Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Jun 24.
Published in final edited form as: J Fam Issues. 2020 Jan 20;41(10):1834–1858. doi: 10.1177/0192513x19898515

Combination of parent-child closeness and parent disapproval of teen sex predicts lower rates of sexual risk for offspring

Jennifer M Grossman 1, Anne C Black 2, Amanda M Richer 3
PMCID: PMC9231644  NIHMSID: NIHMS1815210  PMID: 35756889

Abstract

Effective parenting processes during offspring’s adolescence can reduce sexual risk behavior for those offspring in emerging adulthood. Few studies consider how mothers’ and fathers’ parenting processes cluster together and predict emerging adults’ risky sexual behavior. In this study, we used latent profile analysis (LPA) to identify patterns of teens’ perceptions of their residential mothers’ and fathers’ closeness, disapproval of teen sex, monitoring/presence at home and communication. Using data from waves one and three of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health), we identified four parenting classes: high disapproval/high closeness (54%), high disapproval/low closeness (7%), low disapproval/high closeness (15%) and moderate disapproval/high closeness (24%). Emerging adults within the high disapproval/high closeness class had lower rates of sexual risk behavior than other classes. These findings show benefits of authoritative parenting styles, and suggest parenting processes should be considered in combination, rather than as independent predictors of risk outcomes.

Introduction

Parenting processes play a key role in determining child and adult health outcomes (Markiewicz, Lawford, Doyle, & Haggart, 2006; Paradis, Giaconia, Reinherz, Beardslee, Ward, & Fitzmaurice, 2011). Parents pass on their values and beliefs to their children and relationships with parents form a base for how young people view the world and develop future relationships (Coleman, 1988). Four specific parenting processes: closeness (Markham et al., 2010; Lenciauskiene & Zaborskis, 2008), monitoring (Guilamo-Ramos et al., 2012; Killoren & Deutch, 2014), disapproval of teen sex (Author citation; Coley et al., 2013) and communication (Author citation; Murry, McNair, Myers, Chen, & Brody, 2014) have been repeatedly demonstrated to have a protective effect against adolescent and young-adult sexual risk-taking. Whereas closeness is defined by a general sense of connectedness and caring with a parent (Miller, Benson, & Galbraith, 2001), communication comprises more specific verbal and non-verbal interactions (Munz, 2015). Monitoring involves parents’ supervision of their child’s behaviors (Donaldson, Handren, & Crano, 2016), and disapproval of teen sex is the conveyed position that teen sex is not appropriate (Dittus & Jaccard, 2000). Comprehensive reviews of research show support for the protective role of these four parenting processes in reducing adolescents’ sexual risk behavior, such as early sexual debut, unprotected sex and sex with multiple partners (de Graaf et al., 2011; Markham et al., 2010; Zimmer-Gembeck & Helfand, 2008).

However, there are key gaps in existing research that need to be addressed. First, few studies have investigated the effects of parenting during adolescence on the sexual behavior of offspring during emerging adulthood. Second, parenting processes of both mothers (Coley, Lombardi, Lynch, Mahalik, & Sims, 2013; Markham et al., 2010) and fathers (Guilamo-Ramos et al., 2012) during offspring adolescence have shown promise in reducing adolescents’ and emerging adults’ sexual risk behaviors. However, most studies have focused on mothers or have assessed effects of parenting without clarifying which parent was assessed (Duchesne & Ratelle, 2014(Potard, Courtois, Réveillère, Bréchon, & Courtois, 2017). Third, most research to date has focused on how individual aspects of parenting predict youth sexual behavior, which does not account for the possible interrelationship of parenting processes (de Graaf et al., 2011; Markham et al., 2010). The following sections review the existing research and remaining gaps in these three areas.

Effects of Parenting on Emerging Adults’ Sexual Risk Behavior

The first gap in research addresses whether parenting processes during adolescence can protect youth from sexual risk behavior during emerging adulthood. This period of exploration between adolescence and adulthood (Arnett, 2000), is a time when high rates of sexual risk behavior occur. Most emerging adults are sexually active, and studies suggest that 70–80% of emerging U.S. adults report having ever had a hook-up (sex with a partner on only one occasion) (Aubrey & Smith, 2013; Reiber & Garcia, 2010). From 2016 to 2017, emerging adults had the highest increases in Chlamydia and highest rates of Gonorrhea of any age group (Centers for Disease Control, 2017 CDC). While many studies have established aspects of parenting that are protective against teens’ sexual risk behavior (de Graaf et al., 2011; Markham et al., 2010; Zimmer-Gembeck & Helfand, 2008), few studies have investigated whether the effects of these parenting processes extend into emerging adulthood. One exception is a study using National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health) data which found that when parents approve of teen sexual behavior, their emerging adult offspring are more likely to report a greater increase in sexual partners than those without this approval (Coley et al., 2013). Another study assessing Latino youth from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth found that fathers’ monitoring during adolescence predicted lower sexual risk for participants during emerging adulthood (Killoren & Deutch, 2014). A more recent study of college students found that high quality of relationships with parents was associated with lower likelihood of sexual risk behavior during emerging adulthood (Szkody, Rogers, & McKinney, 2018). These studies suggest that parenting continues to influence sexual behavior during emerging adulthood. More studies are needed to assess contributions of multiple aspects of parenting processes for this age group.

Lack of Research on Fathers’ Parenting

A second gap in current research is a lack of studies of fathers’ parenting. Most research on parenting processes focuses on mothers, but some studies have shown protective effects of paternal processes on teen sexual behavior independent of maternal processes (Guilamo-Ramos et al., 2012) particularly for closeness (Kalina et al., 2013, Rostad, Silverman, & McDonald, 2014) and monitoring (James, Ellis, Schlomer, & Garber, 2012; Manlove, Wildsmith, Ikramullah, Terry-Human, & Schelar, 2012). In addition, a recent study found that fathers’ disapproval of teen sex predicted emerging adults’ condom use and lower number of recent sexual partners (Author citation). Many existing studies assess teens’ relationships with a “parent,” rather than identifying contributions of both mothers and fathers. Accounting for the effects of both parent processes on teen outcomes allows for the possibility that teens’ relationships with their mothers and fathers may differ (Markham et al., 2010).

Need to Assess Interrelationships of Parenting Processes

A final gap in existing research is a focus on individual dimensions of parenting in predicting youth sexual behavior, which do not account for the interrelationships of parenting processes (de Graaf et al., 2011; Markham et al., 2010). Studies addressing these interrelationships have used latent class analysis or latent profile analysis (LPA) to identify patterns of combinations of parenting processes. For example, one study used LPA to identify classes of adolescents based on maternal parenting dimensions of responsiveness and autonomy-granting. A class with high responsiveness/moderate autonomy-granting was associated with lower sexual risk behavior, while low responsiveness/high autonomy-granting was associated with the highest sexual risk behavior (Lanza, Huang, Murphy, & Hser, 2012). Other studies explored interactive effects of parenting on adolescent relationships and mental health. One study found that a “positive parenting” latent class, which included high teen-parent relationship quality and low parent anger, was associated with lower levels of adolescent relationship abuse (Mumford, Liu, & Taylor, 2016). Another study that generated classes of fathers’ parenting processes found that male teens who were offspring of a class of affective-control fathers (high on emotional quality, involvement and discipline) showed more externalizing symptoms than offspring of emotionally involved fathers (high on emotional quality, involvement and low on discipline) (Perez-Brena, Cookston, Fabricius, & Saenz, 2012). These studies suggest that parenting processes interact to shape youth outcomes.

Baumrind’s Theoretical Frame

Baumrind’s parenting model provides a theoretical frame to understand interactive effects of parenting processes. The model purports that rather than operating independently, parenting processes interact with one another to shape children’s health outcomes Baumrind, 1967; 1991). Baumrind proposed that parenting dimensions of responsiveness and demandingness interactively shape parenting styles (Baumrind, 1991). High responsiveness is characterized by nurturance and intimacy, including support and communication. High demandingness involves establishing clear expectations for behavior and supervising children’s activities (Ebrahimi, Amiri, Mohamadlou, & Rezapur, 2017; Pellerin, 2005). Baumrind used these dimensions to identify four styles of parenting. Authoritative parenting includes high levels of both responsiveness and demandingness. Authoritarian parenting includes low levels of responsiveness and high levels of demandingness. Permissive parenting includes high levels of responsiveness and low levels of demandingness. Finally, Neglectful parenting includes low levels of both responsiveness and demandingness (Baumrind, 1967, 1991). Authoritative parenting is considered to be the most protective approach, and is associated with positive youth health outcomes (Ebrahimi et al., 2017; Uji, Sakamoto, Adachi, & Kitamura, 2014; Saleh & Kazarian, 2015), particularly among European American families (Sorkhabi & Mandara, 2013).

Parenting processes of closeness, monitoring, communication, and disapproval of teen sex can be understood in light of Baumrind’s dimensions of responsiveness and demandingness. Closeness and communication fit within the dimension of responsiveness, while monitoring and disapproval align with the demandingness dimension. Framing parental closeness, monitoring, disapproval of sex and communication in the context of Baumrind’s parenting model provides a theoretical basis for conceptualizing how these processes intersect to provide more or less support for offspring sexual health. For example, a parenting style that includes high closeness (responsiveness) and clearly-conveyed behavioral expectations (demandingness), consistent with Baumrind’s Authoritative parenting style, may be associated with low sexual risk behaviors compared to one that is characterized by low communication (responsiveness) and vague or permissive guidelines about behavior (demandingness), consistent with a Neglectful parenting style.

Research Aims

The current study addresses three gaps in existing research: 1) effects of parenting style on emerging adult sexual risk behavior, 2) inclusion of fathers’ parenting style in a two-parent context, and 3) identifying underlying patterns of interactive parenting processes, and assessing these as predictors of offspring sexual risk. In this study we extend research on parenting processes and teens’ sexual health to account for how parenting processes may interact in a two-parent context and assess whether specific clusters of parenting processes can protect emerging adults from risky sexual behavior. Using Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) with Wave I Add Health data, we identify classes of parenting processes using combinations of mothers and fathers closeness, monitoring, communication and disapproval of teen sex, and assessing their associations with sexual risk behavior of emerging adult offspring from Wave III data. Inclusion of fathers in profiles allows for assessment of variation in mothers’ and fathers’ parenting processes. In this study we will 1) Identify latent classes of offspring based on their mothers’ and fathers’ parenting processes and 2) Determine associations of these classes with emerging adults’ sexual risk behaviors. The LPA is exploratory. We hypothesize that latent classes with combinations of parenting processes characterized by high levels of both responsiveness and demandingness will be associated with the lowest rates of emerging adults’ sexual risk behaviors.

Method

Participants and Procedure

This study was approved by Wellesley College and Yale University Institutional Review Boards. Data were drawn from Waves I and III of the Add Health in-home interviews (Harris et al., 2009). The Wave-I sample is nationally representative of US adolescents in grades 7–12 during the 1994–1995 school year. Wave-III data were collected through in-home interviews approximately 6 years later from 15,197 youth (73% of the original in-home sample), when participants were 18 to 26 years old. The Wave-III response rate was 77.4 %; attrition analyses showed minimal effects of non-response on sample representativeness (Chantala, Kalsbeek, & Andraca, 2004). This study is a secondary analysis of a study comparing parenting processes in households with teen versus older mothers (author).

Because analyses focused on the nature and effects of combinations of maternal and paternal factors, and Add Health items defining these processes were restricted to residential parents, the sample was restricted to the subset of 7,432 respondents who reported living in a two-parent household at Wave I. Among these respondents, all lived with a biological mother (a requirement of the primary study) and a residential father (who was not required to be a biological father). Within this subset, only cases with complete data on all planned covariates were included, resulting in a sample of 7,284 respondents. Sample characteristics are described in Table 1.

Table 1.

Sample Characteristics (n, % or mean, SD): Full Sample and by Class

Full Sample (N=7284) Class
HD/HC (N=3943) HD/LC (N=491) LD/HC (N=1095) MD/HC (N=1755)
N % N % N % N % N %
Female 3831 53% 2390 61% 389 79% 313 29% 739 42%
White 4439 61% 2506 64% 286 58% 575 53% 1072 61%
Black 928 13% 438 11% 61 12% 188 17% 241 14%
Latino 1178 16% 562 14% 87 18% 236 22% 293 17%
Other race 684 10% 405 10% 51 11% 90 8% 138 8%
Teen Mother 974 13% 429 11% 64 13% 214 20% 267 15%
Two biological parents 6245 86% 3550 90% 397 81% 830 76% 1468 84%
Mother’s Education (M,SD) 7284 3.60 (1.33) 3943 3.69 (1.32) 491 3.52 (1.37) 1095 3.31 (1.27) 1755 3.58 (1.37)
Open in a new tab

HD/HC: High Disapproval/High Closeness; HD/LC: High Disapproval/Low Closeness; LD/HC: Low Disapproval/High Closeness; MD/HC: Moderate Disapproval/High Closeness.

Measures

Parenting processes.

Parenting processes were measured by twenty-six Add Health questions completed by respondents at Wave I (thirteen individual questions addressed maternal and paternal processes). These questions described the nature of respondents’ relationship with each parent and were selected a priori as indicators of four maternal and paternal processes: closeness, disapproval of teen sex, monitoring/presence within the household, and communication (author). Closeness was measured by 4 items; “How close do you feel to your (mother/father),” “How much do you think (she/he) cares about you,” “Most of the time, your mother/father is warm and loving toward you,” and “Overall, you are satisfied with your relationship with your mother/father.” Maternal and paternal disapproval of teen sex was comprised of 2 items; “How would your (mother/father) feel about your having sex at this time in your life?” and “How would your (mother/father) feel about your having sexual intercourse with someone who was special to you and whom you knew well—like a steady boyfriend/girlfriend?” The parent monitoring/presence factor was measured by 3 items; “How often is your (mother/father) home when you leave for school?”, “How often is your (mother/father) at home when you return from school?” and “How often is your (mother/father) at home when you go to bed?” Lastly, communication was measured as the sum of 4 (yes/no) items addressing whether the offspring and parent “talked about someone you’re dating or a party you went to”, “talked about a personal problem you were having”, “talked about your school work or grades” and “talked about other things you’re doing in school.” The parenting process factors, determined by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), are outlined in Table 2 (see Author citation for measurement details) and sample descriptives are shown in Table 3.

Table 2.

Parent Process Factors

Factor Description Items Factor details
Closeness Offspring perceptions of their relationships with each parent “How close do you feel to your (mother/father)?”, “How much do you think (she/he) cares about you?”, “Most of the time, your mother/father is warm and loving toward you.”, and “Overall, you are satisfied with your relationship with your mother/father” Two items were answered on a 5-point scale ranging from “not at all” to “very much” Two other items were answered on a 5-point scale from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”; these were reverse coded to match the direction of the other two items. Cronbach’s alpha for maternal factor items=.78 and for paternal factor items=.85.
Disapproval of teen sex Offspring perceptions of each parent’s disapproval of teen sex “How would your (mother/father) feel about your having sex at this time in your life?” and “How would your (mother/father) feel about your having sexual intercourse with someone who was special to you and whom you knew well—like a steady boyfriend/girlfriend?” The two items were answered on a 5-point scale ranging from “strongly disapprove” to “strongly approve”. Both items were reverse coded to measure disapproval of teen sex.
Monitoring/presence in the household Offspring perceptions of parent presence in the home “How often is your (mother/father) home when you leave for school?”, “How often is your (mother/father) at home when you return from school?”, and “How often is your (mother/father) at home when you go to bed?” Three items were rated on a 5-point scale where “never” was the highest rating and “always” was the lowest rating. Items were reverse coded so that higher scores indicated more monitoring.
Communication Offspring perceptions of whether particular topics were discussed between the offspring and each parent within the past 4 week “talked about someone you’re dating or a party you went to”, “talked about a personal problem you were having”, “talked about your school work or grades” and “talked about other things you’re doing in school” Four items were measured on a yes (1)/no (0) scale and summed.
Open in a new tab
Table 3.

Parent Process Factor Scores: Full Sample and by Class

Class
Full Sample (N=7284) HD/HC (N=3943) HD/LC (N=491) LD/HC (N=1095) MD/HC (N=1755)
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Mother’s Disapproval1 4.30 0.85 4.87 0.27 4.53 0.56 2.86 0.59 3.84 0.49
Closeness 4.56 0.54 4.72 0.34 3.29 0.60 4.51 0.56 4.59 0.39
Monitoring 4.08 0.78 4.15 0.75 3.90 0.87 4.02 0.81 4.03 0.77
Communication 2.04 1.27 2.06 1.26 1.38 1.20 2.07 1.28 2.14 1.27
Father’s Disapproval 4.33 0.90 4.93 0.22 4.67 0.51 2.71 0.59 3.88 0.51
Closeness 4.31 0.74 4.50 0.57 3.23 0.91 4.17 0.80 4.25 0.69
Monitoring 3.37 0.86 3.40 0.84 3.18 0.90 3.38 0.91 3.36 0.84
Communication 1.44 1.18 1.47 1.14 0.90 1.07 1.54 1.29 1.48 1.17
Open in a new tab
1

Factor scores reported in raw-score metric

Emerging adult risk outcomes.

Six risk outcomes were measured in Wave III when respondents were emerging adults (ages 18–25). Individual risk outcomes included: (1) Early first vaginal intercourse. If the self-reported age of first vaginal intercourse was less than 15, the respondent was classified as engaging in early vaginal intercourse, based on prior findings that sexual debut before age 15 is associated with sexual risk behaviors (Cavazos-Rehg et al., 2010; Ellis et al., 2003). If age of first vaginal intercourse was missing at Wave III, self-reported age from Wave II or Wave I was used; (2) Lifetime sexually-transmitted infection was measured using biomarker results for Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, or Trichomoniasis or a positive self-report response to having had Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, Trichomoniasis, Syphilis, genital herpes, genital warts, Human Papilloma Virus (HPV), bacterial vaginosis, pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), cervicitis or mucopurulent cervicitis (MPC), urethritis (NGU), vaginitis, or HIV or AIDS; (3) Condom use during vaginal intercourse was measured by a single ordinal item scaled 0–4 at Wave III asking “On how many of these occasions of vaginal intercourse in the past 12 months did you or your partner use a condom?” Responses ranged from “none of the time” (4, highest risk) to “all of the time” (0, lowest risk). Respondents who were married or cohabitating at Wave III and in a monogamous relationship were, by definition, at low risk for sexually transmitted infections (Paik, 2010; Sathiyasusuman, 2015; U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, 2016). Therefore, condom use during vaginal intercourse among married or cohabitating respondents was coded as 0, or lowest risk; (4) Condom-unprotected oral sex was assessed by items at Wave III asking whether the participant had ever used a condom during oral sex with each partner reported since Wave II. A single dichotomous indicator of oral sex without a condom was scored 1 if the participant reported no condom use with one or more partners, and was scored 0 if the participant reported condom use with every partner or reported no oral sex; (5) Unprotected anal sex was measured by a dichotomous item indicating any instance of anal sex without a condom with any relationship partner since Wave II; (6) Participants’ self-reported number of sexual partners in the past 12 months was converted to a dichotomous outcome indicating multiple partners versus one or no partner. This dichotomization was informed by guidelines of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force regarding the risk of multiple sexual partners (Paik, 2010; Sathiyasusuman, 2015; U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, 2016). A sexual risk composite was computed as the sum of the six individual risk outcomes. To create the sum, the one non-dichotomous risk outcome – condom use during vaginal sex – was dichotomized to indicate any condom-unprotected vaginal sex (1) versus no condom-unprotected vaginal sex. Sums for this approximately normally-distributed outcome ranged from 0 (no risk outcomes occurred) to 6 (all risk outcomes occurred).

Covariates.

Covariates were selected a priori and included in regression models to control for their potentially confounding effects on the role of parenting processes in those models. Covariates were: (1) respondent sex (male vs. female only); (2) race/ethnicity indicators: Black, Latino/a, and other race (comprising Asian, Native American, biracial, and race not specified); (3) mother’s teen parent status, calculated as mother’s age minus the age of the mother’s oldest biological child. The teen parent indicator was coded as 1 if the calculated age was <20; (4) mother’s level of education, reported at Wave I by the participant on a 7-point ordinal scale (0, did not go to school to 6, post-graduate education). If mother’s education was missing at Wave I, Wave-II or responses to the Parent Questionnaire were used to fill in missing data; (5) an indicator of the presence of two biological parents in the household versus a biological mother and non-biological father.

Statistical Analyses

Given our focus on the nature and potential advantage of combinations of particular maternal and paternal processes, Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) was conducted. This technique is ideal for identifying underlying subgroups within a population based on combinations of observed characteristics (Lanza & Rhoades, 2013). To identify subgroups of respondents whose residential parents were similar with regard to their combinations of parenting processes, we specified the eight parenting process factor scores (derived by CFA) as latent class indicators (four parenting process scores each for mother and father). Auxiliary variables were included in the model to allow classes to be correlated with, but not indicated by, planned model covariates (defined above): offspring gender, offspring race/ethnicity (specifically Black and Latino/a indicators), teen-mother status, mother’s education, and an indicator of two biological parents in the household. This inclusive process of estimating classes was to eliminate bias in classify-analyze approaches, as used in this study (Bray, Lanza, & Tan, 2015). Model fit for 2- to 6-class solutions were compared. For each model (i.e., 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 classes specified), the first run was conducted with 200 random starts, given a random seed. After convergence, the model was replicated with 400 random starts to ensure convergence on a global maximum likelihood solution (Lanza & Rhoades, 2013). If the model failed to converge on a solution with 200 random starts, the number was increased to 400, and the replication was done with 800 random starts.

A priori criteria for final model selection were entropy > .90, significant improvement in fit over the more parsimonious (n-1) class solution as assessed by Vuong-Lo-Mendell-Rubin Likelihood Ratio Test and sample-adjusted BIC, no single class comprising <5% of the sample, and theoretical interpretability of each class (Nylund, Asparouhov, & Muthén, 2007).

Chi-square and ANOVA were used to compare the distributions of covariates across parent classes identified by LPA. Significance of group differences was evaluated at α=.01 and standardized residuals >|2| were used to interpret disproportionate representation of respondent subgroups within classes.

Regression models.

Using the best class solution from LPA and a classify-analyze strategy, offspring were assigned to one class based on their highest posterior class probability. Then, dichotomous class indicators were created for entry into ordinal logistic regression models, testing the effect of each class on the composite risk outcome and, in secondary analyses, on each individual risk outcome. Described below, we defined the reference class as one we expected to be most protective (i.e., associated with lowest rates of risk-taking) based on Baumrind’s model and other supporting literature

Models controlled for covariates defined above. All models were estimated using restricted maximum likelihood estimation using Mplus software version 8.0 (Muthén & Muthén, 2012). Model specifications accounted for stratification, clustering, and oversampling used in the Add Health sampling design, following Add Health guidelines for analysis (Chen & Chantala, 2014). Significance of regression coefficients was evaluated at α=.01.

Results

Latent Profile Analysis

The four-class solution was selected, given significant improvement in the fit of this model over the 3-class solution, entropy=.92, smallest class size>5% of the sample, and clear interpretability of the parent profiles (Table 3). The number of respondents in each class and the distribution of covariates across classes are reported in Table 1.

Parent Class Description and Association with Covariates

Because levels of parent Monitoring and Communication did not differentiate classes, classes were distinguished based on their levels of Disapproval of teen sex and Closeness processes only. Across all respondents in the full sample, ratings of parent Disapproval and Closeness on the 1–5 raw-score scales were quite high (see Table 3). Thus, labels characterizing Disapproval and Closeness within classes were assigned with respect to the sample distribution, and not relative to the full scale. Specifically, classes rated as “high” had class means at or above the overall sample means (for mothers and fathers) on that parent process. Classes rated as “low” had class means > 1 SD below the overall sample means. One “moderate” rating reflected class means <1 SD below the overall sample means.

  • High Disapproval/High Closeness (HD/HC): This first class, representing 54% of the sample, was characterized by high parent disapproval of teen sexual behavior and high parent-child closeness. Given the combined high ratings of two protective parent processes, this class was hypothesized a priori to be associated with the lowest rates of offspring risk, and was specified as the reference class. This class was significantly more likely to be composed of respondents who were white, female, from a two-biological-parent household, and who were less likely to have a teen mother.

  • High Disapproval/Low Closeness (HD/LC): The second class, representing 7% of the sample, was characterized by high parent disapproval of teen sexual behavior and low parent-child closeness. This class was significantly more likely to be composed of respondents who were female and from households with a non-biological father. This class did not have an unexpected distribution of respondents based on race/ethnicity or teen mother status.

  • Low Disapproval/High Closeness (LD/HC): The third class, 15% of the sample, was characterized by low parent disapproval of teen sexual behavior and high parent-child closeness. This class was significantly more likely to be composed of respondents who were male, Black/Latino, from a household with a non-biological father, and from a teen-mother household. Mothers’ mean education in this class was significantly lower than the HD/HC and MD/HC classes.

  • Moderate Disapproval/High Closeness (MD/HC): The fourth class, 24% of the sample, was characterized by moderate parent disapproval of teen sexual behavior and high parent-child closeness. This class was significantly more likely to be composed of respondents who were male, from a household with a non-biological father, and from a teen-mother household. Mothers in this class had significantly higher mean education than the LD/HC class. This class did not have an unexpected distribution of respondents based on race/ethnicity.

Within each class, there was remarkable similarity in offsprings’ relative ratings of parent processes for mothers and fathers. For example, offspring who perceived high closeness with their mothers also perceived high closeness with their residential fathers and offspring who perceived lower levels of disapproval of teen sex from their mothers tended to perceive the same from their residential fathers (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Mothering processes by class (raw scores), top, and Fathering processes by class (raw scores), bottom.

HD/HC: High Disapproval/High Closeness; HD/LC: High Disapproval/Low Closeness; LD/HC: Low Disapproval/High Closeness; MD/HC: Moderate Disapproval/High Closeness.

The High Disapproval/High Closeness (HD/HC) class was selected as the reference class for regression modeling. We hypothesized that this combination of parenting processes representing high responsiveness and high demandingness would be associated with lowest rates of risk as compared to the other classes with lower levels of responsiveness or demandingness. Regression coefficients and corresponding odds ratios associated with each class indicator in the model represented the effect of that parent class on the risk outcome relative to the reference class.

Latent classes of parent processes were significantly associated with all covariates except the “other race” indicator. Specifically, chi-square tests showed a significant association between latent parent class and offspring gender (χ2(3)=571.95, p<.01), two race/ethnicity group indicators; Black (χ2(3)=30.36, p<.01) and Latino/a (χ2(3)=35.31, p<.01), the two-biological-parent household indicator (χ2(3)=163.77, p<.01), and teen mother status (χ2(3)=62.33, p<.01). ANOVA showed a significant difference in mothers’ mean education level by class (F=24.12, p<.01), with post-hoc tests showing significantly lower mother education for the LD/HC class relative to the HD/HC and MD/HC classes (Table 1).

Regression

As hypothesized, offspring within the parent class characterized by high disapproval/high closeness (HD/HC) had the lowest rates of risk behavior overall. On the composite risk outcome, all three parent classes were associated with significantly higher levels of risk, relative to the reference class. On all six individual risk outcomes, the effect of being in the low disapproval/high closeness (LD/HC) class was positive and statistically significant. Offspring in that class had odds of risk ranging from 1.39 (multiple partners) to 2.70 (early first vaginal intercourse) times that of the reference class. The other two classes each were associated with higher risk on three of the six individual risk outcomes. The class characterized by high disapproval/low closeness (HD/LC) had significantly greater odds of risk for early first vaginal intercourse (OR=2.08), unprotected oral sex (OR=1.67) and multiple partners (OR=1.55). The class characterized by moderate disapproval/high closeness (MD/HC) had significantly greater odds of early first vaginal intercourse (OR=1.75), lifetime sexually transmitted infection (OR=1.67), and unprotected oral sex (OR=1.29) (Table 4). Figure 2 illustrates the average z-score for each class on each individual sexual risk outcome and the sexual risk composite.

Table 4.

Regression of sexual risk outcomes

Sexual Risk Composite Early First Vaginal Intercourse STI Unprotected Oral Sex Unprotected Anal Sex Condom- Unprotected Sex Multiple Partners
OR [CI 95%] OR [CI 95%] OR [CI 95%] OR [CI 95%] OR [CI 95%] OR [CI 95%] OR [CI 95%]
HD/LC Class 1.69 [1.35–2.10] 2.08 [1.55–2.78] 1.40 [0.97–2.04] 1.67 [1.26–2.22] 1.07 [0.72–1.61] 1.29 [0.97–1.70] 1.55 [1.20–2.00]
LD/HC Class 1.97 [1.64–2.37] 2.70 [2.00–3.65] 1.99 [1.48–2.68] 1.58 [1.26–1.97] 2.18 [1.56–3.04] 1.44 [1.20–1.72] 1.39 [1.12–1.72]
MD/HC Class 1.39 [1.21–1.60] 1.75 [1.32–2.33] 1.67 [1.31–2.13] 1.29 [1.07–1.55] 1.33 [1.00–1.78] 1.16 [1.01–1.34] 1.17 [1.00–1.38]
Female 0.99 [0.88–1.11] 1.24 [1.00–1.52] 2.68 [2.09–3.43] 1.01 [0.89–1.14] 1.24 [0.97–1.57] 0.98 [0.86–1.11] 0.64 [0.55–0.74]
Black 1.05 [0.84–1.32] 1.50 [1.07–2.10] 4.03 [3.04–5.34] 0.29 [0.23–0.37] 0.55 [0.36–0.85] 1.07 [0.91–1.27] 1.57 [1.18–2.08]
Latino 0.74 [0.58–0.93] 0.89 [0.62–1.27] 1.14 [0.85–1.53] 0.54 [0.42–0.70] 0.99 [0.67–1.46] 0.83 [0.67–1.04] 0.92 [0.71–1.19]
Other Race 0.74 [0.56–0.97] 1.03 [0.70–1.51] 1.53 [1.04–2.26] 0.60 [0.48–0.75] 1.02 [0.64–1.64] 0.81 [0.64–1.02] 0.89 [0.62–1.27]
Mother’s Education 1.06 [1.01–1.12] 0.91 [0.84–0.98] 0.95 [0.87–1.04] 1.11 [1.04–1.17] 0.94 [0.85–1.04] 1.07 [1.01–1.12] 1.08 [1.02–1.15]
Bio Two Parent Family 0.94 [0.80–1.10] 0.78 [0.62–0.98] 0.75 [0.57–0.99] 1.11 [0.91–1.34] 1.21 [0.90–1.63] 1.04 [0.86–1.25] 0.89 [0.73–1.10]
Teen Mother 0.98 [0.83–1.15] 1.34 [1.03–1.75] 0.90 [0.67–1.20] 0.88 [0.73–1.07] 1.19 [0.85–1.66] 0.94 [0.79–1.12] 0.99 [0.80–1.22]
Open in a new tab

Bolded Odds Ratios are significant (p<.01); Reference group is high disapproval/ high closeness (HD/HC)

Figure 2:

Figure 2:

Open in a new tab

Sexual risk outcomes by class (z-score)

HD/HC: High Disapproval/High Closeness; HD/LC: High Disapproval/Low Closeness; LD/HC: Low Disapproval/High Closeness; MD/HC: Moderate Disapproval/High Closeness.

Discussion

In this study we identified four latent classes of parenting processes and assessed their associations with emerging adults’ sexual risk behaviors. Classes included adolescents’ perceptions of maternal and paternal parenting processes of disapproval of teen sex, parent-teen closeness, parental monitoring and communication. Parental disapproval of teen sex and parent-teen closeness varied across classes, while parental monitoring and communication showed little variation. The largest group (54%) consisted of teens with high parent disapproval and high parent closeness, parenting processes which have been associated with protective sexual health in prior research (Markham et al., 2010; Zimmer-Gembeck & Helfand, 2008). The smallest class (7%) consisted of teens with high parental disapproval and low parent closeness.

Using Baumrind’s parenting model, we mapped each of these four parenting classes onto dimensions of responsiveness and demandingness. The class with high closeness and high disapproval of teen sex was consistent with Baumrind’s Authoritative parenting style. The class with low closeness and high disapproval fit with the Authoritarian parenting style. The class described by high closeness and low disapproval was consistent with Permissive parenting, while the one with moderate disapproval and high closeness had characteristics of Permissive Parenting, but with somewhat higher disapproval, the demandingness dimension. The Neglectful parenting style was not evident in our data.

As proposed by our regression model specification and consistent with Baumrind’s Authoritative parenting style, the class associated with lowest rates of risk was the class characterized by high closeness and high disapproval of teen sex compared to other classes. The low risk associated with the high closeness/high disapproval parenting style was not accounted for by other covariates. While both parent closeness and disapproval of teen sex have individually been associated with reduced sexual risk behavior (Coley et al., 2013; Silva and Ross, 2002), the current study suggests that when offspring perceive both of these as strong parental processes in their household, the protective effect is greater than either process alone. These findings suggest that parenting processes can protect teens from sexual behavior, even extending into emerging adulthood. The class with low disapproval and high closeness, consistent with Baumrind’s Permissive parenting category, was associated with significantly higher risk than the reference class (high closeness/high disapproval) on all six risk outcomes. Also on the Permissive parenting continuum, but not as extreme, the class characterized by moderate disapproval and high closeness experienced higher rates of risk-taking relative to the reference class on 3 of 6 outcomes. The class with high disapproval but lower closeness, consistent with Baumrind’s Authoritarian parenting category, was associated with significantly higher risk for 3 of 6 outcomes compared to the reference class.

It is possible that parental expressions of disapproval of sex seem dogmatic or punitive to teens when expressed outside the content of a close, connected relationship. In contrast, family closeness without perceived parental disapproval of sex may lack a shared family value which can inhibit risky sexual behavior (e.g., Siebenbruner, Zimmer-Gembeck, & Egeland, 2007). In families where teens perceive both parent closeness and parent disapproval of teen sex, the close connections with family may encourage teens to internalize family norms (Coleman, 1988), such as those discouraging risky sexual behavior. Therefore, this combination of parenting processes may increase the likelihood that teens will accept parental sexual values and make decisions consistent with them.

Interestingly, teens within each class perceived mothers’ and fathers’ parenting in similar ways across the four parenting processes. This may in part reflect shared values within a cohabitating couple, consistent with findings for values and attitude similarity within married couples (George, Luo, Webb, Pugh, Martinez, & Foulston, 2015; Roest, Dubas, Gerris, & Engels, 2006). Parents may also become increasingly alike in their parenting behaviors over time, as a study of parents of adolescents found more similar parenting behavior than studies with parents of younger children (Horvath & Lee, 2015).

Females were overrepresented in classes rated as having high parent disapproval of teen sex whereas male respondents were more likely to report perceiving moderate or low parent disapproval. This may reflect previously-documented higher levels of disapproval of teen sex for daughters than sons (Kapungu et al., 2010; Kuhle et al., 2015) consistent with gender norms for expectations of sexual behavior (Kuhle et al., 2015; Perilloux, Fleischman, & Buss, 2008).

This study has several limitations. Parent–child relationships were only measured during adolescence, and causal relationships between parent processes and later risk behavior cannot be inferred. Future studies would benefit from assessing parent-teen relationships at multiple waves. The measures of parental monitoring and communication were limited. The measure of parental communication consisted of a list of topics discussed and did not assess the quality of parent-teen communication. The monitoring variable, which assesses offspring perceptions of parent presence in the home, may not capture elements of parental monitoring that predict sexual risk behavior. For example, some studies assess this construct through household rules and parents’ knowledge of teens’ behaviors (e.g., Donaldson et al., 2016; Gault-Sherman, 2012). Additionally, only data for offspring of two-parent households were included, which may limit the generalizability of these findings to single-parent households. Because offspring rated their perceptions of mothers’ and fathers’ parenting processes so similarly, this study does not permit conclusions about divergent processes within households, such as the effect of high mother closeness and low father closeness. Small class size for the high disapproval/low closeness class provided less power to detect significant differences in risk, as compared to other classes.

Despite these limitations, this study contributes to our understanding of how parenting during adolescence can support emerging adults’ sexual health. By identifying classes of parenting processes, we were able to extend research beyond individual parenting dimensions to examine how patterns of parenting processes shape emerging adults’ sexual behaviors. Consistent with Baumrind’s Authoritarian Parenting style, these findings suggest that a combination of both parental closeness and parental disapproval of sex strongly predicts multiple sexual outcomes for emerging adulthood, and highlights the importance of considering these processes in combination, rather than as independent predictors of risk outcomes. Classes which reflected only high levels of responsiveness or demandingness, but not both (e.g., high parent closeness or high parent disapproval of sex alone) were associated with comparably higher levels of sexual risk behavior. Findings for teens’ perceptions of mothers’ and fathers’ parenting suggest that these parenting processes may operate similarly across parents.

Acknowledgements & funding information:

This research was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development: R03HD085939. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. This research uses data from Add Health, a program project designed by J. Richard Udry, Peter S. Bearman, and Kathleen Mullan Harris, and funded by a grant P01-HD31921 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, with cooperative funding from 17 other agencies. Special acknowledgment is due Ronald R. Rindfuss and Barbara Entwisle for assistance in the original design. Persons interested in obtaining data files from Add Health should contact Add Health, Carolina Population Center, 123 W. Franklin Street, Chapel Hill, NC. 27516-2524 (addhealth@unc.edu). No direct support was received from grant P01-HD31921 for this analysis.

Footnotes

Conflict of Interest:

Jennifer M. Grossman declares that she has no conflict of interest. Anne C. Black declares that she has no conflict of interest. Amanda M. Richer declares that she has no conflict of interest. Alicia D. Lynch declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Contributor Information

Jennifer M. Grossman, Wellesley College, 106 Central Street, Wellesley MA 02481

Anne C. Black, Yale University

Amanda M. Richer, Wellesley College

References

  1. Aubrey JS, & Smith SE (2013). Development and validation of the endorsement of the Hookup Culture Index. Journal of Sex Research, 50(5), 435–448. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2011.637246 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Baumrind D, 1967. Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs 75, 43–88. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Baumrind D, 1991. Parenting styles and adolescent development. In: Brooks-Gunn J, Lerner R, Peterson AC (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Adolescence. Garland, New York. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bray BC, Lanza ST, & Tan X (2015). Eliminating bias in classify-analyze approaches for latent class analysis. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 22(1), 1–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Cavazos-Rehg PA, Krauss MJ, Spitznagel EL, Schootman M, Peipert JF, Cottler LB, & Bierut LJ (2010). Type of contraception method used at last intercourse and associations with health risk behaviors among US adolescents. Contraception, 82(6), 549–555. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2010.05.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2017). STDs in adolescents and young adults. Sexually Transmitted Diseases Surveillance. Accessed July 30, 2018 from https://www.cdc.gov/std/stats17/adolescents.htm.
  7. Chantala K, Kalsbeek WD, & Andraca E (2004). Nonresponse in Wave III of the Add Health Study. Accessed July 30, 2018 from http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/data/guides/W3nonres.pdf
  8. Chen P, & Chantala K (2014). Guidelines for analyzing Add Health data. Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1–53. [Google Scholar]
  9. Coleman JS (1988). Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120. [Google Scholar]
  10. Coley RL, Lombardi CM, Lynch AD, Mahalik JR, & Sims J (2013). Sexual partner accumulation from adolescence through early adulthood: The role of family, peer, and school social norms. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53(1), 91–97. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. de Graaf H, Vanwesenbeeck I, Woertman L, & Meeus W (2011). Parenting and adolescents’ sexual development in western societies: A literature review. European Psychologist, 16(1), 21–31. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000031 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Dittus PJ, & Jaccard J (2000). Adolescents’ perceptions of maternal disapproval of sex: relationship to sexual outcomes11The full text of this article is available online at www.elsevier.com/locate/jahonline. Journal of Adolescent Health, 26(4), 268–278. doi: 10.1016/S1054-139X(99)00096-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Donaldson CD, Handren LM, & Crano WD (2016). The enduring impact of parents’ monitoring, warmth, expectancies, and alcohol use on their children’s future binge drinking and arrests: A longitudinal analysis. Prevention Science,17, 606. doi: 10.1007/s11121-016-0656-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Duchesne S, & Ratelle CF (2014). Attachment Security to Mothers and Fathers and the Developmental Trajectories of Depressive Symptoms in Adolescence: Which Parent for Which Trajectory? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(4), 641–654. doi: 10.1007/s10964-013-0029-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Ellis BJ, Bates JE, Dodge KA, Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ, Pettit GS, & Woodward L (2003). Does father absence place daughters at special risk for early sexual activity and teenage pregnancy?. Child development, 74(3), 801–821. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Gault-Sherman M (2012). It’s a two-way street: The bidirectional relationship between parenting and delinquency. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41(2), 121–145. doi: 10.1007/s10964-011-9656-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. George D, Luo S, Webb J, Pugh J, Martinez A, & Foulston J (2015). Couple similarity on stimulus characteristics and marital satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 126–131. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.06.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Guilamo-Ramos V, Bouris A, Lee J, McCarthy K, Michael SL, Pitt-Barnes S, & Dittus P (2012). Paternal influences on adolescent sexual risk behaviors: A structured literature review. Pediatrics, 130(5), e1313–e1325. doi: 10.1542/peds.2011-2066 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Harris KM, Halpern CT, Whitsel E, Hussey J, Tabor J, Entzel P, & Udry JR (2009). The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health: Research design. Accessed July 30, 2018 from http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/design
  20. Horvath CA, & Lee CM (2015). Parenting responses and parenting goals of mothers and fathers of adolescents. Marriage & Family Review, 51(4), 337–355. doi: 10.1080/01494929.2014.955938 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. James J, Ellis BJ, Schlomer GL, & Garber J (2012). Sex-specific pathways to early puberty, sexual debut, and sexual risk taking: Tests of an integrated evolutionary–developmental model. Developmental Psychology, 48(3), 687–702. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Kalina O, Geckova AM, Klein D, Jarcuska P, Orosova O, van Dijk JP, & Reijneveld SA (2013). Mother’s and father’s monitoring is more important than parental social support regarding sexual risk behaviour among 15-year-old adolescents. The European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care, 18(2), 95–103. doi: 10.3109/13625187.2012.752450 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Kapungu CT, Baptiste D, Holmbeck G, McBride C, Robinson-Brown M, Sturdivant A, … Paikoff R (2010). Beyond the ‘birds and the bees’: Gender differences in sex-related communication among urban African-American adolescents. Family Process, 49(2), 251–264. doi: 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2010.01321.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Killoren SE, & Deutsch AR (2014). A longitudinal examination of parenting processes and Latino youth’s risky sexual behaviors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(12), 1982–1993. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Kuhle BX, Melzer DK, Cooper CA, Merkle AJ, Pepe NA, Ribanovic A, … Wettstein TL (2015). The ‘birds and the bees’ differ for boys and girls: Sex differences in the nature of sex talks. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 9(2), 107–115. doi: 10.1037/ebs0000012 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Lanza HI, Huang DYC, Murphy DA, & Hser Y-I (2013). A latent class analysis of maternal responsiveness and autonomy-granting in early adolescence: Prediction to later adolescent sexual risk-taking. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 33(3), 404–428. doi: 10.1177/0272431612445794 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Lanza ST, & Rhoades BL (2013). Latent class analysis: An alternative perspective on subgroup analysis in prevention and treatment. Prevention Science, 14(2), 157–168. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Lenciauskiene I, & Zaborskis A (2008). The effects of family structure, parent–child relationship and parental monitoring on early sexual behaviour among adolescents in nine European countries. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 36(6), 607–618. doi: 10.1177/1403494807088460 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Manlove J, Wildsmith E, Ikramullah E, Terry-Humen E, & Schelar E (2012). Family environments and the relationship context of first adolescent sex: Correlates of first sex in a casual versus steady relationship. Social Science Research, 41(4), 861–875. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Markham CM, Lormand D, Gloppen KM, Peskin MF, Flores B, Low B, & House LD (2010). Connectedness as a predictor of sexual and reproductive health outcomes for youth. Journal of Adolescent Health, 46(3, Suppl), S23–S41. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.11.214 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Markiewicz D, Lawford H, Doyle AB, & Haggart N (2006). Developmental Differences in Adolescents’ and Young Adults’ Use of Mothers, Fathers, Best Friends, and Romantic Partners to Fulfill Attachment Needs. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35(1), 121–134. doi: 10.1007/s10964-005-9014-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Miller BC, Benson B, & Galbraith KA (2001). Family Relationships and Adolescent Pregnancy Risk: A Research Synthesis. Developmental Review, 21(1), 1–38. doi: 10.1006/drev.2000.0513 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Mumford EA, Liu W, & Taylor BG (2016). Parenting profiles and adolescent dating relationship abuse: Attitudes and experiences. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(5), 959–972. doi: 10.1007/s10964-016-0448-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Murry VM, McNair LD, Myers SS, Chen Y. f., & Brody GH (2014). Intervention induced changes in perceptions of parenting and risk opportunities among rural African American. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23(2), 422–436. 10.1007/s10826-013-9714-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Muthén LK, & Muthén BO (2012). Mplus: The comprehensive modeling program for applied researchers : user’s guide. Los Angeles, CA [Google Scholar]
  36. Nylund KL, Asparouhov T, & Muthén BO (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural equation modeling, 14(4), 535–569. [Google Scholar]
  37. Paradis AD, Giaconia RM, Reinherz HZ, Beardslee WR, Ward KE, & Fitzmaurice GM (2011). Adolescent Family Factors Promoting Healthy Adult Functioning: A Longitudinal Community Study. Child and adolescent mental health, 16(1), 30–37. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-3588.2010.00577.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Perez-Brena NJ, Cookston JT, Fabricius WV, & Saenz D (2012). Patterns of father self-evaluations among Mexican and European American men and links to adolescent adjustment. Fathering: A Journal of Theory, Research, and Practice about Men as Fathers, 10(2), 213–235. doi: 10.3149/fth.1002.213 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Perilloux C, Fleischman DS, & Buss DM (2008). The daughter-guarding hypothesis: Parental influence on, and emotional reactions to, offspring’s mating behavior. Evolutionary Psychology, 6(2), 217–233. doi: 10.1177/147470490800600202 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Potard C, Courtois R, Réveillère C, Bréchon G, & Courtois A (2017). The relationship between parental attachment and sexuality in early adolescence. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 22(1), 47–56. doi: 10.1080/02673843.2013.873065 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Reiber C, & Garcia JR (2010). Hooking up: Gender differences, evolution, and pluralistic ignorance. Evolutionary Psychology, 8(3), 390–404. doi: 10.1177/147470491000800307 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Roest AMC, Dubas JS, Gerris JRM, & Engels RCME (2006). Disentangling Value Similarities and Transmissions in Established Marriages: A Cross-Lagged Longitudinal Study. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(5), 1132–1146. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00319.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Rostad WL, Silverman P, & McDonald MK (2014). Daddy’s little girl goes to college: An investigation of females’ perceived closeness with fathers and later risky behaviors. Journal of American College Health, 62(4), 213–220. doi: 10.1080/07448481.2014.887570 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Saleh AOA, & Kazarian SS (2015). Perceived parenting styles and their relation to basic psychological needs satisfaction, mental health and flourishing in a sample of Lebanese college youth. Arab Journal of Psychiatry, 26(2), 155–163. doi: 10.12816/0014482 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Siebenbruner J, Zimmer-Gembeck MJ, & Egeland B (2007). Sexual Partners and Contraceptive Use: A 16-Year Prospective Study Predicting Abstinence and Risk Behavior. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17(1), 179–206. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2007.00518.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Silva M, & Ross I (2002). Association of perceived parental attitudes towards premarital sex with initiation of sexual intercourse in adolescence. Psychological Reports, 91(3,Pt1), 781–784. doi: 10.2466/PR0.91.7.781-784 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Sorkhabi N, & Mandara J (2013). Are the effects of Baumrind’s parenting styles culturally specific or culturally equivalent? In Larzelere RE, Morris AS, & Harrist AW (Eds.), Authoritative parenting: Synthesizing nurturance and discipline for optimal child development. (pp. 113–135). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. [Google Scholar]
  48. Szkody E, Rogers MM, & McKinney C (2018). Risky sexual behavior: The indirect effects between parent–child relationship quality and quality of life in emerging adults. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care & Rehabilitation. doi: 10.1007/s11136-018-1919-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Uji M, Sakamoto A, Adachi K, & Kitamura T (2014). The impact of authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive parenting styles on children’s later mental health in Japan: Focusing on parent and child gender. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23(2), 293–302. doi: 10.1007/s10826-013-9740-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Zimmer-Gembeck MJ, & Helfand M (2008). Ten years of longitudinal research on U.S. adolescent sexual behavior: Developmental correlates of sexual intercourse, and the importance of age, gender and ethnic background. Developmental Review, 28(2), 153–224. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2007.06.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES