Focusing attention on Puerto Rican families, Landale and Fennelly (1992)
compared marriage and cohabitation rates among mainland-born and island-born
Puerto Rican women interviewed in 1985. Mainland-born women in the sample
were younger than island-born women, thereby affecting the group comparisons.
Consequently, mainland Puerto Rican women were less likely to have been
involved in either a married or cohabiting relationship. Among those women
who had lived with at least one partner in their lifetimes, 58.6% of island-born women had been married, but never cohabited, compared to 47.9% of mainland-born women. On the other hand, mainland Puerto Rican women reported greater
experience with informal marriage (39%) than island-born women (28%), meaning
that more mainland Puerto Rican women viewed their cohabiting relationship
like a marriage. Both mainland and island-born women reported similar levels
of living in cohabiting relationships outside of marriage (14%) or without
the perception of an informal marriage (15.7%).
Top of page
Data from the NSAF showed that Hispanic single parents fell between White
and African American single parents in terms of the number who were single
because they’ve divorced versus the number who were single because
they never married (Wherry & Finegold, 2004). More specifically, about
26% of Hispanic single parents were divorced and 39% had never married.
White single parents were much more likely to be single as a result of divorce
(58%) rather than from never marrying (18%). On the other hand, African
American parents were much more likely to be single as a result of never
having been married (59%) compared to having been divorced (23%).
Data from the 1995 National Survey for Family Growth (NSFG) survey revealed
that 34% of Hispanic women’s first marriages resulted in separation
or divorce within 10 years, which did not differ from the 32% rate of disruption
experienced by White women (Bramlett & Mosher, 2002). African American
women had higher rates (47%). For women in other racial/ethnic groups, younger
age was associated with increased risk for marital disruption, but there
was no such relationship for Hispanic women, with dissolution rates ranging
from 31% to 38% among the different ages at time of first marriage. One
limitation of the data is that the NSFG asked women to provide a retrospective
history of their relationships. It is therefore important to acknowledge
the potential biases and inaccuracies that could arise from women having
to recollect and then report on relationships that occurred in the past.
This could help explain why the results are slightly different than those
found in the Wherry and Finegold (2004) analyses in which Hispanic single
parents had a higher rate of divorce than White families.
The NSFG data further showed that communities with lower median family
income, fewer college educated residents, higher unemployment, and elevated
rates of poverty, experienced higher rates of marital disruption, as well
as higher rates of instability among cohabiting couples (Bramlett &
Mosher, 2002). For Hispanic women in the study, the discrepancy in marital
disruption between low-income and high-income communities was 12%, for White
women the gap was 20%, and for African American women, the gap was 23% (Bramlett
& Mosher, 2002). Therefore, it appears that rates of marital disruption
are higher among low-income families. The findings from this study have
potential implications for Hispanic families because they are more likely
to live in less affluent communities and have lower levels of education
(Bramlett & Mosher; Fein, 2004; U.S. Department of Education, 2002).
The NSFG data also revealed that, similar to women in other racial/ethnic
groups, Hispanic women were more likely to have a disruption in their marriage
if they were not raised in an intact family; 45% of women raised outside
of an intact family were likely to have their marriages dissolve, but only
28% of women raised in an intact family had their marriages dissolve within
10 years (Bramlett & Mosher, 2002). Finally, marriages were more likely
to dissolve when spouses were not members of the same race or ethnicity.
As the research illustrates, there appear to be different factors affecting
marriage for African American, Hispanic, and White families. For instance,
the lower rates of marriage observed in African American parents compared
to Caucasian parents can be explained to some degree by fathers’ earnings
capacity, but earnings capacity does not account for the difference between
African American and Hispanic parents, largely because Hispanic parents
have similar ability to provide for the family as African American parents
(Harcknett and McLanahan, 2002). However, research findings showing that
Puerto Rican families have lower rates of formal marriage, higher rates
of nonmarital fertility, higher rates of female household heads, yet higher
rates of poverty may suggest that economic factors have a stronger negative
relationship with Puerto Rican families than with families of different
Latino ethnicity.
Top of page
A study using NSFG data from 1995 found that Hispanic women between the
ages of 15 and 44 were almost twice as likely to give birth outside of marriage
than White women (Musick, 2002). Further examination of the context of nonmarital
births revealed that Hispanic women were twice as likely as White women
to have a planned birth and 1.6 times as likely to have an unplanned birth.
An interesting study on girls’ perceptions of normal timing for the
transition to marriage and motherhood may offer insight into why Hispanic
women have higher nonmarital birth rates (East, 1998). The sample was comprised
of 574 English-speaking girls in sixth through eighth grade who were attending
school in Southern California. Nearly one-third of the sample was Hispanic
(mainly of Mexican origin), close to one-third was Black, and 16% was White.
Hispanic youth reported lower desired ages for marriage and first birth.
Furthermore, Hispanic girls placed significantly less importance on achieving
school or career goals than White or Black girls. Hispanic girls also rated
themselves as less likely to actually accomplish their school and career
goals. However, unlike for girls in other race/ethnicity categories, poor school or job aspirations did not predict a
positive intention to engage in teen sexual activity. Instead, having a
low family income, having a mother who married young, and having a mother
who gave birth at a young age positively predicted teen sexual activity.
East suggests that the results demonstrate that Mexican American girls are
more likely than girls from other racial groups to be socialized into getting
married and starting a family rather than taking on school- or work-related
roles.
Although poor school and career aspirations did not predict intentions
for teen sexual activity among Hispanic girls, they were associated with
expectations to have children at a younger age (East, 1998). Positive
school and career goals were unrelated to girls’ perceptions of
how likely they would be to have a nonmarital birth. Interestingly, being
born in the U.S. rather than foreign-born was associated with girls having
a higher perceived likelihood that they would have children out-of-wedlock.
In fact, for those girls who were foreign-born, the longer the youth had
lived in the U.S., the higher her expectation for a nonmarital birth.
Across all races and ethnicities, the birth rate for unmarried women remained
relatively constant between 1995 and 2002, although the absolute number
of births increased as a result of the 10% rise in the number of unmarried
women of childbearing age (Martin et al., 2003). However, the birth rate
for unmarried Hispanic women was the highest at 87.9 per 1000 births, followed
by African American women (66.2 per 1000), then non-Hispanic White women
(27.8 per 1000). In contrast to the marked 24% decline in birth rates among
unmarried African American women from 1990 (one of the peak years for nonmarital
births among African Americans) to 2002, Hispanic women only experienced
an 8% decline in nonmarital births from their peak year, which was 1994.
