Second-class citizens? Subjective social status, acculturative stress, and immigrant well-being

The effects of social hierarchy on well-being are pervasive. An individual’s social status within the hierarchy has been proposed to play a role in acculturative stress and psychological well-being. Subjective social status is a method of measuring social status that has not been examined in immigrants’ well-being. In an attempt to fill this gap in the literature, this study explored questions about immigrants’ well-being as they deal with acculturative stressors in the United States. In particular, the potential role of subjective social status (SSS) in the acculturative stress process was examined. Three hundred and five adult immigrants from over 68 countries were recruited. Overall, the results indicated a negative association between acculturative stress with quality of life, psychological well-being, and physical health. Regression analysis also indicated that subjective social status moderated this negative association. The results make the contribution that SSS is relevant to the association of acculturative stress and immigrant well-being.


Introduction
Immigrants represent a significant portion of the US population. In 2016, one out of every 10 individuals in the US identified as an immigrant (United States Census Bureau 2020). When arriving in the US, immigrants face significant challenges such as the stress of adapting to a new culture and a possible decline in social status. Research on the effect of acculturation on psychological well-being has been mixed, finding negative, positive, and null psychological effects on immigrants (Koneru et al. 2007).
In addition to the challenge of adapting to US culture, immigrants belong to new social groups in the US (e.g., Hispanic and immigrant) and, as a result of this membership, may suffer from a diminution in social status (Schwartz et al. 2010). Generally, individuals at the top of the social status hierarchy live longer, happier, and healthier lives (Marmot 2015). Social status is defined in this study as an individual's position in his or her societal hierarchy. Schwartz et al. (2010) pointed out that some immigrants who are part of the dominant culture in their native country may constitute a minority once they have moved to the new country. The social psychology concept of in-groups and out-groups may also be applied to immigrants as they move from an in-group in their former country of residence, to an out-group in their new country (Stephan et al. 1999). Therefore, constituting an immediate minority in a new country or being part of a seemingly uniform group may place the individual in an out-group, non-dominant group, and/or ethnocultural minority.
Individual factors such as education may be affected by immigration such that formal education earned outside of the US may not maintain equivalence in the US and therefore not allow an individual to continue practice in his or her career field (Salami and Nelson 2014). Similarly, a degree from a foreign university may not have the same prestige as a degree from a US university. The aforementioned factors may lead to a decrease in both actual and perceived social status.

Social status and subjective social status
Social status is a person's position in their social hierarchy. This status is comprised of traditional factors like employment, formal education, and income but is also influenced by race, ethnicity, gender, and age. Belonging to some of these groups, such as being an ethnic minority, may represent both a component of social status and a social barrier to higher status. Social status in immigrants may be affected by immigration status and naturalization as they can be integral parts of immigrant identity and can potentially change social standing. Thus, social barriers represent one of the nuances that reflect a person's subjective appraisal of his or her status.
Social status has been linked to a variety of negative outcomes. Low social status has been found to contribute to health disparities (Cundiff and Matthews 2017;Zell et al. 2018), lower life expectancy (Marmot 2004), depression and anxiety (Hoebel et al. 2017;Lorant et al. 2003). Social status, therefore, is an important factor in both the mental and physical health of immigrants (Leu et al. 2008). However, the study of the globally recognized phenomena that lower levels of social status equate to worse health outcomes (Marmot 2015) in US immigrants is limited. Further, the use of traditional indicators of social status may be inaccurate in the immigrant population due to aforementioned issues with income, formal education, and occupation. As a result, the use of subjective appraisal of social status (subjective social status-SSS) as an indicator may produce a more accurate understanding of the association between social status and health in immigrants.
Subjective social status entails individuals ranking themselves in society and results in a "cognitive averaging of standard markers of socioeconomic situation" (Singh-Manoux et al. 2003, p. 1) and represents an individual's belief about his or her rank in the social order, independent of the objective status bestowed to the individual (Davis 1956). In comparison to objective measures (such as SES), the use of subjective measures of status in research has demonstrated stronger associations to health outcomes in immigrants (Adler et al. 2000;Franzini and Fernandez-Esquer 2006;Singh-Manoux et al. 2005). Immigrants, however, use different reference groups. Depending on the situation, they may select other immigrants in their ethnic group, the general US population, or their native population as a yardstick (Campbell et al. 2012;Franzini and Fernandez-Esquer 2006). In addition, there is theoretical support for the notion that individuals tend to use people similar to themselves as a reference group for comparison; this is consistent with both Social Identity theory (Tajfel and Turner 1979) and Social Comparison theory (Suls et al. 2002).

Social status and well-being
As mentioned, social status has been robustly associated with negative mental health outcomes, with depression being the most commonly studied outcome. Low social class groups have been moderately to strongly associated with a higher prevalence of depression in a meta-analysis of 60 studies (Lorant et al. 2003). Both meta-analysis and longitudinal research reveal that low SES individuals were more likely than high SES individuals to experience mental disorders (Jokela et al. 2013). This status-depression association has also been supported with SSS (Black and Krishnakumar 1998;Collins and Goldman 2008;Cutrona et al. 2005;Demakakos et al. 2008;Everson et al. 2002;Hoffman and Hatch 2000;Singh-Manoux et al. 2003).
The association between social status and well-being is not as clear as the association between social status and pathology. Despite lower SES having a robust association with negative mental health and negative expectations for the future (Robb et al. 2009), SES has not demonstrated a similarly consistent association to wellbeing. A meta-analysis of research on older adults (Pinquart and Sörensen 2000) found a connection between subjective well-being (life satisfaction, self-esteem, and happiness) and SES (formal education, occupation, and income) with income being more relevant to men. Historically, there have been indicators that SES does not have a direct effect on well-being (Diener et al. 1999) which complicates the understanding of the association. This lack of clarity is especially pronounced when wellbeing is conceptualized by using the absence of psychological pathology. This association is less clear when examining immigrants as well. For example, Prilleltensky (2012) conceptualized social justice as a central factor in understanding well-being. Additionally, disenfranchisement, language barriers, stigma, and prejudice all play into the consideration of social position for immigrant populations in the US.
Results from a handful of studies that examine the psychological outcomes of SSS and acculturation indicate that SSS is related to negative mental health such as major depressive disorder (Nicklett and Burgard (2009) and mood dysfunction (Leu et al. 2008). After controlling for indicators of objective social status, these studies indicate that subjective social status has a meaningful association with immigrant mental health. Using a combination of absence of depression in the past month, the participant's assessment of reasons for immigrating, and his or her assessment of the outcome of migration, Gelatt (2013) demonstrated an association between wellbeing and the SSS of Asian and Latino/a participants. Analysis supported the social status gradient finding that immigrants who reported higher SSS had less depressed mood and higher well-being.

Social status and acculturative stress
Acculturative stress is the physical and psychological stress reaction resulting from moving to a new host country and culture (Berry et al. 1987). This framework stipulates that the acculturation experience is subject to cognitive appraisal and the selection/employment of coping strategies that affect the short-term outcomes which, in turn, contribute to the long term psychological effects (Sam and Berry 2006). This type of stress has been theorized to be lifelong (Smart and Smart 1995) and central to the immigrant experience (Bekteshi and Kang 2020;Ying 2005). Williams and Berry (1991) specifically identified SES as a moderator of acculturative stress and systematic review has identified economic means as a protective factor (Bekteshi and Kang 2020). They explained that an immigrant may experience a "loss of status" when leaving his or her native culture and entering a new culture (with a corresponding new SES) and this loss of culture can play a role in the appraisal of stressors. In a similar vein, Padilla and Perez (2003) identified SES as a key factor in the association between acculturative stress and mental health. Both models agree that appraisal of acculturation stressors is key and that appraisal, in turn, affects the immigrant's ability to cope with stress.

Acculturative stress and well-being
Most studies have examined the negative mental health effects (e.g., depression, anxiety, and suicidality) of acculturative stress, with few studies dedicated to the positive outcomes (e.g., life satisfaction). Acculturative stress is thus typically viewed as a negative health influence and as a result, scientists are more clearly able to discuss the potential diminution of well-being, rather than factors that increase well-being.
Besides individual differences, the experience of acculturative stress has been found to be affected by SES (Kuo and Roysircar 2004;Negy and Woods 1992;Shen and Takeuchi 2001;Williams and Berry 1991), perceived discrimination (Finch et al. 2001), and length of stay (Kuo and Roysircar 2004;Nicolas et al. 2011). High SES has been theorized to act as a buffer to acculturative stress in adolescents (Hovey and King 1996). Conversely, low SES has been linked to increased levels of acculturative stress (Thomas 1995).
Though the association between acculturative stress and negative mental health has been established, the association between acculturative stress and SSS has not been robustly examined. This study hypothesized that a relationship between acculturative stress and well-being exists and SSS would moderate this relationship.

Methods
The study used a cross-sectional survey method design drawing upon information gathered through MTurk. Institutional review board approved the study. The survey did not pose any additional risk than may be encountered in daily conversation regarding mental health or immigration. As a result, all participants were provided informed consent and participated in the survey were compensated $2.00. Demographic questions were presented first, based on the recommendations for reduction of attrition using MTurk (Mason and Suri 2012). Measures were given in the following order: (a) demographics, (b) subjective social status, (c) acculturation, (d) acculturative stress, (e) quality of life, and (f) well-being.

Acculturation
The Stephenson Multi-group Acculturation Scale (SMAS) (Stephenson 2000) was used to measure acculturation in multiple ethnic groups. The SMAS is comprised of 30 items rated on a point Likert-type scale (1 = False to 4 = True). The SMAS was designed to assess behavioral and attitudinal aspects of acculturation and includes indicators such as: language use and preference; interaction with ethnic and dominant societies; and use and preference for media in multiple ethnicities.

Acculturative stress
To measure the stress response to acculturation, the Social, Attitudinal, Familial, and Environmental Scale (SAFE) was used. The shortened version of the SAFE consisting of 24 items validated on multicultural undergraduates (Mena et al. 1987) was used. The short version was refined to include reaction to acculturation related stressors (e.g., language/communication difficulties), perceived discrimination, and adaptation. Responses on the shortened version of the scale range from 1 to 5, with 1 representing Not stressful and 5 representing Extremely stressful.

Subjective social status
The McArthur self-anchoring scale was used to measure subjective social status. The original scale was modified into a visual ladder format scale with 10 rungs (Adler et al. 2000). The scale was used in two formats: a national comparison which we call SSS and a local community comparison which we call Community SSS. The local community version of the scale is the same except the word "Community" replaces "United States."

Quality of life
The WHOQOL-BREF (Murphy et al. 2000) is a shortened version of the full 100 item measure (WHOQOL-100) designed to be a cross-culturally valid quality of life measure. The WHOQOL-BREF operationalizes these perceptions into four domains: physical health, psychological, social relationships, and environment. The measure uses a 5-point Likert-type scale with varying labels assigned to the points, such that a one on the scale could mean Very Dissatisfied or Not at all or Very poor, depending on the question.

Results
All measures of normality and statistical integrity were met. To test the hypotheses, multiple regressions were conducted to examine the relationships between the independent and dependent variables. The collected responses were analyzed using IBM Statistics 27. Normality and assumptions for regression, such as univariate skewness, kurtosis, outliers, and missing data, were met. The collected data did not possess enough missing data to warrant special handling.

Acculturative stress
The SAFE scale measured the amount of reported acculturative stress in participants. The mean score of the sample was 35.11 (SD = 20.78). As may be expected with a sample of participants that are highly acculturated to the United States, the sample reported low levels of acculturative stress. Relative to the mean (M = 39.1) found on the original validation of the measure (Mena et al. 1987) on first generation immigrants, this mean of 35.11 is slightly lower.

Acculturation, acculturative stress, and well-being in immigrants
To analyze different levels of acculturative stress and the relationship with the dimensions of well-being, simultaneous multiple regressions were employed. Results of the regression analysis confirmed the association between acculturative stress and lower levels of reported psychological health [R 2 = 8.8, F(1, 303) = 30.34, p = 0.000]. Thus, acculturative stress accounted for 8.8% of the variance of the psychological health of the immigrants in this study. For each SD unit increase in reported acculturative stress, the psychological health of participants decreased by 0.30 of a SD unit (i.e., β = − 0.30). Acculturative stress accounted for 5.9% of the variance in the quality of life [R 2 = 0.059, F(1, 303) = 20.04, p = 0.000] of the  (Table 1).

Subjective social status as a moderator of acculturative stress
To examine whether SSS is a moderator of the relationship between acculturative stress and quality of life, an interaction term was used in multiple regression. The interaction term was based on the mean scores of acculturative stress and subjective social status in the United States which we refer to as SSS; and in the participants local community which we refer to as community SSS. Acculturation stress and subjective social status comprised the first term and the interaction was entered into the equation next. The addition of the interaction term accounted for a small but significant portion of the variance (R 2 change = 0.01, F change = 3.90, p < 0.05) (see Table 2) in SSS but not with community SSS or income. The results indicated that SSS in the US had a more meaningful impact on health than other indicators social status and predicted a small amount of the variance in overall quality of life. Similarly, an interaction term was used to examine the moderation of psychological health, physical health, social well-being, and environmental well-being. Psychological health (R 2 change = 0.03, F change = 10.23, p < 0.05) had the largest amount of variance of the outcome measures. physical health (R 2 change = 0.01, F change = 4.04, p < 0.05) and environmental well-being (R 2 change = 0.02, F change = 6.17, p < 0.05) also had small but significant moderation effects (see Table 2). SSS did not moderate the relationship between acculturative stress and social well-being.

Discussion
The results of this study supported the negative association between acculturative stress with both quality of life and well-being. The final aim of the study examined the moderating role of social status in the associations between acculturative stress and well-being. Subjective social status (SSS) was found to moderate the association between acculturative stress and overall quality of life, psychological health, physical health, and environmental health. In all four relationships, the negative effect of acculturative stress becomes stronger as SSS increases. However, SSS did not moderate the association between acculturative stress and social well-being. In sum, the findings partially supported the moderation hypothesis. The results indicated that SSS is relevant to immigrant mental health and well-being.

Acculturation
Language competence has also been proposed to be an important indicator of acculturation (Zea et al. 2003) and differentiating factor in the experience of acculturative (Gil et al. 2000). The participants had a high degree of confidence in their general English-speaking competence with an average self-rating of 92 out of a maximum confidence score of 100. This high level of participants' English proficiency is relevant, as language proficiency has been associated with lower levels of acculturative stress (Belizaire and Fuertes 2011) and is also correlated negatively (r = -0.19, p = 0.001) with English proficiency in this study.

Acculturative stress
The acculturative stress reported by the sample appeared lower than comparable samples. The current sample had a mean score of 35.11 in comparison to the original validation study (Mena et al. 1987) which reported an average score of 39.1 for first generation immigrants. The finding of slightly lower levels of acculturative stress could be partially explained by ethnic and national characteristics of the sample. Unlike the majority of the aforementioned samples, half of the participants in the study identified as non-Latino White/Caucasian, which is a less frequently studied immigrant population and is reflected by the small number of published journal articles. In the Koneru et al. (2007) literature review of acculturation and mental health, just nine of the 79 studies reviewed explicitly included non-Latino White/ Caucasian participants. In an attempt to shed light on this ethnic component of context, the means of the ethnic groups were ascertained. Analysis of the means of different groups in the current study cannot be definitive due to small ethnic and national group sizes but may provide an explanation for the lower levels of acculturative stress.

Social status
The sample in this study consisted of a highly US acculturated group of individuals that made on average a minimum of $10,000 less in annual salary than the average American. The Subjective social status (SSS) (M = 3.51) levels in this study were lower than those found in other samples. This lower level of SSS is in line with the income level in the sample that was below the national average. When compared to other US immigrant samples, the mean of the current study is still low (e.g., Leu et al. 2008 found an average SSS of 5.77 in Asian immigrants, while Franzini and Fernandez-Esquer 2006 found an average SSS of 5.00 (SD = 1.78) in 1,745 Mexican-origin individuals). This finding of low status is particularly noteworthy when compared to the Mexican-origin individuals in the Franzini and Fernandez-Esquer 2006 study, who were drawn from low-income areas that had a median income in the $15,000-$20,000 range. It could be expected that the Mexican-origin individuals would report lower levels of SSS than participants in the current study, given that they were drawn from low-income areas, however, this was not the case as the Mexican-origin individuals reported higher SSS than participants in the current study. The difference in SSS and income may thus be explained by differences in reference groups. Franzini and Fernandez-Esquer (2006) found that the reference groups for their participants varied based on level of acculturation, where less acculturated individuals compared themselves to Mexican individuals in Mexico and more acculturated individuals compared themselves to Mexicans in the US or the general US population. This trend was also present in the current study in which participants rated their social status in their ethnic group higher (M = 5.24) compared to the US in general (M = 3.51). The higher level of US acculturation in the current study suggests that participants in this study may have been more likely to compare themselves to the general population and thus endorsed lower SSS scores due to comparison to a reference group with higher perceived status.

Acculturative stress, quality of life, and psychological health
Quality of life is multidimensional and subsumes psychological health. Thus, it is not surprising that both overall quality of life and the subdomains of psychological health and physical health were associated with acculturative stress. Quality of Life in this study is based on the WHO definition (Murphy et al. 2000), which encompasses psychological and physical health as well as social relationships and environment.
Participants who had increased levels of acculturative stress reported a slightly poorer overall quality of life. Specifically, acculturative stress accounted for 7.7% of the variance in the participant's quality of life. This finding joins the body of research that identifies acculturative stress as a negative influence on mental (Abdulrahim and Baker 2009;Jibeen and Khalid 2011;Mejía and McCarthy 2010;Xu and Chi 2013) and physical health (Lara et al. 2012). In accordance with these other findings, the association identified in this study underscores that acculturative stress affects psychological health and quality of life.
The association between acculturative stress and psychological health was also supported with acculturative stress accounting for 11.7% of the variance in the psychological health of the immigrants. Psychological health in the study reflected a broad range of psychological functioning as defined by the WHOQOL-BREF (Murphy et al. 2000), which included positive feelings (e.g., hopefulness, joy, happiness, and peace), negative feelings (e.g., nervousness, anxiety, sadness, and guilt), body image, self-esteem, learning memory, and concentration. This association of increased acculturative stress with decreased psychological health means that participants with more acculturative stress reported experiencing a more negative affect, a less positive affect, and worse psychological functioning.
The association of acculturative stress to negative psychological health found in this study has been found in other studies and in a variety of populations. For example, Thoman and Surís (2004) found associations with acculturative stress and psychological health in Hispanic psychiatric patients and, notably, they also found that acculturative stress accounted for a small amount (6%) of the variance in psychological health. Acculturative stress has also been demonstrated to have a negative association with self-esteem (Geeraert and Demoulin 2013;Kim et al. 2014;Liebkind and Jasinskaja-Lahti 2000). In a study on immigrant adolescents in Finland, acculturative stress was negatively associated with life satisfaction, sense of mastery, and self-esteem (Liebkind and Jasinskaja-Lahti 2000) indicating that acculturative stress is associated with a diminution of positive appraisals of self. This diminution of positive self-appraisal is linked to positive self-regard and stress appraisal. Thus, the self-esteem acculturative stress association is likely bi-directional.
Acculturative stress has also been linked to increased depressed mood by a number of studies (Abdulrahim and Baker 2009;Jibeen and Khalid 2011;Mejía and McCarthy 2010;Xu and Chi 2013). Based on the consistency of negative outcomes such as depressed mood, anxiety, and worry being associated with acculturative stress, the connection to the negative end of the mental health spectrum is relatively clear. However, the dearth of research and the partial support found in this study dictate that negative outcomes such as depressed mood may be more affected by acculturative stress than positive phenomena such as hopefulness or happiness.
Acculturative stress has also been associated with decreased physical health (Finch et al. 2004). Social support indirectly influenced health-related quality of life through acculturative stress and depression in Vietnamese immigrant women (Chae et al. 2014). Similarly, another study found that higher levels of social support buffered the negative effects of acculturative stress on physical health among day laborers (Salgado et al. 2012). These findings underscore the link between acculturative stress, environmental health, and depletions in perceived physical health across the developmental lifespan. We found that this association exists in highly acculturated immigrants. Our finding that subjective social status moderates this association in immigrants sheds light on a mechanism that may diminish physical health across generations.

Subjective social status and well-being
Results demonstrated that SSS did moderate the effects of acculturative stress in immigrant well-being. However, the analysis revealed that SSS did not moderate the association between quality of life and acculturation. Time in the US may influence the immigrant's appraisal of acculturative stressors as these acculturative stressors may continue regardless of the level of acculturation. For example, the acculturative stressors assessed in this study, such as "People look down upon me if I practice customs of my culture," are more focused on the present than the acculturation items such as "I have never learned to speak the language of my native country" which may be less salient in immigrants who have spent many years acculturating. In other words, it is possible that acculturative stress can be daily events that are affected by stress appraisal.
In regard to moderation of acculturative stress, the finding that SSS moderated quality of life (p < 0.05) is the first time this association has been established and is supported by theory. Thus, SSS can now enter the body of research as a valid variable in the understanding of acculturative stress. This finding that social status moderates the effect of acculturative stress on well-being is supported by the concept of social status affecting the stress appraisal in the general population (Fiske 2011) and in the immigrant population (Williams and Berry (1991). This moderation is also supported by Padilla and Perez (2003) socio-cognitive model. The social identity and social cognition components of their model stipulate that immigrants' appraisal of themselves, and their context has an effect on their cognitions. As such, the literature supports the current study's results that, when faced with acculturative stress, immigrants in this study who appraised their social status more highly would respond differently than immigrants who ranked themselves lower in status. This difference in response was demonstrated by participants with high levels of SSS being associated with slightly lower levels of well-being. This finding highlights the complex nature of disparities in stress where low status individuals sometimes report lower levels of perceived stress (Krueger and Chang 2008) despite experiencing more stressors. Further research is needed to clarify this relationship including to determine if this is a causal relationship or if high SSS individuals are comparing themselves to social groups that negatively influences their response to acculturative stress. Padilla and Perez (2003) and Williams and Berry (1991) theories both align with this need and these findings to underscore that a person's appraisal of his or her status affects how he or she reacts to acculturative stressors. This reaction to acculturative stress varies and could be positive, neutral, or negative. Berry (1991) went on to posit that acculturative stress presents both positive and negative components for immigrants. We have established importance of SSS role in the acculturative stress and well-being association and that relationship needs further study.
However, the moderation of the association between acculturative stress and well-being by SSS has not been published and is indirectly supported by a very small body research. Recent research has, however, demonstrated the association between SSS and well-being (Franzini and Fernandez-Esquer (2006) ;Gelatt 2013;Leu et al. 2008;Nicklett and Burgard 2009). Encouragingly, objective social status (SES) has been shown to mediate the acculturation to mental health in Chinese Americans (Shen and Takeuchi 2001). Thus, the finding of SSS as a moderator in this study is not surprising based on comparable research.
If future research identifies a causal relationship, then the perceptions of social status can be included in interventions targeting immigrant well-being. Kraus et al. (2011) produced short-term changes in a participant's subjective sense of status by asking them to compare themselves to high or low status groups. Therefore, psychological interventions such as psychoeducation about social status (including social comparison) should be explored to compliment other interventions such as those based in positive psychology. As with most cognitive therapies, it may be easier to change the person's perspective of a situation than alter the situation the person is in.
The moderating role of SSS in the association between acculturative stress and well-being also galvanizes the argument that both objective and subjective measurement and experience of status are important psychological factors. Objective status is commonly accepted as a meaningful variable in mental health outcomes studies (American Psychological Association Task Force on Socioeconomic Status 2006). Our findings signify that SSS was more significant than income in this sample and should be added as an alternate or complimentary variable in future research to explain its additional variance in mental health outcomes. This is arguably necessary in populations such as this sample where perceptions of income and actual income do not align neatly.
The support in the current study for SSS as a moderator of and as a factor in the association between acculturative stress and well-being suggests that the intersection of factors that comprise subjective social status affect the trajectory of immigrants' mental health. The cognitive averaging of socioeconomic factors can be taken a step further in light of the correlation of the different dimensions of social status in this study. The association of items such as perceived social power, subjective income, and perceived community status can be tentatively considered part of the subjective status experience. This provides a scientific basis for further research on the individual dimensions of subjective social status, with the intent to identify the most salient factors. Understanding these factors of social status that affect immigrant psychological health also move forward the social justice agenda highlighted by (Smith 2005). The findings of this study legitimize the emphasis of social justice scholars who state that social class (Smith 2010) and social status (Fiske 2011) are psychological and much more than objective indicators.

Limitations
The participant pool limits the ability to answer further questions and to generalize the results outside the scope of the study. Specifically, this study did not utilize random sampling and selection bias represents a particular threat to the external validity of this study. Despite the attempt to include a wide array of immigrants in the sample, recruitment and measurement were conducted in English. This may have limited the participation of immigrants who are not primarily English speakers. Additionally, testing for a macro level effect of perceived status across immigrant groups does not allow us to detect variances between different ethnocultural immigrant groups. We recognize and appreciate the tremendous diversity among these groups and hope that our research informs research on SSS moderation in specific ethnocultural immigrant groups. External validity, similarly, is threatened by the population, which was comprised of English-proficient, dominant-society, acculturated immigrants who had spent a long time in the United States. Internal validity could have been affected by the potential priming effect of asking demographic questions including those about SSS at the beginning of the survey. Further, no measure in the study identified which population the participants compared themselves to when making their appraisals of status.

Conclusion
Future research should examine whom participants are comparing themselves, and how connected they are to these people. Social connectedness was identified as a mediator of the relationship between acculturation and well-being, (Yoon et al. 2012). These concepts are natural complements to research exploring the social status in the community, as connectedness to an ethnic or mainstream group may illuminate acculturation levels and simultaneously may indicate which group a person is likely to compare themselves to.
The findings of this study contribute to gaps in the research on SSS, acculturative stress, and well-being. The sample consisted of a diverse set of immigrants who were more acculturated to US culture. Despite this level of acculturation, all variables measured were associated with acculturative stress including social well-being. SSS was confirmed to slightly moderate the association from acculturative stress to quality of life, psychological health, environmental health, and physical health. This finding furthers the evidence that SSS is a meaningful and relevant component of immigrant mental health. Measuring the SSS of immigrants may capture the intersection social status with other factors such as immigrant status, ethnicity, race, and religion.
Clinical, occupational, and educational settings must be aware of this potential deleterious effect of acculturative stress on immigrants and adjust policy/treatment accordingly. Policies such as encouraging assessment of psychological well-being of new immigrants, psycho education about acculturative stress, and making resources available should be considered. These findings emphasize the need for mental health workers to account for the role of acculturative stress in assessing, treating, and con-