See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278323755

Understanding the U.S. Immigrant Paradox in Childhood and

Article in Development Perspectives · June 2014 DOI: 10.1111/cdep.12071

CITATIONS READS 32 720

3 authors:

Amy K Marks Kida Ejesi Suffolk University Suffolk University

44 PUBLICATIONS 403 CITATIONS 2 PUBLICATIONS 35 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Cynthia García Coll Carlos Albizu University at Puerto Rico

155 PUBLICATIONS 8,086 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Culture, inmigration and View project

Boston After School Experiences View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Amy K Marks on 03 July 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVES

Understanding the U.S. Immigrant Paradox in Childhood and Adolescence Amy K. Marks,1 Kida Ejesi,1 and Cynthia Garcıa Coll2 1Suffolk University and 2Carlos Albizu University

ABSTRACT—The immigrant paradox in childhood and ado- (foreign-born) or second- (U.S.-born to foreign-born parents) lescence is a population-level phenomenon wherein U.S.- generation immigrant (Hernandez, Denton, & Macartney, 2008). born youth (or more highly acculturated immigrants) have Most of today’s immigrant youth are Hispanic or Asian, with less optimal developmental outcomes than newcomer many recent also from Eastern Europe, Africa, and the immigrant youth. These patterns, which hold true after Middle East. Most of these children are U.S. citizens, but nearly accounting for the generally lower income and parent 5 million have at least one undocumented parent (Suarez- Oro- education levels among first-generation immigrant fami- zco, 2010). Approximately 1.7 million children are themselves lies, have existed for decades in the United States. In this undocumented, yet have lived in this country for most of their article, we address this topic in child development lives and do not know another country of origin (Suarez-Orozco, research, offering insights into studies to explain why the 2010). The United States is experiencing unprecedented paradox occurs from the standpoint of both risk and resil- diversity among its immigrant youth by type of migration (e.g., ience. We also present ideas for research and implications voluntary migratory, transnational, many resettlements), docu- for developing policies and methods for effective practice mentation status (e.g., citizen, undocumented), ethnicity, and with immigrant families. language (see U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). Consequently, devel- opmental psychologists are learning more about the many KEYWORDS—immigrant paradox; ; ethnicity; unique contextual considerations regarding the healthy develop- ; minority children ment of immigrant youth. In this article, we address a population phenomenon that has Immigrant youth are the fastest growing population of children been documented consistently in the United States, the immi- in the United States. Currently, 16 million children have at least grant paradox: As immigrant children and adolescents accultur- one immigrant parent, comprising 23% of the population. A full ate to the United States (over time and generations), their 25% of the U.S. population under age 10 is either a first- developmental outcomes become less optimal (e.g., Garcıa Coll & Marks, 2012). At the core of this phenomenon, we see these patterns even after considering newcomer families’ often lower Amy K. Marks and Kida Ejesi, Department of Psychology, Suffolk socioeconomic indicators (e.g., low income or parent education University; Cynthia Garcıa Coll, Institutional Center for Scientific level). In other words, after controlling for these variables, new- Research, Carlos Albizu University. comer children and adolescents in the United States still have The authors wish to thank our teams of research assistants and stu- more positive developmental outcomes than children who have dents who leant their energies to this course of research. Particular gratitude is extended to Flannery Patton, Dr. Tristan Guarini, and been living in the United States longer or who were born in the the immigrant children and families who participated in the research United States to immigrant parents. studies cited herein. Dr. Marks also gratefully acknowledges the This pattern contrasts sharply with early assimilation models Jacobs Foundation for a young investigator award that supported this in the United States, which posited that as families became part course of study. of the social and economic fabric of the United States—learning Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to English, becoming educated here—children and adolescents Amy Marks, Department of Psychology, Suffolk University, 41 Tem- ple Street, Boston, MA, 02114; e-mail: [email protected]. would thrive (see Alba, 1997). Inherent in these early assimila- © 2014 The Authors tionist perspectives were the cornerstones of identity, language, Child Development Perspectives © 2014 The Society for Research in Child Development and loss of culture from the country of origin, and full adoption DOI: 10.1111/cdep.12071 of “American” ways, values, and traditions (e.g., Stonequist,

Volume 8, Number 2, 2014, Pages 59–64 60 AmyK.Marks,KidaEjesi,andCynthiaGarcıa Coll

