SocCap - Research Article

High Schoolers’ Family Factors as Predictors of Children’s Future Living Arrangements
Jessica Matykunas
Brittany Rodgers
University of Oklahoma
General Sociology Capstone
April 29, 2015

High Schoolers’ Family Factors 2
ABSTRACT
This study investigates the impact of family cultural and social capital factors on tenth graders’
future living arrangements. The family cultural and social capital factors focused on in our study
are parents’ socioeconomic status (SES), generational status, and native language. The findings
confirm that these family cultural and social capital factors can be used to predict whether or not
a student will remain living with his or her parents. Our findings support claims that higher
parental SES, mother and/or child being born outside the United States, and children whose
native language is not English will likely lead to the child living at home as an early adult.

High Schoolers’ Family Factors as Predictors of Children’s Future Living Arrangements
A typical part of an adolescent transitioning into adulthood is moving away from their
parents’ home. Recently, the rise of a new life stage, known as “early adulthood,” has resulted in
a delay in moving away from home. According to family social capital theory, families are
where social capital is first gained. Social capital can vary across families, therefore making it
important to understand family social capital as a way to explain the varying living arrangements
of early adults. Family cultural and social capital factors such as parental socioeconomic status,
generational status, and native language can be used to predict the likelihood of an early adult
moving out of his or her parents’ home. In our study, we will be using the National Center for
Educational Statistic’s Educational Longitudinal Study of 2002 and focusing on these three
family cultural and social capital factors in our research. By doing so, we can readily answer the
question: “Do family factors affect student’s future living arrangements?”
LITERATURE REVIEW
Background
Over the last half century, an economic phenomena known as “deindustrialization” has resulted
in the demise of blue-collar unionized jobs that require little to no education, and, consequently,
brought the rise of jobs that demand higher credentials which require extensive amounts of
education (Furstenberg et al. 2004; Glick and Lin 1986). This transformation in the labor market
contributed to a new life stage between adolescence and adulthood termed “early adulthood”
(Furstenberg et al. 2004). Early adulthood is characterized as the period between the ages of
eighteen and thirty when finishing education, moving away from home, getting married, and
having children are likely to happen.

Due to this increasing demand for higher educational credentials, a lengthening of the
educational process itself has occurred. According to Rossi (1997), prolonged education has
caused fewer and fewer early adults to pursue jobs directly out of high school at the city-center.
It has furthermore resulted in the erection of colleges and universities in more local,
decentralized locations. Therefore, more and more early adults have chosen to stay at home—
where colleges and universities are close by—to pursue their postsecondary education.
In the United States, there has been a growing change regarding the old-time belief that
children ought to move out of their parental home as soon as possible (Settersten and Ray 2010).
Increasingly, children are choosing to stay at home even though the ability to move out of one’s
parental home is seen as a landmark achievement in the transition to adulthood (Settersten and
Ray 2010; Treas and Batalova 2011). To remain living with one’s parents well into adolescence
has typically been considered a violation of cultural mores, where the individual is seen as
incapable of transitioning to adulthood (Treas and Batalova 2011). However, depending on
varying cultural and family factors, as well as the economic resources available, remaining in co-
residence with one’s parents may serve as a “socioeconomic cushion,” where the child will be
able to save money and wait to secure that well-paying job with benefits before leaving
(Goldscheider 1997; Rossi 1997:640).
Parents’ Socioeconomic Status
Parents’ socioeconomic status (SES) and financial resources can affect the likelihood of their
child living with them after high school. SES varies by racial-ethnic background, as well as
immigrant generation. Whether parents have high SES or low SES will determine if parents can
afford to have their children live with or without them (Treas and Batalova 2011). Lower- and

