Language Brokering and Linguistic Minority Youth’s Well-being: A Meta-Analytic Review

• In Event: 3-010 - A Critical Examination of Language Brokering: Dimensions, Mechanisms of Influence, and Children's Socioemotional Well-Being

Integrative Statement

In 2017, around 258 million immigrants existed around the world, a substantial increase from the 173 million in 2000 (United Nations, 2017). Immigrant children are often found to serve as language brokers within their families, a role that involves translating or interpreting between linguistically and culturally diverse parties (Tse, 1995). This role is established in as early as middle childhood and can continue into emerging adulthood (Weisskirch, 2017). However, there is a lack of consensus in the literature regarding whether language brokering is adaptive or disruptive for youth’s overall well-being (Shen, Tilton & Kim 2017). The present study aimed to synthesize existing research on language brokering to elucidate whether three dimensions of language brokering (frequency, positive and negative feelings) promote or inhibit youth’s well-being across five different domains: family dynamics, adaptive cultural processes, and socioemotional, behavioral, and academic well-being. Sample characteristics (i.e. age, gender, and race/ethnicity) were examined as moderators.
The meta-analysis included 62 peer-reviewed articles, book chapters, dissertations/theses, and unpublished reports (U.S. studies: 82%; International studies: 18%) with 10,511 unique participants. We conducted analyses using random-effect models (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001) with robust variance estimation available in the robumeta package in R (Hedges, Tipton, & Johnson, 2010).
The results showed that language brokering frequency (k = 54, nes = 685) was significantly related to greater parentification and poorer socioemotional well-being (e.g., internalizing symptoms, Table 1). Positive feelings toward brokering (k = 27, nes = 341) were positively related to well-being, including positive family dynamics, adaptive cultural processes, socioemotional well-being, behavioral well-being, and academic well-being (Table 1). In contrast, negative feelings toward brokering (k = 22, nes = 200) were negatively associated with well-being, including adaptive cultural processes and socioemotional well-being (Table 1). Due to the large heterogeneity observed across the effect sizes (Table 1), we conducted moderation analyses.
For brokering frequency, there was significant racial/ethnic differences in the relations of brokering frequency to family dynamics. In specific, brokering frequency was related to positive family dynamics (e.g., positive parent-child relationships) in samples of predominantly Latinos but negative family dynamics in samples of predominantly Whites (e.g., immigrants from the former Soviet Union) or mixed races/ethnicities (Table 2). In addition, the positive relations of brokering frequency to parentification became stronger as the average age (b = .02, t = 6.55, p = .002) and the average percentage of females in the samples increased (b = .01, t = 3.86, p = .02). In contrast, sample characteristics did not significantly moderate the positive relation between positive feelings and well-being (ps = .41~.96) and the negative relation between negative feelings and well-being (ps = .29~.79).
Overall, this study reconciles the benefit-detriment debate on language brokering’s effect and concludes that frequent language brokering has an overall negative effect on youth’s socioemotional well-being, although Latino youth enjoy more positive family dynamics from frequent brokering than those from other races/ethnicities. The subjective appraisals of the act also matter in that positive/negative feelings about brokering are consistently found to be adaptive/maladaptive for youth’s well-being across various domains.

Authors

• Yishan Shen, Texas State University
  Presenting Author

• Eunjin Seo, Texas State University
  Non-Presenting Author

• Alison Jiles, Texas State University
  Non-Presenting Author