i...
1...}: 5::
:3 I. . .11.
.I 2.1::
a... E

V ‘1 a 1...:
255.343 .

:15. (I...
292?. 3:.
)a)‘; ,

L3! I
(.3153.
:1. . :1":

{31.1.4 515..
1...: ~\.£

 

 

:51). ,
55):...)5..|.
521.5135...

 

 

 

STY LB

\|\\|\|\\\|l“ll“H“llllllllllllllllNH

3 1293 0102

 

 

                   

 

 

 

'EWETHV

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

CHILDREN AND PARENTS OF TEEN MOTHERS:
THE REMEDIAL EFFECTS OF SOCIAL SUPPORT ON
THE GENERATIONAL CYCLE OF PARENTING

presented by

BELLE LIANG

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for ‘

h.D. degree“, Psycho'lo‘gy- 1 ‘

 

J V V7 V .
Major professor

G. Anne Bogat
Date 5/4/94

 

M5 U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN nEl‘URN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'UU

 

 

\
i
‘ V Lil heir
l
l
i

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution
«clump-n“

CHILDREN AND PARENTS OF TEEN MOTHERS: THE REMEDIAL EFFECTS OF
SOCIAL SUPPORT ON THE GENERATIONAL CYCLE OF PARENTING

Belle Liang

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Psychology

1994

ABSTRACT

CHILDREN AND PARENTS OF TEEN MOTHERS: THE REMEDIAL EFFECTS OF
SOCIAL SUPPORT ON THE GENERATION AL CYCLE OF PARENTING

By

Belle Liang

The current study on the intergenerational transmission of parenting among
adolescent mothers attempts to incorporate variables that are relevant to this population,
such as adolescent development and outcomes, social support, and parenting styles of
both the adolescents and their mothers. In doing so, this research combines theories and
constructs from three separate disciplines--developmental, clinical, and community
psychology——all of which have thus far produced separate lines of inquiry on teenage
pregnancy and parenting.

In this study, 86 girls at two separate alternative education programs for pregnant
and parenting teens (and their mothers) were extensively interviewed regarding their
parenting attitudes; and adolescents also reported their own perceptions of their‘mothers’
acceptance, control, and discipline toward them. The study then examined whether these
two sets of perceptions systematically affected teen attitudes toward rearing their own
children. Furthermore, adolescent’s self-reports on measures of autonomy and self-
esteem were also obtained in order to test the mediating effects of these variables in the
parenting model. Finally, the direct effects of stress on adolescent variables, and the
direct and interaction effects of social support were tested in the context of the proposed
models.

This study examined the mechanism of first generation impact on second
generation outcomes in two parenting models. These intergenerational models of family
influence and parenting were tested by interviewing both first generation and second

generation parents. In Model A, first generation over—controlling parenting style was

found to be linked directly with conflictual autonomy and self-focused parenting.
Conflictual autonomy ultimately predicted self-focused parenting, and a direct positive
link between stress and conflictual autonomy was confirmed. In Model B, first
generation child-focused parenting was found to predict second generation confident
parenting and self-esteem. In addition, adolescents’ self-esteem was also linked to their
confidence in parenting. Finally, stress was found to negatively influence self-esteem.
These findings all confirmed the original research hypotheses of this study.

In addition to the intergenerational models tested in this study, the direct and
mediating effects of social support in the context of the proposed models was probed,
yielding interesting and not always expected findings. In brief, social support’s role in
the proposed models centered on affecting adolescent development and outcomes directly
and indirectly. Social support was found to have a positive main effect on self-esteem,
but a negative main effect on conflictual autonomy. Furthermore, social support had a
negative stress-buffering effect on adolescent conflictual autonomy. Social support did
not interact with adolescent development and outcomes nor first generation parenting

styles to effect adolescent self-focused and confident parenting.

Copyright (c) 1994
by BELLE LMNG

DEDICATION

T0 Eli

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I recognize that the acknowledgements section is traditionally long and winded in
most dissertations, however, I must deviate from the norm one final time before I leave
graduate school since no amount of pages can do more than understate my appreciation
for many individuals who have made this project possible and pleasureable. First, I
would like to express my gratitude to the participating teens and their mothers who
shared invaluable information about their personal lives, and have helped to elucidate the
effects of intergenerational parenting among adolescent mothers. Furthermore, I would
like to thank my research assistants who diligently conducted interviews, entered data,
and joined in stimulating discussions on the important social phenomenon of teen
pregnancy.

A second group of individuals, my dissertation committee, has provided scholarly
insights to inform the theoretical basis and research methodology of this work.
Therefore, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to Professors Bob Caldwell,
William Davidson, and John Powell for their time, support, and guidance. I am indebted
to the consistent professional and personal support of my dissertation chairperson,
Professor Anne Bogat, who has remained both a faithful mentor and friend.

Finally, I would like to thank my grandmother, parents and brothers for their
boundless love and encouragement throughout this project. A special thanks to David
Ting for superhuman feats as my patient friend, sounding board, and editor of endless

drafts.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................... x
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................... xi
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
Background ..................................................................................................... 2
Mechanism of Intergenerational Parenting Effects ............................................... 7
Variables Describing Second Generation Development and Outcomes ................ 9
The Role of Autonomy or Individuation in Adolescence ...................................... 9
The Role of Self-Esteem in Adolescence ........................................................... 14
Variables Describing First Generation Parenting Style ....................................... 16
Influences on Adolescent Parenting Style .......................................................... 16
Influences on Adolescent Development and Outcomes ...................................... 18
Variables Describing Second Generation Parenting Style ................................... 23
The Effect of Stress on Adolescent Development and Parenting ........................ 25
Specific Impact of Stress on Self-Esteem ........................................................... 28
Specific Impact of Stress on Autonomy ............................................................. 28
Integrating Developmental and Clinical-Community Research: ......................... 29
Social Support’s Direct and Mediating Effects ................................................... 32

Path A: Direct Impact Of Social Support On Adolescent Development and
Adjustment ............................................................................................. 32
Path B: Stress—Buffering Effects Of Support On Adolescent Development and
Adjustment ............................................................................................. 36
Path C: Interaction of Social Support and First Generation Parenting ................ 37
Path D: Interaction of Social Support and Adolescent Development and
Adjustment ............................................................................................. 38
The Current Study and Hypotheses .................................................................... 39

vii

METHOD ................................................................................................... 45

Participants ................................................................................................... 45
Measures ................................................................................................... 46
First Generation Constructs ................................................................................ 46
Parenting Attitudes and Beliefs .......................................................................... 46
Parental Authority Style ..................................................................................... 47
Second Generation Constructs ........................................................................... 47
Demographics ................................................................................................... 48
Parent’s Self-Perception of Competence ............................................................ 48
Self-Esteem ................................................................................................... 48
Adolescent Autonomy ....................................................................................... 48
Stress ................................................................................................... 49
Social Support ................................................................................................... 49
Procedure ................................................................................................... 50
RESULTS ................................................................................................... 52
Scale Development ............................................................................................ 52
Univariate Comparisons ..................................................................................... 52
Simple Multivariate Analyses ............................................................................ 57
Path Analyses ................................................................................................... 61
Model A ................................................................................................... 64
Model B ................................................................................................... 64
DISCUSSION ................................................................................................... 70
Impact of the Study ............................................................................................ 77
Limitations of the Study .................................................................................... 78
Applications ................................................................................................... 79
Future Directions ............................................................................................... 79

viii

APPENDICES ................................................................................................... 8 1

Appendix A: Family Experiences Questionnaire ................................................ 81
Appendix B: Parental Authority Questionnaire .................................................. 86
Appendix C: Demographics ............................................................................... 89
Appendix D: Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale ........................................................ 91
Appendix E: Psychological Separation Inventory ............................................... 93
Appendix F: Hassles .......................................................................................... 97
Appendix G: Inventory of Socially Supported Behaviors ................................. 100
Appendix H: Project Description ..................................................................... 104
Appendix I: Consent Form ............................................................................... 107
REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 109

ix

BELLE
1
2
3

LIST OF TABLES

_T_itle_: Egg
Correlations of Major Variables ................................................................ 53
Means and Standard Deviations of Major Variables .................................. 56
Multiple regressions to test social support effects in Model A ................... 58
Multiple regressions to test social support effects in Model B ................... 59

Figure #

LIST OF FIGURES

I_itl_e .P_ag§
Heuristic Schema of Parenting .................................................................... 8
Parenting Model A .................................................................................... 10
Parenting Model ...................................................................................... ll
Intergenerational Adolescent Parenting Model A ...................................... 33
Intergenerational Adolescent Parenting Model B ...................................... 34
Parenting Model A .................................................................................... 42
Parenting Model B .................................................................................... 44
Model A, Path B ....................................................................................... 60
Model A, Path C ....................................................................................... 62
Path coefficients of Parenting Model A ..................................................... 65
Path coefficients of Model A with Social Support in Position A and B ..... 66
Path coefficients of Parenting Model B ..................................................... 67
Path coefficients of Model B with Social Support in Position A ................ 69

xi

INTRODUCTION

In the American experience, few social issues have elicited as much debate as the
growing pandemic of pregnancy among teenagers. This problem has raised questions
and challenges whose answers and solutions will have tremendous impact on future
generations. One such critical question is this: “When a child gives birth to a child, how
does the teen mother’s own upbringing affect how she will raise her child?”

This question contains implications for predicting the outcome of teen pregnancy
and for intervening to ensure the best outcomes of teen pregnancy. Yet, surprisingly
little research has probed the intergenerational mechanisms by which the parents of
pregnant adolescents influence how the teens will parent their own children. (For
clarity’s sake, parents of adolescent parents will be referred to hereafter as “first
generation,” adolescent parents as “second generation,” and the adolescents’ offspring as
“third generation”) The present study addresses this deficiency by examining the
mechanism of first generation impact on second generation outcomes. In order to do
this, results and concepts from the literature in clinical-community social support
research and deve10pmental psychopathology are synthesized into a comprehensive
model of adolescent parenting antecedents and determinants. Through this work, an
important theoretical framework is laid, upon which future research and interventions

may be grounded.

Background

Over a decade ago, an estimated 12 million teenagers, approximately seven
million males and five million females, were sexually active in the United States (Davis
& Harris, 1982). On average, adolescent girls became sexually active at 16 years of age;
and at least one million sexually active adolescents became pregnant every year (J affee &
Dryfoos, 1980). Of expectant teens, an estimated two-thirds carried their pregnancies to
term and one-third opted for abortions (Baldwin, 1983). By 1986, the rate of
pregnancies among adolescents in the United States was more than double the rate in
Canada and other Western countries (McDaniel, 1986), and by 1987, American teenage
girls under 15 were at least five times more likely to give birth than young adolescents in
any other developed country (Hayes, 1987).

In response to these fast-climbing figures, health care providers, educators, and
interventionists have directed increasing attention to the health risks and psychosocial
risks for both adolescent mothers and their offspring. The risks identified over the past
decade are manifold and disturbing. For example, when compared with older women,
school-aged girls who become pregnant are more likely to experience medical
complications (Klerman & Jekel, 1973). This holds particularly true for pregnant teens
under 15 years of age, as they suffer the highest complication risk of any age group,
except mothers over the age of 40 (Brooks-Gunn & Furstenberg, 1986; Furstenberg,
1976). Furthermore, infants born to adolescent mothers are at high risk for a number of
negative consequences including prematurity, low birth weight, infant mortality, mental
retardation, lower IQs, birth defects, an array of social interaction problems, and
maltreatment (Belmont, Cohen, Dryfoos, Stein, & Zayac, 1981; Caputo, Goldstein, &
Taub, 1976; Janus, 1981; Klerman & Jekel, 1973; Osofsky & Osofsky, 1970). As they
grow, the infants face yet further disadvantages because their teenage mothers are often

ill—equipped to provide them with a nurturing environment.

3

Specifically, teen mothers evince less realistic expectations for infant
development and less desirable childrearing attitudes than do older mothers (Epstein,
1979; Field, Widmayer, Stringer, & Ignatoff, 1980). Adolescent mothers, compared with
older mothers, are apt to be more irritable, punitive, intolerant, impatient, insensitive,
prone to use physical punishment, and less satisfied with parenting (de Lissovoy, 1973).
Teenage mothers are also less responsive to their infants’ emotional signals, less engaged
in game play with their infants, more apt to hold their infants in a noncradled position,
and less visually engaged with their infants (Field, Widmayer, Stringer, & Ignatoff,
1980; Osofsky & Osofsky, 1970; Sandler, Veitze, & O’Connor, 1981). In contrast,
older mothers show greater adaptation to the mothering role and they demonstrate more
reciprocity and maintain longer interactive sequences with their infants (Feldman &
Nash, 1982; Grossman, Eichler, & Winickoff, 1980). Teenage mothers who were
observed in face-to-face interactions with eight-month olds displayed less positive
affection, demonstrated activities less often, and were less verbal (Levine, Coll, & Oh,
1984). Finally, many adolescent mothers not only exhibit inadequate verbal interactions,
but they also provide minimal intellectual stimulation altogether (Oppel & Royston,
1976).

Such troubling data recapitulate three themes. First, the incidence of teenage
pregnancy has achieved crisis magnitude. Second, pregnancy in adolescence places
young women at high risk for medical and psychosocial complications. Third, infants
born to adolescent mothers are at high risk for developmental and psychosocial problems.
Each of these themes has generated a flurry of attention by researchers interested in
designing interventions for preventing high risk teenage pregnancies, mediating the
health and psychosocial risks encountered during pregnancy, and preventing poor
developmental outcomes once the infants are delivered.

The high incidence of teenage pregnancy has prompted much research into the

antecedents of adolescent pregnancy--that is, why do adolescents become parents?

4

Several studies have suggested that the major antecedent of adolescent pregnancy--sexual
promiscuity--is associated with characteristics of the family of origin (Babikian &
Goldman, 1971; Colleta, 1981; Olson & Worobey, 1984). Pregnant teens are thought to
originate from families with maladaptive family structures and parenting styles. More
specifically, much of the extant research indicates that adolescent pregnancy may be
largely attributed to a dysfunctional relationship between the adolescent and her parent;
however, the nature of the dysfunction is unclear (Barth, Schinke, & Maxwell, 1983;
Khlentos & Pagliaro, 1965). The majority of subjects in a clinical sample of African
American and Puerto Rican pregnant adolescents were raised in single parent homes and
reported having poor relationships with their mothers (Babikian & Goldman, 1971). In
particular, studies have indicated that pregnant adolescents experience the relationship
with their mothers as lacking in disclosure and affection and prone to rejection; these
adolescents also reported being subject to casual rule-setting and few demands from their
mothers (Colleta, 1981; Olson & Worobey, 1984). In contrast, other studies reveal that
pregnant and parenting adolescents, relative to their nonpregnant counterparts, seem less
aware of, or perhaps less willing to report, a problematic relationship with their mothers
(Barth, Schinke, & Maxwell, 1983). In fact, Khlentos and Pagliaro (1965) found that a
close, symbiotic relationship with a mother who was dependent on her daughter for
nurturance was characteristic of almost all of their sample of 100 adolescent mothers;
these authors concluded that a suffocating relationship with the mother hindered the
development of other relationships (this may have obvious implications for the
relationship between the adolescent and her own offspring). In a different study of 257
school-aged mothers, 62 percent described their mothers as “dominating” their household
(Vincent, 1961). It should be noted that these studies neglected to examine the
adolescent’s relationship with her father, which may have been equally problematic.
Researchers in developmental psychology and psychopathology have taken the

first important steps in addressing the problem of poor infant and child development by

5

elucidating the significance of parent-child interactions for later child outcomes; this
applies both to the interactions where the adolescent is the child, and where she becomes
the parent. In other words, the manner in which an adolescent mother is parented has
profound effects on her child-rearing style (Kantor, Peretz, & Zander, 1984). For
example, adolescents who experienced rejection during their own childhoods are likely to
exhibit angry, punitive maternal behavior toward their infants (Crockenberg, 1987).
Incest victims, relative to nonrisk mothers, feel less confident and less in-control over
their emotions in parenting their own children (Smith, Cole, & Woolger, 1990).
Moreover, they endorse statements that are extreme in requiring that children become
autonomous quickly (e. g., “Most children are toilet trained by 15 months,” “The earlier a
child is weaned from its emotional ties to its parents the better it will handle its own
problems”; Cole & Woolger, 1989). These are concerning statements, because parenting
values and beliefs are highly correlated with actual parenting behavior and competence
(Schaefer, 1991).

In short, because their childhoods are often marked by child abuse or otherwise
maladaptive parenting styles, these teen mothers themselves never develop the personal
prerequisites for healthy growth, and thus are unable to impart them to their children
(Biglan, Metzler, Wirt, & Ary, 1990; Romig & Bakken, 1990). As a consequence, the
third generation-~that is, the infants and children of these teenage mothers--is at increased
risk. How exactly the third generation is affected by adolescent parenting style has been
approached in part through attachment theory. Research into the mother-child
relationship has revealed an increasing awareness that early and poor parent-child
interactions may be associated with inadequate attachment (Ainsworth, 1973; Egeland &
Farber, 1983; Lyons-Ruth, Connell, Zoll, & Stahl, 1987; Main & Hesse, 1990) as well as
deficits in the child’s developmental level, competency, and intelligence (Beckwith,
1971; Beckwith, Cohen, Kopp, Parmelee, & Marcy, 1976; Coates & Lewis, 1984; Cohen

& Beckwith, 1979; Ramey, Farran, & Campbell, 1979). The consequences of inadequate

6

attachment and developmental delay are far-reaching. Slowed cognitive development
has been associated with poor school achievement, behavior problems, adolescent
depression (Erickson, Sroufe, & Egeland, 1985; Kellam, Brown, Rubin, & Ensminger,
1983), and substance abuse (Kandel, Kessler, & Margulies, 1978). A few longitudinal
studies have specifically identified insecure or disorganized attachment relationships as
the strongest single predictor of seriously maladaptive social behavior in later childhood
(Erickson, et al., 1985 ; Lyons-Ruth, Alpem, & Repacholi, 1993).

This implies that the insecure or disorganized attachment often seen in the
mother-child relationships of adolescent mothers may predispose their children to
aggressiveness, antisocial behavior, low self-esteem (Patterson, DeBaryshe, & Ramsey,
1986), poor peer relationships (Hartup, 1983), and poor school performance (Garmezy,
Masten, Nordstrom, & Farrarese, 1979; Kazdin, 1987; Walker, Shinn, O’Neill, Ramsey,
1987; Wilson & Hernnstein, 1985). Later, continuing the unfortunate spiral, antisocial
behavior, bolstered by ambiguous family roles, low self—esteem, and parental modeling,
may lead to delinquency, sociopathy, schizophrenia, and substance abuse (Caspi, Elder,
& Bern, 1987; Farrington, 1983; Kellam et al., 1983; Robins, Davis, & Wish, 1977;
Newcomb & Bentler, 1989; Simons & Robertson, 1989). Synergistically, families of
antisocial children tend to use harsh, inconsistent discipline, tend to have little positive
involvement with their children, and tend not to monitor or supervise their children
(Patterson, DeBaryshe, & Ramsey, 1989). For all of these reasons, when children who
have experienced neglect or abuse become adults, they are at risk of passing on this
legacy by abusing their own children, exhibiting delinquent behavior, and suffering
adverse mental health outcomes (Altemeier, O’Connor, Sherrod, Tucker, & Vietze, 1986;
Briere & Runtz, 1988; Gelfand, Hartmann, Lamb, Smith, Mahan, & Paul, 1974; George
& Main, 1979; Steele, 1986).

Mechanism oflntergenerational Parenting Efi‘ects

The research discussed thus far describes the connection between former
generation parenting and subsequent generation parenting, however, little empirical work
has directly examined the mechanism of the former’s influence on the latter, and the
latter’s influence on their offspring. Furthermore, most of the literature suffers from
either limited scope or excessive breadth. Whereas most authors examine a single link
between two specific variables, others attempt to include broad concepts (e.g.,
developmental history, personality, and parenting) in a comprehensive model of
intergenerational parenting (Belsky & Vondra, 1989). To be sure, both approaches have
been invaluable in our understanding of the impact and complexity of former generation
parenting on the outcomes and parenting styles of subsequent generations; however,
specification of the process remains elusive.

This study examined the mechanism of first generation impact on second
generation outcomes in two specific parenting models. Direct measures of third
generation outcomes were not analyzed here; however, second generation measures
employed in this study are reported to be strong predictors of third generation outcomes.
In any effort to describe the mechanism by which first generation parenting style
influences second generation development and, subsequently, second generation
parenting style, it is first necessary to choose salient variables for investigation. As a
matter of convenience, this study grouped these variables according to whether they
describe first generation phenomena (i.e., first generation parenting style) or second
generation phenomena (adolescent development and outcomes, and adolescent parenting
style). A heuristic schema illustrating this point is outlined in Figure 1a. However, in
the actual analyses of models, variables which fall under the same general headings (e.g.,
first generation parenting style or adolescent development and outcomes) are not
interchangeable. For example, certain first generation parenting styles are more

associated to certain adolescent development and outcome variables than others based on

1st Generation 2nd Generation

Parent of Adolescent
Stress

Adolescent
Development and Outcomes

 

l

Adolescent
. —>
Parentlng Style Parenting Style

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure la. Heuristic schema describing first generation
parenting style influences on second generation
development and, subsequently, second generation

parenting style

theoretical and empirical studies. Thus, the current study examines two separate models
(Figures 1b and 1c) that have not been explicitly tested in previous research. In the
following sections, the justification for choosing the variables under investigation will be
outlined, and specific links between these variables will be argued.

Variables Describing Second Generation Development and Outcomes

Belsky and colleagues’ (1986) earlier parenting models assumed the importance
of environmental influences (e. g., marital adjustment) to parenting and child outcomes.
His empirical analyses challenged this notion and indicated the greater importance of
parental developmental history as a direct predictor of parenting behavior (Belsky &
Vondra, 1989). For adolescent parents, a focus on intraindividual, developmental
variables seems especially salient; the developmental literature suggests that the
maturational crisis of adolescence itself mediates the effect of first and second generation
parenting on third generation outcomes. Because theoretical and empirical literature has
identified self-esteem (or self-concept) and autonomy (or individuation) as areas of
intraindividual development that are highly affected by the adolescent maturational crisis,
these variables were chosen to operationalize adolescent development and outcomes in
the present study (Hill, 1987; Paris, 1976).

The Role of Autonomy or Individuation in Adolescence. Developmental and
psychoanalytic theories have placed great importance on the critical role that
psychological individuation during early and late adolescence assumes in healthy
adjustment (B105, 1979; Erikson, 1968, 1978; Schafer, 1973; see Tyson & Tyson, 1990
for a review). Blos (1979) describes the principle task of adolescence as a “second
individuation” process (or developing healthy autonomy in relation to parents) in which
the adolescent simultaneously separates from and gives up the parents as primary
attachment objects and finds substitutes outside the family. A central aspect of the
second individuation process is the deidealization of parental object representations

developed earlier in childhood. Early in childhood, when the child’s thought processes

lst Generation

Parent of Adolescent

 

Over-controlling
parenting

 

 

10

2nd Generation

 

Autonomy

 

—>

 

\

l

Self-focused parenting

 

g

Figure 1b. Parenting Model A

11

1st Generation 2nd Generation

Parent of Adolescent
Stress

Self-esteem

 

l

—> Confident parenting

 

Child-focused
parenting

 

 

 

Figure 10. Parenting Model B

 

12

are egocentric, she idealizes her parents because they maintain a central role in her life.
In adolescence, the child continues to hold to these idealized notions, but also begins to
criticize her parents, finding them disappointing, inadequate, and unfair.

To the extent that the adolescent is able to differentiate the earlier omnipotent,
idealized object representations from the parents of her current life, she will be able to
establish less conflicted, respectful relationships with her parents while still experiencing
herself as independent of them. This independence remains superficial if the adolescent
is not able to resolve conflicted parental idealizations. That is, if the adolescent goes her
own way, and even attempts to undermine her parents’ wishes, she may demonstrate
behavioral or external signs of autonomy, but is obviously intrinsically controlled by her
parents’ wishes. True independence is marked by the adolescent’s ability to act on her
own volition whether the action is incongruent or congruent with her parent’s wishes. If
the adolescent is able to negotiate the individuation process successfully, and develop
conflictual autonomy, her capacity for mature love and intimacy develops. These more
mature love relationships that result from successful individuation provide a context
within which the adolescent can practice independence and mutuality simultaneously
(Erikson, 1959; Kernberg, 1974a, 1974b, 1977, 1980; Person, 1988). Freedom from
unresolved conflict with parents (i.e., conflictual autonomy) allows the adolescent to be
less self-focused, but rather more reciprocal in extrafamilial relationships.

A large body of empirical evidence has emerged to support the theoretical
importance of developing healthy autonomy or individuation in adolescence (Austin &
Inderbizin, 1983; Grolnick & Ryan, 1989; Hoffman, 1984; Kenny & Donaldson, 1991,
1992; Lopez, 1991; Ryan & Grolnick, 1986; Ryan, Connell, & Deci, 1985 ). The
implications of an adolescent’s success or failure in navigating this “second
individuation” process are far-reaching. Some researchers globally conceptualize
adolescents’ emotional difficulties to be symptomatic manifestations of the struggle for

separation from their parents (Austin & Inderbitzin, 1983; Fulmer, Medalie, & Lord,

13

1982). More specifically, higher levels of autonomy and self-regulation have been
positively associated with performance indices, such as greater motivation and
adjustment, school grades, achievement test scores, and classroom behavior (Grolnick &
Ryan, 1989; Ryan & Grolnick, 1986; Ryan, Connell, & Deci, 1985).

Hoffman (1984) developed a theoretical formulation of psychological separation
as a multidimensional construct with four separate aspects: functional, attitudinal,
emotional, and conflictual independence from the parents. Functional independence may
be reflected in adolescence as the ability to manage and direct one’s practical and
personal affairs without the help of her parents. Attitudinal independence is defined as
perceiving oneself as being unique from one’s parents--having separate beliefs, values,
and attitudes. Emotional independence is defined as freedom from an excessive need for
approval, closeness, togetherness, and emotional support in relation to the parents.
Conflictual independence is the freedom from excessive guilt, anxiety, mistrust,
responsibility, inhibition, resentment, and anger in relation to the parents. This
formulation of multidimensional autonomy has subsequently been supported in several
empirical studies that point to the lattermost dimension as having particular relevance for
psychological adjustment (Hoffman & Weiss, 1986; Lopez, Campbell, & Watkins,
1986). Conflictual autonomy has been consistently associated with measures of adaptive
psychological outcomes, including emotional and academic adjustment (Hoffman, 1984;
Hoffman & Weiss, 1986; Kenny & Donaldson, 1991, 1992), absence of psychopathology
(Lopez, Campbell, & Watkins, 1989; Transeau & Eliot, 1990) and eating disorders
(Friedlander & Siegel, 1990), adjustment to college (Lapsley, Rice, & Shadid, 1989;
Lopez, 1991; Rice, Cole, & Lapsley, 1990), and vocational success (Blustein, Walbridge,
Friedlander, & Palladino, 1991). Other types of autonomy assessed by Hoffman’s
measure, the Psychological Separation Inventory (PSI), have been associated with
inconsistent outcomes. For example, Frank, Pirsch, and Wright’s study (1990) of

adolescent women suggested that maintaining “emotional” attachments (rather than

l4

emotional autonomy) with parents was more psychologically important than perceiving
oneself as a separate individual with self-chosen values. These results substantiate
theories of female adolescent development (Gilligan, 1982, 1988; Josselson, 1988).
Viewing oneself as attitudinally, emotionally, and functionally autonomous may even
reflect feelings of rejection or alienation from parents; in fact, Ryan and Lynch (1989)
indicated that certain measures designed to assess adolescent autonomy actually measure
emotional detachment, which involves the loss of a major source of support. These
authors found that emotional autonomy was negatively correlated with individuation, felt
security, and emotional utilization of parents.

Findings obtained from studies using Hoffman’s autonomy measure support
psychoanalytic theories that emphasize adolescent resolution of conflictual feelings
toward parents as being key in the process of individuation, resulting in conflictual
autonomy but not necessarily emotional autonomy. In other words, successful
individuation is marked by conflictual autonomy, but not necessarily emotional or other
types of autonomy in relation to parents. Therefore, although all four of Hoffman’s
categories of autonomy are assessed in the present study, special attention is given to the
role of conflictual autonomy, which has not only demonstrated greater construct validity
in previous studies, but also seems more relevant to the parenting variables of interest in
this study.

The Role of Self-Esteem in Adolescence. In addition to adolescent autonomy, the
development of self-esteem also plays a central role in a number of psychological
theories (see Wells & Marwell, 1976, for a review of the literature), and is of obvious
importance to adolescents. Most of these theories conceptualize self-esteem as an
individual’s feelings and attitudes toward herself, which are especially pertinent in
adolescence when individuals are becoming more self-aware and self-critical.
Individuals with high self-esteem are characterized by self-respect and feelings of

worthiness (Bibring, 1953; Coopersmith, 1967; Felker, 1974; Rosenberg, 1965), a sense

15

of belonging (Felker, 1974; Maslow, 1954), and feelings of competence (Diggory, 1966;
Young, 1988). Those with low self-esteem are marked by a lack of self-respect and the
belief that they are insignificant, unsuccessful, incapable, and unworthy (Coopersmith,
1967). These self-concepts have significant implications for an individual’s actual
performance and behavior (Crockenberg & Soby, 1988). High self-esteem is expected to
predict and reflect healthy adjustment and behavior valued by the society, whereas low
self-esteem is associated with deviant behavior. Kaplan (1975) offers a complex
explanation of the association between self-esteem and behavior. He posits that
individuals strive to develop, maintain, and improve positive self-attitudes. These
positive self-attitudes are derived from culturally sanctioned or normative experiences
(e. g., academic achievement, acceptance by parents). Eventually, experiences that are
conducive to emotionally gratifying self-attitudes become gratifying in and of themselves
and, therefore, encourage behavior that fosters other such experiences. Individuals who
develop self-esteem in this way would thus naturally continue to engage in socially
sanctioned behaviors. Alternatively, those with normatively derived negative self-
attitudes not only are apt to avoid the distress-producing experiences, but also are
“motivated to deviate from normative patterns by virtue of their intrinsically distressing
nature” (Kaplan, 1975, p.54). Therefore, low self-esteem is expected to correlate with
high frequencies of deviant behavior. Several empirical studies with adolescents
substantiate Kaplan’s theory in that those with higher self-esteem practiced more
prosocial behavior (Rigby & Slee, 1993) and had higher levels of academic achievement
(Liu, Kaplan, & Risser, 1992); whereas, those with lower self-esteem were more
depressed (Smart & Walsh, 1993) and more likely to use illicit drugs (Vega,
Zimmerman, Warheit, Apospori, 1993; Taylor & del Pilar, 1992). In particular,
Crockenberg and Soby (1989) discuss at length how lower self-esteem is likely to effect
a series of deviant decisions among girls that ultimately lead to their becoming pregnant

and parenting adolescents.

l6

Variables Describing First Generation Parenting Style

Although parenting is a complex, multidimensional construct, empirical research
consistently confirms two robust dimensions of parenting: control and acceptance
(Baumrind, 1967, 1971; Maccoby & Martin, 1983). Control relates to parental efforts to
influence a child, such as demands for maturity, strictness, and methods of discipline.
Acceptance involves the degree to which the parent is child- versus self-focused,
demonstrating warmth and healthy involvement with a child.

Influences on Adolescent Parenting Style. Much of the research supporting the
relationship between a parent’s past history and current parenting behavior has emerged
from studies of intrafamilial child sexual abuse. The study of these and other
“developmentally disturbed” families can enhance our understanding of normative family
processes (Belsky, Hertzog, & Rovine, 1984), just as the study of developmental
disturbance clarifies our understanding of normative developmental processes within
individuals (Cicchetti, 1984). By underscoring the deleterious consequences of
environmental stress, a problematic developmental history, and disturbed personality,
research on the etiology of child abuse elucidates crucial sources of influence on
parenting, that might otherwise be undetected. In particular, clinical data suggests that
sexually abusive families are characterized by dysfunctional boundary patterns
(Finkelhor, 1984; Main & Goldwyn, 1984; Minuchin, Rosman, & Baker, 1978).

All families have boundaries consisting of rules that regulate participation within
and without their particular system. The two-fold purpose of boundaries involves the
preservation of the family as a differentiated entity as well as the differentiated roles
within the family. Appropriate internal boundaries are defined by differences in status
and responsibility between parents and their children. Families in which sexual abuse
occurs are generally considered to be “enmeshed,” a term that refers to both inadequate
internal boundaries and an overly strong external boundary. By limiting contacts with

extrafamilial relationships, the impermeable external boundary serves to maintain

l7

isolation from the outside community. Internal boundaries, on the other hand, become
too diffuse, fostering inadequate role distinctions between generations. Parents who
enlist their children to meet their own sexual needs are an obvious example of boundary
violation and its self-focused nature. More subtly, parents may usurp their child’s
attentions to meet their own needs for companionship, nurturing, and affirmation.
Studies with abusive families suggest that these parents often fail to provide support to
their children and have difficulty curbing tendencies toward self-gratification (Justice &
Justice, 1979; Mrazek & Kempe, 1981). The dysfunction of these families is therefore
characterized by over-controlling and self-focused parenting. Such parenting styles
frequently involve domineering and emotionally needy parents who produce
“parentified” children who, in turn, use their own offspring to satisfy unmet emotional
needs. In this way, first generation over-controlled parenting may lead to second
generation self-focused parenting. Smith et a1. (1990) demonstrated that incest victims,
as compared to “no known risk” women, were also more likely to report feeling less
confident and less in control of their emotions in parenting their own children. Self-
focused parenting may therefore be conducive to less confident or insecure parenting in
future generations.

Studies with non-abusive or premorbid families confirm that these processes of
intergenerational transmission generalize beyond abusive behaviors. For example,
several investigators have found that a father’s involvement with his children is
positively correlated with the level of involvement displayed by his own father (Reuter &
Biller, 1973). Those fathers who were particularly involved in their child’s care recalled
that their own fathers had been highly involved (Sagi, 1982) and very nurturant (Manion,
1977). A large body of research on parent-child interactions suggests there is a
relationship between child-focused parenting and “mastery” among offspring (Frodi,
Bridges, & Grolnick, 1985; Lyons-Ruth & Zeanah, 1993; Matas, Arend, & Sroufe, 1978;
Yarrow, MacTurk, Vietze, McCarthy, Klein, & McQuiston, 1984). Morgan and

18

colleagues (Morgan, Harmon, & Maslin-Cole, 1990; Morgan, Harmon, & Maslin-Cole,
1991) posit that “mastery” refers to activities that a child performs in order to increase
her sense of competence, and these behaviors are thought to reflect early precursors of
individuals’ cognitive and social competence. Mothers who were responsive to their
child’s needs and supported their strivings for autonomy (i.e., those who were “child-
focused” during interactions) had children who demonstrated greater social competence,
resourcefulness (Matas, Arend, & Sroufe, 1978), and persistence in mastery tasks (Frodi,
Bridges, & Grolnick, 1985). Therefore, it appears that a mother’s more child—focused
parenting leads to greater confidence and sense of competence in her offspring.

Influences on Adolescent Development and Outcomes. A large body of research
has specifically examined parental attitudes, child-rearing behaviors, and parent-child
relationships as they relate to aspects of intraindividual development. In particular,
parenting style appears to play a critical role in the development of adolescent autonomy
(Bartle, Anderson, & Sabatelli, 1989; Pardeck & Pardeck, 1990) and self-esteem (Bartle,
Anderson, Sabatelli, 1989; Gecas & Schwalbe, 1986; Johnson, Shulman, & Collins,
1991; Richards, Gitelson, Petersen, & Hurtig, 1991). The development of autonomy has
often been associated with parental control; over-control restricts successful
individuation (Quintana & Lapsley, 1990), even in the form of overprotectiveness (Blum,
1992). Optimal developmental outcomes are most likely to evolve from a context that
gradually reduces adult control as the child’s need or desire for autonomy increases
(Eccles, Buchanan, Flanagan, & Fuligni, 1991). Effective, non-over-controlling parents
direct and guide their child’s behavior without thwarting the child’s evolving autonomy
and agency. A major goal of such parenting involves the eventual relinquishing of overt
control in order that the child may test personal limits through the exercise of
internalized rules and values.

Baumrind (1967, 1971) delineated three styles of parenting (authoritarian,

authoritative, and permissive) based on two relevant dimensions: firm versus lax control

 

l9

and psychological autonomy versus psychological control. Parents who scored high in
psychological control and firm control were classified as authoritarian, those high in
psychological autonomy and low on firm control were neglectful, and those high on
psychological autonomy-granting and high on firm control were authoritative. Maccoby
and Martin (1983) later suggested an alternative to this tripartite typology by classifying
permissive, or “low control,” parents as either “indulgent” or “neglectful,” depending on
their degree of warmth. The high warmth, or “indulgent,” style is related to outcomes
similar to the authoritative style in regard to autonomy (Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg, &
Dornbusch, 1991) and self-esteem (Maccoby & Martin, 1983). Self-evaluations of
children from “neglectful” homes do not differ significantly from those of children
reared by “authoritarian” parents (Lamborn et al., 1991). A number of studies have
consistently associated the authoritative parenting style (which involves the parental use
of induction or reasoning, consistent discipline, and expression of warmth) with a
constellation of positive developmental outcomes for adolescents that include higher
levels of self-esteem and autonomy, academic achievement, prosocial orientation, and
social competence during the school-age years (Baumrind, 1967, 1971; Coopersmith,
1967; Hoffman, 1970; Lamborn et al., 1991; McCall, 1974; Maccoby & Martin, 1983).
Parents’ authoritarian versus democratic beliefs are correlated with their conformist
versus self-directing and autonomy-granting beliefs, respectively (Schaefer, 1991). The
studies discussed in this section consistently implicate autonomy-granting as one aspect
of parenting that is particularly beneficial, and perhaps it is the aspect that characterizes
“authoritative style” parenting. Parental autonomy support has been positively related to
children’s self—reported autonomous self-regulation, teacher—rated competence and
adjustment, and school grades and achievement (Grolnick & Ryan, 1989).

Just as adolescent autonomy results from a parenting style that buttresses an
appropriate level of control and autonomy—granting, a parenting style that is sensitively

attuned to the child’s needs fosters self-esteem (Belsky, Lerner, & Spanier, 1984;

 

 

 

20

Litovsky & Dusek, 1985; Paulson, Hill, & Holmbeck, 1991). In a longitudinal study,
children of mothers who were consistently more responsive during both infancy and
early adolescence, as well as children whose mothers became responsive over time, had
more positive self-esteem (Beckwith, Rodning, & Cohen, 1992). Another study,
examining seven adolescent to young adult age groups (including those no longer
residing with parents), demonstrated that paternal nurturance was a consistent and robust
predictor of self-esteem even in the latter years (Buri, Murphy, Richtsmeier, & Komar,
1992). Unfortunately, research has indicated that the reverse is also true: lacking healthy,
child-focused attention from parents has lasting and substantial negative consequences on
the self-attitudes of their offspring (Smith, Cole, & Woolger, 1990; Colleta, 1981; Olson
& Worobey, 1984). Women who have been victims of incest (characterized by self-
focused parenting) were more likely to report feeling denigrated and a lack of overall
confidence (Lowery, 1987; Smith et al., 1990). Similarly, adult mothers who had been
subject to cold, hostile, neglectful, and rejecting childrearing exhibited low self-esteem
(Belsky, Hertzog, & Rovine, 1986). In two studies specifically examining pregnant and
parenting adolescents, low self-esteem was also highly related to rejection by their
mothers (Colleta, 1981; Olson & Worobey, 1984).

A number of major psychoanalytic theorists, including Winocott, Mahler, and
Kohut elucidate how individuals with pathologically narcissistic or self-focused parents
(who treat their child’s needs as secondary or unimportant) may develop a compromised
self-concept or self-esteem. They emphasize that a child has the primary need to be
regarded and valued as “the person she really is” at any given time (requiring sensitivity
toward her real emotions, sensations, and their expressions), and as the center of her own
activity; the fulfillment of this “narcissistic” need is essential for the development of
healthy self-esteem. To wit, narcissism (self-love) is a normal developmental process
that regulates self-esteem (Kernberg, 1975; Kohut, 1971). According to psychoanalytic

theory, the child develops an “ego ideal” (or idealized self-concept) to maintain this self-

21

love (Freud, 1925). The ego ideal at first evolves from the primary narcissism of the
infant when she is unable to differentiate her self from nonself and believes herself to be
the source of all pleasure (Hartmann, Kris, & Loewenstein, 1946; Spitz, 1959). As she
begins to perceive herself as separate, the mother is idealized and internalized. The
infant believes she is the admired, omnipotent, and idealized other (Reich, 1960). In
normal development, identification with idealized parental figures to maintain self-love
shifts to a realistic critical conscience or superego (Sandler, Holder, & Meers, 1963).
Narcissism or self-love is sustained when the ego judges itself by the standards of the
superego, so that an individual’s self-worth is determined by how close the realistic self-
concept is to the ideal.

Psychoanalytic theorists draw a distinction between healthy narcissism that is
conducive to self-esteem and pathological narcissism that leads to disorders of the self,
such as borderline personality and narcissistic character disorders (Kohut, 1971, 1972;
Kernberg, 1970, 1974a, 1975). Kemberg (1970) noted that mothers of his pathologically
narcissistic patients seemed to be cold and hostile, or narcissistic themselves. He
reasoned that individuals whose narcissistic needs were unlikely to be met or responded
to appropriately at each developmental stage, were then unable to regulate their self-
esteem through the mechanism described above. Conversely, Mahler and colleagues’
studies (1975) of separation-individuation demonstrated how the mother’s child-focused
sensitivity and attunement, if it is developmentally appropriate, allowed for the evolution
and maintenance of adequate self-esteem. This child-focused sensitivity starts from
infancy in the form of understanding an infant’s often-subtle cues and responding to her
needs without inappropriate delay (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978; Lamb &
Easterbrooks, 1980). Child-focused parents are able to continue demonstrating warmth
and affection while increasing the demands for age-appropriate behavior, throughout

childhood. The success of this process may be especially evidenced when the child

22

reaches adolescence; the child-focused parent has prepared the child for the transition
into adolescence by equipping her with necessary self-esteem.

The parenting outcome of adolescent self-esteem therefore requires that the
parent demonstrate the capacity to prohibit her own egocentric and narcissistic tendencies
in order to nurture and focus on the child’s needs. To do so, such parents must
successfully negotiate their own intraindividual conflicts. Indeed, parents’ experience of
midlife identity concerns and well-being was positively associated with the level of
emotional autonomy reported by their same-sex adolescent children (Silverberg &
Steinberg, 1987). Other studies have similarly demonstrated that the adolescent’s
identity formation may be affected by the identity formation status of her parents; parents
with more mature identities had adolescent daughters with more mature identities
(Adams, 1985). Furthermore, mothers’ self-concepts are correlated with their child-
rearing style and relationship with their child; for example, mothers who perceive less
personal control over their own lives have lower levels of positive parent-child
interaction with their infants, and this eventually leads to the child deficits described
above (Schaefer, Edgerton, & Hunter, 1983). Mothers who have poor self-concepts are
also more likely to impose authoritarian and conformist beliefs and values on their
children and are less apt to possess democratic and autonomy-granting beliefs and values.
These findings may be explained by psychoanalytic theory which posits that parents who
have been narcissistically deprived themselves are compelled to gratify their own needs
through substitute means (Kohut, 1971; Miller, 1981; Tyson & Tyson, 1990; Winnicott,
1956, 1960). The most likely objects for gratification are a parent’s own children:

“A newborn baby is completely dependent on his parents, and since their

caring is essential for his existence, he does all he can to avoid losing

them. From the very first day onward, he will muster all his resources to

this end, like a small plant that turns toward the sun in order to survive”

(Miller, 1981, p.7).

23

The child is therefore forced to meet the mother’s narcissistic needs and any of the
child’s “specialness” is used to bolster the mother’s self-admiration and greatness
(Kernberg, 1970). Consequently, these children are apt to suffer serious deficits in their
own self-esteem.

In summary, evidence indicates that a combination of identification processes
and possible internalization of reflected appraisals of perceived self-worth contribute to
the adolescent’s identity formation (Adams, 1985). Specifically, first generation child-
focused parenting would presumably be related to higher levels of self-esteem among
adolescents; and first generation over-controlling parenting would result in a lack of
adolescent independence, especially a lack of conflictual autonomy.

Variables Describing Second Generation Parenting Style

The status of adolescent developmental processes and outcomes, such as
psychological maturity, health, and autonomy, may, in turn, determine adolescent
parenting styles and success. For example, in a longitudinal study linking parenting with
constructs of psychological maturity and health, scores on standardized personality
assessments (e. g., MMPI, Rorschach), consistently predicted parental competence among
fathers (Heath, 1976). Those parents who displayed more personality integration, less
depression and anxiety, and more independence and stability also demonstrated greater
emotional and affectional involvement and time spent playing with offspring. Mothers’
self-empowering beliefs (i.e., internal locus of control orientation) were correlated with
higher levels of positive interaction with their infants during bathing, dressing, and play
and less authoritarian child-rearing (Schaefer, Edgerton, & Hunter, 1983).

Intraindividual characteristics, such as self-esteem, autonomy, and depression,
may also determine one’s coping style, another factor linked to parenting outcomes (Teti
& Gelfand, 1991). Current theories link the onset and course of depression with
appraisal and coping styles (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978; Harnmen & Krantz,

1985). Those individuals who were less depressed or dysfunctional reported greater

24

direct problem-solving, and less reliance on avoidant coping and emotional discharge
responses (Cronkite & Moos, 1984; Fondacaro & Moos, 1987). Based on the child abuse
literature, it is obvious that unreasonable, nondiplomatic emotional outbursts, or passive-
aggressive behavior from a parent may result in negative consequences for her child.

Other research has drawn direct links between intraindividual variables and
confidence in parenting. Adolescents with high levels of social-emotional maturity have
more positive attitudes toward parenting (Larsen & Juhasz, 1985). In particular, the
intrapersonal variable of self-esteem is thought to be highly related to parental
functioning (Cowan & Cowan, 1983; Gamble & Belsky, 1984). Individuals with high
self-esteem had better attendance for scheduled postpartum appointments at a perinatal
clinic (Giblin, Poland, & Sachs, 1987), were more involved with their infants (Cowan &
Cowan, 1983), and provided more responsive, stimulating, and affectionate care to their
preschoolers (Gamble & Belsky, 1984). Alternatively, mothers with lower self-esteem
appeared less interested, less effective in soothing, and less able to maintain synchronous
exchanges with their newborns (Farber & Egeland, 1980).

Achieving a general sense of self-worth and esteem is prerequisite to the ability to
perceive oneself as a competent parent (Young, 1988). Parents’ self-perceptions of
competence have been assessed by the Parentng Confidence subscale of the Family
Experiences Questionnaire (Frank, Hole, Jacobson, Huyck, 1986). Parents at the high
end of this scale viewed parenting as a process and trusted their coping abilities; whereas
those at the low end felt that they had inadequate resources to cope with the demands of
parenting (items include, “I know that I am doing a good job as a parent”). It seems
likely that assessments of self-esteem among adolescent mothers would have direct
bearing on their reports of confident parenting.

