Skip to main content
PMC home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Jan 4.
Published in final edited form as: J Youth Adolesc. 2014 Nov 22;45(1):145–155. doi: 10.1007/s10964-014-0222-8

Family Functioning and High Risk Adolescents’ Aggressive Behavior: Examining Effects by Ethnicity

Angela K Henneberger 1,✉, Shannon M Varga 2, Alyssa Moudy 3, Patrick H Tolan 4
PMCID: PMC4441612  NIHMSID: NIHMS643768  PMID: 25416227

Abstract

The relationship between family functioning and adolescents’ physical aggression has been well established, but whether these relationships might differ by ethnicity has received less attention. Ethnic variations may be important for targeting prevention programs to specific youth and families. This study examined the longitudinal relationship between family cohesion, parental monitoring, and physical aggression using data from the Multisite Violence Prevention Project sample of high-risk youth (elevated aggression). Participants were 1,232 high-risk middle school students (65% male; 70% African American; 15% Hispanic). Meaningful demographic variations were identified. After controlling for intervention condition and study site, family cohesion was significantly negatively related to physical aggression, more so for Hispanic youth. Parental monitoring was negatively associated with physical aggression for African American youth only. Our findings point to the importance of developing culturally sensitive family interventions to prevent physical aggression in middle school.

Keywords: physical aggression, family cohesion, parental monitoring, ethnicity

Introduction

Interventions that aim to prevent aggressive behavior in adolescence often target aspects of family functioning (Kumpfer & Alvarado, 2003; Henry, Tolan, & Gorman-Smith, 2001; Tolan, Gorman-Smith, & Henry, 2004). Two major aspects of family functioning are often targeted in intervention programs (1) family cohesion, which is a felt sense of shared affection, support, and caring within the family (Moos & Moos, 1976); and (2) parental monitoring, which is “a set of correlated parenting behaviors involving attention to and tracking of the child's whereabouts, activities, and adaptations” (Dishion & McMahon, 1998; p. 61). Interventions that include a focus on family functioning have been shown to prevent a number of problem behaviors in adolescence, including delinquency and aggression (Bradshaw, Zmuda, Kellam & Ialongo, 2009; Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group [CPPRG], 2011; Gorman-Smith, Tolan, Henry, Quintana, Lutovsky, & Leventhal, 2007; Kumpfer & Alvarado, 2003).

Ethnic minority adolescents and families living in the United States have a unique cultural experience and face particular challenges (Coll & Pachter, 2002; Coll et al., 1996). The ability to develop and implement culturally sensitive intervention programs hinges on the ability to identify unique predictors of minority adolescents’ aggressive behaviors (Hill, 2006; Kumpfer, Alvarado, Smith, & Bellamy, 2002). However, much of what is known about the relationship between family functioning and the development of aggressive behavior is drawn from samples of White adolescents. The experiences of African American and Hispanic adolescents are often studied in the context of high-risk high poverty environments (Hill, 2006, Tolan et al., 2004). The purpose of this study is to examine the links between two commonly targeted aspects of family functioning—family cohesion and parental monitoring—and adolescents’ aggressive behavior for subgroups differentiated by ethnicity in a large sample of African American, Hispanic, and White adolescents drawn from 4 communities in the United States.

Garcia-Coll’s integrative theory for the study of minority children highlights the importance of culture in youth development (Coll et al., 1996). In this model, culture is directly related to both family dynamics and children’s outcomes. Culture is also indirectly related to children’s outcomes through its effects on family dynamics, underscoring the unique importance of culture in the relationship between family functioning and youth development. Ethnic minority families living in the United States face unique challenges and experiences (Coll & Pachter, 2002). Research on Hispanic families consistently indicates the importance of family and consistently identifies Hispanic families as more family oriented than White families (Fuligni, 1998; Fuligni, Tseng, & Lam, 1999; Harwood, Leyendecker, Carlson, Asencio, & Miller, 2002). African American families face particular challenges with regards to structural racism and discrimination, and African American parents often endorse parenting styles that are “no-nonsense” or authoritarian (Hill, Murry, & Anderson, 2005; McAdoo, 2002). This parenting style is characterized by greater levels of parental authority and the use of more harsh disciplinary practices (Baumrind, 1972; Hill et al., 2005).

Much of what is known about the etiology of aggression in African American and Hispanic adolescents comes from studies of high-risk inner city youth and families (Hill, 2006; Tolan et al., 2004). This is problematic because ethnicity is often confounded with socioeconomic status (SES) in these studies (Hill, 2006). Thus, research is needed that examines family functioning, adolescents’ behavior, and ethnicity across a broad range of SES levels in order to more accurately disentangle the unique contributions of ethnicity from the contributions of SES to the relationship between family functioning and adolescents’ behavioral development (Hill, 2006).

Family cohesion has been extensively studied and has emerged as one of the aspects of family relationships that is most consistently linked to aggressive behavior in childhood and adolescence (Gorman-Smith & Tolan, 1998; Lindahl, 1998). For example, in a sample of high-risk inner city Latino and African American adolescent boys (N = 362) participating in the Chicago Youth Development Study (CYDS), family cohesion was significantly negatively related to aggressive behavior (Tolan, Gorman-Smith, Huesmann, & Zelli, 1997) and violent delinquency (Gorman-Smith, Tolan, Zelli, & Huesmann, 1996). Tolan and colleagues (1997) controlled for caretaker’s marital status, household income, and ethnicity. Gorman-Smith and colleagues (1996) examined effects by ethnicity and reported that the relationship between family cohesion and violent delinquency is significant for both Latino and African American boys. However, Gorman-Smith and colleagues (1996) pointed to the importance of further examination and replication of the work on variation in effects by ethnicity within other datasets. One construct of family relationships, beliefs about family (i.e., importance of family relationships and family beliefs about development subscales), was related to youths’ violence in opposite directions for African American and Latino youth (Gorman-Smith et al., 1996).

