Skip to main content
PMC home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Dec 1.
Published in final edited form as: Couple Family Psychol. 2012 Dec;1(4):294–305. doi: 10.1037/a0029421

Youth Externalizing Problems in African American Single Mother Families: A Culturally-Relevant Model

Nada M Goodrum 1, Deborah J Jones 1, Carlye Y Kincaid 1, Jessica Cuellar 1
PMCID: PMC3621983  NIHMSID: NIHMS451207  PMID: 23586002

Abstract

African American youth, particularly those from single mother homes, are more likely to evidence externalizing problems than European American youth and youth from two parent homes; however, relatively little empirical attention has been devoted to identifying the contextual variables associated with externalizing problems within this at-risk group. Accordingly, this study examined the family as a context for youth externalizing problems among 194 African American single mother-youth dyads. Findings demonstrated that higher levels of mother-coparent conflict were associated directly, as well as indirectly via compromises in coparent (but not maternal) warmth, with youth externalizing problems. The spillover from mother-coparent conflict to coparent warmth to child externalizing problems did not vary depending upon family income. Findings suggest that prevention and intervention programs targeting African American youth from single mother homes may be strengthened with greater attention to variability in family processes, as well as a more sensitive assessment of which adults are centrally involved in childrearing.

Keywords: African American, single mother, coparenting, adolescent, externalizing

According to the 2009 United States Census, 67% of youth in the United States are living in single-parent households (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009). African American single mother families are overrepresented in the trend, with 56% of African American youth residing in single mother homes (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009). The large proportion of African American single mother families is due in large part to African American mothers being less likely to expect to marry or to actually marry their child’s biological father than mothers in other racial and ethnic groups, but also a rise in the divorce rate in the African American community (see Blackman et al., 2005 for a review). Parallel with the aforementioned trends in the family has been increased attention to the adjustment difficulties of African American youth from single mother homes, with particular focus on their heightened vulnerability for externalizing problems (e.g., Barrett & Turner, 2005; Lipman, Boyle, Dooley, & Offord, 2002; Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2007). Yet, such between race (i.e., African American vs. Caucasian) and family structure (i.e., intact vs. single mother families) comparisons fail to inform us about variability within the growing population of single mother African American families in terms of factors that may exacerbate versus ameliorate vulnerability for externalizing problems.

Consistent with a call to disentangle ethnicity from other contextual variables (see Pinderhughes & Lee, 2008, for special issue), this study examined the family as a context for better understanding which African American youth from single mother homes are at greatest risk for externalizing problems. The family has been identified as a central context for understanding youth externalizing problems (e.g., Dearing, McCartney, & Taylor, 2006; Fauber, Forehand, Thomas, & Wierson, 1990; Oliva, Jiménez, & Parra, 2009). A principal reason cited for the overrepresentation of externalizing problems among African American youth from single mother homes is the compromise in maternal parenting that may occur when mothers must balance the competing demands of both work and family. What this explanation fails to take into account, however, is that “single mother” status does not necessarily mean that mothers are the only adults involved in childrearing, particularly in African American families (see Jones & Lindahl, 2010; Jones, Zalot, Foster, Sterrett, & Chester, 2007; Murry, Bynum, Brody, Willert, & Stephens, 2001 for reviews). The important role of the extended family, as well as “fictive kin” or non-relatives who are considered part of the extended family system, in the African American community has been highlighted elsewhere (see Boyd-Franklin, 1989; Franklin, 1997; Jones et al., 2007 for reviews). Importantly, historians point to a connection between the strength of African American extended family networks (which often include not only the nuclear families, but also aunts, uncles, cousins, and grandparents) and African values and customs regarding families (e.g., Johnson & Staples, 2005; Sudarkasa, 1997). The wider inclusion of family members means that more people have a role in the care of individuals, including assuring the health and well being of youth (see Jones et al., 2007; Jones & Lindahl, 2011; McHale, 2009 for reviews). Consistent with the extended family tradition, the majority of African American mothers who are “single” by definition of their marital status endorse the assistance of another adult or family member in childrearing (e.g., Forehand & Kotchick, 1996; Jones, Forehand, Brody, & Armistead, 2003; Marshall, Noonan, McCartney, Marx, & Keefe, 2001). The mothers’ “non-marital coparents” may be the child’s biological father in some families, while in others single mothers identify aunts or uncles, grandmothers, or other relatives or family friends (see Jones et al., 2007, for a review).

Although a “coparenting” framework has more typically been used to explain the relationships between married parents, a marital or romantic relationship is actually not inherent in the definition of the construct (see McHale et al., 2002; McHale & Irace, 2011; Jones et al., 2007 for reviews). Rather, coparenting quite simply refers to the coordination of childrearing responsibilities between two adults (e.g., McHale, 2007; McHale & Lindahl, 2011; McHale & Sullivan, 2008, for recent comprehensive reviews). Research on primarily European American and married parents reveals that conflict about childrearing in particular, even more so than general interparental or marital conflict, most directly affects youth adjustment in general and externalizing problems in particular (see Buehler, Krishnakumar, Anthony, Tittsworth, & Stone, 1994; Cummings, 1994; Gable, Belsky, & Crinic, 1992 for reviews). Several hypotheses explain the link between interparental conflict and youth externalizing problems, including increases in stress and arousal, which in turn heighten the vulnerability for acting out and aggression (Cummings, 1994; Cummings, Pellegrini, Notarius, & Cummings, 1989). In addition to the direct effects of coparenting conflict on youth externalizing problems, conflict in the coparenting relationship also spills over to compromises in individual parenting behaviors, including parental warmth (i.e., the spillover hypothesis; see Krishnakumar & Buehler, 2000 for a review).

As initially highlighted by Baumrind (1966), parental warmth is a central component of an authoritative or positive parenting style. Although other parenting behaviors (e.g. monitoring, knowledge) have been shown to predict youth adjustment, research suggests that warmth has a particularly important impact on youth outcomes over and above other parenting behaviors (Walton & Flouri, 2010; Buschgens et al., 2010). Increasing evidence suggests that the absence of parental warmth increases youth vulnerability to externalizing problems in particular (e.g., Buschgens et al., 2010; Jones et al., 2008; Walton & Flouri, 2010). Moreover, although parental warmth is important for all youth, some work suggests its role is magnified among the highest risk youth (e.g., Kim-Cohen, Moffitt, & Caspi, 2004; Masten & Coatsworth, 1998). One explanation that has been proposed to explain the inverse relation between warmth and externalizing problems focuses on the child’s ability to regulate arousal. Parenting characterized by low levels of warmth is thought to interfere with a child’s capacity to regulate arousal; as a result, a child may be less capable of considering the consequences of his or her actions and refraining from problem behavior (e.g., Eisenberg et al., 2005; Hyein, Olson, Sameroff, & Sexton, 2011; Walton & Flouri, 2010; see McKee, Colletti, Rakow, Jones, & Forehand, 2008 for a review).

Coparenting conflict has been shown to lead to compromises in parental warmth and, in turn, elevated levels of youth externalizing problems (see Cummings, Davies, & Simpson, 1994, for a review). The bulk of the research, however, focuses on European American and intact families, as well as maternal warmth in particular, with relatively less attention to the coparenting relationships African American single mothers have with their non-marital coparents or coparent warmth (e.g., Amato & Fowler, 2002; Brody, Dorsey, Forehand, & Armistead, 2002; Krishnakumar, Buehler, & Barber, 2003). Given the significant role of non-marital coparents in African American single mother families, this study aimed to replicate and extend prior work by examining the association between mother-coparent conflict and youth externalizing problems, as well as the mediating role of both mother and coparent warmth. We predicted that greater mother-coparent conflict would be directly associated with higher levels of youth externalizing problems, as well as play an indirect role via compromises in mother and coparent warmth.

In addition, this study examined the moderating role of family income. As most research on African American single mothers focuses on very low-income families (e.g., Choi & Jackson, 2011; Forehand et al., 2000; Zalot, Jones, Forehand, & Brody, 2007), the literature to date does not adequately reflect the broader diversity of families with regard to socioeconomic status. As highlighted by Marsh and colleagues (2007), never-married single individuals constitute a rapidly growing segment of the African American middle class. Accordingly, this study examined whether family income moderated the proposed relationship between mother-coparent conflict and both mother and coparent parenting (the proposed mediators), as well as the relationship between mother and coparent parenting and youth externalizing problems. Consistent with the Family Stress Model (e.g., Conger et al., 2002; Conger, Rueter, & Conger, 2000; McLoyd, 1998), we expected that the link between mother-coparent conflict and compromised parenting, as well as the link between compromised parenting and youth externalizing problems, would be more robust in lower income families.

Method

Overview

The data used in the current study come from the African American Families and Children Together (AAFACT) Project, which aimed to explore the role of extended family members in the psychosocial health of African American youth from single mother homes. Families were considered eligible if they had an 11 to 16 year old child and mothers could identify a coparent, or another adult or family member who assisted in daily childrearing responsibilities for the target child. This specific age range was selected given the importance of the family context, particularly for African American families, during the adolescent transition (e.g., Giordano, Cernkovich, & DeMaris, 1993; Stanton, Li, Pack, Cottrell, & Burns, 2002; Tragesser, Beauvais, Swaim, Edwards, & Oetting, 2007). Families were recruited from across central North Carolina through community agencies, public events, local advertisements, and word-of-mouth.

Participants

Participants were 194 African American single mother (M age = 38.05 years, SD = 6.67) - youth (M age = 13.39 years, SD = 1.59; 54.6% male) dyads. As shown in Table 1, mothers’ household annual incomes ranged from $0 to $120,000, with a mean of $29,733.96 (SD = $17,456.49), and consistent with national trends the majority of mothers self-identified as “never-married” (51%). Adolescents’ maternal grandmothers constituted the largest proportion of coparents in the sample (36.6%), followed by mothers’ friends (24.2%) and mothers’ sisters (12.4%). Other coparent categories included mother’s boyfriend (3.6%), child’s biological father (3.1%), child’s maternal grandfather (2.6%), mother’s daughter (2.1%), mother’s niece (2.1%), mother’s grandmother (2.1%), mother’s cousin (2.1%), and other (9.1%).

Table 1.

Bivariate correlations among all study variables.

Variable M SD % 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Mother-Coparent Conflict† 3.81 4.78 .
2. Maternal Warmth and Support‡ 16.36 4.38 −.01 .
3. Coparent Warmth and Support‡ 17.54 4.32 −.23** .29*** .
4. Youth Externalizing† 7.24 7.28 .26*** −.26*** −.24** .
5. Mother Age 38.05 6.67 −.11 −.05 .06 −.07 .
6. Mother Annual Income $29,733.96 $17,456.49 .02 −.07 .07 −.20** .14* .
7. Youth Age 13.39 1.59 .06 −.22** −.04 .12 .31*** .10 .
8. Youth Gender .08 −.08 −.09 −.03 −.01 −.02 .05 .
 % girls 44.8
 % boys 54.6
Open in a new tab
*

p < .05;

**

p < .01;

***

p < .001

†

Mother report;

‡

Adolescent report

Procedures

Procedures were reviewed by the Behavioral Institutional Review Board, and informed consent and assent were obtained from the mothers and adolescents, respectively. Families completed assessments at a community site or in their home, according to the family preference. Audio Computer-Assisted Self Interviewing (ACASI) software and separate laptop computers were used to collect data from each family member in order to decrease the potential for biased responses and to maximize confidentiality. The interview assessed a range of variables related to psychosocial functioning, including the variables in the current study. Interviews took approximately 60 to 90 minutes, and families were compensated $25.

Measures

Demographic Information

Mothers and youth completed demographic information (e.g. age, gender, educational level), which included mother-report of annual family income.

Mother-Coparent Conflict

Mother-coparent conflict was assessed using mother report on the O’Leary Porter Scale (OPS; Porter & O’Leary, 1980). Mothers’ responses were based on the adults they identified as the “coparent” or another adult who was involved in daily childrearing responsibilities for the target child. The OPS is comprised of ten items which mothers rate on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 0 = Never to 4 = Very Often, with higher scores indicating more conflict. The scale primarily measures the amount of verbal hostility between the mother and coparent observed by the adolescent, along with one item assessing physical aggression (Porter & O’Leary, 1980). Following reliability analyses, item 10 (“How often have you and your coparent displayed affection for each other in front of the child?”) was excluded, which may be expected given that the majority of coparents were not intimate partners. The OPS has demonstrated adequate validity and reliability (Emery & O’Leary, l982; Porter & O’Leary, 1980). In the current sample, the alpha coefficient for the remaining items was .81.

Mother & Coparent Warmth

Parental warmth was assessed using the short-form of the Interaction Behavior Questionnaire (IBQ; Prinz, Foster, Kent, & O’Leary, 1979), which adolescents completed for both mothers and coparents. The short form of the IBQ is comprised of the 20 true/false items with the highest phi coefficients and the highest item-to-total correlations with the original 75 items of the IBQ, correlating .96 with the long form. Scores can range from 0 to 20, and higher scores indicate higher levels of warmth. The IBQ has been found to have adequate internal consistency and discriminant validity (Prinz et al., 1979; Robin & Weiss, 1980). In this sample, Cronbach’s alpha was .90 for mothers and .93 for coparents.

Youth externalizing behaviors

Externalizing behaviors were assessed using mother report on the aggression and delinquency subscales of the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach, 1991). The aggression and delinquency subscales were selected because they evaluate the types of externalizing behaviors typically exhibited by youth in the age range included in this study. Together, the two subscales are comprised of 33 items, each rated on a three-point scale: 0 = Not True; 1 = Somewhat True; 2= Very True, with higher scores indicating more problems. The subscales have acceptable psychometrics (Achenbach, 1991), including with similar samples (e.g., Jones, Shaffer, et al., 2003). In the current sample, the alpha coefficient was .91.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations for all study variables are presented in Table 1. As seen in Table 1, associations between major study variables were consistent with the proposed study hypotheses, with one exception: mother-coparent conflict was not significantly correlated with maternal warmth (r = − .01, n.s.). Accordingly, only the mediating role of coparent warmth was examined in the regression analyses.

In order to examine differences among various coparent identities on the primary study variables, with particular interest in whether the primary outcome of interest (externalizing problems) varied by coparent identity, coparent relation to the child was grouped into six categories: maternal grandmother, biological father, maternal aunt, female family friend, female relative other (e.g., cousin, sister, great aunt, paternal grandmother, great grandmother), and male other (e.g., mother’s boyfriend, mother’s ex-husband, male family friend, brother, nephew, grandfather). As shown in Table 2, coparent identity was not associated with externalizing problems and, therefore, was not controlled in regression analyses.

Table 2.

Descriptive Data by Coparent Relationship and Comparison of Means among Coparent Groups

Coparent Relation to Child Conflict† Maternal Warmth‡ Coparent Warmth‡ Adolescent Externalizing Behavior†
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
Grandmother 5.11 (4.57) 16.78 (4.17) 17.75 (3.90) 7.06 (7.47)
Biological Father 7.33 (7.42) 16.5 (4.72) 19.5 (.84) 6.33 (5.54)
Aunt 1.79 (2.21) 15.45 (5.21) 16.35 (5.86) 5.88 (5.36)
Female Family Friend 1.50 (3.02) 16.98 (4.09) 18.95 (1.72) 6.86 (7.08)
Female Relative Other 3.33 (5.59) 16.50 (4.37) 17.00 (4.52) 7.72 (7.33)
Male Other 5.35 (6.01) 15.04 (4.69) 16.26 (5.42) 9.52 (8.95)
F 5.75*** .93 2.05 .79
Open in a new tab
***

p < .001

†

Mother report;

‡

Adolescent report

Primary Analyses

In order to examine the proposed mediating role of coparent warmth, hierarchical regression analyses were conducted. After household income was entered in Block 1, mother-coparent conflict (Block 2) was examined both without and with coparent warmth (Block 3) in the model (see Table 3).

Table 3.

Regression Analyses Examining Externalizing Problems (N = 194)

F R2 Δ B t
Block 1. Mother Annual Income 7.25** .04 −.21** −2.76
Block 2. Mother-Coparent Conflict 9.90*** .07 .26*** 3.77
(with coparent-warmth) .22** 2.86
Block 3. Coparent Warmth 8.88*** .03 −.19* −2.49
Open in a new tab
*

p < .05,

**

p < .01,

***

p <.001

Consistent with bivariate associations, mothers who reported lower household incomes also reported that their youth engaged in higher levels of externalizing behaviors, β = −.21, p < .01. After household income was entered in the model, greater mother-coparent conflict also continued to be significantly related to higher levels of youth externalizing problems, β = .26, p < .001. When coparent warmth was entered in the model, β = −.19, p < .05, the association between mother-coparent conflict and externalizing problems remained significant, although the magnitude was reduced, from β = .26, p < .001 to β = .22, p < .01.

Following up on the reduction in the magnitude of the mother-coparent conflict and externalizing problems relationship when coparent warmth was entered in the model, bootstrapping analyses were conducted to examine the proposed mediating role of coparent warmth (e.g., Preacher & Hayes, 2008; Schacht, Cummings, & Davies, 2009). These analyses confirmed that the indirect path from mother-coparent conflict to externalizing problems via coparent warmth was significantly different from zero (95% confidence interval = .016 to .211). Greater mother-coparent conflict was associated with less coparent warmth which, in turn, was associated with more youth externalizing problems.

Following the methods outlined in Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes (2007), moderated mediation analyses were conducted to examine income as a moderator of the mediating role of coparent warmth. Findings did not support household income as a moderator of the link between mother-coparent conflict and parental warmth (β = 0.00; t = −1.29, n.s.) or between parental warmth and adolescent externalizing behaviors (β = 0.00; t = .95, n.s.).

Discussion

The purpose of the current study was to examine the role of family context in youth externalizing problems within a sample of African American youth from single mother homes. Overall, findings highlighted the important but relatively unexamined role of coparent warmth for externalizing outcomes in African American single mother families. Each of the study hypotheses and specific findings will be discussed below.

Before addressing the primary findings of the study, it is notable that neither youth age nor gender was correlated with externalizing problems. In terms of age, it is important to note that prior studies with other samples of African American youth from single mother homes also have not found a link between age and externalizing problems (e.g., Sterrett, Jones, & Kincaid, 2009). Furthermore, findings have been inconsistent regarding the association of age with socioemotional difficulties, with some studies showing no significant age differences in the prevalence of externalizing problems (Costello et al., 1996; Offord et al., 1996). Youth gender also was not associated with the outcome variable. While several studies have documented gender differences in behavior problems (Lahey et al., 2000), the findings have been much less consistent for less severe oppositional behaviors, and several studies have reported no gender differences (Lewinsohn, Hops, Robert, Seeley, & Andrews, 1993; Verhulst, Van der Ende, Ferdinand, & Kasius, 1997; Williams, McGee, Anderson, & Silva, 1989). Accordingly, the concentration of youth in the age range of eligibility may have diluted gender effects.

Consistent with prior research with both intact and single parent families (e.g., Buehler, Benson, & Gerard, 2006; Cui & Conger, 2008; Shook et al., 2010), a significant relation between mother-coparent conflict and externalizing outcomes was found in the current study. This finding corroborates a growing body of research suggesting that non-marital coparents play an important and understudied role in the relationships, processes, and functioning of African American single mother families (e.g., Jones, Forehand, et al., 2003; Jones et al., 2005; Jones et al., 2007; Shook et al., 2010). This study extends prior work by highlighting a previously under-recognized role for non-marital coparent warmth in particular. In explaining this pattern of association, it is important to note that lower levels of maternal and coparent warmth were each uniquely associated with higher levels of youth externalizing problems in the bivariate associations, as we expected. This finding replicates (Amato & Fowler, 2002; Bhandari, 2003; Eisenberg et al., 2005; Meteyer & Perry-Jenkins, 2009) and extends prior research by highlighting the importance of maternal and coparent warmth in African American single mother families. Compromises in warmth, whether from a mother or non-marital coparent, may inhibit the development of emotion regulation and effortful control in youth, which in turn may cause them to be more likely to display anger, aggression, or other externalizing problems (Eisenberg et al., 2005; Hyein et al., 2011; McKee et al., 2008).

In turn, consistent with study hypotheses, coparent warmth mediated the association between mother-coparent conflict and youth externalizing problems. The findings highlight that the spillover hypothesis, which has been primarily used to describe the process by which conflict between two married parents spills over into the parent-child relationship and, in turn, affects child adjustment, similarly applies to non-marital coparent parenting as well. Why is mother-coparent conflict associated with a decrease in coparent, but not maternal, warmth in this study? One possible explanation for this finding is that single mothers’ sense of parental responsibility may be more stable and resistant to change, given that they may bear the primary burden of childrearing (Forehand & Jones, 2002; for reviews, see Jones et al., 2007; Murry, Bynum, Brody, Willert, & Stephens, 2001). In addition, mother-coparent conflict may be more likely to lead to a reduction in the amount of time coparents spend with youth, further decreasing the opportunity for warmth in the coparent-youth relationship. It may be the case that, as some have suggested in the literature on non-resident fathers, mothers may be more likely to limit any coparent’s access to the child in times of greater conflict (Allen & Hawkins, 1999; Fagan & Barnett, 2003). Given that a review of the literature suggests that “maternal gatekeeping” efforts may actually be weak and indirect (Pleck & Mascladrelli, 2004), it may also be that coparents limit their own involvement with the child, either physically (in turn, reducing the opportunity for warmth) or emotionally (directly or indirectly expressing less warmth to the youth), during times of conflict with the mother, as has also been highlighted in the literature on single mothers and non-resident fathers (also see Sano, Richard & Zvunkovic, 2009; Seery & Crowly, 2000; Walker & McGraw, 2000). Although we cannot examine coparent withdrawal in our data due to the small percentage of biological fathers identified as coparents, it is plausible that withdrawal may be exacerbated in families for whom the role of non-marital coparents is considered voluntary (see Jones et al., 2007; Jones & Lindahl, 2011 for reviews). Regardless of the impetus, the link between compromised coparent warmth and greater externalizing problems in youth reveals an important consequence of mother-coparent conflict.

Finally, contrary to prior work and study hypotheses, the mediating role of coparent warmth was not moderated by family income. While the bulk of work on African American single mother homes has focused on very low income families and Family Stress Theory suggests that income may aggravate disruptions in family functioning, income does not appear to modify the processes by which mother-coparent conflict disrupts coparent warmth and, in turn, exacerbates youth externalizing problems. In turn, the spillover hypothesis may be a useful framework for conceptualizing the process through which mother-coparent conflict is associated with youth externalizing problems, at least for non-marital coparent parenting, regardless of family income.

As with all research, the current study must be considered in light of its limitations. The primary limitation of this study is its cross-sectional design. The literature will benefit from future work that examines the bidirectionality of the model examined in the current study, as it is possible that adolescent externalizing problems may also cause both mothers and coparents to experience more conflict with one another and/or to express less warmth in their relationships with youth. In addition, only mother- and adolescent-report measures were used. Observational data and coparent report will strengthen confidence in findings in future work. Furthermore, future research will benefit from an examination of additional parenting constructs, such as attachment, to deepen our understanding of the relations among mother-coparent conflict, mother and coparent parenting, and youth externalizing outcomes.

Despite its limitations, we view the current study as an important extension of the family literature on youth externalizing problems. First, this study examined a more culturally-sensitive family-focused contextual framework for externalizing problems among African American youth from single mother homes than models that utilize maternal marital status as a proxy for family vulnerability or examine maternal parenting alone. Rather than superimposing our definition of “family” upon mothers, our study afforded the opportunity for mothers to identify a second adult who was most involved in daily childrearing responsibilities.

In addition, our findings suggest that African American single mothers identify a wide range of individuals who serve an important role and who may be overlooked in studies that examine the presence or absence of fathers. It is worth mentioning that mothers were more likely to select the child’s maternal grandmothers (36.6%), mothers’ female friends (24.2%), and mothers’ sisters (12.4%), than the child’s biological father (3.1%), as coparents. Although this finding is consistent with work that suggests that non-resident African American fathers’ involvement with their children wanes over time (Lamb et al., 2009), we do not interpret this finding as suggesting that fathers are not important in children’s lives. Rather, the mothers in this sample identify other adults and family members who are more involved in daily childrearing (our eligibility criteria). In turn, our findings highlight that the coparenting construct is one that is relevant regardless of parental relationship status or the identity of the adults coordinating childrearing together (Jones et al., 2007; McHale et al., 2002; McHale & Lindahl, 2011).

Finally, much of the research on African American single mothers, including research on non-marital coparenting (e.g., Jones, Forehand, et al., 2003; Jones et al., 2005; Jones, Shaffer, et al., 2003; Shook et al., 2010), focuses exclusively on very low-income families. Such an approach limits the generalizability of findings to only the most vulnerable youth and families, affording less information regarding the broader cohort of African American youth being raised in single mother homes. As noted earlier, never-married single individuals constitute a rapidly growing segment of the African American middle class (Marsh et al., 2007). Accordingly, it is critically important that family-focused research reflect this diversity.

The clinical implications of this study are important for prevention and intervention programs targeting single mother African American families. The findings emphasize the potential value of including non-marital coparents in such programs, which have traditionally focused on mothers with less attention to fathers, let alone non-marital coparents (see Jones & Lindahl, 2011; Jones, Zalot, Foster, Sterrett, & Chester, 2007; Murry, Bynum, Brody, Willert, & Stephens, 2001 for reviews). Our findings suggest that health care professionals working with African American youth evidencing or at risk for externalizing problems should carefully assess the structure and functioning of each family. That is, to define a family by marital status alone may overlook important intervention opportunities for involving non-marital coparents in clinical work. Targets of such family-focused interventions may include enhancing the mother-coparent relationship as well as enhancing both mother and coparent warmth in the parent-child relationship.

Acknowledgments

Funding for this project was provided by the Ethnicity, Culture and Health Outcomes Program, a Junior Faculty Development Grant. Additional support was provided by a National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Grant (RO1HD064723) and the National Institute of Mental Health (5R34MH082956-03; Clinical Trials Identifier: NCT01367847).

References

  1. Achenbach TM. Manual for Child Behavior Checklist 4 18 and 1991 profile. Burlington: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry; 1991. [Google Scholar]
  2. Allen SM, Hawkins AJ. Maternal gatekeeping: Mother’s beliefs and behaviors that inhibit father involvement in family work. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1999;61:199–212. [Google Scholar]
  3. Amato PR, Fowler F. Parenting practices, child adjustment, and family diversity. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2002;64(3):703–716. doi: 10.1111/j.1741&#x02013;3737.2002.00703.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Barrett A, Turner R. Family structure and mental health: The mediating effects of socioeconomic status, family process, and social stress. Journal of Health & Social Behavior. 2005;46(2):156–169. doi: 10.1177/002214650504600203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Baumrind D. Effects of authoritative control on child behavior. Child Development. 1966;37:887–907. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bhandari R. Parenting and socio-emotional development: A longitudinal study of African American and Caucasian families. Dissertation Abstracts International. 2003:63. [Google Scholar]
  7. Blackman L, Clayton O, Glenn N, Malone-Colon L, Roberts A. The consequences of marriage for African Americans: A comprehensive literature review. New York, NY: Institute for American Values; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  8. Boyd-Franklin N. Black families in therapy: A multisystems approach. New York: Guilford Press; 1989. [Google Scholar]
  9. Brody GH, Dorsey S, Forehand R, Armistead L. Unique and protective contributions of parenting and classroom processes to the adjustment of African American children living in single-parent families. Child Development. 2002;73(1):274. doi: 10.1111/1467&#x02013;8624.00405. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Brown G, Moran P. Single mothers, poverty and depression. Psychological Medicine: A Journal of Research in Psychiatry and the Allied Sciences. 1997;27(1):21–33. doi: 10.1017/S0033291796004060. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Buehler C, Krishnakumar A, Anthony C, Tittsworth S, Stone G. Hostile interparental conflict and youth maladjustment. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies. 1994;43:409–416. doi: 10.2307/585372. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Buehler C, Benson MJ, Gerard JM. Interparental hostility and early adolescent problem behavior: The mediating role of specific aspects of parenting. Journal of Research on Adolescence (Blackwell Publishing Limited) 2006;16(2):265–292. doi: 10.1111/j.1532&#x02013;7795.2006.00132.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Buschgens CJM, van Aken MAG, Swinkels SHN, Ormel J, Verhulst FC, Buitelaar JK. Externalizing behaviors in preadolescents: familial risk to externalizing behaviors and perceived parenting styles. European Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 2010;19:567–575. doi: 10.1007/s00787-009-0086-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Conger KJ, Rueter MA, Conger RD. In: The role of economic pressure in the lives of parents and their adolescents: The family stress model. Crockett LJ, Silbereisen RK, editors. New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press; 2000. pp. 201–223. [Google Scholar]
  15. Conger RD, Wallace LE, Sun Y, Simons RL, McLoyd VC, Brody GH. Economic pressure in African American families: A replication and extension of the family stress model. Developmental Psychology. 2002;38(2):179–193. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.38.2.179. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Costello EJ, Angold A, Burns BJ, Stangl DK, Tweed DL, Erkanli A. The Great Smoky Mountains study of youth: Goals, design, methods, and the prevalence of DSM-III-R disorders. Archives of General Psychiatry. 1996;53:1129–1136. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1996.01830120067012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Cui M, Conger R. Parenting behavior as mediator and moderator of the association between marital problems and adolescent maladjustment. Journal of Research on Adolescence (Blackwell Publishing Limited) 2008;18(2):261–284. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2008.00560.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Cummings E. Marital conflict and children’s functioning. Social Development. 1994;3(1):16–36. doi: 10.1111/j.1467&#x02013;9507.1994.tb00021.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Cummings E, Davies P, Simpson K. Marital conflict, gender, and children’s appraisals and coping efficacy as mediators of child adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology. 1994;8(2):141–149. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.8.2.141. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Cummings JS, Pellegrini DS, Notarius CI, Cummings E. Children’s responses to angry adult behavior as a function of marital distress and history of interparent hostility. Child Development. 1989;60(5):1035. doi: 10.1111/1467&#x02013;8624.ep9676092. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Dearing E, McCartney K, Taylor B. Within-child associations between family income and externalizing and internalizing problems. Developmental Psychology. 2006;42(2):237–252. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.42.2.237. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Eisenberg N, Qing Z, Spinrad TL, Valiente C, Fabes RA, Liew J. Relations among positive parenting, children’s effortful control, and externalizing problems: A three-wave longitudinal study. Child Development. 2005;76(5):1055–1071. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00897.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Emery RE, O’Leary K. Children’s perceptions of marital discord and behavior problems of boys and girls. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 1982;10(1):11–24. doi: 10.1007/BF00915948. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Fagan J, Barnett M. The relationship between maternal gatekeeping, paternal competence, mothers’ attitudes about the father role, and father involvement. Journal of Family Issues. 2003;24:1020–1043. [Google Scholar]
  25. Fauber R, Forehand R, Thomas A, Wierson M. A mediational model of the impact of marital conflict on adolescent adjustment in intact and divorced families: The role of disrupted parenting. Child Development. 1990;61(4):1112–1123. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.ep9102040967. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Forehand R, Jones DJ. The stability of parenting: A longitudinal analysis of inner-city African-American mothers. Journal of Child and Family Studies. 2002;11(4):469–483. doi: 10.1023/A:1020987509405. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Forehand R, Kotchick B. Cultural diversity: A wake-up call for parent training. Behavior Therapy. 1996;27(2):187–206. doi: 10.1016/S0005-7894(96)80014-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Franklin J. African American families: A historical note. In: McAdoo HP, editor. Black Families. 3. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1997. pp. 5–8. [Google Scholar]
  29. Gable S, Belsky J, Crnic K. Marriage, parenting, and child development: Progress and prospects. Journal of Family Psychology. 1992;5:276–294. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.5.3-4.276. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Giordano PC, Cernkovich SA, DeMaris A. The family and peer relations of black adolescents. Journal of Marriage & the Family. 1993;55:277–287. doi: 10.2307/352801. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Hyein C, Olson S, Sameroff A, Sexton H. Child effortful control as a mediator of parenting practices on externalizing behavior: Evidence for a sex-differentiated pathway across the transition from preschool to school. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2011;39(1):71–81. doi: 10.1007/s10802-010-9437-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Johnson L, Staples R. Black families at the crossroads. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  33. Jones DJ, Forehand R, Brody G, Armistead L. Parental monitoring in African American, single mother-headed families: An ecological approach to the identification of predictors. Behavior Modification. 2003;27(4):435–457. doi: 10.1177/0145445503255432. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Jones DJ, Forehand R, O’Connell C, Armistead L, Brody G. Mothers’ perceptions of neighborhood violence and mother-reported monitoring of African American children: An examination of the moderating role of perceived support. Behavior Therapy. 2005;36(1):25–34. doi: 10.1016/S0005-7894(05)80051-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Jones DJ, Forehand R, Rakow A, Colletti CJM, McKee LG, Zalot A. The specificity of maternal parenting behavior and child adjustment difficulties: A study of inner-city African American Families. Journal of Family Psychology. 2008;22:181–192. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.22.2.181. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Jones DJ, Lindahl K. Coparenting in extended kinship systems: African American, Hispanic, Asian Heritage, and Native American families. In: McHale J, Lindahl K, editors. Coparenting: a Conceptual and Clinical Examination of Family Systems. American Psychological Association: APA; 2011. [Google Scholar]
  37. Jones D, Shaffer A, Forehand R, Brody G, Armistead L. Coparent conflict in single mother--headed African American families: Do parenting skills serve as a mediator or moderator of child psychosocial adjustment? Behavior Therapy. 2003;34(2):259. doi: 10.1016/S0005-7894(03)80016-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Jones D, Zalot A, Foster S, Sterrett E, Chester C. A review of childrearing in African American single mother families: The relevance of a coparenting framework. Journal of Child and Family Studies. 2007;16(5):671–683. doi: 10.1007/s10826-006-9115-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Kim-Cohen J, Moffitt TE, Caspi A, Taylor A. Genetic and environmental processes in young children’s resilience and vulnerability to socioeconomic deprivation. Child Development. 2004;75(3):651–668. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00699.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Krishnakumar A, Buehler C. Interparental conflict and parenting behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Family Relations. 2000;49:25–44. [Google Scholar]
  41. Krishnakumar A, Buehler C, Barber B. Youth perceptions of interpersonal conflict, ineffective parenting, and youth problem behaviors in European-American and African-American families. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 2003;20(2):239–260. doi: 10.1177/0265407503020002007. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Lahey BB, Schwab-Stone M, Goodman SH, Waldman ID, Canino G, Rathouz PJ, et al. Age and gender differences in oppositional behavior and conduct problems: A cross-sectional household study of middle childhood and adolescence. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2000;109(3):488–503. doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.109.3.488. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Lamb M, Cabrera N, Shannon T, Tamis LeMonda C. Who stay and who leaves? Father accessibility across children’s first 5 years. Parenting. 2009;9:78–100. doi: 10.1080/15295190802656786. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Lewinsohn PM, Hops H, Robert RE, Seeley JR, Andrews JA. Adolescent psychopathology: I. Prevalence and incidence of depression and other DSM-III-R disorders in high school students. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1993;102:133–144. doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.102.1.133. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Lipman E, Boyle M, Dooley M, Offord D. Child well-being in single-mother families. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 2002;41(1):75–82. doi: 10.1097/00004583-200201000-00014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Marsh Kris, Darity William A, Jr, Cohen Philip N, Casper Lynne M, Salters Danielle. The Emerging Black Middle Class: Single and Living Alone. Social Forces. 86(2):735–762. doi: 10.1093/sf/86.2.735. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Marshall N, Noonan A, McCartney K, Marx F, Keefe N. It takes an urban village: Parenting networks of urban families. Journal of Family Issues. 2001;22(2):163–182. doi: 10.1177/019251301022002003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Masten AS, Coatsworth J. The development of competence in favorable and unfavorable environments: Lessons from research on successful children. American Psychologist. 1998;53(2):205–220. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.53.2.205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. McLoyd VC. Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. American Psychologist. 1998;53(2):185–204. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.53.2.185. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. McHale J. Charting the bumpy road of coparenthood: Understanding the challenges of family life. Washington, DC: Zero to Three Press; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  51. McHale J. Shared child-rearing in nuclear, fragile, and kinship family systems: Evolution, dilemmas, and promise of a coparenting framework. In: Schulz M, Pruett M, Kerig P, Parke R, editors. Strengthening couple relationships for optimal child development: Lessons from research and intervention. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2009. pp. 77–94. [Google Scholar]
  52. McHale JP, Irace K. Coping in diverse family systems. In: McHale J, Lindahl K, editors. Coparenting: A conceptual and clinical examination of family systems. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2011. [Google Scholar]
  53. McHale J, Khazan I, Erera P, Rotman T, DeCourcey W, McConnell M. Coparenting in diverse family systems. In: Bornstein M, editor. Handbook of Parenting. 2. New Jersey: Erlbaum; 2002. pp. 75–107. [Google Scholar]
  54. McHale J, Lindahl K. Coparenting: A Conceptual and Clinical Examination of Family Systems. American Psychological Association: APA; 2011. [Google Scholar]
  55. McHale J, Sullivan M. Family systems. In: Hersen M, Gross A, editors. Handbook of clinical psychology. Vol. 2. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2008. pp. 192–226. Children and adolescence. [Google Scholar]
  56. McKee L, Colletti C, Rakow A, Jones DJ, Forehand R. Parenting and child externalizing behaviors: Are the associations specific or defuse? Aggression and Violent Behavior. 2008;13(3):201–215. doi: 10.1177/0145445508316550. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Meteyer KB, Perry-Jenkins M. Dyadic parenting and children’s externalizing symptoms. Family Relations. 2009;58(3):289–302. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2009.00553.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Murry VM, Bynum MS, Brody GH, Willert A, Stephens D. African American single mothers and children in context: A review of studies on risk and resilience. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review. 2001;4:133–155. doi: 10.1023/A:1011381114782. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 2007 Case Processing Summary Rates for Delinquency Offenses. 2007 Available from http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/dmcdb/asp/display.asp?year=2007&offense=1&displaytype=rates.
  60. Offord DR, Boyle MH, Racine Y, Szatmari P, Fleming JE, Sanford M, et al. Integrating assessment data from multiple informants. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 1996;35:1078–1085. doi: 10.1097/00004583-199608000-00019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Oliva A, Jiménez J, Parra Á. Protective effect of supportive family relationships and the influence of stressful life events on adolescent adjustment. Anxiety, Stress & Coping. 2009;22(2):137–152. doi: 10.1080/10615800802082296. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Pinderhughes E, Le H. Introduction to excavating culture. Applied Developmental Science. 2008;12(4):161–162. doi: 10.1080/10888690802387765. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Pleck J, Masciardrelli B. Paternal involvement: Levels, sources and consequences. In: Lamb M, editor. The role of the father in child development. 4. 2004. pp. 222–271. [Google Scholar]
  64. Porter B, O’Leary K. Marital discord and childhood behavior problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 1980;8(3):287–295. doi: 10.1007/BF00916376. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Preacher KJ, Hayes AF. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods. 2008;40(3):879–891. doi: 10.3758/BRM.40.3.879. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Preacher KJ, Rucker DD, Hayes AF. Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 2007;42:185–227. doi: 10.1080/00273170701341316. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Prinz R, Foster S, Kent R, O’Leary K. Multivariate assessment of conflict in distressed and nondistressed mother–adolescent dyads. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1979;12(4):691–700. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1979.12-691. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Robin A, Weiss J. Criterion-related validity of behavioural and self-report measures of problem-solving communication skills in distressed and non-distressed parent--adolescent dyads. Behavioural Assessment. 1980;2:339–352. [Google Scholar]
  69. Sano Y, Richards L, Zvonkovic A. Are mothers really “gatekeepers” of children? Rural mothers’ perceptions of nonresident fathers’ involvement in low-income families. Journal of Family Issues. 2009;29:1701–1723. [Google Scholar]
  70. Schacht PM, Cummings E, Davies PT. Fathering in family context and child adjustment: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Family Psychology. 2009;23(6):790–797. doi: 10.1037/a0016741. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Seery BL, Crowley MS. Women’s emotion work in the family: Relationship management and the process of building father-child relationships. Journal of Family Issues. 2000;21:100–127. [Google Scholar]
  72. Shook S, Jones D, Forehand R, Dorsey S, Brody G. The mother–coparent relationship and youth adjustment: A study of African American single-mother families. Journal of Family Psychology. 2010;24(3):243–251. doi: 10.1037/a0019630. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Stanton B, Li X, Pack R, Cottrell CH, Burns JM. Longitudinal influence of perceptions of peer and parental factors on African American adolescent risk involvement. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine. 2002;79:536–548. doi: 10.1093/jurban/79.4.536. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Sterrett E, Jones DJ, Kincaid C. Psychosocial adjustment of low-income African American youth from single mother homes: The role of youth-coparent relationship quality. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology. 2009;38:427–438. doi: 10.1080/15374410902851663. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Sudarkasa N. African American families and family values. In: McAdoo HP, editor. Black families. 3. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1997. pp. 9–40. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  76. Tragesser SL, Beauvais F, Swaim RC, Edwards RW, Oetting ER. Parental monitoring, peer involvement, and marijuana use across three ethnicities. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology. 2007;38:670–694. doi: 10.1177/0022022107308585. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  77. Verhulst FC, Van der Ende J, Ferdinand RF, Kasius MC. The prevalence of DSM-III-R diagnoses in a national sample of Dutch adolescents. Archives of General Psychiatry. 1997;54:329–336. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1997.01830160049008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Walker AJ, McGraw LA. Who is responsible for responsible fathering? Journal of Marriage and the Family. 2004;62:563–569. [Google Scholar]
  79. Waller M, McLanahan S. His and her marriage expectations: Determinants and consequences. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 2005;67:53–67. [Google Scholar]
  80. Walton A, Flouri E. Contextual risk, maternal parenting, and adolescent externalizing behavior problems: The role of emotion regulation. Child: Care, Health, & Development. 2010;36:275–284. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2214.2009.01065. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Williams S, McGee R, Anderson J, Silva PA. The structure and correlates of self-reported symptoms in 11-year-old children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 1989;17:55–71. doi: 10.1007/BF00910770. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Wilson W. The truly disadvantaged: The inner-city, the underclass, and public policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1987. [Google Scholar]
  83. U.S. Census Bureau. America’s Families and Living Arrangements. 2009 [Dataset]. Available from http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hh-fam/cps2009.html.

RESOURCES