0192513x06289649.pdf

Journal of Family Issues Volume 27 Number 10 October 2006 1335-1355 © 2006 Sage Publications 10.1177/0192513X06289649 http://jfi.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com

Parental Support, Behavioral Control, and Psychological Control Among African American Youth The Relationships to Academic Grades, Delinquency, and Depression Roy A. Bean Texas Tech University, Lubbock

Brian K. Barber University of Tennessee at Knoxville

D. Russell Crane Brigham Young University, Provo, UT

Associations among three dimensions of parenting (support, behavioral control, psychological control) and measures of adolescent depression, delinquency, and academic achievement were assessed in a sample of African American youth. All data were adolescent self-reports by way of school-administered questionnaires in random samples of classrooms in southeastern U.S. metropolitan areas. Path analysis revealed several associations between parenting dimensions and youth outcomes, including negative relationships between paternal support and depression and between parental behavioral control and delinquency. Group comparisons (by youth grade level, gender, and family socioeconomic status [SES]) were also conducted, and no age or SES differences were noted. Keywords: African Americans; parenting; adolescents; depression; delinquency

Authors’ Note: Data were collected in collaboration with the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and also through the support of the National Institute of Mental Health (Grant No. R29-MH47067-03, awarded to the second author). The authors are very grateful to the participating school officials, teachers, parents, and students who participated in this study. They would also like to give special thanks to Suzanne Bartle-Haring, Du Feng, and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions and feedback.

1335

1336

Journal of Family Issues

A

t least two major points of consistency can be found in the research on parent–child socialization. First, several key dimensions of parenting behavior have been consistently associated with child/adolescent wellbeing and optimal functioning: support, behavioral control, and psychological control/autonomy (Barber, 1997; Garber, Robinson, & Valentiner, 1997; Steinberg, Dornbusch, & Brown, 1992; Steinberg, Mounts, Lamborn, & Dornbusch, 1991). Second, most of what is understood about the socialization process is based on studies of majority culture, European American families (Spencer & Dornbusch, 1990). The purpose of this study is to expand on these two points of consistency by investigating the relationships between key parenting dimensions and outcome behaviors for African American youth.

Parenting Dimensions and Methodological Issues Numerous studies and review articles published during the past 50 years provide evidence of the important role that parental support and control play in the lives of children/adolescents (e.g., Lamborn & Felbab, 2003; Peterson & Rollins, 1987). Parental support is generally conceptualized as the level of acceptance or warmth that parents express toward their children. Relative to the socialization process in African American families, support (maternal and/or paternal) has been found to be related to indicators of prosocial adjustment in adolescents, such as academic achievement (e.g., Bean, Bush, McKenry, & Wilson, 2003; S. Kim, Brody, & Murry, 2003), self-esteem (e.g., Bean et al., 2003), and lower depression (Mounts, 2004; Zimmerman, Ramirez-Valles, Zapert, & Maton, 2000). Support is consistently regarded as an essential feature in the normal development of children and adolescents, but there has been far less consensus regarding the concept of control and its relationship to child and adolescent behavior. Control has sometimes been examined as an aspect of effective parenting, and, at other times, it has been treated as an indication of negative, domineering parenting (Peterson & Rollins, 1987). Noting the lack of conceptual clarity and the mixed findings that have resulted, some researchers have followed Schaefer (1965) and separated control into two distinct forms: behavioral and psychological (e.g., Barber, 1996, 2002; Garber et al., 1997; Gray & Steinberg, 1999). In accordance with this distinction, behavioral control refers to the provision of regulation or structure on the child’s behavioral world, with higher levels being associated with better adolescent functioning. In contrast, psychological control is generally considered to have negative effects on child and adolescent well-being as it refers to intrusion and manipulation of the child’s psychological world (e.g., constraining verbal interactions, invalidation

Bean et al. / Parenting and Youth Behaviors

1337

of feelings; see Barber, 2002, for a detailed review). On occasion, psychological control items are reverse coded and the construct is presented as psychological autonomy, a positive socializing influence (e.g., Herman, Dornbusch, Herron, & Herting, 1997). A number of studies have examined behavioral control or monitoring as it relates to delinquency and other youth outcomes in African American families (e.g., Smith & Krohn, 1995; Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg, & Dornbusch, 1991). Brody (2003) suggested, based on longitudinal data, that maternal monitoring is a significant factor in predicting lower levels of adolescent delinquency in African American children and early adolescents. In general, psychological control has not received as much research attention as have the other two domains of parental behavior (Barber, 2002), and this is particularly so for African Americans. Nevertheless, there is still evidence suggesting that psychological control is a relevant factor in the parenting process for some African American families (e.g., Bean et al., 2003; Steinberg et al., 1991), particularly when examined in relation to delinquency (e.g., Mason, Cauce, Gonzales, & Hiraga, 1996). Whether examined separately or in aggregated form (i.e., combined to form parenting styles typologies), support and behavioral control have been found to be consistently related to higher social and academic achievement and to fewer problem behaviors in children and adolescents, whereas psychological control has been found to be related to more problems and lower achievement (e.g., Barber, Olsen, & Shagle, 1994; Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Schaefer, 1965; Steinberg et al., 1991). It should also be noted that these associations between parenting dimensions and youth outcomes have been observed, whether parenting behaviors were assessed with adolescent reports (e.g., Bean et al., 2003; Lamborn et al., 1991; Mounts, 2004) or parent reports (e.g., Garber et al., 1997; S. Kim et al., 2003; Smith & Krohn, 1995). Yet despite the frequency with which associations have been found between these parenting dimensions and adolescent outcomes, a more precise understanding of these relationships has been frustrated. When the parenting dimensions have been studied, they have either been examined one or two at a time (dimensional approach) or they have been aggregated in some fashion to form a parenting style (typological approach). Unfortunately, both approaches contain certain methodological weaknesses. Inherent in the dimensional approach is the risk of overstating or misinterpreting the effect of one dimension if it is examined without the other two dimensions because the three are significantly related and often co-vary (Garber et al., 1997; Steinberg et al., 1991). According to the typological approach, parents are typed as having a particular parenting style by using a combination of parenting behavior scores (e.g., Lamborn et al., 1991; Maccoby & Martin, 1983). The most notable problem

1338

Journal of Family Issues

associated with this approach is that when parenting dimensions are aggregated, the individual contributions of each dimension cannot be isolated and examined (Barber, Stolz, Olsen, & Maughan, 2004). Use of a typological approach also prompts concern about whether the parenting processes being examined are representative because, in some cases, 50% to 70% of parents have been excluded from study because they could not be typed as having a “pure” parenting style (e.g., Dornbusch, Ritter, Leiderman, Roberts, & Fraleigh, 1987; K. Kim & Rohner, 2002; Lamborn et al., 1991). Finally, the use of parenting typologies has led to some protests of ethnocentric bias when the authoritative parenting style has been applied to non–European American ethnic groups (Chao, 2001; Nucci, 1994; Ogbu, 1981) and to questions of cultural relevance when the parenting styles have been found to be inconsistently related to outcomes in non–European American youth (e.g., Dornbusch et al., 1987; Steinberg et al., 1991). When support, behavioral control, and psychological control are examined together but as separate dimensions, the individual effect of each parenting dimension can be isolated and studied within a context of the other important socializing factors. In this manner the unique and joint effects of the parenting dimensions can be examined. This shift in methodology is not meant to challenge the dimensions’ documented co-occurrence or the usefulness of the parenting typologies. Instead, given the consistency with which the parenting dimensions have been linked to various youth outcomes, it seems important to examine more closely the particulars of this association between parenting and youth behaviors (Barber et al., 2004). Another indication of this study’s intention to examine more specific aspects of the parent–teen relationship is found in its exploration of the association between youth outcomes and parenting, as reported for both mothers and fathers. Numerous researchers have observed the conceptual bias of assessing parenting through mothers’ behavior alone (e.g., Bean et al., 2003), and it has been noted that “there is a glaring absence of literature about teenfather relationships” (Day & Acock, 2004, p. 277). In recent years, greater attention has been focused on the role of fathers in the lives of children; however, the overall lack of findings makes it difficult to develop empirically supported hypotheses, particularly for African Americans, whereby the role of fathers has received even less research attention (McAdoo, 1997).

Parenting and Ethnicity Two main ideas have figured prominently in past analyses of ethnicity and parenting: ethnic equivalence and cultural values models (Lamborn &

Bean et al. / Parenting and Youth Behaviors

1339

Felbab, 2003). Ethnic equivalence models emphasize the commonality of parent–child socialization experiences and suggest that parenting behaviors are similarly related to child/adolescent outcomes regardless of family ethnicity. In contrast, cultural-values models indicate that parenting behaviors are differentially related to outcome behaviors based on the ethnicity of the family because the family’s ecological context influences the interpretation of both parenting and outcome variables. Given the numerous studies found to support each of these polarized views, it is premature to conclude that the truth lies somewhere other than in the middle, where aspects of parent–child socialization can be found to differ based on sociodemographic factors yet still can be remarkably similar in other ways across cultural/ethnic groups. Prior research using the methodological approach proposed here (i.e., examining all three parenting dimensions together but in disaggregated form) have been remarkably consistent in their findings across a variety of ethnic and cultural groups. For example, the following associations, which were also examined in this study, have been found in studies of adolescents in nations and ethnic groups in Africa, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and North and South America (Barber et al., 2004): (a) a negative relationship between support and depression (e.g., Barber et al., 2004; Eccles, Early, Frasier, Belansky, & McCarthy, 1997; Garber et al., 1997; Gray & Steinberg, 1999), (b) a negative relationship between behavioral control and delinquency (e.g., Barber et al., 1994; Barber et al., 2004; Eccles et al., 1997; Herman et al., 1997), (c) a positive relationship between psychological control and depression (Barber et al., 1994; Barber et al., 2004; Eccles et al., 1997; Garber et al., 1997; Herman et al., 1997), and (d) a positive relationship between psychological control and delinquency (Barber et al., 2004; Eccles et al., 1997; Herman et al., 1997). The hypothesized model in Figure 1 specifies relationships observed in past research (as mentioned above), along with two additional sets of associations. The first set is the relationships between parenting dimensions (i.e., behavioral and psychological control) and youth grade point average (GPA). Consistent with the available research, it is hypothesized that psychological control would be negatively, and behavioral control would be positively, related to academic grades (Eccles et al., 1997; Gray & Steinberg, 1999; Herman et al., 1997; Steinberg, Elmen, & Mounts, 1989). Youth GPA was included in this study as a measure of youth functioning to capture a more varied expression of adolescent well-being and to allow for comparison with the numerous studies conducted from the typological approach in which GPA, delinquency, and depression are the most common outcome variables (e.g., Gray & Steinberg, 1999; Herman et al., 1997; Steinberg et al., 1989).

1340

Journal of Family Issues

Figure 1 Hypothesized Model Maternal Support

Paternal Support

GPA

Parental Behavioral Control

Antisocial Behavior

Maternal Psychological Control

Depression

Paternal Psychological Control

The second set of relationships that were examined is the association between support (maternal and paternal) and adolescent delinquency. The hypothesis of a significant (negative) relationship between these variables is particularly relevant to parent–child socialization in African American families as it relates to the concept of “no-nonsense parenting” (Brody & Flor, 1998). No-nonsense parenting is characterized by high levels of affection/support and high levels of control, is viewed as a primary deterrent to antisocial behavior, and is believed to “communicate to the child that the parent is vigilant and concerned for the child’s welfare” (Brody & Flor, 1998, p. 805). This study’s partial reliance on previous research findings from multinational samples is indicative of an ethnic equivalence model. However, consistent with a cultural-values perspective, the associations between parental support and adolescent delinquency were examined as a culturally specific socialization pattern in African American families.

Method Participants The adolescent respondents were from the Tennessee Adolescents in Families Project, a 1990, school-based, self-reported survey of 5th, 8th, and

Bean et al. / Parenting and Youth Behaviors

1341

10th graders from 14 schools in the Knox County school system (Barber et al., 1994). The African American subsample included 109 females and 93 males and was evenly divided by grade. One hundred forty-one students (69%) were from lower-income families, based on their participation in subsidized lunch programs, and the remaining 61 students (31%) were from middleincome homes. Students qualified for lunch programs based on family income level. All students were encouraged to apply for lunch subsidy; however, it is possible for a parent to decline program participation because of the stigma of poverty or other concerns. The 5th-grade portion of the sample averaged 11.3. years of age, 8th graders averaged 14 years, and 10th graders averaged 15.9 years. Sixty respondents lived with both their biological parents, 25 lived with at least one biological parent and a stepparent, 100 lived with one parent (generally the mother), and the remaining 17 lived with other nonparent relatives or guardians. Respondents were asked questions regarding mother’s and father’s parenting behaviors regardless of living arrangements, and participants rated parenting done by noncustodial parents as well. Thirty-five adolescents did not report on father’s parenting; however, means and intercepts were estimated for path analysis. These data were considered to be “missing at random,” and no evidence was found to suggest that their inclusion would bias the sample. This determination was made based on findings that respondents reporting on paternal parenting and those not reporting were not found to differ significantly in t tests of continuous variables (i.e., youth GPA, delinquency, depression, and age; and maternal education, support, behavioral control, and psychological control) and chi-square tests of categorical variables (i.e., family socioeconomic status [SES] and youth gender).

Measures Support. Parental support was measured using the 10-item acceptance subscale from the 30-item revision of the Child Report of Parent Behavior Inventory (CRPBI; Barber, 1996; Schaefer, 1965). Students were asked to report how well items described their mothers and fathers using responses ranging from 1 (not like her/him) to 3 (a lot like her/him). Sample items included (a) “smiles at me very often” and (b) “gives me a lot of care and attention,” with higher scores indicating greater levels of reported support from parents. The CRPBI has been used extensively as a measure of perceived parenting with a variety of cultural and ethnic groups (e.g., Bradford et al., 2003; Krishnakumar, Buehler, & Barber, 2004), and the acceptance subscale has been demonstrated to be equivalent, based on confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory procedures, for both European American and

1342

Journal of Family Issues

African American youth (Krishnakumar et al., 2004). Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were found to be .85 for maternal acceptance and .90 for paternal acceptance. Behavioral control. Behavioral control was measured using a five-item parental monitoring/knowledge scale often used in the study of ethnically diverse adolescents and their families (e.g., Bradford et al., 2003; Brown, Mounts, Lamborn, & Steinberg, 1993; Stattin & Kerr, 2000). Participants reported on how much they think their parents (not differentiated by mother/father) “really know” about their activities such as (a) “where you go at night” and (b) “where you are most afternoons after school.” Krishnakumar et al. (2004) examined this measure of perceived parenting for cross-ethnic equivalence (conceptual, scalar, operational) and found it to be equally valid for both European American and African American samples. Higher scores reflected greater perceived behavioral control by parents, and, in terms of reliability, a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .76 was found. Psychological control. Psychological control was measured using the 10item psychological control subscale from the 30-item revision of the CRPBI (Barber, 1996; Schaefer, 1965). The subscale has been found to be equally valid for both African American and European American samples (Krishnakumar et al., 2004); however, a modification was made to further ensure its application to an African American sample. Krishnakumar et al. (2004) found that one item (i.e., “says if I really cared for him/her I would not do things that caused her/him to worry”) was particularly problematic when examining fathers’ parenting because of the inconsistency in results when comparing ethnic groups and when exploring within-group differences. For this reason, this item was dropped when calculating paternal psychological control. As a measure of perceived parenting, respondents were asked to mark the degree to which items described their mothers and fathers, with responses ranging from 1 (not like her/him) to 3 (a lot like her/him). Sample items included (a) “is always trying to change me” and (b) “wants to control whatever I do.” Higher scores represented greater perceived levels of psychological control. Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients were .73 for mothers and .76 for fathers. Academic grade point average. GPA came from the student’s self-report, which has been found to be strongly correlated (.75) with GPA taken from official school records (Dornbusch et al., 1987). Respondents were asked to choose from nine different levels of grades ranging from “mostly As” to

Bean et al. / Parenting and Youth Behaviors

1343

“mostly Fs.” Responses were reverse coded so that higher scores represent higher GPAs. Delinquency. Antisocial behavior was measured using the 13-item delinquency subscale from the Child Behavior Checklist–Youth Self-Report (CBCL-YSR; Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1987), with sample items including (a) “I run away from home” and (b) “I steal things at home.” Responses ranged from 0 (not true) to 2 (very true or often true), with higher scores representing higher levels of delinquency. The CBCL-YSR has been used extensively with children and adolescents from various ethnic groups, and ethnic differences have been found to be minimal when controlling for SES (Achenbach, 1991). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was found to be .63 for the research sample. Depression. Depression was measured using the 10-item depression subscale score from the CBCL-YSR (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1987), with sample items including (a) “I am unhappy, sad, or depressed” and (b) “I feel worthless or inferior.” Responses ranged 0 (not true) to 2 (very true or often true), with higher scores representing higher levels of depression. The CBCL-YSR has been used extensively with children and adolescents from various ethnic groups, and ethnic differences have been found to be minimal when controlling for SES (Achenbach, 1991). In terms of reliability for this study, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was .78.

Analysis Path analysis was used to explore the relationships between maternal and paternal parenting dimensions and the youth outcome variables using AMOS 5.0 (Arbuckle, 2003). Sample size precluded the use of latent variables with multiple indicators; hence, scale scores for each of the constructs were used as single-item indicators. In examining the parenting models, several parameters were estimated including (a) path coefficients between each exogenous (parenting) variable and each of the three endogenous (outcome) variables, (b) coefficients among the exogenous variables, and (c) relationships among the error terms/residuals for the equations. Arguments can be found for the comorbidity or reciprocal causality between any two of the three endogenous variables; however, research findings were more consistent in justifying the modeling of error terms for delinquency and depression (e.g., Garnefski & Diekstra, 1997) and

1344

Journal of Family Issues

for delinquency and academic grades (e.g., Brook & Newcomb, 1995; Tanner, Davies, & O’Grady, 1999). The hypothesized model was examined using all respondents (i.e., male and female youth, all ages) to be consistent with recent studies using this same methodological approach (e.g., Barber, 2002; Herman et al., 1997). Group comparisons were then conducted to determine whether the resultant model and, more specifically, the path coefficients differed for youth grade levels, SES subgroups, and between male and female adolescents. Rather than assume sociodemographic equivalence, these group comparisons were conducted to explore the possibility of developmental-, SES-, and/or genderbased differences in parent-child socialization in African American families. Group comparisons followed the procedure set out by Bollen (1989; see also Bartle-Haring, 1997) by fitting the data separately for each group and then using a chi-square difference test to examine the question of group equivalence. This is done by first establishing a “baseline” or unconstrained model, referred to as hypothesis of form or H-form, in which all parameters are unconstrained. Using H-form as comparison, the model is run again, with the path coefficients constrained to be invariant between groups, and the chi-squares for the two models are compared. If the chi-square difference test is found to be significant, this indicates a group difference (e.g., males versus females) in the nature of the relationships between the parenting dimensions and youth outcomes.

Results Means and standard deviations for all study variables are presented in Table 1. Bivariate correlations were calculated among the parenting variables, among the youth behavior measures, and between the parenting and youth behavior variables (see Table 2). Correlations were consistent with previous studies in terms of direction and significance (e.g., Barber et al., 2004; Herman et al., 1997), with the following exceptions: (a) Paternal psychological control was not correlated with depression, (b) maternal support was not correlated with depression, (c) paternal psychological control was negatively correlated with delinquency, and (d) psychological control and support were positively correlated for fathers. Correlation findings provided support for the modeling of error terms because all correlations among the outcome variables were found to be significant and in the expected direction, except in the case of depression and GPA as predicted.

Bean et al. / Parenting and Youth Behaviors

1345

Table 1 Means (Standard Deviations) for Parenting and Youth Variables Boys (n = 93)

Girls (n = 108)

2.43 (.47) 2.22 (.56) 2.30 (.54) 1.98 (.44) 1.80 (.45) 6.16 (1.65) 4.03 (2.90) 5.43 (4.67) 13.53 (1.88)

2.47 (.43) 2.14 (.60) 2.38 (.48) 1.92 (.44) 1.72 (.53) 6.46 (1.59) 3.42 (2.03) 6.71 (4.74) 14.17 (1.91)

Maternal support Paternal support Parental behavioral control Maternal psychological control Paternal psychological control Grade point average Delinquency Depression Age

Table 2 Bivariate Correlations Among Parenting and Youth Variables

Support (S) Behavioral control (BC) Psychological control (PC) Grade point average (GPA) Delinquency (DEL) Depression (DEP)

S

BC

PC

GPA

.35*** .21*** .23*** .03 –.33*** –.23***

.05

.10 –.06

–.20*** .10 –.14

.13 .10 –.32*** –.03

–.06 –.19** .05

–.22*** –.05

DEL

DEP

–.09 –.32*** –.03 .01 .15** –.22*** –.05 .28*** .28***

Note: Correlations above the diagonal are for youth reports of mothers’ parenting, and correlations below the diagonal are for youth reports of fathers’ parenting. **p < .05. ***p < .01.

Path Analysis Fit indices for the models were well within acceptable ranges, indicating a very good fit between the model and data (see Figure 2). Two of the specific hypothesized associations between parenting behavior and youth outcome that were evident in past studies were found to be significant here: (a) Parental behavioral control negatively related to delinquency, and (b) paternal support negatively related to depression. Also, consistent with the culturally specific hypothesis, paternal support was found to be significantly/negatively related to delinquency. In contrast with the original hypothesized relationships, maternal support and psychological control (both maternal and paternal) were not

1346

Journal of Family Issues

Figure 2 Standardized Results of Path Analysis Maternal Support .36∗∗∗∗ .37∗∗∗∗

GPA R2 = .03

Support Paternal Support

–.20∗∗∗

–.2

7 ∗∗∗∗

.19∗∗ Parental Behavioral Control .17∗∗∗

–.27∗∗∗∗

–.2

2 ∗∗∗

Maternal Psychological Control

Antisocial Behavior R2 = .18

.23∗∗∗

Depression R2 = .08

.50∗∗∗∗ Paternal Psychological Control N = 201 χ2(8) = 11.68, p = .17 CFI = 0.98 TLI = 0.90 RMSEA = 0.05

∗∗

p < .05 p < .01 ∗∗∗∗ p < .001 ∗∗∗

Note: CFI = Comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.

significantly related to any youth outcomes. Unexpectedly, paternal psychological control was found to be positively related to paternal support, and these parenting dimensions have been found, on a consistent basis, to be negatively related.

Group Comparisons As seen in Table 3, group comparisons by youth grade level and family SES yielded a consistent set of findings. In these two group comparison models, the chi-square difference test yielded nonsignificant results. This indicates that support, behavioral control, and psychological control did not differ significantly by youth grade level or family SES in their associations

Bean et al. / Parenting and Youth Behaviors

1347

Table 3 Group Comparisons (Grade Level, SES, and Gender): Fit Indices and χ2 Difference Tests Grade-Level Group Comparison Hform model Path model χ2 difference Sample size

χ (24) = 29.96, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.82, RMSEA = 0.04 χ2(48) = 48.47, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.99, RMSEA = .01 χ2(24) = 18.51 5th grade = 53, 8th grade = 80, 10th grade = 69 2

SES Group Comparison Hform model Path model χ2 difference Sample size

χ2(16) = 25.17, CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.77, RMSEA = 0.05 χ2(28) = 45.06**, CFI = 0.91, TLI = 0.76, RMSEA = .06 χ2(12) = 19.88 Low income = 141, middle income = 61

Hform model Path model χ2 difference Sample size

χ (16) = 23.69, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.80, RMSEA = .05 χ2(28) = 50.95***, CFI = 0.87, TLI = 0.65, RMSEA = .06 χ2(12) = 27.27*** Boys = 93, Girls = 108**

Gender Group Comparison 2

Note: CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; SES = socioeconomic status. **p < .05. ***p < .01.

with the various youth variables. In contrast, chi-square difference tests were significant by youth gender, indicating differential path coefficients between the parenting dimensions and outcome variables for boys and girls. Coefficient values are presented in Table 4 and are consistent in direction and very similar in strength for the two gender groups. There were, however, some differences, with the largest discrepancies appearing in the relationships between paternal support and delinquency and between paternal psychological control and delinquency. In both cases, the larger coefficients were for girls, and as such, it is no surprise that more of the variance in delinquency was explained for girls (R2 = .20) than for boys (R2 = .13). In summary, several specific hypothesized relationships between the parenting dimensions and the youth outcomes were found to be significant for every grade and SES level and for both boys and girls. These included (a) paternal support and depression, (b) parental behavioral control and delinquency, and (c) paternal support and delinquency. Several other hypothesized associations were not found to be significant including (a) psychological

1348

Journal of Family Issues

Table 4 Path Coefficients From Youth Gender Group Comparison Parenting/Outcome Variable Maternal support/depression (Dep) Paternal support/Dep Maternal support/delinquency (Del) Paternal support/Del Parental behavioral control/Del Parental behavioral control/GPA Maternal psychological control/Dep Paternal psychological control/Dep Maternal psychological control/Del Paternal psychological control/Del Maternal psychological control/GPA Paternal psychological control/GPA

Boys (n = 93)

Girls (n = 108)

–.06 –.22*** .04 –.23**** –.22**** .08 .13 .05 .05 –.11 –.14* .03

–.05 –.22*** .04 –.31**** –.24**** .07 .12 .06 .06 –.16 –.14* .04*

*p < .10. ***p < .01. ****p < .001.

control (maternal and paternal) and delinquency, (b) psychological control (maternal and paternal) and GPA, (c) psychological control (maternal and paternal) and depression, (d) maternal support and depression, (e) maternal support and delinquency, and (f) parental behavioral control and GPA.

Discussion This article extended the current literature on the parent–adolescent relationship by testing a disaggregated model of parenting (for both mothering and fathering) and common measures of adolescent functioning. These findings suggest that this methodological approach may be contextually relevant to African Americans, along with the other cultural groups with which it has been used (Barber et al., 2004; Garber et al., 1997; Herman et al., 1997). In particular, this approach is useful in identifying instances in which, based on bivariate correlation analysis, one could otherwise conclude that all three parenting dimensions are related to a specific youth outcome (i.e., see Table 1, where all three dimensions of fathering are significantly related to delinquency). This finding is important because not once did all three parenting domains contribute significantly to any of the measures of youth functioning as has been implicitly assumed in typology-based studies of parenting styles. In fact, it appears that support and behavioral control may be related to youth

Bean et al. / Parenting and Youth Behaviors

1349

functioning in unique ways, whereas psychological control appears to be unrelated to adolescent outcomes as measured. These specialized relationships are discussed in more detail here.

Support Paternal support was found to be significantly and negatively related to youth depression for every group regardless of child’s gender, grade level, or family income level. Given the consistency with which this same association has been found in the United States and abroad (e.g., Garber et al., 1997; Gray & Steinberg, 1999; Herman et al., 1997), it appears that when youth experience their caregivers as accepting and supportive, they are less likely to be depressed, regardless of ethnicity, nationality, or other sociodemographic differences. Additional research is required to better understand the mechanism through which support facilitates lower depression in African American youth; however, several studies appear to rule out the notion that support functions as a buffering agent insulating youth from their environmental stressors (e.g., Grant et al., 2002; Zimmerman et al., 2000). Although the relationship between paternal support and depression represent findings consistent with an ethnic equivalence model, there remains the culturalvalues-related finding of a nonsignificant association between maternal support and depression. Limited by the fact that mothering and fathering behaviors have not often been examined together (for reasons associated with a bias toward maternal parenting and/or the lack of corresponding data; Phares & Compas, 1992), it is difficult to determine the rationale for the said nonfinding. However, one possible conclusion is that paternal support may be more pivotal in relation to youth outcomes in African American families; not in the sense that it is more important but rather that it varies more and is less of a constant compared to maternal support. Rationale for this argument can be found in findings noted here and in other studies (e.g., McCabe, Clark, & Barnett, 1999), in which maternal support variables were found to be more stable (less variant) in their distribution. Further study is required to replicate this finding and to determine whether the differential influence of mothers and fathers in African American families is unique (consistent with a cultural values model) in this regard. Paternal support was also significantly and negatively related to delinquency for every gender, grade level, and SES subgroup. Based on these findings, it appears that feeling loved and accepted by fathers also helps African American youth avoid antisocial or delinquent behaviors. Interestingly, although support and delinquency have been found to be related in some multiethnic samples (e.g., Eccles et al., 1997; Gray & Steinberg, 1999), this relationship has not been found in the primarily European American samples that

1350

Journal of Family Issues

have followed the same multivariate methodological approach used here (e.g., Herman et al., 1997). Given the more stressful environmental context for many African American children (Grant et al., 2000; Zimmerman et al., 2000), it is very likely that these youth receive a lower “dose” of support from school and societal socializing agents (compared to European Americans), making parental support much more crucial for this ethnic group. In parallel to the nonfinding noted above, maternal support was not found to be significantly related to youth delinquency. Grant et al. (2000), in their study of African American youth, concluded that close relationships with fathers (but not mothers) were key protective factors against externalizing behavior for boys and girls. In studying the role that parents play in relation to environmental stress, Grant et al. (2000) suggested that fathers are better positioned to protect adolescents from stressors and prevent their delinquency because they are absent from the home (because of work or nonresidence) and are, consequently, more removed from the family stress. On the other hand, mothers are likely to be exposed to the same stressor type and intensity as the children because they spend greater amounts of time with the children, and with this exposure, their resources (emotional or otherwise) are diminished and they are less able to function as a buffering agent for their children.

Behavioral Control Behavioral control was found to be negatively related to delinquency for African American youth. This finding is in accordance with previous studies of African Americans (e.g., Eccles et al., 1997; Mason et al., 1996), European Americans, and non-U.S. samples (Barber et al., 2004; Bradford et al., 2004). This finding offers additional support for the long-held idea that when parents monitor their child’s free-time and after-school behavior, they help reduce opportunities for delinquency. Some recent work has criticized the monitoring scale used here, observing that it is actually a measure of parental knowledge rather than monitoring behaviors (Kerr & Stattin, 2000; Stattin & Kerr, 2000). These studies found that approximately half of the variance in parental monitoring could be explained by youth disclosure of their activities to parents. Although this criticism is understandable and has led us to refer to this measure as parental monitoring/knowledge, it is premature to conclude that it does not index parental control. Indeed, when controlling for youth disclosure in these same studies (i.e., Kerr & Stattin, 2000; Stattin & Kerr, 2000), monitoring/knowledge was still found to be significantly related to several aspects of adolescent externalized problems. This same monitoring/knowledge scale continues to be used in studies of parenting and

Bean et al. / Parenting and Youth Behaviors

1351

youth behaviors (e.g., Fletcher, Steinberg, & Williams-Wheeler, 2004; Laird, Pettit, Bates, & Dodge, 2003).

Psychological Control Recent studies that include the variable of parental psychological control with European American families (e.g., Barber, 1996; Garber et al., 1997) and several non-U.S. cultures (see Barber, 2002, for a review) suggest that psychological control contributes to internalized problems, such as depression and anxiety, because the parent intrudes into the adolescent’s own sense of self. Numerous studies (e.g., Bradford et al., 2004; Mason et al., 1996) have also observed a significant relationship between psychological control and externalized behavioral problems, such as delinquency. However, in this sample of African American families, psychological control was not found to be related to any of the three outcome variables in the multivariate analyses. Although it is premature to discount the relevance of psychological control for African Americans, the nonfindings at the multivariate level and the unexpected findings at the bivariate level (i.e., paternal psychological control positively related to paternal support and negatively related to delinquency) clearly demonstrate the need for additional study. In fact, the mixed findings and nonfindings related to this parenting dimension present a strong argument for using a cultural-values approach to better understand the psychological control construct (originally formulated using European Americans) in terms of its cultural relevance to African American families. Finally, in a finding that has relevance to all three dimensions, none of the parenting domains was significantly related to academic achievement. Although consistent with other studies that similarly found these parenting dimensions (albeit in aggregated form) to be unrelated to grades for African American adolescents (e.g., Dornbusch et al., 1987; Steinberg et al., 1994), one cannot disregard evidence that parental behavior does make a difference in the school performance of African American youth (Hrabowski, Maton, & Greif, 1998). This suggests the need for a cultural-values model to identify which specific parenting behaviors, if not these three dimensions, lead to academic success for African American students.

Conclusion Peterson and Rollins (1987) concluded that most attempts to study the parenting process have weaknesses and strengths. Among the strengths

1352

Journal of Family Issues

found in this particular study are that (a) the parenting domains were separated so that the individual effect of each could be examined along with the other parenting behaviors, (b) a comprehensive model containing the primary parenting domains was examined along with several key measures of adolescent functioning, (c) a combined model of maternal and paternal (perceived) parenting behaviors was examined, (d) the model and specific relationships were examined across several key sociodemographic factors, and (e) the sample was African American, an underresearched group in terms of parenting. The study’s limitations included the use of cross-sectional data, indicating a need for more longitudinal data to more fully determine causality in the associations as theorized. Also, there was no external confirmation of the youth’s reports on parenting behavior or own behavior, which can raise some question about the accuracy of their self-assessment and/or perception of parenting by mothers/fathers. Finally, there is a concern regarding statistical power given the chi-square sensitivity to sample size. Although the sample size used here can be considered appropriate given recommendations from various resources (e.g., Bentler & Chou, 1987; Loehlin, 1992), another source indicates the possibility of inadequate statistical power. For example, Loehlin (1998, Appendix I) estimates the power to test for poor fit to be approximately .46 for a sample of 200 with eight degrees of freedom. This certainly falls short of the optimal .90, suggests caution in interpreting findings, and provides justification for additional study. On the other hand, it is important to note that the other reported fit indices that are not influenced by sample size all indicate a good fit between the data and model (i.e., CFI, TLI, RMSEA). Additional study is clearly needed to verify the findings noted here; however, it appears that several of the consistently observed associations between parenting and youth behaviors may have relevance to African Americans. Although a certain discrepancy with the existing literature was uncovered, these findings are important because they help focus more specific attention on the parent–adolescent socialization process in African American families and note the unique contributions of the parenting dimensions that have often been aggregated in previous work.

References Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Youth Self-Report and 1991 Profile. Burlington: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry. Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. (1987). Manual for the Youth Self-Report and Profile. Burlington: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.

Bean et al. / Parenting and Youth Behaviors

1353

Arbuckle, J. L. (2003). AMOS 5.0 user’s guide. Chicago: Smallwaters. Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected construct. Child Development, 67, 3296-3319. Barber, B. K. (1997). Adolescent socialization in context: The role of connection, regulation, and autonomy in the family. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12, 5-11. Barber, B. K. (2002). Parental psychological control of children and adolescents. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Barber, B. K., Olsen, J. E., & Shagle, S. C. (1994). Associations between parental psychological and behavioral control and youth internalized and externalized behaviors. Child Development, 65, 1120-1136. Barber, B. K., Stolz, H. E., Olsen, J. E., & Maughan, S. L. (2004). Parental support, psychological control and behavioral control: Assessing relevance across time, method and culture. Manuscript submitted for publication. Bartle-Haring, S. (1997). The relationships among parent-adolescent differentiation, sex role orientation and identity development in late adolescence and early adulthood. Journal of Adolescence, 20, 553-565. Bean, R. A., Bush, K. R., McKenry, P. C., & Wilson, S. M. (2003). The impact of parental support, behavioral control, and psychological control on the academic achievement and selfesteem of African American and European American adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 18, 523-541. Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C. P. (1987). Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Methods and Research, 16, 78-117. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley. Bradford, K., Barber, B. K., Olsen, J. A., Maughan, S. L., Erickson, L. D., Ward, D., et al. (2003). A multi-national study of interparental conflict, parenting, and adolescent functioning: South Africa, Bangladesh, China, India, Bosnia, Germany, Palestine, Colombia, and the United States. Marriage and Family Review, 35, 107-137. Brody, G. H. (2003). Parental monitoring: Action and reaction. In A. C. Crouter & A. Booth (Eds.), Children’s influence on family dynamics: The neglected side of family relationships (pp. 163-169). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Brody, G. H., & Flor, D. L. (1998). Maternal resources, parenting practices, and child competence in rural, single-parent African American families. Child Development, 69, 803-816. Brook, J. S., & Newcomb, M. D. (1995). Childhood aggression and unconventionality: Impact on later academic achievement, drug use, and workforce involvement. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 156, 393-410. Brown, B. B., Mounts, N., Lamborn, S. D., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting practices and peer group affiliation in adolescence. Child Development, 63, 391-400. Chao, R. K. (2001). Extending research on the consequences of parenting style for Chinese Americans and European Americans. Child Development, 72, 1832-1843. Day, R. D., & Acock, A. (2004). Youth ratings of family processes and father role performance of resident and nonresident fathers. In R. D. Day & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Conceptualizing and measuring father involvement (pp. 273-292). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Leiderman, P. H., Roberts, D. F., & Fraleigh, M. J. (1987). The relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child Development, 58, 1244-1257. Eccles, J. S., Early, D., Frasier, K., Belansky, E., & McCarthy, K. (1997). The relation of connection, regulation, and support for autonomy to adolescents’ functioning. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12, 263-286.

1354

Journal of Family Issues

Fletcher, A. C., Steinberg, L., & Williams-Wheeler, M. (2004). Parental influences on adolescent problem behavior: Revisiting Stattin and Kerr. Child Development, 75, 781-796. Garber, J., Robinson, N. S., & Valentiner, D. (1997). The relations between parenting and adolescent depression: Self-worth as a mediator. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12, 12-33. Garnefski, N., & Diekstra, R. F. W. (1997). “Comorbidity” of behavioral, emotional, and cognitive problems in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26, 321-338. Grant, K. E., O’Koon, J. H., Davis, T. H., Roache, N. A., Poindexter, L. M., Armstrong, M. L., et al. (2000). Protective factors affecting low-income urban African American youth exposed to stress. Journal of Early Adolescence, 20, 388-417. Gray, M. R., & Steinberg, L. (1999). Unpacking authoritative parenting: Reassessing a multidimensional construct. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61, 574-587. Herman, M. R., Dornbusch, S. M., Herron, M. C., & Herting, J. R. (1997). The influence of family regulation, connection, and psychological autonomy on six measures of adolescent functioning. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12, 34-67. Hrabowski, F. A., Maton, K. I., & Greif, G. L. (1998). Beating the odds: Raising academically successful African American males. New York: Oxford University Press. Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2000). What parents know, how they know it, and several forms of adolescent adjustment: Further support for a reinterpretation of monitoring. Developmental Psychology, 36, 1-15. Kim, K., & Rohner, R. P. (2002). Parental warmth, control and involvement in schooling: Predicting academic achievement among Korean American adolescents. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 33, 127-140. Kim, S., Brody, G. H., & Murry, V. M. (2003). Longitudinal links between contextual risks, parenting, and youth outcomes in rural African American families. Journal of Black Psychology, 29, 359-377. Krishnakumar, A., Buehler, C., & Barber, B. K. (2004). Cross-ethnic equivalence of socialization measures in European American and African American families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 809-820. Laird, R. D., Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., & Dodge, K. A. (2003). Parents’ monitoring-relevant knowledge and adolescents’ delinquent behavior: Evidence of correlated developmental changes and reciprocal influences. Child Development, 74, 752-768. Lamborn, S. D., & Felbab, A. J. (2003). Applying ethnic equivalence and cultural values models to African American teens’ perceptions of parents. Journal of Adolescence, 26, 605-622. Lamborn, S. D., Mounts, N. S., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Patterns of competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 62, 1049-1065. Loehlin, J. C. (1992). Latent variable models: An introduction to factor, path, and structural analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Loehlin, J. C. (1998). Latent variable models: Factor, path and structural analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Maccoby, E., & Martin, J. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social development (pp. 1-101). New York: John Wiley. Mason, C. A., Cauce, A. M., Gonzales, N., & Hiraga, Y. (1996). Neither too sweet nor too sour: Problem peers, maternal control, and problem behavior in African American adolescents. Child Development, 67, 2115-2130. McAdoo, J. (1997). The roles of African-American fathers in the socialization of their children. In H. P. McAdoo (Ed.), Black families (3rd ed., pp. 183-197). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bean et al. / Parenting and Youth Behaviors

1355

McCabe, K. M., Clark, R., & Barnett, D. (1999). Family protective factors among urban African American youth. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 28, 137-150. Mounts, N. S. (2004). Contributions of parenting and campus climate to freshmen adjustment in a multiethnic sample. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19, 468-491. Nucci, L. (1994). Mother’s beliefs regarding the personal domain of children. New Directions for Child Development, 66, 81-97. Ogbu, J. U. (1981). Origins of human competence: A cultural-ecological perspective. Child Development, 52, 413-429. Peterson, G. W., & Rollins, B. C. (1987). Parent-child socialization. In M. B. Sussman & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family (pp. 471-505). New York: Plenum. Phares, V., & Compas, B. E. (1992). The role of fathers in child and adolescent psychopathology: Make room for daddy. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 387-412. Schaefer, E. S. (1965). A configurational analysis of children’s reports of parental behavior. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 29, 552-557. Smith, C., & Krohn, M. D. (1995). Delinquency and family life among male adolescents: The role of ethnicity. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24, 69-93. Spencer, M. B., & Dornbusch S. M. (1990). Challenges in studying minority youth. In S. S. Feldman & G. R. Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold (pp. 123-146). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Stattin, H., & Kerr, M. (2000). Parental monitoring: A reinterpretation. Child Development, 71, 1072-1085. Steinberg, L., Dornbusch, S. M., & Brown, B. B. (1992). Ethnic differences in adolescent achievement: An ecological perspective. American Psychologist, 47, 723-729. Steinberg, L., Elmen, J. D., & Mounts, N. S. (1989). Authoritative parenting, psycho-social maturity, and academic success among adolescents. Child Development, 60, 1424-1436. Steinberg, L., Mounts, N. S., Lamborn, S. D., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Authoritative parenting and adolescent adjustment across varied ecological niches. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 1, 19-36. Tanner, J., Davies, S., & O’Grady, B. (1999). Whatever happened to yesterday’s rebels? Longitudinal effects of youth delinquency on education and employment. Social Problems, 46, 250-274. Zimmerman, M. A., Ramirez-Valles, J., Zapert, K. M., & Maton, K. I. (2000). A longitudinal study of stress-buffering effects for urban African American male adolescent problem behaviors and mental health. Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 17-33.