Besides level of parenting confidence, an adolescent’s intraindividual
characteristics also seem to be related to the manner in which she derives gratification

from parenting. Clinical observations suggest that insecure parents seek to gratify

25

unfulfilled wishes for nurturance and self-esteem through their offspring and have
difficulty relating to the latter as separate, unique individuals (Frank, Hole, Jacobson,
Justkowski, & Huyck, 1986). Because a lack of autonomy (especially the conflictual
type) creates such an intense need for emotional resolution or gratification in
adolescence, it seems likely that adolescent parents who experience a lack of conflictual
autonomy would be prone to self-focused gratifications. Self-focused gratification
versus child-focused gratification in parenting has been measured by two related
subscales of the Family Experiences Questionnaire (FEQ) which query respondents
regarding whether they view their child as a means to fulfilling narcissistic needs for
power, love, or self-esteem (e. g., “Being a parent makes me feel more important because
I know that I am the center of someone’s world”), or whether they see their child as
valuable, irrespective of their own needs and involvement (e.g., “I like watching my
children’s personalities develop even when they turn out differently from what I
expected”). Data obtained from these scales seem to substantiate Anastasiow’s (1982)
notion that many adolescent mothers View pregnancy as a means for recouping emotional
loss or for achieving self-esteem and feminine identity. Adolescent mothers who have
lower autonomy are more dependent and needy by definition, and may therefore be most
susceptible to self-focused gratification tendencies.
The Effect of Stress on Adolescent Development and Parenting

In addition to the multiple determinants of teen parenting, including adolescent
development and first generation parenting influences, a major complication encountered
by adolescent mothers is severe stress. In an earlier model of adult parenting, Abidin
(1982, 1986) emphasized stress as the central construct, with stress leading directly to
dysfunctional parenting. His test of this model, however, demonstrated that a simple
linear relation did not exist between stress level and dysfunctional parenting. This
information was incorporated into a new model which examined how intraindividual

differences mediated the relationship between stress and parenting (Abidin, 1992). In

26

order to understand the relationship between stress and adolescent parenting, it seems
equally important (if not even more so) to understand first how developmental variables
that characterize the adolescent period mediate this relationship. That is, how does stress
impact the adolescent (which may ultimately effect her parenting)?

Although adolescent and adult mothers do not differ in the number of stresses
reported, adolescent mothers rate these events as significantly more stressful (Garcia,
Hoffman, Vanhouten, & Oh, 1987). Specific stressors that are frequently identified as
characteristic to teen mothers, compared to nonparent peers, include their greater
likelihood of dropping-out of high school, of being at a lower socio-economic status, of
receiving public assistance, and of being placed at a vocational disadvantage (Card,
Reagan, & Ritter, 1988; Hughes, 1986; Levering, 1983; Moore & Hofferth, 1978).
Furthermore, adolescent mothers are often subject to multiple, simultaneous transitions,
including school transitions and the transition into parenthood and adult responsibility
(Bogat, Liang, Caldwell, Davidson, Bristor, Phillips, & Suurmeyer, 1993). Becoming a
parent is a life transition in itself, involving some degree of stress (Holmes & Rahe,
1967; LeMasters, 1968), but the teenager makes this transition prematurely, at the onset
of adolescence, further exacerbating the stress (Bacon, 1974; Russell, 1980). Elster,
McArney, and Lamb (1983) note the following:

“Adolescent parents, particularly younger ones, are faced with a variety of

situational crises, which are superimposed upon a maturational crisis

(adolescence) . . . each of which may be associated with some degree of

normal stress” (p. 497).

The “maturational crisis” of adolescence is characterized by a period of tumultuous
changes, including physical or biological changes brought on by puberty (Simmons,
Burgeson, Carlton-Ford, & Blyth, 1987); social changes such as the increasing
importance of peers (Mazor & Enright, 1988; Petersen & Taylor, 1980); and emotional,

cognitive, and psychological changes such as the development of adolescent autonomy

27

and self-esteem (Austin & Inderbizin, 1983; Grolnick & Ryan, 1989; Hoffman, 1984;
Kenny & Donaldson, 1991, 1992; Lopez, 1991; Ryan, Connell, & Deci, 1985; Ryan &
Grolnick, 1986; see previous discussion of these variables). Clearly, the development of
adolescent autonomy and self-esteem is not only a stressor in itself, but is also intimately
affected by the other relevant stressors of this period. For example, the increased
importance of peers also increases their potential for bolstering or lowering an
individual’s self-esteem. In two recent studies, the perceived facilitativeness of an
adolescent girl’s closest friend was significantly correlated with higher self-esteem
(Cramer,1993); whereas social stress, or the cost of peer relationships, was significantly
correlated with lower self-esteem (Moran & Eckenrode, 1991).

Although the causal relationship between stress and adolescent development is
not known, one way to explain this relationship may be that adolescent variables such as
self-esteem and autonomy determine the adolescent’s experience of stress (Bird &
Kemerait, 1990; Pasley, Langfield, & Kreutzer, 1993). That is, the adolescent’s
developmental status (e.g., level of autonomy and self-esteem) has a direct role in her
subjective appraisal of the event and number of concurrent life stresses, both of which
ultimately determine the degree to which stress is experienced (Lazarus & Folkman,
1984). Individuals with low levels of autonomy and self-esteem may feel helpless and
lacking in control of a stressful situation, and may lack confidence in their coping ability,
thus heightening their experience of stress.

In addition to the possibility that adolescent variables (such as autonomy and self-
esteem) may effect the appraisal or experience of stress, the reverse causal explanation
may also be true: stress may impact adolescent development. Cross-sectional studies
have consistently shown that an accumulation of recent negative events is positively
related to psychological and physical health problems (see Johnson, 1986, for a review of
this literature). However, research examining the specific effects of life stress on

adolescents (not to mention adolescent parents) is strikingly scarce, despite the obvious

28

vulnerability of this population to multiple, disruptive environmental and developmental
changes (Rutter, 1983). For adolescent mothers, these changes, coupled with the
challenges of parenthood, would seem to have significant implications for adolescent
parenting. In particular, adolescent variables, such as autonomy and self-esteem, might
mediate the relationship between stress and parenting, with stress directly effecting these
adolescent outcome variables first and indirectly effecting adolescent parenting.

Specific Impact of Stress on Self-Esteem. Several studies have explicitly studied
and documented the negative consequences of stress on adolescent self-esteem (Cohen,
Burt, & Bjorck, 1987; Johnson & McCutcheon, 1980; Kroger, 1980; Youngs, Rathge,
Mullis, & Mullis, 1990). Self-esteem declined among adolescents who reported
experiencing stresses such as a school transition (Kroger, 1980), as well as an
accumulation of their own controllable and uncontrollable negative life events (Cohen et
al., 1987; Youngs et al., 1990). Although previous longitudinal studies had failed to
predict change in adolescent mental health criteria due to negative life experiences
(Gersten, Langner, Eisenberg, & Simcha-Fagan, 1977; Swearingen & Cohen, 1985), a
longitudinal analysis, with an improved methodology, confirmed causality (Cohen et al.,
1987). Furthermore, the relationship between high stress and low self-esteem may be
particularly strong for adolescent females as opposed to males (Moran & Eckenrode,
1991), and even stronger for adolescent mothers who, compared to their nonmother
peers, were more likely to react to environmental stressors with self-abasement (Oz, Tari,
& Fine, 1992).

Specific Impact of Stress on Autonomy. Given the findings that stress predicts a
constellation of adolescent health and developmental outcomes, such as self-esteem
(Cohen et al., 1987), it would seem that stress should have a particularly deleterious
effect on adolescent autonomy. By definition, autonomy entails the inner freedom to
make choices about how one responds to the environment; by definition, stress imposes

constraints on that environment and decreases a person’s control, thus limiting a person’s

29

choices and ability to make choices. The relationship between stress and autonomy
seems especially salient in adolescence because this developmental period represents a
transitional phase with respect to responsibility for the occurrence of life experiences.
Adolescence, compared with earlier age periods, is marked by more active involvement
with the environment (Scarr & McCartney, 1983). Unfortunately, the early adolescent is
subjected to many stressful events, often originating within the family, over which she
lacks control (Coddington, 1972). This threat to personal control may ultimately
compromise the adolescent’s sense of autonomy and agency.
Integrating Developmental and Clinical— Community Research:
The Issues of Social Support and Stress

Independent from the developmental psychopathology literature reviewed so far,
the clinical-community psychology literature has produced a parallel line of inquiry that
also examines the antecedents and determinants of adolescent parenting-both protective
and risk factors. Whereas the developmental literature primarily focuses on the effects of
first generation parenting on adolescent mothers, the clinical-community model
implicates other social and environmental influences. Specifically, this research
extensively chronicles the positive effects of social support in relation to parenting
success and parent or child outcomes (Cooley & Unger, 1991; Dunst,Trivette, & Cross, ’
1986; Frodi, Keller, Foye, Liptak, Bridges, Grolnick, Berko, McAnarney, & Lawrence,
1984; Koniak-Griffin, 1987). Social support has been associated with the adolescent
parent’s long-term chances for educational or vocational success, as well as the health,
development, and competence of her offspring (Baldwin & Cain, 1980; Cooley & Unger,
1991; Dunst, Trivette, & Cross, 1986; Furstenberg & Crawford, 1978; Powell, 1980;
Turner, Grindstaff, & Phillips, 1990). Other studies, using mixed-age populations of
mothers, have specifically demonstrated the relationship between social support and
more adaptive parenting styles or attitudes (Luster, 1986); less maternal rejection of the

infant (Colletta, Lee, & Gregg, 1981; Sherman & Donovan, 1991); diminished use of

 

3O

authoritarian punishment techniques (Colletta, 1979); greater emotional and verbal
responsivity (Powell, 1980); better infant attachment (Cranley, 1981; Crockenberg,
1986); and more effective coping among parents with premature infants (Minde, Marton,
Manning, & Hines, 1981; Minde, Shosenberg, Marton, Thompson, Ripley, & Burns,
1980). Among adolescents, mothers who were more satisfied with their social support
were more affectionate with their toddlers by comforting, cuddling, playing with, and
praising them, whereas dissatisfied teens tended to be hostile, rejecting, and uninterested
(Lee & Colletta, 1983).

Based on this research, it seems likely that social support benefits adolescent
parents; however, the mechanism by which social support derives its positive effects for
this population is unclear. This lack of understanding may result from the
underdevelopment of models of social support in interaction with parenting variables; to
date, no model has included all of the variables discussed in this study (i.e., parenting
variables across two generations, adolescent development and outcome variables, life
stress, and social support). Therefore, it has not been possible to assess and compare the
various direct and mediating effects of social support discussed in the next section.
Furthermore, the two most developed and recent models by Abidin (1992) and Belsky
and colleagues (1989), which focus on similar constructs, albeit for an adult population,
have yet to be empirically tested. Belsky et al.’s (1986) analyses of an earlier model
were exploratory in nature and prone to capitalization on chance; that is, when their data
did not fit the proposed structure, they tested several alternative models, retrospectively.

In general, a major problem with existing longitudinal intervention and cross—
sectional studies has been their lack of clarity in defining and operationalizing social
support. In most instances, the global impact of a supportive intervention was assessed " Y
rather than the specific aspects of support provided by the intervention. In a review of
parent interventions, Bogat, Sullivan, and Grober (1993) note that each program supplied

informational support to the mother by educating her on various aspects of pregnancy,

 

31

child development, and child care. Emotional support was also provided in many of the
interventions. Other programs aimed to enhance the mother’s social network by helping
her to identify and engage existing supports, as well as cormect with new supports in the
community. Although these studies were expressly designed to provide informational
and emotional support, and each attempted to enhance social networks overall, few
studies actually assessed whether beneficial effects could be specifically attributed to
gains in these intended support activities. Furthermore, these studies neglected to assess
what specific behavioral activities are involved in receiving help from these
interventions. In cross-sectional or interview research, nonspecific indices of support
were also frequently used. For example, Belsky et al. (1986) assessed the effects of
social support in his model by a very global measure--“frequency of social network
contact.”

Future research should make multi-dimensional assessments of support. For
example, it may be that recently unemployed persons benefit more from material and
tangible support, whereas depressed persons benefit more from emotional support. In
particular, teen mothers may especially benefit from guidance and informational support,
the form of support most commonly provided by existing parent support interventions in
order to improve parenting skills and attitudes. Although all new parents may suffer
from a lack of knowledge regarding parenting, adolescent mothers typically have even
less realistic expectations and less optimal attitudes than do older mothers (Field,
Widmayer, Stringer, & Ignatoff, 1980; Reis, 1988). This lack of knowledge of child
growth and development puts teen mothers at greater risk of maintaining inaccurate
perceptions of child abilities, and thus, employing harsh or abusive disciplinary
techniques and ineffective teaching approaches (Epstein, 1979; Showers & Johnson,

1984).

32

Social Support ’s Direct and Mediating Efiects

In light of the variables of interest in this study, social support’s beneficial effects
on parenting may occur via several alternative paths (see Figures 2a and 2b). First, the
positive relationship between mothering and social support may be caused by two, more
distal, remedial effects of social support; specifically, the presence of a positive
relationship with persons other than parents or guardians may directly effect adolescent
development and adjustment (path A) as well as moderate the effects of stress on these
two variables (path B). Support for these paths can be found in the large literature
indicating that social support moderates or “buffers” the impact of stressful
circumstances on an individual’s health and adjustment (Caplan, 1974; Cohen & McKay,
1984; Eaton, 1978; Thoits, 1986) as well as evidence that social resources may have an
overall beneficial effect on health and adjustment, irrespective of stress level (Cohen,
Struening, Muhlin, Genevie, Kaplan, & Peck, 1982; Lin, Simeone, Ensel, & Kuo, 1979;
Williams, Ware, & Donald, 1981).
Path A: Direct Impact Of Social Support On Adolescent Development and Adjustment

The direct effects of social support on adjustment are confirmed by longitudinal
studies that demonstrate social support’s ability to mitigate or enhance an individual’s
esteem, self-confidence and self-concept, psychological adjustment, and sense of
autonomy (Barrera, 1981; Nuckolls, Cassel, & Kaplan, 1972; Schilmoeller, Baranowski,
& Higgins, 1991). Research findings among general adolescent populations have
indicated that those with strong supports were more likely to report greater life
satisfaction (Schilmeoller, Baranowski, & Higgins, 1991), psychological well-being
(Barth, 1983), and self-esteem in areas related to home life (Koniak-Griffin, 1987). In
relation to adolescent mothers and other parents, lack of social support has been a strong
predictor of self-reported emotional stress (Colletta & Lee, 1983; Colletta & Gregg,
1981; Lee & Colletta, 1983), depressive symptomatology (Barrera, 1981; Cutrona, 1989;
Turner, Grindstaff, & Phillips, 1990), and well-being (Kissman & Shapiro, 1990).

33

1st Generation 2nd Generation

Parent of Adolescent
Stress
social B
\ ’ I

Adolescent

Development and Outcomes
Autonomy

‘2 social
suppon

N f i
L Parenting Style Adolescent
Over-controlling _. Parenting Style

parenting

L J C

social
suppon

Figure 2a. Intergenerational Adolescent Parenting Model A

 

 

 

 

 

Self-focused parenting

t J

 

 

 

 

 

34

1st Generation 2nd Generation

Parent of Adolescent
Stress
social B

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Adolescent
Development and Outcomes
Self-esteem
‘.|_E2_ sock“
suppon
r’ N rt \
Parenting Style Adolescent
Child-focused —> Parenting Style
parenting Confident parenting
\ J C L J

social
suppon

Figure 2b. Intergenerational Adolescent Parenting Model B

35

Social support may be particularly relevant to outcomes of autonomy; however,
little research has specifically examined the link between these variables. In the case of
an individual with compromised autonomy due to over-controlling parents, social
support (especially of the nondirective type) may provide a corrective experience. In
fact, employing a consistent, corrective therapeutic relationship in order to foster healthy
autonomy (that has been otherwise thwarted in formative relationships) is a fundamental
premise of psychotherapy (McCartney, 1987). It seems, however, that the relationship
between support and autonomy would likely vary depending on the type of support given
and the type of autonomy to be effected. For example, among adolescents with chronic
illness and disability, family and peer support have served to promote autonomy
(probably of the functional and emotional types), allowing these teens to successfully
negotiate the issues of puberty in the face of chronic problems that disrupt functional and
emotional independence (Blum, 1992). On the other hand, more directive types of
support (e. g., guidance and informational) may be detrimental to an individual’s
conflictual autonomy in that too much advice or guidance may undermine an
adolescent’s growing efforts to make independent decisions, and may therefore
exacerbate internal conflict or dissonance for the adolescent.

In addition to the relationship between social support and autonomy, the effect of
social support on self-esteem may also be especially pertinent to adolescent populations
(e. g, Hoffman, Levy-Schiff, & Ushpiz, 1993; Richter, Brown, & Mott, 1991). In one
study, maternal support had a strong positive effect on adolescents’ self—esteem; peer
support was also positively influential, particularly in the absence of maternal support
(Hoffman, Ushpiz, & Levy-Shiff, 1988). Another study, examining the impact of
informal, formal, and societal support systems on the mental health of African American
adolescent mothers (most of whom were single), demonstrated that both lay and
professional supports were important for subjects’ psychological well-being, especially

self-esteem (Thompson & Peebles-Wilkins, 1992). A variety of supportive interventions

36

with teenage mothers including maternity homes (Koniak-Griffin, 1988), special schools
(Bogat et al., 1993), mentoring projects (Dawson, van Doominck, & Robinson, 1989),
and support groups (Dunst, Vance, & Cooper, 1986) have therefore become increasingly

popular, and have aimed to bolster participants’ self-esteem (Dunst et al., 1986).

Path B: Stress-Buffering Effects Of Support On Adolescent Development and
was

As an alternative to these direct effects of social support, other studies provide
empirical evidence for the stress-moderating model; the availability of support buffers
the experience of stress inflicted by multiple life changes from complications of
pregnancy, labor, and delivery (N uckolls, Cassell, & Kaplan, 1972), as well as difficult
child-rearing situations (Minde et al., 1980). Not only is adolescent pregnancy
considered a stressful event (Coddington, 1972; Garcia et al., 1987), it is also an event
whose harmful consequences on an individual’s well-being might be buffered by
supportive relationships. For instance, mothers who were unmarried and were without
support from their baby’s father made more stressful appraisals of pregnancy (Helper,
Cohen, Beitenman, & Eaton, 1968). As stated previously, adolescent mothers may be
subject to a variety of other crises besides the transition to pregnancy (e. g., the transition
to adolescence and school transition). Social support has been shown to buffer the direct
impact of such stressors on self-esteem and personal competence (Fennel, 1991). For
parenting adolescents, satisfaction with social support was a major predictor of overall
stress and stress stemming from autonomy (Pasley, Langfield, & Kreutzer, 1993).
Furthermore, another study examining the role of psychosocial assets (these include
social support as well as other assets) in buffering stressful life events for married, first-
tirne mothers, demonstrated that possessing assets had no benefit for those experiencing
low levels of stress, and women who had high stress and low assets had far worse
outcomes than those who reported high levels of psychosocial assets (Nuckolls, Cassel,

& Kaplan, 1972). Garbarino and Sherman (1980) have suggested that each of four

37

sources of support, which include the father or spouse, the family of origin, the peer
group, and community agencies (e. g., providers of medical, religious, and social
services), mediate the multiple, regularly occurring stresses commonly associated with
parenting. Hence, it appears that social support may occur in a variety of types or forms,
and may have multiple modes of influence on the ultimate outcomes for adolescent
mothers and their offspring.

Path C: Interaction of Social Support and First Generation Parenting

A third possible intervention point is delineated by Path C: social support may
mediate the effects of first generation child-rearing style on the adolescent’s parenting
style (see Figures 2a and 2b). An adolescent mother may learn positive child-rearing
techniques and attitudes via advice and information, as well as role-modeling, from
sources other than her mother or female guardian (Charbonneau & Kaplan, 1989).
Rokeach (1985) found that individuals who compare their values and behaviors with the
different ones of someone else tend to change their values and behavior.

In particular, social support may have mediating effects on the way teens
internalize two specific parenting attitudes or styles passed down from their mothers:
self-focused gratifications and over-control. Although teens with over-controlling or
self-focused parents might naturally emulate these powerful influences, the presence of
other supportive relationships (especially if these are non-domineering and reciprocal)
may allow a teen to experience other sources of control and gratification, and thus make
it less likely that they will become over—controlling and self—focused themselves.

Moreover, adolescents whose parents were over-controlling or self-focused
tended to be emotionally suppressed to meet the parents’ needs for companionship,
nurturing, and affirmation (Burkett, 1991). The social development of parentified
children is therefore often compromised in regard to their future adult relationships as
well as their parenting behaviors (Maccoby, 1980; Sroufe, Jacobvitz, Mangelsdorf,

DeAngelo, & Ward, 1985). Social support may correct an adolescent’s inability to form

38

healthy, reciprocal relationships due to previous boundary diffusions precipitated by
over-controlling or self-focused parents.
Path D: Interaction of Social Support and Adolescent Development and Adjustment

A final path (see path D in Figures 2a and 2b) that describes the possible
mediating role that social support plays in the relationship between adolescents’
intraindividual status and their parenting attitudes or behavior must also be speculated.
That is, social support may mitigate or enhance the adolescent’s self-esteem or autonomy
in order to effect positively their parenting attitudes or behavior. While no studies to
date have explicitly examined this path, several studies present data that lend support to
this hypothesis. For example, the support provided to adolescent mothers via other
individuals (not community services) decreases their stress and enhances their self-
esteem and coping style (Colletta & Lee, 1983; Colletta, Lee, & Gregg, 1981). A recent
study by Lamborn and Steinberg (1993) compared adjustment scores among teens who
differed in both self-perceptions of autonomy and social support. Subjects high in
autonomy but low in relationship support had problematic adjustment profiles, whereas,
those with both high autonomy and support reported more internal distress and behavior
problems than those without, but showed a greater level of psychosocial development
and academic competence than their peers. Similarly, greater satisfaction with one’s
social resources and higher self-esteem were associated with fewer psychosocial
problems among adolescents completing a chemical dependency treatment (Richter,
Brown, & Mott, 1991). Research on low-income mothers substantiates this pattern in
that women with more instrumental assistance reported less depressive symptoms and a
greater sense of control and mastery (Belle, 1981). Emotional support, on the other
hand, may enhance an individual’s self-esteem and sense of self-efficacy and self-
autonomy, which, in turn, may enable her to access and employ adaptive COping
strategies that lead to more confident and child-focused parenting attitudes. Ostensibly,

an increase in these types of psychological resources (especially self-esteem and

39

autonomy) through the provision of supports, would serve to meet a parent’s own needs
and thus increase parenting confidence and enable child-focused sensitivity.

As an alternative to the explanation that support enhances psychological resources
to effect parenting, the reverse may also be true: psychological resources may enhance a
person’s ability to procure or utilize support that may ultimately foster healthy parenting.
To wit, individual’s with higher self-esteem, self-efficacy, and self-autonomy, may be
more able to access and employ support resources that lead to more confident and child-
focused parenting attitudes. A study (Giblin, Poland, & Sachs, 1987) assessing the
influence of social support on maternal attitudes and behaviors in third-trimester
adolescent women indicated that pleasure and confidence with pregnancy was positively
associated with the receipt of assistance from the adolescent’s mother as well as
favorable opinions of friends; high self-esteem was associated with attendance at
postpartum clinic visits. This study supports the notion that teen parents with higher
levels of self-esteem, compared with those that are less self-assured, may be more apt to
seek out relationships and better able to utilize these supports in order to bolster their
parenting confidence. Similarly, teens with greater conflictual autonomy may be less
ambivalent about seeking help and companionship that may help curb self-focused
parenting tendencies. The current model does not test these alternative interaction
explanations.

The Current Study and Hypotheses

The present study represents an effort to integrate research on social support from
the clinical-community literature with the extant developmental psychopathology
literature in order to delineate a more comprehensive model of adolescent parenting
antecedents and determinants. The multifaceted processes that determine whether
parenting is adaptive or not must be represented by an ecological model that takes into
account the personality and developmental history of adolescent parents, as well as the

social mediators of these variables. Poor parenting outcomes occur only when either

4O

transient or chronic risk factors outweigh compensatory influences that are at work in an
adolescent parent’s life. To date, primarily descriptive, univariate methodologies have
been employed to examine the impact of first generation characteristics on adolescent
parenting and child outcomes. These methodologies have focused on restrictive, Bi-
variable studies of a complex and dynamic system.

In the current study, the intergenerational, developmental parenting and social
support models, reflected by Figures 2a and 2b, were tested via path analysis. The
proposed heuristic schema was an attempt to approximate a more precise and appropriate
representation of teenage parenting. It stands in contrast to adult models of parenting
(Belsky, 1984) whose constructs such as work and marital satisfaction, are not germane
to most teenage parents. Instead, the constructs of adolescent development, adjustment,
and social support that are represented by the present model have particular relevance for
teen mothers who must assume adult responsibilities prematurely. Furthermore, because
much of the extant literature on the family background of teen mothers is based on
information gleaned from single source respondents (i.e., only teens and not their
mothers), it is not certain whether the relationships between parenting variables described
thus far transcend generational lines. Studies where teens are asked to describe their
parents’ behavior may actually show that teen outcomes correlated more with
confounded or biased perspectives on their parents, rather than with the actual attitudes
and behavior of their parents. Therefore, this study conducted primary source interviews
with the parents of adolescent parents as well as with the adolescents themselves. This
provides mutually independent and unbiased data that has been virtually nonexistent in
the literature.

Although some might argue that it would be preferable to use behavioral
methodologies, rather than self-report or interview data, to observe actual parent-child
relations, in recent years, researchers have made the strong argument that self-report of

parental cognitions is an “important data source for both theory construction and clinical

41
assessment” (Abidin, 1992, p. 411). Those devaluing self—report and personality
measures have largely based their skepticism on research of the 1960’s and 1970’s that
failed to demonstrate significant and substantial correlations between global attributes
and specific behaviors. More current studies demonstrate that narrowly-focused
personality measures consisting of items that are directly associated with a specific belief
system can predict and help define the determinants of parenting behaviors (Abidin,
1992; Siegel, 1985). Moreover, data stemming from specific and sensitive assessment of
parenting belief systems have been shown to predict real, observed parenting behavior
(Kochanska, Kuczynski, & Radke-Yarrow, 1989).

Another noteworthy aspect of this study is its retrospective design. It would be
preferable to observe parent-adolescent relations prior to the adolescent’s delivery of her
child, and to follow the adolescent prospectively as she delivers and rears her children.
But because such an approach is costly, it is warranted only after this pilot research has
been accomplished.

In the current project, the intergenerational model of family influence and
parenting was tested by interviewing both first generation and second generation parents
(see Figures 2a and 2b). It was expected that the child-rearing styles and attitudes
possessed by parents of adolescents (first generation) would be associated with
adolescent autonomy, and self-esteem (second generation outcomes), as well as factors
considered to be strong indices of adolescent parenting competence or incompetence (and
third generation outcomes), such as parenting attitudes and behaviors, and maternal self-
efficacy beliefs (Flynn, 1979; Reis & Herz, 1987; Rokeach, 1985; Schaefer, 1991; Teti &
Gelfand, 1991).

Two versions of the proposed path model were tested. In Model A (see Figure 3),
first generation over-controlling style was expected to be linked directly with conflictual

autonomy and self-focused parenting. It was expected that conflictual autonomy would

1st Generation

Parent of Adolescent

42

2nd Generation

Adolescent

Development and Outcomes

Conflictual autonomy

 

 

Parenting Style

Over-controlling
parenting style

 

 

l

Adolescent

—’ Parenting Style

Self-focused
( parenting

 

 

 

Figure 3. Parenting Model A

43

predict self—focused parenting. A direct link between stress and conflictual autonomy
was also hypothesized.

In Model B, (see Figure 4), first generation child-focused parenting was expected
to predict second generation confident parenting and self-esteem. It was hypothesized
that the latter would also be linked to confidence in parenting. Finally, stress was
expected to predict self-esteem negatively.

For each of these models, it was predicted that social support would have four
separate, main and interaction effects on adolescent outcome and parenting variables (see
Figures 2a and 2b). In particular, social support was expected to have a positive, main
effect and stress-buffering effect on adolescent development and outcomes (self-esteem
and conflictual autonomy). It was also expected that social support would interact with
adolescent development and outcomes to effect positively adolescent parenting (self-
focused and confident parenting). Finally, social support would interact with first
generation parenting styles (over-controlling and self-focused parenting) to impact
positively adolescent parenting.

Because only primary source indices of first generation parenting were used in
the path model (i.e, control and gratifications measures obtained from direct interviews
with first generation mothers), the measure differentiating first generation authoritarian,
authoritative, and permissive parenting styles based on teen reports were not included in
the model to be tested. However, in a separate analysis, it was expected that authoritative
parenting would be most highly related to the positive adolescent outcomes of high self-
esteem and conflictual autonomy; authoritarian style was expected to be negatively

correlated with these same outcomes.

1st Generation

Parent of Adolescent

2nd Generation

Adolescent

Development and Outcomes

Self-Esteem

 

 

Parenting Style

Child-focused
parenting style

 

 

l

Adolescent

—> Parenting Style

Confident
\ parenting

 

 

 

Figure 4. Parenting Model B

METHOD

Participants

The participants were 86 pairs of expectant or new mothers, ranging from 13-18
years of age (Mean = 16.7, Median = 17), and their mothers or female guardians. All of
the expectant mothers were students enrolled in one of two alternative education
programs for pregnant teens during the academic year in which they were due to deliver.
Seventy-two pairs of subjects were obtained from an alternative education program in
which the Program Coordinator interviewed all incoming students. The research project
was explained to each of them and they were invited to participate. Those who indicated
an interest in participating and met project criteria for eligibility (e. g., first time mothers
in their first trimester of pregnancy, with female guardian willing to participate) were
asked to sign a consent form and complete between one and three in-person interviews.
Their female guardians were asked to complete a phone interview. Approximately 80%
of the program attendees were eligible to participate, and of these 71% agreed to
participate. Of those who did not agree to participate, the reasons for not participating
included lack of interest and ineligibility based upon having had previous children.

Fifteen more subjects were gained from a second alternative education program
for teen mothers. The program was announced to students at a school meeting by its
Program Director. Again, eligible students who were interested were asked to sign a
letter of consent and were paid five dollars following their in-person interviews. Of the
100 program attendees, 21 were eligible and agreed to participate; of these 15 interviews
were completed. Four were absent from school the day of the interview and two did not

have female guardians who could be reached by phone.

45

46

Approximately two-thirds of all the program attendees were involved in the
W.I.C. Program and 55% received ADC. Fifty-one percent were African American,
34% were Caucasian, and 14% were Hispanic. Both alternative education programs
were voluntary and available to young women throughout the surrounding school district.
Approximately 100 women were served by each program per year.

Measures
W

The parenting style and attitudes of the mothers or female guardians of the
adolescents was assessed according to one self-report measure (Family Experiences
Questionnaire; FEQ; Frank, Jacobson, & Hole, 1986) and one measure completed by the
adolescents (the Parental Authority Questionnaire; PAQ; Buri, 1989) described below.

Parenting Attitudes and Beliefs. The Gratifications scale of the Family
Experiences Questionnaire (FEQ, Frank, Jacobson, & Hole, 1986) assesses self- versus
child-focused gratifications, using a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly
disagree to 4 = strongly agree. Parents at the low end of this 22-item scale (scores of 1 or
2) perceived their children as reflections of themselves (e.g,, “When she is good, I am
good; when she is bad, I am ba ”) and used their children to fulfill narcissistic needs for
love, self-esteem, or power. Parents scoring at the high end of the scale appreciated their
child’s qualities more independently of their own involvement. Alphas from previous
research range from .72 to .86 (Frank et al.,1986). For the present sample, the internal
consistency 01’s of the self- and child-focused subscales of the FEQ were .55 and .61
respectively. See Appendix A.

The Control Scale of the FEQ assessed the level of control parents felt they had in
parenting. Parents at the high end of the Control scale were often unsuccessful in what
they described as a struggle to maintain control over themselves and their children. In
previous studies, some parents who scored on this end of the continuum also described

themselves as harsh disciplinarians or overprotective. In contrast, parents at the lower

47

end of the scale described a more balanced perspective between discipline and love; these
parents could recognize and accept that certain situations were out of their control. For
the present sample, the internal consistency of this subscale was or = .67.

Parental Authority Style. The Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ; Buri,
1989) was administered to adolescent mothers to assess retrospective perceptions of their
parents in the family of origin. Adolescents who lived in different households during
childhood answered according to their perceptions of the person whom they regarded as
their maternal surrogate; in all cases these were primary caretakers. The scale consists of
10 permissive, 10 authoritarian, and 10 authoritative statements, in a 5-point Likert
format, based on Baumrind’s (1967, 1971) delineation of these authority styles. The
items are measured on a 5-point scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.

Test-retest reliabilities and coefficient oc’s in previous studies have ranged from
.77 to .92 and .74 to .95, respectively, (Buri, 1989). The FAQ was validated using 21
professionals in education and the social sciences, who indicated whether they felt each
item was clearly indicative of one of the three parenting styles. Items were only retained
if more than 95% of the judges agreed. Buri, Louiselle, Misukanis, and Mueller (1988)
found evidence of criterion—related validity: the three parenting styles predicted both
adolescent self-esteem and parental nurturance. This measure has adequate discriminant
validity; Buri found that authoritarianism was inversely related to permissiveness and
authoritativeness, while permissiveness was not significantly related to authoritativeness.
Reliability coefficients for the subscales in this study were Authoritativeness (on = .75),
Authoritarianism (CL = .75), and Permissiveness (CL = .58). See Appendix B.
Second Generation Constructs

In addition to the FEQ self-focused and child-focused subscales that are described
above (second generation 0t’s were both .74), adolescent mothers were administered
demographic, parenting competence, self-esteem, autonomy, stress, and social support

measures .

48

Demographics. Information regarding the participants’ ethnicity and
socioeconomic status, was gathered using their school records, as well as the
Demographics Form in Appendix C.

Parent’s Self-Perception of Competence. The Parenting Confidence scale of the
FEQ was used to assess the adolescent mother’s confidence regarding personal abilities
within the parenting role (rated on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly
disagree to 4 = strongly agree). This 15-item scale assesses the extent to which the
parent feels she is doing a good job as a caretaker, is able to handle difficulties that arise,
and is fostering the positive development of the child. Sample items include, “I have the
knowledge I need to be a good parent,” “When there is a crisis with the children, I know
that I will do what needs to be done”). The internal consistency has been estimated at CL
= .85 (Frank, et al., 1986). For the present sample, the reliability coefficient of this
subscale of the FEQ was CL = .68. See Appendix A.

Self-Esteem. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) was employed
to assess the adolescent’s general self-esteem. This scale is comprised of 10 items
assessing self-worth and self-acceptance on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). A sample item is “I feel I have a number of good
qualities.” In another study of adolescent mothers (Brookins, 1990), the scale had an
internal consistency of on = .81. Similarly, the scale had an internal consistency of OL =
.81 in the present study. See Appendix D.

Adolescent Autonomy. The Psychological Separation Inventory (PSI; Hoffman,
1984) is comprised of four scales in a Likert format (ranging from 0 = not at all true of
me to 4 = very true of me): emotional independence (“After being with my mother for a
vacation I find it hard to leave her”), conflictual independence (“I feel like I am
constantly at war with my mother”), functional independence (e. g., “My mother’s wishes
have influenced my selection of friends”), and attitudinal independence (“My beliefs

regarding how to raise children are similar to my mother’s”). These four factors

49

theoretically underlie the construct of psychological separation. Because only the first
two scales were significantly related to personal adjustment (Hoffman, 1984), the latter
two were not analyzed for this study. In previous studies, Cronbach’s or for the four
subscales ranged from .84 and .92 (Hoffman, 1984). Cronbach’s oz for the relevant
scales in the present study were: conflictual autonomy (.88) and emotional autonomy
(.88). See Appendix E.

Stress. The Daily Hassles Scale (Kanner, Coyne, Schaefer, & Lazarus, 1980), in
modified form, served as a 24-item chronic stress index. In order to establish content
equivalence (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955), only those items germane to adolescents in our
population were included. Three researchers in the current project rated each item in the
scale as relevant, irrelevant, or questionably relevant; those items rated as “irrelevant” by
a single evaluator or by two or more evaluators as “questionably relevant” were
eliminated. The scale inquires, “How much of a hassle has each item been for you
during the past month” (e. g., “meeting deadlines or goals at work or school,” “having
enough money for necessities”). Respondents rate the severity of all hassles that
occurred in the past month (1 = none or not applicable, 2 = somewhat, 3 = moderate, 4 =
a great deal). For each respondent, three summary scores were generated: (1) frequency-
-a count of the number of checked items; (2) cumulated severity--the sum of the severity
ratings; and (3) intensity--the cumulated severity divided by the frequency (i.e., the
weighted sum of hassles endorsed divided by number of hassles endorsed). The internal
reliability CL of the scale was .84 in the current sample. See Appendix F.

Social Support. The Inventory of Socially Supportive Behaviors (ISSB; Barrera,
Sandler, & Ramsay, 1981), a specific, functional support scale, was used to measure
receipt of social support. In the development of the ISSB, social support provisions were
thought to include activities directed at assisting others in sharing tasks, mastering
emotional distress, giving advice, teaching skills, and offering material aid. Based on

two confirmatory factor analyses, these activities are encapsulated by three broader

50

factors: Tangible Assistance, Directive Guidance, and N on-directive (or Emotional)
Support (McCormick, Siegert, & Walkey, 1987;Wa1key, Siegert, McCormick, & Taylor,
1987). In this 40-item, 5-point Likert scale (ranges from “not at all” to “about every
day”), respondents report the frequency of occurrence in the past month of such support
as “having had someone provide you with information to help you understand your
situation.” The instrument has demonstrated good test-retest reliability (ranging from .80
to .82) and high internal consistency (ranging from .80 to .93) in previous studies

(W alkey, Siegert, McCormick, & Taylor, 1987). With the present sample, the Ot’s for the
subscales were: non-directive support (.89); tangible assistance (.66); and directive
guidance (.80) . See Appendix G.

Items for each of these subscales were largely based on Gottlieb’s (1978)
content analysis of interviews with single mothers. Thus, a major advantage of the ISSB
is that it may help to assess categories or types of supportive behaviors that are relevant
to adolescent mothers, rather than global constructs. Ultimately, it differentiates the
utility of certain forms of support for a given population coping with specific stressors.

Procedure

Eighty-six participants were recruited from two alternative education programs
for pregnant teens in Central Michigan. At the first site, each teen mother and her legal
guardian was given an explanation (in written and oral form--See Appendix H) of the
research project at the time of program entry. When the project was clearly understood
by all involved, an invitation to participate and consent form were offered for signature
to the participants and the legal guardians. See Appendix 1. Participation from teens at
the second site was obtained when an announcement of the research project was made
during the school year and interested teens signed the consent form (legal guardians
indicated their consent by completing the parent interview). After consent had been
obtained from students and legal guardians, both parties were individually administered

an interview by trained research assistants. Interviews with students were conducted in

51

person and those with mothers or legal guardians were conducted in a twenty-minute

phone interview. Students were paid $5 for their participation in this interview.

RESULTS
Scale Development

Reliability coefficients for first generation and second generation measures used
in the present study were all in acceptable range; specific a’s were reported in the
Methods section. Ethnic differences could not be analyzed due to the limited sample size
and largely unequal proportion of African Americans in the sample as compared to other
ethnic groups.

Univariate Comparisons

Preliminary analyses revealed several significant relationships between variables.
These relationships appear in Table 1. As expected, authoritative parenting style
(AUTIVEl) had a significant positive relationship with conflictual autonomy (CAUTz; r
= .54, p < .01), whereas authoritarian parenting style (AUTIANl) was negatively
correlated with it (r = -.54, p < .01). Authoritative style among parents of teens was also
positively associated with three other indices of second generation parenting success:
more confident perceptions of parenting competence (CFEQz; r = .23, p < .05), less self-
focused parenting (SFEQZ; r = -.29, p < .01), and less stress (STRESSz; r = -.33, p < .01).
Teens who described their parents as more authoritative and less authoritarian were more
likely to evince more conflict independence, lower stress, and more confident and child—
focused parenting attitudes. Out of the three parenting styles, only permissive parenting
(PERMISl) was significantly related to self-esteem (SE2; r = —.29, p < .01). Adolescents
with more permissive parents had lower self-esteem.

Of the three styles of social support (nondirective or emotional support, tangible
assistance, and guidance support), only directive guidance support (GUIDANCE2) had a
significant relationship with both self-esteem (SE2; r = .26, p < .01) and conflictual

autonomy (CAUTz; r = -.31, p < .01). Individuals who reported greater receipt of

52

5ng Box...

 

53

 

 

Jazmmm .3

~mED< .2

~Z§D< .Q

«MAEOZAC. A ~

«POEM .2

NmUZ<BDO .m

CA NmmmMPm .w

mod CA NED/mm .N.

fl md- fivd- o4 «.520 .o

3 .9. mod- mod o; Nmm .m

Nod- shad ammd- wH .o «Omnm .v

nmmd- 86. 9.0 nmmd «GEO .m

wod mod- bod ncmd 5a .m

36 M26 mead- ammd 5&0 A
mmmmfibm NED/mm NHD<U Nm—m

 

 

Ame own; no unawoq 39 an" Z define—5w come: no macaw—ebony

A flash.

 

54

 

 

 

 

coumcoaow “we draw mausouwm gamuaom ”GE/Ema aoumcoeow 9503 $8883.. Baotoam ”Nubia-m
coumcoaow “ma .2»: @5559 03339.53. :m-EHD/w mousse-cw 28on $8883. anaaov ”NED/xv
Sufism use .2? weaved BEES? ”23.5.... 832% egos .aoswEEm amm
congeaow 988m .tommsm EAL-ESS- Hmm—AEOEH conscocow vacuum .wcucobfi BEBE-how HmOmmm
comamoocow vacuum .tommzm Ecouoam ”NHOEm comamcoaow vacuum .waucoamm Ecuadou ”mOmmU
mousse—ow vacuum 6235. oogumzwummUH/ZQDO coufiocow “m5 .wqucobwm 8308-230 ”HOE
noufioaow 988m .mmobm ”mmmmdbm noumcocow “m5 .wEEoBm 65:8-ch :OmEO
a Baa-H 8 game-H
Saves Save.
CA 5H§mm .3
God o4 flap-De. .2
vod- ammd- oA _Z<Eb< .2
mod- «mad no.0- o; NmABOZ<H .:
cod m fl .o E .o- fl ed 0; NHOEm .2
S .0. mod- mod need good o4 Sofia—50 .0
mod nmmd- ammd mod- vod Ed- Nmmmfim .w
aod awmd- pmmd «mad- chad- mod- Nab/4m .5
26 find nemd- cod 3.0- £md- 3.35 .o
Dowd- S .o No.0- mg .o cod nomd Nmm .m
Ed powd- 3 .o 2 6- Bd- NH .o Now-.5 .v
cod «mad A Md mod- mod- cod NOmEO .m
mod 2 .o mod- «mad omd 2 .0 5E .m
mod. 2 .o- nemd wed med- cod amum—n5 a
ngmmm fimED/w ~Z<HHD< mmqmflOZxfi. NHOEm mmUZ<eDO

 

APEGUV .H flash.

 

55

guidance support had higher self-esteem and less conflict independence. Emotional
support (EMOTz), unexpectedly, had no significant relationship to self-esteem or
conflictual autonomy and a significant negative relationship to emotional autonomy
(EAUTz; r = -.27, p < .01). Tangible support (TANGIBLEz) also had a significant
negative relationship with emotional autonomy (EAUTz; r = -.22, p < .05). Adolescents
who indicated greater receipt of emotional and tangible support also evinced less
emotional autonomy.

First generation over-controlling parenting style (OFEQl) was significantly
correlated with second generation conflictual autonomy (CAUTz; r = -.24, p < .05) and
self-focused parenting (SFEQz; r = .37, p < .01). Interestingly, first generation over—
controlling parenting style was also positively correlated with self-esteem (SE2) and
parenting confidence (CFEQz) (r = .25, p < .01 and r = .31, p < .01, respectively). In
other words, teens with more controlling parents reported less conflictual autonomy and
a tendency to be self—focused themselves in their parenting attitudes. However, these
same teens reported higher self-esteem and more confident parenting attitudes.

First generation child-focused parenting (KFEQI) was related to the teen’s self-
esteem (SE2; r = .36, p < .01) and confident parenting (CFEQ2; r = .28, p < .01). Parents
who indicated more child-focused gratification had adolescent daughters with more self-
esteem and more confident parenting attitudes themselves. Second generation self-
esteem and parenting confidence were also related (r = .53, p < .01). Those teens with
higher self-esteem also had more positive self-perceptions of their parenting competence.
The teen’s conflictual autonomy (CAUTZ) was significantly related to her self-focused
parenting (SFEQ2; r = -.39, p < .01). Adolescents who indicated less freedom from
conflict in their relationships with their parents tended to derive gratification from
parenting their offspring by meeting self-focused needs. See Table 2 for means and

standard deviations of these variables.

Table 2.

Means and Standard Deviations of Major Variables. N=86.

56

(See Table 1 for definitions of variables.)

 

 

 

 

 

Mean SD.
1. OFEQr 2.443 .353
2. KFEQI 3.247 .380
3. CFEQz 2.898 .351
4. SFEQz 2.835 .296
S. SE2 3.098 .412
6. CAUT2 3.858 .765
7. EAUT2 3.042 .923
8. STRE882 2.587 .378
9. GUIDANCEz 2.711 .802
10. EMOT2 3.228 .894
11. TANGIBLE2 2.852 .779
12. AUTIANr 3.155 .697
13-AUTTVE1 3.738 .616
14. PERMIS1 2.704 .504

 

SD. = standard deviation

 

57

Simple Multivariate Analyses

Because guidance support was the only type of support that had a significant
relationship with other variables of interest (i.e., self-esteem and conflictual autonomy),
it was subsequently used in the following analyses. Based on the proposed path models,
six hierarchical multiple regressions were conducted to ascertain the effects of social
support in the positions depicted in Figures 2a and 2b. A “main effect” for social support
was indicated by significant effects for the GUIDANCEZ term, whereas, a “mediating or
buffering” effect was evidenced by significant effects for the interaction terms.
Interaction terms were coded by taking the product of deviation scores of the two
interacting variables which has an equivalent effect as standardizing raw scores when
using the simple product method. The paths which yielded either main or interaction
effects were subsequently included in the path analyses for each of the two versions of
the heuristic model (refer to Figures 2a and 2b) tested with the least squares path analysis
program, PATH--an updated version of the original FORTRAN program, PACKAGE,
by Hunter (Hunter & Cohen, 1969). See Tables 3 and 4 for the regression analyses
findings.

In order to test Paths A and B of Model A, conflictual autonomy (CAUTz) was
made the dependent variable, stress (STRESSZ) was entered as the first independent
variable, guidance support (GUIDANCEz) was entered next, and GUIDANCE; x
STRESSz was entered last in a hierarchical regression. Stress (AR2 = .26, AF = 23.29, p
< .01) and guidance support ( AR2 = .10, AF = 9.81, p < .01) both strongly predicted
conflictual autonomy, as did the interaction of guidance support and stress (AR2 = .07,
AF = 7.62, p < .01). Guidance social support directly affects conflict independence and
has a negative stress-buffering effect on conflict independence. The regression lines for
these interactions appear in Figure 5.

Path C of Model A was tested by using self-focused parenting (SFEQz) as the

dependent variable, and entering first generation over-controlling parenting (OFEQ1),

58

soumcoaow vacuum .tommsm oo§E=O ”$572930
noufioqom 288m .385 ”mmmmMH-m

8923me 9803 $8883. Egon-Eco “mm-DSO
couaoocow vacuum .wEEonm tangy-bow ”NO-”Em
codumuonow “Em GEE-diam Bung-H30 ”Adm—mo

”m 033. 8 boomed

Save 3 u z

 

 

 

 

 

omdl Ed 05o aim $572930 x NED/NU

mo. T mod Am; $.N 3072930 x “OED
a $2 m4 m

Amommmv waucobwm @8508.th 68.0.2034

S. T 8.0 «.85 Rf Eugene x «Ema-S

o2 Ed 2? 8.2 amen/29:0

mNd omd mafimm mm.mm mmmm—MHm
a $2 m< m

 

QED/«UV 38:832. “cameo 2882034

 

.< .252 E Boots 225.5 368 88 3 £868ch 33:32
.m «Emu.

59

coumuocow 9808 £255 023250 “mmUH/ZQHDO
aoufioaow 258m 58% “mmmmMHm

cormuocow 988m .Eooumofiom “Nmm
coufiocow vacuum .mcuaoamm Eocflcou ”NOmmU
sonauocow “mum @350me 3308-230 :OanH

”H 2an 8 uaowoq

Sovmg owuz

 

 

 

 

 

mmd cod bod awh mmUZ<eDO x Nmm
No. HI cod omd ovd «mg/2950 x #05
a S2 ”2 m
AmOmmUv waucobwm amoumcou “58222

m3: :3 9: w? Nmoz<eaw x Nmmmmem

z: 8.0 3: 5m $072930

86 3d 3m 3m Nmmmfim
a $2 "2 m

 

@va EooummEEm Eoomofiouxw

m 1:82 E 38%» 223.5 368 38 3 286852 23:52
.9 @359

60

Figure 5. Model A, Path B

Conflictual Autonomy

10

 

 

 

 

 

 

l I l l i L l l l 1 l

 

 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0
Stress

 

61

GUIDANCE2 next, and the product of these two terms (OFEQ1 x GUIDANCE2) last.
The interaction effect (test of Path C) was close to significant (AR2 = .03, AF = 1.31, p <
.054). In order to illustrate the trend see Figure 6 for the plot of regression lines.

To test Path D of Model A, SFEQ2 was entered as the dependent variable,
whereas CAUT2 was entered as the first independent variable, GUIDANCE2 was entered
next, and CAUT2 x GUIDANCE2 was entered last. Findings indicated that the interaction
effect was nonsignificant.

In the test of Paths A and B for Model B, self-esteem (SE2) was the dependent
variable, STRESS2 was entered as the first variable, GUIDANCE2 was entered next, and
the product of these two terms (STRESS2 x GUIDANCE2) was entered last in the
hierarchical regression. The direct effect of social support was significant (AR2 = .07,
AF = 7.46, p < .01), but the interaction effect was not. Individuals with greater social
support were more likely to evince confident parenting.

To test Path C for Model B, the teen’s confident parenting (CFEQ2) was used as
the dependent variable, whereas child-focused parenting (KFEQl) was entered as the first
independent variable, GUIDANCE2 was entered second, and KFEQ1 x GUIDANCE2
was entered last. Findings revealed that the interaction effect was not significant.

Path D for Model B was tested by using the dependent variable CFEQ2, and
entering GUIDANCE2 as the first independent variable, SE2 next, and the interaction of
SE2 x GUIDANCE2 last. The interaction effect of SE2 x GUIDANCE2 (Path D) was
nonsignificant.

Path Analyses

The proposed models were tested using the techniques of path analysis outlined
by Hunter and Gerbing (1982). Path analysis is a procedure for systematically combining
the use of partial and multiple correlation to study the causal relations among a set of

variables. Typically, if a model is causal and recursive (also called “hierarchical” or

62

Figure 6. Model A, Path C

Self-focused Parenting

 

 

6
, +180
5 ~ .. ' ' Mei?
----------------- 480
4 _ ,m' Ggigance” - ~-

 

l

l

,. ' ’° ...... support

1

 

l

 

 

 

O 1 2

1st Generation Over-controlling Parenting (OFEQo)

3

4

5

6

7

8

10

 

63

“unidirectional”) -- that is, if there are no circular causal chains or cycles in the model --
then path coefficients may be assigned to each linkage between variables in the model.
These coefficients are produced by applying ordinary least squares multiple regression to
the correlation matrix of all variables in the model; in effect, the path coefficients are
equivalent to regression weights. From this set of path coefficients, every correlation
between variables in the model can be predicted. The set of predicted correlations may
then be compared to the observed correlations as a test of the path model.

Computer routines, such as PACKAGE (Hunter & Cohen, 1969) and its more
user—friendly successor, PATH, assist in complex path analyses by automating the
process. Given a correlation matrix and an indicator list of direct linkages between
variables, PATH can estimate path coefficients using multiple regression, generate
reproduced correlations using the specified path model and the estimated path
coefficients, generate the errors or discrepancies between observed and reproduced
correlations, and provide a sampling error analysis. Degrees of freedom in path analysis
are calculated by subtracting the number of path coefficients, including exogenous
variables and errors, from the number of correlations.

In the path analyses of Models A and B, the measurement components of Models
A and B were addressed in the reliability analyses discussed in the previous section.
These models were intended to reflect relationships between the delineated variables for
all teen mothers in our sample; and so data from each of the ethnic groups were included
in the analyses (N = 86). One-way chi-square goodness of fit tests for the models were
conducted with the sampling error analysis using the reliabilities of the scales included in
the models. In this way, paths were corrected for attenuation. Although chi-square is a
one tailed test, the issue of tail direction is irrelevant in path analyses because chi-square
is used here as a test of model fit. The unidirectional paths within each model were input
to PATH as a list of variables and antecedents. PATH then employed this indicator list

to direct its regression routines, thereby producing a matrix of path coefficients reflecting

64

the directionality of each link. Afterwards, PATH was used to generate reproduced
correlation matrices which were then compared against the observed correlations for each
model. PATH provided approximate chi square tests of goodness of fit (a two-tailed test)
where non-significant chi squares indicated that there was no difference between the data
and the models. In other words, for each test, a non-significant chi square meant that the
data fit the proposed model. The models tested included the guidance support variable
only in positions that were proven significant by the multiple regression tests.

Model A

In Model A (see Figure 3), over-controlling parenting style had a direct
relationship with conflictual autonomy and self-focused parenting. Conflictual autonomy
was directly related to self-focused parenting, and stress had a direct relationship to
conflictual autonomy. Figure 7 presents Model A with path coefficients. A goodness of
fit test for the model was conducted with the sampling error analysis utilizing the
reliabilities of the measures used in the model. The overall computed chi square for this
model was 0.83 (df = 1). The obtained chi square was lower than the critical value
needed for significance (i.e. was non-significant), indicating that the data fit the proposed
model.

The overall computed chi square for Model A with social support in positions A
and B was 0.85 (df = 3, see Figure 8); thus, social support’s direct and stress-buffering
effects on conflictual autonomy were relevant to the proposed model A. The model
including social support in positions C and D were not tested because those paths were
not significant in the preliminary multiple regression analysis reported above.

M

In the second version of the parenting model (see Figure 4 for Model B), child-
focused parenting was significantly related to self-esteem and confident parenting. Self-
esteem and confident parenting had a direct relationship. Stress was directly related to

self-esteem. Figure 9 presents Model B with path coefficients. A goodness of fit test for

1st Generation

Parent of Adolescent

-.19

 

Parenting Style

Over-controlling
parenting style

 

Figure 7. Path coefficients of Parenting Model A

 

Development and Outcomes

65

2nd Generation

I -.49

Adolescent

Conflictual autonomy

 

.29

(

 

-32 l

Adolescent

Parenting Style

Self-focused
parenting

 

 

66

1st Generation 2nd Generation

Parent of Adolescent

 

 

Adolescent

Development and Outcomes
Conflictual autonomy

-32 l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

r r N
Parenting Style .29 Adolescent
Over-controlling . Parenting SWIG
parenting style Self-focused
( # ( parentigq J

 

 

Figure 8. Path coefficients of Model A
with Social Support in Positions A and B

1st Generation

Parent of Adolescent

0.38

 

Parenting Style

Child-focused
parenting style

 

 

Development and Outcomes

67

2nd Generation

+0.22

Adolescent

Self-Esteem

 

0.10

r

 

0.49;

Adolescent

Parenting Style

Confident
parenting

Figure 9. Path coefficients of Parenting Model B

 

68

the model was conducted with the sampling error analysis utilizing the reliabilities of the
scales included in the model. The overall computed chi square for this model was 0.68
(df = 1). The obtained chi square was lower than the critical value needed for
significance (i.e. was non-significant), indicating that the data fit the proposed model.
The overall computed chi square for Model B with social support in position A
was 0.83 (df = 2). The obtained chi square was much lower than the critical value
needed for significance, indicating that the data fit the proposed model. See Figure 10
for path coefficients of Model B with support in position A. The models with social
support in positions B, C, and D were not tested because preliminary multiple regression

analyses for these paths were nonsignificant as recorded above.

69

1st Generation 2nd Generation

Parent of Adolescent
social
0&2“ +221

A Adolescent
Development and Outcomes
Self-Esteem
0.34
0.49;
,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F F W
Parenting Style 0.1 O Adolescent
Child-focused —> Parenting Style
parenting style Confident
k J \ parenting #

 

 

Figure 10. Path coefficients of Model B
with Social Support in Position A

DISCUSSION

This study examined the mechanism of first generation parenting on second
generation outcomes in two separate parenting models. Two models based on an
intergenerational heuristic schema of family influence and parenting were tested by
interviewing both first generation and second generation parents. In Model A (Figure 3),
first generation over-controlling parenting style was directly related to conflictual
autonomy and self-focused parenting. Conflictual autonomy ultimately predicted self-
focused parenting, and a direct negative link between stress and conflictual autonomy
was confirmed. In Model B (Figure 4), first generation child-focused parenting predicted
second generation confident parenting and self-esteem. In addition, adolescents’ self—
esteem was also linked to their confidence in parenting. Finally, stress was found to
negatively influence self-esteem. These findings all confirmed the original research
hypotheses of this study.

A separate analysis using a second source or rater of first generation parenting
(teens themselves reported on the way they were parented) was useful in corroborating
the findings that teens who received the appropriate levels of control and warmth from
their parents were likely to exhibit healthier adolescent development. Authoritative
parenting proved to be most highly related to the positive adolescent outcomes of high
self—esteem and conflictual autonomy; and, as expected, authoritarian style was
negatively correlated with these same outcomes.

Besides first generation parenting influences, the receipt of social support
appeared to have an important, additive role in mediating adolescent parenting. Out of
three types of support, Tangible Assistance, Emotional (Nondirective) Support, and
Directive Guidance, the lattermost seemed to be most germane to the adolescent

outcomes of interest in this study. This form of support also exhibited an indirect impact

70

71

on preventing second generation self-focused parenting and on facilitating confident
parenting. For example, teen mothers with a combination of less conflictual autonomy or
self-esteem and less guidance support were more apt to report a tendency to be self-
focused in child-rearing gratifications or less confident about parenting competence.

Such consequences may be attributed not only to adolescents’ emotional immaturity and
low ego development, but also to deficits in their knowledge about child development
and general inexperience with childrearing.

Given this relationship between lack of knowledge and poor parenting, it is not
surprising that social support of the guidance and informational type has been especially
valued by adolescent mothers. In fact, when teen mothers in one study were queried as
to their sources of social support and their satisfaction with that support, 74 percent of
the respondents indicated that they sought parenting advice from some professional
source, as well as from their informal support contacts; furthermore, 75 percent reported
that they desired additional advice from parenting classes, organized neighborhood
groups, or from visiting public health nurses or other child development specialists
(Crockenberg, 1986).

Vukelich and Kliman (1985) have suggested that educational level, age, and type
of occupation affect both a mother’s expectations for infant development and the
resources she may use to obtain information. Adolescent mothers have been shown to
hold less realistic expectations and less optimal attitudes than do older mothers (Field,
Widmayer, Stringer, & Ignatoff, 1980; Reis, 1988). Their expectations in regard to the
cognitive and social abilities of their child’s development are particularly inaccurate,
compared to their understanding of other areas, such as motor and language abilities, and
basic health and nutrition needs (Epstein, 1979; Granger, 1981). Research has suggested
that those with less knowledge of child growth and development are more likely to
maintain inaccurate perceptions of child abilities, and, thus, choose harsh or abusive

disciplinary techniques and ineffective teaching approaches (Epstein, 1979; Showers &

72

Johnson, 1984). Inadequate knowledge has also been linked to poor mother-infant
interactions (Epstein, 1979). Oppel and Royston (1976) hypothesized that these deficits
in maternal interaction were due, in part, to the fact that the first generation (mothers of
these adolescent mothers) often assume the childrearing responsibilities.

Accordingly, many supportive interventions for adolescent mothers have been
predicated on the notion that supplying teens with knowledge and feedback about
parenting leads to positive outcomes for both mother and child (e. g., Dickinson &
Cudaback, 1992; Marsh & Wirick, 1991; Weinman, Schreiber, & Robinson, 1992).
Studies assessing these interventions have shown that provision of information or
guidance yields demonstrable effects on the parenting attitudes, beliefs, and practices of
adolescent mothers (e. g., Dickinson & Cudaback, 1992; Fulton, Murphy, & Anderson,
1991; Marsh & Wirick, 1991). Furthermore, greater knowledge of child development,
and more realistic parental expectations and child-rearing beliefs on the part of
adolescent parents have been positively associated with better coping behavior in their
young children (Stoiber & Houghton, 1993).

Interestingly, findings of the present study suggested that guidance support works
as a protective factor in certain instances and a negative predictor of outcomes in other
ways. Whereas most of the existing social support literature heralds the protective or
beneficial effects of social support, some studies of social support have also recognized
its possible negative outcomes (e.g., Barrera, Chassin, Rogosch, 1993; Rock, 1984). The
explanations for this negative association are varied and convincing.

To start, although the decreased well-being of individuals with low social support
are often attributed to limited opportunities to obtain help from others, those individuals
who lack supportive social structures might be paradoxically burdened with social ties, if
these ties are more problematic than helpful (e.g., Barrera, Chassin, & Rogosch, 1993;
Rook, 1984). Such a view corroborates the position of social exchange theorists who

have long emphasized that social interaction provides not only rewards but also adverse

73

consequences (Homans, 1974; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959), for instance, as a source of
stress due to occasional disputes, resentment, embarrassment, invasion of privacy, and
other negative consequences. In viewing the social support paradox from a different
perspective, several investigators have reported that marital support, when conflicted or
disharmonious, is associated with poor parent-infant attachment (Goldberg, 1982;
Solomon, 1982), maternal feeding incompetence (Pederson, 1982), the frequent use of
punishment and the infrequent use of democratic disciplinary strategies (Dielman,
Barton, & Cattell, 1977), and ultimately, antisocial, aggressive, or otherwise problematic
behavior among offspring (e.g., Johnson & Lobitz, 1974; Kimmel & Van der Veen,
1974; O’Leary & Emery, 1983).

In addition to support that is conflicted, “excessive” support can also have
deleterious effects (French, Rodgers, & Cobb, 1974). This effect of diminishing returns
is exemplified in several studies that found high levels of contact with social network
members to be related to lack of maternal warmth (Minturn & Lambert, 1964) and
nurturance (Weinraub & Wolf, 1983), and less praise and more control by mothers in a
structured teaching task (Jennings, Stagg, & Conners, 1985). These data all suggest the
existence of some optimal, but as yet unspecified, balance between support offered and
support desired. This balance, when mismatched, serves to undermine rather than
enhance parent’s well-being and competence.

In the context of intergenerational parenting Model A, social support affected
adolescent outcome and parenting variables via three specific mechanisms. First,
guidance support had a negative direct effect on conflictual autonomy. Unexpectedly,
adolescent mothers who received more guidance support also evidenced less conflictual
autonomy. There are several possible explanations for this finding. For example, it is
notable that individuals are not passive recipients of support provided to them by their
environment, but rather are active agents who secure varying levels of support as a

function of specific personal competencies or psychological characteristics. The works

74

of numerous authors (e. g., Felner, Farber, & Primavera, 1983; Heller & Swindle, 1983;
Liang & Bogat, 1994; Mitchell & Trickett, 1980) suggest that individuals must employ
their personal competencies to accrue and maintain supportive relationships; just as
deficiencies in social skills may result in compromised support, overly needy or
dependent individuals may acquire a surplus of support. To wit, individuals with certain
psychological dispositions are more likely than others to establish and maintain
supportive relationships. More specifically, individuals lacking in conflictual autonomy
are more dependent in relationships by definition and may therefore seek to meet their
needs through increased social support.

A second explanation for why guidance support had a negative direct effect on
conflict autonomy may be that more autonomous teen mothers are likely to have less of a
need to rely on others, and may even view the receipt of support as a threat to their
independence. Guidance support, because of its directive or impositional nature, may be
viewed as especially threatening to teens who see themselves as conflict autonomous,
whereas nondirective and emotional support and tangible support have less to do with
imposing one’s views or values, and may thus create less dissonance with teens who are
attempting to “separate and individuate” and develop individualistic ideas and ways of
behaving.

Third, an excessive amount of guidance or feedback regarding performance or
behavior--especially if the content suggests that the teen should change her
behavior--may be conducive to heightened internal conflict (e. g., resentment, anger,
guilt), which is characteristic of a lack of conflictual autonomy. The potential for
external conflict (that may be closely connected to internal conflict or lack of conflict
independence), obviously increases with more interpersonal interactions, especially of
the directive nature.

In addition to this negative direct relationship between guidance support and

conflictual autonomy, a second mechanism by which social support affects adolescent

75

outcome and development variables is evidenced by guidance support’s negative stress-
buffering effect on conflictual autonomy. That is, the relationship between stress and
conflict was strongest for teens who received the most social support. Those with more
social support evinced decreased conflictual autonomy as stress increased. This finding
further elucidated the former finding of a negative correlation between social support and
conflictual autonomy by showing that there was actually a positive relationship between
social support and conflictual autonomy for those with low levels of stress, but as stress
increased, the relationship became negative.

There are several possible explanations for this interaction effect. Once again,
adolescent development factors come to the forefront in discussing this phenomena.
Elster et a1. (1983) have described the adolescent developmental period as a time of
increased stress. This developmental stage, especially among adolescent mothers, is
marked by the stressful transition from childhood dependence to more adult
responsibility characterized by efforts to negotiate conflictual autonomy, self-esteem, and
sense of individuality. Furthermore, adolescent mothers, as compared to adult mothers,
rate the subjective experience of stressful events as significantly more distressing (Garcia
et al., 1987). As in the case of social support’s main effect on conflictual autonomy,
social support may understandably have a negative stress-buffering effect when viewed
in the context of this tumultuous time. Any challenge to the development of adolescent
autonomy and individuation by persons perceived as overly interfering or overly
directive may intensify an adolescent’s stress and ultimately decrease her sense of
conflictual autonomy. Among adolescent mothers, social support may prove to be more
of a hassle than a help when stress levels increase; indeed, social support may ultimately
decrease a person’s conflictual autonomy by the presence of other conflictual
relationships. On the other hand, as stress increases, teen mothers with less conflictual
autonomy may be more apt to seek out and utilize social resources, because stress may

further exacerbate their neediness and predisposition to being dependent on others.

76

The reverse stress-buffering effect has been evidenced in previous research with
other populations, including teen mothers (Abdel-Halim, 1982; Beehr, 1976; Cohen, &
Hoberman, 1983; Cummins, 1988; Gangster, Fusilier, & Mayes, 1986; Kaufman &
Beehr, 1986; Liang & Bogat, 1994). Two studies by Ball, Warheit, Vandiver, & Holzer
(1979, 1980) that compared several aspects of support from family and friends among
Caucasian and African American low-income women suggest that the negative buffering
seen in the current sample might be explained in part by its demographic
characteristics--specifically, the present sample is also mostly comprised of low-income
African American women. In their studies, African American women had similar
friendship networks and larger family networks than their Caucasian counterparts, but
were less willing to request help and utilize these resources in times of difficulty or
stress.

In the context of Model B, guidance support predicted adolescent self—esteem. As
expected, those with more guidance support reported a higher level of self-esteem. The
two opposite direct effects of support on adolescent adjustment evidenced in Model A
and B may be explicated by Lamborn and Steinberg’s (1993) study which compared
adjustment scores among teens who differed in both self-perceptions of autonomy and
social support. Subjects who had higher autonomy and support reported more internal
distress than some subjects--possibly indicative of a negative stress-buffering effect.
However, they also showed a greater level of psychosocial development and academic
competence than their peers. Similarly, in the present study, although teens with more
support reported more internal distress in the form of conflictual autonomy, they also
evinced more self-esteem. These findings suggested that the same support can have
varying and separate effects on different aspects of the same individual’s experience. In
other words, although more autonomous teens may feel that their autonomy has been
compromised by an onslaught of directive guidance support, their self-esteem still profits

substantially from increased social support, which facilitates confident parenting.

77

In summary, social support’s direct and mediating or buffering effects were
mixed. From the perspective of adolescent mothers, the provision and receipt of social
support presented a dilemma; for, although support may have been damaging to their
sense of conflictual autonomy when under stress, it was ultimately protective in the
development of self-esteem as well as parenting skills and competencies. The finding
that guidance support had both positive effects and negative effects may also indicate that
these teens had both positive and negative social ties within their support network. Some
research has suggested that positive and negative social support represent relatively
separate domains of experience (Barrera, Chassin, & Rogosch, 1993; Rook, 1984). For
example, Barrera et a1. (1993) evaluated the effects of adolescent conflict with and social
support from key relationships, including parents, siblings, and best friends, on
adolescents’ self-esteem, as well as other outcomes. The study provided no evidence that
conflict within a relationship neutralizes the effectiveness of the support it provides. This
evidence of independence is consistent with Bradburn and Caplovitz’s (1965) seminal
finding that positive and negative affective dimensions of well-being are unrelated.
Therefore, it is reasonable that social support has negative effects on certain aspects of
subjective experience, such as conflictual autonomy, and positive effects on self-esteem
(and, ultimately, parenting dimensions) within the same sample of teen mothers.

Impact of the Study

This work contributes to the understanding of adolescent parenting by providing a
novel synthesis of developmental psychopathology theory and community psychology
social support research. By the use of path analysis, this study validated the usefulness of
two new models of intergenerational parenting, thus contributing an important heuristic
construct to teen parenting research. This study demonstrated that adolescent autonomy
and self-esteem are central to the link between former generation parenting and teen
parenting style. Moreover, this study revealed that social support has its greatest impact

on adolescent parenting style when it intervenes on the level of adolescent development,

78

and not at the parenting level, as commonly assumed in conventional teen parenting
programs. This lattermost finding has profound implications for the appropriate
application of social support in designing interventions; it also suggests a necessary focus
for future social support research.

Limitations of the Study

Future researchers in this area should be advised of limitations specific to this
study, as well as those more generally inherent in multi-ethnic research, including sample
biases and measurement biases (Liang & Bogat, 1994). Given that the present sample
consists largely of low-income, African American teens, it may not be representative of
adolescent mothers across other ethnic and socioeconomic groups. African American
teens may have a nongeneralizable, specific way of parenting and using social support
that entails different norms for healthy, adaptive behavior, as compared to other
populations.

Due to the ethnic composition of this sample, measurement biases may pose a
second risk to inaccurate interpretation of the findings. Because the autonomy and
parenting measures employed in this study were not expressly developed for African
American (or other ethnic) samples or at least normed for these populations, these
measures stand the chance of being biased and insensitive to the parenting patterns of
these populations. They may include items less germane to African American culture or
exclude items that measure parenting styles or qualities specific to African Americans or
both. Furthermore, on a more macro level, our understanding of certain constructs and
their expected outcomes may be ungeneralizable across cultures. For example, although
the construct of “authoritarian” parenting is characterized by certain harsh disciplinarian
behaviors and predicts negative outcomes among most Anglo American populations, this
type of parenting may have different characteristics and outcomes among African

American or other ethnic groups.

79

Applications

Evidence of the beneficial effects of social support for adolescent mothers has
provided justification for the implementation of social support interventions for this
population. Currently, parent interventions, such as school-based and mentoring
programs, attempt a comprehensive approach to service delivery. For example, mentors
aim to provide direct social support of the emotional, informational, tangible, and
companionship types, as well as instruction on better utilization of personal and
community network resources. However, a more explicit understanding of how social
support works to produce beneficial effects for this population may enable greater
precision and efficiency in the administration of mentoring. If positive effects of
mentoring are more likely to result from the provision of a corrective relationship geared
towards remedying the negative effects of formative relationships on adolescent ego
development (self-esteem and autonomy), mentors might be better prepared for this task
through program training. In this case, programs might focus more on educating
paraprofessionals and mentors about the therapeutic principles that facilitate autonomy
and positive self-regard.

The findings of the present study suggest that guidance and informational support
is particularly helpful for adolescent mothers in indirectly promoting healthy parenting
attitudes. This is especially true for those adolescents who have higher levels of self-
esteem and autonomy. Therefore, support interventions may do well to apply a two-
pronged approach in which efforts are made to boost teen mothers’ self-esteem and
autonomy as well as educate them in effective and healthy parenting through
empowering, nonOppressive levels of guidance and information.

Future Directions

Future research should attempt to apply and assess the effectiveness of the

strategies supported by the current data. Moreover, the development of parenting models

for adolescents should proceed by incorporating a greater focus on developmental

80

variables relevant to this population. Just as adult parenting is affected by intraindividual
variables including personality and developmental history, adolescent parenting is even
more susceptible to mediation by personal and developmental characteristics. A greater
understanding of these developmental variables will allow for more relevant and
effective support interventions.

Finally, further clarification is needed of the direct and interaction effects of
social support on adolescent development and outcomes. A more detailed understanding
of those specific effects may prove critical to the understanding of the entire
intergenerational path of parenting, from the first generation, through to the adolescent

parents, and finally to the children of the teens themselves.

APPENDICES

Appendix A

APPENDIX A

Family Experiences Questionnaire

(Sample on following pages)

81

82

THE FAMILY EXPERIENCES QUESTIONNAIRE

INSTRUCTIONS: I’m going to read you some statements as part of a survey to better understandthe
needs and feelings of our program participants. There are no right or wrong answers. We are interested
in your own feelings about parenting. Your responses are completely confidential and anonymous, so
please feel free to answer as honestly and thoughtftu as possible. Please tell me how much you agree
with each of the following statements using this scale:

l=strongly disagree 2=disagree 3=agree 4=strongly agree

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

I often overreact when my child misbehaves.

I live for my children.

I want my children to behave in public so that people will know that I am a good parent. _
I know that I am doing a good job as a parent.

Having children makes me feel like I am contributing to the future of society.

As a parent, I never stop enjoying seeing the world through my children’s eyes.

I try to give my children direction, but mostly I let them grow by themselves.

Being a parent makes me feel more important because I know that I am the center of someone’s
world. 1

Being a parent turned out not to be as difficult as I thought it would be.
Parenting has taught me not to get too upset about little frustrations.

Knowing that my‘children will carry on in my place is the most important reward of being a
parent that I know.

Being a parent makes me feel drained and depleted.

I intend to push my children in order to make sure that they achieve the things I never got to do
myself.

I am able to be consistent with my children so that they do not have to wonder what I am going
to do next.

I am overly protective of my children; it is better to be safe than sorry.

I have the knowledge I need to be a good parent.

17.
18.

19.

20.
21.

22.

23.

24.

26.

27.

28.
29.

30.

31.
32.
33.
34.

35.

36.

83

I get a feeling of pride from watching my children accomplish a goal that they are proud of.

I am a very strict parent.

I should have read more books on parenting because I often feel like I don’t know what I am
doing.

My children are reflections of myself.
My children get on my nerves.

One of things I like most about being a parent is that my children are so tuned in to what I do
and say.

If I could do it over again I would raise my children the same way I am raising them now:

What I find most satisfying about being a parent is "showing my children the difference between
right and wrong.

I often worry that I am letting my children down.
My kids are always trying my patience.

What I most enjoy about being a parent is watching my children grow and change in ways that I
never imagined.

I see to it that my children are only exposed to things that I want them exposed to.
I am going to make sure that my children accomplish the things in life that are important to me.

Whenever I start feeling comfortable as a parent something goes wrong and the doubts start all
over again. _ 1

Because my children are a part of me, I find it difficult to let them be independent.
I worry that I am not doing the right thing as a parent.

As a parent I really enjoy the feeling that I am molding another human being.

I did not know how much anger I had inside of me until I became a parent.

I like watching my children’s personalities develop even when they turn out differently from what
I expected.

I have learned to accept that I cannot shelter my children from everything I do not like.

37.
38.
39.

41.

42.

43.

45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.

53.

54.
55.
56.

57.

84

I want my children to do the same things I did when I was a child.

I try not to box my children in with too many rules.

No matter how hard I try, I never seem to be a good enough parent.

When I get short with my children, I usually can catch myself before I do something I regret.

I get a great deal of pleasure out of shaping and molding my children so that they grow up to the
the kind of people I want them to be.

I often worry I don’t know enough to be a good parent.

Whatl most enjoy about being a parent is that my children make it possible fo rme to get a new
perspective on the world and myself. .

I want my children to be interested in the things I was interested in as a child.

I have to be on guard with my children all the time to keep them from getting into trouble.
I get a thrill watching my children discover new things all by themselves.

Compared to most parents I know, I seem to have less difficulty disciplining my children.

I often feel guilty about neglecting my children.

One of the things I most enjoy about parenting is seeing myself in my child.

I work hard at shaping my children’s lives rather than just letting them grow up as they would.

I do not mind that being a parent makes my life less orderly.

- I'find it difficult to find the right balance between discipline and love in raising my children.

When I am around my children, I usually find myself thinking "Why do they have to be so
difficult?"

Juggling all the responsibilities of being a parent is one of my talents.
When my children show their will, I make sure they know who is boss.
When I tell my children to do something, they will do it, no "ifs", "ands", or "buts".

Parenting means a lot of responsibilities and problems, but I always feel that I can cope with the
difficulties that come along.

58.

59.

61.

62.

85

I often feel that I have no control over my children.

When my kids do something I do not like I blow up first and ask questions later.

When there is a crisis with the children, I know that I will do what needs to be done.

I have learned to accept that sometimes my kids will not do what i want no matter how hard I try.

When my child misbehaves or breaks a rule I try to find out the reasons why.

Appendix B

APPENDIX B

Parental Authority Questionnaire

(Sample on following pages)

86

87

FAQ
Insrrucrions:

For each of the following statements please tell me the number on the 5-point scale
(1=strongly disagree, 5 =strongly agree) that best indicates how that Statement applies to
you and your mother/ guardian. As I read, try to think about each statement as it applies
to you and your mother/ guardian during your years of growing up at home. There are
no right or wrong answers, so there's no need to spend a lot of time on any one item.
We are looking for your overall impression regarding each statement.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Moderately Neither agree Moderately Strongly
disagree disagree nor disagree agree agree

51. My mather feels that in a well-run home the children should have their way as
often as the parents do.

52. Even if her children don’t agree with her, my mother forces us to do what she
wants for our own good. °

53. Whenever my mother tells me to do something, she expects me to do it
immediately without asking questions.

54. Once family rules are set up, my mother discusses the reasons behind the rules.

55. My mother has always been open to discussions about family rules that I felt were
unreasonable.

56. My mother feels that children need to be free to make up their own minds and to
do what they want to do, even if this does not agree with what their parents might
want.

57. My mother does not allow me to question any decision that she makes.
58. My mother directs the children in the family through reasoning and discipline.

59. My mother feels that more force should be used by parents in order to get their
children to behave the way they are supposed to.

60. My mother does not feel that I need to obey rules simply because someone in
authority establishes them.

61. I know what my mother expects of me, but I also feel free to discuss those
expectations with her when I feel they are unreasonable.

62. My mother feels that wise parents should teach their children early just who is
boss in the family.

63. My mother seldom gives me expectations and guidelines for my behavior.

64.

66.
67.

69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
75.
77.

78.

79.

80.

88

Most of the time my mother does what the children in the family want when she
makes family decisions.

My morher gives her children direcrion and guidance in a reasonable and fair way.
My mother gets very upset if I try to disagree with her.

My mother feels that most problems in society would be solved if parents would
not restrict their children's activities, decisions, and desires as they are growing

up.

My mother lets me know what behaviors she expects of me, and if I don't meet
those expectations, she punishes me.

My mother allows me to decide most things for myself without a lor of direction
from her.

My mother takes the children's opinions into consideration when making family
decisions, but she doesn’t agree to something just because the children want it.

My mother does mt view herself as responsible for directing and guiding my
behavior as I grow up.

My mother has clear standards of behavior for her children, but she is willing to
adjust them to the needs of each child. .

My mother gives me direction and she expecrs me to follow her direction, but she
is always willing to listen to my concerns and to discuss them with me.

My mother allows me my own point of view on family matters and she generally
allows me to decide for myself what I am going to do.

My momer has always felt that most problems in society would be solved if we
could get parents to Strictly and forcibly deal with their children when they don't
do what they are supposed to.

My mother often tells me exactly what she wants me to do and how she expects
me to do it.

My mother gives me clear direction for my behaviors and activities, but she also
understands when I disagree with her.

My mother does ngt direct the behaviors, activities, and desires of her children.

I know what my mother expects of me and she insists that I obey simply out of
respect for her authority.

If my mother makes a decision that hurts me, she is willing to discuss that
decision with me and to admit if she has made a mistake.

Appendix C

APPENDIX C

Demographics

(Sample on following page)

89

90

DEMOGRAPHICS

ID#

 

Please answer the following questions.
1. How many months pregnant are you? __
2. Have you received any prenatal care? __
(1) Yes (2) No
2a. If yes, how many months pregnant were you when you began this care?
3. Have you had previous pregnancies including miscarriages and abortions?
(1) Yes (2) No
3a. If yes, how many? 1
4. Do you plan to keep the baby from your present pregnancy?
(1) Yes (2) No

5. Are you married?
(1) Yes (2) No

Sa. If no, do you have plans to marry within the next year?
6. What grade in school are you in?

7. What is the highest grade in school completed by your mother/female
guardian?

8. What is the highest grade in school completed by your father/male
guardian?

 

9. What is your mother's/female guardian’s occupation?

10. What is your father's/male guardian's occupation?

 

11. What is the date of your birth? ( / / )
Month Day Year

12. Do you plan to complete high school?

(1) Yes (2) No

 

13. What are your hobbies or interests?

Appendix D

APPENDIX D

Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale

(Sample on following page)

91

92

ROSENBERG SELF—ESTEEM SCALE

Instructions:

For each of the following 10 items please tell me the number which best matches how
you feel about yourself. Use the following scale to complete your answers:

1 2 3 4
Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree
21. I feel I’m a valuable person, at least equal with others.

22. I feel that I have a number of good qualities.

23. I feel I do not have much to be proud of.

24. I am able to do things as well as most other people.
25. All in all, I tend to feel I am a failure.

26. I take a positive attitude toward myself.

27. On the whole, I am satisfied with myself.

28. I wish I could have more respect for myself.

29. I certainly feel useless at times.

30. At times I think I am no good at all.

Appendix E

APPENDIX E

Psychological Separation Inventory

(Sample on following pages)

93

94

PS 1- Mother
Instructions:

The following statements describe your relationship with your mother. Please tell me how
well each statement applies to you using the following scale.

Not 1at all A lizttle bit Moilerately 4Quite a bit 5 Very true

true of me true of me true of me true of me of me

178. I like to show my friends pictures of my mother.

179. My mother is a burden to me.

180. I really miss my mother if I am away from her for too long.
181. My beliefs about racial equality are similar to my mother’s.
182. My mother's wishes have influenced my choice of friends.
183. I feel like I am always at war with my mother.

184. I blame my mother for many of my problems.

185. I wish I could trust my mother more.

186. My attitudes about pornography are similar to my mother’s.
187. When I am in trouble I ask my mother to help me out.

188. My mother is the most important person in the world to me.
189. I have to be careful not to hurt my mother’s feelings.

190. I would like to spend as. much time with my mother as possible.

191. My opinions about whether women should have a career are similar to my mother’s.
192. I often ask my mother to help me in solving my personal problems.

193. I sometimes feel like my mother is trying to get back at me for something.

194. Being away from my mother makes me feel lonely.

195. I wish my mother wasn’t so overprotective.

196. My opinions about how mothers and fathers should divide up family responsibilities
are similar to my mother’s.

197.

198.

200.
201.
202.
203.
204.
205.
206.
207.
208.
209.
210.
211.
212.
213.
214.
215.
216.
217.
218.
219.

220.

95

I wouldn’t buy something really expensive without my mother’s approval.

I wish my mother wouldn't try to get me to do things that are more for her than for
me.

I wish my mother wouldn’t try to make fun of me.

It makes my happy just to hear my mother’s voice.

My religious beliefs are similar to my mother's.

My mother’s wishes have influenced what I want to be when I am an older adult.
I feel that l have to do things for my mother that I wish I didn’t have to do.

My mother expects too much from me.

I wish I could stop lying to my mother. -

My beliefs about raising children are similar to my mother’s.

My mother helps me to spend my money wisely.

When I am at home, I like to spend most of my time with my mother.

I often wish that my mother would treat me more like an adult.

After spending a lot of time with my mother, I find it difficult to leave her.

My values regarding honest are similar to my mother’s.

When I make plans for the weekend, I usually talk them over with my mother.

I am often angry at my mother.

I like to hug and kiss my mother.

I hate it when my mother makes suggestions about what I do.

My attitudes about privacy are similar to my mother’s.

I would get my mother's advice when deciding about whether or not to get a job.
Before I decide what to do I ask myself whether my mother will approve of it.
Even when my mother has a good idea I refuse to listen to it because it is her idea.

When I do poorly in school I feel I’m letting my mother down.

 

221.

222.

223.

224.

96

My attitudes about prorecting the environment are similar to my mother’s.
I ask my mother what to do when I get into a tough situation.
I wish my mother wouldn’t try to get me to take sides with her.

My mother is my best friend.

Appendix F

APPENDIX F

Hassles

(Sample on following page)

97

98

HASSLES

Instructions:

Eggs; are situations or people that can be annoying in minor ways or problematic in
fairly major ways. The following is a list of situations we would like you to evaluate.
Please indicate:

How much of a hassle has each item been for you urin h m. n' h?

l 2 3 4
None or Somewhat Moderate A great deal
not applicable

81. Your parents or parents-in-law
82. Other relatives

- .83. Sex

84. Intimacy (or being close with your friends, family, and relatives)
85. Your supervisor, employer, or teacher

86. Meeting deadlines or goals at work or school
87. Home repairs

88. Having enough money for necessities

89. Having enough money for emergencies

90. Having enough money for extras

91. 1‘ Your medical care

92. Your health

93. Your physical ability

94. News events

95. Your environment

96. Political or social issues

97. Cooking

98. Housework

99.

100.
101.
102.
103.

104.

99

Your work load
Homework from school
Car maintenance
Home entertainment
Being organized

Social commitments

Appendix G

APPENDIX G

Inventory of Socially Supported Behaviors

(Sample on following pages)

100

101

Instructions:

We are interested in learning about some of the ways that you feel people have helped
you or tried to make life more pleasant for you over the past four weeks. I will read a
list of activities that other people might have done for you, to you, or with you in recent
weeks. Please listen to each item carefully and tell me how often these activities
happened to you during the past four weeks.

1 2 3 4 5
Not at Once or About once Several times About every
all twice a week a week day

During the past four weeks, how often did other people do these activities for you, to
you, or with you:

138. Looked after a'family member when you were away.
139. Was right there with you (physically) in a stressful situation.
140. Provided you with a place where you could get away for awhile.

141. Watched after your possessions when you were away (pets, plants, home,
apartment, etc.).

142. Told you what she/ he did in a situation that was similar to yours.
143. Did some activity with you to help you get your mind off of things.
144. Talked with you about some interests of yours.

145. Let you know that you did something well.

146. Went with you to someone who could take action:

147. Told you that you are OK just the way you are.

148. Told you that she/he would keep the things that you talk about private -- just
between the two of you.

149. Assisted you in setting a goal for yourself.
150. Made it clear what was expected of you.

151. Expressed esteem or reSpect for a competency or personal quality of yours.

152.
153.
154.
155.
V 156.
157.
158.
159.
160.
161.

162.

163.

165.
166.
167.
168.
169.
170.
171.
172.
173.

174.

102

Gave you some information on how to do something.

Suggested some action that you should take.

Gave you over $25310 1‘55 3

Comforted you by showing you some physical affection.

Gave you some information to help you understand a situation you were in.
Provided you with some transportation.

Checked back with you to see if you followed the advice you were given.
Gave you under 325.10 11-5513

Helped you understand why you didn’t do something well.

Listened to you talk about your private feelings.

Loaned or gave you something ( a physical object other than money) that you
needed. .

Agreed that what you wanted to do was right.

Said things that made your situation clearer and easier to understand.
Told you how he/she felt in a situation that was similar to yours.

Let you know that he/she will always be around if you need assistance.
Expressed interest and concern in your well-being.

Told you that she/he feels very close to you. ’

Told you who you-should see for assistance.

Told you what to expect in a situation that was about to happen.
Loaned you over $25.

Taught you how to do something.

Gave you feedback on how you were doing without saying it was good or bad.

Joked and kidded to try to cheer you up.

 

175.
176.

177.

103

Provided you with a place to stay.
Pitched in to help you do something that needed to get done.

Loaned you under $25.

Appendix H

APPENDIX H

Project Description

(Sample on following pages)

104

105

The YPED Mentors of Mothers Program

The YPED Mentors of Mothers Program is a new program designed to learn more
about the development of high quality relationships between new mothers and their infants. It
is available to first-time mothers and is being carried out by YPED in collaboration with
Michigan State University. If you are expecting your first child, we would like you to
consider participating in the Mentors of Mothers Program.

WHAT IS THE PROGRAM TRYING TO LEARN?

We know that the development of a positive, good relationship between you and your
infant is one of your goals. The Mentors of Mothers Program is comparing different ideas
about how to best enhance the mother-infant relationship. We need the input, ideas, and
experiences of mothers like yourself to see which of these methods works best.

WHAT WILL I HAVE TO DO?

Mothers who participate in the Mentors of Mothers Program will be asked to complete
a variety of questionnaires and assessments about their experiences and feelings. These data
collections will take place three times over the next 1-2 years. Mothers in the program will
be paid $30 for participating in three data collections ($5 for the first interview, $10 for the
second one, and $15 for the third one). One of these data collections will involve a trained
project staff member visiting your home and conducting interviews; the other two will take
place at the project office. The assessments will each take about two hours to complete.

WHAT’S IN IT FOR ME AND MY BABY?

In addition to the money mentioned above, there is a chance that you will be eligible
to participate in a new program for mothers and their babies. This program involves trained
volunteer mentors who will come to your home and provide you with (1) information about
pregnancy and parenting, (2) aid in problem solving, (3) information about parent-infant
interactions, and (4) information about growth and development. In other programs like this
one, mothers have found these visits very supportive and helpful. These mentors are
experienced mothers themselves and they have received special training to be even more
- helpful to first-time mothers like yourself. Because these programsare part of a research
project, they are free to the mothers who are eligible for them.

The questionnaires and interviews take several hours to complete, but of this becomes
. a problem, we can spread each data collection over more than one day. The questionnaires
also ask some questions that you might feel uncomfortable about answering. If this IS so, you
are free to skip those questions -- we need information about your experiences and feelings
but not at the expense of making you feel uncomfortable or anxious. You are the expert on
your experience. The information you give us will help us learn more about the way mothers
and infants interact. There are no "right" or "wrong" answers to the questions we will ask -
you are not being tested. We sincerely want to learn about your opinions and experiences
and only you can help us.

106

WHAT HAPPENS IF I CHANGE MY MIND ABOUT THE PROGRAM?

We hope that you will stay with the program until the end, but you are free to
discontinue your participation at any time for any reason. Your participation is strictly
voluntary.

HOW WILL THE NATURE OF MY PARTICIPATION BE DECIDED?

Once you agree to participate in the Mentors of Mothers Program, you will be
assigned to one the program components by means of a lottery. In each component you will
be able to participate in the data collections and earn thirty dollars. In one of the
components, services additional to Mentors of Mothers Program curriculum will be available
to you.

Appendix I

APPENDIX I

Consent Form

(Sample on following page)

107

108

The Lansing School District
Young Parents Educational Development
Informed Consent Form - Mentors of Mothers Program

I hereby acknowledge that I have read a description of the Mentors of Mothers
Program and the details of this research project, including its potential risks and
benefits, have been explained to me and my daughter either by letter or by a project
representative. It is my understanding that if I and my daughter consent to participate,
my daughter will be paid $30 for participating in each of three data collections to
occur during the project ($5 for the first interview, $10 for the second interview, and
$15 for the third one). These data collection procedures will be administered by a
trained staff worker and will involve three interviews with my daughter and one with
me. Each interview will take under two hours. My daughter will be asked to
complete a variety of questionnaires and assessments about her experiences and
feelings to determine the best ways to bring about positive relationships between
teenage parents and children. There are no "right" or "wrong" answers to these
questions; the project staff are truly interested in my daughter’s opinions about these
matters. I understand that records concerning my daughter’s health and her child’s
health will be accessed by the project.

In addition, I understand that there is a chance that my daughter may receive
some of the following services from a trained volunteer mentor:

1) personal visits for approximately 9 months; 2) social support; and 3) information
about enhancing personal support resources or she may just participate in the
interviews. It has been explained to me that whether my daughter receives any of
these services will be determined by a lottery. I know that no specific benefit can be
guaranteed as a result of participating in this program.

I freely give my consent for participation in this project and understand that I
may withdraw my consent for participation at any time without jeopardizing my
daughter’s participation in the original YPED program. Also, I understand that all
information gathered by the project will be kept in strict confidence and my daughter’s
identity will not be revealed in any report of the research findings. At my daughter’s
request, and within these restrictions, the results of the research will be made available
to her. If I have any questions or concerns about participating in this project I can
call Marian Phillips or Mary Suurmeyer, 374-4434. _

 

date parent’s/guardian’s signature if
participant is under 18

 

date participant’s signature

 

date program representative’s signature

LIST OF REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Abidin, R. R. (1982). Parenting stress and the utilization of pediatric services.
Children ’s Health Care, 2, 70-73.

Abidin, R. R. (1986). Parenting Stress Index (PSI) manual (2Nd ed.). Charlottesville,
VA: Pediatric Psychology Press.

Abidin, R. R. (1992). The determinants of parenting behavior. Journal of Clinical Child
Psychology, 21(4), 407-412.

Abdel-Halim, A. A. (1982). Social support and managerial affective responses to job
stress. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 3, 281-295.

Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E., & Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Learned helplessness in
humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 49-
74.

Adams, G. R. (1985). Family correlates of female adolescents’ ego-identity development.
Journal of Adolescence, 8, 69-82.

Ainsworth, M. (1973). The development of infant-mother attachment. In B. M. Caldwell,
& H. N. Ricciuti (Eds.), Review of child development research. Vol. 3, (pp. 1-94).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ainsworth, M., Blehar, M., Waters, B., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment.
Hilldale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Al temeier, W. A., O’Connor, 8., Sherrod, K. B., Tucker, D., & Vietze, P. (1986).

Outcome of abuse during childhood among pregnant low income women. Child
Abuse and Neglect, 10, 319-330.

AIlastasiow, N. J. (1982). The adolescent parent. Baltimore: Brookes.

109

~_m_ ‘__

we

110

Austin, L., & Inderbitzin, L. B. (1983). Brief psychotherapy in late adolescence: A
psychodynamic and developmental approach. American Journal of
Psychotherapy, 37, 202-209.

Babikian, H., & Goldman, A. (1971). A study of unwanted pregnancy. American Journal
of Psychiatry, 128, 755-760.

B acon, L. (1974). Early motherhood, accerlerated role transition, and social pathologies.
Social Forces, 52, 333-341.

B aldwin, W. (1983). Trends in adolescent contraception, pregnancy and childbearing. In
E. R. McArney (Ed.), Premature adolescent pregnancy and parenthood. New
York: Grunes and Stratton.

B aldwin, W., & Cain, V. S. (1980). The children of teenage parents. Family Planning
Perspective, 12, 34-43.

B all, R. E., Warheit, G. J., Vandiver, J. S., and Holzer, C. E. (1979). Kin ties of low-
income blacks and whites. Ethnicity, 6, 184-196.

B all, R. B., Warheit, G. J., Vandiver, J. S., and Holzer, C. E. (1980). Friendship
networks: More supportive of low-income black women? Ethnicity, 7, 70-77.

B arrera, M. (1981). Social support in the adjustment of pregnant adolescents. In B.
Gottlieb (Ed.), Social networks and social support. (pp. 69-96). Beverly Hills:
Sage Publications.

B arrera, M., Chassin, L., Rogosch, F. (1993). Effects of social support and conflict on
adolescent children of alcoholic and nonalcoholic fathers. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 64(4), 602-612.

B arrera, M. K., Sandler, I. N., & Ramsay, T. B. (1981). Preliminary development of a
scale of social support: Studies of college students. American Journal of

Community Psychology, 9, 435-447.

 

111

Bartle, S., Anderson, S., & Sabatelli, R. (1989). A model of parenting style, adolescent
individuation and adolescent self-esteem: Preliminary findings. Journal of
Adolescent Research, 4, 283-298.

Barth, R. P. (1983). Psychological correlates of teenage motherhood. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, 12 , 471—487.

Barth, R. P., Schinke, S. P., & Maxwell, J. S. (1983). Psychological correlates of teenage
motherhood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 12, 471-487.

Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool
behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75, 43-88.

Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology
Monographs, 4, 1-102.

Beckwith, L. (1971). Relationships between attributes of mothers and their infants’ IQ
scores. Child Development, 42, 1083-1097.

Beckwith, L., Cohen, S. B., Kopp, C. B., Parmelee, A. H., & Marcy, T. G. (1976).
Caregiver-infant interaction and early cognitive development in preterm infants.
Child Development, 47, 579-587.

Beckwith, L., Rodning, C., & Cohen, S. (1992). Preterm children at early adolescence
and continuity and discontinuity in maternal responsiveness from infancy. Child
Development, 63, 1198-1208.

Beehr, T. A. (1976). Perceived situational moderators of the relationship between
subjective role ambiguity and role strain. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 35-
40.

{

Belle, D.E. (April, 1981). The social network as a source of both stress and support to {
low-income mothers. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for

Research in Child Development. Boston, MA.

112

Belmont, L., Cohen, R, Dryfoos, J ., Stein, L., & Zayac, M. (1981). Maternal age and
children’s intelligence. In K. G. Scott, T. Field, & E. Robertson (Eds.), Teenage
parents and their ofispring (pp. 177-197). NY: Grune & Stratton.

Belsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model. Child DeveZOpment,
55, 83-96.

B elsky, J ., Hertzog, C., Rovine, M. (1986). Causal analyses of multiple determinants of
parenting: Empirical and methodological advances. In M. F. Lamb, A. L. Brown,
& B. Rogoff (Eds.), Advances in developmental psychology (V014, pp. 153-202).
New York: Pergarnon Press.

3 elsky, J ., Lerner, R., and Spanier, G. (1984). The child in the family. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.

B elsky, J., & Vondra, J. (1989). Lessons from child abuse: The determinants of
parenting. In D. Cicchetti, & v. Carlson (Eds.), Child maltreatment: theory and
research on the causes and consequences of child abuse and neglect (pp. 15 3-
202). Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.

Bibring, E. (1953). The mechanism of depression. In P. Greenacre (Ed.), Afiective
disorders. New York: International Universities Press.

Biglan, A., Metzler, C., Wirt, R., & Ary, D. (1990). Social and behavioral factors
associated with high-risk sexual behavior among adolescents. Journal of
Behavioral Medicine, 13, 245-261.

Bird, G. W., & Kemerait, L. N. (1990). Stress among early adolescents in two-earner
families. Journal of Early Adolescence, 10, 344-365.

B 103, P. (1979). The second individualization process of adolescence. In P. Blos (Ed.),
The adolescent passage: Developmental issues. New York: International
University Press.

B lum, R. W. (1992). Chronic illness and disability in adolescence. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 13(5), 364—368.

113

Blustein, D. L., Walbridge, M. M., Friedlander, Myrna, L., Palladino, D. E. (1991).
Contributions of psychological separation and parental attachment to the career
development process. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 39-50.

B ogat, G. A., Liang, B., Caldwell, R. A., Davidson, W., Bristor, M., Phillips, M., &
Suurmeyer, M. (1993). Alternative schools: A school transition for adolescent
mothers. Prevention in Human Services, 10, 151-168.

B ogat, G. A., Sullivan, L. A, Grober, J. (1993). Applications of social support to
preventive interventions. In L. Jason (Ed.), Strategies for Promoting Health (pp.
205-232). NY: Pergamon Press.

B Iadburn, N. M., & Caplovitz, D. (1965). Reports on happiness: A pilot study of behavior
related to mental health. Chicago: Aldine.

B riere, J. & Runtz, M. (1988). Multivariate correlates of childhood psychological and
physical maltreatment among university women. Child Abuse & Neglect, 12, 331-
342.

Brookins, C. (1990). An experimental evaluation of a volunteer parent aide program.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

Brooks-Gum, J., & Furstenberg, F. F. (1986). The children of adolescent mothers:
Physical, academic, and psychological outcomes. Developmental Review, 6, 224-
25 1

B uri, J. R. (1989). Self-esteem and appraisals of parental behavior. Journal of Adolescent

Research, 4(1), 33-49.

B uri, J. R., Murphy, P., Richtsmeier, L. M., Komar, K. K. (1992). Stability of parental
nurturance as a salient predictor of self-esteem. Psychological Reports, 71, 535-
543.

B urkett, L. P. (1991). Parenting behaviors of women who were sexually abused as

children in their families of origin. Family Process, 30, 421-434.

114

Buri, J. R., Louiselle, P. A., Misukanis, T. M., & Mueller, R. A. (1988). Effects of
parental authoritarianism and authoritativeness of self-esteem. Personaiity and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 271-282.

Caplan, G. (1974). Support systems and community mental health. New York:
Behavioral Publications.

Card, J. J ., Reagan, R. T., & Ritter, PE. (1988). Sourcebook of comparison data for
evaluating adolescent pregnancy and parenting programs. Palo Alto, CA:
Sociometrics Corporation.

C aspi, A., Elder, G. H., & Bern, D. J. (1987). Moving against the world: Life course
patterns of explosive children. Developmental Psychology, 23, 308—3 13.

Charbonneau, B., & Kaplan, Z. (1989). Group therapy for birth parents of children in
foster care. Child and Youth Services, 12, 177-185.

Cicchetti, D. (1984). The emergence of developmental psychopathology. Child
Development, 55, 1-7.

Coates, D., & Lewis, M. (1984). Early mother-infant interaction and infant cognitive
status as predictors of school performance and cognitive behavior in six-year
olds. Child Development, 55, 1219-1230.

Coddington, R., (1972). The significance of life events as etiological factors in the
diseases of children: A study of a normal population. Journal of Psychosomatic
Research, 16, 205-213.

Cohen, L. H., Burt, C. E., & Bjorck, J. P. (1987). Life stress and adjustment: Effects of
life events experienced by young adolescents and their parents. Developmental
Psychology, 23(4), 583-592.

Cohen, S. E., & Beckwith, L. (1979). Preterm infant interaction with the caregiver in the
first year of life and competence at age two. Child Development, 50, 767- 7.

Cohen, S. E., & Hoberman, H. (1983). Positive events and social supports as buffers of

life change stress. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 13, 99- 125.

115

I
" ..._.-~-'

Cohen, S. E., & McKay, G. (1984). Social support, stress and the buffering hypothesis: -
A theoretical analysis. In A. Baum, J.E. Singer & S. E. Taylor (Eds.), Handbook

of psychology and health (Vol. 4). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

- .__s_..

Cohen, R, Struening, E. L., Muhlin, G. L., Genevie, L E., Kaplan, S. R., & Peck, H. B. /

(1982). Community stressors, mediating conditions, and well-being in urban
neighborhoods. Journal of Community Psychology, 10, 377-391.
Cole, P. M., & Woolger, C. (1989). Incest survivors: The relation of their perceptions of

their parents and their own parenting attitudes. Child Abuse & Neglect, 13, 409-

416.
Colletta, N. D. (1979). Support systems after divorce: Incidence and impact. Journal of

Marriage and the Family, 41, 837-846.

,/
s...“

 

Colletta, N. D. (1981). Social support and the risk of maternal rejection by adolescent

mothers. Journal of Psychology, 109, 191-197.
Colletta, N. D., Lee, D., & Gregg, CH. (1981). The impact of support for adolescent
mothers. Unpublished manuscript.
Colletta, N. D., & Lee, D. (1983). The impact of support for Black adolescent mothers. (”M
Journal of Family Issues, 4, 127-143.
Cooley, M. L., & Unger, D. G. (1991). The role of family support in determining

developmental outcomes in children of teen mothers. Child Psychiatry and

Human Development, 21, 217-234.

Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

Cowan, C.P. & Cowan, P.A. (August, 1983). Men’s involvement in the family:
Implications for family well-being. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Psychological Association.

Cramer, D. (1993). Perceived and desired facilitateness of one’s closest friend, need for

approval and self-esteem. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 66, 97-104.

116

Cranley, M. S. (1981). Development of a toll for the measurement of maternal attachment
during pregnancy. Nursing Research, 30, 281-284.

Crockenberg, S. (1986). Professional support for adolescent mothers: Who gives it, how A..-»
adolescent mothers evaluate it, what they would prefer. Special Issue: Social
support, family functioning, and infant development. Infant Mental Health
Journal, 7, 49-58.

C rockenberg, S. (1987). Predictors and correlates of anger toward and punitive control of
toddlers by adolescent mothers. Child Development, 58, 964-975.

C rockenberg, S. B., & Soby, B. A. (1988). Self-esteem and teenage pregnancy. In A. M.
Mecca, N.J. Smelser, J. Vasconcellos (Eds.), The Importance of Self-Esteem (pp.
125-164). Berkeley: University of Calfomia Press.

Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. F. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests.
Psychological Bullietin, 52, 281-302.

Cronkite, R. C., & Moos, R. H. (1984). The role of predisposing and moderating factors in
the stress-illness relationship. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 25, 372-393.

Cummins, R. C. (1988). Perceptions of social support, receipt of supportive behaviors, and
locus of control as moderators of the effects of chronic stress. Americal Journal of
Community Psychology, 16, 685-700.

Cutrona, C. E. (1989). Ratings of social support by adolescents and adult informants:
Degree of correspondence and prediction of depressive symptoms. Journal of
Personality and Scoial Psychology, 57, 723-730.

Davis, S., & Harris, M. B. (1982). Sexual knowledge, sexual interests and services of
sexual information of rural and urban adolescents from three cultures. Adolescence,

I 7, 471-492.

lDawson, P., van Doorninck, W. J., & Robinson, J. L. (1989). Effects of home-based, :4“

informal social support on child health. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral

Pediatrics, 10, 63-67.

117

de: Lissovoy, V. (1973). Childcare by adolescent parents. Children Today, 2, 23-25.
Dickinson, N. S., & Cudaback, D. J. (1992). Parent education for adolescent mothers.
Journal of Primary Prevention, 13, 23-35.
Dielman, T., Barton, K., & Cattell, R. (1977). Relationships among family attitudes and
childrearing practices. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 130, 105-112.
Diggory, J. C. ( 1966). Self-evaluation: Concepts and studies. New York: John Wiley and
Sons
Dunst, C. J ., Trivette, C. M., & Cross, A. H. (1986). Mediating influences of social M”
support: Personal, family, and child outcomes. American Journal of Mental
Deficiency, 90, 403-417.
Dunst, C. J ., Vance, S. D., & Cooper, C. S. (1986). A social systems perspective of (‘1‘. " "
adolescent pregnancy: Determinants of parent and parent-child behavior. Special
Issue: Social support, family functioning, and infant development. Infant Mental
Health Journal, 7, 34-48.
Eaton, W. W. (1978). Life events, social supports, and psychiatric symptoms: A re- .1? '
analysis of the New Haven data. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 19, 230-
234.
Eccles, J. S., Buchanan, C. M., Flanagan, C., & Fuligni, A. (1991). Control versus
autonomy during early adolescence. Journal of Social Sciences, 47(4), 53-68.
Elster, A. B., McAnarney, E. R., & Lamb, M. E. (1983). Parental behavior of adolescent
mothers. Pediatrics, 71, 494-503.
Egeland, B., & Farber, E. (1983). Infant-mother attachment: Factors related to its
development and changes over time. Child Development, 55 , 753-771.
Epstein, A.S. (March, 1979). Pregnant tenagers’ knowledge of infant development. Paper
presented at the biannual meeting of the Society for Research in Child

Devleopment, San Francisco.

118

Erikson, E. H. (1959). Identity and the life cycle: Selected papers. Psychological Issues,
Monograph 1. New York: International University Press.

Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.

Erikson, E. H. (1978). Reflections on Dr. Borg ’s life cycle. In E. H. Erikson (Ed),
Adulthood. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.

Erickson, M., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (1985). The relationship between quality of
attachment and behavior problems in preschool in a high-risk sample. In I.
Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.), Growing points of attachment theory and research.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59 (1-2, Serial No.
209), pp.l47-166.

Epstein, A. S. (March, 1979). Pregnant teenagers’ knowledge of infant development. Paper
presented at the biannual meeting of the Society for Research in Child
Development, San Francisco, CA.

Farber, A., & Egeland, B. (September, 1980). Maternal, neonatal and mother-infant
antecedents of attachment in urban poor. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the American Psychological Association, Montreal, Canada.

Farrington, D. P. (1983). Offending from 10-25 years of age. In K. T. Van Dusen & S.A.
Mednick (Eds.), Prospective studies of crime and delinquency (pp. 17-37). Boston:
Kluwer-Nijhoff.

Feldman, S. S., & Nash, S. C. (1982). Prediction of mothering behavior from pregnancy.
Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University.

Felker, D. W. (1974). Building positive self-concepts. Minneapolis, MN: Burgess
Publishing Company.

Field, T. M., Widmayer, S. M., Stringer, S., & Ignatoff, E. (1980). Teenage, lower-class,
black mothers and their preterm infants: An intervention and developmental

follow-up. Child Development, 51(2), 426-436.

119

Felner, R. D., Farber, S. S., & Primavera, J. (1983). Social networks, perceived social
support, and coping with stress. In R. D. Felner, L. A. Jason, J. N. Moritsugu, & S.
S. Farber (Eds. ). Preventive psychology: Theory, research and practice. (pp. 87-
103). NY: Pergamon Press.

Fenzel, L. M. (April, 1991). A prospective study of the relationships among role strain,
self- esteem, competence, and social support in early adolescence. Paper presented
at the biannual meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Seattle,
WA.

Finkelhor, D. (1984). Child sexual abuse. NY: The Free Press.

Flynn, T. M. (1979). Parental attitudes and the preschool child’s self-concept. Child Study
Journal, 9, 69-79.

Fondacaro, M. R., & Moos, R. H. (1987). Social support and coping: A longitudinal
analysis. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15, 653-673.

Frank, 8., Hole, C. B., Jacobson, S., Justkowski, R., & Huyck, M. (1986). Psychological
predictors of parents’ sense of confidence and control and self- versus child-
focused gratifications. Developmental Psychology, 22, 348-355.

Frank, S., Jacobson, S., & Hole, C. (1986). The parenting alliance: Bridging the
relationship between marriage and parenting. Unpublished manuscript, Michigan
State University.

Frank, S. J ., Pirsch, L.A., & Wright, V.C. (1990). Late adolescents’ perceptions of their
relationships with their parents: Relationships among deidealization, autonomy,
relatedness, and insecurity and implications for adolescent adjustment and ego
identity status. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 19, 571-588.

French, J ., Rodgers, W., & Cobb, S. (1974). Adjustment as person-environment fit. In G.
Cochlo, D. Hamberg, and J. Adams (Eds.), Coping and adaptation. NY: Basic
Books.

120

Freud, S. (1925). On narcissism: An introduction. In Collected papers, Vol. 4. London:
Hogarth Press.

Friedlander, M. L., & Seigel, S. M. (1990). Separation-individuation difficulties and
cognitive-behavioral indicatiors of eating disorders among college women. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 37, 74-78.

Frodi, A., Bridges, L., & Grolnick, W. (1985). Correlates of mastery-related behavior: A
short-test longitudinal study of infatns in their second year. Child Development, 56,
1291-1298.

Frodi, A., Keller, B., Foye, H., Liptak, G., Bridges, L., Grolnick, W., Berko, J .,
McAnarney, E., & Lawrence, R. (1984). Determinants of attachment and mastery
motivation in infants born to adolescent mothers. Infant Mental Health Journal, 5,
15-23.

Fulmer, R. H., Medalie, J ., & Lord, D. A. (1982). Life cycles in transition: A family
systems perspective in counseling the college student. Journal of Adolescence, 5,
195-217.

Fulton, A. M., Murphy, K. R., & Anderson, S. L. (1991). Increasing adolescent mothers’
knowledge of child development: An intervention program. Adolescence, 26, 73-
81.

Furstenberg, F. F. (1976). The Social consequences of teenage parenthood. Family
Planning Perspectives, 8, 148-164..

Furstenberg, F. F., Crawford, A. G. (1978). Family support: Helping teenage mothers to
cope. Family Planning Prospectives, 10, 322-333.

Gamble, W., & Belsky, J. (1984). Stressors, support, and maternal personal resources as
determinants of mothering: a comparison of three models. Unpublished
manuscript, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.

Gangster, D., Fusilier, M., & Mayes, B., (1986). Role of social support in the experience
of stress at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 102-110.

121

Garbarino, J ., & Sherman, D. (1980). High risk neighborhoods and high risk families: The
human ecology of child maltreatment. Child Development, 51, 188-198.

Garcia, C. T., Hoffman, J ., Vanhouten, L. J ., & Oh, W. (1987). The social context of
teenage child-bearing: Effects on the infant’s care-giving environment. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 16, 345-360.

Garmezy, N. Masten, A., Nordstrom, L., & Farrarese, M. (1979). The nature of
competence in normal and deviant children. In M. Kent, & J. Rold (Eds.), Primary
prevention of psychopathology: Vol. 3. Social competencies in children (pp. 215-
266). Hanover, NH: New England University Press.

Gecas, V., & Schwalbe, M. L. (1986). Parental behavior and adolescent self-esteem.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 37-46

Gelfand, D. M., Hartmann, D. P., Lamb, A. K., Smith, C. L., Mahan, M. A., & Paul, S. C.
(1974). The effects of adult models and described alternatives on children’s choice
of behavior management techniques. Child Development, 45, 585-593.

George, C., & Main, M. (1979). Social interactions of young abused children: Approach,
avoidance, and aggression. Child Development, 45, 585-593.

Gersten, J ., Langner, T., Eisenberg.J., & Simcha-Fagan, O., (1977). An evaluation of the
etiological role of stressful life-change events in psychological disorders. Journal
of Health and Social Behavior, 18, 228-244.

Giblin, P. T., Poland, M. L., & Sachs, B. A. (1987). Effects of social supports on attitudes
and health behaviors of pregnant adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health Care,
8, 273-279.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge: Harvard University press.

Gilligan, C. (1988). Adolescent development reconsidered. In C. Gilligan, J.V. Ward, & J.
M. Taylor (Eds.) Mapping the moral domain. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

Goldberg, W. A. (March, 1982). Marital quality and child-mother, child-father

122

attachments. Paper presented at the International Conference on Infant Studies,
Austin, TX.

Goldstein, K. M., Caputo, D. V., & Taub, H. B. (1976). The effects of prenatal and
perinatal complications on deve10pment at one year of age. Child Development, 4 7,
613-621.

Gottlieb, B. H. (1978). The development and application of a classification scheme of
informal helping behaviors. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 10, 105-
115.

Granger, C. R. (1981). Young adolescents’ knowledge of child development. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.

Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Parent styles associated with children’s self—
regulation and competence in school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(2),
143-154.

Grolnick, W. 8., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1991). Inner resources for school
achievement: Motivational mediators of children's perceptions of their parents.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 508-517.

Grossman, F., Eichler, L., & Winickoff, S. (1980). Pregnancy, birth, and parenthood:
Adaptations of mothers, fathers, and infants. San Francisco: J ossey-Bass.
Hammen, C., & Krantz, S. E. (1985). Measures of psychological processes in depression.
In E. Beckham & W. Leber (Eds.), Handbook of depression: Treatment,

assessment, and research. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.

Hartmann, H., Kris, B., & Loewenstein, R. (1946). Comments on the formation of psychic
structure. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 2, 11-38.

Hartup, W. W. (1983). Peer relations. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Socialization,
personality, and social development. In P. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child
psychology. V01. 4. (pp. 413-457). New York: Wiley.

123

Hayes, C. D. (Ed.). (1987). Risking the future: Adolescent sexuality, pregnancy and
childbearing (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Heath, D. H. (1976). Competent fathers: Their personality and marriages. Human
Development, 19, 26-39.

Heller, K., & Swindle, R. W. (1983). Social networks, perceived social support, and
coping with stress. In R. D. Felner, L. A. Jason, J. N. Moritsugu, & S. S. Farber
(Eds.). Preventive psychology: Theory, research and practice. (pp. 87-103). NY:
Pergamon Press.

Helper, M. M. , Cohen, R.L., Beitenman, E. T., & Eaton, L. F. (1968). Life events and
acceptance of pregnancy. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 12, 183- 188.

Hill, J. P. (1987). Research on adolescents and their families: Past and prospect. New
Directions for Child Development, 50, 306-318.

Hoffman, M. L. (1970). Moral development. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael ’3 manual
of child psychology. New York: Wiley.

Hoffman, J. A. (1984). Psychological separation of late adolescents from their parents.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 170- 178.

Hoffman, J. A. & Weiss, B. (1986). A new system for conceptualizing problems of college
students: Types of crises and the Inventory of Common Problems. Journal of
American College Health, 34, 259-266.

Hoffman, M. A., Levy-Shiff, R, & Ushpiz, V. (1993). Moderating effects of adolescent
social orientation on the relation between social support and self-esteem. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 22(1), 23-31.

Hoffman, M. A., Ushpiz, V., & Levy-Shiff, R. (1988). Social support and self-esteem in
adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 1 7, 307-316.

Holmes, T., & Rahe, R. H. (1967). The social readjustment rating scale. Journal of
Psychosomatic Research, 11, 213-218.

Homans, G. L. (1974). Social behavior (2nd Ed.). NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

 

124

Hughes, D. (1986). Maternal and child health data book: The health of America's
children. Children 's Defense Fund, Washington, D. C.

Hunter, J. E., & Cohen, S. H. (1969). PACKAGE: A system of computer routines for the
analysis of correlational data. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 29,
697-700.

Hunter, J. E., & Gerbing, D. W. (1982) Unidimensional measurement, second order factor
analysis, and causal models. Research in Organizational Behavior, 4, 267-320.

J affee, F. S., & Dryfoos, J. G. (1980). Fertility control services for adolescents: Access &
Utilization. Adolescent pregnancy and child bearing. U. S. Department of Health
and Human Services.

Johnson, B. M., Shulman, S., & Collins, W. A. (1991). Systemic patterns of parenting as
reported by adolescents: Developmental differences and implications for
psychosocial outcomes. Journal of Adolescent Research, 6, 235-252.

Johnson, J. (1986). Life events as stressors in childhood and adolescence. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.

Johnson, J ., & McCutcheon, S. (1980). Assessing life stress in older children and
adolescents: Preliminary findings with the Life Events Checklist. In I. E. Sarason
& C. D., Spielberger (Eds), Stress and anxiety (Vol. 7). New York: Hemisphere
Publishing.

Johnson, 8., & Lobitz, G. (1974). The personal and marital adjustment of parents as
related to observed child deviance and parenting behaviors. Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology, 2, 193-207.

J osselson, R. (1988). The embedded self: I and thou revisited. In D. K. Lapsley &
Quintana. S. M. (Eds.), Self, ego, and identity: Integrative approaches. (pp. 91-
108). New York: Springer.

125

Justice, B., & Justice, R. (1978). Evaluating outcome of group therapy for abusing
parents. Corrective & Social Psychiatry and Journal of Behavior Technology,
Methods and Therapy, 24, 45-49.

Kandel, D. B., Kessler, R. C., & Margulies, R. Z. (1978). Antecedents of adolescent
initiation into stages of drug use: A developmental analysis. In D. Kandel (Ed.),
Longitudinal research on drug use: Empirical findings and methodological issues.
Washington, DC: Hemisphere-John Wiley.

Kanner, A., Coyne, J ., Schaefer, C., & Lazarus, R. (1980). Comparison of two modes of
stress management: Daily hassles and uplifts versus major life events. Journal of
Behavioral Medicine, 4, 1-39.

Kantor, D., Peretz, A., & Zander, R. (1984). The cycle of poverty: Where to begin?
Family Therapy Collections, 9, 59-73.

Kaplan, H. B. (1975). Self-Attitudes and Deviant Behavior. Pacific Palisades, California:
Goodyear.

Kaufman, G., & Beehr, R. (1986). Interactions between job stressors and social support.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 522-526.

Kazdin, A. E. (1987). Treatment of antisocial behavior in children: Current status and
future directions. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 187-203.

Kellam, S. G., Brown, C. H., Rubin, B. R., & Ensminger, M. E. (1983). Paths leading to
teenage psychiatric symptoms and substance use: Developmental epidemiological
studies in Woodlawn. In S. G. Guze, F. Earls, & J. E. Barrett (Eds.), Childhood
psychopathology and development. NY: Raven Press.

Kenny, M. E., & Donaldson, G. A. (1991). Contributions of parental attachment and
family structure to the social and psychological functioning of first-year college

students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 479-486.

126

Kenny, M. E., & Donaldson, G. A. (1992). The relationship of parental attachment and
psychological separation to the adjustment of first-year college women. Journal of
College Student Development, 33, 431-438.

Kernberg, O. F. (1970). Factors in the psychoanalytic treatment of narcissistic
personalities. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 18, 51-85.

Kernberg, O. F. (1974a). Barriers to falling and remaining in love. Journal of American
Psychoanalytic Association, 22, 486-51 1.

Kernberg, O. F. (1974b). Mature love: Prerequisites and characteristics. Journal of
American Psychoanalytic Association, 22, 743-768.

Kernberg, O. F. (1975). Borderline conditions and pathological narcissism. New York:
Aronson.

Kernberg, O. F. (1977). Boundaries and structures in love relations. Journal of American
Psychoanalytic Association, 25, 81-1 14.

Kernberg, O. F. (1980). Intemal world and external reality: Object relations theory
applied. New York: Aronson.

Kimmel, D., & Van der Veen, F. (1974). Factors of marital adjustment in Locke's Marital

Adjustment Test. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 36, 57-63.

Kissman, K., & Shapiro, J. (1990). The composites of social support and well-being +5 '- ‘

among adolescent mothers. lntemational Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 3,
165-173.

Khlentzos, M. T., & Pagliaro, M. A. (1965). Observations from psychotherapy with
unwed mothers. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 35, 779-786.

Klerman, L. V., & Jekel, J. K. (1973). School-age mothers: Problems, programs, and
policy. Hamden, CT: The Shoe String Press, Inc.

Kochanska, G., Kuczynski, L., & Radke-Yarrow, M. (1989). Correspondence between
mothers’ self-report and observed child rearing practice. Child Development, 60,

56-69.

127

Kohut, H. (1971). The analysis of the self: A systematic approach to the psychoanalytic
treatment of narcissistic personality disorders. New York: lntemational University
Press.

Kohut, H.(1972). Thoughts on narcissism and narcissistic rage. Psychoanalytic Study of
the Child, 27, 360-400.

Koniak-Griffin, D. (1988). The relationship between social support, self-esteem, and
maternal-fetal attachment in adolescents. Research in Nursing & Health, 11, 269-
278.

Kroger, J. E. (1980). Residential mobility and self concept in adolescence. Adolescence,
15, 967-977.

Jennings, K. D., Stagg, V., & Connors, R. (1985). Social support and mothers’
interactions with their preschool children Paper presented at the biennial meeting
of the Society fro Research in Child Development, Toronto, April.

Lamborn, S. D., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Emotional autonomy redux: Revisiting Ryan and
Lynch. Child Development, 64(2), 483-499.

Lamborn, S. D., Mounts, N. S., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Patterns of
competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian,
indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 62, 1049-1065.

Lamb, M., & Easterbrooks, M. (1980). Individual differences in parental sensitivity. In M.
Lamb and L. Sherrod (Eds.), Infant social cognition. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

Lapsley, D. K., Rice, K. G., & Shadid, G. E. (1989). Psychological separation and
adjustment to college. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 69, 257-260.

Larsen, J ., & J uhasz, A. (1985). The effects of knowledge of child development and
social-emotional maturity on adolescent attitudes toward parenting. Adolescence,
20, 823-839.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. NY: Springer
Publishing Company.

128

LeMasters, E. (1968). Sourcebook in marriage and family. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Lee, D.M. & Colletta, N.D. (April, 1983). Family support for adolescent mothers: The
positive and negative impact. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the
Society for Research in Child Development, Detroit, MI.

Levering, C. S. (1983). Teenage pregnancy and parenthood. Childhood Education, 59,
182-185.

Levine, L., Coll, C., & Oh, W. (April, 1984). Determinants of mother-infant interaction in
adolescent mothers. Paper presented at the lntemational Conference on Infant
Studies, NY.

Liang, B., & Bogat, G. A. (1994). Culture, control and coping: New perspectives on
social support. American Journal of Community Psychology, 22, 123-147.

Lin, N., Simeone, R. S., Ensel, W. M., Kuo, W. (1979). Social support, stressful life
events, and illness: A model and an empirical test. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 20, 108-119.

Litovsky, V. G., & Dusek, J. B. (1985). Perceptions of child rearing and self-concept
development during the early adolescent years. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
14, 373-387.

Liu, X., Kaplan, H. B., & Risser, W. (1992). Decomposing the reciprocal relationships
between academic achievement and general self-esteem. Youth and Society, 24,
123-148.

Lopez, F. G. (1991). Patterns of family conflict and their relation to college student
adjustment. Journal of Counseling and Development, 69, 257-260.

LOpez, F. G., Campbell, V. L., & Watkins, C. E. (1989). Effects of marital conflict and
family coalition patterns on college student adjustment. Journal of College Student
Development, 30, 46-52.

Lowery, M. (1987). Adult survivors of childhood incest. Journal of Psychosocial Nursing

and Mental Health Services, 25, 27-31.

129

Luster, T. (March, 1986). Influences on maternal behavior: Childrearing beliefs, social
support and infant temperament. Paper presented at the lntemational Conference
on Infant Studies, Los Angeles, CA.

Lyons-Ruth, K., Alpern, L., & Repacholi, B. (1993). Disorganized infant attachment
classification and maternal psychosocial problems as predictors of hostile-
aggressive behavior in the preschool classroom. Child Development, 64, 572-585.

Lyons-Ruth, K., Connell, D. B., Zoll, D., & Stahl, J. (1987). Infants at social risk:
Relations among infant maltreatment, maternal behavior, and infant attachment
behavior. Developmental Psychology, 23, 223—232.

Lyons-Ruth, K., & Zeanah, C. H. (1993). The family context of infant mental health: I.
Affective development in the primary caregiving relationship. In C. H. Zeanah
(Ed.), Handbook of infant mental health (pp. 14-37). New York: Guilford Press.

Maccoby, E. E. (1980). Social development: Psychological growth and the parent-child
relationship. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-
child interaction. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), P. H. Musen (Series Ed.), Handbook
of child psychology: Vol, 4. Socialization, personality, and social development, 4th
ed. (pp. 1-103). New York: Wiley.

Mahler, M. S., Pine, F., & Bergman, A. (1975). The psychological birth of the human
infant. New York: Basic Books.

Main, M., & Goldwyn, R. (1984). Predicting rejection of her infant from mother’s
representation of her own experience: Implications for the abused-abusing

intergenerational cycle. Child Abuse and Neglect, 8, 203-217.

130

Main, M., & Hesse, B., (1990). Parents’ unresolved traumatic experiences are related to
infant disorganized attachment status: Is frightened and/or frightening parental
behavior the linking mechanism. In M. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, & E. M.
Cummings (Eds.), Attachment in the preschool years: theory, research and
intervention (pp. 161-184). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Manion, J. (1977). A study of fathers and infant caretaking. Birth and the Family Journal,
4, 174-179.

Marsh, J. C. & Wirick, M. A. (1991). Evaluation of Hull House teen pregnancy and
parenting program. Special Issue: Services to teenage parents. Evaulations and
Program Planning, 14, 49-61.

Matas, L., Arend, R. A., & Sroufe, L. A. (1978). Continuity of adaptation in the second
year: The relationship between quality of attachment and later competence. Child
Development, 49, 547-556.

McCall, R. B. (1974). Exploratory manipulation and play in the human infant.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 39, 1103-1109.

McCartney, J. R. (1987). Adolescent depression: A growth and development perspective.
Adolescent Psychiatry, 14, 208-217.

McCormick, I. A., Siegert, R. J., & Walkey, F. H. (1987). Dimensions of social support:
A factorial confirmation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15, 73-77.

McDaniel, G. (August 5, 1986). Teenage pregnancies in United States more than double
the rate in Canada. Medical Post.

Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.

Mazor, A., & Enright, R. D. (1988). The development of the individuation process from a
social-cognitive perspective. Journal of Adolescence, 11 , 29-47.

Miller, A. (1981). The drama of the gifted child. NY: Basic Books, Inc.

 

131

Minde, K. K., Marton, P., Manning, D., Hines, B. (1981). Some determinants of mother-
infant interaction in the premature nursery. Annual Progress in Child Psychiatry
and Child Development, 7, 58-77.

Minde, K. K., Schosenberg, N ., Marton, R, Thompson, J., Ripley, J ., & Burns, S. (1980).
Self-help groups in a premature nursery--A controlled evaluation. Journal of
Pediatrics, 96, 933-940.

Mintum, L., & Lambert, W. W. (1964). Mothers of six cultures: Antecedents of
childrearing. NY: Wiley.

Minuchin, S., Rosman, B.L., & Baker, L. (1978). Psychosomatic Families: Anorexia
nervosa in context. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Mitchell, R. E., & Trickett, E. J. (1980). Task force report: Social networks as mediators
of social support. Community Mental Health Journal, 16, 27-44.

Moore, K. A., & Hofferth, S. L. (1978). The consequences of age at first childbirth:
Family size. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Moran, P. B., & Eckenrode, J. (1991). Gender differences in the costs and benfits of peer
relationships during adolescence. Journal of Adolescent Research, 6, 396-409.

Morgan, G. A., Harmon, R. J., & Maslin-Cole, C. A. (1990). Mastery motivation:
Definition and measurement. Early Education and Development, 1, 318-319.

Morgan, G. A., Harmon, R. J ., & Maslin-Cole, C. A. (1991). Play assessment of mastery
motivation in infants and young children. In C. E. Schaefer, K. Gitlin, & A.
Sandgrund (Eds.), Play diagnosis and assessment (pp. 65-86). New York: Wiley.

Mrazek, P. B., & Kempe, C. H. (1981). Sexually abused children and their families. New
York: Oxford Press.

Newcomb, M. D., & Bentler, P. M. (1989). Substance use and abuse among children and
teenagers. American Psychologist, 44, 242-248.

Nuckolls, K. B., Cassel, J ., & Kaplan, EH. (1972). Psychosocial assets, life crises and the

prognosis of pregnancy. American Journal of Epidemiology, 95, 431- 441.

132

O'Leary, K., & Emery, R. (1983). Marital discord and child behavior problems. In M.
Levine and P. Satz (Eds.), Developmental variations and dysfimction. NY:
Academic Press.

Olson, C. F., & Worobey, J. (1984). Perceived mother-daughter relations in a pregnant and
nonpregnant adolescent sample. Adolescence, 19, 781-791.

Oppel, W. E., & Royston, A. B. (1976). Teenage births: Some social, psychological, and
physical sequelae. American Journal of Public Health, 61 , 751-756.

Osofsky, J. J ., & Osofsky, J. D. (1970). Adolescents as mothers. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 40, 825.

Oz, 8., Tari, A., & Fine, M. (1992). A comparison of the psychological profiles of teenage
mothers and their nonmother peers. Adolescence, 27, 357-367.

Pardeck, J. & Pardeck, J. (1990). Family factors related to adolescent autonomy.
Adolescence, 25 , 31 1-319.

Paris, J. (1976). The Oedipus complex: A critical re-examination. Canadian Psychiatric
Association Journal, 21, 173-179.

Pasley, K., Langfield, P. A., & Kreutzer, J. A. (1993). Predictors of stress in adolescents:
An exploratory study of pregnant and of parenting females. Journal of Adolescent
Research, 8, 326-347.

Patterson, G. R., DeBaryshe, & Ramsey, E. (1986). A developmental perspective on
antisocial behavior. American Psychologist, 44, 329-335.

Paulson, S. E., Hill, J. P., & Holmbeck, G. N. (1991). Distinguishing between perceived
closeness and parental warmth in families with seventh-grade boys and girls.
Journal of Early Adolescence, 11 , 276-293.

Pederson, F. (1982). Mother, father and infant as an interactive system. In J. Belsky (Ed.),
In the beginning: Readings on infancy. NY: Columbia University Press.

Person, E. S. (1988). Dreams of love and fateful encounters. New York: Norton.

133

Petersen, A., & Taylor, B. (1980). The biological approach to adolescence: Biological
change and psychological adaptation. In J. Adelson (Ed.), Handbook of adolescent
psychology (pp. 117-155). New York: Wiley.

Powell, D. R. (1980). Personal social networks as a focus of primary prevention of child ""‘r ’
maltreatment. Infant Mental Health Journal, 1, 232-239.

Quintana, S. M., & Lapsley, D. K. (1990). Rapprochement in late adolescent separation—
individuation: A structural equations approach. Journal of Adolescence, 13, 371-
385 ,

Ramey, C. T., Farran, D. C., & Campbell, F. (1979). Predicting IQ from mother-infant
interactions. Child Development, 50, 804-814.

Richards, M. H., Gitelson, I. B., Petersen, A. C., & Hurtig, A. L. (1991). Adolescent
personality in girls and boys: The role of mothers and fathers. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 15, 65-81.

Reich, A. (1960). Pathologic forms of self-esteem regulation. Psychoanalytic Study of the
Child, 15, 215-232.

Reis, J. S. (1988). Child-rearing expectations and developmental knowledge according to
maternal age and parity. Infant Mental Health Journal, 9, 287-304.

Reis, J. S. & Herz, E. J. (1987). Correlates of adolescent parenting. Adolescence, 87, 599-
609.

Reuter, M. W., & Biller, H. B. (1973). Perceived paternal nurturance-availability and
personality adjustment among college males. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 40, 339-342.

Rice, K. G., Cole, D. A., & Lapsley, D. K. (1990). Separation-individuation, family
cohesion, and adjustment to college: Measurement validation and test of a

theoretical model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37, 195-202.

134

Richter, S. S., Brown, S. A. & Mott, M. A. (1991). The impact of social support and self— ‘
esteem on adolescent substance abuse treatment outcome. Journal of Substance
Abuse, 3(4), 371—385.

Rigby, K., & Slee, P, T. (1993). Dimensions of interpersonal relation among Australian
children and implications for psychological well-being. Journal of Social
Psychology, 133, 33—42.

Robins, L. N., Davis, D. H., & Wish, E. (1977). Detecting predictors of rare events:
Demographic, family, and personal deviance as predictors of stages in the
progression toward narcotic addiction. In J. S. Strauss, H. Babigian, & M. Roff
(Eds.), The origins and course of psychopathology: Methods of longitudinal
research. New York: Plenum.

Rokeach, M. (1985). Inducing change and stability in belief systems and personality
structures. Journal ofSocial Issues, 41, 153—171.

Romig, C., & Bakken, L. (1990). Teens at risk for pregnancy: The role of ego
development and family processes. Journal of Adolescence, 13, 195-199.

Rook, K. S. (1984). The negative side of social interaction: Impact on psychological well-

being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1097-1108.

 

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.

Russell, C. S. (1980). Unschedule parenthood: Transition to ‘parent’ for the teenager,
Journal of Social Issues, 36, 45—63.

Rutter, M. (1983). Stress, coping, and development. In N. Garmezy & M. Rutter (Eds.),
Stress, coping, and development in children (pp. 1-41). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Ryan, R. M., & Grolnick, W. S. (1986). Origins and pawns in the classroom. Self-report
and projective assessments of individual differences in children’s perceptions.

Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 50, 550-558.

 

135

Ryan, R. M., Connell, J. P., & Deci, E. L. (1985). A motivational analysis of self-
determination in education. In C. Ames & R. E. Ames (Eds.), Research on
motivation in education: The classroom milieu (pp. 13-52). New York: Academic
Press.

Ryan, R. M. & Lynch, J. H. (1989). Emotional autonomy versus detachment: Revisiting
the vicissitudes of adolescence and young adulthood. Child Development, 60, 340-
356.

Sagi, A. (1982). Antecedents and consequences of various degrees of paternal
involvement in childrearing: The Israeli Project. In M. E. Lamb, (Ed.),
Nontraditional families: Parenting and child development. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.

Sandler, H. M., Veitze, P. M., O’Conner, S. (1981). Obstectric and neonatal outcomes
following intervention with pregnant teenagers. In K. G. Scott, T. Field, &

E. Robertson (Eds.), Teenage parents and their ojfspring (pp. 249-263). NY:
Grune & Stratton.

Sandler, J., Holder, A., & Meers, D. (1963). The ego ideal and the ideal self.
Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 18, 139-158.

Scarr, S., & McCartney, K. (1983). How peOple make their own environments: A theory
of genotype-environment effects. Child Development, 54, 424-435.

Schaefer, E. S. (1991). Goals for parent and future-parent education: Research on parental
beliefs and behavior. The Elementary School Journal, 91, 239-247.

Schaefer, E. S., Edgerton, M., & Hunter, W. (August, 1983). Childrearing and child
development correlates of maternal locus of control. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Psychological Association, Anaheim, CA.

Schafer, R. (1973). Concepts of self and identity and the experience of separation-

individuation in adolescence. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 42, 42-60.

136

Schilmoeller, G. L., Baranowski, M.D., & Higgins, B. S. (1991). Long-term support and -‘~
personal adjustment of adolescent and older mothers. Adolescence, 26, 787-796.

Siegel, I. E. (Ed.). (1985). Parental belief systems: Thye psychological consequences for
children. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Sherman, B. R. & Donovan, B. R. (1991). Relationship of perceived maternal acceptance—
rejection in childhood and social support networks of pregnant adolescents.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 61 , 103-113.

Showers, J., & Johnson, C. F. (1984). Students' knowledge of child health and
development: Effects on approaches to discipline. Journal of School Health, 54,
122-125.

Simmons, R. G., Burgeson, R., Carlton—Ford, S., & Blyth, D. (1987). The impact of
cumulative chage in early adolescence. Child Development, 58, 1220-1234.
Silverberg, S. B. & Steinberg, L. (1987). Adolescent autonomy, parent-adolescent conflict,

and parental well-being. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 293-312.

Simons, R. L. & Robertson, J. F. (1989). The impact of parenting factors, deviant peers,
and coping style upon adolescent drug use. Family Relations, 38, 273—281.

Smart, R. G., & Walsh, G. W. (1993). Predictors of depression in street youth.
Adolescence, 28, 41-53.

Smith, K. D., Cole, P. M., Woolger, C. (March, 1990). Long-term eflects of incest on
parenting. Paper presented at the southeastern Conference on Human
Development, Richmond, VA.

Solomon, J. (1982). Marital intimacy and parent-infant relationships. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.

Spitz, R. A. (1959). A genetic field theory of ego formation: Its implications for

pathology. New York: International University Press.

137

Sroufe, L. A., Jacobvitz, D., Mangelsdorf, S., DeAngelo, B., & Ward, M. J. (1985).
Generational boundary dissolution between mothers and their preschool children:
A relationship systems approach. Child Development, 56, 317-325.

Steele, B. F. (1986). Notes on the lasting effects of early child abuse throughout the life
cycle. Child Abuse and Neglect, 10, 283-291.

Stoiber, K. C., & Houghton, T. G. (1993). The relationship of adolescent mothers’
expectations, knowledge and beliefs to their young children’s coping behavior.
Infant Mental Health Journal, 14, 61-79.

Swearingen, B., & Cohen, L. (1985). Life events and psychological distress: A
prospective study of young adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 21 , 1045-
1054.

Taylor, D. N., & del Pilar, J. (1992) Self-esteem, anxiety, and drug use. Psychological
Reports, 71 , 896-898.

Teti, D. M. & Gelfand, D. M. (1991). Behavioral competence among mothers of infants in
the first year: The mediational role of maternal self-efficacy. Child Development,
62, 918-929.

Thibaut, J., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.

Thoits, P. A. (1986). Social support as coping assistance. Journal of Consulting and -~~

Clinical Psychology, 54, 416-423.

Thompson, M. S., & Peebles-Wilkins, W. (1992). The impact of formal, informal, and
societal support networks on the psychological well-being of Black adolescent
mothers. Social Work, 3 7, 322-328.

Transeau, G., & Eliot, J. (1990). Individuation and adult children of alcoholics.
Psychological Reports, 67, 137-1990.

Turner, R. J. Grindstaff, C. F., & Phillips, N. (1990). Social support and outcome in
teenage pregnancy. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 31, 43-57.

138

Tyson, P, & Tyson, R. (1990). Psychoanalytic theories of development. New Haven: Yale
University Press.

Vega, W. A., Zimmerman, R. S., Warheit, G. J., & Apospori, E. (1993). Risk factors for
early adolescent drug use in four ethnic and racial groups. American Journal of
Public Health, 83(2), 185-189.

Vincent, C. E. (1961). Unmarried mothers. New York: Free Press.

Vukelich, C., & Kliman, D. S. (1985). Mature and teenage mothers’ infant growth
expectations and use of child devleopment information sources. Family Relations,
34, 189-196.

Walker, H. M., Shinn, M. R., O’Neill, R. B., & Ramsey, E. (1987). Longitudinal
assessment and long-term follow-up of antisocial behavior in fourth grade boys:
Rationale, methodology, measures, and results. Remedial and Special Education, 8,
7- 16.

Walkey, F. H., Siegert, R. J ., McCormick, I. A., & Taylor, A. J. W. (1987). Multiple
replication of the factor structure of the Inventory of Socially Supportive
Behaviors. Journal of Community Psychology, 15, 1987.

Weinman, M. L. Schreiber, N. B., & Robinson, M. (1992). Adolescent mothers: Were
there any gains in a parent education program? Family and Community Health, 15,
1- 10.

Weintraub, M., & Wolf, B. M. (1983). Effects of stress and social supports on mother-
child interactions in single- and two-parent familes. Child Development, 54, 1297-
131 1.

Wells, L. E., & Marwell, G. (1976). Self-esteem: Its conceptualization and measurement.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Williams, A. W., Ware, J. E., & Donald, C. A. (1981). A model of mental health, life
events, and social supports applicable to general populations. Journal of Health

and Social Behavior, 22, 324-336.

139

Wilson, J ., & Hernstein, R. (1985). Crime and human nature. NY: Simon and Schuster.

Winnicott, D. W. (1956). Primary maternal preoccupation. In Collected papers. (pp. 300-
305). NY: Basic Books.

Winnicott, D. W. (1960). Ego distortion in terms of true and false self. In The maturation
processes and the facilitating environment. (pp. 140-152). New York:
lntemational University Press.

Yarrow, L. J ., MacTurk, L., Vietze, J ., McCarthy, M. E., Klein, R. P., & McQuiston, S.
(1984). Development course of parental stimulation and its relationship to mastery
motivation during infancy. Developmental Psychology, 20, 492-503.

Young, M. (1988). Parenting during mid-adolescence: A review of developmental
theories and parenting behaviors. Maternal Child Nursing Journal, 1 7, 1-12.

Youngs, G. A., Rathge, R., Mullis, R., & Mullis, A. (1990). Adolescent stress and self-
esteem. Adolescence, 25, 333-341.

 

 

 
 
 
 
 

 

2..
3...;

l

LIBRQRIES

llll

1.2.,

llll

 

11.1....»

lll

31293010206195

lllll

MICHIGAN STRTE UNIV.

.95 it. . ._
71:12.1. I
. x}... , E ..

.. 1.5»... t, e n.