina/o students
face issues that many ethnic minority individuals living in the US. must contend with.
These issues include: (a) experiencing racism and discrimination owing to their
immigrant and/or minority status, (b) relating to the dominant culture, (c) retaining their
ethnic or cultural heritage, and (c) experiencing Stress as a result of these experiences
(Phinney, 1991; Smith 1991; Roysircar-Sodowsky, & Maestas, 2000).

Within the university environment, Latina/o students may experience conﬂict
regarding their cultural orientation (e. g., ethnic loyalty and cultural awareness) as a result
of cultural incongruencies (Baron & Constantine, 1997). For example, Latina/o students
who grew up in predominantly Latino neighborhoods for the ﬁrst time must interact with
others of mainstream culture on a consistent basis (Shibazaki, 1999). Conversely,
Latina/o students who are raised in highly acculturated families and environments for the
ﬁrst time may question their orientation as they encounter Latina/o students who are less
acculturated and hold different values and attitudes (Gloria & Rodriguez, 2000). Latina/o
students must also negotiate an unwelcoming university environment (Cervantes, 1988;
Gloria & Robinson-Kurpius, 1996). In particular, Latina/o students may experience
interpersonal tensions between themselves and non-Latina/o White students and faculty
(Smedley et al., 1993), negative events related to their minority status (e. g., prejudice,
discrimination, multicultural insensitivity; Cabrera & Nora, 1994; McCormack, 1995),
and internalization of these events (Retish & Kavanaugh, 1992). Thus, the differences in
cultural orientations as well as experiences of negative events because of their minority

status may be sources of stress for Latina/o students.

  
  

Despite ~

. kl.
lltformaclc l

irdicatine that I.

enter discrimi'.‘

1

. .

'1

Sudents- experie-
rescar‘ chers (e g .

stressors and me.“

 

“here the Latina
Halon 1993. I
RodrigueL Mien
Villarreal. 1997. 7
relationships amt.
asignificartt cone
&tuthnesr, New ‘
the issues experie
in the \Iidu est ar
Difﬁent Study vs i1
“here Latina'o H
PODulation (N = 4
\llchigan State Li
RESearch ;

these studies h3\‘e

Despite studies (e. g., Bourassa, 1991; Cabrera & Nora, 1994; Cervantes, 1988;
McCormack, 1995; Ponterotto, 1990; Quintana et al., 1991; Smedley et al., 1993)
indicating that Latina/o students who attend predominantly White universities report
greater discrimination and social and cultural alienation than non-Latina/o White
Students, experience adjustment difﬁculties, and have higher dropout rates, few
researchers (e.g., Najera, 1990) have attempted to identify the relationship between
stressors and mental health outcomes with Latinos attending Midwestern universities
where the Latina/o population has low enrollments. Most of the research (e.g., Aspinwall
& Taylor, 1992; Morris, 1997; Padilla, Alvarez, & Lindholm, 1986; Quinones, 1996;
Rodriguez, Myers, Monis, & Cardoza, 2000; Saldana, 1994; Shibazaki, 1999; Solberg &
Villarreal, 1997; Suarez, Fowers, Garwood, & Szapocznik, 1997) that has examined this
relationships among Latina/o college students has been conducted in states where there is
a signiﬁcant concentration of the Latina/o population: mainly in the West Coast,
Southwest, New York, and Florida. Clearly, there is a need to research and understand
the issues experienced by Latina/o college students at predominately White universities
in the Midwest and the impact of these experiences on their mental health. Therefore, the
present study will focus on Latina/o undergraduate students at Michigan State University
where Latina/o/Hispanic enrollment was reported as 2% (N=859) of the total student
population (N = 42,407) for the 2001/2002 school year (Office of Planning and Budgets,
Michigan State University, 2002).

Research investigating Latina/o students’ adjustment to college has not typically
been the object of systematic study (Hurtado, Carter, & Spuler, 1996). Furthermore,

these studies have not relied on a single deﬁnition of college adjustment. For example,

some have deﬁned adjustment as institutional commitment, good academic performance,
and the absence of psychological distress (Chartrand, 1992). Others have conceptualized
adjustment as students’ positive responses to unfamiliar norms, values, and expectations
that predominate on campus (Bennet & Okinaka, 1990). Finally, some (Hurtado et al.,
1996) have conceptualized adjustment as a multifaceted phenomenon characterized by
resolution of psychological distress and transitional trauma. Studies speciﬁcally
examining psychological functioning as a measure of Latina/o students’ adjustment to
stressful experiences in college (e.g., Aspinwall & Taylor, 1992; Morris, 1997; Najera,
1990; Padilla et al., 1986; Quinones, 1996; Rodriguez et al., 2000; Saldana, 1994;
Shibazaki, 1999; Solberg & Villarreal, 1997; Suarez et al., 1997) have found that various
individual characteristics, social resources, cultural characteristics, and/or appraisal and
coping processes are related to psychological functioning. For example, individual
variables such as: self-efﬁcacy (Solberg & Villarreal, 1997) self-esteem (Aspinwall &
Taylor, 1992; Najera, 1990; Padilla et al., 1986), locus of control (Aspinwall & Taylor,
1992; Padilla et al., 1986), introversion/extroversion (Padilla et al., 1986), and optimism
(Aspinwall & Taylor, 1992); external variables such as social support (Morris, 1997;
Shibazaki, 1999; Solberg & Villarreal, 1997; Riggio, Watring, & Throckmorton, 1993)
and community involvement (Riggio et al., 1993); cultural characteristics such as ethnic
identity (Quinones, 1996; Shibazaki, 1999), acculturation level (Morris, 1997; Quinones,
1996; Saldana, 1994; Rodriguez et al., 2000), biculturalism (Suarez et al., 1997),
generational status (Padilla et al., 1986), and gender role socialization (Quinones, 1996);
and process variables such as appraisal and coping strategies (Aspinwall & Taylor , 1992)

have all been found to be related to psychological outcomes for Latina/o students.

he
no
“ 'rugh
tint MI
ages
esults su:
r I r
'ltu
"II. CD.
Hyr‘ﬁ/
5“:

‘ to
l
‘ 'ionsh.p
reia.

 

Although none of the above studies have tested all these variables simultaneously, the
results suggest that for Latina/o college students, individual characteristics, social
support, cultural characteristics, appraisal, and coping responses have a complex

relationship to each other that in turn affect mental health.

 

The relay
scientists for St
identify the proc

.. .. . . I
being of mama-
relationship bets.

outcomes (\Iartir

 

Stress on mental I
1906). This rese;
betneen Stress ar
1997), These res
'ra'iance in outco
iiariables that in‘
between the tn 0,
ad potentially al
CTilerion variable
Siess moderator

quantitative I i e

Chapter 1
LITERATURE REVIEW

The relationship between stress and mental health has been of research interest to
scientists for some time. Investigators from a wide range of disciplines have attempted to
identify the processes by which stressors produce harmﬁil effects on the mental well-
being of individuals (W arheit, 1979). Early research on stress focused on the simple
relationship between stressﬁil life events and various physical and psychiatric health
outcomes (Martin, 1989). Thus, researchers originally conceptualized the impact of
stress on mental health as a simple univariate process (Cervantes & Castro, 1985; Groag,
1996). This research had limited explanatory power, indicating that the relationship
between stress and mental health outcomes was relatively weak (Cohen, Hettler, & Park,
1997). These results led researchers to attempt to account for greater proportions of
variance in outcomes by examining models that focused increasingly on mediators
(variables that inﬂuence both the predictor and criterion by accounting for the relations
between the two; Lonner & Adamopoulos, 1997) and moderators (variables that control
and potentially alter the strength or direction of the relationship between a predictor and
criterion variable; Cohen et al., 1997; Groag, 1996; Holahan, Moos, & Bonin, 1997).
Stress moderators and mediators examined included qualitative (i.e., gender, race) or
quantitative (i.e., social support, personality) variables that are related to the extent to
which a person will be affected by stress (Groag, 1996).

Some researchers (e. g., Billings & Moos, 1982a, 1982b; Lazarus & F olkman,
1984) became interested in the process that takes place between the experience and

outcome of a stressor. According to these researchers, too many of the stress-outcome

models emphasized stable, structural properties of the person and environment rather than
examining the changes that occur as the process of stress unfolded (Martin, 1989). Thus,
in an attempt to outline the dynamics of the stress-mental health relationships, they began
studying models that included not only stable factors but also changing processes that
impacted mental health (Billings & Moos, 1982a, 1982b; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984;
Miranda & Castro, 1985). These researchers were known as the transactional model
theorists.
Review of Streﬁss—Illnesa Mode—ls

The following section presents models of Stress from which the proposed model
was developed for this study. The models presented below were developed by theorists
interested in reﬁning early stress-illness models which did not provide a theoretical
understanding of the dynamic interactions among personal, environmental, and/or
process variables. These investigators argued that most stress-illness models
conceptualized these variables as “static” and “occurring within a closed system”
(Warheit, 1979).
Life Evenls: Sources. Adamﬁonsband Outcomes. Warheit’s (1979) Life Events,
Sources, Adaptations, and Outcomes Model (Figure 1) posits that stressﬁrl life events
arise from three sources: the individual’s psychological and biological constitution,
culture, and social environment. Thus, psychosocial stress is conceptualized as being
different ﬁ'om the stressﬁil events that precipitate it. The adaptive-nonadaptive screens
are the coping resources available to individuals to meet stressﬁil demands. These may
include an individual’s personality, cultural beliefs, and social support networks.

According to Warheit (1979), stress in this model is an altered state that occurs when the

demands on an individual exceed his or her capabilities to respond. The outcomes of
stress in Warheit’s model are viewed as individual symptoms, cultural syndromes and/or
social dysfunction. According to Warheit (1979), his theory reﬂects the systemic nature
of life events, coping resources, stress, and stress outcomes as they occur in a temporal
context. Warheit (1979) hypothesized that when individuals face a stressful event, they
will ﬁrst rely on their individual characteristics to handle stress. Individuals will then
rely on support from others. If both of these are found to be inadequate, they may then
turn to their culturally provided beliefs and values. However, in practice, most
individuals will seek to maximize on all available resources in a complementary manner.
The importance of Warheit’s (1979) model to the present study lies in its
consideration of culture in the stress-mental health process. According to Cuellar (2000),
culture has been viewed as having a potential impact on numerous aspects of health,
illness, and adaptation. More speciﬁcally, culture inﬂuences perceptions of illness,
manifestations of illness, prevalence rates, susceptibility, acceptance of illness, reactions
to illness, adjustment to illness, and its assessment and treatment (Cuellar & Gonzalez,
1999; Cuellar, 2000). Thus, culture is critical to the present study because it allows for
the inclusion of culture-speciﬁc beliefs and values which are believed to inﬂuence the
experience of stress. Culture is believed to give “individuals sources of explanation for
events that cannot be accounted for by a society’s logic or science. Culture also provides
symbolic deﬁnitions that attach meaning to events.” (Parsons, 1951; as cited by Warheit,
1979, p. 503). Also important to the present study is Warheit’s acknowledgment of the

impact of personal, cultural, and social resources on stress and his conceptualization of

852 .xoﬁagv 88830 was .m=o_samc< .mooczom HEo>m as a 8sz

 

m EEO U .H. DO
cococémxm Eoom moEoéim mEo macaw m m mm a m
wmmahm
AxlUOmOEUme m m mm H m
mcogchmmLO \ H 4/McoEmoam68m
#8288 .3836 Z mcoEccoD 2850
1885825 stsm B5532 5:33:00 mzmmmum
.toaasm 38m amoneam 32305 m>E<omzoz
.mooasomom 3:8qu 83:3 $55823 int/H Ham/Ban.
l/hmE'oumamm mom—om..\ﬂ
\ mHZmC/m / mHZm>m
“coacoagcm 2830 A hmoumtoaoﬁmau m BMW/m
38m _ 3:232:

» b b 3958

stress as an altered state that is distinct from the stressﬁtl event (stressor) and stress
outcome (distress).

Although Warheit’s (1979) model incorporates personal, cultural, and the social
environment as important factors in the relationship between stress and stress outcomes,
it does not include process variables (i.e., appraisal, coping). Consequently, the model
does not account for individual differences in the perception of Stress and coping
methods. In addition, Warheit conceptualizes culture as existing outside of the
individual. Thus, he fails to recognize that culture is also a system of ideals within an
individual (Geertz, 1984) that can cause considerable within group diﬂ’erences
(Sodowsky, Lai, & Plake, 1991) and provides a better understanding of the person
(Cuellar, 2000).

Mtive Stress and Coping Model. Billings and Moos (1982a) proposed the
Integrative Stress and Coping Model (Figure 2) which posits that the stress-mental health
relationship is not only mediated by personal characteristics (i.e., self-conﬁdence, self-
estcem, optimism) and environmental resources (i.e., emotional support; guidance and
assistance from one’s broader social network) but also by cognitive appraisal, coping
responses and the interrelationships among these domains. According to Billings and
Moos (1982a), personal characteristics and environmental resources are also directly
related to subsequent ﬁtnctioning. Furthermore, the personal system, environmental
system, and characteristics of the stressors, directly inﬂuence the appraisal of and coping
responses to stress which ultimately determine one’s health and functioning. In this
model there is also a bi-directional relationship between personal and environmental

resources.

10

The importance of the Integrative Stress and Coping Model to this study is that like
Warheit (1979), Billings and Moos (1982a) emphasize a relationship between personal
resources and social resources. Also like Warheit (1979), Billings and Moos (1982a)
examine the impact of personal and social resources on the stressors. However, unlike
Warheit (1979), Billings and Moos (19823) include appraisal and coping processes in
their model. Thus, they consider the impact of personal and social resources on appraisal
and coping responses.

Although Billings and Moos (1982a) include process variables in their model, they
conceptualize appraisal and coping as one component, reﬂecting an inseparable
relationship. The implicit assumption is that a Single assessment of coping provides a
representative sample of both appraisal and coping and that this is sufficient for
evaluating the relationship of these processes to mental health outcomes (F olkman &
Lazarus, 1986). Billings and Moos (1982a) also use the term “environmental resources”
to refer to “social resources” (i.e., social support). Although the use of one term for the
other is subtle, scientists are increasingly recognizing that social support is only one
component of environmental resources, a much broader term that also encompasses
variables such as income, neighborhood cohesion, job opportunities, etc. Furthermore, it
is increasingly recognized that there are individual differences in the appraisal of social
support and ability to extract needed support (Taylor & Aspinwall, 1996). These
differences in appraisal of social support are likely to be affected by an individual’s
cultural characteristics such as worldview. However, using Billings and Moos’ (1982a)
model this relationship would be difﬁcult to assess since they do not include the construct

of culture in their model.

11

Amwi .802 a. 3556 6on 9:80 can $85 9583:: .N 8sz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mmomoommm
iEazzoEZm
ozazoﬁoiza
izommmm mmngmmm mmommgm
972 0258 iezazzogm
zoammémo oz< imam“?

 

 

 

 

 

/

mmUMDOmm—M
iZOmmmm

 

 

12

The Stress-Mediation-Outcome Model. The model proposed by Miranda and Castro
(1985) consists of seven interactive components: (1) Life change events or stressors; (2)
structural factors (i.e., SES, acculturation level, gender) speciﬁc to the individual
experiencing the life events change; (3) individually perceived stress which inﬂuences
personal resources, coping responses, and support networks; (4) coping responses which
are seen as being precipitated into action by individually perceived stress; (5) personal
resources that mediate the effect of coping responses on mental health status; (6) support
networks which mediate the impact of individually perceived stress on mental health; and
(7) the outcome, mental health. See Figure 3. According to Miranda and Castro (1985)
there is a bidirectional relationship between the level of individually perceived stress and
mental health status. This relationship can also be mediated by coping responses,
personal resources and social support networks. Although coping responses and personal
resources are characterized as functioning independent of social support systems, all three
have an effect on mental health status. The ﬁnal component of Miranda and Castro’s
(1985) model is the relationship between life events change and individual perceived
stress. This relationship is believed to be mediated by structural components (e. g., SES,
Age).

Miranda and Castro’s (1985) model is important to this study because they
attempt to deﬁne what speciﬁc events, under what conditions, are linked with what sorts
of mental health outcomes, for what people. The authors’ argue that relating
undifferentiated life change to an undifferentiated psychological outcome forms an overly

simplistic model. Moreover, a simple model suggests a simple intervention.

13

Amma— dBmaU 8 «ESQ/c E52 oEooSO-=o:m%oE-mmobm 2? .m ocswﬁ

353qu
toqasm

 

 

 

 

mmobm @88me
.283 l r Bioeom maco>m
352 i i 2.32%.: owaao a:
owe. .e
...................... xom .m
$883M Ecoﬁom _o>oi_
........... 0 III... =2§838< .N
moms—093m wanU mmm . H
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrnrrrrrirrrrrrrurrirrr
833:3 33323 moist”;

Houseman wcuﬂco—Z Eugene?—

l4

Like Warheit (1979), Miranda and Castro (1985) consider culture in their model by
including structural factors (i.e., acculturation) in their model. Unlike Billings and Moos
(1982a), Miranda and Castro (1985) clearly delineate appraisal and coping as separate
events because each is believed to serve different ﬁrnctions. For example, the appraisal
of an event is believed to involve an evaluation of costs. The appraisal process then
determines what type of coping response is necessary.

Unlike Warheit (1979) and Billings and Moos (1982a), Miranda and Castro
(1985) do not delineate pathways indicating the direct impact of personal and social
resources on either the stressor or the appraisal of the stressor(s). Although, they posit a
bi-directional relationship between coping responses and personal resources, they do not
consider a direct relationship between support networks and coping responses. Miranda
and Castro (1985) like Warheit (1979) acknowledge the role of culture in their model by
including structural factors speciﬁc to the individual, but they combine demographic (i.e.,
gender, SES) and cultural variables (i.e., acculturation level) into one component (i.e.,
structural factors). Thus, they fail to recognize that cultural variables involve a dynamic
process, whereas as demographic variables are merely descriptive (Saldana, 1994).
Finally, like Warheit (1979) Miranda and Castro (1985) conceptualize culture as existing
outside the individual or separate from an individual’s characteristics.

Stress-Mediation-Depression Model. Leyva (1990) proposed an adaptation of
Billings and Moos’ (1982a) model speciﬁcally for Mexican/Mexican—American women
(Figure 4). Leyva was interested in examining the impact of acute stressors (i.e., death of
a loved one, marriage, divorce) and chronic stressors (i.e., cultural conﬂict, marital

conﬂict, occupational/economic conﬂict) on mental health. She included acculturation

15

and socioeconomic status as personal mediators, neighborhood cohesion and perceived
social support as environmental mediators, method of coping and focus coping as coping
processes, and depressed mood as the outcome variable. Leyva hypothesized a bi-
directional relationship between personal and environmental mediators. In addition, she
hypothesized that these mediators each directly inﬂuenced stressors, appraisal of
stressors, coping strategies, and depression. Furthermore, she hypothesized direct
relationships from stressors to appraisal of stressors, appraisal of stressors to coping
strategies, and coping strategies to depression.

Leyva’s (1990) model is important to this study because it considers the impact of
personal and social resources on Stress (W arheit, 1979; Billings & Moos, 1982a),
appraisal of stress, and coping responses (Billings & Moos, 1982a). Furthermore, like
Miranda and Castro (1985), Leyva (1990) conceptualizes appraisal of stress and coping
Strategies as two distinct processes. Like Warheit (1979) and Miranda and Castro (1985),
Leyva (1990) includes culture in her model by incorporating cultural conﬂict as a chronic
stressor and acculturation level as a personal resource, both prominent components in the
stress-mental health relationship for Mexican American women. However, unlike
Warheit (1979) and Miranda and Castro (1985), Leyva (1990) acknowledges that culture
cannot be separated from the individual and includes acculturation level as a personal
resource.

Leyva (1990) fails to distinguish between social resources and environmental
resources when she includes social support and neighborhood cohesion as environmental

mediators, Furthermore, by including SES and acculturation level as personal resources,

16

 

 

ENVIRONMENTAL
MEDIATORS
Social Support

 

PERSONAL MEDIATORS
SES
Acculturation Level

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STRESSORS

 

 

 

V

 

 

7

 

 

APPRAISAL
Chronic Stressors
Acute Stressors

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COPING STRATEGIES

L

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DEPRESSION

 

 

Figure 4. Stress-Mediation-Depression Model (Leyva, 1990)

17

she also fails to distinguish between demographic and dynamic cultural variables. In
addition, similar to Warheit (1979), Leyva (1990) conceptualizes stress as “the appraisal
of acute and chronic stressors and the evaluation of whether or not these stressors exceed
or tax the individual’s ability to cope” (p. 28). Therefore, by including the variable,
appraisal of chronic and acute stressors, she introduces a redundant variable in her model.
Finally, although this model has been adapted and tested Speciﬁcally with Mexican
American women its generalizability to other Latino groups such as Latina/o students is
limited.

Model of Minority Status and Distress. Saldana (1994) presented a model that
provides an understanding of the relationship between stressors faced by Latina/o
students at predominantly Anglo universities and psychological distress (Figure 5).
Saldana (1994) hypothesized that for Latina/o Students, the relationship between
precursor variables (i.e., social class, gender, ethnicity) and psychological distress was
mediated by personal resources (i.e., acculturation level), college-related stress common
to all university students (e.g., role strains; stress resulting ﬁom tension or conﬂict
between the obligations and expectations associated with one role versus another), and
stresses more relevant to Latina/o students (e.g., minority status stresses).

Saldana’s (1994) model is important to this study because it is one of a few stress-
illness models designed speciﬁcally for Latina/o college students. In addition, Saldana
(1994) distinguishes between precursor variables and acculturation so that the
relationship between ethnicity (i.e., ethnic group membership) and acculturation could be

examined. “For Latinos, this implies the relevance of acculturation level as a dynamic

18

9&9 acme—ma $0me 98 £58m 5:052 CO 682 .m eBwE

mmmdhm 233.5 mAOM

2822.8 $95 m>E§DSDoo< .3583.
252:5 =a 9 Engine

$803 $85 of 5 28m

2255 =a 8 038:3“
$805 $23 of 5 23m

 

mAr < ma <

 

 

        

B

mommobm
€552

   

coup—3303‘

     

E

3855
Romme—onoxmm

Q

$30ch
20% 03:00

     

   

2V

$8585

19

variable separate from purely descriptive variables such as ethnicity or social class.” (p.
125). Like Warheit (1979), Miranda and Castro (1985), and Leyva (1990), Saldana
(1994) considers culture in her model by focusing on acculturation level as a personal
resource and minority status stress and acculturative stress as stressors faced by Latina/o
students within the university environment. By including acculturation level as a
personal resource as does Leyva (1990), she does not separate culture ﬁom the individual
as do Warheit (1979) and Miranda and Castro ( 1985). In addition, like Warheit (1979),
Billings and Moos (19823) and Leyva (1990) she considers the impact of personal
resources on chronic Stressors.

Although Saldana’s (1994) model was designed for Latinos at predominantly
Anglo universities, it was tested at a university in the West coast. In addition, Saldana
(1994) does not directly measure ethnic identity or acculturative stress as does Leyva
(1990). Rather, she assesses ethnic identity from a combination of items of an
acculturation scale and infers acculturative stress from pathways connecting demographic
variables, level of acculturation, college stresses, minority stresses, and psychological
distress (Rodriguez et al., 2000). Furthermore, her model does not include variables that
the other models reviewed include such as social resources (Warheit, 1979; Billings &
Moos, 1982a; Miranda & Castro, 1985; Leyva, 1990) and process variables like appraisal
and coping processes (Billings & Moos, 1982a; Miranda & Castro, 1985; Leyva, 1990).

Model of Latino College Student Adjustmgrl. Rodriguez et a1. (2000), unlike
Saldana (1994), proposed a model that distinguishes the impact of stress as a result of
level of acculturation, the process of acculturation, and minority-status stress. The

purpose of the model was to explain the impact of generic college stresses, minority-

20

status stresses and acculturative stresses on psychological well-being and psychological
distress, beyond that attributable to gender, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, level of
acculturation, and academic self-conﬁdence. See Figure 6. More speciﬁcally, Rodriguez
et a1. (2000) distinguished between the impact of minority-status stress and generic
college-student stresses on psychological outcome. They also distinguished among the
impact of stresses as a result of acculturation (i.e., stresses that originate in the process of
acculturation; perceived cultural incompatibilities, cultural self-consciousness), those
attributable to level of acculturation (stresses impacted by and individual’s level of
acculturation; psychological and somatic Stress), and minority-status stress (i.e.,
experiencing discrimination on the basis of being minority).

The importance of Rodriguez et al.’s (2000) model to this study is that like
Warheit (1979), Miranda and Castro (1985), Leyva (1990), and Saldana (1994), the
researchers include the concept of culture by considering acculturation level,
acculturative stress, and minority status stress. Like Saldana (1994), Rodriguez and
colleagues distinguish between demographic or precursor variables and acculturation.
However, unlike Saldana (1994), the researches distinguish and separately measure
acculturative stress and minority status stress.

Like Saldana (1994), this model does not contain variables included in the above
models such as social resources (Warheit, 1979; Billings & Moos, 1982a; Miranda &
Castro, 1985; Leyva, 1990) and appraisal and coping processes (Billings & Moos, 1982a;
Miranda & Castro, 1985; Leyva, 1990). In addition, unlike Saldana’s (1994) model, this

model was created to examine the relationship between stress and psychological

21

808 ...a a SEES causes? 283m 09:8 oeado 382 a 2&5

 

338232 ESE—Ema :02 A
83.85

822232 ESE—Ema T 3:83—83

 

 

mommobm
magmectocaz

 

 

 

 

mEonzoB ..... coco
. __ . 2.200
32365»; bow 22.03%

 

 

 

 

8325
09:00 25:00

 

 

 

 

 

 

GOCNHS£BOO<

_8_mo_o:o>mm A _. %

 

 

 

mMm

22

adjustment of Latinos attending colleges where the student body is primarily non-White
and Latinos constitute the largest group.

Model of Mediatingand Moderating Process in Psychosocial Stress. Taylor and
Aspinwall (1996) proposed a model described as a set of nested models that draws on
comprehensive approaches (e.g., Ensel & Lin, 1991; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Billings
& Moos, 1982a). See Figure 7. The model depicts personal resources, external
resources, social support, appraisals, as mediators of the relationships between stress and
coping. They suggest a bi-directional relationship between personal and external
resources. Personal and external resources are hypothesized to directly affect the stressor
itself, appraisals of the stressor, and coping. Personal resources are believed to directly
inﬂuence the availability, mobilization, and maintenance of social support. Social
support in turn is hypothesized to be directly related to appraisals and coping. Finally,
direct relationships from stressors to appraisal, appraisals to coping and coping to
psychosocial outcomes as hypothesized.

The importance of Taylor and Aspinwall’s (1996) model to this study is that unlike
any of the previous models reviewed, they distinguish between external resources and
social support. They describe external resources as aspects of the individual’s
environment that shape the demands and the situation (e. g., time, money, environmental
conditions). In doing so, they recognize that social support is in part an internal resource
since there are individual differences in how one perceives and extracts social support.
Therefore, they consider the direct effect of differences in personal characteristics on
social support. Like Billings and Moos (19823), they consider process variables in their

model but distinguish between appraisal and coping as do Miranda and Castro (1985) and

23

 

 

380330
BBSonozmm

 

 

 

Goa .=§>E%< a. 813.5 mmobm _a_oomo:9$m 5 8330.5 mamas—co: wee @3332 s euswi

 

 

 

toaqsm Eoom

 

 

 

 

 

mama—cu

 

 

t

Seamed
329.com

 

 

 

 

£83534

 

 

 

<

 

 

 

 

 

common—m

 

 

 

 

 

mooSomom
EESRm

 

 

24

Leyva (1990). Like Billings and Moos (1982a) and Leyva (1990) they consider the

direct effect of social, external, and personal resources on the stressor, appraisal of the
stressor, and coping responses. However, unlike Warheit (1979), Miranda and Castro
(1985), Leyva (1990), Saldana (1995) and Rodriguez et al (2000), Taylor and Aspinwall
(1996) do not consider the concept of culture as part of their model. Furthermore, the
model in its present form has not been tested with any population.

The Adapted Model. The model tested in this study was an adaptation of Taylor
and Aspinwall’s (1996) Model of Mediating and Moderating Processes in Psychosocial
Stress (see Figure 8) that incorporated concepts from Warheit’s (1979) Life Events,
Sources, Adaptations, and Outcomes Model, Billings and Moos’ (1982a) Integrative
Stress and Coping Model, Miranda and Castro’s (1985) Stress-Mediation-Outcome
Model, Leyva’s (1990) Stress-Mediation-Depression Model, and two models developed
speciﬁcally for Latina/o college students; Saldana’s (1994) Model of Minority Status and
Distress, and Rodriguez et al.’s (2000) Model of Latino College Student Adjustment. See
Figure 9.

Slavin, Rainer, McCreary, and Gowda (1991) indicated that any theoretical model
that adds additional detail to existing models runs the risk of being too complex, too
difficult, less feasible, and less understandable. Thus, they suggested creating speciﬁc
culture-relevant dimensions of each component of an existing model without adding
whole new components. In light of this suggestion, the adapted model was an attempt to
incorporate aspects of Latino culture into each dimension of Taylor and Aspinwall’s

(1996) model. However, for practical and conceptual reasons, this study examined only a

25

 

 

880230
368233

.282 68: m.=§=am< a 53¢ do 8:332 .w 2%:

 

 

toaqsm 300m

 

 

 

A
V

 

 

 

 

 

ll

 

wcaoo

 

 

magma?

 

 

 

A

 

 

mooBOmom
Ecoﬁom

 

 

26

 

 

3509:;
038035
28 8053
$8350
_m_00mono>mm

 

 

 

 

$265
as use
@500

353% 2.253 8m .082 8233‘ .o oSwE

 

 

saga
23 3:52:
toaqnm
300m 33088

 

+<

 

 

 

 

3:53 2:5
_o>oq
=o_§2_=8<v
8556”“an
35:6 332%,:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

+m

 

mmobm o>t€23oo<
Ea $0.5m
£58m btocg
mmobm 3323208
mo 28353

 

 

 

27

 
   

portion OfT
that whurai
content \ aiitl
cultural grot.
recommende'
messors that
Latinos

As stated'
distinct from t
speciﬁcally. tl
an individual.
social suppon
Because this s
Charm eri st it s
hemeen other
this Stud}; onl}
e’h’imined. Sir.
conceptualized
as exceeding hi

only if it Was

portion of Taylor and Aspinwall’s ( 1996) model. Slavin et al (1991) also recommended
that culturally relevant dimensions focus on measurement issues, particularly questions of
content validity. Thus, some of the most salient stressful events for people in a given
cultural group should be included in the assessment of stressors. To address this
recommendation, this study focused on minority status stress and acculturative stress, two
stressors that are prominent in the lives of many members of oppressed groups including
Latinos.

As stated above, Taylor and Aspinwall (1996) conceptualized social support as
distinct from external resources (i.e., income level, education, opportunities, etc.) More
speciﬁcally, they viewed social support as an external resource that is in part affected by
an individual’s personal characteristics. For example, how one perceives and extracts
social support may be inﬂuenced by factors such as one’s self-esteem or locus of control.
Because this study is concerned with social support, only the direct effect of personal
characteristics on social support was examined. Thus, the bidirectional relationship
between other external resources and personal resources was not included. Finally, in
this study only the appraisal of the stressors and not the stressors themselves were
examined. Similar to Warheit (1979) and Leyva (1990), stress in this model was
conceptualized as an altered state that occurs when an individual appraises the stressors
as exceeding his or her capabilities to respond. Thus, stress was assumed to be present
only if it was appraised as a negative event. For example, although two students may
experience the same event (e. g, cultural self-consciousness, discrimination) one may ﬁnd

it very stressful while the other dismisses it. Therefore, in theory, the event is likely to

28

have a negative impact only on the individual who appraises the event as stressful
(Landrine & Klonoﬁ‘, 1996)

Taylor and Aspinwall’s (1996) model was adapted to Latina/o students at a
Midwestern university where the student body is predominantly White. Like Billings and
Moos’ (1982a), Miranda and Castro’s (1985), and Leyva’s (1990) models, this adaptation
of Taylor and Aspinwall’s (1996) model is dynamic in nature because it included process
variables such as appraisal and coping. Thus, the indirect effects of individual cultural
characteristics (e. g., acculturation level, ethnic identity) and perceived social support
(e.g., perceived formal and informal support) on mental health (e. g., wellbeing, distress),
the direct effect of individual cultural characteristics and perceived social support on the
appraisal of cultural stress (e.g., acculturative stress, minority status stress) and coping
strategies (e.g., direct and indirect coping), and the direct effect of individual cultural
characteristics on perceived social support were examined (Taylor & Aspinwall, 1996).
The adapted model also examined two chronic stressors that Saldana (1994) and
Rodriguez et al. (2000) reported as salient for many Latina/o college students;
acculturative stress and minority status stress. In addition, like Rodriguez et al. (2000)
the adapted model distinguished between the impact of stresses that originate in the
process of acculturation and stresses that result from a student’s minority-status. Like
Warheit (1979), Miranda and Castro (1985), Leyva (1990), Saldana (1994), and
Rodriguez et al. (2000), this model examined the role of culture in the relationship
between stress and mental health by including aspects of Latino ethnicity such as: (a)
acculturation level (i.e., cultural values, attitudes, and behaviors); (b) ethnic identity (i.e.,

the subjective sense of ethnic group membership); (c) acculturative stress (i.e., stresses

29

that originate in the process of acculturation and include perceived cultural
incompatibilities and social self-consciousness); and (d) minority status stress (i.e., the
experiences associated with minority status that include powerlessness, discrimination,
and prejudice).
Review of the Constructs in the Adapted Model

Appraisal of sociocultural stress. Stress is a concept that has been deﬁned in
many ways. Some regard stress as a stimulus or condition that produces a change of
some sort. Others deﬁne stress as a turbulent reaction or response (Lazarus & Launier,
1978). Finally, there are those who believe that there is limited explanatory power in
these two deﬁnitions of stress for they do not describe the interaction of the person-
environment which can mediate the impact of stressful experiences. Thus, researchers
such as Lazarus and Folkman (1984) deﬁned stress as a person-environment encounter
that is appraised as relating to one’s well-being, and taxes or exceeds the person’s
resources to cope with the situation. They conceptualized stress as existing not just in the
environment but also within the person. Furthermore, the appraisal of stress determined
how a person reacts. For example, if environmental demands are appraised as exceeding
a person’s resources, the result is distress or feeling vulnerable and/or fearing that one’s
well-being is endangered (Lazarus & F olkman, 1984; Lazarus & Launier, 1978).
Folkman and colleagues (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Lazarus & Launier, 1978) thus
make a distinction between stressful events (stressors) and the appraisal of those

StI'CSSOI'S.

3O

Stressors have been conceptualized as discreet or acute events resulting in a short-
run response that is highly contained and situation bounded or as chronic (i.e.,
accumulation of negative events) resulting in a response pattern that emerges slowly over
time that can develop into a prevailing state (Cohen et al., 1997; Pearlin 1993). Pearlin,
Lieberman, Menaghan, and Mullan (1981) and Kessler, Price, and Wortman (1985)
deﬁned acute or discrete stressors as acute life events and focused on the role of major
life events on mental health outcomes. Major life events (i.e., graduation, marriage,
divorce) were considered acute events because they were time-limited and required some
type of change on the part of the individual. Conversely, chronic stressors were
considered life events which persisted continuously over time (e. g., marital discord,
ﬁnancial difﬁculties) and were not initiated by a discreet event (Cohen et al., 1982).

Past research indicates that there is empirically weak evidence to support a direct
association between discrete stressors and psychological well-being (Pearlin, 1993). Due
to this fact, some researchers (e.g., Lazarus and colleagues, Pearlin and colleagues) began
to concentrate on chronic stressors. Their work demonstrated that chronic stressors were
better predictors of psychological distress (Billings & Moos, 1984; Lazarus, 1984;
Pearlin et al., 1981). However, each of the researchers deﬁned chronic stressors
differently. For example, Lazarus and colleagues deﬁned chronic stressors as daily
hassles or irritating, ﬁ'ustrating, distressing demands (e. g., trouble relaxing, losing things,
not enough time for family) that to some degree characterize everyday transactions with
the environment (Kanner, Coyne, Schaefer, & Lazarus, 1981). Pearlin and colleagues

conceptualized chronic stressors as role strains or chronic strains or stressors that arise

31

from the social roles (e. g., spouse, parent, and worker) that pe0ple adopt (Pearlin &
Schooler, 1978).

Early stress-outcome researchers were not only interested in assessing the
relationship between discreet stressors and mental health but also in examining the effect
of the number of stressors on stress outcomes. However, this produced confounds
between the predictor, mediator variables, and criterion (Martin, 1989). Thus,
researchers began to examine the relationship between speciﬁc chronic stressors,
personality variables, social support, coping style, and stress outcomes (Martin, 1989).
Although the examination of speciﬁc chronic stressors and psychological outcomes
proved to be more promising (Vega, Warheit, & Meinhardt, 1985) in recent years, this
research has been overshadowed by a growing interest in the effect of cumulative discreet
stressors on stress outcomes (Pearlin, 1993).

The various conceptualizations of stress and stressors have affected the
measurement of these constructs and ultimately research results. For example, certain
stress-outcome researchers (e. g., Saldana, 1994; Rodriguez et al., 2000; Warheit, 1979)
have tested models that only examine stressors or the number of stressﬁrl events which
people experience. However, other researchers (e. g., Billings & Moos, 1982a; Miranda
& Castro, 1985; Leyva, 1990) have examined models that include individuals’ appraisals
(evaluations) of events and situations as stressful. Several researchers have found that
even when stressors and the appraisal of these stressors have been included in stress-
mental health models, the latter has been found to be a better predictor of distress (i.e.,

depression, physical symptoms) (Cohen, 1986; Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983).

32

In light of past research indicating that the appraisal of stress is a better predictor
of stress outcomes, in this study stress was conceptualized as an individual’s appraisal of
a stressor as stressful. Thus, like Lazarus and Folkman (1984), a distinction between the
stressor itself and the appraisal of the stressor is implied. Naturally, the implication is
that the ﬁequency of the stressor is assessed, however, only the appraisal of the stressor is
included in the model as a predictor. Furthermore, because the study of speciﬁc chronic
stressors is more promising, this study focused on the appraisal of two chronic stressors
that have been found to be stressful for many Latinos living in the United States: minority
status stress and acculturative stress. Research has shown that Latina/o students differ in
their experience of racist events and the acculturative process (Rodriguez et al., 2000;
Saldana, 1994). These appraisal differences are expected to have varying impact on
stress outcomes.

Acculturative stress and minority status stress are ongoing, culturally, speciﬁc
stressors or “chronic role strains” in the life of many Latinos (Morris, 1997) that are
above and beyond the generic stressors (e. g., ﬁnancial difﬁculties, academic problems)
experienced by all college students (Smedley et al., 1993). Past research indicates that
the process of acculturation can be a source of stress that can lead to negative
psychological outcomes or psychological distress (Cuellar, 2000). More recently,
researches have begun to demonstrate that the experience of minority status and events
that are directly related to the unique customs, values, and beliefs of ones culture are also
sources of stress (Slavin et al., 1991; Utsey, 1998). Despite these ﬁndings, few studies
(e. g., Rodriguez et al., 2000; Saldana, 1994) have attempted to understand the impact of

sociocultural stress (stress resulting from the process of acculturation and from minority

33

status or cultural group afﬁliation) on the mental health of Latinos. Clearly, there is a
need to research and understand this relationship.

Appraisal of Minority Status Stress. All groups are subject to experience negative
stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination. However, ethnic minority groups or groups
with less power and/or status are more likely to experience these negative events (F iske,
1993) on a consistent basis. Landrine and Klonoff (1996) have conceptualized the
experience of negative stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination as minority status
stress. According to the authors, minority status stress is culturally speciﬁc stress or the
experience of negative events that happen to minorities because they are minorities.
Thus, they contend that theoretical models and lines of investigation from generic stress
research can be applied to the study of minority status stress.

The impact of minority status stress on individuals has been documented in
various ways. For example, negative experiences related to one’s minority status have
been implicated in the development of several psychiatric disorders (i.e., substance abuse
and depression [Burke, 1984; Pillay, 1984; as cited in Utsey, 1998]), low self-esteem
(Simpson & Yinger, 1985; Smith, 1985; as cited in Utsey, 1998), and lower levels of life
satisfaction (Broman, 1997; as cited in Utsey, 1998). However, despite these ﬁndings,
the research indicates that the relationship between minority status stress and
psychological outcomes is not simple, direct, or absolute, but rather, it varies along a
number of dimensions (Chavira & Phinney, 1991). Thus, how minority individuals
appraise minority status stress varies and its impact on psychological health is moderated
by various factors such as social support and individual characteristics, (Landrine &

Klonoff, 1996; Phinney, 1996; Sarason & Sarason, 1984). Nevertheless, even when the

34

impact of these factors is considered, minority status stress has been found to have a
greater negative impact than life events or daily hassles do on the physical and mental
health of minorities (Landrine & Klonoff, 1996).

Several researchers have found that students of color enrolled at predominantly
White universities oﬁen experience minority status stress due to stereotyping, prejudice,
and discrimination in either blatant or subtle forms (Balenger, Hoffman, & Sedlacek,
1992; McClelland & Auster, 1990; Pascarella, Edison, Nora, Hagedorn, & Terenzini,
1996; Schwitzer, Griffin, Ancis, & Thomas, 1999; Stone & Archer, 1990). On these
university campuses, minority status stress has been reported as the result of academic
stereotyping, pressure to conform to stereotypes, and/or prejudice in the form of limited
respect and unfair treatment by faculty, teaching assistants, and students (Ancis,
Sedlacek, & Mohr, 2000). Characteristics which have been found to increase the
likelihood that minority students experience actual or perceived prejudice, stereotyping
and/or discrimination include: minority group membership, time spent at the university,
residence status (McCormack, 1995), psychological sensitivity, vulnerability to the
campus social climate, and interpersonal tensions with White students and faculty
(Smedley et al., 1993).

Most of the research that has examined students’ experiences of prejudice,
stereotyping, and discrimination has investigated differences between White students and
racially-ethnically heterogeneous groups of students (Ancis et al., 2000). These studies
have consistently shown that minority status stress is greater for Aﬁican American
students than it is for Whites and other minorities (Ancis et al., 2000; Cabrera & Nora;

1994; Hurtado, 1992; McCormack, 1995; Smedley et al., 1993). Few researchers (e. g.,

35

Morris, 1997; Rodriguez et al., 2000; Saldana, 1994) have examined within group
differences in the relationship between minority status stress and psychological outcomes
with Latina/o students. However, these studies indicate that this relationship varies as a
ﬁrnction of Latina/o students’ acculturation level, ethnic identity (Morris, 1997;
Rodriguez et al., 2000; Saldana, 1994), comfort with their own cultural values, unique
historical background, comfort with individuals who are culturally different, adjustment
experiences (Ancis, et al., 2000; Hurtado et al., 1996), and coping styles (Phinney &
Chavira, 1995; Schmader, Major, & Gramzow, 2001).

Appraisal of Acculturative Stress. In the past, the concept of acculturative stress
has been confounded with minority status stress. However, stresses originating from
one’s minority status (i.e., experiencing discrimination on the basis of being minority) are
different ﬁom stresses resulting from the process of acculturation (i.e., stresses associated
with negotiating between two or more cultural groups) (Rodriquez et al., 2000).
Acculturative stress for many Latinos involves language difﬁculties, perceived cultural
incompatibilities, cultural self—consciousness (Gil, Vega, & Dimas, 1994; Padilla,
Cervantes, Maldonado, & Garcia, 1988) and commitment or lack of commitment to
culturally prescribed values/behaviors (i.e., familisrn, cultural pride) (Vega, Zimmerman,
Gil, Warheit, & Apospori, 1993). Although acculturative stress and minority status stress
are signiﬁcantly correlated (Sanchez & Fernandez, 1993), one is not inherently part of the
other. They are theoretically and empirically distinct with acculturative stress making an
independent contribution to psychological distress (Rodriguez et al., 2000). However,
like minority status stress, acculturative stress can also result in an increased risk for

mental health-related problems (Roysircar-Sodowsky & Maestas, 2000). Furthermore, its

36

impact is mediated by a number of variables such as social support, cognitive attributes
such as appraisals and attitudes toward acculturation, and the degree of tolerance for and
acceptance of cultural diversity (Berry & Kim, 1988; Williams & Berry, 1991 ).

Although acculturative stress is a common experience for ﬁrst-generation
immigrants, U.S.-born, second and later generation ethnic minorities can also experience
acculturative stress in response to pressure to maintain ethnic ties or conﬂicts that arise
out of bicultural socialization (Roysircar-Sodowsky & Maestas, 2000). For example,
within the university environment, peer group inﬂuences, along with the constant
bombardment of White societal values and standards, are likely to erode retention of ones
culture (Sue & Sue, 1990). The problem becomes one of conﬂict in knowing how to
balance participation in two different cultures with different values, beliefs, and
expectations for behaviors (Cervantes, 1988; F iske, 1988). The outcome of one holding
values highly divergent from those of the majority culture may result in feelings of
malintergration (Loo & Rolinson, 1986) or bicultural conﬂict experienced in the form of
sociocultural alienation (i.e., sense of personal discontinuity that occurs as a result of
disruption in cultural patterns), cultural confusion (i.e., inability to identify and associate
with a deﬁnite norm within a given context when confronted with multiple norms), and
cultural conﬂict (i.e., perceiving one’s values and beliefs as incompatible with a given
social interaction) (Kiefer, 1974).

The educational system is a vehicle for the acculturation process and serves as a
source of acculturative stress (Cuellar, 2000) for many Latina/o college students. Like
most students, Latina/o students face challenging academic and social conditions in

higher education (Fuertes & Westbrook, 1996; Mena, Padilla, & Maldonado, 1987).

37

However, for many Latina/o students, college is a time when they must examine and
modify some of their long-held beliefs and attitudes, particularly with regard to
interacting with culturally different individuals (Constantine & Baron, 1997).
Furthermore, they may encounter numerous and simultaneous changes in their
relationships, routines, and/or ideas about self, work, family, health, and/or economics
(Schlosser, 1990). These environmental and internal demands can tax or exceed Latina/o
students’ adaptive resources (Monat & Lazarus, 1991). As a result, they may experience
acculturative stress or sociocultural alienation and their sense of well-being may be
challenged (Albrecth & Adelman, 1987; Loo & Rolison, 1986). Indeed, researchers have
found that for many minority students, experiences of sociocultural alienation or
acculturative stress may result in temporary academic difficulties, personality
disintegration, emotional uncertainty, anxiety, depression, psychosomatic symptoms,
suicidal ideation, and dropping out of school (Allen, Amason, & Holmes, 1998; Fuertes
& Westbrook, 1996; Hovey & King, 1996; Kim, 1995; Loo & Rolison, 1986; Rodriguez
et al., 2000; Williams & Berry, 1991). However, researchers have also found that the
relationship between acculturative stress and mental health for Latina/o undergraduates
varies as a ﬁmction of factors such as perceived social support (Hovey & King, 1996) and
individual characteristics such as acculturation level (Saldana, 1994; Sanchez &
Fernandez, 1993; Szapocznik, Santisteban, Kurtines, Perez-Vidal, & Hervis, 1984; Zane
& Mak, 2000).

Mediating and Moderating Variables. Although early stress researchers obtained
reliable correlations between stressors and mental health, these associations were

disappointingly modest in magnitude, on average accounting for less than 10% of the

38

variation in distress (Turner & Roszell, 1994). Thus, researchers (e. g., Warheit, 1979)
began to search for factors that might better explain this relationship and account for
more of the variation in stress. Mediator and moderator variables or variables that affect
the experience of stress and what its effects (Taylor & Aspinwall, 1996) were introduced
into stress research to account for more of the variance in outcomes. Researchers found
that individuals’ mental health outcomes typically depended upon two broad classes of
variables: environmental resources and personal characteristics (Dean, 1986).

Some researchers (e.g., Billings & Moos, 1982a, 1982b; Lazarus & Folkman,
1984; Pearlin & Schooler, 1978) emphasized “process” and not just “static,”
unidirectional models of stress. Thus, they included process (e. g., coping) and static
(e.g., individual characteristics, environmental resources) variables in their models. They
hypothesized that what an individual does (e. g., coping responses) could be important in
mediating or moderating the impact of stress. They also believed that a process oriented
or transactional approach to the study of stress and outcomes yielded more information
regarding useﬁrl intervention strategies as it is easier for people to change what they do
then to change their personality traits or social environments (Martin, 1989).

The inclusion of process and static variables in the same model has been essential
in understanding the relationship between stress and mental health. For example,
researchers have found that personal and environmental resources not only have a direct
inﬂuence on one’s mental or physical health (Billings & Moos, 1982a, 1982b), but they
also directly inﬂuence the stressor itself (Ensel & Lin, 1991), the appraisal of stress, and
one’s reliance on speciﬁc coping strategies (Cohen & Edwards, 1989; Taylor &

Aspinwall, 1996). Although no single study can incorporate every potential interaction

39

between process and static variables or foresee every confounding factor (Vega et al.,
1985), the more we know about how these variables and how their interactions affect the
stress-mental illness process, the more accurately we will be able to target interventions
and the more effectively we will be able to design intervention strategies (Hough, 1985).
This study incorporated various static and process variables in order to understand the
relationship between sociocultural stress and mental health for Latina/os undergraduate
students at a predominantly White university. Below is a review of the various mediating
and/or moderating variables that were included in the adapted model.

Individual culturaLchagtcteri stics. In the past, the literature has been inherently
concerned with the effects of individual personality characteristics on the relationship
between stress and mental health. Researchers interested in understanding the impact of
individual characteristics on mental health have investigated various personality
characteristics including: negative affectivity (Watson & Clark, 1984), pessimistic
explanatory style (Peterson, Seligman, & Vaillant, 1988), hardiness, (Kobasa, 1979),
Optimism (Scheier & Carver, 1985), psychological control (Bandura, 1977), self-esteem
(Whisman & Kwon, 1993), self-conﬁdence (Holahan & Moos, 1987, 1991), and ego
strength (Worden & Sobel, 1978). These personality characteristics have been found not
just to contribute to psychological well-being but also to the occurrence of a stressor
(Fame, Sebellico, Gnugnoli, & Corallo, 1992; Rhodewalt & Zone, 1989) provision of
social support (Cohen, Sherrod, & Clark, 1986; Dunkel-Schetter, Folkman, & Lazarus,
1987) appraisal of stressors (Campbell, Chew, & Scratchley, 1991; Jerusalem, 1993;
Rhodewalt & Zone, 1989) and coping responses (Aspinwall & Taylor, 1992; Holahan &

Moos, 1987; Jerusalem, 1993)

40

Despite the fact that individual cultural characteristics (i.e., worldview, values,
beliefs) provide an understanding of the person (Cuellar, 2000) and like personality
characteristics cause considerable within group differences on mental health outcomes
(Sodowsky et al., 1991), few have paid explicit attention to their role in the relationship
between stress and mental health status (Miranda & Castro, 1985; Slavin et al.,1991).
Thus, most researchers have failed to acknowledge that one’s personality and culture are
inextricably intertwined (Lonner & Adamopoulos, 1997). That is, they do not recognize
that culture does not simply exist at the macro level, but also exists at the micro level or
as a conceptual structure or system of ideals within an individual (Geertz, 1984). Thus,
the concern in this study was with two individual cultural characteristics that have been
found to inﬂuence the relationships between stress and mental health; acculturation and
ethnic identity (Rodriguez et al., 2000; Saldana, 1994; Sarason, Sarason, & Gurung,
2001; Taylor & Aspinwall, 1996).

Acculturation level. Acculturation is generally viewed as an ecological,
transactional process of cognitive, emotional, behavioral, perceptual, and ideological
change that occurs as a consequence of a continuous, ﬁrst-hand contact of two or more
distinct cultural groups (Cuellar, 2000; Roysircar-Sodowsky & Maestas, 2000).
Acculturation is a multifaceted construct that is composed of multiple factors in which
people demonstrate varying degrees of strengths/weaknesses, capacities, and abilities.
Acculturation is not only an exogenous process it also involves cultural changes at the
individual psychological level (Cuellar, Siles, & Bracamontes, 2002; Marin, 1992).

Acculturation has been considered by theorists as either a unidimensional or

multidimensional process (Szapocznik et al., 1984). Unidimensional theorists assume

41

that change in cultural identity takes place along a single continuum over the course of
time. More speciﬁcally, acculturating individuals are seen as being in a process of
relinquishing the attitudes, values, and behaviors of their culture of origin while
simultaneously adopting those of the new society (Marin, 1992; Ryder, Alden, &
Paulhus, 2000). Multidimensional theorists assume that acculturation involves
assimilation to the majority culture and retention of the minority culture Marin, 1992;
Rogler, Cortes & Malgady, 1991). Theorists who adopt a multidimensional perspective
argue that acculturation can be more completely understood when heritage and A
mainstream cultural identities are seen as being relatively independent of one another.
Thus, individuals may adopt many of the values and behaviors of the mainstream culture
without giving up their self-identity developed in their culture of origin (Ryder et al.,
2000). Furthermore, acculturation may involve a degree of assimilation to a total cultural
context comprised of various cultural groups (Szapocznik et al., 1984). Although each of
these models has its own assumptions concerning what happens to a person as he or she
undergoes the process of acculturation, the models are not mutually exclusive. Each one
of them may represent an adequate explanation for a person’s experience as he or she
acquires competency in a new culture. However, they emphasize different aspects of the
process of acculturation (LaFromboise, Coleman, & Gerton, 1993).

Unfortunately, acculturation’s multidimensional nature has precluded ever having
one measure capable of adequately and sufficiently capturing it (Negy & Woods, 1992).
Currently, most measures assess one or two facets of acculturation at a time in either
Mexican Americans or Cubans (Marin, 1992). Furthermore, there are acculturation

measures that assess superﬁcial changes brought about by contact with different culture

42

 

or experience with cultural objects, measures that assess more signiﬁcant changes in an
individual’s behavior (e.g., language use), and very few measures that attempt to assess
changes in values and norms (Marin, 1992). Acculturation has also been difﬁcult to
assess because it occurs at different rates and along different developmental pathways for
each individual, due to such factors as age at time of immigration, generational status,
geographical location, personal motivations for assimilating into the dominant culture,
schooling experience, and degree of contact with members of the majority group, other
groups, and/or more acculturated members of their same ethnic group (Baron, 1991;
Cuellar, Arnold, & Maldonado, 1995; Cuellar, Nyberg, Maldonado & Roberts,1997;
Perez & Padilla, 2000; Szapocznik & Kurtines, 1980). Nevertheless, researchers have
consistently found that ethnic behaviors and practices of immigrants tend to decline over
time (Perez & Padilla, 2000; Sodowsky et al., 1991).

Because it has been empirically demonstrated that Latina/os born in the United
States are more likely to have higher levels of depression symptoms than immigrants
(Burnam, Hough, Karno, Escobar, & Telles, 1987; Mosicki, Locke, Rae, & Boyd, 1989),
it has been hypothesized that second generation highly acculturated Latinos are presumed
to be at risk for mental health problems due to their exposure to more culturally based
conﬂicts and internalization of negative stereotypes (Rogler et al., 1991). However,
researchers have also found that acculturation relates linearly both negatively and
positively (Cuellar & Roberts, 1997) and also curvilinearly to psychological distress
(Cuellar, Roberts, Romero, & Leka, 1999; Rogler, et al., 1991). Thus both high and low
scores on acculturation may lead to poor or good mental health. The empirical evidence

for any of these relationships is contradictory and inconclusive. Different studies support

43

different relationships, and some studies even support more than one (Gil et al., 1994;
Rogler et al., 1991). These contradictory results point out the need to examine
empirically the relationships between cultural change and psychological adjustment by
examining for acculturation level and acculturative stress simultaneously (Gil et al.,
1994). Indeed, acculturation level has been found to mediate the relationship between
stress and mental health, inﬂuence the appraisal of potential stressors, and affect the
selection of coping strategies (Morris, 1997; Phinney, 1995; Phinney, Chavira, &
Williamson, 1992; Phinney, Williamson, & Chavira, 1990; Roysircar-Sodowsky &
Maestas, 2000; Ruiz, 1990).

Ethnic identity. Closely related to the construct of acculturation is the notion of
ethnic identity. Like acculturation, ethnic identity is a complex multidimensional
construct that varies across members of a group (Phinney, 1996). However, acculturation
and ethnic identity are relatively independent constructs that are both experienced by
ethnic minorities. The construct of ethnic identity differs from the construct of
acculturation in that acculturation is a response to the dominant group or is broadly
concerned with the degree to which dominant cultural norms are accepted, rejected, or
transformed by ethnic minorities, while ethnic identity is a response to one’s ethnic group
and refers to attitudes, beliefs, and feelings toward one’s own ethnic group (Sodowsky &
Lai, 1997). Thus, an ethnic minority individual feels both a push to acculturate to the
dominant society and a pull toward one’s ethnic group GKoysircar—Sodowsky & Maestas,
2000). Although shifts in acculturation level bring about changes in ethnic identity
development and vice versa (Baron, 1991), the two constructs are not inversely related

(Torres, 1999; Velez, 1995). In fact, the research suggests that high ethnic identity

44

accompanied by a positive mainstream orientation is related to positive psychological
outcomes, whereas high ethnic identity without at least some adaptation to the dominant
culture may be problematic (Phinney, 1995).

Ethnic identity is a concept that is only applicable in the context of multicultural
societies and is essentially irrelevant in monocultural societies (Roysircar-Sodowsky &
Maestas, 2000). In the United States, a multicultural society, ethnic identity is central to
the self-concept of individuals from ethnic groups (Phinney, 1991). It is a part of the
self-concept that is derived from an individual’s knowledge of belonging to a social
group (or groups), together with the perceptions, knowledge, values, behaviors, and
emotional signiﬁcance attached to that group membership (Phinney, 1991; Tajfel
&Tumer, 1979). Ethnic identity comprises a number of different components, including
self-labeling, a sense of belonging, positive evaluation, preference for the group, ethnic
interest and knowledge, and involvement in activities associated with the group (Phinney,
1991,1995)

The research of ethnic identity development suggests that ethnic identity can be
conceptualized as a process; individuals progress from an early stage in which one’s
ethnicity is taken for granted, on the basis of attitudes and opinions of other or of society;
through a period of exploration into the meaning and implications of one’s group
membership; to an achieved ethnic identity that reﬂects a secure, conﬁdent sense of
oneself as member of a group (Phinney, 1996). Individuals progress along these stages
for various reasons. For example, Latina/o students who study the history of their ethnic
group can lead to change in ethnic identity level (Constantine & Baron, 1997). Evidence

of movement ﬁ'om one ethnic identity stage to another may manifest itself in the ethnic

45

labels used by students. Thus, in the beginning stages of ethnic identity, students are
likely to use terms such as Hispanic or Mexican-American which are considered neutral,
widely accepted labels. As students advance to higher stages, labels indicating clear
afﬁliation with group heritage such as Chicano(a), Latino(a), or Hispano(a) may be used
(Baron, 1991; Baron & Constantine, 1997). Different stages of ethnic identity have been
found to have different mental health correlates (Phinney & Kohatsu, 1997). Although
the psychological implications of ethnic identity vary with changes in one’s identiﬁcation
(Phinney, 1996), the research suggests that a bicultural identity (an adaptive dual
identiﬁcation with Latino and American cultures) is associated with the best mental
health outcomes (Bautista de Domanico, Crawford, & Wolfe, 1994; Szapocznik et al.,
1984).

Perceived Social support. Social support is a multidimensional construct
(Sarason, Pierce, & Sarason, 1990; Sarason, Sarason, & Pierce, 1990) with dimensions
that include social networks, received social support, and perceived social support.
Social support networks refer to the system of signiﬁcant others with whom people have
social ties and that may be called upon for help in times of need (Barrera, 1986; Sarason,
Sarason et al., 1990; Hobfoll & Vaux, 1993; Vaux, 1988). Social support has also been
conceptualized as received support or supportive behaviors that members of the social
network perform when they render assistance to an individual in need (Barrera, 1986;
Sarason, Pierce et al., 1990). Perceived social support is deﬁned as the degree to which
individuals perceive and interpret supportive interactions or psychological and non-
psychological resources as being available to them from their social network (Cohen &

McKay, 1985: Cohen et al., 1986; Sarason, Pierce, & Sarason, 1994; Vaux, 1988).

46

Perceived support is assumed to be independent of the support network (i.e., an
individual may report a large network but might not perceive supportive behaviors from
those individuals), antecedent to both the stressor and psychological distress, and
relatively stable over time (Eckenrode & Wethington, 1990; Lepore, Evans, & Schneider,
1991; Sarason et al., 1994).

Although there are different dimensions to the construct of social support, they all
tend to identify themes around feeling cared for and supported (Hobfoll & Vaux, 1993).
Furthermore, all the dimensions of social support are viewed as stable resources from
which an individual draws on in order to handle a stressor (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984;
Lepore et al., 1991; Thoits, 1986; Thoits, 1995). Indeed, the literature indicates that
when individuals are faced with a stressor(s), social support has been found to buffer the
potentially negative impact of stress (Caplan, 1974; Cassel, 1974; as cited in Solberg &
Villarreal, 1997). Researchers have found that social support is also associated with good
mental health outcomes, by buffering the negative inﬂuences of stressﬁrl events and
depression (Briones et al., 1990) and facilitating psychological and physical well-being
(Rodriguez, 1998). However, not all researchers have found a positive effect of social
support on mental and/or physical health, in fact, some researchers have found it to be
related to poor mental health outcomes; suggesting that the relationship between social
support and mental health outcomes is considerably complex (Vega, et al., 1985).

The conﬂicting results have been found to depend in part on the dimension of
social support that is assessed. For example, when social networks are used as predictors
of mental health outcome, an effect on well-being but not distress is generally the result.

Similarly, support received has been found to be a poor predictor of well-being or

47

distress. However, perceived social support has been found to most consistently
contribute to well-being and distress (Dunkel-Schetter & Bennett, 1990; Procidano, 1992,
Procidano & Smith, 1997; Sarason, et al., 1994). In particular, perceived emotional
support (i.e., beliefs that love and caring, sympathy and understanding and/or esteem and
value are available from signiﬁcant others) has been found to be associated with better
physical and mental health when individuals are faced with negative life events and
chronic strains (Thoits, 1995). In general, the literature indicates that individuals who
perceive that social support is available will have less difﬁculty responding to stressful
episodes than individuals who do not perceive social support is available (Solberg &
Villarreal, 1997).

As the literature in the area of perceived social support has evolved, researchers
have begun to suspect that it is important to take the source of support into consideration,
and that whether assistance is perceived as supportive depends upon the environment in
which social support takes place and who is providing the help (Valle & Bensussen,
1985; Wortman & Dunkel-Schetter, 1987). However, the research focusing on this issue
has been concerned solely with differentiating among support or help from family
members and close ﬁiends (Barling, MacEwen, & Pratt, 1988). This trend deemphasizes
and devalues the beneﬁts associated with more impersonal relationships that arise in
formal settings (Adelman, Parks, & Albrecth, 1987). In response to these suggestions,
this study intends to extend previous research by using a more comprehensive deﬁnition
of social support. Thus, in the present study, Demaray and Malecki’s (2002) deﬁnition of
perceived social support will be used. The researchers deﬁned perceived social support

as an individual’s perceptions of general or speciﬁc support (i.e., emotional,

48

informational), available or acted on, from people in their social network (e. g., family,
peers, university personnel).

Perceived informal social support. Support provided by primary and extended
family has been deﬁned as informal social support (Valle & Bensussen, 1985). Because
Latinos adhere to familismo, a strong sense of family centrality and importance, great
emphasis is placed on reciprocity and on strong emotional ties between family members
(Cervantes & Castro, 1985). Family is thus seen as a primary source of social support
manifested by (a) providing material and emotional support, (b) relying primarily on
family members for help and support, (c) using family members as referents for attitudes
and behavior, and (d) placing the needs of the family or family members before
individual needs (Knight, Bernal, Garza, & Cota, 1993; Sabogal, Marin, Otero-Sabogal,
VanOss-Marin, & Perez-Stable, 1987).

Several researchers have examined Latino’s perception of family support in times
of stress (Keefe, 1980; Keefe, Padilla, & Carlos, 1979; Moore, 1970; Murillo, 1976).
However, few studies have examined Latina/o students’ perception of family support and
its relationship to psychological adjustment. These studies indicate that among Latina/o
students perceived availability of family support is associated with positive outcomes
(i.e., psychological adjustment, academic adjustment) for students while perceived
unavailability of family support is associated with negative outcomes (Arellano &
Padilla, 1996; Hurtado et al., 1996; Lambom et al., 1997; Solberg &Villarreal, 1997;
Terenzini et al., 1994). Latina/o students have been found to rely more on family support
than their Anglo counterparts (Saldana, 1988). Furthermore, perceived family support

and family role models have been found to be crucial in promoting college adjustment

49

and persistence among Latinos (Cardoza, 1991; Cooper, Jackson, Azmitia, & Lopez,
1998; Lango, 1995).

In light of this research, Miranda (1980) has cautioned against assuming that the
family is the only support system available for Latinos. Friends and community support
systems play signiﬁcant roles in providing support. Similarly, Valle and Vega (1980)
advocate the necessity of looking beyond the extended family as the only source of
support available.

Perceived forrnal social support. Support from professors and other university
personnel can be sources of formal support for Latina/o university students (Cooper et al.,
1998; Valle & Bensussen, 1985). These individuals can not only serve as primary
sources of social support, they provide help and access to information not otherwise
attained (Arellano & Padilla, 1996; Quevedo-Garcia, 1987). However, due to the paucity
of Latina/o faculty (Aguirre & Martinez, 1993) and administrators (de los Santos &
Rigual, 1994) at US. universities, there are few individuals that Latina/o students can
look to as role models for support (F iske, 1988; Verdugo, 1995). Faculty to student ratio
for Latinos has been reported as 1 to 76 compared with a ratio of l to 24 for White
students (Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, 1995).

Researchers that have examined perceived formal social support among Latinos
have focused on primary and secondary school students (Alva, 1991; Demaray &
Malecki, 2002; Furlong, Chung, Bates, & Morrison, 1995). These studies indicated that
perceived formal support (e.g., peers, teachers) was positively associated with adjustment
and school-related outcomes. Studies that have focused on Latina/o college students

have found that support from university personnel, (e.g., speciﬁc professors, counselors,

50

ﬁnancial aid staff, student support services) are salient sources of support for Latina/o
students (Gandara & Osugi, 1994; Hurtado et al., 1996; Loo & Rolison, 1986; Lopez,
1995; Young, 1992) that are positively associated to psychological adjustment or well
being and adaptation to the college environment (Arellano & Padilla, 1996; Solberg,
1990). Furthermore, perceptions of the university environment and participation in
university networks have been found to be signiﬁcant predictors of adjustment and
college persistence (Crouse, 1985; Gloria & Robinson-Kurpius, 1996; Oliver, Rodriguez,
& Mickelson, 1985).

Qpipg. The vast literature on stress and coping indicates that people have many
distinct responses to stress (Holahan, Moos, & Schaefer, 1996). Although there have
been several efforts to distinguish conceptually and empirically among the many different
responses people may have to stress (Zeidner & Endler, 1996), to date, consensus about
these response categories has not been achieved (Miller & Kaiser, 2001). Nevertheless,
Compas and colleagues (Compas, Connor-Smith, Saltzman, Thomsen, & Wadsworth,
2001; Connor-Smith, Compas, Wadsworth, Thomsen, & Saltzman, 2000) suggest that the
most fundamental distinction between different responses to stress is between voluntary
coping responses and involuntary responses. According to the authors this distinction
emphasizes the fact that not everything an individual does in response to stress
constitutes coping. Thus, they reserve the term coping for conscious voluntary efforts in
response to stressﬁrl events or circumstances.

Previous researchers deﬁned coping as a multidimensional process that involves
conscious cognitive, behavioral, and emotional efforts to deal with internal and/or

external demands of stressful events (Carver & Scheier, 1994; Carver, Scheier, &

51

Weintraub, 1989; Cohen et al., 1982; Folkman, 1984; Folkman & Lazarus, 1980, 1986;
Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Parker, Endler, & Bagby, 1993; Pearlin & Schooler, 1978).
Conscious behavioral, cognitive, and emotional coping efforts have several different
functions, including (1) the modiﬁcation of the stressor itself, (2) alteration of one’s own
evaluation or appraisal of the stressor in order to reduce perceptions of threat, and (3)
management of one’s somatic or emotional reactions to the stressor (Lazarus & Folkman,
1984; Martin, 1989; Moos & Schaefer, 1993; Pearlin et al., 1981; Pearlin & Schooler,
1978). Coping is perceived as being process-oriented because it is said to involve the
interaction of person and environmental factors and a reciprocal transaction between
conscious emotional reactions, cognitive appraisals, and behavioral responses (Folkman,
Schaefer, & Lazarus, 1979).

Most research on stress and coping draws upon Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984)
model of stress, appraisal, and coping. From this perspective, people appraise both the
stressﬁrl demand and their available coping resources. On the basis of this appraisal,
people tend to employ two broad but distinct coping strategies to reduce the
psychological distress associated with the stressﬁrl demand: problem-focused coping and
emotion-focused coping. Problem-focused coping is aimed at problem solving or doing
something to alter the source of the stress (Carver & Scheier, 1994; Lazarus & F olkman,
1984; Moos & Schaefer, 1993). It may consist of altering situational circumstances
behaviorally (behavioral problem-focused coping) through direct actions on the
environment or on the self to remove or alter circumstances appraised as threatening.
Situations may also be altered cognitively (cognitive problem-focused coping) through

reinterpretation of existing circumstances or distracting oneself from stressﬁrl cues

52

(Thoits, 1986). An alternative to problem-focused coping is emotion-focused coping
which is aimed at reducing or managing the emotional distress that is associated with (or
cued by) the situation (Carver & Scheier, 1994; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Moos &
Schaefer, 1993). Emotion-focused coping may consist of actions (behavioral emotion-
focused coping) or thoughts (cognitive emotion-focused coping) to control the
undesirable feelings that result from stressful circumstances (Thoits, 1986).

A second major conceptual approach in the coping literature has been to divide
coping into approach versus avoidant activities (e.g., Maddi, 1980; Roth & Cohen, 1986;
Suls & Fletcher, 1985; as cited in Heppner, Cook, Wright, & Johnson, 1995). Approach
activities are oriented toward confronting the problem while avoidant activities are
oriented toward reducing emotional tension (Holahan & Moos, 1987). Some have
suggested that approach and avoidance activities are simply metaphors for problem-
focused coping and emotion-focused coping (Roth & Cohen, 1986). However, there is
evidence indicating that affective or emotional responses may play important roles in
problem-focused coping (Heppner & Krauskopf, 1987). Similarly, emotion-focused
strategies although often oriented toward avoiding dealing with the source of stress can
also be oriented toward approaching stressful circumstances (Holahan & Moos, 1987).

In addition to researchers’ disagreements regarding the optimal conceptualization
of coping (Rohde, Lewinsohn, Tilson, & Seeley, 1990), the study of cultural differences
has also led to some questions about the widely used coping nomenclature (e.g., problem-
focused vs. emotion-focused, approach vs. avoidant) as evident of a Western European
bias for problem-focused and approach coping over emotion—focused and avoidant coping

(Cross, 1995; Lee & Liu, 2001; Weisz, Rothbaum, & Blackburn, 1984). Thus, Cross

(1995) advocates for the adoption of a more neutral terminology to study coping
strategies among ethnic minority groups, since individuals are thought to have the
adaptive capacity not only to utilize several strategies when faced with stressors, but also
are capable of varying their coping responses with each situation (Billings, Cronkite, &
Moos 1983; Cohen et al., 1982; Folkman & Lazarus, 1980). Cross suggests that the
terms direct coping and indirect c0ping are preferable to either problem or emotion-
focused coping or approach vs. avoidant coping.

Direct aad Indirect Coping. Cross (1995) deﬁnes direct COping as the use of
strategies designed to actively mange, resolve, or inﬂuence stressful demands through
one’s own efforts (e. g., problem solving, support seeking). Direct coping is believed to
predominate when situational demands seem controllable or people feel that something
constructive can be done (Billings et al, 1983; Carver et al., 1989; Folkman, 1984;
Folkman & Lazarus, 1980; Thoits, 1995). Indirect coping is deﬁned as the use of
strategies designed to adjust to stressﬁrl demands by changing the self rather than the
situation (e. g., accepting the situation, self-distraction) (Cross, 1995). Indirect coping is
more likely when demands seem uncontrollable and people feel that the stressor is
something that must be endured (Billings et al, 1983; Carver et al., 1989; Folkman, 1984;
Folkman & Lazarus, 1980; Thoits, 1995).

A considerable amount of evidence suggests that the manner in which one copes
with stressful events plays an important role in the amount of stress experienced, and
ultimately one’s psychological health. Most of this research indicates that direct coping
is believed to be more beneﬁcial for well-being than indirect coping (Thoits, 1995).

Furthermore, there exists some empirical and clinical evidence that suggests that Latinos

54

employ more indirect coping strategies to manage stressful demands (Diaz-Guerrero,
1967; Weisz et al., 1984). However, there is no clear consensus in the literature
regarding which c0ping strategies are most efﬁcacious in reducing psychological distress
(Aldwin & Revenson, 1987; Mattlin et al., 1990; Rodin & Salovey, 1989). Furthermore,
some researchers have found that Latinos do use direct coping strategies such as relying
on family, seeking support from ﬁiends, and spirituality (Abraido-Lanza, Guier, &
Revenson, 1996) to cope with stressors such as acculturational stress (Mena, et al., 1987).

Mental Health Psychologists have traditionally deﬁned mental health as the
absence of unhappiness or ill-being (e. g., depression, anxiety). This deﬁnition fails to
acknowledge that mental health is more than just the absence of illness, disease, or
dysfunction-it is the presence of psychological well-being, effective functioning in daily
life, and the ability to deal with new situations (Berry, Kim, Minde, & Mok, 1987).
Despite the fact that current research has demonstrated that psychological distress and
well-being are correlated and are part of a two-dimensional latent construct which reﬂects
a higher-order concept of mental health (Masse et al., 1998), most researchers continue to
place little emphasis on the positive aspects of mental health status and continue to focus
on the absence or presence of dysfunctional, psychopathological outcomes (Martin, 1989;
Najera, 1990; Pavot & Diener, 1993).

Distress. Studies concerned with Latinos’ mental health have most frequently used

 

depressive symptomatology as an indicator of psychological distress (e.g., Cho et
al.,1993; Golding & Bumam, 1990; Golding & Lipton, 1990; Roberts, 1992; Roberts,
Roberts, & Chen, 1995; Roberts & Sobhan, 1992; Vega, Kolody, Valle, & Hough, 1986;

Vernon, Roberts, & Lee, 1982). Most of these studies have addressed the extent to which

55

ethnicity increases or reduces the risk for depression. Thus, depressive symptoms for
Latinos have been compared to those of Whites. The general ﬁndings indicate that both
adolescents and adults tend to report a higher number of depressive symptoms than non
Latina/o Whites (Golding & Bumam, 1990; Moscicki et al., 1989; Roberts, 1994; Roberts
et al., 1995; Roberts & Sobhan, 1992; Vernon & Roberts, 1982). However, some studies
show little or no differences in rates of depression between Latinos and Whites (Anthony
& Petronis, 1991; Weissman, Bruce, Leaf, et al., 1991).

Although the mental health of college students from various ethnic and racial
groups has been identiﬁed as a priority concern by the US Public Health Service (Healthy
People, 2000), relatively few researchers have examined minority college students’
mental health. Several researchers have found that exposure to a climate of prejudice on
campus, racist experiences in college, and the lack of congruence between minority
students (e.g., Latina/os) and the university are the most important factors impinging on
the affective development or mental health of minority students attending predominantly
White institutions (Fleming, 1984; Loo & Rolison, 1986; Suen, 1983; Tracey &
Sedlacek, 1984, 1985, 1987; as cited in Cabrera & Nora, 1994). Studies that have
examined levels or reports of depressive symptoms among Latino students (e.g.,
Constantine, Chen, Ceesay, 1997 ; Cuellar & Roberts, 1997; Rosenthal & Schreiner,
2000) indicate that (1) reported symptoms and prevalence rates of clinical depression are
similar to reported symptoms and prevalence rates (2°/o-4%) found in community studies
(Cuellar & Roberts, 1997; Rosenthal & Schreiner, 2000), (2) levels of depressive
symptoms are higher for female and younger students than for males and older students

(Rosenthal & Schreiner, 2000), (3) acculturation level is less inﬂuential than SES on

56

depression scores, (4) low SES increases the risk for depression (Cuellar & Roberts,
1997), and (5) depression is among one of the primary presenting concerns of Latina/os
at a university counseling center (Constantine et al., 1997).

Subjective Well-Being The last decade has seen a dramatic increase in research
on the construct of subjective well-being (Diener, 1984; Diener & Larsen, 1993;
Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999). Research has identiﬁed two broad aspects of subjective
well-being: an affective component, often referred to as happiness (Diener & Emmons,
1984; Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999), and a cognitive component, which is referred to as
life satisfaction (Andrews & Withey, 1976). Although the two components of subjective
well-being are somewhat distinctive and can provide complementary information when
assessed separately, they are not completely independent and have been found to be at
least moderately correlated (Pavot & Diener, 1993).

Subjective Happiness. Subjective happiness is the affective component of subjective
well-being (Andrews & Withey, 1976). According to Lyubomirsky and Lepper (1999),
subjective happiness is a global, subjective assessment of whether one is a happy or an
unhappy person. The authors assert that this judgment is distinct from a simple sum of an
individual’s recent levels of affect and/or satisfaction with life. For instance, one may
appraise oneself as a very happy person, despite having only a somewhat happy life or
vise versa (Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999). Previous research has found that several
objective variables (e.g., demographic variables, life events) are correlated with
happiness. However, some researchers (Diener, 1984; Lyubomirsky & Ross, 1997) have
noted these correlations are lower than they ought to be. Researchers (e. g., Brickman,

Coates, & Janoff-Bulman, 1978) have found that even extreme events (e.g., winning a

57

million dollars or becoming paralyzed) exert surprisingly weak effects on subjective
well-being. Lyubomirsky and Lepper (1999) interpret these ﬁnding as evidence of that
there is wide variation in individuals’ sources of their personal happiness. However,
there is considerable agreement as to what happiness means and whether it has been
achieved.

Life satisfaction. Life satisfaction, the cognitive component of subjective well
being (Andrews & Withey, 1976) has received little attention in the literature (Diener,
Emmons, Larsen, &, Griffin, 1985). It is a subjective term that involves an evaluation or
assessment of the quality of ones life on the basis of a personal, unique set of criteria
(Shin & Johnson, 1978). More speciﬁcally, a comparison of one’s perceived life
circumstances with a self-imposed standard or set of standards is presumably made, and
to the degree that conditions match these standards, an individual reports high life
satisfaction (Pavot & Diener, 1993). Life satisfaction is believed to be affected by time
such that it is most inﬂuenced by events in the immediate past (Benjamin, 1994) but can
also reﬂect a long-term perspective. In addition, it may be indirectly inﬂuenced by affect
although it is not a direct measure of emotion (Diener, 1984). Nevertheless, a
relationship between life satisfaction and emotional—well being exists since people may
deny psychological distress but still be dissatisﬁed with life (Pavot & Diener, 1993).

For the most part, psychological distress, rather than life satisfaction has been
used as an outcome measure to assess college students’ mental health. The few studies
that examined life satisfaction with Latina/o students found that their low levels of life

satisfaction and happiness were signiﬁcantly and consistently related to negative

58

perceptions about contemporary race relations (Brown, Wallace, & Williams, 2001) and
acculturative stress (Rodriguez et al., 2000). .
Integration of the Literature

Review of the various constructs in the adapted stress-mental health model has
revealed that Latina/o students appraise minority status and acculturative stress
differently. Thus, not all Latina/o students are expected to experience psychological
distress as a result of minority status stress and/or acculturative stress. The sparse
literature with Latina/o college students has revealed that individual cultural
characteristics, perceptions of social support, and coping strategies mediate stress
outcomes. In particular, it has been shown that acculturation level and ethnic identity are
related to stress and mental health. The literature has also shown that perceived formal
and informal social support can buffer the effects of stress outcomes. In addition, direct
and/or indirect coping strategies have been found to have varying effects on mental
health outcomes. Finally, although most of the researchers that have assessed mental
health status have concentrated on psychological distress, there is evidence that stress

also has an effect on Latina/o students’ wellbeing.

Review of the Literature Suppgrting the Hypothesized Paths in the Proppsed Model

 

Although the literature has consistently indicated that individual cultural
characteristics, perceived formal and informal support, and direct and indirect coping
strategies affect mental health, the research has not clearly delineated the relationship
amongst these constructs for Latina/o students attending a predominantly White
university. Thus, the following section will review the literature that provides support for

the hypothesized relationships among individual cultural characteristics (i.e., ethnic

59

identity, acculturation level), perceived social support, appraisal of sociocultural stress
(i.e., acculturative stress, minority status stress), coping methods (i.e., direct and indirect)
and mental health (i.e., distress, wellbeing).

_Path A: The inﬂuence of cultural charaﬁteristics on perceived social support.
Although social support has been ﬁ'equently conceptualized as an environmental variable,
an important consideration in understanding and appreciating its impact on mental health
is the notion of individual differences, among support recipients. Researchers have
suggested that some individual characteristics (i.e., agreeableness, extraversion, self-
esteem, locus of control, generalized negative outlook, help-seeking tendencies, attitudes
toward seeking and accepting help) may contribute to one’s perception of support (Lakey
& Dickinson, 1994; Procidano, 1992; Procidano & Smith, 1997) and/or ability to extract
needed social support (Cohen et al., 1986; Dunkel-Schetter & Bennett, 1990; Dunkel-
Schetter et al., 1987; Taylor & Aspinwall, 1996).

Although, few studies have examined the relationship between individual cultural
characteristics and perceived social support, some ﬁndings suggest that there is a
relationship between social support and acculturation among Latinos (Griffith &
Villavicencio, 1985; Sabogal et al., 1987). Griffith and Villavicencio (1985) found that
compared to less acculturated Latinos, more acculturated Latinos reported more
reciprocal helping, contact with network members, larger support networks that extend
beyond primary family to include ﬁiends and neighbors, and fewer symptoms of
psychological distress. However, Sabogal et al. (1987) found that although referring or
consulting with family was affected by the acculturation level of three Latino groups

(e.g., Mexican, Cuban, and Central American), perceived family support remained high

60

despite acculturation level. In a longitudinal study of Latina/o students at predominantly
White universities, Ethier and Deaux (1994) found that compared to students with low
ethnic identity levels, students with high ethnic identity levels reported higher levels of
social support from other Latina/o students, personnel (e.g., ethnic counselors) and the
various supportive services made available by the universities for minority students.

Bath B: The inﬂuence of cultural characteristics on appraisal of sociocultural
m. The literature indicates that several individual characteristics (e.g., self-esteem,
locus of control) differentially predict appraisal of stress (Fame et al., 1992),
discrimination or minority status stress (Rodriguez et al., 2000; Shorey, Cowan, &
Sullivan, 2002) and acculturative stress (Najera, 1990; Rodriguez et al., 2000). The
appraisal of stress occurs in the context of an individual’s cultural values, beliefs, and
experiences. Thus, individual cultural characteristics are believed to provide a context
from which one appraises the threat of a given stressor (Cohen, 1992). Without this
appreciation of the role of culture in the appraisal of stressors, we run the risk of
misunderstanding the relationship between stress and mental health outcomes for Latinos
(Miranda & Castro, 1985).

The research has produced various conclusions regarding the relationship between
individual cultural characteristics and appraisal of sociocultural stress. For example,
some have reported that Latina/o college students at both lower levels of acculturation
and ethnic identity are capable of experiencing sociocultural stress (Sanchez &
Fernandez, 1993; Szapocznik et al., 1984; Roysircar-Sodowsky & Maestas, 2000).
Others have found reports of greater stress among the more acculturated rather than

among the less acculturated (Gilbert & Cervantes, 1986; Holck, Warren, Smith, &

61

Rochat, 1984; as cited by Neff & Hoppe, 1993). Some have even found that
acculturation level was not associated with acculturative stress levels (Vazquez & Garcia-
Vazquez, 1995). However, most have shown that Latina/o students with collectivistic
orientations, lower levels of acculturation and/or lower stages of ethnic identity tend to
report more sociocultural stress than students at higher levels of acculturation and/or
higher stages of ethnic identity stage (Ethier & Deaux, 1994; Femandez-Barillas &
Morrison, 1984; Montgomery, 1992; Negy & Woods, 1993; Quintana et al., 1991;
Rodriguez, et al., 2000; Saldana, 1988; Saldana, 1990; Saldana, 1994; Sanchez &
Fernandez, 1993; Shorey et al., 2002). Thus, the majority of these studies seem to
support the acculturative stress model of Buriel, Calzada, and Vasquez (1982, as cited in
Neff & Hoppe, 1993) which proposes that less—acculturated individuals, because of their
values and behaviors are not adequately equipped to deal appropriately with the dominant

culture. The result is sociocultural stress and hence, distress.

Path C: The inﬂuence of perceived social supmrt on appraisal of sociocultural

 

grass, It has been suggested by some that the perception of social support is one element
in an individual’s appraisal of stress. That is, whether or not an individual perceives
support from his or her social network depends upon the appraisal of threat that the
person must respond to (Lazarus, 1966, 1981; Lazarus, Averill, & Opton, 1974).
However, social support is also believed to inﬂuence a person’s appraisal of the
stressﬁrlness of a situation (Cervantes & Castro, 1985; Cohen & McKay, 1985) and
mediate the impact of stress on mental health (Lepore et al., 1991; Thoits, 1986).
Researchers have found that Latina/o students who perceive support to be available are

found to report less stress than students who perceive little social support to be available

62

(Solberg & Villarreal, 1997). More speciﬁcally, studies have shown that perceived
family support is signiﬁcantly related to Latina/o student’s experience of acculturative
stress (Hovey & King, 1996). In addition, Latina/o students’ perceptions of formal
support are related to feelings of sociocultural alienation (the outcome of holding values
highly divergent from the majority) and reports of racial/ethnic tensions (Crouse, 1985;
Hurtado, 1994; Loo & Rolison, 1986; Oliver et al., 1985; Ponterotto, 1990). Formal
support factors that have been found to counter Latina/o students’ appraisal of
sociocultural stressors include: (1) the presence of a residential, sociopolitical, academic
community on campus that provides cultural support; (2) student support services that
effectively serve minority students; (3) increased numbers of ethnic minority faculty to
whom minority students can comfortable relate and (4) supportive and accessible faculty
who impart a sense of academic and personal worth to students (Crouse, 1985; Loo &
Rolison, 1986; Oliver et al., 1985).

Path D: The inﬂuence of individual cultural characteristics on coping. Coping
strategies have long been believed to be inﬂuenced by individual characteristics, cultural
values, and norms (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Furthermore, individual characteristics
are believed to exert their stress buffering effect on mental health via an effect on coping
(Cohen & Edwards, 1989). Thus, coping strategies may be inﬂuenced by individual
characteristics (e.g., self-esteem, optimism, internal locus of control) and reinforcement
for particular ways of coping (Holahan & Moos, 1987; Aspinwall & Taylor, 1992; Taylor
& Aspinwall, 1996). According to Slavin et al. (1991), individual cultural characteristics
can be expected to have wide-ranging effects on coping strategies because ideas about the

proper way to handle threatening or challenging events vary greatly from culture to

63

culture. For example cultures differ greatly in their beliefs about fate and the need to
accept what fate decrees. Similarly, individuals within an ethnic group differ in feelings
about their ethnic group. These feelings and beliefs strongly affect ethnic minority
individuals’ appraisals of the usefulness of direct vs. indirect coping efforts.
Furthermore, cultures both prescribe some coping behaviors and proscribe others (Slavin
et al., 1991). Although few researchers have examined the impact of individual cultural
characteristics on coping strategies, some have found that coping strategies vary as a
function of acculturation status (Cervantes & Castro, 1985; Mena et al., 1987;
Montgomery, 1992; Vazquez & Garcia-Vazquez, 1995). More speciﬁcally, bicultural
and highly acculturated Mexican American university students have been found to use
mostly direct coping approaches (Mena eat al., 1987; Vazquez & Garcia-Vazquez, 1995).
However, Mexican-American students have also been found to utilize indirect methods of
coping (Montgomery, 1992). Gomez and Fassinger (1994) found that bicultural Latina
college students had a wider repertoire of coping behaviors than did Latinas primarily
acculturated to either Latino or Anglo-American culture.

Path E: The inﬂuence of perceived social support on c0ping. Lazarus and
colleagues (1966; Lazarus et al., 1974) suggested that the perception of social support is
one element in an individual’s subsequent coping with stress. Furthermore, coping
strategies are dependent upon a person’s perception that support is available. Thus,
perceived social support is seen as a dynamic resource that precedes, inﬂuences, and
assists coping efforts (Cohen, 1992; Holahan et al., 1997; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984;
Lepore et al., 1991; Thoits, 1986; 1995). Evidence for the link between perceived social

support and both direct and indirect coping strategies comes from a series of studies by

64

Holahan and Moos and their colleagues (Billings & Moos, 1981; Cronkite & Moos,
1984; Holahan & Moos, 1986, 1987). In general, these studies indicate that individuals
who perceive little social support are likely to engage in indirect coping strategies. In
contrast, individuals who perceive that social support is available are more likely to
engage in direct coping strategies.

Just as perceived available social support has been linked to either direct or
indirect coping strategies, in the context of stressful life situations, likewise, it has been
hypothesized that the perceived availability of social support engenders either direct or
indirect coping strategies for disadvantaged group members experiencing sociocultural
stress (i.e., discrimination, Ruggiero, Taylor, & Lydon, 1997). However, few empirical
studies (e. g., Ruggiero & Talyor, 1995, 1997, as cited in Ruggiero et al., 1997) have
examined the relationship of perceived availability of social support to coping strategies
with members of disadvantaged groups. These studies have found that women and ethnic
minorities that reported experiencing discrimination tended to utilize indirect coping
strategies when they perceived little to no available social support. However, those that
reported experiencing discrimination but perceived that support was available were more
likely to utilize direct coping strategies (Ruggiero et al., 1997). Although no studies have
looked at the relationship between perceived social support and coping strategies for
Latina/o students experiencing sociocultural stress, empirical ﬁndings indicate that when
Latina/o students perceive support from family and school personnel (e. g, academic
outreach programs, staff, and peers) it is helpful in their coping efforts and adjustment to
college (Cooper, Jackson, & Azmitia, 1993; Cooper et al., 1998; Gloria & Rodriguez,

2000; Lopez, 1995; Rodriguez, 1994). A lack of such support has been identiﬁed as a

65

primary reason for Latina/o students’ inability to cope with stress (Fiske, 1988), poor
adjustment, and high attrition rates (Alva, 1991; Lango, 1995).

Path F: The inﬂuence of apgaisal of sociocultural stress on coping. According to
Lazarus and Folkman (1984), stress occurs only when demands placed upon an
individual exceed or tax the individual’s coping resources. Thus, stress always involves
cognitive appraisals about the seriousness of the demand and the resources the individual
has available to cope with that demand (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Thus, sociocultural
stressors may not be perceived as stressful if an individual has the adaptive resources to
cope with them and if they do not exceed the person’s ability to cope (Miller & Kaiser,
2001). Likewise, individuals’ appraisal of sociocultural stressors may affect coping
strategies and ability to adapt (Berry & Kim, 1988; Williams & Berry, 1991). The
appraisal process cues particular coping strategies that are then linked with an eventual
adjustment outcome (Moos 1979, 1984, 1986). For example, indirect coping may occur
when a stressor is perceived as stressful and individual and environmental resources are
perceived as insufﬁcient. Although few studies have found that members of diverse
disadvantaged groups (e. g., women, ethnic minorities) utilize indirect coping strategies to
cope with sociocultural stress (i.e., discrimination; Ruggiero & Taylor, 1995, 1997; as
cited in Ruggiero et al., 1997), in general the perception of stressors in minority
populations has been found to strongly predict both direct and indirect coping responses,
supporting the supposition that both strategies are not mutually exclusive (Stein &
Nyamathi, 1999). Thus, there is likely to be wide variability in how and with what effect

people cope with sociocultural stressors. Moreover, sociocultural stress will be

66

detrimental to an individual’s mental health only if he or she is unable to cope with it
successfully (Miller & Kaiser, 2001).

Although coping reactions to sociocultural stress have been studied primarily at a
sociological level (Ogbu, 1985), there is evidence in the psychological literature
indicating that the appraisal of sociocultural stress appears to inﬂuence an individual’s
ability to cope with it. For example, one’s appraisal of discrimination and injustice is
believed to be an important determinant of coping strategies that are adopted by members
of stigmatized groups (Schmader et al., 2001). Some individuals may indirectly cope
with discrimination by internalizing negative stereotypes (Phenice & Griffore, 1994),
attributing negative experiences to discrimination (Crocker & Major, 1989), and
discounting feedback (Schmader et al., 2001). However, minorities can also engage in
direct coping strategies toward perceptions of prejudice and discrimination by discussing
it with the perpetrator, disproving stereotypes, using self affirmation (Phinney & Chavira,
1995), taking action to reduce the stress, and/or talking with others about the problem
(Mena et al., 1987). Some have found that Latina/o college students who report
experiencing acculturative stress use direct coping strategies to decrease the impact on
college adjustment (Garcia—Vazquez, Vazquez, & Huang, 1998). In addition, some
research indicates that Latinos and Caucasians do not differ in the types of coping styles
used when faced with stressors. In fact both tend to use more direct than indirect coping
(Mendoza, 1981). The variation in results is consistent with the growing body of
research that suggests that the utilization of a given coping strategy, whether direct or
indirect, is mediated by complex individual, environmental, and situational factors (Roth

& Cohen, 1986; Folkman, 1984).

67

Path G: The inﬂuence of copig on mental health. To date, the relationship of
coping styles to mental health is not clear. In the past, researchers have reported that is
not stress per se but rather how people cope with it that affects one’s mental health.
Although the directions of this relationship have been inconsistent, these studies have
shown a strong association between coping and mental health (Billings & Moos, 1981;
Folkman & Lazarus, 1986; Pearlin & Schooler, 1978). In some studies, indirect coping
or high emotion-focused coping was found to be a psychological risk factor for adverse
responses to stressful life circumstances (Cronkite & Moos, 1984; Holahan & Moos,
1986, 1987; Terry, 1994) and associated with a high number of psychological symptoms
(Endler, Parker, and Butcher, 1993; Billing & Moos, 1981; Menaghan, 1982). Direct
coping or high problem-focused coping on the other hand have been found to be
associated with a low number of psychological symptoms or good adjustment to stressful
events (Cronkite & Moos, 1984; Deisinger, Cassisi, & Whitaker, 1996; Holahan & Moos,
1986, 1987; Mena et al., 1987; Mitchell, Cronkite, & Moos, 1983; Stein & Nyamathi,
1999; Terry, 1994). However, some studies have revealed that people that used indirect
coping strategies reported less psychological symptoms than people that used direct
coping strategies (Asendorpf & Scherer, 1983; Linden, Paulhus, & Dobson, 1986;
Mattlin et al., 1990). Finally, culturally speciﬁc coping patterns (e. g., culturally
sanctioned beliefs, behaviors, practices, fatalism, religiosity) have been found to either
buffer or place people at risk for speciﬁc negative outcomes (i.e., depression) (Neff &
Hoppe, 1993; Vega et al., 1985). According to Miller and Kaiser (2001) the use of
emotional regulation and expression and problem solving efforts are required before

individuals dealing with sociocultural stress hit upon coping strategies that will promote

68

successful adaptation or good mental health outcomes. Thus, failure to express or
regilate emotions resulting from sociocultural stress or utilize multiple problem-solving
efforts could result in detrimental mental health outcomes.

Current research examining the relationship between various coping styles and the
mental health of college students has revealed a similar trend in results. For example, the
use of direct coping styles has been found to be associated with higher levels of personal
and emotional adjustment and fewer symptoms of depression and suicide risk (D’Zurilla,
Chan, Nottingham, & Faccini, 1998; Essau &Trommsdorff, 1996; Leong, Bonz, &
Zachar, 1997; Nezu, Nezu, Sarayderian, Kalmar, & Ronan, 1986). Deﬁcits and lack of
conﬁdence in use of direct coping strategies or problem solving has been found to be
related to higher levels of depression and hopelessness (Clum, & F ebbraro, 1994; Nezu &
Ronan, 1988; Priester & Clum, 1993). Similarly, the use indirect coping has been found
to be associated with increased depressive symptoms (D’ Zurilla et al., 1998; Essau &
Trommsdorff, 1996) and lower levels of personal and emotional adjustment (Leong et al.,
1997). These inconsistent ﬁndings may be due in part to different measures of
psychological symptoms and coping. Furthermore, according to Carver and Scheier
(1994), the literature on coping seems as a whole to be more informative about coping
that interferes with good outcomes than about coping that facilitates good outcomes.
According to the authors, this may be the result of posing research questions that focus on
negative mental health outcomes (i.e., anxiety, depression) more frequently than posing

questions that focus on positive outcomes (e.g., adaptation, psychosocial competence).

69

Chapter 2
RATIONALE

Although a vast number of investigators from a wide range of disciplines have
studied the relationship between stress and mental health, few have examined Latina/o
undergraduate students’ psychological functioning when minority-status and/or
acculturative stress are experienced. Nevertheless, several investigators have found that
within the university environment, ethnic minority students, including Latinos, report
experiencing cultural incompatibilities, discrimination, and prejudice (McCormack, 1995;
Smedley et al., 1993). Furthermore, these stressful experiences have been found to
ultimately impact their psychological well-being resulting in psychological distress and
unsuccessful adaptation to the university (Morris, 1997; Najera, 1990; Quintana et al.,
1991; Saldana, 1994; Shibazaki, 1999).

The literature on stress and potential mediators has revealed that numerous
individual, environmental, and process variables (e.g., self-esteem, goal directedness,
locus of control, optimism, ethnic identity, acculturation, family support, social support,
community involvement, and appraisal and coping processes; Aspinwall & Taylor, 1992;
Constantine & Baron, 1997; Riggio et al., 1993; Shibazaki, 1999) mediate or moderate
the relationship between stress and mental health in Latina/o undergraduate students.
Furthermore, investigators have found that these variables have a complex relationship to
each other and to mental health. However, the majority of these studies have isolated two
or three of these variables at a time. Thus, they have limited explanatory power,
indicating that the relationship between stress and mental health outcomes is relatively

weak (Cohen et al., 1997).

70

Several researchers have developed complex models that emphasize the analysis
of multiple levels in order to account for greater proportions of variance in outcomes and
outline the dynamics of the stress-mental health relationship (Billings & Moos, 1982;
Holahan et al., 1997; Miranda & Castro, 1985; Talyor & Aspinwall, 1996; Warheit,
1979). These researchers postulate that numerous internal and external factors,
psychological processes, and the many interactions between them mediate the
relationship between stressors and mental health. However, researchers have not
attempted to test these or adaptations of these models with Latina/o undergraduate
students. Instead, a few researchers have merely attempted to identify the relationship
between one or two variables and mental health outcomes for Latina/o students.
Furthermore, most of this research has taken place at universities where there is a
signiﬁcant concentration of Latinos (Aspinwall & Taylor, 1992; Morris, 1997; Padilla et
al., 1986; Quinones, 1996; Rodriguez, et al., 2000; Saldana, 1994; Shibazaki, 1999;
Solberg & Villarreal, 1997; Suarez et al., 1997). Clearly, there is a need to test dynamic
stress-mental health models in order to understand the relationship between minority
status, acculturative stress, and mental health in Latina/o students at predominately
White, Midwestern, universities.

To address this need, this study examined an adaptation of Taylor and
Aspinwall’s (1996) model (see Figure 10) with Latina/o students at Michigan State
University where Latina/o enrollment is low. The adapted model draws from I
comprehensive approaches concerning the relations of personal, social, and external,
resources to mental health (i.e., Billings & Moos, 1982a; Miranda & Castro, 1985;

Leyva, 1990; Rodriguez et al., 2000; Saldana, 1994; Warheit, 1979). Thus, to address

71

 

 

 

 

 

 

£83 382

  
 

mamaoo

 

 

00min

 

Ea

 

 

382 35885 28 80883.82 .3 839m

 

 

 

 

mDrmmm Emma <mrmmm

l/

 

               
              

toaqsm 38m
83083

 

 

 

 

 

  

325
5836268
«0 3358qu

8558830
3:55
3:223

+ L

 

252 $4229?

 

 

 

 

72

Warheit’s (1979), Miranda and Castro’s (1985), Leyva’s (1990), Saldana’s (1994), and
Rodriguez et al. ’s (2000) concern with the role of culture in the relationship between
stress and mental health, Taylor and Aspinwall’s (1996) model was adapted to Latina/o
students at Michigan State University. In addition, several aspects of Latino ethnicity
were included in the model. Therefore, this study also focused on the appraisal of two
culturally, speciﬁc, chronic stressors (e. g., minority status stress, acculturative stress) that
have been found to impact the mental health of Latina/o students above and beyond the
generic stressors experienced by all college students (Smedley et al., 1993). However, in
light of past research indicating that the appraisal of stress is a better predictor of stress
outcomes than assessing the frequency of each stressor, in this study only the appraisal of
the stressor was included in the adapted model. Furthermore, in recognizing that
personality and culture are inextricably intertwined (Lonner & Adamopoulos, 1997), the
adapted model included acculturation and ethnic identity, two individual cultural
characteristics that can provide an understanding of the person, cause considerable within
group differences on mental health outcomes (Sodowsky et al., 1991), and inﬂuence the
relationships between stress and mental health (Rodriguez et al., 2000; Saldana, 1994;
Sarason et al, 2001; Taylor & Aspinwall, 1996). The adapted model also included the
concept of perceived social support in light of the research indicating that it is more
consistent in accounting for psychological well-being and distress than are received
social support or social networks (Procidano, 1992, Procidano & Smith, 1997; Sarason et
al., 1994). In addition, because research suggests that individual characteristics can lead

to individual differences in the ability to extract social support (Cohen et al., 1986;

73

Dunkel-Schetter et al., 1987; Taylor & Aspinwall, 1996), social support was
conceptualized as a resource that is affected by acculturation level and ethnic identity.
Furthermore, in an attempt to outline the dynamics of the relationship between the
appraisal of minority status and acculturative stress, the adapted model not only included
stable factors but also appraisal and coping processes (Billings & Moos, 1982a; Lazarus
& Folkman, 1984; Miranda & Castro, 1985).

The adapted model also draws on the work of several researchers (e.g., Edwards,
Baglioni, & Cooper, 1990; Ensel & Lin, 1991; Fry, 1989; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984;
Moos, 1988; Norris & Murrell, 1984; Pearlin, 1989; Tuner et al., 1991; as cited in Taylor
& Aspinwall, 1996), who have suggested that coping strategies, are essential to
understanding the link between individual characteristics, perceived social support,
appraisal of stress, and mental health. Although no research exists to support the adapted
model or the mediational processes by which individual cultural characteristics (i.e.,
acculturation level, ethnic identity) facilitate coping with sociocultural stress (i.e.,
minority status and acculturative stress) and consequently mental health, several studies
have found that social support, appraisal of stressors, and coping strategies mediate the
effects of individual cultural characteristics on mental health (Morris, 1997; Phinney,
1995; Phinney et al., 1992; Phinney et al., 1990; Roysircar-Sodowsky & Maestas, 2000;
Ruiz, 1990). More speciﬁcally, Latinos high on acculturation and ethnic identity have
been found to report higher levels of social support (Ethier & Deaux, 1994; Griffith &
Villavicencio, 1985), lower levels of sociocultural stress (Ethier & Deaux, 1994;
Fernandez-BariIlas & Morrison, 1984; Montgomery, 1992; Negy & Woods, 1993;

Quintana et al., 1991; Rodriguez, et al., 2000; Saldana, 1988; Saldana, 1990; Saldana,

74

1994; Sanchez & Fernandez, 1993; Shorey et al., 2002), and utilize more effective coping
strategies when dealing with stress (Cervantes & Castro, 1985; Gomez & F assinger,
1994; Mena et al., 1987; Montgomery, 1992; Vazquez & Garcia-Vazquez, 1995).

The literature strongly suggests that social support is a mediator of the beneﬁcial
effects of individual cultural characteristics on mental health. However, there is also
evidence indicating that like individual cultural characteristics, perceived social support
is not just directly related to the mental health (e. g., psychological adjustment, academic
adjustment) of Latina/o students (Arellano & Padilla, 1996; Hurtado et al., 1996',
Lambom et al., 1997; Solberg, 1990; Solberg &Villarreal, 1997; Terenzini et al., 1994)
rather, appraisals of sociocultural stress and coping strategies may mediate this
relationship. Indeed studies indicate that the perceived social support has been found to
effect the appraisals and reports of stress, (Solberg & Villarreal, 1997), acculturative
stress (Hovey & King, 1996), sociocultural alienation, and racial/ethnic tensions (Crouse,
1985; Hurtado, 1994; Loo & Rolison, 1986; Oliver etal., 1985; Ponterotto, 1990), and
the utilization of effective coping strategies (Cooper et al., 1993; Cooper et al., 1998;
Gloria & Rodriguez, 2000; Lopez, 1995; Rodriguez, 1994; Ruggiero et al., 1997).

Just as individual cultural characteristics and perceived social support have been
found to be directly related to the mental health of Latina/o students, several studies
support the direct relationship between sociocultural stress (i.e., minority status stress
and/or acculturative stress) and mental health for minority students (Allen et al., 1998;
Fuertes & Westbrook, 1996; Hovey & King, 1996; Kim, 1995; Loo & Rolison, 1986;
Rodriguez et al., 2000; Williams & Berry, 1991). However, some studies provide

support that this relationship is dependent on students’ coping strategies (Crocker &

75

Major, 1989; Mena et al., 1987; Phenice & Griffore, 1994; Phinney & Chavira, 1995;
Schmader et al., 2001). Similarly, a considerable amount of evidence supports a direct
relationship between coping strategies and minority students’ mental health (Aldwin &
Revenson, 1987; Clum, & Febbraro, 1994; D’Zurilla et al., 1998; Essau &Trommsdorff,
1996; Leong et al., 1997; Mattlin et al., 1990; Nezu et al., 1986; Nezu & Ronan, 1988;
Priester & Clum, 1993; Rodin & Salovey, 1989). Although the research is inconclusive
regarding which coping strategies are effective when sociocultural stress is experienced,
the variation in results is consistent with the growing body of research that suggests that
coping strategies are dependent on complex factors including students’ appraisal of
sociocultural stress (Garcia-Vazquez et al., 1998; Mendoza, 1981) and various coping
resources such as individual cultural characteristics (Cervantes & Castro, 1985; Gomez &
Fassinger, 1994; Mena et al., 1987; Montgomery, 1992; Vazquez & Garcia-Vazquez,
1995) and perceived social support (Alva, 1991; Cooper et al., 1993; Cooper et al., 1998;
F iske, 1988; Gloria & Rodriguez, 2000; Lango, 1995; Lopez, 1995; Rodriguez, 1994;
Ruggiero et al., 1997).

To empirically test the adaptation of Taylor and Aspinwall’s (1996) model to
Latina/o college students, a longitudinal design is necessary in order to demonstrate the
continuous interplay between the various constructs of the model. Although there are
inherent limitations to a cross-sectional design, investment in a longitudinal design was

not practical since the adapted model has never been tested in its present form. Thus, the
adapted model was examined at one point in time in order to provide initial support for
this stress-mental health model. Although the ﬁndings were expected to have limited

generalizability, choosing MSU as the single source of data, as opposed to selecting

76

multiple institutions, served to control for several threats to the internal validity of the

study’s ﬁndings. For example, MSU Latina/o students are more likely to have been

exposed to similar conditions (e. g, university personnel, other institutional elements)

than students at other institutions. Furthermore, Latina/o students at MSU are more

prone to experience minority status and/or acculturative stress than students attending

universities where Latinos constitute the largest ethnic group on campus (Cabrera &

Nora, 1994).

Hypotheses.

Based on the presented literature review the following paths were hypothesized (see

Figure 10).

Hypothesis 1:

Hypothesis 2:

Hypothesis 3:

Hypothesis 4:

Hypothesis 5:

Hypothesis 6:

A direct, signiﬁcant positive relationship between individual cultural
characteristics and perceived social support (Path A).

A direct, signiﬁcant negative relationship between individual cultural
characteristics and appraisal of sociocultural stress (Path B).

A direct, signiﬁcant negative relationship between perceived social
support and appraisal of sociocultural stress (Path C).

A direct, signiﬁcant positive relationship between individual cultural
characteristics and coping (Path D).

A direct, signiﬁcant positive relationship between perceived social
support and coping (Path E).

A direct, signiﬁcant positive relationship between appraisal of

sociocultural stress and coping (Path F).

77

Hypothesis 7:

Hypothesis 8:

A direct, signiﬁcant positive relationship between coping and mental
health (Path G).

As Taylor and Aspinwall (1996) suggest, individual cultural
characteristics are hypothesized to affect Latina/o students’ mental
health indirectly either through perceived social support, the appraisals
of sociocultural stress, or coping strategies. Second, perceived social
support is hypothesized to affect Latina/o students’ mental health
indirectly through the appraisal of sociocultural stress or coping

strategies.

78

Chapter 3
METHODS
Participants

A college population was ideal for a test of the adapted model because of the
potential that a large university experience provides for multicultural interactions and
experiences relevant to sociocultural stress and mental health. Thus, 598 Latina/o
students at MSU were invited to participate in this study. However, international Latin
American students (non-US citizens or residents) at MSU were excluded because
acculturative stress, minority status stress, acculturation level, and ethnic identity are
believed to be a function of both Latino and ethnic minority status within the United
States.

Participants were 201 Latina/o undergraduate students, 72 men (35.8%) and 129
women (64.2%). The mean age of participants was 20.29 years (SD = 2.50).
Approximately 26.4% were ﬁrst years, 19.4% were second y ears, 22.4% were third
years, 19.9% were fourth years, and 11.4% were in their 5th or greater year of college.
The average GPA was 3.00 (SD = 0.52) (see Table 1). Participants reported that they
identiﬁed with the following Spanish/Hispanic/latino ethnic groups: Mexican American
(37.3%), Mexican (11.4%), Chicano/a (6%), Puerto Rican (9.5%), Cuban (5.6%), and
other Spanish/Hispanic/Latino subgroup (29.3%). See Table 2 for a complete description
of the sample’s cultural heritage. All participants were US. citizens, approximately 87%
were born in the United States, and 84% reported being Michigan residents (see Table 3).
Participants were asked to compare their families’ ﬁnancial status to other students’

families at MSU. Approximately 9% indicated that their family was ﬁnancially much

79

worse off, 26% reported that they were worse off, 44% stated that they were about the
same, 18% indicated that they were better off, and 3% indicated that they were much
better off (see Table 4).

Demographic information concerning the parents of the participants was also
obtained. Approximately 58% of the participants identiﬁed one parent as Anglo/White,
42% as Mexican American, 16% as Mexican, 46% as other Latino/Hispanic, and 3.0% as
other non-Latino/Hispanic. Approximately 65% of mothers and 60% of fathers were
born in the US. Approximately 89% of mothers and 87% of fathers graduated from high
school. See Tables 5-8 for complete description of parent demographic information.
Procedure

The MSU Registrars Ofﬁce was solicited to mail questionnaire packets to 598
undergraduate students identiﬁed in their database as Latino or Hispanic, US citizens or
residents, age 18 or older. The packets contained self-report measures of the various
constructs in the model, a return envelope, a cover letter inviting students to participate in
the study, instructions for participation, an informed consent statement, and a
consent/mailing address form. Participants who returned a completed questionnaire
packet and signed consent/mailing address form by the designated return date received a
check for $10.00 which was mailed to the local address each student provided. The
Registrar’s Office mailed follow-up invitation letters to all 598 students two weeks prior

to the designated return date.

80

Table 1. DemoggtpLhic Information: Age. Year in College. and GPA of Participants

Mean ﬂ) Minimum Maximum
Age: 20.29 2.50 18 39
Year in college: 2.71 1.36 1 5
GPA: 3.0 0.52 1.5 4.0

 

Table 2. Demographic Information: Self Identiﬁcation of Participants

 

Argentinean 2.0% Bolivian 0.5%
Brazilian 1.0% Chicana/o 6.0%
Colombian 5.0% Cuban 5.5%
Dominican 1 .O% Ecuadorian 2. 0%
Guatemalan 0.5% Honduran 0.5%
Mexican 11.4% Mexican American 37.7%
Paraguayan 0. 5% Peruvian 3.0%
Portuguese 0.5% Puerto Rican 9.5%
Salvadoran 2.5% Spanish 5.0%
Venezuelan 0.5% Two Spanish/Latino groups 4.5%

 

Table 3. Demoggtphic Information: Place of Birth. Citizenship. and Residengv of
Participants

 

Place of Birth Citizenship Residency
USA 89.6% USA 100.0% Michigan 84. 1%

 

Table 4. Demoggtphic Information: Participants families’ ﬁnancial status compared
to other students’ families at MSU

 

Status Percent
Much worse off 9%
Somewhat worse off 25.9%
About the same 44.3%
Better off 17.9%
Much better off 2.5%

 

81

Table 5. Demographic Information: Ethnic/Racial Group Identiﬁed for Fathers and

 

Mothers
Fathers Mothers

White Anglo 25.4% 34.8%
Mexican American 25.9% 25.4%
Mexican 12.4% 9. 0%
Other Latino/Hispanic 34.8% 29.4%
Group

Other 1.5% 1.5%

 

Table 6. Demogrgphic Information: Speciﬁc Ethnic/Racial Group Identiﬁed for

Fathers and Mothers

Aﬁican American
Anglo/White
Argentinean

Asian

Bolivian

Brazilian

Chilean

Columbian

Cuban

Dominican
Ecuadoran
Guatemalan
Honduran

Iranian
Japanese
Kuwaiti

Mexican American
Mexican National
Panamanian
Paraguayan
Peruvian
Portuguese

Puerto Rican
Salvadoran

Spanish

Syrian

Venezuelan
Two Latino/Hispanic groups
Not Speciﬁed

Fathers

0.5%
25.4%
1.0%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
1.0%
2.5%
4.5%
2.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%
0.5%
25.9%
12.4%
0.0%
0.5%
2.5%
1.0%
8.5%
1.5%
4.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.0%
1.0%

Mothers

0%
34.%
2.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
0.0%
3.0%
4.0%
1.5%
1.0%
0.0%
0.5%
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%

25.4%
0.9%
0.5%
0.0%
1.0%
0.0%
8.0%
2.0%
1.5%
0.5%
0.5%
2.5%
1.0%

 

82

Table 7. Demgggtphic Information: Place of Birth of Mothers and Fathers

 

Mothers Fathers
USA 65.2% 59.7%

 

Table 8. Demogaphiclpfonngtion: Level of Edpcation of Mothers and Fathers

 

 

Mother Father
Graduated from junior high 6.0% 6.0%
Attended high school 4.5% 6.0%
Graduated from high school 40.3% 19.4%
Completed a technical training program 11.9% 14.9%
Graduated from college 19.9% 24.4%
Attended graduate school 4.5% 3.0%
Got a professional or graduate degree 10.4% 19.4%
Do not know 2.0% 5.5%

 

83

Instruments
In this section, the psychometric properties of the measures are described. The self-
rating instruments included in the questionnaire packet are: Demographic Information
Form, Minority Student Stresses Scale (MSSS), Social, Attitudinal, Familial and
Environmental (S.A.F.E.) Acculturation Stress Scale, Acculturation Rating Scale for
Mexican Americans-Revised (ARSMA-II; Scale 1), Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure
(MEIM), Perceived Social Support From Family and Friends (PSS-FA; PSS-FR),
Perceived Social Support From University Personnel (PSS-UP), Brief COPE Inventory,
Problem-Focused Style of Coping (PF-SOC), the DSM Scale for Depression-26 (DSD—
26), the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS), and the Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS).
Denmraphic Information Form
The demographic information form (Appendix A) asks speciﬁc questions regarding:
A) Sociodemographics: age, gender, level of education, and parents’ level of
education and occupation.
B) Sociocultural variables: place of birth, generation level, citizenship, ethnic
background, and parents’ ethnic identiﬁcation.
C) Other relevant background information: housing status, afﬁliation with
MSU organizations related to their ethnic group, and GPA.
Appraisal of Sociocultural Stress
Minority Student Stresses Scale (MSSS). The M888 (Saldana, 1994) was
developed to assess minority—speciﬁc stressors and perceptions of Latina/o students’
experiences within a predominantly White university environment. The M888 is based

on issues identiﬁed in previous student stress scales (Edmonds, 1984; Zitzow, 1982; as

84

cited in Saldana, 1994). Respondents are asked to rate the stressfulness of twenty-ﬁve
items, since they have been in college, using a 6—point scale ranging from 0 (does not
apply) to 5 (extremely stressﬁrl). The M888 is made up of three scales with the
following reliabilities: Academic concerns (alpha = 0.93 ), Ethnic-nonethnic group
concerns (alpha = 0.84), and Discrimination concerns (alpha = 0.86). Intercorrelations
among the scales were not reported. Total and subscale scores are obtained by summing
responses within each domain, with higher scores indicative of more experiences of
minority status stress. See Appendix B.

Social, Attitudinal Familial and Environmenlal (SAFE) Accultugrtion Stress

 

 

Scale. The S.A.F.E. scale (Mena et al., 1987) is a short version of Padilla,

 

Wagatsuma, and Lindholm’s (1985) 60-item measure developed to assess stress arising
from the process of acculturation in four broad areas: (1) the quality of immigrants’ social
life in the new culture; (2) immigrants’ attitudes toward their former culture and country
of origin; (3) immigrants’ relations with family in the new culture, particularly with
parents; and (4) the quality of the environment in the new culture. Thus, Mena et al.
(1987) developed the 24 item S.A.F.E. scale to assess acculturative stress in these four
areas. Although Mena et al (1987) concluded that the S.A.F.E. was reliable (alpha =
0.89) for use with Asian American and international students, they neither elaborated on
the psychometric properties nor identiﬁed the items belonging to each of the subscales.
In response to this lack of information, F uertes and Westbrook (1996) examined the
validity and reliability of the S.A.F.E. scale with a heterogeneous group of Latina/o
college students at a predominantly White, northeastern university. Respondents were

asked to rate the stressfulness of each item using a 6-point scale, ranging from 0 (does not

85

apply) to 5 (extremely stressful). Factor analyses yielded a four-factor solution
consisting of 21 items. These factors or subscales were named Environmental (reﬂecting
pressure to assimilate and feeling impeded by cultural barriers; alpha=0.88), Attitudinal
(reﬂecting stress that arises from separation ﬁom family, friends, and culture;
alpha=0.73), Social (reﬂecting the quality of immediate interpersonal relationships, being
sociable, and making friends; alpha=0.71), and Familial (reﬂecting conﬂicts between
personal and family values, expectations, and aspirations; alpha = 0.70), respectively.
Reliability analysis of the overall scale (21 items) was 0.89. Total and subscale scores
were obtained by summing responses within each subscale, with higher scores indicative
of more experiences of acculturative stress (Appendix C). The intercorrelations among
the four subscales ranged from 0.34 to 0.52.
Individual Cultural Clﬂmteristics

AcculturaLion Rating Scale for Mexicaﬁn Americans-Revised (ARSMA-II; Scrﬁ
1_). The ARSMA-II, Scale 1 (Cuellar et al., 1995) is a revised version of the ARSMA
(Cuellar, Harris, & Jasso, 1980). The original ARSMA (Cuellar et al., 1980)
incorporated a unidimensional approach to assess degree of acculturation. Scale 1 of
ARSMA-II (Appendix D) uses an approach that assesses attitudes and behaviors toward
the culture-of-origin (Hispanic culture) and the host culture (American culture). Thus,
with Scale 1 an individual can be classiﬁed unidimensionally by the degree or level of
acculturation to both American and Mexican cultures which are identiﬁed by one of ﬁve
levels: “Very Mexican Oriented,” “Mexican Oriented to approximately Balanced
Bicultural,” “Slightly Anglo Oriented Bicultural,” “Strongly Anglo Oriented,” or “Very

Assimilated/Anglicized.” With Scale 1, an individual can also be classiﬁed using a

86

multidimensional approach, in which he or she is described by the typological pattern of
acculturation: traditional, integrated (including both high and low bicultural) or
assimilated. With the use of the 18 items of Scale 2 (Marginality Scale) separation and
marginalization types can also be assessed.

Scale 1 consists of 30 items that measure the respondent’s extent of involvement in
the Mexican culture (17 items) and in the Anglo culture (13 items) by assessing a
person’s cultural practices, language proﬁciency and preferences, social afﬁliation, and
ethnic identiﬁcation. Respondents indicate the relative frequency with which they
engage in certain behaviors using a 5—point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5
(extremely often or almost always). Items related to involvement in the Mexican culture
are summed to form the Mexican Orientation Subscale (MOS) and items related to
involvement with the Anglo culture are summed to form the Anglo Orientation Subscale
(AOS). An individual can be classiﬁed by level of acculturation to both cultures by
taking the difference between the mean MOS score and mean AOS score and using
designated cut off scores. The scores lead to one of the ﬁve classiﬁcations stated above
(Cuellar et al., 1995, p. 284).

The ARSMA-II was normed on 379 university students from South Texas. The
normative sample represented ﬁve generational levels, as well as the Mexican, Mexican
American, and Anglo ethnic groups. The Mexican Orientation Subscale MOS) was
found to have an internal consistency score (coefﬁcient alpha) of 0.88 and the Anglo
Orientation Subscale (AOS) an alpha of 0.83. MOS scores were found to decrease while
AOS scores increase with each generation. The acculturation score yielded by Scale One

of the ARSMA-H is highly correlated with the original ARSMA scale (r = 0.89; n = 171;

87

Cuellar et al., 1980). Furthermore changes in scores of several cognitive referents of
acculturation (F amilism, Machismo, Folk Beliefs, & Fatalism) have been found to occur
concomitantly with ARSM-II scores (Cuellar, Arnold, & Gonzalez, 1995).

The ARSMA-II (Scale 1) is one of a few scales that assess social afﬁliation and
daily living habits in addition to language use. Furthermore, the ARSMA-II is an
independent measure of culture and not a measure that is bipolar in nature. Rather, the
ARSMA-H allows for the possibility that an individual may retain various elements of
their culture of origin while simultaneously embracing another culture (Zane & Mak,
2000). However, since the ARSMA-H was developed speciﬁcally for use with Mexican
Americans, in this study, references to Mexican or Mexican culture were modiﬁed to
include Latinos in general. Examples of adapted items include “My father identiﬁes or
identiﬁed himself as ‘Latino.”’ and “I like to identify myself as a ‘Latina/o.”’

Multigmup Ethnic Identity MeasurejMEIM). Although the MEIM (Appendix E)
was created to assess ethnic identity among members of diverse ethnic groups (Phinney,
1992), research indicates that its internal consistency and factor structure is supported
with Latinos (e. g., Cuellar et al., 1997; Phinney, Chavira, & Tate, 1993). The MEIM is a
14 item measure with three subscales (a) Afﬁrmation and Belonging (5 items; alpha =
0.86), (b) Ethnic Identity Achievement (7 items; alpha = 0.80), and (c) Ethnic Behavior
(2 items). Reliability was not estimated for the Ethnic Behavior scale. Items are rated on
a 4-point scale from 4 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree). High scores are
indicative of high ethnic identity. Results from a factor analysis of the MEIM conducted

by Phinney (1992) showed that the items representing the three aspects of ethnic identity

88

 

also loaded on a single (Ethnic Identity) factor. Furthermore, overall reliability of the 14
item factor was found to be 0.90 for a college sample.
Perceived Social Support

Perceived Social Support From Igmily apd Friends (PSS-FA;PSS-FR). The PSS-
FA and PSS-FR (Procidano & Heller, 1983) were developed in order to measure the
extent to which an individual perceives his or her needs for support, information, and
feedback is met by family and friends, respectively. Each measure consists of 20

7" “

declarative statements to which the subject responds by circling “yes, no,” or “don’t
know.” Each item answered in the direction of support is scored as 1, resulting in total
scores that range from 0 (no perceived support) to 20 (maximum perceived support).
“Don’t know” responses are not scored. The PSS-F A (Appendix F) and PSS-FR
(Appendix G) have been found to be reliable measures yielding Cronbach alphas of 0.90
and 0.88, respectively. Factor analyses with a sample of college students revealed that
each of the scales is composed of a single factor. Procidano and Heller (1983) have
found that the PS S-FA and the PS S-FR are separate and valid constructs.

According to Procidano and Heller (1983), one’s perception of support from
family and friends are assessed separately because various populations rely differently on
each in different situations. In order to increase the discriminability of response options
(Comrey, 1988), in this study, a 5-point Likert scale response format was used with
options; 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). This response format was expected to
yield more information with regard to the degree of felt support rather than merely the

existence of support. Finally, respondents were instructed to rate the items with respect

to current perceptions of support (since starting college) from family and school peers.

89

Perceived Socﬁtl Stprport From University Personnel (PSS-UP). Perceptions of
support available from university personnel (e.g., faculty, graduate assistants, support
staff, advisors) were assessed using a modiﬁed version of Procidano and Heller’s (1983)
PSS-FA and PS S-FR. The 20 items that appear on PSS-UP are identical to those on the
PSS-F A and PSS-FR, apart from changes in the referent of the statement (e. g., “My
family gives me all the support I need” or “My friends give me all the support I need” vs.
“university personnel give me all the support I need”). A modiﬁed version of PSS-FA
used to assess adolescents’ perceived social support ﬁ'om school personnel has been
found to have high internal reliability (coefﬁcient alpha = .90) (DuBois, Felner, Meares,
& Krier, 1994).

In using the PSS-UP (Appendix H), this study addresses the lack of research in
the area of formal support. One reason for limited research in the area is due to the fact
that the vast majority of social support measures are restricted to assess perception of
support from informal networks. Failure to consider perceived formal support in
conjunction with perceived informal support has important data analytic implications;
analyses may lead to an inappropriate rejection of the stress-buffering hypothesis
(Krause, 1990). Furthermore, it is overly simplistic to base measures of support solely on
informal sources when it is clear that individuals can obtain support from formal sources
as well (Jung, 1984).

M

The Brief COPE Inventory. The Brief COPE (Carver, 1997) is a short version of

the COPE (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989) which was developed to assess the

different ways in which people respond to stress. The original-item COPE consists of 14

90

scales, each addressing a unique coping strategy. Thirteen of the 14 scales are measured
by 4 items and the remaining scale (Alcohol and Drug Disengagement) consists of a
single item. Five of the scales measure conceptually distinct aspects of problem-focused
coping (active coping, planning, suppression of competing activities, restraint coping,
seeking of instrumental social support) and ﬁve scales measure aspects of what might be
viewed as emotion-focused coping (seeking of emotional social support, positive
reinterpretation, acceptance, denial, turning to religion). The Brief COPE consists of 28
items with only 2 items for each of the 14 subscales (e.g., self-distraction, active coping,
denial, substance use, use of emotional support, use of instrumental support, behavioral
disengagement, venting, positive reframing, planning, humor, acceptance, religion, and
self-blame). See Appendix I.

The Brief COPE can be used to examine both coping dispositions and situation-
speciﬁc coping tendencies (depending on the researcher’s needs and desires).
Furthermore, respondents may be instructed to indicate how they generally feel and what
they generally do when experiencing a stressful event or they may be instructed to
respond to the items with respect to a particular stressor. For the purposes of this study,
respondents were instructed to indicate how they dealt with minority status stress and/or
acculturative stress. Items are endorsed on a 4-point scale, ranging from 1 (I haven’t
been doing this at all) to 4 (I’ve been doing this a lot). The items/responses are then
summed up separately for each scale to yield 14 separate cOping scores. Psychometric
properties of the Brief COPE were assessed using a sample of 168 adults (aged 18-76

yrs) participating in a study of the process of recovery after Hurricane Andrew.

91

Although the Brief COPE and COPE have been used to assess problem-focused
coping and emotion-based coping, a 24-item version of the Brief COPE has been
successfully used to distinguish between direct and indirect coping in a sample of Asian-
American, Latino, and European-American college students (Lee & Liu, 2001). Principal
component analysis produced two subscales; COPE-Direct with items reﬂecting
emotional support, active coping, positive reframing, planning acceptance, and religion;
and the COPE-Indirect with items reﬂecting self-distraction, denial, alcohol, and
substance use, behavioral disengagement, and venting of emotions. The COPE-Direct
and COPE-Indirect had alpha coefficients of 0.79 and 0.74, respectively. The
intercorrelation between the two scales was O.14 (Lee & Liu, 2001).

Although a number of instruments have been developed to assess different aspects
of coping, Heppner et al (1995) indicate the items of many of these coping inventories are
ambiguous having multiple meanings and implications. This ambiguity makes itdifﬁcult
to specify whether items assess basic cognitive, behavioral, or affective responses.
Perhaps most importantly, most items on coping inventories have assessed whether a
person engaged in a particular activity which makes it difﬁcult to ascertain whether the
consequences of the coping activity were positive or negative. The literature has shown
that individuals have effectively used approach and avoidance coping strategies as well as
cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses to successfully cope with internal and
external stressors (Heppner et al., 1995). In light of these ﬁndings Heppner and
colleagues have suggested that coping measures should begin to assess more stable
dispositional coping styles that tap general coping strategies and not just situation-

speciﬁc coping strategies. Furthermore, they proposed that problem- and emotion-

92

focused coping as well as approach-avoidance coping be re-conceptualized. Thus,
similar to Cross (1995), they suggested that coping should be viewed as strategies that
involve cognitive, behavioral, and affective activities aimed at altering a stressﬁrl
situation. Furthermore, they operationalized the approach-avoidance distinction in terms
of whether the coping activities moved the person (from his or her perspective) toward
(i.e., Direct Coping; Cross, 1995) or away (i.e., Indirect coping; Cross, 1995) from
resolving problems. In response to Heppner et al.’s (1995) suggestions, their measure of
dispositional coping styles was included in this study in order to assess dispositional,
direct and indirect coping strategies.

Problem-Focused Style of Coping (PF-SOC). The PF-SOC (Heppner et al., 1995)
was developed to assess stable dispositional coping styles that tap general coping
strategies. Although Heppner and colleagues limited the scope of their inventory to
problem-focused coping, they did not exclude coping activities that included affective or
emotional components. The PF-SOC contains 18 items that not only include coping
activities but also short-term consequences of those activities that either facilitate or
inhibit progress toward resolving the person’s problems. The items are rated on a 5-point
scale ranging from almost 1 (almost never) to 5 (a great deal). The PF-SOC contains
three subscales one of which is representative of an approach or direct dimension in
coping; Reﬂective Style (engaging in systematic and active ways of dealing with the
problem) and two which are representative of avoidant or indirect dimensions in coping;
Suppressive Style (avoiding dealing with the problem), and Reactive Style (engaging in

strong cognitive and emotional reaction which do not allow them to deal with the

93

problem). The scores are derived by adding all of the ratings of the items in each
subscale (Appendix J).

Psychometric properties of the PF-SOC were assessed using 320 undergraduate
students taking an introductory psychology course. Internal consistency coefficients of
0.80 for Reﬂective Style, 0.77 for Suppressive Style, and 0.67 for Reactive Style were
reported. The three subscales were found to be correlated moderately: Reﬂective
Style/Reactive Style (r = 0.08), Reﬂective Style/Suppressive Style (r = 0.25), and
Reactive Style/Suppressive Style (r = 0.49). The PF-SOC demonstrated construct,
concurrent, and discriminative validity with several measures (Heppner et al., 1995).
Test-retest reliability coefﬁcients assessed over a 3-week time interval, ranged from 0.65
(Suppressive Style) to 0.67 (Reﬂective Style) to 0.71 (Reactive Style). Finally,
regression analyses suggested that when compared with other coping instruments the
Suppressive and Reactive subscales added a considerable amount of variance to each
equation in predicting depression, anxiety, and psychological adjustment (Heppner et al.,
1995)

Mental Health

2119 DSM Scale for Depression-26 (DSD-26). The DSD-26 (Roberts et al., 1995)
was developed to ascertain prevalence rates, odds ratios, and risk factors of depressive
illness (Cuellar & Roberts, 1997; Roberts, Roberts, & Chen 1997). The DSD-26
(Appendix K) contains 26 items that reﬂect nine diagnostic criteria (Mood, Anhedonia,
Appetite, Motor, Energy, Guilt, Sleep, Thinking, and Suicide) in the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV (DSM-IV, APA, 1994) needed to make a

diagnosis of major depressive episode. The DSD-26 response asks respondents to

94

indicate how often in the last two weeks they have experienced particular symptoms.
Respondents are given a choice of four responses: I (hardly ever or never); 2
(sometimes); 3 (often); and 4 (almost every day). Two scores are obtained with the DSD-
26: (1) a continuous measure DSD Score that is the arithmetic sum of the 26 items, and
(2) a threshold measure that utilizes an algorithm based on DSM-IV symptom criteria for
major depressive episode. The algorithm used in arriving at a threshold measure requires
a minimum of ﬁve responses indicating that the respondent has been experiencing the
symptom “almost daily” for the past two weeks.

Although the DSD-26 was developed primarily with large, adolescent population
samples, primarily in Texas, it has been applied across numerous ethnocultural and cross-
national groups (i.e., Japan, China, Mexico, Hispanic elders). In all instances, it has been
found to have excellent internal consistency (Coefficient alphas reported have
consistently been in the low 0.90s; Cuellar & Roberts, 1997; Roberts et al., 1997;
Wolaski, 1997; as cited in Cuellar, Roberts, & Bastida, 2002). The DSD-26 has been
found to be signiﬁcantly and positively correlated with measures of health, suicide and
insomnia. The DSD-26 is one of the few depression scales which have been used with
Spanish and English—speaking adult and adolescent Hispanic populations (Cuellar,
Roberts et al., 2002).

mfjaction with Life Scale (SWLS). The SWLS (Diener et al., 1985) was
designed to assess a person’s global judgment of life satisfaction, which is theoretically
predicted to depend on a respondent’s comparison of his or her life circumstances to his
or her’s standards, speciﬁc to a particular domain of life (e. g., work, family) or globally.

The original scale consisted of 48 items with three subscales: Life Satisfaction, Positive

95

Affect, and Negative Affect. Ten items loaded unto the Life Satisfaction subscale.
However, to eliminate redundancies of wording at minimal costs to reliability, this
subscale was ﬁrrther reduced to 5 items and named the SWLS (Diener et al., 1985).
Items are endorsed on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7
(strongly agree). Scores on the SWLS can be interpreted in terms of absolute as well as
relative life satisfaction. Total scores are interpreted as follow: 20 (neutral point on the
scale), 21-25 (slightly satisﬁed), 15-19 (slightly dissatisﬁed), 26—30 (satisﬁed), and 5-9
(extremely dissatisﬁed).

The SWLS demonstrated excellent internal consistency (alpha = 0.87) and good
test—retest stability over a 2-month period (alpha = 0.82). Principal-axis factor analysis
resulted in single factor, accounting for 66% of the variance of the scale (Diener et al.,
1985). This single-factor solution has since been replicated (Arrindell, Meeuwesen, &
Huyse 1991; Lewis, Shevlin, Bunting, & Joseph, 1995; Pavot, Diener, Colvin, &
Sandvik, 1991; Shevlin & Bunting, 1994). The SWLS also has demonstrated
convergence with numerous measures of subjective well-being and life satisfaction
(Diener et al., 1985; Pavot et al., 1991).

Normative data for the SWLS are available for diverse populations, including
older adults, prisoners, individuals under inpatient care for alcohol abuse, abused women,
psychotherapy clients, elderly caregivers of demented spouses, and persons with physical
disabilities, as well as college student samples (Pavot & Diener, 1993). In addition, some
cross-cultural data are available (e. g., Arrindell, et al., 1991; Shao & Diener, 1991;

Shevlin & Bunting, 1994). See Appendix L.

96

Subjective Happiness ScalgSHS). The SHS (Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999) was
developed to measure global subjective happiness. The SHS (Appendix M) contain 4
items that are rated on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (a great deal). A
single composite score for global subjective happiness is computed by averaging
responses to the four items (the fourth reverse-coded). Thus, the possible range of scores
on the SHS is from 1.0 to 7.0 with higher scores reﬂecting greater happiness.

The psychometric properties of the SHS were assessed with 2, 732 college and high
school students and community adults in California and Moscow, Russia. Reliability
coefﬁcients for the SHS ranged from 0.79 to 0.94 (M = 0.86) for all samples,
demonstrating comparability across samples of varying ages, occupations, languages, and
cultures. Principle component analyses performed separately for each sample showed
that the four items of the SHS load onto a single factor. The SHS demonstrated stability
over time, ranging from 3 weeks to 1 year. Test-retest reliability ranged from 0.55 to
0.90 (M = 0.72). The SHS also demonstrated convergence with a number of measures of
happiness and well-being. Evidence of discriminant validity was further obtained from
very low correlations with theoretically unrelated constructs, such as academic success

and stressﬁrl events.

97

Chapter 4
RESULTS

Phase One. Data obtained from the instruments was analyzed in four phases.
Phase 1, included a descriptive analysis of the study’s observed variables. Decisions
regarding missing values, outliers, and nonnorrnality of the data were made using the
recommendation of West, Finch, and Curran (1995), as these attributes can dramatically
affect the results of structural equation modeling. Less than 1% of the data was missing
for the entire model (0.06%). Mean substitution was used to replace missing data values.
As recommended by Cohen (1990), stem and leaf plots depicting the distributions of each
measured variable were examined to detect and exclude outliers (cases more than three
standard deviations ﬁom the mean) from the analyses. A total of 17 participants
exhibited extreme values and were excluded from the analyses. Extremely high scores
were exhibited on the M888 (3 participants), the S.A.F.E. (6 participants), the Brief
COPE (1 participant), and the DSD-26(1 participant). Extremely low scores were
exhibited on the ARSMA-II (3 participants), the Brief COPE (2 participants), the PSSF A
(2 participants), the PSSFR (1 participant) and the SHS (1 participant). The data were
examined for excessive kurtosis and skewness. The absolute value of the skew and
kurtosis indices were >3 and >10, respectively, indicating that excessive kurtosis and
skewness were not present in the data set (Kline, 1998). The data also reﬂected a
relatively normal distribution.

Phase Two. In Phase 2, the psychometric properties of the measures were
examined. Thus, the items of each measure were grouped according to each instrument’s

hypothesized subscales. Observed correlations among the subscales of each measure

98

were examined. The internal consistency of each subscale was assessed by calculating
coefficient alpha values. Alpha coefficients ranged from 0.51 on the Social Scale of the
S.A.F.E. to 0.92 on the DSD26 (see Table 9). Because several of the scales had low
internal consistency coefﬁcients and were found to be highly correlated, conﬁrmatory
factor analyses (CFAs) using LISREL 8.3 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1992) were conducted to
determine if the collected data ﬁt the reported factor structure for each measure. For
measures that were reported to have more than one scale (e. g., ARSMA-II, MEIM,
MSSS, S.A.F E Brief COPE, and PF-SOC), CFAs were also conducted to determine if a
signiﬁcant amount of the covariance among the subscales might not better be explained
by one factor or a unidimensional factor solution. Floyd and Widaman (1995) indicate
that unidimensional factor solutions may be appropriate for many psychological
instruments because most psychological constructs are composed of multiple, correlated
facets.

To determine the degree of ﬁt, absolute, relative and parsimonious ﬁt indices
were examined. To determine absolute ﬁt or the overall ﬁt of the model the chi-square
(x2) goodness of ﬁt index was examined. This index evaluates covariance among
measured variables that are not accounted for by the models. Ifthe chi-square statistic is
signiﬁcant, there is statistical basis for rejecting the hypothesized factor structure of the
instrument(s). The chi-square statistic is, however, dependent on sample size. Therefore,
three additional indices were examined as recommended by Floyd and Widaman (1995)
and Reise, Widaman, and Pugh (1993). These indices were the Goodness of Fit (GFI),
the Adjusted Goodness of Fit (AGFI) (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1989) and the Root Mean

Square Error Approximation (RMSEA; Steiger & Lind, 1980). The GFI and AGFI

99

indices range between zero and one and 0.90 is a suggested acceptable value. According to
Browne and Cudeck (1993) a RMSEA value of 0.05 or less indicates a close ﬁt to the data;
0.05-0.10 a moderate ﬁt; and above 0.10 is a bad ﬁt.

The relative ﬁt was assessed using the Comparative Fit Index (CPI; Bentler,
1990) and the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI; Tucker & Lewis, 1973) or Non-Normed Fit
Index (NNFI; Bentler & Bonett, 1980). The CPI and NNFI are indices relatively
independent of sample size. CF I and NNFI values of 0.90 are considered as acceptable
indicators of ﬁt (Reise et a1, 1993).

Relative parsimony of the null model (model with no common factors) and
competing model (hypothesized factor structure of measure(s)) was
determined by the Parsimonious Goodness of Fit Indices (PGFI and PNFI; Mulaik et al.,
1989). These indices are relatively unbiased measures of ﬁt that adjust for the degree of
parsimony in each particular model. Higher values, ranging from zero to one, indicate
better ﬁt.

Taken together, the indices of absolute, comparative, and parsimonious ﬁt did not
provide strong support for all measures except the SWLF and the SHS. CF As of
unidimensional models of all measures excluding the SWLF and SHS did not provide
strong indices of ﬁt. Table 10 depicts these indices.

Phase Three. The third wave of analyses explored the factor structure of measures
that did not have acceptable ﬁt. The items of each measure were submitted to Principal
Axis Factor (PAF) analyses using SPSS 11.0 in order to determine the best factor

structure of each measure for this sample. Because debate exists about the appropriate

100

t

2.8 .358“: 038.3% n mmm .28 e: as, 8:823 u 5.3
8223289 .3 28m 28 u 8de .28 93.3.... u 80mm. .23 2,5285 u .80me .25 258...... u Comm. .880 .885 "me08

wcaoo 825 n 3508. 22:52 u 3.72m :Eoom u .936 2.5323. n mmm<m ...anE:o:>:m n 55% 35350 5:88:85 u 832
..mEoocoU .280 o_:£o=o:.o_:£m H «mm... $58.80 2:533. lmmmE ...occoaum biblebéonasm .38. 838th n mbmmn. ..mu=0_£-to&:m

58m 8385. u Emma SEE- e895 :38 3383. u <88 ..eosﬁom 025m “952 3552623. 83: 255 u mam: 88.5.8 as.

 

 

EEESG< H .5982 ..28m cocﬁcomo £wc< u mﬁzmyz ..28M 5.35:0 58182 H 3.293. ..Ecomamm 05 so 323a ”EchoEooo 525.23. .802
.... .... ...: .... v... m... .... 2... ...~ 3.. 2.. 3.. 2.. N... 3.2 ...: __.~_ ...: .... .... .... .... ...: a
....N 2.2 M... ...: ...: ...: 2... 2... .... m... .... ...: .... ...: ...: 2... 3.2. 3... .... ...: ...: R... ...... :5:
3.... 3.. mm..- 2... 2... .... S... .... z... 2... 2... 2... 2... 2... .... ._.. .... .... z... .... .... z. 2.. E.
a ma... 2... 2... M... 2... 2.. 3... 2... 2... .2. 2... .... 2... .... 2.. .... .... .... v... M... N... “:3.
a .... Q. .... ...... 3... 2.. .... 2.. 2.. 2.. .... 2.. 2... z... 2... .... .... .... 3... .... ......
a 3.. 1.. .... .... 2.. 2.. 2.. .... .... 2.. .... 3... 3... 2... 2... 3... 3... .... .... Go...
a ...... .... 2... 2.. _~.. .... ._.. .... .... .... a... 2... .... .... 8... 2... .... 3... do...
a... 3... 3.. M... ...... .... M... V... .... .... .... .... 2.. .... .... .... .... .... 3o...
2.... .... 2.. 2.. v... .... 2.. .... 2.. .... M... 3... 2.. .... .... 2... N... 2.8.
...... N... 2... 2.. 3.. .... M... .... 3.. .... 3.. 2.. 2.. v... .... 2.. ...8.
...... 2.. 3.. .... 2.. .... 2.. .... .... z... .... .... .... .... 2.. a...
a N... 3.. 2.. .... 2.. 2... Z... 2... .... .... ~... 2... 3.. 35
a 3.. .... m... .... 3... 2... 3... 2.. .... 2.. 3... .... 3.3
a... Z. .... N... 3... 3... : ... mm. 2.. m N. Z... 2.. _ ....
a... 3.. .... 3... 3... 8... .M. .... .... S... .... an:
a... .... 3... .... _ .... .... .... .... 2... 2.. as:
a... .... .... .... .... .... .... 2... 3.. _ an:
a 2.. _ ... ~_ .. .... .... ._ ... .... .3».
...... .... .... 2... ~.... .... 2... E...
a... .... .2 2.. .... N... «....
.31.. ...... 3.. 2... M... 2::
a m... 2... .... 9...:
34. 2... .... E3:
94. an... as
a 3:5
...: :3. .83 02.. 03:89.. 3.8. 3.8. :3 $3 $3 :3 an: an: an: .2... E... «.... ”:3: 3:: £3: 3.: 3:3

 

 

883mg .0 moﬁomnsm @2588 he. maﬁa—.80 BEDS—lam we. males—obloeouﬁ .0 03m...

101

applications of orthogonal (varimax option in SPSS) and oblique (promax option in
SPSS) rotations when conducting PAF, both were performed. The resulting factor
solutions differed significantly. Thus, Wood, Tataryn, and Gorsuch’s (1996) criteria for
genuine factors were considered. These criteria are: large factor loadings, meaningful
factors, and replicated factors identiﬁed in previous research. In addition, as
recommended by Floyd and Widaman (1995), a factor was only considered if it consisted
of at least three variables. The criteria for determining the number of factors to be
extracted were based on eigenvalues greater than 1.0 (Guttman, 1954) accounting for 3%
or more of the explained variance (Kachigan, 1991). Furthermore, as Floyd and
Widaman (1995) recommend, solutions with factors that accounted for close to 50% of
the variance of the measured variables were retained. Finally, the conceptual
meaningfulness of the factors was considered in order to determine which factor solutions
made the most sense based on theoretical or empirical grounds (Wood et al., 1996). The
results of the PAF with orthogonal rotation met the above criteria best and are described
below.

The initial result of the PAP with orthogonal rotation was used to determine the
number of forced factor solutions that needed to be conducted for each measure. Forced
factor solutions were then inspected in terms of conceptual meaningfulness using the
conventional criterion of factor loadings of 0.40 or higher. If an item had a factor loading
of 0:40 or greater on more than one factor and the discrepancy between the item factor
loadings was less than 0.30 the item was deleted from both factors. Once the best factor
solutions were established, reliability analyses of each scale were performed. Additional

items were removed from their perspective scales if internal consistency was improved

102

Sod vd... .59: .E .6 $2880 8285??“
u 75¢ 59: .E 3882 msoEoEmam n EZm 235 E 3.58-82 u £22 £85 .5 OEEEEoU n EU ”cosmEQoaa’x mo Bum 256m :32

Box n «Fame/E 235 .E .8 $2680 3833‘ n $0.4. 38?: am we $2680 n E0 ”888$ .6 82on "MW ”3:33-20 .1. Hula ”mum 295m M Z .202

 

 

8. mm. :2 3 8. a. 2... N 33 SN A32 5&3 a 523.8%; €85 52805623 mmm
NM. 3. 3. Ma. S. a. S. m .53.: SN 52 ..a a 555 .685 aaoaaoaeaa 326
s. S. E. 2. :. S. 2. am .382 SN A82 ..3 a masom :39: 38355823 8-89
S. cm. 3. we. 2. 3 E. o: LENS SN £2 5.3m a. 8895 585 52808623 n58;
mm. X. G. 3. S. S. 8. o: 3.?2 SN A32 5:5 a. 25.95 308:. 5228553 Emma
on. E. 8. 3. a. S. G. O: 53.82 SN 25 .33: a. 039$ ”.085 52805625 $me
9.. mm. .2. 9.. mm. 3. E. m2 3%.: SN 385 5.280882: 08%
S. 8. S. E. :. P. om. N: :33. SN A32 ..3 a bacom ”38:. 3.22086 9 want
S. em. 2. 8. 2. S. 3. 8“ ...: .NS SN .085 3838563 mmoo ﬁrm
8. w... on 8. :. 3. E. mom .2»: SN 38 a: a. 03 .385 3.28086 3 Boo “0cm
8. mm. 3 S. S. 8. E. 2: Es: SN .086 522055: madam
8. 3. w». a. 2. E. cm. a: *8.an SN $2 ...a a 202 £88 32836 3 .mm.<.m
3. a. E. E. 2. S. S. E 33.32 SN 388 nagging $3
8. S. E. E. 2. E. 3. NZ .2 _ .Em SN :52 .283 M.25.: 38658.6 9 mmmz
8. 2. cm. 3. S. cm. 3. K $38 SN 38.: Baggage: Sam—2
S. 2. 3. a. 3. mm. 3. K Ana: SN A82 .322; .388 3283:. 9 Sam:
2. 9. M3. Nm. 2. mm. a. 2:. $32K SN 688 gage—nae: =-<Emm<
mm. 3. we. mm. 2. mm. 3.. 2:. .338 SN 32: ..a a 535 ME55 accuses a :-<2mm<
E3 E7: 522 Eu <mm2m E3 E0 3 M m .252

 

 

 

mug—mom @3628 $50 £5 :23 88mm 088550 8m .8065 “E .«0 326000 .2 2an

   

103

(alpha values increased). Finally, the means, standard deviations, and range for each

measure’s scale were calculated (see Table ll).

104

 

3-0
mm-m
on
hm$
3.2
m 7v
0N6
TWN
mNé
cub
m m-w
3.0
CW:
91:
mmé.
0N-w
2%
3-x
Om-o
ﬁmé
910
ové
NTM
om-w
me
v0-2

33

09v
3.0
a;
3%
5.0
VON
$6
ooh
Nvé
SM.
3%
wwd
Sim
who
Sum
Nw.m
Sam
ween
wmd
mmd
va
wad
omN
:.m
2.".
3::
.le

Omdm
5.3
_m.m
3&—
v0.2
end
05.2
mod—
2.0—
odg
3.8
oﬁom
8.9»
mmém
won
3%?
3.3
00.3
NWS
mow
more:
one:
00.x
3.2
3.:
Nmsm
:33

 

28m mmoﬁmamm o>tom33m

£5 5:3 couoﬂmumm

macaqexm EEoEm

mEquE>m Bambi

8.058% 023835 EcocoEm
Bacomcom bacozcb Sow EoEﬁSoQ
7258.3 onZcD 88m toqqsm uozooom
65033 basicb 9 toaazm wEBEE
$8820 Bum

toaasm boom $2255

tomasm coon 83803

595:: 358m

toaqzm 383m wozooom

mama—cu EmEo><

wanU o>mtomm<

mamaoo 033$

toqum magnum

wcioo o>to<

mmobm 3:88885

EoEmm 3.52:0 8 26 233:2?
8330 3950 m0 _mm§&<
comaEEtome mo _mm_8&<

bmoiﬁm mo 5:82qu

gum—Bum mo aoEcmooom

8:23 0&2

8:85ch 953

mmm
mug/m
mama
mama
REG
mmDmmm
Ngmmm
52me
gummm
gmmm
ﬁlmmmmm
N<mmmm
gamma
NuomnE
~UOmnE
mmmOUm
NmmOum
$30an
Nmm<m
—mm<m
Nmmmz
ﬁmmmz
NEE
“gm—z
N<Emm<

22mg
28m

 

 

I'l‘

mug—mom 3289.3 and camcouﬂan Envy—Sm demo—Z .: 2an

 

105

Individual Cultural Characteristics

Acculturagion Rating Scale for MeximAmericans-Revised (ARSMA-II; Scale L‘
Cuellar et @995). This measure was used to assess level of acculturation. The
literature reported two subscales, Mexican Orientation Scale (MOS; 17 items) and the
Anglo Oriented Scale (AOS; 13 items). Acculturation scores for each participant were
calculated as suggested by Cuellar et al. (1995). Thus, the mean of the MOS was
subtracted from the mean of the A08. Cuellar et al. (1995) reported a test-retest
reliability coefﬁcient over a l-week interval of 0.96 for the acculturation score. The
acculturation scores were then compared to the cutting scores to determine acculturation
level. No participants represented a Very Latina/o Oriented level. Approximately 11%
represented a Latina/o Oriented to Approximately Balanced Bicultural level, 31%
represented a Slightly Anglo Oriented Bicultural level, 44% represented a Strongly Anglo
Oriented level, and 14% represented a Very Assimilated: Anglicized level. A
conﬁrmatory factor analysis (CFA) indicated a poor ﬁt for the data [)6 (df 404, N=201) =
2053.36, p < 0.001, GFI = 0.59, AGFI = 0.53, RMSEA = 0.14, CFI = 0.52, NNFI = 0.48,
PNFI = 0.43, PGFI = 0.52]. A unidimensional model produced similar results [)8 (df
406, N=201) = 2063.23, p < 0.001, GFI = 0.59, AGFI = 0.53, RMSEA = 0.14, CFI =
0.52, NNFI = 0.48, PNFI = 0.43, PGFI = 0.52]. The initial results of the PAP with
orthogonal rotation yielded eight factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 that accounted
for 3% or more of the explained variance. However, only two factors met the criteria
outlined above for appropriate scales. Thus, PAF analyses were repeated ﬁrst forcing a
two factor solution and then forcing one factor. The two-forced factor solution best

reﬂected theoretical meaningﬁilness and parsimony. Item loadings for the ﬁrst factor

106

ranged from 0.415 to 0.786. This factor accounted for 26.53% of the explained variance
and appeared to be a measure of orientation to Latina/o culture. Fourteen of the 17 items
of the MOS and one item of the AOS loaded on this factor. One item was deleted
because it also loaded on the second factor and the discrepancy between item loading was
approximately 0.03. Reliability analyses of this factor revealed that deleting the one
item from the AOS scale increased the alpha coefficient from 0.89 to 0.91. Item loadings
for the second factor ranged from 0.437 to 0.859. This factor accounted for 8.54% of the
explained variance and appeared to be a measure of afﬁliation with Anglos. Only 4 items
of the AOS scale loaded on this factor. Furthermore, reliability analysis revealed that the
alpha coefficient would increase from 0.74 to 0.80 if one of the items was deleted. The
resulting two scales, Latino Orientation and Anglo Afﬁliation are represented by
ARSMA] and ARSMA2 in Table 12 and Figure 11. High scores on each scale indicate
strong orientation to Latino culture and strong afﬁliation with Anglos, respectively.
Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM; Phinney, 1992). The MEIM was used
to assess ethnic identity. Phinney (1992) reported three factor subscales; Afﬁrmation and
Belonging, Ethnic Identity Achievement, and Ethnic Behavior. However, subsequent
studies have reported a one-factor structure for this measure. CFAs of the three-factor
and one factor solutions indicated a poor ﬁt for the data [Three Factor; x2 (df 74, N=201)
= 189.32, p < 0.001, GFI = 0.88, AGFI = 0.83, RMSEA = 0.09, CFI = 0.91, NNFI = 0.88,
PNFI = 0.70, PGFI = 0.62; One factor: 12 (df 77, N=201) = 238.55, p < 0.001, GFI =
0.85, AGFI =0.80, RMSEA = 0.10, CFI = 0.88, NNFI = 0.86, PNFI = 0.70, PGFI = 0.63].

The initial results of the PAP with orthogonal rotation yielded two factors with

eigenvalues greater than 1.0 that accounted for 54.70% of the explained variance.

107

.23: 526568 BEBE 552% .0: 8:83 8.20: :8: ...... .onv ma; 3:86:86 65 93 8.2% 28 :9: 22: :o 332 z 8:83 H6220: 82H ...

 

 

5:. RN; 538:3 :u 3 28%: @352 9 8:— H om<2mm<
689.3. ...—:0:

NE. a e 8E2. 5? 25683 _ 22$?
5. m2. cameo 2?: :0 as 38 355 :2 22292
awn. mmo. :cho on:< Ho 0.53 a: wEBEw 33 H 233 3:03 >2 «.2232
m 2 was: a 8.0 n 237..
880mm 8%: £3» :o_§oomm< ”N 28m

Rm. 3%.... owaawaH :mzmﬁH 05 :2 0:0: mm waif: >2 oH<2myH<
3%... «e3. Emto 25235 H0 203 a: mEBEw 33 H 223 3:05 >2 NN<2mMH<
6820—. «2:0:

2%.- 3w. coon mm: >b::8 25c: >8 .23 88:8 >2 wH<2mm<
$0.- vac. 25mg: 8 8:3 3 28?: >252 2 8:. H om<2mm<
$0.- mmv. :mmto ..oESH. :o 2:235: Ho 8m 26: $55 >2 @2292
SN. Haw. $58 2535 8.08 >=E£ >2 v9.29?
mgr cum. 28:65 £525: 8%5 85:3 5:.» 83088 H m<2mm<
mmmr as. 23:: owmzmﬁx :3:an 8 3:85: >980 H 029?.
SN. ms. 330:: owgmcﬂ :mmcmam >o.H:o H HH<2m~H<
03.. an. Emmﬁam E 80on ..m8 of? H vH<2mMH<
wow: 35. :2:an :H 8.8: ..m3 mﬁcmo: >080 H 223?.
wNN... «mu. :3:QO wEvHaoam >980 H 22mg?
Her 3%. ommzw:£ zmmcmam 05 E 0:26 m_ @335 >2 53.29?
as- E. Z. 88?: @525 3.3... H 35%.
can- 2:. 5.68m 6:82 2292
m _ Geo: m: 8.0 n 2:2
286mm :ozﬁcoto 0:33 ”H 28m

 

 

a.<2mm<q womH>oyHécm6€oE< @2682 :8 2QO maﬁa Egg—38¢. .NH 2an

 

108

The results of the subsequent forced factor solutions revealed that the two as opposed to
the one forced factor solution was more conceptually meaningﬁil. Item loadings for the
ﬁrst factor ranged from 0.421 to 0.795. This factor accounted for 46.66% of the
explained variance and appeared to be a measure of recognition of ethnicity. All items of
the Affirmation and Belonging and the Ethnic Behavior scales and one item from Ethnic
Identity Achievement loaded on this factor. The one item from the Ethnic Identity
Achievement and one item from Afﬁrmation and Belonging were deleted because they
also loaded on the second factor and the discrepancy between item loadings were
approximately 0.13 and 0.26, respectively. Reliability analyses of this factor revealed
that deleting one from the Ethnic Behaviors scale increased the alpha coefﬁcient from
0.821 to 0.832. Item loadings for the second factor ranged from 0.516 to 0.717. This
factor accounted for 8.04% of the explained variance and appeared to be a measure of
one’s exploration of ethnicity. Four items from the Afﬁrmation and Belonging scale
loaded on this factor. However, one of the items was deleted because it loaded on both
factors and the discrepancy between loadings was 0.01. Alpha reliability for this scale
was acceptable (or = 0.72). The resulting two scales Recognition of Ethnicity and
Exploration of Ethnicity are represented by MEIM] and MEIMZ in Table 13 and Figure
11. High scores on both of these scales indicate high ethnic identity.
Appraisal of Sociocultural Stress

Minority Student Stresses Scale (MSSS; Saldana, 1994 1. The M888 was used to
assess stressful experiences and perceptions of the university relevant to ethnic minority
status among Latina/o students. Saldana (1994) reported that the M888 is made up of

three scales; Academic Concerns, Ethnic-Nonethnic Group Concerns, and Discrimination

109

82H H0088 080>0~H +
05:0 8085000 00.68:: 85200 0: 0080009 0080—00 80: ...... .Omdv 003 58000808 05 8.0 8.08 08 :05 088 :0 00802 2 000003 0000—00 80: ...

5mm. «mam.

 

 

08 8m .8008 8 00:3 80 8883009 0850 >8 .8 080m 0008 0 0>0n H MHszHSH
5000.05 0.80:

03. mwm. 988m 0850 >8 830
08000 .050 8 000:0“ 8050 020: H 68880—009 0850 >8 8000 088 800— 3 8008 5 SEE:

:3. 0H m. 089030 080 £85805
>858 00 :03 .988 0850 :30 >8 8020 088 80 85 9. w8>b 085 80% 0>0.H H HSHHME

:0. >2. 988 0850 >8
.8 >838 080 08:30 05 8000 088 E00. 8 w8>5 08: 80:8 80% 8: 0>0s >=008 H REES
N _ 850 as. .o u 08:.
880g >8085m .8 85088me ”N 200m

mwm. :50. 988
0850 >8 .8 802808 >588 00208 505 .8:on H088 8 8050~80w8 8 0380 80 H 3.5va

ms... «80. 8:08 8050 80 008m :30 >8 8 00080 9 30:
.8 08805 8 .08 8 8008 08802808 98% 0850 >8 505$ :03 >508 8.058058: H oSHHmHz
30. «HS. 988 0850 :30 >8 9 9088—030 0800 @850 0 0>0n H wSHHmHSH
508.05 080:
mom. «cm. 8 8200 H 98% 05 .8 809808 0 80 H 005 >80: 80 H 2szqu
0mm. 03. 080852080000 0: H80 988 0850 >8 8 028 .8 8H 0 0>0s H HHSHHmSH

Ham. an». 088.80
8 .0638 .008 880% 00 :08 .988 :30 >8 .8 0005008 H8380 8 000805.000 H 23:32
mom. 30. 82080—009 0850 8 H0880 >8 8090 team H00H H 3252
mom. man. 98% 0850 :30 >8 88039 80880050 mcobm 0 H00,H H mHEHmHHz
m 8 H25: 3 3.0 u 082
8800a >.._085m ,8 :058w000yH ”H 200m

 

 

Sam: 080002 5:03 08:5 -582 .m H 030%

110

Concerns. A CF A of these three subscales indicated a poor ﬁt for the data [x2 (df 272,
N=201) = 817.11, p < 0.001, GFI = 0.75, AGFI = 0.71, RMSEA = 0.10, CFI = 0.81,
NNFI = 0.79, PNFI = 0.67, PGF I = 0.63]. A unidimensional model also resulted in poor
ﬁt [3;2 (df275, N=201) = 1241.48, 9 < 0.001, GFI = 0.67, AGFI = 0.61, RMSEA = 0.13,
CFl = 0.72, NNFI = 0.70, PNFI = 0.61, PGFI = 0.57]. PAF analyses yielded two factors
with eigenvalues greater than 1.0, each accounting for 3% or more of the explained
variance. The two forced factor solution was found to be more conceptually meaningful
than the one forced factor solution. Item loadings for the ﬁrst factor ranged from 0.534 to
0.798. This factor accounted for 44.58% of the explained variance and appeared to be a
measure of appraisal of discrimination. All items of the Discrimination Concerns scale
and ﬁve items from the Academic Concerns scale loaded on this factor. Three items
from the Academic Concerns Scale also loaded on the second factor and the discrepancy
between item loadings ranged from 0.13 to O. 17, thus, they were deleted. The reliability
coefficient for this scale was 0.90. Item loadings for the second factor ranged from 0.537
to 0.713. This factor accounted for 7.47% of the explained variance and appeared to be a
measure of appraisal of campus culture. Four of the ten items from the Academic
Concerns scale and eight of the Ethnic-Non Ethnic Group Concerns loaded on this factor.
One item from the Academic Concerns scale was deleted because it loaded on both
factors and the discrepancy between loadings was 0.14. Reliability analyses for this scale
improved from 0.893 to 0.894 after removing one item from the Ethnic-Non Ethnic
Concerns scale. Furthermore, deleting this item could be justiﬁed on theoretical grounds.

The resulting two scales Appraisal of Discrimination and Appraisal of Campus Culture

111

are represented by MSSSl and MSSSZ in Table 14 and Figure 11. High scores on each
of these scales are indicative of more experiences of minority status stress

Social. Attitudinal. Familial and Environmental iSAFE.) Acculturation Stress
Scale (Mena et al., 1987). The S.A.F.E. was used to assess stress arising from the
process of acculturation in four broad areas: (1) pressure to assimilate and feeling
impeded by cultural barriers, (2) stress that arises from separation from family, friends,
and culture, (3) the quality of immediate interpersonal relationships, being sociable, and
making friends, and (4) conﬂicts between personal and family values, expectations. The
literature reports a four-factor solution (F uertes & Westbrook, 1996). These factors are:
Environmental, Attitudinal, Social, and Familial. CFAs of the four-factor and one-factor
solutions indicated a poor ﬁt [Four-factor solution; 12 (df 183, N=201) = 538.00, p <
0.001, GFI = 0.80, AGFI = 0.74, RMSEA = 0.10, CFI = 0.81, NNFI = 0.78, PNFI = 0.64,
PGFI = 0.63; One-factor solution; )8 (df 189, N=201) = 740.47, p < 0.001, GFI = 0.74,
AGFI = 0.68, RMSEA = 0.12, CFI = 0.72, NNFI = 0.69, PNFI = 0.58, PGFI = 0.60].
PAF analyses yielded ﬁve factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 accounting for 3% or
more of the explained variance. Only two factors met the criteria outlined above for
appropriate scales. Subsequent forced factor solutions revealed that the two forced factor
solution was more conceptually meaningful than the one factor solution. Item loadings
for the ﬁrst factor ranged from 0.509 to 0.799. This factor accounted for 33.88% of the
explained variance and appeared to be a measure of alienation due to cultural barriers.
Six items from the Environmental scale loaded on this factor. However, one item was
deleted because it also loaded on the second factor and the discrepancy between loadings

was 0.03. The reliability coefﬁcient for this scale was 0.88. Item loadings for the second

112

0:20 8065000 00.68:: 880.0: m: 8:000: 00.0.00 80: ...... .cmdv 00.: 5:000:86 05 0:0 0200.: 0:0 :05 0:08 :0 00—000— : 08000: 00.0.0: 80: ...

 

 

. .5. :o. 85.0 202 was“: 5%:
«NS. 2.0. 95% 0850 >8 .00 080030 mo £000: 05 Sm toqqzm 0:0 800:8 w:_0_00_ 8803:: 02,—. vmmmz
“0000—00 080:
$0. wmm. 3:05:00 3:00 030—023 anew 0850 >8 mo 02080.: 80 00—08 :00309 08:80:23“ EmmmZ
8... EN. 0:28 €088 3003 a $8:
an. mom. 20 :08 288 205 023 0o 20% B 06% 8 was: 2 3%
3m. mmm. 56:02:: 0:: H0 anew 0850 8: .00 809808 @080 30:03:0333080 .«0 0.004 3 392
can. woo. 0.95% 0850 8000.006 50.509 09:80:23” 2 mmmE
0%. 8m. 00535 as 050500 2:? 3:52 0:20 E 0559502 :30:
80. £0. 288 20.2 €88 0580 3: 9 0:30: 2302
03. mem. 980m 0850 b: .00 8800.00:— nmzoﬁ “oz Emmi
:0. Km. anew 0850 >8 8 800.0: 003$ m:_>_o>8 008:8 30m 332
80. com. 0080—0 »8 8 anew 0850 >8 .00 080an 30m $32
0:. $0 228 2088 0258-208 2 00004
N : 080: E 00 .o n 202
8203 0:830 0.6800 .00 0000830 ”N 200m
3%. .. 3m. anew 0850 N8 .00 080080 80.59 5300‘: .00 8080008008802 5mm:
Ev. «new. 8803:: 0:5 .0 0.09.588 0:0 mo_w:< 50.509 0020:0320: 080,—. ommmZ
an... 3%. 82 0805-52; 8 0:0 mo_m:< 0:0 Boa 08000-32 m800 9.2m 0850 »8 mo 0:09:08 w800m ommmz
68200 080:
3m. vnm. 8803:: $5 00 0003005 0:0 000:0: “£00m mmmmz
Nwm. can. .00 0:000:09 00250 0.95% 0850 x8 .00 0300800080: 3 o: r. 00:3 005 080.005 3 mmmz
NR. So.
95% 0850 .9: 00 080030 80¢ 00:08:80: 2800000 :00: 830090 b.300m\$:0cam o_w:< wmmmz
NNM. mp. anew 0850 %8 .00 0300: .8.“ 000000: w:§00~ 8050 vmmmm—z
owm. was. 20:0: 00 0035 0:03 ..w0v 8050 8 005—30 >8 :38? 9 8303 mmmmmz
02. $5. 36020 5 0o 0388 88.5 8 2003 0280 0:00 30mm:
Em. 35. 389300005 80850 %8 mo 03 :03 80:00 0 0a 3 08 8:00:00 0300: o_w:< mmmmmz
or. 02. 05000 0228800 0:00 20mm:
N _ 85: a 3.0 n 202
8080a 5:088:85 me .0889? ; 200m

 

 

mmmz 030m mmobm mSH—mwm utOcm—Z .V_ 255—.

113

factor ranged from 0.419 to 0.668. This factor accounted for 8.69% of the explained
variance and appeared to be a measure of interpersonal stress. Items that loaded on this
factor included: 4 from the Environmental, 4 from the Attitudinal, 1 from the Social, and
1 from the Familial scale. Three items from the Environmental scale were deleted
because they loaded on both factors and the discrepancy between loadings ranged from
0.01 to 0.10. The reliability for this scale was 0.77. The resulting two scales, Alienation
due Cultural Barriers and Interpersonal Stress are represented by SAFE] and SAFE2 in
Table 15 and Figure 11. High scores on both scales indicate greater experience of
acculturative stress.
m

The Brief COPE Inventory (Camer49ﬂ. The Brief COPE was used to assess
coping responses to minority status stress and/or acculturative stress. Carver (1997)
reported 14 subscales each with two items. Lee and Liu (2001) reported two subscales
COPE-Direct and COPE-Indirect. A CFA of the two-factor solution found by Lee and
Liu (2001) indicated a poor ﬁt for the data [x2 (df 208, N=201) = 748.45, p < 0.001, GFI
= 0.75, AGFI = 0.69, RMSEA = 0.11, CFI = 0.60, NNFI = 0.56, PNFI = 0.48, PGFI =
0.61]. A unidimensional model did not improve ﬁt [x2 (df 209, N=201) = 972.17, p <
0.001, GFI = 0.69, AGFI = 0.63, RMSEA = 0.14, CFI = 0.46, NNFI = 0.40, PNFI = 0.36,
PGFI = 0.57]. The initial PAF yielded eight factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 that
accounted for 3% or more of the explained variance. Only three of these factors met the
criteria outlined above for appropriate scales. PAF analyses forcing factors ranging from
one to three revealed that the three factor solution best reﬂected theoretical

meaningfulness. Item loadings for the ﬁrst factor ranged from 0.457 to 0.778.

114

05:0 8065000 00.08:: 8:200 00 000000: 020—00 80: .... 0de 003 8:80:80 05 0:0 8:00: 0:0 :05 088 :0 00002 H: 0000000 02200 82H ..

«:3. 0n... 0:00—00 >8 .8 082000 000.008 H .H: 08 0000 0300 :00. 08000 055%
«um... NNQ. 0:28:80 0: 08 0:08.08 0800: 00:3 08 80500 :H 092m
«00m. 09.. 08000 :88 :05 080088 0: 80:80: 0:08 0>0: H 573%

”00.0.00 080:
03.. mum. 080: :0 H00: :.:00 H meHnH<m
um... mm H. 0: 002. 0803 H :0: >030 0>08 0: 08 80>» :0: 0.000 >=80.: >2 HNmHnH<m
05.. 00: . 88:00:00:

0850 >8 .8 08000 0300 :00 :0 8000 8on 0x08 8050 :05» 0308580000 .00.: H 0mm<m
00m. mom. 805.00 8 0:008:00: _0:0:H00 >8 5;» 005 05 m800000H H HmHhH<m
mbm. 00m. .00.: >=00: H 30: 00:05.: >8 0: 8.0800 0: 0:0: 0: :H vaHnH<m
$0. 000.- :80: :5 5:3 2: 888 H :0: 2: 22:80 0 0880
000. :2. 0820.08 83:8 :e 080 .8: 8:2 20.20

N : 052: SR .0 n 052
80:00HH 800m H000800:08H ”N 0H00m

 

05.. .‘00m. 00:: 0:0 >05 .: 00 08 :00: 0:0 @008 0850 :0 08:00 >8 8000 00900085 00: 08000 >002 vmnzm
“080.00 080:

2.0.. m3. 850:8: 0 8 38850 >8 :05 H008 00850800 H .02 0 8,: 8200— :H mmm<m
mm m . 000. 002500 :05
8 85080508 80:: 08 002000 0000 8050 :05 H00: H 0:008:00: 0850 >8 .8 000000m wmnzm
mNH. awn. 880000 800 08 00:0 0: >5 >H0>500 08000 :05 H00: 0000 H $505
:3. 00:. 08 :880 0: 0000800 0:0 05> 08000 >0 008:3 H00: 0050 H Nmm<m
Hmm. 00:. 00 H 0003 05 8.: :00:0 800:0 0m :0: 00H 80:00.00 80 H 000000m 55$
0 H 080:: 3 :00 u 2:2
80:00HH 80_::0m .8880 0: 000 00500050. “H 200m

 

 

0_00m 805m 00:08:08.4 .m..,H.<:m H0::08:0:H>:m 0.0 _0=_80nH 8800500. 300m .2 030.0

115

This factor accounted for 20.81% of the explained variance and appeared to be a measure
of active coping. Eight items from the COPE-Direct scale loaded on this factor.
Reliability analyses produced an alpha coefficient from 0.82. Item loadings for the
second factor ranged from 0.768 to 0.821. This factor accounted for 12.89% of the
explained variance and appeared to be a measure of seeking support. Two items from the
COPE-Direct scale and two items deleted from the COPE-Indirect scale by Lee and Liu
(2001) loaded on this factor. The alpha coefficient for this scale was 0.88. Item loadings
for the third factor ranged from 0.434 to 0.581. The third factor accounted for 7.14% of
the explained variance and appeared to be a measure of passive coping. Seven items
from the COPE-Indirect scale and two items deleted from the COPE-Indirect scale by
Lee and Liu (2001) loaded on this factor. Reliability analyses revealed that the reliability
increased from 0.75 to 0.76 when one item from the COPE-Indirect scale was deleted.
The resulting three scales, Active Coping, Seeking Support, and Passive Coping are
represented by BCOPEI, BCOPEZ, and BCOPE3, respectively (see Table 16 and Figure
11). High scores on these scales indicate high utilization of direct coping strategies (e. g.,
Active Coping, Seeking Support) and high utilization of indirect coping strategies (e. g.,
Passive Coping).

Problem-Focused Style of Coping (PF-SOC; Heppner et $1995). The PF-SOC
was used to assess stable dispositional coping styles that tap general coping strategies.
The literature reported three subscales Reﬂective Style, Suppressive Style, and Reactive
Style. A CFA of the three-factor solution indicated a poor ﬁt to the data [Three Factor; )8
(df132, N=201) = 439.91, p < 0.001, GFI = 0.80, AGFI = 0.75, RMSEA = 0.11, CFI =

0.76, NNFI = 0.72, PNFI = 0.60, PGFI = 0.62] A CFA of a one-factor solution produced

116

.0020 800000000 0908:: 0000.00 00 0000000 00000 80: ......

 

3.090.

mnv.
one.
09..
0mm.
0mm.
00m.
00m.
Ham.
m

wmor

wNor

omo.-

mmor
m

35.-
00H.
08.
mmo.
35..
o: ..
000.
N8.
m

ch.

03.
03.-
N09.
pot
mNo.
ooo.
HNo.
GONr
N
0:00.000
new.
000.
Ht.
HNm.
N
05000.0
mmN.
coo.
0mm.
HMN.
moN.
0HN.
woo.
000.

N
88000

w080000 :0 $083.0 .w00000:0>00
000000: .>.H. 8:00:05» .8068 0: w80w 00 0000 .002 0 00000 085 0: 8000800 00 H

:0000 .00.: 0H00>8 0008 0: 0w0:0 :050 :0 8000.0 0000 H
0000 0: 88000 05 00 02w H

8:89... 09: 0 0.0 320.: 2 3.02 :

0H00>8 080000 H

0 @085 00m 08 030 0: 08:0 :050 :0 600000 000 H
:80: 0.000 0.05.. 0H00>8 0: >00 H

0 00.5 H000 0: w00>:: 00 0.08 H

00000000 :05 0m000 :00 0H00>8 0803 H

a H mHnHOUmH
”0000—00 080:
0m000m

0 H mmOUm
ammoom

m H mmOUm

H HmHnHOUm
mmHOOUmH
emaoom
cNmHnHOUmH

A053: 00 03 u 20:0

8800 000000

20000 :050 800 00300 0:0 000 :00 H

0000800 800 8000080000 000 00,088 0m H

0:050 800 000000 0800080 0w H

00 0: :00: :0000 20000 :050 800 000 :0 000,00 00w 0: >0 H

m 200m

9 H mHAHOUmH
m H mEOUmH
nmnHOUmH
mNmmoom

00.3: 3 00.0 u 0008

::0000m w80H00m

00000000 000 0 :05 000.: 05 .:0 >88: 05 80000 H

0 003 03H 0: 800H H

030000 0:08 8000 0 0008 0: .080 820.00 0 8 0 000 0: >0 H

00 :5 0000000 05 0:000 8050800 m0000 00 000.00 >8 300000000 H
8800000 0: :00? 8 000m 8050800 :00 002 H

:0000 0000000 05 0008 0: >5 0: 00000 000: H

000: 0: 000:0 :00? 8000 0:00 085 H
00 0: 0003 8000 $000.00 0 00B 00 0800 8 >0 H

N 003m
ONmHnHOUmH
0Nm000m
N H mmoom

NmHOOUmH
0 H mnHOUm
hmnHOum
mNmHnHOUmH
0H mmoum

00.3: 00 ~00 u 2:2

m0H0ou 0>00<

 

 

H 200m

252.: 0.50 0000 2F .0. 200.0

117

poorer ﬁt indices [ )6 (df 135, N=201) = 5148.74, 2 < 0.001, GFI = 0.54, AGFI =04],
RMSEA = 0.23, CFI = 0.40, NNFI = 0.32, PNFI = 0.33, PGFI = 0.43]. The initial PAF
yielded four factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 each accounting for 3% or more of
the explained variance. Subsequent forced factor solutions revealed that the two forced
factor solution was the most theoretically meaningful. Item loadings for the ﬁrst factor
ranged from 0.598 to 0.754. This factor accounted for 22.69% of the explained variance
and appeared to be a measure of assertive coping. All items of the Reﬂective Style scale
loaded on this factor. The reliability of this scale was found to be 0.85. Item loadings
for the second factor ranged from 0.415 to 0.678. This factor accounted for 22.04% of
the explained variance and appeared to be a measure of avoidant coping. All items from
the Suppressive Scale and ﬁve items from the Reactive scale loaded on this factor. The
reliability of this scale was 0.72. The resulting two scales Assertive Coping and
Avoidant Coping are represented by PF -SOC1 and PF-SOC2 in Table 17 and Figure 11.
High scores on PF-SOCI indicated high utilization of direct coping strategies and high
scores on PF-SOCZ represented high utilization of indirect coping strategies.
Perceived Social Support

Perceived Social Support from Faﬁmily (PSS-FA; Procidano & Heller, 1983). The
PSS-F A was used to measure the extent to which needs for support is met by family.
Factor analyses have revealed that the PSS-F A is composed of a single factor. A CF A of
the one-factor solution revealed poor ﬁt [x2 (df I70, N=201) = 1268.68, 9 < 0.001, GFI =
0.61, AGFI = 0.52, RMSEA = 0.21, CFI = 0.64, NNFI = 0.61, PNFI = 0.54, PGFI =
0.50]. Initial PAF analyses yielded three factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0

accounted for 61.99% of the explained variance. Only two of these factors met the

118

 

2... 08.. £288 2: 58“ @255 :26 2o: _ ”Comma

 

we... Hm H. 6088 8a 286288
>8 .: 8m 9 8083 of £5 wciooso 82:3 mmczoﬂ 28 $388 P8868 82:08“ 3288 H mHUOmmnH
3v. 2N- =m 8 mEoan 2: co x53 8a mcmou a: 03m 3% H 335mg 8 HooH H mUOmanH
HHm. $0.- mEoan 05 Soon 05:3 8 #85 H H23 88 3.88 8: :8 H HUOmmnH
mam. moH .- $8353 888 >8 :9: mEOEEa 2: co $388888 08: 2356 a 028 H oHUOmmnH
Nam. «NH .- 0803 mEoan mow—«8 .323 $208: 09 8m H m 6093
HHe. 0H m. 82: .Ho 2.8g 08% 053;an.03 can m82noa of Bonn magi: 88:80qu 8m H hUOthAH
n3. mom. 483 808 088 ow 8 woo: H 08 £8 :oEB £80308 2: Sons $88: .00H 2 0:888 H wUOmHHnH
m5. wmo. mEOEEQ 80:3 @838 .Ho 33 2: 8 How amazoom 20 >2 QUOmanH
as. moor mEoan 2: co mason Ho 8358 8:338 98 8.55 ©9208: wEoc 08: >88 85% H 200th
N H 98% 2va .o u 9&2
828m mcaou 8mEo>< “N 28m
Hmo. mam. WEBDEQ 2: :0 x53 can @802 2 $815 a 53» 20:2 8 EWH 300th
$0.. an. x53 8: meow 8888 Eu >8 0me 8 m8oan 2.: 9:28 88 888 88:83 0%: H :UOmanH
owe... «me. mEOBEQ 05 028 was @802 08 36: 2023 82880 >8 H0 838 05 @3802 H vUOmmm
2 o. are. $3 2: E mEoBoa 8:86 328 H 85 $33 Sosa 8:: H mUOmanH
.20.- 93. mm: >2: 8&3 mEoan SH 2308 88 083285 9 08 3388 £033 63% :85 H NHUOmanH

mg. mEoBoa
30 of 3 80:28 0358a some Ho 8053388 888 man: 98 8.83.55 05 6288 H @0095
08... vmb. 8: >05 8&3 mEoan SH 2808 was 238:5 9 08 3395 £023 68% x85 H 20093
N 8 85: t 3.0 n at?
828m mcaou o>_tomm< ”H 28m

 

 

UOmJHAH 8 come 2 Hm vomsoom-80_noi .2 2an

119

criteria outlined above for appropriate scales. PAF analyses forcing both one and two
factors revealed that the two factor solution best reflected theoretical meaningfulness.
Item loadings for the ﬁrst factor ranged from 0.579 to 0.825. This factor consisted of 10
items accounting for 40.02% of the explained variance and appeared to be a measure of
received family support. Reliability analyses of this scale produced an alpha coefficient
of 0.9]. Item loadings for the second factor ranged from 0.641 to 0.810. This factor
contained 5 items accounting for 6.50% of the explained variance and appeared to be a
measure of family intimacy. The alpha coeﬂicient for this scale was 0.84. The resulting
two scales, Received Family Support and Family Intimacy are represented by PSSFA]
and PSSF 2, respectively (see Table I8 and Figure 11). High scores on these scales
indicate high perceptions of support from family and high perception of family closeness.
Perceived Social Support from FriendsjPSS-FR; Procidano & Heller, 1983). The
PSS-FR was used to measure the extent to which needs for support is met by college
peers. Factor analyses have revealed that the PS S-FR is composed of a single factor. A
CFA of the one-factor solution revealed poor ﬁt [3(2 (df 170, N=201) = 1073.44, 9 =
0.001, GFI = 0.65, AGFI = 0.57, RMSEA = 0.16, CFI = 0.65, NNFI = 0.61, PNFI = 0.54,
PGFI = 0.53]. Initial PAF analyses yielded three factors with eigenvalues greater than
1.0, each accounting for 3% or more of the explained variance. PAF analyses forcing
factors ranging ﬁ'om one to three revealed that the three factor solution best reﬂected
theoretical meaningﬁilness. Item loadings for the ﬁrst factor ranged ﬁom 0.539 to 0.765.
This factor accounted for 39.49% of the explained variance and appeared to be a measure
of received peer support. Four items were deleted because they also loaded on the second

factor and the discrepancy between loadings ranged ﬁ’om 0.13 to 0.20. Reliability

120

80: 00800 080.6m t .N a. H 8908 so U082 80: 8:. ...... .Omdv 83 5:30.86 08 88 8908 0:0 .85 088 so 382 a 00:80: 0000—00 82H ..

 

 

H3. :5. 0388008008: 08 00088 x .>=88.H >8 .8 83808 8 08.88 H 8055 +0H<mmmm
80. m8. 388% :85 203 388 >6 is 8 +8882

0%. Hmo. 038888008: 805 00088
8 85 802 05 8m H .08 8 80020 08 0:3 >=8£ >8 .8 809808 05 8 03800 H 8055 835mm

awn. 05. 83808 >=88H :23 8282888
0.0303 8050 8 0020 8 8 85 >=80H >8 00 809808 8 FEB 250828—08 0 08: H.820 H +oH<nHmmm
3». $0. 88 H 85 >288H 805 3 80020 08 0308 80:8 0002 +2.,Hmmm
m 8 $50: 38 .o n 282
8800a >88ch >=80HH ”m 080m
«Lev. $.00. 08 SH $85 0088 go mWEE ow 8 Bo: 828 802 coow 8w >__80.H >8 .3 809802 mH<nHmmnH
60.0.0: 080:
9:. arm. #85 H 82>» Soon @880; m>o.H:0 >=8£ >H>H m<nHmmnH

ovo. mam. 808— : 828 >883
w8H00H 80:83 .8520 m8_00.H 8% 0003 H .H_ 8 ow 2:00 H >HH88H >8 .8 802808 0 ﬂ 0805. gamma
05.- «an. $008008 >8 Ho >88 08% >=8£ >8 Ho 800802 o<mmmm
000. :8. >28& >8 88H mwﬁﬁ £0 8 26: 828 802 voom 8w H «gamma
000. «we. >:88,H >8 .3 809808 Ho 8388 8 :83 8:80:20. @885 @020 8 08: H vH<nHmmnH
ave. «S. 300: 880808 >8 8 03:88 mm >=88H >H>H HH<nHmmm
omor new. $85 898 x85 03 8:3 898 :03 08 H 28 >=80H >2 oH<uHmmAH
w 8. HQ... toga 882880 SH >HH88H >8 co >H08 H w<mmmm
H No. can. @008 H toga 888 05 08 003w >=88H >2 H<nHmmnH
mmo. man. 08030.8 038 08 mama—0: 8 uoom 08 >=8ﬂ >8 .8 809802 mH<nHmmm
m _ H25: 0: 3.0 n 282
880th toaazm >=80nH 80>_000~H ”H 080m

 

 

 

:58 620 to am 880 838008 .2 033.

121

analyses of this scale produced an alpha coefﬁcient of 0.89. Item loadings for the second
factor ranged from 0.638 to 0.799. This factor contained 4 items accounting for 13.95%
of the explained variance and appeared to be a measure of support provided to friends.
The alpha coefﬁcient for this scale was 0.87. Item loadings for the third factor ranged
from 0.565 to 0.756. This factor contained 5 items accounting for 6.95% of the explained
variance and appeared to be a measure of peer closeness. The alpha coefﬁcient for this
scale was 0.82. The resulting three scales, Received Peer Support, Providing Peer
Support, and Peer Closeness are represented by PSSFR], PSSFR2, and PSSFR3
respectively (see Table 19 and Figure 11). High scores on PSSFR] and PSSFR2 indicate
high perceptions of receiving and providing support to peers. High scores on PSSFR3
indicate high perceptions of peer closeness.

Perceived Social Support from University Personnel (PSS-UIQ. The PSS-UP was
used to measure the extent to which needs for support are met by university personnel. A
CFA of a one-factor solution revealed poor ﬁt [12 (df 170, N=201) = 822.71, p = 0.001,
GFI = 0.71, AGFI = 0.64, RMSEA = 0.14, CFI = 0.68, NNFI = 0.64, PNFI = 0.56, PGFI
= 0.57]. Initial PAF analyses yielded four factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0, each
accounting for 3% or more of the explained variance. PAF analyses forcing factors
ranging from one to four revealed that the three factor solution best reﬂected theoretical
meaningfulness. Item loadings for the ﬁrst factor ranged ﬁom 0.503 to 0.838. This
factor accounted for 34.62% of the explained variance and appeared to be a measure of
providing support to university personnel. One item was deleted because it also loaded
on the second factor and the discrepancy between loadings was 0.03. Reliability analyses

of this scale produced an alpha coefficient of 0.87. Item loadings for the second factor

122

80: 0082 0208.: + .onv 83 28:88:: 2: :8: 88:: 0:0 :2: 208 :0 320:0: : 08:00: 888: 80: .

 

mom.
ewe.

ewc.
an.

emu.
m

Ego.
mmo.
moo.
wno.
m

voor
moo.
vac.
N2.

:0.

mNo.

£9.

£0.

2N0.

2N0.

Noe.
m

:3.
m2.

mvor
mNo.

80..
N
208::
«no.
NS.
n 2..
:3.
N
208: m
8:.
m3.
3%.
mac.

mmm.

mNN.
voN.
:N.
com.
9:.
moo.
N

208::

moor
:mo.

NNo.
moo.

So.

chm.
ocm.
mmN.
mmm.

comm.
cvmm.
«3e.
..mvo.

Nam.

:3.
NN:.
9N2.
«Nb.
mmﬁ
mob.

0388:8008 08 82:8 : daew 82:28 .8 8:808 8 03800 _ 8:3 bammm:

0388:8008 805 002:8
: 86 :02 2: 8w _ .08 0: 208.0 2: 0:3 82w 80: 28 .8 20:808 05 8 08.800 _ :25? 82.2mm:
820.2%: :88 203 200: 28 :23 _ 895mm:

20:808 :88 80: :85 2:380:88:
M0800: 8:8 m: 208 m: m: 85 :88 80: 28 .8 8:808 : :85 8:80:22 : 02:: #:0: _ 835mm:
8: _ :2: 200: :05 0: 88—0 2: 0800: 8:8 802 .953:

22.2 a :3 u 2:?

20800—0 80: m 080m
988088800 8: 80 08 0:000 :88 80: 28 .8 20:82.: Smmmm:
003:: :00: 8 m80_:2: 0>:: 20:: 8:3 08 8 0800 82w 80: 28 .8 20:808 8:200 53mm:
0.82:2: 0200 82: 888: 8 :00m 82 8:: 82 200: 28 8:. 0.8:: Emu—mm:
20:98 88880 8.: 08 0: 0800 :88 80: 28 .8 20:82.: Nammm:
$52 3 :8 u 2::
20:86 80: 8:28.: N 080m
08:: _ 8:3 80:: 82:0: 2080 200: 22 22mm:
88:: 80:: mg: 03 8:3 80:: :08 28> 2: H 8: 200: 22 222mm:
2: 8: 88:: 02:8 8 88:: 0: 0: 30: 80:: 0:02 :00m 8m :88 80: 28 .8 20:82.: mammm:
:88 80: 28 8 20:808 .8 8:88 : :23 8:80:22 8228 :00: : 0>::_ Edmmm:
608:0: m80:
88. z 80:: 2:8:
8:00: 80:3» :30: 8:00.: 88. 08.5 _ .2 0: 0w 2:00 _ 82w 80: 28 .8 8:808 : 2 22:. :Mmmm:
2000: 8:020: 28 0: 03:80: 2: 200: 22 Zammm:
20228 28 .8 28:8 08:: 80% 80: 28 .8 20:82): cammm:
2:032: 020: 08 88—0: 8 :00w 2: ::2w 80: 28 .8 20:80.2 mammm:
88880 80.: 200: 28 :0 2.2 _ mammm:
:00: _ 20:98 888 0:: 08 02m 200: 22 35mm:
200: 28 80:: 88:: 0088 8 88:: 0: 0: 30: 80:: 0:02 80w 8w _ Nammm:

22.2 t 98 u 932
20:96 80: 830002

_ 080m

 

 

 

123

ranged from 0.488 to 0.717. This factor accounted for 10.82% of the explained variance
and appeared to be a measure of received support from university personnel. One item
also loaded on factor one and the discrepancy between loadings was 0.13. This item was
deleted. The alpha coefficient for this scale was 0.85. Item loadings for the third factor
ranged from 0.454 to 0.645. This factor accounted for 8.77% of the explained variance
and appeared to be a measure of students’ relationship to university personnel.
Reliability analyses of this scale indicated that the alpha coefficient would increase from
0.65 to 0.66 if one item was deleted. The resulting three scales, Providing University
Personnel Support, Received University Personnel Support, and Relationship to
University Personnel are represented by PS SUP], PSSUP2, and PSSUP3 respectively
(see Table 20 and Figure 11). High scores on PSSUPI and PSSUP2 indicate high
perceptions of provided and received support from university personnel. High scores on
PS SUP3 indicate high closeness to university personnel.
Mental Health

The DSM ScaLe for Depression-26 (DSD-26; Roberts eﬂ.4 992,. The DSD-26
was used to assess symptoms of depression. A CFA of this one factor depression
measure was poor [x2 (df 299, N=201) = 1006.85, 9 < 0.001, GFI = 0.72, AGFI = 0.67,
RMSEA = 0.11, CFI = 0.76, NNFI = 0.74, PNFI = 0.62, PGFI = 0.61]. The initial PAF
yielded six factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 that accounted for 3% or more of the
explained variance. Only three of these factors met the criteria outlined above for
appropriate scales. PAF analyses forcing factors ranging from one to three revealed that
the three factor solution best reﬂected theoretical meaningﬁJlness. Item loadings for the

first factor ranged from 0.440 to 0.724. This factor accounted for 37.53% of the

124

:82
80.2.2000 832:8. : 08:00: 88.0: 80:. ...... 80:. :28: 020.20.: » .omov 83 20:80:02: 0:: :2: 88:: 0:0 8:: 0:08 :0 :0::0. : 08:00: 88.0: 80:...

 

.8822: 2:20:28: ::3 82828.2
.. 8m... o no. owor m.0.:00: 8:8 8 08.0 m: m. 8:: .0888: 2:20:28 0:: .8 8:808 : ::3 8:80.88: : 0.8: :.:0: . 875mm:
”:0:0.0: 2:0:—

vbm. mmo. :N.. 0.8228008: 8:: 00088
: 8:: :0:. 0:: 8w . .08 0: 208.0 2: 0:3 .8820: 2:20:28: 0:: .8 20:808 8 08.800 . :25? +85%:
8N0. 03.- 8:. 220:: :28 23. 288:2 282:3 2:: ::3 : .282:
new. 98.. moo. 0.820.808: 08 8088 : .8888: 2:20:28: 0:: .8 20:808 8 02.800 . 8:3 +:.:Dmm:
m N : .82 m: 8.: u 9:8
20:0: ... .2888: 2:20:83 0: 8:80.88: m 0.:0m
.oo.- «vwm. om... 88:: 80:: ::.:: 03 8:3 80:: :0:0 28> 2.: . :8 88020: 2:22:83 oEDmm:
820.0: :80:—
:3. «we. SN. 2888. 28 .8 28 08:0. .8820: 2:288: 058 20:80.). ::Dmm:
woo... :5. mwm. 800: .8020: 28 0: 02:80: 0:: .8820: 2:20:83 ..gmm:
.oo. m8. N. N. :00: . 20:80 8:08 0:: 08 0.28 .8820: 2:20:83 33mm:
:3. 30. 3:. .8: : 8:3 :82 2:8: 20.8.. 2885: 2822: 8:2:
ooo. no». moo. 8:820: 2:288: 80:: 88:: 0088 8 88:: 0: c: 30: 80:: 80:. :00w :8 . Ngmm:
m N : .82: 8 2.: u :88
208: ”. 20:::m .8820: 2:20.283 83003. N 0.:0m
wmo. m8. «NNm. 08 :0: 88:: 0088 8 88:: 0: 0: 30: 80:: 80:. :00w 8m .8820: 2:20.28: 0:: .8 20:80.). 2:53:
608.0: 2:0:—

88. : 80:: 2:8,: 8:00.:
m . o. NR. mom. 808.3 :30: 8:00.: 8:2 0:03 . .2 0: 0m :.:00 . .8820: 2:228: 0:: .8 8:808 : m. 08:... ::Dmm:
.oo. mvm. moo. m80.:0:: 0>.0m 82.: 88.0: 8 :00w 8.. 8:: .00.: .8820: 2:20:38: 0:: 8:: 0.8:: . w 33mm:
o.o. ...m. 5:. 20:80 88880 8.: .08020: 2:20.28: :0 2.2 . wgmm:
Nmo. m2. and. 2888. 28 .8 2:8 08:: .28020: 2:20.28: 8:200 ::Dmm:
m:o.- mom. mg. .8820: 2:288: 0:: .8 20:808 .8 8:88 : ::3 8:80:88: 8280 :00: : 08:. 35mm:
.oo. mN.. :8. 20:8: 88.880 8.: 08 0: 0800 .8820: 2:20.28: 0:: .8 20:80.). N.:Dmm:
NNo. 8.. an». :.:808::800 8.: 80 08 0.00: .8820: 2:20:28: 0:: .8 20:80.). ...:Dmm:
m N : .82 o 28 u :82
20:0: n. 20:::m .8820: 2:20>8D 88:20:: . 0.:0m

 

 

. :D..mm: .08020: :20>.:D 88.: ::0 :m 8.00m :0>.00:0: .oN 0.8...

125

explained variance and appeared to be a measure of emotional depressive symptoms.
Reliability analyses of this scale produced an alpha coefficient of 0.88. Item loadings for
the second factor ranged from 0.449 to 0.799. The second factor accounted for 8.55% of
the explained variance and appeared to be a measure of physical symptoms related to
depression. Two items that also loaded on factor 1 were deleted. The discrepancy
between factor loadings for these two items was 0.09 and 0.12. The alpha coefficient for
this scale was 0.84. Item loadings for the third factor ranged from 0.539 to 0.840. This
factor accounted for 4.87% of the explained variance and appeared to be a measure of
suicidal symptoms. One item also loaded on factor 1 and was deleted. The discrepancy
between factor loadings for this item was 0.08. Reliability analyses for this scale produced
an alpha coefﬁcient of 0.82. The resulting three scales, Emotional Depressive Symptoms,
Physical Depressive Symptoms, and Suicidal Symptoms are represented by DSD], DSD2,
and DSD3, respectively (see Table 2] and Figure 11). High scores on these scales indicate
high level of emotional, physical, and suicidal depressive symptoms.

Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener et al., 198;. The SWLS was used to

 

assess life satisfaction. A CFA of this one-factor measure of life satisfaction was good [x2
(df 5, N=201) = 14.48, p < 0.001, GFI = 0.97, AGFI = 0.92, RMSEA = 0.10, CFI = 0.98,
NNFI = 0.97, PNFI = 0.49, PGFI = 0.32]. This factor structure was accepted given similar
reported results. For the current sample, the alpha reliability was 0.89. This scale is

represented by SWLS in Figure 11 and high scores indicate high levels of life satisfaction.

126

32.350 2an

 

oom.
CNN.
moo.
ovo.
coo.
02.
mm _.

m

03.

EN.
3:.
gm.

o2.
v3.
v3.
vvm.

:N.
me.

a3.
ace.
Nnm.
8m.
3%.
23.
am».
N
£88m

ONN.

vam.
wmﬁ.
mum.

vwm.
mw_.
mum.
mum.

hwm.
5m.
N
3323

EM.
on»:
omm.
owm.
omo.
com.
mom.

:3.

«3.
a3.
Sm.

Nam.
nan.
mmm.
new.

ewe.
9N5.
_

08: 2: mo .88

958m :8 ma. 8 v22. 20% can mama—KEN E 33885 “.583 33. 50% 5:3 8:5 82: 835
mcoﬁooc 838 8 8 mwﬁﬁ Sosa 2:8 50% a: BEE 8 so» Em SEE 33 z 88: 82: 803
33: 52: 32 § a 258m 358 8 vex—S so» 3a:

:25: 3 >22? mm 8 >28? 3 x55 8 382588 9 2825 coup so» 0%!

33m: :2: 808 8_ a 82m so» 262

3258 on 9 tote m5 a £3 z 5.: cm .33: 52.: 3.55 $2 :028 3: sex BE “5 :9» 26m
mast?“ mo :02: ow r56 98 958m am so» SE 8 £33 52: c8: EOE 20% so» 26m

vaQ
NNQmQ
anQ
oQOQ
mama
EQmQ
m _ Qmﬂ

seam t 33 n 232

mansim 033839 333$

A330

08 a: mcﬁma 5 moo—mm wciﬁm go 823 chwb 33m: :9: waive—m 03:0: 208 BE so» 96m
2:: of mo “woe

952a :3. as.“ B 3.59 H3 98 mcmﬁxcm E 33285 “.553 6% so» :23» 88: 22: 80>)
wage 8: 8:— :£ so» 02%

so» H8 Em: :m So x53 8 :58 35: $55 35 gum so» 3mm

38

no» BEE 2:03 32:: 2:: :96 35 0m 6006 can a E 8 638?: 8 38on soon so» 3mm
:02 30> >95 2t 50% v.3 :3 so» 262

98.8 E 203 .o be 8 Sons 803 so» 8:— :ﬂ no» 3me

3m bo> coon so» 96m

“ma 2: E 3:393

:2: $55 5m 2: a :85?» 3:83 was .95: :2: :85?» Soon coom amo— =£ so» 025
weighs ow r538 no» :2: 20m 20> can? .133 :9: EOE .2853 so :38 soon so» gum

N 2QO

meD

mama
mama
5me

NQmO
:QmQ
Emma

REG

29mm
o—Qmﬂ

seam O: mac n 932

mEOHQE>m 033239 Queues—m

 

_ 28m

 

. om-DmQ oméoime 0Q pom 28m Ema 2; .5 2an

127

3mm.

MNb.

can.

2%.
m

30.
m2.

mNN.

wmo.
of.
NNo.

N
89on

«new.
«mvm.

.omdv was 3.83me 05 88 888 28 :8: 808 :o 388— : 3:83 822% 82?

wmv. 825 2: 8 so» 88 voow @850: mm? 82: 98 $280: $3 0.:— 85 so» so» 025 mNQmO
6833. “88—

%N. .2883 mam—=8— 8 022% Sons Emacs“ no» 032 ONQmD
EN. macaw 8 :88 Sosa 83m: 8:: 208 Ewsoﬁ :9» 3mm VNQmQ
o2. got 803 so» its no» 2Q mNQmQ
_ as»: a $6 u 282

m8088>m 322% m 2me
wEou 803 so» mmﬁﬁ 850 so 888 :5»

EV. wcaoux .5 £83 8 8.83623 89» 9 82888 maﬁa :33 82: 05:08 0.58 SE so» 0%: Emma
eNv. x83 3 803628 89» on 9 so» 8m Em: v.83 z 85 :38 8 soon so» 083 :DmD
689.2. 2:2—

 

38:50 038.

128

Subjective Happiness ScalﬁSHS; Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 199g). The SHS was
used to measure happiness. A CFA of this one-factor measure of happiness was excellent
(at: (df2, N=201) = 0.85, p = 0.65, GFI = 0.99, AGFI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.00, CFI = 1.00,
NNFI = 1.01, PNFI = 0.33, PGFI = 0.20]. Reliability of this scale for this current sample
was also good (a = 0.88). This scale is represented by SWLS in Figure 11 and high
scores reﬂect greater happiness.

Phase Four. Phases 1-3 produced the measurement model (outlines the
relationships between the observed variables (measures) and latent variables (theoretical
constructs)) which were used in Phase 4 to test the hypothesized relationships between
the constructs in the stress-mental health structural model (outlines the hypothesized
relationships between the latent variables) and the ﬁt of the data to the model (Hoyle,
1995). Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) analyses of the intercorrelation matrix of
the scales produced via EFA (see Table 22) were conducted using LISREL 8.3.
Maximum likelihood (ML) estimation was employed to yield optimal parameter
estimates.

The hypotheses stated above were assessed by examining direct and indirect
effects. Each hypothesis was deemed true if the proposed relations were statistically
signiﬁcant and in the predicted direction. The overall ﬁt of the adapted stress-mental
health model was determined by assessing, the values of the absolute, relative, and
parsimonious ﬁt indices described above. Please refer to the structural and measurement
model (Figure 11) for the factor structures, measures, constructs, and pathways in the

adapted model.

129

080m 80:153.. 03.00.3sm H 9.5 ”0.00m 0.5 5.3 cosoﬂmccm H mgm £83983 320:5. H mDmD $59986 028.0500 30.995

u 88 089.8% 068.80 38880 n 58 8580 0529;. u 80m“: 8580 3833 n Comma .880 3.9.8 u 28000
8258 8208 H 8.500 .0580 953. n Emoom 08% 88888.: u 85$ 0380 3530 o. 26 8:222 n 5.32.. m23.5
25:80 .0 .wm8.&a< H Nmmmz Ecuaﬁﬁtoﬂﬂ ..o _am8.&q< H. mmmE £05583. .380ch 0. 9580530.. H mgmmm ”—088.89. 38802—83
002000”. N NmDmmm Juana—3m 3559.3. .380ch $80595 u $.3me ”0.00.8320 800.. H Emma. €9.95 ..00m m82>oum n Emma. ”toga—am
.88 82898 n 3:88 888.8 8:3... u 20mm; 8258 has. 8288. u 3:88 55:80 .8 80829.0 n 2282 SE55 .0

 

 

cosawooom n 2252 ”mo—mags ::3 8038000m< H N<§mm< Eosﬁ=0EO 08.04 H 132%"... 30:03:. 05 :o .8250 0.8068000 3:58—3. 0.02
.... 3.. 2.. 2.. 3.. 2.. N... .... .... .... .... ...v 9.. 2.. ...N .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .~.~ :. .... 3.: a.
3.2 2... .... ...: ...: ...: 3... ....~ ...... 2.2 ...: M... 2.: ...: .... ...: ...: ...: .2. ....N 2... ...: .... 3... ...: ...: 8.:
m... 3.. ...- ...- a..- 2... 3... .... .... .... 2..- 2..- 2... 2..- 3..- .... .... S... .... .... .... .... 3... .... .... .... ...
a .2. 3..- mm... em..- .m... m... .... 2.. 2..- 2... ...... 2..- 2..- mm. .... ...... _... .... .... .... 3... m... 2... .... :3.
M.l... v... N... 2.. .... v... :6. 3... 2.. 2.. 3.. .... .... 3..- 3..- m... .... ...... S... 2... a... 2..- 2..- S... 88
a .... M... 3.. ...- 2..- 3... .... 2.. 2.. 3.. M... m... .....- .... ...- 2... Q... .N... 2.. 2.. .....- .... 38
a .... .... .... ...? 3... .... 2.. 2.. .... .... 2... ...- .... 2..- Z... 3.. 3..- .... .... no..- .... 33
...... M... 2... ...... .... .... .... .... M... N... 2... .... .... 3... 3... .... 2... .... 3... .... 3... 03:
a 2... z... 3... .... .... .... .... 2.. 2... 3..- N... 2... z... 2... 3... .... ~... 2... 3... 3.8.
a 2.. M... N... 3..- M... .... 3..- .... 2.. 3... .... .... 3..- 2.. 2.. 2.. 3.. :. 39:
a 2.. 3..- 2..- 3... 3..- Q..- .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... 1.. .... 3.. ES.
N... .... .... 3.. .... z... .... .... ...... .... .... .... .... 2.. 2.. .... _~.. 3.5..
a .... .... .... z... 2... .... N... 2... z... .... 2... 2.. .... 2... .... $3
a 5.. .... 3..- 2..- 2.. ~... 2...- 3..- .... z... .... .... z..- .... .23
an. S. 3..- Z... .... .... .... 2... ...... 2... .... v... 2... .... a...
g .... 2... M... v... .... 2... .... 2... v... .... MN... 2.. ......
a .... .... _m.. 2.... .... N... N... z... 2... 3... 2..- 23..
a .... .....- .... 2.. 2.... ._ .. .... S... .... .... 83...
H... .... _ I. 2.. 2... .... .... .... v . ... .... :3...
a N... .... .... .... z..- 2..- .....- z... 2:...
M... .... 3.. 2.. z... .... 2... .... 2.2
...]. 2.. 3.. z..- 2.. 2.. 8..- :8...
.....I. .... .... .... S..- .... 3?.
a .... v... 2.. .... 2....
ml. 3.. 3... a... as:
a z..- 3.. 2.:
.... z..- 3.3
:4. ::3
.5 :3. 88 88 58 Go... 308. Go... 3.8. 3.8. $3 E3 .3: an: 33$ 83$ 53... 2.... 5:2 :5... N3... 2...... arm: :3: ~55? .552

 

 

 

waged... agoamlﬂgauo—mxm an 0003005 3.00m 80.. 08065000845233. an? .NN 030...

130

338m 08: Bag. .: 2:3
«Emma
:53.
2.. 3&me
«Emma o3 .
_ .o

a... u :58
59: =o=8€> 9.80 820 .8. uh. a: m. n ”x “.082 35858...

3:: u gum.
62. 5.5853 $80 868$ .2». in .32 z n "x U322 .32

mvo

o

                     

3... Emma
33mm. 5&5 38m .2
8.. Bioeom
Emma
”5.5 R o .Emmm
mam Bow"... 36 Nm
Comma . .
$5. 8... . Nam
m...
N;
end. N0
mg 5.8... 3:22

EBB§8m
.o 5.8%?

...:qu 3.0. ”m
2...
Memo
.3
23 $500.. 2.. 33

$50an _ mEOUm

 

 

265850
30330
36365

For hypotheses found to be non-signiﬁcant, LISREL output was examined to determine if
changes needed to be made in the structural and measurement model. Thus,
modiﬁcations to the measurement model were made by eliminating variables with poor
relationships or poor residuals (measurement error), high modiﬁcation indices for
lambda-y (relationships between the latent constructs and the indicators), and high
modiﬁcation indices for theta-epsilon, theta-delta-epsilon, and theta-delta (error
covariance between indicators). Modiﬁcations to the structural model were made if large
modiﬁcation indices and residuals for beta (relationships between the endogenous
variables) and or gamma (relationships between the exogenous variables) indicated that
there are parameters that could be estimated (i.e., direct paths) to improve model ﬁt.
Results of the Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1
A direct, signiﬁcant positive relationship between individual cultural

characteristics and perceived social support was not supported (standardized B = 0.10, t =
1.04, p > 0.20, two-tailed test; Path A, Figure 11). These results indicate that perceived
social support is not directly related to individual cultural characteristics.
Hypothesis 2

A direct, signiﬁcant negative relationship was not found between individual cultural
characteristics and appraisal of sociocultural stress. However, a direct, positive
relationship was found (standardized B = 0.48, t = 5.54, p < 0.001, two-tailed test; Path B,
Figure 1 1). These ﬁndings suggest that respondents who are more involved in Latina/o
culture and who have maintained the language and cultural practices are more likely to

experience acculturative stress and/or minority status distress.

132

Hypothesis 3

As predicted, a direct, signiﬁcant negative relationship was not demonstrated
between perceived social support and appraisal of sociocultural stress (standardized B = -
0.13, t = -1.47, p > 0.10, two-tailed test; Path C, Figure 1 1). These results indicate that
respondents who perceived less formal and informal support were more likely to
experience acculturative stress and/or minority status distress.
Hypothesis 4

As predicted a direct, signiﬁcant positive relationship was demonstrated between
individual cultural characteristics and coping (standardized B = 0.26, t = 2.70, p = < 001,
two tailed test; Path D, Figure l 1). The results indicate that respondents who have
maintained Latina/o cultural practices and the Spanish language are more likely to utilize
coping strategies.
Hypothesis 5

As predicted, a direct, signiﬁcant positive relationship between perceived social
support and coping was supported (standardized B = 0.47, t = 2.87, p < 0.01, two tailed
test; Path E, Figure 11). These results indicate that respondents who perceive the
availability of formal and informal social support are more likely to utilize coping
strategies.
Hypothesis 6

A direct, signiﬁcant negative relationship was not demonstrated between appraisal
of sociocultural stress and coping ((standardized B = -0.05, t = -0.52, p > 0.20, two tailed

test; Path F, Figure 11). In other words, the results indicate that respondents who

133

experience less acculturative stress and/or minority status distress are not more likely to

utilize coping strategies.

 

Hypothesis 7

A direct, signiﬁcant positive relationship between coping and mental health was
not supported (standardized B = -0.20, t = -2.34 p < 0.02, two tailed test, Path G, Figure
11). These results suggest that respondents who utilize coping strategies were not more
likely to experience higher levels of mental health.
Hypothesis 8

The indirect relationships hypothesized by Taylor and Aspinwall (1996);
individual cultural characteristics to mental health (1] = -0.06, t = -1.93, p > .05) and
perceived social support to mental health (1] = -0.09, t = -l.85, p > .05) were not
supported. Participants who tended to be bicultural or highly acculturated were not more
likely to utilize coping strategies and experience lower levels of mental health.
Furthermore, participants who perceived social support were not more likely to utilize
coping strategies and report lower levels of mental health.
Model 1: Results of the overall adapted Latina/o student stress-mentjal health model

This section presents the results of the overall ﬁt of the adapted model and the
results of the post hoc analyses on the structural and measurement model that were
conducted to improve the overall ﬁt of the model. SEM analyses indicated poor ﬁt for
the adapted model [)6 (df 292, N=201) = 851.49, p < 0.001, GFI = 0.75, AGFI = 0.70,
RMSEA = 0.10, CFI = 0.70, NNFI = 0.66, PNFI = 0.54, PGFI = 0.63]. Not all ofthe
relationships outlined in the proposed model were in the predicted direction (e. g.,

individual cultural characteristics to appraisal of cultural stress, coping to mental health)

134

and several relationships did not reach statistical signiﬁcance (e. g., individual cultural
characteristics to perceived social support, appraisal of cultural stress to coping).
Furthermore, serious measurement problems were evident given the fact that not all
factor loadings of each indicator to their respective latent variable were statistically
signiﬁcant (See Table 23 and Figure l 1). As a result, several modiﬁcations to the
measurement model were made to improve model ﬁt.

M09212.

As stated above factor loadings of several indicators to their respective latent
variable were not statistically signiﬁcant. Two indicators (i.e., Passive Coping
(BCOPE3) and Avoidant Coping (PF SOC2)) did not signiﬁcantly load on the latent
variable, Coping. The literature suggests that there are two broad but distinct coping
strategies to reduce psychological distress. There are strategies designed to actively
manage, resolve, or inﬂuence stressful demands through one’s own efforts (e. g., problem
solving, support seeking) and/or strategies designed to adjust to stressful demands by
changing the self rather than the situation (e. g., accepting the situation, self-distraction;
Cross, 1995). Cross (1995) refers to these distinct coping strategies as Direct Coping and
Indirect Coping. In light of the research and non-signiﬁcant factor loadings of the
indicators, BCOPE3 and PFSOC2, the latent variable Coping was divided into two latent
variables, Direct Coping and Indirect Coping. The BCOPE3 and PF SOC2 were
designated as indicators of Indirect Coping while the remaining three indicators,
BCOPE] (Active Coping), BCOPE2 (Seeking Support) and PFSOCl (Assertive Coping)

were assigned to the latent variable, Direct Coping.

135

good vd... .885 .E 8 8.28000 $888885 u 50m 585 .E 35.82 808258; u E73 v.85 x...
388.82 n E22 ”:85 5 0388an0 n EU ”829:7.883‘ 8 8:5 898m :32 89m u <35 ”:85 :E 8 88380 3.952 n 30¢. ”82: am

ll

8 82880 M ED ..Eo32m 8 823D E amass n 84 8388a 8.83-20 n :3 88305 8 82on n18 w3§cméu n :M 88m 295% u 2 082

 

 

NS 8. a. a. 8. 8. N: *8? 8m .28: 8m 98: 888m 85:88::
:2 8. mm. 8. 8. S. :2 .38: SN :58 888m 888:8
82 8. 8. a. no. 8. w 8.: 8m :23 SN :88 85888 3:88
:2 8. 8. S. 2. 8. I *3: :2 .538 SN 8:83 :88 8:88:85
:2 8. a: a. 8. 8. mm: #2:. S: 8583 88.: 8:888
Queer—om
:2 8. a. a. 8. 8. N: 8:: 8m .88: a: 98:: 888m 8:88:85
:2 8. 3 3. 3. :w. :2 82$ 8: 28:: 88:8 8:888
on. 8. a. 3. 8. 8. I a. mm mm: :88: 8: 8583 .28.: 8:88:85
:2 8. a. a. 8. 8. :2 :88: SN mms83 :88 888:8
8:
m2 8. a. a. 3. 8. N: 8.2 . em: :3: 8: :58 888m 85888::
:2 8. 8. a. 3. 8. :2 8.5, S: :58 888m 8:888
:2 8. 3. 3. 3. E. 2 2 .2 mm: 82:: 8: 8:83 :98”: 85:88::
:2 8. a. 8. 8. 5. mm: 8.8: S: 8:83 :88 888:8
hog—DU
95:20—52 .3 30,—.
8. 8. a. .3. mo. 8. 8. 8: :8: 8: so... 882
8. 8. S. 2. 8. a. S. 8: 1.2.3. 8: 8:8. 882
8. 8. 2. E. 8. 8. a. :2 838 8: :5 882
8. 8. 8. E. S. 2. 3. 8: 3:8: 8: 0:o .88:
£2 E75 E22 Eu 522m £9: E0 .6: .8 a M m .982

 

 

$282 88825 8:: 88:88:32 :8. 8885 :m 8 828000 .3 033.

136

Three of the indicators of Perceived Social Support, PSSFA2 (Family Intimacy),
PSSFR3 (Peer Closeness), and PSSUP (Relationship to University Personnel) did not
signiﬁcantly load on this latent variable. These indicators appear to be a measure of the
type of relationship between the respondents and their support network. Given that the
literature indicates that perceived support is deﬁned as an individual’s perceptions of
general or speciﬁc support, available or acted on, from people in their social network
(e.g., family, peers, university personnel; Demaray & Malecki, 2002) and is independent
of the support network’s characteristics (Eckenrode & Wethington, 1990; Lepore et al.,
1991; Sarason et al., 1994), PSSFA2, PSSFR3, and PSSUP3 were removed as indicators
of Perceived Social Support.

One indicator, ARSMA2 (Association with Anglos) did not load signiﬁcantly on
the latent variable Individual Cultural Characteristics. As stated above, no participants
represented a “Very Latina/o Oriented” level, indicating that all participants scored high
on the Anglo Orientation Scale of the ARSMA-II. Given these results, only ARSMA]
(Latino Orientation), MEIM] (Recognition of Ethnicity), and MEIM2 (Exploration of
Ethnicity) remained as indicators of Individual Cultural Characteristics.

Although the factors loading for SWLF (Satisfaction with Life) and SHS
(Subjective Happiness Scale) on the Mental Health latent variable were signiﬁcant, these
values were negative, unlike the DSD1-3 indicators. As stated above Masse et a1 (1998)
have demonstrated that psychological distress and well-being are correlated and are part
of a two-dimensional latent construct which reﬂects a higher-order concept of mental

health. Thus, Mental Health was divided into two latent variables, Distress and

137

Wellbeing. SWLF and SHS were assigned as indicators of Wellbeing and DSD1-3 were
designated to load on Distress.

Table 24 displays the intercorrelation matrix of the remaining scales used to test
Model 2. These modiﬁcations to the measurement model yielded an improvement in
model ﬁt (see Table 23); however, the overall model ﬁt remained poor [)6 (df 198,
N=201) = 508.32, p < 0.001, GFI = 0.81, AGFI = 0.76, RMSEA = 0.09, CFI = 0.79,
NNFI = 0.76, PNFI = 0.61, PGFI = 0.62]. The output suggested that several structural
changes could be made to improve model ﬁt. Please see Figure 12. Respeciﬁcation of
this model was guided by both theoretical and empirical considerations. Below are
descriptions of the respeciﬁcation steps that were taken to improve model ﬁt.

Mgdgll

Model 2 was respeciﬁed to eliminate the following non signiﬁcant paths. Since
the literature indicates that bicultural and highly acculturated Latina/o university students
use mostly direct coping approaches (Mena et al., 1987; Vazquez & Garcia-Vazquez,
1995), the path from Individual Cultural Characteristics to Indirect Coping was
eliminated.

The path from Appraisal of Sociocultural Stress to Direct Coping was found to be
non signiﬁcant and was eliminated. The literature also indicates that individuals may
cope with cultural stress both indirectly (Crocker & Major, 1989; Phenice & Griffore,
1994; Schmader et al., 2001) and directly (Phinney & Chavira, 1995; Mena et al., 1987).
However, the appraisal of sociocultural stress appears to inﬂuence an individual’s type of
coping strategies (Schmader et al., 2001). This sample of respondents reported

perceiving acculturative stress and/or minority status stress as slightly stressful.

138

030m mm0ﬁmaam 03:00:95 .I. wIm ”0:05 0.2.: 5:3 comuommﬂamm n mas/w MESQEm 33026 n mDmO £89993
023033: $03.25 N NDmQ $883.3 0230309 3.5325: n :QmQ MmEQoU 5qu3: u NUOmmm ”wagon: 0235: u mmmOUm
m::aoo SE82 u Comm: £953 :58: M 8:80 05:00 3:3. u Emoom 08:: .283885 u ~03:

03:30 3530 2 26 8%55. ... 5.2m M225 8950? 38%? u 382 aoﬁaﬁaaﬁ .8 Emma? n. 3::
205580“: 368203 003003: u NmDmmm ”togsm 39:880.": 38:02.83 250305 N EDmmm €895 :00: $58.65 n ”Emma:
e935 5»: 328...: u ::3: £955 58: 8289: u 2:8: 5665”: :0 gaseoaxm n 2252

 

 

.ﬁmoaﬁm mo :oEcwooom n 32:92 6058520 0:20.: .I. :Szg sacommﬁ 05 :0 .8250 080208000 @6933: .80 Z

:3 8.: _~._ 8.: 8.: 8.: 8.: 8.: 8.: :3 :3 :3 8.: 2.: 8.: 8.: 2.: 8.: 8.: :3 ...: 8.: 3
::.:~ 2.8 3.: 8.2 8.:. 8.8 8.2 8.2 8.:. 8.8 8.2 8.: 8.: 8.2 :3. 8.2 2.1 8.:: 8.3 8.: 3.1 8.8 :8:
:.:.|: 8.: ::.? 3.? 8.:. 2.:. 8.:- 8.: 1.: 2.: 8.:- 2.:. 2.:. :~.? 2.: 2.: 2.: 2.: 8.: 8.:. 8.: 1.: 2.:
:l:.: 8.:. 8.:. 8.? 2.? 3.? 2.: _~.: 2.: 2.:- :~.? 2.:. 2.:. 2.: 1.: 2.: 8.: 3.: 8.? 8.: 8.: :3:
a 8.: 8.: 2.: ::.: 8.: ...? 8.:- :~.: 1.: 1.: 2.: 8.:- 8.:. 8.:. 2.:. 8.:. 8.: 2.:. 8.:. 88

84:. 8.: 8.: 8.: 8.? 8.:. 8.:- 8.: 2.: 8.: 2.: 8.:. 8.:. 8.? 2.? 8.:. 2.: 2.: 8.: ::3

a: 3.: 8.: 8.? 8.:- 8.:- :m.: 2.: 8.: 2.: :~.? 8.:. 2.? 2.? 2.? 8.: 8.: 8.: .3:

8.: 8.: 8.:. 8.: 8.: 8.: :~.: 2.: 2.: 2.? 8.: 8.:. 8.:. 2.:. 8.: 8.:. 8.:. 8:2:

::3 2.:. ...? 8.? 8.: 8.: :~.: 2.: 2.:- 8.:. 2.:. 2.? 8.:. 8.: 8.: 8.:. 8:8:

3.: 8.: 8.: 8.: 8.? 8.: 8.: :m: 8.: 8.: 8.: 8.: 8.: 2.: 2.: 5:2:

8.: 8.: 8.:. 2.? 8.:. 8.? 2.: 8.: 8.: 8.: 3.: 8.: 1.: 8.: 3:8:

8: 2.: 8.: 8.: 8.: :~.: 1.: 8.: 2.: 2.: 8.: 8.: 8.: ::8:

H1: 8.: 8.: 8.: 2.:. 8.: 8.:. 1.:. 2.:. 8.: :m.: 2.: $3

84: 8.: 8.: 2.:. 2.: 8.:. 8.? 8.:. _ .8 8.: 2.: :3

a 8.: _ .8. 8.: 8.: 8.? 2.:. 8.: 8.: 8.: 82:

3.: 2.? 8.: 8.: 8.:. 2.? 8.: 8.: 8.: :2:

a“: 8.: 8.: 8.: 2.: 8.: 8.? 8.: ~82:

:|:..: _ .8 2.: 8.: 8.: 8.: 8.: .82:

.84: 8.: 8.: 8.: 8.: 2.: 2:2:

8.: 8.: 8.? 8.: 8.:. 8:2:

:4: 2.: 1.: 2.: .12:

a 8.: 2...: 2.::

a: 8.: En:

a: 2:92

2.: 23: 88 38

38 302: 3:8:

 

 

28:: ~23: :5:

2:22

a? 8m: 0.28: 5: $86880 333% .8 03a:

139

933: N 382 858%: .2 2:3:

a: u :58 565 8:883 320 389.0 :2 in .28: u ”x ”.082 80358:: E
8.2 130m: 52. 8.58.1.3 320 88820 .1 2 n8 .882 n Nx :08: ==z

_ 8mm _ _ Smﬂ Q81— 3.

 

     

     
 

     
   

 

mmEOUm NOOmn—m oﬂmtoﬁgu
2.: a; 3.: S .o. ”m .8330 to
who :9: 3:33.05
:gwg
9:000 805.:
9..
:Ew
805m 3.:
8530203 mmmmE
Egg? .... I
mde
5me
was? +l| .55 Ba I
:8 8.:
2.: wad ”m tannw 785?:
a: 8.:
.008: So 38m
2:: «he 3302K
"85$

wed

_ mmOum
NmmOUm

 

_ 35me Ed 3.: Ngmmm

_ 95:: __ :28: _

 

140

Because the respondents perceived relatively low levels of sociocultural stress, it is
hypothesized that they were less likely to take action to reduce stress (i.e., discussing it
with others, disproving stereotypes, using self afﬁrmation). Therefore, they were not
likely to utilize direct coping strategies.

The relationship between Individual Cultural Characteristics to Perceived Social
Support was eliminated because it was found to be non signiﬁcant. The few studies that
have examined the relationship between individual cultural characteristics and perceived
social support (Grifﬁth & Villavicencio, 1985; Sabogal et al., 1987) have found that there
is a relationship between these two variables. However, these researches have failed to
distinguish between network characteristics (i.e., large support network) and perceived
social support. Furthermore, some (e. g., Sabogal et al., 1987) have found that perceived
family support remains high despite acculturation level.

The relationship between Appraisal of Sociocultural Stress and Perceived Social
Support was non signiﬁcant. Although the literature does not support it, this path was
eliminated. Model 2 was also respeciﬁed to include a direct path ﬁ'om Distress to
Wellbeing because this path had a large modiﬁcation index for beta and some of the
residuals between the indicators of these two variables were high. This modiﬁcation is
consistent with previous literature. Eliminating the non signiﬁcant paths ﬁ‘om Model 2
and adding a direct path from Distress to Wellbeing produced an improvement in ﬁt [x2
(df 200, N=201) = 439.27, p < 0.001, GFI = 0.83, AGFI = 0.79, RMSEA = 0.08, CFI =

0.85, NNFI = 0.82, PNFI = 0.66, PGFI = 0.66].

141

me.

One of the Appraisal of Sociocultural Stress indicators, SAP E2, was eliminated from
Model 3. SAFE2 presented several problems for the model including high residuals and
high modiﬁcation indices for lambda-y (i.e., model ﬁt would improve if SAFE2 was
allowed to load on other latent variables; Indirect Coping and Distress). Although
SAFE2 was moderately correlated with several of the Indirect Coping and Distress
indictors (i.e., the correlations were near 0.30), it was not theoretically justiﬁable to allow
SAFE2 to be an indicator of these two constructs. Thus, SAFE2 was removed as an
indicator of Individual Cultural Characteristics.

A review of the modiﬁcation indices for theta-epsilon, theta-delta-epsilon, and
theta-delta revealed that the error covariance between several of the indicators could be
estimated to improve model ﬁt. The error covariances between PSSF R1 and PSSFR2,
PSSUP] and PSSUP2, DSDl and DSD3, and BCOPE3 and SHS were estimated. In
addition, the error covariances between PSSFRI and each of the indicators of Direct
Coping (e. g., BCOPE], BCOPE2, PF SOCl) were also estimated.

According to several researchers (e. g., Byrne, 1998, Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993),
the speciﬁcation of correlated error terms for purposes of achieving a better ﬁtting model
must be supported by a strong substantive rational, empirical rationale, or both.
Therefore, the covariance between PSSFR] and PSSFR2 and PSSUP] and PSSUP2 is
justiﬁed as substantively meaningﬁil given that perceived social support is a
multidimensional construct with correlated dimensions that include social networks,
received social support, and provided social support (Cohen et al., 1986; Eckenrode &

Wethington, 1990; Hobfoll & Vaux, 1993; Lepore et al., 1991; Sarason et al., 1994 Vaux,

142

1988). Similarly, the estimation of the covariance between DSD] and DSD3 is
conceivable given that symptoms of depression and suicide have been found to be highly
correlated in the literature (e. g., D’Zurilla et al., 1998; Essau &Trommsdorff, 1996;
Leong et al., 1997; Nezu et al., 1986). Furthermore, the covariance of BCOPE3 and SHS
is supported given the fact that passive coping has been found to be related to lower
levels of happiness and higher levels of depression and hopelessness (Clum, & Febbraro,
1994; D’ Zurilla et al., 1998; Essau & Trommsdorff, 1996; Leong et al., 1997; Nezu &
Ronan, 1988; Priester & Clum, 1993). Finally, the estimation of error covariance
between PSSFRl and each of the indicators of Direct Coping (e. g, BCOPE], BCOPE2,
PFSOCl) is justiﬁed given that perceived social support has been found to precede,
inﬂuence, and assist effective coping efforts (Billings & Moos, 1981; Cohen, 1992;
Cronkite & Moos, 1984; Holahan & Moos, 1986, 1987; Holahan et al., 1997; Lazarus &
Folkman, 1984; Lepore et al., 1991; Thoits, 1986; 1995).

Table 25 contains the intercorrelation matrix of the remaining scales used to test
Model 4. These modiﬁcations produced a better ﬁtting model [)8 (df 167, N=201) =
241.67, p > 0.001, GFI = 0.90, AGFI = 0.86, RMSEA = 0.05, CFI = 0.94, NNFI = 0.93,
PNFI = 0.68, PGFI = 0.65]. Furthermore, all direct pathways outlined in this model were
statistically signiﬁcant (p <0.05) and the factor loading of each indicator to its respective
latent variable in this model were all statistically signiﬁcant (p < 0.05). Please see Figure
13.

Model 4 differs from the adapted model, Model 1, in that this model suggests that

indirect coping and direct coping are two separate coping constructs. Similarly, Model 4

suggests that distress and wellbeing are two separate mental health constructs. Model 1

I43

28m 383:3: 0280.35 n mmm 6.8m £3 5.3 8.800an u 53m m......erim .863 n 88
089993 02000509 30:35": N NDmQ ”macaakm 0230.500 :gocOEm: H :59 $5000 “000.03% M NUOmmm
0530 308: u 8:000 0580 9.08.2 n 509:: £253 meioom u 8:000 0500 9:3. n .3000
meow—00m: .8330 9 0:0 00:30.2 n :Em ”0.52:0 0.09000 .«0 18.5.3.0. u Nmmmz onacmatommﬂ :0 EMEAEAV u—mmmE
€5.83: 30.955 .3283: u gamma ”noun—am 3583: 00.83:: 9:38.: u 30mm: £285 .8: 052.65 u Emma
5&8 so: 8383: u 20mm: €2.05 :28... 09.83: u 20mm: 3.055 :0 soaeoaxm u «Sam—2
bmoE—tmuo aowlawoogm u ENE “00:00:00.00 0525 n «(.Emﬁ ”@085: 05 :0 309:0 300.0580 Emma—50¢ .80?
::.: 3.: _~.. ::.: .:.: ::.: 3.: ::.: 2.: ::.: ::.: 3.: 2.: _:.v ::.: :..m :4: .v: :~.~ ...m 3... :m
::.:N 2.: 3.: ::.:. ::.:. ::.: ::.:. ::.- ::.:. ::.MN ::.: ::.: ::.:. ::.:. ::.~. :~.:. 3.3 .:.:v ::.: 3.2 as: :8:
a 3.: ::.:- ::.:- ::.:. ::.:. 3.? ::.: 2.: 2.: m..:. 2.? :~.:. 2.: ...: 2.: 2.: ::.: .:.:. ::.: 1.: 2.:
a NM? 3.? ::.:. ::.:- ::.:- 2.: .~.: 2.: :~.:- 2.? 2.:. ::.: 2.: .m.: 2.: ::.: ::.:. ::.: v:.: ::3:
M:|.: 3.: 3.: :..: ::.: 3.: ...? ::.:. 3.: 2.: ...: ::.:. ::.:. ::.:. 2.:- 2.:- ::.: 2.? S? ::3
ﬂ ::.: :1: 3.: ::.:. ::.:. v:.:. 2.: 3.: 2.: ::.:. ::.:. ::.:. 3.? 2.:. 2.: 3.: ::.: 3::
a ::.: ::.: ::.:- 3.? v:.:. 2.: ::.: 2.: ::.:- ::.:. ~..? ...? 2.:. ::.: ::.: ::.: .3:
~|:d ::.: ::.:. ::.: ::.: :~.: :..: 2.: 2.:. ::.: 8.? v:.:. 2.:- v:.: ::.:. v:.:. 03::
Si: 2.:. ...? 3.? 2.: ::.: :..: «_.:. ::.:. 2.? ...? 3.? ::.: ~:.: 3.? 3:8:
g 2.: ::.: ::.:. ::.: ::.: ::.: 2.: 2.: ::.: -.: .~.: :..: ...: 63::
mgr. ::.: 2.:. v:.:. ::.:- 2.: ::.: ::.: 3.: ::.: ::.: 2.: 3.: 3:8:
31: ::.: ::.: ::.: :~.: 2.: ::.: :..: 2.: 2.: 2.: .~.: .::8:
Nada. ::.: ::.: 2.:- S: v:.:. v:.:. 3.? ...: ::.: 2.: ::3
an: ::.: ...? ::.: .:.: ::.:. :..:. ::.: ::.: ::.: $3:
a 2.:. ::.: ::.: ::.:. ~..:. 3.: ~m.: 2.: 33:
....dd ::.: 2.: 2.: :..: ::.: ::.:. ::.: ::3:
a . _.: 2.: v:.: ::.: ::.: ::.: ::3:
5.1.: 3.: ::.: ::.: ::.: 2.: 2:3:
a .m.: ~:.? ::.: ::.:. ::3:
.I:l.:. 2.: 3.: 2.: 2:3:
Si: 2.: 2.: 2.:...
m|:ud 3.: .23:
ﬂ 2:92
2.: ::3: m3: 3:: .3: 03:: 3:8: 5:3: 3:8: 3:8: 3:3 ::3: .3: 23:: ::3: 2:3: ...:3: .<:$:~i:.:z £555.92

 

 

 

v .0002 a. 00m: 3.00m 00.: 300.0500qb..50=0m 03003500000030: .mm 030:.

I44

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a: n 96m: 505 8§=§
020 389.0 .5: ".0 .32.“ u "x “082 §§e§:

 

 

 

 

830$ 320 0280.”: a: "a. 03:: u ax ”.822 :24

038: v 382 .2 2am

 

 

 

 

 

dam:
«Na 1508 59: a...
mud gum—E
830830
@330
36305

 

 

 

mmmoum 80:::
n2 . .
28 cod K c 8 o
macaw 826::
$055
::.: u:
8.9 2.? H:
S .o HO ::.:. ”I
33:03 0:80 025
NS
. ::.: um
S c «we
58:: 26
:m 0 as
9.5 ...—gm NNAOUm n: Um

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     
   

 

 

 

::.:

 

 

 

 

.o
f 223

 

 

 

 

3o :92:

 

mmmmz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cg
Exazm :53:
38:
0038.0: 23
$5 A 8.3mm:
«2.
2mm: 2:3:

 

 

145

proposed that Individual Cultural Characteristics directly inﬂuenced Perceived Social
Support and that Perceived Social Support directly inﬂuenced Appraisal of Sociocultural
Stress. Model 4 indicates that these relationships are not signiﬁcant, thus these paths
were removed. Model 4 also indicates a direct signiﬁcant positive relationship between
Individual Cultural Characteristics and Appraisal of Sociocultural Stress. However this
path is not in the predicted direction (standardized B = 0.44, t = 5.08, p < 0.001, two-
tailed test; Path E, Figure 13). Paths D (standardized B = 0.22, t = 2.71, p <0.01, two-
tailed test; Figure 13), E (standardized B = 0.48, t: 3.89, p <0.001, two-tailed test; Figure
13), F (standardized B = 0.32, t = 3.70, p <0.001, two-tailed test; Figure 13), and G
(standardized B = 0.17, t = 2.48, p <0.02, two-tailed test; Figure 13) of Model 1 were
found to be statistically signiﬁcant in the hypothesized direction in Model 4. Model 4
also contains several paths that were not hypothesized for Model 1. These include Path H
(standardized B = -0.35, t = 3.01, p < 0.01, two-tailed test; Figure 13), Path I
(standardized B = 0.81, t = 8.12, p <0.001, two-tailed test; Figure 13), and Path J
(standardized B = -0.73, t: -9.05, p <0.001, two-tailed test; Figure 13). Furthermore,
consistent with the literature, several indicators were removed from the hypothesized
model and the covariance of several pairs of indicators was estimated.

Seven statistically signiﬁcant indirect relationships were demonstrated. Indirect
relationships from Individual Cultural Characteristics to Indirect Coping (n = 0.14, t =
3.09, p < .001) and Individual Cultural Characteristics to Distress (n = 0.12, t = 3.09, p <
.01) were found. Participants who tended to be bicultural or highly acculturated were
more likely to experience sociocultural stress, utilize indirect coping strategies and

experience distress. Indirect relationships ﬁ'om Perceived Social Support to Distress (n =

146

-0.28, t = -3.00, p < .01) and to Wellbeing (n = 0.29, t = 3.45, p <.001) were found.
Perceived social support promoted direct coping strategies which in turn promoted
wellbeing. In addition, perceived social support also promoted indirect coping strategies
which promoted distress and ultimately affected wellbeing. Indirect relationships
between Appraisal of Sociocultural Stress to Distress (n = 0.26, t = 3. 69, p <.001) and to
Wellbeing (n = -0. 19, t = -3.50, p < .001) and Indirect Coping to Wellbeing (n = -0.59, t
= -6.74, p <.001) were also found. Participants who experienced sociocultural stress
utilized indirect coping strategies, experienced distress, and reported lower levels of
wellbeing.
Moderators

The variables, gender, SES, and heritage were tested as moderators. First, a test of
measurement invariance was performed. Thus, analyses were conducted to see if the
indicators assessed the same latent variables in different groups. The evaluation of
measurement invariance was done by comparing the relative ﬁt with the xzdmame test of
two models, one with cross-group equality constraints imposed on the factor loading and
the other without constraints. Ifthe ﬁt of a model with equality-constrained loadings was
not signiﬁcantly worse than that of the unconstrained model, then it was assumed that the
indicators measured the factors in comparable ways in each group (Byrne, 1998; Kline,
1998). After the equality of factor structures was assessed, analyses were conducted to
determine if group membership (i.e., male vs. female, low SES vs. high SES, mono-
ethnic heritage (two parents of Latino heritage) vs. bi-ethnic heritage (one Non-Latina/o
parent and one parent of Latina/o heritage) moderated the structural paths (relationships)

speciﬁed in the model. Thus, cross-group equality constraints were imposed on both the

147

factor loadings and the structural paths (Byrne, 1998). The x2 of the model with its factor
loadings and structural paths constrained to equality was then contrasted against that of
the unconstrained model. If the xzdmmnce test of the two models was signiﬁcant, it was
concluded that the structural paths differed across the groups (Byrne, 1998; Kline, 1998).
QQLdQI

Tables 26 and 27 display the intercorrelation matrices, means, and standard
deviations used to test differences between males and females, respectively. The
evaluation of measurement invariance revealed that the factor loadings were the same for
males (N=72) and females (N_=129). The ﬁt of the model with equality-constrained
loadings [12 (df352, N=201) = 402.92, p < 0.001, GFI = 0.87, RMSEA = 0.04, CFI =
0.95, NNFI = 0.94, PNFI = 0.66, PGFI = 1.32] was not signiﬁcantly worse (xzmqmnce test
p = 0.16) than that ofthe unconstrained model [x2 (df 338, N=201) = 383.79, p < 0.001,
GFI = 0.87, RMSEA = 0.04, CFI = 0.95, NNFI = 0.94, PNFI = 0.64, PGFI = 1.27].
Please see Table 23. We can assume that the indicators measure the factors in
comparable ways in each group. Given that the factor loadings were invariant across
males and females, as suggested by Byrne (1998) a test of group differences in the means
of the latent constructs was conducted. This test revealed that females exhibited
statistically signiﬁcant higher levels than males on Perceived Social Support (K = 2.32, t
= 2.69, p < 0.01, D = -0.57), Distress (K = 1.89, t = 2.84, p<0.01, D = -0.55), and
Wellbeing (K = 2.03, t = 4.04, p<0.001, D = -0.96). Statistically signiﬁcant differences
were not evident for Individual Cultural Characteristics (K = 1.95, t = 1.43, p > 0.10, D =
-0.23), Appraisal of Sociocultural Stress (K = 0.52, t = -0.46, p > 0.20, D = -0.08), Direct

Coping (K = -0.52, t = -0.77, Q > 0.20, D = 0.14), or Indirect Coping (K = 1.04, t = 1.96, p

148

28m 8835mm 9.80.53 n 9% ...-.38 £3 5? 808383 n 55% wage 32on
u mama ..mEoEEam 38290 .835 n mama gage 3.86800 EconoEm u 5mm ..wﬁaoo 5863.. n 80.8.5 8580 2,88 u ammoom
.3800 3053‘ n COPE €855 msxoom n «Boom 3:80 953. u 5808 $8.8 5868885 u 83 38830 9 0% eon-.53.
"ES .2330 395.0% .8853. u «mam—2 .. 80585 .8 3853. u 532 ..EEBBA savages 888m n Ebmwm €895 €588.”
barge: 9.60.65 u Ebmmm €955 boa managed u Emma ..coaazm boa 8>B8m n “Emma 8896 sigh egg u 33.5mm ..bsaﬁm
0o zonauoaxm u 352 mbzogm ..o Engaged n _Emuz 38855 05.3 u 22% ..Ecomee 05 so 586% 88888... hafnium .302

 

Nmé 00.0 8.0 006 :6 0:. 00." 0N.0 0N.m 0N.0 0; v0.0 0N.0. NNé de 0m.m 2.0 .06 0N.N N5” 8.0. a
00.0. 2.2 3.." 00.2 8.: 00.2 N02 v0.NN 3:0 MN.NN 5.0 3.2 8.2 00.: NY". ...—.0. 0a.: NNNM 00.0 0N.0. 3.3 :3:
00.0 3.0 0N.0- 3.0- 0W0- 0N.0. 5.0- 0N.0 2.0 3.0 3.0. N0.0- 0.0. 3.0 __.0 2.0 _0.0- Nm.0 N00. .00 2.0 «:0
00.0 mN.0- 3.0- $10- 3.0- 3.0.. 0N.0 N00 __.0 2.0- __.0- 2.0. 2.0 0.0 ...—.0 v0.0 .00 00.0- 00.0 2.0 “:30
0N.0 Nm.0 3.0 0N.0 2.0 8.0- 2.0- 8.0 2.0 0N.0 N..0 8.0. 8.0. 2.0 2.0. Nm.0- 2.0 0.0. 8.0 88
v0.0 :0 0m.0 8.0 N_.0- 8.0- 8.0- 2.0 MN.0 0N.0 NN.0- 3.0. 00.0- 00.0. mN.0- 2.0 _0.0 8.0 N08
8.0 8.0 3.0 2.0. 8.0- 8.0 «Nd NN.0 2.0 :0. 00.0- .0.0. _0.0- :0. 0N.0 0.0 2.0 .000
00.0 3.0 8.0- _0.0- 8.0 Nm.0 0N.0 2.0 vN.0- 2.0 00.0 __.0- 8.0- 00.0 2.0- 8.0. 002..
2.0 3.0- 2.0- __.0 0N.0 0N.0 2.0 2.0. 8.0 _0.0- 2.0. 2.0. __.0 8.0 8.0 80000
00.0 3.0 00.0 8.0 00.0 8.0- 0N.0 .N.0 2.0 N00 :0 2.0 2.0 3.0 .03”:
00.0 N10 00.0 3.0- _ 0.0 00.0 00.0 0N.0 N10 000 m _ .0 m _ .0 0 _ .0 80000
8.0 N _ .0 2 .0 00.0 8.0 N _ .0 NN.0 00.0 0 _ .0 3.0 _ N.0 0. .0 30000
00.0 00.0 0N.0 0_ .0- 0N.0 v _ .0 m _ .0 00.0- 0 _ .0 8.0 m _ .0 .03
00.0 2.0 E .0- 00.0 N _ .0 8.0- N _ .0- 3.0 and 0N.0 Nam:
8.0 0N.0. v0.0 8.0 8.0 00.0- N _ .0 0N.0 NN.0 _ an:
00.0 00.0 MN.0 . N.0 3.0 8.0- N . .0- 80 No.38
00.0 m _ .0 N . .0 8.0- I .0- 00.0- 00.0- Ear.
8.0 00.0 m _ .0 00.0 8.0. _ _ .0 N508
00.0 0 _ .0 00.0- 8.0- 8.0. .502
3.0 n _ .0 8.0 8.0 .508
00.0 8.0 00.0 N50:
8.0 NN.0 .23:
00.0 _<:2<
«:0 “:30 88 N08 .08 N000“: 80000 .000”... N380 $0000 .03 Nam: .03: N002 2030 N552 3:2 .12 N50: ...-0: ::g

 

332 com $568000 EELS—um use mGOUEDhOOBEH .oN Bonu-

149

23m 88.85 380.3% n mmm 6.8m 0.5 5.3 88.808 n "33m ..manEAm 3.63m

u 88 ”acoaesm 3 8280 .8338 u 88 gnaw 3.8289 8268mm n 58 @080 .5295. n «comma ..mcaoo 838.. u 8.50m

8.80 0358... n 509.3 ..coeaam 95.8w u ammoom ..ano 9:3. u 5.52. .885 888825 u 8.2m ...2330 9 26 8:832

u 551% .8330 30980.00 13.895. u wamz .. 8.03.50.85.00 13.5594. H _wmmz 2055me 5.80350 voiooom H gmmm 0.55.9.5 .occoﬁom

383:5 «536$ n EDmmm €885 8m 8632.. u Sim?“ 8255 son 888m u .Emmm ..toaaam 3.83 838... n summed 5.25:”;

.6 consoaxm u «SEE SEEM“? 52583. u _Smmz 62.3500 8:3 u 229?. 29895. as 8 38% «086880 bzséom .082

 

00.0 8.0 00.. 00.0
0N.0N MNéN 8.0 3.2
a 00.0 NN.0. 00.0-
§ NN.0. 00.0-

a 8.0

a

a... “:30 88 N08 .08 N00”... 8800 .03“: N880 .8000 .33 N38 .3": N..0?— ..=.ur. NE?— ....3.. .508 N50...
ape: m 98 8o: z .c as E .2 28h

_ ..0
00.0N
00.0-
N0.0-
8.0
00.0
8....

8.0
00....N
.N.0-
NN.0-
N ..0
0N.0
N00
N-N-d

0:.
.3.
00.0-
3.0-
0N.0
00.0
NWO
......0
a

8.0
0 _.NN
8.0-
00.0

8.0
00.0-
N0.0-
N0.0-
. ..0-
mm.

0..n
0N. . .
N..0
0N.0
. ..0-
0 ..0-
N ..0-
3.0
N ..0-
3.0
34.

00.0
0N.NN
0N.0
0N.0
00.0-
3.0-
0 . .0.
N0.0-
00.0-
00.0
0m.

Nd...

 

0N.M
de
0..0-
0N.0-
m ..0
m ..0
0N.0
NN.0
NN.0
N ..0-
.N.0-
00.0.
“.0...

N00
.0.N.
0N.0-
.N.0-
. ..0
0N.0
0N.0
m . .0
m . .0
8.0
N0.0-
8.0
8.0
0%.

0m. 0
00.0.
0N.0-
2.0.
. ..0
0N.0
.N.0
N ..0
0 ..0
«..0
00.0.
8.0
Nv.0
00.0
3.1..

2.0
8.0.
0N.0
8.0
00.0.
8.0-
0N.0.
0 ..0.
v ..0.
0N.0
NN.0
0N.0
0N.0-
00.0-
0 ..0.
3.1..

.N.m
0N.N.
N . .0
0 . .0
.0.0-
00.0-
N0.0-
00.0
N ..0.
NN.0
00.0
N . .0
N0.0-
00.0
.0.0
8.0
Mad

0N.N
No.0 .
Nn.0
00.0
0N.0.
m ..0-
00.0.
00.0-
NN.0-
0N.0
8.0
0N.0
v ..0.
00.0-
N0.0-
NN.0
0 . .0
a

006
8.NN
0M0
3.0
0N.0-
0N.0-
0N.0.
3.0-
m . .0.
N ..0
00.0
NN.0
2.0.
0 . .0.
8.0-
0.... 0
.N.0
00.0
a

N0.N
0...;
8.0
8.0
0N.0.
NN.0-
0N.0.
0N.0-
3:0.
N ..0
.m. 0
0 ..0
8.0-
N..0-
N..0-
0N.0
m ..0
00.0
NN.0
..0...

.N.N
8.0
00.0
.0.0-
00.0
N . .0
00.0
8.0
N0.0-
NN.0
00.0
mN.0
. ..0
0N.0
NN.0
m . .0
N . .0
0. .0
3.0
m..0
a

0N...
0N.0.
00.0
00.0
... ..0-
00.0
8.0.
00.0.
00.0-
00.0
00.0
0N.0
o _ .0
Rd
8.0
8.0
m _ .0
N . .0
00.0
0 . .0
00.0
...»..d

8.. .
0 ..0m
0 ..0
N0.0-
8.0-
00.0
.0.0
8.0-
00.0-
v ..0
00.0-
0N.0
v ..0
00.0
0N.0
00.0
N ..0
3.0
N0.0-
0 ..0
00.0
N00
8

.<=2<

0n
:8:
80
“...?”
88
N08
.08
N000...
3.800
.00....
N880
.8000
.03
Na”:
.03:
N808
Ear.
N58.
.53..
.538
N50:
.50:
.532

150

= 0.05, D = -0.45). Tables 26 and 27 indicate that these differences are also conﬁrmed in
observed variables.

The relative ﬁt of the model with its factor loadings and structural paths
constrained to equality [)8 (df 358, N=201) = 427.48, p > 0.001, GFI = 0.86, RMSEA =
0.04, CFI = 0.94, NNFI = 0.93, PNFI = 0.66, PGFI = 1.33] was not worse (xzdmemce test
was signiﬁcant (p = 0.93)) than that of the unconstrained model [)8 (df 336, N=201) =
414.41, p > 0.001, GFI = 0.86, RMSEA = 0.05, CFI = 0.93, NNF1= 0.92, PNFI = 0.63,
PGFI = 1.25]. Thus, we can conclude that the structural paths do not differ for males and
females and gender is not a moderator of the respeciﬁed model. Please see Table 23.
Socioeconomic Status

SES levels (high and low) were determined by combining information from two
items of the demographic questionnaire (i.e., comparison of participants’ families’
ﬁnancial status with other MSU students’ families; parents’ education level). Participants
were assigned to the high SES group if they reported that they were about the same,
better off or much better off than other MSU students’ families and their mother’s or
father’s highest education level was greater than high school. Participants were assigned
to the low SES group if they reported that they were about the same, somewhat worse off
or much worse off than other MSU students’ families and their mother’s and father’s
highest education level was at most high school. Participants who reported that they
were somewhat worse off or much worse off and their father or mother had above a high
school education, were also assigned to the low SES group. Similarly, participants who
reported that they were better off or much better off and their father or mother had below

a high school education were assigned to the high SES group.

151

Tables 28 and 29 display the intercorrelation matrices, means, and standard
deviations used to test differences between low and high SES groups, respectively. The
evaluation of measurement invariance revealed that the factor loadings were the same for
the high (l_\{=7l) and low (ﬂ=130) SES groups. The ﬁt of the model with equality-
constrained loadings [x2 (df352, N=201) = 390.58, p < 0.001, GFI = 0.89, RMSEA =
0.03, CFI = 0.94, NNFI = 0.93, PNFI = 0.65, PGFI = 1.35] was not signiﬁcantly worse
(78.1mm... test p = 0.05) than that of the unconstrained model [)52 (df 338, N=201) =
366.66, p < 0.001, GFI = 0.89, RMSEA = 0.03, CFI = 0.95, NNFI = 0.94, PNFI = 0.64,
PGFI = 1.30]. We can assume that the indicators measure the factors in comparable ways
in each group. Please see Table 23. A test of group differences in the means of the latent
constructs revealed that compared to the low SES group, high SES participants exhibited
statistically signiﬁcant higher levels on Perceived Social Support (K = 0.97, t = 2.23, p
<0.05, D = -0.83) and Wellbeing (K = 1.67, t = 2.52, g< 0.02, D = -0.51) and lower levels
on Appraisal of Sociocultural Stress (K = -1 .38, t = -2.98, p < 0.01, D = 0.48).

Statistically signiﬁcant differences were not evident on Individual Cultural
Characteristics (K = -0.19, t = -0.35, p > 0.20, D = -0.06), Direct Coping (K = -0.66, t = -
0.88 p > 0.20, D = 0.18), Indirect Coping (K = 1.50, t = 1.54, p > 0.10, D = -O.32), and
Distress (K = -0.04, t = -O.48, p > 0.20, D = 0.11). Tables 28 and 29 indicate that these

differences are conﬁrmed in observed variables.

152

280 $8.080 258.35 n mam 808m 03 5.3 8:20QO n .526 058.05% 3830 n 33 aeoasam

03300000 100.030 H N0m0 ”0:030:03 030000000 300.0050 H .0m0 $0.000 0:00.0>< H NUOmnE $0.000 0>.mm0m N 000000
m0580 3.082 u .000”: £895 museum n $0000 m00.80 959.. n. 50000 885 38888:. u 80%

600.000 .8330 00 0:0 00.0000? H .0043 ”003.00 000500 .00 .3053». H NwmmS. 80.000.00.300 .00 02.00000. ".mmmz
000000000 5.000983 0020000 u Nmemm mtoamnw 00000000 3.9.0300 80.03000 H .0058. ...—0095 0000 $0.030...— ” gmmmm
0803 .80 82080 n gamma €895 .0050 82800 n 3052 5.0.5008 80829.0 u 9:02
3.0.5.00 .00 00.0.:w000m H .253. ”00.000.00.00 00.00.. H _émﬁ 40008.0 05 :0 000000 300.0508 5:30:00 .000 Z

 

 

00.0 00.0 00.. 00.0 N00
00.0. 0..NN 00.0 00.2 00.2
31.10 N00 80. N..0. 000.
0.040 0N0. N00. 80.

ad .N.0 00.0

30 N00

No.10

m..N

0N.0N

30.
000-
0N0
000
.00
a

0N.0
N0.0—
Nv0.
NN.0-
000
30
N00
00.0
81..

8.0
00.0N
00.0
00.0
0.0
80.
N00
.00.
0 _ .0.
mm...

0N.0
N00.
80.
000
0.0
N..0
0N.0
N..0
N00.
0N.0
.lqlo

00.0
0N.NN
00.0
80
V0.0
0.0
000
N00
80
30
0N0
3

No.0
0..N
N00.
0N.0.
. ..0
N00
0N0
vN0
0N.0
N..0
N00-
«.0
000

N00
00.0.
0 . .0.
0 ..0.
0N.0
NN.0
0N.0
N. . .0
.N.0
000
8.0.
000
000
_Imd

0.0.
00.:
N ..0.
N _0.
_ ..0
0.0
0N.0
0.0
0.0
00.0
8.0.
0.0
$0
000
a

0 _ ....
N00.
0 _ .0
00.0
8.0.
00.0.
0N.0.
0N.0.
0 ..0-
Z0
8.0
000
80-
N..0.
. ..0-
~01...

00.0
N . .N .
N00.
80
_ ..0
0 . .0.
N00.
00.0
00.0
0N0
N00
000
0N.0
80
v . .0
N00
wad

000
00.0.
v . .0
00.0
80
0N.0
N ..0
0 . .0
v0.0-
0N.0
0 . .0
NN.0
80
8.0
.00
N . .0
0.0
a

 

8.0
3.:
N00.
000.
00.0.
0N.0
v . .0
m ..0
.00.
000.
3.0
00.0
000
00.0
000
N00
.00.
000
Nd...

N00
MN.N0

000

3.0
0N.0.
N00-
80.
80-
0.0-
000
.00
80
0N.0.
2.0.
0N.0.
N00
0.0.
0.0
N..0
.040

0N.N
00.0
N00
N ..0-
8.0
v . .0
0.0
00.0
00.0
0N.0
N00
NN.0
0 ..0
00.0
0N.0
:0
N00-
0.0
.00
0.0
a

8.0
00.0.
N00
00.0
0.0-
00.0
. ..0
20.
N00
000
m ..0
0 ..0
00.0
00.0
0N.0
N00
N00.
80.
N00
00.0
N00
.010

0. .N .
3.:
0 _.0
N00
N00
0 ..0
m ..0
. ..0-
0.0-
0.0
.00-
0 ..0
00.0
00.0
NN.0
80
30
m ..0
00.0-
00.0
000
00.0
.00.

.0.,

0.
an...
a...
“:3.
88
N08
.08
N038
0880
.0008
N880
.880
.83
Na...
.30..
8008
.0008
N808
=58
2.8
N50:
...—0:
.552

mmm 30). 00.0 mas—0.05000 .0.—5000M. .000 000.00.000000005 .wN 030...

153

0.80 080.0000 0208.300 n 00.0 0.80 00.0 003 80800000 n 0030 £080.00 30200 n 0000 £080,000
02002000 .8020 n 800 £030.00 0232000 00000200 n .000 m00.000 008620 N 80000 00.08 02030 M 000000
M00.000 03082 n .0000 080000 000.000 n 0000000 0.0000 02090 N 50000 0800 0080000800 M 00000

00.0000 .003.00 00 00.0 00.00—00.70 H .mE/ww ”003.30 000800 ..0 .00.0000< H Nmmmz .00.~§000.0 ..0 .00.0000< ".mmmz
0.000.000.0000 3.000203 .020000 N ~003me 3000006 35000000 5.000203 w50.>000 H .mbmmm 300003m 0000 $063000 H gmme
000:0 0000 32080 n .000 00 080000 0.0080 82800 N 20000 5.000000 00 00.002000 n 0200.).
0000000 00 00.000800 n .2082 000800000 803 u 2200.00 M00500.0 0.0 8 0.0000 000.0008 00.00.00 0.0100.

 

0&0 0.0 m... ...v
00.0N 0N.0N 00.0 00.2
N040 «0.0 0N.0- 00.0-
a :0- 3.0-

NI0I... 00.0

3.10

00.0.
3.0.
3.0-
3.0-
3.0
00.0
00....

3.0
00.:
0N.0-
0N.0.
0. .0
00.0

30
a0

0.

3.0
.N.0.
00.0-
.00-
00.0
3.0
50
N00
30

:0
00.NN
00.0
m _ .0
N00-
00.0-
20.
N00-
000.

000

N10
0... .
vN0
0N.0
vN0-
0.0-
0 . .0-
.00
2.0..
3.0
N000

00.0
0N.0N
0. .0
0N.0
0.0.
N ..0-
N ..0.
.00.
.00.
$0
000
a

000
0N.0
2.0-
0.0.
v. .0
0. .0
0.0
2.0
0N.0
N..0-
v.0-
0 . .0-
0.010

N0.0
0. .0 _
v. .0-
00.0-
00.0
.N.0
0. .0
0. .0
... .0
000
N00-
00.0
00.0
$0

 

3.0
0.0.
.N.0-
N..0.
00.0
:0
0.0
00.0
0.0
0.0
00.0-
00.0
3.0
00.0
a

3.0
0......
_ m0
Nm.0
00.0-
mN0-
0N.0-
00.0-
"..0.
00.0
0 . .0
0N.0
0 _ .0-
N00-
20.
000

.0....
00.N.
0N.0
0 _ .0
. ..0.
00.0.
. ..0.
3.0
00.0.
0.0
00.0
0.0
00.0
000
N00.
R0
00....

000
No.0.
00.0
.00
m ..0-
NN.0-
0N.0.
N ..0.
0 . .0-
NN.0
3.0
0M0
0.0.0-
3.0
3.0
000
. . .0
340

03
Nm.0N
0N.0
00.0
0 . .0-
0N.0-
0N.0-
0.0-
0 _ .0.
N ..0
3.0
NN.0
00.0..
.00-
00.0
00.0
MNO
00.0
9040

00.0
m N. . v
3.0
:0
«N0.
:0.

0N.0-.

0N.0-
. m0-
0N.0
$0
0N.0
v _ .0-
. 0.0-
00.0
0N.0
e _ .0
00.0
00.0
00.0

0 _ .N .0....
00.0 0N.0.
00.0- . _ .0
00.0 00.0
3.0 2.0-
m . .0 3.0
00.0 00.0
00.0 N00-
00.0 00.0-
NN.0 N . .0
0. .0 v. .0
0N.0 0N.0
00.0 N. .0
3.0 00.0
0N.0 :0
8.0 .00.
_ ..0 00.0
.00 0. .0
3.0- 00.0
m . .0 NN.0
a .00

0.01.0

00.0.
3.00
_ ..0
00.0
v0.0.
«00
N00
00.0
00.0
m. .0
8.0
0N.0
0. .0
00.0
:0
8.0.
00.0
00.0
.00
0. .0
3.0
.00
0040

0%..

00
:2:
0:0
0.30
0000
N000
.000
N03...
3080
.03...
$080
_ 0080
. 25
N03:
.000:
$0000
.0300
Nan—00..
.53..
.23..
N50:
. ...“:
::3

.oN 030,0

154

The relative ﬁt of the model with its factor loadings and structural paths
constrained to equality [x2 (df358, N=201) = 402.30, p > 0.001, GFI = 0.88, RMSEA =
0.04, CFI = 0.94, NNFI = 0.93, PNFI = 0.66, PGFI = 1.37] was not signiﬁcantly worse
(xzdm‘mnce test p = 0.67) than that of the unconstrained model [)8 (df 336, N=201) =
383.62, p < 0.001, GFI = 0.88, RMSEA = 0.04, CFI =0.94, NNFI =0.92, PNFI = 0.63,
PGF I = 1.28]. Please see Table 23. Thus, we can conclude that the structural paths do
not differ for the high and low SES groups and SES is not a moderator.
lie—ritage

Tables 30 and 31 display the intercorrelation matrices, means, and standard
deviations used to test differences between mono-ethnic and bi-ethnic participants,
respectively. The evaluation of measurement invariance revealed that the ﬁt of the
equality-constrained, factor loadings model for mono-ethnic (E=79) and bi-ethnic
participants (3:122) [x2 (df 352, N=201) = 471.73, p < 0.001, GFI = 0.84, RMSEA =
0.06, CFI = 0.91, NNFI =0.89, PNFI = 0.63, PGFI = 1.28] was signiﬁcantly worse
(xzdmmnce test p < 0.05) than that of the unconstrained model [)8 (df 338, N=201) =
434.70, p < 0.001, GFI = 0.84, RMSEA = 0.05, CFI = 0.92, NNFI = 0.90, PNFI = 0.62,
PGFI = 1.23]. Please see Table 23. Faced with these results, an analysis of the equality
of the factor variances and covariances was conducted. Thus, the ﬁt of a model where
only error variances and covariances were estimated for each group [x2 (df 324, N=201) =
425.30, p < 0.001, GFI = 0.85, RMSEA = 0.06, CFI = 0.91, NNFI = 0.89, PNFI = 0.60,
PGF I = 1.19] was compared to the preceding model where the factor loadings and error
variances and covariances were constrained. The ﬁt of the model with unconstrained

error variances and covariances was signiﬁcantly better (xzdmame test p < 0.05) than that

155

oiomwmoﬁaaum o>zoofzm H mIm ...oEom as 515 actoémnnm u "Skim Mmﬁoaﬁxm 320:5 u mDmQ MmEOEEm
ozmmoaoQ 3293“: u NQmO mmEoEEzm 0330509 _ncomuoEm H :DmD mwﬁmoo «Gavmojw u N009: mwﬁmoo 2,8an M mmmOUm

mwaaoo 3883. u 882 €896 waxoom u ammoom Mmaﬁa 953. u Encom amoam .885835 n 83%
£856 3330 9 26 8:83.... u EB; 6:55 3950 co Began... u 332 aoﬁuﬁcﬁo mo 38%.... u: 39.:
uoSSﬁom 55.353 Uozoood n NmDmmm ”ton—mam _oncoﬂom hump—02:3 w52>05 n EDmmm 3.5.5.5 coon w52>0um u ”Emma:
5&5 bug 838% u 7&me €258 baa..— Bzooom u :52 3.29% :o eocegaxm 1 S252
.mzoiﬁm .«o aocawonvom n 32:34 “counacoto 95.5 H ~<2md< «Enema? 05 no Boa—ma maﬁa—bog bani—om .802

 

 

3.3 3.:
2.:: ::.::
a. E.

2.. 3.3 ~:.:
3.: ::.:. 2.::
3.? 3.:- 3.?
3.? 3.? 3.?
3.:: 3.: ::.:
g 3.:

.31:

3.:
~33
2.?
2.:.
2.:

3.:
3.:
~13

::.:
3.2
3.:.
:~.?
2.:
3.:
::.:
3.:
ma

::.:
::.:
3.:.
3.?
2.:
3.:
2.:
2.:
~_.?
al.:

>.

2.:
2.:.
::.:.
_~.:
::.:
::.:-
2.:
2.:
::.:
3.:
3.:

:3
3.2
::.:
_ _.:
::.:.
::.:
::.:
::.:
::.:
::.:
::.:
Si:

3.... ::.:
_ _.: :_.:~
2.:. 2.:.
2.? 2.:.
3.: 2.:
2.: 5.:
_ ..: 2.:
2.: 2.:
m~.: ::.:
3.: 2.:
::.:. ~:.:
~:.: 2.:
a 3.:

g

::.:.
::.:.
3.?
2.?
::.:
2.:
2.:
3.:
2.:
2.:
3.:
. _.:
::.:
::.:
a

::.v
::.:.
2.:
2.:
::.:
::.:.
2.?
_ _.:-
::.:.
3.:
2.:
2.:
::.:-
::.:
3.:-
an:

3.:
::.:
::.:.
3.?
2.:
~:.:
3.:
2.:
2.:
3.:
::.:
3.:
_~.:
:— .:
2 .:
::.:
ad:

2.:
3.:.
2.:
::.:
::.:.
::.:
::.:-
::.:
«_.:-
::.:
2.:
2.:
2.:
2.:
::.:
_~.:
3.:
94:

2.:
2.::
3.:
2.:
3.:.
2.:
::.:
:~.:
3.:
::.:
::.:
2.:
2.:
2.:
2.:
2.:
::.:
::.:
ﬂ

3.:
3.::
2.:
3.:
2.:.
2.:.
::.:.
2.:
::.:.
2.:
3.:
3.:
_ _.:-
::.:.
::.:.
2.:
::.:
2.:
-.:
.13

::.~
::.:
::.:-
::.:.
3.:
2.:
::.:
2.:
::.:
3.:
::.:.
::.:
:~.:
::.:
2.:
::.:
::.:
::.:
m:.:
2.:
.31.:

2.:
::.:N
::.:
::.:
2.?
3.:
::.:
::.:.
2.:
v _ .:
::.:
:~.:
::.:
Q:
2.:
2.:
2.:
::.:
3.:.
«_.:
:m.:
a

2.:.
2.3
2.:
::.:
2.?
2.:
3.:
::.:.
~_.?
:~.:
2.?
2.:
::.:
2.:
2.:
2.:
:~.:
3.:
3.:
2.:
::.:
3.:
3.:

a
:3:
:5
:3:
33
33

_ :3
33:
3.3::
53:
~38:
_ :8:
_ :3
Ga:
:3:
Ear.
:32
~53:
:58
35..
::.::
_ t. a:
3:93

 

156

28m mmosaaam 2:833 u $5 638 0.3 5.3 5:823 n ”Sam gagim 3203 u 38 ”8.892%

8.3280 3235 n 88 Mmaﬁasam 058.39 acacoem u 58 W330 “529:... u 80me $580 9.93 u 8.50m
mwsaou 9832 u 68%. 68:3 mﬁoom u 8.58 mwsaou 2.8.4. u 5.58 .365 .285825 u 8.6%

£25m .8830 2 26 8.38.2 n 5.2m 6330 8950.... Hana? n «3%: accgoaa «o 5.2%? u. 3%:
“.2888."— .ﬁ.m3>.:5 .5383: u Ngmmm ”tonasm .2535“: 366.65 wEvSEL H :3me mtoaasm 50m 9:365 H gmmmm
5&3 30.. 8%8m u ::me €253 $5... 8383. u 2.53 568%. Mo coaeoaxm n ~25:

3225.5 :0 coacwooom H 223:2 603858 058.: n 3329533 ”Enema? 05 :0 Roman 385508 35233: .802

 

 

3.3 3.: 2.. 3.3 3.: 3.: 3.: 3.: ::.: 3.3 3.: 3... :33 3.3 ::.: 3.: ::.: 3.: m~.~ ....m ::.: ...:
~m.:~ ~3.3~ :3.m ::.:. 3.:. 3.3 3.:. :..- 3:... 2.3 2.... 3.:. 2.:. .2. :3.~. 3.:. 3.3 ::.3 3.: 3.:. 3.3 so:
mad ::.: 3.? 3.? 3.? 3.? ::.:- 2.: 3.: :..: 2.? :~.? 3.:. 3.: .~.: 3.: 3.: 3.: 3.:. ::.: ~..: 3...:
an: 3.? :3? ::.:- 3.? 33.? 3.: _~.: 3.: 3.? 2.? 2.:- ::.: 3.: :~.: 3.: 3.: 3.:- ::.: 3.: :3:

a1: 3.: 3.: 2.: 3.: 3.? 3.:- 3.:- 3.: 3..: 3..: 3.:. :..? ::.:. 3.? ::.:. ::.: 2.? 3.: 83

a: 3.: 33.: 3.: 2.? ::.:- ~. .:- :. .: 3.: 3.: 3.? 2.? : . .? 3.? 3.? m. .: ::.: 3.: 33

a: :3: ::.: :~.? ~..:- ~. .:- 3.: o. .: 3. .: 3.? 2.:. 2.? .~.? :~.? ::.: 3.: ::.: .:3

a ::.: . _.? ::.: 3.? 3.: :. .: a. .: :. .:- ::.:- 3.? : . .? 3.? 3.:- ::.:- 3.? 38...
:43 m..? :~.? 3.:- 3.: 3.: m. .: :. .:- 2.? : . .? o . .? 3.? ::.:- 3.? 3.? 3:8:

3.: 33.: ::.: 3. .? 3.:- 3.: 3.: :~.: 3.: : . .: 3.: m. .: :_ .: : _ .: 33...

34: 3a.: :. .? ::.:- ~. .? m. .: 3.: 3.: 3.: 3.: ... .: .~.: ~..: ~38:

3.... 3.? 3.: 3.? :~.: ::.: 3.: : . .: o . .: :~.: -.: : . .: .38:

3...... 3.: ::.: .~.? 3.? 3 . .? : . .? 3.? 3.:- 3.: 3.? $3:
3.: 3.: :. .? ::.:- 3.? : . .? 3.:- 3.: ::.: 3.: 3a:
:34: :. .:- 3. .? ::.: 3. .? ::.:- m. .: 3.: 3. .: .3:

mad ::.: 3.: 3.: :..: 3.? 3.:. ::.: 33:.
an: 2.: .~.: ::.: ::.:- 3.? ::.:- .33..
and 3.: 3.: 2.: :..: 2.: 3:2
a: 3.: 3.? 2.: 3.? .52
3...: . _.: 3.: .~.: .35..
a 3.: 3.: ~:.::
a 3.: .:m:
31: 2:2
::.: :3: 38 38 .3: 33.: 3:8: 33... 3:8: .38: E3: 33: 5:: ~32 .32 3.3.. .52 .52 ~:.:: .:m: ::3

 

.:m 03.3.

157

of the unconstrained factor loadings model. This result suggested that it was really the
variances and covariances that differed between groups. To determine which variances
and covariances were contributing to this overall inequality, the equality of each element
in the Phi matrix was tested independently. Following the procedure suggested by Byrne
(1998), a model was speciﬁed in which parameters of the Phi matrix (i.e., (Du; variance
of Individual Cultural Characteristics) were cumulatively constrained across groups. The
ﬁt of the resulting model was then compared to the model in which only the factor
loadings were constrained equal across groups. If the xzdiﬁ‘erenoe test revealed that the two
models were signiﬁcantly different, the constrained Phi parameter was allowed to be
estimated in the subsequent model. However, if the {dim-mm test was not signiﬁcantly
different, the Phi parameter was held equal across groups in the subsequent model. All
elements in the Phi matrix were tested in this manner and equality constraints were
maintained only for parameters found to be equal for both groups. These tests of the Phi
matrix revealed that three variances (e.g., Individual Cultural Characteristics, Appraisal
of Sociocultural Stress, Distress) and three covariances (e. g., Perceived Social Support
and Wellbeing, Appraisal of Sociocultural Stress and Indirect Coping, Appraisal of
Sociocultural Stress and Wellbeing) were nonequivalent across groups. The ﬁt of the
model in which these variances and covariances were freely estimated for both groups [)8
(df 346, N=201) = 442.77, p < 0.001, GFI = 0.84, RMSEA = 0.05, CFI = 0.92, NNFI =
0.90, PNFI = 0.63, PGFI = 1.26] was then compared to the above model in which factor
loadings and error variances and covariances were estimated for both groups. The
xzmemce test for these two models was not signiﬁcant (p = 0.43). Please see Table 23.

As a result, we can assume that these six variances and covariances are what differ across

158

groups and not the factor loadings. Therefore, the indicators are believed to measure the
latent variables in comparable ways for mono-ethnic and bi-ethnic participants.

A test of group differences in the means of the latent constructs revealed that
compared to mono-ethnic participants, bi-ethnic participants exhibited signiﬁcantly
higher levels on Indirect Coping (x = 1.18, t = 2.23, p <0.05, D = -0.45) as well as lower
levels on Individual Cultural Characteristics (x = -7.46, t = -5.40, p < 0.001, D = 0.93)
and Appraisal of Sociocultural Stress (K = -3.03, t = -2.28, p < 0.05, D = 0.46).
Statistically signiﬁcant differences were not evident on Perceived Social Support (x =
1.67, t_ = 1.96, p = 0.05, D = -0.39) Direct Coping (x = -0.73, t = -l.00, p > 0.10, D =
0.20), Distress (K = -0.81, t = -l.11, p > 0.20, D = 0.28), Wellbeing (K = -O.57, t = -1.23, 9
>020, D = 0.24).

The relative ﬁt of the model with its factor loadings and structural paths
constrained to equality [)8 (df 358, N=201) = 483.05, p < 0.001, GFI = 0.83, RMSEA =
0.06, CFI = 0.91, NNFI = 0.89, PNFI = 0.62, PGFI = 1.22] was found to be signiﬁcantly
worse (xzdiffmme test p < 0.001) than that of the unconstrained model [352 (df 336, N=201)
= 438.17, p < 0.001, GFI = 0.84, RMSEA = 0.06, CFI = 0.91, NNFI = 0.89, PNFI = 0.62,
PGFI = 1.22]. Please see Table 23. Thus it can be concluded that the structural paths
(relationships among the latent variables) differ for bi-ethnic and mono-ethnic
participants.

More speciﬁcally, the path from Individual Cultural Characteristics to Direct
Coping (standardized B = 0.16, _t_ = 1.62, p > 0.10, two-tailed test; Figure 14) was not
statistically signiﬁcant for bi-ethnic participants. This same path (Individual Cultural

Characteristics to Direct Coping; standardized B = 0.06, t = 0.22, p > 0.20, two-tailed test;

159

Figure 15) in addition to the paths from Direct Coping to Wellbeing (standardized B =
0.14, t = 1.34, p > 0.10, two-tailed test; Figure 15) Perceived Social Support to both
Direct Coping (standardized B = 0.85, t = 1.61, p_ > 0.10, two-tailed test; Figure 15) and
Indirect Coping (standardized B = -0.07, _t = -0.33, p > 0.20, two-tailed test; Figure 15)
were also not signiﬁcant for mono-ethnic participants.

Three statistically signiﬁcant indirect relationships were found for mono-ethnic
and bi-ethnic participants. Indirect relationships between Appraisal of Sociocultural
Stress to both Distress (mono-ethnic: n = 0.25, t = 2.56, p < 0.02; bi-ethnic: n = 0.21, t =
2.24, p <05) and Wellbeing (mono-ethnic: n = -O.15, t = -2.33, p <.02; bi-ethnic: n = -
0.16, t = -2.14, p <05) and Indirect Coping to Wellbeing (mono-ethnic: n = -0.41, t = -
2.56, p <.02; bi-ethnic: n = -0.64, t = -3.15, p < 0.01) were also found. Thus, mono-
ethnic and bi-ethnic participants who experienced sociocultural stress utilized indirect

coping strategies, experienced higher levels of distress and lower levels of wellbeing.

160

253. 2835 053m .8 38.2 Begum .3 3%:

 

2a u €65 .35

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

53:; see 868$ .3” ".6 .2 .3. u "x :98: Ragga: «Sum—2
8.2 ... E65
.35 8.3:; :20 38$ .84 new .848” u "x H.252 :32 new“
, 3:. :25:
1.530 to
36 363%.:

223

«to "Em

89am . «mmmz
533838 E
Sq co E§&<

:3

8mm:
«a...
7.5mm“—
"I.
_3 «gamma

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_<mmmm

 

 

 

 

 

 

161

 

 

 

 

 

 

83:9 sob 868$ 62 £12.”? u "x ":82 8285.25:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

339% 3.5.35 085382 5 382 Bﬁgom .2 03E

5% u 868 .33

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

«3: u E68 Nam:
.35 83.3, :20 .88me a? “as .238 n "x ”Eco: .32
8.
and Sam:
35.30 S
:6 33 33:55 If
_gg
mﬁaoo 52.65
cod ”Q
3. Hm 3.9 _mm<m
86.
end. a «mmmE
omd Hm mmobm no;
583888
.8 .859?
E .o H0
Ed. “m :3
All SmmE
33:03 9:80 625
So e3
3o 36 ”m toasm Rama
3.. 86
68% as =88
53m and nozoeom $5
$5 _mmoom
ammoum
_mmmmm c3 :3 ambmmm
25 as
:5 Emma— 2mm?“
25

ood

162

Chapter 5
DISCUSSION

This study examined an adapted stress-mental health model with MSU Latina/o
students. Individual cultural characteristics (i.e., acculturation level, ethnic identity) and
perceived social support (i.e., from family, peers, university personnel) were
hypothesized to directly effect the appraisal of sociocultural stress (i.e., acculturative
stress, minority status stress) and coping strategies (i.e., direct coping, indirect coping).
Appraisal of sociocultural stress was hypothesized to inﬂuence coping strategies and
mediate the relationship between individual cultural characteristics, perceived social
support, and coping strategies. Coping strategies in turn were hypothesized to directly
effect mental health (i.e., wellbeing, distress) and mediate the relationship between
individual cultural characteristics, perceived social support, appraisal of sociocultural
stress and mental health. In addition, individual cultural characteristics were
hypothesized to inﬂuence perceived social support.

This study is the ﬁrst to empirically evaluate an adaptation of Taylor and
Aspinwall’s (1996) model with Latina/o undergraduate students. Although previous
researchers have examined parts of this model, no empirical studies have examined a
model that includes processes variables (i.e., appraisal of sociocultural stress, direct
coping, indirect coping). In addition, few empirical or theoretical models have examined
the role of cultural characteristics (i.e., acculturation level, ethnic identity) in the
relationship between culturally speciﬁc, chronic stress (i.e., minority status stress,

acculturative stress) and mental health.

163

Although it was expected that individuals at higher levels of ethnic identity and
acculturation would appraise lower levels of sociocultural stress, the results do not
suggest this. Unlike the majority of studies in the area of acculturation level, ethnic
identity, minority status stress, and/or acculturative stress, these results are similar to the
few that have found greater sociocultural stress among students with high levels of
acculturation and ethnic identity (e. g., Gilbert & Cervantes, 1986; Holk et al, 1984; as
cited by Neff and Hoppe, 1993). However, consistent with previous research (e. g., Mena
et al., 1987; Vazquez & Garcia-Vazquez, 1995), being bicultural and highly acculturated
was directly related to the use of direct c0ping strategies.

Although a number of researchers have found that perceived social support is
signiﬁcantly related to the experience and report of less sociocultural alienation and
racial/ethnic tensions (Hovey & King, 1996; Solberg & Villarreal, 1997), a direct
relationship between perceived social support and appraisal of sociocultural stress was
not supported. Therefore, for this sample, appraisal of sociocultural stress did not
mediate the relationship between perceived social support and coping strategies, as
hypothesized. Furthermore, a direct relationship between individual cultural
characteristics and perceived social support was not found. Thus, participants’
acculturation and ethnic identity levels did not contribute to their perceptions of support.
This result is consistent with Sabogal et al’s (1987) ﬁnding that perceived social support,
particularly from family, remains high despite acculturation level.

The respeciﬁed model (Model 4) suggests that perceived social support is directly
related to both direct and indirect coping strategies. These results are in agreement with

several studies (e.g., Alva, 1991; Cooper et al., 1993, 1998; Fiske, 1988; Gloria &

l64

Rodriguez, 2000; Lango, 1995; Lopez, 1995; Rodriguez, 1994, Ruggiero et al., 1997) that
have found that perceived social support can promote either indirect or direct coping
strategies.

Although in general the perception of stress has been found to strongly predict
both direct and indirect coping strategies, the respeciﬁed model indicated that appraisal
of sociocultural was only directly related to indirect coping strategies and thus mediated
the relationship between individual cultural characteristics and indirect coping strategies.
These results are consistent with previous research indicating that ethnic minority groups
utilize indirect coping strategies to cope with sociocultural stress (Phenice & Griffore,
1994; Ruggiero et al., 1997; Schmader et al., 2001).

The respeciﬁed model also suggests that direct and indirect coping strategies
directly inﬂuence wellbeing and distress, respectively. Furthermore, direct c0ping
mediates the relationship between individual cultural characteristics, perceived social
support, and wellbeing. Similarly, indirect coping mediates the relationship between
perceived social support, appraisal of sociocultural stress and distress. The relationship
between direct and indirect coping with wellbeing and distress, respectively, parallel the
ﬁndings of several researchers who have found that indirect coping is associated with
higher levels of depression (D’Zurilla et al., 1998; Essau & Trommsdorff, 1996) while
direct coping is associated with higher levels of personal and emotional adjustment
(Leong et al., 1997; Nezu et al., 1986).

The respeciﬁed model provided support for several indirect relationships.
Individual cultural characteristics were found to be indirectly related to indirect coping

and distress. Perceived social support was indirectly related to distress and wellbeing.

165

Similarly, appraisal of sociocultural stress was found to be indirectly related to distress
and wellbeing. Finally, an indirect effect from indirect coping to wellbeing was found.
These relationships suggest that the appraisal of sociocultural stress may be buffered by
perceived social support, ethnic identity and acculturation because they are directly
related to direct coping and direct coping is related to wellbeing. However, the appraisal
of sociocultural stress may be promoted by perceived social support because it is directly
related to indirect coping and indirect coping is directly related to distress.

Additional analyses revealed that neither gender nor SES (parent education level
and ﬁnancial status comparison) moderated the relationships speciﬁed in the model. This
result suggests that the stress-mental health process is similar for men and women as well
as low SES and high SES participants. However, consistent with the literature, analyses
revealed that there were mean differences between males and females as well as low SES
and high SES participants on several of the latent constructs of the ﬁnal model. For
example, females reported signiﬁcantly higher levels of perceived social support and
wellbeing compared to males. This ﬁnding is supported by several researchers (Turner &
Marino, 1994; Zani, Cicognani, & Albanesi, 2000; Zimet, Darhle, Zimet and Farley,
1988; as cited in Prezza & Pacilli, 2002) who have found that compared to males, female
students perceive more social support. In addition, although the majority of the research
reports that women endorse lower levels of wellbeing compare to men, a few studies
have found that women from national U.S., samples (Woods, Rhodes, & Whelan, 1989)
and college samples (Frank, Diener, & Sandvik, 1991) scored higher on global happiness
and wellbeing than men did. Results also indicated that compared to low SES

participants, high SES participants reported signiﬁcantly higher levels of perceived social

166

support and wellbeing. Furthermore, high SES participants reported signiﬁcantly lower
levels of appraisal of sociocultural stress than low SES participants. These ﬁnding are
consistent with the ﬁndings of several researchers (e. g., Cristo, 1989, Vega et al, 1985,
1986) who indicate that compared to high SES Latinos, low SES Latinos report higher
levels of acculturative stress and lower levels of perceived social support and wellbeing.

The only moderator found in this study was heritage. Results indicated that
several relationships among the constructs in the model signiﬁcantly diﬂ‘ered for mono-
ethnic and bi-ethnic participants. In the bi-ethnic group, individual cultural
characteristics were not signiﬁcantly related to direct coping. Therefore, the relationship
between individual cultural characteristics and wellbeing was not mediated by direct
coping. However, the relationship of individual cultural characteristics and wellbeing
was mediated by appraisal of sociocultural stress, indirect coping, and distress.
Furthermore, the relationship between perceived social support and wellbeing was
mediated by direct coping. Thus, for bi-ethnic participants, it appears that high levels of
wellbeing are promoted by perceived social support while low levels are promoted by
individual cultural characteristics.

The direct path from individual cultural characteristics to direct coping was also
not signiﬁcant for the mono-ethnic group. Therefore, the relationship between individual
cultural characteristics and wellbeing was not mediated by direct coping. Three
additional direct paths were also found to be non signiﬁcant for the mono-ethnic group.
These included the direct paths from perceived social support to direct and indirect
coping, respectively, and the structural path from direct coping to wellbeing. Therefore,

direct and indirect coping did not mediate the relationship between perceived social

167

support and wellbeing. In fact, for mono-ethnic participants only four of the eight
structural paths were signiﬁcant. As a result, the relationship between individual cultural
characteristics and wellbeing was found to be mediated only by appraisal of sociocultural
stress, indirect coping, and distress.

The analyses of group mean differences revealed that compared to mono-ethnic
participants, bi-ethnic participants reported signiﬁcantly higher levels of indirect coping
and signiﬁcantly lower levels on individual cultural characteristics and appraisal of
sociocultural stress. Although most of the studies investigating differences within Latino
students are qualitative in nature with small sample sizes (W einstein, 1998), a few
quantitative studies have found signiﬁcant differences between mono-ethnic and bi-
ethnic Latina/o individuals. For example, in studies with college students Stephan and
Stephan (1991) and Phinney and Alpuria (1996) found that multi-ethnic students were
more tolerant of other ethnic groups than mono-ethnic students. This ﬁnding may
explain the bi-ethnic participants’ reported low levels of sociocultural stress. The bi-
ethnic participants’ lower mean scores on individual cultural characteristics is supported
by Weinstein’s (1998) ﬁnding that mono-ethnic Latinos have stronger Latino ethnic
identities and have more Latino cultural knowledge and exposure. In addition, several
researchers have found that language usage affects ethnic identiﬁcation. For example
having the ability to speak Spanish has been reported to be related to having a stronger
Latina/o ethnicity (Felix-Ortiz, Newcomb, & Myers, 1994; Heller, 1992; Liebkind, 1992;
Phinney 1990; as cited in Weinstein 1998). Indeed, in this sample, mono-ethnic
participants reported higher levels of speaking Spanish than bi-ethnic participants. No

studies were found supporting the present ﬁnding indicating that bi-ethnic Latinos report

168

higher levels of indirect coping than mono-ethnic Latinos. However, since perceived
social support was found to directly affect indirect coping for bi-ethnic and not mono—
ethnic participants, the signiﬁcant difference in means may reﬂect the ﬁndings in the
literature that indicate that individuals who perceive little social support are likely to
engage in indirect coping strategies.
Limitations

Several methodological and substantive explanations may account for the above
ﬁndings. More speciﬁcally, in terms of methodology, although the measures used in this
study were selected because of their perceived adequacy in assessing the latent
constructs, all were rated using Likert scales. Research has found than Latina/os tend to
respond to Likert scales on extreme ends of the scales (Marin & Marin, 1991). Thus
ﬁndings may be exaggerated in one direction or another. Indeed, participants’ scores
tended to be slightly skewed in positive directions. This study assumes that participants
provided honest answers. However, students might have presented themselves in a more
favorable light, despite the anonymous disclaimer, perhaps as an attempt to defend their
ethnic group or to prove that they were functioning adequately within the university
environment.

The measures used in this study were also selected because they have been found
to be both valid and reliable with Latina/o undergraduates. However, reliability analyses
revealed that several scales had less than adequate reliability coefficients ((1 <0.80).
Furthermore, problems with many of the measures were evident when the initial
conﬁrmatory factor analyses demonstrated that the reported factor structures did not ﬁt

the data for this sample adequately. As a result, most of the measures used in this study

169

required exploratory factor analyses to improve the factor structure. Floyd and Widaman
(1995) indicate that this process may lead to problems that resulted in the poor ﬁt of the
adapted model. First, there are certain differences in the analytic techniques of
exploratory and conﬁrmatory analysis. Exploratory analysis focuses on retaining factors
that account for signiﬁcant amounts of variance in the data, whereas conﬁrmatory
analysis assesses goodness of ﬁt based on the variance remaining after the factors are
taken into account. Thus, exploratory analyses may identify factors that account for
signiﬁcant variance in the data and conﬁrmatory analyses may show that signiﬁcant
additional variance remains. Second, orthogonal solutions from exploratory analyses
may not be conﬁrmable in LISREL because forcing zero order correlations among scales
can create problems with under-identiﬁcation in conﬁrmatory analysis. Confrrmatory
analysis requires loadings of some variables to be zero on scales not thought to be
represented by that variable. Third, it is difﬁcult to obtain a satisfactory ﬁt when
indicators are likely to load signiﬁcantly on more than one variable. Indeed, several
indicators presented problems in the initial adapted model. For example, SAFE2
demonstrated poor discriminant validity because it loaded on more than one latent
variable. Furthermore, the correlations between the indicators of several latent variables
(i.e., individual cultural characteristics, perceived social support, coping, mental health)
were non signiﬁcant indicating that there was poor convergent validity among the
measures of the construct.

Another shortcoming of this research is the relatively small sample size. Researchers
(e. g., MacCallum, Browne, & Sugawara, 1996; MacCallum & Hong 1997) have

developed complex procedures for statistical power analyses and determination of

170

minimum sample size which involve knowledge of distributional properties (e. g.,
conﬁdence intervals) of several ﬁt indices produced in SEM analyses. However, because
of the framework from which these procedures are conducted, the results often indicate
that a large sample is not necessary when utilizing SEM (MacCallum et al., 1996).
Nevertheless, Bentler and Chou (1987) recommend that the ratio of sample size to the
number of parameters to be estimated should be 5:1. The number of parameters
estimated for the respeciﬁed model was 64. Given this number of parameters, the
minimum suggested sample size for this study was 320. The sample size of this study (N
= 201) was less than ideal, which may have contributed to the model’s ﬁt.

In terms of substantive differences, there are several factors that might have affected
the results of this study. For example, speciﬁc characteristics of participants were not
addressed. Thus, the results of this study may not be generalizable to other Latina/o
students across the country. Undeniably, there were pre-existing differences between
participants that were not accounted for. For instance, the assignment of “Latina/o” or
“Hispanic” to all participants does not capture the heterogeneity among Latinos.
Mexican-American, Central-American, South-American, European, and Caribbean
students participated in this study. Furthermore, the majority of the students were bi-
ethic as evidenced by the 122 students with one Latina/o parent and one non-Latina/o
parent. All of these ethnic group differences were not accounted for in the hypothesis
testing due to unequal numbers with a signiﬁcantly larger number of bi-ethnic

participants.

171

The return rate for the questionnaire packets was approximately 36%. The
students who returned the questionnaire packet may have comprised a unique group. For
example, because these students were more involved with Latina/o culture (e. g., high
levels of ethnic identity and acculturation), the likelihood that they would return the
questionnaire regarding Latina/o students may have been increased. In addition, the
larger percentage of women in this study may also reﬂect the fact that women are more
likely to participate in research. Finally, the majority of the participants claimed to be
residents of the state of Michigan. Thus, their perceptions and experiences might not
reﬂect those of Latina/o undergraduates from other states and universities that have a
larger population of Latina/0s. These sample characteristics may have affected the
outcome and limit the generalizability of these ﬁndings.

Conclusions and Implications

A culture-speciﬁc adaptation of Taylor and Aspinwall’s (1996) Model of
Mediating and Moderating Processes in Psychosocial Stress was evaluated in this study
to address the lack of research examining dynamic stress-mental health models with
Latina/o undergraduates at predominately White, Midwestern, universities. Although
complex models outlining the dynamics of the stress-mental health relations have been
developed (e. g., Billings & Moos, 1982; Holahan et al., 1997; Miranda & Castro, 1985;
Taylor & Aspinwall, 1996; Warheit, 1979), no studies examining these or adaptations of
these models with Latina/o undergraduates have been conducted. Furthermore, most
research in the area of stress-mental health with Latina/o undergraduates have examined
only two or three variables simultaneously at universities where there is a signiﬁcant

concentration of Latinos (e. g, Aspinwall & Taylor, 1992; Morris, 1997; Padilla et al.,

172

1986; Quinones, 1996; Rodriguez et al., 2000; Saldana, 1994; Shibazaki, 1999; Solberg
& Villarreal, 1997; Suarez et al., 1997).

As recommended by transactional model theorists (i.e., Billings & Moos, 1982a,
1982b; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Miranda & Castro, 1985), this study attempted to
outline the dynamics of the stress-mental health relationships by including structural
properties of the person and environment as well as the processes (i.e., appraisal, coping)
that take place between the experience and outcome of a stressor. Because the adapted
model proposed in this study was examined at one point in time, the transactional nature
of the variables in the model could not be demonstrated. Despite the difficulties
associated with conducting a longitudinal study, researchers would be able to understand
how short-range psychological changes which are related to stress and coping develop
into maladaptive outcomes.

To address researchers’(e.g., Leyva, 1990; Miranda & Castro, 1985; Rodriquez et
al, 2000, Saldana, 1994; Warheit, 1979) call for studies that investigate the role of culture
in the relationship between stress and mental health, speciﬁc culture-relevant dimensions
of each component of Taylor and Aspinwall’s (1996) model were examined. Thus, this
study focused on dimensions found to be salient for Latina/o ethnicity and culture (i.e.,
acculturation level, ethnic identity, acculturative stress, minority status stress) as it
expanded the literature on stress-mental health by being the ﬁrst to empirically test the
mediational processes by which individual cultural characteristics and perceived social
support facilitate coping with sociocultural stress and consequently mental health.

Although a culture-speciﬁc adaptation of Taylor & Aspinwall’s (1996) model was

examined to address the lack of research in the area of stress-mental health among

173

Latina/o undergraduate students, this model must be evaluated in other geographical
locations and educational institutions. The Latina/o p0pulation in the United States is a
very heterogeneous group and this fact is reﬂected among the Latina/o students at MSU.
As stated above, 122 (61%) participants were bi-ethnic. The most recent statistics (e.g.,
United States Bureau of the Census, 1999 Falcon, Aguirre-Molina, & Molina, 2001)
indicate that Latino/non-Latino intermarriages in the United States range between 27-28
percent. In some states (e. g., California) the intermarriage rate for Latinos is more than
50 percent (Colorito, 1999). Given these recent reports, the percentage of bi-ethnic
individuals in this sample is relatively high. However, this study does parallel reports
that indicate that the majority of Latino interethnic marriages are ones in which one
partner is non-Latina/o White and the other partner is of Latina/o descent (Negy &
Snyder, 2000). Indeed, 95% (116) of the bi-ethnic participants reported that one parent
was non-Latina/o White.

The present study provides evidence of the variability of bi-ethnic Latinos’ self
identiﬁcation. Overall, participants provided a mono-ethnic identity while only 4.5%
indicated a mixed heritage. Phinney and Alpuria (1996) reported a similar ﬁnding. In
their sample of college students, only about one ﬁfth indicated that they were of mixed
heritage. Furthermore, the researchers found that multi-ethnic students’ ethnic self-labels
differed according to the ethnic composition of the college. For example, the use of a
White versus a Latina/o self-label was used by almost half of the respondents with a
White parent on a predominantly White college campus but by only one student at a
predominantly minority campus. This result was not evident with this sample, perhaps,

as Phinney and Alpuria (1996) suggest, it was because of the way the question of

174

ethnicity was asked. In this study, students were asked to indicate their ethnicity by
choosing among six responses (e.g., Mexican, Mexican-American, Chicana/o, Puerto
Rican, Cuban, Other (write in)). Perhaps if there would have been a mixed option more
participants would have identiﬁed themselves as bi-ethnic or of mixed heritage. Bi-
ethnic individuals in this study were identiﬁed only because their parents’ ethnicity was
elicited.

Phinney and Alpuria (1996) suggest that students’ self-identiﬁcation could reﬂect
the pre-selection of the campus by a certain type of individual. Thus, just as it is
conceivable that students of mixed heritage in Phinney and Alpuria’s study chose to
attend a predominately White university on the basis of their self-identiﬁcation as White;
it is conceivable that bi-ethnic students in this study chose to attend a predominantly
White university on the basis of their mixed Latina/o/White heritage. For example,
despite the fact that approximately 84% of the sample indicated that they were residents
of the state of Michigan, it is possible that bi-ethnic Latina/o students chose to attend a
predominantly White university because of their dual heritage. In addition, it may also be
that interethnic married couples (Latina/o/White) are more likely to encourage their sons
and daughters to attend a predominantly White university.

Phinney and Alpuria (1996) also suggest that students’ self-identiﬁcation could
reﬂect the inﬂuence of the campus setting on the individual. Indeed, various factors
within the college environment have been found to impact multi-ethnic students' self-
identiﬁcation. For example, Renn (1999) found that multi-ethnic students' self-
identiﬁcation at three predominantly White, East coast colleges was shaped by their

ability to ﬁt into groups of mono-ethnic students, to move between mono-ethnic groups,

175

and to create a separate group of mixed heritage students. The major determinants of
students’ identity choices were the campus racial/ethnic demographics (e.g., size of
multi-ethnic population) and the peer culture (e. g., acceptance of multi-ethnicity).
Therefore, although in general, bi-ethnic participants in this study reported high levels of
ethnic identity and acculturation, this does not reﬂect their level of comfort in identifying
as bi-ethnic. The level of comfort Latina/o participants feel in regards to self-identifying
as bi-ethnic may be due to the lack of a formal multi-ethnic organization at MSU. In
addition, the majority of these bi-ethnic participants may choose to identify themselves as
mono-ethnic Latinos because they cannot easily move among Latina/o organizations and
non-Latina/o organizations without compromising their privately-held bicultural heritage.
This predicament may explain the resulting positive relationship between individual
cultural characteristics and appraisal of sociocultural stress. Perhaps if the multi-ethnic
campus population was larger at MSU and the peer culture was more supportive of multi-
ethnic students’ movement among the various social groups, bi-ethnic Latina/os would be
more comfortable publicly expressing their dual heritage.

When the respeciﬁed model was tested between bi-ethnic and mono-ethnic
participants, the relationships among the constructs differed. A major difference was
found in the relationship between perceived social support and wellbeing. More
speciﬁcally, perceived social support was found to promote both high and low levels of
wellbeing for bi-ethnic participants but not for mono-ethnic participants. This result
conﬂicts with previous studies conducted with mono-ethnic Latina/os indicating that
social support promotes poor mental health outcomes(Vega, et al., 1985) and those

indicating that family support (e.g., Freeberg & Stein, 1996; Lamborn et al., 1997;

176

Solberg et al., 1994) and support from university personnel (Arellano & Padilla, 1996;
Solberg, 1990) promote wellbeing. This result may be due to the fact that perceived
formal and informal social support were designated as indicators of the latent variable
perceived social support. Weinstein’s (1998) ﬁnding that mono-ethnic Latinos live in
more homogeneous Latino neighborhoods may explain why the relationships between
social support and distress and wellbeing were not signiﬁcant for mono-ethnic
participants. Perhaps the campus social network was too heterogeneous compared to
their social network at home. Perhaps if perceived social support would have been
separated into two support constructs (e. g., formal and informal) for mono-ethnic
individuals, one of them would have been found to promote wellbeing. However, if the
social support construct was separated and the outcome remained the same, it would
suggest that the relationship between social support and mental health outcomes for
mono-ethnic participants in this study is considerably more complex than hypothesized.
The above ﬁndings parallel the few studies with non-clinical U.S. samples that
have found that multi-ethnic individuals are at no psychological disadvantage in
comparison to mono-ethnic individuals (Phinney & Alpuria, 1996). However, the present
ﬁndings correspond with the few studies (e.g., Renn, 1999; Weinstein, 1998) that indicate
that bi-ethnic Latinos are not identical to their mono-ethnic peers. The previous and
current ﬁndings seem to support the notion that bi-ethnic and mono-ethnic heritage
individuals differ on certain constructs (e.g., ethnic identity, social support) that can

ultimately impact mental health outcomes.

177

Caution is advised when trying to apply information such as is presented in this
study to Latinos as a whole. Nevertheless, ﬁiture research with Latina/o undergraduate
students should continue to focus upon dynamic models of the relationship between stress
and mental health. Despite the limitations encountered in dealing with complex models
(i.e., too difficult, less feasible, less understandable; Slavin et al., 1991) the inclusion of
mediating and moderating variables helps to account for greater proportions of variance
in outcomes (Groag, 1996; Holahan et al., 1997). Therefore, research should not limit
itself to the investigation of stable, structural properties of the person and environment,
because it ignores the changing processes that impact mental health outcomes. Future
research should also continue its endeavors at aniving at a more adequate,
comprehensive conceptual model of stress-mental health for Latina/o undergraduate
students. Such a model should focus on measurement issues, particularly content validity
(Slavin et al., 1991). Thus, researchers should work toward the development of
instruments which are culturally sensitive, encompassing salient issues in the relationship
between stress and mental health for Latinos.

The present study indicates that over 50% of the participants were bi-ethnic and
suggests justiﬁcation for the study of multi-ethnic individuals as a group. In broader
terms, this study also raises concerns about the use of ethnic/racial categories in higher
education and in the United States as a whole. Statistics of intermarriage indicate that the
number of Latino interethnic marriages is increasing. However, multi-ethnic Latinos are
rarely given an opportunity to identity themselves on questionnaires, because researchers
generally categorize Latinos as belonging to a single ethnic group. Therefore, researchers

should consider individuals’ parental ethnicity or risk obtaining results that are distorted

178

or lack statistical signiﬁcance. Researchers should also realize that studies of multi-
ethnic people can contribute both theoretically and methodologically to the study of
culture and ethnicity (Phinney & Alpuria, 1996).

The results of this study may be relevant to various university personnel and those
interested in providing relevant and context-speciﬁc services to Latina/o students. For
example, ﬁndings may encourage university service providers to consider and integrate
contextual and ethnically relevant constructs into their service delivery. Thus,
individuals working with Latina/o students should assess whether experiences of
acculturative stress and/or minority status distress are a factor in their distress (i.e.,
depression). This study indicated that having high levels of ethnic identity and
acculturation was associated with use of direct coping strategies. Because direct coping
strategies are associated with wellbeing, assisting students to learn healthy ways of
dealing with minority status distress and/or acculturative stress may be effective in
ameliorating emotional distress that may be associated with sociocultural stress. This
study also indicated that perceived social support (i.e., from family, peers, university
personnel) can inﬂuence distress and wellbeing. Therefore, university personnel should
be sensitive to the needs of Latina/o students in general by recognizing that campus
resources are often unavailable, inappropriate, or ineffectual in addressing ethnically
relevant dilemmas. Thus, universities might encourage special seminars or support
groups that address sociocultural stress and enhance the peer network. Additionally,
universities could become more active in encouraging families of Latina/o students to
become more involved with the university environment (e.g., orientation,

resident life) so that both students and their families have a better sense of what they must

179

encounter.

The results of this study may also be relevant to both mono-ethnic and bi-ethnic
Latina/o individuals. For example, bi-ethnic individuals may beneﬁt from knowing that
choosing one existing mono-ethnic category, moving between existing mono-ethnic
categories, creating a new multi-ethnic category, or choosing to not identify with any
ethnic category are all acceptable options. These options are believed by many (e. g.,
Kerwin & Ponterotto, 1995; Renn, 1998) to be steps toward a bi-ethnic identity formation
that are dependent on numerous personal, societal, and environmental factors. In
addition, bi-ethnic and mono-ethnic Latinos must understand that identity development is
a lifelong process that involves a continuing self-exploration. Finally, the goal for both
mono-ethnic and bi-ethnic Latinos in the United States should be to realize that that they
can live in an effective, healthy, and satisfying way by, seeking positive role
models/mentors, learning about the history and contributions of multiethnic and mono-
ethnic Latinos, searching for opportunities to explore what it means to be a mono-ethnic
or bi-ethnic Latina/o in our society, and increasing interpersonal relations with

individuals of varying cultures.

180

Appendices A-M

181

Appendix A
Demographic Information Form

1. Do you prefer to be referred to as: (circle)

1. Hispanic 2. Latina/Latino 3. Spanish

2. With what Spanish/Hispanic/Latino ethnic group do you identify (circle)
1. Mexican 2. Mexican American 3. Chicana/o
4. Puerto Rican 5. Cuban 6. other (write in)

 

3. What is your race? (circle)
1. White 2. Afro-Latino 3. Indigenous

4. Asian 5. other (write in)

 

4. What is your Age?
5. What is your gender? (circle) 1. male or 2. female
6. Compared to other students at MSU, would you say that your family is ﬁnancially

worse off or better off than other families? (circle)

1. Much worse off 2. Somewhat worse off 3. About the same
4. Better off 5. Much better off
7. Which persons were born in the United States? (circle)
You 1. yes 2. no 3. don’t know
Your mother 1. yes 2. no 3. don’t know
Your father 1. yes 2. no 3. don’t know
Your mother’s mother 1. yes 2. no 3. don’t know
Your mother’s father 1. yes 2. no 3. don’t know
Your father’s mother 1. yes 2. no 3. don’t know
Your father’s father 1. yes 2. no 3. don’t know

8. Are you a US. Citizen or Resident? (circle) 1. yes or 2. no

9. Are you a Michigan Resident? (circle) 1. yes or 2. no

10. To what ethnic/racial group does your father belong? (circle)
1. White/Anglo 2. Mexican American 3. Mexican National
4. other Hispanic (write) 5. other (write)

 

 

182

Appendix A cont
1]. To what ethnic/racial group does your mother belong? (circle)

1. White/Anglo 2. Mexican American 3. Mexican National
4. other Hispanic (write) 5. other (write)

12. What is the highest level of education completed by your MOTHER (or
stepmother or female guardian) and your FATHER (or stepfather or male
guardian)? Mark only the highest level completed. Please check only one for

each column.

 

 

MOTHER FATHER
Graduated from junior high school and stopped there.

Did not graduate from high school or receive diploma.

Graduated from high school or received GED
and stopped there.

Completed a technical training program such as business
school, beauty school, welding, electronics, automobile
repair, etc.

Graduated from college and stopped there.

Attended graduate school, but did not ﬁnish.

Got a professional or graduate degree (doctor, lawyer.)

Do not know.
13. What is your year in college? (circle)

1. ﬁrst 2. second 3. third 4. fourth 5. ﬁfth or beyond
14. What is your major?
15. What is your GPA? (circle) 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
16. What type of student housing do you have? (circle)

 

1. on campus 2. off-campus w/parents 3. off campus w/spouse/partner
4. off campus alone 5. off campus w/other family 6. other (please specify)
17. How many organizations related to your ethnic group are you involved in at
MSU?
18. Please indicate the percentage each of the items below contributes to your college

education. (percent = 100)

1. parents pay 2. grandparents pay 3. my savings
4. loans 5. scholarships 6. grants/F A
7. my working

183

Appendix B
Minority Student Stress Scale (MSSS; Saldana, 1994)

The following statements refer to your experiences as a Latina/o or Hispanic student.
Please indicate how stressﬁil each item has been since you entered college by circling
the number that best applies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 1 2 3 4 5
not not at all slightly moderately quite a bit extremely
applicable stressful stressful stressful stressful stressful

1. Not enough professors of my ethnic group. 0 l 2 3 4 5
2. Few students of my ethnic group in my classes 0 l 2 3 4 5
3. Racist policies and practices at this university. 0 l 2 3 4 5
4. This university lacking concern and support for the

needs of students of my ethnic group. 0 1 2 3 4 5
5. Few courses involving issues relevant to my ethnic

group. 0 1 2 3 4 5
6. Seeing members of my ethic group doing low-status

jobs and Anglos are in high-status jobs. 0 l 2 3 4 5
7. Attitudes/treatment of faculty toward students of my

ethnic group. 0 l 2 3 4 5
8. Anglo students/faculty expecting poor academic

performance from students of my ethnic group. 0 l 2 3 4 5

9. Tense relationships between Anglos and minorities
at this university. 0 l 2 3 4 5

10. Pressure that what “I” do is representative of my

ethic group’s abilities, behaviors, etc. 0 l 2 3 4 5
11. Having Anglo friends. 0 1 2 3 4 5
12. Relationships between different ethnic groups. 0 1 2 3 4 5
13. Anglo-oriented campus culture. 0 1 2 3 4 5
14. Lack of unity/supportiveness among members

of my ethnic group at this university. 0 l 2 3 4 5
15. Having to live around mostly Anglo people. 0 l 2 3 4 5
16. Having to always be aware of what Anglo

people might do. 0 1 2 3 4 5

184

 

17.

18.

19.
20.
21.

22.
23.

24.
25.

Appendix B cont

Maintaining my ethnic identity while
attending this university.

Relationships between males and females
of my ethnic group (available dating partners).

Wealthy campus culture.
This campus being an unﬁiendly place.

Being treated rudely or unfairly because of
my ethnicity.

Being discriminated against.

Anglo people expecting me to be a certain
way because of my ethnicity (stereotyping).

Others lacking respect for people of my ethnic group.

Having to “prove” my abilities to others
(e. g, work twice as hard).

185

O

Appendix C
Social, Attitudinal, Familial, and Environmental Scale (S.A.F.E.; Mena et al., 1987)

The following statements refer to your experience with two different cultures (e. g.,
Mainstream and Latino/Hispanic culture), changes in relationships, and/or ideas about
self and family. Please indicate how stressful each item has been since you entered
college by circling the number that best applies.

 

 

0 l 2 3 4 5
not not at all slightly moderately quite a bit extremely
applicable stressful stressful stressful stressful stressful

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Because I am different, I do not get enough credit

for the work I do. 0 1 2 3 4 5
2. I often feel ignored by people who are supposed

to assist me. 0 1 2 3 4 5
3. I often feel that people actively try to stop me

from advancing. 0 1 2 3 4 5
4. Many people have stereotypes about my culture

or ethnic group and treat me as if they are true. 0 1 2 3 4 5
5. In looking for a job, I sometimes feel that my

ethnicity is a limitation. 0 1 2 3 4 5
6. I feel uncomfortable when others make jokes

about or put down people of my ethnic background. 0 1 2 3 4 5
7. I have more barriers to overcome than most people. 0 1 2 3 4 5

8. Because of my ethnic background, I feel that others
often exclude me from participating in their activities. 0 l 2 3 4 5

9. It bothers me when people pressure me to assimilate. 0 1 2 3 4 5

10. People look down upon me if I practice customs of
my culture. 0 1 2 3 4 5

11. Loosening the ties with my cultural background

is difﬁcult. 0 l 2 3 4 5
12. It bothers me that I cannot be with my family. 0 l 2 3 4 5
13. I often think about my cultural background. 0 1 2 3 4 5
14. It is hard to express to my ﬁiends how I really feel. 0 1 2 3 4 5
15. I have trouble understanding others when they speak. 0 1 2 3 4 5
16. I don’t have any close friends. 0 1 2 3 4 5

186

 

17.

18.
19.

20.

21.

Appendix C cont

People think I am unsociable when in fact I have
trouble communicating in English.

I don’t feel at home.

It bothers me that family members I am close to
do not understand my new values.

Close family members and 1 have conﬂicting
expectations about my future.

My family does not want me to move away
but I would like to.

187

Appendix D

Acculturation Rating Sale for Mexican Americans-II (ARSMA—II; Cuellar et al.,

1995)

Please respond to the following statements by circling the number that best applies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

not it all very lizttle or modeiately much :r very extresmely
not very often often often or almost
always
1. I speak Spanish. 2 3 4 5
2. I speak English. 2 3 4 5
3. I enjoy speaking Spanish. 2 3 4 5
4. I associate with Anglos. 2 3 4 5
5. I associate with Latinos and/or Hispanic Americans. 2 3 4 5
6. I enjoy listening to Spanish language music. 2 3 4 5
7. I enjoy listening to English language music. 2 3 4 5
8. I enjoy Spanish language TV. 2 3 4 5
9. I enjoy English language TV. 2 3 4 5
10. I enjoy English language movies. 2 3 4 5
11. I enjoy Spanish language movies. 2 3 4 5
12. I enjoy reading (e.g., books in Spanish). 2 3 4 5
13. I enjoy reading (e.g., books in English). 2 3 4 5
14. I write (e.g., letters in Spanish). 2 3 4 5
15. I write (e. g., letters in English). 2 3 4 5
16. My thinking is done in the English language. 2 3 4 5
17. My thinking is done in the Spanish language. 2 3 4 5
18. My contact with my native country has been. 2 3 4 5
19. My contact with the USA has been. 2 3 4 5
20. My father identiﬁes or identiﬁed himself as “Latino”
or “Hispanic.” 2 3 4 5
21. My mother identiﬁes or identiﬁed himself as “Latina”
or “Hispanic.” 2 3 4 5
22. My friends while I was growing up were of Hispanic origin. 2 3 5
23. My friends while I was growing up were of Anglo origin. 2 3 4 5

188

 

24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.

Appendix D cont
My family cooks Hispanic foods.
My friends now are of Anglo origin.
My ﬁiends now are of “Hispanic” or “Latino” origin.

I like to identify myself as an Anglo American.

I like to identify myself as a Hispanic or Latino American.

I like to identify myself as Latino or Hispanic.

I like to identify myself as an American.

189

NNNNNNN

wwwwwww

h-b-h-b-b-bb

MMMLIIUIMM

Appendix E
Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM; Phinney, 1992)

 

These questions are about your ethnicity or ethnic group and how you feel about it or
react to it. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each statement by
circling the number that best applies.

 

 

l 2 3 4
strongly disagree somewhat disagree somewhat agree strongly agree

 

 

 

 

 

l. I have spent time trying to ﬁnd out more about my
own ethnic group, such as its history, traditions and customs. l 2 3 4

2. I am active in organizations or social groups that
include mostly members of my ethnic group. 1 2 3 4

3. I have a clear sense of my ethnic background and what it
means for me. 1 2 3 4

 

4. I think a lot about how my life will be affected by

my ethnic group membership. 1 2 3 4
5. I am happy that I am a member of the group

I belong to. 1 2 3 4
6. I am not very clear about the role of my

ethnicity in my life. 1 2 3 4
7. I really have not spent much time trying to learn

more about the culture and history of my ethnic group. 1 2 3 4
8. I have a strong sense of belonging to my own ethnic group. 1 2 3 4

9. I understand pretty well what my ethnic group membership means to
me, in terms of how to relate to my own group and other groups. 1 2 3 4

10. In order to learn more about my ethnic background, I have
often talked to other people about my ethnic group. 1 2 3 4 ‘

11. l have a lot of pride in my ethnic group and its accomplishments. 1 2 3 4

12 I participate in cultural practices of my own group,

 

such as special food, music, or customs. l 2 3 4
13. I feel a strong attachment towards my own ethnic group. 1 2 3 4
14. I feel good about my cultural or ethnic background. 1 2 3 4

190

 

Appendix F
Perceived Social Support from Family (PSS-FA; Procidano & Heller, 1983)

 

The statements which follow refer to feelings and experiences which occur to most
people at one time or another in their relationships with their families. Please respond to
the following statements by circling the number that best applies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l 2 3 4 5
strongly somewhat neutral somewhat strongly agree
disagree disagree agree

1. My family gives me the moral support I need. 1 2 3 4 5
2. I get good ideas about how to do things or make

things from my family. 1 2 3 4 5

Most other people are closer to their family than I am. 1 2 3 4 5
4. When I conﬁde in the members of my family who are closest

to me, I get the idea that it makes them uncomfortable. I 2 3 4 5
5. My family enjoys hearing about what I think. 1 2 3 4 5
6. Members of my family share many of my interests. 1 2 3 4 S
7. Certain members of my family come to me when they

have problems or need advice. 1 2 3 4 5
8. I rely on my family for emotional support. 1 2 3 4 5
9. There is a member of my family I could go to if I were

just feeling down, without feeling funny about it later. 1 2 3 4 5
10. My family and I are very open about what we think

about things. 1 2 3 4 5
11. My family is sensitive to my personal needs. 1 2 3 4 5
12. Members of my family come to me for emotional support. 1 2 3 4 5
13. Members of my family are good at helping me solve

problems. 1 2 3 4 5
14. I have a deep sharing relationship with a number of

members of my family. 1 2 3 4 5
15. Members of my family get good ideas about how to

do things or make things for me. 1 2 3 4 5
16. When I conﬁde in members of my family, it makes me

uncomfortable. I 2 3 4 5
17. Members of my family seek me out for companionship. 1 2 3 4 5

I91

 

 

Appendix F cont
18. I think that my family feels that I’m good at helping

them solve problems. 1 2 3 4 5
19. I don’t have a relationship with a member of my family that is

as close as other people’s relationships with family members. 1 2 3 4 5
20. I wish my family were much different. 1 2 3 4 5

 

 

192

 

Appendix G

Perceived Social Support from Friends (PSS-FR; Procidano & Heller, 1983)

The statements which follow refer to feelings and experiences which occur to most
people at one time or another in their relationships with their school peers. Please
respond to the following statements by circling the number that best applies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

l 2 3 4 5
strongly somewhat neutral somewhat strongly agree
disagree disagree age

 

 

—I

2. I get good ideas about how to do things or make

things from my peers. 1
3. Most other people are closer to their peers than I am. 1
4. When I conﬁde in the members of my peer group who are closest

to me, I get the idea that it makes them uncomfortable. I
5. My peers enjoy hearing about what I think. 1
6. Members of my peer group share many of my interests. 1
7. Certain members of my peer group come to me when they

have problems or need advice. 1
8. I rely on my peers for emotional support. 1
9. There is a member of my peer group I could go to if I were

just feeling down without feeling ﬁinny about it later. 1
10. My peers and I are very open about what we think

about things. 1
11. My peers are sensitive to my personal needs. 1
12. Members of my peer group come to me for emotional

support. 1
13. Members of my peer group are good at helping me solve

problems. 1
14. I have a deep sharing relationship with a number of

members in my peer group 1
15. Members of my peer group get good ideas about how to

do things or make things for me. 1
16. When I conﬁde in members of my peer group, it makes me

uncomfortable. I
17. Members of my peer group seek me out for companionship. 1

My peers give me the moral support I need

193

3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 4
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 5
3 4 5

__;r_-ﬁ““~‘ L

 

 

Appendix G cont
18. I think that my peers feel that I’m good at helping

them solve problems. 1 2 3 4 5
19. I don’t have a relationship with a member of my peer group that is as close

as other people’s relationships with peer group members. 1 2 3 4 5
20. I wish my peers were much different. 1 2 3 4 5

194

Appendix H
Perceived Social Support from University Personnel (PSS-UP; DuBois et al., 1994;
Procidano & Heller, 1983)

The statements which follow refer to feelings and experiences which occur to most
people at one time or another in their relationships with university personnel (e. g.,
professors, counselors, ﬁnancial aid staff, and student support services). Please respond
to the following statements by circling the number that best applies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l 2 3 4 5
strongly somewhat neutral somewhat strongly agree
disagree disagree agree

1. University personnel give me the moral support I need. 1 2 3 4 5
2. I get good ideas about how to do things or make things

from university personnel 1 2 3 4 5
3. Most other people are closer to university personnel

than I am. 1 2 3 4 5
4. When I conﬁde in members of the university personnel who are closest

to me, I get the idea that it makes them uncomfortable. I 2 3 4 5
5. University personnel enjoy hearing about what I think. 1 2 3 4 5
6. Members of the university personnel share many of

my interests. 1 2 3 4 5
7. Certain university personnel come to me when they

have problems or need advice 1 2 3 4 5
8. I rely on university personnel for emotional support. 1 2 3 4 5

9. There is a member of the university personnel I could go to if
I were just feeling down without feeling funny about it later. 1 2 3 4 5

10. University personnel and I are very open about what we think
about things. 1 2 3 4 5

11. University personnel are sensitive to my personal needs. 1 2 3 4 5

12. Members of the university personnel come to me for
emotional support. 1 2 3 4 5

13. Members of the university personnel are good at
helping me solve problems. 1 2 3 4 5

14. I have a deep sharing relationship with a number
of members of the university personnel. 1 2 3 4 5

15. Members of the university personnel get good ideas about
how to do things or make things for me. 1 2 3 4 5

195

 

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

Appendix H cont

When I conﬁde in members of the university personnel,

it makes me uncomfortable 1 2 3 4 5
Members of the university personnel seek me out for

companionship. 1 2 3 4 5

I think that the university personnel feels that I’m good

at helping them solve problems. 1 2 3 4 5

I don’t have a relationship with a member of the university personnel that is as close
as other people’s relationships with university personnel. 1 2 3 4 5

I wish the university personnel were much different. 1 2 3 4 5

196

Appendix I

Brief COPE (Carver, 1997)
The statements which follow refer to responses which most people utilize at one time or
another when confronted with stressﬁrl experiences; including negative experiences
related to their ethnicity (e. g., negative stereotypes) participation in two different cultures
(Mainstream and Latino/Hispanic culture), changes in relationships, and/or ideas about
self and family. Please indicate how often you have engaged in this activity SINCE
YOU STARTED COLLEGE by circling the number that best applies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

l 2 3 4
I don’t do this at I do this a little bit I do this a medium I do this a lot
all amount
1. Iturn to work or other activities to take my mind off things. 1 2 3 4

2. I concentrate my efforts on doing something about the situation

I’m in. l 2 3 4
3. I say to myself “this isn’t real.” 1 2 3 4
4. I use alcohol or other drugs to make myself feel better. 1 2 3 4
5. I get emotional support from others. 1 2 3 4
6. I give up trying to deal with it. 1 2 3 4
7. I take action to try to make the situation better. 1 2 3 4
8. I reﬁise to believe that it has happened. 1 2 3 4
9 I say things to let my unpleasant feelings escape. 1 2 3 4
10. I get help and advice from other people. 1 2 3 4
11. I use alcohol or other drugs to help me get through it. 1 2 3 4
12. I try to see it in a different light, to make it seem more positive. 1 2 3 4
13. I criticize myself. 1 2 3 4
14. I try to come up with a strategy about what to do. 1 2 3 4
15. I get comfort and understanding from someone. I 2 3 4
16. I give up the attempt to cope. 1 2 3 4
17 . I look for something good in what is happening. 1 2 3 4
18. I make jokes about it. 1 2 3 4
19. I do something to think about it less, such as going to movies,

watching TV, reading, daydreaming, sleeping, or shopping. 1 2 3 4
20. I accept the reality of the fact that it has happened 1 2 3 4
21. I express my negative feelings. I 2 3 4
22. I try to ﬁnd comfort in my religion or spiritual beliefs. 1 2 3 4

197

 

23.
24.
25.
26.

27
28

Appendix 1 cont

1 try to get advice or help from other people about what to do.

I learn to live with it.

I think hard about what steps to take.

I blame myself for things that happened.
I pray or meditate.

I make fun of the situation.

198

NNNNNN

wwwwww

AAAA-b-b

Appendix J

Problem Focused Style of Coping (PF-SOC; Heppner et al., 1995)

Please think about how you TYPICALLY respond to negative experiences or
problems; including those related to your ethnicity (e. g., negative stereotypes), cultural
conﬂicts, changes in relationships, and ideas about self or family. Please indicate how

often you typically use each item by circling the number that best applies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l 2 3 4 5
almost never occasionally sometimes often a great deal

1. I am not really sure what I think or believe about the

problems. 1 3 4 5
2. I don’t sustain my actions long enough to really solve

the problems. 1 3 4 5
3. I think about ways that I solved similar problems in

the past. 1 3 4 5
4. I identify the causes of my emotions which helps me

identify and solve the problems. 1 3 4 5
5. I feel so frustrated I just give up doing any work on

the problems at all. 1 3 4 5
6. I consider the short-term and long term consequences

of each possible solution to the problems. 1 3 4 5
7. I get preoccupied thinking about the problems and

overemphasize some parts of them. 1 3 4 5
8. I continue to feel uneasy about the problems, which

tells me I need to do some more work. 1 3 4 5
9. My old feelings get in the way of solving current

problems. 1 3 4 5
10. I spend my time doing unrelated chores and activities

instead of acting on the problems. 1 3 4 5
11. I think ahead, which enables me to anticipate and

prepare for problems before they rise. 1 3 4 5
12. I think the problems through in a systematic way. 1 3 4 5
13 I misread another person’s motives and feelings without checking

with the person to see if my conclusions are correct. 1 3 4 5
14. I get in touch with my feelings to identify and work on

the problems. 1 3 5
15. I act too quickly, which makes problems worse. 1 3 4 5

199

 

Appendix J cont

16. I have a difﬁcult time concentrating on the problems
(i.e., my mind wanders).

17. I have alternate plans for solving the problems in
case my ﬁrst attempt does not work.

18. I avoid even thinking about the problems.

200

Appendix K
DSM Scale for Depression-26 (DSD-26; Roberts et al., 1995)
Below is a lit of the ways you might have felt or behaved. Please indicate how often you
have felt this way during the past 2 weeks by circling the number that best applies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

l 2 3 4
hardly ever or sometimes often almost every day
never

1. Have you been very sad? 1 2 3 4
2. Have you been grouchy or irritable, or in a bad mood,

so that even little things would make you mad? 1 2 3 4
3. Were there times when nothing was ﬁin for you, even

things you used to like? 1 2 3 4
4. Were there times when you just weren’t interested in anything

and felt bored or just sat around most of the time? 1 2 3 4
5. Have you felt like not eating? 1 2 3 4
6. Have you wanted to eat more than usual? 1 2 3 4
7. Have you had more trouble sleeping than usual

(falling asleep or staying asleep or waking up too early)? 1 2 3 4
8. Have you slept a lot more than usual? 1 2 3
9. Have you talked or moved around a lot less than usual? 1 2 3
10. Have you been very restless, when you just had to keep

walking around? 1 2 3 4
1 1. Have you been so down that it was hard for you to do your

schoolwork or work? 1 2 3 4
12. Have you had trouble looking after yourself or your things,

like keeping yourself clean or picking up after yourself? 1 2 3 4
13. Have you felt more tired than usual, so that you sat around

and didn’t do much of anything? 1 2 3 4
14. Have you felt like you had much less energy than usual,

so that it was a big effort to do anything? 1 2 3 4
15. Have you felt less good about yourself than usual and

blamed yourself a lot for things that happened in the past? 1 2 3 4
16. Have you been down on yourself more than usual, when you

felt that you couldn’t do anything right? 1 2 3 4
17. Have you felt bad about the way you look? 1 2 3 4
18. Have you felt like you were about to cry or were in tears? I 2 3 4

201

 

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.
25.
26.

Appendix K cont

Have you had more trouble than usual paying attention to your schoolwork

or work, or keeping your mind on other things you were doing?

Have you been unable to concentrate or think as clearly or
as quickly as usual?

Have you felt that things never seem to work out all
right for you?

Were there times it was harder for you to make up your
mind about things or to make decisions?

Have you felt that life was hopeless and there was nothing
good for you in the ﬁrture?

Have you thought more than usual about death or dying?
Did you wish you were dead?

Have you thought about suicide or killing yourself?

202

1

2

NNNN

wwww

&A-h-b

Appendix L
Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLF; Diener et al., 1985)

Below are ﬁve statements with which you may agree or disagree. Please indicate your
agreement with each item by circling the number that best applies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly disagree slightly neither slightly Agree strongly
disagree disagree agree nor agree agree

disagree
1. In most ways my life is close to my ideal. I 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. The conditions of my life are excellent. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. I am satisﬁed with my life. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. So far I have gotten the important things I

wantinlife. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5 If I could live my life over, I would change
almost nothing. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

203

 

Appendix M
Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS; Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999)

For each of the following statements and/or questions, please circle the point on the scale
that you feel is most appropriate in describing you.

1. In general, I consider myself:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

not a very

a very happy

happy person person

2. Compared to most of my peers, I consider myself:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
less more
happy happy

3. Some people are generally very happy. They enjoy life regardless of what is going
on, getting the most out of everything. To what extend does this characterization
describe you?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not at a great
all deal

4. Some people are generally not very happy. Although they are not depressed, they
never seem as happy as they might be. To what extent does this characterization
describe you?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not at a great
all deal

204

References

Abber, D. L. (2002). The ecology of Hispanic Ethnic Identity (Doctoral
dissertation, Michigan State University, 2002). Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(7-
B), 3370.

Abraido-Lanza, A. F ., Guier, C., & Revenson, T. A. (1996). Coping and social
support resources among Latinas with arthritis. Arthritis Care and Research. 2, 501-508.

Adelman, M., Parks, M., & Albrecht, T.. (1987). Beyond close relationships:
Support in weak ties.” In T. Albrecht & M. Adelman (Eds), Communicating social
support. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Aguirre, A., Jr., & Martinez, R. O. (1993). Chicanos in higher education: Issues and
dilemmas for the 215th century (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 3),
Washington DC: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human
Development.

Albrecht, T, & Adelman, M. (Eds), (1987). Communicating social support.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Aldwin, C. M., & Revenson, T. A. (1987). Does coping help? A reexamination of
the relation between coping and mental health. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology 53( 2 ), 337-348.

Allen, M. W., Amason, P., & Holmes, S. (1998). Social support, Hispanic emotional
acculturative stress and gender. Communication Studies 42, 139-157.

Alva, S. A. (1991). Academic invulnerability among Mexican-American students:
The importance of protective resources and appraisals. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral
Sciences. 13(1). 18-34.

 

 

American Council on Education. (2001). Nineteenth annual status report:
Minorities in higher education. Washington, DC: Ofﬁce of Minority Concerns.

Anastasi, A. & Urbina, S. (1997). Psycholgical Testirg (7th ed; Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of well-being;
America’s perception of life auality. New York: Plenum Press.

 

Ancis, J. R., Sedlacek, W. E., & Mohr, J. (2000). Student perceptions of campus
cultural climate by race. Jouraal of Counseling and Development. 28, 180—185.

Anthony, J. C., & Petronis, K. R. (1991). Suspected risk factors for depression
among adults 18-44 years old. Epidemiology, 2, 123-132.

205

Arellano, A. R., & Padilla, A. M. (1996). Academic invulnerability among a
select group of Latino university students. Higganic Journal of Behavioral Sciences. 18,
485-507.

Arrindell, W. A., Meeuwesen, L., & Huyse, F. J. (1991). The Satisfaction with
Life Scale (SWLS): Psychometric properties in a non-psychiatric medical outpatients
sample. Personality and Individual Differences. 1_2_, 117-123.

Asendorpf, J. B., & Scherer, K. R. (1983). The discrepant repressor:
Differentiation between low anxiety, high anxiety, and repression of anxiety by
autonomic—facial-verbal patterns of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, ﬂ, 1334-1346.

Aspinwall, L. G., & Taylor, SE. (1992). Modeling cognitive adaptation: A
longitudinal investigation of the impact of individual differences and coping on college
adjustment and performance. Jouraal-of-Personality-apd-Social-Psychology, 63(6), 989-
1003.

Balenger, V. J., Hoffman, M. A., & Sedlacek, W. E (1992). Racial attitudes
among incoming white students: A study of lO-year-trends. Journal of Collage Student
Development 33, 245-252.

 

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efﬁcacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral
change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-21 5.

 

Barling, J ., MacEwen, K., & Pratt, L. (1988). Manipulating the type and source

of support: An experimental investigation. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Sciences. 2_0,
140-153.

 

Baron, A., Jr. (1991). Counseling Chicano college students. In C. C. Lee & B. L.
Richardson (Eds), Multicultural issues in counseling: New approaches to diversity (pp.
171-184). Alexandria, VA: American Association for Counseling and Development.

Baron, A., & Constantine, MG. (1997). A conceptual framework for conducting
psychotherapy with Mexican American college students. In J. Garcia & M. C. Zea (Eds),
Psychological interventions and research with Latino Populations (pp. 108-124). Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.

Barona, A., & Miller, J. A. (1994). Short acculturation scale for Hispanic youth
(SASH-Y): A preliminary report. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences. _l_6_, 155-162.

Barrera, M. (1986). Distinctions between social support concepts, measures, and
models. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13, 413-445.

206

Bautista de Domanico, Y., Crawford, 1., & De Wolfe, A. S. (1994). Ethnic identity
and self-concept in Mexican-American adolescents: Is bicultural identity related to stress
or better adjustment? Child & Youth Care Forum, 23(3, 197-206.

Benjamin, M. (1994). The quality of student life: Toward a coherent
conceptualization. Social Indicators Research. 31, 205-264.

Bennett, C., & Okinaka, A. M. (1990). Factors related persistence among Asian,
Black, Hispanic, and White undergraduates at a predominantly white university:
Comparison between ﬁrst and fourth year cohorts. Urban Review. 22(1). 33-60.

Bentacourt, H., & Lopez, S. R. (1993). The study of culture, ethnicity, and race in
American psychology. American Psychologist, 43, 629—637.

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative ﬁt indices in structural models.
Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.

Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Signiﬁcance tests and goodness of ﬁt in
the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, ﬂ, 588-606.

Bentler, P. M. & Chou, C. (1987). Practical issues in structural modeling.
Sociological Methods and Research, _16, 7 8-1 17.

Berry, J. W. (1980). Acculturative stress: The role of ecology, culture, and
differentiation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, _5_, 382-406.

 

Berry, J. W., & Kim, U. (1988). Acculturation and mental health. In P. Dasen,
J .W., Berry, & N. Sartorius (Eds), Health and cross-cultural psychology: Towards
Application (pp.207-236). London: Sage.

Berry, J ., Kim, U., Minde, T., & Mok, D. (1987). Comparative studies of
acculturative stress. International; Migration Review. 2_1, 491-511.

Billings, A. G., Cronkite, R. C., & Moos, R. H. (1983). Social-environmental
factors in unipolar depression: Comparisons of depressed patients and nondepressed
controls. 10ml of Abnormal Psychology, 92: 119-133.

Billings, A., & Moos, R. (1981). The role of coping responses and social
resources in attenuating the stress of life events. Journal of BehaviorﬂMedicine, 4, 139-
157.

Billings, A., & Moos, R. (1982a). Psychosocial theory and research on
depression: An integrative framework and review. Clinical Psycholagy Review. 2, 213-
237.

207

Billings, A., & Moos, R. (1982b). Stressful life events and symptoms: A
longitudinal model. Health Psychology, 1, 99-117.

Billings, A. G., & Moos, R. H. (1984). Chronic and nonchronic unipolar
depression: The differential role of environmental stressors and resources. Journal of
Nervous and Mental Disease. 172(2), 65-75.

Bourassa, D. (1991). How white students and students of color organize and
interact on campus. In J. Dalton (Ed), &cism on campus: Confronting racial bias
through peer interventions (pp. 13-24). Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Brickman, P., Coates, D., & Janoff-Bulman, R. (1978). Lottery winners and
accident victims: Is happiness relative? Joumal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3Q,
917-927.

Briones, D. F., Heller, P. L., Chalfant, H. P., Roberts, A. E., Aguirre-Hauchbaum,
S. F ., & Farr, W. F. (1990). Socioeconomic status, ethnicity, psychological distress, and
readiness to utilize a mental health facility. American Jouml of Psychiatry, 341, 1333-
1340.

Brown, T. N., Wallace, J. M. Jr., & Williams, D. R. (2001). Race-related
correlates of young adults' subjective well-being. Social-Indigrtors-Research, 53(1), 97-
116.

Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model ﬁt. In
K.A. Bollen & J .8. Long (Eds), Testing structural muation models (pp.136—162).

Bryant, F. B., Yarnold, P. R. (1995). Principal-components analysis and
exploratory and conﬁrmatory factor analysis. In L. G. Grimm &P. R. Yarnold (Eds),
Reading and Understanding Multivariate Statistics (pp. 99-136). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.

Bumam, M. A., Hough, R. L., Kamo, M., Escobar, J. I., & Telles, C. A. (1987).
Acculturation and lifetime prevalence of psychiatric disorders among Mexican
Americans in Los Angeles. Journal of Health and Social Bahavior. 38, 89—102.

Byrne, B. (1998). Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL. PRELIS.an_d_
SIMPLIS: Bzgic Concepts, Applications, and Programmﬂg. Mahwah, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Cabrera, A. F., & Nora, A (1994). College students’ perceptions of prejudice and

discrimination and their feelings of alienation: A construct validation approach. Review
of Educlation/Pedagpgy/Cultural Studiea, l_6, 387-409.

208

Campbell, J.D., Chew, B., & Scratchley, LS. (1991). Cognitive and emotional
reactions to daily events: The effects of self-esteem and self-complexity. Journal of
Personality, 59, 473-505.

Cardoza, D. (1991). College attendance and persistence among Hispanic women:
An examination of some contributing factors. Sex Roles, 34, 133-147.

 

Carver, C. S., (1997). You want to measure coping but your protocol’s too long:
Consider the Brief COPE. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 3, 92-100.

 

Carver, C. S. Scheier, M.F. (1994). Situational coping and coping dispositions in
a stressful transaction. Joumal of Personality and SocﬂPsycholagy, 56, 267-283.

 

Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping
strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality _aad Sociﬂsycholggy,
36, 267-283.

Cervantes, O. F. (1988). The realities that Latinos, Chicanos, and other ethnic
minority students encounter in graduate school. Journal of La Raza Studies, 3, 34-41.

Cervantes, R, & Castro, F. (1985). Stress, coping, and Mexican American mental
health: A systematic review. Hispanic Journal of Behﬂoral Science. 1, 1-73.

Chartrand, J. M., (1992). An empirical test of a model of nontraditional student
adjustment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 3_9J 193-202.

Chavira, V., & Phinney, J. S. (1991). Adolescents’ ethnic identity, self-esteem,
and strategies for dealing with ethnicity and minority status. Hispanic Journal of
ngravioral Sciences, l_3_, 226-227.

Cho, M. J ., Moscicki, W. E., Narrow, W. E., Rae, D. S., Locke, B. Z., & Regier,
D. A. (1993). Concordance between two measures of depression in the Hispanic Health
and Nutrition Examination Survey. Social Psychiaﬂ and Psychiatric Epidemiolagy, 38,
156-163.

Clum, G. A., & F ebbraro, G. A. R. (1994). Stress, social support, and problem-
solving appraisal/sills: Prediction of suicide severity within a college sample. Journal of
Psychopathology_and Behavioral Assessment. 16(1), 69-83.

Cohen, J. (1990). Things I have learned (so far). American Psycholo ist, 4_5,
1304-13 12.

Cohen, S. (1986). Cognitive processes as determinants of environmental stress.
In C. D. Spielberger & I.G. Sarason (Eds), Stress and anxiety (pp. 65-82). Washington,
DC: Hemisphere.

209

Cohen, S. (1992). Stress, social support, and disorder. In H. O. F. Veiel and U.
Baumann (Eds), The meaning and measurement of social supwrt (109-124).
Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.

Cohen, S., & Edwards, J. (1989). Personality characteristics as moderators of the
relationship between stress and disorder. In R Neufeld (Ed), Advances in the
investigation of psychological stress (pp. 23 5-283). New York: Wiley.

Cohen, L. H., Hettler, T. R, & Park, C. L. (1997). Social support, personality, and
life stress adjustment. In G. R. Pierce, B. Lakey, I. G. Sarason and B. R. Sarason (Eds),
Sourcebook of social support and personality (pp. 215-228). New York, NY: Plenum
Press.

Cohen, S., Horowitz, M., Lazarus, R, Moos, R, Robins, L., Rose, R, & Rutter
(1982). Panel report on psychosocial assets and modiﬁers of stress. In G. H. Elliot & C.
Eisdorfer (Eds), Stresgrnd human health: Analysis and implications on research. New
York: Springer.

Cohen, S. Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived
stress. Journal of Health and Scﬂl Behavior. 23, 385-396.

 

Cohen, S. & McKay G. (Eds) (1985). Social support and healt_h. New York:
Academic Press.

 

Cohen, S., Sherrod, D. R., & Clark, MS. (1986). Social skills and the stress-
protective role of social support. Joumal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 963-
973.

 

Colorito, R (1999). Hispanization of the US. Analysis 14910). 70.

 

Compas, B. E., Connor-Smith, J .K., Saltzman, H., Thomsen, A. H., &
Wadsworth, M. E. (2001). Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence:
Problems, progress and potential in theory and research. Psychological Bulletin. 127.

Comrey, A. (1988). F actor-analytic methods of scale development in personality
and clinical psychology. Journal of Con_sulting_and Clinical Psychology, _5_6, 754-761.

Connor-Smith, J. K., Compas, B. E., Wadsworth, M. E., Thomsen, A. H., &
Saltzman, H. (2000). Responses to stress in adolescence: Measurement of coping and
involuntary stress responses. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psycholgy, 33, 976-992.

Constantine, M. G., & Baron, A. (1997). Assessing and counseling Chicano(a)
college students: A conceptual and practical framework In C. C. Lee (Ed), Multicultural
issuas in counseang: New approaches to diversiay (2“1 ed.) (pp. 295-314). Alexandria,
VA: American Counseling Association.

210

Constantine, M. G., Chen, E. C., & Ceesay, P. (1997). Intake concerns of racial
and ethnic minority students at a university counseling center: Implications for

developmental programming and outreach. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and
Development. 2, 210-21 8.

Cooper, C. R, Jackson, J. F ., & Azmitia, M. (1993). Bridging family, school, and
college contexts of development: Origins of competence in minority youth. Lingpistic
Minority Reseagzh Project Thematic Gragt: Resear__ch on the Schooling of Minorigz
Youth. Santa Barbara, CA: Linguistic Minority Research Institute.

Cooper, C. R, Jackson, J. F., Azmitia, M., Lopez, E. M. (1998). Multiple selves,
multiple worlds: Three useﬁrl strategies for research with ethnic minority youth on
identity, relationships, and opportunity structures. In V. C. McLoyd & L. Steinberg
(Eds), Studying minority adolescents: Conceptual. methodological, and theoretical issues
(pp. 111-125). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Cortes, D. E., Rogler, L. H., & Malgady, R. G. (1994). Biculturality among Puerto
Rican adults in the United States. American Journal of Community Paychology, Q, 707—
721.

Cristo, M. H. (1989). Stress and copingamongMexicaﬂomen. (Doctoral
dissertation, California School of Professional Psychology, Los Angeles) Dissertation
Abstracts International, 49(10-B): 4532.

Crocker, J ., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective
properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608-630.

 

Cronkite, R C., & Moos, R. H. (1984). The role of predisposing and moderating
factors in the stress-illness relationship. Journal of Healthaand Social Behavior. 2_5, 372-
393.

Cross, S. E. (1995). Self-construals, coping, and stress in cross-cultural
adaptation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26 673-679.

-———-9

 

Crouse (1985). Using peer network therapy with a residential program for
Chicano students. Journal of College Student Personnel, 2_6, 549-550.

Cuellar, I. (2000). Acculturation and mental health: Ecological transactional
relations of adjustment. In I. Cuellar and F. A. Paniagua (Eds), Handbook of
multiculturg mental hem (pp. 45-63). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Cuellar, 1., Arnold, B., & Gonzalez, G. (1995). Cognitive referents of
acculturation: Assessment of cultural constructs in Mexican Americans. Journal of

Community Psychology, _23, 339-356.

211

Cuellar, 1., Arnold, B., & Maldonado (1995). Acculturation Rating Scale for
Mexican Americans-II: A revision of the original ARSMA scale. Hispanic Journal of
Behavioral Sciences. 17(3). 275-304.

Cuellar, I., & Gonzalez, G. (1999). Cultural identity description and cultural
formulation for Hispanics. In Richard H. Dana (Ed), Handbook of cross-
cultural/multicultural personalitgaassessment (pp. 605-621). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Inc.,

 

Cuellar, 1., Harris, L.C., & Jasso, R. (1980). An acculturation scale for Mexican

American normal and clinical populations. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 3,
199-217.

Cuellar, I., Nyberg, B., Maldonado, R. E., & Roberts, R. E. (1997). Ethnic
identity and acculturation in a young adult Mexican-origin population. Journal of
Community Psychology, 25(6), 535-549.

Cuellar, I., & Roberts, R. E. (1997). Relations of depression, acculturation, and

socioeconomic status in a Latino sample. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences. 12,
230-238.

Cuellar, I., Roberts, R. E., & Bastida, E. (2002). The Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual (DSM) Scale for Derpession-26 (DSD-26)—Spanish Version: Application
Hispanic elders. Journal of Mental Health and Agi_ng, 3(3),

Cuellar, L, Roberts, R. E., Romero, A., & Leka, G. (1999). Acculturation and
marginalization: A test of Stoneqauist’s hypothesis. Unpublished manuscript.

