Thesis

Childrearing Orientations in Mexican American Families: The Influence of Generation and Sociocultural Factors Author(s): Raymond Buriel Source: Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 55, No. 4 (Nov., 1993), pp. 987-1000 Published by: National Council on Family Relations Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/352778 . Accessed: 25/10/2014 19:10

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

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

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

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 199.73.44.216 on Sat, 25 Oct 2014 19:10:27 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

RAYMOND BURIEL Pomona College

Childrearing Orientations in

Mexican American Families: The Influence of

Generation and Sociocultural Factors

This study compared the childrearing practices used by Mexican American parents of first-, sec- ond-, and third-generation adolescents. Effects of family sociocultural variables on childrearing were also examined. There were 317 adult respon- dents representing the parents of 186 adolescents. Multivariate and univariate analyses revealed sig- nificant generational differences in childrearing styles. Parents of first- and second-generation adolescents reported a more responsibility-orient- ed childrearing style, whereas parents of third- generation adolescents reported a more concern- oriented childrearing style. The relationship of family sociocultural variables to parents' child- rearing practices also varied by generation. In general, the sociocultural variables of child's Spanish to parent, family income, and mothers' schooling showed the strongest relation to child- rearing styles emphasizing either responsibility or concern. Results are discussed in relation to the effects that immigration and acculturation have on Mexican American families.

The generational status of parents and children contributes to sociocultural variations in Mexican American families that have implications for

childrearing. Today, the Mexican-descent popula- tion in the United States consists of persons in one of three generational groups: those born in Mexico, those born in the U.S. of Mexican-born parents, and those born in the U.S. of U.S.-born parents. There are important social and cultural differences between these three groups (Buriel, Mercado, Rodriguez, & Chavez, 1991). Socially, Mexican-born parents have less education and lower family incomes than their U.S.-born coun- terparts. Culturally, Mexican-born parents speak less English, which slows their acculturation by limiting contact with U.S. English-speaking soci- ety.

An adequate study of cultural minority fami- lies must take into account both social and cultur- al influences on human development (Laosa, 1989). A large body of literature documents a consistent relationship between childrearing prac- tices and the socioeconomic variables of parents' education and family income (for reviews, see Hess, 1970; Laosa, 1981). A neglected area of re- search, however, concerns the relationship of childrearing practices to cultural factors (Bron- fenbrenner, 1986; Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Padilla & Lindholm, 1983). The present study ex- amines generational differences in childrearing practices of Mexican American parents and as- sesses the impact of sociocultural factors underly- ing childrearing practices across generations. Psychology Department, Pomona College, Claremont, CA

91711.

Journal of Marriage and the Family 55 (November 1993): 987-1000 987

This content downloaded from 199.73.44.216 on Sat, 25 Oct 2014 19:10:27 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

988 Journal of Marriage and the Family

The first generation being examined in this study includes those persons born in Mexico who later immigrated to the U.S. Some of these per- sons immigrated as single young adults or as mar- ried couples, while others were brought to the U.S. as young children by their parents. Family income is typically low in the first generation, due to par- ents' lower education and limited knowledge of English. First-generation children grow up in home environments where Spanish is the primary language between parents and children. The fami- ly's exposure to English often comes through chil- dren's participation in the U.S. school system. The second generation represents the U.S.-born chil- dren of immigrant parents. The family environ- ments of second-generation children are in many ways similar to those of their first-generation peers, owing to the foreign-born status of their parents. Cultural schisms and synergisms are also most apparent in the families of second-generation children. Thus, while Spanish is the native lan- guage of second-generation children, English be- comes their dominant language after the onset of schooling. However, Spanish continues as the pri- mary language of their parents, which creates a strong environmental press for bilingualism. The third generation refers collectively to persons of Mexican descent whose parents were born in the U.S. This includes persons in the fourth and sub- sequent generations whose grandparents and great-grandparents were born in this country. The third generation is distinguished from the two pre- vious generations by the absence of any direct parental links to Mexico via immigration. Thus, in contrast to the first and second generation where socialization involved a Mexican-born parent, per- sons in the third generation are socialized exclu- sively by parents who were themselves born and raised in the U.S. Persons in the third generation have also grown up in homes where all family members are U.S. citizens, where English is the primary language (Lopez, 1982), and where parental schooling has taken place exclusively in U.S. schools. On average, years of schooling and family incomes are highest in the third generation.

Research indicates that immigration from Mex- ico is selective. Prior to immigrating, adult Mexi- cans receive more years of schooling than the na- tional average for Mexico (Portes, 1979; Portes & Bach, 1985), and exhibit personality and motiva- tional characteristics conducive to achievement in U.S. society (Dinerman, 1982; Fromm & Macco- by, 1970). Since immigration is motivated by a desire for change and upward mobility, it is not

surprising that Mexican immigrants exhibit lower rates of delinquency (Buriel, Calzada, & Vasquez, 1982), less psychological distress (Burnam, Hough, Karno, Escobar, & Telles, 1987), and more marital satisfaction than their later genera- tion peers (Casas & Ortiz, 1985; de Anda, 1984). And despite a high drop-out rate due to limited English proficiency, while in school, immigrant adolescents obtain higher achievement test scores (Nielsen & Fernandez, 1981) and better grades (Landsman, Padilla, Leiderman, Clark, Ritter, & Dornbusch, 1991) than U.S.-born Mexican Ameri- cans. It is apparent that, across successive genera- tions, Mexican American families undergo social and cultural changes that do not always conform to a linear model of acculturation. That is, change is not always in the direction of healthier psycho- logical adjustment. What is less obvious is how developmental processes within Mexican Ameri- can families change across generations. Recent discussions of ethnic minority families (Harrison, Wilson, Pine, Chan, & Buriel, 1990; Lin & Fu, 1990) hypothesize that parents adapt their social- ization practices in response to sociocultural varia- tions among family members. In immigrant groups, acculturative pressures represent a major source of sociocultural change and diversity with- in the family.

Studies suggest that social and cultural vari- ables each impact differently on Mexican Ameri- can childrearing practices. Laosa (1980a, 1980b) showed that maternal teaching styles were affect- ed by years of schooling, a social class variable. Mothers with less education were more likely to use modeling as a teaching style, whereas more educated mothers used inquiry and praise. Ac- cording to Laosa (1982), this shift in teaching styles occurs because more highly schooled moth- ers increasingly take on the teaching style of the school, which emphasizes inquiry and praise. Chavez and Buriel (1986), on the other hand, found a relationship between maternal reinforce- ment style and nativity, a variable often used as a cultural marker. The reinforcements of foreign- born mothers were more contingent on the out- comes of children's performance (success or fail- ure), whereas U.S.-born mothers reinforced more on the basis of children's effort (high or low). These results were interpreted within a two-step cultural integration model (Buriel, 1984), which posits that: (a) the highly self-selected character of immigrants results in the migration of very task- oriented persons, and, (b) prolonged exposure to lower societal expectations for minorities dimin-

This content downloaded from 199.73.44.216 on Sat, 25 Oct 2014 19:10:27 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Childrearing in Mexican American Families 989

ishes the probability for success and encourages parental compensation in the form of reinforcing approximations to success (i.e., effort).

