About this srcd poster session

---

Panel information
Panel 17. Race, Ethnicity, Culture, Context

Abstract

---

As college campuses' student populations become more diverse, research has revealed that students navigating two or more cultures face additional stressors (Hussain, 2018), such as bicultural stress. Broadly, bicultural stress is the pressure to or go against adopting majority and heritage cultures (Romero et al., 2007) and has been associated with problematic outcomes such as depression and anxiety (Fernandez, 2022 & Pilar, 2009). Our current understanding of how bicultural stress potentiates maladjustment remains limited. Given that bicultural stress is rooted in navigating cultural streams, a potential factor may be acculturation or the degree to which one endorses the majority and heritage cultural streams (Berry, 2006). At the same time, prior work has found that bicultural stress compromises identity development, which may also potentiate problematic outcomes such as identity confusion being associated with alcohol misuse (Oshri, 2014). To address this gap, the current study examines how acculturation behaviors and identity mediate the relationship between bicultural stress and psychological well-being.
Data consists of 416 Latinx college students (83.7% females; SD = 2.378 years; 57.7% 2nd generation) sourced from a cross-sectional study on cultural identity development. The mediational mode was estimated in Mplus 8.7 to examine whether acculturation (i.e., heritage and US cultural practices) and personal identity (i.e., commitment making, identification with commitment, and ruminative exploration) mediate the association between bicultural stress and psychological well-being.
Our results indicated bicultural stress was negatively associated with US cultural practices (β = -.188, p < .001), personal identity commitment-making (β = -.129, p = .006), and identification with commitment (β = -.149, p = .002) and positively associated with ruminative exploration (β = .235, p < .001).
Subsequently, whereas US cultural practices (β = .164, p = .001) and identification with commitment (β = .218, p = .009) were positively associated with psychological well-being, while ruminative exploration (β = -.202, p < .001) was negatively associated with psychological well-being. That said, bicultural stress (β = -.282, p < .001) was nonetheless negatively associated with psychological well-being over and above these effects, suggesting partial mediation. Above these effects, heritage cultural practices was positively associated with psychological well-being (β = .159, p < .001).
Consistent with prior research, the results provide further evidence for the negative impact of bicultural stress on well-being. Our findings also highlight possible mechanisms underlying this effect. Furthermore, these findings indicated bicultural stress undermines US cultural endorsement, lowering well-being. Indicating that the pressure to abide/conform to their heritage cultural standards is stronger than the majority (US) culture in gaining support and a sense of belonging from peers within the same heritage culture (Ojeda et al., 2012).
Additionally, bicultural stress was found to undermine identity commitment and increase ruminative exploration directly related to well-being. Indicating that navigating between two cultures' expectations expands the possibilities for the future from the majority and heritage culture, leading the individual to question whether their current path is the correct choice, resulting in a lack of commitment (Beyers et al, 2015; Oshri et al, 2014).
Despite these, it is worth noting bicultural stress was still associated with well-being, highlighting the need for future research.

Author information

Author	Role
Isabella Cruz, University of Texas At San Antonio	Presenting author
Alan Meca, Mentor	Non-presenting author

⇦ Back to session