Content uploaded by Leslie Gordon Simons
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Leslie Gordon Simons on Oct 23, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
10.1177/0192513X05285447Journal of Family IssuesSimons et al. / Parent Practices
Parenting Practices and
Child Adjustment in
Different Types of
Households
A Study of African American Families
Leslie Gordon Simons
Yi-Fu Chen
Ronald L. Simons
Gene Brody
University of Georgia, Athens
Carolyn Cutrona
Iowa State University, Ames
This article uses a sample of 867 African American households to investigate
differences in parenting practices and child outcomes by type of household.
Results indicate that mothers provide similar levels of parenting regardless of
family structure. Secondary caregivers, however, show a great deal of variation
in quality of parenting. Fathers and grandmothers engage in the highest quality
parenting, stepfathers the poorest, with other relatives falling in between.
These differences in parenting do not explain family structure differences in
child behavior problems. Results suggest that children do best when there are
two caregivers in the household, although stepfathers are an exception to this
rule. Child behavior problems are found to be no greater in either mother-
grandmother or mother-relative families than in households with two biologi-
cal parents. In terms of risk for child behavior problems, these family forms
seem to be functionally equivalent.
Keywords: African American families; parenting; stepfamilies; child behav-
ior problems
There are conflicting perspectives regarding the types of family arrange-
ments that are best for children. Although there is consensus that in gen-
eral, the single-parent family is least advantageous for child development,
there is much disagreement regarding the viability of the various alternatives.
Many assert that the two-parent household is the most beneficial family envi-
803
Journal of Family Issues
Volume 27 Number 6
June 2006 803-825
© 2006 Sage Publications
10.1177/0192513X05285447
http://jfi.sagepub.com
hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com
ronment. Indeed, in support of this idea, the Bush administration has pro-
posed to spend 1.5 billion dollars during the next few years on education and
research designed to promote marriage, especially among the poor. Others
argue, however, that additional family arrangements, such as stepfamilies or
mother-grandmother households, are also effective settings for raising chil-
dren. The current study is an attempt to evaluate the merits of these various
claims.
Such an investigation is important, given that only a minority (approxi-
mately 25%) of U.S. families consist of the cultural ideal of children residing
with their married, biological parents (Fields & Kasper, 2001). This is espe-
cially true of African American families. Recent estimates indicate that 70%
of African American births are to unmarried women, and approximately 1 in
5 African American children lives in an extended family (Glick, 1997).
Unfortunately, we know very little about quality of parenting and child
adjustment in these various family forms.
The present study uses data from a sample of several hundred African Ameri-
can children and their caregivers to compare and contrast quality of parenting
and child adjustment in five types of families: mother married to the biologi-
cal father, mother married to a stepfather, mother living with her mother,
mother living with a relative other than her mother (usually a sister or an aunt),
and a single mother living alone. For purposes of this article, these family
structures are referred to as intact nuclear, stepparent, mother-grandmother,
mother-relative, and single-mother households, respectively.
We begin by reviewing three competing perspectives regarding the asso-
ciation between family structure, quality of parenting, and child well-being.
The first holds that a household consisting of two married parents is the opti-
mal family environment for raising children. The second asserts that two
caregivers, regardlessof gender or marital status, are usually better than one.
Finally, the third consists of propositions regarding gender differences in
parenting derived from evolutionary psychology. The first perspective is
widely accepted by the general public and by many social scientists. Most lay
persons are unaware of the other two perspectives, although they are popular
among family scholars. We begin by briefly reviewing these three view-
points, comparing and contrasting their assumptions and assertions. Their
804 Journal of Family Issues
Authors’ Note: This research was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health (Grant
No. MH48165). Additional funding for this project was provided by the National Institute on
Drug Abuse, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, and the Iowa Agriculture
and Home Economics Experiment Station (Project No. 3320). Please direct all correspondence
to Leslie Gordon Simons, Department of Child and Family Development,University of Georgia,
Athens, GA 30602; e-mail: lgsimons@uga.edu.
competing claims are then tested using data from a sample of several hundred
African American families.
The Marriage Perspective
What we label the marriage perspective rests on the assumption that chil-
dren are most likely to display healthy growth and development when they
are raised by married parents (Clayton, Mincy, & Blankenhorn, 2003;
Doherty & Anderson, 2004; Marriage Movement, 2004; Waite, 2001). A
household containing both a husband and wife is seen as the most favorable
living arrangement for children. Other household structures are seen as less
conducive to children’s well-being. Thus, if this perspective is correct, chil-
dren living with either both biological parents or one biological parent and a
stepparent should show fewer adjustment problems than those being raised
by a single parent or by two adults such as a mother and grandmother. Presi-
dent Bush’s marriage initiative is based on this perspective.
Although some social scientists sympathetic to the marriage initiative dis-
agree, supporters of the Bush administration and some among the religious
right assert that it is only marriage between a man and a woman that is benefi-
cial to children. Gay and lesbian families are seen as detrimental to child
development. Indeed, the administration is adamantly opposed to the very
idea of same-sex marriage and has threatened to pursue a constitutional
amendment to prevent such unions.
Supporters of the marriage perspective have provided three reasons for
expecting that children will do better when they live with married parents.
First, two-parent households are much less likely to be poor (Clayton et al.,
2003; Doherty & Anderson, 2004; Seccombe, 2000; White & Rogers, 2000).
Because men generally earn more money than women, families that include
a husband are likely to have a greater income than those who do not (e.g., a
single mother, a mother living with her mother or sister). This income advan-
tage would hold whether the husband was the child’s biological father or
stepfather.
Second, supporters of the marriage perspective contend that the quality of
parenting is likely to be higher in two-parent families because of the assis-
tance and encouragement that spouses provide to each other (Amato, 2001;
Simons, Lorenz, Wu, & Conger, 1993). It is assumed that mutual support
within the marriage enhances the ability of each of the parents to cope with
stress, including the demands of parenting. Furthermore, spouses may rein-
force their partner’s parental authority and influence (Thomson,
McLanahan, & Curtin, 1992) or step in and relieve a partner who is becoming
impatient or frustrated with the child.
Simons et al. / Parent Practices 805
Last, it is assumed that a married husband and wife are best able to provide
the emotional support and life lessons necessary for a child’s psychosocial
development. Children in such households have an opportunity to form close
interpersonal relationships with adults of both genders and to learn from their
parents’ marriage about heterosexual love and commitment. Thus, although
it is assumed that a portion of the benefit of residing with two married adults
is explained by the higher income and quality of parenting associated with
such households, a two-parent family is seen as having an advantage beyond
these two factors. It contributes valuable life lessons that are unavailable in
family forms that either contain only one gender or lack a committed roman-
tic relationship.
Past research provides mixed support for the marriage perspective. Con-
sistent with this viewpoint, a large body of research indicates that children
living in a single-parent household display more adjustment problems than
those residing in an intact family (Amato, 2001). Contrary to the perspective,
however, several studies have reported that children living in stepparent fam-
ilies show higher rates of maladjustment than those in intact families
(Coleman, Ganong, & Fine, 2001). Indeed, risk for conduct problems among
stepchildren appears to be roughly comparable to that reported for those liv-
ing with a single parent (Coleman et al., 2001). To date, we have little infor-
mation regarding how child adjustment in intact nuclear or stepfamilies com-
pares to that in mother-grandmother or mother–other relative families. This
issue is addressed in the present study.
Past research has also provided mixed support for the reasons, or mediat-
ing processes, that are assumed to account for the better adjustment of chil-
dren living with married parents. Consistent with the marriage perspective,
there is strong evidence that intact nuclear and stepfamilies tend to have
higher incomes than single-parent families do (Seccombe, 2000; White &
Rogers, 2000). Furthermore, a wide variety of studies have reported that sin-
gle mothers, whether divorced or never married, tend to provide less moni-
toring, discipline, and control than those in intact nuclear families (Capaldi
& Patterson, 1991; Hetherington, Cox, & Cox, 1982; McLanahan &
Sandefur, 1994; Simons, Conger, Lorenz, & Whitbeck, 1996; Thomson
et al., 1992). Finally, there is little evidence that the quality of parenting pro-
vided by remarried mothers differs from that displayed by mothers in intact
nuclear families. Following remarriage, mothers tend to manifest levels of
authoritative parenting roughly comparable to that displayed in their first
marriage (Bray & Berger, 1993; Hetherington, 1993; Hetherington & Jodl,
1994). Most of this research, however, has focused on European American
families, and it does not tell us whether the parenting of mothers in intact
806 Journal of Family Issues
nuclear or stepfamilies differs from that in mother-grandmother or mother–
other relative households.
A few studies have examined the parenting of stepfathers compared to
biological fathers in intact nuclear families (Anderson, DePaulo, Sternglanz,
& Walker, 1999; Brand, Clingempeel, & Bowen-Woodward, 1988; Bray &
Berger, 1993; Hetherington, 1993; Hetherington & Jodl, 1994; Kurdek &
Fine, 1993). Contrary to the marriage perspective, this research reports that
stepfathers tend to show less warmth, monitoring, and discipline than
nondivorced, biological fathers. Although these findings indicate that stepfa-
thers are less involved in parenting than fathers in intactnuclear families, we
have little information regarding how the parenting of fathers and stepfathers
compares to that provided by grandmothers or some other adult relative that
may reside with the mother.
The marriage perspective is also contradicted by a number of studies that
find no difference in the quality of parenting or the well-being of children
reared by gay partners compared to those raised by heterosexual couples
(Stacey & Biblarz, 2001). This result is contrary to the belief that a commit-
ted heterosexual relationship is the optimal environment for child well-being
and suggests that perhaps it is simply the presence of two caregivers within
the household that facilitates healthy child development. This idea is the
position of the next perspective on family structure and child rearing.
The Two-Caregivers Perspective
The second viewpoint contends that children do best when they are raised
by two rather than a single caregiver (Dornbusch et al., 1985; Patterson,
2000; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; Thomson et al., 1992). Child rearing, espe-
cially during adolescence, is seen as a difficult task that is best accomplished
by two caregivers. It makes no difference whether the two caregivers are hus-
band and wife, mother and grandmother, biological parent and a stepparent,
two same-sex partners, or some other two-adult arrangement. They are
viewed as functionally equivalent approaches to raising children that provide
for better child outcomes than is typically seen in single-parent families
(Dornbusch et al., 1985).
The presence of a second caregiver is seen as important for two reasons.
First, secondary caregivers often reinforce the parental authority of the
mother (Dornbusch et al., 1985; Murry, Bynum, Brody, Willert, & Stephens,
2001; Thomson et al., 1992). This is important, as there is often a blurring of
generational boundaries and a weakening of parental authority in single-
parent families (Nock, 1988). By respecting and supporting the mother’s
Simons et al. / Parent Practices 807
parenting decisions, the secondary caregiver enhances the mother’s parental
influence and control. Second, secondary caregivers frequently facilitate
child development by enacting the role of parent. They may relieve the
mother when she becomes impatient or frustrated with the child, or serve as
the parent on duty when the mother is away from the home.
In many ways, the perspective of two caregivers is similar to the marriage
perspective in its arguments regarding the benefits of two parenting figures
within the household. The marriage perspective, however, contends that any
improvements in parenting and child development are limited to situations in
which the caregivers are a husband and wife. The two-caregivers perspective,
on the other hand, contends that the quality of parenting and child adjustment
are enhanced whenever there are two adults functioning as parents, regard-
less of their gender or relationship to each other. To the extent that the latter
view is correct, the quality of parenting and child adjustment should be
roughly comparable in all households containing two caregivers and should
be superior to parenting and outcomes in single-parent families.
Only a handful of studies have compared child adjustment in single-
mother families to that in various types of two-caregiver households. Kellam,
Ensminger, and Turner (1977) reported that children residing with both their
parents or with their mother and grandmother showed better social adapta-
tion than those living with just their mother. They found little difference in
child adjustment, however, between stepfamilies and single-mother house-
holds. Dornbusch et al. (1985) assessed behavior problems among children
in three types of families: intact two-parent, single mother alone, and single
mother residing with her extended family. Problem behavior was highest in
households in which the single mother lived alone. Children in two-parent
families had the fewest problems, but those residing in an extended house-
hold did almost as well. Unfortunately, their analyses did not include
stepfamilies, and the researchers were unable to determine the exact compo-
sition of the extended households. Thus, they could not examine the manner
in which child adjustment in single-mother and two-parent families com-
pares to that in stepfamilies, mother-grandmother families, or some other
type of two-caregiver arrangement.
Finally, Zimmerman, Salem, and Maton (1995) compared five-family
constellations (single mother, stepparent, two-parent, mother with extended
family, and extended family only). They found no differences in levels of ado-
lescent substance use, delinquency, or psychological well-being across fam-
ily structure. Their finding that children in single-mother families do not dif-
fer in adjustment from those in two-parent families is contrary to the results
of scores of other studies. This aberrant finding may be a function of the fact
808 Journal of Family Issues
that they did not use a random sample and that there were very few cases for
some of the family types.
Although there has been very little research regarding the manner in
which the quality of parenting provided by mothers varies by the type of sec-
ondary caregiver, a few studies have compared the parental behavior of sin-
gle African American mothers to that of African American mothers who live
with their mothers. These studies show mixed results. Although some find
that single mothers demonstrate better parenting skills when they live with
their mother (Wilson, 1997), most report that coresidence and high levels of
grandmother involvement are associated with lower quality parenting by the
single mother (Black & Nitz, 1996; Chase-Lansdale, Brooks-Gunn, &
Zamsky, 1994; Oyserman, Radin, & Saltz, 1994; Unger & Cooley, 1992).
This suggests that the effect of a secondary caregiver may vary by his or
her status in relation to the mother. Earlier, we cited evidence suggesting that
husbands may enhance the quality of parenting provided by their wife.
Grandmothers, on the other hand, have served as an authority figure to the
mother, and their presence within the home may undermine the mother’s
ability to assume the role of parent with her own child. To the extent that this
is true, the detrimental effect of grandmother coresidence should be most
evident when the mother is young and still somewhat under the control and
influence of her mother. Indeed, virtually all the studies of the impact of
grandmother coresidence have focused on teen mothers of infants and tod-
dlers. The target children in the present study are fifth graders, and their
mothers average 36 years of age. One would expect these women to have
achieved an adult relationship with their mothers. In such circumstances, the
grandmother’s coresidence may exert a more salutary influence on her
daughter’s parenting.
Although past studies have compared the quality of parenting provided by
mothers in intact nuclear families to that provided by single mothers, there
has been little investigation of the manner in which the parenting of mothers
in intact nuclear families compares to that displayed by remarried mothers or
mothers living with either their own mother or another relative. And although
past research has examined the parenting of single mothers compared to that
demonstrated by mothers residing with their own mothers, we know little
about how the parenting of mothers living with their mother differs from that
provided by remarried mothers or those living with another adult relative.
Furthermore, there has been little investigation of the differences that may
exist in the parenting behavior of different categories of secondary care-
givers. The exception is research comparing the parenting of biological
fathers to that of stepfathers. We noted earlier that most of these studies
report that stepfathers show less warmth, monitoring, and discipline than
Simons et al. / Parent Practices 809
biological fathers. In addition to such comparisons, however, a test of the
two-caregivers perspective requires examination of how the parenting of
fathers and stepfathers compares to that provided by grandmothers or some
other adult relative that may reside with the mother.
Evolutionary Psychology
Evolutionary psychology (also known as sociobiology) is concerned with
the manner in which genetic and hormonal factors account for differences in
the behavior of men and women (Booth, Carver, & Granger, 2001; Buss,
2000; Geary, 2000). It emphasizes the fact that over time genetic propensities
that provide a reproductive advantage become dominant within the popula-
tion (Symons & Ellis, 1989). Two components of this perspective are partic-
ularly relevant to the issue of parental behavior and child adjustment.
First, the theory predicts that males will be more invested in their own
children than in children fathered by someone else. This is a consequence of
the fact that there is no reproductive advantage to raising someone else’s
child. Men who are genetically predisposed to doing so are less likely to
reproduce than those who are concerned with procreating and raising their
own offspring. Furthermore, although women can be sure that the child that
they give birth to is theirs, it more difficult for men to establish paternity. Men
who are more obsessive and jealous about paternity are more likely to repro-
duce than those who are lackadaisical about such matters. The bottom line,
according to the theory, is that men are predisposed to care about their own
offspring, but they are not vested in children fathered by others. This means,
contrary to the marriage perspective, that biological fathers will be signifi-
cantly more involved in the role of parent than stepfathers.
Second, given hormonal differences, the theory suggests that women are
likely to be better parents than men. The hormone testosterone has been asso-
ciated with male aggressiveness, whereas the hormone progesterone has
been associated with female nurturing behavior. Indeed, when female rats or
monkeys are given large doses of testosterone, they become more aggressive,
whereas male rats and monkeys become more nurturing when they are
injected with large doses of progesterone (Arnold, 1980; Goy & McEwen,
1980). These findings are seen as evidence that regardless of cultural condi-
tioning, women are biologically programmed to be more nurturing than
males are. If this is true, female secondary caregivers should display higher
quality parenting skills than male secondary caregivers. In other words,
female secondary caregivers, such as grandmothers, aunts, and adult sisters,
should provide better parenting than fathers, stepfathers, grandfathers, or
uncles.
810 Journal of Family Issues
At first glance, it appears that research on parenting and child adjustment in
intact nuclear families versus stepfamilies supports evolutionary theory. Ear-
lier, we reviewed studies reporting that biological fathers tend to be more
involved in parenting than stepfathers (Anderson et al., 1999; Brand et al.,
1988; Bray & Berger,1993; Hetherington, 1993; Hetherington & Jodl, 1994;
Kurdek & Fine, 1993) and that children tend to show better adjustment in
intact nuclear families than in stepfamilies. However, there may be explana-
tions for these findings other than those suggested by evolutionary theory.
Past research reports that stepparents often lack parental legitimacy in the
eyes of stepchildren. Hence, stepchildren tend to resist the parenting efforts
of stepparents. It may be this resistance, rather than a lack of emotional
investment, that compromises the efficacy of stepparents.
One can begin to tease out which explanation is correct by examining the
extent to which controlling for quality of fathers’ parenting eliminates the
differences in child adjustment between intact nuclear families and step-
families. Evolutionary theory suggests that stepchildren do not do as well as
those in intact nuclear families because stepfathers are less invested in the
role of parent than biological fathers are. Therefore, the theory is supported if
controlling for differences in parenting between biological and stepfathers
eradicates discrepancies in child adjustment between the two family types. It
may be, however, that a large difference in child adjustment continues to
exist after controlling for father’s parenting. This finding would suggest that
stepchildren are unresponsive to the quality of parenting exhibited by stepfa-
thers. Such a result would be consistent with the idea that children resist the
parenting efforts of stepfathers because they are not accepted as legitimate
parenting figures.
We are not aware of any tests of evolutionary theory’s contention that
women are more nurturing and involved parents than men are. Past research
has established that in most marriages, parenting is fundamentally the
domain of the wife (LaRossa, 1986). Men are often less involved than their
wives in the daily care and supervision of the children (Lamb, 1977; Parke,
1981; Simons, Beaman, Conger, & Chao, 1992), and they tend to see them-
selves as cast in a supporting role in which their responsibility is to provide
assistance to the primary parent, the mother (Barnett & Baruch, 1988;
LaRossa, 1986; Nock & Kingston, 1988). It is not clear, however, if these sex
differences hold when other types of caregivers are included.
The Present Study
The present study is an attempt to test these three perspectives on family
structure, parenting, and child adjustment. As noted earlier, we include five
Simons et al. / Parent Practices 811
types of families: intact nuclear, stepparent, mother-grandmother, mother-
relative, and single-mother households. We investigate the extent to which
the parenting provided by mothers and secondary caregivers differs across
these various types of families. Furthermore, within each type of household,
we compare the quality of parenting provided by mothers to that provided by
the secondary caregiver.
Past research has shown that authoritative parenting benefits children in
single-parent, intact nuclear, and stepparent families (Hetherington, 1993;
Hetherington & Jodl, 1994). Thus, we compare the parenting behavior of the
mothers and secondary caregivers in the five types of families using four
components of authoritative parenting—monitoring, consistent discipline,
inductive reasoning, and communication. In addition, we use a global mea-
sure of parenting that is a composite of the four parental behaviors.
Finally, we test for family structure differences in child adjustment and
examine the extent to which any disparities found are explained by family
structure variations in the parenting practices. Conduct problems is used as
our indicator of child adjustment. This is the outcome most often used in
prior studies of family structure differences in child adjustment (Amato &
Keith, 1991; McLanahan & Booth, 1989; McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994;
Simons, Lin, Gordon, Conger, & Lorenz, 1999).
Method
Sample
This study is based on data from the Family and Community Health
Study, a multisite investigation of neighborhood and family effects on the
health and development of African American children (see Simons et al.,
2002). The sample consists of 867 African American families, 467 in Iowa
and 400 in Georgia. Families were recruited from neighborhoods that varied
on demographic characteristics, specifically racial composition (percentage
of African Americans) and economic level (percentage of families withchil-
dren living below the poverty line). Block groups were used to identify
neighborhoods. Using 1990 census data, block groups were identified in
both Iowa and Georgia in which the percentage of African American families
was high enough to make recruitment economically practical (10% or
higher) and in which the percentage of families with children living below
the poverty line ranged from 10% to 100%.
Most families of this study were recruited by telephone. However, after
repeated unsuccessful attempts to make telephone contact, or if a potential
812 Journal of Family Issues
participant did not have a telephone, a staff member attempted to make face-
to-face contact. If the potential participant was no longer at the address, we
asked neighbors for information regarding their new address. Interviews
were completed with 67% of eligible families. Each participating family
included a child who was 10 to 12 years of age (mean = 10.5) at the time of
recruitment. This age was selected to obtain data on the target children just
prior to the onset of puberty. Interviews were conducted with the target child,
his or her primary caregiver, and a secondary caregiver when one was present
in the home.
A primary caregiver was defined as a person living in the same household
as the target child and who was responsible for the majority of the child’s
care. Most (84%) of the primary caregivers were the target child’s biological
mother (6% were the child’s father, 6% were the child’s grandmother). Their
mean age was 37.1 years and ranged from 23 to 80 years. They reported an
average of 4.5 children living in their homes. Education ranged from less
than high school (19%) to advanced graduate degrees (3%). The mode was a
high school degree (41%). Ninety-two percent of the primary caregivers
identified themselves as African American. The remaining 8% identified
themselves as ethnically mixed or belonging to another ethnic group. Seventy-
one percent were employed full-time or part-time, 15% were unemployed,
6% were disabled, and 5% were full-time homemakers. Median income for
the study families was $24,379. There was no significant difference in
income or education of the primary caregiver between the Iowa and Georgia
subsamples.
Slightly more than half of the families also had a secondary caregiver.
Thirty-five percent were the target child’s biological father, 19% were the
child’s stepfather, 12% were the child’s grandmother, and the remainder rep-
resented a variety of other relationships (e.g., aunt, grandfather). Full-time or
part-time employment was reported by 75% of the participants. Some col-
lege or college degree was held by 29%. Fifty-four percent of the target chil-
dren were female. Respondents were reimbursed for participating in the
study. Caregivers received $100, and target children received $70.
Only five types of family structures had enough families to be included in
our multivariate analyses (viz., single mother, intact two-parent, mother-
grandmother, mother-sister, and stepfamily). Each of the other types of
households had fewer than 20 families and had to be excluded. This included
households constituted by a single father, a mother cohabitating with a boy-
friend, gay or lesbian couples, a grandmother and grandfather, or a mother
and grandfather. In addition, 86 families had to be excluded because of
missing data. The analyses presented below are based on the remaining 677
families.
Simons et al. / Parent Practices 813
Procedures
Before data collection began, four focus groups in Georgia and four in
Iowa examined and critiqued the self-report instruments. Each group was
composed of 10 African American women who lived in neighborhoods simi-
lar to those from which the study participants were recruited. Group mem-
bers suggested modification of items that they perceived to be culturally
insensitive, intrusive, or unclear. After the focus groups’ revisions were
incorporated into the instruments, the protocol was pilot tested on 16 fami-
lies, 8 from each site. Researchers took extensive notes on the pilot test par-
ticipants’ reactions to the questionnaires and offered suggestions for further
changes. The focus groups and pilot tests did not indicate a need for changes
in any of the instruments used in the present article.
To enhance rapport and cultural understanding, African American univer-
sity students and community members served as field researchers to collect
data from families in their homes. Prior to data collection, the researchers
received 40 hours of formal training in the administration of the self-report
instruments. Two home visits, each of which lasted 2 hours, were made to
each family. The second visit usually occurred within 7 days of the first visit.
During the first visit, informed consent was obtained; primary caregivers
consented to their own and their children’s participation, and the children
agreed to participate.
At each home visit, self-report questionnaires were administered in an
interview format to the caregiver, the child, and a secondary caregiver if such
a person lived in the household. Each interview was conducted privately
between one participant and one researcher, with no other family members
present. The instruments were presented on laptop computers. Questions
appeared in sequence on the screen, which both the interviewer and partici-
pant could see. The interviewer read each question aloud and entered the par-
ticipant’s response using the computer keypad.
Measures
To reduce the problem of social desirability and avoid the problem of
inflated associations because of shared method variance, child reports were
used to assess the parenting practices of mothers and secondary caregivers,
whereas mother reports were used to measure children’s conduct problems.
Parenting practices. Four dimensions of parenting were assessed using
scales developed for the Iowa Youth and Families Project (see Conger et al.,
1992) and the Iowa Single Parent Project (Simons, Johnson, Beaman, Con-
ger, & Whitbeck, 1996). These scales have well-established validity and reli-
814 Journal of Family Issues
ability and have been used in the analyses presented in more than a hundred
published articles. In the present study, all of the scales were supported by
confirmatory factor analysis and had an alpha coefficient of at least .65.
There are five items in the Monitoring Scale (e.g., “How often does your
mother know who you are with when you are away from home?”), four items
in the Consistent Discipline Scale (e.g., “How often does your mother punish
you for something at one time and then at other times not punish you for the
same thing?”), five items in the Inductive Reasoning Scale (e.g., “How often
does your mother discipline you by reasoning, explaining, or talking to
you?”), and four items in the Communication Scale (e.g., “When you and
your mother have a problem, how often can the two of you figure out how to
deal with it?”). The response format for all of these items ranged from 1
(never)to5(always). The target children first answered these questions as
they relate to the care provided by their mother and then completed the items
again for any secondary caregiver living in the household. In addition to
treating each scale as an independent measure, we standardized and summed
the scores for each of the four scales to form a composite assessment of qual-
ity of parenting. Coefficient alpha was above .60 for each scale and the
composite parenting measure.
Conduct problems. This construct was measured using primary caregiver
reports on the conduct disorder section of the Diagnostic Interview Schedule
for Children, Version 4. It covers the Diagnostic Statistical Manual–IV
(American Psychiatric Association, 1994) criteria for diagnoses. This instru-
ment was developed by National Institute of Mental Health researchers, has
demonstrated reliability and validity, and has been used in several large-scale
epidemiological studies (Shaffer et al., 1993). The conduct disorder section
contains a series of questions regarding how often during the preceding year
the respondent engaged in various deviant acts such as shoplifting, physical
assault, lying, setting fires, cruelty to animals, vandalism, burglary, and
robbery. Coefficient alpha for the 26-item instrument was .93.
Results
Table 1 presents the demographic characteristics of the various types of
families. The table shows that the age and educational attainment of the
mothers was similar across each of the family structures. On average, the
women were in their mid-30s. The mean level of education was slightly
beyond high school, with those in intact nuclear families showing the highest
(13.25 years) and single mothers showing the lowest (12.61 years) level of
educational attainment. The table shows that the educational level of the sec-
Simons et al. / Parent Practices 815
ondary caregivers was roughly comparable to that of the mothers. Grand-
mothers are an exception, as their average level of educational attainment is
11th grade. The mean number of children is approximately three in each of
the family types.
Contrary to the similarities evident for the other demographic characteris-
tics, Table 1 shows rather dramatic family structure differences in income.
Intact nuclear households have the highest average incomes, and mother-
stepfather families have the second highest average incomes. Median income
is $45,376 and $35,197 in the two types of households, respectively. As one
would expect, single-mother households have the lowest average income.
The median income of $18,884 is well below that for the other family
structures.
Table 2 presents the results of a series of ANOVA to compare the mean
parenting practices of secondary caregivers in different types of families.
Although the table shows no significant difference between the various types
of secondary caregivers with regard to consistent discipline, the table shows
that fathers and grandmothers provide greater monitoring, engage in more
effective communication, and score higher on the global parenting measure
than stepfathers do. In all cases, the quality of parenting provided by grand-
mothers was very comparable to that provided by fathers. In most cases,step-
fathers score the lowest with other relatives also scoring low.
Table 2 also provides the results of a series of ANOVA to compare mean
parenting scores of mothers living in different family structures. Although
the table shows small variations in parenting across the different types of
families, none of these differences achieve statistical significance. The table
also allows one to compare the quality of parenting provided by mothers to
that offered by the various types of secondary caregivers. In no instance did
816 Journal of Family Issues
Table 1
Demographic Characteristics for the Various Types of Families
Secondary M
Mother Caregiver Family no. of
Family Type Age Education Age Education Income Children
Mother-father (N= 188) 37.86 13.25 40.28 13.02 45,376 3.22
Mother-stepfather (N= 89) 34.10 12.66 35.08 12.53 35,197 3.31
Mother-grandmother (N= 53) 34.51 12.49 58.44 11.23 29,385 2.87
Mother-relative (N= 52) 37.90 12.38 32.24 12.16 27,394 3.21
Single mother (N= 295) 35.94 12.26 — — 18,884 3.16
Mean 35.94 12.61 40.46 12.56 31,247 3.18
817
Table 2
Results of ANOVA Comparing Mean Parenting Scores of Mothers and
Secondary Caregivers (SCs) in Different Types of Families
I. Mother- II. Mother- III. Mother- IV. Mother- V. Single Significance Significant
Father Stepfather Grandmother Relative Mother of ANOVA Paired Comparisons
Monitoring
Mother 16.56 16.76* 15.71* 16.88* 16.91 p= .074 none
SC 16.98 14.35 17.58 14.12 — p≤.001 I > II and IV; III > II and IV
Consistent discipline
Mother 18.01 17.76 17.67 17.49 17.53 p= .40 none
SC 17.86 17.49 17.68 16.89 — p= .210 none
Inductive reasoning
Mother 14.13 13.81* 14.34 14.61* 14.16 p= .862 none
SC 14.11 12.61 14.17 12.90 — p= .003 I > II and IV; III > II and IV
Problem solving
Mother 13.17 12.82* 13.10 12.73 13.20 p= .293 none
SC 12.96 11.94 12.97 12.27 — p≤.001 I > II; III > II
Summary parenting score
Mother 71.87 70.69* 71.22 71.13* 71.48 p= .793 none
SC 71.67 67.12 71.86 66.79 — p≤.001 I > II and IV; III > II and IV
*Mother’s score significantly different than that of the secondary caregiver, p≤.01.
the parenting demonstrated by mothers differ significantly from that mani-
fested by fathers. Mothers score significantly higher on monitoring than
grandmothers do; score higher on monitoring, inductive reasoning, and the
composite parenting measure than other relatives do; and score higher on
monitoring, inductive reasoning, problem solving, and the composite parent-
ing measure than stepfathers do.
Table 3 provides the results of using ANOVA, comparing mean child con-
duct problem scores adjusted for covariates. Controlling for gender, children
in nuclear families, mother-grandmother families, and mother-relative fami-
lies showed significantly fewer behavior problems than those living in step-
father or single-mother families. These family structure differences remain-
ed even after income and quality of mother’s parenting were entered as
controls. Furthermore, the difference between children in stepfather families
and those in intact, nuclear mother-grandmother and mother-relative fami-
lies remained after controlling for quality of secondary caregiver’s parenting.
This indicates that family structure differences in child behavior problems
are not merely a consequence of household disparities in the child-rearing
practices of caregivers.
Discussion
We identified three viewpoints regarding the effect of family structure on
child adjustment: the marriage, the two caregivers, and the evolutionary psy-
chology perspectives. Our findings provided mixed support for each point of
view, although the two caregivers perspective received the strongest support.
First, we found that child behavior problems were no greater in either
mother-grandmother or mother-relative families than in those in intact
nuclear families. In terms of risk for child behavior problems, these family
forms seemed to be functionally equivalent. Past research has focused on the
advantages for young, single mothers when grandmothers assist with child
care (Burton & Jarrett, 2000). There has been little investigation of the extent
to which children benefit from this arrangement. Our results suggest that
grandmothers and other relatives can serve as effective substitutes when a
father is not present. This result supports the two-caregivers perspective and
is contrary to the marriage viewpoint. We also found, however, that children
in single-mother households and stepparent families show more conduct
problems than those in the other types of households. The finding that chil-
dren in stepfamilies do no better than those in single-mother households con-
tradicts both the marriage and the two-parent perspectives.
Our findings indicate that mothers provide similar quality of parenting
regardless of family structure. This result is contrary to the marriage perspec-
818 Journal of Family Issues
819
Table 3
Results of ANOVA Comparing Mean Child Conduct Problem Scores Adjusted for Covariates
I. Mother- II. Mother- III. Mother- IV. Mother- V. Single Significance
Covariates Father Stepfather Grandmother Relative Mother of ANOVA Significant Paired Comparisons
Model 1: gender 1.04 2.25 1.27 1.02 2.10 p≤.001 I < II and V; IV < II and V;
III < II and V
Model 2: gender, income 1.05 2.26 1.26 1.02 2.09 p≤.001 I < II and V; IV < II and V;
III < II and V
Model 3: gender, income, 1.09 2.10 1.34 1.00 2.02 p≤.001 I < II and V; IV < II
mother’s parenting
Model 4: gender, income, 1.13 2.16 1.34 1.00 .— I < II; IV < II
mother’s parenting,
SC parenting
tive’s contention that married mothers engage in higher quality parenting
than unmarried mothers do because of the emotional and instrumental sup-
port they receive from spouses. It is also at variance with past studies that
have reported that single mothers engage in less monitoring and control than
married mothers do (McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994; Simons, Conger, et al.,
1996). Most of these studies, however, have focused on White samples. It
may be, that such family structure differences do not exist in African Ameri-
can families in which mother-headed households are more common.
The quality of parenting provided by mothers was generally superior to
that proffered by secondary caregivers. Biological fathers were an exception
to this finding. There were no significant differences between mothers and
biological fathers on any of the dimensions of parenting assessed in this
study. This finding is contrary to evolutionary theory, which contends that
females are by nature more nurturing and caring than males are.
In contrast to mothers, secondary caregivers showed significant variation
in the quality of parenting. Fathers and grandmothers scored the best, stepfa-
thers the worst, and other relatives fell in between. This pattern of results
appears to support evolutionary psychology. The fact that grandmothers
were more involved in child rearing than stepfathers is consistent with the
theory’s contention that women are by nature more nurturing than men. And
the finding that biological fathers engage in more competent parenting than
stepfathers supports the theory’s claim that men are biologically pro-
grammed to only care about their own offspring.
An interesting finding, however, was that these discrepancies in parenting
did not explain family structure differences in child behavior problems.
Indeed, family structure differences in child adjustment remained largely
unchanged after controlling for the parenting of the secondary caregiver.
This indicates that it is not the stepfathers’ low involvement in child-rearing
activities that explains the poor performance of children in stepfamilies. The
fact that a large difference in child adjustment continues to exist after control-
ling for disparities in the child-rearing practices of biological and stepfathers
suggests that stepchildren may be unresponsive to the quality of parenting
exhibited by stepfathers. Such an inference is consistent with the idea that
children resist the parenting efforts of stepfathers because they are not
accepted as legitimate parenting figures. Past research reports that steppar-
ents often lack parental legitimacy in the eyes of stepchildren (Coleman
et al., 2001; Fine, Ganong, & Coleman, 1997). Hence, stepchildren tend to
resist the parenting efforts of stepfathers because they do not consider them
to be legitimate parental figures. It may be this resistance, rather than a lack
of emotional investment in the child, that compromises the child-rearing
activities of stepparents. If this is true, it is social processes, rather than the
820 Journal of Family Issues
biological factors cited by evolutionary theory, that account for the parenting
practices of stepfathers and the conduct problems of stepchildren.
At a more general theoretical level, our findings add to the debate about
the importance of family structure versus family process in explaining child
development. Our results suggest that for our African American sample,
family structure exerts an influence beyond its association with quality of
parenting. We believe that our findings provide support for two general con-
clusions regarding this family structure effect. First, the number of caregivers
is important. For this reason, children in single-mother households have the
poorest outcomes. When mothers have help and support from a secondary
caregiver, child outcomes are more positive. The help of the secondary care-
giver does not affect the quality of parenting on the part of the mother as evi-
denced by the fact that there was no difference in the quality of mothers’
parenting across the various types of families. Rather, it must be the presence
of an additional person engaging in monitoring, disciplining, and assisting
the child that is important. In other words, it is the presence of a second
caregiver that is important.
Second, our findings suggest that the relationship of the secondary care-
giver to the child is consequential. Although children generally do best when
there are two rather than a single caregiver in the household, stepfathers seem
to be an exception to this rule. We believe this is because stepfathers often
lack the acceptance necessary to effectively monitor, reason, and discipline
their wife’s children. Indeed, clinicians have suggested that a detached style
of parenting may be necessary to improve relations with stepchildren, and
research has demonstrated that stepfathers with this style of parenting do
have better relationships with their stepchildren (Hetherington, 1987). Fur-
thermore, stepchildren have less positive views of stepfathers who attempt to
carry out the role of disciplinarian (Claxton-Oldfield, 1992).
It is important to note, however, that with the passage of time, stepfathers
usually become a more accepted member of the family (Coleman et al., 2001;
Fine et al., 1997). As this takes place, their legitimacy as parents and disci-
plinarians is apt to increase. Thus, with time, the quality of the stepparent-
stepchild relationship is likely to improve, and this development, in turn, is
likely to enhance the ability of the stepfather to parent effectively. To the
extent that this takes place, child outcomes in stepfamilies might be expected
to improve with time. This expectation is consistent with the research report-
ing improved outcomes for children in stepfather households when children
have a positive relationship with the stepfather (White & Gilbreth, 2001).
Unfortunately, the present study included only five types of households.
Future research needs to include a broader array of family structures. It is
especially important that single-father, cohabitating heterosexual, and gay
Simons et al. / Parent Practices 821
and lesbian households be included, given the prevalence of these family
types in contemporary society. Also, future studies need to address issues
beyond the scope of the present study. For example, there has been no investi-
gation of the effect of the relationship between the mother and the secondary
caregiver on the child-rearing practices of the secondary caregiver. Further-
more, no studies have examined the extent to which the child-rearing prac-
tices of secondary caregivers are encouraged and reinforced by the mother.
Finally, although we find that the quality of stepfathers’ parenting is lower
than that of other secondary caregivers, their efficacy may increase with
time.
Given that diverse family forms are an inevitable feature in American
society, more research is needed on family processes and child outcomes in
various household types. The results from the present study provide evidence
that children can have positive outcomes when reared in households other
than the cultural ideal of the intact nuclear family. Given that a minority of
American families fit this model, this is good news indeed.
References
Amato, P. R. (2001). Children of divorce in the 1990s: An update of the Amato and Keith (1991)
meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology,15(3), 355-370.
Amato, P. R., & Keith, B. (1991). Parental divorce and the well-being of children: A meta-
analysis. Psychological Bulletin,110, 26-46.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disor-
ders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Anderson, D. E., DePaulo, B. M., Sternglanz, W., & Walker, M. (1999, June). Eagle-eyed or
starry-eyed? Deception detection in close relationships. Paper presented at the meeting of
the International Network on Personal Relationships, Louisville, KY.
Arnold, A. P.(1980, March/April). Sexual differences in the brain. American Scientist, 165-173.
Barnett, R. C., & Baruch, G. K. (1988). Correlates of fathers’ participation in family work. In
P. Bronstein & C. P. Cowan (Eds.), Fatherhood today: Men’s changing rolein the family (pp.
66-78). New York: John Wiley.
Black, M. M., & Nitz, K. (1996). Grandmother co-residence, parenting, and child development
among low income, urban teen mothers. Journal of Adolescent Health,18, 218-226.
Booth, A., Carver, K., & Granger, D. A. (2001). Biosocial perspectives on the family. In R. M.
Milardo (Ed.), Understanding families into the new millennium: A decade in review (pp.
237-253). Lawrence, KS: National Council on Family Relations.
Brand, E. W., Clingempeel, G., & Bowen-Woodward, K. (1988). Family relationships and chil-
dren’s psychological adjustment in stepmother and stepfather families. In E. M. Hethering-
ton & J. Arestah (Eds.), Impact of divorce, single parenting and stepparenting on children
(pp. 299-324). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bray, J. H., & Berger, S. H. (1993). Nonresidential parent-child relationships following divorce
and remarriage: A longitudinal perspective. In C. E. Depner & J.H. Bray (Eds.), Nonresiden-
tial parenting: New vistas in family living (pp. 156-181). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
822 Journal of Family Issues
Burton, L. M., & Jarrett, R. L. (2000). In the mix, yet on the margins: The place of families in
urban neighborhood and child development research. Journal of Marriage and Family,62,
1114-1135.
Buss, D. M. (2000). Prescription for passion. Psychology Today,3, 54-61.
Capaldi, D. M., & Patterson, G. R. (1991). Relations of parental transitions to boys’adjustment
problems: I. A linear hypothesis. II. Mothers at risk for transitions and unskilled parenting.
Developmental Psychology,27, 489-504.
Chase-Lansdale, P. L., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Zamsky, E. S. (1994). Young African-American
multigenerational families in poverty: Quality of mothering and grandmothering. Child
Development,65, 373-393.
Claxton-Oldfield, S. (1992). Perceptions of stepfathers: Disciplinary and affectionate behavior.
Journal of Family Issues,3, 378-389.
Clayton, O., Mincy, R. B., & Blankenhorn, D. (2003). Conclusions. InO. Clayton, R. B. Mincy,
& D. Blankehorn (Eds.), Black fathers in contemporary American society (pp. 333-354).
New York: Russell Sage.
Coleman, M., Ganong, L., & Fine, M. (2001). Reinvestigating remarriage: Another decade of
progress. In R. M. Milardo (Ed.), Understanding families into the new millennium: A decade
in review (pp. 507-526). Lawrence, KS: National Council on Family Relations.
Conger, R. D., Conger, K. J., Elder, G. H., Jr., Lorenz, R. O. Simons, R. L., & Whitbeck, L. B.
(1992). Family economic stress and adjustment of early adolescent girls. Developmental
Psychology,29, 206-219.
Doherty, W. J., & Anderson, J. R. (2004). Why marriage matters: Twenty one conclusions from
the social sciences. New York: Institute for American Values.
Dornbusch, S. M., Carlsmith, J. M., Bushwall, S. J., Ritter, P. L., Leiderman, H., Hastorf, A. H.,
et al. (1985). Single parents, extended households, and the control of adolescents. Child
Development,56, 326-341.
Fields, J., & Kasper, L. M. (2001).America’s families and living arrangements. In CurrentPopu-
lation Reports (pp. 20-537). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
Fine, M. A., Ganong, L. H., & Coleman, M. (1997). The relation between role constructions and
adjustment among stepfathers. Journal of Family Issues,18, 503-525.
Geary, D.C. (2000). Evolution and proximate expression of human paternal investment. Psycho-
logical Bulletin,126, 55-77.
Glick., P. (1997). Demographic pictures of African American families. In H. McAdoo (Ed.),
Black families (pp. 118-138). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Goy, R. W., & McEwen, B. S. (1980). Sexual differentiation of the brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Hetherington, E. M. (1987). Family relationships six years after divorce. In K. Pasley & M.
Ihinger-Tollman (Eds.), Remarriage and stepparenting today: Research and theory (pp. 185-
205). New York: Guilford.
Hetherington, E. M. (1993). An overview of the Virginia longitudinal study of divorce and
remarriage with a focus on early adolescence. Journal of Family Psychology,7, 1018.
Hetherington, E. M., Cox, M., & Cox, R. (1982). Effects of divorce on parents and children. In
M. E. Lamb (Ed.), Nontraditional families: Parenting and child development (pp. 233-285).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hetherington, E. M., & Jodl, K. M. (1994). Stepfamilies as settings for child development. In A.
Booth & J. Dunn (Eds.), Stepfamilies: Who benefits? Who does not? (pp. 55-79). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kellam, S. G., Ensminger, M. E., & Turner, R. J. (1977). Family structure and the mental health
of children. Archives of General Psychiatry,34, 1012-1022.
Simons et al. / Parent Practices 823
Kurdek, L. A., & Fine, M. (1993). The relation between family structure and young adolescents’
appraisals of family climate and parenting behavior. Journalof Family Issues,14, 279-290.
Lamb, M. E. (1977). The role of the father in child development. New York: John Wiley.
LaRossa, R. (1986). Becoming a parent. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Marriage Movement. (2004). Why we support the administration’s healthy marriage initiative.
Retrieved October 17, 2004, from http://www.marriagemovement.org/hmi/hmi_statement
.php
McLanahan, S. S., & Booth, K. (1989). Mother-only families: Problems, prospects, and policies.
Journal of Marriage and the Family,51, 557-580.
McLanahan, S. S., & Sandefur, G. (1994). Growing up with a single parent. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Murry,V. M., Bynum, M.S., Brody, G. H., Willert, A., & Stephens, D. (2001). African American
single mothers and children in context: A review of studies on risk and resilience. Clinical
Child and Family Psychology Review,4, 133-155.
Nock, S. L. (1988). The family and hierarchy. Journal of Marriage and the Family,50, 957-966.
Nock, S. L., & Kingston, P. W. (1988). Time with children: The impact of couples’ work-time
commitments. Social Forces,67(1), 59-86.
Oyserman, D., Radin, N., & Saltz, E. (1994). Predictors of nurturant parenting in teen mothers
living in three generational families. Child Psychiatry and Human Development,24(4), 215-
230.
Parke, R. D. (1981). Fathers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Patterson, C. J. (2000). Sexual orientation and family life: A decade review. Journal of Marriage
and the Family,62, 1052-1069.
Seccombe, K. (2000). Families in poverty in the 1990s: Trends, causes, consequences, and les-
sons learned. Journal of Marriage and the Family,62(4), 1094-1113.
Shaffer, D., Fisher, P., Piacentini, J., Conners, C. K., Schwab-Stone, M., Cohen, P., et al. (1993).
The Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children Revised Version (DISC-R). Preparation,
field testing, inter-rater reliability and acceptability. Journal of the American Academy of
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,32, 643-650.
Simons, R. L., Beaman, J., Conger, R. D., & Chao, W. (1992). Childhood experience, concep-
tions of parenting, and attitudes of spouse as determinants of parental behavior. Journal of
Marriage and the Family,55, 91-106.
Simons, R. L., Conger, R. D., Lorenz, F. O., & Whitbeck, L. B. (1996). Understanding differ-
ences between divorced and two-biological-parent families: Stress, interaction, and child
outcome.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Simons, R. L., Johnson, C., Beaman, J. J., Conger, R. D., & Whitbeck, L. B. (1996). Parents and
peer group as mediators of the effect of community structure on adolescent behavior. Ameri-
can Journal of Community Psychology,24, 145-171.
Simons, R. L., Lin, K. H., Gordon, L. C., Brody, G. H., Murry, V. M., & Conger, R. D. (2002).
Community differences in the prevalence and consequences of corporal punishment in a
sample of African American children. Journal of Marriage and Family,64, 331-345.
Simons, R. L., Lin, K. H., Gordon, L. C., Conger, R. D., & Lorenz, F. O. (1999). Explaining the
higher incidence of adjustment problems among children of divorce compared with those in
two-parent families. Journal of Marriage and the Family,61, 1020-1033.
Simons, R. L., Lorenz, F. O., Wu, C., & Conger, R. D. (1993). Marital and spouse support as
mediator and moderator of the impact of economic strain upon parenting. Developmental
Psychology,29, 368-381.
Stacey, J., & Biblarz, T. J. (2001). (How) Does the sexual orientation of parents matter? Ameri-
can Sociological Review,66, 159-183.
824 Journal of Family Issues
Symons, D., & Ellis, B. (1989). Human male-female differences in sexual desire. InA. E. Rasa,
C. Rosa, C. Vogel, & E. Voland (Eds.), Sociobiology of sexual and reproductive strategies
(pp. 131-146). London: Chapman and Hall.
Thomson, E., McLanahan, S. S., & Curtin, B. B. (1992). Family structure, gender, and parental
socialization. Journal of Marriage and the Family,54, 368-378.
Unger, D. G., & Cooley, M. (1992). Partner and grandmother contact in Black and White teen
parent families. Journal of Adolescent Health,13, 546-552.
Waite, L. (2001). The case of marriage. New York: Broadway Books.
White, L., & Gilbreth, J. G. (2001). When children havetwo fathers: Effects of relationships with
stepfathers and noncustodial fathers on adolescent outcomes. Journal of Marriage and the
Family,63, 155-167.
White, L., & Rogers, S. J. (2000). Economic circumstances and family outcomes: A review of
research in the 1990s. Journal of Marriage and the family,62(4), 1035-1051.
Wilson, W. J. (1997). When work disappears: The world of the new urban poor. New York:
Knopf.
Zimmerman, M. A., Salem, D. A., & Maton, K. I. (1995). Family structure and psychosocialcor-
relates among urban African-American adolescent males. Child Development,66, 1598-
1613.
Simons et al. / Parent Practices 825