Although the aforementioned studies by Laosa (1980a, 1980b, 1982) and Chavez and Buriel (1986) are informative, there are three limitations in their research concerning the unique influences of social and cultural variables on childrearing. First, the inevitable covariation between genera- tion and education in these studies, resulting from small sample sizes, makes it difficult to unequivo- cally isolate the separate effects of these two vari- ables on childrearing. Second, only two very spe- cific categories of behavior were examined, teaching style and reinforcement style, thus leav- ing the relationship of sociocultural variables to other childrearing dimensions unexamined. Final- ly, the role of fathers in the child's development was not considered, and, along with it, the possi- ble impact of father absence. Only two published studies have examined the childrearing attitudes of Mexican American fathers (Durrett, O'Bryant, & Pennebaker, 1975; LeVine & Bartz, 1979), but neither considered within-group differences relat- ed to sociocultural factors and generational status.

In addition to the aforementioned limitations, studies have not explored how the cultural vari- ables of Spanish/English usage between parent and child and length of U.S. residence affect Mexican American childrearing. Especially in im- migrant families, parents are often introduced to English and its attendant acculturative influences through children's participation in school. Many are the Latino parents who complain that their children's diminishing use of Spanish affects their communication with them. On the other hand, the longer immigrant parents are in this country, the more likely it is that they develop a working un- derstanding and use of English that facilitates communication with their more English-speaking children. According to some social identity theo- rists (Kim, 1988), minority languages serve as reservoirs of cultural values. Thus, to the extent that immigrant socialization values are enmeshed in the semantics of the native language, changes in language usage may correlate with changes in childrearing styles.

The present study was designed to compare the childrearing practices used by parents of first-, second-, and third-generation Mexican American adolescents. In addition, the contribution of socio- cultural factors to childrearing, and their possible interaction with generation, were examined. The social variables included parents' education and

family income. The cultural variables included Spanish/English usage in parent-child communi- cation and length of U.S. residence. The Parent Attitude Research Scale or PARS (Cromwell, 1969; LeVine & Bartz, 1979) was used to assess the childrearing practices of mothers and fathers along seven dimensions: autonomy, productive use of time, equality, strictness, permissiveness, support, and control. The seven PARS dimensions cover many of the childrearing variables examined in previous research comparing Mexican Ameri- can and Euro-American samples. For instance, Durrett et al. (1975) found that, relative to Euro- American parents, Mexican Americans place less emphasis on their children's early assumption of responsibility. LeVine and Bartz (1979) found that Mexican American parents stressed less egalitari- anism while favoring more permissiveness. Kearns (1970) found that Mexican American par- ents were stricter and more controlling with their children. These between-group differences were usually explained as the result of traditional Mexi- can values, as if Mexican Americans were a cul- turally homogeneous population. However, by fo- cusing on between-group comparisons, re- searchers have ignored the tremendous within-group diversity in the Mexican American population that arises from generational and socio- cultural factors that affect childrearing practices.

Studies of Mexican American childrearing have focused exclusively on preadolescent chil- dren (Harrison et al., 1990; Ramirez & Arce, 1981). The present study is the first to examine childrearing in a sample of Mexican American parents with adolescent children. Research with Mexican American parents and adolescents is im- portant because it is during adolescence that chil- dren of this group are at greatest risk for dropping out of school (Hirano-Nakanishi, 1986), for en- gaging in delinquent behavior (Buriel et al., 1982), and for expressing confusion about their ethnic identity (Vigil & Long, 1981). The present study therefore not only extends childrearing re- search with Mexican Americans into adolescence, but, in addition, establishes a context for under- standing the relation of childrearing variables to critical areas of adolescent development.

METHOD

Subjects

There were 317 Mexican American adult respon- dents in the study representing the parents of 186

This content downloaded from 199.73.44.216 on Sat, 25 Oct 2014 19:10:27 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

990 Journal of Marriage and the Family

seventh-grade students (96 boys and 90 girls). The sample included 131 two-parent families and 55 single-parent families. Divorce or separation ac- counted for the single-parent families, which, in all cases, were headed by women. The adult sample was stratified on the basis of their children's gen- erational status. First-generation students (33 males and 33 females) were born in Mexico and also had both parents born in Mexico (53 two-par- ent families and 13 single-parent families). Sec- ond-generation students (34 males and 36 females) were born in the U.S. but had one or both parents born in Mexico (51 two-parent families and 19 single-parent families). Third-generation students (29 males and 21 females) were born in the U.S. and also had both parents born in the U.S (27 two- parent families and 23 single-parent families).

The present study is part of a larger investiga- tion of Mexican-descent seventh graders and their parents living in three communities of the Los Angeles metropolitan area. The communities in- cluded one in south-central Los Angeles and two in the eastern suburbs of the city. The south-cen- tral community is a predominantly immigrant area that has become Mexicanized within the past 20 years. The socioeconomic make-up of the community is overwhelmingly working class, with many parents working in the service indus- try. The two communities in the eastern suburbs of the city both have long-standing Mexican-de- scent populations dating to the 1930s. In recent years, both communities have experienced a large influx of Mexican immigrants. The socioeconom- ic make-up of both areas includes working class and lower middle class. Parents' occupations range from agricultural workers to managerial po- sitions. The three communities are typical of those inhabited by Mexican Americans in south- ern California, the region with the largest Mexi- can-descent population in the U.S.

In the course of answering questions about length of U.S. residence, many immigrant fathers noted that they initially came to the U.S. alone, in order to find work and housing, before sending for their wives and children who had remained in Mexico. This demographic appears in Table 1, which shows that, among immigrant parents, fa- thers have more average years of U.S. residence than mothers. At the time of the interview, all fa- thers in the sample reported being employed. About half of the mothers in all three communi- ties reported employment outside the home, al- though many worked only part-time. In response to an ethnic identity question, all parents and their

seventh-grade children showed preference for ethnic labels expressing affiliation with their Mexican ancestry (Buriel & Cardoza, 1993).

Parental Measures

Childrearing practices. The childrearing dimen- sions examined in this study were identified by LeVine and Bartz (1979) in their study of low-in- come Mexican American, African American, and Euro-American parents. LeVine and Bartz identi- fied seven childrearing dimensions representing a combination of items from the Parent Attitude Research Instrument (Schaefer & Bell, 1958) and the Cornell Parent Behavior Description question- naire (Devereaux, Bronfenbrenner, & Rodgers, 1969). The seven childrearing dimensions includ- ed: (a) parental press for child's autonomy (i.e., expecting children to do things for themselves sooner), (b) parental press for child's productive use of time (i.e., not wasting time), (c) parental press for equality between parent and child (i.e., encouraging dialogue between parent and child), (d) parental strictness toward child (i.e., expecting obedience to parental rules), (e) parental permis- siveness with child (i.e., deemphasizing the need for harsh discipline), (f) parental support of child (i.e., offering comfort and solace to child), and (g) parental control of child (i.e., stressing high ex- pectations for child's behavior at home and school). Twenty-five items were used to measure the seven childrearing dimensions. The support and control items were measured using a five- point Likert format (never to very often) while the five remaining dimensions were measured using a four-point Likert format (strongly agree to strong- ly disagree). Parents were instructed to answer each item as it pertained to their relationship with their seventh-grade child. Items on the childrear- ing scale were scored in the direction of more of the parental behavior under consideration.

Socioeconomic variables. Parents' education and annual family income were used as measures of socioeconomic status. The effects of these two variables were examined separately because pre- vious research suggests they are differentially re- lated to children's cognitive abilities (Laosa, 1982). Specifically, parents' education is a better predictor of children's literacy skills than family income. Previous research by Ortiz (1986) also indicates that parents' education impacts differ- ently on achievement for different generations of Mexican Americans. She found that the effects of

This content downloaded from 199.73.44.216 on Sat, 25 Oct 2014 19:10:27 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Childrearing in Mexican American Families 991

parents' education on students' educational at- tainment was greater for first- and third-genera- tion Mexican Americans and significantly weaker for members of the second generation. In the present study, the influence of mothers' and fa- thers' education was examined separately. The highest grade of school or year of college com- pleted was used to measure parents' education.

Family income was measured on a nine-step interval scale with income ranges of (1) under $7,500 to (9) $45,001 or more. Respondents se- lected an income step (e.g., $15,001 to $20,000) and the rank order value of that step (1-9) was as- signed as the family income score for purposes of analysis. When there were discrepancies in the re- ported family income between parents in the same family, the father's estimate was used. Pre- liminary fieldwork showed the father's estimate to be a more accurate indicator of family income than averaging mothers' and fathers' estimates in the case of discrepancies.

Cultural variables. Parent-child Spanish/English usage and length of parents' U.S. residence were used as cultural variables. Two questions assessed parent-child Spanish/English usage. The first asked parents the ratio of Spanish-to-English they used in speaking to their seventh-grade child. The second asked parents the ratio of Spanish-to-En- glish their child used when speaking to them. Re- sponses to both questions were scored on a five- point scale that included the following categories: only English, mostly English and some Spanish, English and Spanish about equally, mostly Span- ish and some English, only Spanish. Higher scores are in the direction of greater Spanish usage. Parents' length of U.S. residence were coded in actual years lived in this country.

Procedure

The adult respondents were the parents of stu- dents attending one of three junior high schools in the greater Los Angeles area. Latino children were in the majority at all three schools. Student questionnaires were administered during required English and History classes. From an initial pool of 500 Mexican American students, a stratified (generation and gender) sample of 200 was se- lected and their parents were contacted for partic- ipation in this study. Students' ethnicity and gen- eration were determined by a combination of eth- nic identity and nativity questions answered by both students and parents. A letter was sent to the

homes of the 200 students, explaining to their parents that they would be called to participate in a telephone interview. The letter explained that the school district had approved the interview but that participation was strictly voluntary. In addi- tion, parents were told that their response would be kept confidential and that they would be paid $5 each for their participation in the interview. The parent letter was written in both English and Spanish. Home telephone numbers were obtained from the student questionnaire and from school records. Over 90% of the seventh-grade students had home phones. The validity of the telephone survey method with Latinos, especially for sensi- tive topics, has been empirically demonstrated (Marin & VanOss Marin, 1989).

Bilingual research assistants telephoned households and asked to speak to the students' mothers or fathers. Whenever possible, an effort was made to interview both parents during the same call. If one or both parents were unavail- able, the research assistant asked for convenient times to reschedule the interview. A minimum of three call-backs were attempted to locate and in- terview a missing parent. The response rate was very high (93%), with only 16 households not re- sponding, due primarily to scheduling conflicts. Parents were told that the purpose of the study was to determine how parents influence the school achievement of their children, specifically their seventh-grade son or daughter. After the par- ents had agreed to participate, the research assis- tant told them that, at any time during the inter- view, they could stop to ask questions or ask for clarification of questions. The interview then pro- ceeded in either English or Spanish, depending upon the parent's preference. Interviews lasted between 20 to 45 minutes, with Spanish inter- views generally running longer. After the inter- view, parents were thanked for their participation and asked for an address where their payment could be mailed. A substantial number of foreign- born parents declined payment but did request copies of the result of the study.

The parent interview questionnaire was initial- ly written in English and pilot tested with a small pool of parents with adolescent children. Parents in the pilot-testing sample (3 males and 3 females) were asked to comment on the interview questions and format. After making final adjustments in wording, the complete questionnaire was trans- lated to Spanish by a Mexican psychologist. Changes in wording were then made by a Chicano psychologist to fit the vernacular of the target

This content downloaded from 199.73.44.216 on Sat, 25 Oct 2014 19:10:27 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

992 Journal of Marriage and the Family

communities. After these adjustments, the Spanish questionnaire was translated back into English to check for conceptual discrepancies that might have occurred during translation. There were no apparent discrepancies between the English and Spanish versions of the parent questionnaire.

RESULTS

Data analysis proceeded in three steps. First, dif- ferences in childrearing were examined between parents of first-, second-, and third-generation students. Second, childrearing data were factor analyzed to yield a minimal set of criterion vari- ables. Third, the relationship of sociocultural vari- ables to childrearing was examined.

Table 1 presents the means and standard devi- ations for the sociocultural variables examined in this study. Although statistical analyses were not carried out on these data, it is apparent that par- ents of first- and second-generation children dif- fer from parents of third-generation children in terms of all of the social and cultural variables.

TABLE 1. MOTHERS' AND FATHERS' MEAN ON EACH SOCIOCULTURAL VARIABLE BY STUDENTS' GENERATION

Students' Generation

Sociocultural Variable First Second Third

Cultural/mother Mother's language to childa 4.87 4.54 1.64

(.38) (.90) (.83) Child's language to mothera 4.55 4.35 1.41

(.73) (1.03) (.74) Mother's years in U.S. 9.63 16.68 -

(3.72) (5.08) - Socioeconomic/mother

Mother's schoolingb 5.23 6.48 11.79 (4.01) (4.78) (1.81)

Family income 2.96 3.65 5.05 (1.81) (1.99) (2.73)

Cultural/father Father's language to childa 4.47 4.44 1.37

(.78) (.71) (.82) Child's language to fathera 4.45 4.37 1.17

(.64) (.85) (.46) Father's years in U.S. 12.30 18.24

(5.48) (8.81) - Socioeconomic/father

Father's schoolingb 5.27 6.65 12.51 (3.83) (3.70) (1.97)

Family income 2.96 3.65 5.05 (1.81) (1.99) (2.73)

Note: Numbers in parentheses are standard deviations. aHigher scores indicate greater Spanish usage. bActual number of years of schooling completed.

Parental Childrearing Practices

The seven childrearing practices were examined separately for mothers and fathers using 3 x 2 (student generation x student sex) MANOVAs and ANOVAs. The multivariate and univariate results of these analyses are presented in Tables 2 and 3 for mothers and fathers, respectively. The multivariate effect of students' generation was significant for both mothers and fathers, while the multivariate effect of students' sex was signifi- cant only for fathers. The multivariate interaction effect of generation and sex was not significant for either parent, despite two significant univari- ate interactions for fathers.

Univariate ANOVAs yielded student genera- tion differences in six of the seven childrearing practices for mothers (see Table 2). For all six significant analyses, post hoc tests showed that mothers of third-generation students differed sig- nificantly from mothers of both first- and second- generation students who, in turn, did not differ significantly from each other. These findings are summarized as follows: Mothers of first- and sec- ond-generation students expect earlier autonomy and more productive use of time, and are stricter and more permissive; mothers of third-generation students are more supportive and controlling.

Univariate ANOVAs for fathers' data yielded student generation differences in four of the seven childrearing practices (see Table 3). In three of the significant analyses, post hoc tests revealed the same pattern of differences as the results for moth- ers. Thus, fathers of first- and second-generation students do not differ from each other and expect earlier autonomy and more productive use of time, and are more permissive than fathers of third-gen- eration students. The only deviation from this gen- eral pattern of findings was for control. Fathers of first- and third-generation students are similar in their degree of control, and both are more control- ling than fathers of second-generation students.

Following up on the significant multivariate effect for students' sex in the data for fathers, uni- variate tests showed that fathers expected earlier autonomy from girls and were stricter with girls. Although the multivariate interaction effect was not significant, there were two significant univari- ate interactions involving autonomy and strictness that signal caution in interpreting the sex differ- ence in these variables. Examination of the means in Table 3 suggest that these sex differences are localized in the data for third-generation students, particularly in the case of autonomy.

This content downloaded from 199.73.44.216 on Sat, 25 Oct 2014 19:10:27 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

TABLE 2. MEANS AND MANOVA RESULTS FOR MOTHERS' CHILDREARING VARIABLES: STUDENT GENERATION BY SEX

Student Generation by Sex Univariate Analyses

Generation 1 Generation 2 Generation 3 Generation (G)b Sex (S)c G x Sd

Childrearinga Variable Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female F(2,166) F(1,166) F(2,166)

Autonomy 3.28 3.32 3.23 3.41 3.38 3.43 2.81 2.75 2.92 16.08*** .22 .73 (.46) (.40) (.54) (.48) (.41) (.54) (.69) (.74) (.59)

Productive use of time 3.46 3.51 3.39 3.59 3.61 3.57 3.09 2.96 3.30 7.10*** .29 1.78 (.60) (.62) (.58) (.55) (.55) (.55) (.79) (.78) (.80)

Equality 3.27 3.21 3.35 3.40 3.44 3.37 3.43 3.42 3.45 2.52 .27 1.23 (.35) (.35) (.35) (.33) (.30) (.36) (.39) (.38) (.42)

Strictness 3.40 3.41 3.39 3.38 3.25 3.50 3.01 2.98 3.05 6.95*** 1.02 .80 (.52) (.51) (.54) (.61) (.61) (.60) (.62) (.69) (.51)

Permissiveness 3.17 3.24 3.04 3.12 3.12 3.11 2.50 2.50 2.50 22.82*** .68 .54 (.51) (.38) (.63) (.56) (.46) (.64) (.56) (.55) (.60)

Support 4.11 4.07 4.17 4.04 3.94 4.13 4.32 4.20 4.51 4.68** 5.29* .43 (.55) (.58) (.53) (.59) (.49) (.66) (.54) (.58) (.41)

Control 3.85 3.86 3.84 3.86 3.85 3.87 4.22 4.17 4.31 6.03** .21 .20 (.72) (.66) (.82) (.58) (.49) (.66) (.62) (.64) (.60)

Note: Numbers in parentheses are standard deviations. aAll childrearing variables are scored on a 5-point scale, except support and control which were scored on a 4-point scale. bMultivariate analysis (Pillai's trace) for generation: F(14,322) = 5.87*** cMultivariate analysis (Pillai's trace) for sex: F(7,160) = 1.05. dMultivariate analysis (Pillai's trace) for G x S: F(14,322) = .96. *p<.05. **p<.01. ***p < .001.

C.

ft 2.

•.,o

%o

This content downloaded from 199.73.44.216 on Sat, 25 Oct 2014 19:10:27 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

TABLE 3. MEANS AND MANOVA RESULTS FOR FATHERS' CHILDREARING VARIABLES: STUDENT GENERATION BY SEX

Student Generation by Sex Univariate Analyses

Generation 1 Generation 2 Generation 3 Generation (G)b Sex (S)c G x Sd

Childrearinga Variable Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female F(2,119) F(1,119) F(2,166)

Autonomy 3.38 3.39 3.38 3.30 3.27 3.33 2.87 2.65 3.28 9.06*** 9.09** 5.77** (.33) (.31) (.36) (.39) (.43) (.35) (.54) (.47) (.44)

Productive use of time 3.51 3.55 3.45 3.54 3.60 3.48 3.00 3.00 3.00 5.67** .32 .06 (.61) (.57) (.68) (.61) (.64) (.58) (.84) (.86) (.86)

Equality 3.35 3.31 3.42 3.38 3.46 3.31 3.43 3.37 3.55 .59 .40 2.23 (.37) (.39) (.34) (.37) (.34) (.39) (.36) (.40) (.26)

Strictness 3.40 3.39 3.42 3.32 3.24 3.40 2.94 2.64 3.50 2.59 9.35** 4.06* (.58) (.57) (.61) (.59) (.61) (.57) (.69) (.52) (.66)

Permissiveness 3.06 3.13 2.95 3.09 3.16 3.02 2.55 2.55 2.55 8.32*** 1.09 .22 (.48) (.42) (.56) (.60) (.57) (.63) (.53) (.34) (.80)

Support 4.25 4.14 4.41 4.21 4.21 4.22 4.48 4.45 4.52 2.24 1.30 .75 (.55) (.59) (.46) (.55) (.50) (.60) (.40) (.41) (.40)

Control 3.91 4.06 3.71 3.61 3.72 3.50 4.11 4.14 4.05 6.04** 3.07 .32 (.58) (.62) (.46) (.69) (.63) (.75) (.70) (.72) (.68)

Note: Numbers in parentheses are standard deviations. aAll childrearing variables are scored on a 5-point scale, except support and control which are scored on a 4-point scale. bMultivariate analysis (Pillai's trace) for generation: F(14,228) = 3.60***. CMultivariate analysis (Pillai's trace) for sex: F(7,113) = 4.55*** dMultivariate analysis (Pillai's trace) for G x S: F(14,228) = 1.57. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

\o

J1?

C O x

O

~31

o9 (h

;s FL

(h

This content downloaded from 199.73.44.216 on Sat, 25 Oct 2014 19:10:27 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Childrearing in Mexican American Families 995

Factor Analysis of Parental Childrearing

A separate factor analysis was performed on the childrearing data for mothers and fathers using a principal components analysis with varimax rota- tion. This procedure reduced the childrearing data to the smallest number of uncorrelated factors. Because the childrearing factors were to be used as dependent variables in subsequent multiple re- gression analyses, the varimax procedure reduced the number of necessary analyses. In addition, it avoided overlap in prediction because the same sociocultural variables were used as predictors in all the regression analyses. This made the contri- bution of the sociocultural variables unique for each childrearing factor of each parent. Two childrearing factors emerged from mothers' and fathers' data.

The eigenvalues associated with the two fac- tors emerging from the mothers' data explain 57% of the variance in the matrix. The first fac- tor, which explains 33% of the common variance, had its highest loadings with autonomy, produc- tive use of time, strictness, and permissiveness. Because the childrearing practices included in this factor seem to describe a maternal socialization style stressing assumption of responsibility, this factor is referred to as Responsibility.

The second factor, which accounted for 24% of the common variance, loaded with support, control, and equality. These childrearing practices seem to describe maternal concern for the child, and this factor is therefore referred to as Concern.

The eigenvalues associated with the two fac- tors emerging from the fathers' data explain 52% of the variance in the matrix. The first factor, which explains 33.4% of the common variance, had its highest loadings with autonomy, strictness, permissiveness, productive use of time, and equal- ity. With the exception of equality, this factor is identical to the first maternal factor. Because equality had the lowest loading on this factor, and its inclusion does not appear to alter the composite meaning of the other variables, this first paternal factor was also named Responsibility.

The second factor, which accounted for 18.6% of the common variance, loaded with support and control. Again, with the exception of equality, this factor was identical to the second maternal factor. Therefore, this second paternal factor was also called Concern.

The reliability of the childrearing factors was assessed with Cronbach's alpha. For Responsibil- ity, the alpha coefficients were .74 and .67 for

mothers and fathers, respectively. For Concern, the alpha coefficients were .59 and .33 for moth- ers and fathers, respectively. The alphas for parental Responsibility were moderately high. On the other hand, the alphas for parental Concern were lower, due perhaps to the fewer number of measures making up this factor for both parents. Caution is therefore recommended in interpreting those portions of the findings involving Concern, especially for fathers' data.

Relation of Sociocultural Variables to Childrearing

Four stepwise multiple regressions were used to examine the relationship of the sociocultural vari- ables to the childrearing factors of Responsibility and Concern. Separate analyses were performed on the data for mothers and fathers. Each regres- sion equation included the five sociocultural vari- ables as predictors. In addition, generation was in- cluded as a variable in the regression equations to evaluate its unique effects relative to the sociocul- tural variables, as well as its interaction with these variables. Since MANOVA and ANOVA child- rearing results showed virtually no difference be- tween parents of first- and second-generation stu- dents, data for these two groups were combined into a single generation category. Thus, generation was dummy coded so that the combined data for parents of first- and second-generation students (coded 1) was contrasted with data for parents of third-generation students (coded 0). Finally, father absence was coded and included as a predictor to evaluate its possible effect on Responsibility and Concern in the data for mothers.

TABLE 4. STEPWISE MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSES PREDICTING MOTHERS' AND FATHERS' RESPONSIBILITY

AND CONCERN FROM SOCIOCULTURAL VARIABLES

Predictor Variables Step P R2 Change F

Mother's responsibility Child's Spanish

to mother 1 .40 .26 67.44* Family income 2 -.23 .31 41.92*

Mother's concern Mother's schooling 1 .33 .10 22.71"

Father's responsibility Family income 1 -.31 .17 26.55* Generation 2 .30 .25 21.15*

Father's concern Child's Spanish

to father 1 -.28 .08 12.10*

*p < .001.

This content downloaded from 199.73.44.216 on Sat, 25 Oct 2014 19:10:27 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

996 Journal of Marriage and the Family

Table 4 summarizes results of the four step- wise multiple regressions. The table includes in- formation about the variables that made a signifi- cant contribution, the order in which the variables entered the equation, and the amount of variance (R2) the variables explained.

Results for mothers showed Responsibility to be positively associated with the child's Spanish to mother and negatively associated with family income. Maternal Concern showed a significant relationship to only one variable, mother's schooling. The direction of this relationship was positive. Results for fathers showed Responsibili- ty to be negatively related to family income. Re- sponsibility was also significantly related to gen- eration in the direction of more Responsibility among fathers of the combined first- and second- generations. Finally, paternal Concern was nega- tively related to child's Spanish. The interaction of generation with the sociocultural variables did not make a significant contribution to variance in the analyses for mothers or fathers.

DIscussION

Results of this study reveal important intergenera- tional differences in childrearing practices related to variations in the sociocultural backgrounds of Mexican American families. The proximity of Mexico to the U.S. and continued immigration clearly indicate intergenerational dynamics as permanent features of Mexican American culture. As the size of this population continues to grow, it is imperative to understand the extent and na- ture of within-group diversity that influences so- cialization. Parents of first- and second-genera- tion students, especially mothers, were very simi- lar in their socialization practices. This is not surprising, in that both groups of parents were born in Mexico and share an immigrant experi- ence. Nativity and the immigration experience thus distinguish them from mothers of third-gen- eration students, who, like their children, were born and raised in the U.S. Foreign-born mothers stress earlier autonomy, productive use of time, strictness, and permissiveness more than mothers of third-generation students. On the other hand, mothers of third-generation students express more concern and support than their foreign-born coun- terparts. All groups of mothers are alike in the de- gree of equality that they encourage in parent- child relations.

The pattern of socialization between fathers of first-, second-, and third-generation students mir-

ror the findings for mothers in the areas of produc- tive use of time, equality, and permissiveness. In other areas, however, the similarity between spouses is greater among fathers of first- and sec- ond-generation students. Thus, like their spouses, fathers of first- and second-generation students do not differ in the areas of autonomy, strictness, and support. By contrast, fathers of third-generation students differ from their spouses in that they ex- pect earlier autonomy only for their daughters and value less strictness only for their sons. The greater similarity in socialization between foreign- born mothers and fathers may reflect stronger agreement and mutual support for childrearing goals among parents in immigrant families. Immi- gration removes families from the support base of their native communities and places them into new environments lacking extended kinship net- works (Keefe & Padilla, 1987). Consequently, im- migrant family members may respond by develop- ing stronger interdependence (Casas & Ortiz 1985; de Anda, 1984) to help the family adjust to its new environment. Consensus in socialization goals may reflect an area of domestic interdepen- dence conditioned by the immigrant experience. However, interdependence and consensus may be weakened in later generations through accultura- tion, which provides parents with different ideas and options about childrearing. Thus, accultura- tion may lead to greater variations in socialization styles between U.S.-born husbands and wives.

Immigrant parents generally scored higher on those socialization practices making up the factor called Responsibility. This factor is characterized by an expectation for earlier self-reliance and for adherence to family rules within an open parent- child relationship. This factor resembles the au- thoritative parenting style described by Baumrind (1973) and others (Dornbusch, Ritter, Leiderman, Roberts, & Fraleigh, 1987). In contrast, U.S.-born parents, particularly mothers, scored higher on the socialization practices that make up the factor called Concern. This factor is characterized by emotional support and the expectation of proper behavior at home and school.

The self-selection of Mexican immigrants has been associated with such personality characteris- tics as independence, responsibility, and deferred gratification (for a review, see Buriel, 1984). These characteristics seem well-suited to survival in an unfamiliar environment and are probably encouraged by immigrant parents in their social- ization practices. First- and second-generation children are often required to serve as English-

This content downloaded from 199.73.44.216 on Sat, 25 Oct 2014 19:10:27 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Childrearing in Mexican American Families 997

speaking interpreters between their parents and societal institutions and to assume other family responsibilities such as the shared socialization of younger siblings (Quintanilla, 1990). The social- ization style defined here as Responsibility there- fore seems well-adapted to the life experiences of Mexican immigrants and their children.

By virtue of growing up in the U.S., U.S.-born parents are more acculturated, which reduces some of the responsibility that they must place on their children for the family's survival. Consequently, a Responsibility style of socialization is expressed less than in immigrant families. In addition, by the second generation, and increasingly thereafter, Mexican Americans become cognizant of the so- cially imposed disadvantageous nature of their eth- nic minority status (Buriel, Calzada, & Vasquez, 1982; Buriel & Vasquez, 1982; Dworkin, 1965; Matute-Bianchi, 1986; Ogbu & Matute-Bianchi, 1986). This awareness may motivate U.S.-born parents to be more supportive of their children and to encourage proper behavior at school as a means of overcoming their socially disadvantaged situa- tion. Emphasis on a Concern style of socialization may also reflect a shift toward the childrearing norms of mainstream Euro-American society, aris- ing from acculturation. Future research comparing Euro-Americans could provide a more conclusive answer to this hypothesis.

The sociocultural variables of Spanish usage, family income, and parental schooling bear the most theoretically interesting relationships to the childrearing styles of Responsibility and Concern. Parental values associated with a Responsibility style of childrearing may reflect the demands of the immigrant experience that are encoded in Spanish. Children's greater use of Spanish with mothers may reflect these children's receptivity to parental expectations for Responsibility. Because these children use English extensively outside the home, their retention of Spanish for speaking with mothers may represent a form of identity with parental values. As Spanish usage decreases, so, too, perhaps, do the cognitions and motivations engendered through a Responsibility style of childrearing. This may lead to a more Concern style of childrearing, which is negatively related to children's Spanish usage with fathers.

Research documents a strong correlation be- tween family income and acculturation (Moore & Pachon, 1985; Negy & Woods, 1992). Income and acculturation affect each other reciprocally, with more acculturation providing more opportunities for economic mobility, which in turn facilitates

social and cultural interaction with the larger soci- ety. The impact of family income on socialization may therefore be twofold. First, higher incomes may reflect more exposure to acculturating influ- ences that compete with Responsibility as a social- ization style. Second, greater financial resources may relieve families of some of the survival pres- sures attendant with immigration that initially en- couraged a Responsibility style of childrearing.

It should be noted that language also affects socioeconomic status because knowledge of En- glish is an economic asset in this society. In this study, English/Spanish usage was assessed only in relation to parent-child interactions. However, parental English usage outside the home may fa- cilitate socioeconomic development, which in turn affects childrearing styles. Future research should consider parents' English usage outside the home, as well as with children, to determine the independent effects of language on socioeco- nomic status and childrearing.

Mothers' schooling encourages the develop- ment of a Concern style of childrearing. Accord- ing to Laosa (1982), prolonged schooling imparts behavioral dispositions toward parenting styles re- sembling the academic style of the school. This in- cludes reinforcement or praise for behaviors, which, in the present study, resemble the social- ization style called Concern. The positive relation- ship of parental schooling to Concern is therefore to be expected. However, an alternative explana- tion that takes into account the more negative treatment of Mexican Americans in school should also be considered. Specifically, research shows that teachers behave less favorably toward Mexi- can Americans such that, relative to Euro-Ameri- can students, they receive less teacher support and praise (U.S. Civil Rights Commission, 1973), even after answering correctly (Buriel, 1983), and are penalized for their lack of English proficiency (Laosa, 1977). The effects of prolonged exposure to such inequitable treatment may encourage a parental socialization style that attempts to com-

pensate for the disadvantaged classroom situation of these students. Because parents of third-genera- tion students were themselves schooled in the U.S., they have first-hand knowledge of the edu- cational experiences of their children, and can em- pathize with their situation. Thus, more schooling may encourage a Concern style of socialization as a form of parental support and compensation for the disapproval that children receive in school.

Father absence showed no relationship to the childrearing styles of Responsibility and Concern.

This content downloaded from 199.73.44.216 on Sat, 25 Oct 2014 19:10:27 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

998 Jourmal of Marriage and the Family

Perhaps any effects of father absence are offset by the involvement of extended family in the social- ization process. According to Keefe and Padilla (1987), U.S.-born families have the largest ex- tended kinship networks. Schmidt and Padilla (1983) also found Mexican American grandpar- ents' involvement in the socialization of grand- children to be highest with the U.S.-born children of their daughters. It is this group of mothers and children that have the highest rate of father ab- sence in this study.

Delinquency and lower school achievement are two serious problems among Mexican American adolescents, particularly those in the later genera- tions. The childrearing style of Responsibility that is more characteristic of foreign-born parents seems to encourage greater adherence to parental rules (strictness), within a context valuing effi- ciency (productive use of time) and self-reliance (autonomy). The greater press for Responsibility among parents of first- and second-generation stu- dents may partially explain why, in the literature, third-generation children experience higher rates of delinquency (Buriel et al., 1982; Vigil & Long, 1981) and lower grades (Landsman et al., 1991). Thus, among Mexican American adolescents, a childrearing style resembling Responsibility may be crucial in fostering healthy social and academic development. Future research should examine if a Responsibility style of childrearing is common among foreign-born parents with children of all ages, or unique to parents of adolescents owing to the particular developmental challenges of their teenage children.

Previous research on Mexican Americans has ignored generational differences and sociocultural factors in families that contribute to variations in childrearing styles. By sampling generationally diverse families with sociocultural backgrounds representative of the Mexican American popula- tion, this study provides a more complete under- standing of Mexican American childrearing.

NOTE

This study was supported by a grant from the Social Science Research Council and The Inter-University Program for Latino Research. Requests for reprints should be sent to Raymond Buriel.

REFERENCES

Baumrind, D. (1973). The development of instrumental competence through socialization. In A. D. Pick (Ed.), Minnesota symposium on child psychology

(Vol. 7, pp. 3-46). Minneapolis: University of Min- nesota Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspec- tives. Developmental Psychology, 22, 723-742.

Buriel, R. (1983). Teacher-student interactions and their relationship to student achievement: A comparison of Anglo American and Mexican American children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 178-187.

Buriel, R. (1984). Integration with traditional Mexican American culture and sociocutural adjustment. In J. L. Martinez & R. Mendoza (Eds.), Chicano Psy- chology (2nd ed., pp. 95-130). New York: Academic Press.

Buriel, R. Calzada, S., & Vasquez, R. (1982). The rela- tionship of traditional Mexican American culture to adjustment and delinquency among three generations of Mexican American male adolescents. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 4, 41-55.

Buriel, R., & Cardoza, D. (1993). Mexican American ethnic labeling: An intrafamilial and intergenera- tional analysis. In M. Bernal & G. Knight (Eds.), Ethnic identity: Formation and transmission among Hispanics and other minorities (pp. 197-210). New York: SUNY Press.

Buriel, R., Mercado, R., Rodriguez, J., & Chavez, J. M. (1991). Mexican American disciplinary practices and attitudes toward child maltreatment: A compari- son of foreign- and native-born mothers. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 13, 78-94.

Buriel, R., & Vasquez, R. (1982). Stereotypes of Mexi- can descent persons: Attitudes of three generations of Mexican American and Anglo American adoles- cents. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 13, 59-70.

Burnam, M. A., Hough, R., Karno, M., Escobar, J., & Telles, C. (1987). Acculturation and lifetime preva- lence of psychiatric disorders among Mexican Americans in Los Angeles. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 28, 89-102.

Casas, J. M., & Ortiz, S. (1985). Exploring the applica- bility of the dyadic adjustment scale for assessing level of marital adjustment with Mexican Ameri- cans. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47, 1023- 1027.

Chavez, J. M., & Buriel, R. (1986). Reinforcing chil- dren's effort: A comparison of foreign born and na- tive born Mexican American mothers. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 8, 127-142.

Cromwell, R. E. (1969). Development of a parental atti- tude research scale for use with the lower and mid- dle classes. Unpublished master's thesis, Kansas State University.

de Anda, D. (1984). Informal support networks of His- panic mothers: A comparison across age groups. Journal of Social Service Research, 7, 89-105.

Devereux, E. C., Bronfenbrenner, U., & Rodgers, R. R. (1969). Childrearing in England and the United States: A cross-national comparison. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 31, 257-270.

Dinerman, I. R. (1982). Migrants and stay-at-homes: A comparative study of rural immigration from Mi- choacan, Mexico. San Diego: University of Califor- nia, Center for United States-Mexican Studies.

Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Liederman, P. H., Roberts, D. F., & Fraleigh, M. J. (1987). The relation

This content downloaded from 199.73.44.216 on Sat, 25 Oct 2014 19:10:27 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Childrearing in Mexican American Families 999

of parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child Development, 58, 1244-1257.

Durrett, M. E., O'Bryant, S., & Pennebaker, J. W. (1975). Child-rearing reports of white, black, and Mexican American families. Developmental Psy- chology, 11, 871.

Dworkin, A. G. (1965). Stereotypes and self-images held by native-born and foreign-born Mexican Americans. Sociology and Social Research, 49, 214- 224.

Fromm, E., & Maccoby, M. (1970). Social character in a Mexican village. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall.

Harrison, A. O., Wilson, M. N., Pine, C. J., Chan, S. Q., & Buriel, R. (1990). Family ecologies of ethnic mi- nority children. Child Development, 61, 347-362.

Hess, R. D. (1970). Social class and ethnic influences on socialization. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael's manual of child psychology (Vol.2, pp. 457-557). New York: Wiley.

Hirano-Nakaniski, M. (1986). The extent and preva- lence of pre-high school attrition and delayed educa- tion for Hispanics. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 8, 61-76.

Kearns, B. J. R. (1970). Childrearing practices among selected culturally deprived minorities. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 116, 149-155.

Keefe, S. E., & Padilla, A. M. (1987). Chicano ethnicity. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Kim, Y. Y. (1988). Communication and cross-cultural adaptation. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.

Landsman, M. A., Padilla, A. M., Leiderman, H., Clark, C., Ritter, P., & Dornbusch, S. (1991). Biculturalism and academic achievement among Asian and His- panic adolescents. Unpublished manuscript, Stan- ford University, Stanford, CA.

Laosa, L. M. (1977). Inequality in the classroom: Obser- vational research on teacher-student interactions. Aztlan: International Journal of Chicano Studies Re- search, 8, 51-67.

Laosa, L. M. (1980a). Maternal teaching strategies and cognitive styles in Chicano families. Journal of Edu- cational Psychology, 72, 45-54.

Laosa, L. M. (1980b). Maternal teaching strategies in Chicano and Anglo-American families: The influ- ence of culture and education on maternal behavior. Child Development, 51, 759-765.

Laosa, L. M. (1981). Maternal behavior: Sociocultural diversity in modes of family interaction. In R. W. Henderson (Ed.), Parent-child interaction: Theory, research and prospects. (pp. 125-167). New York: Academic Press.

Laosa, L. M. (1982). School, occupation, culture, and family: The impact of parental schooling on the par- ent-child relationship. Journal of Educational Psy- chology, 74, 791-827.

Laosa, L. M. (1989). Social competence in childhood: Toward a developmental, socioculturally relevant paradigm. Journal of Applied Developmental Psy- chology, 10, 447-468.

LeVine, E. S., & Bartz, K. W. (1979). Comparative childrearing attitudes among Chicano, Anglo, and black parents. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sci- ences, 1, 165-178.

Lin, C. C., & Fu, R. R. (1990). A comparison of child- rearing practices among Chinese, immigrant Chi-

nese, and Caucasian-American parents. Child Devel- opment, 61, 429-433.

Lopez, D. E. (1982). Language maintenance and shift in the United States today: The basic patterns and their social implications: Volume L Overview and summa- ry. Los Alamitos, CA: National Center for Bilingual Research.

Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of child psy- chology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and so- cial development (pp. 1-102). New York: Wiley.

Marin, G., & VonOss Marin, B. (1989). A comparison of three interviewing approaches for studying sensi- tive topics with Hispanics. Hispanic Journal of Be- havioral Sciences, 11, 330-340.

Matute-Bianchi, M. E. (1986). Ethnic identities and pat- terns of school success and failure among Mexican- descent and Japanese-American students in a Cali- fornia high school: An ethnographic analysis. Ameri- can Journal of Education, 95, 233-255.

Moore, J., & Pachon, H. (1985). Hispanics in the United States. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Negy, C., & Woods, D. J. (1992). A note on the rela- tionship between acculturation and socioeconomic status. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 14, 248-251.

Nielsen, F., & Fernandez, R. M. (1981). Hispanic stu- dents in American high schools: Background char- acteristics and achievement. Washington, DC: Na- tional Center for Education Statistics.

Ogbu, J., & Matute-Bianchi, M. E. (1986). Understand- ing sociocultural factors: Knowledge, identity, and school adjustment. In California State Department of Education (Ed.), Beyond language: Social and cul- tural factors in schooling language minority students (pp. 73-142). Los Angeles: California State Univer- sity, Education, Dissemination and Assessment Cen- ter.

Ortiz, V. (1986). Generational status, family back- ground, and educational attainment among Hispanic youth and non-Hispanic white youth. In M. A. Oli- vas (Ed.), Latino college students (pp. 29-46). New York: Teachers College Press.

Padilla, A. M., & Lindholm, K. J. (1983). Hispanic Americans: Future behavioral science research di- rections (Occasional Paper No. 17). Los Angeles: University of California, Spanish Speaking Mental Health Research Center.

Portes, A. (1979). Illegal immigration and the interna- tional system: Lessons from recent legal Mexican immigration to the United States. Social Problems, 4, 425-438.

Portes, A., & Bach, R. L. (1985). Latin journey: Cuban and Mexican immigrants in the United States. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Quintanilla, M. (1990, March 1). The littlest inter- preters. Los Angeles Times, pp. El, E7.

Ramirez, O., & Arce, C. (1981). The contemporary Chi- cano family: An empirically based review. In A. Barron (Ed.), Explorations in Chicano psychology. New York: Praeger.

Schaefer, E. S., & Bell, R. Q. (1958). Development of a parental attitude research instrument. Child Develop- ment, 29, 339-361.

This content downloaded from 199.73.44.216 on Sat, 25 Oct 2014 19:10:27 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1000 Journal of Marriage and the Family

Schmidt, A., & Padilla, A. M. (1983). Grandparent- grandchild interaction in a Mexican American group. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 5, 181- 198.

United States Commission on Civil Rights (1973). Teachers and students: Report V. Mexican American

education study. Differences in teacher interaction with Mexican American and Anglo students. Wash- ington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Vigil, J. D., & Long, J. M. (1981). Unidirectional or na- tivist acculturation: Chicano paths to school achiev- ment. Human Organization, 40, 273-277.

New Publication from NCFR!

Vision 2010: Families & Health Care

Issue Editor: Barbara Elliott Series Editor: Sharon Price

The Vision 2010series will examine trends, policy, program, and assessment issues facing American families both now and in the future. It will follow the format of NCFR's highly successful report, 2001: Preparing Families for the Future.

Families and Health Care, the first issue in the Vision 2010 series, presents health care reform needs from the family perspective. By taking this perspective, the current needs can be seen more broadly,aand reform can befocused to improve the U.S.health caresystem and tostrengthen American families. Family and health experts provide analyses of 19 issues. Topics covered include: Health Promotion-Disease Prevention and the Family, Reproduction and the Family, Family Violence, Training Health Professionals About Families, HealthExperiencesof MinorityFamilies, and Family Centered Health Policy. 44 pages.

$12.95 for NCFR members and $14.95 for nonmembers. Foreignnand Canadian orders add $2.00 shipping and handling. U.S. funds on U.S. banks only. Canadian orders add 7% GST (123- 830-465). MN Residents add 6.5% sales tax.

National Council on Family Relations 3989 Central Ave. NE, Suite 550 Minneapolis, MN 55421 (612) 781-9331 + FAX (612) 781-9348

New NCFR Publication!

Family Health: From Data to Policy Editors: Gerry E. Hendershot &

Felicia B. LeClere

The Clinton administration has recognized that family issues are central to many of this nations health & welfare problems. However, federal agencies responsible for the statistical data need- ed to respond to the policy debates are ill pre- pared to provide integrated family health data to policy makers. The offices of the Asst. Sec. for Planning & Evaluation (ASPE) and the Nation- al Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) in the Center for Disease Control & Prevention en- tered into an interagency collaborative effort to improve data collection and dissemination.

This book summarizes a 3-day workshop aimed at increasing awareness of the need to improve federal statistics on families and health issues and to form consensus about what family and health statistics are needed. It encapsulates the discussion of members of government, agen- cies, family researchers, and policy makers!

$17.95 for NCFR members and $21.95 for non- members. Foreign and Canadian orders add $2.00 shipping and handling. U.S. funds on U.S. banks only. Canadian orders add 7% GST(123- 830-465). MN Residents add 6.5% Sales tax.

National Council on Family Relations 3989 Central Ave. NE, Suite 550

Minneapolis, MN 55421 (612) 781-9331 + (612) 781-9348 FAX

This content downloaded from 199.73.44.216 on Sat, 25 Oct 2014 19:10:27 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions