Race Socialization and Parenting Styles

Abstract

This study investigated differences in the use of authoritarian parenting (AP), a race socialization practice among high-risk African American parents and compared it to authoritative parenting (ATP) a style found efficacious for White adolescents. Data from the Rochester Youth Development Study are used inclusive of African American (n = 413) and White (n = 114) adolescents. Risk for delinquency is measured by six factors. ATP includes parental responsiveness and monitoring, and AP added restrictive parental control. Multivariate regression models were used to assess main and interaction effects of the parenting styles with cumulative risk. Findings indicated ATP is a racially and class invariant child rearing style that reduces delinquency.

Keywords

race socialization authoritative parenting authoritarian parenting protective factors

The plight of urban poor African American male adolescents and their disproportionately high risks for delinquency and violence has been well documented (Freidman, Granick, Bransfield, & Kreisher, 1995; Glazer & Moynihan, 1963; Kunjufu, 1985; McNulty & Bellair, 2003; Myers, Taylor, Alvy, Arrington, & Richardson, 1992; Ogbu, 1988). The life experience of urban African American adolescents is likely to include residence in socially disorganized neighborhoods characterized by substandard housing, underachieving schools, and overburdened health care systems (Myers et al., 1992; Nettles & Pleck, 1996; Taylor, 1991). Indeed, poverty, school failure, teen pregnancy, and isolation from mainstream networks and opportunities have become normative within the life experiences of urban African American adolescents.

The consequences of exposure to the range of risk factors within African American communities are evident in the racial composition of arrest and incarceration rates. In a recent study of self-reported encounters with police, Brame, Bushway, Paternoster, and Turner (2014) reported that by the age of 18 nearly 30% of all African American adolescents experienced their first arrest; by the age of 23, nearly 50% of African American adolescents experienced an arrest. Contributing to this are frequent “stop and frisk” police strategies that target African American males (Tonry, 2011). In a study of race and mass incarceration, Alexander (2010) found that African Americans were severely overrepresented in the nation’s prisons.

Arguably, the legacy of racism and its consequences makes a major contribution to African American adolescent offending behavior. Therefore, efforts to reduce African American adolescent offending will require modifying the effects of racism on development and thus the behaviors of African American adolescents. Many African American adolescents, of course, do not go on to commit offenses and there are several studies that examined the critical role that parents play in protecting children against threatening environments. We contribute to that literature by examining how authoritarian parenting (AP), as an element of racial socialization, will modify the effects of high-risk environments generated by racism on African American adolescent offending behaviors. To test this hypothesis, the effects of AP on delinquency are examined in a sample of high- and low-risk African American and White adolescents and contrasted with the impact of authoritative parenting (ATP).

Racism and Race Socialization

Studies of racism have found many negative consequences that impact the lives of African American people socially, economically, and psychologically (Blake & Darling, 2000; Peters, 1988a, 1988b; Utsey, 1998). However, the deleterious effects of racism affects African American adolescents at a critical phase in their lives and its toxic effects have severe developmental and social consequences (Anderson, 1999; Barbarin, 1993; Safyer, 1994; Wilson, 1987, 1996) that ultimately begin a trail toward encounters with the criminal justice system. This trail begins with the development of oppositional social identities, followed by assimilation of street codes and subsequently the emergence of irreversible antisocial behavior (Anderson, 1999; Boykins & Toms, 1988; Clark, 1991; DeGruy-Leary, Brennan, & Briggs, 2005; Ford, 1994; Grier & Cobb, 1992; Miller, 1999; Ogbu, 1988; Stevenson, Reed, Bodison, & Bishop, 1997; Wilson, 1996). Ford (1994) found that fear and anger toward racism preceded the formation of oppositional social identities and lead to the attainment of ineffective coping and subsequent poor school performance. Brookins (1996) studied a sample of inner-city youth and found that adaptations to social, economic, and political oppression lead to social consequences including teen pregnancy, school failure, and gang membership. Wilson (1996) found that early oppositional value assimilation and adverse social identity preceded preoccupation with obtaining respect and willingness to engage in violence if respect was withheld.

It is in this context that African American parents face the daunting tasks of adopting a child rearing strategy that protects their children from the social and psychological consequences of racism. To this end, contemporary scholars suggest preparing African American adolescents for the inevitable encounters with racism (Burt, Simons, & Gibbons, 2012; Unnever & Gabbidon, 2011). However, race socialization as a parental strategy is not a new concept. Decades ago, Billingsley (1968, p. 28) noted the challenge to black families:

For the Negro family, socialization is doubly challenging, for the family must teach its young members not only how to be human, but how to be black in a White society. The requirements are not the same. Negro families must teach their children very early in life, sometimes as early as two years of age, the meaning of being black.

Historically, race socialization has been implemented as a proactive socialization process adopted by African American parents to build self-confidence, self-esteem, and a cultural identity capable of neutralizing the effects of racism (DeAnda, 1984; Hale, 1991; Hughes & Chen 1997; Hughes and colleagues, 2006). African American parents who socialize their children to the issues of race endeavor to help children understand the meaning of their race within the larger sociopolitical structure. At its core, race socialization includes candid parent–child communication that competencies to navigate a hostile environment will have to be developed (Brown & Gary, 1991; Miller, 1999; Stevenson, 1994; Unnever & Gabbidon, 2011). Specific race socialization strategies include raising cognition of African American cultural heritage, traditions, and discussions of strategies to navigate around adverse social policies (Brown & Tylka, 2011; Burt et al., 2012; Stevenson, 1994). Traditionally, within the context of elevated risk, African American parents use AP strategies to protect children from adverse developmental and social outcomes, including admission into the criminal justice system (Unnever & Gabbidon, 2011). It is the latter notion, which is only part of the broader notion of race socialization, that is examined here.

Risks, Resilience, and Protective Factors

We hypothesize that AP may serve as a race socialization protective factor that modifies the relationship between risk and offending behaviors for African American youth. The origin of this conceptual approach is located in epidemiological research that studies successful developmental outcomes in the presence of elevated risks (Garmezy, 1990, 1996; Pellegrini, 1990; Rutter, 1983; Smith, Lizotte, Thornberry, & Krohn 1995). Essentially, research on the efficacy of protective factors illuminates numerous reports of intervening factors that alter paths toward negative outcomes. For instance, Michael Rutter’s (1979) seminal epidemiological study of psychiatric resilience detected competent mental functioning in high-risk schizophrenic offspring as the product of factors that modified negative response to environmental hazards. He found the presence of a warm and affectionate relationship with the remaining functioning parent an important modifying protective factor. Similarly, Garmezy (1991) investigated resilience in a high-risk urban sample of African American children exposed to poverty and prejudice. He reported dispositional characteristics, family cohesion and warmth, and supportive role models as protective factors that distinguished resilient adolescents. Emmy Werner’s (1989) comprehensive interdisciplinary investigation of a 30-year-old birth cohort on the Hawaiian island of Kauai discovered protective factors that separated competent from incompetent functioning among high-risk youths. These included social and personal competence, academic achievement, and, importantly, the caregiving style of parents.

A host of interdisciplinary investigations has now focused on examining the context of successful adjustments including biological factors (Raine, Venable, & Williams, 1995, 1996), psychological factors (Pellegrini, 1990), social economic status (Smith & Carlson, 1997), family context and processes (Smith et al., 1995), and ethnic variation in the onset and desistence of substance abuse (Brooks, Brook, Gordon, Whiteman, & Cohen, 1990; Brooks, Whiteman, Balka, & Hamburg, 1992; Brooks, Whiteman, Balka, Win, & Gursen, 1998). Methodological approaches to examining protective factors have been quite varied. Rutter (1987, p. 317) advanced the following proposition for examining their impact:

The essence of the concept of protection is that the vulnerability or the protective effect is evident only in combination with the risk variable. Either the vulnerability or protective effect has no effect in low-risk populations or its effect is magnified in the presence of the risk variable. It is crucial that this interactive component be put to rigorous empirical test. Without its presence, there is no point in differentiating risk mechanisms from vulnerability process.

Models of Effective Parenting

Baumrind (1971) developed an important conceptualization of parenting styles that has influenced much subsequent research on parenting. She identified ATP as a critical parenting style that involved responsiveness and monitoring as parenting characteristics indicative of a healthy parent–child relationship. She noted these behaviors characterized parents who observed, regulated, and controlled their child’s behavior. Similarly, Maccoby and Martin (1983) asserted that ATP behaviors include child-acceptance, inductive and consistent discipline, and nonpunitive discipline practices. Kochanska, Kusczynski, and Radke-Yarrow (1989) found that ATP included rational guiding of the child, inductive noncoercive disciplinary methods, discussing misbehaviors together, fostering individuality and responsibility, and recognition of the child’s rights in family decisions. Steinberg, Mounts, Lamborn, and Dornbusch (1991) conceptualized ATP under dimensions of acceptance-involvement, firm control, and psychological autonomy. They found that parents who were high in acceptance and involvement and firm control also encouraged psychological autonomy through noncoercive democratic discipline and encouragements of individuality. Last, Kaufman and colleagues (2000, p. 232) noted “authoritative parents were more democratic and less concerned with strict adherence to the rules than with explaining the rules and helping their child understand the reasons behind them.”

By contrast, AP was characterized differently by Baumrind and others. While AP also includes responsiveness and monitoring that is characteristic of ATP, it includes a third dimension indicative of restrictive control techniques comprised of parental intrusiveness, nondemocratic decision making, and severe discipline (Baldwin, Baldwin, & Cole, 1990; White, Zeiders, Gonzales, Tein, & Roosa, 2013).

AP: A Racially Unique Protective Factor?

We hypothesize that AP and ATP share dimensions of responsiveness and monitoring. However, the use of restrictive control reflects a clear distinction between these parenting styles. Both AP and ATP parents place high demands on their children with expectations of obedience. However, AP parents expect their children to accept their judgments, values, and goals without question. Thus, authoritative parents encourage psychological autonomy, permit age-appropriate freedoms, develop their child’s individuality, utilize democratic decision making, and incorporate verbal give-and-take. Authoritarian parents are more restrictive in efforts to retain parental control in lieu of fostering psychological autonomy.

Severity of discipline reflects another distinction in parenting styles. Authoritative parents tend to use noncoercive, less power assertive-disciplinary control techniques (Baumrind, 1971, 1991; Fletcher, Darling, & Steinberg, 1995; Gray & Steinberg, 1999; Kaplan, 2003; Lassiter, 1987; Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Pittman & Chase-Lansdale, 2001). Kochanska and colleagues (1989) found that authoritative parents use inductive techniques as the prevalent form of discipline. In contrast, AP has been found to include physical discipline (Baldwin, Baldwin, Kasser, & Zax, 1993; Baldwin et al., 1990; Maccoby & Martin, 1983). Kaufman and colleagues (2000) noted that the AP child rearing style included emphasis on physical and verbal punishment as consequences for disobedience. Similarly, Kelly, Power, and Wimbush (1992) found the practice of harsh punishment and expectation of unquestioned obedience characteristic of AP. The severity of disciplinary techniques represents another clear delineation between AP and ATP styles. In sum, both parenting styles include dimensions of responsiveness and monitoring. However, AP also includes restrictive parental control (RPC) that comprises intrusiveness, nondemocratic decision making, and severe discipline (See Table 1).

Table 1.

Dimensions/Practices of Authoritative and Authoritarian Parents.

Dimensions/Practices	Authoritative	Authoritarian
Parental responsiveness	Yes	Yes
Parental monitoring
Surveillance	Yes	Yes
Regulation	Yes	Yes
Consistent discipline	Yes	Yes
Restrictive parental control
Intrusiveness	No	Yes
Democratic decision making	No	Yes
Severe discipline	No	Yes

While a number of studies has demonstrated that ATP promotes competent outcomes (Baumrind, 1972; Dornbusch, Ritter, Leiderman, Roberts, & Fraleigh, 1987; Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg, & Dornbusch, 1991; Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Pittman & Chase-Landsdale, 2001), there is less evidence of the efficacy of AP. However, one of the core premises of this study is that the effect of AP, which is sometimes shown as counterproductive, does not necessarily generalize across all ethnic and cultural groups (Baldwin and colleagues, 1990; Baumrind, 1966; Chao, 1994; Lin & Fu, 1990; Valentino, Nuttall, Comas, Borkowski, & Akai, 2012). Although scant, there is some research evidence of a protective effect of AP in some circumstances. The impact of differing child rearing styles in adverse environments provides a relevant context in which to assess their protective effect. For instance, Baumrind’s (1972) study of high-risk African American adolescent preschool girls reared under AP found favorable developmental outcomes. Baumrind explained the girls perceived their parents’ AP child rearing style as a loving and nurturing response to their exposure to harsh environmental risk. Baldwin, Baldwin, and Cole (1990) examined parenting styles in a diverse sample of high- and low-risk children who experienced healthy developmental outcomes. They reported significant variations in parenting patterns that reflected differences in the purpose of parenting. The parenting of high-risk children reflected parental perceptions of danger; thus, their parenting styles were more restrictive and protective. Baldwin and colleagues (1990) noted this type of parenting would be limiting in a low-risk environment and might have potential adverse effects. Further, they explained that AP could be justified to high-risk youths as responsible parental reactions to immediate environmental danger. In a later study, Baldwin, Baldwin, Kasser, and Zax (1993) also found that high-risk AP reared African American adolescents reported better mental health than high-risk AP reared White youths.

Similarly, Walker-Barnes, Mason, and Mason (2001) investigating the impact of parenting control practices on gang involvement and gang delinquency, detected an interaction effect between race and ethnicity and behavioral controls. High levels of behavioral control and low level of lax control related to better behavioral outcomes in African American adolescents; however, high levels of behavioral control yielded worsened outcomes for White and other youths. Walker-Barnes et al. (2001) concluded that, without assessing race and ethnic differences, the unique influence of behavioral controls on African American adolescents would have been lost and the role of AP would be underestimated. In both studies, restrictive parenting within a high-risk context produced favorable outcomes exclusively for African American adolescents. Finally, Mason, Walker-Barnes, Tu, Simons, and Martinez-Arrue (2004) examined ethnic differences in the affective meaning of parental control behaviors in a sample of 288 adolescents. Adolescents’ ratings of their affective reactions (hurt/anger, love/concern, and control/manipulation) varied by ethnic group. Mason and colleagues (2004) asserted that their findings may partially explain the inconsistency in research findings about ethnic differences in the effect of strict parental control.

On the other hand, there are studies suggesting that a more negative impact of AP generalizes across racial groups at least for some outcomes. For example, Steinberg, Blatt-Eisengart, and Cauffman (2006) indicated that the positive impact of authoritative and the more negative impact of AP on functioning and adjustment did not vary by race. Watkins-Lewis and Hamre (2012) did not find that more authoritarian beliefs influenced school readiness among African American families in comparison to other parenting styles. Thus, it is important to further examine the impact of parenting styles on delinquent behavior.

Summary and Research Hypotheses

As the above-mentioned research indicates, there is general evidence for the efficacy of ATP and theoretical and empirical support for AP as protective style of parenting for high-risk African American adolescents. However, very few studies have systematically selected high- and low-risk groups within both African American and White populations to examine the relative protective effect of both styles of parenting. This study is rare because it examines the influence of AP as a race socializing protective factor during the critical identity development phase of adolescence. Essentially, this investigation seeks to determine whether there is a uniquely protective impact of AP for African American adolescents at risk for delinquent offending. Three specific research hypotheses are constructed:

Hypothesis 1: AP reduces delinquency more strongly in high-risk African American youth than does ATP.

Hypothesis 2: AP reduces delinquency more strongly in high-risk African American youths than in low-risk African American youth.

Hypothesis 3: AP reduces delinquency more strongly in high-risk African American youth than in high-risk White youth.

Method

Sample Description

Over the past two decades, the Rochester Youth Development Study (RYDS) has collected a wealth of developmental, life course and offending data and evolved as a rich data source for unexplored areas of delinquency, violence, and substance abuse. The RYDS longitudinal panel design affords assessment of developmental causes and correlates of offending over the life course of its participants. Semi-annual interview and data collection efforts began in spring 1988 with Wave 1 and continued through adolescence.

The overall sampling plan for the RYDS panel included 1,000 seventh- and eighth-grade students who attended Rochester City public schools during the 1987–1988 academic years. To ensure that serious chronic offenders were included in the study, the RYDS sample overrepresented males (75% males to 25% females) because males were considered more likely to engage in serious deviant behavior leading to chronic offending. As a consequence of this sampling strategy, a sufficient number of females are not available for this study. The absence of females is noteworthy. However, it is a planned concession designed to maximize the sampling of high-risk male offenders for this study that seeks to examine male delinquent behavior, but within the narrower context of the relative effects of two different parenting styles.

In addition to oversampling male students, the sampling strategy included selecting students according to resident arrest rates of the census tract of residence. By estimating the arrest rates from the total population of the census tracts, students from tracts with the highest rates were proportionately overrepresented because they were at highest risk for serious delinquency. The RYDS sampling design is suited for this study because the core hypothesis of AP is that a race socialization protective effect will emerge in the presence of elevated risk.

This study uses a subsample of RYDS participants that includes only African American and White male adolescents to test the hypothesis that AP has a race-specific socialization protective effect. We use data from Waves 1 through 4 of the study. At Wave 1, the sample ranged from ages 11 to 15, but 75% were either 13 or 14 with an average age of 14.0. At Wave 4, the average age was 15.4. The retention rates for both African American and White males are excellent; at Wave 4, the retention rate was 93%. A comparison between African American and White adolescents retained and not retained throughout the study was not statistically significant. This indicates that the loss of respondents in either racial group did not affect the overall demographic portrait of respondents (Krohn & Thornberry, 1999). The sample includes 413 African American males and 114 White Males.

Measures

Five types of measures are used to assess the hypotheses. These measures are (1) background, (2) risk, (3) ATP, (4) AP, and (5) delinquency.

Background Measures

Background measures include race and area arrest rate. Race was determined from ethnic self-designation questions that include the response categories of White, Black, Mixed Racial Background, Hispanic, Asian, or something else. For analytic purposes, only responses of African American and White male participants are considered for the study sample. Race is measured with a dummy variable that codes African American as 1, with White as the reference category. The stratifying variable of area arrest rate is also included as a control variable.

Risk Measures

To identify high-risk youth, we include a cumulative risk index that includes risk factors linked to delinquency in multiple life domains that include peers, education, area characteristics, antisocial behaviors, and stressors. The cumulative risk index is designed to capture the toxic effects of exposure to the accumulation of risks that co-occur across multiple life domains which have been found to influence the likelihood of delinquency (Farrington, Loeber, & Stouthamer-Lober, 1999; Hill, Lui, & Hawkins, 1999).

Gang membership is a binary variable based on the adolescent’s self-reported answers of whether or not they had ever been in a gang; an affirmative answer was given a score of 1 and a negative answer was given a score of 0. Unsupervised time with friends was constructed by averaging the amount of risky time that an adolescent reported that he spent with his three closest friends. Nine possible answers were derived from the adolescents’ answers to three questions per friend. The answers to the questions were in the following form: every day = 5, 3 or 4 times a week = 4, twice a week = 3, once a week or less = 2, and never = 1. Participants scoring above the median were given a risk score of 1 on this variable. Low school grades was derived from calculating the average grade point average (GPA) taken from school records during years 1986 through 1989; high risk, coded as 1, indicates having a GPA below the mean of 1.88.

Neighborhood drug use incorporates a 3-item index of the adolescents’ perception of substance use in the neighborhood. Interdisciplinary research evidence has uncovered a significant relationship between adolescent perception of neighborhood drug use and later actual drug use and other risk behaviors (Iannotti & Bush, 1992; Lambert, Brown, Phillips, & Ialongo, 2004; Latkin, Curry, Hua, & Davey, 2007). We incorporate adolescent perception of neighborhood drug use because of its link to the range of antisocial behaviors that can be classified as general delinquency. The 4-point response scale ranges from a lot to none. The value of this variable is derived from calculating the average of the respondents’ answers to each of these questions. Those scoring above the median are coded as 1 on this variable.

Delinquent beliefs is comprised of answers to three questions regarding the participants’ perception of the wrongfulness of using a weapon or force to get money or things from another person, attack or hit someone with the idea of hurting them. Responses ranged from very wrong to not wrong at all. The value of this variable is derived from calculating the average of the respondents’ answers to each of these questions. Those scoring above the median are coded as 1 on this variable.

Negative life events is a scale that measures adolescents experience with eight life stressors such as breaking up with a boy/girlfriend, being suspended from school, or being seriously ill. Each life stress question was answered in a yes or no format and the sum of the number of positive answers to life stresses is the value of this variable. Again, those scoring above the median are designated as scoring 1 on this risk variable.

Each risk variable is thus dichotomized according to an assigned value of 0 to designate the absence of the particular risk factor or one, to represent the presence of the risk factor. As a final step in constructing the six-factor cumulative risk index, a risk score for each participant is constructed by summing their score across the six risks, thus the range of the risk index is 0–6. According to theory and empirical research, adolescents exposed to multiple risk factors will have a higher probability of delinquency because their risk spans critical life domains (Thornberry, Krohn, Lizotte, Smith, & Tobin, 2003) and the cumulative effects exacerbate risk for a range of antisocial behaviors (Farrington et al., 1999; Rutter, 1979; Rutter & Giller, 1983). Most importantly, the cumulative risk index facilitates the identification of participants in both racial groups who are at the highest quartile of risk for delinquency to test the specific hypotheses.

