xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001680973
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 051206s2005 flu sbm s000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0001147
Adolescents and their fathers
h [electronic resource] :
b do dads make a difference? /
by Dimitra Kamboukos.
[Tampa, Fla.] :
University of South Florida,
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2005.
Includes bibliographical references.
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 169 pages.
ABSTRACT: This study explored the role of fathers in adolescents behavioral and emotional functioning. Results revealed gender differences in adolescent ratings of their parents. Compared to girls, boys endorsed significantly lower negative affect toward mothers and fathers. Girls reported higher levels of maternal versus paternal involvement, monitoring and acceptance, and higher positive and lower negative affect toward mothers than fathers. Few gender differences were found in associations between maternal and paternal variables and adolescent outcomes. Results supported the unique contribution of fathers in explaining adolescent emotional and behavioral functioning. When considering boys and girls separately, fathers added unique variance in explaining self-reported internalizing problems for boys only. Results are discussed within the context of family-based research.
Adviser: Vicky Phares, Ph.D.
Perceptions of parents.
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
Adolescents and Their Fathers: Do Dads Make a Difference? by Dimitra Kamboukos A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Psychology College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Vicky Phares, Ph.D. Ellis Gesten, Ph.D. Marc Karver, Ph.D. Kristen Salomon, Ph.D. Trevor Stokes, Ph.D. Date of Approval: February 9, 2005 Keywords: perceptions of parents, parent ing practices, developmental psychopathology, gender differences, paternal influences Copyright 2005, Dimitra Kamboukos
Dedication This dissertation is dedicated to my parents, grandparents, sister and uncle who have always provided me with love, support, encouragement and guidance. Thank you for always being there. I would have never been able to complete this quest without you.
Acknowledgments I would like to thank Dr. Behrokh Ahmadi for her support and encouragement in the early stages of this study. This dissertat ion would have not been possible without the generosity of the participating schools and te achers who were willing to help me out during a very busy school season. Dr. Kennedy: Thank you for being the first to say Â“yesÂ” to my project, for generously opening up your school to me, and for all your help. Ms. Robins: I am very grateful for your en thusiasm, assistance and support, and for embracing my project. Ms. Webb and Mr. Cooper: Words cannot describe my gratitude. Thanks for welcoming me into your school two years in a row! I am very grateful for your hard work, support, assistance, and commitme nt to this project. I am especially grateful to the adolescents and parents who took the time to complete the surveys. Their willingness to share a bit of their lives will help us better understand parent-adolescent relationships. I would like to acknowledge all my family, friends and colleagues from Tampa to New York to Greece (and other pl aces along the way) who have stood by me and believed in me throughout this long jour ney. A special acknowle dgment goes out to the following individuals who actively assisted with the project: Vani Simmons, Jessica Curley, Idia Binite, Shereece, Fields, Ted Dwy er, Elena Lopez, David Herst, Octavio Salcedo, Kelli-Lee Hartford and Q Abdullatif. A special thanks to Christine Totura and Ray Santa Lucia for their invaluable hel p, support and friendship. I would like to acknowledge my committee and Chair, Dr. Ri ck Weinberg, for their guidance and support. Lastly, an enormous thank you goes out to my advisor, mentor and role-model, Dr. Vicky Phares: Thank you for all your hard wo rk, support, encouragement, and faith in me and this project. All this w ould have not been possible without you.
i Table of Contents List of Tables iv Abstract vi Introduction 1 Parental Role in AdolescentsÂ’ Functioning 2 FathersÂ’ Parenting Practices 8 Importance of AdolescentsÂ’ Gender 12 AdolescentsÂ’ Perceptions of Pare nts and Parenting Practices 17 Rationale and Purpose of Study 20 Hypothesis 1 21 Hypothesis 2 22 Hypothesis 3 22 Method 23 Participants 23 Measures 27 Parent Surveys 27 Demographic Information Form 27 Perceptions of Parents Parent Form 28 Child Behavior Checklist 29 Adolescent Surveys 29 My Mom and Dad 29 Demographic Information Form Adolescent 29 Perception of Parents (POP) 31 ChildrenÂ’s Report of Parent al Behavior InventoryRevised (CRPBI-R) 32 Youth Self-Report 33
ii Procedure 33 Design and Data Analysis 36 Results 38 Missing Data 38 Descriptive Statistics 40 Control Variables 40 Predictor Variables 42 Outcome Variables 44 Gender Differences in Perceptions of Parents and Parenting Practices 45 Overview 45 Adolescent Gender Differences on the POP 46 Adolescent Gender Differences on the CRPBI-R 47 Correlational Analyses 49 Overview 49 Correlations for Boys and Girls Combined 49 POP and Adolescent Outcomes 49 CRPBI-R and Adolescent Outcomes 53 Adolescent Gender Differences in Correlation Analyses 52 POP and Adolescent Outcomes by Adolescent Gender 53 CRPBI-R and Adolescent Outcomes by Adolescent Gender 54 Summary of Adolescent Gender Di fferences in Correlations 57 Regression Analyses 57 Overview 57 Diagnostics 59 Regressions for Boys and Girls Combined 60 Predicting Internaliz ing Problems in Adolescents 60 Predicting Externaliz ing Problems in Adolescents 66
iii Summary of Regressions for Boys and Girls Combined 73 Adolescent Gender Differences in Regressions 75 Summary of Adolescent Ge nder Differences in Regressions 78 Discussion 80 Paternal Involvement 80 Perceptions of Parents 83 Perceptions of Parents a nd Adolescent Outcomes 86 Parenting Practices and Adolescent Outcomes 89 Adolescent Gender Differences 92 The Unique Role of Fathers 95 Implications 96 Limitations 99 Future Directions 102 References 107 Appendices 138 Appendix A: Family Information Form Parent 139 Appendix B: Perception of Pa rents Parent Version 142 Appendix C: My Mom and Dad 143 Appendix D: Family Information Form Adolescent 144 Appendix E: Perception of Parents Adolescent 148 Appendix F: CRPBI-R 149 Appendix G: Letter of Inv itation and Consent Form 151 Appendix H: Instructions for Teachers 157 Appendix I: Adolescent Assent 159 About the Author End Page
iv List of Tables Table 1 Participation response rates by school 24 Table 2 AdolescentsÂ’ reports of parental involvement: Overall and by adolescent gender 40 Table 3 Means and standard deviations for predictor variables (POP, POP-P and CRPBI-R) 43 Table 4 Means and standard deviations for outcome variables (CBCL and YSR) 45 Table 5 Adolescent-reported pr edictor variables (POP and CRPBI-R) by adolescent gender 48 Table 6 Pearson correlations of perception of parents (POP) and adolescent functioning across three informants: Overall group 51 Table 7 Pearson correlations of parenting practices (CRPBI-R) and adolescent functioning across three informants: Overall group 52 Table 8 Correlations of percep tions of parents (POP) and adolescent functioning across three informants: By adolescent gender 55 Table 9 Correlations of paren ting practices (CRPBI-R) and adolescent functioning across three informants: By adolescent gender 56 Table 10 Hierarchical multiple regressions for adolescent-reported factors predicting interna lizing problems across three informants: Boys and girls combined 61 Table 11 Hierarchical multiple regressions for adolescentand parent-reported factors pred icting internalizing problems across three informants: Boys and girls combined 63 Table 12 Individual contribution (beta weights) of adolescentreported predictors to intern alizing problems across three informants: Boys and girls combined 64 Table 13 Individual contribution (b eta weights) of adolescentand parent-reported predictors to internalizing problems across three informants: Boys and girls combined 65
v Table 14 Hierarchical multiple regressions for adolescent-reported factors predicting externaliz ing problems across three informants: Boys and girls combined 67 Table 15 Hierarchical multiple regressions for adolescentand parent-reported factors pred icting externalizing problems across three informants: Boys and girls combined 68 Table 16 Individual contribution (beta weights) of adolescentreported predictors to ex ternalizing problems across three informants: Boys and girls combined 71 Table 17 Individual contribution (b eta weights) of adolescentand parent-reported predictors to externalizing problems across three informants: Boys and girls combined 72 Table 18 Hierarchical regressi ons predicting to adolescentreported internalizing and ex ternalizing problems from adolescent-reported predicto rs: By adolescent gender 76 Table 19 Individual contribution (beta weights) of adolescentreported predictors to self -reported internalizing and externalizing problems: By adolescent gender 79
vi Adolescents and Their Fathers: Do Dads Make a Difference? Dimitra Kamboukos ABSTRACT This study explored the role of fathers in adolescentsÂ’ behavioral and emotional functioning. Results revealed ge nder differences in adolescent ratings of their parents. Compared to girls, boys endor sed significantly lower negative affect toward mothers and fathers. Girls reported higher levels of mate rnal versus paternal involvement, monitoring and acceptance, and higher positive and lowe r negative affect toward mothers than fathers. Few gender differences were f ound in associations between maternal and paternal variables and adolescent outcomes. Results suppo rted the unique contribution of fathers in explaining adolescent emoti onal and behavioral functioning. When considering boys and girls separately, father s added unique variance in explaining selfreported internalizing problems for boys only. Re sults are discussed within the context of family-based research.
1 Introduction The configuration of the American family has changed dramatically over the past thirty-five years. In 1970, about 87% of children under th e age of 18 lived with both biological parents, whereas by the year 2000, that number dropped to 66% (U. S. Census Bureau, 2000). Further, single-father house holds increased over five-fold from 393,000 in 1970 to 2 million in 2000, and single-mothe r households increased three-fold from 3 million to 10 million in that same time pe riod (Fields & Casper, 2001). Despite these demographic statistics, fathers continue to be involved with their children and a large proportion of children in single-mother househol ds have contact with their fathers on a regular basis (Danziger & Radi n, 1990; Seltzer, 1991). Specific ally, almost half of all children who live with their single mothers ha ve weekly or monthly contact with their biological father, whereas only 19% of children have no contac t with their father at all (Doherty, Kouneski, & Erickson, 1998; Seltzer & Brandreth, 1994). Changes in the past thirty-five years ha ve also included a higher incidence of never-married parents, increased paternal i nvolvement in childcare, mothers entering the workforce full time, and dependence on other members of the family, such as grandparents, and after-school programs, for childcare (Howard, 1995; Hwang & Lamb, 1997; Smith, 2002; U. S. Census Bureau, 2000). Yet, despite these changes, research on parental effects on child and adolescent de velopment has primarily focused on mothers (Lamb, 1975; Phares, 1992; Phares & Compas 1992; Silverstein & Phares, 1996; Phares, Fields, Kamboukos, & Lopez, 2005).
2 Although there has been grow ing awareness of the importance of fathers in adolescentsÂ’ development (Cabrera, TamisLeMonda, Bradley, Hofferth, & Lamb, 2000; Lamb, 1997; Larson & Richards, 1994; Phares, 1 999), there remains a paucity of research on paternal influences. For example, Ph ares and Compas (1992) found that although 48% of family-based studies focused on mother s, only 1% examined fathers exclusively. Further, about a quarter (26%) of the studies examined fathers and mothers separately, while the remaining 25% examined Â“parents Â” without distinguishing between mothers and fathers. An updated review conducte d a decade later by Phares and colleagues (2005) revealed that fathers continue to be underrepresente d in studies on developmental psychopathology. Pediatric psychology research falls even further behind clinical child psychology in the inclusion of fathers and in the investigation of di stinct maternal and paternal effects (Phares, Lopez, Fields Kamboukos, & Duhig, in press). In short, additional research is needed to examine the distinctive connections between the father-adolescen t relationship and adolescent functioning and to understand the similarities and differences of maternal and paternal influences on children and adolescents (Hosley & Montemayor, 1997; Ph ares & Compas, 1992; Larson & Richards, 1994). The current study will therefore focus on the unique contributions of fathers in adolescence, by examining the associations among adolescentsÂ’ perceptions of their mothers and fathers, mothersÂ’ and fathersÂ’ perceptions of their adolescents, and adolescentsÂ’ emotional and behavioral functioning. Paternal Role in AdolescentÂ’s Functioning In the United States, mothers have trad itionally provided childcare, nurturance, and comfort to offspring, whereas fathers cont ribute financial resour ces and recreational
3 activities (Fagot & Hagan, 1991; Fish, New, & VanCleave, 1992; Pleck & Masciadrelli, 2004; Simons, Whitbeck, Beaman, & Conger, 1994). Although a large proportion of mothers currently share the workforce with fa thers, fathers continue to spend less time with their children compared with mothers and rarely take on the sole responsibility of care taking (Bianchi, 2000; La mb, 1997; Montemayor & Brownlee, 1987; Parke, 2000; Pleck, 1985, 1997; Pleck & Masciadrelli 2004; Yeung, Sandberg, Davis-Kean, & Hofferth, 2001). In fact, employed mothers sp end twice as much time in childcare and housekeeping roles than fathers (Ple ck, 1985; 1997). Mothers hold primary responsibilities in addressing their infantsÂ’ and young childre nÂ’s daily needs and medical care, despite evidence that fathers are equall y capable of carrying out these duties (Parke, 2000). Instead, fathersÂ’ interactions with childr en are primarily as a playmate rather than a caretaker (Pleck & Masciadrel li, 2004; Lewis & Lamb, 2003). The patterns of parental involvement have been studied less in adolescence. Research indicates that both mothers and fath ers spend less time with their children as they transition into adolescence and adult hood (Larson, 2001; Larson, Richards, Moneta, Holmbeck & Duckett, 1996; Pleck & Masciadr elli, 2004). Despite th ese changing trends, there is some support that discrepancies in maternal and paternal involvement and responsibilities with adolescen ts are similar to those f ound during infancy and childhood (Lamb, 1997; Parke, 2000; Phares Fields, & Kamboukos, 2005). Given this division of parent al roles, research has focu sed on maternal influences and parenting on child development. There is an extensive lite rature supporting the benefits of maternal involvement, suppor t, parenting and closeness in adolescent functioning (e.g., Bennett, Bendersky, & Le wis, 2002; Brody, Dorsey, Forehand, &
4 Armistead, 2002; Laible & Carlo, 2004; Levi tt, Guacci, & Weber, 1992; Miller, DiOrio, & Dudley, 2002; Patterson, Cohn, & Kao, 1989; Querido, Warner, & Eyberg, 2002; Repinski & Shonk, 2002; Webster-Stratton & Eyberg, 1982). However, despite their more limited role in parenting compared to mothers, fathers impact their childrenÂ’s wellbeing through several avenues, such as through the provision of material resources, attitudes, level of involvement, and emoti onal support (King, 1994; Pleck & Masciadrelli, 2004). One of the most widely researched cons truct in fatherhood is involvement. Lamb and colleagues (Lamb, Frodi, Hwang, & Frodi, 1 982) proposed that paternal involvement can be conceptualized as: paternal engagement (direct interaction with children through shared activities; e.g., playing a board game), accessibility (availability for interaction, but not interacting directly; e.g., father and adolescent are in separate rooms in the house), and responsibility (making sure that the child and adolescentÂ’s needs are taken care of and resources are arranged; e.g., making a doctorÂ’s appointment). Direct interaction or paternal engage ment has been the most studied and researchers often refer to direct interaction or en gagement when describing pate rnal involvement (Pleck & Masciadrelli, 2004). Research on paternal involvement has primarily focused on the role of the nonresident father and the extent to which fath ers are absent or dire ctly involved in their childrenÂ’s lives (Amato & Sobolewski, 2004). The research findings are mixed regarding the impact of contact with nonresidential father s. Specifically, in a review of 32 studies of divorced families in which fathers maintained contact with their children, 15 studies found positive outcomes related to contact, seven found that pa ternal contact was related
5 to increased difficulties in children, and te n studies found no significant effects (Amato, 1993). Further investigation in to the literature indicates that there are two opposing viewpoints on the importance of paternal physical and emotional involvement with children and adolescents (Amato, 1994). On the one side, paternal nurturance a nd involvement are related to cognitive development, academic performance and posit ive attitudes towards school, especially when fathers exhibit high academic expectations for their children, and show interest in, assist with, and participat e in childrenÂ’s school-based activities (Cooksey & Fondell, 1996; Flouri, Buchanan, & Bream, 2002; Gr olnick & Slowiaczek, 1994; Hwang & Lamb, 1997; Jones, Forehand, & Beach, 2000; No rd, Brimhall, & West, 1997; Radin, 1981; Yongman, Kindlon & Earls, 1995). Paternal involvement and clos e father-adolescent relationships are also relate d to lower externalizing probl ems, delinquency and substance use problems, better psychological and so cial adjustment, and higher levels of competence in adolescents (Amato, 1987; Ba ker & Heller, 1996; Barnes, 1984; Coombs & Landsverk, 1988; Forehand & Nousiainen, 19 93; Harris & Marmer, 1996; Jones et al., 2000; Knafo, 2003; Pleck, 1997; Pleck & Masc iadrelli, 2004; Simons et al., 1994; Veneziano & Rohner, 1998). Paternal non-i nvolvement has been linked to academic difficulties, lower cognitive ability, and hi gher dropout rates from school (Astone & McLanahan, 1991; Keith & Finlay, 1988; Mu lkey, Crain & Harrington, 1992). There is also some evidence that the relationships between parental involvement and positive adolescent outcomes exist with step-fathers and non-residential fathers (Amato & Rivera, 1999; White & Gilbreth, 2001).
6 In contrast to the aforementioned studie s, other researchers report no effects of paternal involvement once financial contribu tion and socioeconomic status are controlled statistically (Crockett, Eggebeen, & Ha wkins, 1993; Harris & Marmer, 1996; Svanum, Bringle, & McLaughlin, 1982). Thus, increa sed academic, behavioral, and emotional difficulties can be attributed to factors other than paternal physical absence or presence, such as limited financial resources, inade quate monitoring, interp arental conflict, and stress of single parenting (Biller & Solo mon, 1986; Downey, 1994; Doherty et al., 1998; Duncan, Brooks-Gunn, & Klebanov, 1994; Heth erington, Bridges, & Insabella, 1998; McLoyd, 1998; Pettit, Bates, Dodge, & Meec e, 1999; Simons et al., 1994; Snyder, Dishion, & Patterson, 1986). Fo r instance, a study on patern al presence in a national sample of infants found no unique paternal e ffects on childrenÂ’s adjustment over a three year period after controlling for family fi nancial resources (Crockett et al., 1993). Similar results were found in a longitudi nal study of poor and non-poor two-parent families, in which paternal, relative to ma ternal, involvement in impoverished families did not serve a protect ive role for adolescen tsÂ’ well-being (Harris & Marmer, 1996). In general, the literature on the role of fathersÂ’ financial contribution and socioeconomic status on paternal involveme nt is mixed (Pleck & Masciadrelli, 2004). There remains a body of research that supports the importance of paternal presence and involvement in childrenÂ’s lives even when economic factors are controlled statistically (Amato, 1993; Flouri et al., 2003). Yet, in a review of the literature, Pleck (1997) found inconsistent relationships between patern al involvement and socioeconomic status (determined based on parental educational level and occupation; Hollinsghead, 1975). Large-scale longitudinal repres entative studies indicate th at fathersÂ’ education and
7 income are not related to direct paternal involvement with offspr ing (Aldous, Mulligan, & Bjarnason, 1998; Toth & Xu, 1999; see Pl eck & Masciadrelli, 2004 for a review). However, a recent investigation of fathersÂ’ in teractions with and accessibility to children under the age of 13 reported that higher educat ed fathers were more involved with their offspring (Yeung et al., 2001). There is an additional dimension that emerges when examining paternal involvement in childrenÂ’s and adolescentsÂ’ liv es. Researchers in th e field posit that the quality, rather than the quantity, of time that fathers spend with their children appears to play a seminal role in development (Ama to & Gilbreth, 1999; Lamb, 1997; Palkovitz, 2002; Pleck, 1997; Simons et al., 1994; We nk, Hardesty, Morgan, & Blair, 1995). Instead of investigating the length of visitation, Amato and Gilbreth (1999) suggest that the focus should be shifted to the magnitude of the emotional relationship and the level of closeness that adolescents have with their fath ers, as well as the extent to which fathers employ authoritative parenting styles (i.e., high levels of warmth with high levels of ageappropriate parental control). For instan ce, the impact of nonresidential fathersÂ’ involvement may be better explained by the em otional connection fath ers have with their children rather than their financial contribution per se Specifically, non residential fathers who visit their children and have an emotional connection with them are more likely to pay child support (Seltzer, 1991; Amato & Gilbreth, 1999; Amato & Sobolewski, 2004). This highlights that the quality of the relationship may be more important. Additionally, Young, Miller, Nort on and Hill (1995) found that fathersÂ’ authoritative parenting style of showing trus t and encouragement to their children, and not activities such as going out, were re lated to childrenÂ’s life satisfaction.
8 FathersÂ’ Parenting Practices It is widely accepted that authoritative parenting is related to positive outcomes in children and adolescents (Baumrind, 1991; M accoby & Martin, 1983). Authoritativeness is a combination of non-coercive parental control and responsiven ess (Paulson & Sputa, 1996). Authoritative parents provide warmt h, support, encouragement and assistance, while also setting appropriate rules, monito ring their adolescentÂ’s activities, providing autonomy, and engaging in open communication with their children (Amato & Golbreth, 1999; Darling & Steinberg, 1993). Consequently, adolescents develop a sense of trust, competence and self-worth, and learn about norms and self-regulation of behavior (Amato & Golbreth, 1999). The extensive research in the area of parenting indicates that dimensions of authoritative parenting, such as warmth, accepta nce and support, are related to positive behavioral adjustment (Baumrind, 1991; Do rnbusch, Ritter, Leiderman, Roberts, & Fraleigh, 1997; Grolnick, Ryan, & Deci 1991; Steinberg, Mounts, Lamborn, & Dornbusch, 1991; Wolfradt, Hempel, & Miles, 2003), decreased externalizing behaviors and substance use (Barber & Olsen, 1997; Ge Best, Conger, & Simons, 1996; Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg, & Dornbusch, 1991; Stice & Barrera, 1995), less emotional difficulties during times of stress (Johnson, Shulman, & Collins, 1991; Wagner, Cohen & Brook, 1996), increased competence and self -esteem (Baumrind, 1991; Johnson et al., 1991; Laible & Carlo, 2004; Lamborn et al ., 1991) and educati onal success (Barber & Olsen, 1997; Gonzales, Cauce, Friedma n, & Mason, 1996; Repinski & Shonk, 2002; Steinberg, Elmen, & Mounts, 1989). In contrast parental control, hostility, and harsh discipline have been linked to increased beha vioral difficulties and anxiety in children
9 and adolescents (Bennet et al., 2002; Frick, 1994 ; Ge et al., 1996; Johnson et al., 1991; Knafo, 2003; Melby & Conger, 1996; Murri s & Merckelbach, 1998; Rapee, 1997; Wagner et al., 1996; Wolfradt et al., 2 003). Similarly, limited supervision and monitoring are related to poor adjustment and increased behavioral and academic difficulties (Carlo, Roesch, & Melby, 1998; Capaldi & Patterson, 1991; Krishnakumar & Buehler, 2000; Loeber, 1990; Patt erson, Reid, & Dishion, 1992). Given the different roles mothers and fath ers take, it is important to investigate the specific patterns of pa renting in mothers and fathers separately (Amato, 1994; Forehand & Nousiainen, 1993; Wentzel, Feldman, & Weinberger, 1991). The aforementioned studies on the benefits of wa rm and supportive parenting apply to both mothers and fathers (e.g., Barber & Olse n, 1997; Conger, Conger, & Scaramella, 1997; Gonzales et al., 1996; Melby & Conger, 1996). Other studies have investigated only the relationship between fathersÂ’ parenting beha viors and adolescent functioning. In a metaanalysis of 63 studies of divorced fathers, Amato and Gilbreth (1999) concluded that paternal authoritativ e parenting was related to increased academic achievement and less externalizing and in ternalizing problems in offspring. Other studies, however, have found mate rnal and paternal differences in explaining academic and behavioral outcomes in children and adolescents. For example, increased frequency of maternal, rather than paternal, warmth and support was related to academic functioning and competence in children (Jones et al., 2000; Laible & Carlo, 2004; Repinski & Shonk, 2002) and fathersÂ’ beha viors towards their children were more strongly related to behavior al difficulties (e.g., Feldman & Weinberger, 1994; Knafo, 2003; Loeber, 1990). In addition, maternal, rath er than paternal, in trusive control was
10 related to internalizing difficulties, including anxiety and depression (Bennett et al., 2002). Differences by parental gende r have also been found in the frequency of parenting behaviors. Mothers are reportedly the main disciplinarians at home (Milkie, Bianchi, Mattingly, & Robinson, 2002) and are rated as more intrusive in adolescentsÂ’ lives compared to fathers (Cubis, Lewin, & Davies 1989). Mothers also report that they engage in higher levels of acceptance, open communication, discipline, and control with their children compared to fathers (Foreh and & Nousiainen, 1993; Milkie et al., 2002; Noller & Callan, 1990). In addition, mother s report more conflict and less positive relationships with adolescents than fa thers (Almeida & Galambos, 1991; Collins & Russell, 1991; Wierson, Armistead, Forehand, Thomas, & Fauber, 1990), which appears to be a reflection of mothersÂ’ primary role in parenting. Despite support for parental gender differences in parenting, the unique contribution of paternal pare nting practices once maternal contributions are accounted for remains a question in the field. Based on th eir review of 68 studi es on the relations between paternal behavior and child func tioning in dual-parent families, Amato and Rivera (1999) concluded that only 9 studies (13%) controlled for maternal characteristics, such as the quality of the mother-child re lationship, maternal involvement, and maternal expectations for children. Of these studies, about half (5 studies) produced significant results. Similar conclusions were drawn when examining the influence of paternal characteristics in young adults (Amato, 1994). The few studies that have controlled for maternal contributions have produced mixed results. For instance, studies on young adults have found that a positive and close
11 relationship with their father is uniquely related to lo wer levels of psychological difficulties and higher levels of life satisfaction and happiness (Amato, 1994; Barnett, Marshall, & Pleck, 1992). Similarly, when c ontrolling for the mother-child relationship, the quality of the father-child relationshi p and paternal involvement were linked to childrenÂ’s good grades and fewer behavioral problems (Amato & Rivera, 1999; Flouri et al., 2003; Forehand, Long, Brody, & Fauber, 1986). On the other hand, Umberson (1992) found that only the quality of the mo ther-child relationship, and not the fatherchild relationship, predicted lo wer levels of depression in adult offspring. Likewise, Forehand and Nousiainen (1993) found that pa ternal acceptance contributed to social competence and decreased conduct problems in school only when maternal acceptance was high. Additionally, studies have discussed the interaction effects of mothersÂ’ and fathersÂ’ influences on adolescents. For inst ance, Laible and Carl o (2003) found that high paternal support was related to higher levels of sympathy, competence, and self-worth in adolescents, regardless of maternal levels of support. However, maternal support played an important protective role if paternal support was low. On the other hand, paternal control and acceptance of adolescents was not directly related to positive outcomes over time; rather, paternal factors interacted with ma ternal levels of control to predict romantic relationships and delinquency rates in young adults (Jones et al., 2000). Additionally, maternal, and not paternal, involvement has been found to have buffering effects for children and adolescents from impoverishe d backgrounds (Harris & Marmer, 1996). In short, research studies that have investig ated fathers and mothers separately have
12 produced mixed findings. This point highlight s the importance of further examining the role of fathers and their unique c ontribution in adolescent outcomes. Importance of AdolescentÂ’s Gender In order to fully understand family relati onships, it is important to consider the gender of the adolescent as well as that of the parent (Collins & Russell, 1991; Russell & Saebel, 1997). Adolescent relationships with mothers and fathers differ depending on the gender of the adolescent (Larson & Richards, 1994). Father-daughter relationships have been described as the most distant whereas father-son relationships are closer and friendlier than father-daughter relationships, although still em otionally distant. Motherson relationships are reported ly honest and loving and moth er-daughter relationships are described as a combination of conflict and closeness (Laible & Carlo, 2004). Following this pattern of findings, a meta-analysis on pa rental treatment of, and attitudes toward, boys and girls indicated that fathers differen tiate between their sons and daughters more so than do mothers (Lytton & Romney, 1991). The majority of research on gender differe nces in parent-child relationships has focused on maternal and paternal differences in interactions with their children and different socialization patterns of boys and girls (Russel & Saebel, 1997). In terms of parental gender differences, mothers appear to emphasize interper sonal relationships whereas fathers emphasize achievements (Richard s, Gitelson, Petersen, & Hurtig, 1991). According to gender role development theory, girls develop a sense of self-worth from social interactions and support, whereas boys develop their self-worth from achievement in activities (Wenk et al., 1994). Following this theory and given the differences in
13 mothersÂ’ and fathersÂ’ emphasis for developm ent, girls and boys may identify with and seek out approval from their same-sexed parent. Regarding socialization, although the relationship with mothers may be more influential for girls, the effects of their rela tionships with both their mothers and fathers play an equal part in outcomes (Barnett, Kibria, Baruch, & Pleck, 1991). For example, positive and close relationships with both mothers and fathers predict girlsÂ’ self-esteem (Baruch & Barnett, 1975; Openshaw, Thom as, & Rollins, 1984; Richards, Gitelson, Petersen, & Hurtig, 1991). For boys, the relationship with fa thers appears more important than with mothers (Barnett, Ma rshall, & Pleck, 1992; Noller & Callan, 1990; Montemayor, 1982). Despite an emotional distance in the relationship (Greene & Grimsley, 1990), fathers play an important ro le in their sonsÂ’ development (Harris, Fursternberg, & Marmer, 1998). For inst ance, although the pres ence of adolescent gender differences in behavioral, emotiona l and academic difficulties in response to paternal departure from the home follo wing divorce is equivocal (Allison, & Fursternberg, 1989, Demo & Acock, 1988; Fu rstenberg, 1990; Garbarino, Sebes, & Schellenbach, 1984; Hetherington, 1973), Mott a nd colleagues (Mott, Kowaleski-Jones, & Menaghan, 1997) suggest that boys have more difficulty adjusting to their father leaving the home than do girls. The bulk of the research on gender and pa rent-child relationships has focused on the mother-daughter dyad, while studies on mother-son relationships can be found in reference to the effects of divorce and si ngle parenting households (Russell & Saebel, 1997). Comparatively, the literature on the fa ther-daughter and fath er-son relationships is limited (Hosley & Montemayor, 1997; Hetherington & Stanley-Hagan, 1997). Both
14 boys and girls report higher levels of satisfa ction when involved in activities with their fathers than their mothers (Montemayor & Brownlee, 1987). This finding reflects adolescentsÂ’ distribution of tim e with their parents; they spend more time in leisure and recreational activities wi th their father and engage in schoolwork and household activities with their mother. In terms of gender differences, fathers report more interest in their sonÂ’s activities and spend more time with their sons than their daughters (Plec k, 1997; Starells, 1994). Further, adolescent boys spend more time alone with their fathers than they do with their mothers, and sons spend more time with fathers than daughters do (Montemayor, 1982). However, it should be noted that the bulk of this research on paternal involvement was conducted over 20 years ago. More recent studies have suggested that adolescent gender may play less of an important role in pate rnal involvement than previously reported (Houssain & Roopnarine, 1993; Lytton & Ro mney, 1991; Pleck & Masciadrelli, 2004; Sanderson & Sanders-Thompson, 2002). Gender differences have also been found in the quality of the parent-adolescent relationship and specific parenting practi ces. In communication, adolescent boys and girls report more closeness and intimacy with their mothers than their fathers (Bezirganian & Cohen, 1992; Le Croy, 1988; Paulson & Sputa, 1991; Youniss & Smollar, 1985). In particular, adolescent gi rls report that they disclose less to their fathers and talk more openly with thei r mothers (Noller & Callan, 1990; Youniss & Smollar, 1985). Adolescent boys, on the othe r hand, are more likely to disclose equally to mothers and fathers, but disclose more to fathers than do girls (Noller & Callan, 1990). In comparison to adolescent females, adolesce nt boys also feel th at their fathers know
15 them better (Youniss & Ketterlinus, 1987). In addition, boys reported higher levels of positive affect toward their fathers compar ed to girls (Phares, Renk, & Duhig, 2003). However, fathers and sons display less a ffection than mothers and daughters (Eberly, Montemayor, & Flannery, 1993). Since adolescents spend more time wit h, and report greater intimacy and closeness with, mothers, it is suggested that adolescent adjustment is more impacted by mothers and the mother-adolescent rela tionship (Hosley & Montemayor, 1997). Although there is evidence that mothers contribute to adolescent outcomes, the influence of fathers is clear in areas such as discipli ne. Effective paternal and maternal monitoring and discipline practices are related to less ex ternalizing problems wh ereas negativity and psychological control are related to increased behavioral problems and lower self-esteem in both boys and girls (Conger et al., 1997; Hosley & Montemayor, 1997; Kim, Hetherington, & Reiss, 1999; Simo ns et al., 1994). Yet, fath ersÂ’, rather than mothersÂ’, disciplinary practices appear to have a stronger impact on sonsÂ’ behaviors (Patterson & Dishion, 1985) and paternal negativity has b een found to be more strongly related to association with deviant peers and behavioral difficulties for boys than girls (Kim et al., 1999). With the exception of studies focusing on monitoring and discipline, gender differences in behavioral, emotional and academic outcomes related to maternal and paternal parenting styles are not always consistently found in the literature (Forehand & Nousiainen, 1993; Flouri et al., 2003; Pauls on, Hill, & Holmbeck, 1991; Smetana, 1995; Wenk et al., 1994). In terms of parenting style, even if mothers and fathers parent sons and daughters in similar ways, the same pare ntal treatment may impact boys and girls
16 differently (Lytton & Romney, 1991). For example, Baumrind (1989) reported that abrasiveness in parents may be more benefici al to girlsÂ’, rather than, boysÂ’ outcomes. Additionally, Bezirg anian and Cohen (1992) found th at paternal warmth and responsiveness was related to gi rlsÂ’, but not boysÂ’ sense of se lf, whereas this pattern was found between mothers and sons only. Given the differences found in boysÂ’ and gi rlsÂ’ development during adolescence, gender is an important factor to consider when studying parent-adol escent relationships. For example, although both boysÂ’ and girlsÂ’ involvement with pare nts decreases during adolescence, boys in middle school tend to sp end more time alone wh ereas girls tend to spend time alone and with peers (Larson & Richards, 1991). In a ddition, girls tend to talk more to mothers during early adolescen ce compared to boys (Larson et al., 1996; Raffaeli & Ducket, 1989). Further, girls reac h puberty faster than boys, develop closer and more intimate friendships, have higher le vels of body image disturbance, and lower self-esteem than boys (Dornbusch et al., 1987; Petersen, Tobin-Richards, & Boxer, 1983). Girls also show signifi cantly higher rates of depressi on than boys, whereas there is a rise in externalizing problems in boys during adolescence (Ge et al., 1994; McGuire, Dunn, & Plomin, 1995; Nolen-Hoeksema & Girgus, 1994; Wade, Cairney, & Pevalin, 2002). Given these differences, there is support that adolescent girl s are more vulnerable to family risk factors compared to b oys (Cummings & Davies, 1994). In short, considering both the gender of the parent and the adolescent in family-based research is essential.
