Familial Interdependence,Socioeconomic Disadvantage,and the Formation of Familial Mentoring Relationships Within Black Families

Abstract

This study used an explanatory sequential mixed-method design to explore the association between familial interdependence and familial mentoring relationship presence within black families. This study also examined how socioeconomic disadvantage may moderate the association between familial interdependence and familial mentoring presence. A sample of 216 black youth (59% girls; 41% boys) were surveyed, and a subsample of 25 participants were interviewed along with one of their parents, and one nonparental familial adult with whom the youth reported feeling emotionally close to learn more about the enactment of familial interdependence and the formation of familial mentoring relationships across social class. Logistic regression analyses revealed that greater valuing of familial interdependence was associated with a greater likelihood of having a familial mentoring relationship, but this association was present only among nonsocioeconomically disadvantaged youth. Data collected from participant interviews were analyzed to better understand this pattern of findings. These analyses provided some preliminary insights into why familial interdependence may predict familial mentor formation only among nonsocioeconomically disadvantaged youth. Implications of study findings for the promotion of familial mentoring relationships within black families are discussed.

Keywords

adolescence black youth intergenerational relationships

Black youth are exposed to a disproportionate share of contextual risk factors associated with racism and structural inequality, including discrimination, chronic stress, and poverty (Brody et al., 2006; Seider et al., 2019; C. M. Wilson, 2009). Exposure to these cumulative stressors have been found to threaten black youths’ socioemotional (Seaton et al., 2010; Sellers et al., 2003; Terrell et al., 2006) and academic (Butler-Barnes et al., 2013; Cogburn et al., 2011; Smalls et al., 2007; Wittrup et al., 2019) development. Given the contextual challenges black adolescents tend to face, a need exists to identify naturally occurring predictors of positive adaptation in the face of such risk. One such factor that has been highlighted in the literature is natural mentoring relationships (Hurd et al., 2012; Klaw et al., 2003; Zimmerman et al., 2002).

Natural mentors are nonparental adults in adolescents’ preexisting social networks who youth disclose their thoughts and feelings to in an effort to seek out support and guidance when needed (Zimmerman et al., 2005). Previous work has demonstrated that natural mentoring relationships may promote positive academic and socioemotional development among black youth (Hurd et al., 2012; Zimmerman et al., 2002), and buffer or offset the negative effects of racial discrimination (Cooper et al., 2013; Wittrup et al., 2019). For example, natural mentor presence was found to offset the negative effects of racial discrimination on black boys’ school adjustment outcomes (Cooper et al., 2013). In addition, Wittrup and colleagues (2019) found that relational closeness in natural mentoring relationships countered the negative effects of discrimination on black adolescents’ academic engagement. Although a growing body of empirical findings indicates that black youth benefit from natural mentoring relationships (i.e., especially close bonds among youth and nonparental adults characterized by a willingness on the part of the youth to self-disclose and seek out the adult for advice and support), little is known about factors that contribute to the formation of these relationships. Notably, studies find that anywhere from a quarter to a third of black youth are lacking these significant intergenerational relationships (Hurd et al., 2012, 2013). However, extended family members have been found to represent the overwhelming majority of natural mentors identified by black youth (Hurd & Zimmerman, 2010; Klaw et al., 2003). Research aimed at uncovering factors that promote or prevent the onset of these relationships within black families is needed as such investigation could be used to encourage the formation of familial mentoring relationships among black youth who do not have these relationships. One such factor worthy of consideration may be family valuing of interdependence.

Familial Interdependence and Familial Mentoring Relationships

Familial interdependence is a cultural value and practice that upholds the exchange of tangible (e.g., caretaking and financial support) and intangible (e.g., nurturing and companionship) support among members of the family unit (Toyokawa & Toyokawa, 2019). In contrast to the nuclear family model that is often privileged in research with white populations (Bengston, 2001; Edgell & Docka, 2007), support from extended and fictive-kin (i.e., individuals who are unrelated by birth or marriage but take on family-like roles) has historically been noted and existed as a central component of the black family system (Billingsley, 1968; Stack, 1974; Stewart, 2007). The centering of and reliance on the extended family among the black family system may stem from West African tradition passed down the ancestral line which was upheld as a necessary survival response during slavery and Jim Crow segregation in the United States (Stewart, 2007; R. J. Taylor et al., 2015; M. N. Wilson, 1989). Given the legacy of oppression and the continued social and economic injustices facing black families today, familial interdependence may continue to be imperative for survival.

García Coll and colleagues’ (1996) integrative model of the study of developmental competencies in minority children suggests that the exchange of support among extended kin networks may play an important role in the developmental processes of racial and ethnic minority adolescents. In addition, the integrative model suggests that kin networks may foster adaption in the face of contextual adversity related to economic hardship and social oppression. Moreover, the integrative model suggests that upholding interdependence as a familial value may contribute to youths’ and adults’ motivations to engage in supportive intergenerational relationships. Specifically, the integrative model highlights how familial values inform adaptive practices that can foster positive developmental outcomes among youth of color. As such, the reported value black families place on interdependence through intergenerational family support may promote the formation of familial mentoring relationships among youth and extended and fictive-kin as such cultural norms may influence youths’ willingness to self-disclose and seek out supportive intergenerational relationships.

While such an emphasis on intergenerational family support may explain the greater valuing of family interdependence seen among black families, there is still likely variability both in the extent to which there is family valuing of interdependence and in the extent to which such values may influence youths’ development and experience. In families where extended family support is more valued, parents may directly or indirectly encourage their children to seek support and guidance from extended family members (i.e., form mentoring relationships) by modeling behaviors of help seeking with other familial adults. In turn, youth raised in contexts where support behaviors are normalized may be more open to self-disclosing in an effort to seek support from nonparental adults (Harrison et al., 1990). Similarly, nonparental adults in the family network who share such values of support also may be more likely to engage in supportive behaviors with familial youth, which could then facilitate the formation of natural mentoring relationships as youth would come to see those adults as persons they can confide in when needing support or guidance. Acts of disclosure by adolescents are notable as adolescents tend to disclose less relative to children and adults (Keijsers et al., 2009). However, adolescents stand to benefit from having open conversations with adults as they are learning to navigate heightened levels of social, emotional, and behavioral risks during this developmental period (Arnett, 1999). Although broader cultural norms may dictate greater opportunities for the formation of supportive intergenerational relationships within black families, an examination of contextual factors is needed to better understand within-group variability in factors informing help-seeking behaviors among youth who may be less likely to confide in adults during the developmental stage of adolescence. One such contextual factor that may condition the extent to which valuing of familial interdependence is impactful on youth developing familial mentoring relationships may be families’ socioeconomic positioning. This is because socioeconomic positioning can shape family dynamics and may interact with family values to determine whether or not youth develop familial mentoring relationships with adults in their extended family.

