ORI GIN AL ARTICLE

Acculturation and Aggression in Latino Adolescents:Modeling Longitudinal Trajectories from the LatinoAcculturation and Health Project

Paul Richard Smokowski Æ Roderick A. Rose Æ Martica Bacallao

Published online: 6 June 2009� Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Abstract This study examines how multiple indicators of adolescent and parent accul-

turation relate to longitudinal trajectories of Latino adolescent aggression. The hierarchical

linear modeling analysis is based on a final sample of 256 adolescents paired with one

parent. Of the adolescents, 66% were born outside of the United States and the remaining

34% were US-born. Families lived in two sites: 38% lived in North Carolina and 62% lived

in Arizona. The overall trajectory of Latino adolescent aggression displays a statistically

significant negative trend best characterized by a quadratic curve. We delineate significant

risk factors related to aggression levels, and show that gender, age, parent-reported

acculturation conflicts, and adolescent-reported parent-adolescent conflicts are associated

with higher levels of adolescent aggression. We discuss the study limitations, implications

of the findings, and fertile ground for future research.

Keywords Latinos � Adolescents � Aggression � Externalizing conduct problems �Immigrants � Acculturation � Culture

Introduction

Nationally representative epidemiologic data suggest that aggressive behavior is a serious

concern for Latino youth. The 2005 Youth Risk Behavior Survey [1] reported prevalence

rates for physical fights (41%) and injured in a physical fight (5.3%) reported by Latino

high-school students, which were relatively equal to prevalence rates of African American

students (43.1 and 5.4%, respectively) but significantly higher prevalence than Caucasian

P. R. Smokowski (&) � R. A. RoseSchool of Social Work, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 325 Pittsboro Street,CB 3550, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3550, USAe-mail: smokowsk@email.unc.edu

M. BacallaoDepartment of Social Work, University of North Carolina – Greensboro, 257 Stone Building,P.O. Box 26170, Greensboro, NC 27402-6170, USAe-mail: m.bacallao@uncg.edu

123

Child Psychiatry Hum Dev (2009) 40:589–608DOI 10.1007/s10578-009-0146-9

students (33.1 and 2.4%, respectively). Furthermore, Latino students (9.8%) were signif-

icantly more likely than Caucasian students (7.2%) to report that within the last year they

had been threatened or injured with a weapon at school, and Hispanic students were

significantly more likely to not go to school because of safety concerns than were their

Caucasian peers (10.2 vs. 4.4%). Moreover, these patterns remain stable when gender is

considered. It may be that such experiences of threats and safety concerns are related to

exposure to gangs; in 1995, one-half of the Latino students surveyed by the Departments of

Education and Justice reported that street gangs were present in their schools during the

previous 6 months [2]. In 1999, 28% of Latino students reported gang exposure [2]. Based

on this national epidemiologic data, it is particularly important to examine risk factors that

increase the probability of aggressive behavior in Latino youth. Acculturation has surfaced

as one such risk factor salient for this minority group.

Acculturation, Adolescent Aggression, and Youth Violence

Defining Acculturation. Acculturation was first defined as ‘‘phenomena which results when

groups of individuals having different cultures come into continuous first hand contact with

subsequent changes in the original culture patterns of either or both groups [3].’’ This

original definition stressed continuous, long-term change and allowed for the process to be

bidirectional, wherein both of the interacting cultures could make accommodations. During

the decades since acculturation was first defined, a number of alternative definitions have

been offered that often stress unidirectional, rather than bidirectional, change. For example,

Smith and Guerra [4] refer to acculturation as ‘‘the differences and changes in values and

behaviors that individuals make as they gradually adopt the cultural values of the dominant

society.’’ These unidirectional trends suggest that cultural change results from interactions

between dominant and nondominant groups, and such change is commonly characterized

by nondominant groups taking on the language, laws, religions, norms, and behaviors of

the dominant group [5, 6]. Many factors, such as differences in attitudes between gener-

ations and sociopolitical trends, have influenced the conceptualization of acculturation,

leaving no universally accepted definition of the term.

Adding further complexity, many other constructs in cultural research, such as assimi-

lation, enculturation, acculturation stress, segmented assimilation, and biculturalism, have

been invoked under the umbrella of acculturation research. The term acculturation, which

denotes the bidirectional process of cultural change, is often erroneously used inter-

changeably with the term assimilation, which captures unidirectional adaptations made by

minority individuals to fit into the host society. Consequently, the original Redfield [3]

definition captures the bidirectional notion of acculturation whereas the description offered

by Smith and Guerra [4] denotes the unidirectional assimilation approach. These competing

unidirectional and bidirectional approaches dominate acculturation research, influencing

conceptualization, measurement, analytic strategies, and results of empirical studies in this

area [7]. In light of having no universally accepted definition for acculturation, for the

purposes of our background foundation for the current study, we discuss extant studies that

use both bidirectional and unidirectional approaches to assess acculturation. Accordingly,

these studies measured acculturation in a variety of ways (e.g., language use, generation

status, acculturation stress, ethnic identity, and with multidimensional psychometric scales).

Defining Aggression and Youth Violence. Violence is ‘‘the intentional use of physical

force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, against another person, or against a

group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury,

death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation [8].’’ Adolescent interpersonal

590 Child Psychiatry Hum Dev (2009) 40:589–608

123

youth violence includes violence between unrelated youth who may or may not know each

other in other contexts and environments. Similar to acculturation, adolescent interpersonal

youth violence has been assessed in multiple ways across studies. Youth violence

researchers use measures including gang membership, bullying, physical fighting, weapon

carrying, verbal threats, aggressive behavior, externalizing symptoms, and serious criminal

activity such as homicide or assaults. In the research literature linking acculturation to

youth violence, five studies used the Child Behavior Checklist or Youth Self-Report [9–

13], two articles used the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for children—IV disruptive

behavior disorders subscale [14, 15], and nine used various self-report items or measures of

delinquency, theft or vandalism, and deviancy. Only two studies included multiple

informants for youth violence [10, 13].

In our discussion below, we examine studies linking an array of acculturation measures

to these disparate measures of youth violence perpetration. After establishing the role of

acculturation in the wide area of youth violence research, we focus the current study on

aggressive behavior, which is arguably the most common subtype of youth violence,

characterized by arguing, destroying property, and fighting that often does not rise to the

level of serious criminal activity.

Acculturation and Youth Violence. The association between Latino adolescent accul-

turation and youth violence outcomes has been examined in 16 studies; 13 of these

investigations examined the perpetration of violence or aggressive behavior as the out-

come, and three studies examined fear of being a victim of violence as the outcome [16].

Although the results of the reports that considered the perpetration of youth violence were

mixed, these results favored a significant positive association between acculturation and

youth violence. Of the 13 empirical investigations focused on adolescent acculturation and

youth violence perpetration, nine studies reported higher adolescent US cultural involve-

ment (although defined in different ways and sometimes referred to as assimilation) was

associated with increased youth violence [9, 11–13, 17–21].

Buriel et al. [19] reported that third generation Latino adolescents had significantly

higher delinquency rates than first or second generation adolescents. First and second

generation adolescents did not significantly differ on delinquency. Similarly, Bui and

Thongniramol [18] examined a nationally representative subsample of 18,097 student data

obtained from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. After running

logistic regression models, odds ratio statistics indicated that youth who were second- or

third-generation Hispanics were 60 and 88% (respectively) more likely to report violent

delinquency as compared to their first- generation counterparts. Several other studies show

differences for immigrant versus US-born youth, with risk of violence or delinquency

rising for the latter group [12, 13, 17, 21]. Although these studies establish a link between

generational status, nativity, and youth violence, these proxy measures of acculturation

described sociological cohort effects rather than person-centered psychological effects.

A second subgroup of studies considers individual, rather than cohort, effects by using

person or psychological measures of acculturation (e.g., language use, cultural involve-

ment, cultural conflicts or acculturation stress). Among a predominantly Cuban sample of

2,360 adolescents living in Miami, Vega et al. [13] found that only language conflicts were

associated with total behavior problems as reported by the parents and teachers of

immigrant adolescents. However, among the US-born Cuban youth, language conflicts,

perceived discrimination, and perceptions of a closed society were associated with

behavior problems reported by teachers but not by parents. Furthermore, Dinh and her

colleagues [9], whose assessment of 330 Hispanic youth represents the only extant

longitudinal study, found higher acculturation significantly predicted higher levels of

Child Psychiatry Hum Dev (2009) 40:589–608 591

123

youth-reported problem behavior proneness (i.e., gang involvement, peer delinquency,

conduct problems) 1 year later.

However, four studies failed to find significant associations between acculturation

variables and youth violence perpetration. Bird and his colleagues [14, 15], examining

probability samples of 2,491 Puerto Rican youth ages 5–13 years old in San Juan and the

South Bronx in New York City, reported that the level of acculturation, parent-child

acculturation gaps, and cultural stress were not factors associated with disruptive behavior

disorders. In a sample of 175 Mexican youth and their mothers living in the Southwest, the

direct relationship between family linguistic acculturation and adolescent conduct prob-

lems was not found as significant [10]; however, an indirect relationship mediated through

family conflict was identified. Finally, acculturation was not significantly associated with

any violence measures in the study of 1,119 sixth- and seventh graders from Northern

California conducted by Carvajal et al. [22]. These studies provide evidence that there is a

link between acculturation and youth violence for cohorts and individuals; however, more

research is needed to understand the dynamics of this relationship.

Theoretical Explanations for the Relationship Between Acculturation and Youth

Violence

Two primary hypotheses have been put forth to explain the relationship between accul-

turation and youth violence. One hypothesis is behavior adaptation developed by assimi-

lation theorists, which states that assimilating individuals are adopting negative behaviors

that are tolerated by the host society [6]. Assimilating individuals initiate alcohol and

substance use, for example, to fit into American peer groups. Latinas, in particular,

demonstrated markedly increased alcohol consumption as the traditional Latino sex role

constraints against such behavior eroded [23–25]. Proponents of this behavior adaptation

hypothesis might suggest that assimilating adolescents, especially those immersed in

disadvantaged high-crime communities, adopt aggressive behaviors they see used in their

new environments.

Researchers have also suggested that negative health behaviors, such as alcohol use and

aggressive behavior, may be undertaken as a strategy for coping with acculturation stress

[26]. Maladaptive behavior is thought to derive from ‘‘increased perceptions of discrimi-

nation, internalization of minority status, and/or socialization into cultural attitudes and

behaviors that have a disintegrative effect on family ties [27].’’ Acculturation stress is

associated with self-deprecation, ethnic self-hatred, lowered family cohesion, and a

weakened ego structure in the assimilated individual [25].

The behavior adaptation and acculturation stress hypotheses have been applied to research

showing that acculturation has deleterious effects on Latino families. A number of studies

found that the relationship between assimilation and youth violence was mediated by family

conflict, and parental investment or engagement [9–11]. Acculturation conflicts appear to

precipitate family stress, which in turn has an impact on parent–adolescent relationships.

With lower family cohesion, support, and monitoring, youth may turn to gangs for affiliation

and use violence as an outlet for their frustration. Additional studies identified ancillary

factors, such as perceived discrimination and perceptions of a closed society, which may fuel

the relationship between assimilation and youth violence by prompting acculturating youth to

fight against societal injustices and marginalization [27]. Unfortunately, few studies have

directly compared acculturation measures (e.g., language use, cultural involvement) to

acculturation stress measures (discrimination, language conflicts) to examine the relative

contributions of the behavior adaptation and acculturation stress hypotheses.

592 Child Psychiatry Hum Dev (2009) 40:589–608

123

Research Methods Used in Studying Acculturation and Adolescent Youth Violence.

Mirroring the heterogeneity in the Latino population, investigators studying acculturation

and youth violence in Latino adolescents have drawn their study samples from several

different locations. Researchers have conducted multiethnic studies in Miami [13, 28] and

Massachusetts [29, 30], and Puerto Rican samples have come from New York City [14, 15,

17]. Researchers in the Southwest, typically Arizona [9, 10, 20] and California [19, 22, 31,

32], have studied samples of Mexican or Mexican American participants. Samples with a

large proportion of Cuban participants have come from southern parts of Florida [12, 13,

28]. Sites across Texas were used in six studies [33–38], and one investigation [11]

involved a sample that was predominantly Mexican adolescents living in either North

Carolina or Arizona. Only two studies [18, 39] have examined nationally representative

survey samples of youth. Although this group of Latino studies deserves praise for taking

into account the heterogeneity among Latino subgroups (e.g., Cubans in Miami, Puerto

Ricans in New York City), samples of different Latino subgroups were largely considered

in isolation. Multisite studies of Latino adolescents living in disparate geographic locations

have been rare, which limits researchers’ ability to draw conclusions for the larger, het-

erogeneous population of Latinos. Similarly, scarce research information exists on

acculturation processes in geographic areas that are not among the traditional receiving

environments for Latino immigrants (e.g., outside of South Florida, New York City,

California, or Texas).

Along with isolated samples of Latino subgroups, this group of studies also showed

broad differences in the unidirectional or bidirectional conceptualization and measurement

of acculturation. The most common measure of acculturation in studies of acculturation

and Latino adolescent aggression has been language use and fluency which was examined

in 56% of the studies as either a sole indicator or in combination with other acculturation

measures [40]. Approximately 25% of Latino studies on adolescent youth violence used

one of four characteristics as a sole indicator of acculturation: language use [33, 39];

immigration generation [18, 19]; US residency [37]; or time living in the United States

[38]. Although most studies used multiple indicators of acculturation, researchers fre-

quently examined these indicators as independent predictors rather than as a unified

construct. For instance, some studies augmented language use with other simple measures,

such as parental birthplace [36]; immigrant status [29, 30]; and immigrant/generation status

[34]. In addition, a few studies used unique measures to assess acculturation stress,

including acculturation conflicts and discrimination conflicts [13, 28, 31, 32, 36].

The most elaborate studies utilized multiple scales from different informants (e.g.,

parents and children) to measure different dimensions of acculturation with the assumption

that acculturation is not unidirectional [11, 14, 15, 22, 35]. For example, Bird et al. [14]

used the Cultural Life Style Inventory Bidirectional Scale to assess child and parent

acculturation preferences in language use and other ethnic characteristics. In another study,

Carvajal et al. [22] used two orthogonal (i.e., independent) seven-item measures of cultural

orientation (i.e., Latino orientation, other group orientation) based on the Bidimensional

Acculturation Scale to measure acculturation. Similarly, Ramussen et al. [35] used a

shortened version of the Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans to measure

language use and ethnic identification of the youths and their parents. In contrast,

Smokowski and Bacallao [11] used the Bicultural Involvement Questionnaire to measure

four dimensions of family acculturation: adolescent culture-of-origin involvement, ado-

lescent host-culture involvement, parent culture-of-origin involvement, and parent host-

culture involvement. The current study adopts this multidimensional approach to examine

both parent and adolescent reports of culture-of-origin involvement and host cultural

Child Psychiatry Hum Dev (2009) 40:589–608 593

123

involvement. Compared to simple markers or one-dimensional measures, this multidi-

mensional, multiple informant approach allows for a much more refined analysis of

acculturation dynamics.

The current study contributes to the emerging body of literature on Latino adolescent

acculturation and youth violence in several ways. We examined the relationship of mul-

tiple indicators of adolescent and parent acculturation (e.g., Latino and US cultural

involvement) and acculturation stressors (e.g., perceived discrimination, acculturation

conflicts) with adolescent aggression. Our sample included parents and adolescents living

in rural, small town, and metropolitan areas located in two geographically separated states.

We extend the research knowledge of the cross-sectional studies reviewed above by

exploring longitudinal trajectories of acculturation and aggression. Based on extant

research, we hypothesized that (a) adolescent US cultural involvement would be positively

related to adolescent aggression; (b) adolescent aggressive behavior would rise over time;

and (c) acculturation stressors, such as parent-adolescent conflict, would be positively

associated with adolescent aggression.

