See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/225178925

Putting Parenting in Perspective: A Discussion of the

Contextual Factors That Shape Parenting Practices

Article in Journal of Child and Family Studies · September 2002

DOI: 10.1023/A:1016863921662

CITATIONS READS

313 7,632

2 authors, including:

Beth A. Kotchick
Loyola University Maryland
47 PUBLICATIONS 3,699 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Beth A. Kotchick on 18 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

P1: FZN/GAY P2: GVG
Journal of Child and Family Studies [jcfs] ph135-jcfs-376301 August 13, 2002 16:11 Style file version June 4th, 2002

Journal of Child and Family Studies, Vol. 11, No. 3, September 2002 (°
C 2002), pp. 255–269

Putting Parenting in Perspective: A Discussion

of the Contextual Factors That Shape
Parenting Practices
Beth A. Kotchick, Ph.D.,1,3 and Rex Forehand, Ph.D.2

Child and family researchers have long recognized parenting as making an impor-
tant contribution to child development. However, little is known about the factors
that shape parenting itself, particularly factors outside the family. This article
examines the literature on variables that comprise the context in which parent-
ing occurs, and summarizes what is known about how three contextual factors
(ethnicity/culture, family socioeconomic status, and neighborhood/community
context) influence parenting practices. Implications for future research on par-
enting, clinical interventions designed to improve parenting, and policy decisions
affecting parenting are discussed.
KEY WORDS: parenting; context; socialization; children; family.

In the quest of family researchers to identify the factors that contribute to child
and family well-being, parenting has emerged as playing a critical role. Parenting
has long been recognized as making an important contribution to child develop-
ment. A rich empirical history has documented how various parenting attitudes
and practices influence child behavior and the development of either prosocial
competencies or psychosocial maladjustment. Generally speaking, these studies
have found that parenting practices that include the provision of positive reinforce-
ment, open displays of warmth or affection, involvement in and active monitoring
of children’s activities, and consistent but not overly harsh disciplinary strategies
tend to relate to various measures of adaptive child psychosocial adjustment, in-
cluding academic competence, high self-esteem, positive peer relations, and fewer

1 Assistant Research Scientist, Institute for Behavioral Research, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
2 Professor, Institute for Behavioral Research, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
3 Correspondence should be directed to Beth A. Kotchick, Institute for Behavioral Research, 111 Barrow
Hall, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-3013; e-mail: bak@arches.uga.edu.

255
1062-1024/02/0900-0255/0 °
C 2002 Human Sciences Press, Inc.
P1: FZN/GAY P2: GVG
Journal of Child and Family Studies [jcfs] ph135-jcfs-376301 August 13, 2002 16:11 Style file version June 4th, 2002

256 Kotchick and Forehand

child behavior problems (e.g., Baumrind, 1978; Brody & Flor, 1998; Patterson,
Reid, & Dishion, 1992).
For example, supportive parenting accompanied by consistent, yet not overly
harsh, discipline practices has been found to relate positively to measures of adap-
tive child adjustment such as academic competence, self-confidence, and positive
peer relations (e.g., Conger et al., 1992). Furthermore, these positive parenting
strategies have been found to be particularly important for children in families fac-
ing adverse circumstances or stresses, such as financial hardship, parental divorce,
or parental illness. Research in these areas suggests that harmony in parent-child
relationships and consistent discipline and monitoring of children’s activities pro-
vides children with a buffer against such stresses and builds children’s coping re-
sources (e.g., Armistead, Forehand, Brody, & Maguen, in press; Fauber, Forehand,
Thomas, & Wierson, 1990). In contrast, numerous studies point to the deleterious
effects of parenting that is passive and inconsistent, overly harsh, or emotionally
vacant. For example, Baumrind (1978) observed that parenting that lacks either
parental control, in the form of monitoring or consistency in discipline, or parental
warmth is associated with greater child behavior problems at various developmen-
tal stages.
Based on such research, a number of family intervention programs have been
developed to correct maladaptive parenting and promote positive parenting prac-
tices when children develop problematic behavior (e.g., McMahon & Forehand,
2002) and when families face stressors such as divorce (e.g., Long & Forehand,
2002) and parental depressive symptoms (e.g., Beardslee et al., 1993). However, as
noted by Brodsky (1999, p. 158), parenting programs often operate as if “the family
lived in a vacuum,” with little consideration to the factors that may contribute to
the development and expression of parenting practices themselves. It is with this
criticism in mind that we attempt to address the context of parenting. The pur-
pose of this paper is to discuss how factors outside the family, such as community
risks and resources, neighborhood quality, poverty, and cultural or ethnic back-
ground, may shape parenting beliefs and behavior. Our goal is provide a template
for ongoing dialogue about parenting, so that future research and the develop-
ment of clinical interventions focused on parenting may incorporate an awareness
of, and a willingness to attend to, the broader social context in which parenting
occurs.
Although we will review some of the research regarding the context of par-
enting, this paper is not meant to be a comprehensive evaluation of the currently
available literature and will surely omit some important work. Rather, it is meant to
be a catalyst for further discussion about the social-contextual factors which shape
parenting behavior, both in its development as well as in its everyday expression.
It is our contention that an ecological perspective (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) that
conceptualizes parenting as a process, rather than a static entity, will facilitate a
more sensitive approach to interventions and public policies designed to promote
P1: FZN/GAY P2: GVG
Journal of Child and Family Studies [jcfs] ph135-jcfs-376301 August 13, 2002 16:11 Style file version June 4th, 2002

Contextual Factors and Parenting 257

optimal child adjustment. To this end, we first offer a discussion of models that
conceptualize parenting within a contextual framework. Next, a brief review of
relevant studies examining contextual influences on parenting behavior will be
provided. This review will focus on the influence of culture and ethnicity, family
socioeconomic status and poverty, and neighborhood and community on parenting
behavior. Finally, we will conclude with a discussion of the implications of adopt-
ing an ecological perspective on parenting for future research, clinical practice,
and policy development related to families with children.

THE DETERMINANTS OF PARENTING

With the link between parenting and adaptive child adjustment having been so
well established, it is surprising that little attention has been devoted to identifying
and understanding the processes and factors that contribute to the development of
parenting itself. Certainly, considerable variation in parenting exists. For example,
comparisons of parenting attitudes and behaviors among distinct ethnic and cul-
tural groups have revealed both inter- and intragroup variability (see Forehand &
Kotchick, 1996, for a review), and significant variation in attitudes about parenting
and actual parenting practices have been found within specific sociocultural niches
(Kelley, Power, & Wimbush, 1992). However, little research has focused on the
environmental and psychosocial determinants of these individual differences in
parenting. Instead, much of what is assumed about the factors which affect par-
enting behavior originates from studies of the determinants of abusive parenting
and child neglect, or is inferred from studies examining the role of parenting as a
mediator between specific stressors and child adjustment.
Almost two decades ago, Belsky (1984) proposed a process model of par-
enting based on the child maltreatment literature which examined the interplay
between characteristics of the child (e.g., temperament), characteristics of the
parent (e.g., personality, psychological functioning, attachment history), and the
family environment (e.g., stress and support) in the determination of of parent-
ing practices. To date, several studies have examined the effects of the variables
assumed under that model. For example, parental personality and psychological
functioning have been found to influence parenting practices, beliefs, and expec-
tations (e.g., Cummings & Davies, 1994; Vondra & Belsky, 1993). Furthermore,
research from a developmental perspective considers parenting to be an exten-
sion of internal working models of attachment shaped by the way parents were
treated by their own caregivers as children (e.g., Bowlby, 1973). In terms of family
stress, several researchers have documented the negative effect of financial strain
(e.g., Elder, Liker, & Cross, 1984; McLoyd, Jayaratne, Ceballo, & Borquez, 1994),
marital discord and divorce (e.g., Belsky, 1984), parental illness (Armistead, Klein,
& Forehand, 1995), and parenting stress (Rodgers, 1993) on parenting behavior.
P1: FZN/GAY P2: GVG
Journal of Child and Family Studies [jcfs] ph135-jcfs-376301 August 13, 2002 16:11 Style file version June 4th, 2002

258 Kotchick and Forehand

The availability of emotional and instrumental support to parents has been widely
studied, with the findings consistently pointing to a positive relationship between
social support and adaptive parenting (e.g., Burchinal, Foller, & Bryant, 1996;
Klein et al., 2000).
While Belsky’s process model of the determinants of parenting (Belsky, 1984)
initially addressed the question of how parenting may be shaped by multiple factors,
it stopped short of considering the broader social context in which families operate.
As research on child development began to extend its focus beyond the factors
most proximal to children (i.e., the family) to include social context variables,
such as the neighborhood or community, research on parenting also began to
look through a wider lens. Researchers began to examine differences in parenting
based on social class, community context, socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, and
other “ecological” factors (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). When pulled together, as in the
influential book by Luster and Okagaki (1993), this research paints a picture of
the ecology of parenting (see Figure 1). However, the adoption of this perspective
is still in its infancy, and understanding the processes by which these broader
contextual variables affect parenting is an ongoing field of study.

Fig. 1. The ecology of parenting.

P1: FZN/GAY P2: GVG
Journal of Child and Family Studies [jcfs] ph135-jcfs-376301 August 13, 2002 16:11 Style file version June 4th, 2002

Contextual Factors and Parenting 259

THE CONTEXT OF PARENTING

We will now briefly describe the available literature concerning the rela-
tionship between parenting and three broad-level social context factors: ethnicity/
culture, family socioeconomic status, and neighborhood/community context.

Ethnicity and Culture

With more attention being paid to cultural diversity and how models of family
processes, like parenting, incorporate or account for cultural variations, it is not
surprising that the study of parenting has begun to examine variations in parenting
practices according to ethnicity and cultural background. It is now widely accepted
that cultural beliefs and heritage, as well as social factors associated with ethnic-
ity in this country, have important effects on parenting behavior (see Forehand &
Kotchick, 1996). In fact, a popular model proposed by Ogbu (1981) suggests that
parenting behavior is driven by the culturally determined child and adult char-
acteristics that are considered necessary for survival and success. According to
this model, parenting practices are determined by (1) the availability of resources
in the environment that facilitate the development of culturally valued compe-
tencies and (2) folk theories of childrearing that dictate the customary parental
practices believed to be successful in fostering culturally valued child behavior
(Ogbu, 1981).
For example, when applied to parenting within African American families,
this viewpoint provides a framework for beginning to understand the complexity
of parenting African American children in contemporary U.S. society. Parenting
practices of African American parents are dually influenced by the resources and
risks offered by their environments, which are disproportionately disadvantaged,
as well as traditions of childrearing handed down across the generations. Thus, a
common characterization of African American parenting is that it seeks to instill
pride in Blackness, as well as an awareness of racial discrimination and an appre-
ciation for the history of oppression endured by persons of color in American his-
tory (Franklin & Boyd-Franklin, 1985; Garcia-Coll, Brillon, & Meyer, 1995). Like
other ethnic minority parents, African American parents are charged with teaching
their children not only how to cope effectively with racial discrimination, but also
how to successfully negotiate the ambiguity that comes with having to coexist
in the dual worlds of the Black community and the majority culture (Franklin &
Boyd-Franklin, 1985; Strom et al., 2001).
Although many scholars from multiple disciplines have discussed the impact
of culture and ethnicity on parenting and child socialization (e.g., Garcia-Coll et al.,
1995; Ogbu, 1981), very little empirical research has been devoted to the question
of how ethnicity or cultural heritage may directly or indirectly affect parenting
beliefs and behavior. As a starting point, family researchers have addressed ethnic
P1: FZN/GAY P2: GVG
Journal of Child and Family Studies [jcfs] ph135-jcfs-376301 August 13, 2002 16:11 Style file version June 4th, 2002

260 Kotchick and Forehand

variations in parenting by comparing parents from different ethnic or cultural

groups on parenting, and then discussing how cultural values or traditions may
account for those differences. For example, a study by Lin and Fu (1990) com-
pared child-rearing practices among Chinese, immigrant Chinese, and Caucasian
American families and found that Chinese and immigrant Chinese parents placed
a higher emphasis than Caucasian parents on parental control and parenting strate-
gies to promote high achievement in their children. The authors explained their
findings by referring to the influence of traditional Chinese cultural values, such as
those that emphasize education and the “proper development of character,” on par-
enting practices even among Chinese families who have immigrated to the United
States (Lin & Fu, 1990).
Likewise, several authors have reported ethnic group differences in the use of
physical punishment, with African American parents reporting greater use of phys-
ical discipline strategies than Caucasian, Asian American, or Hispanic American
parents (e.g., Bradley, Corwyn, McAdoo, & Garcia-Coll, 2001; Kelley et al., 1992).
Most explanations of this finding point to the social and economic disadvantages
faced by a disproportionate number of African American families, suggesting that
such adverse conditions foster a reliance on more authoritarian parenting practices
in order to protect children from dangers in their environment and promote their
chance of survival and success (e.g. Kelley et al., 1992).
As a final example of the comparative approach, a study of ethnic variations
in social support networks and parenting found significant differences in child-
rearing practices and values among American Indian, Hispanic, and European
American parents (MacPhee, Fritz, & Miller-Heyl, 1996). The authors found that
American Indian parents were least likely to emphasize independence and achieve-
ment, unless they received more child-rearing advice from their social network.
The authors speculated that this may reflect the influence of the collectivistic and
noncompetitive values characteristic of the American Indian culture, an influence
that may be diluted upon exposure to more mainstream social contacts (MacPhee
et al., 1996).
While research such as the studies described above devoted much needed at-
tention to the question of how cultural heritage and customs may influence the way
parents approach the tasks of parenting, the design of these studies still ignores the
vast variation in parenting observed within a particular ethnic group. In addition,
because initial research on parenting was conducted primarily with middle class,
European American families (e.g., Baumrind, 1978; Maccoby & Martin, 1983),
the parenting beliefs and practices of European American parents were translated
into the “norms” of parenting behavior (Garcia-Coll et al., 1995). Research that
compares the parenting styles and practices of minority groups to the parenting be-
liefs and behaviors of European-American parents (or even to each other) naturally
highlights their differences, differences that are often interpreted as deficiencies
or deviations from the norm (Forehand & Kotchick, 1996).
P1: FZN/GAY P2: GVG
Journal of Child and Family Studies [jcfs] ph135-jcfs-376301 August 13, 2002 16:11 Style file version June 4th, 2002

Contextual Factors and Parenting 261

Recently, there has been more attention given to studying parenting within cul-
tures with the focus being on within-group variability and the identification of par-
enting strengths, instead of deficits, within a particular ethnic group (e.g., Brody &
Flor, 1998; Smetana, Abernathy, & Harris, 2000). For example, Brody and his col-
leagues (e.g., Brody & Flor, 1998; Brody, Dorsey, Forehand, & Armistead, 2002)
have explored the parenting challenges and successes of rural African American
families. Their work has found that a “no nonsense” style of parenting, char-
acterized by supportive and involved mother-child relationships, active parental
monitoring of children’s activities, and consistent but not overly harsh discipline
strategies, is consistently related to positive emotional, behavioral, social, and
academic outcomes among children and adolescents.
The within-group study of parenting also permits an evaluation of the rele-
vance or effectiveness of particular parenting behavior in a specific cultural niche,
thus challenging the assumption that there are universally “good” parenting strate-
gies. For example, several studies have noted that authoritative parenting, though
often referred to as the standard of “effective” parenting, is not always beneficial for
youth in ethnic minority families (e.g., Steinberg, Lamborn, Darling, Mounts, &
Dornbusch, 1994; Chao, 1994). Authoritarian parenting, characterized by high lev-
els of parental control, has been found to have positive effects for African American
youth (e.g., Lamborn, Dornbusch, & Steinberg, 1996), and has been found to be
as effective as authoritative parenting for Asian American youth (Chao, 1996).

Family Socioeconomic Status and Poverty

A major limitation of much of the available research on the parenting within

ethnic minority families is the predominant focus on children and adolescents
living in poverty. Studies of parenting among minority families of middle- and
upper-income are virtually nonexistent, and only a few studies exist that examine
the interaction between ethnicity and socioeconomic status with respect to parent-
ing (see Bradley et al., 2001; Lamborn et al., 1996, for notable exceptions). As
such, some of the conclusions drawn about parenting within minority families are
confounded by the effects of family income or social class (Dodge, Petit, & Bates,
1994).
Poverty has been found to have a profound detrimental influence on children
and families, regardless of ethnicity (Luthar, 1999). One of the pathways through
which poverty has been found to affect children is the disruption of parenting.
This line of research is anchored by the pioneering work of Glenn Elder and his
colleagues which chronicled the impact of financial duress on the psychosocial
functioning of families, especially children, during the Great Depression (Elder
et al., 1984; Elder, Nguyen, & Caspi, 1985). Elder’s work found that economic
hardship negatively affected children through its disruption of parenting and other
P1: FZN/GAY P2: GVG
Journal of Child and Family Studies [jcfs] ph135-jcfs-376301 August 13, 2002 16:11 Style file version June 4th, 2002

262 Kotchick and Forehand

family processes. Specifically, financial loss was associated with fathers’ increased
irritability, depression, and explosive behavior, which, in turn, were associated
with harsher and more arbitrary discipline practices. It was these disruptions in
parenting which led to increased behavioral and socoioemotional problems among
the children studied (Elder et al., 1984, 1985).
Studies by Conger and his colleagues have replicated these findings in con-
temporary, two-parent, Caucasian families affected by the farming crises of
Midwestern America (Conger et al., 1992; Conger, Ge, Elder, Lorenz, & Simons,
1994), and most recently, in rural two-caregiver African American families (Conger
et al., 2002). Likewise, McLoyd and her colleagues (McLoyd et al., 1994), who
study parenting and child adjustment in African American, single parent families,
also found disruptions in parenting due to the psychosocial impact of poverty and
financial strain. Bradley et al. (2001) extended this research by examining the im-
pact of poverty on parenting and family functioning across ethnic groups, finding
that poor mothers were less likely than nonpoor mothers to communicate effec-
tively with their children or to show either verbal and physical affection toward
their children, regardless of ethnicity. The authors also found that at all age levels,
and across all ethnic groups, poor parents were more likely to use physical disci-
pline and less likely to monitor their children than were nonpoor parents (Bradley
et al., 2001).
Stepping beyond the bounds of poverty, some consistent differences in
parenting styles and behavior associated with socioeconomic status have been
documented. As reviewed by Hoff-Ginsberg and Tardif (1995), parent-child re-
lationships among middle-class families are consistently described as more equi-
table and accepting, while parent-child interactions among lower or working-class
families tend to be centered around fostering obedience and conformity. The value
placed on more authoritarian styles of parenting has been interpreted to mean
that parents in lower SES families need to be more restrictive in order to protect
their children from dangers in their environment (e.g., Furstenberg, 1993; Kelley
et al., 1992). In addition, Hoff-Ginsberg and Tardif (1995) note that there has
been impressive consistency across studies in terms of SES-related differences
in the quality of mother-child interactions. Specifically, they state that (1) lower
SES mothers tend to be more controlling, restrictive and disapproving toward their
young children as compared to their higher SES peers; (2) SES-associated differ-
ences in mother-child interactions are greater on measures of language or verbal
behavior than they are on measures of nonverbal behavior; and (3) higher SES
mothers talk more and for longer stretches of time, are more specific with their
language, elicit more talking from their children, and respond more contingently
to their children than do lower SES mothers (see Hoff-Ginsberg & Tardif, 1995,
for a review).
It is not difficult to speculate about the reasons for such robust findings. In
terms of poverty’s effect on parenting, financial hardship places a great strain on
the emotional resources of parents, often resulting in decrements in psychological
P1: FZN/GAY P2: GVG
Journal of Child and Family Studies [jcfs] ph135-jcfs-376301 August 13, 2002 16:11 Style file version June 4th, 2002

Contextual Factors and Parenting 263

functioning (e.g., development of depressive symptoms) that then lead to impaired

parenting (e.g., Cummings & Davies, 1994). Indeed, several researchers have
documented the pathway from financial strain to parental depressive symptoms
to disrupted parenting (e.g., Elder et al, 1984; Conger et al., 1992; McLoyd et al,
1994). In addition, families living in poverty are less likely to have access to
the physical resources and social networks that assist nonpoor parents in their
parenting efforts (Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000).
Likewise, parents of lower socioeconomic status are typically less educated
and lack the structural resources to provide more stimulating environments for their
children that characterized parenting interactions among higher SES families. In-
deed, mothers’ verbal facility, and not SES, has been named as the likely culprit
behind SES-related differences in mother-child interactions (see Hoff-Ginsberg
& Tardif, 1995), suggesting that differences in parenting are linked with parental
qualities such as education or cognitive ability rather than environmental stres-
sors. However, as will be discussed in the following section, there is a fairly large
body of literature that suggests parenting may be acutely influenced by the level of
danger or threat within the immediate social context in which the family resides.
With lower SES being associated with residence in more disadvantaged and dan-
gerous communities, SES-related differences in parenting may be driven more by
environmental circumstances rather than individual differences among parents in
verbal or cognitive ability.

Neighborhood and Community

Although poverty has clearly been identified as being detrimental for children
and families, its study has highlighted the fact that not all families exposed to
poverty are doomed to fail. In fact, studies of resiliency among families exposed to
poverty and the stressors associated with it note that children can and do achieve
psychosocial success when they have access to personal, family, and community
resources that serve as buffers against the sustained effects of economic disadvan-
tage (e.g., Cicchetti & Garmezy, 1993). Parenting that emphasizes parental control,
monitoring and supervision of children, and high parental expectations for obe-
dience and respect for authority have been found to be particularly adaptive for
children growing up in impoverished or dangerous neighborhoods. Indeed, author-
itative parenting strategies that grant more autonomy to children have been found
to be detrimental in such settings (e.g., Lamborn et al., 1996). That neighborhood
quality can qualify the effectiveness of parenting strategies so dramatically speaks
to the importance of understanding the neighborhood context when attempting to
measure, classify, or modify parenting behavior.
Several authors have noted that the social and physical characteristics
of neighborhoods contribute to the decisions parents make about the way they
structure and regulate their children’s activities (e.g., Burton, 1990). For exam-
ple, fieldwork by Furstenberg and his colleagues (1993) led them to conclude,
P1: FZN/GAY P2: GVG
Journal of Child and Family Studies [jcfs] ph135-jcfs-376301 August 13, 2002 16:11 Style file version June 4th, 2002

264 Kotchick and Forehand

“where parents live affects how they manage their children” (p. 254). The results
from several ethnographic and qualitative studies suggest that residence in danger-
ous or impoverished neighborhoods is associated with more restrictive parenting
practices (e.g., Burton, 1990; Furstenberg, 1993).
Neighborhood characteristics also have been found to affect the parenting di-
mension of warmth/responsiveness. Klebanov, Brooks-Gunn, and Duncan (1994)
found a strong association between residence in poorer neighborhoods and lower
levels of displayed maternal warmth toward children. Again, ethnographic re-
search supports this contention by providing narratives that suggest that parents
who live in more impoverished or dangerous neighborhoods are less warm and
more controlling with their children than parents who live in more advantaged and
safer neighborhoods (e.g., Furstenberg, 1993). This parenting style is considered
to be somewhat adaptive because it teaches children to take care of themselves in
a dangerous environment (Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000).
In addition to socioeconomic status, typically defined as the proportion of
families under the poverty line residing in a particular neighborhood, neighbor-
hoods or communities may be classified by population density (e.g., urban vs.
rural; Forehand et al, 2000), thus allowing for a comparison of parenting practices
across diverse community contexts. For example, Armistead and colleagues (in
press) examined parenting among single-parent African American families (most
of whom were poor) in rural and urban communities. They found that, on average,
urban parents monitored their children’s activities more than their rural counter-
parts, and that urban parents perceived more risks in their communities than did
rural parents, which the authors speculate could account for the differential rates of
parental monitoring across the two contexts. Interestingly, the authors also found
that higher levels of parental monitoring were associated with better child and
adolescent outcomes in urban, but not rural, families. Their findings suggest, once
again, that parents alter their parenting strategies to fit the environmental circum-
stances in which they are raising their children so that their children’s chances of
success are maximized (Ogbu, 1981).

INCORPORATING CONTEXT INTO PARENTING RESEARCH

AND ITS APPLICATION

The preceding discussion clearly demonstrates that social and contextual fac-
tors play an important role in shaping the parenting process. In every sociocultural
niche, parenting is guided by both past and current conditions that dictate which
child behaviors are most desirable and which child-rearing practices are most
effective at promoting those outcomes (Ogbu, 1981). In addition, parenting is a
dynamic process that is continually evolving based on the transactions that take
place between parents and children, and between families and their environments.
P1: FZN/GAY P2: GVG
Journal of Child and Family Studies [jcfs] ph135-jcfs-376301 August 13, 2002 16:11 Style file version June 4th, 2002

Contextual Factors and Parenting 265

Thus, it is critical for those who study parenting to consider the broader social
context when attempting to explain, predict, or modify parenting.
In terms of parenting research, it should be both common and expected that
social and contextual forces be at least acknowledged if not directly assessed in
models of parenting behavior. As reviewed in this paper, several researchers have
addressed context in their work by examining the relationship between ecolog-
ical factors, such as family SES or ethnicity, and parenting. This literature has
provided a series of snapshots that describe how parenting may vary across so-
ciocultural contexts. However, little has been done empirically to pull together
these individual pieces into a more complete picture that encompasses the so-
cial ecology in which parenting evolves and manifests itself. In his foreward to
the book entitled Parenting: An Ecological Perspective (Luster & Okagaki, 1993),
Bronfenbrenner (1993) noted that while the number and scope of investigations on
parenting that employ a contextual perspective have increased, these studies remain
widely scattered across disciplines and journals, thus impeding efforts to develop
comprehensive models of parenting that could best inform policy and intervention
development. That comment, made nearly a decade ago, still applies to the state
of the literature today. Enough evidence exists to document the effects contextual
variables appear to have on parenting individually; work now needs to be done to
identify how these variables interact or combine to influence parenting behavior.
A comprehensive model of parenting behavior that includes context as an
important factor would greatly enhance intervention efforts geared toward im-
proving problematic child behavior or ineffective parenting strategies. Although
empirically supported parenting interventions often do not explicitly address or
account for the context on their delivery, clinical researchers and practitioners
alike have long recognized that broader social and environmental factors influence
both parenting behavior and parents’ response to treatment. For example, greater
socioeconomic stress has been associated with treatment dropout and poorer out-
comes at the conclusion of therapy (Kazdin, Mazurick, & Bass, 1993; McMahon,
Forehand, Griest, & Wells, 1981), and parenting interventions often must be mod-
ified to fit the needs of parents from various cultural and ethnic backgrounds (e.g.,
Lieh-Mak, Lee, & Luk, 1984). Just as practitioners must attend to the broader
social context when delivering parenting interventions, those responsible for de-
veloping and testing parenting programs must also incorporate context into their
efforts to modify parenting (Forehand & Kotchick, 1996).
Conceptualizing parenting within a family’s social, economic, and cultural
context also has important implications for public policy development. As welfare
reform policies continue to move parents, most notably low-income single moth-
ers, into the workforce, shifts in parenting priorities and practices are likely to
occur. Policies and programs that assist working parents to fulfill the obligations
they have to both their jobs and their families are sorely needed. To be maximally
effective, such policies and programs must have an understanding of contextual
P1: FZN/GAY P2: GVG
Journal of Child and Family Studies [jcfs] ph135-jcfs-376301 August 13, 2002 16:11 Style file version June 4th, 2002

266 Kotchick and Forehand

sources of stress and support for parents. For example, Furstenberg (2001) sug-
gested that neighborhood context could be used as a resource for strengthening
parenting, rather than merely being classified as a risk or impediment to effective
parenting efforts. His suggestions for policy and program development included
connecting struggling parents in disadvantaged contexts to more successful ones
for support and advice, training parents on how to find and use resources in their
community, and assisting parents to advocate for better services within their com-
munities. In addition, as suggested by the research on parenting in disadvantaged
communities (e.g., Furstenberg, 1993; Kelley et al, 1992), when parents view their
neighborhoods as inadequate or dangerous, they tend to engage in more restrictive
parenting strategies that limit the family’s interactions with its neighbors. This
withdrawal from the community not only increases the family’s sense of isolation,
but also deprives the neighborhood from the kind of social scaffolding necessary
to develop and cultivate its resources.
Parenting has long been viewed as critical for the development of prosocial
behavior in children, and the literature clearly supports this contention. Child,
parent, and family characteristics have been found in numerous studies to relate
to parenting behavior. In contrast, the research literature is less well developed
in terms of our understanding of how the broader social and cultural environ-
ment influences parenting. In addition, clinical interventions designed to enhance
adaptive parenting have paid little formal attention to context, and policy devel-
opment has yet to fully embrace the broader ecology of parenting. For parenting
to be maximally understood and utilized to promote adaptive child behavior and
development, there needs to be more inclusion of the social and cultural con-
text in research designs, clinical interventions, and policy decisions. We hope
that this article will serve as a catalyst for further consideration and discussion
among child development experts of the broader social context in which parenting
operates.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was supported, in part, by the William T. Grant Foundation and
the University of Georgia’s Institute for Behavioral Research.

REFERENCES

Armistead, L., Forehand, R., Brody, G., Maguen, S. (in press). Parenting and child psychosocial
adjustment in single-parent African American families: Is community context important? Behavior
Therapy.
Armistead, L., Klein, K., & Forehand, R. (1995). Parental physical illness and child functioning. Special
issue: The impact of the family on child adjustment and psychopathology. Clinical Psychology
Review, 15, 409–455.
P1: FZN/GAY P2: GVG
Journal of Child and Family Studies [jcfs] ph135-jcfs-376301 August 13, 2002 16:11 Style file version June 4th, 2002

Contextual Factors and Parenting 267

Baumrind, D. (1978). Parental disciplinary patterns and social competence in children. Youth and
Society, 9, 239–276.
Beardslee, W. R., Salt, P., Porterfield, K., Rothberg, P. C., van de Velde, P., Swatling, S., Hoke, L.,
Moilanen, D. L., & Wheelock, I. (1993). Comparison of preventive interventions for families with
parental affective disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
32, 254–263.
Belsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model. Child Development, 55, 83–96.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachments and loss: Vol. 2. Separation. New York: Basic Books.
Bradley, R. H., Corwyn, R. F., McAdoo, H. P., & Garcia-Coll, C. (2001). The home environments
of children in the United States. Part I: Variations by age, ethnicity, and poverty status. Child
Development, 72, 1844–1867.
Brodsky, A. E. (1999). “Making it”: The components and process of reslience among urban, African
American single mothers. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 69, 148–160.
Brody, G. H., Dorsey, S., Forehand, R., & Armistead, L. (2002). Unique and protective contributions
of parenting and classroom processes to the adjustment of African-American children living in
single-parent families. Child Development, 73, 274–286.
Brody, G. H., & Flor, D. L. (1998). Maternal resources, parenting practices, and child competence in
rural, single-parent, African American families. Child Development, 69, 803–816.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1993). Foreward. In T. Luster & L. Ogakaki (Eds.), Parenting: An ecological
perspective (pp. vii–xi). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Burchinal, M. R., Follmer, A., & Bryant, D. M. (1996). The relations of maternal social support
and family structure with maternal responsiveness and child outcomes among African American
families. Developmental Psychology, 32, 1073–1083.
Burton, L. M. (1990). Teenage childbearing as an alternative life-course strategy in multigenerational
Black families. Human Nature, 1, 123–143.
Chao, R. K. (1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style: Understanding Chinese
parenting trough the cultural notion of training. Child Development, 65, 1111–1120.
Chao, R. K. (1996). Chinese and European American mothers’ beliefs about the role of parenting in
children’s school success. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27, 403–423.
Cicchetti, D., & Garmezy, N. (1993). Milestones in the development of resilience. Development and
Psychopathology, 4, 497–783.
Conger, R. D., Conger, K. J., Elder, G. H., Jr., Lorenz, F. O., Simons, R. L., & Whitbeck, L. B. (1992).
A family process model of economic hardship and adjustment of early adolescent boys. Child
Development, 63, 526–541.
Conger, R. D., Ge, X., Elder, G., Lorenz, F., & Simons, R. (1994). Economic stress, coercive family
process, and developmental problems of adolescents. Child Development, 65, 541–561.
Conger, R. D., Wallace, L. E., Sun, Y., Simons, R., McLoyd, V.C., & Brody, G. H. (2002). Economic
pressure in African American families: A replication and extension of the family stress model.
Developmental Psychology, 38, 179–193.
Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P. T. (1994). Maternal depression and child development. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, 73–112.
Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (1994). Socialization mediators of the relation between
socioeconomic status and child conduct problems. Child Development, 65, 649–665.
Elder, G. H., Liker, J. K, & Cross, C. E. (1984). Parent-child behavior in the Great Depression:
Life course and intergenerational influences. In P. B. Baltes & O. G. Brim, Jr. (Eds.), Life span
development and behavior (Vol. 6, pp. 109–158). New York: Academic Press.
Elder, G. H., Nguyen, T. V., Caspi, A. (1985). Linking family hardship to children’s lives. Child
Development, 56, 361–375.
Fauber, R., Forehand, R., Thomas, A., & Wierson, M. (1990). A mediational model of the impact of
marital conflict on adolescent adjustment in intact and divorced families: The role of disrupted
parenting. Child Development, 61, 1112–1123.
Forehand, R., Brody, G., Armistead, L., Dorsey, S., Morse, E., Morse, P. S., & Stock, M. (2000).
The role of community risks and resources in the psychosocial adjustment of at-risk children: An
examination across two community contexts and two informants. Behavior Therapy, 31, 395–414.
P1: FZN/GAY P2: GVG
Journal of Child and Family Studies [jcfs] ph135-jcfs-376301 August 13, 2002 16:11 Style file version June 4th, 2002

268 Kotchick and Forehand

Forehand, R., & Kotchick, B. A. (1996). Cultural diversity: A wake-up call for parent training. Behavior
Therapy, 27, 187–206.
Franklin, A. J., & Boyd-Franklin, N. (1985). A psychoeducational perspective on Black parenting.
In H. P. McAdoo & J. L. McAdoo (Eds.), Black children: Social, educational, and parental
environments. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Furstenberg, F.F. (1993). How families manage risk and opportunity in dangerous neighborhoods. In
W. J. Wilson (Ed.), Sociology and the public agenda (pp. 231–258). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Furstenberg, F.F. (2001). Managing to make it: Afterthoughts. Journal of Family Issues, 22, 150–
162.
Garcia-Coll, C. T., Meyer, E. C., & Brillon, L. (1995). Ethnic and minority parenting. In M. H. Bornstein
(Ed.). Handbook of parenting: Biology and ecology of parenting (Vol. 2, pp. 189–210). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hoff-Ginsberg, E., & Tardif, T. (1995). Socioeconomic status and parenting. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.).
Handbook of parenting: Biology and ecology of parenting (Vol. 2, pp. 161–188). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kazdin, A. E., Mazurick, J. L., & Bass, D. (1993). Risk for attrition in treatment of antisocial children
and families. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 22, 2–16.
Kelley, M. L, Power, T. G., & Wimbush, D. D. (1992). Determinants of disciplinary practices in
low-income black mothers. Child Development, 63, 573–582.
Klebanov, P. K., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Duncan, G. (1994). Does neighborhood and family poverty affect
mothers’ parenting, mental health, and social support? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56,
441–455.
Klein, K., Armistead, L., Devine, D., Kotchick, B., Forehand, R., Morse, E., Simon, P., Stock, M.,
& Clark, L. (2000). Socioemotional support in African American families coping with maternal
HIV: An examination of mothers’ and children’s psychosocial adjustment. Behavior Therapy, 31,
1–26.
Lamborn, S. D., Dornbusch, S. M., & Steinberg, L. (1996). Ethnicity and community context as
moderators of the relations between family decision making and adolescent adjustment. Child
Development, 67, 283–301.
Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000). The neighborhoods they live in: The effects of neighborhood
residence on child and adolescent outcomes. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 309–337.
Lieh-Mak, F., Lee, P. W., & Luk, S. L. (1984). Problems encountered in teaching Chinese parents
to be behavior therapists. Psychologia: An International Journal of Psychology in the Orient,
27, 56–64.
Lin, C., & Fu, V. (1990). A comparison of childrearing practices among Chinese, immigrant Chinese,
and Caucasian-American parents. Child Development, 61, 429–433.
Long, N., & Forehand, R. (2002). Making divorce easier on your child. Chicago: Contemporary Books.
Luster, T., Ogakaki, L. (1993). Parenting: An ecological perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Luthar, S. S. (1994). Poverty and children’s adjustment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child inter-
action. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.), Handbook of child psychology:
Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social development (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.
McLoyd, V. C., Jayaratne, T. E., Ceballo, R., & Borquez, J. (1994). Unemployment and work interrup-
tions among African American single mothers: Effects on parenting and adolescent socioemotional
functioning. Child Development, 65, 562–589.
McMahon, R. J., & Forehand, R. (2002). Helping the noncompliant child: A clinician’s guide to effective
parent training (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
McMahon, R. J., Forehand, R., Griest, D., & Wells, K. C. (1981). Who drops out of treatment during
parent behavioral training? Behavioral Counseling Quarterly, 1, 79–85.
Ogbu, J. U. (1981). Origins of human competence: A cultural-ecological perspective. Child Develop-
ment, 52, 413–429.
Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. B., & Dishion, T. J. (1992). Antisocial boys. Eugene, OR: Castalia Publishing
Company.
P1: FZN/GAY P2: GVG
Journal of Child and Family Studies [jcfs] ph135-jcfs-376301 August 13, 2002 16:11 Style file version June 4th, 2002

Contextual Factors and Parenting 269

Rodgers, A. (1993). The assessment of variables related to the parenting behavior of mothers with
young children. Children and Youth Services Review, 15, 385–402.
Smetana, J. G., Abernethy, A., & Harris, A. (2000). Adolescent-parent interactions in middle-class
African American families: Longitudinal change and contextual variations. Journal of Family
Psychology, 14, 458–474.
Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Darling, N., Mounts, N. S., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1994). Over-time
changes in adjustment and competence among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, in-
dulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 65, 754–770.
Strom, R. D., Dohrmann, J. N., Strom, P. S., Griswold, D. L., Beckert, T. E., & Strom, S. E. (2001).
Maternal guidance of adolescents: An African American perspective. Journal of Family Studies,
7, 189–207.
Vondra, J., & Belsky, J. (1993). Developmental origins of parenting: Personality and relationship factors.
In T. Luster & L. Ogakaki (Eds.), Parenting: An ecological perspective (pp. 1–33). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Copyright of Journal of Child & Family Studies is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

View publication stats