Multiple Risk Factors in the Family Environment and Youth Problem Behaviors

Author(s): Jean M. Gerard and Cheryl Buehler

Source: Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 61, No. 2 (May, 1999), pp. 343-361
Published by: National Council on Family Relations
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/353753 .
Accessed: 15/01/2015 22:00

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

National Council on Family Relations is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of Marriage and Family.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Thu, 15 Jan 2015 22:00:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 JEAN M. GERARD AND CHERYL BUEHLER
University of Tennessee

Multiple Risk Factors in the Family Environmentand

Youth Problem Behaviors

We test three risk models (independent-additive,
interactive, and exponential) to examine how mul-
tiple riskfactors in the family environment-overt
interparental conflict, poor parenting, and eco-
nomic hardship-operate conjointly to predict
youth problem behaviors. The sample includes
335 preadolescent and early adolescent youth.
Findings from this study support the pattern of in-
dependent, additive effects of individual family
stressors. Wefound no support for the idea that
the effects of poor parenting, overt interparental
conflict, and family economic hardship exacer-
bate one another, nor did the converse serve as
buffers. The independent, additive model explains
more variance in externalizing problem behavior
for youth in nondivorced, two-parent households.
Poor parenting is the strongest risk factor. Eco-
nomic hardship is the only significant risk factor
for youth internalizing problem behavior
The identification of specific factors that place
youth at risk for behavioral and emotional prob-
lems has concerned social scientists for years. Re-
search efforts have culminated in findings that
Departmentof Child and Family Studies,Universityof Ten-
nessee, 1215WestCumberlandAvenue,Room 115, Knoxville,
TN 37996 (jmgerard@utk.edu).
Key Words: economic hardship, interparental conflict, parent-
ing, risk, youth problem behavior.
underscore the importance of particularlife events
and circumstances that predispose youth to adjust-
ment problems. For the most part, this research
focuses on the potential effects of a single life
stressor (e.g., parental divorce). However, a num-
ber of researchershave broadened their outlook by
exploring how multiple risk factors affect youth
(e.g., Farrington,1991; Masten et al., 1988; Rutter,
1979; Shaw & Emery, 1988; Werner & Smith,
1992; Williams, Anderson, McGee, & Silva,
1990). From this research, it is evident that multi-
ple, stressful life events pose a greater threat to
children's long-term psychological well-being than
does a single life stressor.
Although the study of multiple risk factors en-
hances our understandingof the etiological roots of
youth maladjustment, this line of research suffers
limitations with respect to issues of conceptualiza-
tion, measurement, and modeling. Assuming that
many recent stressful experiences generally are un-
favorable for a child's psychological well-being,
risk often is conceptualized in terms of the amount
or number of stressful events recently encountered
by youth (Johnson, 1982). Risk frequently is as-
sessed using the life-events method, an approach
that involves summing the number of self-reported
stressful life experiences recently encountered to
obtain an overall index of cumulative life stress.
As useful as this approach is in determining the
amount of stress children experience at a given
time, it has several shortcomings. First, inventories
of life events yield little information about the rel-
ative importance of discrete events. Second, when

Journal of Marriage and the Family 61 (May 1999): 343-361 343

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Thu, 15 Jan 2015 22:00:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
344
stressors are summed, interactions among specific
stressor events cannot be examined. Third, as a
function of the way they are constructed, life-event
inventories assume that negative life stressors
operate in a linear, additive fashion to increase
youths' risk of maladjustment. Although this as-
sumption may not be correct, few researchershave
tested for nonlinear effects. (See Masten et al.,
1988, for an exception.)
An alternativeapproachto the study of multiple
risk factors is to examine the separate but cumula-
tive effects of individual life stressors (Luthar,
1991). This method, unlike the life-events approach,
offers the advantage of exploring more complex
patternsof risk, such as interactive and exponential
models. Its value also becomes evident when more
than one index of youth adjustment is assessed.
Research has shown that different statisticalmodels
may be necessary to describe the association be-
tween a particularset of risk factors and different
aspects of youth adjustment (Hodges, Tierey, &
Buchsbaum, 1984; Masten et al., 1988).
This study explores the relationship between
multiple risk exposure and youth maladjustment.
Its central goal is to determine how particularrisk
factors operate in conjunction with one another.
Youth maladjustmentis defined as the relative in-
ability of youth to engage successfully and appro-
priately in interpersonal relationships over time
with relative freedom from noxious social behav-
iors and burdensome emotions (Trotter, 1989). We
examine youth externalizing and internalizing
problem behavior in this study because they are
two central indicators of maladjustment. The ex-
ternalizing aspect of maladjustment is conceived
as outer-directed behavior (e.g., aggression, lying,
stealing) that functions maladaptively in society
by producing distress in others, whereas the inter-
nalizing aspect is viewed as inner-directed behav-
ior (e.g., excessive fear, anxiety, depression) that
functions maladaptively by causing emotional dis-
tress to self (Reynolds, 1992). As developmental
outcomes, externalizing and internalizing problem
behaviors warrant empirical consideration. These
forms of maladjustment are frequently reasons for
referring youth to mental health facilities (Bor-
duin, Henggeler, & Manley, 1995; Kazdin, 1995;
Reynolds, 1992). Moreover, evidence of problem
behaviors during early adolescence may have im-
plications for adjustment in adulthood. Longitudi-
nal investigationshave demonstrateda link between
early problem behaviors and impaired adult func-
tioning, including poor mental health outcomes,
substance abuse, and difficulty managing social
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Thu, 15 Jan 2015 22:00:14 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Journal of Marriage and the Family
relationships(Farington, 1991; Kovacs et al., 1984;
Maughan & Rutter, 1998; Pine, Cohen, Gurley,
Brook, & Ma, 1998; Robins & McEvoy; 1990).
The focus of this investigation is ongoing risk
to youth that occurs in the familial environment.
Scholars generally agree that much of children's
socialization takes place in the context of the fam-
ily, for it is through the family that the developing
child is afforded the opportunities and experiences
necessary to acquire the fundamental skills, behav-
iors, values, and knowledge that enable him or her
to engage successfully in social relationships
(Maccoby, 1992). As such, risk researchers often
look at the family for potential sources of stress to
youths' development.
In conceptualizing the family environment as
an arena for the transmission of risk, we draw
from two theoretical strands of literature.The first
is stress-coping research, which provides a frame-
work for understanding how youth cope when
their immediate environment places high demands
on them. According to existing formulations of the
stress process, ongoing strains have the potential
to generate new forms of strains or exacerbate ex-
isting ones. These strains may lead to the depletion
of positive psychological resources or, alternately,
an overreliance on previously established negative
coping strategies (Boss, 1988; Pearlin, Lieberman,
Menaghan, & Mullan, 1981). Taking a develop-
mental perspective to coping with stress, Aneshen-
sel and Gore (1991) contend that high levels of
stress may pose a unique challenge to youth be-
cause they are less skilled than adults in handling
the day-to-day struggles of life. Given a limited
repertoireof available coping mechanisms and im-
mature cognitive abilities to manage the meaning
of stress, youth may not fare well in the face of
persistent adversity. Consequently, children may
cope by aggressing against others or by internaliz-
ing their distress (Honig, 1986).
The second body of literature we draw from is
children's risk and resiliency research, which has
demonstrated individual variation in response to
high levels of stress (Garmezy, 1981; Rutter, 1979).
Researchers in this field are primarily concerned
with identification of factors that buffer youth
from high levels of environmental harm and fac-
tors that magnify this risk. Thus, emphasis is placed
on the statistical interaction between individual
characteristics and environmental factors, rather
than their independent main effects. Risk and re-
siliency variables that are frequently examined in-
clude children's coping ability (e.g., Wills, Vaccaro,
& Benson, 1995), social support (e.g., Cohen &
Family Risk Factors
Wills, 1985), economic status (Duncan, Brooks-
Gunn, & Klebanov, 1994), academic ability (Mas-
ten et al., 1988), and quality of family relationships
(Rutter, 1978). Like Rutter (1978), we are con-
cerned with whether particular family attributes
operate conditionally at varying levels of risk to
predict youth maladjustment.
Three important familial correlates of youth
maladjustment are repeated exposure to hostile,
overt interparental conflict (Buehler et al., 1998;
Burman, John, & Margolin, 1987; Jouriles, Mur-
phy, & O'Leary, 1989); a poor parenting environ-
ment (Conger et al., 1992, 1993; Fauber,Forehand,
Thomas, & Wierson, 1990; Patterson, 1982); and
economic hardship (Bolger, Patterson, Thompson,
& Kupersmidt,1995; Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 1994;
Takeuchi, Williams, & Adair, 1991). In this study,
we conceptualize these three factors as potential
stressorsfor youth.
Parents' use of a hostile, overt style to address
their disagreements and poor parenting constitute
risk factors to youth by reflecting negative interac-
tion patterns in the family system, particularly in
the marital and parent-child subsystems. The na-
ture and quality of interpersonal functioning in
these dyads influences the patterns that the child
learns for dealing with other important relation-
ships in his or her life (Patterson, Debaryshe, &
Ramsey, 1989). Economically disadvantagedyouth
often reside in environments marked by high rates
of violence, poor housing and schooling condi-
tions, and a high proportion of births to teenage
mothers (McLoyd, 1990). Being rearedunder these
circumstances may make it difficult for youth to
master importantdevelopmental tasks.
Past research has established links among overt
interparental conflict, poor parenting, and eco-
nomic hardship and suggests that these risk factors
often occur concomitantly (Conger et al., 1992,
1993; Elder, Conger, Foster, & Ardelt, 1992).
However, few researchers have explored all three
of these factors in the context of a model of multi-
ple risks.
PATTERNS
OFRISK
We examine three risk models postulated in chil-
dren's risk research: (a) the independent-additive,
(b) the interactive, and (c) the exponential. (See
Jenkins & Smith, 1990; Masten et al., 1988.) Un-
fortunately, the distinction between these three
models is not always clear, resulting often in the
misinterpretationof research findings.
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Thu, 15 Jan 2015 22:00:14 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
345
Independent-AdditiveModel
An independent-additive model of risk tests
whether individual risk factors have an indepen-
dent or main effect on the dependent variable. Cor-
responding to the idea of pileup (McCubbin & Pat-
terson, 1983), this model assumes that individual
risk factors operate in a cumulative, linear pattern
to place youth at risk for maladjustment.Thus, the
total effect of the risk factors is the summation of
their individual effects (Jenkins & Smith, 1990).
For instance, Shaw and Emery (1988) investigated
the relationship between four chronic family stres-
sors (parental conflict, maternal depression, over-
crowding in the home, and family income) and
school-aged children's psychological adjustment.
These researchersfound that 5- to 12-year-old chil-
dren displayed increasingly higher scores on mea-
sures of internalizing and externalizing problems
as the number of risk factors increased. Their re-
sults supported an additive effects model of risk
exposure. In line with these findings, our first re-
search question is whether overt interparentalcon-
flict, poor parenting, and economic hardship each
independently influence youth problem behaviors
in a negative fashion.
One of the limitations of the literatureis that re-
searchers seldom have included in their analysis
tests for other forms of risk patterns. This has im-
portant implications because additive findings do
not preclude the possibility of finding other risk
patterns, such as interactive effects (Hodges et al.,
1984; Masten et al., 1988). Few researchersventure
beyond the linear, independent-additivemodel, and
it is difficult to tell whether multiple risk factors op-
erate in a more complex patternto put youth at risk
for maladjustment.One of the contributionsof this
study is that we consider more complex patternsof
interactionsamong risk factors.
Interactive Model
In an interaction model, there is at least one condi-
tional relationship between two of the risk factors.
Conditional means that the association between
one risk factor and a measure of child adjustment
depends on the level of a second factor. One type
of interaction is the protective-versus-vulnerability
model (Masten et al., 1988). This model essentially
is a statistical test of the stress-bufferingand stress-
exacerbating notion posited by risk and resiliency
researchers. Protective factors (e.g., high socioeco-
nomic status, good parenting) buffer youth from
the harmful effects of other stressors, whereas vul-
346
nerability factors (low socioeconomic status, poor
parenting) exacerbate the harmful effects.
Our second research question is whether good
parentingbuffers youth from the harmful effects of
overt interparentalconflict and economic hardship.
We found only two studies that included statistical
tests for the protective function of a good interper-
sonal relationship between parent and child. One
found support, and the other did not. Brody and
Forehand (1990) discovered that the association
between interparental conflict and teacher-rated
youth internalizing problems was worse when the
father-childrelationship was poor than when it was
good. In contrast, Jenkins and Smith (1990) found
that good parent-child relationships were associ-
ated with children's adjustmentin both harmonious
and disharmonious homes, suggesting that parent-
ing quality operates independently of or additively
with marital harmony in predicting children's
adjustment.
Rutter (1979), Hess and Camara (1979), and
Wallerstein and Kelly (1980) found that the stress
associated with marital conflict (and divorce) was
mitigated to some extent by a good relationship
with at least one parent. Although widely cited for
demonstrating support of the stress-buffering ef-
fects of good parenting, none of these researchers
actually tested the interaction between marital
conflict and quality of parenting. In the absence of
such statistical tests, the existence of buffering
effects of good parenting can only be inferred.
The lack of formal statistical tests also plagues
studies that examine the interactiverole of economic
well-being with other family risk factors. Jouriles,
Bourg, and Farris (1991) found a strongerrelation-
ship between marital adjustment and problematic
child conduct in families with low socioeconomic
status than in families with high socioeconomic
status across two waves of data. However, their
findings only suggest support for the interactive
effect of socioeconomic status on risk exposure,
given that their statistical analysis did not include
an interactionterm between marital adjustmentand
socioeconomic status.
Exponential Model
First introduced by Rutter (1979), this model sug-
gests a cumulative effect of risk. Some degree of
risk exposure can be endured, but the accumula-
tion of risk factors results in an accelerating or ex-
ponential increase in youth maladjustment.
Whereas the additive model reflects the linear sum
of the effects of individual risk factors, the expo-
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Thu, 15 Jan 2015 22:00:14 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Journal of Marriage and the Family
nential model suggests that the effects of individ-
ual risk factors multiply or potentiate each other.
Several large studies provide support for the
exponential risk model (Rutter, 1971; Siefer, Sam-
eroff, Baldwin, & Baldwin, 1992; Williams et al.,
1990). Rutter found quite dramaticpotentiating ef-
fects. In his investigation, two familial risk factors
provided a fourfold increase in the likelihood of
child psychiatric disorder; four factors increased
this risk tenfold. However, with the exception of
Shaw and Emery (1988), few investigators have
tried to replicate his findings. We can test this
model by creating a continuous risk exposure vari-
able that represents the number of risk factors that
youth experience and then mathematically squar-
ing this term. Thus, the third question addressed in
this study is whether youth exposed to several
family risk factors evidence problem behavior that
exponentially increases with added risk.
Using these three risk models, this study exam-
ines the relationships among an overt interparental
conflict style, poor parenting, economic hardship,
and youth problem behaviors. This investigation
focuses on preadolescent and early adolescent
youth, a time in a child's life that is particularly
important when encountering family risk factors.
Stressful environments appear to influence indi-
viduals more strongly during periods of rapid de-
velopment (Anthony, 1987). Given the cognitive,
emotional, physical, and social changes accompa-
nying this period (Feldman & Elliott, 1990), chil-
dren at this stage of the life cycle may be more
vulnerable to stressful life circumstances than
their younger and older peers.
METHOD
Sampling
Criteria and procedures. The sample and data used
for this study are part of a larger project developed
to assess family life, with a focus on interparental
conflict (Buehler et al., 1998). The families were
part of a community sample recruited from se-
lected middle schools in Knox County, Tennessee.
Schools were chosen to ensure variation in socio-
economic background. Eligible families had a tar-
get youth in sixth, seventh, or eighth grade who
resided with either married parents or their single,
divorced mothers. The target youth also were a
product of the currentor most recent marriage.
The data are cross-sectional and include infor-
mation collected from youth and their teachers on
measures of youth problem behavior. Because our
Family Risk Factors
goal is to assess reliably youth problem behavior,
we used multiple report data to assess sources of
reporter bias that might result when using only
youth reports.
Teachers were informed that their involvement
was voluntary. Slightly over half of the homeroom
teachers participated. Teachers had a target youth
in a 1-hour, daily class. Students are assigned ran-
domly to homerooms, thereby reducing potential
sources of teacher selection bias. Letters request-
ing parental consent were sent home with youth.
Children were given a small token of appreciation
when the letters were broughtback to class. Mailed
follow-up questionnaires were sent to parents who
had not returned the consent forms. Parental con-
sent was granted for 75% of the invited youth.
Sample characteristics. Data were collected from
189 girls and 146 boys, aged 10-15 years (M =
12.4; SD = .99), yielding a sample size of 335
youth. The majority were Caucasian (86%) and
lived with married parents (87%). Based on data
from youth reports, the average level of formal ed-
ucation attained by mothers and fathers was be-
tween high school and some college. Eighty-seven
percent of youth paid full price for their school
lunch, 3% received a partial subsidy, and 10% re-
ceived free lunches.
The representativeness of this sample was ex-
amined by comparing these average characteristics
with data provided from the 1989 and 1990 census
on families and individuals living in Knox County
(Slater & Hall, 1996; U.S. Bureau of the Census,
1996). In 1990, 75% of individuals aged 25 years
and older had graduated from high school. About
24% had a bachelor's degree. In 1990, 13% of the
families were headed by a female. The county
records did not break this down by marital status,
but, of course, the percentage of divorced or sepa-
rated female heads would be smaller than 13%.
Accordingly, the sample for this part of the study
slightly overrepresents divorced, mother-custody
families. In 1989, 10% of all families had incomes
below the poverty line. This percentage is close to
the percentage of families in this sample whose
children received free school lunches.
Data Collection Procedures
Youth completed questionnaires in the school
cafeteria on three consecutive days. Trained assis-
tants were on site to answer questions. Youth were
treated to a pizza party after completing the ques-
tionnaire. Teachers completed questionnaires on
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Thu, 15 Jan 2015 22:00:14 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
347
their own time. They were paid $3.00 for each
completed, returned questionnaire. There are
teacher data for 329 youth (98%).
Measurement
Frequency of use of a hostile overt conflict style.
Youth responded to six items assessing the fre-
quency with which their parents engaged in
overtly conflictual behaviors during disagree-
ments. Sample items include: "call each other
names," "threateneach other,"and "tell each other
to shut up." The response format ranges from 1
(never) to 4 (very often). Cronbach's alpha for this
scale is .87.
Evidence of validity for this measure of overt
conflict is provided by previous research, which in-
dicated that these six items factored separately
from 12 items developed by Ahrons (1983) to as-
sess the frequency of interparental disagreement.
This distinct factor structurecharacterizedtwo dif-
ferent samples of youth. Additionally, in both sam-
ples of youth, overt conflict style was more strongly
associated with youth problem behaviors than was
the frequency of disagreement, providing evidence
of predictive validity. Additional evidence of con-
struct validity was amassed by correlatingthe overt
conflict measure with other measures of inter-
parentalconflict. Overt conflict correlated .52 (p <
.001) with parent's use of a conflict style that tri-
angled the child (Buehler et al., 1998), .67 (p < .001)
with youths' perceptions of the intensity of marital
conflict (Buehler & Barber, 1998), and .51 (p <
.001) with youth report on seven items from the
Children's Perception Questionnaire that measure
hostile interparental conflict (Emery & O'Leary,
1984). These correlations reflect 26%-45% shared
variance, providing support of convergent validity
for the measure of overt conflict used in this study.
Parentingquality.To assess the overall qualityof the
parenting environment, we constructed a second-
order composite scale aggregating youth responses
to items measuringthe following variables:parental
acceptance, monitoring, overly strict discipline,
and intraparentalinconsistent discipline. The deci-
sion to take this global approach to the assessment
of parenting behaviors rests on the theoretical idea
that deficits in several key areas of parenting con-
stitute a greater risk to youth than a deficit in one
particulararea of parenting.
Parental acceptance-the degree to which par-
ents use affirming messages that communicate to
the child that he or she is valued and important-
348
is assessed using four items from the Children's
Report of Parental Behavior Inventory (CRPBI,
Schulderman & Schulderman, 1970). Sample
items include: "My mother [father] is a person
who enjoys doing things with me," and "my
mother [father] is a person who gives me a lot of
attention."Monitoring is measured with four items
that ask how much parents know about their chil-
dren's activities (Brown, Mounts, Lamborn, &
Steinberg, 1993). Sample items include: "How
much do your parents really know about who your
friends are?" and "how much do your parents re-
ally know about what you do with your free time?"
Parental strict discipline is measured using two
items from the CRPBI and two items from the
Weinberger Parenting Inventory (WPI; Wein-
berger, Feldman, & Ford, 1989). These items as-
sess the degree to which parents are harsh in their
application of discipline. Sample items include:
"My mother [father] is a person who is very strict
with me" (CRPBI), and "my mother [father] is a
person who spanks me so I will earn respect for
my elders" (WPI). Finally, inconsistent discipline
is measured using six items from the CRPBI.
These items are intended to measure the degree to
which parents erratically enforce rules and arbi-
trarily use rewards and punishment. Sample items
are: "My mother [father] is a person who only
keeps rules when it suits her," and "my mother
[father] is a person who lets me do something one
day, and the next day I get into trouble for doing
the same thing."
The global parenting-quality scale was formed
in three steps. First, youth responses to the parental
acceptance and monitoring items were reversed to
reflect low acceptance and monitoring. Second, we
created scales for each item in the parenting con-
structs by computing a mean score for youth
reportsof mothers' and fathers' parentingbehavior.
After youth reports of mothers' and fathers' scores
on each item were averaged, the aggregated scores
were combined to form the global parenting scale.
The rationale for averaging youth reports of moth-
ers' and fathers' scores across individual items is to
deal with the issue of conditionally missing data
that resulted from youth in mother-headedfamilies
who rarely saw their fathers. In cases in which a
youth did not reporton his or her father'sparenting
behavior, the mean score of his or her mother's be-
havior is used. Thus, conceptually this procedure
accurately represents the total parenting environ-
ment of varying family structures in this study.
Cronbach's alpha for this scale is .83. In terms of
content validity, the items on this scale and the four
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Thu, 15 Jan 2015 22:00:14 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Journal of Marriage and the Family
parenting constructs that they represent constitute
what scholars believe are the most critical elements
of parenting (Conger et al., 1992; Maccoby &
Martin, 1983; Patterson et al., 1989; Rollins &
Thomas, 1979).
Economic hardship. We measured economic hard-
ship using youths' school lunch status. Children
from low-income families are eligible for federally
mandated free lunches or lunches at a reduced
price if their family income does not exceed 130%
and 185%, respectively, of the official poverty
level. At the time of data collection, the official
poverty level for a household of four ranged from
$14,800 to $15,150 (U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, 1994, 1995). For a household
of this size, children qualified for free lunches if
the family income ranged from $19,240 to
$19,695. Children qualified for reduced-price
lunches if the family income ranged from $27,380
to $28,028. Information about lunch status was
provided by the participating schools. Economic
hardship is coded 0 if a youth paid full price for
lunch, 1 if a youth paid a reduced price, and 2 if a
youth received free lunch. Few children paid re-
duced fees (approximately 4% of the sample), so
the latter two categories were collapsed into one
category to represent lower family economic well-
being.
Externalizing and internalizingproblem behaviors.
Youth problem behaviors are assessed using youth
reports on the Youth Self-Report (YSR; Achen-
bach, 1991) and teacher reports on the Teacher
Report Form (TRF; Achenbach & Edelbrock,
1986). The externalizing subscale consists of 30
items. Sample items from the youth reportinclude:
"I steal at home," and "I am mean to others."The
internalizing subscale consists of 31 items. Sample
items from the youth reportof this scale include: "I
am unhappy, sad, or depressed,"and "I feel worth-
less or inferior."The 3-point responses range from
0 (not true) to 2 (very true or often very true).
Cronbach's alpha for youth and teacher reports on
the externalizing subscale are .90 and .95, respec-
tively. Cronbach's alpha for youth and teacher re-
ports on the internalizing subscale are .92 and .87,
respectively. Widely used as assessment devices of
children's behavior problems, the YSR and TRF
have extensive evidence of internalconsistency and
predictive validity (Achenbach, 1991; Achenbach
& Edelbrock, 1986). However, the correlation be-
tween youth report of externalizing problem be-
haviors and youth report of internalizing behaviors
Family Risk Factors
is .70 (49% shared variance), indicating a moder-
ately high degree of comorbidity between the two
outcome measures. Accordingly, our analysis of
each dependent variable includes a statistical con-
trol for the alternativeproblem behavior.To the ex-
tent that the family risk factors in this study predict
broad behavior, youths' total problem behavior
also is used in the analyses. We formed this mea-
sure by summing the externalizing and internaliz-
ing behavior scales. Cronbach'salpha for youth and
teacher reportsare .92 and .96, respectively.
Control variables. Anticipating the likelihood that
the outcome measures may be influenced by demo-
graphic characteristics, we used dummy codes to
statistically control the variance attributable to
youth gender, grade level, and parents' marital sta-
tus. For youth gender, female youth were coded 0,
and male youth were coded 1. For marital status,
mother-headedhouseholds were coded 0, and two-
parent families were coded 1. The three grade lev-
els required two dummy variables. Using seventh
grade as the reference group, we coded sixth grade
1; all others were coded 0 for one variable. For the
other dummy variable, we coded eighth grade 1,
and all others were coded 0.
Data Analysis
Data were analyzed using hierarchical multiple
regression. This analytic procedure is well suited
to research of this nature because it allows one to
enter the interaction and squared terms necessary
for testing interactive and exponential patterns of
risk, respectively (Aiken & West, 1991). In addi-
tion, this procedure helps identify variance con-
tributed by individual variables or groups of vari-
ables entered in different blocks. Final block entry
differed as a function of the risk model tested,
whereas the use of control variables remained con-
sistent across analyses. For each of the three risk
patterns, individual regression models were com-
puted for the three dependent variables (i.e., total
problem behavior, externalizing problem behav-
ior, and internalizingproblem behavior) and across
informants of youth problem behaviors (i.e., youth
and teachers). Reported findings are those that are
significant at the .05 level.
RESULTS
The Appendix contains zero-order correlations,
means, standard deviations, and reliability coeffi-
cients for all variables in this study. The bivariate
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Thu, 15 Jan 2015 22:00:14 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
349
coefficients indicate that youth reports of overt
conflict style and parenting quality are associated
with youth and teacher reports of total problem
behavior and externalizing problem behavior, as
well as youth reports of internalizing problem be-
havior (but not teacher reports of internalizing).
Economic hardship is associated with each mea-
sure of problem behavior.
The Independent-AdditiveModel
A series of hierarchical multiple regression equa-
tions were computed to test for the independent-
additive effects of the three family risk factors
when predicting youth problem behaviors. Entry
of the variables proceeded in the following order:
Block 1-the alternative form of youth problem
behavior (this block was not included when the
total score for problem behavior is used as the de-
pendent variable); Block 2-youth gender, grade
level, and parents' marital status; Block 3-overt
conflict style, parenting quality, and economic
hardship.
To test whether this model varies by youths'
gender and grade and parents' marital status, in-
teraction terms between the individual risk factors
and each control variable were entered in a final
block (Block 4). The interaction terms were cre-
ated by multiplying the centered value of individ-
ual predictor variables by the centered value of
each dummy-coded control variable. This proce-
dure, which is intended to deal with the issue of
multicollinearity between variables, entailed sub-
tracting the mean of a variable from the individual
scores on that variable (Aiken & West, 1991). To
maximize statistical power, a separate regression
model was computed for each family risk factor
and its interaction with youth gender, grade level,
and parents' marital status.
Total problem behaviors. Marital status was the
only significant control variable that predicted
youth reports of total problem behavior. (See col-
umn 2 of Table 1.) Youth in mother-headedhouse-
holds were at a higher risk of maladjustmentthan
youth residing with both parents. Overt conflict
style and parenting quality were significant risk
predictors, supporting their independent, additive
influence on broad-based youth adjustment. None
of the changes in F associated with the interactions
between the risk factors and the control variables
was significant. (See columns 4-6 of Table 1.)
Thus, the cumulative effect of overt conflict and
poor parenting influenced youth regardless of their
 TABLE 1. HIERARCHICALREGRESSION ANALYSES OF OVERT CONFLICT, PARENTING QUALITY, AND
ECONOMIC HARDSHIP PREDICTING YOUTH AND TEACHER REPORTS OF TOTAL PROBLEM BEHAVIOR

YouthReportTotalProblemBehavior Teache
Family Overt Parenting Economic Fam
Risk Conflict Quality Hardship Ris
Control Factors Interactions Interactions Interactions Control Fact
Variable Block 1 Block 2 Block 3a Block 3b Block 3c Block 1 Bloc
Summaryof block entry
TotalR2(in %) 4.5** 28.6*** 29.6 30.3 28.9 5.8*** 10.6
R2change (in %) 4.5** 24.1*** 1.0 1.6 .3 5.8*** 4.9*
Betas
Youthgender .08 .02 .03 .02 .02 .13* .1
Youthgrade 1 (sixth) .02 -.02 -.00 -.03 -.02 .14* .0
Youthgrade2 (eighth) .06 -.05 -.03 -.06 -.04 -.05 -.08
Parent'smaritalstatus -.20** -.11* -.12* -.08 -.10* -.09 -.04
Overtconflict .12* .10* .10* .11* .0
Parentingquality .44*** .43*** .45*** .44*** .15
Economichardship .02 .03 .03 .04 .16
Overtconflict x youth gender .07
Overtconflict x youth grade 1 .03
Overtconflict x youth grade 2 .09
Overtconflict x parent'smaritalstatus .03
Parentingqualityx youth gender -.02
Parentingqualityx youth grade 1 -.05
Parentingqualityx youth grade2 .04
Parentingqualityx parent'smaritalstatus -.11*
Economichardshipx youth gender .04
Economichardshipx youth grade 1 -.01
Economic hardshipx youth grade 2 .03
Economichardshipx parent'smaritalstatus -.05
Note: n = 335.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Thu, 15 Jan 2015 22:00:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 TABLE 2. HIERARCHICALREGRESSION ANALYSES OF OVERT CONFLICT, PARENTING QUALITY, AND
ECONOMIC HARDSHIP PREDICTING YOUTH AND TEACHER REPORTS OF EXTERNALIZINGPROBLEM BEHAV

YouthReportExternalizingProblemBehavior TeacherReportE
Alternate Family Overt Parenting Economic Alternate Fam
Problem Risk Conflict Quality Hardship Problem Ri
Behavior Control Factors Interactions Interactions Interactions Behavior Control Fac
Variable Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4a Block 4b Block 4c Block 1 Block 2 Blo
1lt ,Fh +1 - .rt
Nummary ot oIUOKentry
TotalR2(in %) 49.1*** 53.2*** 58.0*** 58.5 59.4* 58.9 15.7*** 18.4* 20.7
R2change (in %) 49.1*** 4.1*** 4.8*** .5 1.3* .9 15.7*** 2.7* 2.3
Betas
Internalizingproblem
behavior .70*** .69*** .59*** .59*** .58*** .60*** .40*** .37*** .3
Youthgender .19*** .15**1* . 15**1 .15*** .13** .1
Youthgrade 1 (sixth) .00 -.02 -.02 -.03 .01 .07 .0
Youthgrade2 (eighth) .05 -.00 -.00 -.01 .04 -.03 -.0
Parent'smaritalstatus -.08* -.05 -.06 -.04 -.06 -.04 -.0
Overtconflict .02 .03 .00 .02 .0
Parentingquality .24*** .23*** .24*** .23*** .1
Economic hardship .01 .02 .03 -.01 -.0
Overtconflict x
youth gender .03
Overtconflict x
youth grade 1 -.07
Overtconflict x
youth grade2 -.03
Overtconflict x
parent'smaritalstatus .02
Parentingqualityx
youth gender .07*
Parentingqualityx
youth grade 1 -.07
Parentingqualityx
youth grade2 -.02
Parentingqualityx
parent'smaritalstatus -.07*
Economic hardshipx
youth gender .02
Economic hardshipx
youth grade 1 .16*
Economic hardshipx
youth grade 2 .13
Economic hardshipx
parent'smaritalstatus .02
Note: n = 335.
*p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Thu, 15 Jan 2015 22:00:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
352
gender, grade level, and their parents' marital sta-
tus. (The significant beta coefficient for the interac-
tion between parenting quality and parent's marital
status was not interpreted because the relevant
change in F was not significant.)
Gender was the only significant control vari-
able that predicted teacher reports of total prob-
lem behavior, reflecting higher scores on this
index for male youth. (See row 5 and column 7 of
Table 1.) Like youth reports of total problem be-
havior, teacher reports supported the independent-
additive model of risk. Poor parenting quality and
economic hardship both emerged as significant
risk factors. However, the association between
economic hardship and total problem behavior
depended on parents' marital status. Youth in eco-
nomically disadvantaged two-parent households
scored higher on total problem behavior than
youth in low-income, mother-headed households.
Thus, the independent-additive model is sup-
ported for youth from two-parent families, but not
for youth from single-parent families when we
focus on teacher reports of total problem behav-
ior. Poor parenting influences youth regardless of
their gender, grade level, or their parent's marital
status.
Externalizing problem behaviors. Gender was the
only significant control variable that predicted
youth reports of externalizing problem behavior,
indicating greater risk of undercontrolledbehavior
for male youth. (See column 3 of Table 2.) Only
parenting quality was a significant family risk fac-
tor. The parenting quality x gender interaction
terms and the parenting quality x marital status in-
teraction terms also were significant. The former
finding indicates that the relationshipbetween poor
parenting quality and externalizing problem behav-
ior is stronger for males than females, but signifi-
cant for both. The latter finding indicates that the
relationship between poor parenting quality and
externalizing problem behavior is significant for
both youth in mother-headedhouseholds and youth
in two-parent families. However, this relationship
is more detrimentalto youth in single-parent fami-
lies. Consistent with their reports of total problem
behavior, teacher reports of externalizing problem
behavior indicate that gender, parenting quality,
and economic hardshipx parent's marital status are
significant predictorvariables.
Internalizing problem behaviors. Gender was the
only significant control variable that predicted
youth reports of internalizing problem behavior.
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Thu, 15 Jan 2015 22:00:14 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Journal of Marriage and the Family
(See column 3 of Table 3.) The negative beta co-
efficient for this variable may reflect the suscepti-
bility of female youth to overcontrolled behavior.
Youth reports reveal no significant associations
between familial risk factors and internalizing
problem behavior. Thus the additive effects model
was not supported. Significant interactions
emerged between parent quality and youth gender
and between economic hardship and youth grade.
However, these were not interpreted because the
overall change in F was not significant. Teacher
reports reveal a significant association between
economic hardship and internalizing problem be-
havior. (See row 12 of Table 3.) This association
is similar, regardless of youth gender, youth
grade, and parent's marital status.
The Interactive Model
To test the possibility that risk factors interact with
one another in a conditional fashion, we created
three interactionterms: overt conflict style x parent-
ing quality, overt conflict style x economic hard-
ship, and parenting quality x economic hardship.
The interactionterms were entered in Block 4 after
direct relationships between the dependent vari-
able and the alternativeproblem behavior, the con-
trol variables, and the familial risk factors were
taken into account.
The findings do not support the interactive
model. None of the 18 interaction terms tested was
significant, ruling out the buffering or exacerbat-
ing effects of particular familial variables for this
sample of youth. Although parenting quality x
economic hardship reached a probability level
between .05 and .10 for teacher reports of total
problem behavior and externalizing problem be-
havior, its inclusion in these regression models did
not result in a significant F change.
The Exponential Model
We conducted a final set of analyses to examine
whether incremental increases exposure to risk
result in exponential increases in levels of youth
maladjustment. To conduct these analyses, a new
variable, named "risk," was formed to represent
varying levels of risk exposure. Based on youth re-
ports, youth were classified as having zero, one,
two, or three risk factors. For risk factors measured
on a continuous scale (overt conflict and parenting
quality), the cutoff point used to classify at-risk
youth was a score 1 standard deviation above the
mean. For economic hardship, youth receiving
 TABLE 3. HIERARCHICALREGRESSION ANALYSES OF OVERT CONFLICT, PARENTING QUALITY, AND
ECONOMIC HARDSHIP PREDICTING YOUTH AND TEACHER REPORTS OF INTERNALIZINGPROBLEM BEHAV

YouthReportInternalizingProblemBehavior TeacherReportI
Alternate Family Overt Parenting Economic Alternate Fam
Problem Risk Conflict Quality Hardship Problem R
Behavior Control Factors Interactions Interactions Interactions Behavior Control Fac
Variable Block 1 Block 2 Bloc]k 3 Block 4a Block 4b Block 4c Block 1 Block 2 Blo

Summaryof block entry

TotalR2(in %) 49.1*** 51.4*** 52.2 52.6 52.9 53.2 15.7*** 17.2 23.8
R2change (in %) 49.1*** 2.3*** .7 .5 .8 1.0 15.7*** 1.5 6.6
Betas
Externalzing problem
behavior .70*** .72*** .6;7*** .67*** .68*** .68*** .39*** .38*** .3
Youthgender -.14*** -.1j *** -.14*** -.14*** -.15*** -.02 -.0
Youthgrade 1 (sixth) -.01 .0 ) .02 .01 -.02 .09 .0
Youthgrade2 (eighth) -.02 -.0r3 -.02 -.03 -.06 -.02 -.0
Parent'smaritalstatus -.03 -.022 -.02 -.02 -.01 -.06 -.0
Overtconflict .0(6 .04 .06 .06 -.0
Parentingquality .0(6 .06 .07 .06 .0
Economic hardship .011 .00 -.00 .03 .2
Overtconflict x
youth gender .02
Overtconflict x
youth grade 1 .09
Overtconflict x
youth grade2 .10
Overtconflict x
parent'smaritalstatus -.01
Parentingqualityx
youth gender .09*
Parentingqualityx
youth grade I .04
Parentingqualityx
youth grade2 .04
Parentingqualityx
parent'smaritalstatus -.00
Economic hardshipx
youth gender .01
Economic hardshipx
youth grade 1
Economic hardshipx
youth grade2 -.12
Economichardshipx
parent'smaritalstatus -.05
Note: n = 335.
*p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Thu, 15 Jan 2015 22:00:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 TABLE 4. HIERARCHICALREGRESSION ANALYSES OF RISK AND RISK SQUARED PREDICTING YOUTH AND TEACHER REPORTS OF

YouthReportTotalProblemBehavior Tea
Control Risk Risk2 Control
Variable Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 1
Summaryof block entry
TotalR2(in %) 4.5** 18.8*** 20.8** 5.8***
R2change (in %) 4.5** 14.3*** 2.0** 5.8***
Betas
Youthgender .08 .05 .06 .13*
Youthgrade 1 (sixth) .02 -.07 -.08 .14*
Youthgrade2 (eighth) .06 .01 .01 -.05
Parent'smaritalstatus -.20*** -.14** -.13** -.09
Risk -.39*** .40***
Risk2 -.26**
Note: n = 335.
*p <.05. **p <.01. ***p < .001.

TABLE 5. HIERARCHICALREGRESSION ANALYSES OF RISK AND RISK SQUARED PREDICTING YOUTH AND TEACHER REPORTS OF EXTE

YouthReportExternalizingProblemBehavior TeacherRepo
Alternate Alternate
Problem Problem
Behavior Control Risk Risk2 Behavior Co
Variable Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4 Block 1 Bl
Summaryof block entry
TotalR2(in %) 49.1*** 53.2*** 54.8*** 54.9 15.7*** 18.
R2change (in %) 49.1*** 4.1*** 1.5*** .1 15.7*** 2.
Betas
Internalizingproblembehavior .70*** .69*** .65*** .65*** .40*** .
Youthgender .19*** .18*** .18*** .
Youthgrade 1 (sixth) .00 -.03 -.03 .
Youthgrade2 (eighth) .05 .03 .03 -.0
Parent'smaritalstatus -.08* -.07 -.07 -.0
Risk .14*** .11***
Risk2 .03
Note: n = 335.
*p < .05. **p <.01. ***p <.001.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Thu, 15 Jan 2015 22:00:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Family Risk Factors 355

either a partial or a full lunch subsidy were consid-

* *
It. *
0 Cl \0 t
* ered at risk. The newly formed variable was entered
*q 10 Cl) 0000
in Block 3 after entry of the alternative behavior
0 problem in Block 1 and the control variables in
0
CO .0.0-
CA 0) Block 2. In Block 4, the squared risk variable was
0 .u
entered to test for exponential effects of multiple
0 *
0
* *
0
*
*
*
risk exposure (Aiken & West, 1991).
2c *
&-
* cCC'0I-t.l-
p00000- The risk term was significant across informants
0
0 00- I II
CO
,.
0h
and dependent variables, suggesting a linear pattern
0
0 of adjustment to risk exposure. (See Tables 4-6.)
0
z ct
CD
Additionally, the curvilinear risk term reached sta-
tistical significance in three of the six regression
a) *
z0 00 0\ - models. These were for youth and teacherreportsof
0 ClC( 00000
0
H I II total problem behavior as well as youth reports of
z 0.
U
c. internalizing problem behavior. Contrary to the
0
steep increases in problem behavior expected for
H m
0
0 potentiated risk, the findings are more consistent
0
0 2CO s -
with a threshold effect of multiple risk exposure.
0 - $ .0
-
*
*
0
0
rCO0 t- r- The data indicated that the most dramatic increase
0
0 in these measures of problem behavior is between
0
H zero and one risk factor, with a slight leveling off at
0
z .0 n I greater levels of risk exposure. Closer examination
0
H
of these findings reveal that 47% of youth classified
0
0 as having a risk factor of one (where problem be-
* *
0
.0.0
*0 havior scores were at their highest) experience poor
z ,- ,O

0
cuq parentingquality,thus indicating the saliency of this
0
0
risk factor in predicting youth problem behavior.
0
ci
a)
*- **
ICCl Cl Cl ~ Although the curvilinear term accounts for only a
0
0
0
small portion of the variancein these outcome mea-
CO
0 .0.0 sures beyond that of the linear risk term (approxi-
& * 0 * *
000--N c
00
0
"O
0
t cr
mately 3%), the consistency of this finding across
0
informantsoffers reliable evidence of how high risk
0
z a. exposure manifests itself in this sample of youth.
0 ,.
- Cl
0
C .0 * * DISCUSSION
* *
0
0 (-y This study tests various risk models that may ex-
plain how multiple risk factors predict preadoles-
z cent and early adolescent problem behaviors. The
>CO
0
three risk models are based on different assump-
2
CO
s -

0 0 $.0 tions about the relationship between exposure to

0 .0 CO 0
0
0
0.00
<o multiple risks and youth problem behaviors. These
at- OIt
models have different implications for youth con-
0 o fronted with multiple adversities. However, the
0
0
v research lacks sufficient tests of these models, and
0 our understanding of what exposure to multiple
0 risks means is limited. Our findings extend the
0
o literature on youth adjustment to family stress by
.4
0
v addressing whether complex patterns of cumula-
H * tive risk provide better explanations of youth prob-
" lem behaviors than do simpler additive models.
ajv ^ We first tested whether overt interparentalcon-
i .& flict, poor parenting quality, and family economic
hardship jointly predict youth problem behaviors

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Thu, 15 Jan 2015 22:00:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
356
in an additive fashion. Few researchers have ex-
amined all three of these factors conjointly in the
context of a multiple risk model. The results of
this study highlight the importance of this type of
exploration and support the idea of cumulative ef-
fects of multiple family risk factors on youths'
psychological adjustment.
Youth perceptions of hostile, overt interparental
conflict and poor parenting explained variance in
youth reports of total problem behaviors. Some
scholars have argued that marital conflict influ-
ences youth outcomes by contaminating parental
behavior and the general quality of parent-childre-
lations (Erel & Burman, 1995; Fauber et al., 1990).
For example, Harold and Conger (1997) found in a
sample of 451 families in ruralIowa that one of the
major pathways from marital conflict to adolescent
problem behaviors was through observed and
youth-perceived parental hostility toward the
youth. Because their design was longitudinal, they
provided evidence that hostility in the marital rela-
tion may actually spill over to the parent-childrela-
tionship. However, we found that the main effects
of overt conflict remained, even when accounting
for poor parenting. This may occur by shaping
children's cognitions and perceptions (Davies &
Cummings, 1998; Grych & Fincham, 1990), their
ability to regulate their emotions (Gottman & Katz,
1989), and through their particular coping re-
sponses (Jenkins, Smith, & Graham, 1989;
O'Brien, Margolin, & John, 1995).
One of the potential limitations of these find-
ings is that youth reported on conflict and parent-
ing, as well as their own problem behaviors. Thus,
these findings may reflect rater bias, more than
they reflect valid, substantive findings about fam-
ily risk and youth problem behaviors. Although
rater bias may account for a small portion of the
association between youth reports of family risk
and youth problem behaviors, it does not account
for it to any great extent, and the major conclusions
remain intact. First, at the zero-order level, youths'
perceptions of overt interparentalconflict and poor
parenting are associated with total problem behav-
iors reported by both youth and teachers. Thus, at
best, only a part of the correlationcan be accounted
for by single informant measurement. Second,
using latent constructanalysis, Buehler et al. (1998)
demonstrated that youth reports of overt conflict
and youth problem behaviors contain little corre-
lated error in this sample of youth, and the corre-
lated error that is present does not alter the associ-
ation between interparental conflict and youth
problem behavior (i.e., the structural paths
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Thu, 15 Jan 2015 22:00:14 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Journal of Marriage and the Family
remained the same when correlated error was con-
trolled). Third, we conducted follow-up regression
analyses to determine whether the association be-
tween youth reports of poor parenting and their
own reports of problem behaviors could be ex-
plained by a hostile attributionbias held by youth.
Youth who have negative beliefs about the world,
in general, and about social relationships, in par-
ticular, may describe their parents in a more nega-
tive fashion. We used a six-item measure of youth
hostile attributionbias (e.g., "I think most people
can't be trusted, there are some people I really
hate") and found that the addition of this measure
as the final block in the regression analysis ex-
plained additional variance in youths' total prob-
lem behaviors, but that the association between
poor parenting and problem behaviors barely
changed (before Beta = .24, after Beta = .21). Thus,
it does not seem that the association between poor
parenting and youth problem behaviors can be
accounted for by youths' hostile outlook on social
and family life.
Teachers' reports of total problem behaviors
were explained by youth reports of poor parenting
and family economic hardship. The robustness of
these findings need to be highlighted because each
variable was assessed by a different informant.
Teachers reported on problem behaviors, youth re-
ported on parenting, and schools provided data to
create the measure of family economic hardship.
Tittsworth (1996) found that parents' involvement
with children's school life (e.g., helping with
homework and attending school activities) was
closely associated with parental monitoring. Thus,
the association between poor parenting and youth
problem behaviors may reflect a lack of involve-
ment by parents in their child's academic life. This
lack of parental involvement and structure may
fuel misbehavior in the classroom and may indi-
cate an absence of a connection between parents
and teachers that might help mitigate such mis-
behavior. The association between poverty and
youth problem behaviors may be explained by
possible links among the educational quality of
home environments, academic difficulties, and in-
creased problem behaviors. Poor families have
fewer resources to commit to educationally related
tools such as computers, books, and calculators.
This type of impoverishment is associated with
academic failure (Downey, 1994), which, in turn,
may prompt or sustain misbehavior or emotional
distress in school.
Only poor parenting was associated with youth
reports of externalizing problem behavior (con-
Family Risk Factors
trolling for internalizing problem behavior).
These results replicate previous findings and re-
affirm the role that parenting quality plays in chil-
dren's psychosocial adjustment. Males and youths
in mother-headed households were particularly
susceptible to the risk associated with ineffective
parenting. This is consistent with results of previ-
ous researchers who found that divorced mothers
make fewer developmentally appropriatedemands,
are less affectionate and less consistent in their
discipline, and generally manage children, particu-
larly boys, less effectively, compared with mothers
in two-parent families (Hetherington, Cox, &
Cox, 1987; Simons, 1996).
Independent, additive effects were detected in
teachers' reports of externalizing problem behav-
ior. Both parenting quality and economic hardship
were significant predictors.Additionally, economic
hardship interacted with the marital status of
youths' parents.Contraryto what one might expect,
youths in economically disadvantaged two-parent
households display higher levels of externalizing
problem behavior than youths in economically
disadvantaged mother-headed households. This
may indicate the influential nature of fathers' par-
enting quality in times of economic crisis. Liker
and Elder (1983) found that the economic hardship
stemming from the Great Depression was particu-
larly distressing to fathers and that they manifested
this distress through the use of unsupportive,
harsh, and rejecting behavior toward their children.
Youths in two-parent families may be more likely
to be the recipients of this type of behavior, given
the limited amount of contact many children of di-
vorce have with their fathers (Furstenberg, Nord,
Peterson, & Zill, 1983). Thus, aversive familial
processes particular to two-parent families may
be the operative mechanism that accounts for the
finding that cumulative risk is more detrimental in
this family type.
We did not find additive effects for internalizing
problem behavior. However, this analysis reveals
that economic status is an important predictor of
internalizing problem behavior. The transition to
adolescence is a time of increasing psychological
vulnerability for youth (Harter, 1990). Economic
hardshipmay increase this vulnerabilityby leading
youth to draw negative social comparisons as they
move away from the family and begin to expand
their social network.
Contrary to the few other studies reporting
buffering effects of positive family attributes, this
study did not provide evidence that low levels of
overt conflict, positive parenting quality, and high
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Thu, 15 Jan 2015 22:00:14 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
357
economic status mitigate the harmful effects asso-
ciated with the risk level of these variables. This
finding has important implications because it ap-
pears that poor parenting quality, the most consis-
tent predictor of youth problem behaviors in this
study, is detrimentalto youth well-being regardless
of other positive familial processes and resources
considered importantto youth adjustment (i.e., co-
operativestyles of addressingconflict or high socio-
economic status).However, more researchis needed
to explore the interactive relationships among
these factors before reaching definitive conclusions
about the stress-buffering or stress-exacerbating
effects of these particularfamily attributes.
Although the findings supportthe idea of cumu-
lative risk, our analysis also reveals a threshold ef-
fect of exposure to multiple risks on youth problem
behavior.We attributethis finding to the overriding
influence of parenting quality in predicting youth
problem behavior, which may, as a result, have at-
tenuated the relationships among overt conflict,
economic hardship, and youth problem behavior.
Poor parenting is a strong risk factor and saturates
the model. If these findings are replicated, one of
the positive implications is that individual risk fac-
tors in the family do not seem to potentiate the
harmful effects of one another. Although youth
who experience two of the risk factors obviously
have more stress to cope with than those who expe-
rience only one (as shown in the results of the
additive models), these risk factors don't seem to
compound one another to any great extent. This
relative independence has implications for research
on children's coping responses to family stress. Re-
searchers may want to begin to explore whether
general or more specific coping behaviors help
mitigate the effects of family stressors on youths'
difficulties with socialization.
Less variance was accounted for when predict-
ing internalizing problem behaviors than when
predicting pure externalizing problem behaviors.
To the extent that individualrisk factors are special-
ized predictors of youth externalizing and internal-
izing problem behaviors, our analysis may not have
accounted for the variables most strongly related
to internalizing problem behavior. A different pat-
tern may have emerged for internalizing problem
behavior if our analysis included other predictors
of this outcome measure (e.g., maternaldepression,
peer rejection,youths' negative social comparisons).
The findings must be weighed carefully against
the limitations of this study. First, this study does
not adequately deal with the chronicity of family
risk. Chronic risk may result in severer maladjust-
358
ment. This is especially important with respect to
economic hardship. For instance, children living in
persistent poverty are at greater risk for maladjust-
ment than those who experience transientfinancial
instability (Duncan et al., 1994). This study's mea-
sure of economic status reflects youths' current
financial situation and gives no indication of the
historic economic situations of the families. Risk
researchers interested in the influence of this vari-
able would benefit from obtaining measures of
transient and chronic economic hardship (Dubow
& Ippolito, 1994).
Second, this study accounts for only a small
portion of variance in youth problem behaviors and.
suggests the important role of other risk factors.
Our focus was stress in the family. However, a
more exhaustive examination of multiple risk fac-
tors could include individual difference variables
such as constitutional and cognitive factors (e.g.,
temperament or personality and intelligence), as
well as environmental factors such as neighbor-
hood poverty, exposure to crime, peer influence,
and the availability of social support (Barber &
Olsen, 1997; Garmezy, 1981).
Finally, the low number of risk factors experi-
enced by the majority of families in this sample
may bear directly on our failure to detect an expo-
nential pattern of risk. Rutter (1979) focused his
investigation on a high-risk population that experi-
enced a multiplicity of risk factors. Thus, there
may be a relationship between the degree of expo-
sure to risk and the manner in which exposure to
risk manifests itself in youth problem behaviors.
Researchers can address this question by testing
these various risk models across community and
clinical samples.
This study makes a significant contribution to
the literatureson family stress and children's risk in
the socialization context by clearly delineating and
testing three importantrisk models. We found that
most of the effects of risk in the family indepen-
dently and cumulatively influence difficulties in
youths' socialization, represented by the presence
of problem behaviors. We found little evidence of
the buffering or exacerbating effects of family
stressors, and we found no evidence of extreme
potentiation of the stressors. These findings con-
tribute to the literature by detailing the patterns
among family stressors. This detail can be used to
inform theoretical formulations and interventions
related to children's coping with family stress.
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Thu, 15 Jan 2015 22:00:14 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Journal of Marriage and the Family
NOTE
This study was supported, in part, by a grant from the
University of Tennessee to Cheryl Buehler. We acknowl-
edge Christine Anthony, Ambika Krishnakumar,Sharon
Pemberton, and Gaye Stone for their contributions to this
study. We thank Jo Lynn Cunningham, Greer Litton Fox,
and the anonymous reviewers for their comments on ear-
lier drafts. We also thank Samuel Bratton of the Knox
County School System for his supportand the many fam-
ilies and teachers who participatedin this project.
REFERENCES
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Youth Self-
Report and 1991 Profile. Burlington: University of
Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.
Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. S. (1986). Manual
for the Teacher's Report Form of the Child Behavior
Profile. Burlington: University of Vermont, Depart-
ment of Psychiatry.
Ahrons, C. R. (1983). Predictors of paternal involvement
postdivorce: Mothers' and fathers' perceptions. Jour-
nal of Divorce, 6, 55-69.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression:
Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Aneshensel, C. S., & Gore, S. (1991). Development,
stress, and role restructuring: Social transitions of
adolescence. In J. Eckenrode (Ed.), The social context
of coping. New York: Plenum Press.
Anthony, E. J. (1987). Risk, vulnerability, and re-
silience: An overview. In E. J. Anthony & B. J.
Cohler (Eds.), The invulnerable child (pp. 3-48). New
York: Guilford.
Barber, B. K., & Olsen, J. A. (1997). Socialization in
context: Connection, regulation, and autonomy in the
family, school, and neighborhood, and with peers.
Journal of Adolescent Research, 12, 287-315.
Bolger, K. E., Patterson, C. J., Thompson, W. W., & Ku-
persmidt, J. B. (1995). Psychosocial adjustmentamong
children experiencing persistent and intermittentfamily
economic hardship. Child Development, 66, 1107-
1129.
Borduin, C. M., Henggeler, S. W., & Manley, C. M.
(1995). Conduct and oppositional disorders. In V. B.
VanHasselt & M. Hersen (Eds.), Handbook of adoles-
cent psychopathology: A guide to diagnosis and treat-
ment (pp. 349-383). New York:Lexington Books.
Boss, P. (1988). Family stress management. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Brody, G. H., & Forehand, R. (1990). Interparentalcon-
flict, relationshipwith the noncustodial father,and ado-
lescent post-divorce adjustment. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, 11, 139-147.
Brown, B. B., Mounts, N., Lamborn, S. D., & Stein-
berg, L. (1993). Parenting practices and peer group
affiliation in adolescence. Child Development, 64,
467-482.
Buehler, C., & Barber,B. K. (1998, July). Intensity of in-
terparental conflict and youth problem behaviors: The
moderating role of content, chronicity, and resolution.
Paper presented at the 1998 bi-annual conference of
the InternationalSociety for the Study of Behavioural
Development, Berne, Switzerland.
Family Risk Factors
Buehler, C., Krishnakumar,A., Stone, G., Anthony, C.,
Pemberton, S., Gerard, J., & Barber, B. K. (1998). In-
terparental conflict styles and youth problem behav-
iors: A two-sample replication study. Journal of Mar-
riage and the Family, 60, 119-132.
Burman, B., John, R. S., & Margolin, G. (1987). Effects
of marital and parent-child relations on children's ad-
justment. Journal of Family Psychology, 1, 91-108.
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support,
and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin,
98, 310-357.
Conger, R. D., Conger, K. J., Elder, G. H., Lorenz, F. O.,
Simons, R. L., & Whitbeck, L. B. (1992). A family
process model of economic hardship and adjustment
of early adolescent boys. Child Development, 63, 526-
541.
Conger, R. D., Conger, K. J., Elder, G. H., Lorenz, F. 0.,
Simons, R. L., & Whitbeck, L. B. (1993). Family eco-
nomic stress and adjustment of early adolescent girls.
Developmental Psychology, 29, 206-219.
Davies, P. T., & Cummings, E. M. (1998). Exploring
children's emotional security as a mediator of the link
between marital relations and child adjustment. Child
Development, 69, 124-139.
Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (1994). Social-
ization mediators of the relation between socioeco-
nomic status and child conduct problems. Child Devel-
opment, 65, 649-665.
Downey, D. B. (1994). The school performance of chil-
dren from single-mother and single-father families:
Economic or interpersonal deprivation? Journal of
Family Issues, 15, 129-147.
Dubow, E. F, & Ippolito, M. F. (1994). Effects of poverty
and quality of the home environmenton changes in the
academic and behavioral adjustment of elementary
school-age children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychol-
ogy, 23, 401-412.
Duncan, G. J., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Klebanov, P. K.
(1994). Economic deprivation and early childhood
development. Child Development, 65, 296-318.
Elder,G. H., Jr.,Conger,R. D., Foster,E. M., & Ardelt,M.
(1992). Families under economic pressure. Journal of
Family Issues, 13, 5-37.
Emery, R. E. (1982). Interparentalconflict and children of
discord and divorce. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 310-
330.
Emery, R. E., & O'Leary, K. D. (1984). Marital discord
and child behavior problems in a nonclinic sample.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 10, 411-420.
Erel, O., & Burman, B. (1995). Interrelatednessof marital
relations and parent-childrelations:A meta-analyticre-
view. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 106-132.
Farrington,D. P. (1991). Childhood aggression and adult
violence: Early precursors and later-life outcomes. In
D. J. Peeler & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), The development
and treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 5-29).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fauber,R., Forehand, R., Thomas, A. M., & Wierson, M.
(1990). A mediational model of the impact of marital
conflict on adolescent adjustment in intact and di-
vorced families: The role of disruptedparenting. Child
Development, 61, 1112-1123.
Feldman, S. S., & Elliott, G. R. (1990). At the threshold:
The developing adolescent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Thu, 15 Jan 2015 22:00:14 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
359
Furstenberg, F. F., Jr., Nord, C. W., Peterson, J. L., &
Zill, N. (1983). The life course of children of divorce:
Marital disruption and parental contact. American So-
ciological Review, 48, 656-668.
Garmezy, N. (1981). Children under stress: Perspectives
on antecedents and correlates of vulnerability and re-
sistance to psychopathology. In A. Rubin, J. Arnoff,
A. Barclay, & R. Zucker (Eds.), Further exploration in
personality (pp. 196-268). New York:Wiley.
Gottman, J. M., & Katz, L. F. (1989). Effects of marital
discord on young children's peer interaction and
health. Developmental Psychology, 25, 373-381.
Grych, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Marital conflict
and children's adjustment: A cognitive-contextual
framework. Psychological Bulletin, 2, 267-290.
Harold, G. T., & Conger, R. D. (1997). Marital conflict
and adolescent distress: The role of adolescent aware-
ness. Child Development, 68, 333-350.
Harter,S. (1990). Self and identity development. In S. S.
Feldman & G. R. Elliot (Eds.), At the threshold: The
developing adolescent (pp. 352-387). Cambridge, MA:
HarvardUniversity Press.
Hess, R. D., & Camara,K. A. (1979). Post-divorce family
relationships as mediating factors in the consequences
of divorce for children. Journal of Social Issues, 35,
79-96.
Hetherington, E. M., Cox, M., & Cox, R. (1987). Long-
term effects of divorce and remarriage on the adjust-
ment of children. In S. Chess & T. Alexander (Eds.),
Annual progress in child psychiatry and child develop-
ment 1986 (pp. 407-429). New York:Brunner/Mazel.
Hodges, W. F., Tierney, C. W., & Buchsbaum, H. K.
(1984). The cumulative effect of stress on preschool
children of divorced and intact families. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 46, 611-617.
Honig, A. (1986). Stress and coping in children. Young
Children, 41, 50-63.
Jenkins, J. M., & Smith, M. A. (1990). Factors protect-
ing children living in disharmonious homes: Maternal
reports. Journal of the American Academy of Child
and Adolescent Psychiatry, 29, 60-69.
Jenkins, J. M., Smith, M. A., & Graham, P. J. (1989)
Coping with parental quarrels. American Academy of
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 28, 182-189.
Johnson, J. H. (1982). Life events as stressors in child-
hood and adolescence. In B. B. Lahey & A. E.
Kazdin (Eds.), Advances in clinical child psychology
(Vol. 5, pp. 219-253). New York:Plenum Press.
Jouriles, E. N., Bourg, W. J., & Farris, A. M. (1991).
Marital adjustment and child conduct problems: A
comparison of the correlation across subsamples.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59,
354-357.
Jouriles, E. N., Murphy,C. M., & O'Leary, K. D. (1989).
Interspousal aggression, marital discord, and child
problems. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol-
ogy, 57, 453-455.
Kazdin, A. E. (1995). Conduct disorders in childhood
and adolescence (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kovacs, M., Feinberg, T. L., Crouse-Novak, M., Pau-
lauskas, S. L., Pollock, M., & Finkelstein, R. (1984).
Depressive disorders in childhood: II. A longitudinal
study of the risk for a subsequent major depression.
Archives of General Psychiatry, 41, 643-649.
Liker, J. K., & Elder, G. H., Jr. (1983). Economic hard-
ship and marital relations in the 1930s. American
Sociological Review, 48, 343-359.
360
Luthar, S. S. (1991). Vulnerability and resilience: A
study of high-risk adolescents. Child Development,
62, 600-616.
Maccoby, E. E. (1992). The role of parents in the social-
ization of children: An historical overview. Develop-
mental Psychology, 28, 1006-1010.
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in
the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In
P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.) & E. M. Hetherington (Vol.
Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Social-
ization, personality, and social development (4th ed.,
pp. 1-101). New York:Wiley.
Masten, A. S., Garmezy,N., Tellegen, A., Pellegrini, D. S.,
Larkin, K., & Larsen, A. (1988). Competence and
stress in school children: The moderating effects of
individual and family qualities. Journal of Child Psy-
chology and Psychiatry, 29, 745-764.
Maughan, B., & Rutter, M. (1998). Continuities and dis-
continuities in antisocial behavior from childhood to
adult life. In T. H. Ollendick & R. J. Prinz (Eds.), Ad-
vances in clinical child psychology (Vol. 20, pp. 1-47).
New York:Plenum Press.
McCubbin, H., & Patterson,J. (1983). Family transitions:
Adaptation to stress. In H. McCubbin & C. Figley
(Eds.), Stress and the family: Coping with normative
transitions (pp. 5-25). New York:Brunner/Mazel.
McLoyd, V. C. (1990). The impact of economic hard-
ship on Black families and children: Psychological
distress, parenting, and socioemotional development.
Child Development, 61, 311-346.
O'Brien, M., Margolin, G., & John, R. S. (1995). Relation
among marital conflict, child coping, and child adjust-
ment. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 24, 346-
361.
Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive family process: A fam-
ily learning approach (Vol. 3). Eugene, OR: Castalia.
Patterson, G. R., DeBaryshe, B. D., & Ramsey, E.
(1989). A developmental perspective on antisocial be-
havior. American Psychologist, 44, 329-335.
Pearlin, L. I., Lieberman, M. A., Menaghan, E. G., &
Mullan, J. T. (1981). The stress process. Journal of
Health and Social Behavior, 22, 337-356.
Pine, D. S., Cohen, P., Gurley, D., Brook, J., & Ma, Y.
(1998). The risk for early-adulthood anxiety and de-
pressive disorders in adolescents with anxiety and de-
pressive disorders.Archives of General Psychiatry, 55,
56-64.
Reynolds, W. M. (1992). Internalizing disorders in chil-
dren and adolescents. New York:Wiley.
Reynolds, W. M. (1995). Depression. In V. B. VanHas-
selt & M. Hersen (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent
psychopathology: A guide to diagnosis and treatment
(pp. 297-348). New York:Lexington Books.
Robins, L. N., & McEvoy, L. (1990). Conduct problems
as predictors of substance abuse. In L. Robins & M.
Rutter (Eds.), Straight and devious pathways from
childhood to adulthood (pp. 182-204). Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Rollins, B. C., & Thomas, D. L. (1979). Parentalsupport,
power, and control techniques in the socialization of
children. In W. R. Burr, R. Hill, F. I. Nye, & I. L.
Reiss (Eds.), Contemporary theories about the family
(Vol. 1, pp. 317-364). New York:Free Press.
Rutter,M. (1971). Parent-childseparation:Psychological
effects on the children. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 12, 233-260.
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Thu, 15 Jan 2015 22:00:14 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Journal of Marriage and the Family
Rutter, M. (1979). Protective factors in children's re-
sponses to stress and disadvantage. In M. W. Kent &
J. E. Rolf (Eds.), Primary prevention of psychopathol-
ogy: III. Promoting social competence and coping in
children (pp. 49-74). Hanover, NH: University Press
of New England.
Schulderman, E., & Schulderman, S. (1970). Replicabil-
ity of factors in children's report of parent behavior
(CRPBI). Journal of Psychology, 96, 15-23.
Shaw, D. S., & Emery, R. E. (1988). Chronic family ad-
versity and school-age children's adjustment. Journal
of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 27, 200-206.
Siefer, R., Sameroff, A. J., Baldwin, C. P., & Baldwin,
A. L. (1992). Child and family factors that ameliorate
risk between 4 and 13 years of age. Journal of the
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychia-
try, 31, 893-903.
Simons, R. L. (1996). Understandingdifferences between
divorced and intact families. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Slater, C. M., & Hall, G. E. (Eds.). (1996). County and
city extra annual metro city and county data book.
Lanham, MD: Beman.
Takeuchi, D. T., Williams, D. R., & Adair, R. K. (1991).
Economic stress in the family and children's emo-
tional and behavioral problems. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 53, 1031-1041.
Tittsworth, S. P. (1996). Overt conflict style and youth
academic achievement: Thefunction of importantlink-
ing mechanisms. Unpublished master's thesis, Univer-
sity of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Trotter, B. B. (1989). Coparental conflict, competition,
and cooperation and parents' perceptions of their chil-
dren's social-emotional well-being following marital
separation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer-
sity of Tennessee, Knoxville.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1996). County and city data
books. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1994,
February 10). Annual update of the Health and Human
Services poverty guidelines (p. 6277). Federal Register.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1995,
February9). Annual update of the Health and Human
Services poverty guidelines (p. 7772). Federal Register.
Wallerstein, J. S., & Kelly, J. B. (1980). Surviving the
breakup: How children and parents cope with divorce.
New York:Basic Books.
Weinberger,D. A., Feldman, S. S., & Ford, M. E. (1989).
Validation of the WeinbergerParenting Inventoryfor
preadolescents and their parents. Unpublished manu-
script.
Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1992). Overcoming the
odds: High risk children from birth to adulthood.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Williams, S., Anderson, J., McGee, R., & Silva, P. A.
(1990). Risk factors for behavioral and emotional dis-
order in preadolescent children. Journal of the Ameri-
can Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 29,
413-419.
Wills, T. A., Vaccaro, D., & Benson, G. (1995). Coping
and competence in adolescent alcohol and drug use. In
J. L. Wallander& L. J. Siegel (Eds.), Adolescent health
problems: Behavioral perspectives (pp. 160-178). New
York:The Guilford Press.
Family Risk Factors 361

APPENDIX
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICSAND CORRELATIONS

Variable (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
1. Overtconflict .46 -.25 .02 -.04 -.15 .34 .32 .30 .14 .14 .08
2. Parentingquality .12 .13 .14 -.13 .51 .52 .42 .17 .18 .09
3. Economic hardship .00 -.32 -.21 .13 .13 .13 .24 .13 .33
4. Youthgender .00 .11 .06 .16 -.03 .12 .14 .03
5. Youthgrade .05 .02 .04 .00 -.19 -.15 -.16
6. Parent'smaritalstatus -.18 -.18 -.17 -.09 -.07 -.09
7. Youthreporttotal problem
behavior .91 .93 .27 .24 .21
8. Youthreportexternalizing
behavior .70 .24 .26 .15
9. Youthreportinternalizing
behavior .25 .21 .22
10. Teacherreporttotal problem
behavior .91 .74
11. Teacherexternalizing
behavior .40
12. Teacherinternalizing
behavior
M 1.4 1.45 NA NA NA NA 21.51 11.15 10.40 4.71 2.68 2.03
SD .57 .29 NA NA NA NA 17.17 8.78 9.82 8.94 6.57 4.00
Cronbach'salpha .85 .83 NA NA NA NA .92 .90 .92 .96 .95 .87
Note: n = 335. Correlationsabove .10 were significantat the p < .05 level. Correlationsabove .13 were significantat the
p < .01 level.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Thu, 15 Jan 2015 22:00:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions