The Role of Parenting in Linking Family Socioeconomic Disadvantage to Physical Activity in Adolescence and Young Adulthood

Abstract

Parents play an important role in influencing adolescent health behaviors and parenting practices may be an important pathway through which social disadvantage influences adolescent health behaviors that can persist into adulthood. This analysis uses the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health to examine how parenting practices mediate the association between family socioeconomic disadvantage, measured as low parent education and family welfare/poverty status, and physical activity in adolescence and young adulthood for males and females. Results show that levels of parental control do not differ by family disadvantage. However, disadvantaged parents engage in lower levels of activities and communication with their children compared with nondisadvantaged parents. These behaviors serve to mediate the negative association between disadvantage and physical activity in adolescence, and are associated with physical activity in adulthood. Parenting is an important pathway through which disadvantage influences physical activity in adolescence and the transition to adulthood.

Keywords

adolescence parenting physical activity poverty transition to adulthood

Introduction

Parents play a pivotal role in influencing their children’s health and health behaviors (Crossman, Sullivan, & Benin, 2006; Davison & Jago, 2009; Van Der Horst, Paw, Twisk, & Van Mechelen, 2007). Understanding how parenting influences adolescent health behaviors, such as physical activity, has been a growing area of research interest. Regular physical activity dramatically declines during adolescence (Kimm et al., 2002; Nader, Bradley, Houts, McRitchie, & O’Brien, 2008). These declines in physical activity are considered a serious public health issue because they are associated with obesity and can persist into adulthood, having negative impacts on other health (e.g., diabetes and cardiovascular disease) and social outcomes (e.g., lower likelihood of marriage and lower wages) in later life (Averett & Korenman, 1996; Hallal, Victora, Azevedo, & Wells, 2006; Telama et al., 2005).

Heightening public health concern are the large socioeconomic disparities in physical activity, particularly among adolescent populations (Whitt-Glover et al., 2009). Levels of physical activity are lower for the poor, and the prevalence of obesity is also higher for these groups compared with nonpoor populations (Borraccino et al., 2009; Drenowatz et al., 2010; Stalsberg & Pedersen, 2010; Wang & Beydoun, 2007). Low levels of physical activity and high prevalence of obesity among socially disadvantaged adolescents compromise their current and future health and social well-being and decrease their ability to make successful transitions into adulthood (Osgood, Foster, Flanagan, & Ruth, 2005).

Although a large amount of empirical research supports the idea that parenting practices mediate the relationship between disadvantage and various child developmental and behavioral outcomes (Aber, Bennett, Conley, & Li, 1997; Conger & Donnellan, 2007; McLoyd, 1990, 1998), these relationships have not been investigated for physical activity. In addition, little research has investigated the long-term implications of parenting in adolescence on physical activity in young adulthood (Bauer, Nelson, Boutelle, & Neumark-Sztainer, 2008). A better understanding of how disadvantage influences parenting in ways that affect both adolescent and young adult activity will provide important information on how socioeconomic disparities in physical activity are created and persist over time.

Using nationally representative longitudinal data, this article investigates the mediating role of parenting practices in the association between family socioeconomic disadvantage and physical activity in the transition from adolescence (11-20 years) to young adulthood (18-26 years). This research measures multiple dimensions of parenting practices including parental control (i.e., monitoring and presence) and relational aspects of parenting (i.e., shared activities, communication, and closeness). Parenting practices are particularly salient in adolescence when children become more independent from parents and the quality of parent–child relationships becomes important in influencing behaviors (Dishion & McMahon, 1998). This article seeks to answer three questions: (a) Do parenting practices in adolescence differ by family socioeconomic disadvantage? (b) Are parenting practices in adolescence associated with physical activity in adolescence and young adulthood? (c) Do parenting practices mediate the association between disadvantage and physical activity during these periods?

Background

Parenting Practices and Physical Activity in Adolescence

Parents play a central role in influencing their children’s physical activity, through their behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs (Beets, Cardinal, & Alderman, 2010; Lindsay, Sussner, Kim, & Gortmaker, 2006; Pugliese & Tinsley, 2007; Sallis, Prochaska, & Taylor, 2000). Parents help determine their children’s access and opportunities for physical activity, support and encourage (or discourage) physical activity, and serve as role models for activity. Parents also help create intimate and cohesive family contexts that can promote physical activity, which may be particularly important in adolescence (Kuo, Voorhees, Haythornthwaite, & Young, 2007; Ornelas, Perreira, & Ayala, 2007).

Previous research indicates that children and adolescents engage in higher levels of physical activity when supported by their parents (Beets et al., 2010; Gustafson & Rhodes, 2006; Pugliese & Tinsley, 2007). Parent support for physical activity can occur via multiple pathways, including encouraging their children to be active, engaging in physical activity with their children, and providing transportation to and resources for physical activity (Bauer et al., 2008; Hennessy, Hughes, Goldberg, Hyatt, & Economos, 2010; McGuire, Hannan, Neumark-Sztainer, Cossrow, & Story, 2002; Prochaska, Rodgers, & Sallis, 2002; Trost et al., 2003). In addition, parents can foster their child’s physical activity through time spent watching their children engage in physical activities and monitoring their other activities related to physical activity, such as TV viewing (Beets et al., 2010; Gustafson & Rhodes, 2006; Hennessy, Hughes, Goldberg, Hyatt, & Economos, 2010).

Parent–child communication and monitoring encourage competence and channel children into health-promoting activities, such as physical activity (Kuo et al., 2007; Ornelas et al., 2007). In addition, parental closeness/warmth and engagement in social and recreational activities with children increase levels of perceived confidence in their children, which is a psychosocial correlate of physical activity (Strauss, Rodzilsky, Burack, & Colin, 2001). Parents also serve as role models that influence the physical activity behaviors of their children (Anderssen, Wold, & Torsheim, 2006; Madsen, McCulloch, & Crawford, 2009). Exposure to physically active role models provides support for remaining active and helps establish positive social norms for exercise (Lindsay et al., 2006).

Adolescence is a period of time when children prepare to transition into adulthood and begin to gain independence from parents, spending less time with parents, and more time at school, work and with peers and romantic partners. Therefore, the quality of parent–child relations, such as communication and closeness, may become more relevant in influencing health behaviors than levels of parental supervision or parental role-modeling (Ambert, 1994; Baumrind, 1991). In fact, research examining adolescent problem and risk behaviors finds that parental control is not a sufficient parenting strategy for preventing deviant behavior or promoting positive adolescent development and must co-occur with good communication, shared activities, and strong emotional bonds (Dishion & McMahon, 1998).

The Influence of Social Disadvantage on Parenting Practices

Disadvantaged parents face unique social circumstances that affect parenting practices (Elder, Eccles, Ardelt, & Lord, 1995; Hoff, Laursen, & Tardif, 2002; Lareau, 2002). Poor and low-educated adults encounter a larger number of chronic stressors and negative life events than non-disadvantaged adults. Work and income instability, inability to pay bills, poor housing, neighborhood disorganization, and lack of other basic needs characterize everyday life for many disadvantaged families (Danziger & Haveman, 2001; Edin & Lein, 1997; LeBlanc, 2003). These disadvantaged environments lead to stressful exposures that affect how parents interact with their adolescent children (Conger & Donnellan, 2007). Two theoretical frameworks, the family process model and socialization theory, help elucidate how disadvantage can influence physical activity behavior in adolescence and the transition to adulthood through parenting.

The family process model argues that economic disadvantage is filtered through family dynamics. More specifically, the model provides for a specific pathway through which economic hardships of daily life (e.g., low income and unstable work) result in economic pressures (e.g., unmet material needs, inability to pay bills), which lead to parental stress, adversely affecting parenting (Conger & Donnellan, 2007; Conger et al., 1992; Conger et al., 2002; Elder, 1999; McLoyd, 1990). Disadvantaged parents demonstrate less affection toward their children; are less supportive, close, and involved with their children; and are inconsistent in their disciplinary practices, which can lead to adverse child and adolescent outcomes (Bradley & Corwyn, 2002; Elder et al., 1995; Grant et al., 2003; McLoyd, 1998; Pinderhughes, Dodge, Bates, Pettit, & Zelli, 2000).

