What predicts interdependence with family? The relative contributions of ethnicity/race and social class.

OBJECTIVE: Interdependence with family is considered a core element of collectivistic cultures, and it is routinely endorsed by people of ethnic/racial minority backgrounds in the United States. In contrast, a preference for independence from family is characteristic of individualistic cultures, and of European Americans, who are considered prototypical of cultural individualism. Scholars have also theorized that socioeconomic factors play a role in shaping these patterns. We hypothesized and tested the possibility of a more nuanced and interactive pattern. Drawing from long-standing research on U.S. ethnic-minority cultures and recent research on social class, we expected that lower income would be least associated with family interdependence in foreign-born Latino/a Americans and most strongly associated with higher family interdependence in European Americans. METHOD AND RESULTS: In a prospective community study of a diverse sample of U.S. adults (N = 2,466), income interacted with ethnic/racial group to predict interdependence with family. In line with our predictions, income was not associated with family interdependence for foreign-born Latino/a Americans or African Americans, but lower income was significantly associated with higher interdependence with family in European Americans and, to a lesser extent, in U.S.-born Latino/a Americans. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide novel evidence for the relevance of both ethnicity/race and social class-two aspects of culture-for family interdependence. They highlight the centrality of interdependence with family among foreign-born Latino/a Americans while showing that European Americans, a group considered most representative of cultural individualism, can also highly value interdependence with family. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Is Receiving Social Support Costly for Those Higher in Subjective Socioeconomic Status?

BACKGROUND: Although social support is generally thought to have positive consequences, this is not always the case. Receiving social support may threaten independence, which research has shown is more highly valued among those higher in socioeconomic status. As a result, support may be less strongly associated with positive outcomes for those higher in socioeconomic status (SES). Conversely, those lower in SES are more interdependent (Kraus, Piff, Mendoza-Denton, Rheinschmidt, & Keltner, 2012; Stephens, Markus, & Phillips, 2014) and may, therefore, be less threatened when receiving social support. This study examined SES as a moderator of how daily received support (within and between persons) predicted both daily psychological stressor appraisals and diurnal cortisol. METHOD: Healthy undergraduate students (N = 128) participated in a 3-day study. Participants completed one or more evening diaries the first day of the study and additional questionnaires upon awakening, throughout the day, and at bedtime during the following 2 days. Support was measured each evening and stressor appraisals and cortisol were measured throughout the day. RESULTS: As expected, for those who reported higher subjective SES, receiving more support than usual (within-person support) was associated with a flatter pattern of diurnal cortisol the next day. Although SES did not moderate the association of either within- or between-person support with stressor appraisals, the receipt of more support on average (between-person support) was associated with higher reported resources to cope. CONCLUSION: The findings demonstrate that there may be physiological costs-but not psychological costs-associated with the receipt of support for those higher in socioeconomic status.

Measurement Properties of Sabogal's Familism Scale: Findings from the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos (HCHS/SOL) Sociocultural Ancillary Study.

Familism is a central Hispanic/Latino cultural value that emphasizes close, supportive family relationships and prioritizing family over the self. One of its best-known measures is Sabogal's Familism Scale (Sabogal, Marin, Otero-Sabogal, VanOss Marin, & Perez-Stable, 1987). Although widely used, this scale's measurement properties are not well understood. This study addressed that gap by examining the factor structure, factorial invariance, convergent and discriminant validity, and internal consistency of Sabogal's Familism Scale using data from the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos (HCHS/SOL) Sociocultural Ancillary Study. A diverse population-based sample of Hispanics/Latinos (N = 5,313) completed measures that were administered via interview in English or Spanish. Confirmatory factor analyses (n = 5,310) revealed that a three-factor model (familial obligations, perceived support from the family, family as referents; Sabogal's original three factors) fit the data well and did not vary across English and Spanish language groups (i.e., factorial invariance). Convergent and discriminant validities were also established; familism correlated positively with other Hispanic/Latino cultural values (simpatía, fatalism) and correlated negatively with U.S. acculturation. Internal consistency was acceptable. Sabogal's Familism Scale is recommended for continued use in the study of familism in U.S. Hispanics/Latinos.

El familismo es un valor central para la cultura Hispana/Latina que enfatiza las relaciones familiares cercanas, caracterizadas por el apoyo mutuo, y por darle prioridad a la familia por encima del individuo. Una de las medidas más conocidas del familismo es la Escala del Familismo de Sabogal (Sabogal, Marin, Otero-Sabogal, VanOss Marin, y Perez-Stable, 1987). Aunque la escala se usa ampliamente, sus propiedades de medición no se han establecido claramente. Este estudio abordó ese vacío conceptual al examinar la estructura factorial, la invariancia factorial, la validez convergente y discriminante, así como la consistencia interna de la Escala del Familismo de Sabogal utilizando los datos del Estudio de la Salud de la Comunidad Hispana/Estudio de Latinos (HCHS/SOL), Estudio Auxiliar Sociocultural. Una muestra diversa basada en la población estadounidense de Hispanos/Latinos (N = 5,313) completó varias medidas que se administraron por medio de una entrevista en inglés o español. Los análisis factoriales confirmatorios (n = 5,310) revelaron que un modelo de tres factores (obligaciones familiares, apoyo percibido de la familia, familiares como referentes), que son los tres factores originales de Sabogal, se ajustaron bien con los datos y no variaron por grupo de idioma (inglés o español); es decir, encontramos evidencia de invariancia factorial. También se estableció la validez convergente y discriminante; el familismo se correlacionó positivamente con otros valores culturales típicamente Hispanos/Latinos (simpatía, fatalismo) y se correlacionó negativamente con la aculturación a los Estados Unidos. La consistencia interna fue aceptable. Se recomienda el uso continuo de la Escala del Familismo de Sabogal para el estudio del familismo en Hispanos/Latinos.

Social-evaluative threat, cognitive load, and the cortisol and cardiovascular stress response.

BACKGROUND: Current evidence suggests that exposure to social-evaluative threat (SET) can elicit a physiological stress response, especially cortisol, which is an important regulatory hormone. However, an alternative explanation of these findings is that social-evaluative laboratory tasks are more difficult, or confer greater cognitive load, than non-evaluative tasks. Thus, the current experiment tested whether social-evaluative threat, rather than cognitive load, is truly an "active ingredient" in eliciting a cortisol response to stressors. METHODS: Healthy undergraduate students (N = 142, 65% female) were randomly assigned to one of four speech-stressor conditions in a fully-crossed two (social-evaluative threat [SET] manipulation: non-SET versus SET) by two (cognitive load manipulation: low versus high) stressor manipulation. Social-evaluative threat was manipulated by the presence (SET) or absence (non-SET) of two evaluators, while cognitive load was manipulated by the presence (LOAD) or absence (non-LOAD) of a tone-counting task during the speech stressor. Salivary cortisol and cardiovascular measures were taken before, during, and after the speech stressor. RESULTS: Compared to the non-SET condition, SET condition led to greater cortisol and cardiovascular responses to the speech stressor. There were no main or additive effects of cognitive load on cortisol and cardiovascular responses to the speech stressor. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that social-evaluative threat is a central aspect of stressors that elicits a cortisol response; however we found no evidence that increased difficulty, or cognitive load, contributed to greater cardiovascular or cortisol responses to stressors.

The Use of Smartphones as a Digital Security Blanket: The Influence of Phone Use and Availability on Psychological and Physiological Responses to Social Exclusion.

OBJECTIVE: Mobile phones are increasingly becoming a part of the social environment, and when individuals feels excluded during a socially stressful situation, they often retreat to the comfort of their phone to ameliorate the negativity. This study tests whether smartphone presence does, in fact, alter psychological and physiological responses to social stress. METHODS: Participants (N = 148, 84% female, mean age = 20.4) were subjected to a peer, social-exclusion stressor. Before exclusion, participants were randomized to one of the following three conditions: (1) phone-present with use encouraged, (2) phone-present with use restricted, or (3) no phone access. Saliva samples and self-report data were collected throughout the study to assess salivary alpha amylase (sAA), cortisol, and feelings of exclusion. RESULTS: Participants in both phone-present conditions reported lower feelings of exclusion compared with individuals who had no access to their phone (F(2,143) = 5.49, p = .005). Multilevel modeling of sAA responses revealed that the individuals in the restricted-phone condition had a significantly different quadratic trajectory after the stressor compared with the phone use (υ = -0.12, z = -2.15, p = .032), and no-phone conditions (υ = -0.14, z = -2.64, p = .008). Specifically, those in the restricted-phone condition showed a decrease in sAA after exclusion, those in the no-phone condition showed a gradual increase, and phone users exhibited little change. Cortisol responses to the stressor did not vary by condition. CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, these results suggest that the mere presence of a phone (and not necessarily phone use) can buffer against the negative experience and effects of social exclusion.