Protective Factor Measures

The essential research question is whether the effect of parenting styles will vary by racial subgroup. As indicated, ATP includes two parenting dimensions, responsiveness and monitoring, whereas AP has been theoretically and empirically linked to three interrelated parenting dimensions of responsiveness, monitoring, and RPC (see Table 1). Items that comprise these dimensions are all derived from Wave 3 of the student interview schedules (Available upon request). The goal is to capture the underlying constructs of responsiveness, monitoring, and RPC so as to assess both parenting styles across both race groups (see Table 1).

The first dimension, responsiveness, examines the affective and responsive relationship between parents and children. Responsiveness is measured by a 9-item adaptation of Hudson’s Index of Parental Attitudes that includes questions about warmth and the absence of hostility in the mother–child relationship (Hudson, 1982). Six items within this scale reflect greater frequencies of responsiveness incorporating the response set of often (4), sometime (3), seldom (2), and never (1). Three items within this scale include the frequency with which you feel your caretaker does not understand you, you feel very angry toward your caretaker, and you feel very violent toward your caretaker. These items were reverse coded to incorporate never (4) as the highest level of responsiveness and often (1) as the lowest level.

We assessed the second dimension, monitoring, by examining items indicative of parental surveillance, regulations, and consistent and contingent discipline. Items that tap parental surveillance reflect the extent to which parents monitor their child and intervene in inappropriate activities. Three items tap the frequency with which mothers are aware of their child’s whereabouts, friends, and activities. Items include questions such as “In the course of a day, how often does _____ know where you are?” “How often would ________ know who you are with and when you are not home?” and “when____ isn’t at home, how often do you know how to get in contact with them?” Response values range from the two highest levels of supervision often (4) and sometimes (3) to the two lowest, seldom (2) and never (1).

In addition, the items assessing consistent discipline include five questions that tap how often parents are consistent in child punishment. Item questions include “once a punishment is decided, how often can you get out of it”; “how often do you get away with things?”; “how often do you know what to expect from _______, when you’ve done something wrong?”; “how often do you get punished sometimes but not other times for the same things?” Value options range from often (4) sometimes (3) seldom (2) to never (1). Higher scores reflect a greater frequency of consistent discipline. Scores on the 17 items reflecting responsiveness and monitoring are summed to create a composite score for ATP.

Recall the theoretical and empirical basis (Baldwin et al., 1990) for a dimension unique to AP that taps RPC. Restrictiveness describes the degree to which parents exercise parental control, involvement, and restrictions over their child’s activities. RPC includes measures of intrusiveness, nondemocratic decision making, and severe discipline. Two items to assess adolescents’ perception of parental intrusiveness include the frequency with which students perceive their parents as “interfering” and “too demanding.” Three items that tap nondemocratic decision making assess the level of parental authority and degree of autocracy in the parental decision-making process over the adolescent’s activities. Questions that examine democracy in decision-making assess the frequency with which (1) parents sought input from their child on matters pertaining to the child, (2) parents explained the basis for parental decisions, and (3) were willing to compromise in disagreements. The response set for these items ranges from often (4) to never (1) reflecting the extent to which parents seek child input, explain their decisions, and express willingness to compromise with their children. These items are reverse coded so that higher scores reflect higher levels of nondemocratic decision making and lower levels of democratic decision making. One item in the data set that assesses strict punishment is employed. This item is taken from a set that tapped different types of discipline methods and we include the item that assesses the extent of corporal punishment: “when you do something wrong,” how often does ____ “hit or slap you.” Response values range from often (4) to never (1). Answers on this item are dichotomized so the highest values on this item include responses of often and sometimes. Thus, a total of 6 items across three related areas tap the RPC dimension which is specific to an AP style.

Reliability analysis was conducted to develop the parenting scales and also to assess the equivalence of scale reliability across racial groups for the selected items. First, the items and dimensions that reflect all of the identified ATP practices were assessed for internal consistency. Subsequently, the internal consistency of the summed RPC items were also analyzed. We incorporate criteria recommended by Spector (1992) and attempted to achieve an α coefficient of .70 to reflect scale internal consistency and reliability. According to Spector (1992, p. 31), “alpha coefficient is a direct function of the number of items and their magnitude of intercorrelation.” Accordingly, it is a measure of internal consistency of one related underlying construct (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Parenting Scale Reliability Coefficients by Race.

Dimension	Total	African American	White	# of Items
Authoritative parenting	.81	.82	.77	17
Restrictive parental control	.57	.56	.61	6

Consistent with the theoretical foundation, the 17 items within the ATP scale constitute a strong and reliable measure of the effect of this style of child rearing. Moreover, examining ATP across the total, African American, and White samples indicates cross-racial reliability of these measures. Alpha coefficients for the total sample, African American, and White samples are .81, .82, and .77, respectively.

The 6 items representing RPC demonstrate somewhat acceptable, albeit not ideal, levels of reliability, perhaps because of the relatively small number of items in the scale. Some racial variability was detected with respect to the reliability of the RPC across subsamples. Alpha coefficients for this measure for the total, African American, and White samples were .57, .56, and .61, respectively.¹

Delinquency Measure

The outcome or dependent variable in this study is delinquency. We utilize the 29-item RYDS Delinquency Scale to assess the range of most types of delinquent behaviors. The RYDS Delinquency Scale is a modified version of the National Youth Survey of Self-Reported Delinquency Scale (Elliott & Huizinga, 1983), an established measure for assessing delinquent acts that coincide with other conduct disorders. Huizinga and Elliott (1986) in an empirical and content validity analysis of the delinquency items affirmed the reliability and validity of general items as measures of the diversity of delinquent behaviors. Both the RYDS and the National Youth Survey scales are omnibus-type scales with substantial internal variability because of the diversity of illegal behaviors that range from minor to major offenses. Multidimensional omnibus-type scales have been found quite effective in measuring the range of delinquent behaviors over time including substance abuse, gang membership, serious and violent offending (Gatti, Tremblay, Vitaro, & McDuff, 2005; Hill, Lui, & Hawkins, 1999; Thornberry et al., 2003).

Assessing resiliency: analytic techniques and procedures

Several subanalyses comprise the tests of AP as a race socializing protective factor. All analyses are conducted separately for African American and White participants. The analysis unfolds in several stages. First, bivariate analyses was conducted to assess the significance and strength of relationship between the cumulated risk measure and delinquency and between parenting styles and delinquency. Bivariate analysis also examined the correlation of parenting styles and delinquency across racial and risk groups.

The next step in the analysis included using regression analysis to tests for the main effects of ATP and its impact on delinquency in the two racial groups, controlling for level of risk. However, the test critical to the race socialization hypothesis is the analysis of differences in explanatory power between the two-term ATP model (including risk and ATP) and the three-term model that adds RPC. This test is critical because it distinguishes the unique predictive power of AP. If the predictive power of the model increases with the addition of RPC in the African American sample, then the hypothesis will be supported. Models were run by race, first with the ATP scale and subsequently adding in the RPC scale, thus controlling for ATP. The two-term model with ATP is depicted as follows:

D E L = B_{0} + B_{1} (R F) + B_{2} (A T P),

where RF = cumulative risk and ATP = authoritative parenting.

The three-term model that adds AP is depicted subsequently:

D E L = B_{0} + B_{1} (R F) + B_{2} (A T P) + B_{3} (R P C),

where RPC = restrictive parental control.

Testing the race socialization protective factor hypothesis

It is important to note that main effects differences do not completely support nor disprove the race socializing protective factor hypothesis because main effect analysis does not model interaction with risk factors. Risk and protective factor interaction is a key tenet of a protective hypothesis (Rutter, 1991). Luthar (1993) and Cohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken (2003) concluded that simultaneous examination of main and interaction effects could provide the most complete understanding of the specific role of these variables in relationship to one another. To assess interaction effects, we split the sample into high and low-risk groups to assess changes in the impact of parenting styles in both subsamples to test the hypothesis that risk and AP interact to produce a protective effect. The models depicted in Equations 1 and 2 test the direct effect of ATP first and then the additional AP measure is added (RPC) for high- and low-risk African American and White subsamples. Essentially, the hypothesis of an interactive or protective effect of AP for African American youth is supported if the analysis suggests support for the three specific hypotheses presented earlier, that is, first, among African American participants, the AP (RPC) coefficient indicates a stronger negative effect on delinquency than the African American ATP coefficient; second, AP (RPC) has a stronger negative association with delinquency in high risk compared to low-risk African American groups; and finally, that it has a stronger impact in high-risk African American youth compared to high-risk White youths.

Results

The analysis began by describing mean levels of parenting, cumulative risk, and delinquency. Subsequently, we assessed the impact of cumulative risk on delinquency followed by an assessment of the interactive effect of parenting styles on delinquency. To assess statistically significant differences between the race groups, t-tests were employed to provide a description of mean levels of cumulative risk, parenting styles, and delinquency. As Table 3 reflects, the African American sample (M = .45, SD = .50) experienced significantly higher mean levels of risk relative to the White sample (M = . 21, SD = .41, p < .01). This finding is consistent with research on higher risk for delinquency among African American youth.

Table 3.

Descriptive and Summary Statistics—African American (AA) Sample (n = 412) and White Sample (n = 114).

Variable	Description	AA-Mean	AA-SD	AA-Range	White-Mean	White-SD	White-Range	t Value
Wave 1 cumulative risk	1 = high risk 0 = low risk	.45	.50	0–1	.21	.41	0–1	−4.68**
Wave 3	Authoritative parenting	56.02	5.75	31–68	55.8	5.01	33–65	−0.46
Wave 3	Restrictive parental control	11.44	2.75	6–21	11.38	2.51	6–21	−0.23
Wave 4	Delinquency	12.01	33.68	0–332	8.26	22.38	0–199	−1.18

Note. *p < .05; **p < .01.

We did not detect mean differences in parenting styles across racial groups. African American adolescents’ mean level of ATP (M = 56.02, SD = 5.7) was not significantly different than the White adolescents sample (M = 55.8, SD =5.01). Similarly, African American adolescents’ mean level of RPC (M = 11.44, SD = 2.75) was not significantly different that White adolescents’ mean level of RPC (M = 11.38, SD = 2.51). Lastly, and somewhat contrary to expectations, African American mean levels of delinquent offenses (M = 12.01, SD = 33.68) were not significantly different than those for White adolescents (M = 8.26, SD = 23.38).

Next, we conducted bivariate correlations to assess the relationship between risk and parenting by race of adolescents. Table 4 indicates that cumulative risk is significant and positively correlated as expected with delinquency for both African American and White adolescents. However, we observed a slightly higher effect on White adolescents. In addition, we observed a significant negative relationship between ATP and delinquency for both samples. However, the strength of the negative effect of ATP on delinquency was found to be more robust for White adolescents. There was no significant correlation between RPC and delinquency for either group.

Table 4.

Correlation of Delinquency With Risk and Parenting Variables by Race.

Correlations With Delinquency	African American	White
Cumulative risk	.27*	.35*
Authoritative parenting	−.13*	−.34*
Restrictive parental control	.01	.13
n	413	114

Note. *p < .01.

In the next analysis, we dichotomized the sample between the top-risk quartile and the remaining 75% thus establishing race subsamples of high- and low-risk groups. Recall for the protective effect hypotheses to attain support, we would expect to see a relationship between RPC and delinquency for high risk but not low-risk African American adolescents. However, we observed only one significant negative correlation, that between ATP and delinquency for high-risk White adolescents. There were no significant correlations between RPC and delinquency in either group (see Table 5).

Table 5.

Correlation of Delinquency With Parenting Variables by Race and Risk.

	African American		White
Correlation With delinquency:	High Risk	Low Risk	High Risk	Low Risk
Authoritative parenting	−.14	.07	−.41*	−.15
Restrictive parental control	.00	−.04	−.00	−.14
n	176	237	25	89

Note. *p < .05.

Subsequently, as indicated in Table 6, we employed multivariate regression analysis to examine the differential effects of cumulative risk and the parenting constructs on delinquency by race groups. In all regression analyses, the stratifying variable area arrest rate was employed as a control variable. As reflected in the previous correlation analyses, cumulative risk predicted delinquency for both African American and White adolescents. ATP was significant and negatively related to delinquency for both African American and White adolescents. But RPC was not significantly related to delinquency for either group.

Table 6.

Regression Predicting Delinquency by Race (Standardized Regression Coefficients).

	African American	White
Cumulative risk	.26**	.23**
Authoritative parenting	−.12*	−.34**
Restrictive parental control	−.07	−.15
Area arrest rate	−.03	.05
n	413	114

Note. *p < .05; ** p < .01.

In our final regression analysis (Table 7), we examined the differential effects of ATP and RPC on high- and low-risk African American and White adolescents. Findings are not reported for high-risk White adolescents because the number that met criteria of high risk using the top quartile split was negligible (n = 25). We found ATP significantly and negatively related to delinquency in high-risk African American adolescents. However, quite critical to the hypothesis, RPC did not significantly predict delinquency for either African American or White adolescents. This finding does not support the general hypothesis of AP as a race socializing protective factor.

Table 7.

Regression Predicting Delinquency by Race and Risk (Standardized Coefficients).

	African American		White
	High Risk	Low Risk	High Risk	Low Risk
Authoritative parenting	−0.20*	0.09	—	−0.12
Restrictive parental control	−0.10	0.01	—	0.08
Area arrest rate	−0.06	0.08	—	0.14
n	176	237	25	89

Note. *p < .05.

Summary of Results

The analysis revealed that the mean level of cumulative risks was significantly different and higher for African American adolescents relative to White adolescents. However, neither mean levels of ATP, RPC, nor delinquency was significantly different between the groups. Cumulative risk correlated positively with delinquency for both African American and White adolescents. In addition, ATP was significantly negatively correlated with delinquency in both groups. In contrast, AP (RPC) was not correlated with delinquency in either sample of adolescents. Incorporating a top quartile split, ATP was detected as negatively correlated with delinquency for high-risk White adolescents. Incorporating linear regression, across both race groups, cumulative risk was found positively related to delinquency and ATP was significantly and inversely related to delinquency for both groups. The moderator analysis that regressed the parenting styles on delinquency in both high- and low-risk African American and White adolescents revealed no significant negative association with delinquency for the African American adolescents reared under AP. Unexpectedly, ATP had a significant negative effect on delinquency for high-risk African American adolescents but not for low-risk African American adolescents. Moreover, neither the main nor moderator effects of AP in any of the models were significant. ATP maintained its robust negative influence throughout most of the models.

Discussion

The hypothesis of AP as a race socializing protective factor that would diminish delinquency among African American adolescents was based on the body of research that found beneficial effects for this parenting style. Further, we grounded our hypothesis in research evidence that found cultural differences in African American family management practices (Patterson & Stouthhamer–Loeber, 1984; Smith, 1990; Smith & Krohn, 1995) and in child rearing styles (Baldwin, 1990; Baumrind, 1972; Wilson, 1974, 1980) particularly in high-risk environmental contexts. It was hypothesized that proactive African American parents adopt AP as a race socializing protective factor to shield their child’s exposure to negative developmental and social outcomes including involvement in delinquent behavior. More specifically, it was expected that AP would differentially reduce delinquent outcomes in high-risk African American adolescents in comparison to White high-risk adolescents or low-risk African American adolescents.

To test the potential protective impact of AP, we formulated three hypotheses. The first hypothesis was that AP would reduce delinquency more strongly in high-risk African American youth than ATP. This hypothesis was not confirmed. Second, we hypothesized that AP would reduce delinquency more strongly in high-risk African American youth than in low-risk African American youth. This hypothesis was also not confirmed. Finally, we examined the hypothesis that AP would reduce delinquency more strongly in high-risk African American youth than in high-risk White youth. We were only able to partially test the third hypothesis: Examining the relationship between risk and AP style among White high-risk adolescents was not possible due to the limited number of high-risk White youths selected using the top quartile split. Correlational analysis indicated no differential effect for either group by risk status. Still, overall, these finding do not support the hypothesized protective effect of AP as a race socialization strategy among African American families.

To what extent, then, do our findings support the theoretical premises and prior research that underpin this study? In particular, is the literature that supports the protective impact of styles of parenting in different ethnic groups supported? First, it should be noted that the overall notion of protection and resilience for youth at risk is not threatened by this study’s findings. Resilience is evident among youth at risk in this study—not all youth at high risk are delinquent (Garmezy, 1990, 1996; Pellegrini, 1990; Rutter, 1979; Smith et al., 1995). Second, the general notion that ATP supports positive development including African American youth at risk is partially upheld in this study in view of the overall negative relationship between ATP and delinquency (Baumrind, 1971; Kaufman and colleagues, 2000; Kochanska, Kusczynski, & Radke-Yarrow, 1989; Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Steinberg, Mounts, Lamborn, & Dornbusch, 1991). In this study, however, ATP is not significantly linked to positive delinquent outcomes for African American youth in a multivariate context. We think this speaks to the need for more research on parenting styles in minority groups. This finding also speaks to the need to look beyond parenting in African American families to detect protective factors. However, third, the hypothesized protective effect of AP for African American youth (as the literature proposes) is clearly not found. We discuss our findings subsequently and consider their implications for theory and further research.

Recall that the protective effect of AP for African American youth is part of the larger race socialization hypothesis. In effect, we conducted a partial test of this hypothesis focusing on parenting styles. Racial socialization as conceptualized in the literature is a broader concept than just AP parenting (Brown & Gary, 1991; Burt & Simmins, 2015; Miller, 1999; Stevenson, 1994; Unnever & Gabbidon, 2011). Our analysis examined the efficacy of AP but excluded the content of race communication. Recall race socialization also includes extensive parent–child communication to develop cultural pride and bias awareness as tools to overcome racism in furtherance of objectives to assimilate into mainstream education and employment opportunities. For example, Unnever and Gabbidon (2011) asserted that positive race socialization strategies include critical communication content by parents that involves “preparation for bias” by teaching coping skills, seeking positive role models, and reporting racist acts to the authorities. Burt, Simons, and Gibbons (2012) also found that preparation for bias, in contrast to cultural socialization, had a more beneficial effect on reducing negative outcomes of discrimination although parenting context was important. Moreover, Burt and Simons (2015) found that preparation for bias attenuated the criminogenic effects of racial discrimination for both males and females. Further research on protective socialization strategies should include these broader definitions of race socialization.

Relatedly, AP may not be conducive to the type of communication necessary to socialize a child to issues of race and prejudice. Recall that race socialization requires frequent parent–child communication and conceivably this is best accomplished with trust and attachment in the parent–child relationship prior to communication about strategies that will need to be developed to overcome race bias. In this regard, because of ATP’s emphasis on democratic decision making and verbal give-and-take, it may be the optimal parenting style to socialize African American children to the issue of race (Steinberg, Blatt-Eisengart, & Cauffman, 2006). Conceivably, parental explanation of race bias may be so complicated and the potential for negative race socialization quite detrimental, if delivered in a way that encourages distrust (Unnever & Gabbidon, 2011). ATP with its emphasis on democratic decision making and constant communication may be the best parenting style within which to communicate issues of race bias. Reconciling the inequities of race relations and developing a strategy to overcome them may require more of a responsive give-and-take style of parenting especially over development and long-term child goals. Clearly, the importance of an affective, bonded, and engaged relationship between parent and child and an engaged relationship with reasoning and compromise and goal-oriented strategies may best occur under ATP.

We note that a limitation of this study is that we had no direct measure of AP or of broader race socialization strategies since this was not the focus of the Rochester study at its outset. The current measure was created from items included in the general parenting section of the interview schedule that tap the core concept of AP. In addition, although we were able to establish some reliability for our measures across racial groups, we were somewhat limited by the items available. Clearly, the current study is limited to time and place in its consideration of the important questions raised. We also only included males. We hope future research will continue to examine both parenting strategies that are effective in diverse urban environments and socialization strategies that can counter the effects of continuing racism in the African American community.

We did, however, find support for ATP as a parenting style that diminishes the effects of cumulative risk on delinquency across racial groups. Therefore, we conclude that ATP should be supported and encouraged. Whether African American or White adolescents are at high or low risk for delinquency, parents or caregivers should understand the importance of a responsive relationship with children inclusive of monitoring, give-and-take parent–child communication, regulations, and contingent non-harsh discipline. The race and class neutral appeal of this type of parenting should be communicated broadly especially in parent education and family management curricula.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Support for the Rochester Youth Development Study has been provided by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (86-JN-CX-0007), the National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA005512), and the National Science Foundation (SBR-9123299). Work on this project was also aided by grants to the Center for Social and Demographic Analysis at the University at Albany from NICHD (P30HD32041) and NSF (SBR-9512290). Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the funding agencies.

Note

References

Alexander

(2010). The new Jim grow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. New York, NY: The New Press.

Anderson

(1999). Code of the streets. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.

Baldwin

Cole

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

Masten

Cicchetti

Nuechterlein

Weintraub

(Eds.), Risks and protective factors in the development of psychopathology (pp. 257–280). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Baldwin

A. L.

Baldwin

Kasser

Zax

(1993). Contextual risk and resiliency during late adolescence. Development and Psychology, 5, 741–761.

Barbarin

(1993). Coping and resilience: Exploring the inner lives of African American children. Journal of Black Psychology, 19, 478–492.

Baumrind

(1966) Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child Development, 37, 887–907.

Baumrind

(1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology Monographs, 4, 1–103.

Baumrind

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

Baumrind

(1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, 56–95.

10.

Billingsley

(1968). Black families in White America. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

11.

Blake

Darling

(2000). Quality of life perceptions of African Americans. Journal of Black Studies, 30, 411–427.

12.

Boykins

Toms

(1988). Black child socialization: A conceptual framework. In McAdoo

H. P.

(Ed.), Black families (pp. 33–53). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

13.

Brame

Bushway

Paternoster

Turner

(2014). Demographic patterns of cumulative arrest prevalence by ages 18 and 23. Crime and Delinquency, 60, 471–486.

14.

Brooks

J. S.

Brook

D. W.

Gordon

A. S.

Whiteman

Cohen

(1990). The psychosocial etiology of adolescent drug use: A family interactionist approach. Journal of Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monograph, 116, 111–267.

15.

Brooks

J. S.

Whiteman

Balka

Hamburg

(1992). African American and Puerto Rican drug use: Personality, familial and other environmental risk factors. Journal of Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monograph, 114, 417–438.

16.

Brooks

J. S.

Whiteman

Balka

Win

Gursen

(1998). Drug use among Puerto Ricans: Ethnic identity as a protective factor. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 20, 241–253.

17.

Brookins

C. C.

(1996). Promoting ethnic identity development in African American youth: The role of rights of passage. Journal of Black Psychology, 22, 388–418.

18.

Brown

D. R.

Gary

L. E.

(1991). Racial socialization and educational attainment among African Americans: An empirical assessment. Journal of Negro Education, 60, 411–426.

19.

Brown

D. L.

Tylka

T. L.

(2011). Racial discrimination and resilience in African American young adults: Examining racial socialization as a moderator. Journal of Black Psychology, 37, 259–285. doi:10.1177/0095798410390689

20.

Burt

C. H.

Simons

R. L.

(2015). Interpersonal racial discrimination, ethnic-racial socialization, and offending: Risk and resilience among African American females. Justice Quarterly, 32, 532–570.

21.

Burt

C. H.

Simons

R. L.

Gibbons

F. X.

(2012). Racial discrimination, ethnic-racial socialization, and crime a micro-sociological model of risk and resilience. American Sociological review, 77, 648–677.

22.

Chao

R. K.

(1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style: Understanding Chinese parenting through the cultural notion of training. Child Development, 64, 1111–1119.

23.

Clark

M. L.

(1991). Social identity, peer relations, and academic competence of African-American adolescents. Education and Urban Society, 24, 41–52.

24.

Cohen

West

Aiken

(2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

25.

DeAnda

(1984). Bicultural socialization: Factors affecting the minority experience. Social Work, 29, 101–107.

26.

Degruy-Leary

J. D.

Brennan

E. M.

Briggs

H. E.

(2005). The African American adolescent respect scale: A measure of prosocial attitude. Research on Social Work Practice, 15, 462–469.

27.

Dornbusch

S. M.

Ritter

P. L.

Leiderman

P. H.

Roberts

D. F.

Fraleigh

M. J.

(1987). The relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child Development, 58, 1244–1257.

28.

Elliott

D. S.

Huizinga

(1983). Social class and delinquent behavior in a national youth panel: 1976–1980. Criminology, 21, 149–177.

29.

Farrington

D. P.

Loeber

Stouthamer-Lober

(1999). How can the relationship between race and violence be explained? In Hawkins

D. F.

(Ed.), Violent crimes: The nexus of ethnicity, race and class (pp. 213–237). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

30.

Fletcher

A. C.

Darling

N. E.

Steinberg

(1995). The company they keep: Relation of adolescents’ adjustment and behavior to their friends’ perceptions of authoritative parenting in social network. Developmental Psychology, 31, 300–310.

31.

Ford

(1994). Nurturing resilience in gifted black youth. Roeper Review, 17, 80–85.

32.

Freidman

A. S.

Granick

Bransfield

Kreisher

(1995). Gender differences in early life risk factors for substance use/abuse: A study of an African-American sample. AM.J. Drug Alcohol Abuse, 21, 511–531.

33.

Gatti

Tremblay

R. E.

Vitaro

McDuff

(2005). Youth gangs, delinquency and drug use: A test of the selection, facilitation, and enhancement hypotheses. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 1178–1190.

34.

Garmezy

(1990). Stress resistant children: The search for protective factors. In Anthony

E. J.

Koupernik

(Eds.), Vulnerable children (pp. 213–233). New York, NY: Wiley.

35.

Garmezy

(1991). Resiliency and vulnerability to adverse developmental outcomes associated with poverty. American Behavioral Scientist, 34, 416–430.

36.

Garmezy

(1996). Reflections and commentary of risks, resilience and development. In Haggerty

R. J.

Sherrod

L. R.

Garmezy

Rutter

(Eds.), Stress risks and resilience in children and adolescents: Processes, mechanisms intervention (pp. 19–63). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

37.

Glazer

Moynihan

D. P.

(1963). Beyond the melting pot. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press and Harvard University Press.

38.

Gray

Steinberg

(1999). Unpacking authoritative parenting: Reassessing a multidimensional construct. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 574–587.

39.

Grier

Cobbs

(1992). Black rage. New York, NY: Basic Books.

40.

Hale

(1991). The transmission of culture values to young African American children. Young Children, 46, 7–15.

41.

Hill

K. G.

Lui

Hawkins

J. D.

(2001). Early precursors of gang membership: A study of Seattle youth. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

42.

Hudson

(1982). The clinical measurement package: A field manual. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.

43.

Huizinga

Elliott

D. S.

(1986). Reassessing the reliability and validity of self-report delinquency measures. Journal of quantitative criminology, 2, 293–327.

44.

Hughes

Chen

(1997). When and what parents tell children about race: An examination of race related socialization among African American families. Applied Developmental Science, 1, 200–214.

45.

Hughes

Rodriguez

Smith

E. P.

Johnson

D. J.

Stevenson

H. C.

Spicer

(2006). Parents’ ethnic-racial socialization practices: A review of research and directions for future study. Developmental psychology, 42, 747.

46.

Iannotti

R. J.

Bush

P. J.

(1992). Perceived vs. actual friends’ use of alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, and cocaine: Which has the most influence? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 21, 375–389.

47.

Kaplan

(2003). The mediating influence of authoritative parenting on the relationship between socioeconomic status and adolescents’ serious violent behavior, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Criminal Justice University at Albany, Albany.

48.

Kaufman

Gesten

Lucia

Salcedo

Rendina-Gobioff

Gadd

(2000). The relationship between parenting style and children’s adjustment: The parents’ perspective. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 9, 231–245.

49.

Kelly

Power

Wimbush

(1992). Determinants of disciplinary practices in low income black mothers. Child Development, 63, 573–582.

50.

Kochanska

Kusczynski

Radke-Yarrow

(1989). Correspondence between mothers’ self-reported and observed child rearing practices. Child Development, 60, 56–63.

51.

Krohn

Thornberry

(1999). Retention of minority populations in panel studies of drug use. Drugs and Society, 14, 185–207.

52.

Kunjufu

(1985). Fourth grade failure syndrome. In Countering the conspiracy to destroy black boys (pp 5–15). Chicago, IL: African American Images.

53.

Lambert

S. F.

Brown

T. L.

Phillips

C. M.

Ialongo

N. S.

(2004). The relationship between perceptions of neighborhood characteristics and substance use among urban African American adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 205–218.

54.

Lamborn

Mounts

Steinberg

Dornbusch

(1991). Patterns of competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 62, 1049–1065.

55.

Lassiter

R. F.

(1987). Childrearing in black families: Child abusing discipline. In Hampton

R. L.

(Ed.), Violence in the black family: Correlates and consequences (pp. 39–53). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

56.

Latkin

C. A.

Curry

A. D.

Hua

Davey

M. A.

(2007). Direct and indirect associations of neighborhood disorder with drug use and high risk sexual partners. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 32, S234–S241.

57.

Lin

C. C.

V. R.

(1990). A comparison of child-rearing practices among Chinese, immigrant Chinese, and Caucasian-American parents. Child Development, 65, 429–433.

58.

Luthar

S. S.

(1993). Annotation: Methodological and conceptual issues in research on childhood resilience. Journal of Child Psychiatrics, 34, 441–453.

59.

Maccoby

E. E.

Martin

J. A.

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

E. M.

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

60.

Mason

C. A.

Walker-Barnes

C. J.

Simons

Martinez-Arrue

(2004). Ethnic differences in the affective meaning of parental control behaviors. Journal of Primary Prevention, 25, 59–79.

61.

McNulty

Bellair

(2003). Explaining racial and ethnic differences in serious adolescent violent behavior. Criminology, 41, 709–749.

62.

Miller

D. B.

(1999). Racial socialization and racial identity: Can they promote resilience for African American adolescents? Adolescence, 34, 493–497.

63.

Myers

H. F.

Taylor

Alvy

K. T.

Arrington

Richardson

M. A.

(1992). Parental and family predictors of behavior problems in inner City Black children. American Journal of Community Psychology, 20, 557–576.

64.

Nettles

Pleck

(1996). Risks, resilience and development: The multiple ecologies of black adolescents in the United States. In Hagerty

R. J.

Sherod

L. R.

Garmezy

Rutter

(Eds.), Stress, risk and resilience in children and adolescents: Processes mechanism and intervention (pp. 19–63). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

65.

Ogbu

(1988). Cultural diversity and human development. In Slaughter

(Ed.), New directions in child development: Vol. 42, Black children and poverty: A developmental perspective (pp. 11–28). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

66.

Patterson

G. R.

Southamer-Loeber

(1984). The correlation of family management practices and delinquency. Child Development, 55, 1299–1307.

67.

Pellegrini

(1990). Psychosocial risk and protective factors in childhood. Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 11, 201–209.

68.

Peters

M. F.

(1988a). Parenting in black families with young children: A historical perspective. In McAdoo

H. P.

(Ed.), Black families (pp. 228–241). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

69.

Peters

M. F.

(1988b). Racial socialization of young black children. In McAdoo

H. P.

McAdoo

J. L.

(Eds.), Black children: Social, educational and parental environments (pp. 159–173). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

70.

Pittman

L. D.

Chase-Lansdale

P. L.

(2001). African American adolescent girls in impoverished communities: Parenting style and adolescent outcomes. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 11, 199–224.

71.

Raine

Venable

P. H.

Williams

(1995). High autonomic arousal and electrodermal orienting at age 15 years as protective factors against criminal behavior at age 29 years. American Journal of Psychiatry, 152, 1595–1600.

72.

Raines

Venable

P. H.

Williams

(1996). Better autonomic conditioning and faster electrodermal half–recovery time at age 15 years as possible protective factors against crime at age 29 years. Developmental Psychology, 32, 624–630.

73.

Rutter

(1979). Protective factors in children’s response to stress and disadvantage. In Kent

M. W.

Rolf

J. E.

(Eds.), Primary prevention in psychopathology (pp. 157–177). Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.

74.

Rutter

(1983). Stress, coping and development: Some issues and questions. In Garmezy

Rutter

(Eds.), Stress, coping and development in children (pp. 1–42). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

75.

Rutter

Giller

(1983). Juvenile delinquency: Trends and perspectives. New York, NY: Guilford.

76.

Rutter

(1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57, 316–331.

77.

Rutter

(1991). Protective factors: Independent or interactive? Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 30, 1–3.

78.

Safyer

A. W.

(1994). The impact of inner-city life on adolescent development implications for social work. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 64, 153–167.

79.

Smith

C. A.

(1990). Delinquency and family life: The role of ethnicity and environment, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Criminal Justice, University at Albany, Albany.

80.

Smith

Carlson

(1997). Stress, coping, and resilience in children and youth. Social Service Review, 71, 231–256.

81.

Smith

Krohn

(1995). Delinquency and family life among male adolescents: The role of ethnicity. Journal of Youth and Adolescents, 24, 69–73.

82.

Smith

Lizotte

Thornberry

Krohn

(1995). Resilient youth: Identifying factors that prevent high risk youth from engaging in delinquency and drug use. In Hagan

(Ed.), Current perspectives on aging and the life cycle (Vol. 4, pp. 217–247). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

83.

Spector

(1992). Summated rated scale construction-an introduction, No. 07–082. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

84.

Steinberg

Blatt-Eisengart

Cauffman

(2006). Patterns of competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent and neglectful homes: A replication in a sample of serious juvenile offenders. Journal of Research on Adolescents, 16, 47–58.

85.

Steinberg

Mounts

N. S.

Lamborn

S. D.

Dornbusch

S. M.

(1991). Authoritative parenting and adolescent adjustment across varied ecological niches. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 1, 19–36.

86.

Stevenson

H. C.

(1994). Racial socialization in African American families: The art of balancing intolerance and survival. The Family Journal: Counsel and Therapy for Couples and Families, 2, 190–198.

87.

Stevenson

H. C.

Reed

Bodison

Bishop

(1997). Racism stress management: Racial socialization beliefs and the experience of depression and anger in African American youth. Youth & Society, 29, 197.

88.

Taylor

A. R.

(1991). Social competence and the early school transition: Risk and protective factors for African American children. Education and Urban Society, 24, 15–26.

89.

Thornberry

Krohn

Lizotte

Smith

Tobin

(2003). Gangs and delinquency in developmental perspective. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

90.

Tonry

(2011). Punishing race: A continuing American Dilemma. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

91.

Unnever

Gabbidon

(2011). A theory of African American offending: Race, racism and crime. New York, NY: Routledge.

92.

Utsey

S. O.

(1998). Assessing the stressful effects of racism: A review of instrumentation. Journal of Black Psychology, 24, 269–288.

93.

Valentino

Nuttall

A. K.

Comas

Borkowski

J. G.

Akai

C. E.

(2012). Intergenerational continuity of child abuse among adolescent mothers authoritarian parenting, community violence, and race. Child Maltreatment, 17, 172–181.

94.

Walker-Barnes

Mason

(2001). Ethnic differences in the effect of parenting on gang involvement and gang delinquency: A longitudinal, hierarchical linear modeling perspective. Child Development, 72, 1814–1831.

95.

Watkins-Lewis

K. M.

Hamre

B. K.

(2012). African-American parenting characteristics and their association with children’s cognitive and academic school readiness. Journal of African American Studies, 16, 390–405.

96.

Werner

E. E.

(1989). Vulnerability and resiliency: A longitudinal perspective. In Brambring

Losel

Skowronek

(Eds.), Children at risk: Assessment longitudinal research, and intervention (pp. 157–172). New York, NY: Walter de Gruyter.

97.

White

Zeiders

K. H.

Gonzales

N. A.

Tein

J. Y.

Roosa

M. W.

(2013). Cultural values, US neighborhood danger, and Mexican American parents’ parenting. Journal of Family Psychology, 27, 365.

98.

Wilson

(1974). Parenting in poverty. The British Journal of Social Work, 4, 241–261.

99.

Wilson

(1980). Parental supervision: A neglected aspect of delinquency. The British Journal of Criminology, 20, 203–235.

100.

Wilson

W. J.

(1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

101.

Wilson

W. J.

(1996). When work disappears: The world of the new Urban poor. New York, NY: Alfred A Knoph.