working-class parents typically combine incomes and government benefits with their children,
which results in the delay of moving away from home (Goldscheider 1997; Rossi 1997). Early
adults living in these low-income families often would not be able to live on their own. For that
reason, an early adult’s agency regarding their choice of living arrangements can be exceedingly
constricted (Rossi 1997).
Alternatively, middle- and upper-class parents are able to use their income to assist in
their children’s moving out process during early adulthood (Goldscheider 1997). Their wealth
makes it possible for these higher-income parents to continue paying for their children’s
expenses (e.g., bills, fees, insurances) as well as help pay for rented apartments, or other living
arrangements outside of their home (Goldscheider 1997; Treas and Batalova 2011). For example,
Treas and Batalova (1997) have found a positive correlation between early adults’ personal
income and leaving their parents’ home. But, high unemployment rates among early adults can
be related to children not leaving their parent’s home. Additionally, Treas and Batalova (1997)
claim steeper prices for rent and a growing belief among early adults regarding the
unobtainability of affordable housing increase the likelihood of early adults living with their
parents. Therefore, early adults belonging to higher SES families may choose to remain at home
“to invest their own [sic] personal consumption” and have their parents remain their primary
beneficiary (Rossi 1997:637). Nevertheless, they probably are less likely to remain at home than
working- and lower-class early adults.
Generational Status
United States immigrants from all around the world tend to bring their own, differing opinions
on the living arrangements of their early adult children. This difference in opinion depicts the

varying cultural capital across families. Rossi (1997) found the increase in early adults living
with their parents is not limited to those born in the United States. In fact, the percentage of early
adult immigrants living with their parents is much higher when compared to native-born United
States residents.
Treas and Batalova (2011) explain how varying cultural capital can determine early
adults’ likelihood to co-reside with their parents. For example, immigrant New Yorkers
interviewed by Treas and Batalova claim their inclination to co-reside with their parents well into
early adulthood is attributed to prevalent cultural norms of strong family ties. Another reason for
co-residency includes the need for children of many immigrant families to supplement their
parents’ income during economic hardships (Treas and Batalova 2011). Furthermore, Asians are
more likely to leave home later than non-Hispanic Whites due to their high rates of enrollment in
colleges and universities thus prolonging their financial dependence with their parents (Treas and
Batalova (2011).
In addition, first-generation families may face difficulties communicating with others in
the public arena. First-generation United States children’s native language is determined by the
parents’ fluency in English. Immigrant parents who do not speak English tend to have children
whose native language is not English and use their early adult children as interpreters during
everyday activities or outings. Consequently, these early adults who do not have English-
speaking parents end up delaying the moving out process in order to act as a bridge for
communication barriers. Alternatively, children of immigrant parents who do speak English are
more likely to have English as a native language and less likely to provide interpretative
assistance, hence more likely to move away from their parents’ home sooner (Aquilano 1990).

Theory
Theories used in our research include cultural capital theory and family social capital theory.
Cultural capital comprises the personal skills—such as dress, linguistic facility, manners, norms,
and style of interaction—an individual gains from their social situations in life (MacLeod
2009:101). Children raised in families with higher SES gain different levels and types of cultural
capital than those raised in families of lower SES. This difference can have an effect on the type
of goals an individual sets for themselves. For example, goals regarding what to do after high
school, may be a consequence of the cultural capital pertaining to an individual’s nationality.
Immigrant families in the United States typically underscore the importance of kinship ties,
where early adults may feel obliged to “contribute financially [sic], assist family members, and
remain at home” (Settersten and Ray 2010:130).
Family social capital theory, according to Dunham and Wilson (2007), is the
accumulation of social networks that allows an individual to reap benefits associated with these
networks. These benefits permit an individual to gain other forms of capital, such as cultural and
human capital. The amount of family social capital available varies by SES, quality of parent-
child relationships, and so forth. Three forms family social capital can take are: (1) level of trust
from parent to child, (2) information channels, and (3) norms and sanctions that promote the
common good over self-interest. Dunham and Wilson (2007) adamantly assert family social
capital is in short supply and generated by relatively privileged individuals. This short supply can
go a long way for upper-class non-Hispanic Whites, yet “fails to promote the perpetuation of
socioeconomic advantage” for those in lower- and working-class families (Glick and Lin
1986:107).

HYPOTHESES
Previous research has generally failed to examine how generational status in the United
States or one’s native language affect co-residency status (Aquilino 2007; Goldscheider 1997).
We address these discrepancies in our research by asking: What family factors during high
school predict an early adult’s living arrangements in the future? In this study, we chose to
examine the effects of the family socioeconomic status, generational status, and native language
of students in the tenth grade in 2002 with their living arrangements in 2006. We predict the
following:
H1: If the parents’ socioeconomic status is in the highest quartile,
then the child is more likely to live away from home than if
the parents’ socioeconomic status is in a lower quartile.
H2: If a child and/or the child’s parent(s) were born outside of
the United States, then the child is more likely to live at home
than when a child and his or her parent(s) were both born
inside the United States.
H3: If a child’s native language is English, then the child is more
likely to live away from home than a child whose native
language is not English.
DATA AND METHODS
Data
This study is based on the findings from the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002. ELS:2002
represents a major longitudinal effort designed to provide trend data about critical transitions
experienced by students as they proceed through high school into postsecondary education or
careers (Ingels et. al. 2007:7). Datasets from the ELS:2002 were collected under the auspices of
the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). Three of the different data collection
points from the ELS:2002 are baseline data collection in the Spring of 2002, the first follow-up

in the Spring of 2004, and the second follow-up in the Spring of 2006. The measurements for the
baseline data collection included students’ achievement levels in reading and mathematics and
information on their attitudes and experiences. The data collection for the second follow-up
included information involving postsecondary educational access and choice or transition to the
labor market for cohort members who did not continue their education (Ingels et al. 2007).
Baseline data were collected on prescheduled survey days, where selected students were
administered reading and mathematics assessment tests, then asked to complete the student
survey questionnaire. Data collection in 2006 included those young people who had graduated
from high school in 2004 and those who had not. In addition to the students’ data collection
during survey days, surveys were also given to selected teachers, parents, and administrators to
fill out (Ingels et al. 2007).
Sample
For ELS:2002, the NCES used a two-stage selection process when finding a target sample
comprising of public and private schools which contained tenth-graders in the United States
(Ingels et al. 2007). This two-stage sample selection process began by contacting 1,221 eligible
schools from a population of 27,000 schools meeting the criterion. Out of those schools, 752
agreed to participate and provided tenth-grade enrollment lists. In the second stage of sample
selection, approximately 26 students per school were selected (Ingels et al. 2007). If the selected
students were not considered as representative of the target population, they were excluded from
the study. Of the 19,218 sampled students, there were 17,591 eligible tenth-graders. The 15,362
participants on the public-use file represent a weighted student response rate of 87 percent
(Ingels et al. 2007). For our research purposes, we have omitted the cases in which data

consisted of answers that were classified as “missing,” “non-respondent,” or “survey component
legitimate skip/NA” on the measures we used. This omission has left our study with 10,123
sampled students.
Measures
The dependent variable we chose to examine is living arrangements of the child in 2006. The
independent variables in our study are parents' SES, generational status, and native language
from the 2002 survey. The ELS:2002 valid response categories for living arrangements in the
Spring of 2006 are “alone,” “with parents,” “with spouse (without parents),” “with biological
child (without parents or spouse),” “with sibling (without parent, spouse, or child),” “with non-
relative roommate (without any of the above),” and “other living arrangement.” From this
variable we created one dummy variable, where “living with parents” = 1 and “all other” = 0.
The SES quartile variable was created from a composite variable computed by the NCES
that combined information on the respondents' parents' educational level, prestige of their
occupations, and family income. Respondents whose family SES was in the highest quartile of
scores on the composite variable were coded as being in the highest quartile on the SES quartile
variable. Respondents whose family SES was in the second highest quartile of scores on the
composite variable were coded as being in the second highest quartile. Respondents whose
family SES was in the second lowest quartile of scores on the composite variable were coded as
being in the second lowest quartile. Respondents whose family SES was in the lowest quartile of
scores on the composite variable were coded as being in the lowest quartile. We have created a
set of dummy variables labeled “lowest SES quartile,” “second lowest SES quartile,” “second

