Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Jun 19.
Published in final edited form as: Infant Ment Health J. 2018 Dec 26;40(1):98–112. doi: 10.1002/imhj.21752

Considering the role of early discrimination experiences and the parent-child relationship in the development of disruptive behaviors in adolescence

Shannon M Savell a, Sean R Womack a, Melvin N Wilson a,*, Daniel S Shaw b, Thomas J Dishion c
PMCID: PMC7304493  NIHMSID: NIHMS999553  PMID: 30586478

Abstract

Discrimination has been shown to be related to diminish psychological adjustment and greater risk for substance use when personally experienced by adolescents and when their caregivers experience discrimination. Our research considers the impact of primary caregiver experiences of racial and socioeconomic based discrimination in early- (age 3–5) and late-childhood (age 9.5) on adolescent disruptive behaviors (age 14) with a large sample of diverse caregiver-child dyads (N = 634). In addition, we examine the potential protective effects of parent-child relationship quality in early- and late-childhood in buffering the effects of caregiver discrimination on adolescent disruptive behaviors. We also explore possible gender differences in children’s vulnerability to engage in disruptive behaviors in the context of caregiver experiences of discrimination. The findings from this study indicate that at trend level, early childhood experiences of primary caregiver discrimination (ages 3–5) predicted adolescent disruptive behaviors, accounting for the effects of more recent (age 9.5) caregiver discrimination. Additionally, parent-child relationship quality at age 9.5 was found to buffer the effects of late-childhood (age 9.5) primary caregiver discrimination on adolescent disruptive behaviors for both male and female youth. The findings highlight the need for prevention and intervention techniques that foster healthy positive primary caregiver-child relationships.

Keywords: discrimination, parent-child relationship, low income, diverse racial/ethnic backgrounds, disruptive behaviors

It is recognized that child rearing is greatly influenced by the context in which the family lives, and discrimination can negatively impact the child-rearing context (Anderson et al., 2015). Discrimination, or the unfair or prejudicial treatment of different groups of people based on features such as race, gender, religion, or income, is extremely prevalent in American society. In a nationwide poll from October 2015 conducted by CNN and the Kaiser Family Foundation, 49 percent of Americans said racism is “a big problem” in society today (Shoichet, 2015). Similarly, in a recent 2016 Gallup poll, 35 percent of Americans surveyed reported that they were “worried a great deal” about race relations, which has doubled since 2014 (Norman, 2016). Furthermore, in a nationally representative study, racial and socioeconomic discrimination were found to be quite pervasive in the United States (Ren, Amick, & Williams, 1999).

Experiencing discrimination during childhood and adolescence has been shown to be related to numerous detrimental outcomes in psychological and physical health domains (Clark, Coleman & Novak, 2004; Prelow, Danoff-Burg, Swenson, & Pulgiano, 2004; Priest et al., 2013), as well as in social and educational contexts (Neblett, Philip, Cogburn, & Sellers, 2006). Although adults and children may experience discrimination in different settings (e.g., workplace versus classroom), the negative effects for those who experience discrimination do not diminish with age (Mays, Cochran, & Barnes, 2007; Williams & Mohammed, 2009). García Coll and colleagues (1996) theorize that high-stress environments, such as those characterized by discrimination, have the potential to impact children and adolescents’ outcomes by altering family processes. The present study aims to extend findings of previous research on the impact of discrimination on behavior from early childhood to early adolescence. We also examine family processes that may attenuate the negative effects of discrimination.

Taking an ecological systems perspective (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), discrimination may be most impactful on child development via processes occurring at the level of the microsystem (e.g., parent-child relationships). For example, parents may become depressed in response to discrimination experiences and thus not be able to utilize as many positive parenting strategies, leading to maladaptive child behaviors (Anderson et al., 2015). However, Bronfenbrenner’s theory also recognizes the influence of macrosystem-level processes (e.g., social and economic conditions), which may allow discriminatory experiences to occur and may negatively impact the child’s environment. Thus, discrimination, whether experienced personally or vicariously through caregivers, may create a stressful environment, which in turn may play a key role in the development of children’s disruptive behavior.

Ford and colleagues (2013) suggest that the quality of the relationship between caregivers and children might affect the extent to which caregiver discrimination relates to child outcomes. High rates of parent–child conflict are associated with more externalizing symptoms (Burt, McGue, Iacono, & Krueger, 2006; Klahr, McGue, Iacono, & Burt, 2011). Numerous studies suggest positive parent–child relationship quality benefits adolescents’ psychological adjustment (Qu, Fuligni, Galvan, & Telzer, 2015) and brain structure development (Whittle et al., 2014).

Positive and supportive parenting techniques may buffer the negative effects of stress associated with experiencing discrimination (Neblett et al., 2008; Juang & Alvarez, 2010; Wang & Huguley, 2012), which may also extend to circumstances in which caregivers experience discrimination. In a moderation analysis involving parenting style, adolescents whose parents used a more supportive parenting style (i.e., warmth, communication and consistent discipline) were less likely to report increased anger and less likely to report willingness to use substances after experiencing discrimination (Gibbons et al., 2010). However, uninvolved parenting, experiencing or witnessing discrimination and stressful life events (e.g., being a victim of a crime) all independently increase children’s risk for developing depressive symptoms (Simons et al., 2002).

Furthermore, children experiencing vicarious racial discrimination through their caregivers are at increased risk of developing emotional and behavioral problems through less supportive parenting and/or changes in positive cultural messaging (Mays, Cochran, & Barnes, 2007). Thus, utilizing the quality of the parent-child relationship may be a means by which to assess whether positive and supportive parenting techniques are able to buffer the detrimental effects that children face when their caregivers experience discrimination and/or when they personally experience discrimination.

A majority of the current literature investigates the effects of experiencing discrimination with either adolescent or adult samples. However, few studies have assessed the effect of primary caregiver experience with discrimination on their child’s development and its relation to the child’s own experience with discrimination beginning during early childhood. In addition to initiating such research when youth are school-aged or older, the literature largely assesses the impact of discrimination on single targets and does not extend beyond the direct recipient of discrimination (Anderson et al., 2015). The few studies that have investigated the impact of caregiver experience of discrimination on child adjustment have consistently shown a strong association between caregiver’s racially discriminatory experiences and poor mental health outcomes for African-American children during middle childhood (Anderson et al., 2015) and adolescence (Ford, Hurd, Jagers & Sellers, 2013). One exception is a study conducted by Caughy and colleagues (2004), which did not reveal a significant association between caregiver experiences of discrimination and internalizing problem behaviors for preschool-aged children. However, less is known about the relationship between caregiver discrimination and disruptive behaviors (Gibbons et al., 2004). The present study intends to contribute to the recently developing literature on the impact of discrimination on primary caregiver-child dyads, specifically by investigating the relationship between caregiver discrimination during early and late childhood and adolescent disruptive behavior.

Although previous research suggests that boys are at a greater risk than girls for engaging in externalizing behaviors (Brenan & Shaw, 2013; Keenan & Shaw, 1997; Leadbeater, Kuperminc, Blatt, & Hertzog, 1999), less is known about gender differences in behaviors as a response to primary caregiver experiences of discrimination. In congruence with previous findings on gender differences, it may be that boys are more likely to externalize in response to experiences of discrimination and girls are more likely to internalize responses to experiences of discrimination. However, Ford and colleagues (2013) did not find gender differences in the relationship between caregiver experiences of discrimination and adolescent depressive symptoms and psychological well-being. The similarity in response to primary caregiver experience of discrimination across gender is consistent with previous research on adolescent experiences of discrimination, which suggests that boys and girls do not differ in their psychological responses to experiencing discrimination (Simons et al., 2002). The present study explores potential moderation by gender on the relationship between caregiver discrimination and adolescent disruptive behavior.

An additional constraint of the current literature is the dearth of research that has examined discrimination based on socioeconomic status (SES) (Van Dyke, Vaccarino, Quyyumi, & Lewis, 2016). SES is one of the most widely accepted social determinants of physical health (Van Dyke et al., 2016) and psychological health (Braveman et al., 2010). There is a significant interplay between socioeconomic status and race for both health outcomes (Ren, Amick, & Williams, 1999; Williams, Priest, & Anderson, 2016) and educational outcomes (Sirin, 2005). In the classroom environment, previous research has shown that middle to high SES groups are given preferential treatment over low SES groups (Sirin, 2005). There are also differences in parenting practices and styles across socioeconomic status groups (Radziszewska, Richardson, Dent, & Flay, 1996; Spera, 2005). Based on the general influence of socioeconomic status on child and family development, it is important to address the gap in the literature by assessing the impact of both racial- and socioeconomic-based discrimination on disruptive behavior.

Present Study

The purpose of this study is to explore the role of primary caregiver (PC) perceived discrimination at different developmental periods in the emergence of disruptive behaviors in adolescence. We aim to extend previous findings (Anderson et al., 2015; Ford et al., 2013) that suggest caregiver experiences of discrimination predict target child (TC) behavior problems in late childhood and adolescence in four ways. First, we examined long-term implications of discrimination during early childhood (ages 3–5) on disruptive behaviors at age 14, accounting for the effects of discrimination in late-childhood. Second, we investigated the more recent effects of parental discrimination by investigating the association between parental discrimination at age 9.5 and disruptive behaviors at age 14, accounting for the effects of early childhood discrimination. Third, we investigated whether a positive parent-child relationship, characterized by high levels of warmth and communication, could attenuate the association between PC’s experiences of discrimination and TC disruptive behaviors in adolescence both in early- and late-childhood. Specifically, we tested for an interaction between discrimination and parent-child relationship quality in early childhood (child ages 3–5) and adolescent disruptive behaviors and an interaction between discrimination and parent-child relationship quality in late childhood (child age 9.5) and adolescent disruptive behaviors, such that at high levels of parent-child relationship quality, the magnitude of the association between high levels of discrimination and adolescent disruptive behavior would be attenuated. Fourth, we tested if the interaction between discrimination and parent-child relationship quality and adolescent disruptive behaviors is moderated by target child gender. Specifically, the present study was guided by five hypotheses.

  1. We expected PC’s experiences of discrimination in early childhood (TC ages 3–5) would predict adolescent disruptive behaviors at age 14.

  2. We hypothesized PC’s experiences of discrimination in late childhood (TC age 9.5) would independently predict adolescent disruptive behaviors at age 14.

  3. We postulated that a higher quality parent-child relationship in early childhood (ages 3–5) would attenuate the magnitude of associations between early childhood (ages 3–5) PC discrimination and age 14 adolescent disruptive behaviors.

  4. Similarly, we hypothesized that a positive parent-child relationship would attenuate the magnitude of associations between late childhood (age 9.5) PC discrimination and age 14 adolescent disruptive behaviors.

  5. We expected associations between PC discrimination, parent-child relationship quality, and the interaction between discrimination and relationship quality and adolescent disruptive behaviors to be equally strong for males and females.

Methods

Participants

Participants were 731 families in the Early Steps Multisite project. Caregiver-child dyads were initially recruited when the child was between 2 years 0 months and 2 years 11 months of age from Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) in the metropolitan areas of Pittsburgh, PA, and Eugene, OR, and the city of Charlottesville, VA, and surrounding counties (Dishion et al., 2008). Primary caregivers (PCs) were typically the target children’s mothers but could be any adult acting as the main provider of childcare. Alternate caregivers (ACs) were elected by the primary caregiver and were typically father figures but could also be any significant adult in the child’s life, as recognized by the PC. Inclusion criteria for recruitment included risk factors within the following three domains: (a) child behavior (e.g., conduct problems, high-conflict relationships with adults), (b) family problems (i.e., maternal depression, daily parenting challenges, substance use problems, teen parent status) and (c) socio-demographic risk (i.e., no more than 2 years post high school education and low family income). Two or more of the three risk factors were required for inclusion in the sample. All children in the sample had above-normative levels of externalizing problems to increase parent’s motivation for concern. For a detailed description of the Family Check-Up intervention, see Dishion et al. (2008).

