5“... ‘cvvfln‘t u“... I" . '..“ .,.-‘ J.‘,‘;‘¢:I§.‘\V(.vr—+i‘\ot... ‘..‘.4...~._ ~,.-,;-_~., 1.r-‘ M- .. '.. ‘wqh‘per- -~ ..'.- ; 1 (0.4131190, I ' nr ‘1 Lb This is to certify that the dissertation entitled Stress in African-American Families presented by Sybil Thembekile Buthelezi has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for : Ph.D . degree in mChfl-d Ecology ' L OQZJ/fi/Mfl MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution Major professor 0-12771 LIBRARY Michigan State University PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record. To AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 6/01 cJClRC/DateDuepBS—pJS STRESS IN AFRICAN-AMERICAN FAMILIES BY Sybil Thembekile Buthelezi A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Family and Child Ecology 2000 Professor Harriette McAdoo ABSTRACT STRESS IN AFRICAN-AMERICAN FAMILIES BY Sybil Thembekile Buthelezi The major purpose of this study was to examine sources of family stress variables: finance, gender matters, health, highest grade obtained at school, housing, legal matters, male— female relations, marital/partner relations, number of children, parenting, personal habits, personal relations, race/ethnic matters, religion, safety and work in a sample of African- American single-parents. The population consisted of Mid—Western African-American single parents and Mexican single parents. The Ethnic Families Research Project (EFRP) selected a sample of 300 subjects, but for this study, 148 single African—Americans who met the research criteria were selected. The mean age of the participants was 34.41 years while the mean income was $3,500. Most of the participants fall under the poverty level as defined by national minimum averages ($16,000- 00 for an urban family of 4. All the subjects were single parents, 43% never married, 2.7% widowed or widower, 25% divorced and 21% separated. The gender representation in this single parenthood sample consisted of 21 males and 126 females. The majority in the sample, 32.4% had three children; 20.3% had two children and 18.9% had one child each. Only 32.4% were workingy 38% were unemployed. and 14.2% were homemakers. The highest grade obtained by the majority of participants was the twelfth grade. The average grade was 12.37. The largest percent 45.9% had completed the twelfth grade, 17.8% the eleventh grade and 10.8% two year college graduates. The data was analyzed in Michigan State University computer laboratory facilities. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) computer programs for frequencies, and correlation was used to analyze the data. The data analysis began with descriptive statistics which gave the mean, standard deviation, variance, range and percentages of the various dependent and independent variables. A correlation was used at the .01. The 01 level of significance to examine the relationship between the sources of stress, the fourteen stress variables. All variables were significant. Inter-correlation showed correlation in thirteen variables while finance was not related to all of the others. Finance was the most stressful variable while race matters were the least stressful. While it is expected that this study may provide additional insights into the relational factors of family stress, an examination of larger population samples would enhance the generalizability of the findings. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to extend my sincere gratitude to the members of my committee Drs. Harriette McAdoo, Chairperson, Gloria Smith, Julia Miller and Carl Taylor. Their scholarly contributions, support and respect that I have for them cannot be overstated. I tender a special expression of appreciation for Dr. Harriette Pipes McAdoo, the chairperson of my committee and my professional role model. Her enthusiasm, intellectual input, moral support and her unswerving belief in me kept me engaged in this project in the face of discouragement and frustration. Her faith, friendship and warmth oiled the academic process and brought my study to its completion. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the encouragement, patience, support and understanding of my family, who have struggled with me through this whole process. I appreciate their willingness to accept the academic, economic and social challenges which our stay in the United States of America has brought them. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST 0? TABLES .. vii LIST 0! FIGURES ... viii Chaptor I. INTRODUCTION Statement of the problem 1 Purpose of the study 3 Significance of the study 4 Overview of the study 4 Conceptual framework 5 Ecological perspectives of African- American families .. 12 II. REVIEI’OP LITERATURE Stress ... 14 African—American families . 19 African—American and stress factors .......... . 34 Research questions .. 37 Exogenous stressful episodes from the larger environment .. 72 Research questions .. 76 III. RESEARCRiMETRODOLOG! Overview .. 78 Research Design .. 78 Data Collection ... 79 Research questions .. 80 Sample .. 80 Instrumentation .... 85 IV. RESULTS Introduction ... 9O Ranking of the sources of stress .................... . 90 Relationships between sources of stress .. 92 ‘VI DISCUSSIOIN Discussion of results ... 96 Conclusion .. 102 APPENDICES A Letter of introduction ..105 B Letter of consent ..106 C Questionnaire mmm.. ..107 REFERENCES .. 108 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Demographic Characteristics of Subjects 2 Demographic Characteristics of Subjects Continued 3 Religion of Subjects 4 Ranking of Source Variables 5 Intercorrelation of Stress Variables Among African-American Families m. vfi Page 81 83 84 90 94 LIST OF FIGURES Figures Page 1 The family in context: An ecology of nested system '7 2 The Boss Model: A contextual approach to family to family stress . 11 an CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Statement of Problem Family stress continues to be one of the most intractable social problems facing African—American families because of increasing poverty which is associated with the decline in marriages, increase in the number of female—headed families (Rexroat, 1994; Wilkie, 1991) out-of— wedlock births (Rexroat, 1994; McAdoo, 1995), and changing family structures. Poor families face severe limitations on economic opportunities because wages and jobs are decreasing, public policies decrease funds, and institutionalized racism deprives these families of opportunities for breaking out of the trap of poverty (Darity, 1994; Aldridge, 1991 ). Family stress is further increased by the underfunding of antipoverty programs and the isolation of poor families in low-income, violent neighborhoods (Fitzpatrick & Gomez, 1997). As President Clinton (2000) states, two thirds of the jobs and in the suburbs and attempts must be made to bring jobs near the people by means of housing vouchers and by means of developing poor inner city neighborhoods. Family stress in African-American families is peculiar because of the legacy of three centuries of slavery, discrimination, and the constant, if unconscious fear of unequal treatment by the majority culture. Marital formation and dissolution of African—American marriages harm the well being of these families. The proportion of African-American 18 year olds who were married declined from 64% to 43%, while the proportion of never married increased from 20.6% to 37.4% in the early nineties (Keith, 1997). This decline in marriage is largely caused by a wide range of factors which includes Black male joblessness, legal entitlement to public assistance, pauperization of the working class and the increase in divorce (Testa and Krogh, 1995, Wilson, 1987). Vontress and Epp (1997) suggest that stress in African-Americans manifests itself in a triad of emotions and behavior which is dominated by hostility, hopelessness, and a paranoid perception of discrimination in most cross racial encounters. The lack of decent affordable housing, the gap between income and median rents, the increase in homelessness (Butler, 1997), and also residence, socioeconomic status, income and employment opportunities are to some extent decided by race and ethnicity of families. African-American families are at the bottom of the social rung, hence their predisposition to stress. Yet no two families react in exactly the same way to the same stressors. Such variations emanate from the complexities of personal, familial, cultural and racial factors which impact families. African-American family stress variations are consistent with their cultural and familial perspectives. Though social scientists have written much about stress in families, there exists considerable room for studying stress among African-American families. The need for this study arises from the complexities that African-American families face within the dominant White middle class families, whose studies are often generalized to all families in the United States. This research explores variations of family stress in African-American families by a secondary analysis of data collected by a professor of the Department of Family and Child Ecology and the Institute for Children, Youth and Families. This project dealt with African—American families and Mexican-American families. Though the problems studied were much broader than stress, this study is confined to family stress in African-American families. Purpose of the Study The primary focus of this study is to examine family stress in a sample of African-American single parent families. The researcher examined fourteen variables which could be associated with family stress. Other purposes of this study are to: 1. Expand the knowledge and understanding of stress in families by focusing on African-American families. 2. List variables from the highest to the lowest sources of stress. 3. Determine the relationships between the various stress variables. 4. Examine variables which are associated with stress, such as housing, finances, health, safety, personal habits, work, male-female relations, marriage, personal relationships, parenting, legal areas, race and ethnicity, gender—related issues, and religion and spirituality. Significance of the Study This researcher intends for this study to contribute to the theoretical foundations of family stress studies in single parent African-American families. New understanding of family stress will lead to new approaches in building family competencies which reduce stress levels and a subsequent reduction of the emotional, physical and social effects of stress. A study of stress in African-American families would be of benefit to South African Black families as the researcher is herself a Black from South Africa, and plans to return to South Africa and conduct similar studies. The study comes at a time when researchers on stress in African-American family studies refute earlier studies on methodological grounds, as well as the insensitivity and apparent racism which has distorted findings (Allen, 1978; Herskovits, 1964; McAdoo, 1996; Nobles, 1978; Sudarkasa, 1996. Earlier studies were invalidated by sampling error, failure to consider the economic status, inability of interviewers to relate to Blacks, and the pervasive climate of bigotry and discrimination (Freeman, 1982). Overview of the Study Chapter 1 provides the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the significance of the study, the theoretical framework and the overview of the study. Chapter 2 consists of a historical overview of literature on African-American families and on stress in families. The review of literature on family stress looks at both stress in African-American and other minority families as well as stress in the majority population. Varying research approaches on family stress is provided. This chapter also includes a list of independent and dependent variables, hypotheses and also a definition of concepts. Chapter 3 describes the research methodology which includes research design, sampling, description of the instrumentation, reliability and measurement issues. Chapter 4 describes the results of correlation between source of stress and fourteen dependent variables, inter- correlation and the ranking of stress from the most stressful to the least stressful. Chapter 5 is discussion, which includes the relationship between source of stress and variables and how the results relate to literature, and also includes what literature says about the rank order of the sources of stress. Conceptual Frameworks This study uses an ecological perspective as developed by Bronfenbrenner (1989) and modified by Synder, Ooms and Hutchins (1991), and Boss’s contextual approach to family stress (1985). Synder, Ooms and Hutchins adhere to Brofenbrenner’s ecological model but present it in a modified version of their own, Figure 1. Boss’s contextual approach to family extends Brofenbrenner's model. The differences in these two models will be explained later. Bronfenbrenner devised a four-layered system of interaction between individuals and their environments. What is crucial to this model is the interrelatedness of the levels and the elements within the levels. The cause and effect relationships are circular and not linear, with the result that there is no beginning nor end, neither cause nor effect (Montgomery, 1982). Seen in this way, one cannot isolate the sources of the stress from the eco-system and study them individually. They are influenced by the other variables in the ecosystem, and by the ecosystem itself. Each change in the family ecosystem results in changes in the other parts of the ecosystem and a change in the final family configuration. Thus the loss of a job by the mother sends ripples running through the family stress terrain as members of the family readjust and redefine the loss according to their positionality within the family configuration. For the eldest supporting child the loss may mean that she or he has to take a second job or increase her or his working hours a week in order to cushion the family during this trying period. For the youngest child the loss of the mother’s job may mean that she or he may spend a day at school without lunch as the mother provided lunch money. What we see above is the reformulation of theories on family configurations so that there may be changes in functions, form, goals, organization, practices, rules and values as families adjust to changes. A new system lives, and with it is a new family structure with new patterns of interaction. The Family in Context: An Ecology of Nested Syste- (Macro-) State, National & World Systems (Exo-) System of daily life (Mao) Extended Family Bio-Psycho-Social Organism (Micro) Mom, Dad, Step parents, Sisters, brothers & Step-siblings Grandparents Aunts and Uncles Cousins & others Neighborhoods & Workplaces local Government, Police/Courts 'al Services, Civic Organizations Health Care System Community Self-help Local Businesses Federal Government Programs Other bureaucratic Institutions, Laws International Politics and Relations Other countries/ The World Figure l: Adapted fiom and Bronfenbrenner, 1989, and Synder, Ooms & Hutchins, 1991. Micro-level The innermost level is the micro-level. The model suggests that stress at the microlevel may be triggered or managed by the dynamic interaction of family members who may be the mother, the father, the stepmother, the step father, the sisters, brothers, siblings or step siblings. For instance, the absence of the father exasperates the loss of a job by the mother, and the loss may become more stressful because of the presence of a pregnant teenage daughter and another daughter who may be going to college. Family stress may also arise from the personality dynamics within the family as the family deals with specific family events. How different family members perceive events, mediate these events and meet them with their adaptive responses will determine their stressfulness or stresslessness. Mesa-level The meso-level of the framework has extended family members such as grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins and others. These support systems are the social support, the instrumental support or counseling, active support or mothering and the material support or goods and service. The social support is: (1)Emotional by making a person feel that she or he is cared for and loved. (2)Esteem supportive by making one feel that one is esteemed and valued. (3) Network supportive by giving one a place in network communication and mutual obligation. The Exo-level The exo-level in the system of daily life is the neighborhood, the workplace, social setting,, schools, churches and friends. Another part of the exo-system includes the formal community such as local government, services from the police, courts, social services, civic organizations and movements, health care system, community self help and local businesses. Variations of the exo-levels of African-American families result in variations in the whole ecological field of family stress. For instance, the decision taken by President Clinton to reduce the marriage penalty for the Earned Income Tax Credit, was taken at the Federal government level, the exo—level, but it will affect the other levels of the ecological field the meso-level and the micro—level. Macro-level The outer level, the macro-level consists of the state, the national and the world system which include the Federal Government and State programs, other bureaucratic institutions, laws, international politics and relations and the influence of the world on family interactions. The welfare system, affirmative action and the Moynihan Report are at this level. The Boss Model This study also uses the Boss model because it extends Hill's ABCX model (1949) by indicating that the interaction is not linear but are multidirectional. The X factor (the stress factor) is not the effect of A, B and C, but there are times when the X factor influences A, B and C. The Boss model has an external and internal contexts. The external dimensions of the model are: 1. Constitutional. The biological and physical strength of the members of the family 2. Cultural. Canons and mores by which the family define and react to stressful situations Ii.DovalopIant. The stages in the life cycle of both the individual and the family itself 4. Economic. The state of the economy of the larger environment. 5. Historical. The time when the event takes place. EL Raliqious. Values and beliefs mediating stressful situations. The internal dimension of the Boss model (1987) has the following dimensions: 1. Sociological. The structure and function of the family with regards to its boundaries. 2. Psychological. The family's defense mechanisms. 3. Philosophical. The family’s values and beliefs. 10 Figure 2 The Boss Model: A Contextual Approach to Family Stress (Boss, 1987) Though Brofenbrenner's model and the Boss model have commonalties in their ecological approaches, the Boss model extends and refines some of the elements of the ecological fields. For instance, Boss introduces the developmental context which is the stage in the life cycle of both individuals and family itself. She maintains that a newly formed family of young people may perceive the event of pregnancy more positively than a mature family in which there are already six children (1987). In her constitutional context, Boss says that some people have more stamina and resilience, which influences the energy and perseverance they have to activate and maintain the coping process (Boss, 1987). Other components of the Boss model widen the ecological field, therefore, it is included in this study. H our, :4 IL. Ecological Perspective of African-American Families The ecological perspective views African-American families within the ecosystems (Bronfenbrenner, 1989). This approach takes into consideration current environmental factors and relations within and outside the family. It views African— American families holistically within their existential realities. The strengths, variations and weaknesses of African- American families are not attributed to single or multiple causes in an additive fashion. McAdoo (1996), Boyd-Franklin (1993, 1993) have challenged the validity of the additive linear approaches in studies of African-American families, but suggest that we examine a constellation of configurations that are hatched by an interaction of various factors. These factors may arise from the external context, which may be constitutional, cultural, developmental, economical, historical and religious, or may also arise from the internal factors which are philosophical, psychological and sociological, the latter being behavioral, cognitive and emotional responses (Boss,1987). While isolating these factors for the purpose of studying them. ecologists do not lose sight of the complexity of the relatedness of these factors. Ecologists recognize the historical impact on African-American families, but immerse the historical impact within a wider context. They present a wide range of issues to be studied in order to understand African- American families. Tucker and Mitchell-Kernan (1995) maintain that recently Robert Hill (1993) with a team of scholars including Andrew Billingsley, Eleanor Engram, and Carol Stark examined research 12 A? ‘:y:";":‘ v.1 3“.‘~~°"“" " ov:3”"‘l‘" ". ......-..c.-- ~- ~0“‘V P vb“ an “4.55 at” ’, VcI-Afi “" I'LLE-s‘va-I ‘1‘ tea: exarir. p; .Av‘. RH tab 'V‘OJ' \uU palsy and . 5A : flan ~ UVQ'J'j‘L - on African-American families. They found that the conventional treatment of African-American families tended towards the “defective model’ and the exclusion of the bulk of African— American families as researchers focused on one subgroup. This team examined a number of issues such as the influence of history, culture,, social, economic, political forces, public policy and psychological dynamics such as discouragement, and self-esteem. This team adopted a holistic approach. The ecological approach as expounded by Bronfenbrenner (1989) and Boss (1986) augment the holistic approach by widening the areas of inquiry in the understanding of families. This study will therefore use the ecological perspective while extrapolating much of the findings from studies conducted by Robert Hill (1993) and the others. The range and the interrelatedness of factors in the ecological field of African—American families forms the main trust of this study. 13 CHAPTER II REVIEI’OP LITERATURE This chapter summarizes current literature on African American families, tress and researches on sources of tress in African American families. Stress Seyle (1956 ) defines stress as the rate of all wear and tear caused by life. He maintains that all life events are potential stressors and contribute to wear and tear of an individual. This wear and tear often leads to what McCubbin and Patterson (1982) called the stress—pile-up. Lazarus and Cohen (1977) define a stressor or a stressor event as one which taxes or exceeds the resources of the system. Fallon et. al., (1993) view stress as an individual’s response to threat. The response may be psychological, physiological, biochemical or involve all three systems. Rabkin and Struening (1976) state that mounting stress preceded sudden accidents, athletic injuries, cardiac death, diabetes, leukemia, multiple sclerosis stress, myocardial infarctions, tuberculosis and many minor medical ailments. To these physical effects of stress may be added the emotional, psychological and social ill effects of stress. In addition, the understanding of potentially stressful variables may assist in the reduction of ill effects of stress. Family l4 stress is the response of family members to threats. The literature suggests that there are variations in the pattern of family member responses even when the stressors are similar in nature (Lazarus, 1977; Cooper & Marshall 1977). Keith (1997) states that stress levels differ because of two factors. Some people are exposed to more stressful life problems than others because of particular constellation of roles and economic resources. The Boss (1986) model would ascribe the differences in stress levels to a wide range of differences between individuals. The differences on the external context between individuals may be in the constitutional, cultural, developmental, economic, historical or religious make~up of the persons. The differences could also be in the internal level because of different philosophical, psychological and sociological dynamics. Others are more psychologically responsive to stress because they are less likely to have psychosocial resources. Threats are often either ambient stress or life events. Ambient Stress Ambient stress is the tension that arises from day to day hassles of life in the community (Fallon et. al., 1993) This includes the accumulation of stresses in the household, social and leisure pursuits, and in work environments (de Longes et. al., 1983). Though such a wide range of stress is extremely difficult to quantify (Cooper et. al., 1977), household stress has, however, been measured through expressed emotions (Vaughan & Leff, 1975) and in family burden). While home care, 15 interpersonal relationships, unemployment and other work related activities area major components of ambient stress, they have been less readily measured (Fallon et. al., 1993). The major problem in studying ambient stress are the fast changing dynamics of household, social and leisure pursuits, and changing work environment and work force. For instance, the increase in the number of full-time employed men and women in dual earner couples in the labor force may have eased the economic family strains, but caused such family struggles with managing the needs of families and work in working environments that are readily not family friendly (Barnett et. a1. 1994). These changing dynamics leaves the poor hopeless, lonely and isolated and enduring greater levels of stress, and hence have higher incidence of mental health Harrington, 1962).Just as Black males are many more times to be found in the prisons than White males, so too are they over represented in the state and county mental hospitals, says Darity and Myers (1995). These scholars go on to say that African-Americans represent 12% of the general American population, in 1990 Black males comprised 28.8% of all males in mental (psychiatric) hospitals. Pioneering research on stress in the work place was conducted on males in manufacturing occupations, and was then generalized in non-manufacturing work in families. (Marshall, Barnett & Sayer, 1993); Reed, LaCroix, Karasek,). Moreover, recent studies of contemporary samples indicate that the workers of the 1990's are significantly different from their predecessors, and may, therefore, experience a rewarding or stressful aspect job that might not have been experienced in 16 0‘ 9"9" ‘ iv"" :r’ tn ’ T h-A'I'D". er! V‘s}... 'fl. uA'FQ" 'y 5/0““. (Hahn. r. Uni-v9" 4" u. . A perscna an? thd« s a .‘eads to chubbin A st family sec Causes any i; ‘ “i “Lia/5:31.18 T a the past (Barnett et. al. 1994). Families of the 1990's are also significantly different from their predecessors so that there is a high probability of changes in experience in wear and tear of events and everyday life hassles. Asmundsson (1987) maintains that the majority of working women are mothers in nuclear families, and family stress related to women at work will so differ in that single parents experience more stress since neither traditional nor egalitarian support systems are available to them. He further gives several personal factors which may determine family stress. Some of these factors are: Do both parents work? Do both parents want to work? Do both parents need to work? Are they physically well? How far is the work place? Is the work monotonous or challenging? Are they paid well? How do the parents balance the work load of the home and that of their occupation? Life events Life events such as death in the family, or that of a close friend, loss of a job, breakdown of relationship and divorce are more discrete family stressors. Such stressful events have a potential of becoming crises. A family crises occurs a when family’s interpretation of the traumatic event leads to stress so severe that coping becomes impossible (McCubbin et. al., 1982). A stressor event is one that produces a change in the family social system (McCubbin et. al., 1982) or an event that causes any sharp or decisive change for which old patterns are inadequate (Hill, 1949). The literature suggests that it is the 17 severity of the changes which make an event to be stressful. Hansen and Hill (1964) argue that the more sudden or unanticipated a stressor event is, the greater the disruptiveness or the stress. Stressor events are more quantifiable than ambient stress. Earlier findings on stress among African—American families indicate that there is a need for further research on stress in African-American families. These findings asserted that stress was rare amongst African Americans (Bacock, 1895; Bevis, 1921; Prange and Vitols 1962). For instance, Bevis (1921) stated that “most Blacks are carefree, live in the here and now with a limited capacity to recall or profit by experiences of the past. Sadness and depression have little part in their psychological make—up. Prange and Vitol (1962) concluded that stress was part of the White man’s culture because the Negro has less to lose and is less apt to lose it. As a defense against loss, he has attitudes of stoicism and subtle defiance, religiosity, and an extended family relationship; he can also projectively locate the source of misfortune outside himself. Unbiased studies on African Americans refute these assertions and have used methodologies that are consistent with family stress research in other racial groups. Findings from unbiased studies suggest that stress is found among African-Americans though the reactions to various stressors differ between African-Americans and the majority population (O’Brien and Iannotti, 1993) much as differ between the various classes of African-Americans and between individuals within the same class. Though African Americans differ by class 18 it ought to born in mind that individuals within classes differ in terms all the factors that Bronfenbrenner (1989) and Boss (1986) include in their ecological fields. The ages, the histories, the constitution, the cognitive responses, the emotional responses, and the behavioral responses of people differ within each class. African-American Families Literature on African American is divergent in nature in that it presents the cultural ethnocentric approach led by Frazier (1939), and the cultural relativity approach championed by Herskovits (1964) and others. McAdoo (1996) notes that the cultural ethnocentric approach was dominant until the early 1970’s. However, in recent years there has been a rise in prominence of the ecological theories of the families (Bronfenbrenner, 1989) which challenge the simplistic view of family structure as the sole determinant of developmental outcomes. This study adopts the ecological approach and examines a wide range of context impinging on African-American families. Cultural Ethnocentric Perspective The cultural ethnocentric perspective based on the work of Frazier (1939), dominated early literature on African-American families (McAdoo, 1996, Staples, 1981, Boyd—Franklin, 1989 & 1993). This approach viewed African American families as disorganized (Dodson, 1996). Frazier asserted that African- American families had no cultural ties with their African heritage, but had evolved family structures which were imposed 19 by customs and practices emanating from slavery. This gave rise to female-headed households and disorganized family structures consisting of blood and non-blood kin (Johnson, 1996). The cultural ethnocentric perspective implied that African-Americans were culturally deviant, dysfunctional, inadequate, negative and pathological in contrast to White middle class nuclear families (Dilworth-Anderson, Burton and Johnson 1993). These cultural ethnocentrists viewed African- Americans within a tangle of pathologies marked by single parenthood, broken homes, high crime rate, high rate of unemployment, high incident of adolescent parenting, high incident of children out of wedlock, high infant mortality rate and high divorce rate. The cultural ethnocentric perspective saw the remedy of African-Americans as alleviation of poverty and assimilation to the dominant culture, that of the white middle class nuclear family. The Moynihan Report of 1965 suggested that poor academic performance, lack of employment and social isolation emanated from the chaotic African American structure (Dodson 1996). Akbar (1996) tends to this cultural ethnocentric perspective when he says that the historical images which African-American families have inherited continue to sabotage many African— American efforts for true manhood and womanhood The major flaws with this approach is its historical and cultural determinism, and its belief that African-American families are monolithic. This approach often looks at the poorest African American families and compares them to middle class White families, and then generalizes their findings to 20 . a:,.-: :1..ng 1“)" n a»y.4.v ., 4.. r3, rlnvy v6 riv' .» "N a V oer“. . g V awe 1.6;”, . 5““.r" buabj. ‘E‘Qv in... who' tuy~ ‘IV‘N‘ fl,” wcrx b If) *3 all African American families. Recent literature suggests that African—American families are heterogeneous because of their complex varieties of adaptive variables. For instance, the African American middle class is distinct from the African American low class although literature blurs the differences. For instance Andersen (1999) points out that the inner city poverty pockets he visited he noticed overwhelming numbers of single-parents, where fathers, uncles and older brothers were frequently incarcerated. In these pocket of poverty oppositional culture, crack culture or the code of street prevailed, and there was less respect for the law. Yet within these areas, there were decent people who never bought into oppositional culture or crack culture (Anderson, 1999). African-American middle class families do not live in the pockets of poverty described above. They move away from predominantly Black ghetto neighborhoods (Darity and Myers, 1994; Wilson, 1987). Du Bois maintained that African—Americans consisted of four classes, the first, the well—to-do; the second, the hard-working decent laborers who were getting by very well; third, the trying to work but barely making ends meet, and the fourth, the submerged tenth beneath the surface of economic viability Andersen, 1999). Cultural ethnocentric studies often concentrate on the third and fourth class and generalize their findings to all classes. Cultural Relativity Perspective The cultural relativists challenged the idea that African- American families were centers of tangles of pathologies and that enslavement deleted African influence on African American 21 iailzes. Y. 3%. can C‘tfi. ... w i - ‘Aynn fr:. r .vauu 5.5th were name: fi‘ ‘ Aw tree o. is. c . .V. "on: 2. arm 8...: c ,. - , . .:.r.:i m 5:: 15¢ “’4? Cab . m: I sap IK‘ 5‘3? .' “‘vanfl . ‘1 J». ‘59,, ‘IU. ’ Jdé) ”it fa» ~ ‘u '5»- ‘\ 13’ .3 «33¢ m_l:;“e “.L F families. Much of what cultural relativists saw were vestiges of African culture (Du Bois, 1908, Herskovits (1964); Sudarkasa (1996); Boyd-Franklin (1989); McAdoo (1996); and Billingsley (1992). In examining marital records, Billingsley (1992) found that more than two thirds of the freed enslaved people were married and that families were headed by males. The current trend of female-headed families is therefore not just the result of enslavement, but results from socio-economic conditions found in African-American families (Chapman 1996). The eligibility for Aid for Dependent Children (AFDC), poverty and a shortage of African American males are responsible for the increase in female-headed households (Billingsley, 1992; Chapman 1996; Fosset & Kiecolt, 1993). African American families still experience more poverty and adverse conditions than White families even when African-American families are intact (Dodson, 1996). Many cultural relativists attribute these disparities to racism and discrimination (Boyd—Franklin 1993; Darity and Myers, 1994; Darity 1995). Furthermore, the cultural relativists maintained that factors beyond the control of African American families, such as underemployment, incarceration of many African males, and their serving in the military make them unavailable (Billingsley, 1992) with the resultant imbalance in the ratio of males to females so that males, are less likely to marry (Darity and Myers 1994.) Males are more apt to involve themselves with multiple partners when there is an abundance in the opposite sex. Darity and Myers (1994) maintain that the declining Black male labor force participation is fully consistent with declines 22 in marriageability of these men. A reduction in the supply of marriageable men contribute to the growth of female-headed families or female headed households. Though referring to the whole country, Clinton (2000) captures this situation when he says that nearly one in three American children grows up in a home without a father. These children ar five times likely to live in poverty than children with both parents. Ecological Perspective The ecological perspective views African-American families as being within ecosystems (Bronfenbrenner, 1989). This approach takes into consideration current environmental factors and relations within and outside the family. It views African-American families holistically within their existential realities. The strengths, variations and weaknesses of African— American families are not attributed to single or multiple causes in an additive fashion. McAdoo (1994), Darity and Myers (1994), Byod-Franklin (1993 ) have challenged the validity of the additive linear approaches in studies of African-American families. They suggest that an ecological perspective gives a comprehensive view of African—American families in the totality of their multifaceted ecological field. African-American families have in recent years sloughed off distortive studies of the past which viewed these families as “pathologic and deviant simply because the women and children were without a man (Bould, 1977) or viewed them as “centers of the tangle of pathology” (Moyniham, 1975). Contemporary studies suggest that African-American families be studied within their 23 cultural particularistics (Allen, 1978; McAdoo, 1996; Nobles, 1978; Sudarkasa, 1996). Thus, the study of stress in this study seeks to capture and examine stress within the African-American cultural particularistics. The cultural variant perspective of African-American families maintains that African-American families are an important sub-culture of American society, different in many ways from White families, but possessing value system patterns of behavior and institutions which are described, understood and appreciated for their own strength and characters (Peters, 1996). The current study accepts the cultural continuities but does not subscribe to the “sub-culture” connotation of the variant approach. It does not view African-American families as being sub to any family configurations. It also does not view African-American families as monolithic but accepts that class, gender, poverty, and race are some of the determinants of African -American families social formations (Heiss, 1975; Hill, 1981). Within this cultural emblem, the current study also views stress within a constellation of class level and castelike status (Scanzoni, 1977; Ogbu, 1996), and within the support network (Hill, 1975; McAdoo, 1978). That African-American families differ from White American families is also evident when McAdoo (1996) points out that “Status differentiation 'unique to Blacks has been based upon the skin color, hair type, aand the absence or presence of Negroid or Caucasoid facial features.” For Glick (1996), differences between African— Z¥nerican families and other families have been “Converging, 24 others diverging, and others simply persisting. One of the differences is that in 1985 there were as many as 30% one-parent African-American families as were 27% married families in contrast to the other races where 11% were one-parent families and 38% were married families” (Glick 1996). Literature points out that “Due to socioeconomic and demographic circumstances, African—American women are still less likely to postpone childbirth and much more likely to have children out of wedlock. Over 60 percent of all births to African—American women were out of wedlock as compared to 17 percent among White mothers” (Novick et. al., 1989). Within these differences, stress factors are bound to differ. Ecologists examine complex multiple-causal determinants of variations in African-American families within varying environmental factors. These varying environmental factors refute the assumption that African-American families are monolithic. The diversity in African-American families is largely determined by environmental factors which this study discusses under home, neighborhood and economic realities. Home Environment Although Luster and McAdoo (1994) indicate that studies involving home environment and African-American families have concentrated on single parent families, generally studies on home environment suggest that there is a correlation between familial development outcomes and the home environment. The literature provides ample empirical evidence of economic 25 hardship, psychological distress in parenting and socio— emotional development of African—American families. African-American homes like Americans families in found in four classes, the middle class, the hard-working well-to-do class, the working poor and the underclass. One of the major tasks of African—American families is in assisting their children in the development of their bicultural status. DuBois (1908) described as this double consciousness, this sense of looking at oneself through the eyes of others, of measuring one’s self by the tape of the world that looks on in amused contempt and pity. One ever feels his twoness, -an American, a Negro: two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled striving; two warring ideals in one dark body, whose dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder. The African— American middle class has a sense of importance of the fact of their Blackness, a pride in themselves and emerge through the window of opportunity to establish for themselves homes which sample good life (Coner-Edwards and Edwards, 1988). These middle class Black families have adapted some distinctive characteristics of the dominant society. They believe that they Inust work hard to maintain their status and must work harder to rnaintain it (Coner-Edwards and Edwards, 1988). Their delay of (gratification enables them to build an estate or an investment Exortfolio or buy a dream house or travel abroad (Coner-Edwards arui Edwards, 1988). They have strong work orientation, high acfliievement orientation, strong kinship bonds strong religious cxrientation and flexibility of roles Pinderhughes, 1988). bhnnerous scholars such as Boykin & Toms (1985); Comer & 26 pousaint (1994); Hines & Boyd-Franklin (1982); Pinderhughes (1982) and Peters (1996) have written about the development of the bicultural identities of African-Americans. Families help African-Americans deal with the racism they experience because of their ethnicity and color (Billingsley, 1968; Jackson, McCullough & Curin, 1996; Nobles 1989-; Peters 1996). The homes of the second class, the hard—working well—to—do are often not in the rich suburbs but amongst the Black ghettos. Despite living in these poor neighborhoods, this class has homes that are relatively progressive, well run and act as models for the third and fourth class. The literature indicates that children from this class act and assume the symbols of the poor classes in order to be accepted, and be seen as not acting white (Andersen, 1999; Tucker and Mitchell-Kernan 1995) . Like the Black middle class the hard-working well-to do class has a resilience which gives African—American children an amazing capacity to cope and rise above circumstances (Jenkins, 1988) . This is facilitated by homes which create an atmosphere that is a healing contrast to the negative things that Black children experience everyday outside. Such homes provide children with bOOKS, pictures, music, cleanliness, order, sympathy, understanding information friendship and love (Jenkins, 1988) . These decent Black families are on the decline because of the Postindustrial displacement of manufacturing jobs, shifts in unSkilled jobs from the central cities to the suburbs, from the ruStbelt: to the sunbelt and from the domestic labor markets to third wOrld countries white (Andersen, 1999; Tucker and M3-‘l‘—<:hell~Kernan 1995) . The isolation of this class from the 27 influence of the Black middle class which lives in better neighborhood robs this class and its children of role models. The middle class moved to better environments for many reasons. The homes of the working Blacks who are poor and finds difficult to make ends meet differ greatly from the classes which we have been discussed above. They live in poor neighborhoods and live from pay check to pay check. These are the people who fall under the 20 percent of families. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and Economic Policy Institute maintains that the rich are getting richer while the poor get poorer (Lansing State Journal, Jan. 18, 2000). In the last decade the rich families gained 15 percent more income, while the middle class gained 2 percent and the poor families gained 1 percent (Lansing State Journal, Jan. 18, 2000). Homes of the poor Black families adapt to their poverty partially mitigating their strong achievement orientation, work orientation, and the need for providing their children with books, pictures, music and a window of opportunity. These homes are often trapped into the culture of poverty which is marked by a desire for crazy :money, oppositional culture, teenage pregnancies, welfare dependency and underground economy (Andersen 1999). Homes of the underclass, the fourth class have the worst