The Impact of Religion on Family Functioning in Low-Income African American Families With Adolescents

Abstract

The current study explores the association between religion and family functioning. Specifically, this study examined whether two aspects of religion, social religious support (from clergy and members of the congregation) and support from God (or spirituality), were related to frequency of household routines and parenting strategies as reported by both parents and adolescents, as well as adolescent problem behaviors. The sample consisted of 115 low-income African American mother-adolescent (age 14-18 years) dyads. Families were recruited as part of a larger study on the lives of low-income African American families with adolescents. Results indicated that higher levels of social religious support and spirituality were associated with increased levels of family routine as reported by caregivers. These results highlight the important roles relationships with God and other church members may play in supporting the lives of low-income African American parents and their children.

Keywords

religion social support African American families low income family routine

Families in lower income brackets, especially those living in crowded, urban neighborhoods, are at higher risk for poverty and associated challenges compared with their wealthier counterparts. African American families, in particular, are at a higher risk for poverty in comparison with White families (Macartney, Bishaw, & Fontenot, 2013). Families in lower income brackets often face a number of stressors related to lack of financial stability, including neighborhood violence, trauma, and chaos in the home, as a result of these factors (Conger & Elder, 1994; Evans, Gonnella, Marcynyszyn, Gentile, & Salpekar, 2005; McLoyd, 1990). Children who grow up in inner-city, urban environments experience more chaos than their middle-class, suburban counterparts (Evans et al., 2005; Handler & Hasenfeld, 2007). Studies show that neighborhood overcrowding, noise levels, and substandard housing contribute to the chaotic environments (Saegert & Evans, 2003). Additionally, families living close to or in poverty often lack structure inside the home due to difficult work schedules and attempts to make financial ends meet (Evans et al., 2005). These stressful conditions can contribute to less than ideal parenting practices as well as poor academic, social, and behavioral outcomes for children and adolescents (McLoyd, 1990). Given the importance of household organization and supportive parenting to the well-being of adolescents (Brody & Flor, 1997), it is important to identify corollaries of parenting practices and adolescent outcomes among African American families living in urban poverty. The current study examines whether social support from church leaders and other congregation members as well as perceived support from God are associated with parenting practices and adolescent well-being.

Poverty, Parenting, and Family Routines

Neighborhood and household poverty, as well as financial strain, have the potential to permeate many aspects of family functioning, and are negatively related to ideal parenting strategies and adolescent behaviors (Brody & Flor, 1997; Conger, McCarty, Yang, Lahey, & Kropp, 1984). Brody and Flor (1997) demonstrated that female caregivers who experienced a sudden decrease in financial resources also reported higher levels of depression and lower levels of self-esteem. Conger and colleagues (1984) found that depression in mothers was also linked with parenting problems, marital conflict, and poor adolescent adjustment. Research suggests that the link between poverty and child well-being is partially mediated by caregivers’ ability to maintain a regular household routine and a positive mother-child relationship quality (Brody & Flor, 1997), therefore highlighting the role of caregiver functioning among families experiencing economic duress.

Family routines, or processes that families engage in on a regular basis, are often disrupted under conditions of financial distress. The lack of organization and predictability associated with financial stress can contribute to behavioral and emotional problems among adolescents (Evans et al., 2005; McLoyd, 1990). Evidence in the literature demonstrates that positive associations exist between adolescent behaviors and family routine (Fiese, 2007; Kiser, Bennett, Heston, & Paavola, 2005; Roche & Ghazarian, 2012). Family routines at bedtime and mealtime and medication (if applicable) contribute to better physical and mental health, as well as academic success for adolescents (Denham, 2003; Fiese, 2007; Roche & Ghazarian, 2012). Both theory and research suggest that lack of household routines create a diminished sense of self-efficacy and increased feelings of helplessness among youth (Evans et al., 2005), which contribute to impulsivity and poor academic and social adjustment (Brody & Flor, 1997; Lanza & Drabick, 2011). Routines can lower externalizing behavior by promoting the development of rule-governed behavior in children (Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 2000). Furthermore, highly organized caregivers are more likely to punish and reward children’s behavior in a consistent and predictable fashion, as well as adequately monitor their children’s behaviors (Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 2000). It is especially important to explore caregiver characteristics that might predict higher levels of organization and routine due to the important role routines play in the lives of children and youth (particularly those living in poverty). One such variable or characteristic may be caregivers’ religiosity. Religion, in its various forms, is especially strong among African Americans compared with their White and Caribbean counterparts (Taylor, Chatters, & Jackson, 2009). To date, little research has explored the association between caregivers’ religiosity (including religious participation and spirituality) and parenting behaviors.

Support From God and Spirituality

Most current conceptualizations of religiosity differentiate between religion and spirituality, in terms of their roles and functions in individuals’ lives (Mattis & Jagers, 2001; Taylor et al., 2009). Oman (2013) suggests that religion is inherently relational and refers to institutional components, such as churches, synagogues, and mosques as well as faith-based organizations. Religious institutions provide structure in terms of weekly activities, as well as concrete support services through programming. Additionally, religious activities contribute to social support from congregation members and leaders, which are associated with an overall sense of belongingness and well-being (Shorter-Gooden, 2004). Spirituality, on the other hand, is more individualistic and subjective and is better understood as one’s belief in and relationship with a higher being (Taylor et al., 2009). Religion is linked to spirituality, which has been linked to positive feelings and optimism, as well as spirituality-based coping strategies (Shorter-Gooden, 2004). Although religious activity and spirituality are often thought to go hand in hand, approximately 80% of African Americans have indicated that they are spiritual, even though they do not regularly attend church (Chatters, Taylor, & Lincoln, 1999). It is important, for this reason, to conceptualize the social support associated with church attendance/activities and spirituality as separate constructs.

Data show that African American families are often heavily connected to a church or religious organization, and many African American adults consider themselves to be highly spiritual (Krause, Ellison, & Marcum, 2002; Krause, Ellison, Shaw, Marcum, & Boardman, 2001; Shorter-Gooden, 2004). Ethnographic research suggests that African Americans tend to have a uniquely personal relationship with God, often viewing God as a friend with whom they can engage in frequent verbal conversations (Boyd-Franklin, 2010; Taylor et al., 2009). This unique personal relationship with God makes it especially important to examine in the context of caregiver functioning and behaviors.