highest SES quartile,” and “highest SES quartile.” These are all coded “no” = 0 and “yes” = 1.
The omitted category is “highest SES quartile.”
The ELS:2002 valid categories for generational status are respondent born in Puerto Rico
or non-U.S. country; respondent born in the U.S. and mother born in Puerto Rico or non-U.S.
country; and respondent and mother both born in the U.S. We have created three dummy
variables labeled “respondent born outside the U.S.,” “only mother born outside the U.S.,” and
“both respondent and mother born inside the U.S.” These variables are all coded “no” = 0 and
“yes” = 1. The omitted category is “both respondent and mother born inside the U.S.”.
The ELS:2002 valid categories for English as respondent’s native language are “no” and
“yes.” We have kept these categories and coded them “no” = 0 and “yes” = 1.
Analytic Plan
ELS:2002 data were used to produce descriptive statistics and bivariate and multivariate models
that were estimated using binary logistic regression. As noted in the literature review, we expect
to find relationships between family social capital factors and future living arrangements of early
adults. Separate regression models for parents’ SES, generational status, and native language are
presented in the tables. In addition we ran a multivariate binary logistic regression model with all
of the independent variables together. All statistics presented here were calculated using SPSS.
RESULTS
Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics for all variables in the study. In the sample, 32 percent
of the respondents’ parents are in the highest SES quartile, 25 percent are in the second highest
SES quartile, 22 percent are in the second lowest quartile, and 20 percent are in the lowest SES

quartile. Next, 79 percent of both the mother of and the respondents were born in the United
States; 12 percent of respondents were born in the United States, but their mother was not; and 9
percent of respondents were born outside of the United States. Moreover, 85 percent of
respondents’ native language is English. Finally, 42 percent of respondents were living with their
parents in 2006, and 58 percent of respondents had different living arrangements in 2006.
Table 2 displays the bivariate results with parents’ SES quartile variables. There are
significant associations (p < .001) between the child’s living arrangements in 2006 and parents’
SES being in the lowest, second lowest, and second highest SES quartiles when compared to
parents in the highest SES quartile. For all three of these dummy variables, the direction of the
effect is positive. The results indicate there is 3.4 times the odds for children whose parents are
in the lowest SES quartile to live with their parents compared to those in the highest SES
quartile. Additionally, there are 2.7 and 1.9 times the odds for those whose parents are in the
second lowest and second highest SES quartile, respectively. This means the lower the SES
quartile, the higher the odds of living with parents, relative to those in the highest SES quartile.
Table 3 displays the bivariate results with the generational status variables. There are
significant associations (p < .001) between the child’s living arrangements in 2006 and the
respondent being foreign-born, and the respondent’s mother being foreign-born. The direction of
the effects are both positive. The results show there is 1.9 times the odds the respondent will live
with parents if the respondent is foreign-born compared to when respondents and respondents’
mothers are both born in the United States. Furthermore, there is 1.6 times the odds that the
respondent will live with parents if only their mother is foreign-born compared to when
respondents and their mother are both born in the United States. Consequently, this means the

respondent and/or his or her mother being foreign-born has a positive effect on living with
parents.
Table 4 displays the bivariate results with the native language variable. There is a
significant association (p < .001) between the child’s living arrangements in 2006 and the
respondent’s native language being English. The direction of the effect is negative. This means if
English is the respondent’s native language, the respondent is less likely to live with his or her
parents compared to those who have a different native language. Specifically, there is a less than
half the odds of living with one’s parents in 2006 if the respondent’s native language is English
compared to if the respondent’s native language is something else.
Finally, Table 5 displays the multivariate regression results for the entire sample. The
direction and significance of the independent variables are the same when run in separate models
(Tables 2 through 4) and when run with all of the independent variables together.
CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION
In this study, we used cultural capital and family social capital theories to analyze the odds
children would live with their parents in 2006. We found parents’ SES, generational status, and
students’ native language all have significant associations (p < .001) with the child’s living
arrangements in 2006 (living with parents). This furthers the claim that parents’ traits have an
effect on their children's steps into early adulthood. Focusing on the family unit rather than the
individual gives a fuller idea about the causes of staying home after high school.
The hypotheses we put forth were all supported by this research. The students belonging
to families in the highest SES quartile were more likely than the rest to live away from home in
2006. This agrees with Goldsceider's (1997) finding where the higher the SES, the more assets a

family has to contribute to the moving out process. Cultural capital associated with higher SES
families may encourage children to enter the adult world and take on certain responsibilities.
Some family members in this quartile may berate the children who stay home longer by
considering them “lazy”. Other family members from this quartile may let their children remain
at home during early adulthood in order to finish schooling (Settersten and Ray 2010). Families
in the lower SES quartile may better understand the economic hardships they would be
introducing their children to if they encouraged them to leave, especially since they have less to
offer in assistance. This cultural capital of lower SES families may make it more socially
acceptable for their children to stay at home longer as well.
The generational status of the student and their mother as foreign born or born on United
States’ soil proved to also be a significant determinant of student living arrangements after high
school. The results support our hypothesis that if the child and/or child's mother were born
outside of the United States, then they are more likely to live at home. This finding is more based
in cultural capital theory. Previously discussed research by Treas and Batalova (2011) supports
the notion that the closeness within immigrant families is a cultural norm passed down from
generation to generation. How much a family relies on this norm to keep them together differs by
the country from where they were born. Migrating to the United States could emphasize this
closeness as well.
The native language of the student is closely related to generational status but is a more
simple measure. We hypothesized if a student's native language was English, then they were
more likely to live away from home. The students who spoke a different native language than
English at home probably speak this language with other members of their family. This language
variable is part of their family social capital. The parents’ native language is the language they

used to raise their children, so the native language is passed on in this way. It is also a part of
cultural capital when you look at the generational status of the family members as noted in the
previous paragraph.
Strengths and Weaknesses
Strengths of our study include the use of the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002. This study
has a particularly large sample size that was meticulously collected to be representative of the
population we have chosen to target. Hence, the size and infographics of the sample in this study
may be generalizable to the early adult population in the United States. The ELS:2002 also
provides multiple variables relating to cultural and social capital in which we make connections
to in our study.
There are some weaknesses to this study that could easily be improved upon in future
studies. When examining the independent variable of generational status, we did not have
information on the fathers' generational status, only the mothers' and students'. If mothers and
fathers are born in two separate foreign countries, there might not be the same cultural capital
emphasis on their children remaining at home as seen when both parents are reported to be born
inside the United States. This could be an interesting outlook on how multi-generational families
share possible different cultural capital and family social capital norms that determine the living
arrangements of their early adult children. Another weakness we encountered in our study is a
lack of literature in the field regarding how English as a native language may have an effect on
the living arrangements of early adults.
A theory we could have looked into is cumulative disadvantage theory. This theory states
families “pass down” disadvantages through varying aspects of life chances. SES would

exemplify this since upward social mobility may be challenging in the United States.
Generational status combined with the SES of an immigrant family may show this cumulative
disadvantage as well.
Our study has shown how parents’ SES, generational status, and native language have a
significant effect on the living arrangements of children after high school. It is important to
understand the point where an early adult's life begins ought to not be measured solely on
personal attributes. According to this study, it is the parents’ SES, generational status, and native
language that, in part, effect when a young adult is to leave their parents’ home. There are many
ways in which young adults rely on their families for support through this transition. The cultural
capital and family social capital that is bestowed on children reaches more aspects of early
adults’ lives than one may believe. Given the results of this study, it is interesting to wonder
what other facets of life these family traits determine.

REFERENCES
Aquilino, William S. 1990. “The Likelihood of Parent-Adult Child Coresidence: Effects of
Family Structure and Parental Characteristics.” Journal of Marriage and Family 52(2):
405-419.
Dunham, Roger and George Wilson. 2007. “Race, Within-Family Social Capital, and School
Dropout: An Analysis of Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians.” Sociological Spectrum
27(2): 207-221.
Furstenberg, Frank F., Jr., Sheela Kennedy, Vonnie C. Mclyod, Rubén G. Rumbaut, and Richard
A. Settersten, Jr. 2004. “Growing Up is Harder to Do.” American Sociological
Association 3(3): 33-41.
Glick, Paul and Sung-Ling Lin. 1986. “More Young Adults are Living Their Parents: Who Are
They?” Journal of Marriage and Family 48(1): 107-112.
Goldsceider, Frances. 1997. “Recent Changes in U.S. Young Adult Living Arrangements in
Comparative Perspective.” Journal of Family Issues 18(6): 708-724.
Ingels, Steven J. et al. 2007. Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002): Base-Year to
Second Follow-up Data File Documentation. Washington, D.C.: National Center for
Education Statistics.
MacLeod, Jay. 2008. Ain’t No Makin’ It: Aspirations and Attainment in a Low-Income
Neighborhood. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Rossi, Giovanna. 1997. “The Nestlings: Why Young Adults Stay at Home Longer: The Italian
Case.” Journal of Family Issues 18(6): 627-644.

Settersten, Richard and Barbara E. Ray. 2010. Not Quite Adults: Why 20-Somethings Are
Choosing a Slower Path to Adulthood, and Why It’s Good for Everyone. New York:
Bantam.
Treas, Judith and Jeanne Batalova. 2011. “Residential Independence: Race and Ethnicity on the
Road to Adulthood in Two U.S. Immigrant Gateways.” Advances in Life Course
Research 16(1): 13-14.

TABLES
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Education Longitudinal Study of 2002
Respondents
Variables
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Parents' SES
Lowest 0.202 0.401
Second Lowest 0.221 0.415
Second Highest 0.254 0.435
Highest 0.323 0.468
Generational Status
R Born Outside U.S. 0.093 0.290
Only Mother Outside U.S. 0.118 0.323
Both Mother & R Born in U.S. 0.789 0.408
Native Language
English is R's Native Language 0.851 0.356
Living Arrangements (in 2006)
Living with Parents 0.417 0.493
n=10,123
Table 2. Bivariate Binary RegressionModel of Parents' Socioeconomic
Status (by quartile) in 2002
Coeff.
Std.
Error
Exp(B) P
SES Quartile (Highest
Quartile=Omitted)
Lowest 1.213 0.059 3.363 0.000
Second Lowest 1.003 0.058 2.727 0.000
Second Highest 0.635 0.056 1.887 0.000
n=10,123

Table 3. Bivariate Binary RegressionModel of
Generational Status
Coeff.
Std.
Error
Exp(B) P
Generational Status (Both Mother & R Born
in U.S.=Omitted
R Born Outside of U.S. 0.665 0.070 1.945 0.000
Only Mother Outside U.S. 0.484 0.062 1.623 0.000
n=10,123
Table 4. Bivariate Binary RegressionModel of Native
Language
Coeff. Std. Error Exp(B) P
English is R's Native Language -0.701 0.056 0.496 0.000
n=10,123
Table 5. Multivariate Binary RegressionModel of Children's Living
Arrangements in 2006
Coeff.
Std.
Error
Exp(B) P
SES Quartile (Highest
Quartile=Omitted)
Lowest 1.111 0.061 3.038 0.000
Second Lowest 1.003 0.058 2.726 0.000
Second Highest 0.647 0.056 1.910 0.000
Generational Status (Both Mother and R
Born
in U.S.=Omitted)
R Born Outside U.S. 0.380 0.030 1.462 0.000
Only Mother Outside U.S. 0.302 0.075 1.353 0.000
English is R's Native Language -0.261 0.092 0.770 0.000
n=10,123

SocCap - Research Article

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (18)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (11)

Similar to SocCap - Research Article

Similar to SocCap - Research Article (20)

SocCap - Research Article