Content uploaded by Brian K Barber
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Brian K Barber on Mar 28, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
http://spr.sagepub.com
Relationships
Journal of Social and Personal
DOI: 10.1177/02654075030202007
2003; 20; 239 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships
Ambika Krishnakumar, Cheryl Buehler and Brian K. Barber
Families
Youth Problem Behaviors in European-American and African-American
Youth Perceptions of Interparental Conflict, Ineffective Parenting, and
http://spr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/20/2/239
The online version of this article can be found at:
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
International Association for Relationship Research
can be found at:Journal of Social and Personal Relationships Additional services and information for
http://spr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:
http://spr.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://spr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/20/2/239 Citations
at UNIV N CAROLINA GREENSBORO on October 5, 2009 http://spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Youth perceptions of interparental
conflict, ineffective parenting,
and youth problem behaviors in
European-American and African-
American families
Ambika Krishnakumar
Syracuse University
Cheryl Buehler & Brian K. Barber
University of Tennessee
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to examine the spillover of
youth perceptions of interparental conflict (IPC) into ineffec-
tive parenting and youth problem behaviors in a sample of
542 European-American (EA) and 150 African-American (AA)
youth. Data were collected from youth aged 10 through 18
years using a school-based survey. The findings indicated that
IPC was associated positively with youth problem behaviors
in both European-American and African-American samples.
For EA families, IPC was linked with youth externalizing
problem behaviors through lower levels of parental monitor-
ing, maternal acceptance, and higher levels of parent–youth
conflict, and with internalizing problem behaviors through
higher levels of maternal psychological control and
parent–youth conflict. Although IPC was associated with
higher levels of parent–youth conflict and maternal psycho-
logical control and lower levels of parental monitoring in AA
families, the spillover model received minimal support
because parenting measures were not associated systemati-
cally with youth problem behaviors.
KEY WORDS: ethnicity • interparental conflict • marital conflict
and parenting behavior
The data for this project were collected in collaboration between the Section on Social and
Emotional Development, National Institute for Child Health and Human Development
(NICHD) and Brian K. Barber. We thank Samuel E. Bratton, Jr., Coordinator, Research and
Evaluation, Knox County (Tennessee) Department of Public Instruction; the numerous prin-
cipals and teachers; and the youth who participated in the project. All correspondence concern-
ing this article should be addressed to Ambika Krishnakumar, Department of Child and Family
Studies, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13244–1250, USA [E-mail: akrishna@syr.edu].
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships Copyright © 2003 SAGE Publications
(www.sagepublications.com), Vol. 20(2):239–260. [0265–4075 (200304)20:2; 031957]
07 Krishnakumar (to/d) 3/26/03 1:12 PM Page 239
at UNIV N CAROLINA GREENSBORO on October 5, 2009 http://spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Over the last decade, research into the role of family processes in explain-
ing youth maladjustment has pointed to two important family-level predic-
tors – ineffective parenting patterns and acrimonious marital relationships.
Although many researchers have investigated marital and parenting vari-
ables independently (e.g., Barnes, Farrell, & Banerjee, 1994; Cernkovich &
Giordano, 1987), there is a small but significant body of research that
supports the proposition that marital conflict and youth maladjustment are
associated, in part, through ineffective parenting practices and disrupted
parent–youth relationships (Buehler & Gerard, 2002).
Research on family processes and their relationship to youth outcomes
using mediational models has been mostly restricted to investigations with
European-American, middle-class families and generalized to other ethnic
groups (McAdoo, 1993). The assimilationist perspective that has dominated
social and political thought (e.g., Bernal & Knight, 1993) has been one
reason for few cross-ethnic research studies. Cross-ethnic research on
family processes and youth outcomes is important given the multi-ethnic
nature of the U.S. population and the need to understand patterns of family
functioning in ethnic groups other than European-American families. The
purpose of this investigation was to examine the interrelationships among
interparental conflict (IPC), ineffective parenting, and youth problem
behaviors in European-American (EA) and African-American (AA)
families. Examining the pathways of association across different groups
provides researchers with a better understanding of common and unique
socialization pathways (Gjerde & Onishi, 2000).
Considerable differences might exist between ethnic groups in the ways
they socialize their children and interact with their spouses. Members of EA
and AA ethnic groups embody specific psychological and physical charac-
teristics that are specific to their racial and ethnic heritage (Ocampo,
Bernal, & Knight, 1993). Within specific ethnic groups, members may share
rituals, values, and customs unique to their group membership (Harrison,
Wilson, Pine, Chan, & Buriel, 1990). For example, AA families place
greater emphasis on values of collectivism and cooperation among family
members than do EA families (Gaines, Marelich, Bledsoe, & Steers, 1997).
They also experience more uncertainty and stress associated with racial
discrimination and prejudice than do EA families (Harrison et al., 1990).
Contextual and cultural differences (e.g., customs and norms, cultural
histories, historical experiences) provide support for the theoretical propo-
sition of different developmental pathways in EA and AA families
(McLoyd, 1990).
In contrast, EA and AA families might experience common develop-
mental pathways because of their shared experience of living and sharing
common aspects of the American culture, such as community settings,
schools, music, and arts. Because of their interactions within a shared
American setting, unique cultural traditions and family processes may have
changed over time, giving rise to more similar than different family
processes across different groups (Rowe, Vazsonyi, & Flannery, 1994).
Comparative research on IPC, socialization variables, and youth
240 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 20(2)
07 Krishnakumar (to/d) 3/26/03 1:12 PM Page 240
at UNIV N CAROLINA GREENSBORO on October 5, 2009 http://spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
outcomes between EA and AA families has produced conflicting findings.
Some investigations have suggested that AA families experience higher
levels of marital conflict than do EA families (e.g., Lockhart, 1987), whereas
other researchers have suggested that the differences in levels of marital
conflict do not hold after income levels are taken into consideration
(Cazenave & Straus, 1979).
In terms of socialization practices, some researchers have found that AA
parents might focus on stronger, tighter, and more assertive discipline tech-
niques (Hampton, Gelles, & Harrop, 1989; McLeod, Kruttschnitt, &
Dornfeld, 1994) than do EA families. Researchers have also reported that
AA parents provide greater child supervision than do EA parents
(Cernkovich & Giordano, 1987; McLeod et al., 1994). Other researchers
have found that EA parents supervise their children more than do AA
parents (Peeples & Loeber, 1994), and still others have found no differ-
ences (Barnes et al., 1994; McKenry & Fine, 1993). Although some studies
have found greater acceptance on the part of AA parents (e.g., Cernkovich
& Giordano, 1987; McLeod et al., 1994), others have found no differences
in acceptance between the two groups (Barnes et al., 1994; McKenry &
Fine, 1993; Paschall, Ennett, & Flewelling, 1996).
In terms of youth problem behaviors, no ethnic differences were found
in some studies examining externalizing problem behaviors (Loeber,
Russo, Stouthamer-Loeber, & Lahey, 1994; Roberts, Chen, & Solovitz,
1995). In other studies, AA youth were found to engage in more external-
izing problem behaviors (Elliott & Ageton, 1980; McLeod et al., 1994),
whereas, in others, EA youth experienced more externalizing problem
behaviors than AA youth (Fabrega, Ulrich, & Mezzich, 1993).
Spillover model
Explanations for the proposed conceptual model linking IPC, ineffective
parenting, and youth maladjustment can be drawn from several theoretical
perspectives, including social-learning, psychodynamic, family systems, and
family stress. A central hypothesis deduced from these theoretical frame-
works and supported by the research literature is termed the ‘spillover’
effect. The ‘spillover hypothesis’ suggests that emotions, affect, and mood
from the marital realm carry over into parenting behaviors and ultimately
shape youth well-being (Davies & Cummings, 1994; Erel & Burman, 1995).
Support from one’s spouse and the positive mood created within a healthy
marital relationship allow parents to engage in optimal parenting patterns,
whereas the anger and frustration arising from hostile, conflictual marital
interactions carry over into dysfunctional parenting patterns and ultimately
shape youth maladjustment.
If present, a spillover effect from IPC to youth problem behaviors
through ineffective parenting and disrupted parent–child relations can
occur as indirect or mediating effects. Each requires attention to three
specific associations: (i) the association between IPC and youth problem
behaviors, (ii) the association between IPC and ineffective parenting, and
(iii) the association between ineffective parenting and youth problem
Krishnakumar et al.: Marital conflict 241
07 Krishnakumar (to/d) 3/26/03 1:12 PM Page 241
at UNIV N CAROLINA GREENSBORO on October 5, 2009 http://spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
behaviors (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Indirect effects exist if the last two
associations are statistically significant, regardless of the presence of initial,
statistically significant direct effects. The documentation of mediating
effects requires a specific pattern of relationships. First, each of the three
associations outlined above must be statistically significant. Furthermore,
the significant association between marital conflict and youth problem
behaviors must decrease to nonsignificance (complete mediation) or be
reduced substantially (partial mediation) when ineffective parenting is
introduced into the model.
The spillover from hostile marital conflict to youth maladjustment
through ineffective parenting patterns has been discussed in many narra-
tive reviews (e.g., Davies & Cummings, 1994; Grych & Fincham, 1990;
Sanders, Nicholson, & Floyd, 1997). However, there is limited understand-
ing about how youth in EA and AA families interpret and experience
family processes and how this impacts youth outcomes. For example, the
emphasis on power assertive techniques in AA families might provide
children with a sense of organization and structure and can prove to be very
adaptive within that culture (Ogbu, 1991). However, these parenting behav-
iors might be viewed as interference by EA children and can prove to be
maladaptive. Research findings on the associations among IPC, socializa-
tion processes, and youth outcomes in EA and AA families have produced
conflicting findings (e.g., McLeod et al., 1994; Peeples & Loeber, 1994). In
the next section, we briefly review the empirical evidence for EA and AA
families in order to lay the groundwork for advancing expectations as to
how the spillover model should function in these groups.
IPC and youth problem behaviors. Researchers investigating precursors of
youth problem behaviors point to problems in the marital relationship
(particularly IPC) as having a significant negative influence on youth behav-
iors. Three meta-analytic reviews of the association between IPC and youth
maladjustment have reported small to moderate effect sizes supporting an
association between the marital subsystem and the youth subsystem (e.g.,
Buehler et al., 1997; Erel & Burman, 1995; Reid & Crisafulli, 1990). Buehler
et al. (1997) coded the sample racial composition of effect estimates (racial
composition coded mostly EA, mostly AA, and mixed) and found no
significant group differences in the association between IPC and youth
problem behaviors. The association between IPC and youth problem
behaviors has almost exclusively been studied with EA participants with
limited attention paid to ethnic minority populations (Buehler et al., 1997).
IPC and parenting. Researchers investigating the association between IPC
and parenting behaviors have suggested that conflictual marital relation-
ships are associated with ineffective parenting behaviors and parent–youth
conflict. In a meta-analytic review of the literature, the positive association
between IPC and ineffective parenting behaviors was consistent with the
idea of a spillover effect (mean weighted effect size d = .62, r = .30), with
the strongest effect sizes existing between IPC and parental harsh discipline
242 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 20(2)
07 Krishnakumar (to/d) 3/26/03 1:12 PM Page 242
at UNIV N CAROLINA GREENSBORO on October 5, 2009 http://spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
and parental acceptance (Krishnakumar & Buehler, 2000). The review indi-
cated that 62% of the 138 effect sizes were calculated exclusively for EA
participants, with few effect sizes assessing the relationship for specific
ethnic groups. Here again, the lack of representative samples of minority
populations has made it difficult to draw conclusions about the strength of
this association in AA populations. A recent study analyzing data from the
National Survey of Families and Households (Buehler & Gerard, 2002)
found that the positive association between marital conflict and ineffective
parenting was similar for EA and minority families (African-Americans,
Puerto Rican-Americans, and Mexican-Americans) with children aged 5
through 18. The association was statistically significant for EA families, but
not for minority families with children aged 2–4 years.
Parenting and problem behaviors. The association between parenting
behaviors and youth problem behaviors in EA and AA families has been
examined more extensively than other associations in the proposed model.
Based on a meta-analytic review of 47 studies, Rothbaum and Weisz (1994)
stated that the mean association between parenting and child externalizing
problem behaviors was r = .24. They reported that most of the studies had
been conducted with EA families and hence race/ethnicity could not be
considered in the analysis. In two studies in which race was considered, the
negative association between parental acceptance and externalizing
problem behaviors was stronger for EA than AA youth (Cernkovich &
Giordano, 1987; Paschall et al., 1996). Other studies have reported no differ-
ences in the strength of this association between the two groups (Barnes et
al., 1994; McLeod et al., 1994). Three investigations found that the relation-
ship between parental monitoring and externalizing problem behaviors was
similar for EA and AA families (Barnes et al., 1994; Cernkovich &
Giordano, 1987; Landarine, Richardson, Klonoff, & Flay, 1994).
Ineffective parenting as a mediating or indirect explanation of the association
between IPC and youth problem behaviors. There have been 17 investi-
gations of the pathway linking IPC and youth problem behaviors through
ineffective parenting behaviors (see Buehler & Gerard, 2002, for a list of
studies). All these investigations were conducted primarily with EA families
and did not separately analyze data from different ethnic groups (see Buehler
& Gerard, 2002, for an exception). Although favoring the spillover proposi-
tion, there is conflicting evidence regarding the mediational/indirect role of
parenting. Although some investigations supported a partial or fully
mediated relationship (see Buehler & Gerard for details), investigations by
Miller, Cowan, Cowan, Hetherington and Clingempeel (1993), Peterson and
Zill (1986), and Stone, Buehler and Barber (2002) did not support the
mediated relationship. The study by Stone et al. found that there was no
decrease in the strength of the relationship between IPC and youth outcomes
after parental psychological control was entered into the model. In some
investigations, the direct link between IPC and youth maladjustment was not
considered prior to entering parenting behaviors into the model.
Krishnakumar et al.: Marital conflict 243
07 Krishnakumar (to/d) 3/26/03 1:12 PM Page 243
at UNIV N CAROLINA GREENSBORO on October 5, 2009 http://spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Overall, the empirical literature indicates the need for more systematic
and thorough work in testing the spillover model with minority samples.
Overwhelmingly, this research has been conducted with EA families and
our understanding of how these spillover processes function in different
ethnic settings is minimal. The limited research into aspects of the model
indicates support for the links between IPC and youth problem behaviors,
IPC and ineffective parenting behaviors, and ineffective parenting behav-
iors and youth maladjustment to some degree for both ethnic groups under
investigation in this study. However, there is clearly inadequate compara-
tive research that tests parts of the spillover model or the entire spillover
model.
Given the existing empirical evidence of similarity between EA and AA
families for some components of the model and the absence of any theor-
etical arguments or empirical tests that would suggest that other parts of
the model should function differently for AA and EA families, we hypoth-
esize that the pathways are likely to be similar for both groups of families.
Because the research literature is limited by a fairly narrow assessment of
parenting, with only one or two aspects of parenting examined in each
study, we assessed four aspects of parental behaviors (three of the four
focused on youth perceptions of the mother), as well as the role of
parent–youth conflict.
Method
Sample and procedures
Data for this study came from the 1990 Tennessee Adolescents in Families
Project (TAIFS), a school-based survey of 875 pre-, early, and late adolescents
in Knox County, Tennessee (Barber, Olsen, & Shagle, 1994). From the
sampling frame of fifth, eighth, and tenth graders, 65% of the parents across
the three grades consented to participate in the study. The sub-sample for this
study was restricted to EA and AA youth whose parents were married or
divorced/separated, resulting in a sample of 692 participants. The 692 youth
reported on the level of IPC between their biological parents (even when
parents were divorced or separated). Children whose parents had remarried
were not included in the sample. The number of youth living with a divorced
father was too small to be included in the sample. All of the constructs were
based on youth perceptions of the particular behaviors and were assessed using
in-school administered questionnaires. The measures of parental acceptance,
psychological control, and lax control were restricted to youth perceptions of
the mother. The measures of parental monitoring and parent–youth conflict
asked for information about parent(s), without reference to mother or father,
specifically. Data for this sub-sample included 542 EA youth and 150 AA youth
aged 10 through 18. Forty-six percent of the EA youth and 45.5% of the AA
youth were male. Seventy-nine percent of the parents of EA youth were
currently married, as were 49% of the parents of AA youth (Table 1). All
measures in this investigation were examined for cross-ethnic equivalence (Hui
& Triandis, 1985). This was done to examine whether the items assessing the
constructs were applicable to both EA and AA families. In this investigation,
244 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 20(2)
07 Krishnakumar (to/d) 3/26/03 1:12 PM Page 244
at UNIV N CAROLINA GREENSBORO on October 5, 2009 http://spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
item equivalence of constructs between EA and AA families was investigated
using confirmatory factor analyses (Krishnakumar, Buehler, & Barber, 2000).
If the items loaded similarly across the two groups, they reflected applicability
of the items across the two groups. Items that did not load equally well for the
two groups were dropped. Thus, the subscale scores were calculated only for
those items that loaded well across the two groups and adequately represented
the construct in each group.
Equivalence of factor structures has been addressed to a limited extent in
cross-ethnic research. Knight, Virdin, and Roosa (1994) examined the equiva-
lency of the Children’s Report of Parental Behavior Inventory (CRPBI:
Schaefer, 1965) in European- and Hispanic-American families, and evidence
supported measurement equivalency for these two measures and their
subscales across the two groups. Focusing on marital conflict, Tschann, Flores,
Pasch, and VanOss Marin (1999) showed that youth and parent reports of
marital conflict, using the Multidimensional Assessment of Interparental
Conflict Scale, were equivalent across European- and Mexican-American
families. Given what has been found regarding the equivalence of these
measures in EA and Hispanic-American families, we hypothesize that the
measures should be applicable for both EA and AA families.
Measures
Two dimensions of youth maladjustment were assessed: externalizing and in-
ternalizing problem behaviors. One dimension of IPC was assessed: the
presence of hostile verbal aggression and negative affect. Four aspects of
parenting were examined: maternal acceptance, maternal psychological
control, maternal lax control, and parental monitoring. Parent–youth conflict
also was included to assess the emotionality of parent–youth interaction.
Youth maladjustment.Youth maladjustment was assessed using the Youth Self-
Report form of the Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach & McConaughy,
1987). The externalizing problem behaviors scale consisted of 29 items and the
internalizing problem behaviors scale consisted of 22 items. This measure has
been validated for use with EA and AA youth. Cronbach’s alpha for external-
izing behaviors was .86 for EA and .83 for AA youth. Cronbach’s alpha for
internalizing behaviors was .91 for EA and .86 for AA youth.
Interparental conflict. Hostile IPC was assessed using five items from the
Personal Data Form (Emery & O’Leary, 1982). Youth reported about how
characteristic certain hostile and negative behaviors or expressed emotions
were of their parents. Items included ‘My parents often yell and scream at each
other when I’m around,’ ‘I often see my parents arguing,’ and ‘My parents are
mean to each other even when I’m around.’ The response format was 1 (true),
2 (somewhat true), and 3 (not true). A high score reflected greater hostile IPC.
Based on confirmatory factor analysis, these five items fit equally well for EA
and AA youth (Krishnakumar et al., 2000). Cronbach’s alpha for IPC was .80
for EA and .79 for AA youth.
Maternal acceptance. Maternal acceptance was assessed using the 10-item
acceptance/rejection subscale of the 30-item revision of the CRPBI (Schaefer,
1965). Sample items included ‘My mother is a person who . . . gives me a lot of
care and attention, . . . makes me feel important.’ The response format was 1
Krishnakumar et al.: Marital conflict 245
07 Krishnakumar (to/d) 3/26/03 1:12 PM Page 245
at UNIV N CAROLINA GREENSBORO on October 5, 2009 http://spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
(not like her), 2 (somewhat like her), and 3 (a lot like her). A high score reflected
high maternal acceptance. Based on confirmatory factor analysis, all 10 items
loaded equally well for EA and AA youth (Krishnakumar et al., 2000).
Cronbach’s alpha for maternal acceptance was .89 for EA and .86 for AA
youth.
Maternal psychological control. Maternal psychological control was assessed
using the 10-item psychological control/psychological autonomy subscale of the
30-item revision of the CRPBI (Schaefer, 1965). Sample items included ‘My
mother is a person who will avoid looking at me when I have disappointed her
. . . wants to control whatever I do.’ The response format was 1 (not like her), 2
(somewhat like her), and 3 (a lot like her). A high score reflected high psycho-
logical control (i.e., ineffective parenting). Six of the 10 items loaded equally
well for EA and AA youth (Krishnakumar et al., 2000) and were retained.
Cronbach’s alpha for maternal psychological control was .81 for EA and .73 for
AA youth.
Maternal lax control.Maternal lax control was assessed using 10 items from the
firm/lax control subscale of the 30-item revision of the CRPBI (Schaefer, 1965).
Sample items included ‘My mother is a person who lets me go out any evening
I want . . . lets me do anything I like to do.’ The response format was 1 (not like
her), 2 (somewhat like her), and 3 (a lot like her). A high score reflected greater
lax control. Five items loaded equally well for EA and AA youth (Krishnaku-
mar et al., 2000) and were retained. Cronbach’s alpha for maternal lax control
was .72 for EA and .64 for AA youth.
Parental monitoring. A five-item scale commonly used in parent–youth
research (Barber, 1996; Brown, Mounts, Lamborn, & Steinberg, 1993) was used
to assess parental monitoring. Youth reported how much their parents ‘really
knew’ about such things as ‘where you go at night,’ ‘where you are most after-
noons after school,’ and ‘who your friends are.’ The response format was 1
(don’t know), 2 (know a little), and 3 (know a lot). A high score reflected high
parental monitoring. All five items fit equally well for EA and AA youth
(Krishnakumar et al., 2000). Cronbach’s alpha for parental monitoring was .81
for EA and .77 for AA youth.
Parent–youth conflict. Parent–youth conflict was assessed using 10 items from
the National Survey of Family and Households (Sweet, Bumpass, & Call, 1992).
Youth reported the frequency of open disagreements with their parents during
the previous six months, about topics such as dress, money, and friends. The
response format ranged from 1 (never) to 6 (almost every day). A high score
reflected high parent–youth conflict. Each item fit equally well for EA and AA
youth (Krishnakumar et al., 2000). Cronbach’s alpha for parent–youth conflict
was .85 for EA and .79 for AA youth.
Analytic procedures
There were very few missing data (less than 3% on most items). Missing values
were imputed using expectation maximization procedures (EM). This is a full
information method of imputing missing values by iterating through the data
and fitting the best values. EM produces less bias in statistical estimates than
does deleting cases or using the sample mean for imputation (Acock, 1997).
246 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 20(2)
07 Krishnakumar (to/d) 3/26/03 1:12 PM Page 246
at UNIV N CAROLINA GREENSBORO on October 5, 2009 http://spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
The spillover model was assessed for EA and AA youth simultaneously using
structural equation modeling (SEM). In addition, we also conducted additional
analyses differentiating married from divorced families within each ethnic
group using simultaneous regression analyses using SEM (stacked model
approach). The simultaneous nature of the analysis means that a single chi-
square and a single set of goodness-of-fit indices are calculated. However,
parameter estimates are provided for each ethnic group and the parameters are
compared statistically using critical ratios. A critical ratio greater than 1.96 indi-
cates a significant difference on a given parameter between groups.
Because of their potential association with youth problem behaviors, four
variables were included in the analyses to control for the effects of extraneous
variables: youth sex (dummy coded as 0 = daughters, 1 = sons), youth age,
marital status (dummy coded as 0 = divorced with mother custody, 1= married),
and poverty status (dummy coded as 0 = children who paid reduced price or
received free school lunch, 1 = children who paid full price for school lunch).
Reduced or free school lunch is afforded to children whose family incomes do
not exceed 130% and 185%, respectively, of the official poverty level deter-
mined by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Results
Descriptive and bivariate analyses
The intercorrelations, means, and standard deviations are reported in Table 1.
Among EA families, poverty status was associated with youth reports of more
parent–youth conflict, greater maternal psychological control, and more inter-
nalizing problem behaviors. Sons reported greater maternal lax control and
externalizing problem behaviors. Daughters reported more maternal accept-
ance, parental monitoring, and internalizing problem behaviors. Older children
reported fewer internalizing problem behaviors, lower maternal acceptance,
and less psychological control. Youth from divorced families reported higher
IPC and parent–youth conflict.
Among AA families, poverty status was associated with more internalizing
problem behaviors. Daughters reported more internalizing problem behaviors.
Older children reported greater parent–youth conflict and less maternal accept-
ance. Youth from divorced families reported more maternal psychological
control.
IPC and youth problem behaviors correlated positively in both EA and AA
samples. Within the EA group, as hypothesized, IPC was associated with lower
maternal acceptance and parental monitoring, as well as higher parent–youth
conflict and maternal psychological control. Contrary to hypothesis, IPC was
not associated with maternal lax control. Within the AA group, as hypothe-
sized, IPC was associated with higher parent–youth conflict and maternal
psychological control, as well as lower parental monitoring. Contrary to
hypothesis, IPC was not associated with maternal acceptance or lax control (see
Table 1).
Within the EA group, all ineffective parenting behaviors, with the exception
of maternal lax control, were associated with greater youth problem behaviors.
Within the AA group, only maternal lax control, low parental monitoring, and
maternal psychological control were associated with externalizing problem
behaviors. Maternal psychological control was the only parenting behavior
Krishnakumar et al.: Marital conflict 247
07 Krishnakumar (to/d) 3/26/03 1:12 PM Page 247
at UNIV N CAROLINA GREENSBORO on October 5, 2009 http://spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
248 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 20(2)
TABLE 1
Intercorrelations between subscales and descriptive statistics for European-American and African-American families
Variables 123456789101112
1. Poverty status .01 .14 .33*** –.03 .10 .06 –.03 .06 –.15 –.01 –.20**
2. Child sex .01 –.14 .02 –.03 –.06 .09 .11 –.10 –.03 .13 –.23***
3. Child age .21*** .05 .10 .07 –.16* .13 .17* –.12 –.13 .06 .03
4. Marital status –.25*** –.01 .01 .10 .09 –.15 –.16 .09 –.18* .05 .04
5. Interparental conflict –.08 .02 –.01 –.12** –.11 .15 .23** –.17* .25** .35*** .26***
6. Acceptance .03 –.11** –.18*** .01 –.27*** .08 .06 .31*** –.12 –.13 –.06
7. Lax control –.06 .15*** .07 –.07 .07 .21*** .22** –.16* .26*** .22** .13
8. Parent-Adol conflict –.15*** .04 –.06 –.09* .25*** –.11** .06 .00 .15 .09 .00
9. Monitoring .01 –.15*** –.06 .04 –.23*** .33*** –.14*** –.21*** –.16* –.30*** –.10
10. Psychological control –.18*** .08* –.11** –.06 .31*** –.24*** .02 .41*** –.22*** .28*** .19**
11. Externalizing problem
behaviors .04 .12** .02 .02 .26*** –.29*** .07 .36*** –.30*** .26*** .49***
12. Internalizing problem
behaviors –.10** –.16*** –.12** –.03 .34*** –.16*** –.04 .26*** –.11** .26*** .51***
Mean (SD) 84% 54% 13.49 78.6% 1.35 1.54 1.70 2.21 1.52 1.70 13.58 15.46
EA Middle class Girls (1.99) Married (.45) (.45) (.44) (.98) (.49) (.50) (7.65) (10.01)
Mean (SD) 31% 54% 13.83 48% 1.51 2.45 1.99 2.71 2.29 1.89 13.57 14.60
AA Middle class Girls (1.93) Married (.45) (.41) (.41) (1.05) (.53) (.50) (7.21) (8.30)
Note. ns = 542 European-American and 150 African-American youth. Correlations for European-American families (EA) are in the bottom triangle.
Correlations for African-American families (AA) are in the upper triangle. Child sex, 0 = daughter, 1 = son; Poverty status, 0= lunch subsidy, 1 = no lunch
subsidy; Marital status, 1 = married, 0 = divorced or separated.
* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.
07 Krishnakumar (to/d) 3/26/03 1:12 PM Page 248
at UNIV N CAROLINA GREENSBORO on October 5, 2009 http://spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
associated with internalizing problem behaviors in AA families. Thus, for the
AA youth, ineffective parenting behaviors were not as consistently related to
youth problem behaviors as in EA families (Table 1).
Testing the spillover model
IPC and youth externalizing problem behaviors. In the first step of examining
the conceptual model (spillover effect from IPC to externalizing problem
behaviors through ineffective parenting and disrupted parent–child relations
can occur as indirect or mediating effects), the association between IPC and
externalizing problem behaviors was examined. Four variables (youth sex, age,
parents’ marital status, and poverty status) were entered as covariates. The
covariates and pathways that were not significantly different from zero within
a specific ethnic group were fixed to zero and the model was re-estimated. For
both ethnic groups, IPC was associated with externalizing problem behaviors
(EA: standardized beta () = .26, critical ratio (CR) = 6.31; AA: = .35,
CR = 4.52). The association was similar for AA and EA youth. Thus, the first
criterion, that of a relationship between IPC and externalizing problems, was
established for both ethnic groups, supporting a good model fit (
2
(23,
N = 692) = 20.73, ns; GFI = .99, AGFI = .98, CFI = 1.00 and RMSEA = .00).
The model explained 8% of the variance in externalizing behavior in EA
families and 12% in AA families.
Separate analyses were conducted for married and divorced families because
of the potential confounding effect between marital status and ethnic affiliation.
For married and divorced families in the EA group, IPC was associated with
externalizing problem behaviors (EA (married): = .28, CR = 6.18; EA
(divorced): = .19, CR = 2.05). The association between IPC and externalizing
problem behaviors was evident only in married AA families and was nonsig-
nificant for AA divorced families (AA (married): = .47, CR = 4.44). The
strength of the association between IPC and externalizing problem behaviors
was stronger for AA married families than for EA divorced families
(CR = 2.08). Thus, the first criterion of a relationship between IPC and
externalizing problems was established for EA and AA married and EA
divorced groups, supporting a good model fit (
2
(33, N = 692) = 37.40, ns;
GFI = .98, AGFI = .96, CFI = .96, and RMSEA = .01). There was no link
between IPC and externalizing problems in AA divorced families. The model
explained 10% of the variance for married EA families, 4% for divorced EA
families, and 22% in married AA families.
As the next step, parenting variables were entered into the model (see
Figure 1). After examining the saturated model for both ethnic groups, the
nonsignificant paths for each ethnic group were fixed to zero and the model was
re-estimated. The model had a good fit (
2
(89, N = 692) = 257.86, p < .001). The
model explained 23% of the variance for EA families and 18% for AA families.
The
2
difference between the models without and with parenting variables
[(66, N = 692) = 252.38, p < .001, GFI = .94, AGFI = .91, CFI = .80, and
RMSEA = .05] was statistically significant.
The same method was used with EA married and divorced and AA married
and divorced families. The model had a good fit (
2
(147, N = 692) = 270.65,
p < .001). The model explained 26% of the variance in externalizing behavior
in married EA families, 10% in divorced EA families, 30% in married AA
families, and 6% in divorced AA families. The
2
difference between the
Krishnakumar et al.: Marital conflict 249
07 Krishnakumar (to/d) 3/26/03 1:12 PM Page 249
at UNIV N CAROLINA GREENSBORO on October 5, 2009 http://spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
250 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 20(2)
Interparental
Conflict
Externalizing
Problem
Behaviors
Parental
Monitoring
Maternal
Acceptance
.12/.31 (.11/.00/.42/.00)
.25/.23 (.32/.00/.36/.00)
-.16/-.25 (-.13/.00/-.34/.00)
-.29/.00 (-.30/-.22/.00/.00)
-.17/.00 (-.15/-.27/.00/-.25)
Maternal
Psychological
Control
.00/.00 (.00/.00/.00/.00)
.00/.00 (.00/.00/.00/.00)
Parent-
Youth
Conflict
-.23/-.17 (-.26/.00/.00/.00)
.29/.00 (.33/.17/.00/.00)
Maternal
Lax
Control
.32/.23 (.37/.00/.42/.00)
.00/.00 (.00/.00/.00/.00)
R
2
= .23/.18 (.26/.10/.30/06)
FIGURE 1
Interparental conflict, ineffective parenting, and externalizing problem behaviors among adolescents. Estimates for European-
American youth are presented first and those for African-American youth second.Within parentheses,estimates for European-
American married families are presented first,European-American divorced families second,African-American married families
third, and African-American divorced families last.
07 Krishnakumar (to/d) 3/26/03 1:12 PM Page 250
at UNIV N CAROLINA GREENSBORO on October 5, 2009 http://spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
models without and with parenting variables [(114, N =692) = 233.25, p < .001,
GFI = .93, AGFI = .90, CFI = .84, and RMSEA = .04] was statistically
significant.
As hypothesized, IPC was associated with higher levels of parent–youth
conflict and maternal psychological control, as well as lower levels of parental
monitoring in EA and AA families. IPC was associated with lower levels of
maternal acceptance only in EA families. IPC and maternal lax control were
not associated in either group. Parental monitoring was associated with
externalizing problem behaviors in EA and AA families. Parent–youth conflict
and maternal acceptance were associated with externalizing problem behaviors
only in EA families.
To test for the mediating effects of parenting, we followed Baron and Kenny’s
(1986) principles related to a reduction in the association between IPC and
youth problem behaviors. In EA families, the coefficient between IPC and
youth externalizing decreased significantly after the parenting variables were
included, although it remained significant ( decreased from .26 to .12; CR
difference = –2.84). When examining the pathways of association in EA
families, the Sobel’s test (Sobel, 1982) of statistical significance of indirect
effects indicated that the pathway between IPC, parental monitoring, and
externalizing problem behaviors was statistically significant (t(540) = 3.68,
p < .05). The pathways from IPC to youth externalizing problem behavior
through lower levels of maternal acceptance (t(540) = 3.28, p < .05) and higher
levels of parent–youth conflict (t(540) = 4.00, p < .05) also were statistically
significant. Thus, there is evidence that lower levels of parental monitoring and
maternal acceptance and higher levels of parent–youth conflict partially
mediated the association between IPC and youth externalizing problem behav-
iors in EA families.
For AA families, the association between IPC and externalizing was not
reduced when the parenting variables were considered ( decreased from .35
to .31, CR difference = ns). The decrease was not substantial enough to support
a conclusion that parenting behaviors mediated the association between IPC
and youth externalizing problem behaviors. The indirect pathway from IPC to
externalizing problem behaviors through parental monitoring also was not
statistically significant.
Separate analyses also were conducted for married and divorced families.
Findings indicated that IPC was associated positively with youth externalizing
problems indirectly through lower levels of maternal acceptance in both EA
married and divorced families and indirectly through higher levels of
parent–youth conflict and lower levels of parental monitoring in married EA
families (see Figure 1). The spillover model through ineffective parenting did
not characterize AA married and divorced families (see Figure 1).
In sum, controlling for youth sex, youth age, and family poverty status, IPC
was associated positively with youth externalizing problems and also indirectly
through lower levels of maternal acceptance in EA families overall, and separ-
ately for married and divorced EA families. IPC was associated positively with
youth externalizing problems indirectly through lower levels of parental moni-
toring and higher levels of parent–youth conflict in EA families overall and for
married families. In AA families, IPC was associated directly with youth
externalizing problems, but not indirectly through ineffective parenting.
Krishnakumar et al.: Marital conflict 251
07 Krishnakumar (to/d) 3/26/03 1:12 PM Page 251
at UNIV N CAROLINA GREENSBORO on October 5, 2009 http://spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
252 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 20(2)
Interparental
Conflict
Internalizing
Problem
Behaviors
Parental
Monitoring
Maternal
Acceptance
.25/.25(.27/.21/.37/.00)
.25/.23 (.32/.00/.36/.00)
.00/.00 (.00/.00/.00/.00)
-.27/.00 (-.30/-.22/.00/.00)
.00/.00 (.00/.00/.00/.00)
Maternal
Psychological
Control
.00/.00 (.00/.00/.00/.00)
.12/.00 (.19/.00/.00/.00)
Parent-
Youth
Conflict
-.23 /-.17 (-.26/.00/.00/.00)
.14 /.00 (.12/.23/.00/.00)
Maternal
Lax
Control
.32/.23 (.37/.00/.42/.00)
.00/.00 (.00/.00/.00/.00)
R
2
= .21/.15 (.22 /.18/.14/.07)
FIGURE 2
Interparental conflict, ineffective parenting, and internalizing problem behaviors among adolescents. Estimates for European-
American youth are presented first and those for African-American youth second.Within parentheses,estimates for European-
American married families are presented first,European-American divorced families second,African-American married families
third, and African-American divorced families last.
07 Krishnakumar (to/d) 3/26/03 1:12 PM Page 252
at UNIV N CAROLINA GREENSBORO on October 5, 2009 http://spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
IPC and youth internalizing problem behaviors. As with the earlier model, the
association between IPC and internalizing problem behaviors was examined
after entering the four covariates (youth sex, age, parents’ marital status, and
poverty status) into the equation. The fully saturated model was examined first
and then the model was re-estimated by fixing the nonsignificant coefficients to
zero. IPC was associated positively with youth internalizing problem behaviors
for both ethnic groups (EA: = .35, CR = 8.71; AA: = .25, CR = 3.27). The
association was stronger for EA families than for AA families (CR = 2.43).
Thus, the first criterion, that of a relationship between IPC and internalizing
problems, was established for both ethnic groups, supporting a good model fit
(
2
(20, N = 692) = 18.31, ns, GFI = .99, AGFI = .98, CFI = 1.00, and
RMSEA = .00). The model explained 15% of the variance for internalizing
behavior in EA families and 14% of the variance in AA families.
For married and divorced families in the EA group, IPC was associated with
internalizing problem behaviors (EA (married): = .38, CR = 8.56; EA
(divorced): = .23, CR = 2.60). The association between IPC and internalizing
problem behaviors was evident only in married AA families and not in divorced
families (AA (married): = .37, CR = 3.38). Thus, the first criterion, that of a
relationship between IPC and internalizing problems, was established for EA
and AA married and EA divorced groups, supporting a good model fit (
2
(31,
N = 692) = 52.18, p < .01; GFI = .97, AGFI = .95, CFI = .86, and RMSEA = .03).
There was no link between IPC and internalizing problems in AA divorced
families. The model explained 16% of the variance in married EA families,
13% for divorced EA families, and 14% for married AA families.
Next, parenting variables were entered into the equation (see Figure 2).
After examining the saturated model for both ethnic groups, the nonsignificant
paths for each ethnic group were fixed to zero and the model was re-estimated.
The indirect/mediating model indicated a good fit for both ethnic groups (
2
(90,
N = 692) = 438.67, p < .001). The model explained 21% of the variance for EA
families and 15% for AA families. The
2
difference between the models
without and with parenting variables [(70, N =692) = 420.36, p < .001; GFI = .94,
AGFI = .91, CFI = .81, and RMSEA = .04] was statistically significant.
The same method was used with EA married and divorced and AA married
and divorced families. The model had a good fit (
2
(150, N = 692) = 282.80,
p < .001). The model explained 22% of the variance in internalizing behaviors
for married EA families, 18% for divorced EA families, 14% for married AA
families, and 7% in divorced AA families. The
2
difference between the
models without and with parenting variables [(119, N =692) = 230.63, p < .001;
GFI = .93, AGFI = .90, CFI = .81, and RMSEA = .04] was statistically
significant.
As hypothesized, IPC was associated with higher levels of parent–youth
conflict and maternal psychological control, as well as lower levels of parental
monitoring in both EA and AA families. IPC was associated with lower levels
of maternal acceptance only in EA families. IPC and maternal lax control were
not associated in either group. Parent–youth conflict and maternal psycho-
logical control were associated with internalizing problem behaviors only in EA
families.
The last step in this analysis was to determine whether specific ineffective
parenting practices served as mediators of the association between IPC and
youth internalizing problem behaviors. For EA families, the ‘direct effects’
coefficients dropped but not significantly (i.e., decreased from .35 to .25, CR
Krishnakumar et al.: Marital conflict 253
07 Krishnakumar (to/d) 3/26/03 1:12 PM Page 253
at UNIV N CAROLINA GREENSBORO on October 5, 2009 http://spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
difference = ns) after parenting variables were entered into the model. For EA
families, IPC was associated with youth internalizing problem behaviors indi-
rectly through higher levels of parent–youth conflict (t(140) = 2.68, p < .05) and
maternal psychological control (t(140) = 2.32, p < .05).
For AA families, the association between IPC and internalizing problem
behaviors remained the same before and after entering parenting variables into
the model ( = .25), indicating that parenting variables did not provide any
greater explanation to the model than that provided by the direct effect alone.
Because parenting variables were not associated with internalizing problem
behaviors, a test of indirect effects was not applicable.
Separate analyses also were conducted for married and divorced families.
Findings indicated that IPC was associated positively with youth internalizing
problems indirectly through higher levels of parent–youth conflict and
maternal psychological control only in married EA families (see Figure 2). The
spillover model did not fit AA married and divorced families. Although IPC
was associated with parent–youth conflict and maternal psychological control
in married AA families, none of the parenting behaviors was associated with
youth internalizing problem behaviors in married or divorced AA families (see
Figure 2).
In sum, controlling for youth sex, youth age, and family poverty status, IPC
was associated positively with youth internalizing problems and also indirectly
through higher levels of parent–youth conflict and higher levels of maternal
psychological control in EA families overall and separately in both married and
divorced EA families. IPC was associated directly with youth internalizing
problems in AA families overall and separately in married AA families, but did
not support the spillover effects of parenting.
Discussion
This investigation was designed to extend the literature on family processes
in different ethnic populations by examining the associations among youth
perceptions of IPC, ineffective parenting behaviors, and youth problem
behaviors in EA and AA families. The findings of this study indicated that
externalizing problem behaviors in youth were associated with youth
reports of IPC. The strength of this association was similar for EA and AA
families, and in neither case was it fully mediated by several indicators of
the parent–youth relationship. The finding of direct effects supports the
proposition that youth who witness their parents’ conflictual interparental
interactions are likely to imitate their parents’ maladaptive and aggressive
interaction style and to be at risk for aggressive and delinquent behaviors
(e.g., Grych & Fincham, 1990). Several possible explanations can help
understand this relationship: modeling (Amato, 1993), negative reinforce-
ment (Cummings & Davies, 1994), increased stress (Grych & Fincham,
1990), and emotional arousal and dysregulation (Cummings & Davies,
1994). By engaging in interparental aggression in front of their children,
parents model conflictual behaviors as appropriate and acceptable behav-
iors for their youth. In turn, youth might exhibit aggressive behaviors with
their families and others. Parental conflict might also upset youth and some
254 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 20(2)
07 Krishnakumar (to/d) 3/26/03 1:12 PM Page 254
at UNIV N CAROLINA GREENSBORO on October 5, 2009 http://spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
youth might not possess the coping skills and regulatory mechanisms
needed to deal with this distress.
IPC also places youth in EA and AA families at risk for internalizing
problem behaviors. This association was apparent for both ethnic groups in
this study, and, again, it was not fully mediated by the several measures of
the parent–youth relationship in the model. This finding supports and
extends, through separate analyses for AA youth, Davies and Cummings’
(1994) hypothesis that IPC is associated with youth maladjustment through
increased youth fear and anxiety.
As was the case for the link between IPC and youth problem behaviors,
the association between IPC and ineffective parenting also was largely
invariant across both groups of families, suggesting that ethnic norms and
specific aspects of culture do not prevent the spillover of negative emotion-
ality from the interparental subsystem to the parent–child subsystem. IPC
was associated with lower levels of parental monitoring, higher levels of
maternal psychological control, and higher levels of parent–youth conflict
in both African-American and European-American families. The spillover
from IPC into maternal acceptance was present only in EA families. Why
interparental distress is not associated with maternal acceptance in the AA
families, unlike the negative spillover that happens in EA families, requires
further investigation.
Of the 10 possible associations in the multivariate analyses between the
parenting behaviors, parent–youth conflict, and youth internalizing and
externalizing problem behaviors, five were significant in EA families
(acceptance and monitoring to externalizing; parent–youth conflict to
externalizing and internalizing; psychological control to internalizing) and
only one parenting variable was significant in AA families (monitoring to
externalizing). All of these findings are consistent in direction and strength
with abundant literatures documenting significant associations among
parenting variables and forms of child and youth functioning (e.g., Maccoby
& Martin, 1983). That not all of the significant bivariate associations
between parenting/parent–youth conflict in the EA families remained
significant in the multivariate analyses reflects the value of multivariate
analyses in partialling out covariance among related variables. Still, the
variables indexing the parent–youth relationship were significantly related
to either internalizing or externalizing youth problem behaviors (with the
exception of lax control, a variable that was not useful for either ethnic
group, and in other analyses has been inconsequential). Parent–youth
conflict was significantly related to both forms of problem behaviors. The
significant differential links between monitoring and externalizing
problems and between psychological control and internalizing problems
support the recent distinction between these forms of parental control
(behavioral versus psychological) and their specific associations with
internalized versus externalized forms of youth functioning (Barber, 1992).
For the AA families in this study, the parenting variables were largely un-
related to either form of youth problem behaviors at the bivariate level and,
hence, also at the multivariate level. These findings are not consistent with
Krishnakumar et al.: Marital conflict 255
07 Krishnakumar (to/d) 3/26/03 1:12 PM Page 255
at UNIV N CAROLINA GREENSBORO on October 5, 2009 http://spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
other literatures on the relevance of these forms of parenting/parent–youth
relationship quality to youth functioning in AA families (Cernkovich &
Giordano, 1987; Landarine et al., 1994; Paschall et al., 1996). Thus, we
approach these nonsignificant findings with caution. Further analyses of
another set of families from this particular area and other regions would be
necessary before concluding that these findings are credible.
The central question of the role of ineffective parenting behaviors in
explaining the association between IPC and youth problem behaviors has
been addressed largely in investigations of EA families, with only one study
focusing on how these variables are linked in other ethnic groups (Buehler
& Gerard, 2002). Results of the current investigation suggest that inade-
quate parental monitoring partially explained the association between IPC
and externalizing problem behaviors in EA families (weak effect for AA
families). Inadequate parental monitoring (a form of parental regulation,
Barber, 1997) has frequently been found to be associated with higher levels
of youth externalizing behaviors (e.g., Eccles, Early, Frasier, Belansky, &
McCarthy, 1997; Gray & Steinberg, 1999). We extended those findings by
demonstrating that inadequate parental monitoring is impacted by levels of
IPC and is a pathway of influence between IPC and externalizing problem
behaviors in both EA and AA families (although weak). This finding
suggests that the ability of parents enduring interparental stress to regulate
and structure their children’s lives is impeded by the spillover of the strain
of the IPC to parenting quality. The salience of parental monitoring in this
model also might indicate that youth who are exposed to interparental
hostility are less willing to self disclose personal information about their
lives to their parents. Youth might not feel comfortable talking to parents
who are frequently upset emotionally or might not want to worry or bother
their parents who obviously have plenty of strife in their own personal lives.
There was some evidence in these data that the indirect effects of parent-
ing are more evident in EA married than divorced families. The indirect
effects were limited for AA married and divorced families. However, the
sample sizes for the divorced families were fairly small (72 EA and 78 AA),
and thus research is needed to test spillover effects from IPC into youth
problem behaviors through parenting in divorced families using a larger
sample. When conducting this research, it will be important to determine if
parental divorce protects the parent–child relationship from the deleterious
effects of IPC.
As expected, there was substantial invariance across the ethnic groups in
the functioning of these key elements of individual development and family
processes. This suggests that at a general level there might be elements of
the socialization process that are not affected, or at least not dramatically
so, by cultural differences. This finding is consistent with research showing
substantial invariance in youth reports of the associations between parent-
ing and youth functioning across a variety of different cultures, nations, and
ethnic groups around the world (Barber, 1998; Barber & Harmon, 2002;
Rohner, 1986). The present study adds the possibility that this similarity
across cultures also might extend to the role of the interparental relation-
ship in youth development.
256 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 20(2)
07 Krishnakumar (to/d) 3/26/03 1:12 PM Page 256
at UNIV N CAROLINA GREENSBORO on October 5, 2009 http://spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
This general relevance of IPC to youth in both ethnic groups was quali-
fied somewhat in degree (i.e., stronger for AA youth) and the extent to
which youth perceptions of parenting are implicated in this process (i.e.,
implicated more for EA youth). These differences are interesting, but will
require validation before we can know how meaningful they are. This is
particularly true concerning the role of parents, given the unusual finding
that parenting did not predict the extent to which AA youth engaged in
problem behaviors.
The results of this study must be considered with their limitations. The
cross-sectional nature of this investigation limits the ability to draw
conclusions about the direction of the influence among overt conflict,
parenting behaviors, and youth problem behaviors. Longitudinal designs
are required to address issues of causality. Thus, the findings from this study
can only suggest potential models that need to be examined using multiple-
wave panel data.
The current results also were restricted because of the focus only on the
frequency of an overt conflict style. Future studies should include other
forms and modes of conflict expression such as covert, avoidant, and with-
drawal behaviors (Buehler et al., 1997). In addition, other dimensions of
conflict such as intensity, content, degree of resolution, and chronicity need
to be investigated.
Another limitation of this investigation is the school-based sample. Such
samples are biased because they do not include children who drop out of
school and who are potentially experiencing problems to a greater extent
than children who are still in school. Further, this sample might not repre-
sent adequately EA and AA families with youth who live in disadvantaged
neighborhoods. The youth in this study were from neighborhoods that
ranged from lower-middle to upper-middle class. The poor children in this
sample primarily lived in families who resided in rural areas.
An additional limitation is that data were collected using self-reports
from youth. Although several researchers have suggested that youth are
reliable reporters of their behaviors and the behaviors of others (Akers,
Massey, Clarke, & Lauer, 1983), future research should take into consider-
ation the perspectives of multiple respondents.
Finally, it is important to note that other key aspects of socialization
within AA families, such as aspects of racial and ethnic socialization, might
be affected by IPC. These factors are an integral part of instilling in children
ethnic pride in the AA culture. African-American parents often address the
importance of religiosity, educational achievement, family unity, and self-
respect in their socialization practices (Stevenson, 1995). In addition,
parents also have to teach their children about racial barriers in society and
how to behave and interact with the majority culture (Bowman & Howard,
1985). It is possible that under situations of stress the general socialization
practices continue to operate, but messages of racial and ethnic socializa-
tion are not communicated. Perhaps, it is the hampering of these socializa-
tion dimensions in situations of IPC that interfere with positive youth
development for AA youth.
Krishnakumar et al.: Marital conflict 257
07 Krishnakumar (to/d) 3/26/03 1:12 PM Page 257
at UNIV N CAROLINA GREENSBORO on October 5, 2009 http://spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
REFERENCES
Achenbach, T. M., & McConaughy, S. H. (Eds.). (1987). Empirically based assessment of child
and adolescent psychopathology: Practical applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Acock, A. (1997). Working with missing data. Family Science Review, 10, 76–102.
Akers, R. L., Massey, J., Clarke, W., & Lauer, R. T. (1983). Are self-reports of adolescent
deviance valid? Biochemical measures, randomized response, and the bogus pipeline in
smoking behavior. Social Forces, 62, 234–251.
Amato, P. R. (1993). Children’s adjustment to divorce: Theories, hypotheses, and empirical
support. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 23–38.
Barber, B. K. (1992). Family, personality, and problem behaviors. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 54, 69–79.
Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected construct. Child
Development, 67, 3296–3319.
Barber, B. K. (1997). Introduction: Adolescent socialization in context: Connection, regu-
lation, and autonomy in multiple contexts. Journal of Adolescent Research 12, 173–177.
Barber, B. K. (1998, July). A multi-national model of parent–adolescent relations. Paper
presented at the International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development, Berne,
Switzerland.
Barber, B. K., & Harmon, E. (2002). Violating the self: Parental psychological control of
children and adolescents. In B. K. Barber (Ed.), Intrusive parenting: How psychological
control affects children and adolescents (pp. 15–52). Washington, DC: American Psycho-
logical Association.
Barber, B. K., Olsen, J. E., & Shagle, S. (1994). Associations between parental psychological
and behavioral control and youth internalized and externalized behaviors. Child Develop-
ment, 65, 1120–1136.
Barnes, G. M., Farrell, M. P., & Banerjee. S. (1994). Family influences on alcohol abuse and
other problem behaviors among Black and White adolescents in a general population
sample. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 4, 183–201.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Bernal, M. E., & Knight, G. P. (1993). Ethnic identity: Formation and transmission among
Hispanic and other minorities. New York: State University of New York Press.
Bowman, P. J., & Howard, C. S. (1985). Race-related socialization, motivation, and academic
achievement: A study of Black youth in three-generation families. Journal of the American
Academy of Child Psychiatry, 24, 134–141.
Brown, B. B., Mounts, N., Lamborn, S. D., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting practices and peer
group affiliation in adolescence. Child Development, 64, 467–482.
Buehler, C., Anthony, A., Krishnakumar, A., Stone, G., Gerard, J., & Pemberton, S. (1997).
Interparental conflict and youth problem behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Journal of
Child and Family Studies, 6, 233–247.
Buehler, C., & Gerard, J. (2002). Marital conflict, ineffective parenting, and children’s and
adolescents’ maladjustment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 78–92.
Cazenave, N., & Straus, M. (1979). Race, class networks embeddedness and family violence:
A search for potent support systems. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 10, 281–299.
Cernkovich, S. A., & Giordano, P. C. (1987). Family relationships and delinquency. Criminol-
ogy, 25, 295–321.
Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P. T. (Eds.). (1994). Children and marital conflict: The impact of
dispute and resolution. New York: Guilford Press.
Davies, P. T., & Cummings, E. M. (1994). Marital conflict and adjustment: An emotional
security hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 387–411.
Eccles, J. S., Early, D., Frasier, K., Belansky, E., & McCarthy, K. (1997). The relation of
connection, regulation, and support for autonomy to adolescents’ functioning. Journal of
Adolescent Research, 12, 263–286.
258 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 20(2)
07 Krishnakumar (to/d) 3/26/03 1:12 PM Page 258
at UNIV N CAROLINA GREENSBORO on October 5, 2009 http://spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Elliott, D. S., & Ageton, S. S. (1980). Reconciling race and class differences in self-reported
and official estimates of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 45, 95–110.
Emery, R. E., & O’Leary, K. D. (1982). Children’s perceptions of marital discord and behavior
problems in boys and girls. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 10, 11–24.
Erel, O., & Burman, B. (1995). Interrelatedness of marital relations and parent–child relations:
A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 108–132.
Fabrega, H., Ulrich, R., & Mezzich, J. E. (1993). Do Caucasian and Black adolescents differ at
psychiatric intake? Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
32, 407–413.
Gaines, S. O., Jr., Marelich, W. D., Bledsoe, K. L., & Steers, W. N. (1997). Links between
race/ethnicity and cultural values as mediated by racial/ethnic identity and moderated by
sex. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1460–1476.
Gjerde, Per. F., & Onishi, M. (2000). In search of theory: The study of ‘ethnic groups’ in
developmental psychology. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 10, 289–298.
Gray, M. R., & Steinberg, L. (1999). Unpacking authoritative parenting: Reassessing a multi-
dimensional construct. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 574–587.
Grych, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Marital conflict and children’s adjustment: A
cognitive–contextual framework. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 267–290.
Hampton, R. L., Gelles, R. J., & Harrop, J. W. (1989). Is violence in Black families increasing:
A comparison of 1975 and 1985 National Survey Rates. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
51, 969–980.
Harrison, A. O., Wilson, M. N., Pine, C. J., Chan, S. Q., & Buriel, R. (1990). Family ecologies
of ethnic minority children. Child Development, 61, 347–362.
Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1985). Measurement in cross-cultural psychology: A review and
comparison of strategies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 16, 131–152.
Knight, G. P., Virdin, L. M., & Roosa, M. (1994). Socialization and family correlates of mental
health outcomes among Hispanic and Anglo American children: Consideration of cross-
ethnic scalar equivalence. Child Development, 65, 212–224.
Krishnakumar, A., & Buehler, C. (2000). Interparental conflict and parenting behaviors: A
meta-analytic review. Family Relations, 49, 25–44.
Krishnakumar, A., Buehler, C., & Barber, B. K. (2000, November). Cross-ethnic equivalence
issues within the socialization patterns of African American and European American families.
Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Council on Family Relations,
Minneapolis.
Landarine, H., Richardson, J. L., Klonoff, E. A., & Flay, B. (1994). Cultural diversity in the
predictors of adolescent cigarette smoking: The relative influence of peers. Journal of Behav-
ioral Medicine, 17, 331–346.
Lockhart, L. L. (1987). A reexamination of the effects of race and social class on the incidence
of marital violence: A search for reliable differences. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49,
603–610.
Loeber, R., Russo, M., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., & Lahey, B. B. (1994). Internalizing problems
and their relation to the development of disruptive behaviors in adolescence. Journal of
Research on Adolescence Special Issue: Affective processes in adolescence, 4, 615–637.
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent–child
interaction. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 4) (pp. 1–101). New
York: Wiley.
McAdoo, H. P. (1993). Family ethnicity: Strength in diversity. New York: Sage.
McKenry, P. C., & Fine, M. (1993). Parenting following divorce: A comparison of Black and
White single mothers. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 21, 99–111.
McLeod, J. D., Kruttschnitt, C., & Dornfeld, M. (1994). Does parenting explain the effects of
structural conditions on children’s antisocial behavior? A comparison of Blacks and Whites.
Social Forces, 73, 575–604.
McLoyd (1990). The impact of economic hardship on Black families and children: Psychological
distress, parenting, and socioemotional development. Child Development, 61, 311–346.
Miller, N. B., Cowan, P. A., Cowan, C. P., Hetherington, E. M., & Clingempeel, W. G. (1993).
Krishnakumar et al.: Marital conflict 259
07 Krishnakumar (to/d) 3/26/03 1:12 PM Page 259
at UNIV N CAROLINA GREENSBORO on October 5, 2009 http://spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Externalizing in preschoolers and early adolescents: A cross-study replication of a family
model. Developmental Psychology, 29, 3–18.
Ocampo, A., Bernal, M. E., & Knight, G. P. (1993). Sex, race and ethnicity: The sequencing of
social constancies. In M. E. Bernal & G. P. Knight (Eds.), Ethnic identity: Formation and
transmission among Hispanics and other minorities (pp. 11–30). New York: State University
of New York Press.
Ogbu, J. U. (1991). Immigrant and involuntary minorities in comparative perspective. In M.
A. Gibson & J. U. Ogbu (Eds.), Minority status and schooling: A comparative study of
immigrant and involuntary minorities (pp. 3–33). New York: Garland.
Paschall, M. J., Ennett, S. T., & Flewelling, R. L. (1996). Relationships among family charac-
teristics and violent behavior by Black and White male adolescents. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 25, 177–197.
Peeples, F., & Loeber, R. (1994). Do individual factors and neighborhood context explain
ethnic differences in juvenile delinquency. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 10, 141–157.
Peterson, J. L., & Zill, N. (1986). Marital disruption, parent–child relationships, and behavior
problems in children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 295–307.
Reid, W., & Crisafulli, A. (1990). Marital discord and child behavior problems: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 18, 105–117.
Roberts, R. E., Chen, Y-W., & Solovitz, B. L. (1995). Symptoms of DSM-III-R major depres-
sion among Anglo, African, and Mexican American adolescents. Journal of Affective
Disorders, 36, 1–9.
Rohner, R. P. (Ed.). (1986). The warmth dimension: Foundations of parental acceptance-
rejection theory. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Rothbaum, F., & Weisz, J. R. (1994). Parental caregiving and child externalizing behavior in
nonclinical samples: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 55–74.
Rowe, D. C., Vazsonyi, A. T., & Flannery, D. J. (1994). No more than skin deep: Ethnic and
racial similarity in developmental process. Psychological Review, 101, 396–413.
Sanders, M. R., Nicholson, J. M., & Floyd, F. J. (1997). Couples’ relationships and children. In
W. K. Halford & H. J. Markman (Eds.), Clinical handbook of marriage and couples inter-
ventions (pp. 225–253). New York: Wiley.
Schaefer, E. (1965). Children’s reports of parental behavior: An inventory. Child Development,
36, 413–424.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation
models. In S. Leihart (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290–312). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Stevenson, H. C. (1995). Relationship of adolescent perceptions of racial socialization to racial
identity. Journal of Black Psychology, 21, 49–70.
Stone, G., Buehler, C., & Barber, B. K. (2002). Interparental conflict, parental psychological
control, and youth problem behaviors. In B. K. Barber (Ed.), Intrusive parenting: How
psychological control affects children and adolescents (pp. 53–96). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Sweet, J., Bumpass, L., & Call, V. (1992). National Survey of Families and Households 1988.
Madison: Center for Demography and Ecology, University of Wisconsin.
Tschann, J. M., Flores, F., Pasch, L. A., & VanOss Marin, B. (1999). Assessing interparental
conflict: Reports of parents and adolescents in European American and Mexican American
families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 269–283.
260 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 20(2)
07 Krishnakumar (to/d) 3/26/03 1:12 PM Page 260
at UNIV N CAROLINA GREENSBORO on October 5, 2009 http://spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
