residential mobility and change and continuity in parenting processes

Residential Mobility and Change and Continuity in Parenting Processes

Brian Joseph GillespieSonoma State University

This research investigates the association between residential mobility and changes in parenting style and parentalmonitoring using panel data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 on adolescents aged 14–18(N = 2,631). Logistic and multinomial logistic regression results indicate that moving is significantly associated with anincrease in parental monitoring for fathers and sons, but not mothers and daughters. Residential mobility is also associ-ated with changes in parenting style for mothers and fathers. However, specific changes in parenting styles for residen-tially mobile mothers and fathers depend upon the parenting style exhibited before the move. These changes alsodepend upon the gender composition of the parent–child relationship.

Residential mobility is linked to a wide range ofoutcomes for adolescents. Compared with nonmo-bile children, mobile children experience signifi-cantly more behavior problems (Gillespie, 2013;Haynie, South, & Bose, 2006; Simpson & Fowler,1994), poorer health outcomes (Gillespie & Bostean,2013), as well as negative academic outcomes, suchas dropping out (South, Haynie, & Bose, 2007),decreased academic performance (Hanushek, Kain,& Rivkin, 2004; Tucker, Marx, & Long, 1998; Xu,Hannaway, & D’Souza, 2009), and grade retention(Simpson & Fowler, 1994).

Of course, children and adolescents are not theonly family members affected by a move. Althoughlife course theory emphasizes the interdependenceof family members (Elder, 1998), very little researchexists on how residential mobility affects mobileadults and how this, in turn, influences child out-comes. Even though the relationship of child out-comes with mobility (Pribesh & Downey, 1999) andwith parenting (Darling & Steinberg, 1993) is wellestablished, very little research exists linking resi-dential mobility with parenting attitudes andbehaviors. With the notable exception of South andcolleagues, who find that parents of mobile chil-dren are less knowledgeable about their children’ssocial networks than parents of nonmobile children(South & Haynie, 2004; South et al., 2007), researchexamining residential mobility and parenting out-comes has been sparse.

To attend to this gap, this article examines thedirect relationship between residential mobility and

changes in two parenting outcomes, parenting style(an attitudinal outcome) and parental monitoring(a behavioral outcome). Arguably, the loss of socialcapital and the stress that accompanies a movemay foster changes in parenting behaviors as par-ents adapt to new circumstances and environmentsand develop new social ties (Coleman, 1988; Gilles-pie, in press). This parental process will in turnaffect how parents relate to their children. Thus,understanding whether or not mobility affects par-ents’ behavior toward their children is a steptoward reducing the “personally disruptive andsocietally costly consequences of mobility” (Stokols& Shumaker, 1982, p. 150). Because research hasreported differences in parenting styles of mothersand fathers (Sim, 2003; Youniss & Smollar, 1985),this article analyzes changes in parenting processesseparately for parent–child dyads by gender com-position.

High rates of mobility in the United States (U.S.Census Bureau, 2012) underscore the need to gaingreater understanding of how and why the relation-ship between moving and negative adolescent out-comes exists. The present study extends ourunderstanding of mobility and parenting in threeways. First, using nationally representative,repeated-measures data, analyses address whetheror not the act of moving is associated with changesin parenting processes. Second, drawing on estab-lished parenting typologies, the type and directionof these changes are examined. Lastly, distinguish-ing various parent–child gender compositions,these analyses evaluate the extent to which the var-ious effects hold across different types of parent–child dyads.

The author would like to thank Judith Treas, Greg Duncan,Megan Thiele, and the two anonymous reviewers for their help-ful advice and comments on early versions of this manuscript.Requests for reprints should be sent to Brian Joseph Gillespie,

Department of Sociology, Sonoma State University, 1801 EastCotati Ave., Rohnert Park, CA 94928. E-mail: [email protected]

© 2014 The Author

Journal of Research on Adolescence © 2014 Society for Research on Adolescence

DOI: 10.1111/jora.12114

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON ADOLESCENCE, ***(*), 1–16

PRIOR RESEARCH AND THEORY

This study bridges two seemingly unrelated litera-tures, parenting styles and residential mobility.Both affect adolescent stability but have not oftenbeen studied together. As noted, most research hasclearly documented negative outcomes of movingfor children. At the same time, parental behaviors(e.g., monitoring and disciplinary styles) are recog-nized as among the most important factors contrib-uting to the social and emotional development ofadolescents (Anderson & Branstetter, 2012; Baum-rind, Larzelere, & Owens, 2010). Indeed, even tem-porary changes in parental attitudes and behaviorare plausible mediators of the negative relationshipbetween mobility and children’s well-being.

Residential Mobility

Moving is difficult. In fact, residential change iswidely accepted as one of life’s most stressfulevents (Holmes & Rahe, 1967). Changing resi-dences often results in the loss of social capital andcommunity ties (Coleman, 1988) as well as signifi-cant changes in roles, habits, and identities (Brett,1982) that create strain and involve adaptive behav-ior in the new residence. In support of this,research has shown that the stress following amove is associated with increased depression(Magdol, 2002) as well as marital dissolution(Boyle, Kulu, Cooke, Gayle, & Mulder, 2008). Ofcourse, moving is often compounded by otherstressful life events, such as partnership transitionsand employment changes (Amato & Booth, 1996;Brett, 1982; Hendershott, 1989). Even greater strainmight result from chronic stressors such as multi-ple moves (Oishi, Lun, & Sherman, 2007) or com-pounded stressors, such as relocation as a result ofdivorce (Beck, Cooper, McLanahan, & Brooks-Gunn, 2010; Hetherington, 1989).

Although reviews have largely concluded thatresidential mobility is deleterious for children’sdevelopment, numerous challenges exist in disen-tangling the effects of moving from preexisting dif-ferences between children and families who moveand those who do not (Gasper, DeLuca, & Estacion,2010, 2012). A further complication is that moving isnot always an adverse event (Hango, 2006; Sharkey& Sampson, 2010). For example, moves when chil-dren are young often entail upward mobility on thepart of the families when compared with movesduring other developmental periods (Schachter,2004). Nevertheless, given that the stress of every-day hassles, such as demands from friends and

neighbors (Bolger, DeLongis, Kessler, & Schilling,1989), influences psychological well-being and theparent–child bond (Crnic, Gaze, & Hoffman, 2005),it follows that the stressful act of moving will affectparenting outcomes.

Parenting Processes

Two influential aspects of parenting have beenidentified. Parenting styles are the general contextor emotional climate for specific parenting behav-iors. Parental monitoring is commonly defined as astrategy whereby parents obtain knowledge of theirchild’s everyday activities. Monitoring is consid-ered a parenting behavior and might be more (orless) amenable to change than parenting style,which is more reflective of attitudes. Importantly,certain parenting styles and monitoring behaviorsare associated with more favorable child outcomes.

Because research has found parenting to betime-varying and environmentally influenced (Becket al., 2010; Steinberg, 1987), it seems likely thatparenting behaviors might change in response to amove. Even when a shift in parenting style or mon-itoring lasts only a short period of time, it is aplausible explanation of the documented negativeeffects on children—justifying the concern with theassociation between residential relocations andshifts in parental behavior.

Parenting Styles

The most prominent research typology for parent-ing styles was developed by Baumrind (1966) whoidentified two dimensions of parenting, demand-ingness and responsiveness, which are associatedwith different child behavioral and educationaloutcomes. Demandingness refers to the demandsthat parents make on and the control that theyhave over their children, as well as their use of dis-ciplinary measures. Responsiveness refers to paren-tal efforts to instill individuality and support theirchildren, providing acceptance, warmth, andinvolvement in their well-being (Baumrind, 1991).When these two dimensions are jointly considered,parents can be classified according to a typology,which was later advanced by Maccoby and Martin(1983) and supported by Lamborn, Mounts, Stein-berg, and Dornbusch (1991).

This fourfold typology is still widely used inparenting research (Parke & Buriel, 2006; Winsler,Madigan, & Aquilino, 2005). Authoritative parentingis characterized by high demandingness coupledwith high responsiveness. Authoritarian parenting is

2 GILLESPIE

characterized by high demandingness and lowresponsiveness. Permissive parenting is character-ized by low demandingness and high responsive-ness. Uninvolved parenting is low on bothdemandingness and responsiveness. Thus, the com-bined dimensions of responsiveness and demand-ingness help isolate a specific approach to parenting(based on the interaction between parental warmthand strictness).

Research on adolescence has linked parentingstyle with a range of behavioral and academic out-comes. For example, researchers have found anassociation between authoritative parenting andautonomy (Baumrind, 1967), school engagementand higher grade point average (Steinberg, Lam-born, Dornbusch, & Darling, 1992), greater socialcompetence (Baumrind, 1991; Weiss & Schwarz,1996), and fewer behavior problems (Radziszewska,Richardson, Dent, & Flay, 1996). Conversely,authoritarian parenting is associated with increasedbehavior problems (Forehand & Nousiainen, 1993;Sampson & Laub, 1994), lower self-confidence(Slicker, 1998), and decreased academic perfor-mance (Radziszewska et al., 1996; Slicker, 1998).Authoritarian parents are also at a higher risk ofphysically abusive parenting than other types ofparents (Rodriguez, 2010).

Permissive (or indulgent) parenting is associatedwith high social competence and self-esteem butlower achievement and school engagement (Baum-rind, 1991). Children of permissive parents alsohave more behavior problems and engage in druguse more often than those of nonpermissive par-ents (Slicker, 1998). Lastly, uninvolved (also knownas indifferent or neglectful) parents have childrenwith much lower academic achievement and attain-ment and significantly more behavior problems(Radziszewska et al., 1996; Slicker, 1998).

Insofar as these parenting styles are flexible, thestress of moving (or multiple compounded lifechanges) might adversely affect mothers’ andfathers’ parenting styles. In other words, movingmay impact parents’ ability to uphold their parentalresponsibilities of guidance and leadership, result-ing in a “parenting disruption.” At the same time,parents may strategically recalibrate their parentingstrategies to “buffer” the effects of residential mobil-ity and offset its negative effects on their children.

Parental Monitoring

These parenting styles lend themselves to differentapproaches to parental monitoring. For instance,uninvolved parents know less about their children’s

lives than other parents (Kerns, Aspelmeier, Gent-zler, & Grabill, 2001; Pettit & Laird, 2002). Parentalmonitoring provides children with assets thatincrease their abilities, achievement levels, and gen-eral welfare. For example, children score higher onachievement tests and receive better grades in schoolif their parents are acquainted with their friends(Clark, 1993; Coleman, 1988; Muller, 1998). Further,poorly monitored children have more reporteddelinquency (Weintraub & Gold, 1991) and antiso-cial behavior (Sampson & Laub, 1994) than childrenwhose parents monitor their activities.

Similar to parenting style, the research literaturetends to treat parental monitoring behavior as astable trait. However, it is possible that movingaffects changes in parental monitoring. For exam-ple, parents’ ability to adequately supervise andmonitor their children may be disrupted as a resultof relocation to a new environment. On the otherhand, parents of mobile youth might wish to beparticularly vigilant about monitoring their chil-dren for that exact reason.

Gendered Parenting Style

Recent research (Sim, 2003; Zervides & Knowles,2007) has highlighted the importance of examiningthe unique parenting style of mothers and fathersseparately. Conceptually, as well as practically, it isimportant to study mothers’ and fathers’ parentingstyles individually because each parent plays a sep-arate, yet equally significant, role in parenting.Within the gender role and socialization perspec-tives, paternal and maternal parenting should differ.Females are generally higher on expressiveness,and males are higher on instrumentality (Bem,1974). Fathers are usually perceived as moreauthoritarian than mothers, and mothers areviewed as gentler and warmer than fathers (Sme-tana, 1995). Punitiveness is also more culturallyacceptable when coming from fathers than mothers(Fisher & Fagot, 1993). Speculatively, based on thegender role and socialization perspectives, follow-ing a residential relocation, we might expect a par-enting buffer from mothers (i.e., less parentalmonitoring and demandingness coupled with moreresponsiveness) and a parenting disruption (i.e.,more monitoring and demandingness coupled withless responsiveness) from fathers.

When examining gender differences in parentingcharacteristics, it is not only the parent’s sex that isimportant but that of the child as well (Jacobs,1991; Jacobs & Eccles, 1992). Overall, researchexamining parent–child dyads shows that same-sex

RESIDENTIAL MOBILITY AND PARENTING 3

parent–child relationships are closer than cross-sexrelationships (Harris & Morgan, 1991; Richardson,Galambos, Schulenberg, & Petersen, 1984). Fathersconverse more (Youniss & Smollar, 1985) andengage in more shared activities with sons thandaughters (Crouter & McHale, 1993; Youniss &Smollar, 1985), and parents have more knowledgeabout their same-sex children’s activities (Crouter,Helms-Erikson, Updegraff, & McHale, 1999). Fur-ther, there is a long line of research demonstratingthat parents more closely monitor females (Pettit,Laird, Dodge, Bates, & Criss, 2001; Smetana &Daddis, 2002). Block (1984) hypothesized that par-ents are more responsive and demanding of theiradolescent daughters to avoid misfortunes, such asteen pregnancy, and that parents’ gender stereo-types interact with the sex of their child even toinfluence their perceptions of their child’s academicabilities (Jacobs, 1991; Jacobs & Eccles, 1992).

Because the same-sex parent–child bond isreportedly closer than the cross-sex bond, the rela-tionship between residential mobility and changein parenting processes could be stronger for same-sex parent–child relationships. On the one hand, astronger parent–child relationship may be moreresilient to the effects of stressful stimuli. Thus, theeffects of moving on parenting would be weakerfor mothers of daughters and fathers of sons.Alternately, moving might have stronger implica-tions for the strongest parent–child relationships,because these parents are likely more conscious ofthe need to modify their behavior to address newneeds of the child. Of course, just because theserelationships are closer may not mean that they areless susceptible to stressful life events. Parents whoare more invested in their relationship with a childand take their parenting responsibilities seriouslymay still be at risk of adopting expedient behaviorunder stress, even if parents who lack positive par-enting behaviors are unlikely to acquire them in amove.

Given the lack of previous work dealing explic-itly with residential mobility and changes in par-enting processes, there are no well-definedexpectations for the type and direction of genderdyad-specific parenting changes. This weak theo-retical foundation on gender dyads argues againstposing specific hypotheses and points instead tothe value of an inductive exercise identifying theeffects of mobility on the parenting processes fordifferent types of parent–child dyads.

In the interests of brevity, the term positive isused to mean an increase in supportiveness and adecrease in demandingness (consistent with the

“gold standard” of parenting, the authoritativestyle) and less vigilant monitoring behavior. Theterm negative will mean a decrease in supportivebehavior and an increase in demandingness (con-sistent with an authoritarian parenting style). Alarge literature relating parenting to child outcomesvalidates the generalizations implied by theselabels (Steinberg, Lamborn, Darling, Mounts, &Dornbusch, 1994; Steinberg, Mounts, Lamborn, &Dornbusch, 1991). Nonetheless, it should beemphasized that positive and negative attributionsfor parental behavior fall short in a number ofways, including the failure to recognize legitimatedifferences in the parenting styles of ethnic andracial minorities (McLoyd, 1990).

HYPOTHESES AND RESEARCH QUESTION

There are competing expectations for the type ofchange that will occur following a move. The stressinduced by the interruption of daily life and rou-tine, the emotional upheaval brought on by amove, and the time consumed by the act of movingwill have an effect on the quality and consistencyof parenting behavior and practices. This may leadto displacement of time and resources leading toless attentive parenting. Alternately, these changesmay contribute to greater supervision and respon-siveness in order to offset the potentially negativeeffects of moving on children.Hypothesis 1A: Moving will be associated withpositive changes in parenting characteristics (par-enting buffer hypothesis).Hypothesis 1B: Moving will be associated withnegative changes in parenting characteristics (par-enting disruption hypothesis).

