469041

041Youth & SocietySchroeder and Mowen

© The Author(s) 2012

Reprints and permissions:

YAS46210.1177/0044118X12469

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Article
Youth & Society

Parenting Style Transitions

2014, Vol. 46(2) 228 ­–254
© The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permissions:
and Delinquency sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0044118X12469041
yas.sagepub.com

Ryan D. Schroeder1 and Thomas J. Mowen2

Abstract
Parenting style has been extensively analyzed as a contributor to juvenile
delinquency in the criminological literature, but no research to date has assessed
the prevalence of parenting style changes during adolescence or the influ-
ence of such parenting style changes on juvenile delinquency. Drawing from
the life course theory, the results show that parenting style transitions are
common across the first and third waves of the National Longitudinal Survey
of Youth, 1997. Furthermore, specific parenting style shifts are associated
with changes in juvenile delinquency, most notably the shifts characterized by
a decrease in responsiveness or an increase or decrease in demandingness.
Last, changes in maternal attachment associated with parenting style changes
partially mediate the effect of such transitions on delinquent outcomes.

Keywords
parenting style, maternal attachment, life course, juvenile delinquency,
adolescence

Introduction
Parenting has been a popular subject of inquiry for social scientists for the
past half century (Parker & Benson, 2004), and research has consistently
found that the family is among the most important agent of socialization for

1
University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA
2
University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA

Corresponding Author:
Ryan D. Schroeder, Department of Sociology, University of Louisville, 110 Lutz Hall, Louisville,
KY 40292, USA.
Email: rdschr01@louisville.edu
Schroeder and Mowen 229

children and adolescents (Brand, Hatzinger, Beck, & Holsboer-Trachsler,

2009; Henricson & Roker, 2000; Maccoby, 1992; Paulson & Sputa, 1996;
Schaffer, Clark, & Jeglic, 2009). Parenting style, defined as “the parents’
perceivable attitudes towards the child” (Darling & Steinberg, 1993, p. 489),
is the primary avenue through which the child becomes acclimated to social
life and interaction (Vandeleur, Perrez, & Schoebi, 2007). Parenting styles
are generally regarded as the attitudes, behaviors, and interaction styles that,
when taken together, create an emotional context in which socialization
efforts and family interactions can occur (Darling & Steinberg, 1993;
Vandeleur et al., 2007).
Given the ubiquitous role of parenting in socialization processes, a vast
amount of research has addressed the impact of parenting practices and
parenting styles on the etiology of juvenile delinquency (Conger, Conger,
Elder, & Lorenz, 1992; Conger et al., 1993; Larzelere & Patterson, 1990;
Loeber & Dishion, 1983). Parents who provide a warm and loving home
and consistently monitor the behavior of their children tend to have chil-
dren with fewer behavioral problems (Denham et al., 2000; Fagan &
Najman, 2003; Patterson & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1984) and stronger attach-
ment to parents (Mason, Gonzales, Mari Cauce, & Hiraga, 1996; Simons &
Robertson, 1989; Walker-Barnes & Mason, 2004). The vast majority of
prior research on the association between parenting and delinquency, how-
ever, has followed the assumption that parenting is a stable characteristic
across adolescence (see Forehand & Jones, 2002). Clearly, parent–child
interactions shift as children age (Sorkhabi, 2010), and prior research has
shown that parenting practices are affected by certain stressful conditions,
such as divorce (Simons, Beaman, Conger, & Wei, 1993), but to date, no
research has investigated the impact of shifts in parenting on juvenile delin-
quency. Furthermore, drawing from the life course theory in criminology
(see Sampson & Laub, 1993) that posits life course transitions that alter the
strength of social bonds fundamentally redirect offending patterns, we con-
tend that changes in parenting across adolescence represent life course tran-
sitions for such youth who can alter levels of parental attachment (Mason
et al., 1996; Walker-Barnes & Mason, 2004), which in turn influence
changes in delinquent offending.
The primary goals of the current study are (a) to document the degree to
which adolescents in a nationally representative sample of youth experience
parenting style shifts across adolescence, (b) to assess the impact of parenting
style shifts on both juvenile offending and maternal attachment outcomes,
and (c) to determine if shifts in maternal attachment mediate the impact of
parenting style changes on juvenile delinquency.
230 Youth & Society 46(2)

Parenting Styles and Adolescent Outcomes

Academic research has traditionally relied on two variables when classifying
parenting styles: parental demandingness (or control) and parental responsive-
ness (or warmth; Baumrind, 1966; Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Paulson & Sputa,
1996; Schaffer et al., 2009). Demandingness refers to boundaries and rules a
parent places on a child in order to integrate them into society, as well as the
level of parental supervision over the child and direct confrontation between
child and parent (Baumrind, 2005). Responsiveness refers to the degree to
which a parent supports the child with warmth, consistency, reason, and ratio-
nale and the extent to which the child is allowed to grow individually by self-
assertion (Baumrind, 2005). These two concepts, originally identified by
Baumrind (1966), have been used to identify the primary categories of parent-
ing style by most researchers (Baumrind, 2005; Paulson & Sputa, 1996).
Following the parenting style classification scheme developed by
Baumrind (1966, 2005), four mutually exclusive parenting styles are derived.
First, authoritative parenting, typified by high demandingness and high
responsiveness, grants a significant amount of autonomy to the child and has
been described as parenting that is rational, consistent, and warm. Second,
authoritarian parenting, characterized by high demandingness and low
responsiveness, represents total control of the child by the parent. Third, per-
missive parenting, defined by low demandingness and high responsiveness,
is a parenting style that allows children to self-regulate without concern for
the consequences of their actions. Last, uninvolved parenting, exemplified by
low demandingness and low responsiveness (see Paulson & Sputa, 1996), is
a style in which parents are not involved emotionally with children and pro-
vide minimal supervision.
Prior research has established authoritative parenting is most strongly
associated with positive developmental outcomes for youth (Nijhof & Engels,
2007; Steinberg, 2001), with the other parenting styles lacking in warmth
and/or control contributing to a variety of negative outcomes (Nijhof &
Engels, 2007; Shaffer, 2000), including delinquency (Barh & Hoffman, 2010;
Brown, Mounts, & Steinberg, 1993; Simons, Chao, Conger, & Elder, 2001;
Steinberg, 2001; Wills, Mariani, & Filler, 1996) and poor parental bonds
(Mason et al., 1996; Walker-Barnes & Mason, 2004). As noted above, how-
ever, it is possible that parenting style is more fluid than prior research has
recognized (Darling & Steinberg, 1993). In the following sections, we pres-
ent evidence that suggests parenting style is not as stable as prior research has
conceptualized, and we then outline a life course theoretical explanation of
how parenting style transitions are potentially related to juvenile offending.
Schroeder and Mowen 231

