Familism is a cultural value that emphasizes interdependent family relationships that are warm, close, and supportive. We theorized that familism values can be beneficial for romantic relationships and tested whether (a) familism would be positively associated with romantic relationship quality and (b) this association would be mediated by less attachment avoidance. Evidence indicates that familism is particularly relevant for U.S. Latinos but is also relevant for non-Latinos. Thus, we expected to observe the hypothesized pattern in Latinos and explored whether the pattern extended to non-Latinos of European and East Asian cultural background. A sample of U.S. participants of Latino (n = 140), European (n = 176), and East Asian (n = 199) cultural background currently in a romantic relationship completed measures of familism, attachment, and two indices of romantic relationship quality, namely, partner support and partner closeness. As predicted, higher familism was associated with higher partner support and partner closeness, and these associations were mediated by lower attachment avoidance in the Latino sample. This pattern was not observed in the European or East Asian background samples. The implications of familism for relationships and psychological processes relevant to relationships in Latinos and non-Latinos are discussed.

The mental health burden associated with anti-immigrant rhetoric and ever-changing immigration policies is undeniable, though the psychological and emotional sequalae may remain invisible for years to come. Exclusionary immigration policies, as a form of structural racism, have also led to an epidemic of stress-related health within the Latinx community, particularly the Latinx immigrant community, across the United States. Recent examples of anti-Latinx and anti-immigrant rhetoric and policies include the 45^th President's implementation of the Zero Tolerance policy, Migrant Protection Protocols, and Title 42. The recognition of previous and existing anti-immigrant policies, and the impact on Latinx immigrants, is critical in understanding the manifestation of psychological stress to prevent it from becoming chronic. For mental health providers, attention to existing policies that can be detrimental to the Latinx immigrant community is essential to understanding their mental health trajectory and applying frameworks that honor an individual's psychological stress to prevent pathologizing the immigrant experience and negative health outcomes. The objective of the present brief review is to shed light on recent research and offer recommendations for practice (eg, educating the Latinx community about the link between the immigrant experience and psychological stress) and policy (eg, drafting of legislation aimed at rescinding harmful immigration policies) regarding the relation between aggressive anti-immigration rhetoric and psychological stress among Latinx immigrants in the United States.

In the face of harmful disparities and inequities, it is crucial for researchers to critically reflect on methodologies and research practices that can dismantle systems of oppression, accommodate pluralistic realities, and facilitate opportunities for all communities to thrive. Historically, knowledge production for the sciences has followed a colonial and colonizing approach that continues to silence and decontextualize the lived experiences of people of color. This article acknowledges the harm to people of color communities in the name of research and draws from decolonial and liberation frameworks to advance research practices and psychological science toward equity and social justice. In this article, we propose a lens rooted in decolonial and liberatory principles that researchers can use to rethink and guide their scientific endeavors and collaborations toward more ethical, equitable, inclusive, respectful, and pluralistic research practices. The proposed lens draws on literature from community psychology and our lessons learned from field studies with historically marginalized Latinx communities to highlight six interrelated tensions that are important to address in psychological research from a decolonizing and liberatory lens. These interrelated tensions involve conflicting issues of (a) power, (b) competence, (c) practices and theories, (d) rationale, (e) approach, and (f) trust. In addition, seven practical recommendations and examples for decolonial and liberatory research practices are outlined. The recommendations can assist researchers in identifying ways to ameliorate and address the interrelated tensions to give way to decolonial and liberatory research practices. Community and social justice scientists have the responsibility to decommission oppressive research practices and engage in decolonization and liberation toward a valid, ethical, equitable, and inclusive psychological science. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).