Methods

Data collection procedures for the Latino Acculturation and Health Project have been

discussed in detail elsewhere [11]. This study used parent and adolescent perceptions of

the adolescent’s aggressive behavior as outcomes in a longitudinal rater effects hierar-

chical linear model (HLM) [41, 42]. The structure of the data can be summarized as time

(four waves) nested within rater, which is nested within participant. In the present

context, the adolescent is considered the study participant. With only one adolescent

from each family randomly selected for inclusion in the study, characteristics of the

adolescent, parent, or family as a whole were implied as characteristics of the adolescent,

and further levels (i.e., a parent or family level) would have been redundant. Each

participant’s level of aggressive behavior was assessed using two raters: the adolescent,

who provided data on self-perception of aggression; and the adolescent’s parent, who

provided data on his or her perception of the child’s aggression. We assessed each rater’s

perceptions of the adolescent’s aggressive behavior at four time points with intervals of

approximately 6 months. Analyses were conducted on adolescent outcomes using a mix

of adolescent, parent, and family characteristics as predictors. All variables, except time,

were entered as participant-level (level 3) variables, whereas time was a level 1 variable.

Given that there was no intention to explain variation between raters, the analyses did

not include any rater-level variables.

Independent Variables

Time. The analysis used a variable occasions design [43], whereby time was measured

continuously rather than in discrete waves (W = 0, 1, 2, 3). We used time living in theUnited States, measured in months, at each time the survey was administered. We iden-

tified the time in United States at the initial condition (W = 0) and then summed the

number of intervening months from the first to each subsequent wave (though separated by

approximate 6 month intervals, exact dates were recorded; the variable was recorded in

months with decimals representing increments of months). These two values were then

added together to obtain time living in United States at each assessment. For native

adolescents, the time at the first wave (Wave 0) was their age; for a non-native adolescent,

594 Child Psychiatry Hum Dev (2009) 40:589–608

123

time at Wave 0 was recorded as time since his or her immigration. Time measured in this

format differs from time measured in discrete waves in two ways. First, initial condition is

not the same for every participant, whereas using W = 0 treats initial condition as being

the same. Second, the increments between each wave are not exactly the same for each

participant: at Wave 2 (6-month follow-up), the increment ranged from 3.6 to 12.5 months;

at Wave 3 (12-month follow-up) from 8.1 to 16 months, and at Wave 4 (18-month follow-

up) from 13.6 to 22.4 months. Thus, we captured the variable for time with both a linear

component representing the average rate of change per month the adolescent lived in the

United States, and a quadratic component representing acceleration in this rate.

Demographic Variables. Demographic data for adolescents included gender

(female = 1, male = 0); age (in years); and nativity by site. Initially, nativity was a

dichotomous variable labeled 1 for Latin American nativity and 0 for US nativity; how-

ever, we found nativity was strongly related to site membership. All North Carolina (NC)

site participants were foreign-born immigrants, but Arizona (AZ) site participants varied in

nativity. Therefore, site and birthplace were recoded into two variables representing AZ

families with US-born adolescents and AZ families with foreign-born adolescents, with all

NC families as the common reference group. Also included as characteristics representing

family influences on adolescents were variables for parent education level (elementary or

no schooling coded 1 and high school or higher coded 0) and household annual income (in

thousands of dollars).

Culture-of-Origin Involvement. We defined this variable as the maintenance of ethnic

identity through language, media use, and enacting traditions from the person’s native

culture, measured using the Bicultural Involvement Questionnaire (BIQ) [44]; The BIQ’s

culture-of-origin involvement subscale has 20 items measuring language, food, recreation,

and media use on a 5-point Likert scale with anchors labeled not at all to very much.

Examples of questions include ‘‘How comfortable do you feel speaking Spanish (at home,

with friends, in general)’’ and ‘‘How much do you enjoy… music, television programs,

books, and magazines from your native country?’’ In this sample, internal consistency

reliability was .89 for adolescents’ and .90 for parents’ culture-of-origin involvement.

US Cultural Involvement. This variable, defined as assimilation of host culture lan-

guage, media, norms, and traditions, was also measured using the BIQ [44]. Exactly

parallel to the culture-of-origin involvement scale, the BIQ’s US cultural involvement

subscale has 20 items measuring English language use, non-Latino US food preference,

recreation, and media use on a 5-point Likert scale with anchors labeled not at all to verymuch. In this sample, internal consistency reliability was .90 for adolescents and .93 for

parents.

Average scores for culture-of-origin involvement and US cultural involvement were

calculated by adding the items and dividing by the number of items answered. This step

yielded final variables with the possible ranges identical to the original 5-point Likert scale.

Both parent and adolescent involvement variables of all types were included as adolescent

characteristics.

Parent-adolescent conflict was assessed using the Conflict Behavior Questionnaire-20

(CBQ-20) [45]. The CBQ scale provides an overall measure of negative communication

conflict within a parent-adolescent pair. The CBQ-20 uses 20 yes-no items to assess

positive and negative interactions that occur in both nonconflictual and argumentative

exchanges. Examples of questions include the following: (a) My parent(s) don’t understand

me; (b) My parent(s) say I have no consideration for them; and (c) My parent(s) put me

down. Reliability for the CBQ-20 in this sample was .89 for both adolescents and parents.

The adolescent report of this variable was entered as a characteristic of the adolescent.

Child Psychiatry Hum Dev (2009) 40:589–608 595

123

Acculturation conflicts were measured with a four-item scale used by Vega et al. [46].

Response options were measured on a 5-point Likert scale with anchors ranging from notat all to frequently. The four items were (a) ‘‘How often have you had problems with your

family because you prefer American customs;’’ (b) ‘‘How often do you think that you

would rather be more American if you had a chance;’’ (c) ‘‘How often do you get upset at

your parents because they don’t know American ways’’ [not in parent version]; and (d)

‘‘How often do you feel uncomfortable having to choose between non-Latin and Latin

ways of doing things?’’ In this sample, internal consistency reliability was .76 for ado-

lescents and .87 for parents. Both parent and adolescent versions of this variable were

entered as adolescent characteristics.

Dependent Variable: Aggression

Parents and adolescents reported adolescent aggression using the Child Behavior Check

List (CBCL/4-18 and Youth Self-Report [YSR]) [47]. The YSR aggression subscale

consists of 17 items measured using a 3-point Likert scale (not true, sometimes true, and

often true). The scale included the following items: (a) ‘‘I argue a lot;’’ (b) ‘‘I destroy my

own things;’’ and (c) ‘‘I get in many fights.’’ Parents completed the CBCL/4-18 with

similar questions concerning their child. The CBCL has been widely used with Latino

children [13]. The internal consistency reliability for this sample was .85 for adolescent

and .89 for parents.

Sample Characteristics

The details of sample characteristics and study variables by site and nativity are displayed

in Table 1. The analysis was based on a final sample of 256 adolescents paired with one

parent. Of the final sample, 66% of the adolescents were born outside of the United States

and the remaining 34% were US-born. More than a third of the families lived in North

Carolina (38%) and 62% of the sample lived in Arizona. Of the adolescents, 57% were

female. Most of the adolescents (88%) attended school, and the median grade was 10th

grade. The vast majority of parents were foreign-born (95%). Although most adolescents

lived with two parents (73%), 27% lived with a single parent. Of the participating parents,

91% were mothers, 72% of parents were married, and 68% were working at least one job.

In addition, 89% of parents had not graduated from high school, and 39% had less than a

9th-grade education.

Sampling Design: Nesting of Participants

Sampling adolescent-parent pairs resulted in a nesting of these two participants within a unit

commonly referred to as a cluster. The intraclass correlation (ICC), which measures the

proportion of variation attributed to raters and adolescents, was 34% at the rater level and

31% at the participant level when an unconditional linear growth model was used (only a

linear effect for time was entered; no demographics or survey responses). Given these ICC

levels, we rejected the notion that time and rater-level observations were independent, and

therefore controlled for rater-level differences and participant attributes that were invariant

to time or rater using HLM. However, some simplifications were necessary to deal with

other sources of dependence among the records. To prevent unaccounted-for dependence

between adolescent participants from the same family, only one adolescent–parent dyad

596 Child Psychiatry Hum Dev (2009) 40:589–608

123

from each family were included in the final sample. For families with more than one

adolescent participating, the adolescent–parent pair included in the sample was selected at

random. Finally, we discarded the records for those families with only an adolescent or a

parent participating (i.e., no pair within a family). These deletions resulted in the final

sample of 516 raters (258 participants paired with one parent), at the exclusion of 158

discarded records (148 due to randomization and 10 due to having only a parent or ado-

lescent). We found significant differences between the included and excluded records on the

following characteristics: (a) time living in the United States (t = 3.34, p \ .01); (b)

familism (t = 3.95, p \ .01); (c) adolescent report on conflict behavior (t = 2.49, p \ .05);

(d) acculturation conflict (parent report t = 2.04, p \ .05, adolescent report t = 2.31,

p \ .05); and (e) adolescent cultural involvement (culture of origin, t = 2.13, p \ .05, US

cultural involvement, t = 2.11, p \ .05).

Missing Data. Several variables—including all cultural involvement variables, conflict

behavior, discrimination, familism and parent-adolescent conflict—had non-response rates

of 12%. Income had a 4% rate of non-response. The dependent variable had a response rate

that varied over the four waves: 12% non-response at Wave 1, 17% at Wave 2, 32% at Wave

3, and 40% at Wave 4. Given the potential for bias from non-response, analyses were

conducted on data subjected to multiple imputation [48]. Based on recent standards

Table 1 Sample characteristics

Univariates of aggression analysis sample: imputed data

Characteristic: discrete Proportion of sample

Adol gender (1 = female) 0.57

Site by birthplace: Arizona, native 0.34

Site by birthplace: Arizona, nonnative 0.28

Parent: elementary or no schooling = 1 0.32

Characteristic: continuous Mean SD

Adol COa cultural involvement 3.74 0.62

Parent CO cultural involvement 3.91 0.68

Adol US cultural involvement 3.43 0.71

Parent US cultural involvement 2.62 0.78

Adol biculturalism 7.17 0.85

Parent biculturalism 6.53 0.78

Adol report on acculturation conflict 1.97 0.80

Parent report on acculturation conflict 1.89 0.98

Adol report on discrimination 2.33 0.94

Adol report on familism 3.33 0.52

Adol report on parent-adol conflict behavior 0.25 0.26

Adol age 16.02 1.65

Adol time living in United States (years) 10.13 5.51

Parent income ($1,000) 26.66 18.37

Aggression (DV) 0.40 0.32

a CO = country-of-origin

Child Psychiatry Hum Dev (2009) 40:589–608 597

123

recommended by Graham et al. [49] 50 data sets were simulated in the imputation process. To

handle missing data on the dependent variable, we used a procedure called multiple impu-tation, then deletion (MID) [50]. With MID, the imputation uses the dependent variable,

which ensures that the covariance structure of the analysis model is represented in the

simulated values. However, after imputation the simulated values of the dependent variable

are deleted before conducting the analysis because these simulated values provide no useful

information. These procedures were completed using SAS Proc MI and MIAnalyze. Col-

linearity was assessed using the variance inflation factor (VIF). A VIF of 10 would warrant

caution. The highest VIF observed was 2.9, and therefore we concluded that the data were not

collinear.

Analytic Strategy

The data consisted of three hierarchically nested levels. The first level consisted of each

rater’s assessment of adolescent aggression taken at four time points. The second level

consisted of random effects for each rater allowing for and capturing variability between

how adolescents and their parents perceive the adolescent’s aggression levels. No covar-

iates were used at this level. The third level consisted of adolescent and family level

characteristics including demographics (adolescent gender, age, sample site by nativity);

socioeconomic status (parent education and income); adolescent perceptions of discrimi-

nation; both parent and adolescent perceptions of acculturation conflict and conflict

between the parent and adolescent; and cultural involvement for both US culture and

country-of-origin culture. A three-level hierarchical linear model was used to account for

the variability at all three levels [41, 42]. SAS version 9.1 Proc Mixed was used; restricted

maximum likelihood was used to estimate the reported models (a maximum likelihood

version of each model was run to facilitate a comparison of fit between Models 1 and 2,

which have different fixed effects [43]).

Model Form. The model used in the analysis was as follows:

Aggtij ¼ b0ij þ b1ijTtij þ b2ijT2tij þ rtij½rtij�Nð0; r2Þ� ð1Þ

b0ij ¼ p00j þ u0ij½u0ij�Nð0; s0Þ� ð2Þ

b1ij ¼ p10j þ u1ij½u1ij�Nð0; s1Þ� ð2:1Þ

b2ij ¼ p20j ð2:2Þ

p00j ¼ c000 þ c001X1j þ . . .þ c00NXNj

þ e00j ½for all N subject - levelpredictors; e00j�Nð0;/0Þ� ð3:0Þ

p10j ¼ c100 ð3:1Þ

p20j ¼ c200 ð3:2Þ

In Eq. 1, aggression for adolescent j for rater i at time t was regressed on a constant (for

status at T = 0), rate of change (per month; Ttij) and a quadratic component for time

representing acceleration in the growth rate (T2tij), which together capture variation in

perceived level of aggression over time.

In Eqs. 2 and 2.1, status at T = 0 and instantaneous rate of change coefficients (b0ij and

b1ij) were each then regressed on a constant p and random coefficient u representing rater-

level variation around this constant. The acceleration in change coefficient b2ij was

598 Child Psychiatry Hum Dev (2009) 40:589–608

123

regressed on a rater-level constant only. No covariates were entered at the rater level to

explain variation between raters in perceived initial status of aggression or the instanta-

neous rate of change in aggression.

The constants in Eqs. 2–2.2 were then regressed on adolescent-level models. In Eq. 3.0,

the random intercept from the regression of initial status (p00j) was then regressed on a set

of adolescent- and family-level predictors, with a random component (e00j) representing

residual parameter variance. In Eq. 3.1, the rater-level means of rate of change and

acceleration were then regressed on participant level constants. The coefficients c are the

coefficients reported in the results; these represent participant-level means of all effects.

Two model variations are reported. In Model 1, only a linear time coefficient was included

(b1ij). The quadratic and random coefficients were not included (we assumed b2ij = 0 and

u1ij = 0). In Model 2, all effects were included. The average rate of change is properly

characterized as the instantaneous rate of change when the quadratic component is included.

Mean Centering. The use of time living in United States to define the time variable

facilitates an analysis that accounts for participants being at different points in their

developmental trajectories. However, the center (the point at which time = 0) of the time

variable must be chosen carefully. None of the participants had zero time in the United

States. If measured in its raw units, the intercept and instantaneous rate of change coef-

ficients, which are interpreted where the quadratic time variable is at zero (at the point

where T = 0), would be interpreted at a point that could not occur for any study partici-

pant. To facilitate a meaningful interpretation of these coefficients, and to remove col-

linearity between the instantaneous rate of change and quadratic components, the time

variable, calculated as number of months living in the United States at each wave, was

centered at each adolescent’s mean across the four time points [42]. Thus, the point at

which T = 0 is not likely to be any of the points at which data were collected, but

importantly, the point does occur at some time between the first wave of data collection

and the last (i.e., within the study period) for all of the participants being studied. Having

T = 0 occur at some arbitrary point within the study period facilitates interpretation of the

random intercept and instantaneous rate of change coefficients at this value of T.

In addition to time, all continuous adolescent-level measures (e.g., age, income and all

scales except the dependent variable) were mean centered to facilitate interpretation of

random intercept at the rater and adolescent levels as the variation around the mean level of

the outcome at the mean time living in the United States [42].

