Families Who Are Most Successful at Negotiating Adolescence Tend to Be

Child Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 Aug 22.

Published in terminal edited form as:

PMCID: PMC1551976

NIHMSID: NIHMS11539

Autonomy and Boyish Social Functioning: The Moderating Outcome of Risk

Abstruse

This study examined the moderating effect of take a chance on the relation between autonomy processes and family and adolescent functioning. The present sample comprised 131 adolescents from either a low-risk or high-risk social context, their mothers, and their peers. Observational ratings of autonomy processes inside the mother-adolescent dyad were obtained, forth with boyish reports of the quality of the female parent-adolescent relationship, and both adolescent and peer reports of the adolescent'south functioning. Consistent with past research, in depression-risk families, behavior undermining autonomy was negatively related to relationship quality, and adolescents' expressions of autonomy were linked with positive indices of social functioning. In high-risk families, withal, undermining of autonomy was positively linked with mother-adolescent human relationship quality, and adolescents' expressions of autonomy were linked with negative indices of social functioning. Results are interpreted as demonstrating the ways in which the developmental task of attaining autonomy in adolescence is systematically altered depending on the level of risk and challenge in the adolescent's social context.

INTRODUCTION

The ways that parents handle boyish strivings for autonomy have been consistently linked to both the quality of parent-adolescent relationships and to numerous aspects of boyish adjustment (Allen, Hauser, Bell, & O'Connor, 1994; Allen, Hauser, Eickholt, Bell, & O'Connor, 1994; Collins, 1990; Steinberg, 1990). Whether autonomy is defined in cognitive terms such as encouraging expression of private viewpoints or in more behavioral terms such as participating in family conclusion making, adolescents appear to benefit in numerous ways from an arroyo to autonomy that allows them to affirm a moderate degree of influence within the context of a positive parent-adolescent relationship. Research and theory on the development of adolescent autonomy, however, has merely just begun to have into account the potential moderating furnishings of social contextual factors on this procedure because virtually research has focused on center-class samples that are characterized past relative homogeneity in the level of potential take a chance and challenge in adolescents' social environments (Allen, Kuperminc, & Moore, 1997; Collins, 1990; Steinberg, 1990).

In White center-class samples, generally characterized as living in low-risk environments, observational enquiry focusing on cognitive autonomy development has shown that a range of outcomes including college levels of adolescent ego development and self-esteem and lower levels of hostility and depression are linked to family communications that promote or display autonomy (due east.g., explaining and discussing reasons for disagreements) and inversely related to statements that undermine autonomy (east.m., overpersonalizing or pressuring statements; Allen, Hauser, Bell, et al., 1994; Grotevant & Cooper, 1985; Hauser et al., 1984). In addition, cocky-report enquiry on behavioral autonomy has demonstrated that administrative parenting, which involves balancing granting sufficient autonomy with advisable amounts of firm command and acceptance, is positively related to outcomes such as success in school and positive cocky-concept (Baumrind, 1991; Dornbusch, Ritter, Leiderman, Roberts, & Fraleigh, 1987; Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg, & Dornbusch, 1991; Paulson, 1994; Steinberg, Elmen, & Mounts, 1989; Steinberg, Mounts, Lamborn, & Dornbusch, 1991).

Although past enquiry conspicuously demonstrates that parental approaches to autonomy take of import implications for boyish functioning, it does non consider how sociocontextual factors might affect the autonomy process. Extensive anthropological theory and research suggests that parents' behaviors in socializing their children are strongly influenced by awareness of the traits that are considered necessary for survival and success (Barry, Child, & Bacon, 1959/1967; Harkness & Super, 1995; Harrison, Wilson, Pine, Chan, & Buriel, 1990; Kohn, 1963,1979; Levine, 1980, 1988; Ogbu, 1981,1988; Okagaki & Divecha, 1993). To the extent that these traits vary across ecological contexts, appropriate parental approaches to numerous aspects of the socialization process, including handling of adolescents' autonomy strivings across both behavioral and cognitive realms, are besides likely to vary.

Across all environments, parental responses to adolescent autonomy strivings require balancing the demand to set up limits on behavior and the demand to provide adolescents with sufficient freedom to endeavour out new behaviors and acquire from mistakes (Allen et al., 1997; Holmbeck, Paikoff, & Brooks-Gunn, 1995). The appropriate residue, all the same, betwixt limit setting and encouragement of exploration depends on the level of complexity, challenge, and danger in the boyish'due south surround (Bradley, 1995). Thus, the same parental behaviors may exist more than or less appropriate depending on the environmental context in which they occur. For example, parental inhibition of autonomy—whether it is defined in behavioral terms (eastward.g., strict rules and consequences) or in cognitive terms (e.g., discouragement of individual expression)—may exist entirely appropriate in dangerous environments that pose multiple threats to the boyish's well-being (Dubrow & Garbarino, 1989; Furstenberg, 1993). In less risky contexts, however, these same autonomy-inhibiting behaviors might exist more than likely to reflect a maladaptive parental reluctance to let normative autonomy development to proceed (Baldwin, Baldwin, & Cole, 1990).

Inquiry focusing on behavioral approaches to autonomy confirms that in high-risk contexts, parents are more than likely to utilise strategies emphasizing conformity and obedience rather than those that promote independence and autonomy (Bartz & Levine, 1978; Dubrow & Garbarino, 1989; Harkness & Super, 1995; Kelley, Sanchez-Hucles, & Walker, 1993). Similarly, initial prove from survey-based studies also suggests that parental approaches to behavioral autonomy have different consequences for adolescent development in high-take a chance contexts. Although results of this research have been somewhat mixed (Steinberg et al., 1991), several studies have found that adolescent reports of parents' authoritative parenting are not necessarily linked with positive outcomes in not-White, non-centre-class samples, whereas parenting styles involving a greater restriction of autonomy (i.e., authoritarian styles) are related to more positive child adjustment in these groups (Baumrind, 1972; Dornbusch et al., 1987; Lamborn, Dornbusch, & Steinberg, 1996; Steinberg, Dornbusch, & Brown, 1992). Further, several contempo surveys of parenting practices in primarily African American samples have demonstrated that the level of environmental risk moderates the links between parental restriction of autonomy and adolescent adjustment. In high-take chances contexts within these samples, parental restriction of behavioral autonomy is linked with positive indices of adjustment, including higher levels of bookish competence and decreased externalizing behaviors (Baldwin et al., 1990; Gonzales, Cauce, Friedman, & Mason, 1996; Mason, Cauce, Gonzales, & Hiraga, 1996).

The previously noted research has been express to examining the links betwixt parents' behaviors and adolescent outcomes. Adolescents' ain behaviors, even so—also as their interpretations of parental behaviors—are also likely to be influenced by their socioenvironmental context. For example, adolescents living in a risky social context who assert their autonomy with parents may be taking on contained conclusion making in an environment that offers greater opportunity for involvement in problem behaviors. High levels of adolescent autonomy vis-à-vis parents may not exist adaptive in these environments, even if these same behaviors would be adaptive in less dangerous contexts. Similarly, adolescents who might chafe and rebel when their autonomy is highly restricted in relatively safe environments might exist more than tolerant of such restrictions in higher risk environments. Unfortunately, research has not assessed adolescents' role in seeking autonomy vis-à-vis parents as it is chastened by the ecological context in which the adolescent is developing.

In addition, although self-report information and several bodies of theory have converged on the notion that autonomy processes in adolescence will be substantially different in more versus less risky social contexts, the few existing studies of the furnishings of level of risk on adolescent-parent interactions take primarily used behavioral measures of the autonomy process, thereby leaving open the question of whether context also effects other aspects of the autonomy process. In addition, such studies accept relied primarily on adolescents as reporters. All-encompassing bear witness exists concerning the biased and unreliable nature of self-reports of qualities of social interactions in which 1 is a participant (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977). Sole reliance on adolescent cocky-report data confounds the perspective of the adolescent in a given context with the actual behaviors of that adolescent and his or her parent. This confound is especially important here because we would predict that the same parental behaviors may have very different meanings to adolescents in high- versus low-adventure environments (Hill, 1995; Nucci, 1994)—meanings that are impossible to disentangle from actual behaviors if the same adolescent is reporting on both.

This written report extends previous enquiry on the furnishings of contextual take chances on the autonomy process by using observational and multireporter methods to examine how level of risk interacts with familial approaches to cerebral autonomy promotion. Specifically, both mothers' behaviors undermining autonomy and adolescents' behaviors exhibiting autonomy during a family discussion are examined in terms of how they chronicle to adolescent adjustment across both low- and loftier-risk settings. Adolescents' aligning is considered both in terms of the quality of the parent-adolescent relationship and their psychosocial functioning outside of the home (every bit indicated by degree of involvement in problem behaviors and level of competence with peers).

On the basis of past studies of cognitive autonomy processes in White, middle-form samples, in this study it is hypothesized that in depression-risk contexts, maternal undermining of autonomy will exist related both to lower parent-adolescent relationship quality and to indices of maladaptive functioning outside the abode. Similarly, boyish exhibition of autonomy in depression-risk settings is hypothesized to be linked to adaptive social operation both inside and outside of the parent-adolescent relationship. On the basis of both theoretical notions of parenting in risky environments and the few self-report studies of risk and behavioral autonomy processes, the contrary pattern is hypothesized for high-gamble contexts in which parents and adolescents are coping with a heightened level of dangerousness and challenge. These hypotheses are examined by using a sample selected to allow these questions to be addressed inside a maximally meaningful range of psychosocial functioning, including substantial numbers of adolescents functioning both adequately and poorly.

METHOD

Sample

Adolescents and mothers

The sample comprised 131 ninth and tenth graders, mean age = 15.9, SD = 0.8; 47% female, 61% white, and their mothers. Adolescents were selected from two different school districts on the basis of the presence of any of four possible academic risk factors in their academic records: failing a single form for a unmarried marker period, any lifetime history of grade retention, 10 or more absences in one marking menstruum, and a history of school interruption in the current academic year. These wide selection criteria were established to sample a sizeable range of adolescents who could be identified from academic records as having the potential for futurity bookish and social difficulties, including both adolescents already experiencing serious difficulties and those who are performing fairly with merely occasional, minor problems. Equally intended, these criteria identified approximately half of all ninth- and l0th-grade students as eligible for the study.

This sample was then divided into 2 subsamples according to the level of run a risk present in the adolescents' social surroundings. Two indicators were used together to determine high- versus low-risk status: location of residence and family income. Location of residence was determined by the adolescents' reports of whether they attended a high school drawing from inside the local city boundaries versus the one serving the more rural surrounding county. Data on family income was collected through mothers' cocky-reports of household income. Families were identified as living in a high-risk context if their residence was in the urban center district and their income brutal at or below 200% of the Federal poverty line (equally determined by a Federal income-to-needs ratio that compares household income with number of persons in household supported by this income).

The income cut-off was chosen on the footing of past research on the effects of poverty, which frequently uses the 200% mark as a cut-off (as opposed to income levels right at the poverty threshold) to designate "poor" and "nonpoor" samples (e.1000., Axinn, Duncan, & Thornton, 1997). Families whose income falls between 100% and 200% of the poverty line are classified as "near poor" and are eligible for services from a variety of federal programs (e.g., free or reduced-cost schoolhouse lunch programs) (Brooks-Gunn, Duncan, & Maritato, 1997). In addition, there is substantial prove that compared with children living above 200% of the poverty line, children living in near-poor families feel a range of maladaptive concrete and social outcomes such as stunted growth, lower bookish achievement, and higher rates of teenage motherhood (Conger, Conger, & Elderberry, 1997; Haveman, Wolfe, & Wilson, 1997; Hauser & Sweeney, 1997; Korenman & Miller, 1997; Smith, Brooks-Gunn, & Klebanov, 1997; Teachman, Paasch, Twenty-four hours, & Carver, 1997).

The ii indicators used to designate risk in this study (location of residence and family income) may serve every bit surrogates for many dissimilar kinds of chance; all the same, they were used together to take into account both the multiplicative effects of take a chance factors and the fact that a substantial trunk of enquiry has documented that living in poverty in urban areas makes a family particularly decumbent to exposure to higher levels of criminal activeness (Brooks-Gunn, Klebanov, Liaw, & Duncan, 1995; Krivo & Peterson, 1996). In the electric current report, the rate of index offenses inside the city was approximately 2.half-dozen times the rate in the surrounding county (Virginia Section of Country Police, 1995). In addition, the rate of drug-related arrests for both possession and sale/manufacturing of drugs was approximately 2–three times greater in the city versus the surrounding canton (Virginia Department of Country Law, 1995). Further, the population density in the city was approximately ane,543.0 people per foursquare kilometer, versus 38,4 people per square kilometer in the canton (Slater & Hall, 1996). Thus, teens living in the city were likely to take easier access to peers even without parental aid (east.1000., transportation) outside of school. This easier access may serve to subtract parental control and, coupled with the increased crime rates within metropolis boundaries, means that these teens' exposure to risky, delinquent activities (as either perpetrators or victims) are likely to be greater than that of their counterparts living in the county.

Using these two indicators in combination resulted in 43 (33%) of the families in the study being classified as living in a high-risk environment. The remaining 88 (67%) of families were classified as living in a low-gamble surroundings considering they experienced no adventure factors or only a single gamble factor in isolation (the low-risk group included thirteen families that had incomes below the study cutoff merely lived in rural areas and 39 families that lived within city boundaries but had incomes above the poverty line). Demographic data for the high- and depression-risk samples is presented in Table 1.

Tabular array 1

Demographic Variables in High- and Low-Risk Samples

	High Risk (n = 43)	Low Risk (northward = 88)	t
Adolescents' age
Mean (SD)	15.73 (.77)	xv.95 (.eighty)	1.45
Family unit income
Mean (SD)	14,878 (seven,352)	40,833 (19,164)	11.03***
Number of academic risk factors
Hateful (SD)	one.46 (−57)	one,46 (.74)	−.00
			χ2
Adolescents' gender
Male	58%	50%	0.77
Female	42%	50%
Race/ethnicity
European American	26%	78%	33.91***
African American	74%	22%
Family unit composition
Intact (both biological parents)	17%	41%	7.55**
Non-intact	83%	59%
Mothers' education
Did non consummate high school	33%	8%	21.44**
High schoolhouse diploma	22%	eighteen%
≤ 2 years of college	43%	47%
Bachelors caste or beyond	2%	27%

Although adolescents' age and gender composition were approximately the aforementioned beyond the two groups, there were associations in the expected directions between high-gamble status and family income and mothers' level of education. In addition, there were relatively more adolescents living with both biological parents in the low-risk sample than in the high-risk sample. There was as well a significant clan between ethnicity and level of risk, with the high-risk sample containing a greater proportion of African American families. This association was considered further in analyses described after. Notably, comparison of the two groups indicates that there were no significant differences between the loftier- and low-risk samples in the number of academic gamble factors at the time of selection into the written report.

Peer sample

The teens in the study were asked to provide names and phone numbers of up to five friends who "knew them well" to participate in a peer interview. Upwardly to ii of these friends were contacted and brought into our offices to exist interviewed. In cases in which data were gathered from two peers, their ratings of the teen in the report were averaged to create one peer variable, A full of 193 peers were interviewed, mean historic period = xvi.29, SD = 1.3; 54% female person, 60% white. Peers reported that they had known the teens in the study an boilerplate of 4.6 years (SD = 3.half dozen).

Process

After adolescents who met written report criteria were identified, letters explaining the study were sent to each family of a potential participant. Interested families sent back postal service cards containing information nigh how to contact them by phone. Approximately 67% of the families contacted by phone agreed to participate in the study. Families came in for two 3-hour visits and were paid $105.00 for their participation. At each session, agile, informed consent was obtained from both parents and teens, who were interviewed separately and assured confidentiality for all data collected. Peers were contacted by phone and came in separately for one 45-min session; they were paid $10 for participation in this session. Active consent was besides obtained from both the peers and their parents, and peers were assured complete confidentiality. All data in the study were covered under a Department of Wellness and Human Services Confidentiality Document, which protects data confronting amendment by federal, land, or local courts and other agencies.

Measures

Demographic information

Both mothers, adolescents, and peers were asked to provide bones demographic information such equally gender, age, and race/ethnicity. Mothers were also asked to provide data regarding their level of didactics, family and marital condition, almanac household income, and number of persons supported past this income. Adolescents and peers were besides asked to study on which local high school they attended, and peers reported on the number of years or months that they had known they boyish in the study.

Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment

Adolescents' perceptions of the current caste of trust, communication and breach, in their relationships with their mothers were assessed by using this 25-item inventory (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987). Teens were asked to charge per unit how truthful each item was with respect to their mothers on a 5-point scale from "never" to "almost always." Sample items included "I trust my mother" (trust), "My mother encourages me to talk about my difficulties" (advice), and "I experience lonely or autonomously when I am with my mother" (alienation). Cronbach's as measuring internal consistency for the three subscales were .91, .88, and .86, respectively. This questionnaire has been shown to have good test-retest reliability and has been related to other measures of family surround and teen psychological functioning (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987).

Child Report of Parenting Beliefs Inventory

In addition, information was gathered past using ii scales of the shortened 30-detail version of the 108-item Child Study of Parenting Beliefs Inventory: Credence versus Rejection and Psychological Command versus Autonomy (Schaefer, 1965; Schluderman & Schluderman, 1970). Teens were asked to say whether each item was "not," "somewhat," or "a lot" like their mothers, and the resulting answers were summed for each subscale. Sample items included "My mother gives me a lot of care and attention" (credence versus rejection) and "My mother says, if I really cared for her, I would non do things that cause her to worry" (psychological control versus autonomy). Each scale was found to be internally consistent, with Cronbach's as equal to .94 and .82. Past research has institute these scales to accept good exam-retest reliability and to be significantly related to a variety of other aspects of family functioning, likewise as to boyish outcomes such as academic functioning (Collins, 1990; Schaefer, 1965; Schluderman & Schluderman, 1970; Steinberg et al., 1989, 1992).

Autonomy and Relatedness Coding System

Adolescents and their mothers participated in a revealed differences task in which they discussed a family issue about which they disagreed. Typical topics of give-and-take included coin (19%), grades (nineteen%), household rules (17%), friends (14%), and brothers and sisters (ten%); other possible areas included advice, plans for the future, booze and drugs, religion, and dating. These interactions were videotaped, and then transcribed.

Both videotapes and transcripts were used to code the mother-boyish interactions for behaviors exhibiting and/or undermining autonomy, using the Autonomy and Relatedness Coding Organisation (Allen, Hauser, Bell, Boykin, & Tate, 1995). Concrete behavioral guidelines were used to code both mothers' and adolescents' individual speeches on one or more than of 10 subscales. 2 of these subscales (stating reasons and exhibiting confidence) are combined to yield the Exhibiting Autonomy scale, and three others are used for the Undermining Autonomy scale (overpersonalizing, pressuring, or recanting one's ain position). Conceptually, all of these scales capture the degree to which autonomy is promoted versus undermined within the dyadic relationship. For case, stating one's reasons promotes autonomy within the human relationship to the extent that this behavior facilitates the discussion of reasons by both parties. Similarly, 1 tin accomplish a high score on undermining autonomy both past attempting to undermine the other person's autonomy (overpersonalizing and pressuring), or by undermining 1's own autonomy (recanting). In both cases, these behaviors limit the word of reasons and focus instead on characteristics of the individuals and their human relationship with each other. Although the behaviors captured past these subscales obviously differ in important respects, what they share in mutual is their function in promoting or undermining autonomy within the dyad.

Two raters coded each interaction, and interrater reliability for these scales was calculated by using Spearman-Chocolate-brown correlations. Reliability coefficients for the two scales used in these analyses (adolescents exhibiting autonomy and mothers undermining autonomy) were .86 and .71, respectively. Copies of this coding transmission are available on request. Past research using this coding organization has constitute it to be a reliable predictor of both family and adolescent functioning (Allen, Hauser, Bell, et al., 1994; Allen, Hauser, Eickholt, et al., 1994).

Trouble Behavior Inventory

Adolescents' reports of their delinquent activity were gathered by using this 37-particular inventory (Elliott, Ageton, Huizinga, Knowles, & Canter, 1983), a well-validated interview that yields a scale summing the total frequency of runaway acts in the past half dozen months (Cronbach's α = .77). Examples of items included in this calibration are every bit follows: (How oft in the past 6 months have you) "Taken a vehicle for a ride or drive without the owner's permission?", "Stolen or tried to steal things worm between $five and $l?", and "Purposely damaged or destroyed property that did not belong to you?" Because sums of these frequencies were found to be highly negatively skewed, this scale was log-transformed before its employ in these analyses.

Boyish Self-Perception Contour

The adolescents' peers each answered questions regarding the teens' social credence and shut friendships past using a modified version of the Adolescent Self-Perception Contour (Harter, 1985). The same items were used as in the original measure but were modified to allow peer ratings of the boyish, rather than cocky ratings. Peers rated how true of the teen each item was on a four-point scale from "not true at all" to "very true." The two peers' responses were averaged to create a single peer rating for each scale. For the purposes of this study, the 5-item social acceptance scale and the five-detail close friendship scale were combined to create an overall measure of social or "friendship" competence. Examples of items from this scale included "Some people are popular with others their age, but other people are not very popular" (social acceptance) and "Some people do not have a really close friend to share things with, but other people practise accept a close friend to share things with" (shut friendship). Pearson correlation coefficients between the two peers' ratings of social acceptance and close friendship were .44 and .24, respectively. The coefficient indicating degree of understanding betwixt the ii peers on the overall friendship competence scale was .xl. Both the social acceptance and close friendship scales showed good internal consistency, with Cronbach's αs equal to .83 and .81, respectively; similarly the overall friendship competence scale yielded a Cronbach's α of .88.

