Discrimination has plagued American society for centuries and is associated with numerous adverse mental health outcomes, including anxiety and depression (Pascoe & Smart Richman, 2009). Importantly Asian, Hispanic, and African American adults report greater exposure to discriminatory events, and higher levels of discrimination-related perceived stress, compared to non-Hispanic White adults (Bravo et al., 2021). Moreover, an analysis of a nationally representative dataset from the Pew Research Center reveals that approximately 63% of Black, Hispanic, and Asian adults experience racial discrimination, whereas 30% of White adults report experiencing racial discrimination (Cho et al., 2021). Given the prevalence of discrimination against people of color, research is needed to identify potential sources of resilience or protective factors that may mitigate the consequences of discrimination. Hope, according to the Snyder theory of Hope, is a positive expectancy trait that reflects one’s perceived ability to find pathways to desired goals and to motivate themselves to use those pathways to reach their goals (Gallagher & Lopez, 2018; Snyder, 2002). The empirical literature provides evidence that hope is a robust intrinsic adaptive trait that promotes healthy coping and is associated with decreased levels of depression and anxiety, as well as increased levels of psychological well-being (Banks et al., 2008; Murphy, 2023). The purpose of this study was to examine the associations between hope and perceived ethnic discrimination on well-being, anxiety, and depression in African American, Hispanic, and Asian adults.

1 Discrimination

Discrimination is defined as negative actions or behaviors directed at another individual (s) based on their marginal social status membership (Jones & Carter, 1996; Pieterse et al., 2012). Perceived ethnic discrimination is associated with a host of adverse mental and physical health consequences, which contribute to ethnic health disparities (Brondolo et al., 2008). For example, perceived ethnic discrimination is associated with increased levels of hypertension (Dolezsar et al., 2014), and truncated socioeconomic mobility, differential access to desirable resources, and poor living conditions that may contribute to adverse mental health consequences for African Americans (Williams & Williams-Morris, 2000). Research has also documented transgenerational consequences of discrimination for African Americans through prenatal stress (Goosby & Heidbrink, 2013). Furthermore, for African Americans, racial discrimination is associated with higher levels of psychological distress and depression, both cross-sectionally and longitudinally as well as lower levels of life satisfaction and vitality (Brooks et al., 2021; Brown et al., 2000; Chang et al., 2019).

Among Asian Americans, perceived ethnic discrimination is associated with higher levels of psychological distress. (Cho et al., 2021). A meta-analysis examining the relationship between racial discrimination and mental health among Asian adults revealed that racial discrimination was strongly associated with higher levels of psychological distress, anxiety, and depression (Lee & Ahn, 2011). Perceived ethnic discrimination has also been found to negatively impact life chances and mental health among Latinos (Araújo & Borrell, 2006). Perceived ethnic discrimination is also associated with higher psychological distress, anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation in Asian American and Latino college samples (Hwang & Goto, 2008). Racial discrimination has also been associated with suicidal ideation in African American youth directly and when mediated by depression and/or anxiety (Walker et al., 2016). Given the profound detrimental effects of ethnic discrimination on people of color, the identification of resilience traits that may promote positive outcomes even in the face of discrimination is warranted.

2 Hope

Snyder’s hope theory (2002) defines hope as a cognitive trait with two major components: 1) one’s perception of their capability to identify strategies to achieve their goals (pathways) and 2) one’s motivation to use their pathways to pursue their goals (agency). Decades of research have demonstrated that hope is an adaptive source of resilience and higher levels of hope are associated with favorable outcomes such as improved well-being, (Alarcon et al., 2013; Lee & Gallagher, 2017; Murphy, 2023; Valle et al., 2006). Hope predicts well-being domains above and beyond related positive psychological constructs, such as optimism (Gallagher and Lopez 2009). Higher levels of hope also predict lower levels of depression, PTSD, and anxiety (Banks et al., 2008; Gallagher et al., 2019; Rajandram et al., 2011). It is hypothesized that hope is beneficial to one’s mental health in this way because it is a trait that promotes adaptive coping (Lee & Gallagher, 2017). These associations support the hypothesis that hope is a source of resilience that promotes positive mental health and well-being while protecting against mental illness (Snyder, 2002). As higher levels of hope have been found to boost positive mental health outcomes and decrease negative mental health outcomes, the positive expectancy of hope is an adaptive trait for one's health.

There is preliminary, but promising evidence that hope is also relevant across ethnically diverse populations. African Americans have been found to have greater levels of agentic thinking than European Americans, while Latinos have been found to have greater levels of both agentic and pathways thinking than European Americans (Chang & Banks, 2007). Asian Americans have no significant differences in either hope component in comparison with European Americans (Chang & Banks, 2007). These findings can be explained by the presence of goal-related obstacles and the presence of adversity for marginalized populations, thus subsequently boosting hope (Chang & Banks, 2007; Thomas et al., 2023). Hope is also a key potential mechanism in the radical healing process from racial trauma for people of color because hope helps people think of possibilities for a better present and future when experiencing adversity (French et al., 2020; Thomas et al., 2023). In this context, hope is of unique importance for people of color towards mental health flourishing.

Hope’s impact on health outcomes has also been explored cross-culturally. Hope buffers against suicide risk and predicts lower levels of anxiety and depression, and higher levels of life satisfaction and vitality in African Americans (Chang et al., 2019; Davidson et al., 2010; Hollingsworth et al., 2014). For Latinx Americans, there is evidence that hope mediates the relationship between resilience and life satisfaction while being positively correlated with meaning in life and life satisfaction (Karaman et al., 2020). Hope is also positively correlated with measures of life satisfaction, positive affect, and familial support in a Mexican American sample Edwards et al., 2007). Hope’s adaptive qualities translate across ethnic groups, suggesting that it can play a pivotal role in improving the lives of people from diverse backgrounds and identities. Resilience factors, such as hope, are rarely examined simultaneously with the negative effects of discrimination to see potential buffering effects. To date, hope has not been examined simultaneously with ethnic discrimination regarding well-being and mental health outcomes. Assessing the unique associations that hope has with outcomes will provide evidence that hope is an adaptive trait that can continue to correlate with positive outcomes even when accounting for discrimination.

3 Current Study

The present study seeks to evaluate the relationship between hope, perceived ethnic discrimination, and mental health outcomes such as anxiety, depression, and three different domains of well-being. We hypothesized that 1) hope and perceived ethnic discrimination would be negatively correlated, 2) hope would be associated with higher levels of psychological, social, and emotional well-being, while being associated with lower levels of anxiety and depression, 3) perceived ethnic discrimination would be associated with lower levels of each of the three domains of well-being while being associated with higher levels of anxiety and depression, and 4) hope would maintain a unique association with higher levels of well-being and lower levels of anxiety and depression even after accounting for discrimination (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

SEM for three domains of well-being, anxiety, and depression regressed on hope and discrimination

Full size image

4 Methods

4.1 Participants

Our sample consisted of 2800 students (626 men, 2164 women, 10 other) from a large southwestern United States university who identified as African American or Black (16%), Hispanic or Latino (43%), or Asian or Pacific Islander (41%). The participants’ ages ranged from 18–56 (Mage = 21.55 years, SD = 4.51 years). Most participants (60.1%) were single with 29.6% being in a relationship where they are not living together. 61.4% of participants were born in the United States. 23% of participants have some college experience, 2.5% have a bachelor's degree, 9.9% have completed an associate degree, and 12.1% indicated that they are high school graduates. Participants completed a battery of self-report questionnaires about perceived ethnic discrimination, well-being, anxiety, and depression in exchange for course credit.

4.2 Measures

4.2.1 Perceived Ethnic Discrimination

Perceived ethnic discrimination was measured using The Perceived Ethnic Discrimination Questionnaire – Community Version (PEDQ-CV) (Brondolo et al., 2005). The PEDQ-CV is a 17-item measure that assesses 5 different aspects of perceived ethnic discrimination: Lifetime exposure, exclusion/rejection, stigmatization/devaluation, discrimination at work/school, threat/aggression. The total scale had an alpha of 0.95 for the present sample. The subscales for exclusion/rejection, stigmatization/devaluation, discrimination at work/school and threat/aggression yielded alphas of 0.83, 0.88, 0.83, and 0.90, respectively. The PEDQ-CV has strong discriminant and convergent validity in Black and Latino community members, as well as across Asian adults of various ethnicities (Brondolo et al., 2005; Kwok et al., 2011). Previous literature additionally provides evidence of configural, metric, and scaler measurement invariance across race/ethnicity, age and gender for a brief version of the PEDQ-CV (PEDQ-CVB) (Keum et al., 2018).

4.2.2 Adult Hope Scale

Hope was measured using The Adult Hope Scale (AHS; Snyder et al., 1991). The AHS is a 12-item measure that contains 4 items that measure pathways thinking (e.g., There are lots of ways around any problem), four items that measure agency thinking (e.g., I energetically pursue my goals), and four distractor items (e.g., I feel tired most of the time). The reliability of the AHS in the present study was good for the overall sample (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.90). The reliability of the agency and pathways subscales was also good (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.87 and 0.82). There is evidence of strong measurement invariance of hope as a construct and the adult hope scale across Hispanic, Asian, African American, and White adults (Gallagher et al., under review).

4.2.3 Depression

Depression was measured using the Overall Depression Severity and Impairment Scale (ODSIS; Bentley et al., 2014), which is a 5-item measure. Scale items consist of statements such as, “In the past week, how often have you felt depressed?” Participants rate the items using a 4-point Likert scale ranging from zero to four that has anchors assessing symptom severity or impairment level depending on the question. The reliability of the ODSIS in the present sample was good (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.95).

4.2.4 Anxiety

Anxiety was measured using the Overall Anxiety Severity and Impairment Scale (OASIS; Norman et al., 2006), which is a 5-item measure. Scale items consist of statements such as, “In the past week, how often have you felt anxious?” Participants rate the items using a 4-point Likert scale ranging from zero to four that has anchors assessing symptom severity or impairment level depending on the question. The reliability of the OASIS in the present sample was good (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.92).

4.2.5 Well-being

Three facets of well-being were measured using the Mental Health Continuum Short-Form (MHC-SF; Keyes, et al., 2008). The MHC-SF consists of 14 items, 3 of which represent emotional well-being, 6 that represent psychological well-being, and 5 that represent social well-being. The reliability of the MHC-SF was good (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.96), while the reliability of the subscales of emotional, social, and psychological well-being were also good (Cronbach alphas = 0.92, 0.90, and 0.94, respectively). Previous research has provided evidence of full or partial measurement invariance for the MHC-SF across gender, nationality, and sexual orientation in the United States (Joshanloo, 2019). Additionally, there was evidence of full metric and partial scalar invariance in the Netherlands, South Africa, Iran, and Argentina (Joshanloo et al., 2013; Lupano Perugini et al., 2017).

4.3 Analytic Procedures

Study hypotheses were examined using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural equation modeling (SEM) using Mplus version 8 (Muthén, et al., 2016). The goodness of fit was tested using the Root Mean Square Error (RMSEA), the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), and chi-squared (χ 2). Guidelines for these indices that are widely used suggest that the model would be a good fit for the data if the RMSEA value is less than 0.06 (Hu & Bentler, 1998), and the CFI and TLI are greater than 0.90 (Marsh, et al., 2004).

To determine whether cross-cultural analyses were appropriate in this study, measurement invariance tests were first run for each study variable as a preliminary step. Hope has previously been demonstrated to meet strong measurement invariance across Asian, Hispanic, African American, and White adults regarding race/ethnicity and gender (Gallagher et al., under review). Measurement invariance analyses were therefore conducted for discrimination and each outcome variable across the three groups examined in order to provide the foundation for subsequent analyses of potential mean differences or differences in the effects of hope and discrimination on outcomes between groups. The results of these models supported configural, weak, and strong measurement invariance across each study variable across African American, Hispanic, and Asian participants (Supplemental Table 1). Mean differences were then estimated utilizing pairwise comparisons for each measured construct. Seven latent constructs were then examined using CFA and SEM models: hope, discrimination, anxiety, depression, emotional well-being, psychological well-being, and social well-being.

CFA models were specified to evaluate hope and discrimination as latent constructs associated with depression, anxiety, and three domains of well-being. Given that the study measures utilize Likert scales and are not continuous variables, weighted least square mean and variance adjusted (WSLMV) was utilized to specify the CFA models (Brauer et al., 2023). A series of three SEM models utilizing maximum likelihood with robust standard errors (MLR) were then specified to evaluate the unique relationship of hope and discrimination with anxiety, depression, and the three domains of well-being (Li, 2016). First, separate models were specified quantifying the relationship between hope or discrimination as the only predictors of anxiety, depression, and well-being. Then a model evaluating the unique relationship between hope, discrimination, well-being, anxiety, and depression where hope and discrimination are estimated simultaneously as predictors was specified. We specified both unconstrained models and models in which the unique effects of hope and discrimination on outcomes were constrained to equality across models across Asian, Hispanic, and African American ethnic groups. Nested chi-square difference tests were conducted to compare the model fit of the constrained and unconstrained SEM to determine whether restricting the effects of hope and discrimination to be equivalent across groups was supported. Minimal missing data was observed and handled in all analyses using robust maximum likelihood estimation.

5 Results

Descriptive statistics and correlations for each study variable can be found in Table 1. Overall hope, agency, and pathways were negatively correlated with perceived ethnic discrimination (r = -0.10, -0.11, and –0.08 respectively). Hope was positively correlated with all three domains of well-being and overall well-being while being negatively correlated with anxiety and depression. Perceived discrimination was negatively correlated with all overall well-being, psychological, and emotional well-being, while being positively correlated with anxiety and depression. These observed correlations between hope and discrimination and outcomes are in the expected magnitude and direction. Perceived discrimination was not significantly correlated with social well-being in the present sample.

Table 1 Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix for the overall sample
Full size table

5.1 Mean Differences of Predictor and Outcome Variables

Negligible to small differences between groups among our predictors of hope and discrimination were observed (Table 2). Asian participants (M = 43.89) reported slightly lower levels of Hope than both African American participants (M = 45.81, d = -0.20, CI = -0.31:-0.10) and Hispanic participants (M = 45.73, d = -0.19, CI = -0.28:-0.11). This result was the same across both domains of hope, (agency and pathways). In terms of perceived ethnic discrimination, African American participants (M = 37.79) reported slightly higher levels of perceived discrimination than both Asian (M = 34.28, d = 0.24, CI = 0.13:0.36) and Hispanic participants (M = 31.89, d = 0.42, CI = 0.31:0.53), whereas Hispanic participants reported the least (slightly less than Asian participants) (d = -0.17, CI = 0.-0.25:-0.09). This result was the same across all domains of perceived discrimination (exclusion/rejection, stigmatization/devaluation, discrimination at work/school, and discrimination threat/aggression), except for unfair treatment by police where there were no significant differences between Hispanic and Asian participants, but African American participants reported slightly higher levels.

Table 2 Pairwise comparisons between ethnic groups
Full size table

Differences between groups were also found among a few outcome variables. Hispanic participants (M = 5.66) had slightly higher levels of anxiety than African American participants (M = 5.06, d = 0.13, CI = 0.02:0.24). A similar trend was seen regarding emotional well-being as Hispanic participants (M = 3.41) had slightly higher levels than both Asian (M = 3.22, d = 0.17, CI = 0.09:0.26) and African American participants (M = 3.28, d = 0.13, CI = 0.01:0.24). Lastly, Hispanic participants (M = 3.21) had slightly higher levels of psychological well-being than Asian participants (M = 3.05, d = 0.13, CI = 0.05:0.22). Though statistically significant, the effects sizes of the mean differences between groups are all small. Pairwise comparisons between racial/ethnic groups for outcome variables are presented in Table 2.

5.2 CFA of Hope and Discrimination with Mental Health Outcomes and Well-Being

We first specified a CFA model in which the latent constructs of hope and discrimination were freely correlated with each other and each outcome in a combined model for the overall sample and the three ethnic groups individually. The model fit for this combined CFA model was excellent t (χ2 = 135.5 (df = 19), CFI = 0.99, TLI, 0.99, RMSEA = 0.05, SRMR = 0.01). As anticipated, the latent constructs of hope and discrimination were negatively correlated in this overall sample.

5.3 Relationship Between Hope, Discrimination, Well-being, Anxiety and Depression

We next conducted a series of SEM to analyze the relationship between hope, discrimination, well-being, anxiety, and depression. First, separate models were specified to quantify the relationship between hope and discrimination on the outcomes of psychological, social, emotional well-being, anxiety, and depression when not accounting for the other predictor variable (Table 3). The SEM involving hope demonstrated good fit (χ2 = 4145.86 (df = 1093), CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.06). A model in which effect parameters are restricted to equality across racial/ethnic groups was also evaluated and yielded good to excellent fit (χ2 = 4151.37(df = 1103), CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.06). A chi-square difference test indicated that the constrained model performed no worse than the unconstrained model, allowing SEM models to be run while constraining each racial/ethnic group to equality (χ2 diff = 5.50 (df = 10), p > 0.05). SEM analyses revealed that hope had small to medium positive relationships with greater well-being across the three domains: emotional (β = 0.51, C.I = 0.48:0.54), social (β = 0.38, C.I = 0.34:0.42), and psychological (β = 0.56, C.I = 0.53:0.59). Hope also had small relationships with lower levels of anxiety and depression: anxiety (β = -0.22, C.I = -0.26: -0.18) and depression (β = -0.27, C.I = -0.31: -0.24).

Table 3 SEM examining associations of three domains of well-being and anxiety, depression on hope and discrimination in separate models constrained to equality across a sample of African Americans, Asian, and Hispanic Adults
Full size table

The model with discrimination as a predictor of anxiety, depression, and well-being also demonstrated a good fit (χ2 = 4186.19 (df = 1093), CFI = 0.94, TLI, 0.94, RMSEA = 0.06). A model in which effect parameters are restricted to equality across racial/ethnic groups was also evaluated and yielded a good fit (χ2 = 4200.65(df = 1103), CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.06). A chi-square difference test indicated that the constrained model performed no worse than the unconstrained model, allowing SEM models to be run while constraining each racial/ethnic group to equality (χ2 diff = 14.46 (df = 10), p > 0.05). Discrimination had small relationships with lower levels of emotional and psychological well-being but did not have a significant relationship with social well-being: emotional (β = -0.18, C.I = -0.22: -0.14), psychological well-being (β = -0.12, C.I = -0.16: -0.08), and social well-being (β = -0.03, C.I = -0.07:0.01). Discrimination also had a small relationship with higher anxiety (β = 0.27, C.I = 0.23:0.31) and depression (β = 0.25, C.I = 0.21:0.29).

5.4 The Unique Associations of Hope and Discrimination with Outcomes

SEM analyses with hope and discrimination in a combined model provided evidence of unique relationships of hope and discrimination with anxiety, depression, and well-being (Table 4). This model with hope and discrimination simultaneously as predictors demonstrated good to excellent fit (χ2 = 54824.56 (df = 1429), CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.05). A model in which effect parameters are restricted to equality across groups was also evaluated and yielded good to excellent fit (χ2 = 4841.63.04 (df = 1449), CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.05). A chi-square difference test indicated that the constrained model performed no worse than the unconstrained model (χ2 diff = 17.07 (df = 20), p > 0.05), allowing SEM models to be run while constraining each racial/ethnic group to equality. In the combined model that accounted for discrimination, hope was still a robust predictor for higher levels of all three domains of well-being: emotional (β = 0.50, C.I = 0.46:0.53), social (β = 0.38, C.I = 0.34:0.42), and psychological (β = 0.55, C.I = 0.52:0.58). Hope was also associated with lower levels of anxiety and depression: anxiety (β = -0.19, C.I = -0.23: -0.16) and depression (β = -0.25, C.I = -0.29: -0.21), although the magnitude of these associations was lower than those of hope on well-being domains. While accounting for hope, discrimination still significantly correlated with lower emotional (β = -0.13, C.I = -0.17: -0.09) and psychological well-being (β = -0.06, C.I = -0.10: -0.03), but not social well-being (β = 0.01, C.I = -0.03:0.05). Discrimination was also associated with higher levels of anxiety (β = 0.25, C.I = 0.23:0.31) and depression (β = 0.22, C.I = 0.19:0.26) in the combined model. Together, hope and discrimination had small to moderate amounts of variance in outcomes: emotional well-being (R2 = 0.28), psychological well-being (R2 = 0.31), social well-being (R2 = 0.14), anxiety (R2 = 0.10), and depression (R2 = 0.12). These results provide evidence that hope is still a source of resilience when accounting for perceived discrimination that is associated with adaptive outcomes. Perceived discrimination remained a relevant risk factor for greater anxiety and depression and lower psychological and emotional well-being when accounting for hope. Perceived discrimination and social well-being no longer had a statistically significant association when accounting for hope.

Table 4 SEM examining unique associations of three domains of well-being, anxiety, and depression on hope and discrimination in a combined model constrained to equality across a sample of African Americans, Asian, and Hispanic Adults
Full size table

6 Discussion

The overall aim of the present study was to evaluate the relationship between hope and perceived ethnic discrimination with mental health outcomes among African American, Asian, and Hispanic adults. The present study is the first known empirical exploration of the unique associations of hope and discrimination with both positive (e.g., emotional, social, and psychological well-being) and negative (e.g., anxiety and depression) domains of mental health across ethnic groups. This research also examines these effects across three distinct underrepresented groups, where we found invariance across groups regarding the associations of hope and discrimination with mental health and well-being. These findings demonstrated that adults who reported higher hope demonstrated lower levels of anxiety and depression, as well as higher emotional, social, and psychological well-being. By contrast, greater levels of perceived ethnic discrimination were associated with higher anxiety and depression and lower emotional and psychological well-being. Importantly, overall perceived ethnic discrimination did not have a significant effect on social well-being. This could be due to the extensive social support networks that are often documented within underrepresented groups (Bagley & Carroll, 1998; Maria Bermúdez et al., 2010), which have been shown to contribute to one’s ability to overcome adversity (Brown, 2008; Finch & Vega, 2003; Pipes-McAdoo, 2002; Smith, 1985). Concurrent explorations of these associations via structural equation modeling revealed equivalent findings. These results emphasize the need for clinical science to continue identifying ways to cultivate hope among people of color to address mental health needs and promote wellness (Anderson et al., 2018; French et al., 2020; Schrank et al., 2012).

Preliminary measurement invariance analyses yielded strong invariance across Asian, Hispanic, and African American adults when using the AHS, PEDQ, OASIS, ODSIS, and MHC-SF. This allowed for cross-cultural analyses to be run appropriately. Pairwise comparisons between groups revealed negligible to small differences in endorsed levels of hope, discrimination, and mental health across ethnic groups. Overall, Asian adults reported slightly lower levels of hope than African American and Hispanic adults. African American adults reported slightly higher levels of perceived ethnic discrimination than Asian and Hispanic adults, with Hispanic adults endorsing the lowest levels of exposure to discrimination. Importantly, this finding was consistent across all domains of perceived ethnic discrimination. Regarding mental health outcomes, Hispanic adults endorsed higher anxiety than African Americans. Hispanic adults also endorsed higher emotional well-being as compared to Asian and African American adults, and higher psychological well-being compared to Asian adults. These findings suggest that one’s cultivation of hope and experiences of discrimination appear to differ based on one’s cultural makeup, underscoring the importance of cross-cultural psychological research. Given recent findings about the centrality of adversity in the context of hope, variance in experiences of discrimination across various cultures may explain cross-cultural differences in hope (Thomas et al., 2023).

The present study’s findings are consistent with prior research documenting the adverse relationship between discrimination and mental health for people of color (e.g., Borrell et al., 2006; Brown et al., 2000; Dolezsar et al., 2014; Hwang & Goto, 2008; McKenzie, 2006; Vines et al., 2017; Zvolensky et al., 2019) and the role of hope in promoting mental health recovery and well-being (e.g., Banks et al., 2008; Chang & Banks, 2007; French et al., 2020; Lee & Gallagher, 2017; Lemon et al., 2021; Matsuoka, 2015). Importantly, however, our findings build upon prior literature in several ways. First, the utilization of SEM allowed for a more confident interpretation of effect size results, due to controlling for measurement error. Additionally, we have demonstrated that hope and discrimination are each uniquely associated with both positive (e.g., emotional, and psychological well-being) and negative (e.g., anxiety and depression) valence domains of mental health. The observed negative associations between discrimination and emotional and psychological well-being across ethnic groups suggest that exposure to discrimination may reduce important mechanisms that are protective against adverse mental health outcomes. Further, our findings suggest that fostering hope could be an important treatment target for interventions aimed at promoting well-being and mental health for people of color. Indeed, existing literature on positive psychology-based interventions supports this assumption (Cheavens et al., 2006; Irving et al., 2004; Park & Chen, 2016). Feldman and Dreher (2012) found that college students reported increased levels of hope, life purpose, and vocational calling following one 90-min intervention focused on hope.

6.1 Limitations and Future Directions

Although this study has notable strengths, several limitations should be noted. First, while ethnically diverse, the current sample was homogenous in terms of participants all being university students. Thus, it will be important for future research to examine the relationship between hope and discrimination with outcomes in people of different ages and socioeconomic statuses. Another limitation includes the use of a cross-sectional methodological design. As such, we cannot draw causal inference about the association between hope or discrimination and mental health outcomes. Therefore, future research utilizing longitudinal designs is needed to further understand the dynamic relations between hope, discrimination, and mental health. Measures utilized in this research had promising evidence of strong measurement invariance across Asian, Hispanic, and African American adults. It is important to note that the main aim of this manuscript was not to test the measurement invariance of these scales. Future research specifically examining the measurement invariance of these scales is needed to more thoroughly examine the invariance of each scale across ethnic groups that include White samples as this was the group that these scales were originally validated in, besides the PEDQ. Measurement invariance tests of this magnitude will need separate research projects aimed at testing the invariance of these measures across not only ethnicity but also gender (Gallagher et al., under review) and other important aspects of identity that could influence measurement properties. Lastly, future research is needed to explore different and more specific racial/ethnic groups. Each racial/ethnic group observed in this study contains heterogeneous racial/ethnic identities with various cultures and experiences. Within the Asian community, for example, exists tremendous ethnic diversity (I.e., South and Southeast Asian) which can extend several psychological theories when considering the heterogeneity of their experiences and cultures (Goh et al., 2023).

6.2 Conclusion

The overall aim of the current study was to assess the relationship of hope and perceived ethnic discrimination with mental health outcomes for African American, Asian, and Hispanic adults. In general, we have provided preliminary evidence that perceived ethnic discrimination and hope play a role in both positive (e.g., emotional, and psychological well-being) and negative (e.g., anxiety and depression) valence domains of mental health. The prevailing body of research suggests that context is important but often fails to consider how culturally relevant risk (i.e., social marginalization via ethnic discrimination) and resilience (i.e., hope) factors may influence mental health outcomes. The current study’s contributions are important in the context of providing empirical evidence for the role of social marginalization and culturally-driven buffers in depression, anxiety, and mental well-being for people of color. These findings call for the development of mental health interventions aimed at combatting exposure to ethnic discrimination and cultivating hope within underrepresented groups.