Abstract
Bias-motivated victimization, including hate crimes, has steadily been an increasing concern across the country. For Latinx populations, anti-immigrant sentiment and targeted political rhetoric have also been on the rise. Due to this context, it is important to understand the detrimental impact such experiences can have on mental health outcomes such as anger, anxiety, depression, and dissociation. The aim of this study is to better understand the role of bias victimization on mental health outcomes among the Latinx community using self-reported survey data. This analysis consists of 910 Latinx adults from Boston, San Diego, and Houston who were recruited through partnerships with community agencies and self-selection during local Latinx-focused events in 2018-2019. This methodology was essential to capturing the lived experiences of traditionally hard-to-reach populations. The survey asked participants to report any experiences with hate crime, bias-motivated victimization, and general experiences with victimization unrelated to their identity in their lifetime and within the past year. Notably, about half of the sample reported experiencing a bias victimization in their lifetime. Using sequential regressions and tests of mediation, we find that the association between bias victimization and mental health was influenced by acculturative stress. The results of this study highlight the harmful consequences that bias victimization and racial trauma bring. Bias victimization, ranging from everyday microaggressions to hate crimes, as well as the level of acculturative stress, subsequently negatively affects the mental health of Latinx adults. This study provides important evidence regarding the harm incurred from bias-motivated incidents and the detrimental impact it has on the lives of those who experience them.
Official reports from the FBI’s National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) indicate that the number of hate crime victims rose by 15.7% in general between 2016 and 2019, yet they increased by 43.5% for the Latinx community over the same time period (FBI, 2019). These trends are concerning, particularly because hate crimes are substantially underreported among marginalized communities, and even more so in communities fearful of deportation, suggesting that the actual number of hate crime incidents may be even higher (McDevitt, Cronin, et al., 2002; Shively et al., 2014). Empirical research has failed to keep up with the rising trends in bias victimization. Bias-motivated victimization is composed of hate crimes (e.g., assault) and noncriminal bias events (e.g., being called a racial slur). Hate crimes have been defined as criminal acts motivated by the offender’s bias against ethnicity, national origin, race, religion, sexual orientation, or disability (FBI, 2019). Due to their nature, hate crimes can have scarring effects on the individuals who were directly affected, and also on the individuals who form a part of the community that was targeted (McDevitt, Levin, et al., 2002). Similarly, noncriminal bias events are also discriminatory against these same immutable characteristics, however, these experiences do not rise to the level of a criminal act.
Few studies have analyzed the effect of stress and trauma related to bias victimization within the Latinx community. The existing studies on Latinx trauma focus on immigration, acculturation, or general victimization (that is not bias motivated) (Chavez-Dueñas et al., 2019). Prior literature focuses on the experiences of Latinx immigrants or compares the differences in discrimination between Latinx immigrants and U.S.-born Latinxs (Perreira & Ornelas, 2013). Although immigration status plays a key role in Latinx’s experiences within the United States, prior literature has found that bias-motivated offenders rarely distinguish between documented and undocumented victims (Nadal et al., 2014). Even so, limited empirical work has focused on Latinx U.S. citizens who are more likely to be acculturated, meaning they are more adjusted to U.S. American culture. In addition, a strong connection to Latinx identity, or enculturation, has been found to be a significant protective factor against crime perpetration and victimization experiences, generally safeguarding immigrant communities from both (Alvarez-Rivera et al., 2014). When immigrating to the U.S., acculturative stress is defined as the stress incurred during the acculturation process, particularly the conditions and experiences that exist during immigration (Cao et al., 2023; Gonzalez-Guarda et al., 2021). Conversely, additional trauma can be placed on individuals who identify as American but are treated as though they are not, particularly in the context of hate crime (Chavez-Dueñas et al., 2019). The importance of enculturation/acculturation as it relates to bias-motivated victimization and mental health has been largely ignored.
Bias-Motivated Harm and Mental Health
Bias-motivated offenses against Latinxs are rising at an alarming rate, which makes it critical that we work to understand both hate crimes as well as the impact of hate crimes on mental health (Gamboa, 2020). An increase in anti-Latinx rhetoric has led to a call for more research analyzing the effects of race-based trauma among Latinxs (Pérez, 2015). Other empirical work among various groups has found that experiencing discriminatory events or hate crimes can have negative mental health consequences for racial minorities specifically (Paradies et al., 2015), and has attempted to reframe this issue by studying race-based trauma in the context of PTSD symptomology (Bryant-Davis & Ocampo, 2005). Past work has shown that discriminatory events can lead to traumatic symptomology, even if they are as covert as microaggressions (Sibrava et al., 2019). The duration and intensity of traumatic events are the most important factors when it comes to understanding the impact of these on mental health outcomes (Carter, 2007). While someone may not be experiencing bias victimization every day, the repercussions of such can have lasting effects, particularly on mental health (Carter, 2007).
In addition, bias-motivated events include both personal and group trauma because the individual is being targeted for belonging to, or being perceived as belonging to, a larger group (Chavez-Dueñas et al., 2019). This means community members can often be negatively impacted by instances of hate crime even when it was not directed at them personally, but because they are a member of the targeted group (Farrell & Lockwood, 2023; Valdez, 2011). Despite significant and ongoing debate about what is classified as a stressful versus potentially traumatic event, we contend that these forms of harm do warrant examinations of severe mental health outcomes such as PTSD (Marx et al., 2024).
Research on victimization that includes Latinx samples and mental health variables suggests that many of the effects of trauma for the Latinx community are similar to the effects other racial and ethnic groups who have experienced victimization suffer; these similarities include risk of revictimization, general worsening of mental health, and adverse coping mechanisms such as substance abuse (Flores et al., 2010). This body of work shows links between culture, identity, and poor physical and mental health in line with previous work among other immigrant or ethnic groups (Bryant-Davis & Ocampo, 2005; Flores et al., 2010; Sibrava et al., 2019). In addition, a growing body of work demonstrates that acculturative stress is one of the key mechanisms underpinning the relationship between victimization experiences and adverse Latinx mental health (Cao et al., 2023; Rivera et al., 2015).
Discriminatory remarks and actions can also affect short- and long-term mental health outcomes, which can be further exacerbated for those who do not have legal status, which is an additional chronic stressor (Becerra et al., 2013; Zeiders et al., 2020). The fear of deportation for undocumented individuals and limited bilingual resources at health centers and other service providers likely contribute to the lack of formal help-seeking and distrust in law enforcement among Latinx communities (Sabina et al., 2012). The result is a limitation of the resources available to victims of racial trauma. Although members of any stigmatized group are less likely to report victimization and more prone to adverse mental health outcomes, this is particularly true for Latinx populations who have historically been treated as perpetual foreigners (Nadal et al., 2014).
Increased anti-immigrant rhetoric and policies directed at Latinx communities have been driving a need to better understand race-based trauma among this population (Chavez-Dueñas et al., 2019). Although bias events, and especially hate crimes, represent severe forms of victimization, there is still little empirical research that has focused on other forms of race-based victimization on mental health outcomes among Latinx victims. The aim of this study is to analyze the mental health consequences of noncriminal bias victimization and hate crime among the Latinx community. We expect to find that both noncriminal bias events and hate crime experiences will be negatively associated with mental health outcomes.
Methods
Participants and Procedures
These analyses use data from the Understanding and Measuring Bias Against Latinos study that we designed to understand the patterns of hate crime victimization among Latinxs across three sites in the United States: Boston (n = 305), San Diego (n = 303), and Houston (n = 302). Data collection occurred between May 2018 and March 2019 and yielded 910 participants across the three sites. To be eligible for this survey, respondents had to be self-identified Latinxs over the age of 18 and able to read in English or Spanish. The study asked about victimization experiences, demographics, immigration and generational status, cultural factors, help-seeking responses, and mental health outcomes. The survey was available in English and Spanish and completed electronically on the Qualtrics platform.
Of the 910 participants, 52% were women, and the average age was 36 years. Approximately 79% of the sample had a high school education or above. The majority of participants were U.S. citizens (62.8%) (U.S. born or naturalized), with a little more than half of the sample being immigrants (56%), and only 16% of the sample were undocumented. For marital status, 39% of the sample was single, with 34% indicating they were married. Racially, 40% of the sample identified as white, 5% as Black, 10% as Indigenous, and 25% as mixed or multiracial. In addition, the largest national origin group in the sample was Mexican (51%).
To recruit participants, including hard-to-reach groups such as undocumented individuals, we partnered with several Latinx-serving organizations in each site to help with recruitment (Shively et al., 2014). Participants were also recruited at events that were centered around Latinx heritage, such as cultural festivals and Latinx country Independence Day celebrations. It was essential to the success of recruitment that each site have Spanish-speaking staff or Latinx staff who could connect with participants, likely improving their willingness to trust and participate in the study.
Once recruited, all participants were randomly selected to take the survey either in person or on their own devices (49.1% vs 58.3%, respectively) (Cuevas et al., 2019). Participants were then asked to choose the preferred language in which they would like to complete the survey. They were then presented with an informed consent form and asked if they would be willing to participate in the study. Participants were provided with a unique ID number used to de-identify their responses. At completion, they were asked if any part of the survey upset them, and if so, they were asked if they would like one of the research team’s licensed clinicians to follow-up with them about how they were feeling. Less than 1% of the sample asked for follow-up. Participants who completed the survey on a tablet received their $30 gift card in person, and the rest had the option to have their gift cards physically mailed to them or sent electronically via their email or phone number.
Measures
Demographics
Demographic questions asked about gender, race, ethnicity, age, household income, education level, immigration status, and language fluency. Gender was dichotomized in the analysis for 1 (Female) 0 (Male). For all race and ethnicity measures, items were dichotomized to indicate what race was selected, for example, 1 (White) 0 (Not White). A measure for socioeconomic status was calculated by converting education and household income variables into z-scores and averaging those values. For immigrant status, this measure was dichotomized to 1 (immigrant) or 0 (U.S.-born). Language fluency was measured using questions from the Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q) (Marian et al., 2007). These asked participants to indicate their level of comfort speaking and understanding English and Spanish, as well as their self-perceived accent speaking English, on a scale from 0 to 10 (with 0 indicating no comfort/no accent, and 10 indicating a perfect level of speaking/understanding/severely heavy accent). The study sites were dichotomized to be 1 (lives in the area) and 0 (does not) for Boston, Houston, and San Diego. San Diego was used as the reference category and excluded from the analysis.
Acculturation
To measure acculturation and enculturation, the Brief Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans (ARSMA) - II scale was utilized. This series of 12 questions asks participants to rate how often they enjoy or produce content in English or Spanish (Bauman, 2005). Questions include statements such as: “I enjoy Spanish language T.V.” and “I write letters in English.” The purpose of these questions was to measure the level of Anglo orientation (acculturation) and Latinx orientation (enculturation). The orientation scores were then calculated by taking the mean of the six questions related to Anglo orientation and the six questions related to Latinx orientation. Since an individual can have differing levels of each (they are not linearly related), the scale keeps Latinx and Anglo orientations separate to measure both dimensions. Reported alpha coefficients for the enculturation scale and the acculturation scale on a sample of middle school and elementary school students were α = .91 and α = .73, respectively (Bauman, 2005). Acculturation scores also significantly correlated with the language chosen to respond to the scale. For our sample, we found high internal consistency for both acculturation (α = .83) and enculturation (α = .90).
Acculturative Stress
To measure acculturative stress, the Social, Attitudinal, Familial, and Environmental (SAFE) Stress Scale was utilized. This scale contains 24 items that evaluate stress related to acculturation and discrimination (Mena et al., 1987). Example questions include “People look down on me for practicing my culture” and “It bothers me when people pressure me to assimilate.” The respondent can then mark how stressful the scenarios are from not stressful (1) to extremely stressful (5). The stress score was calculated on a complete scale (at least 18 of the questions were answered) by adding the total sum of the scale. The average score was 33.91 and ranged from 0 to 120 (α = .91).
Bias Victimization Questionnaire for Latinos
This instrument was created by the research team by adapting other victimization instruments such as the Lifetime Trauma Victimization History (LTVH) and Youth Bias Victimization Questionnaire (YBVQ). This 13-question scale asks about victimization experiences that the respondents felt were motivated by their race or ethnicity (Cuevas et al., 2019). The Bias Victimization Questionnaire for Latinos (BVQ-L) was developed to facilitate the specific cultural context needed for studies such as this, informed by prior scholarship conducted by the research team for the YBVQ (Jones et al., 2023; Widom et al., 2008), and by editing questions from instruments measuring non-bias motivated victimization (e.g., LTVH). Eight of the questions asked about experiences that constituted a hate crime (such as physical assault or property damage), while the remaining five questions asked about discriminatory experiences, such as being called a racial slur or experiencing discrimination at work. Respondents were asked to indicate if they experienced these events in the past year, in their lifetime, or never. If the participant indicated they experienced a bias victimization, they were then prompted with follow-up questions that asked about the perpetrator of the event, when it happened, how many times it happened, and if an injury occurred because of the victimization. The reliability of this scale for the sample was α = .87.
Lifetime Trauma and Victimization History
We also asked about general victimization experiences that were unrelated to racial bias; 21 questions were selected from the Lifetime Trauma and Victimization History questionnaire (Widom et al., 2008). The questions in this instrument ranged from direct experiences of victimization, such as having property stolen, to indirect experiences, such as having a family member or friend who was murdered. Respondents were asked to indicate whether they experienced the event in the past year, in their lifetime, or never. If they indicated having experienced victimization, they were then asked follow-up questions about the event related to the perpetrator, the number of times it happened, how old they were the last time it happened, if they were injured as a result, and if the event happened in the United States. The reliability for this scale in our sample was α=.89.
Trauma Symptom Inventory
The Trauma Symptom Inventory-2 (TSI-2) is a validated instrument used to evaluate trauma-related symptomology among adults (Briere, 2011). Only the questions for the depression, anxiety, anger, and dissociation subscales of TSI-2 were used. The TSI-2 asks the participant to indicate the frequency at which symptoms occurred (a four-point scale ranging from never to often) over the last 6 months. The final raw score was converted to the TSI-2 published standardized t-scores. These scales have been found to have excellent reliability, with alphas ranging between α = .82 (dissociation) and α = .91 (depression).24 The reliability of the TSI scales for our sample was α = .91 for anxiety, α = .94 for depression, α = .92 for anger, and α=.89 for dissociation.
Analytic Strategy
To test the effects of noncriminal bias victimization, hate crime, and acculturative stress on mental health, we conducted four sequential regression models, one for every mental health outcome, with each model having two steps. First, we introduced the control variables such as age, gender, socioeconomic status, site, and race, and main victimization variables, including a total count of victimization experiences (not including any form of bias victimization), the noncriminal bias, and hate crime. In the second regression, we added immigration variables such as immigrant status, undocumented status, and culture variables, including enculturation, acculturation, and perception of accent, as well as the acculturative stress score. The TSI raw scores were converted into their published T scores prior to the analysis. Due to having 31.2% of the data missing at random (MAR), multiple imputation was used to address the missing data. This was done using the multivariate normal procedure in Stata 16 and by creating 20 imputation data sets. Stata uses an iterative Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method to impute missing values (Stata, 2024). To test possible mediation, Sobel-Goodman tests were run for each mental health outcome, with the primary mediator being acculturative stress and bias victimization being the independent variable of interest. This was done with a user-written command in Stata, which facilitates the Sobel-Goodman test in Stata 16 (Mize, 2024).
Results
Half of the sample (49%, n = 446) reported experiencing at least one noncriminal bias event in their lifetime, and 28% (n = 253) reported experiencing at least one-lifetime hate crime. The non-bias victimization count ranged from 0 to 20, with an average of 1.82 victimization experiences. Overall, TSI T scores mean for the full sample were 47.16 for anxiety (SD = 9.8), 46.16 for depression (SD = 9.7), 45.90 for anger (SD = 10.3), and 48.66 for dissociation (SD = 9.1). Tables 1 through 4 show the full results of the analyses.
Sequential Regression on Anxiety.
Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Sequential Regression on Depression.
Note. *p <. 05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Sequential Regression on Anger.
Note. *p < .05, **p <. 01, ***p < .001.
Sequential Regression on Dissociation.
Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
In the first step, living in Boston was significantly associated with higher TSI scores (meaning worse mental health) for depression and anxiety (β = .09, p = .01 for both), and living in Houston was only significantly associated with lower TSI scores for anger (meaning better mental health) (β = −1.58, p = .03), using living in San Diego as the reference category. Age was significantly associated with higher TSI scores for anxiety and dissociation (β ranging from −.10 to .09; p = .00 to 0.01), and socioeconomic status was significantly associated with higher TSI scores for anxiety (β = .1.25, p = .01). General victimization was significantly associated with higher TSI scores for each mental health outcome at step one and remained significant across all models in step two (β ranging from .59 to .82; all p = .00). Noncriminal bias victimization was significantly associated with higher TSI scores for anxiety, depression, and anger (β ranging from .07 to .10; p = .01 to .04), while hate crime was associated with higher TSI scores across all four mental health outcomes (β ranging from .07 to .11; p = .01 to 0.04).
However, the significant association for noncriminal bias events and hate crime becomes nonsignificant in step two across all mental health outcomes, with the introduction of the immigration and culture variables. Immigration status was associated with lower TSI scores for depression, dissociation, and anger (β ranging from −.10 to −.07; p = .02 to .05). Importantly, in step two, acculturative stress is associated with higher TSI scores for anxiety, depression, anger, and dissociation (β ranging from .29 to .37; all p = .00). Lastly, tests for mediation demonstrated that for three of the four models, there was partial mediation between acculturative stress and bias victimization. Across the models for depression, anger, and anxiety, the proportion of total effect mediated was 40% (z = 3.66, p = .001; z = 3.49, p = .001; z = 3.49, p = .001, respectively), whereas dissociation did not have significant mediating effects.
