Parenting and Youth Psychosocial Well- Being in South Korea using Fixed-Effects Models

Abstract

The present study analyzed the relationship between various parenting practices and an array of adolescent psychosocial outcomes in South Korea, while controlling for demographic, family, school, and neighborhood factors. Analyses were based on five waves of the nationally representative Korea Youth Panel Survey using 3,263 youth (Person Years = 13,121). All parenting (warmth, monitoring, and hostility) and youth’s psychosocial (confidence, depressive symptoms, and aggressive behaviors) measures were reported by the youth. Within-person fixed-effects regression results indicated that parental warmth not only facilitated youth’s confidence, but also protected them against feelings of depression and aggression. Parental monitoring was a predictor of positive self-perception. As a parental measure with a preventive-orientation, monitoring exhibited a trend toward reducing aggressive behavior. On the other hand, hostile parenting was significantly associated with depressive symptoms and aggressive behaviors. Factors external to the family, such as school and neighborhoods were also associated with mental health outcomes among Korean youth.

Keywords

fixed effects mental health parenting South Korea youth

Youth mental health status, represented in constructs such as confidence, aggression, and depression, is worth investigating because maladaptive conditions that develop during early and middle adolescence are likely to bear a large risk of continuing into adulthood, or becoming a platform for the onset of other risk behaviors (Kessler, Avenevoli, & Merikangas, 2001; Kessler et al., 2005). Also, some emotions, such as the feeling of rejection, may be most detrimental during adolescence, a time when youth face new social, academic, and physical changes (Nolan, Flynn, & Garber, 2003).

Research has strongly suggested that parents continue to be a critical factor in contributing to the status of youth psychosocial well-being, despite the assertion that friends exert strong influence on youth development during the unique stage of adolescence (Collins, Maccoby, Steinberg, Hetherington, & Bornstein, 2000; Galambos, Barker, & Almeida, 2003). This is because adolescence is not a mere extension of early childhood, nor is adolescence exclusively influenced by peer relationships such that parental factors play a trivial role in the social development of youths (Smetana, Campione-Barr, & Metzger, 2006). Traditional psychological perspectives have suggested that adolescence is a time of increased conflict between parents and youth (Montemayor, 1986). Indeed, generational stake theory (Bengtson & Kuypers, 1971) would indicate that adolescents’ desire for autonomy and independence inherently brings adolescents into conflict with the needs of their parents. However, other theorizing and empirical work has called into question the idea that this growing desire for autonomy and independence by adolescents needs to be inherently conflict ridden (Steinberg, 2001). Therefore, adjudication of these two seemingly contrary viewpoints requires a better understanding of the nature and quality of parent–youth relationships during adolescence by researchers and practitioners.

Parenting Practices and Youth Mental Health

The dynamics of parent–youth relationship patterns have been delineated by parental acceptance and rejection theory (Rohner, 1999). Broadly speaking, the parental acceptance and rejection theory of socialization posits that a positive emotional connection between parents and children, characterized by warmth and support, while minimizing parental rejecting behavior, such as hostility, is associated with desirable changes in child development. In accordance with this theory, numerous empirical studies have provided support for the theoretical predictions of the relationship between specific parenting behaviors and adolescents psychological adjustment within and across cultures (Gershoff et al., 2010; Khaleque & Rohner, 2002; Lansford et al., 2005).

Parental practices that reflect warmth, cohesion, affection, and support toward youth have been uniformly linked with a variety of positive psychosocial outcomes. Laible and Carlo (2004) provided empirical evidence for greater maternal support to be predictive of higher levels of self-worth and social competence among middle and high school students. In another study, maternal emotional connectedness and acceptance were negatively associated with depressive symptoms but positively related with positive self-perception (Garber, Robinson, & Valentiner, 1997). Theory suggests that supportive parental practices can become signals that convey the message that youth are valued, accepted, and loved and have consequently been associated with fewer aggressive behavioral problems among youths (Asscher, Hermanns, Dekovic, & Reitz, 2007).

On the other hand, hostile and rejecting parental practices, such as physical punishment and verbal abuse, may impede youth’s individualization processes and may be associated with a strong sense of rejection and detachment from parents. Corporal punishment, in the form of beating and spanking, has been understood to predict increased antisocial behavior of children and youth (Gershoff et al., 2010), and at an increasingly greater level with age (Grogan-Kaylor, 2005). A dyadic hostile (e.g., angry coercion, antisocial interaction) relationship between youth and parents has been found to relate with higher levels of youth aggression and rule breaking behavior in both cross-sectional and longitudinal data (Buehler, 2006; Kim, Hetherington, & Reiss, 1999). Hostile verbal use and criticism have been associated with increased levels of anxiety/depression and aggression among children and adolescents (Crouter, Bumpus, Davis, & McHale, 2005; Gibb & Abela, 2008; Moore & Pepler, 2006; Spillane-Grieco, 2000).

Parental monitoring, conceptualized as parental awareness of youth’s whereabouts and affiliations, can act as a protective factor (Pettit, Laird, Dodge, Bates, & Criss, 2001). From a developmental perspective, monitoring is particularly important during the adolescent stage when youth spend increasingly less time being directly supervised by their parents but spend more time with peers (Kim et al., 1999; Larson, 1996). Since monitoring is a less hostile and coercive form of control that does not necessarily entail rejection or domination, the positive effects of monitoring on development can be identified (Pettit et al., 2001). Youth with higher levels of parental monitoring have been found to engage in fewer delinquent activities over time (Laird, Pettit, Bates, & Dodge, 2003; Longest & Shanahan, 2007; Pettit et al., 2001). Consistent monitoring and supervision may also predict greater self-worth and competence (Garber et al., 1997). Furthermore, Formoso, Gonzales, and Aiken (2000) have reported that parental monitoring can be a protective factor that is associated with lower levels of youth depression.

Potentially Different Parenting–Youth Outcome Relationships

To date, the majority of studies have used U.S. samples to explain the link between parenting and youth psychosocial outcomes (e.g., Buehler, 2006; Galambos et al., 2003; Garber et al., 1997; Laible & Carlo, 2004; Pettit et al., 2001). However, sociocultural differences specific to race, ethnicity, and nationality may all complicate the parent–youth relationship due to multiple understandings of parenthood. Consequently, the meaning of parenting may differ across various cultural groups. There has been empirical evidence to support the idea that adolescents accept and respond somewhat differently to parental practices across cultural boundaries due to various ascribed understandings of the parent–youth relationship. For example, two cross-national studies that examined six countries (China, India, Italy, Kenya, Philippines, and Thailand) revealed some cultural differences regarding what are understood as normative disciplinary practices (e.g., spank or slap, grab or shake, beat up, yelling or scolding, shaming, expressions of disappointment, and timeout; Gershoff et al., 2010; Lansford et al., 2005). Both studies provided some suggestion that the child’s differential internalization of parental practices slightly moderated the parent–child relationship; in societies where hostile parenting practices were more culturally accepted, the negative consequences of parent’s disciplinary practices, such as physical and verbal punishment, on children’s aggression and anxiety were weaker.

