Unequal extended families:

Internalizing behavioral problems of children in complex extended households

Jeehye Kang, University of Maryland at College Park

Philip N. Cohen, University of Maryland at College Park

Abstract

Using the Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey (L.A. FANS), this paper examines the

impact of extended family living arrangements on children’s mental health. The study specifies

the types of household extension by their relation to the householder—vertical, horizontal, non-

kin, and mixed—and examines: what kinds of household extension are associated with mental

health problems; how stable are the different living arrangements, and; whether extended

families close the divide between immigrant and native families. The results indicate that

household extension, particularly involving two or more types of extended members, is more

likely to jeopardize child mental health. Non kin appears to increase internalizing behavior

problems only for children of undocumented immigrants, which might reflect parents’ low social

resources. We conclude household extension may reduce the disparity in youth emotional

development between natives and immigrants, but not effectively complementing disadvantages

facing children of immigrants.

Background

Research on the second generation children’s mental health has been challenging the

immigrant health paradox. While immigrant adults show paradoxically better physical and

mental health compared to US-born individuals, some findings suggest that children of

immigrants face greater risk of mental health problems (Gross et al. 2006; Sam et al. 2008).

Although there is contradicting evidence (Flores 2013; Gonzales et al. 2008), the studies using

samples from more disadvantaged populations consistently suggest the disadvantage of growing

up in immigrant families in the U.S (Jackson, Kiernan, and McLanahan 2012). The divergent

pattern supports the idea that risk and protective factors may operate differently by immigrant

generations (Landale et al. 2015).

In light of these generational discrepancies, extended families may be an important risk

or protective factor. Extended families provide important social ties especially for disadvantaged

population, but these social ties may both improve and harm health (Umberson, Crosnoe, and

Reczek 2010). The social support from extended families has been documented to explain

immigrants’ better than expected health status (Acevedo-Garcia et al. 2005; Harker 2001;

Mendoza 2009; Padilla, Hamilton, and Hummer 2009). However, the offspring of immigrants

may not benefit from the same protective factor that insulates adult immigrants from various

socioeconomic disadvantages (Landale et al. 2015; Landale, Thomas, and Van Hook 2011;

Turney and Kao 2009). In this context, we ask how extended families may contribute to the

disadvantages in children of immigrants.

Surprisingly little is known about extended family living arrangements for immigrant

families. First, the diversity of extended family living arrangements is largely neglected. Prior

research has been focused on vertical kin (grandparents) in single mother families, emphasizing

their child care assistance. Because of the heightened economic difficulties and the inability to

bring older parents during migration, immigrants’ extended family compositions are mainly

horizontal kin, other distant kin, non-kin, and mixtures of relatives and non-kin, whereas their

native counterparts consist of vertical kin (Glick, Bean, and Hook 1997; Landale et al. 2011;

Leach 2012). Horizontal-kin (siblings, cousins, nephews, nieces of the householder) or non-kin

have been excluded, despite their demographic prevalence among racial minority immigrants

(Blank and Torrecilha 1998; Glick et al. 1997; Hondagneu-Sotelo 1994; Leach 2012; Van Hook

and Glick 2007). How these different types of extended members play a different role in

children’s emotional health remains unknown (Harrison et al. 1990). Except for a handful of

studies examining differential impacts of extended members (Almeida et al. 2011; Kana’iaupuni

et al. 2005), the question of which kinds of extended members are associated with mental health

in children, has not been fully answered. Lastly, while it is known that extended households are

temporary arrangements (Glick and Van Hook 2007), we know little about how different kinds

of extended households have different transition pattern. If extended members have different

levels of stability, would they translate into different association with children’s mental health?

Some suggest that horizontal and complex extended family households are more likely to be

unstable and the instability of such arrangements among immigrants may not offer much

resource to children (Landale et al. 2011). However, this idea has not been tested. This lack of

knowledge is due to the prevalent definition of family as nuclear family (Gerstel 2011; Hunter

and Ensminger 1992; Richards, White, and Tsui 1987) and analytical complexity of identifying

different types of extended family (Landale et al. 2011).

Using L.A. FANS, we can study a substantial number of immigrant and native families

with children, their family household compositions, and we can trace changes in their household

compositions, for two time points over five to six years. This paper is exploratory, but we believe

its contribution will be significant.

Parental Nativity and Internalizing Behavioral Problems

Parental immigration status can influence the development of children (Glick and White

2004). Numerous studies on immigrant health indicate that foreign-born people have better

health than US-born Americans. Despite some variations across national origin, immigrant adults

tend to have lower mortality rates and lower levels of mental health problems (Cunningham,

Ruben, and Venkat Narayan 2008). In particular, Mexican immigrants report a significantly

lower level of anxiety disorders than US-born Mexicans, despite of their disadvantageous socio-

economic status (Grant et al. 2004). Many immigration scholars believe this health advantage is

due to positive selection by which healthier individuals migrate to the U.S, and due to the

support from extended families. Their offspring might also have better or equivalent mental

health, “if positive selection is present” (Landale et al. 2015: 4) and/or the provision of support

from extended families is stronger enough (Mendoza 2009) to outweigh their unfavorable social

environment.

However, researchers point to structural constraints facing many immigrants and the

children’s limited access to family and societal resources (Glick and White 2004; Menjívar 2000;

Perreira, Harris, and Lee 2006; Van Hook and Glick 2007). In particular, those children whose

parents have dark skin, originate from countries with low educational resources, and start with

low socioeconomic positions are more likely to confront stress from poverty, legal status

barriers, adverse residential conditions, and other adjustment problems (Portes and Rumbaut

2001; Rogler 1994; Stevens and Vollebergh 2008). Indeed, some findings suggest that children

of immigrants face greater risk of mental health problems (Gross et al. 2006; Jackson, Kiernan,

and McLanahan 2012; Sam, et al 2008). The results from the Fragile Families and Child Well-

Being Study reveal that the children of low-educated immigrant mothers have higher levels of

internalizing behavioral problems, compared to children of natives (Jackson, Kiernan, and

McLanahan 2012). Also, Latino (both Mexican and other Latino) children of undocumented

immigrants are at higher risk for internalizing behavioral problems, compared to other racial and

nativity groups (Landale et al. 2015: 10).

Household Extension and Differential Impacts of Extended Members by Their Relation

Given their disadvantageous profile, how do extended families play a role in the

psychological adjustment of children of immigrants? A recent study proposes that household

extension disadvantage children, especially those of poor immigrants (Kang and Philip,

dissertation). The finding suggests that extended families disadvantage children, in contrast to

prior research that supports the provision of additional social and economic resources by

extended family members to multigenerational single parent families (DeLeire and Kalil 2002;

Dressler 1985; Edin and Lein 1997; Sarkisian 2006). Possibly, the divergent pattern is due to the

inclusion of non-kin extended members in the definition of extended family households, unlike

previous studies. However, the researchers have not fully explained how the different types of

extended members play any differential role in children’s psychological development. In this

paper, we explore how vertical, horizontal, non-kin, and complex extended family members

impact on children’s internalizing behavioral problems.

a) Vertical kin

Grandparents (vertically extended kin members) may benefit children. Grandparents are

often invited to help their adult children to raise their kids and participate actively in the labor

force (Menjívar 2000; Treas 2008; Treas and Mazumdar 2004). Although there could be

disagreements between parents and grandparents about parenting values and associated practices

(Chase-Lansdale, Brooks-Gunn, and Zamsky 1994), which may interfere children’s mental well-

being, researchers generally found that grandparents provide economic and social support for the

mother (Angel and Tienda 1982; Cohen 2002; DeLeire and Kalil 2002; Edin and Lein 1997;

Glick et al. 1997; Hofferth, Boisjoly, and Duncan 1998), as well as additional sources of

affection, and a sense of security for the children (Castiglia 1999; Kellam et al. 1982; Kellam,

Ensminger, and Turner 1977). Indeed, grandparents are more common where younger children

are present (12 percent) than where children are older (8-9 percent; Hernandez 2004).

Children of immigrants who co-reside with grandparents are also likely to benefit from

grandparents, despite the smaller chance of living with grandparents. Although older immigrants

are limited in their capacity to participate in the labor force and provide financial assistance, they

help their children and grandchildren in other ways. Grandmothers and often grandfathers take

care of the children and do other household chores (Menjivar 2000: 199). Among Muslim and

Hindu families in U.K, children (age 5-11) were better adjusted in extended families, especially

with grandmother, than nuclear families (Sonuga-Barke and Mistry 2000). While the specific

generalizability to families in U.S is limited, this finding provides evidence for a positive link

between grandparents and child psychological adjustment. Thus, vertically extended kin

members are expected to provide assistance to children and families.

b) Horizontal kin

The literature on horizontally extended members, who are generally siblings of the

parents, or aunts and uncles to the child, is limited. Aunts and uncles can bring benefits to

children by offering care, supervision, and other various supports (Stanton-Salazar 2001). One

study focusing on family members' assistance to mothers documented parental siblings providing

emotional support to mothers whose children have special needs (Slaughter and Dilworth-

Anderson 1985; Wilson 1986, 1989). The ease of financial and emotional constraint for mothers

can be beneficial to children.

However, the finding of Slaughter and Dilworth-Anderson’s study (1985) came from

cases in which children were experiencing chronic pain from sickle cell anemia when the father

was absent in the home. Thus, it may not apply to families in general. In addition, Stanton-

Salazar (2001) also emphasized that the availability of kin did not always translate into social

support. “Intimate relations of trust and disclosure required …compact of trust, nonjudgmental

rapport, and confidentiality (p.75).”

To children of immigrants, aunts and uncles may be inaccessible due to his/her

circumstances. Findings on Mexican family networks indicate kin networks appear to drain

financial support resources, although they are not necessarily co-resident (Kana’iaupuni et al.

2005). The researchers suggest that the negative implications may be due to either the unmet

needs by relatives who are unable to offer support; or intensified stress between relatives and

host families. Considering the fact that co-resident aunts and uncles in immigrant families are

more likely to be recent arrivals, unable to afford independent housing, and likely to have their

own dependents, they might be incapable of child care, supervision, or provision of financial aid.

Therefore, horizontally extended kin members’ support for children should be limited.

c) Non-kin

There is no conclusive evidence that non-kin are either beneficial or harmful household

guests (Franzini and Fernandez-Esquer 2004; Pugliesi and Shook 1998; Schwartz 2007; Walen

and Lachman 2000). Some studies suggested non-kin (e.g. friends) extended members are

beneficial (Dean, Kolody, and Wood 1990; Kana’iaupuni et al. 2005; Matt and Dean 1993).

Kana'iaupuni et al. (2005) argued non-kin ties such as friends, and neighbors seem to support

poor households both emotionally and financially. The support from non-kin can be substantial

as it is “voluntary rather than obligatory” in nature (Almeida et al. 2009; see Dean et al., 1990).

However, friendship support may not compensate for kinship support. Recent empirical

studies suggest that friendship support is less protective on risk of depression among adults

compared to kinship support (Almeida et al. 2011). Besides, the adjusted effects of friend

support become marginal after introducing family support (Ibid). Similarly, an anthropological

study suggests that relatives provide more robust, quality support than do friends because they

are less inclined to exchange assistance when interactions cost than benefit (Xue 2015).

Although these two different studies do not address co-resident non-kin, the findings

provide some insights into non-kin extended households. Non-kin support would be subject to

various circumstances for the family. Non-kin can be more important for immigrants because

they tend to rely on friendships to compensate for the loss of kin support after migration

(Hammel 1968). However, to the extent that non-kin members tend to be temporary guests,

possessing low levels of human and economic capital, and more likely to be recent migrants

when it comes to immigrant families (Hernandez 2004:23), reciprocal interactions will be few

and far. Therefore, children, especially those in immigrant families may not benefit from non-kin

members.

e) Mixed

The association of living with two or more types of extended members with child health

is little known. Research on the health of children in such living arrangements is scarce because

researchers rarely recognize the households with mixed types of extended members. In addition,

household complexity has been differently measured by researchers. Some measures with the

presence of stepparents, custodial grandparents, and non kin foster parents (Ziol-Guest and

Dunifon 2014), the presence of adopted-, half-, or step-siblings (Brown, Manning, and Stykes

2015), or non-nuclear members in general (Van Hook and Glick 2007). Although some

researchers (Leach 2012; Van Hook and Glick 2007) recognized the households with two or

more types of extended members, how such arrangements are associated with children’s mental

health remains unknown.

While the measures of household complexity vary by researchers, complex living

arrangements have been associated with worse child well-being, independent of economic

insecurity (Brown et al. 2015; Ziol-Guest and Dunifon 2014). Family complexity may lead to

crowding housing, which is suggested to harm child psychological development of children

through increased family stress levels (Evans 2006; Krieger and Higgins 2002; Solari and Mare

2012). Thus, in this paper, we expect that co-residing with two or more types of extended

members would have a direct and unfavorable association with child mental health.

Children of immigrant families are expected to be more affected by mixed extended

family households. Although living with a variety of kin and non-kin indicates a hardship for

both natives and immigrants, immigrants are more likely to live in such living arrangements

(Glick and Van Hook 2007; Landale et al. 2011; Leach 2012). Even though the complex

household extension become less common as immigrants stay more time in the United States,

children of immigrants are still more likely to experience such living arrangement because of

their limited kin availability, compared to children of natives (Leach 2012). Considering that

friendship support is less robust, quality support compared to kinship support (Almeida et al.

2011; Xue 2015), children of immigrants may not receive benefit from their mixed extended

households.

In sum, the level of resources extended members possess differs, depending on their

relation to the family and children. Therefore, different types of extended family members

should have different meanings to the child.

Transitions among Extended Family Households

Not only the variation, but also fluidity characterizes extended family households.

Compared to nuclear family households, extended families are the least likely to stay intact,

mainly due to the frequent entrance or exit of extended members (Hunter and Ensminger 1992;

Richards et al. 1987). However, a great body of research focuses on changes in living

arrangements due to a vital event such as birth, marriage and divorce, and only a handful of

researchers examine the transitions by non-nuclear family members. Also, except for Glick and

Van Hook’s research (2011), previous researchers tend not to specify the transition patterns by

different types of extended members due to analytical complexities (Landale et al. 2011). This

neglect of extended families in the literature may attribute to the normative nuclear family notion

prevalent in family research (Hunter and Ensminger 1992; Richards et al. 1987).

Different types of extended family households have different transition patterns (Hunter

and Ensminger 1992). For example, extended family households with co-resident vertical kin are

more likely to stay intact, while those with other relatives and non-kin are more likely to dissolve

when extended members in need became more capable to live independently (Bethencourt and

Ríos-Rull 2009; Glick and Van Hook 2011). Because non-kin is more subject to various

circumstances of the family (Almeida et al. 2011; Xue 2015), their transition patterns may be

even more fluid. The patterns of transitions for households with a mixture of various extended

family members are less known (for exception, see Van Hook and Glick 2007), but they will be

also unstable, as such complex living arrangements indicate a hardship.

In addition, immigrant families would be more prone to transitions in the process of

migration adaptation (Landale et al. 2011; Van Hook and Glick 2007). Because recent arrivals

tend to rely on the previously arriving families to offer housing and assistance (Leach 2012;

Portes 1995), such extended family living arrangements are temporary. Thus, I expect that

immigrant families will experience more changes in their extended household compositions,

compared to native families.

Identifying how differential extended family transitions are associated with children’s

mental health development might help explain the mechanism of extended family effects. A

recent finding suggests that the negative child outcomes in non-traditional families are mostly

explained by family instability (Rosenfeld 2015). Family transitions including movement of non-

nuclear members in and out of households as well as parental breakup are found to be negatively

associated with child development. If different extended members do play different roles, as

hypothesized, it is crucial to understand how the different patterns of co-residential continuity are

related to the associations between child mental health and different types of household

extension. If the pattern differs by parental immigrant status, that might help explain the

immigrant (dis)advantage for child mental health.

Method

Data and Sample

The data come from the Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey (L.A. FANS).

We chose the data because they contain detailed information on both immigrant parents and their

children. The information includes parents’ and children’s immigrant status, psychological health

status as well as the family’s composition and socioeconomic status. We both use the first wave

and the panel data in order to answer different questions. By using the two data, we answer what

kinds of household extension are associated with child mental health problems. If the patterns

differ by data, we discuss whether it derives from time or changes in variables. The panel data

show how stable the different living arrangements are and whether the instability of living

arrangements explains different household extension effects. Comparing the results between

immigrant and native families, we answer whether extended families close the divide between

them.

The first wave (L.A. FANS-1), which was fielded between April 2000 and January 2002,

interviewed adults and children living in 3,085 households in a diverse, stratified probability

sample of 65 neighborhoods throughout Los Angeles County. Fieldwork for the second wave

(L.A. FANS-2) took place between August 2006 and December 2008. In Wave 2 primary

respondents from Wave 1 who were still residing in Los Angeles County were interviewed,

regardless of their continuing to live in their Wave 1 neighborhoods. (Note that we exclude

individuals who moved into the sampled neighborhoods between Waves 1 and 2 because we do

not have information about their previous household compositions.) There is 68% attrition

between the first and second wave, including 37% of children who aged out of the sample.

Families with children and families living in poor neighborhoods were oversampled, which we

account for by using survey weights.

The sampled children are aged 3-11 at Wave 1 and aged 8-18 at Wave 2. Our sample

from the first wave sample includes 1538 children in 1177 households. The analytical sample is

limited to one randomly selected child per household and siblings, whose primary caregiver

completed an adult questionnaire, a parent questionnaire, and a primary caregiver questionnaire.

The parent of the randomly selected child was selected as a respondent and designated the

primary caregiver, most of whom are mothers of the children. Those missing on the measured

variables were excluded (n =135, 8.9%). The panel sample includes 1645 child-years; 653

children were captured in both waves.

Measures

Dependent Variable The Behavior Problems Index was designed to assess children’s

behavior problems including anxiety, depression, and aggression. This instrument was developed

by Peterson and Zill (1986) and consists of 28 questions derived from commonly used

questionnaires such as the Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist and others. The instrument

consists of three subscales: internalizing, externalizing, and total. It has been used extensively in

studies of behavior problems in children.

Children’s internalizing behavioral functioning represents a key developmental outcome

(King, Iacono, and McGue 2004). The Internalizing scale, a subset of the behavioral problems

index, assesses the presence of withdrawn and sad behaviors. The measure consists of eleven

items: felt or complained that no one loved him/her, too fearful or anxious, easily confused

and/or has seemed to be in a fog, felt worthless or inferior, not liked by other children, had a lot

of difficulty getting his/her mind off certain thoughts, unhappy, sad or depressed, withdrawn,

and/or has not gotten involved with others, clinging to adults, cried too much, too dependent on

others. Parents responded to the BPI questions using a three-point Likert scale, “1” if the

statement is often true, “2” if the statement is sometimes true, and “3” if the statement is not true.

A reliability test indicates a Cronbach’s alpha of .73.

The measures of internalizing behavior problem index scores are skewed, with most

children having low scores. Heteroscedasticity and inflated standard errors of the estimates in

regression analysis resulting from skewed variables can lead to reduced statistical power of

significance tests and larger confidence intervals (Berk 1983). To reduce these problems, the

behavior problem scores are logged (Hamilton 2005).

Independent Variables Extended family households are defined as households that

include non-nuclear family member(s) including grandparents, parents (in-law), siblings (in-

law), cousins, nephews, nieces, and friends of the householder or spouse of the householder.

a) Vertically extended households: refer to family households co-residing parents (in-law)

or grandparents of the householder. Also, aunts and uncles whose age is more than 19years older

than the householder are counted as vertical kin. In other words, they are grandparents or great

grandparents of the children.

b) Horizontally extended households: refer to family households co-residing siblings (in-

law), cousins, nieces and nephews of the householder. Aunts and uncles whose age is less than

19years the householder are counted as horizontal kin. In other words, they are uncles, aunts to

the child.

c) Non-kin extended households: refer to family households co-residing members who

are not related by blood or marriage, such as friends. They are friends of children’s parents.

Boarders or renters are excluded from non-kin extended members.

Importantly, because two or more types of extended members often coexist in extended

family households, I create another category that captures such cases.

d) Mixed extended households: refer to family households co-residing two or more types

of extended members. They include combinations such as vertical kin and horizontal kin together,

or horizontal kin and non-kin co-residing in one household, to name the two most popular types.

For descriptive purpose, we present two categories of mixed extended households: one

consisting only relatives, and the other consisting kin and non-kin.

These variables are dichotomous (0/1) and mutually exclusive.

Moderators: Primary Care Giver’s immigrant status. Using questions about primary care

giver’s place of birth, we identify their immigration status. The variable is dichotomous (0=US-

born/native, 1=foreign-born/immigrant). In addition, a dichotomous variable measures primary

care giver’s undocumented immigrant status (0=legal immigrant, 1=undocumented).

Covariates:

Primary Care Giver Single-parenthood. It is measured using marital status of the primary

care giver, (0= married or cohabiting, 1=never married).

Primary Care Giver Depressive symptom. A short form (CIDI-SF) questionnaire covers

major depressive episodes (MD) of the primary care givers. The CIDI-SF questions for MD

reports the respondents’ feeling sad, blue, or depressed for two weeks or more in the past 12

months (dysphoric); if they did, whether having lost interest in most things like hobbies, work, or

activities that usually give pleasure (anhedonic). The MD reports provide a probability between 0

and 1 that the person is suffering from major depression.

Primary Care Giver’s Educational attainment. The variable is used as a dichotomous

measure: 0=less than high school; 1=high school and greater. A majority primary care givers in

the L.A. FANS do not have a high school diploma, thus reflecting the distribution, high school

graduation is used as the cut-off.

Family income. The sum of income from head of household, spouse/partner of head,

children, and logged for the analysis.

Household Crowding. The number of total household members (all adults and children)

is divided by the number of bedrooms. More than two persons per bedroom is a standard

measure of overcrowding in housing.

Child sex, and age. Sex of child variable is dichotomous (0=female, 1=male), and age is

continuous.

Primary Care Giver Race/ethnicity. Race/ethnicity of the primary care giver was

determined by their report. The L.A. FANS did allow for disaggregating of “Latino” into

subgroups (Mexican American, Central American, Other Latino, etc.), as well as “Asians”

(Chinese, Korean, Pilipino, etc.), but total numbers for sub groups were too small for separate

analyses, except for Mexicans. Therefore, the 4 racial/ethnic groups that were used in these

analyses are white, black, Latino, and Asian.

Analytical plan

To explore how different types of household extension are associated with stability of the

living arrangements, we generate a 6 × 6 transition matrix, of which the 30 cells represent the

proportion of changes in household composition between Wave 1 and Wave 2; the six diagonal

cells denote the case for which the same household composition is observed during that period.

This method follows Richards and colleagues (1987: 81).

To measure the impact of living arrangements, we perform OLS linear regression

analyses using Wave1 data sample and fixed effect regression analyses using panel data sample.

A fixed effects model allows investigating the causal effect of family structural transitions on

individual child outcomes. Importantly, the fixed effect models “factor out” background

characteristics that may or may not be measured but affect the outcome variables (Allison 2005;

Conley, Pfeiffer, and Velez 2007; Teachman 2011). Variables that are the same for a child across

the two surveys such as race, sex, parental education, and other individual traits are controlled

for in the analysis, whether they are measured or not. Fixed effects estimations would determine

the more “pure” effects of independent variables on changes in the outcome across children

experiencing transitions in living arrangement.

Given the two-period panel data, the following the “first difference” equation represents

this model:

(yi2- yi1)= (μj2- μj1)+ β1(Fi2- Fi1 )+ (εi2-εi1), (2)

where yit equals the observed outcome variable for child i, in time t (1 or 2), β1 is the

coefficient for the family-varying covariate Fit, μj represents child and family characteristics (e.g.

race, sex of child) that are constant over time, and εit represents by time-varying unexplained

variation. This model makes no assumptions about the distribution of these child-specific terms.

They can be normally distributed (or not) and can be correlated with key explanatory variables,

such as living arrangements.

We compare the results between OLS and fixed effect estimations in order to more fully

understand the implications of extended living arrangements. OLS models measure the average

difference across groups, such as between children in vertically extended households and those

in horizontally extended households. Although the cross-sectional models of association may be

biased, we gain the efficiency with larger sample size. On the other hand, fixed effects models

provides superior estimates, allowing us to make a causal inference by controlling for variables

that are unobserved (Allison 2005). However, traits that do not change over time, such as race,

sex, and parental immigrant status are not included in fixed effects models, thus fixed effects

models are less efficient by limiting information.

Results

Table 1-A compares the sample characteristics of the first wave data by parental

immigrant status. We perform the significance test using bivariate regression analyses (OLS or

logistic) for all the variables on nativity status. The result reveals that the children of immigrants

have significantly higher level of internalizing behavioral problems, consistent with the poorer

mental health of the children of immigrants reported elsewhere (Gross et al. 2006; Jackson,

Kiernan, and McLanahan 2012; Landale et al. 2015; Sam, et al 2008). Many indicators suggested

relatively disadvantaged family environments would explain the worse mental health outcomes

of children of immigrants. First, immigrant families have the lower level of household incomes,

compared to the native counterparts (p<0.001). Less than half of immigrant mothers (46%)

graduated from high school (p<0.001), and this figure is strikingly lower than that of the native

sample (92%). Second, immigrant families are more likely to live in crowded housing

conditions. 58% of the children of immigrants are living in homes where more than two persons

share a bed room. The rate is more than two times of the children of natives.

Regarding family structure, there are some difference between U.S.-born and immigrant

parents. Children of immigrants are more likely to live in horizontally extended households (13%

vs. 7%, p<.05), and mixed extended households (5% vs. 3%, not significant) than are children of

natives. Note that about two thirds of mixed extended households consist of only relatives,

although such immigrant families tend to combine with non-kin more than natives. Similar

patterns are found in Landale, Thomas, and Van Hook’s study using the 2005-2009 Current

Population Survey (2011). On the other hand, children of native families are more likely to live

with non-kin than are children of immigrants (6% vs. 3%, p<.05). The result contradicts to the

expectation that immigrants tend to rely on friendships to compensate for the loss of kin support

after migration (Hammel 1968).

Table 1-B also compares the sample characteristics by parental immigrant status, but uses

the panel data from both waves. There is no difference between W1 and panel data samples in

the distributions of immigrants, the undocumented, race/ethnicity, child sex, mother's education,

and mother's depression. But the panel data sample has the higher family income, lower

crowding housing rate, and lower levels of household extension for both native and immigrant

families. In particular, the proportion of extended households with horizontal kin drops (from 10%

to 7%), as well as the non-kin only (from 4% to 3%), and mixed extended households (from 4%

to 2%). In addition, some nativity differences in family structure disappear in panel data. While

children of native families are more likely to live with non-kin than are children of immigrants in

Wave1, the difference is no more significant in panel data. Only the vertical kin households

maintain the prevalence as the first wave (7%).

Table2 describes the stability of the different types of household extension. The first

column indicates the extended family household types at Wave1, and the first row shows the

household types at Wave2. The second column and row indicate the proportion of simple

households without co-resident extended members, respectively for Wave1 and Wave2. The

third column and row specify the proportion of extended family households, which equals the

sum of vertical, horizontal, non-kin, and mixed family households. The results show that

vertically extended households are the most stable, and non-kin extended households are the

least stable living arrangements. Only 10 percent children residing in non-kin only extended

households still live in the same structure about five years later. About half (47%) of vertically

extended households remain the same household structure, and less than 25 percent of horizontal

kin and about 15 percent of mixed extended households maintain the same household structures.

There are clear nativity differences in the patterns of changes for each household

structure. Only two percent children of immigrants who had lived in mixed households at Wave1

stay in the same household structure at Wave2, when about a third children of natives do. That is,

children of immigrants in such households are experiencing more changes in their living

arrangements by entrances and exits of extended members. On the other hand, about 30 percent

of children of immigrants who had lived with horizontal kin at Wave1 still live in the same

household structures at Wave2, compared to only seven percent of children with US-born parents

do. Similarly, one hundred percent co-resident non-kin in native families left, leaving the family

households simple, while 20 percent immigrant families still live with non-kin. In other words,

immigrant families are less likely to return to simple nuclear family, suggesting their limited

ability to afford independent housing. We will discuss how the different patterns of instability of

living arrangements are related to any differential effect of household extension in later section.

Table3 presents the results of the sets of multivariate regression analyses for OLS and

fixed effects modeling. Model1 shows that the association between child outcomes and different

types of extended households, controlling for child characteristics. OLS estimation shows that

children living with horizontal kin (.38, p<.000) and two or more types of extended members

(.44, p<.000) are at increased risk for internalizing behaviors. Fixed effects estimations show that

children in mixed extended households but not in horizontally extended households are reported

to have higher levels of internalizing behavioral problems at marginal significance (.29, p<.10).

In Model2 covariates are added in order to examine whether other important covariates

explain the relationships seen in Model1. OLS estimation shows that the association with co-

resident horizontal kin decreases in the magnitude and significance (from .38, p<.000 to .18,

p<.10), while that of mixed extended households holds the significance, although the magnitude

of the effects reduces (from .44, p<.000 to .26 p<.05). Fixed effects estimations do not change

much from Model1. Children in mixed extended households apparently increase internalizing

behaviors by about logged .30 score points.

In Model 3, interaction terms between family structures and parental nativity are added in

order to examine whether the effects of each type of extended member are general across

immigrant and native families. The interaction terms between the type of household extension

and parental immigrant status (both legal and illegal) was not significant in both OLS and fixed

effects estimations. However, when specifying legal immigrant status (Model4), the fixed effects

estimates capture the disadvantage of living with non-kin to children of undocumented

immigrant parents. For those children, moving into non-kin extended household increases

internalizing behavioral problems by .88 logged score points (p<.01).

For covariates, child race, age and maternal depression are significant predictor of

children’s internalizing behavioral problems. Children with depressed mothers report about .66

logged point higher internalizing behavioral problems (OLS model), but also depressed mothers

cause about .31 logged point increase in children’s mental health problems (fixed effects). Latino

children show significantly higher internalizing behavioral problems (.17, p<.05) in OLS models.

As children get older, they are less likely to have internalizing behavioral problems by .02

logged points (p<.05) as seen in fixed estimations. Lastly, family income has no impact on

children’s mental health in OLS estimation, although an increase in family incomes marginally

decreases children’s mental health problems (-.05, p<.10).

Figure1 shows the predicted means of logged internalizing behavioral problem index

using the Model3 fixed effects estimation. (The predicted means are calculated using Stata’s

predict command.) We compare the predicted means with unadjusted means for children by

parental nativity in order to answer whether extended families close the divide between

immigrant and native families. When unadjusted, children of immigrants present .90 logged

internalizing behavioral index score, more than 30 percent higher than those of children with US-

born parents. After adjustment, the difference reduces to .02 logged score. Most of the changes

are accounted by children of natives’ increase in predicted internalizing behavioral score, while

children of immigrants’ predicted score is only .02 logged points lower than unadjusted score.

Discussion & Conclusion

The paper examines the relationship between household and children’s internalizing

behavioral problem, specifying which type of extended member is associated with healthier

children, for a representative sample of children in LA. It extends previous research on the

determinants of children’s mental health development by considering the diversity and fluidity of

extended family households. Different types of extended members exert differential influence on

children and their distinctive transition patterns differ by parental immigrant status. Although

these patterns seem to reduce the mental health gap in children between immigrant and native

families, they are not effectively complementing disadvantages facing children of immigrants.

In contrast to our hypothesis, children living in extended households with vertical kin do

not show better mental health status. Previous researchers have proposed that grandparents offer

economic and emotional support for children and the mothers (Castiglia 1999; Kellam,

Ensminger, and Turner, 1977; Kellam, Adams, Brown, and Ensminger, 1982). Possibly, the

assistance would be more direct to mothers than to the child (Harrison et al. 1990), thus the

relationship is not captured in this analysis. However, vertical household extension has no

significant association with children’s internalizing behavioral problem. Also, the influence of

vertical kin does not differ for children of immigrants.

Horizontally extended kin members are not significantly associated with child mental

health, inconsistent with our hypothesis. Although co-resident horizontal kin is apparently

deleterious, as seen in Model1 OLS estimates, the effects become marginal after introducing

covariates. The fixed estimation also shows that moving into horizontally extended households

does not increase children’s internalizing behaviors. This marginal effect does not support for the

kin support (Slaughter and Dilworth-Anderson 1985; Wilson 1986, 1989) or kin strain

(Kana’iaupuni et al. 2005; Leach 2012). As Stanton-Salazar (2001) suggests, the availability of

kin is not always translate into social support. At the same time, aunts and uncles do not cause

mental problems in children, despite their recent arrivals and lower amount of resources.

Non-kin extended members apparently are little associated with child internalizing

behavioral problem. For children of US-born and legal immigrant parents, non-kin appears to put

no benefit or harm, in contrast to Kana’iaupuni et al.’s findings (2005) and Dean and his

colleagues’ belief (1990; 1993) that non-kin support can be substantial. Possibly, it is because

our measurement of non-kin is restricted to the co-resident ones, not including friends and

neighbors living in separate households.

However, non-kin extended households significantly increase internalizing behaviors

only for the children of undocumented immigrants. The bifurcation implies that the meaning of

co-resident non kin differs for illegal migration. The co-resident non-kin members might imply

lack of robust, reliable social network for undocumented immigrants, consistent with the

argument that friendship support is less protective compared to kinship support (Almeida et al.

2011; Xue 2015). Another possibility is that joining non-kin is co-incidental with marital

breakups. About 85 percent of undocumented parents living with non-kin are single parents,

compared to 41-43 percent US-born and legal immigrant parents who are single parents; and the

former are educated less than high school (88%) than the native and legal immigrant parents

(14%, 25%, respectably, available upon request). This speculation should be further examined in

future research.

Mixed households with two or more types of co-residing extended members are

associated with the highest levels of youth internalizing behavioral problem. Moving into

complex (mixed extended) household actually increases mental problems in children, although

the effect is marginally significant (p<.10). Despite the compositional difference between native

and immigrant families, where the latter consist more of non-kin when the former consist of kin,

such living arrangements are not significantly deleterious to children of immigrants. Mixed

extended family structure in itself indicates a stark hardship, for both native and immigrant

families.

We find limited evidence that the patterns of instability or lack of ability to stay with

extended members explain the disadvantages of household extension. For example, the

instability of horizontally extended households, particularly among native families, is not

necessarily detrimental to children. Non-kin extended households, one of the most unstable types

does not exert a significantly deleterious effects. Note that these two types of extended

households show the highest likelihood of becoming simple living arrangements with no

extended members. For children of natives, 89% of horizontally- and 100% of non-kin extended

families at Wave1 now become simple at Wave2; for children of immigrants, 69% of

horizontally- and 65% of non-kin extended families become simple. On the other hand, mixed

extended households, another most unstable living arrangement is associated with increased

internalizing behaviors. Unlike the horizontal and non-kin extended households, the transitional

turnovers of mixed extended households occur across different types of extended household, less

likely to become simple. More important it seems the complexity of living arrangements than

transitions of them.

Limitations

Our study is not free from limitations. First, due to data limitation, where only two waves

are available, neither the number of household transitions nor the types of transitions during the

period, except for those captured at the survey, can be assessed. Because the interval between

Wave 1 and Wave 2 is about five years, it is possible that multiple household transitions have

occurred during the period. Such detailed information, however, cannot be included in the

current analysis. Still, we sufficiently demonstrate the transitory nature of extended family

households.

Second, information about extended household members is limited, thus we do not know

their income, immigration status or duration of residence. Also, the present data do not allow

disaggregating household incomes by respective income earners, thus it is unknown whether the

additional member contributes income (Angel and Tienda 1982; Glick and Van Hook 1997) or

drains income from the host family (Kana’iaupuni et al. 2005; Leach 2012). If data allows, future

research should take into account the potential economic contribution by extended members.

Third, we narrowly defined extended family effects to only those of co-residing members

in the same household. However, extended families can be involved with family life through

frequent visits, phone calls, or other communication media, even if they do not live together.

Also, while friends and neighbors living nearby or faraway can offer social support, we count

only co-resident friends. For our purpose of the study to examine the diversity and fluidity of

family structures and their impacts on child mental health, we think the unit of analysis should be

household based on the relationships with the householder family. By doing so, we distinguish

the implications of extended family from general source of social support.

Contributions

We believe this paper make a substantial contribution to the literature. First, this paper

provides one way to resolve the analytical complexities related to different types of extension.

We specify the types of extended family households by the extended members’ relations to the

householder and the compositional complexity. Specifically, extended family households with

non-kin and two or more types of extended members are added to the previous measure (Glick

and Van Hook 2011; Landale et al. 2011), reflecting the diverse and dynamic living

arrangements among immigrants. Given, the increasing proportion of immigrant population, the

future researchers should consider these family factors in understanding child emotional

development.

To our best knowledge, this is the first systematic research that identifies different types

of household extension and tests the association with children’s mental health. We argue the

previous framework should be revised to consider the differential implications of extended

families in youth emotional development beyond the nuclear family based models. In reality, it is

common for children to live with vertical kin, horizontal kin, non-kin, or two or more types of

members in their childhood. We find that living with two or more types of extended members is

associated with and may cause worse mental health in children. And non-kin may indicate a

disadvantage particular to undocumented parents, such as lack of robust resources. The fact that

the proportion of extended family household with non-kin and two or more types of members are

not negligible calls for more attention to these marginalized extended families.

In addition, we shed light on the entrances and exits of non-nuclear members and show

the transition patterns differ by different types of extended members. We extend the family

literature by considering the movements of non-nuclear family members beyond the parental

breakup. Co-residence with non-kin and two or more types of extended members are the least

stable living arrangements, although volatility may not matter if extended members leave the

family simple. We argue that not all extended families are equal and this inequality should

inspire more discussions on supporting children living in extended family households.

References

Acevedo-Garcia, Dolores, Pan Jocelyn, Hee-Jin Jun, Theresa L. Osypuk, and Karen M. Emmons.

2005. “The Effect of Immigrant Generation on Smoking.” Social science & medicine.

61(6):1223–1223.

Allison, Paul D. 2002. “Missing Data. Series: Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences.”

Thousand Oaks. CA: Sagе.

Allison, Paul D. 2005. Fixed Effects Regression Methods for Longitudinal Data Using SAS. SAS

Institute. Retrieved October 17, 2015

(https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=OIPExEh-

tcMC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=allison+fixed+effects+&ots=HpCi9WKGgl&sig=i4yy9Ar

RXJrhIb5Sjj64U0oBoTA).

Almeida, Joanna, S. V. Subramanian, Ichiro Kawachi, and Beth E. Molnar. 2011. “Is Blood

Thicker than Water? Social Support, Depression and the Modifying Role of

Ethnicity/nativity Status.” Journal of epidemiology and community health 65(1):51–56.

Angel, Ronald and Marta Tienda. 1982. “Determinants of Extended Household Structure:

Cultural Pattern or Economic Need?” American Journal of Sociology 87(6):1360–83.

Berk, Richard A. 1983. “Applications of the General Linear Model to Survey Data.” Pp. 495–

546 in Handbook of survey research. Academic Press New York.

Bethencourt, Carlos and José-Víctor Ríos-Rull. 2009. “On the Living Arrangements of Elderly

Widows.” International Economic Review 50(3):773–801.

Blank, Susan and Ramon S. Torrecilha. 1998. “Understanding the Living Arrangements of

Latino Immigrants: A Life Course Approach.” International Migration Review 32(1):3–

19.

Castiglia, Patricia T. 1999. “Extended Families: Social Support Systems for Children.” Journal

of Pediatric Health Care 13(3):139–41.

Chase-Lansdale, P. Lindsay, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, and Elise S. Zamsky. 1994. “Young African-

American Multigenerational Families in Poverty: Quality of Mothering and

Grandmothering.” Child development 65(2):373–93.

Cohen, Philip N. 2002. “Extended Households at Work: Living Arrangements and Inequality in

Single Mothers’ Employment.” Pp. 445–63 in Sociological Forum, vol. 17. Springer.

Retrieved October 21, 2014 (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1019631107686).

Conley, Dalton, Kathryn M. Pfeiffer, and Melissa Velez. 2007. “Explaining Sibling Differences

in Achievement and Behavioral Outcomes: The Importance of within- and between-

Family Factors.” Social Science Research 36(3):1087–1104.

Cunningham, Solveig Argeseanu, Julia D. Ruben, and K. M. Venkat Narayan. 2008. “Health of

Foreign-Born People in the United States: A Review.” Health & Place 14(4):623–35.

Dean, Alfred, Bohdan Kolody, and Patricia Wood. 1990. “Effects of Social Support from

Various Sources on Depression in Elderly Persons.” Journal of Health & Social Behavior

31(2):148–61.

DeLeire, Thomas and Ariel Kalil. 2002. “Good Things Come in Threes: Single-Parent

Multigenerational Family Structure and Adolescent Adjustment.” Demography

39(2):393–413.

Dressler, William W. 1985. “Extended Family Relationships, Social Support, and Mental Health

in a Southern Black Community.” jhealsocibeha Journal of Health and Social Behavior

26(1):39–48.

Edin, Kathryn and Laura Lein. 1997. Making Ends Meet : How Single Mothers Survive Welfare

and Low-Wage Work. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Evans, Gary W. 2006. “Child Development and the Physical Environment.” Annual Review of

Psychology 57(1):423–51.

Flores, Yvette G. 2013. Chicana and Chicano Mental Health. Tucson: University of Arizona

Press. Retrieved September 20, 2015 (http://muse.jhu.edu/books/9780816599950/).

Franzini, Luisa and Maria Eugenia Fernandez-Esquer. 2004. “Socioeconomic, Cultural, and

Personal Influences on Health Outcomes in Low Income Mexican-Origin Individuals in

Texas.” Social Science & Medicine 59(8):1629–46.

Gerstel, Naomi. 2011. “Rethinking Families and Community: The Color, Class, and Centrality of

Extended Kin Ties.” Sociological Forum 26(1):1–20.

Glick, JE, FD Bean, and JVW Van Hook. 1997. “Immigration and Changing Patterns of

Extended Family Household Structure in the United States: 1970-1990.” Journal of

Marriage and the Family 59:177–91.

Glick, Jennifer E. and Jennifer Van Hook. 2011. “Does a House Divided Stand? Kinship and the

Continuity of Shared Living Arrangements.” Journal of Marriage & Family 73(5):1149–

64.

Glick, Jennifer E. and Michael J. White. 2004. “Post-Secondary School Participation of

Immigrant and Native Youth: The Role of Familial Resources and Educational

Expectations.” Social Science Research 33(2):272–99.

Gonzales, Nancy A. et al. 2008. “Mexican American Adolescents’ Cultural Orientation,

Externalizing Behavior and Academic Engagement: The Role of Traditional Cultural

Values.” American Journal of Community Psychology 41(1/2):151–64.

Grant, BF et al. 2004. “Immigration and Lifetime Prevalence of DSM-IV Psychiatric Disorders

among Mexican Americans and Non-Hispanic Whites in the United States: Results from

the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions.” Archives of

general psychiatry 61(12):1226–33.

Gross, Deborah et al. 2006. “The Equivalence of the Child Behavior Checklist/1 1/2-5 across

Parent Race/ethnicity, Income Level, and Language.” Psychological Assessment

18(3):313–23.

Hamilton, Hayley A. 2005. “Extended Families and Adolescent Well-Being.” Journal of

Adolescent Health 36(3):260–66.

Hammel, Eugene A. 1968. Alternative Social Structures and Ritual Relations in the Balkans.

Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs. Retrieved June 28, 2015

(http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/clc/1608396).

Harker, Kathryn. 2001. “Immigrant Generation, Assimilation, and Adolescent Psychological

Well-Being.” Social Forces 79(3):969–1004.

Hedeker, Donald, Robert D. Gibbons, and Brian R. Flay. 1994. “Random-Effects Regression

Models for Clustered Data with an Example from Smoking Prevention Research.”

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 62(4):757.

Hernandez, Donald J. 2004. “Demographic Change and the Life Circumstances of Immigrant

Families.” The Future of Children 14(2):17–47.

von Hippel, Paul T. 2007. “Regression with Missing Ys: An Improved Strategy for Analyzing

Multiply Imputed Data.” Sociological Methodology 37(1):83–117.

Hofferth, Sandra L., Johanne Boisjoly, and Greg J. Duncan. 1998. “Parents’ Extrafamilial

Resources and Children’s School Attainment.” Sociology of Education 246–68.

Hondagneu-Sotelo, Pierrette. 1994. Gendered Transitions : Mexican Experiences of

Immigration. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press.

Hunter, Andrea G. and Margaret E. Ensminger. 1992. “Diversity and Fluidity in Children’s

Living Arrangements: Family Transitions in an Urban Afro-American Community.”

Journal of Marriage and Family 54(2):418–26.

Jackson, Margot I., Kathleen Kiernan, and Sara McLanahan. 2012. “Immigrant-Native

Differences in Child Health: Does Maternal Education Narrow or Widen the Gap?:

Nativity, Maternal Education, and Child Health.” Child Development 83(5):1501–9.

Kana’iaupuni, Shawn Malia, Katharine M. Donato, Theresa Thompson-Colón, and Melissa

Stainback. 2005. “Counting on Kin: Social Networks, Social Support, and Child Health

Status.” Social Forces 83(3):1137–64.

Kellam, S. G., M. E. Ensminger, and R. J. Turner. 1977. “Family Structure and the Mental

Health of Children. Concurrent and Longitudinal Community-Wide Studies.” Archives of

general psychiatry 34(9):1012–22.

Kellam, Sheppard G., Rebecca G. Adams, C. Hendricks Brown, and Margaret E. Ensminger.

1982. “The Long-Term Evolution of the Family Structure of Teenage and Older

Mothers.” Journal of Marriage and Family 44(3):539–54.

King, Serena M., William G. Iacono, and Matt McGue. 2004. “Childhood Externalizing and

Internalizing Psychopathology in the Prediction of Early Substance Use.” ADD Addiction

99(12):1548–59.

Krieger, James and Donna L. Higgins. 2002. “Housing and Health: Time Again for Public

Health Action.” American Journal of Public Health 92(5):758–68.

Landale, Nancy S., Jessica Halliday Hardie, R. S. Oropesa, and Marianne M. Hillemeier. 2015.

“Behavioral Functioning among Mexican-Origin Children Does Parental Legal Status

Matter?” Journal of health and social behavior 56(1):2–18.

Landale, Nancy S., K. J. .. Thomas, and Jennifer Van Hook. 2011. “The Living Arrangements of

Children of Immigrants.” Future of Children 21:43–70.

Leach, M. a. 2012. “A Burden of Support? Household Structure and Economic Resources

Among Mexican Immigrant Families.” Journal of Family Issues 35:28–53.

Matt, Georg E. and Alfred Dean. 1993. “Social Support from Friends and Psychological Distress

Among Elderly Persons: Moderator Effects of Age.” Journal of Health and Social

Behavior 34(3):187–200.

Mendoza, F. S. 2009. “Health Disparities and Children in Immigrant Families: A Research

Agenda.” Pediatrics 124(Supplement):S187–95.

Menjívar, Cecilia. 2000. Fragmented Ties : Salvadoran Immigrant Networks in America.

Berkeley: University of California Press.

Padilla, Yolanda C., Erin R. Hamilton, and Robert A. Hummer. 2009. “Beyond the

Epidemiological Paradox: The Health of Mexican-American Children at Age Five*.”

Social science quarterly 90(5):1072–88.

Perreira, KristaM., Kathleen Mullan Harris, and Dohoon Lee. 2006. “Making It in America:

High School Completion by Immigrant and Native Youth.” Demography 43(3):511–36.

Portes, Alejandro. 1995. The Economic Sociology of Immigration : Essays on Networks,

Ethnicity, and Entrepreneurship. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Portes, Alejandro and Rubén G. Rumbaut. 2001. Legacies : The Story of the Immigrant Second

Generation. Berkeley; New York: University of California Press ; Russell Sage

Foundation.

Portes, Alejandro and Julia Sensenbrenner. 1993. “Embeddedness and Immigration: Notes on the

Social Determinants of Economic Action.” American Journal of Sociology 98(6):1320–

50.

Pugliesi, Karen and Scott L. Shook. 1998. “Gender, Ethnicity, and Network Characteristics:

Variation in Social Support Resources.” Sex Roles 38(3/4):215–38.

Richards, T., M. J. White, and A. O. Tsui. 1987. “Changing Living Arrangements: A Hazard

Model of Transitions among Household Types.” demography Demography 24(1):77–97.

Rogler, Lloyd H. 1994. “International Migrations: A Framework for Directing Research.”

American Psychologist 49(8):701–8.

Rosenfeld, Michael. 2015. “Revisiting the Data from the New Family Structure Study: Taking

Family Instability into Account.” Sociological Science 2:478–501.

Rubin, Donald B. 2003. “Discussion on Multiple Imputation.” International Statistical Review

71(3):619–25.

Sam, David L., Paul Vedder, Karmela Liebkind, Felix Neto, and Erkki Virta. 2008.

“Immigration, Acculturation and the Paradox of Adaptation in Europe.” European

Journal of Developmental Psychology 5(2):138–58.

Sarkisian, Natalia. 2006. “‘Doing Family Ambivalence’: Nuclear and Extended Families in

Single Mothers’ Lives.” Journal of Marriage and Family 68(4):804–11.

Schwartz, Seth J. 2007. “The Applicability of Familism to Diverse Ethnic Groups: A Preliminary

Study.” Journal of Social Psychology 147(2):101–18.

Slaughter, D. T. and P. Dilworth-Anderson. 1985. “Childcare of Black Sickle Cell Anemic

Children: Impact of Father’s Presence and Absence from Households.” in Biennial

Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Toronto, Canada.

Solari, Claudia D. and Robert D. Mare. 2012. “Housing Crowding Effects on Children’s

Wellbeing.” Social Science Research 41(2):464–76.

Sonuga-Barke, E. J. and M. Mistry. 2000. “The Effect of Extended Family Living on the Mental

Health of Three Generations within Two Asian Communities.” The British Journal of

Clinical Psychology / the British Psychological Society 39 ( Pt 2):129–41.

Stanton-Salazar, Ricardo D. 2001. Manufacturing Hope and Despair : The School and Kin

Support Networks of U.S.-Mexican Youth. New York: Teachers College Press.

Stevens, Gonneke W. J. M. and Wilma A. M. Vollebergh. 2008. “Mental Health in Migrant

Children.” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 49(3):276–94.

Teachman, Jay. 2011. “Modeling Repeatable Events Using Discrete-Time Data: Predicting

Marital Dissolution.” JOMF Journal of Marriage and Family 73(3):525–40.

Treas, Judith. 2008. “Transnational Older Adults and Their Families*.” FARE Family Relations

57(4):468–78.

Treas, Judith and S. Mazumdar. 2004. “Kinkeeping and Caregiving: Contributions of Older

People in Immigrant Families.” Journal of comparative family studies. (35):105–22.

Turney, Kristin and Grace Kao. 2009. “Assessing the Private Safety Net: Social Support among

Minority Immigrant Parents.” Sociological Quarterly 50(4):666–92.

Umberson, Debra, Robert Crosnoe, and Corinne Reczek. 2010. “Social Relationships and Health

Behavior Across the Life Course.” Annual Review of Sociology 36(1):139–57.

Van Hook, J. and J. E. Glick. 2007. “Immigration and Living Arrangements: Moving beyond

Economic Need versus Acculturation.” Demography 44(2):225–49.

Walen, Heather R. and Margie E. Lachman. 2000. “Social Support and Strain from Partner,

Family, and Friends: Costs and Benefits for Men and Women in Adulthood.” Journal of

Social and Personal Relationships 17(1):5–30.

Wilson, Melvin N. 1986. “The Black Extended Family: An Analytical Consideration.”

Developmental Psychology 22(2):246.

Wilson, Melvin N. 1989. “Child Development in the Context of the Black Extended Family.”

American Psychologist 44(2):380.

Xue, Ming. 2015. “Social Support from Friends and Family in a Tibetan Village.” Personal

Relationships 22(1):30–44.

Table1-A. Weighted Descriptive Statistics of Key Variables by Parental Nativity, W1 (N=1538)

All S.E. US-born S.E. Foreign-born S.E.

Internalizing BPI (ln) 0.85 0.03 0.69 0.05 0.97*** 0.04

Internalizing BPI 3.02 0.12 2.52 0.19 3.39** 0.14

Immigrant (foreign-born) parent 0.56 0.02

Undocumented parent 0.15 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.02

White 0.22 0.02 0.43 0.03 0.06*** 0.01

Latino 0.56 0.02 0.28 0.03 0.78*** 0.02

Black 0.11 0.01 0.23 0.03 0.02*** 0.01

Asian 0.10 0.01 0.07 0.02 0.14** 0.02

Child sex (ref. girl) 0.50 0.02 0.50 0.03 0.51 0.02

Child age 7.02 0.09 7.07 0.15 6.99 0.11

Family income 10.31 0.04 10.67 0.06 10.04*** 0.06

Maternal education (HS>) 0.62 0.02 0.87 0.02 0.43*** 0.03

Maternal depression 0.11 0.01 0.11 0.02 0.10 0.01

Crowding housing 0.43 0.02 0.25 0.03 0.58*** 0.03

Single parent 0.33 0.02 0.38 0.03 0.29 0.02

Vertical kin only 0.07 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.08 0.01

Horizontal kin only 0.10 0.01 0.07 0.02 0.13* 0.02

Non-kin only 0.04 0.01 0.06 0.02 0.03* 0.01

Mixed 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.01

Combined with relatives 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.01

Combine with non-kin 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01

Table1-B Weighted Descriptive Statistics of Key Variables by Parental Nativity, Panel (N=1645)

All a S.E. US-born

b S.E. Foreign-born

c S.E.

Internalizing BPI (ln) 0.80 0.03 0.66 0.05 0.90**c

0.04

Internalizing BPI 2.92 0.13 2.36 0.18 3.32** 0.18

Immigrant (foreign-born) parent 0.58 0.03

Undocumented parent 0.15 0.02 0.26 0.03

White 0.21 0.02 0.40 0.05 0.07*** 0.02

Latino 0.59 0.03 0.32 0.04 0.79*** 0.03

Black 0.10 0.02 0.21 0.04 0.03** 0.02

Asian 0.10 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.12 0.02

Child sex (ref. girl) 0.51 0.02 0.52 0.04 0.51 0.03

Child age 9.64aaa

0.12 9.64bbb

0.20 9.64ccc

0.15

Family income 10.55 aaa

0.05 10.87bb

0.07 10.32***ccc

0.06

Maternal education (HS>) 0.65 0.02 0.91 0.02 0.46*** 0.03

Maternal depression 0.10 0.01 0.11 0.02 0.08 0.01

Crowding housing 0.32aaa

0.02 0.17bbb

0.03 0.43***ccc

0.02

Single parent 0.32 0.02 0.35 0.04 0.29 0.03

Vertical kin only 0.07 0.01 0.06 0.02 0.07 0.02

Horizontal kin only 0.07 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.10* 0.02

Non-kin only 0.03 0.01 0.03b 0.01 0.03 0.01

Mixed 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.00

Combined with relatives 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.01

Combine with non-kin 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 Note:

***: p<0.001,

*** p<0.01,

*: p<0.05. Significantly different from children with US-born parents.

aaa: p<.0001,

aa: p<.01,

a: p<.05. Significantly different from All in W1.

bbb: p<.0001,

bb: p<.01,

b: p<.05. Significantly different from US-born in W1.

ccc: p<.0001,

cc: p<.01,

c: p<.05. Significantly different from Foreign-born in W1

Table 2. Household Structural Transitions between Wave1 and Wave2

All Family composition W2

Family composition W1 Not extend

(.86)

Extend

(.14)

Vertical

(.06)

Horizontal

(.06)

Non kin

(.02)

Mixed

(.01)

Not extend (.75) .93 .07 .03 .02 .01 .01

Extend (.25) .66 .34 .15 .14 .03 .03

Vertical (.07) .51 .49 .47 .02 .01 .00

Horizontal (.10) .74 .26 .01 .24 .004 .00

Non kin (.04) .82 .18 .02 .04 .10 .02

Mixed (.04) .57 .43 .06 .20 .04 .13

US-born Family composition W2

Family composition W1 Not extend

(.89)

Extend

(.11)

Vertical

(.06)

Horizontal

(.02)

Non kin

(.01)

Mixed

(.02)

Not extend (.79) .93 .07 .02 .01 .01 .02

Extend (.21) .72 .28 .18 .04 .01 .06

Vertical (.06) .46 .54 .52 .00 .02 .00

Horizontal (.06) .89 .11 .04 .07 .00 .00

Non kin (.05) 1.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

Mixed (.03) .52 .48 .12 .08 .00 .28

Foreign-born Family composition W2

Family composition W1 Not extend

(.83)

Extend

(.17)

Vertical

(.06)

Horizontal

(.07)

Non kin

(.02)

Mixed

(.02)

Not extend (.72) .93 .07 .03 .02 .01 .01

Extend (.28) .63 .37 .13 .20 .04 .01

Vertical (.08) .53 .47 .44 .03 .00 .00

Horizontal (.11) .69 .31 .00 .30 .01 .00

Non kin (.03) .65 .35 .04 .08 .20 .04

Mixed (.05) .61 .39 .02 .28 .06 .02

Table 3. Analytical Results for Different Types of Household Extension Wave1 Panel, fixed

Model1 Model2 Model3 Model1 Model2 Model3 Model4

Single-Parent .188** .101 .100 .010 - .024 - .015 - .009

(S.E.) (.068) (.066) (.066) (.108) (.109) (.109) (.109)

Vertical only .046 .052 - .067 .046 - .022 .032 - .036

(.106) (.087) (.132) (.169) (.152) (.291) (.150)

Horizon only .382*** .178† .146 .017 .018 .019 - .056

(.100) (.093) (.201) (.113) (.113) (.361) (.169)

Non kin only .028 .015 .021 .247 .280 - .095 - .001

(.144) (.117) (.172) (.203) (.196) (.309) (.224)

Mixed .435*** .258* .160 .293† .280† .051 .199

(.123) (.116) (.193) (.143) (.166) (.375) (.214)

Child sex .016 .010 .008

(.054) (.050) (.050)

Child age -.022* - .014 - .015 -.026*** -.024*** -.024*** -.024***

(.010) (.010) (.010) (.006) (.006) (.007) (.007)

Crowding housing

.097 .097

- .090 - .095 - .070

(.067) (.067)

(.084) (.085) (.085)

Family income(ln)

- .019 - .019

-.049+ -.050+ -.047†

(.019) (.019)

(.027) (.027) (.026)

Maternal depression

.658*** .660***

.313** .295** .314**

(.090) (.090)

(.101) (.099) (.100)

Maternal education

-.131† -.135+

(.071) (.071)

Latino

.165* .172*

(.081) (.082)

Black

.039 .047

(.136) (.137)

Asian

.025 .028

(.123) (.124)

Immigrant parents

.020 - .004

(.078) (.085)

Undocumented parents

.322*** .319*

(.076) (.075)

Vertical kin*Immigrant .189 - .081

(.173) (.341)

Horizontal*Immigrant .047 .008

(.223) (.376)

Non-kin*Immigrant - .029 .553

(.211) (.386)

Mixed*Immigrant .147 .360

(.235) (.412)

Vertical kin*Undocument

.037

(.666)

Horizontal*Undocument

.169

(.224)

Non-kin*Undocument

.877**

(.322)

Mixed*Undocument

.338

(.353)

Intercept .866*** .882*** .895*** 1.099*** 1.616*** 1.621*** 1.581***

(.244) (.244) (.244) (.070) (.282) (.277) (.274)

N 1538 1538 1538 1645 1645 1645 1645

R2 .050 .182 .183 .014 .048 .055 .055

Rho

.544 .539 .537 .539

Note: ***

: p<0.001, ***

p<0.01, *: p<0.05, †: p<.10.

Figure1. Unadjusted/Adjusted Differences between Native and Immigrant families

Note: Significantly different from children with US parents. The results are based on Model 3

fixed effects estimation. ***

: p<0.001, **

p<0.01, *: p<0.05

.66

.90** .86 .88

.00

.10

.20

.30

.40

.50

.60

.70

.80

.90

1.00

US Foreign

unadjusted Full (m3)