Segmented Assimilation Theory: A Reformulation and Empirical Test*

Segmented assimilation theory has been a popular explanation for the diverse experiences of assimilation among new waves of immigrants and their children. In this paper, we review the theory as it is currently articulated in the literature and propose a more restricted reformulation of the theory that yields sharp, empirically falsifiable hypotheses. Our reformulation is based on the idea that segmented assimilation theory is really about the differential outcomes of micro-level assimilation behaviors, depending on macro-level social conditions. We then test the empirical implications of the revised theory with respect to the well-being of immigrant children, using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health. Our empirical analyses yield two main findings. First, for immigrant adolescents living in nonpoverty neighborhoods, we find assimilation to be positively associated with educational achievement and psychological well-being but also positively associated with at-risk behavior. Second, there is little empirical evidence supporting our reformulation of segmented assimilation. We interpret these results to mean that future research would be more fruitful focusing on differential processes of assimilation rather than differential consequences of assimilation. In the past decade, there has been considerable debate in the sociological literature concerning the wellbeing of immigrant children (Hernadez 1999; Hirschman, Kasinitz, and DeWind 1999; Gans 1992; Harris 1999; Harris, Harker, and Guo 2003; Jasso and Rosenzweiz 1990; Perlmann and Waldinger 1997; Portes and Rumbaut 1996, 2001; Zhou and Bankston 1998). While some scholars argue that new immigrant children of Latin American and Asian descent face unique challenges and difficulties that set them qualitatively apart from earlier generations of European immigrants, other scholars are more optimistic about the new immigrants’ prospect of gradual assimilation into the American mainstream. One prominent theory that has emerged from the debate is segmented assimilation theory, originally proposed by Portes and Zhou (1993). Segmented assimilation theory is based on the recognition that American society is now extremely diverse and segmented, with an underclass residing in central cities where many new immigrant families first settle upon arrival. Thus, it is argued that different groups are available to which the new immigrants may assimilate, and that as a result they may take divergent assimilation paths. These paths include conventional upward, or “straight-line,” assimilation, downward assimilation, and “selective acculturation.” Portes and Rumbaut (1996, 2001) base their celebrated study of immigrant children in Miami and San Diego on this theoretical framework, although they do not explicitly test the theory. Despite its potential to replace the old assimilation paradigm in sociological studies of immigrants, segmented immigration theory, as it has been understood in the existing literature, is actually a broad theoretical perspective subject to diverse interpretations. This explains in part why the theory has often been invoked, but not explicitly tested, in past empirical work. In this paper, we review the theory as it is currently articulated in the literature and propose a more restricted reformulation of the theory that yields sharp, empirically falsifiable hypotheses. We then test the empirical implications of the revised theory with respect to the well-being of immigrant children, using data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health.