Parental Control in Latino Families: An Integrated Review of the Literature

Linda C. Halgunseth, Jean M. Ispa, and Duane RudyUniversity of Missouri – Columbia

Using social information processing and cultural change models as explanatory frameworks, this article reviewsthe literature on Latino parental control and its implications for child development. It is argued that the use ofparental control in Latino families may have motivational roots in cultural childrearing goals such as familismo(familism), respeto (respect), and educacion (moral education). Consideration of these underpinnings, in con-junction with psychological and methodological issues, helps to explain variability in the use of Latino parentalcontrol and its effect on child development. Recommendations for future research include refinement of controland acculturation instruments, and attention to both contextual and individual variables.

Since the 1990s, there has been a marked increasein the number of empirical studies on Latinoparenting. Parental control, or the demands andrestrictions that parents place on children, hasreceived particular attention, perhaps due to thelinks that have been established in the broaderliterature between parental control-related beliefsand techniques, and children’s well-being (e.g.,Baumrind, 1971; Maccoby & Martin, 1983). It hasbeen suggested that these relations may explain thehigher rates of school achievement problems amongLatino relative to non-Latino children (Brooks-Gunn& Markman, 2005; Okagaki & Sternberg, 1993). Wepropose that it is essential for researchers to considerboth cultural and psychological processes involvedin the use of parental control when examining itseffects on children in Latino families.

This article explores four decades of literature andaddresses the following questions: (1) What pro-cesses are involved in Latino parents’ decisions touse control? (2) What core cultural values underlietheir use of control? (3) How can we conceptualizeintragroup variability in the use of control by Latinoparents? (4) How can we reconcile contradictoryfindings on Latino parental control? (5) Does pa-rental control affect Latino and non-Latino childrensimilarly? The review divides control into two broadcategories: nonpunitive and punitive.

Sociocultural theories are most often used in thestudy of Latino parenting. We, too, apply thisframework but supplement it with social informa-tion processing (SIP) theory. The addition of this

perspective can enrich our understanding of thepsychological processes that underlie Latino parents’decisions to use (or not use) control.

The Cultural Change Framework

There is considerable evidence that Latinos tend tohave an interdependent orientation (Okagaki &Frensch, 1998; Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier,2002). Maintaining harmonious interpersonal rela-tions, conforming to external standards, and believ-ing that the group is central to one’s identity definean interdependent or collectivistic orientation (Ho-fstede, 1980). In their ethnographic study of six cul-tures, Minturn and Lambert (1964) illustrated thisorientation in their finding that Mexican parentswere more likely to punish children’s use of aggres-sion toward peers than were parents from NewEngland, Okinawa, India, Africa, and the Philippines.

The cultural change framework examines howparental mental models modify in light of immigra-tion, beliefs of social networks, teachings by ‘‘ex-perts,’’ and pressure from current or expectedsocioeconomic circumstances. The process of adopt-ing goals and practices due to exposure to a newculture is called acculturation. Evidence suggests thatchanges in core cultural values or goals during theacculturative process influence behaviors (e.g.,Marın, Van Oss Marın, Otero-Sabogal, Sabogal, &Perez-Stable, 1989).

Reconstructions tend not to be across the board.Instead, there are degrees of adoption of the majorityculture and some of its aspects are not adopted at all(Garcıa Coll & Pachter, 2002; Harkness, Super, &Keefer, 1992). Rueschenberg and Buriel (1989), forexample, found a positive association between

r 2006 by the Society for Research in Child Development, Inc.All rights reserved. 0009-3920/2006/7705-0012

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed toLinda C. Halgunseth, University of Missouri – Columbia, Depart-ment of Human Development and Family Studies, Gentry 314,Columbia, MO 65203. Electronic mail may be sent to lch065@mizzou.edu.

Child Development, September/October 2006, Volume 77, Number 5, Pages 1282 – 1297

change in external aspects of Mexican-Americanfamily functioning (e.g., achievement orientation)and length of time in the United States. Internal as-pects of family life (e.g., cohesion), however, wereunchanged. For Latino families (as for other immi-grant groups), deterrents to acculturation mayemerge, such as host culture racism and classism thatcreate feelings of alienation and distrust, difficultyunderstanding the host language, confinement toethnically homogeneous communities, and conflictbetween the beliefs of two cultures so that elementsof the host culture seem inferior, or simply veryforeign (Garcıa Coll & Pachter, 2002; Lopez & Stan-ton-Salazar, 2001; Valdes, 1996). Variability inparenting models may also stem from social or eco-nomic factors that influence access to certainparenting resources.

Portes and Rumbaut (1996) proposed three pat-terns of parent and child acculturation rates that mayinfluence parent – child relationships. In consonantacculturation, parents and children learn the hostlanguage and culture at approximately the samepace. This pattern is most closely associated withfamily cohesion in immigrant families with adoles-cent children. In dissonant acculturation, childrenlearn English and internalize the host culture’svalues at a faster pace than their parents. Children’svaluing of the native culture gradually diminishesand family conflict increases, parental authority de-creases, and children increasingly express embarrass-ment over parents’ ways. In selective acculturation,children are considered bicultural. Their learning ofthe host culture is accompanied by the retention ofsignificant elements of their culture of origin.

The above typology implies that successive Latinogenerations may increasingly adopt elements ofmainstream childrearing practices and values. Thismay explain why past studies on Latino parentinghave often used generational status or parental na-tivity (e.g., Buriel & Hurtado-Ortiz, 2000; Ispa et al.,2004; Okagaki & Sternberg, 1993) and extent ofEnglish usage (e.g., Ispa et al., 2004; Taylor, Hurley, &Riley, 1986; Tenenbaum & Leaper, 1997) as proxiesfor acculturation.

Negy and Woods (1992), however, have arguedthat measures of change in core cultural valueswould be a more accurate assessment of accultura-tion than language usage or generational status.Learning the language of a host country does notsignify the degree to which the individual hasadopted its core values. Generational status does notconsider context. Second- and third-generation La-tinos who have developed within an ethnic enclavemay be a different population than peers developing

within integrated neighborhoods. To our knowledge,no study on Latino parenting has operationalizedacculturation with measures of core cultural values.

Measures focusing on behaviors reflecting accul-turation have been used in some studies on Latinoparenting. Of these, the Acculturation Rating Scale forMexican Americans (ARSMA – I; Cuellar, Harris, &Jasso, 1980 and ARSMA – II; Cuellar, Arnold, &Gonzalez, 1995) has been used most frequently (e.g.,Dumka, Roosa, & Jackson, 1997; Parke et al., 2004).On the ARSMA – II, scores for Anglo and Mexicanorientations are calculated. Difference scores repre-sent the individual’s location on a continuum from aMexican to an Anglo orientation.

SIP Theory

SIP theory proposes that individuals approach socialsituations with a database of biological capabilitiesand prior social knowledge comprising normativebeliefs and goals, working models of relationships,and social scripts. These components, in turn, influ-ence behavior. Crick and Dodge (1994) propose sixnonlinear steps that may occur simultaneously andare involved in decision making in social situations.These steps are (1) attending to and (2) interpretinganother person’s behavior, (3) formulating goals forthe interaction, (4) generating possible responses, (5)evaluating the responses generated, and (6) enactinga response. The model was developed in research onchildren, but its elements have been successfullyapplied to the study of non-Latino parents’ control-related ideas and behavior (e.g., Lorber, O’Leary, &Kendziora, 2003; Pinderhughes, Dodge, Bates, Pettit,& Zelli, 2000).

SIP proposes that attributional processes, goals,and action repertoires are context- and thereforeculture-dependent. Thus, the interdependent orien-tation of Latino culture may act as a filter throughwhich thoughts and decisions pass at each of the sixsteps. Also important is the model’s premise thatemotion may lead to inattention or misinterpretationof children’s behavior and the inhibition to pursuecertain childrearing goals. These types of emotion-based processing may occur in circumstances wherethere are high levels of acculturative stress, racism,and/or socioeconomic pressure.

It is important to examine these potential stressorsfor two reasons. First, Latinos are more likely thannon-Latino Whites (22.8% vs. 7.7%) to live in poverty(U.S. Census Bureau, 2001). Second, even whenEuro-American and Latino parents are similar insocioeconomic status (SES), they are unlikely to besimilar in acculturative stress or racial discrimination

Parental Control in Latino Families 1283

experiences. Of course, individuals do not react tostress uniformly. Some are equipped with psycho-logical or social resources to buffer stress-relatedresponses, whereas others are not (Sabogal, Marın,Otero-Sabogal, VanOss Marın, & Perez-Stable, 1987).

Applying Cultural Change and SIP Perspectives toLatino Parents’ Control-Related Beliefs and

Practices

As applied to parenting, cultural change and SIPtheories are linked by their premise that parentsapproach parent – child situations with orientationsthat influence their behavior decisions. In the fol-lowing sections, we organize our review of the lit-erature on Latino parental control according to Crickand Dodge’s (1994) steps of SIP. Principles of culturalinfluence and SIP theories are explained and broughtto bear on findings on Latino parental control. Figure1 illustrates how the SIP model is nested within acultural change framework.

