neighborhood attachment in the multiethnic metropolis

Neighborhood Attachment in the MultiethnicMetropolisMeredith J. Greif ∗

Georgia State University

In acknowledging that patterns of neighborhood attachment—a key component inthe maintenance of neighborhood vitality—may shift as a result of growing racialand ethnic diversity, this study develops a multiethnic and multilevel framework toexamine the link between racial diversity and attachment among Los Angeles resi-dents. The expansion of the Asian and Hispanic populations may affect attachmentpatterns if group members exhibit different levels of attachment compared withblacks and whites, due to factors such as illegal citizenship and poorer neighbor-hood resources. Additionally, their presence in neighborhoods may influence otherresidents’ attachment by triggering racial prejudice or concerns about local re-sources. Using the 2001 Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey (LAFANS),this analysis demonstrates that Asians and Hispanics modestly diverge from blacksand whites in the strength of their attachment, due in part to individual and neigh-borhood characteristics. Although the neighborhood presence of blacks and His-panics moderately diminishes some aspects of residents’ attachment, regardless ofindividual race, in many instances neighborhood racial composition fails to exert asignificant impact on neighborhood attachment.

INTRODUCTION

According to population projections, whites’ majority status in the United States may beaffected by the disproportionate growth of the Asian and Hispanic populations while,concurrently, the proportion of native-born Americans continues to drop (U.S. Bureauof the Census, 2000). Few studies have fully explored the link between growing racial andethnic diversity and neighborhood attachment, which is a key component in the mainte-nance of neighborhood vitality. Mounting diversity may influence attachment patterns ifthe expanding Asian and Hispanic populations exhibit different attachment levels com-pared with blacks and whites, due to factors that include illegal citizenship, enduringhomeland connections, and poorer neighborhood resources. Moreover, these groups’escalating presence in neighborhoods can influence other residents’ attachment by gen-erating racial prejudice or concerns about local resources. On the other hand, grow-ing racial diversity may enrich residents’ experiences in their neighborhoods and elicitgreater attachment to them. Conditions may be ripe for a change in the contemporaryneighborhood experience, and the multiethnic and multilevel framework developed in

∗Correspondence should be addressed to Meredith J. Greif, Department of Sociology, Georgia State University,Atlanta, GA 30302; [email protected].

City & Community 8:1 March 2009C© American Sociological Association, 1430 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005

27

CITY & COMMUNITY

this study provides insight into the consequences of diversity for neighborhood attach-ment patterns among Los Angeles residents.

As part of an ongoing dialogue about the status and significance of neighborhoods incontemporary society, decline of community theorists point to a gradual deterioration ofneighborhood significance (see Chaskin, 1994, for a review). Conversely, many scholarsinsist that neighborhoods remain vital sites for obtaining resources, engaging in socialinteraction, and forging collective identity (Hunter, 1974; Kasarda and Janowitz, 1974;Fischer et al., 1977; Guest and Wierzbicki, 1999; Lee and Campbell, 1999). Concernsabout the future of neighborhood vitality are justified because it influences residentialstability and collective efficacy, which are vital to the deterrence of crime, disorder, andthreat (Brown, Perkins, and Brown, 2003; Silver and Miller, 2004). Additionally, individ-ual attachment has been shown to boost individuals’ well-being and life satisfaction (Rigerand Lavrakas, 1981; Adams, 1992; Theodori, 2001; Sirgy and Cornwell, 2002) and reducestheir desire to relocate (Speare, 1974; Lee, Oropesa, and Kanan, 1994). Evidently, resi-dents benefit significantly from their own personal neighborhood attachment as well asfrom residence in a neighborhood with highly attached residents.

The primary issue to address is whether community change lies ahead as a result ofracial diversity, and if so, which racial groups and neighborhoods will be most affected.Until scholars sufficiently address Asians’ and Hispanics’ (and immigrants’) communityengagement, as well as the effect of their presence on current residents’ attachment, thecontemporary significance and vitality of U.S. communities will remain unknown. Specifi-cally, this study questions whether various racial and ethnic groups diverge in their neigh-borhood attitudes and behaviors, and whether their local presence impacts the strengthof other residents’ attachment. If this is the case, do race and racial composition per seinfluence attachment, or are their effects traceable to intergroup variations in other keypredictors of attachment?

NEIGHBORHOOD ATTACHMENT AND RACIAL DIVERSITY

“Neighborhood attachment” is composed of two distinct (though potentially interre-lated) dimensions: attitudinal and behavioral. “Attitudinal attachment” consists of twoseparate dimensions: “evaluation” and “sentiment”. The former is an assessment of theextent to which the community meets a resident’s wants and needs, while sentiment isless rational and pertains to a deeper emotional feeling of connection (Guest and Lee,1983). “Behavioral attachment” is direct social involvement in the community, expressedthrough activities like neighboring and collective problem-solving (Woldoff, 2002).

The recent movement towards a multiethnic American society demands that investi-gations of attachment move beyond the frequently employed black/white framework.Ample evidence points to attachment differences between whites and blacks, though thenature of these disparities is unclear. Many studies point to higher behavioral attach-ment among blacks (Olsen, 1970; Ellison and Gay, 1989; Bobo and Gilliam, 1990; Lee,Campbell, and Miler, 1991; Verba et al., 1993; Lee and Campbell, 1999; Woldoff,2002; Barnes, 2003), though other scholars uncover just the opposite (Hunter, 1975;Ahlbrandt, 1984; Wittberg, 1984). Further, whites frequently indicate greater satisfactionwith their neighborhood environment than do blacks (Hunter, 1974; Campbell, Con-verse, and Rodgers, 1976; Fried, 1982; Ahlbrandt, 1984; Lee, Campbell, and Miller, 1991).

28

NEIGHBORHOOD ATTACHMENT IN THE MULTIETHNIC METROPOLIS

Surprisingly, few researchers have examined the attachment patterns of Asians and His-panics, though several studies point to lower organizational membership among thesegroups (Antunes and Gaitz, 1975; Stoll, 2001; Barnes, 2003).

An examination of how various groups’ “presence” in neighborhoods affects attach-ment patterns is also vital to an understanding of the future of neighborhood attachmentand vitality in a racially diverse society. Previous research has uncovered that a largerwhite presence has a positive influence on attachment due to its association with better-quality services and amenities and higher home values (Taylor, 1996), while a heavy blackpresence frequently dampens residents’ local attachment due to prejudice and concernsabout possible declines in neighborhood quality, home values, and safety (Taub, Taylor,and Dunham, 1984; Harris, 1999; Ellen, 2000; Krysan, 2002). Regrettably, little informa-tion exists on the effect of residence among larger Asian or Hispanic populations onattachment. Since Asians’ and Hispanics’ neighborhood presence appears less threaten-ing than blacks’ presence, though less desirable than a white one (Clark, 1992; Charles,2000), the influence of these groups’ local presence on attachment should fall betweenthat of a black and white population.