Because the applicability of the buffering anddisruption hypotheses may differ according to thegender of the parent and child, these hypotheseswill be tested for fathers of sons, fathers of daugh-ters, mothers of sons, and mothers of daughters.

METHOD

The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997

The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997(NLSY97) is a nationally representative sample of8,984 adolescents in 1997 who were born from 1980to 1984 and were 12 to 17 years of age during theinitial 1997 round. The NLSY97 follows these ado-lescents as they transition from adolescence toadulthood. The annual multitopic survey collectsextensive information on child and family interac-

4 GILLESPIE

tions and relationships. It also contains an array ofinformation about parenting practices, parent–childcloseness, and other environmental characteristics.Furthermore, the survey collects information onparents and siblings of the respondents. The pres-ent study uses data from the 1998 and 1999 waves.The reason for choosing these survey waves isthreefold: (1) the adolescent age group is a particu-larly critical juncture for the effects of mobility(Gillespie, 2013), (2) detailed residential mobilityinformation was collected for respondent house-holds starting in 1998, and (3) in 1998, most of theNLSY97 respondents were still living in the paren-tal household. The response rate was 94% inRound 2 (1998) and 91% in Round 3 (1999).

The sample does not include “independent”adolescents who were biological parents or mar-ried, had ever been married, or were enrolled incollege by 1999 (3,104 cases). To maintain compara-ble models, children with a deceased mother orfather were removed from the study (73 cases).

Missing responses were imputed on the inde-pendent variables. Because of the moderate amountof missing data in the sample, a chained multipleimputation procedure was utilized to handle miss-ing data (Allison, 2002). The dependent and inde-pendent variables were used to construct theimputations, but imputed values for dependentvariables were dropped before conducting analy-ses. The imputation procedure produced 28imputed data sets, and the imputed estimates weresubsequently combined. Descriptive statistics andparameter estimates for each imputed data setwere virtually identical. Listwise deletion of miss-ing data on the dependent variables (1,178; 21.2%)yields a final analytic sample of 2,631; 444 (15.3%)relocated between 1998 and 1999. Customized ana-lytic sampling weights were applied to ensure thatthe results are nationally representative.

Sample Characteristics

In 1999, the average household income of the sam-ple (reported by the parent in a separate householdincome update) was $64,659 (SD = 51,884). Themajority of the respondents are non-Black, non-Hispanic (63%), and 37% had a minority back-ground (16% African American, 21% Hispanic, and24 respondents are of mixed racial background).About 53% of the subsample is male. The averageage is 15.9 (SD = .87), and most were from anurban or suburban (71%) as opposed to rural area.The majority of respondents in the subsample livedwith two biological parents (81.9%). Only 13 (0.5%)

respondents experienced a change in householdstructure between 1998 and 1999. Table 1 presentsthe descriptive statistics for the independent vari-ables in the analysis.

Dependent Variables

Parenting style. The first dependent variablefollows Maccoby and Martin’s (1983) taxonomy.Employed in recent research (Bronte-Tinkew,Moore, & Carrano, 2006; Bronte-Tinkew, Scott, &Lilia, 2010), the parenting style measures are highin construct and predictive ability (Center forHuman Resource Research, 2003). The adolescentsresponded as to whether or not they consideredtheir mother and father “very supportive, some-what supportive, or not very supportive” and aseparate item asked whether they considered eachparent “permissive or strict about making sure youdid what you were supposed to do.” For respon-siveness, “very supportive” responses are coded 1,

TABLE 1Descriptive Statistics for Independent Variables

Variables Mean (SD) N n (%)

Moved1998–1999 2,631 366 (13.9)Didn’t move1998–1999 2,631 2,265 (86.1)Individual characteristicsAge1999 15.9 (.87) 2,631Siblings 2.0 (1.5) 2,631Delinquency1999 .52 (1.1) 2,630Family routines1999 7.6 (4.1) 2,620Male 1,385 (52.6)RaceNon-Black,non-Hispanic

2,631 1,652 (62.8)

Black 2,631 407 (15.5)Hispanic 2,631 548 (20.8)Mixed race 2,631 24 (0.91)

Dwelling1999House 2,631 2,308 (87.7)Apartment 2,631 197 (7.5)Other arrangement 2,631 126 (4.8)

Parent and household characteristicsParent college degree 2,384 809 (33.9)HouseholdStructure change1999

2,629 13 (.50)

Urban1999 2,558 1,820 (71.2)Closeness to mom1999 11.9 (3.1) 2,630Closeness to dad1999 11.0 (3.7) 2,631Parent religiousness1997 3.8 (1.6) 2,349Parent health1997 3.9 (1.0) 2,370Parent optimism1997 12.0 (2.0) 2,347Household income1999 64,659 (51,844) 1,931

Note. Unimputed restricted sample. Subscript denotes mea-surement wave. N = 2,631.


else 0. For demandingness, “demanding” responsesare coded 1, else 0. Combined, the variables createa two-by-two typology of parenting style: authorita-tive (demanding and supportive); authoritarian(demanding and not very supportive); permissive(nondemanding and very supportive); and unin-volved (nondemanding and not supportive). Basedon these categories, a dichotomous variable indi-cates whether the mother’s or father’s parentingstyle changed between 1998 and 1999 (change = 1,else = 0).

Parental monitoring. For four items withresponse categories ranging from 1 to 4, the youthreported separately on the monitoring practices ofhis or her mother and father: (1) how well theyknow their child’s close friends; (2) how well theyknow their child’s friend’s parents; (3) whetherthey know who their child spends time with whentheir child is not at home; and (4) how well theyknow their child’s teachers and school. These itemswere summed, creating a 16-point parental aware-ness scale, with higher scores indicating greaterlevels of parental awareness (a = .71 for mothers;a = .81 for fathers). When the results of the paren-tal monitoring scale at Time 1 (1998) were sub-tracted from the Time 2 (1999) score, a resultingchange measure ranged from �16 to 16. A negativescore indicates a decrease in parental monitoring; apositive score means an increase.

A series of dummy variables indicated whethera change in more than four points (i.e., one stan-dard deviation) on the scale occurred: a negativechange, a positive change, and no 4-point change(omitted for reference). An additional dichotomousvariable indicates whether or not any standarddeviation change took place between waves.Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics for thedependent variables in the analysis.

Independent Variables and Controls

Residential mobility is a dichotomous measure indi-cating whether the respondent reported movingbetween the 1998 and 1999 survey waves(moved = 1, else = 0).

Control variables. Most researchers agree thatparents supervise less and are less demanding astheir children get older (McNally, Eisenberg, &Harris, 1991; Roberts, Block, & Block, 1984)so child’s age is included as a control. Othercharacteristics of the child, such as adolescentbehavior problems, affect the expectations and

demands that parents have for their children(Laird, Pettit, Dodge, & Bates, 2003). A measure forself-reported delinquency is based on ten questionsabout delinquent behaviors (e.g., running away,gang involvement, theft) between 1998 and 1999.Summing the delinquent acts yields a DelinquencyIndex, ranging from 0 to 10, with previously estab-lished predictive and internal validity (Center forHuman Resource Research, 2003).

Some research suggests that there are racial dif-ferences in parenting style (Chao, 2001). Based onthe primary racial identification of their mothers,respondents are identified as Black, Hispanic, non-Black, non-Hispanic, or multiracial. There is alsoevidence that parenting is influenced by a numberof household structure factors, such as householdsize (Amato & Fowler, 2002; Crouter et al., 1999).Thus, number of siblings is an interval variablebased on living full, half, and adoptive siblings in1999.

Depression and anxiety, especially for mothers,are associated with disengaged parenting (Lovejoy,1991), negative interactions (McLoyd, 1990), anddecreased responsiveness (Cohn, Campbell, Matias,

TABLE 2Descriptive Statistics for Parenting Style and Parental Monitor-

ing Variables

Variables Mean (SD) n (%)

Mom parenting style change1998–1999 1,174 (44.6)Dad parenting style change1998–1999 1,143 (43.4)Mom monitor SD change1998–1999 458 (17.4)Dad monitor SD change1998–1999 636 (24.2)Mother authoritative1998 1,083 (41.2)Mother authoritarian1998 401 (15.2)Mother permissive1998 824 (31.3)Mother uninvolved1998 323 (12.3)Mother authoritative1999 988 (37.6)Mother authoritarian1999 407 (15.5)Mother permissive1999 859 (32.7)Mother uninvolved1999 377 (14.3)Father authoritative1998 997 (37.9)Father authoritarian1998 571 (21.7)Father permissive1998 689 (26.2)Father uninvolved1998 374 (14.2)Father authoritative1999 911 (34.6)Father authoritarian1999 587 (22.3)Father permissive1998 706 (26.8)Father uninvolved1998 427 (16.3)Mother monitoring scale1998 10.1 (3.1)Mother monitoring scale1999 9.9 (3.1)Father monitoring scale1998 7.8 (3.9)Father monitoring scale1999 7.5 (3.9)

Note. Unimputed restricted sample. Subscript denotes mea-surement wave. N = 2,631.

6 GILLESPIE

& Hopkins, 1990). Parent’s mental well-being is basedon four Likert items on optimism about life withresponses ranging from strongly disagree (1) tostrongly agree (4): (1) “In uncertain times I usuallyexpect the best,” (2) “I’m always optimistic aboutmy future,” (3) “I hardly ever expect things to gomy way” (reverse coded), (4) “I rarely count ongood things happening to me” (reverse coded). Thesummated scale ranges from 4 to 16 (a = .50).Additionally, parent’s self-reported health in 1997 iscoded as poor (1), fair (2), good (3), very good (4),and excellent (5). Parent education is another impor-tant predictor of the parenting style they exhibit(McLoyd, 1990). Therefore, parental educationalattainment is a dummy variable (one or both par-ents are college educated = 1, else = 0).

Positively associated with more authoritativeparenting (Gunnoe, Hetherington, & Reiss, 1999),religiosity is based on six questions that describehow individuals feel about religion and religiouspractices in 1997. The items are summed to pro-duce a scale ranging from 0 (not religious) to 6 (veryreligious) (a = .60).

Closely related to residential mobility (Rossi,1980), marital status and household structure alsoaffect parenting. Research on marital status hasshown that partnership transitions (e.g., divorceand remarriage) are associated with maternal stressand, in turn, less attentive parenting (Amato &Booth, 1996; Beck et al., 2010; Dufur, Howell,Downey, Ainsworth, & Lapray, 2010). Householdcontrols include annual household income in 1999and household structure change (whether the respon-dent changed living situations between 1998 and1999). Other household characteristics are urbanresidence (urban = 1, else = 0) and 1999 dwelling typedummies, that is, house (omitted referencecategory), apartment, and others.

Two variables gauge the qualitative aspects offamily life. A family routines scale sums responsesto how many days in a typical week: (1) therespondent had dinner with the family; (2) didsomething fun as a family such as played a game,went to a sporting event, went swimming, and soforth; (3) did something religious as a family suchas going to church, praying or reading the scrip-tures together; or (4) the housework got done whenit is supposed to, for example, cleaning up afterdinner, doing dishes, or taking out the trash. Theresulting scale, which ranges from 0 to 28 with ahigher score indicating a higher level of routineactivities, has been shown to be high in constructand predictive validity (Center for HumanResource Research, 2003).

Following Bronte-Tinkew et al. (2006), parent–child closeness is based on the youth’s 1999 reporton this relationship. The emotional dimensionincludes “He/she is a person I want to be like”and “I really enjoy spending time with her/him.”The behavioral dimension is based on “How oftendoes he/she praise you for doing well?” and“How often does she/he help you do things thatare important to you?” The 5-point Likert itemsrange from 0 to 4 (never to always) and are summedinto a 0–16 scale with the highest scores, indicatinga stronger parent–child relationship (a = .77 formother; a = .85 for father).

Analytic Strategy

Logistic regression is used to examine whether ornot moving is associated with any change in par-enting style or monitoring. Multinomial logisticregression considers the type of parenting stylechange associated with moving as well as thedirectional effects of residential mobility onchanges in parental monitoring (more, less, or nochange at all). For parenting style, the reportedresponse in 1999 is modeled as a dependent vari-able while lagged controls are included with move-by-lag interactions to assess whether a particularparenting style prior to moving leads to a givenparenting style after moving. The multinomialmodels estimate the likelihood of each parentingstyle in reference to an authoritarian style.

Robust standard errors are calculated to addressbiases in parameter estimates resulting from hetero-skedasticity in the data. Variance inflation factors(VIFs) were checked to assess any severe multicol-linearity in the model (average VIF: = 1.1). Analysisof the correlation matrix (not shown) indicates thatnone of the observed relationships between theindependent variables in the models were verystrong.

RESULTS

Parenting Style

Table 3 presents the proportion of respondents’mothers and fathers who changed parenting stylesbetween 1998 and 1999 by the type of change thatwas made. For mothers and fathers, the most com-mon change is from authoritative to permissive,suggesting overall disruption in attentive parentingpractices, but the second most common change isfrom permissive to authoritative. These shifts differby parental gender with the least common parent-


ing style shift from permissive to authoritarian par-enting for mothers and authoritarian to permissiveparenting for fathers.

Baseline results for residential mobility andchanges in parenting style (not shown) reveal thatwithout controls, residential mobility is strongly

and significantly associated with change in parent-ing style for mothers and daughters (b = .52,p < .01) and fathers and sons (b = .45, p < .01) butis not significant for mothers and sons or fathersand daughters. In Table 4, Models 1 and 2 providelogistic regression results for the association

TABLE 3Parenting Style Change Percentages for Restricted Sample 1998–1999

Authoritarian 1999 Authoritative 1999 Permissive 1999 Uninvolved 1999

Mother’s parenting style (1998)Authoritarian — 3.5 1.6 3.0Authoritative 4.5 — 9.2 2.0Permissive 1.2 8.9 — 3.7Uninvolved 2.2 1.3 3.5 —

Father’s parenting style (1998)Authoritarian — 4.5 1.3 3.1Authoritative 5.1 — 8.7 2.0Permissive 1.4 6.3 — 3.1Uninvolved 3.1 1.6 2.9 —

Note. N = 1,385.

TABLE 4Logistic Regression of Residential Mobility on Any Changes in Parenting Style and Parental Monitoring for Same-Sex Parent–Child

Dyads

Parenting style change Parental monitoring SD change

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4Mother–daughter Father–son Mother–daughter Father–son

Residential mobility1998–1999 .45** .43** .28 .42**Individual characteristicsAge1999 .02 .01 .16† �.17*Siblings .06 .05 .07 .07Delinquency1999 .20** .03 .09 �.01Family routines1999 .02 �.04* .01 �.01Race (non-Black, non-Hispanic omitted)Black .19 .27 .20 .36†

Hispanic .37* .05 �.06 .10Mixed race .37 .26 1.1 .83

Dwelling1999 (house omitted)Apartment �.22 �.03 .26 .18Other arrangement .34 �.67* �.12 �.33

Parent and household characteristicsParent college degree �.15 �.09 .06 �.34*Household structure change1999 1.21 �.36 .60 �.56Closeness to parent1999 �.05* �.01 �.12 �.02Parent religiousness1997 �.08* .01 .07 .05Parent health1997 .00 .02 �.04 .03Parent optimism1997 .00 .02 �.08† �.02Urban1999 .06 �.18 .01 .21Household income1999 .00 .00 .00 .00Constant �.24 �.30 �2.22 1.4N 1,246 1,385 1,246 1,385

Note. Robust standard errors. Subscript denotes measurement wave.†p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01.

8 GILLESPIE

between residential mobility and any change inparenting style for same-sex parent–child dyads.Again, residential mobility is associated withchange in parenting styles for mothers and daugh-ters (b = .45, p < .01) as well as fathers and sons(b = .43, p < .01), holding all other variables con-stant. In contrast to same-sex parent–child dyads,there is no significant relationship between residen-tial mobility and changes in parenting styles forfathers and daughters or mothers and sons (notshown).

For mothers and daughters (Model 1), exhibitingdelinquent behaviors is significantly associatedwith a change in parenting style (b = .20, p < .01),as is being Hispanic compared to non-Black, non-Hispanic (b = .37, p < .05). Closeness to mother(b = �.05) and parent religiousness (b = �.08) are

negatively associated with a change in parentingstyle for mothers and daughters (p < .05). Forfathers and sons, there is a significant negativeassociation between family routines and change inparenting style (b = �.04, p < .05). Living in an“other” dwelling type (i.e., compared to a house) isalso negatively associated with parenting stylechange for fathers and sons (b = .67, p < .05).

To obtain a more complete picture, multinomiallogistic results are presented separately for mother–daughter and father–son dyads (Tables 5 and 6,respectively). Each multinomial model estimates thelikelihood of each of the three parenting styles rela-tive to the omitted reference style (authoritarian).The models control for child, parent, and householdcharacteristics; lagged parenting style (1998 mea-sure); and interactions between residential mobility

TABLE 5Multinomial Logistic Regression of Residential Mobility on Parenting Style Change for Mother–Daughter Dyads

Mother–daughter (authoritarian omitted)

Permissive 1999 Uninvolved 1999 Authoritative 1999

Residential mobility1998–1999 .17 1.15* .93Individual characteristicsAge1999 .10 �.03 .08Siblings .10 .15* .03Delinquency1999 .03 .03 �.06Family routines1999 �.03 �.05 .03Race (non-Black, non-hispanic omitted)Black �.39 �.51 �.25Hispanic �.31 �.23 �.47Mixed race 1.3 �14.6 2.24†

Dwelling1999 (house omitted)Apartment �.17 .01 .09Other arrangement �.15 �.29 �.44

Parent and household characteristicsParent college degree .36 �.16 .43Household structure change1999 �.77 14.4 15.16Closeness to parent1999 .52*** .05 .52***Parent religiousness1997 .01 �.09 .03Parent health1997 .05 �.03 .14Parent optimism1997 �.08 �.01 �.08Urban1999 �.29 .11 �.16Household income1999 .00 .00 .00

Parenting style 1998Authoritarian 1998 (omitted)Permissive 1998 2.8*** 1.61*** 1.5***Uninvolved 1998 1.5*** 1.96*** .34Authoritative 1998 1.02** �.47 1.5***

Parenting 1998 9 MobilityAuthoritarian 9 Move (omitted)Permissive 1998 9 Move �.25 �.03 .07Uninvolved 1998 9 Move �1.1 1.8* �1.6Authoritative 1998 9 Move .84 �.38 �.19Constant �7.21*** �.24 �7.14***

Note. Robust standard errors. Subscript denotes measurement wave. N = 1,246.†p < .10; *p < .05; ***p < .001.


and lagged parenting style measures. Net of thesevariables, the lagged interactions with mobility areused to assess the effect of mobility on changes inparenting style vis-�a-vis the parenting style exhib-ited before the move took place.

Table 5 presents the results of multinomial logis-tic regression models for mother–daughter dyads.All things considered, if they were permissive ver-sus authoritarian, mothers were likely to remainpermissive (b = 2.8, p < .001), become uninvolved(b = 1.6, p < .001), or become authoritative (b = 1.5,p < .01) with their daughters as opposed to becom-ing authoritarian. Uninvolved mothers versusauthoritative mothers were significantly more likelyto stay uninvolved (b = 1.96, p < .001) or movetoward permissive parenting (b = 1.5, p < .001) rel-ative to authoritarian parenting styles. Comparedwith authoritarian, authoritative mothers were sig-nificantly more likely to stay authoritative (b = 1.5,p < .001) or become permissive (b = 1.0, p < .001)than become authoritarian. Overall, whatever theirinitial orientation toward parenting, mothers didnot show shifts in parenting style that would beseen in a move to authoritarian parenting of theirdaughters.

The coefficient for residential mobility is signifi-cant in this final model, meaning that moving issignificantly associated with being an uninvolvedcompared with authoritarian mother (b = 1.2,p < .05). The interaction terms in Table 3 examinethe relationship between residential mobility as itis associated with parenting style in 1998. Theinteraction term between residential mobility anduninvolved parenting in 1998 suggests that moth-ers who were (1) residentially mobile and (2)exhibited an uninvolved parenting style were sig-nificantly more likely to be uninvolved in 1999than otherwise similar mothers who did not move.This provides some evidence that mothers exhibitless demanding parenting characteristics after resi-dential relocation.

Table 6 presents the results of multinomial logis-tic regression models for father–son dyads. Iffathers were permissive versus authoritarian, theywere likely to remain permissive (b = 3.6, p < .001)or become uninvolved (b = 1.9, p < .001) or author-itative (b = 1.3, p < .001) with their sons asopposed to becoming authoritarian. Uninvolvedfathers versus authoritarian fathers were signifi-cantly more likely to stay uninvolved (b = 2.4,p < .001) or become permissive (b = 2.1, p < .001)relative to an authoritarian parenting style. Further-more, authoritative versus authoritarian fatherswere significantly more likely to stay authoritative

(b = 1.4, p < .001) or become permissive (b = 1.7,p < .001) than become authoritarian. Thus, likemothers with daughters, fathers with sons did notmove toward an authoritarian mode of parenting.

In Table 6, the significant interaction termsbetween mobility and parenting style in 1998 sug-gest that residentially mobile fathers who wereuninvolved in 1998 were less likely than their non-mobile counterparts to remain uninvolved ratherthan becoming authoritarian in 1999. These samefathers (i.e., mobile fathers who were uninvolved in1998) were also less likely than nonmobile fathers toexhibit an authoritative versus authoritarian parent-ing style in 1999. The marginally significant interac-tion term between mobility and authoritativeparenting in 1998 indicates that even authoritativefathers were somewhat less likely to be authorita-tive than authoritarian in 1999. Taken together,these findings suggest that fathers adopt a moreauthoritarian parenting style with their sons follow-ing a move.

Multinomial logistic results are not presented foropposite-sex parenting style changes (i.e., mother–son and father–daughter). Analysis for thesegroups produced null results for mobility and par-enting style changes. Importantly, however, thesenull findings address the issue introduced above—moving is associated with stronger changes in par-enting characteristics for same-sex parent–childdyads than for opposite-sex dyads.

Parental Monitoring

Overall, most parents did not change their parentalmonitoring between 1998 and 1999. However, ofthose who did, mothers (11.1%) and fathers (15.2%)were more likely to decrease than increase theirmonitoring. Models 3 and 4 in Table 4 illustratethe relationship between residential mobility andchange in parental monitoring. There is a signifi-cant association between residential mobility andchanges in parental monitoring for fathers andsons; however, this relationship does not hold formothers and daughters. Consistent with the find-ings for parenting style, multinomial logistic results(not shown) examining the direction of parentalmonitoring change suggest that mobile fathersshow a significant increase in parental monitoringcompared with nonmobile fathers (b = .42, p < .05).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Parental monitoring, demandingness, and supportare fundamental to the family and the relationship

10 GILLESPIE

that parents develop with their children. Familyevents and changes, such as residential mobility,increase the potential for conflict and unclear orambiguous demands and responses from parentsand children. Furthermore, if parenting influencesadolescent development, then factors such as resi-dential mobility may be of indirect relevance toissues related to adolescent development and well-being.

Considering the different reasons provided forwhy parents parent the way they do (e.g., one’sexperience as a child, observations from everydaylife, personal experience as a parent, parentinggoals, child qualities, opinions presented in popu-lar culture, socio-historical and sociocultural fac-tors, substance abuse, stress, network and family

support, and psychological well-being), studiesinvestigating the adaptable nature of parenting areimportant. Overall, mothers and fathers were mostlikely to maintain their parenting styles between1998 and 1999. When they did change, however,mothers and fathers tended to shift their parentingstyle away from an authoritarian one. Uninvolvedparents, for example, were the least likely parentsto change their parenting style, even in the contextof moving. The reason that these parents are leastflexible may be that the inclination toward limitedguidance and warmth propagates through themove.

Moving is associated with changes in parentingstyle. In fact, while prior research has found thatmany different variables predict one’s parenting

TABLE 6Multinomial Logistic Regression of Residential Mobility on Parenting Style Change for Father–Son Dyads

Father–son (authoritarian omitted)

Permissive 1999 Uninvolved 1999 Authoritative 1999

Residential mobility 1998–1999 �.51 .75 .89†

Individual characteristicsAge1999 .04 �.03 .04Siblings �.04 .12 .09Delinquency1999 �.19* �.04 �.18*Family routines1999 �.01 �.04 .04Race (non-Black, non-hispanic omitted)Black �.56† �.13 �.37Hispanic .24 .44 .36Mixed race .69 �.03 �1.34

Dwelling1999 (house omitted)Apartment .12 .09 �.37Other arrangement �.62 �.31 .04

Parent and household characteristicsParent college degree .18 �.14 .05Household structure change1999 13.3 12.1 13.0Closeness to parent1999 .50*** .04 .56***Parent religiousness1997 �.06 �.08 �.02Parent health1997 �.10 .09 �.00Parent optimism1997 �.04 .02 �.07Urban1999 �.01 �.00 .33Household income1999 .00 .00 .00

Parenting style 1998Authoritarian 1998 (omitted)Permissive 1998 3.6*** 1.9*** 1.28***Uninvolved 1998 2.1*** 2.4*** .55Authoritative 1998 1.7*** .37 1.41***

Parenting 1998 9 MobilityAuthoritarian 9 Move (omitted)Permissive 1998 9 Move .39 �.10 �.66Uninvolved 1998 9 Move �.12 �1.82** �2.8**Authoritative 1998 9 Move .40 �1.10 �1.2†

Constant �6.21** �1.4 �6.8***

Note. Robust standard errors. Subscript denotes measurement wave. N = 1,385.†p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.


style, these same variables (e.g., household sizeand the parent–child relationship) do not predictone’s propensity to change parenting style. Impor-tantly, however, this association is only significantfor mother–daughter and father–son dyads.

Altogether, the results for mothers and daugh-ters suggest support for Hypothesis 1A—the parent-ing buffer hypothesis that residential mobility isassociated with more attentive yet supportive par-enting, perhaps to offset the potentially negativeeffects of moving. The findings for fathers and sonsshow support for Hypothesis 1B—the parenting dis-ruption hypothesis that moving may lead to displace-ment of time and resources resulting in a shifttoward authoritarian parenting.

With regard to parental monitoring, in caseswhere parents and children are living in a new,unfamiliar neighborhood, one might hypothesizeincreases in monitoring behavior. This increase inmonitoring, however, is only present for fathersand sons. This finding also suggests some consis-tency between parenting attitudes and practices, atleast for fathers and sons.

These findings suggest that residential mobilityis significantly associated with parental bufferingcharacteristics for mothers and daughters but dis-ruptive characteristics for fathers and sons. Theresults also support gender role and socializationperspectives that show that women are higher onexpressiveness and men on instrumentality (Bem,1974). In this case, residentially mobile mothersexhibit a more positive form of parenting after amove, while relocation is associated with negativeparenting for fathers and sons.

These findings highlight the importance ofgender composition for understanding the com-plexities of changes in parenting styles. These gen-der dyad-specific findings support research thatsuggests that men and women are affected differ-ently by residential mobility (Magdol, 2002). Fur-ther, the results support previous parentingresearch that finds that fathers are more involvedwith sons than daughters (Harris & Morgan, 1991)and parents are more engaged in their same-sexchildren’s lives (Crouter et al., 1999). These find-ings demonstrate that residential mobility is associ-ated with stronger changes in parentingcharacteristics for same-sex parent–child dyadsthan for opposite-sex dyads. Moreover, even thetype of parental change depends on the gendercomposition of the parent–child dyad.

Although these findings provide evidence of therelationship between residential mobility andchanges in parenting processes, these analyses are

subject to several caveats. First, the parenting styletypology consists of only two measures (i.e.,demandingness and responsiveness). Although thistypology has been validated in recent research(Baumrind et al., 2010; Bronte-Tinkew et al., 2006,2010), this two-measure typology may be less sta-ble than a continuum-based scale for parentingstyle and change. However, analyses conducted bythe Center for Human Resource Research (2003)confirm that the parenting style typology is a high-quality measure with both construct and predictivevalidity. Construct validity was assessed based onsignificant associations between the parenting stylemeasures and similar family process constructs(e.g., parent–child closeness). Predictive validity isbased on whether the parenting style measureoperated with different family process variablesand youth behavior measures (e.g., DelinquencyScale) as expected.

Parenting processes were only assessed for chil-dren between 12 and 17 years of age. Thus, thefindings may not hold for younger children. Ofcourse, development through adolescence andyoung adulthood introduces a complex issue. Forinstance, is it mobility that leads to change in par-enting behavior or is it just autonomy associatedwith the transition to adulthood? At the same time,parents who move frequently may already be thetype of parents to exhibit inconsistent parentingstyles. Although issues addressing causality aredifficult to disentangle, identifying these changesand potential reasons for them is important.

Another limitation involves the fact that adoles-cents provide information about the parent–childrelationship. Mothers and fathers have been knownto perceive themselves to be more demanding andmore responsive than their adolescents perceivethem to be. They also report more monitoring andinvolved parenting than their children report(Schwarz, Barton-Henry, & Pruzinsky, 1985). Forthis reason, single-source bias may affect the valid-ity of the outcome measures.

The NLSY97 does not contain information onthe reason for moving. This is important becausethere is a strong literature showing that the circum-stances of a move (e.g., upward mobility followinga promotion vs. downward mobility followingdivorce) potentially changes its impact becausewhen under stress, parents exhibit less supportive-ness (Hanushek et al., 2004; Sharkey & Sampson,2010; Tucker et al., 1998; Xu et al., 2009). Thus, it islikely that the reason for moving conditions thechanges in parenting processes associated with res-idential mobility.

12 GILLESPIE

Perhaps the primary limitation of this study isthe endogenous nature of residential mobility.Although several important background factorswere statistically controlled, and other design fea-tures of the study helped to reduce selection intoresidential mobility, it is still not possible to defini-tively conclude that residential mobility is causallylinked to changes in parenting processes. Ofcourse, child personality and behavior after a movecould be the predictor for how children’s parentswill react (not vice versa).

Nevertheless, these findings make an importantand unique contribution to the literatures on resi-dential mobility and parenting for several reasons.The nationally representative sample is large andallows for analysis of the differences betweenmobile and nonmobile households across differentparenting styles and changes in family and house-hold dynamics. The NLSY97 has a diverse sampleand an unusually high response rate, allowing forflexibility and generalizability with regard to theoutcome measures and independent variables. Thisarticle has several advantages over studies on par-enting characteristics and behaviors that rely on asingle location, such as a city or a school (McGilli-cuddy-De Lisi & De Lisi, 2007; McKinney & Renk,2008), on White middle-class samples (Hindman &Morrison, 2012), or on the parenting styles of onlythe mother (Commendador, 2011).

These analyses are unique in several substantiveand methodological ways. This study is the first toexamine change in parenting processes as an out-come of residential mobility. It builds on pastresearch and extends knowledge regarding residen-tial mobility and parenting in several ways. First, itspeaks to the time-variant and context-dependentnature of parenting styles where others haveargued that parenting practices and behaviors arestable and passed on intergenerationally (Chen &Kaplan, 2001). Second, the findings clarify that resi-dential mobility is associated with various aspectsof parenting (i.e., parenting style vs. parental moni-toring) differently. Third, important and complexgender dyad-specific differences are found.

Future research might explore origin and desti-nation correlates for parenting style changes. Forinstance, there may be differences in the way peo-ple parent in impoverished areas as opposed toaffluent areas. Studying mobility from one contextto the next might allow for more nuancedconclusions about how these changes in parentalprocesses occur. Research might also explore thelong-lasting parenting and behavioral effects ofresidential mobility. It might be that the stress

induced by residential mobility is acute and lastsonly a short period of time. In fact, previousresearch indicates that family routines, includingparenting, return to baseline levels after a period oftime following divorce (Hetherington, 1989); thismay be the same for the residentially mobile.Future research should address this possibility.

REFERENCES

Allison, P. D. (2002). Missing data. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Amato, P. R., & Booth, A. (1996). A prospective study ofdivorce and parent-child relationships. Journal of Mar-riage and the Family, 58, 356–365.

Amato, P. R., & Fowler, F. (2002). Parenting practices,child adjustment, and family diversity. Journal of Mar-riage and the Family, 64, 713–716.

Anderson, R. J., & Branstetter, S. A. (2012). Adolescents,parents, and monitoring: A review of constructs withattention to process and theory. Journal of Family Theoryand Review, 4, 1–19.

Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental con-trol on child behavior. Child Development, 37, 887–907.

Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices antecedingthree patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic PsychologyMonographs, 75, 43–88.

Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style onadolescent competence and substance abuse. Journal ofEarly Adolescence, 11, 56–95.

Baumrind, D., Larzelere, R. E., & Owens, E. B. (2010).Effects of preschool parents’ power assertive patternsand practices on adolescent development. Parenting:Science and Practice, 10, 157–201.

Beck, A. N., Cooper, C. E., McLanahan, S., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2010). Partnership transitions and maternalparenting. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 219–233.

Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychologicalandrogyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,42, 155–162.

Block, J. H. (1984). Sex role identity and ego development.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bolger, N., DeLongis, A., Kessler, R. C., & Schilling, E. A.(1989). Effects of daily stress on negative mood. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 808–818.

Boyle, P. J., Kulu, H., Cooke, T., Gayle, V., & Mulder, C.H. (2008). Moving and union dissolution. Demography,45, 209–222.

Brett, J. M. (1982). Job transfer and well-being. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 67, 450–463.

Bronte-Tinkew, J., Moore, K. A., & Carrano, J. (2006). Thefather-child relationship, parenting styles, and adoles-cent risk behavior in intact families. Journal of FamilyHistory, 27, 850–881.

Bronte-Tinkew, J., Scott, M. E., & Lilia, E. (2010). Singlecustodial fathers’ involvement and parenting: Implica-tions for outcomes in emerging adulthood. Journal ofMarriage and the Family, 72, 1107–1127.


Center for Human Resource Research. (2003). NLSY97users’ guide. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.

Chao, R. K. (2001). Extending research on the conse-quences of parenting style for Chinese Americans andEuropean Americans. Child Development, 72, 1832–1843.

Chen, Z., & Kaplan, H. B. (2001). Intergenerational trans-mission of constructive parenting. Journal of Marriageand the Family, 63, 17–31.

Clark, R. M. (1993). Homework-focused parenting prac-tices that positively affect student achievement. In N.F. Chavkin (Ed.), Families and schools in a pluralistic soci-ety (pp. 85–105). Albany: State University of New YorkPress.

Cohn, J. F., Campbell, S. B., Matias, R., & Hopkins, J.(1990). Face-to-face interactions of postpartumdepressed and nondepressed mother-infant pairs at2 months. Developmental Psychology, 26, 15–23.

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation ofhuman capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94 (Sup-plement: Organizations and Institutions: Sociologicaland Economic Approaches to the Analysis of SocialStructure), S95–S120.

Commendador, K. (2011). The relationship betweenmaternal parenting style, female adolescent decisionmaking, and contraceptive use. Journal of the AmericanAcademy of Nurse Practitioners, 23, 561–572.

Crnic, K. A., Gaze, C., & Hoffman, C. (2005). Cumulativeparenting stress across the preschool period: Relationsto maternal parenting and child behaviour at age 5.Infant and Child Development, 14, 117–132.

Crouter, A. C., Helms-Erikson, H., Updegraff, K., &McHale, S. M. (1999). Conditions underlying parents’knowledge about children’s daily lives in middlechildhood: Between- and within-family comparisons.Child Development, 70, 246–259.

Crouter, A. C., & McHale, S. M. (1993). Temporalrhythms in family life: Seasonal variation in the rela-tion between parental work and family processes.Developmental Psychology, 29, 198–205.

Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style ascontext: An integrative model. Psychological Bulletin,113, 487–496.

Dufur, M. J., Howell, N. C., Downey, D. B., Ainsworth, J.W., & Lapray, A. J. (2010). Sex differences in parentingbehaviors in single-mother and single-father house-holds. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 1092–1106.

Elder, G. H., Jr (1998). The life course as developmentaltheory. Child Development, 69, 1–12.

Fisher, P. A., & Fagot, B. I. (1993). Negative discipline infamilies: A multidimensional risk model. Journal ofFamily Psychology, 7, 250–254.

Forehand, R., & Nousiainen, S. (1993). Maternal andpaternal parenting: Critical dimensions in adolescentfunctioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 7, 213–221.

Gasper, J., DeLuca, S., & Estacion, A. (2010). Coming andgoing: Explaining the effects of residential and schoolmobility on adolescent delinquency. Social ScienceResearch, 39, 459–476.

Gasper, J., DeLuca, S., & Estacion, A. (2012). Switchingschools: Revisiting the relationship between schoolmobility and high school dropout. American EducationalResearch Journal, 49, 487–519.

Gillespie, B. J. (2013). Adolescent behavior and achieve-ment, social capital, and the timing of geographicmobility. Advances in Life Course Research, 18, 223–233.

Gillespie, B. J. (in press). Does intergenerational solidar-ity buffer the negative effects of residential mobility?Evidence for U.S. children. Field Action Science Reports.

Gillespie, B. J., & Bostean, G. (2013). Socioeconomic sta-tus, residential mobility, and health. In K. Fitzpatrick(Ed.), Poverty in America: A crisis among America’s mostvulnerable (Vol. 2, pp. 33–57). Santa Barbara, CA: Prae-ger.

Gunnoe, M. L., Hetherington, E. M., & Reiss, D. (1999).Parental religiosity, parenting style, and adolescentsocial responsibility. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 19,199–225.

Hango, D. W. (2006). The long-term effect of childhoodresidential mobility on educational attainment. Socio-logical Quarterly, 47, 631–664.

Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., & Rivkin, S. G. (2004). Dis-ruption versus Tiebout improvement: The costs andbenefits of switching schools. Journal of Public Econom-ics, 88, 1721–1746.

Harris, K. M., & Morgan, S. P. (1991). Fathers, sons, anddaughters: Differential paternal involvement in parent-ing. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 531–544.

Haynie, D. L., South, S. J., & Bose, S. (2006). The com-pany you keep: Adolescent mobility and peer behav-ior. Sociological Inquiry, 76, 397–426.

Hendershott, A. B. (1989). Residential mobility, socialsupport and adolescent self-concept. Adolescence, 24,217–232.

Hetherington, E. M. (1989). Coping with family transi-tions: Winners, losers, and survivors. Child Develop-ment, 60, 1–14.

Hindman, A. H., & Morrison, F. J. (2012). Differentialcontributions of three parenting dimensions to pre-school literacy and social skills in a middle-incomesample. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 58, 191–223.

Holmes, T. H., & Rahe, R. H. (1967). The social readjust-ment rating scale. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 11,213–218.

Jacobs, J. E. (1991). Influence of gender stereotypes onparent and child mathematics attitudes. Journal of Edu-cational Psychology, 83, 518–527.

Jacobs, J. E., & Eccles, J. S. (1992). The impact of mothers’gender-role stereotypic beliefs on mothers’ and chil-dren’s ability perceptions. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 63, 932–944.

Kerns, K. A., Aspelmeier, J. E., Gentzler, A. L., & Grabill,C. M. (2001). Parent-child attachment and monitoringin middle childhood. Journal of Family Psychology, 15,69–81.

Laird, R. D., Pettit, G. S., Dodge, K. A., & Bates, J. E. (2003).Change in parents’ monitoring knowledge: Links with

14 GILLESPIE

parenting, relationship quality, adolescent beliefs, andantisocial behavior. Social Development, 12, 401–419.

Lamborn, S. D., Mounts, N. S., Steinberg, L., &Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Patterns of competence andadjustment among adolescents from authoritative,authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. ChildDevelopment, 62, 1049–1065.

Lovejoy, C. M. (1991). Maternal depression: Effects onsocial cognition and behavior in parent-child interac-tions. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 19, 693–706.

Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization inthe context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In E.M. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology(Vol. IV: Socialization, Personality, and Social Develop-ment, pp. 1–101). New York, NY: Wiley.

Magdol, L. (2002). Is moving gendered? The effects ofresidential mobility on the psychological well-being ofmen and women. Sex Roles, 47, 553–560.

McGillicuddy-De Lisi, A. V., & De Lisi, R. D. (2007). Per-ceptions of family relations when mothers and fathersare depicted with different parenting styles. The Journalof Genetic Psychology, 168, 425–442.

McKinney, C., & Renk, K. (2008). Differential parentingbetween mothers and fathers: Implications for lateadolescents. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 806–827.

McLoyd, V. C. (1990). The impact of economic hardshipon black families and children: Psychological distress,parenting, and socioemotional development. ChildDevelopment, 61, 311–346.

McNally, S., Eisenberg, N., & Harris, J. D. (1991). Consis-tency and change in maternal child-rearing practicesand values: A longitudinal study. Child Development,62, 190–198.

Muller, C. (1998). Gender differences in parent involve-ment and adolescents’ mathematics achievement. Soci-ology of Education, 71, 336–356.

Oishi, S., Lun, J., & Sherman, G. D. (2007). Residentialmobility, self-concept, and positive affect in socialinteractions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,93, 131–141.

Parke, R. D., & Buriel, R. (2006). Socialization in the family:Ethnic and ecological perspectives. In W. Damon, R. M.Lerner, & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), The handbook of child psy-chology; Social, emotional, and personality development (6thed., Vol. 3, pp. 429–454). New York, NY: Wiley.

Pettit, G. S., & Laird, R. D. (2002). Psychological controland monitoring in early adolescence: The role of paren-tal involvement and earlier child adjustment. In B. K.Barber (Ed.), Intrusive parenting: How psychological controlaffects children and adolescents (pp. 97–123). Washington,DC: American Psychological Association Press.

Pettit, G. S., Laird, R. D., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Criss,M. M. (2001). Antecedents and behavior-problem out-comes of parental monitoring and psychological controlin early adolescence. Child Development, 72, 583–598.

Pribesh, S., & Downey, D. B. (1999). Why are residentialand school moves associated with poor school perfor-mance? Demography, 36, 521–534.

Radziszewska, B., Richardson, J. L., Dent, C. W., & Flay,B. R. (1996). Parenting style and adolescent depressivesymptoms, smoking, and academic achievement: Eth-nic, gender, and SES differences. Journal of BehavioralMedicine, 19, 289–305.

Richardson, R. A., Galambos, N. L., Schulenberg, J. E., &Petersen, A. C. (1984). Young adolescents’ perceptionsof the family environment. Journal of Early Adolescence,4, 131–153.

Roberts, G. C., Block, J. H., & Block, J. (1984). Continuityand change in parents’ child-rearing practices. ChildDevelopment, 55, 586–597.

Rodriguez, C. M. (2010). Personal contextual characteris-tics and cognitions: Predicting child abuse potentialand disciplinary style. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,25, 315–335.

Rossi, P. H. (1980). Why families move. Beverly Hills, CA:Sage.

Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1994). Urban poverty andthe family context of delinquency: A new look at struc-ture and process in a classic study. Child Development,65, 523–540.

Schachter, J. P. (2004). Geographic mobility: March 2002 toMarch 2003. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

Schwarz, J. C., Barton-Henry, M. L., & Pruzinsky, T.(1985). Assessing child-rearing behaviors: A compari-son of ratings made by mother, father, child, and sib-ling on the CRPBI. Child Development, 56, 462–479.

Sharkey, P., & Sampson, R. J. (2010). Destination effects:Residential mobility and trajectories of adolescent vio-lence in a stratified metropolis. Criminology, 48, 639–681.

Sim, T. N. (2003). The father-adolescent relationship inthe context of the mother-adolescent relationship:Exploring moderating linkages in a late-adolescentsample in Singapore. Journal of Adolescent Research, 18,383–404.

Simpson, G. A., & Fowler, M. G. (1994). Geographicmobility and children’s emotional/behavioral adjust-ment and school functioning. Pediatrics, 93, 303–309.

Slicker, E. K. (1998). Relationship of parenting style tobehavioral adjustment in graduating high schoolseniors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 27, 345–372.

Smetana, J. G. (1995). Parenting styles and conceptions ofparental authority during adolescence. Child Develop-ment, 66, 299–316.

Smetana, J. G., & Daddis, C. (2002). Domain-specificantecedents of parental psychological control andmonitoring: The role of parenting beliefs and practices.Child Development, 73, 563–580.

South, S. J., & Haynie, D. L. (2004). Friendship networksof mobile adolescents. Social Forces, 83, 315–350.

South, S. J., Haynie, D. L., & Bose, S. (2007). Student mobil-ity and school dropout. Social Science Research, 36, 68–94.

Steinberg, L. (1987). Impact of puberty on family rela-tions: Effects of pubertal status and pubertal timing.Developmental Psychology, 23, 451–460.

Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Darling, N., Mounts, N. S.,& Dornbusch, S. M. (1994). Over-time changes in


adjustment and competence among adolescents fromauthoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectfulfamilies. Child Development, 65, 754–770.

Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Dornbusch, S. M., &Darling, N. (1992). Impact of parenting practices onadolescent achievement: Authoritative parenting,school involvement, and encouragement to succeed.Child Development, 63, 1266–1281.

Steinberg, L., Mounts, N. S., Lamborn, S. D., &Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Authoritative parenting andadolescent adjustment across varied ecological niches.Journal of Research on Adolescence, 1, 19–36.

Stokols, D., & Shumaker, S. A. (1982). The psychologicalcontext of residential mobility and well-being. Journalof Social Issues, 38, 149–171.

Tucker, C. J., Marx, J., & Long, L. (1998). “Moving on”:Residential mobility and children’s school lives. Sociol-ogy of Education, 71(2), 111–129.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). Geographic mobility: March2010 to March 2011. Current Population Reports, Wash-ington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Weintraub, K. J., & Gold, M. (1991). Monitoring and delin-quency. Criminal Behavior and Mental Health, 1, 268–281.

Weiss, L. H., & Schwarz, J. C. (1996). The relationshipbetween parenting types and older adolescents’personality, academic achievement, adjustment, andsubstance use. Child Development, 67, 2101–2114.

Winsler, A., Madigan, A. L., & Aquilino, S. A. (2005).Correspondence between maternal and paternal par-enting styles in early childhood. Early ChildhoodResearch Quarterly, 20, 1–12.

Xu, Z., Hannaway, J., & D’Souza, S. (2009). Student tran-sience in North Carolina: The effect of school mobility onstudent outcomes using longitudinal data. Washington,DC: National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Datain Education Research and Urban Institute.

Youniss, J., & Smollar, J. (1985). Adolescent relations withmothers, fathers, and friends. Chicago, IL: University ofChicago Press.

Zervides, S., & Knowles, A. (2007). Generational changesin parenting styles and the effect of culture. E-Journalof Applied Psychology, 3, 65–75.

16 GILLESPIE

residential mobility and change and continuity in parenting processes

Documents