1. No category

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
RAYMONDBURIEL
Pomona College
ChildrearingOrientationsin
Mexican American Families: The Influence of
Generationand SocioculturalFactors
This study compared the childrearing practices
used by Mexican American parents of first-, second-, and third-generation adolescents. Effects of
family sociocultural variables on childrearing
were also examined. There were 317 adult respondents representing the parents of 186 adolescents.
Multivariate and univariate analyses revealed significant generational differences in childrearing
styles. Parents of first- and second-generation
adolescents reported a more responsibility-oriented childrearing style, whereas parents of thirdgeneration adolescents reported a more concernoriented childrearing style. The relationship of
family sociocultural variables to parents' childrearing 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 childrearing styles emphasizing either responsibility or
concern. Results are discussed in relation to the
effects that immigration and acculturation have on
Mexican Americanfamilies.
The generationalstatus of parentsand children
contributesto socioculturalvariationsin Mexican
American families that have implications for
Psychology Department, Pomona College, Claremont, CA
91711.
childrearing.Today,the Mexican-descentpopulation in the United States consists of persons in
one of three generationalgroups: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 importantsocial and cultural
differences between these three groups (Buriel,
Mercado,Rodriguez,& Chavez, 1991). Socially,
Mexican-bornparents have less education and
lower family incomes than their U.S.-borncounterparts.Culturally,Mexican-bornparentsspeak
less English, which slows their acculturationby
limitingcontactwith U.S. English-speakingsociety.
An adequatestudy of culturalminorityfamilies musttakeinto accountboth social and cultural influences on human development (Laosa,
1989). A large body of literaturedocuments a
consistentrelationshipbetweenchildrearingpractices and the socioeconomicvariablesof parents'
education and family income (for reviews, see
Hess, 1970;Laosa, 1981). A neglectedareaof research, however, concerns the relationship of
childrearingpractices to culturalfactors (Bronfenbrenner, 1986; Maccoby & Martin, 1983;
Padilla& Lindholm,1983).The presentstudyexamines generationaldifferences in childrearing
practices of Mexican Americanparentsand assesses the impactof socioculturalfactorsunderlying childrearingpracticesacrossgenerations.
Journalof Marriageandthe Family55 (November1993):987-1000
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
987
Journalof Marriageand the Family
988
The first generation being examined in this
studyincludesthose personsbornin Mexico who
later immigratedto the U.S. Some of these persons immigratedas single youngadultsor as marriedcouples,while otherswerebroughtto the U.S.
as youngchildrenby theirparents.Familyincome
is typicallylow in the firstgeneration,due to parents' lower educationand limited knowledge of
English. First-generation children grow up in
home environmentswhereSpanishis the primary
languagebetweenparentsandchildren.The family's exposureto Englishoftencomes throughchilin the U.S. school system.The
dren'sparticipation
second generationrepresentsthe U.S.-bornchildren of immigrantparents.The family environchildrenare in many
mentsof second-generation
ways similar to those of their first-generation
peers, owing to the foreign-bornstatus of their
parents.Culturalschismsand synergismsare also
mostapparentin the familiesof second-generation
children.Thus, while Spanish is the native language of second-generationchildren,Englishbecomes theirdominantlanguageafterthe onset of
schooling.However,Spanishcontinuesas the primary languageof their parents,which creates a
strongenvironmentalpress for bilingualism.The
thirdgenerationrefers collectively to persons of
Mexicandescentwhose parentswere bornin the
U.S. This includespersonsin the fourthand subsequent generations whose grandparents and
were bornin this country.The
great-grandparents
thirdgenerationis distinguishedfromthe two previous generationsby the absence of any direct
parentallinksto Mexico via immigration.Thus,in
contrastto the first and second generationwhere
socializationinvolveda Mexican-bornparent,persons in the thirdgenerationare socializedexclusively by parentswho were themselvesborn and
raisedin the U.S. Personsin the thirdgeneration
have also grown up in homes where all family
membersare U.S. citizens, where English is the
primary language (Lopez, 1982), and where
parentalschoolinghas takenplace exclusively in
U.S. schools. On average,years of schoolingand
familyincomesarehighestin the thirdgeneration.
ResearchindicatesthatimmigrationfromMexico is selective.Priorto immigrating,adultMexicans receivemoreyearsof schoolingthanthe nationalaveragefor Mexico (Portes,1979;Portes&
Bach, 1985), and exhibit personalityand motivationalcharacteristics
conduciveto achievementin
U.S. society (Dinerman,1982; Fromm& Maccoby, 1970). Since immigrationis motivatedby a
desire for change and upwardmobility, it is not
surprisingthatMexicanimmigrantsexhibit lower
ratesof delinquency(Buriel,Calzada,& Vasquez,
1982), less psychological distress (Burnam,
Hough, Karno, Escobar, & Telles, 1987), and
more maritalsatisfactionthan their later generation peers (Casas& Ortiz, 1985; de Anda, 1984).
And despite a high drop-outrate due to limited
English proficiency, while in school, immigrant
adolescentsobtainhigherachievementtest scores
(Nielsen & Fernandez,1981) and better grades
(Landsman,Padilla,Leiderman,Clark,Ritter,&
Dornbusch,1991)thanU.S.-bornMexicanAmericans.It is apparentthat,acrosssuccessivegenerations, MexicanAmericanfamilies undergosocial
and culturalchangesthat do not always conform
to a linearmodel of acculturation.
Thatis, change
is not alwaysin the directionof healthierpsychological adjustment.What is less obvious is how
developmentalprocesseswithin Mexican American families change across generations.Recent
discussionsof ethnicminorityfamilies (Harrison,
Wilson, Pine, Chan, & Buriel, 1990; Lin & Fu,
1990) hypothesizethat parentsadapttheir socializationpracticesin responseto socioculturalvariations among family members. In immigrant
groups,acculturativepressuresrepresenta major
sourceof socioculturalchangeanddiversitywithin the family.
Studies suggest that social and culturalvariables each impactdifferentlyon MexicanAmerican childrearingpractices.Laosa (1980a, 1980b)
showed that maternalteachingstyles were affected by years of schooling, a social class variable.
Motherswith less educationwere more likely to
use modeling as a teaching style, whereasmore
educated mothers used inquiry and praise. According to Laosa (1982), this shift in teaching
styles occursbecausemorehighlyschooledmothers increasinglytake on the teachingstyle of the
school, which emphasizes inquiry and praise.
