What’s the Right Move? The Relation Between Relocating and Psychosocial Outcomes Among Latinx College Students

Abstract

Spanish

The study investigated the role of relocating on the mental health, psychosocial stress, and social support of 159 first- and second-year Latinx college students. Findings revealed students who relocated for college had significantly higher self-reported sense of campus belonging, and social support compared to students who did not relocate. Implications for college readiness organizations and universities with commuter populations are discussed. Future directions to enhance the understanding of Latinx students’ transitionary experiences are also reviewed.

Keywords

Latinxs college students sense of belonging social support

Relocating for college is a stressful and challenging experience that may contribute to an increase in mental health problems among first-year college students; however, much of the research has been conducted with non-Latinx¹ White samples. Latinx college students, particularly those who are low-income and first-generation, might be at increased risk for experiencing mental health problems due to acculturative stress and feelings of loneliness and not belonging. Though Latinx students may experience these stressors, social support could be a protective factor that can buffer the negative effects of college adjustment. The purpose of this study is to examine whether psychosocial stressors, social support, and mental health concerns differ between non-relocating and relocating Latinx college students.

Common Mental Health Concerns on College Campuses

The most common mental health concerns for college students are anxiety, depression, and stress (LeViness et al., 2019). In addition to the prevalence of mental health problems among college students, the severity of symptoms is concerning. Casey et al. (2022) reported on findings from the 2018 to 2019 Healthy Minds Study, which found that 42% of college students in the U.S. met the criteria for a moderate or severe major depressive disorder or generalized anxiety disorder. Moreover, mental health concerns are consistently associated with poorer academic performance, resulting in students missing classes, dropping classes, and ultimately, leaving college (Hysenbegasi et al., 2005). The COVID-19 pandemic presented additional challenges that may have impacted students’ well-being and worsened existing mental health problems (Wang et al., 2020). Considering the transition to online learning, social distancing measures, and mortality rates for vulnerable populations, educators and clinicians should consider how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted college students.

Mental Health Risk Factors Among Latinx College Students

Approximately 44% of Latinx college students identify as first-generation (Santiago et al., 2019), and 52.9% identify as low-income (Taylor & Turk, 2019). Studies have identified first-generation and low-income students at risk for developing anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic symptoms (Jenkins et al., 2013; Stebleton et al., 2014). This might be because first-generation and low-income college students report a lower sense of campus belonging, life satisfaction, and social support than their peers (Jenkins et al., 2013; Stebleton et al., 2014). First-generation and low-income students also tend to have less time dedicated to their studies as they report more work hours and more financial stress than other students (House et al., 2020).

Moreover, Latinx students may experience their campus as unwelcoming due to racial discrimination and hostility (Hurtado & Carter, 1997), and some studies have found that Latinx students report greater feelings of loneliness and a lower sense of belonging compared to their White counterparts (Clark et al., 2015; Johnson et al., 2007). These negative experiences may be greater for students who move to a new city or state to attend college. Latinx students may also experience acculturative stress, which has been associated with depression and anxiety (Crockett et al., 2007). For example, in an undergraduate Latinx sample, Rischall and Meyers (2019) found that cultural incongruity with one’s campus predicted college adjustment and depression and was positively correlated with dropout intentions. Adherence to certain traditional cultural values can also increase stress for Latinx students (Page, 2013). For instance, students who endorse high levels of familismo, a prioritization of family needs over one’s own, may feel torn between prioritizing their responsibilities on campus with the needs of their family. Taken together, these findings suggest Latinx students, particularly first-generation and low-income students, may be at risk for experiencing mental health problems and their sequelae.

Conversely, social support has been suggested to be a protective factor against mental health symptoms among Latinx college students. For instance, Crockett et al. (2007) found that parental and peer support mitigated the effects of acculturative stress on symptoms of depression and anxiety for Mexican-American students. Similarly, Johnson et al. (2007) surveyed nearly 3,000 freshmen and found that ethnic minority first-year students who perceived their dormitory to be socially supportive reported a greater sense of belonging at their campus.

Relocating for College

Challenges transitioning to college may stem from students struggling to acclimate to a new collegiate environment or being in an environment that fails to adequately meet students’ needs. In turn, students’ mental health during this transitionary period may impact their academic outcomes and college persistence intentions (Hysenbegasi et al., 2005; Rischall & Meyers, 2019). Approximately 49% of all college students attend a college more than 100 miles away from home, and 28% attend an out-of-state college, meaning that for thousands of college students, change and transitions to unfamiliar locations are inevitable (Mattern & Wyatt, 2009). Moving to college may be a positive event for some students who seek out new experiences away from home, but it may be psychologically taxing for others who struggle with the adjustment. For many students, this may be the first time they live independently from their parents, and must learn and practice basic living skills. Moving to college has been associated with declines in physical and mental health, with many students reporting adverse changes to their diet, sleep, and exercise routines (King et al., 2011). Similarly, relocated students report increased psychological distress, such as homesickness (Stroebe et al., 2002; Tognoli, 2003), poor social adjustment (Brooks & DuBois, 1995), and depression (Reyes-Rodríguez et al., 2013).

Although Mattern and Wyatt (2009) found that Hispanic students tended to remain closer to home (Mdn = 39 miles) compared to other racial groups (e.g., White; Mdn = 102) in a sample of nearly 698,000 college students attending college in the U.S., less is known on whether remaining close to home is equally or less beneficial for students’ long-term well-being and whether it affects academic performance and persistence in college. Relocating is suggested to intensify the multifaceted challenge of adjusting to college, but this has mostly been studied in White samples (e.g., Brooks & DuBois, 1995; King et al., 2011; Stroebe et al., 2002). Indeed, Reyes-Rodríguez et al.’s (2013) study has examined the impact of relocating for college on mental health in a completely Latinx student population. In this study, over 2,000 freshmen from the University of Puerto Rico system were surveyed. Results revealed that those who reported moving to college to be a stressful life event were more likely to have moderate and severe levels of depression (17.4%) compared to those who did not perceive it to be stressful (8.5%). Although useful, Reyes-Rodríguez et al. (2013) only examined depressive symptoms and did not focus on other common mental health concerns. Additionally, students in the study did not relocate to colleges outside of Puerto Rico. Therefore, Reyes-Rodríguez et al.’s (2013) findings might not be generalizable to other institutions where Latinxs are not the majority ethnic group.

This exploratory study is propelled by the diathesis-stress model, which posits that psychological problems can manifest as a combination of one’s genetic predisposition and the encountering of a stressor (Zuckerman, 1999). A significant stressor, such as moving to college and its concomitant outcomes, is hypothesized to have an adverse impact on the overall well-being of Latinx college students.

Purpose of Study

The purpose of this study is to examine differences between Latinx relocators, students who moved away from their community for college, and non-relocators, students who remained in their community at home with family or in close proximity to home for college. Although many Latinx college students likely encounter challenges during their college adjustment, relocated Latinx students might experience higher levels of distress compared to students who stay near home. Latinx students who have moved might experience difficulties accessing support systems and likely need to find new support networks. Unless attending a Hispanic-Serving Institution (HSI), relocated Latinx students may not be represented in the university population, which may lead to assimilation challenges. Even then, HSIs are simply designated based on ethnic demographics and are still systemically transforming from serving White-focused cultures to meeting the cultural needs of Latinx college students. For example, Latinx students may prefer environments where they feel supported by their community (Page, 2013).

This study also aims to learn more about Latinx college students from the Rio Grande Valley (RGV), an interconnected bicultural community comprised of four counties in South Texas on the U.S.-Mexico border. In the RGV, around 92% of residents identify as Latinx, and of that population, approximately 96% are estimated to be of Mexican descent (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020). Approximately one in four (26.4%) of RGV residents are estimated to live below the poverty level, which is almost more than double the estimates of Texas residents (14.0%) and the United States population (12.6%; U.S. Census Bureau, 2022). Given its unique demographics and the scarce literature available on its residents, this research would elucidate the experience of college students in the context of their experiences close to and away from home. We hypothesized that compared to non-relocators in the RGV community, relocators would (1) report higher levels of depression, anxiety, and stress; (2) report poorer psychosocial outcomes, such as higher levels of acculturative stress, loneliness, and lower levels of sense of belonging; and (3) experience lower levels of social support.

Method

First- and second-year Latinx college students originally from the RGV were recruited to participate. Non-relocators were defined as students who attended a university within the RGV and reported living in a city within the RGV. Relocators were defined as students who attended a university outside of the RGV and reported living in a city outside of the RGV.

Sample and Procedures

The final sample consisted of 159 students, 110 were non-relocators and 49 were relocators. Study procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley. Non-relocators were recruited via student listservs. To recruit relocators, staff at universities with RGV students, Latinx student groups, social media sites, local school district staff, and educational nonprofits were asked to distribute study flyers. Qualtrics was used to collect data anonymously between October 2021 and April 2022. Participants who completed the study could enter a raffle to win one of eight $25 gift cards.

Measures

Impact of COVID-19

Students were asked how the COVID-19 pandemic impacted their well-being. This information was collected to provide context to students’ experiences during the pandemic and the results. One item from Copeland et al. (2021) was adapted for this study: “Please rate how much the COVID-19 outbreak has been [stressful] to you personally. Think about your daily routines, work, and family life.” The item uses a 10-point Likert scale from “Not at all stressful” (0) to “Extremely stressful” (10). Eleven items assessed whether certain aspects about students’ lives improved, stayed the same, or worsened after the start of the pandemic (e.g., Last year, my eating habits [improved/stayed the same/worsened] after the start of the pandemic). Lastly, one item asked about the modality of students’ classes (i.e., in-person, virtual) in the prior academic year.

Acculturative Stress

Acculturative stress was measured using the 24-item Social, Attitudinal, Familial, and Environmental (SAFE) Acculturative Stress Scale (Mena et al., 1987). Items are rated “Not Stressful” (1) to “Extremely Stressful” (5), with an optional rating of 0 if students have not experienced a stressful situation. SAFE has demonstrated excellent internal reliability and concurrent criterion validity in a sample of Mexican-American college students (Crockett et al., 2007). In this study, SAFE had excellent internal consistency (α = .91).

Sense of Belonging

Sense of belonging was assessed using the 3-item Sense of Belonging to Campus measure (Bollen & Hoyle, 1990). The measure asks participants to rate each item on an 11-point scale of “Strongly Disagree” (0) to “Strongly Agree” (10). Higher scores infer a stronger sense of belonging to one’s campus. This measure demonstrated excellent internal consistency in a sample of Latinx college students (Hurtado & Carter, 1997). In this study, the sense of belonging measure had excellent internal consistency (α = .95).

Loneliness

Loneliness was measured using the UCLA Loneliness Scale (ULS-8; Hays & DiMatteo, 1987). The ULS-8 has 8 items and utilizes a 4-point Likert scale ranging from “I never feel this way” (1) to “I often feel this way” (4). Higher scores infer higher perceived loneliness. The ULS-8 was tested with a sample of college students and determined to have good internal consistency and discriminant validity with life satisfaction and alienation measures (Hays & DiMatteo, 1987). In this study, internal consistency for the ULS-8 was good (α = .82).

Social Support

Social support was measured with the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS; Zimet et al., 1988). The scale has 12 items and three subscales with 4 items each for social support from friends, family, and a significant other. Responses range from “Very Strongly Disagree” (1) to “Very Strongly Agree” (7), with a midpoint of “Neutral” (4). The MPSS was found to have good to excellent internal consistency and construct validity in a sample of undergraduates (Zimet et al., 1988). In this study, internal consistency values were excellent for the MSPSS total scale (α = .92) and the Friend (α = .94), Family (α = .92), and Significant Other (α = .95) subscales.

Depression

Depression was measured using the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9; Kroenke et al., 2001). Participants reported the frequency of their symptoms within the last 2 weeks on a scale of “Not at all” (0) to “Nearly Every Day” (3). Scores can identify severity: minimal (0–4), mild (5–9), moderate (10–14), moderately severe (15–19), and severe (20–27). In a sample of college students, PHQ-9 scores were highly reliable across gender and race and demonstrated construct validity with higher scores related to lower well-being (Keum et al., 2018). In this study, internal consistency for the PHQ-9 was good (α = .87).

Anxiety

Anxiety was measured using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item (GAD-7; Spitzer et al., 2006) scale. Participants reported the frequency of their symptoms within the last 2 weeks from a scale of “Not at all” (0) to “Nearly Every Day” (3). Scores can assess severity: minimal (0–4), mild (5–9), moderate (10–14), and severe (15–21). Byrd-Bredbenner et al. (2020) demonstrated excellent test-retest reliability among college students across three-time points. In this study, internal consistency for the GAD-7 was excellent (α = .91).

Stress

Stress levels were measured with the 10-item Perceived Stress Scale (PSS; Cohen & Williamson, 1988). Items use a 5-point Likert scale from “Never” (0) to “Very Often” (4), with higher scores inferring a greater deal of perceived stress. Internal consistency for the measure is good, and convergent validity was established with the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Roberti et al., 2006). In this study, internal consistency for the PSS was good (α = .87).

Data Analytic Plan

IBM SPSS Statistics v28.0.1.1 was used to run all analyses. Prior to running the main analyses, data were examined for patterns of missing data and univariate and multivariate assumptions. Variable missingness ranged from 0 to 4.4%, and Little’s Missing Completely at Random test (MCAR; Little, 1988) was insignificant (χ² = 29.50, p = .44). Therefore, pairwise deletion was used to manage missing data. Assumptions of univariate and multivariate assumptions were met. A one-way MANOVA was used to examine the relations between relocation status (RGV relocator or RGV non-relocator) and mental health (i.e., depression, anxiety, and stress). Three one-way ANOVAs were used to examine the relation between relocation status and different psychosocial factors. Lastly, a one-way ANOVA was used to examine the relation between relocation and the level of social support.

Results

Although groups were similar in factors, such as age, academic achievement, and COVID-19-related stresses as measured in the study, statistically significant differences between groups were found for sense of belonging and social support, particularly support from friends.

Descriptive Analyses

The demographic characteristics of the sample are in Table 1. The total sample was mostly female (66.7%), heterosexual (67.3%), English-speaking (86.6%), enrolled full-time (91.2%), and identified as first-generation college students (60.4%). All non-relocators (n = 110) were students enrolled in one institution in the RGV, whereas relocators (n = 49) were students enrolled at institutions outside of the RGV. All non-relocators and 75.5% of relocators were enrolled in HSIs. Groups were similar in age and high school grade point average. Regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on academic experiences, there were no differences in the level of COVID-19-related stress between non-relocators and relocators, with both groups reporting the pandemic was between “somewhat” and “extremely stressful.” Similarly, chi-square analyses indicated no differences existed between the two groups in school, physical and mental health, and relationships due to the pandemic, demonstrating that both groups had similar experiences. For example, almost half of non-relocators (49.1%) and relocators (42.9%) reported that their overall well-being worsened after the start of the pandemic.

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics of Latinx College Student Participants.

Characteristic	Non-relocators (N = 110)	Relocators (N = 49)
Characteristic	n (%)	n (%)
Gender
Female	77 (70.0)	29 (59.2)
Male	25 (22.7)	20 (40.8)
Transgender male	2 (1.8)	0 (0)
Nonbinary (queer, non-conforming, fluid)	4 (3.6)	0 (0)
Unsure/Prefer not to answer	2 (1.8)	0 (0)
Sexual orientation
Heterosexual or Straight	71 (64.5)	36 (73.5)
Lesbian, gay, or bisexual	27 (24.5)	10 (20.4)
Other (pansexual, asexual, questioning)	7 (6.3)	2 (4.0)
Prefer not to answer/Not reported	5 (4.5)	1 (2.0)
Language preference
English	80 (72.7)	43 (87.8)
Spanish	25 (22.7)	4 (8.2)
Both English and Spanish	5 (4.5)	1 (2.0)
Not reported	0 (0)	1 (2.0)
Student status
First-year	70 (63.6)	28 (57.1)
Second-year	39 (35.5)	21 (42.9)
Not reported	1 (0.9)	0 (0)
Enrolled at HSI	110 (100%)	37 (75.5%)
Full-time enrollment	97 (88.1)	48 (98.0)
First-generation student status	67 (60.9)	29 (59.2)
Course modality for 2020–2021
All virtual	83 (75.5)	22 (44.9)
Mixture of virtual and in-person	22 (20.0)	24 (49.0)
All in-person	1 (0.9)	3 (6.1)
Not reported	4 (3.6)	0 (0)
Reported family annual income
$0–$60,000	79 (71.8)	31 (63.3)
$60,001+	27 (24.5)	18 (36.7)
Not reported	4 (3.6)	0 (0)
Employed	51 (46.4)	22 (44.9)
Current living situation
With family at home	100 (90.9)	0 (0)
On-campus	3 (2.7)	35 (71.4)

Note. HSI = Hispanic-Serving Institution.

Hypothesis 1: Mental Health Between Groups

The first hypothesis tested differences in mental health outcomes between groups. Results from the MANOVA were non-significant, F(3, 148) = 1.78, p = .155; Wilk’s Λ = 0.965, partial η2 = 0.035, suggesting that there were no differences in depression (non-relocators, M = 10.12, SD = 6.58; relocators, M = 7.77, SD = 5.65), anxiety (non-relocators, M = 8.53, SD = 5.93; relocators, M = 7.22, SD = 6.02), or perceived stress (non-relocators, M = 20.15, SD = 7.44; relocators, M = 17.76, SD = 7.34) between groups. For depression, non-relocators and relocators scored in the moderate and mild range, respectively. For anxiety, both scored in the mild range.

Hypothesis 2: Psychosocial Stressors Between Groups

The second hypothesis focused on whether differences in psychosocial stressors existed between groups. Results from the ANOVAs on acculturative stress (non-relocators, M = 40.86, SD = 18.19; relocators, M = 43.43, SD = 17.19), F(1, 157) = 0.70, p = .405, and loneliness (non-relocators, M = 18.27, SD = 5.64; relocators, M = 16.88, SD = 4.82), F(1, 156) = 2.24, p = .137, were non-significant; however, groups did significantly differ on sense of belonging, F(1, 156) = 22.65, p < .001. Relocators reported a stronger sense of belonging to their campus (M = 23.23, SD = 5.64) than non-relocators (M = 16.92, SD = 8.39). These findings did not support the hypothesis that relocators would encounter more psychosocial stressors than non-relocators.

Hypothesis 3: Social Support Between Groups

The last hypothesis focused on whether differences in perceived social support existed between groups. Results from the ANOVA were significant for social support, F(1, 155) = 4.29, p = .04. Relocators perceived higher levels of social support (M = 65.61, SD = 14.16) compared to non-relocators (M = 59.99, SD = 16.42). This finding did not support the hypothesis that relocators would perceive lower levels of social support during the college transition compared to non-relocators. Follow-up testing was conducted to analyze differences between groups based on types of social support sources. Results revealed that social support from friends was higher among relocators (M = 23.20, SD = 4.96) compared to non-relocators (M = 19.94, SD = 6.57); t(157) = −3.11, p = .03. No statistically significant differences between groups were found for social support from family, t(155) = −1.57, p = .31, or significant others, t(156) = −0.57, p = .67.

Discussion

The experience of relocating for college has seldom been explored in college students and much less in ethnic minority student populations. The lack of literature regarding Latinx college students’ adjustment after moving away for higher education is concerning, considering that Latinx college students often face additional stressors that make college completion more difficult. This study examined whether relocating is linked to negative adjustment outcomes as previously found in White college student populations (e.g., Brooks & DuBois, 1995; Tognoli, 2003) and in one study of Latinx college students in Puerto Rico (Reyes-Rodríguez et al., 2013). Contrary to prior literature, this study found no mental health differences between relocated and non-relocated Latinx college students. Both groups reported mild-to-moderate levels of anxiety, depression, and stress, whereas previous studies have measured the psychological impact of relocating by using the distance students moved away from home as a dependent variable (Brooks & DuBois, 1995; Tognoli, 2003) or analyzing students who already perceived the experience of their relocation to be stressful (Reyes-Rodríguez et al., 2013). Rather than gauging the effect of relocation indirectly through mileage or sampling a segment of relocated students, this study categorically and entirely compares students who did and did not move away from their community, and it could be that, overall, these two groups are alike in distress. Groups may be encountering similar levels of mental health symptoms by virtue of sharing universally stressful college experiences (e.g., studying, working) or distinct but equally distressing experiences (e.g., supporting family at home or homesickness). Additionally, no differences were found for acculturative stress or loneliness; however, 83.7% of relocators were attending an institution in their home state and 75.5% were enrolled at HSIs. Thus, relocators were enrolled at institutions with greater representation of Latinx students where their racial identity may not have induced pressure to conform to other majority racial groups. Nonetheless, this study found that relocated students felt a stronger sense of belonging and higher levels of perceived social support compared to non-relocated students. Both sense of belonging and social support have been identified as protective factors in previous studies (Crockett et al., 2007; Stebleton et al., 2014), and therefore, can ease the often-stressful process of adjusting to a new environment.

Sense of belonging was hypothesized to be poorer for relocators compared to non-relocators, but the contrary was found in this study. A stronger sense of belonging may be explained by students’ living environment. Results found that very few non-relocators were living on-campus compared to almost three-fourths of relocators. Therefore, relocated students may be more engaged on their campus, inevitably feeling a stronger belonging because of the closer proximity to campus life compared to students who commute. This finding is congruent with literature that has found sense of belonging to be likelier for White students who relocated for college and may be associated with relocators living on-campus and perceiving their residence hall to be socially supportive (Johnson et al., 2007; King et al., 2011).

We hypothesized that perceived social support would be poorer for relocated students compared to non-relocated students, but we found the contrary was true. Follow-up testing revealed that relocated students reported higher levels of perceived support, especially from friends, compared to non-relocated students. The relocated group may have had a strong social support network because they could maintain their pre-collegiate relationships through technology while building new connections at their institution. It is also possible that relocators may have had individual-level characteristics that would make them more likely to venture from and succeed at a college away from home (e.g., more self-sufficient). Furthermore, course modality (i.e., taking courses virtually or in-person) may possibly contribute to students’ social adjustment in college. For instance, the limited availability of in-person courses during the COVID-19 pandemic could have negatively impacted non-relocators’ ability to maintain friendships in high school or connect with others in college. Relocators might have benefited from the availability of in-person courses, which provided opportunities for students to cultivate friendships with peers in their courses and engage in their campus’s programming. Of note, perceived familial support was not greater for non-relocated students, although they were likelier to live with family. It is possible that regardless of the proximity to home, the perceived support students receive from family remains consistent as parents of relocators may compensate for the distance apart by reaching out to their children more. Alternatively, because most relocators remained in their home state, they may be within driving distance from home, and thus, can make frequent trips to visit home. Future studies might explore whether differences exist between the personal characteristics of relocators and non-relocators or between physical distance and perceived distance. Longitudinal studies could examine causal predictors of mental health and psychosocial outcomes to determine whether perceived social support fluctuates during the college transition. Future studies could also attempt to replicate these findings, given the lack of studies on Latinx college students, especially those from communities like the RGV, where 75% of high school graduates will enroll at a local college (Lumina Foundation, 2019).

A strength of this study is that it is one of a few studies that did not sample non-relocated and relocated students attending the same institution. While surveying students from the same institution can provide insight on how to better serve its students, surveying students from one area can provide its community stakeholders insight on how to better support youth throughout their college transition. College readiness organizations can disseminate evidence-based information about the advantages and challenges students could expect during the college transition. Moreover, universities with considerable non-relocated populations should evaluate their immersion programming for non-relocated and relocated students so that non-relocated students can build stronger relationships with those on campus and enhance their sense of belonging.

Limitations and Future Directions

This study is not without limitations. The cross-sectional design of the study precludes our ability to determine whether relocating for college caused mental health changes. An enhanced approach might involve recruiting high school seniors to cast a wider net of possible participants and surveying them at different times during their college transition. Additionally, 37.7% of the sample in this study identified as second-year students who are still relatively new in their collegiate career but may have already had time to adjust. This study sampled Latinx students in which all non-relocators and most relocators were attending an HSI. Generalizability may be limited for students who relocate to campuses where they are not the majority ethnic group; however, some broader findings are still relevant. For example, relocating may encourage students to socially integrate with one’s campus thereby improving their sense of belonging. Moreover, this study was limited in its ability to fully explore whether the actual distance between home and college impacted psychological functioning since a majority of the relocated sample stayed within Texas. Future studies can sample students of various distances away from home to determine whether distance can impact their adjustment to college. Additionally, other factors, such as frequency of home visits and HSI attendance, could be explored in future studies. Finally, considering the RGV’s sociocultural context, generalizability may be limited to other border communities were Latinxs, particularly Mexican Americans, are the dominant ethnicity.

Conclusion and Recommendation for Future Research

Although unexpected, this study found Latinx college students who moved for college had a stronger sense of belonging and social support than students who stayed in their local community. Relocating for college may put students in situations where they must integrate socially and academically to adjust to their new environment. Universities should consider ways to bolster sense of belonging and social support as they are known to reduce the impact of stressors and mental health concerns. Subsequent studies could adopt a longitudinal approach to learn whether indeed relocating produces changes in student mental health. Future studies could also focus on whether adjustment for first-year students differs based on how far they have moved for college or on the institution type (e.g., HSI or non-HSI). Additionally, sampling other racial and ethnic populations is imperative as students from distinct cultural backgrounds may experience different outcomes when transitioning away from home for college. Ultimately, this study provides some evidence that relocating for college may lead to improved student wellbeing; however, more research is needed to improve the generalizability of these findings and to determine whether relocating for college is, in fact, the right move.

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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Lisa A. Lozano

Bianca T. Villalobos

Juventino Hernandez Rodriguez

Notes

Author Biographies

Lisa A. Lozano, MA, is a second-year doctoral student in Counseling Psychology at Texas A&M University in College Station, TX. She is currently interested in researching the intersection of mental health and academic persistence. She aspires to develop and promote campus interventions that cultivate systemic change for at-risk students as a future psychologist.

Dr. Bianca T. Villalobos is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychological Science at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley. Dr. Villalobos’s research tests the feasibility of evidence-based interventions, novel service delivery models (i.e., primary care behavioral health, telehealth), and the role of cultural values in help-seeking. She is a bilingual (English and Spanish) licensed psychologist in Texas and is passionate about training the next generation of researchers and community providers.

Veronica Castro, Ph.D.2, Licensed Psychologist, and a Rio Grande Valley native, is an associate professor in the Counseling Department at the University of Texas-Rio Grande Valley (UTRGV). She has been a faculty member at UTPA/UTRGV for the past nineteen years. Her formal education began at UT-Austin and culminated in the completion of a Ph.D. in Counselor Education from Texas A&M University–Corpus Christi and a second Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from Walden University. Dr. Castro’s research experience and interests encompass resiliency, emotional intelligence, school counselor education, the role of the school counselor, and counseling youth who identify as lesbian, gay, and/or bisexual. In addition to teaching graduate counseling students, she actively serves her community as a bilingual licensed psychologist.

Dr. Juventino Hernandez Rodriguez is an Assistant Professor at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley. His current research focuses on how Latinx youth and families are impacted by stressful and traumatic events (e.g., peer victimization, trauma, discrimination, anti-immigration policies, COVID-19). In addition, Dr. Hernandez Rodriguez is interested in understanding how to increase Latinx representation in graduate psychology programs.

References

Bollen

K. A.

Hoyle

R. H.

(1990). Perceived cohesion: A conceptual and empirical examination. Social Forces, 69(2), 479–504. https://doi.org/10.2307/2579670

Brooks

J. H.

DuBois

D. L.

(1995). Individual and environmental predictors of adjustment during the first year of college. Journal of College Student Development, 36(4), 347–360.

Byrd-Bredbenner

Eck

Quick

(2020). Psychometric properties of the generalized anxiety disorder-7 and generalized anxiety disorder-mini in United States university students. Frontiers in Psychology, 11:550533. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.550533

Casey

S. M.

Varela

Marriott

J. P.

Coleman

C. M.

Harlow

B. L.

(2022). The influence of diagnosed mental health conditions and symptoms of depression and/or anxiety on suicide ideation, plan, and attempt among college students: Findings from the Healthy Minds Study, 2018-2019. Journal of Affective Disorders, 298(Pt A), 464–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021.11.006

Clark

D. M.

Loxton

N. J.

Tobin

S. J.

(2015). Declining loneliness over time: Evidence from American colleges and high schools. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(1), 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214557007

Cohen

Williamson

(1988). Perceived stress in a probability sample of the United States. In Spacapan

Oskamp

(Eds.), The social psychology of health: Claremont symposium on applied social psychology (pp. 31–67). Sage Publications, Inc.

Copeland

W. E.

McGinnis

Bai

Adams

Nardone

Devadanam

Rettew

Hudziak

J. J.

(2021). Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on college student mental health and wellness. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 60(1), 134–141.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2020.08.466

Crockett

L. J.

Iturbide

M. I.

Torres Stone

R. A.

McGinley

Raffaelli

Carlo

(2007). Acculturative stress, social support, and coping: Relations to psychological adjustment among Mexican American college students. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13(4), 347–355. https://doi.org/10.1037/1099-9809.13.4.347

Hays

R. D.

DiMatteo

M. R.

(1987). A short-form measure of loneliness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 51(1), 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5101_6

10.

House

L. A.

Neal

Kolb

(2020). Supporting the mental health needs of first generation college students. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 34(2), 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/87568225.2019.1578940

11.

Hurtado

Carter

D. F.

(1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions of the campus racial climate on Latino college students’ sense of belonging. Sociology of Education, 70(4), 324–345. https://doi.org/10.2307/2673270

12.

Hysenbegasi

Hass

S. L.

Rowland

C. R.

(2005). The impact of depression on the academic productivity of university students. Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics, 8(3), 145–151.

13.

Jenkins

S. R.

Belanger

Connally

M. L.

Boals

Durón

K. M.

(2013). First-Generation undergraduate students’ social support, depression, and life satisfaction. Journal of College Counseling, 16(2), 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1882.2013.00032.x

14.

Johnson

D. R.

Soldner

Leonard

J. B.

Alvarez

Inkelas

K. K.

Rowan-Kenyon

H. T.

Longerbeam

S. D.

(2007). Examining sense of belonging among first-year undergraduates from different racial/ethnic groups. Journal of College Student Development, 48(5), 525–542. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2007.0054

15.

Keum

B. T.

Miller

M. J.

Inkelas

K. K.

(2018). Testing the factor structure and measurement invariance of the PHQ-9 across racially diverse U.S. College students. Psychological Assessment, 30(8), 1096–1106. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000550

16.

King

Garrett

Wrench

Lewis

(2011). The loneliness of relocating: Does the transition to university pose a significant health risk for rural and isolated students. First Years in Higher Education Conference (pp. 1–5). https://unistars.org/past_papers/papers11/FYHE-2011/content/pdf/16B.pdf

17.

Kroenke

Spitzer

R. L.

Williams

J. B.

(2001). The PHQ-9: Validity of a brief depression severity measure. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 16(9), 606–613. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x

18.

LeViness

Gorman

Braun

Koenig

Bershad

(2019). The association for university and college counseling center directors annual survey: 2019 (p. 56). The Association for University and College Counseling Center Directors.

19.

Little

R. J. A.

(1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83(404), 1198–1202. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1988.10478722

20.

Lumina Foundation. (2019). Down on the border, student success is no borderline issue. https://www.luminafoundation.org/focus-magazine/fall-2019/down-on-the-border-student-success-is-no-borderline-issue/

21.

Mattern

Wyatt

J. N.

(2009). Student choice of college: How far do students go for an education? Journal of College Admission, 203, 18–29.

22.

Mena

F. J.

Padilla

A. M.

Maldonado

(1987). Acculturative stress and specific coping strategies among immigrant and later generation college students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 9(2), 207–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/07399863870092006

23.

Page

(2013). Hispanics: A diverse population of students to influence the landscape of higher education. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 12(1), 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192712454133

24.

Reyes-Rodríguez

M. L.

Rivera-Medina

C. L.

Cámara-Fuentes

Suárez-Torres

Bernal

(2013). Depression symptoms and stressful life events among college students in Puerto Rico. Journal of Affective Disorders, 145(3), 324–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2012.08.010

25.

Rischall

Meyers

S. A.

(2019). Conflicting cultural pressures and the adjustment of Latino college students. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 18(4), 343–356. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192717747948

26.

Roberti

J. W.

Harrington

L. N.

Storch

E. A.

(2006). Further psychometric support for the 10-Item version of the perceived stress scale. Journal of College Counseling, 9(2), 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1882.2006.tb00100.x

27.

Salinas

(2020). The complexity of the “x” in Latinx: How Latinx/a/o students relate to, identify with, and understand the term Latinx. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 19(2), 149–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192719900382

28.

Santiago

D. A.

Laurel

Martinez

Bonilla

Labandera

(2019). Latinos in higher education: Compilation of fast facts. Excelencia in Education. https://www.edexcelencia.org/Excelencia-Compilation-Fast-Facts

29.

Spitzer

R. L.

Kroenke

Williams

J. B.

Löwe

(2006). A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: The GAD-7. Archive of Internal Medicine, 166(10), 1092–1097. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092

30.

Stebleton

M. J.

Soria

K. M.

Huesman

R. L.

(2014). First-Generation students’ sense of belonging, mental health, and use of counseling services at public research universities. Journal of College Counseling, 17(1), 6–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1882.2014.00044.x

31.

Stroebe

van Vliet

Hewstone

Willis

(2002). Homesickness among students in two cultures: Antecedents and consequences. British Journal of Psychology, 93(Pt 2), 147–168. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712602162508

32.

Taylor

Turk

(2019). Race and ethnicity in higher education: A look at low-income undergraduates. American Council on Education. https://www.equityinhighered.org/resources/ideas-and-insights/race-and-ethnicity-in-higher-education-a-look-at-low-income-undergraduates/

33.

Tognoli

(2003). Leaving home: homesickness, place attachment, and transition among residential college students. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 18(1), 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1300/J035v18n01_04

34.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2020). Hispanic or Latino origin by specific origin in B01001I, 2020 American Community Survey 5-year estimates detailed tables. https://data.census.gov/table?g=050XX00US48061,48215,48427,48489&y=2020&d=ACS+5-Year+Estimates+Detailed+Tables.

35.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2022). Poverty status in the past 12 months in S1701, 2022 American Community Survey 1-year estimates subject tables. https://data.census.gov/table?q=poverty+in+Hidalgo+County,+Texas&g=010XX00US_040XX00US48_050XX00US48061,48427,48489.

36.

Wang

Hegde

Son

Keller

Smith

Sasangohar

(2020). Investigating mental health of US college students during the COVID-19 pandemic: Cross-sectional survey study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(9):e22817. https://doi.org/10.2196/22817

37.

Zimet

G. D.

Dahlem

N. W.

Zimet

S. G.

Farley

G. K.

(1988). The multidimensional scale of perceived social support. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52(1), 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5201_2

38.

Zuckerman

(1999). Vulnerability to psychopathology: A biosocial model. American Psychological Association.