J Immigrant Health (2007) 9:75–84DOI 10.1007/s10903-006-9018-6

ORIGINAL PAPER

Stressful Life Events, Culture, and ViolenceHieu M. Ngo · Thao N. Le

Published online: 8 December 2006C© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2006

Abstract This study explored the contributions of stress-ful life events and their interactions with social supportand cultural factors in predicting serious violence amongAmerican adolescent immigrants of Chinese and SoutheastAsian origins. Youth differed in their exposure to stressorsand how they responded to them. Cambodian and Laotianyouth reported the highest levels of stressors, except foremotional abuse. Only physical abuse was an independentpredictor of serious violence for all groups, except Chinese.Perceived social support buffered the effects of some stres-sors, whereas increased levels of acculturation, intergenera-tional/intercultural conflict, and individualism placed youthat increased risk for serious violence. The results suggest thatthe moderating effects of culture and social support need tobe considered when examining the association between lifestressors and serious violence for Chinese and SoutheastAsian youth.

Keywords Asian . Youth . Stressful life events . Stressors .

Violence

Adolescence is a particularly critical period with many physi-cal, cognitive, and socio-emotional changes, including devel-opment of autonomy and identity. The presence of stressors

H. M. Ngo · T. N. LeNational Council on Crime and Delinquency,Oakland, California, USA

T. N. LeHuman Development and Family Studies,Colorado State University,Fort Collins, Colorado, USA

H. M. Ngo (�)1970 Broadway Suite 500, Oakland, CA 94612, USAe-mail: hngo@sf.nccd-crc.org

can adversely impact this developmental process. Stressorsare defined as “environmental events or chronic conditionsthat objectively threaten the physical and/or psychologicalhealth or well-being of individuals at a particular age ina particular society” [1]. The stressor can be physical oremotional, chronic or episodic, and/or single factor or ad-ditive. Stressors often involve some sort of change in theenvironment (e.g., family, school, community), usually re-quiring individuals to adapt. Some stressors can exhaust anindividual’s resources, resulting in maladaptation, such asdepression or delinquency.

A large body of research in the past decade indicatesthat adolescents can develop internalizing (e.g., depression,PTSD, anxiety) and/or externalizing symptoms (e.g., sub-stance use, aggression, delinquency) as a response to lifestressors, such as exposure to violence, changes in residence,serious illness, poverty, or a death in the family [2–5].

Cross-sectional studies showed that children exposed toviolence are at increased risk for various antisocial behav-iors [5–7]. Flannery et al. [7] found that adolescents whocommit violent behavior are more likely to have been wit-nesses and victims of violence than non-offenders. For ex-ample, for males this rate was three to six times higher andfor females two to seven times higher compared to controlmales and females, respectively. In a national representativepopulation-based sample of high school seniors, those whowere repeatedly victimized were 1.85 times more likely toinitiate a delinquent act compared to those who were nevervictimized [6]. In addition, increases in externalizing (e.g.,conduct problems) and internalizing behaviors (e.g., depres-sion) were seen in a group of 92 children ages 8 to 15 whoexperienced a death of one parent [4].

However, not all adolescents exposed to stressors expe-rience behavioral problems. Critical to understanding whysome adolescents exposed to negative life events experience

Springer

76 J Immigrant Health (2007) 9:75–84

adjustment problems whereas others do not is identifyingprotective factors that may moderate this effect. A moderatoraffects the direction and/or strength of the relation betweenthe predictor and outcome variable. A moderating effect canbe represented by an interaction between the moderator andthe predictor variable [8].

Numerous studies have examined the positive role of so-cial support from family, peers, school, or community inattenuating the impact of stressful life events on behavioralproblems [3, 9, 10]. Weist et al.’s [10] study of youth liv-ing under stress showed that in a sample of inner-city ninthgraders, family cohesion protected boys from developing be-havioral problems. Similar results were shown among chil-dren who experience chronic illness. For instance, childrenliving in high conflict families who experience discrete nega-tive life events and a chronic illness were likely to have morebehavioral problems compared to those that come from morestable families [3].

In contrast, fewer studies have identified how socialsupport influences the relationship between violence expo-sure and violence perpetration, and often, these findingsare mixed. Gorman-Smith, Henry, and Tolan [11] showedthat family functioning moderated this relation. Their studyfound that adolescents from exceptionally functioning fami-lies (i.e., emotional cohesion, strong family orientation, con-sistent parenting) who were exposed to high rates of violencewere less likely to commit violence than similarly exposedadolescents from less well-functioning families. On the otherhand, Youngstrom, Weist, and Albus [5] found that familysupport failed to buffer the effects of violence exposure oninternalizing and externalizing behaviors in a group of 342high school students.

Although cultural factors have been discussed, researchremains scant in examining their influence on risk of violenceamong youth [12, 13], particularly for minority urban youthwho live in a multicultural environment [14]. Immigrant ado-lescents may face racial discrimination, prejudice, languagebarriers, and other adaptation issues as immigrants; this is es-pecially true for recent immigrants [14]. These acculturativestressors can contribute to adolescents’ maladjustments. Ac-culturation is defined as the “process whereby the attitudesand/or behaviors of persons from one culture are modifiedas a result of contact with a different culture” [15]. Accultur-ation studies, however, have also shown inconsistent resultswith respect to delinquency [12]. Lim, Levenson, and Go[16] found that Cambodian adolescents who were less accul-turated were more likely to engage in delinquent behaviors.Bankston and Zhou [17], in contrast, found that Vietnameseadolescents who adhered more to Vietnamese values andwere less acculturated were less likely to be delinquent.

The process by which acculturation results in violencemay operate through various mechanisms, such as intergen-erational/cultural conflict and endorsement of certain values

(e.g., individualism versus collectivism). Intergenerationaland intercultural conflicts, for instance, can arise when chil-dren become more acculturated than their parents. Mai’sstudy [18] on first and second generation Vietnamese im-migrants indicated that more acculturated children were atgreater risk for having conflict with their parents. Giventhe importance of family support in the face of stressorsas discussed earlier, conflict with parents due to differencesin values may adversely affect youth’s ability to cope withstressors.

Acculturation may also result in changes in cultural val-ues. Studies have shown that Asians tend to be more col-lectivistic than individualistic in terms of value orienta-tion [19]. Collectivism emphasizes adherence to a group’snorms, beliefs, and attitudes, whereas individualism empha-sizes uniqueness and autonomy. Asian parents tend to in-still collectivistic rather than individualistic attitudes in theirchildren. Independence and autonomy are not emphasized;rather, emphasis is placed on being a part of a group, main-taining harmony, cohesion, and interdependence. Except forLe and Stockdale’s study [20], little is known about how col-lectivism and individualism influence delinquent behaviors.In their study, they found that individualism was positivelyassociated and collectivism was negatively associated, withpeer delinquency and serious violence. Individualistic ado-lescents may be more inclined to commit delinquent acts,as a way to assert their identity and autonomy, compared tocollectivistic adolescents who may fear such behavior maydisrupt their relationship with their parents. Overall though,very few studies have examined how cultural factors maymoderate the effect of stressors on youth violence.

The majority of studies looking at the link between stres-sors and youth violence have primarily examined mainstreampopulations; studies on Asian and Southeast Asian youth stillremain limited [14]. Consequently, we do not know whetherfindings from these few studies could be generalized to otherpopulations. Hence, it is important to examine how differentethnic groups are impacted by stressful life events. For exam-ple, different ethnic groups may differ in both the exposureto stressors, the responses to them, as well as the moderatingfactors that may be important in attenuating their effects.

The few relevant studies that do exist showed thatstressors are linked with various delinquent behaviorsamong Asian youth. For instance, Liu et al. [21] found thatthe presence of negative life events, mainly involving issuesin academic and interpersonal relationships, increased therisk of behavioral problems in a large sample of Chineseadolescents from China.

Present study

Given the paucity of studies on stressful life events andserious violence among Asian and Southeast Asian immi-

Springer

J Immigrant Health (2007) 9:75–84 77

grant youth, the main objective of this study was to exam-ine the relative influence of different types of stressors onyouth’s self-reported violent behavior for Cambodian, Chi-nese, Lao/Mien, and Vietnamese groups. Adopting the stres-sor specific model (i.e., saliency of particular stressors), sev-eral domains of stressors were examined with respect to seri-ous violence. They included emotional hardship, emotionalabuse/victimization, and physical abuse/victimization. Wealso examined several potential moderating factors, includ-ing social support, acculturation, individualism/collectivism,and intergenerational/intercultural conflict.

We hypothesized stressful life events to be significantlyrelated to self-reported delinquency across the four ethnicgroups but made no a priori predictions as to which stressoris more significant. We suspected that the presence of socialsupport and collectivism ideals would attenuate this relation-ship, while the presence of intergenerational/interculturalconflict, acculturation, and adherence to individualism wouldincrease the strength of this relationship. The effect of thesemoderating factors may be fluid, depending on the child’sdevelopmental stage and available resources.

Method

Sample and procedure

The sample consisted of 329 Cambodian, Chinese,Lao/Mien, and Vietnamese youth ages 10–18 taken from alarger, cross-sectional community-based research study ex-amining the risk and protective factors for Asian and PacificIslander delinquency. Participants were drawn from two localmiddle and high schools, as well as five community-basedorganizations (CBOs) in Oakland, California serving mostlyAsian/Pacific Islander families. With permission of schooladministrators, our research team visited every math andphysical education classroom to recruit students. Interestedstudents provided their age, ethnicity, sex, parent’s name,and phone numbers on a consent form. Consent form wasobtained from parents prior scheduling the interview with theyouth. The response rate was higher from the CBOs (71%)compared to the schools (49%). Parents and their childrenwere interviewed separately using an interview instrumentbased on three large national studies of youth developmentand delinquency [22]. We made revisions to the instrumentto ensure cultural appropriateness and relevancy based onour pilot tests and comments from focus groups with com-munity members. Face-to-face interviews lasted on average45 minutes with most taking place in the participant’s home;fewer than 30 interviews were conducted outside of the home(e.g., community-based center, library). Participants were in-formed of confidentiality and their right to decline to answerany question or to stop the interview at any time. Participants

received $25 for participating. The University of Hawaii atManoa’s Institutional Review Board approved all study pro-cedures and instruments.

Measures

Demographics

Age was calculated as the difference between date of inter-view and self-reported date of birth. Sex included male [1]and female [2]. For ethnicity, respondents selected the eth-nic group that they identified with the most. For cases wheremore than one ethnic group was selected but no primary eth-nicity was indicated, the ethnicity of the mother was used.About 10% of cases fell into this category.

Stressful life events

Stressful life events were measured using a 15 item scale.We used a 4-point Likert scale to ask whether the respondenthad ever experienced an event and how long ago it occurred(0 = never, 1 = longer than one year ago, 2 = within oneyear, 3 = within last three months). Examples of questionsincluded experiencing serious illness or injury, experienc-ing a family crisis, having someone close die, experiencingdiscrimination, and being yelled at or shouted at by a non-family1 member in a way that scared you, being shot at orstabbed at by a non-family member. The mean of each itemwas computed. The internal reliability for this scale was 0.70.The internal reliability scores for the subscales were 0.53,0.34, and 0.29 for emotional hardship, emotional abuse andphysical abuse, respectively.

Serious violence

A 4–item scale measured serious delinquency based onthe Denver Youth Survey [23, 24]. Respondents reportedwhether they had participated in, and if so, how often thefollowing: aggravated assault, robbery, rape, and gang fights.The serious violence measure was coded as 1 if any of thefour items was coded as at least once in life, and a 0 scorewas recorded as 0. The mean of the four items was taken.The internal reliability of this scale was 0.43.

Perceived support

Perceived support was measured by seven items. Five itemsmeasured respondents’ level of agreement on a scale from 1

1 The University of Hawaii’s Institutional Review Board limited theresearchers to asking about abuse by a non-family member rather thanby a family member due to the sensitive nature of inquiring about familyabuse.

Springer

78 J Immigrant Health (2007) 9:75–84

to 5 (always false, often false, neither, often true, and alwaystrue), regarding their feelings about friends and family (e.g.,whether the respondent has a close relationship with some-one). Two items measured respondents’ level of satisfactionwith family and friends on a scale from 1 (completely dissat-isfied) to 7 (completely satisfied). A higher score indicates ahigher level of perceived support. The internal reliability ofthe scale was 0.67.

Intergenerational/Intercultural conflict

Eight items were used to measure this scale, includingwhether respondent indicated confusion between personalvalues and parent’s cultural values, behaving differently fromhow parents tell respondent to behave, and agreeing with par-ent’s values but does not always act consistently with thesevalues. Respondents ranked their agreement on a scale rang-ing from 1 to 4 as strongly agree, somewhat agree, some-what disagree, or strongly disagree. A higher score indicateda stronger sense of intergenerational/intercultural conflict.The internal reliability for this scale was 0.60.

Acculturation

This scale used 13 items adapted from the EthnoculturalIdentity Behavior Index [25]. Respondents indicated on a 4-point scale, ranging from 0 to 3, how often (not at all, a little,somewhat, or a lot) they engaged in a particular activity inmainstream American culture (e.g., watching movies or TVshows, speaking, writing, listening to music in English). Ahigher score indicated a greater participation in mainstreamAmerican culture. The internal reliability for this scale was0.73.

Individualism/Collectivism

This 31-item scale contains measures for individualism(IND) and collectivism (COL) [19]. The IND scale (15 items)stresses a self that is perceived as being distinct, autonomous,and separate from others. The COL scale (16 items) stressesa self as belonging to a group. All items were answered ona 10-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 10(strongly agree). The internal reliability scores for individu-alism and collectivism were 0.81 and 0.83, respectively.

Analysis

Comparisons of the mean levels across all measures for allethnic groups were conducted using MANOVAs. Correla-tion and hierarchical multiple regression analyses were thenconducted to examine the relative influences of age, sex,and various measures of stressor, social, and cultural vari-

ables on serious violent behavior for each ethnic group sepa-rately. In the first step, serious violent behavior was regressedon age and sex. Next, general stressful life events, emo-tional hardship, emotional abuse/victimization, and physicalabuse/victimization were entered in step two. Perceived sup-port, intergenerational/intercultural conflict, acculturation,individualism, and collectivism variables were entered instep three to examine the effects of cultural and social sup-port variables after controlling for age, sex, and stressorvariables. Finally, we tested for any interactions betweenthe various moderating factors (e.g., perceived support, ac-culturation, intergenerational/intercultural conflict, and indi-vidualism/collectivism) and stressor variables. Each variablewas centered prior to computation of the interaction terms.

Descriptive statistics

Youth in this study were primarily second generation. The av-erage age was either 14 years old (Chinese and Vietnamese)or 15 years old (Cambodians and Lao/Miens). Sex was dis-tributed evenly, with slightly more females in the Lao/Miengroup, and more males in other groups.

Means and standard deviation

Significant mean differences were observed for generalstressful life events, emotional hardship, and physicalabuse/victimization (see Table 1). In general, Chinese youthreported the lowest levels of stressors among all ethnicgroups. Cambodian (M = 8.04, SD = 6.06) and Lao/Mienyouth (M = 7.99, SD = 5.72) reported experiencing thegreatest levels of overall stressful life events comparedto Vietnamese (M = 5.22, SD = 4.82) and Chinese(M = 3.72, SD = 3.35) youth (F = 12.69, p < 0.05).The same trend was reported for physical abuse (Cambo-dian, M = 0.57, SD = 1.10; Laotian/Mien, M = 0.51,SD = 1.13; Vietnamese, M = 0.31, SD = 0.90; Chinese,M = 0.13, SD = 0.49; F = 3.44, p < 0.05), as well asemotional hardship (Laotian/Mien, M = 4.19, SD = 3.33;Cambodian, M = 3.85, SD = 3.39; Vietnamese, M = 2.66,SD = 2.50; Chinese, M = 2.09, SD = 2.16; F = 8.23,p < 0.05).

Significant mean differences were also reported for ac-culturation and individualism across ethnic groups, whereassimilar mean levels were observed for perceived support, in-tergenerational/intercultural conflict, and collectivism. Forexample, Laotian/Mien youth (M = 29.81, SD = 4.91)scored the highest on acculturation levels compared to Cam-bodian (M = 27.89, SD = 4.95), Chinese (M = 26.55,SD = 6.01), and Vietnamese (M = 26.30, SD = 5.68;F = 5.95, p < 0.05). Cambodian youth (M = 108.96,SD = 17.96) ranked highest on individualistic attitudes in re-lation to Laotian/Mien (M = 108.16, SD = 19.09), Chinese

Springer

J Immigrant Health (2007) 9:75–84 79

Tabl

e1

Mea

ns,s

tand

ard

devi

atio

ns,a

ndra

nge

byet

hnic

grou

ps(N

=32

9)

ET

HN

ICIT

YSt

ress

full

ife

even

tsE

mot

iona

lhar

dshi

pst

ress

full

ife

even

tsE

mot

iona

labu

sest

ress

full

ife

even

tsPh

ysic

alab

use

stre

ssfu

llif

eev

ents

Perc

eive

dsu

ppor

tC

ultu

reco

nflic

tA

ccul

tura

tion

Indi

vidu

alis

mC

olle

ctiv

ism

Cam

bodi

an(n

=11

2)M

ean

8.04

a3.

85a

1.01

a0.

57a

30.8

4a19

.09a

27.8

9a10

8.96

a12

6.27

a

Std.

devi

atio

n6.

063.

391.

451.

104.

143.

724.

9517

.96

15.3

9R

ange

(0,2

8)(0

,13)

(0,6

)(0

,5)

(19,

37)

(6,2

9)(1

4,38

)(4

7,15

1)(8

0,16

0)C

hine

se(n

=64

)M

ean

3.72

b2.

09b

0.48

b0.

13b

31.3

4a18

.30a

26.5

5ac10

3.31

ab12

2.39

a

Std.

devi

atio

n3.

352.

161.

280.

494.

073.

446.

0120

.25

18.6

5R

ange

(0,1

4)(0

,10)

(0,6

)(0

,3)

(20,

39)

(10,

26)

(13,

38)

(53,

154)

(78,

157)

Lao

/Mie

n(n

=67

)M

ean

7.99

a4.

19a

0.72

ab0.

51a

31.6

4a19

.51a

29.8

1b10

8.16

a12

4.30

a

Std.

devi

atio

n5.

723.

331.

221.

133.

994.

114.

9119

.09

16.5

0R

ange

(0,2

3)(0

,16)

(0,6

)(0

,6)

(20,

39)

(8,2

9)(1

8,39

)(5

9,15

4)(7

7,16

0)V

ietn

ames

e(n

=86

)M

ean

5.22

c2.

66b

0.78

ab0.

31ab

30.5

7a18

.97a

26.3

0c10

1.85

b12

2.73

a

Std.

devi

atio

n4.

822.

501.

400.

906.

123.

775.

6819

.02

17.9

7R

ange

(0,2

3)(0

,12)

(0,6

)(0

,5)

(6,3

8)(1

1,27

)(1

0,39

)(4

4,14

5)(6

6,15

3)To

tal(

n=

329)

Mea

n6.

453.

270.

790.

4031

.03

18.9

927

.60

105.

8212

4.18

Std.

devi

atio

n5.

523.

051.

370.

984.

703.

775.

4919

.11

16.9

9R

ange

(0,2

8)(0

,16)

(0,6

)(0

,6)

(6,3

9)(6

,29)

(10,

39)

(44,

154)

(66,

160)

F-st

atis

tic12

.69∗

8.23

∗2.

113.

44∗

0.55

1.44

5.95

∗2.

77∗

0.86

Sign

ifica

nce

0.00

0.00

0.10

0.02

0.65

0.23

0.00

0.04

0.46

Not

e.Fo

rE

thni

cgr

oups

,mea

nsw

ithin

aco

lum

nfo

llow

edby

the

sam

ele

tter

are

nots

igni

fican

tlydi

ffer

ent,

p<

.05.

Springer

80 J Immigrant Health (2007) 9:75–84

(M = 103.31, SD = 20.25), and Vietnamese (M = 101.85,SD = 19.02; F = 2.77, p < 0.05).

Zero-order correlations

Table 2 presents the intercorrelations among different mea-sures of stressful life events, potential moderating factors,and serious violence. Overall, different measures of stressfullife events showed small to moderate correlations with seri-ous violence, except for physical abuse (r = 0.50, p < 0.05).Serious violence was moderately associated with generalstressful life events (r = 0.44, p < 0.05), emotional hard-ship (r = 0.39, p < 0.05), and emotional abuse (r = 0.27,p < 0.05).

Perceived social support and cultural variables also re-vealed trends in the expected directions. Perceived support(r = − 0.17, p < 0.05) was negatively correlated to seriousviolence whereas acculturation (r = 0.12, p < 0.05) andintergenerational/intercultural conflict (r = 0.16, p < 0.05)showed a positive association. Finally, individualism waspositively, although weakly, associated with serious violence(r = 0.19, p < 0.05), while collectivism was negatively as-sociated, but not significant.

Regression analyses

We used hierarchical multiple regression analysis to predictadolescent self-reported serious violence separately for eachethnic group. The results revealed age was not a signifi-cant predictor violent behavior across all groups, and gen-der was significant for Cambodian (B values ranged from− 0.22 to − 0.24, p < 0.05) and Chinese (B = − 0.23,p < 0.05) youth only. Stressor variables also differentiallyaffected youth across ethnic groups. Only physical abuse wasan independent predictor of serious violence for all groups,except Chinese.

As an independent predictor, general stressful life eventsaccounted for unique variances in serious violence for Cam-bodian (12%), Lao/Mien (20%), and Vietnamese (19%).Physical abuse contributed 15% unique variance for Cambo-dian, 27% for Laotian/Mien, and 43% for Vietnamese. Emo-tional hardship contributed less than 20% unique variancefor Cambodian, Chinese, and Laotian/Mien youth. Finally,emotional abuse/victimization accounted between 15–23%unique variance for Vietnamese and Laotian/Mien youth,respectively.

With respect to moderators, social support and cul-tural items accounted for unique variance for Vietnamese(11–18%) and Chinese (18–22%) youth. In particular, per-ceived support (B = − 0.24 to − 0.28, t = − 2.12 to− 2.34, p < 0.05) and intergenerational/intercultural con-flict (B = 0.21 to 0.24, t = 2.02 to 2.12, p < 0 .05)were significant independent predictors of serious violence

but for Vietnamese youth only. Acculturation was predictiveof serious violence for Vietnamese (B = 0.26, t = 2.47,p < 0.05), Chinese (B = 0.40, t = 2.08, p < 0 .05),and Laotian (B = 0.32 to 0.34, t = 2.08 to 3.02, p < 0.05), youth. Individualism (B = 0.36, t = 2.35, p < 0.05)and collectivism (B = − 0.27 to − 0.57, t = − 2.14 to− 3.28, p < 0 .05) were also significantly predictors of seri-ous violence for Chinese youth. Collectivism was significantpredictor of serious violence for Cambodian youth as well(B = 0.24, t = 2.21, p < 0.05).

Significant interactions between stressors and moderatorswere observed for all youth groups. For instance, for Chi-nese youth, collectivism interacted with emotional hardship(B = − 0.08, SE = 0.03, p < 0.05) and general stressfullife events (B = − 0.12, SE = 0.06, p < 0.05) in predictingserious violence. In addition, intergenerational/interculturalconflict (B = − 0.28, SE = 0.13, p < 0.05) and accultur-ation (B = − 0.23, SE = 0.09, p < 0.05) interacted withemotional abuse to predict serious violence for this groupas well. For Laotian/Mien youth, acculturation (B = 0.22,SE = 0.07, p < 0.05), intergenerational/intercultural con-flict (B = − 0.15, SE = 0.05, p < 0.05), and collec-tivism (B = 0.20, SE = 0.09, p < 0.05) interacted withphysical abuse to predict serious violence. Moreover, inthis same group acculturation also interacted with generalstressful life events to predict serious violence (B = 0.15,SE = 0.07, p < 0.05). For Vietnamese youth, acculturationinteracted with emotional abuse (B = 0.12, SE = 0.05,p < 0.05) to predict violent behavior. Also, in this samegroup perceived support interacted with physical abuse(B = 0.14, SE = 0.06, p < 0.05) and intergenera-tional/intercultural conflict interacted with general stressfullife events (B = 0.10, SE = 0.05, p < 0.05) to predictserious violence. Finally, for Cambodian youth perceivedsupport interacted with emotional hardship (B = − 0.08,SE = 0.04, p < 0.05) and collectivism interacted withphysical abuse (B = 0.11, SE = 0.04, p < 0.05) to predictserious violence.

Discussion

Research in the last decade has demonstrated the relativepredictive value of stressful life events in the development ofproblem behaviors for African American, European Amer-ican, and Latino adolescents [2, 5, 26]. The results of thisstudy suggest that this trend holds true for Chinese and South-east Asian youth as well. These findings reveal that differ-ent types of stressors are related to violent behavior acrossethnic groups. Specifically, physical abuse was a predictorof serious violence for all groups, except Chinese. Emo-tional hardship was significantly related to serious violenceamong Cambodian and Chinese youth. Emotional abuse was

Springer

J Immigrant Health (2007) 9:75–84 81

Tabl

e2

Zer

o-or

der

corr

elat

ion

mat

rix

for

allv

aria

bles

(N=

329)

12

34

56

78

910

1.St

ress

full

ife

even

tsPe

arso

nco

rrel

atio

n1

Sig.

(2-t

aile

d)–

2.E

mot

iona

lhar

dshi

pPe

arso

nco

rrel

atio

n0.

85∗

1Si

g.(2

-tai

led)

0.00

–3.

Em

otio

nala

buse

Pear

son

corr

elat

ion

0.58

∗0.

32∗

1Si

g.(2

-tai

led)

0.00

0.00

–4.

Phys

ical

abus

ePe

arso

nco

rrel

atio

n0.

55∗

0.37

∗0.

35∗

1Si

g.(2

-tai

led)

0.00

0.00

0.00

–5.

Perc

eive

dsu

ppor

tPe

arso

nco

rrel

atio

n−

0.21

∗−

0.14

∗−

0.19

∗−

0.11

∗1

Sig.

(2-t

aile

d)0.

000.

010.

000.

04–

6.C

ultu

reco

nflic

tPe

arso

nco

rrel

atio

n0.

21∗

0.14

∗0.

14∗

0.16

∗−

0.19

∗1

Sig.

(2-t

aile

d)0.

000.

010.

010.

000.

00–

7.A

ccul

tura

tion

Pear

son

corr

elat

ion

0.17

∗0.

18∗

0.04

0.13

∗0.

100.

081

Sig.

(2-t

aile

d)0.

000.

000.

520.

020.

070.

15–

8.In

divi

dual

ism

Pear

son

corr

elat

ion

0.17

∗0.

15∗

0.09

0.16

∗0.

100.

26∗

0.16

∗1

Sig.

(2-t

aile

d)0.

000.

010.

120.

000.

070.

000.

00–

9.C

olle

ctiv

ism

Pear

son

corr

elat

ion

0.01

0.04

−0.

02−

0.02

0.34

∗0.

020.

050.

30∗

1Si

g.(2

-tai

led)

0.90

0.43

0.73

0.66

0.00

0.72

0.33

0.00

–10

.Ser

ious

viol

ence

Pear

son

corr

elat

ion

0.44

∗0.

39∗

0.27

∗0.

50∗

−0.

17∗

0.16

∗0.

12∗

0.19

∗−

0.02

1Si

g.(2

-tai

led)

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.03

0.00

0.77

–N

328

328

328

328

329

329

328

327

327

329

Not

e.2-

taile

dsi

gnifi

canc

e:∗ p

<.0

5.

Springer

82 J Immigrant Health (2007) 9:75–84

significantly associated with violent behavior among Viet-namese youth.

Further, it is a noteworthy finding that reported experi-ences of negative life events differ by ethnicity. The Chinesegroup reported the lowest levels of stressors of all groups.Among Southeast Asian groups, Cambodian and Lao/Mienyouth reported higher levels of stressful life events, emo-tional hardship, and physical abuse compared to Vietnameseyouth. The Southeast Asian groups were similar in that phys-ical abuse/victimization was significantly linked to seriousviolence. For Chinese youth, this association was not signifi-cant. These variations across the ethnic groups may be partlyexplained by differences in immigration history.

Most Southeast Asian individuals immigrated to the U.S.because of war and displacement as refugees or involuntaryimmigrants [27] in three waves starting from 1975. ManyEast Asian groups, such as Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese,in contrast, immigrated to the U.S. for economic and so-cial reasons [28, 29]. The first wave was mainly Vietnameseprofessionals with advanced schooling and who had lived inurban areas [30]. The second wave (1979 to 1982) broughtthose fleeing from Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam as the resultof the war between Vietnam and Cambodia, or the killings byKhmer Rouge or persecution from the Vietnamese commu-nist [30]. This group was predominantly farmers and fisher-men [30]. Refugees along with the orderly departure programthat permitted Vietnamese nationals or Amerasian youth toreunite with their families make up the last wave [30]. Inexamining Southeast Asian refugee experiences, Ying et al.[31] found that Cambodians “experienced the most trauma,spent more years in transit, were separated from more familymembers, were more likely to have experienced a death inthe family, and more recently arrived” compared to Hmong,Laotian, Vietnamese, and Chinese-Vietnamese refugees.

The two last groups of refugees and immigrants tendedto be less educated, have fewer transferable job skills, beless likely to know English, and therefore had more difficul-ties adjusting to life in the U.S [30]. Of the Southeast Asiangroups, the Vietnamese are the most educated and have beenin the U.S. the longest [30]. The Vietnamese were also morelikely to be employed followed by the Chinese-Vietnamese,Laotian, and Khmer [30]. While the Laotian and Khmer haveequivalent levels of education, Laotian have been in the U.S.longer and more Khmer families are headed by widow moth-ers on government assistance [30]. The lives of these recentimmigrants are more likely to be unstable, in addition toexperiencing unaddressed stressors associated with trauma,adaptation, and acculturation. For instance, the family unitand process are altered by family disruptions caused by lossof ties to extended family or of a male parent as in the case ofKhmer, role reversal between parent and children, and inter-generational conflicts. Another challenge for newcomers isnew and unfamiliar legal systems and laws and institutions

that are often at odds with their country laws and norms [30].It has been shown that whether parents successfully adjustto the host country influences their children’s adjustment aswell [30].

These differences in immigration experiences and thecontext of immigration (voluntary vs. involuntary) as wellas resettlement difficulties including housing, employment,language, culture, and financial security may result in varia-tions in adaptation to and acculturative processes in the newcountry, such as mental health [32–34] and behavioral out-comes [35–37]. Recently, more attention has been devotedto the influence of cultural factors when examining risk andprotective factors for youth violent behaviors among eth-nic minority adolescents, such as Asian youth [20, 28, 38].Children, for instance, tend to acculturate faster and morefully than their parents by associating with their Americanpeers at school [30]. Acculturation has been shown to bea risk factor for delinquent behavior in Latino and Asianadolescents [29, 39, 40]. Acculturation could further resultin adhering to more individualistic values, as opposed tocollectivistic views commonly held by their parents, whichcould lead to intergenerational conflicts (i.e., cultural con-flicts). Le and Stockdale [20] found that Southeast Asianyouth who adopted a more individualistic viewpoint self-reported more serious violence than those who endorsedcollectivism. Similarly, our findings suggest that accultur-ated youth (e.g. Vietnamese) or youth experiencing inter-cultural/intergenerational conflicts with their parents weremore likely to report delinquency as compared to their coun-terparts.

In this study, acculturation, collectivism, and intergener-ational/intercultural conflict interacted with certain stressors(e.g., emotional hardship, physical abuse, emotional abuse)to predict violent behavior, with collectivism dampening theimpact of certain stressors on violent behaviors, while ac-culturation and intergenerational/intercultural conflict aggra-vated the impact. It could be that in the face of stressors, youthwho endorse more collectivist orientation are able to mar-shal and rely on support and resources from others, whereasyouth who are experiencing conflicts with their parents areless likely to be able to rely on family members for socialand emotional support. Thus, these youth are more likely toengage in anti-social behavior.

Similar to previous research, this study revealed that inthe presence of negative life events, social support is an im-portant buffering factor [3, 5, 9, 10]. For instance, youth whohave social support are less likely to engage in delinquentbehavior, and this was especially true for Vietnamese youth.While studies exploring the relationship between stressorsand cultural factors in youth population are far and few, thefindings reported here underscore the importance of under-standing the role and process of social support and culturalfactors in youth’s ability to cope with stressors.

Springer

J Immigrant Health (2007) 9:75–84 83

Limitations of the study

This study has several limitations that need to be consid-ered. First, results from a cross-sectional study imply as-sociations and linkages, not causality. Longitudinal data areneeded to conclusively establish the temporal order of stress-ful life events and violent behavior. It could be that youthwho engage in violent behavior are more likely to experi-ence stressful life events, as well as stressful life events fa-cilitating maladaptive outcomes. We suspect the process tobe dynamic and recursive. Second, the characteristics of thesample (e.g. socioeconomically similar, exclude higher at-risk truant or probation youth, limited to Chinese and South-east Asian youth within one geographical area) preclude theability to generalize to other geographic regions in the U.S.and wider socioeconomic statuses, as well as to other Asianethnic groups and at-risk youth. The relatively low rate ofserious delinquency in this sample is also a major limitation.The fourth limitation concerns the measures themselves. Allmeasures were based on self-report and may be biased interms of recall and disclosure, all of which may affect thevalidity of the data. Other measures from parent, teachers, orfriend would be useful to corroborate these findings. Finally,this study employed the stressor specific model, which fo-cuses on several stressors and one outcome or equifinality;each stressor is assessed independently of other stressors. Inthis case, it is unknown whether these stressors may also pre-dict other outcomes, such as academic achievement, mentalhealth status, competency, etc.

Implications for intervention

This study remains consistent with previous studies inillustrating an association between stressful life events andserious violence. It builds on these previous studies by high-lighting this relationship among ethnically diverse sample ofyouth, as well as factors that may buffer such relationships.As a result, it expands on these studies by emphasizing thesignificance of the moderating influence of social support,acculturation, and intergenerational/intercultural conflict forviolent prevention and intervention programs. Identifyinghow risk factors can be modified remains critical, andstudies emphasizing the resilient nature of youth providehope and optimism.Yet, further research is still needed thatexamine the etiology and developmental pathways relatedto serious violence, as well as positive youth developmentamong Asian and Southeast Asian youth. Knowledge ofpatterns and predictors of violent behaviors are useful indeveloping intervention strategies to reduce violence amongat-risk youth. Service providers, teachers, and counselorscould look for existence of different types of stressors withthe youth they are working with and provide the appropriate

intervention, involving multiple strategies, to prevent violentbehavioral problems.

Acknowledgments We are grateful for the assistance of Isami Ari-fuku, Mary Lai, Lila Booth, and the 18 field interviewers and internsin conducting this study. We also acknowledge Judy Wallen for pro-viding statistical support. This publication was supported by GrantR49/CCR918619-01 from the Centers for Disease Control & Preven-tion. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and donot necessarily represent the official views of the Centers for DiseaseControl & Prevention.

References

1. Grant KE, Compas BE, Stuhlmacher AF, Thurn AE, McMahon SD,Halpert JA: Stressors and child and adolescent psychopathology:moving from markers to mechanism of risk. Psychol Bull 2003;129:447–466

2. Adam EK, Chase-Lansdale PL: Home sweet home(s): parentalseparations, residential moves, and adjustment problems in low-income adolescent girls. Dev Psychol 2002;38:92–805

3. Holmes CS, Yu Z, Frentz J: Chronic and discrete stress as predictorsof children’s adjustment. J Consult Clin Psy 1999; 67:411–419

4. West SG, Sandler I, Pillow DR, Baca L, Gersten JC: The use ofstructural equation modeling in generative research: toward thedesign of a preventive intervention for bereaved children. Am JCommun Psychol 1991; 19:459–480

5. Youngstrom E, Weist MD, Albus KE: Exploring violence exposure,stress, protective factors and behavioral problems among inner-cityyouth. Am J Commun Psychol 2003; 32:115–129

6. Chang JJ, Chen JJ, Brownson RC: The role of repeat victimiza-tion in adolescent delinquent behaviors and recidivism. J AdolescHealth 2003; 32:272–280

7. Flannery DJ, Singer MI, Wester K: Violence exposure, psychologi-cal trauma, and suicide risk in a community sample of dangerouslyviolent adolescents. J Am Aca Child Psy 2001; 40:435–442

8. Baron RM, Kenny DA: The moderator-mediator variable distinc-tion in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, andstatistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol 1986; 51:1173–1182

9. O’Donnell DA, Schwab-Stone ME, Muyeed AZ: Multidimen-sional resilience in urban children exposed to community violence.Child Dev 2002; 73:1265–1282

10. Weist MD, Freedman AH, Paskewitz DA, Proescher EJ, FlahertyLT: Urban youth under stress: empirical identification of protectivefactors. J Youth Adoles 1995; 24:705–721

11. Gorman-Smith D, Henry DB, Tolan PH: Exposure to communityviolence and violence perpetration: the protective effects of familyfunctioning. J Clin Child Adolesc 2004; 33:439–449

12. Le TN: Delinquency among Asian/Pacific islanders: review of lit-erature and research. Justice Prof 2002; 15:57–70

13. Soriano FI, Rivera LM, Williams KJ, Daley SP, Reznik VM: Nav-igating between cultures: the role of culture in youth violence. JAdolesc Health 2004; 34:169–176

14. Chiu YW, Ring JM: Chinese and Vietnamese immigrant adoles-cents under pressure: identifying stressors and interventions. ProPsychol: Res Pr 1998; 29:444–449

15. Moyerman DR, Forman BD. Acculturation and adjustment: a meta-analytic study. Hispanic J Behav Sci 1992;14:163–200.

16. Lim KV, Levenson M, Go CG: Acculturation and delinquencyamong Cambodian male adolescents in California. In: Lonner WJ,Dale L, et al. eds. Merging past, present, and future in cross-cultural psychology: selected papers from the fourteenth interna-tional congress of the international association for cross-culturalpsychology. Lisse, Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger Publishers;1999. p. 231–244

Springer

84 J Immigrant Health (2007) 9:75–84

17. Bankston CL III, Zhou M: Valedictorians and delinquents: thebifurcation of Vietnamese American youth. Deviant Behav 1997;18:343–364

18. Mai TT. An examination of the Vietnamese family environment andthe acculturation difference between parents and children. MatersThesis. California State University, Fresno; 1999, Masters Ab-stracts International.

19. Singelis TM, Triandis HC, Bhawuk D, Gelfand MJ: Horizontal andvertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: a theoreticaland measurement refinement. Cross-Cult Res 1995; 29:240–275

20. Le TN, Stockale G: Individualism, collectivism, and youth delin-quency. J Clin Child Psychol 2005; 34:681–691

21. Liu X, Kurita H, Uchiyama M, Okawa M, Liu L, Ma D: Lifeevents, locus of control, and behavioral problems among Chineseadolescents. J Clin Psychol 2000; 56:1565–1577

22. Thornberry TP, Huizinga D, Loeber R: The causes and correlatesof delinquency. CYC-Online. 2005, Issue 74. Available at:http://www.cyc-net.org/cyc-online/cycol-0305-thornberry.html.Accessed May 26, 2005

23. Elliot DS, Huizinga D, Ageton SS: Explaining delinquency anddrug use. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1985

24. Huizinga D, Esbensen F, Weiher AW: Are there multiple paths todelinquency? J Crim Law Crim 1991; 82:83–118

25. Marsella AJ, Horvath AM: Ethnocultural identity behavior index.Asian Am Pac Isl J Health 1998; 6:45

26. Gorman-Smith, D, Tolan PH, Henry DB, Florsheim P: Patterns offamily functioning and adolescent outcomes among urban AfricanAmerican and Mexican American families. J Fam Psychol 2000;14:436–457

27. Ogbu JU: Minority status and schooling in plural societies. CompEduc Rev 1983; 27:168–190

28. Zhou M: Once excluded, now ascendant. In: Lai E, Arguelles D,eds. The new face of Asian Pacific American: numbers, diversity,& change in 21st century. Los Angeles: UCLA Asian AmericanStudies Center Press; 2003. p. 37–44.

29. Zhou M, Bankston CL III: Straddling two social worlds: the expe-rience of Vietnamese refugee children in the United States. UrbanDiversity Series No. 111. U.S., New York: ERIC Clearinghouse onUrban Education; 2000.

30. Ima K: A handbook for professionals working with SoutheastAsian Delinquent and at-risk youth. San Diego: SAY San Diego;1991

31. Ying Y, Akutsu PD, Zhang X, Huang LN: Psychological dysfunc-tion in Southeast Asian refugees as mediated by sense of coherence.Am J Commun Psychol 1997; 25:839–859

32. Hsu E, Davies CA, Hansen DJ: Understanding mental health needsof Southeast Asian refugees: historical, cultural, and contextualchallenges. Clin Psychol Rev 2004; 24:193–213

33. Kinzie JD, Sack W, Angell R, Clarke G, Ben R: A three-yearfollow-up of Cambodian young people traumatized as children. JAm Acad Psy 1989; 28:501–504

34. U.S. Department Health and Human Services. Mental health: cul-ture, race and ethnicity—a supplemental to mental health: a reportof the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Healthand Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health ServicesAdministration, Center for Mental Health Services; 2001.

35. Huang LN, Lee Y, Arganza G: Promising approaches to youth de-velopment and risk prevention for Asian American Pacific Islanderyouth. Washington, DC: George Washington University, Center forChild and Human Development; 2004

36. Le TN, Arifuku I, Louie C, Krisberg M: Not invisible: Asian Pacificislander arrests in San Francisco County. Oakland, CA: NationalCouncil on Crime and Delinquency; 2001a

37. Le TN, Arifuku I, Louie C, Krisberg M: Not invisible: Asian Pa-cific islander arrests in Alameda County. Oakland, CA: NationalCouncil on Crime and Delinquency; 2001b

38. Kim TE, Goto SD: Peer delinquency and parental social supportas predictors of Asian American adolescent delinquency. DeviantBehav 2000; 21:331–347

39. Hahm HC, Lahiff M, Guterman NB: Acculturation and parentalattachment in Asian-American adolescents’ alcohol use. J Adoles-cent Health 2003; 33:119–129

40. Vega WA, Gil AG, Warheit GJ, Zimmerman RS: Acculturation anddelinquent behavior among Cuban American adolescents: towardan empirical model. Am J Commun Psychol 1993; 21:113–125

Springer