Chavez and Buriel (1986), on the other hand,
found a relationshipbetween maternalreinforcement style and nativity,a variableoften used as a
culturalmarker.The reinforcementsof foreignborn motherswere more contingenton the outcomes of children'sperformance(success or failure), whereasU.S.-bornmothersreinforcedmore
on the basis of children's effort (high or low).
These results were interpretedwithin a two-step
culturalintegrationmodel (Buriel, 1984), which
positsthat:(a) the highlyself-selectedcharacterof
immigrantsresultsin the migrationof very taskorientedpersons,and, (b) prolongedexposureto
lower societal expectationsfor minoritiesdimin-
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
ishes the probabilityfor success and encourages
parentalcompensationin the form of reinforcing
to success(i.e., effort).
approximations
Althoughthe aforementionedstudiesby Laosa
(1980a, 1980b, 1982) and Chavez and Buriel
(1986) are informative,thereare threelimitations
in theirresearchconcerningthe uniqueinfluences
of social and culturalvariableson childrearing.
First, the inevitablecovariationbetween generation andeducationin these studies,resultingfrom
smallsamplesizes, makesit difficultto unequivocally isolatethe separateeffects of these two variables on childrearing.Second,only two very specific categories of behavior were examined,
teachingstyle and reinforcementstyle, thus leaving the relationshipof socioculturalvariablesto
otherchildrearingdimensionsunexamined.Finally, the role of fathersin the child's development
was not considered,and, along with it, the possible impactof fatherabsence.Only two published
studies have examinedthe childrearingattitudes
of MexicanAmericanfathers(Durrett,O'Bryant,
& Pennebaker,1975; LeVine & Bartz, 1979), but
neitherconsideredwithin-groupdifferencesrelated to socioculturalfactorsandgenerationalstatus.
In additionto the aforementionedlimitations,
studies have not exploredhow the culturalvariables of Spanish/Englishusage between parent
and child and length of U.S. residence affect
MexicanAmericanchildrearing.Especiallyin immigrantfamilies, parentsare often introducedto
Englishand its attendantacculturativeinfluences
throughchildren'sparticipationin school. Many
are the Latino parents who complain that their
children'sdiminishinguse of Spanishaffectstheir
communicationwith them.On the otherhand,the
longerimmigrantparentsare in this country,the
more likely it is that they develop a workingunderstandingand use of English that facilitates
communicationwith theirmore English-speaking
children.Accordingto some social identitytheorists (Kim, 1988), minority languages serve as
reservoirsof culturalvalues. Thus, to the extent
thatimmigrantsocializationvalues are enmeshed
in the semanticsof the native language,changes
in languageusage may correlatewith changesin
childrearingstyles.
The presentstudywas designedto comparethe
childrearingpractices used by parents of first-,
MexicanAmerican
second-, and third-generation
adolescents.In addition,the contributionof socioculturalfactorsto childrearing,and theirpossible
interactionwith generation,were examined.The
social variablesincludedparents'educationand
989
family income. The cultural variables included
Spanish/Englishusage in parent-childcommunication and length of U.S. residence. The Parent
Attitude Research Scale or PARS (Cromwell,
1969; LeVine & Bartz, 1979) was used to assess
the childrearingpracticesof mothersand fathers
along seven dimensions: autonomy, productive
use of time, equality, strictness,permissiveness,
support,andcontrol.The seven PARSdimensions
covermanyof the childrearingvariablesexamined
in previousresearchcomparingMexican American and Euro-Americansamples. For instance,
Durrettet al. (1975) found that,relativeto EuroAmericanparents,MexicanAmericansplace less
emphasison their children'searly assumptionof
responsibility.LeVineandBartz(1979) foundthat
MexicanAmericanparentsstressedless egalitarianism while favoring more permissiveness.
Kearns(1970) foundthatMexicanAmericanparents were stricterand more controllingwith their
children.These between-groupdifferences were
usuallyexplainedas the resultof traditionalMexican values, as if MexicanAmericanswere a culturallyhomogeneouspopulation.However,by focusing on between-group comparisons, researchers have ignored the tremendous
within-groupdiversityin the Mexican American
populationthatarisesfromgenerationalandsocioculturalfactorsthataffectchildrearing
practices.
Studies of Mexican American childrearing
have focused exclusively on preadolescentchildren (Harrison et al., 1990; Ramirez & Arce,
1981). The presentstudy is the first to examine
childrearingin a sample of Mexican American
parentswith adolescentchildren.Researchwith
MexicanAmericanparentsand adolescentsis importantbecauseit is duringadolescencethatchildrenof this groupare at greatestriskfor dropping
out of school (Hirano-Nakanishi,1986), for engaging in delinquent behavior (Buriel et al.,
1982), and for expressing confusion about their
ethnicidentity(Vigil & Long, 1981). The present
study thereforenot only extends childrearingresearchwith MexicanAmericansinto adolescence,
but, in addition,establishesa context for understandingthe relationof childrearingvariablesto
criticalareasof adolescentdevelopment.
METHOD
Subjects
Therewere 317 MexicanAmericanadultrespondentsin the studyrepresentingthe parentsof 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-gradestudents(96 boys and90 girls).The
sample included 131 two-parentfamilies and 55
single-parentfamilies. Divorce or separationaccountedfor the single-parentfamilies,which,in all
cases, were headedby women. The adultsample
was stratifiedon the basis of theirchildren'sgenerational status. First-generation students (33
males and 33 females) were born in Mexico and
also hadbothparentsbornin Mexico (53 two-parent families and 13 single-parentfamilies). Secstudents(34 malesand36 females)
ond-generation
werebornin the U.S. but had one or both parents
born in Mexico (51 two-parentfamilies and 19
students
single-parentfamilies). Third-generation
(29 males and 21 females)were born in the U.S.
andalso hadbothparentsbornin the U.S (27 twoparentfamiliesand23 single-parentfamilies).
