nicotine & tobacco research, volume 15, number 5 (May 2013) 957–968
Original investigatiOn
a longitudinal analysis of Hispanic Youth acculturation
and Cigarette smoking: the roles of gender, Culture,
Family, and Discrimination
Elma I. Lorenzo-Blanco MS1, Jennifer B. Unger PhD2, Anamara Ritt-Olson PhD2, Daniel Soto MPH2,
Lourdes Baezconde-Garbanati PhD2
1Departments
of Psychology & Women’s Studies, University of Michigan Substance Abuse Research Center, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; 2University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA
Corresponding Author: Elma I. Lorenzo-Blanco, M.S., Departments of Psychology & Women’s Studies, University of
Michigan Substance Abuse Research Center, University of Michigan, 530 Church Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA.
Telephone: 734-383-0917; Fax: 734-615-2931; E-mail: elmalb@umich.edu
Received November 16, 2011; accepted August 8, 2012
abstraCt
introduction: Risk for smoking initiation increases as Hispanic youth acculturate to U.S. society, and this association seems
to be stronger for Hispanic girls than boys. To better understand the influence of culture, family, and everyday discrimination on
cigarette smoking, we tested a process-oriented model of acculturation and cigarette smoking.
Methods: Data came from Project RED (Reteniendo y Entendiendo Diversidad para Salud), which included 1,436 Hispanic
students (54% girls) from Southern California. We used data from 9th to 11th grade (85% were 14 years old, and 86% were
U.S. born) to test the influence of acculturation-related experiences on smoking over time.
results: Multigroup structural equation analysis suggested that acculturation was associated with increased familismo and
lower traditional gender roles, and enculturation was linked more with familismo and respeto. Familismo, respeto, and traditional gender roles were linked with lower family conflict and increased family cohesion, and these links were stronger for girls.
Familismo and respeto were further associated with lower discrimination. Conversely, fatalismo was linked with worse family
functioning (especially for boys) and increased discrimination in both the groups. Discrimination was the only predictor of
smoking for boys and girls.
Conclusions: In all, the results of the current study indicate that reducing discrimination and helping youth cope with discrimination may prevent or reduce smoking in Hispanic boys and girls. This may be achieved by promoting familismo and respeto
and by discouraging fatalistic beliefs.
intrODuCtiOn
Every day, about 4,000 youth in the United States try their
first cigarette, and ~1,000 of these adolescents become regular smokers (SAMHSA, 2010). Among Hispanic youth, risk
for smoking initiation increases with acculturation to the
dominant U.S. culture, and Hispanic girls’ smoking is more
strongly influenced by acculturation than the smoking of boys
(Epstein, Botvin, & Diaz, 1998; Lorenzo-Blanco, Unger,
Ritt-Olson, Soto, & Baezcondi-Garbanati, 2011). To date, the
process by which acculturation leads to smoking is not completely understood. Cigarette smoking is the leading cause of
preventable death in the United States (Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention 2009). It is, therefore, vital to understand why acculturation increases Hispanic youth smoking
and why this is especially true for girls. This knowledge can
inform smoking prevention and intervention strategies aimed
at reducing smoking among the largest and fastest growing
group of young people in the United States (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2010).
Acculturation, Enculturation, and Cigarette Smoking
Traditionally, Hispanic acculturation was defined as a unidimensional process in which Hispanic youth abandoned the
practices, values, and identifications of their Hispanic culture
to adopt those of the dominant U.S. society. Today, multidimensional acculturation theory recognizes that Hispanic youth
can simultaneously acculturate and enculturate. Enculturation
is the process by which Hispanic youth learn about and engage
in their Hispanic cultural practices, values, and identifications (Schwartz, Unger, Zamboanga, & Szapocznik, 2010).
Acculturation scholars propose that enculturation protects from
and acculturation increases smoking risk (De la Rosa, 2002).
Though acculturation has been linked with elevated smoking
in Hispanic youth, especially for girls (Epstein et al., 1998;
doi:10.1093/ntr/nts204
Advance Access publication October 29, 2012
© The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco.
All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com
957
acculturation, gender, smoking, Hispanic youth
Lorenzo-Blanco et al., 2011), past studies are based on unidimensional models of acculturation and have seldom accounted
for the simultaneous influence of acculturation and enculturation on youth smoking (Epstein et al., 1998). Also, studies have
relied on proxies of acculturation (e.g., language proficiency)
to represent complex lived experiences (Schwartz et al., 2010).
These strategies have provided a fragmented understanding of
why acculturation is linked with increased smoking. Research
that investigates the experiences that accompany acculturation
and that identifies acculturation-related experiences linked
with smoking risk is needed. Past research has similarly treated
gender as a proxy for complex gendered experiences (Cole,
2009), offering a limited understanding of why girls are more
affected by acculturation than their male counterparts. Since
acculturation-related experiences can differ for boys and girls,
it is vital to investigate how acculturation-related experiences
vary by gender to elevate or reduce smoking.
Everyday Discrimination and Family Functioning
One acculturation-related experience is everyday discrimination, defined as perceived daily experiences of unfair, differential treatment (Guyll, Matthews, & Bromberger, 2001).
Hispanic youth experience discrimination, and boys report
more discriminatory experiences than girls (Lorenzo-Blanco
et al., 2011). Moreover, acculturation has been linked
with more frequent discrimination in boys and girls (Kam,
Cleveland, & Hecht, 2010), and discrimination links with
elevated smoking in Hispanic boys (Wiehe, Aalsma, Liu, &
Fortenberry, 2010) and girls (Lorenzo-Blanco et al., 2011).
Thus, discrimination may explain the link between acculturation and smoking risk.
Hispanic youth also experience family conflict as they
acculturate to the dominant U.S. culture (Céspedes & Huey,
2008), and family conflict has been linked with increased substance use (Canino, Vega, Sribney, Warner, & Alegria, 2008).
Evidence indicates that Hispanic females are more negatively affected by family conflict than their male counterparts
(Sarmiento & Cardemil, 2009). Consequently, increased family conflict as a result of acculturation may explain why girls’
smoking is more affected by acculturation than boys’ smoking.
In addition to family conflict and everyday discrimination,
acculturation can be accompanied by a loss of family cohesion
(Miranda, Estrada, & Firpo-Jimenez, 2000). Family cohesion
entails perceptions of family closeness, communication, and
support (Olson, Portner, & Bell, 1982). Low family cohesion
relates to increased smoking in Hispanic women (Coonrod,
Balcazar, Brady, Garcia, & Van Tine, 1999). Although studies
have not documented gender differences in family cohesion
among Hispanic youth, non-Latina White female college
students reported higher levels of family cohesion than their
male counterparts, and their mental health was more negatively
influenced by low family cohesion than the mental health of
males (Durell Johnson, Lavoie, & Mahoney, 2001). Gendered
experiences of family cohesion may further shed light onto why
Hispanic girls are more negatively influenced by acculturation
than boys.
Hispanic Cultural Values
Hispanic youth are often raised according to Hispanic cultural values and ways of interaction that differ from those of
958
the dominant U.S. culture (Azmitia & Brown, 2002). Hispanic
cultural values are thought to protect against external stress, to
discourage family conflict, and to promote a strong orientation toward the family (Gonzales, Deardorff, Formoso, Barr, &
Barrera, 2006; Rivera et al., 2008). With acculturation, youth
may disengage from, or not learn about, these protective cultural
values, thereby increasing their smoking risk (Gil, Wagner, &
Vega, 2000). The cultural value of familismo emphasizes trust
between family members, loyalty to the family, and a general
orientation to the family. The cultural value of respeto dictates
deferential behavior toward relatives and maintains family harmony (Azmitia & Brown, 2002). Low familismo and respeto
relate to more substance use, and acculturation has been linked
with less familismo and respeto (Gil et al., 2000). The cultural
value of fatalismo encompasses the belief that one cannot
control the future. Fatalismo has been portrayed as a culturally rooted adaptive response to external stress in collectivistic cultures where it promotes social support (Neff & Hoppe,
1993), possibly by de-emphasizing personal control, responsibility, and blame for negative life circumstances or perceived
failure. Although studies have failed to find a direct relationship between fatalismo and substance use (Unger et al., 2002),
fatalismo may influence smoking indirectly by way of family
functioning and discrimination.
Hispanic children are also frequently socialized according
to traditional gender roles that afford boys more freedom than
girls (Zayas, Lester, Cabassa, & Fortuna, 2005). For example,
it is more acceptable for boys to smoke cigarettes and venture
outside the home than it is for girls (Marsiglia, Kulis, Hussaini,
Nieri, & Becerra, 2010). Scholars postulate that Hispanic girls
acculturate faster than boys, embracing the liberty that comes
with less traditional gender roles (Zayas et al., 2005). As a
result, girls may experience more family conflict and less cohesion when parents and other relatives impose rules on them and
when they rebel against these gendered restrictions. Hispanic
girls endorse more liberal gender role attitudes than boys
(Valenzuela, 1999), possibly leading to difficulties in the family
domain (Zayas et al., 2005).
The Current Study
The current study integrated extant empirical research and theory on acculturation and substance use into a process-oriented
model to better understand how diverse acculturation-related
experiences influence each other and unfold in the everyday
lives of Hispanic youth to influence smoking risk. We also
examined how this process differed for boys and girls because
acculturation-related experiences can be gendered. Based on
research reviewed above, we developed the model illustrated in
Figure 1. We utilized data from a three-wave longitudinal study
to establish time precedence of acculturation-related experiences
and smoking and because acculturation is a process that unfolds
over time (Smart & Smart, 1995). Our model (Figure 1) proposes that acculturation (wave 1) is negatively associated with
cultural values (wave 2), and enculturation (wave 1) is positively
associated with cultural values (wave 2). We also expected cultural values (wave 2) to be positively associated with family
cohesion and to be negatively associated with family conflict
and discrimination (wave 2). Finally, we expected discrimination and family conflict (wave 2) to predict increased smoking
(wave 3) and we anticipated family cohesion (wave 2) to predict
nicotine & tobacco research, volume 15, number 5 (May 2013)
Figure 1. Hypothesized model showing all expected relationships and their predicted valence. Covariates were age, socioeconomic status, friend smoking, and adult smoking.
less smoking (wave 3). We also expected to find gender effects.
Specifically, we anticipated the links between cultural values and
family functioning to be stronger for girls than for boys, and we
expected family functioning to more strongly predict girls’ than
boys’ smoking.
MetHODs
Participants
Participants included 1,436 Hispanic students who participated
in Project RED (Reteniendo y Entendiendo Diversidad para
Salud), a three-wave study of acculturation and substance use
among Southern California youth (Unger, Ritt-Olson, Wagner,
Soto, & Baezconde-Garbanati, 2009). Participants self-identified
as Latino/a or Hispanic. About 54% of participants were female,
85% were 14 years old, and 86% were U.S. born. The majority of
the students in the current study (85%) had a Mexico-born parent, grandparent, or great-grandparent, followed by the United
States (30%), El Salvador (8%), Guatemala (6%), Honduras
(1%), and Spain (1%). Over half of the students (56%) reported
speaking “English and another language equally” at home, 17%
of the students reported “speaking mostly English” at home,
12% reported “speaking only another language at home,” and
14% reported “speaking mostly another language” at home.
Likewise, about 36% of the students reported speaking “mostly
English” with friends, 33% reported speaking “only English”
with friends, and 29% reported speaking “English and another
language equally” with friends.
Data Source and Procedure
Youth were enrolled when they were in 9th grade, attending
seven high schools in the Los Angeles area. Schools were
invited to participate if they contained at least 70% of Hispanic
students, as indicated by the California Board of Education.
Sampling included an emphasis on schools with a wide range
of socioeconomic characteristics. The median annual household incomes in the ZIP codes served by the schools ranged
from $29,000 to $73,000, according to 2000 census data.
Because students were sampled from seven schools, we calculated intraclass correlations (ICC) that were low and did not
affect the results.
The 9th grade survey (Year 1) was administered in the Fall
of 2005, the 10th grade survey (Year 2) in the Fall of 2006,
and the and 11th grade survey (Year 3) in the Fall of 2007.
In 2005, all 9th graders attending selected schools (n = 3,218)
were invited to participate in the survey. Of those, 75%
(n = 2,420) provided parental consent and student assent. Of
the 2,420 students who provided consent and assent, 2,222
(92%) completed the survey in the 9th grade. Of the 2,222
students who completed the 9th grade survey, 1,773 (80%)
also completed surveys in the 10th and the 11th grades with
182 (8%) students completing the survey in the 10th grade but
not in the 11th grade, 50 students (2%) completing the survey
in the 11th grade but not in the 10th grade, and 217 (10%)
students were lost to attrition before the 10th grade survey.
Because the current study investigated Hispanic acculturation,
we only retained data from students who self-identified as
either Hispanic, Latino/a, Mexican, Mexican American,
Chicano/a, Central American, South American, Mestizo, La
Raza, or Spanish in Year 1 (N = 1,922). We used data from
Years 1, 2, and 3, and 486 students were excluded from the
analysis due to missing data. This resulted in a final sample
of 1,436 students. A comparison of study variables at time 1
between the final (N = 1,436) and omitted sample (n = 486)
revealed differences. While students in the final sample
scored significantly higher on acculturation (M = 0.65,
SD = 1.39, and M = 0.62, SD = 1.60, respectively) (p < .001;
959
acculturation, gender, smoking, Hispanic youth
d = .26) and familismo (M = 3.36, SD = 0.57 and M = 3.23,
SD = 0.65, respectively) (p < .001; d = .20), students in the
omitted sample scored higher on traditional gender roles
(M = 2.25, SD = .63, and M = 2.18, SD = 0.62, respectively)
(p < .05; d = −.12). Students in the final sample (8.1%) were
also more likely to have smoked cigarettes in the past 30 days
than students in the omitted sample (5.0%) (p < .05; φ = .05)
and they were more likely to report adult smoking (33.8%)
than the omitted sample (23.3%) (p < .001; φ = .10).
Measures
Acculturation and Enculturation
We used 10 items from the short form of the Revised
Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans
(ARSMA-II; Cuéllar, Arnold, & Maldonado, 1995). Five items
came from the Anglo orientation and five from the Hispanic
orientation subscales (see Unger et al., 2009 for a detailed
description). Adolescents indicated on a 5-point scale (1 = not
at all to 5 = almost always/extremely often) how much they did
or enjoyed certain activities (e.g., speaking Spanish/English,
reading books in English, and watching TV in Spanish)
(Cronbach’s α = .75 for the United States and .88 for Hispanic
orientation).
Everyday Discrimination
Everyday discrimination was measured with 10 items (Guyll
et al., 2001). A sample item was, “You are treated with less
respect than other people.” Adolescents indicated the frequency
of each experience (4 = often to 1 = never). Higher scores represent more experiences of everyday discrimination (Cronbach’s
α = .88).
Family Cohesion
Family cohesion was assessed with six questions from FACES
II (Olson et al., 1982). These were selected because they had
the highest factor loadings in a study with a comparable sample
(Unger, unpublished data). A sample item was, “Family members feel very close to each other.” Higher scores represent
more cohesion (Cronbach’s α = .77).
Family Conflict
Family conflict was measured with six items from FACES II
(Olson et al., 1982). These were selected because they had
the highest factor loadings in a study with a comparable sample (Unger, unpublished data). A sample item was, “We have
difficulty thinking of things to do as a family.” Response
choices ranged from 1 = almost never to 6 = almost always.
Higher scores represent more family conflict (Cronbach’s
α = .69).
Familismo
Four items assessed familismo. Three of the items came from the
familismo scale described by Sabogal, Marín, Otero-Sabogal, &
Marín (1987), and one item from the familismo scale described
by Cuéllar et al. (1995). The four items had the highest factor
loadings in an earlier study (Unger et al., 2002). Youth indicated (1 = definitely no to 4 = definitely yes) the likelihood
of their families engaging in family-oriented behaviors. Higher
scores represent greater familismo (Cronbach’s α = .79).
960
Respeto
Four items assessed respeto. A sample item included “It is
important to honor my parents.” Youth indicated their agreement on a 4-point scale (1 = definitely no to 4 = definitely yes)
(Cronbach’s α = .89).
Traditional Gender Roles
Seven items assessed traditional gender roles. Items came
from the MACCSF (Cuéllar et al., 1995). They were selected
because they had the highest factor loadings. Adolescents indicated (1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree) their agreement with statements such as, “Boys should not be allowed
to play with dolls and other girls’ toys.” Higher scores reflect
more traditional gender roles (Cronbach’s α = .80).
Fatalismo
Four items assessed fatalismo. Items came from the MACCSF
(Cuéllar et al., 1995). They were selected because they had
the highest factor loadings on their respective scales and did
not load highly on other scales. Youth indicated the degree
(1 = definitely no to 4 = definitely yes) to which they endorsed
fatalistic beliefs: “It’s more important to enjoy life now than
to plan for the future.” Higher scores denote more fatalismo
(Cronbach’s α = .78).
Past-30-Day Smoking
One item assessed youth’s smoking: “During the past 30 days,
on how many days did you smoke cigarettes?” Responses were
rated on a 7-point scale (1 = 0 days, 2 = 1 or 2 days, 3 = 3 to 5
days, 4 = 6 to 9 days, 5 = 10 to 19 days, 6 = 20 to 29 days, 7 =
all 30 days). We recoded responses to 0 days versus all other
due to skewed distributions.
Adult Smoking
One question assessed adult smoking: “Think of the two (2)
adults that you spend the most time with. How many of them
smoke cigarettes every day or most days?” Response options
included none or 0, 1 of them, and 2 of them. We recoded
responses to none or 0 adults versus 1 or 2 adults. We controlled for adult smoking to rule this out as an alternative explanation for youth smoking (Tyas & Pederson, 1998).
Friend Smoking
Adolescents were asked to think of their five best friends at
school. Next, they indicated whether any of their friends had
ever tried cigarettes. This variable was dummy coded as yes =
1 and no = 0. Friend smoking is the most consistent predictor
of youth smoking. Thus, we controlled for friend smoking to
rule this out as an alternative explanation for youth smoking
(Tyas & Pederson, 1998).
Demographic Characteristics
Age, gender, and socioeconomic status (SES) were self-reported.
We used father’s and mother’s education as indicators of SES.
Students responded to one question (once for their father and
once for their mother): “What is the highest grade completed by
your father/mother?” Response options were 1 = 8th grade or
less, 2 = Some high school, 3 = High school graduate, 4 = Some
college, 5 = College graduate, and 6 = Advanced degree. Data
from students who did not know their parents’ educational level
were treated as missing.
nicotine & tobacco research, volume 15, number 5 (May 2013)
table 1. Descriptive Characteristics for Overall Sample, Girls, and Boys
Overall sample
(N = 1,436)
No. (%) or M (SD)
Girls
(N = 775)
No. (%) or M
(SD)
Boys
(N = 634)
No. (%) or M
(SD)
–
107 (7.5)
1,220 (85.0)
106 (7.4)
3 (0.2)
–
63 (8.1)
667 (86.1)
44 (5.7)
1 (0.1)
–
40 (6.3)
531 (83.8)
61 (9.6)
2 (0.3)
1,229 (85.6)
172 (12.0)
35 (2.4)
0.65 (0.14)
0.43 (0.20)
1.56 (0.56)
3.12 (0.90)
2.22 (0.79)
3.36 (0.60)
3.71 (0.52)
2.04 (0.64)
2.89 (0.73)
91 (6.3)
671 (86.6)
87 (11.2)
17 (2.2)
0.68 (0.13)
0.45 (0.20)
1.51 (0.54)
3.15 (0.93)
2.24 (0.83)
3.40 (0.55)
3.75 (0.44)
1.79 (0.52)
2.95 (0.71)
30 (3.9)
535 (84.4)
82 (12.9)
17 (2.7)
0.61 (0.15)
0.40 (0.21)
1.84 (0.60)
3.30 (0.81)
2.20 (0.72)
3.27 (0.63)
3.69 (0.55)
2.46 (0.60)
2.92 (0.67)
60 (9.5)
266 (18.5)
276 (19.2)
242 (16.9)
147 (19.0)
166 (21.4)
120 (15.5)
111 (17.5)
104 (16.4)
117 (18.5)
128 (8.9)
63 (4.4)
21 (1.5)
440 (30.6)
64 (8.3)
35 (4.5)
11 (1.4)
232 (29.9)
64 (10.1)
27 (4.3)
9 (1.4)
202 (31.9)
287 (20.0)
284 (19.8)
263 (18.3)
168 (21.7)
185 (23.9)
132 (17.0)
111 (17.5)
97 (15.3)
126 (19.9)
143 (10.0)
92 (6.4)
24 (1.7)
343 (23.9)
692 (48.2)
486 (33.8)
76 (9.8)
48 (6.2)
14 (1.8)
152 (19.6)
365 (47.1)
249 (32.1)
64 (10.1)
41 (6.5)
10 (1.6)
185 (29.2)
313 (49.4)
225 (35.5)
Variables
Age
12 years or younger
13 years
14 years
15 years
16 years or older
Nativity
U.S. born
Foreign born
Missing
Acculturation
Enculturation
Perceived discrimination
Family cohesion
Family conflict
Familismo
Respeto
Gender roles
Fatalismo
Past-30-day smoking
Father’s education
8th grade or less
Some high school
High school
graduate
Some college
College degree
Advanced degree
Missing
Mother’s education
8th grade or less
Some high school
High school
graduate
Some college
College degree
Advanced degree
Missing
Friend smoking
Adult smoking
Note. We lost 27 participants in the descriptive data by gender due to missing values on youth gender.
Analytic Plan
results
We conducted all descriptive analyses with SPSS 19.0. We
tested for gender differences with t tests for continuous and
χ² tests for categorical variables. To perform structural equation modeling with latent variables, we used Mplus Version
6.1 (Muthén & Muthén, 2010). Missing data were handled in
Mplus 6.1 with weighted least squares estimation. Weighted
least squares estimation uses all available data, except for missing values on covariates (i.e., age, SES, friend and adult smoking in the current study). Weighted least squares estimation is
superior to other missing data techniques (e.g., list-wise and
pair-wise deletion) in terms of model estimation, bias, and efficiency. It is also relatively equivalent to multiple imputation
techniques (Asparouhov & Muthén, 2010).
Descriptive Analyses
Table 1 shows descriptive characteristics for the overall sample (N = 1,436) for girls and boys. The mean age
was 13.97 years (SD = 0.4), and boys were slightly older
(M = 14.0, SD = 0.4) than girls (M = 13.95, SD = 0.4) (p
< .05). Compared with boys, girls had higher mean scores
on acculturation (p < .001), enculturation (p < .001),
familismo (p < .05), respeto (p < .05), and fatalismo (p <
.05). Compared with girls, boys had higher mean scores on
everyday discrimination (p < .05) and traditional gender
roles (p < .001). Boys were also more likely to have smoked
cigarettes in the past 30 days (p < .001).
961
acculturation, gender, smoking, Hispanic youth
Table 2 shows correlations among all constructs. Although
many of these correlations were statistically significant, their
magnitude was small to moderate, suggesting low multicollinearity. We also conducted a multicollinearity diagnostic test in
version 19 of SPSS which further indicated that multicollinearity was not a problem. The variance inflation factors (VIF)
were relatively low, ranging from 1.02 to 1.61.
Overall Structural Equation Modeling
Prior to modeling, we randomly assigned and averaged items
for constructs consisting of five or more items into two to three
manifest indicators (Little, Cunningham, Shahar, & Widaman,
2002). For example, everyday discrimination items were
randomly parceled into three indicators of the latent factor
“everyday discrimination.” Next, we conducted structural
equation modeling with latent variables to test our hypothesized
model (see Figure 1). First, we estimated the measurement model
for the latent variables to ensure that the psychometric properties
of the measures were adequate and loaded on the hypothesized
factors (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Hereby, we estimated a
measurement model for each construct separately, then for each
pair of constructs, combining them two by two before estimating
the measurement model for all the constructs in one model
(Jöreskog, 1993). The only exception to this procedure was
with past-30-day smoking, age, SES, friend smoking, and adult
smoking. We evaluated overall fit with the comparative fit index
(CFI), the chi-square test of model fit (χ²), and the root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA) (Hu & Bentler, 1998).
The overall measurement model produced excellent fit indices (CFI = .972; RMSEA = .027, 90% CI [.025, .030]; χ² = 702,
df = 289, p < .001). After testing the measurement model, we
estimated the structural model (Figure 1) (Anderson & Gerbing,
1988). The structural model provided a good fit to the data
(CFI = .924; RMSEA = .027, 90% CI [.025, .030]; χ² = 872,
df = 418, p < .001). As shown in Figure 2, standardized path coefficients suggested that acculturation was associated with higher
familismo (β = .15) and lower traditional gender roles (β = −.27).
Enculturation was also linked with higher familismo (β = .15),
higher respeto (β = .14), and lower traditional gender roles
(β = −.08). Familismo and respeto related with lower levels of discrimination (β = −.13 and β = −.08, respectively),
lower family conflict (β = −.16 and β = −.32, respectively), and higher family cohesion (β = .25 and β = .29,
respectively). Fatalismo was associated with more frequent discrimination (β = .08), more family conflict (β
= .22), and lower levels of family cohesion (β = −.16).
Everyday discrimination (β = .17) was the only significant predictor of past-30-day smoking.
Multigroup Structural Equation Modeling: Gender as a
Moderator
We examined gender as a moderator with multigroup structural
equation modeling. First, we reestimated the fit of our model
with the overall sample (N = 1,436), while constraining both the
measurement and structural models to equality between boys
and girls. As shown in Table 3, model fit indices of the fully
gender-invariant model were acceptable (Test 1 of Table 3).
Nevertheless, we sought to determine whether fit could be
improved and whether the form of the proposed model and/or
962
strength of relations among the variables differed between boys
and girls. Next, we permitted the measurement errors of the
indicators to differ between genders (Test 2 of Table 3). This
resulted in a significant improvement in model fit as indicated by
a significant ∆χ². We then examined whether the strength of the
structural paths depicted in Figure 1 differed for boys and girls.
To do so, we systematically removed the gender equality
constraint on each individual path, and examined whether
allowing paths to differ between boys and girls resulted in significant model fit improvement. Table 3 illustrates the results of
this process. Test 1 examined the fully gender-invariant model,
and Test 3 allowed the measurement error and the path from
acculturation to familismo to vary by gender. This change did
not result in significant model fit improvement when compared
with Test 2. In Test 4, we removed the gender-equality constraint on the path from enculturation to familismo, and in Test
5 we allowed the path from acculturation to respeto to vary by
gender. None of these changes resulted in significant model fit
improvement, compared with Test 2. We continued this process
until we had allowed each path depicted in Figure 1 to differ by
gender. In all, we tested 26 different models. Test 26 allowed
those paths to vary by gender that had resulted in significant
model fit improvement (i.e., Tests 11 through 18) while keeping those paths constrained that had not resulted in significant
model fit improvement (i.e., Tests 3 through 10 and Tests 19
through 25). That is, Test 26 allowed the paths from familismo,
respeto, gender roles, and fatalismo to family conflict to vary
by gender. It also allowed the paths from familismo, respeto,
gender roles, and fatalismo to family cohesion to vary by gender. Test 26 resulted in significant model fit improvement (p
< .001), compared with Test 2. Test 26 had the best model fit
compared with any of the other tests. Figure 3 shows the results
of the structural form of Test 26.
As illustrated in Figure 3, acculturation was positively
associated with familismo in boys and girls (p < .001), and it
was negatively associated with traditional gender roles in both
groups (p < .001). Enculturation was associated with higher
familismo and respeto for boys and girls (p < .001). Familismo
and gender roles, in turn, were linked with lower family conflict for girls (p < .001 and p < .05, respectively) but not for
boys. Respeto was related with lower family conflict for both
groups (p < .001), but this association was stronger for girls
(β = −.343) than boys (β = −.342). Conversely, fatalismo was
associated with more family conflict for both groups (p < .001)
but this link was stronger for boys (β = .27) compared with
girls (β = .18). Moreover, familismo and respeto were linked
with lower discrimination in both genders (p < .05 and p < .05,
respectively) and higher family cohesion in girls (p < .001 and
p < .001, respectively) and boys (p < .05 and p < .001, respectively). However, the links of familismo and respeto with family
cohesion were stronger for girls (β = .25 and β = .40, respectively) than boys (β = .23 and β = .23, respectively). Gender
roles were also linked with more family cohesion in girls (p
< .05) but not in boys. Fatalismo was associated with higher
levels of discrimination in both groups (p < .05 and p < .05,
respectively), and it was related with lower family cohesion
in both genders (p < .05), but this connection was stronger for
boys (β = −.17) than girls (β = −.13). Discrimination was the
only predictor of smoking in both groups (p < .05).
In sum, structural multigroup analyses showed that boys
and girls experience a loss in traditional gender roles as they
adopt aspects of the dominant non-Latino/a White culture. This
table 2.
Intercorrelations Between All Study Variables
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
_
−.08*
−.08**
−.02
.05
.02
.05
−.02
−.05
−.03
−.07*
.02
.05
.01
.03
.04
_
.19**
.13**
−.08**
−.02
.03
.07*
.09**
−.43**
.09**
−.14**
−.04
−.12**
−.02
−.04
_
−.12**
−.07*
−.00**
.04
.10**
.02
−.20**
−.03
−.05
−.01
−.02
−.02
−.00
_
.04
.16**
−.06*
.09**
.11**
−.05
.04
−.08*
−.04
−.06*
−.06*
−.06*
_
−.08**
.21**
−.14**
−.13**
.05
.04
.14**
−.02
−.04
.12**
.06*
_
−.30**
.30**
.33**
.07**
−.04
−.11**
−.00
.03
−.10**
−.05**
_
−.22**
−.28**
−.02
.09**
.11**
−.01
−.02
.09**
.10**
_
.46**
.03
.15**
−.09**
−.03
−.01
−.08**
−.03
_
.05
.17**
.08*
−.04
−.02
−.11**
−.05
_
.10**
.03
.02
.08**
.05
.03
_
.01
.01
.06*
.05
.04
_
.00
.01
.16**
.12**
_
.63**
−.06*
−.05
_
−.04
−.02
−
.14**
–
Note. Categorical measures: Gender, past-30-day smoking, father’s education, mother’s education, friend smoking, and adult smoking. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.
963
nicotine & tobacco research, volume 15, number 5 (May 2013)
1. Age
2. Gender
3. Acculturation
4. Enculturation
5. Discrimination
6. Family cohesion
7. Family conflict
8. Familismo
9. Respeto
10. Gender roles
11. Fatalismo
12. Past-30-day smoking
13. Father’s education
14. Mother’s education
15. Friend smoking
16. Adult smoking
1
acculturation, gender, smoking, Hispanic youth
Figure 2. Initial structural model. Standardized path coefficients for the overall sample (N = 1,436). Dashed lines indicate nonsignificant paths. Error variances and their respective covariances are missing from the diagram to avoid complexity. Covariates
were age, socioeconomic status, friend smoking, and adult smoking.
loss in traditional gender roles predisposes girls but not boys to
higher family conflict and lower family cohesion. Moreover,
boys and girls gain familismo with acculturation and enculturation, and both genders reported more respeto with enculturation. This gain in familismo and respeto protects boys and girls
from everyday discriminatory experiences, which in turn were
associated with more frequent smoking for both genders. In
other words, acculturation and enculturation protect Hispanic
youth from smoking by promoting familismo and respeto that
were linked with less discrimination.
DisCussiOn
The present study integrated research on acculturation, culture,
discrimination, and family into a process-oriented model to
better understand the link between acculturation and increased
smoking in Hispanic youth. We also assessed how this process
differed for boys and girls to shed light onto why girls’ smoking is more negatively affected by acculturation than the smoking of boys (Epstein et al., 1998). This knowledge can guide
the development of culture- and gender-sensitive smoking prevention and intervention efforts for Hispanic youth.
Our descriptive data revealed some significant gender differences. Boys were twice as likely to have smoked cigarettes in
the past 30 days compared with girls. Boys also reported more
frequent encounters with everyday discrimination and they
scored higher on their endorsement of traditional gender roles.
Girls, on the other hand, scored higher on familismo, respeto,
and fatalismo. Generally, these findings indicate that Hispanic
boys are at greater risk for cigarette smoking than Hispanic
girls, which may in part be due to boys experiencing more frequent everyday discrimination than girls. Discrimination was
the only significant predictor of youth smoking and understanding reasons for why boys experience more discrimination
than girls may help in the development of smoking prevention
programs tailored to the needs of Hispanic boys.
964
Our results further show that Hispanic boys and girls have
more similar, than different, acculturation-related experiences.
For boys and girls, cultural values were linked with family functioning and discrimination, and discrimination predicted smoking in both groups. However, familismo, respeto, and traditional
gender roles were more strongly linked with family functioning
in girls. This indicates that acculturative and enculturative processes may be more relevant for girls’ than boys’ family functioning. For boys and girls, acculturation was linked with more
familismo and less traditional gender roles. However, these cultural values more strongly influenced girls’ than boys’ family
functioning. Although acculturation may play a greater role for
girls’ family lives than for boys’ family lives, family functioning was not linked with smoking (above and beyond discrimination). This, however, does not mean that Hispanic youth are not
distressed by family-related difficulties. Strained family lives
may simply manifest in other externalizing and internalizing
problems.
Researchers propose that Hispanic girls acculturate faster
than boys because they embrace the freedom that comes with
less traditional gender roles. These greater changes in traditional
gender roles in girls compared with boys are thought to lead to
more strained family relations for girls (Zayas et al., 2005), possibly increasing their risk for substance use. The present study
empirically tested these ideas. Gender roles were more strongly
linked with family functioning in girls, but boys and girls experienced a loss in traditional gender roles with acculturation.
Reasons for why girls’ family functioning is more strongly
influenced by traditional gender roles, familismo, and respeto
remain unclear. Girls may feel guilty when family harmony is
at risk because in Hispanic culture, females are expected to be
caring, nurturing, and self-sacrificing, while males are expected
to protect and provide financial support to their families. These
feelings of guilt may lead girls to focus more on family problems than boys, even when boys and girls experience similar
levels of family conflict and harmony. Alternatively, parents
may impose more control and monitoring on daughters than
sons by way of familismo, respeto, and traditional gender roles
table 3.
Goodness-of-Fit Indices for the Multigroup Analysis by Gender
Model
df
RMSEA
CFI
∆χ²
∆df
Sig. ∆χ²
1,557
1,505
1,503
1,505
1,509
1,507
1,504
1,505
1,505
1,511
1,472
1,469
1,495
960
933
932
932
932
932
932
932
932
932
932
932
932
.03
.03
.03
.03
.03
.03
.03
.03
.03
.03
.03
.03
.03
.89
.89
.89
.89
.89
.89
.89
.89
.89
.89
.90
.90
.90
92
4
2
2
3
2
2
3
0
13
14
9
27
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
1,492
1,437
932
932
.03
.03
.90
.91
8
19
1
1
yes
yes
1,416
1,477
932
932
.03
.03
.91
.90
23
13
1
1
yes
yes
1,472
932
.03
.90
14
1
yes
1,529
1,529
1,506
932
932
932
.03
.03
.03
.89
.89
.89
0
0
3
1
1
1
no
no
no
1,522
1,507
1,506
1,507
1,348
932
932
932
932
925
.03
.03
.03
.03
.03
.89
.89
.89
.89
.92
0
1
1
1
74
1
1
1
1
8
no
no
no
no
yes
Note. Twenty-seven cases were dropped from the multigroup analysis due to missing values on youth gender. CFI = comparative fit index; df = degrees of freedom; RMSEA = root mean square error
of approximation.
965
nicotine & tobacco research, volume 15, number 5 (May 2013)
Test 1: Fully invariant by gender
Test 2: Gender constraint released on measurement error
Test 3: Gender constraint released on measurement error and acculturation → familismo
Test 4: Gender constraint released on measurement error and enculturation → familismo
Test 5: Gender constraint released on measurement error and acculturation → respeto
Test 6: Gender constraint released on measurement error and enculturation → respeto
Test 7: Gender constraint released on measurement error and acculturation → gender roles
Test 8: Gender constraint released on measurement error and enculturation → gender roles
Test 9: Gender constraint released on measurement error and acculturation → fatalismo
Test 10: Gender constraint released on measurement error and enculturation → fatalismo
Test 11: Gender constraint released on measurement error and familismo → family conflict
Test 12: Gender constraint released on measurement error and respeto → family conflict
Test 13: Gender constraint released on measurement error and gender roles → family
conflict
Test 14: Gender constraint released on measurement error and fatalismo → family conflict
Test 15: Gender constraint released on measurement error and familismo → family
cohesion
Test 16: Gender constraint released on measurement error and respeto → family cohesion
Test 17: Gender constraint released on measurement error and gender roles → family
cohesion
Test 18: Gender constraint released on measurement error and fatalismo → family
cohesion
Test 19: Gender constraint released on measurement error and familismo → discrimination
Test 20: Gender constraint released on measurement error and respeto → discrimination
Test 21: Gender constraint released on measurement error and gender roles →
discrimination
Test 22: Gender constraint released on measurement error and fatalismo → discrimination
Test 23: Gender constraint released on measurement error and family conflict → smoking
Test 24: Gender constraint released on measurement error and family cohesion → smoking
Test 25: Gender constraint released on measurement error and discrimination → smoking
Test 26: Gender constraint released on measurement error and familismo, respeto, gender
roles, fatalismo → conflict; familismo, respeto, gender roles, fatalismo → cohesion.
χ²
acculturation, gender, smoking, Hispanic youth
Figure 3. Results of the multigroup model. Standardized path coefficients for girls (n = 775) are in bold type, and results
for boys (n = 633) are in regular type. Dashed lines indicate nonsignificant paths (unless indicated). Twenty-seven cases were
dropped from the multigroup analysis due to missing values on youth gender. Error variances and their respective covariances are
missing from the diagram to avoid complexity. Covariates were age, socioeconomic status, friend smoking, and adult smoking.
(Halgunseth, Ispa, & Rudy, 2006). Hispanic parents are often
more concerned about negative peer influences for girls than
boys, and they use control or monitoring with their daughters
more than with their sons (Azmitia & Brown, 2002). This
gendered parenting may lead girls with lower endorsement of
familismo, respeto, and traditional gender roles to rebel against
parental control, causing family conflict and disharmony.
Additionally, these gendered parenting strategies may protect
girls from smoking indirectly by shielding them from everyday discrimination. Compared with boys, girls scored higher
on familismo and respeto, which were associated with less discrimination (the only significant predictor of smoking).
Surprisingly, acculturation was related with higher and not
lower levels of familismo. This was surprising because studies have shown negative associations between acculturation
and family closeness (Miranda et al., 2000). It is possible
that the association of acculturation with familismo depends
on the larger sociocultural context of U.S. Hispanic families.
Youth in the current study were predominantly U.S. born. The
parenting of parents with U.S.-born children may differ from
the parenting of parents with foreign-born youth. Parents of
U.S.-born children may increasingly emphasize familismo as
their children become acculturated because they may fear that
their U.S.-born children never learn about or disengage from
familistic values, which may be valued by parents because they
promote family cohesion and support. Family support may be
viewed as vital in the United States, where Hispanics experience discrimination and hostility outside the home (Kam et al.,
2010). Experiences of everyday discrimination may keep families from finding social support that does not involve the family
and other Hispanics, and parents may instill familistic values to
their children to ensure that they have access to social support
systems. That is, parents’ fear of their children lacking family support may encourage them to transmit familistic values to
greater degrees than they normally would. So, youth may have
966
had greater exposure to messages endorsing the importance of
familismo as they acculturate into the U.S. culture. Parents may
intuitively teach familismo in their parenting to protect their
children from the adverse effects of discrimination such as cigarette smoking. Familismo was associated with lower reports of
discrimination, and everyday discrimination was directly linked
with elevated smoking.
Interestingly, fatalismo was linked with less family cohesion and increased conflict, and these links were stronger for
boys. Youth who endorse fatalistic beliefs may experience adolescent angst, disillusionment, hopelessness, and lack of future
aspirations. Youth who lack motivation and a positive attitude
toward the future may experience increased family conflict
and feel less supported by parents when they try to encourage their children to make responsible decisions for the future.
Parents may encourage their sons more than their daughters to
take advantage of available opportunities in the United States
because in Hispanic culture men are responsible for the financial security of the family (Sarmiento & Cardemil, 2009). As
a result of these dynamics, boys with more fatalistic beliefs
may report more conflict and less cohesion. Moreover, youth
who feel disillusioned and hopeless about the future may have
a general pessimistic view of the world. They may also be more
apt to focus on negative experiences such as discrimination and
family conflict and report more of these instances (regardless
of whether they experience more discrimination and family
conflict) compared with youth with a more positive cognitive style. Boys may feel more hopeless about the future than
girls because they may feel to never be able to meet parental
standards of success in the United States where they experience
more discrimination than their non-Hispanic White peers and
female counterparts.
As expected, familismo and respeto were linked with less
discrimination. This indicates that familismo and respeto protect youth from experiences of unfair differential treatment.
nicotine & tobacco research, volume 15, number 5 (May 2013)
Youth who endorse familismo and respeto to greater degrees
may spend more time with their Hispanic families or other
Hispanic friends, and consequently, they may have fewer
opportunities to experience everyday discrimination against
them. Contrary to expectations, fatalismo was linked with
increased everyday discrimination. Reasons for why fatalismo
is linked with more discrimination are not clear. It is possible
that youth with fatalistic beliefs have more pessimistic views
of the world, possibly focusing on negative experiences such
as discrimination to greater degrees than focusing on positive
experiences. Understanding the connections between fatalismo, familismo, respeto, and discrimination is important.
These may be promising avenues for protecting youth from the
deleterious health consequences of everyday discrimination.
Discrimination was linked with more frequent smoking and
thus, understanding how fatalismo, familismo, and respeto link
with more or less frequent discrimination may help in reducing
Hispanic youth smoking.
The current study clearly suggests that reducing discrimination against Hispanic youth is vital, and this might be
especially important for Hispanic boys who reported more
discrimination and more smoking than girls. Discrimination
was directly linked with smoking in boys and girls, and this
association remained above and beyond the protective role
of family cohesion. Efforts should also be placed on helping
youth learn to cope with discriminatory acts against them. This
may be achieved by fostering familismo and respeto, both of
which were linked with lower reports of everyday discrimination. This may also be achieved by combating youth’s fatalistic
beliefs and possible negative interpretations of everyday experiences. Youth may be using cigarettes to cope with the potential distress caused by everyday discriminatory experiences.
Thus, it is important to combat discrimination against Hispanic
youth or help youth find ways to deal with discrimination in
more healthy ways. This may ultimately lead to reduced smoking among Hispanic youth. Most studies on Hispanic youth
acculturation and substance use have assessed the role of the
family. In the present study, everyday discrimination predicted
smoking above and beyond family functioning. These findings
highlight the need to investigate the roles of culture, family,
and also structural factors such as discrimination on Hispanic
youth smoking.
liMitatiOns anD COnClusiOns
There are limitations to this study. Our integrative model captured key sociocultural variables relevant to Hispanic youth
smoking, but it did not account for other factors linked with
smoking. Research shows that as Hispanics acculturate into the
dominant U.S. culture, their smoking norms and attitudes more
closely resemble those of the dominant U.S. culture, thereby
increasing Hispanic smoking (Marin, Marin, Otero-Sabogal,
Sabogal, & Perez-Stable, 1990). Girls may experience greater
changes in smoking norms than boys due to gendered smoking
norms in Hispanic culture (Marsiglia et al., 2010). This in turn
may explain why girls’ smoking is more influenced by acculturation than boys’ smoking. Smoking onset has also been
linked with genetic and biological factors (Heath, Kirk, Meyer,
& Martin, 1999; Li, 2003). Therefore, future research on
Hispanic youth smoking should extend our sociocultural model
with cognitive, genetic, and biological determinants of smoking. Moreover, all data were obtained via youth self-report preventingus from examining parents’ and teachers’ evaluations
of youth smoking. Students may have underreported their cigarette use. Thus, future studies should collect data from various
informants to avoid this self-report bias.
Despite these limitations, this study contributes to the
research on Hispanic youth acculturation and smoking. We
examined the process by which acculturation-related experiences unfold to influence each other to influence youth smoking, and we investigated how this process differed for boys and
girls. We were able to identify promising areas for future prevention and intervention research. Hispanic youth are at risk
for cigarette smoking, and they belong to the largest and fastest
growing immigrant group in the United States. So, to the extent
that acculturation leads to cigarette smoking, it is important to
understand why.
FunDing
This work was supported by the National Institute on Drug
Abuse (Grant DA016310) and the University of Michigan
Substance Abuse Research Center/NIDA Predoctoral Training
Fellowship (Grant T32DA007267).
DeClaratiOn OF interests
None declared.
reFerenCes
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation
modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step
approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411.
Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2010). Weighted least squares
estimation with missing data. Retrieved from http://www.
statmodel.com/download/GstrucMissingRevision.pdf
Azmitia, M., & Brown, J. (2002). Latino immigrant parents’
beliefs about the “Path of Life” of their adolescent children. In
J. M. Contreras, K. A. Kerns, & N. Barnett, (Eds.), Latino children and families in the United States: Current research and
future direction (pp. 77–105). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Canino, G., Vega, W. A., Sribney, W. M., Warner, L. A., &
Alegria, M. (2008). Social relationships, social assimilation,
and substance-use disorders among adult Latinos in the U.S.
Journal of Drug Issues, 38(1), 69–101.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2009). Smoking
attributage mortality, years of potential life lost, and productivity losses—United States, 2000–2004. Atlanta, GA:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Céspedes, Y. M., & Huey, S. J., Jr. (2008). Depression in Latino
adolescents: A cultural discrepancy perspective. Cultural
Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 14(2), 168–172.
doi: 10.1037/1099-9809.14.2.168
Cole, E. R. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American Psychologist, 64(3), 170–180. doi: 10.1037/
a0014564
Coonrod, D. V., Balcazar, H., Brady, J., Garcia, S., & Van Tine,
M. (1999). Smoking, acculturation and family cohesion
in Mexican-American women. Ethnicity & Disease, 9(3),
434–440.
Cuéllar, I., Arnold, B., & Maldonado, R. (1995). Acculturation
rating scale for Mexican Americans-II: A revision of the
967
acculturation, gender, smoking, Hispanic youth
original ARSMA scale. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral
Sciences, 17(3), 275–304.
De la Rosa, M. R. (2002). Acculturation and Latino adolescents’ substance use: A research agenda for the future.
Substance Use & Misuse, 37(4), 429–456.
Durell Johnson, H., Lavoie, J. C., & Mahoney, M. (2001).
Interparental conflict and family cohesion: Predictors of
loneliness, social anxiety, and social avoidance in late adolescence. Journal of Adolescent Research, 16(3), 302–318.
Epstein, J. A., Botvin, G. J., & Diaz, T. (1998). Linguistic
acculturation and gender effects on smoking among Hispanic
youth. Preventive Medicine: An International Journal
Devoted to Practice and Theory, 27(4), 583–589.
Gil, A. G., Wagner, E. F., & Vega, W. A. (2000). Acculturation,
familism and alcohol use among Latino adolescent males:
Longitudinal relations. Journal of Community Psychology,
28(4), 443–458. doi:10.1002/1520-6629(200007)
Gonzales, N. A., Deardorff, J., Formoso, D., Barr, A., &
Barrera, M., Jr. (2006). Family mediators of the relation
between acculturation and adolescent mental health. Family
Relations, 55(3), 318–330.
Guyll, M., Matthews, K. A., & Bromberger, J. T. (2001).
Discrimination and unfair treatment: Relationship to cardiovascular reactivity among African American and European
American women. Health Psychology, 20(5), 315–325. doi:
10.1037//0278-6133.20.5.315
Halgunseth, L.C., Ispa, J. M., & Rudy, D. (2006). Parental control in Latino families: An integrated review of the literature.
Child Development, 81(5), 1282–1297.
Heath, A. C., Kirk, K. M., Meyer, J. M., & Martin, N. G.
(1999). Genetic and social determinants of initiation and age
at onset of smoking in Australian twins. Behavior Genetics,
29(6), 395–407. doi:10.1023/A:1021670703806
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model
misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424.
Jöreskog, K. G. (1993). Testing structural equation models. In
B. B. Kenneth & J. S. Long. (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 294–316). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Kam, J.A., Cleveland, M.J., & Hecht, M.L. (2010). Applying
general strain theory to examine perceived discrimination’s
indirect relation to Mexican-heritage youth’s alcohol, cigarette, and marijuana use. Prevention Science, 11, 397–410.
doi: 10.1007/s11121-010-0180-7
Li, M. D. (2003). The genetics of smoking related behavior: A brief review. The American Journal of the Medical
Sciences, 326(4), 168.
Little, T., Cunningham, W., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. (2002).
To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 151. doi:
10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1
Lorenzo-Blanco, E. I., Unger, J. B., Ritt-Olson, A., Soto, D.,
& Baezconde-Garbanati, L. (2011). Acculturation, gender,
depression, and cigarette smoking among U.S. Hispanic
youth: The mediating role of perceived discrimination.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40(11), 1519–1533.
Marin, B. V., Marin, G., Perez-Stable, E. J., & Otero-Sabogal,
R. (1990). Cultural differences in attitudes toward smoking:
Developing messages using the theory or reasoned action.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20(6), 478–493.
Marsiglia, F. F., Kulis, S., Hussaini, S. K., Nieri, T. A.,
& Becerra, D. (2010). Gender differences in the effect
of linguistic acculturation on substance use among
Mexican-origin youth in the southwest United States.
Journal of Ethnicity in Substance Abuse, 9(1), 40–63. doi:
10.1080/15332640903539252
Miranda, A. O., Estrada, D., & Firpo-Jimenez, M. (2000).
Differences in family cohesion, adaptability, and environment
968
among Latino families in dissimilar stages of acculturation. The Family Journal, 8(4), 341–350. doi:10.1177/1066
480700084003
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2010). Mplus user’s guide.
6th ed. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.
Neff, J. A., & Hoppe, S. K. (1993). Race/ethnicity, acculturation, and psychological distress: Fatalism and religiosity as
cultural resources. Journal of Community Psychology, 21(1),
3.
Olson, D. H., Portner, J., & Bell, R. (1982). Family adaptability and cohesion evaluation scales. In D. H. Olson, H.
I. McCubbin, H. L. Barnes, A. Larsen, M. Muxen, & M.
Wilson (Eds.), Family inventories (pp. 5–24). St. Paul:
University of Minnesota.
Rivera, F. I., Guarnaccia, P. J., Mulvaney-Day, N., Lin, J. Y.,
Torres, M., & Alegría, M. (2008). Family cohesion and its
relationship to psychological distress among Latino groups.
Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 30(3), 357–378.
doi: 10.1177/0739986308318713
Sabogal, F., Marín, G., Otero-Sabogal, R., & Marín,
B. V. (1987). Hispanic familism and acculturation:
What changes and what doesn’t? Hispanic Journal of
Behavioral Sciences, 9(4), 397–412. doi: 10.1177/073998
63870094003
Sarmiento, I. A., & Cardemil, E. V. (2009). Family functioning and depression in low-income Latino couples. Journal of
Marital and Family Therapy, 35(4), 432–445. doi:10.1111/
j.1752-0606.200901139.x
Schwartz, S. J., Unger, J. B., Zamboanga, B. L., & Szapocznik,
J. (2010). Rethinking the concept of acculturation:
Implications for theory and research. American Psychologist,
65(4), 237–251. doi: 10.1037/a0019330
Smart, J. F., & Smart, D. W. (1995). Acculturative stress of
Hispanics: Loss and challenge. Journal of Counseling &
Development, 73(4), 390–396.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
Results from the 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and
Health: Summary of national findings. Retrieved from http://
www.samhsa.gov/data/NSDUH/2k10NSDUH/2k10Results.
pdf
Tyas, S. L., & Pederson, L. L. (1998). Psychosocial factors
related to adolescent smoking: A critical review of the literature. Tobacco Control, 7(4), 409.
Unger, J. B., Ritt-Olson, A., Teran, L., Huang T., Hoffman, B.
R., & Palmer, P. (2002). Cultural values and substance use
in a multiethnic sample of California adolescents. Addiction
Research Theory, 10(3), 257.
Unger, J. B., Ritt-Olson, A., Wagner, K. D., Soto, D. W., &
Baezconde-Garbanati, L. (2009). Parent-child acculturation
patterns and substance use among Hispanic adolescents:
A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Primary Prevention,
30(3–4), 293–313.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). U.S. Census Bureau News: Facts
for features: Hispanic Heritage Month, 2010. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/facts_
for_features_special_editions/
Valenzuela, A., Jr. (1999). Gender roles and settlement activities among children and their immigrant families. American
Behavioral Scientist, 42(4), 720–742.
Wiehe, S. E., Aalsma, M. C., Liu, G. C., & Fortenberry, J. D.
(2010). Gender differences in the association between perceived discrimination and adolescent smoking. American
Journal of Public Health, 100(3), 510–516. doi:10.2105/
AJPH.2009.169771
Zayas, L. H., Lester, R. J., Cabassa, L. J., & Fortuna, L. R. (2005).
Why do so many Latina teens attempt suicide? A conceptual
model for research. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
75(2), 275–287. doi:10.1037/0002-9432.75.2.275