Attending to and Interpreting Children’s Behavior

In Steps 1 and 2, the parent’s attention is drawn tospecific child behavior and the parent interprets themeaning of the behavior, making attributions foreach actor’s motives, and assessing the match be-tween events and preexisting goals. These stepsmay occur simultaneously (Crick & Dodge, 1994).For example, Harwood (1992) demonstrated howculture can influence these two steps. She found thatlow-income Puerto Rican mothers were more likelythan low- and middle-income Euro-Americanmothers to describe hypothetical toddlers (as de-picted in vignettes from Strange Situation episodes)according to the degree of respectfulness they di-rected toward their mothers. Euro-American moth-

ers focused more on toddlers’ self-confidence,independence, and ability to cope with an unfamiliarsetting.

A consideration of Steps 1 and 2 may also help toexplain apparently contradictory findings that La-tino parents have been described as both highly in-dulgent and highly controlling. Several studiesindicate that Latino mothers provide high physicalguidance combined with relatively low expectationsfor self-help and soothing skills. For example, Mex-ican and Puerto Rican American mothers have beenfound to provide more physical guidance duringfeeding, play, and teaching interactions with theirinfants and toddlers than do Euro-American moth-ers (Carlson & Harwood, 2003; Ispa et al., 2004). Yet,Schulze, Harwood, and Schoelmerich (2001) foundPuerto Rican mothers to have a less stringent time-table for the achievement of skills such as drinkingfrom a cup than Euro-American mothers (althoughsee Bartz & LeVine, 1978 regarding earlier toilettraining). Also, Zeskind (1983) reported that CubanAmerican mothers were more likely to respond toinfant distress with cuddling than Anglo-Americanmothers. Similarly, Korn and Gannon (1983) foundthat when children were fussy during bedtime,Puerto Rican mothers were more likely to stay andprovide comfort until they fell asleep.

One explanation for these differences is providedby Mosier and Rogoff (2003). After observing Gua-temalan Mayan mothers’ tolerance of toddler be-haviors that Euro-American mothers are likely toview as selfish and aggressive, they concluded thatMayan mothers accept a wide range of behaviorfrom very young children because they attributesuch behavior to cognitive immaturity. Although itmay seem paradoxical that Latino parents also pro-vide infants and toddlers with close physical guid-ance during feeding, play, and teaching events, itmay be for much the same reasonFbecause theyview children at these ages as not being capable ofhandling or getting sufficient benefit from these sit-uations on their own, and view it as acceptable forthe dyad, rather than the individual child, to ac-complish specific tasks.

While Latino parents of young children are attimes portrayed as indulgent, Latino parents ofchildren aged 6 years and older are found to engagein more unilateral decision making, to have morerules (especially regarding out-of-home behavior),and/or to exhibit greater harshness than Euro-American parents (Bulcroft, Carmody, & Bulcroft,1996; Dornbusch, Ritter, Leiderman, Roberts, & Fra-leigh, 1987; Hill, Bush, & Roosa, 2003; Radziszewska,Richardson, Dent & Flay, 1996, although see Bartz &

SIP Steps

Emotions

Socio-Cultural Influences

Figure 1. Conceptual model for review of research on Latino pa-rental control.

1284 Halgunseth, Ispa, and Rudy

LeVine (1978) for an alternate view). For example,Calzada and Eyberg (2002) found a positive relationbetween child age and maternal use of corporalpunishment in a sample of immigrant Dominicanand Puerto Rican mothers of children between theages of 2 and 6.

This shift in Latino parenting with older childrenmay also be explained by parental attributions. La-tino parents may perceive these children as cogni-tively able to adopt family goals or adjust theirbehavior to others. Thus, deviations from parentalexpectations may now be interpreted as willful dis-obedience. The importance of child age in mothers’attributions for children’s behavior is supported byMinturn and Lambert’s (1964) ethnographic re-search. Mexican mothers perceived children underthe age of 2 to be ‘‘senseless’’ and unable to meetexpectations for behavior. When children were be-tween ages 2 and 5, demands were only somewhatgreater because children were viewed as still unableto reason. At age 6 or 7, children were viewed ashaving reached ‘‘the age of reason’’ and, therefore, asable to meet higher expectations of behavior such asperforming chores. It is probably not coincidentalthat the ‘‘age of reason’’ coincides with the onset ofPiaget’s concrete operational stage, when childrenmake appreciable progress in perspective-takingskills (Crain, 2000).

In other instances, acculturative stress may influ-ence parental attributions and control patterns.Moving to a new culture, assuming a minority po-sition in a society, experiencing discrimination andprejudice from the majority sector, leaving an ex-tended family network, facing financial strain,struggling with language barriers, and possiblyfeeling unsafe due to immigration legality andneighborhood safety issues are all major stressors(Fuligni & Yoshikawa, 2003; Garcıa Coll & Pachter,2002; Villenas, 2001). SIP theory posits that duringheightened states of arousal, processing of socialcues may be preempted (Crick & Dodge, 1994). Atthe interpretation step, stressed parents may assesschildren’s behavior more negatively than they wouldif they were living under more secure, relaxed cir-cumstances. Studies have shown that parental stressis positively related to higher use of discipline anddirectiveness in Latino families (e.g., Parke et al.,2004; Planos, Zayas, & Busch-Rossnagel, 1997; Uno,Florsheim, & Uchino, 1998).

Recently, Reese, Kroesen, and Gallimore (2000)illustrated dissonant acculturation and its implica-tions for acculturative stress and control. A Mexican-American mother explained that her middle school-aged daughter whispered ‘‘I hate you,’’ after being

told she could not put on makeup for her upcomingslumber party. Even though the mother understoodthat her daughter’s declaration did not carry muchliteral meaning in the United States, she could nothelp but feel distressed because in her culture suchdisrespectful behavior reflected ‘‘something terrible’’(Reese et al., p. 315). These interpretations resulted inthe decision to cancel her daughter’s sleepover party.

Goals

The third step of Crick and Dodge’s (1994) modelinvolves the clarification and selection of goals. SIPapproaches to parenting research have demonstratedthat parental goals are powerful organizers of pa-rental emotions, cognitions, and behaviors (Dix,1992; Hastings & Grusec, 1998). The literature indi-cates that three goals, familismo, respeto, and ed-ucacion, each rooted in valuing of interdependence,are held by Latinos of all national origins and un-derlie many parenting decisions. We discuss thesegoals in turn.

Familism/Familismo

The term familismo includes the desire to maintainstrong family ties, the expectation that the family willbe the primary source of instrumental and emotionalsupport, the feeling of loyalty to the family, and thecommitment to the family over individual needs anddesires (Negy & Woods, 1992; Staples & Mirande,1980). Latinos tend to report higher levels of familycohesion than Euro-Americans (e.g., Knight, Virdin,& Roosa, 1994; Rumbaut, 2001; Sabogal et al., 1987),and intergenerational stability in familismo tends tobe high, regardless of country of origin (e.g., Fuligni,Tseng, & Lam; 1999; Phinney, Ong, & Madden, 2000;Procidano & Rogler, 1989) or level of acculturation(Rueschenberg & Buriel, 1989).

A few studies, however, suggest that some aspectsof familism decline over generations. Gil and Vega(1996) found that in a Cuban and Nicaraguan sam-ple, one aspect of familism, belief in the value offamily support, increased with acculturation, butsense of family cohesion and pride decreased.Moreover, while Rogler and colleagues (Procidano &Rogler, 1989; Rogler & Santana Cooney, 1984) foundthat Puerto-Rican parent – child relations remainedsupportive, familism (operationalized as the provi-sion of aid to other family members) decreasedacross generations and according to socioeconomicmobility. Lastly, Rumbaut (2001) found that immi-grant children who were predominantly Englishspeaking were less familistic than their bilingual andnative-speaking peers.

Parental Control in Latino Families 1285

The inconsistencies most likely arise from the factthat familismo includes several components, and that,in keeping with cultural change theory, Latinos mayelect to continue only some aspects. Sabogal et al.(1987), for example, found that an emphasis on fa-milial support was unrelated to acculturation (as-sessed by language usage), perhaps because it bringspsychological comfort. Other aspects of familism,however, such as an emphasis on obligations andmaking sacrifices for other family members, and theuse of family as referents (i.e., consulting familymembers and being oriented to please them) werenegatively related to acculturation, perhaps becausenonfamilial resources have become more available(e.g., new friendship networks, adequate wages, so-cial services, etc.).