Cultural norms have likely shaped the understanding of parenting practices in South Korea (Korea, hereafter) as well. In a seminal work that studied the parent–youth relationship among Koreans, Rohner and Pettengill (1985) found that perceived levels of control (e.g., rejection, strictness, hostility) by adolescents were also associated with positive aspects of parenting, such as warmth. The authors indicated that these results were in discord with findings from the United States and maintained the importance of being attuned to potential differences in perceived parenting, which may result in different behavioral, emotional, and social youth outcomes (Rohner & Pettengill, 1985).

In a more recent qualitative study, Yang (2009) explained that pronounced power inequality between parents and children still existed in Korea, where children are expected to (and the children expect themselves) to conform toward elders. Yang (2009) claimed that such power dynamics were attributable to the family-oriented culture based on Confucianism, which emphasizes obedience as an essential virtue for maintaining family functioning. As such, it is possible that the application of harsh disciplinary practices may not always be associated with hostility but instead may be attributed to parents’ positive motives to foster socially acceptable behavior among their offspring. Yang (2009) concluded that the distinct Korean culture would make the nature of the parent–child relationship markedly stand out from others. This idea is further supported by the finding that although the majority of Koreans agree that violence (such as slapping the face, kicking, whipping with belt) is an unacceptable form of behavior, Korean respondents tend to become more ambivalent when asked about parental use of corporal punishment for disciplinary measures (such as cane stroking) as a means to socialize children (National Center for the Prevention of Child Abuse 2003). In detail, more than 95% of Korean adults considered the former forms of parental behavior as child abuse, but less than 30% considered the latter as such. Furthermore, a public poll reported that 64.7% of adults agreed that corporal punishment was an effective method to discipline children (Gallup, 2003).

Common Relationships across Cultures

Some researchers, however, have contended that certain parental behaviors have common detrimental effects on adolescent outcomes, even across cultures (Gershoff et al., 2010; Khaleque & Rohner, 2002; Kim, Guo, Koh, & Cain, 2010; Lansford et al., 2005; Vazsonyi, Hibbert, & Blake Snider, 2003). A meta-analysis of 43 studies worldwide (from Africa, Asia, Europe, South America, and Caribbean) found that there were persistent patterns in the relationship between parenting behaviors and children’s psychological adjustment, including self-esteem, aggression, and depression (Khaleque & Rohner, 2002). Similarly, a four-country study (Hungary, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the United States) reported that parental closeness and support predicted lower levels of aggressive behavior and depressive/anxious symptoms as well as higher levels of self-esteem across all four countries (Vazsonyi et al., 2003). Furthermore, one of the six-country studies mentioned earlier (Gershoff et al., 2010) found that although beliefs about the normativeness of discipline slightly weakened the negative relationship of certain disciplinary practices with children’s aggression and anxiety, certain parenting practices, particularly physical punishment, were associated with undesirable child outcomes across all the countries studied.

Consideration of Multiple Domains

When examining parent–youth relationships, it is important to recognize these relationships do not occur in isolation and must be considered in the context of youth demographics, family resources, school, and neighborhood characteristics (Smetana et al., 2006). Many empirical studies have supported ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1986) that there are multiple dimensions, such as the family, school, and neighborhood, that affect an individual’s development. As such, multiple domains must be accounted for, in order to adequately identify the true parent–youth relationship. For example, the link between youth outcomes and a family’s socioeconomic status (SES; e.g., household income, parent’s education) and family structure has been well identified (Barrera et al., 2002; Berger, 2007; Griffin, Botvin, Scheier, Diaz, & Miller, 2000; Kim, 2007). Furthermore, studies have reported that adaptability in school, such as being a victim of peer violence (Kim, Koh, & Leventhal, 2005) or having poor relationships with teachers (Nation, Vieno, Perkins, & Santinello, 2008; Sim, 2000), may be associated with a broad spectrum of behavioral and social problems. Finally, some research has found that the neighborhood context, including individual perceptions of subjective neighborhood characteristics, may determine how adolescents interpret parenting (Bámaca, Umaña-Taylor, Shin, & Alfaro, 2005). Also, neighborhood collective efficacy, which reflects shared experiences and mutual engagement within the community, can be effective in mitigating youth’s risk behavior (Brody et al., 2001; Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997).

Contribution of This Study

Because understanding the relationship between particular parenting outcomes behaviors and youth psychosocial is important, researchers and practitioners can profoundly benefit from comprehensive studies that investigate the relative importance of various dimensions of parenting (e.g., warmth, hostility, monitoring). Furthermore, doubts cast on the generalizability of studies based on U.S. populations to different ethnic, racial, and cultural groups warrant greater focus on the study of youth populations from different sociocultural backgrounds (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2007; Lansford et al., 2005). Moreover, multicultural research has been considered invaluable for advancing researchers’ and practitioners’ knowledge of the determinants of youth adaptive and maladaptive functioning (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2007).

With such heightened interest and a need to expand research on cross-cultural studies, the availability of Korean data can provide a unique opportunity to contribute to our understanding of the relationship between parenting and youth mental health outcomes in an international context. Recently, there has been growing interest in the literature concerning psychosocial adjustment of Korean youth, many of which have revealed poor mental health conditions. For example, a large proportion of urban 13- to 18-year-old males (17.4%) and females (20.6%) in a community sample met the criteria for the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (Cho, 2001). About 8.6% of students sampled from in the metropolitan Seoul area scored above the clinical levels based on the Reynolds Adolescent Depression Scale (Hyun, Nam, Kang, & Reynolds, 2009). Also, as many as 54.6% of girls from an urban community reported to have expressed depressive symptoms (Delva et al., 2007). Using a nationally representative cross-sectional sample, Kim (2007) found that 20.0% of adolescent males and 36.6% of females had felt depressed and about 44.4% of adolescent males and 39.4% of females had been involved in a delinquent activity. A study that analyzes a nationally representative sample of Korean youth and parents presents a great advantage over most studies that have used convenience samples from various cities in Korea. Furthermore, longitudinal information can provide a greater ability to control for potential confounding variables.

In attempt to address these aforementioned issues, this study examined how parenting practices were associated with youth psychosocial well-being using longitudinal information from Korea. Specific research questions in the study included the following: (a) How are parenting practices (e.g., warmth, monitoring, hostility) related with youth mental health outcomes (e.g., confidence/self-esteem, depression/anxiety, aggression) in Korea? (b) Are the study results in concordance with the predictions conjectured by the Parental Acceptance and Rejection theory?

