Protective factors for parenting teenagers: measuring perceived quality of relationships in latino and anglo adolescents expecting a baby

In American society, adolescence is typically a time when individuals develop identities and increase their involvement with peers. Transitioning to adulthood becomes more challenging when teenagers are expecting a baby and taking on new roles and responsibilities. While research supports the notion that strong family relationships are protective against negative outcomes and can help to ease the transition into parenthood, less empirical research exists about the cross-cultural manifestations of these family relationships. Familismo, the Latino cultural value emphasizing the importance of family, is often assumed to mean that Latino families are more family-centered than Anglos. However, empirical evidence in support of this assumption is often inconsistent. For example, studies comparing Latino and Anglo families rarely include information about the quality of relationships within the family. This study aimed to better understand the quality of the constellation of family relationships surrounding teenagers expecting a baby by examining reported perceptions of quality of relationships with adolescents' own parents as well as with their partner's parents. To address possible cultural differences, Latino couples were categorized as English-speaking (more acculturated) or Spanish-speaking (less acculturated) and compared with an Anglo population. Results indicated that Spanish-speaking adolescent fathers reported significantly stronger relationships with their own parents and their partner's parents than their Anglo counterparts. Further, Anglo adolescent mothers reported lower perceived quality of relationship with their own mothers than Englishiv speaking Latino couples. Finally, Spanish-speaking couples reported stronger perceived quality of relationships with all four parental figures than their Anglo counterparts. Results provide empirical support for variations of perceptions of quality of relationships based on cultural differences. These differences should be further explored to better understand the protective role these parental relationships may serve for Spanishspeaking adolescents transitioning to parenthood. Additionally, results from this study highlight the importance of including adolescent fathers in research and clinical work related to teenage parenting.

PROTECTIVE FACTORS FOR PARENTING TEENAGERS: MEASURING PERCEIVED QUALITY OF RELATIONSHIPS IN LATINO AND ANGLO ADOLESCENTS EXPECTING A BABY by Megan Colleen Wrona A thesis submitted to the faculty of The University of Utah in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Department of Educational Psychology The University of Utah December 2010 Copyright © Megan Colleen Wrona 2010 All Rights Reserved The Univers i ty of Utah Gr adua te School STATEMENT OF THESIS APPROVAL The thesis of Megan Colleen Wrona has been approved by the following supervisory committee members: Jason Burrow-Sanchez , Chair July 30, 2010 Date Approved Janiece Pompa , Member July 30, 2010 Date Approved Paul Florsheim , Member July 30, 2010 Date Approved and by Elaine Clark , Chair of the Department of Educational Psychology and by Charles A. Wight, Dean of The Graduate School. ABSTRACT In American society, adolescence is typically a time when individuals develop identities and increase their involvement with peers. Transitioning to adulthood becomes more challenging when teenagers are expecting a baby and taking on new roles and responsibilities. While research supports the notion that strong family relationships are protective against negative outcomes and can help to ease the transition into parenthood, less empirical research exists about the cross-cultural manifestations of these family relationships. Familismo, the Latino cultural value emphasizing the importance of family, is often assumed to mean that Latino families are more family-centered than Anglos. However, empirical evidence in support of this assumption is often inconsistent. For example, studies comparing Latino and Anglo families rarely include information about the quality of relationships within the family. This study aimed to better understand the quality of the constellation of family relationships surrounding teenagers expecting a baby by examining reported perceptions of quality of relationships with adolescents' own parents as well as with their partner's parents. To address possible cultural differences, Latino couples were categorized as English-speaking (more acculturated) or Spanish-speaking (less acculturated) and compared with an Anglo population. Results indicated that Spanish-speaking adolescent fathers reported significantly stronger relationships with their own parents and their partner's parents than their Anglo counterparts. Further, Anglo adolescent mothers reported lower perceived quality of relationship with their own mothers than English- iv speaking Latino couples. Finally, Spanish-speaking couples reported stronger perceived quality of relationships with all four parental figures than their Anglo counterparts. Results provide empirical support for variations of perceptions of quality of relationships based on cultural differences. These differences should be further explored to better understand the protective role these parental relationships may serve for Spanish-speaking adolescents transitioning to parenthood. Additionally, results from this study highlight the importance of including adolescent fathers in research and clinical work related to teenage parenting. TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... iii LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ vii Chapters 1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 Review of Literature..................................................................................................... 2 Limits of Current Research ........................................................................................ 17 Purpose of the Current Study and Research Questions .............................................. 20 2. METHODS ................................................................................................................... 22 Participants ................................................................................................................. 22 Procedures .................................................................................................................. 22 Measures..................................................................................................................... 24 3. RESULTS ..................................................................................................................... 28 Overview of the Analyses .......................................................................................... 28 Data Screening ........................................................................................................... 28 Initial Demographic Analyses .................................................................................... 29 Test of the Primary Exploratory Hypothesis .............................................................. 31 Test of the Secondary Hypothesis .............................................................................. 34 4. DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................... 48 Major Findings ........................................................................................................... 48 Limitations and Future Directions ............................................................................. 53 Overall Conclusions ................................................................................................... 55 Appendices A. QUALITY OF RELATIONSHIP INVENTORY ................................................. 58 B. DRUG USE INVENTORY ................................................................................... 63 vi C. DELINQUENT/CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR CHECKLIST ...................................... 67 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 72 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Age Information ...................................................................................................... 36 2. Summary of Group Differences in Depression, Delinquency and Lifetime Drug Use: Adolescent Mother and Adolescent Father ............................ 37 3. Summary of Group Differences in Young Fathers' Relationships with Parental Figures........................................................................ 38 4. Summary of Group Differences in Young Mothers' Relationships with Parental Figures........................................................................ 39 5. Summary of Group Differences in Couples' Relationships with Parental Figures........................................................................ 40 6. Summary of Regression Models Predicting Various Outcomes for Adolescent Fathers ............................................................................................ 41 7. Summary of Regression Models Predicting Various Outcomes for Adolescent Mothers ........................................................................................... 42 8. Correlation Table for Predictor and Dependent Variables- Adolescent Fathers .................................................................................................. 43 9. Correlation Table for Predictor and Dependent Variables- Adolescent Mothers ................................................................................................ 44 10. Correlation Table for Dependent (Outcome) Variables .......................................... 45 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Adolescence is the time when most individuals in American culture begin to individuate themselves from their families and begin to form their own identities (Fuligni, Tseng, & Lam, 1999). During this developmental stage, adolescents may experiment with drugs, peer associations, lifestyles, and so forth as they engage in identity formation. While adolescents are in this stage, a number of factors can either facilitate or inhibit their transition. These factors, termed risk and protective factors, include domains such as peers, school, community and family. For example, peers who do not use substances could be considered a protective factor for an adolescent who might be at risk for substance use. On the other hand, parents who fight frequently in front of the adolescent about the father's alcohol use could be a risk factor for the same adolescent. Multiple risk factors are associated with substance use, which is often correlated with other risky teenage behavior such as delinquency, teenage pregnancy and school drop-out (Hawkins, Catalano, & Miller, 1992). The reduction of risk factors associated with substance use would also be likely to reduce other risky teenage behavior. When an adolescent becomes a parent during this time of development and change, the influence of risk and protective factors become even more important to the adolescent as well as to the new baby. Teenage parents with multiple risk factors often have poorer outcomes, such as higher rates of depression, suicides and high school drop- 2 outs, among others (Dogan-Ates & Carrion-Basham, 2007; Kessler et al., 1997). In contrast, teenage parents with protective factors would be expected to encounter better outcomes, including lower levels of depression and lower rates of child abuse, even if the pregnancy was unplanned. Identifying and strengthening protective factors for adolescents expecting a baby may help adolescents with this transition. Review of Literature Theory Hawkins, Catalano and Miller (1992) suggest the use of a Risk and Protective Factor Model to prevent substance use as well as other problem behaviors in adolescence, including teen pregnancy. The basis of the Risk and Protective Factor theory is the belief that targeting risk factors for reduction and protective factors for enhancement will be more effective in avoiding problem behaviors than targeting problem behaviors themselves (Hawkins et al., 1992). A risk factor is something that increases the likelihood of a specific negative outcome (i.e., substance abuse, early sexual behavior, school drop-out, etc.). A protective factor is something that decreases the likelihood of a specific negative outcome. An individual's development is influenced by many domains, all which include specific risk and protective factors (Burrow-Sanchez & Hawken, 2007). Closest to the individual are the peer, family and school domains, followed by the neighborhood and community domain and then the state and geographical region. 3 Family as Protective One important protective factor to consider and understand within the context of teenage pregnancy is the family. In the context of teenage pregnancy, risk and protective factors are often discussed as factors influencing sexual behavior or pregnancy itself. However, for adolescents who are expecting a baby, these risk and protective factors remain important for their adjustment to parenthood as well as for the long-term outcomes for the baby. For adolescents already expecting a child, the role of the family may take on a different meaning. Closer relationships with parents may be maintained, as many adolescent parents continue to rely on their own families for support during child-rearing (Nitz, Ketterlinus, & Brandt, 1995; Voight, Hans, & Bernstein, 1996). Additionally, the nature of these relationships may vary based on the value structure of the family. In the literature, less attention has been paid to the risk and protective factors associated with teenage parenting and what the quality of familial relationships look like for adolescents who become parents themselves during their teenage years. Often, teenage parents rely heavily on their own family for help and support when the baby is born (Nitz et al., 1995; Voight et al., 1996), and a supportive family can help ease the transition into parenthood for adolescent parents (Florsheim et al., 2003). Protective family factors include effective parenting practices (including appropriate levels of emotional support), positive bonding within the family, and a sense of trust within the family (Burrow-Sanchez & Hawken, 2007). More specifically, the protective nature of the family may be associated with lower rates of depression for the adolescent parents, increasing positive outcomes for both the adolescent parents and the new infant. 