598028

research-article2015
YASXXX10.1177/0044118X15598028Youth & SocietyMowen and Schroeder

Article
Youth & Society
121
Maternal Parenting The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
Style and Delinquency sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0044118X15598028
by Race and the yas.sagepub.com

Moderating Effect of
Structural Disadvantage

Thomas J. Mowen1 and Ryan D. Schroeder2

Abstract
Contemporary research suggests authoritative parenting is the most effective
parenting style in deterring juvenile delinquency. Some research has found
there are differences in parenting style between racial groups due to structural
disadvantage faced by marginalized individuals. Yet, relatively little is known about
how racial differences in parenting and the moderating effect of disadvantage
relate to juvenile delinquency. The current project explores parenting style
differences among Black, Hispanic, and White mothers and the moderating
impact of disadvantage on delinquency. Results indicate authoritarian parenting
is least effective in deterring delinquency among all racial groups; however,
neighborhood disadvantage provides a negative moderating effect between
authoritarian parenting and delinquency for Black youth only, whereas
uninvolved parenting was related to delinquency for White youth only.

Keywords
maternal parenting style, juvenile delinquency, race, ethnicity, disadvantage

Introduction
Parenting style, generally defined as the constellation of attitudes, behaviors,
and interaction styles with children that produce an emotional family context

1University of Wyoming, Laramie, USA

2University of Louisville, KY, USA

Corresponding Author:
Thomas J. Mowen, Department of Criminal Justice, University of Wyoming, Dept. 3197 A&S
Building, Room 222, Laramie, WY 82071, USA.
Email: tmowen@uwyo.edu
2 Youth & Society

in which socialization occurs (Darling & Steinberg, 1993), is among the most
important predictors of developmental outcomes in youth and adolescents
(Bowman, Prelow, & Weave, 2007; Paulson & Sputa, 1996; Strom, Strom, &
Beckert, 2008), including deterring delinquency (Darling & Steinberg, 1993;
Steinberg, 2001). Authoritative parenting is generally regarded as the most
beneficial parenting style across a wide range of developmental and behav-
ioral outcomes (Brand, Hatzinger, Beck, & Holsboer-Trachsler, 2009; Brody
et al., 2008; Bryant, 1985; Claes et al., 2005; Duncan, Duncan, Biglan, &
Ary, 1998; Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1992) irrespective of social class,
race, nationality, or gender (Mayseless, Scharf, & Sholt, 2003; Steinberg,
2001). Yet, emerging research clouds this conclusion. When considering race
and ethnicity, recent studies have shown there are marked differences in par-
enting style between White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian American mothers,
with minority mothers more likely to be authoritarian, permissive, or unin-
volved than White mothers (Baer, 1999; Lam, 2011; Strom et al., 2008).
Similar projects have demonstrated the need to consider community context
and disadvantage in understanding why there are variations in parenting style
across racial and ethnic groups in controlling adolescent delinquency (Burton
& Jarrett, 2000; Collins, Maccoby, Steinberg, Hetherington, & Bornstein,
2000; Schroeder, Bulanda, Giordano, & Cernkovich, 2010; R. L. Simons
et al., 2006; Spano, Rivera, & Bolland, 2011).
Taken together, although prior research tends to show that maternal author-
itative parenting is most strongly associated with positive developmental and
behavioral outcomes among adolescents, the degree to which this holds true
among racial and ethnic minority populations is unclear (see also Schroeder
et al., 2010; White, Zeiders, Gonzales, Jenn-Yun, & Roosa, 2013), especially
when considering the complications of disadvantaged community contexts.
The current study seeks to offer a potential explanation for the different pat-
terns of maternal parenting styles, as well as the potential differential impact
of maternal parenting style on adolescent outcomes across racial and ethnic
groups. To do so, we identify the effects of maternal parenting styles on juve-
nile delinquency within White, Black, and Hispanic families, and examine the
role of neighborhood context as a moderating factor in the relationship
between parenting style and delinquency in each racial and ethnic group.

Parenting Styles and Delinquency

Demandingness and responsiveness, originally defined by Baumrind (1966),
are the two primary parenting constructs traditionally used in the classifica-
tion of parenting styles (Baumrind, 1966; Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Paulson
& Sputa, 1996; Schaffer, Clark, & Jeglic, 2009). Demandingness refers to the
Mowen and Schroeder 3

degree of parental control and supervision used in the parenting process over
the child including the establishment of rules and boundaries, and the level of
direct and indirect parental supervision (Baumrind, 2005). Responsiveness
refers to the degree of parental support for the child such as the level of
warmth, consistency, reason, and rationality evoked in the relationship
between the parent and child (Baumrind, 2005).
Based on the degree of parental demandingness and responsiveness,
Baumrind (1966, 1991, 2005) operationalized four distinct possible parenting
styles. First, authoritative parenting is defined as parenting that includes high
demandingness and high responsiveness, permits a high degree of autonomy
to the child, and is regarded as parenting that is rational, consistent, and
warm. Authoritarian parenting, defined as parenting characterized by high
demandingness and low responsiveness, represents total control of the child
by the parent. Permissive parenting, defined by low demandingness and high
responsiveness, is a parenting style that allows children to self-regulate with-
out concern for the consequences of their actions. Finally, uninvolved parent-
ing, exemplified by low demandingness and low responsiveness (see Paulson
& Sputa, 1996), is a style in which parents are not involved emotionally with
children and provide minimal supervision.
A vast majority of research on the relationship between parenting and ado-
lescent outcomes has relied primarily on maternal parenting (see Brody &
Flor, 1998; Higgins, Schroeder, & Mowen, 2013; Schroeder & Mowen,
2014). This has been done for both practical and theoretical reasons. First,
data on fathers parenting style are often missing in large data sets (see, for
example, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013; Schroeder & Mowen, 2014).
Second, research has found that maternal parenting tends to have a more
robust relationship to adolescent outcomes compared with paternal parenting
(Baer, 1999; Bowman et al., 2007; Gainey, Catalano, Haggerty, & Hoppe,
1997; Klein, Forehand, Armistead, & Long, 1997). Research has consistently
found that maternal authoritative parenting promotes positive developmental
outcomes (Mayseless et al., 2003; Paulson & Sputa, 1996; Shaffer, 2000)
including low levels of delinquent behavior (Ary, Duncan, Duncan, & Hops,
1999; Brown, Mounts, Lamborn, & Steinberg, 1993; R. L. Simons, Chao,
Conger, & Elder, 2001; Steinberg, 2001). Although there are some exceptions
(see Steinberg, Mounts, Lamborn, & Dornbush, 1991), research, overall,
finds that other maternal parenting styles lacking in demandingness and/or
responsiveness are associated with less favorable developmental and behav-
ioral outcomes (Shaffer, 2000; Steinberg, Blatt-Eisengart, & Cauffman,
2006), including lower levels of academic achievement, higher levels of
stress, and higher rates of adolescent offending (Steinberg et al., 2006).
4 Youth & Society

Racial Dynamics of Parenting

Though we note the support for authoritative parenting above, some research
has questioned whether maternal authoritative parenting holds the same bene-
fits for youth from racial and ethnic minority backgrounds (Darling & Steinberg,
1993; Schroeder et al., 2010). A wide body of research has recognized that
maternal parental control and supervision are more important factors in con-
trolling delinquency among Black youth than parenting styles that emphasize
caring and trust (Cernkovich & Giordano, 1987; Clark, Novak, & Dupree,
2002; Paschall, Rinwalt, & Flewelling, 2003). Other research has suggested
that authoritarian parenting may be more beneficial for the development of
Black children than White children, even when accounting for other influences
such as socioeconomic status (Baumrind, 1972; Steinberg et al., 1991).
To understand why these differences exist across racial and ethnic bound-
aries, we draw from the minority-status perspective (Mirowsky & Ross,
1980), which suggests the unequal position of racial and ethnic minorities in
society explains differential social outcomes. For example, the increased
likelihood of minority parents enacting authoritarian parenting is likely a
response to the structural positions of racial and ethnic minorities, including
perceived and experienced discrimination (Brody et al., 2008), social pres-
sures and structural disadvantage (Jones, 1985), depression (Brody & Flor,
1998), and a lack of access to the job market (Strom et al., 2008). Authoritarian
parenting may be adopted to protect their children from disadvantage. The
minority-status perspective highlights the important differences in the ways
in which social processes are interpreted by racial and ethnic minorities
(Mirowsky & Ross, 1980). Prior research has shown that harsh parenting
techniques are often viewed more positively among Black youth than White
youth (Alvy, 1987; L. G. Simons, Simons, & Su, 2013). For example, L. G.
Simons et al. (2013) showed that harsh parenting, such as corporal punish-
ment, tends not to have the negative consequences for Black youth compared
with White youth. In explaining these findings, L. G. Simons and colleagues
(2013) suggested harsh parenting practices must be understood within the
broader familialand socialcontexts. Cultural differences in the percep-
tions of parenting, then, are an additional theoretical explanation for the dif-
ferential impact of parenting style on delinquency outcomes among racial
and ethnic minority youth (Rankin & Quane, 2002). As Steinberg et al. (2006)
stated, . . . authoritarian parenting may not be as bad for these adolescents
[racial minority youth] as it has been shown to be for their middle-class, sub-
urban, [W]hite counterparts (p. 56, emphasis in original).
In sum, prior research suggests that parenting approaches differ by racial
and ethnic background and raises the possibility that parenting styles exert
Mowen and Schroeder 5

differential effects on the behavioral outcomes of minority youth. Mirowsky

and Rosss (1980) minority-status perspectives provide a theoretical contex-
tualization of such differences. In line with the minority-status perspective,
our current study investigates the role of neighborhood disadvantage as one
possible explanation for the differential effect of parenting styles on juvenile
delinquency outcomes among racial and ethnic minorities, the topic to which
we turn next.

Neighborhood Disadvantage and Parenting

From the minority-status perspective (Mirowsky & Ross, 1980), neighborhood
context is essential to consider in the development of a better understanding of
the potential differential effect of parenting styles on delinquent outcomes for
minority youth. Parents living in low-income areas tend to exert higher levels
of control over their child to make up for the increased perception of violence
in their neighborhood (Burton & Jarrett, 2000; Collins et al., 2000; Rankin &
Quane, 2002; Spano et al., 2011). Brooks-Gunn, Duncan, and Aber (1997)
showed that minority mothers in low-income areas tend to enact greater levels
of control over their children than White parents to reduce the chances of their
children becoming involved with delinquent peers, gangs, police, and drugs. In
a more recent study, Schroeder et al. (2010) showed that uninvolved parenting
during adolescence was significantly associated with adult criminal offending
among Black respondents over a period of 10 years, but this relationship was
not found for White respondents. Schroeder and colleagues (2010) suggested
that rule setting has a significantly more robust role in deterring delinquency
among Black youth relative to White youth. This finding is consistent with
prior research that has established the importance of strictness among minority
parents in reducing adolescent offending (Baumrind, 1972; Clark et al., 2002;
Furstenberg, 1993; McLoyd, 1990). Schroeder et al. (2010) argued that these
racial differences in the impact of parenting style on juvenile delinquency are
largely a reflection of structural disadvantage or . . . the broader social con-
texts within which parenting and child development takes place . . . (p. 88).
These findings suggest that although strict parenting adopted by racial and eth-
nic minorities may exhibit warmth and attachment, racial and ethnic minority
parents may also employ a significant amount of demandingness to protect
their children against discrimination (Brody et al., 2008) and neighborhood
disadvantage (White et al., 2013).
Neighborhood disadvantage broadly includes communities that are per-
ceived as unsafe, and/or experience social disorganization such as abandoned
houses, ill-lit streets, homes without running water or electricity, and a gen-
eral lack of infrastructure (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013). Prior work has
6 Youth & Society

established prosocial attachment to friends and family are weaker in disad-

vantaged neighborhoods, contributing to less effective means of reducing
negative adolescent outcomes, such as delinquency (Clark et al., 2002).
Because of the marginalized status and concomitant weakened social control
in disadvantaged communities, control and rule setting are more important
components of parenting approaches than warmth and attachment for youth
in disadvantaged communities (Baumrind, 1991; Clark et al., 2002; Paschall
et al., 2003; R. L. Simons et al., 2006). The argument is that minority youth
are less likely to develop social bonds with traditional institutions in disad-
vantaged community contexts; therefore, minority youth in disadvantaged
neighborhoods tend to rely on parents to provide support and guidance.
Overall, scholars tend to agree that structural disadvantage creates barriers
for minority mothers to enact parenting styles that foster strong parental
bonds and deter delinquency (Greenberg, 1999; R. L. Simons et al., 2006).
This body of literature suggests neighborhood disadvantage may condition
the relationship between parenting styles and juvenile delinquency. Minority
parents may engage in authoritarian parenting, which has an overabundance
of control, to overcome perceived dangerousness of their neighborhoods.
This type of parenting that is high in control may have positive outcomes for
youth in disadvantage neighborhoods. Yet, consistent with prior literature,
parenting that is high in control and low in support may be negative for youth
in more advantaged communities.

Hypotheses
Given the literature outlining marked trends in parenting between racial
groups due to disadvantage (Strom et al., 2008) and the effect that parenting
styles lacking in responsiveness and/or demandingness have on delinquency
(Steinberg, 2001), we make three related hypotheses.

Hypothesis 1: We expect youth who report their mother as permissive,

authoritarian, or uninvolved to report greater levels of delinquency com-
pared with youth who report their mother as authoritative.
Hypothesis 2: We expect youth experiencing high disadvantage who
report their mother as high in demandingness, regardless of levels of
responsiveness (authoritarian), to report lower levels of delinquent behav-
ior regardless of race. Relatedly, the minority-status perspective suggests
the deleterious effect of structural disadvantage faced by racial minorities
further increases the importance of demandingness. Therefore, we expect
the moderating effect of disadvantage on delinquency to be more robust
for Black and Hispanic youth who report their mother as authoritarian.
Mowen and Schroeder 7

Hypothesis 3: Finally, the minority-status perspective suggests that harsh

parenting techniques are viewed positively among Black youth, and par-
enting that is lacking in demandingness may be more detrimental to
minority youth. Therefore, we expect neighborhood disadvantage to pro-
vide a positive moderating effect for Black and Hispanic youth whose
mother is lacking in demandingness (uninvolved or permissive), but will
not moderate any form of parenting on delinquency for White youth.

Method
Data
The data used for this project are taken from Wave 1 and Wave 2 of the
National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY), collected in 1997 and 1998.
The NLSY is a random sample of youth and parents; each youth and parent
received hour-long interviews and completed extensive questionnaires deal-
ing with education, family dynamics, self-esteem, delinquency, family his-
tory and background, and future goals in life (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
2013). In addition, the interviewer completed survey questions regarding
environmental characteristics of the house the respondents occupied, as well
as neighborhood dimensions. With weighting derived from the NLSY code-
book and census data, the NLSY is a nationally representative sample of
8,984 youth aged 12 to 16 in 1997, and is used as it contains sufficient mea-
sures of parenting style, delinquent behavior, and theoretically important
control variables.

Dependent Variable
The dependent variable in the current study is juvenile delinquency. To accu-
rately measure juvenile delinquency, five items in the NLSY representing
property crimes such as vandalism, physical assaults, theft, carrying a
weapon, and selling illicit substances are used. These measures were col-
lected over the previous year, thus the delinquency measure comes from
Wave 2 of the NLSY and represents delinquent acts committed between 1997
and 1998. Measuring delinquency at Wave 2, therefore, ensures that delin-
quent acts coincide at the same time as the independent variables in the analy-
sis. Each offending measure was coded as a frequency of past year delinquency
(1 = never to 7 = more than once a day). The offending frequency measures
were then multiplied by a seriousness weight for each delinquent act, with the
seriousness weights ranging from 2.88 for property crimes to 8.53 for selling
hard drugs (Wolfgang, Figlio, Tracy, & Singer, 1985). To calculate these
8 Youth & Society

weights, Wolfgang et al. (1985) sampled 60,000 individuals in the United

States and asked them to rank the seriousness of 25 criminal/delinquent acts
in relation to each of the other acts. Using the results of the sample, severity
weights were then calculated for each criminal act as an overall mean of the
responses. The delinquency scores were averaged for each respondent, creat-
ing a delinquency scale that accounts for both the frequency and seriousness
of offending. Due to the significant skew in the data, the natural logarithm of
the delinquency scale is used for maximum likelihood estimation. This five-
item scale has an overall mean of 1.28 with a range of 0 to 5.10 ( = .711).
For Black youth, the mean delinquency score is 1.22 with a range of 0 to 5.08
( = .712). White youth show an average delinquency score of 1.30 with a
range of 0 5.03 ( = .705), and Hispanic youth have an average delinquency
score of 1.27 with a range of 0 5.10 ( = .721).

Independent Variables
Maternal parenting style.The specific independent variable under study is
parenting style. Following the established typology of parenting, the current
study relies on authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, and uninvolved par-
enting styles. We use maternal parenting style, as prior research has found the
impact of maternal parenting as the most important factor for reducing juve-
nile delinquency (Baer, 1999; Bowman et al., 2007; Gainey et al., 1997;
Klein et al., 1997). Only youth who lived with their mother were included in
the sample. Parenting styles were derived from a single-item measure of
responsiveness (is your mother supportive, somewhat supportive, or not very
supportive?), and a single-item measure of demandingness (in general, would
you say that she [your mother] is permissive or strict?). Respondents report-
ing their mother as very supportive and strict were classified as authoritative,
somewhat or not very supportive and strict as authoritarian, very supportive
and permissive as permissive, and somewhat or not very supportive and per-
missive as uninvolved. This measure of parenting is not as detailed as would
be preferable; however, current research finds that this measure does accu-
rately capture the established typology of parenting styles (Garima, 2005;
Jones-Sanpei, Day, & Holms, 2009; Moore & Mbwana, 2008). To illustrate,
youth who reported their mother as very supportive also reported much
higher scores on other parentchild measures, such as advice seeking, posi-
tive interaction, and help with schoolwork than youth reporting their mother
as somewhat supportive or not supportive (see also Schroeder & Mowen,
2014). Prior research also suggests a high supportiveness threshold for defin-
ing response parenting (e.g., Steinberg et al., 2006; see also Bronte-Tinkew,
Moore, & Carrano, 2006).
Mowen and Schroeder 9

Neighborhood disadvantage. As a review of the literature revealed, neighbor-

hood disadvantage may greatly impact the relationship between parenting
style, attachment, and delinquency (Brooks-Gunn et al., 1997; Rankin &
Quane, 2002). To account for this, the NLSY contains a scale measuring
physical environment risk. This scale was created by combining seven mea-
sures representing the youths physical environment as has been used in mul-
tiple iterations of the NLSY to assess neighborhood disadvantage (see Bureau
of Labor Statistics, Appendix 9, 2013), based on Caldwell and Bradleys
(1984) widely used home risk index. For example, the interviewer reported
whether or not the street was well lit, if the dwelling was in disrepair, and
whether or not the house had electricity and running water. These measures
were combined with responses from the youth on measures such as whether
or not the youth hears gunshots in their neighborhood. This seven-item scale
ranges from 0 to 7, with higher scores representing a greater level of neigh-
borhood disadvantage ( = .792). As shown in Table 1, Whites have the low-
est level of disadvantage (M = 1.17), followed by Hispanics (1.40), and
Blacks (2.05)

Control variables.Prior literature suggests that sex, age, delinquent peers,

income, and family structure are correlated with juvenile delinquency (Ary
et al., 1999; Duncan et al., 1998; Pires & Jenkins, 2007). To account for this,
measure variables were created to represent these theoretically important
control variables. The sex of the youth was established at Wave 1 and a
dummy variable was created to represent males (female = 0, 53.9%). To
account for the influence of delinquent peers, youth respondents were asked
to identify how many friends they had who drank alcohol, used drugs, were
in a gang, and number of friends who smoke cigarettes (M = 1.26). These
measures were combined with higher scores representing a greater number of
delinquent peers ( = .736). To account for family structure, youth were
asked whether they lived with two parents (step-parent or biological parent),
a dummy variable was created to represent youth who lived with only one
parent (33%). To control for income, respondents reported their total yearly
income. Finally, youth were asked to choose the racial/ethnic identity they
most closely identified with, and we include White, Black, and Hispanic
(non-White).

Analytic Strategy
As noted above, the racial and ethnic dynamics of parenting styles and the
moderating effect of neighborhood disadvantage on juvenile delinquency are
very complex and not clearly understood. To further investigate this, the
10 Youth & Society

Figure 1. Proposed theoretical model.

current project assesses the effectiveness of each of the four parenting styles
on deterring juvenile delinquency in samples of Black, Hispanic, and White
families. We use structural equation modeling in Stata version 12.1SE to
explore the casual pathways of delinquency, and explore how neighborhood
disadvantage may provide a moderating (e.g., interaction) effect on the rela-
tionship between parenting and delinquency (see Wall & Amemiya, 2003).
To test this, we include interaction terms between each parenting style and
disadvantage (in italics). Concurrent with our hypotheses, we have also
included interaction terms between neighborhood disadvantage, single-par-
ent status, and delinquent peers. We present the structural equation model
(SEM) in Figure 1.

Results
First, we examine the distribution of parenting style by race shown in the bot-
tom of Table 1. This descriptive analysis shows that parenting styles do tend
to vary along racial lines, though the distribution follows a similar trend.
Mothers were most commonly classified as authoritative with Black mothers
having the highest percent (42.45), and Hispanic mothers the lowest (33.73).
Hispanic mothers were more likely to be classified as authoritarian (19.88%),
than Black (16.68%) and White mothers (15.01%). White mothers were more
likely to be classified as permissive (33.13%) than Black mothers (28.16%),
Mowen and Schroeder 11

Table 1. Sample Characteristics.

White Black Hispanic

M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Significance

Dependent variable
Delinquency (N. log) 1.30 (0.724) 1.22 (0.629) 1.27 (0.678) A
Control variables
Delinquent peers 5.84 (3.25) 6.34 (3.79) 5.85 (3.89) A
Male (female 0.538 (0.372) 0.529 (0.301) 0.540 (0.360)
contrast)
Income (N. Log) 10.65 (1.20) 9.70 (1.64) 9.52 (2.29) A, B
Single parent 0.412 (0.588) 0.412 (0.588) 0.480 (0.520) A, B, C
(married contrast)
Neighborhood 1.17 (0.955) 2.05 (1.58) 1.55 (1.46) A, B, C
disadvantage
Age 13.98 (1.39) 14.03 (1.40) 13.97 (1.40)
n (%) n (%) n (%)
Parenting style variables
Authoritative 1,815 (37.18) 1,018 (42.45) 759 (33.73) A, B, C
Authoritarian 522 (15.01) 316 (16.68) 222 (19.88) B, C
Permissive 1,666 (33.13) 686 (28.16) 618 (29.62) A, B
Uninvolved 458 (14.68) 205 (12.71) 218 (16.77) C

Note. A = significant difference between White and Black mothers (p < .05); B = significant
difference between White and Hispanic mothers (p < .05); C = significant difference between
Black and Hispanic mothers (p < .05).

or Hispanic mothers (29.62%). Finally, Hispanic mothers were more likely to

be classified as uninvolved (16.77%) than White mothers (14.68%) and
Black mothers (12.71%). The result of independent-samples t tests revealed
that race is significantly related to the type of parenting style with four excep-
tions, which we note in the final column of Table 1. This classification is
similar to other studies that find authoritative parenting is the most com-
monly employed form of parenting, whereas uninvolved parenting is the least
common form of parenting (Steinberg, 2001).
To examine the relationship between parenting style and juvenile delin-
quency in all youth, one SEM model was run and then fit across samples of
Black, White, and Hispanic families. By running one SEM model and fitting
it across the samples, we are able to directly compare significance levels of
coefficients between each racial and ethnic group. We report the results of
each pathway in the model as standardized coefficients in Table 2 (authorita-
tive parenting style contrast).
12
Table 2. Results of Final Model.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Pathway Variable White Black Hispanic All youth

Direct effect on Parenting style (authoritative contrast)
delinquency Permissive .014 (.023) .004 (.022) .002 (.026) .011 (.012)
Uninvolved .037 (.021)* .044 (.024) .003 (.027) .046 (.013)*
Authoritarian .059 (.021)*** .064 (.025)*** .029 (.024)** .045 (.011)***
Controls
Disadvantage .053 (.020)** .056 (.030)** .015 (.021)* .043 (.018)***
Delinquent peers .161 (.022)*** .108 (.021)*** .091 (.025) .118 (.012)***
Single parent .105 (.020)*** .042 (.023) .059 (.023)* .061 (.012)***
Income .016 (.011) .011 (.029) .008 (.002) .021 (.014)
Age .001 (.020) .039 (.021) .035 (.026) .009 (.012)
Male (female contrast) .007 (.022) .002 (.024) .014 (.024) .002 (.005)
Moderating effect Permissive Disadvantage .029 (.022) .004 (.024) .039 (.026) .028 (.014)
of disadvantage Uninvolved Disadvantage .077 (.036)*** .011 (.025) .035 (.027) .047 (.011)***
(interaction) Authoritarian Disadvantage .018 (.012) .099 (.025)** .011 (.025) .008 (.012)
Delinquent peers Disadvantage .073 (.020)*** .047 (.020) .006 (.035) .063 (.014)***
Single parent Disadvantage .101 (.030)*** .189 (.028)*** .106 (.023)*** .211 (.013)***
2/df/RMSEA 89.7/15/.029 67.8/15/.023 65.4/15/.019 85.4/15/.024
Comparative fit index .985 .992 .994 .991

Note. Standardized coefficients reported, SE in parentheses. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.
***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05
Mowen and Schroeder 13

The results of the model predicting delinquency for White youth are
shown in Model 1 of Table 2. We first note that uninvolved and authoritarian
parenting, but not permissive, are both related to greater levels of delinquency
compared with authoritative parenting for White youth. In addition, youth
from disadvantaged neighborhoods, those with a greater number of delin-
quent peers, and youth from single-parent homes reported greater levels of
delinquent behavior, all else equal. Turning to the moderating effect (interac-
tions) of neighborhood disadvantage (shown in the bottom half of Table 2),
we see that for White youth whose mother is uninvolved, neighborhood dis-
advantage further increases delinquency. We also note that neighborhood dis-
advantage moderates the effect of delinquent peers as well as the effect of
single parenthood on delinquency. Interestingly, neighborhood disadvantage
does not moderate the effect of permissive or authoritarian parenting for
White youth. Next, we turn to assessing the same model for Black youth.
The results of the analysis for Black youth, shown in Model 2 of Table 2,
suggest that authoritarian parenting is significantly related to greater levels of
delinquency. We find no difference in the effectiveness of permissive or unin-
volved parenting relative to authoritative, in deterring delinquency. Similar to
the previous finding for White youth, Black youth living in disadvantaged
neighborhoods, as well youth with a greater number of delinquent peers, also
report increased rates of delinquent behavior. Unlike White youth, however,
there is no difference in delinquency rates between single- and two-parent
households for Black youth, overall. Yet, when we consider the impact of
neighborhood disadvantage, results show disadvantage serves as a modera-
tor. The relationship between parental status and delinquency is significantly
stronger for Black youth with a single parent than Black youth with married
parents as neighborhood disadvantage increases. The results also show that
neighborhood disadvantage moderates the effect of authoritarian parenting
on delinquent behavior among Black youth. The influence of authoritarian
parenting on delinquency becomes more strongly negative at increasing lev-
els of neighborhood disadvantage.
Finally, we use the same model to assess the effect of parenting style on
delinquency for Hispanic youth. As with the analysis for Black and White
youth, we first observe that authoritarian parenting is significantly related to
increased rates of delinquency compared with authoritative parenting. Youth
from disadvantaged neighborhoods and single-parent homes also report
greater levels of delinquency. This analysis reveals that neighborhood disad-
vantage does not provide a moderating effect on the relationship between
parenting and delinquency for Hispanic youth. The findings do show, how-
ever, that the positive relationship between single-parent households on
delinquency for Hispanic youth is more pronounced at higher levels of neigh-
borhood disadvantage.
14 Youth & Society

Overall, these findings suggest an interesting, and complex relationship

between parenting and disadvantage across different racial group members.
Permissive parenting was not found to differ in its effect on delinquency
across any model for any racial group. Analyzing the entire sample of youth,
shown in Model 4 of Table 2, uninvolved and authoritarian parenting styles
are both linked to greater levels of delinquency. However, by splitting the
sample along racial group boundaries, we find that uninvolved parenting was
significantly related to increased delinquency for White youth only, yet
authoritarian parenting remained a significant predictor for increased delin-
quent behavior for all youth irrespective of race. Among White youth with
uninvolved mothers, neighborhood disadvantage exacerbates delinquent
offending. More central to the current study, the findings indicate that author-
itarian parenting is more strongly associated with less offending among Black
youth in more disadvantaged communities.

Discussion and Conclusion

The goal of the current research project was to assess the relationship between
maternal parenting style and juvenile delinquency in samples of Black,
White, and Hispanic youth, and to explore the moderating effect of neighbor-
hood disadvantage. Although prior literature finds that authoritative parent-
ing is the most effective form of parenting for prosocial outcomes in
adolescents regardless of race and class (Baer, 1999; Mayseless et al., 2003;
Steinberg et al., 1991; Strom et al., 2008), the findings of the present research
project partially challenge these findings.
The first hypothesis, that youth whose mother was classified as permis-
sive, authoritarian, or uninvolved would report greater levels of delinquency
compared with youth whose mother was classified as authoritative, regard-
less of race, is only partially supported. In support of this hypothesis, we find
that White youth who reported their mother as uninvolved reported greater
levels of delinquent behavior, but this trend was not found for Black or
Hispanic youth. Contrary to this hypothesis, we find no statistical difference
in levels of delinquency between youth whose mother was classified as per-
missive or authoritative in any racial group. In addition, we find that youth
who report their mother as authoritarian report greater levels of delinquency
than youth whose mothers are authoritative, regardless of race. Overall, our
analysis does not support the currently accepted paradigm that authoritative
parenting is the most effective form of parenting in the reduction and preven-
tion of delinquency. Parental support appears to be an important dimension of
parenting style in lowering rates of delinquency, regardless of the degree of
control and supervision.
Mowen and Schroeder 15

Some prior research has explored the differential impact of the high levels
of support and low levels of control (permissive) with the high levels of con-
trol and low levels of support (authoritarian) on adolescent outcomes. For
example, Vazsonyi and Klanjsek (2008) found that permissive parenting is
less correlated with delinquency than authoritarian parenting because the
high levels of support allows for the successful creation of social bonds
between mother and child, and therefore permissive parenting can be suc-
cessful in reducing delinquent outcomes. In contrast, the high levels of con-
trol and the entire lack of support characterized by authoritarian parenting
creates a conflictual environment that reduces the likelihood of prosocial
attachment, and therefore authoritarian parenting does not serve to deter
delinquency. It is possible that the presence of support is simply more impor-
tant in reducing delinquency than control, in general.
The second hypothesis, that neighborhood disadvantage would provide a
negative moderating effect on levels of delinquency for youth who reported
their mother as authoritarian, and this relationship would be more robust for
Black and Hispanic youth compared with White, is mixed. The relationship
between delinquency and authoritarian parenting is not conditioned by neigh-
borhood disadvantage for White and Hispanic youth, but it is for Black youth.
This supports the minority-status perspective that emphasizes high levels of
control are especially important for Black youth living in disadvantaged
areas. Interestingly, however, we do not observe this relationship within
Hispanic youth. From the minority-status perspective, this supports prior
research that finds harsh parenting practicessuch as the overabundance of
control within the authoritarian parenting styleare viewed positively
among Black youth living in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Although the
minority-status perspective would suggest similar outcomes for Hispanic
youth, it is possible the difference in this finding could be due to cultural dif-
ferences in parenting style as they relate to disadvantage. Emerging research
finds that Hispanic mothers are much less likely to exhibit greater degrees of
demandingness relative to levels of warmth in their parenting style, even
when presented with unsafe neighborhoods (White et al., 2013). Therefore,
the minority-status perspective would suggest that some Hispanic parents
might increase demandingness due to structural disadvantage without
decreasing levels of warmth. This has led some scholars to assert that the
typology of four parenting styles fails to capture the racial and ethnic dynam-
ics of parenting (see White et al., 2013). The findings in the present study
seem to support the idea that the traditional minority-status perspective may
not fully capture the cultural dimensions of the relationship between demand-
ingness and supportiveness in Hispanic populations when considering some
social contexts, such as neighborhood disadvantage.
16 Youth & Society

The third and final hypothesis, that parenting styles lacking in demanding-
ness will be associated with more delinquency among Black and Hispanic
youth in disadvantaged communities, is not supported. Neighborhood disad-
vantage did not moderate the relationship between uninvolved or permissive
parenting for Black or Hispanic youth. This coincides with the previous find-
ing that Black youth in disadvantaged neighborhoods benefit from demand-
ingness regardless of levels of responsiveness. Similarly, neighborhood
disadvantage also does not moderate the influence of permissive or unin-
volved parenting on delinquency among Hispanic youth, further reinforcing
the finding that neighborhood dimensions do not influence the effect of par-
enting style on delinquency for Hispanic adolescents
However, we find that neighborhood disadvantage does provide a signifi-
cant interaction effect on the relationship between parenting style and delin-
quency for White youth whose mother is uninvolved. That is, the lack of
demandingness coupled with a lack of responsiveness further compounds the
role of neighborhood disadvantage in determining whether a White youth
engages in delinquent activities. This finding supports previous research
demonstrating that uninvolved parenting is the least effective form of parent-
ing style based on samples primarily composed of White youth (see Darling
& Steinberg, 1993). Our analysis adds to the growing literature exploring
how parenting styles have differential impacts on delinquency due, in part, to
the structural location of the family.
There are some notable limitations to the current study. First, the data
limited the current analysis to allow only an exploration of Black, White, and
Hispanic racial groups. Future research should include more diverse racial
and ethnic groups in analysis. We are also limited to establishing only tempo-
ral ordering and not a causal mechanism. Given the relatively small effect
sizes of the standardized coefficients in our models, it is possible that there
are some other constructs that play an important role in understanding the
impact of maternal parenting, disadvantage, and delinquency by race and eth-
nicity. Although we attempt to control for a number of influences in our mod-
els, previous work has shown that parenting styles are subject to change over
time (see Schroeder & Mowen, 2014). It could be that changes in parenting
style are influenced by structural disadvantage, which could explain diver-
gent rates of parenting across racial lines. This could also help to explain how
some parenting styles are more effective in deterring delinquency than others
for one racial group and not another. Second, it could also be that adolescent
delinquency impacts parenting styles, and not the other way around, though
we believe this is unlikely (see, for example, Simons & Robertson, 1989).
The current data are limited to include only maternal parenting style;
future research should also explore the impact of paternal parenting style and
Mowen and Schroeder 17

the combination of the two as emerging research has found that parental and
maternal parenting can differ in their style (Lindsey & Mize, 2001; L. G.
Simons & Conger, 2007), and that this, in turn, may relate to delinquency
independent of maternal parenting style. This independent relationship of
paternal parenting on youth outcomes is important to explore within a multi-
cultural context, especially in light of the differences in our findings across
racial and ethnic groups when considering disadvantage as a moderator.
Finally, it is important to note that the NLSY data are approximately 17 years
old, which presents a limitation in generalizing results across contemporary
samples. Yet, we believe the underlying theoretical constructs and the varia-
tions across race and impact of neighborhood disadvantage are contemporary
issues that continue to be present in modern society. Future research should
explore these dynamics within a more recent sample.
With the exception of uninvolved parenting and White youth, we find simi-
lar results in the effect of parenting style and delinquency across White, Black,
and Hispanic youth. Our analysis reveals that authoritarian parenting is the
least effective form of parenting in deterring juvenile delinquency. However,
in moving this paradigm forward, we find that when we consider the effect of
neighborhood disadvantage, Black youth may benefit from high levels of
demandingness and control regardless of levels of responsiveness and sup-
port. These findings may be important given the current shift into understand-
ing the clinical implications of family intervention strategies, which often
focus on improving parent/child attachment (Fagan, 2013). Given the findings
of the present analysis, it may prove more clinically useful to take into consid-
eration the combined effects of disadvantage and race in some contexts. This
supports other research on parenting and delinquency that suggests a one fits
all approach is not the appropriate solution given cultural differences across
racial and ethnic groups (Gayles, Coatsworth, Pantin, & Szapocznik, 2009).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.

References
Alvy, K. T. (1987). Parent training: A social necessity. Studio City, CA: Center for
the Improvement in Child Caring.
18 Youth & Society

Ary, D., Duncan, T., Duncan, S., & Hops, H. (1999). Adolescent problem behavior:
The influence of parents and peers. Behavior Research and Therapy, 37, 217-230.
Baer, J. (1999). Family relationships, parenting behavior, and adolescent deviance in
three ethnic groups. Families in Society, 80, 279-285.
Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior.
Child Development, 37, 887-907.
Baumrind, D. (1972). An exploratory study of socialization effects on Black children:
Some BlackWhite comparisons. Child Development, 43, 261-267.
Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and
substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, 56-95.
Baumrind, D. (2005). Patterns of parental authority and adolescent autonomy. New
Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 108, 61-69.
Bowman, M., Prelow, H., & Weave, S. (2007). Parenting behaviors, association with
deviant peers, and delinquency in African American adolescents: A mediated
moderation model. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 517-527.
Brand, S., Hatzinger, M., Beck, J., & Holsboer-Trachsler, E. (2009). Perceived par-
enting styles, personality traits and sleep patterns in adolescents. Journal of
Adolescence, 32, 1189-1207.
Brody, G. H., Chen, Y., Kogan, S., Murry, V., Logan, P., & Luo, Z. (2008). Linking
perceived discrimination to longitudinal changes in African American mothers
parenting practices. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 319-331.
Brody, G. H., & Flor, D. L. (1998). Maternal resources, parenting practices, and
child competence in rural, single-parent African American families. Child
Development, 69, 803-816.
Bronte-Tinkew, J., Moore, K. A., & Carrano, J. (2006). The father-child relation-
ship, parenting styles, and adolescent risk behavior in intact families. Journal of
Family Issues, 27, 850-881.
Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan, G. J., & Aber, L. (1997). Neighborhood poverty: I and II.
New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Brown, B., Mounts, N., Lamborn, S., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting practices and
group affiliation in adolescence. Child Development, 64, 467-482.
Bryant, B. (1985). The neighborhood walk: Sources of support in middle childhood.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50, 1-122.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2013). National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, 1997,
1998. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/nls/nlsy97.htm
Burton, L. M., & Jarrett, R. L. (2000). In the mix, yet on the margins: The place
of families in urban neighborhood and child development research. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 62, 1114-1135.
Caldwell, B. M., & Bradley, R. H. (1984). Home observation for measurement of the
environment (Rev. ed.). Little Rock: University of Arkansas.
Cernkovich, S. A., & Giordano, P. C. (1987). Family relationships and delinquency.
Criminology, 25, 295-321.
Claes, M., Lacourse, E., Ercolani, A., Pierro, A., Leone, L., & Presaghi, F. (2005).
Parenting, peer orientation, drug use, and antisocial behavior in late adolescence:
A Cross-National Study. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35, 401-411.
Mowen and Schroeder 19

Clark, R., Novak, J. D., & Dupree, D. (2002). Relationships of perceived parenting
practices to anger regulation and coping strategies in African American adoles-
cents. Journal of Adolescence, 25, 373-384.
Collins, W. A., Maccoby, E. E., Steinberg, L., Hetherington, E. M., & Bornstein, M.
H. (2000). Contemporary research on parenting: The case for nature and nurture.
American Psychologist, 55, 218-232.
Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative Model.
Psychological Bulletin, 113, 487-496.
Duncan, S., Duncan, T., Biglan, A., & Ary, D. (1998). Contribution of the social
context to the development of adolescent substance use: A multivariate latent
growth modeling approach. Drug Alcohol Dependence, 50, 57-71.
Fagan, A. A. (2013). Family-focused interventions to prevent juvenile delinquency: A
case where science and policy can find common ground. Criminology & Public
Policy, 4, 617-650.
Furstenberg, F. F. (1993). How families manage risk and opportunity in dangerous
neighborhoods. In W. J. Wilson (Ed.), Sociology and the public agenda (pp.
231-258). Newburg Park, CA: SAGE.
Gainey, R., Catalano, R., Haggerty, K., & Hoppe, M. (1997). Deviance among the
children of heroin addicts in treatment: Impact of parents and peers. Deviant
Behavior, 18, 143-159.
Garima, M. (2005). The role of parenting style in child substance use. Retrieved from
http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1118077175
Gayles, J. G., Coatsworth, J. D., Pantin, H. M., & Szapocznik, J. A. (2009). Parenting
and neighborhood predictors of youth problem behaviors within Hispanic fami-
lies: The moderating role of family structure. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral
Sciences, 31, 277-296.
Greenberg, M. T. (1999). Attachment and psychopathology in childhood. In J. Cassidy
& P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical
applications (pp. 469-496). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Higgins, G. E., Schroeder, R. D., & Mowen, T. J. (2013). Maternal attachment tra-
jectories and adult criminal offending by race. American Journal of Criminal
Justice, 39, 155-171.
Jones, J. (1985). Labor of love, labor of sorrow: Black women, work, and the family
from slavery to the present. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Jones-Sanpei, H. A., Day, R. D., & Holms, E. K. (2009). Core family process mea-
sures in the NLSY97: Variation by gender, race, income, and family structure.
Marriage & Family Review, 45, 140-167.
Klein, K., Forehand, R., Armistead, L., & Long, P. (1997). Delinquency during the
transition to early adulthood: Family and parenting predictors from early adoles-
cence. Adolescence, 32, 61-80.
Lam, C. M. (2011). Psychological stress and parenting behavior among Chinese fami-
lies: Findings from a study on parent education for economically disadvantaged
families. Social Indicators Research, 100, 451-462.
Lindsey, E.W., & Mize, J. (2001). Contextual differences in parent-child play:
Implications for children's gender role development. Sex Roles: A Journal of
Research, 44, 155-176
20 Youth & Society

Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family:
Parent-child interaction. In P. H. Mussen & E. M. Hetherington (Eds.), Handbook
of child psychology (pp. 1-101). New York, NY: John Wiley.
Mayseless, O., Scharf, M., & Sholt, M. (2003). From authoritative parenting prac-
tices to an authoritarian context: Exploring the person-environment fit. Journal
of Research on Adolescence, 13, 427-456.
McLoyd, V. C. (1990). The impact of economic hardship on Black families and chil-
dren: Psychological distress, parenting, and socioemotional development. Child
Development, 61, 311-346.
Mirowsky, J., & Ross, C. E. (1980). Minority status, ethnic culture, and distress: A
comparison of Blacks, Whites, Mexicans, and Mexican Americans. American
Journal of Sociology, 86, 479-495.
Moore, K., & Mbwana, K. (2008, May). Preventing risky sex and adolescent par-
enthood: Does the effectiveness of parenting practices differ for children with
varied risks? Paper presented at the NLSY97 Tenth Anniversary Conference,
Washington, DC.
Paschall, M. J., Rinwalt, C. L., & Flewelling, R. L. (2003). Effects of parenting, father
absence, and affiliation with delinquent peers on delinquent behavior among
African-American male adolescents. Adolescence, 38, 15-34.
Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. B., & Dishion, T. J. (1992). Antisocial boys. Eugene, OR:
Castalia Press.
Paulson, S., & Sputa, C. (1996). Patterns of parenting during adolescence: Perceptions
of adolescents and parents. Adolescence, 31, 369-381.
Pires, P., & Jenkins, J. (2007). A growth curve analysis of the joint influences of
parenting affect, child characteristics and deviant peers on adolescent illicit drug
use. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 169-183.
Rankin, B. H., & Quane, J. M. (2002). Social contexts and urban adolescent out-
comes: The interrelated effects of neighborhoods, families, and peers on African-
American youth. Social Problems, 49, 79-100.
Schaffer, M., Clark, D., & Jeglic, E. (2009). The role of empathy and parenting style
in the development of antisocial behaviors. Crime & Delinquency, 55, 586-599.
Schroeder, R. D., Bulanda, R. E., Giordano, P. C., & Cernkovich, S. A. (2010).
Parenting and adult criminality: An examination of direct and indirect effects by
race. Journal of Adolescent Research, 25, 64-98.
Schroeder, R. D., & Mowen, T. J. (2014). Parenting style transitions and delinquency.
Youth & Society, 46, 228-254.
Shaffer, D. (2000). Social and personality development. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Simons, L. G., & Conger, R. D. (2007). Linking mother-father differences in parent-
ing to a typology of family parenting styles and adolescent outcomes. Journal of
Family Issues, 28, 212-241.
Simons, L. G., Simons, R. L., & Su, X. (2013). Consequences of corporal punishment
among African-Americans: The importance of context and outcome. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 42, 1273-1285.
Simons, R., & Robertson, J. (1989). The impact of parenting factors, deviant peers,
and coping style upon adolescent drug use. Family Relations, 38, 273-281.
Mowen and Schroeder 21

Simons, R. L., Chao, W., Conger, R., & Elder, G. (2001). Quality of parenting as
mediator of the effect of childhood defiance on adolescent friendship choices
and delinquency: A growth curve analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family,
63, 63-79.
Simons, R. L., Simons, L. G., Burt, C. H., Drummond, H., Stewart, E., & Brody,
G. H. (2006). Supportive parenting mediates the effect of discrimination upon
anger, hostile view of relationships, and violence among African American boys.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 47, 373-389.
Spano, R., Rivera, C., & Bolland, J. M. (2011). Does parenting shield youth from
exposure to violence during adolescence? A 5-year longitudinal test in a high-
poverty sample of minority youth. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26,
930-949.
Steinberg, L. (2001). We know some things: Parent-adolescent relationships in retro-
spect and prospect. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 11, 1-19.
Steinberg, L., Blatt-Eisengart, I., & Cauffman, E. (2006). Patterns of competence
and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent,
and neglectful homes: A replication in a sample of serious juvenile offenders.
Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16, 47-58.
Steinberg, L., Mounts, N., Lamborn, S., & Dornbush, S. (1991). Authoritative par-
enting and adolescent adjustment across various ecological niches. Journal of
Research on Adolescence, 1, 19-36.
Strom, R. D., Strom, P. S., & Beckert, T. E. (2008). Comparing Black, Hispanic and
White mothers with a national standard of parenting. Adolescence, 43, 525-545.
Vazsonyi, A. T., & Klanjsek, R. (2008). A test of Self-Control Theory across different
socioeconomic strata. Justice Quarterly, 25, 101-131.
Wall, M. M., & Amemiya, Y. (2003). A method of moments technique for fitting
interaction effects in structural equation models. British Journal of Mathematical
and Statistical Psychology, 56, 47-64.
White, R. M., Zeiders, B., Gonzales, N. A., Jenn-Yun, T., & Roosa, M. W. (2013).
Cultural values, U.S. neighborhood danger, and Mexican American parents par-
enting. Journal of Family Psychology, 27, 365-375.
Wolfgang, M. E., Figlio, R. B., Tracy, P. E., & Singer, S. I. (1985). The National
Survey of Crime Severity (NCJ-96017). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Author Biographies
Thomas J. Mowen is assistant professor of Criminal Justice at the University of
Wyoming. His recent work has explored the impact of school discipline and policy on
families and youth, inequalties in school punishment, and the role of family within the
process of reentry.
Ryan D. Schroederis an associate professor of sociology at the University ofLouisville.
His research interests include desistance process, with a particular focuson the role of
emotionaldevelopment, family functioning, and religious processes.