As such, feelings and self-reports of existential and spiritual well-being protect against parental stress, which is often associated with lower income levels and lack of employment (Lamis, West, et al., 2014; Lamis, Wilson, Tarantino, Lansford, & Kaslow, 2014). Researchers have found that African American families, particularly women, utilize spirituality and religion as coping mechanisms to deal with life stressors, including, but not limited to poverty, health issues and chronic illness, grief, domestic violence, and bereavement (Chatters et al., 1999; Gonzalez & Davis, 2012; Musgrave, Allen, & Allen, 2002; Piraino, Krema, Williams, & Ferrari, 2014; Taylor & Chatters, 1988). Spirituality is considered to provide individuals with a sense of hope and strength and contributes to resiliency in the face of adversity by shaping appraisals of stress stimuli (McAdoo, 1995). In terms of family and parental stress, spirituality can buffer low-level stress in African American families (Pollock, Kazman, & Deuster, 2015). Overall, it appears that individuals who hold a belief in a higher being and report a positive relationship with God seem to enjoy higher levels of functioning. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that caregivers who report a more positive relationship with God will also be able to provide a caring, nurturing, and organized home environment for their children and, consequently, have children with fewer problem behaviors.

Religious Social Support

Formal involvement in religion, such as attending and/or being a member of a religious institution, has also historically played an important function in the lives of African Americans (Chatters, Taylor, Lincoln, Nguyen, & Joe, 2011). Research suggests that social support explains much of the association between church attendance and positive mental and physical health outcomes (Chatters, 1999). The social support structure provided by the church is especially powerful in some African American communities and neighborhoods, due to the historic lack of services and needed assistance (Taylor & Chatters, 1988). Church-based social networks are particularly effective, because they are both formal (e.g., support from clergy) and informal (e.g., friendships with other church members) in nature. Previous research demonstrates that church-based social support is associated with better physical and mental health, as well as increased levels of belongingness (Ellison & George, 1994; Krause et al., 2001; Nooney & Woodrum, 2002; Olphen et al., 2003). Krause et al. (2001) found that people who reported higher levels of church-based social support were more likely to use religion-based coping skills to cope with stress. In general, it appears that individuals with higher levels of church-based social support have higher self-esteem, better coping strategies, more resiliency in the face of stress, and decreased risk for suicidality (Chatters, Taylor, Woodward, & Nicklett, 2016).

To date, most studies have not separated support from clergy from that of fellow church goers, and much of the literature has examined the role of social religious support in general. Limited evidence does suggest that clergy and church leaders are an important source of support for parents, often acting as a resource for advice in dealing with social problems and issues within the home, such as parenting stress and advice. More recent literature has reported that the roles of clergy and counselors are more closely related than previously acknowledged (Close, 2010). In fact, some data indicate that Americans (of all ethnicities) are more likely to seek support from clergy than from mental health professionals for psychiatric disorders, such as major depression and anxiety (Chatters et al., 2017). Shannon-Lewy and Dull (2005) and Bruns et al. (2005), in a review of the literature, reported that some studies have shown that even nonreligiously connected women may turn to clergy for assistance in times of crisis, because they feel it is a safe place to turn.

Thus far, research on religion and church-based social support has been established both as important for personal mental and physical well-being among both children and adults (Chatters et al., 2011; Cotton, Zebracki, Rosenthal, Tsevat, & Drotar, 2006; Gutierrez, Goodwin, Kirkinis, & Mattis, 2014). Given this body of literature, it is reasonable to expect that the benefits of religion and church-based social support will also have a positive association with family functioning. Research has found that African American mothers transmit religiosity and religious values to their children (Gutierrez et al., 2014), which is tied to positive mental and physical outcomes for adolescents (Cotton et al., 2006). Furthermore, adolescents who are committed to religion and religiosity tend to do better academically and are less likely to engage in risky behaviors (Abar, Carter, & Winsler, 2009; Christian & Barbarin, 2001; Cochran, 1992; Miller & Gur, 2002; Wright, Frost, & Wisecarver, 1993). Limited evidence also suggests that religion is tied to better parenting strategies, such that single mothers who attended services were more involved with their children and used less corporal punishment, resulting in fewer behavioral issues with their young children (Petts, 2014). Building on this line of research, the current study examines the association between church-based social support and spirituality (or perceived support from God) on measures of parenting and household management, which have been shown empirically to be tied to child and adolescent well-being (Brody & Flor, 1997).

Current Study and Hypotheses

Caregivers in low-income environments are often at risk for poor mental and physical functioning as well as inconsistent parenting and household management due to factors such as neighborhood chaos and instability as well as personal and financial distress (Brody & Flor, 1997; Conger et al., 1984; Evans et al., 2005). Despite these risk factors, there is a diversity of outcomes among low-income families (Amato & Fowler, 2002; Spencer et al., 2006), and it is critical to examine individual- and family-level variables that might predict resiliency among low-income families. One such factor among African American families, regardless of income level, is spirituality and religious or church-based social support (Taylor & Chatters, 1988; Taylor, Chatters, Tucker, & Lewis, 1991). The purpose of the current investigation was to explore the association between two dimensions of religiosity (spirituality [support from God] and social support [support from other congregation members and/or from clergy]) and parenting practices and household management among a sample of low-income, African American, urban families. Additionally, we examined whether these two dimensions of religion were associated with related adolescent outcomes, namely, problem behavior.

The current investigation adds to extant literature by providing further information about the intersection of religiosity/spirituality, household routines, adolescent outcomes, and parenting. While previous research (Chatters et al., 2017) has demonstrated that religious support contributes to well-being, it is not known whether different aspects of this support (spirituality/belief in God or social support) are differentially related to the specific measurement of adolescent family functioning. The current study has two primary hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Higher levels of religious social support and support from God will be positively associated with better parenting strategies, including lower levels of psychological and behavioral control and higher levels of family routines. Given the association between religion and caregiver well-being (Chatters et al., 2017), it is reasonable to believe that caregivers who are experiencing better overall well-being will also engage in more ideal forms of parenting (McLoyd, 1990).

Hypothesis 2: Higher levels of religious social support and support from God will be associated with lower levels of adolescent problem behaviors. Presumably, religious values in caregivers trickle down to adolescents, reducing their engagement in antisocial behaviors (Petts, 2014). Additionally, the hypothesized higher levels of household routines in more religious households should also indirectly contribute to lower levels of delinquency (Lanza & Drabick, 2011).

Method

Participants

The initial sample consisted of 131 primary caregivers of adolescents (120 women, 11 men), who resided in a major metropolitan area in the Northeast region of the United States. The sample size was reduced to 115, with the removal of the disproportionally low number of fathers (n = 11) and five adolescent-women caregiver dyads because the adolescents refused to participate. The women caregivers were paired with 115 adolescents (39 boys and 76 girls). The caregivers’ ages ranged from 30 to 76 years (M = 44.34; SD = 9.44) and the adolescents’ ages ranged from 14 to 18 years (M = 15.96; SD = 1.61).

All of the adolescents were enrolled full time in high school and 63% of the caregivers had a high school diploma or less (n = 76). At the time of the survey, 28% of the caregivers were working in either full-time or part-time capacity (n = 33) and the rest were either unemployed or disabled (n = 49; 43%). About 65% of the caregivers reported a yearly income of $20,000 or less (n = 78), but incomes in the sample ranged from less than $10,000 a year (n = 32, or 27%) to over $50,000 a year (n = 7, or 5%). Approximately 84% of the caregivers were single or never married (n = 99) and 16% were either married or cohabitating (n = 21). A further breakdown of these demographic variables is provided in Table 1. Finally, the average number of individuals (in addition to the primary caregiver) residing in the households was 3.82 (SD = 2.19), ranging from 0 to 13, and the mean length of time in the home was 514 weeks (or approximately 10 years), with a range of 1 week to 2,756 weeks (or 53 years).

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics of Families Based on Caregiver Report (N = 115).

Variable	n (%)
Total family income ($)
<10,000	32 (27)
10,000-15,000	29 (25)
15,000-20,000	12 (10)
20,000-25,000	13 (11)
25,000-30,000	11 (9)
30,000-40,000	9 (8)
40,000-50,000	2 (1)
>50,000	7 (5)
Caregivers’ education
Less than high school	33 (28)
High school/GED	51 (44)
Some college	20 (17)
Associates/technical college	7 (6)
College degree	4 (5)
Caregivers’ marital status
Marriage/common law	21 (18)
Separated	6 (5)
Divorced	13 (13)
Never married	65 (56)
Widowed	10 (9)
Caregivers’ work status
Working full/part time	33 (28)
Not working, looking for work	27 (23)
Not working, not looking	24 (21)
Nonworking student	3 (3)
Disabled	30 (26)

Measures

Demographic Information

Caregivers indicated their age, date of birth, marital status, gender, and highest academic degree as well as the age, gender, and family status of all children residing in the household. Caregivers also reported their employment status, yearly income in the past year, and the number of people financially supported. Income was coded into an 8-point scale: 1 = less than $10,000, 2 = $10,000 to $15,000, 3 = $15,000 to $20,000, 4 = $20,000 to $25,000, 5 = $25,000 to $30,000, 6 = $30,000 to $40,000, 7 = $40,000 to $50,000, and 8 = $50,000 or more. Adolescents were asked to indicate their age, gender, years in school, and current employment status.

Religion

Religion was assessed using the Religious Support Scale (Fiala, Bjorck, & Gorsuch, 2002). Religious support is defined as extent to which a person’s religion provides resources and support to help cope with stressful events (Fiala et al., 2002) and is measured through three subscales: (a) support from congregation, (b) support from God, and (c) support from religious leaders. Support from congregation is defined as the extent to which individuals feel supported by other church members and is measured through seven items, including “Others in my congregation give me the sense that I belong” and “I can turn to others in my congregation for advice when I have problems.” Support from God is defined as the degree to which individuals feel a divine being or deity is looking out for their well-being and is assessed through seven items, including “God gives me the sense that I belong” and “I have worth in the eyes of God.” Finally, church leader support refers to the extent to which individuals feel church leaders care about their life and situation and is measured through seven items, including “I have worth in the eyes of my church leaders” and “I feel appreciated by my church leaders.” All items are measured on a scale of 1 (strong disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), and scores were averaged for each subscale, so that higher scores indicate higher levels of perceived support.

Previous investigations indicate strong internal reliability of the three subscale scores (Fiala et al., 2002). Furthermore, this measure’s scores appear to have strong criterion validity. Specifically, Fiala et al. (2002) found that higher levels of all three subscales were related to lower depression and greater life satisfaction among a sample of Protestant adults. Similarly, Good & Willoughby (2008) found a positive association between religious support and mental and physical health.

Household Routines

Household routines was measured by The Family Routines Inventory (Jensen, James, Boyce, & Hartnett, 1983). The scale tapped into the degree to which caregivers and adolescents independently perceived household life as being predictable and organized, and the extent to which these routines were seen as important. The scale consists of two subscales: (a) frequency of household routines and (b) importance of routines. The frequency of household routine scale assesses the degree to which routines are predictable and consistent through a series of 14 items, including “Children do the same thing each day as soon as they get up,” “Children do homework at the same time every day during the week,” and “Family eats at the same time each day during the week.” The importance of routines scale asks respondents to think about each item and rate the extent to which they believe this routine is important. Respondents were asked to indicate the frequency of these events on a scale of 1 (almost never) to 4 (almost every day). Only the frequency of routine subscale was used in the current study, and both caregivers and adolescents reported on this scale based on their own perspective. Items were averaged across the 14 items, such that higher scores indicated a higher frequency of household organization. Jensen et al. (1983) reported that the scale scores had an internal reliability estimate of .79. Construct validity was demonstrated through correlations of .2 to .36 with measures of family cohesion, organization, and control (Jensen et al., 1983).

Parenting

Parenting behaviors were measured using the shortened version of the Reports of Parental Behavior Inventory (Schaefer, 1965; Schludermann & Schludermann, 1988). This measure was originally created by Schaefer (1965) and contained 26 scales with 10 items each, for a total of 260 items. The scale was later revised to a shortened (30 item) measure (Children’s Report of Parent Behavior Inventory) by Schludermann and Schludermann (1988), which is the version used in the current study. Both caregivers and adolescents were asked separately to complete the scale. Adolescents were asked to complete the measure twice, thinking separately of their male and female caregiver (only answers about female caregivers were used in the current analyses). The measure consisted of three distinct factors tapping into parental acceptance, parental use of psychological control, and parental use of behavioral control (Schludermann & Schludermann, 1988). Psychological control refers to the degree to which caregivers utilize psychological manipulation to control their child’s behavior. A sample item is, “I will not talk to my child when he/she displeases me.” The behavioral control subscale measured the perceived level of behavioral supervision and monitoring that caregivers have over adolescents and included items such as, “I believe in having a lot of rules for my child.” Finally, the acceptance subscale measured the degree of warmth and nurturance caregivers provide such as “I always listen to my child’s ideas.” Items were scored on a 3-point scale, with 0 (Not at all like me), 1 (Somewhat like me), and 2 (A lot like me). Each subscale was scored by summing across the corresponding items. Higher scores indicated higher reports of each particular parenting strategy.

The shortened version has yielded good internal reliability of the scores, ranging from .76 to .91 on both parent and adolescent reports in past studies of ethnically and economically diverse families with adolescents (Hammen, Brennan, Keenan-Miller, Hazel, & Najman, 2010; Hammen, Shih, & Brennan, 2004). This scale has been demonstrated to be related to positive emotional development in adolescents over a 3-year period, thus demonstrating predictive validity (Hare, Marston, & Allen, 2011).