Socialization theory (Maccoby & Martin, 1983) provides another framework to understand the role disadvantage plays in influencing parenting practices. Parents socialize their children and serve as role models for future and current lifestyles. Their presence and relations with their children have an important influence on child and adolescent behaviors (Parke, 2004). Parents help their children to engage in proper behaviors by using parenting practices such as monitoring and supervision, and communicating and deliberating with their children, as well as providing secure, accepting and close parent–child relations (Smetana, Campione-Barr, & Metzger, 2006; Steinberg, 2001).

Similar to research using the family process model, research based on socialization theory finds that parenting styles differ by socioeconomic status (SES; Hoff et al., 2002; Pinderhughes et al., 2000). Poor and low-educated parents are more likely to use a parenting style characterized by high levels of strictness and control and low levels of affection and support, than nonpoor and higher educated parents (Bradley & Corwyn, 2002; Grant et al., 2003). Disadvantaged parents may also be unaware of the health benefits of regular physical activity as a strategy for prevention of obesity for their children (Pampel, Krueger, & Denney, 2010). In addition, low-SES individuals are less receptive than are higher SES individuals to health information because of social conditions that thwart their ability to successfully follow health recommendations (Link & Phelan, 1995). For example, low-SES individuals might not be able to ensure their children meet recommended physical activity guidelines if they live in unsafe neighborhoods that require their children to stay indoors. Other researchers also argue that the effectiveness of parenting styles might differ by SES (Baldwin, Baldwin, & Cole, 1990; Baumrind, 1972; Finkelstein, Donenberg, & Martinovich, 2001). Highly restrictive parenting practices may be a necessary parenting strategy in poor, unsafe, and unstable neighborhoods where strict monitoring is essential to protect children from adverse environments (Dishion & McMahon, 1998; Elder et al., 1995; Furstenberg, Cook, Eccles, & Elder, 1999).

In addition, because socialization theory identifies parents as role models that expose and teach their children norms of behaviors, parents who are inactive and/or obese may serve to reduce or impede physical activity in their children (Beets et al., 2010; Sallis et al., 2000). As role models, they support and reinforce the acquisition and maintenance of exercise behaviors (Lindsay et al., 2006). Youth are likely to mimic the lifestyles of parents who fail to exercise and engage in sedentary behavior and retain these habits into adulthood (Bauer et al., 2008).

The family process model and socialization theory highlight the important ways that parenting practices can serve to mediate the association between disadvantage and physical activity outcomes. Although these theories apply to parenting in adolescence, research shows that physical activity behaviors developed in adolescence can track into young adulthood (Telama et al., 2005). Investigating parenting practices that are associated with physical activity in adolescence can provide insight on the mechanisms that can explain the origin and persistence of socioeconomic disparities in physical activity from adolescence and into young adulthood.

Method

Data

This analysis uses data from the first three waves of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), an ongoing nationally representative study of U.S. adolescents beginning in Grades 7 through 12. Study details are provided elsewhere (Harris et al., 2009). Briefly, in 1994, 80 high schools and 52 middle schools were selected using a stratified cluster design. A subsample of individuals participated in the In-Home Interviews in 1994-1995 (Wave 1: WI, N = 20,745) and 1996 (Wave 2: WII, N = 14,738). Respondents were reinterviewed as adults in 2001-2002 (Wave 3: WIII, N = 15,197) and 2007-2008 (Wave 4: WIV, N = 15,701). A primary caregiver, generally the mother, was also interviewed in WI (N = 17,700). This analysis is limited to adolescents who participated in the first three waves of the study and have completed Parent Questionnaires. At WIV respondents are no longer transitioning to adulthood, but are in their late 20s and early 30s, and are, therefore, beyond the scope of the analysis. Additional exclusions include seriously disabled and pregnant respondents (N = 409). After applying these data constraints and deleting cases with missing data on covariates, the final sample contains 9,799 (5,038 females and 4,761 males) respondents.

Measures

Table 1 provides means and standard errors of all measures used in this analysis. All analyses are run separately by respondent sex. Research consistently shows that females exhibit lower levels of physical activity than males and that parental support may differ by sex, with males receiving more parental support for physical activity than females (Gustafson & Rhodes, 2006). In addition, previous research suggests that there is a differential relationship between parenting practices and physical activity by sex (Van Der Horst et al., 2007).

Table 1.

Variable Descriptions, Means, and Standard Errors by Sex.

	Female		Male
	Mean or percentage	SE	Mean or percentage	SE
Physical activity outcomes
Continuous measures of physical activity
Physical activity Wave II (range: 0-18)	5.93	0.12	7.47	0.12
Physical activity Wave III (range: 0-18)	2.20	0.06	3.11	0.06
Family disadvantage measures
Welfare/poverty status	29.2%		30.1%
Parent education high school or less	43.2%		43.4%
Control measures
Age (range: 11-20)	14.89	0.11	15.10	0.12
Race/ethnicity
Non-Hispanic Black	15.1%		14.7%
Non-Hispanic White (reference category)	69.0%		67.7%
Hispanic	11.4%		12.1%
Asian	3.5%		4.0%
Other	1.0%		1.5%
Family structure
Two biological parents (reference category)	59.8%		59.9%
Single mother	20.5%		19.7%
Single father	0.5%		0.9%
Stepfamily	16.4%		16.6%
Other family structure	2.8%		2.9%
Parent obesity
Parent obese	21.1%		22.0%
Parent not obese (reference category)	70.4%		69.7%
Parent missing	8.5%		8.3%
Full-time working mother	56.9%		55.7%
Number of siblings (Range: 0-12)	1.49	0.04	1.46	0.03
Mediating parenting measures
Parental control
Monitoring (range: 0-7)	2.03	0.05	2.00	0.06
Presence (range: 0-4)	3.03	0.02	3.05	0.02
Parent and child relations
Shared activities (range: 0-5)	1.55	0.03	1.52	0.03
Parent–child communication (range: 0-4)	1.90	0.03	1.65	0.03
Closeness and warmth (range: 1-5)	4.19	0.02	4.36	0.02
N	5,038		4,761

Note. Data are weighted.

Physical activity

Physical activity is measured using a standard physical activity behavior recall that is similar to previously validated self-report questionnaires (Sallis, Buono, Roby, Micale, & Nelson, 1993). In WII and WIII, respondents were asked a series of questions about participation in moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA), including (a) skating and cycling, (b) exercise (e.g., jogging), and (c) active sports (e.g., baseball), in units of times per week. Each question represented a group of similar MVPA activities. In WII, respondents indicated the number of times in which they engaged in each of these three groups of activities according to the following four categories: 0, 1-2, 3-4, and 5 or more times per week. WII MVPA is calculated by converting these responses into metric frequencies (i.e., 0 = 0, 1-2 = 1.5, 3-4 = 3.5, 5+ = 6), and then summing frequencies across the three activity groups.

The WIII questionnaires added questions applicable to young adults (e.g., weightlifting, walking for exercise), resulting in seven groups of activities. At WIII, response options were true frequency counts of activities ranging from 0 to 6, and 7 or more. Because WIII included four additional categories of activities, it was necessary to standardize this scale to avoid artificially inflating MVPA levels from WII to WIII simply due to these additional categories. First, WIII true frequency counts were converted to match the metric frequencies at WII (i.e., 0 = 0, 1-2 = 1.5, 3-4 = 3.5, 5-7+ = 6) and then summed. Second, WIII MVPA was standardized by dividing the total MVPA by 7 (the number of WIII activity groups) and multiplying by 3 (the number of WII activity groups; Gordon-Larsen, Nelson, & Popkin, 2004).

The range of continuous physical activity at WII and WIII is 0 to 18. Consistent with previous research, the descriptive statistics indicate a decrease in physical activity for males and females as they transition from adolescence (WII) to young adulthood (WIII; Sallis et al., 2000). In addition, males exhibit significantly higher levels of physical activity compared with females at both waves.

Family socioeconomic disadvantage

Family socioeconomic disadvantage is measured in two ways, as the presence of family welfare/poverty status and low parental education. Welfare/poverty status is indicated if (a) the respondent’s family received welfare before he or she turned 18 or (b) the respondent’s parent reported a family income less than U.S. Census poverty level for a family of four in 1994 ($16,000; U.S. Census Bureau, n.d.).

Low parental education is indicated if a respondent’s highest educated parent has a high school degree (or equivalent) or less. Although welfare/poverty status provides a more direct measure of deprivation than education, education is a socioeconomic indicator that is particularly likely to capture aspects of behavior and lifestyle (Shavers, 2007). People with higher levels of education have a greater awareness of health issues and are better able to make healthy choices and facilitate opportunities for health-promoting behaviors such as physical activity (Pampel et al., 2010; Ross & Mirowsky, 2003). It should be noted that education represents one of a multitude of factors that can also affect an individual’s awareness of health issues and ability to make healthy choices (Pampel et al., 2010; Sørensen et al., 2012). Parental education may also influence parental monitoring (Lareau, 2002), with more educated parents doing a better job at monitoring their children’s physical activity.

Parenting practices

Parenting practices are measured along two dimensions: parental control and parent–child relations, based on previous work (Harris & Ryan, 1999, 2004), and reflecting both instrumental and emotional aspects of parenting, respectively. All parenting measures are constructed from adolescent reports in WI.

Parental control has two components. Parental monitoring is measured using a validated additive index (α = .63). The index (range: 0-7) is based on seven items that ask if a respondent is permitted to make his or her own decisions about amount of TV watched, television shows viewed, what to eat, weeknight bedtime, weekend curfew, friends, and clothes. The index is reverse coded such that high measures indicate high control by the parent. Parental presence is measured using an additive index (range = 0-4) that is based on four questions (α = .36). The first three questions ask the respondent how often a parent is present when he or she leaves for school in the morning, returns from school in the afternoon, and goes to sleep at night. These questions were asked separately for resident mothers and resident fathers. A parent is considered present if either the father or mother is indicated as being present most of the time or all of the time. The fourth question asked the respondents the number of days in the past 7 days that at least one parent was in the room with them when they ate their evening meal. A parent is considered present if a respondent reported 5 or more days.

Parent–child relations are represented by three measures. For respondents living in a two-parent household the average of responses for both resident parents is used. Shared activities is a count (range: 0-5) of the activities a parent and child did together in the previous 4 weeks including attended sports events, gone shopping, attended religious or church events, gone to the movies, and worked on a school project together (α: mother = .39, father = .43). Parent–child communication is created by summing respondent reports of engaging in the following four discussions with parents within the past 4 weeks: talking about someone the respondent is dating or party he or she went to, talking about a personal problem, talking about school work or grades, and talking about other things the respondent is doing at school (range = 0-4; α: mother = .56, father = .55). The closeness and warmth indicator (range: 1-5) is a summary measure based on the adolescent’s mean response to four items: level of closeness, satisfaction with relationship, if parent is warm and loving, and satisfaction with communication (α: mother = .85, father = .89). Likert-type scaled responses range from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much).

Control measures

All controls are measured at WI. Age (in years) is self-reported. Race/ethnicity is self-reported and classified into five groups: non-Hispanic White (reference group), non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, non-Hispanic Asian, or other non-Hispanic racial/ethnic group. Race/ethnicity is included as a control because of its possible confounding relationship with SES (LaVeist, 2005). Racial/ethnic minority adolescents also engage in lower levels of physical activity than Whites (Gordon-Larsen, McMurray, & Popkin, 1999).

To measure family structure adolescents are classified as those who live with two biological or adoptive parents (reference group), a stepfamily, single mother, single father, and surrogate or foster parents. Family structure is included as a control because of its possible confounding relationship with SES (Huston & Bentley, 2010). Furthermore, the presence of only one parent reflects a lower ability to monitor children’s activities and serve as role models to socialize children (McLanahan, 1997) and has been linked to lower levels of physical activity among children (Bagley, Salmon, & Crawford, 2006).

Maternal work status is measured by whether the mother worked full time (35+ hours per week) using both adolescent and parent reports (giving preference to the parent report if inconsistent). Those living without a mother figure are coded as 0. Mothers who work are less able to monitor their children because of a decrease in maternal presence and availability during the day (Jacobson & Crockett, 2000). Poor working mothers, in particular, are often in difficult and unstable work situations that often increase stress and decrease maternal availability. These conditions reduce parental monitoring and involvement, weaken mother–youth communication, and thus increase youth risk for low levels of physical activity (Morris, Huston, Duncan, Crosby, & Bos, 2001).

Family size is a continuous measure of the number of siblings reported by the respondent as living in the household in WI. Fertility tends to be higher among individuals with lower income and education compared with higher SES individuals (Martinez, Daniels, & Chandra, 2012). Theoretically, the number of siblings in a family can influence the ability of parents to monitor their children and the time they can devote to each of their children’s activities (Steelman, Powell, Werum, & Carter, 2002). However, previous research indicates that the presence of siblings in a household, particularly siblings who model and support physical activity, is positively associated with levels of physical activity and negatively associated with sedentary behavior (Bagley et al., 2006; Sallis et al., 2000; Van Der Horst et al., 2007).

Using reports from the Parent Questionnaire, a respondent is coded as having an obese parent if either his or her biological mother or father were reported as being obese. A missing indicator for obesity is also included. Parental obesity is used as a control to account for the genetic predisposition for engaging in low levels of physical activity under the assumption that obesity is associated with less physical activity (Lauderdale et al., 1997). In addition, it serves as a proxy for parental role-modeling of low levels of physical activity.

Analysis

Descriptive analyses are provided as (a) means of parenting practices by family socioeconomic disadvantage in samples stratified by sex, with t tests to examine differences by disadvantage and (b) bivariate (unadjusted, sex stratified) models of physical activity in WII and WIII regressed on parenting practices in WI. Multivariate analyses are performed in four models to examine the mediating role of parenting practices on the association between family socioeconomic disadvantage and physical activity. In Model 1, physical activity is regressed on family socioeconomic disadvantage, with adjustment for age. Model 2 includes further adjustment for race/ethnicity and family structure. Model 3 includes further adjustment for parenting practices. Model 4 includes further adjustment for parental obesity, mother full-time work status, and number of siblings.

Models are stratified by sex. Physical activity in adolescence (WII) and young adulthood (WIII) are examined in separate models. Models of physical activity in young adulthood (WIII) are adjusted for physical activity in WII (adolescence). All analyses use STATA survey procedures with sampling weights to adjust for the clustered sample design and unequal probability of selection to ensure that the results are nationally representative.

Results

Parenting Differences by Family Socioeconomic Disadvantage

Table 2 provides the means of parenting measures by family welfare/poverty status and parent education in sex-stratified samples. SES differences are found for all dimensions of parent and child relations. For both female and male adolescents, low-SES parents engage in a lower number of activities with their children than higher SES parents. For example, mean levels of activities for female and male adolescent children of low-educated parents is 1.36 (SE = 0.03) and 1.32 (0.04), respectively, compared with 1.69 (0.04) and 1.67 (0.04) for female and male adolescent children of higher educated parents (p < .001). In addition, both female and male adolescent children of low-educated parents also report lower levels of communication with their parents than children of higher educated parents. However, only female adolescent children of low-income parents report lower levels of closeness with parents than female adolescent children of nonpoor parents. There are no statistically significant (p ≥ .05) differences in closeness by parental SES for males. In regard to parental control, low-educated parents engage in higher levels of monitoring of their female adolescent children than higher educated parents. There are no statistically significant differences in monitoring by parental SES for males. There are also no statistically significant differences in parental presence by parental SES for males or females.

Table 2.

Mean Parenting Measures by Family Disadvantage and Sex.

	Parental control								Parent and child relations
	Monitoring				Presence				Activities				Communication				Closeness
	Female		Male		Female		Male		Female		Male		Female		Male		Female		Male
	Mean	SE	Mean	SE	Mean	SE	Mean	SE	Mean	SE	Mean	SE	Mean	SE	Mean	SE	Mean	SE	Mean	SE
Poverty/welfare status
No	2.02	0.05	1.97	0.06	3.03	0.03	3.07	0.03	1.61	0.03***	1.61	0.04***	1.88	0.03	1.67	0.03	4.21	0.02*	4.37	0.02
Yes	2.07	0.07	2.07	0.08	3.03	0.04	3.01	0.04	1.40	0.04***	1.32	0.05***	1.94	0.05	1.60	0.04	4.15	0.03*	4.33	0.03
Parent high school education or less
No	1.97	0.06*	1.98	0.06	3.04	0.03	3.07	0.03	1.69	0.04***	1.67	0.04***	1.96	0.04**	1.73	0.03***	4.21	0.02	4.36	0.02
Yes	2.11	0.06*	2.04	0.08	3.03	0.03	3.03	0.03	1.36	0.03***	1.32	0.04***	1.82	0.04**	1.54	0.04***	4.18	0.02	4.35	0.02
N	5,038		4,761		5,038		4,761		5,038		4,761		5,038		4,761		5,038		4,761

Note. Data are weighted. Asterisks denote significance tests for mean differences by poverty/welfare status and parent education.

p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.

Bivariate Associations Between Disadvantage, Parenting, and Physical Activity

Table 3 provides the bivariate relationships between family socioeconomic disadvantage, parenting, and physical activity in adolescence (WII) and young adulthood (WIII). Among females, both low income and low parent education are associated with lower levels of physical activity at both waves. However, the magnitude of the relationship between disadvantage and physical activity attenuates by young adulthood. For example, among females, welfare/poverty status is associated with levels of physical activity in adolescence (WII) that are 0.69 times per week lower than levels of physical activity among nonpoor respondents. By young adulthood (WIII) this association decreases to −0.27 times per week. Similar associations exist for parent education. For males, only low parent education is associated with lower levels of physical activity. Similar to females, for males, having a parent with a high school degree or less is associated with levels of physical activity in adolescence (WII) that are 0.63 times per week lower than males with higher educated parents. By young adulthood (WIII) this association decreases to −0.33 times per week.

Table 3.

Bivariate Associations Between Family Disadvantage, Parenting, and Physical Activity in Adolescence (Wave II) and Young Adulthood (Wave III) by Sex.

	Female		Male
	Physical activity Wave II	Physical activity Wave III	Physical activity Wave II	Physical activity Wave III
Family disadvantage measures
Welfare/poverty status (Yes)	−0.69*** (0.17)	−0.27** (0.08)	−0.28 (0.18)	−0.19 (0.11)
Parent education: high school or less	−0.66*** (0.15)	−0.33*** (0.08)	−0.63*** (0.15)	−0.33* (0.13)
Parenting measures
Parental control
Monitoring	0.27*** (0.06)	−0.01 (0.03)	0.22*** (0.05)	0.06 (0.04)
Presence	0.37*** (0.07)	0.03 (0.04)	0.36*** (0.09)	0.08 (0.06)
Parent and child relations
Shared activities	0.85*** (0.08)	0.20*** (0.05)	0.83*** (0.07)	0.28*** (0.05)
Parent–child communication	0.20** (0.07)	0.04 (0.04)	0.25** (0.08)	0.14** (0.04)
Closeness and warmth	0.72*** (0.12)	0.15** (0.05)	1.10*** (0.13)	0.22* (0.10)
N	5,038		4,761

Note. Data are weighted. Standard errors are in parentheses. Physical activity at Wave III includes a lagged indicator for physical activity at Wave II.

p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.

All measures of parenting are positively associated with physical activity in adolescence for both males and females. These results suggest that high levels of parental monitoring and strong parent–child relations promote physical activity in adolescence. However, by young adulthood, only measures of parent–child relations are associated with physical activity. For females, shared activities and closeness are positively associated with young adult physical activity. For males shared activities, closeness, and communication are positively related with young adult physical activity. These results highlight the important role that more emotional aspects of parenting play in long-term physical activity patterns in adolescence and the transition to adulthood. Because levels of activities and communication are lower in disadvantaged families (refer to Table 2), these descriptive results suggest that these parenting behaviors may serve to link disadvantage to lower levels of physical activity in young adulthood.

Female Multivariate Regression Results

Table 4 provides the regression results for females and males. Results for females show that both measures of family social disadvantage are inversely associated with physical activity in adolescence after adjusting for age (Model 1). This supports previous research showing that education has an independent association with health after controlling for income (Ross & Wu, 1995), and that physical activity declines with age (Sallis, 2000). When race/ethnicity and family structure are added to the model (Model 2), the coefficients for welfare/poverty status and parent education are attenuated, but remain significant. Similar to previous research, non-Hispanic Black race and Hispanic ethnicity are also negatively associated with physical activity (Gordon-Larsen et al., 1999). When parenting practices are included in the model (Model 3), the inverse association between family social disadvantage and physical activity is reduced to insignificance. In particular, the coefficients for parent–child shared activities and communication are positive and significant, suggesting that these parenting measures may mediate the association between family socioeconomic disadvantage and physical activity in adolescence. Further adjustment for potential confounders does little to change these results (Model 4).

Table 4.

Linear Regression Models for Physical Activity in Adolescence (Wave II) and Young Adulthood (Wave III) by Sex.

	Model 1				Model 2				Model 3				Model 4
	Female (N = 5,038)		Male (N = 4,761)		Female (N = 5,038)		Male (N = 4,761)		Female (N = 5,038)		Male (N = 4,761)		Female (N = 5,038)		Male (N = 4,761)
	PA WII	PA WIII	PA WII	PA WIII	PA WII	PA WIII	PA WII	PA WIII	PA WII	PA WIII	PA WII	PA WIII	PA WII	PA WIII	PA WII	PA WIII
Lagged indicator of physical activity
Physical activity Wave II	—	0.14*** (0.01)	—	0.14*** (0.01)	—	0.14*** (0.01)	—	0.14*** (0.01)	—	0.13*** (0.01)	—	0.13*** (0.01)	—	0.13*** (0.01)	—	0.13*** (0.01)
Family disadvantage measures
Welfare/poverty status (Yes)	−0.44** (0.14)	−0.18* (0.09)	−0.12 (0.18)	−0.10 (0.11)	−0.32* (0.16)	−0.06 (0.10)	−0.07 (0.18)	−0.17 (0.12)	−0.23 (0.16)	−0.02 (0.11)	0.08 (0.18)	−0.11 (0.12)	−0.26 (0.16)	−0.04 (0.11)	0.10 (0.18)	−0.11 (0.12)
Parent education: High school or less	−0.49*** (0.14)	−0.28*** (0.09)	−0.47*** (0.14)	−0.30* (0.13)	−0.42** (0.14)	−0.25** (0.08)	−0.46*** (0.14)	−0.36** (0.13)	−0.24 (0.14)	−0.20* (0.08)	−0.30* (0.14)	−0.29* (0.14)	−0.27 (0.14)	−0.20* (0.08)	−0.29* (0.14)	−0.28* (0.14)
Control measures
Age	−0.71*** (0.05)	0.05 (0.04)	−0.66*** (0.06)	−0.003 (0.04)	−0.70*** (0.05)	0.05 (0.04)	−0.66*** (0.06)	−0.01 (0.04)	−0.62*** (0.04)	0.07 (0.04)	−0.56*** (0.06)	0.05 (0.04)	−0.62*** (0.04)	0.07 (0.04)	−0.55*** (0.06)	0.05 (0.04)
Race/ethnicity
Non-Hispanic White (reference)
Non-Hispanic Black					−1.00*** (0.20)	−0.21 (0.12)	0.13 (0.28)	0.21 (0.17)	−1.00*** (0.20)	−0.23 (0.13)	0.02 (0.27)	0.17 (0.17)	−1.02*** (0.20)	−0.25 (0.13)	−0.01 (0.28)	0.19 (0.17)
Hispanic					−0.56* (0.22)	0.04 (0.13)	0.11 (0.31)	0.41** (0.16)	−0.49* (0.22)	0.05 (0.13)	0.09 (0.31)	0.40* (0.16)	−0.54* (0.22)	0.03 (0.13)	0.05 (0.30)	0.43** (0.16)
Asian					−0.61 (0.34)	−0.06 (0.25)	−0.03 (0.39)	0.29 (0.30)	−0.54 (0.33)	−0.05 (0.24)	0.07 (0.38)	0.32 (0.30)	−0.59 (0.33)	−0.07 (0.25)	0.03 (0.40)	0.35 (0.30)
Other					−0.69 (0.60)	−0.17 (0.30)	0.88 (0.70)	−0.02 (0.31)	−0.71 (0.63)	−0.19 (0.31)	0.94 (0.69)	0.02 (0.30)	−0.71 (0.64)	−0.21 (0.30)	1.02 (0.68)	−0.002 (0.31)
Family structure
Two biological parents (reference)
Single mother					0.17 (0.21)	−0.31** (0.11)	−0.22 (0.22)	0.03 (0.14)	−0.03 (0.21)	−0.38** (0.12)	−0.35 (0.24)	0.02 (0.15)	0.001 (0.21)	−0.36** (0.12)	−0.34 (0.24)	−0.002 (0.15)
Single father					0.75 (1.22)	−1.19*** (0.34)	−0.13 (1.10)	−0.12 (0.57)	1.08 (1.10)	−1.10** (0.36)	0.02 (1.10)	0.03 (0.54)	1.05 (1.05)	−1.13** (0.35)	0.04 (1.11)	−0.01 (0.55)
Stepfamily					0.08 (0.19)	−0.26* (0.11)	−0.41 (0.22)	0.03 (0.13)	0.17 (0.19)	−0.23* (0.10)	−0.29 (0.23)	0.10 (0.14)	0.16 (0.19)	−0.22* (0.11)	−0.31 (0.23)	0.10 (0.13)
Other family structure					−0.005 (0.39)	−0.34 (0.22)	−0.20 (0.53)	0.58 (0.41)	0.01 (0.40)	−0.32 (0.22)	−0.05 (0.51)	0.68 (0.41)	0.001 (0.42)	−0.26 (0.22)	0.02 (0.51)	0.65 (0.41)
Parent obesity
Parent not obese (reference)
Parent obese													−0.31* (0.15)	0.11 (0.12)	−0.43* (0.19)	0.17 (0.12)
Parent missing													0.01 (0.24)	0.12 (0.14)	−0.27 (0.29)	0.02 (0.17)
Full-time working mother													−0.25 (0.14)	−0.07 (0.09)	0.17 (0.16)	0.03 (0.12)
Number of siblings													0.05 (0.06)	0.05 (0.04)	0.04 (0.07)	0.17 (0.05)
Mediating parenting measures
Parental control
Monitoring									0.05 (0.05)	0.002 (0.03)	−0.02 (0.05)	0.05 (0.04)	0.05 (0.05)	−0.002 (0.03)	−0.02 (0.05)	0.05 (0.04)
Presence									0.01 (0.07)	−0.04 (0.05)	−0.002 (0.10)	0.04 (0.06)	−0.04 (0.08)	−0.06 (0.05)	0.03 (0.10)	0.04 (0.06)
Parent and child relations
Shared activities									0.54*** (0.08)	0.19*** (0.05)	0.45*** (0.08)	0.24*** (0.06)	0.54*** (0.08)	0.19*** (0.05)	0.45*** (0.08)	0.24*** (0.06)
Parent−child communication									0.14* (0.07)	−0.005 (0.04)	0.19* (0.08)	0.07 (0.04)	0.15* (0.07)	−0.001 (0.04)	0.19* (0.08)	0.06 (0.04)
Closeness and warmth									0.22 (0.12)	0.09 (0.06)	0.50*** (0.14)	0.11 (0.10)	0.22 (0.12)	0.10 (0.06)	0.49*** (0.14)	0.10 (0.10)
Constant	16.88*** (0.74)	0.83 (0.55)	17.71*** (0.87)	2.27*** (0.58)	16.81*** (0.72)	0.85 (0.53)	17.71*** (0.88)	2.31*** (0.58)	13.39*** (0.88)	0.10 (0.58)	12.99*** (1.24)	0.34 (0.81)	13.66*** (0.91)	0.15 (0.60)	12.76*** (1.23)	0.33 (0.80)
R ²	.09	.06	.07	.05	.10	.07	.08	.05	.13	.08	.10	.06	.13	.08	.10	.06

Note. Data are weighted. Standard errors are in parentheses. PA WII = physical activity at Wave II; PA WIII = physical activity at Wave III.

p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.

Results for females also show that family social disadvantage is inversely associated with physical activity in young adulthood after adjusting for age (Model 1). However, this association is reduced to insignificance for welfare/poverty, but not parental education, after adjustment for race/ethnicity and family structure (Model 2). The inverse association between low parental education and physical activity is attenuated, but remains significant, with adjustment for parenting practices (Model 3). Only shared activities is significantly associated with physical activity in young adulthood. Further adjustment does little to attenuate these relationships (Model 4).

Male Multivariate Regression Results

The associations found for males are similar to those found for females, with a few important exceptions. First, welfare/poverty status is not associated with physical activity. Second, the association between low parent education and physical activity in adolescence is not completely mediated by parenting practices. Third, Hispanic ethnicity is positively associated with physical activity in young adulthood. Last, in addition to shared activities, and parent–child communication, closeness, and warmth are also positively associated with physical activity in adolescence for males. However, because parental closeness does not differ by family socioeconomic disadvantage for males, this measure cannot serve as a mediator in the relationship between low parent education and physical activity (Baron & Kenny, 1986).

Discussion

This article investigated the mediating role of parenting practices in the relationship between family socioeconomic disadvantage and physical activity in adolescence and young adulthood. Consistent with prior research, disadvantaged parents engaged in lower levels of activities and communication with their adolescent children and were less close to their children compared with nondisadvantaged parents (Bradley & Corwyn, 2002). More specifically, poor and low-educated parents engaged in lower levels of activities and low-educated parents also engaged in lower levels of communication with their adolescent male and female children compared with nonpoor and higher educated parents. In addition, female adolescents of poor parents experienced less closeness with their parents than nonpoor female adolescents. Levels of parental presence did not vary by family socioeconomic disadvantage for males or females. However, low-educated parents engaged in higher levels of monitoring of their adolescent female children than higher educated parents. These findings also align with previous research, which finds inconsistent evidence in associations between SES and monitoring/supervision (Hoff et al., 2002).

Of the two disadvantage measures used in the analysis, only low parental education was negatively associated with physical activity for males. In addition, only low parent education remained significantly negatively associated with physical activity in young adulthood for both males and females in fully adjusted models. Although both income and education are important components of SES, with independent influences on health, some suggest income and education may work via different causal pathways to influence health (Herd, Goesling, & House, 2007). For example, education may influence knowledge of the importance of health behaviors, such as physical activity, in preventing adverse health, whereas income may provide the means to purchase health care in the event of an adverse health event. In addition, research finds that behavioral factors, such as lack of exercise, overeating, drinking, and smoking, explain a large proportion of the relationship between education and physical health (Ross & Mirowsky, 2003). This suggests that education may be more relevant for understanding socioeconomic difference in physical activity than other measures of SES. More theoretical and empirical work will be needed to better understand the mechanisms that link education and income to health and health behaviors, especially as they relate to parenting, gender, and obesity-related health behaviors (Pampel et al., 2010).

In multivariate models, measures of parental control did not serve to mediate the association between family socioeconomic disadvantage and physical activity in adolescence or young adulthood. For females, parental communication and shared activities completely mediated the association between family disadvantage and physical activity in adolescence, whereas, shared activities partially mediated this association in young adulthood. Similar patterns were evidenced for males. These results highlight the importance of parent–child relations for physical activity outcomes in adolescence and young adulthood. Parental involvement with children in activities such as talking about school or problems, shopping together or attending church together, may become particularly salient in adolescence when children begin to spend more time with peers and less time with their parents (Brown, 1990). High levels of parent–child interaction increase an adolescent’s feelings of self-efficacy and competence that can translate into increased levels of physical activity (Strauss et al., 2001). Furthermore, these parenting behaviors have long-term impacts on levels of physical activity in young adulthood. These aspects of parenting may be more important than parental control, because they are associated with positive socioemotional development of adolescents. These results also highlight that parents can promote physical activity through pathways that may not be directly related to physical activity. For example, parents regularly communicating with their children can promote adolescent physical activity. Because disadvantaged parents engage in these activities less often than more advantaged parents, this may serve as one pathway through which disadvantaged social status leads to lower levels of physical activity that persist into adulthood.

The results provide some support for both the family process model and socialization theory. Lower levels of parent–child relations among disadvantaged parents support the family process model, which argues that disadvantaged parents have a diminished ability to facilitate communication and engage in activities with children due to stress. The similar levels of parental presence among disadvantaged and nondisadvantaged parents, and higher levels of monitoring among low-educated parents do not support the family process model, which suggests that disadvantaged parents have less ability to monitor and supervise their children. However, this finding does support socialization theory, which argues that low-SES parents might exhibit similar or higher levels of monitoring/supervision than their high-SES counterparts to protect their children from potentially risky environments, particularly for female children (Dishion & McMahon, 1998). As discussed earlier, however, measures of parental control do not have long-term impacts on young adult levels of physical activity.

These findings are also consistent with another work that finds females exhibit lower levels of physical activity than males (Van Der Horst et al., 2007). Interestingly, although there were gender differences in levels of parental closeness and communication, with the exception of parental closeness, the association between parenting and physical activity did not differ by gender (in supplemental analyses, sex and each measure of parenting were interacted in models using a pooled male and female sample). This suggests that males and females benefit similarly from parenting behaviors that support physical activity. Previous research finds inconsistent evidence of gender-specific physical activity correlates (Whitt-Glover et al., 2009). Given the lower levels of physical activity exhibited among females, parenting strategies that promote physical activity may be especially important for disadvantaged female populations (Wright, Wilson, Griffin, & Evans, 2010).

One inconsistent finding was the positive association between Hispanic ethnicity and physical activity among males in young adulthood. This positive association runs counter to other research from nationally representative samples finding lower levels of self-reported, leisure time physical activity among Hispanic men compared with White men (e.g., Crespo, Keteyian, Heath, & Sempos, 1996). These findings might be due to the younger age of the sample (18-26 years). A recent article investigating objectively measured physical activity in a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults found that levels of physical activity were higher for Hispanic men versus White and Black men between the ages of 18 and 39 years but not in older age groups (Hawkins et al., 2009).

Parental obesity was used as a control for genetic predisposition for physical activity (Lauderdale et al., 1997), as well as a proxy for role-modeling of physical activity. Parental obesity was negatively associated with physical activity for males and females in adolescence but not in young adulthood. Previous research has found mixed evidence regarding the relationship between parental role-modeling of physical activity and child activity (Sallis & Owen, 1999; Trost et al., 2003; Van Der Horst et al., 2007). The Add Health data do not contain sufficient information on parental lifestyle behaviors to fully determine the existence of an association between parent role-modeling and adolescent physical activity. This is an important area for future research, particularly, if it can also include of elements of parent–child relationships, such as shared activities, which may increase the effectiveness of role-modeling in promoting adolescent physical activity.

Limitations

There are additional limitations regarding this research. Little is known about the causal processes that link disadvantage to adolescent physical activity outcomes, especially outcomes that persist into adulthood. Parenting practices cover only one of several important pathways linking disadvantage in adolescence to health behaviors in later life (Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997). Multiple pathways exist that should be further explored to better understand how social disadvantage influences physical activity. These pathways include features of the school, peer, and neighborhood context (e.g., school opportunities for physical activity, friends’ activity levels, neighborhood safety, and physical environment; Davison & Birch, 2001).

In addition, the measures used in this analysis do not cover all possible elements of parenting practices that could be related to both social disadvantage and adolescent physical activity. For example, survey respondents did not have the opportunity to identify additional activities they engage in with their parents that may serve to be important in understanding relationships between disadvantage and physical activity. However, this study examines multiple dimensions of parenting that have been understudied in physical activity research.

Although this analysis used a longitudinal design, claims regarding causal direction cannot be made with certainty because characteristics of children may elicit certain modes of behavior from parents, rather than parenting practices influencing child outcomes (Kerr & Stattin, 2003). However, because parenting practices are measured in WI (1994-1995) and physical activity outcomes in WII (1996) and WIII (2000-2001), concerns about directionality are somewhat reduced. In addition, a lagged measure of adolescent physical activity was included in models examining relationships between socioeconomic disadvantage and physical activity in young adulthood.

A selection issue of particular concern is that parental practices could also be influenced by child overweight status (Fogelholm, Nuutinen, Pasanen, Myohanen, & Saatela, 1999; Kitzmann, Dalton, & Buscemi, 2008). To investigate this possibility, analysis was rerun in samples stratified by adolescent obesity status at WI (results not shown). There were no substantive differences in the results.

In addition to unmeasured characteristics of children, social selection bias may operate if parents hold unmeasured characteristics related to their overall level of functioning and competence that could affect both their parenting and their income-related activities. This would mean that the association between parental SES, parenting, and adolescent outcomes is spurious because it is caused by a third variable, such as personality or self-efficacy. SES differences in child rearing result partly from the circumstances in which parents live and unmeasured characteristics of parents that affect their SES and parenting practices simultaneously (Conger & Donnellan, 2007; Hoff et al., 2002). Because of this potential bias, causal conclusions drawn from this analysis should be made with caution.

Despite these limitations, this research builds on previous literature by examining aspects of parenting that have been understudied in relation to physical activity and by examining the longitudinal relationships between family socioeconomic disadvantage and parenting in adolescence, and physical activity in young adulthood. In addition, the longitudinal design and sensitivity analyses provide confidence in the associations that were found. Future research should examine other aspects of parenting that were not measured in this analysis and may help elucidate how disadvantage links to physical activity in adolescence and adulthood. In addition, incorporating modeling techniques that reduce endogeneity concerns is an important next step.

Conclusion

What happens during the transition to adulthood has a large impact on individuals’ future life course trajectories. Better understanding the social influences of physical activity may help explain the role of health in influencing successful transitions into adulthood, especially for vulnerable and disadvantaged populations. Family context plays a pivotal role in shaping health and health behaviors in adolescence and in young adulthood. This article has shown that parenting is an important pathway through which disadvantage influences physical activity during these periods. Parenting behavior is one of the most important modifiable factors associated with youth physical activity (Beets et al., 2010). Parental communication and engagement can serve to channel children into engaging in health-promoting activities, such as physical activity and can increase levels of perceived confidence in children, which is a psychosocial correlate of activity behavior (Strauss et al., 2001). Programs that can provide support to disadvantaged parents to engage in activities with their children and encourage communication may serve as useful family-level interventions that can help decrease socioeconomic disparities in physical activity. Health care professionals should also provide parents with information and counseling on ways to support and encourage their children’s physical activity (Fletcher et al., 1996). Research indicates that providers lack the tools and training necessary to provide this type of counseling and are often unable to reimburse for these services (Hébert, Caughy, & Shuval, 2012). These barriers need to be addressed to effectively integrate physical activity counseling into primary care and help reduce health disparities.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Special acknowledgment is due to Ronald R. Rindfuss and Barbara Entwisle for assistance in the original design.

Author’s Note

This research uses data from Add Health, a program project designed by J. Richard Udry, Peter S. Bearman, and Kathleen Mullan Harris, and funded by a grant (P01-HD31921) from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, with cooperative funding from 23 other federal agencies and foundations. Persons interested in obtaining data files from Add Health should contact Add Health, Carolina Population Center, 123 W. Franklin Street, Chapel Hill, NC 27516-2524 (addhealth@unc.edu). No direct support was received from Grant P01-HD31921 for this analysis.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Dissertation Fellowship (NIH-NRSA F31 HD056627).

Author Biography

Hedwig Lee is an Assistant Professor in the department of Sociology at the University of Washington. She is also a research affiliate at the University of Washington Center for Statistics and the Social Sciences and the Center for Studies in Demography and Ecology. She is broadly interested in the social determinants and consequences of population health and health disparities, with a particular focus on race/ethnicity, poverty and the family.

References

Aber

J. L.

Bennett

N. G.

Conley

D. C.

(1997). The effects of poverty on child health and development. Annual Review of Public Health, 18, 463-483.

Ambert

A. M.

(1994). An international perspective on parenting: Social change and social constructs. Journal of Marriage and Family, 56, 529-543.

Anderssen

Wold

Torsheim

(2006). Are parental health habits transmitted to their children? An eight year longitudinal study of physical activity in adolescents and their parents. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 513-524.

Averett

Korenman

(1996). The economic reality of the beauty myth. Journal of Human Resources, 31, 304-330.

Bagley

Salmon

Crawford

(2006). Family structure and children’s television viewing and physical activity. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 38, 910-918.

Baldwin

A. L.

Baldwin

C. P.

Cole

R. E.

(1990). Stress-resistant families and stress-resistant children. In Rolf

Masten

A. S.

Cicchetti

Nüchterlein

K. H.

Weintraub

(Eds.), Risk and protective factors in the development of psychopathology (pp. 257-280). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Baron

R. M.

Kenny

D. A.

(1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Bauer

Nelson

Boutelle

Neumark-Sztainer

(2008). Parental influences on adolescents’ physical activity and sedentary behavior: Longitudinal findings from Project EAT-II. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 5, 12. doi:10.1186/1479-5868-5-12

Baumrind

(1972). An exploratory study of socialization effects on Black children: Some Black-White comparisons. Child Development, 43, 261-267.

10.

Baumrind

(1991). Effective parenting during the early adolescent transition. In Cowan

P. A.

Hetherington

E. M.

(Eds.), Family transitions (Advances in Family Research Series, pp. 111-159). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

11.

Beets

M. W.

Cardinal

B. J.

Alderman

B. L.

(2010). Parental social support and the physical activity-related behaviors of youth: A review. Health Education & Behavior, 37, 621-644.

12.

Borraccino

Lemma

Iannotti

R. J.

Zambon

Dalmasso

Lazzeri

Cavallo

(2009). Socioeconomic effects on meeting physical activity guidelines: Comparisons among 32 countries. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 41, 749-756.

13.

Bradley

R. H.

Corwyn

R. F.

(2002). Socioeconomic status and child development. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 371-399.

14.

Brooks-Gunn

Duncan

G. J.

(1997). The effects of poverty on children. Future of Children, 7(2), 55-71.

15.

Brown

B. B.

(1990). Peer groups and peer cultures. In Feldman

S. S.

Elliott

G. R.

(Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 171-196): Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

16.

Conger

R. D.

Conger

K. J.

Elder

G. H.

Jr Lorenz

F. O.

Simons

R. L.

Whitbeck

L. B.

(1992). A family process model of economic hardship and adjustment of early adolescent boys. Child Development, 63, 526-541.

17.

Conger

R. D.

Donnellan

M. B.

(2007). An interactionist perspective on the socioeconomic context of human development. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 175-199.

18.

Conger

R. D.

Wallace

L. E.

Sun

Simons

R. L.

McLoyd

V. C.

Brody

G. H.

(2002). Economic pressure in African American families: A replication and extension of the family stress model. Developmental Psychology, 38, 179-193.

19.

Crespo

C. J.

Keteyian

S. J.

Heath

G. W.

Sempos

C. T.

(1996). Leisure-time physical activity among US adults: Results from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Archives of Internal Medicine, 156, 93-98.

20.

Crossman

Sullivan

D. A.

Benin

(2006). The family environment and American adolescents’ risk of obesity as young adults. Social Science & Medicine, 63, 2255-2267.

21.

Danziger

S. H.

Haveman

R. H.

(Eds.). (2001). Understanding poverty. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

22.

Davison

K. K.

Birch

L. L.

(2001). Childhood overweight: A contextual model and recommendations for future research. Obesity Reviews, 2, 159-171.

23.

Davison

K. K.

Jago

(2009). Change in parent and peer support across ages 9 to 15 yr and adolescent girls’ physical activity. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 41, 1816-1825.

24.

Dishion

T. J.

McMahon

R. J.

(1998). Parental monitoring and the prevention of child and adolescent problem behavior: A conceptual and empirical formulation. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 1, 61-75.

25.

Drenowatz

Eisenmann

Pfeiffer

Welk

Heelan

Gentile

Walsh

(2010). Influence of socio-economic status on habitual physical activity and sedentary behavior in 8- to 11-year old children. BMC Public Health, 10, 214. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-10-214

26.

Edin

Lein

(1997). Making ends meet: How single mothers survive welfare and low-wage work. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

27.

Elder

G. H.

(1999). Children of the great depression: Social change in life experience (25th anniversary ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

28.

Elder

G. H.

Eccles

J. S.

Ardelt

Lord

(1995). Inner-city parents under economic pressure: Perspectives on the strategies of parenting. Journal of Marriage and Family, 57, 771-784.

29.

Finkelstein

J. S.

Donenberg

G. R.

Martinovich

(2001). Maternal control and adolescent depression: Ethnic differences among clinically referred girls. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 30, 155-171.

30.

Fletcher

G. F.

Balady

Blair

S. N.

Blumenthal

Caspersen

Chaitman

Pollock

M. L.

(1996). Statement on exercise: Benefits and recommendations for physical activity programs for all Americans. Circulation, 94, 857-862.

31.

Fogelholm

Nuutinen

Pasanen

Myohanen

Saatela

(1999). Parent-child relationship of physical activity patterns and obesity. International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders, 23, 1262-1268.

32.

Furstenberg

F. F.

Cook

T. D.

Eccles

Elder

G. H.

(1999). Managing to make it: Urban families and adolescent success. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

33.

Gordon-Larsen

McMurray

R. G.

Popkin

B. M.

(1999). Adolescent physical activity and inactivity vary by ethnicity: The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Journal of Pediatrics, 135, 301-306.

34.

Gordon-Larsen

Nelson

M. C.

Popkin

B. M.

(2004). Longitudinal physical activity and sedentary behavior trends: Adolescence to adulthood. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 27, 277-283.

35.

Grant

K. E.

Compas

B. E.

Stuhlmacher

A. F.

Thurm

A. E.

McMahon

S. D.

Halpert

J. A.

(2003). Stressors and child and adolescent psychopathology: Moving from markers to mechanisms of risk. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 447-466.

36.

Gustafson

S. L.

Rhodes

R. E.

(2006). Parental correlates of physical activity in children and early adolescents. Sports Medicine, 36, 79-97.

37.

Hallal

P. C.

Victora

C. G.

Azevedo

M. R.

Wells

J. C. K.

(2006). Adolescent physical activity and health: A systematic review. Sports Medicine, 36, 1019-1030.

38.

Harris

K. M.

Halpern

C. T.

Whitsel

Hussey

Tabor

Entzel

Udry

J. R.

(2009). The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health: Research design. Retrieved from http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/design

39.

Harris

K. M.

Ryan

(1999, August). Parental and neighborhood influences on adolescent risk behavior. Paper presented at the conference on Parenting and the child’s world: Multiple influences on intellectual and social-emotional development, Bethesda, MD.

40.

Harris

K. M.

Ryan

(2004). Father involvement and the diversity of family context. In Day

R. D.

Lamb

M. E.

(Eds.), Conceptualizing and measuring father involvement (pp. 293-319). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

41.

Hawkins

Storti

Richardson

King

Strath

Holleman

Kriska

(2009). Objectively measured physical activity of USA adults by sex, age, and racial/ethnic groups: A cross-sectional study. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 6, 31.

42.

Hébert

E. T.

Caughy

M. O.

Shuval

(2012). Primary care providers’ perceptions of physical activity counselling in a clinical setting: A systematic review. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 46, 625-631.

43.

Hennessy

Hughes

Goldberg

Hyatt

Economos

(2010). Parent-child interactions and objectively measured child physical activity: A cross-sectional study. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 7, 71.

44.

Herd

Goesling

House

J. S.

(2007). Socioeconomic position and health: The differential effects of education versus income on the onset versus progression of health problems. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 48, 223-238.

45.

Hoff

Laursen

Tardif

(2002). Socioeconomic status and parenting. In Bornstein

M. H.

(Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 2. Biology and ecology of parenting (2nd ed., pp. 231-252). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

46.

Huston

A. C.

Bentley

A. C.

(2010). Human development in societal context. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 411-437.

47.

Jacobson

K. C.

Crockett

L. J.

(2000). Parental monitoring and adolescent adjustment: An ecological perspective. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 10, 65-97.

48.

Kerr

Stattin

(2003). Parenting of adolescents: Action or reaction?. In Crouter

A. C.

Booth

(Eds.), Children’s influence on family dynamics: The neglected side of family relationships (pp. 121-151). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

49.

Kimm

S. Y. S.

Glynn

N. W.

Kriska

A. M.

Barton

B. A.

Kronsberg

S. S.

Daniels

S. R.

Liu

(2002). Decline in physical activity in black girls and white girls during adolescence. New England Journal of Medicine, 347, 709-715.

50.

Kitzmann

K. M.

Dalton

W. T.

Buscemi

(2008). Beyond parenting practices: Family context and the treatment of pediatric obesity. Family Relations, 57, 13-23.

51.

Kuo

Voorhees

C. C.

Haythornthwaite

J. A.

Young

D. R.

(2007). Associations between family support, family intimacy, and neighborhood violence and physical activity in urban adolescent girls. American Journal of Public Health, 97, 101-103.

52.

Lareau

(2002). Invisible inequality: Social class and childrearing in black families and white families. American Sociological Review, 67, 747-776.

53.

Lauderdale

D. S.

Fabsitz

Meyer

J. M.

Sholinsky

Ramakrishnan

Goldberg

(1997). Familial determinants of moderate and intense physical activity: A twin study. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 29, 1062-1068.

54.

LaVeist

(2005). Disentangling race and socioeconomic status: A key to understanding health inequalities. Journal of Urban Health, 82(Suppl. 3), iii26-iii34.

55.

LeBlanc

A. N.

(2003). Random family: Love, drugs, trouble, and coming of age in the Bronx. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

56.

Lindsay

A. C.

Sussner

K. M.

Kim

Gortmaker

(2006). The role of parents in preventing childhood obesity. Future of Children, 16(1), 169-186.

57.

Link

B. G.

Phelan

(1995). Social conditions as fundamental causes of disease. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 35, 80-94.

58.

Maccoby

E. E.

Martin

J. A.

(1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent–child interaction. In Mussen

(Ed.), Handbook of child psychology, socialization, personality and social development (Vol. 4, pp. 1-101). New York, NY: Wiley.

59.

Madsen

K. A.

McCulloch

C. E.

Crawford

P. B.

(2009). Parent modeling: Perceptions of parents’ physical activity predict girls’ activity throughout adolescence. Journal of Pediatrics, 154, 278-283.

60.

Martinez

Daniels

Chandra

(2012). Fertility of men and women aged 15–44 years in the United States: National Survey of Family Growth, 2006–2010. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

61.

McGuire

M. T.

Hannan

P. J.

Neumark-Sztainer

Cossrow

N. H. F.

Story

(2002). Parental correlates of physical activity in a racially/ethnically diverse adolescent sample. Journal of Adolescent Health, 30, 253-261.

62.

McLanahan

S. S.

(1997). Parent absence or poverty: Which matters more? In Duncan

G. J.

Brooks-Gunn

(Eds.), Consequences of growing up poor (pp. 35-48). New York, NY: Russell Sage.

63.

McLoyd

V. C.

(1990). The impact of economic hardship on black families and children: Psychological distress, parenting, and socioemotional development. Child Development, 61, 311-346.

64.

McLoyd

V. C.

(1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. American Psychologist, 53, 185-204.

65.

Morris

P. A.

Huston

A. C.

Duncan

G. J.

Crosby

D. A.

Bos

J. M.

(2001). How welfare and work policies affect children: A synthesis of research. Retrieved from http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/execsum_15.pdf

66.

Nader

P. R.

Bradley

R. H.

Houts

R. M.

McRitchie

S. L.

O’Brien

(2008). Moderate-to-vigorous physical activity from ages 9 to 15 years. Journal of the American Medical Association, 300, 295-305.

67.

Ornelas

Perreira

Ayala

(2007). Parental influences on adolescent physical activity: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 4, 3. doi:10.1186/1479-5868-4-3

68.

Osgood

D. W.

Foster

E. M.

Flanagan

Ruth

G. R.

(Eds.). (2005). On your own without a net: The transition to adulthood for vulnerable populations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

69.

Pampel

F. C.

Krueger

P. M.

Denney

J. T.

(2010). Socioeconomic disparities in health behaviors. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 349-370.

70.

Parke

R. D.

(2004). Development in the family. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 365-399.

71.

Pinderhughes

E. E.

Dodge

K. A.

Bates

J. E.

Pettit

G. S.

Zelli

(2000). Discipline responses: Influences of parents’ socioeconomic status, ethnicity, beliefs about parenting, stress, and cognitive-emotional processes. Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 380-400.

72.

Prochaska

J. J.

Rodgers

M. W.

Sallis

J. F.

(2002). Association of parent and peer support with adolescent physical activity. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 73, 206-210.

73.

Pugliese

Tinsley

(2007). Parental socialization of child and adolescent physical activity: A meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 331-343.

74.

Ross

C. E.

Mirowsky

(2003). Education, social status, and health. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

75.

Ross

C. E.

(1995). The links between education and health. American Sociological Review, 60, 719-745.

76.

Sallis

J. F.

(2000). Age-related decline in physical activity: A synthesis of human and animal studies. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 32, 1598-1600.

77.

Sallis

J. F.

Buono

M. J.

Roby

J. J.

Micale

F. G.

Nelson

J. A.

(1993). Seven-day recall and other physical activity self-reports in children and adolescents. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 25, 99-108.

78.

Sallis

J. F.

Owen

N. G.

(1999). Physical activity and behavioral medicine. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

79.

Sallis

J. F.

Prochaska

J. J.

Taylor

W. C.

(2000). A review of correlates of physical activity of children and adolescents. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 32, 963-975.

80.

Shavers

V. L.

(2007). Measurement of socioeconomic status in health disparities research. Journal of the National Medical Association, 99, 1013-1023.

81.

Smetana

J. G.

Campione-Barr

Metzger

(2006). Adolescent development in interpersonal and societal contexts. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 255-284.

82.

Sørensen

Van den Broucke

Fullam

Doyle

Pelikan

Slonska

Brand

, & (HLS-EU) Consortium Health Literacy Project European. (2012). Health literacy and public health: A systematic review and integration of definitions and models. BMC Public Health, 12, 80. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-12-80

83.

Stalsberg

Pedersen

A. V.

(2010). Effects of socioeconomic status on the physical activity in adolescents: A systematic review of the evidence. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 20, 368-383.

84.

Steelman

L. C.

Powell

Werum

Carter

(2002). Reconsidering the effects of sibling configuration: Recent advances and challenges. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 243-269.

85.

Steinberg

(2001). We know some things: Parent–adolescent relationships in retrospect and prospect. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 11, 1-19.

86.

Strauss

R. S.

Rodzilsky

Burack

Colin

(2001). Psychosocial correlates of physical activity in healthy children. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 155, 897-902.

87.

Telama

Yang

Viikari

Välimäki

Wanne

Raitakari

(2005). Physical activity from childhood to adulthood: A 21-year tracking study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28, 267-273.

88.

Trost

S. G.

Sallis

J. F.

Pate

R. R.

Freedson

P. S.

Taylor

W. C.

Dowda

(2003). Evaluating a model of parental influence on youth physical activity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 25, 277-282.

89.

U.S. Census Bureau. (n.d.). Poverty thresholds by size of family and number of children. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/index.html

90.

Van Der Horst

Paw

M. J. C. A.

Twisk

J. W. R.

Van Mechelen

(2007). A brief review on correlates of physical activity and sedentariness in youth. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 39, 1241-1250.

91.

Wang

Beydoun

M. A.

(2007). The obesity epidemic in the United States—Gender, age, socioeconomic, racial/ethnic, and geographic characteristics: A systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Epidemiologic Reviews, 29, 6-28.

92.

Whitt-Glover

Taylor

Floyd

Yore

Yancey

Matthews

(2009). Disparities in physical activity and sedentary behaviors among US children and adolescents: Prevalence, correlates, and intervention implications. Journal of Public Health Policy, 30(Suppl. 1), S309-S334.

93.

Wright

M. S.

Wilson

D. K.

Griffin

Evans

(2010). A qualitative study of parental modeling and social support for physical activity in underserved adolescents. Health Education Research, 25, 224-232.