Childhood Migration and Social Integration in Adulthood

8/14/2019 Childhood Migration and Social Integration in Adulthood

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/childhood-migration-and-social-integration-in-adulthood 1/17

Childhood Migration and Social Integration in Adulthood

Author(s): Scott M. MyersReviewed work(s):Source: Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 61, No. 3 (Aug., 1999), pp. 774-789Published by: National Council on Family RelationsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/353577 .

Accessed: 02/07/2012 09:14

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

National Council on Family Relations is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Journal of Marriage and Family.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ncfr

http://www.jstor.org/stable/353577?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/353577?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ncfr



SCOTTM. MYERS Iowa State University

ChildhoodMigrationand

Social Integration n Adulthood

This study develops and tests two hypotheses re-

garding how childhood, adolescent, and postado-lescent migration are associated with social inte-

gration in adulthood. Competingexplanations are

tested by estimating a numberof models that con-

trol for earlier family context and contemporaryadult characteristics. Using a national longitudi-nal and intergenerational data set, the results re-

veal that the age when a move occurred is associ-

ated with both higher and lower levels of social

integration in adulthood. The direction of the as-

sociations depends on the sex of the offspring, the

age at migration, and the measure of social inte-

gration. Adolescence appears to be the age when

the effects of migration are most pronounced.Variables such as experiencinga parental divorce,low parental support, or growing up in a stepfam-

ily and variables measuring adult characteristics

of the adult offspringalter modestlythe migration-integrationrelationships.

The process of international migration includes

the extent to which migrants eventually integrate.The assumption is that the level of disruption as-sociated with immigration affects one's ability toassimilate successfully, adapt,acculturate,and in-

tegrate following the move (Portes & Rumbaut,

Department of Sociology, Iowa State University, 203E East

Hall, Ames, IA 50011 ([email protected]).

Key Words: amily context, migration, social integration.

1990). Yet, the stress and disruption accompany-

ing migration are lower among migrants who can

integrate quickly or who have access to social net-

works such as friends, relatives, or other ties in the

destinationcommunity (Boyd, 1989). This concernwith integrationhas not been a focus of studies on

domestic migration-whether interstate, inter-

county, or residential. That is, research on internal

migration in the United States focuses on aspectsother than postmigration integration, usually on

human or financialcapital

outcomes, such as edu-

cation, occupational mobility, and earnings.

Recently, researchhas adopteda long-term ori-

entation and an increased interest in the possibledisruptive effects of earlier family migration on

later adult outcomes perhaps, in part, due to the

proliferation of longitudinal and intergenerationaldata and an emphasis on the entire life course. Yet,all of the recent longitudinal research on U.S. mi-

gration is along traditional foci-where migrationis found to disrupt educational and occupational

trajectories(e.g., Hagan, MacMillian, & Wheaton,

1996). A common perception is that migrationduring childhood and adolescence is disruptiveand detrimental at the time of the move, shortlyafter the move, and, therefore, for social integra-tion in adulthood.However, childhood and adoles-cent migrationdo not necessarily have to representa stressful transition with negative consequences.Certain families may use migration as a way tomove out of poor neighborhoods and school dis-tricts and to move into resource-rich neighbor-hoods (Parke& Bhavnagri, 1989; South & Crow-

der, 1997) with positive consequences for social

Journalof Marriageand the Family 61 (August 1999): 774-78974



Migration and Social Integration

and cognitive development. These differential ef-

fects of migrationsuggest two possible hypotheses.One, migration detracts from social integration.

Two, migrationenhances social integration.This re-searchbridges the traditionalconcerns of intera-

tional migrationwith the contemporaryorientation

of research on U.S. migration by examining the

over-time association between childhood and ado-

lescent migration and social integration in adult-

hood.

BACKGROUND

Social Integration

The positive consequences of social integrationare well documented. Higher levels of social inte-

gration in adulthood promote higher levels of so-

cial, psychological, and physical well-being. (SeeHouse, Umberson, & Landis, 1989, for a review.)Social integration, in terms of social support, is

importantas a resource to be tapped during stress-

ful life events or transitional periods (Thoits,

1995). A general distinction often is made be-

tween structuraland social-psychological or emo-

tional integration (Moen, Dempster-McClain, &

Williams, 1989). Structural integration denotesthe concrete involvement of individuals with vari-

ous aspects of a group and the organization of an

individual's ties to other people. Structural inte-

gration may include the number and types of rolesand the number of relationships in which an indi-

vidual is involved. Social-psychological or emo-

tional integrationinvolves introspective social ex-

periences or perceived depth of connectedness. Inthis research, I examine one measure of emotional

integration-feelings of attachmentto one's com-

munity-and two measures of structuralintegra-tion-number of close friends and numberof close

relatives. It is important to distinguish amongthese different types of integration because indi-

viduals may choose or draw on specific or optimalresources for different situations and task-specificneeds (Messeri, Silverstein, & Litwak, 1993).These three measures of social integration do not

tap the whole microcomplex of social integrationbut do capturethe broader spiritof the concept.

Prior Research

Many of the studies on migration and social inte-

grationwere carriedout by community sociologistswho were more interested in residential stabilitythan in migration, per se. The results suggested

that stable communities exhibited higher levels of

solidarity,social control, and friendshipbonds andlower levels of anonymity (Sampson, 1988). Shel-

ton (1987) tested whether high rates of residentialmobility disrupted social relationships, created

anonymity,and impeded the enforcement of social

norms and found that divorce rates were higher in

largercities and in areas with high rates of residen-

tial mobility.Only a few studies examined the immediate

impact of moving on social integration,regardlessof age. Verberg (1990) studied 36 early adoles-

cents who had recentlymoved and 37 early adoles-

cents who were residentially stable, all from the

same middle school in the Southeast. The results

indicated that boy and girl movers had fewer con-

tacts with friends and reported less intimacy withtheir best friends. Also, boy movers, but not girls,

reported more instances of rejection than those

who did not move. In a five-community study of

720 adolescents aged 12-14, Brown and Orthner

(1990) found that neither the recency nor the

number of moves were associated with levels of

alienation, which included measures of social iso-

lation. For adults,Larer (1990) found that the ratesof social-network turnover(percentage of friends

in Time 1 who are not friends in Time 2) amongWhite women who made local moves were largerthan their counterpartswho did not move, espe-

cially for neighbors.However, mobile women were

quick to add new membersto their social networks,so the size of their Time 2 (postmigration)networkwas actually larger than the size of their Time 1

(premigration) network. Larner concluded that

moving may lead to turnover n social relationshipsbutdoes not cause isolation or alienation.Frankfort-Nachmias and Palen (1993) found that long-termresidents were highly integrated into social net-works of the community, but newcomers were not

integratedinto local networks. Overall, these stud-ies do not provide firm evidence that moving in-

creases or decreases levels of social integrationinthe short-term or long-term. In the following sec-

tions, I propose that the effects of migration oper-ate in two opposite directions.

WhyMigration Should Detract

from Social Integration

This argumentcould be termed the disruption hy-pothesis. The general idea is that migration inter-feres with the ability of children and adolescents toform social and intimate ties by subjectingthem tocontinual disruptionand upheaval. Moving acts as

775



Journal of Marriage and the Family

a social and psychological barrier to the develop-ment of social ties in childhood.In addition,movers

may become accustomed to and comfortable with

a more solitary social life in childhood and maycontinue this way of life in adulthood by not de-

veloping large or deep social networks or by not

engaging in community life.

Family sociologists have long believed thatresidential mobility interferes with normal family

processes and introduces additional stressors into

child and family development. Burgess, Locke,and Thomes (1963) argued that migration intro-

duces family members to new patternsof behav-

ior and tends to individualize family members and

free them from familial control. When a familyrelocates, developmental tasks may become morestressful than normal.Migration, then, adds an ad-

ditional life stage that families must negotiate. For

children, this negotiation of life events embeddedin personal development may be especially trou-

bling. Mobile children need to adapt to a new

home, neighborhood,school, peers, and confusing

experiences while separated from familiar placesand persons. This displacement can be stressful.

However, the extent and duration of this stress isunclear(Comille & Brotherton,1993). As a primary

stressor, migration may produce secondary stres-sors. These may include an increase in social iso-

lation and a loss of social support associated with

separations rom family, friends,neighbors,school-

mates, and teachers;changes in the child's affectivestate that could be associated with other prob-lems; and changes in the affective states of parentsand siblings that may represent an additionalstressor for the child (Eckenrode, Rowe, Laird, &

Brathwaite, 1995). Thus, moving affects not onlythe child, but each member of the child's familyas well.

More broadly, community sociologists arguethat migration weakens the bonds of communitykinship and friendship,social participation n local

affairs, and affectional ties for the community(Sampson, 1988). A systemic model views individ-ual and community attitudes and behaviors as aresult of residential mobility and length of resi-dence that operate as barriers to the developmentof extensive friendship and kinship bonds andlocal ties. Research finds that residential mobilityhas negative effects on social integration in the

community.Moreover,these effects remain,regard-less of the level of urbanization,density, socioeco-nomic status,and life cycle. Sampson(1988) foundthat individual residential stability increased indi-vidual friendshipties, which, in turn, increased at-

tachment to the community. This suggests thatfamilies who move may have parentswho are less

socially integrated and less able to provide path-

ways throughwhich to integratetheir offspring.In sum, the hypothesis that migration detractsfrom social integration finds support in variouslines of research. The process may operate several

ways. First, childrenhave fewer avenues for social

integrationbecause moving disrupts developmen-tal processes necessary to participatein social and

personalrelationships.Second, migration may dis-

rupt parents' ties to communities, friends, and so-cial organizations.The lack of parents' integration

suggests thatchildren,in turn,have less connectionto external resources-connections that normallygo through the parents.

WhyMigration ShouldEnhance Social Integration

This view of migrationcould be termed the oppor-tunity hypothesis. Moving provides opportunitiesto make new friends and join new groups, espe-cially if moving removes a child from a negativeneighborhood or school environment. Experiencewith migration may allow movers more knowl-

edge and experience and an advantagein negotiat-ing the complexities of leaving and entering socialcontexts. These assets then are taken into adult-hood and benefit individuals when they negotiateadulttransitions.

Researchers who are interested in family mi-

gration object to the idea that migration is bad forfamilies and children. Burchinal and Bauder

(1965) argue that the negative view of the conse-

quences of uprooting oneself and family and rein-

tegrating n a new community stem partlyfrom the

high value placed on stability. Concerns about

the effects of mobility on the migrant also arisefrom erroneous conceptions of the importance ofthe local neighborhoodor community in contribut-

ing to security or the need for close geographicalproximityto ensure functionalrelationshipsamongkin. Mobility is usually a response to housing,personal, and family needs. Indeed, Gober (1993)concludes that residential mobility is integrallyrelated to the normal changes in a family when it

passes through its life cycle.Fischer (1984) challenges the systemic model

and arguesthat social life depends largely on non-ecological factors involving social class, ethnicity,and stage in the life cycle, not on factors such asresidential mobility. Social behaviors are deter-mined by economic position, cultural characteris-

776




tics, and marital and family statuses, which deter-

mine associates and the social worlds inhabited.

Therefore,children are affectedby family function-

ing that is tied to structural statuses and life cycleevents and not to family migration.

A human capital view of migration posits that

migrationcan be an avenue that individuals use to

obtain greater returns on their endowments of

human capital. Children of mobile parentswho re-

ceive favorablereturnson their human capitalmayhave more access to community resources in

childhood.Indeed,research inds that educationand

income are associated positively with organiza-tional memberships, community attachment, andthe size of friendship networks among adults

(Boisjoly, Duncan, & Hofferth, 1995; House et al.,

1988). In turn, parents' education and income are

associatedpositively with children's social involve-

ment (Gecas, 1979) and children's social compe-tence throughsocialization practices(Kohn, 1977).

Finally, parents influence the social developmentof their children directly through migration.Bryant (1985) suggests that the availability of

neighborhood resources is an importantcorrelateof children's social functioning.Children who have

easy access to recreation centers, practice fields,

and community-sponsored events and activitiesare more likely to utilize these resources. Parentsoften choose residential settings that facilitate such

contact and avoid those that do not, andmoving outof a low-quality neighborhood may enhance thesocial development of children and adolescents

(Brooks-Gunn, Duncan, Klebanov, & Sealand,1993; Parke & Bhavnagri, 1989).

In sum, the hypothesis thatmigrationenhancessocial integration receives strong support. Chil-dren who move are in the presence of parentswho

expose and socialize their children in ways that

increase social integration and developmentalprocesses. In addition, migration is a strategyadopted by parents to increase the social integra-tion of their children through neighborhood and

community relocation choices. Overall, migrationis not a disruptiveevent, but a positive adjustmentto the changing structure and social location ofthe family.

Placing the Effects of Migration in Context

These hypotheses suggest that the association be-tween migrationand social integrationarecomplexand multifaceted. This complexity arises from thefact that migration occurs in a dynamic environ-ment-the family-and this environment is asso-

ciated with both family migration (Long, 1992)and social integration in adulthood (e.g., Miller,

1993). Estimatingthe unique migration-integration

relationships requires controlling for the contextin which migration occurs and in which the skillsof social integrationare fostered.

The foundation for social integration in adult-

hood begins earlier in the family of origin. In thisenvironment children learn, model, and developthe social and relationship skills and patterns ofbehavior that cultivate connections to family andfriendsduringthe life course (Caspi & Elder, 1988;

Miller, 1993). Developmental psychologists em-

phasize that a successful caregiver-child relation-

ship is a necessary precursor o social developmentand provides a working model for future personaland social relationships (Bowlby, 1988). Other

theorists identify preadolescence as the critical

period when children generalize the social skillsthat are learned in the family to external social

contexts (Sullivan, 1953) or adolescence as the

critical period when personal relationships with

adults other thanparentsare established (Fullerton& Ursano, 1994). Recent research expands therole of the family to include members of the ex-tended family and the family's interaction with

the community, along with the traditional focuson parents as models for and shapersof their chil-dren's social interaction (Coleman, 1988). Parents

serve as importantrole models through their mar-ital relationships and interaction with other adults.Parentsshape their children's social interactionby

managing the who, where, and when of social in-

tegration(Parke& Bhavnagri, 1989).Because much of childhood and adolescent de-

velopment, including children's social integration,occurs in the family, the effects of migration maybe overriddenby broaderfamily variables, such as

parent-childrelationships and financial resources.Dimensions of family context have theoreticalrel-evance and empirical connections to family social-ization processes and child behaviors (Maccoby& Martin, 1983). Configurations of family struc-ture create variability in family processes, such associalization andrelationships.Amato (1995) useda social network-resource approach to argue thatthe social isolation of children in single-parentfamilies has detrimentaleffects on the developmentof social and cognitive skills. The association

between family structure and child outcomes ispartly explained by parents' socioeconomic sta-

tuses, yet many differences in child outcomes are

explainedby parental ocializationpractices(Thom-son, McLanahan, & Curtin, 1992). A number of

777




family variables define the nature of family con-text. For our purposes, two related dimensions of

family life-family resources and family struc-

ture-provide a central focus for the inquiry.These family capital variables capture aspects of

family life that are associated consistently with

offspring development and well-being in both

childhood and adulthood (Boisjoly et al., 1995;

Coleman, 1988; Furstenberg& Hughes, 1995).

Family resources. Family resources include three

types of capital: financial, human, and social

(Amato, 1996; Coleman, 1988; Furstenberg &

Hughes, 1995). Both financial and human capitalare fairly tangible. Financial capital is measured

generally by parental income and wealth andcommodities purchased with parentalincome and

wealth. Human capital consists of parental skills,

knowledge, and traitsassociated with social mobil-

ity and includes verbal and numeric ability, occu-

pational skills, effective work habits, and knowl-

edge of appropriatesocial customs.

Social capital, on the other hand, is less tangi-ble. Specifically,social capitalinvolves the relations

among actors that inhere not only in family rela-tions but also in community relations and organi-zation and

are useful for the cognitive and socialdevelopmentof childrenand adolescents(Coleman,

1988). The presence or absence of social entitiesis not the equivalent of capital. For example, the

presence of both parents in the household andtheirdiscussions of personalmatterswith the child

require an additionalelement in order to be an ef-fective form of social capital-the presence ofclosure. Closure is the existence of a strong per-sonal and emotional link that unifies both the

parentalrelationship and the parent-childrelation-

ship. Accordingto Coleman,even if adults arephys-

ically present, there is a lack of social capital inthe family if there are not strong relations (i.e.,closure) between children and parents and a coop-erative and strong coparentalrelationship(Amato,1996).

Family structure. Family structure is a form of

within-family social capital and refers to the con-

jugal and offspringarrangementsof the household.

Two-parent,single-parent,and stepparentfamiliesdiffer in the type of adultrole models and connec-tion to adults that

offspringcan access

(Amato,1995). Research on the effects of family structureon offspring outcomes is voluminous and varied,but all come to the same conclusion: Family struc-ture is important.The importantcharacteristic of

family structure s that it introduces individuals todifferent life changes and chances associated withdifferent structuralarrangements.

RESEARCHGOALS

This study estimates the unique relationship be-tween child migration and social integration by

controlling for the family context in which migra-tion occurs and, therefore, eliminating alternative

explanations. The reader should note that the data

used in this study are not appropriateto test ex-

actly where family context fits in the migration-social integration relationship. In general, there

are threepatterns.One, family context is associated

with migration,which is associated with social in-tegration (family context -> migration -> social

integration). Two, migration is associated with

family context, which is associated with social in-

tegration (migration -> family context -> social

integration).Three, the association between migra-tion and social integrationexists only because bothare associated with family context (family context-> social integration and family context -> migra-

tion, or migration -> family context. The first andthird patterns call into question the existence of

any migration effects, whereas the second patternoffers explanationsfor any migrationeffects. How-

ever,regardless of the pattern,a significant migra-tion effect in a model that controls for family con-text implies a direct association between childhood

migration and adult social integration.

RESEARCH ROCEDURES

Sample

A national sample of 2,033 marriedpersons in the

U.S. were interviewed in 1980 and then again in1983, 1988, 1992, and 1997. In 1980, samplehouseholds were chosen through a random-digitdialing procedure, and the husband or wife wasselected for an interview using a second random

process. Only married individuals younger than

age 55 years in 1980 were included in the sample,and the initial consent rate was 65%. Three per-cent were partial interviews, 15% were refusals,and 17% could not be reached. In 1992, the fourthwave of data included a random sample of off-

springwho had resided in the household in 1980

and who were 19 years of age or older in 1992.Of the 58% of the original sample who were suc-

cessfully reinterviewed in 1992, one half (575)had offspring 19 years of age or older who had

778




been in the parental household in 1980. Eighty-six percent (496) of the parents gave names and

telephone numbers of their offspring. Interviews

were obtained with 471 offspring. In 1997, inter-views were conducted with 424 of these offspring,for a reinterview rate of 90%. In addition, inter-

views were conducted with an additional 195 off-

spring who reached age 19 or older in 1997 and

who resided in the parental household in 1980.

Therefore, the combined sample is 619 offspring

aged 19 or older in 1997 and who resided in the

parentalhome in 1980. I restricted the sample to

offspring who were aged 18 or younger in 1980,which reduced the sample to 588.

To assess how parental attrition affected the

sample of offspring, the 1980 characteristics of allindividuals who had children eligible for an inter-

view in 1992 (that is, individuals with a child 7

years old or older living in the household in 1980)were compared with the 1980 characteristics of

the parents of offspring interviewed in 1992. In

general, the 1980 characteristics of parents inter-viewed in 1992 were similar to parents in the

1980 sample. This suggests that the parents whowere interviewed in 1992 and offered the names

of their adult children were similar to the parents

interviewedin 1980 but not reinterviewed in 1992.Similarities included father's and mother's ages,sex of the respondent,household size, presence of

children, region of the country, and metropolitanor nonmetropolitanresidence. Mortality was not a

significant source of attrition because the parentsin the sample are relatively young. Some attritionoccurred in predictable categories: African Amer-

icans, renters,and persons in households in whichhusbandshad no college education. In all cases, thedifferences were modest. However, the original1980 sample was culled from individuals with a

listed telephone number and necessarily under-

represented low-income families without phoneservice. The findings must be interpretedwith thislimitation in mind. Perhaps migration has the

strongest effects among this population becausetheirmobility is more likely to be forced or invol-

untaryand most stressful.Another possible source of attrition in parental

reinterviews was the inability to locate parentsdue to migration.In this case, the key independentvariable (i.e., migration) would be highly corre-

lated with sample attrition.To test for this bias, Iexamined reasons for not getting an interview. Arefusal for a reinterview was overwhelmingly themost likely reason for sample attrition.Individualswho could not be located for a reinterview-indi-

cating migration-constituted a small minority ofall failures to reinterview.For example, only 15 ofthe 153 (10%) respondents lost between the 1988

and 1992 reinterviews were due to migration andthe study's inability to locate these individuals.