The presentstudyis partof a largerinvestigation of Mexican-descentseventhgradersandtheir
parentsliving in three communities of the Los
Angeles metropolitanarea. The communitiesincludedone in south-centralLos Angeles and two
in the easternsuburbsof the city. The south-central community is a predominantly immigrant
areathathas becomeMexicanizedwithinthe past
20 years. The socioeconomic make-up of the
community is overwhelmingly working class,
with many parentsworkingin the service industry. The two communitiesin the easternsuburbs
of the city both have long-standingMexican-descent populationsdating to the 1930s. In recent
years,bothcommunitieshave experienceda large
influxof Mexicanimmigrants.The socioeconomic make-upof both areasincludes workingclass
and lower middle class. Parents' occupations
rangefromagriculturalworkersto managerialpositions. The three communities are typical of
those inhabitedby Mexican Americansin southern California,the region with the largestMexican-descentpopulationin the U.S.
In the course of answering questions about
lengthof U.S. residence,many immigrantfathers
notedthatthey initiallycame to the U.S. alone,in
order to find work and housing, before sending
for theirwives and childrenwho had remainedin
Mexico. This demographicappearsin Table 1,
which shows that, among immigrantparents,fathershave more averageyears of U.S. residence
thanmothers.At the time of the interview,all fathers in the sample reported being employed.
Abouthalf of the mothersin all three communities reportedemploymentoutside the home, althoughmany workedonly part-time.In response
to an ethnicidentityquestion,all parentsandtheir
seventh-grade children showed preference for
ethnic labels expressing affiliation with their
Mexicanancestry(Buriel& Cardoza,1993).
Parental Measures
Childrearing practices. The childrearing dimen-
sions examinedin this study were identified by
LeVineandBartz(1979) in theirstudyof low-income MexicanAmerican,AfricanAmerican,and
Euro-Americanparents.LeVine and Bartzidentified seven childrearingdimensionsrepresentinga
combination of items from the Parent Attitude
ResearchInstrument(Schaefer& Bell, 1958) and
the CornellParentBehaviorDescriptionquestionnaire (Devereaux, Bronfenbrenner,& Rodgers,
1969). The seven childrearingdimensionsincluded: (a) parentalpress for child's autonomy(i.e.,
expecting children to do things for themselves
sooner), (b) parentalpress for child's productive
use of time (i.e., not wasting time), (c) parental
press for equalitybetween parentand child (i.e.,
encouragingdialoguebetween parentand child),
(d) parentalstrictnesstowardchild (i.e., expecting
obedienceto parentalrules), (e) parentalpermissiveness with child (i.e., deemphasizingthe need
for harshdiscipline),(f) parentalsupportof child
(i.e., offeringcomfortand solace to child),and (g)
parentalcontrol of child (i.e., stressinghigh expectations for child's behavior at home and
school). Twenty-fiveitems were used to measure
the seven childrearingdimensions. The support
and control items were measuredusing a fivepointLikertformat(neverto very often) while the
five remainingdimensionswere measuredusing a
four-pointLikertformat(stronglyagreeto strongly disagree). Parentswere instructedto answer
each item as it pertainedto theirrelationshipwith
their seventh-gradechild. Items on the childrearing scale were scoredin the directionof more of
the parentalbehaviorunderconsideration.
Socioeconomic variables. Parents' education and
annualfamily income were used as measuresof
socioeconomic status. The effects of these two
variableswere examinedseparatelybecause previous researchsuggests they are differentiallyrelated to children's cognitive abilities (Laosa,
1982). Specifically,parents'educationis a better
predictorof children'sliteracyskills than family
income. Previous researchby Ortiz (1986) also
indicates that parents'educationimpacts differently on achievementfor differentgenerationsof
MexicanAmericans.She foundthatthe 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
parents' education on students' educational attainmentwas greaterfor first- and third-generation MexicanAmericansand significantlyweaker
for members of the second generation. In the
presentstudy, the influence of mothers' and fathers' education was examined separately.The
highest grade of school or year of college completedwas used to measureparents'education.
Family income was measuredon a nine-step
interval scale with income ranges of (1) under
$7,500 to (9) $45,001 or more. Respondentsselected an income step (e.g., $15,001 to $20,000)
andthe rankordervalue of thatstep (1-9) was assignedas the family income score for purposesof
analysis.Whentherewere discrepanciesin the reported family income between parents in the
same family, the father'sestimatewas used. Preliminaryfieldworkshowed the father's estimate
to be a more accurateindicatorof family income
thanaveragingmothers'and fathers'estimatesin
the case of discrepancies.
991
homes of the 200 students, explaining to their
parentsthatthey would be called to participatein
a telephone interview. The letter explained that
the school districthad approvedthe interviewbut
that participationwas strictlyvoluntary.In addition, parentswere told that their responsewould
be kept confidentialand that they would be paid
$5 each for their participationin the interview.
The parentletterwas writtenin both English and
Spanish.Home telephonenumberswere obtained
from the studentquestionnaireand from school
records.Over 90% of the seventh-gradestudents
had home phones. The validity of the telephone
surveymethodwith Latinos,especiallyfor sensitive topics, has been empirically demonstrated
(Marin& VanOssMarin,1989).
Bilingual research assistants telephoned
households and asked to speak to the students'
mothersor fathers.Wheneverpossible, an effort
was made to interview both parents during the
same call. If one or both parentswere unavailable, the researchassistantasked for convenient
Cultural variables. Parent-child Spanish/English
times to reschedulethe interview.A minimumof
threecall-backswere attemptedto locate and inusage and length of parents'U.S. residencewere
used as culturalvariables.Two questionsassessed
terview a missing parent.The responserate was
parent-child Spanish/English usage. The first
very high (93%),with only 16 householdsnot reaskedparentsthe ratioof Spanish-to-English
they
sponding,due primarilyto schedulingconflicts.
used in speakingto theirseventh-gradechild. The
Parentswere told that the purpose of the study
second asked parentsthe ratio of Spanish-to-En- was to determine how parents influence the
school achievementof theirchildren,specifically
glish theirchild used when speakingto them.Retheirseventh-gradeson or daughter.Afterthe parsponses to both questionswere scored on a fivepointscale thatincludedthe followingcategories: ents had agreedto participate,the researchassisonly English, mostly English and some Spanish, tant told them that, at any time duringthe interEnglishand Spanishaboutequally,mostly Spanview, they could stop to ask questionsor ask for
ish and some English, only Spanish. Higher
clarificationof questions.The interviewthenproscores are in the direction of greater Spanish
ceeded in either English or Spanish, depending
usage. Parents' length of U.S. residence were
upon the parent's preference. Interviews lasted
codedin actualyearslived in this country.