Changes in Parenting Across Adolescence

The notion that parenting approaches might shift throughout adolescence has
been understudied in the criminological literature. As Forehand and Jones
(2002) note, “Despite the extensive literature examining both the acute and
chronic consequences of inadequate parenting for children and adolescents,
surprisingly little empirical research has examined the stability of parenting
behavior” (p. 456). The vast majority of prior research has represented par-
enting as a trait-like characteristic, only measuring parenting at one point,
and has assumed that parenting has a consistent and stable influence on
children throughout adolescence (Baumrind, 1989; Darling & Steinberg,
1993; Schroeder, Osgood, & Oghia, 2010; Simons, Simons, Chen, Brody, &
Lin, 2007). The few studies that have assessed stability and change in parent-
ing across time have focused mainly on parenting practices from infancy to
early childhood, showing substantial stability in parenting over the first 6
years of life (Dallaire & Weinraub, 2005; Holden & Miller, 1999).
Although there is evidence of stability in parenting practices throughout
early childhood, especially for positive parenting behaviors (Dallaire &
Weinraub, 2005), far less research has focused on the stability or change in
parenting across adolescence. This gap in the literature is especially notable,
given the multitude of troubles faced by families during this key developmental
period (Arnett, 1999; Hagan, 1998; Montemayor, 1980). The small body of
research that does examine the relative stability or change in parenting behav-
iors across adolescence shows that some parenting dimensions, namely, caring
and warmth, remain stable over time (Forehand & Jones, 2002; Loeber et al.,
2000; McNally, Eisenberg, & Harris, 1991). Other dimensions of parenting,
however, show greater degrees of instability throughout adolescence, including
levels of supervision (Loeber et al., 2000; Stoolmiller, 1994). Although the rea-
sons for such changes in parental behaviors are not well established, research
has suggested that parenting changes with the age of the child (Dix et al., 1986;
Feldman, Wentzel, & Gehring, 1989; Smaller & Youness, 1989) and other
research shows that the stress caused by certain family situations, such as
divorce, remarriage, marital conflict, parental depression, and racial discrimi-
nation, is associated with an increase in negative parenting approaches (Amato
& Keith, 1991; Biglan, Hops, & Sherman, 1988; Brody et al., 2008; Demo et al.,
1988; Patterson & Forgatch, 1990; Simons et al., 1993; Webster-Stratton,
1990). Last, parents also continue to develop and change throughout adult-
hood, typically occupying more beneficial economic, emotional, and social
positions with increased age (Eggebeen, 1992; McLanahan, 2004; Mirowsky
& Ross, 1992), which might account for shifts in parenting approaches, as well.
232 Youth & Society 46(2)

Notably, the limited prior work on stability and change in parenting across
adolescence has focused on parenting practices rather than parenting style.
Darling and Steinberg (1993) note that this distinction is theoretically and
empirically noteworthy, and Dallaire and Weinraub (2005) note,

It is conceivable then that parenting behaviors that are stylistic in

nature (i.e., sensitivity) would likely demonstrate stability over time,
whereas parenting practices (i.e., hugging, reading bedtime stories)
would not. For example, a parent who behaves sensitively and respon-
sively to their child when she or he is an infant and toddler may con-
tinue to behave sensitively and add or remove certain practices to their
behavioral repertoire as the child gets older, such as enforcing social-
ization rules (e.g., doing homework at certain times) or another parent-
ing practice (e.g., organizing a birthday party or play date). In this
sense, the stylistic behavior of behaving sensitively displays stability,
whereas specific practices, like enforcing rules, may not. (p. 204)

Parenting styles, therefore, likely display greater degrees of stability across

adolescence than parenting practices, but it is possible that changes in par-
enting style do occur for some youth. In the current study, we focus solely on
shifts in parenting styles, given the assumed relative stability of this construct
in comparison to the capricious socialization practices that change based on
developmental stage and other situational contexts. Accordingly, if parenting
styles change, such a major shift in the parent–child interaction context likely
exerts a much more significant impact on adolescent behavioral outcomes
than more minor and malleable shifts in parenting practices.

A Life Course Perspective on Parenting Style Shifts

The life course theory perspective provides a framework for understanding
the impact of changes in situations or contexts on behavioral outcomes. The
life course theory of criminology stresses that criminal offending trajectories
are influenced by life events (i.e., “turning points”), such as strong marriage
or a stable job, that offer the potential for significant increases in informal
social control and concomitant behavioral change in a more prosocial direc-
tion (Hirschi, 1969; Laub, Nagin, & Sampson, 1998; Laub & Sampson,
1993; Sampson & Laub, 1993). Shifts in social bonds associated with life
events, therefore, are the central tenet of the life course theory in criminol-
ogy. Accordingly, prior research has established that positive parenting styles
are associated with stronger parent–child bonds than other styles, so shifts
Schroeder and Mowen 233

from one parenting style to another inherently exemplify a “turning point” in

adolescent development that either increase or decrease parental bonds. Of
the four primary parenting styles, authoritative parenting has been shown to
create the strongest parent–child bonds, due to the high levels of parental
warmth and control, compared with other types of parenting styles deficient
in warmth and/or control (Mason et al., 1996; Simons & Robertson, 1989;
Walker-Barnes & Mason, 2004).
Based on the literature reviewed above that emphasize the tumultuous
nature of adolescence and the fact that parents also continue to develop and
experience significant life events, we first hypothesize that some adolescents
will experience a meaningful shift in parenting style across adolescence.
Second, given the positive relationship between “positive” parenting (i.e.,
authoritative parenting) and low levels of problem behavior and the detri-
mental influence of “negative or rejecting,” we contend that shifts from posi-
tive parenting to negative or rejecting parenting will be associated with
increases in juvenile offending, and vice versa. More precisely, parenting
style shifts associated with a decrease in demandingness and/or responsive-
ness will be associated with higher levels of delinquent offending, and par-
enting style shifts that increase in demandingness and/or responsiveness will
be associated with offending reductions. Last, consistent with the tenets of
life course theory, and the research that has established a strong relationship
between “positive” parenting styles and parental attachment, we contend that
changes in maternal attachment will mediate the impact of parenting style
transitions on delinquency.

Method
Data

The data used in this analysis of parenting style shifts are drawn from the
first and third waves of the 1997 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth
(NLSY). The NLSY is a nationally representative sample of approximately
9,000 youth born between 1980 and 1984, initially interviewed in 1997 and
re-interviewed on an annual basis. The NLSY data closely resembles the
national population of youth and includes adequate measures of parenting
style, maternal attachment, and juvenile delinquency across multiple waves,
and the 2-year time span between waves allows for a sufficient amount of
time for parenting styles to fundamentally transform. Because parenting
measures are only asked of the younger adolescents in the third wave of the
NLSY, the current project includes the younger respondents from Wave 1,
234 Youth & Society 46(2)

when the youth were 12 to 14 years old, and Wave 3, when the youth were
14 to 16 years old. Overall, the working sample for the current study repre-
sents total number of adolescents who provided their perception of their
mothers’ parenting style in both Wave 1 and Wave 3 (N = 4,389). The attri-
tion rate between the first and third waves of the NLSY for the working
sample is 2.6% and the supplemental attrition analysis estimating the odds of
attrition by the primary constructs, initial delinquency levels, and the demo-
graphic measures assessed in the current study shows no systematic patterns
in attrition (analyses not shown).
The sample used in the current study is 48.5% female, 53.7% White,
24.0% Black, 21.3% Hispanic, and 1.0% “other” race. The sample is 14.0
years old, on average, and average family income is $47,242 per year.
Dependent Measure. The dependent variable of interest is juvenile delin-
quency at the third wave of the study. The NLSY includes five juvenile delin-
quency measures common to both the first and third waves. Juvenile
delinquency is, therefore, measured by a five-item modified version of the
Elliott, Huizinga, and Ageton (1985) self-reported delinquency scale, includ-
ing items that assess property crime, physical assaults, theft over $50 (includ-
ing an automobile or motorcycle), carrying a weapon, and selling hard drugs.
The reference period for all offenses is the year prior to the survey adminis-
tration. Respondents were asked to report the number of times in the prior
year they committed each offense, but to be consistent with prior research on
juvenile delinquency (Cernkovich & Giordano, 1987; Cernkovich, Giordano,
& Pugh, 1985), the items were recoded into a seven-category frequency
response set (1 = never, 7 = more than once a day). To account for both the
seriousness and the frequency of delinquency offending, weights derived
through the National Survey of Crime Severity (Wolfgang, Figlio, Tracy, &
Singer, 1985) were then multiplied to the offending frequency scores. The
weights applied range in seriousness from property crime (2.88) to selling
hard drugs (8.53). The weighted values for each item are then averaged to
create the juvenile delinquency scale that represents both frequency and
severity of each offense for each respondent. The delinquency scale ranges
from 0 to 170.61, with a mean of 6.46 and a standard deviation of 14.29 (α =
.613). To account for positive skew in the variable, the natural log of juvenile
delinquency is used in the following multivariate analyses.