The lowest birth rate for Hispanic women during this time actually occurred
in 1998 with a rate of 82.8 per 1000 births, a 13% decline off the 1994
peak. However, the birth rate to unmarried women has slowly climbed in the
subsequent years to 87.9 per 1000 births in 2002.
In 1985, nearly half of Puerto Rican women living in the New York City
area conceived their first child outside of marriage compared to slightly
more than one-quarter of White women (Manning & Landale, 1996). Intergenerational
differences again emerged in rates of nonmarital births, with Mexican born
women 2.7 times more likely to have nonmarital births as White women. Interestingly,
second generation women were not more likely to have children outside of
marriage than White women, but third generation women had rates at the same
level as Mexican born women.
Having less than a high school education was much more strongly associated
with nonmarital fertility in Mexican born and third generation women than
for White women in the 1995 CPS sample (Wildsmith, 2004). At the high school
educational level and beyond, these women looked very similar in their rates
of nonmarital births as White women. For African American and third generation
Mexican American women, the greatest decreases in nonmarital births occurred
for women who continued their education beyond high school. More specifically,
1995 NSFG data showed that, for Latino women, having a high school degree
was associated with a 45% reduction in births outside of marriage and a
college degree was associated with a 60% decreased likelihood of having
a birth outside marriage (Musick, 2002). Having a high school diploma or
a college degree was more strongly linked to reducing the number of planned
births compared to unplanned births. Therefore, Musick asserts that these
findings indicate a change in expectations or orientations associated with
increased education rather than a change in the rate of contraceptive use
or failure. The importance of education on nonmarital births identified
in these studies becomes more salient given the high rate of school dropout
and low levels of higher education among Hispanic youth (U.S. Department
of Education, 2002).
Top of page
A study of the 1995 NSFG data revealed that for women in a cohabiting relationship,
61% of Hispanic women, 75% of White women, and 48% of African American women
had married their partner within five years (Bramlett & Mosher, 2002).
In support of this finding, data from the Fragile Families and Child Well-being
study similarly revealed that a higher percentage of Mexican American (17%)
and other Hispanic (16.7%) parents who had experienced a nonmarital birth
were married after the study follow-up period of 15 months than African American
(7.1%) parents (Harcknett & McLanahan, 2002). Statistically, Hispanic
couples appeared nearly identical in marriage patterns to White (18%) parents.
Similarly, White (57.1%), Mexican American (58.5%) and other Hispanic (53%)
parents were more likely to be cohabiting at the 15-month follow-up than
unwed African American (37.4%) parents, and less likely to be broken up.
Increased rates of cohabitation have implications for increased nonmarital
fertility because cohabitation has been strongly linked to giving birth
outside marriage. For example, Hispanic women have been shown to be three
times as likely to have out-of-wedlock births when they cohabitated (Musick,
2002). In addition, when cohabiting women became parents, they were twice
as likely to have a planned versus unplanned birth. Moreover, a different
study revealed that half of Puerto Rican women who had a nonmarital birth
lived in a cohabiting relationship at the time compared to 32% of White
couples (Manning & Landale, 1996). Analyses of the 1995 Current Population
Survey (CPS) illustrate the impact of immigration status (Wildsmith, 2004).
The data revealed that 16% of female heads of households in second-generation
Mexican American families were cohabiting, which is a significantly higher
rate of cohabitation than found among female heads in foreign-born (3%)
and third-generation (6%) Mexican households, or in African American (4.4%)
or White (8.7%) households.
In stark contrast to both White and African American couples, cohabitating
Puerto Rican couples in the Musick (2002) study were far less likely to
marry prior to the birth of a child than couples who did not reside together.
Whereas for White couples cohabitation was generally a precursor to marriage,
for Puerto Rican couples, cohabitation was often the family context within
which childbearing occurred. On the other hand, for African American women,
cohabitation and marriage were much less likely than single motherhood.
According to Musick, these findings support other research showing that
consensual, but non-legal, unions have traditional importance among Latino
families and thus, cohabitation is more integral to family life for Hispanics.
Manning and Landale (1996) similarly concluded that research results support
the notion that cohabitation is viewed as an alternative to marriage among
Puerto Rican couples.
For instance, a study examining first-and-second generation Puerto Rican
women living in the New York City area in 1985 (where approximately 60%
of Puerto Rican people lived at the time) found that Puerto Rican women
who were in cohabiting relationships looked more similar to married women
than to single women (Landale & Fennelly, 1992). The researchers reported
that younger cohabiting women (ages 18-29) were slightly less likely than
younger married women to have given birth,ave gotten pregnant, or
be having sex more than once a week. However, these numbers did not differ
at the significance level of .05.
Although married and cohabiting women did not differ in their rates of
school enrollment, the younger women in cohabiting relationships were more
likely to be neither working nor enrolled in school (Landale & Fennelly,
1992). Among older women (ages 30 to 49), the only difference detected between
the two groups was in the frequency of sex, with women in cohabiting relationships
reporting that they were significantly more likely to be having sex more
than once a week.
A different examination of the same dataset revealed that nearly half of
Puerto Rican women conceived their first child prior to marriage compared
to slightly more than a one-quarter of White women (Manning & Landale,
1996). However, by the time the baby was born, only 36% of Puerto Rican
mothers were unmarried, indicating that a substantial portion of them married
between conception and birth. Interestingly though, Puerto Rican women who
were cohabiting with their partners at the time of conception were not likely
to legally marry. In fact, only 6% married prior to the babies’ birth.
In contrast, 33% of women who did not cohabitate when they became pregnant
married their partner prior to the child’s birth, and 48% moved in
with their partner but did not marry.
Manning and Landale (1996) noted that economic factors might help explain
the higher rates of childbearing in cohabiting versus married couples among
Puerto Rican women. However, economic factors alone cannot account for all
of the observed differences between racial and ethnic groups. For instance,
similarly disadvantaged African American and Puerto Rican families still
have different rates of cohabitation and marriage.
Top of page
Oropesa (1996) used data from the 1987-1988 National Survey of Families
and Households (NSFH) to examine marriage attitudes among non-Hispanic White,
Mexican American, and Puerto Rican men and women living in the mainland
United States. The study relied on survey data, which is limited in its
ability to measure research constructs in detail, and thus, raises concerns
about how accurately specific marriage attitudes were measured. For instance,
rather than using an instrument that incorporates multiple indicators of
how desirable marriage is for a participant, respondents were asked to rate
on a 1 to 5 scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree) how much
they agreed with the item, “It’s better for a person to get
married than to go through life being single.” The advantages of such
survey questions, however, include the ability to ask a broader range of
questions, save interview time, and interview far more people than with
a more detailed interview protocol.
In response to the marriage desirability item on the NSFH, Mexican American
respondents were more likely to believe that it’s better to get married
than to remain single in life (Oropesa, 1996). Not only were they more likely
to endorse the item, but they also had less variation in their responses
than White and Puerto Rican respondents, regardless of whether socioeconomic
or demographic variables were included in the analyses. The higher mean
combined with the lower standard deviation from the mean (meaning respondents
answered more uniformly) illustrate the increased importance of marriage
among Mexican Americans. Despite their lower marriage rates, Puerto Rican
participants were also slightly more likely to support marriage than White
participants.
In a separate study using Fragile Families data, African American mothers
were more likely than other mothers to think that marriage is different
from and better than cohabitation, which is particularly interesting given
their low rates of marriage (Harcknett & McLanahan, 2004). Mexican American
mothers were the most likely to believe that marriage is better for children.
Further results from the Oropesa study (1996) indicated that White respondents
were neutral to mildly disapproving in their attitudes toward cohabitation
when a couple has no plans to marry (2.7 on the 1 to 5 scale), with Mexican
American respondents scores slightly, but significantly, higher (2.8). However,
given the large sample size and the small difference in values (i.e. .1),
it would be helpful to know how large the effect size was for the detected
difference between the White and Mexican American participants. In other
words, to what extent is the statistical difference between the two groups
a result of the large sample size, versus a noteworthy effect size. Puerto
Rican participants had a still higher mean score (3.0), but they remained
generally neutral rather than approving in their attitudes. However, when
asked how much they approved of unmarried couples cohabiting if they planned
to marry, means for Mexican Americans (3.0) and Puerto Ricans (3.1) did
not differ from each other. Both groups’ means were significantly
different from the mean for Whites (2.6). Examining the two items together,
it appears that Puerto Rican and White respondents’ attitudes toward
marriage don’t change, whereas Mexican American respondents tend to
think cohabitation is more acceptable in the context of future marriage.
Puerto Rican participants thought it more acceptable for unmarried 18 year-olds
to have had sex (2.8) than Mexican American (2.6) or White (2.5) participants,
although all three group means were centered in the mildly disapproving
to neutral range. Similarly, on a scale from 1 to 7 (1= Strongly disapprove
and 7 = Strongly approve), Puerto Rican respondents had a higher tolerance
for having children outside of marriage (3.8) than Mexican American (3.1)
or White (2.9) respondents. The tendency for Puerto Ricans to be more approving
of cohabitation appears to stem from Puerto Rican’s attitudes greater
tolerance toward nonmarital sex and childbearing.
Demographic variables predicted endorsement of the pro-marriage item such
that pro-marriage beliefs were more likely among participants who were married,
older, and those who had younger children (Oropesa, 1996). Similarly, family
background variables predicted the pro-marriage attitude, indicating that
more affluent participants were more pro-marriage, as were people who classified
their religion as non-Catholic versus Catholic, and respondents who were
foreign-born. In line with research about the importance of marriage in
native Hispanic cultures, foreign-born Mexican American participants were
more likely than U.S.- born Mexican American participants to believe marriage
was better than remaining single. Interestingly, men across the three groups
were more likely to endorse the benefits of marriage than women.
People who had higher levels of education, income, and hours of employment,
and respondents who reported receiving public assistance in the last five
years were more accepting of cohabitation. Men and younger respondents also
tended to be more supportive of cohabitation. However, for all of the results,
it’s important to emphasize that even though ethnicity was predictive
of differences that were statistically significant, by itself it did not
account for a big percentage of the variance in any of the variables. That
is, the large sample size of Mexican American, Puerto Rican, and White respondents
led to greater sensitivity to detect differences at the statistically significant
level, but ethnicity was not as powerful in terms of being an explanatory
variable as attitudes were.
It’s also important to highlight the variation that exists within
the contexts of cohabitation and marriage. For instance, some cohabiting
relationships are more serious and committed than others, and both marriage
and cohabiting relationships can vary widely in terms of quality, conflict,
and satisfaction.
The Landale and Fennelly (1992) study of Puerto Rican women in New York
discussed earlier illustrated the importance of distinguishing between cohabiting
couples in which the women view the relationship as an informal marriage
and those that don’t. Approximately three-quarters of the women ages
18 to 49 in co-residential unions classified their relationship as an informal
marriage. In addition, women who had been married previously were more likely
to classify their union as an informal marriage than as a cohabiting relationship.
Women who had given birth within the context of the cohabiting relationship
were also more likely to classify their relationship as an informal marriage.
However, the analyses cannot determine the direction of causality, meaning
that women who view their cohabiting relationships as informal marriages
may be more willing to become parents, or it may be that having a child
changes the perception of the union. The researchers noted that even when
women classified their cohabiting relationships as informal marriages, the
rates of instability were still significantly higher than those of legal
marriages.
Top of page
Very little research exists about the quality of relationships among married
couples in which only one partner is Hispanic. Some people view such interethnic
relationships as less stable and more stressful because of potential family
and social disapproval of “mixed marriages” as well as cultural
differences (Negy & Snyder, 2000). Although people involved in interethnic
marriages are more likely to divorce, there is little research evidence
that explains why the divorce rate is higher.
To help fill the research gap, Negy and Snyder (2000) studied the relationships
of 72 interethnic couples in which one partner was Mexican American and
one partner was non-Hispanic White, 75 couples in which both partners identified
themselves as Mexican American, and 66 non-Hispanic White couples. The results
indicated no significant differences between the interethnic couples and
the monoethnic couples in the level of distress reported in ten different
relationship dimensions (e.g., aggression, problem-solving communication,
role orientation, conflict over child rearing). Examining differences between
interethnic couples and couples in which both partners were White or both
partners were Mexican American, the interethnic couples reported lower levels
of overall distress and higher levels of satisfaction with the amount of
affection and understanding expressed by their partners than the Mexican
American couples.
However, interethnic couples did report higher levels of stress related
to childrearing. The researchers suggest two explanations for this finding.
One hypothesis is that parents have higher levels of distress raising a
bi-ethnic or biracial child who has a healthy cultural and self-identity.
That is, bi-ethnic and biracial children may have more difficulty adjusting
and figuring out where they fit within their parents’ cultures. Alternatively,
the higher distress could be a result of conflicts between parents over
clashing cultural roles and expectations for mothers and fathers in such
dimensions as childcare, discipline, and religion.
Better understanding of the stresses, risk factors, and protective factors
of interethnic and interracial families is needed, especially given their
increasing numbers. To validate the Negy and Snyder (2000) study, additional
research is needed on interethnic and interracial families in which one
partner is Hispanic. In addition, such research should be replicated with
a more heterogeneous group of interethnic couples from different geographical
locations in the U.S. as well as from different Hispanic origins. Negy and
Snyder also highlight the importance of research that can inform clinical
intervention to be sensitive to the specific needs of interethnic families.
Furthermore, they emphasize the importance of recognizing assumptions and
stereotypes that service providers and researchers might hold regarding
interethnic marriages. For example, the investigators cite the assumption
that there is a power differential in the marriage between the majority
and minority ethnic/race status of the partners. Research is needed to test
whether these kinds of assumptions hold.
Top of page
Wed and unwed Mexican American parents with infants have been found to
have less relationship conflict than African American parents (Harcknett
and McLanahan, 2002), meaning slightly fewer disagreements overall. More
specifically, participants in the Fragile Families study reported fewer
disagreements about time, the pregnancy, or faithfulness, although they
argued more about drugs or alcohol. Parents categorized under the “other
Hispanic” label were more similar in their relationship conflict to
African American parents, with similar reports of overall disagreements,
disagreements about time, the pregnancy, and faithfulness. Across all racial
and ethnic groups, mothers in the Fragile Families study reported similar
levels of father’s help and criticism (Harcknett and McLanahan, 2002).
Another study using data from the National Alcohol and Family Violence Survey
(NAFVS), similarly found that relationship conflict was significantly lower
among Mexican and Puerto Rican couples than for Caucasian, Non-Hispanic
men (Aldarondo, Kantor, Jasinski, 2002). Inter-parental conflict among Latino
families is an important area to continue researching, especially since
such conflict has been linked to negative outcomes in children (e.g., Amato
and Sobolewski, 2001; Buehler et al., 1998; Cummings, Goeke, Marcie, &
Papp, 2003; Grych, & Fincham, 1990).
Top of page
Partner violence has not been well studied in Latino families (Aldarondo
et al., 2002). Across all racial and ethnic groups, mothers in the Fragile
Families study reported similar levels of being hit by the children’s
father (Harcknett and McLanahan, 2002). Not surprisingly, higher levels
of relationship conflict were linked to greater risk for wife assault among
Mexican and Mexican American families in the NAFVS data (Aldarondo et al.).
Moreover, the study found that Mexican American and Puerto Rican families
had higher prevalence rates of wife assault than White families or families
in which men were identified as Mexican rather than Mexican American (Aldarondo
et al.). The researchers don’t discuss the potential differences or
overlaps between the people self-identifying as Mexican versus Mexican American.
For example, the Mexican category could be comprised of first generation
immigrants as well as people who were born in the U.S. yet still identify
themselves as Mexican. Similarly, the Mexican American category could very
easily contain first generation immigrants who self-identify as Mexican
Americans.
Mexican and Mexican American women reported lower levels of wife assault
than did Mexican and Mexican American men. The researchers highlighted the
relevance of immigrant status in interpreting this finding. Undocumented
workers can be deported if arrested for physical abuse as can men who have
residency status in the United States. Therefore, spouses of immigrant men
may be less likely to report abuse to official sources or seek help (Aldarondo
et al., 2002).
Top of page
Relationships with Prenatal Care and Birth Outcomes
Using data from the National Maternal and Infant Health Survey, conducted
by the National Center for Health Statistics, researchers examined the impact
of family structure on birth outcomes (Albrecht, Miller, & Clarke, 1994).
Data were collected on a sample of births in the United States in 1988.
The researchers defined adequate prenatal care as beginning by the fourth
month of pregnancy and attending between 80% and 109% of the recommended
prenatal doctor visits. Intensive care was defined as attending more than
110% of the recommended visits, and inadequate care was defined as either
beginning after the fourth month of pregnancy or attending less than half
of the recommended prenatal care visits.
Overall, the relationship between family structure and birth outcomes was
fairly small (Albrecht et al., 1994). However, for Hispanic women, living
with a family support partner reduced the odds of getting inadequate prenatal
care compared to adequate care. Furthermore, married women living with the
father of the child were more likely to receive adequate care versus inadequate
care than unmarried women living with the father or women living with their
mother. In fact, Hispanic women living alone or with their mother were more
likely to receive inadequate prenatal care. Among disadvantaged Hispanic
women, meaning younger women with lower levels of education and higher levels
of poverty, the probability of receiving inadequate care when living with
a spouse was .42 and rose to .97 when living alone. There were no effects
of family structure on babies’ birth weight, even though inadequate
prenatal care was associated with Hispanic women giving birth to babies
that, on average, weighed 177 grams less than infants of Hispanic mothers
who received adequate care.
Interestingly, Hispanic women who received intensive prenatal care gave
birth to babies who weighed an average of 445 grams less than those receiving
adequate care. Thus, it appears that receiving intensive prenatal care
may serve as a proxy for a higher-risk pregnancy. Being married and living
with the father was associated with the biggest statistically significant
reduction in the likelihood of receiving intensive prenatal care, followed
by living with the father, but not being married. In sum, it appears that
being married and living with the father of the child serves as the biggest
protective factor for birth outcomes among Hispanic women. Cohabiting
with the father but not being married also serves as a protective factor,
but to a lesser degree.
Top of page
A study of approximately 1000 two-parent families, of which about 100 were
Hispanic, revealed that Hispanic children in two-parent homes spent about
15 hours per week engaged with their fathers (Hofferth, 2003). The amount
of time Hispanic children spent with their fathers did not differ from White
children, but was significantly higher than time African American children
spent with their fathers (12.8 hours). The data came from two-parent families,
though not necessarily the biological parents of the children, interviewed
in the 1997 Child Development Supplement to the Panel Study of Income Dynamics.
Three-quarters of the Hispanic families were of Mexican descent, and 80%
of the children were second-generation. In the dual-parent Hispanic families,
children were most likely to live in a male breadwinner-female homemaker
family whereas Caucasian and African American children were more likely
to live in dual-earner families.
Hispanic and African American fathers reported similar levels of responsibility
for children’s care (e.g. bathing children, changing diapers, disciplining
children, choosing children’s activities, playing with children, buying
clothes), which were higher than levels reported by Caucasian fathers (Hofferth,
2003). Greater responsibility for children observed in Hispanic fathers
may be attributed to the tendency for Hispanic families to live in predominantly
Hispanic neighborhoods as well as less desirable neighborhoods. Both types
of neighborhoods were linked to higher levels of responsibility for children’s
care. Not surprisingly, Hispanic fathers reported more traditional mothering
and marriage values than White fathers. In contrast to prevalent perceptions
or stereotypes about Hispanic men having high levels of machismo this
study found that Hispanic fathers reported higher beliefs in gender equity
and more individualistic attitudes.
Hispanic fathers rated themselves similarly to White fathers in levels
of warmth, but reported lower levels of monitoring and control over children
than both White and African American fathers (Hofferth, 2003). The relationship
between ethnicity and monitoring and control decreased when income was taken
into account, suggesting that economic factors account for the differences
observed between African American and White fathers. In addition, Hofferth
asserts that monitoring may be lower in Hispanic families because they tend
to live in predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods, which tend to involve higher
community levels of monitoring and consequently require less parental monitoring.
Top of page
Dual-parent households have also been linked to higher levels of educational
achievement (e.g., some postsecondary education, associate’s degree,
working toward bachelor’s degree) in Hispanic youth two years after
high school ( Battle, 2002 ). However, the same study indicated no difference
in eighth grade or twelfth grade grade reading and math test scores between children from
one-parent and dual-parent homes. Therefore it appears that dual-parent
households don’t necessarily relate to skills so much as level of
education attained. Socioeconomic status measured in eighth grade was also
positively predictive of test scores in eighth grade. To a lesser extent,
eighth grade SES was also predictive of twelfth grade test scores and postsecondary
educational achievement. The data came from the nationally representative
National Education Longitudinal Study (NELS) and was comprised of
eighth
grade
baseline data from over 1400 Hispanic youth in 1988, twelfth grade data from
over 1000 Hispanic youth in 1992, and postsecondary data from over 1400
Hispanic young adults in 1994. The researcher did not examine additional
household configurations such as cohabiting couples and they didn’t
examine variation within the Hispanic sample by country of origin.
Lower levels of education have potential implications for childbearing
because educational attainment has been linked to a higher risk of nonmarital
births in Puerto Rican women (Manning & Landale, 1996). Moreover, the
Manning and Landale study revealed that having fewer than 12 years of education
was also linked to a decreased probability of marriage prior to the birth
of the baby for unmarried women who become pregnant.
Unfortunately, members of the Hispanic population have the lowest rates
of high school completion and graduation from college (U.S. Department
of Education, 2002). For all adults over age 25, 56.5% of Hispanics have
completed high school compared to 79.5% of African Americans and 88.7% of
Caucasians. When you only examine younger people ages 25 to 29, the rate
of high school completion among Hispanics increases to 63.2%, but the rates
of the other groups increase as well to 87% and 93.3% respectively. For
adults ages 25 to 29, 11.1% of Hispanics have a college degree compared
to 17.8% of African Americans and 33% of Caucasians.
Top of page
Family structure did not predict adolescent sexual activity in a large
sample of predominantly Puerto Rican youth (Miller, Forehand, & Kotchick,
1999). However, living with two biological parents was linked to older age
at time of first sexual intercourse in a sample of 870 youth ages 12 to
17 living in Los Angeles followed from 1992 to 1994 (Upchurch, Aneshensel,
Sucoff, & Levy-Storms, 1999). Living in single-parent homes and reconstituted
families (meaning remarriages and resulting step-families), was associated
with a higher risk of sexual activity. Parental emotional support of the
youth and overly controlling behavior toward the youth did not explain the
observed differences by family structure. Although the researchers did not
specifically examine the effects of family structure for different racial
and ethnic groups, nearly half of the sample (49%) consisted of Hispanic
teens, the majority of whom (78%) were of Mexican descent. In fact, a later
analysis of the Hispanic sub-sample of the dataset yielded the same pattern
of results (Upchurch, Aneshensel, Mudgal, & McNeely, 2001).
Spending time in a single-parent family was found to increase nonmarital
fertility in White families, but to have no impact on fertility in Hispanic
families, thus negating the theory related to the intergenerational transmission
of nontraditional family patterns for Latino families (Musick, 2002).
Top of page
In a sample of 465 male adolescents followed longitudinally from 1992
to 1994, the mean age of first sexual intercourse experience did not differ
between White and Hispanic boys at 16.6 and 16.5, respectively (Upchurch
et al., 1999). However, among the 405 female youth in the study, Hispanic
girls were significantly older than Caucasian girls when they first had
sex (17.3 vs. 16.6, respectively), even when they lived in under-class or
working-class neighborhoods. Across race/ethnicity, when girls and boys
reported living in more dangerous neighborhoods with higher levels of physical
deterioration and social disorder (i.e. drugs and gangs) they also reported
lower mean ages at first sex. Although the researchers didn’t examine
this relationship by ethnicity, nearly half of the sample was comprised
of Hispanic youth, likely indicating that the relationship exists specifically
for them as well.
Birth rates for all teenagers have declined since 1991, with the most
dramatic decline (50%) observed among 10 to 14 year-olds (Martin et al.,
2003). These patterns hold for Hispanic adolescents as well, although the
declines were somewhat smaller than those seen among the general population
of teens. That is, Hispanic girls experienced a 42% decrease in births for
10 to 14 year-olds, a 27% vs. 40% decrease for 15 to 17 year-olds, and a
14% vs. 23% decrease for 18 and 19 year-olds. In addition to rates of live
births dropping, rates of pregnancy have also declined during this time
period, thus reflecting a decline in both abortion and live birth rates.
In addition to a smaller decline in pregnancy rates for Latino teens, the
overall rates of teen births were significantly higher for Latino youth
than for Non-Hispanic White youth in all age categories (Martin et al.,
2003). For instance, Latino 15 to 19 year-olds were nearly three times as
likely to give birth as White teens and about 1.2 times more likely to give
birth than African American teens. Latino teens ages 10 to 14 were almost
five times as likely to give birth as White teens, but only half as likely
to give birth as African American teens.
Much research exists that demonstrates the negative impact of certain environments
on youth problem behaviors, including teen sexual activity and pregnancy.
However, there is emerging evidence about the protective effects of communities
that might otherwise be considered at-risk (for instance, neighborhoods
with high rates of poverty). In an exploratory study of Latino neighborhoods
in California, investigators found that teens living in areas with a higher
percentage of Hispanic individuals had lower birthrates, regardless of the
median income level of the community (Denner, Kirby, Coyle, & Brindis,
2001). The low teen birthrate communities also had a higher proportion of
foreign-born Hispanics living in the community. In fact, two of the communities
studied were near the U.S.–Mexico border. Residents reported that
they chose to live in the low teen birthrate communities because they could
be close to family, have informal networks of support with friends and family,
and could share the monitoring of children with others. Again, the low teen
birthrate communities had higher rates of Latino families, and they reported
having more shared cultural norms. In contrast, the high teen birthrate
communities reported divisions along ethnic lines and a lack of consensus
as to whether there was a teen pregnancy problem in the community. Interestingly,
the residents of low teen birthrate communities expressed concerns that
the teen birthrate was still too high.
Again, the Denner et al. (2001) study was only a pilot study. Much more
research is needed about the potential protective factors of communities
with high proportions of Hispanic individuals. However, the study by Upchurch
and colleagues (2001) reported results that support the Denner et al. pilot
study. More specifically, they found that teens living in low-to-medium
density neighborhoods (31.5% - 55.2% Hispanic) had a significantly higher
risk of engaging in sex than teens living in medium-to-high density Hispanic
neighborhoods (55.3% - 83.7%) Hispanic. These findings appear to fit with
research presented earlier that foreign-born and first-generation Latino
families have lower rates of divorce, cohabitation, and premarital childbearing.
Further research about the potential risk and protective factors of Latino
communities and neighborhoods is warranted.
Top of page
As indicated in the introductory section of the paper, Hispanic families
have unique considerations that are important for researchers, service providers,
and policymakers to recognize. To begin with, the Hispanic population within
the U.S. has been growing rapidly since 1990. Moreover, as a group, Latino
individuals are younger than people from most other racial/ethnic groups
in the United States. Unfortunately, they are also much less likely to graduate
high school, attend college, or pursue graduate studies than other racial/ethnic
groups. Furthermore, they are more likely to be living in poverty than people
in the general population. Further research should focus on why disparities
in educational attainment and household income exist for Latino families.
In addition, demonstration projects to improve education and job skills
in the Latino community should be funded and evaluated to build the base
of knowledge about such intervention strategies with Latinos.
Furthermore, the research illustrates the tremendous amount of variation
in individuals who classify themselves as Hispanic or Latino. The term “Hispanic”
includes individuals from such disparate places as Cuba, Puerto Rico, Mexico,
other Central American countries as well as South American countries. Some
of the research reviewed had samples that were large enough to examine data
individually for the different Hispanic ethnicities, showing that a person’s
country of origin has major implications for the interpretation of findings.
For instance, Puerto Rican families experience lower rates of marriage,
higher rates of single parenthood, higher rates of cohabitation, and higher
rates of out-of-wedlock birth than people of Mexican or Cuban descent.
Researchers need to recognize the differences that can emerge depending
on a person’s Hispanic ethnicity. As a result, investigators should
provide detailed descriptions of their samples and examine ethnic groups
differently when the sample size allows. Furthermore, future research should
be focused on describing the variation found among individuals within a
Hispanic ethnic group. That is, not all Puerto Rican families look and behave
the same, and improved understanding of Latino families requires more in-depth
research of each ethnic group to avoid overgeneralizations.
Similarly, the length of time that a person has lived in the United States
was shown to impact Latino family formation. In contrast to second-and-third
generation descendants, foreign-born and first-generation immigrants tended
to have higher rates of marriage, lower rates of single parent households,
and less cohabitation. Brandon (2002) suggested these findings demonstrated
an erosion of social capital and cultural traditions with successive generations.
Much more research needs to be conducted with immigrating families. Ideally,
families and individuals would be interviewed shortly after their arrival
to the U.S. and followed longitudinally to monitor their experiences and
learning more about the process of acculturation, particularly examining
the impacts of immigration on family life. Similarly, much could be learned
through studying illegal aliens to determine whether they experience added
stress or negative consequences of being excluded from the nation’s
formal systems (e.g., educational, legal, and social services).
Top of page
Hispanic families are overrepresented among low-income married couples,
possibly because they get married at younger ages and stay married longer
than people from other racial/ethnic groups (U.S. Department of Education,
2002). Low-income, married Latino parents are also much more likely to have
young children in the home than similar White or African American couples
(Fein, 2004). In addition, low-income Hispanic couples have lower levels
of education than couples of a different race/ethnicity. Yet, Latino husbands
in low-income families are more likely to work full-time than low-income
White or African American husbands.
McLoyd and colleagues (2000) reviewed research published in the 1990’s
and concluded that Latino women differed from White women in that they were
more likely to be household heads, were less likely to be married, and were
more likely to give birth outside of marriage. However, there is variation
in the data for the different ethnic groups. For instance, Mexican American
men and women married at similar rates as White women according to 1990
census data (Oropesa, 1996).
In terms of nonmarital childbearing, Hispanic women had the highest rates
from 1995 to 2002, followed by African American women, then White women
(Martin et al, 2003). From 1990, to 2002, Hispanic women also had the lowest
decline in out-of-wedlock birth rates of the three racial/ethnic groups.
Completing high school or college served as major protective factors for
Latino women, meaning they were far less likely to give birth before they
were married (Musick, 2002).
Once unmarried Hispanic women gave birth outside of marriage, they were
much more likely to marry or cohabitate with their partner within 15 months
of birth than African American women (Harcknett & McLanahan, 2002).
They married and cohabitated at similar rates as White women within the
15-month period. However, another study revealed that cohabitating Puerto
Rican women were actually much less likely to get married between conception
and the birth of the child than other racial/ethnic groups (Musick, 2002).
For white couples, cohabitation often preceded marriage, whereas for Puerto
Rican couples, cohabitation was often the context in which childbearing
occurred. Thus, some research suggests that cohabitation may be viewed as
an alternative form of marriage for some Hispanic groups (Manning &
Landale, 1996; Musick, 2002).
As might be expected given the previous results, a study about attitudes
toward marriage revealed that Puerto Rican respondents were less likely
than Mexican American respondents to believe that it’s better to get
married than to remain single (Oropesa, 1996). Puerto Rican participants
also had slightly, but statistically significant, higher approval for cohabitation
than Mexican American or White respondents. They were also more tolerant
of people having children outside of marriage.
Overall, the research suggests there are different factors affecting marriage
and family formation for African American, Hispanic, and White families.
For instance, the lower rates of marriage observed in African American parents
compared to Caucasian parents can be explained to some degree by fathers’
earnings capacity, but earnings capacity does not account for all of the
observed differences, mainly because Hispanic parents have similar ability
to provide for the family as African American parents (Harcknett and McLanahan,
2002).
Research is needed to help explain why economic factors are more important
for African American, and perhaps Caucasian marriages than for Hispanic
marriages. In addition, research findings suggest that economic factors
may be more important in explaining some family formation behaviors among
certain Hispanic subgroups, such as Puerto Rican individuals. Finally, research
should focus on why cohabiting Latino couples of different ethnicities choose
to cohabit rather than marry, particularly if they view their relationship
as more of an informal marriage.
Top of page
Marriages that are not characterized as high conflict have been shown
to have beneficial impacts on children (e.g., Amato and Sobolewski, 2001;
Buehler et al., 1998; Cummings et al., 2003; Grych, & Fincham, 1990).
Specifically for Hispanic women, being married and living with the father
of the child has been linked with better prenatal care, meaning they were
more likely to receive adequate versus inadequate care (Albrecht, Miller,
& Clarke, 1994). Cohabitating with the father outside of marriage was
also associated with a better likelihood for receiving adequate prenatal
care, although the effect wasn’t as strong as for women who were married.
Although family structure did not directly impact babies’ birthweight,
there appears to be an indirect effect because inadequate prenatal care
was associated with babies who weighed less at birth.
Living in a dual-parent household has also been associated with higher
levels of educational attainment in Hispanic youth two years after high
school ( Battle, 2002). The data indicated no differences in math or reading
tests scores in 8 th or 12 th grade between youth living in single-parent
or dual-parent homes. Thus, it appears that family structure isn’t
associated with skills or aptitude so much as level of educational achievement
and enrollment in higher education.
Finally, the research is mixed on the impact of family structure on sexual
activity. One study of Puerto Rican youth found no relationship between
family structure and adolescent sexual activity (Miller et al., 1999), whereas
living with two biological parents was related to older age at time of first
sexual intercourse for a sample in which the majority of youth were of Mexican
descent (Upchurch et al., 2001). One study showed that spending time in
a single-parent had no relationship with teen pregnancy and birthrates in
Hispanic adolescents, although it did increase rates for White teens (Musick,
2002).
Regardless of family structure, teen birthrates observed in Hispanic youth
are the highest among White and Black teens (Martin et al., 2003). On the
positive side, the rates have decreased significantly since 1991. However,
Hispanic girls had a slower rate of decline in pregnancy and birth rates
than the general population.
Top of page
Often, research on race/ethnicity focuses on comparing one group against
another (usually the majority group) and determining what the deficits are
in the minority group. However, like all groups, Latino families also have
strengths that should be acknowledged by researchers, service providers,
and policymakers. Familism is a concept and potential protective factor
that researchers often refer to in literature on Latino families. It involves
cultural emphasis on maintaining strong, intimate, and supportive relationships
with both nuclear and extended family members. Familism can serve as a protective
factor because of the perception that family members have each other’s
interests at heart and they can provide emotional and material support to
each other. Moreover, through the strong family networks, cultural values
can be learned and reinforced. However, some researchers think that familism
may be a stereotyped trait of Latino families that isn’t necessarily
accurate. Thus, further research is needed to determine whether family ties
are stronger in Hispanic families, and if so, what impact this might have
on Latino attitudes about family formation and family functioning.
Finally, there is emerging evidence that living in communities with a
medium to high concentration of Hispanic people may protect youth from engaging
in sexual activity and getting pregnant (Denner et al., 2001; Upchurch,
2001).
Top of page
In addition to the specific avenues for future research already mentioned,
there are several general suggestions for improvements in research with
Latino families. First, future research should incorporate different methodologies
that can complement the prevalence of data based on large surveys. More
specifically, in-depth studies are needed in which longer measures of attitude,
traits, or behaviors can be administered, rather than asking one or two
survey questions to assess more complex constructs.
Furthermore, in addition to solely relying on participants to report about
themselves, more observational measures should be employed, such as observing
and coding interactions between Latino couples. These procedures have been
utilized frequently with couples of other races/ethnicities, but have rarely
if ever been targeted for use with Latino families.
Finally, it’s necessary to consider the cultural validity of instruments
that have been used with other populations. That is, are the measures that
have been normed on middle-class Whites culturally sensitive and appropriate
for Latinos? Furthermore, it would be helpful to conduct qualitative and/or
quantitative research with Latino families in which they have the opportunity
to identify their visions for an ideal marriage and what kinds of supports
or training curricula families would find most useful and would be willing
to participate in.
The existing research demonstrates that Latino families tend to differ
from White, non-Hispanic families and African American families in patterns
of marriage, divorce, cohabitation, and premarital childbearing. Given all
of the unique characteristics of Latino families, it is clear that existing
research on other minority groups will not necessarily generalize to Hispanic
individuals. Similarly, it is expected that these special considerations
have implications for service delivery with Latino families. Therefore,
the creation of the Healthy Marriage Initiative targeted for Hispanic families
is valuable and important. Furthermore, the Hispanic Healthy Marriage Initiative
has been designed with the anticipation that a targeted initiative can better
support marriage, families, and children through tailored services to meet
the Latino community’s specific needs.
Top of page
Administration for Children and Families, Healthy Marriage Initiative.
Retrieved September 10,
2004, from
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/healthymarriage/about/mission.html
Aldarondo, E., Kantor, G.K., & Jasinski, J.L., (2002). A risk marker
analysis of wife assault in
Latino families. Violence Against Women, 8(4), 429-454.
Amato, P.R., & Sobolewski, J.M. (2001). The effects of divorce and
marital discord on adult
- children’s psychological well-being. American Sociological
Review, 66(6), 900-921.
Battle , J. (2002). Longitudinal analysis of academic achievement among
a nationwide sample of Hispanic students in one- versus dual-parent households.
Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 24 (4), 430-447.
Bramlett, M.D., & Mosher, W.D. (1999). Cohabitation, marriage, divorce,
and remarriage in the United States . National Center for Health Statistics.
Vital Health Statistics, 23 (22).
Brandon, P.D. (2002). The living arrangements of children in immigrant
families in the United States . International Migration Review, 36 (2),
416-436.
Buehler, C., Krishnakumar, A., Stone, G., Anthony, C., Pemberton, S.,
Gerard, J., & Barber, B.K. (1998). Interparental conflict styles and
youth problem behaviors: A two-sample replication study. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 60 (1), 119-132.
Coohey, C. (2001). The relationship between familism and child maltreatment
in Latino and Anglo families. Child Maltreatment, 6 (2), 130-142.
Cummings, E.M., Goeke-Morey, M.C., & Papp, L.M. (2003). Children’s
responses to everyday marital conflict tactics in the home. Child Development,
74 (6), 1918-1929.
Denner, J., Kirby, D., Coyle, K., & Brindis, C. (2001). The protective
role of social capital and cultural norms in Latino communities: A study
of adolescent births. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 23 (1), 3-21.
East, P.L. (1998). Racial and ethnic differences in girls’ sexual,
marital, and birth expectations. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60
(1), 150-162.Fein, D.J. (2004). Married and Poor: Basic Characteristics
of Economically Disadvantaged Married Couple in the U.S. Supporting Healthy
Marriage Demonstration Working Paper SHM-04-01.
Grych, J.H., & Fincham, F.D. (1990). Marital conflict and children’s
adjustment: A cognitive-contextual framework. Psychological Bulletin, 108
(2), 267-290.
- Guttentag, M., & Secord, P. (1983). Too Many Women? The Sex Ratio
Question . Beverly Hills : Sage Publications.
Hamilton, B.E. (2004). Reproduction rates for 1990-2002 and intrinsic
rates for 2000-2001: United States . National Vital Statistics Reports,
52 (17).
Harcknett, K. & McLanahan, S. (2004). Explaining Racial and Ethnic
Differences in Marriage among New, Unwed Parents. Center for Research on
Child Wellbeing Working Paper #02-08-FF.
Hofferth, S.L. (2003). Race/Ethnic differences in father involvement in
two-parent families:
Culture, context, or economy? Journal of Family Issues, 24(2),
185-216.
Landale, N.S., & Fennelly, K. (1992). Informal unions among mainland
Puerto Ricans:
Cohabitation or an alternative to legal marriage? Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 54,
269-280.
Leyendecker, B., & Lamb, M. (1999). Latino families. In M. Lamb (Ed.),
Parenting and child
- development in "nontraditional" families, 247-262.
Mahwah , NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lichter, D.T., Landale, N.S. (1995). Parental work, family structure, and
poverty among Latino
children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57(2), 346-354.
Manning, W.D., & Landale, N.S. (1996). Racial and ethnic differences
in the role of cohabitation
in premarital childbearing. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58,
63-77.
Marotta, S.A., & Garcia, J.G. (2003). Latinos in the United States
in 2000. Hispanic Journal of
Behavioral Sciences, 25(1), 13-34.
Martin, J.A., Hamilton , B.E., Sutton, P.D., Ventura , S.J., Menacker,
F., & Munson, M.L., (2003). Births: Final data for 2002. National Vital
Statistics Reports, 52 (1). Hyattsville , MD : National Center for Health
Statistics.
McLoyd, V.C., Cauce, A.M., Takeuchi, D., Wilson, L. (2000). Marital processes
and parental socialization in families of color: A decade review of research.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62(4), 1070-1093.
Miller, K.S., Forehand, R., & Kotchick, B.A. (1999). Adolescent sexual
behavior in two ethnic minority samples: The role of family variables. Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 61, 85-98.
Musick, K. (2002). Planned and unplanned childbearing among unmarried
women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64 , 915-929.
Negy, C. & Snyder, D.K. (2000). Relationship satisfaction of Mexican
American and non-
Hispanic White American interethnic couples: Issues of acculturation and
clinical intervention. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 26(3),
293-304.
Oropesa, R.S. (1996). Normative beliefs about marriage and cohabitation:
A comparison of Non-
Latino Whites, Mexican Americans, and Puerto Ricans. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 58(1), 49-62.
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, 42 USCS
601 (1996).
Trent, K., & South, S.J.(1992). Sociodemographic status, parental background,
childhood family
structure, and attitudes toward family formation. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 54(2), 427-439.
Upchurch, D.M., Aneshensel, C.S., Sucoff, C.A., & Levy-Storms, L. (1999).
Neighborhood and
- Family Contexts of Adolescent Sexual Activity. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 61(4), 920-933.
Upchurch, D.M., Aneshensel, C.S., Mudgal, J., & McNeely, C.S. (2001).
Sociocultural contexts
- of time to first sex among Hispanic adolescents. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 63, 1158-1169.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics
(2002). Digest of Education Statistics, 2002 , NCES 2003-060, by Thomas
D. Snyder. Production Manager, Charlene M. Hoffman. Washington , DC : 2003.
- Valenzuela, S.M., & Dornbusch, S.M. (1994). Familism and social
capital in the academic achievement of Mexican origin and Anglo adolescents.
Social Science Quarterly, 75 , 18-36.
Vega, W. (1990). Hispanic families in the 1980’s: A decade of research.
Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 52, 1015-1024.
Wherry, L., & Finegold, K. (2004). Marriage promotion and the living
arrangements of Black,
Hispanic, and White children. Assessing the New Federalsim Policy
Brief B-61. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Wildsmith, E. (2004). Race/Ethnic differences in female headship: Exploring
the assumptions of
assimilation theory. Social Science Quarterly 85(1), 89-106.
Throughout the paper,
the terms Hispanic and Latino are used interchangeably. This decision was
made recognizing that some people prefer the term Hispanic whereas others
better identify with the term Latino. In addition, researchers use different
terms and the paper strives to capture the original language of the research.
When possible, the individual country of origin is identified in the research.
Similarly, the terms African American and Black are used interchangeably
to reflect different preferences within the African American community and
consistent use of language in the research.
When the term White is
used, it is meant to refer to White, non-Hispanic individuals.
For a discussion of stereotypes
regarding machismo and marianismo in Latino families, see McLoyd et al.,
2000)
Top of page
Download FREE
Adobe Acrobat® Reader™ to view PDF files located on this site.
| | | | |
|
| |