Of the 1666 parents who were approached at WIC sites across the three study locations and had children in the appropriate age range, 879 families met the eligibility requirements, and 731 (82.3%) consented for participation. Of the 731 families (49% female children), 272 (37%) were recruited in Pittsburgh, 271 (37%) in the Eugene site and 188 (26%) in Charlottesville. Across sites, children were reported to belong to the following racial groups: 27.9% African American, 50.1% European American, 13.0% biracial and 8.9% other races (e.g., American Indian, Native Hawaiian). In terms of ethnicity, 13.4% of the sample reported being Hispanic American. The current study utilizes data collected at ages 2, 3, 4, 5, 9.5, 10.5 and 14 (waves 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9, respectively). The present study uses data from the 634 participants (86.7%) who completed either the age 9.5 or 14 assessment. Attrition analyses revealed no differences between attrited participants in baseline income, PC- or AC-reported oppositional/aggressive behaviors, positive parent-child relationship, intervention status, TC gender, or site location. Retained participants were found to have a higher education at baseline (t120.97 = 2.72, p < .01).

Measures

Demographic Variables.

A semi-structured interview was administered at each assessment to the PC to assess demographic characteristics of the family, such as gender, race and ethnicity, household annual income, parent education, and household composition. For the present study, demographic information on gender, race and ethnicity, site location, and intervention status was collected at the age 2 assessment and information on household annual income and parent education was collected at age 9.5.

Experiences of discrimination.

PC and TC experiences of discrimination were measured using the Microaggression Scale (MIC; adapted from Walters, Simoni, & Evans-Campbell, 2002), administered at the age 9.5 assessment. The MIC is an eleven-item measure assessing experiences of ethnic/racial and income discrimination from others. Parents rated the frequency of discrimination in specific situations that they faced between child ages 7.5 and 9.5 (e.g., “Have you ever been expected to act in a stereotypical manner because of your ethnicity/race? because of your income?”) on a 5-point scale ranging from “almost never” to “almost always.” Nine of the eleven questions corresponded to PC’s experiences of discrimination and two of the questions asked about TC’s experiences of discrimination. Cronbach Alphas indicate excellent internal reliability for PC’s experiences (α = .925) and acceptable reliability for TC’s experiences (α = .768).

Caregiver-reported disruptive behaviors.

Caregiver assessments of adolescent disruptive behaviors were assessed using the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) at age 14. The CBCL is a 76-item parent report of emotional and behavior problems in children over the past 6 months (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001). A 3-point Likert scale (0 = not true, 1 = somewhat or sometimes true, 2 = very true or often true) was used to assess parental perceptions of child behavior (e.g., “My child is inattentive or easily distracted”). For the present study, a subset of seven items matching DSM-IV-TR criteria for oppositional defiant disorder and aggressive items that form the conduct disorder diagnosis were used to assess caregiver-reported disruptive behaviors (Brennan, Shaw, Dishion, & Wilson, 2015). At the age 14 assessment, 553 PCs and 384 ACs completed the CBCL. Cronbach alphas for the oppositional/aggressive scale were .847 and .819 for PCs and ACs, respectively, indicating good internal consistency.

Youth-reported disruptive behaviors.

Target youth completed an adapted version of the Self Report of Deviance Questionnaire (SRD; Elliot, Huizinga, & Ageton, 1985). The 46-item SRD assesses the frequency of aggressive and delinquent behaviors an individual has engaged in over the past 12 months. Responses are coded on a 3-point Likert scale (0 = never, 1 = once/twice, 2 = more often). Sample items include, “Have you cheated on school tests?; Have you stolen or tried to steal a bicycle or skateboard?; Have you been arrested?” Cronbach alphas indicate good internal reliability (α = .897).

Parent-child relationship quality.

PCs completed the Adult Child Relationship Scale (ACRS) at the age 9.5 assessment. The ACRS is a 15-item measure adapted from the Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (Pianta, Steinberg, & Rollins, 1995), which assesses the quality of the parent-child relationship and yields two scales: the positive relationship scale and the conflict relationship scale. To determine if a positive parent-child relationship could buffer the effects of discrimination, the 5-item positive relationship scale was used in the present study. A sample item from the positive relationship scale is “If upset, this child seeks comfort from me.” Responses were on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from Definitely Not to Definitely. Cronbach Alphas indicate acceptable internal consistency (α = .794).

Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics and inter-correlations were calculated using the Base package in R (R Core Team, 2017). The primary study hypothesis was examined with structural equation models (SEM) in the ‘lavaan’ package version 0.523.1097 in R using maximum likelihood estimation with robust estimators (MLR; Rosseel, 2012). The lavaan package allowed us to estimate adolescent disruptive behaviors as a latent construct and examine predictors of the latent construct. Indicators of adolescent disruptive behaviors (i.e., PC and AC Opp/Agg scores and TC self-reported delinquency) were all positively skewed and demonstrated positive kurtosis, indicating non-normality. Indicator variables of adolescent disruptive behaviors were transformed using natural log transformations prior to estimation per recommendations by Tabachnick and Fidell (2007). Full information maximum likelihood estimation was used to account for missing data.

To test the five study hypotheses, a series of SEM models were fit with the predictor variables (i.e., PC discrimination and positive parent-child relationship), interaction term, and relevant covariates being regressed onto adolescent disruptive behaviors. Specifically, to test hypotheses 1 and 3, that there would be a main effect of early childhood discrimination on age 14 disruptive behaviors and an interaction between early childhood discrimination and parent-child relationship quality, an early-childhood model was fit regressing early childhood discrimination, parent-child relationship quality, and the interaction between early childhood discrimination and relationship quality on adolescent disruptive behaviors. Similarly, to test hypotheses 2 and 4, that there would be a main effect of late childhood discrimination on age 14 disruptive behaviors and an interaction between late childhood discrimination and parent-child relationship quality, a late-childhood model was fit regressing late childhood discrimination, parent-child relationship quality, and the interaction between late childhood discrimination and relationship quality on adolescent disruptive behaviors. Finally, a multi-group approach was utilized to test hypothesis 5, that the associations between discrimination, parent-child relationship, or the interaction term and adolescent disruptive behaviors differed by gender. Specifically, a full model was fit for male and female youth where all paths were allowed to be freely estimated. We then ran reduced models, separately constraining the paths between PC discrimination, parent-child relationship, and the interaction between PC discrimination and the parent-child relationship to be equal for males and females. The full and reduced models were then compared using a chi-square difference test. Significant differences between the full and reduced models would indicate that gender significantly moderated the constrained path.

Predictor variables (i.e., PC discrimination and positive parent child relationship) were grand-mean centered before creating the interaction term to reduce multicollinearity and improve interpretability (Aiken & West, 1991). All models controlled for intervention status, PC gender, TC gender, PC education, annual household income, and site location with Eugene used as the reference group. We entered the manifest predictor variables, interaction term, and relevant covariates into the model simultaneously to examine their role as predictors of the latent disruptive behavior construct. See Figure 1 for an example model. Model fit was assessed for the model using the following fit indices: Model Chi-Square, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA, <.10 indicates acceptable fit), Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR, <.08 indicates acceptable fit), and Comparative Fit Index (CFI, >.90 indicates acceptable fit; Hooper, Coughlan, & Mullen, 2008). R-square values were assessed to determine the model effect on the outcome variable.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Full Model of discrimination and parent-child relationship quality as predictors of adolescent disruptive behavior.

In line with recommendations by Maxwell & Delaney (2003), main effects between discrimination and parent-child relationship quality and disruptive behaviors were only interpreted if the interaction term was non-significant. Significant interactions were explored and plotted at high (1 SD above the mean) and low (1 SD below the mean) positive parent-child relationship scores using the ‘pequod’ package in R (Mirisola & Seta, 2016).

Results

Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations

Descriptive analysis of discrimination experiences revealed that the average discrimination scores were 1.49 (sd = 0.52) for early-childhood and 1.34 (sd = 0.50) for late-childhood. Discrimination scores of 1.00 indicate no experiences of discrimination, while scores greater than 1.00 indicate that the individual has experienced discrimination. Among PCs, 573 (90.4%) had an early-childhood discrimination score greater than 1.00 and 326 (56.8%) had a late-childhood discrimination score greater than 1.00. See Table 1 for means and standard deviations of all continuous variables. See Table 2 for descriptive statistics of all categorical variables.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics of Continuous Measures

Mean (SD) Range Missing
PC Education (Age 9.5) 12.75 2.09 3–19 148
Annual Family Income (Age 9.5) $29,127 $18,557.55 $0 – $115,000 156
PC Discrimination (Ages 3–5) 1.49 0.52 1–4.17 75
PC Discrimination (Age 9.5) 1.34 0.50 1.00–3.94 157
Positive Parent-Child Relationship (Ages 3–5) 21.57 2.61 8.67–25 111
Positive Parent-Child Relationship (Age 9.5) 21.43 3.40 5–25 154
PC Opp/Agg (14) 0.34 0.38 0–1.75 178
AC Opp/Agg (14) 0.29 0.34 0–1.75 347
TC Self-Reported Deviance (14) 5.75 7.15 0–64 180
Open in a new tab

Note. PC education is the number of years of education. Annual income is in US dollars.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics of Categorical Measures

Outcome Age
Age 9.5 Age 10.5 Age 14
N % N % N %
Intervention Status
 Treatment Group 285 48.6% 274 48.8% 276 50.2%
 Control Group 301 51.4% 287 51.2% 274 49.8%
Child Gender
 Male 295 50.3% 283 50.4% 274 49.8%
 Female 291 49.7% 278 49.6% 276 50.2%
PC Gender
 Male 19 3.2% 17 3.0% 17 3.1%
 Female 567 96.8% 544 97.0% 533 96.9%
Site Location
 Charlottesville, VA 148 25.3% 135 24.1% 132 24.0%
 Eugene, OR 217 37.0% 219 39.0% 204 37.1%
 Pittsburgh, PA 221 37.7% 207 36.9% 214 38.9%
Open in a new tab

In terms of inter-correlations, PC, AC, and TC reports of TC’s disruptive behaviors were significantly correlated with one another (r’s = .253-.625, p’s < .01). PC experiences of discrimination in early childhood were highly correlated with experiences of discrimination at age 9.5 (r = .558, p < .001), indicating that experiences of discrimination are relatively stable across time. See Table 3 for all intercorrelations between the study variables.

Table 3.

Intercorrelations between covariates, predictor variables, and outcome variables

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.
1. Intervention Status 1
2. PC Gender −.024 1
3. TC Gender .001 .088* 1
4. PC Education (9.5) .017 −.022 .049 1
5. Family Income (9.5) .011 −.013 −.026 .222*** 1
6. PC Discrimination (3–5) .033 −.022 .036 .126** −.068 1
7. PC Discrimination (9.5) .036 .002 .012 .125** −.171*** .558*** 1
8. Positive Parent-Child Relationship (3) −.083† −.006 .001 .105* .047 .017 .072 1
9. Positive Parent-Child Relationship (9.5) .031 −.017 .020 .010 −.025 −.027 .018 .439*** 1
10. PC Opp/Agg (14) −.031 .009 −.141*** −.130** −.082† .108* .058 −.100* −.223*** 1
11. AC Opp/Agg (14) −.066 .074 −.123* −.154** −.067 −.034 −.072 −.122* −.135* .625*** 1
12. TC Self-Reported Deviance (14) .004 .023 −.106* −.057 −.083† .031 .000 −.024 −.052 .417*** .253*** 1
Open in a new tab

Note. PC and TC gender were coded as 0 = male, 1 = female. Intervention status was coded as 0 = control, 1 = Family Check-Up.

†

denotes p < 0.1,

*

denotes p < 0.05,

**

denotes p < 0.01,

***

denotes p < .001.

Hypotheses 1 and 3: Early-Childhood Discrimination as a Predictor of Disruptive Behaviors

The early-childhood discrimination model fit the data well X2df=20, n=694 = 37.51, (p = .01), RMSEA = .036, and CFI = .949. Contrary to hypothesis 1, the main effect of parental experiences of discrimination on age 14 disruptive behaviors was not significant (β = .074, p = 0.169). The main effect of early childhood parent-child relationship quality was also not a significant predictor of age 14 disruptive behaviors (β = −.072, p = 0.091). Hypothesis 3 was also not supported as the interaction between early childhood parental discrimination and early childhood parent-child relationship quality predicting adolescent disruptive behaviors was not significant (β = −.037, p = 0.436). See Table 4 for the model results and fit indices for the early-childhood discrimination model.

Table 4.

Early-Childhood Model of Discrimination and Relationship Quality

Predictors TC Disruptive Behavior (14)
β p-value
Covariates
 Education (3) −.103 .014
 Annul Family Income (3) −.055 .287
 Intervention Status −.034 .413
 PC Gender .003 .937
 TC Gender −.150 < .001
 Pittsburgh .117 .014
 Virginia −.007 .873
PC Discrimination (3–5) .074 .169
Parent-Child Relationship Quality (3–5) −.072 .091
Discrimination X Relationship Quality −.037 .436
Open in a new tab

Notes: n = 634.

Model fit indices: χ2 (20) = 37.51, p = 0.010, CFI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.04, SRMR = 0.02, model R2 = .064

Hypotheses 2 and 4: Late-Childhood Discrimination as a Predictor of Disruptive Behaviors

The late-childhood discrimination model also fit the data well X2df=22, n=634 = 38.67, (p = .01), RMSEA = .035, and CFI = .956. Consistent with hypothesis 4, there was a significant interaction between age 9.5 PC experiences of discrimination and age 9.5 parent-child relationship (β = −.087, p = 0.018). The interaction suggests that the effect of discrimination on adolescent disruptive behaviors was significantly different at high (+1 SD) versus low (−1 SD) levels of parent-child relationship quality (see Figure 2). Because there was a significant interaction, we did not interpret main effects of age 9.5 discrimination (i.e., hypothesis 2) or parent-child relationship quality. However, there was a non-significant statistical trend of early childhood discrimination in this model indicating that higher levels of discrimination in early childhood predict higher levels of adolescent disruptive behaviors accounting for the effects of late-childhood discrimination. See Table 5 for the model results and fit indices for the early childhood discrimination model.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

PC Discrimination X Positive Parent-Child Relationship interaction.

Table 5.

Late-Childhood Model of Discrimination and Relationship Quality

Predictors TC Disruptive Behavior (14)
β p-value
Covariates
 Education (9.5) −.129 .001
 Annul Family Income (9.5) −.048 .275
 Intervention Status −.024 .534
 PC Gender .010 .731
 TC Gender −.128 .002
 Pittsburgh .100 .025
 Virginia −.022 .602
 PC Discrimination (3–5) .102 .070
PC Discrimination (9.5) .022 .698
Parent-Child Relationship Quality (9.5) −.195 < .001
Discrimination X Relationship Quality −.087 .018
Open in a new tab

Notes: n = 634.

Model fit indices: χ2 (22) = 38.67, p = 0.015, CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.04, SRMR = 0.03, model R2 = .110

Hypothesis 5: Moderation by Gender

We first tested for a moderation effect of TC gender in the early childhood model. Child’s gender was not found to moderate the paths between early-childhood parental discrimination, early-childhood parent-child relationship quality, or the interaction between early-childhood discrimination and parent-child relationship quality (see Table 6). Similarly, child’s gender did not significantly moderate the paths between late-childhood parental discrimination, late-childhood parent-child relationship quality, or the interaction between late-childhood discrimination and parent-child relationship quality (see Table 7). The non-significant moderating effect of gender observed here supports our approach to examine the effects of discrimination and parent-child relationship quality among both males and females.

Table 6.

Chi-Square Difference Tests Between Male and Female Youth (Early Childhood)

Path Constrained Model Chi Square Chi-Square Difference p-value
PC Discrimination (3–5) → Disruptive Behaviors (14) Full 40.43 0.04 0.847
Reduced 40.47
Parent-Child Relationship (3–5) → Disruptive Behaviors (14) Full 40.43 2.74 0.098
Reduced 43.17
Interaction (3–5) → Disruptive Behaviors (14) Full 40.43 3.47 0.062
Reduced 43.90
Open in a new tab

Note. For parsimony, covariates are not included in this table. However, analyses accounted for family income (age 3), PC education (age 3), intervention status, PC gender, and site location.

Table 7.

Chi-Square Difference Tests Between Male and Female Youth (Late Childhood)

Path Constrained Model Chi Square Chi-Square Difference p-value
PC Discrimination (9.5) → Disruptive Behaviors (14) Full 38.75 0.15 0.696
Reduced 38.90
Parent-Child Relationship (9.5) → Disruptive Behaviors (14) Full 38.75 0.85 0.355
Reduced 39.60
Interaction (9.5) → Disruptive Behaviors (14) Full 38.75 1.33 0.249
Reduced 40.08
Open in a new tab

Note. For parsimony, covariates are not included in this table. However, analyses accounted for family income (age 9.5), PC education (age 9.5), intervention status, PC gender, site location, and early childhood PC discrimination (ages 3–5).

Discussion

Discrimination remains a prevalent issue in the United States, but it is a topic that continues to be understudied. There is an expanding body of research linking direct experiences of discrimination with negative outcomes for both adults (Williams & Mohammed, 2009) and youth (Neblett, Terzian, & Harriott, 2010; Prelow et al., 2004; Priest et al., 2013), but little is known about indirect effects of parent’s experiences of discrimination on their children’s development. We add to the growing body of literature on discrimination (Anderson et al., 2015, Ford et al., 2013, Gibbons et al., 2004) by examining associations between PC experiences of discrimination in early childhood (ages 3–5) and adolescent disruptive behaviors (age 14). Additionally, we focused in on more recent experiences of primary caregiver discrimination (e.g., target child age 9.5) to examine whether family processes, specifically a positive parent-child relationship, could attenuate this association. Further, when examining the influence of the parent-child relationship quality, we accounted for the effects of discrimination in early childhood (e.g., ages 3–5), a developmental period when parents’ experiences of discrimination is associated with depression symptoms and fewer positive parenting practices which in turn is related to maladaptive behaviors in children (Anderson et al., 2015).

Our findings indicate that more recent caregiver discrimination appears to be a risk factor for adolescent disruptive behaviors, above and beyond the effects of early childhood experiences. Consistent with previous research (Caughy et al., 2004), we found that early childhood experiences of primary caregiver discrimination (ages 3–5) are not reliably predictive of target child behavior. However, early childhood experiences of discrimination by primary caregivers may influence family processes (e.g., parenting practices), which can impact development of problem behaviors over time (Anderson et al., 2015). Thus, caregiver experiences of discrimination in children’s early years (i.e., age 3–5) may indirectly contribute to risk for adolescents engaging in disruptive behaviors. Importantly, the vulnerability of this sample to engage in disruptive behaviors based on study inclusion criteria (e.g., conduct problems, high-conflict relationships with adults) is quite high and any additional elevation in risk to engage in disruptive behaviors (i.e., in the context of primary caregiver discrimination) is substantial. Furthermore, it is important to keep the vulnerability of the sample to engage in disruptive behaviors in mind when interpreting the trend level finding that early childhood experiences of primary caregiver discrimination (ages 3–5) are predictive of adolescent disruptive behaviors when accounting for the effects of more recent caregiver discrimination experiences in late childhood.

After accounting for the effects of early childhood discrimination, parent-child relationship quality was found to buffer the effects of late-childhood primary caregiver discrimination on adolescent disruptive behaviors. Based on our findings and previous research (Burt et al., 2006; Klahr et al., 2011), children who have poor relationships with their parents are already at an elevated risk to develop behavior problems in adolescence. For youth in poor relationships with their parents in late childhood, parental experiences of discrimination appear to heighten the risk for engaging in disruptive behaviors in adolescence. From a developmental perspective, this is critical as adolescence is a period where youth begin to engage in more serious antisocial behaviors (Moffitt, 2006; Shaw, Hyde, & Brennan, 2012) and identifying factors that increase this risk can be informative to intervention programs.

Consistent with study hypotheses, the association between parent’s experiences of discrimination in late childhood and disruptive behavior in adolescence decreased in magnitude in the context of a positive parent-child relationship. The attenuating effect of a positive parent-child relationship is consistent with previous studies that indicate a more positive parent-child relationship is associated with fewer problem behaviors (Qu, Fuligni, Galvan, & Telzer, 2015). Parents that are able to foster positive relationships with their children may be better able to recognize and attend to emotional and conduct problems and alleviate issues that may be causing such problems.

Even in the face of frequent discrimination, a positive parent-child relationship can shield the child from some negative effects on behavior. As positive parent-child relationships are often characterized by warmth and communication (Gibbons et al., 2010), caregivers may be able to communicate effectively with their children about the discriminatory experiences and provide support. Previous work has shown that a parenting style characterized by warmth and support buffered against discrimination effects on anger, hostile view of relationships and violence (Simons et al., 2006). This result is consistent with the current finding that a more positive parent-child relationship quality buffered the effects of discrimination on disruptive problem behavior.

Alternatively, it is possible that having a positive parent-child relationship may attenuate the parent’s internal distress following experiences of discrimination. That is, having consistent positive interactions with one’s children may foster resilience for the parent through increasing parenting self-efficacy, leading to a lower likelihood of developing depression and an increased likelihood of maintaining positive parenting practices. This, in turn, would serve to strengthen the positive parent-child relationship. Consistent with this hypothesis, parenting self-efficacy has been linked to better parental psychological functioning and more positive parenting practices (Jones & Prinz, 2005). However, to date no research has examined parenting self-efficacy as a factor moderating the relationship between parental discrimination and maladaptive behaviors in children.

Consistent with previous research we found that boys are at a greater risk than girls for engaging in disruptive behaviors (Brennan & Shaw, 2013; Leadbeater et al., 1999). However, and also consistent with previous research (Ford et al., 2013), in the context of primary caregiver experiences of discrimination we found that boys and girls were of equal likelihood to engage in disruptive behaviors. Therefore, the present study suggests that there is not a differential response to parental discrimination by gender, such that boys and girls are at equal risk for engaging in disruptive behaviors in response to caregiver discrimination.

Study Strengths and Limitations

Our findings are unique in that they address the impact of both racial discrimination and socioeconomic discrimination on behavior in a sample of children from diverse racial/ethnic backgrounds. Previous research has been focused on discriminatory experiences of African-American youth (Anderson et al., 2015; Ford et al., 2013) and has not assessed the role of socioeconomic discrimination in the development of disruptive behaviors. The present study provides clarity to the gap in the literature.

Additionally, we accounted for discrimination experiences earlier in the child’s lifetime (i.e., beginning at age 3) than previous research (Anderson et al., 2015) and examined family processes (i.e., parent-child relationship) that attenuated the negative effects of discrimination. Incorporating parent experiences of discrimination when children were in the toddler period allowed us to account for unique variance associated with parent discrimination during the child’s early years.

However, we do acknowledge the constraint of having only primary caregiver reports of discrimination and parent-child relationship quality. Having multiple reporters for both incidents of discrimination and parent-child relationship quality would be helpful in thoroughly examining the association between the two variables. Additionally, we did not collect reports of discrimination from the perception of the target child. Future research on the impact of experiences of discrimination should incorporate multiple reporters and include the target child’s report of their own perceived discrimination.

An additional constraint of the current study is the nature of reporting discrimination and the likelihood of the intersectionality of identity (gender, race/ethnicity, SES group) to influence the reports for discrimination based on race/ethnicity and SES. It may be difficult for participants to parse apart the sole reason for the experiences of discrimination they face. For example, the majority of the primary caregivers in this study are female and the sample is largely of low socioeconomic status. From the perspective of the victim of discrimination, it may not be possible to distinguish clear lines between parts of their identity for the sole reason for the experience of discrimination. Our attempt to address this concern was to combine the forms of discrimination because discrimination in any form can negatively influence well-being (Hershberger, Zapolski, & Aalsma, 2016).

Conclusions and Directions for Future Research

Whether experienced personally or vicariously, discrimination has been shown to be related to diminished psychological well-being (Clark, Coleman & Novak, 2004), negative physical health (Williams & Mohammed, 2009), and poor academic performance (Neblett, Philip, Cogburn, & Sellers, 2006). The association between discriminatory experiences and negative outcomes highlights the need to prevent discrimination and intervene in such experiences. Preventing discrimination is the optimal means by which to change outcomes. However, based on the current social and political climate, intervention techniques are also a necessary goal. Specifically, interventions that foster and promote the development of positive parent-child relationships may be one means by which to reduce the adverse effects of discriminatory experiences on child behavior. The findings presented in our study provide a new avenue by which to explore additional means for attenuating the association between discrimination and negative outcomes.

Future research should investigate other moderating variables for the relationship between discrimination and disruptive behaviors. Racial socialization represents one such protective factor frequently referenced in the literature as representing a means to ameliorate the negative outcomes associated with racial discrimination (Hughes, 2003; Neblett et al., 2006; Neblett et al., 2012). Parental positivity, involvement, and monitoring all have been associated with racial socialization (Frabutt, Walker & MacKinnon-Lewis, 2002). Parents who provide positive racial socialization frequently (e.g., race pride, racial barriers, and self-worth messages) are less likely to suffer from the negative effects of experiencing discrimination (Neblett et al., 2008; Neblett et al., 2012).

Overall, the present study contributes to the growing literature on the impact of discriminatory experiences on child behavior. In the context of a low positive parent-child relationship, caregiver experience of discrimination was significantly associated with adolescent disruptive problem behavior. The findings highlight the need for prevention and intervention techniques. Specifically, one means by which to intervene may be in fostering and promoting healthy positive caregiver-child relationships. Our study suggests that even in the face of frequent discrimination, a positive caregiver-child relationship can buffer negative effects on adolescent behavior.

Acknowledgements

Support for this research was provided by the National Institute on Drug Abuse to the third, fourth and fifth authors (R01 DA023245, R01 DA022773). We also wish to extend our appreciation to the staff and research participants of the Early Steps Multisite Study.

References

  1. Achenbach TM, & Rescorla L (2001). ASEBA school-age forms & profiles.
  2. Aiken LS & West SG, (1991). Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  3. Anderson RE, Hussain SB, Wilson MN, Shaw DS, Dishion TJ, & Williams JL (2015). Pathways to pain: racial discrimination and relations between parental functioning and child psychosocial well-being. Journal of Black Psychology, 41(6), 491–512. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Braveman PA, Cubbin C, Egerter S, Williams DR, & Pamuk E (2010). Socioeconomic disparities in health in the United States: what the patterns tell us. American Journal of Public Health, 100(S1), S186–S196. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Brennan L, & Shaw DS (2013). Revisiting data related to the age of onset and developmental course of female conduct problems. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 16, 35–58. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Brennan LM, Shaw DS, Dishion TJ, Wilson MN (2015). The predictive utility of early childhood disruptive behaviors for school-age social functioning. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 43, 1187–1199. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bronfenbrenner U (1979). Contexts of child rearing: Problems and prospects. American Psychologist, 34(10), 844. [Google Scholar]
  8. Burt SA, McGue M, Iacono WG, & Krueger RF (2006). Differential parent-child relationships and adolescent externalizing symptoms: cross-lagged analyses within a monozygotic twin differences design. Developmental Psychology, 42(6), 1289. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Caughy MOB, O’campo PJ, & Muntaner C (2004). Experiences of racism among African American parents and the mental health of their preschool-aged children. American Journal of Public Health, 94(12), 2118–2124. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Clark R, Coleman AP, & Novak JD (2004). Brief report: Initial psychometric properties of the everyday discrimination scale in Black adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 363–368. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Dishion TJ, Shaw DS, Connell A, Gardner F, Weaver C, & Wilson M (2008). The family check-up with high-risk indigent families: Outcomes of positive parenting and problem behavior from ages 2 through 4 years. Child Development, 79(5), 1395–1414. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Elliot DS, Huizinga D, & Ageton SS (1985). Explaining delinquency and drug use. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  13. Ford KR, Hurd NM, Jagers RJ, & Sellers RM (2013). Caregiver experiences of discrimination and African American adolescents’ psychological health over time. Child Development, 84(2), 485–499. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Frabutt JM, Walker AM, & MacKinnon-Lewis C (2002). Racial socialization messages and the quality of mother/child interactions in African American families. Journal of Early Adolescence, 22, 200–217. [Google Scholar]
  15. García Coll C, Crnic K, Lamberty G, Wasik BH, Jenkins R, García HV, et al. (1996). An integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in minority children. Child Development, 67, 1891–1914. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Gibbons FX, Etcheverry PE, Stock ML, Gerrard M, Weng CY, Kiviniemi M, & O’hara RE (2010). Exploring the link between racial discrimination and substance use: what mediates? What buffers? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(5), 785. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Gibbons FX, Gerrard M, Cleveland MJ, Wills TA, & Brody G (2004). Perceived discrimination and substance use in African American parents and their children: A panel study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 517–529. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Hershberger A, Zapolski T, & Aalsma MC (2016). Social support as a buffer between discrimination and cigarette use in juvenile offenders. Addictive Behaviors, 59, 7–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Hooper D, Coughlan J, & Mullen M (2008). Structural equation modeling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business and Research Methods, 6, 53–60. [Google Scholar]
  20. Hughes D (2003). Correlates of African American and Latino parents’ messages to children about ethnicity and race: A comparative study of racial socialization. American Journal of Community Psychology, 31, 15–33. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Jones TL, & Prinz RJ (2005). Potential roles of parental self-efficacy in parent and child adjustment: A review. Clinical Psychology Review, 25(3), 341–363. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Juang LP, & Alvarez AA (2010). Discrimination and adjustment among Chinese American adolescents: Family conflict and family cohesion as vulnerability and protective factors. American Journal of Public Health, 100, 2403–2409. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Keenan K, & Shaw DS (1997). Developmental influences on young girls’ behavioral and emotional problems. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 95–113. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Klahr AM, McGue M, Iacono WG, & Burt SA (2011). The association between parent–child conflict and adolescent conduct problems over time: Results from a longitudinal adoption study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 120(1), 46–56. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Leadbeater BJ, Kuperminc GP, Blatt SJ, & Hertzog C (1999). A multivariate model of gender differences in adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing problems. Developmental Psychology, 35(5), 1268. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Maxwell SE, & Delaney HD (2003). Designing experiments and analyzing data: A model comparison perspective. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  27. Mays VM, Cochran SD, & Barnes NW (2007). Race, race-based discrimination, and health outcomes among African Americans. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 201–225. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Mirisola A & Seta L (2016). Pequod: Moderated Regression Package. R package version 0.0–5. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=pequod
  29. Moffitt TE (2006). A review of research on the taxonomy of life-course persistent versus adolescence-limited antisocial behavior. Taking Stock: The Status of Criminological Theory, 15, 277–311. [Google Scholar]
  30. Neblett EW Jr., Philip CL, Cogburn CD, & Sellers RM (2006). African American adolescents’ discrimination experiences and academic achievement: Racial socialization as a cultural compensatory and protective factor. Journal of Black Psychology, 32, 199–218. [Google Scholar]
  31. Neblett EW, Rivas-Drake D, & Umaña-Taylor AJ (2012). The promise of racial and ethnic protective factors in promoting ethnic minority youth development. Child Development Perspectives, 6(3), 295–303. [Google Scholar]
  32. Neblett EW Jr, Terzian M, & Harriott V (2010). From racial discrimination to substance use: The buffering effects of racial socialization. Child Development Perspectives, 4(2), 131–137. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Neblett EW, White RL, Ford KR, Philip CL, Nguyên HX, & Sellers RM (2008). Patterns of racial socialization and psychological adjustment: Can parental communications about race reduce the impact of racial discrimination? Journal of Research on Adolescence, 18(3), 477–515. [Google Scholar]
  34. Norman J (2016, April 11). U.S. worries about race relations reach a new high. Retrieved August 28, 2017, from http://www.gallup.com/poll/190574/worries-race-relations-reach-new-high.aspx
  35. Pianta RC, Steinberg MS, & Rollins KB (1995). The first two years of school: Teacher-child relationships and deflections in children’s classroom adjustment. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 295–312. [Google Scholar]
  36. Prelow HM, Danoff-Burg S, Swenson RR, & Pulgiano D (2004). The impact of ecological risk and perceived discrimination on the psychological adjustment of African American and European American youth. Journal of Community Psychology, 32(4), 375–389. [Google Scholar]
  37. Priest N, Paradies Y, Trenerry B, Truong M, Karlsen S, & Kelly Y (2013). A systematic review of studies examining the relationship between reported racism and health and wellbeing for children and young people. Social Science & Medicine, 95, 115–127. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Qu Y, Fuligni AJ, Galvan A, & Telzer EH (2015). Buffering effect of positive parent–child relationships on adolescent risk taking: A longitudinal neuroimaging investigation. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 26–34. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. R Core Team (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria: URL https://www.R-project.org/. [Google Scholar]
  40. Radziszewska B, Richardson JL, Dent CW, & Flay BR (1996). Parenting style and adolescent depressive symptoms, smoking, and academic achievement: Ethnic, gender, and SES differences. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 19(3), 289–305. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Ren XS, Amick BC, & Williams DR (1999). Racial/ethnic disparities in health: the interplay between discrimination and socioeconomic status. Ethnicity & Disease, 9(2), 151–165. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Rosseel Y (2012). Lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. URL http://www.jstatsoft.org/v48/i02/. [Google Scholar]
  43. Shaw DS, Hyde LW, & Brennan LM (2012). Early predictors of boys’ antisocial trajectories. Development and Psychopathology, 24(3), 871–888. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Shoichet CE (2015, November 25). Is racism on the rise? More in U.S. say it’s a ‘big problem,’CNN/KFF poll finds. Retrieved August 28, 2017, from CNN.com website: http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/24/us/racism-problem-cnn-kff-poll/index.html
  45. Simons RL, Murry V, McLoyd V, Lin KH, Cutrona C, & Conger RD (2002). Discrimination, crime, ethnic identity, and parenting as correlates of depressive symptoms among African American children: A multilevel analysis. Development and Psychopathology, 14(2), 371–393. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Simons RL, Simons LG, Burt CH, Drummund H, Stewart E, Brody GH, & Cutrona C (2006). Supportive parenting moderates the effect of discrimination upon anger, hostile view of relationships, and violence among African American boys. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 47, 373–389. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Sirin SR (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417–453. [Google Scholar]
  48. Spera C (2005). A review of the relationship among parenting practices, parenting styles, and adolescent school achievement. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 125–146. [Google Scholar]
  49. Tabachnick BG, & Fidell LS (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. [Google Scholar]
  50. Van Dyke ME, Vaccarino V, Quyyumi AA, & Lewis TT (2016). Socioeconomic status discrimination is associated with poor sleep in African-Americans, but not Whites. Social Science & Medicine, 153, 141–147. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Walters KL, Simoni JM, & Evans-Campbell T (2002). Substance use among American Indians and Alaska natives: incorporating culture in an “indigenist” stress-coping paradigm. Public Health Reports, 117(Suppl 1), S104–S117. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Wang MT, & Huguley JP (2012). Parental racial socialization as a moderator of the effects of racial discrimination on educational success among African American adolescents. Child Development, 83, 1716–1731. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Whittle S, Simmons JG, Dennison M, Vijayakumar N, Schwartz O, Yap MB, & Allen NB (2014). Positive parenting predicts the development of adolescent brain structure: a longitudinal study. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 8, 7–17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Williams DR, & Mohammed SA (2009). Discrimination and racial disparities in health: evidence and needed research. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 32(1), 20–47. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Williams DR, Priest N, & Anderson NB (2016). Understanding associations among race, socioeconomic status, and health: Patterns and prospects. Health Psychology, 35(4), 407. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES