First-generation, low-income (FLI) students face unique cultural challenges as they transition into higher education. Cultural mismatch theory has primarily focused on how students’ values match with those of their academic institutions. However, this approach often overlooks how students simultaneously experience match or mismatch with their home environments, especially as they learn to navigate new cultural expectations in college. This narrow focus leaves out the ways students negotiate dual cultural contexts and the strategies they use to do so. The current study expands this framework by examining cultural mismatch both with institutions and with home, as well as the strategies students use to manage this mismatch. We investigate how these factors relate to students’ sense of belonging and compare patterns across private universities, public universities, and community colleges. Using a cross-sectional survey design (N = 151), we assessed students’ cultural orientations, cultural match, and the strategies they use to navigate between their home and institution. Results revealed that cultural mismatch, particularly between students and their institutions, was consistently associated with reduced belonging–particularly for students at community colleges. Acculturation strategies also shaped outcomes: students who tried to integrate their home and college cultures or assimilated into college culture were linked to greater belonging, while those who switched between culture or resisted changing were associated with lower institutional belonging. These findings underscore how institutional context shapes the impact of cultural navigation and highlight the need for tailored supports that promote FLI students’ belonging and affirm students’ cultural identities across different college environments.

Social support is an essential component of emotional and physical well-being and has been implicated in cardiovascular disease risk as well as the experience of daily stress. This study primarily seeks to understand potential differences in receiving versus giving social support and their relationships with cardiovascular disease (CVD), along with an auxiliary focus on the relationship between daily stress and CVD. Through a secondary analysis of the Midlife in the United States study (Wave II), we examined the relationship between daily stress and CVD, the relationship between receiving versus giving social support and CVD, and how these two forms of social support interact in their links to CVD. We found that daily stress does not robustly predict cardiovascular disease, but both receiving and giving social support are associated with a reduced cardiovascular disease risk. However, giving social support ceases to confer protective cardiovascular health benefits on the giver when they receive high levels of social support. Moreover, receiving social support was consistently associated with a lower CVD risk, but the effect was greater when participants were giving a low level of support. These results illustrate that the effects of receiving and giving social support are not necessarily equivalent and should be considered distinctly and simultaneously, rather than in aggregate, in efforts to mitigate cardiovascular disease risk.

Economic adversity is a well-established risk factor for poor mental health, particularly in low-income communities. Yet much of the literature focuses on what low-income families lack, rather than how they adapt. This thesis takes a strengths-based approach, examining whether family functioning can buffer the mental health effects of cumulative economic adversity. Using cross-sectional data from a larger longitudinal study (N = 276) based in a low to mid income area, we investigated three primary research questions: (1) Does cumulative economic adversity predict symptoms of depression and anxiety? (2) Is family functioning associated with mental health outcomes? (3) Does family functioning moderate the impact of economic adversity on mental health? We hypothesized that greater adversity would be linked to higher symptoms of depression and anxiety, and that stronger family functioning would be associated with fewer symptoms. We also expected that high-functioning families would buffer the effects of economic adversity on mental health outcomes. Findings supported the first two hypotheses. Cumulative economic adversity significantly predicted greater symptoms of depression and anxiety, while stronger family functioning was associated with better mental health. However, contrary to the third hypothesis, the mental health consequences of adversity were more pronounced among individuals in high-functioning families. This unexpected finding suggests that while strong relational processes promote well-being, they may not always buffer against the psychological toll of severe or prolonged economic stress. These results contribute to a more nuanced understanding of family resilience, highlighting that families can maintain high functioning even amid economic adversity and its mental health impacts. While strong family relationships offer critical support, they cannot fully offset the impacts of adversity. Programs that strengthen family processes may serve as a valuable complement to broader efforts to reduce inequality.