Continuity of Parenting across Generations: The Interplay of Parenting Styles and Age at First Birth by Carlynn Elizabeth Arends A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science Auburn, Alabama August 6, 2011 Copyright 2011 by Carlynn Elizabeth Arends Approved by Gregory S. Pettit, Chair, Professor of Human Development and Family Studies Stephen A. Erath, Associate Professor of Human Development and Family Studies Jennifer L. Kerpelman, Professor of Human Development and Family Studies ii Abstract Using prospective longitudinal data, this study examined cross-generational linkages in positive and negative parenting and in age of becoming a parent. Of particular interest was whether early-childhood parenting and being born to a young mother uniquely increase the likelihood of becoming a young parent. Also of interest was whether continuity in parenting is stronger for younger parents compared to older parents. Initial data were collected in 1987-1988 when participants (G2s) were 5-years-old, with annual follow-ups through age 28. Information collected from mothers (G1s) was used to create measures of early parenting; demographic data also were collected at that time. In late adolescence and early adulthood participants were interviewed to assess whether they had become a parent and, for those with a 5-year-old, parenting behavior also was assessed. Findings show that: (1) there was modest cross- generational continuity in age of becoming a parenting and in use of harsh discipline; (2) positive parenting in early childhood predicted later age of becoming a parent; (3) these links were partially explained by socioeconomic status and early-adolescent socialization experiences (e.g., affiliation with antisocial peers); and (4) cross-generational continuity in parenting was stronger for younger G2 parents than for older G2 parents. Collectively, these findings suggest that timing of parenting and parenting behavior are related in meaningful but complex ways across generations. Implications for programs designed to decrease the likelihood of early parenthood and assist those who become parents at an early age are discussed. iii Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Dr. Gregory S. Pettit for his supervision, continual support, guidance, and encouragement throughout this process. She would also like to thank her committee members, Dr. Stephen Erath and Dr. Jennifer Kerpelman. The author would like to extend her sincerest gratitude to her family, Jaben, and Grayson for their continual love, support, and patience. Finally, many thanks are due to God for the motivation and support needed to complete her master?s thesis. iv Table of Contents Abstract ??????????????????????????????????... ii Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... iii List of Tables.????????????????????????????????. vi List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. viii Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1 Review of Literature ????????????????????????????? ..9 Negative Life Events Associated with Becoming a Young Parent ..................................10 Developmental Outcomes of Being Born to a Young Parent ..........................................12 Parenting Qualities of Younger Parents Compared to Older Parents??????? 14 Predictors of Young Parenthood: The Role of Being Born to a Young Parent and Parenting Received in Childhood and Adolescence ??????????? 17 Intergenerational Continuity in Parenting ........................................................................21 The Current Study ............................................................................................................29 Method ...........................................................................................................................................31 Sample and Procedure ?...??????????????????????? 31 Measures ............................................................................................................................33 Results ??????????????????????????????????... 40 Descriptive Statistics .........................................................................................................40 v Correlations within variable domains ................................................................................42 Correlations across variable domains ???????????????????? 44 Regression Analyses ..........................................................................................................46 Discussion .....................................................................................................................................53 Limitations ........................................................................................................................69 Future Directions ................................................................................................................72 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................73 References ......................................................................................................................................74 Appendices .....................................................................................................................................85 Appendix A - Tables ..........................................................................................................86 Appendix B - Figures .......................................................................................................102 Appendix C - Measures ..................................................................................................104 vi List of Tables Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Entire G2 Sample and Subsample of G2 Parents ??? ......91 Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for G2 Parents of 5-year-olds ?????? ????........... ...92 Table 3. Correlations between Socio-demographic Characteristics and Other Study Variables?. ?????????????????????????????.93 Table 4. Correlations between Proximal Socialization Factors and Other Study Variables ? ?????????????????????????????.94 Table 5. Correlations among G1 and G2 Age and G1 and G2 Parenting Variables ??...?? .95 Table 6. Regression Analysis Predicting G2 Age from G1 Age and G1 Parenting ?? ?? ? 96 Table 7. Regression Analysis Predicting G2 Age from G1 Age and G1 Parenting with Socio- Demographic Controls ?????? ?????????????????? ...97 Table 8. Regression Analysis Predicting G2 Age from G1 Age and G1 Parenting with Proximal Socialization Controls?? ?????????????????? ?. 98 Table 9. Regression Analysis Predicting G2 Age from G1 Age and G1 Parenting Moderated by Gender ? ??????????????????? ???????????99 Table 10. Regression Analysis Predicting G2 Parenting from G1 Parenting Moderated by G2 Age of Becoming a Parent ??????????????????????..100 Table 11. Regression Analysis Predicting G2 Harsh parenting from G1 Harsh Discipline Moderated by G2 Age of Becoming a Parent with Socio-Demographic Controls ?? ??????????????????????????? ...101 Table 12. Regression Analysis Predicting G2 Positive Parenting from G1 Positive Parenting Moderated by G2 Age of Becoming a Parent with Socio-Demographic Controls ?? ??????????????? ???????????? ...102 Table 13. Regression Analysis Predicting G2 Harsh Parenting from G1 Harsh Discipline Moderated by G2 Age of Becoming a Parent with Proximal Socialization Variables ? ???????????????????????? ????. 103 vii Table 14. Regression Analysis Predicting G2 Positive Parenting from G1 Positive Parenting Moderated by G2 Age of Becoming a Parent with Proximal Socialization Variables ?????????????????????????????.104 Table 15. Regression Analysis Predicting G2 Harsh Parenting from G1 Harsh Discipline Moderated by G2 Age of Becoming a Parent and Gender??????????. 105 Table 16. Regression Analysis Predicting G2 Positive Parenting from G1 Positive Parenting Moderated by G2 Age of Becoming a Parent and Gender ??????????.106 viii List of Figures Figure 1. Continuity in Positive Parenting Moderated by G2 Age of Becoming a Parent ??.107 Figure 2. Continuity in Harsh Parenting Moderated by G2 Age of Becoming a Parent and Gender? ??? ? ?????????? ????????????? ..??108 1 INTRODUCTION Early parenthood?especially teen parenthood?is a known risk factor for a variety of difficulties for both the parent and the child. Young parents tend to experience more poverty, complete less education, and have other foreclosed opportunities (Coley & Chase-Lansdale, 1998; Furstenberg, 2003). Parenting quality also is lower among young parents compared to older parents, with higher levels of harsh parenting (Fergusson & Woodward, 1999; Lee, 2009; Reis, 1989) and lower levels of positive parenting (Barratt & Roach, 1995; Culp, Appelbaum, Osofsky, & Levy, 1988). Interestingly, research also suggests that there are intergenerational patterns of age at first birth in that those individuals growing up in families with young mothers also tend to become young (off-time) parents themselves (Hardy, Astone, Brooks-Gunn, Shapiro, & Miller, 1998; Meade, Kershaw, & Ickovics, 2008; Woodward, Fergusson, & Horwood, 2001). Poor quality parent-child relationships likewise have been shown to increase the risk for becoming a teen parent (Scaramella, Conger, Simons, & Whitbeck, 1998). However, it is not clear whether being born to a young mother and early exposure to poor parenting constitute additive (independent) risk factors for subsequent young (off-time) parenting status, nor is it clear if these predictive relations hold after controlling for other socio-contextual risks (e.g., socioeconomic status, gender, and race/ethnicity). In addition to being associated with an increased likelihood of early parenting status among offspring, being born to a young mother may also increase the likelihood of poor parenting (higher levels of harsh discipline, lower levels of warmth and support) among those 2 offspring. Although being born to a young mother is known to predict a variety of negative outcomes in childhood and adolescence (as noted earlier), no study to date has examined whether these negative outcomes extend to ineffective parenting in the next generation. (Given the complexity of research designs necessitated by the study of the intergenerational transmission of parenting, standard conventions will be used in which Generation 1 (G1) refers to the grandparents, Generation 2 (G2) refers to the parents, and Generation 3 (G3) refers to the children.) It also remains to be established as to whether such predictive links may be explained by co-occurring (G1) socio-demographic risk factors. Likewise, more proximal developmental experiences, such as affiliating with antisocial peers, may account, in part, for these predictive relations. A final issue in the study of the cross-generational impact of being born to a young mother concerns the continuity of ineffective parenting across generations. Several studies have documented cross-generational continuities in both positive (Chen & Kaplan, 2001; Kerr, Capaldi, Pears, & Owen, 2009; Kretchmar & Jacobvitz, 2002; Neppl, Conger, Scaramella, & Ontai, 2009) and negative (Hops, Davis, Leve, & Sheebar, 2003; Simons, Whitbeck, Conger, & Wu, 1991) parenting. However, these linkages tend to be modest in magnitude, opening the door for possible moderators of continuity in parenting across generations (Conger, Belsky, & Capaldi, 2009). Only a few such studies have been conducted, and the range of moderators that have been considered is quite narrow. Research on other domains of intergenerational transmission, such as educational attainment (e.g., Pettit, Yu, Dodge, & Bates, 2009), has provided evidence of additional moderators of cross-generational continuities, including family demographic characteristics. Potential Negative Outcomes among Early Child-bearers and Their Children 3 Early (off-time) parenthood is associated with a variety of life-adjustment difficulties for both the parent and his or her offspring. Compared to those who delay childbearing, young mothers tend to have lower educational attainment, higher levels of poverty, and increased reliance on public assistance (Deal & Holt, 1998; Manlove, 1997; Shaw, Lawlor, & Najman, 2006). The children of teenage mothers also have been found to suffer from an array of negative developmental and life trajectory outcomes. These negative outcomes have been found across childhood, adolescence, and early adulthood. During early and middle childhood children of young mothers display more behavioral, emotional, and cognitive problems compared to children born to older mothers (Brooks-Gunn & Furstenberg, 1986; Coley & Chase-Lansdale, 1998; Cornelius, Goldschmidt, Willford, Leech, Larkby, & Day, 2009). During adolescence, offspring of young mothers, compared to those of older mothers, are more likely to affiliate with antisocial peers, engage in risk taking behaviors, and initiate sexual activity at earlier ages (Jaffee, Caspi, Moffitt, Belsky, & Silva, 2001; Pogarsky, Thornberry, & Lizotte, 2006). These developmental outcomes, in turn, are associated with an increased risk of becoming an off-time parent. Being born to a young parent thus provides a context for the child for a chain of developmental events that increase the likelihood of the intergenerational transmission of early parenthood. A key element of the early environment is the quality of parenting provided by the young parent. Parenting Quality of Young Mothers A considerable body of evidence suggests that parenting quality is lower among younger parents compared to older mothers. Teenage mothers tend to be less verbal, less sensitive, and less responsive towards their young children, provide less stimulating home environments, and tend to perceive their children as being more difficult than those that delay childbearing (Barratt 4 & Roach, 1995; Coley & Chase-Lansdale, 1998; Culp et al., 1988; Fergusson & Woodward, 1999). They also tend to use more harsh and inconsistent discipline than do older mothers (Jaffee et al., 2001; Shaffer, Burt, Obradovi?, Herbers, & Masten, 2009). Other studies, however, have found few differences in parenting quality between younger and older mothers, especially when socio-demographic disadvantage is taken into account (Chase-Lansdale, Brooks-Gunn, & Zamsky, 1994). There is consensus, however, that positive, warm, and supportive parenting is important for successful and healthy development and that harsh, inconsistent, and overly punitive parenting undermines health development (Bornstein, 2003). Links between early parenting received and age of becoming a parent have been established in a number of studies. Woodward et al. (2001), for example, found that young women who became pregnant before age twenty were significantly more likely to come from families characterized by regular or severe physical punishment. Similarly, Scaramella et al. (1998) found that girls who became pregnant by 12th grade experienced less parental warmth and involvement in early adolescence compared to girls who did not become pregnant. Several types of experiences (e.g., affiliation with deviant peers) and personal characteristics (e.g., risk-taking behavior) have been found to mediate such linkages. In other words, parenting can either directly or indirectly influence the likelihood of becoming an off-time parent. Intergenerational Continuity of Teen Parenthood As noted earlier, simply being born to a young mother increases the risk for later becoming an off-time parent (Hardy et al., 1998; Woodward et al., 2001; Manlove, 1997). For example, Hardy and colleagues (1998) found that among teenage G1 mothers, 40% had firstborn daughters and 21% had firstborn sons who became teenage parents. Hardy et al. (1998) 5 concluded that most children of teen mothers do not themselves become young parents, but a majority of the G2 young parents were indeed born to a teen mother. Along the same lines, Manlove (1997) discovered that daughters of teenage mothers were significantly more likely to become teen mothers themselves, in comparison with daughters of older mothers. Not only were daughters of adolescent mothers more likely to become teenage mothers, they were also more likely to have a child in their early 20s, which is still considered somewhat ?off-time? (Manlove, 1997). In addition, Meade, Kershaw, and Ickovics (2008) found that daughters of teenage mothers were more likely than daughters of older mothers to give birth during the teen years. These results remained significant (although slightly attenuated) even after controlling for individual, peer, environmental, and family factors (Meade et al., 2008). The literature in the domain of intergenerational continuity is quite conclusive, with much evidence indicating that being born to a teen mother is indeed a risk factor for later becoming a teen parent. Continuity in Parenting across Generations Continuity in teen parenthood seems to represent somewhat of a transfer of risk from one generation to the next, and parenting quality could similarly be considered a transfer of risk. It appears from the research that there is a modest correlation between the harsh parenting one receives, and a poorer quality of parenting one later uses with his or her own children. Conger, Kim, Neppl, and Scaramella (2003) find a connection between observed aggressive parenting of G1 parents and the subsequent observed aggressive parenting of G2 parents toward their own children. Similarly, Capaldi, Pears, Patterson, and Owen (2003) discovered that G1 poor parenting was moderately related (.25) to G2 fathers? later poor and harsh parenting of their own sons and daughters. Also, Campbell and Gilmore (2007) report a link between both G1 mother 6 and father authoritarian parenting and later G2 mother and father authoritarian parenting of their own children. On the other hand, there also appears to be transmission of positive and constructive parenting across generations. For example, Belsky, Jaffee, Sligo, Woodward, and Silva (2005) found that mothers who experience less authoritarian parenting when they are young and who have more trusting, communicative relationships with their parents when they are adolescents, are later observed to engage in more warm-sensitive parenting with their own children. Chen and Kaplan (2001) similarly assert from their findings that an intergenerational link exists between an early experience of good parenting and later constructive parenting of one?s own children. More recent research such as that featured in a special section of Developmental Psychology (2009) has found comparable results, with varying magnitudes and sample sizes. For example, Kovan, Chung, and Sroufe (2009) found moderate stability in observed parenting quality across generations using a rather small sample size of 61 second generation participants. Their results remained significant even after controlling for IQ, SES, and life stress. Using a much larger sample size of 808 participants, Bailey et al. (2009) reported moderate stability in harsh parenting practices across generations. In concordance with other research, Neppl et al. (2009) found direct relationships between G1 positive parenting and G2 positive parenting, as well as between G1 harsh parenting and G2 harsh parenting. Interestingly, the authors also discovered different mediators for intergeneration continuity, depending on the type of parenting under consideration. For example, academic attainment was found to mediate the relationship between G1 and G2 positive parenting, while externalizing behavior was found to mediate the relationship between G1 and G2 harsh parenting (Neppl et al., 2009). These findings suggest that 7 intervening life experiences (e.g., with parents and peers) may serve as pathways through which parenting in one generation may influence parenting in the subsequent generation. Although a range of variables have been tested as mediators of intergenerational continuity in parenting, relatively few variables have been examined as possible moderators of intergenerational continuity (Conger et al., 2009). Gender is the most commonly identified moderator variable in research on intergenerational continuity in parenting (e.g., Belsky, Sligo, Jaffee, Woodward, & Silva, 2005; Simons, Whitbeck, Conger, & Wu, 1991). Campbell and Gilmore (2007), for example, found more continuity in authoritarian and permissive parenting between fathers and sons than between mothers and daughters. On the other hand, Belsky et al. (2005) report a child rearing history marked by a trusting and communicative family environment predicts later warm-sensitive parenting towards offspring for mothers, but not for fathers. Less commonly, child characteristics have been examined as potential moderators. For example, Scaramella and Conger (2003) found that the extent to which hostile parenting was transmitted across generations varied depending on the level of emotional reactivity of the child. Research on intergenerational transmission of educational attainment, interpersonal relationship quality, and child abuse has provided evidence of additional moderators of cross- generational continuities, including family demographic characteristics. For example, Pettit et al. (2009) found that cross-generational continuity in educational attainment was stronger in single parent families in which parents were low in warmth, and in families with children who perform poorly on academic work and have low IQs. Cowan and Cowan (2005) suggest intergenerational patterns of negative parent-child interactions are most likely to be seen in the context of a marital relationship characterized by distress. Conger et al. (2009), noting that few studies of moderators of intergenerational continuity have been conducted, point out G2 age of becoming a parent may 8 be an important factor in strengthening or weakening the intergenerational linkages in parenting. They suggest that, ?G2 parents who have children early may be more susceptible to continuing the childrearing behaviors of their parents than those who delay childbearing? (p. 1281), presumably because those delaying childbearing have more time to learn about other childrearing approaches than those learned in the family of origin. The Current Study The current research addressed six issues. First, are young mothers more likely to engage in lower levels of positive parenting and higher levels of negative parenting, compared to older mothers? Second, does being born to a young mother increase the risk for later becoming a young parent? Third, does the type of parenting received during childhood and adolescence (i.e., higher levels of negative parenting and lower levels of positive parenting) predict later age of becoming a parent? Fourth, does being born to a young mother and early exposure to poor parenting constitute additive (independent) risk factors for subsequent young (off-time) parenting status? Fifth, does G2 age of becoming a parent act as a moderator on the transmission of parenting quality across generations? Sixth, do the cross-generational predictions hold after taking into account socio-demographic (i.e., gender, race and SES) and proximal socialization factors (i.e., parental monitoring, affiliation with antisocial peers, and neighborhood safety)? For exploratory purposes, gender was examined as a moderator of the relation between G1 age and G1 parenting and G2 age and G2 parenting. 9 REVIEW OF LITERATURE The current study is concerned with cross-generational links in the age at becoming a parent and in parenting quality. Of particular interest is whether G1 parenting quality is associated with G2 age of becoming a parent, and whether G2 age at becoming a parent moderates the intergenerational continuity of parenting. In keeping with the study goals, the present review will examine literature pertinent to each of the following topics: (1) negative life events for G1s associated with becoming an off-time (i.e., younger than the national norm of 26- 27 years) parent, (2) negative outcomes for offspring (G2s) born to young parents, especially those outcomes (e.g., precocious sexual behavior) that might increase the likelihood of becoming a young parent, (3) parenting qualities of younger parents compared to older parents, (4) predictors of young parenthood, with special reference to being born to a young parent (i.e., intergenerational continuity in timing of parenthood) and poor parent-child relationships in childhood, as well as whether these predictive relations hold once socio-demographic factors such as SES, and proximal socialization variables such as early adolescent affiliations with deviant peers, have been taken into account. The remainder of the review focuses on the intergenerational transmission of parenting quality. Specifically, it considers (5) mediators and moderators of intergenerational links in parenting and whether these relations differ for positive vs. negative parenting. 10 Negative Life Events Associated with Becoming a Young Parent Adolescent pregnancy and parenting has been and continues to be a major concern for individuals, families, and society at large, and the research literature in this area gives plenty of reason for this concern. Among developed countries, the United States has one of the highest rates of adolescent pregnancy (Singh & Darroch, 2000), with The National Center for Health Statistics citing about 39 births per 1,000 girls between the ages of 15-19 in 2009. Although this number seems quite high, it is imperative to note a 2% decline in the birth rate for U.S. teenagers in 2009, reversing a brief two year increase after the long-term decline from 1991 through 2005 (Center for Disease Control, 2010). In light of these statistics, it is important to discuss the implications of teenage pregnancy and child birth. Early childbearing puts an adolescent at risk for a range of negative life events. In addition, teenage parents tend to function less effectively in a number of realms compared to those who delay childbearing. Research has suggested the possibility that some of the negative outcomes associated with an off-time birth, such as poverty and low educational attainment, may actually precede the pregnancy, rather than arise from it. If this is the case, early childbearing simply puts more stress on, and further stunts the already limited opportunities of, disadvantaged youths (Coley & Chase-Lansdale, 1998). An off-time pregnancy has the potential to affect practically every aspect of a teenager?s life, including psychological functioning, educational attainment, marital patterns, economic outcomes, and even health outcomes. A pioneering study by Furstenberg and colleagues has shed important light on the phenomenon of young parents and their subsequent life course trajectories. The Baltimore Study began as a hospital-based intervention program for pregnant, low-income, teenagers in the mid- 1960s, and has followed these young mothers and their children for over forty years. Furstenberg 11 (1989) noted in his work that teenage mothers were more likely to drop out of high school, more likely to rely on public assistance, less likely to find stable employment, and less likely to be in stable marriages. As research on the Baltimore Study progresses, however, it seems that many teenage mothers are eventually able to make a ?come back? in a sense, and end up living fairly successful lives compared to those that delayed childbearing (Furstenberg, 1991; Furstenberg, 2003). Nonetheless, at least in the first several years following young childbearing, a number of life risks and negative experiences are likely. In an extensive review of the literature examining the correlates and consequences of young parenthood, Coley et al. (1998) reported low educational achievement, lower marital stability, and lower income among teenage parents, findings consistent with those described by Furstenberg. Moreover, an early pregnancy can have negative effects on psychological functioning. Adolescence is a time for identity exploration and developing autonomy and independence, and these tasks can be hampered by an off-time birth. In addition, the increase in stress and the decrease in normative adolescent activities, such as peer interaction, dating, and schooling, can lead to higher levels of depression in young mothers compared to those that delay childbearing (Coley et al., 1998). Corcoran (1998) provided additional evidence of the threats associated with teenage pregnancy and childbearing, including an increased risk for single-parent status. Single-parent families have more economic struggles than families in which both parents are present. Moreover, young mothers are more likely to divorce than women who postpone childbearing ? another factor leading to the higher incidence of single-parenthood among teenage mothers (Coley & Chase-Lansdale, 1998). Other negative outcomes reported by Corcoran (1998) include the tendency to hold low-skill, low-paying jobs and an increased reliance on public assistance. 12 Furthermore, young mothers experience more constraints on their economic status than those that delay parenthood such as low education levels, child-care demands, and limited employment experiences. The research presented provides the basis for such public interest in adolescent pregnancy and parenting. Without enough support and resources, young parents may be faced with a multitude of challenges and potential negative outcomes, affecting them for a number of years following the birth of their child. In addition, not only does early childbearing pose potential risks to the parents, but to the G3 offspring as well. It is clear that the risks of adolescent childbearing are robust across generations. Developmental Outcomes of Being Born to a Young Parent The negative life events associated with early childbearing are not, as described earlier, limited to the adolescent mother or father, and can extend to the offspring. Children of adolescent parents are more likely to experience cognitive deficits and externalizing behavior problems early in life, and also are at an increased risk for delinquency, low academic achievement, and antisocial outcomes during adolescence and even into early adulthood (Cornelius et al., 2009; Jaffee et al., 2001; Shaw et al., 2006). As for socio-cultural risk, children born to young parents are more likely to live in poverty, and to grow up in single-parent families (Furstenberg Brooks-Gunn, & Chase-Lansdale, 1989). In addition, the effects of being born to a young parent are not limited to the first born child, as effects have been found even in the later born children of mothers who were an adolescent at the time of their first birth. In a review of the literature on the physical, cognitive, and psychological outcomes of children born to adolescent mothers, Brooks-Gunn and Furstenberg (1986) conclude that being born to a teen parent is a risk factor for later developmental problems, beginning in early 13 childhood and continuing (and becoming more pronounced) across later childhood and adolescence. Consistent with this conclusion, Coley et al. (1998) found that preschool age children born to young parents struggle with behavior problems such as aggression and low impulse control. Other studies have documented that problematic adjustment in children of young parents also is evident in the elementary school years. For instance, school age offspring of young mothers tend to be rated as more hostile, hyperactive, assertive, and willful than children born to older mothers (Brooks-Gunn et al., 1986). Moreover, there is some evidence that IQ deficits persist through the elementary school years; however, in some studies, much of these differences can be accounted for by social class. Jaffee, Caspi, Moffitt, Belsky, and Silva (2001) provided support for the notion that children born to teenage mothers remain at risk for adverse outcomes even through adolescence and young adulthood in the longitudinal Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study spanning over twenty years. By their 21st birthday, offspring of young mothers were more likely to leave school early, to become a violent offender, and to experience higher levels of unemployment than those born to an older mother (Jaffee et al., 2001). Additionally, the offspring of teenage mothers tended to experience more harsh and inconsistent discipline, more caretaker changes, and higher levels of inappropriate (e.g., negative and derogatory) mother- child interactions compared to offspring of older mothers. A more recent longitudinal study on a high-risk sample conducted by Pogarsky, Thornberry, and Lizotte (2006) documented comparable findings, with the effects of being born to a teenage parent lasting through early adulthood. For boys, being born to an adolescent mother, compared to being born to an older mother, was significantly associated with elevated levels of drug use, gang involvement, unemployment, and early parenthood. Interestingly, for 14 girls, having a teenage mother was associated only with an increased risk for early parenthood (Pogarsky et al., 2006). The outcomes described for offspring of young mothers paint a worrisome picture, with negative effects beginning in preschool and lasting through early adulthood. It is possible that young parents provide a home environment that fosters maladaptive outcomes due to a lack of support and resources. On the other hand, perhaps young parents are more likely to model antisocial or aggressive behavior, which offspring may internalize and later reproduce. Further understanding of the outcomes and processes associated with being born to a teenage parent is necessary in order to create effective prevention and intervention programs. This might best be achieved by identifying more proximal socialization factors that may heighten the risk of both early parenthood and later parenting. Three likely candidates include parental monitoring, neighborhood safety, and affiliation with antisocial peers during early adolescence. Each of these factors has in fact been linked with both off-time parenting and poor parenting quality (e.g., Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000; Scaramella et al., 1998; Turner, 2004). Parenting Qualities of Younger Parents Compared to Older Parents Of all the potential negative outcomes associated with being born to an off-time parent, parenting quality received is one area lacking conclusive research. Evidence in the literature is mixed; most reports agree that adolescent mothers are less responsive and more punitive towards their young children than are older mothers (Barratt & Roach, 1995; Berlin, Brady-Smith, & Brooks-Gunn, 2002; Lee, 2009). However, a limited number of studies reveal no significant differences exist between young mothers and older mothers across various domains of parenting quality (Chase-Lansdale, Brooks-Gunn, & Zamsky, 1994; Field, Widmayer, Stringer, & Ignatoff, 1980). Inconclusive results can be attributable to maternal age at first birth often being related to 15 confounding factors such as adolescent family of origin characteristics and the availability of support and resources that may also lead to negative parenting (Lee, 2009). For example, as discussed earlier, young parents are more likely to live in poverty, to have low educational attainment, and to be a single parent than are those who delay childbearing (Jaffee et al., 2001). All of these qualities are also documented risk factors for harsh parenting. Furthermore, it is likely that teenage parents lack cognitive and emotional maturity which could also place them at risk for insensitive parenting (O?Callaghan, Borkowski, Whitman, Maxwell, & Keogh, 1999; Reis, 1989). Building on this evidence, Berlin, Brady-Smith, and Brooks-Gunn (2002) report that in their sample of low-income mothers, those with less than a high school education were rated as less supportive, more detached, more intrusive, and more negative and hostile than were mothers with at least a high school diploma. In addition, analyses utilizing observational data confirm that young mothers (those under 19 at first birth) were indeed significantly less supportive and more detached and intrusive than older mothers, even after controlling for socio-demographic factors such as race/ethnicity, family type, and family income. In fact, nearly 71% of teenage mothers (vs. 52% of older mothers) were below the median on supportiveness and 54% (vs. 42%) were above the median on intrusiveness. Berlin et al. (2002) go further to suggest teenage childbearers? increased rates of detachment may be attributable to their lack of cognitive readiness. Perhaps young mothers are unaware of the benefits of verbally interacting with their infants, or of normative child development in general. Results of a study conducted by Reis (1989) confirm the hypothesis that young mothers? potential for negative parenting may stem from their lack of cognitive maturity. Findings indicated mothers over 20 years of age at first birth had more knowledge of child development 16 and had less punitive attitudes about childrearing than did younger mothers (those 19 and younger at first birth). Important limitations of this study, however, include lack of observational data and voluntary program enrollment of mothers. Consistent with the previously described findings, Culp, Appelbaum, Osofsky, and Levy (1988) also report adolescent mothers to have significantly less education than older mothers. In addition, the young mothers (M age = 16) reported less social support and more negative attitudes about being a parent than did the older mothers (M age = 25), which could also be underlying factors influencing quality of parenting. Adolescent mothers in this study were found to vocalize less with their newborn during an in-hospital observation (Culp et al., 1988) which is also consistent with literature in this domain. Finally, Barratt and Roach (1995) discussed multiple dimensions in which parenting might differ among younger and older parents, including amount of stimulation, appropriateness of input, and responsiveness. When their infants were 4 months old, adolescent mothers were found to vocalize less frequently, offer or show toys to their infant less frequently, and to smile less frequently than did older mothers. Interestingly, no significant differences in mothers? frequencies of interactive behavior were found among teenage and older mothers once their infants reached 12 months of age (Barratt et al., 1995). In addition to these results, while adolescent mothers were not found to have significantly different scores than older mothers on the appropriateness of their responses to infant cries when their infants were 4 months old, adolescent mothers were significantly less appropriate in their responses once the infant reached 12 months of age. The quality of parenting received by children of adolescent mothers compared to older mothers offers insight into the environment created by young parents, as well as insight as to 17 why these children are prone to negative outcomes. As will be discussed later, there are possible costs to the next generation because having a young mother may increase the likelihood of transmission of maladaptive parenting across generations. Because the effects of being born to a teenage parent can last until adulthood, there is reason to expect that subsequent parenting by the G2s could vary as a function of whether they were born to a young parent. Predictors of Young Parenthood: The Role of Being Born to a Young Parent and Parenting Received in Childhood and Adolescence A host of factors have been linked with becoming an off-time parent (e.g., receiving less parental monitoring and engaging in risky sexual behavior). Of particular interest here is whether there is an intergenerational connection between the age of becoming a first-time parent across generations (i.e., whether being born to a young parent is a risk factor for becoming a young parent oneself), and whether the parenting received in childhood is predictive of subsequent age at first birth. As no study has simultaneously examined both sets of factors, separate sections will be devoted to reviewing relevant literature. Does being born to a young parent predict becoming a young parent? It is well-documented that being born to a teen parent increases the likelihood of becoming a teen parent (e.g., Coley et al., 1998; Furstenberg, Levine, & Brooks-Gunn, 1990; Jaffee, et al., 2001). There have been several empirical investigations of these intergenerational links. In one of the most comprehensive studies of continuity in age at first birth, Hardy et al. (1998) examined intergenerational patterns for both males and females by utilizing the longitudinal Pathways to Adulthood Study which followed three generations over a period of 34 years. The study included 2,306 first generation (G1) parents, 2,694 second generation (G2) and 2,343 third generation (G3) participants drawn from low-income neighborhoods. G1 and G2 18 participants were grouped according to their age at first birth into one of three categories: teen parents (ages 19 and younger), early parents (ages 20-25), and older parents (over 25). G2 participants that had not yet become parents were included in the over-25 category. Significant cross-generational links for age at first birth were found for both daughters and sons. Among the G1 teen parents, 38% of their daughters and 18% of their sons became teen parents. In contrast, among those G1 parents who delayed childbearing past age 25, 22% of their daughters and 6% of their sons became teen parents. Of the G2 parents, 73% of the teen mothers and 71% of the teen fathers were born to a teen parent. It is worth noting that the intergenerational links were found regardless of whether the G2 was a firstborn or later-born offspring of the G1 mother. Along the same lines, Campa and Eckenrode (2006) examined intergenerational continuity in age of becoming a parent in a moderate-sized (293) high risk sample (i.e., G1 mothers who were unmarried, low income, or under 19 years at first pregnancy) for both males and females. Intergenerational continuities were found for both sexes with 70% of adolescent mothers and 69% of adolescent fathers having been born to a teen mother. However, the intergenerational effect was significant only when the G1 adolescent mother was unmarried. In addition, the authors found that being born to an unmarried adolescent mother had an effect on offspring?s subsequent age at first birth over and above the associations with mother?s (G1) education and socioeconomic status. In support of the idea that offspring of adolescent parents tend to experience more risky environments, Campa et al. (2006) reported that daughters of unmarried adolescent mothers tended to experience lower quality home environments than daughters of unmarried older mothers. Manlove (1997) reported similar findings using a large British cohort in which intergenerational continuity in maternal age at first birth was affected by the mother?s social 19 class at the time of her child?s birth and as well as other socio-demographic factors. Manlove focused on the continuity between mothers and daughters, and results showed that daughters of teen mothers were significantly more likely to become teen mothers themselves (20%) compared to the daughters of older mothers (8%). In addition, daughters of teen mothers were significantly more likely to have an ?off-time? birth (i.e., between ages 20 and 23) compared to daughters of older mothers (30% and 19%, respectively). As stated earlier, these differences remained after controlling for school performance and other family background factors, but these factors in turn increased the likelihood of becoming a teen mother (Manlove, 1997). Meade, Kershaw, and Ickovics (2008) likewise found that daughters of teen mothers were more likely to become teen parents themselves, even after taking into account other risks. An ecological model was tested with a sample of 1,430 girls drawn from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth to prospectively examine predictors of teen childbearing, including being born to a teen mother. Similar to other studies, G1 age at becoming a mother was dichotomized as teen parent (19 or younger) or older parent (age 20 and older). Meade et al. (2008) reported that daughters of teenage mothers were significantly more likely than daughters of older mothers to give birth as a teen (36% vs. 16%), consistent with prior studies. Furthermore, these findings remained significant (although slightly attenuated) even after controlling for individual, peer, family, and environmental factors, though, as with Manlove (1997), these factors contributed additively to the prediction of teenage childbearing (i.e., the greater the number of risk factors the higher the likelihood of becoming a teen parent, at least for females). In one of the only studies to focus specifically on predictors of early fatherhood, Sipsma, Biello, Cole-Lewis and Kershaw (2010) describe results that parallel those reported for daughters, with sons of teenage fathers more likely to have a child by age 19 than sons of older 20 fathers (26% vs. 8%). In addition, sons of adolescent mothers were also more likely to have a child as a teenager (48%), compared to those born to older mothers (17%). Although controlling for factors such as delinquency and substance abuse, parent education, race/ethnicity, and maternal age at first birth slightly attenuated the intergenerational effect, paternal adolescent fatherhood remained a significant predictor of G2 age of becoming a father (Sipsma et al., 2010). It is clear that being born to a teenage parent constitutes a unique risk factor for becoming a parent at an early age. The research on intergenerational continuity in age of becoming a parent is quite conclusive in documenting a clear relationship between G1 and G2 age at first birth for both males and females. It is worth noting, however, that the continuity between mothers and daughters has been studied more extensively than mothers and sons or fathers and sons. It is also important to mention that the strength of the intergenerational effect varies across samples with high risk samples generally displaying stronger effects than community samples. In addition, although socio-demographic characteristics such as SES and maternal education do attenuate the relationship somewhat, they do not explain away the continuity across generations. Indeed, research suggests that there is a unique risk in being born to a teen parent for subsequently becoming a teen parent. However, other factors likely are at work in sustaining the continuity in age at first birth across generations. One such factor is the parenting quality received by offspring of young parents. Does exposure to early maladaptive parenting predict early parenthood? Research has clearly documented that poor parenting is linked to a wide range of negative developmental outcomes for children (Collins, Maccoby, Steinberg, Hetherington, & Bornstein, 2000). Furthermore, there is some evidence that maladaptive parenting is linked with early 21 parenthood (e.g., East, Reyes, & Horn, 2007; Meade et al., 2008), while positive and supportive parenting is often linked with a decreased risk of teenage pregnancy (e.g., Scaramella et al., 1998). It is likely that parenting behaviors facilitate the development of mechanisms that elucidate the relationship between parenting quality and likelihood of becoming a teenage parent. For example, Meade et al. (2008) reported low parental monitoring as a unique risk factor predicative of teenage motherhood for those born to young mothers. In addition, Boyer and Fine (1992) documented strong links between teenage pregnancy and not only physical abuse and neglect, but also emotional abuse. On the other hand, there is support for the notion that it is not merely the presence of harsh parenting that can increase the risk of teenage parenting, but also the presence of positive parenting that can work against this risk. For instance, Scaramella et al. (1998) described how parental warmth and involvement were related to academic competence, fewer deviant-peer affiliations, and less risk-taking behavior, which in turn were negatively related to teenage pregnancy by 12th grade. It appears that parenting behaviors such as low monitoring, harsh and overly strict parenting, and low warmth can lead to poor developmental outcomes in children such as involvement with deviant peers and increased risk behavior. In turn, these characteristics are often cited as risk factors for an off-time pregnancy. Additionally, the presence of certain parenting behaviors such as warmth and involvement can deter the development of maladaptive characteristics, decreasing the likelihood for an early pregnancy. This issue is an important one insofar as poor parenting in one generation can be transmitted across generations. Intergenerational Continuity in Parenting 22 It can be concluded from the research just reviewed that 1) offspring of young parents are themselves more likely to become young parents compared to offspring of older parents, 2) younger parents are more likely than older parents to engage in maladaptive parenting (e.g. more harsh discipline and less responsive care), and 3) these patterns are not explained (or explained fully) by co-occurring socio-demographic risk. The question remains, however, as to whether there is cross-generational continuity in parenting and whether such links can be accounted for by demographics and other risk factors. Parenting quality has been widely cited as a source of influence on many aspects of child development, including both cognitive and social development (Bornstein, 2000). Positive parenting has consistently been linked to adaptive child outcomes such as high academic achievement and social competence, while negative and harsh parenting is a strong predictor of maladaptive child outcomes such as aggressive behavior and delinquency later in life (Collins et al., 2000). Of course, it is important to note that research in this area also confirms that the parent-child relationship is bidirectional, and child characteristics may influence not only the parenting received, but later developmental outcomes as well (Pettit & Arsiwalla, 2008). Although much research has been devoted to understanding how parenting behaviors affect child development, less is known about the determinants of parenting practices, or why parents behave the way they do toward their children. Parenting practices may be determined by a number of factors, including one?s own history of parenting. A large body of evidence supports the idea that parenting behavior tends to be consistent across generations (e.g., Putallaz, Costanzo, Grames, & Sherman, 1998; Simons, Whitbeck, Conger, & Wu, 1991; van Ijzendoorn, 1992). Parenting quality has been examined as a potential mechanism through which personality traits or behavioral patterns are transmitted 23 across generations, but perhaps parenting or the parent-child relationship should be looked at more closely as a specific outcome of interest. With respect to theory, two perspectives have dominated the literature: social learning theory and the life course perspective. Social learning theory states that, through modeling and direct teaching, children ?learn? how to parent. For example, children may reenact the aggressive or hostile parenting they see used by their parents later in life with their own children. Children may find that aggressive behavior is how their parents achieved desired results, and in turn will also use aggressive behavior to gain the results they want. In this way social learning theory suggests that children develop childhood characteristics that foster intergenerational continuity in harsh parenting (Neppl et al., 2009). Attachment theory likewise would suggest that experiences with parents influence how individuals construe relationships with parents and others and these ?working models? may carry over into subsequent relationships with offspring (Bretherton, 2005). In addition, children may adopt the parental attitudes demonstrated by their parents. Once a child becomes an adult with children of his own, he may resort back to ?what he knows? or ?what worked? when he was growing up, even if the parenting practices are less than ideal. The life course perspective, as described by Elder and colleagues, defines the way in which changes in work, family, and school roles form trajectories or longer-term patterns of behavior (Elder, Johnson, and Crosnoe, 2003). Life course theory is guided by the five principles of life course research, of which two are especially pertinent in this review. One such principle asserts that the timing of important transitions in the life course must be considered, due to the possibility that the same transition can have differing consequences depending on when it occurred. Relevant to the current study is the idea that an early transition to parenthood may lead to increased continuity in parenting quality across generations, due to factors such as lack of 24 exposure to others and strong reliance on the family of origin. Another important tenet of the life course perspective refers to the notion of ?linked lives? or the idea that life course trajectories are shaped by interpersonal relationships. This principle is significant to the current study because it suggests that parental expectations and the early family environment could shape one?s later attitudes and beliefs about parenting. Interest in intergenerational continuities in parenting was initially generated in the domain of harsh parenting, with a particular focus on the cycle of maltreatment (i.e., Belsky, Youngblade, & Pensky, 1990; Egeland, Jacobvitz, & Sroufe, 1988; Pears & Capaldi, 2001). Furthermore, research of this type generally supports a mediated model, with aggressive behavior and externalizing problems serving as the mechanism through which harsh parenting is transmitted from one generation to the next (Hops, Davis, Leve, & Sheebar, 2003; Neppl et al., 2009). In earlier literature, however, there has been some evidence of discontinuity with respect to the cycle of abuse (Caliso & Milner, 1992; Egeland et al., 1988). This suggests that certain experiences may serve a protective function for parents that experienced abuse as children. For example, Egeland et al. (1988) report mothers abused as children that do not in turn abuse their own children were more likely to have an emotionally supportive relationship with another adult during early childhood, as well as romantic relationships described as intact, stable, satisfying, and free of physical abuse compared to abused mothers who continued the cycle of violence with their own children. Despite a wealth of research in the domain of harsh and negative parenting, less attention has been directed towards continuity in positive parenting, or mechanisms that may increase the likelihood that one will replicate the warm, supportive parenting he or she experienced as a child or adolescent. It is important to note that positive parenting is generally conceptualized as more 25 than simply the absence of negative parenting (Chen & Kaplan, 2001; Shaffer, Burt, Obradovic, Herbers, & Masten, 2009). Pettit, Bates, and Dodge (1997) suggested that positive and supportive parenting may be thought of as a conglomerate of beneficial parenting behaviors utilized by parents in various quantities. To date, positive parenting has been conceptualized in a variety of ways with aspects such as warmth, monitoring, and involvement often comprising positive parenting composites. As for intergenerational continuities in constructive and supportive parenting, the mechanisms identified are generally positive ones such as social competence and academic achievement (Chen, Liu, & Kaplan, 2008; Shaffer, Burt, Obradovic, Herbers, & Masten, 2009). It is important to keep in mind the methodological limitations of earlier research on intergenerational continuities in parenting, such as a strong reliance on retrospective reports (Putallaz, Costanzo, Grimes, & Sherman, 2001; Van Ijzendoorn, 1992). Studies of this type depend on the second generation to report during their adult years on the parenting they received during childhood from their own parents. For example, Simons et al. (1991) found that harsh G1 parenting retrospectively reported by the adult G2 mothers was significantly correlated (.26) with the G2 mother?s self-report of harsh parenting toward her G3 adolescent. Similar results were found in a study of Northern Irish parents by Murphy-Cowan and Stringer (1999). A significant relationship was identified between the two generations? use of ?smacking? by relying on adult G2 reports of the parenting received during childhood. In a more recent study conducted by Berlin, Appleyard, and Dodge (2011) a combination of retrospective and prospective methods was used. Pregnant G2 mothers were recruited and asked to report on physical abuse and neglect during childhood. Consistent with other studies relying on retrospective reports, a significant link was detected between experiencing physical abuse as a child and G3 offspring subsequently 26 experiencing maltreatment (Berlin et al., 2011). Although retrospective data are used often in research, these studies pose challenges for interpretation because G2 parents? reports may be subject to inaccurate recall and can be distorted based on current life circumstances or perceptions. In addition, reliance on single informant reports (i.e., same person reporting on G1 and G2 parenting) may inflate the magnitude of the relationship between parenting across generations (Van Ijzendoorn, 1992). Multiple observers and the use of observational data would likely provide a more robust test of continuity. More recent studies have examined cross-generational continuities in positive and negative parenting utilizing prospective, longitudinal designs and have found similar modest to moderate correlations in parenting across generations. For instance, Kovan, Chung, and Sroufe (2009) found a correlation between G1 observed parenting quality and G2 observed parenting quality (.43) in their prospective, longitudinal study of medium-risk parents. This particular study is of high methodological quality in that not only was it prospective and longitudinal in design, but it also utilized observational reports and examined parenting quality when the G2s and G3s were of similar ages (24 months). Along the same lines, Chen and Kaplan (2001) found a significant relationship (.17) between constructive parenting across generations in a prospective, longitudinal study spanning two decades. Although this study did apply a prospective design, a potential shortcoming is that it relied on a single reporter (G2) and did not include any observational data. Interestingly, it appears that regardless of study design or type of measure used a modest yet significant connection between G1 and G2 parenting is consistently identified in the research (Conger, Belsky, & Capaldi, 2009). The next step in gaining a greater understanding of the complexities of intergenerational continuities in parenting behavior includes examining potential 27 mediating processes (Rutter, 1998). The choice of mediators in the literature tends to be guided by both theory and the types of behaviors that certain parenting practices prompt. Research in this area suggests that competent adjustment (i.e. social competence) tends to mediate the continuity in positive parenting, while maladjustment (i.e. externalizing and aggressive behavior) mediates the continuity in negative or harsh parenting. As for moderators, little is known of the mechanisms behind the discontinuities in parenting. Few studies have found moderators outside of gender, although one study did identify G3 child?s negative emotional reactivity as a moderator of continuity in harsh parenting (Scaramella & Conger, 2003). In a recent special section of Developmental Psychology (2009) focused on intergenerational continuities in parenting, Conger and his colleagues call for more research on moderator variables that could help explain both continuities and discontinuities in G1 and G2 parenting (Conger, Belsky, & Capaldi, 2009). Included in this review are studies examining both mediators and moderators of the cross-generational transmission of parenting. Conger, Neppl, Kim, and Scaramella (2003) discovered a significant link between G1 and G2 angry aggressive parenting (r = .37; p < .01) in their prospective longitudinal study of medium-risk parents. Moreover, these findings remained significant after controlling for socio- demographic factors such as low education, single parent status, and low income. Findings also indicated that G2 and G3 age and gender had no effect on the study variables; therefore no evidence of gender as a moderator in the continuity of parenting across generations was indicated (Conger et al., 2003). The participants for this particular study were drawn from a larger longitudinal project called the Family Transitions Project. Subsequent research has been conducted on this sample, which grows as more and more G2 participants become parents. 