Results

Model 1: Linear Nonrandom Time Living in the United States

This was the baseline model, having the simplest covariance structure for any model

accounting for nesting. Model characteristics are shown in Table 2. On average, aggression

levels fell during the study period (c = -.01, p \ .001). This model shows that higher

levels of adolescent US cultural involvement were significantly predictive of lower levels

of adolescent aggression (c = -.04, p \ .05). Alternatively, higher parent reported

acculturation conflict (c = .04, p \ .01) and adolescent reported parent-adolescent conflict

behavior (c = .44, p \ .001) were significantly predictive of higher levels of aggression.

Females were significantly more likely to be aggressive (c = .05, p \ .05), whereas older

children were significantly less likely to be aggressive (c = -.02, p \ .05). The two

random effects were both significant (v2 (rater level) = 488.32, p \ .001; v2 (adolescent

Child Psychiatry Hum Dev (2009) 40:589–608 599

123

level) = 6.89, p \ .01). The fixed effect model explained 70% of the variance in the

participant-level model (level 3) (Table 2).

Model 2: Quadratic and Linear Random Slope for Time Living in the United States

This model contained two additional elements, a quadratic time variable and a random

slope for the linear (instantaneous) rate of change coefficient, producing a more complex

Table 2 Longitudinal hierarchical linear models predicting Latino adolescent aggression

Fixed effect Model 1: linear, norandom time slope

Model 2: quadratic withrandom linear time slope

b SE(b)

t Value b SE(b)

t Value

Level 1/time level

Average growth rate per month adolescent inUS (C)

-0.01 0.00 -7.40*** -0.01 0.00 -6.37***

Acceleration in growth rate per month adolescentin US

0.0003 0.00 2.36*

Level 3/participant- parent-family level

Adol COa cultural involvement (C) 0.00 0.02 0.24 0.01 0.02 0.33

Parent CO cultural involvement (C) 0.01 0.02 0.38 0.01 0.02 0.32

Adol US cultural involvement (C) -0.04 0.02 -1.98* -0.04 0.02 -1.91

Parent US cultural involvement (C) -0.02 0.02 -1.12 -0.02 0.02 -1.11

Adol report on acculturation conflict (C) 0.02 0.02 1.05 0.02 0.02 1.07

Parent report on acculturation conflict (C) 0.04 0.01 3.03** 0.04 0.01 2.85**

Adol report on discrimination (C) 0.02 0.01 1.47 0.02 0.01 1.43

Adol report on parent-adol conflict behavior(C)

0.44 0.05 8.23*** 0.45 0.05 8.15***

Adol gender (1 = female) 0.05 0.02 2.01* 0.05 0.02 1.97*

Adol age (C) -0.02 0.01 -2.33* -0.02 0.01 -2.45*

Site by birthplace: Arizona, native 0.04 0.03 1.36 0.04 0.03 1.29

Site by birthplace: Arizona, nonnative 0.00 0.03 -0.16 0.00 0.03 -0.16

Parent income (000) (C) 0.00 0.00 -0.85 0.00 0.00 -0.85

Parent: elementary or no schooling = 1 -0.03 0.03 -1.21 -0.03 0.03 -1.22

Variances/random effects Est. Chi-square Est. Chi-square

Residual 0.033 0.027

Random intercept at level 2 (rater) 0.032 488.32*** 0.0331 489.21***

Random slope for time at level 2 (rater) – 0.000 27.06***

Covariance (intercept by time slope) at level 2 – 0.000 0.42

Random intercept at level 3 (participant–family) 0.0088 6.89** 0.009 7.37**

Residual ICC for level 2 0.43 0.48

Residual ICC for level 3 0.12 0.13

Variance explained at level 3 0.70 0.69

a CO = country-of-origin; (C) means the variable was centered before entering it in the model

* p \ .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001

600 Child Psychiatry Hum Dev (2009) 40:589–608

123

fixed effects model and covariance structure than the baseline model. Plots of each rater’s

perception of adolescent aggression suggested that a nonlinear effect was present. An

analysis of maximum likelihood versions of Models 1 and 2 showed that Model 2 was a

better-fitting specification. The quadratic term capturing acceleration in the rate of change

in adolescent aggression had a coefficient of .0003 (p \ .05), while the instantaneous rate

of change coefficient was -.01 (p \ .001), which is the same magnitude and direction as in

the baseline model. However, the addition of a term for acceleration in change provides

further insight into the change in aggression reported by adolescents and their parents. The

coefficient of -.01 for instantaneous rate of change tells us that at the mean time in the US,

aggression was decreasing. Nevertheless, when the instantaneous rate of change and

quadratic coefficients are interpreted together, the results indicate that, on average,

aggression decreased until 16.67 months after the mean time in US, at which point

aggression started to increase. To provide a more intuitive meaning to this finding, for a

heuristic ‘‘average’’ adolescent, for whom the mean time in the US was 10.13 years

(121.56 months; refer to Table 1), aggression started to increase after 11.5 years

(138.23 months) in the United States.

In Model 2, relative to the baseline model, the only substantial change in the findings of

significance was that adolescent US cultural involvement was not significant. For both

Models 1 and 2, findings were not substantially different for parent reports of acculturation

conflict, and for adolescent reports of parent-adolescent conflict on behavior. Further, both

models were similar on characteristics for gender and age. A further investigation was

conducted to determine if the quadratic term or the random slope at the rater level was

responsible for the change in the significance of the effect of adolescent US cultural

involvement on reducing aggression when moving from the baseline to the more complex

model. (Given the mean centering of the time regressor, we expect the change to have a

substantive interpretation and not simply the result of a structural change from including a

nonlinear regressor.) The difference in significance findings was a result of both a drop in

the magnitude of the coefficient and an increase in the standard error, and the actual

difference in the t-value was minor (a change of .07). Individually, the addition of either

the quadratic term or the random slope for time caused the t-value for adolescent US

cultural involvement to decrease. This change indicates the presence of some confound-

edness between adolescent US cultural involvement and the acceleration in change in

aggression and random linear slope. These findings may be due to a modest positive, non-

significant association between time in the United States and adolescent US cultural

involvement that we observed.

Foreign- Versus US-Born Subgroup Analyses. We conducted a final subgroup analyses,

fitting model 2 separately to foreign-born and US born youth. On average, aggression levels

fell during the study period for both foreign and US-born youth (c = -.01, p \ .001).

However, the coefficient for acceleration in the rate of change was statistically significant

for foreign-born, but not for US-born youth. This suggests that US-born adolescents during

the study period displayed a linear decrease in their aggressive behavior; whereas, for

foreign-born youth the decline in their aggressive behavior flattened out over time. Further,

the coefficient for adolescent US cultural involvement approached standard values for

statistical significance (t-value = -1.93) for foreign-born youth, but was not relevant for

US-born adolescents (t-value = -0.14). Similarly, parent reports of acculturation conflicts

were a significant risk factor associated with more aggressive behavior for foreign-born

youth (t-value = 1.98, p \ .05), but not for US born youth (t-value = 1.82, ns). Parent-

adolescent conflict was the strongest, most significant risk factor related to aggressive

behavior in both foreign-born and US-born adolescents.

Child Psychiatry Hum Dev (2009) 40:589–608 601

123

Discussion

This is the first investigation to go beyond the simple linear association between accul-

turation measures and adolescent aggression by examining the longitudinal trajectory of

aggressive behavior since time of immigration (or birth for native Latino adolescents). The

overall trajectory of Latino adolescent aggression displayed a statistically significant

negative trend that was best characterized by a quadratic curve, decreasing from baseline

(Wave 0) to Wave 2 follow-up 1 year later and slightly increasing at Wave 3 (18-month

follow-up; see Figs. 1, 2). However, when subgroups were considered, this trajectory,

while still decreasing, was linear for US-born adolescents and quadratic for foreign-born

youth.

It was surprising to find a significant negative trajectory for adolescent aggression; this

contradicted our hypotheses based on prior cross-sectional studies. Indeed, we hypothe-

sized that adolescent US cultural involvement would be positively related to adolescent

aggression and that adolescent aggressive behavior would rise over time. The HLM models

showed that adolescent US cultural involvement was significantly and inversely related to

adolescent aggression, and that adolescent aggressive behavior decreased over time. These

findings contradict past cross-sectional research that reported a positive relationship

between assimilation measures and adolescent aggression [9, 12, 13, 17–21]. It may still be

the case that subsequent generations of Latino youth report higher levels of aggressive

behavior and violence [18, 19]. Yet, the person-centered analyses adopted in this study

showed for the first time that individual trajectories of adolescent aggression are highest for

immigrant youth near the time of immigration and decrease thereafter. This finding adds

refinement to our understanding of the relationship between acculturation and aggression.

At the same time, the quadratic curve showed some increases near the end of our trajec-

tories, indicating a complex longitudinal relationship. Notably, this decreasing trajectory

was characteristic of both foreign- and US-born adolescents.

Three theoretical explanations for this attenuating curve can be posited from cultural

psychology. The first explanation suggests that this curve signifies positive attributes of the

acculturation process. The common notion of assimilation or behavioral adaptation entails

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0 1 2 3

Lev

el o

f A

gg

ress

ion

Wave

Low Conflict Behavior

High Conflict Behavior

Fig. 1 Aggression by parent-child conflict behavior—youth

602 Child Psychiatry Hum Dev (2009) 40:589–608

123

persons de-emphasizing aspects of their culture-of-origin identity to identify with the

dominant (host) cultural group [4, 6]. This process has been characterized as beginning

with contact that leads to conflict which results in cultural adaptations [5]. As adolescents

adopt behaviors synergistic with the host culture, conflicts with members of the host

culture (e.g., peers, neighbors) may wane, resulting in lower levels of aggressive behaviors

among Latino adolescents. The significant coefficient for adolescent US cultural

involvement in Model 1, and the particular relevance of this effect for foreign-born rather

than US-born adolescents would provide some evidence for this explanation. Yet, after the

adolescents make some successful adaptations, new acculturation challenges may arise,

possibly leading to increases in aggression. Using the logic from the first theoretical model

presented in our Background discussion on behavioral adaptation, it would follow that

Latino adolescents may fluctuate between periods of peace and reactive aggression.

Aggressive reactions wane as they acculturate, but newer problems may promote violence.

At the same time, new problems that arise (e.g., experiencing cultural conflicts or dis-

crimination in a new job) may be dealt with non-violently, especially after acquiring more

effective coping strategies. Behavioral adaptation theory suggests that acculturating indi-

viduals adopt norms, behaviors, and attitudes that allow them to fit into the host society.

This segmented or complete assimilation may serve both to decrease the frequency of

conflictual exchanges and guide non-violent behavior when stress occurs.

Second, alternation theorists would also interpret cultural adaptations to suggest

increasing levels of biculturalism, marking the ability to successfully navigate between

cultural systems [51]. Bicultural adolescents experience less stress and anxiety because they

have skills to handle stressors and access resources from both cultural systems. These

bicultural adolescents can maintain a positive relationship with both cultures without having

to choose one over the other; they participate in the two cultures by tailoring their behavior

to the situational context [52, 53]. Researchers have found biculturalism to be related to a

number of positive adolescent outcomes. For example, Gil et al. [27] found bicultural

adolescents to have the lowest levels of acculturation stress, compared to low- and high-

assimilated Latino adolescents. Smokowski and Bacallao [11] reported that biculturalism

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0 1 2 3

Lev

el o

f A

gg

ress

ion

Wave

Low Acculturation Conflict

High Acculturation Conflict

Fig. 2 Aggression by acculturation conflict—parent

Child Psychiatry Hum Dev (2009) 40:589–608 603

123

and familism were cultural assets associated with fewer internalizing problems and higher

self-esteem in their sample of 323 Latino adolescents living in North Carolina. Similarly,

Coatsworth et al. [54] compared the acculturation patterns of 315 Hispanic youth and found

that bicultural youth had the most adaptive pattern of functioning across a number of

different ecological domains. Considering these positive effects, both the decreasing tra-

jectory for aggression and the positive effect found for adolescent US cultural involvement,

particularly for foreign-born adolescents, may provide further support for the benefits of

biculturalism.

Finally, decreased aggressive behavior may be a sign that, over time, Latino adolescents

learn strategies for coping with acculturation stress. Low-acculturated individuals experi-

encing high levels of stress display negative self-esteem, experience acculturation conflicts,

and are commonly cut-off from the benefits of their cultures of origin [13, 28]. These low-

acculturated individuals often lack the resources and skills to successfully navigate within

their new environment and have greater difficulty with negative stereotypes and perceived

discrimination [25]. Gil et al. [27] found low-acculturated adolescents who were born in the

United States to have a particularly problematic profile of stressors and difficulties. Com-

pared to foreign-born peers, these low-acculturated US-born Latino adolescents were much

more likely to perceive discrimination and internalize negative stereotypes. In reaction to

acculturation stress, Latino adolescents may feel the need to defend themselves or to

affiliate with gangs for safety [55]. However, over time, both native and immigrant Latino

adolescents may acquire coping mechanisms to peacefully handle acculturation conflicts,

decreasing the frequency and intensity of reactive aggressive behaviors.

The acculturation stress explanation for higher levels of aggression at baseline that

decrease over time has additional supporting evidence in our models. Latino adolescents

whose parents reported acculturation conflicts displayed significantly higher levels of

aggressive behavior at baseline as compared to adolescents whose parents reported fewer

acculturation conflicts. The trajectory marking decreasing adolescent aggression was still

evident for this group with higher parent-reported acculturation conflicts; however, the

actual levels of adolescent aggression were consistently higher in the context of accul-

turation conflicts (see Fig. 2).

This dynamic was even more pronounced for parent-adolescent conflict behavior (see

Fig. 1). Adolescents who reported conflict with their parents were significantly more

aggressive at baseline and, despite the decreasing trajectory of aggression, remained more

aggressive across all waves of data as compared to adolescents with fewer parent-ado-

lescent conflicts. This positive relationship between parent-adolescent conflict and Latino

adolescent aggression extends previous cross-sectional research on the role of parent-

adolescent conflict as a risk factor [11, 40, 56]. In addition, this positive relationship

provides additional support for the notion that family processes mediate the relationship

between acculturation and Latino adolescent aggression [9–11, 20]. Parent-adolescent

conflict was a risk factor for aggressive behavior in both foreign-born and US-born ado-

lescents. This conflict may gain additional fuel from acculturation experiences, but it

appears to be a salient risk factor regardless of level of acculturation and independent of

acculturation stress.

Implications for Practice

It is good news that Latino adolescent aggression appears to decrease naturally without

intervention. At the same time, however, practitioners and prevention scientists should

consider that there is an important opportunity for service provision shortly after

604 Child Psychiatry Hum Dev (2009) 40:589–608

123

immigration when acculturation stress and adolescent aggression peaks. Appropriate

prevention services provided during this critical time may accelerate the attenuation of

adolescent aggression and prevent increases in aggression further in the longitudinal tra-

jectory. Of course, further research with a larger, geographically diverse sample of newly

immigrated adolescents would provide stronger support for this recommendation for early

prevention services.

Program development should center on family-focused services. Our findings support

the importance of working with Latino families to decrease parent-adolescent conflict—the

strongest risk factor for heightened adolescent aggression—while also working to decrease

acculturation conflicts perceived by parents. Optimally, Latino adolescents should be

shown ways to become involved in US culture without generating conflict with their

parents. Conversely, parents should be taught strategies for coping with acculturation

stressors. These recommendations are in line with the development of family-oriented

cultural skills training programs [51, 57, 58]. Such cultural skills programs help Latino

parents and adolescents to address areas of familial conflict, decrease intercultural conflict

and acculturation stress, and heighten bicultural competencies within family systems.

Given the range of benefits from pilot studies on these programs (for a review see [51]),

acculturation skills training initiatives deserve greater attention and wider dissemination.