Independent Variables
Parenting style. Parenting style is the primary independent variable of inter-
est in the current study. Consistent with the vast array of prior parenting
style research, we use the traditional typology based on measures of
Schroeder and Mowen 235

demandingness (i.e., strictness) and responsiveness (i.e., supportiveness) to

identify maternal parenting styles at both waves of the study (see Darling &
Steinberg, 1993; Darling & Toyokawa, 1997). Responsiveness at both waves
is measured with one item that asks the respondents to respond to the question,
“When you think about how [your mother] acts toward you, in general, would
you say that she is very supportive, somewhat supportive, or not very support-
ive?” Following prior research on defining parenting styles that suggest a high
supportiveness threshold for defining responsive parenting (Lamborn, Mounts,
Steinberg, & Dornbusch, 1991; Steinberg, Blatt-Eisengart, & Cauffman,
2006), respondents indicating their parents as “not very supportive” or “some-
what supportive” were classified as nonresponsive. Respondents indicating
their parent was “very supportive” were considered responsive. Demanding-
ness at both waves is measured with one item that asks the respondents to
respond to the question, “In general, would you say that she is permissive or
strict about making sure you did what you were supposed to do?” Youth clas-
sifying their parents’ parenting style as permissive were coded as having non-
demanding parents, whereas youth reporting their parents as demanding were
considered demanding. Single-item measures of maternal demandingness and
supportiveness are, of course, not ideal, but several studies have clearly estab-
lished both construct and predictive validity for this parenting style measure
derived from the NLSY97 data (see Bronte-Tinkew, Moore, & Carrano, 2006;
Garima, 2005; Jones-Sanpei, Day, & Holms, 2009; Moore & Mbwana, 2008;
Moore, McGroder, Hair, & Gunnoe, 1999).
Based on Baumrind’s (1966, 2005) parenting style typology, we then cre-
ated distinct and mutually exclusive measures of the four primary types of
parenting style at each wave. Consistent with estimates from prior studies
using more comprehensive measures of demandingness and responsiveness
(i.e., Berge, Wall, Loth, & Neumark-Sztainer, 2010; Sorkhabi, 2010), 43.2%
of the respondents in the current study have authoritative parents, 13.4% have
authoritarian parents, 32.6% have permissive parents, and 10.8% have unin-
volved parents at the first wave. By the third wave, 35.8% of the respondents
have authoritative parents, 16.1% have authoritarian parents, 30.9% have
permissive parents, and 17.1% have uninvolved parents. Categorical parent-
ing style change variables, the primary focus of the current study, were then
created, the patterns of which are described in detail below.

Mediating Measure
Maternal attachment. Maternal attachment reflects the strength of the bond
between the mothers and children in the sample; following the logic of the
life course theory in criminology, these bonds are posited to mediate the
236 Youth & Society 46(2)

relationship between parenting style transitions and adolescent offending.

Maternal attachment is measured with an 8-item scale that represents the
quality of the relationship between youth and their mothers at both waves of
the study, similar to the parental relationship scale developed by Conger and
Elder (1994). The items, all measured with a 5-point Likert-type response set
(0 = strongly disagree/never, 4 = strongly agree/always), ask the adolescents
to respond to a series of statements measuring the degree of respect the child
holds for his/her mother (i.e., “She is a person I want to be like.”) and positive
encouragement offered by each mother (i.e., “How often does she praise you
for doing well?”). Items are summed to create the variable, with higher val-
ues represented stronger maternal attachment. The maternal attachment vari-
able at the first wave ranges from 0 to 28, with a mean of 22.4 and a standard
deviation of 6.22 (α = .75). Moore et al. (1999) report a high degree of con-
struct and predictive validity for this variable, and although maternal attach-
ment and the responsiveness are correlated, collinearity diagnostics in the
following analyses reveal that the correlation does not affect the analyses; the
two constructs measure somewhat different elements of parenting.
Control Variables. Control variables were introduced to better isolate the cor-
relation of parenting shifts on juvenile delinquency. As current literature sug-
gests, delinquent peers (a 4-item scale representing the percentage of peers
who smoke, drink alcohol, use illegal drugs, or belong to a gang), neighbor-
hood disadvantage (a 5-item composite index addressing neighborhood safety
and physical upkeep of the neighborhood), prior offending (measured exactly
as the third wave delinquency score described above and logged to account for
positive skew), and single parent households (1 = single parent household,
0 = two parent household) potentially influence juvenile delinquent behavior
(Ary, Duncan, Duncan, & Hops, 1999; Brody et al., 2008; Duncan, Duncan,
Biglan, & Ary, 1998; Keller, Catalano, Haggerty, & Fleming, 2002; Pires &
Jenkins, 2007; Simons et al., 1993) and are included as control variables in the
following analyses. Additionally, race, gender, age, and family income were
also used as control variables as they have also been found to contribute to
juvenile delinquency (Elliott, 1994; Moore & Hagedorn, 1999).

Analytic Strategy
We begin the analysis by examining the patterns of parenting style shifts
experienced by the adolescents between the first and third waves of the
NLSY. Included in this introductory analysis are juvenile delinquency and
maternal attachment descriptive statistics for each parenting style pattern,
including delinquency and attachment scores at the first and third waves and
Schroeder and Mowen 237

the change in delinquency and maternal attachment between waves for each
parenting style pattern. The statistical significance of the changes in delin-
quency and attachment within each parenting style pattern is assessed with
paired sample t tests.
Next, we assess the effect of parenting style transitions on juvenile delin-
quency and maternal attachment at the third wave of data using ordinary least
squares lagged dependent variable regressions, controlling for initial levels of
juvenile delinquency to account for persistent heterogeneity and serial cor-
relation between waves (see Allison, 1990; Johnson, 2005; Kelly et al., 2011).
To isolate the unique impact of parenting style changes on delinquency inde-
pendent of initial parenting style, the first set of analyses compare the effect
of each parenting style change to stable parenting style with each group of
parenting styles at the first wave. Given the potential for maternal attachment
to mediate the relationship between parenting style changes and delinquency,
we then assess the degree of mediation using the technique outlined by Baron
and Kenny (1986). The method suggests that complete mediation occurs
when the effect of the focal predictor variable is reduced to zero with the
addition of the mediator variable to the model, and partial mediation occurs
when the effect of focal predictor is noticeably reduced with the addition of
the variable but remains statistically significant (see also Kelley et al., 2011).
Finally, to identify the independent contributions of each component of
parenting style stability and change, we created a series of dummy variables
that represent stable demandingness or responsiveness between waves, as
well dummy variables that indicate increases or decreases in each component
of the parenting style measure. We then regress delinquency and maternal
attachment on each of the component dummy variables among the full sam-
ple in separate regressions, again relying on lagged dependent variable
regression techniques. The coefficients for the dummy variables then repre-
sent the differences in offending between the respondents with each compo-
nent parenting style pattern and all other respondents, all else equal.

Findings
Parenting Style Patterns

The patterns of both stability and change in parenting style are shown in
Table 1. Using the classification scheme described above, 53.6% of the youth
experienced a parenting style shift between waves of data. As more than half
of the youth in the sample reported experiencing a parenting style shift
between waves of data, it is clear that parenting style is much more fluid than
 Table 1. Parental Shifts From Wave 1 to Wave 3 by Juvenile Delinquency and Maternal Attachment.

