(PS9-68) Predicting Latent Profiles of Life Adversity and Internalizing Psychopathology

Abstract Text: Life adversity (LS), such as early life neglect, abuse or chronic life stress, increases risk for mental health problems across the lifespan, particularly among marginalized populations. Although studies have examined the relations between LS and subsequent trajectories of mental health, less emphasis has been placed on using person-centered approaches. Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) is a person-centered approach that identifies subgroups of individuals based on shared responses to measures. Herein, we use LPA of LS and internalizing symptoms to identify various profiles (e.g., high LA/low internalizing symptoms, low LA/high internalizing symptoms, high LS /high internalizing symptoms, low LS /low internalizing symptoms). Once identified, profiles can be analyzed for key explanatory variables, which, if significant, can guide targeted interventions. LPA provides utility in understanding stress in marginalized populations, enabling precise, tailored interventions that address unique stressors and resilience factors.

In this study, we investigated emotion regulation and social support as factors that may predict profile membership. The current study tested this hypothesis in a sample of 1,012 young, largely Latinx community college students facing high rates of financial and food insecurity. LS, internalizing symptoms, emotion regulation, and social support were evaluated by self-report questionnaires or computerized adaptive testing. We conducted LPA to identify profiles of individuals categorized by experiences of LS and internalizing symptoms and elicited four profiles: a low risk, moderate risk, high risk, and resilient profile. Following profile identification, we then tested whether targetable factors (i.e., emotion regulation and social support) subsequently predicted profile membership. Results suggest greater social support in the resilient versus the at-risk group might explain why the resilient profile has lower symptom severity despite having similar levels of life adversity to the at-risk profile (β= -0.32, SE=0.11, p=0.002). Further, lower difficulty regulating emotions in the resilient versus the moderate profile might explain why the resilient profile has higher adversity but similar symptom severity as the moderate profile (β= -0.08, SE=0.02, p< 0.001). It is possible that difficulty in emotion regulation is a risk factor for internalizing psychopathology following adversity in marginalized populations, while perceived social support may serve as a key protective factor. By identifying distinct stress-symptom profiles, interventions can be better tailored to enhance resilience and address the unique mental health needs of these communities.