In a sample of 823 children oversampled for low birth weight, mother’s report of family cohesion at age 6 years significantly negatively predicted externalizing problems at age 11 (Lucia & Breslau, 2006). Lucia & Breslau (2006) controlled for urban vs. suburban residence. The urban sample was predominantly Non-White (approximately 80%) and the suburban sample was predominantly White (approximately 95%). Andreas and Watson (2009) used a representative community sample (N = 440) to examine the relationship between family environment and aggressive behavior trajectories from age 7 to age 19 years; higher levels of family cohesion were related to lower growth in aggression among the youth most at risk for aggressive behavior. The sample had approximately even proportions of children that were African American, European American, and Hispanic, and distributions on socioeconomic status (SES) were also approximately evenly distributed. They reported no significant variation in the relationship between family cohesion and aggression by subgroups differentiated by ethnicity or SES. Andreas and Watson (2009) hypothesize that this lack of variation may be due to the community sampling approach, as compared to the high-risk sampling approach.

Low levels of parental monitoring have also been extensively linked to the development of aggressive behavior (Crouter & Head, 2002; Dishion & McMahon, 1998; Patterson & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1984). This finding has been replicated in a number of studies using diverse samples of urban at-risk and low-risk youth (Fulkerson, Pasch, Perry, & Komro, 2008; Jacobson & Crockett, 2010; Laird, Pettit, Bates & Dodge, 2003; Patterson & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1984; Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1998). However, it is not well known how the association between parental monitoring and aggression varies by ethnicity (Rowe, Vazsonyi, & Flannery, 1994). There is some evidence that parenting practices (e.g., parental monitoring) in particular may have differential effects on the development of problem behavior for different ethnic subgroups (Deater-Deckard & Dodge, 1997). For example, Deater-Deckard and colleagues (Deater-Deckard, Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1998) examined the relationship between parenting risk factors and the development of externalizing problems in a representative community sample of 466 European American and 100 African American children. Parenting risk was measured using parental reports on eight parenting risks, including (1) amount of nonmaternal childcare, (2) biological father’s involvement, (3) parental conflict, (4) exposure to violence, (5) harsh discipline, (6) physical harm, (7) positive parenting, and (8) mother’s attitudes towards aggression. Deater-Deckard and colleagues (1998) reported that higher parenting risk was related to higher externalizing problems, but only for European American children and not for African American children. Similarly, using the same sample, mother’s report of physical discipline was related to higher levels of externalizing behaviors for European American adolescents, but to lower levels of externalizing behaviors for African American adolescents (Lansford, Deater-Deckard, Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 2004).

The Current Study

The current study builds from theory and prior research on family functioning and adolescents’ aggression by focusing on potential variation in effects by ethnic subgroups (Coll et al., 1996; Hill, 2006). Using a diverse sample of high-risk adolescents in 37 schools from four communities across the United States, we address two research questions. First, are there differences in the mean levels of family cohesion and parental monitoring for African American, Hispanic, and White families? Second, are there ethnic differences in the correlations between family cohesion and parental monitoring and adolescents’ aggression for African American, Hispanic, and White adolescents?

Method

Participants

Participants were 1,232 high-risk middle school students (65% male) participating in the Multisite Violence Prevention Project (MVPP), a 5 year project focused on the use of targeted and universal interventions (see Henry, Farrell, & Multisite Violence Prevention Project [MVPP], 2004 for details on intervention and study design) to reduce aggression and violence among sixth grade students (see MVPP, 2004 for details). Data collection for MVPP began in 2001, and data were collected from two successive cohorts of youth. At the beginning of sixth grade, 44% of families reported a household income below the calculated poverty threshold for their family (calculated based on national census data). Sixty percent of families reported an adult male present in the household. The sample was predominantly African American (70%). Fifteen percent of the sample was Hispanic and 15% was White. See Table 1 for a summary of demographic characteristics of this sample. This study used data from Wave 1 (W-1; baseline; fall of sixth grade) and Wave 6 (W-6; spring of eighth grade). Eighty-four percent (n = 1,033) of students completed W-6 surveys.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Demographics, Family Functioning, and Physical Aggression

N (%) M (SD) 1. 2. 3. 4.
Demographics
Low SES 543 (44)
African American 862 (70)
Hispanic 184 (15)
White 186 (15)
Adult Male Present 736 (60)
Family Functioning
1. Cohesion 3.12 (.43) .
2. Monitoring 3.02 (.43) .49*** .
Physical Aggression
3. Aggression W-1 1.81 (.84) −.19*** −.18*** .
4. Aggression W-6 1.83 (.95) −.10*** −.07* .31*** .
Open in a new tab

Notes. W-1 = Wave 1; baseline; fall of sixth grade. W-6 = Wave 6; spring of eighth grade. Low SES indicates that the individual’s family is below the poverty line. Cohesion is measured at W-1 using combined parental and adolescent-report on the Family Relationships Scale (FRS; Tolan et al., 1997). Monitoring is measured at W-1 using combined parental and adolescent-report on the Pittsburgh Youth Survey (PYS; Thornberry et al., 1995). Aggression at W-1 and W-6 is measured using adolescent-report on the Problem Behavior Frequency Scale (PBFS; Farrell et al., 2000).

*

p < .05;

***

p < .001.

Procedure

A total of 37 schools were selected to participate in this study. Schools were located across four study sites: Durham, NC (n = 8 schools), Athens, GA (n = 9 schools), Chicago, IL (n = 12 schools), and Richmond, VA (n = 8 schools). Within site, schools were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: universal school-wide implementation of Guiding Responsibility and Expectations for Adolescents for Today and Tomorrow (GREAT; MVPP, 2004), a targeted intervention of the GREAT program, a combined universal and targeted intervention, and a treatment as usual control condition.

Two samples were drawn: a general population sample and a high-risk sample. Here we report on the high-risk sample because parental reports of family functioning were only gathered for the high-risk students. Adolescents were selected for the high-risk sample and the selective intervention based on teacher’s nominations on two criteria: (1) a history of aggressive and disruptive behavior in the classroom and (2) the student’s relative level of influence on other students. Computerized surveys were administered to all adolescents in the targeted condition and to a random sample of adolescents outside of the targeted population. Parents of adolescents in the targeted population also completed interviews.

Measures

Aggressive behavior

Aggressive behavior was measured at W-1 and W-6 using the Problem Behavior Frequency Scale (PBFS; Farrell, Kung, White, & Valois, 2000), a 47-item scale assessing aggression, victimization, drug use, and delinquency within the past 30 days. In this study, we used the physical aggression scale, which includes 7 items measuring violent behaviors (e.g., “been in a fight in which someone was hit” and “shoved or pushed another kid”). Responses were rated on a scale of 1 (never) to 6 (20 times or more). The aggressive behavior subscale demonstrates good reliability with urban populations (α = .80; Miller-Johnson, Sullivan, Simon, & MVPP, 2004). W-6 aggressive behavior was positively skewed and was transformed using a log10 transformation.

Family cohesion

Family cohesion was measured at W-1 and W-6 using the Family Relationships Scale (FRS; Tolan et al., 1997), a 35-item measure assessing family structure, beliefs, and cohesion. For this project, we used the family cohesion subscale, comprised of 12 items (e.g., “Family members feel very close to one another” and “We can easily think of things to do together as a family”). Scores were reported on a 4-point Likert scale indicating the degree to which each participant believed the item was true for his or her family. Mean parent and adolescent composite scores were used for this analysis (Tolan et al., 1997). Higher scores indicate higher levels of family cohesion. The family cohesion scale demonstrates good reliability with our sample (α = .76; Miller-Johnson et al., 2004). Family cohesion at W-1 was positively correlated with family cohesion at W-6 (r = 0.38, p < .001).

Parental monitoring

Parental monitoring was measured at W-1 and W-6 using adolescent and parental report on questions from the Pittsburgh Youth Survey (PYS; Thornberry, Huizinga, & Loeber, 1995). Factor analysis revealed two latent constructs: discipline and monitoring/involvement (Gorman-Smith et al., 1996). The monitoring construct has been extensively linked to aggression and was used in the current study (see Gorman-Smith et al., 1996). Adolescents and parents responded to 12 items indicating their perceptions of monitoring (e.g., “How often does a parent talk to you about what you had actually done during the day?” and “In the past 30 days, how often did a parent have time to listen to you when you wanted to talk with one of them?”). Higher scores indicate higher levels of monitoring. The monitoring scale shows good reliability in our sample (α = .85). Parental monitoring at W-1 was positively correlated with parental monitoring at W-6 (r = 0.41, p < .001).

Ethnicity

Ethnicity was measured at W-1. Two dummy codes were created that compared White adolescents (1) and Hispanic adolescents (1) to African American adolescents (0).

Poverty

Poverty was measured at W-1 by asking parents to report their household income and the size of their family. For each participant, the national census was used to create a poverty threshold. A binary variable was computed indicating whether the participant’s family fell below their poverty threshold (1) or above their poverty threshold (0).

Household composition

Household composition was measured at W-1 using a binary indicator of whether an adult male lived in the home (1).

Covariates

Since we are not interested in the effects of the intervention in this study, intervention condition is included as a covariate. Three dummy codes are included that compare each intervention condition to the comparison group (0). Study site is also included as a covariate. Three dummy codes are included for the four study locations.

Analytic Procedure

Three adolescents were dropped from analyses because they had missing values for the school indicator. Sixteen percent of adolescents (n = 202) had missing data on at least one of the variables included in this study. Missing data were handled using multiple (five) imputations in SAS PROC MI (Schafer, 1997; Schafer & Graham, 2002). Coefficients were pooled using PROC MIANALYZE. The final analysis sample consisted of 1,232 adolescents in 37 schools.

To answer our first research question, we examined mean levels of family cohesion and parental monitoring by ethnicity. We used one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) models to test for statistical differences in mean scores. To answer our second research question, we estimated a series of multilevel models (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002) using SAS PROC MIXED (Singer, 1998). Students are nested within schools, so all analyses are clustered by school (level 2) with a random intercept at the school level. First, we ran an unconditional means model (intercept only). There was significant variability in the school means and in the individual means within schools. Less than 5% of the variance in physical aggression occurred between schools (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). We next ran a model including fixed effects for study site and intervention condition (level 2 fixed effects). Due to the large proportion of the variance in school-level physical aggression accounted for by the six fixed effects, we did not allow level 1 (individual level) predictors to vary across schools.

Results

Table 1 summarizes the means, distribution characteristics, and correlations among the predictors and outcome used in this study. Table 2 summarizes the distributions of demographic characteristics, family functioning, and physical aggression by African American, Hispanic, and White ethnicity. There was a significant difference in the proportion of participants’ families reporting low SES, with fewer White families reporting low SES (30%) compared to African American (47%) and Hispanic (46%) families (χ2 = 14.40, df = 2, p < .001). There was also a significant difference in the proportion of participants’ families reporting an adult male present in the household, with fewer African American families reporting an adult male present (56%) compared to Hispanic (77%) and White (75%) families (χ2 = 45.17, df = 2, p < .001). Hispanic youth reported significantly higher levels of physical aggression (M = 1.91, SD = 0.94) than White youth (M = 1.67, SD = 0.82) at W-6 (F [2, 1229] = 3.97, p < .05). There were no significant differences in mean levels of family cohesion and parental monitoring at W-1 or W-6 by ethnicity. There were also no significant differences in W-1 physical aggression by ethnicity.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics for Demographics, Family Functioning, and Physical Aggression by Ethnicity

African American Hispanic White
N = 862 (70%) N = 184 (15%) N = 186 (15%)
Demographics N (%) N (%) N (%)
Low SES 403 (47)a 85 (46)b 55 (30)ab
Adult Male Present 479 (56)ab 141 (77)a 139 (75)b
Family Functioning M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
W-1 Cohesion 3.13 (0.44) 3.10 (0.44) 3.09 (0.45)
W-1 Monitoring 3.02 (0.44) 3.00 (0.43) 3.00 (0.43)
W-6 Cohesion 2.98 (0.48) 2.96 (0.45) 2.95 (0.47)
W-6 Monitoring 2.91 (0.54) 2.89 (0.48) 2.96 (0.46)
Physical Aggression M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
W-1 1.81 (0.84) 1.86 (0.84) 1.76 (0.86)
W-6 1.85 (0.96) 1.91 (0.94)a 1.67 (0.82)a
Open in a new tab

Notes. Superscripts indicate significant differences between ethnic groups. Low SES indicates participant’s family is below the poverty line. W-1 = Wave 1; baseline; fall of sixth grade. W-6 = Wave 6; spring of eighth grade. Cohesion is measured using combined parental and adolescent-report on the Family Relationships Scale (FRS; Tolan et al., 1997). Monitoring is measured using combined parental and adolescent-report on the Pittsburgh Youth Survey (PYS; Thornberry et al., 1995). Physical aggression is measured using adolescent-report on the Problem Behavior Frequency Scale (PBFS; Farrell et al., 2000).

Table 3 summarizes the results from the hierarchical linear regression analyses predicting physical aggression at W-6. After controlling for study site, intervention condition, SES, having an adult male present in the home, and baseline levels of physical aggression, family cohesion was significantly negatively related to aggression (B = −0.04, p < .01). The main effect for parental monitoring did not significantly predict aggression at W-6. In the final model, the interactions between monitoring and Hispanic ethnicity (B = 0.11, p < .01) and between cohesion and Hispanic ethnicity (B = −0.08, p < .05) were both associated with aggression in adolescence. The interactions between monitoring and White ethnicity and between cohesion and White ethnicity did not significantly predict aggression at W-6.

Table 3.

Prediction of Physical Aggression in Adolescence (W-6) by Demographics and Family Functioning

B (SE) Enter B (SE) Final
Hispanic −0.00 (0.02) −0.00 (0.02)
White −0.02 (0.02) −0.02 (0.02)
Low SES −0.02 (0.01) −0.02 (0.01)
Adult Male Present −0.01 (0.01) −0.01 (0.01)
Family Cohesion −0.04 (0.01)** −0.02 (0.02)
Parental Monitoring −0.01 (0.01) −0.01 (0.02)
W-1 Physical Aggression 0.07 (0.01)*** 0.07 (0.01)***
Cohesion × Hispanic −0.08 (0.04)*
Cohesion × White 0.04 (0.04)
Monitoring × Hispanic 0.11 (0.04)**
Monitoring × White 0.02 (0.04)
Open in a new tab

Notes. Analyses controlled for study site using 3 dummy variables (4 study sites) and controlled for treatment condition using 3 dummy codes (4 treatment conditions). Hispanic and White ethnicity are dummy coded in comparison to African American ethnicity. Low SES is dummy coded such that (1) indicates participant’s family is below the poverty line. Adult male in the household is coded such that presence of an adult male = 1. Cohesion is measured at W-1 using combined parental and adolescent-report on the Family Relationships Scale (FRS; Tolan et al., 1997). Monitoring is measured at W-1 using combined parental and adolescent-report on the Pittsburgh Youth Survey (PYS; Thornberry et al., 1995). Aggression at W-1 and W-6 is measured using adolescent-report on the Problem Behavior Frequency Scale (PBFS; Farrell et al., 2000). W-1 = Wave 1; baseline; fall of sixth grade. W-6 = Wave 6; spring of eighth grade.

*

p < .05;

**

p < .01;

***

p < .001.

Following Preacher, Curran, and Bauer (2006), we plotted each significant interaction effect to facilitate interpretation. Figure 1 displays the results for the interaction between Hispanic ethnicity and parental monitoring. There is no significant relationship between parental monitoring and physical aggression for Hispanic adolescents (B = 0.01, p > .05), but there is a significant negative relationship between parental monitoring and physical aggression for African American adolescents (B = −0.04, p < .01). Figure 2 displays the results for the interaction between Hispanic ethnicity and family cohesion. Family cohesion is more strongly negatively related to physical aggression for Hispanic adolescents (B = −0.11, p < .001), compared to African American adolescents (B = −0.04, p < .01).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Interaction Between Ethnicity and Monitoring Predicting Physical Aggression in Adolescence

Notes. There is no significant relationship between parental monitoring and physical aggression for Hispanic adolescents (B = 0.01, p > .05), whereas there is a significant negative relationship between parental monitoring and physical aggression for African American adolescents (B = −0.04, p < .01). Monitoring is measured at W-1 using combined parental and adolescent-report on the Pittsburgh Youth Survey (PYS; Thornberry et al., 1995). Aggression is measured at W-6 using adolescent-report on the Problem Behavior Frequency Scale (PBFS; Farrell et al., 2000).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Interaction Between Ethnicity and Cohesion Predicting Physical Aggression in Adolescence

Notes. Family cohesion is more strongly negatively related to physical aggression for Hispanic adolescents (B = −0.11, p < .001), when compared to African American adolescents (B = −0.04, p < .01). Cohesion is measured at W-1 using combined parental and adolescent-report on the Family Relationships Scale (FRS; Tolan et al., 1997). Aggression is measured at W-6 using adolescent-report on the Problem Behavior Frequency Scale (PBFS; Farrell et al., 2000).

