**Background:** Hispanic/Latino adolescents in the U.S. face unique cultural and immigration-related stressors (e.g., discrimination, language brokering, anti-immigrant rhetoric) that can compound typical adolescent stress and harm mental health. Prior research has largely used variable-centered approaches, which do not capture how these stressors co-occur in subgroups. The Transnational Theory of Cultural Stress posits that cultural stressors are additive and that their impact depends on cognitive appraisal and coping resources. This study aimed to identify typologies of cultural stress using latent profile analysis (LPA) with four indicators: negative sociopolitical climate, language brokering stress, in-group identity threats, and within-group discrimination. It also examined how profiles differ in mental health outcomes (depression, self-esteem, adolescent stress) and cultural assets (ethnic identity, U.S. orientation, heritage orientation).
**Methods:** Data were collected from 306 Hispanic/Latino adolescents (mean age 15.30, SD=0.76; 60.13% female; 79.41% U.S.-born) in Los Angeles (64.05%) and Miami (35.95%) during spring/summer 2020. Participants completed the Multidimensional Inventory of Cultural Stress (MICS) subscales: Negative Sociopolitical Climate (6 items, α=0.90), In-group Identity Threats (3 items, α=0.88), Language Brokering (3 items, α=0.77), and Within-Group Discrimination (2 items, α=0.77). Mental health was assessed with the CESD-10 (depression, α=0.87), Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (α=0.86), and Adolescent Stress Questionnaire-Short (α=0.94). Cultural assets were measured with the Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (ethnic identity, α=0.91) and the Bicultural Involvement Questionnaire (U.S. orientation α=0.90, heritage orientation α=0.92). LPA was conducted using Mplus 8.3 with full information maximum likelihood and 1000 random starts. Model selection was based on AIC, BIC, SSABIC, Lo-Mendell-Rubin LRT, entropy (>0.80), and theoretical interpretability. The one-step BCH method was used to compare profiles on outcomes with Wald chi-square tests and Bonferroni correction (α=0.008). Covariates included site, sex, youth nativity, and parental nativity.
**Key Results:** A four-profile solution was selected (entropy=0.834; LMR p=0.049 for 3 vs. 4 profiles; 5-profile LMR p=0.195). Profile 1 (Low Cultural Stress, n=94, 30.7%) had low means (<2.5) on all indicators. Profile 2 (Sociopolitical and Language Brokering Stress, n=147, 48.0%) had high sociopolitical and language brokering stress. Profile 3 (Sociopolitical and In-group Identity Threat Stress, n=48, 15.7%) had high sociopolitical and in-group identity threat stress. Profile 4 (Higher Stress, n=17, 5.6%) had high means (>3.5) on all indicators. Compared to Profile 1, Profile 2 (OR=4.98, p<0.001) and Profile 4 (OR=8.50, p<0.01) had higher odds of being from Los Angeles. Being U.S.-born predicted membership in Profile 3 (OR=7.24, p<0.05). Female sex predicted membership in all stress profiles (Profile 2: OR=3.60, p<0.001; Profile 3: OR=3.78, p<0.01; Profile 4: OR=8.86, p<0.01). Having foreign-born parents predicted membership in Profile 2 (OR=17.78, p<0.001) and Profile 4 (OR=5.71, p<0.05). Mental health outcomes: Profiles 2, 3, and 4 had significantly higher depression (means: 2.44, 2.23, 2.50 vs. 1.97 in Profile 1; p<0.01), higher adolescent stress (means: 3.34, 2.97, 3.40 vs. 2.32; p<0.001), and lower self-esteem (means: 3.17, 3.21, 3.06 vs. 3.62; p<0.01). Profile 2 had higher adolescent stress than Profile 3. Cultural assets: Profiles 2, 3, and 4 had higher ethnic identity than Profile 1 (means: 3.73, 3.72, 3.93 vs. 3.11; p<0.001). Heritage orientation was higher in Profiles 3 (mean=4.43) and 4 (mean=4.33) compared to Profile 1 (mean=3.80) and Profile 2 (mean=3.63; p<0.001). No significant differences in U.S. orientation across profiles.
**Clinical Implications:** The study demonstrates that cultural stressors co-occur in distinct patterns among Hispanic/Latino adolescents, with most youth (69.3%) experiencing at least one elevated stress domain. Profiles with higher stress were consistently linked to poorer mental health, supporting the additive risk model of cultural stress. The high prevalence of sociopolitical stress (present in three profiles) underscores the impact of anti-immigrant rhetoric and policy uncertainty during the 2020 election period. The finding that higher stress profiles also had higher ethnic identity suggests that ethnic identity may be both a sensitizing factor and a potential resilience resource. Clinicians and intervention developers should assess multiple co-occurring cultural stressors rather than single stressors. Tailored interventions could address specific stress profiles: e.g., youth with high language brokering stress may benefit from support with translation burden and heritage language skills, while those with in-group identity threats may need help navigating bicultural identity conflicts. The site differences (Los Angeles youth more likely in high-stress profiles) highlight the importance of local political context. Limitations include the cross-sectional design, small high-stress profile (n=17), overrepresentation of U.S.-born youth, and data collection during the COVID-19 pandemic, which may limit generalizability. Future research should include larger samples, longitudinal designs, and diverse receiving contexts.