between 20 to 45 minutes, with Spanish interviews generallyrunninglonger. After the interview,
parentswere thankedfor theirparticipation
Procedure
and asked for an address where their payment
The adult respondentswere the parents of stucould be mailed.A substantialnumberof foreigndentsattendingone of threejuniorhigh schoolsin
born parents declined payment but did request
the greater Los Angeles area. Latino children
copies of the resultof the study.
were in the majorityat all threeschools. Student
The parentinterviewquestionnairewas initialquestionnaireswere administeredduringrequired ly writtenin Englishand pilot testedwith a small
Englishand Historyclasses. Froman initial pool
pool of parentswith adolescentchildren.Parents
of 500 Mexican American students, a stratified in the pilot-testingsample(3 malesand3 females)
wereaskedto commenton the interviewquestions
(generationand gender) sample of 200 was selectedandtheirparentswere contactedfor partic- and format. After making final adjustmentsin
wording, the complete questionnairewas transipationin this study.Students'ethnicityand generationwere determinedby a combinationof ethlated to Spanish by a Mexican psychologist.
nic identity and nativity questions answeredby
Changesin wordingwerethenmadeby a Chicano
bothstudentsandparents.A letterwas sent to the
psychologist to fit the vernacularof 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
Journal of Marriage and the Family
992
communities.Aftertheseadjustments,the Spanish
questionnairewas translatedback into Englishto
check for conceptual discrepancies that might
have occurredduringtranslation.There were no
apparentdiscrepanciesbetween the English and
Spanishversionsof the parentquestionnaire.
RESULTS
Data analysisproceededin three steps. First,differences in childrearingwere examinedbetween
parents of first-, second-, and third-generation
students. Second, childrearingdata were factor
analyzedto yield a minimalset of criterionvariables.Third,the relationshipof socioculturalvariables to childrearingwas examined.
Table 1 presentsthe meansand standarddeviationsfor the socioculturalvariablesexaminedin
this study.Althoughstatisticalanalyses were not
carriedout on these data, it is apparentthat parents of first- and second-generationchildrendiffer from parentsof third-generationchildren in
termsof all of the social andculturalvariables.
TABLE1. MOTHERS'ANDFATHERS'MEAN ONEACH
VARIABLEBY STUDENTS'GENERATION
SOCIOCULTURAL
Students'Generation
SocioculturalVariable
First
Cultural/mother
Mother'slanguage to childa 4.87
(.38)
Child's language to mothera 4.55
(.73)
Mother'syears in U.S.
9.63
(3.72)
Socioeconomic/mother
Mother's schoolingb
5.23
(4.01)
2.96
Family income
(1.81)
Cultural/father
Father'slanguage to childa 4.47
(.78)
Child's language to fathera 4.45
(.64)
Father'syears in U.S.
12.30
(5.48)
Socioeconomic/father
5.27
Father'sschoolingb
(3.83)
2.96
Family income
(1.81)
Second
Third
4.54
(.90)
4.35
(1.03)
16.68
(5.08)
1.64
(.83)
1.41
(.74)
6.48
(4.78)
3.65
(1.99)
11.79
(1.81)
5.05
(2.73)
4.44
(.71)
4.37
(.85)
18.24
(8.81)
1.37
(.82)
1.17
(.46)
6.65
(3.70)
3.65
(1.99)
12.51
(1.97)
5.05
(2.73)
-
-
-
Note: Numbersin parenthesesare standarddeviations.
aHigherscores indicate greaterSpanish usage.
bActualnumberof years of schooling completed.
Parental Childrearing Practices
The seven childrearingpracticeswere examined
separatelyfor mothers and fathers using 3 x 2
(student generationx student sex) MANOVAs
and ANOVAs. The multivariateand univariate
resultsof these analysesarepresentedin Tables2
and 3 for mothersand fathers,respectively.The
multivariateeffect of students' generation was
significantfor bothmothersandfathers,while the
multivariateeffect of students' sex was significant only for fathers.The multivariateinteraction
effect of generationand sex was not significant
for eitherparent,despite two significantunivariate interactionsfor fathers.
UnivariateANOVAs yielded studentgeneration differences in six of the seven childrearing
practices for mothers (see Table 2). For all six
significant analyses, post hoc tests showed that
mothersof third-generation
studentsdifferedsignificantlyfrommothersof both first- and secondgenerationstudentswho, in turn, did not differ
significantlyfrom each other.These findings are
summarizedas follows: Mothersof first-and second-generationstudentsexpect earlier autonomy
and more productiveuse of time, and are stricter
andmorepermissive;mothersof third-generation
studentsaremoresupportiveandcontrolling.
UnivariateANOVAs for fathers'data yielded
studentgenerationdifferencesin fourof the seven
childrearingpractices(see Table3). In threeof the
significant analyses, post hoc tests revealed the
samepatternof differencesas the resultsfor mothers. Thus, fathersof first- and second-generation
studentsdo not differfromeach otherand expect
earlierautonomyandmoreproductiveuse of time,
andaremorepermissivethanfathersof third-generationstudents.The only deviationfromthis general patternof findingswas for control.Fathersof
studentsare similarin
first- and third-generation
theirdegreeof control,andbotharemore controlstudents.
ling thanfathersof second-generation
Following up on the significant multivariate
effect for students'sex in the datafor fathers,univariatetests showed that fathersexpectedearlier
autonomyfrom girls and were stricterwith girls.
