response paper

13© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 L.J. Crockett, G. Carlo (eds.), Rural Ethnic Minority Youth and Families in the United States, Advancing Responsible Adolescent Development, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-20976-0_2

Chapter 2 Racial–Ethnic Minority Youth in Rural America: Theoretical Perspectives, Conceptual Challenges, and Future Directions

Katherine Jewsbury Conger , Ben T. Reeb , and Sut Yee Shirley Chan

These two quotations exemplify just one of the challenges of studying racial–ethnic minority (REM) youth in rural America. Not only are the youth themselves quite diverse, but the settings they and their families inhabit are diverse as well. That diversity includes the historical, cultural, economic, and social conditions of the rural settings, as well as the family history and racial, ethnic, and cultural heritage of each child. Our goal is to describe how social scientists go about making sense of the dynamic interplay between the multiple environments and complex life

K. J. Conger (*) • B. T. Reeb Department of Human Ecology, Family Research Group , University of California , Davis , CA , USA e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

S. Y. S. Chan Department of Psychology , Asian American Center on Disparities Research, University of California , Davis , CA , USA e-mail: [email protected]

“Rural and urban taxonomies, researchers, policy analysts, and legislation generally view all rural areas as uniform in character. However, there are, in fact, huge variations in the demography, economics, culture, and environmental characteristics of different rural places.” Hart, Larson, and Lishner ( 2005 , p. 1149) “Of the 353 most persistently poor counties in the United States—defi ned by Washington as having had a poverty rate above 20 percent in each of the past three decades—85 percent are rural. They are clustered in distinct regions: Indian reservations in the West; Hispanic communities in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas; a band across the Deep South and along the Mississippi Delta with a majority black population; and Appalachia, largely white, which has supplied some of America’s iconic imagery of rural poverty since the Depression- era photos of Walker Evans.”

Gabriel ( 2014 )

14

experiences that shape the individual development and well-being of REM children and adolescents, and their families, living in rural America today. We start by outlin- ing the changes taking place in rural America and describing the complex and mul- tidimensional concept of rurality. Next, we propose a conceptual model, which brings together two parallel streams of research that have been developing over the past 2–3 decades. The fi rst represents the research being conducted by rural sociolo- gists, economists, and demographers who address the complex changes happening across rural regions of the United States, and the second represents the increasing awareness of the myriad issues that need to be addressed in furthering our under- standing of the development of REM youth.

A Changing Rural America

Depending on what part of the country you are in, when you hear the word “rural,” it can conjure images of small towns set in rolling fi elds of corn in the Midwest, farms dotting the landscape in the Deep South, two-lane roads leading to isolated ranches, or the vast irrigated fi elds in the West. However, “rural” has come to repre- sent a wide range of individuals and families as well, from Latino migrants working in meatpacking plants in the Midwest to African American farmers in the “Southern Black Belt” (Wimberley & Morris, 1997 ) to miners in small towns in the valleys of West Virginia.

Sociodemographic Changes The story of rural America at the beginning of the twenty-fi rst century can be summarized with one word: change (as long-time inhab- itants cope with larger farms but fewer farmers, the loss of well-paying manufactur- ing jobs in exchange for lower-paying positions in agricultural and food processing, a widespread shift from full- to part-time employment, and signifi cant declines in mining and timberwork as businesses lose ground or close completely) (McCrate, 2011 ). Over the past three plus decades, social scientists have documented a chang- ing economy characterized by diminishing employment opportunities and the out- migration of young, college-educated workers, or “brain drain,” from many of the nation’s rural regions (see Carr & Kefalas, 2009 ). However, in other places, change may have a more positive connotation as retirees move into slower-paced rural areas, bringing with them an infusion of economic resources and an increased demand for goods and services (Hamilton, Hamilton, Duncan, & Colocousis, 2008 ).

Historically, rural America (outside of the South and the Southwest) has repre- sented a racially and ethnically homogeneous segment of our nation, inhabited almost exclusively by white people. However, along with the economic shifts in recent decades are the changing faces encountered on the Main Streets of small town rural America, with many more faces of color (i.e., brown, black, and tan faces) in some regions, such as the Midwest, than in the past (Brown & Schafft, 2011 ). These sociodemographic changes vary dramatically by region of the country. Some rural areas have become destination communities for ethnic minority workers

K.J. Conger et al.

15

and their families by providing fi nancial opportunity and steady jobs; other areas have populations that are older and whiter, have fewer jobs, and are in decline. Many more diverse rural areas are also stagnating, with many residents living at or below the poverty line (see Brown & Schafft, 2011 ; Hamilton et al., 2008 ; Lichter & Graefe, 2011 ; Sherman, 2009 ).

Poverty is often quite high in rural settings (see Duncan, 1999 ; Gabriel, 2014 ; Lyson & Falk, 1993 ), but is also highly variable depending on the decline or growth of jobs in an area. In keeping with the focus on diversity, Lichter and Brown ( 2011 ) identifi ed “10 common conceptions of rural America that refl ect both its social and economic diversity and changing spatial and social boundaries” (p. 37). The ten conceptions include factors such as economic issues, cultural issues, and mobility issues and range from “rural areas as cultural touchstone (the idyllic repository of American values)” to “rural America as food basket”; they also include “rural America as dumping ground” (areas seen fi t to house prisons, slaughterhouses, feedlots, landfi lls, and hazardous and toxic waste sites). Indeed, in many regions, rural America has “become a dumping ground for urban America” (Lichter & Brown, 2011 , p. 18).

Defi ning Rural America

One might think that defi ning rural is quite straightforward; indeed, agencies of the local, state, and federal government often use a rural/non-rural designation in deter- mining how money and resources are allocated (see Brown & Schafft, 2011 ; Hamilton et al., 2008 ; Hart et al., 2005 ). Despite the popular portrayal of rural and non-rural as a simple categorical, often dichotomous, variable, the concepts associ- ated with this distinction are much more complex and multifaceted (e.g., Crockett, Shanahan, & Jackson-Newsom, 2000 ). Moreover, understanding the complex nature and type of a rural setting has important implications for both adult and youth choices and opportunities (Hamilton et al., 2008 ).

One of the biggest challenges in conceptualizing rural America is that the con- cept of rurality is not easily or consistently defi ned by any governmental or research entity and is often viewed only as those areas of the country that are not urban (for detailed discussion, see Brown & Schafft, 2011 ). “Rural” is variously defi ned as the number of people per square mile, by a region’s location relative to a larger popula- tion center or by distance to services such as health care and grocery stores (Hart et al., 2005 ). Indeed, even within the US government, there is little agreement on the defi nition of “rural”; the USDA, the US Census, and the Offi ce of Management and Budget (OMB) do not agree on what constitutes rural/urban/suburban or metropoli- tan/nonmetropolitan (see Brown & Schafft, 2011 ; Hart et al., 2005 ). Often, when two categories are used, the variability within both urban and rural areas is drasti- cally underestimated: “Depending on how categories are combined, the rural popu- lation can vary from 10 % to 28 % of the nation’s total (i.e., a population of 29–79 million)” (Hart et al., 2005 , p. 1150).

2 Racial–Ethnic Minority Youth in Rural America

16

While most common defi nitions of “rural” use population size and density along with other factors such as commute distances to major cities, there are many other aspects of rurality such as access to education, jobs, health care, and social services. In addition, social scientists and policy makers need to consider a variety of charac- teristics, such as economics, culture, demographics, and physical features of the environment, that help defi ne specifi c types of rural settings and, in turn, help us make important distinctions within the broad term of “rural.” These distinctions are important for researchers attempting to understand the effect of context or place on youth, in particular, REM youth. Hart et al. ( 2005 ), who looked at defi nitions in relation to health research and policy, even suggest that researchers need to use specifi c defi nitions depending on the research or policy questions: “Careful atten- tion to the defi nition of ‘rural’ is required for effectively targeting policy and research aimed at improving the health of rural Americans” (p. 1149).

The Four Rural Setting Types Hamilton et al. ( 2008 ) suggest that a more inclu- sive defi nition provides a better way of thinking about and classifying rural areas in the United States. Using an extensive survey of different regions in the United States, they found that rural areas were diverse and complex and that this diversity could be better represented by typologies that incorporated economic, political, and environmental changes, in conjunction with the diversity of inhabitants. In other words, the defi nition was neither simple nor one dimensional! Through interviews conducted with 7842 rural residents in nine states, Hamilton et al. ( 2008 ) identifi ed four types of rural settings which incorporate economic, demographic, community, and environmental factors. In addition, they addressed the key issue of how resi- dents saw the future of their rural region. The four types that emerged are as follows: (1) amenity-rich rural America (such as the rural Colorado Rocky Mountain region where population grew 71 % between 1990 and 2005 and poverty was low [10 %]), (2) declining resource-dependent rural America (such as rural Kansas where the population has continued to drop, especially among young adults aged 25–34), (3) chronically poor rural America (such as Appalachia, Mississippi, and Alabama, which saw a large out-migration of young adults and has an average poverty rate of 26 %), and (4) amenity/decline rural America (represented by the Pacifi c Northwest and the Northeast—regions with natural amenities but declining economies).

We believe the four categories developed by Hamilton et al. ( 2008 ) may prove to be a useful tool in capturing the evolving sociodemographic complexity of rural regions of contemporary America and attempting to advance our understanding of the lives of REM youth in rural places. Understanding these issues is crucial if we, as developmental researchers, are to address some of the unique challenges of (a) conducting research on REM youth in rural settings, (b) identifying and accessing representative samples, and (c) producing comparable results from studies across different regions of the country. In addition to the inherent diffi culties of adequately defi ning rural places, there are specifi c challenges regarding the multiple theoretical perspectives and concepts such as generational status, culture, language use, and ethnic identity that must be considered when designing and implementing research on REM youth in rural America; the next section addresses these issues.

K.J. Conger et al.

17

Theoretical Frameworks and Conceptual Challenges

The second stream of research used to inform this chapter draws from a wide array of theoretical perspectives and concepts used to examine youth development, social processes, and contexts in disciplines such as sociology, economics, psychology, demography, ethnic studies, political science, anthropology, and human develop- ment. For this section, we reviewed over 200 articles, chapters, and books focused on ethnic minority youth and families (e.g., Gershoff, Mistry, & Crosby, 2014 ; Parke, 2013 ; Quintana et al., 2006 ). Our review demonstrates that in order to address the complexity of studying REM youth in today’s society, researchers, educators, and policy makers need to take into account family history, culture, interpersonal processes, and social contexts while remaining mindful that all of these elements may change over time. Many researchers have addressed this complexity by using an ecological approach that considers the processes and conditions that govern the course of human development across the life span (e.g., Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006 ; Marks, Godoy, & Garcia Coll, 2014 ; Rosa & Tudge, 2013 ).

Before turning to the theoretical perspectives that inform our conceptual model, we address some of the concepts and issues that we have found repeatedly in the literature and that are central to any examination of REM child and adolescent development (hereafter referred to as REM youth development) in rural places; we start by considering the issue of race and ethnicity.

Studying Racial–Ethnic Minority Youth: Why Race and Ethnicity Matter

“The distinction between racial and ethnic criteria of group membership, although analyti- cally important, should not be understood to mean that the groups to which they refer are mutually exclusive. . . . Nonetheless, phenotypical differences (that is, anatomical features such as skin color and body and facial shape) between groups have been far more salient in the United States as an organizing principle in social relations than cultural ones, and groups socially defi ned as racial ethnics [sic] have historically been at a considerable disad- vantage in their treatment in American society (Leiberson and Waters 1988; Omni and Winant 1986). Moreover, family life has been profoundly affected by the experience of and response to such structured disadvantage.”

Taylor ( 2002 , p. 3)

In order to conduct reliable and valid research on REM youth in America, researchers need to consider a variety of factors that defi ne and affect their research population. To begin, researchers should be aware that a simple designation of REM group status is never truly simple. Clear defi nitions of each component—race, ethnicity, and minority—need to be discussed, defi ned, and agreed upon by researchers from multiple disciplines interested in understanding the factors that affect REM youth in America and how REM youth affect those factors in return. We do not attempt a comprehensive review here of the literature on these three

2 Racial–Ethnic Minority Youth in Rural America

18

factors; however, we briefl y discuss why it is crucial for researchers to develop a common or shared understanding about the key defi nitions in order to create results that may be compared across studies and disciplines and over time.

Researchers working in this area need an understanding of the differences and similarities that exist among ethnic minority groups and across heterogeneous racial groups, as well as the need for REM youth to be studied in their own right and not always in comparison to majority youth (for a detailed discussion, see Fuller & García Coll, 2010 ). In most studies that include race as a factor, the majority group (i.e., White American) is often used as the reference group for minority group com- parisons; this is a problematic method because it obscures the incredible diversity between ethnic groups that, for the purposes of the study, have been aggregated into racial group categories. In particular, researchers (and reviewers) need to acknowl- edge that truly representative research is challenging due to the vast number of ethnic minority groups in the United States as well as the potential intragroup dif- ferences within any ethnic minority group designation, which are often left unex- plored (see García Coll et al., 1996 ). For example, it is estimated that, in 2014, there are about 54 million Hispanic/Latino individuals in the United States; for ease of reading, the term Latino will be used throughout for individuals of Spanish cultural heritage (Carlo, 2014 ). Of those 54 million, Mexican origin individuals comprised 34 million (66.6 %) of the total. The next largest group at 5 million (9.3 %) were of Puerto Rican origin; the remaining 25 % comprised 21 different groups (Brown, 2014 ). This illustrates the potential for fi nding signifi cant intragroup differences within the fastest-growing ethnic minority group in the United States, namely, Latinos. Similar diversity is seen within the Asian American population; they make up about 5 % of the US population and are comprised of more than 14 different REM groups such as Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Cambodian, Asian Indian, and Korean (Le, 2014 ). Over half of the Asian American population lives in metropoli- tan areas, but some groups with agricultural roots (such as Cambodians and Hmong) may be more likely to live in rural areas. There are also strong historical ties to the land among African Americans in the South and Latinos in the Southwest; these ties underlie some of the continuing involvement in agriculture and food production among these groups in rural America (Irwin & O’Brien, 1998 ; Mohl, 2003 ). Thus, identifying the heterogeneity of ethnic minority children and families is a complex undertaking and may present particular challenges for researchers interested in REM youth in rural settings (see Brown & Swanson, 2003 ). For example, some REM youth and families may be reluctant to disclose ethnic group membership in fear of consequences related to immigration status. Researchers will need to carefully defi ne their sampling frame and obtain unambiguous information from study participants as to their ethnic identity in order to interpret their results with confi dence and clarity (see methodology discussion by Quintana et al., 2006 ).

Furthermore, researchers are starting to acknowledge that studying REM youth in America, regardless of context, requires that we explicitly acknowledge and thoughtfully measure race or racial identity. Although most acknowledge that racial group membership does not have a solid basis in biology or genetics (see American Sociological Association, 2003 ; Smedley & Smedley, 2005 ), Taylor ( 2002 ) and

K.J. Conger et al.

19

many others (e.g., Arroyo & Zigler, 1995 ; Brody et al., 2006 ; Sellers & Shelton, 2003 ) conclude that racial group membership (categorizing individuals by physical characteristics, especially skin color) has infl uenced social relations and economic opportunities for youth and families throughout the history of the United States. Simply put, race is a social and cultural address which affects the attitudes, expecta- tions, and experiences of minority and majority youth alike, and concepts such as racial identity, racial privilege, and racial discrimination must be considered in order to understand the ongoing dynamics and consequences of race and racial identity for youth development (e.g., Altschul, Oyserman, & Bybee, 2006 ; Crocker, Blaine, & Luhtanen, 1993 ; Pahl & Way, 2006 ). Indeed, an examination of news stories in 2014 reveals the ongoing issue of black, brown, and white relations in the United States. Examples include (1) the racial animus toward Barack Obama, the fi rst black President of the United States (see Segura & Valenzuela, 2010 ), (2) the public reactions to and media coverage of the death of young black youth at the hands of white police offi cers (such as the 2014 case of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri), and (3) ongoing efforts to disenfranchise African Americans and Latinos (i.e., people of color) from participation in the political process (e.g., Cobb et al., 2012 ).

“Though slavery ended nearly 150 years ago, young black men have been treated as second- class citizens by politicians and police ever since. You would think the election and re- election of our fi rst black president would’ve signifi ed that the United States has defeated racism and prejudice. On the contrary, President Barack Obama’s election has brought rac- ism to the forefront, as many refuse to acknowledge, respect or work with him as com- mander in chief, as if a black man couldn’t possibly be worthy to lead our nation.” (Sistrunk, August 30, 2014 )

Given the racialization of many ethnic minorities in the United States, research- ers will want to design studies to obtain both the ethnic identity and racial identity of study participants and their family members; this information will assist in the investigation of issues such as racial discrimination and economic stratifi cation (Dressler, Oths, & Gravlee, 2005 ). This approach is in keeping with the policies and practices of the US government which added and allowed respondents to identify membership in multiple racial and ethnic identity categories, including mixed race, on the US Census in the year 2000. The same approach is explicitly acknowledged by many researchers who have worked to include these considerations in their research (see Quintana et al., 2006 ; Weisner & Duncan, 2014 for detailed discus- sions). By disentangling ethnic identity and racial identity, researchers will be in a better situation to advance the understanding of the etiology of health disparities among diverse populations.

Finally, researchers need to convey a clear message regarding the use of the term “minority .” Often confused with a numerical count, the terms minority and major- ity, as used by social scientists in studies of youth and families in the United States, refer to status based on the relative access to power, prestige, and resources within society. Minority status , or social standing , is also used within social stratifi cation theory to represent the experiences of less privileged groups relative to more privi- leged groups (for a discussion, see García Coll et al., 1996 ). Baca Zinn ( 1983 ) states

2 Racial–Ethnic Minority Youth in Rural America

20

that, “Racial–ethnic families are distinctive not only because of their ethnic heritage but also because they reside in a society where racial stratifi cation shapes family resources and structures in important ways” (p. 20). Thus, there needs to be a clear understanding that minority youth and families have had a long history of discrimi- nation and unequal status in the United States (e.g., Harris & Worthen, 2003 ; Taylor, 2002 ), and social scientists need to address this fact in studies of REM youth and families. Furthermore, social scientists also need to keep in mind that “minority” status is not necessarily static but may shift as some racial–ethnic groups obtain more power, prestige, and resources and that this may change perceptions of and expectations for members of particular groups. For example, the “model minority” designation of Asian American (such as Japanese, Chinese, and Asian Indian) stu- dents’ educational achievements puts pressure on all students identifi ed as members of this group (e.g., Vietnamese, Chinese, Japanese, Korean) even though the histories and experiences of various Asian American groups may vary widely (e.g., Chao, 2001 ; Chao & Tseng, 2002 ; Chou & Feagin, 2008 ; Dunham, Baron, & Banaji, 2006 ).

Theoretical Perspectives

In preparing this chapter, we consulted a number of theoretical perspectives that have been used to study family processes and individual development in context, with a specifi c focus on research on REM youth and families. Based on our review of the literature and relevant theoretical frameworks, we propose a conceptual model that represents the reciprocal nature of the transactions between individuals and the multiple contextual elements and environments in which they are embedded over the life course. Individual characteristics, social and family processes, and con- texts are represented not in a linear, time-ordered fashion, or causal model, but in a continuous feedback loop that illustrates the interconnected nature of—and dynamic interaction between—individuals and contexts. Figure 2.1 presents the overarching conceptual model of REM Youth in Context (REMYC) , and Table 2.1 presents specifi c variables and concepts relevant to understanding REM youth in rural American today. As shown in Fig. 2.1 , the four principal constructs in the REMYC model are (1) racial–ethnic minority status (i.e., youth characteristics, experiences, and social location), (2) economic and social contexts (i.e., ecological micro-/ meso-/macro-contexts of youth and family including the specifi c rural settings as discussed in this chapter), (3) transactional relations of youth (i.e., interpersonal relations over the life course), and (4) youth development (i.e., individual develop- mental outcomes).

Building a theoretical foundation and related set of constructs that will enable researchers to conduct basic and applied research on the linkages between youth, important individuals in their lives, and economic and social conditions will further the understanding of REM youth development and factors associated with better or worse outcomes. Quintana et al. ( 2006 ) stated the issue concisely, “The need for a

K.J. Conger et al.

21

• Interpersonal Relations Over the Life Course

• Individual Developmental Outcomes

• Micro to Macro Contexts of Youth and Family

• Youth Characteristics, Experiences & Social Location

Racial Ethnic Minority

Status

Economic & Social

Contexts

Transactional Relations & Processes

Youth Development

Fig. 2.1 Racial–ethnic minority youth development in context (REMYC) conceptual model. See Table 2.1 for a detailed list of concepts based on existing research and recommendations for future directions

Table 2.1 Concepts related to the racial–ethnic minority youth in context (REMYC) model

Concept Indicators

Youth characteristics, experiences, and social location Racial–ethnic minority group membership

Race; ethnicity; minority status; legal status of youth; legal status of parents; siblings; and extended family members

Personality Personality and temperament of youth Generational status Generational status of youth and parents Family structure Household composition; presence of extended family members Racial–ethnic identity Racial–ethnic identity formation in youth; negative

stereotypes; salience of identity Bicultural identity Bicultural identity formation; acculturation; enculturation;

assimilation; marginalization Language profi ciency and preference

English profi ciency; bilingual capability; preferred language; language barriers in parent–child communications; language spoken at home

Cultural considerations Importance of family, respeto , collectivistic orientation, fi lial piety

Experiences of discrimination Racial–ethnic discrimination experienced by youth and parents; racial–ethnic socialization practices

Family socioeconomic status Family income; family assets; parent education and occupation status

(continued)

2 Racial–Ethnic Minority Youth in Rural America

22

Table 2.1 (continued)

Concept Indicators

Migration history Timing of arrival in current rural location Economic and social contexts Rural setting type Amenity rich; declining resource dependent; chronically poor;

amenity poor Rural/urban classifi cation US Census classifi cation Locality concerns Local economy; political climate Racial history in regional area Historical patterns of race relations in regional area;

neighborhood violence; racial segregation; racial–ethnic composition

Education system Type of school system (public or private); quality of education; funding structure of educational institutions; racial–ethnic composition of students

Religion Churches; relief programs run by religious organizations Social services/community resources

Access to community resources; availability of social services; language assistance in accessing services

Family economic status Parent employment history; employment opportunities; migration patterns based on employment (voluntary or involuntary); support and resources shared with extended family members

Family health care Access to health care; service utilization Cultural considerations Institutional racial–ethnic discrimination; historical patterns of

migration in regional area Transactional relations and processes Socialization agents during childhood and adolescence

Parents; siblings; extended family; mentors

Interactions with parents and siblings

Parent–child interactional processes; siblings interactional processes; quality of parents’ mental and physical health

Interaction outside of family Peers/schoolmates; teachers; coaches; authority fi gures including religious leaders, police, community leaders; parent–teacher interactions

Role of youth in family Youth as caregiver to siblings or other family members Cultural considerations Parent–child racial–ethnic socialization; parent–child emotion

socialization; youth and parents’ cultural attitudes and beliefs; youth as cultural broker and interpreter for siblings and parents; racial–ethnic and cultural expectations of normative development

Individual developmental outcomes Self-concept and self-schema Individualistic vs. collective; racial identity; ethnic identity Emotion and motivation Self-regulation and control; social–emotional development Personality Psychological mastery; problem-solving skills; locus of

control Physical health Physical health status; cognitive development; risky behaviors Mental health Psychological well-being; cultural adaptation Educational outcomes Academic motivation, achievement, and attainment

K.J. Conger et al.

23

stronger theoretical foundation seems particularly acute for investigations of com- plex interactions involving context and development. . . . we need to have a theory of context that predicts the ways development is infl uenced by contextual factor.” (p. 1138). A relevant and comprehensive theoretical framework also needs to acknowledge the ongoing changes of the contextual factors themselves, such as the changing demographics and rural economy discussed previously. The following sections focus on the individual characteristics, family processes, and other social and community contexts relevant to understanding the complex processes infl uenc- ing REM youth development.

Social and Economic Contexts

One theoretical framework frequently used in research on REM youth is the eco- logical approach to studying development (e.g., Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006 ; Marks et al., 2014 ). Consistent with Quintana et al. ( 2006 ), we believe that under- standing REM development requires identifying and examining the transactional nature of associations between context and development over time. Toward that end, we propose that the interconnectedness of individuals proposed by ecological systems theory could be complemented by incorporating theoretical linkages between economic factors, family relations, and youth outcomes presented in the Family Stress Model (FSM) (Conger et al., 2012 ; Conger & Conger, 2002 ). Specifi cally, the FSM has identifi ed economic hardship (e.g., can’t make ends meet, work instability) and low income as salient markers of stress that impact marital, sibling, and parent–child relationships, which, in turn, affect the health and well- being of youth and their families.

In addition to the FSM, we utilize ideas from family systems (Cox & Paley, 1997 ), social stratifi cation (see García Coll et al., 1996 ), cumulative stress (Vernon- Feagans & Cox, 2013 ), stage–environment fi t (Eccles et al., 1993 ), and transac- tional systems theory (Sameroff & MacKenzie, 2003 ). In addition, we draw from the interactionist model (Conger & Donnellan, 2007 ) which incorporates the dynamic relationship between social causation (the role of environmental condi- tions in predicting parental behaviors and child outcomes) and social selection (the notion that individual characteristics affect both parental behaviors and youth outcomes) as explanations for developmental processes and outcomes over time. Also included are the midrange theories designed to study specifi c aspects of the REM experience such as biculturalism (e.g., LaFromboise, Coleman, & Gerton, 1993 ; Whitesell, Mitchell, Kaufman, Spicer, & The Voices of Indian Teens Project, 2006 ), racial–ethnic identity (e.g., Fuligni, Witkow, & Garcia, 2005 ; Quintana et al., 2006 ), and acculturation and adaptation (e.g., Berry, 2003 ). Taken together, these theoretical approaches provide a framework for a comprehensive understanding of the social and cultural processes that link these youth and families to one another and to their economic and social contexts.

2 Racial–Ethnic Minority Youth in Rural America

24

Poverty and Economic Hardship

Socioeconomic status (SES) , economic stress, and poverty are important factors to consider in research on families living in rural regions of America (Conger, 2011 ). In general, rural children are more likely to live in poverty than their urban counter- parts, and this is especially true for REM rural youth (e.g., Bauer et al., 2012 ; Conger et al., 2002 ; Duncan, 1999 ; Lee, 2011 ; Walker & Reschke, 2004 ). The use of large-scale surveys and aggregate data is very useful in quantifying the nature and scale of the socioeconomic problems faced by many rural families. However, the experience of poverty by children and their families is complex and multidimen- sional. A special issue of Children and Society (Crivello, Camfi eld, & Porter, 2010 ) focused on “the daily lives of individual children experiencing economic and other forms of disadvantage, within the context of resource-poor families, communities and countries…” (p. 256). Perspectives from multiple social science disciplines including sociology, human development, psychology, and economics all contribute to the understanding of the social–emotional, physical, and psychological conse- quences of living with poverty and help us better identify possible causal linkages and points of intervention for researchers, program providers, and policy makers (e.g., Conger et al., 2012 ; Spicer & Sarche, 2012 ; Vernon-Feagans, Garrett-Peters, Marco, & Bratsch-Hines, 2012 ).

Indeed, the literature consistently fi nds that living in poverty and economic hard- ship can have immediate as well as long-term effects on the individual health and well-being of children and adults (e.g., Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997 ; Conger et al., 2012 ; Donnellan, Conger, McAdams, & Neppl, 2009 ; Maholmes, 2012 ). For example, there is evidence that poverty or economic disadvantage can disrupt par- ent–child interactions and family relationships, which, in turn, impact both child and adult development (e.g., Bradley & Corwyn, 2002 ; Conger, Conger, & Martin, 2010 ; Gershoff, Aber, Raver, & Lennon, 2007 ; Martin et al., 2010 ; McLoyd, 1990 ). Moreover, fi ndings from research on child and adolescent mental and physical health demonstrate clear connections between (1) poverty and mental health (e.g., Ackerman, Brown, & Izard, 2004 ; Dearing, McCartney, & Taylor, 2001 ; McLeod & Shanahan, 1996 ), (2) SES and cognitive development (e.g., Ackerman et al., 2004 ; Burnett & Farkas, 2009 , Hoff, 2003 ), and (3) social class position and physical health and well-being (e.g., Evans & English, 2002 ; Mistry, Vandewater, Huston, & McLoyd, 2002 ; Repetti, Taylor, & Seeman, 2002 ).

While it is important to consider the SES of a family on its own and in compari- son to other REM groups, to fully understand the impact of income and social sta- tus, SES must also be considered relative to where a family resides within the social structure of a community and within a region of the country. For example, youth growing up in a rural region that is declining will have fewer opportunities than youth living in a region that is resource rich and growing (see Hamilton et al., 2008 ). Furthermore, residential and social class locations (i.e., social address) may be experienced quite differently by members of different racial–ethnic groups; there- fore the social address of REM youth must be carefully defi ned and validated.

K.J. Conger et al.

25

For example, Whitesell et al. ( 2006 ) make the case that measures of income and education used in most studies to establish a family’s social and/or economic stand- ing may not be a useful measure when evaluating the standing of American Indian families: “We did not include traditional measures of SES in this study; these mea- sures have a somewhat different meaning in the reservation context and generally demonstrate little variance” (p. 1490). In addition, Spicer and Sarche ( 2012 ) discuss the disparate distribution of revenues from gaming , which has largely impacted only a few tribes; “the majority of tribes do not benefi t in signifi cant ways from these opportunities” (p. 481). Furthermore, researchers need to keep in mind whether a rural area is growing or declining, as this typically affects adult employment oppor- tunities that, in turn, infl uence parents’ abilities to pay for fees, equipment, and transportation necessary for youth to engage in school and community activities; a hidden opportunity cost of poverty (Conger et al., 2012 ; Lichter & Graefe, 2011 ).

Contextual factors also include a consideration of work opportunities, housing discrimination, and spatial history (i.e., residential patterns) which vary widely across regions of the country such as the Black Belt in the South, mining towns in Appalachia, Latino farmworkers in the Midwest and West, and tribal reservations for American Indians (e.g., Harris & Worthen, 2003 ; Saenz & Torres, 2003 ; Spicer & Sarche, 2012 ). The disciplines of Ethnic Minority Studies and US History pro- vide strong evidence that researchers need to consider both historical context and contemporary trends in work, housing, and residential patterns to understand the experiences and consequences of particular REM groups in different parts of the country (e.g., see Brown & Swanson, 2003 ; Hart et al., 2005 ; Lichter & Graefe, 2011 ; Parke, 2013 ). For instance, the timing of arrival of a particular racial–ethnic minority group in the United States, and the specifi c region of the country where they settle, may alter the experiences of adults and their children. One specifi c example is the varied experiences of Vietnamese immigrants who came to the United States at two distinct historical periods. The fi rst wave were considered Vietnamese “elites” who were welcomed and resettled in the United States in the 1970s after the Vietnam war; the second wave were characterized as “boat people” who were disenfranchised economic and political refugees looking for opportuni- ties in the United States in the 1980s and 1990s (e.g., Kibria, 2002 ). A similar story can be told by Cubans coming to America in the twentieth century. Although Cubans have resided in the United States since the early 1800s, immigration patterns altered signifi cantly in the 1960s. The fi rst wave of post-revolution Cuban immi- grants were more likely to be well educated, mostly white elites who were viewed as political refugees fl eeing Communism. However, later waves of immigrants— especially those of the 1980s Mariel boatlift—who were less well educated, less skilled, and often darker skinned, came for economic reasons and were not auto- matically granted refugee status (Perez, 2002 ). Thus, information about family migration histories can help explain both residential patterns in and current eco- nomic conditions of REM youth and their families (Kibria, 2002 ; Min, 2002 ; Smokowski, Evans, Cotter, & Guo, 2014 ). Investigating the history of residential and economic discrimination in rural areas is, in many ways, subject to the method- ological challenges raised by Duncan and Raudenbush ( 2001 ) regarding the

2 Racial–Ethnic Minority Youth in Rural America

26

linkages between urban neighborhoods and adolescent development. In particular, they highlight the challenge of obtaining “ neighborhood-level measures ” and of allowing for concurrent and reciprocal infl uences between youth and their contexts. In the case of studying REM families, the methodological and conceptual chal- lenges are even more complex, as neighborhoods, towns, and entire regions need to be considered.

Transactional Relations and Processes

In their review of the evolving bioecological model of human development, Rosa and Tudge ( 2013 ) explicitly remind researchers to look at proximal family pro- cesses as central to understanding the mutual infl uences between the developing individual and his or her environments over time. These mutual infl uences are used by Marks et al. ( 2014 ) to structure their integrative model of developmental compe- tencies of immigrant youth. Of particular note is their focus on the resilience and competencies of immigrant youth, as opposed to the more typical focus on defi cits and risky behaviors. The authors identify three key competencies that should be included in studies of REM youth in rural (and urban) settings including the follow- ing: (1) biculturalism and the positive aspects of learning to operate across two cultures and adopting the positive characteristics of each one (see Benet-Martinez, Leu, Lee, & Morris, 2002 ; LaFromboise et al., 1993 ), (2) developing a healthy eth- nic identity and not accepting the negative attributes of your REM group assigned by the larger “majority” culture and media (e.g., Cheung & Sin-Sze, 2012 ; Taylor, 2002 ; Yip, Seaton, & Sellers, 2006 ), and (3) bilingualism which represents the chal- lenges as well as positive aspects of learning to operate in two languages in the United States (e.g., Iddings & Katz, 2007 ; Kempert, Saalbach, & Hardy, 2011 ). Similarly, from sociology and family studies come concepts such as familism, com- munalism, fi lial piety, and school belongingness which should be considered in order to gain an understanding of connections or social bonds between individuals, families, schools, and communities (e.g., Fuligni et al., 2005 ; Hernandez et al., in press ; LaFromboise et al., 1993 ; Schwartz et al., 2010 ). Also important to include is socialization by parents, siblings, and other agents regarding family obligations and cultural attitudes (e.g., Cole, Tamang, & Shrestha, 2006 ; Smokowski, Rose, & Bacallaom, 2008 ). Another factor to consider is racial–ethnic socialization by par- ents of minority youth regarding salient issues, such as racial discrimination, which may be particularly salient for Latino and African American youth (e.g., Hughes et al., 2006 ; Schwartz, 2007 ; Yip et al., 2006 ).

Researchers will also want to include the normative biological, cognitive, and social developmental milestones and transitions of children and adolescents such as becoming a sibling, entering school, attaining puberty, and transitioning from mid- dle childhood to adolescence and, eventually, to adulthood (Steinberg, 2013 ). In addition, studies need to include individual characteristics such as personality (e.g., Donnellan et al., 2009 ; Huntsinger & Jose, 2006 ), identity development

K.J. Conger et al.

27

(e.g., Phinney, 1990 ; Phinney & Kohatsu, 1997 ), and, specifi cally, ethnic identity as well as individual and collective self-concept (e.g., Fuligni et al., 2005 ; Whitesell et al., 2006 ) which interacts in a reciprocal fashion with family processes and, more broadly, with community and political institutions during the course of development (Crockett & Silbereisen, 2000 ; Schulenberg, Maggs, & Hurrelman, 1997 ). Researchers also will want to include parenting as a central proximal process in the model. One challenge will be to obtain culturally informed assessments of parent- ing styles and behaviors that allow for comparisons across studies while taking into account unique elements of parenting within and between REM groups (e.g., Chao, 2001 ; Crockett, Veed, & Russell, 2010 ; Lansford, 2012 ; Parke et al., 2005 ). Furthermore, researchers will want to take relationships with siblings and extended family members into account when designing studies of REM youth (see Kramer & Conger, 2009 ).

Addressing the Challenges

Given the breadth of these challenges, it is not surprising that most researchers have focused on a fi nite set of factors and characteristics and have limited the number of ethnic minority groups being compared when designing and conducting studies. Indeed, a full review of all relevant studies and concepts is beyond the scope of this chapter. However, in order to facilitate future research directions, it may be useful to think about concepts held in common across theoretical perspectives, as well as across REM groups, such as those presented in Table 2.1 . In other words, we need to construct a set of shared concepts that can be used by all researchers interested in REM youth development across time and context. For example, racial–ethnic iden- tity is a central concept that has been used by psychologists, educators, sociologists, and ethnic studies scientists in numerous investigations and has been shown to be relevant to academic motivation and achievement, self-concept, and occupational pathways (e.g., Fuligni, 1997 ; Fuligni et al., 2005 ; Fuller & García Coll, 2010 ; Kiang, Yip, Gonzales‐Backen, Witkow, & Fuligni, 2006 ; Oyserman, Kemmelmeier, Fryberg, Brosh, & Hart-Johnson, 2003 ; Tseng, 2006 ). Incorporating shared con- cepts, such as racial–ethnic identity , in addition to unique, study-specifi c concepts such as the effect of tribal gaming on American Indian youth, would greatly facili- tate future research comparability and enhance the strength of fi ndings that could be relevant for future programs and policies (e.g., Brody, Kogan, & Grange, 2012 ; Granger, Tseng, & Wilcox, 2014 ; Tienda & Haskins, 2011 ).

Furthermore, the typical intergroup comparisons found in many studies would be enhanced by understanding more about the within-group variability of each racial– ethnic group. Intragroup variability deserves both acknowledgment and increased research attention; there has been a signifi cant “disregard for the diversity inherent in some of the minority group categories in use” (García Coll et al., 1996 , p. 1892). One example of this is the “ immigrant paradox” which has recently received increased research attention and furthered our understanding of why more recent

2 Racial–Ethnic Minority Youth in Rural America

28

immigrants may (or may not) look better educationally and psychologically, com- pared to more established, more acculturated immigrant youth, despite the higher likelihood of living in poverty and poor conditions (see discussions by Fuller & García Coll, 2010 ; García Coll & Marks, 2012 ; Marks et al., 2014 ; Parke, 2013 ). Fuller and García Coll ( 2010 ) fi nd that this paradox is more “nuanced” than previ- ously thought and provide a clear illustration of why more research is needed regarding what is happening within REM immigrant groups, as well as how racial– ethnic immigrants are functioning relative to other groups such as the “majority” Caucasian group typically used for comparison. This may be particularly salient in some rural regions of the country as the ratio of ethnic minority families to white majority families begins to change, such as areas in the Midwest which have expe- rienced a recent infl ux of Mexican origin workers in the agri-food processing indus- try (Brown & Schafft, 2011 ; Saenz & Torres, 2003 ). Indeed, it also would be wise to gain a better understanding of within-group variability among the white rural/ nonmetro population, given the wide range of socioeconomic status conditions, cul- tural heritages, family backgrounds, and contexts in which both majority and minor- ity groups now live (see Lee, 2011 ; Vernon-Feagans et al., 2012 ).

Conclusion and Future Directions

Our review of theories and concepts has highlighted some of the challenges and opportunities that researchers and policy makers have in developing a coherent framework for conducting research regarding racially/ethnically diverse youth in today’s society. However, this complexity should not deter social scientists from conducting studies and developing theory that will contribute to our understanding of REM youth and families in rural America. To recap the central issues, we feel that in order to facilitate comparisons not only across studies but among and within racial–ethnic minority groups living in the United States today, research in this area will benefi t from general agreement on certain operational defi nitions and on some common characteristics and factors that impact REM youth’s lives. This is particu- larly important, as illustrated in the many conceptual challenges presented in the other chapters in this volume. Furthermore, researchers need to acknowledge the sociodemographic diversity in rural settings (e.g., Hamilton et al., 2008 ; Hart et al., 2005 ) and come to some agreement on how to incorporate this variability in mean- ingful ways (e.g., as a predictor and moderator of social processes and developmen- tal outcomes), not simply as a control. Just as researchers try to account for neighborhood effects on children and families in diverse urban/metropolitan set- tings (e.g., DeCarlo Santiago, Wadsworth, & Stump, 2011 ; Duncan & Raudenbush, 2001 ; Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2002 ; Sastry, 2012 ), researchers interested in understanding the effects of rural settings on REM youth need to take the variability of rural contexts into account (e.g., Hamilton et al., 2008 ; Hart et al., 2005 ; Vernon- Feagans et al., 2012 ).

K.J. Conger et al.

29

One important concept shared by REM youth across the United States is related to the importance of family or tribe. Throughout our brief overview of the “major” minority groups in the United States, the role of family/tribe/community is central to the socialization and experiences of these REM youth (see Schwartz et al., 2010 ). This is one concept that needs to be included when studying any group, no matter how small the group or remote the location. Do these youth have family members to turn to? Did they migrate with family or come alone? Do they come to a com- munity where there is already a core group of people from their racial–ethnic group? Timing of their family’s arrival to the region also impacts their experiences and the reception they receive in rural communities. Researchers need to include questions that obtain information regarding historical and contemporary residence patterns of racial–ethnic minority groups in the rural areas of interest. For example, were eth- nic minorities always present in a particular rural area, suggesting established pat- terns of cross-ethnic interaction, or do recent arrivals of REM youth, and their families, happen to coincide with a worsening economy for long-term residents? The changing racial–ethnic composition of rural communities may spark resent- ment among long-term residents, leading to sentiments such as fear of being taken over, losing one’s place in a community, or no longer feeling “at home” in their home town. And if college-educated white youth move out—a.k.a. the brain drain discussed by Carr and Kefalas ( 2009 )—just as ethnic minority youth are moving in, how does that reshape race relations, and even age relations (e.g., older white folk being cared for by younger brown folk)? Furthermore, this shift may present lan- guage challenges not only for immigrant families learning English but for long- term residents who must adjust to hearing Spanish, Russian, Cantonese, Portuguese, and other non- English languages spoken on the streets and in the markets of a com- munity that used to be English-language only. As researchers strive to understand the experiences of REM youth in rural settings, they also will want to be mindful of the attitudinal and behavioral impact of increasing racial and ethnic diversity on residents of rural communities that were once racially homogeneous (Andreeva & Unger, 2014 ).

In addition to the racial and cultural conditions of rural areas, economic condi- tions are an important consideration for many racial–ethnic minority parents as they look to fi nd stable employment and develop some degree of fi nancial security for their families. For example, an amenity-rich rural setting such as those that currently attract retirees might also be attractive to parents as a stable place to raise children. Alternatively, low-SES families may have little means to leave a rural place where there is economic hardship and declining job opportunities such as in many of the small farming communities in the Southeast and coal-mining towns in Appalachia. Research fi ndings are unequivocal in that poverty and economic hardship can have negative consequences for individuals and families (e.g., Maholmes, 2012 ). Thus, it is important to understand what factors infl uence the transmission of hardship or success from one generation to the next and how those factors relate to social posi- tion and life course development in various types of rural communities (e.g., Conger et al., 2012 ; Gonzales et al., 2008 ). These processes may be particularly important to include in studies of REM youth, who tend to experience higher rates of poverty

2 Racial–Ethnic Minority Youth in Rural America

30

and barriers to upward social mobility. Researchers, practitioners, and policy mak- ers alike would benefi t from a more complete understanding of the individual and social factors that may enable individuals to improve their economic status, and thus their life chances, compared to previous generations in their family. These factors all play a role in predicting the experiences and the consequences of being REM youth living in rural America today.

Acknowledgments This research was supported in part by grants from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (AA020270), the National Science Foundation (1327768), and the Interdisciplinary Frontiers in Humanities and Arts initiative at UCD and by the Department of Human Ecology, the UC Davis Center for Poverty Research, and a Research Project Award from the California Agricultural Experiment Station (Project # CA-D-HCE-7709-H) to the fi rst author.

References

Ackerman, B. P., Brown, E. D., & Izard, C. E. (2004). The relations between persistent poverty and contextual risk and children’s behavior in elementary school. Developmental Psychology, 40 , 367–377. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.40.3.367 .

Altschul, L., Oyserman, D., & Bybee, D. (2006). Racial–ethnic identity in mid-adolescence: Content and change as predictors of academic achievement. Child Development, 77 , 1155– 1169. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00926.x .

American Sociological Association. (2003). The importance of collecting data and doing scientifi c research on race . Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.

Andreeva, V. A., & Unger, J. B. (2014). Determinants of host society acculturation and its relation- ship with health behaviors and outcomes: A new research and intervention framework. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health . Advance online publication. doi: 10.1007/ s10903-014-0104-x

Arroyo, C. G., & Zigler, E. (1995). Racial identity, academic achievement, and the psychological well-being of economically disadvantaged adolescents. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69 , 903–914. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.903 .

Baca Zinn, M. (1983). Feminist rethinking from racial–ethnic families. In M. Baca Zinn & B. T. Dill (Eds.), Women of color in U.S. society (pp. 18–26). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Bauer, K. W., Widome, R., Himes, J. H., Smyth, M., Rock, B. H., Hannan, P. J., et al. (2012). High food insecurity and its correlates among families living on a rural American Indian reservation. American Journal of Public Health, 1029 , 1346–1352. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300522 .

Benet-Martinez, V., Leu, J., Lee, F., & Morris, M. W. (2002). Negotiating biculturalism: Cultural frame switching in biculturals with oppositional versus compatible cultural identities. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33 , 492–516. doi: 10.1177/0022022102033005005 .

Berry, J. W. (2003). Conceptual approaches to acculturation. In K. M. Chun, P. B. Organista, & G. Marin (Eds.), Acculturation: Advances in theory, measurement, and applied research (pp. 17–37). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/10472-004 .

Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. F. (2002). Age and ethnic variations in family process mediators of SES. In M. H. Bornstein & R. H. Bradley (Eds.), Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child development (pp. 161–188). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Brody, G. H., Chen, Y. F., Murry, V. M., Ge, X., Simons, R. L., Gibbons, F. X., et al. (2006). Perceived discrimination and the adjustment of African American youths: A fi ve-year longitu- dinal analysis with contextual moderation effects. Child Development, 77 , 1170–1189. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00927.x .

K.J. Conger et al.

31

Brody, G. H., Kogan, S. M., & Grange, C. M. (2012). Translating longitudinal, developmental research with rural African American families into prevention programs for rural African American youth. In V. Maholmes & R. B. King (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of poverty and child development (pp. 551–568). New York: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfor dhb/9780199769100.013.0031 .

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Theoretical models of human development (Handbook of child psychology 6th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 793–828). New York: Wiley. doi: 10.1002/9780470147658. chpsy0114 .

Brooks-Gunn, J., & Duncan, G. J. (1997). The effects of poverty on children. The Future of Children, 7 , 55–71. doi: 10.2307/1602387 .

Brown, A. (2014, June 26). U.S. Hispanic and Asian populations growing, but for different rea- sons. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/ fact-tank/2014/06/26/u-s-hispanic-and-asian-populations-growing-but-for-different-reasons/

Brown, D. L., & Schafft, K. A. (2011). Rural people and communities in the 21st century: Resilience and transformation . Cambridge: Polity Press.

Brown, D. L., & Swanson, L. E. (2003). Challenges for rural America in the 21st century . University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

Burnett, K., & Farkas, G. (2009). Poverty and family structure effects on children’s mathematics achievement: Estimates from random and fi xed effects models. The Social Science Journal, 46 , 297–318. doi: 10.1016/j.soscij.2008.12.009 .

Carlo, G. (2014). Central and South American immigrant families. In M. J. Coleman & L. H. Ganong (Eds.), The social history of the American family: An encyclopedia (Vol. 1, pp. 172– 178). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Carr, P. J., & Kefalas, M. J. (2009). Hollowing out the middle: The rural brain drain and what it means for America . Boston: Beacon Press.

Chao, R. (2001). Extending research on the consequences of parenting style for Chinese Americans and European Americans. Child Development, 72 , 1832–1843. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00381 .

Chao, R. & Tseng, V. (2002). Parenting of Asians. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of Parenting: Vol. 4. Social conditions and applied parenting (2nd ed., pp. 59–93). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cheung, C., & Sin-Sze, E. M. (2012). Why does parents’ involvement enhance children’s achieve- ment? The role of parent-oriented motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104 , 820– 832. doi: 10.1037/a0027183 .

Chou, R. S., & Feagin, J. R. (2008). The myth of the model minority: Asian Americans facing rac- ism . Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.

Cobb, R. V., Greiner, D. J., Quinn, K. M., Nickelsburg, J., Timmons, J. F., Groh, M., et al. (2012). Can voter ID laws be administered in a race-neutral manner? Evidence from the city of Boston in 2008. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 7 , 1–33.

Cole, P. M., Tamang, B. L., & Shrestha, S. (2006). Cultural variations in the socialization of young children’s anger and shame. Child Development, 77 , 1129–1520. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00931.x .

Conger, K. J. (2011). Economic hardship, parenting, and family stability in a cohort of rural ado- lescents. In K. E. Smith & A. R. Tickamyer (Eds.), Economic restructuring and family well- being in rural America (pp. 158–175). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Conger, K. J., Martin, M. J., Reeb, B. T., Little, W. M., Craine, J. L., Shebloski, B., et al. (2012). Economic hardship and its consequences across generations. In V. Maholmes & R. B. King (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of poverty and child development (pp. 37–53). New York: Oxford University Press.

Conger, R. D., & Conger, K. J. (2002). Resilience in Midwestern families: Selected fi ndings from the fi rst decade of a prospective, longitudinal study. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64 , 361– 373. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00361.x .

2 Racial–Ethnic Minority Youth in Rural America

32

Conger, R. D., Conger, K. J., & Martin, M. J. (2010). Socioeconomic status, family processes, and individual development. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72 , 685–704. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00725.x .

Conger, R. D., & Donnellan, M. B. (2007). An interactionist perspective on the socioeconomic context of human development. Annual Review of Psychology, 58 , 175–199. doi: 10.1146/ annurev.psych.58.110405.085551 .

Conger, R. D., Wallace, L. E., Sun, Y., Simons, R. L., McLoyd, V. C., & Brody, G. (2002). Economic pressure in African American families: A replication and extension of the family stress model. Developmental Psychology, 38 , 179–193. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.38.2.179 .

Cox, M. J., & Paley, B. (1997). Families as systems. Annual Review of Psychology, 48 , 243–267. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.243 .

Crivello, G., Camfi eld, L., & Porter, C. (2010). Researching children’s understandings of poverty and risk in diverse contexts. Children and Society, 24 , 255–260.

Crocker, J., Blaine, B., & Luhtanen, R. (1993). Prejudice, intergroup behavior and self-esteem: Enhancement and protection motives. In M. A. Hogg & D. Abrams (Eds.), Group motivation: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 52–67). Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Crockett, L. J., Shanahan, M. J., & Jackson-Newsom, J. (2000). Rural youth: Ecological and life course perspectives. In R. Montemayor, G. R. Adams, & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), Adolescent diversity in ethnic, economic, and cultural contexts (pp. 43–74). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Crockett, L., & Silbereisen, R. (Eds.). (2000). Negotiating adolescence during times of social change . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Crockett, L. J., Veed, G. J., & Russell, S. T. (2010). Do measures of parenting have the same mean- ing for European, Chinese, and Filipino American adolescents? Tests of measurement equiva- lence. In S. T. Russell, L. J. Crockett, & R. K. Chao (Eds.), Asian American parenting and parent–adolescent relationships (pp. 17–35). New York: Springer.

Dearing, E., McCartney, K., & Taylor, B. A. (2001). Change in family income-to-needs matters more for children with less. Child Development, 72 , 1779–1793. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00378 .

DeCarlo Santiago, C., Wadsworth, M. E., & Stump, J. (2011). Socioeconomic status, neighbor- hood disadvantage, and poverty-related stress: Prospective effects of psychological syndromes among diverse low-income families. Journal of Economic Psychology, 32 , 218–230. doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2009.10.008 .

Donnellan, M. B., Conger, K. J., McAdams, K. K., & Neppl, T. K. (2009). Personal characteristics and resilience to economic hardship and its consequences: Conceptual issues and empirical illustrations. Journal of Personality, 77 , 1645–1676. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00596.x .

Dressler, W. W., Oths, K. S., & Gravlee, C. C. (2005). Race and ethnicity in public health research: Models to explain health disparities. Annual Review of Anthropology, 34 , 231–252. doi: 10.1146/ annurev.anthro.34.081804.120505 .

Duncan, C. M. (1999). Worlds apart: Why poverty persists in rural America . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Duncan, G. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2001). Neighborhoods and adolescent development: How can we determine the links? In A. Booth & A. C. Crouter (Eds.), Does it take a village? Community effects on children, adolescents, and families (pp. 105–136). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Dunham, Y., Baron, A. S., & Banaji, M. R. (2006). From American city to Japanese village: A cross-cultural investigation of implicit race attitudes. Child Development, 77 , 1268–1281. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00933.x .

Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfi eld, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., et al. (1993). Development during adolescence: The impact of stage-environment fi t on young adolescents’ experiences in schools and in families. American Psychologist, 48 , 90–101. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.48.2.90 .

Evans, G. W., & English, K. (2002). The environment of poverty: Multiple stressor exposure, psycho-physiological stress, and socio-emotional adjustment. Child Development, 73 , 1238– 1248. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00469 .

K.J. Conger et al.

33

Fuligni, A. J. (1997). The academic achievement of adolescents from immigrant families: The roles of family background, attitudes, and behavior. Child Development, 68 , 351–363. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1997.tb01944.x .

Fuligni, A. J., Witkow, M., & Garcia, C. (2005). Ethnic identity and the academic adjustment of adolescents from Mexican, Chinese, and European backgrounds. Developmental Psychology, 41 , 799–811. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.41.5.799 .

Fuller, B., & García Coll, C. (2010). Learning from Latinos: Contexts, families, and child develop- ment in motion. Developmental Psychology, 46 , 359–565. doi: 10.1037/a0019412 .

Gabriel, T. (2014, April 21). 50 years into the war on poverty, hardship hits back. The New York Times . Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com

García Coll, C., Lamberty, G., McAdoo, H. P., Crnic, K., Wasik, B. H., & Vasquez Garcia, H. (1996). An integrative model for the study of developmental competencies of minority chil- dren. Child Development, 67 , 1891–1914. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01834.x .

García Coll, C., & Marks, A. K. (Eds.). (2012). The immigrant paradox in children and adoles- cents: Is becoming American a developmental risk? Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Gershoff, E. T., Aber, J. L., Raver, C. C., & Lennon, M. C. (2007). Income is not enough: Incorporating material hardship into models of income associations with parenting and child development. Child Development, 78 , 70–95. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00986.x .

Gershoff, E. T., Mistry, R. S., & Crosby, D. A. (2014). Societal contexts of child development: Pathways of infl uence and implications for practice and policy . New York: Oxford University Press.

Gonzales, N. A., Germán, M., Yeong Kim, S., George, P., Fabrett, F. C., Millsap, R., et al. (2008). Mexican American adolescents’ cultural orientation, externalizing behavior and academic engagement: The role of traditional cultural values. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41 , 151–164. doi: 10.1007/s10464-007-9152-x .

Granger, R. C., Tseng, V., & Wilcox, B. L. (2014). Connecting research and practice. In E. T. Gershoff, R. S. Mistry, & D. A. Crosby (Eds.), Societal contexts of child development: Pathways of infl uence and implications for practice and policy (pp. 205–219). New York: Oxford University Press.

Hamilton, L. C., Hamilton, L. R., Duncan, C. M., & Colocousis, C. R. (2008). Place matters: Challenges and opportunities in four rural Americas . Reports on Rural America, Vol. 1. New Hampshire: Carsey Institute.

Harris, R. P., & Worthen, D. (2003). African Americans in rural America. In D. L. Brown & L. E. Swanson (Eds.), Challenges for rural America in the 21st Century (pp. 32–42). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

Hart, L. G., Larson, E. H., & Lishner, D. M. (2005). Rural defi nitions for health policy and research. American Journal of Public Health, 95 , 1149–1155. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2004.042432 .

Hernández, M. M., Robins, R. W., Widaman, K. F., & Conger, R. D. (in press). School belonging, generational status, and socioeconomic status: Longitudinal effects on Mexican origin chil- dren’s positive academic outcomes. Journal of Research on Adolescence . Advance online pub- lication. doi: 10.1111/jora.12188

Hoff, E. (2003). The specifi city of environmental infl uence: Socioeconomic status affects early vocabulary development via maternal speech. Child Development, 74 , 1368–1378. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00612 .

Hughes, D., Rodriguez, J., Smith, E. P., Johnson, D. J., Stevenson, H. C., & Spicer, P. (2006). Parents’ ethnic-racial socialization practices: A review of research and directions for future study. Developmental Psychology, 42 , 747–770. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.42.5.747 .

Huntsinger, C. S., & Jose, P. E. (2006). A longitudinal investigation of personality and social adjustment among Chinese American and European American adolescents. Child Development, 77 , 1309–1324. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00936.x .

Iddings, A. C., & Katz, L. (2007). Integrating home and school identities of recent immigrant Hispanic English language learners through classroom practices. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 6 , 299–314. doi: 10.1080/15348450701542306 .

2 Racial–Ethnic Minority Youth in Rural America

34

Irwin, J. R., & O’Brien, A. P. (1998). Where have all the sharecroppers gone? Black occupations in postbellum Mississippi. Agricultural History, 72 , 280–297.

Kempert, S., Saalbach, H., & Hardy, I. (2011). Cognitive benefi ts and costs of bilingualism in elementary school students: The case of mathematical word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103 , 547–561. doi: 10.1037/a0023619 .

Kiang, L., Yip, T., Gonzales-Backen, M., Witkow, M., & Fuligni, A. J. (2006). Ethnic identity and the daily psychological well-being of adolescents from Mexican and Chinese backgrounds. Child Development, 77 , 1338–1350. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00938.x .

Kibria, N. (2002). Vietnamese American families. In R. L. Taylor (Ed.), Minority families in the United States: A multicultural perspective (pp. 181–192). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kramer, L., & Conger, K. J. (2009). What we learn from our sisters and brothers: For better or for worse. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2009 , 1–12. doi: 10.1002/ cd.253 .

LaFromboise, T., Coleman, H. L. K., & Gerton, J. (1993). Psychological impact of biculturalism: Evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 114 , 395–412. doi: 10.1037/ 0033-2909.114.3.395 .

Lansford, J. E. (2012). Cross-cultural and cross-national parenting perspectives. In V. Maholmes & R. B. King (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of poverty and child development (pp. 656–677). New York: Oxford University Press.

Le, C. N. (2014, December 5). Asian-nation: Population statistics and demographics . Retrieved from http://www.asian-nation.org/population.shtml

Lee, M. (2011). Low-wage employment among minority women in nonmetropolitan areas. In K. E. Smith & A. R. Tickamyer (Eds.), Economic restructuring and family well-being in rural America (pp. 25–39). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2002). Moving on up: Neighborhood effects on children and families. In M. H. Bornstein & R. H. Bradley (Eds.), Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child development (pp. 209–230). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lichter, D. T., & Brown, D. L. (2011). Rural America in an urban society: Changing spatial and social boundaries. Annual Review of Sociology, 37 , 1–28. doi: 10.1146/ annurev-soc-081309-150208 .

Lichter, D. T., & Graefe, D. R. (2011). Rural economic restructuring: Implications for children, youth, and families. In K. E. Smith & A. R. Tickamyer (Eds.), Economic restructuring and family well-being in rural America (pp. 25–39). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Lyson, T. A., & Falk, W. W. (Eds.). (1993). Forgotten places: Uneven development in rural America . Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

Maholmes, V. (2012). Introduction: Why study poverty? In V. Maholmes & R. B. King (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of poverty and child development (pp. 1–9). New York: Oxford University Press.

Marks, A. K., Godoy, C., & Garcia Coll, C. (2014). An ecological approach to understanding immigrant child and adolescent developmental competencies. In E. T. Gershoff, R. S. Mistry, & D. A. Crosby (Eds.), Societal contexts of child development: Pathways of infl uence and implications for practice and policy (pp. 75–89). New York: Oxford University Press.

Martin, M. J., Conger, R. D., Schofi eld, T. J., Dogan, S. J., Widaman, K. F., Donnellan, M. B., et al. (2010). Evaluation of the interactionist model of socioeconomic status and problem behavior: A developmental cascade across generations. Development and Psychopathology, 22 , 697– 715. doi: 10.1017/S0954579410000374 .

McCrate, E. (2011). Parents’ work time in rural America: The growth of irregular schedules. In K. E. Smith & A. R. Tickamyer (Eds.), Economic restructuring and family well-being in rural America (pp. 177–193). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

McLeod, J. D., & Shanahan, M. J. (1996). Trajectories of poverty and children’s mental health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 37 , 207–220.

K.J. Conger et al.

35

McLoyd, V. C. (1990). The impact of economic hardship on Black families and children: Psychological distress, parenting, and socio-emotional development. Child Development, 61 , 311–346.

Min, P. G. (2002). Korean American families. In R. L. Taylor (Ed.), Minority families in the United States: A multicultural perspective (pp. 193–211). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Mistry, R. S., Vandewater, E. A., Huston, A. C., & McLoyd, V. C. (2002). Economic well-being and children’s social adjustment: The role of family process in an ethnically diverse low- income sample. Child Development, 73 , 935–951. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00448 .

Mohl, R. A. (2003). Globalization, Latinization, and the Nuevo New South. Journal of American Ethnic History, 22 , 31–66.

Oyserman, D., Kemmelmeier, M., Fryberg, S., Brosh, H., & Hart-Johnson, T. (2003). Racial–eth- nic self-schemas. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66 , 333–347. doi: 10.2307/1519833 .

Pahl, K., & Way, N. (2006). Longitudinal trajectories of ethnic identity among urban low-income Black and Latino adolescents. Child Development, 77 , 1403–1415. doi: 10.1111/j.1467- 8624.2006.00943.x .

Parke, R. D. (2013). Future families: Diverse forms, rich possibilities . Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.

Parke, R. D., Coltrane, S., Duffy, S., Buriel, R., Dennis, J., Powers, J., et al. (2005). Economic stress, parenting, and child adjustment in Mexican American and European American families. Child Development, 75 , 1632–1656.

Perez, L. (2002). Cuban American families. In R. L. Taylor (Ed.), Minority families in the United States: A multicultural perspective (pp. 114–130). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Phinney, J. S. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: A review of research. Psychological Bulletin, 108 , 499–514. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.499 .

Phinney, J. S., & Kohatsu, E. L. (1997). Ethnic and racial identity development and mental health. In J. Schulenberg & J. L. Maggs (Eds.), Health risks and developmental transitions during adolescence (pp. 420–443). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Quintana, S. M., Aboud, F. E., Chao, R., Contreras-Grau, J., Cross, W. E., Jr., Hudley, C., et al. (2006). Race, ethnicity, and culture in child development: Contemporary research and future directions. Child Development, 77 , 1129–1141. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00951.x .

Repetti, R. L., Taylor, S. E., & Seeman, T. E. (2002). Risky families: Family social environments and the mental and physical health of offspring. Psychological Bulletin, 128 , 330–366. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.128.2.330 .

Rosa, E. M., & Tudge, J. (2013). Urie Bronfenbrenner’s theory of human development: Its evolu- tion from ecology to bioecology. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 5 , 243–258. doi: 10.1111/jftr.12022 .

Saenz, R., & Torres, C. C. (2003). Latinos in rural America. In D. L. Brown & L. E. Swanson (Eds.), Challenges for rural America in the 21st Century (pp. 57–70). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

Sameroff, A. J. & MacKenzie, M. J. (2003). Research strategies for capturing transactional models of development: The limits of the possible. Development and Psychopathology, 15 , 613–640.

Sastry, N. (2012). Neighborhood effects on children’s achievement: A review of recent research. In V. Maholmes & R. B. King (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of poverty and child development (pp. 423–447). New York: Oxford University Press.

Schulenberg, J., Maggs, J. L., & Hurrelman, K. (1997). Health risks and developmental transitions during adolescence . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schwartz, S. J. (2007). The applicability of familism to diverse ethnic groups: A preliminary study. The Journal of Social Psychology, 147 , 101–118. doi: 10.3200/SOCP.147.2.101-118 .

Schwartz, S. J., Weisskirch, R. S., Hurley, E. A., Zamboanga, B. L., Park, I. J., Kim, S. Y., et al. (2010). Communalism, familism, and fi lial piety: Are they birds of a collectivist feather? Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16 , 548–560. doi: 10.1037/a0021370 .

Segura, G. M., & Valenzuela, A. A. (2010). Hope, tropes, and dopes: Hispanic and White racial animus in the 2008 election. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 40 , 497–514.

2 Racial–Ethnic Minority Youth in Rural America

36

Sellers, R. M., & Shelton, J. N. (2003). The role of racial identity in perceived racial discrimination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84 , 1079–1092. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.84.5.1079 .

Sherman, J. (2009). Those who work, those who don’t: Poverty, morality, and family in rural America . Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Sistrunk, I. (2014, September 1). Walking while Black. Milwaukee Courier . Retrieved from http:// milwaukeecourieronline.com/index.php/2014/08/30/Walking-while-black-michael- brown-black-men-and-white-police-offi cers/

Smedley, A., & Smedley, B. (2005). Race as biology is fi ction, racism as a social problem is real: Anthropological and historical perspectives on the social construction of race. American Psychologist, 60 , 16–26. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.60.1.16 .

Smokowski, P. R., Evans, C. B., Cotter, K. L., & Guo, S. (2014). Ecological correlates of depres- sion and self-esteem in rural youth. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 45 , 500–518. doi: 10.1007/s10578-013-0420-8 .

Smokowski, P. R., Rose, R., & Bacallao, M. L. (2008). Acculturation and Latino family processes: How cultural involvement, biculturalism, and acculturation gaps infl uence family dynamics. Family Relations, 57 , 295–308. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2008.00501.x .

Spicer, P., & Sarche, M. C. (2012). Poverty and possibility in the lives of American Indian and Alaska Native children. In V. Maholmes & R. B. King (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of poverty and child development (pp. 480–488). New York: Oxford University Press.

Steinberg, L. (2013). Adolescence, 10th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Taylor, R. L. (2002). Minority families in the United States: A multicultural perspective . Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Tienda, M., & Haskins, R. (2011). Immigrant children: Introducing the issue. The Future of

Children, 21 , 3–18. doi: 10.1353/foc.2011.0010 . Tseng, V. (2006). Unpacking immigration in youths’ academic and occupational pathways. Child

Development, 77 , 1434–1445. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00946.x . Vernon-Feagans, L., & Cox, M. (2013). The Family Life Project: An epidemiological and devel-

opmental study of young children living in poor rural communities. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 78 , 1–150.

Vernon-Feagans, L., Garrett-Peters, P. D., Marco, A., & Bratsch-Hines, M. (2012). Children living in rural poverty: The role of chaos in early development. In V. Maholmes & R. B. King (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of poverty and child development (pp. 448–466). New York: Oxford University Press.

Walker, S. K., & Reschke, K. L. (2004). Child care use by low-income families in rural areas. Journal of Children and Poverty, 10 , 149–167. doi: 10.1080/1079612042000271585 .

Weisner, T. S., & Duncan, G. J. (2014). The world isn’t linear or additive or decontextualized: Pluralism and mixed methods in understanding the effects of antipoverty programs on children and parenting. In E. T. Gershoff, R. S. Mistry, & D. A. Crosby (Eds.), Societal contexts of child development: Pathways of infl uence and implications for practice and policy (pp. 125–140). New York: Oxford University Press.

Whitesell, N. R., Mitchell, C. M., Kaufman, C. E., Spicer, P., & The Voices of Indian Teens Project. (2006). Developmental trajectories of personal and collective self-concept among American Indian Adolescents. Child Development, 77 , 1487–1503. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00949.x .

Wimberley, R. C., & Morris, L. V. (1997). The southern black belt: A national perspective . Lexington, KY: TVA Rural Studies, University of Kentucky.

Yip, T., Seaton, E. K., & Sellers, R. M. (2006). African American racial identity across the lifes- pan: Identity status, identity content, and depressive symptoms. Child Development, 77 , 1504– 1517. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00950.x .

K.J. Conger et al.

http://www.springer.com/978-3-319-20975-3