RESULTS

Preliminary Analyses

Descriptive statistics

Means and standard deviations for all predictor and outcome variables are presented separately for low-risk versus high-risk adolescents in Table 2. To examine grouping differences between these two samples on the variables in question, t tests were conducted. The results of these analyses are also presented. As indicated, low-risk adolescents exhibited college levels of exhibiting autonomy during the interaction task (encounter Table 2). Low-risk adolescents also reported college levels of alienation in their relationships with their mothers. Finally, the peers of loftier-risk adolescents rated those adolescents every bit more competent in friendships than the low-risk adolescents' peers.

Table 2

Mean Differences between Loftier-Adventure and Depression-Adventure Samples on All Variables Examined

	Loftier Take a chance Mean (SD)	Low Risk Mean (SD)	t
Autonomy variables
Adolescent exhibiting autonomy	1.57 (.93)	2.06 (.84)	3.05**
Mother undermining autonomy	.87 (.fifty)	.89 (.49)	0.21
Relationship variables
Psychological control	17.04(4.01)	16.50 (4.72)	−.74
Acceptance	22.96 (5.39)	21.81 (6.thirteen)	−one.04
Trust	forty.34(seven.66)	37.66 (8.86)	−i.68+
Advice	34.xvi (8.fifty)	33.06 (8.78)	−.67
Alienation	16.42 (6.49)	twenty.16 (6.24)	iii.12**
Adolescent adjustment
Peer-reported friendship competence	3.27 (.46)	3.03 (.61)	−ii.05*
Self-reported delinquency	i.83 (1.53)	1.54(1.43)	−1.06

Zero-order correlations amongst both independent and dependent variables, including both level of gamble and ethnicity, are presented in Table 3.

Table 3

Intercorrelations among Predictor and Outcome Variables

	1.	2.	three.	4.	five.	six.	7.	viii.	9.	x.	11.
Demographic variables
1. Level of riska
ii. Race/ethnicityb	.51
Autonomy/control variables
3. Teen exhibiting autonomy	−.26	−.36
4. Mother undermining autonomy	−.02	.nineteen	.06
Relationship variables
5. Psychological control	.06	.16	−.18	.16
6. Acceptance	.09	−.00	−.08	.04	−.29
seven. Trust	.15	.04	−.03	.eleven	−.37	.81
eight. Communication	.06	−.00	−.13	.08	−.25	.82	.81
9. Breach	−.27	−.eleven	.xx	−.01	.37	−.63	−.68	−.68
Consequence variables
x. Peer reported friendship competence	.19	.04	.16	−.06	−.05	.14	.11	.10	−.11
eleven. Self reported delinquency	.09	.00	.thirteen	.02	.26	−.15	−.19	−.26	.25	.01

Primary Analysis

Both boyish gender and level of gamble in the environs were included equally predictors in all regression analyses presented here. Interaction terms were created by standardizing the contained variables and multiplying them together. The independent variables and their corresponding interaction terms were entered into the equations following gender and level of risk.

Although no significant interactions were found for gender, a number of significant interactions were establish for level of hazard. As tin can exist seen in Table iv, meaning interactions between negotiation of autonomy and level of risk were constitute in iv out of half-dozen models tested for mothers' behaviors undermining autonomy, and in three out of six models tested for adolescents' behaviors exhibiting autonomy.

Table iv

Interactions between Negotiating Autonomy and Level of Take chances in Predicting Mother-Boyish Relationship Quality and Adolescent Adjustment

	Mother-Adolescent Relationship Quality			Boyish Adjustment
	Trust βa	Acceptance β	Psychological Command β	Breach β	Friendship Competence β	Delinquency β
Mothers' undermining autonomy	.17*	.27** *	−.21*	−.18*	−.03	.00
Adolescents' exhibiting autonomy	−.05	−.06	−.05	.xix*	−.17+	.19*

When significant interaction furnishings were plant, additional regression analyses were conducted to examine the relation between the independent and dependent variables separately for the two take chances groups. Again, models included main effects of gender likewise as gender interaction effects, and no such effects were establish. Given prior reports suggesting potential moderating effects of race/ethnicity (Lamborn et al., 1996) and its relation with risk status in this sample, fuller consideration of analyses of moderating effects of adolescents' race/ethnicity follows.

Negotiating autonomy and the mother–adolescent relationship

The first set of models examined the relation between maternal behaviors undermining autonomy and adolescents' perceptions of the mother–boyish human relationship. In examining adolescents' perceptions of trust and acceptance in their relationships with their mothers, pregnant moderating effects were revealed within overall significant models (see Table 5). Specifically, regression analyses conducted separately for each group revealed that high-hazard teens saw highly autonomy-undermining mothers equally more trustworthy, β = .37, p < .05, and more accepting, β = .44, p < .01. These relations were nonsignificant for low-risk teens; Trust: β = −.03, p > .20; Acceptance: β = −.16, p > .x. These effects are depicted in Figure 1.

Observations of maternal undermining of autonomy and adolescents' ratings of trust and acceptance.

Tabular array v

Maternal Behaviors Undermining Autonomy and the Quality of the Mother-Adolescent Human relationship

	r	βa	ΔR two	R 2
Trust
Level of chance	.fifteen	.14		.02
Gender	−.16*	−.15+	.02+	.04+
Undermining autonomy	.11	.10	.01	.05+
Adventure × undermining autonomy		.17*	.03*	.08*
βHigh Take a chance = .37**
βLow Take chances = −.03
Acceptance
Level of chance	.09	.09		.01
Gender	−.13	−.13	.02	.02
Undermining autonomy	.04	.02	.01	.03
Risk × undermining autonomy		.27**	.07**	.10*
βHighRisk = .44**
βLowRisk = −.16

In add-on, pregnant moderating effects of level of risk were also revealed when examining adolescents' perceptions of the degree of psychological control and breach in their relationships with their mothers (come across Table half-dozen). Regression analyses conducted separately for each grouping revealed that depression-risk teens with mothers who undermined their autonomy during the interaction task rated their mothers as granting them less psychological autonomy, β = .thirty, p < .01, whereas this link was nonsignificant for high-risk teens, β = −.15, p > .20. Although split up regression analyses did not reveal significant furnishings for either group for breach (run into Table vi), examination of Effigy 2 indicates that the interaction effect was for high-risk adolescents to feel relatively less alienated from mothers who undermined their autonomy, whereas low-risk adolescents felt relatively more than alienated from mothers who engaged in such behaviors. Both of these interactions are depicted in Figure 2.

Observations of maternal undermining of autonomy and adolescents' ratings of psychological control and breach.

Table half dozen

Maternal Behaviors Undermining Autonomy and the Quality of the Mother–Adolescent Relationship

	r	βa	ΔR two	R ii
Psychological command
Level of risk	.06	.05		.01
Gender	−.06	−.04	.00	.01
Undermining Autonomy	.16	.17+	.03*	.03
Risk* undermining autonomy		−.21*	.04*	.08*
βHigh Risk = −.15
βDepression Risk = −.xxx**
Alienation
Level of risk	−.27**	−.27**		.07**
Gender	.15+	.14+	.02	.09**
Undermining autonomy	−.01	−.01	.00	.09**
Run a risk* undermining autonomy		−.xviii*	.03*	.12**
βHigh Risk = −.24
βLow Run a risk = −.13

Further bear witness that the link betwixt negotiation of autonomy and female parent–adolescent relationship quality differed beyond level of risk came from examining adolescents' behaviors exhibiting autonomy during the interaction chore. A significant interaction effect was found for level of gamble, and separate regressions demonstrated that in high-chance families, adolescents' behaviors exhibiting autonomy were related to teens feeling more alienated from their mothers, β = .43, p < .01. This relation was nonsignificant in low-risk families, β = −.02, p > .20. This interaction effect is depicted in Figure 3.

Observations of adolescents' exhibiting autonomy and adolescents' ratings of alienation from mother.

In sum, the links between negotiating autonomy and the quality of the mother–boyish relationship were moderated by the level of run a risk present in the environs, especially with regard to mother'due south behaviors undermining autonomy. In loftier-chance families, teens felt closer to mothers who undermined their autonomy, whereas low-risk teens saw these mothers every bit psychologically controlling. In addition, higher levels of adolescents' exhibition of autonomy were linked to increased female parent-teen alienation only for high-risk adolescents.

Negotiating autonomy and adolescent adjustment

Regression analyses as well demonstrated that negotiation of autonomy had different consequences outside of the home co-ordinate to the level of take chances, particularly for teens' level of delinquency and their social competence. In examining the link between adolescents' behaviors exhibiting autonomy and their self-reported runaway activeness, a pregnant moderating effect of level of risk was revealed within an overall meaning model (see Tabular array seven).

Table 7

Adolescents' Behaviors Exhibiting Autonomy, the Mother–Adolescent Relationship and Boyish Aligning

	r	βa	ΔR 2	R 2
Breach
Level of risk	−.27**	−.nineteen*		.07**
Gender	.xv+	.eleven	.02	.09**
Exhibiting Autonomy	.20**	.11	.02	.11**
Take a chance* exhibiting autonomy		.19*	.03*	.14**
βHigh Risk = .43**
βDepression Run a risk = −.02
Self-reported delinquency
Level of risk	.09	.16*		.01
Gender	−.08	−.10	.01	.02
Exhibiting Autonomy	.thirteen	.sixteen+	.02+	.04
Risk* exhibiting autonomy		.nineteen*	.04*	.08*
βLoftier Risk = .44**
βLow Take chances = .03
Peer-reported friendship competence
Level of risk	.20*	.23*		.04*
Gender	.22*	.21*	.05**	.09**
Exhibiting Autonomy	.16+	.xix*	.03*	.12**
Take a chance* exhibiting autonomy		−.17*	.03+	.15**
βHigh Run a risk = −.08
βLow Run a risk = .28*

Regressions conducted separately for each grouping indicated that adolescents' behaviors exhibiting autonomy were related to increased levels of cocky-reported delinquency for high-risk teens, β = .44, p < .01, whereas this link was nonsignificant for depression-risk teens, β = .03, p > .20. A graph of this interaction effect can exist found in Figure 4.

Adolescents' exhibiting autonomy and adolescents' social functioning.

A similar blueprint of findings was besides found for friendship competence, although the interaction term was significant only at the trend level (see Table six). Divide analyses were nevertheless conducted across groups because Cohen has suggested that use of a slightly less bourgeois test for interaction terms may be appropriate given that the follow-up analyses done separately across groups still provide substantial protection against Type I errors (Cohen & Cohen, 1975). Specifically, it was found that adolescents' exhibition of autonomy with their mothers was related to greater friendship competence for low-risk adolescents, β = .28, p < .05, just non for high-risk adolescents, β = −.08, p > .20 (meet Figure 4).

In sum, adolescents' behaviors exhibiting autonomy were institute to have negative correlates for high-risk adolescents in the class of increased alienation from their mothers and increased levels of delinquent activity. These same behaviors were found to have positive correlates for low-risk adolescents, in the form of increased competence with peers; notwithstanding, the expected links betwixt mothers' behaviors negotiating autonomy and adolescent adjustment outside of the habitation were not constitute.

Effects of race/ethnicity

As was mentioned previously, given that level of gamble and ethnicity were confounded in this sample, the entire ready of analyses described here was conducted by examining moderator effects of race/ethnicity in the place of level of run a risk. Neither the principal effects of race nor the interaction terms including race were significant in any model. For the main effects of race/ethnicity βs ranged from .01 to .13, all p > .15; βs for the interaction terms ranged from .04 to .xv, all p > .10, non depicted).

Next, both the main effect of race/ethnicity and interaction effects were included in each of the models examining the effects of risk as discussed previously. Although adding race equally a covariate slightly reduced the significance of some of the findings (which was not surprising given that it was significantly correlated with gamble and thus increased the collinearity of regression models when information technology was included), neither the management nor the nature of the findings were altered and significance levels declined simply slightly (three models dropped to the tendency level overall, all p < .07). Models that dropped to a trend level included those examining effects of autonomy negotiation on levels of trust, acceptance, and adolescent runaway behavior. In no instance did adolescents' race/ethnicity contribute to predictions either before or afterwards including the effects of risk.

DISCUSSION

This study found substantial evidence that the level of risk experienced by adolescents and their families contradistinct the process of autonomy negotiation within the mother–adolescent dyad. When considered in low-gamble versus loftier-risk samples of adolescents and their families, adolescent autonomy strivings and maternal responses to them were linked in dissimilar (and often opposite) ways to both the adolescent's perception of the mother–adolescent relationship and to appointment in delinquent action and social competence. A slightly dissimilar blueprint of effects was revealed when considering mothers' versus adolescents' behaviors with regard to autonomy across run a risk settings, every bit is discussed after. Overall, these findings are consistent with the hypothesis that autonomy-related behaviors would take dissimilar meanings for the parent-adolescent relationship when examined across contexts that vary in the level of risk posed to the adolescent.

The procedure by which mothers negotiated autonomy was closely linked to adolescents' perceptions of the quality of the parent-adolescent relationship, and these linkages varied substantially according to level of risk. In low-adventure families, the quality of the parent-adolescent relationship was lower when mothers engaged in behaviors that tended to undermine autonomy inside the dyad by pressuring, overpersonalizing, or recanting their positions prematurely. These autonomy-undermining behaviors were specifically linked to adolescents perceiving their mothers equally psychologically controlling and feeling relatively more alienated from them. Dissimilar depression-risk teens, even so, loftier-risk teens did not view mothers who undermined autonomy during the interaction task as over-controlling. On the reverse, when high-risk mothers engaged in these behaviors, their adolescents rated their mothers every bit more trustworthy and reported feeling more accustomed by them. Although adolescents' ain autonomy negotiation was largely unrelated to most facets of their perception of the mother–adolescent relationship, levels of adolescents' reported alienation from mothers was linked to increased displays of autonomy for high-take a chance adolescents merely not for low-gamble adolescents.

These findings back up the notion that the increased level of risk present in loftier-risk contexts alters the meaning of autonomy processes vis-à-vis the parent–adolescent relationship. For example, in high-risk contexts, maternal behaviors that undermine autonomy past cutting off discussion through pressuring adolescents to change their positions may promote a more positive relationship by making the teens feel protected. Similarly, high-risk mothers who engage in overpersonalizing behaviors (east.thou., saying "I will just exist also worried about you if you lot are out too late") may be sending a positive message to their adolescents—one that says that these mothers are highly caring and invested in what happens to the teens in a potentially risky environment. These same behaviors in a depression-gamble context, however, might communicate overprotection and be seen past the adolescent equally manipulative and guilt-invoking, in role because they might well be overprotective for adolescents in such contexts.

In terms of operation outside of the home, once again the blueprint of relations between the negotiation of autonomy and boyish outcomes was found to vary systematically according to level of risk. In this case, all the same, findings were limited to links between adolescents' displays of autonomy and indices of adolescent aligning. Specifically, low-risk adolescents who exhibited their autonomy in their relationship with their mothers past stating their positions conspicuously and confidently during a disagreement were more socially competent outside of the family. Friends of these adolescents reported that they were more socially accepted and more successful in forming relationships with their same-age peers. In contrast, high-risk adolescents who exhibited higher levels of autonomy with their mothers were not viewed as more socially competent and in fact reported engaging in increased levels of delinquent activeness outside of the domicile. Thus, whereas a way of displaying autonomy involving questioning of parental authority in a verbal interaction is related to positive social adjustment in center-class samples (Allen, Hauser, Bell, et al., 1994; Allen, Hauser, Eickholt, et al., 1994; Grotevant & Cooper, 1985; Hauser et al., 1984), this same negotiation style appears to be linked to negative outcomes for poor teens living in high-risk areas.

The finding that exclamation of cognitive autonomy is problematic for adolescents in high-gamble contexts is consequent with and extends past research that has indicated that higher levels of behavioral autonomy also have detrimental furnishings for high-risk teens. Such research has suggested that in high-hazard contexts, attempting to break away from parental command during midadolescence may atomic number 82 to maladaptive outcomes (Baldwin et al., 1990; Gonzales et al., 1996; Mason et al., 1996). Adolescents living in high-risk contexts have increased accessibility to peers—as well every bit to older adolescents—who may be involved in illegal or dangerous activities (Krivo & Peterson, 1996). Thus, teens in these contexts who are highly autonomous at age 16 are attempting to accept control of their activities in an environment that offers increased opportunity for getting involved in deviant behavior. Alternatively, teens who are highly motivated to establish their autonomy may exist at a greater risk in a poor urban environment considering of a limitation in socially acceptable opportunities to gain autonomy. In other words, such teens may accept fewer opportunities to proceeds autonomy past means of a part-fourth dimension job, scholastic success, or extracurricular activities, and problematic beliefs may exist one easily accessible loonshit through which they tin affirm themselves and proceeds independence. The current findings suggest that it is non simply that behavioral autonomy may be unlike in risky environments but also that the correlates of the development of cognitive autonomy may be altered as well.

The overall pattern of these findings indicates that mothers' behaviors with regard to autonomy take consequences for adolescents' perceptions of the mother–boyish relationship, whereas adolescents' approaches to autonomy negotiation appear to exist more relevant in predicting adolescents' behaviors outside of the home surroundings. This design differs somewhat from past research (using both cognitive and behavioral measures) that has linked maternal autonomy negotiation to adolescent outcomes. A closer exam of past inquiry provides several possible explanations for the discrepancies between this study and previous ones. First, whereas this written report focused on delinquency and social competence, by research using like observational measures of cognitive autonomy processes has nearly frequently plant links between mothers' approaches to autonomy and measures of internalizing symptoms (e.g., depression self-esteem). Thus, information technology may be that mothers' undermining of cognitive autonomy is more closely related to such symptoms than to other domains of social functioning.

Second, by enquiry finding links between autonomy-undermining behaviors and adolescent externalizing beliefs has relied on measures of behavioral autonomy, which may reflect the outcomes of mothers' behaviors rather than the goals of those behaviors. In other words, when adolescents report that their mothers undermine their autonomy, by definition they are reporting that their behavior has been affected. It is non surprising, so, that such studies have found links betwixt reports of mothers' behaviors with regard to autonomy and adolescent behaviors outside the home. The electric current mensurate of autonomy focuses more than on maternal attempts to undermine their adolescents' cerebral autonomy, whether or non they are ultimately successful. Our results indicate that the effects of mothers' attempts to undermine adolescents' autonomy in the cerebral realm are limited to disruption of the mother–adolescent relationship and suggest that these attempts may not necessarily relate to mothers' success in controlling adolescents' activities outside of the home. Futurity research that examines both cognitive and behavioral autonomy negotiation within the aforementioned sample would be helpful to expand our knowledge of how these behaviors work together to bear on adolescents' performance.

In contrast to several prior studies that have examined level of environmental hazard within well-nigh exclusively African American samples (Baldwin et al., 1990; Gonzales et al., 1996; Mason et al., 1996), this study examined the moderating effect of gamble in a sample containing both European American and African American adolescents. Although no main furnishings nor interactions of race/ethnicity were found, the moderating effects of a risky context could not be examined separately within racial/ethnic groups in this study (every bit past inquiry has washed) because of limited sample size. In addition, this study relied on self-described race as an index of race/ethnicity; other authors take noted other, more complex indicators of race/ethnicity that may be more relevant with respect to assessing family interactions in boyhood (Phinney, 1996; Phinney & Rosenthal, 1992; Sellers, Rowley, Chavous, Shelton, & Smith, 1997) Given these issues, the fact that some past research has noted moderating furnishings of race/ethnicity and that the effects of run a risk may be more salient for some indigenous groups (e.g., Lamborn et al., 1996), future research on larger samples that includes a more than comprehensive assessment of race/ethnicity might profitably examine the complex linkages among family relationships, ethnicity, environmental run a risk, and boyish adjustment.

Although recent research has begun to address the complex role that contextual variables play in moderating the links between parenting and child outcomes (Gonzales et al., 1996; Lamborn et al., 1996; Stonemason et al., 1996), research on autonomy processes per se has yet to examine the effects of contextual variables such as environmental risk. By examining autonomy processes across two contexts known to differ on major indices of ecology gamble (eastward.g., criminal offense rates and drug arrests), this study suggests that the risk level present in an adolescent's environment represents a central contextual variable in understanding how family unit processes serve to aid or hinder healthy adolescent performance. Because risky contextual variables do not occur in isolation and considering multiple variables are probable to pose risks to adolescents and their families, it will be of import for future research to go along to explore how aspects of the socioeconomic environment piece of work together to create varying levels of risk versus opportunity. Farther, this written report goes across by research on the effects of chance on parenting processes by examining the links between autonomy negotiation and both mother–adolescent human relationship quality and boyish outcomes. Thus, this written report furthers our understanding of how the social environment may modify the meaning and function of family processes as well as our understanding of how and when such processes are related to adolescent adjustment. Finally, this study examined the moderating effects of environmental risk past using observational data and data from multiple reporters, thus extending and validating similar research that has used survey methods (Gonzales et al., 1996; Lamborn et al., 1996; Mason et al., 1996).

It is important to note that these data were gathered from a moderately at-take chances sample; thus these adolescents cannot be taken as representative of all adolescents in high- or depression-risk environments, and results should not be generalized until farther replications are completed. The consistency of findings regarding depression-take a chance adolescents with findings from other samples of depression-risk adolescents does, however, offer some promise in this regard (Allen, Hauser, Bell, et al., 1994; Allen, Hauser, Eickholt, et al., 1994; Baumrind, 1991; Dornbusch et al., 1987; Lamborn et al., 1991; Paulson, 1994; Steinberg et al., 1989,1991). Besides, these data focused exclusively on the office that autonomy processes play in mother–adolescent relationships, and unlike some past research (east.g., Allen, Hauser, Bell, et al., 1994; Allen, Hauser, Eickholt, et al., 1994) did not observe links between mothers' behaviors with regard to autonomy and indices of adolescent adjustment. Past inquiry examining links between parental undermining of autonomy and adolescent adjustment has suggested, however, that fathers may play a greater office in the autonomy process than mothers (Allen, Hauser, Bong, et al., 1994; Allen & Hauser, 1991). Time to come research should keep to explore the relative roles that mothers' and fathers' behaviors with regard to autonomy play in facilitating good for you boyish functioning. In addition, these data are cross sectional and because many factors influence and co-occur with the gamble level in families' environments, no inferences nearly the nature of causal relations among level of gamble, autonomy-behaviors, and outcomes can be drawn.

Finally, this research raises, but does not answer, the important question of what ultimately happens to the autonomy-establishing process in high-chance teens. The results of this study suggest that the correlates of the procedure for achieving autonomy vary greatly beyond different levels of hazard. Specifically, low-risk teens announced to negotiate and attain their autonomy by means of specific types of interactions within the parent-adolescent relationship—namely, by challenging their parents' arguments and presenting their ain reasons for their views. It may be that this same blazon of interaction is less adequate in parent-adolescent relationships in high-hazard contexts, such that these teens may ultimately achieve their autonomy outside their relationship with their parents. In contrast, in high-risk contexts, a manner of negotiating autonomy that undermines individual autonomy within the parent-adolescent relationship appears to be adaptive in maintaining shut and supportive parent-adolescent relationships, at least at age 16. Further longitudinal inquiry is now needed to begin to address whether and to what extent these patterns concord over time. Understanding the conditions under which autonomy strivings might promote versus inhibit healthy evolution during adolescence across different environments will add together to our understanding of this developmental stage as a whole, which in plow tin help both parents and adolescents manage the challenges of this transitional period every bit successfully as possible.

Acknowledgments

This study and its write-up were supported by grants from the Spencer and William T. Grant Foundations and National Found of Mental Health to the second author.

References

• Allen, J. P., & Hauser, S. (April, 1991). Predictions of developed attachment representations, psychological distress, and competence from family interactions in adolescence. Paper presented at the 1991 coming together of the Lodge for Enquiry in Child Development Kansas Urban center, MO.
• Allen, J. P., Hauser, S., Bell, K. L., Boykin, K. A., & Tate, D. C. (1995). Autonomy and relatedness coding system manual Unpublished manuscript, University of Virginia at Charlottesville.
• Allen JP, Hauser ST, Bong Yard, O'Connor TG. Longitudinal assessment of autonomy and relatedness in boyish-family interactions as predictors of adolescent ego-development and self-esteem. Child Evolution. 1994;65:179–194. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Allen JP, Hauser ST, Eickholt C, Bong KL, O'Connor TG. Autonomy and relatedness in family unit interactions as predictors of expressions of negative adolescent bear upon. Journal of Research on Boyhood. 1994;4(four):535–552. [Google Scholar]
• Allen, J. P., Kuperminc, G. P., & Moore, C. West. (1997). Developmental approaches to understanding adolescent deviance. In Southward. S. Luthar, J. A. Burack, D. Cicchetti, & J. Weisz (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Perspectives on take chances and disorder. Cambridge, U.M.: Cambridge University Press.
• Armsden GC, Greenberg MT. The inventory of parent and peer attachment: Private differences and their relationship to psychological well-existence in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 1987;xvi:427–454. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Axinn, W., Duncan, G. J., & Thornton, A. (1997). The effects of parents' income, wealth, and attitudes on children's completed school and cocky-esteem. In G. J. Duncan & J. Brooks-Gunn (Eds.), Consequences of growing upward poor. New York; Russell Sage Foundation.
• Baldwin, A. 50., Baldwin, C., & Cole, R. E. (1990). Stress-resistant families and stress-resistant children. In J. Rolf, A. South. Masten, D. Cicchetti, K. H. Nuechterlein, & Due south. Wein-traub (Eds.), Risk and protective factors in the development of psychopathology (pp. 257–280). New York: Cambridge University Printing.
• Barry, H., Three, Child, I. L., & Bacon, M. K. (1967). Relation of kid training to subsistence economy. In C. S. Ford (Ed.), Cross-cultural approaches: Readings in comparative inquiry (pp. 246–258). New Oasis, CT: HRAF Press. (Original work published 1959)
• Bartz KW, Levine ES. Childrearing past Black parents: A description and comparing to Anglo and Chicano parents. Journal of Union and the Family. 1978;40:709–719. [Google Scholar]
• Baumrind D. An exploratory study of socialization effects on Black children: Some Black-White comparisons. Child Development. 1972;43:261–267. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Baumrind D. The influence of parenting way on adolescent competence and substance use. In The piece of work of John P. Hill: I. Theoretical, instructional, and policy contributions [Special result] Journal of Early Adolescence. 1991;eleven(1):56–95. [Google Scholar]
• Bradley, R. H. (1995). Environment and parenting. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. two. Biological science and ecology of parenting (pp. 235–261). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan, G. J., & Maritato, N. (1997). Poor families, poor outcomes: The well-being of children and youth. In G. J. Duncan & J. Brooks-Gunn (Eds.), Consequences of growing up poor. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
• Brooks-Gunn, J., Klebanov, P., Liaw, F., & Duncan, G. (1995). Toward an understanding of the effects of poverty on children. In H. East. Fitzgerald, B. K. Lester, & B. S. Zuckerman (Eds.), Children of poverty: Research, wellness, and policy issues (pp. 3–41). New York: Garland.
• Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1975), Applied multiple regression/correlation assay for the behavioral sciences. Hills-dale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Collins, W. A. (1990), Parent-child relationships in the transition to boyhood: continuity and change in interaction, affect, and cognition. In R. Montemayor, G. R. Adams, & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), From childhood to adolescence: A transitional flow? Advances in adolescent development (Vol. 2, pp. 85–106). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Conger, R. D., Conger, Chiliad. J., & Elder, G. H. (1997). Family economic hardship and adolescent adjustment: Mediating and moderating processes. In G. J. Duncan & J. Brooks-Gunn (Eds.), Consequences of growing up poor. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
• Dornbusch SM, Ritter PL, Leiderman PH, Roberts DF, Fraleigh MJ. The relation of parenting manner to adolescent school functioning. Kid Development. 1987;58:1244–1257. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Dubrow NF, Garbarino J. Living in the war zone: Mothers and young children in a public housing development. Kid Welfare. 1989;68(ane):3–20. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Elliott, D. Southward., Ageton, S. S., Huizinga, D., Knowles, B. A., & Canter, R. J. (1983). The prevalence and incidence of delinquent behavior: 1976–1980 (The National Youth Survey Projection Report No. 26). Boulder, CO: Behavioral Research Institute.
• Furstenberg, F. F. (1993). How families manage risk and opportunity in dangerous neighborhoods. In West. J. Wilson (Ed.), Sociology and the public agenda (pp, 231–257). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Gonzales NA, Cauce AM, Friedman RJ, Mason CA. Family unit, peer; and neighborhood influences on academic achievement among African-American adolescents: One-year prospective effects. American Periodical of Community Psychology. 1996;24(three):365–387. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Grotevant Hard disk, Cooper CR. Patterns of interaction in family relationships and the evolution of identity exploration in boyhood. Child Development. 1985;56:415–428. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Harkness, S., & Super, C. M. (1995). Culture and parenting. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Biology and environmental of parenting (Vol. 2, pp. 211–234). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Harrison AO, Wilson MN, Pine C, Chan S, Buriel R. Family ecologies of ethnic minority children. Child Evolution. 1990;61(two):347–362. [Google Scholar]
• Harter, S. (1985). The cocky-perception profile for children: Revision of the perceived competence calibration for children. Unpublished transmission, University of Denver.
• Hauser, R. One thousand., & Sweeney, M. Grand. (1997). Does poverty in adolescence touch on the life chances of loftier school graduates? In K. J. Duncan & J. Brooks-Gunn (Eds.), Consequences of growing upwardly poor. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
• Hauser ST, Powers SI, Noam GG, Jacobson AM, Weiss B, Follansbee DJ. Familial contexts of adolescent ego evolution. Child Development. 1984;55:195–213. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Haveman, R., Wolfe, B., & Wilson, K. (1997). Childhood poverty and adolescent schooling and fertility outcomes: Reduced-form and structural estimates. In G. J. Duncan & J. Brooks-Gunn (Eds.), Consequences of growing up poor. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
• Hill NE. The relationship between family surroundings and parenting style: A preliminary study of African American families. Journal of Black Psychology. 1995;21(4):408–423. [Google Scholar]
• Holmbeck, K. Due north., Paikoff, R. L., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1995). Parenting adolescents. In Thousand. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. one. Children and parenting (pp. 91–118). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Kelley ML, Sanchez-Hucles J, Walker R. Correlates of disciplinary practices in working- to low-risk African American mothers. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. 1993;39:252–264. [Google Scholar]
• Kohn ML. Social course and parent-child relationships; An interpretation. American Journal of Sociology. 1963;68:471–480. [Google Scholar]
• Kohn, Grand. Fifty. (1979). The effects of social grade on parental values and practices. In D. Reiss & H. A. Hoffman (Eds.), The American family unit: Dying or developing (pp. 45–68). New York; Plenum.
• Korenmann, S., & Miller, J. Due east. (1997). Effects of long-term poverty on concrete health of children in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. In G. J. Duncan & J. Brooks-Gunn (Eds.), Consequences of growing up poor. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
• Krivo LJ, Peterson RD. Extremely disadvan-taged neighborhoods and urban crime. Social Forces. 1996;75(two):619–650. [Google Scholar]
• Lamborn SD, Dornbusch SM, Steinberg L. Ethnicity and community context every bit moderators of the relations betwixt family decision making and adolescent adjustment. Kid Development. 1996;67:283–301. [Google Scholar]
• Lamborn SD, Mounts NS, Steinberg L, Dornbusch SM. Patterns of competence and adjustment among adolescents from administrative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful homes. Child Evolution. 1991;62:1049–1065. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Levine, R. A. (1980). A cross-cultural perspectives on parenting. In M. D. Fantini & R. Cardenas (Eds.), Parenting in a Multicultural Society (pp. 17–26). New York: Longman.
• Levine, R. A. (1988). Human parental care: Universal goals, cultural strategies, individual beliefs. In R. A. Levine, P. M. Miller, & 1000. Grand. West (Eds.), New directions for kid evolution: No. twoscore. Parental behavior in various societies (pp. 3–eleven). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Stonemason CA, Cauce AM, Gonzales N, Hiraga Y. Neither as well sweet nor besides sour: Trouble peers, maternal control, and problem behavior in African-American adolescents. Kid Development. 1996;67:2115–2130. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Nisbett RE, Wilson TD. Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports of mental processes. Psychological Review. 1977;84:231–259. [Google Scholar]
• Nucci, L. P. (1994). Female parent'due south beliefs regarding the personal domain of children. In J. G. Smetana (Ed.), New directions for kid development: No. 66. Beliefs about parenting (pp. 81–97). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Ogbu JU. Origins of human competence: A cultural-ecological perspective. Child Evolution. 1981;52(2):413–429. [Google Scholar]
• Ogbu, J. U. (1988). Cultural diversity and human evolution. In D. T. Slaughter (Ed.), New directions for child development: No. 42. Blackness children and poverty: A developmental perspective (pp. 11–28). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Okagaki, L., & Divecha, D. J. (1993). Development of parental beliefs. In T. Luster & L. Okagaki (Eds.), Parenting: An ecological perspective (pp. 35–67). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Paulson SE. Relations of parenting style and parental interest with ninth-grade students' achievement. In Heart grades schooling and early adolescent development: I. Early adolescents' psychological characteristics, relationship with others, and school performance [Special upshot] Periodical of Early Adolescence. 1994;14(2):250–267. [Google Scholar]
• Phinney JS. When nosotros talk about American indigenous groups, what do nosotros mean? American Psychologist. 1996;51(nine):918–927. [Google Scholar]
• Phinney, J. Southward., & Rosenthal, D. A. (1992). Ethnic identity in adolescence: Process, context, and outcome. In G. R. Adams & T. P. Gllotta (Eds.), Adolescent identity formation. Advances in adolescent development (Vol. 4.) Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Schaefer ES. Children's reports of parental behavior: An inventory. Kid Development. 1965;36:413–424. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Schluderman E, Schluderman S. Replicability of factors in children'due south reports of parent behavior (CRPBI) Journal of Psychology. 1970;76:239–249. [Google Scholar]
• Sellers RM, Rowley SAJ, Chavous TM, Shelton JN, Smith MA. Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity: A preliminary investigation of reliability and construct validity. Periodical of Personality & Social Psychology. 1997;73(4):805–815. [Google Scholar]
• Slater, C., & Hall, G. (1996). Canton and city extra: Almanac metro, urban center, and county data book. Lanham, MD: Bernan Press.
• Smith, J. R., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Klebanov, P. Chiliad. (1997). Consequences of living in poverty for young children's cerebral and verbal ability and early achievement. In G. J. Duncan & J. Brooks-Gunn (Eds.), Consequences of growing up poor. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
• Steinberg, L. (1990). Autonomy, conflict, and harmony in the family unit relationship. In South. S. Feldman & M. R. Elliot (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 255–276). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Steinberg L, Dornbusch SM, Dark-brown; BB. Indigenous differences in adolescent achievement: An ecological perspective. American Psychologist. 1992;47:723–729. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Steinberg L, Elmen JD, Mounts NS. Administrative parenting, psychosocial maturity, and academic success amid adolescents. Kid Evolution. 1989;lx:1424–1436. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Steinberg L, Mounts NS, Lamborn South, Dornbusch SM. Administrative parenting and adolescent adjustment across varied ecological niches. Journal of Research on Boyhood. 1991;i(1):xix–36. [Google Scholar]
• Straus MA. Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Disharmonize Tactics Scales. Periodical of Marriage and the Family. 1979;41:75–86. [Google Scholar]
• Teachman, J. D., Paasch, M. One thousand., Day, R. D., & Carver, Thou. P. (1997). Poverty during boyhood and subsequent educational attainment. In Yard. J. Duncan & J. Brooks-Gunn (Eds.), Consequences of growing up poor. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
• Virginia Department of Land Police, Uniform Crime Reporting Department. (1995). Crimes in Virginia. Richmond, VA: Author.

woodanturt.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1551976/

Share this post