This article was downloaded by:[The University of Iowa]On: 12 March 2008Access Details: [subscription number 785026722]Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Political CommunicationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713774515

"Geo-Ethnicity" and Neighborhood Engagement: ACommunication Infrastructure PerspectiveYong-Chan Kim a; Joo-Young Jung b; Sandra J. Ball-Rokeach ca Department of Telecommunication and Film, College of Communication andInformation Services, University of Alabama, USAb Graduate School of Interdisciplinary Information Studies, University of Tokyo,c Annenberg School for Communication, University of Southern California, USA

Online Publication Date: 01 December 2006To cite this Article: Kim, Yong-Chan, Jung, Joo-Young and Ball-Rokeach, Sandra J.(2006) '"Geo-Ethnicity" and Neighborhood Engagement: A CommunicationInfrastructure Perspective', Political Communication, 23:4, 421 - 441To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/10584600600976997

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10584600600976997

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will becomplete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should beindependently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with orarising out of the use of this material.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[The

Uni

vers

ity o

f Iow

a] A

t: 19

:54

12 M

arch

200

8

Political Communication, 23:421–441, 2006Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1058-4609 print / 1091-7675 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10584600600976997

421

UPCP1058-46091091-7675Political Communication, Vol. 23, No. 4, September 2006: pp. 1–43Political Communication

“Geo-Ethnicity” and Neighborhood Engagement: A Communication Infrastructure Perspective

Geo-EthnicityYong-Chan Kim et al. YONG-CHAN KIM, JOO-YOUNG JUNG, and SANDRA J. BALL-ROKEACH

This article introduces the concept of “geo-ethnicity”—ethnically articulated attitudesand behaviors grounded in a specific temporal and spatial situation. Based upon sur-vey data gathered in seven “geo-ethnic” communities, we demonstrate a unique effectof geo-ethnicity on individuals’ neighborhood engagement. We analyze two types ofcross-sectional comparisons: a comparison of different ethnic groups in the same LosAngeles area and comparisons of the same ethnic group across different locations inLos Angeles County. To highlight the unique effect of geo-ethnicity, socioeconomic sta-tus, immigration history, residential tenure, and home ownership are held constant forall analyses. The implications of the results are discussed from a communication infra-structure perspective.

Keywords neighborhood engagement, geo-ethnicity, local community, communica-tion, infrastructure theory, Los Angeles

The relationship between ethnicity and civic engagement has been an important topic forthe last several decades in the United States, especially in light of the Black civil rightsmovements during the 1960s and new waves of immigrants since the 1965 abolishment ofthe national origin quota system (Gerson, 1976). Researchers from different fields havefound significant ethnic differences in how people engage in their local communities(Antunes & Gaitz, 1975; Clemente & Sauer, 1975; Cohen & Kapsis, 1978; Danigelis,1978; Edwards & Klobus, 1976; Ellison & London, 1992; Greeley, 1974; Kuo, 1977;London, 1975; London & Hearn, 1977; McPherson, 1977; Stoll, 2001; Williams, Babchuk, &Johnson, 1973). Various social, psychological, political, economic, cultural, and historicalexplanations have been offered by researchers to interpret the effects of ethnicity onneighborhood engagement. However, doing research on this issue has become more andmore complicated due to various macro-level social changes, such as the increasing num-ber of “new” immigrants, especially from Pacific Rim and NAFTA countries, and theintroduction of new communication technologies that afford ready communicationbetween diasporas and their countries of origin.

Yong-Chan Kim is Assistant Professor in the Department of Telecommunication and Film,College of Communication and Information Services, at the University of Alabama. Joo-YoungJung is Visiting Research Professor at the Graduate School of Interdisciplinary Information Studiesat the University of Tokyo. Sandra J. Ball-Rokeach is Professor of Communication in the Annen-berg School for Communication at the University of Southern California.

Address correspondence to Yong-Chan Kim, Department of Telecommunication and Film,College of Communication and Information Sciences, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL34587, USA. E-mail: ykim@ua.edu

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[The

Uni

vers

ity o

f Iow

a] A

t: 19

:54

12 M

arch

200

8

422 Yong-Chan Kim et al.

Social theorists (e.g., Castells, 1996; Giddens, 1991, 1999; Thompson, 1995) haveilluminated new relationships among place, time, and identity in contemporary socialenvironments. In contrast to earlier days when most people living in the same geographiclocale (space) had a shared history (time) and identity (especially, shared beliefs and eth-nicity), the relationships among these components in today’s everyday life have becomemore complex and dynamic (Appadurai, 1990). This is especially the case in most metro-politan or mega cities around the world, including many U.S. cities (e.g., Los Angeles,New York, Chicago, Seattle, and Miami) where population dynamics have changed dra-matically due, in large part, to the in-migration of diverse immigrant groups (Myers,1999). These macro-level changes have transformed both (a) what it means to live with anethnic identity and (b) what it means to engage in local community. In this article, we jointhese two issues to examine what it means to engage in local community with a specificethnicity in the 21st-century U.S. urban environment.

Our theoretical perspective is the “communication infrastructure approach” (Ball-Rokeach, Kim, & Matei, 2001; Kim & Ball-Rokeach, 2004), which has been developed asan ecological framework to understand the relationship between communication resourcesand civic outcomes in the U.S. urban environment. Rather than claiming an overarchinghistorical trend of either declining or reviving civil society,1 Ball-Rokeach and her associ-ates focus on different communication opportunity structures, or “communication infra-structures,” that make it either easy or difficult for ethnic residents (both new and oldimmigrants) of a local area to build civic community (Kim, 2003).

Especially relevant is a major analysis of objective and subjective “neighborhoodbelonging” as a function of well-integrated connections to a communication infrastructure(Ball-Rokeach et al., 2001). Employing structural equation models, Ball-Rokeach and hercolleagues demonstrated that residents are likely to exhibit neighborly feelings and behav-iors when they have integrated connections to a local neighborhood storytelling networkcomposed of local media, community organizations, and the residents themselves.

One of the more unusual aspects of the Ball-Rokeach et al. study was the embeddingof the analysis within geographically specified communities. They sampled one ethnicgroup from each of seven historically and culturally distinctive communities within a10-mile radius of the Los Angeles Civic Center. With this methodology, each of the sevensubsamples not only represented its own ethnic group but also its geographical area, thatis, “geo-ethnic” community. In a subsequent study, Kim, Jung, and Ball-Rokeach (2002)further elaborated the concept of “geo-ethnicity”—the interaction of place and ethnicity.They found unique effects of geo-ethnicity on individuals’ multidimensional connected-ness to the Internet (Jung, Qiu, & Kim, 2001), even after controlling for individual charac-teristics such as income, education, gender, age, and immigration history. Even thoughBall-Rokeach et al. (2001) and Kim et al. (2002) laid out an empirical and theoreticalgrounding for the relationship between geo-ethnicity and individuals’ communication andpolitical behaviors, they noted the need for improved empirical teasing out of the geo-ethnicity concept. Specifically, in order to sort out the unique effect of geo-ethnicity, theycalled for within-and between-community comparisons (Kim et al., 2002)—an analysis ofdifferent ethnic groups in the same geographical area and the same ethnic group living indifferent geographical locales.

In this article, we undertake this empirical and conceptual work by examining thecase of geo-ethnicity effects on individuals’ neighborhood engagement. To test the valid-ity of geo-ethnicity, we made two types of cross-sectional comparisons: a comparison ofdifferent ethnic groups in one area of Los Angeles (Anglos, Latinos, and Armenians living inGlendale) and comparisons of the same ethnic groups (Anglos and Latinos, respectively)

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[The

Uni

vers

ity o

f Iow

a] A

t: 19

:54

12 M

arch

200

8

Geo-Ethnicity 423

across different locations in Los Angeles County. The implications of the results are dis-cussed from a communication infrastructure perspective (Ball-Rokeach et al., 2001).

Ethnicity, Geography, and Neighborhood Engagement

As Stoll (2001) summarized, of all ethnic groups, Whites in the 1950–1960 era partici-pated the most in civic actions. Ethnic differences, especially a lower level of participationamong African Americans, were explained in terms of isolation from the mainstream orcultural inhibition (see Guterbock & London, 1983; Williams et al., 1973). However, dur-ing the 1970s, the situation changed. African Americans showed the highest level of civicparticipation when controlling for social class (Antunes & Gaitz, 1975; Greeley, 1974;Williams et al., 1973). New theories were developed to explain this change. One group ofresearchers suggested a compensation model whereby minority ethnic groups’ (especiallyAfrican Americans’) participation in civic or political actions offered compensation fortheir lower social, economic, or political status (Myrdal, Sterner, & Rose, 1944; Orum,1966). Subsequent research, however, did not support the compensation model, and anethnic community model was proposed as a better account (Guterbock & London, 1983;London, 1975; London & Giles, 1987; Williams et al., 1973). The ethnic communitymodel suggested that ethnic difference in civic participation is a function of the strength ofethnic identity. From this perspective, African Ameicans’ higher level of civic participa-tion can be explained by their stronger sense of ethnic membership, ethnic consciousness(Jackson, 1987), or ethnically based political efficacy (Guterbock & London, 1983).

While the ethnic community model is still largely supported by researchers (Ellison &London, 1992; Stoll, 2001), other explanations have been introduced to deal with the situ-ation as it took shape in the early 1990s. Some studies found no difference betweenAfrican Americans’ and Anglos’ levels of civic participation, while new immigrants suchas Latinos and Asians had lower levels of participation (Campbell & McLean, 2002;Marschall, 2001; Stoll, 2001). With these new findings, factors other than ethnicity per sebegan to gain attention from researchers. These include “level of political resources”(social class, religious preference, and activities) (Verba, Schlozman, Brady, & Nie,1993), “civic skills” (Verba, Schlozman, & Brady, 1995), “acculturation” (Junn, 1999;Leal, 2002), “minority empowerment” (Bobo & Gillman, 1990; Emig, Hesse, & Fisher,1996), “rational goods” (Leighly & Vedlitz, 1999; Uhlaner 1989), “minority group size”(Bledsoe, Welch, Sigelman, & Combs, 1995; Evans & Giles, 1986), and “symbolicresources” (Campbell & McLean, 2002). Some researchers even questioned whether itwas valid to apply a single theoretical model to different groups. For example, after testingfour different models—socioeconomic status, psychological orientation, social context,and mobilization resources—Marschall (2001) suggested that different models should beapplied to different ethnic groups and to different types of participatory activities.

More recent studies on ethnicity and civic participation specifically focused on con-textual factors (Abowitz, 1990; Anderson, 1996; Books & Prysby, 1988; Giles & Dantico,1982; Kenny, 1992; Stoll, 2001). For example, Stoll (2001) found an interaction betweenneighborhood-level poverty and ethnicity. That is, when level of neighborhood povertywas controlled, Blacks had the highest level of participation in community organizations.Other studies indicated that the ethnic composition of the neighborhood interacted withresidents’ own ethnicity in predicting the likelihood of civic participation (Bledsoe et al.,1995; Evans & Giles, 1986). These contextual studies suggested that different patterns ofcivic participation among ethnic groups varied by characteristics of the residential socialenvironment.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[The

Uni

vers

ity o

f Iow

a] A

t: 19

:54

12 M

arch

200

8

424 Yong-Chan Kim et al.

As suggested by Castells (1996), Giddens (1991, 1999), and Thompson (1995), anadequate understanding of contemporary social environments thus requires a consider-ation of individuals and groups in a matrix of space/time and identity. From our perspec-tive, this matrix serves as a “communication action context” that shapes people’s accessand connections to communication resources and opportunities. The geo-ethnicity fac-tor—as the interaction of ethnic identity and characteristics of a place—is a crucial part ofthe communication action context. Most importantly, geo-ethnicity affects the quality ofthe “community storytelling network” and its capacities to generate civic engagement.

Geo-Ethnicity, Communication Infrastructure, and Neighborhood Engagement

Communication infrastructure theory (Ball-Rokeach et al., 2001), developed to articulateand empirically unveil the communication infrastructures of diverse urban residential envi-ronments, provides a specific way of understanding the ecological relationship betweencivic participation and the diverse urban environment. A communication infrastructure is astorytelling network set in its communication action context (Ball-Rokeach et al., 2001). It isevident in the everyday stories that residents, media, and grassroots organizations create anddisseminate (the storytelling network) and the resources of residential areas (communicationaction context) that promote or constrain communication between residents (e.g., neighbor-hood population characteristics or community resources such as parks, schools, safe streets,and libraries). As an entrepreneur has to rely upon access to the financial and technical fea-tures of an economic infrastructure to build a successful business, individual citizens or fam-ilied rely upon access to a supportive communication infrastructure to build their sense andreality of community. The vast landscape of communication flows produced by neighbor-hood storytellers—people talking with one another about their neighborhood, media produc-ing neighborhood stories, and local organizations bringing people together—is the milieu ofdaily life requisite to civic participation. A “belonging community” has an integrated net-work of storytellers wherein each of these players stimulates the others to “story-tell” theircommunity. When various storytellers help one another talk about and, thus, imagine com-munity (Anderson, 1991), then there is an infrastructure that people can take advantage of tobuild civic community (Ball-Rokeach et al., 2001).

The concept of “geo-ethnicity,” then, was developed to examine ethnicity in the contextof an ecological and dynamic communication infrastructure.2 Our more formal definition ofgeo-ethnicity is ethnically articulated attitudes and behaviors grounded in a specific tempo-ral and spatial situation. Thus, we understand ethnicity as a multilevel phenomenon embed-ded in a specific geographical, temporal, and cultural context (Erikson, 1991; Featherston &Lash, 1999; Flora, 1999). We build upon the work of other scholars. For example, Erikson(1991) viewed ethnicity as both an outcome of interaction and as context: “a learned andinternalized context of shared meaning bounded spatially, temporally, and situationallywhich does not presuppose either the existence of ‘an integrated culture’ or that of indepen-dent individuals developing their mutual understanding from scratch” (Erikson, 1991,p. 142). Fischer’s examination of urban subculture (1975, 1995) revealed how ethnicity asurban subculture was contextualized by external and internal factors, such as size of urbanplaces, population size, level of between-group contacts, and level of “urban-ness” (1995).

Conceptualizing ethnicity in the context of local community has methodologicalimplications as well. In order to examine a geo-ethnic effect on people’s neighborhoodengagement, contextual data that contain information about both geographical characteris-tics and the ethnic identity of individuals are desirable. Discussions of ethnic differences

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[The

Uni

vers

ity o

f Iow

a] A

t: 19

:54

12 M

arch

200

8

Geo-Ethnicity 425

based upon national samples cannot address geo-ethnicity because these data generallywash out geographically defined environmental factors that give contextual reality to theeveryday life of a specific ethnic group.

Research Questions

In this article, we further articulate the theoretical and empirical validity of the geo-ethnicityconcept by conducting within- and between-community comparisons. If we find differ-ences among the same ethnic group living in different locales, and among different ethnicgroups living in the same geographical area, it would support the claim that both place andethnicity—hence, geo-ethnicity—should be considered when testing ethnic effects oncivic engagement. In other words, such findings would indicate that it is not enough tocompare Latinos and Anglos in general, for example, or to compare general residents incommunity A and community B; rather, comparing geo-ethnic groups (e.g., Latinos incommunity A and B, Anglos in community A and B) would be necessary.

Neighborhood engagement variables in the current study are drawn from a previousstudy testing a storytelling model of neighborhood belonging (Ball-Rokeach et al., 2001).These variables include neighborhood belonging (neighborly feeling and behaviors),intensity of participation in interpersonal neighborhood storytelling (the extent to whichindividuals talk with other neighbors about their neighborhood), scope of communityorganization participation (how many different types of community organizations individ-uals participate in), and neighborhood news importance (the extent to which individualsconsider neighborhood news more important than other types of news).

We have two research questions that summarize our inquiry of within- and between-area differences among individuals from different geo-ethnic groups in their levels ofneighborhood engagement.

RQ1: Will individuals from the same ethnic group living in different localeshave different levels of neighborhood belonging, interpersonal neighborhoodstorytelling, scope of community organization participation, and neighborhoodnews importance after controlling for individual characteristics (income, educa-tion, gender, age, immigration history, residential tenure, and home ownership)?

RQ2: Will individuals from different ethnic groups living in the same localehave different levels of neighborhood belonging, interpersonal neighborhoodstorytelling, scope of community organization participation, and neighborhoodnews importance after controlling for individual characteristics (income, educa-tion, gender, age, immigration history, residential tenure, and home ownership)?

At this point in the development of the geo-ethnicity concept, our aim is to test whether ornot we observe geo-ethnic variations. Thus, our research questions are nondirectional.3

Method

Data

The current study is based on data from two telephone surveys. In the first wave of datacollection (1998–1999), a total of 1,812 respondents participated—238 to 321 adults(18 years or older) in each of seven geographic areas in Los Angeles.4 By design, the

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[The

Uni

vers

ity o

f Iow

a] A

t: 19

:54

12 M

arch

200

8

426 Yong-Chan Kim et al.

seven areas are all within 10 miles of the Los Angeles Civic Center. These areas are themost contested urban spaces with all the advantages and disadvantages of urban living(Fischer, 1982). The respondents were selected from geo-ethnic groups representing thelargest and/or culturally dominant ethnic population in each of the seven areas. For thecurrent examination of geo-ethnic effects on neighborhood engagement, we analyzed fourof the seven samples, two Anglo and two Latino groups—Anglos living in SouthPasadena and the Westside and Latino residents of East Los Angeles and Pico Union.South Pasadena has been home to predominantly English-origin Protestant/Episcopalsocial elites. The Westside has been one of the least diverse areas, with the largest groupbeing Jewish, highly educated, and affluent. East LA is dominated by Mexican originLatinos who have a longer immigration history than Mexican-origin residents of otherareas in Los Angeles. Pico Union has a largely Central American population that, relativeto the other study populations, is the poorest, least educated, youngest, least likely to owna home, and most likely to be unemployed.5

In the second wave of data collection (2001), 585 households were selected in aneighth study area, Glendale. In contrast to the first wave of data collection, all of the majorethnic groups residing in this area were included. For present purposes, we examine thethree largest groups—Armenians, Latinos, and Anglos. Glendale is an ethnically diversearea where about half of the 200,000 residents are foreign born. As of the 2000 census, themajor ethnic groups are Anglos (35%), Armenians (21%), and Latinos (20%). A summaryof study area characteristics is presented in Table 1.

A caution is noted regarding the interval between the two data collection periods. OurGlendale data were collected about 3 years later than the data from the other geo-ethniccommunities. This time gap may have been a source of bias due to potentially importantsocial, economic, or political changes that might have affected how individuals engage intheir local communities. There are, however, at least two reasons why we do not think thatintervening events biased our outcomes. First, we found significant geo-ethnic differencesbetween groups observed at the same point in time (i.e., the two Latino groups in PicoUnion and East LA and the two Anglo groups in South Pasadena and the Westside). Sec-ond, as a quick fact check of economic change between 1998 and 2001 in Los AngelesCounty, we compared the unemployment rates of 1998 and 2001. We do not see a signifi-cant difference in the unemployment rate between the 2 years—in 1998 it was 5.8% inJanuary and 6.1% in December, and in 2001 it was 4.6% in January and 6.3% in December(State of California Employment Development Department, n.d.). Nonetheless, the datacollection time lag leaves open the possibility that historical events played a part.

Research Procedure

The survey was administered in telephone interviews using random-digit dialing, and itsaverage length was 45 minutes. Interviews were conducted in the preferred language ofthe respondents (Armenian, English, or Spanish)6 by specially trained bilingual interview-ers to capture the best possible representation of an ethnic group in a specific area.7 Aver-age response rates were in the first wave 31%8 and 51% in the second wave whencalculated by dividing the number of completed interviews by the number of theoreticallyeligible phone numbers. Eligible phone numbers were calculated by examining the totalnumber of study phone numbers excluding phone numbers for which eligibility could notbe determined, inappropriate/duplicate phone numbers, nonqualified household phonenumbers (e.g., outside study area), and the estimated number of initial refusals not likelyto qualify for our study. This methodology, recommended by the Council of American

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[The

Uni

vers

ity o

f Iow

a] A

t: 19

:54

12 M

arch

200

8

427

Tab

le 1

Sam

ple

area

com

pari

son

Firs

t Wav

e (1

998–

1999

)Se

cond

Wav

e (2

001)

Are

asE

ast L

APi

co U

nion

Sou

th P

asad

ena

Wes

tsid

eG

lend

ale

Eth

nici

ty

His

pani

c (l

arge

ly

Mex

ican

)

His

pani

c(l

arge

ly

Cen

tral

A

mer

ican

, M

exic

an)

Ang

los

(lar

gely

Pr

otes

tant

)

Ang

los

(lar

gely

Je

wis

h)L

atin

osA

nglo

sA

rmen

ians

Sam

ple

size

250

250

251

250

151

189

211

Med

ian

age

34 (

25.8

)33

(25

.9)

45 (

40.3

)47

(43

.7)

34 (

30.0

)48

(44

.0)

40 (

37.4

)Pe

rcen

tage

fem

ale

(ove

r ag

e 18

)60

(50

.1)

55 (

46.7

)57

(53

.9)

55 (

54.5

)60

(53

.3)

57 (

53.2

)59

(52

.7)

Hou

seho

ld in

com

e (m

edia

n $)

27,5

00 (

26,6

33)

20,0

00 (

20,1

56)

61,0

00 (

60,0

13)

72,0

00 (

81,5

23)

40,0

00 (

35,9

77)

52,5

00 (

52,9

85)

27,5

00 (

28,5

05)

% <

=$3

5,00

081

9017

1138

2352

% >

=$7

5,00

02

138

5218

3310

Lev

el o

f ed

ucat

ion

% >

=so

me

coll

ege

8 (1

4.9)

6 (1

.7)

66 (

85.7

)69

(79

.4)

56.9

(40

.5)

83.7

(74

.0)

51 (

39.8

)

Imm

igra

tion

gene

rati

on (

%)

Firs

t42

.360

.94.

510

.334

.911

.468

.8Se

cond

37.6

35.8

12.3

20.2

50.0

13.1

27.9

Thi

rd+

20.1

5.0

83.2

69.5

15.1

75.4

3.4

Not

e. N

umbe

rs in

par

enth

eses

are

pop

ulat

ion

char

acte

rist

ics

base

d on

200

0 C

ensu

s da

ta.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[The

Uni

vers

ity o

f Iow

a] A

t: 19

:54

12 M

arch

200

8

428 Yong-Chan Kim et al.

Survey Research Organizations (Frankel, 1982), is the most conservative way of calculatingresponse rates, taking into account all of the phone numbers called.9

Variables

Neighborhood Belonging. Respondents’ neighborhood belonging was measured by the“belonging index” (Ball-Rokeach et al., 2001). The 8-item belonging index gives equalweight to the subjective (attachment) and objective (everyday neighborly exchange behav-iors) dimensions of belonging.10 The Cronbach alpha test for index scalability is .78.

Intensity of Participation in Interpersonal Neighborhood Storytelling. The intensity of par-ticipation in interpersonal neighborhood storytelling was measured by asking respondents toindicate, on a scale from 1 to 10 (where 1 represents “never” and 10 “all the time”), howoften they have discussions with other people about things happening in their neighborhood.

Scope of Community Organization Participation. Assessing the scope of connections tocommunity organizations involved a two-step process. Respondents were asked whetherthey or their family members belonged to any of five different types of organizations: (a)sport or recreational; (b) cultural, ethnic, or religious; (c) neighborhood or homeowner’s;(d) political or educational; and (e) other. Having a membership was coded as “1,” andresponses were summated to form a count variable ranging from 0 to 5. However, initialinspection revealed that many people indicated that they did not have a membership in areligious organization at the same time as they reported regularly attending church, temple,or other religious services. For these respondents, we credited “1” to their religious organi-zation scores if they attended a religious service more often than once every few weeks.11

By summating these scores, we created a final count variable assessing the scope of therespondent’s connections to community organizations (range: 0 to 5; M = 1.60, SD = 1.73).

Based on her in-depth analyses of the current survey data and a series of interviewswith local organizations, Wilson (2001) reported that most of the organizations in whichrespondents participated were located within their neighborhoods. When respondents gavea positive response to the organizational participation questions, they were prompted tolist names of organizations they belonged to. Wilson (2001) found that most of them weregeographically located within the respondents’ neighborhoods, and even many chapters ofnational organizations—for example, the Sierra Club and Hadassah—sponsored activitiesgeared toward local issues.

One could criticize the present measure of organizational membership on the groundsthat it may underestimate the engagement of those who belong to many organizations ofthe same type (Baumgartner & Walker, 1988). Our measure of organizational membershipis designed to address the issue of how many different types of community organiza-tions—conceived as community storytellers—are implicated in the respondents’ commu-nication connections. We are assuming that a diverse set of organizational connectionswill offer a greater variety of neighborhood stories (e.g., about sports, politics, culturaltopics or issues) than having many organizational connections of the same type. In futureresearch, it may be desirable to combine the dimensions, that is, to assess the breadth oftypes of organizational connections and the depth or number of connections to each type.

Neighborhood News Importance. Relative importance of neighborhood news is the extentto which a person’s interest in neighborhood news is greater than his or her interest innews about other places, such as national or world news. Respondents were asked to rank

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[The

Uni

vers

ity o

f Iow

a] A

t: 19

:54

12 M

arch

200

8

Geo-Ethnicity 429

order five different types of news (neighborhood, Los Angeles, California, national, andcountry of origin). If a person mentions neighborhood news as the first in this rank orderscale, it is coded as “5.” On the other hand, if it is ranked last among the five news types,it is coded as “1.” In context of the competition for audience attention, we assume that oneneeds to have a relatively strong preference for neighborhood news stories to go to thetrouble of accessing them because they are less prevalent than national, world, homecountry, or regional stories. This does not suggest that the ideal is for someone to careonly about neighborhood stories, but it does suggest that participation in neighborhoodstorytelling is essential to the development of neighborhood engagement.

Covariates. Residential tenure was a continuous measure of the number of years living inthe neighborhood. Home ownership was a dichotomous measure (owner coded “1” andrenter coded “0”). Respondents were asked their age on their last birthday, and householdincome in the last year (in ranges staggered from less than $20,000 to more than$100,000). The highest grade or year of school completed was used to indicate educa-tional level, ranging from “eighth grade or less” to “a graduate degree.” Male gender wascoded “1,” and female was coded “0.” Immigration history was measured by the genera-tion of a respondent’s first family member to immigrate to the United States. We showthat significant variations in immigration history do exist across the same ethnic group liv-ing in different places. For example, comparing the three Latino samples, about 60% ofPico Union Latinos are first-generation immigrants compared to 42.3% in East LA and34.5% in Glendale. There is variation among the Anglo samples as well. Anglos in SouthPasadena have a longer immigration history than Anglos in Glendale and the Westside(see Table 1). Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was employed to compare the meanscores of different groups after controlling for socioeconomic and structural variables.

Results

Table 2 presents zero-order correlations between the dependent variables in each of sevengeo-ethnic groups—three Anglo groups (in South Pasadena, Westside, and Glendale),three Latino groups (in East LA, Pico Union, and Glendale), and an Armenian group (inGlendale). Overall, correlations between neighborhood belonging and interpersonalneighborhood storytelling were significant and positive in all seven groups, with the corre-lation (r) for the total sample being .32 (p < .001). Correlations between belonging andorganizational membership were significant and positive in all three Anglo groups inWestside (r = .19, p < .001), South Pasadena (r = .16, p < .001), and Glendale (r = .29,p < .001), but not in Latino and Armenian groups. For Anglos (r = .15, p < .001) andArmenians (r = .20, p < .001) in Glendale, there were significant correlations betweenbelonging and neighborhood news importance. Finally, the correlations between interper-sonal neighborhood storytelling and organizational membership were significant in allgeo-ethnic groups except for Anglos in South Pasadena and Latinos in Glendale.

Between-Community Comparisons

Between Anglo Geo-Ethnic Groups in Different Locales. Table 3 shows whether the threeAnglo samples from the Westside, South Pasadena, and Glendale are similar or differentin terms of neighborhood belonging, interpersonal neighborhood storytelling, organiza-tional membership, and neighborhood news importance. The three Anglo samples showedsignificant differences in their level of neighborhood belonging after controlling for

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[The

Uni

vers

ity o

f Iow

a] A

t: 19

:54

12 M

arch

200

8

430

Tab

le 2

Cor

rela

tion

s am

ong

depe

nden

t var

iabl

es in

eac

h ge

o-et

hnic

gro

up

Bel

ongi

ng ×

Ngh

. Dis

cuss

ion

Bel

ongi

ng ×

Org

. Mem

bers

hip

Bel

ongi

ng ×

Ngh

. New

s Im

port

ance

Ngh

. Dis

cuss

ion

×O

rg. M

embe

rshi

p

Ngh

. Dis

cuss

ion

×N

gh. N

ews

Impo

rtan

ce

Org

. Mem

bers

hip

×N

gh. N

ews

Impo

rtan

ce

Cau

casi

an/S

outh

Pas

aden

a(n

= 2

52)

.44**

.16**

.02

.02

.12

−.06

Cau

casi

an/W

ests

ide

(n =

244

).5

9**.1

9**.1

2.2

1**.1

9**.1

1

Cau

casi

an/G

lend

ale

(n =

170

).3

3**.2

9**.1

5**.1

9**.1

2.1

4

Lat

ino/

Eas

t LA

(n

= 2

45)

.40**

.10

.03

.16*

.06

.01

Lat

ino/

Pic

o U

nion

(n

= 2

49)

.22**

.02

−.07

.18**

−.04

.00

Lat

ino/

Gle

ndal

e (n

= 1

48)

.44**

.15

.07

.15

.07

−.04

Arm

enia

n/G

lend

ale

(n =

191

).2

5**.1

2.2

0**.1

8**.0

9−.

06

Tot

al.3

2**.1

9**.0

6*.1

7**.1

1**.0

5*

Not

e. N

gh.

Dis

cuss

ion

=

disc

ussi

ons

with

nei

ghbo

rs a

bout

the

nei

ghbo

rhoo

d; O

rg.

Mem

bers

hip

=Pa

rtic

ipat

ion

in c

omm

unity

org

aniz

atio

ns;

Ngh

. N

ews

Impo

rtan

ce =

r el

ativ

e im

port

ance

of

neig

hbor

hood

new

s co

mpa

red

to o

ther

type

s of

new

s.*P

< .0

5; *

*P <

.001

.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[The

Uni

vers

ity o

f Iow

a] A

t: 19

:54

12 M

arch

200

8

Geo-Ethnicity 431

income, education, gender, age, immigration history, home ownership, and residential ten-ure. Among the three samples, the Anglo sample in Glendale (M = 25.2) showed the high-est level of belonging, followed by the South Pasadena (M = 19.7) and the Westsidesamples (M = 17.7) (F = 42.75, p < .001). Pairwise differences among the three sampleswere all significant.

There was a significant difference in the intensity of participation in interpersonalneighborhood storytelling among the three Anglo samples. The Anglo residents in SouthPasadena and Glendale were significantly more involved in neighborhood storytelling(talking about the neighborhood with their neighbors) than those in the Westside (F=10.75,p < .001). However, a pairwise comparison did not show any significant difference betweenthe samples from South Pasadena and Glendale. There was no significant difference in thescope of organizational membership among the Anglo samples from the three areas. AnANCOVA with neighborhood news interest as the dependent variable showed that thethree Anglo samples were significantly different in terms of the extent to which they con-sidered news about their neighborhood more important than other types of news (F =45.70, p < .001). Pairwise comparisons between the three Anglo samples were all signifi-cant. Anglo residents in South Pasadena showed the highest level of neighborhood newsimportance (M=3.4), followed by Westside (M = 2.7) and Glendale (M=2.1) residents.

Between Latino Geo-Ethnic Groups in Different Locales. Table 4 shows geo-ethnic dif-ferences in the three Latino samples. First, the three Latino samples were significantly dif-ferent in level of neighborhood belonging (F = 12.18, p < .001). All of the pairwisecomparisons among the three samples were significant at the level of p < .01. The Latinosample in Glendale showed the highest level of belonging (M = 21.1), followed by EastLA (M = 18.7) and Pico Union (M = 17.2).

Table 3Between-community comparisons among three Caucasian geo-ethnic samples

(overall and pairwise difference ANCOVA test)

Westside(n = 244)

South Pas (n = 252)

Glendale(n = 170) F

Neighborhood belonging 17.70 19.73 25.24 42.75***

***SP ***W ***W***G ***G ***SP

Interpersonal storytelling 4.63 5.67 5.30 10.75***

***SP ***W *W*G

Organizational membership 1.36 1.44 1.25 2.73Local news interest 2.68 3.42 2.07 45.70***

***SP ***W ***W***G ***G ***SP

Note. Covariates were income, education, gender, age, immigration history, residential tenure,and home ownership. SP = South Pasadena; W = Westside; G = Glendale. SP, G, or W in a cellindicates area(s) that the area of the cell is significantly different from for each of the listed vari-ables. For example, in the top left cell, Westside is significantly different from SP (South Pasadena)and G (Glendale) for neighborhood belonging.

*P < .05; **P < .01; ***P < .001.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[The

Uni

vers

ity o

f Iow

a] A

t: 19

:54

12 M

arch

200

8

432 Yong-Chan Kim et al.

There was a significant difference in the intensity of interpersonal neighborhood sto-rytelling among the three Latino samples (F=9.05, p < .001). Latino residents in PicoUnion and East LA were significantly more involved in neighborhood storytelling thanthose in Glendale at the p < .001 significance level. There was no significant difference inthe scope of organizational membership among the three Latino samples (F = 0.84, ns).There was a significant difference among the three Latino samples in the relative impor-tance of neighborhood news (F = 11.60, p < .001). Latino residents in East LA showed asignificantly higher level of neighborhood news importance (M = 3.1) compared to theother two Latino samples. There was no significant difference between the Pico Union(M = 2.6) and the Glendale Latino samples (M = 2.4) in neighborhood news importance.

Overall, regarding RQ1 concerning between-community variations in civic engage-ment, we found significant differences among individuals from the same ethnic group liv-ing in different locales in terms of neighborhood belonging, interpersonal neighborhoodstorytelling, and neighborhood news importance.

Within-Community Comparison

We compared the three geo-ethnic samples—Anglos, Latinos, and Armenians living inthe same location, Glendale. We entered the same covariates as entered for the between-community comparisons. As shown in Table 5, ANCOVAs indicated that geo-ethnicityhad an effect on neighborhood belonging after individual characteristics were controlled(F = 3.00, p < .05). Pairwise comparisons revealed that the Anglo sample (M = 25.15)exhibited a higher level of neighborhood belonging than the Latino sample (M = 21.00) atthe p < .05 significance level, while the Armenian sample (M=22.86) did not significantlydiffer from the two other ethnic groups.

There was no significant overall group difference for interpersonal neighborhood sto-rytelling (F = 2.04, ns), organizational membership (F = 0.69, ns), or neighborhood news

Table 4Between-community comparisons among three Latino geo-ethnic samples

(overall and pairwise difference ANCOVA test)

East LA (n = 245)

Pico Union (n = 249)

Glendale (n = 148) F

Neighborhood belonging 18.69 17.15 21.13 12.18***

**PU **ELA **ELA**G **G **PU

Interpersonal storytelling 5.41 4.87 3.79 9.05***

***G ***ELAOrganizational membership 0.53 0.49 0.39 0.84Local news interest 3.11 2.60 2.38 11.60***

***PU ***ELA ***ELA***G

Note. Covariates were income, education, gender, age, immigration history, residential tenure,and home ownership. ELA = East LA; PU = Pico Union; G = Glendale. SP, G, or W in a cell indi-cates area(s) that the area of the cell is significantly different from for each of the listed variables.For example, in the top left cell, East LA is significantly different from PU (Pico Union) and G(Glendale) for neighborhood belonging.

**P < .01; ***P < .001.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[The

Uni

vers

ity o

f Iow

a] A

t: 19

:54

12 M

arch

200

8

Geo-Ethnicity 433

importance (F = 0.68, ns) among these three ethnic groups in Glendale. However, wefound pairwise differences among the three ethnic groups with regard to interpersonalneighborhood storytelling and organizational membership. Glendale Armenians weremore involved in neighborhood storytelling (i.e., more likely to talk about their neighbor-hood) than Glendale Latinos at the p < .05 significance level, while the Glendale Anglosample was not significantly distinguished from other groups. On the other hand, GlendaleAnglos (M=0.99) were more broadly connected to community organizations than Glen-dale Latinos (M=0.70) at the p < .01 significance level. There was no significant geo-ethniceffect on neighborhood news importance among Anglos, Latinos, or Armenians inGlendale.

Therefore, regarding RQ2 concerning the difference in neighborhood belongingamong individuals from different ethnic groups living in the same locale, we found a geo-ethnic outcome. However, there were mixed results with regard to interpersonal neighbor-hood storytelling and scope of community organization participation, and there were nosignificant differences for neighborhood news importance.

Discussion

In the early 1970s, Greeley (1974) noted that “the importance of ethnicity as a predictorvariable can no longer be ignored by American social research” (p. 203), and “diversityamong religioethnic groups [in the United States] is of similar magnitude to the diversityfound in various nations in cross-national studies” (p. 203). The current study findingssupport Greeley’s claim and push us to go even further to argue that our understanding ofethnicity has to be expanded to include a spatial dimension. Our concept of geo-ethnicityis offered as a way to capture the dynamic interplay between ethnicity and place. Our con-ceptual approach and empirical findings also echo Marschall’s (2001) call: “More atten-tion needs to be focused on how the broader and institutional environment shapes thebehaviors and attitudes that ultimately foster political engagement” (p. 227).

Table 5Within-community comparisons among three geo-ethnic samples in Glendale

(overall and pairwise difference ANCOVA test)

Latino (n = 148)

Anglo (n =190)

Armenian (n = 171) F

Neighborhood belonging 21.99 25.14 22.86 3.00*

*Anglo **LatinoInterpersonal storytelling 4.58 5.04 6.83 2.04

*Armenian **LatinoOrganizational membership 0.70 0.99 0.71 0.69

*Anglo *LatinoLocal news interest 2.38 2.21 2.21 0.68

Note. Covariates were income, education, gender, age, immigration history, residential tenure,and home ownership. Anglo, Latino, or Armenian indicates sample that the sample in the cell is sig-nificantly different from for each of the listed variables. For example, in the top left cell, Latino issignificantly different from Anglo for neighborhood belonging.

*P < .05; **P < .01.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[The

Uni

vers

ity o

f Iow

a] A

t: 19

:54

12 M

arch

200

8

434 Yong-Chan Kim et al.

The current study lends credibility to the geo-ethnicity construct. We found signifi-cant within-area and between-area differences in levels of neighborhood belonging aftercontrolling for income, education, age, gender, immigration history, home ownership, andresidential tenure. Both Anglo and Latino geo-ethnic groups in different communitiesshowed different levels of belonging. Within the same geographical location, two ethnicgroups—Latinos and Anglos—showed significantly different levels of neighborhoodbelonging. We also found significant overall and pairwise differences in interpersonalneighborhood storytelling and neighborhood news importance in the between-area com-parisons, and significant pairwise differences in interpersonal neighborhood storytellingand scope of organizational membership in the within-community comparisons. Overall,these results warrant the exploration of geo-ethnic effects on neighborhood engagementindependent of individual-level socioeconomic and structural factors.

With the concept of geo-ethnicity, we also can revisit previous studies of ethnic dif-ferences in communication and political behaviors. We can see how different civicengagement models—some of which were discussed earlier in this article such as isola-tion, cultural inhibition, compensation, and ethnic community models—may be applicableto different geo-ethnic communities. For example, depending on where they live, individ-uals from the same ethnic group can have different reasons for participating (or not partic-ipating) in civic activities. The geo-ethnicity concept has implications for research onvariations in social, economic, or technological resources among different geo-ethnicgroups. For example, rather than simply comparing ethnic groups’ level of access tohealth care, child care, literacy, media, or new communication technologies, comparingdifferent geo-ethnic groups may give a more dynamic view of social inequality based onboth ethnicity and place. Even when the ethnic digital divide is arguably closing, geo-eth-nic digital divides remain (Kim, Jung, & Ball-Rokeach, 2002). Finally, the concept of geo-ethnicity may also suggest a reframing of critical local institutions—especially localmedia and local community organizations—as geo-ethnic media or geo-ethnic organiza-tions that, ideally, function as local storytelling agents generating and disseminating storiesabout specific ethnic groups in specific places.

The present study focused on whether or not there are geo-ethnic group variations incivic engagement, not on why such variations occur. The communication infrastructureperspective would lead us to look at the strength of the storytelling network as well as thefeatures of the communication action context. Least explored to date are the features ofthe communication action context. Thus, our next challenge is to specify the features ofthe “place” that interact with ethnicity. We get some hints from the present findings aboutwhat these features might be. For example, our findings allude to the importance of area-level ethnic homogeneity, entropy, and residential tenure. East LA is an ethnically homo-geneous area where about 90% of the residents are Latinos and most of them are ofMexican origin. Such homogeneity may enhance the likelihood of talking with otherneighbors. In Glendale, where 35% of the residents are Anglos, 21% are Armenians, and20% are Latinos, with about 10% Asian population based on the 2000 U.S. Census data,Latino residents are exposed to an ethnically diverse residential area. Living in such anenvironment along with the cultural and language barriers diversity may bring, Latinos inthis area are likely to be constrained in their everyday interactions with non-Latinos. On theother hand, Anglos in Glendale have seen their town go from predominantly Anglo 30 yearsago to its present diverse mix where Anglos no longer constitute the majority. These shiftsin population diversity and entropy constitute likely dimensions of “lived” geo-ethnicity.Glendale Anglos, then, may be more engaged than their Westside and South Pasadenacounterparts in neighborhood storytelling as a way to preserve social networks and to

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[The

Uni

vers

ity o

f Iow

a] A

t: 19

:54

12 M

arch

200

8

Geo-Ethnicity 435

negotiate the historical change in “Glendale” and in their relationship to “Glendale.” Thus,what it means for Anglos and Latinos to live in Glendale and how this affects civicengagement are likely to differ greatly.

A full and concrete picture of “geo-ethnic” effects will require inclusion of other area-level variables such as safety of public spaces (Matei, Ball-Rokeach & Qiu, 2001),population entropy, home ownership, poverty, and number of community organizations(Sampson, Morenoff, & Earls, 1999). With such area-level data, we would be in a betterposition to explain the mechanisms that shape geo-ethnic differences between and withinareas. Multilevel analyses that enable clustered data to be included in an empirical modelwould be a desirable step to take in exploring geo-ethnic effects on individuals’ communi-cation and political behaviors.

In addition to area-level characteristics, future studies also have to consider variablesrelated to ethnicity. For example, even among the same geo-ethnic group (for example,Latinos living in Glendale or Anglos living on the Westside), we may find important vari-ations in immigration history, ethnic identification, or level of assimilation or accultura-tion. In the current study, we considered immigration generation (whether respondents areimmigrants from the first, second, or third and above generations) only as a control vari-able. It would be desirable in future studies to identify such ethnicity-related factors andexamine how they are related to area characteristics in shaping a geo-ethnic effect.

Finally, most neighborhood effect studies are susceptible to the alternative interpreta-tion of self-selection. If self-selection is operative in this study, then observed variationsbetween people living in different areas are due to the fact that people select where to livebased upon their inclinations toward civic engagement. Therefore, it is not the neighbor-hood context but individual factors that account for differences in engagement. Of course,geo-ethnic effects are conceptually different from pure geographical effects; that is, we arenot arguing that area characteristics, per se, have effects. We claim that it is the interactionof place and ethnic identity that has effects. The issue of self-selection, however, provokesthe possibility that this interaction can take place before as well as after people move to aplace. In future research it will be important to identify and elaborate the specific mecha-nisms that affect how people select specific locations as places to live and how such indi-vidual choices of residence work as either facilitating or limiting factors in people’s social,political, and communication behaviors.

Notes

1. There have been two contrasting views on the possibility of civil society in the context of theUnited States. One group of scholars, popular commentators, and journalists suggest a view empha-sizing the erosion of community (Putnam, 2000), and more specifically the decline in associationalmembership and its importance to civic behavior. Research evidencing a decline in party loyalty andpolitical membership across generation cohorts (Aldrich, 1995; Bartels, 2000; Wattenberg, 1998);the evisceration of linkages between political parties, institutions, and community-based organiza-tions (Becker, 1999; Judis, 1992; Walker, 1991; Wuthnow, 1998); market-driven journalism at theexpense of public interest (McChesney, 1997; Patterson, 1993); public distrust of government andpolitics (Cappella & Jamieson, 1997); and the growth of interest group politics and narrow issueconflicts in urban communities (Warren, 1998) seems to support this pessimistic view. However,other scholars argue that rather than a decline, we are seeing a restructuring of civil society(Friedland, 2001; Skocpol, 1993; Verba et al., 1995; Sampson et al., 1999). Researchers haveoffered alternative indicators of civic involvement, such as increased numbers of soccer leagues,evangelical church movements, and alternative political activities (e.g., Lemann, 1996; Paxton,1999; Sampson et al., 1999; Trueheart, 1996; Verba et al., 1995; Wilson, 2001).

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[The

Uni

vers

ity o

f Iow

a] A

t: 19

:54

12 M

arch

200

8

436 Yong-Chan Kim et al.

2. The term “geo-ethnicity” has already been used by anthropologists (e.g., Bhagabati, 1982) todescribe the impact of natural and physical environments on ethnic identity and characteristics oftribal people.

3. The challenge of accounting for variations that may occur or why one geo-ethnic group ismore or less engaged than another remains for future research where features of the communicationaction context can be systematically observed with a larger number of cases than are presently avail-able. It is difficult to make a priori predictions in this regard. For example, does greater ethnic diver-sity affect engagement differently depending on who one 15 examining (old-timers vs. newcomers),temporal factors (e.g., how long the area has been diverse or how rapidly it went from ethnic homo-geneity to heterogeneity), the mix of immigration generations (e.g., all new or a mix of new and oldimmigrants), or linguistic factors (e.g., shared or different languages)?

4. The seven areas are Anglo/predominantly Protestant in South Pasadena, Anglo/predomi-nantly Jewish in Westside, Mexican origins in East Los Angeles, Central American origins in PicoUnion, African American in Crenshaw, Korean origin in Koreatown, and Chinese origins inMonterey Park/Alhambra.

5. Brief area descriptions are as follows. East Los Angeles area and Mexican-origin sample:East Los Angeles/Boyle Heights is an 11.4-square-mile area (2.3 miles from the civic center). It is atransitional zone for new immigrants, but at the same time it maintains high stability (Allen &Turner, 1997). This area supports a number of homeowners despite expectations, and residents havelived in East Los Angeles (as well as in other parts of Los Angeles) for long periods of time. Thispattern was evident in earlier times (in the 1920s and 1930s) when residents were Eastern EuropeanJewish and Japanese immigrants. In 1990, Mexican-origin residents constituted 86% of the areapopulation. However, in 2000, the percentage of Mexican-origin residents decreased to 83.9. Resi-dents in this area have relatively lower income and education levels compared with other studyareas. Our study sample matches the characteristics of the larger population of Mexican-origin resi-dents quite well. Sample members demonstrate relatively high levels of unemployment, of travelingmore than 20 miles to work, and of using public transportation systems. Residents are also relativelyyoung, but have relatively high marriage rates with more people and children living at home.

Pico Union area and Central American–origin sample: Pico Union is closest to the Los Ange-les Civic Center (1.7 miles), and it is the most ethnically diverse of our study areas. Pico Union iscontiguous to Koreatown (27% of our Korean-origin respondents come from that area). In 1990,37% of residents were originally from the Central American countries. Our study sample matchesthe characteristics of the larger population of Central Americans quite well, except that it is some-what more female. Relative to the other study areas and samples, the population in Pico Union is thepoorest, least educated, youngest, least likely to own a home, most likely to be unemployed, farthestfrom work, and has the highest use of public transportation as the primary mode of travel. Only 26%of sample members have lived in the area for more than 10 years. The relatively low marriage ratereflects a young population. Still, it ranks second in the number of people with children who live athome. The low incidence of health insurance (51%) is consistent with the fact that a high rate ofemployment is in the domestic and garment area (Allen & Turner, 1997).

South Pasadena area and Caucasian/predominantly Protestant sample: The center of the 6.0-square-mile area is 7 miles from the Los Angeles Civic Center. Most of this area lies within theincorporated area of South Pasadena, with an extension to southern portions of the city of Pasadena.Since the 1870s, it has been home to predominantly English-origin Protestants/Episcopalian socialelites. A relatively high percentage of people travel more than 20 miles to work (13%). While non-Hispanic Anglos constituted about half of the population in 2000, Asian (26.6%) and Latino resi-dents (16.1%) comprise significant portions of the total population in this area. Of all of our studyareas, South Pasadena has the best reputation for being a strong community and a good place to raisechildren. Thirty-nine percent of the respondents have more than 2 people living in the home, butonly 3% have more than 2 children living at home. South Pasadena ranks among the more stableareas (49% and 83%, respectively, report living in the area and in Los Angeles for more than10 years). Relative to Westside, another largely Caucasian area in Los Angeles, South Pasadenasample members are just as likely to be married, own their home, have some form of health insurance,

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[The

Uni

vers

ity o

f Iow

a] A

t: 19

:54

12 M

arch

200

8

Geo-Ethnicity 437

and use a car as the primary means of travel. However, they have a lower income and are somewhatyounger than another Anglo sample in the Westside. Our study sample is somewhat more educated,older, and female than the larger population of non-Hispanic Anglos in 2000.

Westside area and Caucasian/predominantly Jewish sample: The center of this area is 9.7miles from the Los Angeles Civic Center. Historically, this 7.6-square-mile area has been the desti-nation for upwardly mobile Russians and Eastern European Jews from less affluent areas of LosAngeles (e.g., Boyle Heights and the Fairfax District). While the larger non-Hispanic Anglo popula-tion of the area is among the more affluent and better educated in Los Angeles, the total study sam-ple is even more affluent and educated than the larger population. Our study area includes large partsof the residential areas of Westwood, West LA, Beverlywood, and smaller parts of Cheviot Hills,Century City, Pico Robertson, and Beverly Hills. As of 1990, it reported as the least diverse area.The Westside sample is the oldest of our samples (the median age is 47 years), and most residentshave lived in the area for more than 3 years (78%). Sample members report the highest level ofhealth insurance (96%), a low rate of unemployment (4%), and an extremely high rate of travel pri-marily by car (98%), with only 5% traveling more than 20 miles to work.

Glendale Anglo, Latino and Armenian samples: This 30.5-square-mile area is the third largestcity in the Los Angeles area. Surrounded by the San Gabriel Mountains, it lies 8 miles northeast of LosAngeles with three major freeways traversing the city. Glendale is an ethnically diverse area, withabout half of the population of 200,000 residents being foreign born. As of the 2000 census, non-Hispanic White residents constituted 54% of the population, while 20% of the population was Lat-ino and 16% Asian. A significant number of Armenian immigrants call Glendale home, which hascontributed to its ethnic and socioeconomic diversity. In addition, Glendale has a high percentage ofold and new immigrants and one of the highest percentages of multifamily dwelling units of any city inCalifornia, and it maintains dedicated fire and police departments. It is a politically conservative citywith 46% registered Republican voters.

6. We also used Korean, Mandarin, and Cantonese for other geo-ethnic groups that we inter-viewed in the first data collection period. These groups were not included in the current analyses.

7. A survey research firm was employed using trained bilingual interviews (the survey wastranslated and back translated in each language) programmed for computer-assisted telephone inter-view administration.

8. There were differences in response rate between study samples. The Mexican-origin andCentral American–origin study sample had the highest (41% and 40%, respectively), and the West-side Caucasian sample had the lowest (20%). The overall completion rate, or the percentage of eligi-ble respondents (target ethnicity living in the target area) who completed an interview, was 62%.There were also large differences in completion rate between the study samples, ranging from lowrates in the Korean-origin (47%) and Chinese-origin (56%) samples to relatively high rates in theMexican-origin and South Pasadena Caucasian samples (each 73%).

9. The main reasons for a low response rate, particularly in the first wave, reside in the particular-ities of the Los Angeles telecommunication infrastructure and its clientele. For 39% of all of the num-bers called in the first wave, eligibility to participate (by geographic location and ethnicity) could notbe determined due to either receiving no answer or always contacting an answering machine. Despitefive call-backs (eight call-backs in the case of Glendale), no actual person could be identified at theother end of the line. In addition, the general public’s apprehension about telephone surveys has low-ered response rates in scientific research and in the polling industry more generally (Keeter, Kohut,Groves, & Presser, 2000). It is estimated that 40% to 50% of Los Angeles households have unlistednumbers, and this suggests a general disinclination to receive phone calls from strangers. Althoughthere are, of course, sample biases, they appear to be within the normal range for a survey of this com-plexity. A comparison of our study samples with their respective ethnic population characteristics foreach area (based on the 2000 census) suggests that our outcomes are similar to those obtained in moreconventional and less complex sampling designs. Sample bias is in the direction of females, higherincome, higher education, and older age. Note that we have relatively large numbers of ethnically andresidentially homogeneous study samples that, due to our unusual multilingual data collection proce-dures, include non-English-speaking people often excluded in other survey research.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[The

Uni

vers

ity o

f Iow

a] A

t: 19

:54

12 M

arch

200

8

438 Yong-Chan Kim et al.

10. The specific items of the belonging index are as follows.Do you strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, or strongly disagree with the

statement (a 5-point Likert scale):

1. You are interested in knowing what your neighbors are like. (58% of respondents agree orstrongly agree)

2. You enjoy meeting and talking with your neighbors. (76% agree or strongly agree)3. It’s easy to become friends with your neighbors. (69% agree or strongly agree)4. Your neighbors always borrow things from you and your family. (32% agree or strongly agree)

How many of your neighbors do you know well enough to ask them to (respondent specifies anumber):

5. Keep watch on your house or apartment? (M = 2.9, SD = 2.8)6. Ask for a ride? (M = 2.7, SD = 2.8)7. Talk with them about a personal problem? (M = 1.5, SD = 2.0)8. Ask for their assistance in making a repair? (M = 1.8, SD = 2.2)

11. While people may not interact in the context of a religious service, frequent church atten-dance does suggest a connection to what is often an important community institution with its own setof social activities and links to the larger community via bulletin boards and outreach efforts.

References

Abowitz, D. A. (1990). Sociopolitical participation and the significance of social context: A modelof competing interests and obligations. Social Science Quarterly, 71, 543–566.

Aldrich, J. H (1995). Why parties? The origin and transformation of party politics in America.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Allen, J. P., & Turner, E. (1997). The ethnic quilt: Population diversity in Southern California.Northridge: Center for Geographical Studies, California State University.

Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities. New York: Verso.Anderson, C. J. (1996). Political and social integration. American Political Quarterly, 24, 105–124.Antunes, G., & Gaitz, C. M. (1975). Ethnicity and participation: A study of Mexican Americans,

Blacks, and Whites. American Journal of Sociology, 80, 1192–1211.Appadurai, A. (1990). Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy. Public Culture,

2(2), 1–23.Ball-Rokeach, S. J., Kim, Y., & Matei, S. (2001). Storytelling neighborhood: Paths to belonging in

diverse urban environments. Communication Research, 28, 392–428.Bartels, L. M. (2000). Partisanship and voting behavior, 1952–1996. American Journal of Political

Science, 44, 35–50.Baumgartner, F. R., & Walker, J. L. (1988). Survey research and membership in voluntary associa-

tions. American Journal of Political Science, 32, 908–928.Becker, P. E. (1999). Congregations in conflict: Cultural models of local religious life. New York:

Cambridge University Press.Bhagabati, A. C. (1982). Emergent tribal identity in North-East India. In B. Chaudhuri (Ed.), Tribal

development in India: Problems and prospects. Delhi: Inter-India Publications.Bledsoe, T., Welch, S., Sigelman, L., & Combs, M. (1995). Residential context and racial solidarity

among African Americans. American Journal of Political Science, 39, 434–458.Bobo, L., & Gillman, F. D. (1990). Race, sociopolitical participation and Black empowerment.

American Political Science Review, 84, 377–393.Books, J., & Prysby, C. (1988). Studying contextual effects on political behavior: A research inven-

tory and agenda. American Politics Quarterly, 16, 211–238.Campbell, C., & McLean, C. (2002). Representations of ethnicity in people’s accounts of local com-

munity participation in a multi-ethnic community in England. Journal of Community andApplied Social Psychology, 12, 13–29.

Cappella, J. N., & Jamieson, K. H. (1997). Spiral of cynicism: The press and the public good.New York: Oxford University Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[The

Uni

vers

ity o

f Iow

a] A

t: 19

:54

12 M

arch

200

8

Geo-Ethnicity 439

Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Oxford, England: Blackwell.Giddens, A. (1999). Runaway world: How globalization is reshaping our lives. London: Profile

Books.Clemente, F., & Sauer, W. J. (1975). Voluntary associations and minority status: Comment and

extension. American Sociological Review, 40, 115–117.Cohen, S. M., & Kapsis, R. E. (1978). Participation of Blacks, Puerto Ricans, and Whites in volun-

tary associations: A test of current theories. Social Forces, 56, 1053–1071.Danigelis, N. L. (1978). Black political participation in the United States: Some recent evidence.

American Sociological Review, 43, 756–771.Edwards, J. N., & Klobus, P. A. (1976). Ethnicity and participation: A commentary. American Jour-

nal of Sociology, 82, 423–427.Ellison, C. G., & London, B. (1992). The social and political participation of Black Americans:

Compensatory and ethnic community perspectives revisited. Social Forces, 70, 681–701.Emig, A. G., Hesse, M. B., & Fisher, S. H. (1996). Black-White differences in political efficacy,

trust, and sociopolitical participation: A critique of the empowerment hypothesis. UrbanAffairs Review, 32, 264–276.

Erikson, T. H. (1991). The cultural contexts of ethnic differences. Man, 26, 127–144.Evans, A., & Giles, M. W. (1986). The effects of percent Blacks on Blacks’ perception of relative

power and social distance. Journal of Black Studies, 17, 3–14.Featherstone, M., & Lash, S. (1999). Spaces of culture: City-nation-world. London: Sage.Fischer, C. S. (1975). Toward a subcultural theory of urbanism. American Journal of Sociology, 80,

1319–1341.Fischer, C. S. (1982). To dwell among friends: Personal networks in town and city. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.Fischer, C. S. (1995). The subcultural theory of urbanism: A twentieth-year assessment. American

Journal of Sociology, 101, 543–577.Flora, P. (1999). State formation, nation-building and mass politics in Europe: The theory of Stein

Rokkan. New York: Oxford University Press.Frankel, L. R. (1982). On the definition of response rates. A special report of the CASRO Task Force

on completion rates. New York: Council of American Survey Research Organizations.Friedland, L. A. (2001). Communication, community, and democracy: Toward a theory of the com-

municatively integrated community. Communication Research, 28, 358–391.Gerson, L. L. (1976). Ethnics in American politics. Journal of Politics, 38, 336–346.Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Stanford,

CA: Stanford University Press.Giles, N. M., & Dantico, M. K. (1982). Political participation and neighborhood social context revis-

ited. American Journal of Political Science, 26, 144–150.Greeley, A. M. (1974). Political participation among ethnic groups in the United States: A prelimi-

nary reconnaissance. American Journal of Sociology, 80, 170–204.Guterbock, T. M., & London, B. (1983). Race, political orientation and participation: An empirical

test of four competing theories. American Sociological Review, 48, 439–453.Jackson, B. (1987). The effects of racial group consciousness on political mobilization in American

cities. Western Political Quarterly, 40, 631–646.Judis, J. B. (1992). The pressure elite: Inside the narrow world of advocacy group politics. American

Prospect, 9, 15–30.Jung, J.-Y., Qiu, J. L., & Kim, Y. C. (2001). Internet connectedness and inequality: Beyond the

“divide.” Communication Research, 28, 507–535.Junn, J. (1999). Participation in liberal democracy: The political assimilation of immigrants and eth-

nic minorities in the United States. American Behavioral Scientist, 42, 1417–1438.Keeter, S., Kohut, A., Groves, R. M., & Presser, S. (2000). Consequences of reducing nonresponse in a

national telephone survey. Retrieved July, 2000, from http://mason.gmu.edu/∼skeeter/nonresponse.zipKenny, C. B. (1992). Political participation and effects from the social environment. American Jour-

nal of Political Science, 36, 259–267.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[The

Uni

vers

ity o

f Iow

a] A

t: 19

:54

12 M

arch

200

8

440 Yong-Chan Kim et al.

Kim, Y. C. (2003). Storytelling community: Communication infrastructure and civic engagement.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Unversity of Southern California.

Kim, Y. C., & Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (2004, April). Communication infrastructure theory: An ecologi-cal approach to civic engagement. Paper presented at the Voice and Citizenship conference,Seattle, WA.

Kim, Y. C., Jung, J., & Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (2002, July). Ethnicity, place, and communication tech-nology: Geo-ethnic effect on multi-dimensional Internet connectedness in urban communities.Paper presented at the International Communication Association conference, Seoul, Korea.

Kuo, W. H. (1977). Black political participation: A reconsideration. Journal of Political and Mili-tary Sociology, 5, 1–16.

Leal, D. L. (2002). Political participation by Latino non-citizens in the United States. British Journalof Political Science, 32, 353–370.

Leighley, J. E., & Vedlitz, A. (1999). Race, ethnicity, and political participation: Competing modelsand contrasting explanations. Journal of Politics, 61, 1092–1114.

Lemann, N. (1996). Kicking in groups. Atlantic Monthly, April, 1996, pp. 22–26.London, B. (1975). Racial differences in social and political participation: It’s not simply a matter of

black and white. Social Science Quarterly, 56, 274–286.London, B., & Giles, M. W. (1987). Black participation: Compensation or ethnic identification?

Journal of Black Studies, 18, 20–44.London, B., & Hearn, J. (1977). The ethnic community theory of Black social and political partici-

pation: Additional support. Social Science Quarterly, 57, 883–891.Marschall, M. J. (2001). Does the shoe fit? Testing models of participation for African American

and Latino involvement in local politics. Urban Affairs Review, 37, 227–248.Matei, S., Ball-Rokeach, S. J., & Qiu, J. L. (2001). Fear and misperception of Los Angeles urban

space: A spatial-statistical study of communication-shaped mental maps. CommunicationResearch, 28, 429–463.

McChesney, R. W. (1997). Corporate media and the threat to democracy. New York: Seven StoriesPress.

McPherson, J. M. (1977). Correlates of social participation: A comparison of ethnic community andcompensatory theories. Sociology Quarterly, 18, 197–208.

Myers, D. (1999). Cohort longitudinal estimation of housing careers. Housing Studies, 14, 473–490.Myrdal, G., Sterner, R., & Rose, A. (1944). An American dilemma. New York: Harper & Brothers.Orum, A. M. (1966). A reappraisal of the social and political participation of Negroes. American

Journal of Sociology, 72, 32–46.Patterson, T. E. (1993). Out of order. New York: Knopf.Paxton, P. (1999). Is social capital declining in the United States? A multiple indicator assessment.

American Journal of Sociology, 105, 88–127.Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York:

Simon & Schuster.Sampson, R. J., Morenoff, J. D., & Earls, F. (1999). Beyond social capital: Spatial dynamics of col-

lective efficacy for children. American Sociological Review, 64, 633–660.Skocpol, T. (1993). Diminished democracy: From membership to management in American civic

life. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.State of California Employment Development Department (n.d.). Civilian labor force, employment

and unemployment. Retrieved September 15, 2006, from http://www.calmis.ca.gov/file/lfhist/cal$shlf.xls

Stoll, M. A. (2001). Race, neighborhood poverty, and participation in voluntary associations. Socio-logical Forum, 16, 529–557.

Thompson, J. B. (1995). The media and modernity: A social theory of the media. Stanford, CA:Stanford University Press.

Trueheart, C. (1996, August). Welcome to the next church. Atlantic Monthly, pp. 37–58.Uhlaner, C. J. (1989). Rational turnout: The neglected role of groups. American Journal of Political

Science, 33, 390–422.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[The

Uni

vers

ity o

f Iow

a] A

t: 19

:54

12 M

arch

200

8

Geo-Ethnicity 441

Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in Ameri-can politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Verba S., Schlozman, K. L., Brady, H., & Nie, N. H. (1993). Race, ethnicity and political resources:Participation in the United States. British Journal of Political Science, 23, 453–497.

Walker, J. L., Jr. (1991). Mobilizing interest groups in America: Patrons, professions, and socialmovements. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Warren, M. R. (1998). Community building and political power. American Behavioral Scientist, 42,78–92.

Wattenberg, M. P. (1998). The decline of American political parties, 1952–1996. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Williams, J. A., Jr., Babchuk, N., & Johnson, D. R. (1973). Voluntary associations and minority sta-tus: A comparative analysis of Anglo, Black and Mexican Americans. American SociologicalReview, 38, 637–646.

Wilson, M. (2001). Leading the community chorus: The role of organizations in society. Unpub-lished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California.

Wuthnow, R. (1998). Loose connections: Joining together in America’s fragmented communities.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[The

Uni

vers

ity o

f Iow

a] A

t: 19

:54

12 M

arch

200

8