4 Being a teenage parent increases risk factors for these parents and increases the likelihood of poorer outcomes for themselves and their children. Teenage mothers are more likely to experience more psychological distress, such as depression, higher rates of suicide and higher rates of high school drop-out (Dogan-Ates & Carrion-Basham, 2007; Kessler et al., 1997). However, prior research has demonstrated that adolescent fathers who reported more positive relationships with their own parents tended to adjust more easily to parenthood and that adolescent mothers' relationships with their own parents predicted their adjustment to parenthood (Florsheim et al., 2003). With empirical support that positive relationships with their own parents can ease the transition to parenthood despite the increased number of risk factors associated with teenage parenting, further investigation into family relationships may help with identification and strengthening of protective factors. Increased knowledge regarding positive and protective family relationships may serve to balance some of the risk factors associated with being a teenage parent, including possible risks for the new child. Cross-Cultural Differences Among Families Latinos1 1 The term Latino has been chosen to capture the larger group of people who can "trace their ancestry to Spain, Latin America, Mexico/ Southwestern USA or the Spanish-speaking Caribbean" (Nesman, 2007, 415). Within the broad label of Latino, there are many varied differences of cultures and values that cannot be accurately captured simply by describing an individual as Latino. However, given the limited research on the broader category of Latinos, grouping can serve as a starting point for research with these varied populations. Although the term Latino will be utilized in this study, the majority of the sample that will be utilized for this study identified as Mexican-American, which is the largest subgroup of Latinos in the U.S., representing about 67% of the Latino population in the US (McHale, Updegraff, Kim, & Cansler, 2008). are one of the fastest growing ethnic minority groups in the U.S, with a large proportion being young adults and adolescents (Franzetta, Schelar, & Manlove, 2007). More specifically, the number of Latino adolescents is expected to double in size 5 by 2025 (Franzetta, Schelar, & Manlove, 2007). While Latino adolescents face the typical developmental challenges of their nonethnic peers, they also have to negotiate this process within the contexts of multiple cultures. Latino adolescents are often exposed to the culture of their family, which often stresses collectivist ideals, and the dominant culture of the United States, which tends to favor individualism and autonomy (Hofstede, 1991). The difficulties associated with adolescent development and cultural navigation are compounded when these youth become parents themselves. It is well documented that Latinos have higher teenage pregnancy rates and birth rates than the general US adolescent population (Ryan, Franzetta, & Manlove, 2005). Because of the central role of the family in the Latino culture and emphasis on obligation and family duty, it is possible that family relationships during this major life transition could look very different for Latino adolescents and Anglo adolescents. Understanding the family relationships of this increasing population and identifying possible protective factors will help researchers and practitioners to better support Latino youth during the transition to parenthood. One specific, understudied aspect of the protective function of the family, especially in terms of empirical research, is the quality of family relationships across cultures. Descriptions of the Latino family have long included accounts of collectivism and a strong focus and commitment to the family, often emphasizing an individual's responsibility and obligation to the whole family rather than their own personal agenda (Rinderle & Montoya, 2008). Evidence further suggests that this collectivist tendency remains even when families are immersed in the more individualistic culture of the U.S. (Freeberg & Stein, 1996). While this tendency is certainly not true for every single Latino 6 family, researchers have widely accepted the notion that the Latino culture is more collectivist than Anglo culture and that Latino culture places more emphasis on "family, unity, honor and loyalty above individual needs and goals" (Carter, Yeh, & Mazzula, 2008, p. 7). However, Hardway and Fulgini (2006) found that while adolescents from more collectivist cultures (Latino and Chinese) reported a stronger sense of duty and obligation, there were no differences in the closeness in dyadic family relationships. The quality of relationships across cultures still requires further exploration and more empirical support to determine if familism and the associated cultural values influence dyadic family relationships (Freeberg & Stein, 1996; Vega, 1990). Familism is a "cultural value that involves individuals' strong identification with and attachment to their nuclear and extended families" (Marin & Marin, 1991, p. 11) and is one of the most important cultural values within the Latino community (Coohey, 2001; Gallegos-Castillo, 2006). Marin and Marin (1991) outline three types of value orientation related to the idea of familism: (1) Perceived obligation to support the family, both through material and emotional support, (2) Reliance on family for help and support, (3) Perception of family as behavioral/attitudinal referents. Depending on the perspective, familism can lead researchers to idealize the Latino family and assume that Latino families are more stable (i.e., lower divorce rates and less marital conflict) than their Anglos counterparts (Vega, 1990). On the other hand, some researchers portray the Latino family as "sick" or pathological due to closeness of the family or the role of cultural values, particularly machismo (Schumm et al., 1988). While empirical studies demonstrate that Latinos report feeling more obligated to their families than Anglos (Freeberg & Stein, 1996) and that Latinos tend to live geographically closer to their kin 7 (Keefe, Padilla, & Carlos, 1979; Mindel, 1980) other studies have shown few ethnic differences in dyadic relationships (Hardway & Fuligni, 2006). It is unclear whether the quality of family relationships varies across cultures. More empirical research is needed to determine if the quality of relationships is different between Latino families and Anglo families in order to better understand the network of relationships within families across cultures and which family relationships may be protective for adolescents expecting a baby. Although the Latino value of familism is often assumed to mean that Latino families are more supportive and more stable (as defined by less marital conflict and lower divorce rates), the empirical evidence is inconsistent (Vega, 1990). Further, the empirical evidence usually examines proximity and obligation, with less empirical research focused on the relationship quality within the family. When quality of relationship is included, measurement usually includes the family as a whole rather than examining the quality of specific relationships within the family. Although familism is a value that is typically associated with the Latino community, some studies explored if the value is unique or if aspects of familism cut across cultures, and have measured the construct of familism in other populations such as Caucasians, African-Americans, and Asian-Americans (Fuligni et al., 1999; Hardway & Fuligni, 2006; Mindel, 1980). Further cross-cultural research, specifically focusing on the quality of relationships, will help to expand the idea of familism and better understand the protective nature of families. Mindel (1980) provided one of the early empirical studies examining familism and family structure across cultures, including the three major ethnic groups in urban areas within the United States-African-Americans, Mexican-Americans and Anglos. He 8 measured familism across the four domains of extensity of presence, intensity of presence, interaction and functionality. His results were consistent with the theories at the time and showed that Mexican-Americans reported the highest level of familism, while Anglos reported the lowest level. He further showed that Anglos had the strongest tendency and likelihood to move away from their family of origin. This study provided clarification of an earlier study that demonstrated that the nature of familism in Mexican- American families varied within culture and was impacted by urbanization, acculturation and interaction with the U.S. society. Mindel's study was one of the earliest empirical studies demonstrating that family structure and relationships might be different across cultures. One additional early study addressed the aspect of relationship quality and attempted to expand the limited knowledge and better understand the emotional support component of familism (Keefe et al., 1979). Through a series of interviews and surveys, Keefe and her colleagues found that most Mexican-American families live close to their relatives, whereas most Anglo respondents often did not have any relatives living in town. Keefe et al. speculate that this proximity of relatives may be related to their findings that Mexican-Americans tend to rely on relatives for emotional support, while Anglos "tend not to distinguish between the bonds of friendship and familism in their search for emotional support" (Keefe et al., 1979, p. 147). Keefe and her colleagues noted that both Anglos and Mexican-Americans reported relying on family for emotional support, but that Anglos tend to also look to friends in addition to family more frequently than Mexican-Americans, while Mexican-Americans rely more frequently on relatives. They also noted that most Anglos seeking support from their relatives had to find support 9 from relatives who were geographically distant from them. They further noted that most Mexican-American respondents reported that there are negative and positive aspects related to maintaining these close family relationships and that Mexican-Americans generally have one specific relative who they speak with regarding emotional situations. Keefe concluded that contact and level of emotional support varied between the Latino and the Anglo culture, with Latinos being much more likely to live close to their relatives and Anglos being more likely to reach out to friends for emotional support. Other studies confirmed Keefe's finding that Anglos tend to report more contact with friends, but did not demonstrate differences in frequency of contact with relatives between Anglos and Mexican-Americans (Markides, Hoppe, Martin, & Timbers, 1983; Vernon & Roberts, 1985). Coon and Kemmerlmeier (2001) found contradictions to the traditional assumption that Latino families are more collectivist and family-oriented than their Anglo counterparts. Their meta-analyses found no differences between Latino Americans and other ethnic groups regarding collectivist tendencies. Coon and Kemmerlmeir noted that this finding may have been related to the relatively small number of Latinos included in the study as compared to other minority groups (their study did find higher levels of collectivism for African-Americans and Asian-Americans than Anglos). These results call into question the assumption that Latino families are more collectivist, inviting further research to determine if empirical differences exist. Matsumoto and colleagues demonstrated similar findings (Matsumoto, Weissman, Preston, Brown, & Kupperbusch, 1997). 10 Familism and Family Structure from the Adolescent Perspective As previously noted, families can serve as a protective factor for a number of outcomes, including less substance use, lower levels of depression, and increased success in school among others. In the case of parenting teenagers, positive family relationships can help ease the transition into parenthood (Florsheim et al., 2003). Because of this, it is important to consider the adolescent's view of their family relationships. If an adolescent views his/her parent as more supportive and emotionally available, it is likely that outcomes will be more positive for that adolescent and his or her new baby. However, limited research has been conducted on adolescents perceptions' of their family relationships and no known study has been done including both adolescent parents' perspectives on their relationships with their parents and their partner's parents. In one of the few studies examining the quality of parent/adolescent relationships in the context of familism, Hardway and Fuglini (2006) compared family relationships between Latino adolescents, Caucasian adolescents and Chinese adolescents. They found that Latino and Chinese adolescents reported a stronger sense of family obligation and assistance but that all three groups identified similar levels of dyadic closeness with their parents. Further, when respective parents were considered, Hardway and Fuglini found that similar levels of closeness with the adolescent's mother existed across the three ethnic groups. However, they found that European American adolescents reported closer relationships and more leisure time spent with their fathers than Mexican nonimmigrant adolescents or Chinese immigrant adolescents. Some Latino cultural values, such as machismo, respect for elders and mystery associated with a father figure may contribute to this differential relationship among fathers and their children (Abalos, 1993). Hardway 11 and Fuligni provide support for the notion that increased obligation and duty to the family does not necessarily translate into stronger identification with the family or stronger relationships, as is often presumed. This finding warrants further exploration of family relationships across cultures. Fuligni and colleagues (1999) also found that Latino adolescents within American society, tended to retain values associated with a collectivist family, such as their duty to assist, respect and support their families as compared with Anglo adolescents. These values were associated with having close relationships with their parents, but this association did not necessarily translate into closer relationships with parents than their Anglo counterparts. For example, teenagers report feeling more comfortable talking with peers about sex and dating than family members, despite the level of collectivism within the family. Further, the study also showed no differences in adolescent development, including development of peer relationships, associated with these collectivist values. Overall, Fuligni and colleagues determined that the collectivist ideals did not have a negative impact on adolescent development, but that adolescents with collectivist ideals did not necessarily have closer relationships with their parents than Anglo adolescents. Freeberg and Stein (1996) examined feelings of obligation and views of family in a sample of 100 Mexican-American and Anglo young adults. They found that Mexican- Americans reported higher levels of familism, more collectivist ideals and more helping behaviors. While both Anglos and Mexican-Americans in this study reported similar levels of felt obligation overall, Mexican-Americans tended to report more obligation to avoid conflict with their family, provide assistance and strive for self-sufficiency from their parents. This noted drive for self-sufficiency is inconsistent with the theory that 12 young Mexican-Americans are likely to think about the needs of their whole family before considering their own personal needs (Freeberg & Stein, 1996). Freeberg and Stein expanded the "discussion on the role of ethnicity in shaping relationships with parents" (Freeberg & Stein, 1996, p. 469) but some of their unexpected findings, like similar overall levels of felt obligation between Anglos and Latinos and higher obligation to strive for self-sufficiency for Latinos versus Anglos, indicate a need for further research. Because teenage parents are at a greater risk for child abuse (Klerman, 1993), understanding the potential protective nature of families could help decrease the risk of abuse. In a study focusing on the possible relationships between levels of child abuse and levels of familism, Coohey (2001) measured familism across many spectrums, including aspects of attitudinal, behavioral, and structural familism with Latina mothers. Her extensive measurement of familism included information about relationships (for nuclear family, extended family and friendships), information about respondent's perceptions of these relationships, reported emotional support received, frequency of contact, and size and proximity of family. Results supported stronger familism from Latinas than their Anglos counterparts and reported more relatives who were caring and warm and provided emotional support. Regarding risk of child maltreatment, Coohey found that Anglos were more at risk if they reported disconnection with their relatives and Latinas were more at risk if they reported less interest in getting emotional support from relatives and sought this support from friends. Because teenage parents are at higher risk for child abuse, these factors of familism and possible family support should be examined with teenage parents. 13 However, as Coohey's study focused only on Latinas, future research should be expanded to include the perspective of adolescent fathers as well. Variations Within the Latino Culture One challenge associated with research within the Latino population is accounting for variations within the Latino community. Although the term Latino or Hispanic can be used to describe an overall population, it does not identify or describe the within group differences associated with country-of-origin. In choosing the term "Latino" for this study, all variance associated with country of origin is unexplained. While this is not ideal, it is a starting point for beginning to explore overall group differences between Latinos and Anglos. Besides country of origin, Latinos in the United States also vary in their level of acculturation. Berry (2006) defines acculturation as "the dual process of cultural and psychological change that takes place as a result of contact between two or more cultural groups and their individual members" (p. 13). He conceptualizes four distinct types of acculturation within a non-dominant group-assimilation, separation, integration, and marginalization. In assimilation, members dissociate with their native culture and adopt the values and traditions of the dominant culture. In separation, members hold on to all of their traditional values and avoid interacting and adopting any traditions from their new culture. In integration, individuals associate with and value both their new culture and their traditional culture. Finally, in marginalization, individuals lose interest in their native culture but simultaneously do not want to adopt traditions from their new, host culture. 14 As noted by Perez and Padilla (2000), adolescents tend to acculturate to American society faster than their parents. While some researchers have demonstrated that as acculturation to the United States increases, familism decreases (Alvarez, 2007; Perez & Padilla, 2000), others have found that perceived family support remains high despite level of acculturation (Sabogal, Marin, Otero-Sabogal, Marin, & Perez-Stable, 1987). Rueschenberg and Buriel (1989) found that as Mexican families acculturate to American society, their external contacts increase but their basic internal family system does not change. Many cultural beliefs shift during the acculturation process (Sabogal, Marin, Otero-Sabogal, Marin, & Perez-Stable, 1987). For parents, some of their parenting values and practices may shift, be replaced or be added to during the process of acculturation (Gutierrez, Sameroff, & Karrer, 1988). In general, research shows that Latino men tend to be more involved with child care and have strong, positive relationships with their children as compared to Anglo fathers (Formoso, Gonzales, Barrera, & Dumka, 2007). However, because of changing parenting values and practices that may occur during acculturation, the quality of relationships among family members may look different for Latino families, depending on the level of acculturation. McHale and her colleagues (2008) considered the influence of cultural practices and values on the youth's daily activities and their adjustment during adolescence. They found a negative correlation between fathers' and youths' perception of familism values and depressive symptoms for adolescents. In general, the finding was that cultural orientation (adherence to traditional cultural values) suggested an "additive protective effect", meaning that lower orientation to Anglo culture in combination with other 15 protective factors (i.e., playing sports) predicted less risky behavior (i.e., criminal behavior, substance use and dangerous driving; (Osgood, Wilson, O'Malley, Bachuman, & Johnston, 1996). Their findings, however, did not show higher orientation to their native culture to be protective if the adolescent was already involved in risky behavior. These findings indicate that variations in family relationships and structure are present within the Latino culture itself and may influence the degree to which family relationships may be protective. Some researchers have examined the relationship between acculturation and family functioning on child development. For example, Gutierrez, Sameroff and Karrer (1988) found different understandings of child development associated with acculturation levels and socio-economic (SES) levels. They found that more acculturated Mexican- American mothers with higher SES levels understood child development in a more complex, perspectivistic way than less acculturated, lower SES mothers. They conclude that these results warrant the exploration of within-culture research studies to better understand the impact of acculturation on values and beliefs. Formoso and her colleagues (2007) found that parenting relationship was positively related to quality fathering in Mexican-American families. However, the researchers point out that higher acculturation has been linked to marital problems and hostile parenting and could influence fathering behavior and the parenting relationship. Further exploration of the quality of relationship across acculturation levels would help explain the structure of the Latino family, particularly the intersection of the Latino family and American culture. However, more in-depth studies that include acculturation as a variable are often difficult because of the challenges associated with quantifying acculturation levels. 16 Despite a number of well-validated measures, measuring acculturation remains a challenge, due to a lack of consensus regarding the best way to measure acculturation and a lack of adequate scales (De la Rosa, Vega, & Radisch, 2000; Vernon & Roberts, 1985). Many of the current scales include questions about concrete preferences for things such as food, music, and language (i.e., Cuellar, Arnold, & Maldonado, 1995), but do not necessarily capture specific information about values or within group differences (De la Rosa et al., 2000). Despite theoretical shifts in acculturation models that move away from a linear shift between two cultures, many acculturation measures still do not adequately assess biculturalism or true value identification (Dinh, Roosa, Tein, & Lopez, 2002). In an initial validation of an acculturation scale for Mexican Americans, Cuellar, Harris and Jasso (1980) noted that language preference accounted for nearly 65% of the variance associated with acculturation among Mexican Americans. Language was the largest proportion of variance explained with the next closest factor, ethnic identity, accounting for around 18% of the variance in acculturation in their sample (Cuellar et al., 1980). Language use and preference continue to factor prominently in acculturation measures, although recently developed measures have begun to include other dimensions of acculturation such as behavior, cultural identity, knowledge, and values (Zea, Asner- Self, Birman, & Buki, 2003). For example, although the more recently developed Abbreviated Multidimensional Acculturation Scale includes other dimensions of acculturation, 18 items of the 42 item scale still related to language use or preference (Zea et al., 2003). Epstein, Botvin, Dusenbury, and Diaz (1996) demonstrated a significant correlation (.49) between a single-item question related to language use in the home and a more intensive, lengthier measure of acculturation. Further, they argued that 17 when acculturation is used as a predictor, other behavioral or value-based components may be related to outcomes being studied and may inaccurately diminish or increase the predictive power of acculturation (Epstein et al., 1996). For example, if a researcher is examining the role of peers in substance abuse, an acculturation measure that includes questions related to peer contact and interaction might overlap with the primary variable. Limits of Current Research Although the number of empirical studies regarding family dynamics within Latino families has increased in recent years, many limits in the research still exist and clarification is needed. Continuing empirical research will help move the field away from theoretical conjecture of differences and provide a greater understanding of both Latino and Anglo families. Unfortunately, empirical evidence in this arena has accumulated slowly and many of the frequently cited articles are now over two decades old. Beyond the general need for replication and updating, there are four main holes in the current research on family relationships. First, much of what is written regarding the structure and dynamics of the Latino family is theoretical and empirical data is limited and often mixed, with some studies demonstrating differences between ethnic groups in family contact and others finding no differences (Vega, 1990). The literature "reflects a mixed bag of assumptions, approaches, findings and interpretations" (Baca Zinn, 1982/83, p. 225). These inconsistencies may be linked to the lack of systematic measurement of variables across studies or inadequate study designs (Vernon & Roberts, 1985). These inconsistencies and problems with measurement make it difficult to make conjectures about comparability 18 across studies (Vega, 1990). Although a number of scales exist, including the Familism Scale (Sabogal et al., 1987) and the Family Environment Scale (Moos & Moos, 1984), there is no accepted norm for measuring familism. These measures are often combined with other measures of obligation, proximity, and contact with family. In addition, items inquire about the family as a whole rather than asking about specific relationships within the family. As noted by Keefe (1979), Latinos may have one specific family member who they turn to for emotional support. Therefore, inquiring about the family as a whole, rather than asking about specific family members, may result in inaccurate conclusions regarding describe familial relationships. Second, many of the studies regarding family structure across cultures use specific, measurable units of contact with relatives and general perceptions of obligation to the family. For example, studies may focus on obligation a child feels toward his/her family or parents, proximity to other family members, and frequency of contact with family and less specifically on the quality of relationships and specific interactions. When studies do consider the relationship (i.e., Freeberg & Stein, 1996; Hardway & Fuligni, 2006), they only examine the quality of relationship between parents and adolescents, not relationships the adolescent may have with other family members or other parent-like figures. Therefore, the measure provides an illustration of what is happening within the context of the family but does not further explore the impact or influence of these different values on the relationships within the larger family unit, among extended relative networks or within specific relationships within the family. For parenting adolescents, this missing component is critical, as the adolescent couple is transitioning into building new family connections that consist of relationships with the adolescent 19 mother's family as well as the adolescent father's family. This network of family relationships will surround the adolescent couple as they transition to parenthood. Third, due the increasing size of the Latino adolescent population in the US (Franzetta, Schelar, & Manlove, 2007), it is critical to understand the structure and dynamics of the family within this subset of the Latino community. Adolescents may view their family dynamics and relationships quite differently than parents (Schumm et al., 1988), particularly as adolescents tend to acculturate to the U.S. much faster than their parents (Perez & Padilla, 2000). Although research suggests that Latino adolescents retain their allegiance to family values, some aspects of cultural orientation do diminish with increased contact with the U.S. culture, and may influence how adolescents view their relationships with their parents and other family members (Perez & Padilla, 2000). Fourth, no study has examined the cross-cultural quality of family relationships with adolescent couples expecting a child. Due to the changes and adjustment associated with transitioning into parenthood as a teenager and the protective role family relationships can play, understanding the nature of family relationships may help researchers and interventionists highlight or strengthen this potential protective factor. Transitioning from a "regular" teenager to a teenager who is starting his/her own family increases the general stress associated with adolescent turmoil (Florsheim, Moore, Zollinger, MacDonald, & Sumida, 1999; Nitz et al., 1995). It is during this stressful period that close family relationships could ease the transition into parenting and stronger familism values could extend the kinship support network, minimizing the risk of child maltreatment (Coohey, 2001). Further, because these adolescents are beginning to start their own families and will begin to pass on their own cultural values and beliefs to their 20 child, this population provides a unique opportunity to understand the nature of family relationships as two families merge. In order to do so, it is critical to have the perspective of both the adolescent mother and the adolescent father. By closely examining these adolescents' relationships with their own partners as well as their partner's parents, a more complete picture of the larger constellation of possibly protective family relationships can be identified. Given the current gaps and mixed results in the literature regarding familism, this study examined the group differences between expectant Latino teen parents and expectant Anglo teen parents to expand the empirical literature related to family relationships. As limited attention has been granted to relationships, this study will focus primarily on the quality of familial relationships across ethnic groups from the adolescent perspective. Purpose of the Current Study and Research Questions The primary aim of the current study was to better understand the constellation of familial relationships surrounding adolescent couples expecting a baby across cultures. Specifically, this study aimed to evaluate the presence or absence of group differences between Anglo couples, English-speaking Latino couples and Spanish-speaking Latino couples regarding reported quality of relationships with their own parents as well as with their partner's parents. The Latino couples were divided into two separate comparison groups-English-speaking and Spanish-speaking-to examine possible differences related to level of acculturation. 21 The review of the literature revealed mixed empirical results on family relationships between Anglos and Latinos and no examination of familial relationships with adolescent couples across both families of origin. Given the increasing numbers of Latinos in the United States, the high rates of teenage pregnancy within this population and the links between positive family relationships and an easier transition to parenthood, continued research on identifying these family relationships is necessary. As most research on teenage pregnancy focuses on adolescent mothers, this study included both adolescent mothers and adolescent fathers in order to gain more information about the larger network surrounding the couple. Since no prior study has empirically evaluated the quality of adolescent couples' perceived quality of relationship with their own parents and their partner's parents, this study was exploratory in nature to begin to better understand these relationships. The following research questions were addressed: • Research Question 1: Are there differences between Anglos, English-speaking Latinos and Spanish-speaking Latinos in regard to their perceived quality of relationship with their own parents and their partners parents? • Research Question 2: To what degree do perceptions of relationships with parental figures (both their own parents and their partner's parents) predict levels of health outcomes such as depression, delinquency and drug use in expectant adolescent parents? CHAPTER 2 METHODS Participants The current study analyzed an existing dataset that was collected as part of a larger, five-year study. The larger study, the Young Parenthood Program, was designed to test the efficacy of an interpersonal intervention for teenage parents expecting their first baby. Pregnant adolescents were recruited from various community health clinics in the Salt Lake City area during pre-natal visits. Adolescents were enrolled in the Young Parenthood Program if his/her parent could consent, if the mother of the baby was not more than 6 months into the pregnancy and if both the mother and the father of the baby agreed to participate. A total of 309 couples agreed to participate and completed at least the initial assessment. Procedures Pregnant adolescents and their partners attended an initial research assessment together and each participant was compensated $40 for his/her time. Prior to the initial research assessment, parental consent was obtained if the adolescent with under eighteen. Adolescent assent was obtained at the first research assessment. Both consents and assents were available to participants in both English and Spanish. During the initial assessment, adolescents participated in a one-hour individual clinical interview, a half- 23 hour of videotaped couples' interactions and a 2-hour battery of self-report measures which were completed on a laptop. The 1-hour individual clinical interview was conducted by a trained research assistant who administered a semi-structured interview about the history of the couples' relationship and their experience with pregnancy (and parenting at the follow-up assessments). The half-hour videotaped couples' interactions consisted of the couple discussing a problem in their relationship, how the problem was resolved and the strengths the adolescents see in their relationships. At the final 18-month follow-up, the videotaped interactions also included unstructured playtime with the couples' toddler. The 2-hour battery of self-report measures consisted of a variety of measures to assess the participants' personality, perceptions of relationships, psychological functioning, parental functioning, and more. Each research assessment was conducted by two trained research assistants who were available throughout the duration of the assessment to answer questions and read items aloud, as necessary. Adolescent participants were given the option of completing the interview and assessments in either English or Spanish. After the initial assessment, adolescent couples were randomly assigned to an intervention or control condition. Before the birth of the baby, couples in the intervention conditions received an interpersonally-based intervention designed to strengthen the couples' co-parenting relationship, case management or both. Control couples only participated in the assessments. The assessment process was repeated shortly after the birth of the child and again 18 months after the birth of the child. Adolescent participants also received $40 for each follow-up assessment. For the purposes of this study, only self-report data collected at the initial time point were 24 analyzed. Couples were included in the analysis for this study if both partners were Anglo or both partners were Latino/a. After participants consented/assented to the study, each couple was assigned a couple identification number. Following the completion of data collection, the participants' responses were deposited into a larger de-identified data set. No identifying participant information was attached to the information beyond the couple identification number. For the purposes of this study, no identifying information was received from the principal investigator of the Young Parenthood Program. Measures The measures described below were collected as part of the Young Parenthood Program and were included in the analyses for this study. Each of the following measures was collected via self-report. A research assistant was available to assist participants with any unfamiliar words and to help read items to the adolescents, as necessary. Demographics Participants were asked to self-report their age and ethnicity. Language preference was determined by the participant's decision to complete the interview in either English or Spanish. Each participant's interview was coded as being conducted in English or Spanish if at least 75% of the interview was conducted in one of the languages. Adolescent couples were then coded as either Anglo, English-speaking Latino or Spanish-speaking Latino. If the adolescent mother and the adolescent father spoke different languages during the initial research interview, the language utilized during the 25 initial couple videotaped interaction was utilized. For example, if a Latino adolescent mother completed her initial research interview in Spanish and her Latino partner completed his initial research interview in English but the couple videotaped interaction was completed in English, the couple was coded as an English-speaking Latino couple. For the purposes of this study, language preference was utilized as an approximation of acculturation level. As previously noted, while language does not account for all of the variance in acculturation, researchers have found that language does account for as much as 65% of the variance associated with acculturation (Cuellar et al., 1980). For this study, Latino adolescent couples who spoke English were considered to be more acculturated to U.S. society than Latino adolescent couples who spoke Spanish. Quality of Relationship Inventory (QRI) The Quality of Relationship Inventory (Pierce, Sarason, Sarason, Solky-Butzel, & Nagle, 1997) was used to assess participants' relationship satisfaction with both their parents and their partner's parents. The QRI is a 25-item self-report measure designed to assess levels of support, conflict, and depth in dyadic relationships. The QRI consists of three subscales: a support subscale, which assesses the extent to which a respondent feels emotionally supported by the specified person; the conflict subscale, which assesses the extent to which a respondent experiences the specified person as an ongoing source of conflict; and the depth subscale, which assesses the extent to which a person feels emotionally invested in particular relationships. A composite score can also be calculated. Past research has demonstrated that the QRI has high internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and validity (Pierce et al., 1997). Respondents are asked questions 26 such as "To what extent can you trust this person not to hurt your feelings?" on a 4-point scale ranging from "not at all" to "a lot". Based on previous studies with similar samples, the QRI has proven to be a reliable and valid measure of current relations with parents and partners (Florsheim et al., 1999). For the purposes of this study, the composite QRI score was utilized for the analyses. Additionally, while the QRI does include questions regarding the respondent's relationship with his/her partner, these items were not utilized for this study. Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) The Beck Depression Inventory-II (Beck & Steer, 1987) is widely utilized with research and clinical work to quickly estimate the level of depressive symptoms a person is experiencing. The BDI-II is a 21-item self-report measure designed to assess the presence and severity of depressive symptoms. The BDI-II captures two aspects of depression, the affective experience (i.e., mood, feelings of guilt) and the physical symptoms (i.e., fatigue). For the purposes of this study, the BDI-II was utilized as a quick estimation of the participant's acknowledgment and experience of depressive symptoms. Delinquent/Criminal Behavior Checklist (DCBC) The Delinquent/Criminal Behavior Checklist is a 24-item questionnaire used to assess current and previous illegal activities. The Delinquent/Criminal Behavior Checklist was developed by the principal investigator for the Young Parenthood Program and based on the National Youth Survey Interview (Elliott, Huizinga, & Menard, 1989). Adolescents report on their frequency of engagement in specific illegal activities 27 including theft, burglary, assault drug dealing, carrying a weapon, and gang-related activities (i.e., shooting at cars, houses, or people, participating in gang-related fights) during the last month, the past year, and their lifetime. The Youth Survey upon which this measure is based has been previously found to have adequate reliability and validity (Elliott et al., 1989). For the purposes of this study, only the DCBC score for the last month was utilized for the analyses as the month score is likely to be more influenced by the perceived quality of relationship with an adolescent partner's parent than lifetime or past year scores. Drug Use Inventory (DUI) The Drug Use Inventory is a 15-item self-report questionnaire which was also modified from the National Youth Survey (Elliott et al., 1989). The Drug Use Inventory (DUI) asks respondents to indicate how often they have used a variety of drugs on a scale ranging from never to several times a day in the previous month, in the previous year, and in their lifetime. Modifications were made to the DUI in order to keep it up to date (i.e., including crystal meth and ecstasy). Similar indices of substance use has been previously found to be adequately valid and reliable (Elliott et al., 1989; Johnson, Wish, Schmeidler, & Huizinga, 1991; Winters, Latimer, Stinchfield, & Henly, 1999). As with the DCBC scores, only the DUI scores for the past month were utilized for this study as the past month scores are the most likely to be influenced by the adolescent's perceived quality of relationship with his/her partner's parents. CHAPTER 3 RESULTS Overview of the Analyses The research questions were examined using a series of analysis of variance (both one-way and repeated measures) as well as linear regression. Data analysis was completed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), Version 15.0. Data Screening Prior to analysis, data were reviewed to evaluate the completeness of the data and identify any missing data. Initially, cases were deleted if they did not meet study criteria. Couples were excluded if both adolescent partners were not Anglo or Latino. Second, listwise deletion of cases was conducted to eliminate cases that were missing key variables of interest (i.e., couple data were deleted if an adolescent did not respond to any of the items on the Quality of Relationship Inventory). Both of these methods of case deletion reduced the original sample size of 309 adolescent couples to 176 adolescent couples. After listwise deletion of cases, sporadic missing values were still present in the data set (i.e., adolescent did not respond to one item on a particular measure). These missing values were replaced in SPSS using series means replacement. However, as some missing values did not appear random, these values were left as missing in the data set. For example, if an adolescent skipped all items on the QRI regarding his/her relationship 29 with his/her own father, it was assumed that the adolescent skipped these items intentionally and the missing value was representative of a lack of relationship with this parental figure. The distributions of all variables were assessed and no transformations were made. Initial Demographic Analyses A series of one-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) were conducted to examine possible pre-existing differences among the three groups in question, the Anglo couples (n=58), the English-Speaking Latino couples (n=82) and the Spanish-Speaking Latino couples (n=36). Post hoc analyses were reviewed to determine specific differences rather than the overall differences. This analysis found significant age differences (F(2,172)=5.704, p<.01) among these groups, with the Anglo adolescent mothers .640 years younger than the English-Speaking Latino adolescent mothers. There were no significant differences in age between the Anglo adolescent mothers and the Spanish-speaking adolescent mothers or the Spanish-speaking Latino adolescent mothers and the English-speaking Latino adolescent mothers. The overall mean for adolescent mothers in the sample was 16.46 years-old. Regarding age differences among the adolescent fathers, Spanish-speaking Latino fathers were the oldest (19.74). A significant difference (F(2,173)=10.910, p<.01) existed between the Spanish-speaking Latino fathers and the English-speaking Latino fathers, with Spanish-speaking Latino fathers almost two years older (1.82 years) than the English-speaking Latino fathers. Additionally, Anglo fathers also tended to be older than English-speaking Latino fathers by around 1 year (1.049). There were no significant differences in age between the Spanish-speaking Latino fathers 30 and the Anglo fathers. The mean ages and standard deviations of each group are summarized in Table 1. A number of other variables were considered in examining pre-existing differences between these three groups. One-way analyses of variance were conducted to explore possible initial differences in levels of depression, delinquency and substance use. It is possible that these variables could influence the perceived quality of relationships. Regarding depression, Anglo adolescent mothers tended to report significantly higher Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) scores than the Spanish-speaking adolescent mothers (F(2,173)=5.531, p<.01). Regarding delinquency, both Anglo adolescent fathers and English-speaking Latino adolescent fathers tended to report significantly higher scores on the Delinquency/Criminal Behavior Checklist (DCBC) than Spanish-speaking Latino adolescent fathers (F(2,173)=7.886, p<.01). Anglo adolescent mothers tended to report significantly higher scores on the DCBC than both Latino comparison groups (F(2,173)=7.665, p<.01). Regarding substance use, Anglo adolescent fathers tended to report significantly higher Drug Use Inventory (DUI) scores than their English-speaking Latino counterparts (F(2,173)=5.550, p<.01). Anglo adolescent mothers tended to report significantly higher DUI scores than both the English-speaking and Spanish-speaking Latino adolescent mothers (F(2,175)=7.544, p<.01). The overall results of differences in depression, delinquency, and drug use, including means and standard deviations for each group, are presented in Figure 1 and summarized in Table 2. 31 Test of the Primary Exploratory Hypothesis To explore the patterns of relationships, a series of analyses of variances (ANOVA) were conducted to look at group differences among adolescent fathers' and adolescent mothers' perceptions of the quality of their relationships with their own parents and their partner's parents. Additionally, a repeated measures ANOVA was completed to examine couple's perceptions of relationships with parental figures. The initial omnibus ANOVA for adolescent fathers demonstrated a main effect for comparison group (i.e., Anglo, English-speaking Latino and Spanish-speaking Latino) in self-reported perceptions of quality of relationship with each parental figure. Significant main effects existed between each comparison group existed when adolescent fathers' responded to items related to their own father (F(2, 170)=4.845, p<.01), their own mother (F(2,170)=6.034, p<.01), their partner's father (F(2,166)=3.375, p<.05), and their partner's mother (F(2,171)=5.381, p<.01). Tukey's post hoc tests revealed that Anglo adolescent fathers reported significantly lower QRI scores than Spanish-speaking Latino adolescent fathers when questioned about their own fathers as well as their partner's father. There were no significant differences between English-speaking Latinos and Spanish-speaking Latino adolescent fathers regarding their reported quality of relationship with their own fathers and their partner's father. Additionally, Tukey's post hoc tests revealed that Anglo adolescent fathers reported significantly lower QRI scores than both the English-speaking and Spanish-speaking Latino adolescent fathers when questioned about their own mothers and their partner's mother. There were no significant differences between the English-speaking and Spanish-speaking Latino adolescent fathers' QRI scores when questioned about their mothers. The overall results of group 32 differences among adolescent fathers are presented in Figure 2 and summarized in Table 3. The initial omnibus ANOVA for adolescent mothers demonstrated a main effect for comparison group in their perceived quality of relationship with their own mother, but not the other parental figures included in the QRI. The main effect between the comparison groups was detected when the adolescent mothers responded to items about their own mother (F(2,170)=3.878, p<.05). No significant differences were noted with adolescent mothers responded to items about their own father (F(2, 170=1.613, p>.05), their partner's father (F(2,172)=2.484, p>.05) or their partner's mother (F(2,172)=.855, p>.05). Regarding the differences related to maternal relationships, Tukey's post hoc tests revealed that Anglo adolescent mothers tended to report significantly lower QRI scores than both the English-speaking and Spanish-speaking Latino adolescent mothers. There were no significant differences between the English-speaking and Spanish-speaking Latino adolescent mothers and their perceived relationship with their own mothers. The overall results of the group differences among adolescent mothers are presented in Figure 3 and summarized in Table 4. In order to test the perceived quality of relationship for each parent figure within a couple, a Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance was conducted. For example, when considering the perceived quality of relationship with the mother of the adolescent mother, the adolescent mother's QRI score regarding her own mother was analyzed along with the adolescent father's QRI score regarding his partner's mother. These two scores represent the repeat and provide a basis for analyzing the relationship with this parental figure across the couple. A repeated measure design was used because it was assumed 33 that each of these scores would be dependent on the other score within the couple. For example, if an adolescent mother does not have a relationship with her father, it was expected that the adolescent mother's partner would also report a limited relationship with her father as well. The omnibus results of the Repeated Measures ANOVA yielded significant differences among the comparison groups for three of the four parental figures. Significant differences were detected regarding the relationship with the adolescent mothers' mothers (F(2,162)=5.531, p<.01), the adolescent fathers' fathers (F(2,162)=3.036, p<.05), and the adolescent fathers' mothers (F(2,162)=4.366, p<.05). Additionally, the comparisons between the three groups for the adolescent mother's father approached significance (F(2,162)=3.036), p=.051), and post hoc tests revealed significant differences. Tukey's post hoc tests showed that both English-speaking Latino and Spanish-speaking Latino couples tended to report significantly higher QRI scores related to the adolescent mothers' mothers than their Anglo counterparts, while no differences were detected between the two Latino comparison groups. Tukey's post hoc tests also showed that Spanish-speaking couples tended to report significantly higher QRI scores related to the adolescent mothers' fathers and adolescent fathers' mothers than the Anglo couples. Finally, Tukey's post hoc tests demonstrated that Spanish-speaking Latino couples tended to report higher QRI scores than both Anglo and English-speaking Latino couples related to their perceived quality of relationship with the adolescent fathers' fathers. The overall summary of group differences in couples' relationships with parental figures is presented in Figure 4 and Table 5. 34 Test of the Secondary Hypothesis To explore the possible predictive nature of the perceived quality of relationship with each parental figure on a number of health outcome variables, a series of linear regressions were completed to determine the degree to which each of these parental relationships contributed to the outcomes. The outcomes considered were depression, delinquency and drug use, measured respectively by the Beck Depression Inventory, the Delinquent/Criminal Behavior Checklist, and the Drug Use Inventory (DUI). For all analyses, a block method of regression was employed to explore the degree to which each variable contributed to each outcome without excluding any variables from the overall regression equation. Each analysis included the variables of ethnicity and language as the initial block. Ethnicity was coded as 0 for Anglo couples and 1 for non-Anglo couples. Language was coded as 0 for English and 1 for Spanish. This initial block identified the overall variance related to ethnicity and language before considering the predictive value of each of the QRI scores. The second block included the following variables: QRI score for own mother, QRI score for own father, QRI score for partner's mother, and QRI score for partner's father. For adolescent fathers, three block method regressions were conducted to determine to what degree the independent variables (ethnicity, language, four QRI scores) were predictor variables for depression, delinquency and drug use. Results indicated that only the regression model predicting delinquency predicted significantly, R2=.115, R2 adj=.082, F(6,160)=3.462, p<.01). This model accounted for 11.5% of the variance in adolescent fathers' reported delinquency over the past month. However, within this model, only language (β=-.279, p<.01) and the adolescent fathers' relationship 35 with his own father (β=-.192, p<.05) contributed significantly to the model. A summary of all of the regression models is presented in Table 6. For adolescent mothers, three block method regressions were also conducted to determine to what degree the independent variables were predictors for depression, delinquency and drug use. Results indicated that all three models predicted significantly. First, the model predicting adolescent mothers' level of depression was significant (R2=.090, R2 adj=.057, F(6,166)=2.742, p<.05). This model accounted for 9% of the variance in adolescent mothers' self-reported level of depression. The only variable that approached significance in the model was ethnicity (β=-.145, p=.077). Second, the model predicting adolescent mothers' delinquent behavior in the prior month was also significant (R2=.126, R2 adj=.094, F(6,166)=3.989, p<.01). This model accounted for 12.6% of the variance in adolescent mothers' reported criminal and delinquent behavior in the past month. Within this model, ethnicity was also the only predictor that was significant (β=-.204, p<.05). Finally, the model predicting adolescent mothers' drug use in the prior month was significant (R2=.146, R2 adj=.115, F(6,166)=4.737, p<.001). This model accounted for 14.6% of the variance in the adolescent mothers' use of substances in the prior month. Within this model, ethnicity (β=-.245, p<.01), the adolescent's reported QRI with her own mother (β=-.169, p<.05), the adolescent's reported QRI with her partner's father (β=-.236, p<.05), and the adolescent's reported QRI score with her partner's mother (β=.188, p<.05) all contributed significantly to the model. A summary of all the regression models is presented in Table 7. The overall correlations of dependent and predictor variables are presented in Table 8, Table 9 and Table 10. 36 Table 1 Age Information Young Mothers Young Fathers Group M SD N M SD n Anglo 16.85 1.068 58 18.99 2.128 58 Both English- Speaking 16.22 1.100 82 17.95 1.721 82 Both Spanish- Speaking 16.39 1.178 36 19.74 2.457 36 Total 16.46 1.135 176 18.66 2.137 176 37 Table 2 Summary of Group Differences in Depression, Delinquency and Lifetime Drug Use: Adolescent Mother and Adolescent Father Overall Mean Scores (plus Standard Deviation) Post Hoc Comparisons (Tukey HSD)- Mean Differences (plus Standard Error) Overall Differences (F) Anglo English-Speaking Latino Spanish-Speaking Latino Anglo v. English- Speaking Latino Anglo v. Spanish- Speaking Latino English- Speaking Latino v. Spanish- Speaking Latino Mother-BDI 5.531** 11.000 (6.890) 8.707 (6.245) 6.750 (4.513) 2.293 (1.058) 4.250** (1.308) 1.957 (1.232) Mother-DCBC 7.665** 10.649 (11.756) 6.436 (6.789) 4.000 (4.922) 4.214** (1.456) 6.649** (1.801) 2.436 (1.697) Mother-DUI 7.544** 17.483 (21.548) 8.098 (10.624) 7.417 (12.600) 9.385** (2.647) 10.066** (3.273) .681 (3.084) Father-BDI 2.148 6.913 (7.350) 5.605 (5.751) 4.278 (4.179) 1.308 (1.041) 2.635 (1.287) 1.327 (1.213) Father-DCBC 7.886** 15.048 (12.626) 14.317 (15.963) 4.703 (6.242) .730 (2.300) 10.345** (2.844) 9.615** (2.680) Father-DUI 5.550** 28.276 (29.206) 15.207 (19.476) 17.667 (20.681) 13.069** (4.006) 10.609 (4.954) -2.459 (4.668) Note. BDI=Beck Depression Inventory-II, DCBC=Delinquent/Criminal Behavior Checklist, DUI=Drug Use Inventory. * p < .05 ** p < .01 38 Table 3 Summary of Group Differences in Young Fathers' Relationships with Parental Figures Overall Mean Scores (plus Standard Deviation) Post Hoc Comparisons (Tukey HSD)-Mean Differences (plus Standard Error) Overall Differences (F) Anglo English-Speaking Latino Spanish- Speaking Latino Anglo v. English- Speaking Latino Anglo v. Spanish- Speaking Latino English- Speaking Latino v. Spanish- Speaking Latino QRI with own father 4.845** 66.203 (15.127) 69.925 (15.549) 76.412 (14.088) -3.722 (2.610) -10.209** (3.280) -6.487 (3.087) QRI with own mother 6.034** 72.616 (15.207) 77.801 (10.691) 81.266 (8.440) -5.186* (2.069) -8.650** (2.629) -3.464 (2.486) QRI with partner's father 3.375* 61.783 (13.374) 63.748 (11.985) 68.857 (12.384) -1.965 (2.180) -7.074* (2.744) -5.109 (2.600) QRI with partner's mother 5.381** 61.887 (15.729) 67.212 (11.138) 70.484 (11.282) -5.325* (2.209) -8.597** (2.781) -3.271 (2.6260 Note. QRI =Quality of Relationship Inventory. * p < .05 ** p < .01 39 Table 4 Summary of Group Differences in Young Mothers' Relationships with Parental Figures Overall Mean Scores (plus Standard Deviation) Post Hoc Comparisons (Tukey HSD)- Mean Differences (plus Standard Error) Overall Differences (F) Anglo English-Speaking Latino Spanish- Speaking Latino Anglo v. English- Speaking Latino Anglo v. Spanish- Speaking Latino English- Speaking Latino v. Spanish- Speaking Latino QRI with own father 1.613 66.255 (18.411) 66.768 (17.340) 72.184 (12.290) -0.512 (2.920) -5.928 (3.589) -5.416 (3.365) QRI with own mother 3.878* 72.760 (17.877) 78.944 (10.541) 78.377 (10.799) -6.185* (2.314) -5.617 (2.857) 0.567 (2.683) QRI with partner's father 2.484 63.911 (13.055) 64.280 (10.750) 68.807 (9.133) -0.369 (1.943) -4.896 (2.398) -4.527 (2.252) QRI with partner's mother .855 67.187 (13.532) 68.571 (13.304) 70.835 (11.887) -1.385 (2.260) -3.648 (2.790) -2.263 (2.620) Note. QRI =Quality of Relationship Inventory. * p < .05 ** p < .01 40 Table 5 Summary of Group Differences in Couples' Relationships with Parental Figures Overall Mean Scores (plus Standard Deviation) Post Hoc Comparisons (Tukey HSD)- Mean Differences (plus Standard Error) Overall Differences (F) Anglo English-Speaking Latino Spanish-Speaking Latino Anglo v. English- Speaking Latino Anglo v. Spanish- Speaking Latino English- Speaking Latino v. Spanish- Speaking Latino QRI with MOB's mother 5.531** 67.220 (1.543) 73.094 (1.276) 74.204 (2.004) -5.874* (2.002) -6.984* (2.529) -1.110 (2.376) QRI with MOB's father 3.036^ 63.772 (1.769) 65.288 (1.462) 70.748 (2.298) -1.516 (2.295) -6.976* (2.900) -5.460 (2.724) QRI with FOB's mother 3.579* 70.240 (1.389) 73.630 (1.148) 76.075 (1.804) -3.390 (1.802) -5.836* (2.277) -2.445 (2.138) QRI with FOB's father 4.366* 65.487 (1.510) 67.144 (1.248) 72.657 (1.961) -1.657 (1.959) -7.170* (2.475) -5.513* (2.325) Note. QRI =Quality of Relationship Inventory, MOB=Mother of Baby, FOB=Father of Baby. * p < .05 ** p < .01, ^approaching significance 41 Table 6 Summary of Regression Models Predicting Various Outcomes for Adolescent Fathers Overall Model Individual Contributing Variables Prediction Model R square Adjusted R square F Sig. Variable B Beta t Sig. Fathers .058 .023 1.651 .136 Ethnicity -.667 -.052 -.608 .544 BDI Language -.861 -.056 -.669 .504 QRI-Own Father -.027 -.069 -.800 .425 QRI-Own Mother -.034 -0.67 -.806 .422 QRI-Partner's Father -.033 -.068 -.691 .490 QRI-Partner's Mother -.040 -.086 -.858 .392 Fathers .115 .082 3.462** .003 Ethnicity .327 .011 .136 .892 DCBC Language -9.770 -.279 -3.456** .001 QRI-Own Father -.172 -.192 -2.296* .023 QRI-Own Mother .039 .034 .423 .673 QRI-Partner's Father .014 .013 .138 .890 QRI-Partner's Mother .076 .072 .743 .459 Fathers .061 .030 1.737 .116 Ethnicity -9.733 -.197 -2.326* .021 DUI Language 3.717 .063 .756 .450 QRI-Own Father -.134 -.089 -1.029 .305 QRI-Own Mother -.167 -.087 -1.050 .295 QRI-Partner's Father .118 .064 .648 .518 QRI-Partner's Mother .051 .029 .291 .772 Note. BDI=Beck Depression Inventory-II, DCBC=Delinquent/Criminal Behavior Checklist, DUI=Drug Use Inventory, QRI=Quality of Relationship Inventory. * p < .05 ** p < .01 42 Table 7 Summary of Regression Models Predicting Various Outcomes for Adolescent Mothers Overall Model Individual Contributing Variables Prediction Model R square Adjusted R square F Sig. Variable B Beta t Sig. Mothers .090 .057 2.742* .014 Ethnicity -1.958 -.145 -1.781 .077 BDI Language -1.612 -.103 -1.285 .201 QRI-Own Father -.010 -.027 -.340 .735 QRI-Own Mother -.035 -.075 -.959 .339 QRI-Partner's Father -.082 -.147 -1.541 .125 QRI-Partner's Mother -.004 -.008 -.088 .930 Mothers .126 .094 3.989** .001 Ethnicity -3.844 -.204 -2.555* .012 DCBC Language -2.133 -.098 -1.242 .216 QRI-Own Father .018 .034 .442 .659 QRI-Own Mother -0.87 -.135 -1.761 .080 QRI-Partner's Father -.078 -.100 -1.071 .286 QRI-Partner's Mother -.053 -.078 -.863 .389 Mothers .146 .115 4.737** .000 Ethnicity -8.417 -.245 -3.110** .002 DUI Language -.402 -.010 -.130 .897 QRI-Own Father .108 .113 1.479 .141 QRI-Own Mother -.199 -.169 -2.233* .027 QRI-Partner's Father -.333 -.236 -2.543* .012 QRI-Partner's Mother .230 .188 2.094* .038 Note. BDI=Beck Depression Inventory-II, DCBC=Delinquent/Criminal Behavior Checklist, DUI=Drug Use Inventory, QRI=Quality of Relationship Inventory. * p < .05 ** p < .01 43 Table 8 Correlation Table for Predictor and Dependent Variables-Adolescent Fathers FOB's QRI with own father FOB's QRI with own mother FOB's QRI with partner's father FOB's QRI with partner's mother MOB's QRI with her own father MOB's QRI with her own mother MOB's QRI with her partner's father MOB's QRI with her partner's mother FOB's QRI with own father 1 .261** .001 .342** .000 .339** .000 .193* .012 .063 .408 .385** .000 .056 .470 FOB's QRI with own mother .261** .001 1 .131 .090 .025 .744 -.071 .355 -.042 .585 .156* .042 .325** .000 FOB's QRI with partner's father .342** .000 .131 .090 1 .611** .000 .541** .000 .206** .007 .118 .128 .089 .252 FOB's QRI with partner's mother .339** .000 .025 .744 .611** .000 1 .169* .027 .453** .000 .038 .616 .019 .804 FOB BDI -.151* .048 -.131 .085 -.180* .019 -.167* .028 -.060 .437 -.060 .431 -.062 .418 -.069 .367 FOB DCBC -.197** .009 -.080 .293 -.065 .398 -.041 .594 .051 .503 -.085 .263 -.141 .063 .044 .565 FOB DUI -.106 .164 -.159* .036 .012 .876 -.033 .664 .019 .805 -.030 .690 -.057 .454 -.064 .403 Note. FOB=Father of Baby, MOB=Mother of Baby, BDI=Beck Depression Inventory-II, DCBC=Delinquent/Criminal Behavior Checklist, DUI=Drug Use Inventory, QRI=Quality of Relationship Inventory. * p < .05 ** p < .01 44 Table 9 Correlation Table for Predictor and Dependent Variables-Adolescent Mothers MOB's QRI with own father MOB's QRI with own mother MOB's QRI with partner's father MOB's QRI with partner's mother FOB's QRI with his own father FOB's QRI with his own mother FOB's QRI with his partner's father FOB's QRI with his partner's mother MOB's QRI with own father 1 .207** .006 .261** .001 .075 .326 .193* .012 -.071 .355 .541** .000 .169* .027 MOB's QRI with own mother .207** .006 1 .005 .949 -.087 .250 .063 .408 -.042 .585 .206** .007 .453** .000 MOB's QRI with partner's father .261** .001 .005 .949 1 .587** .000 .385** .000 .156* .042 .118 .128 .038 .616 MOB's QRI with partner's mother .075 .326 -.087 .250 .587** .000 1 .056 .470 .325** .000 .089 .252 .019 .804 MOB BDI -.104 .172 -.117 .122 -.188* .013 -.109 .153 -.134 .080 -.126 .100 -.038 .622 -.086 .261 MOB DCBC -.051 .501 -.176* .020 -.168* .026 -.144 .058 -.144 .058 -.102 .181 -.059 .443 -.036 .638 MOB DUI .015 .849 -.214** .005 -.117 .124 .053 .489 -.188* .013 -.103 .179 .025 .743 -.009 .904 Note. FOB=Father of Baby, MOB=Mother of Baby, BDI=Beck Depression Inventory-II, DCBC=Delinquent/Criminal Behavior Checklist, DUI=Drug Use Inventory, QRI=Quality of Relationship Inventory. * p < .05 ** p < .01 45 Table 10 Correlation Table for Dependent (Outcome) Variables FOB BDI FOB DCBC FOB DUI MOB BDI MOB DCBC MOB DUI FOB BDI 1 .131 .084 .033 .660 -.067 .377 .005 .948 -.063 .403 FOB DCBC 1 .406** .000 .019 .807 .232** .002 .336** .000 FOB DUI 1 -.019 .804 .226** .003 .306** .000 MOB BDI 1 .387** .000 .186* .013 MOB DCBC 1 .459** .000 MOB DUI 1 Note. FOB=Father of Baby, MOB=Mother of Baby, BDI=Beck Depression Inventory-II, DCBC=Delinquent/Criminal Behavior Checklist, DUI=Drug Use Inventory, QRI=Quality of Relationship Inventory. * p < .05 ** p < .01 46 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Anglo English-Speaking Latino Spanish-Speaking Latino Figure 1 Summary of Group Differences in Depression, Delinquency and Drug Use: Adolescent Mothers and Adolescent Fathers Note. BDI=Beck Depression Inventory-II, DCBC=Delinquent/Criminal Behavior Checklist, DUI=Drug Use Inventory. 60 65 70 75 80 85 QRI with own father QRI with own mother QRI with partner's father QRI with partner's mother Anglo English-Speaking Latino Spanish-Speaking Latino Figure 2 Summary of Group Differences in Adolescent Fathers' Perceived Relationships with Parental Figures Note. QRI =Quality of Relationship Inventory. 47 60 65 70 75 80 85 QRI with own father QRI with own mother QRI with partner's father QRI with partner's mother Anglo English-Speaking Latino Spanish-Speaking Latino Figure 3 Summary of Group Differences in Adolescent Mothers' Perceived Relationships with Parental Figures Note. QRI=Quality of Relationship Inventory. 60 65 70 75 80 85 QRI with MOB's mother QRI with MOB's father QRI with FOB's mother QRI with FOB's father Anglo English-Speaking Latino Spanish-Speaking Latino Figure 4 Summary of Group Differences in Adolescent Couples' Perceived Relationships with Parental Figures Note. QRI=Quality of Relationship Inventory, MOB=Mother of Baby, FOB=Father of Baby CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION Major Findings The goal of this study was to explore the constellation of parental relationships surrounding adolescent couples expecting a baby and possible differences in these relationships based on culture. First, this study examined possible differences between Anglo adolescent couples, more acculturated English-speaking Latino couples and less acculturated Spanish-speaking Latino couples. Second, the relationship between perceived quality of relationship and various health outcomes for adolescents such as depression, delinquency, and substance use were examined. Due to the lack of empirical research in this area, an exploratory analytical approach was employed. Individual Relationships with Parental Figures When exploring the varied perceptions of quality of parental relationships of adolescent fathers expecting a baby, one clear pattern emerged. Across all parental figures, including their own father, their own mother, their partner's father and their partner's mother, Spanish-speaking adolescent fathers tended to report the strongest quality of relationship among the three comparison groups. These scores were significantly higher than the self-reported Anglo scores for all parental figures and for the 49 self-reported scores for English-speaking Latino fathers when these adolescents responded to items related to their own mother and their partner's mother. In contrast, the adolescent mothers did not report a similar discrepancy in scores across the comparison groups. For the most part, the adolescent mothers tended to report very similar perceptions of quality of relationship for all parental figures, regardless of whether the adolescent was Anglo, English-speaking Latina or Spanish-speaking Latina. The only exception was a difference between Anglo adolescent mothers and Spanish-speaking Latina adolescents regarding their self-reported perception of their relationship with their own mothers. In this case, Spanish-speaking Latina adolescents reported a stronger quality of relationship with their own mothers than their Anglo counterparts. When considering the preferred language of the couple as a proxy for acculturation, these findings suggest that less-acculturated (i.e., Spanish-speaking), adolescent Latino fathers tend to report stronger relationships with their parents and their partner's parents. As research suggests that stronger parental relationships improve the transition to parenthood for adolescent fathers (Florsheim et al., 2003), the results of this study imply that Spanish-speaking Latino fathers may transition more smoothly into parenthood than their English-speaking Latino and Anglo counterparts. The consistently higher self-reported perception of quality of relationships reported by Spanish-speaking Latino adolescent fathers may indicate that relationships with their parents and their partner's parents may potentially play more of a protective role than with other adolescent couples. It is possible that the variation in results found in similar studies examining relationship quality and closeness may be related to the lack of inclusion of acculturation level or other within group differences in prior studies. The current study 50 emphasizes the importance of including within group differences, such as acculturation, as additional variables. Although the results of this study indicated significant differences between Spanish-speaking adolescent fathers and Anglo couples, it is possible that group differences may not have been detected if only two comparison groups were utilized instead (i.e., only Anglo and Latino as opposed to Anglo, English-speaking Latino, and Spanish-speaking Latino). Findings from prior research indicates the importance of including adolescent fathers in studies on teenage parenting (i.e., Florsheim et al., 1999; Moore, Florsheim, & Butner, 2007). For example, Florsheim and Smith (2005) found support for the hypothesis that adolescent couples' relationships before the birth of the baby predict parenting behavior. The findings from this study provide more evidence for the importance of including fathers in research on adolescent parenting. In this study, if only mothers had been considered, the results would not have indicated any variation across groups. However, by including the adolescent fathers, a new pattern emerged, suggesting Spanish-speaking fathers may feel more connected to and supported by their parents and partner's parents. These stronger relationships should be utilized as an additional support and added protective factors for these couples. Couple Relationships with Parental Figures A similar pattern emerged regarding the adolescent couples' relationships with each parental figure. Across all parental figures, the Spanish-speaking Latino couples reported a significantly stronger quality of relationship with each parental figure than their Anglo counterparts. They also reported higher scores than their English-speaking 51 Latino counterparts, although the only significant difference was the relationship the couple reported with the adolescent father's father. Regarding this relationship, Spanish-speaking adolescent couples reported a significantly higher quality of relationship score than both the Anglo couples and the English-speaking Latino couples. The results related to couples' relationships with the varied parental figures suggest that overall, the Spanish-speaking couples perceive stronger relationships with each parental figure than their Anglo counterparts. This suggests that the Spanish-speaking couples may be more buffered from negative outcomes than other adolescent couples, due to the possible additive protective effect of these stronger relationships across both families of origin. This finding is consistent with previous research that has demonstrated that lower orientation to Anglo culture could provide an "additive protective effect" for Latino adolescents (McHale et al., 2008). Overall, the findings of this study provide support for the presence of stronger familial relationships for Spanish-speaking Latino adolescent fathers than their Anglo counterparts. Individually, Spanish-speaking Latino adolescent fathers reported stronger perceived quality of relationships with each of their parental figures. As a couple, Spanish-speaking Latino couples also tended to report stronger perceived familial relationships with each parental figure than their Anglo counterparts. The next research question addressed the degree to which varied perceptions in quality of relationship predict various health outcomes. 52 Perceived Quality of Relationship and Health Outcomes Perceived quality of relationship with varied parental figures did not contribute to the predictor models for any of the health outcomes in a consistent, meaningful way. These results do not support prior findings demonstrating that the quality of parent-child relationships and connectedness is related to positive health outcomes, such as increased self-esteem and decreased depression (Boutelle, Eisenberg, Gregory, & Neumark- Sztainer, 2009). Study-specific factors, such as the current pregnancy and the use of self-report measures, may have influenced the findings in this study and are discussed in more depth in the limitations section. To begin with, none of the perceptions of quality of relationship with any parental figure predicted depression for either adolescent fathers or adolescent mothers. Additionally, ethnicity and language did not significantly predict depression in the sample although ethnicity did approach significance for adolescent mothers. The participants in this study were recruited from the community and it is anticipated that depressive symptomatology would not be as high compared to participants recruited from other settings (e.g., medical or mental health clinic).. Thus, it is possible that not enough variation existed among depression levels to detect any relationship between depression and relationship quality. When using perceived relationship quality to predict delinquency and criminal behavior, the only significant predictors for adolescent fathers were their relationships with their own father and language. For adolescent mothers, only ethnicity predicted significantly. Regarding drug use, only ethnicity predicted the levels of use for adolescent fathers, with Anglo adolescent fathers being more likely to report higher levels of use. 53 These limited findings related to the predictive nature of adolescent-parent relationships differed from prior research demonstrating a link between parental relationships and health outcomes (Boutelle et al., 2009). However, adolescent mothers' reported level of substance use was significantly predicted by ethnicity, her relationship with her own mother and her relationship with both of her partner's parents. This discrepancy in prediction between adolescent mothers and adolescent fathers may be related to the pregnancy. As substance use was only measured for the past month, many of the adolescent mothers may have reduced their substance use due to the pregnancy rather than their relationships with each of these parental figures. Other studies have measured low and reduced levels of substance use during adolescent pregnancy (i.e., Kaiser & Hays, 2005; Spears, Stein, & Koniak-Griffin, 2010). Overall, the findings related to the predictive value of perceived quality of relationship on various health outcomes did not provide any further clear, empirical support for the link between quality of parent-child relationships and health outcomes. While some relationships did contribute significantly, no clear patterns emerged related to relationship quality, and ethnicity and language accounted for much of the variance. As previously noted, this finding may be related to the specific population and limitations of the current study. Limitations and Future Directions Although this study provides valuable additional empirical information about the perceived quality of relationships within families of adolescents expecting a baby, 54 limitations do exist. First, while language does account for a large proportion of variance related to acculturation (Cuellar et al., 1980), language still represents only one piece of the complex construct of acculturation. In order to better understand the influence of acculturation on the relationships surrounding adolescents expecting a baby, a more thorough measure of acculturation should be included. By measuring acculturation with a more in-depth, validated scale, such as the Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican- Americans (Cuellar et al., 1995), researchers may be able to further explore which aspects of acculturation contribute most directly to differing levels of quality of relationship. For example, if a Latino adolescent prefers to speak English but still retains close connection with Latino family values, he/she may be more likely to report stronger relationships with his/her family members. Based on the literature, the current study assumed a large proportion of variance for acculturation would be accounted for by language but this study did not include an all-inclusive measure of acculturation. Second, the results of this study will likely generalize best to other Latino adolescents who are expecting a baby. As the birth of a baby dramatically changes the lives of these adolescents, it is possible that these patterns of familial relationships are linked to the current pregnancy and expected life changes. These patterns may not hold true with adolescents who are not expecting a baby. While this study focused on better understanding the family relationships as a possible protective factor for adolescents expecting a baby, the results should be replicated with a nonexpecting population as these relationships may be protective of other behaviors. Further, this study was conducted in the Western United States where a larger proportion of the Latino population is Mexican 55 or Mexican-American. The results should be replicated with more variation in country of origin in order to increase the ability to generalize further. Third, this study relied exclusively on adolescents' self-report of their perception of the quality of relationship with parental figures. While this study did include analysis across couples, which increases the number of self-reports, no additional observational or corroborating (i.e., data from parents) data were utilized. It is possible that observational data may yield similar relationship styles and interactions and that these styles/interactions are simply perceived differently by the comparison groups. For example, future studies may consider collecting data from parents regarding their perceptions of the quality of relationship with their adolescent children or observing and coding interactions between adolescent mothers and father and their own parents. Finally, because of the limited literature in this area, this study was designed as exploratory in nature. Because of this design, the results were primarily based on observations of relationships in the data to determine which groups varied from others. In order to strengthen the findings of this study, these results should be replicated in a different sample of adolescents expecting a baby to determine if the differences in perceived quality of relationship reported by adolescent fathers are present in other samples. Specifically, researchers should expand the cultural groups to explore where other collectivist cultures report similar patterns as the Latino adolescent fathers. Overall Conclusions While many teen parenting programs focus exclusively on adolescent mothers, these findings suggest that including Spanish-speaking adolescent fathers may strengthen 56 the protective influence of the larger family network during the transition to parenthood. As Spanish-speaking fathers consistently reported stronger perceptions of quality of relationship with parental figures, these adolescent fathers may benefit from more family support and may provide more support for his adolescent partner. Additionally, as Spanish-speaking couples also consistently reported stronger relationships with parental figures, it is possible that these couples experience support from a more extended, comprehensive network than that Anglo couples or the English-speaking Latino couples. This extended support network and constellation of stronger relationships may likely make the transition into parenthood easier for these adolescent couples. However, more research is needed to examine the links between this larger relationship network and long-term outcomes for adolescent parents and their experience of parenting. Further, these findings suggest that clinicians working with Spanish-speaking Latino adolescent couples expecting a baby should utilize the strength of familial relationships as an additional resource and protective factor to help these adolescents transition into parenthood. As this study revealed differences in perceptions of family relationships (a protective factor), it suggests the presence of differential risk and protective factors for Spanish-speaking Latino adolescent fathers and couples, English-speaking Latino adolescent fathers and couples and Anglo adolescent fathers and couples. Rather than simply investigating and targeting risk and protective factors associated with adolescent parents generally, future research should continue to explore and identify what risk and protective factors are specific to varied populations. Doing so would allow clinicians to more efficiently target and enhance protective factors while reducing risk factors. Additionally, these results suggest that clinicians working with Spanish-speaking 57 Latino adolescent couples should consider the potentially protective role of the family and how parents of these adolescents may help ease the transition to parenthood. For example, clinicians may want to consider increasing the involvement of extended family in treatment or discussing familial expectations and norms. Family involvement could take many forms but may include family therapy, family consultation, or family planning with the extended family. Finally, as the study detected differences among Spanish-speaking Latinos and Anglos that were not always detected when comparing English-speaking Latinos with Anglos, the findings support the inclusion of a measure of acculturation, such as the Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans, in future studies related to familial relationships. Including a measure of acculturation, even just using language preference as a proxy for acculturation, allows researchers to more closely examine group differences within the Latino culture as a whole. APPENDIX A QUALITY OF RELATIONSHIP INVENTORY You are now going to be asked a series of questions about your relationships with various people in your life. In response to each question, please check one of the following boxes. 1. To what extent could you turn to the following people for advice about problems? Your Father Your Mother Your Partner Partner's Father Partner's Mother Not at all Not at all Not at all Not at all Not at all A little A little A little A little A little Some Some Some Some Some A lot A lot A lot A lot A lot 2. How often do you need to work hard to avoid conflict with the following people? Your Father Your Mother Your Partner Partner's Father Partner's Mother Not at all Not at all Not at all Not at all Not at all A little A little A little A little A little Some Some Some Some Some A lot A lot A lot A lot A lot 3. To what extent could you turn to the following people for help with a problem? Your Father Your Mother Your Partner Partner's Father Partner's Mother Not at all Not at all Not at all Not at all Not at all A little A little A little A little A little Some Some Some Some Some A lot A lot A lot A lot A lot 4. How upset do the following people sometimes make you feel? Your Father Your Mother Your Partner Partner's Father Partner's Mother Not at all Not at all Not at all Not at all Not at all A little A little A little A little A little Some Some Some Some Some A lot A lot A lot A lot A lot 59 5. To what extent can you count on the following people to give you honest feedback, even if you might not want to hear it? Your Father Your Mother Your Partner Partner's Father Partner's Mother Not at all Not at all Not at all Not at all Not at all A little A little A little A little A little Some Some Some Some Some A lot A lot A lot A lot A lot 6. How much do the following people make you feel guilty? Your Father Your Mother Your Partner Partner's Father Partner's Mother Not at all Not at all Not at all Not at all Not at all A little A little A little A little A little Some Some Some Some Some A lot A lot A lot A lot A lot 7. How much do you have to "give in" in your relationship with the following people? Your Father Your Mother Your Partner Partner's Father Partner's Mother Not at all Not at all Not at all Not at all Not at all A little A little A little A little A little Some Some Some Some Some A lot A lot A lot A lot A lot 8. To what extent can you count on the following people to help you if a family member very close to you died? Your Father Your Mother Your Partner Partner's Father Partner's Mother Not at all Not at all Not at all Not at all Not at all A little A little A little A little A little Some Some Some Some Some A lot A lot A lot A lot A lot 9. How much do the following people want you to change? Your Father Your Mother Your Partner Partner's Father Partner's Mother Not at all Not at all Not at all Not at all Not at all A little A little A little A little A little Some Some Some Some Some A lot A lot A lot A lot A lot 60 10. How much more do you give than you get from your relationship with the following people? Your Father Your Mother Your Partner Partner's Father Partner's Mother Not at all Not at all Not at all Not at all Not at all A little A little A little A little A little Some Some Some Some Some A lot A lot A lot A lot A lot 11. How positive a role do the following people play in your life? Your Father Your Mother Your Partner Partner's Father Partner's Mother Not at all Not at all Not at all Not at all Not at all A little A little A little A little A little Some Some Some Some Some A lot A lot A lot A lot A lot 12. How significant is your relationship with the following people in your life? Your Father Your Mother Your Partner Partner's Father Partner's Mother Not at all Not at all Not at all Not at all Not at all A little A little A little A little A little Some Some Some Some Some A lot A lot A lot A lot A lot 13. How close will your relationship be with the following people in 10 years? Your Father Your Mother Your Partner Partner's Father Partner's Mother Not at all Not at all Not at all Not at all Not at all A little A little A little A little A little Some Some Some Some Some A lot A lot A lot A lot A lot 14. How much would you miss the following people if the two of you could not see or talk with each other for a month? Your Father Your Mother Your Partner Partner's Father Partner's Mother Not at all Not at all Not at all Not at all Not at all A little A little A little A little A little Some Some Some Some Some A lot A lot A lot A lot A lot 15. How critical of you are the following people? Your Father Your Mother Your Partner Partner's Father Partner's Mother Not at all Not at all Not at all Not at all Not at all A little A little A little A little A little Some Some Some Some Some A lot A lot A lot A lot A lot 61 16. If you wanted to go out and do something this evening, how confident are you that the following people would be willing to do something with you? Your Father Your Mother Your Partner Partner's Father Partner's Mother Not at all Not at all Not at all Not at all Not at all A little A little A little A little A little Some Some Some Some Some A lot A lot A lot A lot A lot 17. How responsible do you feel for the following people's well-being? Your Father Your Mother Your Partner Partner's Father Partner's Mother Not at all Not at all Not at all Not at all Not at all A little A little A little A little A little Some Some Some Some Some A lot A lot A lot A lot A lot 18. How much do you depend on the following people? Your Father Your Mother Your Partner Partner's Father Partner's Mother Not at all Not at all Not at all Not at all Not at all A little A little A little A little A little Some Some Some Some Some A lot A lot A lot A lot A lot 19. To what extent can you count on the following people to listen to you when you are very angry at someone else? Your Father Your Mother Your Partner Partner's Father Partner's Mother Not at all Not at all Not at all Not at all Not at all A little A little A little A little A little Some Some Some Some Some A lot A lot A lot A lot A lot 20. How much would you like the following people to change? Your Father Your Mother Your Partner Partner's Father Partner's Mother Not at all Not at all Not at all Not at all Not at all A little A little A little A little A little Some Some Some Some Some A lot A lot A lot A lot A lot 62 21. How angry do the following people make you feel? Your Father Your Mother Your Partner Partner's Father Partner's Mother Not at all Not at all Not at all Not at all Not at all A little A little A little A little A little Some Some Some Some Some A lot A lot A lot A lot A lot 22. How much do you argue with the following people? Your Father Your Mother Your Partner Partner's Father Partner's Mother Not at all Not at all Not at all Not at all Not at all A little A little A little A little A little Some Some Some Some Some A lot A lot A lot A lot A lot 23. To what extent can you really count on the following people to distract you from your worries when you feel under stress? Your Father Your Mother Your Partner Partner's Father Partner's Mother Not at all Not at all Not at all Not at all Not at all A little A little A little A little A little Some Some Some Some Some A lot A lot A lot A lot A lot 24. How often do the following people make you feel angry? Your Father Your Mother Your Partner Partner's Father Partner's Mother Not at all Not at all Not at all Not at all Not at all A little A little A little A little A little Some Some Some Some Some A lot A lot A lot A lot A lot 25. How often do the following people try to control or influence your life? Your Father Your Mother Your Partner Partner's Father Partner's Mother Not at all Not at all Not at all Not at all Not at all A little A little A little A little A little Some Some Some Some Some A lot A lot A lot A lot A lot APPENDIX B DRUG USE INVENTORY This next set of questions will ask you about your previous and current use of drugs and alcohol. Please answer each question honestly. Remember, all responses are kept confidential; only the researchers have access to them. 1. How many times did you drink alcohol beverages (including beer, wine, and liquor) to get tipsy or drunk? In your life: Never In the past month: Never 1-2 times 1-2 times 3-5 times 3-5 times 6-9 times 6-9 times 10-19 times 10-19 times 20-39 times 20-39 times 40 or more times 40 or more times 2. How many times did you smoke cigarettes? In your life: Never In the past month: Never 1-2 times 1-2 times 3-5 times 3-5 times 6-9 times 6-9 times 10-19 times 10-19 times 20-39 times 20-39 times 40 or more times 40 or more times 3. How many times did you smoke cigars? In your life: Never In the past month: Never 1-2 times 1-2 times 3-5 times 3-5 times 6-9 times 6-9 times 10-19 times 10-19 times 20-39 times 20-39 times 40 or more times 40 or more times 64 4. How many times did you use chewing tobacco, snuff, or dip? In your life: Never In the past month: Never 1-2 times 1-2 times 3-5 times 3-5 times 6-9 times 6-9 times 10-19 times 10-19 times 20-39 times 20-39 times 40 or more times 40 or more times 5. How many times (if any) have you used marijuana (bud, grass, pot) or hashish (hash, hash oil)? In your life: Never In the past month: Never 1-2 times 1-2 times 3-5 times 3-5 times 6-9 times 6-9 times 10-19 times 10-19 times 20-39 times 20-39 times 40 or more times 40 or more times 6. How many times (in any) have you used LSD ("acid") or some other hallucinogen (mushrooms, PCP, Special K, ketamine)? In your life: Never In the past month: Never 1-2 times 1-2 times 3-5 times 3-5 times 6-9 times 6-9 times 10-19 times 10-19 times 20-39 times 20-39 times 40 or more times 40 or more times 7. How many times (if any) have you used cocaine (coke, crack, rock)? In your life: Never In the past month: Never 1-2 times 1-2 times 3-5 times 3-5 times 6-9 times 6-9 times 10-19 times 10-19 times 20-39 times 20-39 times 40 or more times 40 or more times 65 8. How many times (if any) have you taken uppers or speed (meth, bennies, dexies, pep pills, ice, diet pills, stay-awake)? In your life: Never In the past month: Never 1-2 times 1-2 times 3-5 times 3-5 times 6-9 times 6-9 times 10-19 times 10-19 times 20-39 times 20-39 times 40 or more times 40 or more times 9. How many times (if any) have you taken downers or sleeping pills (Ambien) without a doctor telling you to take them? In your life: Never In the past month: Never 1-2 times 1-2 times 3-5 times 3-5 times 6-9 times 6-9 times 10-19 times 10-19 times 20-39 times 20-39 times 40 or more times 40 or more times 10. How many times (if any) have you taken tranquilizers (e.g., Librium, Valium, Miltown), without a doctor telling you to take them? In your life: Never In the past month: Never 1-2 times 1-2 times 3-5 times 3-5 times 6-9 times 6-9 times 10-19 times 10-19 times 20-39 times 20-39 times 40 or more times 40 or more times 11. How many times (if any) have you used heroin (smack, horse, skag)? In your life: Never In the past month: Never 1-2 times 1-2 times 3-5 times 3-5 times 6-9 times 6-9 times 10-19 times 10-19 times 20-39 times 20-39 times 40 or more times 40 or more times 66 12. How many times (if any) have you take narcotics other than heroin (e.g. methadone, Lortab, opium, morphine, codeine, Demerol, paregoric, Talwin, oxycontin, and laudanum) without a doctor telling you to take them? In your life: Never In the past month: Never 1-2 times 1-2 times 3-5 times 3-5 times 6-9 times 6-9 times 10-19 times 10-19 times 20-39 times 20-39 times 40 or more times 40 or more times 13. How many times (if any) have you sniffed glue, or breathed the contents of aerosol spray cans, or inhaled any other gases or sprays in order to get high? In your life: Never In the past month: Never 1-2 times 1-2 times 3-5 times 3-5 times 6-9 times 6-9 times 10-19 times 10-19 times 20-39 times 20-39 times 40 or more times 40 or more times 14. How many times (if any) have you used Ecstasy? In your life: Never In the past month: Never 1-2 times 1-2 times 3-5 times 3-5 times 6-9 times 6-9 times 10-19 times 10-19 times 20-39 times 20-39 times 40 or more times 40 or more times 15. Anything else? (over the counter drugs)? In your life: Never In the past month: Never 1-2 times 1-2 times 3-5 times 3-5 times 6-9 times 6-9 times 10-19 times 10-19 times 20-39 times 20-39 times 40 or more times 40 or more times APPENDIX C DELINQUENT/CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR CHECKLIST 1) How many times have you purposely damaged or destroyed property belonging to your parents or other family members? (Other than by fire) In your lifetime and in the last month a. 0 b. 1-2 times c. 3-10 times d. 11-20 times e. 21 times or more 2) How many times have you purposely damaged or destroyed property that did not belong to you, not counting family? (Other than by fire) In your lifetime and in the last month a. 0 b. 1-2 times c. 3-10 times d. 11-20 times e. 21 times or more 3) How many times have your purposely set fire to a building, a car, or other property or tried to do so? In your lifetime and in the last month a. 0 b. 1-2 times c. 3-10 times d. 11-20 times e. 21 times or more 4) How many times have you broken or tried to break into a building or vehicle to steal something or just to look around? In your lifetime and in the last month a. 0 b. 1-2 times c. 3-10 times d. 11-20 times e. 21 times or more 68 5) How many times have you stolen money or other things from your parents or other member of your family? In your lifetime and in the last month a. 0 b. 1-2 times c. 3-10 times d. 11-20 times e. 21 times or more 6) How many times have you stolen or tried to steal a motor vehicle such as a car or motorcycle? In your lifetime and in the last month a. 0 b. 1-2 times c. 3-10 times d. 11-20 times e. 21 times or more 7) How many times have you stolen money, goods, or property from the place where you work? In your lifetime and in the last month a. 0 b. 1-2 times c. 3-10 times d. 11-20 times e. 21 times or more 8) How many times have you stolen or tried to steal something from a store? In your lifetime and in the last month a. 0 b. 1-2 times c. 3-10 times d. 11-20 times e. 21 times or more 9) How many times have you snatched someone's purses or wallet or picked someone's pocket? In your lifetime and in the last month a. 0 b. 1-2 times c. 3-10 times d. 11-20 times e. 21 times or more 69 10) How many times have you used force or strong arm methods to get money or things from people? In your lifetime and in the last month a. 0 b. 1-2 times c. 3-10 times d. 11-20 times e. 21 times or more 11) How many times have you carried a hidden weapon? In your lifetime and in the last month a. 0 b. 1-2 times c. 3-10 times d. 11-20 times e. 21 times or more 12) How many times have you hit or threatened to hit one of your parents? In your lifetime and in the last month a. 0 b. 1-2 times c. 3-10 times d. 11-20 times e. 21 times or more 13) How many times have you attacked someone with the idea of seriously hurting or killing that person? In your lifetime and in the last month a. 0 b. 1-2 times c. 3-10 times d. 11-20 times e. 21 times or more 14) Before we asked about whether you had attacked anyone with the intention of seriously hurting or killing them. Now we would like to know how many times you have hit or threatened to hit anyone else (other than parents, or person at work), not intending to seriously hurt or kill them? In your lifetime and in the last month a. 0 b. 1-2 times c. 3-10 times d. 11-20 times e. 21 times or more 70 15) How many times have you been involved in gang fights? In your lifetime and in the last month a. 0 b. 1-2 times c. 3-10 times d. 11-20 times e. 21 times or more 16) Have you ever been involved in a gang? a. I have never been involved in gang activities b. I have not been involved in gang activities for more than 2 years c. I have not been involved in gang activities for the past 1-2 years d. It's been less than a year since I stopped doing gang activities e. I am currently involved in gang activities 17) How involved are you in gang related activities (lately)? a. Not at all b. A little c. Some d. Pretty much e. Very much 18) How many times have you had or tried to have sexual relations with someone against their will? In your lifetime and in the last month a. 0 b. 1-2 times c. 3-10 times d. 11-20 times e. 21 times or more 19) How many times have you tried to cheat someone by selling them something that was worthless or not what you said it was? In your lifetime and in the last month a. 0 b. 1-2 times c. 3-10 times d. 11-20 times e. 21 times or more 20) How many times have you used checks or credit cards illegally or used phony money to pay for something? In your lifetime and in the last month a. 0 b. 1-2 times c. 3-10 times d. 11-20 times e. 21 times or more 71 21) How many times have you sold marijuana or hashish? In your lifetime and in the last month a. 0 b. 1-2 times c. 3-10 times d. 11-20 times e. 21 times or more 22) How many times have you sold hard drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and LSD? (Total frequency of all hard drugs sales, not limited to these three drugs) In your lifetime and in the last month a. 0 b. 1-2 times c. 3-10 times d. 11-20 times e. 21 times or more 23) How many times have you run away from home? In your lifetime and in the last month a. 0 b. 1-2 times c. 3-10 times d. 11-20 times e. 21 times or more 24) How many times have you run away from a placement facility? In your lifetime and in the last month a. 0 b. 1-2 times c. 3-10 times d. 11-20 times e. 21 times or more REFERENCES Abalos, D. T. (1993). The Latino family and the politics of transformation. Westport, CT: Praegar Publishers. Alvarez, L. (2007). Derecho u Obligacion?: Parents' and youths' understanding of parental legitimacy in a Mexican origin familial context. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 29(2), 192-208. Baca Zinn, M. (1982/83). Familism among Chicanos: A theoretical review. Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, 10(1), 224-237. Beck, A., & Steer, R. A. (1987). Beck Depression Inventory Manual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation. Berry, J. W. (2006). Acculturation: A conceptual overview. In M. H. Bornstein & L. R. Cite (Eds.), Acculturation and parent-child relationships: Measurement and development (pp. 13-30). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Boutelle, K., Eisenberg, M., Gregory, M., & Neumark-Sztainer, D. (2009). The reciprocal relationship between parent-child connectedness and adolescent emotional functioning over 5 years. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 66(4), 309-316. Burrow-Sanchez, J. J., & Hawken, L. S. (2007). Helping students overcome substance abuse: Effective practices for prevention and intervention. New York: The Guilford Press. Carter, R. T., Yeh, C. J., & Mazzula, S. L. (2008). Cultural values and racial identity statuses among Latino students: An exploratory investigation. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 30(5), 5-23. Coohey, C. (2001). The relationship between familism and child maltreatment in Latino and Anglo families. Child Maltreatment, 6(2), 130-142. Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier. (2001). Cultural orientations in the United States: (Re)examining differences among ethnic groups. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(3), 348-364. Cuellar, I., Arnold, B., & Maldonado, R. (1995). Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans--II: A revision of the original ARSMA scale. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 1995(17), 275-304. 73 Cuellar, I., Harris, L. C., & Jasso, R. (1980). An acculturation scale for Mexican American normal and clinical populations. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 2(3), 199-217. De la Rosa, M., Vega, R., & Radisch, M. A. (2000). The role of acculturation in the substance abuse behavior of African-American and Latino adolescents: Advances, issues, and recommendations. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 32(1), 33-42. Dinh, K. T., Roosa, M. W., Tein, J., & Lopez, V. A. (2002). The relationship between acculturation and problem behavior proneness in a Hispanic youth sample: A longitudinal mediation model. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30(3), 295-309. Dogan-Ates, A., & Carrion-Basham, C. Y. (2007). Teenage pregnancy among Latinas: Examining risk and protective factors. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 29(4), 554-569. Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Menard, S. (1989). Multiple problem youth: Delinquency, substance abuse, and mental health problems. New York: Springer-Verlag. Epstein, J. A., Botvin, G. J., Dusenbury, L., Diaz, T., & Kerner, J. (1996). Validation of an acculturation measure for Hispanic adolescents. Psychological Reports, 79(3), 1075-1079. Florsheim, P., Moore, D., Zollinger, L., MacDonald, J., & Sumida, E. (1999). The transition to parenthood among adolescent fathers and their partners: Does antisocial behavior predict problems in parenting? Applied Developmental Science, 3(3), 178-191. Florsheim, P., & Smith, A. (2005). Expectant adolescent couples' relations and subsequent parenting behavior. Infant Mental Health Journal, 26(6), 533-548. Florsheim, P., Sumida, E., McCann, C., Winstanley, M., Fukui, R., Seefeldt, T., et al. (2003). The transition to parenthood among young African American and Latino couples: Relational predictors of risk for parental dysfunction. Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 65-79. Formoso, D., Gonzales, N. A., Barrera, M., & Dumka, L. E. (2007). Interparental relations, maternal employment, and fathering in Mexican American families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 26-39. Franzetta, K., Schelar, E., & Manlove, J. (2007). Trends in Hispanic teen births: Differences across states. Washington, DC: Child Trends. 74 Freeberg, A. L., & Stein, C. H. (1996). Felt obligation towards parents in Mexican- American and Anglo-American young adults. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13(3), 457-471. Fuligni, A. J., Tseng, V., & Lam, M. (1999). Attitudes toward family obligations among American adolescents with Asian, Latin American, and European backgrounds. Child Development, 70(4), 1030-1044. Gallegos-Castillo, A. (2006). La casa: Negotiating family cultural practices, constructing identities. In J. Denner & B. L. Guzman (Eds.), Latina girls: Voices of adolescent strength in the United States (pp. 44-58). New York: New York University Press. Gutierrez, J., Sameroff, A. J., & Karrer, B. M. (1988). Acculturation and SES effects on Mexican-American parents' concepts of development. Child Development, 59, 250-255. Hardway, C., & Fuligni, A. J. (2006). Dimensions of family connectedness among adolescents with Mexican, Chinese, and European backgrounds. Developmental Psychology, 42(6), 1246-1258. Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., & Miller, J. Y. (1992). Risk and protective factors for alcohol and other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood: Implications for substance abuse prevention. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 64-105. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Johnson, B. D., Wish, E. D., Schmeidler, J., & Huizinga, D. (1991). Concentration of delinquent offending: Serious drug involvement and high deliquency rates. Journal of Drug Issues, 12, 205-229. Kaiser, M., & Hays, B. (2005). Health-risk behaviors in a sample of first-time pregnant adolescents. Public Health Nursing, 22(6), 483-493. Keefe, S. E., Padilla, A. M., & Carlos, M. L. (1979). The Mexican-American extended family as an emotional support system. Human Organization, 38(2), 144-152. Kessler, R. C., Berglund, P. A., Foster, C. L., Saunders, W. B., Stang, P. E., & Walters, E. E. (1997). Social consequences of psychiatric disorders, II: Teenage parenthood. American Journal of Psychiatry, 154, 1405-1411. Klerman, L. V. (1993). The relationship between adolescent parenthood and inadequate parenting. Children and Youth Services Review, 15(4), 309-320. Marin, G., & Marin, B. V. (1991). Research with Hispanic populations (Vol. 23). Newbury Park: Sage Publications. 75 Markides, K. S., Hoppe, S. K., Martin, H. W., & Timbers, D. M. (1983). Sample representativeness in a three-generation study of Mexican Americans. Journal of Marriage and Family, 45(4), 911-916. Matsumoto, D., Weissman, M. D., Preston, K., Brown, B. R., & Kupperbusch, C. (1997). Context-specific measurement of individualism-collectivism on the individual level: The individualism-collectivism interpersonal assessment inventory. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28(6), 743-767. McHale, S. M., Updegraff, K. A., Kim, J., & Cansler, E. (2008). Cultural orientations, daily activities, and adjustment in Mexican American youth. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 38, 627-641. Mindel, C. H. (1980). Extended familism among urban Mexican Americans, Anglos, and Blacks. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 2(1), 21-34. Moore, D., Florsheim, P., & Butner, P. (2007). Interpersonal behavior, psychopathology, and relationship outcomes among adolescent mothers and their partners. Jornal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 36(4), 541-556. Moos, R. H., & Moos, B. S. (1984). The process of recovery from alcoholism: Comparing functioning in families of alcoholics and matched control families. Journal on Studies of Alcohol and Drugs, 45, 111-118. Nesman, T. (2007). A participatory study of school dropout and behavioral health of Latino adolescents. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 34, 414- 430. Nitz, K., Ketterlinus, R. D., & Brandt, L. J. (1995). The role of stress, social support, and family environment in adolescent mothers' parenting. Journal of Adolescent Research, 10(3), 358-382. Osgood, D. W., Wilson, J. K., O'Malley, P. M., Bachuman, J. G., & Johnston, L. D. (1996). Routine activities and individual deviant behavior. The American Sociological Review, 61(4), 635-655. Perez, W., & Padilla, A. M. (2000). Cultural orientations across three generations of Hispanic adolescents. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 22(3), 390-398. Pierce, G. R., Sarason, I. G., Sarason, B. R., Solky-Butzel, J. A., & Nagle, L. C. (1997). Assessing the quality of personal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14(3), 339-356. 76 Rinderle, S., & Montoya, D. (2008). Hispanic/Latino identity labels: An examination of cultural values and personal experiences. The Harvard Journal of Communications, 19, 144-164. Rueschenberg, E., & Buriel, R. (1989). Mexican American family functioning and acculturation: A family systems perspective. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 11(3), 232-244. Sabogal, F., Marin, G., Otero-Sabogal, R.