What Are Factors That Would Impede Positive Parenting and Family Relationships?

J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. Writer manuscript; available in PMC 2012 Mar 16.

Published in final edited form as:

PMCID: PMC3306134

NIHMSID: NIHMS239196

Family Relationships and Parental Monitoring During Center School as Predictors of Early Boyish Problem Behavior

Abstract

The middle schoolhouse years are a period of increased risk for youths' engagement in antisocial behaviors, substance employ, and affiliation with deviant peers (Dishion & Patterson, 2006). This study examined the specific role of parental monitoring and of family relationships (female parent, father, and sibling) that are all critical to the deterrence of problem behavior in early adolescence. The study sample comprised 179 ethnically diverse 6th class (46% female) students who were followed through 8th grade. Results indicated that parental monitoring and father–youth connection were associated with reductions in problem beliefs over time, and conflict with siblings was linked with increases in trouble behaviors. No associations were establish for female parent–youth connectedness. These findings did not differ for boys and for girls, or for families with resident or nonresident fathers.

Considerable attention has been devoted to agreement the developmental processes that escalate youths' antisocial behaviors and substance employ, because of the strong implications these issues have for adolescent wellness and their bear upon on society at large (Dishion & Patterson, 2006). The middle school years are a particularly risky menses during which the convergence of hating behaviors, experimentation with substances, and amalgamation with deviant peers may culminate and rapidly develop into firmly rooted bug. Parenting processes and relationships among family members are too irresolute during this fourth dimension. Youths tend to spend less time with their families, feel less close to them, and receive less supervision and monitoring from their parents (Csikszentmihalyi & Larson, 1984; Dishion, Nelson, & Kavanagh, 2003; Loma, Bromell, Tyson, & Flint, 2007). Although this is a developmentally normative shift, it is disquisitional that youths remain connected with their families to receive guidance and support as they negotiate hard social, emotional, and cerebral challenges during this period of life (Hill et al., 2007).

In an effort to better understand these developmental processes, our research and that of others has focused on the pregnant relationships in youths' lives. Among the general themes of existing literature on boyhood is that significant relationships with caregivers, peers, and siblings either serve to protect them from engaging in problem behavior or disrupt development and pb to afterward problems such as substance employ and deviant peer affiliation. Studies take shown that family relationships that are supportive and close reduce the gamble of youth substance use and problem behavior (Padilla-Walker, Nelson, Madsen, & Barry, 2008), and family management skills applied during this catamenia can either impede or exacerbate boyish problem behavior. Other studies have revealed that relationships with deviant peers and siblings are linked with increases in substance utilise, including both booze and drug use (Dishion & Owen, 2002; Stormshak, Comeau, & Shepard, 2004). However, few studies have examined parenting skills and the quality of early adolescents' relationships as predictors of problem behavior in the same model. This study focused on the quality of parenting skills and of family relationships as predictors of youth problem behaviors during the transition to adolescence.

Youth trouble behaviors follow a developmental course, and by eye childhood, antisocial behaviors unremarkably include nonadherence to social or family unit norms and are oftentimes characterized by dominion-breaking behaviors, disobedience or defiance, aggression or violence, and lying, stealing, and property destruction (Hiatt & Dishion, 2007). Unaddressed, these behaviors go more astringent into boyhood and broaden to include substance use, risky sexual behavior, and delinquency (Dishion & Patterson, 2006). This trajectory makes the eye school years a specially risky transitional period. For the most function, each of these risky or problem behaviors occurs in a peer context. For example, youths who spend fourth dimension with delinquent peers are at greater risk for engaging in substance apply (due east.g., Crawford & Novak, 2008) and antisocial behavior (Stoolmiller, 1994). Substance use and antisocial beliefs are rarely solitary activities during this menstruum, further exemplifying the influence of peer groups on individuals' beliefs (Heinze, Toro, & Urberg, 2004). In the long run, trouble behaviors during early boyhood have serious implications for successful development into adulthood and come at a great personal and societal toll, including criminal or vehement behavior, arrests, and substance abuse, to name a few.

Examining the context of parenting practices and relationships within the family is primal to understanding why some youths become involved in the peer context of problem behaviors (e.grand., Dishion & Patterson, 2006; Dishion & Stormshak, 2007; Kumpfer & Alvarado, 2003). During adolescence, family contexts characterized by supervision, guidance, and connectedness facilitate a successful transition into a positive peer context. However, when youths are also quickly given excessive freedom and unsupervised time, a process called premature autonomy, they are at significant risk for poor outcomes (eastward.k., Dishion et al., 2003; Dishion, Nelson, & Bullock, 2004). Under these circumstances, adolescents neglect to benefit from parental guidance and support and consequently seek advice from peers who are inadequate surrogates (Ackard, Neumark-Sztainer, Story, & Perry, 2006). As such, it is critical to define what constitutes non only effective parenting that provides structure and guidance for youths, only also positive family relationships that promote closeness and connexion with the family or negative family relationships that propel youths out of the abode and into the peer context.

Parenting Practices and Family Relationships

Constructive parenting practices play a critical role in preventing and reducing youth trouble behaviors. In particular, parents who stay informed well-nigh their child's activities, attend to their child's behavior, and structure their kid'south environment take children with improve outcomes (Dishion & McMahon, 1998; Hoeve et al., 2009). This process, called parental monitoring, keeps parents apprised of their youths' activities, which in plough enables them to respond appropriately to misbehavior. Monitored youths are less likely to appoint in substance use and delinquent behavior or spend fourth dimension with deviant peers, as evidenced by cross-sectional, longitudinal, and intervention design studies (e.thousand., Barrera, Biglan, Ary, & Li, 2001; de Kemp, Scholte, Overbeek, & Engels, 2006; Dishion et al., 2003; Dishion, Patterson, Stoolmiller, & Skinner, 1991; Fletcher, Darling, & Steinberg, 1995; Hoeve et al., 2009; Laird, Criss, Pettit, Dodge, & Bates, 2008; Simons-Morton, Hartos, & Haynie, 2004; Weintraub & Gold, 1991). Research has revealed a direct human relationship between parental monitoring and youth outcomes (e.m., Barrera et al., 2001; Dishion et al., 1991; Patterson & Dishion, 1985), including disruption of links betwixt deviant peer influences and youth substance use or hating behavior (east.thou., Dishion, Spracklen, Andrews, & Patterson, 1996; Laird et al., 2008). Farther, Dishion and colleagues (2003) institute that parental monitoring served every bit a mediating procedure past which family unit interventions decreased youths' substance utilise and deviant peer influences.

Despite its importance, constructive parenting alone cannot fully capture processes that promote appointment in a peer context of trouble beliefs. Broader conceptualizations of the family, particularly the network of parent and sibling relationships, assistance capture a more consummate picture of family dynamics that either promote positive evolution or increment risk for problems (Mesman et al., 2009; Richmond & Stocker, 2008). Family unit contexts characterized by close relationships assist create an overall climate of acceptance and support, which promotes positive socioemotional development (eastward.thou., Grych & Fincham, 1990; Thompson & Meyer, 2007). Nevertheless, the family unit relational context is not well understood because most by research has failed to include and study multiple family relationships. In that location is good reason to believe that youths have unique and meaningful relationships with their female parent, father, and siblings, and each probable contributes to adolescents' development.

Relationships with parents are a key factor in youths' evolution. Youths who feel close to their caregivers tend to value their opinions more highly and are more likely to seek guidance for difficult situations (Ackard et al., 2006). They besides spend more time with their family and have less opportunity to engage in deviant behavior (Crawford & Novak, 2008), a core dynamic underlying social control theories of adolescent delinquency (Hirschi, 1969). Parent–youth connectedness has been linked to decreased adventure for a host of problems such as substance use, low, bullying, early on sexual relations, and suicide attempts, and is associated with increased youth success (Ackard et al., 2006; Flouri & Buchanan, 2003; Markham et al., 2003). Moreover, parent–adolescent relationship quality remains an important predictor of youth trouble behavior, even when controlling for effective parenting practices (Bronte-Tinkew, Moore, Capps, & Zaff, 2006; Bronte-Tinkew, Moore, & Carrano, 2006).

The sibling subsystem as well exerts an important influence on the development of youth trouble behaviors, and it can occur in a variety of ways. Close relationships with siblings can be either protective or problematic, depending on whether the siblings are prosocial influences (e.thou., Lamarche et al., 2006) or promote deviant behavior (Rowe & Gulley, 1992). For instance, youths who take siblings who use substances or engage in deviant behaviors are at risk for engaging in the same behaviors (e.g., Stormshak et al., 2004; Windle, 2000). Moreover, previous research investigating sibling collusion revealed that these relationships often are characterized by positive bear upon that predicts increases in problem behavior (Bullock & Dishion, 2002). On the other mitt, a dynamic of hostility or disharmonize in the sibling human relationship consistently reflects lack of support and is linked with problematic outcomes, including involvement with runaway peers and externalizing behaviors (Kim, Hetherington, & Reiss, 1999), antisocial behavior (Bank, Burraston, & Snyder, 2004; Hetherington & Clingempeel, 1992), and substance use (E & Khoo, 2005). Taken together, mounting prove supports the thought that youths who feel connected to their family, including their siblings, are positioned for adaptive development during adolescence.

A broader, more systemic evaluation of family dynamics could provide a more thorough and generalizeable agreement of the contributions of family processes to adolescent issue. Although accumulating prove is establishing links between parenting, parent–adolescent relationships, and sibling relationships in terms of predicting adolescent trouble behavior, the research is non without limitations. With rare exceptions, three are noteworthy in the current literature: (a) the unique contributions of mothers, fathers, and siblings are obscured because they rarely are evaluated simultaneously as unique predictors of youth problem behavior; (b) it is difficult to uncrease constructive parenting and parent–youth relationships; and (c) it is difficult to generalize enquiry on family relationships across the scope of intact families.

Historically, research on family unit relationships has largely focused on the female parent–child relationship and thus has narrowly defined the family context (Thompson & Meyer, 2007). Despite growing recognition and written report of other relationships in the family, information nigh the unique impact of distinct relationships inside the family, apart from other relationships, remains sparse. Most previous enquiry that has evaluated mother–youth and father–youth relationships has used split up analyses or combined these relationships into a unmarried variable (Buist, Deković, Meeus, & van Aken, 2004; Goldstein, Davis-Kean, & Eccles, 2005; Reitz, Deković, & Meijer, 2006; Soenens, Vansteekiste, Luyckx, & Goossens, 2006). Rare exceptions to these approaches propose that mother–youth and father–youth relationships each have a significant, unique impact on youth outcomes (Bronte-Tinkew, Moore, Capps, et al., 2006; Bronte-Tinkew, Moore, & Carrano, 2006; Flouri & Buchanan, 2003). Similarly, parent–youth and sibling–youth relationships are typically studied separately. Testify from some studies suggests that sibling relationships take a unique impact on boyish outcomes across that of parenting practices (Bank et al., 2004; Brody, Kim, Murry, & Brownish, 2003; Richmond & Stocker, 2008; Williams, Conger, & Blozis, 2007). However, these studies typically used combined parenting variables (female parent plus father) or focused merely on parenting practices, without accounting for the parent–youth human relationship. The logical next footstep is to test constructive parenting and the unique effects of youths' relationships with their mother, father, and siblings every bit unique predictors of boyish problem behaviors, to know whether these relationships take unique implications for youth development.

Second, family relationships typically accept been studied apart from parenting practices. Because the quality of parenting practices such as parental monitoring frequently relies on the quality of the parent–kid relationship (Kerr & Stattin, 2000), information technology is important to uncrease these dimensions to identify which processes nigh directly affect positive youth development. Two publications drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth support the idea that understanding the unique relationships between mother's and male parent'due south monitoring and parent–youth human relationship quality contributes to the prediction of youth problem behaviors (Bronte-Tinkew, Moore, Capps, et al., 2006; Bronte-Tinkew, Moore, & Carrano, 2006). However, these studies focused on the onset of substance use and delinquent behavior during a broad age span of boyhood (as old every bit age 18) and cannot address questions about the degree of modify over time or evaluate adolescents who were engaging in those behaviors prior to the beginning wave of data drove. Although the findings provide valuable information, it is also important to report youths who engage in substance utilise from an early historic period, which can exist accomplished through the use of other methods. Other researchers take examined related questions, but typically have averaged mother and father variables into unmarried "parenting" composites. For example, Vieno, Nation, Pastore, & Santinello (2009) studying a large cross-sectional sample of 840 Italian adolescents, a close parent–youth human relationship and constructive parental monitoring were uniquely and concurrently associated with youths' antisocial behavior. Clearly, additional inquiry is needed to better sympathise how parenting and parent–child relationships function over a developmental period of high risk for growth in early trouble behavior.

Considering the number of youths who accept nonresident parents continues to grow, studies that use data that are predominantly or entirely from intact families are increasingly less representative of family processes and relationships that contribute to youth trouble behavior. There is adept evidence that living in an intact family is linked with lower take chances for problem behavior onset. However, this approach does non fairly address the process by which living in intact or nonintact families affects the nature of the relationships among family members. Not simply may in that location be differences in the degree of bear upon of the father–youth relationship in intact versus nonintact families (Bronte-Tinkew, Moore, Capps, et al., 2006), merely the impact of all family relationships may be different across these contexts and is a question that warrants further investigation.

This Study

This study investigated the touch on of parental monitoring and of youths' relationships with their female parent, male parent, and siblings every bit unique predictors of change in youths' problem behaviors by using a prospective, autoregressive longitudinal design that followed youths from 6th to eighth class. We focused on the progression of youths' antisocial beliefs, substance apply, and affiliation with deviant peers as key outcomes, considering of their salience during this developmental catamenia. Building on evidence supporting each of these dimensions as important predictors of youth problem beliefs, we hypothesized that (a) greater parental monitoring would exist associated with decreases in trouble behavior over time, (b) mother–youth and father–youth connectedness would be associated with decreases in problem behavior over fourth dimension, (c) conflict with siblings would exist associated with increased problem beliefs by 8th form, and (d) the strength of the association betwixt parent-youth relationships would differ every bit a office of residing with targeted parents.

Method

Participants

A subsample of a larger study of 593 adolescent participants from the 6th grade classes of three public middle schools in a midsized city in the Pacific Northwest was followed through 8th grade. The sample was recruited in two cohorts during subsequent bookish years (Cohort i, n = 378; Cohort ii, n = 215). Parents actively consented to participation, and students provided assent on the 24-hour interval of assessment administration. The overall sample comprised 51% males and 49% females and was ethnically diverse: White (36%), Latino/Hispanic (18%), African American (15%), Asian (seven%), American Indian (two%), Pacific Islander (2%), biracial/mixed ethnicity (19%), and unknown (1%). After the 6th grade student surveys were collected, students and their families were randomly assigned to an intervention group or to a control grouping, taking into consideration cocky-reported pupil ethnicity and gender.

Of the 386 families randomly assigned to the intervention status of the larger study, 179 (54% male, 46% female) elected to participate in supplemental youth and parent surveys; they comprised this study'southward subsample. Contained samples t-tests revealed no mean differences on result variables for this subsample and the larger intervention grouping at 6th or 8th grade. This subsample comprised youths who described themselves as White (36%), Latino/Hispanic (20%), African American (16%), Asian (3%), American Indian (2%), Pacific Islander (2%), or biracial/mixed ethnicity (21%). Almanac family income reported by family caregivers ranged from less than $5,000 to greater than $90,000, with a median rating of $40,000 to $49,999.

Process

Dependent variables were assessed in a school survey given to all participants in the study. This school survey was derived from an Oregon Research Institute survey and questionnaires used in prior research (Dishion & Kavanagh, 2003; Metzler, Biglan, Rusby, & Sprague, 2001). The school surveys were collected in the spring during class time, at Wave one (6th grade) and Wave 3 (8th class). If a family moved abroad from the area, the survey was mailed to them. Youths were paid $xx for participation in the school survey at each wave. Subsample retentiveness was 88% (n = 157 in 8th form).

Supplemental teen and parent surveys were given to the families comprising the subsample analyzed in this study. Youths completed surveys about sibling conflict and about their connectedness with caregivers, and parents reported about monitoring. Dissever consent forms were nerveless for these family unit assessments. Parent survey data were collected using an interview format, and the teen surveys were partially administered every bit interviews and partially completed by the teens. Parents were paid $100 for participation in the supplemental assessments. Procedures followed for this study were approved by the university institutional review boards for studies involving homo participants.

Measures

Parental monitoring

Youths' primary caregivers completed a ten-detail parental monitoring calibration (Stormshak, Caruthers, & Dishion, 2006a) during which they indicated how often they knew who their kid spent unsupervised fourth dimension with, where their child spent complimentary fourth dimension, and how the child was doing in school. Items are presented in Tabular array ane. This scale demonstrated acceptable reliability (α = .82).

Table ane

Items for Parental Monitoring and Youth Connectedness with Caregivers Scales

Scale	Item
Monitoring	How often do y'all telephone call to talk with parents of [child's] friends?
	How ofttimes practise you know the following?
	What she/he does during his/her gratis time
	Who she/he hangs out with during his/her costless fourth dimension
	If she/he does something bad outside the home
	How she/he does in unlike subjects at school
	Where she/he goes when she/he is out with friends at dark
	Where she/he goes and what she/he does after school
	What she/he is doing when she/he is away from habitation
	If she/he keeps secrets from you well-nigh what she/he does during his/her free fourth dimension
	She/he keeps information from you about what she/he does during nights and weekends
Connectedness	How much would you miss [caregiver] if you lot did not see or talk to them for 1 month?
	How much do you lot trust [caregiver] to follow through with commitments and to have your needs and your future seriously, regardless of their own bug or interests?
	How much do you respect [caregiver] and care most what they think?
	How much do you consider [caregiver] a role model and want to be like them when yous grow up?
	To what extent would you seek communication or take communication and guidance from [caregiver]?
	When [caregiver] disciplines you, or guides you, how off-white and skillful do you lot recall s/he is at it?
	Does [caregiver] pay attention to what you lot are doing, care virtually your activities, enquire questions almost your life and monitor how you are doing?
	Do you tell [caregiver] the truth nigh your life and behavior, trusting what s/he does with the information and how s/he reacts?
	Is [caregiver] someone that you enjoy being with, that you would like to get places and do things?

Connectedness with caregivers

Youths completed the Connexion with Caregivers subsection of the teen supplemental survey (Stormshak, Caruthers, & Dishion, 2006b), which involved a ii-pace procedure. First, youths listed upward to five "caring adults" in their lives, in order of importance, using an open-response format. Second, youths responded to 9 items assessing their connectedness to each of the caregivers separately, a process designed to capture the degree to which they felt shut to and trusted their caregivers, valued their opinions, relied on the caregivers for advice, and enjoyed spending time with them. Items, which are reported in Table one, were rated on a 9-bespeak scale ranging from 1 to nine, with anchors relevant to each question (e.grand., I would not miss them to very much, I would be upset).

If youths excluded their biological mother or father from the list of of import caregivers, they were asked iv questions to assess whether they had any contact with their biological parents. These items asked youths to charge per unit how frequently they had in-person contact, talked to each other on the telephone, sent emails or letters, or received emails or letters. Each item was rated on an 8-bespeak calibration ranging from ane (never) and 2 (less than once a year) to 8 (more than than 3 times a week). If youths excluded a biological parent from the list of caregivers and endorsed never for all iv items, indicating no contact, their connectedness scores were treated equally missing data. If youths excluded parents with whom they reported having contact, they were assigned a score of 0 for their connexion with that parent. Connectedness with mothers (α = .90) and fathers (α = .87) demonstrated adequate reliability.

Sibling conflict

Youths also rated items about levels of conflict with an identified sibling. Of those with siblings, 54.vii% reported being closest with older siblings, and 45.3% felt closest to younger siblings. Youths identified sisters (45.3%) or brothers (54.7%) as their closest sibling. Also, 29.8% of siblings were sister–sis pairs, 22.4% were brother–blood brother pairs, and 47.8% were mixed-sex activity sibling pairs. Later identifying a sibling that the youth felt closest to, two items regarding the frequency of arguments and of physical fights with the identified sibling in the by ii months were rated on a v-point scale ranging from one (never) to 5 (very oftentimes). Items were highly correlated (r = .49, p < .001) and were averaged to create a single index.

Boyish problem behaviors

Three subscales from the 6th and 8th grade school surveys were used to create a trouble behavior blended: antisocial behavior, adolescent substance utilize, and deviant peer clan. To assess antisocial behavior, youths completed 11 items assessing hating beliefs during the past month. These behaviors included lying to parents about where they had been, skipping schoolhouse without an excuse, purposely damaging or trying to damage property, and getting into fights. Items were rated on a half-dozen-point calibration ranging from 1 (never) to 6 (more than xx times) and yielded acceptable reliability (α = .84).

For assessment of adolescent substance use, youths reported nigh their tobacco and alcohol use. Tobacco use was assessed with 2 items: "In the past month, how many cigarettes have you lot smoked?" and "In the by month, how many times have you used chewing tobacco or snuff?" Alcohol use was assessed with one question: "In the past month, how many drinks of alcohol have you had?" Drinks were defined every bit i glass of beer or wine or ane shot of hard liquor. The tobacco items were averaged and Z-scores of the tobacco and the alcohol scores (r = .39, p < .01) were combined to create a single substance use indicator. Z-scores were computed on the basis of the original sample to allow for comparisons with the subsample.

Finally, youths provided information about deviant peer relationships by rating their peers' problem behaviors during the past month. This subscale comprised v items asking whether their friends got in trouble a lot, fought a lot, stole things, smoked cigarettes or chewed tobacco, or used booze or drugs. Students rated their friends' behavior on a scale ranging from 1 (never) to seven (more than vii times). This calibration had adequate internal consistency (α =.73).

Results

Analysis Programme

Analyses were conducted in several steps. First, means, standard deviations, and correlations were computed for the variables of interest, along with the frequency with which youths reported connectedness with caregivers, for descriptive purposes. 2nd, to evaluate whether the sample could be analyzed equally a whole, between-group comparisons were conducted on the basis of youths' gender and family composition. Third, a measurement model of youths' problem behaviors was computed. Finally, the structural model was computed.

Descriptive Analyses

Correlations, means, and standard deviations are presented in Table ii. Family unit variables more often than not were associated in expected directions. Showtime, family dimensions were examined. Parental monitoring was associated with greater youth connection with their mother (r = .17, p <.05) and with their father (r = .20, p < .05) merely was unrelated to sibling conflict (r = .01, ns). Youths who felt connected with their mother as well felt more connected with their father (r = .35, p < .01), and mother connectedness was associated with less sibling disharmonize (r = −.23, p < .05) only father connection was not (r = −.07). Outcome measures evidenced modest stability over fourth dimension, with correlations ranging from .19 to .34 (p's < .05). Finally, several significant associations were found betwixt family dimensions and youths' outcomes at 8th grade. Monitoring was associated with lower levels of antisocial behavior (r = −.32, p < .01) and deviant peer relationships (r = −.24, p < .01), simply not with substance utilize. Mother connectedness was not correlated significantly with the outcomes, simply male parent connectedness was associated with less antisocial behavior (r = −.25, p < .01) and fewer deviant peer relationships (r = −.22, p < .01) in 8th class. Conflict with siblings was associated with greater levels of all three 8th course outcomes (r's = .23 to .33, p < .01).

Tabular array 2

Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations

	1	2	3	iv	5	vi	7	8	9	10
1. Monitoring	—
2. Mom connect	.17*	—
3. Dad connect	.20*	.35**	—
4. Sibling fight	−.01	−.23*	−.07	—
5. Wave one antisocial	−.16*	−.16*	−.14	.xv	—
vi. Wave 1 deviant peer	−.12	−.24**	−.17*	.27**	.60**	—
7. Wave ane substance apply	−.04	.01	−.04	−.03	.fourteen	.09	—
8. Wave 3 antisocial	−.32**	−.fifteen	−.25**	.23**	.26**	.44**	−.05	—
9. Wave 3 deviant peer	−.24**	−.07	−.22*	.33**	.xi	.34**	.00	.55**	—
ten. Wave iii substance utilize	−.09	−.11	−.17	.xxx**	.04	.12	.19*	.37**	.27**	—
M	3.97	7.22	vi.81	ane.40	1.17	.52	−.09	1.30	1.19	−.xi
SD	.75	2.05	2.45	.94	.29	.fourscore	.12	.44	1.39	.40

Every bit previously described, youths used an open-response format to place up to 5 important adults in their lives. The focus of this study was youths' ranking of their biological female parent and father to evaluate parent–youth connectedness. For descriptive purposes, youths' rankings of their mother and of their father are provided. In this subsample, iv.5% (northward = 8) of youths reported no contact with their biological mother and 22.5% (north = 40) reported no contact with their biological male parent. Of those youths who reported any contact with their biological mother, 94.9% identified their mother as an important caregiver in their lives. Within this group, youths ranked their female parent as one of five almost important caregivers in their lives: 79.2% of youths ranked their mother as the most important caregiver, vii.three% ranked her second, 2.2% ranked her 3rd, 1.7% ranked her 4th, and 0% ranked her fifth. Of those youths who reported any contact with their male parent, 92.3% identified their male parent every bit an important caregiver in their lives. Within this group, 8.two% ranked their begetter as the most of import caregiver, 52.2% ranked him second, 4.5% ranked him tertiary, 3.4% ranked him fourth, and 2.2% ranked him fifth.

Then, t-tests were computed to evaluate whether in that location were mean-level differences for boys and for girls for the variables of interest. Boys and girls did not differ in their ratings of connexion with mothers, connection with fathers, sibling disharmonize, or the sixth and 8th form consequence indicators antisocial behavior, substance use, and peer deviance. Similarly, primary caregivers of boys did not differ from those of girls on their ratings of monitoring.

In this sample, 55.9% (northward = 100) of youths reported living with both biological parents, 33.0% (n = 59) reported living with their biological mother only, four.5% (n = eight) were living with their biological begetter only, and half dozen.1% (northward = 11) reported non living with either of their biological parents. Residence with parents was examined as a distinguishing gene for variables of interest. Commencement, those youths living with both biological parents in 6^thursday grade were compared with youths from other family compositions on effect variables at sixth and eighth course time points. In 6th course, youths living with both biological parents had significantly lower initial levels of antisocial beliefs, t(174) = −ii.21 p < .05 and affiliation with deviant peers, t(175) = −2.13, p < .05, just not substance employ, t(176) = .76, ns. By 8th course, these differences were no longer present for any of the Wave three outcome variables, t's(155) = −.074 to −ane.58, ns.

Residence with biological parents also was examined in terms of parental monitoring and family unit relationships. Primary caregivers of youths living with both biological parents reported significantly lower levels of monitoring than did caregivers of youths living in other family constellations, t(161) = 3.02, p < .01, merely these groups did not differ on youths' perceptions of disharmonize with siblings, t(158) = −.57, ns. Living with caregivers was of import for maintaining connections with them. Youths living with their biological mother reported feeling more than connected to them than did those who did non, t(168) = 9.92, p < .01. Similarly, youths living with their biological fathers felt more connected to them than did those who did not, t(136) = three.01, p < .01.

Evaluation of the Total Model Predicting Problem Behavior

Side by side, we included both parental monitoring and the quality of family relationships in an autoregressive model predicting problem behavior through the center school years. These analyses were conducted in iii steps. First, a confirmatory gene analysis was conducted to evaluate the measurement model of the effect variables studied. 2d, an autoregressive longitudinal model was computed to predict changes in youths' trouble behaviors over time. So, group comparisons were conducted to evaluate whether this model differed for boys and for girls. Structural models were computed using Amos xvi.0 (Arbuckle, 2006). Model fit was assessed for each model tested, with preference given to models with nonsignificant χ² values, comparative fit index (CFI) values of greater than .95, Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) values of greater than .95, and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) values of less than .06.

In the first footstep, the measurement model was evaluated for the latent constructs of youth problem behaviors at 6th and 8th grades. This model provided good fit with the data, χ^two(5) = 6.40, p = .29; χ²/df = 1.279; CFI = .99; TLI = .97; RMSEA = .040. Inspection of the model revealed that each of the three indicators had a significant loading on the constructs, with the exception of Wave 1 substance employ. This was probable a result of the low frequency of substance use reported past 6th grade students (5 of 179 reported any utilise), and this indicator was removed from the model without significantly altering the fit with the data, χ²(3) = 4.77, ns. Thus, 6th form problem behavior was derived from youths' antisocial behavior problems and deviant peer affiliation, and the 8th grade problem composite also included substance use (see Figure 1).

Note. χ^two(4) = 84.841, p = .30; CFI = .995; TLI = .98; RMSEA = .034

A = Antisocial Behavior, S = Substance Use, P = Deviant Peer Affiliation

Then, an autoregressive model was computed evaluating parental monitoring, female parent–youth connexion, father–youth connectedness, and sibling conflict as predictors of 8th course youths' problem behaviors, bookkeeping for 6th course problem behaviors. Correlations amidst the predictors were included to aid account for shared variance and provide a clear test of the unique associations of each with youths' problem behaviors over time. Because of a Heywood case, variances of the Wave ane problem behavior residuals were constrained to be the aforementioned, with no significant change to model fit, χ ²(one) = .49, ns. The resulting model yielded good fit with the data, every bit shown in Effigy 2, χ ⁱⁱ(17) = 22.97, p = .15; CFI = .98; TLI = .94; RMSEA = .044. Overall, this model accounted for 44% of the variance in youths' 8th grade problem behaviors. Youths' trouble behaviors were moderately stable over fourth dimension (β = .39, p < .01). Examination of the predictors indicated that several dimensions of family functioning accounted for changes in youths' trouble behaviors over fourth dimension. As expected, when parents were able to use effective monitoring of their child's activities, youths reported decreases in trouble behaviors by 8th class (β = −.27, p < .01). After accounting for effective parenting, youths' relationships with family members also were associated with changes in youths' problem behavior. Youths who reported feeling connected with their father reported decreases in problem behaviors over time (β = −.24, p < .01); nevertheless, no significant association was found for mother–youth connexion (β = .ten, ns). Finally, conflict with siblings as well was associated with escalations in youths' trouble behavior over time (β = .23, p < .01).

Note. χ²(17) = 22.971, p = .15; CFI = .98; TLI = .94; RMSEA = .044

eighth Grade Problem Beliefs R ⁱⁱ = .44

A = Antisocial Behavior, S = Substance Utilise, P = Deviant Peer Affiliation, Monitor = Parental Monitoring, M. Connect = Female parent Connection, D. Connect = Father Connectedness

Group Comparisons of Youth Gender, Sibling Pairs, and Family unit Composition

Although there were no pregnant mean differences among the variables for boys and for girls, information technology is still possible that the relationships among the variables may differ by child gender. To evaluate this possibility, a grouping comparison model was computed to evaluate whether paths between predictors and 8th grade problem behaviors differed for boys and for girls. When paths predicting 8th grade problem behaviors were constrained to be the same for boys and for girls, the invariance model yielded adequate fit, suggesting that the paths were not significantly different, χ²(37) = 37.85, p = .43; CFI = 1.00; TLI = .99; RMSEA = .011. Similarly, we conducted grouping comparisons for sibling pair composition (i.e., sis–sister, brother–brother, or mixed-sex pairs). This model as well provided a skillful fit, suggesting that models did non differ across these groups, χ^two(58) = 61.250, p = .36; CFI = .98; TLI = .96; RMSEA = .019.

So, to address the question of whether the paths differed in terms of family composition, groups were created to compare families with two biological parents in the household, with other family arrangements (i.e., living with ane biological parent or no biological parents). After constraining paths to exist equal across groups, the invariance model demonstrated adequate fit with the data, suggesting that the paths did not differ beyond groups, χ ²(37) = 46.54, p = .14; CFI = .97; TLI = .92; RMSEA = .038.

Discussion

The results of this study support the view that parental monitoring and family relationships each accept of import preventive roles relevant to youths' engagement in antisocial behavior, substance utilise, and deviant peer groups. Taken together, these trouble behaviors are developmentally salient issues during centre school and have important long-term implications for youth development in that they are predictive of loftier school success, later arrests and violent offenses, and substance abuse problems (Dishion & Patterson, 2006). Using a prospective, longitudinal blueprint, we institute the touch of parental monitoring, parent–youth relationships, and sibling conflict to be important predictors in the onset and progression of youth problem behaviors from sixth to 8th form. Because this study evaluated each of these dimensions simultaneously and accounted for child gender and residency and nonresidency of fathers, it contributes significantly to the existing body of inquiry.

Consequent with the results of past enquiry, parental monitoring was found to be associated with decreases in youth problem behavior over time. This finding supports the view that effective monitoring is a cornerstone parenting exercise during early boyhood and highlights the importance of attention to youths' activities, tracking their whereabouts and beliefs, and structuring their environs (Barrera et al., 2001; Dishion et al., 1991; Hoeve et al., 2009). Questions have been raised nigh conceptualizations of monitoring every bit a parenting construct, because it is heavily reliant on youths' disclosure virtually their activities and peers (e.g., Kerr & Stattin, 2000; Stattin & Kerr, 2000) and therefore heavily affected by the quality of the parent–youth relationship (Dishion & McMahon, 1998). This study addressed some of these concerns by simultaneously evaluating parental monitoring and youths' connectedness with caregivers to statistically disentangle these constructs. Even when evaluated in the context of family relationships, parental monitoring remained a meaning predictor of decreases in youth antisocial beliefs, substance utilise, and affiliation with deviant peers from sixth to 8th grade. This finding suggests that monitoring is a robust factor for explaining problem behavior evolution because it improves tracking and structuring of youths' activities (Dishion et al., 2003).

Family relationships in general, and male parent–youth connectedness and sibling conflict in detail, as well predicted changes in youths' problem behaviors over fourth dimension, later accounting for parental monitoring. In this study, family unit relationships were assessed to (a) capture dynamics in the family that either create an atmosphere of closeness, connexion, and support, or altitude and disharmonize, and (b) test the unique impact of mother–youth and father–youth connectedness and sibling disharmonize on the evolution of youths' problem behaviors. Our findings suggest that parent–youth and sibling relations each play an of import function in early adolescent development and are consistent with findings from previous inquiry that has investigated these relationships (east.g., Bank et al., 2004; Bronte-Tinkew et al., 2006).

Youths' connectedness with their parents was measured as drawing support and guidance from parents, trusting their advice, and feeling emotionally continued with them. Assessments that used an open up-response format revealed that a reasonable minority of youths did non rate their biological parents as pregnant sources of care and support in their lives (8% of fathers, v% of mothers), despite having ongoing contact with them. Regardless, levels of youths' ratings did not differ systematically in terms of youths' feelings of connectedness with their mother and their father.

Relevant to predicting youth outcomes over fourth dimension, father–youth connectedness was associated with decreases in youths' problem behavior from 6th to 8th class, afterward accounting for all other variables in the model. Mother–youth connectedness, withal, was not a pregnant predictor of change, fifty-fifty in bivariate correlations with the 8th grade youths' outcomes. Taken together, these finding back up the importance of evaluating youths unique relationships with their mother and fathers, and mirrors other work that has tested these parent-youth relationships every bit unique predictors, suggesting that they have singled-out roles in terms of predicting youths' bug.

Further information is gained past examining father–youth connection with respect to kid gender and family unit composition. Boys and girls did not differ in their ratings of closeness with their caregivers, and the nature of associations betwixt father–youth connectedness and youths' outcomes did not differ by gender. In assessments relevant to effects of living with fathers, coresiding youths reported feeling more connected on average than did those who lived apart from their fathers, simply the magnitude of the association between father connexion and youths' outcomes did non differ equally a function of living with fathers or non. These findings underscore the importance of father–youth connectedness regardless of kid gender or whether fathers reside with youths, and propose that future research into father prosocial involvement among divorced families would brand a valuable contribution to the literature. Of annotation, there were no mean-level differences in boys' and girls' reports of problem behaviors amidst this sample, which is inconsistent with findings from almost previous research (Dishion & Patterson, 2006).

The differences between mother–youth and father–youth connectedness revealed in this study should be interpreted with caution until these findings can be replicated, because they are inconsistent with previous studies investigating unique effects of mothers' and fathers' parenting practices or relationship quality with youths. Why father–youth connectedness, but non female parent–youth connection, predicted changes in youths' problem behavior outcomes in this sample is difficult to clarify. This study used a unlike measure out of parent–youth connectedness than previous studies accept, but also analyzed information in terms of a broader array of family relationships than accept other studies. The lack of hateful-level differences in youths' reports of relationship connectedness with their female parent and with their father suggests that the youths felt like degrees of connectedness with each parent. Although the information in this study cannot explain why outcomes differed for mothers and for fathers (and warrants cautious interpretation), previous theory and inquiry offer hypotheses. It is possible that mothers' and fathers' parenting roles differ in terms of susceptibility to modify in response to family stressors (due east.chiliad., Cummings, Goeke-Morey, & Raymond, 2004), or that family dynamics between mothers and fathers shape father involvement (e.g., Pleck & Hofferth, 2008). Further research is needed to examine family interaction processes that can explain dynamics in mother–youth and father–youth relationships inside the context of the family unit organisation. All the same, our study findings point that youths fare better when the connection between fathers and their children is maintained.

Sibling conflict too significantly contributed to the development of youths' problem behaviors, after accounting for parental monitoring and connectedness with caregivers. As predicted, youths who reported more arguments or physical fights with their siblings also reported increased problem behaviors by 8th grade, independent of the effects of parental monitoring and parent–youth relationships. Although previous research has underscored the negative impact of associating with hating or deviant siblings (e.g., Stormshak et al., 2004; Windle, 2000), this study's findings provide farther evidence that frequent conflict with siblings is also a risk factor for problem beliefs development (Bank et al., 2004), fifty-fifty after accounting for youths' relationships with their parents and levels of parental monitoring. Interestingly, the impact of sibling conflict did not differ as a function of gender composition of sibling pairs. These study findings are consistent with the view that the sibling subsystem may contribute to the overall family environment by creating greater coercion, conflict, and hostility (Ingoldsby, Shaw, Owens, & Winslow, 1999). These factors may shape aggressive beliefs, undermine parental involvement, and motivate youths to seek support and guidance exterior of the abode, where they are at greater hazard for engaging in problem behaviors, experimenting with drugs, or associating with a deviant peer group (Patterson, Dishion, & Yoerger, 2000).

Limitations and Hereafter Directions

Although this investigation used caregivers' and youths' reports on central variables, it relied heavily on youths' reports relevant to most of the constructs studied. The study reduced the upshot of single-rater bias by using structural equation modeling, but this analytic approach does not eliminate the limitation. Future research would benefit from a multimethod, multi-informant approach. In particular, observational methods would aid broaden the cess strategy for important constructs such as parental monitoring, parent–youth relationships, and sibling relationships.

Although from a family systems perspective this study advances current understanding by effectively incorporating mother, father, and sibling influences on youths' development, this approach does not fully capture the family environment in which youths reside. Time to come research would benefit from a broader assessment of family performance, such as interparental conflict (due east.m., Fosco & Grych, 2007) or family unit cohesion or positivity (Thompson & Meyer, 2007), to more fully account for the family unit context. By incorporating broader dimensions of family operation, it may be possible to amend understand the dynamics at piece of work betwixt different subsystems that shape children'south family environs and promote youths' development (e.one thousand., McBride et al., 2005).

Limitations in the data nerveless prevented an evaluation of bidirectional processes relevant to parent–youth connectedness and youth problem behaviors. This is important for 2 reasons. First, adolescent trouble behaviors may bulldoze the deterioration in parent–youth relationships during the center schoolhouse years (Hafen & Laursen, 2009). As well, when studying parental monitoring, Kerr and Stattin (2003) suggest that monitoring may capture child behaviors equally much as it does constructive parenting. Future research is needed to expand upon the findings of this study to improve examine the interdependence of family and youth performance.

2d, our study could not account for concurrent furnishings of family unit dimensions in eighth grade when testing longitudinal cross-lagged effects. Previous studies that used a longitudinal panel design accept produced mixed results. For example, using a longitudinal panel design, Kiesner, Dishion, Poulin, and Pastore (2009) establish that calculation cantankerous-lagged paths did not significantly improve the fit of the model over a model accounting simply for concurrent associations at each time indicate and stability paths from ages 13 to 14. Nevertheless, Vuchinich, Bank, and Patterson (1992) plant the opposite: their stability model of parenting, hating behavior, and peer relations from historic period ten (Time 1) to historic period 12 (Time 2) provided a significantly worse fit than 1 that included cantankerous-lagged associations, although cross-lagged effects for parenting were not found. Finally, other studies have found reciprocal effects of cross-lagged furnishings of parenting relevant to youth behaviors when predicting antisocial behavior (Laird, Pettit, Bates, & Dodge, 2003) and when predicting youth substance use (Stice &Barerra, 1995). Thus, there is reason to believe that our study findings are meaningful despite their inability to account for concurrent parenting associations at 8th grade. However, farther longitudinal inquiry using panel designs that account for concurrent and longitudinal associations at both time points is needed to better sympathise the nature of associations among these variables.

Implications for Inquiry, Policy, and Exercise

Despite its limitations, this written report highlights the importance of because parenting practices and family relationships—with parents and with siblings—as factors that deter the development of youth problem behavior. Although it is established that parenting and family relationships are of import during the middle school years, this study underscores the unique, additive contributions of parenting practices, parent–youth relationships, and sibling conflict to youth problem behaviors. Written report findings suggest that interventions aimed at reducing take a chance for adolescent participation in antisocial behavior, substance employ, and deviant peer relationships can be enhanced if they promote parenting practices and father–youth relationships and reduce sibling disharmonize. Another finding with of import potential implications is that the pattern of results did not differ for youths living with or without their biological fathers. Equally such, father–youth connectedness may have important protective implications for youths regardless of whether they live with their fathers. This finding suggests that inclusion of nonresident fathers is important for research designs, clinical intervention for youths and their families, and in the development of social policy aimed at preventing youths' hating behavior, substance use, and deviant peer affiliation.

Acknowledgments

This enquiry was supported past grant DA018374 to the second author and grant DA018760 to the third author, both from the National Plant on Drug Corruption. We gratefully acknowledge the families who participated in these studies and Cheryl Mikkola for her editorial support.

References

• Ackard DM, Neumark-Sztainer D, Story M, Perry C. Parent–kid connection and behavioral and emotional health among adolescents. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2006;30:59–66. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Arbuckle JL. Amos vii.0 user's guide. Chicago: SPSS; 2006. [Google Scholar]
• Bank L, Burraston B, Snyder J. Sibling conflict and ineffective parenting equally predictors of adolescent boys' antisocial behavior and peer difficulties: Additive and interactional furnishings. Journal of Enquiry on Adolescence. 2004;14:99–125. [Google Scholar]
• Barrera M, Biglan A, Ary D, Li F. Replication of a problem beliefs model with American Indian, Hispanic, and Caucasian youth. Journal of Early on Adolescence. 2001;21:133–157. [Google Scholar]
• Brody GH, Kim S, McBride Murry V, Brown AC. Longitudinal direct and indirect pathways linking older sibling competence to the development of younger sibling competence. Developmental Psychology. 2003;39:618–628. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Bronte-Tinkew J, Moore KA, Capps RC, Zaff J. The influence of male parent involvement on youth risk behaviors among adolescents: A comparison of native-born and immigrant families. Social Science Enquiry. 2006;35:181–209. [Google Scholar]
• Bronte-Tinkew J, Moore KA, Carrano J. The father-child human relationship, parenting styles, and adolescent run a risk behaviors in intact families. Journal of Family Problems. 2006;27:850–881. [Google Scholar]
• Buist KL, Deković Thou, Meeus Westward, van Aken MAG. The reciprocal relationship between early on adolescent attachment and internalizing and externalizing problem behaviour. Journal of Boyhood. 2004;27:251–266. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Bullock BM, Dishion TJ. Sibling collusion and problem beliefs in early adolescence: Toward a procedure model for family mutuality. Journal of Aberrant Child Psychology. 2002;xxx:143–153. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Crawford LA, Novak KB. Parent–child relations and peer associations equally mediators of the family unit construction–substance use relationship. Journal of Family Bug. 2008;29:155–184. [Google Scholar]
• Csikszentmihalyi K, Larson R. Being adolescent: Conflict and growth in the teenage years. New York: Basic Books Inc.; 1984. [Google Scholar]
• Cummings EM, Goeke-Morey MC, Raymond J. Fathers in family context: Effects of marital quality and marital conflict. In: Lamb ME, editor. The function of the male parent in kid evolution. 4th. New York: Wiley; 2004. pp. 196–221. [Google Scholar]
• de Kemp RAT, Scholte RHJ, Overbeek G, Engels RCME. Early boyish malversation: The role of parents and all-time friends. Criminal Justice and Behavior. 2006;33:488–510. [Google Scholar]
• Dishion TJ, Kavanagh M. Intervening in boyish problem beliefs: A family-centered approach. New York: Guilford; 2003. [Google Scholar]
• Dishion TJ, McMahon RJ. Parental monitoring and the prevention of problem behavior: A conceptual and empirical formulation. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review. 1998;1:61–75. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Dishion TJ, Nelson SE, Bullock BM. Premature adolescent autonomy: Parent disengagement and deviant peer process in the amplification of problem behavior. Journal of Adolescence. 2004;27:515–530. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Dishion TJ, Nelson SE, Kavanagh Yard. The Family Bank check-Up with loftier-take chances young adolescents: Preventing early-onset substance use past parent monitoring. Beliefs Therapy. 2003;34:553–571. [Google Scholar]
• Dishion TJ, Owen LD. A longitudinal analysis of friendships and substance use: Bidirectional influence from boyhood to adulthood. Developmental Psychology. 2002;38:480–491. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Dishion TJ, Patterson GR. The evolution and ecology of hating beliefs in children and adolescents. In: Cicchetti D, Cohen DJ, editors. Developmental psychopathology: Vol iii Risk, disorder, and accommodation. New York: Wiley; 2006. pp. 503–541. [Google Scholar]
• Dishion TJ, Patterson GR, Stoolmiller M, Skinner ML. Family school and behavioral antecedents to early adolescent involvement with antisocial peers. Developmental Psychology. 1991;27:172–180. [Google Scholar]
• Dishion TJ, Spracklen KM, Andrews DM, Patterson GR. Deviancy training in male adolescent friendships. Behavior Therapy. 1996;27:373–390. [Google Scholar]
• Dishion TJ, Stormshak EA. Intervening in children'south lives: An ecological, family-centered approach to mental health care. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2007. [Google Scholar]
• East PL, Khoo ST. Longitudinal pathways linking family unit factors and sibling relationship qualities to adolescent substance use and sexual risk behaviors. Journal of Family Psychology. 2005;xix:571–580. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Fletcher AC, Darling N, Steinberg L. Parental monitoring and peer influences on boyish substance use. In: McCord J, editor. Coercion and punishment in long-term perspectives. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press; 1995. pp. 259–271. [Google Scholar]
• Flouri E, Buchanan A. The role of mother involvement and male parent involvement in adolescent bullying behavior. Periodical of Interpersonal Violence. 2003;18:634–644. [Google Scholar]
• Fosco GM, Grych JH. Emotional expression in the family unit equally a context for children's appraisals of interparental conflict. Periodical of Family Psychology. 2007;21:248–258. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Goldstein SE, Davis-Kean PE, Eccles JS. Parents, peers and trouble beliefs: A longitudinal investigation of the touch on of relationship perceptions and characteristics on the development of boyish problem behavior. Developmental Psychology. 2005;41:401–413. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Grych JH, Fincham FD. Marital disharmonize and children's adjustment: A cognitive–contextual framework. Psychological Bulletin. 1990;108(2):267–290. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Hafen CA, Laursen B. More problems and less support: Early on adolescent adjustment forecasts changes in perceived back up from parents. Periodical of Family unit Psychology. 2009;23:193–202. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Heinze HJ, Toro PA, Urberg KA. Antisocial behavior and affiliation with deviant peers. Periodical of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology. 2004;33(ii):336–346. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Hetherington EM, Clingempeel WG. Coping with marital transitions: A family unit systems perspective. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. 1992;57(2–3, Serial No 227):1–242. [Google Scholar]
• Hiatt KD, Dishion TJ. Antisocial personality development. In: Beauchaine TP, Hinshaw SP, editors. Kid and adolescent psychopathology. New York: Wiley Printing; 2007. pp. 370–404. [Google Scholar]
• Hill NE, Bromell 50, Tyson DF, Flintstone R. Developmental commentary: Ecological perspectives on parental influences during adolescence. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology. 2007;36:367–377. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Hirschi T. Causes of malversation. Berkeley, CA: Academy of California Press; 1969. [Google Scholar]
• Hoeve M, Dubas JS, Eichelsheim VI, van der Laan PH, Smeenk Westward, Gerris JRM. The human relationship between parenting and delinquency: A meta-assay. Journal of Aberrant Kid Psychology. 2009;37:749–775. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Ingoldsby EM, Shaw DS, Owens EB, Winslow EB. A longitudinal written report of interparental conflict, emotional and behavioral reactivity, and preschoolers' aligning problems among low-income families. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 1999;27:343–356. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Kerr M, Stattin H. What parents know, how they know it, and several forms of boyish aligning: Further support for a reinterpretation of monitoring. Developmental Psychology. 2000;36:366–380. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Kerr M, Stattin H. Parenting of adolescents: Activeness or reaction? In: Crouter AC, Berth A, editors. Children's influence on family unit dynamics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates; 2003. pp. 121–151. [Google Scholar]
• Kiesner J, Dishion TJ, Poulin F, Pastore M. Temporal dynamics linking aspects of parent monitoring with early adolescent hating behavior. Social Development. 2009;18:765–784. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Kim JE, Hetherington EM, Reiss D. Associations among family relationships, antisocial peers, and adolescents' externalizing behaviors: Gender and family type differences. Child Development. 1999;70:1209–1230. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Kumpfer KL, Alvarado R. Family unit-strengthening approaches for the prevention of youth trouble behaviors. American Psychologist. 2003;58:457–465. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Laird RD, Criss MM, Pettit GS, Dodge KA, Bates JE. Parents' monitoring knowledge attenuates the link between antisocial friends and adolescent delinquent behavior. Journal of Abnormal Kid Psychology. 2008;36:299–310. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Laird RD, Pettit GS, Bates JE, Dodge KA. Parents' monitoring-relevant knowledge and adolescents' runaway behavior: Evidence of correlated developmental changes and reciprocal influences. Child Development. 2003;74:752–768. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Lamarche Five, Brendgen M, Boivin M, Vitaro F, Pérusse D, Dionne One thousand. Practise friendships and sibling relationships provide protection confronting peer victimization in a similar fashion? Social Evolution. 2006;15(three):373–393. [Google Scholar]
• Markham CM, Tortolero SR, Excobar-Chaves SL, Packet GS, Harrist R, Addy RC. Family connexion and sexual risk-taking among urban youth attention alternative loftier schools. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. 2003;35:174–179. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• McBride BA, Dark-brown GL, Bost KK, Shin N, Vaughn B, Korth B. Paternal identity, maternal gatekeeping, and father involvement. Family Relations. 2005;54(3):360–372. [Google Scholar]
• Mesman J, Stoel R, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, van IJzendoorn MH, Juffer F, Koot HM, Alink LRA. Predicting growth curves of early on childhood externalizing prlblems: differential susceptibility of children with hard temperament. Periodical of Abnormal Kid Psychology. 2009;37:625–636. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Metzler CW, Biglan A, Rusby JC, Sprague JR. Evaluation of a comprehensive beliefs management program to improve schoolwide positive behavior back up. Pedagogy and Treatment of Children. 2001;24:448–479. [Google Scholar]
• Padilla-Walker LM, Nelson LJ, Madsen SD, Barry CM. The part of perceived parental knowledge on emerging adults' risk behaviors. Periodical of Youth and Adolescence. 2008;37:847–859. [Google Scholar]
• Patterson GR, Dishion TJ. Contributions of families and peers to malversation. Criminology. 1985;23:63–79. [Google Scholar]
• Patterson GR, Dishion TJ, Yoerger 1000. Adolescent growth in new forms of problem behavior: Macro- and micro-peer dynamics. Prevention Science. 2000;1:3–13. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Pleck JH, Hofferth SL. Mother involvement as an influence on father interest with early on adolescents. Fathering. 2008;six:267–286. [PMC complimentary article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Reitz East, Deković M, Meijer AM. Relations betwixt parenting and externalizing and internalizing problem behaviour in early adolescence: Kid behaviour as moderator and predictor. Journal of Adolescence. 2006;29:419–436. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Richmond MK, Stocker CM. Longitudinal associations betwixt parents' hostility and siblings' externalizing behavior in the context of marital discord. Journal of Family unit Psychology. 2008;22:231–240. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Rowe DC, Gulley BL. Sibling furnishings on substance use and malversation. Criminology. 1992;30:217–234. [Google Scholar]
• Simons-Morton BG, Hartos JL, Haynie DL. Prospective analysis of peer and parent influences on modest aggression among early on adolescents. Health Education & Behavior. 2004;31:22–33. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Soenens B, Vansteenkiste M, Luyckx Chiliad, Goossens L. Parenting and adolescent trouble behavior: An integrated model with boyish self-disclosure and perceived parental cognition as intervening variables. Developmental Psychology. 2006;42:305–318. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Stattin H, Kerr M. Parental monitoring: A reinterpretation. Child Development. 2000;71:1070–1083. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Stice E, Barrera Thousand. A longitudinal exam of the reciprocal relations between perceived parenting and adolescents' substance use and externalizing behaviors. Developmental Psychology. 1995;31:322–334. [Google Scholar]
• Stoolmiller Thou. Antisocial behavior, delinquent peer association, and unsupervised wandering for boys: Growth and change from babyhood to early adolescence. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 1994;29(3):263–288. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Stormshak EA, Caruthers A, Dishion TJ. Child and Family Centre Parent Survey. 2006a. Unpublished mensurate Available from the Child and Family unit Eye, 195 West twelfth Ave., Eugene, OR. [Google Scholar]
• Stormshak EA, Caruthers A, Dishion TJ. Child and Family Center Child Survey. 2006b. Unpublished measure Available from the Child and Family Center, 195 W 12th Ave., Eugene, OR. [Google Scholar]
• Stormshak EA, Comeau CA, Shepard SA. The relative contribution of sibling deviance and peer deviance in the prediction of substance use across center childhood. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2004;32:635–649. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Thompson RA, Meyer S. Socialization of emotion regulation in the family unit. In: Gross JJ, editor. Handbook of emotion regulation. New York: Guilford Press; 2007. pp. 249–268. [Google Scholar]
• Vieno A, Nation Yard, Pastore M, Santinello M. Parenting and hating behavior: A model of the relationship between boyish self-disclosure, parental closeness, parental command, and adolescent antisocial behavior. Developmental Psychology. 2009;45:1509–1519. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Vuchinich S, Bank L, Patterson GR. Parenting, peers and the stability of antisocial behavior in preadolescent boys. Developmental Psychology. 1992;28:510–521. [Google Scholar]
• Weintraub KJ, Gold M. Monitoring and malversation. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health. 1991;1(iii):268–281. [Google Scholar]
• Williams ST, Conger KJ, Blozis SA. The development of interpersonal aggression during boyhood: The importance of parents, siblings, and family unit economic science. Child Development. 2007;78:1526–1542. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Windle M. Parental, sibling, and peer influences on adolescent substance use and alcohol problems. Applied Developmental Science. 2000;4:98–110. [Google Scholar]

simpsononoten.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3306134/

Bagikan Artikel ini