Overall, it does not appearthat migration is a sig-nificant predictor of sample attrition and, there-

fore, the sample of offspring.

Measurement of Variables

Table 1 summarizes the family context variables

used in the analysis. I note additionalmeasurement

details below.

Social integration. Three measures of social inte-gration were examined. Emotional integrationwas measured by strength of community attach-

ment and estimated by one question: "Some peo-ple feel they have very strong roots in their com-

munity, while others could easily move to anotherarea.How attacheddo you feel to yourcommunity?Would you say, 'very attached, somewhat at-

tached, a little attached, or not attached?"' Thismeasure has a range of 1-4. Higher values indicate

greater perceived attachment.The first measure of

structural ntegration is the offspring's number ofrelatives considered close. It was assessed withtwo questions: "Now I want to ask you about your

relationships with relatives who do not live with

you, such as brothers,sisters,grandparents,n-laws,aunts, uncles, and cousins. (Do not refer to yourparents when answering this question.) Are thererelatives you have that you feel emotionally closeto? If so, how many would that be?" Because re-

sponses were skewed, a log transformation was

performed by computing the natural log of indi-vidual responses plus 1. Higher values indicate

that the respondent felt more relatives are close.The logged range is from a low of 0 (no relativesconsidered close) to a high of 2.99. The secondstructural integration measure is the number offriends considered close. Offspring were asked:"Now I want to ask about your close friends. Arethere people whom you consider very closefriends who are not relatives? If so, how manyvery close friends would that be?" This measurewas logged as well, and higher values representmore friends who are considered close. Logged

measures range from 0 (no friends consideredclose) to a high of 3.04.

Migration.The migrationhistories of the offspringwere created from parental reports of moving

779




TABLE. INVENTORYFFAMILYONTEXTARIABLESNDOFFSPRING'SADULT HARACTERISTICSORU.S. MALES NDFEMALES,980-1997

Variable M

(Source) WordingorDescription CodingorRange (SD)Familystructure

Experienceddivorce

(Parents1980-1992)

Experiencedremarriage(Parents1980-1992)

Financialand humancapitalIncomepercapita

(Parents1980-1992)

Education

(Parents1980-1992)

Social capital n the family

Motherworking(Parents1980-1992)

Maritaldiscord

(Parents1980-1992)

Mothersupport(Offspring1992, 1997)

Fathersupport(Offspring1992, 1997)

Numberof siblingsin household

(Parents1980-1992)

Supervision(Offspring1992, 1997)

Qualityof home life

(Offspring1992, 1997)

Social capitaloutside the familyNumberof close adult

friends

(Parents1980-1992)

Numberof organizationmemberships(Parents1980-1992)

Church nvolvement

(Parents1980-1992)

Haveyou divorcedsincewe last interviewedyou?

Haveyou remarried incewe last interviewedyou?

Totalfamily income dividedbynumberof individuals n household.

Averageof motherand fatherfor two-parenthouseholds

Duringthe averageweek, howmanyhoursdo you work?

Based on a 12-item scale ofmarital nstabilityanda four-itemscale of maritaldisagreements

Five-item scale. Example:The

followingdeals withyourrelationshipwithyourmotherandfatherwhenyou were a teenager.Respondwithnever, sometimes,oroften. How often did you andyourmotherhavetalks together?

Samewordingas mothersupport

Derived fromparent'saccountof householdcomposition

Four-item cale. Example:How closely did your familysuperviseyourbehavior?Would

you say verylittle, somewhat

closely, orveryclosely?Four-item cale. Example:Indicate

whetheryou stronglyagree,agree,disagree,or stronglydisagree:Itwas pleasant iving at homewithmy parentsandfamily.

Are therepeople whomyou consider

very close friends who are notrelatives?How manywould that be?

Do you belong to any groupsorclubs,such as fraternal r civic groups,recreation lubs?

Based on extent of churchattendance

(e.g., weekly, monthly)andinvolvement n church-relatedsocial groups

1 = divorce0 = no divorce

1 = remarriage ccurred0 = no remarriage ccurred

$587-$90,000

0-21 years

1 = more than 30 hoursperweek0 = otherwise

0-13.45 (z scored)Highervalues indicategreater

discord.

5-15. Highervalues indicate

greatersupport.


greatersupport.0-7


greatersupervision.


superiorquality.

0-30

0-8

1-4

Table1 continues on nextpage.

.11

(.27)

.07

(.15)

18,451(12,627)

13.87

(2.15)

.33(.22)

3.42

(2.58)

11.56

(2.34)

9.58

(2.82)

1.34

(1.22)

7.91

(1.87)

12.26

(2.61)

3.56

(4.17)

.76

(1.00)

2.68

(1.25)

780




TABLE 1. INVENTORY OFFAMILYCONTEXT VARIABLES AND OFFSPRING'S

ADULTCHARACTERISTICSORU.S. MALESANDFEMALES, 980-1997-CONTINUED

Variable M

(Source)Wording

orDescription

CodingorRange (SD)

Offspringcharacteristics,1997

Age Measured n years 19-37 27.83

(Offspring1997) (5.61)

Income Annualfamilyincome < $5,000-$60,000+ 12,018

(Offspring1997) (11,879)

Lives with parents Coded fromparentalnformation 1 = coresidence .22

(Offspring1997) on living arrangements 0 = no coresidence (.41)

In school Lastweek, were you employed 1 = currently nrolled .43

(Offspring1997) full-time,part-time,going to 0 = out of school (.28)school, keepinghouse,or what?

Employedfull-time Lastweek, were you employed 1 = employedfull-time .40

(Offspring1997) full-time,part-time,going to 0 = employedless than full-time (.49)school, keepinghouse,or what?

Currentlymarried Are you married,nevermarried, 1 = currentlymarried .47

(Offspring1997) divorced,widowed,or separated? 0 = single (.50)

Currentlydivorced Are you married,nevermarried, 1 = currentlydivorced .07

(Offspring1997) divorced,widowed,or separated? 0 = single, married (.26)

Has children Altogether,countingchildrenwho 1 = has children .37

(Offspring1997) live with you and childrenwho 0 = child free (.48)don't,how manychildrenhave

you had?

Changedcommunities Based on two questions:whethera 1 = changedcommunities .46

(Offspring1997) move occurredbetween 1992-1997 0 = no changein community (.49)and if anymove involved

changingcommunities

between 1980-1992. A series of questions about

the age when offspring left and returned to the

parental home specified when each offspringresided with his or her parents and were exposedto each family move. Additionalquestionsassessed

which parentthe child lived with after a separationor divorce occurred. This information is necessaryto be certain that a noncustodial parental movedoes not count as an offspring move.

Three migration intervals were possible:

1980-1983, 1983-1988, and 1988-1992. Measuresof residential mobility started with this questionin the parent interview: "Have you moved to an-

other residence since the Fall of 1980 (Fall of 1983,Fall of 1988, Fall of 1992)?" An affirmative re-

sponse was followed by a query about the numberof moves that took place and whether any moveinvolved a change in community. For the purposeof this research, an offspring was considered tohave moved between interviews only if that move

requireda change in community.Additionally,con-sistentwith life course research on the

importanceof the timing of transitions, I also noted the agewhen the move occurred. Based on these criteria,I created four variables representing each movemade between 1980-1997 while the offspring

resided in the parental home and used in all

analyses: no move, childhood move (younger than

age 10), adolescent move (aged 10-15 years), and

postadolescent move (aged 16 years and older).Because some children have resided in the house-

hold for a number of interview periods, they maybe represented by more than one measure of mi-

gration. For example, a child who moved at ages8 and 14 years was coded as having made a child-hood move and an adolescent move. These vari-

ables were not dummy coded because they did notrepresent mutually exclusive categories. Overall,the average age of the offspring in 1980 was about10 years old, and the average offspring resided inthe parental home for two of the three interviewintervals. The mean number of moves made be-tween 1980-1992 was only about 1.5, with a rangeof 0-10. These rates are slightly lower than thenational average of one move every 6 years (U.S.Bureau of the Census, 1995).

Familycontext. The

family capitalvariables were

created by summing and averaging across inter-view intervals when the offspring resided in the

parentalhome. For example, income per capita foran offspring who lived in the household in the

781




1980 and 1983 interviews was the average in-

come per capita for 1980 and 1983. This strategyis superior to using just the baseline interview in

1980 or any one interview to measure family con-text because averaging across interview waves

captures better the longitudinal and coresidential

nature of family context, averaging across inter-

view waves reduces biases from any one inter-view wave, and averaging across interview waves

capturesthe family context that both predatesand

postdates migration. Several measures of within-

family social capital were retrospective and were

used in the offspring interviews in either 1992 or

1997. Therefore, they correspond to the generalatmosphere of the home while growing up and

not to the precise years that the offspring residedin the parental home. Measures of changes in

family structure indicate whether a divorce or re-

marriageoccurred while the offspring lived in the

parentalhome.

Control variables. Because I want to estimate the

uniqueeffect of earliermigration,the 1997 charac-

teristics of the adult offspring that may be associ-ated with 1997 social integrationwere controlled.Priorresearch suggests that several variables affect

social integration:maritalstatus,parenthoodstatus,age, income, education, employment status,school enrollment status, and residence status. In

addition, I controlled for whether a move that in-

volved a community change was made between1992-1997 for offspring not living in the parentalhome in 1992. Many of these measures for adult

offspring may be associated with childhood mi-

gration (Hagan et al., 1996; Long, 1992). I do not

specify how these adult characteristics alter the

migration-integration relationship. Most likely,adult characteristicsoperateas mediatingvariables

that intervene between the migration-integrationrelationship, but no formal tests of mediation are

performed.

RESULTS

The primarygoal of this research is to estimate theeffects of migration. Therefore, I restrict the dis-cussion of the results mainly to the effects of mi-

grationon social integrationbut do note the familycontext variables (if any) that appear to alter theeffects of

migration (if any).The baseline models

examine whether earlier experiences of familymigration are associated with social integrationinadulthood. Then fuller models examine to whatex-tent family capital variables and adult characteris-

tics of the offspring provide alternative explana-tions for the association between migration andsocial integration. The models were estimated

separately for women and men because prior re-search suggests that there may exist sex differ-ences in the effects of migration(Brown& Orthner,

1990). Additionally, preliminaryregression equa-tions containing interaction terms between migra-tion and sex showed significant sex differences

(results not shown).

Number of Close Friends

The results for females and males are in Table 2.For females, three of the four migration measures

show a significant relationship to the number ofclose friends (Model 1). Both absence of migrationand childhood migration are associated with re-

ports of more close friends in adulthood, whereaswomen who moved as adolescents report fewerfriends in adulthoodthan women who did not move

during adolescence. There is no significant effectfor postadolescent moves. Measures of familystructure and family capital are added in Model 2,and the coefficient for childhood moves becomes

nonsignificant. The variables that emerge to alter

the migration coefficient are mother support andthe quality of the household environment.Adoles-cent moves remain associated with fewer friends in

adulthood, and not making moves during1980-1992 is associated with more friends in1997. The third model addsmeasures of offspring'scurrentcharacteristics.Both no moves and adoles-

cent moves remain associated significantlywith thenumber of friends. Only one of the offspring vari-

ables-education-is associated with number of

friends.

For adult males, moves duringadolescence are

associated with fewer close friendships in adult-hood, and no moves are associated with more

close friends in adulthood(Model 1). These results

persist after controlling for family structure and

family capital (Model 2) and the 1997 statuses ofthe adult offspring (Model 3). Unlike females, for

males, social capital that resides in the family haslittle association with later levels of close friends.Numerous contemporary characteristics of malesare associated with currentfriendships.

Overall, for both sexes, migration during ado-

lescence is associated significantly with feweradult friends, and the absence of migration is as-sociated significantlywith more adultfriends, evenafter controlling for the general family context inwhich the offspring resided and recent adult expe-

782




TABLE 2. UNSTANDARDIZEDOLS COEFFICIENTSFROM REGRESSION OF NUMBER OF CLOSE FRIENDS ON MIGRATION,

FAMILYCONTEXT, AND ADULT OFFSPRING CHARACTERISTICSFOR U.S. MALES AND FEMALES, 1980-1997

Females Males

Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

MigrationNo movesChildhoodmoveAdolescent movePostadolescentmoveNon-White

Familystructure

Experienceddivorce

ExperiencedremarriageFinancialand humancapital

IncomepercapitaEducation

Socialcapital n familyNumberof siblingsMaritaldiscordMothersupportFather upportMotherworkingSupervisionQualityof home life

Socialcapitaloutside familyClose adultfriends

OrganizationmembershipsChurch nvolvement


Age

IncomeEducationIn schoolChildrenMarriedDivorced

Employedfull-timeLive withparentsChangedcommunities

InterceptR2

n

.361**

.148*-.268**

.050

.232

.330**

.089-.251**

.062

.160

-.120.080

.005

.032*

.062**

.004

.033**-.069**

.119**

.022

.110**

.021**-.003-.076**

.998

.031.555.148298

.321**

.103-.243**

.048

.152

-.194.128

.004

.003

.065**

.003

.025**-.057**

.115**

.009

.086**

.029**-.011-.083**

-.010

-.019.115**.023

-.001-.042

.030

.027-.045-.020-.012

.233

.277**

.097-.221*

.082-.001

.281**

.090-.229*

.075

.023

.140

.048

-.023*.105**

.020-.054

.-014

-.042.011

-.061**.025

.262**

.088-.216*

.072-.006

.092

.023

-.028*.107**

.013-.038

.015-.016

.009-.063**

.010

.018 .027

.078* .052*

.013 .010

- - -.017*

-.045--- .101**-- .227**

_- _ -.240**~~- - _ .078

- .194**- - -.008

-.071- -.072

1.284 .476 .533.027 .132 .201

290

*p < .05. **p < .01 (two-tailedtests).

riences-both of which are known to affect thecreation of friendships.However, childhood, post-adolescent (i.e., late teen or young adult),and adult

migration during 1992-1997 are not associatedwith adult friendships. Perhaps most revealing isthe lack of association between the most recent

migratory period (i.e., changing communities be-tween 1992-1997) and the number of close friends.If all migrationexperiences operatedequally, adult

migrationwould be most predictiveof adult social

integrationbecause it is the most current instance

of social disruption.Yet these results indicate thatthere is more to migration than simply physicalrelocation. Age at migration, for one, emerges asan importantcomponent.

Number of Close Relatives

Relationshipswith relativesand friends may not beaffected similarly by migration. Although friend-

ships may be dissolved through migration-espe-cially long-distance moves-relationships withrelatives may not be dissolved through family mi-

gration. Relationships with relatives are differentthan peer friendships. Involvement with relativesis often a family affair, and one does not have to"make" new relatives after a move. Therefore,

maintainingcontact with relativesmay be indepen-dent of migration and even may be enhanced ifthe move brings the family closer to certain rela-tives. This possibility is tested, and the results arein Table 3.

783




TABLE 4. UNSTANDARDIZED OLS COEFFICIENTSFROM REGRESSION OF CONNECTION TO COMMUNITY ON MIGRATION,

FAMILYCONTEXT, AND ADULT OFFSPRING CHARACTERISTICSFOR U.S. MALES AND FEMALES, 1980-1997

Females Males

Variable Model 1 Model2 Model 3 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

MigrationNo movesChildhoodmoveAdolescentmovePostadolescentmoveNon-White

Familystructure

Experienceddivorce

ExperiencedremarriageFinancialandhumancapital

IncomepercapitaEducation

Socialcapital n familyNumberof siblingsMaritaldiscordMothersupportFather upportMotherworkingSupervisionQualityof home life

Socialcapitaloutsidethe familyClose adultfriends

OrganizationmembershipsChurch nvolvement


AgeIncomeEducationIn schoolChildrenMarriedDivorced

Employedfull-timeLive withparentsChangedcommunities

InterceptR2

n

.414**-.321*-.077-.115

.074

.388**-.326*-.060-.087

.079

.312*-.231-.028-.070

.040

.054 .071-.316 -.282

.005 .010-.07 .06**-061

.064

.018-.033-.021

.103

.055**

.110***

.062**

.078

.112**

1.973.025

1.708.128298

.065

.029-.015-.047**

.096

.016

.114***

.057**

.053

.112**

.037*

-.087***.028.066.411***.031

-.072.055.120*

-.398***1.325.191

.331**-.102-.577**-.288*-.053

.340**-.109-.548**-.282*-.023

.246*-.106-.462*-.119-.004

.201 .064

.118 .175

-.008 .011.003 .007

-.041 -.035.080* .078*

-.001 -.000.022 .013

-.228** -.231**.069** .041.124*** .104**

.016 .019-.172** -.138*

.042 .061*

-.050**

- .032~~- ~- .014-.308***

~~- ~- .331**-- _-.246**

-.404***-.009-.083

--.677***2.326 1.015 1.988

.019 .084 .204290

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailedtests).

and relationships with relatives. The absence of a

child-migration effect in Model 2 reemerges aftercontrols are entered for the 1997 characteristics ofthe females. This suggests that 1997 characteristicswork as suppressor variables. That is, the "true"effect of childhood moves does not appear untilafter the effects of the 1997 characteristics are re-moved. It appears,at least for females, thatmigra-tion experiences in childhood and adolescence areassociated with more close relatives in adulthood.For males, the three models reveal no significant

associations between earlier migration experi-ences and the number of close relatives in adult-hood. Like females, males with more siblings andwho had greater mother support and a higherquality of family life during childhood and ado-

lescence have more close relatives in adulthood.

Also, males who currently have higher incomeand education levels reportmore close relatives.

Connection to the Community

The third measure of social integration taps theconnection to the community where the respon-dent resides. This measure is different from thefirst two in that it measures integration in a placeor environment, instead of integration with spe-

cific people. Although personal relationships areimportant to well-being, a sense of belonging and

being part of a larger external world are also im-

portantfor well-being.

785




The results for females are in the first threemodels in Table 4. Subjective reports of commu-

nity attachment in 1997 are associated positively

with the absence of migration during 1980-1992.On the other hand, childhood migration is associ-ated with reports of less attachment to the com-

munity. Family moves that occurred after child-hood are not associated with later feelings of

community attachment (Model 1). The secondmodel adds the cluster of family context variables

and is a significant improvement over Model 1.The parents' earlier social integration variables

are associated with female offsprings' own social

integration. Specifically, adult daughters reportgreater community attachment if they were raised

in households by parentswho reportedmore adultties and more involvement in the church. This

may indicate an intergenerationaltransmission of

interaction styles, at least for community attach-

ment. Even in the face of these family context

variables, both migration variables remain associ-ated with adult reports of community attachment.

Finally, in Model 3, the significant effect of child-hood moves disappears after controlling for the

1997 characteristics of the adult female, whereasthe significant effect of having no migrationexpe-

riences remains. Several variables-age, income,parenthood status, and living with parents-aresignificant, but the most influential variable iswhether the female changed communities between

1992-1997. Indeed, I reranModel 3 omitting thismeasure of migration, and the effect of childhoodmoves was significant (resultsnot shown). Perhapsthe most recent migration is more influential thanearlier migration on community attachment. I donot know the timing of an offspring's move be-tween 1992-1997. Therefore,I cannot test whetherthe effect of moving between 1992-1997 on com-

munity integration is significant for all movers oronly for those who made more recent moves (i.e.,

length of residence).I suspectthat a 1996 move hasmore effect on community integration in 1997than a 1992 move.

For adult males, adolescent and postadolescentmoves are associated with reportsof less connec-tion to the community. Experiencing no familymigration between 1980-1992 is associated with

reports of greater community attachment in 1997

(Model 1). Moving during childhood is not asso-ciated

with later feelings of community integra-tion. The effects of all three migration variablesremain after controlling for family structure and

family capital variables (Model 2). The significantfamily capital variables are similar to each other-

parentalmaritalquality, parental supervision, and

qualityof the general family life. It is possible thatmore harmonious families are better integrated

into the community and provide offspring withearly life skills necessary to integrate easily inadulthood. The third model includes the 1997characteristicsof the adult males, and the effect ofmoves during adolescence decreases but remains

significant. Yet the effect of postadolescent movesbecomes nonsignificant. Numerous contemporaryvariables are associated with community integra-tion. Greater feelings of community connectionare reported by adult offspring who are younger,who never married, who are not in school, andwho are parents. Whether a move took place be-

tween 1992-1997 is associated highly with com-

munity integration and accounts for most of thereduced effects of the migrationvariablesbetweenModels 2 and 3.

In summary,attachment to one's community is

associated with earlier migration histories of bothmales and females, even after controlling for theeffects of family structureand family capital vari-ables. Also, recent migration in adulthood is asso-

ciated with community integration. For females,these more recent experiences erase the effects of

earlier moves. For males, recent moves both eraseand decrease the effects of earlier moves on com-

munity attachment. For both sexes, there are

many early family and recent individual variablesthat shape community attachment in adulthood.

DISCUSSION

This study estimates the effects of earlier familymigrationon an offspring's level of social integra-tion in adulthood. I find evidence that earliermoves both enhance and detract from social inte-

gration in adulthood. This supportsboth of the re-search hypotheses and also a broader life courseand transitionperspective that stresses the impor-tance of early events on later adult outcomes.There is limited evidence that family context altersthe migration-integration elationships.In addition,

controlling for the offspring's 1997 characteristicsaltersminimally the migration-integration elation-

ships. The absence of consistent reductions in the

migration coefficients provides strong evidence ofa lasting influence of earlier migration. On the

other hand, the extent and character of this lastinginfluence are debatable because the coefficients forthe migration variables are small, and the amountof variance in adult levels of social integrationex-

plainedby family migrationis quite modest.

786




The results raise many interpretivequestions.Although post hoc explanations are the only inter-

pretations available, it is clear that early life mi-

gration has long-term consequences for adult lev-els of social integration. The two prominent

findings are the positive effects of not moving and

the negative effects of moves during adolescence.

Earlier research found that residential stability is

associated with social integration, and the results

of the research presented here support these ear-

lier studies with one importantdistinction. Earlier

research focused solely on the experiences of

adults, whereas this research adopts a more life

course orientation and shows thatpreadultresiden-

tial stability is associated with adult social integra-tion. The findings further underscore the impor-tance of social capital in the development of

children and adolescents (Coleman, 1988). Child-

hood residential stability also indicates parentalresidential stability and the possibility that this

stabilityincreasesa family's connectionto valuable

personal,community,and organizationalresources

duringkey developmentalperiods.I reranall analy-ses to determine if the total number of moves is

more importantthan the timing of moves for so-

cial integration in adulthood (results not shown).

It is not.Why the negative effects of adolescent migra-

tion? Dornbusch (1989) argues that adolescentsoften encounter social and personal dilemmas notrelevant to children. For example, adolescence iswhen parent-child relations must be renegotiatedto reflect the more adult-like status of an offspringas he or she moves out of childhood. This emerg-ing parent-child relationship also must becomemore symmetrical and mutual, which aids the so-cial development of offspring (Grotevant &

Cooper, 1986). Overall, solid evidence indicates

that adolescents are confronted with changes inmany domains, including biological, cognitive,school contexts, and family and peer relationships.Migration duringadolescence may disruptindivid-ual development and social development with lin-

gering consequences for adult social integration.One intriguingfinding that belies instant inter-

pretation is that childhood and adolescent migra-tion are associated with reports of more close rel-atives among females. One possible explanationisthe existence of gender differences in family rela-

tions. Not only are girls and female adolescentscloser to their parents and other family membersthan boys and male adolescents (Rossi & Rossi,1990), butfemales seek help to a greaterextent thanmales (Kuhl, Jarkon-Horlick,& Morrison, 1997).

Children and adolescents rely most on their im-mediate family members and other relatives for

help in adjusting to a new school and the stresses

associated with meeting new friends (Wenz-Gross, Siperstein, Untch, & Widaman, 1997). Fe-

males are more likely than males to rely on familymembers for emotional support, and they receive

more family supportthan males (Valery,O'Connor,& Jennings, 1997). Therefore, the positive associ-ation between childhood and adolescent migrationand closeness to relatives among females may be a

reflection of the greater tendency for females to

rely on family members for support duringmigra-tion. An alternative xplanation s that adultfemaleswho moved earlier are more likely to live nearer

their relatives than are adult females who did notmove. To test this, I examinedwhetherfemales who

moved reportmore close relatives who live within

a 1-hour drive than females who did not move.

There are no significant differences. This suggeststhat geographical proximity is not the source ofthe findings.

Finally, one revealing finding of this study isthat neither earlierfamily context norcontemporaryadult characteristics of the offspring alters the ma-

jority of the significanteffects of migration.Yet the

main limitation of this research is the inability tospecify the causal and temporal relationshipsamong family migration, family context, adult

characteristics, and social integration. Additionalresearch would benefit from sorting out thesecausal and temporal relationships and increasingour understanding of what exactly family migra-tion entails and the extent and dynamic characterof its long-term effects. We must also investigatehow migration affects other aspects of adult lifebecause the high migration rates of Americanfamilies show no signs of decreasing. Indeed, our

high rates of divorce, remarriage,and dual-careerfamilies almost guarantee continuing high rates of

migrationfor children and adolescents.

NOTE

Support for this research is provided by Grant 5R01AG04146 from the National Institute on Aging. Iwould like to thank Alan Booth, Rand Conger, Gordon

DeJong,BarryLee,andDan Lichter orinsightful om-mentsonearlierdrafts.

REFERENCES

Amato, P. R. (1995). Single-parenthouseholds as settingsfor children'sdevelopment,well-being and attainment:A social network/resources perspective. SociologicalStudies of Children,7, 19-47.

787




Amato, P. R. (1996, November). More than money?Men's contributions to their children's lives. Paperpresented at the Men in Families Symposium, Univer-

sity Park,PA.

Boisjoly, J., Duncan, G. J., & Hofferth,S. (1995). Accessto social capital. Journal of Family Issues, 16, 609-631.

Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attach-ment and healthy human development. New York:Basic Books.

Boyd, M. (1989). Family and personal networksin inter-national migration: Recent developments and new

agendas.InternationalMigrationReview,23, 638-670.

Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan, G. J., Klebanov, P. K., &

Sealand, N. (1993). Do neighborhoods influencechild and adolescent development?American Journal

of Sociology, 99, 353-395.

Brown, A. C., & Orthner,D. K. (1990). Relocation and

personalwell-being among early adolescents. Journalof Early Adolescence, 10, 366-381.

Bryant, B. (1985). The neighborhood walk: Sources of

support in middle childhood. Monographs of the So-

cietyfor Research in Child Development, 50, (210).Burchinal,L. G., & Bauder, W. W. (1965). Adjustments

to the new institutional environment. In Iowa State

University Center for Agriculturaland Economic De-

velopment (Ed.), Family mobility in our dynamic soci-

ety (pp. 197-222). Ames: Iowa State UniversityPress.

Burgess, E. W., Locke, H. J., & Thomes, M. M. (1963).Thefamily: From institution to companionship. NewYork: American Book Company.

Caspi, A., & Elder, G. H., Jr. (1988). Emergent familypatterns:The intergenerational onstruction of problembehavior and relationships. In R. A. Hinde &J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), Relationships withinfami-lies (pp.218-240). New York:OxfordUniversityPress.

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation ofhuman capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94,S94-S 120.

Cornille, T. A., & Brotherton, W. D. (1993). Applyingthe developmental family therapy model to issues of

migrating families. Marriage and Family Review, 19,325-340.

Dornbusch,S. M. (1989). The sociology of adolescence.Annual Review of Sociology, 15, 233-259.

Eckenrode, J., Rowe, E., Laird, M., & Brathwaite, J.

(1995). Mobility as a mediator of the effects of childmaltreatmentin academic performance. Child Devel-

opment, 66, 1130-1142.

Fischer, C. S. (1984). The urban experience. San Diego:HarcourtBrace Jovanovich.

Frankfort-Nachmias,C., & Palen, J. J. (1993). Neighbor-hood revitalization and the community question. Jour-nal of the CommunityDevelopmentSociety, 24, 1-14.

Fullerton,C. S., & Ursano, R. J. (1994). Childhood peerrelationships:A criticalcontribution o adult social re-latedness.Journalof Youth ndAdolescence,23, 43-63.

Furstenberg,F. , Jr.,& Hughes, M. E. (1995). Social cap-ital and successful development among at-risk youth.Journal

of Marriageand the

Family,57, 580-592.

Gecas, V. (1979). The influence of social class on social-ization. In W. R. Burr,R. Hill, F. I. Nye, & I. L. Reiss

(Eds.), Contemporary theories about the family:Research-based theories (pp. 385-404). New York:Free Press.

Gober, P. (1993). Americans on the move. PopulationBulletin, 48, 1-48.

Grotevant, H., & Cooper, C. (1986). Individuation in

family relationships: A perspective on individual dif-

ferences in the development of identity and role-takingskill in adolescence. HumanDevelopment,29, 82-100.

Hagan, J., MacMillan, R., & Wheaton, B. (1996). Newkid in town: Social capital and the life course effectsof family migration on children. American Sociologi-cal Review, 61, 368-385.

House, J., Umberson, D., & Landis, K. R. (1988). Struc-tures and processes of social support.Annual Review

of Sociology, 14, 293-318.

Kohn, M. L. (1977). Class and conformity: A study ofvalues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kuhl, J., Jarkon-Horlick, L., & Morrison, R. F. (1997).

Measuring barriers o help seeking behavior in adoles-cents. Journal of Youthand Adolescence, 26, 637-650.

Larer, M. (1990). Local residential mobility and its ef-fects on social networks:A cross-culturalcomparison.In M. Cochran,M. Larer, D. Riley, L. Gunnarsson,&C. R. Henderson, Jr. (Eds.), Extending families: Thesocial networksof parents and their children (pp. 205-

229). Cambridge, England: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Long, L. (1992). International perspectives on the resi-dential mobility of America's children. Journal ofMarriage and the Family,54, 861-869.

Maccoby, E., & Martin, J. (1983). Socialization in thecontext of the family: Parent-childInteraction. n E. M.

Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology:Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social develop-ment (pp. 1-101). New York:Wiley.

Messeri, P., Silverstein,M., & Litwak,E. (1993). Choosingoptimal support groups: A review and reformulation.Journalof Health and Social Behavior,34, 122-137.

Miller, J. B. (1993). Learningfrom early relationship ex-

perience. In S. Duck (Ed.), Learning about relation-

ships: Understanding relationship processes (Vol. 2,

pp. 1-29). Newbury Park,CA: Sage.Moen, P., Dempster-McClain,D., & Williams, R. M., Jr.

(1989). Social integration and longevity: An event-

history of women's roles and resilience. American So-

ciological Review, 54, 635-647.

Parke,R. D., & Bhavnagri,N. P. (1989). Parentsas man-

agers of children's peerrelationships.

In D. Belle

(Ed.), Children's social networks and social supports(pp. 241-259). New York:Wiley.

Portes, A., & Rumbaut,R. G. (Eds.). (1990). ImmigrantAmerica: A portrait. Berkeley: University of Califor-nia Press.

Rossi, A., & Rossi, P. H. (1990). Of human bonding:Parent-child relations across the life course. NewYork:Aldine de Gruyter.

Rossi, P. H. (1980). Whyfamilies move. Beverly Hills,CA: Sage.

Sampson, R. J. (1988). Local friendshipties and commu-

nity attachment n mass society: A multilevel systemicmodel. American Sociological Review,53, 766-779.

Shelton, B. A.(1987).

Variations in divorce ratesbycommunity size: A test of the social integration ex-

planation. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49,827-832.

South, S. J., & Crowder, K. D. (1997). Escaping dis-tressed neighborhoods: Individual, community, and

788




metropolitaninfluences. American Journal of Sociol-

ogy, 102, 1040-1084.

Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psy-chiatry.New York: Norton.

Thoits, P. A. (1995). Stress, coping, and social supportprocesses: Where are we? What next? Journal ofHealth and Social Behavior,(ExtraIssue), 53-79.

Thomson,E., McLanahan,. S., &Curtin,R. B. (1992).Familystructure, ender,andparental ocialization.Journal of Marriage and the Family,54, 368-378.

U. S. Bureauof the Census. 1995).Geographicmobil-ity: March 1993 to March 1994 (CurrentPopulationReports,P20, No. 485). Washington,DC: Govern-mentPrintingOffice.

Valery, . H., O'Connor,P.,& Jennings,S. (1997).Thenature ndamount f support ollege-ageadolescentsrequestand receive fromparents.Adolescence,32,323-337.

Vernberg, . M. (1990).Experienceswithpeersfollow-ing relocationduring early adolescence.AmericanJournal of Orthopsychiatry,60, 466-472.

Wenz-Gross,M., Siperstein,G. N., Untch, A. S., &Widaman,K.F.(1997).Stress, ocialsupport,ndad-justmentof adolescents n middleschool.JournalofEarlyAdolescence, 17, 129-151.

M u s t o r v e r yProfessor s lassroom

T&oJufeEiRuu1eEMuhreIIreJuLEuruIErnurukeJaufrnh1umwu

Orderourcopyofthe pecialssueofJournalf

Marriagend heFamily:ol.61:1odayThis

pecialssuecontains seriesofresearch

eportsn theemotional

transmissionndpatternsfbehaviorhateffect amilieswhenoutside tress

andnegativeventshappenospouses ndchildrenn a family.

Titles include:

* Emotional ransmissionn theDailyLivesofFamilies: NewParadigmor

Studing amilyProcess yReedLarson& DavidAlmeida

* TransmissionfEmotionsn theDailyInteractionofSingle-Motheramilies

byReedLarson&SallyGillman

* Emotional ransmissionnCouplesUnder tressbyAnneThompson&

NiallBolger

* DailyTransmissionofTension etweenMaritalDyadsandParent-ChildDyads

byDavidAlmeida, laineWethington, AmyChandler

* AngerTransmissionfromotheroChild: ComparisonfMothersnChronic ain

andWellMothersyGeraldineowney, alerieurdie&Rebeccahaffer-Neitz

Singleopiesfthis ditionre$21.00 nd anbeobtainedfrom:

N C F RNCFR

National ouncil nFamilyRelations

PO.Box1897,Lawrence, S66044-8897E-mail:[email protected]:785-843-1274NationalOffice: 88-781-9331,xt. 23

I

789

Childhood Migration and Social Integration in Adulthood

Documents

Transcript of Childhood Migration and Social Integration in Adulthood