This review revises the sociocultural stress and coping model for culturally diverse family caregivers proposed in 1997 by Aranda and Knight. Available research on the influence of cultural values on the stress and coping process among family caregivers supports a common core model that is consistent across ethnic groups and that links care recipients' behavior problems and functional impairments to caregivers' burden appraisals and health outcomes. Familism as a cultural value appears to be multidimensional in its effects, with obligation values often being more influential than family solidarity. The effects of cultural values and other ethnic differences in stress and coping appear to involve social support and coping styles rather than burden appraisals. Implications of the revised model for research and practice are discussed.

This study provides support for the importance of conceptualizing familism as a multidimensional construct with both positive and negative effects on caregivers' emotional distress and suggests that familism affects emotional distress through dysfunctional thoughts rather than through burden appraisals. Clinical implications include attending to both the positive and negative effects of familism values and the potential value of targeting dysfunctional thoughts in cognitive-behavioral interventions with caregivers.

These findings suggest that feelings of obligation may be accounting for a significant proportion of the negative effects of familism on caregivers' mental and subjective physical health. Expectations of familial social support may be relatively inconsequential in this process.

Objective With the recent debates over marijuana legalization and increases in use, it is critical to examine its role in cognition. While many studies generally support the adverse acute effects of cannabis on neurocognition, the non-acute effects remain less clear. The current study used a cross-sectional design to examine relationships between recent and past cannabis use on neurocognitive functioning in a non-clinical adult sample. Method One hundred and fifty-eight participants were recruited through fliers distributed around local college campuses and the community. All participants completed the Brief Drug Use History Form, the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Disorders, and neurocognitive assessment, and underwent urine toxicology screening. Participants consisted of recent users (n = 68), past users (n = 41), and non-users (n = 49). Results Recent users demonstrated significantly (p < .05) worse performance than non-users across cognitive domains of attention/working memory (M = 42.4, SD = 16.1 vs. M = 50.5, SD = 10.2), information processing speed (M = 44.3, SD = 7.3 vs. M = 52.1, SD = 11.0), and executive functioning (M = 43.6, SD = 13.4 vs. M = 48.6, SD = 7.2). There were no statistically significant differences between recent users and past users on neurocognitive performance. Frequency of cannabis use in the last 4 weeks was negatively associated with global neurocognitive performance and all individual cognitive domains. Similarly, amount of daily cannabis use was negatively associated with global neurocognitive performance and individual cognitive domains. Conclusions Our results support the widespread adverse effects of cannabis use on neurocognitive functioning. Although some of these adverse effects appear to attenuate with abstinence, past users' neurocognitive functioning was consistently lower than non-users.