Discussion

This study examined ethnic variations in family cohesion, parental monitoring, and adolescents’ aggressive behavior in middle school. The link between family cohesion and aggression and the link between parental monitoring and aggression are well established (Crouter & Head, 2002; Dishion & McMahon, 1998; Gorman-Smith & Tolan, 1998; Lindahl, 1998). However, few studies examine ethnic variations in these relationships (Kumpfer & Alvarado, 2003; Rowe et al., 1994). This limitation in prior research hinders the development and implementation of culturally sensitive prevention programs (Hill, 2006; Kumpfer et al., 2002). Minority parents and adolescents face unique challenges, and culture plays an important role in family functioning and adolescent development (Coll et al., 1996; Coll & Pachter, 2002; Harwood et al., 2002; Hill, 2006; McAdoo, 2002). In this study, we found that mean levels of family cohesion and parental monitoring did not differ between African American, Hispanic, and White families. The relationship between parental monitoring and physical aggression was moderated by ethnicity, such that there was no significant relationship between parental monitoring and physical aggression for Hispanic adolescents, but there was a significant negative relationship between parental monitoring and physical aggression for African American adolescents. The relationship between family cohesion and physical aggression was also moderated by ethnicity, such that family cohesion was more strongly negatively related to physical aggression for Hispanic adolescents than for African American adolescents.

The significant relationship between family cohesion and physical aggression is consistent with a number of previous studies indicating the protective role of family cohesion (Andreas & Watson, 2009; Gorman-Smith et al., 1996; Gorman-Smith et al., 2000; Lucia & Breslau, 2006; Tolan et al., 1997). In our study, the negative association was stronger for Hispanic adolescents than African American adolescents. This finding is consistent with prior research indicating the importance of family in the lives of Hispanic adolescents (Fuligni, 1998; Fuligni et al., 1999; Harwood et al., 2002). Family cohesion may be particularly important for Hispanic adolescents due to the maintenance of cultural norms across generations (Fisher, Jackson, & Villarruel, 1998; Phinney, Ong, & Madden, 2000): there is a strong norm for Hispanic adolescents to have a belief system that is family oriented, valuing loyalty, solidarity, and “oneness” with family (Cauce & Rodriguez, 2000; Cortes, 1995). This family orientation is highly consistent with family cohesion (Moos & Moos, 1976). Hispanic adolescents in the U.S. also face specific acculturation challenges (see Lara, Gamboa, Kahramanian, Morales, & Bautista, 2005 for a review). Home and family life may be particularly important for Hispanic adolescents’ development because cultural values and beliefs are shared among family members, but Hispanic adolescents may face a number of cultural differences when interacting with peers at school (LaFromboise, Coleman, & Gerton, 1993). Importantly, while the relationship between family cohesion and aggression did vary by subgroup, mean levels of family cohesion did not differ across subgroups, giving us more confidence that our findings are actually attributable to ethnic differences in the relationship between family cohesion and the development of adolescents’ physical aggression.

Our findings of ethnic variation in the relationship between family cohesion and physical aggression are in contrast to two prior studies reporting no ethnic variation (Andreas & Watson, 2009; Gorman-Smith et al., 1996). Gorman-Smith and colleagues used data from the Chicago Youth Development Study (CYDS), which oversampled for aggression and was exclusively composed of Latino and African American adolescent boys residing in inner-city (high poverty, high-crime) communities. Thus, it is possible that, among adolescents residing in the highest-risk communities, ethnic group differences in the relationship between family processes and physical aggression are not significant (Tolan et al., 2004). However, the CYDS sample was considerably smaller than the present sample, perhaps reducing the power to detect ethnic group differences.

Parental monitoring has been extensively linked to lower levels of aggression in a number of studies (Crouter & Head, 2002; Dishion & McMahon, 1998; Fulkerson et al., 2008; Jacobson & Crockett, 2010; Laird et al., 2003; Patterson et al., 1998). In our study, we found that parental monitoring played a protective role in the development of aggressive behavior for African American adolescents. This finding is consistent with the results from Lansford and colleagues (2004), who reported that mothers’ report of physical discipline protected against the development of externalizing behaviors in African American adolescents, but was related to higher levels of externalizing behaviors for European American adolescents. Deater-Deckard and Dodge (1997) theorized that cultural context plays an important role in the meaning and interpretation of disciplinary practices, which is consistent with Coll’s Integrative Theory (Coll et al., 1996). If parental monitoring occurs in a normative context where the meaning is consistent with caring and accompanied by parental warmth, it may be interpreted as more positive by adolescents (Deater-Deckard & Dodge, 1997) and may ultimately lead to lower levels of aggressive behavior. This is consistent with research reporting that African American parents are more likely to be authoritarian in parenting style (Baumrind, 1972; Hill et al., 2005).

Our analyses controlled for SES and household composition, providing further confidence that our results are due to ethnic variations, rather than SES or household composition variations. However, it is important to note that a larger proportion of Hispanic families than African American families reported having an adult male present in the home. It may be that family cohesion is particularly important for adolescents from dual parent households. For example, perhaps the felt sense of low cohesion is more negative when households are intact because the negative experience may be more salient with parental arguments and/or fighting (Amato, 2001). Additionally, parental monitoring may be particularly important for adolescents being raised by a single caretaker because adolescents may spend more time participating in unsupervised activities with peers, which may be particularly risky (Dishion, Andrews, & Crosby, 1995; Henneberger, Durkee, Truong, Atkins, & Tolan, 2013). When direct supervision is not possible, parental monitoring may become particularly important to reduce adolescents’ risk for aggressive behaviors (Demuth & Brown, 2004; Jacobson & Crockett, 2000). Further research is needed in order to disentangle the effects of ethnicity and living in a single parent household on the relationship between family processes and the development of aggressive behavior in adolescence (see Blum, Beuhring, Shew, Bearinger, Sieving, & Resnick, 2000).

Parenting and adolescents’ development occur simultaneously and mutually influence one another (Bell, 1979; Boeninger, Masyn, & Conger, 2013; Ge, Conger, Cadoret, Neiderhiser, Yates, Troughton, & Stewart, 1996; Laird et al., 2003; Pettit & Laird, 2002; Riina & McHale, 2013). When adolescents are aggressive, parenting and family processes are disrupted, which leads to “child effects” on parents and family (Lytton, 1990; Sampson & Laub, 1994; West & Farrington, 1973). It follows that family cohesion and parental monitoring may change as a result of adolescents’ aggressive behavior, rather than vice versa. We ran post hoc analyses in order to be more confident in the direction of the relationships reported in this study. Post hoc analyses indicated that initial levels of adolescents’ physical aggression did not significantly predict change in levels of family cohesion (B = −0.02, p > .05) or parental monitoring (B = −0.04, p > .05) from W-1 to W-6. These results give us confidence in the direction of the relationships reported.

The findings from this study should be interpreted in light of the following limitations. First, our sample was predominantly African American (70%). Thus, our power to detect group differences between African American, Hispanic, and White adolescents may have been limited. This may be particularly relevant for the findings on moderation of the effects of parental monitoring. Multicollinearity is likely not a factor due to our large sample size, but multicollinearity can arise when testing for group differences with uneven group sizes. In this study, we tested four interaction effects. It is possible that some interactions could be significant purely by chance. After applying a Bonferonni correction for four interaction effects, the significance level that would indicate a significant relationship would be p < 0.0125 (0.05/4 interaction effects). The interaction between parental monitoring and Hispanic ethnicity meets that criterion, whereas the interaction between family cohesion and Hispanic ethnicity does not. Our findings are consistent with the theoretical literature identifying the unique challenges that minority families face in the United States (Coll & Pachter, 2002) and pointing to the interrelation of culture, ethnicity, family functioning, and adolescent development (Coll et al., 1996; Hill, 2006). Therefore, we believe these findings to be substantively meaningful. Second, our study is nested within a larger randomized controlled trial of the effectiveness of an intervention, with random assignment occurring at the level of the school. We included six fixed-effect variables, accounting for intervention condition and study site. Inclusion of the fixed effects reduced the variability in mean physical aggression between schools to be nonsignificant, making us more confident in our results at the individual level within schools. Third, there were significant differences between African American, Hispanic, and White families in SES and household composition. Notably, our moderation findings are for African American and Hispanic adolescents, and the proportion of families reporting low SES was similar for these two ethnic subgroups, which strengthens our ability to draw conclusions about the effects of ethnicity (Hill, 2006). However, a greater proportion of African American families reported living without a male in the household, which limits our ability to disentangle the effects of household composition and ethnicity on the relationship between family functioning and aggression.

Our findings have a number of implications for the prevention of physical aggression among middle school adolescents. Specifically, our findings indicate the importance of developing and implementing culturally sensitive programs (Hill, 2006; Kumpfer et al., 2002). Family cohesion is an important target for prevention programs across subgroups, but especially for Hispanic adolescents. Therefore, family cohesion should be targeted in universal prevention and intervention programs and should be an integral focus in programs targeted towards Hispanic adolescents. Parental monitoring appears to be an important target for prevention programs specifically for African American adolescents. Notably, there was no detrimental effect of parental monitoring for White or Hispanic adolescents. Thus, parental monitoring may also be appropriate for universal prevention programming. However, it may be more cost effective to target parental monitoring to prevent physical aggression specifically in African American communities.

Conclusion

This study reported on ethnic subgroup differences in the relationship between family functioning and physical aggression in middle school adolescents. We found that family cohesion served an overall protective effect, but was particularly strong for Hispanic adolescents. We also found that parental monitoring served a protective effect, specifically for African American adolescents. Coll’s Integrative Theory for the Study of Minority Children points to the impact of minority culture on family dynamics, which in turn has effects on adolescents’ development. Our findings provide further evidence for the interrelation of culture, ethnicity, family functioning, and adolescent development (Coll et al., 1996; Coll & Pachter, 2002; Hill, 2006). Overall, this study points to the importance of targeting family relationships and parenting practices for specific ethnic subgroups to prevent physical aggression in middle school (Dishion & McMahon, 1998; Kumpfer et al., 2002).

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC Cooperative Agreement 1U49CE001296. The first, second, and third authors’ time was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R305B090002 and R305B040049 to the University of Virginia. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the U.S. Department of Education. Henneberger’s time was partially supported by the PAMT training grant (T32 DA017629) and award number P50 DA010075 awarded to The Pennsylvania State University from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). The content does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health or NIDA. The authors would like to thank David Henry for help in preparing this manuscript and Amanda Applegate for help in editing this manuscript.

Contributor Information

Angela K. Henneberger, Email: Akh15@psu.edu, The Pennsylvania State University, The Methodology Center, 204 E. Calder Way, Suite 400, State College, PA 16801, F: 814-863-0000.

Shannon M. Varga, University of Virginia, Curry School of Education

Alyssa Moudy, University of Virginia, Curry School of Education.

Patrick H. Tolan, University of Virginia, Curry School of Education

References

  1. Amato PR. Good enough marriages: Parental discord, divorce, and children's long-term well-being. Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law. 2001:71–94. [Google Scholar]
  2. Andreas JB, Watson MW. Moderating effects of family environment on the association between children's aggressive beliefs and their aggression trajectories from childhood to adolescence. Development and psychopathology. 2009;21(01):189–205. doi: 10.1017/S0954579409000121. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Baumrind D. An exploratory study of socialization effects on black children: Some black-white comparisons. Child Development. 1972;43:261–267. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bell RQ. Parent, child, and reciprocal influences. American Psychologist. 1979;34(10):821–826. [Google Scholar]
  5. Blum RW, Beuhring T, Shew ML, Bearinger LH, Sieving RE, Resnick MD. The effects of race/ethnicity, income, and family structure on adolescent risk behaviors. American Journal of Public Health. 2000;90(12):1879–1884. doi: 10.2105/ajph.90.12.1879. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Boeninger DK, Masyn KE, Conger RD. Testing alternative explanations for the associations between parenting and adolescent suicidal problems. Journal of Research on Adolescence. 2013;23(2):331–344. doi: 10.1111/jora.12015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bradshaw CP, Zmuda JH, Kellam SG, Ialongo NS. Longitudinal impact of two universal preventive interventions in first grade on educational outcomes in high school. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2009;101(4):926–937. doi: 10.1037/a0016586. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Cauce AM, Rodriguez MD. Latino families: Myths and realities. In: Contreras JM, Kerns KA, Neal-Barnett AM, editors. Latino children and families in the United States. Westport, CT: Greenwood; 2000. pp. 3–26. [Google Scholar]
  9. Coll CG, Crnic K, Lamberty G, Wasik BH, Jenkins R, Garcia HV, McAdoo HP. An integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in minority children. Child development. 1996;67(5):1891–1914. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Coll CG, Pachter LM. Ethnic and minority parenting. In: Bornstein MH, editor. Handbook of parenting: Social conditions and applied parenting. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2002. pp. 1–20. [Google Scholar]
  11. Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. The effects of the Fast Track preventive intervention on the development of conduct disorder across childhood. Child Development. 2011;82(1):331–345. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01558.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Cortes DE. Variations in familism in two generations of Puerto Ricans. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences. 1995;17:249–255. [Google Scholar]
  13. Crouter AC, Head MR. Parental monitoring and knowledge of children. In: Bornstein MH, editor. Handbook of parenting volume 3: Being and becoming a parent. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2002. pp. 461–483. [Google Scholar]
  14. Deater-Deckard K, Dodge KA. Externalizing behavior problems and discipline revisited: Nonlinear effects and variation by culture, context, and gender. Psychological Inquiry. 1997;8(3):161–175. [Google Scholar]
  15. Deater-Deckard K, Dodge KA, Bates JE, Pettit GS. Physical discipline among African American and European American mothers: Links to children’s externalizing behaviors. Developmental Psychology. 1996;32:1065–1072. [Google Scholar]
  16. Demuth S, Brown SL. Family structure, family processes, and adolescent delinquency: The significance of parental absence versus parental gender. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. 2004;41(1):58–81. [Google Scholar]
  17. Dishion TJ, Andrews DW, Crosby L. Antisocial boys and their friends in early adolescence: Relationship characteristics, quality, and interactional process. Child Development. 1995;66(1):139–151. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1995.tb00861.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Dishion TJ, McMahon RJ. Parental monitoring and the prevention of child and adolescent problem behavior: A conceptual and empirical formulation. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review. 1998;1(1):61–75. doi: 10.1023/a:1021800432380. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Farrell AD, Kung EM, White KS, Valois RF. The structure of self- reported aggression, drug use, and delinquent behaviors during early adolescence. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology. 2000;29(2):282–292. doi: 10.1207/S15374424jccp2902_13. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Fisher CB, Jackson JF, Villarruel FA. The study of African American and Latin American children and youth. In: Damon W, Lerner RM, editors. Handbook of Child Psychology: Volume 1. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 1998. pp. 1145–1207. [Google Scholar]
  21. Fuligni AJ, Tseng V, Lam M. Attitudes toward family obligations among American adolescents with Asian, Latin American, and European backgrounds. Child Development. 1999;70(4):1030–1044. [Google Scholar]
  22. Fuligni AJ. Authority, autonomy, and parent-adolescents conflict and cohesion: A study of adolescents from Mexican, Chinese, Filipino, and European backgrounds. Developmental Psychology. 1998;34:782–792. doi: 10.1037//0012-1649.34.4.782. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Fulkerson JA, Pasch KE, Perry CL, Komro K. Relationships between alcohol-related informal social control, parental monitoring and adolescent problem behaviors among racially diverse youth. Journal of Community Health. 2008;33(6):425–433. doi: 10.1007/s10900-008-9117-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Ge X, Conger RD, Cadoret RJ, Neiderhiser JM, Yates W, Troughton E, Stewart MA. The developmental interface between nature and nurture: a mutual influence model of child antisocial behavior and parent behaviors. Developmental Psychology. 1996;32(4):574. [Google Scholar]
  25. Gorman-Smith D, Tolan P. The role of exposure to community violence and developmental problems among inner-city youth. Development and psychopathology. 1998;10(01):101–116. doi: 10.1017/s0954579498001539. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Gorman-Smith D, Tolan PH, Henry DB, Quintana E, Lutovsky K, Leventhal A. Schools and families educating children: A preventive intervention for early elementary school children. In: Tolan PH, Szapocznik J, Sambrano S, editors. Preventing youth substance abuse: Science-based programs for children and adolescents. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2007. pp. 113–135. [Google Scholar]
  27. Gorman-Smith D, Tolan PH, Zelli A, Huesmann LR. The relation of family functioning to violence among inner-city minority youths. Journal of Family Psychology. 1996;10(2):115–129. [Google Scholar]
  28. Harwood R, Leyendecker B, Carlson V, Asencio M, Miller A. Parenting among Latino families in the U.S. In: Bornstein MH, editor. Handbook of parenting: Social conditions and applied parenting. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2002. pp. 21–46. [Google Scholar]
  29. Henneberger AK, Durkee MI, Truong N, Atkins A, Tolan PH. The longitudinal relationship between peer violence and popularity and delinquency in adolescent boys: Examining effects by family functioning. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2013;42:1651–1660. doi: 10.1007/s10964-012-9859-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Henry DB, Farrell AD Multisite Violence Prevention Project. The study designed by a committee: Design of the Multisite Violence Prevention Project. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2004;26(1):12–19. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2003.09.027. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Henry DB, Tolan PH, Gorman-Smith D. Longitudinal family and peer group effects on violence and nonviolent delinquency. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology. 2001;30(2):172–186. doi: 10.1207/S15374424JCCP3002_5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Hill NE. Disentangling ethnicity, socioeconomic status and parenting: Interactions, influences and meaning. Vulnerable Children and Youth Studies. 2006;1(1):114–124. [Google Scholar]
  33. Hill NE, McBride Murry V, Anderson VD. Sociocultural contexts of African American families. In: McLoyd VC, Hill NE, Dodge KA, editors. African American family life: Ecological and cultural diversity. New York: Guilford Press; 2005. pp. 21–44. [Google Scholar]
  34. Jacobson KC, Crockett LJ. Parental monitoring and adolescent adjustment: An ecological perspective. Journal of Research on Adolescence. 2000;10(1):65–97. [Google Scholar]
  35. Kumpfer KL, Alvarado R. Family-strengthening approaches for the prevention of youth problem behaviors. American Psychologist. 2003;58:457–465. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.58.6-7.457. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Kumpfer KL, Alvarado R, Smith P, Bellamy N. Cultural sensitivity and adaptation in family-based prevention interventions. Prevention Science. 2002;3(3):241–246. doi: 10.1023/a:1019902902119. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. LaFromboise T, Coleman HL, Gerton J. Psychological impact of biculturalism: evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin. 1993;114(3):395–412. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.395. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Laird RD, Pettit GS, Bates JE, Dodge KA. Parents’ monitoring-relevant knowledge and adolescents’ delinquent behavior: Evidence of correlated developmental changes and reciprocal influences. Child Development. 2003;74(3):752–768. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00566. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Lansford JE, Deater-Deckard K, Dodge KA, Bates JE, Pettit GS. Ethnic differences in the link between physical discipline and later adolescent externalizing behaviors. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2004;45:801–812. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00273.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Lara M, Gamboa C, Kahramanian MI, Morales LS, Bautista DEH. Acculturation and Latino health in the United States: A review of the literature and its sociopolitical context. Annual Review of Public Health. 2005;26:367–397. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.26.021304.144615. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Lindahl KM. Family process variables and children's disruptive behavior problems. Journal of Family Psychology. 1998;12(3):420–436. [Google Scholar]
  42. Lucia VC, Breslau N. Family cohesion and children's behavior problems: A longitudinal investigation. Psychiatry Research. 2006;141(2):141–149. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2005.06.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Lytton H. Child and parent effects in boys' conduct disorder: A reinterpretation. Developmental Psychology. 1990;26(5):683–697. [Google Scholar]
  44. McAdoo HP. African American parenting. In: Bornstein MH, editor. Handbook of parenting: Social conditions and applied parenting. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2002. pp. 47–58. [Google Scholar]
  45. Miller-Johnson S, Sullivan TN, Simon TR. Evaluating the impact of interventions in the Multisite Violence Prevention Study: Samples, procedures, and measures. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2004;26(1):48–61. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2003.09.015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Moos RH, Moos BS. A typology of family social environments. Family Process. 1976;15(4):357–371. doi: 10.1111/j.1545-5300.1976.00357.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Multisite Violence Prevention Project. The Multisite Violence Prevention Project background and overview. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2004;26:3–11. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2003.09.017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Patterson GR, Stouthamer-Loeber M. The correlation of family management practices and delinquency. Child Development. 1984;55:1299–1307. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Patterson GR, Reid JB, Dishion TJ. Antisocial boys. In: Jenkins JM, Oatley K, Stein LN, editors. Human emotions: A reader. Malden: Blackwell Publishing; 1998. pp. 330–336. [Google Scholar]
  50. Pettit GS, Laird RD. Psychological control and monitoring in early adolescence: The role of parental involvement and earlier child adjustment. In: Barber BK, editor. Intrusive parenting: How psychological control affects children and adolescents. Washington, D.C: American Psychological Association; 2002. pp. 97–123. [Google Scholar]
  51. Phinney JS, Ong A, Madden T. Cultural values and intergenerational value discrepancies in immigrant and non-immigrant families. Child Development. 2000;71(2):528–539. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00162. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Preacher KJ, Curran PJ, Bauer DJ. Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics. 2006;31:437–448. Psychology, 30 (1), 172–186. [Google Scholar]
  53. Raudenbush SW, Bryk AS. Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  54. Riina EM, McHale SM. Bidirectional influences between dimensions of coparenting and adolescent adjustment. Journal of youth and adolescence. 2014;43(2):257–269. doi: 10.1007/s10964-013-9940-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Rowe DC, Vazsonyi AT, Flannery DJ. No more than skin deep: Ethnic and racial similarity in developmental process. Psychological Review. 1994;101:396–413. [Google Scholar]
  56. Sampson RJ, Laub JH. Urban poverty and the family context of delinquency: A new look at structure and process in a classic study. Child Development. 1994;65(2):523–540. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Schafer JL, Graham JW. Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods. 2002;7:147–177. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Schafer JL. Analysis of incomplete multivariate data. London: Chapman & Hall; 1997. [Google Scholar]
  59. Singer J. Using SAS PROC MIXED to fit multilevel models, hierarchical models, and individual growth models. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics. 1998;23:323–355. [Google Scholar]
  60. Thornberry TP, Huizinga D, Loeber R. The prevention of serious delinquency and violence: Implications from the program of research on the causes and correlates of delinquency. In: Howell JC, Krisberg B, Hawkins JD, Wilson JJ, editors. Sourcebook on serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1995. pp. 213–237. [Google Scholar]
  61. Tolan PH, Gorman-Smith D, Huesmann LR, Zelli A. Assessment of family relationship characteristics: A measure to explain risk for antisocial behavior and depression among urban youth. Psychological Assessment. 1997;9(3):212–223. [Google Scholar]
  62. Tolan P, Gorman-Smith D, Henry D. Supporting families in a high-risk setting: proximal effects of the SAFE Children preventive intervention. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology. 2004;72(5):855–869. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.72.5.855. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. West D, Farrington DP. Who becomes delinquent? London: Heinemann; 1973. [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES