Page 1
Criminal epidemiology and the immigrant paradox: Intergenerational
discontinuity in violence and antisocial behavior among immigrants
Michael G. Vaughna,⁎, Christopher P. Salas-Wrightb, Brandy R. Maynarda, Zhengmin Qianc, Lauren Terzisa,
Abdi M. Kusowd, Matt DeLisid
aSchool of Social Work, College for Public Health and Social Justice, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO, United States
bSchool of Social Work, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, United States
cDepartment of Epidemiology, College for Public Health and Social Justice,Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO, United States
dDepartment of Sociology, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States
a b s t r a c t a r t i c l ei n f o
Available online xxxx
Purpose: A growing number ofstudies haveexaminedtheimmigrant paradox with respect to antisocialbehavior
andcrimeintheUnitedStates.However,thereremains aneedforacomprehensiveexamination of theintergen-
erational nature of violence and antisocial behavior among immigrants using population-based samples.
Methods: The present study, employing data from Wave I and II data of the National Epidemiologic Survey of
Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC), sought to address these gaps by examining the prevalence of nonvi-
olentcriminalandviolentantisocialbehavioramongfirst,second,andthird-generationimmigrantsandcompare
these to the prevalence found among non-immigrants and each other in the United States.
Results:Thereisclearevidenceofanintergenerationalseverity-basedgradientintherelationshipbetweenimmi-
grant status and antisocial behavior and crime. The protective effect of nativity is far-and-away strongest among
first-generation immigrants, attenuates substantially among second-generation immigrants, and essentially
disappears among third-generation immigrants. These patterns were also stable across gender.
Conclusion: The present study is among the first to examine the intergenerational nature of antisocial behavior
and crime among immigrants using population-based samples. Results provide robust evidence that nativity
as a protective factor for immigrants wanes with each successive generation.
© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction
Although there is continuity in prosocial and antisocial behaviors
across generations—one exception may occur among immigrants to
theUnitedStates.Severalrecentstudieshaveexaminedtherelationship
between immigrant status and various forms of maladaptive behaviors
includingdeviancebycontrastingtheprevalenceofnonviolentcriminal
and violent antisocial acts among native-born and first-generation
immigrants in the United States (cf., Allen & Cancino, 2012; Bersani,
Loughran, & Piquero, 2013; Chen & Zhong, 2013; DiPietro & Cwick,
2014; DiPietro & McGloin, 2012; Jennings, Zgoba, Piquero, & Reingle,
2013; MacDonald & Saunders, 2012; Peguero & Jiang, 2014; Piquero,
Bersani, Loughran, & Fagan, 2014; Vaughn, Salas-Wright, DeLisi, &
Maynard, 2014). Thus far, findings indicate that immigrants are signifi-
cantly less likely to be antisocial than native-born Americans. This is
known as the immigrant paradox, whereby first-generation immigrants
display better behavioral outcomes than native-born Americans and
morehighlyacculturatedimmigrantsdespitetherelativesocioeconom-
ic disadvantages and risk factors that immigrants face. Several con-
structs have been examined to explain the immigrant paradox
including cultural factors (Sampson, 2008; Wirth, 1931), changes to
family and peer dynamics (Bacio, Mays, & Lau, 2013), various lifestyle
and routine activities (Peguero, 2013), and school factors (Jiang &
Peterson, 2012; Peguero & Jiang, 2014; Watkins & Melde, 2009). As
such, these studies suggest that non-USA nativity serves to protect
against involvement in a wide range of antisocial behaviors across
various developmental periods and among immigrants from various
regions of the world.1
Despite the advances made by recent studies; however, several
important questions related to the dynamics of the immigrant-crime
link have yet to be fully explored. For instance, in light of evidence
highlighting the multigenerational effects of the immigrant paradox
for social development and health-risk behaviors (Bacio et al., 2013;
Bui, 2013; Guarini, Marks, Patton, & Coll, 2011; Marks, Ejesi, & García
Coll,2014),does immigrant status protectagainst crimeacrossmultiple
generations or is their stable intergenerational continuity in antisocial
behavior in population-based samples? Second, given the importance
of gender in terms of predicting criminal behavior (Bontrager, 2013;
Journal of Criminal Justice 42 (2014) 483–490
⁎ Corresponding author at: Tegeler Hall, 3550 Lindell Boulevard, St. Louis, MO 63103.
Tel.: +1 314 977 2718; fax: +1 314 977 2731.
E-mail address: mvaughn9@slu.edu (M.G. Vaughn).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2014.09.004
0047-2352/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Criminal Justice
Page 2
Kruttschnitt, 2013), does the protective effect of immigration status
function similarly among men and women?2A careful examination of
thesemultigenerational andgender-relatedfactors can servetoprovide
important information about the robustness and nature of the relation-
ship between immigrant status and crime.
Immigration and generational effects
Just as behaviors unfold from one immigrant generation to the next,
there has been related criminological interest in the ways that crime
unfolds from one generation to the next within families. Historically,
researchers have noted that antisocial behavior sharply concentrates
within families such that a relatively small number of families are
disproportionately responsible for crime and related antisocial
conditions (Boutwell & Beaver, 2010; Farrington, Jolliffe, Loeber,
Stouthamer-Loeber, & Kalb, 2001; McCord, 1991; Robins, 1966; Rowe
& Farrington, 1997). In line with these observations, more recent inves-
tigations on the intergenerational continuity in crime and antisocial
behavior indicate moderate-to-strong familial aggregation. Employing
data from the Rochester Youth Development Study, Thornberry,
Feeeman-Gallant, Lizotte, Krohn, and Smith (2003) examined intergen-
erational continuity in antisocial behavior across three generations.
Evidence was found for moderate intergenerational continuity in anti-
social behavior particularly with respect to father’s antisocial behavior.
Findings also showed that financial stress and parental warmth and
consistency in parentaldisciplinefunctioned asmediators morestrong-
ly among mothers. Other longitudinal studies relying on self-report
data, including research within a behavior genetic framework (DeLisi,
Beaver, Vaughn, & Wright, 2009) have also found evidence of inter-
generational continuity in antisocial behavior (Raudino, Fergusson,
Woodward, & Horwood, 2013). For instance, using official records
from a nationwide registry study of 12.5 million individuals residing
in Sweden, Frisell et al. (2011) found strong evidence that violent acts
aggregated within families, particularly among first-degree relatives
who were more than four times more likely to be convicted of a violent
crime compared to non-relatives. Although it is assumed that offspring
are similar to their parents with respect to behavior, this also assumes
relativelyequalenvironments.Thisisnottypicallythecasewithrespect
totheexperienceofimmigrantpopulations,thustheremightbegreater
intergenerational discontinuity in their behaviors.
Although relatively few in number, studies of multigenerational
rates of antisocial behavior among immigrants are one way to unravel
the effect that new or changing environments have on the intergenera-
tional transmission of problem behavior.3While it appears immigrants
commit less crime, evidence also suggests that the intergenerational
continuity in antisocial behavior among immigrants may be transitory.
In a study of Conduct Disorder (CD) prevalence across generations of
immigrants from Mexico to the United States, for instance, Breslau et
al., (2011) foundthat rates of CD were lowestin immigrant families rel-
ative to the general population, but higher in children of Mexican-born
parents who were raised in the U.S. Uniquely, however, the highest
prevalence of CD was observed in the third generation—that is,
Mexican-American children of U.S. born parents. Similarly, Bersani
(2014) used data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth
1997 found that first-generation immigrants displayed lower criminal
offending in adolescence and early adulthood, but second generation
immigrant youth resembled native-born White youth in their patterns
of offending and were essentially “catching up”. However, this same
study also found that differences remained whereby immigrant youth
were involved in serious offenses at still lower rates than Black or His-
panic youth. Based on data from the Pathways to Desistance Study—a
longitudinal study of serious youthful offenders—Piquero et al. (2014)
suggested that legal socialization is a significant explanation for the im-
migrant paradox. In their analyses, first-generation immigrants had
more positive views of the law/criminal justice system, had less cynical
attitudes about the legal system, and reported greater costs/negative
consequences associated with punishment compared to second-
generationimmigrantsandnative-bornyouth.Takentogether,thesere-
sults suggest that over time the protective mechanisms among newly
arrived immigrants begin to wane.
There are a number of competing explanations for the lack of inter-
generational continuityin offendingamongimmigrants (see,DiPietro&
Cwick, 2014; DiPietro & McGloin, 2012; Peguero & Jiang, 2014; Piquero
et al., 2014). Generally, it can be viewed to be a result of a parallel pro-
cess of assimilation to the host culture and distancing from the culture
of origin. In such a scenario, second and third generation immigrant
youth are becoming behaviorally and socially more like native born
youth (Bersani, 2014; Hagan, Levi, & Dinovitzer, 2008; Zimring, 2010).
More specifically, an underlying susceptibility for antisocial behavior
may become expressed as a result of unfavorable environmental expo-
sures occurring during the acculturation process.
Another simpler explanation is that first generation immigrants are
the anomaly and are so because they have a lot to lose including fear
of deportation. Thus, for first generation immigrants in a new land
there may be a greater deterrent effect operating where avoiding legal
entanglements is a high priority. The deterrent effect may be especially
concentrated and reinforced for first generation immigrants who are
more likely to live among other recent immigrants. Moreover, selection
processes suggest that immigrants are motivated to come to the U.S.
and therefore “play by the rules”. These deterrent and motivational
effects lose their force and fade for second and third generation
immigrants.
The present study
The present study sheds light on multigenerational processes of
antisocial behavior among immigrants by employing data from a
population-based longitudinal study (i.e. the National Epidemiologic
Survey of Alcohol and Related Conditions [NESARC]). The NESARC is
well-suited to address these questions given its far-reaching scope
and extensive assessment of crime and antisocial behavior among non-
immigrants and immigrants across multiple generations. One of the
shortcomings of previous research on immigration and crime is the
over-reliance on arrest records. The primary weakness of this measure-
ment approach is that most people who commit antisocial acts are not
arrested. As such, the full extent of antisocial behavior remains
unfathomed. Drawing from Waves I and II of the NESARC, we examine
the degree to which the immigrant paradox persists across multiple
generations. Specifically, we examine the prevalence of nonviolent
criminal and violent antisocial behavior among first, second, and
third-generation immigrants and compare these to the prevalence
found among non-immigrants in the United States. We also systemati-
cally examine the prevalence of violent and non-violent acts among
immigrant generations, namely by comparing third generation immi-
grants to first and second generation immigrants. We hypothesize a
severity gradient in the prevalence of these behaviors across each gen-
eration. Finally, so as to assess the stability of these relationships across
gender, we examine the multigenerational links between immigration
and antisocial behavior and crime among men and women.
Method
Participants
Study findings are based on data from Wave I (2001-2002) and
Wave II (2004-2005) of the NESARC. Here we present the design and
methods in a summarized form; however, a detailed description of the
study procedures is available elsewhere (Grant & Dawson, 1997;
Grant et al., 2004; Hasin, Stinson, Ogburn, & Grant, 2007). The NESARC
is a nationally representative sample of non-institutionalized U.S. resi-
dents aged 18 years and older. The survey gathered data from individ-
uals living in households and group settings such as shelters, college
484
M.G. Vaughn et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 42 (2014) 483–490
Page 3
dormitories, and group homes in all 50 states and theDistrict of Colum-
bia. The NESARC utilized a multistage cluster sampling design,
oversamplingyoungadults,Hispanics,andAfrican-Americanstoensure
appropriate representation of racial and ethnic subgroups and obtain
reliable statistical estimation in these subpopulations. Data were
collected through face-to-face structured psychiatric interviews con-
ductedbyU.S.CensusworkerstrainedbytheNational Instituteon Alco-
hol Abuseand Alcoholism and U.S.Census Bureau. The responseratefor
Wave I data was 81% and for Wave II was 87% with a cumulative
response rate of 70% for both waves. Although it is an epidemiological
survey, the NESARC has been utilized to study several criminological
topics including criminal victimization (Vaughn et al., 2010), alcohol
use (Hasin et al., 2007), habitual criminality (Vaughn et al., 2011),
drug abuse and dependence (Compton, Thomas, Stinson, & Grant,
2007), and fire-setting (Vaughn et al., 2010b).
Measures
Immigrant status/generation
Respondents were asked whether they, their parents, and their
grandparents were born in the United States. Respondents who report-
ed having been born outside the United States (n = 5,363; 13.86%)
were classified as first-generation immigrants. Respondents who
reported that they had been born in the United States but at least one
parent had been born outside the United States (n = 4,826; 12.82%)
were classified as second-generation immigrants. Those reporting that
they and their parents had been born in the United States, but one
or more grandparents had been born outside of the United States
(n = 4,746; 14.89%) were classified as third-generation immigrants.
Respondents who were born in the United States and reported
no foreign-born parents or grandparents were classified as non-
immigrants (n = 19,715; 58.43%).
Crime and violence
Twelvedichotomous(0=no,1=yes)measuresfromtheantisocial
personality disorder module of theAlcohol Use Disorder and Associated
Disabilities Interview Schedule – DSM-IV version (AUDADIS-IV) were
used to examine violent behavior. Data from Waves 1 and 2 were com-
bined to measure respondent self-report of having exhibited any of the
behaviors in their lifetime. Only variables measuring the nonviolent
criminal and violent antisocial behaviors with prevalence greater than
3% were included in statistical analyses. Sample items include: "In
your entire life, did you ever steal anything from someone or some
place when no one was around?” and “In your entire life, did you ever
hitsomeonesohardthatyouinjuredthemor theyhadtoseeadoctor?”
Sociodemographic controls
The following sociodemographic variables were included as con-
trols: age, gender, race/ethnicity, household income, education level,
marital status, region of the United States, urbanicity, and lifetime
mood and anxiety disorders, personality disorders, and alcohol and
drug use disorders.
Analysis
Multinomial logistic regression analyses were carried out to com-
pare nonimmigrants and immigrants of various generations with re-
spect to nonviolent criminal and violent antisocial behavior. To begin,
while controlling for an extensive list of sociodemographic and psychi-
atric confounds (i.e. lifetime clinical and personality disorders, and life-
time alcohol and drug use disorders) immigrants from all three
generations were compared with nonimmigrants. Next, in order to
systematically examine the differences across immigrant generations,
two additional sets of multinomial logistic regression analyses were
conducted with second and third-generation immigrants designated
as the reference class, respectively. Finally, in order to examine the
multigenerationalimmigrantparadoxacrossgender,stratifiedmultino-
mial logistic regression analyses were conducted comparing nonimmi-
grants and first, second, and third-generation immigrant men and
women with respect to nonviolent criminal and violent antisocial
behavior. For all statistical analyses, weighted prevalence estimates
and standard errors were computed using Stata 13.1 SE software
(StataCorp, 2013). This system implements a Taylor series linearization
to adjust standard errors of estimates for complex survey sampling
design effects including clustered data. Adjusted risk ratios (ARRs)
were considered to be statistically significant if the associated confi-
dence intervals did not cross the 1.0 threshold.
Results
Fig. 1 displays the prevalence of lifetime nonviolent criminal and
violent antisocial behavior among non-immigrants and first, second,
and third-generation immigrants. Results suggest a multigenerational
severity-based gradient between immigration and crime in which the
prevalence tends to be highest among nonimmigrants, followed by
third, second, and first-generation immigrants. This pattern is illustrat-
ed clearly with respect to driving drunk/speeding in which the highest
prevalence is reported among nonimmigrants (19.62%) and followed
closely by third-generation immigrants (19.13%). In turn, substantial
decreases in prevalence are observed among second (13.12%) and
first-generation immigrants (5.33%). In general, nonimmigrants had
the highest prevalence of most nonviolent criminal behaviors—with
the exception of shoplifting and theft—and all violent antisocial behav-
iors examined. Third-generation immigrants followed closely behind
with the largest gaps in prevalence observed for injuring someone in a
fight (nonimmigrant = 7.36%; third-generation 6.48%) and intimate
partner violence (nonimmigrant = 8.25%; third-generation = 6.94%).
Compared to third-generation immigrants, incrementally lower levels
of crime and violence were observed among second-generation immi-
grants for all behaviors examined. Finally, first-generation immigrants
had, by far, the lowest prevalence of all criminal and violent behaviors
examined in this study.
Table 1 displays the adjusted risk ratios for criminal and violent
behavior among first, second, and third-generation immigrants with
nonimmigrants as the reference class. Compared to nonimmigrants,
first-generation immigrants were between roughly 1.5 and 2 times
less likely to report involvement in nearly every criminal and violent
behavior examined in this study. Slightly smaller effects were observed
for starting a lot of fights (ARR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.60-0.88) and no
significant difference was observed for making illegal money. Contrast-
ing nonimmigrants and second-generation immigrants reveals fewer
significant associations and smaller effect sizes. The largest effects
sizes were observed for driving drunk/speeding (ARR = 0.73, 95%
CI = 0.69-0.77) with smaller effects observed for property destruction
(ARR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.75-0.91), physically hurting another person
on purpose (ARR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.80-0.94), intimate partner
violence (ARR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.82-0.97), and general participation
in illegal behavior (ARR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.87-0.97). Notably,
compared to nonimmigrants, second-generation immigrants were
significantly more likely to report having made money illegally
(ARR = 1.14, 95% CI = 1.03-1.28). Finally, contrasting nonimmigrants
with third-generation immigrants revealed only two significant inverse
associations: driving drunk/speeding (ARR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.76-0.5)
andbullying/intimidation(ARR= 0.92,95%CI= 0.85-0.99).Compared
to nonimmigrants, third-generation immigrants were found to be sig-
nificantly more likely to shoplift (ARR = 1.10, 95% CI = 1.04-1.17).
