View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

A Contextual Exploration of Parental Monitoring in Latinx Parent-Adolescent Dyads

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: A Contextual Exploration of Parental Monitoring in Latinx Parent-Adolescent Dyads
Language: English
Authors: Chang Zhao (ORCID 0000-0003-3583-7348), Emily M. May, Dawn P. Witherspoon, Saskia Boggs, Mayra Bámaca-Colbert
Source: Grantee Submission. 2021 30:2492-2503.
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 13
Publication Date: 2021
Sponsoring Agency: Institute of Education Sciences (ED)
Contract Number: R305B150033
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Parent Child Relationship, Parenting Styles, Hispanic Americans, Neighborhoods, Social Control, Community Characteristics, Predictor Variables, Parent Attitudes, Adolescent Attitudes, Self Disclosure (Individuals), Correlation, Gender Differences, Culturally Relevant Education, Family Characteristics
DOI: 10.1007/s10826-021-02025-y
Abstract: Parental monitoring of youth daily activities is a salient parenting strategy that has important implications for adolescents' adjustment and safety. Limited research, however, has examined positive contextual factors that can facilitate parental monitoring behaviors in Latinx families. We examined parental warmth and neighborhood social processes (i.e., social cohesion, informal social control) as predictors of parental monitoring dimensions. Surveys were completed by 62 Latinx parent-adolescent dyads in a small, predominantly African American northeastern U.S. city. Results of structural equation modeling indicated positive associations between parental warmth and most dimensions of parental monitoring for parent and adolescent reports. For parent report, neighborhood social cohesion was positively associated with parental knowledge and youth disclosure; neighborhood informal social control was negatively associated with youth disclosure. Gender differences also emerged: parental warmth was positively associated with parental control for boys but not girls, and the negative association between informal social control and youth disclosure was significant only for boys. Findings suggest that parental monitoring often occurs in the context of a warm parent-child relationship. Parents' experiences of their neighborhoods might have a stronger impact on parental monitoring strategies than adolescents' experiences. Implications for future research include conceptualizing monitoring as multidimensional, assessing both parent and adolescent reports, and recruiting diverse Latinx ethnic groups and extended family members. Practitioners should be aware of family and neighborhood relational contexts when facilitating parenting practices in Latinx families. Program providers should offer culturally relevant programs that emphasize strengthening the family environment and parenting in addition to adolescent development.
Abstractor: As Provided
IES Funded: Yes
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: ED663728
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGFHxqZDnFOpJrqWBXuzVrIAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDDf6PUesRsg5i9yKngIBEICBm2KJVj3C7EYJiQ4K4bNjY1uLSqDE-S9LIDjSe3YyLAQCnQVwVQUw0ePq6cz9tI10-kk1kRq8GB3zzlC2E4_PgczRwnETbcbCK8-_2CdGxTkXHGNGlD1qebrxVCUZGxheUkOTMm5DFSRKQc6pFxth_XTOP-J3XWeGTKdZrcTithu3Ue8ECN7Rn42_D5YxHlUz_fRkFqizSiSYLvX6
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0152372509;jfm01oct.21;2021Sep13.03:45;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0152372509-1">A Contextual Exploration of Parental Monitoring in Latinx Parent-Adolescent Dyads </title> <p>Parental monitoring of youth daily activities is a salient parenting strategy that has important implications for adolescents' adjustment and safety. Limited research, however, has examined positive contextual factors that can facilitate parental monitoring behaviors in Latinx families. We examined parental warmth and neighborhood social processes (i.e., social cohesion, informal social control) as predictors of parental monitoring dimensions. Surveys were completed by 62 Latinx parent-adolescent dyads in a small, predominantly African American northeastern U.S. city. Results of structural equation modeling indicated positive associations between parental warmth and most dimensions of parental monitoring for parent and adolescent reports. For parent report, neighborhood social cohesion was positively associated with parental knowledge and youth disclosure; neighborhood informal social control was negatively associated with youth disclosure. Gender differences also emerged: parental warmth was positively associated with parental control for boys but not girls, and the negative association between informal social control and youth disclosure was significant only for boys. Findings suggest that parental monitoring often occurs in the context of a warm parent-child relationship. Parents' experiences of their neighborhoods might have a stronger impact on parental monitoring strategies than adolescents' experiences. Implications for future research include conceptualizing monitoring as multidimensional, assessing both parent and adolescent reports, and recruiting diverse Latinx ethnic groups and extended family members. Practitioners should be aware of family and neighborhood relational contexts when facilitating parenting practices in Latinx families. Program providers should offer culturally relevant programs that emphasize strengthening the family environment and parenting in addition to adolescent development.</p> <p>Highlights: Examined multiple dimensions of parental monitoring in Latinx parent-youth dyads. Expanded understanding of Latinx parenting in non-traditional settlement areas. Highlighted the importance of using parental warmth and parental monitoring together. Parental monitoring strategies varied based on neighborhood social processes. The association between warmth and monitoring and the association between neighborhood and monitoring varied by gender.</p> <p>Keywords: Parental monitoring; Parental warmth; Neighborhood informal social control; Neighborhood social cohesion; Latinx families</p> <p>Parental monitoring of youth's daily activities and whereabouts is identified as a parenting process that has implications for a multitude of youth outcomes in Latinx families, including reduction of substance use (Yabiku et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref1">53</reflink>]), higher school engagement and academic motivation (Lowe & Dotterer, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref2">27</reflink>]), and greater social competence (Taylor et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref3">46</reflink>]). Given Latinx cultural values (e.g., family interdependence and support; Halgunseth [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref4">21</reflink>]), and Latinx families' exposure to risk factors (e.g., poverty and risky neighborhoods; Cruz-Santiago & Ramírez García, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref5">14</reflink>]), parental monitoring plays an important role in protection, ensuring adolescents' positive adjustment, and curbing adolescents' potential problem behavior (Stattin & Kerr, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref6">43</reflink>]). Yet, empirical work exploring multiple dimensions of parental monitoring in Latinx families and the contextual predictors (e.g., family and neighborhood social processes) of these parenting practices is limited (e.g., Blocklin et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref7">6</reflink>]). Contextualizing parental monitoring is critical as Latinx families settle in various neighborhood contexts and adjust their parenting strategies accordingly (Fuller & García Coll, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref8">16</reflink>]). As suggested by Bronfenbrenner's ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref9">10</reflink>]) ecological systems theory, family and neighborhood are immediate environments in which individuals interact and establish relationships. Examining the family and neighborhood characteristics and strengths that promote parental monitoring strategies in Latinx families will advance knowledge about how multiple ecological systems shape Latinx' youth's developmental contexts. Scholarship suggests that parents' monitoring of adolescents' activities is more effective within a warm parent-adolescent relationship (Patterson et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref10">35</reflink>]) and when living among helpful, united and responsive neighbors (Rankin & Quane, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref11">38</reflink>]). Also, as parental monitoring may be gender-specific in Latinx families (Halgunseth, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref12">21</reflink>]), youth's gender might contribute to monitoring differences in family and neighborhood relationship contexts.</p> <p>We extended the literature by examining family and neighborhood predictors of multiple dimensions of parental monitoring, as reported by adolescents and parents, in a new Latinx immigrant destination. In the last two decades, Latinx families have increasingly settled in new destination areas (e.g., Atlanta, Cincinnati) with fewer same-ethnic neighbors and greater racial-ethnic diversity (Negi et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref13">33</reflink>]), rather than in traditional gateway cities (e.g., Miami). The new immigrant destination offers a unique context to understand parental monitoring in Latinx families, where structural resources and protective co-ethnic social processes may be limited (Marrow, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref14">28</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0152372509-2">Theoretical Frameworks</hd> <p>Parental monitoring is situated in and shaped by family and neighborhood contexts. As indicated by ecological frameworks (Bronfenbrenner, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref15">10</reflink>]), family and neighborhood are both influential contexts during adolescence, and parenting is influenced by other family processes and other microsystems such as neighborhood. Further, García Coll et al. ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref16">17</reflink>]) suggest that parents tend to adjust parenting strategies based on their surroundings and traditional cultural values. From this perspective, the co-occurrence of a warm parent-adolescent relationship and control-oriented monitoring strategies in Latinx parenting can be interpreted as both adaptive and culturally-based responses to protect adolescents in their neighborhoods (Cruz-Santiago & Ramírez García, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref17">14</reflink>]; White et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref18">50</reflink>]). In particular, culturally-based values, familismo (i.e., interdependence, mutual wellbeing and reciprocal support in a family) and respeto (i.e., respect and obeying to authority figures, including parental authority; Halgunseth, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref19">21</reflink>]), may promote strict and vigilant parenting practices that co-occur within a warm, positive relationship that are protective of youth in neighborhoods with limited community support (Gonzales et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref20">18</reflink>]; Guilamo-Ramos et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref21">20</reflink>]).</p> <p>Pluralistic neighborhood theory (Aber & Nieto, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref22">1</reflink>]) suggests that positive social processes can occur alongside and offset neighborhood deficits. Neighborhood social processes such as social cohesion (i.e., cohesion and trust among extrafamilial neighbors) and informal social control (i.e., neighbors intervening in youth problem behaviors) have been shown to promote greater neighborhood safety and facilitate parenting behaviors (Law & Barber, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref23">24</reflink>]; Sampson et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref24">41</reflink>]). In addition, adolescents and parents may form different perceptions of parents' parenting behaviors (Tein et al. [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref25">47</reflink>]). As adolescents and parents interact with different people and form unique neighborhood experiences, their perceptions of their neighborhood could also differ (Witherspoon & Ennett [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref26">51</reflink>]). As a result, parents' and adolescents' differential perceptions of parental monitoring strategies may be modified depending on their unique perceptions of parent-adolescent relationship and neighborhood social processes.</p> <hd id="AN0152372509-3">Parental Monitoring during Adolescence and the Roles of Context and Gender</hd> <p>Adolescence is a distinct and critical developmental period for the establishment of long-term behavioral and health trajectories (Dittus et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref27">15</reflink>]). Although adolescents may desire greater autonomy and expanded activity space (Steinberg, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref28">44</reflink>]), parental monitoring helps ensure safety, positive adjustment, and less risky behavior of youth (Guilamo-Ramos et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref29">20</reflink>]; Soenens et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref30">42</reflink>]). To date, most studies of parental monitoring examine parental knowledge as the primary indicator of parental monitoring (Montano et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref31">31</reflink>]). Stattin and Kerr ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref32">43</reflink>]), however, conceptualized parental monitoring as a multidimensional construct with <emph>parental knowledge</emph> of youth's activities and whereabouts as well as three parent and adolescent driven behavior-specific sources of knowledge (Dittus et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref33">15</reflink>]). <emph>Youth disclosure</emph> refers to youth's voluntary provision of information to their parents. <emph>Parental solicitation</emph> refers to parents asking youth about unsupervised time. <emph>Parental control</emph> includes controls imposed on youth's free time, thereby limiting youth's opportunity to engage in activities without their approval (Stattin & Kerr, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref34">43</reflink>]). Examining multiple dimensions of parental monitoring in contexts can enhance our knowledge of the nuances in Latinx monitoring practices, given that no prior work has examined the complete Stattin and Kerr ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref35">43</reflink>]) measure with this population. Past work has only adapted some subscales of this measure for Latinxs residing in established immigrant destinations and found that parents' cultural orientations and parent-adolescent relationship were significantly associated with disclosure and solicitation (Blocklin et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref36">6</reflink>]; Roche et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref37">39</reflink>]), that disclosure was a salient factor for positive U.S. Mexican youth development (Blocklin et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref38">6</reflink>]), and that knowledge predicted lower levels of substance use (Marsiglia et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref39">29</reflink>]).</p> <p>Family and neighborhood relational contexts are important factors that can shape parents' monitoring strategies. Parental warmth can foster an accepting and nurturing parent-adolescent relationship, which sets the foundation for effective parental monitoring practices (Patterson et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref40">35</reflink>]). Within a warm parent-adolescent relationship, parents are more knowledgeable of adolescents' activities (Patterson et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref41">35</reflink>]), and adolescents feel more comfortable disclosing information to parents and view parental monitoring as an expression of care and concern (Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref42">49</reflink>]). In the absence of parental warmth, adolescents may perceive monitoring as a sign of distrust or intrusion (Kerr & Stattin, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref43">23</reflink>]). One study found that parental warmth is positively associated with disclosure and solicitation in Mexican American families (Blocklin et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref44">6</reflink>]). More research is needed to examine multiple dimensions of parental monitoring (Stattin & Kerr, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref45">43</reflink>]) and their associations with parental warmth in Latinx families.</p> <p>Beyond the family context, parents adjust parenting practices to neighborhood norms and demands of the social environment (Rankin & Quane, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref46">38</reflink>]). Considering Latinx cultural values (Halgunseth, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref47">21</reflink>]) and the limited social ties in new destinations (Negi et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref48">33</reflink>]; Marrow, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref49">28</reflink>]), Latinx parents might deliberately restrict youth's access to neighborhood-based activities by engaging in solicitation and control to protect youth (Maurizi et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref50">30</reflink>]; Rankin & Quane, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref51">38</reflink>]). Youth may also alter their disclosure depending on their perceptions of the neighborhood (Sampson & Graif, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref52">40</reflink>]). Past qualitative studies demonstrated Latinx parents' adaptation of parenting strategies to neighborhood challenges, such as poverty, violence, and crime (Ceballo et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref53">11</reflink>]; Cruz-Santiago & Ramírez García, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref54">14</reflink>]). However, work that examines the association between positive neighborhood social processes and parental monitoring in Latinx families is lacking. To address this gap, we examined how perceived positive neighborhood social processes (i.e., social cohesion and informal social control; Sampson et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref55">41</reflink>]) may facilitate monitoring practices in Latinx families. Specifically, social cohesion assesses one's trust towards and social ties within the neighborhood. Informal social control assesses whether parents and adolescents think that their neighbors will intervene and correct youth's behavior if they see neighborhood youth engaging in problem behaviors.</p> <p>In addition to family and neighborhood contexts, traditional gender roles rooted in cultural values may also impact parental monitoring in Latinx families (Halgunseth, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref56">21</reflink>]). Boys and girls may have different developmental paths based on parents' endorsement of gender socialization (Raffaelli & Ontai, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref57">37</reflink>]). Adolescent boys tend to experience more freedom to explore outside the home and without the family, whereas girls are protected more by parents and expected to assist the family (Umaña-Taylor & Updegraff, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref58">48</reflink>]). Further, some studies suggest that girls tend to be highly monitored, whereas parents know less about sons' whereabouts (Blocklin et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref59">6</reflink>]; Umaña-Taylor & Updegraff, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref60">48</reflink>]) despite increased potential for boys' unsupervised exposure to risky settings. Boys may be more susceptible to neighborhood influences because they spend more time outside of their homes and are more exposed to neighborhood risks (Umaña-Taylor & Updegraff, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref61">48</reflink>]). Given the endorsement of gender roles in Latinx families (Halgunseth, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref62">21</reflink>]), we explored whether the associations of parental monitoring with parental warmth and neighborhood social processes differed by adolescent gender.</p> <hd id="AN0152372509-4">Current Study</hd> <p>The goal of this exploratory study was to enhance understanding of Latinx parental monitoring in the contexts of family and neighborhood. Specifically, we examined the contributions of parental warmth and neighborhood social processes to multiple dimensions of parental monitoring using both parent and adolescent reports (Fig. 1). We hypothesized that parental warmth and neighborhood social processes (i.e., social cohesion and informal social control) would be positively associated with multidimensional parental monitoring (i.e., knowledge, disclosure, solicitation, and control). Although few studies have provided conclusive empirical evidence, given gendered socialization in Latinx families (Blocklin et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref63">6</reflink>]), gender differences in these associations were explored.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Conceptual Figure. Note. Conceptual figure depicting the associations of parental monitoring dimensions with parental warmth and neighborhood social processes. Covariates included adolescent gender, adolescent age, and parent education</p> <hd id="AN0152372509-5">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0152372509-6">Participants and Procedures</hd> <p>The Places/Lugares study was approved by the university Institutional Review Board with the protocol number STUDY00004644. The Places/Lugares study focused on neighborhood experiences and parent-adolescent relationships among self-identified Latinx families in a small, predominantly African American northeastern U.S. city that is considered a new destination area for Latinx immigrants. Latinx residents represented 18.2% of the city population, with 82.6% growth from 2000 to 2010 (PASDC, 2011). Participants were Latinx adolescents (<emph>N</emph> = 62, 53.2% girls) and their parents (<emph>N</emph> = 63, 74.6% biological mothers). Adolescent age ranged from 11 to 17 years (<emph>M</emph><subs>age</subs> = 14.28, SD = 2.03). Parent age ranged from 27 to 68 years (<emph>M</emph><subs>age</subs> = 42.50, SD = 8.76). Recruitment took place via referrals from community partners, advertisements at community events, flyers at recommended community locations, snowball sampling, and contacting prior study participants. In total, 79 dyads were recruited. Sixty-one dyads plus 2 parents and 1 adolescent participated (resulting in the final sample of <emph>N</emph> = 63 parents and <emph>N</emph> = 62 adolescents). Fourteen of these dyads participated in previous studies.</p> <p>Participant demographic characteristics are presented in Table 1. Parents' education ranged from 5th or 6th grade to a bachelor's degree, with 43.5% of parents having less than a high school education. A majority of families had income below the federal poverty line (<emph>n</emph> = 37, 58.73%). Participants completed questionnaires in their preferred language with trained interviewers and were compensated. The interviewer team included the principal investigators, undergraduate and graduate students, and community personnel. Some interviewers were Spanish-English bilingual speakers and others were English speakers. English speaking interviewers only interviewed participants who selected the English questionnaires. All interviewers received multiple trainings on project goals, recruitment and data collection procedures, and in-field activities. During all interviews, at least one bilingual personnel was present to clarify questions. Most parents completed the interview in Spanish (<emph>n</emph> = 51, 81.0%); most adolescents completed the interview in English (<emph>n</emph> = 50, 81.0%).</p> <p>Table 1 Participant demographic information</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th rowspan="2" /><th><p>Parents</p><p><italic>N</italic> = 63</p></th><th><p>Youth</p><p><italic>N</italic> = 62</p></th></tr><tr><th><p><italic>n</italic> (%)</p></th><th><p><italic>n</italic> (%)</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="3"><p>Ethnicity/nationality of descent</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Puerto Rican</p></td><td><p>26 (41.3%)</p></td><td><p>28 (45.2%)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Mexican</p></td><td><p>9 (14.3%)</p></td><td><p>9 (14.5%)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Dominican</p></td><td><p>6 (9.5%)</p></td><td><p>6 (9.7%)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Other or multiple ethnicities</p></td><td><p>22 (34.9%)</p></td><td><p>19 (30.6%)</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><p>Marriage/cohabitation status</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Married or cohabitating</p></td><td><p>29 (46.0%)</p></td><td><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Not married or cohabitating</p></td><td><p>20 (31.7%)</p></td><td><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Divorced or separated</p></td><td><p>14 (22.2%)</p></td><td><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Born in the U.S.</p></td><td><p>10 (15.9%)</p></td><td><p>36 (58.1%)</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td><p><italic>M (SD)</italic></p></td><td><p><italic>M (SD)</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Age</p></td><td><p>42.50 (8.76)</p></td><td><p>14.28 (2.03)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Years living in the U.S.</p></td><td><p>15.63 (12.63)</p></td><td><p>4.17 (4.36)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Years living in current neighborhood</p></td><td><p>5.85 (7.05)</p></td><td><p>4.18 (3.73)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Participants lived in a total of 18 census tracts (29 block groups). The number of participants per census tract ranged from 1–21; eight census tracts had two or more participants. Within each census tract, the percent of female-headed households ranged from 4.70–45.67% (<emph>M</emph> = 29.57%); the population over age 25 without a high school or equivalent diploma ranged from 2.17–40.70% (<emph>M</emph> = 25.85%); residents aged 16 and older unemployed but in the workforce ranged from 1.34–28.7% (<emph>M</emph> = 18.38%); households under the federal poverty line ranged from 1.98–56.26% (<emph>M</emph> = 36.87%); and residential turnover rates within the past year ranged from 9.20–35.99% (<emph>M</emph> = 19.21%). Participants lived in neighborhoods with a Black, non-Hispanic population that ranged from 2–74% (<emph>M</emph> = 39.94%) and a Latinx population (any race) that ranged from 1–41% (<emph>M</emph> = 26.04%).</p> <hd id="AN0152372509-7">Measures</hd> <p>Measures were adapted from pre-existing self-report questionnaires. All measures that were not available in Spanish were translated and back-translated by a translation team consisting of the co-principal investigator and two bilingual Ph.D. student researchers (of Guatemalan, Argentinian, and Mexican background). In cases of translation discrepancies, consensus was reached through discussions among the translation team and one of the bilingual trained interviewers (a community member of Colombian background). Given the diversity among the Latinx population in the community, translators aimed to provide Spanish words and phrases that are commonly used by individuals from different countries.</p> <hd id="AN0152372509-8">Sociodemographic variables</hd> <p>Adolescents reported their gender (0 = female, 1 = male) and age. Parents reported their level of education (1 = less than high school, 2 = high school or equivalent, 3 = some post-secondary education, 4 = bachelor's degree).</p> <hd id="AN0152372509-9">Parental warmth</hd> <p>Parental warmth (Armsden & Greenberg, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref64">2</reflink>]) was assessed with nine parallel items for adolescents and parents, such as "I try to be understanding when my child is angry." Response options ranged from "almost never or never true" to "almost always or always true" on a four-point scale. This measure has been translated previously and demonstrates good reliability in English and Spanish in previous research (Bámaca-Colbert et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref65">3</reflink>]; Gonzales et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref66">19</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0152372509-10">Neighborhood social processes</hd> <p>Parents' and adolescents' perceptions of neighborhood social processes (Sampson et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref67">41</reflink>]) were assessed in two ways. Neighborhood social cohesion was assessed with four items such as "People in my neighborhood are willing to help each other out"; responses ranged from "completely disagree" to "agree a lot" on a four-point scale. Informal social control was assessed by participant report on the likelihood of neighborhood adults intervening in five types of deviant youth behavior (e.g., "skipping school and hanging out on the street"). Responses ranged on a four-point scale from "not at all likely" to "very likely". Both measures have been translated and used with Latinx families (Witherspoon et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref68">52</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0152372509-11">Parental monitoring</hd> <p>Parallel questions were presented to parents and adolescents to assess parental monitoring dimensions (Kerr & Stattin, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref69">23</reflink>]), rated on a five-point scale. Given low internal consistency of parental monitoring dimensions in this unique sample, items were subjected to confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). For both adolescent and parent reports, we conducted one CFA model with parental knowledge items and one CFA model with items for the three sources of knowledge (i.e., youth disclosure, parental solicitation, and parental control). Only items with statistically significant factor loadings (<emph>p</emph> < 0.05) were retained, meaning that it was possible for different items to be retained for parent and adolescent reports. Although the final set of items were not identical across parents and adolescents, this approach resulted in the best fitting measurement model for each reporter. In the final CFA models, all standardized factor loadings ranged between 0.30 to 0.97, except for one item with a loading of 0.26. (see eTable 1 in the Supplementary Information). Parental knowledge was measured with seven of the nine original items for parents and six items for adolescents (e.g., "Do you know where your child goes when he/she is out with friends at night?"). Youth disclosure was assessed with three of the five original items for parents and adolescents separately (e.g., "Does your child talk at home about how he/she is doing in the different subjects in school?"). Parental solicitation was assessed with three of the five original items for parents and all five items for adolescents (e.g., "How often do you start a conversation with your child about his/her free time?"). Finally, parental control was assessed with five original items for parents and four of the five original items for adolescents (e.g., "Before your child goes out on a Saturday night, do you require him/her to tell you where he/she is going and with whom?"). English and Spanish questionnaires from the original measure (Kerr & Stattin, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref70">23</reflink>]) were adapted in parallel by bilingual researchers, and the current parental knowledge subscale was used in published work (Witherspoon et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref71">52</reflink>]). Selected subscales of the original measure have also been validated previously with Latinx families (Blocklin et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref72">6</reflink>]; Marsiglia et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref73">29</reflink>]; Roche et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref74">39</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0152372509-12">Data Analyses</hd> <p>Hypotheses were tested using structural equation modeling, conducted in Mplus version 7 (Muthén & Muthén, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref75">32</reflink>]). Hypothesized associations were examined separately for parent report and adolescent report, as parents' and adolescents' perceptions may differ (Witherspoon & Ennett, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref76">51</reflink>]). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) showed that ratios of between-neighborhood variability to total variability were miniscule (less than 0.01) for most dependent variables. However, for adolescent report of disclosure, the ICC was 0.15. To ensure that standard errors were not biased due to nesting at the neighborhood level, analyses were conducted using maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors. Age, gender, and parent education were included as covariates in all models. Model fit was assessed using χ<sups>2</sups> goodness-of-fit test (statistically non-significant indicating good fit) and CFI (>0.95 indicating good fit), as other fit indices (i.e., TLI and RMSEA) are not preferred when sample size is small (Hu & Bentler, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref77">22</reflink>]; Taasoobshirazi & Wang, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref78">45</reflink>]). Interaction terms were added to the models in subsequent steps, and significant interactions were examined using simple slopes analysis (reported as unstandardized coefficients, using the online calculator described by Preacher et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref79">36</reflink>]). To reduce the number of parameters in the model given the small sample size, statistically nonsignificant covariances among independent variables were constrained to zero. Additionally, with four parental monitoring outcomes in each model, dependent variables were allowed to covary only if they were significantly correlated at the bivariate level. Otherwise, if parental monitoring dimensions were not significantly associated at the bivariate level or in the multivariate models, their covariance was constrained to zero. Given the sample size and models, the post-hoc power to detect a medium effect size (partial R<sups>2</sups> of 0.09) was 0.69 at <emph>p</emph> < 0.05 and 0.79 at <emph>p</emph> < 0.10. With limited power to detect small effects, findings are interpreted with caution.</p> <hd id="AN0152372509-13">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0152372509-14">Preliminary Analyses</hd> <p>Cronbach's alphas, descriptive statistics, and correlations are presented in Table 2. Independent samples t-tests examined mean gender differences for all variables. Parents of girls had higher education (<emph>t</emph>(54.31) = 2.01, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05), and parents reported that girls engaged in more disclosure than boys (<emph>t</emph>(43.82) = 2.05, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05).</p> <p>Table 2 Bivariate correlations, means, and standard deviations of measures for parent report (above the diagonal) and youth report (below the diagonal)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th /><th><p>1</p></th><th><p>2</p></th><th><p>3</p></th><th><p>4</p></th><th><p>5</p></th><th><p>6</p></th><th><p>7</p></th><th><p><italic>M(SD)</italic></p></th><th><p>α</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p>1. Parental Knowledge</p></td><td><p><bold>0.22</bold></p></td><td><p>0.53<sup>**</sup></p></td><td><p>0.53<sup>**</sup></p></td><td><p>−0.02</p></td><td><p>0.37<sup>**</sup></p></td><td><p>0.12</p></td><td><p>0.01</p></td><td><p>4.55(0.57)</p></td><td><p>0.79</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2. Youth Disclosure</p></td><td><p>0.22</p></td><td><p><bold>0.14</bold></p></td><td><p>0.50<sup>**</sup></p></td><td><p>−0.10</p></td><td><p>0.36<sup>**</sup></p></td><td><p>0.00</p></td><td><p>−0.24</p></td><td><p>4.39(0.74)</p></td><td><p>0.69</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>3. Parental Solicitation</p></td><td><p>0.58<sup>**</sup></p></td><td><p>0.39<sup>**</sup></p></td><td><p><bold>0.07</bold></p></td><td><p>0.11</p></td><td><p>0.47<sup>**</sup></p></td><td><p>−0.02</p></td><td><p>−0.04</p></td><td><p>4.40(0.69)</p></td><td><p>0.82</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>4. Parental Control</p></td><td><p>0.32<sup>*</sup></p></td><td><p>0.32<sup>*</sup></p></td><td><p>0.41<sup>**</sup></p></td><td><p><bold>0.31</bold><sup>*</sup></p></td><td><p>0.06</p></td><td><p>−0.13</p></td><td><p>0.00</p></td><td><p>4.59(0.78)</p></td><td><p>0.76</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>5. Parental Warmth</p></td><td><p>0.55<sup>**</sup></p></td><td><p>0.28<sup>*</sup></p></td><td><p>0.42<sup>**</sup></p></td><td><p>0.23</p></td><td><p><bold>0.23</bold></p></td><td><p>−0.26<sup>*</sup></p></td><td><p>−0.18</p></td><td><p>3.55(0.46)</p></td><td><p>0.87</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>6. Social Cohesion</p></td><td><p>0.15</p></td><td><p>0.14</p></td><td><p>0.23</p></td><td><p>0.0002</p></td><td><p>0.03</p></td><td><p><bold>0.09</bold></p></td><td><p>0.40<sup>**</sup></p></td><td><p>2.66(0.70)</p></td><td><p>0.80</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>7. Informal Social Control</p></td><td><p>−0.04</p></td><td><p>−0.058</p></td><td><p>−0.15</p></td><td><p>0.04</p></td><td><p>−0.10</p></td><td><p>0.44<sup>**</sup></p></td><td><p><bold>0.05</bold></p></td><td><p>2.30(1.03)</p></td><td><p>0.93</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><italic>M(SD)</italic></p></td><td><p>3.93(0.83)</p></td><td><p>3.56(0.98)</p></td><td><p>3.18(0.99)</p></td><td><p>4.53(0.70)</p></td><td><p>3.29(0.61)</p></td><td><p>2.71(0.77)</p></td><td><p>2.39(1.06)</p></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p>Chronbach's α</p></td><td><p>0.69</p></td><td><p>0.66</p></td><td><p>0.78</p></td><td><p>0.76</p></td><td><p>0.87</p></td><td><p>0.76</p></td><td><p>0.91</p></td><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Correlations between parent and youth report of the same indicator are presented along the diagonal (bolded). Measure descriptive statistics are presented in the vertical columns for parents and in the horizontal rows for youth <sups>*</sups><emph>p</emph> < 0.05, <sups>**</sups><emph>p</emph> < 0.01</p> <hd id="AN0152372509-15">Structural Equation Models</hd> <p>Results of structural equation models are presented in Table 3.</p> <p>Table 3 Standardized coefficients and robust standard errors of structural equation model paths for parent and youth report</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th rowspan="2" /><th><p>Parent Report</p><p><italic>N</italic> = 63</p></th><th><p>Youth Report</p><p><italic>N</italic> = 62</p></th></tr><tr><th><p><italic>β</italic> (<italic>SE</italic>)</p></th><th><p><italic>β</italic> (<italic>SE</italic>)</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="3"><p>Main Effects Model<sup>a</sup></p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><p> Parental knowledge</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Parental warmth → parental knowledge</p></td><td><p>0.41 (0.10)<sup>***</sup></p></td><td><p>0.55 (0.08)<sup>***</sup></p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Neighb. social cohesion → parental knowledge</p></td><td><p>0.22 (0.08)<sup>**</sup></p></td><td><p>0.19 (0.11)<sup>†</sup></p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Neighb. informal social control → parental knowledge</p></td><td><p>0.03 (0.12)</p></td><td><p>−0.08 (0.10)</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><p> Youth disclosure</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Parental warmth → youth disclosure</p></td><td><p>0.34 (0.13)<sup>*</sup></p></td><td><p>0.27 (0.12)<sup>*</sup></p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Neighb. social cohesion → youth disclosure</p></td><td><p>0.18 (0.08)<sup>*</sup></p></td><td><p>0.19 (0.15)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Neighb. informal social control → youth disclosure</p></td><td><p>−0.24 (0.12)<sup>*</sup></p></td><td><p>−0.12 (0.13)</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><p> Parental solicitation</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Parental warmth → parental solicitation</p></td><td><p>0.51 (0.10)<sup>***</sup></p></td><td><p>0.39 (0.11)<sup>***</sup></p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Neighb. social cohesion → parental solicitation</p></td><td><p>0.12 (0.09)</p></td><td><p>0.07 (0.15)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Neighb. informal social control → parental solicitation</p></td><td><p>−0.03 (0.11)</p></td><td><p>−0.12 (0.14)</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><p> Parental Control</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Parental warmth → parental control</p></td><td><p>0.10 (0.13)</p></td><td><p>0.32 (0.11)<sup>**</sup></p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Neighb. social cohesion → parental control</p></td><td><p>−0.12 (0.13)</p></td><td><p>−0.07 (0.14)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Neighb. informal social control → parental control</p></td><td><p>0.02 (0.12)</p></td><td><p>0.12 (0.14)</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><p> Warmth x Gender Interactions Model<sup>b</sup></p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Warmth x gender → parental knowledge</p></td><td><p>0.28 (0.17)</p></td><td><p>−0.03 (0.12)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Warmth x gender → youth disclosure</p></td><td><p>0.26 (0.18)</p></td><td><p>−0.07 (0.15)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Warmth x gender → parental solicitation</p></td><td><p>0.27 (0.17)</p></td><td><p>0.16 (0.13)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Warmth x gender → parental control</p></td><td><p>0.10 (0.16)</p></td><td><p>0.43 (0.12)<sup>***</sup></p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><p> Neighborhood x Gender Interactions Model<sup>c</sup></p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Neighb. social cohesion x gender → parental knowledge</p></td><td><p>0.16 (0.12)</p></td><td><p>0.07 (0.18)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Neighb. informal social control x gender → parental knowledge</p></td><td><p>0.01 (0.23)</p></td><td><p>−0.12 (0.12)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Neighb. social cohesion x gender → youth disclosure</p></td><td><p>0.11 (0.11)</p></td><td><p>−0.21 (0.21)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Neighb. informal social control x gender → youth disclosure</p></td><td><p>−0.31 (0.16)<sup>†</sup></p></td><td><p>0.19 (0.16)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Neighb. social cohesion x gender → parental solicitation</p></td><td><p>−0.09 (0.14)</p></td><td><p>0.12 (0.21)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Neighb. informal social control x gender → parental solicitation</p></td><td><p>−0.03 (0.18)</p></td><td><p>0.05 (0.18)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Neighb. social cohesion x gender → parental control</p></td><td><p>0.21 (0.11)<sup>†</sup></p></td><td><p>0.003 (0.19)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Neighb. informal social control x gender → parental control</p></td><td><p>−0.15 (0.19)</p></td><td><p>−0.20 (0.18)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <sups>a</sups>Covariates (gender, age, and parental education) were included in these models (not shown). Model fit for parents: <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref80">20</reflink>) = 17.03, <emph>p</emph> = 0.65; CFI = 1.00. Model fit for youth: <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref81">15</reflink>) = 12.61, <emph>p</emph> = 0.63; CFI = 1.00 <sups>b</sups>All main effects and covariates were included in this model (not shown). Model fit for parents: <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref82">25</reflink>) = 23.27, <emph>p</emph> = 0.56; CFI = 1.00. Model fit for youth: <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref83">23</reflink>) = 16.69, <emph>p</emph> = 0.82; CFI = 1.00 <sups>c</sups>All main effects and covariates were included in this model (not shown). Model fit for parents: <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref84">29</reflink>) = 28.95, <emph>p</emph> = 0.47; CFI = 1.00. Model fit for youth: <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref85">28</reflink>) = 20.92, <emph>p</emph> = 0.83; CFI = 1.00 <sups>†</sups><emph>p</emph> < 0.10, *<emph>p</emph> < 0.05, **<emph>p</emph> < 0.01, ***<emph>p</emph> < 0.001</p> <hd id="AN0152372509-16">Parent-report models</hd> <p>The hypothesized model had good fit to the data, <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref86">20</reflink>) = 17.03, <emph>p</emph> = 0.65; CFI = 1.00. Accounting for all other variables, parental warmth was positively associated with knowledge, disclosure, and solicitation. Neighborhood social cohesion was positively associated with parental knowledge. Neighborhood social cohesion was positively associated with youth disclosure, whereas neighborhood informal social control was negatively associated with youth disclosure.</p> <p>Interactions between warmth and adolescent gender were then added to the model, with all main effects and covariates included, <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref87">25</reflink>) = 23.27, <emph>p</emph> = 0.56; CFI = 1.00. There were no significant interactions of warmth and gender in the parent-report model. Interactions between neighborhood variables and gender were then examined in a separate model with all main effects and covariates, <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref88">29</reflink>) = 28.95, <emph>p</emph> = 0.47; CFI = 1.00. There were marginally significant interactions: the association between social cohesion and parental control varied by gender, as did the association between informal social control and youth disclosure. Simple slopes analysis revealed that the association between social cohesion and parental control was not significant for boys (<emph>B</emph> = 0.11, <emph>SE</emph> = 0.11, <emph>p</emph> = 0.38) or girls (<emph>B</emph> = −0.30, <emph>SE</emph> = 0.22, <emph>p</emph> = 0.19). Informal social control was negatively associated with youth disclosure for boys but not girls, as depicted in Fig. 2.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 Gender Interaction Models in Parent and Youth Report. Note. Unstandardized simple slopes for (a) informal social control and youth disclosure by adolescent gender (parent report) and (b) parental warmth and parental control by adolescent gender (youth report). *p < 0.05</p> <hd id="AN0152372509-17">Adolescent-report models</hd> <p>The hypothesized model had good fit to the data, <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref89">15</reflink>) = 12.61, <emph>p</emph> = 0.63; CFI = 1.00. Warmth was positively associated with all dimensions of parental monitoring. Neighborhood variables were not directly associated with parental monitoring outcomes.</p> <p>Interactions between warmth and adolescent gender were then added to the model, with all main effects and covariates included, <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref90">23</reflink>) = 16.69, <emph>p</emph> = 0.82; CFI = 1.00. The association between warmth and parental control varied by gender. Simple slopes analysis revealed that warmth was positively associated with parental control for boys but not girls, depicted in Fig. 2. Finally, interactions between neighborhood variables and adolescent gender were then entered into a separate model with all main effects and covariates, <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref91">28</reflink>) = 20.92, <emph>p</emph> = 0.83; CFI = 1.00. There were no interactions of neighborhood variables and gender in the adolescent-report model.</p> <hd id="AN0152372509-18">Discussion</hd> <p>We examined multiple dimensions of parental monitoring among Latinx parents and adolescents in the context of family and neighborhood social processes. Our findings demonstrated the salience of the parent-adolescent relationship and neighborhood social processes for parental monitoring among Latinx families. Differences emerged between parent and adolescent reports of these associations, which is consistent with literature suggesting parent-adolescent differences in perceiving both environments (Witherspoon & Ennett, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref92">51</reflink>]). Results also highlighted gender differences in these associations. Below, we discuss these findings in light of the extant literature.</p> <hd id="AN0152372509-19">Parental Warmth and Parental Monitoring</hd> <p>Consistent with past findings (Blocklin et al. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref93">6</reflink>]), we found that parental warmth was positively associated with parental monitoring, although these associations differed by reporter. For parents, parental warmth was associated with knowledge, disclosure, and solicitation, whereas for adolescents, parental warmth was associated with all dimensions of parental monitoring. The positive associations of parental warmth with dimensions of parental monitoring are reflections of Latinx parenting, which emphasizes the balance of restrictive and supportive parenting (Cruz-Santiago & Ramírez García, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref94">14</reflink>]; Halgunseth, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref95">21</reflink>]). In the context of a warm parent-adolescent relationship, adolescents may be more motivated to make honest disclosures to parents, and parents may be more likely to ask adolescents about their free time. Consequently, parents gain more knowledge of youth's daily activities. The association of warmth and control was significant only for adolescent report. Adolescents' experiences of high parental control alongside parental warmth may reflect their understanding and experience of restrictive parenting and parental warmth that likely occur together to protect them in their neighborhood (Bámaca-Colbert et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref96">3</reflink>]).</p> <p>Overall, the associations between parental warmth and parental monitoring dimensions did not vary by adolescent gender, except for the association between parental warmth and parental control according to adolescent report. Parental warmth was associated with parental control for boys but not girls. Consistent with gendered family roles and socialization in Latinx families (Blocklin et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref97">6</reflink>]), the nature of parents' control may differ for boys and girls. Latinx girls tend to receive higher supervision and restriction than boys (Blocklin et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref98">6</reflink>]), so girls may perceive parental control not as an act of warmth but as a measure of protection. Another explanation of this gender difference may be that girls in Latinx families tend to spend more time at home fulfilling family obligations, whereas boys tend to spend more time in the neighborhood with friends (Umaña-Taylor & Updegraff, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref99">48</reflink>]). Therefore, adolescent-reported control for girls may be a function of girls' time spent at home under parental supervision rather than parent-adolescent relationship warmth. Because control is a parent-initiated monitoring strategy (Kerr & Stattin, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref100">23</reflink>]), adolescent report of this gender difference suggested the importance of a warm parent-adolescent relationship for parents to initiate restrictive and controlling monitoring strategies on Latinx boys. In the case of these Latinx parents, their self-reported uses of parental monitoring strategies in the context of parental warmth did not vary by adolescent gender. Future work should examine additional Latinx family and parent-adolescent relational factors. For example, parents' endorsement of traditional gender role attitudes (Raffaelli & Ontai, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref101">37</reflink>]) might be a salient predictor of parental monitoring for Latinx girls. Specifically, parents who endorse traditional gender roles might monitor adolescent girls' daily life more and put higher levels of restrictions on their social activities.</p> <hd id="AN0152372509-20">Neighborhood Social Processes and Parental Monitoring</hd> <p>Our findings advanced understanding of parental monitoring in the neighborhood social context. Previous literature on non-Latinx families suggests that greater monitoring is more likely to occur in neighborhoods with positive neighborhood social processes (Neumann et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref102">34</reflink>]; Rankin & Quane, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref103">38</reflink>]). Consistent with this literature, we found a positive association between social cohesion and parental knowledge. Parents who are socially cohesive with their neighbors may be able to rely on the information shared by trustworthy neighbors to gain additional knowledge about their adolescents' activities. Social cohesion also predicted greater youth disclosure according to parents' report. When a community is bounded by trust and reciprocity, the interconnected social network might create an environment in which youth feel cared for and adapt to the community norms of appropriate youth behaviors (García Coll et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref104">17</reflink>]; Sampson & Graif, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref105">40</reflink>]), which might include youth disclosure.</p> <p>Contrary to our hypothesis, we found a negative association between informal social control and youth disclosure as reported by parents. This finding suggests that when neighborhood informal social control is high, parents perceive lower levels of disclosure in adolescents. The lessening of disclosure might represent a sense of security in a neighborhood where watchful adults share responsibility for providing social control and responding to youth misbehavior (Neumann et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref106">34</reflink>]; Rankin & Quane, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref107">38</reflink>]). In this case, adolescents' voluntary disclosure may be a less necessary safety precaution due to the establishment of collective community control over youth behaviors. Alternatively, neighbors' intervention and surveillance of neighborhood youth's delinquent behaviors might be in response to limited youth disclosure within the family. Parents who are aware of youth's unwillingness to disclose might request neighbors to "keep an eye" on youth. Gender analyses revealed that this negative association between informal social control and youth disclosure was only significant for boys. Boys are often exposed to more neighborhood risks (Umaña-Taylor & Updegraff, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref108">48</reflink>]) and as shown in this study, less likely to disclose. Parents who are surrounded by vigilant and responsive neighbors may rely on their neighborhood social networks to acquire knowledge about their son's whereabouts, especially when their adolescent sons limit their disclosure. More research is needed of these gendered patterns of parental monitoring in neighborhoods.</p> <p>It is worth highlighting that informal social control was negatively associated with youth disclosure, whereas social cohesion was positively associated with youth disclosure in the parent report. Social cohesion and informal social control are often examined together as a composite (i.e., collective efficacy; Brisson et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref109">9</reflink>]; Sampson et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref110">41</reflink>]). However, by exploring informal social control and social cohesion separately, the current study highlights the unique associations of these neighborhood social processes with parental monitoring processes. Future research should continue to examine these processes in Latinx families in various neighborhood contexts. These significant associations between neighborhood social processes and parental monitoring dimensions were not replicated in adolescents' reports. To the extent that hypothesized associations differed by parents' and adolescents' perceptions of their neighborhood (Witherspoon & Ennett, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref111">51</reflink>]), adolescent reports may not have been the best instruments to detect associations between neighborhood processes and parental monitoring strategies.</p> <hd id="AN0152372509-21">Additional Protective Factors to Facilitate Monitoring</hd> <p>The current study suggests that a warm family environment and trusted neighbors may be important resources for Latinx parents to monitor adolescents in their neighborhoods. Latinx parents with adolescents should cultivate a warm parent-adolescent relationship as well as a strong neighbor support system to facilitate their monitoring. In adverse contexts, caring adults and service programs should also recognize the collective power of vigilant neighbors on ensuring adolescent safety in the neighborhood. Interventionists and community leaders may consider ways to promote neighborhood surveillance of adolescent behaviors.</p> <p>In addition, established community programs might also help Latinx parents to know their adolescents' whereabouts. Previous studies suggested that adolescents' participation in organized programs might help parents carry out positive parenting practices (Leventhal & Shuey, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref112">26</reflink>]), especially in disadvantaged neighborhoods (Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref113">25</reflink>]). Through adolescents' participation in organized programs, parents can ensure adolescents' location and safety when they are not around, which can relieve parents' stress from worrying about adolescents' safety and interaction with deviant peers (Bradley & Corwyn, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref114">8</reflink>]; Bouffard et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref115">7</reflink>]). However, parents in emerging immigrant destinations may deliberately restrict their adolescents' access to neighborhood-based activities in order to protect them from potential danger (Bouffard et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref116">7</reflink>]), which aligns with the parental control and parental solicitation dimensions of parental monitoring. Therefore, community program providers should pay close attention to the cultural sensitivity and accessibility of their programs to ensure adolescent participation and parental involvement. A program similar to the Family Mentoring Program (Barron-McKeagney et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref117">5</reflink>]), which aims to strengthen the overall family environment and parenting, is a good example to consider.</p> <hd id="AN0152372509-22">Limitations and Future Directions</hd> <p>Extending beyond previous examinations of Latinx parental monitoring strategies, this study examined parental monitoring as a multidimensional construct in contexts of family and neighborhood social processes using both parent and adolescent reports in families living in a new immigrant destination. In light of these early findings and the exploratory nature of this study, future work should continue to examine whether Latinx parenting in these family and neighborhood contexts would operate differently within a new immigrant destination as compared to a more established gateway destination. Despite the current study's contributions to the literature, there are some limitations. Although the sample was comprised of Latinx families from different backgrounds, most identified as Puerto Rican. Different Latinx ethnic groups in the U.S. may have different experiences and live in distinctive neighborhoods, thereby limiting this study's generalizability. Future research should sample multiple Latinx ethnic groups to better understand cultural nuance in Latinx parenting practices. Even though a strength of this study was obtaining adolescents' and parents' perspectives, incorporating extended kin (e.g., grandparents, uncles or aunts) in our understanding of parental monitoring and other family management strategies is necessary for Latinx families who often have multiple generations within a household who share child-rearing responsibilities (Barrett & Turner, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref118">4</reflink>]). Likewise, Latinx mothers and fathers tend to play different parental roles and engage in different patterns of parenting with youth (Crean, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref119">12</reflink>]; Cruz et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref120">13</reflink>]). Future research is needed to examine mothers' and fathers' monitoring strategies separately to understand further the role of parental gender in the links between parental warmth, neighborhood social processes, and parental monitoring.</p> <p>Lastly, our results should be interpreted with caution due to the small sample size and cross-sectional design. However, it is promising that despite the sample size, we found significant associations within and across reporter that compare in magnitude to published studies (e.g., Blocklin et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref121">6</reflink>]). Due to sample size, we were unable to examine the effects of additional interactions (e.g., parental warmth, neighborhood social processes, and gender three-way interactions) on parental monitoring. Future studies should examine these associations with larger samples and explore these associations longitudinally to discover how parenting practices and neighborhood factors may protect youth from environmental challenges throughout adolescence.</p> <hd id="AN0152372509-23">Conclusions</hd> <p>We examined how Latinx families' different domains of monitoring were linked with parent-adolescent relationships, neighborhood social context, and adolescent gender. As this exploratory study demonstrated, family and neighborhood social processes each contributed to the use of different parental monitoring strategies in Latinx families, with a few differences between parents' and adolescents' reports. Altogether, our findings highlight the multidimensionality of parental monitoring in Latinx families. Findings also indicate that parental warmth is often implemented together with restrictive monitoring strategies and that parental monitoring strategies vary by levels and types of neighborhood social processes. The moderating effects of gender suggest the importance of parental warmth and external resources from neighbors to monitor Latinx boys effectively. These findings can guide future research on the salience of contextualized parenting in family and neighborhood settings. Family practitioners and interventionists working with Latinx families are encouraged to consider family relationships and positive neighborhood social processes as resources to facilitate contextually- and culturally-responsive parenting strategies.</p> <hd id="AN0152372509-24">Compliance with Ethical Standards</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0152372509-25">Conflict of Interest</hd> <p>The authors declare no competing interests.</p> <hd id="AN0152372509-26">Supplementary information</hd> <p>Graph: Supplementary Material eTable 1</p> <hd id="AN0152372509-27">Supplementary information</hd> <p>The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-021-02025-y.</p> <p> <bold>Publisher's note</bold> Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0152372509-28"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref22" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Aber MS, Nieto MCicchetti D, Rappaport J, Sandler I, Weissberg R. Suggestions for the investigation of psychological wellness in the neighborhood context: Toward a pluralistic neighborhood theory. The promotion of wellness in children and adolescents. 2000: Washington, D.C.; CWLA Press: 185-220</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref64" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Armsden GC, Greenberg MT. The inventory of parent and peer attachment: individual differences and their relationship to psychological well-being in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 1987; 16; 5: 427-454. 10.1007/BF02202939. 24277469</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref65" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bámaca-Colbert MY, Gonzales-Backen M, Henry CS, Kim P, Roblyer MZ, Plunkett SW, Sands T. Family profiles of cohesion and parenting practices and latino youth adjustment. Family process. 2018; 57; 3: 719-736. 10.1111/famp.12314. 28796290</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref118" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Barrett AE, Turner RJ. Family structure and substance use problems in adolescence and early adulthood: examining explanations for the relationship. Addiction. 2006; 101; 1: 109-120. 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.01296.x. 16393197</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref117" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Barron-McKeagney T, Woody JD, D'Souza HJ. Mentoring at-risk Latino children and their parents: Impact on social skills and problem behaviors. Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal. 2001; 18; 2: 119-136. 10.1023/A:1007698728775</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref7" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Blocklin MK, Crouter AC, Updegraff KA, McHale SM. Sources of parental knowledge in Mexican American families. Family Relations. 2011; 60; 1: 30-44. 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2010.00631.x. 23105162. 3481992</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref115" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bouffard SM, Wimer C, Caronongan P, Little P, Dearing E, Simpkins SD. Demographic differences in patterns of youth out-of-school time activity participation. Journal of Youth Development. 2006; 1; 1: 24-40. 10.5195/jyd.2006.396</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref114" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bradley RH, Corwyn RF. Socioeconomic status and child development. Annual Review of Psychology. 2002; 53; 1: 371-399. 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135233. 11752490</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref109" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Brisson D, Lopez A, Yoder J. Neighborhoods and mental health trajectories of low-income mothers. Journal of Community Psychology. 2014; 42; 5: 519-529. 10.1002/jcop.21634</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bronfenbrenner U. The ecology of human development: experiments by nature and design. 1979: Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ceballo R, Kennedy TM, Bregman A, Epstein-Ngo Q. Always aware (Siempre Pendiente): Latina mothers' parenting in high-risk neighborhoods. Journal of Family Psychology. 2012; 26; 5: 805-815. 10.1037/a0029584. 22924421</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crean HF. Conflict in the Latino parent-youth dyad: the role of emotional support from the opposite parent. Journal of Family Psychology. 2008; 22; 3: 484-493. 10.1037/0893-3200.22.3.484. 18540777</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cruz RA, King KM, Widaman KF, Leu J, Cauce AM, Conger RD. Cultural influences on positive father involvement in two-parent Mexican-origin families. Journal of Family Psychology. 2011; 25; 5: 731-740. 10.1037/a0025128. 21842992. 3278273</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cruz-Santiago M, Ramírez García JI. "Hay Que Ponerse en los Zapatos del Joven": adaptive parenting of adolescent children among Mexican-American parents residing in a dangerous neighborhood. Family Process. 2011; 50; 1: 92-114. 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2010.01348.x. 21361926</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dittus PJ, Michael SL, Becasen JS, Gloppen KM, McCarthy K, Guilamo-Ramos V. Parental monitoring and its associations with adolescent sexual risk behavior: a meta-analysis. Pediatrics. 2015; 136; 6: e1587-e1599. 10.1542/peds.2015-0305. 26620067</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fuller B, García Coll C. Learning from Latinos: contexts, families, and child development in motion. Developmental Psychology. 2010; 46; 3: 559-565. 10.1037/a0019412. 20438170</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> García Coll C, Lamberty G, Jenkins R, McAdoo HP, Crnic K, Wasik BH, Vázquez García H. An integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in minority children. Child Development. 1996; 67: 1891-1914. 10.2307/1131600. 9022222</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gonzales NA, Coxe S, Roosa MW, White RMB, Knight GP, Zeiders KH, Saenz D. Economic hardship, neighborhood context, and parenting: prospective effects on Mexican-American adolescent's mental health. American Journal of Community Psychology. 2011; 47; 1: 98-113. 10.1007/s10464-010-9366-1. 21103925. 3169846</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gonzales NA, Deardorff J, Formoso D, Barr A, Barrera M. Family mediators of the relation between acculturation and adolescent mental health. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies. 2006; 55; 3: 318-330. 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2006.00405.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guilamo-Ramos V, Dittus P, Jaccard J, Johansson M, Bouris A, Acosta N. Parenting practices among Dominican and Puerto Rican mothers. Social Work. 2007; 52; 1: 17-30. 10.1093/sw/52.1.17. 17388080</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Halgunseth LCBornstein M. Latino and Latin American parenting. Handbook of Parenting (3ed). Social Conditions and Applied Parenting, vol. 4. 2019: New York, NY; Routledge: 24-56. 10.4324/9780429398995-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal. 1999; 6; 1: 1-55. 10.1080/10705519909540118</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kerr M, Stattin H. What parents know, how they know it, and several forms of adolescent adjustment: further support for a reinterpretation of monitoring. Developmental Psychology. 2000; 36; 3: 366-380. 10.1037/0012-1649.36.3.366. 10830980</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Law JHJ, Barber BK. Neighborhood conditions, parenting, and adolescent functioning. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment,. 2007; 14; 4: 91-118. 10.1300/J137v14n04_05</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leventhal T, Brooks-Gunn J. The neighborhoods they live in: the effects of neighborhood residence on child and adolescent outcomes. Psychological Bulletin. 2000; 126; 2: 309-337. 10.1037/0033-2909.126.2.309. 10748645</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leventhal T, Shuey EA. Neighborhood context and immigrant young children's development. Developmental Psychology. 2014; 50; 6: 1771-1787. 10.1037/a0036424. 24684715</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lowe K, Dotterer AM. Parental monitoring, parental warmth, and minority youths' academic outcomes: exploring the integrative model of parenting. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2013; 42; 9: 1413-1425. 10.1007/s10964-013-9934-4. 23456244</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marrow HBMassey DS. Hispanic immigration, Black population size, and intergroup relations in the rural and small-town south. New faces in new places: The changing geography of American immigration. 2008: New York, NY; Russell Sage: 211-248</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marsiglia FF, Nagoshi JL, Parsai M, Castro FG. The influence of linguistic acculturation and parental monitoring on the substance use of Mexican-heritage adolescents in predominantly Mexican enclaves of the Southwest US. Journal of Ethnicity in Substance Abuse. 2012; 11; 3: 226-241. 10.1080/15332640.2012.701566. 22931157. 3477602</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maurizi LK, Ceballo R, Epstein-Ngo Q, Cortina KS. Does neighborhood belonging matter? Examining school and neighborhood belonging as protective factors for Latino adolescents. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 2013; 83; 2-3: 323-334. 10.1111/ajop.12017</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Montano GT, McCauley HL, Miller E, Chisolm DJ, Marshal MP. Trends in parental monitoring and knowledge over time between sexual minority and heterosexual girls. Journal of Research on Adolescence. 2017; 27; 4: 810-825. 10.1111/jora.12316. 29152868</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus user's guide. (7th Ed.). 2012: Los Angeles, CA; Muthén, & Muthén</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Negi NJ, Cepeda A, Valdez A. Crime victimization among immigrant Latina/o day laborers in post-Katrina New Orleans. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences. 2013; 35: 354-369. 10.1177/0739986313488089</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neumann A, Barker ED, Koot HM, Maughan B. The role of contextual risk, impulsivity, and parental knowledge in the development of adolescent antisocial behavior. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2010; 119; 3: 534-545. 10.1037/a0019860. 20677842</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patterson MW, Cheung AK, Mann FD, Tucker-Drob E, Harden KP. Multivariate analysis of genetic and environmental influences on parenting in adolescence. Journal of Family Psychology. 2017; 31; 5: 532-541. 10.1037/fam0000298. 28240920. 5555806</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Preacher KJ, Curran PJ, Bauer DJ. Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics. 2006; 31; 4: 437-448. 10.3102/10769986031004437</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raffaelli M, Ontai LL. Gender socialization in Latino/a families: results from two retrospective studies. Sex Roles. 2004; 50: 287-299. 10.1023/B:SERS.0000018886.58945.06</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rankin BH, Quane JM. Social contexts and urban adolescent outcomes: the interrelated effects of neighborhoods, families, and peers on African-American youth. Social Problems. 2002; 49; 1: 79-100. 10.1525/sp.2002.49.1.79</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roche KM, Caughy MO, Schuster MA, Bogart LM, Dittus PJ, Franzini L. Cultural orientations, parental beliefs and practices, and Latino adolescents' autonomy and independence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2014; 43; 8: 1389-1403. 10.1007/s10964-013-9977-6. 23812743</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sampson RJ, Graif C. Neighborhood social capital as differential social organization: resident and leadership dimensions. American Behavioral Scientist. 2009; 52; 11: 1579-1605. 10.1177/0002764209331527</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sampson RJ, Raudenbush SW, Earls F. Neighborhoods and violent crime: a multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science. 1997; 277; 5328: 918-924. 10.1126/science.277.5328.918. 9252316</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Soenens B, Vansteenkiste M, Luyckx K, Goossens L. Parenting and adolescent problem behavior: an integrated model with adolescent self-disclosure and perceived parental knowledge as intervening variables. Developmental Psychology. 2006; 42; 2: 305-318. 10.1037/0012-1649.42.2.30510.1037/0012-1649.42.2.305</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stattin H, Kerr M. Parental monitoring: a reinterpretation. Child Development. 2000; 71: 1072-1085. 10.1111/1467-8624.00210. 11016567</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Steinberg L. Age of opportunity: lessons from the new science of adolescence. 2014: Boston, MA; Houghton Mifflin Harcourt</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taasoobshirazi G, Wang S. The performance of the SRMR, RMSEA, CFI, AND TLI: an examination of sample size, path size, and degrees of freedom. Journal of Applied Quantitative Methods. 2016; 11; 3: 31-40<ulink href="http://www.jaqm.ro/issues/volume-11,issue-3/pdfs/2%5fGI%5fSH%5f.pdf">http://www.jaqm.ro/issues/volume-11,issue-3/pdfs/2%5fGI%5fSH%5f.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor ZE, Conger RD, Robins RW, Widaman KF. Parenting practices and perceived social support: Longitudinal relations with the social competence of Mexican-origin children. Journal of Latina/o Psychology. 2015; 3; 4: 193-208. 10.1037/lat0000038. 26751039. 4705564</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tein J-Y, Roosa MW, Michaels M. Agreement between parent and child reports on parental behaviors. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1994; 56; 2: 341. 10.2307/353104</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Umaña-Taylor AJ, Updegraff KA. Latino adolescents' mental health: exploring the interrelations among discrimination, ethnic identity, cultural orientation, self-esteem, and depressive symptoms. Journal of Adolescence. 2007; 30; 4: 549-567. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2006.08.002. 17056105</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang M, Dishion TJ, Stormshak EA, Willett JB. Trajectories of family management practices and early adolescent behavioral outcomes. Developmental Psychology. 2011; 47; 5: 1324-1341. 10.1037/a0024026. 21688899. 3552389</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> White RMB, Nair RL, Bradley RH. Theorizing the benefits and costs of adaptive cultures for development. The American Psychologist. 2018; 73; 6: 727-739. 10.1037/amp0000237. 30188162</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Witherspoon DP, Ennett S. An examination of social disorganization and pluralistic neighborhood theories with rural mothers and their adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2011; 40; 9: 1243-1253. 10.1007/s10964-009-9499-4. 20047085</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Witherspoon DP, May EM, McDonald A, Boggs S, B maca-Colbert M. Parenting within residential neighborhoods: A pluralistic approach with African American and Latino families at the center. In D. A. Henry, E. Votruba-Drzal, & P. B. T.-A. in C. D. and B. Miller (Eds.). Advances in Child Development and Behavior. 2019; 57: 235-279. 10.1016/bs.acdb.2019.05.004. 31296317</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yabiku ST, Marsiglia FF, Kulis S, Parsai MB, Becerra D, Del-Colle M. Parental monitoring and changes in substance use among Latino/a and non-Latino/a preadolescents in the southwest. Substance use & Misuse. 2010; 45; 14: 2524-2550. 10.3109/10826081003728256</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Chang Zhao; Emily M. May; Dawn P. Witherspoon; Saskia Boggs and Mayra Bámaca-Colbert</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref120"></nolink>
CustomLinks:
  – Url: https://eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED663728
    Name: ERIC Full Text
    Category: fullText
    Text: Full Text from ERIC
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: ED663728
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: A Contextual Exploration of Parental Monitoring in Latinx Parent-Adolescent Dyads
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Chang+Zhao%22">Chang Zhao</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3583-7348">0000-0003-3583-7348</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Emily+M%2E+May%22">Emily M. May</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Dawn+P%2E+Witherspoon%22">Dawn P. Witherspoon</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Saskia+Boggs%22">Saskia Boggs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Mayra+Bámaca-Colbert%22">Mayra Bámaca-Colbert</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Grantee+Submission%22"><i>Grantee Submission</i></searchLink>. 2021 30:2492-2503.
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 13
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: Institute of Education Sciences (ED)
– Name: NumberContract
  Label: Contract Number
  Group: NumCntrct
  Data: R305B150033
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parent+Child+Relationship%22">Parent Child Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parenting+Styles%22">Parenting Styles</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Hispanic+Americans%22">Hispanic Americans</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Neighborhoods%22">Neighborhoods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Control%22">Social Control</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Community+Characteristics%22">Community Characteristics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Predictor+Variables%22">Predictor Variables</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parent+Attitudes%22">Parent Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adolescent+Attitudes%22">Adolescent Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Disclosure+%28Individuals%29%22">Self Disclosure (Individuals)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Correlation%22">Correlation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Gender+Differences%22">Gender Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Culturally+Relevant+Education%22">Culturally Relevant Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Family+Characteristics%22">Family Characteristics</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10826-021-02025-y
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Parental monitoring of youth daily activities is a salient parenting strategy that has important implications for adolescents' adjustment and safety. Limited research, however, has examined positive contextual factors that can facilitate parental monitoring behaviors in Latinx families. We examined parental warmth and neighborhood social processes (i.e., social cohesion, informal social control) as predictors of parental monitoring dimensions. Surveys were completed by 62 Latinx parent-adolescent dyads in a small, predominantly African American northeastern U.S. city. Results of structural equation modeling indicated positive associations between parental warmth and most dimensions of parental monitoring for parent and adolescent reports. For parent report, neighborhood social cohesion was positively associated with parental knowledge and youth disclosure; neighborhood informal social control was negatively associated with youth disclosure. Gender differences also emerged: parental warmth was positively associated with parental control for boys but not girls, and the negative association between informal social control and youth disclosure was significant only for boys. Findings suggest that parental monitoring often occurs in the context of a warm parent-child relationship. Parents' experiences of their neighborhoods might have a stronger impact on parental monitoring strategies than adolescents' experiences. Implications for future research include conceptualizing monitoring as multidimensional, assessing both parent and adolescent reports, and recruiting diverse Latinx ethnic groups and extended family members. Practitioners should be aware of family and neighborhood relational contexts when facilitating parenting practices in Latinx families. Program providers should offer culturally relevant programs that emphasize strengthening the family environment and parenting in addition to adolescent development.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: CodeSource
  Label: IES Funded
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Yes
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: ED663728
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=ED663728
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10826-021-02025-y
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 13
        StartPage: 2492
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Parent Child Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parenting Styles
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Hispanic Americans
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Neighborhoods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Control
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Community Characteristics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Predictor Variables
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parent Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adolescent Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Disclosure (Individuals)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Correlation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Gender Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Culturally Relevant Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Family Characteristics
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: A Contextual Exploration of Parental Monitoring in Latinx Parent-Adolescent Dyads
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Chang Zhao
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Emily M. May
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Dawn P. Witherspoon
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Saskia Boggs
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Mayra Bámaca-Colbert
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2021
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 30
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Grantee Submission
              Type: main
ResultId 1