Adolescent Problem Behavior

Adolescent problem behavior was assessed using a checklist developed by Gold and Reimer (1975) and given to adolescents to complete. The list consisted of 15 delinquent behaviors most common among adolescents between the ages of 13 and 16, such as drug and alcohol use and stealing and cheating behaviors. Adolescents were asked to indicate how often they had engaged in each behavior in the past year (1 = never, 2 = often or twice, 3 = often, 4 = several times). Scores were dichotomized to indicate whether the adolescent had engaged in each behavior (0 = never, 1 = often or more frequently) and then summed up, so that scores ranged from 0 (no delinquent behavior in the past year) to 15 (engaged in all 15 behaviors in the past year). This measure evolved from the National Survey of Youth (NSY) study, a longitudinal research study conducted by Gold and Reimer between 1967 and 1972 in Flint, Michigan. The researchers collected data based on a national probability sample of 847 adolescents between the ages of 13 and 16. Although Gold and Reimer (1975) did not provide a reliability estimate for the scores, follow-up investigation of the same set of adolescents found that 78% of the self-report delinquent activities on the scale were serious enough to be reported as crimes. This connection between self-reported delinquency and potential for criminal report indicated strong consistency between self-report and actual observation of these behaviors by the police (Huizinga & Elliott, 1986).

Procedures

The data described in this study were part of a large-scale study on the lives of African American families with adolescents living in poor urban settings, which broadly focused on understanding the day-to-day stressors affecting these families and identifying available resources in their communities. Data were collected between the fall of 2007 and the fall of 2009. The families recruited for participation were solicited using census tract data to identify neighborhoods composed primarily of economically disadvantaged African American families. The neighborhood that was targeted had a median household income of $21,177 at the time of the study and was over 75% Black (Rosmarin et al., 2013). All households in the neighborhood received letters inviting them to participate in a study of African American family life. The letters were followed by telephone calls soliciting the families’ participation. Interested families had to meet the following eligibility criteria to participate: (a) self-identify as African American or Black, (b) have a child between the ages of 14 and 18 years old, and (c) serve as the primary caregiver for the adolescent (including aunts and grandmothers). The measures were administered by trained undergraduate (six undergraduate assistants: two men and four women; two African American and four White) and graduate interviewers (two women graduate students: one White and one mixed race) and took approximately 1 hour to complete. Research assistants received training from the principal investigator prior to data collection. It was not always possible to match participants and interviewers by race for all interviews, due to scheduling challenges for both the participants and the interviewers. Data were not recorded or kept about the race of each interviewee-interviewer dyad. All interviews were conducted face-to-face at the participants’ homes, where the adolescent and the caregiver were interviewed in separate rooms. The measures were administered in the same order of presentation, and there was no randomization of questions or measures. Interviewers read the surveys out loud to the respondents in order to help those who may have had difficulty reading, and the interviewer then recorded their responses. Respondents were paid $25 in total for their participation per family, which included parent and adolescent respondents.

Analytic Strategy

Preliminary analyses included calculation of internal reliabilities, means, standard deviations, and measures of skewness and kurtosis for all key study variables. Between-subject analyses (t tests and analysis of variance) were used to determine whether there were differences on any of the key variables based on demographic characteristics (e.g., marital status, education, gender). Related samples t tests and likelihood ratios were used to determine whether there were differences between adolescents and caregivers in reporting on the same household routines. Finally, bivariate correlations were calculated between all key variables.

The primary analyses consisted of a series of hierarchical regressions consisting of two blocks for each of the five criterion variables: (a) adolescent reported psychological control, (b) adolescent reported behavioral control, (c) parent reported household routines, (d) adolescent reported household routines, and (e) adolescent reported problem behavior. The first block of all five regressions included the following control variables: adolescent age, parent’s age, parent’s marital status, parent’s education, total family income (as reported by parent), and adolescent gender. The second block of the equations included parent reported social religious support and parent reported spirituality, or support from God. Alpha levels for all five equations were adjusted to .01 in order to maintain an overall alpha level of .05.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics (mean, median, range, skewness, and kurtosis) for all key variables are presented in Table 2. The internal reliability estimates for the scores on the Religious Support Scale in the current study were .88 for congregational support, .89 for support from God, and .76 for support from religious leaders. There was a strong correlation between religious support from congregation members and support from leaders (r = .91, p = .001), so the two subscales were combined to form a single construct to represent social religious support. These two subscales were similarly correlated in the original study, with Fiala et al. (2002) reporting a correlation coefficient of r = .71. Good & Willoughby (2008) corroborated that this one-factor solution is a better fit for the religious support scale, thereby supporting the decision to combine the two social support scales (one from clergy and one from other congregation members) into a single measure of social religious support. The internal reliability for the scores of this subscale was .82 in the current sample.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics for Key Study Variables (N = 115).

Variable	M	SD	Mdn	Range (actual)	Skewness (SE)	Kurtosis (SE)
Religion
Social religious support	3.76	0.74	3.96	2.0-5.0	−0.51 (0.25)	−0.19 (0.47)
Support from God	4.45	0.62	4.57	1.3-5.0	−2.51 (0.23)	9.70 (0.45)
Parenting
Behavioral control (adolescent reported)	9.15	2.39	10.00	2.0-12.0	−0.87 (0.23)	0.32 (0.45)
Psychological control (adolescent reported)	10.69	3.50	11.00	2.0-19.0	−0.09 (0.23)	−0.11 (0.45)
Household routines
Parent reported	3.11	0.49	3.14	1.6-4.0	−0.50 (0.22)	−0.07 (0.44)
Adolescent reported	2.68	0.53	2.71	1.4-3.8	−0.16 (0.22)	−0.25 (0.45)
Adolescent problem behavior	3.88	2.54	4.00	0.0-13.0	0.89 (0.23)	0.93 (0.45)

Note: M = mean; SD = standard deviation; Mdn = median; SE = standard error.

The internal reliability estimates for the scores of the family routines measure were similar for adolescents (.73) and parents (.76). The internal reliability for the scores on the adolescent problem behavior was .78. In terms of the parenting inventory, the internal reliability estimates of the adolescent responses were .60 for behavioral control and .67 for psychological control. Several parenting subscales were dropped from the current analyses due to low internal reliability (Cronbach’s α < .60): caregiver reported psychological control, behavioral control and acceptance, and adolescent reported acceptance. The only two scales that were retained from the original parenting inventory were adolescent reported behavioral control and adolescent reported psychological control.

Preliminary analyses were conducted to determine whether differences existed on the key variables as a function of demographic characteristics. Independent samples t tests determined that there were no statistically significant differences on household routines or religious support variables based on parental marital status (single vs. married or cohabitating), adolescent gender (boys versus girls), adolescents’ working status (employed or not), and caregivers’ working status (employed or not). There were statistically significant differences in adolescents’ reports of psychological control based on caregivers’ educational status, F(4, 109) = 3.38, p = .012; η² = .11. Post hoc tests using Tukey’s adjustment showed that adolescents with maternal caregivers who had an associate or bachelor’s degree reported lower levels of psychological control (M = 9.33) than those with a high school diploma or GED (M = 11.09) and those with less than a high school degree (M = 11.35).