28 In a more recent study utilizing the same larger sample (FTP) as in the previously described study, Neppl, Scaramella, Conger, and Ontai (2009) found similar results with a larger subsample of 187 G2 parents; however, the correlation between G1 and G2 harsh parenting was more modest (r = .21, p < .05). This study examined G2 externalizing behavior as a mediator between G1 and G2 harsh parenting, and it was discovered that G1 harsh parenting affected later G2 harsh parenting indirectly through G2 adult externalizing behavior. Likewise, even after controlling for earlier G2 externalizing problems, G1 harsh parenting still predicted G2 adult externalizing behaviors (r = .21, p < .05), lending the conclusion that intergenerational continuity in parenting as well as stability in problem behavior constitute two different pathways to G2 childrearing practices (Neppl et al., 2009). Furthermore, the same study also examined the link between G1 and G2 positive parenting, with the idea that academic achievement would serve as the mediator in this model. Results show modest continuity between G1 and G2 positive parenting (r = .17, p < .05), with academic achievement indeed acting as a mediating variable. Similar to the results of the harsh parenting analyses, even after taking into account earlier G2 academic achievement, G1 positive parenting during G2 adolescence still predicted G2 academic attainment. Additionally, although parenting data were not collected when G2 and G3 participants were of similar ages, continuity is still present. These results lend support to the idea that there are specific mechanisms at work in the continuity of both harsh and positive parenting that cannot be explained away by G2 behavior or disposition. The studies just described, as well as earlier work using retrospective or cross-sectional data, all find modest continuity in parenting from one generation to the next. It appears that this link is present regardless of the use of different measures, different lengths of time between G1 29 and G2 parenting measures, diverse sample studies, and the introduction of a range of control variables. Still, few moderators of continuity in parenting have been identified, representing a significant gap in the literature (Conger et al., 2009; Pettit, Arends, Lansford, Dodge, & Bates, 2011). This study addresses this gap by examining the role of G2 age at first birth as a potential moderator of cross-generational continuity in parenting quality. As noted by Conger et al., younger parents may be more likely to emulate or model their parenting after that they received when growing up because they have not had much time to learn about other childrearing possibilities, which perhaps renders them unable to refine what they have learned from their childhood experiences. In addition, younger parents may be more likely to continue residing with their family after their child is born, increasing the parenting influences received from grandparents. Goals of the Current Study Given the preceding review, the following research questions were addressed: 1) Are younger mothers more likely to engage in more negative and less positive parenting compared to older mothers? 2) Is early parenthood predicted: a) By maternal age at first birth? It was expected that G2s becoming parents at younger ages will be more likely to have been born to mothers who also gave birth at a young age. b) By the quality of parenting received in early development (i.e., higher levels of negative parenting and lower levels of positive parenting)? c) Uniquely (non-redundantly) by both maternal age and parenting quality? 30 (3) Does G2 age of becoming a parent moderate the cross-generational continuity of parenting quality? More specifically, is there greater continuity among younger G2 parents than older G2 parents? (4) Do these predictive relations hold after controlling for socio-demographic factors (i.e., SES, gender, and race/ethnicity) and proximal socialization factors (i.e., parental monitoring, neighborhood safety, and affiliation with antisocial peers)? (5) For exploratory purposes, gender was examined as a moderator of the relation between G1 age and G1 parenting and G2 age and G2 parenting. These analyses were considered exploratory because findings were mixed with respect to the role of gender in intergenerational patterns of the age of becoming a parent and parenting behavior. 31 METHOD Sample and Overview The data for the current study were collected as part of the multi-site, prospective, longitudinal Child Development Project assessing children?s social and emotional development. Two cohorts of participant families were recruited from three sites: Knoxville and Nashville, Tennessee and Bloomington, Indiana. A majority of the participants (85%) were recruited at pre- registration for kindergarten (generally in April) during two consecutive years (1987 and 1988). Research assistants approached parents and asked if they would be interested in participating in a longitudinal study of child development; 70% of parents contacted agreed to participate. A small percentage of participants that did not preregister (15%) were recruited the first day of school either by phone, letter, or through the schools. The sample from the initial study consisted of 585 families, 52% male and 80% European-American, 18% African American, and 2% other ethnic groups. The Hollingshead Four-Factor Index of Socioeconomic Status (1979) indicates a diverse sample with respect to SES (M = 39.5; SD = 14.1), with 9%, 17%, 25%, 33%, and 16% in Hollingshead?s five classes (from lowest to highest). The first assessment was conducted the summer prior to kindergarten and included extended face to face interviews with parents which included gathering detailed information about family history, parenting and child characteristics. Maternal reports are exclusively used in this study due to a large proportion of fathers who did not participate or were not living in the 32 home. Subsequent assessments were collected annually beginning in kindergarten (age 5) and continuing through age twenty seven, and include contributions from participants, parents, peers, and romantic partners. Approximately 72% of the original sample continued in the study through data collection year 22 when participants were 27 years of age. 189 participants (33%) became parents by age twenty seven, of which 65 are males (35%) and 121 are females (65%). Of these participants, 92 (50%) were included in the parenting behavior assessment, to be described below, when their children were 5-years-old. The mean level of SES was 33.3 (SD = 13.3) for the subsample of participants with children, and 30.6 (SD = 12) for those who completed the age 5 parenting assessment. In terms of marital status, nearly 25% of total participants resided in a mother-headed single parent household at the time of the initial interview. Of the subsample of 189 participants with children, 36% were being raised by a single mother at the time of the initial interview, and 42% of participants with a 5-year-old that completed the parenting assessment resided in a single mother household when the initial interview was held. When adolescents reached eighth grade they reported on whether or not they had become parents. Data were collected through questionnaires or interviews. Target participants completed an extended parenting interview when their first born child (G3) reached age 5 the summer before he or she entered kindergarten (or as close to that time period as possible). The parenting assessment is very similar to the one used with the target participant in year 1. These interviews began in year sixteen, or when participants were around twenty-one years of age. 33 Measures G1 Parenting G1 maternal age at first birth. During the initial interview, mothers reported their birthdates as well as the birthdates of their children. A continuous measure of the mother?s age in years at the birth of her first child was calculated by subtracting the mother?s birth year from her first child?s birth year (either the target participant or the eldest sibling of the target participant). The mean G1 age at first birth was 23.5 (SD = 5.37, range = 15 to 48). G1 mothers were also grouped into one of four categories; 19 and under (n = 149), 20-21 (n = 67), 22-24 (n = 117), and over 25 (n = 230). These categorical breakdowns are consistent with other research focused on intergenerational continuity of age at first birth (e.g., Hardy et al., 1997). G1 parenting practices G1 positive parenting. Interview and questionnaire data collected during the initial interview (the summer before or early fall of kindergarten) were used to assess positive parenting by the target participant?s parents: warmth and involvement (see Pettit et al., 1997). Warmth. The interviewer completed a Post-Visit Inventory following the in-home interview which included a rating of mothers? behavior toward the child. The interviewer reported the occurrence (1= occurred, 0 = did not occur) of each of the four parent-child interactions: ?parent speaks to child with a positive tone,? ?parent expresses a positive attitude when speaking of child,? ?parent initiates positive physical contact with child,? and ?parent 34 accepts positive physical contact from child.? If insufficient information was provided (i.e., if the child did not initiate positive physical contact), it was coded as 0. The four items were composited to create an average scale score for observed mother warmth towards the child (? = .64). Involvement in the child?s early peer experiences. During the initial interview, parents were asked to describe their children?s exposure to peers in each of two developmental periods (ages 1 to 4 and ages 4 to 5). Parents were asked to identify the situations in which the child interacted with other children, whether the child had been around any children that the parent considered aggressive, whether the child had any close friends that he or she talked about, and the extent to which the child had been involved in conflicts with peers. Using the parents? responses, the interviewers rated the ?parent?s awareness of and concern about the child?s social experience and willingness to use such considerations to structure the child?s experiences.? The interviewer impressions were summarized on an anchored 5-point rating scale, in which a ?1? indicated that the parent was unaware or uninterested in most of the child?s peer experiences, and a ?5? indicated a very high level of parental interest and involvement. The correlation among independent raters was only r = .32, but the alpha coefficient (.90) across eras was high. The ratings across two developmental periods were averaged to create an overall positive involvement scale score. This measure has been used in past studies (e.g., Pettit et al., 1997) and has been shown to have high validity despite the low inter-rater agreement. G1 harsh parenting. During the initial face to face interview, mothers were asked to respond to a number of open-ended questions for each era (age 1 to 4 and age 4 to 5): ?Who usually disciplines your child?? ?How?? ?Was your child ever physically punished?? ?How often?? Based on the mother?s answers, the interviewer presented a rating for the parent?s use of 35 restrictive discipline for each era. Ratings were based on a 5-point scale ranging from ?nonrestrictive, mostly positive guidance? (1) to ?severe, strict, often physical? (5). Harsh discipline ratings were averaged across the two eras to produce an overall harsh and restrictive discipline score. The correlation among independent raters was r = .80, with an alpha coefficient of .61 across eras. G2 Parenting Age at becoming a parent. During year 15 and 16 data collection, (when target participants were roughly 20 and 21 years of age) participants first reported the sex and birthdates of their children, and continued to report this information annually. Using the same strategy used to calculate the age of the G1 age at first birth, participants? birth year was subtracted from the birth year of their first born child. G2 parents were also grouped into one of four categories for descriptive purposes; under 20 (n = 71), 20-21 (n = 46), 22-24 (n = 52), and over 25 (n = 16). As mentioned earlier, these categories are consistent with other research focused on intergenerational continuity of age at first birth. G2 parenting practices Triggered assessments are completed with the G2 parent and the G3 offspring the summer before the G3 begins kindergarten. This extended parenting interview used items based on similar assessments from year one of the Child Development Project (when target participants were 5 years old) describing parenting practices, parent-child relationship style, and academic and social involvement were used in order to provide continuity in data collection across multiple generations. G2 positive parenting. To assess positive parenting, questionnaire data specified the target participant?s social and academic involvement with their child and the level of acceptance 36 in the parent-child relationship. Academic and social involvement and acceptance were combined to create an overall index of positive parenting. Social and academic involvement. Participants were asked to report how often they engaged in a variety of social and academic-learning activities with their child such as, ?organize opportunities for my child to play with other children,? ?practice learning new words with my child,? and ?talk to my child about making friends.? A 5-point scale was used in which a ?1? indicated the parent ?never? engaged in the activity, and a ?5? indicated the parent ?very often? participated in an activity. This composite consisted of 10 items and had high internal consistency (?=.88). Acceptance. Target participants were asked to describe some of the experiences they have had while bringing up their child. After reading each statement, participants described the way they acted towards their child using a 5-point scale in which a ?1? indicated the statement was ?not at all like me? and a ?5? indicated the statement was ?a lot like me?. Seven (7) items from this questionnaire including, ?enjoys doing things with my child,? ?is able to make my child feel better when he/she is upset,? and ?seems proud of the things my child does? were used to create a composite with high internal consistency (?=.67). G2 negative parenting. Questionnaire data from the extended parenting interview were used to assess the target participant?s use of corporal punishment and negativity-hostility. Corporal punishment and negativity-hostility will be combined into a single composite to represent negative parenting. Corporal punishment. Participants were asked to report which kinds of things they have done to correct their child?s behavior in the past year. A 5-point scale was utilized in which ?0? indicted the parent had ?never? used a particular discipline method and ?4? indicated the parent 37 used the method ?about every day.? Three items from this questionnaire, ?grab or shake,? ?spank with hand,? and ?spank with object (switch or paddle),? assed use of corporal punishment. Variables were re-coded as to whether the G2 parent ever used each of the three items in the last year and summed to create the corporal punishment composite (range from 0 to 3). Negativity-Hostility. Target participants were asked to describe some of the experiences they have had while bringing up their child. After reading each statement, participants described the way they acted towards their child using a 5-point scale in which a ?1? indicated the statement was ?not at all like me? and a ?5? indicated the statement was ?a lot like me.? Six (6) items from this questionnaire, including, ?gets angry about little things my child does,? ?is strict with my child,? and ?almost always complains about what my child does,? were used to indicate the negativity and hostility in the participant?s relationship with his or her child. The six item composite had good internal consistency (? = .76) Socio-demographic controls During the initial pre-kindergarten assessment, information was collected on a number of demographic characteristics, including SES, gender, and ethnicity/race. Breakdowns for these variables were described earlier in the sample and overview section. Proximal socialization control variables Socialization experiences during early adolescence were of interest as a means of assessing their role in the cross-generational transmission of parenting. An effort was made to select measures from domains judged key to interpersonal functioning and adaptive (vs. maladaptive) behavior during the critical transition to early and middle adolescence. These domains were parenting, peer relations, and neighborhood context. 38 Parental monitoring and neighborhood safety. The summer before participants entered the sixth grade, interviews were conducted with their mothers to assess parenting practices and neighborhood characteristics (see Pettit, Bates, Dodge, & Meece, 1999). For parental monitoring and supervision, nine items intended to evaluate the parents? awareness of their children?s whereabouts, activities, and friendships were used. Some items were adapted from existing measures (e.g., Capaldi & Patterson, 1991): others were developed specifically for the Child Development Project. Each item was read aloud to the mother and she was asked to rate the item on a 5-point scale. Because the scale anchor points differed somewhat depending on the content of the item being rated, the rating anchors were written on cards and shown to the mother, who could then respond orally or point to the rating she wished to make. Examples of items included, ?When your child is not at home, do you know who he/she is with?? and ?When your child is not at home, do you know where he/she is?? The nine items were averaged to create a parental monitoring composite (? = .69). Another set of items described aspects of neighborhood safety and security (adapted from the Self-Care Checklist; see Posner & Vandell, 1994) and were rated by the parent on a 6-point scale (very unsafe to very safe). One item indexed mothers? general appraisal of neighborhood safety, three items tapped mothers? feelings of their own safety in coming home and being home alone, and two items indexed mothers? judgments of how safe it was for their children to play in the home and outside. The six items were averaged to create an index of neighborhood safety (? = .90). Affiliation with antisocial peers. During the winter of target participants? seventh grade year, they were asked to participate in a structured, face-to-face interview either at home or at school. If the participant had moved out of state since the study began, he or she was interviewed 39 over the telephone. Adolescents were asked several questions about their peers and friends, including how often their peer group was involved in antisocial behaviors (i.e., ?alcohol use,? ?drug use,? ?smoking,? ?fighting,? and ?theft?). These items were rated on a 5-point scale (never, once in a while, sometimes, fairly often, very often). This measure of peer group affiliation was based on items described in Gavin and Furman (1989). Five items were selected and averaged to create a scale of adolescent-reported peer group antisocial behavior (? = .74). 40 RESULTS Results are presented in several sections. First, descriptive statistics are presented for all study variables, followed by bivariate correlations. Of special interest are links between G1 age, G1 parenting, G2 age, and G2 parenting. Next, results of regression analyses are presented in which the unique and additive impact of G1 age and G1 parenting quality on G2 age of becoming a parent are tested. Order of entry of G1 age and G1 parenting was switched in separate analyses and the unique and redundant predictive effects were calculated. These analyses were run with and without socio-demographic controls (i.e., gender, race/ethnicity, and SES) and with and without more ?proximal? socialization mechanisms (i.e., parental monitoring, affiliation with antisocial peers, and neighborhood safety). Next, moderated regression analyses were conducted to assess moderation of cross- generational continuity in parenting by G2 age. Separate analyses were conducted for positive and negative parenting. In each analysis G2 parenting served as the dependent variable and G2 age of becoming a parent and G1 parenting were the independent variables. Interaction terms (multiplicative product of G2 age and G1 parenting) were entered on the final step. Analyses were run with and without socio-demographic controls and with and without proximal socialization variables. For exploratory purposes, interactions between G2 gender and G2 age and between G2 gender and G1 parenting also were examined, as well as the three-way interaction between G2 gender, G2 age, and G1 parenting. Descriptive Statistics 41 Mean, standard deviations, and ranges were computed for all variables. In addition, distributional properties of each variable were examined. All variables were normally distributed except G1 warmth and G2 acceptance which were somewhat skewed toward higher values. Socio-demographic controls. The descriptive information for the socio-demographic control variables, including gender, race, and SES can be found in Tables 1 and 2. Descriptive statistics are broken down for each subsample; the entire sample (N = 585), G2 parents (n = 189) and G2 parents with children at least 5 years of age who have completed the extended parenting interview (n = 92). As the sample becomes smaller, females account for a larger percentage (48%, 64%, and 73%, respectively). As for race, 81.5% of the total sample is classified as white, and 16.6% are classified as African American. For both subsamples of parents, about 26% of participants are African American. Finally, with respect to socioeconomic status, the average SES of the total sample is 39.5 and declines steadily across the subsamples with the average SES for the parents with extended parenting data (n = 92) around 30. Proximal socialization variables. Descriptive information on the proximal socialization variables is presented in Tables 1 and 2. In general, parents reported high levels of monitoring knowledge and child participants reported low levels of involvement with antisocial peers. Neighborhoods were rated as relatively safe. Similar information is conveyed when examining the smallest subsample of parents, although these participants reported slightly more affiliation with antisocial peers and parents rated their neighborhoods as somewhat more unsafe compared to the rest of the sample. Age of becoming a parent. Descriptive information for age of becoming a parent for all parents can be found in Table 1 for the whole sample and subsample of G2 parents and in Table 2 for G2 parents who had completed the extended parenting interview. The average age of 42 becoming a parent for all G1 mothers is almost 24 years of age. Nearly 33% of CDP participants (G2s) had become parents by age 28, with the mean age of becoming a parent around 21. As for the subsample with extended parenting data (n = 92), the average age at which their G1 mothers first gave birth is 21 years of age and the mean age of becoming a parent for this subsample of G2 participants is around 19 years old. As is apparent from these descriptive statistics, the G2 participants contributing parenting data (i.e., parents of 5-year-olds) represent a comparatively high-risk group. Compared to the sample as a whole, they are lower in SES and more likely to be ethnic minority. Compared to other G2 parents (i.e., those with younger children), they also are more likely to have become a parent prior to age 20. G1 parenting variables. The descriptive information for G1 parenting variables, broken down for each subgroup, is presented in Tables 1 and 2. On average, most G1 parents reported relatively low levels of harsh parenting and high levels of warmth, with slightly more harsh discipline and less warmth among the G1 mothers of the youngest G2 parents. In addition, G1 mothers reported moderate levels of involvement across all G2 subsamples, with an average of about 3 on a scale of 1-5. G2 parenting variables. The descriptive information for G2 parenting variables can be seen in Tables 1 and 2. G2 parents reported relatively low to moderate levels of negativity and low use of corporal punishment. Most parents indicated using corporal punishment once in the last year. Additionally, parents reported high levels of acceptance toward their children and moderate involvement in social and academic activities. Correlations within variable domains 43 In all subsequent analyses (correlations and regressions) the maximum available N of cases were used to maximize power. It should be noted that relations among variables were similar across the whole sample and the two subsamples. Socio-demographic variables. Race (being African-American) was associated with lower socioeconomic status (r = -.35). Gender was unrelated to either race (r = .01) or SES (r = - .05). Proximal socialization variables. Parental monitoring was associated with higher neighborhood safety (r = .27) and less G2 reported affiliation with antisocial peers (r = -.30). G2s who tended to associate with antisocial peers also lived in less safe neighborhoods (r = -.20). Age of becoming a parent. G1 age of becoming a parent was modestly but significantly correlated with G2 age of becoming a parent (r = .20). That is, younger G1 moms tended to have offspring who also became parents at an early age and the offspring of older G1 moms tended to become parents later. A comparison of teen parents vs. older parents revealed the following: G1s who became parents as a teen were significantly more likely to have an offspring who became a teen parent than older G1 mothers (22.1% vs. 8.4%), ?2(1) = 25.4, p = .001. Moreover, G2 teen parents were much more likely to have been born to a teen mother than to an older mother with nearly 52% of G2 teen parents having been born to a teenage mother. Parenting variables. Table 5 shows the correlations among all parenting variables for G1 mothers and G2 parents. As expected, the positive G1 parenting variables were positively correlated so that higher levels of warmth were associated with higher levels of parental involvement (r = .28). In addition, more reported harsh discipline was associated with less G1 warmth (r = -.16) and involvement (r = -.26). 44 The G2 parenting variables reveal similar correlations. High levels of acceptance were associated with high levels of involvement (r = .45). More G2 negativity was related to less acceptance (r = -.69) as well as less involvement (r = -.24). Higher levels of corporal punishment use were associated with more G2 negativity (r = .32), but were unrelated to either G2 acceptance or involvement. Correlations across variable domains Socio-demographic variables and age and parenting. Correlations among socio- demographic variables and age and parenting are shown in Table 3. For G2 participants, gender was modestly related to age of becoming a parent in that females tended to have children at earlier ages than males (r = -.18). Age of becoming a parent was related to SES for both G1 and G2 participants in that higher SES was related to later age of becoming a parent (r = .40 and r = .39, respectively). Race was associated with both age of becoming a parent and SES. African American participants tended to have children earlier (r = -.25) and to have lower SES than European American participants (r = -.35). As for G1 parenting variables, male G2 participants received somewhat harsher parenting than females (r = -.10). Race (being African American) was associated with receiving more harsh discipline (r = .12) and less positive involvement (r = -.19). Finally, SES was also correlated with harsh and positive parenting in that families with higher SES tended to engage in more positive (r = .39) and less harsh parenting (r = -.27). A number of G2 parenting variables were correlated with the socio-demographic controls. African American G2 parents were less involved (r = -.30) with their offspring, and used more corporal punishment (r = .25) than European American G2 parents. In addition, G2 parents coming from households with low 45 socioeconomic status were found to be more negative toward their children (r = -.24). Gender was unrelated to all of the G2 parenting variables. Proximal socialization variables and age and parenting. Correlations among proximal socialization variables and age and parenting are presented in Table 4. Older G1 mothers tended to monitor more and live in safer neighborhoods (r = .12 and r = .21, respectively). Younger G2 parents reported more affiliation with antisocial peers (r = -.28) and tended to come from less safe neighborhoods (r = .25) than older G2 parents. Those living in safe neighborhoods used less harsh discipline (r = -.25) and were more involved with their children (r = .18). Likewise, more G1 parental monitoring was associated with more G1 overall positive parenting (r = .19) and less harsh discipline (r = -.23), as well as more G2 acceptance of (r = .32) and involvement with (r = .26) their own offspring. Finally, more parental monitoring was linked to less G2 negativity toward their offspring (r = -.25). Affiliation with antisocial peers was unrelated to any of the G1 or G2 parenting variables. Age and parenting variables. Correlations between age and parenting variables are listed in Table 5. Older G1 mothers were higher in warmth (r = .13) and involvement (r = .22) and lower in harsh discipline (r = -.20). G1 warmth, in turn, predicted G2 offspring becoming parents at later ages (r = .22) whereas harsh discipline predicted earlier parenthood among G2 participants (r = -.16). These correlations are in line with the expectations from the first research question concerning age of becoming a parent and parenting quality. Inconsistent with expectations, G2 age of becoming a parent was unrelated to any of the G2 parenting variables. G1 and G2 parenting. As shown in Table 5, G2 parents experiencing high levels of harsh discipline during childhood used more corporal punishment with their own children (r = 46 .31). G1 harsh discipline was also associated with more G2 negativity (r = .24) and less G2 acceptance (r = -.23). G1 positive parenting was unrelated to any of the G2 parenting variables. Differences in correlations for males and females. Correlations were computed within and across variable domains separately for males and females. The overall pattern of relations was quite similar for males and females. Fisher?s r to z transformations were used to compare pairs of correlations for males and females. Only two of 66 correlations were significantly different; however, these two differences are noteworthy. For boys, the correlation between G1 warmth and G2 acceptance was negative (r = -.35, p = .11), while for girls the correlation was positive (r = .13, p = .30). In addition, the correlation between G1 warmth and G2 involvement was negative and significant for boys (r = -.46, p = .03) and positive and significant for girls (r = .30, p = .01). Scatterplots did not suggest that a small portion of participants (i.e., outliers) were responsible for these counter-intuitive relations. Regression analyses Predicting G2 age from G1 age and G1 parenting. A series of regression analyses were conducted to examine whether G1 age and G1 parenting were associated with the age at which G2 participants became parents (see Table 6). All G2 participants who were parents were included in these analyses. For these and all subsequent analyses overall positive parenting (G1: warmth and involvement; G2: acceptance and involvement) and negative parenting (G2: negativity and corporal punishment) scores were used. Recall that the individual constituents were positively correlated (e.g., the correlation between G1 warmth and G1 acceptable was .28, p = .01). The constituents were standardized and averaged to create the overall positive and negative parenting composites. Regression analyses were run with and without socio- 47 demographic controls (see Table 7) as well as with and without proximal socialization variables (see Table 8). In the first analysis, G1 age was entered in step 1 and G1 positive and negative parenting were entered in step 2, to determine if G1 parenting continued to predict G2 age of becoming a parent after controlling for G1 age. The first step revealed that G1 age at first birth was a significant predictor of G2 age of becoming a parent (? = .19; p = .01) and accounted for 3.7% of the variance. When G1 parenting was entered on the second step, it accounted for an additional significant 4% of the unique variance in G2 age. Only positive parenting (? = .15; p = .04) contributed significantly to this prediction. An analysis was then run in which the G1 parenting variables were entered first and G1 age was entered on the second step to determine if G1 age at first birth continued to predict G2 age of becoming a parent after controlling for G1 parenting. G1 parenting variables entered on the first step accounted for a significant portion of variance in G2 age of becoming a parent, R2 = .06; p = .01. The predictive relation was significant for positive parenting (? = .18, p = .02) and marginally significant for harsh discipline (? = -.13, p = .08). When G1 age was entered on the second step it explained a marginally significant portion of the variance in G2 age of becoming a parent, ?R2 = .02; p = .06. It can be concluded from these analyses that whereas G1 age and G1 parenting contribute additively to the prediction of G2 age of becoming a parent, the predictive relations are stronger for parenting?especially positive parenting?than for G1 age. Next, an analysis was run with socio-demographic controls (gender, race/ethnicity, and SES) entered on the first step, G1 age at first birth on the second step, and G1 positive and negative parenting on the third step (see Table 7a). The socio-demographic variables accounted for a significant portion of the variance in G2 age of becoming a parenting (R2 = .21), with 48 gender (? = -.21; p = .00) and SES (? = .35; p = .00) contributing significantly to the prediction. Neither G1 age (?R2 = .001; p = .61) nor G1 parenting (?R2 = .008; p = .43) accounted for additional significant variance in G2 age of becoming a parent. The analysis was repeated with parenting entered in the second step and G1 age entered in the third step (Table 7b). Neither step was significant. Finally, an analysis was run with proximal socialization variables (parental monitoring, neighborhood safety, and affiliation with antisocial peers) entered on the first step, G1 age entered on the second step, and G1 parenting entered on the third step (Table 8a). The proximal socialization variables predicted G2 age of becoming a parent (R2 = .12), with affiliation with antisocial peers (? = -.24; p = .01) and neighborhood safety (? = .22 p = .01) contributing significantly to the prediction. G1 age continued to be marginally predictive of G2 age (?R2 = .02; p = .09). G1 parenting also accounted for a marginally significant portion of the variance in G2 age (?R2 = .03; p = .10), though neither parenting variable individually was significant. The analysis was then re-run with parenting entered on the second step and G1 age entered on the third step (Table 8b). G1 parenting remained a marginally significant predictor (?R2 = .036; p = 07.), accounting for an additional 3.6% of the variance in G2 age of becoming a parent. G1 positive parenting (? = .15; p = .08) contributed marginally significantly to the prediction. G1 age (?R2 = .01; p = .15), however, did not account for any additional variance. Gender as a moderator. Exploratory moderated regression analyses were conducted to examine the role of gender in the predictive links between G1 age, G1 parenting, and G2 age. Findings are reported in Table 9. In these analyses, G1 parenting, G1 age, and gender were entered in step 1 and the two-way interaction terms of G1 positive parenting and gender and G1 negative parenting and gender, G1 age and gender, G1 age and G1 positive parenting, and G1 49 age and G1 negative parenting were entered in step 2. Due to the exploratory nature of these analyses, and because of concerns about low power, follow-up analyses with control variables were not conducted. The step including the two-way interactions was not significant (?R2 = .004; p = .98) and none of the two-way interaction terms were significant (all ps > .40). Predicting G2 parenting from G2 age and G1 parenting and their interaction. A series of moderated regression analyses were conducted to examine whether G2 age of becoming a parent and G1 parenting and their interaction were predictive of G2 parenting of their own children. Only G2s who were parents of five year olds and for whom parenting data were available were included in these analyses. These analyses tested whether G2 age moderated the intergenerational continuity of positive and negative parenting. G2 age and G1 parenting were entered on the first step and the interaction between G2 age and G1 parenting was entered on the second step. The interaction term was computed as the multiplicative product of centered G2 age and centered G1 parenting. Follow-up analyses were run with and without socio-demographic controls as well as with and without proximal socialization variables. Exploratory analyses considered whether gender moderated links between G2 age, G1 parenting, and G2 parenting. In the first analysis examining continuity in harsh parenting (see Table 10a), the first step, with G1 harsh discipline and G2 age as predictors, was significant, ?R2 = .11; p = .01. Only G2 harsh discipline contributed significantly to this prediction (? = .33, p = .002). The interaction between G1 harsh discipline and G2 age, entered on the second step, was not significant, ?R2 = .001; p = .80. Thus, there was no evidence that G2 age of becoming a parent moderated continuity in harsh parenting across generations. Because the main effects were significant, this analysis was run with socio-demographic controls and proximal socialization variables (Table 11). Socio-demographic controls were 50 entered on the first step, G1 harsh discipline and G2 age were entered on the second step, and the interaction between G1 harsh discipline and G2 age was entered on the last step. Socio- demographic variables did not significantly predict G2 harsh parenting (R2 = .056; p = .20). The step with G1 harsh discipline and G2 age was significant (?R2 = .079; p = .03), but only G1 harsh discipline continued to predict G2 harsh discipline, even after controlling for socio- demographic variables (? = .29, p = .01). Similarly, when proximal socialization variables were entered on the first step (Table 13), they did not contribute significantly to the prediction of G2 harsh parenting (R2 = .067; p = .28). Again, the step with G1 harsh discipline and G2 age was significant (?R2 = .124; p = .01). G1 harsh parenting continued to predict G2 harsh parenting after controlling for more proximal variables (R2 = .19; p = .03). In neither analysis was the interaction between G1 harsh discipline and G2 age significant. The next analysis examined continuity in positive parenting. G2 age and G1 positive parenting were entered on the first step, and the interaction between G2 age and G1 positive parenting was entered on the second step (Table 10b). The first step was not significant (?R2 = .003; p = .88), and neither G2 age (p = .76) nor G1 positive parenting (p = .70) were significant predictors of later G2 positive parenting. Step 2 revealed a significant interaction term (?R2 = .07; p = .01), signifying G2 age of becoming a parent was acting as a moderator on the continuity in positive parenting. Follow-up analyses were conducted to understand how the relation between G1 and G2 positive parenting differed for younger versus older G2 parents. Slopes were computed at high and low levels of G2 age of becoming a parent and are depicted in Figure 1. For younger parents, the expected pattern of cross-generational continuity was found, i.e., more positive parenting among G1s predicted more positive parenting among G2s. For older parents, however, the 51 opposite pattern emerged: that is, higher levels of positive parenting among G1s predicted lower levels of positive parenting among G2s. For both older (slope = -.32, p = .09) and younger parents (slope = .35, p = .07), however, the association was only a trend, and not statistically significant. These analyses were re-run with socio-demographic controls (Table 12). The first step including gender, race/ethnicity, and SES was not significant (?R2 = .058; p = .18), although race/ethnicity itself was marginally significant (? = -.21, p = .08). The interaction between G1 positive parenting and G2 age of becoming a parent continued to be significant (?R2 = .063, p = .02). Table 14 shows the analysis with the proximal socialization variables as controls. When entered on the first step, these variables accounted for significant variance in positive parenting (R2 = .145, p = .03), with parental monitoring predicting higher levels of G2 positive parenting (? = .34, p = .02). The interaction between G1 positive parenting and G2 age remained significant, (?R2 = .062; p = .05), Gender as a moderator. Exploratory moderated regression analyses were conducted to explore the role of gender in the predictive links between G2 age and G1 parenting and G2 parenting. Again, separate regressions were conducted for positive and negative parenting. In these analyses, G2 age, G2 gender, and G1 parenting were entered in step 1, the two-way interaction terms of G2 age with G1 parenting, G2 age with gender, and G1 parenting with gender were entered in step 2, and the three-way interaction of G2 age, gender, and G1 parenting was entered on step 3. Although the analyses are exploratory in nature, these follow-up analyses were conducted with socio-demographic control variables in order to make the most conservative assumptions about the findings. 52 Continuity in negative parenting was examined first (Table 15). Of interest here was whether any of the 2-way interactions or the 3-way interaction was significant. The step including the two-way interactions was not significant (?R2 = .02; p = .55) and none of the two- way interaction terms was significant (all ps > .17). However, the three-way interaction between G2 age, G1 harsh parenting, and gender was marginally significant, ?R2 = .04; p = .07. Because these analyses were run for exploratory purposes, calculations of simple intercepts and simple slopes were conducted according to standard procedures (Aiken &West, 1991; Dearing & Hamilton, 2006), using the interaction utility described by Preacher, Curran, and Bauer (2006). Follow-up analyses yielded intercepts and slopes representing the relations between the predictor variable (G1 harsh parenting) and outcome variable (G2 harsh parenting) at lower (-1 standard deviation) and higher (+1 standard deviation) levels of the moderator variable (G2 age of becoming a parent), as depicted in Figure 2. Predictor variables were centered for all regression analyses. G2 age of becoming a parent significantly predicted continuity in harsh parenting among young girls (slope = .39, p < .05), but not among older girls (slope = .16, p > .10). In addition, G2 age of becoming a parent did not predict continuity in harsh parenting for older (slope = .32, p > .10) or younger boys, (slope = -.28, p > .10). More specifically, young girls were most likely to replicate G1 harsh parenting, compared to older girls and boys. Turning to continuity in positive parenting (Table 16), the same order of entry as just described was used. Unlike negative parenting, the step with the two-way interactions was significant (?R2 = .10; p = .04), and consistent with the analyses reported earlier, the interaction between G1 positive parenting and G2 age was the only significant interaction (? = -3.16; p = .02). The three-way interaction between G2 age, G1 positive parenting, and gender was not significant, however, ?R2 = .01; p = .4. 53 DISCUSSION The overarching goals of this study were to examine cross-generational continuity in positive and negative parenting and in age of becoming a parent, and whether continuity in parenting is stronger for younger G2 parents compared to older G2 parents. Findings revealed that both maternal age at first birth and early parenting predicted G2 age of becoming a parent; however, early parenting played a much more significant role. More specifically, lower levels of positive parenting during childhood predicted early G2 parenthood. Moreover, it appears that continuity in parenting was stronger for the youngest G2 parents (also the ones receiving the lowest levels of positive parenting). These patterns of relations were attenuated when socio- demographic factors, especially socioeconomic status, were taken into account. More ?downstream? proximal social-ecological factors likewise rendered some of the intergenerational patterns non-significant. Each of these findings will be discussed in the sections that follow. Limitations will be noted and future directions for research on intergenerational continuities and discontinuities will be discussed. Current trends in early parenthood Before turning to a discussion of specific findings, it is important to provide some context about early parenthood and the current study?s approach to studying it. Although age at first-time parenthood has been increasing in recent years, substantial numbers of teens and young adults continue to become parents. Off-time parenthood?especially teen parenthood?is a major societal concern, and understanding the developmental pathways leading to early parenthood 54 could lead to improvements in programs and practices designed to either discourage early parenthood or assist those who become parents at an early age. The current study used longitudinal data collected beginning when the participants (G2s) were five years old. The historical period in which the project was initiated was in 1987-1988. Follow-up data on the G2 participants were collected annually, and age at becoming a parent and parenting behavior was assessed from approximately 1999 until the most recent data collection wave was completed in 2009. Thus, the participants? mothers (G1s) became parents during a historical period that was 10-20 years earlier than the G2 cohort. It is important to situate the current study?s age-of- becoming-a-parent data in historical context and to determine whether cross-cohort age patterns resemble those found in representative national surveys. In a recent monograph entitled the ?New Demography of American Motherhood,? the Pew Research Center (2010) reports national trends in childbearing from 1990 to 2008. In 1990, 13% of mothers became parents as teenagers and 26% became parents in their early 20s (ages 20-24). For the G1s in the current study, the percentage breakdowns are 24.8% and 31.8%, respectively. The age at first birth for mothers in the Child Development Project appears to be somewhat higher than the national trends for 1990. In contrast, in 2008, the Pew data show that 10% of mothers became parents as teenagers and 25% in their early 20s. For the G2s in the current study, the relevant percentages are 11.8% and 17.3%, respectively. Two points are noteworthy here. One is that the participants in the Child Development Project, from which the current study?s data were drawn, parallel national historical trends. A second point is that according to the most recent surveys, fewer young people are becoming teenage parents, as compared to a decade or two ago. This is consistent with the CDP sample, which reveals more G1 teenage mothers than G2 teenage parents. 55 Parenting quality of older vs. younger parents Research regarding the parenting quality of older versus younger parents has been quite mixed, with some studies reporting younger mothers tend to use more harsh and inconsistent discipline than older mothers, and others finding no significant differences in parenting quality based on age of the mother. In the current study, younger G1 mothers engaged in significantly less positive parenting and more negative and harsh parenting than older G1 mothers. These results are consistent with previous results reported by Lee (2009), who found that adolescent mothers were at significantly higher risk of spanking and using physical aggression with their children than were older mothers. Berlin and colleagues (2002) reported similar findings, with teenage child bearers showing less supportiveness and more intrusiveness than older mothers. Each of these studies found significant differences even after controlling for factors such as family income and other demographic characteristics. Although the current study did not control for such factors, doing so would likely attenuate the differences in parenting quality among older and younger G1 mothers. Interestingly, a different pattern emerged for the second generation parents in the present study. No links were found between G2 age of becoming a parent and subsequent quality of parenting. G2 age of becoming a parent was unrelated to either positive or negative parenting. Similar results were reported by Chase-Lansdale, Brooks-Gunn, and Zamsky (1994), who examined parenting quality among mothers and grandmothers. No significant differences due to age were found in harshness of parenting between grandmothers and their young daughters. In addition, age at first birth was not a significant predictor of parenting quality. Notably, in the current study the participants with extended parenting data (i.e., those with a 5-year-old child) were among the youngest to become parents (e.g., under twenty when they became a parent). It 56 is possible that these young parents were more alike than different, and the range of ages was too narrow to find significant differences. As will be noted later, this restricted age range also has implications for findings regarding intergenerational continuity in parenting, in age of becoming a parent, and in the interaction between the two. Does being born to a young mother and early parenting received predict age of becoming a parent? Although both being born to a young mother (particularly a teen mother) and exposure to harsh vs. supportive parenting have been linked with an increased likelihood of becoming a parent at an early age (Hardy et al., 1997; Scaramella et al., 1998; Woodward et al., 2001), no study could be located that simultaneously considered each kind of risk factor. This is an important limitation in the literature because, as discussed in the preceding section, early parenthood and parenting quality typically are correlated (Berlin et al., 2002; Lee, 2009) and one therefore overlaps with the other. In other words, being born to a young parent and parenting received may be redundant in their prediction of early parenthood. Alternatively, the two factors may cumulate (contribute additively), such that the combination of the two increases the likelihood of early parenthood beyond each considered separately. The current study provides some support for an additive effect, in that both parenting quality (i.e., positive parenting) and being born to a young parent contributed uniquely to G2 early parenthood, at least when G1 age was entered into the regression first. However, when G1 parenting was entered first, G1 age of becoming a parent became only marginally significant. At the end of this section, we will return to this pattern of findings and its implications, but before doing so the separate findings for G1 age and G1 parenting will be discussed in relation to the existing literature on these two sets of risk factors. 57 Unique contribution of G1 age. A considerable body of research has documented that being born to a young mother predicts becoming a young parent oneself (e.g., Coley et al., 1998; Furstenberg et al., 1990; Jaffee et al., 2001). Such was the case in the current study in which the cross-generational relation between age of becoming a parent was modest but significant (r = .20). Given the restricted age range among the G2 parents, this is a noteworthy level of cross- generational continuity. Moreover, the offspring of teen G1 mothers were three times more likely to become teen parents than those born to older G1 mothers. Hardy et al. (1997) also found that a majority of G2 teenage parents were born to a teenage mother, although the relationship was higher in magnitude, likely due to the much larger sample used (N = 1,758), and a less restricted age range (data collected through age 33) compared to the Child Development Project sample of parents, for whom parenting data so far only have been collected through age 27. In a study with a sample size more comparable to that of the Child Development Project, Woodward and colleagues (2001) similarly find a modest relationship between G1 and G2 age of becoming a parent. Jaffe et al. (2001) suggest that the biological characteristics that a teen mother passes on to her children, such as early sexual maturation, may account in part for intergenerational similarities in the timing of becoming a parent. Young mothers may also be passing on individual characteristics, such as a proclivity toward risk-taking behavior, to their offspring. Finally, some research suggests that the continuity in early parenthood can be attributed to an internalized preference for early childbearing among offspring of teenage mothers (Ellis et al., 1999; Manlove, 1997; Mollborn, 2010). For example, Manlove (1997) reported that daughters of young mothers had a substantially earlier ideal age of childbearing than those born to older mothers. 58 With respect to sex differences, the literature has focused heavily on continuity in age at first birth among mothers and daughters, with fewer studies considering continuity among mothers and sons or fathers and sons. In one of the few studies specifically examining the relationship between fathers? and sons? age of becoming a parent, Sipsma et al. (2010) discovered that sons of teenage fathers were nearly three times more likely to become parents before the age of 20 than young men born to older fathers. In the current study, only the relationship between mothers and sons could be examined. Continuity in age of becoming a parent was the same magnitude for mothers and daughters (r =.20) and mothers and sons (r = .20), but the correlation was only significant for daughters. These results are comparable to that of Hardy et al. (1997), in which continuity in age of becoming a parent in mothers and sons was found, but the association was much weaker. The limited number of males that became teenage parents in the CDP sample is likely responsible for the non-significant mother-to-son correlation. Unique contribution of G1 parenting. Variations in parenting behavior have been linked with a wide array of important child and adolescent outcomes (Bornstein, 2003; Collins et al., 2000). Some of these outcomes would seem to have particular relevance for becoming a young parent. For example, Ellis et al. (1999), using data also drawn from the Child Development Project, found that less supportive parenting and less parental affection predicted girls? earlier pubertal development. Importantly, Ellis et al. found that both the absence of positive parenting and the presence of negative parenting were significant predictors of early puberty. Other research has shown that parenting qualities in early childhood forecast subsequent risky sexual behavior, earlier sexual debut, and teen pregnancy (Lansford, Yu, Erath, Pettit, et al., 2010; Scaramella et al., 1998; Taris & Semin, 1997). Few studies have traced the role of 59 early parenting quality as a predictor of not only teen parenthood but of off-time parenthood more generally. In the current study, early G1 parenting quality was found to predict age of becoming a parent for G2 participants. More specifically, higher G1 warmth and overall positivity predicted a later age of becoming a parent. Additionally, experiencing high levels of harsh parenting as a child was significantly related to becoming a parent earlier. However, when positive and negative parenting were considered jointly, only positive parenting contributed significantly to the prediction. These findings are similar to those reported by Scaramella et al. (1998), who found that more supportive and involved parenting during early adolescence predicted delayed parenthood. Warm and involved parents may create an environment that fosters positive attributes in the child, such as prosocial behavior and responsibility that decrease the likelihood of early involvement in sexual activity and early parenthood. It is clear that early parenting is in fact an important predictor of age of becoming a parent. In subsequent sections the current study will return to the question of early parenting quality and its role in the prediction of G2 age of becoming a parent compared to other factors such as G1 age of becoming a parent. In addition, the role of socio-demographic and proximal socialization factors in this relationship will be examined. Being born to a young mother vs. early parenting received: Which is more important? As just reviewed, both being born to a young parent and receiving harsher and less positive parenting were significant predictors of early parenthood among offspring. No known study, however, has simultaneously considered the impact of both G1 age at first birth and early parenting quality in predicting G2 age of becoming a parent. As discussed earlier, G1 age and parenting quality are correlated and thus it is important to disentangle their effects. The current 60 findings suggest that although G1 age and early parenting are correlated with one another, as would be expected, they are nonetheless non-redundantly predictive of G2 age of becoming a parent. Interestingly, however, early parenting played a larger role in the prediction of early parenthood than G1 age. Moreover, it appears that positive parenting (or the lack thereof) was the main force driving this relationship. Less supportive parents may be unaware of the types of behavior their child is engaging in, or the types of friends the child is involved with. The offspring of less involved parents may have more opportunities to engage in risk taking behavior than children of parents who are positively involved and warm (Scaramella et al., 1997). Perhaps positive parent-child relationships early in life set into motion a pattern of more constructive interactions over time. For example, a child or adolescent that feels supported by and able to communicate with his or her parents might be less likely to associate with deviant peers that support risk-taking behaviors. These findings have several implications for intervention and prevention programs aimed at teenage pregnancy. It may be important to target parents early on, especially young parents, in order to teach them effective positive parenting techniques. Providing young parents with the support necessary to be a warm and involved parent is especially imperative, given that these young parents were unlikely to have been raised in a particularly warm environment as children. Are the links between being born to a young parent and parenting quality and subsequent risk for becoming a young parent explained by socio-demographic factors and/or proximal socialization factors? Socio-demographic factors. An extensive literature has documented that early parenthood co-occurs with a variety of social and economic risk factors, most notably low SES (Coley & Chase-Lansdale, 1998; Jaffee et al., 2001; Turner, 2004). This is presumed to be one 61 important reason why early parenthood is itself a risk factor for a wide array of concurrent and subsequent negative developmental outcomes in both the young parent and his or her offspring, and why the parenting quality of young parents tends to be poorer than that of older parents. It therefore is important to take these co-occurring risk factors into account when examining the predictive links between early-parent status and subsequent developmental outcomes, including growing up to become a young parent. The current study?s findings show that young mothers have low SES and that low SES in turn is associated with increased likely of offspring becoming a parent at a young age. Moreover, low SES was also associated with experiencing more harsh parenting and less positive parenting during early childhood. The relationship between G1 age, early parenting, and G2 age of becoming a parent was rendered non-significant after controlling for SES. Similar findings were reported by Jaffee et al. (2001), in which family circumstances accounted for 12-32% of the variance in outcomes experienced by offspring of teen mothers. Perhaps family background characteristics like low SES arise in response to early parenthood, with poverty hindering educational and occupational opportunities for the mother, and therefore placing her offspring at risk for early parenthood (Meade et al., 2008). This suggests that it is important to target young parents early, with programs aimed at increasing positive parent-child interactions and teaching alternative childrearing strategies. Education and support for young parents lends the possibility of breaking the intergenerational cycle of early parenthood. Gender was also a significant predictor of G2 age of becoming a parent, with females more likely than males to become young parents, a robust finding in the literature (Furstenberg & Weiss, 2000). As mentioned earlier, young females are often impregnated by older men. Additionally, many young males may be unaware of their paternal status. When considering 62 gender, G1 age at first birth and early parenting were no longer significant predictors of G2 age of becoming a parent. This finding may be attributable to the relatively small number of young fathers in this particular subsample of parents. More research must be done on adolescent males to understand the specific risk factors that lead to early fatherhood. As for race, African American participants were both more likely to have low SES and to become parents earlier than European Americans. In addition, African American participants were more likely to experience higher levels of harsh parenting and less warm and involved parenting than other participants. Although much research has found a strong link between minority status and early parenthood (e.g., Coley & Chase-Lansdale, 1998; Corcoran, Franklin, & Barratt, 2000; Mollborn, 2010), the current study finds only a modest prediction. This difference in relative magnitude may be due to the small sample size of parents with extended parenting data, or it may be that for the current sample factors such as SES and gender are more pervasive predictors than race. Proximal socialization processes. Although SES and related demographic factors tell us about the general context of family life, they represent a ?social address? and as such reveal little about underlying processes within a person?s social network that may contribute to early- parenthood status and that may explain the intergenerational transmission process. In the current study, three such proximal socialization variables were considered, including parental monitoring, affiliation with antisocial peers, and neighborhood safety. These variables were selected because prior research has linked them with known risk factors for early parenthood, such as risky sexual behavior (Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000; Rail, Stanton, Wu, Li, Galbraith et al., 2003; Whitbeck, Yoder, Hoyt, & Conger, 1999). Moreover, these variables represent three 63 key domains of socialization experience (family, peer group, and neighborhood) that are especially germane to health and well-being in early and mid-adolescence. Adolescence is a time during which great importance is placed on peer relationships, and opportunity for negative peer influences increases. Affiliation with antisocial peers is a documented risk factor for early sexual involvement and teenage pregnancy. For example, Whitbeck et al. (1999) reported that involvement with antisocial peers during early adolescence was strongly associated with early sexual activity. In addition, Scaramella and colleagues (1998) found that teens involved with deviant peers were at greater risk for participating in risk taking behaviors and for becoming involved with an adolescent pregnancy. Similarly, the current study found that affiliation with antisocial peers was a significant predictor of G2 age of becoming a parent. This suggests that deviant behavior, in this case affiliation with antisocial peers, can lead to early parenthood. For instance, if one?s peers are involved with drugs and alcohol during adolescence, it is likely he or she is also involved in these activities which have often been linked to risky sexual behavior and, in turn, early parenthood (e.g., Dodge, Dishion, & Lansford, 2006). It may be that engaging in one form of risk taking behavior is linked with taking part in other types of risky behavior. Neighborhood residence, a key socialization experience during adolescence, has also been considered a potential risk for later negative developmental outcomes. For example, Leventhal and Brooks-Gunn (2000) suggest that residence in unsafe and low SES neighborhoods is related to adolescent and non-marital childbearing for both males and females, and especially for African American youth. Consistent with these findings, the present study found that living in an unsafe neighborhood was linked to being born to a young mother and becoming a parent earlier. In fact, living in an unsafe neighborhood was a significant predictor of G2 age of 64 becoming a parent, when considered alongside parental monitoring and affiliation with antisocial peers. It is possible that unsafe neighborhoods provide more opportunities to engage in risk taking behaviors, and more role models taking part in these types of behaviors. Perhaps intervention programs could focus efforts on particular neighborhoods with a high prevalence of adolescents being raised by young mothers, in order to target multiple cycles of maladaptive development. Parental monitoring is a positive parenting technique, one in which parents report being informed of their child?s whereabouts, friends, and activities. Parental monitoring has been assumed to play an important role in prevention of teenage parenthood by reducing adolescents? risk taking behaviors (Scaramella et al. 1998) and early sexual activity (Whitbeck et al., 1999). It therefore is not surprising that in the current study early-adolescent monitoring was marginally associated with a later age of becoming a parent. When considered alongside neighborhood safety and affiliation with antisocial peers, however, parental monitoring no longer predicted G2 age of becoming a parent. It may be that parental monitoring is especially important in certain contexts. As suggested by Pettit and colleagues (1999), parental monitoring plays a particularly important role for adolescents affiliating with deviant peers and living in unsafe neighborhoods. Further research is required to more fully understand these relationships. The findings considering the role of proximal socialization factors in the prediction of G2 early parenthood are consistent with an extensive body of research. While the proximal socialization factors just discussed do tend to relate to early parenthood, they do not fully explain the link between G1 age of becoming a parent and early parenting quality and G2 age at becoming a parent: G1 age and positive parenting remained marginally significant predictors. While it is likely that other ?proximal? variables are important, such as friendship qualities, it 65 also is possible that there is something formative and unique about being born to a young mother and being exposed to high vs. low quality parenting early in life. This provides more evidence that programs promoting more positive and warm parenting, perhaps to young mothers or those residing in dangerous neighborhoods, could be effective in lessening the risk of early parenthood. Intergenerational Continuity in Parenting There has been a longstanding interest in the transmission of parenting practices and styles across generations (Pears & Capaldi, 2001; Putallaz et al., 1998; Simons et al., 1991). This interest stems in part from a ?determinants of parenting? perspective, which seeks to identify the roots of individual differences in parenting (Abidin, 1992; Belsky, 1984). In the present study, cross-generational continuity in positive and negative parenting was examined. Importantly, G2?s parenting of their offspring was assessed at the same age (when the G3s were age 5) as when the G1?s parenting of the G2s was assessed. Results showed modest continuity in negative parenting, consistent with past research, but no continuity in positive parenting, which is not consistent with past research. However, as noted by Conger et al. (2009), modest continuities in parenting across generations suggest the possibility that moderating factors may strengthen or weaken cross-generational continuities. G2 age of becoming a parent was construed as one such factor in the present study, and some evidence emerged that G2 age did in fact moderate continuity in positive parenting. Continuity in harsh parenting. As have a number of researchers (e.g., Conger et al., 2003; Pears & Capaldi, 2001; Simons, Whitbeck et al., 1991), a modest and significant cross- generational correlation was found for harsh parenting. It should be noted that ?harshness? was not assessed in identical ways across generations, with G1 harsh parenting being based on 66 interviewer?s rating of disciplinary severity and G2 harsh parenting being based on self-reported use of corporal punishment and a generally hostile attitude toward the child. The operationalization of negative parenting, therefore, might best be construed here as a broad or general indicator rather than a specific indicator. Nonetheless, a significant cross-generational association was found, and this association remained significant even after taking into account socio-demographic factors and proximal socialization factors. Findings from the current study are consistent social learning theory in showing that G2s raised by harsh parents tended to be more hostile and punitive with their own children. It could be that harsh parenting teaches a child aggressive responses to anger and frustration that are called upon in the trying circumstances one faces as a parent. For example, Neppl and colleagues (2009) cited externalizing behavior as a mediator of the cross-generational link in harsh parenting. In addition, Smith and Farrington (2004) found antisocial behavior to partially mediate continuity in harsh parenting. These findings are consistent with social learning theory in that each of these studies illustrated how harsh parenting can lead to maladaptive functioning which can in turn lead to harsh parenting of one?s own children later in life. A tenet of life course theory (Elder et al., 2003) is that the timing of important transitions in the life course must be considered, due to the possibility that the same transition can have differing consequences depending on when it occurred. The importance for the current study is the idea that an early transition to parenthood may lead to increased continuity in parenting quality across generations, perhaps because young parents have fewer opportunities to learn alternative child rearing strategies and require more support from their family of origin than older parents. G2 age of becoming a parent was examined as a moderator of the continuity in 67 parenting across generations. G2 age did not moderate continuity of harsh parenting, but it did moderate continuity in positive parenting, as will be discussed in the section that follows. Although continuity in harsh parenting was not contingent on either G2 age or G2 gender, there was a suggestion in an exploratory analysis that G2 age and gender operated conjointly to moderate continuity in harsh parenting. The three-way interaction between G1 harsh parenting, G2 age, and G2 gender was only marginally significant, so caution should be exercised in interpreting the effect. The pattern of results, as depicted in Figure 2, is sensible, however. Results suggest that young girls were more likely to experience continuity in harsh parenting than older girls and boys. One possible explanation for this finding is that young mothers, more so than fathers and older mothers, are likely to live at home with their parents after giving birth to a child. This may result in the family of origin having greater influence over childrearing tactics. For example, Chase-Lansdale et al. (1994) reported more cross-generational continuity in harsh parenting when young mothers resided with their own mothers. If this is the case, it is especially important to support young mothers with intervention programs promoting alternative disciplinary techniques and positive parenting behaviors. Continuity in positive parenting. Research on continuity in positive parenting is less plentiful than that on negative parenting, but several studies have shown that various indexes of positive parenting do in fact show a modest intergenerational relation (Belsky et al., 2005; Chen & Kaplan, 2001; Kerr, Capaldi, Pears, & Owen, 2009). In contrast, however, and contrary to expectations, the current study found G2 parents experiencing more warmth and involvement from their mothers during early childhood were no more accepting of, or involved with, their own children than G2 parents experiencing less early warmth and involvement. Belsky et al. (2005) also failed to find a link between early childhood parenting (assessed at age 3) and 68 subsequent early childhood parenting in the next generation, and suggested that this may be due to G1 mothers self-reporting on their parenting style when their children were three, as opposed to the observation methods used to measure warm and sensitive parenting between G2 parents and their young children. However, Belsky et al. (2005) did find that positive parenting in early adolescence, measured by G1 mother self-report and G2 self-report, predicted G2 parenting behavior, suggesting that more temporally proximal measures of G1 parenting (such as parental monitoring, as discussed earlier) are better predictors of G2 parenting quality. These findings suggest the possibility that whereas early exposure to harsh parenting may carry over across longer developmental periods to impact on G2 parenting, positive parenting ?effects? are more likely to be shown when measured closer to the age at which participants became parents. It also is possible that positive parenting continuity?at least when positive parenting is measured in early childhood?is more conditional (i.e., dependent on other factors) than is continuity in negative parenting. Finally, it may be that the lack of continuity in positive parenting found in the present study was due to the unexpected and counter-intuitive finding that, for boys, there was a significant and negative relation between G1 and G2 positive parenting. It is tempting to interpret this unexpected finding as suggesting that boys raised in low-positive- parenting homes compensate as parents by being especially positive with their offspring. But such an interpretation would seem to apply equally well to girls. A more cautious interpretation is that the small sub-sample of male G2 parents in this study is atypical in some way that introduced what essentially is a random and likely unreplicable finding. G2 age was found to moderate continuity in positive parenting across generations. The expected cross-generational relation was found for younger G2 parents, i.e., there was a tendency among those whose mothers were low in warmth and involvement to become uninvolved parents 69 themselves. This finding is consistent with the social-learning and life-course perspectives as described earlier, and suggests that young parents are an especially vulnerable group, more prone than older parents to modeling their parenting style after that of their mothers, who often are younger and may not be the best role models for supportive parenting (Conger et al., 2009). The interaction between G2 age and G1 positive parenting also yielded an unexpected finding, however. There was a tendency among older G2 parents to parent in the opposite way in which they had been parented, i.e., those who were exposed to low levels of positive parenting were more likely to become positively involved parents. Nonetheless, the greatest variability in G2 positive parenting was found at the low end of G1 positive parenting, suggesting that when exposed to low positive parenting early in life, the youngest G2 parents are the most likely to also engage in low levels of positive parenting. Prevention and intervention efforts need to target young parents while their children are still very young, or perhaps even during pregnancy, in order to set into motion a more positive parenting mindset. This could benefit the next generation in many ways. First, more positive parenting can lead to better developmental outcomes, in addition to an increased likelihood of offspring also parenting their children in more positive ways. Finally, by promoting positive parenting among young parents, it may be possible to reduce the incidence of teenage parenthood. Programs such as the Nurse-Family Partnership, which offers knowledge and support to young mothers from disadvantaged backgrounds, have had great success in increasing parental self-efficacy and in turn, child outcomes (Olds, 2002). Limitations Several limitations must be discussed concerning the current study. Extended parenting data were not collected for every G2 participant when their child was five years old. Participants 70 who became parents at extremely young ages (before age 16) were unable to provide parenting quality information because their child was already over age five when these instruments were administered. It is possible that the magnitude of some results would be greater if this information was available for the youngest parents. However, there were only a limited number of G2 parents that fell into this category. Secondly, positive parenting and negative parenting were measured differently across generations. In the first generation parental involvement and harsh discipline were measured via an interviewer rating during a face to face interview with the G1 mother and warmth was assessed with observers? ratings. In the second generation, G2 participants filled out a questionnaire or answered questions over the phone regarding their parenting behaviors. Implementing identical measures across generations may yield a stronger magnitude in parenting quality across generations. However, considering the wealth of studies on continuity in parenting and the wide range of measures and assessments used, the magnitude across generations remains generally modest (Conger et al., 2009). Nonetheless, improvement in measurements is warranted. For instance, although the measure of G1 involvement in the current study has been shown to have good validity (Pettit et al., 1997) and internal consistency, the inter-rater agreement level was low. Reliable and valid measures will provide the best tests of continuity and discontinuity in parenting across generations. It is also worth noting that most studies examining continuity in parenting have overlooked the influence of G1 fathering on later G2 parenting. In fact, some studies have shown that continuity in parenting quality may be more pronounced among mothers and daughters than mothers and sons (Belsky et al., 2005; Thornberry, Freeman-Gallant, Lizotte, Krohn, & Smith, 2003). The current study did not consider the parenting quality of G1 fathers, which may prove 71 to be more predictive of G2 sons? parenting during late adolescence and early adulthood than parenting quality of G1 mothers. In addition, the small number of adolescent fathers included in the subsample of G2 parents limited the ability to examine sex differences both in continuity of age of becoming a parent and in continuity of parenting quality. The current study found preliminary evidence of sex differences in the cross-generational continuity in harsh parenting, but perhaps as the number of fathers grows, more significant findings will be revealed. Although the number of adolescent fathers was quite limited, it is important to keep in mind that in the general population a significantly smaller number of males become parents than females. It is also noteworthy that continuity in age of becoming a parent between mothers and daughters has been studied more extensively than continuity between mothers and sons or fathers and sons. Several studies have shown that continuity in age of becoming a parent from father to son and from mother to daughter may be stronger than from mother to son (Campa & Eckenrode, 2006; Hardy et al., 1998; Sipsma et al., 2010). Finally, it is important to mention the possible role of genetics in the intergenerational cycles of early parenthood and poor parenting quality. As for early parenthood, it may be that a particular genetic makeup leads a child to engage in riskier behavior or to experience earlier puberty, a known risk factor for early sexual activity (Manlove, 1997; Woodward et al., 2001). Both parent and child genes could influence continuity in parenting quality. For example, continuity in positive parenting may be present only because parent and child share a common genetic history. In addition, a child?s genetic makeup may lead the child to draw out certain parenting behaviors (e.g., more harsh parenting). Pettit and Arsiwalla (2008), for instance, 72 suggested that children with high levels of externalizing problems tended to elicit harsher parenting. Future Directions In response to the limitations of the current study, similar analyses could be conducted on a larger sample of parents, which could also include more young fathers. In addition, extended parenting data would be collected for those becoming parents at the earliest ages. A larger age range would allow for better comparison between ?younger? and ?older? second generation parents. Furthermore, a larger sample would offer more power in analyses examining early familial risk factors as well as more proximal socialization factors not included in the current study. The larger sample would also offer the opportunity to carry out additional interpretive analyses examining gender differences in both continuity in early parenthood and continuity in parenting quality across generations. More similar measures of early parenting across generations would be utilized in order to examine continuity in specific parenting behaviors or attitudes over time. In addition, alternative moderators should continue to be studied in regards to continuity in parenting. Perhaps G2 marital status or a spouse?s early parenting experience would play a role in the type of parenting employed in the next generation. Finally, future research considering genetic and epigenetic processes would provide greater insight into the biological transmission and experience-driven biological functions involved in intergenerational cycles of early parenthood and parenting quality. Much is left to be understood regarding intergenerational cycles in general, and the role the family of origin plays in multiple dimensions of human development. By expanding studies to include investigation of additional moderators as well as biological mechanisms, a better understanding of transmission of parenting quality and age of becoming a parent across 73 generations will be reached. Moreover, this information can be utilized to design more proactive prevention programs aimed at breaking cycles of maladaptive development. Finally, intervention programs can use this information to target the groups most in need of support and assistance in order to promote more positive parenting?and delayed age of child bearing?giving future generations the best chance to thrive. Conclusions In conclusion, the current study examined intergenerational cycles of early parenthood as well as intergenerational continuity in parenting quality. The findings suggest that the timing of parenting and parenting behavior are related in meaningful but complex ways across generations. Modest cross-generational continuity in age of becoming a parenting was found, as was continuity in harsh discipline. Young mothers were most likely to replicate the harsh parenting they received as children. Positive parenting in early childhood was found to predict later age of becoming a parent, but young parents were the most likely to engage in similarly low levels of positive parenting as experienced during childhood. Importantly, these links were partially explained by socioeconomic status and early-adolescent socialization experiences (e.g., affiliation with antisocial peers). Collectively, these findings suggest the need for programs designed to decrease the likelihood of early parenthood and to assist those who become parents at an early age, in order to prevent similar kinds of problems in future generations. 74 REFERENCES Abidin, R. (1992). The determinants of parenting behavior. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 21, 407-412. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA US: Sage Publications, Inc. Barratt, M., & Roach, M. (1995). Early interactive processes: Parenting by adolescent and adult single mothers. Infant Behavior & Development, 18, 97-109. Belsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model. Child Development, 55, 83- 96. Belsky, J., Jaffee, S., Sligo, J., Woodward, L., & Silva, P. (2005). Intergenerational Transmission of Warm-Sensitive-Stimulating Parenting: A Prospective Study of Mothers and Fathers of 3-Year-Olds. Child Development, 76, 384-396. Belsky, J., Youngblade, L., & Pensky, E. (1989). Childrearing history, marital quality, and maternal affect: Intergenerational transmission in a low-risk sample. Development and Psychopathology, 1, 291-304. Berlin, L. J., Appleyard, K., & Dodge, K. A. (2011). Intergenerational continuity in child maltreatment: Mediating mechanisms and implications for prevention. Child Development, 82, 162-176. Bornstein, M.H. (2003). Positive parenting and positive development in children. In R. M. Lerner, F. Jacobs, & D. Wertlieb (Eds.), Handbook of Applied Developmental Science: 75 Promoting Positive Child, Adolescent, and Family Development Through Research, Policies, and Programs (Vol. 1 Applying Developmental Science for Youth and Families: Historical and Theoretical Foundations, pp. 187-209). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Bradley, R., & Corwyn, R. (2002). Socioeconomic status and child development. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 371-399. Bretherton, I. (2005). In pursuit of the internal working model construct and its relevance to attachment relationships. In K.E. Grossmann, K. Grossmann, & E. Waters (Eds.), Attachment from infancy to adulthood: The major longitudinal studies (pp. 13-47). New York: Guildford. Brooks-Gunn, J. J., & Furstenberg, F. F. (1986). The children of adolescent mothers: Physical, academic, and psychological outcomes. Developmental Review, 6, 224-251. Caliso, J. A., & Milner, J. S. (1992). Childhood history of abuse and child abuse screening. Child Abuse & Neglect, 16, 647-659. Campa, M. I., & Eckenrode, J. J. (2006). Pathways to Intergenerational Adolescent Childbearing in a High-Risk Sample. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 558-572. Campbell, J., & Gilmore, L. (2007). Intergenerational continuities and discontinuities in parenting styles. Australian Journal of Psychology, 59, 140-150. Capaldi, D.M., & Patterson, G.R. (1989). Psychometric properties of fourteen latent constructs from the Oregon Youth Study. New York: Springer-Verlag. Capaldi, D., Pears, K., Patterson, G., & Owen, L. (2003). Continuity of parenting practices across generations in an at-risk sample: A prospective comparison of direct and mediated associations. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31, 127-142. 76 Chase-Lansdale, P., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Zamsky, E. (1994). Young African-American multigenerational families in poverty: Quality of mothering and grandmothering. Child Development, 65, 373-393. Chen, Z., & Kaplan, H. (2001). Intergenerational transmission of constructive parenting. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 17-31. Chen, Z., Liu, R. X., & Kaplan, H. B. (2008). Mediating mechanisms for the intergenerational transmission of constructive parenting: A prospective longitudinal study. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 1574-1599. Coley, R., & Chase-Lansdale, P. (1998). Adolescent pregnancy and parenthood: Recent evidence and future directions. American Psychologist, 53, 152-166. Collins, W., Maccoby, E. E., Steinberg, L., Hetherington, E., & Bornstein, M. H. (2000). Contemporary research on parenting: The case for nature and nurture. American Psychologist, 55, 218-232. Conger, R., Belsky, J., & Capaldi, D. (2009). The intergenerational transmission of parenting: Closing comments for the special section. Developmental Psychology, 45, 1276-1283. Conger, R., Neppl, T., Kim, K., & Scaramella, L. (2003). Angry and aggressive behavior across three generations: A prospective, longitudinal study of parents and children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31, 143-160. Corcoran, J. (1998). Consequences of adolescent pregnancy/parenting: A review of the literature. Social Work in Health Care, 27, 49-67. Cocoran, J., Franklin, C., & Bennett, P. (2000). Ecological factors associated with adolescent pregnancy and parenting. Social Work Research, 24, 29-39. 77 Cornelius, M., Goldschmidt, L., Willford, J., Leech, S., Larkby, C., & Day, N. (2009). Body size and intelligence in 6-year-olds: Are offspring of teenage mothers at risk? Maternal and Child Health Journal, 13, 847-856. Cowan, C., & Cowan, P. A. (2005). Two central roles for couple relationships: Breaking negative intergenerational patterns and enhancing children?s adaptation. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 20, 275-288. Culp, R., Appelbaum, M., Osofsky, J., & Levy, J. (1988). Adolescent and older mothers: Comparison between prenatal maternal variables and newborn interaction measures. Infant Behavior & Development, 11, 353-362. Deal, L., & Holt, V. (1998). Young maternal age and depressive symptoms: Results from the 1988 National Maternal and Infant Health Survey. American Journal of Public Health, 88, 266-270. Dearing, E., & Hamilton, L. C. (2006). V. Contemporary advances and classic advice for analyzing mediating and moderating variables. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 71, 88-104. Dodge, K.A., Dishion, T.J., & Lansford, J.E. (Eds.) (2006) Deviant peer influences in programs for youth: Problems and solutions. New York: The Guilford Press. Dodge, K. A., & Pettit, G. S. (2003). A biopsychosocial model of the development of chronic conduct problems in adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 39, 349-371. East, P. L., Reyes, B. T., & Horn, E. J. (2007). Association between adolescent pregnancy and a family history of teenage births. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 39, 108-115. 78 Egeland, B., Jacobvitz, D., & Sroufe, L. (1988). Breaking the cycle of abuse. Child Development, 59, 1080-1088. Elder, G. H., Johnson, M. K., & Crosnoe, R. (2003). The emergence and development of the life course. In J. T. Mortimer & M. J. Shanahan (Eds.). Handbook of the life course. (pp. 3- 19). New York: Plenum Press. Fergusson, D., & Woodward, L. (1999). Maternal age and educational and psychosocial outcomes in early adulthood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 40, 479-489. 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, 426-436. Furstenberg, F. (1991). As the pendulum swings: Teenage childbearing and social concern. Family Relations, 40, 127-138. Furstenberg, F. F., Jr. (2003). Teenage childbearing as a public issue and private concern. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 23-39. Furstenberg, F., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Chase-Lansdale, L. (1989). Teenaged pregnancy and childbearing. American Psychologist, 44, 313-320. Furstenberg, F., & Weiss, C. (2000). Intergenerational transmission of fathering roles in at risk families. Marriage & Family Review, 29, 181-201. Hardy, J., Astone, N., Brooks-Gunn, J., Shapiro, S., & Miller, T. (1998). Like mother, like child: Intergenerational patterns of age at first birth and associations with childhood and adolescent characteristics and adult outcomes in the second generation. Developmental Psychology, 34, 1220-1232. 79 Hops, H., Davis, B., Leve, C., & Sheeber, L. (2003). Cross-generational transmission of aggressive parent behavior: A prospective, editational examination. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31, 161-169. Jaffee, S., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T., Belsky, J., & Silva, P. (2001). Why are children born to teen mothers at risk for adverse outcomes in young adulthood? Results from a 20-yr longitudinal study. Development and Psychopathology, 13, 377-397. Kerr, D., Capaldi, D., Pears, K., & Owen, L. (2009). A prospective three generational study of fathers? constructive parenting: Influences from family of origin, adolescent adjustment, and offspring temperament. Developmental Psychology, 45, 1257-1275. Kovan, N. M., Chung, A. L., & Sroufe, L. (2009). The intergenerational continuity of observed early parenting: A prospective, longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 45, 1205- 1213. Kretchmar, M., & Jacobvitz, D. (2002). Observing mother-child relationships across generations: Boundary patterns, attachment and the transmission of caregiving. Family Process, 41, 351-374. Lansford, J. E., Criss, M. M., Pettit, G. S., Dodge, K. A., & Bates, J. E. (2003). Friendship quality, peer group affiliation, and peer antisocial behavior as moderators of the link between negative parenting and adolescent externalizing behavior. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 13, 161-184. Lansford, J. E., Yu, T., Erath, S. A., Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., & Dodge, K. A. (2010). Developmental precursors of number of sexual partners from ages 16 to 22. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20(3), 651-677. 80 Lee, Y. (2009). Early motherhood and harsh parenting: The role of human, social, and cultural capital. Child Abuse & Neglect, 33, 625-637. Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000). The neighborhoods they live in: The effects of neighborhood residence on child and adolescent outcomes. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 309-337. Manlove, J. (1997). Early motherhood in an intergenerational perspective: The experiences of a British cohort. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 59, 263-279. Meade, C., Kershaw, T., & Ickovics, J. (2008). The intergenerational cycle of teenage motherhood: An ecological approach. Health Psychology, 27, 419-429. Mollborn, S. (2010). Predictors and consequences of adolescents? norms against teenage pregnancy. The Sociological Quarterly, 51, 303-328. Murphy-Cowan, T., & Stringer, M. (1999). Physical punishment and the parenting cycle: A survey of Northern Irish parents. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 9, 61-71. Neppl, T., Conger, R., Scaramella, L., & Ontai, L. (2009). Intergenerational continuity in parenting behavior: Mediating pathways and child effects. Developmental Psychology, 45, 1241-1256. O?Callaghan, M. F., Borkowski, J. G., Whitman, T. L., Maxwell, S. E., & Keogh, D. (1999). A model of adolescent parenting: The role of cognitive readiness to parent. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 9, 203-225. Olds, D. L. (2002). Prenatal and infancy home visiting by nurses: From randomized trials to community replication. Prevention Science, 3, 153-175. 81 Pears, K. C., & Capaldi, D. M. (2001). Intergenerational transmission of abuse: A two- generational prospective study of an at-risk sample. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25, 1439- 1461. Pettit, G.S., Arends, C.E., Lansford, J.E., Dodge, K.A., & Bates, J.E. (2011, April). Peer competence moderates the intergenerational continuity of harsh parenting. Paper presented as part of the symposium, ?Parenting Across Generations: Personal Characteristics and Life Experiences That Strengthen or Weaken Cross-Generational Linkages? (G.S. Pettit, Chair), presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Montreal, Canada. Pettit, G. S., & Arsiwalla, D. D. (2008). Commentary on special section on ?Bidirectional parent- child relationships?: The continuing evolution of dynamic, transactional models of parenting and youth behavior problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36, 711- 718. Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., & Dodge, K. A. (1997). Supportive parenting, ecological context, and children?s adjustment: A seven-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 68, 908-923. Pettit, G.S., Bates, J.E., Dodge, K.A., & Meece, D. (1999). The impact of after-school peer contact on early adolescent externalizing problems is moderated by parental monitoring, perceived neighborhood safety, and prior adjustment. Child Development, 70, 768-778. Pettit, G., Yu, T., Dodge, K., & Bates, J. (2009). A developmental process analysis of cross- generational continuity in educational attainment. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly: Journal of Developmental Psychology, 55, 250-284. Pogarsky, G., Thornberry, T. P., & Lizotte, A. J. (2006). Developmental Outcomes for Children of Young Mothers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 332-344. 82 Posner, J.K., & Vandell, D.L. (1994). Low-income children?s after-school care: Are there beneficial effects of afterschool programs? Child Development, 65, 440?456. Putallaz, M., Costanzo, P. R., Grimes, C. L., & Sherman, D. M. (1998). Intergenerational continuities and their influences on children?s social development. Social Development, 7, 389-427. Rail, A., Stanton, B., Wu, Y., Li, W., Galbraith, J., Cottrell, L., Pack, R., Harris, C., D?Alessandri, D., & Burns, J. (2003). Relative influences of perceived parental monitoring and perceived peer involvement on adolescent risk behaviors: an analysis of six cross-sectional data sets. Journal of Adolescent Health, 33, 108-118. Reis, J. (1989). A comparison of young teenage, older teenage, and adult mothers on determinants of parenting. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 123, 141-151. Rutter, M. (1998). Some research considerations on intergenerational continuities and discontinuities: Comment on the special section. Developmental Psychology, 34, 1269- 1273. Scaramella, L., & Conger, R. (2003). Intergenerational continuity of hostile parenting and its consequences: The moderating influence of children?s negative emotional reactivity. Social Development, 12, 420-439. Scaramella, L., Conger, R., Simons, R., & Whitbeck, L. (1998). Predicting risk for pregnancy by late adolescence: A social contextual perspective. Developmental Psychology, 34, 1233- 1245. 83 Shaffer, A., Burt, K. B., Obradovi?, J., Herbers, J. E., & Masten, A. S. (2009). Intergenerational continuity in parenting quality: The mediating role of social competence. Developmental Psychology, 45, 1227-1240. Shaw, M., Lawlor, D. A., & Najman, J. M. (2006). Teenage children of teenage mothers: Psychological, behavioural and health outcomes from an Australian prospective longitudinal study. Social Science & Medicine, 62, 2526-2539. Singh, S., & Darroch, J.E. (2000). Adolescent pregnancy and childbearing: Levels and trends in developed countries. Family Planning Perspectives, 32, 14-24. Simons, R., Whitbeck, L., Conger, R., & Wu, C. (1991). Intergenerational transmission of harsh parenting. Developmental Psychology, 27, 159-171. Sipsma, H., Biello, K., Cole-Lewis, H., & Kershaw, T. (2010). Like father, like son: The intergenerational cycle of adolescent fatherhood. American Journal of Public Health, 100, 517-524. Thornberry, T., Freeman-Gallant, A., Lizotte, A., Krohn, M., & Smith, C. (2003). Linked lives: The intergenerational transmission of antisocial behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31, 171-184. Turner, K. (2004). Young women?s views on teenage motherhood: A possible explanation for the relationship between socio-economic background and teenage pregnancy outcome? Journal of Youth Studies, 7, 221-238. Van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (1992). Intergenerational transmission of parenting: A review of studies in nonclinical populations. Developmental Review, 12, 76-99. Whitbeck, L., Yoder, K., Hoyt, D., & Conger, R. (1999). Early adolescent sexual activity: A developmental study. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61, 934-946. 84 Woodward, L., Fergusson, D., & Horwood, L. (2001). Risk factors and life processes associated with teenage pregnancy: Results of a prospective study from birth to 20 years. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 1170-1184. 85 APPENDICES 86 Appendix A Tables Table 1. Descriptive statistics for entire G2 sample and subsample of G2 parents Whole sample (N = 585) Mean Standard Deviation Range G1 Age at FB 23.6 5.30 14-48 G1 Harsh discipline 2.67 .876 1-5 G1 Warmth .808 .221 0-1 G1 Involvement 3.25 1.05 1-5 SES 39.5 14.1 8-66 Gendera 48% Race/ethnicityb 16.6% Monitoring 4.60 .368 1-5 Neighborhood safety 3.02 .837 1-5 Antisocial peers 1.84 .671 1-5 B. Subsample of G2 parents (n = 189) G1 Age at FB 22.2 5.64 14-48 G2 Age at FB 20.6 2.90 13-28 G1 Harsh discipline 2.82 .877 1-5 G1 Warmth .791 .221 0-1 G1 Involvement 3.05 .959 1-5 SES 33.7 13.5 11-66 Gendera 64% Race/ethnicityb 26.5% Monitoring 4.55 .353 1-5 Neighborhood safety 2.83 .906 1-5 Antisocial peers 1.94 .721 1-5 Note: G1 = generation 1, G2 = generation 2 (target participants) aDenotes percent of sample females; bDenotes percent of sample African Americans 87 Table 2. Descriptive statistics for G2 parents of 5-year-olds (n = 92) Mean Standard Deviation Range G1 Age at FB 21.3 5.64 14-48 G2 Age at FB 18.9 1.90 13-23 G1 Harsh discipline 2.88 .869 1-5 G1 Warmth .766 .228 0-1 G1 Involvement 3.03 1.05 1-5 G2 Negativity 2.10 .609 1-5 G2 Corporal punishment .80 .753 0-3 G2 Acceptance 4.53 .420 1-5 G2 Involvement 3.78 .726 1-5 SES 30.7 12.0 11-61 Gendera 73% Race/ethnicityb 27% Monitoring 4.52 .441 1-5 Neighborhood Safety 2.79 1.04 1-5 Antisocial Peers 2.04 .765 1-5 Note: G1 = generation 1, G2 = generation 2 (target participants) aDenotes percent of sample females; bDenotes percent of sample African Americans 88 Table 3. Correlations between socio-demographic characteristics and other study variables G2 Gender G2 Race G1 SES G1 Age at FB -.05 -.19** .40** G2 Age at FB -.18* -.25** .39** G1 Warmth .02 -.14** .25** G1 Involvement -.02 -.17** .36** G1 Overall positivity .00 -.19** .39* G1 Harsh discipline -.10* .12** -.27** G2 Acceptance .06 -.05 .09 G2 Involvement .16 -.30** .09 G2 Overall positivity .10 -.20+ .08 G2 Negativity -.10 .05 -.24* G2 Corporal punishment .09 .25* -.15 G2 Overall harsh -.00 .17 -.22* Parental monitoring .14** -.24** .27** Neighborhood safety -.04 -.36** .40** Antisocial peers -.09 .11* -.19** Note: Ns range from 409 ? 585 for G1 age, G1 parenting variables, and control variables, 89-189 for G2 age and G1 parenting variables, and 89-91 for G2 parenting variables. G1 = generation 1, G2 = generation 2. +p ? .10, *p ? .05, **p ? .01 89 Table 4. Correlations between proximal socialization factors and other study variables Parental Monitoring Neighborhood Safety Affiliation Antisocial G1 Age at FB .12** .21** -.10+ G2 Age at FB .15+ .25** -.28** G1 Warmth .13** .16** -.03 G1 Involvement .17** .18** -.07 G1 Overall positivity .19** .20** -.06 G1 Harsh discipline -.23** -.25** .06 G2 Acceptance .32** .04 -.14 G2 Involvement .26* .37** -.10 G2 Overall positivity .33** .22+ -.12 G2 Negativity -.25* -22+ .14 G2 Corporal punishment -.05 -.07 .13 G2 Overall harsh -.19 -.18 .17 Note: Ns range from 409 ? 585 for G1 age, G1 parenting variables, and control variables, 89-186 for G2 age and G1 parenting variables, and 89-91 for G2 parenting variables. G1 = generation 1, G2 = generation 2. +p ? .10, *p ? .05, **p ? .01 90 Table 5 Correlations among G1 and G2 age and G1 and G2 parenting variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 G1 age at FB 1.0 2 G2 age at FB .20* 1.0 3 G1 warmth .13** .22** 1.0 4 G1 involvement .22** .11 .28** 1.0 5 G1 harsh discipline -.20** -.16* -.16** -.26** 1.0 6 G2 acceptance -.15 -.02 .02 .04 -.23* 1.0 7 G2 involvement -.07 .05 .14 -.01 .04 .45** 1.0 8 G2 negativity .06 -.01 .06 -.11 .24* -.69** -.24* 1.0 9 G2 corporal punishment .14 -.07 .06 -.03 .31** -.25* .10 .32** 1.0 Note: Ns range from 409 ? 585 for G1 age, G1 parenting variables, and control variables, 89-186 for G2 age and G1 parenting variables, and 89- 91 for G2 parenting variables. G1 = generation 1, G2 = generation 2 *p ? .05, **p ? .01 91 Table 6. Predicting G2 age from G1 age and G1 parenting A. G1 age at first birth entered first Predictors ? ?R2 Step 1 .037** G1 Age at first birth .19** Step 2 .040* G1 Harsh discipline -.11 G1 Overall positivity .15* B. G1 parenting entered first Step 1 .058** G1 Harsh discipline -.13 G1 Overall positivity .18* Step 2 .019+ G1 Age at first birth .14+ Note: G1 = generation 1, G2 = generation 2: n = 177 +p ? .10, *p ? .05, **p ? .01 92 Table 7. Predicting G2 age from G1 age and G1 parenting with socio-demographic controls A. G1 age at first birth entered first Predictors ? ?R2 Step 1 .209*** Gender -.21** Race/ethnicity -.13+ SES .35*** Step 2 .001 G1 Age at first birth .038 Step 3 .008 G1 Harsh discipline -.06 G1 Overall positivity .07 B. G1 parenting entered first Step 1 .209*** Gender -.21** Race/ethnicity -.13+ SES .35*** Step 2 .009 G1 Harsh discipline -.05 G1 Overall positivity .07 Step 3 .000 G1 Age at first birth .02 Note: G1 = generation 1, G2 = generation 2; n = 174 +p ? .10, **p ? .01, ***p ? .001 93 Table 8. Predicting G2 age from G1 age and G1 parenting with proximal socialization controls A. G1 age at first birth entered first Predictors ? ?R2 Step 1 .121*** Parental monitoring .02 Neighborhood safety .22** Affiliation with antisocial peers -.24** Step 2 .020+ G1 Age at first birth .14+ Step 3 .030+ G1 Harsh discipline -.11 G1 Overall positivity .13 B. G1 parenting entered first Step 1 .121*** Parental monitoring .02 Neighborhood safety .22** Affiliation with antisocial peers -.24** Step 2 .036+ G1 Harsh discipline -.11 G1 Overall positivity .15+ Step 3 .014 G1 Age at first birth .12 Note: G1 = generation 1, G2 = generation 2: n = 135 +p ? .10, **p ? .01, ***p ? .001 94 Table 9. Predicting G2 age from G1 age and G1 parenting moderated by gender Predictors ? ?R2 Step 1 .11*** G1 Overall positivity .15* G1 Harsh discipline -.14+ G1 Age at first birth .13+ G2 Gender -.19** Step 2 .004 G1 Overall positivity x Gender .00 G1 Harsh discipline x Gender -.27 G1 Age at first birth x Gender -.02 G1 Age at first birth x G1 overall positivity -.07 G1 Age at first birth x G1 harsh discipline -.03 Note: G1 = generation 1, G2 = generation 2: n = 177 +p ? .10, *p ? .05, **p ? .01, ***p ? .001 95 Table 10. Predicting G2 parenting from G1 parenting moderated by G2 age of becoming a parent A. Harsh parenting Predictors ? ?R2 Step 1 .11** G2 Age of becoming a parent -.04 G1 Harsh discipline .33** Step 2 .001 G2 Age x G1 harsh discipline .28 B. Positive parenting Predictors ? ?R2 Step 1 .003 G2 Age of becoming a parent .03 G1 Overall positivity .04 Step 2 .073** G2 Age x G1 overall positivity -3.33** Note: G1 = generation 1, G2 = generation 2: n = 88 **p ? .01 96 Table 11. Predicting G2 harsh parenting from G1 harsh discipline moderated by G2 age of becoming a parent with socio-demographic controls Predictors ? ?R2 Step 1 .056 Gender .012 Race/ethnicity .068 SES -.20 Step 2 .079* G2 Age of becoming a parent .008 G1 Harsh discipline .29** Step 3 .000 G2 Age x G1 Harsh discipline .21 Note: G1 = generation 1, G2 = generation 2: n = 85 *p ? .05, **p ?.01 97 Table 12. Predicting G2 positive parenting from G1 positive parenting moderated by G2 age of becoming a parent with socio-demographic controls Predictors ? ?R2 Step 1 .058 Gender .11 Race/ethnicity -.21+ SES -.02 Step 2 .001 G2 Age of becoming a parent .04 G1 Overall positivity -.00 Step 3 .063* G2 Age x G1 Overall positivity -3.00* Note: G1 = generation 1, G2 = generation 2: n = 85 +p ? .10, *p ? .05 98 Table 13. Predicting G2 harsh parenting from G1 harsh discipline moderated by G2 age of becoming a parent with proximal socialization variables Predictors ? ?R2 Step 1 .067 Parental Monitoring -.18 Neighborhood Safety -.11 Affiliation with antisocial peers .05 Step 2 .124* G2 Age of becoming a parent -.21 G1 Harsh discipline .31* Step 3 .023 G2 Age x G1 Harsh discipline -1.69 Note: G1 = generation 1, G2 = generation 2: n = 59 *p ? .05 99 Table 14. Predicting G2 positive parenting from G1 positive parenting moderated by G2 age of becoming a parent with proximal socialization variables Predictors ? ?R2 Step 1 .145* Parental monitoring .34* Neighborhood safety .15 Affiliation with antisocial peers .05 Step 2 .002 G2 Age of becoming a parent .01 G1 Overall positivity .05 Step 3 .062* G2 Age x G1 Overall positivity -3.07* Note: G1 = generation 1, G2 = generation 2: n = 59 *p ? .05 100 Table 15. Predicting G2 harsh parenting from G1 harsh discipline moderated by G2 age of becoming a parent and gender Predictors ? ?R2 Step 1 .11* G2 Age of becoming a parent -.05 Gender -.01 G1 Harsh discipline .33** Step 2 .023 G2 Age x G1 Harsh discipline -.08 G2 Age x Gender -1.88 G1 Harsh discipline x Gender -.02 Step 3 .036+ G2 Age x Gender x G1 Harsh discipline -7.81+ Note: G1 = generation 1, G2 = generation 2: n = 89 +p ? .10, *p ? .05, **p ?.01 101 Table 16. Predicting G2 positive parenting from G1 positive parenting moderated by G2 age of becoming a parent and gender Predictors ? ?R2 Step 1 .026 G2 Age of becoming a parent .08 Gender .16 G1 Overall positivity .03 Step 2 .095* G2 Age x G1 Overall positivity -3.16* G2 Age x Gender .40 G1 Overall positivity x Gender .22 Step 3 .007 G2 Age x Gender x G1 Overall positivity -2.22 Note: G1 = generation 1, G2 = generation 2: n = 89 *p ? .05 102 Appendix B Figures Figure 1. Continuity in Positive Parenting Moderated by G2 Age of Becoming a Parent -0.7 -0.2 0.3 Low H i gh G 1 P osi t i v e P a r e nt i ng G 2 P osi t i ve P a r e nt i ng Y o u n g G 2 p a r e n t s O l d e r G 2 p a r e n t s 103 Figure 2. Continuity in Harsh Parenting Moderated by G2 Age of Becoming a Parent and Gender -0.7 -0.2 0.3 Low H i gh G 1 H a r s h P a r e nt i ng G 2 H a r s h P a r e nt i ng Y o u n g b o y s Y o u n g g i r l s O l d e r b o y s O l d e r g i r l s 104 Appendix C Measures 105 Developmental History TCID: _____ Mo/Fa/Other PI ? Section I Parent?s Name ___________ MO/FA/OTHER Specify ____________ Interviewer ______________ Subject ID # _______________ Order: 1st/2nd Date _______________ I?d like to talk to you about ________?s experiences with family and friends from birth to now. This will mean talking about your family, ________?s activities, his/her friends, etc? To make it more manageable, I?ll ask you to think about _______?s life, so far, as three ?eras? or periods: ______?s first year, then from age 1 ? 4 (or 4 ?) and finally this past year. The questions will cover a range of topics?some might sound dumb, seem unnecessary, or a little hard to answer. I hope it won?t be too hard to remember that far back?just do the best you can and if you can?t remember or prefer not to answer, that?s O.K. O.K.? (Check for understanding then start the conversational ball rolling by talking about the children in the family. Talk about the TC last. Use this time to establish rapport and to set the pace. Allow and encourage the parent to talk but keep control of the interview, keep their focus on the questions. Prompt and request elaboration, but be ready to move on if the parent meanders or balks.) I. Let?s start by talking about the children in the family. Describe each of the children in a few sentences. Child?s Name Sex Age Comments: ___________ ___ ___ ____________________________________________ ____________________________________________ ___________ ___ ___ ____________________________________________ ____________________________________________ ___________ ___ ___ ____________________________________________ ____________________________________________ ___________ ___ ___ ____________________________________________ ____________________________________________ (A) Description of TC 1 2 3 *1IA1 Mostly Negative Mixed, Hard Mostly Positive to say (B) Preference for TC 1 2 3 *1IA2 Sib(s) Preferred None preferred, TC Preferred No siblings (C) Distinctiveness of Descriptions 1 2 3 *1IA3 Vague, indistinct Somewhat distinct Distinct, insightful 106 (After a brief discussion of the children, orient the parent to the time of the TC?s birth and the first year.) We?d like to get a history of ______?s development. Think back to the time when (the mother) was pregnant with ______, and that very first year after _______- was born? #1. What were the pregnancy, birth, and first few months like? (probe as is necessary to make this rating, based on parent?s response) a. Mother?s health 1 2 3 *1IB1B Healthy Minor/Brief Major b. Child?s health 1 2 3 *1IB1A Healthy Minor/Brief Major c. Was he/she a planned baby? (If unplanned, probe:) How did you (and your partner) feel when you discovered the pregnancy? 1 2 3 4 *1IB1C Planned Unplanned, but Unplanned but Unplanned Under discussion accepted unprepared d. At the time of ________?s birth, were you married? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 *1IB1D unmarried unmarried unmarried unmarried unmarried married married separated living living living living living living living alone with TC?s with sig- with own with with TC?s with parent nificant parents or roommate parent other other older relatives #2 MOTHER Did you/_____?s mother work that first year? (If yes) Full or part time? Length of time? a. FULL TIME: 0 1 2 3 4 *1IB2AA did not <3 mos 3-6 mos >6-9 mos >9-12 mos b. PART TIME: 0 1 2 3 4 *1IB2AB did not <3 mos 3-6 mos >6-9 mos >9-12 mos c. Type of work _______________________ d. No. of job changes (include additions): *1IB2AC e. How old was ______ when you/______?s mother went back to work? 1 2 3 4 8 *1IB2AD 0-3 mos >3-6mos >6-9 mos >9-12 mos N/A #3 FATHER Did you/_____?s father work that first year? (If yes) Full or part time? Length of time? a. FULL TIME: 0 1 2 3 4 *1IB2BA did not <3 mos 3-6 mos >6-9 mos >9-12 mos b. PART TIME: 0 1 2 3 4 *1IB2BB did not <3 mos 3-6 mos >6-9 mos >9-12 mos c. Type of work _______________________ d. No. of job changes (include additions): *1IB2BC 107 #4 Tell me about ________ as a baby. What was he/she like? What kind of baby was he/she? (Write in free response) (Then, ask if necessary)? So, on the whole, would you say that your child was easy or hard to care for as a baby??Very, or just mostly? Child?s behavior/ease of care: 1 2 3 4 *1IB2D Easy Mostly Easy Mostly Hard Hard #5 Who else took care of ______ during the first year? (Specify:) Indicate time child spent in non-parental care. (Circle the approximate number of hours/wk. Months refer to length of time in care NOT age of TC) Fewer than 7 months duration: 7 to 12 months duration 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 *1IB2E None Less than 20-30 More than Less than 20-30 More than 20 hours hours 30 hours 20 hours hours 30 hours #6 What changes or adjustments occurred in your family during this first year? For example, did you move??were there any medical problems? (Check all that the parent spontaneously lists, then prompt from the list. In coding these, consider impact on the family). NONE MENTIONED EMPHASIZED, Major a. moved/major remodel???????.0 1 2 *1IB22A b. medical prob ? child????????0 1 2 *1IB22B c. medical ? close family???????.0 1 2 *1IB22C d. death ? imp. person???????? 0 1 2 *1IB22D e. divorce ? TC?s parents???????0 1 2 *1IB22EA f. separation ? TC?s parents??????0 1 2 *1IB22EB g. remarriage/marital reconciliation?.?..0 1 2 *1IB22L h. parent-child separation (include chronic long hrs at work)?????? 0 1 2 *1IB22F i. financial instability?????????.0 1 2 *1IB22G j. legal problems??????????...0 1 2 *1IB22H k. stress/conflicts in extended family??.0 1 2 *1IB22I 108 l. sib addition/deletions????????0 1 2 *1IB22J m. job-related stress?????????0 1 2 *1IB22M n. loss of job????????????.0 1 2 *1IB22N o. other (specify)??????????. 0 1 2 *1IB22K #7 What was having a new baby like with everything else that was going on at this time? (Write in free response) #8 Anything else notable about ______?s first year? (Code parent?s comments, i.e., parent may reiterate previous material, or add new comments. Code the event(s) which they now mention. Then wrap up this era.) 0 1 2 3 *1IB3 Nothing Mostly positive Moderately Very stressful event(s) stressful event(s) event(s) RATING #1: Rating for general family situation. 1 2 3 4 5 *1IRB2 Disorganized, Some major Hectic, but no Generally Easy disrupted most problems, part major problems smooth of the year of year dis- organized RATING #2: This rating measures the impact of this child on the family, their adjustment to the baby independent of other family stressors. 1 2 3 4 5 *1IRB1A great some OK; no major good wonderful, very difficulty difficulty difficulties enjoyable adjusting adjusting ERA II Let?s move forward. Now think about the time from the end of that first year to about a year ago (give appropriate referents). This covers when _____ was a toddler and a preschooler: age 1 to 4 (or 4?). #9. MOTHER Were you/_____?s mother (still) working? (If yes) Full or part time? Length of time? a. FULL TIME: 0 1 2 3 4 M1IC4AA/ did not <1 year 1-2 years >2-3 years >3 years F1IC5AA b. PART TIME: 0 1 2 3 4 M1IC4AB/ did not <1 year 1-2 years >2-3 years >3 years F1IC5AB c. Type of work _______________________ d. No. of job changes (include additions): M1IC4AC/F1IC5AC #10. FATHER Were you/_____?s father (still) working? (If yes) Full or part time? Length of time? a. FULL TIME: 0 1 2 3 4 M1IC5AA/ did not <1 year 1-2 years >2-3 years >3 years F1IC4AA 109 b. PART TIME: 0 1 2 3 4 M1IC5AB/ did not <1 year 1-2 years >2-3 years >3 years F1IC4AB c. Type of work _______________________ d. No. of job changes (include additions): M1IC5AC/F1IC4AC #11. Who were ______?s main caregivers during this time? (Code each alternative. Indicate the amount of time spent in each type of care. If the child is in two settings within a category, sum across settings and code the total time spent within the category.) CODES: 0 = not in this type of care 1 = brief care; < 6 mos or < 1x/mo over era 2 = moderate; 6-18 mos or < 1x/wk over era 3 = frequent; 5-20 hrs/wk for > 18 mos, or 1x/wk over era 4 = major; > 20 hrs/wk for more than 18 mos I. IN HOME: Code a. Mother *1IC6A1 b. Father *1IC6B1 c. Older sib(s): Age? ____ *1IC6C1 d. Relative comes in *1IC6D1 e. Sitter comes in *1IC6E1 f. Relative lives in home *1IC6F1 g. Other (specify) *1IC6G1 II. OUT OF HOME: a. Goes to a relative ? Who? _________ *1IC6A2 b. Small group sitter ? Ratio of caregiver:child ____ *1IC6B2 Comments: ______________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ c. Group daycare ? Ratio of caregiver:child ____ *1IC6C2 Comments: ______________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ d. Preschool (structure) ? Ratio of caregiver:child *1IC6D2 Comments: ______________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ e. Neighbors/friends *1IC6E2 f. Other (specify) _________________________ *1IC6F2 #12. Why did you choose these particular childcare arrangements? (Codes: 0=Not Mentioned/1=Mentioned) 110 a. convenience *1IC6A d. educational *1IC6D b. quality *1IC6B e. social *1IC6E c. affordability *1IC6C f. other *1IC6F (Specify: ______) (Use the following probe only if necessary to make Rating #3. Many parents will have spontaneously given enough information.) Tell me a little about these childcare situations? (Write in free response.) #13. Consistency of nonparental caregiving (Ask if necessary) How many times did you have to change childcare arrangements or caregivers? 8 0 1 2 3 4 *1IRC2A only in no changes time times times > 3 times parents? care (If changes occurred, ask:) What were the reasons for the changes? RATING #3 Rating for quality of non parental care. 1 2 3 4 5 8 *1IRC2B Inadequate average excellent N/A Let?s talk a little about ________?s involvement with other children. #14. First, let?s talk about him/her as a toddler, AGE 1-2?. Then, we?ll talk about him/her as a preschooler, AGE > 2? to last year. How often was ______ with (neighborhood kids/sitters etc.) while he/she was a toddler, age 1-2?? (Then ask:) How about when he/she was a preschooler, age 2? to 4 (or 4?)? CODES: 0 = not in this situation 1 = very brief, < 1x/mo over sub-era 2 = brief, 1x/mo or more BUT < 1x/wk over sub-era 3 = moderate, 1 ? 2x/wk over sub-era 4 = frequent, 3 ? 4x/wk over sub-era 5 = very frequent, almost daily, > 4x/wk, over sub-era I. SUB-ERA I II. SUB-ERA II a. siblings *1IC8H1 *1IC8H2 b. neighborhood kids *1IC8A1 *1IC8A2 c. small group sitter *1IC8I1 *1IC8I2 d. daycare (include Mothers? Day-out) *1IC8B1 *1IC8B2 111 e. preschool *1IC8C1 *1IC8C2 f. play group, Sunday School, dance/soccer, etc. *1IC8D1 *1IC8D2 g. family gatherings *1IC8E1 *1IC8E2 h. kids of parents? friends *1IC8F1 *1IC8F2 i. other (specify) *1IC8G1 *1IC8G2 #15. Has _____ been around any children you would consider to be aggressive, by that we mean starts fights, arguments, or conflicts? (Give visual aid card for codes. Probe for who and how many the children are, what setting they meet in, and how often they meet.) CODES: Never Less than About once About once About every once a month a month a week day or more 0 1 2 3 4 NONE 1-2 3+ Frequency a. siblings 0 1 2 *1IC9FA b. neighbor 0 1 2 *1IC9AA c. child(ren) at small group sitter?s 0 1 2 *1IC9GA d. daycare 0 1 2 *1IC9BAA e. preschool 0 1 2 *1IC9BAB f. play group, church, dance/soccer, etc. 0 1 2 *1IC9HA g. relative 0 1 2 *1IC9DA h. kids of parents? friends 0 1 2 *1IC9IA i. other (specify) 0 1 2 *1IC9EA #16. Did _____ have any close friends that he/she talked about, liked to play with, seemed to prefer? 0 1 2 3 4 *1IC10A no one don?t know several, none 1-2 specific 3+ specific specific #17.a. When _____ played/interacted with other children, how often were there conflicts or disagreements? 8 0 1 2 3 *1IC11A not appl. None hardly ever sometimes most of the time b. What were these conflicts like, what did your child usually do? (decide up) 112 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 *1IC11B not don?t withdrew, discussed, sought adult argue physical appl. Know gave in worked it out help struggle c. How did things usually turn out in the end? 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 *1IC11C not don?t withdrew, resolution early adult sought adult adults appl. Know quit by child intervention intervention had to & peer (to abort) intervene RATING #4 Rating for peer stability ? Potential for friendship and familiarity. 1 2 3 4 5 *1IRC3 high turnover, some stable, variable variability familiar group low opportunity moderate opportunity high opportunity RATING #5 Rating for parent?s expressed interest, concern, and effort at monitoring and planning their child?s social development. 1 2 3 4 5 *1IRC5A unaware/no little some moderately very high interest, interest, interest, high interest, interest, effort effort effort effort effort The toddler and preschool stages are times when kids change a lot and get more and more independent. (Orient parent to some developmental changes that occur during this time: e.g. increased mobility, language development, etc?) #18. Were these years easy times or difficult times for (TC) ____? ?Very or just mostly? 1 2 3 4 *1IC12 easy mostly easy mostly hard hard #19. AGE 1 ? 4 (4?), what kinds of misbehaviors did your child do that you had to deal with during this period? (Allow parent to freely respond. Do not prompt directly from list but probe as follows to job parent?s memory:) Anything else? Other parents mention things like coloring on the walls, not doing what he/she is told, talking back, messing with other people?s things, lying, bothering the pet etc? No Yes a. breaks house rules (e.g. bedtime, chores, loud, rowdy, etc?) 0 1 *1IC13EA b. defiance, resistance, stubborn, talking back 0 1 *1IC13CA c. tantrums 0 1 *1IC13CB 113 d. uses others? stuff w/o permission, steals 0 1 *1IC13BA e. harms others? belongings, destroys household items or furnishings or own things 0 1 *1IC13BB f. bad language 0 1 *1IC13EB g. approach/enter personal danger (e.g. play with matches) 0 1 *1IC13D h. lies, conceals acts 0 1 *1IC13EC i. hurts/bothers animals 0 1 *1IC13G j. hits/bothers other 0 1 *1IC13CAA children (include sibs) k. hits/bothers adults 0 1 *1IC13CAB l. other (specify) 0 1 *1IC13F #19a. In all, how often did your child misbehave? (give parent visual aid card.) Never Less than About once About once About every Once a month a month a week day or more 0 1 2 3 4 *1IC13 #20. What kinds of things did you or _____?s mother/father have to do to deal with his/her misbehaviors? (Allow parent to respond ? code all that are freely mentioned by the parent with the OCCURRENCE code ?2.? Then, prompt from the list those not mentioned by the parent. If parent then responds in the affirmative, code that behavior with the OCCURRENCE code ?1.?) OCCURRENCE Code 0 ? 2 a. send to room of stand in corner ? time out *1IC16A b. deny privilege (TV, dessert, candy) *1IC16B c. tell child he/she should not behave that way (i.e. directive) *1IC16CA d. talk and explain reasons; discuss, share feelings *1IC16CB e. scold, yell, raise voice, get stern, show anger *1IC16DE f. grab, shake *1IC16F g. spank, hit, slap *1IC16G h. get child to apologize or make amends *1IC16J i. give child extra chores *1IC16K 114 j. threaten child with some punishment *1IC16H k. shame/embarrass child *1IC16L l. promise treat or privilege for good behavior *1IC16M m. other (specify) *1IC16I #21. Who usually dealt with _______?s misbehavior? 1 2 3 4 *1IC14 Mom Dad Both Other #22. What about when both parents were present? 1 2 3 4 *1IC15 Mom Dad Both Other #23. MOTHER?S punishment behavior: How often did (you/______?s mother) have to physically punish (TC __) ?such as spank, grab, shake? (Give visual aid) Never Less than About once About once About every Once a month a month a week day or more 0 1 2 3 4 *1IC17A *(Ask if yes:) How did (you/___?s mother) usually spank _____? *What was the most severe thing (you/she) had to do during this period? (Probe gently for how punishment was administered by each parent. Get just enough information to make ratings. Prompt with leading phrases from the scale.) CODES: 0 = did not spank or physically punish 1 = mild: a few swats ? hand on clothed; slap on hand 2 = moderate: a few swats ? object on clothed or hand/bare 3 = several swats, object/bare 4 = repeated swats, object on bare skin or clothed or any very severe contact e.g. should parent report some very severe incident like ?grabbed TC by the arm and threw her in the car? A. Mother?s usual method: M1IC18A/F1IC18AA B. Mother?s most intense method: M1IC18B/F1IC8BA #24. FATHER?S punishment behavior: How often did (you/______?s father) have to physically punish (TC __) ?such as spank, grab, shake? (Give visual aid) Never Less than About once About once About every Once a month a month a week day or more 0 1 2 3 4 *1IC17B *(Ask if yes:) How did (you/___?s father) usually spank _____? *What was the most severe thing (you/he) ever had to do during this period? A. Father?s usual method: M1IC18AA/F1IC18A 115 B. Father?s most intense method: M1IC18BA/F1IC8B #25. Do you remember any times when ___ was disciplined severely enough that he/she may have been hurt??like lef t a mark, bruised, or otherwise harmed. (Probe if yes) Tell me about it. (Specify who disciplined so severely.) 0 1 2 *1IC19 No Minor Major #26. Did you ever worry that you or someone else may have harmed _____? (Probe for agency involvement, removal of child, etc. if necessary. Specify who harmed TC.) Circle one: * No concern 0 *1IC20 * Minor concern; unspecific; unexplained injuries 1 * Concerned; possible harm by family member 2 * Definite incident of harm by someone outside the family unit 3 * Definite incident of harm by family member 4 #27. All families have conflicts, parents and kids. What kinds of conflicts, arguments, or violence was ___ aware of during this time (shouting, physical fights, pushing, etc.)? (Probe for description of arguments TC witnessed, or agency involvement, if necessary. Write in parent?s free response.) * parent ? parent: * other in-home: * outside the home (neighbors, at the park, other family): RATING #6 Rating for punitive discipline ? Parent?s use of physical or punitive discipline. (Non-restrictive can include physical control, e.g. when the child is in danger). 1 2 3 4 5 *1IRC6 non-restrictive, generally moderate, severe, strict, mostly positive sometimes physical often physical guidance RATING #7 Rating for physical harm ? rater?s judgment about whether or not the target child has been severely harmed. 1 2 3 4 5 *1IRC7 extremely probably suspected, probably authorities unlikely not possible occurred involved RATING #8 Rating for conflicts with partner ? severity of conflicts between partners (note if agency involvement). 8 1 2 3 4 5 *1IRC9 No rarely mild major mild physical physical Partner even shout verbal verbal major verbal > once RATING #9 Rating for other in-home conflicts e.g. ex-spouse, sibling fights, parent-child (exclude moderate levels of physical punishment). 116 1 2 3 4 5 *1IRC8A none mild verbal major verbal mild physical physical major verbal > once RATING #10 Rating for exposure to conflict or violence outside the home. 1 2 3 4 5 *1IRC8B none mild verbal major verbal mild physical physical major verbal > once #28. During this time, age 1 ? last year, what changes or adjustments occurred? (Prompt from list. Fill in TC?s age at time of occurrence or onset.) Age No Mentioned, Emphasized, minor major a. moved/major remodel ___ 0 1 2 *1IC22A b. medical prob ? child ___ 0 1 2 *1IC22B c. medical ? close family ___ 0 1 2 *1IC22C d. death ? imp. person ___ 0 1 2 *1IC22D e. divorce ? TC?s parents ___ 0 1 2 *1IC22EA f. separation ? TC?s parents ___ 0 1 2 *1IC22EB g. remarriage/marital reconciliation ___ 0 1 2 *1IC22L h. parent-child separation (include chronic long hrs at work) ___ 0 1 2 *1IC22F i. financial instability ___ 0 1 2 *1IC22G j. legal problems ___ 0 1 2 *1IC22H k. stress/conflicts in extended family ___ 0 1 2 *1IC22I l. sib addition/deletions ___ 0 1 2 *1IC22J m. job-related stress ___ 0 1 2 *1IC22M n. loss of job ___ 0 1 2 *1IC22N o. other _______ ___ 0 1 2 *1IC22K #29. How did these changes affect _____? How did he/she react to these changes or to anything specific? (Write in free response) 117 1 2 3 4 5 *1IC23 major impact minor impact neutral minor impact major impact negative negative positive positive #30. How were you doing during these years? Did you have chances to get out and do the things you enjoy, with or without the family? 0 1 2 3 4 *1IC24 none a little, some, almost as much as as much as much less than wanted more desired, O.K. desired desired #31. In what ways was your partner helpful to you during this time? (Probe for each) a. First, what about as an emotional support i.e. being ?there? for you, understanding your needs etc?? 8 1 2 3 4 *1IC25B no partner no help minimal moderate good b. Now, how about in practical ways, e.g. with things that needed to get done (such as childcare, housework, other tasks?)? 8 1 2 3 4 *1IC25A no partner no help minimal moderate good #32. In what ways were you helpful to your partner? (Probe as above) c. First, what about as an emotional support i.e. being ?there? for him/her, understanding his/her needs etc?? 8 1 2 3 4 *1IC26B no partner no help minimal moderate good d. Now, how about in practical ways, e.g. with things that needed to get done (such as childcare, housework, other tasks?)? 8 1 2 3 4 *1IC26A no partner no help minimal moderate good #33. What friends or relatives were available to you (to spend time with by phone or in person)? (Circle the appropriate code and indicate an approximate number below.) CODES: 0 = no one specific Write in the 1 = 1-2 specific people mentioned absolute # *1IC27 2 = 3-4 specific people # of friends ____ 3 = more than 4 # of relatives ___ #34. When you wanted a shoulder to cry on, or needed to let off steam, to whom, if anyone, did you turn to? (Do not prompt, code free responses only.) Not mentioned Mentioned, Mentioned, some help great help a. spouse 0 1 2 *1IC28A 118 b. sib 0 1 2 *1IC28B c. parent 0 1 2 *1IC28C d. friend 0 1 2 *1IC28D e. therapist, counselor, clergy 0 1 2 *1IC28E f. meditation, solitude 0 1 2 *1IC28F g. other ________ 0 1 2 *1IC28G #35. What did these people do to be helpful? (No probe. Code each alternative:) Not mentioned Mentioned Emphasized a. listened, shared 0 1 2 *1IC29A b. gave needed advice 0 1 2 *1IC29B c. intervened, gave active help 0 1 2 *1IC29C d. affiliation, recreation 0 1 2 *1IC29E e. other (specify) 0 1 2 *1IC29D #36. Anything else notable happen before a year ago? Anything else you?d like to add? 0 1 2 3 *1IC30 nothing mostly positive moderately very stressful event(s) event(s) event(s) RATING # 11 Rating for social contact ? parent?s sense of having support and contact with people. (Note that normal support includes expressing some sense of isolation. Consider previous items for this rating) 1 2 3 4 5 *1IRC10 very somewhat normal well very well isolated isolated support supported supported RATING # 12 Rating for stressors ? extent of stressful, challenging events reported in this era. 1 2 3 4 5 *1IRC11 minimal little moderate somewhat severe and/or challenge stress or average stressful frequent challenges stress RATING # 13 Rating for stressful impact ? parent?s expression of distress vs. sense of control and resolution regarding life?s challenges. (Refer to items above ? base your rating on parent?s description of events.) 1 2 3 4 5 *1IRC12A very little a little some moderately very high distress distress distress high distress distress or ERA III 119 Now let?s talk about the past year. (Give parent a time-frame reference) #37. MOTHER Were you/_____?s mother (still) working? (If yes) Full or part time? Length of time? a. FULL TIME: 0 1 2 3 4 M1ID4AA/ did not <1 year 1-2 years >2-3 years >3 years F1ID5AA b. PART TIME: 0 1 2 3 4 M1ID4AB/ did not <1 year 1-2 years >2-3 years >3 years F1ID5AB c. Type of work _______________________ d. No. of job changes (include additions): M1ID4AC/F1ID5AC #38. FATHER Were you/_____?s father (still) working? (If yes) Full or part time? Length of time? a. FULL TIME: 0 1 2 3 4 M1ID5AA/ did not <1 year 1-2 years >2-3 years >3 years F1ID4AA b. PART TIME: 0 1 2 3 4 M1ID5AB/ did not <1 year 1-2 years >2-3 years >3 years F1ID4AB c. Type of work _______________________ d. No. of job changes (include additions): M1ID5AC/F1ID4AC #39. Who were ______?s main caregivers during this time? (Code each alternative. Indicate the amount of time spent in each type of care. If the child is in two settings within a category, sum across settings and code the total time spent within the category.) CODES: 0 = not in this type of care 1 = brief care; anything < 4 mos or < 1x/wk over era 2 = moderate; <20 hrs/wk for 9+ mos, 20-30 hurs for 4-9 mos 3 = frequent; 20-30 hrs/wk for at least 9 mos, or 30+ for 4-9 mos 4 = major; 30+ hrs/wk for at least 9 mos II. IN HOME: Code a. Mother *1ID6A1 b. Father *1ID6B1 c. Older sib(s): Age? ____ *1ID6C1 d. Relative comes in *1ID6D1 e. Sitter comes in *1ID6E1 f. Relative lives in home *1ID6G1 g. Other (specify) *1ID6F1 II. OUT OF HOME: a. Goes to a relative ? Who? _________ *1ID6A2 b. Small group sitter ? Ratio of caregiver:child ____ *1ID6B2 Comments: ______________________ 120 ________________________________ ________________________________ c. Group daycare ? Ratio of caregiver:child ____ *1ID6C2 Comments: ______________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ d. Preschool (structure) ? Ratio of caregiver:child *1ID6D2 Comments: ______________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ e. Neighbors/friends *1ID6E2 f. Other (specify) _________________________ *1ID6F2 #40. Why did you choose these particular childcare arrangements? (Codes: 0=Not Mentioned/1=Mentioned) h. convenience *1ID6A d. educational *1ID6D i. quality *1ID6B e. social *1ID6E j. affordability *1ID6C f. other *1ID6F (Specify: ______) (Use the following probe only if necessary to make Rating #14. Many parents will have spontaneously given enough information.) Tell me a little about these childcare situations? (Write in free response.) #41. Consistency of nonparental caregiving (Ask if necessary) How many times did you have to change childcare arrangements or caregivers this last year? 8 0 1 2 3 4 *1IRD2A only in no changes time times times > 3 times parents? care (If changes occurred, ask:) What were the reasons for the changes? RATING # 14 Rating for quality of non parental care. 1 2 3 4 5 8 *1IRD2B Inadequate average excellent N/A Let?s talk a little about ________?s involvement with other children. #42. In what situations did he/she interact with/play with/see other children in this last year? How often was ______ with (neighborhood kids/sitters etc.) in the last year? CODES: 0 = not in this situation 1 = very brief, < 1x/mo over sub-era 121 2 = brief, 1x/mo or more BUT < 1x/wk over sub-era 3 = moderate, 1 ? 2x/wk over sub-era 4 = frequent, 3 ? 4x/wk over sub-era 5 = very frequent, almost daily, > 4x/wk, over sub-era CODE: a. siblings *1ID8H b. neighborhood kids *1ID8A c. small group sitter *1ID8I d. daycare (include Mothers? Day-out) *1ID8B e. preschool *1ID8C f. play group, Sunday School, dance/soccer, etc. *1ID8D g. family gatherings *1ID8E h. kids of parents? friends *1ID8F i. other (specify) *1ID8G #43. Has _____ been around any children you would consider to be aggressive, by that we mean starts fights, arguments, or conflicts? (Give visual aid card for codes. Probe for who and how many the children are, what setting they meet in, and how often they meet.) CODES: Never Less than About once About once About every once a month a month a week day or more 0 1 2 3 4 NONE 1-2 3+ Frequency a. siblings 0 1 2 *1ID9FA b. neighbor 0 1 2 *1ID9AA c. child(ren) at small group sitter?s 0 1 2 *1ID9GA j. daycare 0 1 2 *1ID9BAA k. preschool 0 1 2 *1ID9BAB l. play group, church, dance/soccer, etc. 0 1 2 *1ID9HA m. relative 0 1 2 *1ID9DA h. kids of parents? friends 0 1 2 *1ID9IA i. other (specify) 0 1 2 *1ID9EA 122 #44. Did _____ have any close friends that he/she talked about, liked to play with, seemed to prefer? 0 1 2 3 4 *1ID10A no one don?t know several, none 1-2 specific 3+ specific specific #45.a. When _____ played/interacted with other children, how often were there conflicts or disagreements? 8 0 1 2 3 *1ID11A not appl. None hardly ever sometimes most of the time b. What were these conflicts like, what did your child usually do? (decide up) 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 *1ID11B not don?t withdrew, discussed, sought adult argue physical appl. Know gave in worked it out help struggle c. How did things usually turn out in the end? 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 *1ID11C not don?t withdrew, resolution early adult sought adult adults appl. Know quit by child intervention intervention had to & peer (to abort) intervene RATING # 15 Rating for peer stability ? Potential for friendship and familiarity. 1 2 3 4 5 *1IRD3 high turnover, some stable, variable variability familiar group low opportunity moderate opportunity high opportunity RATING # 16 Rating for parent?s expressed interest, concern, and effort at monitoring and planning their child?s social development. 1 2 3 4 5 *1IRD5A unaware/no little some moderately very high interest, interest, interest, high interest, interest, effort effort effort effort effort #46. Has the past year been easy or difficult for (TC) ____? ? Very or just mostly? 1 2 3 4 *1ID12 easy mostly easy mostly hard hard #47. AGE 1 ? 4 (4?), what kinds of misbehaviors did your child do that you had to deal with during this period? (Allow parent to freely respond. Do not prompt directly from list but probe as follows to job parent?s memory:) Anything else? Other parents mention things like coloring on the walls, not doing what he/she is told, talking back, messing with other people?s things, lying, bothering the pet etc? 123 No Yes a. breaks house rules (e.g. bedtime, chores, loud, rowdy, etc?) 0 1 *1ID13EA b. defiance, resistance, stubborn, talking back 0 1 *1ID13CA c. tantrums 0 1 *1ID13CB d. uses others? stuff w/o permission, steals 0 1 *1ID13BA e. harms others? belongings, destroys household items or furnishings or own things 0 1 *1ID13BB f. bad language 0 1 *1ID13EB g. approach/enter personal danger (e.g. play with matches) 0 1 *1ID13D h. lies, conceals acts 0 1 *1ID13EC i. hurts/bothers animals 0 1 *1ID13G j. hits/bothers other 0 1 *1ID13CAA children (include sibs) k. hits/bothers adults 0 1 *1ID13CAB l. other (specify) 0 1 *1ID13F #47a. In all, how often did your child misbehave? (give parent visual aid card.) Never Less than About once About once About every Once a month a month a week day or more 0 1 2 3 4 *1ID13 #48. What kinds of things did you or _____?s mother/father have to do to deal with his/her misbehaviors? (Allow parent to respond ? code all that are freely mentioned by the parent with the OCCURRENCE code ?2.? Then, prompt from the list those not mentioned by the parent. If parent then responds in the affirmative, code that behavior with the OCCURRENCE code ?1.?) OCCURRENCE Code 0 ? 2 a. send to room of stand in corner ? time out *1ID16A b. deny privilege (TV, dessert, candy) *1ID16B c. tell child he/she should not behave that way (i.e. directive) *1ID16CA d. talk and explain reasons; discuss, share feelings *1ID16CB 124 e. scold, yell, raise voice, get stern, show anger *1ID16DE f. grab, shake *1ID16F g. spank, hit, slap *1ID16G h. get child to apologize or make amends *1ID16J i. give child extra chores *1ID16K j. threaten child with some punishment *1ID16H k. shame/embarrass child *1ID16L l. promise treat or privilege for good behavior *1ID16M m. other (specify) *1ID16I #49. Who usually dealt with _______?s misbehavior? 1 2 3 4 *1ID14 Mom Dad Both Other #50. What about when both parents were present? 1 2 3 4 *1ID15 Mom Dad Both Other #51. MOTHER?S punishment behavior: How often did (you/______?s mother) have to physically punish (TC __) ?such as spank, grab, shake? (Give visual aid) Never Less than About once About once About every Once a month a month a week day or more 0 1 2 3 4 *1ID17A *(Ask if yes:) How did (you/___?s mother) usually spank _____? *What was the most severe thing (you/she) had to do during this period? (Probe gently for how punishment was administered by each parent. Get just enough information to make ratings. Prompt with leading phrases from the scale.) CODES: 0 = did not spank or physically punish 1 = mild: a few swats ? hand on clothed; slap on hand 2 = moderate: a few swats ? object on clothed or hand/bare 3 = several swats, object/bare 4 = repeated swats, object on bare skin or clothed or any very severe contact e.g. should parent report some very severe incident like ?grabbed TC by the arm and threw her in the car? A. Mother?s usual method: M1ID18A/F1ID18AA B. Mother?s most intense method: M1ID18B/F1ID8BA #52. FATHER?S punishment behavior: How often did (you/______?s father) have to physically punish (TC __) ?such as spank, grab, shake? (Give visual aid) 125 Never Less than About once About once About every Once a month a month a week day or more 0 1 2 3 4 *1ID17B *(Ask if yes:) How did (you/___?s father) usually spank _____? *What was the most severe thing (you/he) ever had to do during this period? A. Father?s usual method: M1ID18AA/F1ID18A B. Father?s most intense method: M1ID18BA/F1ID8B #53. Do you remember any times when ___ was disciplined severely enough that he/she may have been hurt??like left a mark, bruised, or otherwise harm ed. (Probe if yes) Tell me about it. (Specify who disciplined so severely.) 0 1 2 *1ID19 No Minor Major #54. Did you worry this year that you or someone else may have harmed _____? (Probe for agency involvement, removal of child, etc. if necessary. Specify who harmed TC.) Circle one: * No concern 0 *1ID20 * Minor concern; unspecific; unexplained injuries 1 * Concerned; possible harm by family member 2 * Definite incident of harm by someone outside the family unit 3 * Definite incident of harm by family member 4 #55. All families have conflicts, parents and kids. What kinds of conflicts, arguments, or violence was ___ aware of during this time (shouting, physical fights, pushing, etc.)? (Probe for description of arguments TC witnessed, or agency involvement, if necessary. Write in parent?s free response.) * parent ? parent: * other in-home: * outside the home (neighbors, at the park, other family): RATING # 17 Rating for punitive discipline ? Parent?s use of physical or punitive discipline. (Non-restrictive can include physical control, e.g. when the child is in danger). 1 2 3 4 5 *1IRD6 non-restrictive, generally moderate, severe, strict, mostly positive sometimes physical often physical guidance RATING # 18 Rating for physical harm ? rater?s judgment about whether or not the target child has been severely harmed. 1 2 3 4 5 *1IRD7 extremely probably suspected, probably authorities unlikely not possible occurred involved 126 RATING # 19 Rating for conflicts with partner ? severity of conflicts between partners (note if agency involvement). 8 1 2 3 4 5 *1IRD9 No rarely mild major mild physical physical Partner even shout verbal verbal major verbal > once RATING # 20 Rating for other in-home conflicts e.g. ex-spouse, sibling fights, parent-child (exclude moderate levels of physical punishment). 1 2 3 4 5 *1IRD8A none mild verbal major verbal mild physical physical major verbal > once RATING # 21 Rating for exposure to conflict or violence outside the home. 1 2 3 4 5 *1IRD8B none mild verbal major verbal mild physical physical major verbal > once #56. During this past year, what changes or adjustments occurred? (Prompt from list. Fill in TC?s age at time of occurrence or onset.) No Mentioned, Emphasized, minor major a. moved/major remodel 0 1 2 *1ID22A b. medical prob ? child 0 1 2 *1ID22B c. medical ? close family 0 1 2 *1ID22C d. death ? imp. person 0 1 2 *1ID22D e. divorce ? TC?s parents 0 1 2 *1ID22EA f. separation ? TC?s parents 0 1 2 *1ID22EB g. remarriage/marital reconciliation 0 1 2 *1ID22L h. parent-child separation (include chronic long hrs at work) 0 1 2 *1ID22F i. financial instability 0 1 2 *1ID22G j. legal problems 0 1 2 *1ID22H k. stress/conflicts in extended family 0 1 2 *1ID22I l. sib addition/deletions 0 1 2 *1ID22J m. job-related stress 0 1 2 *1ID22M 127 n. loss of job 0 1 2 *1ID22N o. other _______ 0 1 2 *1ID22K #57. How did these changes affect _____? How did he/she react to these changes or to anything specific? (Write in free response) 1 2 3 4 5 *1ID23 major impact minor impact neutral minor impact major impact negative negative positive positive #58. How were you doing during these years? Did you have chances to get out and do the things you enjoy, with or without the family? 0 1 2 3 4 *1ID24 none a little, some, almost as much as as much as much less than wanted more desired, O.K. desired desired #59. In what ways was your partner helpful to you during this time? (Probe for each) a. First, what about as an emotional support i.e. being ?there? for you, understanding your needs etc?? 8 1 2 3 4 *1ID25B no partner no help minimal moderate good b. Now, how about in practical ways, e.g. with things that needed to get done (such as childcare, housework, other tasks?)? 8 1 2 3 4 *1ID25A no partner no help minimal moderate good #60. In what ways were you helpful to your partner? (Probe as above) a. First, what about as an emotional support i.e. being ?there? for him/her, understanding his/her needs etc?? 8 1 2 3 4 *1ID26B no partner no help minimal moderate good b. Now, how about in practical ways, e.g. with things that needed to get done? 8 1 2 3 4 *1ID26A no partner no help minimal moderate good #61. What friends or relatives were available to you (to spend time with by phone or in person)? (Circle the appropriate code and indicate an approximate number below.) CODES: 0 = no one specific Write in the 1 = 1-2 specific people mentioned absolute # *1ID27 2 = 3-4 specific people # of friends ____ 3 = more than 4 # of relatives ___ 128 #62. When you wanted a shoulder to cry on, or needed to let off steam, to whom, if anyone, did you turn to? (Do not prompt, code free responses only.) Not mentioned Mentioned, Mentioned, some help great help a. spouse 0 1 2 *1ID28A b. sib 0 1 2 *1ID28B c. parent 0 1 2 *1ID28C d. friend 0 1 2 *1ID28D e. therapist, counselor, clergy 0 1 2 *1ID28E f. meditation, solitude 0 1 2 *1ID28F g. other ________ 0 1 2 *1ID28G #63. What did these people do to be helpful? (No probe. Code each alternative:) Not mentioned Mentioned Emphasized a. listened, shared 0 1 2 *1ID29A b. gave needed advice 0 1 2 *1ID29B c. intervened, gave active help 0 1 2 *1ID29C d. affiliation, recreation 0 1 2 *1ID29E e. other (specify) 0 1 2 *1ID29D #64. Have you, ___, or any other member of your family ever been to a counselor, consult with a specialist or been in any kind of special program dealing with family or personal problems or personal growth? Nothing mentioned 0 *1ID31 Something mentioned 1 #65. Anything else notable happen this past year? Anything else you?d like to add? 0 1 2 3 *1ID30 nothing mostly positive moderately very stressful event(s) event(s) event(s) RATING # 22 Rating for social contact ? parent?s sense of having support and contact with people. (Note that normal support includes expressing some sense of isolation. Consider previous items for this rating) 1 2 3 4 5 *1IRD10 very somewhat normal well very well isolated isolated support supported supported RATING # 23 Rating for stressors ? extent of stressful, challenging events reported in this era. 1 2 3 4 5 *1IRD11 129 minimal little moderate somewhat severe and/or challenge stress or average stressful frequent challenges stress RATING # 24 Rating for stressful impact ? parent?s expression of distress vs. sense of control and resolution regarding life?s challenges. (Refer to items above ? base your rating on parent?s description of events.) 1 2 3 4 5 *1IRD12A very little a little some moderately very high distress distress distress high distress distress 130 Post-Visit Inventory Family Name __________ Your Name __________________ Date____________ Subject No. ____________ Your Role I*INT Inventory: Note specific examples when possible, in addition to yes/no. If you cannot answer, don?t. I. General home environment 1. Child?s play environment appears safe and free of obvious hazards. Y N I*A1 2. There are age-appropriate toys and games available to the children. Y N I*A2 3. Each child has some place of his own to keep treasures and personal things. Y N I*A3 4. Physical environment allows free movement (is not too cramped/restricted). Y N I*A4 5. A safe outside play area exists. Y N I*A5 6. Family has a pet (What? ________) Y N I*A6 7. Family has a telephone. Y N I*A7 8. At least 8-10 books visible. (some varied reading material, moderate quality at least) Y N I*A8 9. At least 2 children?s books visible Y N I*A9 10. Family has TV, stereo, radio (circle) Y N I*A10 11. Basic hygiene appears to be observed Y N I*A11 12. House is somewhat (at least) tidy (some effort to pick things up). Y N I*A12 13. House is uncomfortably dirty (filth, dishes, trash, etc.). Y N I*A13 II. Mother?s behavior towards children (during warmup, transitions, interruptions, etc.) Target Sibs 14. Shouts at children (Who? ________) Y N I*A14 Y N I*A15 15. Otherwise expresses overt hostility or annoyance towards kid(s) Y N I*A16 Y N I*A17 16. Speaks to child(ren) with a positive tone. Y N I*A18 Y N I*A19 17. Expresses a positive attitude when speaking of child(ren). Y N I*A20 Y N I*A21 131 18. Tells child to ?behave,? ?pay attention,? or the like for the visitor in a serious, cautionary tone (does not appear proactive). Y N I*A22 Y N I*A23 19. Initiates positive physical contact with children. Y N I*A24 Y N I*A25 20. Accepts positive physical contact from children. Y N I*A26 Y N I*A27 21. At least one instance of negative physical contact (swat, grab, restrain, remove) occurs during the visit. Y N I*A28 Y N I*A29 III. Mother?s behavior towards interviewer and visitors 22. Freely expresses ideas (may not be complex, but is fluent). Y N I*A30 23. Statements or answers are often brief or cursory. Y N I*A31 24. Statements or answers are often unfocused or longwinded. Y N I*A32 25. Asks questions, shows curiosity about study or visitors. Y N I*A33 26. Initiates interchanges, makes spontaneous comments. Y N I*A34 27. At least attempts to be warm and friendly. Y N I*A35 28. Appears to answer questions truthfully. Y N I*A36 IV. Father?s behavior towards children Target Sibs 29. Shouts at children (Who? ________) Y N I*A37 Y N I*A38 30. Otherwise expresses overt hostility or annoyance towards kid(s) Y N I*A39 Y N I*A40 31. Speaks to child(ren) with a positive tone. Y N I*A41 Y N I*A42 32. Expresses a positive attitude when speaking of child(ren). Y N I*A43 Y N I*A44 33. Tells child to ?behave,? ?pay attention,? or the like for the visitor in a serious, cautionary tone (does not appear proactive). Y N I*A45 Y N I*A46 34. Initiates positive physical contact with children. Y N I*A47 Y N I*A48 35. Accepts positive physical contact from 132 children. Y N I*A49 Y N I*A50 36. At least one instance of negative physical contact (swat, grab, restrain, remove) occurs during the visit. Y N I*A51 Y N I*A52 V. Father?s behavior towards interviewer and visitors 37. Freely expresses ideas (may not be complex, but is fluent). Y N I*A53 38. Statements or answers are often brief or cursory. Y N I*A54 39. Statements or answers are often unfocused or longwinded. Y N I*A55 40. Asks questions, shows curiosity about study or visitors. Y N I*A56 41. Initiates interchanges, makes spontaneous comments. Y N I*A57 42. At least attempts to be warm and friendly. Y N I*A58 43. Appears to answer questions truthfully. Y N I*A59 VI. Ratings, impressions 1. Family?s preparation for session (time has been set aside, accommodations, all present are aware of visit) I*A60 1 2 3 4 5 we took them adequate prep. home & people by surprise may not have well prepared - anticipated all anticipated demands but goes with flow 2. Confusion/disorganization of session I*A61 1 2 3 4 5 calm, smooth average, confusing, out of procedure variable control, chaotic 3. Family?s reception of visitors (willingness to let us all in and make us comfortable) I*A62 1 2 3 4 5 very awkward moments open to visitors uncomfortable, but generally approachable not very comfortable accommodating 133 4. Visitor?s response (how much do you personally and truthfully like this family and would enjoy spending time with them) I*A63 1 2 3 4 5 never want to ?ok? could really liked - see them tolerate want to stay 5. Anything unusual occur? (anyone besides family present?) I*A64 ___________________________________________________________ 6. Any reason to doubt the quality of the data? (e.g., illness, ?bad mood,? unplanned events, etc.) I*A65 ___________________________________________________________ 134 Completed by CDP Participant (circle): Mother/Father TCID: ________ CDP Assessment of Relationships between Young-Adult Parents and their Children A. Child?s Birth History and Family Background (for all parents) 1a. Child?s Name: ______________ ______________ Sex (circle): Male / Female Birthdate: ____/____/_____ Month / Day / Year 1b. Mother?s Name: ______________ ______________ Age at child?s birth: ____ years Current age: ______ years 1c. Father?s Name: ______________ ______________ Age at child?s birth: ____ years Current age: ______ years 2. To what extent were health problems or complications experienced for mother and child? 1 2 3 4 None Minor Moderate Major Mother: _________ a. during pregnancy? _________ b. during the delivery? _________ c. first few months after delivery? Child: _________ d. during pregnancy? _________ e. during the delivery? _________ f. first few months after delivery? 3. To what extent was the pregnancy planned? 1 2 3 4 Planned Unplanned, but under discussion Unplanned, but accepted Unplanned, unprepared 4. Marital status at time of child?s birth: 1 2 3 4 5 Single Single, living with partner Married Separated Divorced 5. Current marital status: 1 2 3 4 5 Single Single, living with partner Married Separated Divorced 6a. Please indicate how continuous the mother?s living arrangements have been since the child?s birth. 1 2 3 4 Lived with child continuously Lived apart from child on 1 or 2 occasions Lived apart from child on 3 or more occasions Never lived with child 6b. Please indicate how continuous the father?s living arrangements have been since the child?s birth. 1 2 3 4 Lived with child continuously Lived apart from child on 1 or 2 occasions Lived apart from child on 3 or more occasions Never lived with child 7a. During the first 12 months of the child?s life: _________ 1. How many times did your family move or relocate? _________ 2. How many people (not including mother and father) lived in the home with your child? Please indicate the name, age, and relationship to child (if any) for each person indicated above. Name Age Relationship to Child __________________________ _______ ______________________ __________________________ _______ ______________________ __________________________ _______ ______________________ 7b. Since the first year of the child?s life until the present: _________ 1. How many times did your family move or relocate? _________ 2. How many people (not including mother and father) lived in the home with your child? Please indicate the name, age, and relationship to child (if any) for each person indicated above. 135 Name Age Relationship to Child __________________________ _______ ______________________ __________________________ _______ ______________________ __________________________ _______ ______________________ During the first 12 months of the child?s life? 8a. Was father working or in school? No Yes If yes, what was his status (check one)? _____ part-time (less than 10 hrs/wk) _____ part-time (10-30 hrs/wk) _____ full-time (more than 30 hrs/wk) 8b. Was mother working or in school? No Yes If yes, what was her status (check one)? _____ part-time (less than 10 hrs/wk) _____ part-time (10-30 hrs/wk) _____ full-time (more than 30 hrs/wk) 8c. Was the child cared for by someone other than the mother on a regular basis more than 10 hrs/wk? (circle one) No Yes If yes, please indicate the number of hours spent in each applicable child care arrangement. 1 2 3 4 5 10-15 hrs per week 15-20 hrs per week 20-25 hrs per week 25-30 hrs per week More than 30 hrs _________ a. Relative _________ b. Sitter/Daycare _________ c. Preschool _________ d. Neighbors _________ e. Other (specify) __________ Since the first year of the child?s life until the present? 9a. Was father working or in school? No Yes If yes, what was his status (check one)? _____ part-time (less than 10 hrs/wk) _____ part-time (10-30 hrs/wk) _____ full-time (more than 30 hrs/wk) 9b. Was mother working or in school? No Yes If yes, what was her status (check one)? _____ part-time (less than 10 hrs/wk) _____ part-time (10-30 hrs/wk) _____ full-time (more than 30 hrs/wk) 9c. Was the child cared for by someone other than the mother on a regular basis more than 10 hrs/wk? (circle one) No Yes If yes, please indicate the number of hours spent in each applicable child care arrangement. 1 2 3 4 5 10-15 hrs per week 15-20 hrs per week 20-25 hrs per week 25-30 hrs per week More than 30 hrs _________ a. Relative _________ b. Sitter/Daycare _________ c. Preschool _________ d. Neighbors _________ e. Other (specify) __________ 136 10a. What level of support do you receive from your partner in raising your child? 1 2 3 4 No support Minimal, tolerant Moderate Good, strong 10b. What level of support do you give your partner in raising your child? 1 2 3 4 No support Minimal, tolerant Moderate Good, strong 11a. What level of support do you receive from your parents in raising your child? 1 2 3 4 No support Minimal, tolerant Moderate Good, strong 11b. What level of support do you receive from your partners? parents in raising your child? 1 2 3 4 No support Minimal, tolerant Moderate Good, strong 12. When you need a shoulder to cry on, or need to let off steam, who (if anyone) do you turn to most? 1 2 3 4 5 6 No one Spouse/Partner Sibling Parent Friend Other __________ 137 B. Parenting (for parents of children age 4 or older) 1. Parents and their Children We would like you to describe some of the experiences you have had while bringing up your child. Please read each statement below and indicate the answer that most closely describes the way you act toward your child. 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all like me Not usually like me Sometimes like me Often like me A lot like me I am a person who ?.. _________ 1. ?enjoys doing things with my child. _________ 2. ?wants to know exactly where my child is an d what my child is doing. _________ 3. ?does not seem to know what my child needs or wants. _________ 4. ?does not forget very quickly the things my child does wrong. _________ 5. ?seems proud of the things my child does. _________ 6. ?is very stri ct with my child. _________ 7. ?would like to be able to tell my child what to do all the time. _________ 8. ?is always checking on what my child has been doing at school or play. _________ 9. ?almost always speaks to my child with a warm and friendl y voice. _________ 10. ?is easy with my child. _________ 11. ?is not very patient with my child. _________ 12. ?sticks to a rule instead of allowing a lot of exceptions. _________ 13. ?asks people what my child does away from home. _________ 14. ?lets my c hild off easy when he/she does something wrong. _________ 15. ?smiles at my child very often. _________ 16. ?asks my child to tell everything that happens when my child is away from home. _________ 17. ?gives hard punishment. _________ 18. ?almost always c omplains about what my child does. _________ 19. ?tells my child exactly how to do his/her work. _________ 20. ?excuses my child?s bad conduct. _________ 21. ?forgets to help my child when he/she needs it. _________ 22. ?has more rules than my child can re member. _________ 23. ?is able to make my child feel better when he/she is upset. _________ 24. ?does not insist my child obey, if he/she complains and protests. _________ 25. ?checks on my child to make sure that he/she has the right kind of friends. _________ 26. ?loses my temper with my child when he/she does not help around the house. _________ 27. ?can be talked into things easily. _________ 28. ?gets cross and angry about little things my child does. _________ 29. ?sees to it that my child obeys when I tell him/her something. _________ 30. ?is always trying to change my child. 138 2. Responses to Child Misbehavior 2a. All children misbehave sometimes. What kinds of misbehaviors did your child do that you had to deal with during the last year? (Allow parent to freely respond. Do not prompt directly from list but probe as follows to jog parent?s memory:) Anything else? Other parents mention things like coloring on the walls, not doing what he/she is told, talking back, messing with other people?s things, lying, bothering the pet etc? No Yes d. breaks house rules (e.g. bedtime, chores, loud, rowdy, etc?) 0 1 e. defiance, resistance, stubborn, talking back 0 1 f. tantrums 0 1 d. uses others? stuff w/o permission, steals 0 1 l. harms others? belongings, destroys household items or furnishings or own things 0 1 m. bad language 0 1 n. approach/enter personal danger (e.g. play with matches) 0 1 o. lies, conceals acts 0 1 p. hurts/bothers animals 0 1 q. hits/bothers other 0 1 children (include sibs) r. hits/bothers adults 0 1 l. other (specify) 0 1 2b. In all, how often did your child misbehave? 0 1 2 3 4 Never Less than once a month About once a month About once a week About every day 2c. During the past year what kinds of things have you done to correct your child?s behavior? Please use the following scale to indicate the best description of how often you have used the following methods. 0 1 2 3 4 139 Never Less than once a month About once a month About once a week About every day _________ a. sent to room or stand in corner (?time-out?) _________ b. deny privilege (TV, dessert, candy) _________ c. tell child how or how not to behave _________ d. talk and explain reasons, discuss _________ e. yell or scold, raise voice _________ f. grab or shake _________ g. spank with hand _________ h. spank with object (switch or paddle) _________ i. get child to apologize; make amends _________ j. give child extra chores _________ k. threaten child with some punishment _________ l. shame or embarrass child _________ m. promise treat for good behavior 2d. In the past year has anybody ever spanked or hit your child hard enough that he/she may have been hurt? Please circle your answer. 0 1 2 No Maybe Yes 2e. Who spanked or hit your child hard enough that he/she may have been hurt? Please check all that apply. _________ a. no-one _________ b. yourself _________ c. your husband/wife/partner _________ d. grandparent _________ e. brother or sister _________ f. other relative _________ g. babysitter _________ h. teacher or school official _________ i. other (please list) __________________ 2f. If your child was spanked or hit hard, how badly was your child hurt? Please circle the answer that comes closest. 0 1 2 Never was hurt Bruise or mark lasting less than 24 hours Bruise or mark lasting more Than 24 hours 3. Participation in Social and Academic-Learning Activities Please indicate how often you engage in these activities using the following scale: 1 2 3 4 5 Never Seldom Occasionally Often Very often _________ a. Organize opportunities for my child to play with other children. _________ b. Practice learning new words with my child. _________ c. Talk to my child about playing cooperatively with other children. _________ d. Know the parents of my child?s friends. _________ e. Create opportunities to teach my child how to count. _________ f. Talk to my child about making friends. _________ g. Visit the library or museum with my child. _________ h. Talk to my child about ways to solve conflicts with other children. 140 _________ i. Read books with my child. _________ j. Teach my child how to adapt and solve challenges. 141 Family Information Form TCID#___________ Date: D*DATE PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Child?s Name D*TCFN D*TCLN School: first last D*SCHL Mother?s Name D*MFN D*MLN CP Co Ing McK 11 12 13 14 Father?s Name D*FFN D*FLN Address (child?s home) Street D*STREET City D*CITY D*STATE D*HPH Zip Code D*ZIP Mother?s level of education D*MED Mother?s type of work D*MWORK Father?s level of education D*FED Father?s type of work D*FWORK We would like the following information for all the children in the family. Please list all children, including the one on whom we are focusing. Lives Relationship to Child?s Name Birthdate Sex Race at home child (Full/Step/Half/Adopted/ Foster/Other/Not Applicable) D*TCFN1 D*TCBD D*TCSEX D*TCRACE D*TCHOME D*TCREL D*SAFN1 D*SABD D*SASEX D*SARACE D*SAHOME D*SAREL ________ _______ ________ __________ __________ ________ D*SEFN1 D*SEBD D*SESEX D*SERACE D*SEHOME D*SEREL We would also like to know who else lives in the home besides the children listed above. Please list parents (yourself) and any other relatives, boarders, etc?who also live in the home. Name Relationship to child Age Race D*RAFN D*RAR D*RAAGE D*RARACE D*RBFN D*RBR D*RBAGE D*RBRACE 142 D*RCFN D*RCR D*RCAGE D*RCRACE ******************************************************************************************** Items used to Create Monitoring and Neighborhood Safety Measures Pettit, Bates, Dodge, and Meece (1999) A. Parental Monitoring and Supervision (5-point scales1) 1. When your child is not at home, do you know where he/she is? 2. When your child is not at home, do you know who he/she is with? 3. When your child is not at home, do you know when he/she will return home? 4. Do you know the first and last names of the friends he/she is with? 5. How difficult is it for you to know where your child is and what he/she is doing? 6. How often do you think ________ goes to places that you ask him/her not to go? 7. When ________ is at a friend s house, how often do you think that a parent or another adult is there? 8. Who often would you know if ________ played with children who get in trouble? 9. How often do you talk with your child about what they do with their friends when they are away from home? B. Neighborhood Safety (6-point scale: 1 = very safe, 6 = very unsafe) 1. How safe is your neighborhood? 2. How safe do you feel coming home alone? 3. How safe do you think it is for your child to play outside when you aren t at home? 143 4. How safe do you feel your child is playing outside when you ARE at home? 5. How safe do you feel while you are in your house alone? 6. How safe do you feel walking in your neighborhood alone? Note: 1Rating anchors for monitoring items 1 - 4: 1 = < 5% of the time 2 = about 25% of the time 3 = about 50% of the time 4 = about 75% of the time 5 = > 95% of the time Rating anchors for monitoring item 5: 1 = not at all difficult 2 = a little difficult 3 = somewhat difficult 4 = quite difficult 5 = extremely difficult Rating anchors for monitoring items 6 - 9: 1 = never 2 = hardly ever 3 = some days 4 = most days 5 = every day 144 Adolescent Interview ? Part B II. Peer Relationships Now we would like to ask you some questions about the kids you know. The next few sets of questions are going to be about kids you know at school and in your neighborhood. II. A. Group Membership Some kids your age hang out a lot with other kids in friendship groups. The kids in these groups may do a lot of things together and spend most of their time together. Other kids your age don?t hang out with friendship groups. They spend most of their time alone or with a best friend. 1. Which best describes you: BA1 Score as indicated 1 I spend most of my free time at school alone. 2 I spend most of my free time hanging out with a group of friends. 3 I spend most of my free time at school alone with my best friend. If TC chooses option 1 or 3 then skip to section II. B. BA2 Score as indicated 2. Do you: 1 usually hang out with the same group of kids almost all of the time? Or 2 usually hang out with a couple of different groups of kids? Now I want you to think of the group that you spend the most time with. (Interviewer: Record this information on the grid on the next page. Fill in the names and circle the numbers in columns 2 ? 5) 3. Who are the people in this group? (Interviewer: Allow TC to name up to 10. The first line on the grid is for the TC.)BA3A - # in group BA3B - # friends 4. What are their ages? 5. Are they male or female? 6. Who are the leaders in this group? A leader thinks of things for the group to do and makes sure that group members know what is going on when the people in your group are doing something. (Interviewer: TC leader? Y N Circle one) BA6 Score: 0 1 145 7. Tell me how important each person is to your group. (fill in next to the names in the grid) 3 = The people who are most important get a 3. These are the people who are always included when your group does things together. 2 = The pretty important people get a 2. These people are usually around when your group does things, but sometimes they are forgotten or hang out with other people. 1 = The people that just hang out with the group but aren?t important get a 1. These kids are often forgotten when your group does things or these kids usually don?t hang out Group members Name Age* BA4A0-BA4A9 Sex (0=M, 1=F) BA5A0-BA5A9 Importance BA7TC BA7A0-BA7A9 Friend Status BBA0-BBA9 TC 0 1 2 0 1 1 2 3 0 1 2 0 1 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 0 1 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 0 1 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 0 1 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 0 1 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 0 1 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 0 1 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 0 1 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 0 1 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 0 1 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 Friends who are not group members BA4B0-BA4B4 BA5B0-BA5B4 BBB0- BBB4 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 2 3 *(Interviewer: Code age as 0 = younger than TC by more than 1 year, 1 = within 1 year of TC, 2 = older than TC by more than 1 year). Now I want you to tell me how you feel about your group. Answer the following questions using this scale. 0 = not true 1 = somewhat or sometimes true 2 = very true or often true BA8 8. When my group does something together, others are sure to let me know. BA9 9. It is very important to me to be a member of my group. BA10 10. I spend as much time as I can with my group. 146 BA11 11. I feel happiest when I am with members of my group. II. B. Friends Now I would like to talk to you about your good friends. A good friend is someone you do things with and talk to pretty often. This person would probably also consider you to be his/her good friend. I want you to first, tell me if each person in the group of kids that you hang out with at school is a friend. (Interviewer: Refer TC back to grid.) For each of these kids, I?d like you to tell me if they are a pretty good friend, a very good friend, a best friend, or not a friend at all. [Interviewer: Indicate in the appropriate column with a 0 (not a friend), 1 (pretty good friend), 2 (very good friend), or 3 (best friend)] Are there any kids that you are friends with whose names are not on this list? What are their names? (Interviewer: Record the names of the new friends in the lower grid below the names of the group members. Remember to ask if each friend is a pretty good friend, very good friend or best friend) II. C. Behavior of Peers (Note: If child said that most of his/her free time was spent with a best friend or alone then ask the following questions about his/her friends in general rather than about his/her group) I am also interested in the kinds of things kids in your group do so I can get to know a little bit more about your friends. The kids in your group might do all of these things, just some of these things, or none of these things. I just want to know what your group is like. Please tell us about the kinds of things that people in your group do using this scale: 1 = they never do this 2 = they do this once in a while 3 = they sometimes do this 4 = they do this fairly often 5 = they do this very often Do the kids in your group (or your friends): BC1 1. Make good grades BC2 2. Play sports BC3 3. Drink beer or wine BC4 4. Take little things from stores like candy or cigarettes without paying BC5 5. Have a lot of fun BC6 6. Get into fights with other kids BC7 7. Have good ideas about fun things to do BC8 8. Get along with their teachers BC9 9. Decorate buildings or sidewalks with spray paint or paint graffiti messages BC10 10. Use bad language BC11 11. Get along with their parents BC12 12. Like to play video games BC13 13. Smoke cigarettes BC14 14. Use illegal drugs BC15 15. Lie to their parents and teachers BC16 16. Have lots of friends at school BC17 17. Get into trouble at school 147 BC18 18. Like to do things that make you scared or uncomfortable BC19 19. Cheat on school tests BC20 20. Suggest that you do something that is against the law BC21 21. Hit or threaten people without any real reason BC22 22. Ruin or damage things on purpose that don?t belong to them