Method

Sample

Analyses were based on five waves (Waves 2-6) of the Korea Youth Panel Survey (KYPS) using 3,263 youth (13,121 time–youth observations). This study was conducted by the National Youth Policy Institute in South Korea. The original survey selected 3,449 second-year middle school students and their parents by stratified multi-staged cluster sampling in 2003 and followed them for 6 consecutive years until 2008. This prospective panel survey contains abundant information on youth demographics, risk-taking behavior, mental conditions, career aspirations, family SES and parenting, school performance, and neighborhood conditions. All measures in the KYPS data set (including parenting and youth psychosocial variables) were reported by the youth, with the exception being family SES measures (e.g., household income, parental education, and family structure), which were reported by the parent (or primary caregiver). Observations were assigned survey weights so that descriptive and analytical results can be generalized to the overall youth population in Korea.

Measures

Dependent variables

Dependent variables were three measures of youth psychosocial adjustment: confidence/self-esteem, depressive/anxious symptoms, and aggressive behavior. These self-reported variables were measured based on a subset of survey questions predesigned by KYPS (see the appendix). Confidence/Self-Esteem, a measurement of positive self-perception, was constructed by six subquestions (α = .84) that asked the level of self-worth and confidence perceived by the youth measured on a Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). Examples included “I think that I am a competent person” and “I believe that I can deal with my problems by myself.” Second, the study contained a measure of depressive/anxious symptoms, which gauged negative self-perception, and represented a form of internalizing problems that affected the youth’s internal psychological environment. This measure was a six-item composite index (α = .83) measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale. “I am often indifferent or uninterested in anything,” “Sometimes I am extremely anxious with no apparent reason,” and “Sometimes I am extremely sad and gloomy with no apparent reason” were some examples of the subquestions. Aggressive behavior, another negative self-perception measure, was the third dependent variable. This measure was a form of externalizing problems, which is a manifestation of the youth’s negative actions on the external environment. This measure was also a composite index of six questions (α = .78) coded with a Likert-type scale. These questions tried to measure the extent to which the youth performs aggressive behavior, such as “I may hit other people when I feel annoyed,” “I am often seized by an impulse to throw an object whenever I get angry,” and “I consider myself as an explosive soon to be blown off.”

Independent and other variables

Independent variables included three specific parental behaviors that covered an extensive range of associations within the parent–youth dyad: warmth, hostility, and monitoring (see the appendix). All parenting measures were reported by the youth and were measured as an average score of several subquestions on a 5-point scale (1 = very untrue and 5 = very true). The parental warmth index used information from three questions (α = .81) about the time spent and the level of understanding between the parent and youth and the amount of love and affection shown by the parent. The parental hostility measure was based on two questions that reflected the level of verbal and physical abusiveness of the parent (α = .83). Finally, the parental monitoring variable measured the degree to which parents were knowledgeable about youth’s whereabouts (α = .88).

Household income was the average monthly income measured in Korean won (1 US$ = 1,100 KW). Parental education was the highest level of completed years of education by the mother or the father in two-parent families or the level of education for one parent in single-parent families. Family structure was a dichotomous variable that was 1 for youth in two-parent families and 0 for other types of families (e.g., lives with father only, mother only, neither parent). These three family-level measures were reported by the youth’s caregiver.

The school adaptability measure was the sum of five questions (α = .76) with a 5-point scale response option (1 = very untrue and 5 = very true) that asked about youth’s adaptability in school (e.g., “I am in good terms with friends at school,” “I am in good terms with school teachers”). The collective efficacy variable was composed of four questions (α = .82) regarding trust, closeness, as well as monitoring among members of the same neighborhood, and also was measured with a 5-point Likert-type scale (e.g., “My neighbors trust each other, “My neighbors will intervene or report to the police if I am assaulted by other kids at the neighborhood,” “Elderly neighbors will scold me if I smoke or drink in the neighborhood”). Both school- and neighborhood-related measures were based on youth’s self-report.

Analytic Strategy

The study employed fixed-effects modeling to examine the relationship between parenting and youth mental health. Within the econometric literature, fixed-effects regression methods have a long-standing history as a technique that can rule out some alternative explanations (Allison, 2005; Greene, 2003; Stock & Watson, 2003; Wooldridge, 2002). Methodologically, one of the foremost advantages of using a fixed-effects model with longitudinal data is the ability to control for potential unobserved confounding measures that are consistent over time. Thus, fixed-effects regression models are able to control for a wider range of possible confounders than ordinary least squares regression methods and therefore provide parameter estimates that are less subject to bias (Allison, 2005). For example, a genetic history of depression in the family may have triggered harsh verbal and physical parenting measures and also increased depressive symptoms of youth. Failure to account for such a background factor could lead researchers to think that hostile parental practices contributed to depression when such a link was not warranted (Cherlin, Chase-Lansdale, & McRae, 1998). Similarly, it is plausible that parents’ inability to manage their anger, which is usually unobserved or not measured by the researcher, could potentially be transmitted to their offspring and might trigger youth’s aggressive behavior. In this case, fixed-effects models can account for parents’ unobserved dispositions that may confound the relationship between hostile parenting and youth psychosocial adjustment (Grogan-Kaylor, 2004). In this regard, fixed-effects regression methods have advantages over the analysis of growth curves using multilevel modeling, which cannot account for unmeasured factors that are consistent over time that may be simultaneously correlated with parental behaviors and youth’s mental well-being (Cherlin et al., 1998).

A statistical representation of the model used in the present study is described below.

\begin{array}{l} y_{i t} = β_{0} + β_{1} X_{1, i t} + \dots + β_{k} X_{k, i t} + α_{i} + u_{i t}, \\ (y_{i t} - {\bar{y}}_{i}) = β_{1} (X_{1, i t} - {\bar{X}}_{1, t}) + \dots + β_{k} (X_{k, i t} - {\bar{X}}_{k, i}) + (u_{i t} - {\bar{u}}_{i}) . \end{array}

In this model, y_it is the mental health outcome of individual i at time t. Also, u_it is the random error term for each individual. Within-unit means of individual i are represented by ${\bar{y}}_{i} {\bar{X}}_{k, i} {\bar{u}}_{i}$ The coefficients (β ₁ , . . ., β _k ) estimate the relationship between the mean-deviated independent variables $(X_{k, i t} - {\bar{X}}_{k, i})$ and mean-deviated outcome variables $(y_{i t} - {\bar{y}}_{i})$ Therefore, fixed-effects coefficients can be interpreted as the deviation in the dependent variable from its youth-specific time-averaged mean associated with a unit change in the independent variable from its youth-specific time-averaged mean. In other words, unlike ordinary least squares regression models that report across-youth associations, fixed-effects coefficients report the within-youth associations (Mancl, Leroux, & DeRouen, 2000). Time-invariant measures (both observed and unobserved) for each individual i are captured in α _i and canceled out in the fixed-effects regression. Thus, one important limitation of fixed-effects regression models is that these models do not provide parameter estimates for the values of independent variables that do not change over time. However, the resultant advantage of these models is that fixed-effect regression models control for all variables that are invariant over time, including factors that are likely to have been measured in a study, such as a youth’s gender, parent’s education, as well as other factors that are likely to have remained unobserved such as genetic history of depression (Wooldridge, 2002).