1935). Nevertheless, immigrant paradox patterns have long been document) the paradox pattern. As such, it is difficult to know part of immigrant experiences in the United States—at least for how widespread the paradox is. Instead, we should find out for some immigrants (see historical review by Buriel, 2012). In whom the paradox is most consistently observed and under what 1931, Wirth stated that “the second generation of immigrants conditions. Scholars active in immigrant child development generally come into contact with the courts as delinquents more research have aimed to answer this question (Garcıa Coll & frequently than the first one” (Wirth, 1931, p. 487). In addition, Marks, 2012). For example, among Mexico-origin youth (the many scholars have argued that post-1965 immigration reform largestethnicsubsetofimmigrants in the United States), the drastically changed the languages, ethnicities, cultures, and paradox was strongest among adolescents (as opposed to earlier colors of families entering the United States. Such migratory in childhood) and for behavioral outcomes (as opposed to aca- transformations precipitated shifts in U.S. demographics and demic ones; Crosnoe, 2012). In addition, the existence of the acculturation possibilities (Hernandez, 2004). Cultural assimila- paradox among younger children varies, with support for the tion patterns of past generations established by largely White, paradox hinging on race, the type of academic or behavioral out- European immigrants are no longer the norm, as today’s youth come measured, and the comparison group used for the analysis of many languages, cultures, races, and religions both demand (e.g., Figure 1; Turney & Kao, 2012). For example, the paradox and celebrate new modes of adaptation (e.g., biculturalism, see was seen in both Asian and Hispanic kindergarteners in inter- review by Marks, Godoy, & Garcıa Coll, 2013; segmented nalizing and externalizing behaviors, but only for teachers’ rat- assimilation, see Portes & Zhou, 1993). In the 1970s and 1980s, ings of behavior (not for parents’ ratings) and only when researchers coined the term epidemiological paradox to describe compared with native-born White children. Hispanic patterns (e.g., heart disease and morbid- These methodological complexities are important when con- ity/mortality) just as the first generation of “new,” predominantly sidering how researchers provide evidence of the paradox. Latino immigrants were giving birth to the first generation of Researchers have modeled the paradox and the reference groups families of their own in the United States (Markides & Coreil, selected for the analyses in many ways (see Figure 1). In this 1986; Teller & Clyburn, 1974). Epidemiological findings article, we take care to note the reference groups studied. In showed that at the time, Hispanic and Latino Americans had addition, though some authors have used a third + “White” ref- similar, and occasionally more optimal, health outcomes (e.g., erence group of native U.S. citizens to document the paradox, lower infant morbidity and mortality rates) than their White, studies that include a more highly acculturated, coethnic com- native U.S. counterparts (Bower, 1998). That these patterns were parison group better address conceptually the immigrant para- termed a paradox is a reflection of the slow shift at the time in dox phenomenon from an acculturation perspective. researchers’ theoretical frameworks away from assimilation mod- Despite the variability in strength of evidence of the paradox els and toward the bicultural models for optimal adaptation more across age ranges, developmental domains, ethnic groups, and commonly cited today (see Berry, 1997; Berry, Phinney, Sam, & methodology, consistent patterns have emerged. Currently, the Vedder, 2006). paradox is strongest in cross-generation comparisons for adoles- Although the paradox remains a noteworthy trend, contempo- cent behavioral outcomes (e.g., adolescent risk behaviors, delin- rary empirical evidence documenting the paradox reveals many quency, and their associated outcomes such as teen pregnancy, inconsistencies in its potency by age of the child, ethnicity, and drug use, and smoking among Latino youth; Garcıa Coll & developmental domain. Operational definitions of the paradox Marks, 2012). Some studies point to the paradox early in child- also vary (see Figure 1), with many ways to document (or not hood, and for academic outcomes, often among Asian children

Children of immigrants (first Third + generation and second generation) Show significantly First generation (immigrant more optimal Second and third + children and adolescents) outcome than generations

Second generation Third + generations Less acculturated (e.g., less English use, less time spent More acculturated in the U.S., less American cultural orientation)

Figure 1. Methodological definitions/comparisons used to document the paradox in contemporary developmental literature (figure from Garcıa Coll & Marks, 2012).

Child Development Perspectives, Volume 8, Number 2, 2014, Pages 59–64 Understanding the Immigrant Paradox 61

(e.g., Han, 2006), while findings in this area are mixed. As we U.S.-born (second-generation) youth compared to their new- outline later, pinpointing where evidence for the paradox exists comer peers (risk model). Based on data from the National Lon- and under what conditions is only a first step in understanding gitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (AddHealth), the “erosion why the paradox occurs and how to ameliorate its detrimental of family closeness” (p. 7) and increasing prevalence of sub- effects. stance use by peers explained why second-generation Latino adolescents have more problems with alcohol than their UNPACKING THE PARADOX first-generation peers (Bacio, Mays, & Lau, 2013). In another AddHealth study, more sedentary behaviors among second- While documenting and characterizing the immigrant paradox is generation Latinos helped explain why first-generation Latinos important, more imperative is the need to explain it. Why do have lower rates of obesity than their later-generation counter- some groups of adolescents have less optimal behavioral health parts (McCullough & Marks, 2014). than others as they acculturate? Or from a resilience point of On the other hand, we may also ask what protective processes view, why do some groups of newcomer adolescents have more (e.g., support structures, cultural practices) and/or individual optimal outcomes than their U.S.-born peers? Are there ecologi- characteristics explain the successes of the first generation, cal perspectives for why first-generation youth outperform their given that they have fewer resources on average than their native-born peers in school? Buriel (2012) argues that educa- same-ethnicity, U.S.-born peers (resilience model). In an analy- tion-related immigrant paradoxes among Mexican Americans sis of the same AddHealth data set cited earlier but focused on are largely explainable by the cultural integration hypothesis. adolescent pregnancy, first-generation Latinas were less likely to From this theoretical framework, first-generation Mexican become pregnant than their second-generation peers, and having American parents self-select to immigrate to the United States fewer sexual partners helped explain this first-generation advan- in search of occupational and educational successes, and with tage (Guarini, Marks, Patton, & Garcıa Coll, 2014). Cultural the psychological strength to persevere as newcomers. However, practices around partner selection may underlie this mechanism; these positive attributes and motivational forces are lost in sub- in other research, first-generation Latina adolescents selected sequent generations born in the United States, as most U.S.-born partners with fewer risk-taking characteristics (see Minnis et al., Mexican American children live in lower income neighborhoods 2010). with few opportunities for upward mobility. Identifying such In keeping with developmental theory on resilience (e.g., positive attributes and motivational forces as mechanisms of the Luthar, 2006; Masten, 2007), it is important to consider both paradox is the growth edge of current research. perspectives, as absence of risk does not necessarily correlate To understand the paradox, researchers commonly look for with increases in resilience (or vice versa). This distinction mediators—third (or fourth +) variables to explain part of the between viewpoints is essential to understanding that risk and relations between immigrant generation status and developmen- resilience are not wholly dependent on each other—the paradox tal outcome (after controlling for socioeconomic indicators). canbeviewedfromboththeperspectiveofanincreaseinrisk These mediators can be characteristics of microsystems—youth factors leading to more negative outcomes for later-generation contexts including peers, friends, families, schools, and commu- youth and a decrease in, or lack of, resilience factors protecting nities—that promote or inhibit healthy development (see Bron- first-generation immigrants. In other words, if a study documents fenbrenner & Morris, 2006). For example, first-generation the protective benefits of having relatively fewer sexual partners Latino and Asian adolescents in the United States have more in preventing pregnancy among first-generation Latina youth, positive academic attitudes than native-born White, Latino, or other risk factors—beyond more sexual partners—may place Asian adolescents (Greenman, 2013). Moreover, negative peer second-generation Latinas at greater risk of adolescent preg- and school characteristics explained in part more negative atti- nancy. In a longitudinal study that combined risk and protective tudes among third-generation adolescents, a microsystem-level approaches to documenting the immigrant paradox in infant construct. Mediators may also comprise individual-level charac- robustness among Latina mothers and , foreign-born teristics. Individual-level cognitive skills such as bilingualism Latina mothers in the United States gave birth to infants with and bicultural frame-switching abilities, and psychological pro- more optimal early developmental outcomes than U.S.-born cesses such as developing robust and healthy multiethnic/racial mothers (of either Latina or non-Latina ethnicity; Fuller et al., identities, interact within microsystems to support immigrant 2009). The low incidence of premature or low-birthweight Latino youth development and explain why some immigrant children babies yielded greater cognitive developmental outcomes later in have more (or less) optimal outcomes as they develop (Marks life, though these benefits declined by age 2. Family factors such et al., 2013). as higher household occupancy and lower preliteracy activities Conceptually, mediational approaches to unpacking the immi- in the home as the babies aged explained the loss of the protec- grant paradox tend to take either a risk or a resilience point of tive benefits of positive birth outcomes. Beginning to combine view. On one hand, scholars may seek to understand what fac- risk and resilience models within the same study is just one of tors explain the deterioration of developmental outcomes among many steps researchers should take if we are to truly unpack

Child Development Perspectives, Volume 8, Number 2, 2014, Pages 59–64 62 AmyK.Marks,KidaEjesi,andCynthiaGarcıa Coll the often-interlocking mechanisms underlying the immigrant unless researchers measure changes within and between children paradox. over time. Such information—the nature of differences and changes in the behavior of immigrant children—is essential for NEXT STEPS IN UNDERSTANDING THE IMMIGRANT developing interventions both at the group (e.g., school or class- PARADOX room) and individual levels. Furthermore, attending to the full childhood and adolescent developmental age range is important, Given the contextual complexities of explaining such a broad as is considering how age of arrival relates to the paradox. The array of developmental processes and outcomes across the Uni- paradox may be documented more strongly in adolescence simply ted States’ culturally diverse immigrant population, the latest because adolescents, on average, have lived in the United States studies unpacking the paradox use increasingly sophisticated longer than children and thus are likely to have experienced analytical approaches and large data sets. In fact, to model the greater acculturation. Researchers need to understand these age- mechanisms behind the paradox, scholars may need to embrace related trends. combined moderator–mediator modeling approaches, as various Researchers should also focus on the qualities of immigrant cultural, ethnic, and racial groups should differ on the mecha- children’s settings as part of the underlying mechanisms for the nisms underlying these important cross-generational trends paradox. Here, qualitative and mixed-methods approaches may (again, see segmented assimilation theory perspectives that generate theoretical models for quantitative studies. In particu- would predict differing ethnic/racial group patterns based on the lar, researchers should explore new models reflecting the way varied socioeconomic conditions of immigrant groups’ receiving children live their lives across interacting settings (e.g., home communities). We are encouraged by recent research in this and school, home and day care, school and community, i.e., the area and offer ideas for further work. mesosystem; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). Children attend Researchers should use more within-subjects, longitudinal schools in which teachers do (or do not) reach out to parents in approaches—few studies use these methods, which might test support of their children’s development. Explaining why first- acculturation-related explanations for the paradox more directly. generation immigrant youth may have more optimal study habits For example, researchers may use growth-curve modeling to than second-generation youth may require examining the various examine within-subject change over time in relevant develop- approaches parents and teachers take to children’s education. mental processes, then ask whether greater acculturation is asso- Are such approaches coordinated? Are they compatible with ciated with slower rates of growth (see Fuller et al., 2009, for an one another? In some settings, such as schools, higher levels of example of such analyses). Such approaches are still rare because child acculturation (adopting more traditional American customs the paradox is usually depicted as comparative (e.g., first genera- and values) may promote more optimal study behaviors among tion vs. native born), and measured cross-sectionally. In another first-generation children for one set of reasons (e.g., greater Eng- example, though some academic behaviors are more positive lish-language proficiency as an outcome). At the same time, among first-generation youth than second-generation youth (e.g., greater child enculturation (practicing families’ culture-of-origin more time spent on homework and studying for exams, less tru- customs and values) may promote more optimal study behaviors ancy; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001; Rosenbaum & Rochford, 2008), among first-generation children for other reasons, such as greater researchers have yet to uncover whether these academic behav- familial emphasis on the value of education and a strong work iors decline with acculturation within the same children over time. ethic. We must recognize that these settings do not exist in isola- Though correlational and cross-sectional research offers many tion—parents and children alike must learn to coordinate their insights into the paradox, without time-varying, within-subjects days and activities across many cultural contexts. Children’s designs, researchers cannot detail the mechanisms that may coordination of their home and school expectations and practices cause or explain differences in academic problem behaviors for academic success requires unique bicultural skills that across generations, and cannot capture the rate of decline or extend beyond bilingualism, including social skills to interact acculturative shifts among individuals (see Fuligni, 2001). All with U.S.-born teachers in qualitatively different ways than children, on average, may deteriorate in their academic behaviors children interact with foreign-born parents or caregivers at home. over time, regardless of immigrant generation, but behaviors of Finally, we note several implications of this line of research first-generation children may deterioratemoreslowlythanthose for policy and practice. One is the increased attention of this of second-generation youth. Or first-generation youth may not subfield on strengths and resilience models for immigrant com- decline in their academic behaviors (or rather, may increase posi- munity development. Policies and practices that enhance bilin- tive academic behaviors), while second-generation youths’ aca- gual services for immigrant families may provide welcome demicbehaviorsmaydeclinewith age. In cross-sectional support not only for newcomer families, but also for foreign-born analyses, these scenarios may appear as simply first-generation parents whose U.S.-born adolescents struggle to appreciate their children behaving more positively academically than second- parents’ perspectives on education, work, friends, and health. In generation youth. We cannot unpack whether the paradox is a addition, more research is needed on how immigrant legal sta- generational comparative effect, a within-subjects effect, or both tuses influence children’s and families’ well-being. To our

Child Development Perspectives, Volume 8, Number 2, 2014, Pages 59–64 Understanding the Immigrant Paradox 63 knowledge, researchers have not examined whether or how legal GarcıaColl,C.,Lamberty,G.,Jenkins,R.,McAdoo,H.,Crnic,K.,& documentation statuses and family separation/deportation expe- Wasik, B. (1996). An integrative model for the study of develop- riences play a role in the immigrant paradox. Such research can mental competencies in minority children. Child Development, 67, – inform immigration policy making. Furthermore, studies are 1891 1914. Garcıa Coll, C., & Marks, A. K. (Eds.). (2012). The immigrant paradox documenting the role of maintaining one’s home language in in children and adolescents: Is becoming American a developmental protecting second-generation adolescents from more delinquency risk? Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. and substance misuse problems (Bui, 2013; Marks et al., 2013). Greenman, E. (2013). Educational attitudes, school peer context, and As such, policy and practice with immigrant families should the “immigrant paradox” in education. Social Science Research, 42, take a balanced approach, using both risk and resilience mod- 698–714. els; reacting only to risk conditions perpetuates deficit thinking Guarini, T. E., Marks, A. K., Patton, F., & Garcıa Coll, C. (2014). Num- around minority populations and misses information that may ber of sexual partners, pregnancy, and the immigrant paradox: Explaining the first generation advantage for Latina adolescents. optimize minority youth development (Garcıa Coll et al., 1996). Journal of Research on Adolescence. Advance online publication. In other words, the more we focus on the difficulties experienced doi:10.1111/jora.12096 by second-generation youth, the more we fail to realize their Han, W. J. (2006). Academic achievements of children of immigrant potential and the more we risk perpetuating the paradox in families. Educational Research and Review, 1,286–318. future generations. Hernandez, D. (2004). Demographic change and the life circumstances of immigrant families. Future of Children, 14,17–43. Hernandez, D., Denton, N. A., & Macartney, S. E. (2008). Children in REFERENCES immigrant families: Looking to America’s future. Social Policy Report, 22,3–22. Alba, R. (1997). Rethinking assimilation theory for a new era of immi- Luthar, S. S. (2006). Resilience in development: A synthesis of research gration. International Migration Review, 31,826–874. across five decades. In D. Cicchetti & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Develop- Bacio, G. A., Mays, V. M., & Lau, A. S. (2013). Drinking initiation and mental psychopathology: Risk, disorder, and adaptation (2nd ed., problematic drinking among Latino adolescents: Explanations of Vol. 3, pp. 739–795). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. the immigrant paradox. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 27,14– Markides, K. S., & Coreil, J. (1986). The health of Hispanics in the 22. doi:10.1037/a0029996 Southwestern United States: An epidemiological paradox. Public Berry,J.W.(1997).Immigration,acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Health Reports, 101, 253–265. Psychology, 46,5–34. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.1997.tb01087.x Marks, A. K., Godoy, C. M., & Garcıa Coll, C. (2013). An ecological Berry, J. W., Phinney, J. S., Sam, D. L., & Vedder, P. (2006). Immigrant approach to understanding immigrant child and adolescent devel- youth: Acculturation, identity, and adaptation. Applied Psychology, opmental competencies. In L. Gershoff, R. Mistry, & D. Crosby 55,303–332. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2006.00256.x (Eds.), The contexts of child development (pp. 75–89). New York, Bower, B. (1998). Immigrants go from health to worse. Science News, NY: Oxford University Press. 