Cuellar, I., Siles, R 1., & Bracamontes, E. (2002, in press). Acculturation: A
psychological construct of continuing relevance for Chicano psychology. In R.
Velasquez (Ed), Chicano psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

D’Zurilla, T. J., Chan, E. C., Nottingham, E. J., & Faccini, L. (1998). Social
problem-solving deﬁcits and hopelessness, depression, and suicidal risk in college
students and psychiatric inpatients. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 34, 1091-1107.

Dean, A. (1986). Measuring psychological resources. In N. Lin, A. Dean, and W.
M. Ensel (Eds), Sociﬂupport, life eventsgand depression (pp. 97-111). Academic
Press, Inc.

Deisinger, J. A., Cassisi, J. E., & Whitaker, S. L. (1996). Relationships between
coping style and PA] proﬁles in a community sample. Journal-of-Clinical-Psychology,
52(3), 303-310.

212

de los Santos, A., Jr., & Rigual, A. (1994). Prograss of Hispanics in American
higher education. In J. J. Justiz, R. Wilson, & L.G., Bjork (Eds), Minorities in higher
education (pp. 173-194). Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.

Demaray, M. K., & Malecki, C. K. (2002). The relationship between perceived
social support and maladjustment for students at risk. Paychology in the Schools. 39(3 ),
305-316.

Diaz-Guerrero, R. (1967). Sociocultural premises, attitudes, and cross-cultural
research. Intemational Journal of Psychology, 2, 79-87.

Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin. 9;, 542-575.

Diener, E., & Emmons, R. A. (1984). The independence of positive and negative
affect. Joumal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 1105-1117.

Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction
with Life Scale. Journal of Perscmlity Assessment. 42, 71-75.

Diener, E., & Larsen, R. J. (1993). The subjective experience of emotional well-
being. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland (Eds), Handbook of emotions. (pp. 405-415) New
York: Guilford Press.

DuBois, D. L., Felner, R. D., Meares, H., & Krier, M.'(1994). Prospective
investigation of the effects of socioeconomic disadvantage, life stress, and social support
on early adolescent adjustment. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103(3 ), 511-222.

Dunkel-Schetter, C., & Bennett, T. (1990). Differentiating the cognitive and
behavioral aspects of social support. In B. Sarason, I. Sarason, & G. Pierce (Eds), Social
support: An interactionﬂ view (pp. 267-291). New York: Wiley & Sons.

Dunkel-Schetter, C., Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1987). Correlates of social
support receipt. Journal of Personality and Social Psycholggy, ﬂ, 71-80.

Eckenrode, J ., & Wethington, E. (1990). The process and outcome of mobilizing
social support. In S. Duck & R. C. Silver (Eds), Personal relaaionships and social support
(pp. 83-103). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Endler, N. S., Parker, J. D. A., & Butcher, J. N. (1993). A factor analytic study of
coping styles and the MMPI-2 content scales. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 49(4), 523-
527.

Ensel, W. M., & Lin, N. (1991). The life stress paradigm and psychological
distress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 32, 321-341.

213

Essau, C. A., & Trommsdorl’f, G. (1996). Coping with university-related
problems: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27(3 ), '
315-328.

Ethier, K. A., & Deaux, K. (1994). Negotiating social identity when contexts
change: Maintaining identiﬁcation and responding to threat. Jourpal of Personality apg
Social Psychology, 67(2), 243-251.

Falcon, A., Aguirre-Molina, M. Molina, C. W. (2001). Latino health policy:
Beyond demographic determinism. In M. Aguirre-Molina, C. W. Molina, & R. E.
Zambrana (Eds), Health issues in the Latino community. (pp. 3-22). Jossey-Bass.

Farne, M., Sebellico, A., Gnugnoli, D., & Corallo, A. (1992). Personality
variables as moderators between hassles and subjective indications of distress. Stress
Medicine, 8, 161-165.

Feliz-Ortiz, M., Newcomb, M. D., & Myers, H. (1994). A multidimensional
measure of cultural identity for Latino and Latina adolescents. Hispanic Journal of
Behavioral Sciences. I_6_, 99-115.

F emandez-Barillas, H. J., & Morrison, T. L. (1984). Cultural afﬁliation and
adjustment among male Mexican American college students. Psychological Reports, _5_5_,
855-860.

Fiske, E. B. (1988). The undergraduate Hispanic experience: A case of juggling
two cultures. Change, 29, 29-33.

Fiske, S. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping.
American Psychologist, ﬂ, 621-628.

Floyd, F. J ., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and
reﬁnement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment 7(3 ), 286-299.

F olkman, S. (1984). Personal control and stress and coping processes: A
theoretical analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, @, 836-852.

Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). An analysis of coping in a middle-aged
community sample. Journal of Health and SociaLBehavior, 2_1_, 219-239.

F olkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1986). Methodological issues in stress research.
In A. Eichler, M. M. Silverman, & D. M. Pratt (Eds), How to deﬁne and research stress
(pp. 95-104). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, Inc.

F olkman, S., Schaefer, C., & Lazarus, R. S. (1979). Cognitive processes as

mediators of stress and coping. In V. Hamilton & D. M. Warburton (Eds), Human stress
and cggpition: An information processing approach (265-298). London: Wiley.

214

Frank, F ., Diener, E., & Sandvik, E. (1991). Gender Differences in Negative
Affect and Wellbeing: The Case for Emotional Intensity. Journal of Personality aria
Social Psycholggy 61(3), 427—434

Freeberg, A. L., & Stein, C. H. (1996). Felt obligation towards parents in
Mexican American and Anglo American young adults. Journal of Social and Personality
Relationships, 13, 457-471.

 

 

Fuertes, J. N., & Westbrook, F. D. (1996). Using the Social, Attitudinal, Familial,
and Environmental (S.A.F.E.) Acculturation Stress Scale to assess the adjustment needs

of Hispanic college students. Measurementand Evmtion in Counseling and
Development. Q, 67-76.

 

Furlong, M. J ., Chung, A., Bates, M., & Morrison, R. L. (1995). Who are the
victims of school violence? A comparison of non-victims and multi-victims. Education
and thent of Children. 18, 282-298.

 

Gandara, P., & Osugi, L. (1994). Educationally ambitious Chicanas The New
Higher Education Journal, 19, 7-35.

 

Garcia-Vazquez, E., Vézquez, L. A., & Huang, CY. (1998). Psychological
factors and language: Impact on Mexican-American students. College-Student-Joumaﬁ,

32(1), 6-18.

Geertz, C. (1984). Comment, in preview: A colloquy of cultural theorists. In R.
A. Shwender & R. A. LeVine (Eds), Culture theog (pp. 1-24). Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.

Gil, A. G., Vega, W. A., & Dimas, J. M. (1994). Acculturative stress and personal
adjustment among Hispanic adolescent boys. Joumﬂf Community Psychology, 22, 43-
54.

Gloria, A. M., & Robinson-Kurpius, S. E. (1996). The validation of the Cultural
Congruity Scale and the University Environment Scale with Chicano/a students.
Hispanic Journal of Behaviml Sciences. ﬂ, 533-549.

Gloria, A. M., & Rodriguez E. R. (2000). Counseling Latino University Students:
Psychosociocultural issues for consideration. Journal of Counselingand Development.
E, 145-154.

Golding, J. M., & Bumam, M. A. (1990). Immigration, stress, and depressive
symptoms in a Mexican American community. Journal of Nervous_ and Mental Disease,
m, 161-171.

 

Golding, J. M., & Lipton, R. I. (1990). Depressed mood and major depressive
disorder in two ethnic groups. Journal of Psyclﬂtn’c Research, 24(1), 65-82.

215

Gomez, M. J., & Fassinger, R. E. (1994). An initial model of Latina achievement:
Acculturation, biculturalism, and achieving styles. 101ml of Counseling Psychology, 4_1_,
205-215.

Griffith, J ., & Villavicencio, S. (1985). Relationships among acculturation,
sociodemographic characteristics and social supports in Mexican American adults.
Hispanic Jouraaj of Belaavioral Sciences. 7(1), 75-92.

Groag, I. C. (1996). Stress. social suppor; c0pingand depression symptoms in
Mexican-Americans: An integpative model. (Doctoral dissertation, The Medical College
of Pennsylvania, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57(5-B), 3410.

Guttman, L. (1954). Some necessary and sufﬁcient conditions for common factor
analysis. P_sychometrika, _l_9, 149-161.

Haalthy People 2000: National Health Promotion aad Disease Prevention
Objectives. Washington, DC: US Dept of Health and Human Services; 1991. DHHS
Publication PHS 91-50212.1.

Heppner, P., Cook, S. W., Wright, D. M., & Johnson, W. C. Jr., (1995). Progress
in resolving problems: A problem focused style of coping. Journal of Counseling

Psychology, 42( 3 ), 279-293.

 

Heppner, P. P., & Krauskopf, C. J. (1987). An information-processing approach
to personal problem solving. Counseling Psychologiat. 15(3), 371-447.

Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities. (1995, January-February).
Closing the Hispanic faculty gap, NACU Newsletter, 3, 1, 7.

Hobfoll, S., & Vaux, A. (1993). Social support: Social resources and social
context. In L. Goldberger, & S. Breznitz (Eds), Handbook of stress (pp. 685-705). New
York: Free Press.

 

Holahan, C. J ., & Moos, R. (1986). Personality, coping, and family resources in
stress resistance: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
5_1, 389-395.

Holahan, C. J ., & Moos, R. (1987). Personal and contextual determinants of
coping strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(5), 946-955.

Holahan, C. J., & Moos, R. H. (1991). Life stressors, personal and social
resources, and depression: A four-year structural model. Jorﬂal of Abnormal

Psychology, 1_00_, 31-38.

216

Holahan, C. J., Moos, R H., & Bonin L. (1997). Social support, coping, and
psychological adjustment: A resources model. In G. R. Pierce, B. Lakey, I. G. Sarason
and B. R. Sarason (Eds), Sourcebook of social support and persmrality (pp. 169-186).
New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Holahan, C. J., Moos, R H., & Schaefer, J. A. (1996). Coping stress resistance,
and growth: Conceptualizing adaptive functioning. In M. Zeidner & N. S. Endler (Eds),
Handbook of coping (pp. 24-43). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Hough, R. L (1985). Life events and stress in Mexican-American culture. In W.
A. Vega and M. R. Miranda (Eds), Stress and Hispanic mental health: Relatingaesearch
to service delivery (pp.110-146). Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health.

 

Hovey, J. D. & King, C. A. (1996). Acculturative stress, depression, and suicidal
ideation among immigrant and second-generation Latino adolescents. Journal of the
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatg, 35(9), 1183-1192.

Hoyle, R. H. (1995). The structural equation modeling approach: basic concepts
and ﬁindamental issues. In R. H. Hoyle (Eds), Structural equation modeling: Concept,
issues. and applications (pp. 1-15). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Holye, R. H., & Panter, A. T. (1995). Writing about structural equation models.
In R. H. Hoyle (Eds), Structural equation modelinggConceptstsues. and application
(pp. 158-176). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Huntington, S. (2000). Reconsidering Immigration: Is Mexico a special case?
Backgrounder Center for Immigration Studies.

Hurtado, S. (1992). The campus racial climate: Contexts for conﬂict. Journal of
Higher Education. 63(5), 539-569.

Hurtado, S. (1994). The institutional climate for talented Latino students.
Research in Higher Education. 35(3). 21-41.

Hurtado, S., Carter, D. F., & Spuler, A. (1996). Latino student transition to
college: Assessing difﬁculties and factors in successful college adjustment. Research in
I_-I_igher Education. 37, 135-157.

 

Jerusalem, M. (1993). Personal resources, environmental constraints, and
adaptational processes: The predictive power of a theoretical stress model. Personality
and Individual Differences. _13, 15-24.

Joreskog, K. G. (1978). Structural analysis of covariance and correlation
matrices. Psychometrika, 13, 443-477.

217

Joresko K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1989). LISREL 7: A guide to the progpam and
applications(2n ed; Chicago: Scientiﬁc Software Inc.

Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1992). LISREL 8: A gpide to the progpam and
applications, Mooresville, IN: Scientiﬁc Software.

Joreskog, K.G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structﬂl equation modeling
with the SIMPLIS command langpage. Chicago, IL: Scientiﬁc Software International.

Jung, J. (1984). Social support and its relation to health: A crucial evaluation.
msic and Applied Social Psychology 5, 143-169.

Kachigan, S. K. (1991). Multivariate statistical analysis: A conceptual
introduction (2nd ed). New York, NY: Radius Press.

Kanner, A. D., Coyne, J. C., Schaeffer, C., & Lazarus, R. S. (1981). Comparison
of two modes of stress measurement: Daily hassles and uplifts versus major life events.
Journal of Belgvioral Medicine. £1, 1-39.

Keefe, S. E. (1980). Acculturation and the extended family among urban Mexican
Americans. In A. M. Padilla (Ed), Acculturation: Theory modelsp_ and some new ﬁndinga
(pp. 85-110). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Keefe, S. E., Padilla, A. M., & Carlos, M. L. (1979). The Mexican-American
extended family as an emotional support system. Human Organization, 3, 144-152.

Kerwin, C. & Ponterotto, J. G. (1995). Biracial identity development: Theory and
research. In J .G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds),
Handbqopk of multicultugl counselipg (pp. 199-217). Sage Publications.

Kessler, R, Price, R, & Wortman, C. (1985). Social factors in psychopathology:
Stress, social support, and coping processes. Annual Review of Psycholagy 36, 531-572.

Kiefer, C. W. (1974). Changing cultures- changing lives: An ethnographic study
of three generations of Jammese Americzis San Fransisco: Josey & Bass.

Kim, Y. Y. (1995). Cross-cultural adaptation: An integrative theory. In R.
Wiseman (Ed), Intercultural communication theory (pp. 170-193). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

Kline, R, B. (1998). Principleaand practice of structural equation modeling.
New York: Guilford Press.

218

Knight, G. P., Bernal, M.E., Garza, C.A., & Cota, M. K. (1993) A social cognitive
model of the development of ethnic identity and ethnically based behaviors. In M. E.
Bemal & G. P. Knight (Eds), Ethnic Identity: Formation and transmission among
Hispanics m other minorities (pp. 214-234). Albany, NY: State University of New
York.

 

Kobosa, S. C. (1979). Stressful life events and health: An inquiry into hardiness.
Joumal ofpersonality and Social Psychology, 3_7, 1-11.

Krause, N. (1990). Perceived health problems, formal/informal support, and life
satisfaction among older adults. Journal of Gerontology 45L5). S193-205.

 

LaFromboise, T., Coleman, H. L. K., & Gerton, J. (1993). Psychological impact
of biculturalism: Evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3 ), 392-412.

Lakey, B., & Dickinson, L. G. (1994). Antecedents of perceived support: 15
perceived family environment generalized to new social relationships? Cogpitive
Therapy and Research. 18, 39-53.

Lambom, S., Solberg, V. S., Torres, J ., Gusavac, N., Hamman, T., Pogoriler, D.,
Felch, J ., Metz, A. J ., Rodriguez, M. (1997). The role ofﬁmily and ethnicity factors on
college outcomes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological
Association. Chicago, Illinois.

Landrine, H., & Klonoff, E. A. (1996). The schedule of racist events: A measure
of racial discrimination and a study of its negative physical and mental health
consequences. Journal of Bla_ck Psychology, 22, 144-168.

Lango, D. R. (1995). Mexican American female enrollment in graduate
programs: A study of the characteristics that may predict success. Hispanic Journal of
Behavﬁal Sciences. 17(1), 33-48.

Lazarus, R. S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. New York:
McGraw-Hill.

Lazarus, R. S. (1984). Puzzles in the study of daily hassles. Journal of Behavioral
Medicine. 7(4), 375-389.

 

Lazarus, R. S., Averill, J. R, & Opton, E. M., Jr. (Eds) (1974). Coping and
adaptation. New York: Basic Books.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York:
Springer.

219

Lazarus, R, & Launier, R. (1978). Stress-related transactions between person and
environment. In L. Pervin, & M. Lewis (Eds), Perspectives in interactional psychology
(pp. 287-327). New York: Plenum.

Lee, R. M., & Liu, H. T. (2001). Coping with intergeneration family conﬂict:
Comparison of Asian American, Hispanic, and European American college students.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48(4), 410-419.

Leong, F. T., Bonz, M. H, Zachar, P. (1997). Coping styles as predictors of
college adjustment among freshmen. Counseliragj’sychology Quarterly, m, 211-220.

Lepore, S. J ., Evans, G. W., & Schneider, M. L. (1991). Dynamic role of social
support in the link between chronic stress and psychological distress. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 899-909.

Lewis, C. A., Shevlin, M. E., Bunting, B. P., & Joseph, S. (1995). Conﬁrmatory
factor analysis of the Satisfaction with Life Scale: Replication and methodological
reﬁnement. Perceptual-_and-Motor-Skills. 80(1). 304-306.

Leyva, W. L. (1990). Acculturation. social support. m copingas mediators of
stress amongMexiam American women (Doctoral dissertation, California School of
Professional Psychology-Los Angeles, 1990). Dissertation Abstracts International, 51(7-
B), 3572.

Linden, W., Paulhus, D. L., & Dobson, K. S. (1986). Effects of response styles on
the report of psychological and somatic stress. Joml of Consultingand Clinical
Psychology, 53, 309-313.

Lonner, W. J ., & Adamopoulos, J. (1997). Culture as antecedent to behavior. In
J. W. Berry, Y. H. Poortinga, & J. Pandey (Eds), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology
(2"‘1 ed, Vol. 1., pp. 43-83). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Loo, C. M., & Rolison, G. (1986). Alienation of ethnic minority students at a
predominantly white university. Journal of Higher Education. 57(1). 58-77.

Lopez, E. J., Ehly, S. & Garcia-Vazquez, E. (2002). Acculturation, social-support,
and academic achievement of Mexican and Mexican American high school students: An
exploratory study. Psychology in the Schools, 39(3). 245-257.

Lopez, E. M. (1995). Challenges and resources of Mexican American students
within the family, peer group, and university: Age and gender patterns. Hispanic Journal
of Behavioral Sciencea, _l_Z, 499-508.

Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness:
preliminary reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research. ﬂ, 137-155.

220

Lyubomirsky, S., & Ross, L. (1997). Hedonic consequences of social comparison:
A contrast of happy and unhappy people. Jouraal of Personality and Social Psychology
3, 1141-1157.

MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M., Sugawara, H. (1996). Power analysis and
determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological-Methods,
1(2), 130-149.

MacCallum, R.C., & Hong, S. (1997). Power analysis in covariance structure
modeling using GFI and AGFI. Multivamte-Behavioral-Resem:a. 32(2), 193-210.

Marin, G. (1992). Issues in the measurement of acculturation among Hispanics. In
K. Geisinger (Ed), Psychological testing of Hispanics. (pp.23 5-251). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.

Marin, G., & Garnba, R. J. (1996). A new measurement of acculturation for
Hispanics: The bidimensional acculturation scale for Hispanics (BAS). Hispanic Jouraal
of Behavioral Sciences. 18(3). 297-316.

Marin, G. & Marin, B. v. O. (1991). Research with Hispanic populﬁons Applied
Social Research Methods Series, Vol. 23. London: Sage Publications.

Marin, G., Sabogal, F., VanOss Marin, B., Otero-Sabogal, R, & Perez-Stable, E.
J. (1987). Development of a short acculturation scale for Hispanics. Hispanic Jouma of
Behavioral Sciences. 9(2), 183-205.

Martin, R. A. (1989) Techniques for data acquisition and analysis in ﬁeld
investigations of stress. In R. W. J. Neufeld (Ed), ACMnces in the investigation of
(asycholagical stress (pp. 195-234). Toronto, Canada: John Wiley & Sons.

Masse, R.. Poulin, C., Dassa, C., Lambert, J., Belair, S., & Battaglini, A. (1998).
The structure of mental health: Higher-order conﬁrmatory factor analyses of

psychological distress and well-being measures. Social-Indicators-Research. 45(1-3).
475-504.

Mattlin, J. A., Wethington, E., & Kessler, R. C. (1990). Situational determinants
of coping and coping effectiveness. Journal of Health and SocialaBehaﬂn. 21, 103-122.

McClelland, K. E., & Auster, C. J. (1990). Public platitudes and hidden tensions:
Racial climates at predominantly White liberal arts colleges. Jouma of Higher
Education, _6_1, 607-642.

McCormack, A. S. (1995). The changing nature of racism on college campuses:
Study of discrimination at a northeastern public university. College Student Journal, 22,
1 50-1 56.

221

Mena, F. J., Padilla, A. M., & Maldonado, M. (1987). Acculturative stress and
speciﬁc coping strategies among immigrant and later generation college students.
Hispanic Journal of Behaviorza Sciences. 2, 207-225.

Menaghan, E. (1982). Measuring coping effectiveness: A panel analysis of
marital problems and coping efforts. Journal of Health apd Social Behavior. 2_3, 220-234.

 

Mendoza, P. (1981). Stress and coping behavior of Anglo and Mexican American
university students. Spanish SpLeakiag Mental Health Research Center Monograph, 8, 89-
111.

Miller, C. T., & Kaiser, C. R (2001). A theoretical perspective on coping with
stigma. Joumal of Social Issues. 57(1), 73-92.

Miranda, M. (198). The family natural support system in Hispanic communities:
Preliminary research notes and recommendations. In R. Valle & W. Vega (eds),
Hispanic natural support systems (pp. 25-43). Sacramento, CA: Ofﬁce of Prevention,
State of California, Department of Mental Health.

Miranda, M. R, & Castro, F. (1985). A conceptual model for clinical research on
stress and mental health status: From theory to assessment. In W. A. Vega and M. R.
Miranda (Eds), Stress and Hispanic merging health: RelaLing research to service delivery
(pp. 174-201). Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health.

Mitchell, R. E., Cronkite, R.C., & Moos, R H. (1983). Stress, coping and
depression among married couples. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, ﬂ, 433-448.

Monat, A., & Lazarus, R S. (Eds) (1991). Stress and copinw anthology (3rd
ea). New York: Columbia Press.

Montgomery, G. T. (1992). Acculturation, stressors, and somatization patterns
among students from extreme South Texas. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences,
14(4), 434-454.

Moore, J. W. (1970). Mexican-American Englewood Cliffs, N. J. Prentice-Hall.

Moos, R. H. (1979). A social-ecological perspective on health. In G. C. Stone, f.
Cohen, N. E. Adler, & associates (Eds), Healtlmsychology: A handbook (pp. 523-547).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Moos, R. H. (1984). Context and coping: Toward a unifying conceptual
framework. American Journal of Community Psychology, ﬂ, 5-25.

Moos, R. H. (1986). Environmental conditions and stressors: separating context
from appraisal. In A. Eichler, M. M. Silverman, & D. M. Pratt (Eds), How to deﬁne arﬁ
research stress (pp.59-64). Bethesda, MD: American Psychiatric Association, Inc.

 

222

Moos, R. H., & Schaefer, J. A (1993). Coping resources and processes: Current
concepts and measures. In L. Goldberger and S. Breznitz (Eds), Handbook of stress:
Theoretical and Clinical Aspects QM ed.) (pp.234-257). New York, NY: The Free Press.

Morris, J. K. (1997). Latina collage students: The impact of stress. acculturation.
and social support on psychological well-beingand distress (Doctoral dissertation,
California School of Professional Psychology-Los Angeles, 1997). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 58(3-B), 1540.

Moscicki, E. K., Locke, B. Z., Rae, D. S., & Boyd, J. H. (1989). Depressive
symptoms among Mexican Americans: The Hispanic Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey. AmericanaJouraal of Epidemiology, _1_3_Q, 348-360.

Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R, Van Alstine, J., Bennett, N.., Lind, S., & Stillwell, C.
D. (1989). An evaluation of goodness of ﬁt indices for structural equation models.
Psychological Bulletin. 105, 430-445.

Murillo, N. (1976). The Mexican-American family. In C. Hernandez (Ed)
Chicanos: Socialand psychological mspectives. St. Louis: Mosby.

Najera, I. (1990). The relationship of acculturation analacculturative stress to
college environmental stress. collegasatisfactiomand self-esteem among Hispanic
undergraduates 2a selected Ohio universities (Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State
University, 1990). Dissertation Abstracts International, 51(12-B, Pt 1), 6092.

Neff, J. A., & Hoppe, S. K. (1993). Race/ethnicity, acculturation, and
psychological distress: F atalism and religiosity as cultural resources. Journal of
Communita/ Psychology, 2_1, 3-20.

Negy, C., & Snyder, D., K. (2000). Relationship satisfaction of Mexican-
American and non-Hispanic White American interethnic couples: Issues of acculturation
and clinical intervention. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 26(3 ), 293-304.

Negy, C., & Woods, D. J. (1992). The importance of acculturation in

understanding research with Hispanic-Americans. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral
Sciences, 14(2), 224-247.

 

Negy, C., & Woods, D. J. (1993). Mexican American’s and Anglo-American
differences on the Psychological Screening Inventory. Journal of Personali_ty
Assessment. 60(3 ), 543-553.

Nezu, A. M., Nezu, C. M., Sarayderian, L., Kalmar, K., & Ronan, G. F. (1986).

Social problem solving as a moderating variable between negative life stress and
depressive symptoms. Cogpitive-Therapy-and-Research. 10(5), 489-498.

223

Nezu, A. M., & Ronan, G. F. (1988). Social problem-solving as a moderator of
stress-related depressive symptoms: A prospective analysis. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 35,_134-138.

 

Office of Planning and Budgets, Michigan State University (2002, August 15).
Retrieved August 15, 2002, from
httpzl/opbweb.msu.edu/infopages/StandardReportsFrame.htm

Ogbu, J. (1985). A cultural ecology of competence among inner-city Blacks. In
M. Spencer, G. Brookins, & W. Allen (eds), B_eginnings: The social and affective
development of Black children (pp. 45-66). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Inc.

Oliver, M. L., Rodriguez, C. J., & Mickelson, R. A. (1985). Brown and black in
white: The social adjustment and academic performance of Chicano and black students in
a predominantly white university. The Urban Review. 11, 3-24.

Padilla, A. M. (1980). The role of cultural awareness and ethnic loyalty in
acculturation. In A. M. Padilla (Ed), Hispanic psychology: Critical issues in theor_'y and
research (pp. 26-42). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

 

Padilla, A. M., Alvarez, M., & Lindholm, K. J. (1986). Generational status and
personality factors as predictors of stress in students. Hispanic-Journal-of-Behaviorﬁ
Sciences, 8(3), 275-288.

Padilla, A. M., Cervantes, R. C., Maldonado, M., & Garcia, R. E. (1988). Coping
responses to psychological stressors among Mexican and Central American immigrants.
Jouraal of Community Psychology, l_6, 418-427.

Padilla, A. M., Wagatsuma, Y., & Lindholm, K. J. (1985). Acculturation and
personality as predictors of stress in Japanese and Japanese-Americans. The Journal of
Social Psychology, 125, 295-305.

Parker, J. D. A., Endler, N. S., & Bagby, R. M. (1993). If it changes it might be
unstable: Examining the factor structure of the Ways of Coping Questionnaire.
Psychological Assesament. _5_, 361-368.

Pascarella, E. T., Edison, M., Nora, A., Hagedorn, L., & Trenzini, P. T. (1996).
Inﬂuences on students’ openness to diversity and challenge in the ﬁrst year of college.
Journal of Collega Student Development. ﬂ, 174-195.

Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the Satisfaction with Life Scale.
Psychological Assessment. 5(2), 164-172.

224

Pavot, W., Diener, E., Colvin, C. R, & Sandvik, E. (1991). Further validation of
the Satisfaction with Life Scale: Evidence for the cross-method convergence of well-
being measures. Journal of Persoarlity Assessment. 57, 149-161.

 

Pearlin, L. (1993). The social contexts of stress. In L. Goldberger & S. Breznitz
(Eds), Handboon stress: Theoreticaland clinical aspects (2nd ed.) (pp. 303-315). New
York, NY: The Free Press.

Pearlin, L. I., Lieberman, M.A., Menaghan, E. G., & Mullan (1981). The stress
process. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 22, 337-356.

Pearlin, L., & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping. Journal of Health an_d_
Social Behavior, 22, 337-356.

 

Pérez, W., & Padilla, A. M. (2000). Cultural orientation across three generations
of Hispanic adolescents. Hispanic Journal of Behavioaal Sciences, 22(3 ), 390-398.

Peterson, C., Seligman, M. E. P., & Vaillant, G. E. (1988). Pessimistic
explanatory style is a risk factor for psychical illness: A thirty-ﬁve-year longitudinal
study. Journal ofaersonality and Social Psychology, 55; 23-27.

Phenice, L. A., & Griffore, R. J. (1994). College students' stereotypes. College-
Student-Joumal. 28(3 ), 373-375.

Phinney, J. S. (1991). Ethnic identity development and self-esteem: A review and
integration. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences. 13(2). 193-208.

Phinney, J. S. (1992). The Multigroup ethnic identity measure: A new scale for
use with diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Resaarch. 2, 156-176

Phinney, J. S. (1995). Ethnic identity and self esteem. In A. M. Padilla (Ed),
Hispanic psychology: Critical issues in theory and research (pp.57-70). Sage
Publications.

 

Phinney, J. S. (1996). When we talk about American ethnic groups, what do we
mean? AmericaaPsychologisa, 5_1, 918-927.

Phinney, J .S., Alpuria, L. L. (1996). At the interface of cultures:
Multiethnic/Multiracial high school and college students. The Jounﬂ of Social

Psychology, 136(2), 139-158.

Phinney, J. S., & Chavira, V. (1995). Parental ethnic socialization and adolescent
coping with problems related to ethnicity. Joumaﬂf Reaaarch on Adolescence. _5_, 31-53.

225

Phinney, J. S., & Chavira, V., & Tate, J. D. (1993). The effect of ethnic threat on
ethnic self-concept and own-group ratings. The Journal of SocaaaPsycholagy, Q, 469-
478.

Phinney, J. S., Chavira, V., & Williamson, L. (1992). Acculturation attitudes and
self-esteem among high school and college students. Youth & Society. 2_3_. 299-312.

Phinney, J ., & Kohatsu, E. (1997). Ethnic and racial identity development and
mental health. In J. Schulenberg, J. L. Maggs, K. & Hurrelmann.(Eds.), Health risks and
developmental taransitions duringadolescence (pp. 420-443). New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.

Phinney, J ., Williamson, L., & Chavira, V. (1990, April). Attitudes towa_r_d
integration. assimilation. and sepmtion among high school and college students. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Western Psychological Association, Los Angeles.

Ponterotto, JG. (1990). Racial/ethnic minority and women students in higher
education: A status report. New Directions for Student Services. 52, 45-59.

Prezza, M., & Pacilli, M. G. (2002). Journal of Community and Aaplied Social
Psychology Q, 422-429.

Priester, M. J., & Clum, G. A. (1993). Perceived problem solving ability as a
predictor of depression, hopelessness, and suicide ideation in a college population.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, ﬂ, 79-85.

Procidano, M. E. (1992). The nature of perceived social support: Findings of
meta-analytic studies. In C. D. Spielberger & J. N. Buttler (Eds), Advances in
personality assessment (Vol. 9, pp. 1-26). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Procidano, M. E., & Heller, K. (1983). Measures of perceived social support from
ﬁiends and from family: three validation studies. American Journal of Community

Psychology, 11( 1 ), 1-24.

Procidano, M. E., & Smith, W. W. (1997). Assessing perceived social support:
The importance of context. In G. R. Pierce, B. Lakey, I. G. Sarason and B. R. Sarason
(Eds), Sourcebﬂk of social support and personm (pp. 93-106). New York, NY:
Plenum Press.

Quevedo-Garcia, E. L. (1987). Facilitating the development of Hispanic college
students. New Directions for Student Services. 38, 49-63.

Quinones, M. E. (1996). Latina college students: The relationship among ethnic
identity. acculturation. gender roles. and psychological well-being. (Doctoral
dissertation, New York City University, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57(2-
B), 1452.

226

Quintana, S. M., Vogel, M. C., & Ybrarra, V. C. (1991). Meta-analysis of Latino
students’ adjustment in higher education. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences. 18,
155-168.

Reise, S. P., Widaman, K. F ., & Pugh, R. H. (1993). Conﬁrmatory factor analysis
and item response theory: Two approaches for exploring measurement invariance.

Psychological
Bulletin 114(3). 552-566.

Renn, K. A (1999). Claiming space: The college experience of biracial gal
multiracial students on aredominaatly White campuses. (Doctoral dissertation Boston
College). Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(8-A): 2886.

Retish, P. M., & Kavanaugh, P. C. (1992). Myth: America’s public schools are
educating Mexican American students. Journal of Multicultraal Counseling and
Develmgment, 20, 89-96.

 

 

Riggio, R. E., Watring, K. P., & Throckmorton, B. (1993). Social skills, social
support, and psychosocial adjustment. Personamy-and-Individrmal-Differences. 15(3 ),
275-280.

Rhodewalt, F., & Zone, J. B. (1989). Appraisal of life change, depression and
illness in hardy and nonhardy women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56;
81-88.

Roberts, R E. (1992). Manifestation of depressive symptoms among adolescents:
A comparison of Mexican Americans with the majority and other minority populations.
Journal of Nervous tad Mental Disease. 180. 627-633.

Roberts, R E. (1994). Research on the mental health of Mexican origin children
and adolescents. In C. Telles & M. Karno (Eds), Latino mental haalth: Current resea__rc_h
and policy perspectives (pp. 17-39). Los Angeles, CA: Neuropsychiatric Institute.

Roberts, R E., Roberts, C. R, & Chen, Y. W. (1995, May). Ethnicity as a risk
factor for adolescent depression. Presented at the World Psychiatric Association meeting,
“Search for the Causes of Psychiatric Disorders: Epidemiological Approaches,” New
York.

Roberts, R E., Roberts, C. R, & Chen, Y. R. (1997). Ethnocultural differences in
the prevalence of adolescent depression. American Journal of Comm_unity Psychology,
28, 95-110.

Roberts, R E. & Sobhan, M. (1992). Symptoms of depression in adolescence: A
comparison of Anglo, Aﬁican and Hispanic Americans. Journal of Youth aai
Adolescence. 2_1_, 63 9-65 1.

 

227

Rodin, J. & Salovey, P. (1989). Health psychology. Anrml Review of
Psychology, 49, S33-S79.

Rodriguez, E. R. (1994). The Role of Psychological separation- ethnic identity.
and world view in college adjustment. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State
University, Tempe).

Rodriguez, E. R. (1998). Addressing the needs of diverse racial/ethnic
populations. In S. L. Roth-Roemer & S. E. Robinson Kurpius (Eds), The emerging role
of counseling psychology in health (pp. 350-397). Evanston, IL: Norton Press.

Rodriguez, N., Myers, H. F ., Morris, J. K., & Cardoza, D. (2000). Latino college
student adjustment: Does an increased presence offset minority-status and acculturative
stresses? Jouma of Applied Social Psychology, 30(7), 1523-1550.

Rogler, L. H., Cortes, D. E., & Malgady, R. G. (1991). Acculturation and mental
health status among Hispanics: Convergence and New Directions for Research. American

Psychologist, 4g6), 585-597.

Rohde, P., Lewinsohn, P. M., Tilson, M., & Seeley, J. R. (1990). Dimensionality
of coping and its relation to depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, ﬂ,
499-511.

Rosenthal, B. S., Schreiner, A C. (2000). Prevalence of psychological symptoms
among undergraduate students in an ethnically diverse urban public college. Joumal-of-
American-College-Health, 49( 1), 12-18.

 

Roth, 8, & Cohen, L. J. (1986). Approach, avoidance, and coping with stress.
American Psychologia, ﬂ, 813-819.

Roysircar-Sodowsky, G., & Maestas, M. V. (2000). Acculturation, ethnic
identity, and acculturative stress: Evidence and measurement. In R. H. Dana (Ed),
Handbook of cross-cultural and multicultural personality assessment (pp. 131-172).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc..

Ruggiero, K. M., Taylor, D. M., & Lydon, J. E. (1997). How disadvantaged group
members cope with discrimination when they perceive that social support is available.
Journal of applied Social Psychology, ﬂ, 1581-1600.

Ruiz, A. S. (1990). Ethnic identity: Crisis and resolution. Journal of Multicultural
Counseling and Development. ﬂ, 29-40.

Ryder, A. G., Alden, L. E., & Paulhus, D. L. (2000). Is acculturation
unidimensional or bidimensional? A head-to-head comparison in the prediction of
personality, self-identity, and adjustment.

228

Sabogal, R, Marin, G., Otero-Sabogal, R, VanOss-Marin, B., & Perez-Stable, E.
J. (1987). Hispanic familism and acculturation: What changes and what doesn’t?
Hispanic Joumal of Behavioral Sciences. 5, 397-412.

Saldana, D. H. (1988). Acculturation and stress: Latino students at a
predominantly Anglo university (Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los
Angeles, 1988). Dissertation Abstracts International,

Saldana, D. H. (1990). Stress and retention: Ethnic students in Texas higher
education (Unpublished report submitted to the Hogg Foundation for Mental Health).

Saldana, D. H. (1994). Acculturative stress: Minority status and distress. Hispanic
Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 16, 116-128.

 

Sanchez, J. I., & Fernandez, D. M. (1993). Acculturative stress among Hispanics:
a bidimensional model of ethnic identiﬁcation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23,
654-668.

Sarason, B., Pierce, G., & Sarason, I. (1990). Social support: The sense of
acceptance and the role of relationships. In B.R Sarason, I. G. Sarason, & G. R. Pierce
(Eds), Social support: An interactionaview (pp. 97-123). New York: John Wiley &
Sons

 

Sarason, I. G., Pierce, G. R, & Sarason, B. R (1994). General and speciﬁc
perceptions of social support. In W. R. Avison and I. H. Gotlib (Eds), Stress and mental
haalth: Contemporary issues amd prospects for the future (pp. 151-177). New York, NY:
Plenum Press.

Sarason, I.G., & Sarason, B. R. (1984). Life changes, moderators of stress, and
health. In Baum, S. E. Taylor, and J .E. Singer (Eds), Handbook of psychology and
health: Vol. 4. Social psychological aspects of healah. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

 

Sarason, B. R, Sarason, I. G., Gurung, R. A. R. (2001). Close personal
relationships and health outcomes: A key to the role of social support. In B. Sarason and
S. Duck (Eds), Personal relationships: Implications for clinicund community

psychology (pp. 15-41). Wiley.

Sarason, B. R, Sarason, I.G., & Pierce, G.R. (Eds). (1990). Social support: An
inteatctional view. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping, and health: Assessment
and implications of generalized outcome expectancies. ﬁaalth Psychology, 5, 219-247.

Schlosser, B. (1990). The assessment of subjective well-being and the relationship
to the stress process. Journal of Personahty Assessment. 2, 128-140.

229

Schmader, T., Major, B., Gramzow, R H. (2001). COping with ethnic stereotypes
in the academic domain: Perceived injustice and psychological disengagement. Joumal-
of-Sociaﬁssues 57(1). 93-111.

Schwitzer, A. M., Griffin, 0. T., Ancis, J. R, & Thomas, C. (1999). Social
adjustment experiences of Aﬁican American college students. Jourpal of Counseling and
Development. 12, 189-197.

Shao, L., & Diener, E. (1992). Multilanguage comparability of life satisfaction
and happiness measures in mainland Chinese and American Students. Unpublished
master’s thesis, University of Illinois.

Shevlin, M. E., & Bunting, B. P. (1994). Conﬁrmatory factor analysis of the
Satisfaction with Life Scale. Perceptual-and-Motor-Skr_'ll_s, 79(3, Pt 1), 1316-1318.

Shibazaki, K. (1999). Ethnic identity. acculturation. perceived discrimiraaaion.
and college adjustment in Mexican Americ§Q§ (Doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech
University, 1999). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(4-B), 1872.

Shin, D. C., & Johnson, D. M. (1978). Avowed happiness as an overall
assessment of the quality of life. Social Indicators Research, _5_, 475-492.

Shorey, H. S., Cowan, G., & Sullivan, M. P. (2002). Predicting perceptions of
discrimination among Hispanics and Anglos. Hispanic—Joumala-of-Behavioral-Sciences.

24(1 ), 3-22.

Slavin, L., Rainer, K., McCreary, M., & Gowda, K. (1991). Toward a
multicultural model of the stress process. Journal of Counseling & Development. E,
156-163.

Smedley, B. D., Myers, H. F., & Harrell, S. P. (1993). Minority-status stresses
and college adjustment of ethnic minority freshmen. Journal of Higher Education. 64,
434-452.

 

Smith, E. J. (1991). Ethnic Identity development: Toward the development of a
theory within the context of majority/minority status. Jomal of Counseling and
Development. Z_0_, 181-188.

Sodowsky, G. R, & Lai, E. W. M. (1997). Asian immigrant variables and
structural models of cross-cultural distress. In A. Booth, A. C. Crouter, & N. Landale

(Eds), Immiggation and the family: Reseaach and policy on US. immigpants (pp. 211-
234). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Sodowsky, G. R, Lai, E. W. M., & Plake, B. S. (1991). Moderating effects of

sociocultural variables on acculturation attitudes of Hispanics and Asian Americans.
Jouml of Counselingand Development. 7_O, 194-204.

230

Solberg, V. S. (1990). The role of intimate social support in promoting college
adjustment among Mexican Americans and Latino Americans (Doctoral dissertation,
University of California, Santa Barbara, 1990). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52,
3949.

Solberg, V. S., Valdez, J., & Villarreal, P. (1994). Social support, stress, and
Hispanic college adjustment: Test of a diathesis-stress model. Hispanic Joumalaof
Behavioral Sciences. (6, 230-239.

 

Solberg, V. S., & Villarreal, P. (1997). Examination of self-efficacy, social
support, and stress as predictors of psychological and physical distress among Hispanic
college students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences. 19(2). 182-201.

Steiger, J. H., & Lind, J. M. (1980, June). ﬁatistically based tests for the number
of common factors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychometric Society,
Iowa City, IA.

 

Stein, J. A., & Nyamathi, A. (1999). Gender differences in relationships among

stress, coping, and health risk behaviors in impoverished, minority populations.
Personality-and-Imidral-Differencea 26(1), 141-157.

 

Stephan, W.G., Stephan, C. W. (1991). Intermarriage: Effects on personality
adjustment and the intergroup relations in two samples of students. Journal of Marriage

and the Family 53(1), 241-250.

Stone, G. L., & Archer, J ., Jr. (1990). College and university counseling centers in
the 19903: Challenges and limits. The Counseling Psychologist, 18, 539-607.

 

Suarez, S. A., Fowers, B. J ., Garwood, C. S., & Szapocznik, J. (1997).
Biculturalism, differentness, loneliness, and alienation in Hispanic college students.
Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciencea, 19(4), 489-505.

Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (1990). Counseling the culturally different: Theory app
ppactice(2"d ed). New York: Wiley.

Szapocznik, J ., Kurtines, W. (1980). Acculturation, biculturalism, and adjustment
among Cuban Americans. In A. Padilla (Ed), Accultuattion: Theory. models. and some
new ﬁndings (pp. 134-160). Boulder, CO: Westview.

Szapocznik, J ., Santisteban, D., Kurtines, W. A., Perez-Vidal, A., & Hervis, O.
(1984). Bicultural effectiveness training: A treatment intervention for enhancing
intercultural adjustment in Cuban American families. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral
Sciences, 8, 317-344.

 

231

 

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory group conﬂict. In W. G.
Austin & S. Worchel (Eds), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47).
Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Taylor, S. E., & Aspinwall, L. G. (1996). Mediating and moderating processes in
psychosocial stress. In H. B. Kaplan (Ed), Psychosocial stress: Perspectives on Structure.
Theory. Life-Course and Methods (pp. 71-110). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc..

Terenzini, P., Rendon, L., Upcrapt, M., Millar, 8, Allison, K., Gregg, P., &
Jaloma, R. (1994). The transition to college: Diverse students, diverse stories. Research
inHigher Educaaion. 25, 57-73.

 

 

Terry, D. J. (1994). Determinants of coping: The role of stable and situational
factors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, @, 895-910.

 

Thoits, P. A. (1986). Social support and coping assistance. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 84, 416-423.

Thoits, P. A. (1995). Stress, coping, and social support processes: Where are we?
What next? Journal of Healtaand Social Behavior. 39, 53-79. ‘

Torres, V. (1999). Validation of a bicultural orientation model for Hispanic
college students. Journal of College Student Development. 40(3), 285-298.

Tucker, L. R, & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum
likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, ﬂ, 1-10.

Turner, R. J ., & Roszell, P. (1994). Psychosocial resources and the stress process.
In W. R. Avison and I. H. Gotlib (Eds), Stress and mental health: Contemporary issues
and prospects for the ﬁiture (pp. 179-210). New York, NY: Plenum Press.

U. S. Bureau of the Census. (2000). Hispanic population in the US: February
2002. Current population reports. Population characteristics. Washington, DC: US.
Government Printing Ofﬁce.

Utsey, S. O. (1998). Assessing the stressful effects of racism: A review of
instrumentation. Journal of Black Psychology, E, 269-288.

Valle, R, & Bensussen, G. (1985). Hispanic social networks, social support, and
mental health. In W. A. Vega & M. R. Miranda (Eds), Stress m Hispanic mental hem
Relating research to service delivery (pp. 147-173). Rockville, MD: National Institute of
Mental Health.

Valle, R, & Vega, W. (eds) (1980). Hispanic Natural Support Systems.
Sacramento, CA: Ofﬁce of Prevention, State of California, Department of Mental Health.

232

Vaux, A. (1988). Social support: Theory, research, and intervention. New York:
Praeger.

Vazquez L. A., & Garcia-Vazquez, E. (1995). Variables of success and stress with
Mexican American students. College Student Joum, 221-226.

Vega, W., Kolody, G., Valle, R, & Hough, R. (1986). Depressive symptoms and
their correlates among immigrant Mexican women in the United States. Social Science
Medicine 22, 645-652.

 

 

Vega, W. A., Warheit, G. J ., & Meinhardt, K. (1985). Mental health issues in the
Hispanic community: The prevalence of psychological distress. In W. A. Vega and M. R.
Miranda (Eds), Stress and Hispanic mental health: Relatirﬂsearch to service delivery
(pp.30—47). Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health.

Vega, W. A., Zimmerman, R, Gil, A., Warheit, G., & Apospori, E. (1993).
Acculturative strain theory: Its application in explaining drug use behavior among Cuban
and Non-Cuban Hispanic youth. In M. De La Rosa (Ed), Drug abuse amoag minority
mth: Adms in research and methodology. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Drug
Abuse.

Velez, M. (1995). The relationship between ethnic identity and acculturation in a
sample of Puerto Rican and Chinese college students (Doctoral dissertation, Long Island
University, 1994). Dissertation Abstracts International, 55(11).

Verdugo, R. R. (1995). Racial stratiﬁcation and the use of Hispanic faculty as
role models: Theory policy and practice. Joumalaof Hiaher Education. _6_6_, 669-685.

Vernon, S. W., & Roberts, R. E. (1982). Prevalence of treated and untreated
psychiatric disorders in three ethnic groups. S031 Science and Medicine. (6, 1575-1582.

Vernon, S. W., Roberts, R. E., & Lee, E. S. (1982). Response tendencies,
ethnicity, and depression scores. American Journal of Eademiolcgy, M, 482-495.

Warheit, G. J. (1979). Life events, coping, stress and depressive symptomatology.
American Jourad of Psychim 136( 4b ), 502-507.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to
experience aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 28, 465-490.

West, S. G., Finch, J.F., & Curran, P.J. (1995). Structural equation models with
nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Eds), Structural equation

modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 56-75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications. .

233

Weinstein, R (1998). Mexican Americap ethnic identity among monoethnic and
biethnic individuals: Personal_and environmental antecedents (Doctoral dissertation,
California School of Professional Psychology, San Diego, 1998). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 59(5-B): 2490.

Weissman, M. M., Bruce, M. L., Leaf, P. J., Florio, L. P., and Holzer, C. (1991).
Affective disorders. In L. N. Robins & D. A. Regiers (Eds), Psychiatric disorders in
America: The Epidemiologic Catchment Area Study (pp. 53-80). New York: Free Press.

 

Weisz, J. R, Rothbaum, F ., & Blackburn, T. C. (1984). Standing out and
standing in: The psychology of control in American and Japan. American Psychologis_t,
Q, 955-969.

Whisman, M. A., & Kwon, P. (1993). Life stress and dysphoria: The role of self-
esteem and hopelessness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Q, 1054-1060.

Williams, C. L., & Berry, J. W. (1991). Primary prevention of acculturative stress
among reﬁigees: Application of psychological theory and practice. American
Psychologist 46 632-641.

)—,

Wood, J. M., Tataryn, D. J ., & Gorsuch, R. L. (1996). Effects under and
overextraction on principal axis factor analysis with varimax rotation. Psycholagical
Methods, _1_, 354-365.

Wood, W., Rhodes, N., & Whelan, M. (1989). Sex differences in positive well-
being: A consideration of emotional style and marital status. Psychological Bulletin. 106,
249—264.

Worden, J. W., & Sobel, H. J. (1978). Ego strength and psychosocial adaptation
to cancer. Psychosomatic Medicine. $0, 585-592.

Wortman, C ., & Dunkel-Schetter, C. (1987). Conceptual and methodological
issues in the study of social support. In A. Baum & J. Singer (Eds), Handbook of
Psychology and Health. Volume V: Stress. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Young, G. (1992). Chicana college students on the Texas-Mexico border:
Tradition and transformation. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences. 15, 341-253.

Zane, N., & Mak, W. (2000). Major Approaches to the Measurement of
Acculturation amongaEthnic Minority Populations: A Content Analysis and an
Alternative Empiricﬂ Strategy Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Santa
Barbara.

Zeidner, M., & Endler, N. S. (1996). H_andbook of copirag. New York: John Wiley
& Sons.

234

   

u(illirlggmrujj)igi)”(trim