Table 2 displays the associations in contrasting the prevalence of
criminal and violent behavior of first and second-generation immi-
grantswiththatofthird-generationimmigrants.Similartothecontrasts
with nonimmigrants, compared to third-generation immigrants, first-
generationimmigrantswerebetweenroughly1.5and2timeslesslikely
to report involvement in most criminal and violent behaviors examined
485
M.G. Vaughn et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 42 (2014) 483–490
Page 4
in this study. Slightly smaller effects were observed for bullying/
intimidation (ARR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.66-0.87) and starting a lot of
fights (ARR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.61-1.00) and, as observed above in
contrast to nonimmigrants, no significant differences were observed
formakingillegalmoney.Supplementalanalyses(notreported)alsore-
vealed significant differences of a slightly smaller magnitude (ARR
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Non-Immigrant (n = 19,715; 58.43%)
2nd Genera?on (n = 4,826; 12.82%)
1st Genera?on (n = 5,363; 13.86%)
3rd Genera?on (n = 4,746; 14.89%)
Fig. 1. Prevalence of antisocial behavior among non-immigrants and first, second, and third generation immigrants to the United States.
Table 1
Nonviolent Criminal and Violent Antisocial Behavior among First, Second, and Third-Generation Immigrants Compared with Non-Immigrants in the United States
First-Generation
Immigrants
(n = 5,363; 13.86%)
Second-Generation
Immigrants
(n = 4,826; 12.82%)
Third-Generation
Immigrants
(n = 4746; 14.89%)
ARR95% CI ARR95% CI ARR95% CI
Nonviolent Criminal Behavior
Do things that could have easily hurt you or someone else – like
speeding or driving after having too much to drink?
Shoplift?
Steal anything from someone or someplace when no one was around?
Destroy, break, or vandalize someone else's property?
Made money illegally like selling stolen property or selling drugs?
Do anything that you could have been arrested for, regardless of
whether or not you were caught?
0.47 (0.42-0.52)0.73 (0.69-0.77)0.81 (0.76-0.85)
0.46
0.60
0.61
1.04
0.42
(0.41-0.51)
(0.54-0.65)
(0.46-0.81)
(0.72-1.49)
(0.38-0.47)
0.97
0.96
0.83
1.14
0.92
(0.90-1.03)
(0.90-1.03)
(0.75-0.91)
(1.03-1.28)
(0.87-0.97)
1.10
1.05
1.06
1.06
0.98
(1.04-1.17)
(0.99-1.12)
(0.99-1.14)
(0.94-1.20)
(0.93-1.04)
Violent Antisocial Behavior
Bullied or pushed people around or tried to make them afraid of you?
Get into a lot of fights that you started?
Hit someone so hard that you injure them or they had to see a doctor?
Get into a fight that came to swapping blows with someone like a
husband, wife, girlfriend or boyfriend?
Use a weapon like a stick, knife, or gun in a fight?
Physically hurt another person in any way on purpose?
0.63
0.73
0.52
0.43
(0.56-0.71)
(0.60-0.88)
(0.46-0.60)
(0.39-0.47)
0.93
0.87
0.95
0.89
(0.86-1.00)
(0.75-1.01)
(0.86-1.04)
(0.82-0.97)
0.92
1.09
1.03
1.01
(0.85-0.99)
(0.97-1.23)
(0.93-1.13)
(0.92-1.11)
0.48
0.63
(0.38-0.61)
(0.54-0.73)
0.92
0.87
(0.81-1.04)
(0.80-0.94)
1.03
1.02
(0.89-1.21)
(0.93-1.12)
Note: Reference = Non-immigrants (n = 19,715; 58.43%). Risk ratios adjusted for age, gender, race/ethnicity, household income, education level, marital status, region of the United
States, urbanicity, and clinical, personality disorders, and alcohol and drug use disorders.
Risk ratios and confidence intervals in bold are significant at p b .05 or lower.
486
M.G. Vaughn et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 42 (2014) 483–490
Page 5
range = 0.49-0.75) between first and second-generation immigrants
for all of variables except property destruction, making illegal money,
and starting a lot of fights. Compared to third-generation immigrants,
second-generation immigrants were significantly less likely to report
involvement in most nonviolent criminal behaviors, but effects were
relatively attenuated (ARR range = 0.79-0.90). Compared to third-
generation immigrants, the only significant difference with respect to
violent antisocial behavior was for starting a lot of fights (ARR = 0.83,
95% CI = 0.72-0.97).
Fig. 2 displays the differences in prevalence of criminal and violent
behavior among male and female first, second, and third-generation
immigrants and nonimmigrants to the United States. Overall, a pattern
Table 2
Nonviolent Criminal and Violent Antisocial Behavior among First and Second-Generation Immigrants Compared with Third-Generation Immigrants in the United States
First-Generation Immigrants
(n = 5,363; 13.86%)
Second-Generation Immigrants
(n = 4,826; 12.82%)
ARR95% CI ARR95% CI
Nonviolent Criminal Behavior
Do things that could have easily hurt you or someone else – like
speeding or driving after having too much to drink?
Shoplift?
Steal anything from someone or someplace when no one was around?
Destroy, break, or vandalize someone else's property?
Made money illegally like selling stolen property or selling drugs?
Do anything that you could have been arrested for, regardless of whether
or not you were caught?
0.61 (0.55-0.68) 0.90(0.84-0.96)
0.48
0.58
0.67
1.11
0.49
(0.42-0.55)
(0.53-0.64)
(0.46-0.96)
(0.74-1.65)
(0.42-0.56)
0.87
0.91
0.79
1.10
0.95
(0.81-0.94)
(0.84-0.99)
(0.70-0.90)
(0.94-1.28)
(0.88-1.02)
Violent Antisocial Behavior
Bullied or pushed people around or tried to make them afraid of you?
Get into a lot of fights that you started?
Hit someone so hard that you injure them or they had to see a doctor?
Get into a fight that came to swapping blows with someone like a
husband, wife, girlfriend or boyfriend?
Use a weapon like a stick, knife, or gun in a fight?
Physically hurt another person in any way on purpose?
0.76
0.78
0.59
0.45
(0.66-0.87)
(0.61-1.00)
(0.50-0.69)
(0.40-0.52)
1.03
0.83
0.99
0.92
(0.96-1.12)
(0.72-0.97)
(0.90-1.09)
(0.83-1.01)
0.60
0.68
(0.46-0.77)
(0.57-0.82)
0.96
0.91
(0.82-1.12)
(0.82-1.01)
Note: Reference = Third-generation immigrants (n = 4746; 14.89%). Risk ratios adjusted for age, gender, race/ethnicity,household income, education level, marital status, region of the
United States, urbanicity, and clinical, personality, and alcohol and drug use disorders.
Risk ratios and confidence intervals in bold are significant at p b .05 or lower.
16.39
7.21
12.46
6.56
36.94
17.31
23.34a
11.71a
45.93a
23.84
26.77b
13.09b
44.15a
23.98
28.90ab
15.91ab
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Nonviolent Criminal Behavior (Male)Nonviolent Criminal Behavior
(Female)
Violent An?social Behavior
(Male)
Violent An?social Behavior (Female)
1st Genera?on Immigrant2nd Genera?on Immigrant3rd Genera?on ImmigrantNon-Immigrant
Fig. 2. Prevalence of nonviolent criminal and violent antisocial behavior among male and female first, second, and third generation immigrants and non-immigrants in the United States.
Note: Percentages that do not share a superscript are statistically different (p b 0.05) when controlling for age, race/ethnicity, household income, education level, marital status, region of
the United States, urbanicity, and anxiety and mood disorders, personality disorders, and alcohol and drug use disorders.
487
M.G. Vaughn et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 42 (2014) 483–490
Page 6
of differences is similar to that of the non-stratified sample is observed
across gender. With the exception of nonviolent crime among women,
controlling for the same list of sociodemographic and psychiatric
confounds used above, no significant differences in prevalence were
observed for nonviolent criminal or violent antisocial behavior. Across
the board, significant differences in the prevalence in nonviolent crimi-
nal and violent antisocial behavior are observed between first, second,
and third-generation immigrant men and women. For instance, with
respect to nonviolent criminal behavior among men, by far the lowest
prevalence is observed among first-generation immigrants (16.39%)
followed by second-generation immigrants (36.94%). Controlling for
social demographic and psychiatric confounds, significant differences
are observed between second and third-generation immigrants, but
no difference is observed between third-generation immigrants
(45.93%) and nonimmigrants (44.15%). Notably, among both men and
women, the observed generational decreases in the prevalence of non-
violent criminal behavior are more pronounced than the decreases in
prevalence of violent antisocial behavior.
Discussion
The findings from the present study provide clear evidence of an
intergenerational severity-based gradient in the relationship between
immigrant status, antisocial behavior, and crime. That is, the protective
effect of nativity is far-and-away strongest among first-generation
immigrants, attenuates substantially among second-generation immi-
grants, and essentially disappears among third-generation immigrants.
Moreover, a clear distinction can not only be observed between nonim-
migrants and first-generation immigrants, but also substantial differ-
ences were observed in comparing first-generation immigrants with
both second and third-generation immigrants with respect to their
involvement in nonviolent criminal and violent antisocial behavior.
These findings contrast with classic and contemporary notions of anti-
social behavior and crime concentrating within families (Beaver,
2013; DeLisi et al., 2009; Robins, 1966; Rowe & Farrington, 1997;
Thornberry, 2005; Thornberry et al., 2003) where there is copious
continuity. The current findings are consistent with other studies on
immigrant generational effects and antisocial behavior (e.g., Bersani
et al., 2013; Jennings et al., 2013; MacDonald & Saunders, 2012;
Piquero et al., 2014).
Examining the intergenerational links between immigrant status
and crime across gender revealed that the behavioral patterns of both
men and women follow the same general pattern observed in the
general population. Overall, building upon prior research examining
the links between immigration status and criminal behavior as well as
evidence suggesting multigenerational effects for other health-risk
behaviors (Bersani, 2014; Breslau et al., 2011; Chen & Zhong, 2013),
findings lend support to intergenerational discontinuity perspective of
antisocial behavior and crime among immigrants.
Study findings possess broadimplicationsfor research andpolicyon
immigrationgenerallyandcrimespecifically.Althoughthereareseveral
plausibleexplanationsastowhyimmigrantshavealowerprevalenceof
antisocial behavior and crime than native-born Americans, the reasons
are unresolved. Recent studies have foundthat increased neighborhood
concentration of immigrants is associated with large reductions in the
rates of serious crime (MacDonald, Hipp, & Gill, 2013; Wadsworth,
2010). Demonstrating the diminution of this effect across generations
suggests that policies geared toward reducing crime via increased
immigration could reduce crime, but results would be fleeting unless
steady supplies of first generation immigrants were on hand. Further,
Vaughn et al. (2014) found that among first generation immigrants,
each additional year an immigrant spends in the U.S. is associated
with a 1.9% and 0.9% increase in non-violent and violent crime, respec-
tively. Thus, without an ever increasing flow of immigrants, immigra-
tion as an antidote to crime could be a short-term fix, but not a long-
term solution.
There is evidence that the immigrant paradox is also found among
offender populations. Whereas native-born American offenders tend
to have low socioeconomic status and frequent, often chronic, periods
of unemployment (Bichler, Orosco, & Schwartz, 2012; Caudy, Durso, &
Taxman, 2013; Defoe, Farrington, & Loeber, 2013), immigrant offenders
not only are usually employed, but also often hold multiple jobs. In our
practitioner experience (DeLisi, 2005), a sense of entitlement was often
found among white, black, and Hispanic offenders who were native-
born,andan outcome of this entitlementwasunemploymentand spot-
ty work histories. Conversely, Mexican National arrestees seemed to
lack such entitlement and viewed employment as an opportunity, not
something to be avoided. These basic attitudinal differences could
partially explain the immigrant paradox.
Overall, future research should attempt to test some of the explana-
tory mechanisms involved in the intergenerational discontinuity in
antisocial behavior found among immigrants. These mechanisms
might include deterrent effects and environmental pathogens encoun-
tered during the acculturation process. Little research has accrued on
these topics. While first generation immigrants are motivated to come
to America, they are also in a new land with potentially a lot to lose if
they engage in antisocial behavior.4These conditions do not apply
tosecondandthirdgenerations.5Withinthiscontext,deterrencetheory
might be a promising avenue for research. Assessing the perceptions
of the certainty of apprehension and severity of punishment outcomes
among immigrants at multiple points in time may shed light on
the value of a deterrence framework (Nagin & Pogarsky, 2003;
Paternoster, 1987). Another set of processes that could parallel deter-
rent effects are pathogenic exposures that can occur over time among
firstgenerationimmigrantsbutespeciallysecondandthirdgenerations.
Second and third generation immigrants, for example, are more likely
than first generation immigrants to be exposed to native-born patho-
gens such as delinquent peers (DiPietro & McGloin, 2012; Wirth,
1931). However, these exposures and the underlying susceptibility to
antisocial behavior are not likely uniform. In other words, acculturation
and assimilation are heterotypic phenomenon where variability in
individual-level factors and environmental factors co-mingle. This
approachisentirelyconsistentwithcontemporarytheoriesofantisocial
behavior that integrate individual susceptibility and social context
(DeLisi & Vaughn, 2014).
Although thepresent study has manyassets such asthe multigener-
ational assessment of antisocial behavior using a generalizable
population-based data source, findings should be interpreted within
the context of several limitations. First, the data are less than ideal
with respect to temporal ordering of study variables. Although we
havefollow-updata,theNESARCisnotatruelongitudinalinvestigation.
We are not able to predict in any causally deliberate way what factors
lead to antisocial behavior among second and third generation immi-
grants. Another limitation is that we rely on retrospective recall of anti-
social behavior and crime and the prospect of under-reporting is
realistic. However, this would also apply to native-born study partici-
pants as well. In order to overcome these study limitations prospective
life-course designs are needed that can better elucidate the etiology of
antisocial behavior of immigrants across generations. Although the
NESARC is a nationally representative sample, correctional or clinical
samples were not sampled and this could serve to bias study findings
to some degree. Another limitation is the lack of contextual data such
as variables on neighborhood conditions which could be used to more
fully understand the differences identified in the study. Future investi-
gations on immigrants and crime will benefit from surmounting these
limitations.
Conclusion
While previous research has examined the links between immigra-
tion and crime and antisocial behavior, the present study is among the
first to do so across multiple generations employing a nationally
488
M.G. Vaughn et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 42 (2014) 483–490
Page 7
representative sample of adults in the United States. Results provide ro-
bust evidence in support of intergenerational discontinuity in antisocial
behavior among immigrants. By the third generation, the prevalence of
non-violent and violent acts is substantially greater than that of first-
generation immigrants and closely resembles that of non-immigrants.
We also found that the pattern of findings was stable across gender.
Findings from this study suggest that the benefits of reduced antisocial
behavior and crime among immigrants do not hold across generations
and that the familial concentration of crime can either be disrupted by
migration to a new nation or, on the flip side, ignited by acculturation.
However, further research is necessary to disentangle the mechanisms
involved with these effects.
Notes
1The concept of segmented assimilation is useful for understanding how immigrants
adapt to American social structure and culture, and the social mobility that they experi-
ence.Whereassomeimmigrantsdemonstrate upwardmobility,othersdonotandinstead
go “straight in the opposite direction to permanent poverty and assimilation into the un-
derclass” (Portes & Zhou, 1993, p. 82; also see, Zhou, 1997). A consequence of entry into
the underclass is increased risk for antisocial behavior.
2For instance, DiPietro and Cwick (2014) examined gender differences between gen-
erational status and violent delinquency utilizing data from the Project on Human Devel-
opment in Chicago Neighborhoods Study. They found that generational mechanisms for
crime worked differentlyfor boysand girls. Forexample, familyprocessesreduced the re-
lationship between generational status and violence for girls, but not for boys.
3Interestingly,theimmigrantparadoxhas alsobeenfoundamongrefugees.Usingthe
National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC), Salas-
Wright and Vaughn (2014) recently advanced the refugee paradox. Comparing 428 refu-
gees, 4,955 non-refugee immigrants, and 29,267 native-born Americans, they found that
refugees were between three to six times less likely than native-born Americans to meet
criteria for all substance use disorders. Refugees were also significantly less likely than
non-refugee immigrants to meet criteria for alcohol, cocaine, hallucinogen, and opioid/
heroin disorders.
4Forexample,Kirk, Papachristos,Fagan,andTyler(2012,p.81) observed that“Immi-
grants are generally a self-selected group whose motivations for relocation to the United
States suggest that their social and political values are compatible with the moral under-
pinnings of American laws.”
5More than 80 years ago in an early article on the subject, Wirth (1931) described
processes by which immigrants remain prosocial but their children become antisocial.
Wirth (1931, p. 487), “The immigrant child, especially if born in America, does not have
the life-long and exclusive attachments to the folkways and mores of the Old World…
the circumstances that the child soon becomes incorporated into a neighborhood—and
play—and a school—group, frequently into a gang, where he establishes primary relations
with other foreign and native children.”
References
Allen, J., & Cancino, J. M. (2012). Social disorganization, Latinos and juvenile crime in the
Texas borderlands. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(2), 152–163.
Bacio, G. A., Mays, V. M., & Lau, A. S. (2013). Drinking initiation and problematic drinking
among Latino adolescents: Explanations of the immigrant paradox. Psychology of
Addictive Behaviors, 27(1), 14.
Beaver, K. M. (2013). The familial concentration and transmission of crime. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 40, 139–155.
Bersani, B. E. (2014). A game of catch-up? The offending experience of second generation
immigrants. Crime & Delinquency, 69, 60–84.
Bersani, B. E., Loughran, T. A., & Piquero, A.R. (2013). Comparing patterns and predic-
tors of immigrant offending among a sample of adjudicated youth. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-0045-z (Advance
online publication).
Bichler, G., Orosco, C. A., & Schwartz, J. A. (2012). Take the car keys away: Metropolitan
structure and the long road to delinquency. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(1), 83–93.
Bontrager,R. S.(2013).Genderassocial threat: A study ofoffendersex, situational factors,
gender dynamics and social control. Journal of Criminal Justice, 41(6), 426–437.
Boutwell, B. B., & Beaver, K. M. (2010). The intergenerational transmission of low self-
control. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 47(2), 174–209.
Breslau, J., Borges, G., Saito, N., Tancredi, D. J., Benjet, C., Hinton, L., et al. (2011). Migration
from Mexico to the United States and conduct disorder: a cross-national study.
Archives of General Psychiatry, 68, 1284–1293.
Bui,H.N.(2013).Racial and ethnicdifferences intheimmigrant paradox insubstanceuse.
Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 15(5), 866–881.
Caudy, M. S., Durso, J. M., & Taxman, F. S. (2013). How well do dynamic needs predict
recidivism? Implications for risk assessment and risk reduction. Journal of Criminal
Justice, 41(6), 458–466.
Chen, X., & Zhong, H. (2013). Delinquency and crime among immigrant youth: An
integrative review of theoretical explanations. Laws, 2(3), 210–232.
Compton, W. M., Thomas, Y. F., Stinson, F. S., & Grant, B. F. (2007). Prevalence, correlates,
disability, and comorbidity of DSM-IV drug abuse and dependence in the United
States: Results from the national epidemiologic survey on alcohol and related condi-
tions. Archives of General Psychiatry, 64(5), 566–576.
Defoe, I. N., Farrington, D. P., & Loeber, R. (2013). Disentangling the relationship between
delinquency and hyperactivity,low achievement, depression,and low socioeconomic
status: Analysis of repeated longitudinal data. Journal of Criminal Justice, 41(2),
100–107.
DeLisi, M. (2005). Career criminals in society. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
DeLisi, M., Beaver, K. M., Vaughn, M. G., & Wright, J. P. (2009). All in the family: Gene x
environment interaction between DRD2 and criminal father is associated with five
antisocial phenotypes. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 1187–1197.
DeLisi, M., & Vaughn, M. G. (2014). Foundations of a temperament-based theory of life-
course antisocial behavior and criminal justice system involvement. Journal of
Criminal Justice, 42, 10–25.
DiPietro, S. M., & Cwick, J. (2014). Gender, family functioning, and violence across immi-
grant generations. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1177/0022427814529976 (advanced online publication).
DiPietro, S. M., & McGloin, J. (2012). Differential susceptibility?Immigrant youth and peer
influence. Criminology, 50(3), 711–742.
Farrington, D. P., Jolliffe, D., Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., & Kalb, L. M. (2001). The
concentration of offenders in families, and family criminality in the prediction of
boys' delinquency. Journal of Adolescence, 24(5), 579–596.
Frisell, T., Lichtenstein, P., & Langstrom, N. (2011). Violent crime runs in families: a total
population study of 12.5 million individuals. Psychological Medicine, 41, 97–105.
Grant, B. F., & Dawson, D. A. (1997). Age at onset of alcohol use and its association with
DSM-IV alcohol abuse and dependence: Results from the National Longitudinal
Alcohol Epidemiologic Survey. Journal of Substance Abuse, 9, 103–110.
Grant, B. F., Dawson, D. A., Stinson, F. S., Chou, S. P., Dufour, M. C., & Pickering, R. P. (2004).
The 12-month prevalence and trends in DSM-IV alcohol abuse and dependence:
United States, 1991–1992 and 2001–2002. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 74(3),
223–234.
Guarini, T. E., Marks, A. K., Patton, F., & Coll, C. G. (2011). The immigrant paradox in sexual
risk behavior among Latino adolescents: Impact of immigrant generation and gender.
Applied Developmental Science, 15(4), 201–209.
Hagan, J., Levi, R., & Dinovitzer, R. (2008). The symbolic violence of the crime immigration
nexus: Migrant mythologiesin the Americas. Criminology and Public Policy, 7, 95–112.
Hasin, D. S., Stinson, F. S., Ogburn, E., & Grant, B. F. (2007). Prevalence, correlates, disabil-
ity, and comorbidity of DSM-IV alcohol abuse and dependence in the United States:
Results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions.
Archives of General Psychiatry, 64(7), 830–842.
Jennings, W. G., Zgoba, K. M., Piquero, A.R., & Reingle, J. M. (2013). Offending trajectories
among native‐born and foreign‐born Hispanics to late middle age. Sociological
Inquiry, 83(4), 622–647.
Jiang, X., & Peterson, R. D. (2012). Beyond participation: The association between school
extracurricular activities and involvement in violence across generations of immigra-
tion. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41(3), 362–378.
Kirk, D. S., Papachristos, A. V., Fagan, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2012). The paradox of law enforce-
ment in immigrant communities: Does tough immigration enforcement undermine
public safety? The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,
641(1), 79–98.
Kruttschnitt, C. (2013). Gender and crime. Annual Review of Sociology, 39(1), 291–309.
MacDonald, J. M., Hipp, J. R., & Gill, C. (2013). The effects of immigrant concentration on
changes inneighborhoodcrime rates. JournalofQuantitative Criminology, 29, 191–215.
MacDonald, J., & Saunders, J. (2012). Are immigrant youth less violent? Specifying the
reasons and mechanisms. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, 641(1), 125–147.
Marks, A. K., Ejesi, K., & García Coll, C. (2014). Understanding the US immigrant paradox
in childhood and adolescence. Child Development Perspectives, 8(2), 59–64.
McCord, J. (1991). The cycle of crime and socialization practices. Journal of Criminal Law
and Criminology, 211–228.
Nagin, D. S., & Pogarsky,G. (2003). Anexperimentalinvestigation of deterrence:Cheating,
self-serving bias, and impulsivity. Criminology, 41, 167–193.
Paternoster, R. (1987). The deterrent effect of the perceived certainty and severity of
punishment: A review of the evidence and issues. Justice Quarterly, 4, 173–217.
Peguero, A. A. (2013). An adolescent victimization immigrant paradox? School-based
routines, lifestyles, and victimization across immigration generations. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 42(11), 1759–1773.
Peguero, A.A., & Jiang, X.(2014). Social Control across immigrant generations: Adolescent
violence at school and examining the immigrant paradox. Journal of Criminal Justice,
42(3), 276–287.
Piquero, A.R., Bersani, B. E., Loughran, T. A., & Fagan, J. (2014). Longitudinal patterns of
legal socialization in first-generation, second-generation, immigrants, and native-
born serious youthful offenders. Crime & Delinquency. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0011128714545830
Portes, A., & Zhou, M. (1993). The new secondgeneration: Segmented assimilation andits
variants. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 530(1),
74–96.
Raudino, A., Fergusson, D.M., Woodward, L. J., & Horwood, L. J. (2013). The intergeneration-
al transmission of conduct problems. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology,
48(3), 465–476.
Robins, L. N. (1966). Deviant children grown up. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins.
Rowe, D. C., & Farrington, D. P. (1997). The familial transmission of criminal convictions.
Criminology, 35, 177–201.
Salas-Wright, C. P., & Vaughn, M. G. (2014). A “refugee paradox” for substance use
disorders? Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 142, 345–349.
489
M.G. Vaughn et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 42 (2014) 483–490
Page 8
Sampson, R. J. (2008). Rethinking crime and immigration. Contexts, 7(1), 28–33.
StataCorp. (2013). Stata Statistical Software: Release 13. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP.
Thornberry, T. P. (2005). Explaining multiple patterns of offending across the life course
and across generations. Annuals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Sciences, 602, 156–195.
Thornberry,T.,Feeeman-Gallant, A., Lizotte,A., Krohn,M., & Smith,C.(2003). Linkedlives:
The intergenerational transmission of antisocial behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 31, 171–184.
Vaughn, M. G., DeLisi, M., Gunter, T., Fu, Q., Beaver, K. M., Perron, B. E., et al. (2011). The
severe 5%: A latent class analysis of the externalizing behavior spectrum in the
United States. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(1), 75–80.
Vaughn, M. G., Fu, Q., DeLisi, M., Beaver, K. M., Perron, B. E., & Howard, M.O. (2010a).
Criminal victimization and comorbid substance use and psychiatric disorders in the
United States: Results from the NESARC. Annals of Epidemiology, 20(4), 281–288.
Vaughn, M. G., Fu, Q., DeLisi, M., Wright, J. P., Beaver, K. M., Perron, B. E., et al. (2010b).
Prevalence and correlates of fire-setting in the United States: Results from the Na-
tional Epidemiological Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Comprehensive
Psychiatry, 51(3), 217–223.
Vaughn, M. G., Salas-Wright, C. P., DeLisi, M., & Maynard, B. R. (2014). The immigrant
paradox: Immigrants are less antisocial than native-born Americans. Social
Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 49, 1129–1137.
Wadsworth, T. (2010). Is immigration responsible for the crime drop? An assessment of
the influence of immigration on crime between 1990 and 2000. Social Science
Quarterly, 91, 531–553.
Watkins, A.M., & Melde, C. (2009). Immigrants, assimilation, and perceived school disorder:
An examination of the “other” ethnicities. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(6), 627–635.
Wirth, L. (1931). Culture conflict and delinquency I. Culture conflict and misconduct.
Social Forces, 9, 484–492.
Zhou, M. (1997). Segmented assimilation: Issues, controversies, and recent research on
the new second generation. International Migration Review, 31, 975–1008.
Zimring, F. E. (2010). Delinquency, opportunity, and the second generation immigrant
puzzle. Contemporary issues in criminal justice policy: Policy proposals from the
American Society of Criminology Conference (pp. 247–249). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Cengage Learning.
490
M.G. Vaughn et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 42 (2014) 483–490
Download full-text 