154, 180. doi:10.2307/4010766 Masten, A. S. (2007). Resilience in developing systems: Progress and Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of promise as the fourth wave rises. Development and Psychopathol- human development. In R. M. Lerner & W. Damon (Eds.), Hand- ogy, 19,921–930. book of child psychology (6th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 793–828). Hoboken, McCullough,M.,&Marks,A.K.(2014). The immigrant paradox and NJ: Wiley. adolescent obesity: Examining health behaviors as potential media- Bui, H. N. (2013). Racial and ethnic differences in the immigrant para- tors. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 35,138– dox in substance use. Journal of Immigrant Minority Health, 15, 143. doi:10.1097/DBP.0000000000000027 866–881. doi:10.1007/s10903-012-9670-y Minnis, A. M., Doherty, I., vanDommelen-Gonzalez, E., Cheng, H., Buriel, R. (2012). Historical origins of the immigrant paradox for Mexi- Otero-Sabogal, R., & Padian, N. S. (2010). Immigration and sexual can American students: The cultural integration hypothesis. In partner risk among Latino adolescents in San Francisco. Journal of C. GarcıaColl&A.K.Marks(Eds.),The immigrant paradox in Immigrant Minority Health, 12, 900–908. children and adolescents: Is becoming American a developmental Portes,A.,&Rumbaut,R.G.(2001).Legacies: The story of the immi- risk? (pp. 37–60). Washington, DC: American Psychological Asso- grant second generation. Berkeley: University of California Press. ciation. doi:10.1037/13094-002 Portes, A., & Zhou, M. (1993). The new second generation: Segmented Crosnoe, R. (2012). Studying the immigrant paradox in the Mexican-ori- assimilation and its variants. Annals of the American Academy of gin population. In C. Garcıa Coll & A. K. Marks (Eds.), The immi- Political and Social Sciences, 530,74–96. grant paradox in children and adolescents: Is becoming American a Rosenbaum, E., & Rochford, J. A. (2008). Generational patterns in aca- developmental risk? (pp. 61–76). Washington, DC: American Psy- demic performance: The variable effects of attitudes and social chological Association. capital. Social Science Research, 37,350–372. doi:10.1016/j.ssre- Fuligni, A. J. (2001). A comparative longitudinal approach to accultura- search.2007.03.003 tion among children from immigrant families. Harvard Educational Stonequist, E. V. (1935). The problem of marginal man. American Jour- Review, 71,566–578. nal of Sociology, 7,1–12. Fuller,B.,Bridges,M.,Bein,E.,Jang,H.,Jung,S.,Rabe-Hesketh,S., Suarez-Orozco, C. (2010). In the best interest of our children: Examining ... Kuo, A. (2009). The health and cognitive growth of Latino our immigration enforcement policy, Ad-hoc hearing of the U.S. : At risk or immigrant paradox? Maternal and Child House of Representatives, July 15. Washington, DC: American Psy- Health, 13,755–768. doi:10.1007/s10995-009-0475-0 chological Association.

Child Development Perspectives, Volume 8, Number 2, 2014, Pages 59–64 64 AmyK.Marks,KidaEjesi,andCynthiaGarcıa Coll

Teller, C. H., & Clyburn, S. (1974). Trends in infant mortality. Texas U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Geographic mobility by selected characteris- Business Review, 48,1–7. tics in the United States. Retrieved from http://factfinder2.census. Turney, K., & Kao, G. (2012). Behavioral outcomes in : gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_12_ Immigrant paradox or disadvantage? In C. Garcıa Coll & A. K. 1YR_S0701&prodType=table Marks (Eds.), The immigrant paradox in children and adolescents: Wirth, L. (1931). Culture conflict and delinquency. Social Forces, 9, Is becoming American a developmental risk? (pp. 79–108). Wash- 484–492. ington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Child Development Perspectives, Volume 8, Number 2, 2014, Pages 59–64

View publication stats