Respect/Respeto

The goal of respeto is the maintenance of harmo-nious interpersonal relationships through respect forself and others. In her ethnographic study of 10Mexican-American immigrant families, Valdes(1996) found that by the age of 4, children weretaught the verbal and nonverbal rules of respect suchas politely greeting elders, not challenging an elder’spoint of view, and not interrupting conversationsbetween adults (Valdes, 1996). Valdes explained thatthe term respeto was more comprehensive than theEnglish ‘‘respect’’ in that the former also includedrespecting the role of each member in the family.Also, children were taught that in order to be re-spected, they should behave in manners prescribedby their particular roles (i.e., role of child, role ofsister/brother, etc.). For example, sisters did notshow signs of affection toward their boyfriends orhusbands in front of their brothers because it wouldbe considered a falta de respeto, an offense to theirbrothers’ sense of dignity in their roles as brothers.

While studies by Delgado-Gaitan (1993) and Phin-ney et al. (2000) suggest that respeto is stable acrosstwo generations of Mexican-American mothers, theliterature mostly indicates that the extent to whichrespeto is valued by children and parents depends onacculturation and SES. Harwood, Scholmerich,Ventura-Cook, Schulze, and Wilson (1996) found thatlower-SES Puerto Rican mothers were more likely tovalue proper demeanor than their higher-SES coun-terparts. In addition, Okagaki and Sternberg (1993)found that U.S.-born Mexican-American mothersfavored autonomous behavior in children, whereasimmigrant Mexican-American mothers favored rule-following. Along the same lines, Fuligni (1998) foundthat successive generations of non-European (Mexi-

can and Central Americans included) adolescentswere increasingly likely to believe that disagreeingwith parents is acceptable and that behavioral au-tonomy is desirable. Finally, in a sample of low-in-come Puerto Rican mothers, Gonzalez-Ramos,Zayas, and Cohen (1998) found a negative relationbetween valuing respectfulness in preschool-agedchildren and scores on the Short Acculturation Scale(Marın, Sabogal, Van Oss Marın, Otero-Sabogal, &Perez-Stable, 1987), a measure of language usage,media preference, and ethnic social relations.

Cultural change theory provides a frameworkfrom which to understand these findings. Some La-tino parents may choose to relinquish traditionalchildrearing goals seen as no longer adaptive, or theymay incorporate or substitute new childrearinggoals, including those from the mainstream (e.g.,independence) they see as useful. These new valuesmay come from their own observations or fromparenting information sources (e.g., printed materi-als, teachers).

Education/Educacion

Another consistent Latino childrearing goal de-scribed in the literature is educacion. The term ed-ucacion is more comprehensive than the Englishword ‘‘education’’ in that the former also refers totraining in responsibility, morality, and interpersonalrelationships (Valenzuela, 1999). In her ethnographicstudy, Valdes (1996) reported that Mexican immi-grant mothers often mentioned la educacion de loshijos (the moral education of their children) whendiscussing childrearing goals. According to Valdesand two other qualitative researchers, Mexican-American parents apply the term ninos educados(educated children) to children they judge to possessqualities reflective of good manners and high mor-alsFwarmth, honesty, politeness, respectfulness,and responsibility. Such children also know how toact in accordance with their roles as children (Reeseet al. 2000; Valdes, 1996; Valenzuela, 1999).

The importance of educacion to Latino parents wasalso found by Okagaki and Sternberg (1993), whoexamined the childrearing values of U.S.-born andforeign-born parents of European, Mexican, Cam-bodian, and Vietnamese descent. Regardless of SES,all but the Euro-American parents indicated thatsocial skills and motivation were as or more impor-tant for children’s school readiness than cognitiveskills. In addition, Okagaki and Frensch (1998) re-ported that their Latino sample (94% of Mexicandescent and approximately 50% immigrant) gavehigher importance ratings to children’s socioemo-

1286 Halgunseth, Ispa, and Rudy

tional characteristics than did either Asian Americanor Euro-American parents. Latino parents also ratedthese characteristics as more important than aca-demic aspects of school achievement.

Choosing and Implementing Control-Related Strategies

This section reviews research illustrating SIPSteps 4 – 6, which, like all of the steps in the model,may occur simultaneously. In Step 4, possible re-sponses to the situation are accessed from memoryor are constructed. In Step 5, responses generatedduring Step 4 are evaluated and selected in line withthe goal selected during Step 3. In Step 6, a responseis enacted. Recall that emotions may or may not in-fluence this process (Crick & Dodge, 1994). In orderto illustrate these steps, we review various forms ofcontrol implemented by Latino parents and theireffects on children. Findings are divided into twobroad categories: nonpunitive and punitive. Factorssuch as age of child, parents’ country of origin, andsociocultural factors are considered.

Nonpunitive Control

Physical guidance. Physical guidance refers to pa-rental behaviors that manually limit or manipulatechildren’s movements as a means of teaching orencouraging play. Most studies on physical guidanceby Latino parents focus on mothers and childrenage 5 or younger. These studies generally use across-cultural design and implement observationalmeasures.

For children 0 – 2 years of age, cross-culturalstudies reveal that Mexican-American and PuertoRican parents exercise more physical guidance thanEuro-American mothers, regardless of level of ac-culturation or SES. In their low-income sample, Ispaet al. (2004) found that less and more acculturatedMexican-American mothers of 14-month-olds en-gaged in more ‘‘intrusive’’ behavior during play thandid Euro-American mothers. In addition, Carlsonand Harwood (2003) observed that middle-classmothers in Puerto Rico used more physical guidancewith their 12-month-old infants than did their Euro-American counterparts.

Cultural differences in the relation between phys-ical guidance and children’s outcomes have alsoemerged for young children. Ispa et al. (2004) foundthat maternal intrusiveness with 14-month-olds didnot predict negative change in child engagement at24 months in either more or less acculturated Mexi-can-American families (although it did for Euro-Americans). Carlson and Harwood (2003) found that

physical control predicted secure attachment in aPuerto Rican, but not in a Euro-American sample.Also, in a predominantly low-income immigrantPuerto Rican and Dominican sample, Fracasso, Bus-ch-Rossnagel, and Fisher (1994) found that mothers’frequent and abrupt picking up of 12-month-oldchildren predicted toddler secure attachment.

Two cross-cultural studies have examined the useof physical guidance for children between the ages of2 and 5 in teaching tasks. Laosa (1980) reported thatMexican-American mothers did not differ fromEuro-American peers in the use of positive physicalcontrol when teaching kindergarten-aged children toreplicate a toy model. Moreno (1997) found that low-income, predominantly English-speaking Mexican-American mothers used less physical guidance thanEuro-American mothers when teaching 4- to 5-year-old children to tie their shoes.

Research on the association between physicalguidance and outcomes for Latino children betweenthe ages of 2 and 5 is limited. One study, Martınez(1988), found that predominantly third-generationMexican-American mothers’ positive physical con-trol predicted their kindergartner’s positive verbalresponses to them, their task involvement, and theirattentiveness during an observational teaching task,suggesting that physical guidance continues to pre-dict positive child outcomes in this age group.

Two reasons for the differences in findings by ageof child are plausible. First, recall that Minturn andLambert (1964) described Mexican mothers as at-tributing limited cognitive and behavioral skills tochildren under the age of 2. Mothers may feel thatthey need to stay in close physical contact with theirchildren, functioning as one unit, whereas this maybe less true for relatively older children. Second,studies on Latino physical guidance with youngchildren have sampled primarily immigrant mothersor mothers in their native countries, while studies ofchildren between the ages of 2 and 5 were morelikely to examine more acculturated mothers (interms of language and generational status). Thus, itis possible that the discrepancy in findings may bedue to acculturation rather than to child age.

The positive relation between physical guidanceand children’s well-being in Latino families shouldbe noted. Carlson and Harwood (2003) suggestedthat Latina mothers’ controlling behaviors stem fromefforts to teach children to act in accordance withcultural goals or values (e.g., familismo), and that thefostering of these goals may be more consonant withphysical control than the fostering of independence.In addition, Hastings and Grusec (1998) found thatparents who focused on relationship-centered goals

Parental Control in Latino Families 1287

reported low negative emotions. This may explainwhy Ispa et al. (2004) found that maternal stress wasnot associated with Mexican-American mothers’ in-trusiveness during play with their toddlers, while apositive association did exist for Euro-Americanmothers. Thus, in contexts of low parental stress,children may perceive parental controlling behavioras a form of caring rather than an act of rejection(Grusec & Goodnow, 1994).

Directing and modeling. The term direction refers toparents’ verbal commands to pursue a given courseof action. Modeling refers to parental performance ofa task with the intent that children observe and im-itate (Laosa, 1980). Both are forms of control in thatthe parent takes a dominant role in guiding thechild’s activity. Most studies on direction andmodeling have focused on children aged 2 – 12 years,have used observational techniques, and with fewexceptions have incorporated a within-group design.

Two cross-cultural studies have compared paren-tal use of modeling and directing in Mexican- andEuro-American families. With SES controlled, bothfound either cross-cultural similarity or lower ratesof directing and modeling by Mexican-Americanmothers. Moreno (1997) observed that in predomi-nantly low-income samples, English-speaking Mex-ican-American mothers used less modeling thanEuro-American mothers in a teaching task with 4- to5-year-old children. Laosa (1980) found that Mexi-can-American mothers of kindergarteners scoredhigher in the number of directives and amount ofmodeling than did their Euro-American counter-parts. After education was controlled, however,differences disappeared.

Within-group studies suggest that modeling anddirecting predict negative child outcomes in familiesof Mexican background. In Mexico, Bronstein (1994)observed parents and their 7- to 12-year-old childrenand found that instrumental direction (giving ordersand setting limits) was positively correlated withchild inattentive obedience and passive resistance. Inmother – son dyads, however, maternal instrumentalcontrol was highly positively correlated with boys’social responsibility, willingness to agree, and offersof assistance to mothers. Lastly, Martınez (1988)found that maternal modeling was positively relatedto kindergarteners’ inattentiveness during a task anddirective teaching strategies were negatively relatedto children’s task involvement.

Maternal education may influence Mexican-American parents’ use of modeling and directivesduring teaching tasks and their negative outcomesfor children. Laosa’s (1980) findings point to theimportance of maternal education. More educated

mothers may have greater access to parenting re-sources than less educated mothers, so that theirparenting models may have incorporated new goals,strategies, and values. It is also possible that ac-culturative stress may preempt rational processingand lead some parents to use directives and mode-ling rather than cognitive strategies used for inquiryand praise.

There is less research on parental modeling anddirecting in non-Mexican Latino families. Planos etal. (1997) found that low-income Puerto Rican andDominican mothers in New York were more likely touse directives, visual cues, and modeling than theywere to use inquiry, negative feedback, or praise in ateaching situation with 4-year-old children. Domin-ican mothers were more likely than Puerto Ricanmothers to use modeling but there were no groupdifferences in the use of directives or visual cues.Calzada and Eyberg (2002) similarly found no dif-ferences in the number of directives reported byimmigrant and first-generation Dominican andPuerto Rican mothers of 2- to 6-year-old children. Toour knowledge, no study has examined the effectthat parental modeling and directing has on non-Mexican Latino children. However, Planos et al. re-ported that Dominican and Puerto Rican mothers’anxiety was positively related to the use of directivesand modeling during a teaching task. Modeling wasalso positively related to depression and parentingstress. Thus, modeling and directives may be rootedin stress, which in turn may lead to negative out-comes for children. Clearly, this suggestion is in needof further examination.

Protection and monitoring. Protection typically re-fers to the parent’s promotion of children’s safety orability to care for themselves, and their efforts tolimit children’s exposure to negative influences.Monitoring refers to parental awareness of children’swhereabouts and behavior (see Stattin & Kerr, 2000).Both involve the limiting of children’s autonomousbehavior and experiences. Studies have often used across-cultural design and have examined children inlater childhood and adolescence.

In general, cross-cultural studies reveal Latinoparents to be more protective and to monitor theirchildren more frequently than non-Latino parents.After controlling for parental education, Durrett,O’Bryant, and Pennebaker (1975) found thatMexican American parents of 5-year-olds reportedsignificantly greater protectiveness than their Euro-and African American counterparts. Okagaki andFrensch (1998) reported that Latino parents of fourthand fifth graders rated higher in parental monitoringof children’s activities and school performance than

1288 Halgunseth, Ispa, and Rudy

did Asian American and Euro-American parents.Generational status and acculturation were not con-sidered in this study. However, Shakib et al. (2003)did control for generational status, SES, and otherdemographic factors in their study and found thatLatino and Euro-American sixth graders reportedsimilar levels of parental monitoring.

A study by Escovar and Escovar (1985) is uniquein that it examines cultural differences in parentalprotectiveness among various Latino ethnic groups:Cuban Americans and Latin Americans (residing inColombia and Venezuela). Findings revealed thatCuban American college students perceived theirmothers to be more protective than did LatinAmerican or Anglo students, and Latin Americanstudents perceived their mothers to be more pro-tective than did Anglo students. Both Cuban Amer-ican and Latin American college student reportssuggested that their fathers were significantly moreprotective than Anglo students’ fathers.

Parental monitoring may contribute to Latino ad-olescent well-being. A number of child-report stud-ies indicate that parental monitoring is negativelyassociated with Latino adolescent smoking (Shakibet al., 2003) and overall deviance (Baer, 1999; Fore-hand, Miller, Dutra, & Watts Chance, 1997) andpositively related to their academic motivation andeducational aspirations (Plunkett & Bamaca-Gomez,2003). In their study of sixth to eighth graders,Carlson, Uppal, and Prosser (2000) combined childreports of parental monitoring with their reports ofparental acceptance/involvement items. They foundthat higher scores on this measure predicted His-panic girls’ self-esteem. Interestingly, with SES con-trolled, adolescent ethnic identity fully mediated therelation between authoritative parenting style andself-esteem in Hispanic and African American girls,but not for non-Hispanic White girls. (For an alter-nate view on parental monitoring, see Barber (1994).He found no relation between parental monitoringand children’s outcomes in samples of Hispanic,White, and Black adolescents.)

Rule setting and decision making. Rule setting anddecision making reflect hierarchical family relation-ships in which the parent has ultimate authority torestrict or place limits on the child. As with protec-tion and monitoring, studies on Latino rule settingand decision making have primarily focused onparenting of adolescents and have used a between-groups design.

Cross-cultural studies reveal that as a group, La-tino parents tend to implement more rules thanEuro-American parents. For example, Blair, Blair,and Madamba (1999) asked 10th-grade students

about the extent to which their parents requiredthem to perform chores and limited their televisionwatching and contact with friends. They found thatEuro-American students reported less parental con-trol than did Hispanic, African American, and AsianAmerican students. (The level of control was similaracross the three minority groups.) Finkelstein,Donenberg, and Martinovich (2001) measured rulesetting using items from the CRPBI (Schaefer, 1965)such as ‘‘my mother believes in having a lot of rulesand sticking to them.’’ They found that Latinas andAfrican American girls reported significantly morecontrol than did Caucasian girls. Importantly, Bul-croft et al. (1996) found that according to adolescentreports, regardless of SES, Latino parents used moreextrafamilial control (e.g., stricter curfews) thanEuro-Americans, but Latino parents were relativelyunrestrictive in terms of children’s (especially boys’)intrafamilial behaviors (e.g., amount of TV watching,homework).

Cultural change and SIP frameworks may helpexplain the high use of parental rule setting anddecision making in Latino families. Bulcroft et al.(1996) explained that because independence is val-ued both within mainstream families and acrossother U.S. social institutions, Euro-American parentscan rely on indirect societal assistance in teachingindividualistic values. Latino parents in the UnitedStates, however, are forced to rely solely on thefamily to teach cultural values such as familismo,respeto, and educacion. Thus, Latino parents living inthe United States may enforce restrictions on extra-familial contact more than they would if they lived intheir countries of origin. In addition, Bulcroft et al.(1996) and Reese et al. (2000) suggest that Latinoparents may require fewer intrafamilial rules or maypurchase attractive toys in order to make the homeand family an appealing alternative to the outside, or‘‘la calle’’Fthereby fostering familismo. For example,one Mexican immigrant mother reported buying aSuper Nintendo for her sons so that they wouldprefer to play at home where she could monitorthem (Reese et al.).

Research suggests that parental rule setting anddecision making benefit or at least do not harm La-tino youth. Johnson, Teigen, and Davila (1983) askedsixth graders in Mexico, Norway, and the UnitedStates to report on parental rules about daily activi-ties such as homework and returning home rightafter school. Mexican children reported more pa-rental rules than did children from the United Statesand Norway. In the Mexican sample only, lowdomination or restriction by parents predicted highanxiety in children. Walker-Barnes and Mason (2001)

Parental Control in Latino Families 1289

found that higher levels of parental decision making,as reported by ninth graders, predicted lower in-volvement in gangs for Hispanic Americans adoles-cents, but more involvement for African Americanadolescents. No relation was found for Euro-Amer-icans. Lindahl and Malik (1999) observed that hier-archical parenting was associated with externalizingbehaviors among Euro-American 7- to 11-year-olds,but not among their Hispanic peers. Finally, Blair etal. (1999) and Finkelstein et al. (2001) did not findsignificant relations between rule setting and chil-dren’s outcomes for Latinos.

Punitive Control

Physical and verbal punishment. In this section, wediscuss research on both physical and verbal pun-ishment because many studies operationalize puni-tive control with measures that combine both forms.The majority of studies in this area have imple-mented a between-group design. Regardless of childage, the evidence is fairly consistent that SES is astrong predictor of the use of these forms of pun-ishment in Latino families and that they are associ-ated with negative outcomes for Latino children andadolescents. Important exceptions are noted.

When SES is not controlled, Latino parents tend toscore significantly higher than Euro-American par-ents on measures of physical punishment (Cardona,Nicholson, & Fox, 2000; Johnson et al., 1983; Laosa,1980), as well as on measures that combine physicaland verbal punishment (MacPhee, Fritz, & Miller-Heyl, 1996). However, researchers who have sam-pled from only one social class or who have addedcontrols for SES have generally found no differencesbetween Latino and Euro-American parents oneither type of measure (Jambunathan, Burts, &Pierce, 2000; Julian, McKenry, & McKelvey, 1994;MacPhee et al., 1996; Medora, Wilson, & Larson,2001). Also, Uno et al. (1998) found that while ado-lescent Mexican-American mothers reported usingmore physical punishment than did Euro-Americanadolescent mothers, this relation was mediated bythe combined influences of financial, parenting, andglobal stress. The results obtained by Parke et al.(2004) help to explain why SES plays such an influ-ential role: economic pressure was linked to de-pressive symptoms for both mothers and fathers,and parental depressive symptoms, in turn, wererelated to the marital problems and combined par-ent – child reports of hostile parenting (strictness,punishment, and nagging) for fifth graders.

A few exceptions are worth noting. After control-ling for family income, Hill et al. (2003) found that

both Hispanic adolescents and their mothers report-ed higher parental hostile control than their Euro-American counterparts. Discrepant ethnic groupfindings may be due to child age. In the formerstudies, target children were primarily young (ages1 – 5), whereas in Hill et al.’ study children rangedfrom 8 to 13 years. A second exception involves theunexpected result obtained by Cardona et al. (2000)indicating that higher SES Hispanic mothers weremore likely to use physical and verbal punishmentthan were lower SES Hispanic mothers (or thanEuro-American mothers of either SES). The authorsspeculated that the successful (in terms of SES)mothers may have perceived high control to benecessary for Hispanic children to succeed in theUnited States The last exception involves the influ-ence of acculturative stress. Varela et al. (2004) foundthat after controlling for SES, Mexican-Americanparents of 10- to 14-year-old children reported moreauthoritarian parenting (used power assertion toenforce rules) than non-Hispanic White parents.However, within-ethnic group analyses revealed thatimmigrant Mexican and Mexican-American parentsreported higher use of authoritarian parenting thanmothers residing in Mexico. Thus, for some Latinoparents, acculturative stress may influence the use ofphysical/verbal punishment.

To our knowledge, only two studies have com-pared Latinos of different national origins in terms ofphysical and/or verbal punitiveness. Calzada andEyberg (2002) found that Dominican and Puerto Ri-can mothers of 2- to 6-year-olds reported similarlylow levels of physical punishment. Escover andEscovar (1985) showed Venezuelen and Colombiancollege students to report less maternal physicalpunishment than Cuban Americans or AngloAmericans; there were no group differences in verbalpunishment.

Except for one, all of the studies that we found onrelations between physical and/or verbal punish-ment and child and adolescent well-being indicatedpositive associations with anxiety and depression(Johnson et al., 1983; Hill et al., 2003) and negativitytoward or conflict with parents (Barber, 1994; Laosa,1980; Martınez, 1988). It is impossible to know,however, the extent to which punitive parenting wasthe cause or the result of children’s problems. Theonly study to show no links between physical andverbal punishment and outcomes in Latino familiesis that by Parke et al. (2004), who found that hostileparenting did not predict Mexican-American ado-lescent adjustment. Instead, parental marital qualitywas the critical variable. The Parke et al. (2004) studypoints to the important role that may be played by

1290 Halgunseth, Ispa, and Rudy

third, unmeasured variables in studies showing linksbetween harsh parenting and children’s well-being.

Psychological control. Psychological control refers toattempts by parents to influence children by ma-nipulating their thoughts and feelings throughtechniques such as guilt induction (Barber, 1994).Studies on psychological control in Latino familiesare few; those that exist focus on families with chil-dren in middle childhood and adolescence.

Both Durrett et al. (1975) and Julian et al. (1994)found that Hispanic fathers reported more emphasison child control of emotions (not crying, hiding an-ger) than Euro-American mothers or fathers. Durrettet al. also described Mexican-American mothers asusing more guilt-inducing techniques than Euro-American mothers. These results are in contrast tothose of Escover and Escovar (1985), who found thatLatin American college students perceived theirmothers to use less affective punishment than dideither Euro-American or Cuban American students.Affective punishment was assessed by items mea-suring students’ perceptions that when they didsomething their mothers did not like, their mothersacted cold and/or hurt and disappointed and pun-ished them by trying to make them feel guilty andashamed.

Qualitative research on Latino families has de-tected the prevalence of consejos, or spontaneoushomilies used to influence children’s moral behav-iors and attitudes. In her ethnographic study, Valdes(1996) observed that Mexican-American mothersused consejos as the main mechanism in educando a loshijos (teaching children rules of behavior). Mothersbelieved that it was their role as ‘‘educators’’ to en-gage in the practice of dando consejos (giving words ofwisdom), and they gave a consejo whenever they sawan opportunity, whether during ordinary conversa-tion or as a stand-alone lecture. Consejos is a formof psychological control in that the Latino parentis intending to shape the child’s attitudes andbehaviors.

Studies examining the relations between parentalpsychological control and children’s outcomes inLatino families exist but are minimal. In an obser-vational study of families with 7- to 12-year-oldchildren, Bronstein (1994) examined father – childand mother – child dyads in Central Mexico. Psy-chological control, defined as moralizing, correcting,pressuring, asking for opinions, and interrogating,was positively related to parental inattentivenessand to children’s passive and provocative resistance.Yet, Lopez (2001), in his qualitative study, observedthat when school was out of session, migrant Mexi-can-American parents promoted children’s academic

success by bringing their children to their place ofemployment so as to have time and opportunity forconsejos about the importance of hard work and do-ing well in school. Lopez (2001) reported that consejoswere instrumental in promoting academic success inMexican-American children. One explanation forthese discrepant findings is that consejos are moti-vated by child-centered goals (e.g., la educacion) be-lieved necessary for children’s well-being, and notby less benign motivations such as parental stressthat may drive other types of psychological control(Grusec & Goodnow, 1994; Hastings & Grusec, 1998).

Relatedly, although we made a decision to discussthis form of psychological control together withforms more traditionally included in that category,consejos are not always perceived as a form of pun-ishment. There is a clear need for research to disen-tangle the various forms of psychological control andthe parental motivations at their core.

Concluding Thoughts and Future Directions

By using cultural change and SIP models as theo-retical frameworks, our review of the literature haslinked Latino parents’ normative exercise of child-rearing control to three culturally based goals (fa-milismo, respeto, and educacion). Viewing parentalcontrol from this vantage point permits a new per-spective that adheres to research and theory on cul-ture, parenting, and psychology. It also explainsvariability in the use of Latino parental control andits effect on child development.

While the three goals we have highlighted aredeeply rooted in Latino culture, the literature alsomakes it clear that traditions carried from the coun-tries of origin are not the only sources of influence onLatino parents’ thoughts and behaviors regardingcontrol. As for parents everywhere, the immediatecontext also plays a significant role. For many Latinoparents living in the United States today, this contextincludes a series of variables connected to their sta-tuses as immigrants (or children of immigrants) andto their past and present economic and social posi-tions. Future research on Latino parents’ thoughtsand behaviors related to control must take to heartthe importance of these variables and their inter-sections with tradition-based goals.

We conclude with a set of recommendations forfuture research. These recommendations have im-plications for research questions that have yet to beasked and for sampling, variable selection, meas-urement, and, ultimately, interpretation of findings.We first turn to several considerations that bear onsample definition.

Parental Control in Latino Families 1291

Several scholars (e.g., Garcıa Coll, Meyer, &Brillon, 1995; Gil & Vega, 1996) have cautioned re-searchers to consider the diversity of the U.S. Latinopopulation. This diversity requires keen awarenessthat values and behaviors vary by country of origin,reasons for immigration, immigrant generation, ac-culturation, acculturative stress, SES, residence inethnic enclaves versus integrated neighborhoods,family structure, and child age and sex. Our reviewindicates that generalizing across these dimensionscan be problematic.

Researchers have long included SES in their re-search designs because it tends to be a good indicatorof parents’ financial, human, and social capital and,thereby, a good predictor of their beliefs and be-haviors (Brooks-Gunn & Markman, 2005). Themeasurement of SES typically relies on participantreport of income, occupation, and/or education.However, as pointed out by Fuligni and Yoshikawa(2003), measurement of these elements in Latinofamilies should, but usually does not, take into ac-count their unique circumstances. One circumstanceinvolves the availability of extrafamilial and non-traditional forms of income (Tienda & Raijman,2000). For example, a father who repairs cars forneighbors and gets paid in cash or in other servicesor goods might report that he is unemployedFyetthis work may significantly reduce the amount offamily stress associated with financial difficulty.Also, children or other kin (including fictive kin)may contribute financially to the family’s welfare;yet, these sources of income are not always assessed.Tienda and Raijman found that traditional means ofassessing income underestimated the actual amountsavailable to Mexican-American immigrant families.Often the extra income made the difference betweenbeing above or below the poverty level.