In sum, fixed-effects models can reduce omitted variable bias that can occur when a researcher neglects, or is unable, to account for key variables by holding constant characteristics that do not change over time for each observation unit. In fact, due to the advantages of being able to control for potential confounding variables, fixed-effect models have been successfully employed in studies that examine the relationship between parenting practices and youth outcomes, both in the U.S. and international contexts (e.g., Coley, Medeiros, & Schindler, 2008; Gershoff et al., 2010; Grogan-Kaylor, 2004).

Results

Descriptive Analysis

The KYPS analysis sample comprised an almost equal amount of males and females in their third year of middle school (15-16 year olds at Wave 2) who were followed for 5 consecutive years (see Table 1). The mean level of self-reported confidence (3.48) was higher than that of depressive symptoms (2.64) or aggressive behavior (2.66). As for youth-reported parenting characteristics, the mean level of warmth (3.54) was slightly higher than that of monitoring (3.41) and much higher than that of hostility (1.62). Average monthly income was 3,249,900 Korean Won (approximately to US$3,000), the majority (83.64%) of parents completed either high school or college (2-4 years) education, and 93.95% of youth were from two-parent families. Overall, youth scored high on school adaptability (4.27) and from neighborhoods with moderate levels of collectiveness and cohesion (2.87).

Table 1.

Descriptive Analysis and Prevalence of Parenting Behaviors (N = 3,263; Person Years = 13,121).

Variables	Mean	Standard Deviation	Range	Frequency
Health outcome
Confidence	3.48	0.61	1-5
Depressive symptoms	2.64	0.77	1-5
Aggression	2.66	0.70	1-5
Youth
Male				52.61%
Parenting
Warmth	3.54	0.74	1-5
Monitoring	3.41	0.83	1-5
Hostility	1.62	0.81	1-5
Socioeconomic status
Household income (10,000 KW)	324.99	179.74	0-5,000
Parent’s education
Less than high school				9.20%
High school				46.16%
College or university (2-4 years)				37.48%
Master’s and PhD degree				7.16%
Both parents				93.95%
School and neighborhood
School adaptability	4.27	0.72	1-5
Neighborhood collective efficacy	2.87	0.85	1-5

Note: Descriptive analysis is based on sample weighted values. All variables are youth self-reports, with the exception of socioeconomic status measures, which were reported by the parent.

Fixed-Effects Analysis

Results from fixed-effects regression suggested that youth-reported parental practices were significantly associated with an array of youth’s emotional and behavioral outcomes (see Table 2). The models reported both standardized and unstandardized coefficients, because standardized coefficients can be particularly helpful for comparing the relative effect size of variables that use arbitrary scales, such as behavioral measures as in this study (Woolley & Grogan-Kaylor, 2006). Model 1 reported that youth’s confidence had a significantly positive relationship with parental warmth and monitoring, controlling for family SES, neighborhood, and school measures. Youth-reported parental hostility was not associated with confidence. As for depressive symptoms (Model 2), perceived parental warmth predicted self-reported feelings of depression. On the other hand, perceived parental hostility had an adverse association with depression. Model 3 showed that each parenting dimension was important for predicting youth aggression when controlling for family, school, and neighborhood variables. Youth-reported parental warmth was linked with lower levels of aggression, but hostility was associated with increased risk for aggressive behavior within youths. Perceived parental monitoring showed a trend (p = .066) and a negative relationship with aggression. It is possible that the moderate correlation between perceive parental warmth and monitoring (r = .484) or between warmth and hostility (r = −.313) may have attributed to some of the statistically weak associations with youth outcomes.

Table 2.

Fixed Effects (N = 3,263; Person Years = 13,121).

	Model 1: Confidence			Model 2: Depressive Symptoms			Model 3: Aggression
Variables	B	SE(B)	β	B	SE(B)	β	B	SE(B)	β
Youth
Age	0.066	0.0031	0.16***	−0.030	0.0041	−0.059***	−0.063	0.0036	−0.13***
Parenting
Warmth	0.11	0.0089	0.13***	−0.081	0.012	−0.078***	−0.040	0.011	−0.042***
Monitoring	0.064	0.0076	0.087***	−0.0040	0.010	−0.0043	−0.017	0.0091	−0.020^†
Hostility	−0.0083	0.0071	−0.011	0.085	0.0094	0.090***	0.061	0.0084	0.071***
Socioeconomic status
Household income	−0.0032	0.034	−0.00090	−0.034	0.046	−0.0077	−0.031	0.041	−0.0076
Both parents	−0.0087	0.030	−0.0033	−0.042	0.039	−0.013	0.016	0.035	0.0052
School and neighborhood
School adaptability	0.085	0.0077	0.099***	−0.12	0.010	−0.11***	−0.061	0.0091	−0.061***
Neighborhood collective efficacy	0.042	0.0072	0.058***	−0.0038	0.0095	−0.0042	0.013	0.0085	0.016
Constant	1.30	0.081	***	3.91	0.11	***	4.03	0.097	***
R²	0.131			0.076			0.096

Note: Unstandardized coefficients and standardized coefficients are indicated as B and β, respectively; Standard errors are in parentheses. All coefficients represent deviations from the mean of the dependent variable with a unit deviation from the mean of the independent variable. All variables are youth self-reports, with the exception of socioeconomic status measures, which were reported by the parent.

***

p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05, ^†p < .1.

Household income and family structure did not show any significant relationship with youth psychosocial well-being. Finally, the youth-reported school and neighborhood measures were significantly linked with youth mental outcomes. Greater levels of youths’ adaptability in school were associated with positive mental well-being (Models 1-3), whereas greater mutual trust and collectiveness in the community was linked with higher levels of confidence only (Model 1).

Discussion

Warmth as a Cross-Cultural Protective Factor

The results using KYPS showed that youth’s perceptions of higher emotional warmth of parents—as an indicator of the interactive time spent between the parent and youth, the level of understanding between the parent and youth, and the amount of love and affection expressed by the primary care-giving parent—promoted positive self-perception and protected against negative mental health outcomes, such as depressive symptoms and aggressive behavior. This finding was in accordance with the parental acceptance and rejection theory (Rohner, 1999) and was empirically consistent with reports from previous research using U.S. samples (Garber et al., 1997; Laible & Carlo, 2004) that have uniformly associated parental warmth with positive psychosocial outcomes, even among different racial and ethnic groups, including Asian Americans (Park, 2009), African Americans (Bean, Bush, McKenry, & Wilson, 2003), and Hispanic Americans (Manongdo & Ramiez Garcia, 2007), as well as non-U.S. populations (Muris, Meesters, & van den Berg, 2003). One mechanism that may explain parental pathways that enhance social and emotional competence over a broad spectrum of relationships was suggested by Laible and Carlo (2004). These authors explained that the mutually responsive and positive parent–youth relationship-building skills were further transferred to other situations and relationships even outside the family (e.g., peers) and, therefore, predict positive outcomes (Laible & Carlo, 2004). Given the strength of parameter estimates associated with parental warmth, it may also be that the same processes were undertaken in the case of Korean youth, such that youth perceptions of affectionate parenting were identified as a strong predictor of mental competence such as high confidence and low depression and aggression.

Monitoring Predicts Lower Aggressive Behavior

Youth-reported parental monitoring showed a trend toward an association with greater confidence levels among Korean youth. Very similar results were reported in Garber et al.’s (1997) study, which suggested that monitoring and supervision predicted greater self-worth and competence. Specific to Korea, cultural perspectives may help explain why parental monitoring may have had a strong relationship with positive self-perception. According to prior studies that examine parenting traditional Korean cultures, monitoring of the child’s whereabouts is accepted as a parental practice that is used to convey closeness and responsiveness (Rohner & Pettengill, 1985). This finding probably explains why we see monitoring to have as strong a relationship with positive youth perception as does warmth. This finding is also in line with Pettit et al.’s (2001) position that in many contexts, monitoring is understood as a strategic form of parental management that is normative parenting behavior.

This mutual understanding between the parent and youth of the positive functions of parental monitoring and governance may also have played a role in reducing aggression. In the present study, parental monitoring, operationalized as youth reports of the degree to which parents were knowledgeable about their whereabouts, was associated with relatively lower levels of aggression. Several studies have explained that parental knowledge of the youth’s whereabouts naturally limits opportunities for adolescents to engage in severe delinquent activities and exhibit antisocial behavior (Pettit et al., 2001). This proactive and preventive nature of monitoring may have led to this element of behavioral control function similarly to positive parenting efforts in this study.

The relationship between youth-reported parental monitoring and youth depression in Korea, on the other hand, was not significant. This finding was not surprising, given the general understanding that feelings of isolation, confusion, and low affect are more susceptible to emotionally rejecting parental measures (such as hostility), than to behavioral control measures (such as parental monitoring), in addition to the coherent empirical patterns among U.S.-based studies that support this relationship (Barber, Olsen, & Shagle, 1994; Garber et al., 1997; Pettit et al., 2001).

Hostility Linked With Problem Behaviors

Despite culture-oriented ideas that parental control and warmth are inseparable (Kim, 2005; Rohner, Khaleque, & Cournoyer, 2005), and that inequality in the parent–youth relationship is accepted as normative behavior in Korea (Yang, 2009), excessively higher levels of physical and verbal aggression reported by the youth proved to be associated with increases in aggressive behavior and depressive/anxious symptoms among Korean youths. Thus, findings from this study were consistent with the broad framework of ideas suggested by parental acceptance and rejection theory (Rohner, 1999) and supported the view that despite differences in culturally appropriate norms, there are likely to be consistent patterns in the relationship between parenting behaviors and youth outcomes (Gershoff et al., 2010; Khaleque & Rohner, 2002). Emotional rejection has been understood to have a “crippling effect” on youth’s psychological needs and, consequently, puts youth at risk for developing symptoms of depression and anxiety (Barber et al., 1994). In light of these findings, perceived parental verbal and physical abuse, as signs of interpersonal emotional rejection in the family context, can help explain why Korean youth who experience hostile parental practices have significantly greater depressive symptoms. The strong feeling of rejection that is transparent from verbal and physical interactions with parents may have influenced the youth’s feelings of depression.

Similarly, results from this analysis of KYPS were consistent with other studies that found that coercive, harsh, and punitive parenting yields aggressive behavior among adolescents (Gershoff et al., 2010; Hale, Van Der Valk, Engels, & Meeus, 2005; Kim et al., 2010; Lansford et al., 2005). Again, the empirical findings using a Korean sample supported parental acceptance and rejection theory and emphasized the potentially universally detrimental outcomes that can accompany hostile parent–youth exchanges. Both direction of the influence or exact mechanisms are unclear from this study but may suggest that the emotional detachment of Korean adolescents from hostile parents is to be associated with elevated aggressive behaviors. Alternatively, the spiral of coercive exchanges between the parent and youth may have further induced aggressive behavior (Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1992).

School and Neighborhood Relationships Warrant Attention

Although the focus of this study was not on examining school and neighborhood effects, some interesting findings from these analyses are worth highlighting to aid the understanding of multidimensional aspects that shape youth’s mental well-being. The study reported robust and consistent school effects in predicting youth outcomes. The results were not surprising since stress from teachers and academics has been found to be predictive of greater depression and antisocial behavior among Korean adolescents (Sim, 2000). Having greater interest in school work and maintaining prosocial relationships with peers and teachers was positively related to Korean adolescents’ levels of confidence and negatively to both depressive and aggressive behaviors. These findings have implications for school policies in light of the high prevalence of Korean youth who have experienced school verbal (14.2%) and physical (7.6%) violence in the past year (Government Youth Commission, 2007). However, the youth-reported school adaptability measure used in the present study did not contain information about youth’s academic performance, which can be a crucial element of Korean youth’s mental health conditions and parent–youth relationships. For example, extreme forms of depressive symptoms that lead to suicidal ideation and attempt are more prominent among youths with poor academic performance (Han, Kim, Ryu, Kang, & Park, 2009; Kim & Kim, 2010). Also, because school performance may complicate the nature of parent–youth relationships (Chang, 2010), future studies may benefit from including this information.

Neighborhood collective efficacy that measured mutual trust and the notion of parenting at the community level was positively related to youth’s confidence. These findings have allowed this particular study to make a unique contribution when compared with numerous cross-sectional and longitudinal studies that solely focus on the parent–youth dyad under the assumption that the effects of peers, schools, and neighborhoods are trivial or do not vary by time (in the case of fixed-effects studies; e.g., Cherlin et al., 1998). There is a growing body of research that underscores the potential mediating and/or moderating roles of school and neighborhood in the parent–youth relationship. Bámaca et al. (2005), for instance, have found that among adolescent boys, the positive relationship between parental warmth and youth’s self-esteem was greater for those in low-risk neighborhoods, relative to those in high-risk neighborhoods. Further investigation of the complex relationship between parenting and contexts outside the family should be a future task.

Conclusions, Limitations, Future Directions

This present study described the relationship between an array of youth-reported parenting practices and adolescent psychosocial outcomes, while controlling for demographic, family SES, school, and neighborhood factors. For the most part, fixed-effects that resulted from longitudinal data provided empirical evidence for several findings about the parent–youth relationship, using a nationally representative South Korean youth sample. These results were broadly in agreement with the predictions of parental acceptance and rejection theory that underscored the association between various parental socialization efforts and youth psychosocial adjustments (Rohner, 1999). Results from the present study indicated that, despite cultural differences, the consequences of parent behavior on youth psychosocial well-being may be similar across various racial/ethnic populations and provided further support in favor of the parental acceptance and rejection theory (Khaleque & Rohner, 2002) even in the context of Korea.

In detail, youth reports of parental warmth had a relationship with all mental health measures. Parental warmth and understanding facilitated not only youth’s confidence and self-esteem but also protected them against higher levels of depressive symptoms and aggression. Perceived parental monitoring was a predictor of increased confidence. As a parental measure with a preventive orientation, monitoring was also linked with reducing aggressive behavior at the level of a trend. On the other hand, youth-reported hostile parenting was associated significantly with feelings of depression and aggressive behavior. Overall, findings from the Korean sample provided support for the potentially universally detrimental effects of using hostile physical and verbal parenting, even when such parental discipline strategies may be perceived as normative parenting in certain societies (Gershoff et al., 2010). This study also sought to understand factors external to the family, such as school and neighborhoods that were associated with mental health outcomes among Korean youth.

Although fixed-effects models have the advantage of controlling for time-invariant unobserved variables that may potentially affect the parent–youth relationship, the model cannot account for unmeasured variables that vary over time. With these methodological limitations, and moreover with the bidirectional nature of the parenting and youth outcome relationship (Pettit et al., 2001), it is dangerous to interpret the coefficients derived from our study as the exact casual effect of parenting on youth outcomes. A thorough investigation using lagged variables to predict future variables could be a potential future project. In addition, effect sizes associated with estimates of the relationship between parenting practices with youth outcomes appear to have been somewhat small. An attendant potential disadvantage of fixed-effects models is that they only make use of within-person variation to estimate coefficients that are unbiased by any time-invariant characteristics of the study participants. Therefore, it is plausible that effect sizes in fixed-effects models are substantively smaller than those found by using other approaches (such as multilevel modeling) that provide less control for possible confounding variables but make use of both within-person and between-person variations. Nonetheless, even small effect sizes may have important consequences when multiplied across the population of an entire region or country (Straus, 2001). Finally, this study did not explore the gender dynamics of parenting because separate information about parenting practices for mothers and fathers were not available in the KYPS data set. Several studies that collected data from both mothers and fathers, however, have found differential maternal and paternal relationships with youths mental well-being (Buehler, 2006; Laible & Carlo, 2004). In the Korean cultural context, studies have found that adolescents assigned different normative roles on mothers and fathers interpreted and reacted to parental practices accordingly (Kim, 2005; Kim & Cain, 2008). Although our study results do not specify the gender of the parent, our results can nonetheless provide meaningful information in explaining the relationship between the primary parental caregiver and youth outcomes.

Notwithstanding these limitations, the present study is a source for understanding the parent–youth relationship in an international context. This study identified that different youth-reported parental practices of warmth, monitoring, and hostility were uniquely related with positive and negative psychosocial youth outcomes in South Korea and provided further empirical support for parental acceptance and rejection theory. Identifying consistencies in the association between parental practices and youth mental well-being across cultures can strengthen existing family theories and help scholars and practitioners further understand parenting-youth dynamics.

Footnotes

Appendix

Measures	Questions	Response Options
Confidence/self-esteem (α = .84)	• I think that I have a good character	1. Strongly disagree
	• I think that I am a competent person	2. Disagree
	• I have confidence in my own decision	3. Neither disagree/agree
	• I think that I am a worthy person	4. Agree
	• I believe that I can deal with my problems by myself	5. Strongly agree
	• I take full responsibility of my own life
Depression/anxious symptoms (α = .83)	• I am often indifferent about or uninterested in anything
	• I usually worry about everything
	• Sometimes I am extremely anxious with no apparent reason
(continued)
	• Sometimes I am extremely lonely with no apparent reason
	• Sometimes I am extremely sad and gloomy with no apparent reason
	• Sometimes I am suicidal with no apparent reason
Aggressive behavior (α = .78)	• I may hit other people when I feel annoyed
	• I will hit back at a person who hits me
	• I fight more frequently than others do
	• I am often seized by an impulse to throw an object whenever I get angry
	• Sometimes I cannot suppress an impulse to hit other people
	• I consider myself as an explosive soon to be blown off
Parental warmth (α = .81)	• Parents and I try to spend much time together	1. Very untrue
	• Parents always treat me with love and affection	2. Somewhat untrue
	• Parents and I understand each other well	3. Neither true/untrue
Parental monitoring (α = .88)	• When I go out, parents usually know where I am	4. Somewhat true
	• When I go out, parents usually know whom I am with	5. Very true
	• When I go out, parents usually know what I am doing
	• When I go out, parents usually know when I will return
Parental hostility (α = .83)	• I often receive verbal hostility from my parents
	• I am often badly hit by my parents
(continued)
School adaptability (reverse coded; α = .76)	• I find it difficult to follow school rules and regulations
	• I am not interested in school work, and find difficulty in catching up
	• I have been reprimanded due to wrong-doings (or criminal acts)
	• I am not on good terms with friends at school
	• I am not on good terms with school teachers
Neighborhood collective efficacy (α = .82)	• My neighbors have close relationships with each other
	• My neighbors trust each other
	• Elderly neighbors will scold me if I smoke or drink in the neighborhood
	• My neighbors will intervene or report to the police if I am assaulted by other kids at the neighborhood

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) disclosed receipt of the financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by the University of Michigan Rackham Spring/Summer Research Grants Program.

References

Achenbach

T. M.

Rescorla

(2007). Multicultural understanding of child and adolescent psychopathology: Implications for mental health assessment. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Allison

(2005). Fixed effects regression methods for longitudinal data using SAS. Cary, NC: SAS.

Asscher

J. J.

Hermanns

J. M. A.

Dekovic

Reitz

(2007). Predicting the effectiveness of the Home-Start parenting support program. Children and Youth Services Review, 29, 247-263. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2006.07.002

Bámaca

M. Y.

Umaña-Taylor

A. J.

Shin

Alfaro

E. C.

(2005). Latino adolescents’ perception of parenting behaviors and self-esteem: Examining the role of neighborhood risk. Family Relations, 54, 621-632. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2005.00346.x

Barber

B. K.

Olsen

J. E.

Shagle

S. C.

(1994). Associations between parental psychological and behavioral control and youth internalized and externalized behaviors. Child Development, 65, 1120-1136. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1994.tb00807.x

Barrera

Prelow

H. M.

Dumka

L. E.

Gonzales

N. A.

Knight

G. P.

Michaels

M. L.

. . . Tein

J. Y.

(2002). Pathways from family economic conditions to adolescents’ distress: Supportive parenting, stressors outside the family, and deviant peers. Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 135-152. doi:10.1002/jcop.10000

Bean

R. A.

Bush

K. R.

McKenry

P. C.

Wilson

S. M.

(2003). The impact of parental support, behavioral control, and psychological control on the academic achievement and self-esteem of African American and European American adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 18, 523-541. doi:10.1177/0743558403255070

Bengtson

V. L.

Kuypers

J. A.

(1971). Generational difference and the developmental stake. International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 2, 249-260. doi:10.2190/AG.2.4.b

Berger

L. M.

(2007). Socioeconomic factors and substandard parenting. Social Service Review, 81, 485-522. doi:10.1086/520963

10.

Brody

G. H.

Rand

Gibbons

F. X.

Murry

V. M.

Gerrard

Simons

R. L.

(2001). The influence of neighborhood disadvantage, collective socialization, and parenting on African American children’s affiliation with deviant peers. Child Development, 72, 1231-1246. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00344

11.

Bronfenbrenner

(1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

12.

Bronfenbrenner

(1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22, 723-742. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.22.6.723

13.

Buehler

(2006). Parents and peers in relation to early adolescent problem behavior. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 109-124. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00237.x

14.

Chang

Y. O.

(2010). Child development: Relationships between parenting styles, adolescent academic achievement, and behavioral adjustment among Korean families. International Journal of Human Ecology, 11, 25-37.

15.

Cherlin

A. J.

Chase-Lansdale

P. L.

McRae

(1998). Effects of parental divorce on mental health throughout the life course. American Sociological Review, 63, 239-249. doi:10.2307/2657325

16.

Cho

S. J.

(2001). Prevalence and correlates of depressive symptoms among the adolescents in an urban area in Korea. Journal of the Korean Neuropsychiatric Association, 40, 627-639.

17.

Coley

R. L.

Medeiros

B. L.

Schindler

H. S.

(2008). Using sibling differences to estimate effects of parenting on adolescent sexual risk behaviors. Journal of Adolescent Health, 43, 133-140. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.12.012

18.

Collins

W. A.

Maccoby

E. E.

Steinberg

Hetherington

E. M.

Bornstein

M. H.

(2000). Contemporary research on parenting—The case for nature and nurture. American Psychologist, 55, 218-232. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.2.218

19.

Crouter

A. C.

Bumpus

M. F.

Davis

K. D.

McHale

S. M.

(2005). How do parents learn about adolescents’ experiences? Implications for parental knowledge and adolescent risky behavior. Child Development, 76, 869-882. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00883.x

20.

Delva

Grogan-Kaylor

Steinhoff

Shin

D. E.

Siefert

(2007). Using tobit regression analysis to further understand the association of youth alcohol problems with depression and parental factors among Korean adolescent females. Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, 40, 145-149. doi:10.3961/jpmph.2007.40.2.145

21.

Formoso

Gonzales

N. A.

Aiken

L. S.

(2000). Family conflict and children’s internalizing and externalizing behavior: Protective factors. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 175-199. doi:10.1023/a:1005135217449

22.

Galambos

N. L.

Barker

E. T.

Almeida

D. M.

(2003). Parents do matter: Trajectories of change in externalizing and internalizing problems in early adolescence. Child Development, 74, 578-594. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.7402017

23.

Gallup. (2003). 자녀체벌 국민여론 조사 [Public opinion on corporal punishment for children]. Retrieved from http://panel.gallup.co.kr/

24.

Garber

Robinson

N. S.

Valentiner

(1997). The relation between parenting and adolescent depression: Self-worth as a mediator. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12(1), 12-33. doi:10.1177/0743554897121003

25.

Gershoff

E. T.

Grogan-Kaylor

Lansford

J. E.

Chang

Zelli

Deater-Deckard

Dodge

K. A.

(2010). Parent discipline practices in an international sample: Associations with child behaviors and moderation by perceived normativeness. Child Development, 81, 487-502. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01409.x

26.

Gibb

Abela

(2008). Emotional abuse, verbal victimization, and the development of children’s negative inferential styles and depressive symptoms. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 32, 161-176. doi:10.1007/s10608-006-9106-x

27.

Government Youth Commission. (2007). 청소년 유해환경접촉종합실태조사 [Investigation of environmental risk factors for youth]. Retrieved from http://www.bokji.net/welfare/book/view.jsp?id=2355&searchDiv=E

28.

Greene

W. H.

(2003). Econometric analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

29.

Griffin

K. W.

Botvin

G. J.

Scheier

L. M.

Diaz

Miller

N. L.

(2000). Parenting practices as predictors of substance use, delinquency, and aggression among urban minority youth: Moderating effects of family structure and gender. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 14, 174-184. doi:10.1037/0893-164x.14.2.174

30.

Grogan-Kaylor

(2004). The effect of corporal punishment on antisocial behavior in children. Social Work Research, 28, 153-162.

31.

Grogan-Kaylor

(2005). Corporal punishment and the growth trajectory of children’s antisocial behavior. Child Maltreatment, 10, 283-292. doi:10.1177/1077559505277803

32.

Hale

W. W.

Van Der Valk

Engels

Meeus

(2005). Does perceived parental rejection make adolescents sad and mad? The association of perceived parental rejection with adolescent depression and aggression. Journal of Adolescent Health, 36, 466-474. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2004.04.007

33.

Han

M. A.

Kim

K. S.

Ryu

S. Y.

Kang

M. G.

Park

(2009). Associations between smoking and alcohol drinking and suicidal behavior in Korean adolescents: Korea Youth Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance, 2006. Preventive Medicine, 49, 248-252. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2009.06.014

34.

Hyun

M. S.

Nam

K. A.

Kang

H. S.

Reynolds

W. M.

(2009). Reynolds Adolescent Depression Scale–Second edition: Initial validation of the Korean version. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 65, 642-651. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04913.x

35.

Kessler

R. C.

Avenevoli

Merikangas

K. R.

(2001). Mood disorders in children and adolescents: An epidemiologic perspective. Biological Psychiatry, 49, 1002-1014. doi:10.1016/S0006-3223(01)01129

36.

Kessler

R. C.

Berglund

Demler

Jin

Merikangas

K. R.

Walters

E. E.

(2005). Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62, 593-602. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.62.6.593

37.

Khaleque

Rohner

R. P.

(2002). Perceived parental acceptance-rejection and psychological adjustment: A meta-analysis of cross-cultural and intracultural studies. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 54-64. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00054.x

38.

Kim

D. S.

(2007). Experience of parent-related negative life events, mental health, and delinquent behavior among Korean adolescents. Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, 40, 218-226. doi:10.3961/jpmph.2007.40.3.218

39.

Kim

D. S.

Kim

H. S.

(2010). Early initiation of alcohol drinking, cigarette smoking, and sexual intercourse linked to suicidal ideation and attempts: Findings from the 2006 Korean Youth Risk Behavior Survey. Yonsei Medical Journal, 51, 18-26. doi:10.3349/ymj.2010.51.1.18

40.

Kim

(2005). Korean American parental control: acceptance or rejection? Ethos, 33, 347-366. doi:10.1525/eth.2005.33.3.347

41.

Kim

Cain

K. C.

(2008). Korean American adolescent depression and parenting. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 21, 105-115. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6171.2008.00137.x

42.

Kim

Guo

Koh

Cain

K. C.

(2010). Korean immigrant discipline and children’s social competence and behavior problems. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 25, 490-499. doi:10.1016/j.pedn.2009.05.002

43.

Kim

J. E.

Hetherington

E. M.

Reiss

(1999). Associations among family relationships, antisocial peers, and adolescents’ externalizing behaviors: Gender and family type differences. Child Development, 70, 1209-1230. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00088

44.

Kim

Y. S.

Koh

Y. J.

Leventhal

(2005). School bullying and suicidal risk in Korean middle school students. Pediatrics, 115, 357-363. doi:10.1542/peds.2004-0902

45.

Laible

D. J.

Carlo

(2004). The differential relations of maternal and paternal support and control to adolescent social competence, self-worth, and sympathy. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19, 759-782. doi:10.1177/0743558403260094

46.

Laird

R. D.

Pettit

G. S.

Bates

J. E.

Dodge

K. A.

(2003). Parents’ monitoring-relevant knowledge and adolescents’ delinquent behavior: Evidence of correlated developmental changes and reciprocal influences. Child Development, 74, 752-768. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00566

47.

Lansford

J. E.

Chang

Dodge

K. A.

Malone

P. S.

Oburu

Palmérus

. . . Quinn

(2005). Physical discipline and children’s adjustment: Cultural normativeness as a moderator. Child Development, 76, 1234-1246. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00847.x

48.

Larson

R. W.

(1996). Changes in adolescents’ daily interactions with their families from ages 10 to 18: Disengagement and transformation. Developmental Psychology, 32, 744-754. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.32.4.744

49.

Longest

K. C.

Shanahan

M. J.

(2007). Adolescent work intensity and substance use: The mediational and moderational roles of parenting. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 703-720. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00401.x

50.

Mancl

L. A.

Leroux

B. G.

DeRouen

T. A.

(2000). Between-subject and within-subject statistical information in dental research. Journal of Dental Research, 79, 1778-1781. doi:10.1177/00220345000790100801

51.

Manongdo

J. A.

Ramiez Garcia

J. I.

(2007). Mothers’ parenting dimensions and adolescent externalizing and internalizing behaviors in a low-income, urban Mexican American sample. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 36, 593-604. doi:10.1080/15374410701662733

52.

Montemayor

(1986). Family variation in parent-adolescent storm and stress. Journal of Adolescent Research, 1, 15-31. doi:10.1177/074355488611003

53.

Moore

Pepler

(2006). Wounding words: Maternal verbal aggression and children’s adjustment. Journal of Family Violence, 21, 89-93. doi:10.1007/s10896-005-9007-x

54.

Muris

Meesters

van den Berg

(2003). Internalizing and externalizing problems as correlates of self-reported attachment style and perceived parental rearing in normal adolescents. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 12, 171-183. doi:10.1023/a:1022858715598

55.

Nation

Vieno

Perkins

D. D.

Santinello

(2008). Bullying in school and adolescent sense of empowerment: an analysis of relationships with parents, friends, and teachers. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 18, 211-232. doi:10.1002/casp.921

56.

National Center for the Prevention of Child Abuse. (2003). 아동학대인식조사 보고서 [Survey on the public perceptions towards child abuse]. Retrieved from http://www.goodneighbors.kr/child_abuse/connection_data.asp?bidx=CH_DATA&bBranch=0&bMode=view&bSearchItem=&bSearchText=아동학대인식조사&status=&bCategory=&bPn=1&bUID=32868#wrap

57.

Nolan

S. A.

Flynn

Garber

(2003). Prospective relations between rejection and depression in young adolescents. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 745-755. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.4.745

58.

Park

(2009). Parental attachment among Korean American adolescents. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 26, 307-319. doi:10.1007/s10560-009-0164-2

59.

Patterson

G. R.

Reid

J. B.

Dishion

T. J.

(1992). Antisocial boys. Eugene, OR: Castalia.

60.

Pettit

G. S.

Laird

R. D.

Dodge

K. A.

Bates

J. E.

Criss

M. M.

(2001). Antecedents and behavior-problem outcomes of parental monitoring and psychological control in early adolescence. Child Development, 72, 583-598. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00298

61.

Rohner

R. P.

(1999). Acceptance and rejection. In Levinson

Ponzetti

Jorgensen

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of human emotions (Vol. 1, pp. 6-14). New York, NY: Macmillan.

62.

Rohner

R. P.

Khaleque

Cournoyer

D. E.

(2005). Parental acceptance-rejection: Theory, methods, cross-cultural evidence, and implications. Ethos, 33, 299-334. doi:10.1525/eth.2005.33.3.299

63.

Rohner

R. P.

Pettengill

S. M.

(1985). Perceived parental acceptance-rejection and parental control among Korean adolescents. Child Development, 56, 524-528. doi:10.2307/1129739

64.

Sampson

R. J.

Raudenbush

S. W.

Earls

(1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918-924. doi:10.1126/science.277.5328.918

65.

Sim

(2000). Relationship of daily hassles and social support to depression and antisocial behavior among early adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29, 647-659. doi:10.1023/a:1026451805604

66.

Smetana

J. G.

Campione-Barr

Metzger

(2006). Adolescent development in interpersonal and societal contexts. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 255-284. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190124

67.

Spillane-Grieco

(2000). From parent verbal abuse to teenage physical aggression? Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 17, 411-430. doi:10.1023/a:1026427710320

68.

Steinberg

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

69.

Straus

M. A.

(2001). New evidence for the benefits of never spanking. Society, 38(6), 52-60.

70.

Stock

J. H.

Watson

M. W.

(2003). Introduction to econometrics. Boston, MA: Addison Wesley.

71.

Vazsonyi

A. T.

Hibbert

J. R.

Blake Snider

(2003). Exotic enterprise no more? Adolescent reports of family and parenting processes from youth in four countries. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 13, 129-160. doi:10.1111/1532-7795.1302001

72.

Wooldridge

J. M.

(2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge: MIT Press.

73.

Woolley

M. E.

Grogan-Kaylor

(2006). Protective family factors in the context of neighborhood: Promoting positive school outcomes. Family Relations, 55, 93-104. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2006.00359.x

74.

Yang

(2009). Cane of love: Parental attitudes towards corporal punishment in Korea. British Journal of Social Work, 39, 1540-1555. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcn034