Residential Mobility and Adolescent Achievement and Behavior: Understanding Timing and Extent of Mobility

Abstract

Residential mobility is generally viewed as an adverse event for adolescents' development. Less is known about whether moving during adolescence, childhood, or both periods explains this connection and whether the extent of mobility matters. Analytic shortcomings with much of the research call into question extant findings. We examined associations between childhood, adolescent, and child-adolescent mobility and adolescents' achievement (math and reading) and behavior problems (internalizing and externalizing). With a multisite, longitudinal sample (N = 1,056), we employed propensity score methods, which mitigate concerns about selection bias on observed variables, to investigate relationships. Results suggest that multiple, child-adolescent movers had more internalizing problems in adolescence than their stable peers, but did not differ on externalizing problems or achievement.

Adolescent Residential Mobility: Behavioral Outcomes and the Moderating Role of the Mother-Adolescent Relationship

“…As reviewed, prior research examining the internalizing and externalizing behavioral outcomes of adolescents had inconsistent findings. My findings are in line with previous studies examining externalizing behavior in the context of frequency of moves (Anderson & Leventhal, 2017;Adam & Chase-Lansdale, 2002). However, it is also surprising that my sample did not find any differences in internalizing behavior between mobile and stable adolescents, as prior research suggests residentially mobile adolescents experiencing greater internalizing behaviors when compared to stable adolescents (Fowler et al, 2015;Haynie & South, 2005).…”

“…Prior research suggests that residential mobility during adolescence is associated with more adverse outcomes following a move than during any other developmental period (Anderson & Leventhal, 2017;Goldberg, 1980). Prior research has examined an array of outcomes.…”

“…Data from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development (NICHD SECCYD), suggests mobile adolescents experienced significantly greater internalizing behavior when compared to stable adolescents but only marginally for externalizing behaviors (Anderson et al, 2014a). When the number of moves experienced during adolescence is considered, those who experienced multiple moves (>1 moves) display more externalizing behaviors than adolescents who did not move even when controlling for behavior prior to moving (Anderson & Leventhal, 2017). In the same study, adolescents who moved less frequently (1 move) did not display significantly more externalizing and internalizing behaviors than stable adolescents.…”

Strengthening Social Programs to Promote Economic Stability During Childhood

“…In contrast, stable maternal employment in the first 5 years of a child's life is associated with decreased externalizing behavior problems at ages 5 and 9 (Pilkauskas et al, ). Multiple residential moves during adolescence are associated with more internalizing problems but not externalizing problems or school achievement (Anderson & Leventhal, ; Dupere, Archambault, Leventhal, Dion, & Anderson, ). The associations between contextual instability and cognition, school outcomes, and health have been less studied and findings are less consistent (Bzostek & Beck, ; Gaydosh & Harris, ).…”

Neighborhood Context and Children's Development: When Do Neighborhoods Matter Most?

“…That is, associations between residential mobility and children's development may be attributable to cumulative mobility across childhood, adolescence, or both periods. In my work with colleagues, compared with children who did not move much , only children who moved four or more times in both childhood (from birth to 11 years) and adolescence (from ages 12 to 15 years) had more behavior problems in adolescence, but the two groups did not differ in achievement. Because moving only during childhood was not associated with adolescents’ behavior, the findings lend some support to both the adolescence and the cumulative exposure models, particularly the latter.…”