Parental Familism and Antisocial Behaviors: Development, Gender, and Potential Mechanisms

NEW RESEARCH

Parental Familism and AntisocialBehaviors: Development, Gender, and

Potential MechanismsCarmen Morcillo, M.D., Cristiane S. Duarte, Ph.D., M.P.H., Sa Shen, Ph.D.,

Carlos Blanco, M.D., Ph.D., Glorisa Canino, Ph.D., Hector R. Bird, M.D.

Objective: To examine the relation between parental familism (strong values of attachment to nuclearand extended family members) and youth antisocial behaviors over time. Method: Puerto Ricanchildren 5 to 13 years of age at baseline residing in the South Bronx in New York (n � 1,138) andin the Standard Metropolitan Area in San Juan and Caguas, Puerto Rico (n � 1,353) werefollowed over two waves 1 year apart from 2000 to 2004. Parental familism was assessed usingan adaptation of the Sabogal Familism Scale. Level of youth past-year antisocial behaviors wasmeasured by the Antisocial Behavior Index. The association between familism and AntisocialBehavior Index over three waves was examined through mixed models stratified by age andgender, adjusted by site (South Bronx or San Juan), propensity scores reflecting site differencesin family income, maternal age and education, plus environmental and child risk factors.Specific family processes were examined as potential mediators. Results: Parental familismwas protective against antisocial behaviors in girls (estimate � �0.11, standard error � 0.03,p � .001 for 5- to 9-year-olds; estimate � �0.15, standard error � 0.03, p � .0001 for those �10years old). For boys, parental familism was only protective in 5- to 9-year-olds (estimate ��0.09, standard error � 0.03, p � .0008). The protective effect of parental familism on antisocialbehaviors operated mostly through parent–child relationships for 5- to 9-year-old children andparental attitudes/behaviors toward youth high-risk behaviors for both age groups. Con-clusions: Familism may protect youth against increasing levels of antisocial behaviors (exceptfor boys who are �10 years old). Incorporating familism as part of therapeutic approachesaddressing antisocial behaviors for youth may be helpful. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc.Psychiatry, 2011;50(5):471–479. Key Words: familism, antisocial behaviors, gender, PuertoRican, parenting processes

v(

v

F amilism is defined as a “strong identifica-tion and attachment of individuals withtheir families (nuclear and extended) as

well as strong feelings of loyalty, reciprocity andsolidarity among members of the same family.”1

Familism involves attitudes and behaviors thatemphasize the centrality of the family as a unitand main source of support/guidance. Althoughthese values are important for most cultures,familism is a core value for Hispanic families.1,2

The early internalization of familial values andrules by children may facilitate acceptance of

This article is discussed in an editorial by Dr. David Reiss on page
431.
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF CHILD & ADOLESCENT PSYCHIATRY

VOLUME 50 NUMBER 5 MAY 2011

societal norms3 and possibly play a role in pre-enting the development of antisocial behaviorsASB).4-7

Although most research on risk factors forASB has focused on socioeconomic characteris-tics,4 family functioning/structure,5 exposure to

iolence,6 and parenting behaviors,7 some evi-dence supports an inverse association betweenfamilism and adolescent ASB.8-10 Basic questionson the topic are, however, still unanswered. First,because most studies are cross-sectional, howfamilism may influence ASB at different devel-opmental stages is unclear. Second, it is notknown whether the relation between familismand ASB is the same for both genders. Lowerlifetime prevalence and later (adolescent) onset
of ASB have been mainly described for girls.11
471www.jaacap.org

mtt

oelipgwev

bmPrt

bt

ta

MORCILLO et al.

Biological (especially hormonal) factors, overalllower impulsivity/hyperactivity levels through-out development, and the greater “affiliative so-cialization”12 may protect girls against ASB inchildhood. These factors may also increase thegirls’ disposition to establish good parent–childrelations, thus being highly influenced early onby family values and behaviors.13 A third unan-swered question is how values related to familyloyalty, reciprocity, and attachment may preventASB later in life.

Family therapy coupled with parent man-agement training constitutes the most effectiveintervention for youth with ASB.14,15 Multilevelpreventive interventions focused on family in-volvement to prevent behavioral problems inHispanic adolescents have been developed.16

Thus, learning about the role that familism mayplay in the development of ASB can informpreventive intervention strategies, particularlyfor Hispanic youth, but possibly also for youth ofother racial/ethnic backgrounds. Although cur-rent empirically supported therapies mainly fo-cus on relevant systemic factors that exacerbateor maintain the child/adolescent problem,17 it ispossible that conveying familism values to theyounger children (who are building a moralsystem based on their families)—such as beingavailable when a family member has a problemor knowing that one can talk with family mem-bers to share difficulties in life—may facilitate thedevelopment of empathy, bonding, and attach-ment to family members, all of which are protec-tive against ASB.18

We found initial evidence that parentalfamilism was cross-sectionally related to disrup-tive behavior disorders.19 In longitudinal analy-ses, we previously documented that the trajec-tory of ASB in Puerto Rican youth was differentfor those living in San Juan compared with thoseliving in the South Bronx, New York, where riskwas elevated.20 We also demonstrated that higherlevel of parental Anglo cultural orientation wasrelated to more severe child ASB.21 Despite con-verging evidence, the possible role of parentalfamilism in preventing ASB over time still needsto be addressed.

In the present study, the relation betweenparental familism and youth ASB was examinedover time in a sample of 2,491 Puerto Ricanyoungsters living in two different settings. Wehypothesized that youth from families with
higher levels of parental familism would present
JOURN

472 www.jaacap.org

lower levels of antisocial behaviors over thecourse of 3 years, suggesting that familism can beprotective against developing antisocial behav-iors. We also hypothesized that the relation be-tween parental familism and ASB would bestronger in girls than in boys.

METHODSampleDetailed information about the sample and methods ofthe study from which these data are drawn is providedelsewhere.19,22 Briefly, the Boricua Youth Study is alongitudinal study involving 2,491 Puerto Rican boysand girls 5 to 13 years of age at baseline residing in theSouth Bronx, New York (SB; n � 1,138) and in theStandard Metropolitan Area in San Juan and Caguas,Puerto Rico (PR; n � 1,353). Each sample was a

ultistage probability sample of households of thearget population, weighted to represent the popula-ions of Puerto Rican children in the two contexts.

Children 5 to 13 years old at baseline were followedver three waves of data collection 1 year apart. Theligibility criteria for the original sample included ateast one child in the household 5 to 13 years olddentified as being of PR background and at least onerimary caretaker also identified as being of PR back-round. Up to three eligible children per householdere included. In households with more than three

ligible children, three were selected at random. Inter-iews were administered in English and in Spanish.

At baseline, 89% of the adult informants wereiological mothers, 4.5% grandmothers, 2.8% adoptiveothers or stepmothers, and 1.8% biological fathers.

articipation rate at baseline was 84.7%. Completionates for the first and second follow-ups were, respec-ively, 92% and 88%.

The study was approved by the institutional reviewoards at the New York State Psychiatric Institute andhe University of Puerto Rico Medical School.

MeasurementsParental Familism. Familism level was measuredhrough parental responses to items from an abbrevi-ted adapted version of the Sabogal Familism Scale1

administered at baseline and follow-ups 1 and 2 to theadult respondent, predominantly mothers (main care-takers of the study children). Response options were ina 4-point Likert scale from “strongly agree” to“strongly disagree”. Ten items of the more extensiveSabogal Parent scale (originally including 14 items)were considered to have face validity and applicabilityto Puerto Ricans at the two sites and were selected forthe present study. Exploratory factor analyses of base-line data using mean- and variance-adjusted maxi-
mum likelihood estimator and Quartimin rotation
AL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF CHILD & ADOLESCENT PSYCHIATRY


iy

t

sdtfs

gcahp

pcirw

st

arpcagiro

FAMILISM AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIORS

indicated that the 10 selected items could be groupedin a 3-factor structure compatible with the item distri-bution in dimensions of the original Sabogal scale(model fit indicators: Conformity Fit Index [CFI] �0.996 and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation[RMSEA] � 0.027). The dimensions described by Sabo-gal et al. were familial obligations (e.g. “one shouldmake sacrifices in order to guarantee a good educationfor his/her children”), support from family (e.g.,“When someone has problems he/she can count onhelp from his/her relatives”), and family as referents(e.g., “Much of what a son or daughter does should bedone to please the parents”). At baseline, the internalconsistency of this abridged parental familism scaleyielded Cronbach � values of 0.77 in the South Bronxand 0.76 in Puerto Rico. An attempt was made todevelop child versions of the scale; however, resultingscales yielded low internal consistencies (� � 0.30).Therefore, child familism was not included in thepresent analysis.Antisocial Behavior Index. ASB was assessed usingthe Antisocial Behavior Index (ASBI) developed for theBoricua Youth Study, described in detail elsewhere23

and included in previous reports.20,21 The ASBI in-cludes 113 antisocial behaviors obtained from parentresponses to the conduct disorder and oppositionaldefiant disorder schedules of the Diagnostic InterviewSchedule for Children (DISC-IV)24 and from children’sresponses to the Elliot Delinquency Scales.25 The ASBlevel of each behavior was determined based on theratings of nine experts who assigned a score from 0through 5 to each behavior.20,23 Experts’ ratings weremade according to the frequency of the behaviorconsidering their level of seriousness/severity for aspecific age group.23 Based on responses to all ASBitems, each child was assigned a specific score on theASBI at each wave. The ASBI reflects the worst level ofASB manifested in a specific wave; if two or morebehaviors of the same level of severity are present, thechild’s ASBI goes up to the next level of severity. TheASBI therefore takes into account severity, frequencyof occurrence during the previous year, and presenceof multiple behaviors so that the developmental tra-jectory of antisocial behavior followed by each childcan be traced over the three waves. Levels 0 and 1 ofthe ASBI represent none or trivial ASB; levels 2, 3, 4,and 5 represent increasing frequency, heterogeneity,and seriousness of ASB.Environmental and Child Risks. Several risk factorswere measured as part of the Boricua Youth Study.22

Selected scales were grouped to represent two differ-ent dimensions: environmental risks (six scales) andchild risks (16 scales). For each of these dimensions,the scales were entered in a principal componentanalysis from which a single factor was extracted,22

retaining a scale if it had standardized loadings of 0.40or more. Surviving scales (five for environmental risks
and five for child risks) were factored once again, and


a regression-based estimate of the factor score wascomputed (Table 1). Scales ultimately used to repre-sent each dimension were environmental risks (expo-sure to violence, 11 items22; school environment, eighttems19; peer delinquency, 16 items for children �10ears old and 12 items for those 5 to 9 years old26;

stressful life events, 21 items27,28; and an adaptation ofhe Home Environment Scale, 11 items)29 and child

risks (early aggressivity, six items; poor social adjust-ment, two items; poor academic performance, 10items; and lack of talents and special skills and peerrelationships, five items).30

Family Processes: Potential Mechanisms.19 A similartrategy was used to group scales representing threeistinct family processes. The first process was nega-

ive family influences (initially 14 scales reduced toour), which include overall family functioning andupport (family functioning, five items31; parent social

support, six items32; religiosity, five items33; and sin-le-parent family, one item). The second family pro-ess was ineffective family structuring (three scales)ddressing parental attitudes and behaviors towardigh-risk behaviors (parental monitoring, nine items7;arental discipline, nine items27; and parental attitudes

toward delinquency, 28 items26). For the third familyrocess, we used a single scale measuring parent–hild relationship, “Maternal acceptance/warmth” (13tems),30 despite its failure to emerge from the dataeduction screen because it was a variable associatedith ASB in prior analyses of the data19,20 and a key

dimension of interest. The Cronbach � values for thisingle scale used as an indicator of parent–child rela-ionship was 0.68.

The stability of the dimensions representing risksnd family processes over three waves support theeliability of all five dimensions of risk and familyrocesses: indicators of each dimension were highlyorrelated over time (median correlations of each vari-ble over the three follow-ups were 0.64 for the PRroup and 0.54 for the SB group).34 The parent was the

nformant for all scales, except for those under envi-onmental risks and peer relations, which were basedn child report.

Statistical AnalysisFor each wave of data, the mean and standard errorwere calculated for parental familism for boys andgirls 5 to 9 years old and 10 years or older. Because themain interest was examining whether parentalfamilism was prospectively related to ASBI, furtheranalyses were focused on familism at baseline. UsingSUDAAN 8 software,35 these estimates took into ac-count the sampling design, i.e., the fact that up to threechildren per family were assessed and that familieswere nested within primary sampling units.

The ASBI was then estimated over the threewaves of measurement as a function of baseline
parental familism and time using multiple regres-
473www.jaacap.org

rsitAafadsgpttdAMt

lSc

gtfau

MORCILLO et al.

sion analyses. Before doing so, because youth at thetwo sites might have differed in their sociodemo-graphic composition, propensity scores were gener-ated to be used as adjustment in the regressionanalysis.36 This method created groups of PR and SByouth that were comparable for several variables. Tocreate the propensity scores, logistic regression anal-ysis used site as the dependent variable and mater-nal age, maternal education, and family income asindependent variables. Based on this analysis, fivegroups, or propensity score strata, were defined.Indicators of these strata were included in all regres-sion models testing the main study hypothesis de-scribed below. Because the variable site may repre-sent more than measured sociodemographic factors,it was also included in the regression models.

In the multiple regression analysis, mixed linearmodels were used to relate level of parental familismat baseline to ASBI (dependent variable). Weightedanalyses were carried out with the MIXED procedureof SAS 9.137 with restricted maximum likelihood esti-mation. These models allowed the sample weights andmultiple levels of nesting of the data to be taken intoaccount. Time was coded 0 for baseline and 1 and 2 forthe first and second follow-up interviews. The initialmodels (Model 1) included, besides familism and time,propensity scores and site. These models were ad-justed by the possible confounders environmental and

TABLE 1 Descriptives by Site

South Bro(n � 1,13

Mean/%

Age (y) 9.2Female subjects (%) 49.1Maternal education � high school (%) 10.3Single-parent family (%) 45.4Parental familism

Baseline 2.24Follow-up 1 2.15Follow-up 2 2.11

ASBIBaseline 1.33Follow-up 1 1.19Follow-up 2 1.10

RisksEnvironmental risks 3.7Negative child characteristics �6.35

Family processesNegative family influences �7.39Ineffective family structuring �6.83Lack of maternal warmth �2.39

Note: ASBI � Antisocial Behavior Index; SE � standard error.

child risks (Model 2). In the final set of analyses, the t

JOURN

474 www.jaacap.org

ole of negative family influences, ineffective familytructuring, and lack of maternal warmth were exam-ned as family processes that could possibly mediatehe relation between baseline parental familism andSBI over time. Because Model 2 reflected the associ-

tion between parental familism and ASBI adjustingor risk factors (path c), the next step was to define thessociation between familism and each potential me-iator (negative family influences, ineffective familytructuring, and lack of maternal warmth) using re-ression analyses, where the mediators were the de-endent variable and familism and risk factors were

he independent variables (path a). The relation be-ween the potential mediator and ASBI (path b) wasetermined and then the indirect effect of familism onSBI was examined, through the mediator, usingodel 2 plus the mediator (paths b’ and c=). Based on

he principles of Baron and Kenny38 and as suggestedby MacKinnon et al.,39 mediation was consideredikely if paths a, b’, and c’ were statistically significant.obel tests were conducted to further support theonclusions.

All analyses were stratified by gender and ageroup at baseline (5 to 9 and �10 years old). Based onhe previous literature, the influence of parentalamilism on ASBI was expected to be stronger in girlsnd to vary with age, because younger children aresually under more direct and exclusive influence of

Puerto Rico(n � 1,353)

Mean/% SE t/�2 p

9.2 0.1 0.64 .5248.9 1.5 0.01 .9332.4 2.6 64.45 �.00127.8 2.4 30.49 �.001

2 2.25 0.02 �0.42 .67732 2.19 0.02 �1.25 .21472 2.12 0.02 �1.32 .1895

4 1.29 0.05 0.67 .50614 1.05 0.05 2.18 .03155 0.87 0.04 3.75 .0003

9 2.47 0.09 9.68 �.0016 �7.29 0.07 10.1 �.001

8 �8.89 0.1 11.85 �.0014 �6.66 0.05 �2.7 .00821 �2.39 0.01 �0.13 .8989

nx8)

SE

0.11.31.32

0.00.00.0

0.00.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.00.0

heir families compared with older children.



sfi

iiptcwpfp


RESULTSTable 1 presents descriptive statistics for all studyvariables by site. Compared with the PR site,families in the SB site had lower levels of mater-nal education and were more frequently single-parent families. Furthermore, levels of environ-mental and child risks and negative familyinfluences were higher in the SB than in PR site.In contrast, levels of ineffective structuring werehigher in the PR site. Parental familism and ASBIvalues at baseline and each follow-up for specificage and gender groups are listed in Table 2. Ingeneral, mean values of parental familism re-mained stable over time for each age and gendergroup.

Table 3 presents the association between base-line parental familism and ASBI over 3 years andassociations corresponding to the different pathsnecessary to test potential mediators. Parentalfamilism at baseline was inversely associated withASBI over the course of 3 years in 5- 9-year-oldboys and girls. In the older group (�10 years old),higher parental familism values were still relatedto lower levels of ASBI over time in girls,whereas baseline parental familism was no lon-ger related to ASBI in boys in this age group(Model 1).

When models were further adjusted for envi-ronmental and child risks (Model 2), parentalfamilism at baseline remained significantly asso-ciated with lower levels of ASBI over three studywaves in girls and was still significant in youngerboys only. These results did not vary by sitebecause the interaction terms between parentalfamilism and site were not statistically signifi-

TABLE 2 Parental Familism and Antisocial Behavior Inde

Baseline

Male Female Ma

n Mean SE n Mean SE n Me

5–9 y oldParental

familism628 2.22 0.03 588 2.23 0.03 565 2.1

Child ASBI 631 1.40 0.07 589 0.96 0.06 566 1.1�10 y old

Parentalfamilism

652 2.27 0.03 613 2.24 0.02 608 2.1

Child ASBI 653 1.62 0.07 618 1.34 0.07 608 1.4

Note: SE � standard error.

cant. Results also did not vary over time, except



for 5- to 9 year-old girls (interaction term paren-tal familism by time, estimate � �0.05, standarderror � 0.02, p � .03), suggesting that thetrength of the association between parentalamilism and ASBI in girls and in this age groupncreases over time.

Mediation analysis (Table 3) indicated thatneffective structuring (parental attitudes/behav-ors toward youth high-risk behaviors) was aotential mediator of the relation between paren-

al familism and ASBI for all groups. In younghildren only (5 to 9 years), lack of maternalarmth (parent–child relationship) was also aossible mediator for girls and boys, whereas

amily influences (family functioning and sup-ort) had this role in young boys only.

DISCUSSIONThe present study, based on a sample of 2,491Puerto Rican children and adolescents, investi-gated parental familism as a possible protectivefactor for ASB. The results indicated the rele-vance of considering gender and age whenaddressing the relation between parental fami-lism and youth ASB. Key findings were thatparental familism was inversely related to ASBover time; the effect of parental familism onASB varied by age and gender (in girls, it wasprotective against ASB independently of age,even after adjusting for risk factors for ASB; inboys, parental familism was protective only in5- to 9-year-olds); and in all groups for which aprotective relation between parental familyvalues and ASB was detected, such a relation

SBI) by Gender and Age Over Three Study Waves

llow-up 1 Follow-up 2

Female Male Female

SE n Mean SE n Mean SE n Mean SE

.03 548 2.17 0.03 547 2.1 0.03 517 2.1 0.03

.08 550 0.96 0.06 549 1.06 0.08 518 0.65 0.06

.03 559 2.18 0.03 582 2.14 0.03 535 2.13 0.03

.08 562 1.11 0.07 582 1.43 0.07 538 1.15 0.09

x (A

Fo

le

an

2 0

7 0

7 0

3 0

was potentially mediated by parental atti-

475www.jaacap.org

TABLE 3 Regression Results for Parental Familism and Antisocial Behaviors (ASBI) Over Three Study Waves

5–9 year-old 10� year-old

Male (n�631) Female (n�589) Male (N�653) Female N�(618)

Estimate SE p Estimate SE p Estimate SE p Estimate SE p

Model 1Parental familism �0.07 0.03 .0166 �0.11 0.03 .0002 �0.04 0.03 .2675 �0.18 0.03 �.0001

Model 2Parental familism �0.09 0.03 .0008 �0.11 0.03 �.0001 �0.02 0.03 .5350 �0.15 0.03 �.0001

Mediation (tested in model 2)Path a: familism ¡ negative family Influences �0.15 0.02 �.0001 �0.08 0.02 .0002 �0.15 0.02 �.0001 �0.10 0.02 �.0001Path b: negative family influences ¡ ASBI 0.10 0.03 .0024 0.01 0.03 .7245 0.12 0.03 .0007 0.06 0.03 .1066Path b=: negative family influences ¡ ASBI adjusting for

familism0.08 0.03 .0126 �0.004 0.03 .8979 0.12 0.04 .0009 0.04 0.03 .2421

Path c=: familism ¡ ASBI adjusting for negative familyinfluences

�0.08 0.03 .0042 �0.11 0.03 �.0001 0.001 0.03 .9806 �0.14 0.03 �.0001

Sobel test �0.01 0.005 .012 0.001 0.002 .89 NA NA NA �0.004 0.003 .20

Path a: familism ¡ innefective structuring �0.09 0.02 .0001 �0.10 0.02 �.0001 �0.07 0.02 .0014 �0.09 0.02 .0002Path b: ineffective structuring ¡ ASBI 0.12 0.02 �.0001 0.24 0.03 �.0001 0.25 0.03 �.0001 0.21 0.03 �.0001Path b=: ineffective structuring ¡ ASBI adjusting for familism 0.11 0.03 .0001 0.23 0.03 �.0001 0.25 0.03 �.0001 0.20 0.03 �.0001Path c=: familism ¡ ASBI adjusting for ineffective structuring �0.08 0.03 .0018 �0.09 0.03 .0005 0.001 0.03 .9631 �0.13 0.03 �.0001Sobel test �0.01 0.003 .004 �0.02 0.01 .0001 NA NA NA �0.02 0.005 .0001

Path a: familism ¡ lack of maternal warmth �0.07 0.02 .0003 �0.09 0.02 �.0001 �0.05 0.02 .0189 �0.06 0.22 .0037Path b: lack of maternal warmth ¡ ASBI 0.29 0.03 �.0001 0.38 0.03 �.0001 0.31 0.03 �.0001 0.30 0.03 �.0001Path b=: lack of maternal warmth ¡ ASBI adjusting for

familism0.29 0.03 �.0001 0.37 0.03 �.0001 0.32 0.03 �.0001 0.29 0.03 �.0001

Path c=: familism ¡ ASBI adjusting for Lack of maternalwarmth

�0.07 0.03 .0043 �0.08 0.02 .0013 0.001 0.03 .9702 �0.13 0.03 �.0001

Sobel test �0.02 0.01 .001 �0.03 0.03 .0001 NA NA NA �0.02 0.05 .79

Note: All models were adjusted for propensity score strata and site. Model 2 was further adjusted for potential confounders (environmental and child risks). Paths b= and c= examined the indirect effect of familism on ASBIthrough a mediator (negative family influences, ineffective family structuring, and lack of maternal warmth) using model 2 (adjusted by environmental and child risk factors) plus the mediator. NA � not applicable(association in Model 2 was not statistically significant).

MO

RCILLO

etal.

JOU

RNA

LO

FTH

EA

MERIC

AN

AC

AD

EMY

OF

CH

ILD&

AD

OLESC

ENT

PSYC

HIA

TRY

VOLU

ME

50N

UM

BER5

MA

Y2011

476

ww

w.jaacap.org

iditreogfspfi

lsaspmhbcdi

pcayhT


tudes/behaviors toward youth high-risk be-haviors. Moreover, parent– child relationshipwas a potential mediator in younger childrenonly, whereas overall family functioning andsupport was a potential mediator in youngboys only.

Supporting the main hypothesis, these find-ings indicated that level of parental familism atbaseline is inversely associated with ASB overtime (except for older boys). These results areconsistent with previous cross-sectional stud-ies.8-10 The influence of familism on ASB may beunderstood within the context of development.Parental family values were protective againstASB over time for young (5- to 9-year-old) boysand girls. This indicates that early on, for boysand girls, familism has a protective effect againstASB during a developmental stage that is key tolater internalization of moral norms. At thisyoung age, children tend to behave according toexternal rules (e.g., parental values) to avoidnegative consequences, not fully achieving theirown internalized moral system until they reachlate adolescence or young adulthood.40,41 Theprotective effect of parental values in early de-velopmental stages may represent a crucial influ-ence for the future development of children.However, the possible role of coexisting biologi-cal factors should also be considered. For in-stance, parents with more traditional family val-ues have children who may, also for geneticreasons, tend to engage in the same attitudes andbeliefs of their parents.

Gender differences were detected in the as-sociation between parental familism and ASBin older children. Such differences may alsoreflect the differential impact of specific risk orprotective factors during development. Al-though preschool girls and boys tend to dis-play similar levels of aggressiveness, differenttrajectories emerge early in childhood and byage 5, boys are three times as likely as girls tohave conduct disorder.42,43 After preschool,boys tend to have elevated rates comparedwith girls,4,44 and girls present the highestlevels of ASB around adolescence. The “genderparadox” related to ASB45 refers to the fact thatgirls, despite having lower rates and a lateronset of ASB, usually present a more severeevolution with higher psychiatric comorbidi-ties throughout life.46 This suggests that find-ing gender-specific risk and protective factors
may be crucial to prevent future disorders. For p


nstance, some studies have shown that familyysfunction and stressors are more likely to

ncrease behavioral and emotional dysfunc-ioning in girls than in boys.5,47,48 The presentesults also provide some insight on the differ-ntial role that specific family aspects may haven the development of ASB among boys andirls. Boys are not protected by parentalamilism as they get older and may be moretrongly influenced early on by overall lowerarental support and functioning than girls, anding in line with previous research.5 It has

also been shown that parents tend to exhibitdifferent attitudes toward girls compared withboys, such as more frequent parental supervi-sion and monitoring,49,50 which in turn couldead girls to be less likely to engage in relation-hips with deviant peers and adhere to familynd societal rules . The greater “affiliativeocialization,” i.e., the tendency for girls toresent greater emotional closeness and inti-acy in interpersonal relationships, could also

elp them to maintain parental and socialonds, leading to a better quality of parent–hild relationship.51 Furthermore, girls tend toevelop empathic concerns and guilt younger

n life than boys,52,53 which may be directlyinfluenced by parental norms and familism.Gender differences may also be related tolower temperamental impulsivity and hyperac-tivity in girls, as well as differences in hor-monal levels such as higher oxytocin (which isrelated to nurturing and caregiving attitudes)and lower testosterone in girls.12 Other factors,classically described for girls, such as greaterdevelopment of verbal abilities and lower ratesof school failure may also contribute to theirlower rates of ASB.6,44,54

Family processes that may mediate the protec-tive effects of familism against ASB were alsoaddressed. Although specific underlying mecha-nisms are unknown, there is evidence that highlevels of familism are related to better overallfamily functioning,55 stronger parent–childbonding,8,56 and higher levels of parental moni-toring.57 The present results suggest that those

arents with higher familism may influence theirhildren’s level of ASB because they would have

warmer parent–child relationship towardoung children and stricter attitudes towardigh-risk behaviors throughout development.hese family processes play an important role in
romoting prosocial behaviors and lessening the
477www.jaacap.org

ftafooh

MORCILLO et al.

impact of associations with deviant peers,10,58,59 awell-known risk factor for ASB.

The present findings address a gap in theliterature by strongly suggesting that familismprotects children from manifesting higher levelsof ASB and shed light on possible therapeuticapproaches that emphasize the importance ofconveying values of support and guidanceamong family members. Targeting these aspectsmay be more promising than focusing on socio-economic risk factors for ASB, which may bemore difficult to modify.

The large sample of the present study, theinclusion of a very young Hispanic population(often not part of prior studies that were morefocused on pubertal youth), the longitudinal de-sign, and high compliance rate at follow-up aresome of this study’s main strengths. The studyalso has some limitations. First, despite the lon-gitudinal design, reverse causation could stillexplain the results, because children with ASBcould lead to lower parental familism by affect-ing the same family processes considered in thisstudy. However, a sensitivity analysis conducted(results available on request) by assessing theeffect of familism on ASB only in participantswho had very low levels of ASB at baseline (ASB�3) yielded comparable results. Second, the pres-ent sample was composed exclusively of PuertoRican youth and the findings may not generalizeto other Hispanic populations. Third, given thecomposition of most families and the age ofthe children, the present indicators of familismwere almost exclusively based on mothers’ re-ports, with little information on the views ofother members of the family. Fourth, ASB in-cluded in diagnostic schedules and assessment
scales are predominantly male-oriented behav-
management practices and delinquency. Child Dev. 1984;55:1299-1307.

1

1

1

1

JOURN

478 www.jaacap.org

iors and females may have unique ways of man-ifesting antisocial deviance.60

Despite these limitations, the findings contrib-ute to the understanding of how culture andfamily influence the lives of Hispanic children.Therapies recommended for conduct disor-der14,15 do not generally focus on fostering strongamilial values and cohesiveness as part of theirherapeutic approaches. If the present findingsre supported by further evidence, consideringamilism when evaluating and treating childrenf Puerto Rican background may be an examplef culturally competent mental health care and aope for future prevention programs. &

Accepted January 19, 2011.

Drs. Morcillo, Duarte, Shen, Blanco, and Bird are with ColumbiaUniversity and the New York State Psychiatric Institute. Dr. Canino iswith the Behavioral Sciences Research Institute, University of PuertoRico, San Juan.

Data for this study was obtained through a grant for AntisocialBehaviors in U.S. and Island Puerto Rican Youth from the NationalInstitute of Mental Health (MH56401) (H.R.B.).

We are thankful to Dr. Patrick Shrout, of New York University, for hiscontribution to the basic models employed in this study.

Disclosure: Dr. Morcillo has received financial support from the AliciaKoplowitz Foundation. Dr. Duarte has received financial support fromthe Columbia University Professional Schools Diversity Research Fel-lowship and Research Foundation for Mental Hygiene—Office ofMental Health Research Award. Dr. Blanco has received financialsupport from the National Institute on Drug Abuse and from the NewYork State Psychiatric Institute. Dr. Canino has received financialsupport from the National Center on Minority Health and HealthDisparities. Drs. Shen and Bird report no biomedical financial interestsor potential conflicts of interest.

Correspondence to Cristiane S. Duarte, Ph.D., M.P.H., 1051Riverside Drive, Unit 43, New York, NY 10032; e-mail:[email protected]

0890-8567/$36.00/©2011 American Academy of Child andAdolescent Psychiatry

DOI: 10.1016/j.jaac.2011.01.014

REFERENCES1. Sabogal F, Marin G, Otero-Sabogal R, Marin B, Perez-Stable E.

Hispanic familism and acculturation: what changes and whatdoesn’t? Hisp J Behav Sci. 1987;4:397-412.

2. Fuligni AJ. Family obligation and the academic motivation ofadolescents from Asian, Latin American, and European back-grounds. New Dir Child Adolesc Dev. 2001;94:61-75.

3. Kochanska G, Aksan N. Children’s conscience and self-regulation. J Pers. 2006;74:1587-1617.

4. Loeber R, Stauthamer-Loeber M. Development of juvenile agres-sion and violence. Am Psychol. 1998;53:242-259.

5. Lee V, Burkam D, Zimiles H, Ladewski B. Family-structure andits effect on behavioral and emotional-problems in young adoles-cents. J Res Adolesc. 1994;4:405-437.

6. Kroneman L, Loeber R, Hipwell AE. Is neighborhood context differ-ently related to externalizing problems and delinquency for girls com-pared with boys? Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev. 2004;7:109-122.

7. Patterson GR, Stouthamer-Loeber M. The correlation of family

8. Smokowski P, Bacallao M. Acculturation and aggression in Latinoadolescents: a structural model focusing on cultural risk factorsand assets. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2006:659-673.

9. Gonzales N, German M, Kim S et al. Mexican American adoles-cent’s cultural orientation, externalizing behavior and academicengagement: the role of traditional cultural values. Am J Com-munity Psychol. 2008:151-164.

0. German M, Gonzales N, Dumka L. Familism values as a protec-tive factor for mexican-american adolescents exposed to deviantpeers. J Early Adolesc. 2009;29:16-42.

1. Moffitt TE, Caspi A. Childhood predictors differentiate life-coursepersistent and adolescence-limited antisocial pathways amongmales and females. Dev Psychopathol. 2001;13:355-375.

2. Taylor SE, Klein LC, Lewis BP, Gruenewald TL, Gurung RA,Updegraff JA. Biobehavioral responses to stress in females: tend-and-befriend, not fight-or-flight. Psychol Rev. 2000;107:411-429.

3. Sarracino D, Presaghi F, Degni S, Innamorati M. Sex-specificrelationships among attachment security, social values, and sen-



mailto:[email protected]


sation seeking in early adolescence: implications for adolescents’externalizing problem behaviour [published online ahead of printJune 12, 2010]. J Adolesc.; doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.05.013.

14. Webster-Stratton C, Reid MJ, Hammond M. Treating childrenwith early-onset conduct problems: intervention outcomes forparent, child, and teacher training. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol.2004;33:105-124.

15. Kazdin AE. Treatments for aggressive and antisocial children.Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2000;9:841-858.

16. Coatsworth JD, Pantin H, Szapocznik J. Familias unidas: a family-centered ecodevelopmental intervention to reduce risk for prob-lem behavior among Hispanic adolescents. Clin Child Fam Psy-chol Rev. 2002;5:113-132.

17. Cunningham PB, Foster SL, Warner SE. Culturally relevant family-based treatment for adolescent delinquency and substance abuse:understanding within-session processes. J Clin Psychol. 2010;66:830-846.

18. Kochanska G, Forman DR, Aksan N, Dunbar SB. Pathways toconscience: early mother-child mutually responsive orientationand children’s moral emotion, conduct, and cognition. J ChildPsychol Psychiatry. 2005; 46:19-34.

19. Bird H, Davies M, Duarte C, Loeber R, Canino G. A study ofdisruptive behavior disorders in Puerto Rican youth: II. Baselineprevalence, comorbidity, and correlates in two sites. J Am AcadChild Adolesc Psychiatry. 2006;45:1042-1053.

20. Bird H, Shrout P, Davies M et al. Longitudinal development of antisocialbehaviors in young and early adolescent Puerto Rican children at twosites. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2007;46:5-14.

21. Duarte CS, Bird HR, Shrout PE et al. Culture and psychiatric symptomsin Puerto Rican children: longitudinal results from one ethnic group intwo contexts. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2008; 49:563-572.

22. Bird H, Canino G, Davies M et al. A study of disruptive behaviordisorders in Puerto Rican youth: I. Background, design, and surveymethods. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2006;45:1032-1041.

23. Bird H, Davies M, Canino G, Loeber R, Rubio-Stipec M, Shen S.Classification of antisocial behaviors along severity and fre-quency parameters. J Child Fam Stud. 2005;13:325-341.

24. Shaffer D, Fisher P, Lucas CP, Dulcan MK, Schwab-Stone ME.NIMH Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children Version IV(NIMH DISC-IV): description, differences from previous ver-sions, and reliability of some common diagnoses. J Am AcadChild Adolesc Psychiatry. 2000;39:28-38.

25. Elliott D, Huizinga D, Ageton S. Explaining Delinquency and DrugUse. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1985.

26. Loeber R, Farrington D, Stouthamer-Loeber M, Van Kammen W.Antisocial Behaviors and Mental Health Problems: Explanatory Factorsin Childhood and Adolescence. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates; 1998.

27. Goodman SH, Hoven CW, Narrow WE et al. Measurement of riskfor mental disorders and competence in a psychiatric epidemio-logic community survey: the National Institute of Mental HealthMethods for the Epidemiology of Child and Adolescent MentalDisorders (MECA) Study. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol.1998;33:162-173.

28. Johnson J, McKutcheon S. Assessing life stress in older childrenand adolescents: preliminary finding with Life Events Checklist.In: Sarason IG, Spielberg CD, eds. Stress and Anxiety. Washing-ton, DC: Hemisphere; 1980:111-125.

29. Bradley R, Caldwell B. Home observation for measurement of theenvironment: a validation study of screening efficiency. Am JMent Defic. 1977;81:417-420.

30. Hudson WW. Methodological observations on applied behavioralscience. A measurement package for clinical workers. J ApplBehav Sci. 1982;18:229-238.

31. Good M, Smilkstein G, Good B, Shaffer T, Arons T. The familyAPGAR indices: a study of construct validity. J Fam Pract.1979;8:577-582.

32. Thoits PA. Stress, coping, and social support processes: where arewe? What next? J Health Soc Behav. 1995;Spec No:53-79.

33. Miller L, Warner V, Wickramaratne P, Weissman M. Religiosity anddepression: ten-year follow-up of depressed mothers and offspring. JAm Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1997;36:1416-1425.

34. Bird HR, Shrout PE, Duarte CS, Shen S, Bauermeister JJ, CaninoG. Longitudinal mental health service and medication use for
ADHD among Puerto Rican youth in two contexts. J Am AcadChild Adolesc Psychiatry. 2008;47:879-889.


35. Research TI. SUDAAN User’s Manual, Release 8.0. Research Trian-gle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute; 2001.

36. Rosenbaum P, Rubin D. The central role of the propensity score inobservational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70:41-55.

37. SAS Institute. Cary, NC: SAS Institute; 2003.38. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinc-

tion in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, andstatistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986;51:1173-1182.

39. MacKinnon DP, Lockwood CM, Hoffman JM, West SG, Sheets V.A comparison of methods to test mediation and other interveningvariable effects. Psychol Methods. 2002;7:83-104.

40. Kohlberg L, Kramer R. Continuities and discontinuities in child-hood and adult moral development. Hum Dev. 1969;12:93-120.

41. Stilwell BM, Galvin M, Kopta SM, Padgett RJ, Holt JW. Moral-ization of attachment: a fourth domain of conscience functioning.J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1997;36:1140-1147.

42. Loeber R, Hay D. Key issues in the development of aggressionand violence from childhood to early adulthood. Annu RevPsychol. 1997;48:371-410.

43. Kim-Cohen J, Arseneault L, Caspi A, Tomas MP, Taylor A, MoffittTE. Validity of DSM-IV conduct disorder in 41/2–5-year-oldchildren: a longitudinal epidemiological study. Am J Psychiatry.2005;162:1108-1117.

44. Moffit T, Caspi A, Rutter M, Silva P. Sex Differences in AntisocialBehavior, Conduct Disorder, Delinquency and Violence in the DunedinLongitudinal Study. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press;2001.

45. Loeber R, Keenan K. Interaction between conduct disorder and itscomorbid conditions: effects of age and gender. Clin Psychol Rev.1994;14:497-523.

46. Costello EJ, Erkanli A, Federman E, Angold A. Development ofpsychiatric comorbidity with substance abuse in adolescents:effects of timing and sex. J Clin Child Psychol. 1999;28:298-311.

47. Caspi A, Moffitt TE. Individual differences are accentuated dur-ing periods of social change: the sample case of girls at puberty.J Pers Soc Psychol. 1991;61:157-168.

48. Webster-Stratton C. Early-onset conduct problems: does gendermake a difference? J Consult Clin Psychol. 1996;64:540-551.

49. Hagan J. Structural Criminology. New Brunswick, NJ: RutgersUniversity Press; 1989.

50. Kim J, Hetherington E, Reiss D. Associations among familyrelationships, antisocial peers, and adolescent’s externalizing be-haviors: gender and family type differences. Child Dev. 1999;70:1209-1230.

51. Cyranowski JM, Frank E, Young E, Shear MK. Adolescent onsetof the gender difference in lifetime rates of major depression: atheoretical model. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2000;57(1):21-27.

52. Hoffman ML. Sex differences in moral internalization and values.J Pers Soc Psychol. 1975;32:720-729.

53. Keenan K, Shaw D. Developmental and social influences onyoung girls’ early problem behavior. Psychol Bull. 1997;121:95-113.

54. Hay DF. The gradual emergence of sex differences in aggression:alternative hypotheses. Psychol Med. 2007;37:1527-1537.

55. Kiang L, Fuligni AJ. Ethnic identity and family processes amongadolescents from Latin American, Asian, and European back-grounds. J Youth Adolesc. 2009;38:228-241.

56. Zayas LH, Bright CL, Alvarez-Sanchez T, Cabassa LJ. Accultura-tion, familism and mother-daughter relations among suicidal andnon-suicidal adolescent Latinas. J Prim Prev. 2009;30:351-369.

57. Ramirez J, Crano W, Quist R, Burgoon M, Alvaro E, Grandpre J.Acculturation, familism, parental monitoring, and knowledge aspredictors of marijuana and inhalant use in adolescents. PsycholAddict Behav. 2004;18:3-11.

58. Keefe S, Padilla A, Carlos M. The Mexican-American extendedfamily as an emotional support system. Hum Organ. 1978;38:144-152.

59. Vega WA, Gil AG, Warheit GJ, Zimmerman RS, Apospori E.Acculturation and delinquent behavior among Cuban Americanadolescents: toward an empirical model. Am J Community Psy-chol. 1993;21:113-125.

60. Crick NR. The role of overt aggression, relational aggression, and
prosocial behavior in the prediction of children’s future socialadjustment. Child Dev. 1996;67:2317-2327.
479www.jaacap.org

Parental Familism and Antisocial Behaviors: Development, Gender, and Potential Mechanisms

Documents

Transcript of Parental Familism and Antisocial Behaviors: Development, Gender, and Potential Mechanisms