Althoughthe multivariateinteractioneffect was
not significant,thereweretwo significantunivariate interactionsinvolvingautonomyand strictness
that signal caution in interpretingthe sex difference in these variables.Examinationof the means
in Table 3 suggest that these sex differencesare
localizedin the datafor third-generation
students,
particularlyin 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
StudentGenerationby Sex
Generation2
Generation1
Generation3
Ge
ChildrearingaVariable
Total
Male
Female
Total
Male
Female
Total
Male
Female
Autonomy
3.28
(.46)
3.32
(.40)
3.23
(.54)
3.41
(.48)
3.38
(.41)
3.43
(.54)
2.81
(.69)
2.75
(.74)
2.92
(.59)
Productiveuse of time
3.46
(.60)
3.51
(.62)
3.39
(.58)
3.59
(.55)
3.61
(.55)
3.57
(.55)
3.09
(.79)
2.96
(.78)
3.30
(.80)
Equality
3.27
(.35)
3.21
(.35)
3.35
(.35)
3.40
(.33)
3.44
(.30)
3.37
(.36)
3.43
(.39)
3.42
(.38)
3.45
(.42)
Strictness
3.40
(.52)
3.41
(.51)
3.39
(.54)
3.38
(.61)
3.25
(.61)
3.50
(.60)
3.01
(.62)
2.98
(.69)
3.05
(.51)
Permissiveness
3.17
(.51)
3.24
(.38)
3.04
(.63)
3.12
(.56)
3.12
(.46)
3.11
(.64)
2.50
(.56)
2.50
(.55)
2.50
(.60)
Support
4.11
(.55)
4.07
(.58)
4.17
(.53)
4.04
(.59)
3.94
(.49)
4.13
(.66)
4.32
(.54)
4.20
(.58)
4.51
(.41)
Control
3.85
(.72)
3.86
(.66)
3.84
(.82)
3.86
(.58)
3.85
(.49)
3.87
(.66)
4.22
(.62)
4.17
(.64)
4.31
(.60)
Note: Numbersin parenthesesare standarddeviations.
aAll childrearingvariablesare scored on a 5-point scale, except supportand control which were scored on a 4-point scale.
bMultivariateanalysis (Pillai's trace) for generation:F(14,322) = 5.87***
cMultivariateanalysis (Pillai's trace) for sex: F(7,160) = 1.05.
dMultivariateanalysis (Pillai's trace) for G x S: F(14,322) = .96.
*p<.05. **p<.01. ***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
TABLE 3. MEANS AND MANOVA
RESULTS FOR FATHERS' CHILDREARING VARIABLES: STUDENT GENERATION BY
StudentGenerationby Sex
Generation1
Generation2
Generation3
Gene
ChildrearingaVariable
Total
Male
Female
Total
Male
Female
Total
Male
Female
Autonomy
3.38
(.33)
3.39
(.31)
3.38
(.36)
3.30
(.39)
3.27
(.43)
3.33
(.35)
2.87
(.54)
2.65
(.47)
3.28
(.44)
Productiveuse of time
3.51
(.61)
3.55
(.57)
3.45
(.68)
3.54
(.61)
3.60
(.64)
3.48
(.58)
3.00
(.84)
3.00
(.86)
3.00
(.86)
Equality
3.35
(.37)
3.31
(.39)
3.42
(.34)
3.38
(.37)
3.46
(.34)
3.31
(.39)
3.43
(.36)
3.37
(.40)
3.55
(.26)
Strictness
3.40
(.58)
3.39
(.57)
3.42
(.61)
3.32
(.59)
3.24
(.61)
3.40
(.57)
2.94
(.69)
2.64
(.52)
3.50
(.66)
Permissiveness
3.06
(.48)
3.13
(.42)
2.95
(.56)
3.09
(.60)
3.16
(.57)
3.02
(.63)
2.55
(.53)
2.55
(.34)
2.55
(.80)
Support
4.25
(.55)
4.14
(.59)
4.41
(.46)
4.21
(.55)
4.21
(.50)
4.22
(.60)
4.48
(.40)
4.45
(.41)
4.52
(.40)
Control
3.91
(.58)
4.06
(.62)
3.71
(.46)
3.61
(.69)
3.72
(.63)
3.50
(.75)
4.11
(.70)
4.14
(.72)
4.05
(.68)
Note: Numbersin parenthesesare standarddeviations.
aAll childrearingvariablesare scoredon a 5-point scale, except supportand control which are scored on a 4-point scale.
bMultivariateanalysis (Pillai's trace)for generation:F(14,228) = 3.60***.
analysis (Pillai's trace) for sex: F(7,113) = 4.55***
CMultivariate
dMultivariateanalysis (Pillai's trace)for G x S: F(14,228) = 1.57.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***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
F
Childrearing in Mexican American Families
Factor Analysis of Parental Childrearing
A separatefactoranalysis was performedon the
childrearingdata for mothersand fathersusing a
principalcomponentsanalysiswith varimaxrotation.This procedurereducedthe childrearingdata
to the smallest numberof uncorrelatedfactors.
Because the childrearingfactorswere to be used
as dependentvariablesin subsequentmultipleregressionanalyses,the varimaxprocedurereduced
the numberof necessaryanalyses.In addition,it
avoided overlap in predictionbecause the same
socioculturalvariableswere used as predictorsin
all the regressionanalyses.This made the contribution of the socioculturalvariablesunique for
each childrearing factor of each parent. Two
childrearingfactors emerged from mothers' and
fathers'data.
The eigenvaluesassociatedwith the two factors emerging from the mothers' data explain
57% of the variancein the matrix.The first factor,whichexplains33%of the commonvariance,
had its highest loadings with autonomy,productive use of time, strictness,and permissiveness.
Becausethe childrearingpracticesincludedin this
factor seem to describe a maternalsocialization
style stressingassumptionof responsibility,this
factoris referredto as Responsibility.
The second factor, which accountedfor 24%
of the common variance, loaded with support,
control,andequality.These childrearingpractices
seem to describematernalconcernfor the child,
andthis factoris thereforereferredto as Concern.
The eigenvalues associatedwith the two factorsemergingfrom the fathers'dataexplain52%
of the variance in the matrix. The first factor,
which explains 33.4% of the common variance,
hadits highestloadingswith autonomy,strictness,
permissiveness,productiveuse of time,andequality. With the exceptionof equality,this factoris
identical to the first maternal factor. Because
equalityhad the lowest loadingon this factor,and
its inclusiondoes not appearto alterthe composite
meaningof the othervariables,this first paternal
factorwas also namedResponsibility.
The secondfactor,which accountedfor 18.6%
of the commonvariance,loadedwith supportand
control. Again, with the exception of equality,
this factor was identical to the second maternal
factor.Therefore,this second paternalfactorwas
also calledConcern.
The reliabilityof the childrearingfactorswas
assessedwith Cronbach'salpha.For Responsibility, the alpha coefficients were .74 and .67 for
995
mothersand fathers,respectively. For Concern,
the alphacoefficientswere .59 and .33 for mothers and fathers, respectively. The alphas for
parentalResponsibilitywere moderatelyhigh. On
the other hand, the alphas for parentalConcern
were lower, due perhapsto the fewer numberof
measuresmakingup this factor for both parents.
Cautionis thereforerecommendedin interpreting
those portionsof the findingsinvolving Concern,
especiallyfor fathers'data.