Looking more closely at household routines, a related samples t test was used to compare mean levels of reported household routines between caregivers and their respective adolescents and revealed a statistically significant difference, t(112) = 6.59, p = .001; Cohen’s d = .73; 95% confidence interval (CI): −0.51 to −0.25. Caregivers reported higher mean levels of overall routine (M = 3.09, SD = 0.52) than their adolescents (M = 2.71, SD = 0.52). Likelihood ratios (LR) were calculated to determine whether differences existed between the number of caregivers and adolescents agreeing on specific items from the household routine scale. There were statistically significant differences in reports of adolescents doing household chores, LR(9) = 23.83, p = .005, with a medium effect size (Cramer’s v = .25). Caregivers reported children doing household chores more frequently than adolescents reported doing the same chores themselves. There were also differences in reporting frequency of having dinner together at the same time every night, LR(9) = 18.54, p = .029, with adolescents reporting fewer regular dinners than their caregivers. There was a medium effect size for this result (Cramer’s v = .21).

Bivariate correlations between the key variables are presented in Table 3. For caregivers, higher levels of social religious support were associated with higher levels of support from God (r = .37, p = .001) and higher parental reports of household routines (r = .25, p = .011). Caregivers who reported higher levels of support from God also reported higher levels of perceived household routines (r = .23, p = .014). Adolescent reports of household routine were associated with higher levels of their perceived behavioral control (r = .27, p = .004).

Table 3.

Correlations Between Key Variables (N = 115).

	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. SRS
2. SG	.37**
3. RPR	.25*	.23*
4. RAR	−.12	−.10	.07
5. BCA	−.03	.01	.13	.27**
6. PCA	−.06	.01	.06	.06	−.14
7. APB	.18	−.04	.01	−.19*	−.14	.11

Note: SRS = social religious support; SG = support from God; RPR = routine parent report; RAR = routine adolescent report; BCA = behavioral control adolescent reported; PCA = psychological control adolescent reported; APB = adolescent problem behavior.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Primary Analyses

The current investigation hypothesized a significant association between caregivers’ religious social support, spirituality, parenting behaviors reported by both adolescents and caregivers, and adolescent problem behaviors. Five hierarchical regressions were modeled for each of the outcome variables using an adjusted alpha level of .01 for each one (see Analytic Strategy section above). The results will be presented for each outcome variable below and in Table 4. In terms of adolescent reported psychological control, none of the predictors were significant. The first block (adolescent age, parent’s age, parent’s marital status, parent’s education, total family income [as reported by parent], and adolescent gender) of the equation accounted for 11% of the variability, F(7, 101) = 1.81, p =.069, and the second block (parent reported social religious support and parent reported spirituality, or support from God) accounted for an additional 2% of the total variability, F(2, 99) = 1.03, p = .433. None of the predictor variables were significantly associated with psychological control.

Table 4.

Hierarchical Regression Analysis: Parenting and Household Routines Regressed on Religious Support (N = 115).

Predictor	APC			ABC			CHR			AHR			APB
Predictor	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β
Block 1: Control
Adolescent age	−.19	.15	−.14	−.28	.22	−.13	.03	.03	.11	.01	.03	.02	−.36	.23	−.65
Parent age	.02	.03	.07	.01	.04	.02	−.01	.01	1.15	−.01	.01	−.02	−.01	.01	−.04
Parent marital status	.03	.17	.02	−.42	.23	−.19	−.01	.03	.28	.05	.04	−.20	.09	.05	.55
Parent education	−.78*	.35	−.24*	−.76	.39	−.23	−.06	.06	.98	.08	.06	−1.34	.05	.07	.21
Family income	.17	.16	.13	−.24	.23	−1.05	.05	.03	1.53	−.02	.04	−.44	−.05	.04	−.40
Adolescent sex	.29	.54	.06	−.20	.76	−.26	.01	.10	.08	−.10	.12	−.82	.03	.06	.18
Block 2: Religion
SRS	−.02	.34	−.04	−.43	.48	−.89	.25**	.07	.17**	−.10	.08	−1.36	.10*	.36	.25*
SG	−.03	.49	−.05	−.32	.69	−.46	.23**	.08	.28**	−.19	.11	−1.77	−.45	.48	−.95

Total R²		.13			.03			.13			.05			.07

Note: APC = adolescent reported psychological control; ABC = adolescent reported behavioral control; CHR = caregiver reported household routine; AHR = adolescent reported household routine; APB = adolescent problem behavior; SRS = social religious support; SE = standard error; SG = support from God.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Similar results were obtained for the regression on adolescent reported behavioral control. The first block of the equation contributed to 3% of the explained variability, F(7, 101) = 0.36, p = .51, and none of the demographic predictors were significant. The second block of the equation contributed to less than 1% of the explained variability, F(2, 99) = 0.02, p = .63, and none of the religious support variables were significant predictors.

Results for caregiver reported household routines indicated that none of the demographic variables were significant predictors, and the first block contributed to 5% of the explained variability, F(7, 101) = 0.86, p = .48. The second block of the equation contributed to 8% of the variability, F(2, 99) = 8.68, p = .008. Higher levels of social religious support were significantly associated with higher levels of reported family routines for the caregivers (B = .25, SE = .07, β = .17, p = .007). Higher levels of support from God was also associated with higher levels of reported routines for the caregivers (B = .23, SE = .08, β = .28, p = .009).

On the other hand, the regression on adolescent reported household routine suggested that none of the demographic variables were significant predictors and that the first block contributed to 3% of the variability, F(7, 101) = 0.61, p = .729. The second block contributed to 2% of the variability in the model, F(2, 99) = 2.52, p = .087), and none of the religious support variables were significant predictors.

Finally, the regression on adolescent problem behavior indicated that the first block of the equation explained 2% of the variability, F(7, 101) = 0.27, p = .902, and none of the demographic variables were significantly associated with problem behaviors. The second block of the equation contributed to 5% of the explained variability, F(2, 99) = 4.32, p = .047. Social religious support was associated with higher levels of adolescent problem behavior (B = .10, SE = .36, p = .047). There was no significant association between support from God and adolescent problem behavior. Results from the hierarchical regressions are presented in Table 4.

Discussion

The current study examined the association between caregivers’ perceived support from God and church based on social support and the functioning of the family and adolescent. Specifically, we hypothesized that higher levels of support from both God and church members and clergy would be associated with lower levels of psychological and behavioral control parenting tactics and higher levels of household routines. We also hypothesized that higher levels of support from God and religious social support would be associated with lower levels of adolescent problem behaviors. Existing literature on religiosity and social religious support suggests that both factors are associated with enhanced well-being among both caregivers and families (Lamis, Wilson, et al., 2014). Therefore, we expected that this well-being would translate into positive parenting and household management techniques, which are often compromised under conditions of stress (Evans et al., 2005; McLoyd, 1990). The hypotheses were partially supported, and our results show that caregivers who reported higher levels of support from God and religious social support also reported higher levels of household routines. Though not significant, our results tentatively suggest that higher levels of social religious support may be connected to higher levels of adolescent problem behaviors.

Consistent with prior research, the participants in this sample reported high levels of spirituality and religious support (Kiser et al., 2005; Newport, 2006; Shorter-Gooden, 2000; Taylor & Chatters, 1988). The majority of participants either agreed or strongly agreed that they felt supported by church members and by God. In fact, higher levels of perceived social support from religious leaders and other members of the congregation were associated with higher levels of household routines, indicating that engagement in religious activities was associated with organization in the home, at least as reported by caregivers. This association is important, as lower levels of household routine have the potential to contribute to poor adolescent outcomes (Fiese, 2007). Therefore, it is possible that church attendance and spirituality could be associated with stability and routine, which have been demonstrated to be beneficial to children and adolescents (Evans et al., 2005).

The findings also showed that adolescents reported lower levels of routine than their caregivers and that the association between religion and routine was only true for caregiver reports. This discrepancy between parent and adolescent reports could be an important area to explore for several reasons. Limited research indicates that discrepancies in reporting between caregivers and adolescents are associated with maladaptive outcomes for adolescents (Hartos & Power, 2000; Ohannessian, Lerner, Lerner, & Von Eye, 2000). In a longitudinal study of sixth and seventh graders, Ohannessian et al. (2000) found that when adolescents and their mothers offered discrepant reports of family functioning, adolescents had higher levels of internalizing and externalizing symptoms. One possible explanation for this finding is that discrepancies may be indicative of general conflict and disagreement between parents and adolescents, which is a well-established developmental risk factor (Fuligni, 1998). More specific to the current investigation, it is possible that adolescents were less aware of the routines their caregivers were trying to establish and may therefore not have benefitted from them as much as they could (Hartos & Power, 2000). Future research should explore this latter point more in depth, as creating more regular routines, as perceived by the adolescent, could be beneficial to behavior and outcomes.

Our results also did not support the hypothesis that religion would be related to less psychological and behavioral control in parenting. Based on the psychological literature, we predicted that caregivers who felt more well supported would also experience better mental health and use more psychological control in their parenting (Conger & Elder, 1994). Interestingly, research from the field of sociology suggests that religious values, particularly at the community level, shape attitudes and beliefs as they pertain to many aspects of daily life, including parenting (Ellison & Sherkat, 1993). Sociological data indicate that certain religious orientations, such as Conservative Protestantism, are associated with harsh disciplinary strategies, which are tied to measurements of both psychological and behavioral control, particularly among parents who take a more literal approach to the bible (Ellison & Sherkat, 1993). While we measured caregivers’ feelings of being supported by God and members of the church, we did not inquire about their religious orientation and beliefs, which were most likely diverse. Future psychological research should take multiple aspects of religion into account when studying its association with parenting behaviors, as these behaviors appear to be shaped not only by perceptions of belongingness but also by specific values and beliefs.

Despite our lack of significant results, parental outcomes in the context of support is an important factor to examine. Social religious support and spirituality have both been linked to positive emotional and physical outcomes (Chatters et al., 2017), and parents with better mental and physical health are able to provide more accepting households, and parents’ warmth and positive forms of communication can potentially influence better outcomes for their adolescent children (Brody & Flor, 1997). In turn, children with fewer behavioral problems in adolescence are more likely to become successful adults and meaningfully contribute to society (Abar et al., 2009). Congregational support is a form of social support, which may help parents feel that their experiences with their adolescents are not unusual, creating feelings of acceptance in the family. Parents may socialize with other parents with similar concerns, providing them an outlet to share stress and concerns. This socialization and support could lead to more positive feelings and also acceptance. This idea of socialization and support leading to acceptance is consistent with findings in this literature base that report an association between positive feelings and participation in religious activities (Shorter-Gooden, 2004).

Implications for Practice

Psychologists, child welfare workers, and service providers should be aware of the role that religion and religious support play, either through support from congregations and/or clergy leaders, or spiritually through belief in a higher power. These things can play important roles in the lives of clients who are struggling to parent in the midst of difficult environmental circumstances. Low-income neighborhoods are rife with violence and lacking the amenities of middle- or upper-class neighborhoods, yet affordable housing shortages force many parents to stay despite these issues. Furthermore, many of the parents in this study, similar to many of the parents in neighborhoods across the country, are single mothers, with fewer resources than their middle- or upper-class counterparts.

Clinicians and case workers should be trained to ask clients about different types of support that they have or that might be available for them to tap into. Families might benefit from being encouraged to think about different sources of support, as these findings indicate that support through feelings of spirituality or through clergy members can be beneficial and have the potential to decrease parenting stress and lead to better outcomes for adolescents. Tools are available to help clinicians screen clients and assess for levels of spirituality and religious support in clients’ lives. Asking simple questions, such as “Do you visit a religious institution regularly” or “Do you find spirituality or belief in a higher power to help you cope with difficult situations,” can open the door to a longer and more in-depth conversation about the ways that parents and families use religion and spirituality in their daily lives. Alternatively, if clients choose not to discuss this topic or do not identify as religious or spiritual, it is equally important to respect this boundary and move forward. Families may also identify with and utilize varying levels of spirituality or religious beliefs in their lives.

Limitations and Needs for Further Research

While these findings have important implications for African American parents in urban, low-income neighborhoods, it should be noted that the study sample only examined 115 caregiver/adolescent pairs in one city in the Northeast region of the United States. It is unclear how generalizable the findings are to other areas of the United States, including other cities, so more research with larger, more geographically diverse samples is needed. Also notable were the low reliabilities of scores on several subscales of previously validated measures. The lower reliabilities of the scores on some subscales should be investigated in future research to understand whether this sample was an anomaly or whether the measures hold less reliability in scores among this population.

The study was also cross-sectional, eliminating the capability to determine time-order effect, as is possible with a longitudinal design. Adolescent and parent reports also differed on measures of perceived behavioral control and routine frequency. Parents may believe that they have more control and that they are instituting higher levels of routine in the home than are actually present. Further research should also examine these perceptions to determine possible reasons for differences. It is also important to acknowledge that there was no randomization in the order the questions were presented to participants. It is possible that earlier questions in the survey may have primed participants to answer subsequent questions differently than they otherwise would have. For example, the religion questions were asked toward the end of the questionnaire and might have been affected by respondent fatigue or influenced by earlier measures in the survey.

Finally, future research should also examine the long-term impact of religious support on children and adolescent behavior. It will be important to follow parent-child dyads from a younger age to learn more about the mechanisms through which religious support is helpful in improving outcomes for parents and children. Longitudinal research of this type will also work toward establishing more direct causal links between religious support and parent/child outcomes. Furthermore, studying the ways in which routine relates to religious and spiritual rituals could provide additional insight into this relationship for parent/child outcomes.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Abar

Carter

K. L.

Winsler

(2009). The effects of maternal parenting style and religious commitment on self-regulation, academic achievement, and risk behavior among African-American parochial college students. Journal of Adolescence, 32, 259-273.

