My honors thesis examines how structural xenophobia—defined as societal and institutional conditions that systematically disadvantage immigrant populations—shapes externalizing symptoms among Latine youth in the United States. Externalizing symptoms, including aggression, hyperactivity, and rule-breaking, can have enduring consequences, predicting poor academic outcomes, substance use, and contact with the juvenile justice system. Given the elevated rates of these symptoms among Latine adolescents and the sociopolitical marginalization of Latine communities, understanding the mechanisms and protective factors at play is a pressing public health and social justice concern.

I pursued this research to better understand the structural roots of mental health disparities. As the son of immigrants, I’ve witnessed firsthand the toll that exclusionary rhetoric and policies can take on families and communities. Yet psychological research has too often focused on individual-level explanations—such as the internalization of negative stereotypes—without accounting for the broader societal forces that shape mental health risk. My study seeks to fill this gap by integrating three interrelated theoretical frameworks: Stigma Theory, Cultural Stress Theory, and Ecological Systems Theory.

Stigma Theory helped me conceptualize structural xenophobia as a form of stigma that operates through discriminatory laws, anti-immigrant sentiment, and the institutional exclusion of Latine communities. Cultural Stress Theory explains how these structural forces create unique stressors for Latine youth, such as fear of deportation, hostile school climates, and exclusion from public services, which in turn elevate psychological risk. Ecological Systems Theory situates these stressors within broader layers of influence—individual, family, peer, neighborhood, and societal—allowing for a multilevel analysis of mental health outcomes.

Using cross-sectional data from 1,491 Latine youth in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study (Mage = 12.87), I explored three core research questions:

1. Is structural xenophobia associated with externalizing symptoms among Latine youth?
2. What factors buffer or amplify the effects of structural xenophobia on mental health?
3. What mechanisms explain how structural xenophobia leads to externalizing symptoms?

Main Findings

My analysis showed that higher levels of structural xenophobia at the state level were significantly associated with increased externalizing symptoms. That is, Latine youth living in states with more exclusionary immigration laws, colder public sentiment toward immigrants and Latine individuals, and fewer immigrant protections were more likely to engage in behaviors such as aggression and rule-breaking. This finding supports the hypothesis that structural conditions play a measurable role in shaping youth mental health.

Moderating Factors

To better understand the contexts that may exacerbate or buffer this relationship, I tested three potential moderators: ethnic identity, peer support, and neighborhood Latine and immigrant
concentration. Surprisingly, neither ethnic identity nor peer support significantly moderated the effects of structural xenophobia, despite prior evidence suggesting their protective potential. This
may be due in part to measurement limitations: the ethnic identity measure may not have captured culturally salient constructs like language use, ethnic pride, or community engagement,
and the peer support scale focused narrowly on instrumental, rather than emotional, support.

One factor did emerge as a significant moderator: neighborhood Latine and immigrant concentration. Youth living in neighborhoods with a higher proportion of Latine and immigrant residents showed fewer externalizing symptoms, even in highly xenophobic states. These communities may offer cultural continuity, social cohesion, and a shared sense of belonging that buffers youth from the psychological harms of broader discrimination. This finding underscores the value of culturally affirming, community-based environments as a form of resilience and resistance.

Mechanisms

I also investigated whether family-level dynamics mediated the association between structural xenophobia and externalizing symptoms. Of the two mediators examined, only family conflict emerged as a significant pathway. Structural xenophobia was linked to increased conflict within families, which in turn predicted higher levels of externalizing symptoms. This suggests that living in a hostile sociopolitical climate may contribute to stress and strain within the home, disrupting family cohesion and increasing behavioral risk among youth.

Perceived parental stress did not mediate the association, likely because the measure assessed general stress rather than culturally specific experiences such as acculturative stress or fears related to immigration enforcement. Future research should incorporate measures that more precisely capture the unique stressors faced by immigrant and mixed-status families. 

Implications

Theoretically, this research advances our understanding of how macro-level forces such as structural xenophobia shape youth mental health by operating through and within meso- and micro-level systems. It reinforces the value of using an integrated framework—drawing from Stigma Theory, Cultural Stress Theory, and Ecological Systems Theory—to understand the complex pathways of influence that structure mental health disparities. Rather than treating externalizing symptoms as individual failings, this study highlights their deep entanglement with systemic inequities.

Practically, these findings point to several key areas for intervention. At the policy level, reducing structural xenophobia through inclusive immigration reform, expanded access to public services, and stronger anti-discrimination protections may help mitigate mental health disparities among Latine youth. At the community level, investing in neighborhood-based cultural organizations, youth programs, and safe gathering spaces can enhance the protective effects of ethnic density and foster collective resilience. At the family level, culturally tailored interventions—such as Familias Unidas and Multidimensional Family Therapy—can strengthen communication, reduce conflict, and buffer youth from the psychological harms of living in xenophobic environments.

Mental health professionals must also be trained to recognize the influence of structural conditions on their clients’ wellbeing. The emerging concept of structural competency, which emphasizes an understanding of how social, economic, and political systems shape health, should be a core part of training for clinicians working with immigrant and minoritized communities. My findings add to the growing body of evidence supporting the integration of this framework into clinical practice.

Closing Reflection

This project has deepened my commitment to conducting research that bridges psychological theory and social justice. Understanding how structural forces shape mental health outcomes isn’t just an academic question, it’s a moral imperative. I hope that this work can inform policies and interventions that move us closer to an equitable mental health landscape, one in which all youth can thrive, regardless of where they live or where their families come
from.