17 AdolescentsÂ’ Perceptions of Pa rents and Parenting Practices Although the quality of the parent-adoles cent relationship and specific parenting practices are important in understanding a dolescent outcomes, recent research has suggested that adolescentsÂ’ pe rceptions of their parents ar e an important piece of the puzzle as well (Grych, Seid, & Fincham, 1992; Harold, Osborn, & Conger, 1997; Phares & Renk, 1998). The research on parent-adole scent agreement on adolescent well-being, parenting and family functioning supports the need for inclusion of adolescent reports in family research. Specifically, cross-inform ant research reveals that parent-adolescent agreement on reports of problem behaviors is only .25 (Achenbach, McConaughy, & Howell, 1987; Verhulst & Van der Ende, 1992). In fact, parental ra tings of adolescent internalizing difficulties are generally low and tend to under-represent adolescentsÂ’ emotional functioning (Collins & Russell, 1991; Repinski & Shonk, 2002). Adolescents tend to report more externalizing and internalizing problems than parents as well (Achenbach, 1991; Seiffge-Krenke & Kollmar 1998; Stanger & Lewis, 1993; Verhulst & Van der Ende, 1992). Differences have also been found in pa rent and adolescent reports of parentadolescent conflict, parenting style and fa mily functioning (Ohannessian, Lerner, Lerner, & von Eye, 1995; Paulson & Sputa, 1996; Sm ith & Forehand, 1996). For instance, adolescents have a more negative view of the family and report more conflict and less cohesion with their parents (Noller & Callan, 1986; Ohannessian et al., 1995). Parents, on the other hand, tend to rate themselves as more involved in parenting than their adolescents view them (Schwartz, BartonHenry, & Pruzinsky, 1985), and report more
18 authoritative parenting practices while adol escents view them as permissive and authoritarian (Smetana, 1995). Differences have also been found in ma ternal versus paternal reports of involvement and specific parenting practices. For example, mothers rated fathers as less motivated than fathers rated themselves in the parenting role and mothers reported that they were the primary caregivers at ho me, whereas fathers believed that the responsibilities were shar ed (Milkie et al., 2002). Further, reports of parental perceptions of adolescents differ by parental gender. For instance, in a recent in vestigation of gender differences in perceptions among family me mbers, mothers endorsed higher levels of positive affect toward their sons compared to fathers (Phares, Renk, Duhig, Fields, & Sly, 2005). In addition to parental perceptions, adol escentsÂ’ feelings about their parents may be more important than the physical presence of parents in determining how adolescents feel about themselves (Wenk et al., 1994). AdolescentsÂ’ perceptions of support and involvement from their parents are stronger predictors of behavi oral and academic functioning than family structure (Buri, 1989; Paulson, 1994). When considering adolescentsÂ’ perceptions of pare nts, it is also important to not e that even if adolescents do not have contact with a parent, they conti nue to have thoughts and feelings about the parent (Phares & Renk, 1998). The majority of studies on adolescentsÂ’ perceptions of parents have focused on older adolescents and young adults, with a focu s on observable parental behavior, such as marital conflict and specific parenting practices (Harold et al., 1997; Phares & Renk, 1998). For instance, adolescentsÂ’ perceptions of high inter-parental conflict have been
19 related to increased behavi oral difficulties (Davis, H ops, Alperty, & Sheeber, 1998; Jouriles, Bourg, & Farris, 1991; Harold et al., 1997). In addition, adolescentsÂ’ perceptions of parental psychological control, such as guilt, po ssessiveness and criticism, are related to increased depression and de linquency, whereas perceptions of parental behavioral control are linked to in creased externalizing prob lems (Barber, 1996). When examining adolescentsÂ’ perceptions of mothers compared to fathers, research has shown that mothers are viewed as more demanding, responsive and intimate (Forehand & Nousiainen, 1993; Noller & Callan, 1990; Paulson & Sputa, 1996; Pipp, Shaver, Jennings, Lamborn, & Fischer, 1985). Adolescents also perceive their mothers as more involved than fathers in their ev eryday activities and sc hool-related functions (Paulson & Sputa, 1996). Further, Phar es and Renk (1998) found that adolescentreported maternal control in parenting was related to adolescents Â’ negative feelings towards mothers, but the opposite was true fo r fathers. However, for both mothers and fathers, higher levels of parental accept ance were related to higher levels of positive affect and lower negative affect. These st udies support the importa nce of investigating perceptions of maternal and paternal parenting behaviors separately. There is less known about adolescentsÂ’ cogn itions and feelings about their parents in general (Phares & Renk, 1998), as opposed to perceptions about specif ic behaviors. In addition, the area of parental perceptions of adolescents has been rarely researched. Investigations in affective responses to pare nts indicate that adoles centsÂ’ feelings and thoughts about their mothers and fathers in fluence their emotional and behavioral functioning (King, 1994; Phares & Renk, 1998). In fact, positive affect towards both parents was related to lower total behavi oral and externalizing problems, whereas
20 negative affect towards parent s was related to total, exte rnalizing, and internalizing difficulties (Phares & Renk, 1998). Less is known about whether young adolescentsÂ’ positive and negative perceptions of fathers and paternal parenting practices contribute to functioning, over and above the f eelings towards mothers. Rationale and Purpose of Study Although there has been a gr owing awareness of the importance of fathers in adolescentsÂ’ development (Lamb, 1997; Ph ares, 1999), the majority of research conducted on parental effects in adolescent development has focused on mothers rather than fathers (Phares, 1992; Phares & Compas 1992). When the impact of fathers and mothers on adolescentsÂ’ development has been investigated, the uni que contributions of paternal factors are rarely assessed (Ama to, 1994; Amato & Rivera, 1999; Hosley & Montemayor, 1997). Yet, both the quality of the father-adoles cent relationship and paternal parenting styles ar e considered important fact ors in conducting research on paternal influences in ad olescent outcomes (Amato & Gilbreth, 1999). Thus, both general affect and feelings to ward parents and specific overt parenting behaviors should be included in parent-adolescen t research (Phares & Renk, 1998). Further, although there is some evidence that fathersÂ’ parenting practices and involvement with adolescents differ by gender of the child (Kim et al., 1999; Patterson & Dishion, 1985), the findings regarding gender are not consistent ac ross all studies (e.g., Flouri et al., 2003; Paulson & Sputa, 1996; Wenk et al., 1994). Further investigation of paternal interaction patter ns by gender is therefore needed (Hosely & Montemayor, 1997). Additionally, when investigating pare nt-adolescent relationships, adolescentsÂ’ perceptions of parents and parenting are important as these feelings influence
21 adolescentsÂ’ emotional and behavioral func tioning (Grych et al., 1992; Harold et al., 1997; Phares & Renk, 1998). Similarly, parentsÂ’ perceptions play an integral part in family relationships (Crouter, Bumpus, Maguire, & McHale, 1999; Seiffge-Krenge, 1999). Given that less is known about the direct correspondence between parental perceptions of their adolescents and the adolescentsÂ’ outcomes (Phares et al., 2003; Phares et al., 2005), the inves tigation of parental feelings towards their children is an important factor to consider in family-based research. Given these findings, the purpose of the current study is to examine the unique contribution of fathers in adolescentsÂ’ emotional and behavioral functioning. Specifically, the study will investigate the rela tionships among adolescentsÂ’ perceptions of both their mothers and fathers, adolescents Â’ ratings of their motherÂ’s and fatherÂ’s parenting behaviors, perceptions of parent s about their adolescen ts, and adolescentsÂ’ functioning. The role of adolescent gender in these relationships will also be examined. Given the equivocal findings regarding the effects of non-re sident paternal involvement and socioeconomic status, especially pate rnal education, on adolescentsÂ’ outcomes (Crockett et al., 1993; Svanum et al., 1982), paternal involvement and socioeconomic status will be controlled stat istically in the current study. The current study will address the th ree following sets of hypotheses: Hypothesis 1 Fathers spend more time with their adolescent sons and adolescent boys feel that their fathers know them better do adol escent girls (Pleck, 1997; Stare lls, 1994). There is also some evidence that boys have higher positive a ffect towards their fathers than do girls (Phares et al., 2003). It is therefore hypothesi zed that adolescent boys will report higher
22 levels of positive feelings and lower levels of negative affect towards their fathers than will adolescent girls. However, given that both boys and girls report similar levels of self-disclosure, closeness and conflict with mothers (e.g., Eberly et al., 1993; Paulson et al., 1991; Youniss & Smollar, 1985), no gender differences are expected for positive and negative affect towards mothers. Hypothesis 2 Following suggestions that adolescent boys are more impacted by fathers than are adolescent girls (e.g., Barnett et al., 1992; Mott et al., 1997; Noller & Callan, 1990), it is expected that the relationship between pa ternal factors and emotional/behavioral functioning in adolescents will be stronger for boys than for girls. Since maternal factors are related to similar outcomes in boys a nd girls (e.g., Conger et al., 1997; Hosley & Montemayor, 1997), no differences are expected in the magnit ude of the correlations for boysÂ’ and girlsÂ’ reports of their mothers a nd their emotional/behavioral functioning. Hypothesis 3 There is some support that fathers play an important role in adol escent psychological and educational outcomes even when maternal fact ors, such as involvement and support, are considered (Amato, 1994; Amato & Rivera, 1999; Barnett et al., 1992; Flouri et al., 2003). It is therefore expect ed that adolescentsÂ’ percepti ons of fathers, adolescentsÂ’ ratings of paternal parenting practices, and fa thersÂ’ perceptions of adolescents will be related to emotional and be havioral functioning, over a nd above the contribution of maternal factors. Given the limited amount of research on the unique contributions of fathers in boys versus girls, no specific hypotheses were made for the unique effects of fathers by adolescent gender.
23 Method Participants Adolescents from three public middle schools in West Central Fl orida participated in the study1. Students were recruited from Bay Point Middle (N = 1445) and Largo Middle schools (N = 1698) in Pinellas County, and Terrace Community School (N = 160), a charter school in Hillsborough County. Despite the large number of students in the two Pinellas County Schools, not all student s were provided with letters of invitation and consent forms.2 It is estimated that about 960 c onsent forms were distributed across the three schools. Parents were asked to act ively agree to or dec line participation. In total, 136 parents signed consent and 164 parent s declined participat ion in writing. The overall participation rate in relation to the estimated number of consent forms distributed was 14.2%. However, the participation rate ba sed on the number of returned letters was 45.3%. Significant differences in response ra tes were found across th e three schools in which TCS had a relatively higher respons e rate based on the estimate number of distributed consents ( 2 (2) = 23.46, p < .001) and Largo had a higher response rate based on the number of returned letters ( 2 (2) = 25.31, p < .001). Table 1 depicts the response rates per school. 1 Two out of 22 middle schools in Pinellas County agreed to assist w ith the study, whereas 20 principals declined to have the stu dy run at their school. Despite several attemp ts to access other sites for recruitment [two community centers/ YMCAs in the Tampa Bay area, four schools in the New York/New Je rsey area (contacts were made through a principal, middle school teacher, guidance counselor and head of the parent associ ation, respectively) and a school district in Queens, NY (through a violence prevention project], access to these additional sites was not possible. 2 Given that the Pinellas County School District requested that st udentsÂ’ anonymity be maintained, researchers were not able to distribute consent forms in person. Thus, teachers were asked fo r their assistance. Not all teachers participated and not all teachers provided information on the number of consents that they distribut ed. As a result, only estimates of the number of consent for ms that were distributed are available. At Bay Point Middle, only 12 out 54 teachers (about 240 students) agreed to distribute consent forms in their home rooms. At Largo Middle, although more than 1000 consent forms were pr ovided, it is estimated that 20 teachers (a bout 600 students) distributed consent forms to their home room cla ssrooms, over two data collection periods. All six teachers at T errace Community School agreed to assist with distribution of consents (120 students).
24 Table 1 Participation response rates by school Consents distributed (estimate) Provided consent Declined participatio n Response rate based on returned letters Response rate based on distributed consents N N N % % Bay Point 240 25 61 29.07 10.42 Largo 600 77 47 62.10 12.83 TCS 120 34 56 37.78 28.33 Note: TCS = Terrace Community School A total of 100 students were surveyed in person. Attempts to obtain surveys from the 36 students who were not surveyed in schoo l (due to scheduling c onflicts, absences or the schoolÂ’s request to di scontinue data collection3) were made by mail. As a result, additional surveys for nine students were obtained by mail. Despite multiple attempts, 27 adolescents, whose parents provi ded signed consent, did not co mplete surveys. The final sample consisted of 109 adolescents ag ed 12-15 (M = 12.73, SD = .93). Based on a power analysis expecting a large effect size ( = .05, power = .80; Cohen, 1992), a minimum of 100 participants was required fo r an adequate test of the hypotheses. Adolescents in the study attended the 6th to 8th grades, and the distribution of the students across the grades wa s equivalent (33.9% in 6th grade, 32.1% in 7th grade, and 33% in 8th grade). There was approximately an equal number of girls (N = 62; 56.9%) 3 Distribution and collection of consents, as we ll as subsequent data collection, was ab ruptly ended after the tragic death of a student at Largo Middle School. Following requests fr om school personnel, students were not su rveyed in school a nd parents and student s were not contacted for a period of time. Attempts to obtain surveys were made by mail several months after the tragedy.
25 and boys (N = 47; 43.1%). The sample was ethnically diverse ( 64.2% Caucasian, 13.8% African-American, 11.0% Latino/Latina, 2.8% Asian, 1.8% Native American, and 6.4% Multiracial). In addition to the adolescents, 55 mother s/mother figures (40.4% response rate) and 41 fathers/father figures (31.1% response rate) completed parent surveys by mail. The majority of the parents who completed surveys were biological mothers (93.0%) and biological fathers (84.6%). The rest of the respondents were step-parents (1.8% stepmothers; 12.8% step-fathers), adoptive parents (3.4% adopt ive mothers; 2.6% adoptive fathers) and grandmothers (1.8%).4 Mothers reported a mean age of 42.18 (SD = 6.74, Range = 29-59) and fathersÂ’ mean age was 44.97 (SD = 7.38, Range = 30-65). On average, the sample fell in the middle to upper middle socioeconomic status on the Hollingshead (Range: 14-66, M = 43.46, SD = 11.29). Fathers reported working an average of 45.03 hours per week (Range: 0 Â– 70; SD = 16.67) and mothers worked an average of 33.73 hours a week (Range: 0-90, SD = 19.16). According to adolescent report, about tw o-thirds of the sa mple consisted of parents in intact marriages ( 62.5%), about one-fifth of the parents were divorced (15.6%) or separated (5.5%), and 12.8% of parents had never been married. Finally, 1.8% of adolescents reported that their father was dead and 1.8% indicated that they did not know or have contact with their biol ogical father and thus were una ble to report parental marital status. Adolescents also reported on their family constellation at home. Almost all of the adolescents reported living with their biological mother or maternal figure (97.2%) and 4 The terms Â“mothersÂ” will be used to refer to mothers and mother figures and Â“fathersÂ” to refer to fathers and father figures fo r ease of reading throughout the paper.
26 about three-quarters of the partic ipants lived with their fathers or father figures (71.6%). Specifically, over half of the sample lived with their biological mothers and fathers (23.9% lived with mothers and fa thers; 34.9% lived with mothers, fathers, and siblings). In terms of single-parent families, 11.9% of the participants lived with their mothers only, 2.8% lived with their mothers and siblings, and 1.8% lived with their fa thers and siblings. A total of 14.7% of the sample was comprised of families with a step-parent (7.3%: mother and step-fathers; 6.4%: mother, step -father, and siblings; 1.0%: father, stepmother and siblings). Only 2.7% of the a dolescents lived with their grandparents and 1.0% lived with foster parents. The rest of the pa rticipants lived with their parents and siblings and other extended family members, such as a grandparent (3.6%), and cousins or nephews (2.7%). There were no significa nt differences across the three schools on demographic variables. Specifically, no diffe rences were found for gender ( 2 (2) = 1.66, p > .05), adolescentsÂ’ age (F (2) = 1.02, p > .05), adolescentsÂ’ ethnicity/race ( 2 (10) = 13.13, p > .05), parentsÂ’ marital status ( 2 (10) = 14.18, p > .05), and w ho the adolescent resided with ( 2 (32) = 30.04, p > .05). Although there wa s an initial significant difference across the three schools for gr ade attended by the adolescent s, this difference did not remain significant after th e correction for error ( 2 (6) = 12.65, p < .05). The only significant difference across the three school se ttings was for socioeconomic status (SES; F (2, 92) = 6.55, p < .002). Specifically, after co ntrolling for error, re sults revealed that adolescents from Terrace Community School re ported significantly higher SES scores (M = 49.18, SD = 11.26) than those in Largo Middle School (M = 39.88, SD = 9.08). This difference in SES across the th ree settings suggests recruitment from a diverse range of
27 middle schools. Since the only significant diffe rence in demographic variables across the three schools was found in SES scores, and SES was controlled for in the regression analyses, data from all three schools were combined for the analyses. Measures Parents and their adolescents completed paper-and-pencil questionnaires. All selected measures are psychometrically s ound and have been used extensively in research. Specifically, mothers and father s completed a short demographic form, a measure on perceptions of thei r children, and a measure on their adolescentÂ’s emotional and behavioral functioning. Adolescents co mpleted a short demographic information form, two measures on their pe rceptions of their parents a nd parenting practices, and one measure on their emotional and behavioral functioning. Parent Surveys Demographic Information Form. Parents completed a short demographic form that was developed for the purposes of the cu rrent study. The form requested information on family demographics, family constellat ion, parental occupation and education, and amount of time spent at home and at work. Mothers and fathers who lived with their adolescents were also asked how much time they spent with their adolescent during waking hours on an average weekday and on an average weekend day for two categories: Direct interaction (engagement, such as talking and playing a game) and Accessibility (without direct interaction, such as time when parents were accessible but not involved in direct interaction; e.g., watc hing television without talki ng or being in the house in separate rooms and involved in separate activities). These items were based on the conceptualization of Lamb and coll eagues (Lamb, Frodi, Hwang, & Frodi, 1982).
28 Parents who did not live with their teenager s were asked to estimate how much time they spent on average within a month in direct interaction and accessibility with their teenagers. See Appendix A for the parent Demographic Information Form5. Perceptions of Pare nts Â– Parent Form. Both mothers and fathers completed the parent-version of the Perception of Parents (POP-P; Phares & Renk, 1998), a 15-item measure that provides information on parentsÂ’ feelings toward their adolescent. Parents who had limited or no contact with their adol escent could also complete the measure. Parents were asked to respond on a six point s cale, ranging from Â“not at all or neverÂ” to Â“extremely or alwaysÂ”, to items such as: Â“How much do you feel love towards your child?Â”, Â“How much do you feel confused by your child?Â”, Â“How much do you feel anger towards your child?Â”, and Â“How much do you feel proud of your child?Â”. The POP-P has two factors: Positive Affect and Negative Affect Higher scores reflect greater positive affect and nega tive affect toward the adolescent. The psychometrics for the measure are strong, with internal consistencies ranging from .75 to .95 (Phares et al., 2003). In th e current sample, internal c onsistency was generally strong with the exception of paternal reported nega tive affect (alpha for positive affect/mother report = .87; alpha for positive affect/father re port = .92; alpha for negative affect/mother report = .70; alpha for negative affect/father report = .47). See Appendix B for a copy of the measure. Child Behavior Checklist. Parents also completed the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001), a wide ly used parent-reported measure of emotional and behavioral problems in chil dren and adolescents. Respondents were 5 Please note that the documents presented in the Appendix have been modified from their original format and presentation.
29 provided with a list of items and asked to rate their adolescents Â’ behaviors on a threepoint scale, ranging from Â“not tr ueÂ” to Â“very true or often trueÂ”. Sample items include: Â“Disobedient at homeÂ”, Â“CanÂ’t sit still, restless or hyperactiveÂ”, and Â“Shy or timidÂ”. Psychometric propertie s, including 7-day test-retest reliability ( .89), internal consistency ( = .95), and construct validity (.82), for the CBCL are excellent. The two broad band factors, Internalizing and Externalizing Problems of the CBCL were used for the purposes of the current study. Higher T scores on the factors reflect greater parentreported emotional and behavioral problems in adolescents. Adolescent Surveys My Mom and Dad. Adolescents were asked to list the names of their mother and father figures on the My Mom and Dad form. This information was used to match adolescent and parent surveys in order to en sure that the parents for which adolescents provided ratings were in fact the mothers a nd fathers who completed the surveys. In addition, adolescents were asked to provide their date of bi rth in order to facilitate scoring of the Child Behavior Checklist and Y outh Self-Report measures. This form was separated from the surveys following data collection. See Appendix C for the measure. Demographic Informatio n Form Â– Adolescent. Adolescents completed a short demographic form that was developed for th e purposes of the current study. This adolescent-version of the parental Demogra phic Information Form provides information on adolescentsÂ’ gender, ethnic background and fa mily constellation. Adolescents were also asked to provide information on their parentsÂ’ education and occupation, which was used to determine the familyÂ’s socioeconomic status (SES; Hollingshead, 1975). Similarly to the parental demographic form, adolescents were asked to report on
30 the amount of time their parents spen t with them during waking hours in Direct Interaction (e.g., talking, playing a game) and Accessibility (e.g., time when parents are accessible but not involved in direct interac tion with their children, such as watching television without talking or pa rtaking in separate activities). Adolescen ts who lived with their parents reported on the amount of time th eir parents spent with them in direct interaction and accessibility on an average w eekday and weekend day. Adolescents who did not live with a parent we re asked to report on the average time monthly that they spent in direct interaction and accessibil ity with their non-residential parent. Based on the work of Lamb and colleagues (1982), adolescent re ports of parental direct interaction and accessibi lity were used for the purpos e of this study. Parental report of direct interaction and accessibility wa s substituted only if adolescent reports of involvement were missing. Reported weekday and weekend involvement hours for direct interaction and accessibility were each converted into an overall average monthly amount of time.6 For direct interaction a nd accessibility separately, the newly computed average weekday and weekend hours per month were th en added to provide an overall monthly average of involvement in each of the two domai ns. Thus, the final data did not separate hours by weekday and weekend for direct intera ctions and accessibility. This procedure was done to include ratings of involvement with non resident ial parentsÂ’ participation (since adolescents with non residential pare nts reported only on the average amount of time parents spent with them in a month a nd not per weekday and weekend day). Once the hours of involvement were aggregated in to overall monthly direct interaction and monthly accessibility rates, a daily average of these two domains was computed for ease 6 For both direct interaction and accessibility, the reported wee kday hours were multiplied by 22 (ave rage number of weekdays in a month) and the reported weekend hours were multiplied by 8 (average number of weekend days in a month).
31 of interpretation.7 Thus, the current study used the number of hours per day, on average, in which parents interacted directly with and were accessible to their a dolescents. These procedures are consistent with previous research (Lamb et al., 1982). Specifically, adolescent reports of paternal direct interaction and accessibility were used as control variables in the current study. See Appendix D for the Demographic Information Form Â– Adolescent Version. Perceptions of Parents (POP). Adolescents also co mpleted the POP measure (Phares & Renk, 1998), which is the adolescent -version of the POP-P. The POP is a 15item measure that assesses adolescentsÂ’ cognit ions and emotions related to their father and mother. Respondents were asked to re port their feelings and opinions on their mother and father separately. Adolescents could complete the measure even if they had no contact with their mother or father. Res pondents were asked to respond to items on a six-point scale, ranging from Â“ not at all or neverÂ” to Â“extremely or alwaysÂ”, on questions such as Â“How much do you feel respect towa rd your mother/father ?Â”, Â“How much do you feel anger toward your moth er/father?Â”, Â“How much do you feel confused by your mother/father?Â” and Â“How mu ch do you feel closeness to your mother/father?Â”. The POP produces two factors: Positive Affect and Negative Affect Higher scores on the POP reflect greater levels of positive affect and negative affect toward mothers and fathers. Psychometric properties for the measure are strong, with good one-week testretest reliability (ranging from .70 to .97), in ternal consistency (alphas ranging from .73 and .93) and construct validity (ranging from .59 to .71). In the curr ent sample, internal 7 The monthly total of hours in direct inte raction and in direct accessibility was divide d by 30 (average number of days in a mo nth). This was done separately for direct interaction and for accessibility.
32 consistency was strong (alpha for positive aff ect toward mother = .85; alpha for positive affect toward father = .95; alpha for nega tive affect toward moth er = .67; alpha for negative affect toward father = .79). See Appendix E for the POP. ChildrenÂ’s Report of Parental Behavi or Inventory Â– Revised (CRPBI-R). Adolescents completed four subscales of the CRPBI-R (Schludermann & Schludermann, 1970). The 27-item measure assesses adolesce ntsÂ’ perceptions of their motherÂ’s and fatherÂ’s parenting behaviors. Specificall y, adolescents rated th eir parents on four subscales, using a three point scale, with options Â“Not Like My Mother/FatherÂ”, Â“Somewhat Like My Mother/Fat herÂ” and Â“Like My Mother/F atherÂ”. The four subscales were: Acceptance (8 items; e.g., Â“Smiles at me oftenÂ” and Â“Almost always speaks to me with a warm and friendly voiceÂ”), Discipline (9 items, some of which were reverse scored; e.g., Â“Soon forgets a rule s/he has madeÂ” and Â“Does not in sist I obey if I complain or protestÂ”), Control (5 items; e.g., Â“Insists that I must do exactly as I am toldÂ” and Â“Believes in having a lot of ru les and sticking to themÂ”) and Monitoring (5 items; e.g., Â“Wants to know exactly where I am and wh at I am doingÂ” and Â“Is always checking on what I have been doing at school or playÂ”). Higher scores on the CRPBI-R reflect greater levels of adolescent-rated acceptance, discipline, control, and monitoring in their mothers and fathers. Internal consistency ranges from .74 to .87, and the measure has good convergent and discriminant validity (Schwartz et al., 1985). In the current sample, internal consistencies were generally strong (alpha of maternal acc eptance = .83; alpha of paternal acceptance = .89; alpha of maternal discipline = .71; al pha of paternal disc ipline = .73; alpha of
33 maternal control = .64; alpha of paternal control = .74; alpha of maternal monitoring = .76; alpha of paternal monitoring = .80). See Appendix F for a copy of the measure. Youth Self-Report (YSR). Adolescents completed the YSR (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001), a widely used measure of a dolescent-reported emotional and behavioral problems. This measure is the adolescent version of the parent-rated CBCL mentioned above. Adolescents were asked to rate each item (e.g., Â“I get in many fightsÂ” and Â“I am too shy or timidÂ”) on a three-point scale: Â“not trueÂ”, Â“sometimes or sometimes trueÂ” or Â“very true or often trueÂ”. Psyc hometric properties, including 7-day test-retest reliability (.72), internal consistency (alphas are .95 and above) and construc t validity (.82 and above) for the YSR are excellent. The two broad-band factors of the YSR, Internalizing and Externalizing Problems were used for the purposes of the current study. Higher T scores reflect greater self-reported em otional and behavioral problems. Procedure Families were recruited from three middl e schools in two school districts in West Central Florida. Homeroom teachers in 6th to 8th grades from the participating schools were asked to distribute letters of invitati on and consent forms to their students (see Appendix G for copies of the invitation le tters and consent form). Teachers were provided with a script descri bing the study and instructions for distribution and collection of the consent forms (see Appendix H for the in structions and script). Teachers were asked to read the script to the students verb atim. In the instructi ons, students were asked to take the letters of invitation and cons ent forms home, and return them to their homeroom teacher within a given time period.
34 The letters and consent forms sent home provided parents with a written description of the study, the measures collected, benefits and risks to the study, and information about confidentiality. Parents we re assured that info rmation on individual studentsÂ’ and parentsÂ’ responses would not be shared with th e school, district students, or parents. They were also informed that thei r decision to participate or not participate in the study would in no way influence their adolesce ntÂ’s progress or services in the school. Parents were asked to indicate whether they wi shed to participate in the study or not, by checking off Â“Yes, I am interestedÂ” or Â“No, I am not interestedÂ” on the invitational form. At the request of the School Di strict, if parents checked off th at they were not interested, they were not asked to provide any add itional identifying information. Parents who agreed to participate were instructed to sign the last page of the consent form, and provide their childÂ’s name, grade, and their contact information. Depending on the school, drop off locations for the consent forms varied. Teachers collected consent forms on pre-dete rmined dates and forwarded them to the mailroom (where drop boxes were available) or the principalÂ’s office. Following receipt of parental written consent, st udents were surveyed in sma ll groups of 3-15 in the school setting. Students were provided with a verbal description of the study based on the assent form (see Appendix I). They were given assu rances that no information would be shared with family members or school officials (ex cept where required by state law for reporting potential suicidality, homicidality, or child abuse). Following data collection, the two suicidality items on the adolescent-reported Youth Self-Report (YSR) were reviewed (Item 18: Â“I deliberately try to hurt or k ill myselfÂ” and item 91: Â“I think about killing myselfÂ”). Adolescents who responded a Â“1Â” or Â“2Â” on these two items were interviewed
35 separately and a suicide risk assessment was conducted. Si x adolescents endorsed a Â“1Â” on the items. Following the clinical assessment, it was determined that these adolescents had no active suicidal intent attempts, or plans. Students gave written assent to pa rticipation prior to completing the questionnaires. Students were initially aske d to complete the Â“My Mom and DadÂ” form, which was read to them verbatim. They were asked to identify the names of their mother and father, or the individuals who hold the role of maternal and pate rnal figures in their lives. If adolescents indicated that they had more than one maternal or paternal figure in their lives, they completed questionnaires on each of the figures. These questionnaires were then matched with the returned maternal or paternal surveys and/or compared with the names provided by the parents on the consen t forms. Following these procedures, the current study included only one adolescent-reported survey on each parent (one maternal and one paternal figure). Thus, the adolescen ts decided on who were their maternal and paternal figures in their lives. No identifying information was requeste d on the questionnaires, and the assent forms and identifying information (e.g., My Mo m and Dad form) were separated from the questionnaires immediately following data co llection. If students were absent on the assigned data collection and follow-up collectio n dates, a follow-up data collection date was scheduled. If students were absent on the follow-up date, surveys were mailed home for completion. Following data collection in the school setting, parents were mailed the parent surveys to complete and return by self-addr essed business reply envelopes. All forms were assigned a study identific ation code to ensure confid entiality of responses. The
36 preparation of parent packets followed r ecommendations in a recent article providing guideline for mail survey research (Weathe rs, Furlong, & Zolorzano, 1993). Specifically, cover letters were personalized, included the researchersÂ’ signature in ink, and packets were mailed in a personally addresse d envelope. Additionally, following the recommendations by Weathers and her colleague s (1993), no cut-off dates were provided in the letters for responding to the questionnai res in order to provi de the impression of a continued temporary relationship with the researcher. Finally, the potential of a tangible reward for participation was offered. Fo llowing recommendations (Weathers et al., 1993), two follow-up mailings of packets were made to parents who did not respond to the initial mailing. Parents were also provi ded with e-mail reminde rs to mail back the surveys. Parents and adolescents who participated in the study were ente red into a drawing for six gift certificates. Th ere were four certificates for $25 each and two for $50 each. Parents or adolescents who signe d consent but did not complete surveys were still entered into the drawing. In addition, teachers from each school who assisted with the distribution and collection of consent forms were entered into a drawing for a gift certificate of $50 for their assistance. Finall y, schools were offered in-service training in appreciation of their assist ance in data collection. Design and Data Analyses The research design was cross-sectional. Preliminary analyses revealed that there were no significant differences after controlling for error, on the independent/predictor and dependent/outcome variables across the three schools. Thus, the schools were combined in all analyses. Pr ior to examining the hypotheses, descriptive statistics were
37 run on the control variables (SES, paternal di rect interaction, pate rnal accessibility), independent/predictor variables (adolescent posi tive and negative affect toward parents, maternal and paternal positive and negative affect toward adolescents, and adolescent ratings of parenting practices, including accepta nce, control, discipline, and monitoring), and dependent variables (adol escent-, mother-, and father -reported internalizing and externalizing problems) 8. Preliminary analyses were al so run to explain involvement rates by mothers and fathers on the whol e group and by adolescent gender. To examine gender differences in adolescentsÂ’ positive and negative affect toward mothers and fathers separately (Hypothesis 1), one-way analyses of variance were conducted. Correlation analyses were then conducted between the independent and dependent variables for boys and girls combined and separately by gender. In order to test Hypothesis 2, Fisher r to z transformations were computed to explore the magnitude of adolescent gender differences in the correl ations. Finally, thr ee sets of regression analyses (adolescent-only reports as pred ictors, adolescenta nd parent-reports as predictor variables, and regr essions by gender, where appli cable) were conducted to test the final hypothesis. Given the large number of analyses, Bonferroni adjustments were used throughout the analyses to control fo r Type I error (Larzalere & Mulaik, 1977). 8 The independent variables will be referred to as Â“predictorsÂ” a nd the dependent variables will be referred to as Â“outcomesÂ” in the current study for ease of reading. Howe ver, it should be noted that the use of these terms does not imply causation between th e independent and dependent variables.
38 Results The results section is reported in five major sections. The first section provides details on how missing data were handled. The second section provides descriptive statistics for the control variables, adolescentreported predictors, pa rental predictors, and outcome variables. Results on gender differe nces in the predictor variables are reported in the third section. The four th section provides inter-correl ations between the predictor and outcome variables for the whole group and by gender. This section also includes results of the r to z transf ormations, which were conducted to examine the magnitude of gender differences in the correlations. The fi nal section consists of the hierarchical multiple regressions for the whole group and by gender, where applicable. Missing Data As is the case in most studies, there we re a small amount of missing data in this study. In keeping with standard procedures missing data on the Perception of Parents (Phares & Renk, 1998) and CRPBI-R (Schl udermann & Schludermann, 1970) measures were substituted with the indi vidualÂ’s average rating on the subscale of the measure. On the adolescent-rated POP measure, there were only 8 (out of 825) mother-rated and 12 (out of 615) father-rated items missing, whereas on the CRPBI, adolescents did not provide responses on 13 (out of 2943) moth er-rated and 15 (out of 2835) father-rated items. Only one adolescent did not complete the Youth Self-Report. For the purposes of the current study, adol escent report of maternal and paternal involvement was used. If adolescents reported that they spent Â“24 or more hoursÂ” with their parents in direct intera ction and/or accessibility, a pr edetermined formula was used
39 to clean the data. Specifically, on weekda ys, 24 hours was changed to 8 hours (with the assumption of 8 hours in school and 8 hours of sleep in the day) and on weekends, 24 hours was changed to 16 hours (accounting for 8 hours of sleep). This process was used for six adolescents. Further, when the combined total of dire ct interaction and ac cessibility added up to or more than 24 hours, in addition to the aforementioned predetermined formula, another conversion formula, based on the pr oportions of times reported, was used to clean the data. This was done to ensure th at the combined amount of time in direct interactions and accessibility did not exceed 24 hours. For example, if adolescents reported that their parents spent 24 hour s in direct interaction and 12 hours in accessibility, a 2:1 ratio was used to calcu late the proportional amounts of time that parents spent in direct interaction and acces sibility. This process was used for 20 adolescentsÂ’ reports of maternal involvem ent and 13 adolescent reports of paternal involvement. When the adolescents did not provide hours of involvement, maternal or paternal data was substituted. This occurred in 4 cases for maternal involvement and 3 cases for paternal involvement. No paternal involve ment data were provided for 6 fathers and 4 mothers. Similarly, adolescent report of SES wa s used in the current study. However, in 24 cases, adolescents did not provide their pare ntsÂ’ educational or oc cupational status in order to calculate SES. In these case s, parental report of SES was used.
40 Descriptive Statistics Control Variables As noted in the Methods sect ion, adolescent ratings of th eir familyÂ’s SES indicate that participating families fell in the middle to upper middle classes (M = 43.46, SD = 11.29). Descriptive statistics for maternal and paternal average daily direct interactions and accessibility to their adoles cents are presented in Table 2. Recall that weekdays and weekends were combined to create this av erage day estimate. Additionally, recall that paternal involvement was used as a control variab le, following suggestions that paternal influence in adolescentsÂ’ lives can be account ed for by the amount of contact that fathers have with adolescents (Amato, 1994). Table 2 AdolescentsÂ’ reports of parental invol vement: Overall and by adolescent gender Mothers Fathers N M SD N M SD Direct Interaction *** (Hours on Average Day) 104 5.85 3.55 103 4.10 3.52 Males 47 5.22 3.59 45 4.80 4.08 Females *** 58 6.31 3.46 58 3.56 2.94 Accessibility (Hours on Average Day) 103 4.31 2.97 103 3.46 3.17 Males 46 4.52 2.94 45 4.05 3.20 Females 58 4.14 2.98 58 3.00 3.10 Note : For overall sample: N for direct intera ction = 102 and N for accessibility = 101; For males: N for direct interacti on = 45 and N for accessibility = 44; For females: N for direct interaction and N for accessibility = 57. p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001
41 Exploratory analyses on adol escent reports of parental involvement rates were conducted to understand the nature of mothersÂ’ and fathersÂ’ involvement in the current sample. Separate paired t-te sts were performed on the two involvement variables (direct interactions and accessibility) for the overall group and separately by adolescent gender to determine group differences in these contro l variables. A Bonferroni-adjusted alpha level (obtained by dividing th e per comparison alpha leve l by the two involvement variables, = .025) was used in the analyses. Results revealed that adolescents reported spending significantly more time in daily direct interactions with their mother s than with their fa thers (t (101) = 4.89, p < .001). In fact, adolescents re ported that they spent almo st two hours more in direct interactions with their mother s than with their fathers on an average day. Similar results were found for maternal versus patern al accessibility (t (100) = 2.56, p < .012); adolescents reported that, compared to their fathers, their mothers were accessible to them for about an hour more each day. When examining involvement separately by adolescent gender, no significant differences were found between maternal and paternal involvement for adolescent boys. Howeve r, girls reported that mothers spent significantly more time in direct interactions with them compared to fathers (t (56) = 2.54, p < .014) and mothers were more accessible than fathers (t (56) = -5.84, p < .001). Girls reported that their mothers spent al most double the amount of time in direct interactions with them and were accessible about an hour more each day compared to their fathers (see Table 2).
42 Predictor Variables Descriptive statistics for the predictor va riables are presented in Table 3. Recall that ratings on the Perception of Parents (POP) measures ra nged from 1 to 6, with higher scores reflecting high levels of positive affect and negative affect. On the POP, adolescent ratings of positive affect toward parents were very high, indicating that adolescents endorsed feelings th at were Â“very much or very oftenÂ” positive toward their mothers and fathers. Conversely, adolescent ratings of negative affect toward parents were low, indicating that adol escents Â“rarelyÂ” had negative f eelings toward their mothers and fathers. On the POP-Parent Form, parent sÂ’ feelings about th eir children yielded similar results, in which both mothers and fa thers endorsed high levels of positive affect and low levels of negative affect toward thei r adolescents. These numbers are consistent with other community samples (Phares & Renk, 1998). Recall that the CRBPI-R measure used a thr ee-point scale, in wh ich higher scores indicated that the behaviors e ndorsed were reflective of moth ersÂ’ and fathersÂ’ specific parenting practices. Adolescen ts reported, that on average, their mothers and fathers displayed moderate levels of acceptance, contro l, discipline, and monitoring in their overt parenting behaviors. These means are consis tent with other community samples (Phares & Renk, 1998).
43 Table 3 Means and Standard Deviations for Predicto r Variables (POP, POP-P, and CRPBI-R) N M SD POP (Adolescent Report) Adolescent positive affect toward mother 109 5.47 .56 Adolescent negative affect toward mother 109 2.13 .88 Adolescent positive affect toward father 109 5.08 1.09 Adolescent negative affect toward father 109 2.37 1.12 POP-P (Parent Report) Maternal positiv e affect toward adolescent 56 5.64 .42 Maternal negative affect toward adolescent 56 2.19 .64 Paternal posit ive affect toward adolescent 42 5.45 .57 Paternal negati ve affect toward adolescent 42 2.20 .55 CRPBI-R (Adolescent Report) Maternal acceptance 109 2.70 .36 Maternal control 109 2.47 .39 Maternal discipline 109 2.20 .42 Maternal monitoring 109 2.28 .52 Paternal acceptance 105 2.53 .49 Paternal control 105 2.39 .47 Paternal discipline 105 2.24 .43 Paternal monitoring 105 2.08 .57 Note : POP = Perception of Parents; POP-P = Pe rception of Parents Â– Parent Version; CRPBI-R = ChildrenÂ’s Report of Parent al Behavior Inve ntory Â– Revised
44 Outcome Variables Table 4 presents the descript ive statistics and frequencies of the cut off scores for the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; mother and father report ) and the adolescentreported Youth Self-Report Form (YSR). On the CBCL, both mothers and fathers rated that, on average, their adoles cents displayed non-clinical le vels of internalizing and externalizing problems. In terms of clinical cut-off sc ores on the CBCL, mothers rated that 16.1% of adolescents exhibited borderli ne and clinical leve ls of internalizing problems, compared to 9.5% of adolescents according to fathers. When examining clinical levels of externalizing problems, both parents reported similar ratings of borderline and clinical scores (Mot hers: 12.5%; Fathers: 11.9%). Similar to the findings on the CBCL, a dolescent reports on the YSR fell, on average, in the non-clinical range for intern alizing and externaliz ing problems. These patterns are consistent with other commun ity samples. However, somewhat more adolescents than parents repor ted higher clinical and bor derline levels. Specifically, 23.1% and 25.9% of adolescents endorsed clinic al and borderline levels of internalizing and externalizing problems, respectively. Thes e percentages are higher than the average of 2% of adolescents from co mmunity samples. However, results from the current study are similar to those reported in the standa rdization of the CBCL and YSR (27% and 26%, respectively; Achenbach, 1991a, 1991b).
45 Table 4 Means and Standard Deviations for Ou tcome Variables (CBCL and YSR) N Range M SD % Borderline Range % Clinical Range CBCL Â– Mother report Internalizing problems 56 33 70 51.04 9.40 5.4% 10.7% Externalizing problems 56 34 69 46.86 9.23 7.1% 5.4% CBCL Â– Father report Internalizing problems 41 33 70 46.39 9.23 2.4% 7.1% Externalizing problems 41 34 70 46.32 9.28 2.4% 9.5% YSR Â– Adolescent report Internalizing problems 108 30 75 52.58 10.02 7.4% 15.7% Externalizing problems 108 29 76 52.20 10.53 8.3% 17.6% Note : CBCL = Child Behavior Checklist; YSR = Youth Self Report Gender Differences in Perception of Parents and Parenting Practices Overview A series of one-way analyses of vari ance were conducted to investigate gender differences on adolescent perceptions of thei r mothers and fathers (positive and negative affect, based on the POP) to test the first hypothesis. Separate uni variate F tests were performed on each of the four perception va riables using a Bonferroni adjusted alpha level (that is, dividing th e per comparison alpha level by the four comparisons, = .0125).
46 Although not originally hypothe sized, one-way analyses of variance were also conducted to examine adolescent gender differe nces in adolescentsÂ’ ratings of their mothersÂ’ and fathersÂ’ specific parenting prac tices in four domains (acceptance, control, discipline, and monitoring). Additionally, the study explored whether adolescent reports differed by gender of their parent. Specificall y, paired t-tests, conducted separately for boys and girls, examined differences in adolescentsÂ’ reported a ffect (positive and negative) toward their mothers versus their fa thers, as well as adolescentsÂ’ ratings of mothersÂ’ versus fathersÂ’ specific parenting pr actices in four domains (acceptance, control, discipline, and monitoring). Bonferroni adjusted alpha levels were set at .025 for the POP comparisons (predetermined alpha di vided by 2) and .0125 for the CRPBI-R comparisons (the predetermined alpha level was divided by 4). Adolescent Gender Differences on the POP As can be seen in Table 5, significant a dolescent gender differences were found in respect to negative affect toward mothers and fathers. Specifically, compared to girls, boys reported significantly lower levels of ne gative affect toward their mothers (F (1, 107) = 8.18, p < .005) and fathers (F (1, 107) = 8.31, p < .005). No significant adolescent gender differences were found with respect to positive affect toward mothers (F (1, 107) = .71, ns) and fathers (F (1, 107) = 2.52, ns). These results are somewhat consistent with the first hypothesis, in relati on to adolescent gender differenc es in negative affect toward fathers and no adolescent gender differences in positive affect toward mothers. However, findings did not support expecta tions of adolescent gender differences in positive affect toward fathers and of no adolescent gender differe nces in negative affect toward mothers.
47 Exploratory analyses of adol escent boysÂ’ and girlsÂ’ affect toward mothers versus fathers were also conducted (see Table 5). Si gnificant differences in affect by gender of the parent were found for girls only. Specifi cally, girls endorsed si gnificantly higher positive affect and lower negative affect toward their mothers than their fathers (t (61) = -3.53, p < .001 and t (61) = 2.60, p < .012, respectively). Adolescent Gender Differences on the CRPBI-R Additional exploratory analyses were c onducted regarding adol escentsÂ’ reports of parenting practices. As can be seen in Table 5, no significan t adolescent gender differences were found on ratings of maternal or paternal acce ptance, control, discipline, and monitoring (pÂ’s > .05). Pair ed t-tests to explore ratings of mothersÂ’ versus fathersÂ’ specific parenting behaviors revealed that bo th boys and girls rated their mothers as exhibiting significantly hi gher levels of monitoring (t (46) = -3.87, p < .001 and t (57) = 2.87, p < .006, respectively) and acceptance beha viors (t (46) = 2.69, p < .010 and t (57) = -3.37, p < .001, respectively) compared to th eir fathers. However, the significant difference between maternal and paternal accep tance levels for boys was not considered significant after controlling for error.
48 Table 5 Adolescent-reported predictor variables (POP and CRPBI-R) by adolescent gender Boys Girls N M SD N M SD POP Positive affect toward mother 47 5.42 .56 62 5.51 .56 Negative affect toward mother ** 47 1.86 .89 62 2.33 .82 Positive affect toward father 47 5.23 .75 62 4.93 1.28 Negative affect toward father ** 47 2.03 .99 62 2.63 1.14 CRPBI-R Maternal acceptance 47 2.69 .39 62 2.72 .34 Maternal control 47 2.45 .36 62 2.47 .42 Maternal discipline 47 2.18 .43 62 2.21 .41 Maternal monitoring 47 2.23 .53 62 2.32 .52 Paternal acceptance 47 2.51 .55 58 2.55 .44 Paternal control 47 2.35 .47 58 2.41 .47 Paternal discipline 47 2.23 .49 58 2.26 .38 Paternal monitoring 47 2.00 .58 58 2.15 .56 Note : POP = Perception of Parents; CRPBI-R = ChildrenÂ’s Report of Parental Behavior Inventory Â– Revised ** p < .005
49 Correlational Analyses Overview Before exploring adolescent gender diffe rences for Hypothesis 2, correlations were run for the entire sample to determ ine the magnitude of the relationships among adolescent-reported parental factors (perception of parent s and parenting practices), maternal and paternal perceptions of their adolescents, and adolescent-, mother-, and fatherreported emotional/behavioral functi oning in adolescents. These sets of correlations were also conducted separately by gender in order to test the second hypothesis. Specifically, Fisher r to z transformations were conducted to i nvestigate the magnitude of adolescent gender differences in the relationships between the predictor and outcome variables. To control for Type 1 e rror, the Bonferroni ad justed alpha level was set to .004 for the POP measures and .002 for the CRPBI-R.9 Recall that on the POP scale, higher rati ngs reflect higher levels of positive and negative affect. Similarly, on the CRPBI-R pa renting practices subscales, higher scores reflect higher levels of parent al acceptance, consistent and firm disciplinary practices, control, and monitoring. A dditionally, higher T scores of CBCL and YSR externalizing and internalizing problems reflect higher leve ls of emotional and be havioral difficulties in adolescents. Correlations for Boys and Girls Combined POP and Adolescent Outcomes. As can be seen in Table 6, the strongest findings emerged between adolescent-reported nega tive affect toward both parents and 9 The predetermined alpha level was divided by the number of correlations in each set. The sets were: adolescent-reported POP toward mothers and fathers (4 factors), maternaland patern al-reported POP (4 factors), and adolescent-reported parenting practices for mothers and fathers (8 factors). Each set was co rrelated on each of the outcome variables: internalizing (3 rate rs) and externalizing (3 raters) problems. Thus, the number of co mparisons for the POP measure were 12 (4 factors 3 raters) and for the CRPBI-R were 24 (8 factors 3 raters).
50 externalizing problems, in which negative affect toward mothers and fathers was positively related to externalizing problems acro ss all three informants, with coefficients ranging from .24 to .46 (pÂ’s < .05). Howeve r, negative affect toward mothers and adolescentand father-rated externalizing problems did not remain significant after controlling for error. The relationships be tween negative affect toward fathers and adolescentand maternal-rated externalizing problems were strong, while the association with paternal-rated externalizing problems di d not remain significant after controlling for error. Results were not as strong for negative affect and in ternalizing problems, and for positive affect and internalizing and extern alizing problems. Although some significant relationships between these va riables emerged (see Table 6), these associations did not remain significant after the Bonferroni adjustment. Similar to findings on the adolescent POP, results examining the relationships between parental affect and a dolescent outcomes revealed that parental affect was related to externalizing, but not inte rnalizing, outcomes (see Tabl e 6). Three relationships remained as significant after controlling fo r error. Specifically, higher maternal and paternal negative affect was related to higher levels of adolescentand paternal-reported externalizing problems, respectiv ely, and higher levels of ma ternal positive affect were associated with lower levels of maternal-r ated externalizing problems (pÂ’s < .001). No other correlations were significant after contro lling for error.
51 Table 6 Pearson correlations of pe rception of parents (POP) and adolescent func tioning across three informants: Overall group Externalizing Problems Internalizing Problems Adolescent -Report MotherReport FatherReport AdolescentReport MotherReport FatherReport Adolescent-Report on POP Positive affect toward mother -.24 *a -.22 -.15 -.03 -.02 .02 Negative affect toward mother .24 a .38 ** .38 a .21 a .24 .17 Positive affect toward father -.27 ** a -.16 -.25 -.14 -.03 -.08 Negative affect toward father .31 *** .46 *** .44 ** a .23 a .30 a .19 Parent-Report on POP Maternal positive affect toward adolescent -.37 ** a -.41 *** -.22 -.17 -.20 -.04 Maternal negative affect toward adolescent .57 *** .35 ** a .36 a .25 -.03 .10 Paternal positive affect toward adolescent -.28 -.19 -.24 .07 -.12 -.15 Paternal negative affect toward adolescent .15 .25 .52 *** .02 -.02 .30 Note : POP = Perceptions of Parents; CBCL = Child Behavior Checklist; YSR = Youth Self-Report N for YSR = 108; N for maternal-reported CBCL = 56; N for paternal-reported CBCL = 41 p < .05; ** p< .01, *** p < .001; a Considered significant by chance ( set at .002).
52 Table 7 Pearson correlations of parenting prac tices (CRPBI-R) and adolescent functioning ac ross three informants: Overall group Externalizing Problems Internalizing Problems Adolescent -Report MotherReport FatherReport AdolescentReport MotherReport FatherReport Adolescent-Report on Mother Acceptance -.32 *** -.26 -.28 -.26 ** a -.09 .25 Control -.01 -.11 .05 .09 -.09 .06 Discipline -.23 a -.21 -.07 -.20 a -.28 a .01 Monitoring .05 -.05 .06 .19 a -.09 .06 Adolescent-Report on Father Acceptance -.45 *** -.26 -.33* -.21 a -.11 -.21 Control -.07 .06 -.02 .11 -.03 -.14 Discipline -.22 a -.28 a -.15 .09 -.30 a -.05 Monitoring -.08 .13 .15 .13 .05 .06 Note : CRPBI-R = ChildrenÂ’s Report of Pare ntal Behavior Inve ntory-Revised; CBCL = Child Be havior Checklist; YSR = Youth Self-Report; N for YSR = 108 with mother va riables and N for 104 with father variable s; N for maternal-reported CBCL = 56; N fo r paternal-reported CBCL = 41 p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001; a considered significant by chance
53 CRPBI-R and Adolescent Outcomes. Results from the correlational analyses between the CRPBI-R and adolescent outcomes can be seen in Table 7. Maternal and paternal acceptance was signi ficantly inversely related to adolescent externalizing outcomes (p < .001). Specifically, higher adoles cent ratings of mothersÂ’ and fathersÂ’ acceptance were related to lower self-reporte d externalizing difficu lties. Although a few other relationships emerged initially, no othe r analyses remained significant after the Bonferroni adjustments. Adolescent Gender Differences in Correlation Analyses POP and Adolescent Outcomes by Adolescent Gender. Adolescent gender differences on the associations between the POP subscales and adolescent outcomes were conducted to examine the second hypothesis. As can be seen in Table 8, few significant adolescent gender differences were found vi a Fisher r to z transformations between adolescentand parent-reported perceptions of parents and adol escent outcomes. One significant adolescent gender di fference was found between adolescentreported negative affect toward mothers and ma ternal-rated internalizing problems. This result was stronger for boys than for girl s (z = 1.98, p < .05), in that, for boys, higher levels of negative affect toward mothers were related to higher mate rnal ratings of their sonsÂ’ internalizing problems. This finding did not remain significant however after controlling for error. Severa l adolescent gender differences in the relationships between adolescent affect toward pa rents and adolescent emotiona l/behavioral functioning that approached significance were f ound (see Table 8). In general, the patterns of results suggest stronger relationships between maternal affect and adolescent outcomes for boys than for girls, and stronger relationships between paternal affect and internalizing
54 problems in girls compared to boys. These adolescent gender differences, however, were not significant after B onferroni corrections. CRPBI-R and Adolescent Outcom es by Adolescent Gender. Adolescent gender differences were also explored in the re lationships between a dolescent ratings of parenting practices (acceptance, control, discipline, and monitoring) and adolescent behavioral and emotional functioning to test the second hypothesis. Similar to findings on the POP, few adolescent gender differences were found in the re lationships between parenting practices and adolescen t functioning (see Table 9). The patterns of results, however, suggest that the strongest relationships were between maternal factors, especially acceptance and monitoring, and adolescent outcomes. As can be seen in Table 9, the relationships between maternal acceptance and mother-reported externalizing problems and motherand father-reported internalizing problems were stronger for boys than fo r girls (z = -2.86, p < .004, z = 2.26, p < .02, z = 1.71, p < .09, respectively). This pattern suggest s that increased maternal acceptance was related to lower emotional and behavioral di fficulties in boys. In contrast, maternal monitoring and self-reported in ternalizing problems were stro nger for girls than for boys (z = -2.64, p < .008), which suggests a positive relationship between maternal monitoring and internalizing problems. Paternal accepta nce was inversely related to self-reported internalizing problems. This finding was stronger for girls than for boys (z = 1.62, p < .10). Yet, none of these differences remain ed significant after controlling for error.
55 Table 8 Correlations of perception of parents (POP) and adolescent functioning across thre e informants: By adolescent gender Externalizing Problems Internalizing Problems Adolescent Mother Father Adolescent Mother Father N M = 47 F = 61 M = 25 F = 31 M = 19 F = 22 M = 47 F = 61 M = 25 F = 31 M = 19 F = 22 Adolescent-Report on POP Positive affect toward mother M F -.11 -.33 ** -.23 -.25 -.35 -.08 -.08 .02 -.14 .08 -.24 .17 Negative affect toward mother M F .24 .29 .57 ** b .17 .30 .44 .19 .27 .48 a -.04 .30 .04 Positive affect toward father M F -.24 -.32 -.10 -.20 -.46 -.16 .10 -.27 b -.06 .01 -.32 .05 Negative affect toward father M F .28 .39 ** .58 ** .33 .42 .42 .07 .38 ** b .48 .18 .31 .09 Parent-Report on POP Maternal positive affect toward adolescent M F -.29 -.50 ** -.66 ** b -.27 -.35 -.23 -.09 -.22 -.44 b .06 -.40 .27 Maternal negative affect toward adolescent M F .55 ** .62 ** .24 .40 .41 .32 -.00 .44 b .17 -.17 .37 -.04 Paternal positive affect toward adolescent M F -.43 -.14 -.39 -.10 -.33 -.24 -.05 .14 -.03 -20 -.03 -.28 Paternal negative affect toward adolescent M F .13 .06 .24 .24 .44 .55 *** .17 -.06 .01 .35 .17 .35 Note : POP = Perceptions of Pare nts; M = Males; F = Females p < .05; ** p < .01; p < .001; Italicized results Fisher r to z transformations: a p < .05; b p < .10 before Bonferroni adjustments. The magnitude of gender differences did not rema in significant after controlling for error.
56 Table 9 Correlations of parenting practices (CRPB I-R) and adolescent functioning across th ree informants: By adolescent gender Externalizing Problems Internalizing Problems Adolescent Mother Father Adolescent Mother Father N M = 47 F = 61 M = 25 F = 31 M = 19 F = 22 M = 47 F = 61 M = 25 F = 31 M = 19 F = 22 Adolescent-Report on Mother Acceptance M F -.30 -.33 ** -.60 ** b .05 -.58 ** -.15 -.34 -.19 -.43 a .34 -.53 c .00 Control M F -.28 .17 -.30 -.01 -.27 .32 -.07 .21 -.04 -.13 -.24 .27 Discipline M F -.28 -.19 -.25 -.26 -.27 -.05 -.09 -.27 -.31 -.24 -.23 .12 Monitoring M F .22 .26 .48 ** .21 -.36 .24 -.08 .42 ** a -.15 -.04 -.05 .10 Adolescent-Report on Father Acceptance M F -.39 ** -.51 ** -.38 -.23 -.62 ** -.21 -.06 -.37 ** c -.19 .02 -.34 .12 Control M F -.37 .18 -.17 .19 -.21 .04 -.10 .31* -.00 -.06 -.30 -.06 Discipline M F -.18 -.26 -.36 -.23 -.31 -.14 -.09 -.28 -.38 -.24 -.27 .07 Monitoring M F -.27 .10 -.25 .31 -.14 .25 .05 -.22 -.02 .12 .11 -.03 Note : CRPBI-R: ChildrenÂ’s Report of Pa rental Behavioral I nventory Â– Revised; M = Males; F = Females p < .05; ** p < .01; p < .001; Italicized results Fisher r to z transformations: a p < .01; b p < .05; ; c p < .10 before Bonferroni adjustments. The magnitude of gender differences di d not remain significant afte r controlling for error.
57 Summary of Adolescent Gender Differences in Correlations. The directions of adolescent gender differences on the POP a nd CRPBI-R partially supported the second hypothesis. Given no significant adolescen t gender differences were found after controlling for error, the hypothesized lack of gender differences in the relationships between maternal factors and adolescent out comes was supported. It should be noted, however, that on the CPRBI-R, the pattern of results suggests that maternal factors played a more important role in outcomes for boys rather than girls. Contrary to the hypothesis, results did not confirm a stronger re lationship between the paternal predictors (affect toward fathers, patern al perceptions of adolescents, paternal parenting practices) and emotional and behavioral functioning in boys compared to girls. Regression Analyses Overview Prior to conducting the regression analyses to test the third hy pothesis, diagnostics were run on each regression model in order to assess the assumptions of linearity, normality, independence and variability, and to investigate the eff ect of outliers and influential cases on the regressi ons. Three sets of hierarchic al regression analyses were then conducted to determine predictors of behavioral and emotional functioning in adolescents, and to ascertain whether pa ternal factors contri buted to adolescent functioning, over and above matern al factors (Hypothesis 3). The first set of regressions focused only on adolescent-reported predictor variables (in order to explore adolescentsÂ’ perceptions alone and to maximize the sample size given the return ra te of parental surveys). The s econd set of regressions included adolescent-, mother-, and fath er-reported predictors. Finally the third set of regression
58 analyses explored adolescent gender differen ces, as applicable. Given the large number of analyses, Bonferroni adjustments were used to control for Type I error (Larzalere & Mulaik, 1977). Specifically, the alpha level was set at .008 (that is, the predetermined alpha level was divided by the tota l number of tests: 3 raters for internalizing and 3 raters for externalizing problems) within each set. In all regression models, th e average daily rate of paternal involvement (direct interaction and accessibility as reported by the adolescent) and socioeconomic status (SES) were controlled for and entered into the first step. Recall that these control variables were selected following equivocal fi ndings regarding the e ffects of non-resident paternal involvement and SES on adolescent functioning (Crockett et al., 1993; Svanum et al., 1982). The variables en tered into the second and third steps differed, depending on whether adolescent-only or adol escent and parent variables were included in the models. For the models with adolescent-only predic tors, adolescentsÂ’ pe rceptions of their mother (positive and negative affect) and a dolescent ratings of maternal parenting practices (acceptance, discipli ne, control, and monitoring) we re entered into the second step. The third and final step included adoles centsÂ’ perceptions of their father (positive and negative affect) and adoles cent ratings of paternal parenting practices (acceptance, discipline, control, and mon itoring). For the models with adolescent and parent predictors, adolescentsÂ’ percep tions of their mother (posit ive and negative affect), adolescentsÂ’ ratings of maternal parenting (acceptance, discipline, control, and monitoring) and maternal perc eptions of adolescents (positive and negative affect) were entered into the second step of the regressi ons. AdolescentsÂ’ ratings of their fathers (positive and negative affect, acceptance, discip line, control and monitoring) and paternal
59 perceptions of adolescents (positive and negative affect) were entered into the third step. In both sets of regressions, the predicto r variables were regr essed onto the following criterion variables: adolescent-, mother-, and father-reporte d internalizing and externalizing problems. Decisions on which regression models to run separately by adolescent gender were determined by the magnitude of gender diffe rences in the correlations (presented in the previous section). No significant gender differences were found after controlling for error. However, given that adolescent gender differences were suggested in some relationships between adolescent-reported predictors and outcomes across the three informants prior to controlling for error, re gression analyses with only the adolescentreported predictors were conduc ted for exploratory purposes. Diagnostics In order to assess the assumption of a linear relationship between the predictor and outcome variables, plots of standardized residuals agains t predicted values and each independent variable were examined. Th ese plots were also used to assess the assumption of homogeneity of the variance (homoscedasticity). In all models, the assumptions of linearity and homoscedasticity we re not violated. Normal P-P plot of the regression standardized residuals, which were obtained to assess whether the assumption of normality was violated, revealed that th e residuals were normally distributed. Given the number of predictor variables in the current study, te sts for collinearity and multicolllinearity were also conducted. Tolerance and variance inflation factor measures were used to assess both pairwise and multiple variable collinearities. Condition indices and the proportions of varian ce for each regression coefficient in each
60 model were referred to for additional ex aminations of collinearity. Collinearity diagnostics revealed that there were probl ems of multicollinearit y. This issue of multicollinearity is common in family research and is seen as one of the limitations in this type of research (Brandt, 1984; Mason & Perreault, 1991). Finally, diagnostics for outliers and influen tial cases were performed. Studentized residuals were used for fla gging potential outliers and le verages and CookÂ’s distances were used for flagging influential cases. A ll regression analyses were performed with and without outliers and influential cases. On the basis of outlier and influence diagnostics, observations corresponding to su spected outliers in the residuals were deleted. The regression models were performe d with and without th e outliers. Results revealed that, overall, reports differed without the outliers. Thus, the reported results are based on the data set with the removed outliers. Regressions for Boys and Girls Combined Predicting Internalizing Pr oblems in Adolescents. As can be seen in Table 10, the models predicting from adol escent-reported predictors to motherand father-reported internalizing problems approached signifi cance (p < .09 and p < .06, respectively). Similarly, the models that included both adol escentand parent-repo rted predictors in explaining internalizing problems across all th ree raters were not significant (see Table 11). Thus, the only model that emerged as significant in explaining internalizing problems involved adolescent-reported pred ictors and self-re ported internalizing problems (p < .001; see first three se ries of columns in Table 10).
61 Table 10 Hierarchical multiple regressions of adolescent-re ported factors predicting internalizing problems across three informants: Boys and girls combined Internalizing Problems Adolescent-Report YSR Mother-Reported CBCL Father-Reported CBCL Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 F 3.16 a 3.22** 4.12*** .83 1.25 1.76+ 1.93 1.62 2.13+ df(F) 3,80 9,74 15,68 3,45 9,39 15,33 3,33 9,27 15,21 Adj. R2 .07 .19 .36 -.01 .05 .19 .07 .13 .32+ R2 .18 .20 .17 .22 .20 .25+ F 3.01** a 4.22*** 1.44 2.18+ 1.39 2.24+ df( F) 6,74 6,68 6,39 6,33 6,27 6,21 Note : YSR = Youth Self-Report; CBCL = Child Behavior Checklist; Adj. R2 = Adjusted R2; df = degrees of freedom; R2 = Change in R2; F = F Change Steps are explained in the text (page 61) + p < .10, p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 a Not significant after correction for error ( .008)
62 The control variables and adolescent-reported maternal and paternal predictor variables accounted for 36% of the variance in explaining self-re ported internalizing problems (p < .001; see step 3 under adol escent-report YSR in Table 10). When examining the unique contribution of the variab les entered in each step of the regression model, the addition of adoles cent maternal ratings did not account for a statistically significant amount of variance, after controlli ng for error, beyond that explained by SES and paternal involvement. However, the incl usion of adolescentsÂ’ positive and negative affect toward fathers and adolescent reports of fathersÂ’ specific parenting behaviors added a significant 20.0% of the variance in explaining se lf-reported internalizing problems, above and beyond the control a nd maternal variables (p < .001). Table 12 presents the beta values and indi vidual contribution of the predictors in the model explaining adolescent-reported inte rnalizing problems (see first column). Increased accessibility to fathers and higher maternal acceptance were each significantly related to lower self-reported internalizing problems in adolescents. Results revealed differential effects by mothers and fathers on ad olescent ratings of control. Specifically, higher maternal, but lower paternal, control was related to lower adolescent-reported internalizing problems. Although the models predicting from adoles centand parent-reported predictors to internalizing problems across the three info rmants was not significant (see Table 11), Table 13 depicts the beta wei ghts and individual contributio n of the predictors in the models. Similar to the aforementioned adol escent-reported model, maternal acceptance was inversely related to adoles cent-reported internalizing prob lems. No other significant
63 Table 11 Hierarchical multiple regressions of adolescentand parent-reported factors predicting internalizing problems across three informants: Boys and girls combined Internalizing Problems Adolescent-Report YSR Mother-Reported CBCL Father-Reported CBCL Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 F .08 1.34 2.20+ .35 1.59 1.17 1.32 1.21 2.15+ df(F) 3,30 11,22 19,14 3,31 11,23 19,15 3,28 11,20 19,12 Adj. R2 -.09 .10 .41 -.06 .16 .09 .03 .07 .41+ R2 .39 .35 .40 .17 .28 .37 F 1.81 2.43 + 2.02+ .77 1.14 2.27+ df( F) 8,22 8,14 8,23 8,15 8,20 8,12 Note: YSR = Youth Self-Report; CBCL = Child Behavior Checklist; Adj. R2 = Adjusted R2; df = degrees of freedom; R2 = Change in R2; F = F Change Steps are explained in the text (page 61) + p < .10
64 Table 12 Individual contribution (beta we ights) of adolescent-reported predictors to internalizing problems across three informant s: Boys and girls combined Internalizing Problems weights) Adolescent-Reported Predictors YSR CBCL Mother CBCL Father Control Variables SES -.47 .19 -.10 Paternal Accessibility -.49*** -.09 .37+ Paternal Direct Interaction -.19 -.47* a -.46+ Maternal Predictors Positive Affect for Mother .03 -.17 .52 Negative Affect for Mother .07 .23 .21 Maternal Acceptance -.52*** .43 -.29 Maternal Control -.51*** -.11 .84* a Maternal Discipline .01 -.22 -1.02+ Maternal Monitoring .25 -.63* a -.33 Paternal Predictors Positive Affect for Father .22 .22 -.20 Negative Affect for Father -.11 -.05 .34 Paternal Acceptance .21 -.47+ -.11 Paternal Control .60*** .02 -.84* a Paternal Discipline -.19 -.06 1.32* a Paternal Monitoring -.10 .78** .66 Note : YSR = Youth Self-Report; CBCL = Child Behavior Checklist + p < .10, p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001; a Not significant after correction for error
65 Table 13 Individual contribution (beta weights) of adolescentand par ent-reported predictors to internalizing problems across three in formants: Boys and girls combined Internalizing Problems ( weights) Adolescentand Parent-Reported Predictors YSR CBCL Mother CBCL Father Control Variables SES -.61* a .38 .79* a Paternal Accessibility -.08 -.19 .38 Paternal Direct Interaction .37 -.20 -.19 Maternal Predictors Positive Affect for Mother 1.30 .10 2.17* a Negative Affect for Mother -.10 .28 1.64* a Maternal Acceptance -1.66** .01 .32 Maternal Control -.22 .26 .20 Maternal Discipline .34 .79 -.85 Maternal Monitoring .61 -.16 .47 Maternal Positive Affect to Adolescent .01 -.08 -.31 Maternal Negative Affect to Adolescent .17 -.21 -.19 Paternal Predictors Positive Affect for Father -.22 .52 -1.19 Negative Affect for Father -.17 .24 -1.38+ Paternal Acceptance .22 -.85 -.08 Paternal Control .78 -.28 -.25 Paternal Discipline .30 -.78 1.19+ Paternal Monitoring -.62 .29 -.21 Paternal Positive Affect to Adolescent -.76* a .05 -.25 Paternal Negative Affect to Adolescent -.59* a -.41 -.13 Note : YSR = Youth Self-Report; CBCL = Child Behavior Checklist + p < .10, p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001; a Not significant after correction for error
66 relationships were found between adolescen tand parent-report ed predictors and adolescent internalizing problem s after controlling for error. Predicting Externalizing Pr oblems in Adolescents. In explaining externalizing problems from adolescent-reported maternal an d paternal predictors, only the models for adolescentand maternal -reported externalizing problem s remained significant after controlling for error (p < .001 for both models; se e Table 14). Conversely, as depicted in Table 15, significant models predicting from both adolescentand parent-reported predictors to adolescentand paternal -reported externalizing pr oblems were found (p < .004 and p < .008, respectively). The model that included both adolescentand parent-r eported predictors in explaining adolescent-reported externalizing problems (see Table 15) was stronger than the one with only adolescent-re ported predictors (see Table 14 ). Specifically, the control variables, adolescent-reported maternal a nd paternal predictors, and maternal and paternal perceptions of their adolescents co ntributed explained 68.3% of the variance in predicting self-reported ex ternalizing problems (p <.004; see third column under adolescent-report YSR in Table 15), compared to 38.0% (p < .001) for the control and adolescent-reported predictors (see thir d column under YSR in Table 14). In examining the incremental variance accounted for by the maternal variables in the two significant models explaining adoles cent-reported externaliz ing problems, results revealed that in the model with only adolescent-reported variables, maternal predictors uniquely explained 26.1% of the variance, ove r and above the contribution of SES and paternal involvement (p < .001; see step 2 under adolescent-report YS R in Table 14).
67 Table 14 Hierarchical multiple regressions of adolescen t-reported factors predicting externalizing problems across three informant s: Boys and girls combined Externalizing Problems Adolescent-Report YSR Mother-Reported CBCL Father-Reported CBCL Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 F 2.72 a 4.38*** 4.20*** .23 2.05+ 4.02*** .35 .96 2.81* a df(F) 3,77 9,71 15,65 3,40 9,34 15,28 3,32 9,26 15,20 Adj. R2 .06 .28 .38 -.06 .18 .51 -.06 -.01 .44 R2 .26 .19 .34 .31 .22 .43 F 4.80*** 2.88* a 2.93* a 4.87** 1.26 4.44** df( F) 6,71 6,65 6,34 6,28 6,26 6,20 Note: YSR = Youth Self-Report; CBCL = Child Behavior Checklist; Adj. R2 = Adjusted R2; df = degrees of freedom; R2 = Change in R2; F = F Change Steps explained in the text (page 61) + p < .10, p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 a Not significant after correction for error ( .008)
68 Table 15 Hierarchical multiple regressions of adoles centand parent-reported factors predicting externalizing problems acro ss three informants: Boys and girls combined Externalizing Problems Adolescent-Report YSR Mother-Reported CBCL Father-Reported CBCL Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 F 1.31 a 2.93* a 4.63** .49 1.20 1.65 .55 .70 3.86** df(F) 3,29 11,21 19,13 3,30 11,22 19,14 3,29 11,21 19,13 Adj. R2 .03 .40 .68 -.05 .06 .27 -.04 -.12 .63 R2 .47 .27 .33 .32 .22 .58 F 3.24* a 3.35* a 1.44 1.79 .77 6.28** df( F) 8,21 8,13 8,22 8,14 8,21 8,13 Note: YSR = Youth Self-Report; CBCL = Child Behavior Checklist; Adj. R2 = Adjusted R2; df = degrees of freedom; R2 = Change in R2; F = F Change Steps explained in the text (page 61) + p < .10, p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 a Not significant after correction for error ( .008)
69 Conversely, in the model with both adolescen tand parent-reporte d predictors, the addition of maternal factors did not add signi ficant incremental variance, after controlling for error, in explaining self-reported extern alizing problems (p < .015; see step 2 under adolescent-report YSR in Table 15). For both models, although the a ddition of paternal predictors appeared to account for unique variance in explaining adolescent-reported externalizing problems, results did not remain significant after contro lling for error (see steps 3 under adolescent-report YSR in Tables 14 and 15). In terms of the independent contribution of the predictors in the two significant models explaining self-reporte d externalizing problems, thre e significant relationships were found after controlling fo r error (see beta weights in Tables 16 and 17). Increased paternal discipline was related to lower self-reported externalizing problems in adolescents in the model with the adolescentonly reported factors (p < .006; see first column in Table 16). In the model that in cluded both adolescentand parental-reported factors, decreased paternal accessibility and lower maternal positive affect toward adolescents were related to increased adoles cent-reported externalizing difficulties (p < .007 and p < .003, respectively; see first column in Table 17). In relation to parent ratings of exte rnalizing problems, the model with only adolescent-reported predictors was significant in explaining maternal -reported externalizing problems (see middle sets of co lumns in Table 14), whereas the model with both adolescentand parental-reported predictors significantly explained paternal reported externalizing difficulties (see last sets of columns in Table 15). As can be seen in Table 14, the control variables and adolesce nt-reported maternal a nd paternal variables accounted for 51.3% of the variance in maternal -reported externalizing problems (p <
70 .001). When examining the incremental variance accounted for by the adolescentreported maternal and paternal variables in the models, the incl usion of maternal variables did not account for a statistically signif icant amount of the variance after controlling for error (p < .02; see step 2 under mother-reported CBCL in Table 14). However, the addition of adolescent-re ported paternal factors accounted for a significant 31.0% of the variance in explaining maternal -reported externalizing problems, above and beyond the control and maternal va riables (p < .002; see step 3 under Motherreported CBCL in Table 14). Table 16 de picts the beta weights and independent contribution of the predictors in the model. Only one relationship remained significant after controlling for error (s ee Table 16, middle column). Sp ecifically, higher levels of adolescent-rated paternal acceptance were re lated to lower rate s of externalizing problems as rated by mothers (p < .002).
71 Table 16 Individual contribution (bet a weights) of adolescent-r eported predictors to externalizing problems acro ss three informants: Boys and girls combined Externalizing Problems ( weights) Adolescent-Reported Predictors YSR CBCL Mother CBCL Father Control Variables SES -.17+ -.01 .48** Paternal Accessibility -.13 -.05 -.04 Paternal Direct Interaction .19+ -.12 -.05 Maternal Predictors Positive Affect for Mother .12 -.87* a .97 Negative Affect for Mother .27 -.30 .27 Maternal Acceptance -.12 .46+ .20 Maternal Control -.15 .35 .51 Maternal Discipline .38* a .06 -.15 Maternal Monitoring -.11 -.52* a -.63 Paternal Predictors Positive Affect for Father -.06 .78+ -.83 Negative Affect for Father -.04 .65* a -.01 Paternal Acceptance -.41* a -.85** -.88** a Paternal Control .17 -.34 -.28 Paternal Discipline -.47** -.25 .29 Paternal Monitoring .12 .55* a .70 Note : YSR = Youth Self-Report; CBCL = Child Behavior Checklist + p < .10, p < .05, ** p < .01; a Not significant after correction for error
72 Table 17 Individual contribution (beta weights) of adolescentand parent-reported predictors to externalizing problems across three informants: Boys and girls combined Externalizing Adolescentand Parent-Reported Predictors YSR CBCL Mother CBCL Father Control Variables SES -.55* a -.25 .05 Paternal Accessibility -.73** .01 .59** Paternal Direct Interaction .16 -.11 -.17 Maternal Predictors Positive Affect for Mother .52 1.19 -.87 Negative Affect for Mother .40 .55 -.12 Maternal Acceptance -.39 .58 .58 Maternal Control -.63 .53 1.02** Maternal Discipline -.59 -.37 -.65 Maternal Monitoring 1.09* a .03 .05 Maternal Positive Affect to Adolescent -.68** -.63* a -.65** Maternal Negative Affect to Adolescent -.24 -.43 -.16 Paternal Predictors Positive Affect for Father -.68 -1.06 1.01 Negative Affect for Father .74 .10 .71* a Paternal Acceptance .29 -.72 -.56* a Paternal Control -.67 -.33 -1.41** Paternal Discipline .30 .21 1.33* a Paternal Monitoring -.68 -.14 .43 Paternal Positive Affect to Adolescent -.28+ .37 -.06 Paternal Negative Affect to Adolescent .44 .54 .72** Note : YSR = Youth Self-Report; CBCL = Child Behavior Checklist + p < .10, p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 a Not significant after correction for error ( .008)
73 The control variables, and adolescentand parent-r eported predictor variables accounted for 63.0% of the variance in explaining paternal -reported externalizing problems (p <.008; see Table 15; last series of columns). Similar to the model for maternal-reported externaliz ing problems, the addition of the adolescent-reported maternal variables and maternal-reported pred ictors was not significant in the model (see step 2 under father-reported CBCL in Table 15) However, the inclusion of adolescentreported paternal factors a nd fathersÂ’ perceptions of adolescents contributed 58.1% unique variance in explaining father-reporte d externalizing problems, above and beyond the control and maternal pred ictors (p < .002; see step 3 under father-reported CBCL in Table 15). As can be seen in the last column of Table 17, several independent relationships emerged between predictor and outcome va riables for father-reported externalizing problems. Increased paternal accessibility (p <.006), higher paternal negative affect toward adolescents (p <.006) and lower pate rnal control (p <.008) were significantly related to higher paternal-reported externaliz ing problems. With regard to maternal predictors, contrary to results for fathers, higher maternal co ntrol (p <.005) was related to higher father-reported externalizing probl ems. In addition, maternal positive affect toward adolescents was inversely related to externalizing problems as rated by fathers (p <.002). Summary of Regressions for Boys and Girls Combined. In general, results revealed that the control variables (SES and pa ternal direct interactions and accessibility), and maternal and paternal factors meaningf ully accounted for adolescent outcomes in five of the 12 models. The patterns of results differed depending on whether the
74 predictors included adolescent-only or adol escent and parent-repor ted predictors, and depending on the informant of externaliz ing and internalizing problems. After controlling for error, the amount of varian ce accounted for by the significant models ranged from 36% (adolescent-reported inte rnalizing problems) to 68.3% (adolescentreported externalizing problems). After controlling for error, the amount of incremental significant variance accounted for by the addition of father variables in explaining adolescent outcomes ranged from 20% (adolescent-reported inte rnalizing problems) to 58.1% (paternalreported externalizing problems). The thir d hypothesis exploring th e unique contribution of paternal factors in adolescent emotiona l and behavioral func tioning was supported in three of the five significant models. For th e models with adolescent-reported predictors, paternal factors explained se lf-reported internalizing pr oblems and maternal-reported externalizing difficulties, above and beyond th e effects of the control variables and maternal variables. The strongest contribu tion of fathers was found in the model with both adolescentand parent-re ported factors predicting to fa ther-reported externalizing problems. In further examining the independent cont ribution of the predictors in the three significant models that supported the unique contri bution of fathers, patterns differed depending on the informant. Although the predictors and outcomes for adolescentreported internalizing problems were ba sed only on one informant, results for externalizing problems highlighted relations hips among adolescent, mother, and father reports. In general, across the three signifi cant models, adolescent ratings of paternal accessibility and maternal and paternal contro l were each independently related to both
75 internalizing and externalizing difficulties. Hi gher levels of matern al control and lower levels of paternal control were related to lower internalizing problems in adolescents. In contrast, higher levels of maternal control and lower levels of pa ternal control were related to increased externalizing problems. While ma ternal acceptance was found to be inversely related to internalizing problems adolescent reports of paternal acceptance were inversely associated only with externalizing difficulties. Higher levels of maternal positive affect toward adolescents and lower levels of paternal negative affect toward adolescents were related to lower externalizi ng problems. Surprisingly, adolescent affect toward parents and parenting practices such as discipline and monitoring were not significantly related to emotional or behavior al difficulties in adolescents in the three significant models. Adolescent Gender Differences in Regressions Regression models with adol escent-reported predictors were run separately by adolescent gender. Only the models predic ting to adolescent-repor ted internalizing and externalizing problems emerged as significan t when conducted separately for boys and girls. As can be seen in Table 18, results revealed differential effects by adolescent gender.
76 Table 18 Hierarchical regressions predicting to adolescent-reported inte rnalizing and externalizing probl ems from adolescent-reported predictors: By adolescent gender Adolescent-reported internalizing problems Adolescent-reported externalizing problems Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 M F M F M F M F M F M F F 2.64+ 1.36 1.50 2.03+ 3.57** 2.41* a .42 2.31+ 2.28* a 4.53*** 1.37 3.91** df(F) 3,35 3,42 9,29 9,36 15,23 15,30 3,35 3,42 9,29 9,36 14,24 14,31 Adj. R2 .12 .03 .11 .17 .50 .32 -.05 .08 .23 .41 .12 .48 R2 .13 .25 .38 .21 .38 .39 .03 .11 F .94 2.24+ 4.87** 2.32+ 3.13* a 4.99*** .26 1.84 df( F) 6,29 6,36 6,23 6,30 6,29 6,36 5,24 5,31 Note: Adj. R2 = Adjusted R2; df = degrees of freedom; R2 = Change in R2; F = F Change + p < .10, p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 Steps explained in text (page 61) a Not significant after correction for error ( .008)
77 The model explaining adolescent-reported internalizing problems was significant for boys whereas the one accounting for external izing problems was significant for girls. The control variables and maternal and paternal pr edictors accounted for 50.3% (p < .002) of the variance in explaining self-reported internalizing problems for boys, compared to 32.0% for girls (p < .05; see step 3 under adolescent-r eported internalizing problems in Table 18). Only the model for boys was significant af ter controlling for error. Conversely, when examining self-reported externalizing problems, the combination of control variables and matern al and paternal pred ictors accounted for 48.0% of the variance for girls (p < .001) a nd a nonsignificant 12.0% for boys (p > .05; see step 2 under adolescent-reported external izing problems on far right column in Table 18). When examining the unique contribution of the maternal and paternal factors, results indicated that the inclusion of th e maternal variables did not account for significant variance in explaining self-reporte d internalizing problems for both boys and girls (see step 2 under adolescen t-reported internalizing probl ems in Table 18). However, maternal factors accounted fo r a significant 39.0% of the variance in explaining selfreported externalizing problems in girls (p < .001; see step 2 unde r adolescent-reported externalizing problems in Table 18), above and beyond the contribution of the control factors. In terms of fathersÂ’ unique contribu tions in explaining internalizing and externalizing problems by gender, significan t results were found only for boysÂ’ selfreported internalizing problems. Specifically, the addition of paternal variables added 38.2% of the variance in explaining inte rnalizing difficulties in boys, beyond the
78 contribution of the control variables and ma ternal factors (p < .002; see step 3 under adolescent-reported internalizing problems in Table 18). No other significant patterns were found for the unique contribution of fathers for both girls and boys. As can be seen in Table 19, different patterns of results also emerged when examining the beta weights of the individual factor s in the models by adolescent gender. For boys, increased paternal a ccessibility was significantly related to lower self-reported internalizing problems (p < .001). Interestingl y, the role of parental control differed by gender of the parent for boys. Specifically, hi gher maternal contro l and lower paternal control were significantly rela ted to lower self-reported inte rnalizing problems (p < .001 and p < .001, respectively). For girls, higher le vels of paternal acceptance were related to lower self-reported internalizing (p < .006) and externalizing problems (p < .001). Additionally, higher levels of paternal discipline were a ssociated with lower self-reported externalizing problems (p < .002). Summary of Adolescent Gender Differences in Regressions When examining the regression models by gender, only the models explaining adolescent-reported outcomes were significant. Differential patterns were found by gender in that the model explaining internalizing problems was significant for boys whereas the one explaining externalizing problems was significant for girls. Significan t unique effects of fathers were found only in the model explaining internalizing problems in boys.
79 Table 19 Individual Contribution (beta weights) of Adolescent-Re ported Predictors to SelfReported Internalizing and Externaliz ing Problems: By Adolescent Gender Internalizing Problems (Youth Self-Report) Externalizing Problems (Youth Self-Report) Adolescent-Reported Predictors Boys Girls Boys Girls Control Variables SES .08 .08 .09 -.20 Paternal Accessibility -.75*** -.17 -.14 .08 Paternal Direct Interaction -.25+ -.23 .09 .08 Maternal Predictors Positive Affect for Mother -.89* .26 .11 -.03 Negative Affect for Mother -.01 .30 .36 .29 Maternal Acceptance -.33 .22 -.35 .15 Maternal Control -1.2** -.22 -.22 .18 Maternal Discipline -.03 .21 -.46 .42* a Maternal Monitoring -.31 .04 -.21 -.11 Paternal Predictors Positive Affect for Father .97 .32 .05 -.07 Negative Affect for Father .32 -.21 -.05 -.17 Paternal Acceptance .16 -.85** .06 -.85*** Paternal Control 1.23*** .29 -.03 -.07 Paternal Discipline -.37 -.23 .47 -.51** Paternal Monitoring .29 .18 -.09 .40 + p < .10, p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001; a Not significant after correction for error
80 Discussion The current study focused on the unique c ontribution of fathers in adolescence by examining the associations among adolescentsÂ’ perceptions of their mothers and fathers, mothersÂ’ and fathersÂ’ perceptions of their adolescents, and adol escentsÂ’ emotional and behavioral functioning. The ro le of adolescent gender in these relationships was also examined. Parental Involvement Research suggests discrepancies in the patterns of matern al and paternal involvement from infancy to early childhood (Parke, 2000; Pleck & Masciadrelli, 2004). Although less researched, thes e divergent patterns of i nvolvement are consistent throughout the adolescent years. In s upport of prior research (e.g., Lamb, 1997; Montemayor & Brownlee, 1987; Parke, 2000), a dolescents in the current study reported that, compared to their fathers, their moth ers spent significantly more time in direct interactions with them and were more accessible to them on a daily basis. Although the specific factors contributing to discrepant rates of parental involvement could not be addr essed in this study, results can be explained within the context of family-based research and de velopmental theory. Despite sharing the workforce with fathers and increased paternal assistance at home over the past few decades, mothers continue to be primarily responsible for household duties and daily caretaking of their children (Bianchi, 2000; Milkie et al., 2002; Parke, 2000; Pleck, 1997). In contrast, fathersÂ’ roles are more prominently reflected in increased leisure activities with their ch ildren as they transition into a dolescence (Lewis & Lamb, 2003).
81 During this time, however, adolescents seek independence from parents and increase their involvement in friendships and structur ed activities outside the family unit (Larson et al., 1996; Henderson & Champlin, 1998; Plec k & Masciadrelli, 2004) It therefore stands that paternal, rather than maternal, involvement woul d be more impacted by this developmental trend. Specifi cally, the maternal caregi ving role ensures motheradolescent involvement during adolescence, regardless of ad olescentsÂ’ increased desire for independence. Yet, since fathers comp ete with external activities and peers for adolescentsÂ’ free time, their time with their children would be compromised. Interestingly, adolescent gender differences were found in maternal versus paternal involvement rates. Although boys reported comparable involvement between their mothers and fathers, girls indicated that their mothers were significantly more involved in their lives compared to their fathers. The lack of differences in boysÂ’ reports are somewhat surprising give n prior research that mother s spend more time with both their sons and daughters compared to father s (Hosley & Montemayor, 1997). However, the majority of research on paternal invol vement has been conducted in the childhood years and the patterns in early adoles cence are not as thoroughly researched. Additionally, results for boys app ear to be consistent with re cent studies indicating that child gender may have less of an influence in parental invol vement rates than it did two decades ago (Hossain & Roopnarine, 1993; Lytton & Romney, 1991; Pleck & Masciadrelli, 2004; Sanderson & Sanders-Thompson, 2002). Yet, these recent findings do not support the patterns of parental involvement reported by girls. Results coul d be explained within the cont ext of the quality of parentadolescent relationships and so cialization theory. There is evidence that even if parents
82 do not differentiate in their tr eatment and involvement of their sons and daughters, boys and girls can be impacted differently by thei r parents (Lytton & Romney, 1991). In fact, although child gender may not be related to pare ntal involvement rates per se, the nature of adolescent relationships with their mothers and fathers di ffer depending on the gender of the adolescent (Larson & Richards, 1994). Specifically, although both boysÂ’ and girlsÂ’ relationships with their fathers are desc ribed as emotionally distant, father-son relationships are depicted as closer and fr iendlier than father-daughter relationships. Since reports of paternal involvement were subjective in the current study, adolescents may have been impacted by their perceptions of the nature of their relationships with their parents (Forehand & Nouaisiainen, 1993). Thus, given reports of increased distance in father-daughter relationships, girls may vi ew their fathers less favorably than do boys and consequently may seek out their fathers less than do boys. Additionally, following socialization patterns, girls generally connect more with, and have closer relationships with their mothers than their fathers (Ly tton & Romney, 1991). These factors therefore offer an explanation for lower reported rates of paternal versus maternal involvement with girls. Interestingly, contrary to past resear ch (Amato, 1987; Coley, 2001; Flouri et al., 2002; Simons et al., 1994), no significant rela tionships were found between mothersÂ’ and fathersÂ’ involvement and adolescentsÂ’ emoti onal and behavioral functioning. The lack of significant results points to the possibility th at the quality, rather than the quantity, of parental involvement plays a more salient role in understanding adolescent outcomes (Grossman, Pollack, & Golding, 1988; Palkov itz, 2002; Parke, 1996; Pleck, 1997). For example, research has found that author itative parenting pr actices and open
83 communication between parents and adolescent s are associated with positive academic, emotional, behavioral and social adolescen t outcomes (Baumrind, 1991; Dornbusch et al., 1987; Hosley & Montemayor, 1997; Steinb erg, Lamborn, Darling, & Mounts, 1989). The impact of parenting practices in the cu rrent study will be discu ssed in the sections that follow. Perceptions of Parents In general, adolescents, mothers and fathers provided high endorsements of positive affect and low ratings of negative affect in familial relationships. These results are consistent with prior studies on affec tive environments within families (Phares & Renk, 1998; Phares et al., 2005). Results provide support for generally positive and connected parent-adolescent relationships (C ollins, 1990; Stemmler & Petersen, 1999) despite the developmental trend for indepe ndence (Greene & Grimsley, 1990; Larson et al., 1996; Noller & Callan, 1986; Ohannessian et al., 1995). In fact, a longitudinal investigation on adolescentsÂ’ leisure tim e concluded that decreased adolescent involvement with family members was due to external interests rather than parentadolescent conflict, affect or fam ily issues (Larson et al., 1996). In the current study, significant adoles cent gender differences were found in ratings of negative affect toward mothers a nd fathers. Results partially confirmed the first hypothesis that boys would report lower leve ls of negative affect toward their fathers compared to girls. This finding supports prior research (Pha res et al., 2003) and highlights reports of closer father-son th an father-daughter relationships (Noller & Callan, 1990; Pleck, 1997; Starells, 1994). Resu lts provide a first step in understanding the complexities of father-daughter relations hips. Since adolescentsÂ’ perceptions impact
84 their functioning and intera ctions with others (Ki ng, 1994; Phares & Renk, 1999), negative affectivity may impair the quality of the father-daughter relationship. Although the directionality of these effects could not be addressed within the context of the present study, results provide for the possibility that negative emotions would adversely affect girlsÂ’ relationships with their fathers. On the one hand, girl sÂ’ negative emotions could be in response to lower actual or perceived pate rnal involvement in their lives, especially when compared to the amount of time father s spend with sons. On the other hand, the extent of paternal involvement and motivati on in parenting daughters may be influenced by girlsÂ’ negative affect toward them. Prospective research will be needed to explore the directionality of these results. Surprisingly, contrary to the first hypot hesis, girls reported significantly higher ratings of negative affect toward mothers comp ared to boys. Results were not consistent with prior studies that suggest a lack of gender differe nces in affect toward mothers (Phares et al., 2005). Additionally, since boys and girls report similar levels of selfdisclosure, closeness and conflict with mother s (Paulson et al., 1991), no differences were expected in boysÂ’ and girlsÂ’ fe elings toward their mothers. Results could be explained within the context of gender differences in emotional development. Higher ratings of negative affect toward parents are reflective of the marked increase of internalizing and emotional difficulties in girls compared to boys during adolescence (Nolen-Hoeksema & Girgus, 1994; Koenig, Issacs, & Schwartz, 1994). Results also highlight that adolescent girls generally express emotions more th an boys. Furthermore, although research suggests that both boys and girls exhibit increased leve ls of negative affect as they enter early adolescence, negative affectivity lasts l onger for girls than for boys (Larson et al.,
85 1996). Larson and colleagues (1996) found that boysÂ’ affect improved as they transitioned out of middle school Although not directly inves tigated in the current study, the patterns of results could be refl ective of gender by age interactions. Increased negative affectivity in girls co mpared to boys could also be explained within the context of developmental theor y. Girls generally mature and enter into puberty faster than boys. Puberty is marked by an increased quest for independence from parents and increased interest in relations hips outside the fam ily unit (Henderson & Champlin, 1998). Additionally, during early adolescence, boys are more likely to withdraw to themselves whereas girls sp end time alone and with friends (Larson & Richards, 1991). GirlsÂ’ nega tive affect toward both mothers and fathers could be reflective of increased conflict (Laible & Carlo, 2004) as girl s negotiate their desire for increased independence and freedom from their parents. Contrary to the first hypothesis, no ge nder differences were found in positive affect toward fathers. This finding was not consistent with prior reports of boysÂ’ higher positive affect toward fathers (Phares et al., 2003). That study included a wider age range of adolescents (11-18 years old) so there may be developmental differences that were not able to be explored in the current study give n the constricted age ra nge of adolescents. As expected, boys and girls did not differ in th eir ratings of positive feelings toward their mothers. This finding is consistent with prior studies (Bezirganian & Cohen, 1992; Paulson et al., 1991). This pa ttern of results may be refl ective of a community sample which is more well-adjusted. In addition, the limited variability in ratings of positive affect for both boys and girls may account fo r lack of gender differences (Stemmler & Petersen, 1999).
86 When exploring girlsÂ’ and boysÂ’ affec tive responses toward mothers versus fathers, results revealed that girls reported significantly higher levels of positive and negative affect toward their mothers compared to their feelings for their fathers. Results are consistent with our unde rstanding of mother-daughter relationships. Extensive research on these relationships reveals that girls have closer re lationships with, and confide more in, their mothers than thei r fathers (Paulson & Sputa, 1991; Youniss & Smollar, 1985). These studies support the highe r ratings of girlsÂ’ po sitive affect toward mothers. However, Larson and colleagues (1996) found that increased verbal interactions in adolescence were related to decreased positive re lationships between mothers and daughters. In fact, girlsÂ’ affec tive ratings toward moth ers are reflective of the combined close and conflictual relationshi p highlighted by a combination of authority and equality in the mother-daughter rela tionship during adoles cence (Laible & Carlo, 2004). Surprisingly, boys reporte d similar levels of negative and positive affect toward mothers and fathers. However, the lack of si gnificant differences for boys is reflective of reports that boys have close re lationships with both their mothers and fathers (Laible & Carlo, 2004; Paulson & Sputa, 1991; Youniss & Ketterlinus, 1987). Perceptions of Parents a nd Adolescent Outcomes Results revealed significant relationships between negative aff ect in adolescents, mothers, and fathers and externalizing problem s in adolescents. Findings support the few studies that have been conducted on the asso ciation between adoles centsÂ’ cognitions and feelings and adolescent functioning (Pha res & Renk, 1998; Sanders, Dadds, Johnston, & Cash, 1992). Given the cross-sectional na ture of the curren t study however, it is important not to infer causality between nega tive affect and externalizing problems.
87 Specifically, although affect may im pact behavioral functioning directly (Sanders et al., 1992), it is possible that externalizing difficu lties in children contribute to increased negative emotions and perceptions within family members (Simons et al., 1990; Patterson, 1986). Additionally, although beyond the scope of the current study, it is possible that negative affect se rves as a mediator for factors, such as temperament, parental psychopathology, mar ital conflict, harsh discipline, aggre ssion and rejection, which have been linked extensively to externalizing problems (e.g., Dadds, Sanders, Morrison, & Rebjetz, 1992; Dodge, 1990; Farrington & Loeber, 2000; Frick, 1994; Patterson et al., 1992). Only maternal positive affect toward adolescents was related to decreased maternal-reported externalizing problems. Given that the role of positive affectivity on favorable parental ratings is not extensively researched, the potential that results may be confounded by common method variance (e.g., same -rater bias) should be considered. The majority of work in this area has focused on the impact of parental psychopathology, such as depression and anxiety, on ratings of adolescent functioning (Renk, Oliveros, Roddenberry, Klein, Sieger, Roberts, & Phares 2005; Moretti, Fine, Haley, & Marriage, 1985). Findings suggest that parental repor ts may be more affected by depressive symptoms rather than general distress or ne gative affectivity (e.g., Briggs-Gowan, Carter, & Schwab-Stone 1996; Moretti et al., 1985). Th e current study cannot shed light to this discussion given that information on pa rental psychological functioning was not obtained. Further studies could consider the contribution of parental positive affect on ratings of adolescent emotiona l and behavioral problems.
88 It is of interest that adolescent-, maternal-, and paternal-reported negative affect were each related to externalizing outcomes in the correlations. This pattern highlights the importance of obtaining reports on mothers and fathers separately and including both mothers and fathers in research (Lamb, 2004; Larson & Richards, 1994; Phares, 1996). Results also revealed differe nt associations depending on the informant of adolescent functioning. For example, in the correlational analyses, maternal negative affect toward adolescents was related to adolescent -reported externalizing problems whereas paternal negative affect was associated with paternal reports of externalizing problems. This pattern points to the importance of using multiple informants, suggesting that each informant contributes unique perspectives on parent-adolescent relationships and adolescent functioning (Rowe & Kandel, 1997). Contrary to prior research, no significan t relationships were found between affect and internalizing problems. Th e lack of results involving ma ternaland paternal-ratings of internalizing outcomes may have been impacted by parentsÂ’ tendencies to underrepresent emotional difficulties in their children (Collins & Russell, 1991; Duhig, Renk, Epstein, & Phares, 2000; Repinski & Shonk, 2002). Additionally, negative affectivity appears to be more closely related to exte rnalizing, rather than internalizing, problems (Sanders et al., 1992). This fi nding is consistent with the understanding that adolescent negative affect may be manifested overtly a nd behaviorally toward parents rather than internalized. In general however, a complete unders tanding of the processes explaining internalizing problems in adolescence is not avai lable. In sharp contrast to the extensive literature on externalizing problems, research has not consistently identified risk factors
89 or theoretical models for the development and persistence of in ternalizing problems (Shaw, Keenan, Vondra, Delliquadri, & Giovannel li, 1997). It is possible that the lack of significant relationships in th e current study is reflective of a non-direct relationship between affect and internalizing problems. For example, negative affect may directly impact parenting practices, re sulting in overprotective and controlling behaviors, which in turn are strong predictors of interna lizing problems in adolescents (Bosco, Renk, Dinger, Epstein, & Phares, 2003). In addition, the relationships between negative affect and internalizing problems may be moderated by other factors, such levels of fearfulness in adolescence (Gilliom & Shaw, 2004). Parenting Practices and Adolescent Outcomes Results of the inverse relationship betw een maternal and paternal acceptance and adolescent externalizing problems are suppor tive of prior research (Barber & Olsen, 1997; Steinberg et al., 1991; Ge et al., 1996; Wolfradt et al., 2003). Additionally, the individual contributions of the predictors in the regre ssion analyses revealed significant inverse associations between paternal acc eptance and externa lizing problems and maternal acceptance and internalizing problem s. The differential connections between maternal and paternal accep tance and adolescent outcome s are of interest. Although consistent with prior studies (Jones et al., 2000; Laible & Carl o, 2004), the relationship between acceptance and internal izing difficulties is as consistently found as that between acceptance and externalizing difficulties. Despite the lack of significant relati onships between parental control and adolescent outcomes in the correlation anal yses, maternal and pate rnal control emerged as independent contributors to both intern alizing and externalizing problems in the
90 regression analyses. Results differed ba sed on parental gender, however. The relationships between lower maternal control and decreased externalizing difficulties are consistent with prior research (Gilliom & Shaw, 2004; Jones et al ., 2000; Laible & Carlo, 2004). High levels of control would impact the parent-adolescent re lationship (Barber, 1996) and contribute to increase d conflict, negative affect, a nd potential acting-out in the adolescent. The adolescentÂ’s lack of control in his/her li fe at a time when independence is very important could contri bute to increased adolescent be havioral difficulties (Barber, 1996), especially with the primary caregive r and disciplinarian in the family. Surprisingly, lower levels of pa ternal control were related to increased externalizing problems in problems. This c ould be explained by furt her investigating the nature of the relationship between paternal involvement and paternal control. The inverse associations between control and adolescent behavioral behaviors may be similar to those between paternal involvement and adolescent functioning (see Pleck & Masciadrelli, 2004 for a review). This c ould be better understood by future studies examining the moderating and mediating relatio nships between paternal involvement and control on adolescent externa lizing problems. Neverthele ss, results point to the possibility that despite similar parenting pr actices by mothers and fathers, differential outcomes are found in adolescents (Lytton & Romney, 1991). Higher paternal, but lower maternal, cont rol was related to higher levels of adolescent internalizing problems. Increas ed parental control and related emotional difficulties in adolescents support prior research that children and adolescents of firm, rigid, and over-controlling parents are at highe r risk for emotional difficulties (Jones et al., 2000; Krohne & Hocke, 1991; Murris & Murkel bach, 1988; Rapee, 1997). Yet, when
91 investigating maternal and patern al control, studies have more consistently indicated that maternal, rather than paternal, control is uni quely related to adoles cent functioning (Jones et al., 2000; Laible & Carlo, 2004). The results regarding maternal control ar e surprising. Given that mothers hold the primary caregiving role and mo ther-adolescent relationships are marked with increased conflict during early adolescence (Collins & Russ ell, 1991), it would have been expected that maternal control would be positively related to emotional difficulties in the current study. Results for the inverse relationship between maternal control and internalizing problems are contrary to those found for extern alizing problems, in which lower levels of maternal control were related to decreased be havioral outcomes in adolescents. Results on the possible beneficial aspects of mate rnal control on emo tional functioning in adolescence suggest that a lthough adolescents need indepe ndence from their primary caregivers, they also continue to require consistent supe rvision, guidance and support for healthy development (Laible & Carlo, 2004). Given the cross-sectional nature of the current study, however, additional research in this area needs to be conducted to determine the beneficial effects of mate rnal control on emotional functioning in adolescents. Surprisingly, the dimensions of monitoring and discipline examined in the current study were not significantly related to adolesce nt outcomes. This finding is contrary to previous research (e.g., Capaldi & Patterson, 19 91; Patterson et al., 1992; Ge et al., 1996; Wagner et al., 1996). However, the majority of research conducted in this area has been with high-risk or targeted samples. For exam ple, research on the effects of discipline have been found in boys from low-SES backgrounds and disorganized family
92 environments (e.g., Stouthamer-Loeber & Loeber 1986; Patterson et al., 1992). Further, aversive parenting practices appear to be more consistent in families marked by parental psychopathology, including depression, anxiet y and antisocial personality disorders (Phares, 1996; Rapee, 1997; Rhule, McMahon, & Spieker, 2004) Differential patterns in monitoring and discipline have also been suggested when comparing intact versus divorced families (Freeman & Newland, 2002; Hetherington, 1993; Laible & Carlo, 2004) and across ethnic and cultural groups (Harrison, Wilson, Pine, Chan, & Buriel, 1990). Finally, there is a sugge stion that the effect of parenting practices may be impacted by moderating effects between mothers and fathers or the moderating relationship with another parent ing factor. For instance, lo w levels of discipline have been found to act as a moderator between pa rental acceptance in predicting increased emotional and behavioral difficulties in adolescents (Laible & Carlo, 2004) Adolescent Gender Differences In general, adolescent gender differen ces were not found in the relationships between affect and adolescent functioning or in ratings of parenting practices and adolescent emotional and behavioral functi oning. Results partly confirm the second hypothesis in that differences were not expected in relati on to maternal factors and adolescent outcomes. However, findings are contrary to expectations, based on socialization theory, that paternal individual f actors would play a more significant role in boysÂ’, rather than girlsÂ’, f unctioning. Nevertheless, findings partially support the notion that fathers play a unique role in boy sÂ’, compared to girlsÂ’, functioning. Although not significant, the patterns of results from the correlational analyses suggest that affect toward mothers and ra tings of maternal acceptance may be more
93 strongly related to emotional a nd behavioral functioning for boys rather than girls. This finding is somewhat consistent with a recent study in which boys exhibited higher externalizing difficulties in relation to lower levels of parental acceptance (Bosco et al., 2003). Additionally, the regression analyses revealed that the relationships between parental control and internalizing problems discussed in the previous section were significant for boys only. Maternal contro l was inversely relate d to internalizing difficulties in boys, whereas paternal cont rol was positively related to emotional functioning. Results on the possible detrimen tal relationship between high levels of paternal control and emoti onal functioning support prior research (Jones et al., 2003; Rapee, 1997). However, findings regarding ma ternal control are somewhat surprising, in that maternal control has been positivel y related to externalizing, rather than internalizing, problems in boys (Bosco et al ., 2003). The patterns of results could be explained by examining the nature of boysÂ’ inte ractions with their mothers and fathers. As previously mentioned, boys may benefit from increased superv ision and control by the primary caregiver at a time of many de velopmental and social changes (Laible & Carlo, 2004). The relationships between patern al control and intern alizing difficulties are reflective of the unique father-son relationship. Specifically, given that fathers primarily engaged in leisure activities wi th adolescents, and their sons in particular (Pleck, 1997), lower levels of control may be conducive to a positive relationship and subsequent positive adolescent functioning. Conversely, higher levels of control would impact the quality of the father-son relationship (Barbe r, 1996) and potentially lead to negative feelings that are inte rnalized by the son.
94 Contrary to expectations, results suggest that paternal parenting factors play a more significant role for girlsÂ’, rather than boysÂ’, outcomes. Specifically, higher levels of paternal acceptance were related to lower reports of internaliz ing and externalizing problems in girls, but not boys. Results are so mewhat consistent with prior research in which girlsÂ’ reports of both maternal and paternal acceptan ce were related to emotional and behavioral functioning (Bosco et al., 2003) In addition, higher levels of paternal disciplinary practices were related to decrease d externalizing difficulties in girls. Results are consistent with prior research on the negative outcomes of in consistent discipline (Farrington & Loeber, 2000; Dodge, 1990). A lthough most of the studies on the effects of discipline were conducted with high-risk boys (e.g., Loeber & Dishion, 1983), it points to the importance of consistent discipline by parents in potentially preventing acting-out behaviors in adolescents. It is surprising though that parent al discipline wa s not related to adolescent malesÂ’ emotional or behavioral functioning given prior studies in this area (e.g., Loeber & Dishion, 1983). The patterns of associations between pa rental factors and adolescent outcomes emphasize the differential effects by parent and adolescent gender in parent-adolescent relationships (Lytton & Romn ey, 1991). Although individu al paternal factors were related to outcomes in girls, there was no support for the unique contribution of fathers in adolescent girlsÂ’ development. The eff ects of paternal factors could have been diminished by the inclusion of maternal char acteristics in the model for girls (Larson & Richards, 1994). Conversely, a unique contri bution of paternal f actors in explaining boysÂ’ internalizing problems was found. These results point to the important role that fathers play in their sonsÂ’ lives (Harns et al., 1998) and suggest that the father-son
95 relationship may be qualitatively different and distinct from the mother-son relationship (Noller & Callan, 1990). The Unique Role of Fathers Regression analyses with both males and females revealed that paternal factors add unique variance in explaining emotional and behavioral problems in adolescents. Findings are consistent with prior research highlighting the dis tinct contribution of fathers in adolescentsÂ’ live s (Forehand & Nousianen, 1993; Lamb, 1997; Lamb & TamisLemonda, 2004; Phares & Comp as, 1992). Results validate recommendations to consider maternal and paternal factors separately a nd not combine data across both parents (Lamb, 1997; Phares, 1996). The strongest regression models in th e current study included adolescent-only predictors and adolescent-reported intern alizing and externalizing problems, and adolescentand parental-pre dictors and maternal extern alizing problems. While considering the common method variance in tw o of the three signifi cant models, results point to the potential impact of adolescentsÂ’ perceptions of their parents in the development of emotional and behavioral problems (Bosco et al., 2003; Forehand & Nousiainen, 1993). Given that one model s upporting the unique contribution of fathers included both adolescent and parent reports, th e extent of the findings in the current study cannot be attributed only to single-reporter bias. Not all models investigated in the curre nt study pointed to th e unique contribution of fathers in adolescentsÂ’ emotional and beha vioral functioning. The patterns of results reflect the inconsistencies in the field rega rding fathersÂ’ contri butions to adolescent development, above and beyond maternal fa ctors (Amato, 1994; Amato & Rivera, 1999,
96 Forehand & Nousianen, 1993; Umberson, 1992). Pr ior researchers have suggested that the lack of unique paternal e ffects could be attributed to the amount of time that fathers and adolescents spend together (Blair & Hardesty, 1994; Larson & Richards, 1994). However, paternal involvement was controll ed for in the current study. Rather, the relatively small sample size and the large num ber of factors included in the regressions could explain the patterns of nonsignificant results. Implications Overall, the present study provided s upport for gender differences in parentadolescent relationships and th e role of fathers in adolesce ntsÂ’ functioning. The current study responded to the call fo r research on fathers (Lamb, 1975, 1987) and for examining the unique impact of fathers in adolescents Â’ lives (Phares, 1996; Phares & Compas, 1992). Results highlight the importance of c onsidering mothers and fathers separately in research. As was evident in the current study, differential patterns of associations can be found when investigating mothers and fathers separately (Duhig et al., 2000; Jones et al., 2000; Larson & Richards, 1994; Lamb, 1997; Paley, Conger, & Harold, 2000). The nature of family associations in the current study differed based on whether reports were obtained by adolescents, mo thers, or fathers, which highlights the importance of multiple informants in family-based research. By incorporating both adolescentsÂ’ and parentsÂ’ perceptions, the current study provided a better understanding of the complex connections between adolescentsÂ’ views of their parent s, parentsÂ’ feelings toward their adolescents, a nd adolescentsÂ’ psychological well-being. The inclusion of adolescent perceptions was important given evidence of their connection to adolescent functioning (Harold et al., 1997; Phares & Re nk, 1998). Importantly, the current studyÂ’s
97 investigation of parental per ceptions contributes to the scar ce amount of research in this area (Phares et al., 2003). Overall, although including multiple informants of predictors and outcomes leads to a more complicated pa ttern of results, it better represents the multifaceted aspects of family-adolescent rela tionships and the multiple factors that contribute to understanding adoles centsÂ’ psychological well-being. The current study indicated stronger connections between adolescentsÂ’ perceptions of negative affect than positive affect toward parents and externalizing difficulties. For parents, maternal and pate rnal negative affect, and maternal positive affect, toward adolescents was related to beha vioral functioning. The differential results on valence of feelings toward parents high light the importance in assessing both positive and negative affect within families (Phares et al., 2003). Additionally, results indicate that adolescent reports of maternal and patern al control and acceptance play a vital role in adolescentsÂ’ emotional and behavioral functioning. Results regarding borderline and clinical levels of internalizing and externalizing problems in adolescents are of interest. Th e percentage of adoles cents falling in the borderline and clinical ranges in the current study appeared signi ficantly higher than those reported, on average, in community sa mples. Yet, when examining prevalence rates of psychopathology in children and adoles cents, it becomes apparent that the rates vary widely across studies, case ascertainmen t and case definition. Specifically, in a review of studies conducted since 1980 that focused on the overall prevalence of child and adolescent psychiatric disorders, R oberts, Attkisson, and Rosenblatt (1998) found that prevalence rates ranged from 1% to 51%, with rates in adolescent samples averaging 16.5%. According to this review, the prev alence rates for the CBCL and YSR, when
98 using the Achenbach classification for clinical cutoffs, ranged from 7.8% to 21 %. These rates are similar to those found in the current study. These high prevalence rates raise the quest ion about whether adolescents in the community are underserved in mental health se rvices. In fact, only one in five children and adolescents in need of psychological and psychiatri c services are accommodated through traditional mental health services (S urgeon General Report, 1999). This pattern may be explained by a combination of factors, such as limited access to mental health screening and services and unde rreporting of difficulties. Clinicians, researchers, and school professionals would benefit from rec ognizing the large proporti on of adolescents who are reporting psychological difficulties. Results point to the importance of screening children and adolescents for the identificati on of emotional and behavioral problems. This is especially salient during early adoles cence, which is marked by changes, such as puberty, interest in peer gr oups, and transitions into middle and high schools. Results may assist clinicians when treating youth and families who are experiencing difficulties. Findings could c ontribute to the development of prevention programs or targeted interventions with a dolescents with behavioral and emotional problems. Clinicians and researchers could benefit from assessing adolescent-, maternaland paternal perceptions of family members, interactions and functioning, as well as adolescent well-being prior to developing treatment plans or intervention programs. Assessment using a multi-informant and multi-me thod approach would assist clinicians and interventions to identify specific dimensions for treatment and intervention (Achenbach et al., 1987; Lochman & The Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, 1995; Parke, 2000). For example, following th e current study, a clinician may assess for,
99 and target, negative affectivity within fam ily dyads for adolescents who are exhibiting behavioral difficulties. Importantly, results point to the importan ce of considering the unique nature of mothersÂ’ and fathersÂ’ relationships with s ons and daughters separately in assessment and intervention work (Bosco et al., Larson & Richards, 1994; Phares et al., 2005). For instance, interventions may incorporate di fferent targets for parental control for adolescent boys, given results of different ial connections between maternal versus paternal control and internalizing problems. Additionally, given gender differences in the unique contribution of fathers, clinicians and researchers may consider developing different programs for dyads in the fam ily (e.g., mother-son, father-daughter). Limitations The results of this research are qua lified somewhat by several limitations. Recruitment and the distribut ion and collection of the consent forms were largely dependent on each schoolÂ’s level of participation and commitment to the study. Although detailed instructions were provided, variability ac ross the classrooms and sites could not be controlled. Furthe r, given that the school distri ct would not allow collection of demographic data from parents who refuse d participation or di d not return consent forms, information on these groups was not avai lable for comparisons to the responders. Based on general estimates, only one out of seven distributed consents was returned. This response rate appears low compared to the 25% expected return rates for parent consents (Grady, Gersick, & Boratynski 1999). However, the number of parents who agreed to participate, based on the num ber of consents retu rned, was within the range found in family-based research. In th eir article on response rates of parental
100 consent forms, Fletcher and Hunter (2003) re ported return rates ranging from 40% to 95% across several studies. Thus, although on the lower end, the response rate of the current study (45.3%) fell within the same range of previous research. However, the exact response rate in the cu rrent study may be under repres ented given the reliance on teachers and students to distribute and return consents. Based on prior research, it is expected that response rates would have been higher if the school district had allowed direct mailings to parents (MacGregor & McNamara, 1995) or had approved passive consent procedures (Ellickson & Hawe s, 1989; Range, Embry & McLeod, 2001). The current study was limited by the cr oss-sectional natu re and reliance on adolescentsÂ’, mothersÂ’ and fathersÂ’ reports. For inst ance, the study relied only on adolescent report of parenting practices, which explain the few associations found between parenting practices and adolescent outc omes. In fact, much of the research on the impact of parenting has focused on eith er observational studies or parental-report (e.g., Baumrind, 1991; Dadds & Sanders, 1992). Similarly, the reliance on adolescent report of paternal involvement is another potential limitation to the study. Although this method is widely used in family-based resear ch (Pleck & Masciadrel li, 2004), other more objective methods, such as the use of a pager or diary to more precisely document parentadolescent interactions (Larson & Richards 1994), may have provided a more direct measurement of involvement. It is acknowledged that results may be biased by each family memberÂ’s perceptions of, and interactions with, one anothe r. Yet, these reports are valid indicators of each family memberÂ’s experiences within th e family unit. Further, the inclusion of adolescentsÂ’ perceptions and re ports is essential given that the way they view their world
101 can impact their functioning and the quality of parent-adolescent relationships (Paulson, 1994; Wenk et al., 1994). Nevertheless, th e inclusion of school reports would have further contributed to our understanding of adolescentsÂ’ functioning outside the home setting. For instance, teachers could provide vital information on academic performance, which was not investigated in the current st udy, but has been shown to be affected by the quality of the parent-adole scent relationship (Dornbusch et al., 1987; Forehand & Nousainen, 1993; Steinberg, Lamborn, Dar ling, & Mounts, 1994). However, the inclusion of teacher reports should not replace adolescent or parental reports, since research indicates that although teachers provide valid reports of adolescentsÂ’ externalizing behaviors, they under-represe nt the extent of in ternalizing problems (Durlak, Stein, & Mannarino, 1980; Gillespie & Durlak, 1995; Green, Beck, Forehand, & Vosk, 1980). The cross sectional nature of the current study does not allow for interpretations of causation. Thus, results could be interpreted bidirectionally. The effect of collinearity on the results is another potential limitation in the current study. High associations among predictors could have resulted in d ecreased effects betw een predictors and adolescentsÂ’ emotional/behavioral functioning. The relationships am ong variables in the study, however, were not surprising given prio r research (Phares & Renk, 1998). In fact, the reality of family-based research is that many factors are interrelated, representing the quality and complexity of family relationships. Finally, results may be limited in their generalizability. A lthough the sample was ethnically diverse, the majority of the participants were Caucasian from a small urban area in West Central Florida. In addition, most of the adolescents were from intact
102 families, limiting the possibility to explore th e impact of parent-adolescent relationships across different types of family configurati ons (e.g., divorced, step-families, same-gender parents). Additionally, the majority of the participants were from a middle socioeconomic background. The current study was not able to investig ate the effect of demographic variables, such as socio ecomonic status, ethnic background and/or residence (inner-city urban, small urban, or rural environments) on parent-adolescent relationships. Yet, some research suggests th at these variables play an important role in fully understanding the impact of maternal and paternal factors on adolescentsÂ’ functioning (e.g., Gjerde & Onishi, 2000; Harrison et al., 1990). Future Directions Despite the limitations of the current study, results contribute to the understanding of parent-adolescent relationships. The st udy demonstrates the importance of including both mothers and fathers in family-based re search and highlights the importance of investigating the similarities and differences in maternal and patern al factors in parentadolescent relationships. AdolescentsÂ’ gender should also be considered when investigating parent-adolescen t relationships. Longitudinal and prospective studies are recommended to better explain the causal role of maternal and pate rnal factors in the development of adolescentsÂ’ emotio nal and behavioral functioning. The current study can be expanded on by targeting some of its limitations. Specifically, a replication of th e current study with a larger sample size is recommended. Additionally, the inclusion of a more objective measure of parental involvement and parenting practices may improve the validity of the results. Although cumbersome, the inclusion of adolescent, moth er, and father reports in th e current study was a strength.
103 The addition of teacher and peer (e.g., Co ie & Dodge, 1988; Hatzichristou & Hopf, 1996; Lochman et al., 1995) reports would provide additional information on adolescentsÂ’ functioning outside the home envi ronment. In addition, given that maternal and paternal factors have been related to academic outco mes (Steinberg et al., 1989), a measure of functioning in school should be in cluded in future studies. Although perceptions of family members and parenting practices are important factors to consider in family research, future studies shoul d expand variables that may be accounting for relationships in the current st udy. The direct and i ndirect effects of family-based variables such as parent psychopathology (e.g., Cummi ngs & Davies, 1994; Phares, 1996; Phares & Co mpas, 1992; Rhule et al ., 2004; Weissman, Leckman, Merikangas, Gammon, & Prusoff, 1984), parent al efficacy (Coleman & Hilderbrandt Karraker, 2000), familial support (Freeman & Newland, 2002), parental satisfaction (Phares et al., 2005) and marital conflict (Margolin, Gordis, & John, 2001) should be considered. Additionally, environmental f actors, such as stressors (Cohen & Brook, 1987; Compas, Howell, Phares, Williams, & Guinta, 1989), peer influences (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987), school environment and work -family conflict should be considered. The examination of different patterns of re sults by subgroups, such as marital status, residence (urban or rural) ethnicity, age and gender (Parke, 1996) should also be considered. Research examining the mediati ng and moderating effects of these factors is also warranted given the complexities of parent-adolescent relationships. Given that results in the current study may have been limited in their generalizability, further research needs to be conducted to investigate fathers in ethnically diverse groups, families in large urban settings and families from low and high
104 socioeconomic backgrounds. The research on ethnicity and culture on parent-adolescent relationships have been equivocal. For in stance, although some re searchers reported no differences in parenting dimensions such as supervision, acceptance, control and monitoring (Barnes, Farrell, & Banerjee, 1994; Buehler & Gerard, 2002; Landarine, Richardson, Klonoff, & Flay, 1994; McKenry, 1994), others reported differences across ethnic groups (Hampton, Gelles, & Harrop, 1989; Hofferth, 2003; McLeod, Kruttschnitt, & Dornfeld, 1994; Paschall, Ennett, & Fl ewelling, 1996; Peoples & Loeber, 1994). In addition, when differences by ethnic groups are found, the patterns of results are not necessarily similar. For exampl e, McLeod and colleagues (1994) found that African-American parents had higher levels of supervision than Caucasian parents, whereas Peoples and Loeber (1994) reporte d opposite patterns of results. Some researchers have also suggested that le ss gender distinctions are found in parentadolescent research among minorities (Gibbs 1989). The pathways of relationships across ethnic groups need to be examined furt her to better understa nd the similarities and differences across ethnic and cu ltural groups (Gjerde & Onishi 2000). Further, given the potential confound of socioeconomic status (Harrison et al., 1990), SES should be incorporated into investiga tions involving ethnicity. Future research also needs to consider family constellations. Research on the effects of divorce on adolescents (Amato & Sobolewski, 2004; Hetherington, 1993; Laible & Carlo, 2004; Wallerstein & Lewis, 1998) suggests differential outcomes in adolescents from intact, single-parent, and step-families. In addition, the impact of parent-adolescent relationships on adolescen t outcomes in non-traditional families, including same-sex unions and grandparents as primary care givers, needs to be
105 considered. Further, given that participan ts were recruited from a school, it would be interesting to determine if there would be stronger connections be tween factors in the current study, such as negative affect, contro l, and monitoring, and adolescent outcomes within a clinical sample. Studies should be multifaceted and should target multiple factors, while considering different developmental levels gender, and other subgroups (Masten, 1999; Parke, 1996). Research would also benefit from investigating the impact of interactions between an adolescent and his/her environm ent over time (Masten & Coatsworth, 1998). Further, the distinct interactions and eff ects between family dyads (e.g., father-daughter, father-son, mother-daughter, mother-son, and mo ther-father) play an important role in development (Parke, 1996). Thus, future st udies should be expanded to incorporate the multiple systems that influence adolescents, such as schools, peers, and community. The integration of such transactional models (Masten, 1999; Parke, 2000) would extend our current knowledge in the field and would help disentangle the particular effects of fathers in adolescentsÂ’ development. Despite its limitations and recommendati ons for future research, the current study has provided important information on the co mplex relationships between parents and adolescents at a time when re lationships with parents are very important in development (Walker, 1999). Although inte resting findings on the associ ation between mothers and boys and girls were provided, the core of the current study was to highlight the importance of, and unique contribution of, fa thers in adolescent development. By providing a greater focus on fath ers, and the patterns of fa ther-son and father-daughter relationships, the present study has extended the field of pa ternal research. Findings
106 provide support for the dis tinct nature of mother-adolescent and father-adolescent relationships. In short, th e answer to the question: Â“D o dads make a differenceÂ”, is Â“yesÂ”.
107 References Achenbach, T. M. (1991a). Manual for Child Behavior Checklist and 1991 Profile Burlington, VT: University of Verm ont Department of Psychiatry. Achenbach, T. M. (1991b). Manual for Youth Self Report and 1991 Profile Burlington, VT: University of Verm ont Department of Psychiatry. Achenbach, T. M., McConaughy, S. H., & Howe ll, C. T. (1987). Child/adolescent behavioral and emotional problems: Impli cations of cross-informant correlations for situational specificity. Psychological Bulletin, 101 213-232. Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for the ASEBA school-age forms and profiles Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, and Families. Aldous, J., Mulligan, G. M., & Bjarnason, T. (1998). Fathering over time: What makes the difference? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 809-820. Allison, P. D. & Furtsenberg, F. F. (1989). How marital dissolution affects children. Developmental Psychology, 25 540-549. Almeida, D. M., & Galambos, N. L. (1991). Examining father involvement and the quality of father-adolescent relations. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 1 155-172. Amato, P. R. (1987). Family processes in one-p arent, stepparent, and intact families: The childÂ’s point of view. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49 327-337. Amato, P. R. (1993). ChildrenÂ’s adjustment to divorce: Theories, hypotheses and empirical support. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55 23-38.
108 Amato, P. R. (1994). Father-child relations mother-child relations, and offspring psychological well-being in early adulthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 56 1031-1042. Amato, P. R., & Gilbreth, J. G. (1999). Nonres ident fathers and childre nÂ’s well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61 557-573. Amato, P. R., & Rivera, F. (1999). Patern al involvement and childrenÂ’s behavior problems. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61 375-384. Amato, P. R., & Sobolewski, J. M. (2004). The effects of divorce on fathers and children: Nonresidential fathers and stepfath ers. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (pp. 341-367). New York: Wiley. Armsden, G.C., & Greenberg, M.T. (1987). The Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment: Individual differences and their relationship to psychological wellbeing in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 427-455. Astone, N. M., & McLanaahan, S. S. (1991). Family structure, parenting practices, and high school completion. American Sociological Review, 56 309-320. Baker, B. L., & Heller, T. L. (1996). Presc hool children with extern alizing behaviors: Experience of fathers and mothers. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 24 513-532. Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected construct. Child Development, 67 3296-3319. Barber, B. K. & Olsen, J. A. (1997). Social ization in context: C onnection, regulation, and autonomy in the family, school and neighborhood, and with peers. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12 287-315.
109 Barnes, G. M. (1984). Adoles cent alcohol abuse and other problem behaviors: Their relationships and common parental influences. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 13 329-348. Barnes, G. M., Farrell, M. P., & Banerjee, S. (1994). Family influences on alcohol abuse and other problem behaviors among Black and White adolescences in a general population sample. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 4, 183-201. Barnett, R. C., Kibria, N., Baruch, G. K., & Pleck, J. H. (1991). Adult daughter-parent relationships and their asso ciations with daughterÂ’s psychological distress. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53 29-43. Barnett, R. C., Marshall, N. L., & Pleck, J. H. (1992). Adult son-pare nt relationships and their associations with sons Â’ psychological distress. Journal of Family Issues, 13 505-525. Bartkowski, J. P. & Xu, X. (2000). Distant pa triarchs or expressive dads? The discourse and practice of fathering gin conservative Protestant families. Sociological Quarterly, 41 465-485. Baruch, G. K., & Barnett, R. C. (1975). Imp lications and applications of recent research on feminine development. Psychiatry, 38 318-327. Baumrind, D. (1989). Rearing competen t children. In W. Damon (Ed.), Child development today and tomorrow. The Jossey-Bass social and behavioral science series (pp. 349-378). San Franci sco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of pare nting style on adolescen t competence and substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11 56-95.
110 Bennett, D. S., Bendersky, M., & Lewis, M. (2002). ChildrenÂ’s intellectual and emotional-behavioral adjustment at 4 y ears as a function of cocaine exposure, maternal characteristics, and environmental risk. Developmental Psychology, 38, 648-658. Bezirganian, S., & Cohen, P. (1992). Sex differences in the interaction between temperament and parenting. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 31, 790-801. Bianchi, S. M. (2000). Maternal employment and time with children: Dramatic change or surprising continuity? Demography, 37 401-414. Biller, H. B., & Solomon, R. S. (1986). Child maltreatment and pater nal deprivation: A manifesto for research, prevention and treatment Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Blair, S. L., & Hardesty, C. (1994). Paternal involvement and the well-being of fathers and mothers of young children. Journal of MenÂ’s Studies, 3 49-68. Briggs-Gowan, M. J., Carter, A. S., & Schwab -Stone, M. (1996). Discrepancies among mother, child and teacher reports: Examining the contributions of maternal depression and anxiety. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 24 749-765. Bosco, G. L., Renk, K., Dinger, T. M., Epstei n, M. E., & Phares, V. (2003). The connections between adoelscentsÂ’ perceptions of parents, parental psychological symptoms, and adolescent functioning. Applied Developmental Psychology, 24, 179-200. Brandt, P. A. (1984). Stress-bu ffering effects of social suppo rt on maternal discipline. Nursing Research, 33, 229-234.
111 Brody, G. H., Dorsey, S., Forehand, R., & Armist ead, L. (2002). Uni que and protective contributions of parenting and classroom processes to the adjustment of African American children living in single parent families. Child Development, 73, 274286. Buehler, C., & Gerard, J. M. (2002). Mari tal conflict, ineffect ive parenting, and childrenÂ’s and adolescentsÂ’ maladjustment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 78-92. Buri, J. R. (1989). Self-esteem and appraisals of parental behavior. Journal of Adolescent Research, 4 33-49. Cabrera, N. J., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Brad ley, R. H., Hofferth, S., & Lamb, M. E. (2000). Fatherhood in the twenty-first century. Child Development, 71 127-136. Carlo, G., Roesch, S. C., & Melby, J. (1998). The multiplicative relations of parenting and temperament to prosocial and anti social behaviors in adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 18 266-290. Capaldi, D. M., & Patterson, G. R. (1991). Relation of parental transitions to boysÂ’ adjustment problems: I. A linear hypothesi s. II: Mothers at risk for transitions and unskilled parenting. Developmental Psychology, 27 489-504. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112 115-159. Cohen, P., & Brook, J. (1987). Family fact ors related to the persistence of psychopathology in childhood and adolescence. Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes, 50, 332-345.
112 Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. (1988). Multiple sources of data on social behavior and social status in the school: A cross-age comparison. Child Development, 59 815829. Coley, R. L. (2001). (In)visible men: Emer ging research on low-income, unmarried and minority fathers. American Psychologist, 56 743-753. Coleman, P. K., & Hilderbrandt Karraker, K. (2000). Parenting self-efficacy among mothers of school-age children: Conceptua lization, measurement, and correlates. Family Relations: Interdisciplinary J ournal of Applied Family Studies, 49, 13-24. Collins, W. A., & Russell, G. (1991). Mother-c hild and father-child relationships in middle childhood and adolescence: A developmental analysis. Developmental Review, 11 99-136. Compas, B. E., Howell, D. C., Phares, V., Willia ms, R. A., & Guinta, C. T. (1989). Risk factors for emotional/behavioral problems in young adolescents: A prospective analysis of adolescent and pa rental stress and symptoms. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 732-740. Conger, K. J., Conger, R. D., & Scarame lla, L. V. (1997). Parents, siblings, psychological control, and adolescent adjustment. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12, 113-138. Cooksey, E. C., & Fondell, M. M. (1996). Sp ending time with his kids: Effects of family structure on fathersÂ’ and childrenÂ’sÂ’ lives. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58 693-707. Coombs, R. H., & Landsverk, J. (1988). Pa renting styles and substance use during childhood and adolescence. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 473-482.
113 Crockett, L. J., Eggebeen, D. J. & Hawkins, A. J. (1993). FathersÂ’ presence and young childrenÂ’s behavioral and cognitive adjustment. Journal of Family Issues, 14 355-377. Crouter, A. C., McHale, S. M., Bartko, W. T. (1993). Gender as an organizing feature in parent-child relationships. Journal of Social Issues, 49 161-174. Cubis, J., Lewin, T., & Dawes, F. (1989). Aust ralian adolescentsÂ’ pe rceptions of their parents. Australian and New Zealand J ournal of Psychiatry, 23 35-47. Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P. T. (1994). Ma ternal depression and child development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, 73-112. Dadds, M. R., & Sanders, M. R. (1992). Fam ily interaction and child psychopathology: A comparison of two observation strategies. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 1, 371-391. Dadds, M. R., Sanders, M. R., Morris on, M., & Rebgetz, M. (1992). Childhood depression and conduct disorder: II. An analysis of family interaction patterns in the home. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 101, 505-513. Danziger, S. K., & Radin, N. (1990). Absent does not equal uninvolved: Predictors of fathers in teen mother families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52 636642. Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. ( 1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model. Psychological Bulletin, 113 487-496. Davis, B. T., Hops, H., Alpert, A., & Sheeber L. (1998). Child res ponses to parental conflict and their effect on adjustme nt: A study of triadic relations. Journal of Family Psychology, 12 163-177.
114 Demo, D. H., & Acock, A. C. (1988). The impact of divorce on children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50 619-648. Dodge, K. A. (1990). Developmental psychopathol ogy in children of depressed mothers. Developmental Psychology, 26 3-6. Doherty, W. J., Kouneski, E. F., & Erickson, M. F. (1998). Responsib le fathering: An overview and conceptual framework. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60 277-292. Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Leiderman, P. O., Roberts, D. F., & Fraleigh, M. J. (1987). The relation of parenting styl e to adolescent school performance. Child Development, 58, 1244-1257. Downey, D. B. (1994). The school performa nce of children from single-mother and single-father families: Economic or interpersonal deprivation? Journal of Family Issues, 15 129-147. Duhig, A. M., Renk, K., Epstein, M. E., & Phar es, V. (2000). Interp arental agreement on internalizing, externalizing, and total behavior problems: A metaanalysis. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 7, 435-453. Duncan, G. J., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Klebanov, P. K. (1994). Economic deprivation and early childhood development. Child Development, 65, 296-318. Durlak, J. A., Stein, M. A., & Mannarino, A. P. (1980). Behavioral vali dity of a brief teacher rating scale (the AML) in identif ying high-risk acting-out school children. American Journal of Community Psychology, 8, 101-115.
115 Eberly, M. B., Montemayor, R ., & Flannery, D. J. (1993). Variation in adolescent helpfulness toward parents in a family context. Journal of Early Adolescence, 13 228-244. Ellickson, P. L., & Hawes, J. A. (1989). An assessment of active versus passive methods for obtaining parental consent. Evaluation Review 13 45-55. Fagot, B. I., & Hagan, R. (1991). Observations of parent reactions to sex-stereotyped behaviors: Age and sex effects. Child Development, 62 617-628. Farrington, D. P., & Loeber, R. (2000). Epidemiology of juvenile violence. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 9, 733-748. Feldman, S. S., & Weinberger, D. A. (1994). Self-restraint as a mediator of family influences on boysÂ’ delinquent be havior: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 65 195-211. Fields, J. & Casper, L. M. (2001). Amer icaÂ’s families and living arrangements: March 2000. Current population reports, P20-537 Washington, DC: U. S. Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/p20-537.pdf Fish, L. S., New, R. S., Van Cleave, N. J. (1992). Shared parenting in dual-income families. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 62 83-92. Fletcher, A. C. & Hunter, A. G. (2003). St rategies for obtaining pa rental consent to participate in research. Family Relations: Interdiscip linary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 52, 216-221. Flouri, E., Buchanan, A., & Bream, V. (2002). AdolescentsÂ’ perceptions of their fathersÂ’ involvement: Significance to school attitudes. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 575-582.
116 Forehand, R., Long, N., Brody, G. H., Fauber, R. (1986). Home predictors of young adolescentsÂ’ school behavior and academic performance. Child Development, 57, 1528-1533. Forehand, R., & Nousiainen, S. (1993). Mate rnal and paternal parenting: Critical dimensions in adolescent functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 7 213-221. Freeman, H. S., & Newland, L. A. Family tr ansitions during the adol escent transition: Implications for parenting. Adolescence, 37 457-475. Frick, P. J. (1994). Family dysfunction and th e disruptive behavior disorders: A review of recent empirical findings. Advances in Clinical Child Psychology, 16 203226. Furstenberg, F. F. (1990). Divorce and the American family. Annual Review of Sociology, 16 379-403. Garbarino, J., Sebes, J., & Schellenbach, C. (1984). Families at risk for destructive parent-child relations in adolescence. Child Development, 55 174-183. Ge, X., Best, K. M., Conger, R. D., & Simons, R. L. (1996). Parenting behaviors and the occurrence and co-occurrence of adolescent depressive symptoms and conduct problems. Developmental Psychology, 32 717-731. Gibbs, J. T. (1989). Black American adolescents. In J. T. Gibbs & L. N. Huang (Eds.), Children of color: Psychological interventions with minority youth (pp. 179-223). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Gillespie, J. F., & Durlak, J. A. (1995). Screening children at risk for school maladjustment: Further evidence for the value of the AML. Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 18-27.
117 Gilliom, M., & Shaw, D. S. (2004). Codevel opment of externalizi ng and internalizing problems in early childhood. Development and Psychopathology, 16 313-333. Gjerde, P. F., & Onishi, M. (2000). In sear ch of theory: The study of Â“ethnic groupsÂ” in developmental psychology. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 10, 289-298. Gonzales, N. A., Cauce, A. M., Friedman, R. J., & Mason, C. A. (1996). Family, peer and neighborhood influences on academic ach ievement among African-American adolescents: One-year prospective effects American Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 365-387. Grady, K., Gersick, K. E., & Boratynski, M. (1 985). Preparing parents for teenagers: A step in the prevention of a dolescent substance abuse. Family Relations: Journal of Applied and Family Studies, 34 541-549. Green, K. D., Beck, S. J., Forehand, R., & Vosk, B. (1980). Validity of teacher nominations of child behavior problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 8, 397-404. Greene, A. L., & Grimsley, M. D. (1990). Ag e and gender differences in adolescentsÂ’ preferences for parental advice: MumÂ’s the word. Journal of Adolescent Research, 5 396-413. Grolnick, W. S., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1991). Inner resources for school achievement: Motivational me diators of childrenÂ’s perceptions of their parents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 508-517. Grolnick, W. S. & Slowiaczek, M. L. (1994) ParentsÂ’ involvement in childrenÂ’s schooling: A multidimensional conceptual ization and motivational model. Child Development, 65 237-252.
118 Grossman, F. K., Pollack, W. S., & Golding, E. (1988). Fathers and children: Predicting the quality and quantity of fathering. Developmental Psychology, 24, 82-91. Grych, J. H., Seid, M., & Fincham, F. D. ( 1992). Assessing marital conflict from the childÂ’s perspective: The ChildrenÂ’s Perception of Interparental Conflict Scale. Child Development, 63 558-572. Hatzichristou, C. & Hopf, D. (1996). A multiperspective comparison of peer sociometric status groups in childhood and adolescence. Child Development, 67, 1085-1102. Hampton, R. I., Gelles, R. J., & Harrop, J. W. (1989). Is violence in Black families increasing: A comparison of 1975 a nd 1985 National Survey Rates. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51 969-980. Harris, K. H., Furstenberg, F. F., & Marmer, J. K. (1998). Paternal involvement with adolescents in intact families: The infl uence of fathers ove r the life course. Demography, 35 201-216. Harris, K. M. & Marmer, J. K. (1996). Pove rty, paternal involvemen t, and adolescent well-being. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 614-640. Harrison, A. O., Wilson, M. N., Pine, C. Q., Ch an, S. J., & Buriel, R. (1990). Family ecologies of ethnic minority children. Child Development, 61, 347-362. Harold, G. T., Osborne, L. N., & Conger, R. D. (1997). Mom and Dad are at it again: Adolescent perceptions of ma rital conflict and adolescent psychological distress. Developmental Psychology, 33 333-350. Hetherington, M. E.(1973). Effects of father absence in personality development of adolescent girls. Developmental Psychology, 73 313-326.
119 Hetherington, M. E.(1993). An overview of the Virginia Longitudinal Study of Divorce and Remarriage with a focus on early adolescence. Journal of Family Psychology, 7 39-56 Hetherington, M. E., Bridges, M., & Insabell a, G. M. (1998). What matters? What does not? Five perspectives on the association between marital transitions and childrenÂ’s adjustment. American Psychologist, 53 167-184. Hetherington, M. E., & Stanley-Hagan, M. M. (1997). The effects of divorce on fathers and their children. In M. E. Lamb, The role of the father in child development, 3rd edition (pp. 191-211). New York, NY: Wiley. Henderson, A., & Champlin, S. (1989). Promoting teen health. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hofferth, S. L. (2003). Race/ ethnic differences in father involvement in two-parent families: Culture, context, or economy? Journal of Family Issues, 24, 185-216. Hollingshead, A. B. (1975). Four factor index of social status Unpublished manuscript, Yale University, Department of Sociology, New Haven, Conn. Hosley, C. A., & Montemayor, R. (1997). Father s and adolescents. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (3rd ed.), pp. 162-178. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Houssain, Z., & Roopnarine, J. L. (1993). Af rican American fathers involvement with infants: Relationship to their functioni ng style, support, educ ation, and income. Infant Behavior and Development, 17 175-184. Howard, A. (1995). A framework for wo rk change. In A. Howard (Ed.), The changing nature of work San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
120 Hwang, C. P., & Lamb, M. E. (1997). Father involvement in Sweden: A longitudinal study of its stability and correlates. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 21 621-632. Johnson, B. M., Shulman, S., & Collins, W. A. (1991). Systemic patterns of parenting as reported by adolescents: Developmenta l differences and implications for psychosocial outcomes. Journal of Adolescent Research, 16 235-252. Jones, D. J., Forehand, R., & Beach, S. R. H. (2000). Maternal and paternal parenting during adolescence: Forecasting early adult psychosocial adjustment. Adolescence, 35 513-530. Jouriles, E. N., Bourg, W. J., & Farris, A. M. (1991). Marital adjustment and child conduct problems: A comparison of the correlation across subsamples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 354-357. Keith, V. M., & Finlay, R. (1988). The im pact of parental divorce on childrenÂ’s educational attainment, marital timing, and likelihood of divorce. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50 797-809. Kim, J. E., Hetherington, E. M., & Reiss, D. (1999). Associations among family relationships, antisocial peer s, and adolescentsÂ’ extern alizing behaviors: Gender and family type differences. Child Development, 70 1209-1230. King, V. (1994). Nonresident father involvement in child well-being: Can dads make a difference? Journal of Family Issues, 15 78-95. Knafo, A. (2003). Authoritarians, the next generation: Values and bullying among adolescent children of authoritarian fathers. Analyses of Social Issues & Public Policy, 3 199-204.
121 Koenig, L. J., Issacs, A. M., & Schwartz, J. A. J. (1994). Sex diffe rences in adolescent depression and loneliness: Why are boys lone lier if girls are more depressed? Journal of Research in Personality, 28, 27-43. Krishnakumar, A., & Buehler, C. (2000). Interp arental conflict and parenting behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Family Relations: Interdisci plinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 49 5-44. Krohne, H. W., & Hock, M. (1991). Relations hips between restrictive mother-child interactions and anxiety of the child. Anxiety Research, 4, 109-124. Laible, D. J., & Carlo, G. (2004). The differe ntial relations of mate rnal and paternal support and control to adol escent social-competence, self-worth and sympathy. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19, 759-782. Lamb, M. E. (1975). Fathers: Forgotten contributors to child development. Human Development, 18 245-266. Lamb, M. E. (Ed.). (1997). The role of the father in child development (3rd ed.). New York NY: Wiley. Lamb, M. E. (Ed.). (2004). The role of the father in child development (4th ed.). New York, NY: Wiley. Lamb, M. E., Frodi, A. M., Hwang, C. P., & Frodi, M. (1982). Varying degrees of paternal involvement in infant care: Attitudi nal and behavioral correlates. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), Nontraditional families: Pare nting and child development (pp. 117-138). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
122 Lamb, M. E., & Tamis-Lemonda, C. S. (2004). Th e role of the father: An introduction. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development, 4th ed (pp. 1-31). New York, NY: Wiley. Lamborn, S. D., Mounts, N. S., Steinberg, L ., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Pattern of competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent and neglectful families. Child Development, 62 1049-1065. Landarine, H., Richardson, J. L., Klonoff, E. A., & Flay, B. (1994). Cultural diversity in the predictors of adolescent cigarette smoking: The relative influence of peers. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 17, 331-346. Larson, R. W. (2001). How U.S. children and adolescents spent time: What it does (and doesnÂ’t) tell us about their development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10 160-164. Larson, R., & Richards, M. H. (1991). Daily companionship in late childhood and early adolescence: Changing developmental contexts. Child Development, 62, 284300. Larson, R., & Richards, M. H. (1994). Divergent realities: Th e emotional lives of mothers, fathers, and adolescents. New York, NY: Basic Books. Larson, R. W., Richards, M. H., Moneta, G., Holmbeck, G., & Duckett, E (1996). Changes in adolescentsÂ’ daily interactions with their families from age 10 to 18: Disengagement and transformation. Developmental Psychology, 32 744-754. Le Croy, C. W. (1988). Parent-adolescent intim acy: Impact on adolescent functioning. Adolescence, 23, 137-147.
123 Levitt, M. J., Guacci, N., & Weber, R. A. ( 1992). Intergenerational support, relationship quality, and well-being: A bicultural analysis. Journal of Fam ily Issues, 13, 465481. Lewis, C., & Lamb, M. E. ( 2003). FathersÂ’ influences on childrenÂ’s development: The evidence from two-parent families. European Journal of Psychology of Education 18 211-228. Lochman, J. E., & The Conduct Problems Pr evention Research Group (1995). Screening of child behavior problems for pr evention programs at school entry. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 549-559. Loeber, R. (1990). Development and risk f actors of juvenile antisocial behavior and delinquency. Clinical Psychology Review, 10, 1-41. Loeber, R. & Dishion, T. (1983). Early pred ictors of male delinquency: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 68-99. Lytton, H., & Romney, D. M. (1991). Parent sÂ’ differential socialization of boys and girls: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 109 267-296. Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Soci alization in the cont ext of the family: Parent-child interactions. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 4. (pp. 1 Â– 101). New York, NY: Wiley. Margolin, G., Gordis, E. B., & John. R. S. ( 2001). Coparenting: A link between marital conflict and parenting in two-parent families. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 3-21. Marsiglio, W. (1991). Paternal engageme nt activities with minor children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53 973-986.
124 Mason, C. H., & Perreault, W. D. (1991). Collinearity, power, and interpretation of multiple regression analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 268-280 Masten, A. S. (1999). Commenta ry: The promise and perils of resilience research as a guide to preventive interventions. In M. D. Glantz and J. L. Johnson (Eds.), Resilience and development: Positive life adaptations. Longitudinal research in the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 281-296). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Masten, A. S., & Coatsworth, J. D. (1998). Th e development of competence in favorable and unfavorable environments: Lessons fr om research on successful children. American Psychologist, 53, 205-220. Melby, J. N., & Conger, R. D. (1996). Pare ntal behaviors and a dolescent academic performance: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 6, 113-137. MacGregor, E., & McNamara, J. R. (1995). Comp arison of return proc edures involving mailed versus student-delivered parental consent forms. Psychological Reports 77 1113-1114. McGuire, S., Dunn, J., & Plomin, R. (1995). Ma ternal differential trea tment of siblings and childrenÂ’s behavioral pr oblems: A longitudinal study. Development and Psychopathology, 7 515-528. McLeod, J. D., Kruttschnitt, C., & Dornfeld, M. (1994). Does parenting explain the effects of structural conditi ons on childrenÂ’s antisocial behavior? A comparison of Blacks and Whites. Social Forces, 73, 575-604.
125 McLoyd, V. C. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. American Psychologist, 53 185-204. Melby, J. N., & Conger, R. D. (1996). Pare ntal behaviors and a dolescent academic performance: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 6, 113-137. Miller, J. M., DiOrio, C., & Dudley, W. (2002) Parenting style and adolescentÂ’s reaction to conflict: Is there a relationship. Journal of Adolescent Health, 31 463-468. Milkie, M. A., Bianchi, S. M., Mattingly, M. J., & Robinson, J. P. (2002). Gendered division of child rearing: Id eals, realities, and the relationship to parental wellbeing. Sex Roles, 47, 21-38. Moretti, M. M., Fine, S., Haley, G., & Ma rriage, K. (1985). Childhood and adolescent depression: Child-report versus parent-report information. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 24 298-203. Montemayor, R. (1982). The relationship be tween parent-adolescent conflict and the amount of time adolescents spend al one and with parents and peers. Child Development, 53 1512-1519. Montemayor, R., & Brownlee, J. (1987). Fathers, mothers, and adolescents: Genderbased differences in parental roles during adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16 281-291. Mott, F. L., Kowaleski-Jones, L., & Mehaghan, E. G. (1997). Paternal absence and child behavior: Does a childÂ’s gender make a difference? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59 103-118.
126 Mulkey, L. M., Crain, R. L., & Harrington, A. J. C. (1992). One-pa rent households and achievement: Economic and behavioral explanations of a small effect. Sociology and Education, 65 48-65. Murris, P., & Merckelbach, H. (1998). Perceive d parental rearing behaviour and anxiety disorders symptoms in normal children. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 1199-1206. Noller, P., & Callan, V. J. (1986). Adolescent and parent perception of family cohesion and adaptability. Journal of Adolescence, 9 97-106. Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Girgus, J. S. (1994). The emergence of gender differences in depression during adolescence. Psychological Bulletin, 115 424-443. Nord, C. W., Brinmhall, D., & West, J., (1997). FathersÂ’ involvement in their childrenÂ’s schools, NCES-98-091. Washington, DC : National Center for Educational Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/fathers/ Ohannessian, C. M., Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., von Eye, A. (1995). Discrepancies in adolescentsÂ’ and parent sÂ’ perceptions of family function and adolescent emotional adjustment. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15 490-516. Openshaw, D. K., Thomas, D. L., & Rollins, B. C. (1984). Parental influences of adolescent self-esteem. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 4 259-274. Paley, B., Conger, R., & Harold, G. T. (2000) ParentsÂ’ affect, adolescent cognitive representations, and adolescent social development. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 761-776.
127 Palkovitz, R. (2002). Involved fatheri ng and child development: Advancing our understanding of good fathering. In C. S. Tamis-LeMonda & N. Cabrera (Eds.), Handbook of father involvement: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 119-140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Parke, R. D. (1996). Fatherhood. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Parke, R. D. (2000). Father involvement: A developmental psychological perspective. Marriage and Family Review 29 43-58. Paschall, M. J., Ennett, S. T., & Flewelling, R. L. (1996). Relationships among family characteristics and violen t behavior by black and wh ite male adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 25 177-197. Patterson, G. R. (1986). Performanc e models for antisocial boys. American Psychologist, 41 432-444. Patterson, C. J., Cohn, D. A., & Kao, B. T. ( 1989). Maternal warmth as a protective factors against risks associated w ith peer rejection among children. Development and Psychopathology, 1, 21-38. Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. B., & Dishion, T. J. (1992). Antisocial boys Eugene, OR: Castalia. Patterson, G. R. & Dishion, T. J. (1985). Contributions of families and peers to delinquency. Criminology, 23 63-79. Paulson, S. E. (1994). Relations of parenting style and parental invol vement with ninth grade studentsÂ’ achievement. Journal of Early Adolescence, 14 250-267.
128 Paulson, S. E., Hill, J. P., & Holmbeck, G. N. (1991). Distinguishing between perceived closeness and parental warmth in families with seventh-grade boys and girls. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11 276-293. Paulson, S. E., & Sputa, C. L. (1996). Pa tterns of parenting during adolescence: Perceptions of adolescents and parents. Adolescence, 31, 369-381. Peoples, F., & Loeber, R. (1994). Do individu al factors and neighbor hood context explain ethnic differences in juvenile delinquency? Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 10 141-157. Petersen, A. C., Tobin-Richards, M., & Boxer, A. M. (1983). Pubert y: Its measurement and its meaning. Journal of Early Adolescence, 3 47-62. Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., Dodge, K. A., & M eece, D. W. (1999). The impact of afterschool peer contact on early adolescent externalizing pr oblems is moderated by parental monitoring, perceived neigh borhood safety, and prior adjustment. Child Development, 70, 768-778. Phares, V. (1992). WhereÂ’s Poppa? The relative lack of attention to the role of fathers in child and adolescent psychopathology. American Psychologist, 47 656-664. Phares, V. (1996). Conducting nonsexist resear ch, prevention, and treatment with fathers and mothers: A Call for a Change. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20 55-77. Phares, V. (1999). Poppa psychology: The ro le of fathers in ch ildrenÂ’s mental wellbeing. Westport, CT: Praeger. Phares, V., & Compas, B. E. (1992). The ro le of fathers in child and adolescent psychopathology: Make room for daddy. Psychological Bulletin, 111 387-412.
129 Phares, V., Fields, S., & Kamboukos, D. (2005). FathersÂ’ and mothersÂ’ involvement with their adolescents. Manuscript submitted for publication. Phares, V., Fields, S., Kamboukos, D., & Lopez, L. (2005). Still looking for Poppa: The continued lack of attention to the role of fathers in developmental psychopathology. Manuscript submitted for publication. Phares, V., Lopez, E., Fields, S., Kamboukos, D ., & Duhig, A. M. (In press). Are fathers involved in pediatric psychol ogy research and treatment? Journal of Pediatric Psychology Phares, V., & Renk, K. (1998). Perceptions of Parents: A measure of adolescentsÂ’ feelings about their parents. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60 646-659. Phares, V., Renk, K., & Duhig, A. (2003). Po sitive and negative feelings between adolescents and their fathers and mothers. Poster to be presented at the bi-annual conference of the Society for Research on Child Development, Tampa, FL. Phares, V., Renk, K., Duhig, A. M., Fields, S ., & Sly, J. (2005). Gender differences in positive and negative feelings between adolescents and their fathers and mothers. Manuscript submitted for publication. Pipp, S., Shaver, P., Jennings, S., Lamborn, S., & Fischer, K. W. (1985). AdolescentsÂ’ theories about the development of th eir relationships with parents. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48 991-1001. Pleck, J. (1985). Working wives, working husbands Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
130 Pleck, J. H. (1997). Paternal involvement: Le vels, sources, and consequences. In M. E. Lamb, (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (3rd ed). New York: Wiley and Sons. Pleck, J. H., & Masciadrelli, B. P. (2004). Paternal involvement by U.S. residential fathers: Levels, sources, and consequences. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (4th ed.) (pp. 222-271). New York: Wiley. Querido, J. G., Warner, T. D., & Eyberg, S. M. (2002). Parenting styles and child behavior in African American families of preschool children. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 31 272-277. Radin, N. (1981). The role of the father in cognitive, academic, and intellectual development. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (pp. 379-427). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Raffaeli, M. & Duckett, E. (1989). Â“We were just talkingÂ…Â”. Conversations in early adolescence. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 18 567-582. Range, L. M., Embry, T., & MacLeod, R. (2001). Active and passive consent: A comparison of actual research with children. Ethical Human Sciences & Services 3 23-31. Rapee, R. M. (1997). Perceived threat and percei ved control as predictors of the degree of fear in physical and social situations. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 11, 455-461. Renk, K., Oliveros, A., Roddenberry, A., Kl ein, J., Sieger, K., Roberts, R., & Phares, V. (2005). The relationship of parental psychological symptoms and ratings of adolescent functioning. Manuscipt submitted for publication.
131 Repinski, D. J., & Shonk, S. M. (2002). Mother sÂ’ and fathersÂ’ beha vior, adolescentsÂ’ self-representations and adolescentsÂ’ adjustment: A mediational model. Journal of Early Adolescence, 22 357-383. Rhule, D. M., McMahon, R. J., & Spieker, S. J. (2004). Relation of adolescent mothers' history of antisocial behavi or to child conduct problems and social competence. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 33, 524-535. Richards, M. H., Gitelson, I. B., Petersen, A. C., & Hurtig, A. L. (1991). Adolescent personality in girls and boys. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15 65-81. Roberts, R. E., Attkisson, C. C., & Ro senblatt, A. (1998). Prevalence of psychopathology among children and adolescents. American Journal of Psychiatry, 155, 715-725. Rowe, D. C., Kandel, D. (1997). In the ey e of the beholder? Pa rental ratings of externalizing and internalizing symptoms. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 25, 265-275. Russell, A., & Saebel, J. (1997). Mother-s on, mother-daughter, father-son, and fatherdaughter. Are they distinct relati onships? Developmental Review, 17, 111-147. Sanders, M. R., Dadds, M. R., Johnston, B. M., & Cash, R. (1992). Childhood depression and conduct disorder: I. Beha vioral, affective, and cogni tive aspects of family problem-solving interactions. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 101, 495-504. Sanderson, S., & Sanders-Thompson, V. L. T. ( 2002). Factors associated with perceived paternal involvement in childrearing. Sex Roles, 46, 99-111.
132 Schludermann, E., & Schludermann, S. (1970). Re plicability of factors in the ChildrenÂ’s Report of Parental Behavi or Inventory (CRPBI). Journal of Psychology, 96, 1523. Schwartz, J. C., Barton-Henry, M. L., & Pruz insky, T. (1985). Asse ssing child-rearing behaviors: A comparison of ratings made by mother, fa ther, child and sibling on the CRPBI. Child Development, 56 462-479. Seiffge-Krenke, I. (1999). Families with daughters, families with sons: Different challenges for family relationships and marital satisfaction? Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 28, 325-342 Seiffge-Krenke, I. & Kollmar, F. (1998). Disc repancies between mothersÂ’ and fathersÂ’ perceptions of sonsÂ’ and da ughtersÂ’ problem behaviour: A longitudinal analysis of parent-adolescent agreement of internalis ing and externalising problem behaviour. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 39 687-697. Seltzer, J. A. (1991). Relationships between fathers and children who live apart: The fatherÂ’s role after separation. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53 79-101. Seltzer, J. A., & Brandreth, Y. (1994). What fathers say about involvement with children after separation. Journal of Family Issues, 15, 49-77. Shaw, D. S., Keenan, K., Vondra, J. I., De lliquadri, E., & Giovannelli, J. (1997). Antecedents of preschool children's in ternalizing problems: A longitudinal study of low-income families. Journal of the American Ac ademy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 1760-1767.
133 Silverstein, L.B., & Phares, V. (1996). Expanding the parenting paradigm: An examination of dissertation research 1986-1994. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20 39-53. Simons, R. L., Whitbeck, L. B., Beaman, J ., & Conger, R. (1994). The impact of mothersÂ’ parenting, involvement by nonresid ential fathers, and parental conflict on the adjustment of adolescent children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56 356-374. Smetana, J. G. (1995). Parenting styles and conceptions of parental authority during adolescence. Child Development, 66 299-316. Smith, K. (2002). Whose minding the kids? Child care arrangements: Spring 1997. Current Population Reports, P70-86 Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p70-86.pdf Smith, K. A., & Forehand, R. (1996). Pare nt-adolescent conflict: Comparisons and prediction of the perception of mo thers, fathers and daughters. Journal of Early Adolescence, 6, 353-367. Snyder, J., Dishion, T. J., & Patterson, G. R. (1986). Determinants and consequences of associating with deviant peers durin g preadolescence and adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 6, 29-43. Starrels, M. E. (1994). Gender differe nces in parent-child relations. Journal of Family Issues, 15 148-165. Stanger, C., & Lewis, M. (1993). Agreement among parents, teachers and children on internalizing and externaliz ing behavior problems. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 22 107-115.
134 Steinberg, L., Elmen, J., & Mounts, N. (1989) Authoritative pare nting, psychosocial maturity, and academic success among adolescents. Child Development, 60 1424-1436. Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Darling, N., & Mounts, N. S. (1994). Over-time changes in adjustment and competence among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, a nd neglectful families. Child Development, 65, 754-770 Steinberg, L., Mounts, N. S., Lamborn, S. D., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Authoritative parenting and adolescent adjustment across varied ecological niches. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 1 19-36. Stemmler, M., & Petersen, A. C. (1999). Reci procity and change within the affective family environment in early adolescence. International Jour nal of Behavioral Development, 185-198 Stice, E., & Barrera, M. (1995) A longitudinal examination of the reciprocal relations between perceived parenting and adoles cents' substance use and externalizing behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 31, 322-334. Stouthamer-Loeber, M., & Loeber, R. (1986). Boys who lie. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 14 551-564. Surgeon General Report (1999). Mental health: A report of the surgeon general [Online]. Available: www.surgeongeneral.gov/li brary/mentalhealth Svanum, S., Bringle, R. G., & McLaughlin, J. E. (1982). Father ab sence and cognitive performance in a large sample of six-to-eleven-year-old children. Child Development, 53 136-143.
135 Toth, J. F., & Xu, X. (1999). Ethnic and cult ural diversity in fathersÂ’ involvement: A racial/ethnic comparison of African Amer ican, Hispanic, and White fathers. Youth & Society, 31 76-99. Umberson, D. (1992). Relationships between adult children and their parents: Psychological consequences for both generations. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54 664-674. U. S. Census Bureau (2000). Household and families 2000. Washington, DC: U. S. Census Bureau. www.census.gov Veneziano, R. A., & Rohner, R. P. (1998). Perceived paternal acc eptance, paternal involvement, and youthsÂ’ psychological adjust ment in a rural, biracial southern community. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60 335-343. Verhulst, F. C. & Van Der Ende, J. (1992) Six-year developmental course of internalizing and externaliz ing problem behaviors. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 31 924-931. Wade, T. J., Cairney, J., & Pevalin, D. J. ( 2002). Emergence of gender differences in depression during adolescence: National pa nel results from three countries. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 41 190198. Wagner, B. M., Cohen, P., & Brook, J. S. (1996). Parent/adolescent relationships: Moderators of the effect of stressful life events. Journal of Adolescent Research, 11 347-374.
136 Walker, A. J. (1999). Gender and family relatio nships. In M. Sussman, S. K., Steinmetz, & G. W. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family (2nd ed.) (pp. 439474). New York: Plenum Press. Wallerstein, J. S., & Lewis, J. (1998). The long term imp act of divorce on children: A first report from a 25-year study. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 34, 368-383. Weathers, P. L., Furlong, M. J., & Solorza no, D. (1993). Mail survey research in counseling psychology: Current prac tice and suggested guidelines. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 40, 238-244 Webster-Stratton, C., & Eyberg, S. (1982). Ch ild temperament: Relationships with child behavior problems and parent-child interactions. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 11 123-129. Weissman, M. M., Leckman, J. F., Merikangas, K. R., Gammon, G. D., & Prusoff, B. A. (1984). Depression and anxiety disorders in parents and children. Archives of General Psychiatry, 41 845-852. Wenk, D., Hardesty, C. L., Morgan, C. S., & Bl air, S. L. (1994). The influence of parental involvement on the well-being of sons and daughters. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56 229-234. Wentzel, K. R., Feldman, S. S., & Weinberger, D. A. (1991). Parental child rearing and academic achievement in boys: The medi ational role of social-emotional adjustment. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11 321-339.
137 White, L. K., & Gilbreth, J. G. (2001). When children have two fathers: Effects of relationships with stepfathers and noncust odial fathers on adolescent outcomes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63 155-167. Wierson, M., Armistead, L., Forehand, R., Thomas, A. M., & Fauber, R. (1990). Parentadolescent conflict and stress as a parent : Are there differences between being a mother and a father? Journal of Family Violence, 5, 187-197. Wolfradt, U., Hempel, S., & Miles, J. N. V. (2003). Perceived parenting styles, depersonalization, anxiety and copi ng behaviour in adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 34 521-532. Yeung, W. J., Sandberg, J. F., Davis-Kean, P. E., & Hofferth, S. L. (2001). ChildrenÂ’s time with fathers in intact families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 63, 136154. Yongman, M. W., Kindlon, D ., & Earls, F. (1995). Father involvement and cognitive/behavioral outcomes of preterm infants. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 34 58-66. Young, M. H., Miller, B. C., Nort on, M. C., & Hill, E. J. (1995). The effect of parental supportive behaviors on life satisfact ion of adolescent offspring. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57 813-822. Youniss, J., & Ketterlinus, R. D. (1987). Co mmunication and connectedness in motherand father-adolescent relationships. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 265280. Youniss, J., & Smollar, J. (1985). Adolescent relations with mothers, fathers, and friends Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
139 APPENDIX A FAMILY INFORMATION FORM Â– PARENT Please complete the following : 1. This form is being completed by ( please check one ): ____ Mother ____ Stepmother ___ Adoptive mother ____ Grandmother ____ Father ____ Stepfather ____ Adoptive father ____ Grandfather ____ Guardian ____ Other (please specify: ________________ ) 2. How old are you? _____ 3. What is your race/ethnicity (please check one)? ____ Caucasian ____ African-American ____ Latino/Latina ____ Native American ____ Asian ____ Multiracial (specify: ___________) ____ Other (please specify: ______________) 4. How many children (biological, stepchildren, and other children) are presently living in your home? _____ 5. List the ages of all children wh o are presently living in your home: _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ 6. In all, how many children (biological, stepch ildren, and others) do you have? ___ 7. Are you: ____ Married ____ Separated ____ Divorced ____ Single, not living with partner ____ Single, living with a partner ____ Widowed ____ Other (please specify: __________________________) 8. Your employment status. ( Please completed for both mother/fema le guardian and father/male guardian): Mother or Female Guardian Father or Male Guardian Employed as: _____________ Employed as: ___________ Unemployed Unemployed Retired Retired Other: __ Other: _________________ 9. Number of years of education (i ncluding school, college and university): Mother/Female Guardian: _______ Father/Male Guardian: ________
140 APPENDIX A (Continued) 10. Highest educational level completed ( Please complete for both mother/female guardian and father/male guardian): Mother or Female Guardian: Father or Male Guardian : Some High School ( Highest grade : ____) Some High School ( Highest grade : _____) Graduated High School/G.E.D. Graduated High School/G.E.D. Some college Some college Associates Degree Associates Degree Bachelors Degree Bachelors Degree Masters Degree Masters Degree Doctorate Degree Doctorate Degree: 11. Total household income per year (Optional): _____ 12. Average hours per week you spend at work and/or school, including commuting time? ___ 13. Please select one of the following: I live with my teenager ( please go to question 14 ) I do not live with my teenager ( please skip question 14 and go to question 15) 14. If you currently live with your teenager or have daily contact with your teenager, please estimate how much time you spend with your teenager. Think of a typical day during the workweek and a typical day during the weekend. Please do not include time during the night when you are both sleeping. a. Direct interaction with teenager (e.g., talking, playing a game, doing homework together) AVERAGE WEEKDAY TIME: _____(hours) ____ (min) AVERAGE WEEKEND DAY TIME: _____ (hours) _____ (min) b. Accessibility to teenager (i.e., when you are in the same room as your teenager, but you are not actively engaged in conversation or any other type of interaction. For example, when you watch T.V. together without talking, when you are in the house together but involved in different activities) AVERAGE WEEKDAY TIME: _____(hours) ___ (min) AVERAGE WEEKEND DAY TIME: _____ (hours) ____(min)
141 APPENDIX A (Continued) 14. If you do not currently live with your teenager or do not have daily contact with your teenager, please answer the following que stions by estimating the amount of time per month you spend with your teenager. Pleas e do not include time during the night when you are both sleeping. a. Direct interaction with teenager (e.g., talking, playing a game, doing homework together) AVERAGE TIME PER MONTH: _____(hours) ____ (min) b. Accessibility to teenager (i.e., when you are in the same room as your teenager, but you are not actively engaged in conversation or any other type of interaction. For example, when you watch T.V. together wit hout talking, when you are in the house together but involved in different activities) AVERAGE TIME PER MONTH: _____(hours) ____ (min)
142 APPENDIX B PERCEPTIONS OF PARENTS Â– Parent Version Children, teenagers, and young adults often have many different feelings toward their mother and father. Similarly, mothers and fathers often have many different feelings toward their children. Even if they do not have contact with their children anymore, mothers and fathers may still have feelings or opinions about them. Please think about your own teenager in this study and answer the following questions for how you currently feel. If you cannot answer a question regarding your child, write "N/A". 1 = Not at all or Never 2 = Not much or Rarely 3 = Somewhat or Sometimes 4 = Pretty Much or Pretty Often 5 = Very much or Very Often 6 = Extremely or Always WITH REGARD TO HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT YOUR CHILD, HOW MUCH DO YOU FEEL: 1. Respect toward your child: 1 2 3 4 5 6 2. Anger toward your child: 1 2 3 4 5 6 3. Happy when you think about your child: 1 2 3 4 5 6 4. Love toward your child: 1 2 3 4 5 6 5. Grateful for your child: 1 2 3 4 5 6 6. Proud of your child: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. Caring toward your child: 1 2 3 4 5 6 8. Confused or puzzled by your child: 1 2 3 4 5 6 9. Disappointed or let down by your child: 1 2 3 4 5 6 10. Comforted thinking about your child: 1 2 3 4 5 6 11. Anxious/nervous about your child: 1 2 3 4 5 6 12. Closeness toward your child: 1 2 3 4 5 6 13. Upset when you think about your child: 1 2 3 4 5 6 14. Appreciative of (thankful for) your child: 1 2 3 4 5 6 15. Positive feelings toward your child: 1 2 3 4 5 6
143 APPENDIX C MY MOM AND DAD This form will be removed from the rest of your surveys!! There will be no names on the rest of the surveys. Please complete all 4 questions: 1. What is your first and last name? __________________________________ 2. Date of Birth? ____ / ____ / _____ (month/day/year) 3. MY MOM. We are interested in the pe rson who you think is your mother or who takes on a motherÂ’s role in your life. This person may or may not be your biological parent. Al so, you do not have to actually live with the person you consider your mother. If you feel that you do not have someone in your life who is your mom or mother figure, you can leave this blank. a. What is your motherÂ’s first and last name? ____________________ b. Is this person your: ___ Biological Mother ___ Stepmother ___ Adoptive Mother ___ Aunt ___ Grandmother ___ Sister ___ Cousin ___ Other (please specify: ____________) 4. MY DAD. We are interested in the pers on who you think is your father or who takes on a fatherÂ’s role in your life. This person may or may not be your biological parent. Also, you do not have to actually live w ith the person you consider your father. If you feel that you do not have someone in your life who is your dad or father figur e, you can leave this blank. a. What is your fatherÂ’s first and last name? ____________________ b. This person is your: ___ Biological Father ___ Stepfa ther ___ Adoptive Father ___ Uncle ___ Grandfather ___ Brother ___ Cousin ___ Other (please specify: ____________) In the rest of the survey, when you are asked about your Â“motherÂ” or Â“fatherÂ” please consider th e people on this form when you are answering the questions. Thanks.
144 APPENDIX D FAMILY INFORMATION FORM Â– ADOLESCENT Please complete the following: 1. How old are you? _______ 2. What grade are you in? _________ 3. Are you a: Boy (Male) Girl (Female) 4. What is your racial/ethnic background? ___ White ___ African-American ___ Latino/Latina ___ Native American ___ Asian ___ Multi-racial (Specify: _________________________________) ___ Other: (Specify: _______________________________) 5. Are your biological mother and father: ___ Married/Living together ___ Separated ___ Divorced ___ Remarried ___ Never married ___ Other:__________________________________ 6. How often do you see your mother ? Please select only one response. ___ Every day ___ A few times a week ___ Once a month __ A few times a month ___ Every few months ___ Every few years ___ Never ___ Other: _____________________________ 7. How often do you see your father ? Please select only one response. ___ Every day ___ A few times a week ___ Once a month ___ A few times a month ___ Every few m onths ___ Every few years ___ Never ___ Other: _____________________________ 8. Who do you current live with? Pl ease list (e.g., mom, data, step dad, sister etc). __________________________________________________ 9. What is your motherÂ’s educational level: ___ Never completed High Sc hool ___ Graduated High School ___ Some college ___ Graduate from college ___ Some graduate school ___ Co mpleted a MasterÂ’s or Doctorate ___ I donÂ’t know ___ Other: ______________________
145 APPENDIX D (Continued) 10. What is your fatherÂ’s educational level: ___ Never completed High Sc hool ___ Graduated High School ___ Some college ___ Graduate from college ___ Some graduate school ___ Co mpleted a Masters or Doctorate ___ I donÂ’t know ___ Other: _______________________ 11. What is your motherÂ’s job (if any)? _______________________________ 12. What is your fatherÂ’s job (if any)? ________________________________ 13. Do you live with your mother or ha ve daily contact with your mother? Yes ( go to question 14 ) No ( go to question 15 ) 14 If you live with your mother or have daily contact with your mother : Please estimate how much time you spend with your mother. Think of a typical day during the school week and a typical day during the weekend. Please do not include time during the night when you are both sleeping. ( If you do not live with your mother or do not have daily contact with your mother, please skip this que stion and go to question 15). a. Direct interaction with your mother (e.g., talking, playing a game, doing homework together) AVERAGE WEEKDAY TIME: _____(hours) ____ (min) AVERAGE WEEKEND DAY TIME: ____ (hours) ___(min) b. Accessibility to your mother (i.e., when you are in the same room as your mother, but you are not actively engaged in conversation or any other type of interaction. Fo r example, when you watch T.V. together without talking, when you are in the house together but involved in different activities) AVERAGE WEEKDAY TIME: _____(hours) ____ (min) AVERAGE WEEKEND DAY TIME: ____(hours) ____ (min) PLEASE GO TO QUESTION 16 IF YOU ANSWERED QUESTION 14
146 APPENDIX D (Continued) 15. If you do not currently live with your mother or do not have daily contact with your mother: Please answer the following questions by estimating the amount of time per month you spend with your mother. Please do not include time during the night when you are both sleeping. ( If you responded to question 14, skip th is Question and go to question 16). a. Direct interaction with your mother (e.g., talking, playing a game, doing homework together) AVERAGE TIME PER MONT H: _____(hours) ____ (min) b. Accessibility to your mother (i.e., when you are in the same room as your mother, but you are not actively engaged in conversation or any other type of inte raction. For example, when you watch T.V. together without talking, when you are in the house t ogether but involved in different activities) AVERAGE TIME PER MONT H: _____(hours) ____ (min) 16. Do you live with your father or ha ve daily contact with your father? Yes (go to question 17) No (go to question 18) 17. If you live with your father or ha ve daily contact with your father: Please estimate how much time you spend with your father. Think of a typical day during the school week and a typical day during the weekend. Please do not include time during the night when you are both sleeping. ( If you do not live with your father or do no t have daily contact with your father, please skip this question and go to question 18). a. Direct inte raction with your father (e.g., talking, playing a game, doing homework together) AVERAGE WEEKDAY TIME: _____(hours) ____ (min) AVERAGE WEEKEND DAY TIME: ____ (hours) ___(min) b. Accessibility to your father (i.e., when you are in th e same room as your father, but you are not actively engaged in conversation or any other type of interaction. For example, when you wa tch T.V. together without talking, when you are in the house together but involved in different activities) AVERAGE WEEKDAY TIME: _____(hours) ____ (min) AVERAGE WEEKEND DAY TIME: ____(hours) ____ (min)
147 APPENDIX D (Continued) 18. If you do not currently live with your fa ther or do not have daily contact with your father: Please answer the following questions by estimating the amount of time per month you spend with your father. Please do not include time during the night when you are both sleeping. ( If you responded to question 17, skip th is question and go to the next page). a. Direct interaction with your father (e.g., talking, playing a game, doing homework together) AVERAGE TIME PER MONT H: _____(hours) ____ (min) b. Accessibility to your father (i.e., when you are in the same room as your father, but you are not actively engaged in conversation or any other type of interaction. For exam ple, when you watch T.V. together without talking, when you are in the house together but involved in different activities) AVERAGE TIME PER MONT H: _____(hours) ____ (min)
148 APPENDIX E PERCEPTIONS OF PARENTS (POP) Â– Adolescent Children, teenagers and young adults often have many different feelings toward their mother and father. Even if they do not have contact w ith their mother or father anymore, they may still have feelings or opinions about them. Please think about your own mother and father currently and answer the following questions. If you no longer have contact with one or both of your parents, please try to answer the questions based on how you remember them. Please do not spend too much time on any one answer. 1 = Not at all or Never 2 = Not much or Rarely 3 = Somewhat or Sometimes 4 = Pretty Much or Pretty Often 5 = Very much or Very Often 6 = Extremely or Always WITH REGARD TO HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT YOUR PARENTS, HOW MUCH DO YOU FEEL: MOTHER FATHER 1. Respect toward your: 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 2. Anger toward your: 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 3. Happy when you think about your: 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 4. Love toward your: 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 5. Grateful for your: 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 6. Proud of your: 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. Caring toward your: 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 8. Confused or puzzled by your: 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 9. Disappointed or let down by your: 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 10. Comforted thinking about your: 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 11. Anxious/nervous about your: 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 12. Closeness toward your: 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 13. Upset when you think about your: 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 14. Appreciative of (thankful for) your: 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 15. Positive feelings toward your: 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
149 APPENDIX F CHILDRENÂ’S REPORT of PARENTAL BEHAVIOR INVENTORY-REVISED As children grow up to be teenagers and young adults, they learn more and more about their parents and how their parents are bringi ng up their sons and daughters. We would like you to describe some of the different e xperiences. Please read each statement on the following pages and indicate your answer on the right side of the page that most closely describes the way each of your parents act towards you. You will answer first for your mother and then for your father. If you think the statement is NOT LIKE your mother/father, record a Â“1Â” If you think the statement is SOMEWHAT LIKE your mother/father, record a Â“2Â” If you think the statement is LIKE your mother/father, record a Â“3Â” MOTHER FATHER 1. Make me feel better after talking over my worries with her/him 1 2 3 1 2 3 2. Almost always speaks to me with a warm and friendly voice 1 2 3 1 2 3 3. Smiles at me often 1 2 3 1 2 3 4. Is able to make me feel better when I am upset 1 2 3 1 2 3 5. Enjoys doing things with me 1 2 3 1 2 3 6. Cheers me up when I am sad 1 2 3 1 2 3 7. Often speaks of the good things I do 1 2 3 1 2 3 8. Seems proud of the things I do 1 2 3 1 2 3 9. Sees to it that I know exactly what I may or may not do 1 2 3 1 2 3 10. Believes in having a lot of rules and sticking to them 1 2 3 1 2 3 11. Believes that all my bad behavior should be punished in some way 1 2 3 1 2 3 12. Insists that I must do exactly as I am told 1 2 3 1 2 3 13. I had certain jobs to do and was not allowed to do anything else until they were done 1 2 3 1 2 3 14. Soon forgets a rule he/she has made 1 2 3 1 2 3
150 APPENDIX F (Continued) If you think the statement is NOT LIKE your mother/father, record a Â“1Â” If you think the statement is SOMEWHAT LIKE your mother/father, record a Â“2Â” If you think the statement is LIKE your mother/father, record a Â“3Â” MOTHER FATHER 15. Is easy with me 1 2 3 1 2 3 16. Punishes me for doing something one day but ignores it the next 1 2 3 1 2 3 17. Lets me off easy when I do something wrong 1 2 3 1 2 3 18. Depends on her/his mood whether a rule is enforced or not 1 2 3 1 2 3 19. Excuses my bad conduct 1 2 3 1 2 3 20. Only keeps rules when it suits him/her 1 2 3 1 2 3 21. Does not insist I obey if I complain or protest 1 2 3 1 2 3 22. Changes his/her mind to make things easier for him/herself 1 2 3 1 2 3 23. Wants to know exactly where I am and what I am doing 1 2 3 1 2 3 24. Is always checking on what I have been doing at school or play 1 2 3 1 2 3 25. Asks to me tell everything that happens when I am away from home 1 2 3 1 2 3 26. Keeps a careful check on me to make sure that I have the right kind of friends 1 2 3 1 2 3 27. Asks other people what I do away from home 1 2 3 1 2 3
151 APPENDIX G LETTER OF INVITATION AND CONSENT FORM Dear Parent or Guardian: Have you ever noticed how different girls and bo ys can be? I would like to figure out why these differences happen. My name is Demy Kamboukos and I am working on my Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology at the University of South Florida (USF) I am currently completing my internship in Clinical Child Psychology at North Shore-Long Is land Jewish Medical Center. While at USF, I conducted research in Pasco County Schools, work ed for the Pinellas County School Board, and worked as a therapist in Hillsborough County Schools. Enclosed you will find a consent form/permission slip that explains a survey that I would like to invite you and your child to take part in. Participation is voluntary If you choose to participate, you and your child will be entered into a drawing for six gift certificates (whether or not you end up completing the surveys). By taking part, yo u and your child will help us understand gender differences in parent-adolescent relationships. All surveys and responses will be kept confidential. Please read the enclosed consent form/permission slip and let us know if you have any questions. If you decide to take part in the survey please complete the information below and sign and complete the last page of the consent form encl osed. A copy of the consent form for your records will be mailed to you with the parent surv eys in the next few weeks. If you choose not to participate in the study, please complete th e information below by checking off the option that you do not wish to participate. Please return this letter and your signed consent to your childÂ’s school by __________ We kindly request that you return these material s whether you decide to participate or not participate in our study. We greatly appreciate your time. We hope that you will agree to take part in our project. We will be very happy to answer any questions that you may have. I can be reached at 813-974-9222 or 813-416-4716, or by email (email@example.com). My major professo r, Vicky Phares, can be reached at 813-9740493. Thank you very much. Sincerely Demy Kamboukos, M.A. Vicky Phares, Ph.D. Doctoral Candidate Associate Professor and Clinical Psychology Director of Clinical Training Program PLEASE CHECK ONE OF THE OPTIONS BELOW Yes, my child and I are interested in participating in your study (Please read and sign enclosed last page of co nsent form; return le tter and consents by deadline noted above) No, my child and I are not in terested in participating in your study at this time (Please return the lette r by deadline noted above).
152 APPENDIX G (Continued) Social Sciences/Behavioral Parents Informed Consent University of South Florida Information for Parents of Children Who Take Part in Research Studies The following information is being presented to help you decide whether or not you want to allow your child to be a part of a minima l risk research study. Please read carefully. If you do not understand anything, ask the Person in Charge of the Study. Title of Study : Adolescents and their families Principal Investigator : Dimitra Kamboukos, M.A. & Vicky Phares, Ph.D. Study Location(s): Middle Schools in Tampa Bay Your child is being asked to participate because we are in terested in learning more about how middle school students perceive their families and themselves. General Information about the Research Study The purpose of this research study is to learn a bout gender differences in adolescentsÂ’ feelings of their mothers and fathers. The stud y will also investigate the relationship between adolescentsÂ’ feelings and their emoti onal and behavioral functioning. We are asking you and your child to take part in this study because we are interested in learning more about middle school studentsÂ’ f eelings. The current study will include 6th, 7th and 8th grade students from public and private schools in the Tampa Bay area. We expect that no more than 1420 adolescents and their parents will take part in this study. Your child was randomly selected for participation from all enrolled middle school students your childÂ’s school. We are requesting consen t for participation of both your child and yourself. After reading the description of the study below, you are free to consent to participation for both yourself and your child. You are also free to decline participation or withdraw from the study at any time. Plan of Study If you decide to take part in this study, you w ill have to sign the consent form/permission slip and return it in the envelope provided to your ch ildÂ’s school. You may ask your child to return the forms for you. After we receive your consent form, you will be asked to complete and mail three short surveys. In addition, once we recei ve your signed consent form, your child will be asked to complete four surveys within his/ her school. If you consent to participate in this study, we will also obtain records da ta on your child from your childÂ’s school.
153 APPENDIX G (Continued) PARENT You will be asked to complete four short survey s. It should take about 30 minutes for you to fill out these surveys. You will be provided with a stamped self-addressed envelope to return the surveys to the researchers. The three measures ask questions regarding your family background, your perceptions about your child, your work and family roles, and your childÂ’s functioning. The Family Information form requests information on family make-up, marital status, parental occupation and education, and the amount of time you spend at work and at home. The Perceptions of Parents survey provi des information on your feelings about your child. You will be asked to rate your feelings regarding a list of statements (e.g., Â“How much do you feel proud of your childÂ” and Â“How much do you feel closeness towards your childÂ”) on a 6-point scale (Â“not at allÂ” to Â“extremelyÂ” ). The Child Behavior Checklist is a scale on your childÂ’s emotional and behavioral functioning You will be asked to rate each item (e.g., Â“Disobedient at homeÂ”, Â“CanÂ’t sit still, restless hyperactiveÂ” and Â“Shy or timidÂ”) on a threepoint scale ranging from Â“not trueÂ” to Â“very often or often trueÂ”. ADOLESCENT Following your written consent, your child will be escorted by Demy Kamboukos and/or designated staff to an area approved by the prin cipal of your childÂ’s school. The study will be explained to your child and he/she will be asked if he/she is willing to take part in the study. Your child will be told that you have provided written consent for the study. If your child agrees to participate in the study, he/she will sign a brief simplified version of this form. An authorized staff member and a witness will also sign the form. If your child agrees to participate, he/she will be asked to complete f our measures of family background, perceptions of their parents, parental behavior, and emotional/ behavioral functioning. The survey requires 30-40 minutes of your childÂ’s time. The Family Information form requests information on your childÂ’s gender and ethnic background, family make-up, and parental e ducation and occupation. The Perceptions of Parents survey reports how adolescents feel about thei r mothers and fathers. Your child will be asked to rate each item (e.g., Â“How much do you feel happy when you think of your mother/father?Â” and Â“How much do you feel clo seness for your mother/fatherÂ”) on a 6-point scale (Â“not at allÂ” to Â“extremelyÂ”). The ChildrenÂ’s Report of Parental Behavior Inventory-Revised provides information on adolescentsÂ’ perceptions of their parentsÂ’ behaviors at home. Your child will be asked to rate the degree to which each item is like his/her mo ther and father (e.g., Â“Often speaks of the good things that I doÂ” and Â“Be lieves in having a lot of rule s and sticking with themÂ”). The Youth Self-Report is a scale of behavi oral and emotional func tioning. Your child will be asked to rate each item (e.g., Â“I get in many fightsÂ” and Â“I am willing to help others when they need helpÂ”) on a thr ee-point scale: Â“not trueÂ”, Â“somewhat or sometimes trueÂ” or Â“very true or often trueÂ”. Payment for Participation You and your child will not be paid for your participation in this study. You will be entered into a drawing for six gift certificates to restaurants or stores. There will be two (2) gift certificates for the amount of $50 and four (4) certificates for $25. If you or your child wish to withdraw from the study after you have provide d consent, you will still be entered into the drawing after the study is completed.
154APPENDIX G (Continued) Benefits of Being a Part of this Research Study By taking part in this research study, you and your child will assist in increasing our overall understanding of gender differenc es in parent-adolescent functioning. The information will assist in developing targeted interventions for middle school students and their families. Risks of Being a Part of this Research Study The risks involved in being a part of this stud y are minimal. Most children enjoy completing the selected surveys. Very rarely, an adol escent may become nervous when answering some questions. If your child should appear nervous in any way, we will discontinue the survey immediately and ensure that your child is not up set in any way. If you have questions about any of the surveys, you are encouraged to contact the investigators of the study at the numbers on the next page. Parents are free to call the pe rsons in charge of the study at any time for additional information or clarification. Your childÂ’s performance or experiences in school will not be affected by participation, or lack of participation, in the current study. Confidentiality of Your and Your ChildÂ’s Records Your and your childÂ’s privacy and research record s will be kept confidential to the extent of the law. Authorized research personnel, employees of the Department of Health and Human Services and the USF Institutional Review Board may inspect the records from this research project. The results of this study may be published. However, the data obtained from you and your child will be combined with data from other child ren in the publication. The published results will not include your or your childÂ’s name or any other information that would personally identify you or your child in any way. Each parent and adolescent in the study w ill receive a study code number so that no names of any child or parent appear on any survey or database. Your childÂ’s school will provide us with the records data mentioned above. Th e information will be provided using the study code number and your childÂ’s name and identifyi ng information will not be connected to the records information we obtain. The surveys will be kept in a locked cabinet in Dr. Vicky PharesÂ’ research laboratory in the Department of Psychology at the University of South Florida. The study database and records data will not include names or identifying information. Only members of the research team will have acce ss to the surveys and database. Your and your childÂ’s individual responses will not be shared with your childÂ’s school or school district, or your childÂ’s school principal, teachers or st aff. In addition, your responses will not be shared with your child or other family members, and your childÂ’s responses will not be shared with you or other family members. The only exception to confidentiality is if your child indicates in the surveys that he/she is in danger or will hurt him/herself. In addition, confidentiality will be broken if your child indicates that someone else is in danger. In these situations, your child will be spoken to privately. You and the school principal will be informed in order to ensure your childÂ’s or other childrenÂ’s safety.
155 APPENDIX G (Continued) Volunteering to Be Part of this Research Study Your decision to allow your child to participate in this research study is completely voluntary. You are free to have yourself and your child partic ipate in this research study or withdraw at any time. If you choose not to participate in this study, or if you or your child withdraw from the study, there will not be any penalty. You and your childÂ’s decision to participate or not participate in the study, or to withdraw from the study, will in no way affect your childÂ’s grades or status as a student at school. If you or your child choose to withdraw from the study after you have provided written consent, you will s till be entered into the drawing for one of the 6 gift certificates. Questions and Contacts If you or your child have any questions about this research study, contact Demy Kamboukos at 813-974-9222 or Dr. Vicky Phares at 813-974-0493. If you or your child have questions about your childÂ’ s rights as a person who is taking part in a research study, you or your child may contact a member of the Division of Research Compliance of the University of South Florida at (813) 974-5638 Your ConsentÂ—By signing this form I agree that: I have fully read or have had read and e xplained to me this informed consent form describing a research project I have had the opportunity to question one of the persons in charge of this research and have received satisfactory answers I understand that I am being asked to allow my child to participate in research. I understand the risks and benefits and I freely give my consent to allow my child to participate in the research project outlined in this form, under the conditions dictated in it. __________________________ _______________________ ______ Signature of Parent of Participant Prin ted Name of Parent Date Signature of Parent of Participant Printed Name of Parent Date
156 APPENDIX G (Continued) PARENT/GUARDIAN: PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING: __________________________________ StudentÂ’s Name _____________ StudentÂ’s Grade Information on Mother/Female Guardian : Name: _____________________ Information on Father/Male Guardian: Name: ____________________ __________________________ __________________________ Street Address __________________________ __________________________ Street Address __________________________ City, State, Zip ________________________ City, State, Zip Home Phone Number: (_____)_________ Email address: _____________________________ Home Phone Number:(____)_________ Email address: ________________________________ Investigator Statement I have carefully explained to the subject the nature of the above protocol. I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge the subject signing this consent form understands the nature, demands, risks and benefits involved in participating in this study. Signature of Investigator Printed Name of Investigator
157 APPENDIX H INSTRUCTIONS FOR TEACHERS AND DISTRIBUTION OF CONSENTS LETTER AND INSTRUCTIONS TO TEACHERS Dear _______________: My name is Demy Kamboukos and I am a graduate st udent in Clinical Psychol ogy at the University of South Florida. I have received approval to conduct a study in Pinellas County middle schools from both th e Pinellas County Schools' Research and Accountability Department and the Universi ty of South Florida Institutional Review Board (IRB). I am hoping to collect surveys from students in your school for my dissertation research. The purpose of my dissertation st udy is to examine gender differences in the relationships among adolescents' perceptions of their mothers and fathers, parents' perceptions about their child ren, and adolescents' emotional/behavioral functioning. Your principal has graciously provi ded me with permission to collect surveys from your students in the next few weeks. I would greatly appreciate your support and assistance in distributing parenta l letters of invitation/permission slips to your students. You will not be asked to assist with distribut ion and collection of the surveys. What does your assistance involve? I am attaching a short announcement for you to read to your students wh en you distribute the permissi on slips. Please ask your students to take the permission slip s home and return them to you by _____________. Please return all permission slips to the principal in the attached envelope. Your assistance is voluntary Should you choose to assist with the distribution and collection of the permission slips, you will be entered into a drawing for a $50 gift certificate. Thank you so much for your time and assi stance. If you would like additional information on the study, please contact me direc tly. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (813) 416-4716 or at firstname.lastname@example.org should have any questions or concerns. Thanks again Sincerely, Demy Kamboukos, M.A. Doctoral Candidate in Clinical Psychology University of South Florida
158 APPENDIX H (Continued) ANNOUNCEMENT FOR TEA CHERS WHEN DISTRIBUTING CONSENTS We are handing out some permission slips for you to take home to your parents. These permission slips will ask your parents if you can take part in a survey on your feelings about your family and yourself. If you and your parents agree to take part, you will complete the surveys in school. Your name will not be on the surveys and no one will learn your individual answers. If you and your fam ily agree to take part in the study, you will be entered in a drawing fo r one of 6 gift certificates. Please return the completed permission slip by this Friday. Any questions? Thank you.
159 APPENDIX I ADOLESCENT ASSENT This project is a study on your views and f eelings about your pare nts and your beliefs about yourself. We are asking you to spend abou t 45 minutes with us. We will ask you to fill out four short surveys. The firs t survey asks you to tell us a little about yourself and your family background. The second survey asks you to tell us how you feel about your mom and your dad, or legal gua rdians. The third survey asks you to tell us how you view your parentsÂ’ behaviors. Th e last survey asks you to tell us about your feelings and behaviors. This is not a test! You will not get a grad e on it. All you need to do is tell us about your opinions and feelings. Your parents al ready know about this study and they have given us written permission for you to take part. Before we ask you to complete the surveys, we would like to get your written permission too. If you participate in this st udy, you and your parents will be en tered into a drawing to win 1 of 6 gift certificates to restaurants or stores. There will be two (2) $50 gift certificates and four (4) $25 gi ft certificates in the drawing. Your name will not be on your survey and answ er sheets. Your teachers, parents, and the other students will not learn your answ ers unless your responses tell us that you or someone else might get hurt. If that ha ppens, we will talk with you privately and possibly speak to your parents or principal. If you do not want to partic ipate, you do not have to. Do you understand what I am asking you to do? Can you please tell me in your own words what we would like you to do? Do you have any questions? If you would like to particip ate, I need you to sign below Mr./Ms. has explained the survey called Â“Adolescents and their FamiliesÂ” to me. I have had all my questions answered. I would like to partic ipate. _____________________ ___________________ ____________ Printed Name of Student Student Signature Date _______________________ ___________________ _________ _____________________ ___________________ ____________ Printed Name of Investigator Signature of Investigator Date Authorized Personnel or Authorized Personnel _____________________ ___________________ ____________ Name of Witness Signature of Witness Date
About the Author Dimitra Kamboukos received Bachelors of Science Degrees in Psychology and Sociology from the University of La Verne, Greece in 1992 and a Masters of Arts in Developmental Psychology from Teachers College, Columbia University in 1995. Prior to entering the Ph.D. program in Clinical Ps ychology at the Univers ity of South Florida in 1998, Dr. Kamboukos worked on several re search projects in developmental psychopathology at the New York State Psychi atric Institute/Columbia University. While in the Ph.D. program at the Univ ersity of South Florida, Dr. Kamboukos provided clinical services to children and families both in the Psychology DepartmentÂ’s Psychological Services Center and community settings. Additionally, she was actively involved in research projects c onducted at the university and in school settings. She has presented her research in nati onal conferences and co-authore d several publications. Dr. Kamboukos completed a one-year internship in child psychology at North Shore/Long Island Jewish Medical Center in New York in 2003.