Brody

G. H.

Flor

D. L.

(1997). Maternal psychological functioning, family processes, and child adjustment in rural, single-parent, African American families. Developmental Psychology, 33, 1000-1011. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.33.6.1000

Bronfenbrenner

Evans

G. W.

(2000). Developmental science in the 21st century: Emerging questions, theoretical models, research designs and empirical findings. Social Development, 9, 115-125. doi:10.1111/1467-9507.00114

Bruns

E. J.

Lewis

Kinney

L. M.

Rosner

Weist

M. D.

Dantzler

J. A.

(2005). Clergy members as responders to victims of sexual abuse and assault. Journal of Religion & Spirituality in Social Work, 24(3), 3-19. doi:10.1300/J377v24n03_02

Chatters

L. M.

Taylor

R. J.

Lincoln

K. D.

(1999). African American religious participation: A multi-sample comparison. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 38, 132-145. doi:10.2307/1387589

Chatters

L. M.

Taylor

R. J.

Lincoln

K. D.

Nguyen

Joe

(2011). Church-based social support and suicidality among African Americans and Black Caribbeans. Archives of Suicide Research, 15, 337-353. doi:10.1080/13811118.2011.615703

Chatters

L. M.

Taylor

R. J.

Woodward

A. T.

Bohnert

A. S.

Peterson

T. L.

Perron

B. E.

(2017). Differences between African Americans’ and non-Hispanic Whites’ utilization of clergy for counseling with serious personal problems. Race and Social Problems, 9, 1-11. doi:10.1007/s12552-017-9207-z

Chatters

L. M.

Taylor

R. J.

Woodward

A. T.

Nicklett

E. J.

(2016). Social support from church and family members and depressive symptoms among older African Americans. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 23, 559-567. doi:10.1016/j.jagp.2014.04.008

Christian

M. D.

Barbarin

O. A.

(2001). Cultural resources and psychological adjustment of African American children: Effects of spirituality and racial attribution. Journal of Black Psychology, 27, 43-63. Retrieved from http://jbp.sagepub.com/content/27/1/43.short

10.

R. E.

(2010). Ethical considerations in counselor-clergy collaboration. Journal of Spirituality in Mental Health, 12(4), 242-254.

11.

Cochran

J. K.

(1992). The effects of religiosity on adolescent self-reported frequency of drug and alcohol use. Journal of Drug Issues, 22, 91-104. doi:10.1177/002204269202200106

12.

Conger

Elder

G. H.

(1994). Families in troubled times: Adapting to change in rural America (Social institutions and social change series). New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

13.

Conger

R. D.

McCarty

J. A.

Yang

R. K.

Lahey

B. B.

Kropp

J. P.

(1984). Perception of child, child-rearing values, and emotional distress as mediating links between environmental stressors and observed maternal behavior. Child Development, 55, 2234-2247. doi:10.2307/1129795

14.

Cotton

Zebracki

Rosenthal

S. L.

Tsevat

Drotar

(2006). Religion/spirituality and adolescent health outcomes: A review. Journal of Adolescent Health, 38, 472-480. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2005.10.005

15.

Denham

(2003). Relationships between family rituals, family routines, and health. Journal of Family Nursing, 9, 305-330. doi:10.1177/1074840703255447

16.

Ellison

C. G.

George

L. K.

(1994). Religious involvement, social ties, and social support in a southeastern community. Journal for the scientific study of religion, 46-61.

17.

Ellison

C. G.

Sherkat

D. E.

(1993). Obedience and autonomy: Religion and parental values reconsidered. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 32, 313-329. doi:10.2307/1387172

18.

Evans

G. W.

Gonnella

Marcynyszyn

L. A.

Gentile

Salpekar

(2005). The role of chaos in poverty and children’s socioemotional adjustment. Psychological Science, 16, 560-565. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01575.x

19.

Fiala

W. E.

Bjorck

J. P.

Gorsuch

(2002). The Religious Support Scale: Construction, validation, and cross-validation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 761-786. doi:10.1023/A:1020264718397

20.

Fiese

B. H.

(2007). Routines and rituals: Opportunities for participation in family health. OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health, 27(1 Suppl.), 41S-49S. Retrieved from http://otj.sagepub.com/content/27/1_suppl/41S.short

21.

Fuligni

A. J.

(1998). Authority, autonomy, and parent-adolescent conflict and cohesion: A study of adolescents from Mexican, Chinese, Filipino, and European backgrounds. Developmental Psychology, 34, 782-792. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.34.4.782

22.

Gold

Reimer

D. J.

(1975). Changing patterns of delinquent behavior among Americans 13 through 16 years old: 1967-1972. Crime and Delinquency, 7, 483-517. Retrieved from https://us-sagepub-com-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/en-us/nam/crime-delinquency/journal200959

23.

Gonzalez

S. J.

Davis

(2012). Understanding the unique experiences of undocumented, Hispanic women who are living in poverty and coping with breast cancer. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 10, 116-123. doi:10.1080/15562948.2012.646514

24.

Good

Willoughby

(2008). Adolescence as a sensitive period for spiritual development. Child Development Perspectives, 2(1), 32-37.

25.

Gutierrez

I. A.

Goodwin

L. J.

Kirkinis

Mattis

J. S.

(2014). Religious socialization in African American families: The relative influence of parents, grandparents, and siblings. Journal of Family Psychology, 28, 779-789. doi:10.1037/a0035732

26.

Hammen

Brennan

P. A.

Keenan-Miller

Hazel

N. A.

Najman

J. M.

(2010). Chronic and acute stress, gender, and serotonin transporter gene-environment interactions predicting depression symptoms in youth. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51, 180-187. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02177.x

27.

Hammen

Shih

J. H.

Brennan

P. A.

(2004). Intergenerational transmission of depression: Test of an interpersonal stress model in a community sample. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 511-522. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.72.3.511

28.

Handler

J. F.

Hasenfeld

(2007). Blame welfare, ignore poverty and inequality. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

29.

Hare

A. L.

Marston

E. G.

Allen

J. P

(2011). Maternal acceptance and adolescents’ emotional communication: A longitudinal study. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 744-751. doi:10.1007/s10964-010-9586-6

30.

Hartos

J. L.

Power

T. G.

(2000). Association between mother and adolescent reports for assessing relations between parent-adolescent communication and adolescent adjustment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29, 441-450. doi:10.1023/A:1005158425861

31.

Huizinga

Elliott

D. S.

(1986). Reassessing the reliability and validity of self-report delinquency measures. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 2, 293-327. doi:10.1007/BF01064258

32.

Jensen

E. W.

James

S. A.

Boyce

W. T.

Hartnett

S. A.

(1983). The Family Routines Inventory: Development and validation. Social Science & Medicine, 17, 201-211. doi:10.1016/0277-9536(83)90117-X

33.

Kiser

L. J.

Bennett

Heston

Paavola

(2005). Family ritual and routine: Comparison of clinical and non-clinical families. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 14, 357-372. doi:10.1007/s10826-005-6848-0

34.

Krause

Ellison

C. G.

Marcum

J. P.

(2002). The effects of church-based emotional support on health: Do they vary by gender? Sociology of Religion, 63, 21-47. doi:10.2307/3712538

35.

Krause

Ellison

C. G.

Shaw

B. A.

Marcum

J. R.

Boardman

J. D.

(2001). Church-based social support and religious coping. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 40, 637-656. doi:10.1111/0021-8294.00082

36.

Lamis

D. A.

West

L. M.

Mehta

Lisco

Tarantino

Wilson

Kaslow

N. J.

(2014). Existential well-being, drug abuse, and parenting stress in African American women. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 12, 686-699. doi:10.1007/s11469-014-9503-4

37.

Lamis

D. A.

Wilson

C. K.

Tarantino

Lansford

J. E.

Kaslow

N. J.

(2014). Neighborhood disorder, spiritual well-being, and parenting stress in African American women. Journal of Family Psychology, 28, 769-778. doi:10.1037/a0036373

38.

Lanza

H. I.

Drabick

D. A.

(2011). Family routine moderates the relation between child impulsivity and oppositional defiant disorder symptoms. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 39, 83-94. doi:10.1007/s10802-010-9447-5

39.

Macartney

Bishaw

Fontenot

(2013). Poverty rates for selected detailed race and Hispanic groups by state and place: 2007-2011. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr11-17.pdf

40.

Mattis

J. S.

Jagers

R. J.

(2001). A relational framework for the study of religiosity and spirituality in the lives of African Americans. Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 519-539. doi:10.1002/jcop.1034

41.

McAdoo

H. P.

(1995). Stress levels, family help patterns, and religiosity in middle-and working-class African American single mothers. Journal of Black Psychology, 21, 424-449. doi:10.1177/00957984950214008

42.

McLoyd

(1990). The impact of economic hardship on Black families and children: Psychological distress, parenting, and socioemotional development. Child Development, 61, 311-346. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1990.tb02781.x

43.

Miller

Gur

(2002). Religiosity, depression, and physical maturation in adolescent girls. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 41, 206-215. doi:10.1098/00004583-200202000-00015

44.

Musgrave

C. F.

Allen

C. E.

Allen

G. J.

(2002). Spirituality and health for women of color. American Journal of Public Health, 92, 557-560. doi:10.2105/AJPH.92.4.557

45.

Newport

(2006, November 29). Religion most important to Blacks, women, and older Americans. Gallup Poll Briefing, 1-6. Retrieved from http://news.gallup.com/poll/25585/religion-most-important-blacks-women-older-americans.aspx

46.

Nooney

Woodrum

(2002). Religious coping and church-based social support as predictors of mental health outcomes: Testing a conceptual model. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41(2), 359-368.

47.

Ohannessian

C. M.

Lerner

J. V.

Lerner

R. M.

Von Eye

(2000). Adolescent-parent discrepancies in perceptions of family functioning and early adolescent self-competence. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24, 362-372. doi:10.1080/01650250050118358

48.

Olphen

Schulz

Israel

Chatters

Klem

Parker

Williams

(2003). Religious involvement, social support, and health among African-American women on the east side of Detroit. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 18, 549-557. doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.21031.x

49.

Oman

(2013). Religious and spirituality: Evolving meanings. In Paloutzian

R. F.

Park

C. L.

(Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality (2nd ed., pp. 23-47). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

50.

Petts

R. J.

(2014). Family, religious attendance, and trajectories of psychological well-being among youth. Journal of Family Psychology, 28, 759-768. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00953.x

51.

Piraino

Krema

Williams

S. M.

Ferrari

J. R.

(2014). Hour of HOPE: A spiritual prayer program for homeless adults. Universal Journal of Psychology, 2(1), 1-4. Retrieved from http://www.hrpub.org/journals/article_info.php?aid=1076

52.

Pollock

E. D.

Kazman

J. B.

Deuster

(2015). Family functioning and stress in African American families: A strength-based approach. Journal of Black Psychology, 41, 144-169. Retrieved from http://jbp.sagepub.com/content/41/2/144

53.

Roche

K. M.

Ghazarian

S. R.

(2012). The value of family routines for the academic success of vulnerable adolescents. Journal of Family Issues, 33, 874-897. Retrieved from http://jfi.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/11/20/0192513X11428569

54.

Rosmarin

D. H.

Bigda-Peyton

J. S.

Kertz

S. J.

Smith

Rauch

S. L.

Björgvinsson

(2013). A test of faith in God and treatment: The relationship of belief in God to psychiatric treatment outcomes. Journal of affective disorders, 146(3), 441-446.

55.

Saegert

Evans

G. W.

(2003). Poverty, housing niches, and health in the United States. Journal of Social Issues, 59, 569-589. doi:10.1111/1540-4560.00078

56.

Schaefer

E. S.

(1965). A configurational analysis of children’s reports of parent behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 29, 552-557. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/ccp/

57.

Schludermann

E. H.

Schludermann

S. M.

(1988). Children’s report on parent behavior (CRPBI-108, CRPBI-30) for older children and adolescents (Technical report). Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada: University of Manitoba, Department of Psychology.

58.

Shannon-Lewy

Dull

V. T.

(2005). The response of christian clergy to domestic violence: Help or hindrance? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10(6), 647-659.

59.

Shorter-Gooden

Jackson

L. C.

(2000). The interweaving of cultural and intrapsychic issues in the therapeutic relationship. Psychotherapy with African American women: Innovations in psychodynamic perspectives, 15-32.

60.

Shorter-Gooden

(2004). Multiple resistance strategies: How African American women cope with racism and sexism. Journal of Black Psychology, 30, 406-425. doi:10.1177/0095798404266050

61.

Spencer

T. J.

Faraone

S. V.

Biederman

Lerner

Cooper

K. M.

Zimmerman

(2006). Does prolonged therapy with a long-acting stimulant suppress growth in children with ADHD? Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 45(5), 527-537.

62.

Taylor

R. J.

Chatters

L. M.

(1988). Church members as a source of informal social support. Review of Religious Research, 30, 193-203. doi:10.2307/3511355

63.

Taylor

R. J.

Chatters

L. M.

Jackson

J. S.

(2009). Correlates of spirituality among African Americans and Caribbean Blacks in the United States: findings from the National Survey of American Life. Journal of Black Psychology, 35, 317-342. doi:10.1177/0095798408329947

64.

Taylor

R. J.

Chatters

L. M.

Tucker

M. B.

Lewis

(1991). Developments in research on Black families: A decade review. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 993-1014. doi:10.2307/353315

65.

Wright

L. S.

Frost

C. J.

Wisecarver

S. J.

(1993). Church attendance, meaningfulness of religion, and depressive symptomatology among adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 22, 559-568. doi:10.1007/BF01537716