Familial Interdependence, Socioeconomic Disadvantage, and Familial Mentoring Relationships

Although research in this area is scarce, there is reason to believe that the extent to which familial values of interdependence influence the formation of familial mentoring relationships may be conditioned by the family’s socioeconomic positioning. For instance, among families experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage, the potential association between interdependence and familial mentoring relationships may be amplified. This may be due to the fact that families experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage tend to be more reliant on adults in their extended family for help meeting basic needs and day-to-day support (R. D. Taylor et al., 2014). Given this greater reliance, extended family networks may be more accessible to youth. For example, youth may be embedded in a family network where extended family members live in close proximity to each other and interact frequently (Beck & Beck, 1989; McAdoo, 2002). Due to this heightened accessibility, a greater valuing of interdependence in the family may have greater potential to result in the formation of a familial mentoring relationship. If socioeconomic status serves as a proxy for access to extended family networks (Gerstel, 2011), then we may expect to see the strongest link between support values and familial mentorship formation among families experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage due to the fact that extended family may be more accessible on a day-to-day basis. Nevertheless, given that little to no research has examined interactive effects between socioeconomic status and family values of interdependence among black families, research is warranted to improve our understanding of the ways in which socioeconomic disadvantage may condition the association between familial interdependence and black youths’ formation of familial mentoring relationships.

Current Study

An explanatory sequential mixed-methods design (Creswell & Clark, 2007) was used to explore the potential association between family values of interdependence and the presence of familial mentoring relationships among a sample of black youth, with attention to the moderating influence of socioeconomic disadvantage. This sequential design allowed quantitative findings to be further examined using qualitative data from interviews which facilitated a more complete understanding of patterns that emerged and permitted an exploration of unexpected findings from the quantitative analyses. First, quantitative survey data were examined to assess whether socioeconomic disadvantage influenced the potential association between youths’ valuing of familial interdependence and youth having a familial mentor. Demographics (i.e., gender and age) and personality factors (i.e., extraversion) were accounted for as these factors may have been associated with reported valuing of familial interdependence and familial mentor formation among youth. Gender, extraversion, and age were included in the study analyses as covariates given the possibility that relative to boys and youth who are more introverted, girls and youth who are more extraverted may be more likely to value familial interdependence and to have a natural mentor (Hurd et al., 2016, 2018); and, relative to younger youth, older youth may be less likely to endorse valuing of familial interdependence (Padilla et al., 2016) and have fewer close relationships with adults (Thomson & Zand, 2010).

Open-ended interviews were then conducted with a subset of participants and their families to probe findings from the quantitative analyses (i.e., to explore how socioeconomic positioning may influence potential associations between familial interdependence and whether or not youth have a familial mentor). This study used data from interviews with youth, one of their parents, and one nonparental familial adult with whom the youth reported feeling close to explore how interdependence is experienced and enacted among black families. Moreover, to explore the potentially moderating influence of socioeconomic disadvantage on the association between values of familial interdependence and the formation of familial mentoring relationships, data were analyzed to compare the experiences of families who were experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage with those who were not.

Methods

Quantitative Participants and Procedures

An Institutional Review Board approved all study procedures. Participants in this study were drawn from the Learning about Important Nonparental Kin (LINK) study (protocol #2015036700). LINK is a mixed-method study focused on better understanding how black youths’ social contexts (e.g., family, school, and community) may influence the formation of natural mentoring relationships. Participants in the larger study included 216 black youth ranging in age from 11 to 17 (59% female). The participants were recruited from six area middle schools, four area high schools, and one area community center in the Southeastern region of the United States during the 2015–2016 academic school year. Recruitment letters inviting youth to participate in a study examining youths’ day-to-day experiences at home and at school were mailed to black students’ parents/guardians directly from the schools and handed out to students by school counselors. Recruitment flyers were also distributed via community listservs and posted in community centers. Parents/guardians provided informed consent for their child’s participation in the study and youth provided informed assent. Surveys were administered to youth by research assistants who read the survey questions aloud to participants to enhance comprehension. To facilitate honesty in reporting and foster confidentiality of responses, participants recorded their own responses to survey questions on an iPad. Surveys were completed in 1 hour, on average, and participants were compensated with a $40 Visa gift card for their participation. Black youth aged 11 through 17 were eligible to participate in the study (mean age = 13.87, SD = 1.42). Sixty-percent of youth from the quantitative sample (N = 216) lived in two-parent households. Seventy-seven percent of participants lived in households with two or more children under the age of 18 (including themselves). Seventy-eight percent of youth reported that their primary caregiver was their mother (including stepmother or foster mother), while 10% of youth reported their father (including stepfather or foster father) was their primary caregiver. Seven percent of youth listed grandparents, aunts, or siblings as their primary caregiver.

Quantitative Measures

Table 1 includes descriptive statistics for study variables.

Table 1.

Descriptives of Primary Study Variables.

Predictor variables	Response range	M	SD
1. Extraversion	1–5	3.58	0.71
2. Age	11–17	13.87	1.42
3. Familial interdependence	1–6	4.85	0.60
4. % socioeconomically disadvantaged	—	52%	—
5. % with a familial natural mentoring relationship	—	47%	—
6. % male	—	41%	—

Familial interdependence

To assess values of familial interdependence, a modified 15-item version of the Communalism Scale (CS; Boykin & Ellison, 1995) was used. This measure was modified to just focus on interdependence values within the family. The broader measure focused on assessing an individual’s orientation to interdependence among friends, family, and groups, more generally. Given the project’s interest in understanding the role of familial interdependence in shaping the formation of familial mentoring relationships, only items assessing interdependence within the family were included. Participants indicated how true items were for them on a 6-point Likert-type scale with responses ranging from 1 (completely false) to 6 (completely true). Participants’ responses were averaged across all 15 items to create a composite variable (α = .74). One item was reverse coded so that higher scores on all items indicated greater orientations toward familial support. A sample item from the measure includes “In my family, we go to one another if we have problems.”

Familial mentors

The following item was used to assess for the presence of a natural mentor: “Is there an adult other than your parents or people who are raising you who you can go to for support, guidance, and help making important decisions?” If participants responded in the affirmative, they were asked to indicate how they knew that adult. Of all identified mentors, 71% were nonparental family members. For the purpose of this study, participants who indicated they had a natural mentor from their family were assigned a value of “1” and participants who did not have a familial mentor were assigned a value of “0.”

Socioeconomic disadvantage

A variable was created to represent socioeconomic disadvantage wherein participants were assigned a value of “1” if they indicated that they received free or reduced-price lunch and that neither of their parental figures had completed a Bachelor’s degree in higher education. Previous research indicates that adolescents’ reporting of free and reduced-price lunch status and parents’ educational attainment are strongly correlated with other measures of socioeconomic status, such as family income (Ensminger et al., 2000).

Extraversion

To assess adolescents’ level of extraversion, the eight-item extraversion subscale of the Big Five Inventory (BFI: John & Srivastava, 1999) was used (α = .77). Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with statements describing themselves as extraverted (e.g., talkative, sociable, and assertive). Response options ranged from 1 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree strongly). Three items were reverse coded so that higher scores on all items indicated greater levels of extraversion. Participants’ scores were averaged across the eight items to create a composite variable that was used in this study’s analyses.

Demographics

Participants were asked a series of questions regarding their basic demographic characteristics, including age and gender identity. For this study, participants were assigned a value of “1” if they identified as male and “0” if they identified as female (no participants self-identified as being outside of the gender binary).

Quantitative Data Analyses

All analyses were conducted using R software (version 3.6.1). Bivariate correlations were conducted to assess for associations among the primary study variables. Independent samples t-tests were conducted to assess whether youth experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage differed significantly from nonsocioeconomically disadvantaged youth on their valuing of familial interdependence or likelihood of possessing a familial mentoring relationship. Logistic regression analyses were conducted using the psych package to examine the main effect of familial interdependence valuing on black adolescents’ endorsement of having a familial mentor and socioeconomic disadvantage as a moderator.

Quantitative Results

Preliminary analyses

Associations among primary study variables were examined using bivariate correlations (see Table 2). Identifying as male was associated with higher levels of extraversion. Higher levels of extraversion were associated with greater reports of valuing familial interdependence. Participants’ age and gender were not associated with values of familial interdependence or family mentor presence. Participants’ reporting of familial interdependence was not correlated with socioeconomic disadvantage or familial mentor presence. There were no significant differences between socioeconomically disadvantaged youth and nonsocioeconomically disadvantaged youth on values of familial interdependence; t(219) = −1.21, p = .23, or familial mentor presence; t(220) = −0.89, p = .37.

Table 2.

Correlations of Primary Study Variables.

	2	3	4	5	6
1. Familial interdependence	0.08	0.11	0.07	0.25**	−0.07
2. Socioeconomically disadvantaged	—	0.06	0.07	0.03	−0.07
3. Presence of familial natural mentoring relationship		—	−0.08	0.14*	−0.02
4. Male			—	0.13*	0.08
5. Extraversion				—	−0.18*
6. Age					—

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

Regression analyses

Familial mentor presence was regressed on variables representing values of familial interdependence, socioeconomic disadvantage, and a variable created to represent the interaction of these two variables. We noted distortion in our initial results as socioeconomic disadvantage, a collider variable (Elwert & Winship, 2014; Winship & Mare, 1992), introduced false associations in the model. In line with Sadetzki et al. (2003), we reran our analyses only including our covariates and the interaction term within each of the two population groups (i.e., socioeconomically disadvantaged and nonsocioeconomically disadvantaged) to circumvent the issue of distortion. After accounting for the potential effects of participants’ level of extraversion, gender, and age, reports of valuing familial interdependence were positively associated with familial mentor presence only among youth who were not experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage, b = .99, t (212) = 2.49, p < .05. There was no association among these variables among youth experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage, b = −.21, t (212) = −0.66, p = .512.

Qualitative Participants and Procedures

Interviewers were a multiracial research team (n = 6; all women) consisting of one principle investigator faculty member, one postdoctoral research associate, and four graduate students. Standardized, open-ended interviews were conducted in 2017 with a stratified random sample of 25 youth from the larger sample. Stratification was implemented based on participants’ gender, age, familial mentor status, and socioeconomic disadvantage status. Open-ended interviews were also conducted with these adolescents’ primary caregivers (one per youth) and one nonparental familial adult with whom the youth reported feeling close and lived within 20 miles of the youth. Youth from the qualitative subsample ranged in age from 11 through 15 (mean age = 12.75, SD = 1.03), while primary caregivers (88% women) were between the ages of 29 and 60 (mean age = 43, SD = 6.68), and close nonparental familial adults (67% women) were between the ages of 18 and 73 (mean age = 45, SD = 19). Interviews lasted 60 to 90 minutes, on average. Each member of the triad (i.e., youth, parent, and nonparental familial adult) was individually interviewed in one-on-one sessions conducted in private locations selected based on convenience to the participants (e.g., their homes, researchers’ offices). The interview protocol included questions about participants’ relationships with the other members of their family, intergenerational interactions, and broader family dynamics. Parents were asked questions regarding their views and experiences with receiving support from extended family members, including “Some parents believe it takes a village to raise their children and some parents prefer to be the only ones involved in raising their child. Can you tell me how you feel about this?” and “What ways has [non-parental familial adult] contributed in helping you raise [your child]?” Nonparental familial adults were asked “Have you done anything to help [parent] with their responsibilities as a parent?,” and each member was asked to describe their family and relationships with the other interviewed family members. All interviews were audio recorded on an iPad and subsequently transcribed. Audio files were destroyed after they had been transcribed. Each participant was compensated with an $80 Visa gift card for participation.

Qualitative Data Analyses

Interview data were transcribed verbatim, verified, and analyzed using thematic and modified analytic induction techniques (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992; Braun & Clarke, 2006). Interview data were uploaded into Dedoose software for initial analysis and the six interviewers engaged in multiple readings of transcripts and discussions over a 12-month period to reach agreement regarding predominant patterns and themes. An initial codebook was developed based on these discussions, the semistructured interview protocol, and previous research. Consensus coding (Harry et al., 2005) was employed as each interview was coded separately by two researchers who then came together to discuss and resolve any disagreement in the application of codes. To ensure accuracy and breadth of information in our findings, we employed triangulation by capturing data through different sources (parent, youth, and familial adult perspectives) and using multiple coders (Creswell, 2013; Patton, 2002).

Given the explanatory sequential study design, quantitative analyses were completed prior to undertaking qualitative analyses. The quantitative finding suggested that socioeconomic disadvantage moderated the association between valuing of familial interdependence and the presence of a familial mentoring relationship. Accordingly, interviews of youth who reported high valuing of familial interdependence, their parent, and one close family nonparental adult were analyzed to better understand why greater valuing of familial interdependence relates to having a familial mentoring relationship among youth who were not experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage, but was not associated among youth who were experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage. We were particularly interested in determining whether experiences of family support (i.e., the enactment of familial interdependence) and processes of familial mentorship formation varied as a function of whether families were experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage. Furthermore, we were interested in understanding potential variation across socioeconomic status in characteristics of family support and relationship development as such distinctions in how familial interdependence is enacted and factors that contribute to familial mentor formation across social class could explain why familial interdependence was only associated with the presence of familial mentoring relationships among nonsocioeconomically disadvantaged youth. For example, we wondered if other factors may be more salient in driving the formation of familial mentoring relationships among youth in families experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage.

Enactment of Familial Interdependence Across Socioeconomic Status: Analyses

The first qualitative research question sought to investigate how socioeconomically disadvantaged families’ experiences of familial interdependence compared to those of nonsocioeconomically disadvantaged families. This is because, one potential explanation of the quantitative findings is that how families experience or understand interdependence differs significantly across socioeconomic status. This could explain why this variable appeared to be of consequence for familial mentorship formation for some youth (i.e., those not experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage) but not others (i.e., those experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage). To examine experiences of interdependence in black families, excerpts initially coded as “social support” were assessed with focused attention given to support mentioned among members of the family unit. Instances of social support were assessed as the enactment of tangible and intangible support within the family because this demonstrates evidence of familial interdependence (Toyokawa & Toyokawa, 2019). Such discussions of support provision may also reflect notions of familial interdependence versus the necessity of support reliance. Moreover, we primarily focused our analyses on direct and indirect support provided from the nonparental adult to the youth as we expected this to be the exemplary manifestation of familial interdependence (i.e., nonparental adults playing an actively supportive role in the lives of youth).

To facilitate the most precise comparison of interdependence across socioeconomic status, we focused this study’s narrative analyses on the families of youth reporting high valuing of familial interdependence (i.e., youth scoring above the sample mean on the familial interdependence scale). A total of 33 interviews were analyzed for the 11 families of youth reporting high family valuing of interdependence (six families were experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage) to investigate experiences of interdependence across socioeconomic status. After becoming familiar with the data, two of the research team members reviewed the “support” excerpts of an initial six interviews which comprised two family units (one representing each socioeconomic status). Aware of the families’ socioeconomic status, the two researchers read the excerpts line-by-line, and open coded the data by naming the concepts that emerged. The researchers then organized the concepts into broader categories (axial coding; Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Throughout the process of axial coding, the researchers compared data between and within categories until thematic saturation among categories was achieved (Green & Thorogood, 2004). Once the final list of categories was generated, the two research team members coded the initial six interviews to verify the codes were clear. Coding discrepancies were reviewed and disagreement in application of codes was resolved as needed. The team members repeated this process while coding the remaining 27 interviews (nine families) with disagreement occurring among less than 10% of the codes between the two researchers. The prevalence and content of the codes were compared across socioeconomic status after the coding was completed.

Formation of Familial Mentoring Relationships Across Socioeconomic Status: Analyses

The second qualitative research question sought to investigate how factors driving the formation of familial mentoring relationships among socioeconomically disadvantaged youth compare to those of nonsocioeconomically disadvantaged youth. Thus, of the 11 families of youth reporting high valuing of familial interdependence, the analyses focused on just the six of these families where youth reported possessing a familial mentoring relationship (three families were socioeconomically disadvantaged). Using excerpts initially coded “social support,” the two researcher team members individually coded excerpts of the six families looking for characteristics, traits, and circumstances that led youth to seek support from their family mentor. Coders then discussed and resolved disagreement in application of codes as needed with disagreement occurring among less than 5% of the codes between the two researchers.

Qualitative Results

Table 3 provides descriptive information of interview participants. All names reported are pseudonyms. In exploration of the first qualitative research question examining enactment of interdependence in families across social class, we identified notable similarities and differences in both the characteristics and availability of support received among members of the family. In exploration of the second qualitative research question examining processes of familial mentor formation across social class, notable similarities and differences were expressed in the characterization of factors that determined why youth would seek out their familial mentors. Key findings addressing both areas of inquiry are presented in the following sections.

Table 3.

Descriptive Information of Interview Participants.

Youth	Youth natural mentor status	Parent	Parents’ relation to youth	NPA	NPAs’ relation to youth	Socioeconomically disadvantaged
Thomas	Mentor	Amanda	Mother	Gloria	Maternal grandmother	No
Kiera	Mentor	Michelle	Mother	David	Maternal grandfather	No
Naomi	Mentor	Tameka	Mother	Clara	Maternal grandmother	No
Keisha	Mentor	Caroline	Mother	Jackie	Maternal aunt	Yes
DeAndre	Mentor	Janee	Mother	Carmine	Maternal grandmother	Yes
Zachary	Mentor	Tina	Mother	Linda	Maternal aunt	Yes
Adam	No mentor	Abby	Mother	Erik	Older brother	No
Nia	No mentor	Bonita	Mother	Ida	Maternal grandmother	No
Demarkus	No mentor	Valerie	Mother	Brianna	Maternal cousin	Yes
Raquan	No mentor	Tracey	Mother	Janice	Maternal grandmother	Yes
Jordan	No Mentor	Solomon	Father	Olivia	Older sister	Yes

Note. NPA = nonparental family adult.

Enactment of Familial Interdependence Across Socioeconomic Status: Results

Analyses yielded more similarities than differences in how familial interdependence was enacted across socioeconomic status. Notably, families across socioeconomic status described experiences of support consistent with the social support literature (i.e., emotional, informational, instrumental/tangible, and companionship; Sarason et al., 1983; Wills & Shinar, 2000) and the way this support was performed did not vary in substantive ways across families as a function of socioeconomic status. Members from each of the 11 families discussed instances of receiving and providing tangible, information, emotional, and companionship support. Tangible support was provided in the forms of caretaking (e.g., babysitting and car rides), financial assistance, and material goods such as gifts and groceries. Emotional support was noted through mentions of providing and receiving concern and encouragement, while informational support was enacted through provisions of advice and suggestions. The importance of companionship was also noted, wherein support was expressed through time spent together. Discussion of familial interdependence was consistent across reporters (i.e., youth, parents, and familial adults) for each of the family units as familial adults often corroborated parents and youths’ claims of support provision and reception in their families.

Tangible

There was a consensus among youth, parents, and close nonparental adults that help with caretaking was a primary source of support exchanged within their families. Parents discussed how they often relied on family adults to pick their children up from school when they were unable to do so, given their work schedules. For instance, Amanda, a mother not experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage, explained:

with both my husband and I teaching, and having all these other activities, [my parents] are key with picking up the kids and making sure that things are getting done and taking them to practices when we can’t do it.

Carmine, the grandmother of a youth from a family experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage, also shared how she would often support her daughter Janee by picking up her grandson DeAndre when Janee “couldn’t get off work.” Other forms of tangible support provided by family adults included child care after school and during summer vacations from school, monetary gifts to youth, and loans to parents when help was needed with covering financial expenses (e.g., bills, youth participation in programs). In addition to adults providing tangible support, instances of youth providing tangible assistance to family adults were reported. For example, DeAndre and Zachary (both youth experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage) were noted as helpful in cutting the grass for their older family members, while Thomas and Naomi (both nonsocioeconomically disadvantaged youth) would often help their grandmothers “fix things around the house.”

Emotional

Discussion of emotional support within the family centered primarily on interactions among the three interviewed members of the family. Across socioeconomic disadvantage status, trust appeared as a salient feature aiding in the reciprocation of emotional support among family members as both parents and familial adults in family units mentioned that they trusted one another “fully” and “with anything,” while both socioeconomically disadvantaged and nonsocioeconomically disadvantaged youth and parents also discussed feeling well supported from the youths’ close familial adults. All youth mentioned that they would share some problems related to either issues with friends or teachers in school with their parents and familial adults; however, youth were hesitant to seek support from adults in their families on issues related to romantic relationships.

Informational

Parents often discussed their willingness to seek and receive parenting advice from other adults in their families. Amanda, a nonsocioeconomically disadvantaged mother, described how her mother Gloria acted as her “chill button” in that Gloria often advised Amanda to let her son Thomas “make his own way” and “be a young man.” Similarly, Clara, the grandmother of a youth from a nonsocioeconomically disadvantaged family, would advise Tameka to “take a step backward” as she felt that Tameka was too strict and “a little too hard on the kids” and should “calm down sometimes and just stop the yelling.” Michelle, a nonsocioeconomically disadvantaged mother, mentioned that she frequently called her father David for advice on “minor stuff,” such as how to cook certain meals, while Janee, a mother experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage, shared that she would “take all the help [she could] get” since “it’s hard to raise children,” and that her mom Carmine was her go-to person for advice. Although Linda and Jackie (the aunts of youth from families experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage) mentioned that they did not feel the need to provide parenting advice to their sisters, Tina, a mother experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage, shared that she would respect and listen to input from her sister Linda as Tina believed that Linda would challenge her if she were making parenting decisions out of anger. Similar to the sharing of problems in pursuit of receiving emotional support, youth across social class shared that they would seek advice from their parents and nonparental family adults on best practices for handling issues with friends and teachers, and decisions around sport participation and future educational and career plans (e.g., going to college).

Companionship

Members of both socioeconomically disadvantaged and nonsocioeconomically disadvantaged family units often discussed instances in which family adults would carve out space and time to spend with youth in their extended families. Tameka, a nonsocioeconomically disadvantaged mother, mentioned how her sisters “stay relevant” in her children’s lives by spending time with them, either by going to the mall or to see a movie in the theaters. Similarly, Janee, a mother experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage, mentioned how her sisters would stay involved in her son DeAndre’s life. She shared:

Like his aunts, they’re very involved in my kid’s life, like especially when DeAndre was little, when it was just him. He was the first grandchild out of the cousins. So, his aunts used to come and pick him up, and I’d get off from work and I’m going, “Hey, where’s DeAndre at?”[My husband’s] like, “Oh, he’s down at Jennie’s house.” Like they’ll come pick him up and just spend the evening with him.

Elaborating on the quality time her son DeAndre would spend with family adults, Janee also shared that DeAndre would call his grandmother Carmine to ask if he could “please, please spend the night all weekend.” Like DeAndre, many of the youth also spent time with their family mentors eating meals at restaurants, cooking meals, or staying the night at their homes. Thomas, a nonsocioeconomically disadvantaged youth, shared that, in addition to going out to eat meals together, he and his grandmother Gloria would spend time “at her house watching a show . . . sometimes documentaries like Animal Planet or things that are really interesting.”

Accessibility of support

In addition to characterizing types of support, youth and familial adults also discussed accessibility (i.e., availability and consistency) of family support. In regards to the availability and consistency of support provided by extended and fictive-kin, Michelle, a nonsocioeconomically disadvantaged mother, mentioned that her daughter Kiera had “plenty of adults . . . lots of support” in the family as Kiera’s grandparents, uncle, and uncle’s ex-girlfriend were “there consistently.” Similarly, Kiera’s grandfather, David, corroborated Michelle’s claim of consistency in family support by sharing that he would often tell Kiera that he would always be there for her. Relatedly, Carmine, the grandmother of a youth from a family experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage, would tell her grandson DeAndre “if you need me, call me.” These declarations of availability were communicated as a means of ensuring that youth felt comfortable and encouraged to seek support and these declarations appeared to be equally important among families across socioeconomic status.

Notably, our findings indicated overwhelmingly similar experiences in how interdependence within the family was enacted across socioeconomic status. Only one difference across socioeconomic status was observed: compared to nonsocioeconomically disadvantaged families, socioeconomically disadvantaged families were more likely to report a lack of support from youths’ biological fathers. Caroline, a mother experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage, shared that her daughter Keisha’s father had “never really been in her life,” while Tracey, another mother experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage, stated that she had tried unsuccessfully to encourage a relationship between her son Raquan and his father who lives out of state. Similarly, Valerie, a mother experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage, shared that she had also been unsuccessful in facilitating a relationship between her son, Demarkus, and his father. Valerie explained that she often told Demarkus’ father that “the door’s always open to you . . . I just want Demarkus to know that you are there.” Although the absence of father support may not be illustrative of the way interdependence is enacted within families, it could create different circumstances that shape when, why, and how support from other familial adults is needed and accessed. In this way, it could provide a partial explanation for why familial interdependence was not associated with familial mentoring relationships among youth experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage.

Formation of Familial Mentoring Relationships Across Socioeconomic Status: Results

One similarity emerged across socioeconomic status in regards to factors that shaped the presence of familial mentoring relationships. Specifically, when examining the characteristics, traits, and circumstances that led the youth to self-disclose and seek support from their family mentor, we noted that all mentoring relationships were with family members who had always been involved in the youths’ lives (meaning none of these were adults who entered the family when youth were older or adults who had been more distant but become more central later in youths’ development). Thomas, a nonsocioeconomically disadvantaged youth shared that his grandmother Gloria had always been an “extremely” important part of his life as far as he could remember. Similarly, DeAndre, a youth experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage, mentioned that his grandmother Carmine had been in his life “since [he] was born.” Consistently, youth expressed value in having had their family mentor be someone who had always been a part of their lives.

In regards to potentially unique circumstances that shaped the formation of familial mentoring relationships among socioeconomically disadvantaged youth, one finding emerged. Among youth experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage, relationships with family mentors were often facilitated by economic constraints and hardship that necessitated nonparental adults share in the responsibilities of caring for youth. Such caretaking from nonparental adults occurred in the context of challenges that included unavailable or unsupportive fathers, parents and youth needing to live with extended kin for financial reasons, and parents relying on extended kin due to work schedules. For example, when DeAndre, a youth experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage, was born, his mother Janee had just turned 18 and was living at home with her mother Carmine. Although Janee and DeAndre’s father were able to move into a place of their own when DeAndre was just 10-months old, both Janee and Carmine credit this time of living with Carmine as the reason for Carmine and DeAndre’s current bond. While Janee was working, Carmine would often care for DeAndre which allowed the two to spend one-on-one time together. That individual time became more difficult to come by as DeAndre got older, but he mentioned that he would likely go to his grandmother for help with a problem if he could not reach his mother or if his father was unable to pick up the phone at work.

Like DeAndre, Zachary, a youth experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage, mentioned that his aunt Linda would be there if he ever needed her. Zachary explained:

She’s the second person that is close to me and very close to me. I talk to her a lot. If I ever need help, I just go to her and stuff like that for advice on things. If I’m not going to my mom, I would go to her. My mom’s not always around because she’s at work. Sometimes I go to her.”

When asked if there were any reason that he chose to go to Linda, Zachary responded,

Not really, not any reason about it. The only reason that I know that I go to her is because she’s just close to me besides my brothers because they’re at work too sometimes, so I just go to her.

When Keisha, a youth experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage, was younger, her mother Caroline enlisted caretaking support from family. Caroline’s reliance on extended kin may have been necessitated by the absence of Keisha’s father in their lives. As such, Keisha’s aunt, Jackie, provided child care for Keisha when Caroline had to work. Although Keisha no longer requires watching over now that she’s older, she frequently spends time with her aunt as Jackie’s home is the first place she goes after school. Given that Jackie is the first person Keisha sees in her family after school, Keisha shared that she was likely to tell Jackie about issues with friends and teachers she encountered that day.

While caretaking in the context of economic hardship seemed to be central to the formation of familial mentoring bonds formed among youth experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage, recognition of desirable character traits more commonly promoted the formation of such bonds among nonsocioeconomically disadvantaged youth. For example, when explaining her reasons for going to her grandfather David for advice, Kiera, a nonsocioeconomically disadvantaged youth, explained,

sometimes I feel he’ll know more about it than my friends and my cousins. I don’t know. Some situations I think he would know more about so I come to him. He’s wiser and knows more stuff and has more experiences.

While Kiera mentioned David’s “experience” and knowledge, Naomi, a nonsocioeconomically disadvantaged youth shared that her grandmother Clara was someone who she felt comfortable talking to about her problems since her grandmother was “a little bit easier to talk to than [her] mom” since “[Clara’s] not quicker to anger than [her] mom.” Similarly, Thomas, a nonsocioeconomically disadvantaged youth, shared that he would turn to his grandmother Gloria if “something were to happen at home” that he would not want to go to his parents about. Like Kiera and Naomi, Thomas reported that he would intentionally seek support from his family mentor over other possible options (e.g., friends). Comparatively, youth experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage were less likely to report traits of nonparental family adults as reasons for developing close bonds with them. Instead, youth experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage reported that close bonds formed because of the adult’s availability and ongoing presence in their life.

Discussion

Results of the present investigation suggest that greater valuing of familial interdependence may be associated with youth having a familial mentoring relationship, but only among nonsocioeconomically disadvantaged youth. This finding was unexpected as we had anticipated that this association would actually be amplified among youth experiencing heightened socioeconomic disadvantage. In line with the integrative model of the study of developmental competencies in minority children (García Coll et al., 1996), we assumed that a reliance on family support may be an adaptive response to financial stress and that economic hardship may be associated with greater access to extended family networks (R. D. Taylor et al., 2014). In an effort to try and better understand why valuing of familial interdependence was not associated with youth having a familial mentoring relationship among youth experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage, we used qualitative data to explore two possible explanations of this discrepancy. The first possibility we explored was that interdependence may have been enacted or experienced differently across social class, rendering it less influential for familial mentorship formation among families experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage. The second possibility we considered was that there may have been other more salient factors beyond familial interdependence that may have been driving the formation of familial mentoring relationships among youth experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage.

In regards to whether there may be other more salient factors driving the formation of familial mentoring relationships among youth experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage, findings revealed that among families experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage, familial mentoring relationships may have been more likely to develop as a consequence of increased time spent together as a result of economic hardship (e.g., familial adults providing needed caretaking). Comparatively, nonsocioeconomically disadvantaged youth were more likely to report intentionally selecting their familial mentor due to desirable characteristics possessed by their mentor. It is possible that without having to navigate economic hardship or experiencing the corresponding circumstances that may result, nonsocioeconomically disadvantaged youth may have had more agency in how they developed these relationships. This would explain why familial values such as interdependence may be of more consequence for familial mentoring relationships among nonsocioeconomically disadvantaged youth: largely, because these relationships are less likely to develop out of necessity. In turn, this may mean that family values of interdependence could have more opportunity to influence these intentional decisions. Nonsocioeconomically disadvantaged youth described their mentors as being wiser than their peers and calmer in demeanor than their parents. Rather than describing the characteristics of their mentors that led them to feel comfortable self-disclosing and seeking them out, youth experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage were more likely to mention that they sought support from their mentor as a default when their parents’ work schedules prevented them from being available. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that while there may have been differentiating circumstances influencing the formation of familial mentoring relationships across socioeconomic status, these groups did not differ in the frequency of having a familial mentor. This suggests that these relationships are just as prevalent and meaningful across families of varying socioeconomic status, even if they form for differing reasons.

Our qualitative findings also suggest that the enactment of familial interdependence did not appear to meaningfully differ across socioeconomic status. Parents and youth across socioeconomic status described highly accessible support from their extended kin networks and were equally likely to receive traditional forms of support such as emotional, informational, tangible/instrumental, and companionship. This is in line with previous research that has documented the value and functionality of various forms of support within black extended families (Billingsley, 1968; Stack, 1974; Stewart, 2007). Although we were primarily interested in examining the demonstration of support from nonparental familial adults to youth and their parents, members of the family triad provided examples of youth helping out family adults who may have needed extra assistance (e.g., adults who were elderly and/or lived alone). Such instances illustrate that the interdependence construct included all members of the family, as they were able to rely on each other for a range of supportive functions. Although previous work on kinship support within black families indicates that black adolescents often provide support to older family members (Burton, 2007; Cross et al., 2018; Harrison et al., 1990), literature in the realm of natural mentoring tends to focus exclusively on unidirectional support from adults to youth. Our finding of bidirectional intergenerational support within black families builds on prior work by illustrating a truly interdependent family system. Moreover, when examining accessibility of support, youth and parents described receiving consistent support from members of their extended kin networks, while close nonparental adults shared the ways they provided support to youth and their parents. This was consistent with quantitative findings indicating that there were not average differences in youths’ reports of familial interdependence values across socioeconomic status.

Study Limitations

Several limitations of this study should be noted. Notably, quantitative and qualitative data for the study were each collected at single time points which limited our ability to establish temporal precedence in the quantitative analyses. It is possible, for example, that youth with close familial mentoring relationships may have been more likely to view their families as more supportive and interdependent. However, results from previous studies using longitudinal designs have demonstrated associations between dynamics in youths’ broader context and future natural mentor formation (Hagler et al., 2019; Rhodes et al., 1994). Moreover, the interview data suggested that nonsocioeconomically disadvantaged youth were being intentional in their selection of familial mentors, meaning that family values of interdependence may have played a role in that process. Nevertheless, this study should be followed by additional studies incorporating a prospective longitudinal design to more fully assess how familial values and circumstances may directly influence the formation of familial mentoring relationships.

We also noted that on average, youth in our study reported relatively high familial interdependence values (i.e., scores were concentrated above the mid-point of the scale), which may have curtailed the magnitude of our findings. Lower variability in this variable may have undermined our ability to detect findings overall and may explain the absence of findings among youth experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage. While our findings fit with expectations regarding elevated levels of familial interdependence within black families, future research with larger and more socioeconomically diverse samples of black youth could be employed to attempt to replicate findings from this study. Relatedly, the eligibility requirements of the qualitative sample required participation from one parent and one nonparental family adult who lived within 20 miles of the youth and with whom the youth reported feeling relationally close. As such, the sample of participants may have been restricted to families with relatively close ties (even though only half of the youth reported possessing a familial mentor). Such stipulations for involvement in the study may explain the high reporting of familial interdependence across the sample. However, it is worth noting that the overwhelming majority of the 216 participants who participated in the quantitative portion of the study reported having at least one familial adult with whom they had regular contact and reported feelings of relational closeness toward. Moreover, previous research demonstrating the long-standing tradition of familial interdependence in the black community (Billingsley, 1968; Stack, 1974; Stewart, 2007) suggests that the findings of this study may generally represent the studied population.

In this study, we limited our focus to primary caregivers as they tend to be the most influential adult in youths’ lives (Bowlby, 1969; Liu, 2008), and 40% of participants in the quantitative sample lived in single-parent homes. Nevertheless, this approach did not permit analysis of the role or experiences of secondary caregivers which limited our ability to investigate the ways in which other parents or parental figures may influence youths’ formation of mentoring relationships with nonparental familial adults. Future research should consider the role and influence of all of youths’ caregivers when trying to better understand factors that shape the formation of familial mentoring relationships. Such an approach would be particularly appropriate for studying black family dynamics as previous work indicates that black families are diverse in structure and often multigenerational in household composition (Deleire & Kalil, 2002; Tolson & Wilson, 1990).

Although we obtained informative data detailing differences in the formation process of familial mentoring relationships and availability of parental support across social class, the comparisons were limited in that the approach to measurement of socioeconomic disadvantage may not have been the most precise and did not allow for analysis of the full range of variation in socioeconomic status given the binary comparison. In addition, the non-socioeconomically disadvantaged group may have had substantial variability in socioeconomic status based on family income. However, we considered this study’s approach to measurement of socioeconomic disadvantage acceptable given that reports of free and reduced-price lunch status and parents’ educational attainment are strongly correlated with other measures of socioeconomic status (Ensminger et al., 2000) and are data that youth are more likely to be aware of and thus, able to accurately report on a survey. Though this approach allowed for an initial assessment into the role of socioeconomic disadvantage on familial mentor formation, future studies should attempt to measure socioeconomic disadvantage status in a more comprehensive manner by examining disadvantage status across a spectrum. Future studies also may seek to replicate our findings that adolescents’ gender and age were not associated with the presence of familial mentoring relationships within black families. While previous research has found variation in natural mentor presence as a function of gender and age, this was one of the first studies to focus specifically on the presence of familial mentors within the black family. Thus, it may be that gender and age are less consequential for the formation of intergenerational bonds within black families.

Conclusion

Findings from our study extend the field’s conception of intergenerational interaction within the black family by identifying and illuminating processes, such as familial interdependence, which may support the formation of familial mentoring relationships among black youth. By illuminating these processes, we not only document normative and adaptive processes happening within black families, but also begin to shed light on opportunities to leverage assets within black families to promote familial mentoring relationships among youth without such bonds. Given that the sample only included black families, we were able to more carefully consider the distinct role of socioeconomic status in shaping the experiences of black family life. Results of our study supported the idea that socioeconomic positioning matters for the circumstances influencing the formation of familial mentoring relationships among black youth and also highlighted the specific ways youth across socioeconomic status benefited from these close, familial bonds. Relatedly, nonparental familial adults may be largely unaware of how the consistency of their presence and their perceived availability impact the likelihood that youth in their family will turn to them in times of need. Dissemination of this knowledge may motivate nonparental familial adults to communicate affirmations of availability (e.g., “I’m here if you need me”) in an effort to increase youths’ comfort with seeking support from adult relatives. By leveraging such assets of support within the extended kin network, black families may be better equipped to help youth in their families successfully navigate challenges they face in adolescence and beyond.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the youth and families for participating in this study and the members of the research team who assisted with data collection.

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 following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by a William T. Grant Foundation Scholar Award that was awarded to the third author.

ORCID iD

Janelle T. Billingsley

Author Biographies

Janelle T. Billingsley is a doctoral student in the psychology department at the University of Virginia. Her research interests concern the promotion of healthy adolescent development among marginalized youth with a focus on the examination of supportive intergenerational relationships as a preexisting strength in youths’ lives.

Ariana J. Rivens is a doctoral student in the psychology department at the University of Virginia. Her research interests include positive youth development, processes of risk and resilience among marginalized youth, and the creation of positive institutional climates in colleges and universities.

Noelle M. Hurd is the Scully Family Discovery associate professor in psychology at the University of Virginia. Her research interests include processes of risk and resilience among marginalized youth. She is particularly interested in the role of supportive intergenerational relationships between adolescents and nonparental adults in fostering resilience. She also is interested in interventions to disrupt systems of oppression.

References

Arnett

J. J.

(1999). Adolescent storm and stress, reconsidered. American Psychologist, 54, 317–326. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.5.317

Beck

(1989). The incidence of extended households among middle-aged black and white women: Estimates from a 5-year panel study. Journal of Family Issues, 10, 147–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/019251389010002001

Bengston

V. L.

(2001). Beyond the nuclear family: The increasing importance of multigenerational bonds. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00001.x

Billingsley

(1968). Black families in white America. Prentice-Hall.

Bogdan

Biklen

S. K.

(1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Allyn and Bacon.

Bowlby

(1969). Disruption of affectional bonds and its effects on behavior. Canada’s Mental Health Supplement, 59, 1–12.

Boykin

A. W.

Ellison

(1995). The multiple ecologies of black youth socialization: An Afrographic analysis. In Taylor

R. L.

(Ed.), African American youth: Their social and economic status in the United States (pp. 93–142). Praeger.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Brody

G. H.

Murry

V. M.

Chen

Y. F.

Kogan

S. M.

Brown

A. C.

(2006). Effects of family risk factors on dosage and efficacy of a family-centered preventive intervention for rural African Americans. Prevention Science, 7, 281–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-006-0032-7

10.

Burton

(2007). Childhood adultification in economically disadvantaged families: A conceptual model. Family Relations, 56, 329–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2007.00463.x

11.

Butler-Barnes

S. T.

Chavous

T. M.

Hurd

N. M.

Varner

(2013). African American adolescents’ academic persistence: A strengths-based approach. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 1443–1458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-9962-0

12.

Cogburn

C. D.

Chavous

T. M.

Griffin

T. M.

(2011). School-based racial and gender discrimination among African American adolescents: Exploring gender variation in frequency and implications for adjustment. Race and Social Problems, 3, 25–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12552-011-9040-8

13.

Coll

C. G.

Crnic

Lamberty

Wasik

B. H.

Jenkins

García

H. V.

McAdoo

H. P.

(1996). An integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in minority children. Child Development, 67, 1891–1914. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131600

14.

Cooper

S. M.

Brown

Metzger

Clinton

Guthrie

(2013). Racial discrimination and African American adolescents’ adjustment: Gender variation in family and community social support, promotive and protective factors. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 22, 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-012-9608-y

15.

Creswell

J. W.

(2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design. SAGE.

16.

Creswell

J. W.

Clark

V. L. P.

(2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. SAGE.

17.

Cross

Taylor

Chatters

(2018). Family social support networks of African American and black Caribbean adolescents. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27, 2757–2771. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-018-116-2

18.

Deleire

Kalil

(2002). Good things come in threes: Single-parent multigenerational family structure and adolescent adjustment. Demography, 39, 393–413.

19.

Edgell

Docka

(2007). Beyond the nuclear family? Familism and gender ideology in diverse religious communities. Sociological Forum, 22, 25–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1573-7861.2006.00003.x

20.

Elwert

Winship

(2014). Endogenous selection bias: The problem of conditioning on a collider variable. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 31–53. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043455

21.

Ensminger

M. E.

Forrest

C. B.

Riley

A. W.

Kang

Green

B. F.

Starfield

Ryan

S. A.

(2000). The validity of measures of socioeconomic status of adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15, 392–419. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558400153005

22.

Gerstel

(2011). Rethinking families and community: The color, class, and centrality of extended kin ties. Sociological Forum, 26, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1573-7861.2010.01222.x

23.

Glaser

Strauss

(1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Sociology Press.

24.

Green

Thorogood

(2004). Qualitative methods for health research (2nd ed., pp. 198–202). SAGE.

25.

Hagler

Raposa

E. B.

Rhodes

(2019). Psychosocial profiles of youth who acquire a natural mentor during a school year. Applied Developmental Science, 23, 1–9. doi:10.1080/10888691.2017.1342539

26.

Harrison

A. O.

Wilson

M. N.

Pine

C. J.

Chan

S. Q.

Buriel

(1990). Family ecologies of ethnic minority children. Child Development, 61, 347–362. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131097

27.

Harry

Sturges

K. M.

Klingner

J. K.

(2005). Mapping the process: An exemplar of process and challenge in grounded theory analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 34, 3–13. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X034002003

28.

Hurd

N. M.

Albright

J. N.

Wittrup

A. R.

Negrete

Billingsley

J. T.

(2018). Appraisal support from natural mentors, self-worth, and psychological distress: Examining the experiences of underrepresented students transitioning through college. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47, 1100–1112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0798-x

29.

Hurd

N. M.

Sánchez

Zimmerman

M. A.

Caldwell

C. H.

(2012). Natural mentors, racial identity, and educational attainment among African American adolescents: Exploring pathways to success. Child Development, 83, 1196–1212. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01769.x

30.

Hurd

N. M.

Tan

J. S.

Loeb

E. L.

(2016). Natural mentoring relationships and the adjustment to college among underrepresented students. American Journal of Community Psychology, 57, 330–341. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12059

31.

Hurd

N. M.

Varner

F. A.

Rowley

S. J.

(2013). Involved-vigilant parenting and socio-emotional well-being among black youth: The moderating influence of natural mentoring relationships. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 1583–1595. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9819-y

32.

Hurd

N. M.

Zimmerman

(2010). Natural mentors, mental health, and risk behaviors: A longitudinal analysis of African American adolescents transitioning into adulthood. American Journal of Community Psychology, 46, 36–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9325-x

33.

John

O. P.

Srivastava

(1999). The Big Five Trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In Pervin

L. A.

John

O. P.

(Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 102–138). Guilford Press.

34.

Keijsers

Frijns

Branje

S. J. T.

Meeus

(2009b). Developmental links of adolescent disclosure, parental solicitation, and control with delinquency: Moderation by parental support. Developmental Psychology, 45, 1314–1327.

35.

Klaw

E. L.

Rhodes

J. E.

Fitzgerald

L. F.

(2003). Natural mentors in the lives of African American adolescent mothers: Tracking relationships over time. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32, 223–232. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022551721565

36.

Liu

Y. L.

(2008). An examination of three models of the relationships between parental attachments and adolescents’ social functioning and depressive symptoms. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37(8), 941–952. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-006-9147-1

37.

McAdoo

H. P.

(Ed.) (2002). Black children: Social, educational, and parental environments (2nd ed.). SAGE.

38.

Padilla

McHale

S. M.

Rovine

M. J.

Updegraff

K. A.

Umaña-Taylor

A. J.

(2016). Parent-youth differences in familism values from adolescence into young adulthood: Developmental course and links with parent-youth conflict. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45, 2417–2430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0518-y

39.

Patton

(2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). SAGE.

40.

Rhodes

J. E.

Contreras

J. M.

Mangelsdorf

S. C.

(1994). Natural mentor relationships among Latina adolescent mothers: Psychological adjustment, moderating processes, and the role of early parental acceptance. American Journal of Community Psychology, 22, 211–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02506863

41.

Sadetzki

Bensal

Novikov

Modan

(2003). The limitations of using hospital controls in cancer etiology—One more example for Berkson’s bias. European Journal of. Epidemiology, 18, 1127–1131. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EJEP.0000006634.49205.c5

42.

Sarason

I. G.

Levine

H. M.

Basham

R. B.

Sarason

B. R.

(1983). Assessing social support: The social support questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 127–139. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.127

43.

Seaton

E. K.

Caldwell

C. H.

Sellers

R. M.

Jackson

J. S.

(2010). An intersectional approach for understanding perceived discrimination and psychological well-being among African American and Caribbean black youth. Developmental Psychology, 46, 1372–1379. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019869

44.

Seider

Clark

Graves

Kelly

L. L.

Soutter

El-Amin

Jennett

(2019). Black and Latinx adolescents’ developing beliefs about poverty and associations with their awareness of racism. Developmental Psychology, 55, 509–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000585

45.

Sellers

R. M.

Caldwell

C. H.

Schmeelk-Cone

K. H.

Zimmerman

M. A.

(2003). Racial identity, racial discrimination, perceived stress, and psychological distress among African American young adults. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 44, 302–317. https://doi.org/10.2307/1519781

46.

Smalls

White

Chavous

Sellers

(2007). Racial ideological beliefs and racial discrimination experiences as predictors of academic engagement among African American adolescents. Journal of Black Psychology, 33, 299–330. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798407302541

47.

Stack

C. B.

(1974). All our Kin: Strategies for survival in a black community. Harper & Row.

48.

Stewart

(2007). Who is kin? Family definition and African American families. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 15, 163–181. https://doi.org/10.1300/J137v15n02_10

49.

Taylor

R. D.

Budescu

Gebre

Hodzic

(2014). Family financial pressure and maternal and adolescent socioemotional adjustment: Moderating effects of kin social support in low income African American families. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23, 242–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-012-9688-8

50.

Taylor

R. J.

Chae

D. H.

Lincoln

K. D.

Chatters

L. M.

(2015). Extended family and friendship support networks are both protective and risk factors for major depressive disorder and depressive symptoms among African-Americans and black Caribbeans. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 203, 132–140. https://doi.org/10.1097/NMD.0000000000000249

51.

Terrell

Miller

A. R.

Foster

Watkins

C. E.

Jr. (2006). Racial discrimination-induced anger and alcohol use among black adolescents. Adolescence, 41, 485–492.

52.

Thomson

N. R.

Zand

D. H.

(2010). Mentees’ perceptions of their interpersonal relationships: The role of the mentor-youth bond. Youth & Society, 41, 434–445. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X09334806

53.

Tolson

T. F.

Wilson

M. N.

(1990). The impact of two- and three-generational black family structure on perceived family climate. Child Development, 61(2), 416–428. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131103

54.

Toyokawa

(2019). Interaction effect of familism and socioeconomic status on academic outcomes of adolescent children of Latino immigrant families. Journal of Adolescence, 71, 138–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2018.10.005

55.

Wills

T. A.

Shinar

(2000). Measuring perceived and received social support. In Cohen

Gordon

Gottlieb

(Eds.), Social support measurement and intervention: A guide for health and social scientists (pp. 86–135). Oxford University Press. doi:9780195126709.003.0004.

56.

Wilson

C. M.

(2009). The relation among parental factors and achievement of African American urban youth. Journal of Negro Education, 78, 102–113.

57.

Wilson

M. N.

(1989). Child development in the context of the black extended family. American Psychologist, 44, 380–385. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.2.380

58.

Winship

Mare

R. D.

(1992). Models for sample selection bias. Annual Review of Sociology, 18, 327–350. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.18.080192.001551

59.

Wittrup

A. R.

Hussain

S. B.

Albright

J. N.

Hurd

N. M.

Varner

F. A.

Mattis

J. S.

(2019). Natural mentors, racial pride, and academic engagement among black adolescents: Resilience in the context of perceived discrimination. Youth & Society, 51, 463–483. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X16680546

60.

Zimmerman

M. A.

Bingenheimer

J. B.

Behrendt

D. E.

(2005). Natural mentoring. In DuBois

D. L.

Karcher

M. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 143–157). SAGE.

61.

Zimmerman

M. A.

Bingenheimer

J. B.

Notaro

P. C.

(2002). Natural mentors and adolescent resiliency: A study with urban youth. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 221–243. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014632911622