238
Parenting Style W1 Shift To Frequency Percent JDW1 JDW3 Δ JD AttachW1 AttachW3 Δ Attach

Authoritative 43.2  
  No Change 953 50.3 2.904 3.087 0.183 24.611 26.923 2.313*
  Uninvolved 189 10 4.178 7.212 3.034* 23.265 20.857 −2.407*
  Permissive 483 25.5 3.903 4.562 0.659 24.404 26.662 2.258*
  Authoritarian 271 14.3 4.504 4.790 0.286 23.816 20.828 −2.987*
  Total 1896 100  
Authoritarian 13.3  
  No Change 217 37.1 7.667 6.772 −0.895 19.198 18.613 −0.585
  Uninvolved 140 23.9 6.274 6.933 0.659 19.421 18.943 −0.479
  Permissive 86 14.7 9.311 7.908 −1.403 20.942 24.477 3.535*
  Authoritative 142 24.3 7.470 4.951 −2.519 21.126 25.380 4.245*
  Total 585 100  
Uninvolved 10.8  
  No change 197 41.6 9.551 7.330 −2.221 19.350 19.172 −0.178
  Permissive 130 27.4 9.065 6.861 −2.204 20.285 24.223 3.938*
  Authoritarian 80 16.9 5.374 3.992 −1.382 20.213 19.750 −0.463
  Authoritative 67 14.1 7.175 3.230 −3.945* 20.388 24.881 4.493*
  Total 474 100  
Permissive 32.7  
  No change 670 46.7 4.226 4.513 0.287 24.242 26.496 2.254*
  Uninvolved 211 14.7 5.854 6.586 0.732 23.393 21.341 −2.052*
  Authoritarian 132 9.2 6.097 7.134 1.037 23.523 21.220 −2.303*
  Authoritative 421 29.4 4.509 2.812 −1.697* 24.416 27.026 2.610*
  Total 1434 100  
  N = 4,389  

Note. Paired t tests.

*p < .05.
Schroeder and Mowen 239

prior work has suggested (i.e., Darling & Steinberg, 1993). The most com-
mon parenting style at the first wave was authoritative parenting (43.2% of
the sample), and within that group of youth with authoritative parents, 50.3%
reported no change in parenting style. The most common shift from authori-
tative parenting is to permissive parenting (25.5%), representing a funda-
mental decrease in demandingness, most likely representing the common
decrease in control and supervision by parents as children age (Loeber et al.,
2000; Stoolmiller, 1994).
Juvenile delinquency and maternal attachment scores at both waves of
data, and changes in each variable between waves, are also shown in Table 1.
Consistent with prior research, youth with authoritative parents at the first
wave of the study generally show the lowest delinquency scores and highest
levels of maternal attachment at the first wave, a pattern that persists at the
third wave, regardless of initial parenting styles. Using paired sample t tests
to assess the significance of changes in delinquency and attachment within
each parenting style pattern, the bivariate data reveal that shifts from authori-
tarian, permissive, and uninvolved parenting to authoritative parenting are all
associated with decreases in offending. The transition from uninvolved and
permissive parenting styles to authoritative parenting show statistically sig-
nificant reductions in offending, but the decrease in offending shown by the
authoritarian to authoritative group does not reach statistical significance.
The transition from authoritative parenting to uninvolved parenting is also
associated with a statistically significant increase in offending. Importantly,
however, all shifts to authoritative parenting are associated with significant
increases in maternal attachment, and youth with stable authoritative parents
also show a significance increase in maternal attachment across the two
waves of data.

Parenting Style Transitions, Delinquency,

and Maternal Attachment
Table 2 shows the effects of parenting style transitions on delinquency and
maternal attachment outcomes, with stable parenting as the contrast cate-
gory, within each separate Wave 1 parenting style category, net of sociode-
mographic factors, controls for other theoretical constructs, and Time 1
controls. Beginning with adolescent with authoritative parents at the first
wave of data, the results indicate that transitions to uninvolved parenting are
associated with a significant increase in offending, relative to stable authori-
tative parenting. Transitions to authoritarian and permissive parenting,
however, show offending patterns similar to stable authoritative parenting.
 Table 2. Parenting Style Shifts Predicting Wave 3 Delinquency and Wave 3 Maternal Attachment.

240
Authoritarian Authoritarian Permissive Uninvolved

Wave 3 Wave 3 Wave 3 Wave 3 Wave 3 Wave 3 Wave 3 Wave 3 Wave 3 Wave 3 Wave 3 Wave 3
  Delinquency Attachment Delinquency Attachment Delinquency Delinquency Delinquency Attachment Delinquency Delinquency Attachment Delinquency

Sociodemographic factors  
 Female −0.122*** −0.022 −0.125*** −0.145** −0.041 −0.145*** −0.113*** −0.006 −0.118*** −0.078 −0.040 −0.079
 Black −0.019 0.019 −0.019 −0.121 0.031 −0.119** −0.054 −0.040 −0.056* −0.044 0.033 −0.044
  Hispanic (White −0.034 0.004 −0.034 −0.060* 0.035 −0.060 −0.080** −0.005 −0.080** 0.011 −0.033 0.010
contrast)
  Other race (White −0.022 0.003 −0.021 0.079 −0.089** 0.077 0.004 0.013 0.006 0.081 0.007 0.081
contrast)
 Age −0.059* 0.019 −0.055* −0.063 0.028 −0.062 0.012 0.046 0.021 −0.076 −0.045 −0.077
 Income 0.017 −0.006 0.017 0.026 −0.053 0.025 −0.025 0.019 −0.023 0.037 0.003 0.037
Control variables  
  Delinquent peers 0.029 −0.001 0.03 0.103* 0.010 0.105* 0.033 −0.025 0.031 0.097 −0.042 0.096
 Neighborhood 0.028 0.007 0.031 0.092* −0.006 0.092* 0.034 0.001 0.033 0.015 −0.042 0.014
disadvantage
  Single parent −0.027 0.048* −0.024 −0.037 −0.001 −0.037 −0.005 0.032 −0.001 −0.073 −0.018 −0.074
Time 1 controls  
  Wave 1 Delinquency 0.290*** −0.055** 0.290*** 0.230*** −0.044 0.232*** 0.276*** −0.033 0.278*** 0.267*** −0.010 0.270***
  Wave 1 attachment — 0.209*** — — 0.274*** — — 0.208*** — — 0.254*** —
Parental shift  
  Shift to authoritative — — — -0.027 0.478*** −0.015 −0.050 −0.367*** −0.046 −0.053 0.343*** −0.044
  Shift to authoritarian 0.034 −0.442*** 0.004 — — — 0.064 −0.309*** 0.036 −0.060 0.013 −0.060
  Shift to Permissive 0.015 −0.014 0.015 0.021 0.343*** 0.030 — — — −0.015 0.402*** −0.004
  Shift to uninvolved 0.086*** −0.365*** 0.063** 0.035 0.021 0.036 0.092*** 0.054 0.054* — — —
Mediating variable  
  Attachment change — — −0.078** — — −0.032 — — −0.107*** — — −0.032
N 1,896 1,896 1,896 585 585 585 1,434 1,434 1,434 474 474 474
F 21.917*** 78.141*** 21.203*** 7.526*** 29.375*** 7.023*** 17.808*** 45.628*** 17.830*** 8.831*** 15.036*** 8.250***
R2 0.131 0.368 0.136 0.146 0.419 0.147 0.140 0.310 0.150 0.139 0.314 0.140

Note. Standardized coefficients reported.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Schroeder and Mowen 241

The transition from authoritative to uninvolved parenting is associated with

a significant decrease in maternal attachment, as is the change from authori-
tative to authoritarian parenting. In the third model, the results show that an
increase in maternal attachment is associated with a significant decrease in
offending, and the magnitude of the coefficient for the transition to unin-
volved parenting is reduced by 26.7% when the change in maternal attach-
ment is added to the model. The results, therefore, suggest that the effect of
the transition from authoritative parenting to uninvolved parenting on delin-
quency is partially mediated by changes in maternal attachment.
For the youth with authoritarian parents at the first wave of data, parenting
style transitions do not predict delinquency outcomes, but the shifts from
authoritarian parenting to both authoritative and permissive parenting are
associated with increases in maternal attachment, relative to stable authoritar-
ian parenting. Interestingly, for the youth with initial authoritarian parents,
the change in maternal attachment associated with shifts to authoritative and
permissive parenting does not predict delinquency at the third wave.
In contrast to the youth with authoritarian parents at the first wave, who
show little offending variation in delinquent outcomes associated with par-
enting style transitions, the adolescents with permissive parents at the first
wave of data appear to be more influenced by parenting style transitions. The
shifts from permissive parenting to both authoritarian and uninvolved parent-
ing are associated with significantly higher third wave delinquency scores,
net of the background factors and Time 1 delinquency, compared with stable
permissive parenting. Furthermore, the shifts from permissive parenting to
authoritative and authoritarian parenting are associated with significant
reductions in maternal attachment, and the transition from permissive to
uninvolved parenting is associated with improvements in maternal attach-
ment. Improvements in attachment are associated with lower delinquency for
the youth with initial permissive parents, and the addition of the maternal
attachment change measure reduces the magnitude of the impact of the shift
from permissive to authoritarian parenting on delinquency by 43.8%, and the
variable is reduced to nonsignificance. For the shift from permissive to unin-
volved parenting, changes in maternal attachment account for 41.3% of the
effect of this shift on delinquency, although the coefficient remains statisti-
cally significant.
Last, for the youth with uninvolved parents at the first wave of the study,
parenting style transitions do not account for any significant changes in delin-
quency, relative to stable uninvolved parenting. Transitions from uninvolved
parenting to authoritative and permissive parenting are associated with
242 Youth & Society 46(2)

Table 3. OLS Regression Coefficients Predicting Wave 3 Delinquency and Wave 3

Attachment by Demandingness and Responsiveness Patterns, Full Sample (N = 4,389).

Demandingness

Responsiveness Stable High Stable Low Increase Decrease Total

−0.036* −0.013 −0.047** −0.015 −0.041**
Stable high −0.201*** −0.137*** 0.133*** 0.122*** 0.283***
  −0.034* −0.012 −0.044*** −0.014 −0.038**
0.013 0.016 −0.011 0.033* 0.021
Stable low −0.216*** −0.175*** 0.028* −0.158*** −0.289***
  0.008 0.012 −0.008 0.030* 0.015
−0.004 0.006 −0.011 0.020 0.006
Increase 0.054*** 0.024 0.028* 0.018 0.067***
  −0.001 0.009 −0.008 0.021 0.012
0.005 0.044** 0.028* 0.040** 0.061***
Decrease −0.192*** −0.134*** −0.110*** −0.151*** −0.323***
  −0.005 0.038** 0.023 0.033* 0.049**
−0.027 −0.003 −0.032* 0.029*  
Total 0.076*** 0.032* 0.026 −0.044**  
  −0.028* −0.004 −0.034* 0.025  
Note 1: Standardized coefficients reported. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Note 2: Unformatted = coefficient predicting Wave 3 delinquency, Italicized = coefficient.
predicting Wave 3 Attachment, Bold = coefficient predicting Wave 3 delinquency with change
in attachment in model.
Note 3: All coefficients presented are from separate regressions, controlling for sociodemo-
graphic factors, other controls measures, and Time 1 controls.

improvements in maternal attachment, but changes in maternal attachment

do not predict delinquency scores at the third wave of data.

Parenting Style Components, Delinquency,

and Maternal Attachment
The results for the investigation of specific parenting style component (i.e.,
responsiveness and demandingness) patterns of stability and change on
delinquency and maternal attachment are shown in Table 3. In the interest
of brevity, rather than describe each of the contrasts, we focus the descrip-
tion of the results on the marginal (i.e., “total”) results. The coefficients in
the “total” rows and columns represent the overall effect of stability or
change in levels of responsiveness (the “total” column) and demandingness
Schroeder and Mowen 243

(the “total” row), relative to all other parenting style component patterns. For
responsiveness, a stable high level of responsiveness across the two waves
of data is associated with significantly lower levels of Wave 3 delinquency
and higher levels of maternal attachment, relative to all other patterns.
Changes in maternal attachment account for only 7.3% of the effect of stable
high levels of demandingness on delinquent outcomes, and the coefficient
remains statistically significant. Interestingly, stable low levels of respon-
siveness do not influence delinquency, but this parenting style component
pattern is associated with lower levels of maternal attachment outcomes.
Similarly, an increase in responsiveness across the waves of data is not asso-
ciated with delinquency, but does predict an improvement in maternal attach-
ment. Last, a decrease in responsiveness across waves is associated with
higher levels of delinquency and lower levels of attachment. Maternal attach-
ment accounts for 19.7% of the effect of decreasing responsiveness on delin-
quent outcomes, but the decrease in responsiveness maintains a significant
relationship with delinquent outcomes with maternal attachment controlled.
Turning to demandingness, neither stable high nor stable low levels of
demandingness are associated with delinquency at the third wave of data, but
both patterns are associated with stronger maternal bonds at the third wave.
Interestingly, it appears that there is a small suppression effect of maternal
attachment in the relationship between stable high demandingness and
offending outcomes, as stable high demandingness is associated with a sig-
nificant reduction in delinquency once maternal attachment changes are con-
trolled. The magnitude of the suppression effect, however, is very small
(3.7% increase in the magnitude of the coefficient). An increase in demand-
ingness across the two waves of data is associated with lower delinquency
scores at the third wave of data, but the increase in demandingness is not
associated with maternal attachment outcomes. A decrease in demandingness
is associated with a significant increase in offending and a decrease in mater-
nal attachment. With changes in maternal attachment controlled, the coeffi-
cient for a decrease in demandingness is reduced by 13.8%, and the variable
is reduced to nonsignificance.

Discussion and Conclusion

The current project addresses the question of parenting style stability or
change across adolescence and examines the effect parenting style transi-
tions on juvenile delinquency from the life course theory perspective. The
results of the current study suggest that parenting style is much more fluid
than prior research has suggested (Baumrind, 2005; Darling & Steinberg,
244 Youth & Society 46(2)

1993; Paulson & Sputa, 1996), as more than half of adolescents in the nation-
ally representative sample reported experiencing shifts in parenting style in
the 2-year time span between data collection periods. Although parenting
style stability is also common among the youth in the sample, it is clear that
parenting style is a fluid characteristic of adolescence for most youth. The
data also suggest that certain parenting style transitions are associated with
increases in delinquent offending across the two waves of data and that the
impact of some parenting style transitions on offending is partially mediated
by shifts in maternal attachment. Most notably, the transition from authorita-
tive parenting, a warm but demanding parenting style that is widely recog-
nized as the best parenting style for positive adolescent developmental
outcomes, to uninvolved parenting, a parenting style characterized by rejec-
tion, is associated with an increase in offending that is partially mediated by
a decrease in maternal attachment. Accordingly, the parenting style compo-
nent analyses reflect the detrimental effect of losing parental responsiveness,
regardless of the pattern of demandingness, on offending and maternal
attachment. Overall, the data suggest that parenting style shifts, especially
transitions that reduce responsiveness, can be viewed as a life course “turn-
ing point” that decrease bonds and increase offending.
The results of the current study raise several important questions and calls
for future research. First, the question of why parenting styles change over
time should be addressed in future research. An investigation of the reasons
why parenting styles exhibit such variability is outside the scope of the cur-
rent project, and data limitations prohibit an assessment of the processes con-
tributing to parenting style change, but the life course theory provides
direction for future research. The broader life course theory in sociology
emphasizes that developmental trajectories are influenced by social events
and historical contexts (Elder, 1998), and we contend though that these prin-
ciples of life course theory apply to parents and parenting processes. Prior
research emphasizes that parents continue to develop and change throughout
adulthood (Mirowsky & Ross, 1992), including gains in economic, emo-
tional, intellectual, and social maturity (Eggebeen, 1992; McLanahan, 2004;
Mirowsky & Ross, 1992; Schroeder, Giordano, & Cernkovich, 2010), and
such changes likely influence parenting. Other life events, such as divorce
(Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980), family structure change (Schroeder, Osgood,
et al., 2010; Wu & Martinson, 1993), and occupational changes, job loss, or
the onset economic distress (Elder, Nguyen, & Caspi, 1985), have also been
shown to alter parenting approaches. The proposed provisional life course
theory of parenting, therefore, essentially conceptualizes parenting as a tra-
jectory that can be altered by life events and historicity. A more developed
Schroeder and Mowen 245

life course perspective of parenting is necessary and that future research

should thoroughly investigate the possible “turning points” that account for
parenting style transitions.
A second issue of concern with the current study is the possibility of
reverse causal ordering of the relationship between parenting style transitions
and delinquency; it is entirely possible that adolescent behavior influences
parenting transitions (Huh, Tristan, Wade, & Stice, 2006), or there is a recip-
rocal relationship between parenting style changes and delinquency (Jang &
Smith, 1997). The current study follows social mold model of family social-
ization (Hartup, 1978) that proposes lenient or inconsistent parental control
and supervision and deficits in parental caring and warmth negatively affect
parent–child identification (Hirschi, 1969; Jacob & Leonard, 1991) and ado-
lescent misbehavior, but the reciprocal effects model of socialization pro-
vides an alternate perspective that contends parenting affects adolescent
behavior and adolescent behavior affects parenting approaches (Baumrind &
Moselle, 1985; Bell & Chapman, 1986; Lerner & Spanier, 1978; Patterson,
1986; Sameroff, 1975). To test for the possibility of reverse causal ordering,
we assessed the impact of delinquency changes between waves on the odds
of experiencing a parenting style transition. Similar to prior research that
demonstrate that there is not a significant direct link between delinquent
behavior and parental supportiveness or demandingness (Schaffer et al.,
2009; Simons, Whitbeck, Conger, Conger, & Melby, 1990; Simons &
Robertson, 1989), the results indicate that changes in delinquency do not
influence the odds of a change in parenting style (analysis not shown). Taken
together, although parenting practices are likely responsive to changes in
adolescent delinquency, the data indicate that the constellation of parental
attitudes, behaviors, and interaction styles that constitute parenting styles
(Darling & Steinberg, 1993; Vandeleur et al., 2007) are not strongly influ-
enced by adolescent offending. Future research should more fully investigate
the possibility of reverse or reciprocal causal ordering in the relationship
between parenting style changes and delinquency using research designs
with multiple waves of data collected over a shorter period of time.
The findings also raise the possibility of the conditional nature of the
impact of parenting style shifts on delinquency, in that some initial parenting
styles appear to be more sensitive to shifts in demandingness and/or respon-
siveness. For instance, shifts from authoritarian and uninvolved parenting
appear to exert little influence on adolescent offending outcomes regardless
of the specific nature of the shift, controlling for juvenile delinquency at the
first wave. On the other hand, shifts from permissive parenting appear to be
very sensitive to decreasing levels of responsiveness, as any substantial
246 Youth & Society 46(2)

decrease in responsiveness is associated with significantly higher levels of

juvenile delinquency at the third wave. This finding is especially notable
because increases in responsiveness are not associated decreases in offend-
ing, which is contrary to the postulations inherent in the life course theory of
criminology. In other words, the impact of specific parenting style shifts on
delinquency is likely conditioned by the specific nature of the initial parent-
ing styles. Future research with more complete measures of parental respon-
siveness and demandingness should further assess both the magnitude of
parenting style shift and the conditional nature of parenting style shifts on
delinquent outcomes.
Another potential complicating factor in the relationship between parenting
style shifts and delinquency is spuriousness. The factors that might account for
why parenting styles shift can also potentially influence shifts in juvenile delin-
quency, as well. For instance, prior work has shown that divorce detrimentally
affects parenting (Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980) and is also associated with
increases in juvenile delinquency (Price & Kunz, 2003). It is possible, there-
fore, that the relationship between parenting style changes and delinquency is
entirely accounted for by divorce or the other factors that contribute to parent-
ing style change. It is also possible, however, that parenting style shifts operate
as mediators in the relationship between the contributors of parenting style
change and delinquency. Future research should further investigate the poten-
tial sources of spuriousness in the relationship parenting style shifts and delin-
quency, as well as the possible mediating role of parenting style shifts in the
association between family events and contexts and juvenile offending.
Beyond the relatively simple measure of parental demandingness and
responsiveness and the lack of adequate variables to identify the correlates of
parenting style shifts in the NLSY, another notable limitation to the current
study is that it focuses solely on maternal parenting style. Paternal parenting
was excluded from the current study due to the high levels of missing data for
paternal parenting style in the data, and also because prior research has estab-
lished that paternal parenting practices are relatively unimportant to problem-
atic development adolescent outcomes once maternal parenting is controlled
(see Baer, 1999; Dunifon, Hynes, & Peters, 2009; Gainey, Catalano, Haggerty,
& Hoppe, 1997). Scholars in the family sociology literature, however, have
been increasingly calling for more research on paternal parenting practices
and involvement (Cabrera, Tamis-LeMonda, Bradley, Hofferth, & Lamb,
2000; Tamis-LaMonda & Cabrera, 2002), especially given the increase in
father involvement in their children’s lives in two-parent families, and the
decrease in father nonresidential father involvement (Cabrera et al., 2000).
Furthermore, prior research has suggested that mother and father parenting
Schroeder and Mowen 247

styles are interdependent (Block, Block, & Morrison, 1981; Gable, Crnic, &
Belsky, 1994; Lindsey & Mize, 2001), and it is thus possible that paternal
parenting styles moderate the impact of maternal parenting style changes on
delinquency. Future research should, therefore, also assess the influence of
both residential and nonresidential father’s parenting style approaches, and
associated shifts, on adolescent delinquent outcomes.
Despite the limitations described above, the current study clearly shows
that maternal parenting style is not a stable element of adolescence for a
notable proportion of youth. Furthermore, the parenting style transitions doc-
umented in the current study influence levels of maternal attachment and
delinquent offending. Future research on the relationship between parenting
style and delinquency should, at a minimum, recognize that parenting styles
are variable across adolescence, and these parenting style shifts exert a unique
influence on adolescent offending patterns.

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 pub-
lication of this article.

References
Allison, P. (1990). Change scores as dependent variables in regression analysis. Soci-
ological Methodology, 20, 93-114.
Arnett, J. J. (1999). Adolescent storm and stress, reconsidered. American Psycholo-
gist, 15, 317-326.
Ary, D., Duncan, T., Duncan, S., & Hops, H. (1999). Adolescent problem behavior: The
influence of parents and peers. Behavioral Research and Therapy, 37, 217-230.
Amato, P., & Keith, B. (1991). Parental divorce and the well-being of children: A
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 26-46.
Baer, S. (1999). Family relationships, parenting behavior, and adolescent deviance in
three ethnic groups. Families in Society, 80, 279-285.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction
in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical consider-
ations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 515, 1173-1182.
Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior.
Child Development, 37, 887-907.
248 Youth & Society 46(2)

Baumrind, D. (1989). Rearing competent children. In W. Damon (Ed.), Child devel-

opment today and tomorrow (pp. 349-378). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Baumrind, D. (2005). Patterns of parental authority and adolescent autonomy. New
Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 108, 61-69.
Baumrind, D., & Moselle, K. A. (1985). A developmental perspective on adolescent
drug abuse. Advances in Alcohol and Substance Use, 5, 41-67.
Bell, R. Q., & Chapman, M. (1986). Child effects in studies using experimental or
brief longitudinal approaches to socialization. Developmental Psychology, 22,
595-603.
Berge, J., Wall, M., Loth, K., & Neumark-Sztainer, D. (2010). Parenting style as a pre-
dictor of adolescent weight and weight-related behaviors. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 46, 331-338.
Block, J., Block, J., & Morrison, A. (1981). Parental agreement-disagreement on
child-rearing orientations and gender-related personality correlates in children.
Child Development, 52, 965-974.
Bronte-Tinkew, J., Moore, K. A., & Carrano, J. (2006). The father-child relationship,
parenting styles, and adolescent risk behavior in intact families. Journal of Family
Issues, 27, 850-881.
Brown, B., Mounts, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting practices and group affilia-
tion in adolescence. Child Development, 64, 467-482.
Biglan, A. H., Hops, H., & Sherman, L. (1988). Coercive family process and maternal
depression. In R. D. Peters & R. J. McMahon (Eds.), Social learning and systems
approaches to marriage and the family (pp. 72-103). New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel.
Brand, S., Hatzinger, M., Beck, J., & Holsboer-Trachsler, E. (2009). Perceived parent-
ing styles, personality traits and sleep patterns in adolescents. Journal of Adoles-
cence, 32, 1189-1207.
Brody, G., 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.
Cabrera, N., Tamis-LeMonda, C., Bradley, R. H., Hofferth, S., & Lamb, M. (2000).
Fatherhood in the twenty-first century. Child Development, 71, 127-136.
Cernkovich, S. A., & Giordano, P. C. (1987). Family relationships and delinquency.
Criminology, 25, 295-321.
Cernkovich, S. A., Giordano, P. C., & Pugh, M. D. (1985). Chronic offenders: The
missing cases in self-report delinquency research. Journal of Criminal Law and
Criminology, 76, 705-732.
Conger, R. D., Conger, K. J., Elder, G. H., & Lorenz, F. (1992). A family process
model of economic hardship and adjustment of early adolescent boys. Child
Development, 63, 526-541.
Schroeder and Mowen 249

Conger, R. D., Conger, K. J., Elder, G. H., Lorenz, F., Simons, R. L., & Whitebeck,
L. B. (1993). Family economic stress and adjustment of early adolescent girls.
Developmental Psychology, 29, 206-219.
Conger, R. D., & Elder, G. H., Jr. (1994). Families in troubled times. New York, NY:
DeGruyter.
Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model.
Psychological Bulletin, 113, 487-496.
Darling, N., & Toyokawa, T. (1997). Construction and validation of the Parenting
Style Inventory II. The Pennsylvania State University, Internal publication.
Dallaire, D. H., & Weinraub, M. (2005). The stability of parenting behaviors over the
first 6 years of life. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20, 201-219.
Denham, S. A., Workman, E., Cole, P. M., Weissbrod, C., Kendziora, K. T., &
Zahn-Waxler, C. (2000). Prediction of externalizing problems from early to mid-
dle childhood: The role of parental socialization and emotion expression. Devel-
opment and Psychology, 12, 23-45.
Duncan, S., Duncan, T., Biglan, A., & Ary, D. (1998). Contribution of the social con-
text to the development of adolescent substance use: A multivariate latent growth
modeling approach. Drug Alcohol Dependence, 50, 57-71.
Dunifon, R., Hynes, K., & Peters, H. (2009). Welfare reform and family structure.
Social Service Review, 83, 351-388.
Eggebeen, D. J. (1992). From generation unto generation: Parent-child support in
aging American families. Generations, 17, 45-50.
Elder, G. (1998). The life course as developmental theory. Child Development, 69, 1-12.
Elder, G. H., Nguyen, T. V., & Caspi, A. (1985). Linking family hardship to children’s
lives. Child Development, 56, 361-375.
Elliott, D. S. (1994). Serious violent offenders: Onset, development course, and termi-
nation. Criminology, 32, 1-21.
Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Ageton, S. S. (1985). Explaining delinquency and drug
use. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Fagan, A. A., & Najman, J. M. (2003). Sibling influences on adolescent delinquent
behavior: An Australian longitudinal study. Journal of Adolescence, 26, 546-558.
Feldman, S., Wentzel, K., & Gehring, T. (1989). A comparison of the views of moth-
ers, fathers, and pre-adolescents about family cohesion and power. Journal of
Family Psychology, 3, 39-60.
Forehand, R., & Jones, D. J. (2002). The stability of parenting: A longitudinal analysis
of inner-city African-American mothers. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 11,
455-467.
Gable, S., Crnic, K., & Belsky, J. (1994). Co-parenting within the family system:
Influences on children’s development. Family Relation, 43, 380-386.
250 Youth & Society 46(2)

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
Hagan, J. (1998). Life course capitalization and adolescent behavioral development.
In R. Jessor (Ed.), New perspectives on adolescent risk behavior (pp. 499-517).
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Hartup, W. W. (1978). Perspectives on child and family interaction: Past, present,
and future. In R. M. Lerner & G. B. Spanier (Eds.), Child influences on marital
and family interaction: A life-span perspective (pp. 23-46). San Francisco, CA:
Academic Press.
Henricson, C., & Roker, D. (2000). Support for the parents of adolescents: A review.
Journal of Adolescence, 23, 763-783.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Holden, G. W., & Miller, P. C. (1999). Enduring and different: A meta-analysis of the
similarity on parents’ child rearing. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 223-254.
Huh, D., Tristan, J., Wade, E., & Stice, E. (2006). Does problem behavior elicit
poor parenting? A prospective study of adolescent girls. Journal of Adolescent
Research, 21, 185-204.
Jacob, T., & Leonard, K. (1991, November). Family and peer influences in the devel-
opment of adolescent alcohol abuse. Paper presented at the NIAAA Conference,
Working Group on the Development of Alcohol-Related Problems in High-Risk
Youth: Establishing Linkages Across Biogenetic and Psychosocial Domains,
Washington, DC.
Jang, S., & Smith, C. A. (1997). A test of reciprocal causal relationships among paren-
tal supervision, affective ties, and delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, 34, 307-336.
Johnson, D. (2005). Two-wave panel analysis: Comparing statistical methods for study-
ing the effects of transitions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1061-1075.
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.
Keller, T., Catalano, R., Haggerty, K., & Fleming, C. (2002). Parent figure transitions
and delinquency and drug use among early adolescent children of substance abus-
ers. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 28, 399-427.
Kelly, Erin L., Phyllis Moen, and Eric Tranby. 2011 “Changing Workplaces to
Reduce WorkFamily Conflict: Schedule Control in a White-Collar Organiza-
tion.” American Sociological Review. 76(2):265-290.
Schroeder and Mowen 251

Larzelere, R. E., & Patterson, G. R. (1990). Parental management: Mediation of

the effect of socioeconomic status on early delinquency. Criminology, 28,
301-324.
Lamborn, S. D., Mounts, N. S., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Patterns of
competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian,
indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 62, 1049-1061.
Laub, J. H., Nagin, D. S., & Sampson, R. J. (1998). Trajectories of change in crimi-
nal offending: Good marriages and the desistance process. American Sociological
Review, 63, 225-238.
Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (1993). Turning points in the life course: Why change
matters to the study of crime. Criminology, 31, 301-325.
Lerner, R. M., & Spanier, G. B. (1978). A dynamic interactional view of child and
family development. In R. M. Lerner & G. B. Spanier (Eds.), Child influences on
marital and family interaction: A life-span perspective (pp. 1-22). San Francisco,
CA: Academic Press.
Lindsey, E. W., & Mize, J. (2001). Contextual differences in parent-child play: Impli-
cations for children’s gender role development. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research,
44, 155-176.
Loeber, R., & Dishion, T. J. (1983). Early predictor of male delinquency: A review.
Psychology Bulletin, 94, 68-99.
Loeber, R., Drinkwater, M., Yin, Y., Anderson, S. J., Schmidt, L. C., & Crawford, A.
(2000). Stability of family interaction from ages 6 to 18. Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology, 28, 353-369.
Maccoby, E. (1992). The role of parents in the socialization of children: An historical
overview. Developmental Psychology, 28, 1006-1017.
Mason, C., Gonzales, N., Mari Cauce, A., & Hiraga, Y. (1996). Neither too sweet
nor too sour: Problem peers, maternal control, and problem behavior in African
American adolescents. Child Development, 67, 2115-2130.
McLanahan, S. (2004). Diverging destinies: How children are faring under the second
demographic transition. Demography, 41, 607-627.
McNally, S., Eisenberg, N., & Harris, J. D. (1991). Consistency and change in mater-
nal child-rearing practices and values: A longitudinal study. Child Development,
62, 190-198.
Mirowsky, J., & Ross, C. (1992). Age and depression. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 33, 187-205.
Moore, J., & Hagedorn, J. (1999). What happens to girls in the gang? In J. Hagedorn
(Ed.), Female gangs in America: Essays on girls, gangs, and gender (pp. 177-186).
Chicago, IL: Lake View Press.
Moore, K., & Mbwana, K. (2008, May). Preventing risky sex and adolescent par-
enthood: Does the effectiveness of parenting practices differ for children with
252 Youth & Society 46(2)

varied risks? Paper presented at the NLSY97 Tenth Anniversary Conference,

Washington, DC.
Moore, K. A., McGroder, S., Hair, E. C., & Gunnoe, M. (1999). Appendix 9: Family
process and adolescent outcome measures. Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
Montemayor, R. (1980). Family variation in parent-adolescent storm and stress. Jour-
nal of Adolescent Research, 1, 15-31.
Nijhof, K., & Engels, R. (2007). Parenting styles, coping strategies, and the expres-
sion of homesickness. Journal of Adolescence, 30, 709-720.
Parker, J., & Benson, M. (2004). Parent-adolescent relations and adolescent function-
ing: Self-esteem, substance abuse, and delinquency. Adolescence, 39, 519-530.
Patterson, G. R. (1986). Performance models for antisocial boys. American Psycholo-
gist, 41, 432-444.
Patterson, G. R., & Forgatch, M. S. (1990). Initiation and maintenance of process dis-
rupting single-mother families. In G. R. Patterson (Ed.), Depression and aggres-
sion in family interaction (pp. 209-246). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Patterson, G. R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1984). The correlation of family manage-
ment practices and delinquency. Child Development, 55, 1299-1307.
Paulson, S., & Sputa, C. (1996). Patterns of parenting during adolescence: Percep-
tions of adolescents and parents. Adolescence, 31, 369-381.
Pires, P., & Jenkins, J. (2007). A growth curve analysis of the joint influences of par-
enting affect, child characteristics and deviant peers on adolescent illicit drug use.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 169-183.
Price, C., & Kunz, J. (2003). Rethinking the paradigm of juvenile delinquency as
related to divorce. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 39, 109-113.
Sameroff, A. (1975). Early influences on development: Fact or fancy? Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 21, 263-294.
Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. R. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning
points through life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Shaffer, D. (2000). Social and personality development. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
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., Giordano, P. C., & Cernkovich, S. A. (2010). Adult child-parent
bonds and life course criminality. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 562-571.
Schroeder, R. D., Osgood, A., & Oghia, M. (2010). Family transitions and juvenile
delinquency. Sociological Inquiry, 80, 579-604.
Simons, R., Beaman, J., Conger, R., & Wei, C. (1993). Stress, support, and anti-
social behavior trait as determinants of emotional well-being and parenting
Schroeder and Mowen 253

practices among single mothers. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55,
385-398.
Simons, R., Chao, W., Conger, R., & Elder, G. (2001). Quality of parenting as media-
tor of the effect of childhood defiance on adolescent friendship choices and delin-
quency: A growth curve analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 63-79.
Simons, R., & Robertson, J. (1989). The impact of parenting factors, deviant peers,
and coping style upon adolescent drug use. Family Relations, 38, 273-281.
Simons, R., Simons, L., Chen, Y., Brody, G., & Lin, K. (2007). Identifying the psy-
chological factors that mediate the association between parenting practices and
delinquency. Criminology, 45, 481-517.
Simons, R., Whitbeck, L., Conger, R., Conger, D., & Melby, J. (1990). Husband
and wife differences in determinants of parenting: A social learning and
exchange model of parental behavior. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
52, 375-392.
Sorkhabi, N. (2010). Sources of parent-adolescent conflict and form of parenting.
Social Behavior and Personality, 38, 761-782.
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.
Stoolmiller, M. (1994). Antisocial behavior, delinquent peer association, and unsu-
pervised wandering for boys: Growth and change from childhood to early adoles-
cence. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 29, 263-288.
Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., & Cabrera, N. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of father involve-
ment: Multidisciplinary perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Vandeleur, C. L., Perrez, M., & Schoebi, D. (2007). Associations between measures
of emotion and familial dynamics in normative families with adolescents. Swiss
Journal of Psychology, 66, 5-16.
Walker-Barnes, C. J., & Mason, C. A. (2004). Delinquency and substance use among
gang-involved youth: The moderating role of parenting practices. American Jour-
nal of Community Psychology, 34, 235-250.
Wallerstein, J. S., & Kelly, J. B. (1980). Surviving the breakup. New York, NY: Basic
Books.
Webster-Stratton, C. (1990). Stress: A potential disrupter of parent perceptions and
family interactions. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 19, 302-312.
Wills, T. A., Mariani, J., & Filler, M. (1996). The role of family and peer relation-
ships in adolescent substance use. In G. R. Pierce, B. R. Sarason, & I. G. Sarason
(Eds.), Handbook of the social support and the family (pp. 495-549). New York,
NY: Plenum Press.
254 Youth & Society 46(2)

Wolfgang, M. E., Figlio, R. M., Tracy, P. E., & Singer, S. L. (1985). National survey
of crime severity. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Justice.
Wu, L. L., & Martinson, B. C. (1993). Family structure and the risk of a premarital
birth. American Sociological Review, 58, 210-212.

Author Biographies
Ryan D. Schroeder is an associate professor of sociology at the University of
Louisville. His research interests include desistance process, with a particular focus
on the role of emotional development, family functioning, and religious process.

Thomas J. Mowen is a doctoral student in the Department of Sociology and

Criminal Justice at the University of Delaware. His areas of interest are within crimi-
nology, youth, delinquency, and family.