Discussion
Without accounting for acculturative stress, noncriminal bias events are associated with worse mental health (or higher TSI scores) across three mental health outcomes. These findings suggest that these events are as important to consider for mental health as hate crimes, except for dissociation, for which hate crime is negatively associated, but noncriminal bias events are not. This distinction can potentially be attributed to the spectrum of severity that can exist between noncriminal bias events and hate crimes. In contrast to the other mental health symptoms we measured, dissociation is a more trauma-specific response, and therefore likely to be impacted by the more severe events encompassed in hate crime (Boyer et al., 2022). Less severe events, such as those included in the noncriminal bias variable, may not be impactful enough to trigger a dissociative response. This finding is consistent with prior work on racial trauma, substantiating that experiencing bias victimization is negatively associated with mental health (Alvarez-Rivera et al., 2014; Araújo & Borrell, 2006; Chavez-Dueñas et al., 2019).
However, once we introduce acculturative stress into the models, these effects are no longer significant, indicating that the relationship between bias victimization on mental health is influenced by the inclusion of acculturative stress. The evidence provided here suggests that more exploration is warranted for examining the relationship between bias victimization and acculturative stress, and their effect on mental health and trauma-related symptoms. Being called a racial slur or being physically assaulted due to your race could reinforce othering, raising acculturative stress levels regardless of immigrant or documentation status.
The results also show that general victimization is significantly associated with more negative mental health scores. This is unsurprising as this has consistently been a robust finding in victimization scholarship among Latinxs (Cuevas et al., 2010; Cuevas & Sabina, 2010). It is important to note that the cumulative impact of victimization has usually overwhelmed the impact of any single form of victimization in general and Latinx populations (Cuevas et al., 2010; Haahr-Pedersen et al., 2020). The fact that bias victimization and hate crime remain significant in the models after the inclusion of general victimization suggests that these forms of victimization have a unique relationship with mental health, potentially due to their targeting of both an individual and their racial or cultural community.
An additional finding worth noting is that being female was also significant for anxiety, anger, and dissociation; females reported lower scores on anger, but higher scores in anxiety and dissociation. This finding is also consistent with prior literature on Latinx victimization, as prior research has found that Latinx women report experiencing more depressive, anxious, and dissociative symptoms and rarely report symptoms of anger (Cuevas & Sabina, 2010).
Immigrant status was significantly related to reduced feelings of depression, anger, and dissociation. This finding is likely due to the cultural protection provided by enclave communities that most immigrants reside in (Viruell-Fuentes et al., 2013). Typically, in these enclave communities, immigrants are surrounded by other immigrants of the same ethnic or racial background, often other family members, and that cultural connection offers a sense of belonging, which can potentially also explain why enculturation was also significantly associated with reduced feelings of anger. Thus, providing an outlet for informal help-seeking. Unlike in spaces that increase acculturative stress, such protective factors may relate to previous literature in which immigrants tend to have better health outcomes than nonimmigrants.
The role of bias victimization and hate crime extends beyond a legal point of view and has clear implications for public health. Understanding contributing factors to worsening mental health, such as experiencing bias-motivated harm, can aid mental health practitioners as well as community service organizations in forming plans to promote well-being and safety. These experiences can exacerbate ongoing mental conditions or create negative feelings related to their identity. Key elements to consider for bias crime victims are barriers that prevent Latinx adults from seeking assistance, particularly from health care providers, like risk of stigma, distrust of authorities, or general fear of continued discrimination. Bias-motivated harm can have chronic implications for victims and last across generations through intergenerational transmission of trauma and stress (Zeleke & Levers, 2022).
There are a number of limitations to our study. This is a cross-sectional analysis, preventing the assessment of potential causal relationships. Moreover, participants were asked to report their experiences in the past year and in their lifetime, potentially resulting in a disproportionate impact on memory deterioration. Finally, the study used a community-based sample. While this may result in recruiting individuals who are more vulnerable to bias victimization, it limits our ability to generalize to the Latinx population as a whole.
Future work should consider the effects of vicarious trauma. Our project focused solely on direct experiences, but as we know, bias victimization can have important implications for the broader community, not just the targeted individuals. Public health officials, policymakers, and health care practitioners would benefit from more work expanding on the degree to which bias victimization impacts mental health long term, in addition to examining physical health implications.
Bias victimization is a public health crisis. Our study clearly demonstrates the negative relationship between bias victimization on mental health. Although these experiences may only happen once, they have lasting consequences that affect individuals and their communities in the long term, and when there is a lack of resources to help alleviate adverse mental health issues, we leave these communities to continue experiencing the sequelae of this form of violence.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project was supported by Grant No. 2016-V3-GX-0001 awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
