Journal of Family Issues

Volume 27 Number 10
October 2006 1335-1355
© 2006 Sage Publications
Parental Support, 10.1177/0192513X06289649
http://jfi.sagepub.com

Behavioral Control, and hosted at

http://online.sagepub.com

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 question-
naires 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 partici-
pated 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 well-
being and optimal functioning: support, behavioral control, and psycholog-
ical 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 adjust-
ment 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 devel-
opment 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 par-
enting, and, at other times, it has been treated as an indication of negative, dom-
ineering parenting (Peterson & Rollins, 1987). Noting the lack of conceptual
clarity and the mixed findings that have resulted, some researchers have fol-
lowed 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, psychologi-

cal control items are reverse coded and the construct is presented as psycho-
logical 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 delin-
quency 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 par-
enting 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 under-
standing of these relationships has been frustrated. When the parenting dimen-
sions 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 con-
tain 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 signifi-
cantly 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 aggre-
gated, 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 cul-
tural 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 exam-
ined together but as separate dimensions, the individual effect of each par-
enting 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 useful-
ness 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 asso-
ciation 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 teen-
father relationships” (Day & Acock, 2004, p. 277). In recent years, greater
attention has been focused on the role of fathers in the lives of children; how-
ever, the overall lack of findings makes it difficult to develop empirically sup-
ported 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 eth-
nicity. 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 method-
ological approach proposed here (i.e., examining all three parenting dimen-
sions 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 asso-
ciations. 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 psy-
chological 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
Depression
Psychological Control

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 rele-
vant 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 exam-
ined 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 middle-
income 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 (gen-
erally 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 partici-
pants rated parenting done by noncustodial parents as well. Thirty-five ado-
lescents 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 respon-
dents reporting on paternal parenting and those not reporting were not found
to differ significantly in t tests of continuous variables (i.e., youth GPA, delin-
quency, depression, and age; and maternal education, support, behavioral
control, and psychological control) and chi-square tests of categorical vari-
ables (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 rang-
ing 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 parent-
ing 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 pater-
nal 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 10-

item 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 applica-
tion 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’ par-
enting 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 con-
trol 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 delin-

quency 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 mini-
mal 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 vari-
ables 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 gender-
based 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 parame-
ters 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 dif-
ference test is found to be significant, this indicates a group difference (e.g.,
males versus females) in the nature of the relationships between the par-
enting 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 psycholog-
ical 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 vari-
ables 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)

Maternal support 2.43 (.47) 2.47 (.43)

Paternal support 2.22 (.56) 2.14 (.60)
Parental behavioral control 2.30 (.54) 2.38 (.48)
Maternal psychological control 1.98 (.44) 1.92 (.44)
Paternal psychological control 1.80 (.45) 1.72 (.53)
Grade point average 6.16 (1.65) 6.46 (1.59)
Delinquency 4.03 (2.90) 3.42 (2.03)
Depression 5.43 (4.67) 6.71 (4.74)
Age 13.53 (1.88) 14.17 (1.91)

Table 2
Bivariate Correlations Among Parenting and Youth Variables
S BC PC GPA DEL DEP

Support (S) .35*** .05 .10 –.20*** –.09

Behavioral control (BC) .21*** –.06 .10 –.32*** –.03
Psychological control (PC) .23*** .13 –.14 .01 .15**
Grade point average (GPA) .03 .10 –.06 –.22*** –.05
Delinquency (DEL) –.33*** –.32*** –.19** –.22*** .28***
Depression (DEP) –.23*** –.03 .05 –.05 .28***

Note: Correlations above the diagonal are for youth reports of mothers’ parenting, and corre-
lations 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, mater-
nal 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∗∗∗∗ Support GPA

Paternal Support R2 = .03
–.2 –.20∗∗∗
7 ∗∗∗∗
.19∗∗
Parental
Antisocial Behavior
Behavioral
Control –.27∗∗∗∗ –.2 R2 = .18
2 ∗∗∗ .23∗∗∗
.17∗∗∗

Maternal
Depression
Psychological
R2 = .08
Control
.50∗∗∗∗

Paternal
Psychological
Control
∗∗
N = 201 p < .05
∗∗∗
χ2(8) = 11.68, p = .17 p < .01
∗∗∗∗
CFI = 0.98 p < .001
TLI = 0.90
RMSEA = 0.05

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 χ (24) = 29.96, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.82, RMSEA = 0.04
2

Path model χ2(48) = 48.47, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.99, RMSEA = .01
χ2 difference χ2(24) = 18.51
Sample size 5th grade = 53, 8th grade = 80, 10th grade = 69

SES Group Comparison

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

Gender Group Comparison

Hform model χ (16) = 23.69, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.80, RMSEA = .05
2

Path model χ2(28) = 50.95***, CFI = 0.87, TLI = 0.65, RMSEA = .06
χ2 difference χ2(12) = 27.27***
Sample size Boys = 93, Girls = 108**

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, how-
ever, some differences, with the largest discrepancies appearing in the rela-
tionships 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 delin-
quency, 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 Boys (n = 93) Girls (n = 108)

Maternal support/depression (Dep) –.06 –.05

Paternal support/Dep –.22*** –.22***
Maternal support/delinquency (Del) .04 .04
Paternal support/Del –.23**** –.31****
Parental behavioral control/Del –.22**** –.24****
Parental behavioral control/GPA .08 .07
Maternal psychological control/Dep .13 .12
Paternal psychological control/Dep .05 .06
Maternal psychological control/Del .05 .06
Paternal psychological control/Del –.11 –.16
Maternal psychological control/GPA –.14* –.14*
Paternal psychological control/GPA .03 .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 rela-

tionship by testing a disaggregated model of parenting (for both mothering
and fathering) and common measures of adolescent functioning. These find-
ings 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 par-
enting dimensions are related to a specific youth outcome (i.e., see Table 1,
where all three dimensions of fathering are significantly related to delin-
quency). 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 sociodemo-
graphic 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 environ-
mental 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 cultural-
values-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 delin-
quency for every gender, grade level, and SES subgroup. Based on these find-
ings, 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 mul-
tiethnic samples (e.g., Eccles et al., 1997; Gray & Steinberg, 1999), this rela-
tionship 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 dimin-
ished 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 vari-
ance 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 depres-
sion 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 unex-
pected findings at the bivariate level (i.e., paternal psychological control pos-
itively 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 argu-
ment for using a cultural-values approach to better understand the psycho-
logical 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 aca-
demic 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 sepa-
rated so that the individual effect of each could be examined along with the
other parenting behaviors, (b) a comprehensive model containing the pri-
mary 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 asso-
ciations 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 pos-
sibility 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 spe-
cific 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 psycholog-
ical 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, psy-
chological 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 sup-
port, behavioral control, and psychological control on the academic achievement and self-
esteem 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 func-
tioning: 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 compe-
tence 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 con-
nection, 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 adoles-
cent problem behavior: Revisiting Stattin and Kerr. Child Development, 75, 781-796.
Garber, J., Robinson, N. S., & Valentiner, D. (1997). The relations between parenting and ado-
lescent 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 cog-
nitive 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 multi-
dimensional 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 ado-
lescent 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 Cross-
Cultural 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 social-
ization 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 com-
petence 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 inter-
action. 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 psychopathol-
ogy: 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 par-
enting 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 behav-
iors and mental health. Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 17-33.