Environmental, Attitudinal, and Social Context Factors as Predictors of Immigrant Mexican Wives’ Personal and Marital Well-being Environmental, Attitudinal, and Social Context Factors as Predictors of Immigrant Mexican Wives’ Personal and Marital Well-being Yuliana Rodriguez & Jinni Su University of North Carolina at Greensboro The authors acknowledge Heather Helms, Jill Walls, and Monsy Bonilla. We also thanks the families for their time and participation. Funding provided by a UNCG Regular Faculty Grant and Agricultural Research Service Award (PI, Dr. Heather Helms).

F IGURE 1. A DAPTED T HREE -L EVEL M ODEL FOR V IEWING M ARRIAGE 1 1 From “The Social Ecology of Marriage and Other Intimate Unions” by T. L. Huston, 2000, Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, p Adapted with permission of the author by Helms, Supple, & Proulx (under review). B: Individuals b 1 : Spouses’ personal qualities b 2 : Spouses’ marriage-specific beliefs and attitudes A: Marital Behavior in the Context of Parenthood a 1 : Macrobehavioral patterns a 2: Microbehavioral patterns C: Macroenvironment c 1 : Macrosocietal context c 1i : Sociohistorical c 1ii : Cultural background c liii : Socioeconomic c 2 : Spouses’ ecological niche c 2i : Social environment c 2ii : Physical environment #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6

1) Explore individual and environmental factors link to psychological and marital well-being 2) Specific interest in the relation between pressure to acculturate and well-being. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses are used to address these question.

VariablesMSDRange Age Wives – 47 Husbands – 48 First born (in years) – Years in US Wives <1 – 22 Husbands – 27 Nuclear family size – 7 Total household size – 10

VariablesMSDRange Marital duration (years) – 15 Education (years) Wives – 16 Husbands – 18 Work hours (per week) Wives – 60 Husbands – 80 Income (annual) Wives$15,138$6,559$2,500 – $31,600 Husbands$24,647$8,713$8,000 – $69,000 Family$33,297$12,725$8,000 – $83,4000

Marital Status: 69.2% married, 30.8% cohabiting Child Gender: 58.3% male, 41.7% female Ethnicity: – Wives: 95.8% Mexican, 1.7% Puerto Rican, 2.5% other Latin origin – Husbands: 93.3% Mexican,.8% Puerto Rican, 5.8% other Latin origin Parents’ Birth Place: – Wives: 93.3% Mexico, 4.2% US, 2.5% other Latin country – Husbands: 90.8% Mexico, 3.3% US, 5.8% other Latin country

Employment Status: – Husbands: 98.3% employed, 1.7% non-employed – Wives: 54.2% employed, 45.8% non-employed Acculturation Status: – Wives: 85% Mexican oriented, 13.3% Mexican/bicultural, 1.7 % slightly Anglo oriented – Husbands: 69.2% Mexican oriented, 29.2% Mexican/bicultural, 1.7% slightly Anglo oriented

ConstructMeasureAuthorScale & Reliability Wives’ Love and ConflictMarital Love and Conflict Love subscale: 9 items Conflict subscale: 5 items Braiker & Kelley, point scale, higher scores indicate greater levels of love and conflict Love: α =.86 wives Conflict: α =.59 wives Wives’ Personal Well-being Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) 12 items (shortened version) Radloff, point scale, higher scores indicate higher levels of depressive symptoms α =.79 wives Wives’ Marital Satisfaction Domains of Satisfaction 16 items Huston, McHale, & Crouter, point scale, higher scores indicated greater levels of satisfaction α =.94 wives

ConstructMeasureAuthorScale & Reliability Marriage WorkMarriage Work with Friend Helms, et al., point scale, higher scores indicated greater levels of marriage work with friend α =.95 wives Pressure to AcculturateMultidimensional Acculturative Stress Inventory Pressure to acculturate subscale: 7 items Rodriguez, Myers, Bingham Mira, Flores, & Garcia-Hernandez, point scale, higher scores indicate greater levels of stress α =.85 wives Economic HardshipEmployment and Financial Information Financial Strain subscale: 4 items Conger & Elder, point scale, lower scores indicate a greater level of economic hardship in the past year α =.88 wives

ConstructMeasureAuthorScale & Reliability Gender Role AttitudesGender Role Attitude Scale Hoffman & Kloska, point scale, higher scores indicated more gender sterotyping α =.73 wives Familism AttitudesMexican American Acculturation/Encultur ation Scale (MAAS) Support & emotional closeness, family obligations, and family as referrent subscale: 16 items Knight, Gonzales, Saenz, German, Deardorff, Roosa, & Updegraff, in press 5 point scale, higher scores indicate greater familism α =.71 wives

Wives’IIIIIIIV Employment Status Marital Status.181* Family Economic Hardship.246**.234**.232** Pressure to Acculturate.226*.214*.203* Gender Role Attitudes Familism Attitudes Emotional Support R2R Change in R *** Note: +p <.1.*p <.05. **p <.01. ***p <.001.

Wives’IIIIIIIV Employment Status Marital Status-.220*-.189*-.202* Family Economic Hardship Pressure to Acculturate Gender Role Attitudes Familism Attitudes.241*.216* Emotional Support.244** R2R Change in R 2.053* *.057* Note: +p <.1.*p <.05. **p <.01. ***p <.001.

Wives’IIIIIIIV Employment Status Marital Status-.218* *-.144 Family Economic Hardship Pressure to Acculturate Gender Role Attitudes Familism Attitudes.176*.149 Emotional Support.263** R2R Change in R 2.065* ** Note: +p <.1.*p <.05. **p <.01. ***p <.001.

Wives’IIIIIIIV Age Number of Kids Pressure to Acculturate * Marriage Work with Friend * MPTACC*MMWORKF.190* R2R Change in R * Note: +p <.1.*p <.05. **p <.01. ***p <.001.