Journal of Family Psychology Copyright 2002 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

2002, Vol. 16, No. 1, 70 – 80 0893-3200/02/$5.00 DOI: 10.1037//0893-3200.16.1.70

Predictors of Self-Esteem for Mexican American and European

American Youths: A Reexamination of the Influence of Parenting
Sonia Y. Ruiz, Mark W. Roosa, and Nancy A. Gonzales
Arizona State University

Decades of research with European American middle-class families have found significant
relations between parenting behavior and child self-esteem. Similar research with minority
and low-income families is rare. The present study examined the relation between parenting
practices and child self-esteem among 70 Mexican American and 161 European American
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

youths. The analyses consisted of regressing child self-esteem on parenting practices (accep-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

tance, rejection, inconsistent discipline, and hostile control), ethnicity, socioeconomic status
(SES), and the interactions between ethnicity, SES, and parenting practices. Several main
effects and interactions were significant; for each interaction, behavior of low-income or
Mexican American parents had less influence on children’s self-esteem than did similar
behavior by middle-class or European American parents.

There has been relatively little focus on family socializa-
tion research with ethnic minority groups in the United
States (Harrison, Wilson, Pine, Chan, & Buriel, 1990; E. S.
Levine & Bartz, 1979; Martinez, 1988). When ethnic fam-
ilies have been included in samples, social class and eth-
nicity are often confounded because their effects are not
controlled in the analyses (Garcia-Coll, Meyer, & Brillon,
1995; Laosa, 1978, 1980). Perhaps most important is that
when some groups are not included in basic research, espe-
cially developmental research, there is a risk of assuming
that one developmental model fits all groups. One important
developmental area in which this assumption appears to
have been made is child self-esteem. Although there may be
a universal model for positive self-esteem development in
children, this model has not been tested with groups other
than European American middle-class families. To ignore
or overlook the various cultural contexts in which families
are found is to overlook potentially interesting and impor-
tant findings.
Family socialization reviews such as those of Maccoby
and Martin (1983) and Rollins and Thomas (1979) tell very
little about ethnic minority families. Because few ethnic
minority families have been included in past research, it is
Sonia Y. Ruiz and Nancy A. Gonzales, Department of Psychol-
ogy, Arizona State University; Mark W. Roosa, Program for
Prevention Research and Family and Human Development, Ari-
zona State University.
This research was supported by National Institute of Mental
Health Grant 2-P30-MH39246-11 to support the Center for the
Prevention of Child and Family Stress and Training Grant
T32MH18387. It was also supported by a Faculty Grant in Aid
Award and the Hispanic Research Center at Arizona State
University.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Sonia Y. Ruiz, who is now at the Department of Psychology,
California State University, San Marcos, California 92096. E-mail:
syruiz@csusm.edu
not clear whether the same socialization processes have the
same effects for all families (McLoyd, Cauce, Takeuchi, &
Wilson, 2000). That is, are there universal parenting prac-
tices that cut across all ethnicities or cultures that result in
the same outcomes for children or are there differences
based on the contributions of culture? More specifically,
Darling and Steinberg (1993) have questioned whether par-
ents from different cultural contexts (e.g., social class, eth-
nicity, and race) have different goals for their children or
perhaps have the same goals but use different methods to
achieve their goals. At present, there is an increasing aware-
ness of the lack of empirical research with ethnic minority
families that should result in directing investigations to a
more diverse range of families.
Family Socialization and Child Self-Esteem
Self-esteem is considered important in children’s devel-
opment because positive self-esteem may serve as a buffer
against negative outcomes. As such, it has been conceptu-
alized as an innate mechanism that works to enhance and
maintain positive self-image (Harter, 1993). The family
socialization literature suggests that parents are the most
important influences on a child’s development. Specifically,
research has indicated that authoritative types of parenting
(e.g., strict, consistent, and warm) are related to positive
child outcomes (e.g., self-esteem and school achievement),
whereas authoritarian parenting (e.g., inconsistent and hos-
tile; Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Rollins & Thomas, 1979;
Steinberg, Mounts, Lamborn, & Dornbusch, 1991) is related
to negative child outcomes. Because there is an increasing
interest in the prevention of negative child outcomes or
mental health problems, a popular means of accomplishing
this is to target parents and their child-rearing practices.
One major limitation of this research is that the relations
between parenting and child outcomes become less clear
when ethnicity or social class is considered. For example,
Steinberg, Dornbusch, and Brown (1992) found that author-

70
 FAMILY SOCIALIZATION AND SELF-ESTEEM
itative parenting was not related to school achievement in
Chinese American and African American adolescents,
whereas Baldwin, Baldwin, and Cole (1990) found a restric-
tive parenting style to be related to better cognitive out-
comes such as higher IQ, achievement test scores, and
academic achievement in a sample of low-income families.
Results from such studies suggest that both culture and
social class may have interesting influences on family so-
cialization. However, until additional research is conducted,
the relation between parenting practices and child outcomes
among ethnic minority families remains relatively unknown
or unclear.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Cultural Influences on Family Socialization
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Although some studies of parenting have included Mex-
ican American families, socialization practices in these fam-
ilies have not been clearly or thoroughly described. For
example, studies have examined school achievement
(Anderson & Johnson, 1971), egalitarian versus authoritar-
ian relationships between spouses (Bean, Curtis, & Mar-
cum, 1977; Cromwell & Ruiz, 1979; Grebler, Moore, &
Guzman, 1970), the affective style of Mexican fathers ver-
sus mothers (Bronstein, 1984), parenting practices (Durrett,
O’Bryant, & Pennebaker, 1975; E. S. Levine & Bartz, 1979;
Martinez, 1988), maternal teaching strategies (Laosa, 1978,
1980; Steward & Steward, 1973, 1974), mother-directed
achievement (Madsen & Kagan, 1973), and parents’ con-
cepts of child development (Gutierrez & Sameroff, 1990;
Gutierrez, Sameroff, & Karrer, 1988). From the few studies
that did examine parenting practices, it is difficult to ascer-
tain what characterizes parenting in Mexican American
families because of methodological concerns with the stud-
ies and inconsistent results. More important for the focus of
the present study, no previous study examined the relation
between parenting and child self-esteem among Mexican
Americans.
There are many reasons to be concerned about whether
common models of child socialization apply equally to a
variety of groups. Interpretations of key parenting variables
that traditionally have been used with European American
families may differ across cultures. For instance, most par-
ents want their children to be successful, but success may be
defined differently by two cultures (e.g., getting a high-
paying job vs. getting married and having a good family).
Consider the negative stereotype of a controlling and strict
Latino father. Outsiders may view this style as a controlling
parenting style and attribute the characteristic to culture
(e.g., machismo). However, within the Latino culture, one
who demonstrates machismo has been defined as one who is
generous, courageous, respectful, protective, and as one
who provides for family members (Mirande, 1985).
Cross-cultural research provides other examples illustrat-
ing differential socialization among different ethnic groups.
For instance, multiple attachments are the norm among the
Efe pygmies of Zaire (Tronick, Winn, & Morelli, 1985). In
this society, the infant’s mother is one of multiple caregiv-
ers. Developing multiple attachments helps prepare the in-
fant for group participation later in life. Also, because other
71
lactating women as well as the mother feed the infant,
multiple nursing mothers provide mature milk that is rich in
colostrum. There are physical health benefits as well as
group socialization benefits from multiple attachments. Yet
another example concerns the cultural variations in infants’
sleeping arrangements that were reported in a study with
European American families living in the United States and
Mayan families living in rural Guatemala (Morelli, Rogoff,
Oppenheim, & Goldsmith, 1992). In this study, Mayan
mothers often slept with their newborn infants throughout
the 1st year of life and into the 2nd year. In the U.S.
families, the infant did not sleep with the mothers on a
regular basis. Instead, the infants usually slept in the same
room in a crib or bassinet near the parent’s bed initially, but
by 3 months of age, most U.S. infants were sleeping in their
own rooms. One concrete benefit of the Mayan sleeping
arrangement is that the rate of sudden infant death syndrome
is lower in countries where babies sleep with an adult
(Small, 1998).
Culturally rooted socialization practices such as these
examples from the Mayan and Efe cultures developed in
response to the challenges and opportunities of each group’s
ecological niche (Arnett, 1995; R. A. Levine, 1977; Ogbu,
1981). Over generations, the socialization style that is most
strongly associated with child survival and adult success
becomes a group norm. When members of such groups
move to other ecological niches, they continue to use these
tradition-bound socialization practices, at least initially,
even if they are not optimal for the challenges and oppor-
tunities of the new ecological niche. In the case of Mexican
Americans, their cultural roots are connected to values,
beliefs, and practices that support being respectful, placing
the welfare of the family or group above one’s own welfare,
and acting humble (Marin & Marin, 1991). Children and
adults socialized in these values and practices may have
trouble adapting in a competitive, individualistic society
such as the United States. Children may have difficulty in
school if competition and individual awards are used to
encourage learning. Although immigrants begin the process
of adapting to their new ecological niches as soon as they
arrive, this is a gradual process that takes generations and
usually results in a blend of the traditional values and
practices with those of the new culture. Thus, it should not
be surprising to find Mexican American families using
different socialization techniques or having different social-
ization goals than European Americans.
Social class may influence family socialization just as
ethnicity may. In his review, Gecas (1979) reported that
socioeconomic status (SES) was negatively related to pa-
rental use of physical punishment, commands, and impera-
tives. Use of reasoning, an egalitarian relationship between
parent and child, and parental affection and involvement
were all positively related to SES. In a more recent study,
MacPhee, Fritz, and Miller-Heyl (1996) reported that Mex-
ican Americans were more likely to use spanking, scolding,
threats or criticisms with children than were Anglo parents
even when SES was controlled. Similarly, Harwood,
Schoelmerich, Ventura-Cook, Schulze, and Wilson (1996)
reported that SES and ethnicity made independent contri-
 72 RUIZ, ROOSA, AND GONZALES
butions to the prediction of parenting strategies but that
ethnicity made a stronger contribution. Some studies of
parenting reported that differences between ethnic groups
disappeared when SES was controlled (e.g., Julian,
McHenry, & McKelvey, 1994; Solis-Camara & Fox, 1995).
A major criticism of research on socialization is the lack
of ethnic minority families included in research samples
(Harrison et al., 1990; E. S. Levine & Bartz, 1979; Mar-
tinez, 1988). Even in cases where they are included, it often
is difficult to understand and differentiate the socioeco-
nomic and ethnic– cultural influences. This confound arises
because ethnic minorities are overrepresented in the lower
socioeconomic classes. Many studies have not separated the
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
effects of these two factors in their designs or analyses,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
resulting in findings that cannot be easily interpreted
(Cauce, Coronado, & Watson, 1998; Laosa, 1978, 1980).
Furthermore, although the findings reported in Gecas’s
(1979) review were based on research found in the literature
from 1936 to 1976, a time when confounding of social class
and ethnicity may have been more common, this design
problem continues to be common (Cauce et al., 1998;
Roosa, Morgan-Lopez, Cree, & Specter, in press).
Relatively recently, a few studies have contradicted the
prevailing ideas in the socialization literature for families of
color and European American families in the United States
(Baldwin et al., 1990; Baumrind, 1972; Gonzales, Cauce,
Friedman, & Mason, 1996; Masten, Morrison, Pellegrini, &
Tellegen, 1990). For instance, in the Baldwin et al. (1990)
study, a restrictive parenting style was related to better
cognitive outcome or success (e.g., higher IQ, achievement
test scores, and academic achievement) for high-risk fami-
lies in their diverse sample (e.g., minority and nonminority
families, broad range in social class). They believed that in
high-risk families it was effective for parents to be restric-
tive with their children. The family’s environment necessi-
tated a parent to be more controlling and to strictly monitor
their child’s whereabouts. That is, fear for children’s safety
may have influenced parents to engage in more restrictive
parenting practices. Similarly, in an exploratory study
(Baumrind, 1972), authoritarian child-rearing practices
were reported to be associated with more assertive behavior
(i.e., domineering and independent) among young Black
daughters. Thus, another reason for differential socialization
practices may be discrimination and prejudice. That is,
ethnic minority parents may need to socialize their children
in a way that is different from how European American
families socialize their children to help minority children
face issues such as discrimination, prejudice, or environ-
mental stress (Baldwin et al., 1990; Garcia-Coll et al.,
1995).
Gonzales et al. (1996) reported similar findings in their
prospective study of family, peer, and neighborhood influ-
ences on academic achievement. In their study, neighbor-
hood risk (e.g., high- vs. low-risk) was found to moderate
the relation between maternal restrictive control and ado-
lescents’ academic achievement. In low-risk neighbor-
hoods, maternal control was found to operate consistently
with the socialization literature that suggests a negative
relation between authoritarian parenting (control) and pos-
itive child outcomes (e.g., self-esteem, achievement). How-
ever, in high-risk neighborhoods, maternal restrictive con-
trol was positively related to academic achievement.
Furthermore, Masten et al. (1990) suggested that families
that are considered at-risk on the basis of minority status
and social class status may operate differently than middle-
class European American families do. That is, by the very
nature of their environment (e.g., discrimination, prejudice,
low income, high-crime neighborhoods), some minority
parents have to respond differently to their children than
do European American middle-class parents to end up
with the same positive child outcomes (e.g., self-esteem,
achievement).
Because parenting research on Mexican American par-
ents is sparse, contradictory, and often confounds SES and
ethnicity, there is little research to guide hypotheses about
the nature of the relation between parenting practices and
child self-esteem among Mexican American families. How-
ever, the cultural value of familism that is characteristic of
Mexican American families may provide some clues about
what to expect when researchers compare Mexican Amer-
ican and European American families. The family (nuclear
and extended) is an important factor in Mexican American
families (Arroyo, 1999; Chilman, 1993; Clark & Huttlinger,
1998; Escobar, 1998; Mirande, 1977; Sabogal, Marin,
Otero-Sabogal, Marin, & Perez-Stable, 1989; Uttal, 1999).
Mirande (1977) described familism as a significant compo-
nent in Mexican American families because it provides
emotional support for a child as she or he develops close
bonds to the immediate and extended family network. In
addition, although grandparents may not serve as authority
figures, they still may be supportive figures in a child’s life.
Furthermore, the concept of compadrazgo (coparents) is one
in which family members or close friends serve as godpar-
ents, thus creating a stronger family unit. Both grandparents
and godparents may serve as additional socializing agents to
the Mexican American nuclear family. Thus, it is not un-
common for older siblings, grandparents, cousins, aunts, or
uncles to reside with a nuclear family. Both cultural (e.g.,
cultural preferences and values) and structural (e.g., limited
economic resources) explanations have been offered to ex-
plain the use of such kin-based support (Harrison et al.,
1990; Uttal, 1999).
Familism may influence the self-esteem building process
such that there may be more caregivers within a Mexican
American family (e.g., grandparents, older siblings, aunts)
in contrast to the typical European American nuclear family
that consists of two parents and their children. With only
one or two caregivers in European American families, each
contributes more to child outcomes (both positive and neg-
ative) than any single member in the extended family net-
work of Mexican American families. Thus, the parenting
practices of European Americans were hypothesized to be
more strongly related to child self-esteem than those of
Mexican American parents.
In the present study, we examined the relations between
parenting practices and child self-esteem within the contexts
of ethnicity and social class. Thus, we examined the rela-
tions of acceptance, rejection, inconsistent discipline, and
 FAMILY SOCIALIZATION AND SELF-ESTEEM 73

hostile control to child self-esteem among European Amer-
ican and Mexican American adolescents.
Method
Sample
This study was part of a larger project in which one of the goals
was to understand differential participation rates in a preventive
intervention program within a low-income community (Michaels,
Roosa, & Gensheimer, 1992). The sample for the present study
was composed of Mexican American (n ⫽ 70) and European
American (n ⫽ 161) mothers and their children from the original
sample of 303 families. Children’s ethnicity was defined on the
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
(Tein, Roosa, & Michaels, 1994). For mothers in the present
sample, the Acceptance subscale had an internal consistency reli-
ability of .73; the Rejection subscale, .75; the Inconsistent Disci-
pline subscale, .82; and the Hostile Control subscale, .76. For the
child’s report, present sample reliabilities were .80 for the Accep-
tance, .81 for the Rejection, .75 for the Inconsistent Discipline, and
.67 for the Hostile Control subscales.
SES. According to Laosa (1978, 1980), education and income
should be used separately on the basis of the confounding results
he reported when these variables were used separately and to-
gether. However, the Pearson correlation coefficient for mother’s
income and education was .51, indicating that the two variables
were highly correlated. Subsequently, the data for maternal edu-
cation and family income were converted to z scores and combined
to create a single index of SES.

basis of mothers’ ethnicity. As a result, a subsample of families

Child’s self-esteem. Children’s sense of global self-worth and
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

that had interethnic relationships (e.g., mother was Mexican Amer-

ican and father was European American or vice versa) were competence was assessed using Harter’s (1985) Self Perception
excluded from the analyses because of the difficulty in defining the Profile for Children. The Global Self-Worth subscale had a reli-
children’s ethnicity. The mean age for mothers was 36.0 years, and ability of .70 in the present sample.
their mean level of education was 12.7 years. The range in chil-
dren’s age was 8 to 14 years, with a mean of 10.5 years. Among Data Analysis
the European American families, 34% were single parents com-
pared with 50% of Mexican American families. Among the sample Multiple regression was used to analyze the data. The predictor
of Mexican American mothers, 79% were born in the United variables were entered hierarchically into the regression analyses
States, and 13% were born in Mexico (the other 8% were from in the following order: Block 1: SES, ethnicity (dummy coded,
other countries). Mean family income ranged from $20,001 to 1 ⫽ Mexican American and 0 ⫽ European American); Block 2:
$25,000. The mean years of education completed by Mexican parenting practices; and Block 3: SES ⫻ Parenting interaction and
American mothers in this study was 11.0 versus 13.3 for the Ethnicity ⫻ Parenting interaction. Because the goal of this study
European American mothers, F(1, 224) ⫽ 53.70, p ⬍ .001. Anal- was to examine the relative contributions and interactions of
yses showed that family income was distributed quite differently ethnicity and social class to child socialization practices, only one
across these two groups, with Mexican American families more
likely to be in the low-income categories than the European
American families, ␹2(8, N ⫽ 222) ⫽ 41.30, p ⬍ .001. The median
family income for Mexican American mothers was in the $15,001 Table 1
to $20,000 range compared with the $20,001 to $25,000 for the Means, Standard Deviations, and Alpha Coefficients
European American mothers. for All Variables
Variable Reporter M SD ␣
Procedures Mexican American
Several methods were used to recruit a sufficient number of Acceptance M 2.62 0.34 .78
participants (see Michaels et al., 1992, for details). Both mother C 2.61 0.43 .84
and child had to agree to participate to be included in the study. Rejection M 1.43 0.35 .76
Computer-assisted in-home interviews were conducted by trained C 1.65 0.47 .81
interviewers; two interviewers were assigned to each family. In- Inconsistent discipline M 1.53 0.44 .83
C 1.78 0.45 .71
terviews for the target child and the parent were conducted in Hostile control M 1.81 0.44 .78
separate parts of the household. Interviews were conducted in C 2.04 0.39 .53
English; only families proficient in English were eligible to par- Child self-esteem C 3.24 0.61 .67
ticipate. Among the Mexican American mothers, 50% reported Family incomea M 2.61 2.51
that English or mostly English was the language spoken at home; Mother’s education M 11.14 2.58
an additional 31% indicated that both English and Spanish were
European American
spoken equally.
Acceptance M 2.68 0.29 .72
C 2.73 0.33 .76
Instruments Rejection M 1.29 0.25 .73
C 1.49 0.41 .80
Parent– child relationship. The Child Report of Parenting Be- Inconsistent discipline M 1.53 0.34 .82
havior Inventory (CRPBI; Schaefer, 1965) was used to assess C 1.70 0.47 .75
parenting behaviors. Both parent’s and child’s reports were in- Hostile control M 1.54 0.33 .67
cluded. Parenting was assessed with the Acceptance, Rejection, C 1.83 0.42 .68
Inconsistent Discipline, and Hostile Control subscales. The CRPBI Adolescent self-esteem C 3.33 0.59 .73
items originally were designed to be answered by children but Family incomeb M 4.81 2.62
were modified to get parent’s perception of this relationship as Mother’s education M 13.31 2.02
well. The correlations between mother’s and child’s reports of Note. M ⫽ mother; C ⫽ child.
parenting behavior ranged from .17 to .28, the type of range a b
2.61 represents $15,001 to $20,000. 4.81 represents $20,000
reported in other studies using a variety of different measures to $25,000.
 74 RUIZ, ROOSA, AND GONZALES

Table 2
Correlation Coefficients for All Variables
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Acceptance — ⫺.48 ⫺.28 ⫺.36 .10 ⫺.08 .10
2. Rejection ⫺.30 — .62 .58 ⫺.14 .23 ⫺.21
3. Inconsistent discipline ⫺.07 .64 — .46 ⫺.10 .26 ⫺.29
4. Hostile control ⫺.05 .59 .58 — ⫺.10 .32 ⫺.39
5. Self-esteem .40 ⫺.22 ⫺.14 ⫺.10 — ⫺.07 .16
6. Ethnicitya ⫺.15 ⫺.18 .08 .23 ⫺.07 — ⫺.45
7. SESa .16 ⫺.25 ⫺.22 ⫺.28 .16 ⫺.45 —
Note. Mother’s report is above the diagonal, and child’s report is below the diagonal. All
correlations ⱖ.15 are significant at p ⬍ .05.
a
Data on ethnicity and socioeconomic status (SES) were not collected from children; thus, mother’s
report was used.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

parenting variable was entered for each analysis. In addition, ican children, F(1, 224) ⫽ 10.57, p ⬍ .001, and for Mexican
because the literature shows the lack of correspondence between American children, F(1, 224) ⫽ 10.60, p ⬍ .001.
parent and child reports of socialization practices (Tein et al., In the second regression analysis (Model 2), the interac-
1994), mothers’ and children’s reports of parenting practices were tion between SES and rejection also was a significant pre-
examined in separate analyses. The continuous predictor variables
(maternal acceptance, rejection, inconsistent discipline, and hostile
dictor of self esteem, F(1, 224) ⫽ 3.92, p ⬍ .05. Rejection
control) were centered on the basis of procedures by Aiken and and the interaction between SES and rejection accounted for
West (1991) to reduce multicollinearity that may occur with in- 9% of the total variance (Table 3). The relation of the
teraction terms in regression analysis. Because failure to include interaction of rejection and SES to child self-esteem was
measures of acculturation has been a common limitation of studies such that there was a stronger negative relation between
with immigrant descent groups, the influence of acculturation was maternal rejection and self-esteem for high SES children
examined in preliminary analyses. Acculturation data were col-
lected using the Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Ameri-
cans (ARSMA; Cuellar, Harris, & Jasso, 1980). Mexican Ameri- Table 3
cans were divided into low- (60%) and high-acculturated groups, Regression Analyses Examining SES, Ethnicity, and
and the correlation matrices (with all pertinent variables from the Mother’s Parenting (Acceptance, Rejection, Inconsistent
study) for each acculturation group were compared using Box’s M.
Discipline, and Hostile Control) as Predictors of Child
Results of the analysis indicated there was not a significant differ-
ence between low- and high-acculturated groups. Thus, the regres- Self-Esteem Using Child Report of Mother’s Parenting
sion analyses did not include the acculturation measure. Total F
Predictor B SE B ␤ Total R2 (1, 224)
Results Model 1 .19 10.60***
SES 0.04 0.02 .11
Means, standard deviations, and alpha coefficients for all Ethn 0.03 0.09 .03
variables are reported separately for each ethnic group and Acc 0.83*** 0.13 .51
for each reporter in Table 1. Pearson correlation coefficients SES ⫻ Acc 0.01 0.07 .01
Ethn ⫻ Acc ⫺0.48* 0.21 ⫺.19
were obtained for pairs of all variables and are displayed in Model 2 .09 4.18***
Table 2. SES 0.04 0.03 .10
Ethn 0.00 0.09 .00
Rej ⫺0.34** 0.11 ⫺.24
Analyses With Child’s Data SES ⫻ Rej ⫺0.12* 0.06 ⫺.15
Ethn ⫻ Rej 0.05 0.21 .02
In the first regression analysis (Model 1), child report of Model 3 .07 3.38**
maternal acceptance and the interaction between ethnicity SES 0.04 0.03 .13
and acceptance were significant predictors of child self- Ethn ⫺0.02 0.09 ⫺.01
esteem, F(1, 224) ⫽ 5.85, p ⬍ .05 (Table 3). These two ID ⫺0.19 0.10 ⫺.15
variables accounted for 19% of the total variance. SES ⫻ ID ⫺0.14** 0.05 ⫺.18
Ethn ⫻ ID 0.05 0.19 .02
The interaction between acceptance and ethnicity in re- Model 4 .04 1.75
lation to child self-esteem was such that the relation be- SES 0.05* 0.03 .15
tween acceptance and self-esteem was stronger for Euro- Ethn ⫺0.01 0.10 ⫺.01
pean American families than it was for Mexican American HC ⫺0.13 0.12 ⫺.09
SES ⫻ HC ⫺0.04 0.06 ⫺.05
families (Figure 1). We conducted simple slope analyses to Ethn ⫻ HC 0.21 0.23 .08
determine whether acceptance was a significant predictor of
adolescent self-esteem for European Americans and Mexi- Note. SES ⫽ socioeconomic status; Ethn ⫽ ethnicity; Acc ⫽
acceptance; Rej ⫽ rejection; ID ⫽ inconsistent discipline; HC ⫽
can Americans. The analysis indicated that maternal accep- hostile control.
tance was a significant predictor for both European Amer- * p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01. *** p ⬍ .001.
 FAMILY SOCIALIZATION AND SELF-ESTEEM
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Figure 1. Interaction between ethnicity and maternal acceptance in predicting child self-esteem.
than there was for low SES children. Simple slope analysis
indicated that maternal rejection was a significant predictor
of self-esteem for high SES families, F(1, 226) ⫽ 7.02, p ⬍
.001, but not for low SES families, F(1, 226) ⬍ 1.00, ns
(Figure 2).
In the third regression equation (Model 3), the interaction
of SES and inconsistent discipline was the sole significant
predictor accounting for 7% of the total variance, F(1,
224) ⫽ 6.65, p ⬍ .01 (Table 3). The relation of the inter-
action of SES and inconsistent discipline to child self-
esteem was such that there was a stronger negative relation
between inconsistent discipline and self-esteem for high
SES children than there was for low SES children. Simple
slope analysis indicated that inconsistent discipline was a
significant predictor of self-esteem for high SES families,
F(1, 226) ⫽ 5.65, p ⬍ .001, but not for low SES families,
F(1, 226) ⬍ 1.00, ns (Figure 3).
In the fourth regression equation (Model 4), neither hos-
tile control nor its interactions with other variables were
significant predictors of child self-esteem, F(5, 224) ⫽ 1.75,
ns (Table 3).
Analyses With Mother’s Data
For mother’s report, none of the models was significant in
predicting child self-esteem (Table 4). Ethnicity, parenting
practices, and the interaction terms were not significant
predictors; however, social class was a significant predictor
75
in each of the four analyses. High SES was related to high
self-esteem.
In sum, comparing across the results using mother’s
report and child’s report, a few patterns emerged. Using
mother’s report, we found that none of the models signifi-
cantly predicted child self-esteem. However, SES was a
significant individual predictor in each of the four models.
Although we found that the models were not significant
using mother’s report, we discovered that three of the mod-
els that included maternal acceptance, rejection, and incon-
sistent discipline were significant using child’s report. In
these three models negative parenting practices interacted
with SES, whereas the one positive parenting practice in-
teracted with ethnicity in predicting child self-esteem. Last,
we conducted regression diagnostics to determine whether
outliers in the data set may have confounded the results.
Statistical analyses did not detect any significant outliers.
Discussion
The family socialization literature has suggested that
parenting practices have a strong influence on child out-
comes. However, little research has paid attention to cul-
tural or social class influences on child self-esteem. In the
present study, we found evidence that cultural background
or social class may interact with parenting behavior to
reduce parents’ influence on their children’s self-esteem.
Using child report, we found that parental acceptance was
 76 RUIZ, ROOSA, AND GONZALES
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Figure 2. Interaction between socioeconomic status (SES) and maternal rejection in predicting
child self-esteem.
less strongly related to children’s self-esteem for Mexican
American parents than it was for European American par-
ents. Furthermore, the reduced influence of parental rejec-
tion or inconsistency on child self-esteem for low-income or
Mexican American parents supports the general notion that
some parents have less influence on children’s develop-
ment, in this case self-esteem, than do other parents.
There are two potential contextual explanations for these
results. First, one explanation may be found in the context
or environment (e.g., culture) in which Mexican American
families live. In the present study, familism was hypothe-
sized to be an important process underlying self-esteem
development in Mexican American families. More caregiv-
ers may be involved in the socialization process; thus, each
caregiver contributes a smaller amount of influence. In
contrast, European American families tend to have only one
or two caregivers, resulting in each caregiver having greater
influence, individually, on their children.
Second, additional stressors faced by children and fami-
lies in low-income communities (economic stressors, dis-
crimination, violence, etc.) may mean that factors external
to the family have a greater impact on children in low-
income families than they have on children in middle-
income families. Thus, low-income families may operate
differently to accomplish the positive outcomes that middle-
class parents take for granted. For example, it may be
necessary for socialization to be more harsh, or even reject-
ing, because this results in “tough children,” or resilient
children, who can handle environmental stressors. If this
were the case, a rejecting parenting style would not have the
same effect on self-esteem as it would in families who are
more advantaged. Moreover, it is possible that because life
may be more chaotic in low-income environments, children
may become accustomed to inconsistencies in rules, re-
wards, and schedules, for instance, and are less affected by
these parental inconsistencies.
Furthermore, because Latinos are overrepresented in low-
income communities, these families have to contend with
parenting challenges associated with issues of culture and
social class (Marin & Marin, 1991). Thus, the reliance on
multiple caretakers to socialize children may be a positive
way to combat the multiple stressors that low-income fam-
ilies face, especially in cases where both parents may work
(Harrison et al., 1990).
In sum, the European American model of child self-
esteem development that relies on socialization by parents
as the critical factor affecting child self-esteem may not fit
adequately for low-income and Mexican American families.
More research is necessary to further support these inter-
pretations. For example, researchers may need to include
the influence of all primary caregivers in studies with Mex-
ican Americans to adequately understand self-esteem devel-
 FAMILY SOCIALIZATION AND SELF-ESTEEM
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Figure 3. Interaction between socioeconomic status (SES) and maternal inconsistent discipline in
predicting child self-esteem.
opment in this population. Alternatively, there may be a
need for a different constellation of behaviors and relation-
ships that influence self-esteem in Mexican American fam-
ilies. Models of adjustment (e.g., self-esteem) may need to
be modified to fit groups (e.g., low-income and ethnic
minorities) that have not been included in past research
from which the most common models of child adjustment
were developed.
There were some limitations of the study that may have
influenced the results. For example, ethnicity was defined
by mother’s self-identification. Future studies will most
likely benefit from including additional measures that get at
the details underlying the cultural and social class differ-
ences (e.g., language, ethnic pride, value orientation). For
this example, it may be preferable to use measures of ethnic
identity or measures that assess the experiences of ethnic
people rather than simply to assess ethnic identity labels.
Another limitation was the lack of analyses that included
father’s report of parenting. Too often, father’s involvement
is not included in studies of family socialization (Almeida &
Galambos, 1991; Lamb, Pleck, & Levine, 1985). An at-
tempt was made to include fathers, but too few Mexican
American fathers participated in the interviews to provide
adequate power to conduct analyses. Finally, because the
Mexican American sample was overrepresented in the
lower SES group, there were more single-parent Mexican
American families than there were European American
77
families. This overrepresentation illustrates the complexity
of the relation found between social class and ethnicity.
That is, when a significant relation is found, rarely are the
mechanisms that are responsible for this relation obvious.
More research is needed to understand how these variables
may be related to one another and to family socialization.
Last, although it was not a limitation of the present
research, use of multiple reporters (e.g., parent and child)
led to different results. The correlations of mother and child
reports of parenting behavior ranged from .17 to .28, the
same type of range reported in several other studies using a
variety of different measures (e.g., Tein et al., 1994). How-
ever results varied depending on whose report was used.
Researchers are beginning to pay more attention to the lack
of agreement between multiple reporters. In fact, research
has shown that people tend to respond to their own con-
struction or perception of a situation; thus, these results
should not be surprising (Schaefer & Keith, 1985). More
important, it has been suggested that researchers who use
multiple reporters have to determine who the best reporter is
on the basis of theory and the research question being asked
(Demo, Small, & Savin-Williams, 1987; Tein et al., 1994).
Thus, in the present study, it seems appropriate that adoles-
cents’ reports of their perceptions of their parenting envi-
ronment would better represent the environment to which
they are responding. Despite these limitations, the results
are meaningful, have provided information about family
 78 RUIZ, ROOSA, AND GONZALES

Table 4 roughly equivalent for the two ethnic groups. Thus, there is
Regression Analyses Examining SES, Ethnicity, and no obvious evidence of problems of measurement equiva-
Mother’s Parenting (Acceptance, Rejection, Inconsistent lence. However, on the basis of cultural traditions, we may
Discipline, and Hostile Control) as Predictors of Child speculate that child self-esteem was less valued by one
Self-Esteem Using Mother’s Report of Parenting group than it was by the other. Because Markus and Kitaya-
Total F ma’s conceptualization of self-concept has such important
Predictor B SE B ␤ Total R2 (1, 224) implications, future studies should examine this in more
detail.
Model 1 .04 1.87
SES 0.06* 0.03 .16
Ethn 0.01 0.10 .00 Future Research Directions
Acc 0.25 0.17 .13
SES ⫻ Acc 0.05 0.08 .05 Future studies should include Mexican American and
Ethn ⫻ Acc ⫺0.23 0.31 ⫺.07 other ethnic families in their investigations to further un-
Model 2 .04 1.82
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

SES 0.05* 0.03 .15 derstand how culture or ethnicity influence socialization.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Ethn 0.04 0.10 .03 Research should address issues that ask how familism or the
Rej ⫺0.23 0.19 ⫺.11 extended family network influences family socialization.
SES ⫻ Rej 0.03 0.08 .03 Research on acculturation of Mexicans and Mexican Amer-
Ethn ⫻ Rej 0.01 0.31 .00
Model 3 .03 1.57 icans may offer some interesting insights into how these
SES 0.05* 0.03 .15 families socialize children. Mexican and Mexican American
Ethn 0.02 0.10 .02 families are such diverse groups that it is important to
ID ⫺0.08 0.14 ⫺.05 examine the similarities and differences within these groups
SES ⫻ ID ⫺0.07 0.07 ⫺.08 (e.g., comparisons of immigrant and third-generation-plus
Ethn ⫻ ID ⫺0.12 0.23 ⫺.05
Model 4 .04 1.81 families) as well as to compare the socialization practices of
SES 0.05* 0.03 .15 these groups with other ethnic groups (e.g., Cauce et al.,
Ethn 0.00 0.10 .00 1998; Roosa et al., in press). Finally, because ethnic minor-
HC ⫺0.19 0.15 ⫺.12 ities tend to be overrepresented in lower socioeconomic
SES ⫻ HC ⫺0.06 0.06 ⫺.07
Ethn ⫻ HC 0.19 0.24 .08 groups, another important question to address is how does
ethnic status interact with social class? Can researchers
Note. SES ⫽ socioeconomic status; Ethn ⫽ ethnicity; Acc ⫽ assume that parenting practices that are effective in Euro-
acceptance; Rej ⫽ rejection; ID ⫽ inconsistent discipline; HC ⫽
hostile control. pean American middle-class families who live in the sub-
* p ⬍ .05. urbs are as effective for low-income ethnic minority fami-
lies who live in the inner city? In light of the present study
and others (Baldwin et al., 1990; Gonzales et al., 1996;
socialization in European American and Mexican American Masten et al., 1990), researchers must attempt to understand
families, and have contributed support for the importance of the confounding nature of SES and ethnicity. There are
examining ethnic and social class differences in parental many problems, at the societal and individual level, that
influences on children. affect families who live in poverty. Because many of these
Finally, this study focused on a single child outcome— families are ethnic minorities, there is a need to continue
global self-esteem. The processes involved in children’s conducting research and to modify, if necessary, some of
developing sense of self-worth may differ in Mexican the basic theories of family socialization and child devel-
American or low SES families from processes involved in opment so that they can be generalized to larger portions of
other developmental outcomes. The results from the present the population.
study need to be replicated with other samples before we
can have confidence in the results. In no event should these Implications for Application and Public Policy
results be generalized to other populations or other outcome
variables. Most important, others have suggested there may The results of the study suggest that (a) parent socializa-
be cultural differences in the development of self-concept tion probably is not the only, and maybe not even the
(Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Markus and Kitayama offered primary, influence on child self-esteem in Mexican Ameri-
a very interesting and compelling argument for reassessing can and low-income families and (b) that self-esteem may
self-concept if it is to be studied in various ethnic minority not be that important an indicator of psychosocial health in
groups. Many ethnic minority groups have been described youths raised in more collectivistic environments. Thus, the
as “other-centered” compared with European Americans study can benefit various professionals who work with or
who have been described as “ego-centered.” In fact, in some study these families and children if it alerts them to the need
cultures there is no word that is equivalent to self-esteem; to take a broader perspective of the primary influences on
thus, the concept is not translatable (Small, 1998). Markus development and makes them more thoughtful about
and Kitayama’s conceptualization of how self-concept may whether our developmental models fit all ethnic and social
be different among different ethnic groups deserves atten- class groups equally. While raising questions about the
tion in future studies. With regard to the present study, alpha generalizability of current developmental models, the
coefficients and means for the self-esteem measure were present study does not provide substantiated alternative
 FAMILY SOCIALIZATION AND SELF-ESTEEM
models that are needed for the development of preventive
interventions or changes in public policy. Further research is
needed before we can be confident of the direction inter-
ventions and public policy should take in light of the results
of this study.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing
and interpreting interactions. London: Sage.
Almeida, D. M., & Galambos, N. L. (1991). Examining father
involvement and the quality of father–adolescent relations. Jour-
nal of Research on Adolescence, 1, 155–172.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Anderson, J. G., & Johnson, W. H. (1971). Stability and change
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
among three generations of Mexican Americans: Factors affect-
ing achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 8,
285–309.
Arnett, J. J. (1995). Broad and narrow socialization: The family in
the context of a cultural theory. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 57, 617– 628.
Arroyo, W. (1999). Children and families of Mexican descent. In
G. Johnson-Powell & J. Yamamoto (Eds.), Transcultural child
development: Psychological assessment and treatment (pp. 290 –
304). New York: Wiley.
Baldwin, A. L., Baldwin, C., & Cole, R. E. (1990). Stress-resistant
families and stress-resistant children. In J. Rolf, A. S. Masten, D.
Cicchetti, K. H. Nuechterlein, & S. Weintraub (Eds.), Risk and
protective factors in the development of psychology (pp. 257–
280). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Baumrind, D. (1972). An exploratory study of socialization effects
on Black children: Some Black–White comparisons. Child De-
velopment, 43, 261–267.
Bean, F. D., Curtis, R. L., & Marcum, J. P. (1977). Familism and
marital satisfaction among Mexican Americans: The effects of
family size, wife’s labor force participation, and conjugal power.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 39, 759 –767.
Bronstein, P. (1984). Differences in mothers’ and fathers’ behav-
iors toward children: A cross-cultural comparison. Developmen-
tal Psychology, 20, 995–1003.
Cauce, A., Coronado, N., & Watson, J. (1998). Conceptual, meth-
odological, and statistical issues in culturally competent research.
In M. Hernandez & M. Isaacs (Eds.), Promoting cultural com-
petence in children’s mental health services (pp. 305–329). Bal-
timore: Paul H. Brookes.
Chilman, C. S. (1993). Hispanic families in the United States:
Research perspectives. In H. P. McAdoo (Ed.), Family ethnicity:
Strength in diversity (pp. 141–163). London: Sage.
Clark, M., & Huttlinger, K. (1998). Elder care among Mexican
American families. Clinical Nursing Research, 7, 1, 64 – 81.
Cromwell, R. E., & Ruiz, R. A. (1979). The myth of macho
dominance in decision making within Mexican and Chicano
families. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 1, 355–373.
Cuellar, I., Harris, L. C., & Jasso, R. (1980). An acculturation scale
for Mexican American normal and clinical populations. Hispanic
Journal of Behavioral Science, 2, 199 –217.
Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An
integrative model. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 487– 496.
Demo, D. H., Small, S. A., & Savin-Williams, R. C. (1987).
Family relations and the self-esteem of adolescents and their
parents. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49, 705–715.
Durrett, M. E., O’Bryant, S., & Pennebaker, J. W. (1975). Child-
rearing reports of White, Black, and Mexican American families.
Developmental Psychology, 11, 871.
79
Escobar, J. I. (1998). Immigration and mental health. Archives of
General Psychiatry, 55, 781–782.
Garcia-Coll, C. T., Meyer, E. C., & Brillon, L. (1995). Ethnic and
minority parenting. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of
parenting: Vol. 2. Biology and ecology of parenting (pp. 189 –
209). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gecas, V. (1979). The influence of social class on socialization. In
W. R. Burr, R. Hill, F. I. Nye, & I. L. Reiss (Eds.), Contemporary
theories about the family (Vol. 1, pp. 365– 404). New York: Free
Press.
Gonzales, N. A., Cauce, A. M., Friedman, R. J., & Mason, C. A.
(1996). Family, peer, and neighborhood influences on academic
achievement among African American adolescents: One-year
prospective effects. American Journal of Community Psychol-
ogy, 24, 365–387.
Grebler, L., Moore J. W., & Guzman, R. C. (1970). The Mexican-
American people: The nation’s second largest minority. New
York: Free Press.
Gutierrez, J., & Sameroff, A. J. (1990). Determinants of complex-
ity in Mexican American and European American mothers’
conception of child development. Child Development, 61, 384 –
394.
Gutierrez, J., Sameroff, A. J., & Karrer, B. M. (1988). Accultur-
ation and SES effects on Mexican American parents’ concepts of
development. Child Development, 59, 250 –255.
Harrison, A. O., Wilson, M. N., Pine, C. J., Chan, S. Q., & Buriel,
R. (1990). Family ecologies of ethnic minority children. Child
Development, 61, 347–362.
Harter, S. (1985). The Self-Perception Profile for Children. Un-
published manual, University of Denver, CO.
Harter, S. (1993). Causes and consequences of low self-esteem in
children and adolescents. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Self-esteem:
The puzzle of low self-regard. New York: Plenum.
Harwood, R. L., Schoelmerich, A., Ventura-Cook, E., Schulze,
P. A., & Wilson, S. P. (1996). Culture and class influences on
Anglo and Puerto Rican mothers’ beliefs regarding long-term
socialization goals and child behavior. Child Development, 67,
2446 –2461.
Julian, T. W., McHenry, P. C., & McKelvey, M. W. (1994).
Cultural variations in parenting: Perceptions of Caucasian, Afri-
can American, Hispanic, and Asian American parents. Family
Relations, 43, 30 –37.
Lamb, M. E., Pleck, J. H., & Levine, J. A. (1985). The role of
father in child development: The effects of increased paternal
involvement. In B. B. Lahey and A. E. Kazdin (Eds.), Advances
in clinical child psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 229 –266). New York:
Plenum Press.
Laosa, L. M. (1978). Maternal teaching strategies in Chicano
families of varied educational and socioeconomic levels. Child
Development, 49, 1129 –1135.
Laosa, L. M. (1980). Maternal teaching strategies in Chicano and
Anglo-American families: The influence of culture and education
on maternal behavior. Child Development, 51, 759 –765.
Levine, E. S., & Bartz, K. W. (1979). Comparative child-rearing
attitudes among Chicano, European American, and Black par-
ents. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 1, 165–178.
Levine, R. A. (1977). Child rearing as cultural adaptation. In H. P.
Leiderman, S. R. Tulkin, & A. Rosenfield (Eds.), Culture and
infancy: Variations in the human experience (pp. 15–27). New
York: Academic Press.
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the
context of the family: Parent– child interaction. In P. H. Mussen
& E. M. Hetherington (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology:
 80 RUIZ, ROOSA, AND GONZALES
Vol. IV. Socialization, personality, and social development (4th
ed., pp. 1–101). New York: Wiley.
MacPhee, D., Fritz, J., & Miller-Heyl, J. (1996). Ethnic variations
in personal social networks and parenting. Child Development,
67, 3278 –3295.
Madsen, M. C., & Kagan, S. (1973). Mother-directed achievement
of children in two cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychol-
ogy, 4, 221–228.
Marin, G., & Marin, B. V. (1991). Research with Hispanic popu-
lations: Applied social research methods services (Vol. 23).
London: Sage.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self:
Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psycholog-
ical Review, 98, 224 –253.
Martinez, E. A. (1988). Child behavior in Mexican American/
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Chicano families: Maternal teaching and child rearing practices.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Family Relations, 37, 275–280.
Masten, A. S., Morrison, P., Pellegrini, D., & Tellegen, A. (1990).
Competence under stress: Risk and protective factors. In J. Rolf,
A. S. Masten, D. Cicchetti, D. H. Nuechterlein, & S. Weintraub
(Eds.), Risk and protective factors in the development of psycho-
pathology (pp. 236 –256). Cambridge, England: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
McLoyd, V. M., Cauce, A. M., Takeuchi, D., & Wilson, L. (2000).
Marital processes and parental socialization in families of color:
A decade review of research. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 62, 1070 –1093.
Michaels, M. L., Roosa, M. W., & Gensheimer, L. K. (1992).
Family characteristics of children who self-select into a preven-
tion program for children of alcoholics. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 20, 663– 672.
Mirande, A. (1977). The Chicano family: A reanalysis of conflict-
ing views. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 39, 747–756.
Mirande, A. (1985). The Chicano experience: An alternative per-
spective. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.
Morelli, G. A., Rogoff, B., Oppenheim, D., & Goldsmith, D.
(1992). Cultural variation in infants’ sleeping arrangements:
Questions of independence. Developmental Psychology, 28,
604 – 613.
Ogbu, J. U. (1981). Origins of human competence: A cultural–
ecological perspective. Child Development, 52, 413– 429.
Rollins, B. C., & Thomas, D. L. (1979). Parental support, power,
and control techniques in the socialization of children. In W. R.
Burr, R. Hill, F. I. Nye, & I. L. Reiss (Eds.), Contemporary
theories about the family (Vol. 1, pp. 317–364). New York: Free
Press.
Roosa, M. W., Morgan-Lopez, A., Cree, W., & Specter, M. (in
press). Ethnic culture, poverty, and context: Sources of influence
on Latino families and children. In J. M. Contreras, K. A. Kerns,
& A. M. Neal-Barnett (Eds.), Latino children and families in the
United States. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Sabogal, F., Marin, G., Otero-Sabogal, R., Marin, B. V., & Perez-
Stable, E. J. (1989). Hispanic familism and acculturation: What
changes and what doesn’t? Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sci-
ences, 9, 397– 412.
Schaefer, E. S. (1965). Children’s report of parental behavior: An
inventory. Child Development, 36, 413– 424.
Schaefer, E. S., & Keith, P. M. (1985). A causal model approach
to the symbolic interactionist view of the self concept. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 963–969.
Small, M. F. (1998). Our babies, ourselves: How biology and
culture shape the way we parent. New York: Anchor Books.
Solis-Camara, P., & Fox, R. A. (1995). Parenting among mothers
with young children in Mexico and the United States. Journal of
Social Psychology, 135, 591–599.
Steinberg, L., Dornbusch, S. M., & Brown, B. B. (1992). Ethnic
differences in adolescent achievement: An ecological perspec-
tive. American Psychologist, 47, 723–729.
Steinberg, L., Mounts, N. S., Lamborn, S. D., & Dornbusch, S. M.
(1991). Authoritative parenting and adolescent adjustment across
varied ecological niches. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 1,
19 –36.
Steward, M., & Steward, D. (1973). The observation of Anglo-,
Mexican-, and Chinese-American mothers teaching their young
sons. Child Development, 44, 329 –337.
Steward, M., & Steward, D. (1974). Effect of social distance on
teaching strategies of Anglo-American and Mexican-American
mothers. Developmental Psychology, 10, 797– 807.
Tein, J., Roosa, M. W., & Michaels, M. (1994). Agreement be-
tween parent and child reports on parental behaviors. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 56, 341–355.
Tronick, E. Z., Winn, S., & Morelli, G. A. (1985). Multiple
caretaking in the context of human evolution: Why don’t the Efe
know the western prescription for child care. In M. Reite & T.
Field (Eds.), Psychobiology of attachment and separation (pp.
292–322). New York: Academic Press.
Uttal, L. (1999). Using kin for child care: Embedment in the
socioeconomic networks of extended families. Journal of Mar-
riage and the Family, 61, 845– 857.
Received June 29, 1999
Revision received October 20, 2000
Accepted August 1, 2001 䡲