Relation of Sociocultural Variables
to Childrearing
Four stepwise multipleregressionswere used to
examinethe relationshipof the socioculturalvariables to the childrearingfactorsof Responsibility
and Concern.Separateanalyses were performed
on the datafor mothersand fathers.Each regression equationincludedthe five socioculturalvariables as predictors.In addition,generationwas includedas a variablein the regressionequationsto
evaluateits uniqueeffects relativeto the socioculturalvariables,as well as its interactionwith these
variables.Since MANOVA and ANOVA childrearingresultsshowed virtuallyno differencebetween parentsof first- and second-generation
students, data for these two groups were combined
into a single generationcategory.Thus,generation
was dummycoded so that the combineddata for
parentsof first- and second-generationstudents
(coded 1) was contrastedwith datafor parentsof
students(coded0). Finally,father
third-generation
absencewas coded and includedas a predictorto
evaluateits possible effect on Responsibilityand
Concernin the datafor mothers.
REGRESSION
ANALYSES
TABLE4. STEPWISE
MULTIPLE
PREDICTING
MOTHERS'ANDFATHERS'RESPONSIBILITY
ANDCONCERNFROMSOCIOCULTURAL
VARIABLES
PredictorVariables
Mother's responsibility
Child's Spanish
to mother
Family income
Mother'sconcern
Mother's schooling
Father'sresponsibility
Family income
Generation
Father'sconcern
Child's Spanish
to father
R2 Change
F
1 .40
2 -.23
.26
.31
67.44*
41.92*
1
.33
.10
22.71"
1 -.31
2 .30
.17
.25
26.55*
21.15*
1 -.28
.08
12.10*
Step
*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
P
Journal of Marriage and the Family
996
Table 4 summarizesresults of the four stepwise multipleregressions.The table includesinformationaboutthe variablesthatmade a significantcontribution,the orderin which the variables
enteredthe equation,and the amountof variance
(R2)the variablesexplained.
Results for mothersshowed Responsibilityto
be positively associatedwith the child's Spanish
to motherand negatively associatedwith family
income. MaternalConcernshowed a significant
relationship to only one variable, mother's
schooling.The directionof this relationshipwas
positive.Resultsfor fathersshowedResponsibility to be negativelyrelatedto family income. Responsibilitywas also significantlyrelatedto generation in the direction of more Responsibility
amongfathersof the combinedfirst- and secondgenerations.Finally, paternalConcernwas negatively relatedto child's Spanish.The interaction
of generationwith the socioculturalvariablesdid
not make a significantcontributionto variancein
the analysesfor mothersor fathers.
DIscussION
Resultsof this studyrevealimportantintergenerationaldifferencesin childrearingpracticesrelated
to variationsin the socioculturalbackgroundsof
Mexican American families. The proximity of
Mexico to the U.S. and continued immigration
clearly indicate intergenerationaldynamics as
permanentfeaturesof MexicanAmericanculture.
As the size of this populationcontinuesto grow,
it is imperativeto understandthe extent and nature of within-groupdiversitythat influencessocialization. Parentsof first- and second-generation students,especiallymothers,were very similar in their socialization practices. This is not
surprising,in that both groups of parents were
born in Mexico and share an immigrantexperience. Nativity and the immigrationexperience
thus distinguishthem from mothersof third-generation students, who, like their children, were
bornand raisedin the U.S. Foreign-bornmothers
stress earlier autonomy,productiveuse of time,
strictness,and permissivenessmore thanmothers
of third-generationstudents.On the other hand,
mothersof third-generation
studentsexpressmore
concernand supportthantheirforeign-borncounterparts.All groupsof mothersarealike in the degree of equality that they encourage in parentchildrelations.
The patternof socializationbetweenfathersof
studentsmirfirst-, second-, and third-generation
rorthe findingsfor mothersin the areasof productive use of time, equality,and permissiveness.In
other areas, however, the similarity between
spousesis greateramongfathersof first-and second-generationstudents.Thus, like theirspouses,
fathersof first-and second-generation
studentsdo
not differin the areasof autonomy,strictness,and
support.By contrast,fathersof third-generation
studentsdifferfrom theirspousesin thatthey expect earlierautonomyonly for theirdaughtersand
value less strictness only for their sons. The
greatersimilarityin socializationbetweenforeignborn mothers and fathers may reflect stronger
agreementand mutual supportfor childrearing
goals amongparentsin immigrantfamilies.Immigrationremovesfamiliesfromthe supportbase of
their native communities and places them into
new environmentslacking extendedkinship networks(Keefe& Padilla,1987).Consequently,immigrantfamilymembersmayrespondby developing stronger interdependence (Casas & Ortiz
1985;de Anda, 1984) to help the family adjustto
its new environment.Consensusin socialization
goals may reflectan areaof domesticinterdependence conditionedby the immigrantexperience.
and consensusmay be
However,interdependence
weakenedin later generationsthroughacculturation, which providesparentswith differentideas
and options about childrearing.Thus, acculturation may lead to greatervariationsin socialization
styles betweenU.S.-bornhusbandsandwives.
Immigrantparentsgenerallyscored higher on
those socializationpracticesmakingup the factor
called Responsibility.This factoris characterized
by an expectationfor earlierself-relianceand for
adherenceto family rules within an open parentchild relationship.This factor resemblesthe authoritativeparentingstyle describedby Baumrind
(1973) and others(Dornbusch,Ritter,Leiderman,
Roberts,& Fraleigh,1987). In contrast,U.S.-born
parents,particularlymothers,scoredhigheron the
socialization practices that make up the factor
called Concern. This factor is characterizedby
emotionalsupportand the expectationof proper
behaviorat home andschool.
The self-selectionof Mexican immigrantshas
been associatedwith such personalitycharacteristics as independence,responsibility,and deferred
gratification (for a review, see Buriel, 1984).
These characteristicsseem well-suitedto survival
in an unfamiliarenvironmentand are probably
encouragedby immigrantparentsin their socialization practices. First- and second-generation
children are often requiredto 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
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 socialization style defined here as Responsibility therefore 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 socially imposed disadvantageous natureof their ethnic 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 situation. Emphasis on a Concern style of socialization
may also reflect a shift toward the childrearing
norms of mainstreamEuro-American society, arising 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 between 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
997
social and cultural interaction with the larger society. The impact of family income on socialization
may therefore be twofold. First, higher incomes
may reflect more exposure to acculturating influences that compete with Responsibility as a socialization style. Second, greater financial resources
may relieve families of some of the survival pressures attendant with immigration that initially encouraged a Responsibility style of childrearing.
It should be noted that language also affects
socioeconomic status because knowledge of English 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 facilitate 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 socioeconomic status and childrearing.
Mothers' schooling encourages the development of a Concern style of childrearing. According to Laosa (1982), prolonged schooling imparts
behavioral dispositions toward parenting styles resembling the academic style of the school. This includes reinforcement or praise for behaviors,
which, in the present study, resemble the socialization style called Concern. The positive relationship of parental schooling to Concern is therefore
to be expected. However, an alternative explanation 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 Mexican Americans such that, relative to Euro-American 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 compensate for the disadvantaged classroom situation
of these students. Because parents of third-generation students were themselves schooled in the
U.S., they have first-hand knowledge of the educational experiences of their children, and can empathize 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
Jourmalof Marriageand the Family
Perhaps any effects of father absence are offset by
the involvement of extended family in the socialization process. According to Keefe and Padilla
(1987), U.S.-born families have the largest extended kinship networks. Schmidt and Padilla
(1983) also found Mexican American grandparents' involvement in the socialization of grandchildren 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 absence in this study.
Delinquency and lower school achievement are
two serious problems among Mexican American
adolescents, particularly those in the later generations. 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 efficiency (productive use of time) and self-reliance
(autonomy). The greater press for Responsibility
among parents of first- and second-generation students 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 population, this study provides a more complete understanding of Mexican American childrearing.
NOTE
This study was supportedby a grantfrom the Social
Science Research Council and The Inter-University
Programfor Latino Research. Requests for reprints
shouldbe sentto RaymondBuriel.
REFERENCES
Baumrind,D. (1973). The developmentof instrumental
competence through socialization. In A. D. Pick
(Ed.), Minnesota symposium on child psychology
(Vol. 7, pp. 3-46). Minneapolis:Universityof MinnesotaPress.
U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a
Bronfenbrenner,
context for humandevelopment:Researchperspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22, 723-742.
interactionsandtheir
Buriel,R. (1983). Teacher-student
relationshipto studentachievement:A comparison
of Anglo AmericanandMexicanAmericanchildren.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 178-187.
Buriel,R. (1984). Integrationwith traditionalMexican
Americanculture and sociocuturaladjustment.In
J. L. Martinez& R. Mendoza(Eds.), ChicanoPsychology(2nded., pp. 95-130). New York:Academic
Press.
Buriel,R. Calzada,S., & Vasquez,R. (1982). The relationshipof traditionalMexicanAmericancultureto
adjustmentanddelinquencyamongthreegenerations
of Mexican Americanmale adolescents. Hispanic
Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 4, 41-55.
Buriel, R., & Cardoza,D. (1993). Mexican American
ethnic labeling: An intrafamilialand intergenerational 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
andattitudestowardchild maltreatment:
A comparison of foreign- and native-bornmothers.Hispanic
Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 13, 78-94.
Buriel,R., & Vasquez,R. (1982). Stereotypesof Mexican descent persons:Attitudesof threegenerations
of MexicanAmericanand Anglo Americanadolescents. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 13,
59-70.
Burnam,M. A., Hough,R., Karno,M., Escobar,J., &
Telles, C. (1987). Acculturationand lifetime prevalence of psychiatric disorders among Mexican
Americans in Los Angeles. Journal of Health and
Social Behavior,28, 89-102.
Casas,J. M., & Ortiz,S. (1985). Exploringthe applicability of the dyadic adjustmentscale for assessing
level of maritaladjustmentwith Mexican Americans. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47, 1023-
1027.
Chavez, J. M., & Buriel, R. (1986). Reinforcingchildren'seffort:A comparisonof foreignbornand native born Mexican American mothers. Hispanic
Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 8, 127-142.
Cromwell, R. E. (1969). Development of a parental attitude research scale for use with the lower and mid-
dle classes. Unpublished master's thesis, Kansas
StateUniversity.
de Anda,D. (1984). Informalsupportnetworksof Hispanic 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 Michoacan, Mexico. San Diego: University of California, 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
of parentingstyle to adolescentschool performance.
ChildDevelopment,58, 1244-1257.
Durrett, M. E., O'Bryant, S., & Pennebaker, J. W.
(1975). Child-rearingreportsof white, black, and
Mexican American families. DevelopmentalPsychology,11, 871.
Dworkin, A. G. (1965). Stereotypes and self-images
held by native-born and foreign-born Mexican
Americans.Sociologyand SocialResearch,49, 214224.
Fromm,E., & Maccoby,M. (1970). Social characterin
a Mexicanvillage. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.
Harrison,A. O., Wilson,M. N., Pine, C. J., Chan,S. Q.,
& Buriel,R. (1990). Familyecologies of ethnicminoritychildren.ChildDevelopment,61, 347-362.
Hess,R. D. (1970). Social class andethnicinfluenceson
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 prevalence of pre-highschool attritionanddelayededucation for Hispanics.HispanicJournalof Behavioral
Sciences,8, 61-76.
Kearns,B. J. R. (1970). Childrearingpracticesamong
selectedculturallydeprivedminorities.TheJournal
of GeneticPsychology,116, 149-155.
Keefe,S. E., & Padilla,A. M. (1987). Chicanoethnicity.
Albuquerque:
Universityof New MexicoPress.
and cross-cultural
Kim, Y. Y. (1988). Communication
adaptation.Philadelphia:
MultilingualMatters.
Landsman,M. A., Padilla,A. M., Leiderman,H., Clark,
C., Ritter,P., & Dornbusch,S. (1991). Biculturalism
and academicachievementamongAsian and Hispanic adolescents. Unpublishedmanuscript,StanfordUniversity,Stanford,CA.
Laosa,L. M. (1977). Inequalityin the classroom:Observational research on teacher-studentinteractions.
Aztlan:InternationalJournalof ChicanoStudiesResearch,8, 51-67.
Laosa,L. M. (1980a). Maternalteachingstrategiesand
cognitivestyles in Chicanofamilies.Journalof EducationalPsychology,72, 45-54.
Laosa, L. M. (1980b). Maternalteachingstrategiesin
Chicanoand Anglo-Americanfamilies: The influence of cultureand educationon maternalbehavior.
ChildDevelopment,51, 759-765.
Laosa,L. M. (1981). Maternalbehavior:Sociocultural
diversityin modes of family interaction.In R. W.
Henderson(Ed.), Parent-childinteraction:Theory,
researchand prospects.(pp. 125-167). New York:
AcademicPress.
Laosa, L. M. (1982). School, occupation,culture,and
family:The impactof parentalschoolingon the parent-childrelationship.Journalof EducationalPsychology,74, 791-827.
Laosa,L. M. (1989). Social competencein childhood:
Toward a developmental,socioculturallyrelevant
paradigm.Journal of AppliedDevelopmentalPsychology,10, 447-468.
LeVine, E. S., & Bartz, K. W. (1979). Comparative
childrearingattitudesamong Chicano, Anglo, and
black parents.HispanicJournalof BehavioralSciences, 1, 165-178.
Lin, C. C., & Fu, R. R. (1990). A comparisonof childrearingpractices among Chinese, immigrantChi-
999
nese, andCaucasian-American
parents.ChildDevelopment,61, 429-433.
Lopez,D. E. (1982). Languagemaintenanceand shiftin
the UnitedStatestoday:Thebasicpatternsand their
social implications:VolumeL Overviewandsummary. Los Alamitos,CA: NationalCenterfor Bilingual
Research.
Maccoby,E. E., & Martin,J. A. (1983). Socializationin
the contextof the family:Parent-childinteraction.In
E. M. Hetherington(Ed.), Handbookof child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization,personality,and social development(pp. 1-102). New York:Wiley.
Marin,G., & VonOssMarin,B. (1989). A comparison
of threeinterviewingapproachesfor studyingsensitive topics with Hispanics.HispanicJournalof BehavioralSciences,11, 330-340.
M. E. (1986). EthnicidentitiesandpatMatute-Bianchi,
ternsof school success and failureamongMexicandescent and Japanese-American
studentsin a Californiahigh school:An ethnographicanalysis.American Journalof Education,95, 233-255.
Moore,J., & Pachon,H. (1985).Hispanicsin the United
States.EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:Prentice-Hall.
Negy, C., & Woods, D. J. (1992). A note on the relationshipbetween acculturationand socioeconomic
status.HispanicJournalof BehavioralSciences,14,
248-251.
Nielsen, F., & Fernandez,R. M. (1981). Hispanicstudents in Americanhigh schools: Backgroundcharacteristicsand achievement.Washington,DC: NationalCenterfor EducationStatistics.
M. E. (1986). UnderstandOgbu,J., & Matute-Bianchi,
ing socioculturalfactors:Knowledge,identity,and
school adjustment.
In CaliforniaStateDepartmentof
Education(Ed.), Beyondlanguage:Social and culturalfactors in schoolinglanguageminoritystudents
(pp. 73-142). Los Angeles:CaliforniaStateUniversity, Education,DisseminationandAssessmentCenter.
Ortiz, V. (1986). Generational status, family background,andeducationalattainmentamongHispanic
youth and non-Hispanicwhite youth.In M. A. Olivas (Ed.),Latinocollege students(pp. 29-46). New
York:TeachersCollegePress.
Padilla, A. M., & Lindholm, K. J. (1983). Hispanic
Americans:Futurebehavioralscience researchdirections (OccasionalPaperNo. 17). Los Angeles:
Universityof California,SpanishSpeakingMental
HealthResearchCenter.
Portes,A. (1979). Illegal immigrationand the international system: Lessons from recent legal Mexican
immigrationto the UnitedStates. Social Problems,
4, 425-438.
Portes,A., & Bach,R. L. (1985). Latinjourney:Cuban
and Mexican immigrants in the United States.
Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress.
Quintanilla, M. (1990, March 1). The littlest interpreters.Los AngelesTimes,pp. El, E7.
ChiRamirez,O., & Arce,C. (1981). The contemporary
cano family: An empirically based review. In A.
Barron(Ed.), Explorationsin Chicanopsychology.
New York:Praeger.
Schaefer,E. S., & Bell, R. Q. (1958). Developmentof a
parentalattituderesearchinstrument.ChildDevelopment,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). Grandparentgrandchildinteractionin a MexicanAmericangroup.
Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 5, 181-
198.
United States Commission on Civil Rights (1973).
education study. Differences in teacher interaction
with Mexican American and Anglo students. Wash-
ington,DC:U.S. GovernmentPrintingOffice.
Vigil, J. D., & Long,J. M. (1981). Unidirectionalor nativist acculturation:
Chicanopathsto school achiev-
Teachers and students: Report V. Mexican American
NewPublication
fromNCFR!
Vision 2010:
Families & Health Care
IssueEditor:
Barbara
Elliott
SeriesEditor:
Sharon
Price
The Vision 2010series will examine trends,policy,
program,and assessmentissuesfacingAmerican
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
care
2010
health
reform
series,
presents
needs from the family perspective. By taking this
perspective, the current needs can be seen more
broadly,aandreformcanbefocused 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
ment. Human Organization, 40, 273-277.
NewNCFRPublication!
FamilyHealth:
FromDatato Policy
Editors:Gerry
E.Hendershot
&
FeliciaB.LeClere
The Clinton administrationhas recognized that
family issues are central to many of this nations
health & welfare problems. However, federal
agencies responsible for thestatisticaldataneeded to respond to the policy debates are ill prepared to provide integrated family health data
topolicy makers. The offices of the Asst. Sec. for
Planning & Evaluation (ASPE)and the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) in the
Center for Disease Control & Prevention entered into an interagency collaborative effort to
improve data collection and dissemination.
Violence, Training
Families,HealthExperiencesof MinorityFamilies,
and Family Centered Health Policy. 44 pages.
Thisbook 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, agencies, family researchers, and policy makers!
$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 (123830-465). MN Residents add 6.5%sales tax.
$17.95for NCFR members and $21.95for nonmembers. Foreign and Canadian orders add
$2.00 shipping and handling. U.S.funds on U.S.
banks only. Canadian orders add 7%GST(123830-465). MN Residents add 6.5% Sales tax.
andtheFamily,
Family,
Reproduction
Family
Health Professionals About
National Council on Family Relations
3989 Central Ave. NE, Suite 550
Minneapolis, MN 55421
(612) 781-9331 + FAX (612) 781-9348
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