susan blank

8/6/2019 Susan Blank

1/26

Hearth and Home: The Living Arrangements of Mexican Immigrants and U. S.-Born MexicanAmericansAuthor(s): Susan BlankSource: Sociological Forum, Vol. 13, No. 1 (Mar., 1998), pp. 35-59Published by: SpringerStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/684924

Accessed: 11/05/2010 01:20

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

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

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

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].

Springeris collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Sociological Forum.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/684924?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springerhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springerhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/684924?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/26

Sociological Forum, Vol. 13, No. 1, 1998

Hearth and Home: The Living Arrangementsof Mexican Immigrants and U.S.-Born MexicanAmericans1Susan Blank2'3

Utilizingdata from the nationallyrepresentative,1990 Panel Study of IncomeDynamics-Latino Sample, this paper examines the living arrangements ofMexican heritagepersons in the US., comparingimmigrantsto US. natives.Mexican immigrantsare most likely to live with extended kin and unrelatedpersons upon recent arival to the US. As time in the US. increases, sucharrangementsbecome less common. Threecompeting explanations or thispat-tem are addressed. Whileeconomic resourcesand life course stages are clearlylinked to household formation for immigrantsand US. natives, the findingsindicate limited supportfor an acculturationhypothesis.KEY WORDS: households; Mexican immigrants; economic resources; life course; culture.

INTRODUCTIONA recurring theme in immigration studies is the collectivist nature ofthe migrationprocess (Morawska, 1990). Researchers emphasize that family

networks play an important role in the adaptation and settlement processof all immigrant groups (Howe, 1976; Massey et al., 1994; Portes and Bach,1985; Portes and Rumbaut, 1990; Smith, 1985; U.S. Immigration Commis-sion, 1911). Mexican immigrants, for example, often rely on relatives forassistance in crossing the border (Chavez, 1992; Massey et al., 1987; Palerm,1991), a place to stay once in the U.S. (Browning and Rodriguez, 1985;1A similar version of this paper was presented at the 20th Annual Center for Studies of theFamily Conference, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, October 13-14, 1993.2Program in Social Relations, University of California, Irvine.3To whom correspondence should be addressed at University of California, Irvine, School ofSocial Sciences, Social Science Tower, 6th Floor, Irvine, California 92715.

350884-8971/98/0300-0035$15.00/0 e 1998 Plenum Publishing Corporation


3/26

36 BlankChavez, 1992; Hondagneu-Sotelo, 1994; Massey et al., 1987; Palerm, 1991;Tienda, 1980), help in securing a job (Browning and Rodriguez, 1985;Chavez, 1992; Hondagneu-Sotelo, 1994; Massey et al., 1987; Palerm, 1991),and child care (Chavez, 1985, 1990, 1992).Despite extensive scholarly attention to the role of the family in theMexican immigration experience, we know little about how Mexican immi-grants form their households once in the United States. Although therehave been a few large-scale demographic studies of the living arrangementsof Mexican Americans, these studies have failed to disaggregate betweenimmigrants and U.S. natives (Bean and Tienda, 1988; California State Em-ployment Development Department, 1986; U.S. Bureau of the Census,1991) or between recent and long-term immigrants (Burr and Mutchler,1993). A few local ethnographic studies have documented that recent im-migrants, particularly undocumented immigrants, often share householdswith extended-kin and multiple families (Chavez, 1985; Browning and Rod-riguez, 1985). However, such a pattern has yet to be documented withnational-level data, and a systematic analysis clarifying why recent immi-grants are more likely than long-term immigrants to live with extended kinand nonfamily has yet to be tackled.This study examines three explanations for the household patterns ofMexican immigrants and U.S.-born Mexican Americans. The first explana-tion involves cultural assimilation, suggesting that a decline in extended-family and nonfamily living arrangementsover years and generations in theU.S. reflects acculturation to the family norms and values of U.S. main-stream culture. Second, the study examines economic resources, expectingthat the greater one's access to economic resources, the less likely an in-dividual will be to share housing with extended kin or nonfamily. Finally,the study proposes a life course theory, explaining that household formationmay reflect the opportunities, constraints, and preferences associated withlife course events and stages.While already established in local studies, this analysis reexamines thegeneral hypothesis that the longer a Mexican immigrant resides in theUnited States, the less likely she or he will be to share a household withextended-kin, nonfamily members, and/or another family. This research isunique in that it provides a national-level comparative analysis of the livingarrangements of Mexican immigrants and U.S.-born Mexican Americans,while differentiating immigrants according to length of U.S. residence. Itis anticipated that this refined analysis will reveal that the living arrange-ments of longer established immigrantsare similar to those of U.S. natives,rather than recent immigrants. Moreover, this paper examines whether ac-culturation, economic resources, or life course can best account for the


4/26

Hearth and Home 37varying living arrangements of recent immigrants, longer established immi-grants, and U.S.-born Mexican Americans.

The study utilizes a unique data set, the nationally representative "1990Panel Study of Income Dynamics-Latino National Political Survey"(PSID/LNPS) Early Release File (Duncan et al., 1992). The analysis em-ploys logistic regression to test the main research hypothesis and thestrength of the three suggested explanations. A more detailed discussionof the research models follows in the methods section of this paper.

THEORY/RATIONALEUpon arrival to the United States, Mexican immigrants often initiallyreside with extended-kin and multiple families (Chavez, 1990; Hondagneu-Sotelo, 1994; Villar, 1990). From a cultural assimilation perspective, suchhousehold behavior seems unsurprising.These extended households appearto reflect Mexican social and cultural norms that encourage family supportand attachment (Hurtado, 1995; Tienda and Angel, 1982;Tienda and Glass,1985).According to Gordon (1978), cultural assimilation-learning the Eng-

lish language and acquiringU.S. mainstream behavioral patterns-has beenthe dominant pattern for U.S. immigrants and their children. In fact,American ideology has always strongly supported the notion of cultural as-similation, including beliefs, lifestyles, and attitudes (Farley, 1995). Culturalassimilation, or acculturation, is often the first type of assimilation that aminority group experiences and may or may not be accompanied by struc-tural assimilation-entry of the minority group into the social networks andinstitutions of the primary or dominant group (Gordon, 1978). However,according to Gordon (1978), "structuralassimilation inevitably produces ac-culturation" (178). Following such a perspective, we might expect that ex-tended-kin relations would become weaker and less important withacculturation and socioeconomic advancement. In 1991, over 80% of U.S.households consisted of nuclear family members or single individuals (U.S.Bureau of the Census, 1992). Thus, for Mexican immigrants an increase insimple household living-living with only nuclear family members oralone-with time could be seen as following a general assimilation pattern,where living arrangements reflect one dimension of a process of accultura-tion to mainstream U.S. culture developing over years and generations inthe U.S. Some scholars, however, have suggested that such a model is toosimplistic and may not fit for Mexican Americans (Keefe and Padilla, 1987;Tapia, 1991; Velez-Ibanez, 1989).


5/26

38 BlankA second explanation suggests that the living arrangements of Mexicanimmigrantsreflect economic resources. Demographic data indicate that nu-

clear family households are the preferred living arrangement in Mexico. In1987, 68% of households in Mexico consisted only of nuclear family mem-bers (Diaz, 1992; Osaki, 1991). And Goode (1970, 1982) has observed thatnuclear families in industrialized or industrializing societies prefer to livein their own nuclear households. Yet, Mexican immigrants, particularlythose most recently arrived, often experience an economically tenuous ex-istence, which may make setting up an independent household difficult.Because they typically lack strong English language skills, have little formaleducation, and experience racial discrimination, many Mexican immigrantsface limited economic opportunities in the U.S. (Chavez, 1992; Portes andBach, 1985). The jobs they find are relatively low-paying, offer few benefits,and are oftentimes temporary (Chavez, 1992; Massey et al., 1987; Portesand Bach, 1985). Yet, the initial stages of settlement require substantialinvestment (Chavez, 1990; Hondagneu-Sotelo, 1994; Villar, 1990). Housing,furniture, clothing, and utensils, even at a minimal, are expensive items.Living costs are even higher for younger families with children becausechild care is needed, clothes must be replaced more often, and the illnessesmust be treated more frequently (Browning and Rodriguez, 1985; Hondag-neu-Sotelo, 1994). As a result, it is difficult for immigrant families or in-dividuals, especially the newly arrived, to afford independent housing.Sharing a household with others serves as a strategy for lowering thecost of living (Browning and Rodriguez, 1985; Chavez, 1992; Hondagneu-Sotelo, 1994). Two families may share a single residence, a family may takein borders who sleep in the living room or garage, or several single adultsmay share a one bedroom apartment (Chavez, 1985; Hondagneu-Sotelo,1994). Sharing accommodations is a manageable way to provide for (oravoid completely) the rental down payment, it allows immigrants to splitthe cost of the monthly rent, and it serves as a safety in case of unemploy-ment or unexpected medical bills (others in the household can make therent payment). Chavez (1992) notes that bringing in relatives, such as sistersor nieces, also functions as an affordable child care strategy, especially forparents who otherwise might not be able to pay for child care while workingoutside the home. However, such crowded conditions are stressful andshould be seen as a temporary, economic strategy of early migration, notas a fixed and enduring condition of immigrant life. As financial resourcesincrease, an immigrant should be more likely to live in a simple householdarrangement, that is, residing alone or only with nuclear family members.Simple households should be more common among settled immigrants,since one's economic situation is likely to improve with increased U.S. workexperience (Chiswick, 1984) and English fluency (Massey, 1987).


6/26

Hearth and Home 39A third explanation suggests that the living arrangements of Mexicanimmigrants parallel life course stages and events that reflect shifting levelsof dependence, economic need, and desire for privacywithin the household(Massey et al., 1987). In Mexico, children typicallylive with their parents innuclear family households. Only after marriagedo young adults set up theirown independent households, and some live temporarilywith parents untila first or second child is born (Massey et al., 1987; Dinerman, 1978). Thus,a standard life course for Mexicans would include timely achievement ofadult roles expressed in living arrangements-financial independence, mar-riage and childbearing,and coresidence with a spouse and children. At theend of the life course, older persons may reside with children when theycan no longer care for themselves because of medical or financial constraints.Thus, life course indicators such as age, marriage, and children shouldbe linked to household arrangements. Young, single, adult immigrantsshould be likely to live with other adults or families as they are not apt tohave developed the work experience necessary for economic independenceand have yet to enter into the stages of the life course where privacy ismost desired. In fact, Chavez (1992) noted that some young, single migrantsshare housing precisely so that they can save enough money to marry.After marriage, however, privacy should be more important and eco-nomic independence more likely, making independent family living more

desirable and feasible. Villar (1990) noted that once reunited with a spouseor children, immigrants prefer to set up an independent home, even if theythereby incur new costs that make saving more difficult. Similarly, singleimmigrants who eventually marryfind they prefer the "privacy"and "free-dom" afforded by an independent household (Villar, 1990).However, after the birth of children, needs change. Younger immi-grants with newly formed families are at the most vulnerable stage of thelife course when child costs are highest and child care needs are greatest(Browning and Rodriguez, 1985; Hondagneu-Sotelo, 1994). As a result ofthe special needs associated with young children, parents may have to forgothe privacy of independent housing until children are older.Because recent immigrants tend to be young (Massey and Schnabel,1983) and in a stage of the life course when they have yet to establishan independent household, it would not be surprising to find more ex-tended-family and nonkin living among recent immigrants compared tolonger established immigrants. However, because the life course of mi-grants-especially recent migrants-is often disrupted, life course stagesmay not accurately predict the household arrangements of Mexican im-migrants. For example, migrants typically marry at older ages than non-migrants (Paz, 1985), and thus may be sharing a household with extendedkin at an age when they would otherwise have established their own


7/26

40 Blankindependent household. Husbands and wives are often separated, livinghundreds or thousands of miles apart (Dinerman, 1978; Massey et al.,1987; Melville, 1978; Portes and Bach, 1985; Tienda, 1980). As a result,both the level and timing of fertility are disrupted, so that migrants havefewer children than nonmigrants (Massey and Mullen, 1984). With feweror no children, the necessity and desire for independent housing shouldbe less (Dinerman, 1978). If they leave their children in Mexico whilethey work in the U.S., immigrants are separated from their children ata time in their lives when they would typically be residing with them(Baca et al., 1989; Melville, 1978; Portes and Bach, 1985). Finally, migrantmen sometimes find themselves supporting two families-one in the U.S.and one at home in Mexico (Villar, 1990). Because recent Mexican im-migrants frequently experience a disrupted life course, we would not ex-pect life course stages to accurately reflect their living arrangements.However, life course events should predict the household formation oflong-term immigrants and U.S.-born Mexican Americans, because theyare unlikely to experience the life course disruption associated with recentinternational migration. Once married, Mexican Americans typically re-side in independent households with a spouse and children, and extendedfamily households are uncommon (Keefe and Padilla, 1987).In summary, this study addresses three differing explanations for theliving arrangements of Mexican immigrants and U.S.-born Mexican Ameri-cans over time. The acculturation perspective suggests that an increase insimple household living over years and generations in the U.S. reflects aprocess of assimilation to mainstream U.S. culture, historically, the domi-nant pattern for most U.S. immigrant groups. On the other hand, the eco-nomic resource explanation proposes that household arrangements reflectaccess to economic resources, which improve over the migration and set-tlement process, making independent housing more affordable. Finally, thelife course explanation suggests that the shift to simple household livingreflects the relative youth of the migrant population at the time of arrivaland the specific life course stages that they pass through over time in theU.S. Because recent immigrants often experience a disrupted life course,I predict that the life course will have explanatory power only for long-termimmigrants and U.S. natives.

DATA AND SAMPLE SELECTIONThe data for this study come from the PSID/LNPS Early Release File.The sample contains a nationally representative selection of 2043 Latinohouseholds successfully followed from the 1989 Latino National Political


8/26

Hearth and Home 41Survey (LNPS) sample. LNPS researchers selected households from a mul-tistage, area probability sampling procedure, based on 1980 Census data.After screening the households for eligible Latino residents, LNPS re-searchers randomly selected one Latino adult from each household to beinterviewed between July 1989 and March 1990. To be eligible for selection,Latino adults had to be residing in the U.S. and have at least one parentsolely of Mexican, Cuban, or Puerto Rican ancestry. Interviews elicited in-formation about the respondents and their households.In the summer and fall of 1990, PSID investigators took over the sam-ple, relocating the original LNPS respondents and interviewing the "heads"of their households. Of the 1546 Mexican respondents who took part inthe first round of interviewing,PSID researchers successfully collected dataon the households of 1128 of these participants during the second roundof interviews.The PSID/LNPS data set provides a uinique opportunity to study thehousehold formations of Mexican Americans. Because information wasgathered about each household member, researchers are able to determinethe relationships between individuals within the household, obtaining de-tailed information about living arrangements. The data set is also rare inthat it distinguishes between immigrants and the U.S. born. Moreover, itis the first nationally representative sample that contains information aboutthe length of stay in the U.S. for immigrants. Compared to the U.S. Census,it provides a broader range of acculturation and assimilation indicators, in-cluding, for example, years of U.S. schooling. The sample is part of a largerlongitudinal project, and data from 1991 and 1992 interview waves havejust been released, promising great potential for following individual mi-grants over time.

MODEL SPECIFICATION AND METHODSThis study provides an individual-level, rather than household-level,analysis. Although the PSID/LNPS surveys collected limited information onall household members, measurements for generation and time in the U.S.were compiled only for the original LNPS Respondent and the PSID Headof Household. Because using head of household as the unit of analysiswould underrepresent women and young adults, the LNPS respondent waschosen as the unit of analysis. The study utilizes data from both the 1989LNPS and 1990 PSID surveys. Variables pertaining to household formation,

marital status, number of children, and age refer to questions from thePSID survey and are thus as of 1990. The variables concerning length ofstay and generation represent responses to LNPS questions.


9/26

42 BlankAppendix 1 describes the research variables. The dependent variableis simple household, and for the purposes of regression, it is coded as a

"dummy"variable consisting of two categories: simple household and other.A simple household is defined as one that includes a head (with or withouta spouse) and/or minor children of the head (or the spouse). To qualify asliving in a simple household, no adult children,4 extended kin, nor nonre-latives may be present in the household. A respondent coded as living ina simple household could be the head or the spouse of the head. Cohabitorsof the head who have been residing with the head for at least one yearare treated as a "spouse," and thus are also included in the simple house-hold. Single adults living alone and nuclear families (including single-par-ent) are categorized together as the goal of the research is to compare theconditions associated with living independently (either alone or with a nu-clear family) to those experienced by immigrants who reside in more com-plex arrangements-such as with extended kin or unrelated persons.Appendix 2 provides a more detailed breakdown of living arrangementsand associations with English fluency, income, and age.The primary independent variable is years in the U.S. This variablemeasures the number of years since an immigrant first arrived in the U.S.In addition, the analysis contains three sets of additional explanatory vari-ables. The first set represents acculturation and includes spoken Englishability and years of U.S. schooling. Language in general, and English pro-ficiency specifically, are well established in the literature as good proxiesfor determining the level of cultural isolation experienced by immigrantsin the host society and the extent of their own ethnic identification (Stevens,1991; Alba, 1990; Burr and Mutchler, 1993). Because U.S. schools transmitthe values, norms, beliefs, and attitudes of dominant U.S. culture (Sadkerand Sadker, 1994), and aim to integrate immigrants into the mainstreamof American life, the study also uses U.S. schooling as an indicator of ac-culturation. The more years of U.S. schooling one has completed, the morehighly acculturated I assume her or him to be. If household formation re-flects a process of acculturation, then English ability and U.S. schoolingshould be significantly related to living arrangements.The second set of indicators, those reflecting economic resources, in-clude individual income, spouse/cohabitor's income, family income, andwhether or not the respondent is employed. If economic resources enable4Households with adult children are excluded from the simple household category becausethe presence of adult children may affect the economic status and stability of the household.Of the sample respondents, 7% (n = 83) are the adult children of the household head andanother 19% (n = 211) share their home with an adult child of the head. Of the adultchildren present in the respondents' households, 58% were employed at the time of the 1990interview. In 1989, these employed adult children earned a mean income of $9000.


10/26

Hearth and Home 43an individual to afford independent living-either as a single adult or witha nuclear family-then these variables should have a positive, significantrelationship with simple household living. Because correlations betweenthese variables are less than r = 0.64, all four economic indicators are in-cluded in the logistic models.The third set of variables consists of life course measurements suchas the respondent's age and whether or not married.5Life course variablesalso include whether or not the respondent is a parent, whether or not achild is a member of the respondent's family unit, and whether or not ayoung child of less than 6 years belongs to the respondent's family unit.Living with children and young children, rather than simply having children,is included in the analysis because previous research indicates that livingarrangements should be most closely associated with these life course cir-cumstances (Chavez, 1992; Dinerman, 1978; Villar, 1990). Since childrencan live in simple households or other arrangements, a built-in relationshipbetween children or young children in the family unit and simple householdliving is unlikely. Simple household is not based on the presence of children,but rather on the lack of extended kin and nonrelatives. If the life courseexplanation holds, these five life course variables should be significantlyrelated to living arrangements, and the relationship between living arrange-ments and time in the U.S. should disappear once these variables are in-troduced into the analysis.Recent research emphasizes the need to view international migrationas a gendered process (Hondagneu-Sotelo, 1994; Pedraza, 1991; Tienda andBooth, 1991). A graph of the percentage of respondents residing in a simplehousehold by time in the U.S. and sex indicates that immigrant women aremore likely than immigrant men to reside in a simple household at eachtime period (Fig. 1). This makes sense in terms of the immigration process,particularly for family stage migration, where first-time female immigrantstypically come to the U.S. to join or return with a husband or fiance whohas already lived in the U.S. for several years (Hondagneu-Sotelo, 1994;Massey et al., 1987; Melville, 1978). Because recent female immigrantsoftencome to the U.S. to live with men who are farther along in the immigrationprocess, establishing an independent household is feasible more quickly forwomen than for recent male immigrants. Because of these gender differ-ences in the immigration process, sex is included in the analysis as a controlvariable.5Among married respondents, only 11 (2%) were not living with their spouse at the time ofthe 1990 interview. Of these 11, 9 were male, 4 were immigrants of 10 or fewer years, another3 were immigrants of more than 10 years, and 4 were U.S. natives. Ten parents were includedamong these married respondents living away from their spouse, but only 3 were residingwith their children at the time of the interview.


11/26

44 Blank

7000V

40ID

|

|

101

g

s

|

|

male

0.

Ufemale

In30

tL

200

0-5yrs

6-10yrs

11-20yrs

21+yrs

2ndgen

3rd+gen

Timeor

GenerationintheU.S.

Fig.1.

Percentageof

respondents

residinginasimple

householdby

years/generationsintheU.S.andsex.


12/26

Hearth and Home 45Number of persons in the family unit is also included as a controlvariable. Its presence allows us to examine the relationship between fam-

ily income and simple household while controlling for family unit size.This should help to better capture the magnitude of the resources indi-viduals and families consider when making decisions about living arrange-ments. More detailed descriptions of the research variables can be foundin Appendix 1.The analysis utilizes a set of multivariate models to test the main re-search hypothesis and the explanations involving acculturation, economicresources and the life course. Because the dependent variable-simplehousehold-is dichotomous, logistic regression is used to estimate the oddsof a household arrangement occurring. The models are applied to threegroups:recent Mexican immigrants, longer established Mexican immigrants,and U.S. natives of Mexican heritage. While recent immigrants are thosewho first arrived in the U.S. no more than 10 years ago, longer establishedimmigrants are those who first arrived more than 10 years ago.

FINDINGSSummary Characteristics

Table I presents the summary statistics for the sample respondents.The table shows that the percentage of simple households is similar forimmigrants and U.S. natives; there is no statistically significant difference.After disaggregatingfor sex, however, variation appears. Only 48% of maleMexican immigrantsreside in a simple household, whereas 62% of MexicanAmerican men who were born in the U.S. live in such a household. Incontrast, female immigrants are more likely than U.S.-born women to formsimple households. While 61% of female immigrants live in a householdwithout extended kin or nonfamily members, only 51% of U.S. nativewomen reside in such a home.Compared to Mexican Americans born in the U.S., Mexican immi-grants are more likely to be married and living with their spouse or a co-habitor. Whereas only 57% of the U.S. born are married, 68% of theimmigrantsare married. Likewise, 56% of the U.S. natives share their homewith a spouse or long-term cohabitor, compared to 68% of the immigrants.It remains to be seen how these differences in relational opportunities andconstraints affect living arrangements.Not surprisingly, education and English fluency levels are lower forimmigrants than for the U.S. born. Immigrants complete a mean of seven


13/26

46 BlankTable I. Sample Characteristics of Immigrants by Place of Birth and Sex'

Immigrants U.S. NativesTotal Malec Female Total Male FemaleVariables (n=533)d (n=249) (n=284) (n=484) (n= 185) (n =299)

% in simple household 55% 48% 61% 56% 62% 51%Mean years since firstin U.S. 19 17 20% fluent in spoken English 17% 19% 16% 90% 89% 91%Mean years of U.S.schooling 2 2 2 11 12 11Mean years of totalschooling 7 7 7 11 12 11Mean 1989 individual $13,000 $16,000 $9,000 $15,000 $20,000 $11,000income'Mean 1989 spouse's incomee $15,000 $9,000 $18,000 $20,000 $14,000 $24,000Mean 1989 family income $23,000 $26,000 $21,000 $28,000 $32,000 $26,000% employed 59% 84% 38% 56% 68% 48%Mean age 38 37 40 39 39 40% married 68% 75% 62% 57% 69% 50%% with spouse/cohabitatorin household 68% 74% 64% 56% 65% 50%% parent 81% 71% 89% 76% 68% 82%% with child in family unit 75% 71% 80% 62% 55% 67%% with young child in familyunit 46% 47% 46% 30% 24% 34%Mean number of persons infamily unit 4.3 4.3 4.3 3.5 3.2 3.6aThe data is from the 1990 Panel Study of Income Dynamics Latino Sample. After weightingthe data to represent the U.S. Mexican-descent population, no differences appear betweenthe weighted data and the sample data for the characteristics presented in this table.bAll associations between place of origin and the sample characteristics are significant at thep < .05 level with the following exceptions: for Total group-simple family household, parent,employed; for Males-spouse/cohabitator in household, parent, married; for Females-age.cWithin place of birth and sample characteristics, all gender differences are significant at thep < .05 level with the following exceptions: for Immigrants-years in U.S., fluent, U.S.schooling, total schooling, age, young child in family unit, number of persons in family unit;for U.S. Natives-fluent, age.dThe value of n varies slightly for each variable category due to missing values withincategories.eThis statistic is based only on those who received an income in 1989. Income included earningsand transfer payments.

years of total schooling, while Mexican Americans born in the U.S. finisha mean of 11 years of formal education. Just about one-sixth of Mexicanimmigrants speak English fluently. In contrast, 90% of U.S.-native MexicanAmericans speak fluent English. U.S. natives also earn a higher mean in-come than immigrants ($15,000 compared to $13,000, respectively) and re-side in smaller households.


14/26

Hearth and Home 47Results from Logistic Regression Analysis

Logistic regression provides a closer examination of the relationshipbetween years in the U.S. and household composition. The models alsoexamine the explanatory cultural, economic, and life course variables, whilecontrolling for sex and family unit size.Recent Immigrants

As illustrated in Table II, a significant positive relationship exists be-tween years in the U.S. and the likelihood of living in a simple householdbut only for the recent immigrant group. Even after acculturationvariables,economic indicators, life course events and stages, sex and family unit sizeare included in the model, recent immigrants still have an increased like-lihood of living in a simple household as time in the U.S. increases.While there is no relationship between cultural indicators and house-hold formation, income matters. Controlling for family size, recent immi-grants are more likely to live with extended family or nonrelatives if familyincome is high. This suggests that newly arrived immigrants are willing toforgo privacy and put up with the crowded conditions of some extendedhouseholds when the arrangement provides economic security. Likewise,the data suggest that it is the more economically stable families who openup their homes to recently arrived family and friends. Keefe and Padilla(1987) argue that wealthier Mexican Americans provide the greatest famil-ial support to extended kin because they are in the best position to do so.One's position in the life course is also important for understandingthe household arrangements newly arrived immigrants choose. A marriedrecent immigrant is five times more likely6 to live in a simple householdthan such an immigrant who is unmarried. This finding supports the ob-servations of Villar (1990) that, once reunited or married, Mexican immi-grant couples prefer to set up their own independent households. Likewise,recent immigrantswith children are 14 times more likely than those withoutto opt for private households lacking extended kin and nonrelatives. Re-gardless of children's age, families with children prefer the privacy of in-dependent housing.Although the association is not statistically significant(p > Itl = .174),recent female immigrantsare three times more likely than their male coun-terparts to live in simple households. The tendency of male immigrants tolive in other arrangementswith extended kin and nonrelativesreflects, in part,6The odds ratio of living in a simple household compared to not living in a simple householdis calculated by computing the inverse natural log of the beta coefficient (e beta).


15/26

48 BlankTable II. Logit Coefficients for the Likelihood of Simple Household Arrangements AmongMexican Americans'

LongerRecent EstablishedImmigrantsb Immigrantsc U.S. Nativesd

Beta Beta BetaVariables Coeff. SE Coeff. SE Coeff. SEYears in the U.S.e .34k 0.12Cultural indicatorsSpeaks some Englishf 0.018 0.68Speaks fluent Englishg 0.26 1.38 1.54k 0.49 0.012 0.50Years of U.S. schooling -0.028' 0.11 -0.076 0.044 -0.0066 0.048Economic resource indicatorsIndividual incomeh 0.14 0.077 0.24' 0.045 .16' 0.034

Spouse's incomeh 0.097 0.054 0.27' 0.044 .18' 0.033Family incomeh -0.12i 0.049 -0.23k 0.040 -.18' 0.033Employed -0.054 0.73 -0.05 0.36 -0.17 0.30Life course indicatorsAge -0.019 0.033 0.015 0.013 -0.0096 0.013Married 1.57' 0.69 0.51 0.41 1.30' 0.33Parent 0.22 0.85 -0.31 0.51 -0.11 0.47Child in family unit 2.64' 1.17 1.10 0.56 1.08' 0.43Young child in family unit 1.13 0.79 1.38' 0.37 0.37 0.34Control variableSexf -1.09 0.79 -0.58 0.41 0.48 0.32Number of persons infamily unit _.84k 0.25 -.49' 0.12 -.60 0.12

n =118 n =342 n =430df= 14 df= 12 df= 12Log likelihood = Log likelihood = Log likelihood =-47 -159 -211"The data is from the 1990 Panel Study of Income Dynamics Latino Sample.bFirst arrived in the U.S. 10 or fewer years ago.cFirst arrived in the U.S. more than 10 years ago.dBorn in the U.S.eYears in the U.S. has been omitted from the model for longer established immigrantsbecauseit is highly correlated with age (r = 0.79). In addition, an earlier bivariate logit analysisindicated that years in the U.S. is not significantly related to living in a simple household(beta coeff. = 0.0063; p > It = 0.40).fSpeaks some English has been omitted form the models for longer established immigrantsand U.S. natives because of collinearity with speaks fluent English. The correlationcoefficients are -0.63 and -0.93, respectively.gThe omitted category is speaks no English.hIncomes have been divided by 1000.'Male = 1 and female = 0.'p < .05.kp < .01.Ip < .001.


16/26

Hearth and Home 49the temporarynature of their stay in the U.S. and their young age (Table I).Disruption in their life course since migration often prohibitsyoung men frommarryingand establishing independent households (Chavez, 1990; Paz, 1985).Conversely,female Mexican immigrantsoften migrate to the U.S. to join orreturn with a husband or fiance who has lived in the U.S. for several yearsand is farther along in the migrationprocess and perhaps in a better positionto establish an independent household (Massey et al., 1987; Melville, 1978;Hondagneu-Sotelo, 1994). These results confirm the importance of viewinginternational migration as a gendered process in which the adaptation expe-riences of women and men may differ (Blank and Torrecilha,forthcoming;Hondagneu-Sotelo, 1995; Sluzki, 1979; Toro-Morn, 1995).

Longer Established ImmigrantsOnce a Mexican immigrant has lived in the U.S. for more than 10years, additional years of residence no longer increase the odds of simplefamily living. A bivariate logit analysis indicated that, for these immigrants,years in the U.S. is not significantlyrelated to living in a simple household(beta coeff. = .0063; (p > ItI = 0.40). However, because years in the U.S.is highly correlated with age (r = 0.79), it is not included in the multivariatemodel for longer established immigrants. As indicated in Table II, spokenEnglish fluency, the three income measurements, a young child in the fam-ily unit, and family size are significantly related to living arrangements forlonger established immigrants.The results suggest that similar to recent immigrants, long-term immi-grants reside with extended family and nonrelatives when it is economicallybeneficial to do so. Family income is negatively related to living in a simplehousehold after controlling for family size. In contrast to recent immigrants,significant, positive relationships also exist between individual income andsimple household living and spousal income and the simple household pat-tern. These findings imply that when sharing a home with extended kin ornonrelatives makes little difference in family income, those individuals andmarried couples with higher incomes opt for independent, simple house-holds. In other words, immigrants live with extended kin and nonrelativeswhen it enhances their economic security or when they can not afford tolive alone.The acculturation variable, "speaks fluent English," is statistically sig-nificant, although U.S. schooling is not related to simple household living

for long-term immigrants. Fluent English speakers are almost five timesmore likely than are those who speak little or no English to reside in asimple household. This finding reflects some degree of acculturation to U.S.


17/26

50 Blanksociety-more fluent, long-term immigrants may be more acculturated andthus more likely to live in household arrangements typical of other Ameri-cans with whom they share a preference for independent housing. In thisrespect, long-term and recent immigrants differ: recent immigrants showno relationship between English ability and simple household formation.For long-term immigrants, the increased likelihood of those with youngchildren to live in a simple household (compared to those without youngchildren) conflicts with the research hypothesis. Having young children doesnot make one more likely to share a household with extended kin or otheradults. Regardless of one's financial resources or marital status, parentswith young children still prefer the privacy of a simple household arrange-ment. Other life course predictors, such as age and marital status, are notrelated to household structure for longer established immigrants.

U.S. NativesFor U.S.-born Mexican Americans, income and life course eventsdominate household formation. Similar to the findings for recent and long-term immigrants, family income is negatively related to the odds of simple

household formation. U.S. natives, like immigrants, are apt to live with ex-tended family and nonkin when such arrangementsprovide economic bene-fits. However, individual and spousal income are positively related to simplehousehold living. As with long-term immigrants, this suggests that whenextended family arrangements provide no added economic security, U.S.natives with higher incomes prefer to live alone or only with nuclear familymembers.For U.S.-born Mexican Americans, the life course is also importantfor understanding household arrangements. Married U.S. natives are morethan three times as likely to be a member of a simple living arrangementas are those who are unmarried. Likewise, U.S. natives with children arethree times as likely as those without children to reside in homes that in-clude no extended family or nonrelatives. These results are consistent withGoode's theory (1970, 1982) that nuclear families in industrialized or in-dustrializingsocieties prefer to live in their own nuclear households. In thisrespect, Mexican Americans are apparentlyno different from non-Hispanicwhites.Neither English language fluency nor U.S. schooling account for livingwith extended kin or nonfamily. In contrast, income and life course eventsplay a more important role in household formation than does familiaritywith these aspects of U.S. culture.


18/26

Hearth and Home 51SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

Inaccurate public perceptions and xenophobia often cloud under-standing of Mexican immigranthousehold formation. The "common-sense"understanding of immigrants is that they live in large households becausethey prefer large families. Natives often portray these living arrangementsas a "problem,"seeing them as crowded, unhygienic, and a source of crime(Chavez, 1990). Some cities have created household density regulations,prohibiting more than a specific number of occupants per household room.Policies such as these are often based on misperceptions. In contrast, thisstudy teases out the influences on living arrangements, comparing Mexicanimmigrants to U.S.-born Mexican Americans.The findings question the popularly held assumption that MexicanAmericans live with extended family because they like to or because it ispart of "their culture." Sharing a home with extended kin or nonrelativesis not the norm for immigrantsor U.S. natives of Mexican heritage. Whileliving in a simple household arrangement (no extended kin or nonfamily)becomes significantly more likely the longer an immigrant resides in theU.S., the relationship holds only for recent immigrants who have been inthe U.S. no longer than 10 years. Of the three explanatory hypothesestested in this study, the data provide the greatest support for the economicresource and life course explanations. The data indicate only limited sup-port for the acculturation hypothesis.Economic resources and life course events are key to understandingthe household arrangements of Mexican-heritage persons in the U.S. Thedata suggest that both immigrants and U.S. natives move in with extendedkin or nonrelatives-or invite these individuals to share their home-whenit is economically advantageous to do so. In this sense, sharing a homewith extended-family or other nonrelated adults is an economic strategyfor creating a more financiallysecure environment for oneself or one's fam-ily. Such households may reflect a resource generating strategy aimed atcorrecting differential access to economic resources-which disadvantagedgroups, Mexican American, or otherwise, tend to experience (Stapples andMirande, 1981; Bean and Tienda, 1987; Bianchi, 1980). However, whensharing a home with extended kin or nonrelatives makes little differencein one's family income, long-term immigrants and U.S. natives with higherincomes are more likely to choose simple household arrangements. In otherwords, Mexican Americans are apt to put up with the crowded conditionsand lack of privacy that exist in many extended households only when thearrangement provides increased economic security. The living arrangementsof Mexican Americans represent a response to structural or socioeconomicconditions, regardless of level of acculturation (Vega, 1990).


19/26

52 BlankAs Mexican Americans, immigrants or not, pass through the lifecourse, they experience specific living patterns reflective of the needs and

demands of their life course stage. For recent immigrants and U.S. natives,having a child of any age in the family significantly increases one's oddsof living in a simple household. For longer established immigrants, the re-lationship is only significant when children are young, less than age 6. Like-wise, being married increases one's odds of simple household living, butonly for recent immigrants and the U.S. born. With marriage and the birthof a child, needs change. Privacy becomes more important and independenthousing is more desirable. The communal living situations which were ac-ceptable as a young adult without children, become less favorable, regard-less of financial status.The results discount the explanatory power of acculturation, revealinga relationship between acculturation indicators and household formationonly for longer established immigrants. Long term immigrants who speakEnglish fluently are more likely than those who do not to live in a simplehousehold. While this finding may reflect an association between simplehousehold living and acculturation to the norms of mainstream U.S. society,data from Mexico suggest caution at drawing such an inference. Accordingto the 1987 Mexican Fecundity and Health Survey, 5% of the householdsin Mexico consisted of single individuals and 68% were nuclear familyhouseholds (Diaz, 1992; Osaki, 1991). Thus, 73% of the households in Mex-ico in 1987 were either solitaire or nuclear family arrangements. AlthoughMexico's rates are based on households, and the rates in this investigationare for individuals, they can be compared because each respondent in thisstudy represents a single, randomly selected household. The high percent-age of solitaire/nuclear family homes in Mexico suggest that a shift to sim-ple household living with increased English skills does not necessarilyreflect an adoption of U.S. mainstream cultural norms-simple householdsare also the norm in Mexico. However, advanced English skills no doubtserve as a valuable tool for securing independent housing by allowing im-migrants to negotiate with landlords or to apply for a loan. English profi-ciency may also provide immigrants with a broader social network thatcould facilitate acquiring independent housing. The research findings pro-vide little evidence that Mexican Americans live in extended householdsbecause of "their culture."For recent immigrants, the relationship between years in the U.S. andsimple household living remains even after introducing the acculturation,economic resource, and life course indicators. What else, then, might ex-plain the transition from complex to simple household living with time inthe U.S.? Despite cultural preferences for independent households (Diaz,1992; Keefe and Padilla, 1987; Villar, 1990), newly arrived immigrants are


20/26

Hearth and Home 53frequently unable to establish such a household, because specific goals andresponsibilities associated with early migration take precedence in the livesof migrants. As Chavez (1992) explains, for an individual or a family newto the U.S., sharing a household with extended kin, friends, or anotherfamily provides a way to share rent and thus meet the goals of livingcheaply, saving earnings, and sending money back to Mexico. Living withkin and friends from home may help recent immigrants who lack estab-lished credit to secure housing. For immigrants who are often thousandsof miles away from spouses, children, and other close relatives and friends,sharing housing with extended kin or friends may serve to reduce lonelinessand feelings of alienation. Finally, recent immigrants may open their homesto relatives from their home communities in Mexico out of familial respon-sibility or to repay debts. Thus, specific goals and responsibilities associatedwith the early stages of the migration process may carry greater weight indetermining the living arrangements of recent immigrants than accultura-tion, economic resources, or the life course.Of course, this investigation is not longitudinal, but cross-sectional. In-dividuals were not followed over time; rather, groups of individuals at dif-ferent stages in the immigration process and of different generations werecompared to each other. To what extent, then, can we assume that the re-cent immigrants of 1990 will, in 10 years, look like the longer establishedimmigrantsof 1990? Examining historical conditions is a logical way to ad-dress this issue. One historical event that has directly affected Mexican im-migrants is the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986.About 3 million immigrants applied for legal residency, and the law madeit illegal for employers to hire undocumented immigrants (Bean et al.,1989). Chavez's work (1985, 1990) was based on regional data collected inthe early 1980s, before IRCA. The similaritybetween the conclusions fromhis pre-IRCA local studies and this post-IRCA national study seems to in-dicate that these findings are quite generalizable and reflect an immigrationprocess, rather than an epoch.Another reasonable objection to this cross-sectional analysis is that itcannot take account of possibly selective return migration. Some newcom-ers do not settle in the U.S., so we cannot discount the possibility that thelonger established Mexican immigrants in this study are those immigrantswho have always tended toward settlement and, perhaps, simple living ar-rangements. Research, however, suggests that settlement occurs in a varietyof circumstances and patterns (Hondagneu-Sotelo, 1994; Villar, 1990).Thus, it is difficult to anticipate how or even whether return migrationmight effect the study results. Future analysisof recently released 1991 and1992 PSID files will allow researchers to follow individual immigrants overtime, and those data should support the findings from this project.


21/26

54 BlankThe subject of undocumented immigration bears mentioning. Because

of the sample design, undocumented immigrants are probably underrepre-sented among the sample. Other researchers have found it very difficult tocontact and interview undocumented immigrants because of their fears ofbeing deported (Cornelius, 1982). Thus, one would expect the percentageof undocumented immigrants in this sample to be lower than the percent-age among the U.S. Mexican immigrant population. However, adding thesemissing undocumented immigrants to the sample, if that were possible,would most likely not change the study findings. It is undocumented im-migrants who have the greatest need to form complex living arrangementsin order to meet early migration goals.With a national-level approach and explanatory analysis, this paperprovides a powerful complement to earlier ethnographic work on the livingarrangements of Mexican immigrants. The results demonstrate that immi-grants are most likely to reside with extended kin or nonrelatives uponrecent arrival to the U.S. This pattern should be viewed in terms of theimmigration process, as well as in terms of the specific goals of recent im-migrants, which are often accomplished through sharing a household. Forlonger established immigrants and U.S. natives, living arrangements mostclearly reflect a strategy for maximizing economic resources and meetingthe needs of life course stages.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThis project was supported, in part, by the School of Social Sciences,University of California, Irvine.

REFERENCESAlba, Richard D.1990 Ethnic Identity: The Transformationof White Americans. New Haven, CT:Yale University Press.Baca, Reynaldo, Dexter Bryan, ClairMcLean, and Francisco Gomez1989 "Mexican immigration and the port-of-entry school." International Migra-tion Review 23:3-23.Bean, Frank and Marta Tienda1987 The Hispanic Population of the U.S.New York: Russel Sage.

Bean, Frank, Georges Vernez, and CharlesKeely1989 Opening and Closing the Doors:Evaluating Immigration Reform andControl. Santa Monica, CA: RandCorporation and the Urban Institute.Bianchi, Susan M.1980 "Racial differences in per capita in-come, 1960-1976: The importance ofhousehold size, headship, and laborforce participation." Demography17:129-143.


22/26

Hearth and Home 55Blank, Susan and Ramon Torrecilhaforth- "Understanding the living arrange-com- ments of latino immigrants: A lifeing course approach." International Mi-gration Review.Briody, Elizabeth K.1987 "Patterns of household Immigrationinto South Texas." International Mi-gration Review 21:27-47.Browning, Harley L. and Nestor Rodriguez1985 "The migration of Mexican Indocu-mentados as a settlement process: Im-plications for work." In George Borjasand Marta Tienda (eds.), Hispanics inthe U.S. Economy: 277-297. New

York: Academic Press.Burr, Jeffrey A. and Jan E. Mutchler1992 "The living arrangements of unmar-ried elderly hispanic females." De-mography 29:93-112.1993 "Ethnic living arrangements: Culturalconvergence or cultural manifesta-tion?" Social Forces 72:169-179.California State Employment DevelopmentDepartment1986 Socio-Economic Trends in California,1940-1980.Chavez, Leo1985 "Household migration and labor mar-ket participation: The adaptation ofMexicans to life in the United States."Urban Anthropology 14:301-346.1990 "Coresidence and resistance: Strate-gies for survival among undocumentedMexicans and Central Americans inthe United States." Urban Anthropol-ogy 19:31-61.1992 Shadowed Lives: Undocumented Im-migrants in American Society. Fort

Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovan-ovich College Publishers.Chiswick, Barry R.1984 "Illegal aliens in the U.S. labor mar-ket: An analysis of occupational at-tainment and earnings." InternationalMigration Review 18:714-732.Cornelius, Wayne1979 "La migracion ilegal mexicana a losEstados Unidos: conclusiones de in-vestigaciones recientes, implicacionespoliticas y prioridades de investi-gacion." In Indocumentados: mitosand realidades: 69-109. Mexico DF: El

Colegio de Mexico, Centro de Estu-dios Internacionales.1982 "Interviewing undocumented immi-grants: Methodological reflectionsbased on fieldwork in Mexico and theUnited States." International Migra-tion Review 16:378-411.Diaz, Felix Acosta1992 "Hogares mas pobres con jefaturas fe-meninas." Demos: Carta demograficasobre Mexico 5:30-31.Dinerman, Ina1978 "Patterns of adaptation among house-holds of U.S.-bound migrants fromMichoacan, Mexico." InternationalMigration Review 12:485-501.Duncan, Greg J., Marta Hill, James Lek-owski, Rodolfo de la Garza, Angelo Falcon,Chris Garcia, and John Garcia1992 PANEL STUDY OF INCOME DY-NAMICS, 1968-1988, LATINO SAM-PLE, Early Release File [computerfile]. Ann Arbor, MI: Survey ResearchCenter, University of Michigan [pro-ducer]. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-Univer-sity Consortium for Political and So-cial Research [distributor].

Farley, John E.1995 Majority-Minority Relations. NewYork: Prentice-Hall.Goode, William J.1970 World Revolutions and Family Pat-tern. New York: The Free Press.1982 The Family. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.Gordon, Milton1978 Human Nature, Class, and Ethnicity.New York: Oxford University Press.Hondagneu-Sotelo, Pierrette1993 "Regulating the unregulated?: Domes-tic workers' social networks." SocialProblems 41:50-64.1994 Gendered Transitions: Mexican Expe-riences of Immigration. Berkeley: Uni-versity of California Press.Howe, Irving1976 World of Our Fathers. New York:Simon & Schuster.Hurtado, Aida1995 "Variations, combinations, and evolu-tions: Latino families in the UnitedStates." In Ruth E. Zambrana (ed.),Understanding Latino Families: Schol-


23/26

56 Blankarship, Policy, and Practice: 40-61.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Keefe, Susan E. and Amado M. Padilla

1987 Chicano Ethnicity. Albuquerque: Uni-versity of New Mexico Press.Massey, Douglas S.1987 "Do undocumented migrants earnlower wages than legal immigrants?New evidence from Mexico." Interna-tional Migration Review 21:1498-1522.Massey, Douglas S., Rafael Alarcon, JorgeDurand, and Humberto Gonzalez1987 Return to Aztlan. Berkeley: Universityof California Press.Massey, Douglas S., Joaquin Arango,Graeme Hugo, Ali Kouaouci, Adela Pelle-grino, and J. Edward Taylor1994 "An evaluation of international migra-tion theory: The North Americancase." Population and DevelopmentReview 20:699-751.Massey, Douglas S. and Brendan P. Mullan1984 "A demonstration of the effect of sea-sonal migration on fertility." Demog-raphy 21:501-517.Massey, Douglas S. and Kathleen M. Schna-bel1983 "Recent trends in Hispanic immigra-tion to the United States." Interna-tional Migration Review 17:212-244.Melville, Margarita B.1978 "Mexican Women Adapt to Migra-tion." International Migration Review12:225-235.Moll, Luis C., Javier Tapia, and KathrynWhitmore1993 "Living knowledge: The social distri-bution of cultural resources for think-ing." In Gavriel Salomon (ed.), Dis-

tributed Cognitions: 139-163. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.Morawska, Ewa1990 The sociology and historiography ofimmigration. In Virginia Yans-McLaughlin (ed.), Immigration Re-considered: History, Sociology andPolitics: 187-238. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.Osaki, Keiko-Ono1991 "Female headed households in devel-oping countries: by choice or by cir-cumstances." Paper prepared for theDemographic and Health SurveysWorld Conference, August 5-7, Wash-ington, DC.

Palerm, Juan Vicente1991 Farm Labor Needs and Farm Workersin California, 1970 to 1989. Reportprepared for the California State Em-ployment Development Department.Paz, Carlos Brambila1985 Migraciony formacionfamiliaren Mex-ico. Mexico DF: El Colegio de Mexico.Pedraza, Silvia1991 "Women and migration: The socialconsequences of gender."-Annual Re-view of Sociology 17:303-325.Portes, Alejandro and Robert L. Bach1985 Latin Journey: Cuban and MexicanImmigrants in the United States. Uni-versity of California Press.Portes, Alejandro and Ruben Rumbaut1990 ImmigrantAmerica. Berkeley: Univer-sity of California Press.Ramirez, 0.1980 "Extended family support and mentalhealth status among Mexicans in De-troit." La Red 28:2.Sadker, Myra and David Sadker1994 Failing at Fairness: How America'sSchools Cheat Girls. New York: Char-les Scribner's Sons.Sluzki, Carlos1979 "Migration and family conflict." Fam-ily Process 18:379-390.Smith, Judith1985 Family Connections: A History of Ital-ian and Jewish Lives in Providence,Rhode Island, 1900-1940. New York:SUNY Press.Stapples, Robert and Alfredo Mirande1981 "Racial and cultural variation amongAmerican families: A decennial reviewof the literature on minority families."Journal of Marriage and Family42:887-903.Stevens, Gillian1991 "The social and demographic contextof language use in the United States."American Sociological Review 57:383-408.Tapia, Javier1991 Cultural Reproduction and Funds ofKnowledge in U.S. Mexican House-holds. Ph.D. dissertation, University ofArizona, Tuscon.Tienda, Marta

1980 "Familism and structural assimilationof Mexican immigrants in the U.S."International Migration Review14:383-408.


24/26

Hearth and Home 57Tienda, Marta and Ronald J. Angel1982 "Headship and household compositionamong Blacks, Hispanics, and other

Whites." Social Forces 61:508-531.Tienda, Marta and Karen Booth1991 "Gender, migration and socialchange." International Sociology 6:51-72.Tienda, Marta and Jennifer Glass1985 "Household structure and labor forceparticipation of Black, Hispanic, andWhite mothers." Demography 22:381-394.Tienda, Marta and Lisa Niedert1980 "Segmented markets and earnings in-equality of native and immigrant His-panics in the United States." Proceed-ings of the American StatisticalAssociation, Social Statistics Section,72-81.Toro-Morn, Maura I.1995 "Gender, class, family, and migration:Puerto Rican women in Chicago."Gender and Society 9:712-726.

U.S. Bureau of the Census1991 The Hispanic Population in theUnited States. Current Population Re-ports,Seriesp-20, No. 455. Washing-ton, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice.1992 Current Population Reports, Series p-20, No. 458. Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office.U.S. Immigration Commission1911 Immigrants in Industries. Washington,DC.Velez-Ibanez, Carlos G.1989 Plural Strategies of Survival and Cul-tural Formation in U.S. MexicanHouseholds in a Region of DynamicTransformation: The U.S.-MexicoBorderlands. University of Arizona.Villar, Maria de Lourdes1990 "Rethinking settlement processes: Theexperience of Mexican undocumentedmigrants in Chicago." Urban Anthro-pology 19:63-79.


25/26

58 Blank

Appendix1.

Variable

Definitions

Variable

Definition

Coding

Simple

household

A

householdthat

includesaheadawithor

withouta

spouseband/orminor

childrenofthehead1=yes,0=no

(orthe

spouse).Doesnot

include

householdswithadult

children.

YearsintheU.S.

The

numberofyearssincean

immigrantfirst

arrivedintheU.S.

Fluent

Englishc

The

individualspeaks

Englishaswellasorbetterthanhe/shespeaks

Spanish.

1=yes,0=no

Some

Englishc

The

individualspeaks

English,butnotaswellashe/shespeaks

Spanish.

1=yes,0=no

YearsofU.S.

schooling

Calculatedby

subtractingthe

highestgradeoryearofschool

completedatthetimethe

respondentcametotheU.S.fromtheyearsoftotal

schooling

achievedbythe

respondent.

Yearsoftotal

schoolingThe

numberofyearsof

schooling

completedatthetimeofthe1990

interview.

Individual

income

Totallabor,asset,and

transfer

income

earnedin1989.

Spouse's

income


transfer

income

earnedby

spouse/cohabitatorin1989.

Family

income


transfer

incomeofall

membersoffamilyunitdin1989.

Employed

The

respondentwas

employedatthetimeofthe1990

interview.

1=yes,0=no

Age

Age,inyears,ofthe

individualatthetimeofthe1990

interview.

Married

The

respondentwas

marriedatthetimeofthe1990

interview.Doesnot

include

cohabitators.e1=yes,0=no

Spouse/cohabitatorin

The

individualandher/his

spouseor

cohabitatorwere

residinginthesame

householdatthe1=yes,0=no

household

timeofthe1990

interview.

Parent

The

individualisaparent.

1=yes,0=no

Childinfamilyunitd

The

respondent's

"familyunit"

containsatleastonepersonundertheageof18.

1=yes,0=no

Youngchildinfamily

The

respondent's

"familyunit"

containsatleastonepersonundertheageof6.

1=yes,0=no

unitdSex

The

respondent'ssex.

1=male,

0=

female

Numberof

personsin

The

numberof

persons

residinginthe

respondent'sfamilyunitatthetimeofthe1990

familyunitd

interview.

aHouseholdheadisbasedonPSID

categorizationwheretheheadisthe

husbandormale

partnerinmost

husbandwifeor

permanent

cohabitation

families.bIn

additionof"legal"

spouse,

"spouse"referstoa

cohabitator.e

cThe

omitted

categoryisspeaksno

English.

dAfamilyunitisan

individualorgroupof

individualsliving

togetherwhoare

relatedbyblood,

marriage,or

adoption,andmay

include

extended

family

members.

Familyunitsalso

include

cohabitators.eA

household

containsoneormorefamilyunits.

eCohabiting

partner

includesa

cohabitatorwhohasbeenlivingwiththe

respondentforoneyearormore,orwhowas

residinginthe

household

duringboththe1989and1990

interviews.

Cohabitatorsarethose

individualslivingina

marriage-like

relationship.


26/26

Hearth and Home 59

Appendix2.Living

Arrangement(with

Detailed

Categorization)bySample

Charactreristicsa

Fluentin

Spoken

Individual

Income>

English(%)

$10,000(%)

Age>35(%)

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Living

Arrangement

(n=

629")(n=498)(n=513)(n=615)(n=540)(n=588)(n

Simple

household

arrangements

Solitaireadult

9

7

9

8

12

5

Spouse/cohabitator

present,nominor

oradult

children

11

5

10

7

12

5

Spouse/cohabitatorandminor

children

present,noadult

childrenpresent

33

35

37

31

23

44

No

spouse/cohabitator,minor

children

present,noadult

childrenpresent

7

4

4

7

4

7

Other

arrangements

No

spouse,

residingwith

parent(s)who

isheadof

household

8

2

2

8

0.4

10

With/without

spouse,adult

children

present

11

16

13

13

27

1

No

spouse,

residingwithotheradults

(extendedkinand/or

nonrelatives)

14

14

12

15

10

17

Spouse

present,

residingwithotheradults

(extendedkinand/or

nonrelatives)

8

16

12

11

11

12

'All

associations

betweenliving

arrangementandthe

sample

characteristicsare

significantatthep

susan blank

Documents