1 Introduction

Refugees worldwide often face trauma from war, persecution, displacement, and the stresses of resettlement, which are closely linked to depression, PTSD, and anxiety (Steel et al. 2009). Yet East African refugee communities remain understudied despite their long history of resettlement in the United States and other Western countries (Ellis et al. 2008). These groups experience unique challenges shaped by political violence, loss, disrupted family structures, cultural adjustment, racism, and Islamophobia (Betancourt et al. 2015; Im and Rosenberg 2016).

Trauma in these communities is also intergenerational. Children of refugees may carry the psychological and relational burdens of past violence and displacement, even without direct exposure (Danieli 1998; Sangalang and Vang 2017). However, research rarely centers the lived experiences of East African families or examines how trauma is transmitted, negotiated, and reshaped across generations within family systems. Greater attention to these communities is essential for developing culturally responsive approaches to healing and resilience.

To address these gaps, this study centers the lived experiences of 1.5-generation (1.5G) East African refugees. Positioned between first-generation parents and second-generation children, 1.5G refugees occupy a unique relational role within refugee family systems. Their experiences provide important insight into how trauma, resilience, and family communication are interpreted and negotiated across generations.

Guided by an interest in intergenerational meaning-making and family adaptation, this study examines the following research questions:

RQ1.How do 1.5G East African refugees make meaning of trauma within family and community contexts?

RQ2.How is trauma experienced, interpreted, and reshaped across generations within refugee families?

RQ3.How do 1.5G refugees conceptualize resilience, healing, and their roles within family systems?

Together, these questions explore how 1.5G refugees navigate the emotional, cultural, and relational legacies of displacement. By integrating meaning-making, intergenerational trauma, and resilience, this study argues that 1.5G refugees function as relational bridges who actively interpret, negotiate, and transform trauma across generations. In doing so, the study contributes to scholarship on refugee family systems by highlighting the relational processes through which trauma, silence, resilience, and healing are transmitted and reimagined within East African refugee communities. The remainder of the paper reviews relevant literature and theoretical frameworks, describes the study methodology, presents the findings, and discusses implications for theory, research, and clinical practice.

2 The 1.5G Experience

The term 1.5G refugees refers to individuals who migrated during childhood or adolescence, typically after early childhood but before adulthood, positioning them between first-generation adults and second-generation individuals born in the host country (Rumbaut 2004). This developmental timing places 1.5G refugees at a unique intersection of memory, identity, and adaptation, as they retain lived experiences of migration while simultaneously navigating socialization within the host society.

In resettlement contexts, 1.5G individuals often assume roles as cultural and linguistic brokers, mediating between their families and external institutions such as schools, healthcare systems, and social services (Tse 1996). These responsibilities can foster bicultural competence and adaptability, but they also introduce role strain, early adultification, and intergenerational tension (Portes and Rumbaut 2001; Suárez-Orozco and Suárez-Orozco 2001). As a result, 1.5G refugees frequently navigate competing expectations related to family obligation, cultural preservation, and individual development.

Despite their critical role within family systems, 1.5G refugees remain underrepresented in research. Existing scholarship has largely focused on first-generation adults' trauma exposure or second-generation identity development, leaving limited attention to those who directly experienced migration during formative developmental stages (Portes and Rumbaut 2001; Sangalang and Vang 2017). This gap is particularly significant in trauma research because 1.5G individuals can both remember pre-migration experiences and interpret their meaning within ongoing family and community contexts. From a systemic perspective, 1.5G refugees are not only recipients of intergenerational trauma but also active agents in how that trauma is understood and communicated within families. Centering their perspectives therefore provides insight into how trauma may be reinterpreted and potentially disrupted across generations.

3 Intergenerational Trauma in Refugee Families

Refugees often face significant structural barriers, including employment challenges, overcrowded housing, limited English proficiency, poverty, and racism, which may contribute to adverse mental health outcomes such as PTSD (Finklestein and Solomon 2009; Papadopoulos et al. 2004). These stressors can be passed down across generations through parenting practices and family communication patterns (Nagata et al. 2024). Trauma may disrupt parenting, attachment, and emotional availability, shape children's regulation skills, and increase their risk for adverse childhood experiences (Antony 2022). Research shows that children of refugees exposed to war, persecution, or displacement are more likely to develop internalizing symptoms, behavior problems, insecure attachment, and PTSD-like responses, including heightened arousal and vigilance (Hong et al. 2025).

Intergenerational trauma involves not only what older generations pass down but also how younger generations interpret and respond to family histories of violence while navigating present-day discrimination, identity conflict, and social isolation. Despite elevated risks, refugee children also demonstrate strong capacities for resilience when supported by stable relationships, school-based programs, and culturally grounded community resources (Antony 2022).

Emerging research suggests that trauma communication in refugee families often involves both disclosure and silence, with younger generations navigating fragmented narratives about displacement, loss, and survival. In an exploratory study of Kurdish refugee families, Kevers et al. (2024) found that trauma was transmitted not only through explicit storytelling but also through silence, emotional attunement, and the indirect communication of suffering. These findings suggest that intergenerational trauma is shaped not only by what families share but also by what remains unspoken.

Intergenerational trauma is therefore not simply transmitted from one generation to the next; younger generations actively interpret, negotiate, and assign meaning to family histories of displacement, loss, and survival (Danieli 1998; Nagata et al. 2024; Sangalang and Vang 2017). For 1.5G refugees, direct memories of migration may further shape how these family narratives are understood and negotiated across generations (Portes and Rumbaut 2001; Rumbaut 2004).

4 East African Refugee Communities

East African refugee communities, including Somali, Oromo, and Ethiopian populations, have experienced political violence, persecution, forced displacement, and prolonged instability that have shaped migration trajectories and family life (Betancourt et al. 2015; Im and Rosenberg 2016; Shaw et al. 2020). Many families also spent extended periods in refugee camps prior to resettlement and continue to navigate post-migration challenges such as racism, economic hardship, language barriers, discrimination, and cultural adaptation (Abdi 2023; Papadopoulos et al. 2004). These experiences are associated with increased risks for mental health concerns, including depression, post-traumatic stress, and family disruption (Finklestein and Solomon 2009; Shaw et al. 2020).

While Somali, Oromo, and Ethiopian communities have distinct historical and political contexts, they share common experiences of disrupted family systems, shifting intergenerational roles, and the need to negotiate multiple cultural worlds following resettlement (Betancourt et al. 2015; Im and Rosenberg 2016; Shaw et al. 2020). Oromo refugees have often experienced political repression and cultural marginalization (The Advocates for Human Rights 2009), Somali refugees have been shaped by decades of civil conflict and displacement (Abdi 2023; Im et al. 2025), and Ethiopian refugees represent diverse migration experiences associated with political conflict, persecution, and economic instability (Tesfai 2025; Shaw et al. 2020). These historical, cultural, and resettlement contexts provide an important backdrop for understanding how 1.5G refugees navigate intergenerational expectations, family relationships, and adaptation.

5 Theoretical Framework

5.1 Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Framework

Bronfenbrenner's ecological framework posits that individuals do not exist in isolation but are embedded within interconnected systems that shape development and well-being (Bronfenbrenner and Ceci 1994). These systems range from immediate family relationships and peer interactions to broader cultural, political, and societal influences. The microsystem encompasses direct interactions within family and community contexts, while the mesosystem reflects connections between these settings. The exosystem includes institutions and social structures that indirectly influence individuals, such as schools, immigration policies, and healthcare systems. Finally, the macrosystem situates individual and family experiences within broader cultural values, norms, and sociopolitical conditions (Antony 2022).

This framework is particularly useful for understanding refugee family systems because trauma, adaptation, and resilience are shaped by multiple interacting contexts rather than individual experiences alone (Arakelyan and Ager 2021; Kreitzer et al. 2025). Refugee families navigate displacement, resettlement, discrimination, and cultural adaptation simultaneously, with experiences at one ecological level influencing functioning at others. Within the microsystem, family communication patterns shape how trauma is understood and discussed. At the mesosystem and exosystem levels, schools, religious institutions, and community organizations influence belonging and adaptation. At the macrosystem level, cultural values surrounding family obligation, resilience, and collective responsibility shape how distress is interpreted and expressed.

For 1.5G refugees, ecological influences span relationships with parents, siblings, peers, and institutions. This framework therefore situates trauma, resilience, and healing within the multiple systems that shape refugee family life.

5.2 Acculturation Theory

Acculturation theory provides an additional framework for understanding the experiences of refugee families navigating multiple cultural environments. Berry (1997) conceptualized acculturation as the process through which individuals and groups adapt to a new cultural context while maintaining varying degrees of connection to their culture of origin. Rather than a linear movement from one culture to another, acculturation involves ongoing negotiation between heritage and host-culture identities.

Within refugee families, acculturation frequently occurs at different rates across generations, creating what researchers have termed acculturation disparities (Berry 1997; Meschke and Juang 2014). Younger family members often adapt more quickly to the host society through school, peer networks, and language acquisition, while parents may maintain stronger ties to cultural traditions and practices from their countries of origin. These differences can contribute to intergenerational misunderstandings, role shifts, and tensions surrounding identity, belonging, and family expectations (Portes and Rumbaut 2001; Suárez-Orozco and Suárez-Orozco 2001).

Acculturation theory is particularly relevant to 1.5G refugees, whose early cultural socialization and subsequent development within the host society may produce distinct experiences of adaptation (Rumbaut 2004). The framework helps explain how differing rates and experiences of acculturation shape intergenerational expectations, identities, and family relationships.

5.3 Family Trauma Communication

Intergenerational trauma research suggests that trauma is transmitted not only through direct exposure but also through family communication processes, emotional climates, and shared narratives (Danieli 1998; Nagata et al. 2024). Families communicate trauma through both explicit and implicit mechanisms, including storytelling, silence, emotional expression, and patterns of disclosure or avoidance. These processes shape how younger generations understand family histories of displacement, violence, and survival.

Research with refugee families has demonstrated that communication about traumatic experiences is often characterized by selective disclosure, self-filtering, and protective silence (Dalgaard et al. 2016; Dini 2025; McCleary et al. 2020). While these patterns may function to protect family members from painful memories, they can also create uncertainty, emotional distance, and challenges in meaning-making. Younger generations, however, actively interpret these verbal and nonverbal communications in ways that shape their identities and relationships (Danieli 1998; Kevers et al. 2024; Nagata et al. 2024). For 1.5G refugees, this framework helps illuminate how family narratives, silences, and emotional patterns shape understandings of trauma across generations.

Together, Bronfenbrenner's ecological framework, acculturation theory, and family trauma communication theory suggest that intergenerational trauma is shaped by multilevel social influences, differing cultural adaptation experiences, and family communication processes. These frameworks provide a foundation for understanding how 1.5G refugees navigate trauma, resilience, and meaning-making while serving as relational bridges within refugee family systems.

6 Methodology

6.1 Current Study

This qualitative study employed virtual focus groups to explore how 1.5G East African refugees understand trauma, resilience, healing, and intergenerational family dynamics. A focus group design was selected because it facilitates shared storytelling and the co-construction of meaning among participants with similar cultural and migratory experiences (Madriz 2000). Four focus groups were conducted until thematic saturation was reached. The study was reviewed by the first author's university Institutional Review Board and determined exempt from full review.

6.2 Participants and Recruitment

Sixteen 1.5G East African refugees participated across four focus groups. Participants represented Somali, Oromo, and Ethiopian backgrounds, as well as one mixed-ethnic East African focus group. Participants ranged from approximately 8 to 18 years old at migration to the United States. The majority of participants were parents (n = 13, 81.3%), and all identified as Muslim. Participants resided in Minnesota, North Dakota, Oregon, and Washington and represented diverse educational and professional backgrounds. Additional participant characteristics are presented in Table 1.

Participants were recruited using convenience and snowball sampling strategies. Initial recruitment occurred through community networks, professional contacts, and personal referrals. Subsequent participants were recruited through participant referrals. This approach facilitated access to a population that may otherwise be difficult to engage in research due to issues of trust, vulnerability, and historical underrepresentation in research.

6.3 Data Collection

Focus groups were conducted virtually via Zoom, audio-recorded with participant consent, and transcribed verbatim. A semi-structured focus group guide was developed to explore participants' understandings of trauma, intergenerational relationships, resilience, healing, identity, and community strengths. Questions were intentionally broad to encourage discussion and co-construction of meaning among participants while allowing flexibility for participants to build upon one another's responses and reflect on shared experiences.

Focus groups began with the question, “How do you define trauma?” This question was intentionally included to allow participants to describe trauma using their own language and cultural frameworks rather than imposing a predetermined clinical definition. While many participants drew upon concepts consistent with Western psychological understandings of trauma, participants also frequently described trauma through collectivist and intergenerational lenses, emphasizing family sacrifice, displacement, community suffering, disrupted belonging, relational responsibility, and historical experiences of migration.

Follow-up prompts were used to deepen discussion around intergenerational relationships, cultural expectations, resilience, and healing. The group format encouraged participants to collectively reflect on shared experiences and co-construct meaning through dialog, agreement, and disagreement (Madriz 2000). Each focus group lasted approximately 90 min.

6.4 Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using Braun and Clarke's (2006) six-phase thematic analysis approach. Multiple authors independently reviewed transcripts, generated initial codes, and met regularly to refine themes and resolve discrepancies through discussion. Coding combined inductive approaches grounded in participants' narratives with deductive attention to trauma, resilience, identity, and intergenerational processes. Reflexive memos documented analytic decisions and emerging interpretations throughout the coding process.

6.5 Researcher Positionality

The research team included scholars with varying degrees of cultural proximity to East African refugee communities, including 1.5G, 2G, and non-East African immigrant perspectives. Several members of the research team shared lived experiences related to migration, bicultural identity, and Muslim community engagement, while others contributed outsider perspectives that facilitated critical reflection and analytic rigor.

6.6 Trustworthiness

To enhance rigor, the research team employed multiple strategies throughout the study. Credibility was supported through prolonged engagement during focus group discussions, incorporation of participant quotations, and triangulation across Somali, Oromo, and Ethiopian participants. Regular team meetings, reflexive memoing, and peer debriefing were used to challenge interpretations and refine themes. Detailed documentation of methodological decisions and participant characteristics supported transparency and transferability (Lincoln and Guba 1985; Berger 2015; Tracy 2010).

7 Results

Analysis of the focus group discussions revealed four overarching themes that captured how 1.5G East African refugees understood trauma, resilience, identity, belonging, and healing across generations: (1) Carrying the Weight of Survival, (2) Shared Loss and Unspoken Trauma, (3) Connecting Shared Generational Experiences, and (4) Toward Healing and Transformation. Across themes, participants described occupying a unique position between generations and cultures, serving as relational bridges while navigating the burdens and opportunities associated with migration and adaptation. Table 2 summarizes the combined themes and subthemes.

7.1 Carrying the Weight of Survival

Across generations, participants described survival as both a legacy and an ongoing responsibility, a weight carried not only in memory but in daily life. The expectation to endure, provide, and remain strong shaped how families functioned, how emotions were expressed, and how identities were negotiated. For many, survival was not a singular past event but an inherited mode of being, sustained through labor, faith, and emotional restraint. Participants spoke of constantly managing competing pressures: caring for family abroad, meeting the demands of life in the United States, and maintaining a public image of strength and gratitude. Beneath this endurance, however, were layers of fatigue, silence, and fear of collapse. This theme, Carrying the Weight of Survival, captures the emotional and relational costs of sustaining resilience across generations. Across focus groups, participants described occupying a liminal position between generations, cultures, and systems. This role often required them to serve as translators, advocates, providers, and emotional intermediaries while simultaneously managing their own migration-related challenges.

7.1.1 Balancing Competing Worlds

Participants consistently described life as a 1.5G refugee as a continual negotiation between multiple cultural, familial, and societal expectations. Rather than fully belonging to either their parents' culture of origin or the broader American context, many described occupying an in-between position that required constant adaptation and translation across worlds. As Mona (Ethiopian woman) explained, “It feels like you're stuck in between two very different communities… you have to navigate both at the same time, and that alone has been a traumatizing experience.” Similarly, Malik (Ethiopian man) reflected that “we are in between two worlds. One foot is in Africa and one foot is here. We don't know where we belong.”

Participants described this position as both a source of strength and strain. Many viewed themselves as uniquely capable of understanding multiple cultural perspectives, yet this role often required continual code-switching and identity negotiation. Ayantu (Oromo woman) challenged common assumptions that biculturalism is inherently beneficial, explaining:

I would have preferred to completely grow up back home or here… people say you're more resilient, flexible, and able to code switch. I don't like code switching. It's because I am not comfortable in either of the communities or societies that I'm in.

Rather than experiencing biculturalism as seamless adaptation, participants frequently described feeling “too African” in American contexts and “too American” within their own communities. This balancing extended beyond cultural identity into family relationships and responsibilities. Participants often served as translators, advocates, and cultural brokers for their families, helping parents navigate unfamiliar systems while simultaneously adapting to American institutions themselves. Zakariye (Somali man) described this role as helping “bridge the gap” between generations.

For many, this ongoing negotiation produced both opportunities and burdens. While participants described developing adaptability, resourcefulness, and cross-cultural competence, they also reported uncertainty regarding identity, belonging, and self-expression. The challenge was not simply adapting to a new culture but learning how to exist between multiple worlds while maintaining relationships and responsibilities within each.

7.1.2 The Cost of Being Unbreakable

Participants described resilience as both a valued cultural strength and a significant emotional burden. Across focus groups, strength was frequently framed as a necessity for survival rather than a personal choice. Participants spoke of growing up with expectations to endure hardship, suppress vulnerability, and continue functioning despite significant emotional distress. While resilience was often admired within families and communities, many participants reflected on the personal sacrifices required to maintain this image of strength.

Several participants questioned whether resilience always came at too great a cost. Burhan (Somali woman) reflected on the responsibilities placed upon refugee youth, stating, “As a child, you don't deserve that. Why do I have to be resilient?” She later added, “I feel like my childhood was stolen. I was always in survival mode. It was always about needs. It's never about wants.” For many participants, resilience was experienced not as empowerment but as the expectation to continually prioritize survival, family obligations, and responsibility over personal well-being.

Participants also described carrying responsibilities that extended beyond themselves. Abubakar (Somali man) explained, “For those of us who are 1.5 generation we carry a heavy burden.” He described balancing personal goals with obligations to support family members both in the United States and abroad, noting that “we have to survive and provide for people back home.” Similarly, participants discussed the pressure to succeed academically, financially, and socially while simultaneously serving as cultural brokers, caregivers, and role models within their families.

The expectation to remain strong often discouraged emotional expression and help-seeking. Participants described concealing distress from others and viewing vulnerability as weakness. As Yusuf (Somali man) explained, “As a community, we hide what our brains and hearts are going through because we are tough people and we can handle it.” While this mindset promoted perseverance, participants also linked it to isolation, emotional exhaustion, and reluctance to seek support.

Ultimately, participants described resilience as a paradox. The very qualities that enabled individuals and families to survive displacement, migration, and adversity could also limit opportunities for rest, healing, and vulnerability. Rather than rejecting resilience, participants called attention to its hidden costs, highlighting the tension between honoring a legacy of strength and acknowledging the emotional burdens that accompany it.

7.2 Shared Loss and Unspoken Trauma

The second theme captured how participants made sense of their own distress and adaptation in relation to their parents' unspoken histories of suffering. Trauma was not only remembered through stories but also felt through emotional patterns, silences, and expectations that shaped family life. Participants described being deeply aware of the pain their parents carried, loss of homeland, separation from family, and the disruption of community ties, yet also recognized how little these experiences were named or discussed. The intergenerational transmission of trauma, therefore, was as much about what was not said as what was shared. This theme, Shared Loss and Unspoken Trauma, reflects how participants struggled to reconcile admiration for their parents' endurance with the lingering effects of displacement, silence, and inherited narratives of survival.

7.2.1 Bridging Silence With Parents

While many participants expressed profound respect for their parents' perseverance, they also described the difficulty of connecting with them around emotional pain. Conversations about war, loss, and exile were often avoided or minimized, creating what Bilal (Ethiopian man) described as “a silence that protects but also isolates.” Imran (Oromo man) explained, “the older generation has not had the opportunity to look at their trauma.” This silence was experienced as both an act of love and a barrier to intimacy. Parents sought to protect their children from the weight of their suffering, yet in doing so, left emotional gaps that the younger generation felt compelled to fill.

Participants reflected on the emotional consequences of this dynamic: a shared grief that remained unacknowledged, shaping relationships through empathy rather than dialog. As Ayeesha (Ethiopian woman) said, “We haven't dealt with what we have lost.” In this absence of explicit communication, children learned to read emotion through tone, gesture, and facial expressions rather than direct disclosure. Many described developing deep sensitivity to their parents' moods and memories, often internalizing the task of maintaining family stability.

7.2.2 Survival as Inherited Identity

Participants frequently described survival not simply as something their families had done, but as a way of understanding themselves and the world. Across focus groups, stories of migration, displacement, hardship, and perseverance shaped expectations regarding how suffering should be interpreted and managed. Participants often recalled being reminded of the sacrifices made by parents and older generations, creating an enduring narrative that survival itself was evidence of success.

For many, these inherited narratives provided meaning, gratitude, and perspective. Reflecting on his family's migration journey, Jamal (Ethiopian man) explained, “If my dad didn't do that, I wouldn't be who I am.” Similarly, Mona (Ethiopian woman) reflected, “If I didn't have that experience of trauma in my life, I wouldn't be who I am today.” Participants frequently connected survival to personal growth, viewing adversity as something that shaped character, resilience, and purpose.

At the same time, participants described how these narratives could unintentionally invalidate present struggles. Amina (Oromo woman) reflected that discussions of trauma were often met with responses such as, “What trauma? You're lucky you're here.” This perspective encouraged gratitude and perseverance but sometimes left little room to acknowledge emotional pain or ongoing difficulties. As one participant noted, survival itself often became the standard against which all suffering was measured.

Several participants described growing up with the belief that hardships should be endured rather than discussed. Ayantu (Oromo woman) observed that resilience was often treated as evidence that people should simply continue moving forward, rather than reflect on the emotional consequences of adversity. In this way, survival became more than a response to trauma—it became an inherited identity, shaping how participants understood strength, responsibility, and belonging across generations.

7.3 Connecting Shared Generational Experiences

Participants highlighted their position as cultural and emotional intermediaries between 1G parents and 2G siblings or children bridging histories of displacement with the emerging identities of U.S.-born youth. Their narratives reflected an evolving awareness of how trauma, migration, and adaptation reverberate differently across generations. They described a dual responsibility: to protect younger family members from inherited pain while ensuring that their parents' sacrifices and values were not lost in the process. This theme, Connecting Shared Generational Experiences, captures how empathy and recognition moved across generations, transforming inherited wounds into opportunities for understanding and renewal.

7.3.1 Empathy Across Generations

Many participants described developing a deeper understanding of their parents' experiences as they grew older. Rather than viewing parental behaviors solely through the lens of conflict or emotional distance, participants increasingly recognized how displacement, loss, survival pressures, and unresolved trauma shaped the lives of older generations. This awareness often fostered empathy, compassion, and a desire to understand parents' actions within broader historical and cultural contexts.

Participants frequently reflected on the emotional consequences of growing up in families where survival often took precedence over emotional expression. Rather than blaming their parents, participants often situated unmet emotional needs within the realities of migration, resettlement, and hardship. As Amina (Oromo woman) reflected, many of the emotional needs left unmet were not the result of indifference but of circumstances: “What they couldn't provide because they just couldn't.”

Participants also described becoming increasingly aware of how trauma affected younger generations. Several reflected on how children and grandchildren often inherited the effects of trauma without fully understanding their origins. One participant observed that younger family members frequently struggled with anxiety, perfectionism, or disconnection without recognizing how these experiences were rooted in family histories of displacement and loss. This growing awareness fostered a desire to create greater emotional openness within families and communities. As participants reflected on both their parents' struggles and their own experiences, empathy became a bridge between generations, transforming inherited pain into opportunities for understanding and connection.

7.3.2 Honoring 1G Sacrifices

Participants expressed profound respect for the sacrifices made by first-generation family members. Across focus groups, parents' decisions to flee conflict, endure displacement, and rebuild their lives in unfamiliar environments were viewed as acts of courage that created opportunities for future generations. Participants frequently described carrying a sense of responsibility to honor these sacrifices through educational achievement, financial stability, community involvement, and service to others.

Participants' sense of responsibility was accompanied by growing awareness of the less visible sacrifices borne by earlier generations. Relecting on her sister's experiences after arriving in the United States, Kadija (Ethiopian woman) observed that “apparently from outside it looks fine but inside she gave up a lot,” highlighting the hidden sacrifices that often accompanied outward success.

Participants also described honoring sacrifice by serving as bridges between generations. Many viewed themselves as uniquely positioned to translate cultural expectations, emotional experiences, and understandings of trauma across generations. As Malik (Ethiopian man) explained, 1.5G refugees often possess the ability to explain experiences “in a language [parents] can understand.” Similarly, participants described helping younger family members understand the historical and cultural contexts that shaped their parents' lives. In this way, honoring sacrifice extended beyond gratitude alone and became an active process of preserving connection, fostering understanding, and strengthening family relationships.

For many participants, honoring first-generation sacrifices also involved a commitment to interrupting cycles of suffering. Rather than simply enduring hardship, participants sought to transform inherited struggles into opportunities for healing and growth. As one participant reflected, the goal was not only survival but ensuring that future generations inherited greater emotional awareness, support, and possibility. Honoring sacrifice therefore became both an acknowledgment of the past and a responsibility toward the future.

7.3.3 Unburdening as a Collective Process

Participants emphasized that recovery from trauma could not occur in isolation. Healing, they argued, required confronting both personal pain and the accumulated weight of intergenerational suffering. Khalid (Somali man) described healing as a collective responsibility rooted in community dialog and mutual care.

What is it that you want your children to inherit from you? Do you want them to inherit your trauma, or all the good aspects of you? … maybe externalizing the effects of your trauma on others can help you potentially become the best version of yourself.

Others expressed that the culture of silence surrounding distress, while once protective, now limits opportunities for growth and connection. They envisioned spaces where sharing stories of struggle could be an act of liberation in itself, challenging the expectation to endure quietly. Ayeesha (Ethiopian woman) explained:

What I want now is a different kind of resilience, one that doesn't punish us for being human. We need places where we can cry, reflect, and breathe without feeling like we're failing our families. Healing has to happen together with our elders, our youth, our mosques, our community centers because our pain was never individual to begin with.

This collective unburdening was also tied to faith, kinship, and cultural continuity. The goal was not to abandon resilience but to transform its meaning: to make strength compatible with vulnerability, and survival compatible with rest. Through this lens, unburdening was seen as both a generational and spiritual process, an invitation to carry one another's weight rather than bear it alone.

7.3.4 Reimagining Community Strengths

Building on this collective vision, participants called for a reframing of resilience away from stoicism and suppression toward wholeness and relational care. They described a desire for community narratives that celebrate emotional honesty, help-seeking, and intergenerational dialog. As Hodan (Somali woman) reflected, “Being strong doesn't mean we can't feel, it means we can heal together.” Participants emphasized that healing must include younger generations, who could help reshape norms around mental health and redefine what thriving looks like within East African refugee families. Omar (Oromo man) explained:

I want my children to inherit a community where being resilient doesn't mean suffering in silence. I want them to know that asking for help is part of being connected, not a sign of weakness. If we can teach that, we can turn our pain into something meaningful and build a future where everyone feels they belong and can grow.

Participants envisioned a future in which younger generations inherited not only stories of perseverance but also healthier ways of relating to themselves, their families, and their communities. Healing was described as a process of intentional reflection, open communication, and breaking cycles of inherited suffering.

8 Discussion

This study explored how 1.5G East African refugees navigate intergenerational trauma within refugee family systems. Findings suggest that trauma, resilience, and healing are negotiated through ongoing relational processes rather than experienced solely at the individual level. Participants described carrying inherited expectations of strength, navigating silence surrounding trauma, serving as relational bridges across generations, and envisioning more collective approaches to healing.

Consistent with Bronfenbrenner's ecological model, participants' experiences were shaped by interactions across multiple systems, including family relationships, community networks, cultural expectations, and broader resettlement contexts (Bronfenbrenner and Ceci 1994; Kreitzer et al. 2025). The findings suggest that adaptation occurs through the dynamic interplay of relational, cultural, and structural influences, highlighting the importance of understanding refugee resilience and trauma as embedded within family and community systems.

8.1 Burdened Resilience: The Hidden Costs of Survival

Participants' accounts suggest that resilience within refugee family systems may function as both a protective resource and a source of emotional burden. While resilience supported adaptation, survival, and family continuity, participants also described how expectations to remain strong, self-sacrificing, and emotionally restrained often limited opportunities for vulnerability and healing. This tension is reflected in what we conceptualize as burdened resilience: a form of resilience in which perseverance remains necessary for survival but simultaneously constrains emotional expression, rest, and help-seeking.

This concept builds on prior scholarship framing resilience as contextually adaptive yet potentially self-limiting when reinforced by cultural or systemic pressures (Ungar 2011). For 1.5G refugees, burdened resilience operated at the intersection of culture, faith, and transnational responsibility, where showing strength became synonymous with survival itself. These findings echo those of Abebe et al. (2014), who document the emotional toll of transnational caregiving, but extend their implications to the intrapsychic and relational levels. Within families, burdened resilience not only maintained functionality but also perpetuated silence around pain, reinforcing a cycle of endurance that left little space for healing.

8.2 Inherited Silence as a Relational Process

Alongside endurance, participants expressed a deep awareness of loss of home, kin, and emotional expression that persisted long after resettlement. Many recognized their parents' unacknowledged suffering and its impact on family relationships. Silence around trauma emerged as both protective and painful: preserving dignity while limiting connection and shared healing. This ambivalence aligns with intergenerational trauma research emphasizing that what remains unsaid can shape family systems as powerfully as explicit narratives (Kellermann 2001; Phipps and Degges-White 2017). Rather than functioning solely as an absence of communication, silence operated as a relational process through which trauma, grief, and family expectations were communicated across generations.

These findings support family trauma communication scholarship demonstrating that trauma-related meanings are transmitted through direct disclosure as well as silence, emotional patterns, and relational processes (Danieli 1998; Nagata et al. 2024). Participants' accounts further illustrate how observation and emotional attunement can shape the interpretation of trauma across generations even in the absence of explicit conversations.

8.3 1.5G Refugees as Relational Bridges

A central finding of this study was the unique role occupied by 1.5-generation refugees as relational bridges within family systems. Participants described serving as translators, advocates, cultural brokers, and emotional intermediaries between first-generation parents and younger generations (Tse 1996; Portes and Rumbaut 2001; Suárez-Orozco and Suárez-Orozco 2001). Their proximity to both cultural contexts allowed them to interpret experiences, expectations, and understandings of trauma across generational boundaries. Participants frequently described helping parents understand the emotional realities of younger generations while simultaneously helping younger family members contextualize their parents' experiences of displacement, sacrifice, and survival.

This bridging role extended beyond language translation. Participants described translating emotional experiences, family histories, and understandings of trauma that were often difficult to articulate across generations. In doing so, they functioned not only as recipients of inherited narratives but also as agents of reinterpretation, connection, and change. These findings extend scholarship on cultural brokering and acculturation by suggesting that 1.5G refugees actively negotiate meanings, expectations, and identities across multiple cultural and generational contexts rather than simply adapting to a host culture (Tse 1996; Portes and Rumbaut 2001; Suárez-Orozco and Suárez-Orozco 2001).

Although this study focused on East African refugee families, the relational processes identified here may have relevance for other refugee and immigrant communities navigating displacement, intergenerational trauma, and cultural adaptation. In particular, the concepts of burdened resilience, relational bridging, and inherited silence may provide useful frameworks for understanding how younger generations negotiate family responsibilities while adapting to new sociocultural contexts. Future research should examine whether these processes emerge similarly across diverse refugee and immigrant populations.

8.4 Toward Collective Healing and Relational Restoration

Participants' calls to redefine resilience through emotional expression, treatment-seeking, intergenerational dialog, and collective unburdening are consistent with emerging frameworks advocating trauma-informed, culturally responsive approaches to refugee mental health (Ellis et al. 2020). By emphasizing both individual and collective pathways of healing, 1.5G voices challenge narrow definitions of resilience and highlight opportunities for community-based interventions.

This aligns with critiques of Western, medicalized models of therapy and healing, which rely heavily on diagnosis. Research from Indigenous communities similarly emphasizes community care, connectedness, and culturally grounded understandings of healing (Maracle 2021; Marques et al. 2022). Such approaches conceptualize well-being through relationships among social, spiritual, cultural, and environmental contexts rather than through individual symptom reduction alone (Marques et al. 2022).

Research suggests that refugee communities often encounter barriers to traditional mental health services and may benefit from culturally responsive approaches that integrate family, community, and faith-based resources (Abdi et al. 2022; Hosseini et al. 2025). Consistent with these findings, participants emphasized the importance of healing approaches grounded in community relationships, cultural understanding, and practical support.

8.5 Limitations

Several limitations should be considered. The sample was relatively small, recruited through convenience and snowball sampling, and consisted of highly educated Muslim 1.5G East African refugees, which may limit transferability to other refugee populations. Additionally, focus group discussions may have influenced participants' willingness to disclose sensitive experiences or express dissenting perspectives. Finally, although participants frequently reflected on the experiences of 1G parents and younger generations, these perspectives were not directly represented in the sample. Future research should examine intergenerational trauma and healing across multiple generations within refugee family systems.

8.6 Implications for Practice and Family Interventions

These findings highlight the need for systemic, culturally responsive approaches that conceptualize trauma as a relational and intergenerational process within refugee family systems. Rather than locating distress solely within individuals, clinicians and practitioners are encouraged to attend to patterns of communication, silence, and role distribution that shape how trauma is experienced and negotiated across generations.

First, practitioners should recognize 1.5-generation refugees as relational bridges within family systems. Interventions may be strengthened by supporting their roles as cultural and emotional brokers while reducing the burden associated with carrying these responsibilities alone. Second, clinicians should attend to silence around trauma as a relational process rather than solely an individual avoidance pattern. Creating opportunities for intergenerational dialog, storytelling, and shared meaning-making may help families process both spoken and unspoken experiences of displacement and loss (Walsh 2016).

Third, the concept of burdened resilience highlights the need to distinguish resilience from emotional suppression. Practitioners should challenge assumptions that strength requires silence or self-sacrifice and instead promote vulnerability, rest, and help-seeking as compatible with resilience (Ungar 2011). Finally, interventions should extend beyond individual-level treatment to incorporate family, community, and faith-based contexts. Participants identified family, community networks, and religious spaces as important sources of healing, suggesting the value of culturally grounded and community-informed approaches (Ellis et al. 2020; Hosseini et al. 2025).

9 Conclusion

This study highlights how 1.5G East African refugees navigate trauma, resilience, and healing at the intersection of family, culture, and migration. Participants described carrying inherited narratives of survival while simultaneously serving as relational bridges between generations. Their accounts suggest that resilience, while protective, can become burdensome when strength is equated with silence, self-sacrifice, and emotional suppression. Yet participants also articulated pathways toward healing through dialog, connection, community support, and intentional efforts to transform inherited suffering into opportunities for growth. These findings underscore the importance of understanding trauma as a relational and intergenerational process and point toward culturally grounded approaches that honor both resilience and vulnerability within refugee family systems.