Limitations

The unique sampling frame that provided previously unknown information about accul-

turation processes in Latino families in North Carolina and Arizona limits our ability to

generalize results to Latinos beyond these geographic areas. Therefore, caution is war-

ranted in applying the results in other contexts. We also recognize that there are important

differences between countries-of-origin. Although a range of Latino subgroups were rep-

resented in the sample, we were unable to compare adolescents and parents from different

country-of-origin subgroups. These comparisons quickly become unwieldy and suffer from

sample size limitations. Nevertheless, it is critical to acknowledge that Latinos are not a

homogenous group and acculturation processes are likely to vary by country-of-origin.

Collecting data from multiple family members is a complex undertaking. Our ran-

domization procedure for selecting one sibling from families in which two participated

showed significant differences between selected records and the discarded records. These

significant differences indicate the possibility that records from some higher risk adoles-

cents may have been among those randomly selected for exclusion. Thus, our model

effects might underestimate the strength of significant effects for higher risk adolescents.

Divergent trajectories for high-risk adolescents and clinical samples should be considered

in future research.

Despite these limitations, the use of HLM enabled us to account for the clustering of

parent and adolescent participants into multiple-rater families and to examine adolescent

aggression trajectories over time. HLM is a useful approach for analyzing multiple

reporter, longitudinal data from Latino families. Predicting variation in aggression tra-

jectories with longitudinal data is a significant advance in our ability to make causal

assertions about the relationship between acculturation and problem behavior. In an area

dominated by cross-sectional designs, modeling trajectories based on multiple waves of

data from multiple observers is a strong step forward. Even so, our trajectories showed

evidence of slight increases at the 18-month follow-up, which suggests it would be optimal

to have additional data waves to analyze the complicated relationship between accultur-

ation and aggression. This is a fertile area for future research.

Child Psychiatry Hum Dev (2009) 40:589–608 605

123

Summary

This study examined how multiple indicators of adolescent and parent acculturation relate

to longitudinal trajectories of Latino adolescent aggression. The hierarchical linear mod-

eling analysis was based on a final sample of 256 adolescents paired with one parent. The

overall trajectory of Latino adolescent aggression displayed a statistically significant

negative trend that was best characterized by a quadratic curve, decreasing from baseline to

follow-up 1 year later and slightly increasing at 18-month follow-up. This quadratic curve

characterized foreign-born youth; their US-born counterparts displayed a linear decreasing

trajectory. This decreasing trend contradicts past reports of a positive association between

adolescent acculturation and aggression. Risk factors were also delineated, showing that

parent-reported acculturation conflicts, for foreign-born adolescents, and adolescent-

reported parent-adolescent conflicts, for all adolescents, were associated with higher levels

of adolescent aggression. Prevention practitioners are encouraged to target these risk

factors with family-focused programs that they strategically time to occur shortly after

immigration when acculturation stress and adolescent aggression are at their highest points.

Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank Dr. Flavio Marsiglia and Monica Parsai, MSW for theirwork collecting data in Arizona and Melissa Chalot, MPH for project management. Special thanks go to theLatino families who participated in this study. This study was supported by grants from the Center forDisease Control’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (R49/CCR42172-02) and from theCenters for Disease Control’s Office of the Director (1K01 CE000496-01).

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2006) Youth risk behavior surveillance-United States,2005. Surveillance Summaries. MMWR 2006:55 (No. SS-5). Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/SS/SS5505.pdf

2. Kaufman P, Chen X, Choy SP, Peter K, Ruddy SA, Miller AK et al (2001) Indicators of school crimeand safety: 2001 (NCES 2002–113 or NCJ-190075). US Department of Education and US Departmentof Justice, Washington

3. Redfield R, Linton R, Herskovits M (1936) Memorandum for the study of acculturation. Am Anthropol38:149–152. doi:10.1525/aa.1936.38.1.02a00330

4. Smith EP, Guerra NG (2006) Introduction. In: Guerra NG, Smith EP (eds) Preventing youth violence ina multicultural society. American Psychological Association, Washington, pp 3–14

5. Berry JW (1998) Acculturation stress. In: Balls Organista P, Chun KM, Marin G (eds) Readings inethnic psychology. Routledge, New York, pp 117–122

6. Castro FG, Coe K, Gutierres S, Saenz D (1996) Designing health promotion programs for Latinos. In:Kato PM, Mann T (eds) Handbook of diversity issues in health psychology. Plenum, New York, pp319–346

7. Cabassa LJ (2003) Measuring acculturation: where we are and where we need to go. Hisp J Behav Sci25:127–146. doi:10.1177/0739986303025002001

8. Dahlberg LL, Krug EG (2002) Violence: a global public health problem. In: Krug EG, Dahlberg LL,Mercy JA, Zwi AB, Lozano R (eds) World report on violence and health. World Health Organization,Geneva, pp 1–21

9. Dinh KT, Roosa MW, Tein JY, Lopez VA (2002) The relationship between acculturation and problembehavior proneness in a Hispanic youth sample: a longitudinal mediation model. J Abnorm ChildPsychol 30:295–309. doi:10.1023/A:1015111014775

10. Gonzales NA, Deardorff J, Formoso D, Barr A, Barrera M (2006) Family mediators of the relationbetween acculturation and adolescent mental health. Fam Relat 55:318–330. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2006.00405.x

11. Smokowski PR, Bacallao ML (2006) Acculturation and aggression in Latino adolescents: a structuralmodel focusing on cultural risk factors and assets. J Abnorm Child Psychol 34:657–671. doi:10.1007/s10802-006-9049-4

606 Child Psychiatry Hum Dev (2009) 40:589–608

123

12. Vega WA, Gil AG, Warheit G, Zimmerman R, Apospori E (1993) Acculturation and delinquentbehavior among Cuban American adolescents: toward an empirical model. Am J Community Psychol21:113–125. doi:10.1007/BF00938210

13. Vega WA, Khoury E, Zimmerman R, Gil AG, Warheit G (1995) Cultural conflicts and problembehaviors of Latino adolescents in home and school environments. J Community Psychol 23:167–179.doi:10.1002/1520-6629(199504)23:2\167::AID-JCOP2290230207[3.0.CO;2-O

14. Bird H, Canino G, Davies M, Duarte C, Febo V, Ramirez R et al (2006) A study of disruptive behaviordisorders in Puerto Rican youth: I. Background, design, and survey methods. J Am Acad Child AdolescPsychiatry 45:1032–1041. doi:10.1097/01.chi.0000227879.65651.cf

15. Bird HR, Davies M, Duarte CS (2006) A study of disruptive behavior disorders in Puerto Rican youth:II. Baseline prevalence, comorbidity, and correlates in two sites. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry45:1042–1053. doi:10.1097/01.chi.0000227878.58027.3d

16. Smokowski PR, David-Ferdon C, Stroupe N (2009) Acculturation, youth violence, and suicidalbehavior in minority adolescents: a review of the empirical literature. J Prim Prev (forthcoming)

17. Brook JS, Whiteman M, Balka EB, Win T, Gursen MD (1998) African American and Puerto Rican druguse: a longitudinal study. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 36:1260–1268

18. Bui H, Thongniramol O (2005) Immigration and self-reported delinquency: the interplay of immigra-tion, generations, gender, race, and ethnicity. J Crim Justice 28:71–80

19. Buriel R, Calzada S, Vasquez R (1982) The relationship of traditional Mexican American culture toadjustment and delinquency among three generations of Mexican American male adolescents. Hisp JBehav Sci 4:41–55. doi:10.1177/07399863820041003

20. Samaniego RY, Gonzales NA (1999) Multiple mediators of the effects of acculturation status ondelinquency for Mexican American adolescents. Am J Community Psychol 27:189–210. doi:10.1023/A:1022883601126

21. Sommers I, Fagan J, Baskin D (1993) Sociocultural influences on the explanation of delinquency forPuerto Rican youths. Hisp J Behav Sci 15:36–62. doi:10.1177/07399863930151002

22. Carvajal SC, Hanson CE, Romero AJ, Coyle KK (2002) Behavioural risk factors and protective factorsin adolescents: a comparison of Latino and non-Latino whites. Ethn Health 7:181–193. doi:10.1080/1355785022000042015

23. Caetano R, Schafer J, Cunradi CB (2000) Intimate partner violence, acculturation and alcohol con-sumption among Hispanic couples in the United States. J Interpers Violence 15:30–45. doi:10.1177/088626000015001003

24. Markides K, Krause N, Mendes De Leon CF (1988) Acculturation and alcohol consumption amongMexican Americans: a three-generation study. Am J Public Health 78:1178–1181. doi:10.2105/AJPH.78.9.1178

25. Rogler LH, Cortes RS, Malgady RG (1991) Acculturation and mental health status among Hispanics.Am Psychol 46:585–597. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.46.6.585

26. Gil A, Wagner E, Vega W (2000) Acculturation, familism, and alcohol use among Latino adolescentmales: longitudinal relations. J Community Psychol 28:443–458. doi:10.1002/1520-6629(200007)28:4\443::AID-JCOP6[3.0.CO;2-A

27. Gil AG, Vega WA, Dimas JM (1994) Acculturative stress and personal adjustment among Hispanicadolescent boys. J Community Psychol 22:43–54. doi:10.1002/1520-6629(199401)22:1\43::AID-JCOP2290220106[3.0.CO;2-T

28. Vega WA, Gil A, Warheit G, Apospori E, Zimmerman R (1993) The relationship of drug use to suicideideation and attempts among African American, Hispanic, and white non-Hispanic male adolescents.Suicide Life Threat Behav 23:110–119

29. Decker MR, Raj A, Silverman JG (2007) Sexual violence against adolescent girls: influences ofimmigration and acculturation. Violence Against Women 13:498–513. doi:10.1177/1077801207300654

30. Silverman JG, Decker MR, Raj A (2007) Immigration-based disparities in adolescent girls’ vulnera-bility to dating violence. Matern Child Health J 11:37–43. doi:10.1007/s10995-006-0130-y

31. Hovey JD (1998) Acculturative stress, depression, and suicidal ideation among Mexican–Americanadolescents: implications for the development of suicide prevention programs in schools. Psychol Rep83:249–250. doi:10.2466/PR0.83.5.249-250

32. Hovey JD, King CA (1996) Acculturative stress, depression, and suicidal ideation among immigrant andsecond-generation Latino adolescents. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 35:1183–1192. doi:10.1097/00004583-199609000-00016

33. Brown B, Benedict WR (2004) Bullets, blades, and being afraid in Hispanic high schools: an explor-atory study of the presence of weapons and fear of weapons-related victimization among high schoolstudents in a border town. Crime Delinq 50:372–394. doi:10.1177/0011128703254916

Child Psychiatry Hum Dev (2009) 40:589–608 607

123

34. Olvera RL (2001) Suicidal ideation in Hispanic and mixed ancestry adolescents. Suicide Life ThreatBehav 31:416–427. doi:10.1521/suli.31.4.416.22049

35. Rasmussen K, Negy C, Carlson R, Burns J (1997) Suicide ideation and acculturation among lowsocioeconomic status Mexican American adolescents. J Early Adolesc 17:390–407. doi:10.1177/0272431697017004003

36. Sanderson M, Coker AL, Roberts RE, Tortolero SR, Reininger BM (2004) Acculturation, ethnicidentity, and dating violence among Latino ninth-grade students. Prev Med 39:373–383. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.01.034

37. Swanson JW, Linksey AO, Quintero-Salinas R, Pumariega A, Holzer CE (1992) A binational schoolsurvey of depressive symptoms, drug use, and suicidal ideation. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry31:669–678. doi:10.1097/00004583-199207000-00014

38. Ng B (1996) Characteristics of 61 Mexican American adolescents who attempted suicide. Hisp J BehavSci 18:3–12. doi:10.1177/07399863960181001

39. Yu SM, Huang ZJ, Schwalberg RH, Overpeck M, Kogan MD (2003) Acculturation and the health andwell-being of US immigrant adolescents. J Adolesc Health 33:479–488. doi:10.1016/S1054-139X(03)00210-6

40. Smokowski PR, Rose R, Bacallao, ML (2008) Acculturation and Latino family processes: how parent-adolescent acculturation gaps influence family dynamics. Fam Relat 57(3):295–308

41. Guo S, Hussey D (1999) Analyzing longitudinal rating data: a three-level hierarchical linear model. SocWork Res 23:258–269

42. Raudenbush SW, Bryk AS (2002) Hierarchical linear models: applications and data analysis methods,2nd edn. Sage, Newbury Park

43. Snijders TAB, Bosker RJ (1999) Multilevel analysis: an introduction to basic and advanced multilevelmodeling. Sage, London

44. Szapocznik J, Kurtines W, Fernandez T (1980) Biculturalism involvement and adjustment in Hispanic–American youths. Int J Intercult Relat 4:353–365. doi:10.1016/0147-1767(80)90010-3

45. Robin AL, Foster SL (1989) Negotiating parent-adolescent conflict: a behavioral-family systemsapproach. Guilford, New York

46. Vega WA, Alderete E, Kolody B, Aguilar-Gaxiola S (1998) Illicit drug use among Mexicans andMexican Americans in California: the effects of gender and acculturation. Addiction 93:1839–1850.doi:10.1046/j.1360-0443.1998.931218399.x

47. Achenbach TM, Rescorla LA (2001) Manual for ASEBA school-age forms and profiles. University ofVermont, Research Center for Children, Youth & Families, Burlington

48. Schafer JL (1997) Analysis of incomplete multivariate data. Chapman Hall/CRC, Boca Raton49. Graham JW, Olchowski AE, Gilreath TD (2007) How many imputations are really needed? Some

practical clarifications of multiple imputation theory. Prev Sci 8:206–213. doi:10.1007/s11121-007-0070-9

50. Von Hippel PT (2007) Regression with missing Ys: an improved strategy for analyzing multiplyimputed data. Sociol Methodol 37:83–117. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9531.2007.00180.x

51. Bacallao ML, Smokowski PR (2005) Entre dos mundos (between two worlds) bicultural skills trainingand Latino immigrant families. J Prim Prev 26:485–509. doi:10.1007/s10935-005-0008-6

52. Gonzales NA, Knight GP, Morgan-Lopez A, Saenz D, Sirolli A (2002) Acculturation and the mentalhealth of Latino youths: an integration and critique of the literature. In: Contreras JM, Kerns KA, Neal-Barnett AM (eds) Latino children and families in the United States. Greenwood, Westport

53. LaFromboise T, Coleman HL, Gerton J (1993) Psychological impact of biculturalism: evidence andtheory. Psychol Bull 114:395–412. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.395

54. Coatsworth JD, Maldonido-Molina M, Pantin H, Szapocznik J (2005) A person-centered and ecologicalinvestigation of acculturation strategies in Hispanic immigrant youth. J Community Psychol 33:157–174.doi:10.1002/jcop.20046

55. Bacallao ML, Smokowski PR (2009) Obstacles to getting ahead: how assimilation mechanisms impactMexican immigrant families. J Health Soc Policy (forthcoming)

56. Smokowski PR, Bacallao ML (2007) Acculturation, internalizing mental health symptoms, and self-esteem: cultural experiences of Latino adolescents in North Carolina. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev37:273–292. doi:10.1007/s10578-006-0035-4

57. Coatsworth JD, Pantin H, Szapocznik J (2002) Familias unidas: a family-centered ecodevelopmentalintervention to reduce risk for problem behavior among Hispanic adolescents. Clin Child Fam PsycholRev 5:113–132. doi:10.1023/A:1015420503275

58. Szapocznik J, Santisteban D, Kurtines W, Perez-Vidal A, Hervis O (1986) Bicultural effectivenesstraining (BET): an experimental test of an intervention modality for families experiencing inter-generational/intercultural conflict. Hisp J Behav Sci 8:303–330. doi:10.1177/07399863860084001

608 Child Psychiatry Hum Dev (2009) 40:589–608

123