In a society rife with racial tensions, strong intergroup rivalries make it unlikely thateach racial population’s neighborhood presence will exert a uniform influence on theattachment of members of other racial groups. For example, blacks’ and Hispanics’ com-petition for low-skilled jobs may erode both groups’ attachment when they reside in thesame neighborhood. Similarly, growing tensions surrounding economic and cultural dis-parities between blacks and Asians in many metropolitan areas could also hinder bothgroups’ local attachment when they reside in close proximity to one another (Morawska,2001; Fong and Shibuya, 2005). For this reason, this research will examine interactionsbetween individual race and the neighborhood presence of each racial group.

UNRAVELING THE LINK BETWEEN NEIGHBORHOOD ATTACHMENT AND DIVERSITY

Although both race and racial composition may influence attachment, both sets of re-lationships are not equally likely to be based on purely racial factors. There is a greaterlikelihood that a relationship between race and attachment will be indirect and primarilyattributable to the nonracial factors discussed below; although cultural variations are alsoconceivable contributors to a relationship. It is more plausible, however, that a connec-tion between racial composition and attachment will be based on racial factors, includingresidents’ prejudice, although concerns about local resources may also facilitate such arelationship.

IMMIGRATION-BASED FACTORS

The topic of immigration is highly relevant to an examination of racial diversity and at-tachment, since the growth of Asians and Hispanic populations is fueled primarily byimmigration (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000). Relatively recent changes in immigra-tion patterns, such as the growth of transnationalism and illegal citizenship, could affecthow well immigrants assimilate into their neighborhoods. Transnationalism, evidencedby lingering connections to people and places of the homeland, could preempt or inter-rupt the development of local sentiment and ties (Guarnizo, Sanchez, and Roach, 1999;

29

CITY & COMMUNITY

Foner, 1999), while lack of citizenship may hinder opportunities to take full advantageof local services and civic privileges, such as voting, and thereby limit satisfaction (Cassel,1999). Fears of deportation could also reduce illegal immigrants’ social interest in a com-munity that they may be forced to leave.

Conversely, several aspects of the immigration experience can enhance local attach-ment. Since immigrants frequently sever important social ties during the immigrationprocess, many seek to reestablish social relations and place attachments to compensatefor the ones they have lost, resulting in stronger attachment to local residents in thereceiving country for economic and social support. Another possibility is that satisfac-tion will be higher among recent immigrants, regardless of any undesirable conditionsin their local U.S. environment. Since neighborhood standards and expectations arestrongly based on the societal norm, recent residence in a less advantaged society withlower standards for success could reduce the gap between immigrants’ expectations attime of entry and actual conditions in their U.S. neighborhoods, in turn boosting satis-faction (Campbell, Converse, and Rodgers, 1976). A middle ground may also exist, whereimmigrants manage to simultaneously devote their physical and psychological presenceto both contexts, implying that their old and new attachments do not compete with oneanother in a zero sum scenario (Massey and Basem, 1992; Marcelli and Lowell, 2005).

There is a possibility that immigrants’ “presence” in neighborhoods will alter attach-ment levels among residents. Growing national (and local) backlash against foreign-bornresidents based on concerns about resources and cultural assimilation (Espenshade andHempstead, 1996) suggests that a local immigrant presence could reduce some residents’neighborhood attachment, particularly those who are native-born and similarly, black orwhite. However, anxiety surrounding resource availability as a result of immigrant concen-tration may be apparent among all residents, regardless of race or nativity status. Alter-natively, the local influx of diverse cultures may enhance some residents’ neighborhoodexperience.

BEYOND RACE AND IMMIGRATION-BASED FACTORS

A handful of other individual- and neighborhood-level variables have been explored inprevious studies as predictors of attachment. Many of these factors are likely contribu-tors to interracial disparities in attachment due to their association with both race andattachment, and several may also promote a relationship between racial compositionand attachment. First, local investment, evidenced by length of neighborhood residence,proximate kin, homeownership, and local facility use (such as churchgoing or shopping),can augment attachment (Kasarda and Janowitz, 1974; Guest and Lee, 1983; Ahlbrandt,1984; Lee, Campbell, and Miller, 1991; Logan and Spitze, 1994; Lee and Campbell, 1999;Woldoff, 2002; Kang and Kwak, 2003). Feelings of danger within the community space,on the other hand, reduces satisfaction, sentiment, and neighboring (Guest and Lee,1983; Baba and Austin, 1989; Loo, 1986; Sampson and Groves, 1989; Adams, 1992; Tay-lor, 1996; Woldoff, 2002; Brown, Perkins, and Brown, 2003), though it may not take a tollon formal participation (Taylor, 1996; Woldoff, 2002).

Additionally, previous studies have validated a number of social statuses as influencesof attachment, though evidence on the nature of these relationships remains somewhatmixed. These include socioeconomic status (Hunter, 1974; Kasarda and Janowitz, 1974;

30


Fried, 1982; Fischer et al., 1977; Ahlbrandt, 1984; Lee and Campbell, 1999; Stoll, 2001;Woldoff, 2002), age (Hunter, 1975; Ahlbrandt, 1984; Lee, Campbell, and Miller, 1991;Stoll, 2001; Woldoff, 2002), presence of children (Hunter, 1974; Fischer et al., 1977;Ahlbrandt, 1984; Lee and Campbell, 1999; Stoll, 2001; Richmond, 2003), gender (Lee,Campbell, and Miller, 1991; Woldoff, 2002), and marital status (Hunter, 1974; Fischeret al., 1977; Glynn, 1986).

Interracial disparities in neighborhood characteristics, including neighborhood afflu-ence and residential stability, can promote intergroup differences in attachment if cer-tain racial groups are less likely to experience desirable neighborhood circumstancesthat strengthen attachment. In particular, both neighborhood affluence and residentialstability should foster attachment by providing higher-quality resources and by facilitat-ing the development of fulfilling local ties and connections, respectively (Kasarda andJanowitz, 1974; Ahlbrandt, 1984; Taylor, 1996; Kang and Kwak, 2003; Farrell, Aubry, andCoulombe, 2004). Further, these same neighborhood characteristics can facilitate a re-lationship between racial composition and attachment if they are more often associatedwith the local presence of a particular racial group.

Overall, predictions for sentiment and, especially, satisfaction are more clear-cut thanthose for neighboring and participation due to a larger body of attitudinal attachmentresearch. The ones about intergroup disparities in behavioral attachment are more ten-uous. Attitudinal attachment of minorities and immigrants should fall below those ofwhites and natives, respectively, since minorities and immigrants frequently lack the re-sources and local conditions that are important for the development of positive neighbor-hood attitudes (Small and Newman, 2001). Further, a larger minority population shouldgenerally detract from attachment, though this effect will likely vary across groups.

DATA AND METHODS

The current study focuses on the residents of Los Angeles (L.A.) County, which includesthe city of Los Angeles as well as the islands of San Clemente and Santa Catalina. L.A. isan ideal setting because it serves as a significant port of entry for many new immigrants, as36.2 percent of the L.A. population is foreign-born (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000). Agreat majority of these immigrants hail from Asian and Latin American countries, boost-ing Asians’ and Hispanics’ countywide presence in 2000, at 11.9 and 44.6 percent, re-spectively (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000). That L.A. is considered the “prototype” forthe modern metropolis due to its decentralized geographic structure (Dear, 2002) alsomakes it an especially appealing site for a study of neighborhood attachment.

DATA SOURCES

The 2001 Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey (LAFANS) provides theindividual-level information to address these research questions. LAFANS is a multi-stage probability sample of all neighborhoods and households in Los Angeles County,with an oversample of poor neighborhoods and families with children (Sastry et al.,2003). LAFANS is both a panel study, recording individuals’ information at multiple timepoints, and a repeated cross-sectional neighborhood survey, as neighborhoods will alsobe examined at multiple time points with new respondents added in each wave. The

31

CITY & COMMUNITY

current analysis employs Wave 1 data, which was collected from April 2000 to mid-January2002.

LAFANS is well suited to address the present research objectives. Most importantly, thesurvey captures diversity in race, ethnicity, and place of origin, providing an opportunityto revisit neighborhood attachment within an interracial and interethnic framework. Thesample consists of 925 Hispanics and 297 Asians, in addition to 948 whites and 241 blacks.There is also substantial variation in nativity: 1,027 respondents are foreign-born while1,384 were born in the U.S. The racial and socioeconomic characteristics of the weightedLAFANS sample closely mirror those of the L.A. County population.

The 2000 U.S. Census provides neighborhood-level (census tract) information for the65 L.A. County tracts represented in the LAFANS sample. Census tract information islinked to LAFANS respondent data, permitting an investigation of how contextual factors,in conjunction with individual-level ones, shape neighborhood attachment.

ATTACHMENT MEASURES1

In accordance with recent studies, neighborhood attachment is represented by four dis-tinct dimensions (Woldoff, 2002). Though a preliminary factor analysis2 distinguishesbetween two factors, attitudinal and behavioral attachment, previous literature providesa precedent for further subdivision of the former into satisfaction and sentiment andthe latter into neighboring and formal participation (Woldoff, 2002). “Satisfaction” isrepresented by a single measure that taps respondents’ overall evaluation of their neigh-borhood (see Table 1 for exact question wording and descriptive statistics). A “sentiment”scale composed of four questions assesses how emotionally connected respondents feeltowards their neighborhood, or specifically, whether they perceive their neighbors asclose knit, helpful, and trustworthy. Respondents’ scores are averaged across the fouritems instead of taking their sum in order to make the ranges on the dependent variablessimilar. The scale achieves an alpha value of 0.68.

A “neighboring” scale represents the mean of respondents’ answers to four questionsthat measure how often they talk to neighbors and how often neighbors do favors foreach other, watch each other’s property, and give advice to one another. The alpha valuefor this scale is 0.73. The second behavioral attachment dimension, “formal local par-ticipation,” is captured by one dichotomous variable that reflects whether a respondenthas ever participated in a neighborhood association or block meeting in their currentcommunity. Alternative neighborhood participation measures, such as engagement inlocal political organizations or special interest clubs, would also be worthy of scholarlyattention.

PREDICTORS OF ATTACHMENT3

Table 2 describes the individual-level predictors of attachment employed in this analysis.The primary independent variables are “race,” measured with four mutually exclusivedummy variables—“non-Hispanic white,” “non-Hispanic black,” “non-Hispanic Asian,”and “Hispanic” (non-Hispanic white serves as the reference category)—and “racial com-position,” measured by “percentages of non-Hispanic blacks,” “non-Hispanic Asians,” and“Hispanics” in the population of a respondent’s census tract. Due to concerns about

32


TABLE 1. Description of Attachment Measures

Dimension Mean Min. Max. SD Freq. (%) LAFANS QuestionSatisfaction 3.98 1.00 5.00 0.94

“How satisfied are you with your neighborhood?”2.0 1 = Very dissatisfied

10.0 2 = Dissatisfied3.8 3 = Neutral

55.9 4 = Satisfied28.3 5 = Very satisfied

Sentiment 3.40 1.00 4.75 0.66“This is a close-knit neighborhood”

4.2 1 = Strongly disagree32.4 2 = Disagree5.9 3 = Unsure

49.1 4 = Agree8.3 5 = Strongly agree

“People are willing to help neighbors”1.6 1 = Strongly disagree

12.4 2 = Disagree4.9 3 = Unsure


“People in the neighborhood can be trusted”2.9 1 = Strongly disagree

17.1 2 = Disagree8.3 3 = Unsure


“How close do you feel toward neighbors?”6.2 1 = Don’t know neighbors

18.0 2 = Don’t get along with neighbors15.1 3 = Acquaintances only29.5 4 = Friendly, but not close31.3 5 = Close friends

Neighboring 2.57 1.00 4.00 0.73“How often do neighbors do favors?”

15.4 1 = Never20.3 2 = Rarely41.5 3 = Sometimes22.8 4 = Often

“How often do neighbors ask advice?”33.9 1 = Never28.5 2 = Rarely26.5 3 = Sometimes11.1 4 = Often

“How often do neighbors watch property?”13.6 1 = Never13.8 2 = Rarely26.7 3 = Sometimes45.8 4 = Often

“Number of neighbors talked to in last 30 days”15.4 None39.0 1 or 229.0 3 to 513.5 6 or more

Participation 0.11 0.00 1.00 0.32“Participated in neighborhood/block meeting”

88.4 0 = No11.6 1 = Yes

33

CITY & COMMUNITY

TABLE 2. Description of Independent Variables

Variable Mean

RaceIndividual

White (1 = yes) 0.40Black (1 = yes) 0.10Asian (1 = yes) 0.12Hispanic (1 = yes) 0.38

NeighborhoodNon-Hispanic Black (%) 6.81Non-Hispanic Asian (%) 12.40Hispanic (%) 45.57

ImmigrationIndividual

Immigrant citizen (1 = yes) 0.16Native citizen (1 = yes) 0.57Percent lifetime in U.S. (years) 0.76Lingering homeland ties (1 = yes) 0.29

Neighborhood% Immigrant 35.71

Nonrace/ImmigrationIndividual

Length of neighborhood residence (years) 9.61Homeownership (1 = yes) 0.50Local kin (1 = no members, 4 = most or all) 1.36Local employment (1 = yes) 0.51Local religious worship (1 = yes) 0.08Local health care (1 = yes) 0.06Local grocery shopping (1 = yes) 0.22Voluntary associations (scale) 0.54Unsafe (1 = very safe, 4 = very unsafe) 2.10Robbed (1 = yes) 0.40High school degree (1 = yes) 0.22Some college/vocational experience/assoc. degree (1 = yes) 0.30College degree/postgraduate work or degree (1 = yes) 0.24Household income (logged $) 8.77Sex (1 = male) 0.49Age (in years) 43.03Marital/cohabiting (1 = yes) 0.58Children in household (1 = yes) 0.51

NeighborhoodNeighborhood SES (scale) 0.03Residential stability (% in tract since 1995) 50.64

multicollinearity, the analysis does not include a measure of the percentage of white resi-dents in the tract.

Immigration-based predictors are also essential to the analysis. Respondents’ expo-sure to “immigrant concentration” is measured by the percent of foreign-born residentsin the tract, while a handful of individual-level variables relate to the immigrant ex-perience. Information on respondents’ country of birth and citizenship status is com-bined to create three dummy variables: “native-born citizen,” “immigrant citizen,” and

34


“immigrant non-citizen” (reference). The immigration experience variables are roundedout by “percentage of lifetime in U.S.” as well as a “lingering ties” scale, which sums re-sponses about whether any close family members, such as a mother, father, stepmother,stepfather, or spouse, remain in the respondent’s (non-U.S.) home country, and whetherthe respondent has returned to their former country in the last five years. Native-bornresidents receive a score of 100 percent for “percentage of lifetime in U.S.” and 0 for“lingering ties”.

Several variables tap local investment and resource use, including “length of neighbor-hood residence,” “homeownership,” “presence of local kin,” and engagement in “localemployment,” “local grocery shopping,” “local churchgoing,” and “local health care.”Further, the voluntary associations scale sums the scores of six dichotomous variablesthat tap local membership in the following groups: business; ethnic pride; political; dis-cussion group; volunteer; or fraternity. This scale differs from the participation dimen-sion in that it does not specifically refer to activities in the neighborhood space. Highervalues on the scale, which has an alpha value of 0.66, indicate greater associational com-mitment. “Unsafe” measures residents’ sense of danger when walking in their neighbor-hood, while “robbed” assesses whether respondents have been victimized in their currentneighborhood.

Socioeconomic status, a key social status, is captured by two constructs: “respon-dent education” and “household income.” The former is represented by four dummyvariables: “less than high school degree” (reference), “high school degree,” “somecollege/vocational experience/associate’s degree,” and “college degree/postgraduatework or degree,” while the latter is a logged measure of annual earned householdincome and transfer income (i.e., Social Security, Medicare, food stamps), in dol-lars. Other social statuses include “gender,” “married/cohabiting” and “children inhousehold.”4

Finally, a handful of nonracial neighborhood variables are employed, including “neigh-borhood socioeconomic status” and “neighborhood stability.” The former is measured bya z-scored scale of three items: median household income, percentage college-educated,and percentage of residents who own their homes. Neighborhood stability is representedby the portion of the population that has resided in the tract since 1995.

RESEARCH METHODS

The analysis will use t-tests to explore differences in attachment levels among blacks,whites, Asians, and Hispanics, and between native-born residents and immigrants. Sub-sequently, the analysis will examine the individual-level processes that may contribute tointerracial differences in satisfaction, sentiment, and neighboring using ordinary leastsquares regression and, in the case of participation, logistic regression.5 Hierarchicallinear modeling (HLM), employed to assess the direct effects of racial composition onattachment and its contribution to a relationship between race and attachment, takesinto account the hierarchical structure of data and its implications for assumptions aboutindependence of observations (Bryk and Raudenbush, 1992). Since HLM may producebiased estimates for models that use weights (Selden, 1994), the data are only weightedin the individual-level analyses.6

35

CITY & COMMUNITY

TABLE 3. Neighborhood Attachment by Race and Nativity (Means)

Full White Black Asian Hispanic Native Immigrant

Satisfaction 3.99 4.20a,b,c 3.72d,b 4.01a,c,d 3.82a,d 4.07e 3.87Sentiment 3.41 3.52a,c 3.40b,d 3.46a,c 3.30b,d 3.42e 3.37Neighboring 2.57 2.65a,b,c 2.54b,d 2.34a,c,d 2.58b,d 2.63e 2.49Participation 0.12 0.15c 0.16c 0.12c 0.07a,b,d 0.15e 0.08

N 2411 948 241 297 925 1384 1027aSignificantly different from blacks at p < 0.05.bSignificantly different from Asians at p < 0.05.cSignificantly different from Hispanics at p < 0.05.dSignificantly different from whites at p < 0.05.eSignificantly different from Immigrants at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

PATTERNS OF NEIGHBORHOOD ATTACHMENT

The t-test analyses reveal notable differences in attachment among racial groups. Accord-ing to Table 3, groups vary meaningfully in their attitudes toward their neighborhoods.In general, Hispanics and blacks exhibit weaker attitudinal attachment compared withwhites and Asians. Satisfaction means range from 4.20 for whites to 3.72 for blacks, withthe strength of Asians’ and Hispanics’ local evaluations falling in between. All intergroupsatisfaction differences are statistically significant, except in the case of the disparity be-tween the satisfaction of blacks and Hispanics. Additionally, whites experience a strongersentimental connection with their communities. Asians’ local sentiment falls below thatof whites, though not meaningfully so, but blacks and Hispanics are notably less senti-mental than whites and Asians.

Informal socializing with neighbors, on the other hand, is most frequently undertakenby whites and least often by Asians. Hispanics embark upon informal interactions withtheir neighbors less often than whites or blacks, though they still outpace Asians alongthis dimension. Whites’ and Asians’ neighboring frequency differs from one another andalso from that of blacks and Hispanics in a meaningful way, but blacks and Hispanics donot significantly diverge from one another here. A clear divide emerges between Hispan-ics and all other racial groups in patterns of local formal participation; only 7.0 percentof Hispanics participate in neighborhood block meetings, contrasted with 12.0 percentof Asians, 16.0 percent of blacks, and 15.0 percent of whites. This pattern is fairly consis-tent with the handful of studies that explore Hispanics’ local participation (Antunes andGaitz, 1975; Stoll, 2001).

The results in Table 3 also indicate that natives’ attachment across all dimensions ex-ceeds that of immigrants in a statistically significant way. These disparities are not large,however, as mean differences between the groups’ attachment never exceed two-tenths ofa point for satisfaction, sentiment, or neighboring. Though measured on a different scalethan the other dimensions, it is clear that intergroup disparities in formal participationare most noteworthy; almost twice as many natives have participated in a neighborhoodblock association as have immigrants.

36


TABLE 4. Regression of Attitudinal Attachment on Individual-Level and Contextual Variables (UnstandardizedCoefficients)

Satisfaction Sentiment

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6

RaceIndividual

Blacka −0.48∗∗∗ −0.34∗∗∗ −0.07 −0.08∗ ∗ −0.05 0.03Asiana −0.20∗∗∗ −0.16∗ −0.04 −0.02 −0.08 0.01Hispanica −0.39∗∗∗ −0.10∗∗ 0.06 −0.18∗∗∗ −0.06 −0.01

NeighborhoodBlack (%) − − −0.01∗∗∗ − − −0.01∗Asian (%) − − 0.00 − − 0.00Hispanic (%) − − −0.01∗ − − −0.01∗


Immigrant citizenb 0.02 −0.01 0.01 −0.06Native citizenb 0.22∗ 0.15 0.02 0.07Lifetime in U.S. (%) −0.02∗ −0.15 0.03 −0.14Lingering ties 0.20∗∗∗ −0.08 0.16∗∗∗ 0.11∗∗

Neighborhood% Immigrant − 0.00 − 0.00


Homeownership 0.25∗∗∗ 0.22∗∗∗ 0.18∗∗∗ 0.11∗∗Residence length 0.00 0.00 0.01∗ 0.01∗∗∗Local kin 0.00 0.05 0.08∗∗∗ 0.08∗∗∗Local shopping 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.05Local church −0.02 0.04 0.09∗ 0.10∗Local health care −0.09 −0.04 0.00 0.00Local work 0.14∗∗∗ 0.11∗∗ −0.02 −0.01Voluntary associations 0.03 0.03 0.06∗∗∗ 0.05∗∗∗Unsafe −0.32∗∗∗ −0.28∗∗∗ −0.21∗∗∗ −0.16∗∗∗Robbed −0.24∗∗∗ −0.25∗∗∗ −0.19∗∗∗ −0.18∗∗∗

NeighborhoodNeighborhood SES − 0.19∗ − −0.01Residential stability − 0.00 − 0.01∗∗∗

Individual-Level 0.86 0.43Variance Componentc

Neighborhood-Level 0.22 0.08Variance Componentc

Intraclass Correlationc 0.20 0.16Note: ∗∗∗p < 0.001, ∗∗p < 0.01, ∗p < 0.05.aReference Category is Non-Hispanic White.bReference Category is Immigrant Noncitizen.cDerived from null HLM model.

PREDICTING NEIGHBORHOOD ATTACHMENT

The bivariate regression results in Models 1 and 4 in both Tables 4 and 5 echo those inTable 3; minorities exhibit weaker attachment relative to whites. Hispanics are least at-tached overall and lag the farthest behind whites in their sentiment and participation,

37

CITY & COMMUNITY

TABLE 5. Regression of Behavioral Attachment on Individual-Level and Contextual Variables (UnstandardizedCoefficients)

Neighborhood Participation

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6

RaceIndividual

Blacka −0.12∗ −0.05 0.08 0.10 0.95∗∗∗ 0.71∗Asiana −0.31∗∗∗ −0.24∗∗∗ −0.23∗∗∗ −0.23 0.22 −0.13Hispanica −0.08∗ 0.05 −0.01 −0.82∗∗∗ 0.36 −0.03

NeighborhoodBlack (%) − − −0.01∗ − − −0.01Asian (%) − − 0.00 − − −0.01Hispanic (%) − − −0.01∗∗ − − 0.00


Immigrant citizenb −0.02 −0.05 −0.17 −0.17Native citizenb −0.01 0.00 −0.22 −0.42Lifetime in U.S. (%) 0.23 0.06 0.94 0.32Lingering ties 0.10 0.09 0.49 0.13

NeighborhoodImmigrant (%) − −0.01 − 0.01


Homeownership 0.05 0.03 0.63∗∗∗ 0.39Residence length 0.00 0.00 −0.01 −0.01Local kin 0.12∗∗∗ 0.08∗∗∗ −0.08 0.06Local shopping −0.06 −0.03 −0.27 −0.14Local church 0.14∗∗ 0.19∗∗∗ 0.39 0.53∗Local health care 0.15∗ 0.08 0.40 0.28Local work 0.02 0.07∗ 0.57∗∗∗ 0.55∗Voluntary associations 0.08∗∗∗ 0.09∗∗∗ 0.61∗∗∗ 0.69∗∗∗Unsafe −0.07∗∗∗ −0.06∗∗ −0.11 −0.09Robbed −0.02 0.01 0.56∗∗∗ 0.39

NeighborhoodNeighborhood SES − −0.09 − 0.35Residential stability − 0.01∗∗ − 0.00

Individual-LevelVariance Componentc 0.54Neighborhood-LevelVariance Componentc 0.03

Intraclass Correlationc 0.05Note: ∗∗∗p < .001; ∗∗p < .01; ∗p < .05.aReference Category is Non-Hispanic White.bReference Category is Immigrant Noncitizen.cDerived from null HLM model.

while blacks’ satisfaction and Asians’ neighboring and satisfaction also fall short ofwhites’. Entering all individual-level variables into each model (see Models 2 and 5 inboth Tables 4 and 5) demonstrates that the association between race and the dimensionsof attachment is partly based on nonracial factors. Blacks’ and Hispanics’ lower neigh-boring frequency relative to whites is fully explained by other significant predictors, and

38


their relative dissatisfaction and sentimental disconnection partially so (coefficients havedeclined considerably in magnitude or have become nonsignificant). Asians’ informalneighboring regularity and satisfaction also remain lower than that of whites.

A noteworthy racial disparity emerges in Model 5 in Table 5; blacks significantly out-pace whites in their formal neighborhood participation once other predictor variablesare controlled. The examination further reveals that, when other racial groups are em-ployed as the reference category, blacks participate in neighborhood block associationsmore than Hispanics and Asians.7 Both compensatory and ethnic community models mayhelp to interpret this finding. The former suggests that, due to their subordinate statusin a white-dominated society, blacks seek to compensate by exerting their influence inlocal organizations (Stoll, 2001). Since inferior social status is the primary mechanismbehind this process, blacks’ unique position as the most stigmatized minority group inthe U.S. likely explains why this pattern is not observed among Asian and Hispanic re-spondents. Meanwhile, the ethnic community model highlights blacks’ sense of groupunity and pride, which compels their engagement in local organizations, particularly inblack communities. These explanations are speculative, however, since LAFANS does notprovide information about respondents’ racial attitudes or group consciousness.

Where does racial composition fit into the attachment process? The addition of con-textual variables in Models 3 and 6 in Tables 4 and 5 further explains several race effects.Blacks’ and Hispanics’ weaker attitudinal attachment relative to whites evident in theindividual-level models has been accounted for here by neighborhood context. However,Asian racial identity continues to detract from neighboring regularity. The size of this co-efficient remains essentially unchanged with the inclusion of contextual variables (−0.24in the earlier model and −0.23 in the current one). By alternating the racial referencecategory, Asians appear to interact with their neighbors less frequently than “all” otherracial groups.8 The strong emphasis of Asian culture on kin obligations relative to othersocial ties (Yuen-Tsang, 1999; Pines, Zaidman, Wang, Chengbing, and Ping, 2003) mayexplain this finding, as family loyalty and involvement may hinder the ability or desire toform connections with nearby residents. The greater demands on time and energy thatare associated with the development of close neighboring ties may explain why this pat-tern is not observed for the other dimensions of attachment. These patterns likely varyacross Asian subgroups, and the larger proportion of Filipino and Chinese respondentsin the sample prohibits sufficient exploration of all subpopulations. Future research thatprobes beneath the panethnic Asian label to explore subgroup variations in attachmentwould be highly worthwhile.

In addition to individual race, this study highlights the unique role of racial composi-tion in predicting attachment in addition to explaining the link between race and attach-ment. The models in Tables 4 and 5 that include all individual- and neighborhood-levelvariables demonstrate that residents’ local participation is unaffected by racial composi-tion, and that a larger Asian presence does not influence any dimension of attachment.However, the final models show that blacks’ and Hispanics’ local proximity reduces resi-dents’ neighboring frequency, as well as satisfaction and sentiment.9

Given the association between race and nativity, results regarding immigration-basedvariables are decidedly relevant to the analysis. A larger immigrant concentration doesnot impact residents’ attachment in the final models, but at the individual level, im-migrants’ indications of enduring homeland connections “heighten” their sentiment,though its previously positive and significant impact on satisfaction has disappeared.

39

CITY & COMMUNITY

TABLE 6. Cross-Level Interactions between Individual Race and Neighborhood Racial Compositiona

Satisfaction Sentiment Neighboring Participation

Black∗ (% Black) 0.00 0.00 0.00 −0.02Black∗ (% Asian) 0.00 0.00 −0.01∗ −0.02Black∗ (% Hispanic) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Asian∗ (% Black) 0.02 0.01∗ 0.01 −0.05Asian∗ (% Asian) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Asian∗ (% Hispanic) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Hispanic∗ (% Black) 0.00 0.01 0.00 −0.01Hispanic∗ (% Asian) −0.01 0.00 0.00 −0.03Hispanic∗ (% Hispanic) 0.01

∗0.00 0.00 0.01

Note: ∗∗∗p < 0.001, ∗∗p < 0.01, ∗p < 0.05, †p < 0.06.aInteraction term coefficients derived from full HLM models in Tables 4 and 5.

Evidently, once other factors are considered, immigrants’ affect towards their neighbor-hood space is boosted after leaving behind geographically proximate kin ties. Other fac-tors relevant to the immigrant experience, namely citizenship and length of residencein the U.S., do not impact attachment in the final models. Given the predominance ofAsians and Hispanics in this sample of immigrants, caution must be used in extendingthese conclusions to the experiences of black and white immigrants.

INTERACTIONS

Multiplicative interaction terms between nativity and all individual- and neighborhood-level predictors document that longer U.S. residence significantly boosts whites’ satis-faction yet significantly erodes that of Hispanics. This finding highlights the downwardassimilation experienced in particular by Hispanic immigrants. An interaction term thatmultiplies nativity by college education is also statistically significant for sentiment, sug-gesting that immigrants find greater difficulty translating their higher education intodesirable residential conditions that encourage attitudinal attachment (interaction coef-ficients available upon request).

Unexpectedly, the analysis does not provide strong support for predictions that own-group presence would boost most groups’ attachment and that outgroup presence woulddetract from it (see Table 6). Coefficients for the multiplicative interaction terms betweenrace and racial composition rarely achieve statistical significance, though several coeffi-cients are marginally significant but quite small. The fact that these interaction effectsare not significant suggests that blacks’, Hispanics’, and Asians’ satisfaction, sentiment,and neighboring are uniformly diminished by the local concentration of the former twogroups. This implies that the effect of the presence of these less-advantaged groups onattachment is not wholly based on residents’ racial aversion, but on nonracial factors aswell.

CONCLUSION

Contemplating the future of neighborhood attachment is valuable for several reasons.Attachment serves as an indicator of residents’ quality of life, providing feedback aboutwhere various resources, including services and social networks, are needed. Further, and

40


of even greater interest to community scholars, it gives clues about the status of neigh-borhood vitality, a topic that has been the subject of significant scholarly debate. A neigh-borhood that contains a committed, engaged, and satisfied population is more likely toexhibit residential stability, offer a gratifying social setting, deter or cope with crime anddisorder, and form a collective voice that can influence relevant political outcomes.

In recognition of the importance of attachment and its link to neighborhood vitality,this study presents a multiethnic, multilevel framework for studying attachment. It un-covers that racial identity is related to neighborhood attachment, though primarily as aresult of factors that are associated with both race and attachment. Though these groupdifferences in attachment are meaningful, they are also modest, suggesting that mem-bers of the expanding Asian and Hispanic populations may not stand out markedly fromestablished groups in their neighborhood-oriented attitudes and behaviors.

Racial differences are strongly attributable to correlations with other individual-levelvariables, including homeownership, local danger, extralocal involvement, and socioeco-nomic status. However, individual-level factors alone are not solely responsible for inter-group attachment differences, as lower neighboring frequency remains evident amongAsians, as does weaker satisfaction among blacks and Hispanics, when controlling forthese factors. An exploration of these groups’ residential contexts sheds additional lighton the root of these remaining attachment differences. Specifically, lower neighborhoodsocioeconomic status is the most potent contextual variable in suppressing blacks’ andHispanics’ positive attitudes towards the local environment. Despite the inclusion of allindividual- and neighborhood-level factors, Asians’ lower neighboring frequency remainsessentially unchanged, which is perhaps the result of a cultural emphasis on tight-knit kinrelations.

Findings also draw attention to the fact that racial composition frequently exerts littleimpact on residents’ neighborhood attachment, though the local presence of blacks andHispanics moderately erodes certain dimensions of attachment for members of all racialgroups represented here. The influence of these groups’ presence on residents’ attach-ment is partially derived from their association with less desirable neighborhood charac-teristics that may accompany their presence, including economic disadvantage (Harris,2001). However, the local proximity of blacks and Hispanics diminishes residents’ attitu-dinal and behavioral attachment even when these disadvantageous local conditions areincluded in the model. Such patterns may be explained by racial prejudice, but given thata larger black and Hispanic presence detracts from all groups’ attachment, it is also likelythat nonracial factors are involved. Individuals may fear that communities with a largerand possibly growing minority presence will experience greater population instability,and white flight due to other residents’ racial intolerance, thereby lowering propertyvalues, weakening collective efficacy, and subsequently triggering crime (Sampson, Rau-denbush, and Earls, 1997; Ellen, 2000). Thus, even if individual residents are not averseto black neighbors, they are likely aware of the detrimental impact that other residents’preferences for white and affluent neighbors will have on their own property values andsafety. Sampson and Raudenbush (2004) also note that residents perceive higher levelsof neighborhood crime when there is a larger local black presence due to historical andcurrent empirical associations between race and neighborhood disadvantage and disor-der.

Nativity-based factors join racial ones as noteworthy determinants of attachment out-comes. This analysis uncovers modest differences between the attachment levels of natives

41

CITY & COMMUNITY

and immigrants, but this gap is not a substantial cause for alarm. Present differences inattachment may subside as immigrants gain access to personal resources that increasetheir range of residential opportunities and as they form connections with local residentsand the neighborhood space itself. Although citizenship status did not affect attachment,results showed that lingering homeland ties not only failed to diminish local satisfaction,neighboring, and sentiment, but that they heightened some immigrants’ local sentiment.This suggests that enduring connections to their former countries should not pose a greatthreat to community vitality.

However, a different fate may await some segments of the immigrant population. Newimmigrants (especially those of Hispanic descent) face an increasing susceptibility todownward mobility, thereby diminishing their ability to meet their residential expecta-tions, and portions of the current analysis support this scenario. Findings from interac-tion models discussed above uncover that the attachment of immigrants does not benefitfrom higher human capital to the same degree as that of natives. Although it is not possi-ble to test for housing, economic, or social discrimination here, high and/or rising levelsof discrimination directed at nearly all minority groups is a likely source.

The eradication of discrimination and inequality is not likely, however, to boost theattachment of all immigrants, since many do not intend to settle permanently or for evenan extended period of time in the United States or in their particular neighborhood.Seasonal farm workers and other types of sojourners who intend to return to their nativecountry after earning a sufficient amount of money may be less likely to feel invested orinterested in their neighborhoods. Further, many immigrants temporarily settle in ethnicenclaves to take advantage of social and economic opportunities offered by coethnics, butplan to relocate later to mainstream neighborhoods in search of greater opportunitiesand higher status. This may explain why residence in areas of high ethnic concentrationdoes not particularly boost Asians’ and Hispanics’ attachment, as predicted. For thesereasons, urban scholars should give priority to collecting information on foreign-bornresidents’ purposes for immigration and mobility intentions.

It is important to acknowledge that while the findings from this analysis are descriptiveof the individuals and neighborhoods in this L.A.-based sample and may be relevant forother contexts, it is worthwhile to explore similar research in other metropolitan areas.As a result of the unique histories and intergroup dynamics of each locale, existing theo-ries regarding the development of attachment may not universally apply to all neighbor-hoods (see Small, 2004). For these reasons, exploring a variety of neighborhood settingsin depth can shed light on the nuances of the local environment that may challengepreexisting notions about the factors that shape attachment.

In conclusion, there is modest variation in the strength of neighborhood attachmentamong blacks, whites, Asians, and Hispanics, though the direction and pace of eachgroup’s attachment trajectory is uncertain. Unlike earlier immigrants, recent newcom-ers may not expect similarly desirable outcomes within a comparable time span. Theycurrently enter a very changed society, where some residents’ residential chances andaspirations are deflated as easily as others’ are enhanced. Studies, including the currentone, have also only begun to understand the complex implications of various groups’ lo-cal presence for neighborhoods. Continued dedication to these topics is essential, giventhe significance of neighborhood attachment and the continual evolution of the contem-porary urban landscape.

42


Notes

1 Missing information on attachment, race, and nativity measures (of which there were very few) were ad-

dressed with list-wise deletion. t-tests uncover no evidence that excluded cases differ systematically from the

working sample on most other variables.2 Factor analysis results available from author upon request.3 The EM (expectation maximization) procedure in SPSS was used to address missing values on all variables

other than attachment, race, or nativity. All imputed values that fall between whole numbers are rounded to

the nearest whole number. Less than 10 percent of cases were imputed for all independent variables, with

the exception of kin proximity (27 percent), length of residence (27 percent), and local facility use (11–32

percent).4 For the remainder of analysis, education, income, age, gender, marital status, and presence of children will

be treated as control variables and will not be featured in tables. Regression coefficients are available from the

author upon request.5 The definition of neighborhood frequently varies among respondents, which poses particular challenges to

an examination of neighborhood attachment among racial groups if neighborhood perceptions vary systemat-

ically across these groups. As a result, neighborhood size is controlled for in all individual- and neighborhood-

level models using a variable labeled “perceived neighborhood size.” This continuous control variable is based

on a four-category LAFANS question that captures respondents’ own perceptions of their neighborhood size,

where 1 represents the size of one street block, 2 an area of several blocks on either side, 3 an area within a

15-minute walk, and 4 an area beyond a 15-minute walk. Exploratory analysis demonstrated that results from

models that include this variable do not deviate significantly from results obtained in models that exclude this

variable.6 The Wgtrsa weight used in the individual-level analyses accounts for the design effect that is associated with

the stratified sampling design. This weight also adjusts for oversampling of certain population subgroups.7 Coefficients available from author upon request.8 Coefficients available from author upon request.9 In consideration of the possibility that residents’ perceptions of neighborhood safety may mediate the influ-

ence of neighborhood racial composition on attachment, models that exclude “unsafe” were examined. With

the exception of moderate fluctuation in the effects of the local facility use variables on attachment, other

patterns remained unchanged.

References

Adams, R. E. 1992. “A Tale of 2 Cities: Community Sentiments and Community Evaluation in Indianapolis andPittsburgh,” Sociological Focus 25(3), 217–240.

Ahlbrandt, R. S. 1984. Neighborhoods, People, and Community. New York: Plenum.Antunes, G., and Gaitz, C. M. 1975. “Ethnicity and Participation: A Study of Mexican-Americans, Blacks and

Whites,” American Journal of Sociology 80(5), 1192–1211.Baba, Y., and Austin, D. 1989. “Neighborhood Environmental Satisfaction, Victimization, and Social-

Participation as Determinants of Perceived Neighborhood Safety,” Environment and Behavior 21(6), 763–780.Barnes, S. L. 2003. “Determinants of Individual Neighborhood Ties and Social Resources in Poor Urban Neigh-

borhoods,” Sociological Spectrum 23(4), 463–497.Bobo, L., and Gilliam, F. D. 1990. “Race, Sociopolitical Participation, and Black Empowerment,” American Polit-

ical Science Review 84(2), 377–393.Brown, B., Perkins, D. D., and Brown, G. 2003. “Place Attachment in a Revitalizing Neighborhood: Individual

and Block Levels of Analysis,” Journal of Environmental Psychology 23(3), 259–271.Bryk, A. S., and Raudenbush, S. W. 1992. Hierarchical Linear Models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., and Rodgers, W. L. 1976. The Quality of American Life: Perceptions, Evaluations, and

Satisfactions. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

43

CITY & COMMUNITY

Cassel, C. A. 1999. “Voluntary Associations, Churches, and Social Participation Theories of Turnout,” SocialScience Quarterly 80(3), 504–517.

Charles, C. Z. 2000. “Neighborhood Racial-Composition Preferences: Evidence from a Multiethnic Metropolis,”Social Problems 47(3), 379–407.

Chaskin, R. J. 1994. “Defining Neighborhood: History, Theory, and Practice,” Report for The Chapin HallCenter for Children, University of Chicago.

Clark, W. A. V. 1992. “Residential Preferences and Residential Choices in a Multiethnic Context,” Demography29(3), 451–466.

Dear, M. 2002. “Los Angeles And The Chicago School: An Invitation To Debate,” City & Community 1(1), 5–32.

Ellen, I. G. 2000. Sharing America’s Neighborhoods: The Prospects for Stable Racial Integration. Cambridge, MA: Har-vard University Press.

Ellison, C. G., and Gay, D. A. 1989. “Black Political-Participation Revisited: A Test of Compensatory, Ethnic-Community, and Public Arena Models,” Social Science Quarterly 70(1), 101–119.

Espenshade, T. J., and Hempstead, K. 1996. “Contemporary American Attitudes Toward U.S. Immigration,”International Migration Review 30(2), 535–570.

Farrell, S. J., Aubry, T., and Coulombe, D. 2004. “Neighborhoods and Neighbors: Do They Contribute to Per-sonal Well-Being?” Journal of Community Psychology 32(1), 9–25.

Fischer, C. S., Jackson, R. M., Stueve, C. A., Gerson, K. L., Jones, M. C., and Baldassare, M. 1977. Networks andPlaces: Social Relations in the Urban Setting . New York: Free Press.

Foner, N. 1999. “The Immigrant Family: Cultural Legacies and Cultural Changes,” in C. Hirschman, P. Kasnitz,and J. DeWind (eds.), The Handbook of International Migration: The American Experience. New York: Russell SageFoundation.

Fong, E., and Shibuya, K. 2005. “Multiethnic Cities in North America,” Annual Review of Sociology 31, 285–304.Fried, M. 1982. “Residential Attachment: Sources of Residential and Community Satisfaction,” Journal of Social

Issues 38, 107–119.Glynn, T. J. 1986. “Neighborhood and Sense of Community,” Journal of Community Psychology 14(4), 341–352.Guarnizo, L. E., Sanchez, A. I., and Roach, E. 1999. “Mistrust, Fragmented Solidarity, and Transnational Migra-

tion: Colombians in New York City and Los Angeles,” Ethnic and Racial Studies 22(2), 367–396.Guest, A. M., and Lee, B. A. 1983. “Sentiment and Evaluation as Ecological Variables,” Sociological Perspectives 26,

159–184.Guest, A. M., and Wierzbicki, S. K. 1999. “Social Ties at the Neighborhood Level: Two Decades of GSS Evidence,”

Urban Affairs Review 35, 92–111.Harris, D. 1999. “‘Property Values Drop When Blacks Move In, Because. . .’: Racial and Socioeconomic Deter-

minants of Neighborhood Desirability,” American Sociological Review 3, 461–479.Harris, D. 2001. “Why Are Whites and Blacks Averse to Black Neighbors?” Social Science Research 30, 100–116.Hunter, A. 1974. Symbolic Communities: The Persistence and Change of Chicago’s Local Communities. Chicago: Univer-

sity of Chicago Press.Hunter, A. 1975. “The Loss of Community: An Empirical Test Through Replication,” American Sociological Review

40, 537–552.Kang, N., and Kwak, N. 2003. “A Multilevel Approach to Civic Participation: Individual Length of Residence,

Neighborhood Residential Stability, and Their Interactive Effects with Media Use,” Communication Research30(1), 80–106.

Kasarda, J., and Janowitz, M. 1974. “Community Attachment in Mass Society,” American Sociological Review 39,328–339.

Krysan, M. 2002. “Community Undesirability in Black and White: Examining Racial Residential Preferencesthrough Community Perceptions,” Social Problems 49(4), 521–543.

Lee, B. A., and Campbell, K. E. 1999. “Neighbor Networks of Black and White Americans,” in B. Wellman (ed.),Networks in the Global Village: Life in Contemporary Communities, pp. 119–146. Boulder: Westview Press.

Lee, B. A., Campbell, K. E., and Miller, O. 1991. “Racial Differences in Urban Neighboring,” Sociological Forum6(3), 525–550.

Lee, B. A., Oropesa, R. S., and Kanan, J. W. 1994. “Neighborhood Context and Residential Mobility,” Demography31(2), 249–270.

Logan, J. R., and Spitze, G. D. 1994. “Family Neighbors,” American Journal of Sociology 100(2), 453–476.Loo, C. 1986. “Neighborhood Satisfaction and Safety: A Study of a Low-income Ethnic Area,” Environment and

Behavior 18(1), 109–131.

44


Marcelli, E. A., and Lowell, B. L. 2005. “Transnational Twist: Pecuniary Remittances and the SocioeconomicIntegration of Authorized and Unauthorized Mexican Immigrants in Los Angeles County,” International Mi-gration Review 39(1), 69–102.

Massey, D. S., and Basem, L. C. 1992. “Determinants of Savings, Remittances, and Spending Patterns AmongUnited States Migrants in 4 Mexican Communities,” Sociological Inquiry 62(2), 185–207.

Morawska, E. 2001. “Immigrant-Black Dissensions in American Cities: An Argument for Multiple Explanations,”in E. Anderson and D. S. Massey (eds.), Problem of the Century: Racial Stratification in the United States, pp. 47–96.New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Olsen, M. E. 1970. “Social and Political Participation of Blacks,” American Sociological Review 35(4), 682–697.Pines, A., Zaidman, N., Wang, Y., Chengbing, H., and Ping, L. 2003. “The Influence of Cultural Background on

Students’ Feelings about the Use of Social Support,” Social Psychology International 24, 33–53.Richmond, D. A. 2003. “Embeddedness in Voluntary Associations and the Timing of Geographic Moves,” Socio-

logical Forum 18(2), 295–322.Riger, S., and Lavrakas, P. J. 1981. “Community Ties: Patterns of Attachment and Social Interaction in Urban

Neighborhoods,” American Journal of Community Psychology 9(1), 55–66.Sampson, R. J., and Groves, W. B. 1989. “Community Structure and Crime: Testing Social Disorganization The-

ory,” American Journal of Sociology 94(4), 774–802.Sampson, R. J., and Raudenbush, S. W. 2004. “Seeing Disorder: Neighborhood Stigma and the Social Construc-

tion of ‘Broken Windows’,” Social Psychology Quarterly 67, 319–342.Sampson, R., Raudenbush, S., and Earls, F. 1997. “Neighborhoods and Violent Crime: A Multilevel Study of

Collective Efficacy,” Science 277, 918–924.Sastry, N., Ghosh-Dastidar, B., Adams, J., and Pebley, A. R. 2003. “The Design of a Multilevel Survey of Children,

Families, and Communities: The Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey,” RAND Working Paper.Selden, T. 1994. “Weighted Generalized Least-Squares Estimation for Complex Survey Data,” Economic Letters

46(1), 1–6.Silver, E., and Miller, L. L. 2004. “Sources of Informal Social Control in Chicago Neighborhoods,” Criminology

42(3), 551–583.Sirgy, M. J., and Cornwell, T. 2002. “How Neighborhood Features Affect Quality of Life,” Social Indicators Research

59(1), 79–114.Small, M. L. 2004. Villa Victoria: The Transformation of Social Capital in a Boston Barrio. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.Small, M., and Newman, K. 2001. “Urban Poverty After the Truly Disadvantaged: The Rediscovery of Family, the

Neighborhood, and Culture,” Annual Review of Sociology 27, 23–45.Speare, A. 1974. “Residential Satisfaction as an Intervening Variable in Residential Mobility,” Demography 11,

173–188.Stoll, M. A. 2001. “Race, Neighborhood Poverty, and Participation in Voluntary Associations,” Sociological Forum

16(3), 529–557.Taub, R. P., Taylor, D. G., and Dunham, J. D. 1984. Paths of Neighborhood Change: Race and Crime in Urban Chicago.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Taylor, R. B. 1996. “Neighborhood Responses to Disorder and Local Attachments: The Systemic Model of At-

tachment, Social Disorganization, and Neighborhood Use Value,” Sociological Forum 11, 41–74.Theodori, G. L. 2001. “Examining the Effects of Community Satisfaction and Attachment on Individual Well-

being,” Rural Sociology 66(4), 618–628.U. S. Bureau of the Census. 2000. www.census.gov.Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., Brady, H., and Nie, N. H. 1993. “Race, Ethnicity and Political Resources: Participa-

tion in the United States,” British Journal of Political Science 23, 453–497.Wittberg, P. 1984. “The Effects of Local Activity on Neighborhood Attitudes: A Comparison of Black and White

Urbanites,” Urban Affairs Quarterly 20, 185–200.Woldoff, R. A. 2002. “The Effects of Local Stressors on Neighborhood Attachment,” Social Forces 81, 87–116.Yuen-Tsang, A. 1999. “Chinese Communal Support Networks,” International Social Work 42, 359–371.

45

neighborhood attachment in the multiethnic metropolis

Documents