Neighborhood Contexts, Fathers, and Mexican American Young Adolescents' Internalizing Symptoms.
ABSTRACT The family stress model posits that contextual stressors, such as neighborhood danger, negatively influence youth adjustment, including internalizing symptoms, via disruptions in parenting and family processes. The current study examined a culturally and contextually modified family stress model in a diverse sample of Mexican origin fathers and their children (N = 463) from the Southwestern U.S. Results supported the hypothesized negative influence of neighborhood danger on youth internalizing symptoms via disruptions in family cohesion. Paternal warmth did not play a role in linking contextual stress to outcomes. The role of harsh parenting was highly nuanced. Results suggest that both culture and context have the potential to moderate putative family stress model associations for specific parenting behaviors and further our understanding of the ways that culture and context may operate in models of family stress and youth outcomes.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: We examine the association of family cohesion and conflict with childhood behavior problems. A stratified random sample of 823 children was evaluated at ages 6 and 11 years. Mothers rated the family environment at age 6 using the Family Environment Scale. Mothers and teachers rated children's behavior problems at ages 6 and 11, using the Child Behavior Checklist and the Teacher Report Form, respectively. Multiple regression analysis, applying generalized estimating equations, was used. Although results varied between mothers' and teachers' data, they converged in identifying family cohesion as a factor in children's mental health. Family cohesion, as rated by mothers, had a beneficial effect on children's internalizing and attention problems, as rated by both mothers and teachers, that was stable over time. The study highlights an important relationship between family cohesion and children's internalizing and attention problems.Psychiatry Research 03/2006; 141(2):141-9. · 2.52 Impact Factor