Increasingly, in studies on Latino parenting, de-gree of acculturation to U.S. norms joins SES as asampling criterion or independent variable. This isan important addition because acculturation is anundeniable contributor to parenting ideas and be-haviors (Buriel, 1993; Ispa et al., 2004). However, aswith SES, there are issues related to measurement.While questionnaires that directly assess the extentto which individuals have adopted the patterns ofthinking, behavior, and values of the host cultureexist (Marın et al., 1987), composite variables com-posed of generational status, language preference,and/or years in the United States are often used asproxies. While these measures seem to ‘‘work,’’ theyare imperfect, and like Negy and Woods (1992), wewould recommend more direct assessments that tapcultural values.

For immigrants, years in the United States do notconsider the nonlinear process of acculturativestress. Arredondo-Dowd (1981) described the proc-ess of acclimation to immigrant life as progressingthrough stages of initial excitement and euphoria,followed by periods of disenchantment and stressthat precede satisfactory adjustment. If the processesof adaptation and acculturation are curvilinear, moreyears in the United States do not translate to higheracculturation or lower acculturative stress. The in-clusion of acculturative stress measures would add auseful dimension that is currently absent from moststudies of parental control in Latino families in thatresearchers could consider it and other sources ofstress among Latino parents when examining intra-group variability in the use of control.

Studies that compare U.S. Latino values andpractices with those of similar-status parents livingin the countries of origin could also help disentanglethe values and practices that are rooted in traditionalculture and those that have been influenced by im-migration circumstances. However, researchers mustbe aware that beliefs in countries of origin may alsobe changing, so that comparisons are best drawnfrom country of origin data collected at the timewhen immigration occurred.

Relatedly, we would suggest that acculturationshould not be seen as an either – or proposition. Aspointed out by a number of researchers (e.g., GarcıaColl & Pachter, 2002; Harkness et al., 1992), ethnicminorities tend to synthesize traditional ways ofthinking and behaving with the ways of thinkingand behaving encountered in the host culture. Theresultant amalgam is a bicultural orientation that haselements of the cultures of origin and the host cul-ture. Studies of Latino parental control would benefitfrom the assessment of the bicultural orientations ofLatino parents (e.g., Cuellar et al. 1995; Szapocznik,Kurtines, & Fernandez, 1980). Such an examinationcould help to answer questions on Latino parentingsuch as, ‘‘what traditional childrearing values,childrearing goals, and childrearing behaviors aremaintained, rejected, or synthesized with those ofthe host culture?’’ and ‘‘what are the processes thatresult in maintenance, rejection, or synthesis?’’

We turn now to the interpretation of measures ofcontrol. As mentioned by Lindahl and Malik (1999),measures of authoritarian parenting tend toincorporate a component of cold or emotionallynegative parenting. These measures, originally de-rived from work with Euro-American families, ap-pear to be inappropriate for Latino families. Becauseseveral Latino childrearing values (familismo, respeto,and educacion) imply a family hierarchy in which

1292 Halgunseth, Ispa, and Rudy

the parents are dominant, measures that combinecontrol and emotion may not be appropriate forstudies involving Latino families. When rulesetting is rooted in cultural childrearing values, itmay be accompanied by a positive affective tone.Affective elements of parent – child interactions cangreatly influence the meaning that is transmitted tochildren, and therefore their openness to the social-izing efforts of their parents (Grusec & Goodnow,1994).

The literature also suggests that Latino parents’control-related practices are domain specific andshould not be generalized. We have cited findingsindicating that parents tend to be more controllingregarding extrafamilial contacts than regarding be-havior at home (Bulcroft et al., 1996). For reasons tobe explained below, parents may also have morerules regarding household chores than regardinghomework.

Findings from a study by Dornbusch et al. (1987)illustrate the confusion that can occur when attentionis not given to the specific domains in which controlis exercised. In this study, the researchers found thatLatino parents were both more authoritarianand more permissive than Euro-American parents.Examination of the items used to measure authori-tarianism and permissiveness, however, may help toresolve the apparent contradiction. Authoritarianismwas operationalized as the mean of eight items re-flecting parenting strategies that prohibit argumentwith them, that attempt to instill beliefs that ado-lescents must wait until they are adults to know best,and that withholding praise for good grades whenother grades are lower. In the context of Latino cul-ture, the majority of the items thus reflected thechildrearing goal of respeto (and not, it should besaid, emotional callousness). Seven of the eight itemson the scale measuring permissiveness describedparent involvement in schoolwork; adolescents ratedthe degree of their parents’ involvement in schoolprograms for parents and the extent to which theyhelped with and monitored homework. As Lopez(2001) and Fuligni and Yoshikawa (2003) havepointed out, Spanish-speaking immigrant parentsmay practice noninstitutional forms of ‘‘parental in-volvement’’ to support their children’s academicachievement, but, due to language barriers and lackof familiarity with the American school system,many do not feel competent to engage in formalschool organizations or in direct help with home-work. Lack of involvement in these particularschool-related domains should not be taken as lackof parental encouragement of children’s academicperformance.

New, culturally sensitive measures assessing theways in which Latino parents exercise control areneeded. We have described, for example, the use ofconsejos, or homilies, as strategies for influencingchildren’s moral standards and behaviors. To ourknowledge, no current instrument taps parents’ useof consejos, and so we tend to overlook a controltechnique that may have important implications forLatino children’s outcomes. Development of instru-ments based on the findings of qualitative and ob-servational studies of Latino parenting such as thosepresented in Harwood and Miller (1991) is needed.Translating instruments from English to Spanishalone cannot ensure that the constructs being mea-sured are sensitive to the Latino population.

Along similar lines, caution should be exercisedin the selection and interpretation of child outcomes.Often, the outcome of choice is school gradesor some other measure of individual achievement.Because Latino children tend to score lower thanEuro-American children on such measures (NationalCenter for Education Statistics, 2003), one interpre-tation could be that their parents’ childrearingstrategies are ineffective. However, it would behooveresearchers to keep in mind the goals that Latinoparents are likely to bring to bear when they exercisecontrol. These goals, which emphasize the impor-tance of interdependence, may place more value oninterpersonal skills or helping others than on indi-vidual variables such as the ability to perform aproject independently. Child outcomes shouldinclude the ways in which children contribute torelationships in addition to the ways in which theydemonstrate self-esteem and other characteristicsthat reflect a more independent orientation. In fact, itmay be interesting to compare Latino and main-stream parents’ reasons for feeling proud of a givenadolescent behavior. To offer an example that likelyexaggerates the differencesFimagine the emotionsthat parents may feel when a grade-school-aged sonoffers to mow the lawn. Mainstream U.S. parentsmay be delighted that their child wants to dosomething on his own and feels competent to do it.Latino parents’ main source of pride may be theirsense that their child wants to contribute to the well-being of the family.

Another avenue for future research would involveinvestigating the implicit or explicit rules that governwhen and how Latino parents grant others the au-thority to use control with their children. Severalresearchers have noted that the hierarchical nature ofLatino families allows for older siblings to assumesome responsibility for the care and teaching ofyounger siblings (Azmitia, Cooper, Garcıa, &

Parental Control in Latino Families 1293

Dunbar, 1996; Mosier & Rogoff, 2003; Valdes, 1996).Extended family members are also often called uponto take care of children (Zayas & Solari, 1994). Thus,the definition of an authority figure for Latino fam-ilies may need to be broadened so that it is in linewith cultural norms of caregiving.

Finally, we would agree with those (e.g., GarcıaColl et al., 1995) who have called for more within-group study of Latino families. While cross-culturalstudies are important, they run the risk of ignoringpredictors that are important in one group but not inanother, and in assuming equivalence across ethnicgroups in parenting indicators. Although avoidable,worse yet are the deficit explanations that sometimesfollow findings of group differences. Within-groupresearch directed toward determining how parentsof various backgrounds and with children in specificage groups use control in the service of valued childoutcomes will contribute greatly to the currentliterature.

References

Arredondo-Dowd, P. (1981). Personal loss and grief as aresult of immigration. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 59,376 – 378.

Azmitia, M., Cooper, C., Garcıa, E., & Dunbar, N. (1996).The ecology of family guidance in low-income Mexican-American and Euro-American families. Social Develop-ment, 5, 1 – 23.

Baer, J. (1999). Family relationships, parenting behavior,and adolescent deviance in three ethnic groups. Familiesin Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 80,279 – 285.

Barber, B. (1994). Cultural, family, and personal contexts ofparent-adolescent conflict. Journal of Marriage and theFamily, 56, 375 – 386.

Bartz, K. W., & Levine, E. S. (1978). Childrearing by Blackparents: A description and comparison to Anglo andChicano parents. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 40,709 – 719.

Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental author-ity. Developmental Psychology Monographs, 4, 1 – 103.

Blair, S., Blair, M., & Madamba, A. (1999). Racial/ethnicdifferences in high school students’ academic perfor-mance: Understanding the interweave of social classand ethnicity in the family context. Journal of ComparativeFamily Studies, 30, 539 – 555.

Bronstein, P. (1994). Patterns of parent – child interaction inMexican families: A cross-cultural perspective. Interna-tional Journal of Behavioral Development, 17, 423 – 446.

Brooks-Gunn, J., & Markman, L. (2005). The contributionsof parenting to ethnic and racial gaps in school readi-ness. The Future of Children, 15, 139 – 168.

Bulcroft, R., Carmody, D., & Bulcroft, K. (1996). Patterns ofparental independence giving to adolescents: Variations

by race, age, and gender of child. Journal of Marriage andthe Family, 58, 866 – 883.

Buriel, R. (1993). Childrearing orientations in MexicanAmerican families: The influence of generation and so-ciocultural factors. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55,987 – 1000.

Buriel, R., & Hurtado-Ortiz, M. (2000). Child care practicesand preferences of native-and foreign-born Latinamothers and Euro-American mothers. Hispanic Journal ofBehavioral Sciences, 22, 314 – 331.

Calzada, E., & Eyberg, S. (2002). Self-reported parentingpractices in Dominican and Puerto Rican mothers ofyoung children. Journal of Clinical Child and AdolescentPsychology, 31, 354 – 363.

Cardona, P., Nicholson, B., & Fox, R. (2000). Parentingamong Hispanic and Anglo-American mothers withyoung children. The Journal of Social Psychology, 140,357 – 365.

Carlson, C., Uppal, S., & Prosser, E. (2000). Ethnic differ-ences in processes contributing to the self-esteem ofearly adolescent girls. Journal of Early Adolescence, 20,44 – 67.

Carlson, V., & Harwood, R. (2003). Attachment, culture,and the caregiving system: The cultural patterning ofeveryday experiences among Anglo and Puerto Ricanmother-infant pairs. Infant Mental Health Journal, 24,53 – 73.

Crain, W. (2000). Theories of development: Concepts and ap-plications (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and refor-mulation of social information-processing mechanismsin children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin,115, 74 – 101.

Cuellar, I., Arnold, B., & Gonzalez, G. (1995). Cognitivereferents of acculturation: Assessment of cultural con-structs in Mexican American families. Journal of Com-munity Psychology, 23, 339 – 356.

Cuellar, I., Harris, L. C., & Jasso, R. (1980). An acculturationscale for Mexican American normal and clinical popu-lations. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 2, 199 – 217.

Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1993). Parenting in two generations ofMexican American families. International Journal of Be-havioral Development, 16, 409 – 427.

Dix, T. H. (1992). Parenting on behalf of the child: Empathicgoals in the regulation of responsive parenting. In I. E.Sigel, A. V. McGillicuddy DeLisi, & J. J. Goodnow (Eds.),Parental belief systems: The psychological consequences forchildren (Vol. 2, pp. 319 – 346). Mahwah, NJ: Elbaum.

Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Leiderman, P. H., Roberts, D.F., & Fraleigh, M. J. (1987). The relationship of parentingstyle to adolescent school performance. Child Develop-ment, 58, 1244 – 1257.

Dumka, L., Roosa, M., & Jackson, K. (1997). Risk, conflict,mothers’ parenting, and children’s adjustment inlow-income, Mexican immigrant, and Mexican Ameri-can families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59,309 – 323.

1294 Halgunseth, Ispa, and Rudy

Durrett, M. E., O’Bryant, S., & Pennebaker, J. W. (1975).Child-rearing reports of White, Black, and Mexican-American families. Developmental Psychology, 11, 871.

Escovar, L. A., & Escovar, P. L. (1985). Retrospective per-ception of parental child-rearing practices in three cul-turally different collage groups. International Journal ofIntercultural Relations, 9, 31 – 49.

Finkelstein, J., Donenberg, G., & Martinovich, Z. (2001).Maternal control and adolescent depression: Ethnicdifferences among clinically referred girls. Journal ofYouth and Adolescence, 30, 155 – 171.

Forehand, R., Miller, K., Dutra, R., & Watts Chance, M.(1997). Role of parenting in adolescent deviant behavior:Replication across and within two ethnic groups. Journalof Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 1036 – 1041.

Fracasso, M. P., Busch-Rossnagel, N. A., & Fisher, C. B.(1994). The relationship of maternal behavior and ac-culturation to the quality of attachment in Hispanic in-fants living in New York City. Hispanic Journal ofBehavioral Sciences, 16, 143 – 154.

Fuligni, A. J. (1998). Adolescents from immigrant families.In V. McLoyd & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Research on minorityadolescents: Conceptual, theoretical, and methodological is-sues (pp. 127 – 143). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Fuligni, A. J., Tseng, V., & Lam, M. (1999). Attitudes towardfamily obligations among American adolescents withAsian, Latin American, and European backgrounds.Child Development, 70, 1030 – 1044.

Fuligni, A. J., & Yoshikawa, H. (2003). Socioeconomic re-sources, parenting, and child development among im-migrant families. In M. Bornstein & R. Bradley (Eds.),SES, parenting, and child development (pp. 107 – 124).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Garcıa Coll, C., Meyer, E., & Brillon, L. (1995). Ethnicand minority parenting. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Hand-book of parenting Vol. 2: Biology and ecology of parenting(pp. 189 – 209). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrance Erlbaum Asso-ciates Inc.

Garcıa Coll, C., & Pachter, L. M. (2002). Ethnic and mi-nority parenting. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook ofparenting: Vol. 4. Social conditions and applied parenting(pp. 1 – 20). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gil, A. G., & Vega, W. A. (1996). Two different worlds:Acculturation stress and adaptation among Cuban andNicaraguan families. Journal of Social and Personal Rela-tionships, 13, 425 – 456.

Gonzalez-Ramos, G., Zayas, L. H., & Cohen, E. V. (1998).Child-rearing values of low-income, urban Puerto Ricanmothers of preschool children. Professional Psychology:Research and Practice, 29, 377 – 382.

Grusec, J. E., & Goodnow, J. J. (1994). Impact of parentaldiscipline methods on the child’s internalization ofvalues: A reconceptualization of current points of view.Developmental Psychology, 30, 4 – 19.

Harkness, S., Super, C. M., & Keefer, C. H. (1992). Learningto be an American parent: How cultural models gaindirective force. In R. D’Andrade & C. Strauss, Human

motives and cultural models (pp. 163 – 178). New York:Cambridge University Press.

Harwood, R. L. (1992). The influence of culturally derivedvalues on Anglo and Puerto Rican mothers’ perceptionsof attachment behavior. Child Development, 63, 822 – 839.

Harwood, R. L., & Miller, J. G. (1991). Perceptions of at-tachment behavior: A comparison of Anglo and PuertoRican mothers. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 37, 583 – 599.

Harwood, R. L., Scholmerich, A., Ventura-Cook, E.,Schulze, P. A., & Wilson, S. P. (1996). Culture and classinfluences on Anglo and Puerto Rican mothers’ beliefsregarding long-term socialization goals and child be-havior. Child Development, 67, 2446 – 2461.

Hastings, P. D., & Grusec, J. E. (1998). Parenting goals asorganizers of responses to parent – child disagreement.Developmental Psychology, 34, 465 – 479.

Hill, N., Bush, K., & Roosa, M. (2003). Parenting and familysocialization strategies and children’s mental health: Low-income Mexican-American and Euro-American mothersand children. Child Development, 74, 189 – 204.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills,CA: Sage.

Ispa, J. M., Fine, M. A., Halgunseth, L. C., Harper, S.,Robinson, J., Boyce, L., et al. (2004). Maternal intru-siveness, maternal warmth, and mother-toddler rela-tionship outcomes: Variations across low-income ethnicand language groups. Child Development, 75, 1613 – 1631.

Jambunathan, S., Burts, D. C., & Pierce, S. (2000). Com-parisons of parenting attitudes among five ethnicgroups in the United States. Journal of Comparative FamilyStudies, 31, 395 – 406.

Johnson, D., Teigen, K., & Davila, R. (1983). Anxiety andsocial restriction: A study of children in Mexico, Nor-way, and the United States. Journal of Cross-CulturalPsychology, 14, 439 – 454.

Julian, T., McKenry, P., & McKelvey, M. (1994). Culturalvariations in parenting: Perceptions of Caucasian, Afri-can-American, Hispanic, and Asian-American parents.Family Relations, 43, 30 – 37.

Knight, G. P., Virdin, L. M., & Roosa, M. (1994). Social-ization and family correlates of mental health outcomesamong Hispanic and Anglo American children: Con-siderations of cross-ethnic scalar equivalence. Child De-velopment, 65, 212 – 224.

Korn, S. J., & Gannon, S. (1983). Temperament, culturalvariation and behavior disorder in preschool children.Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 13, 203 – 212.

Laosa, L. M. (1980). Maternal teaching strategies in Chi-cano and Anglo-American families: The influence ofculture and education on maternal behavior. Child De-velopment, 51, 759 – 765.

Lindahl, K., & Malik, N. (1999). Marital conflict, familyprocesses, and boys’ externalizing behavior in HispanicAmerican and Euro-American families. Journal of Clini-cal Child Psychology, 28, 12 – 24.

Lopez, D. E., & Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2001). MexicanAmericans: A second generation at risk. In R. Rumbaut& A. Portes (Eds.), Ethnicities: Children of immigrants in

Parental Control in Latino Families 1295

America (pp. 57 – 90). Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress.

Lopez, G. R. (2001). The value of hard work: Lessons onparent involvement from an (im)migrant household.Harvard Educational Review, 71, 416 – 437.

Lorber, M. F., O’Leary, S. G., & Kendziora, K. T. (2003).Mothers’ overreactive discipline and their encoding andappraisals of toddler behavior. Journal of Abnormal ChildPsychology, 31, 485 – 494.

Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in thecontext of the family: Parent – child interaction. In E. M.Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 4.Socialization, personality, and social development (4th ed.,pp. 1 – 101). New York: Wiley.

MacPhee, D., Fritz, J., & Miller-Heyl, J. (1996). Ethnic var-iation in personal social networks and parenting. ChildDevelopment, 67, 3278 – 3295.

Marın, G., Sabogal, F., Van Oss Marın, B., Otero-Sabogal,R., & Perez-Stable, E. (1987). Development of a shortacculturation scale for Hispanics. Hispanic Journal of Be-havioral Sciences, 9, 183 – 205.

Marın, G., Van Oss Marın, B., Otero-Sabogal, R., Sabogal,F., & Perez-Stable, E. (1989). The role of acculturation inthe attitudes, norms, and expectancies of Hispanicsmokers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20,399 – 415.

Martınez, E. (1988). Child behavior in Mexican American/Chicano families: Maternal teaching and child-rearingpractices. Family Relations, 37, 275 – 280.

Medora, N., Wilson, S., & Larson, J. (2001). Attitudes to-ward parenting strategies, potential for child abuse, andparental satisfaction of ethnically diverse low-income U.S. mothers. The Journal of Social Psychology, 141, 335 – 348.

Minturn, L., & Lambert, W. (1964). Mothers of six cul-turesFantecedents of childrearing. New York: Wiley.

Moreno, R. (1997). Everyday instruction: A comparison ofMexican American and Anglo mothers and their pre-school children. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 19,527 – 540.

Mosier, C., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Privileged treatment oftoddlers: Cultural aspects of individual choice and re-sponsibility. Developmental Psychology, 39, 1047 – 1060.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). The na-tion’s report card: Reading Highlights 2003. RetrievedMarch 1, 2005, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreport-card/pdf/main2003/2004452.pdf.

Negy, C., & Woods, D. (1992). The importance of accul-turation in understanding research with Hispanic-Americans. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 14,224 – 247.

Okagaki, L., & Frensch, P. (1998). Parenting and children’sschool achievement: A multiethnic perspective. Ameri-can Educational Research Journal, 35, 123 – 144.

Okagaki, L., & Sternberg, R. (1993). Parental beliefs andchildren’s school performance. Child Development, 64,36 – 56.

Oyserman, D., Coon, H., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Re-thinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of

theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. PsychologicalBulletin, 128, 3 – 72.

Parke, R., Coltrane, S., Duffy, S., Buriel, R., Dennis, J.,Powers, J., et al. (2004). Economic stress, parenting, andchild adjustment in Mexican American and Euro-American families. Child Development, 75, 1632 – 1656.

Phinney, J., Ong, A., & Madden, T. (2000). Cultural valuesand intergenerational value discrepancies in immigrant andnon-immigrant families. Child Development, 71, 528 – 539.

Pinderhughes, E. E., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S.,& Zelli, A. (2000). Discipline responses: Influences ofparents’ SES, ethnicity, beliefs about parenting, stress,and cognitive-emotional processes. Journal of FamilyPsychology, 14, 380 – 400.

Planos, R., Zayas, L. H., & Busch-Rossnagel, N. A. (1997).Mental health factors and teaching behaviors amonglow income Hispanic mothers. Families in Society, 78,4 – 12.

Plunkett, S., & Bamaca-Gomez, M. (2003). The relationshipbetween parenting, acculturation, and adolescent aca-demics in Mexican-origin immigrant families in Los An-geles. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 25, 222 – 239.

Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. (1996). Immigrant American: Aportrait (2nd ed.). Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress.

Procidano, M., & Rogler, L. H. (1989). Homogamous as-sortative mating among Puerto Rican families: Inter-generational processes and the migration experience.Behavior Genetics, 19(3), 343 – 354.

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.

Reese, L., Kroesen, K., & Gallimore, R. (2000). Agency andschool performance among urban Latino youth. In R.Taylor & M. Wang (Eds.), Resilience across contexts: Fam-ily, work, culture, and community (pp. 295 – 332). Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum.

Rogler, L. H., & Santana Cooney, R. (1984). Puerto Ricanfamilies in New York City: Intergenerational processes. Ma-plewood, NJ: Waterfront.

Rueschenberg, E., & Buriel, R. (1989). Mexican Americanfamily functioning and acculturation: A family systemsperspective. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 11,232 – 244.

Rumbaut, R. (2001). Acculturation, discrimination, andethnic identity among children of immigrants. RetrievedMarch 1, 2003, from http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/ine-quality/seminar/papers/Rumbaut1.pdf

Sabogal, F., Marın, G., Otero-Sabogal, R., VanOss Marın, B.,& Perez-Stable, E. (1987). Hispanic familism and accul-turation: What changes and what doesn’t? HispanicJournal of Behavioral Sciences, 9, 397 – 412.

Schaefer, E. S. (1965). Children’s report of parental behav-ior: An inventory. Child Development, 25, 413 – 424.

Schulze, P. A., Harwood, R. L., & Schoelmerich, A. (2001).Feeding practices and expectations among middle-class

1296 Halgunseth, Ispa, and Rudy

Anglo and Puerto Rican mothers of 12-month-old in-fants. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 397 – 406.

Shakib, S., Mouttapa, M., Anderson Johnson, C., Ritt-Ol-son, A., Gallaher, P., & Unger, J. B. (2003). Ethnic varia-tion in parental influences on adolescent smoking.Journal of Adolescent Health, 33, 89 – 97.

Staples, R., & Mirande, A. (1980). Racial and cultural var-iations among American families: A decennial review ofthe literature on minority families. Journal of Marriageand the Family, 42, 887 – 903.

Stattin, H., & Kerr, M. (2000). Parental monitoring: A re-interpretation. Child Development, 71, 1072 – 1085.

Szapocznik, J., Kurtines, W. M., & Fernandez, T. (1980).Bicultural involvement and adjustment in Hispanic-American Youth. International Journal of Intercultural Re-lation, 4, 353 – 365.

Taylor, V. L., Hurley, E. C., & Riley, M. T. (1986). The in-fluence of acculturation upon adjustment of preschoolMexican-American children of single-parent families.Family Therapy, 13, 249 – 256.

Tenenbaum, H. R., & Leaper, C. (1997). Mother’s andfather’s questions to their child in Mexican-descentfamilies: Moderators of cognitive demand during play.Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 19, 318 – 323.

Tienda, M., & Raijman, R. (2000). Immigrants’ incomepackaging and invisible labor force activity. Social ScienceQuarterly, 81, 291 – 310.

Uno, D., Florsheim, P., & Uchino, B. (1998). Psychologicalmechanisms underlying quality of parenting amongMexican-American and White adolescent mothers.Journal of Youth and Adolescents, 27, 585 – 605.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2001). Differences in population byrace and hispanic or latino origin, for the United States:1990 to 2000. Washington, DC: Government PrintingOffice.

Valdes, G. (1996). Con Respeto: Bridging the distances betweenculturally diverse families and schools. An ethnographicportrait. New York: Teachers College Press.

Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive Schooling: U.S. – MexicanYouth and the Politics of Caring. Albany: State Universityof New York Press.

Varela, R. E., Vernberg, E. M., Sanchez-Sosa, J. J., Riveros,A., Mitchell, M., & Mashunkashey, J. (2004). ParentingStyle of Mexican, Mexican American, and Caucasian-Non-Hispanic Families: Social Context and CulturalInfluences. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 651 – 657.

Villenas, S. (2001). Latina mothers and small-town racisms:Creating narratives of dignity and moral education inNorth Carolina. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 32,3 – 28.

Walker-Barnes, C. J., & Mason, C. A. (2001). Ethnic differ-ences in the effect of parenting on gang involvementand gang delinquency: A longitudinal, hierarchicallinear modeling perspective. Child Development, 72,1814 – 1831.

Zayas, L. H., & Solari, F. (1994). Early childhood social-ization in Hispanic familias: Context, culture, andpractice implications. Professional Psychological: Researchand Practice, 25, 200 – 206.

Zeskind, P. S. (1983). Cross-cultural differences in maternalperceptions of cries of low-and high-risk infants. ChildDevelopment, 54, 1119 – 1128.

Parental Control in Latino Families 1297