J Youth Adolescence DOI 10.1007/s10964-013-0053-z

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

A Longitudinal Examination of Parenting Processes and Latino Youth’s Risky Sexual Behaviors Sarah E. Killoren • Arielle R. Deutsch

Received: 26 August 2013 / Accepted: 23 October 2013 Ó Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Abstract Latino adolescents engage in riskier sexual behaviors compared to their peers, shown by their higher rates of sexually transmitted infections and lower rates of condom usage; therefore, examining the precursors and correlates of these risky sexual behaviors is important for prevention–intervention program development. Based on cultural–ecological, symbolic interaction, and gender socialization perspectives, we examined associations among mothers’ and fathers’ parenting and Latino youth’s sexual risk over a 5 year period. Further, we investigated the direct and moderating roles of acculturation (e.g., language spoken in the home), nativity (e.g., citizenship status), and adolescents’ gender. Using data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth (N = 1,899 Latino youth; 49 % female), we conducted a multi-level path model controlling for adolescents’ age and prior sexual experience. Our findings revealed that more strictness by mothers and less strictness by fathers at Time 1 were related to lower sexual risk for adolescents at Time 2. Additionally, more monitoring by fathers at Time 2 was associated with lower sexual risk for adolescents at Time 3. Significant gender differences were found such that there were stronger associations among parenting processes and sexual risk for girls than for boys. Finally, we found support for the immigrant paradox (foreign-born youth reported lower sexual risk than US-born youth) and greater gender S. E. Killoren (&) Department of Human Development and Family Studies, University of Missouri, 304 Gentry Hall, Columbia, MO 65211, USA e-mail: [email protected] A. R. Deutsch Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri, 147 Psychology Building, Columbia, MO 65211, USA

differences (boys had riskier sexual behaviors than girls) for immigrant compared to US-born youth. The findings reveal the complex associations among parenting processes, nativity status, gender, and sexual risk for Latino adolescents. Keywords Adolescence
Gender differences
Latino families
Parenting
Sexual risk

Introduction Risky sexual behavior in adolescence is consistently related to poorer outcomes in areas such as health and education (e.g., Perper et al. 2010; Scott et al. 2011); thus, it is crucial that precursors and correlates of such behavior are understood to facilitate more effective prevention practices. Researchers investigating adolescents’ involvement in risky sexual behaviors have highlighted the role of parenting processes (e.g., Deptula et al. 2010). Recently, this research has been extended to Latino adolescents (Trejos-Castillo and Vazsonyi 2009) for two important reasons. First, compared to non-Latino whites, Latino youth have higher rates of sexually transmitted infections, including chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2010) and lower rates of condom use (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2011). Second, given the importance placed on family relationships by Latinos (Cauce and Domenech-Rodriguez 2002) and empirical findings linking parent–adolescent relationships to Latino adolescents’ sexual outcomes (e.g., Raffaelli et al. 2009), understanding the parent–adolescent relationship correlates of Latino youth’s risky sexual behaviors is important to develop effective prevention– intervention programs focused on Latino youth’s healthy

123

J Youth Adolescence

sexuality development. Additionally, examining associations between parenting and adolescents’ sexual risk over time is crucial given that Latino adolescents’ sexual risk increases throughout adolescence (Guarini et al. 2011) and because different dimensions of parenting may be more salient at specific periods during adolescence than others (Coley et al. 2009; Kincaid et al. 2012). Using cultural–ecological (Garcia Coll et al. 1996), symbolic interaction (Blumer 1969; Christopher 2001), and gender socialization (Maccoby 1998) perspectives, we had two goals. Our first goal was to test longitudinal associations among mothers’ and fathers’ parenting processes (i.e., support, monitoring, strictness) and Latino youth’s sexual risk. Our second goal was to examine the moderating roles of acculturation (i.e., language spoken in the home), nativity status (i.e., foreign-born or US-born) and adolescents’ gender on these associations. The present study extends previous research on parenting, acculturation, and Latino youth’s sexual risk (e.g., Afable-Munsuz and Brindis 2006; Raffaelli et al. 2009) by focusing on adolescents’ relationships with both mothers and fathers, including adolescents’ gender as a moderator, and examining associations among parenting processes, acculturation, nativity status, and sexual risk at multiple points during adolescence. Family and Cultural Context of Adolescents’ Sexual Involvement According to a cultural–ecological perspective (Garcia Coll et al. 1996), it is important for researchers to examine the numerous contexts that are associated with adolescents’ development, including adolescents’ sexual development. Drawing on this perspective, Latino adolescents are embedded within the family context and the family is embedded within a cultural context. Specifically, Latino adolescents’ sexual development is formed in part by interactions with family members and family members’ characteristics, and these interactions and characteristics are formed by the cultural context. Both theory and extant research point to the importance of investigating the family context, specifically parenting processes and features, when examining adolescents’ sexual behaviors. According to symbolic interactionism, when adolescents have warm relationships with their parents, they are likely to internalize parents’ values and ideas about appropriate behaviors (Blumer 1969; Christopher 2001). Thus, adolescents reporting supportive relationships with parents are more likely to internalize role-appropriate behavior and are at less risk for involvement in risky sexual behaviors. Research has supported these theoretical notions, revealing that, in general, more positive parent– adolescent relationship quality is related to adolescents’

123

lower sexual risk over time (Markham et al. 2010; TrejosCastillo and Vazsonyi 2009), even when considering prior sexual involvement (Deptula et al. 2010). For example, among Latinos, maternal support was negatively associated with adolescents’ later sexual risk (Trejos-Castillo and Vazsonyi 2009). Other important parenting processes to consider are parental monitoring and strictness. In the literature on sexual behaviors, monitoring and strictness were related to lower sexual risk (DiClemente et al. 2001; Markham et al. 2010) potentially because these parenting behaviors may reduce adolescents’ opportunities to engage in sexual behaviors. Specifically, using longitudinal data, researchers have found that greater levels of monitoring by parents were associated with less involvement in risky sexual behaviors (DiClemente et al. 2001; East et al. 2006; Markham et al. 2010). Turning to parental strictness, crosssectional work has revealed a curvilinear relationship between strictness of parents and adolescents’ sexual behavior such that low and high levels of strictness were related to more sexual involvement and moderate levels of strictness were related to less sexual involvement (Miller et al. 1986). More recent work, however, has revealed that greater maternal strictness was associated with a lower likelihood of teenage pregnancy for Latina adolescent girls (East et al. 2006). Research has shown that Latino youth report higher levels of parental rule setting compared to youth from European American families and that parental rule setting is beneficial for Latino adolescents (Halgunseth et al. 2006). Consistent with the reviewed research, we expected that greater levels of mothers’ and fathers’ support, monitoring, and strictness would reduce sexual risk and lower levels of support, monitoring, and strictness would place adolescents at risk for engaging in risky sexual behaviors. An important contribution of our study was including fathers in the examination of parenting processes and Latino adolescents’ sexual outcomes. Although growing, there is a limited body of research on the role of fathers in Latino families (e.g., Crockett et al. 2007). Latino fathers’ parenting has been related to adolescents’ adjustment including self-esteem (Behnke et al. 2011), depressive symptoms, involvement in risky behaviors, and academic achievement (Delgado et al. 2013). Research focused on Mexican-American families has revealed that adolescents perceive differences in their relationships with their mothers and fathers (Crockett et al. 2007). For instance, adolescents report more open communication with mothers than with fathers. Additionally, empirical work with Mexican-American families has shown that mothers have more knowledge about their children’s daily lives than do fathers (Updegraff et al. 2009). Therefore, investigating Latino adolescents’ relationships with both mothers and

J Youth Adolescence

fathers and how these relationships are associated with adolescents’ sexual behaviors is an important endeavor given the potential for differential associations based on parents’ gender. Further, it is important to examine associations among parenting processes and youth’s sexual risk throughout adolescence (Coley et al. 2009; Kincaid et al. 2012). Given that the parent–child relationship changes during adolescence (Smetana et al. 2006) and adolescents’ autonomy becomes increasingly important during the second decade of life (Steinberg 2001), it is possible that some dimensions of parenting may become less salient over time (e.g., strictness), whereas others may become more salient (e.g., monitoring). Specifically, research has found that, as adolescents gain more autonomy throughout adolescence, the importance of parental monitoring increases (Smetana et al. 2006). Thus, it is important to study relationships between parenting and adolescents’ sexual behaviors throughout adolescence. Additionally, we were interested in the direct effects and moderating roles of acculturation and nativity status on the associations between parenting processes and adolescents’ sexual risk because the cultural context has important implications for Latino youth’s sexual involvement (e.g., Raffaelli et al. 2012). Although findings on the relationships between acculturation and adolescents’ sexual behaviors is mixed (Afable-Munsuz and Brindis 2006), likely due to the use of proxy measures of acculturation, there is evidence that culture and generational status are related to Latino adolescents’ sexual behaviors (Guarini et al. 2011; Lee and Hahm 2010; Raffaelli et al. 2012). Lee and Hahm (2010) found that Latina youth who were more acculturated (i.e., spoke English at home) reported more STIs and risky sexual behaviors during the transition to adulthood (e.g., four or more lifetime sexual partners, lack of condom use) than less acculturated Latinas (e.g., foreign-born and spoke Spanish at home). Additionally, Guarini et al. (2011) and Raffaelli et al. (2012) have presented empirical support for the immigrant paradox in Latino youth’s risky sexual behaviors using longitudinal data, showing that first generation adolescents have the lowest sexual risk compared to later generation adolescents (e.g., least likely to have ever had sexual intercourse and highest age of first intercourse). Several studies have considered parenting processes and the cultural context when investigating Latino adolescents’ sexuality and results have been mixed. For instance, Trejos-Castillo and Vazsonyi (2009) found that when mother– adolescent relationship features were considered in conjunction with acculturation and nativity status, sexual risk did not differ based on generational status. The authors suggested that positive parenting is particularly salient for preventing youth’s risky behavior involvement and this

remains unchanged across generations. Killoren et al. (2011), however, found differences in Mexican-origin adolescents’ intentions to engage in sex based on parent– adolescent relationship qualities and cultural orientations using a cross-sectional design. Further, Killoren et al. (2011) included both mothers and fathers in their study and their findings revealed that associations between parent– adolescent relationship qualities, cultural orientations, and youth’s sexual intentions differed for mothers and fathers. Thus, given the discrepant findings linking parenting processes, culture, and Latino youth’s sexuality, and the lack of studies investigating the role of fathers in Latino adolescents’ sexuality, we investigated the moderating roles of acculturation and nativity status on the links between mothers’ and fathers’ support, monitoring, and strictness, and Latino youth’s sexual risk. Importance of Adolescents’ Gender In addition to cultural variables and family processes, gender is an important aspect to consider when examining Latino adolescents’ sexual behaviors. Gender differences in sexual involvement are well established and reveal that Latino boys are more likely to have had an earlier sexual debut and a greater number of sexual partners than Latina girls (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2008). Latina girls, however, exhibit a larger increase in sexual risk throughout adolescence compared to Latino boys (Guarini et al. 2011). In addition to these mean level differences by gender for Latino adolescents, it is also important to consider differential socialization experiences for boys and girls given the emphasis on gender as an organizing feature of family life among Latinos (Cauce and Domenech-Rodriguez 2002). These differential socialization experiences may have implications for parenting and Latino adolescents’ involvement in sexual behaviors. For instance, researchers have found that parents are more protective of daughters than of sons (Azmitia and Brown 2002). Further, there is evidence that parents were stricter about their daughters’ activities outside the home than their sons’ activities (Ayala 2006). There are also potential gender differences in the messages that Latino adolescents receive about sex. Researchers document that while Latina girls receive messages about avoiding sex (and thus, avoiding pregnancy), Latino boys are given more leniency; abstinence is emphasized, but there is more discussion about ‘‘protection’’ during sexual activity (Murphy-Erby et al. 2011). Given these differences in parenting dynamics in Latino families and differences in sexual behaviors based on adolescents’ gender, investigating the role of adolescents’ gender in studies of parenting processes, culture, and Latino adolescents’ sexual involvement is important.

123

J Youth Adolescence

Hypotheses

Procedure

Drawing on cultural–ecological, symbolic interaction, and gender socialization perspectives and previous empirical findings, we had four hypotheses. First, given previous literature linking parenting processes and adolescents’ sexual risk (e.g., East et al. 2006; Markham et al. 2010), we anticipated that more parental support, monitoring, and strictness would be associated with lower sexual risk than less parental support, monitoring, and strictness throughout adolescence. Additionally, we hypothesized that monitoring may become more salient throughout adolescence as youth gain more autonomy from parents. Second, in line with prior work based on the immigrant paradox (Raffaelli et al. 2012), we expected that adolescents who were more acculturated to the US (i.e., English spoken in the home) and born in the US would have higher sexual risk throughout adolescence than Latino adolescents who were less acculturated to the US (i.e., Spanish spoken in the home) and foreign-born. Given the discrepant findings, we did not have specific hypotheses regarding the interaction between parenting processes, acculturation and nativity status predicting adolescents’ risky sexual behaviors. Third, using a gender socialization perspective (Maccoby 1998) and based on evidence of differential socialization for Latino boys and girls (Azmitia and Brown 2002), we hypothesized that boys would report higher sexual risk than girls. Fourth, we expected stronger associations between parenting processes and sexual risk for Latina girls than for Latino boys.

Youth interviews were conducted annually from 1997 until 2010, and parent/guardian interviews were conducted in 1997. The retention rate for youth interviews was high (87.7 % in 2002). NLSY97 public use datasets, measure and procedure description, and instruments are available on the NLSY website (US Department of Labor 2008). The interview was offered in both English and Spanish. At T1, 4.98 % of participants (n = 94) were interviewed in Spanish. This number decreased to 3 % at T2, and 1.91 % at T3. Measures Demographic Variables Age, gender (0 = female, 1 = male), citizenship status (0 = not a natural born citizen, 1 = natural born citizen, used as a proxy for nativity status, 0 = foreign born, 1 = US-born), and another language (Spanish) spoken at home (0 = no, 1 = yes) were assessed at T1. Sexual Intercourse Status Having had sex at T1 was used as a control variable. Participants who reported having engaged in sex at T1 were coded with a 1 (had sex by T1) and those who reported not having had sex, at T1, but by T3, were coded with a 0 (did not have sex by T1).

Methods

Sexual Risk

Participants

Sexual risk was measured two times, at T2 and T3. Measurements for both waves were the same. A five-item count variable was used as the risk measure. Risk was assessed by reports of past year risky sexual behaviors: (1) having sex with a stranger, (2) having had four or more sexual partners, (3) having had an age of sexual onset before age 15, (4) using a form of contraception that does not protect against STI as the most commonly used form of contraception, and (5) using a form of contraception that does not protect against pregnancy as the most commonly used form of contraception.

Participants were from the 1997 National Longitudinal Study of Youth (NLSY97), sponsored by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. The sample was restricted to participants who reported having a Hispanic ethnicity (N = 1,899). Adolescents had a mean age of 14.29 years (SD = 1.47; range 12–18 years) at wave 1997 and 49 % of the adolescents were female. The majority of adolescents (76.1 %) reported speaking Spanish at home and half were natural born citizens (born in the US; 51.8 %). We refer to wave 1997 as Time 1 (T1), wave 2000 as Time 2 (T2), and wave 2002 as Time 3 (T3). In 1997, 63.5 % of youth reported living in a two-parent home with at least one biological parent, with most of these youth (53.3 % of sample) living with both biological parents. Twenty-eight percent of youth reported living with only their biological mother. A smaller group of youth reported living with their biological father only, foster or adoptive parents, or other relatives (8 % of sample).

123

Parental Monitoring Monitoring was assessed at both T1 and T2. Youth were asked about the parental monitoring style of both residential mother and father. The monitoring scale had four items assessing how much each parent knew about youth’s close friends, parents of close friends, individuals associated with when not at home, and teachers/activities in school. Items

J Youth Adolescence

were measured using a five-item scale from 0 (knows nothing) to 4 (knows everything), and scores were summed. As indicated by the NLSY codebook (US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics 2008), Cronbach’s a for the entire sample for maternal monitoring was .71, while the alpha for paternal monitoring was .81. For adolescents who did not live with their mother or father, parenting questions were asked about residential maternal and paternal figures. Parental Support and Strictness Youth reported on both residential mothers’ and fathers’ parenting styles at T1 and T2. Parenting style was assessed using two items measuring support and strictness, corresponding to the two dimensions of parenting styles. The support item ‘‘When you think about how s/he acts towards you, in general, would you say that s/he is very supportive, somewhat supportive, or not very supportive’’, was measured on a three-point scale from 1 (very supportive) to 3 (not very supportive). The strictness item ‘‘In general, would you say that s/he is permissive or strict about making sure you did what you were supposed to do’’, was measured using a binary scale of either 1 (permissive) or 2 (strict). The two items were then combined to produce a parenting style 4—category variable depicting the four prototypical parenting styles: (1) uninvolved (permissive, not/somewhat supportive), (2) permissive (permissive, very supportive), (3) authoritarian (strict, not/somewhat supportive) and (4) authoritative (strict, very supportive). For the purposes of this study, each parenting variable was then converted into two binary variables indicating parental support (0 = no, 1 = yes) and parental strictness (0 = no, 1 = yes). For adolescents who did not live with their mother or father, parenting questions were asked about residential maternal and paternal figures.

Results In the present study, we had two goals. Our first goal was to test longitudinal associations among mothers’ and fathers’ parenting processes and Latino youth’s sexual risk. Our second goal was to explore the moderating roles of nativity status, acculturation, and adolescents’ gender on these associations. Table 1 displays descriptive statistics and Table 2 displays correlations for all variables. A multilevel path model that accounted for non-independence in multiple-household respondents was estimated using Mplus 7.11 (Muthe´n and Muthe´n 1998–2012) with Poisson regression used for both dependent count variables (sex risk at T2 and T3), and a robust maximum likelihood estimator. Parenting variables at T1, adolescents’ gender,

nativity status, age, language spoken at home, and sexual onset status were regressed onto the T2 sexual risk variable. This sexual risk variable, along with the parenting variables at T2, gender, nativity status, age and language spoken at home, were regressed onto the T3 sexual risk variable. Parenting variables at T1 also were regressed onto their corresponding T2 variables. Finally, moderating effects of nativity status, adolescents’ gender, and acculturation were estimated for all parenting variables. Figure 1 displays the conceptual path model that was estimated. Age, adolescents’ gender, sexual status at T1, nativity status, and both maternal and paternal strictness were significant predictors of sexual risk at T2. Adolescents who were younger, male, born in the US, and reported having had sex at T1 had higher sexual risk. Mothers’ strictness was negatively related to sexual risk such that adolescents who reported having a strict mother had lower sexual risk. Fathers’ strictness, however, was positively related to sexual risk, such that adolescents who reported a strict father had higher sexual risk. Acculturation, maternal monitoring, paternal monitoring, maternal support, and paternal support did not significantly predict sexual risk at T2. The final model including significant predictors can be seen in Fig. 2. For sexual risk at T3, only previous sexual risk, adolescents’ gender, and paternal monitoring were significant predictors. Results of the final model can be seen in Fig. 2. Boys and youth who had previously reported higher sexual risk were more likely to engage in risky sexual behaviors at T3. Furthermore, paternal monitoring was a significant predictor such that youth who reported their fathers as having lower levels of monitoring also reported higher sexual risk. Parental support and acculturation were not predictors of sexual risk, and therefore, were removed from the full main effects model. Previously significant variables of nativity status, age, and maternal and paternal strictness were not significant predictors of T3 sexual risk. Interactions between the parenting variables and nativity status, acculturation, and adolescents’ gender were then tested. Nativity status and acculturation were not significant moderators of the relationships between any of the parenting variables and sexual risk at T2 or T3. Adolescents’ gender, however, did moderate the relationship between T1 maternal strictness and sexual risk at T2, b = -.23, p \ .01, such that the negative relationship between mothers’ strictness and adolescents’ sexual risk was stronger for girls than for boys. Adolescents’ gender also moderated the relationship between T2 paternal monitoring and sexual risk at T3, b = -.05, p \ .05, such that the negative association between paternal monitoring and adolescents’ sexual risk was stronger for girls than for boys. Finally, there was an interaction between adolescents’ gender and nativity status predicting T3 sexual risk,

123

J Youth Adolescence Table 1 Descriptive statistics for study variables for total sample and by gender and nativity status Total (N = 1,899)

Gender Girls (n = 922)

Nativity status Boys (n = 977)

US born (n = 825)

Foreign born (n = 769)*

Sexual risk taking T2a

1.20 (.92)

1.10 (.87)

1.28 (.95)

1.30 (.94)

1.10 (.90)

Sexual risk taking T3a

1.06 (1.03)

.92 (.97)

1.18 (1.07)

1.10 (1.05)

1.02 (1.02)

Sexual Intercourse T1b Age T1c

.20 (.40) 14.98 (1.42)

.16 (.37) 14.94 (1.39)

.23 (.42) 15.02 (1.45)

.21 (.41) 15.02 (1.43)

.17 (.37) 14.95 (1.41)

.77 (.42)

.76 (.42)

.79 (.41)

.60 (.49)

.95 (.20)

Maternal monitoring T1

10.02 (3.39)

10.20 (3.40)

9.83 (3.37)

10.04 (3.23)

9.99 (3.50)

Paternal monitoring T1d

8.01 (4.14)

7.81 (4.14)

8.19 (4.13)

7.76 (4.02)

8.09 (4.16)

Maternal support T1b

.76 (.43)

.72 (.45)

.79 (.41)

.78 (.42)

.74 (.44)

Paternal support T1b

.67 (.47)

.62 (.45)

.70 (.46)

.67 (.47)

.66 (.48)

Maternal strictness T1b

.54 (.50)

.53 (.50)

.54 (.50)

.53 (.50)

.54 (.50)

Paternal strictness T1b

.60 (.49)

.60 (.49)

.59 (.49)

.59 (.49)

.59 (.49)

Maternal monitoring T2

9.74 (3.42)

10.25 (3.34)

9.29 (3.43)

9.97 (3.30)

9.68 (3.57)

Paternal monitoring T2d

7.30 (4.14)

7.05 (4.20)

7.52 (4.08)

7.44 (4.04)

7.37 (4.24)

Maternal support T2b

.73 (.43)

.69 (.46)

.79 (.41)

.75 (.43)

.74 (.43)

Paternal support T2b

.61 (.49)

.54 (.50)

.67 (.47)

.67 (.47)

.60 (.49)

Maternal strictness T2b

.43 (.49)

.43 (.50)

.42 (.49)

.43 (.50)

.41 (.49)

.47 (.50)

.49 (.50)

.44 (.50)

.44 (.50)

.48 (.50)

Acculturationb d

d

Paternal strictness T2

b

* There were 305 people missing information on nativity status a

Range 0–5,

b

range 0–1,

c

range 13–18,

d

range 0–16

b = .29, p \ .01, such that gender effects were stronger for foreign-born compared to US-born Latino adolescents. In other words, boys had higher sexual risk at T3 compared to girls; however, the gap between foreign-born boys and girls was larger than the gap between US-born boys and girls. Thus, US-born boys and girls were more similar in their sexual risk, whereas foreign-born boys engaged in riskier sexual behaviors than foreign-born girls.

Discussion Latino adolescents engage in riskier sexual behaviors compared to their peers, as evidenced by lower rates of condom usage (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2011), leading to subsequent higher rates of sexually transmitted infections (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2010). Examining the precursors and correlates of these risky sexual behaviors, particularly for Latino youth, is important for tailoring effective prevention– intervention programs. Using cultural–ecological (Garcia Coll et al. 1996), symbolic interaction (Blumer 1969; Christopher 2001), and gender socialization (Maccoby 1998) perspectives, our study extends prior work linking parenting processes and Latino adolescents’ risky sexual involvement. First, we examined Latino adolescents’ relationships with both mothers and fathers and found that

123

different aspects of mothers’ and fathers’ parenting were related to adolescents’ involvement in risky sexual behaviors. Second, we investigated these associations throughout the developmental period of adolescence and our findings revealed a nuanced picture of the role of parenting processes in adolescents’ sexual behaviors. Specifically, certain parenting behaviors were related to adolescents’ later sexual risk at distinct time points during adolescence. Third, we included adolescents’ gender as a moderator and found gender differences in sexual behaviors, differential associations between parenting processes and sexual risk for girls versus boys, and greater gender differences in sexual risk based on adolescents’ nativity status. Consistent with previous findings, we found that younger adolescents (Manlove et al. 2006) and adolescents who had sex at T1 had greater sexual risk at T2 than other adolescents (e.g., Kotchick et al. 2001). Family Context of Adolescents’ Sexual Risk Our first goal was to investigate longitudinal associations among mothers’ and fathers’ parenting processes and Latino adolescents’ sexual risk. Consistent with previous research, we found that parenting processes have implications for offspring’s sexual behaviors throughout adolescence and into young adulthood (Deptula et al. 2010). Further, we found that different aspects of mothers’ and

J Youth Adolescence Table 2 Correlations of all study variables (N = 1,899) Variables

1

1. Sexual risk taking T2

–

2

2. Sexual risk taking T3

.54**

3. Sexual intercourse status T1

.34**

4. Age T1

3

4

6

7

8

9

– .35**

–

-.11**

-.02

.20**

.11**

.04

.08**

5. Nativity status

5

– .02

6. Acculturation

-.06

-.03

-.04

-.03

7. Gender

-.10**

-.13**

-.14**

-.08**

8. Maternal monitoring T1

-.06

-.10**

-.15**

-.04

9. Paternal monitoring T1

-.06

-.15**

-.21**

.43**

.06*

–

-.03

-.03

.01

-.02

– .05

-.04

-.02

-.04

– .68**

–

10. Maternal support T1

-.01

-.05

-.01

.05

-.02

-.08**

.37**

.29**

11. Paternal support T1

-.07*

-.03

-.07*

-.03

.01

-.05

-.08**

.30**

.44**

12. Maternal strictness T1

-.04

-.04

-.01

.02

-.01

.01

-.01

.08**

.09**

.04

.01

-.02

-.01

.01

.01

.09**

.09**

13. Paternal strictness T1

.01

–

.07*

14. Maternal monitoring T2

-.08

-.11**

-.07

.02

.04

-.01

.14**

.34**

.27**

15. Paternal monitoring T2 16. Maternal support T2

-.02 -.01

-.11** -.04

-.03 -.03

.09** .06

.01 .01

-.02 -.02

-.06 -.11**

.26** .17**

.43** .13**

-.05

17. Paternal support T2 18. Maternal strictness T2

.04

-.03

-.04

-.05

.07*

-.13**

.14**

.26**

-.04

-.04

-.04

-.04

.02

.01

.02

.08*

.12**

.02

.04

-.05

-.04

-.04

.02

.05

.03

.10**

19. Paternal strictness T2 Variables

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

1. Sexual risk taking T2 2. Sexual risk taking T3 3. Sexual intercourse status T1 4. Age T1 5. Nativity status 6. Acculturation 7. Gender 8. Maternal monitoring T1 9. Paternal monitoring T1 10. Maternal support T1

–

11. Paternal support T1

.43**

12. Maternal strictness T1

.05

– .08**

13. Paternal strictness T1

.03

.01

– .48**

–

14. Maternal monitoring T2

.17**

.12**

-.01

.05

15. Paternal monitoring T2

.15**

.27**

.01

.02

.64**

16. Maternal support T2

.24**

.18**

-.01

.04

.34**

.30**

17. Paternal support T2

.16**

.30**

-.01

-.02

.23**

.44**

.40**

18. Maternal strictness T2 19. Paternal strictness T2

.09** .07*

.05 .02

.07* .13**

.15** .16**

-.02 .08**

.20** .13**

.07* .22**

– – – – .06* -.03

– .39**

–

* p \ .05; ** p \ .01

fathers’ relationships predicted sexual risk. Specifically, we found that mothers’ strictness at T1 was negatively associated with adolescents’ sexual risk at T2; whereas, fathers’ strictness at T1 was positively associated with adolescents’ sexual risk at T2. In Latino families, mothers, compared to fathers, are more involved in caretaking

(Parke and Buriel 1998). Mothers’ strictness may be more salient for adolescents than fathers’ strictness. Adolescents may perceive fathers’ strictness as over-controlling and may resist this control resulting in a positive association between strictness and adolescents’ sexual risk (Rodgers 1999).

123

J Youth Adolescence Fig. 1 Conceptual path model

We also found that fathers’, but not mothers’, monitoring at T2 was related to adolescents’ sexual risk at T3, such that lower levels of monitoring were associated with adolescents’ higher sexual risk. This is consistent with previous work documenting that when parents have greater knowledge of their children’s activities and friends, adolescents are less likely to engage in risky behaviors (Blocklin et al. 2011). We did not, however, assess how this information was gained by fathers; this may be an important factor, as Blocklin et al. (2011) documented that Latino adolescents report better adjustment (e.g., fewer depressive symptoms, fewer delinquent behaviors, and higher academic achievement) when fathers learn about their children’s lives from mothers rather than asking offspring directly. Future research on parenting processes and Latino adolescents’ sexuality should include reports of how fathers obtain knowledge about their children’s lives (e.g., through solicitation, disclosure from children, or from spouses) as this may have important implications for adolescents’ involvement in risky sexual behaviors. Another important finding was that certain parenting behaviors were related to sexual risk at different times throughout adolescence. For younger adolescents compared to older adolescents, parental strictness played a greater role in predicting sexual risk. In late adolescence, monitoring, but not strictness, predicted sexual risk in

123

young adulthood, such that less monitoring was related to higher sexual risk. Throughout adolescence, youth gain more behavioral autonomy (McElhaney et al. 2009). Because younger adolescents spend more time with parents compared to older adolescents (Updegraff et al. 2006) and do not have as much behavioral autonomy as older adolescents (McElhaney et al. 2009), parents’ rules may play a greater role in keeping younger adolescents from engaging in sexual behaviors. Once youth reach late adolescence and have greater autonomy, they have more opportunities to engage in risky sexual behaviors. At this point, monitoring, especially by fathers, may become salient (Blocklin et al. 2011), while strictness (e.g., behavioral control) may lose salience due to parents’ support of adolescents’ desire for autonomy. Turning to parental support, contrary to our hypotheses and previous work (e.g., Trejos-Castillo and Vazsonyi 2009), we did not find significant associations among parental support and adolescents’ sexual risk. It is possible that our one-item measure did not adequately capture parents’ support of adolescents (as other studies have used multiple-item scales) or that when multiple parenting constructs are included the relationship between support and risky sexual behaviors is weakened. An additional possibility is that the parenting domains may interact with one another (Germa´n et al. 2013), such that under

J Youth Adolescence Fig. 2 Final path model

conditions of high monitoring or strictness, support is associated with less risky behavior. Future work should examine how aspects of parenting interact to predict Latino adolescents’ adjustment. Cultural Context of Adolescents’ Sexual Risk As part of our second goal, we examined the main effect of acculturation and nativity status on adolescents’ sexual risk and the moderating roles of acculturation and nativity status on the links between parenting processes and adolescents’ sexual risk. We found no main effect of acculturation (i.e., language spoken in the home) on sexual risk at either time point. Previous studies have used language spoken in the home as an indicator of acculturation and the associations between acculturation and sexual risk have been mixed. For instance, Trejos-Castillo and Vazsonyi (2009) did not find differences in Latino adolescents’ risky sexual behaviors based on language fluency; however, Upchurch et al. (2001) did find a significant association between preferred language and Latino adolescents’ sexual initiation. Additionally, in line with previous work focused on mothers, we did not find differential associations

between parenting processes and adolescents’ sexual risk based on acculturation and nativity status (Trejos-Castillo and Vazsonyi 2009), regardless of parents’ gender. Possibly, a more nuanced measure of acculturation or multiple measures of acculturation (e.g., language fluency, behaviors, ethnic identity, and affiliation with co-ethnic peers; Afable-Munsuz and Brindis 2006) would have revealed mean level differences and/or differential associations between parenting processes and adolescents’ sexual risk. We did, however, find a main effect of nativity status on sexual risk, such that US-born youth reported higher sexual risk at T2 than foreign-born youth, supporting the immigrant paradox (Guarini et al. 2011; Raffaelli et al. 2012). Role of Adolescents’ Gender Gender played a salient role in adolescents’ involvement in risky sexual behaviors. Consistent with previous research on Latino adolescents, boys reported higher sexual risk than girls (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2008). Further, we found that parenting processes were more strongly related to girls’ sexual risk than boys’. Specifically, the associations between maternal strictness at T1 and sexual risk at T2 and

123

J Youth Adolescence

paternal monitoring at T2 and sexual risk at T3 were stronger for girls than for boys. These findings provide support for a gender socialization perspective (Maccoby 1998) and gender socialization differences in Latino families (Cauce and Domenech-Rodriguez 2002). Previous work has shown that girls have more restrictions placed on their activities outside the home (Ayala 2006) and have more responsibilities within the home (e.g., caregiving for younger siblings, household work) compared to boys (Azmitia and Brown 2002; Fuligni and Masten 2010), lessening the opportunity for girls to engage in sexual behaviors. Additionally, girls are more restricted in terms of dating and sexual behaviors than are boys (Ayala 2006). Parents may be more concerned with monitoring their daughters’ behaviors outside the home than their sons’ behaviors because they are more protective of their daughters’ sexuality compared to their sons’ (Raffaelli and Ontai 2001). Future research should study within-family differences in parents’ involvement in dating/romantic endeavors and how this may be associated with adolescents’ sexual risk. Finally, we found greater gender differences for foreignborn adolescents compared to US-born adolescents. Specifically, boys had higher sexual risk at T2 than girls and the difference was larger for immigrant youth than for US-born youth. Immigrant youth may be more likely to endorse Latino cultural values of marianismo (e.g., the importance of virginity for women; Gil and Vazquez 1996), familism (e.g., adolescents’ behaviors reflect on the family; Villarruel 1998) and traditional gender role ideologies (e.g., Cauce and DomenechRodriguez 2002) compared to non-immigrant youth. The emphasis on these cultural values by immigrant youth may result in greater gender differences for immigrant youth than for US-born youth. Contributions, Limitations, and Directions for Future Research Our study contributed to the literature on Latino adolescent sexuality in several ways. First, we found that different aspects of parenting were related to adolescents’ involvement in risky sexual behaviors based on parents’ gender and adolescent developmental time period. Specifically, our findings revealed that mothers’ strictness was negatively associated with adolescents’ sexual risk for younger adolescents; whereas, fathers’ strictness was positively associated. Further, fathers’ monitoring, but not mothers’, was an important predictor of older adolescents’ involvement in risky sexual behaviors. Second, we found that parenting behaviors longitudinally predicted adolescents’ sexual risk. Third, our findings highlighted the role of adolescents’ gender, such that we found gender differences in sexual behaviors and differential associations between

123

parenting processes and sexual risk for girls versus boys. For instance, the associations among mothers’ strictness and fathers’ monitoring to adolescents’ sexual risk were stronger for girls than for boys. Finally, greater gender differences in sexual risk were found for immigrant youth compared to US-born youth. The limitations of our study provide directions for future research. First, we used language spoken in the home as a proxy for acculturation and citizenship status as a proxy for nativity status. While using proxies are common practices in research on Latino adolescents’ sexuality (AfableMunsuz and Brindis 2006; Lee and Hahm 2010), critics stress the need for comprehensive measures of acculturation, specifically ones that may include cultural values and norms pertaining to the specific behavior studied (e.g., sexuality; Schwartz et al. 2010). Second, as common in secondary data-analysis, some measures were less adequate than desired; in particular, our single-item support and strictness parenting variables. Using established parenting measures as well as the examination of other parenting processes is an important next step. Finally, we looked at Latino groups as a whole rather than variability within Latino subgroups. Given important subgroup differences in sexual outcomes (e.g., Mexican-origin teens have highest birth rate; Ryan et al. 2005), it is necessary for future studies to examine these processes within Latino subgroups.

Conclusion Latinos are the largest ethnic minority group in the US (US Census Bureau 2010) and have higher sexual risk than nonLatino Whites (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2010, 2011). Our findings point to the importance of examining linkages between both mothers’ and fathers’ parenting processes and adolescents’ sexual risk and the salience of investigating these connections throughout adolescence. Additionally, although we did not find differences based on acculturation, our results support the immigrant paradox in sexuality, such that immigrant youth had lower sexual risk than US-born youth. Finally, the salient role of gender in adolescents’ risky sexual behaviors and in the associations between parenting processes and Latino adolescents’ risky sexual behaviors was revealed. Acknowledgments We thank Cara Streit for her assistance with this manuscript and Lorey Wheeler for her comments on an earlier draft of this article. Author Contributions S.K. conceptualized the study and drafted the manuscript. A.D. conducted the statistical analyses, and assisted

J Youth Adolescence with conceptualization of the study and drafting of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

References Afable-Munsuz, A., & Brindis, C. D. (2006). Acculturation and the sexual and reproductive health of Latino youth in the United States: A literature review. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 38, 208–219. doi:10.1363/3820806. Ayala, J. (2006). Confianza, consejos, and contradictions: Gender and sexuality lessons between Latino adolescent daughters and their mothers. In J. Denner & B. L. Guzma´n (Eds.), Latı´na girls: Voices of adolescent strength in the United States (pp. 29–43). New York, NY: New York University Press. Azmitia, A., & Brown, J. R. (2002). Latino immigrant parents’ beliefs about the ‘‘path of life’’ of their adolescent children. In J. M. Contreras, K. A. Kerns, & A. M. Neal-Barnett (Eds.), Latino children and families in the United States (pp. 77–106). Westport, CT: Praeger Press. Behnke, A. O., Plunkett, S. W., Sands, T., & Ba´maca-Colbert, M. Y. (2011). The relationship between Latino adolescents’ perceptions of discrimination, neighborhood risk, and parenting on selfesteem and depressive symptoms. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42, 1179–1197. doi:10.1177/0022022110383424. Blocklin, M. K., Crouter, A. C., Updegraff, K. A., & McHale, S. M. (2011). Sources of parental knowledge in Mexican American families. Family Relations, 60, 30–44. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729. 2010.00631.x. Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Cauce, A. M., & Domenech-Rodriguez, M. (2002). Latino families: Myths and realities. In J. M. Contreras, K. A. Kerns, & A. M. Neal-Barnett (Eds.), Latino children and families in the United States: Current research and future directions (pp. 3–26). Westport, CT: Praeger. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2008). Youth risk behavior surveillance. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Surveillance Summaries, 57(SS-4). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2010). Sexually transmitted diseases surveillance: STDs in racial and ethnic minorities. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats10/ minorities.htm. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2011). Youth risk behavior surveillance—United States. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 61(N. SS-4). http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ ss6104.pdf. Christopher, F. S. (2001). To dance the dance: A symbolic interactional exploration of premarital sexuality. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum. Coley, R. L., Votruba-Drzal, E., & Schindler, H. S. (2009). Fathers’ and mothers’ parenting predicting and responding to adolescent sexual risk behaviors. Child Development, 80, 808–827. doi:10. 1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01299.x. Crockett, L. J., Brown, J., Russell, S. T., & Shen, Y. (2007). The meaning of good parent–child relationships for Mexican American adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17, 639–668. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2007.00539. Delgado, M. Y., Killoren, S. E., & Updegraff, K. A. (2013). Economic hardship and Mexican-origin adolescents’ adjustment: Examining adolescents’ perceptions of hardship and parentadolescent relationship quality. Journal of Family Psychology, 27, 827–837. doi:10.1037/a0033737.

Deptula, D. P., Henry, D. B., & Schoeny, M. E. (2010). How can parents make a difference? Longitudinal associations with adolescent sexual behavior. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 731–739. doi:10.1037/a0021760. DiClemente, R. J., Wingood, G. M., Crosby, R., Sionean, C., Cobb, B. K., Harrington, K., et al. (2001). Parental monitoring: Association with adolescents’ risk behaviors. Pediatrics, 107, 1363–1368. doi:10.1542/peds.107.6.1363. East, P. L., Khoo, S. T., & Reyes, B. T. (2006). Risk and protective factors predictive of adolescent pregnancy: A longitudinal, prospective study. Applied Developmental Science, 10, 188–199. doi:10.1207/s1532480xads1004_3. Fuligni, A., & Masten, C. L. (2010). Daily family interactions among young adults in the United States from Latin American, Filipino, East Asian, and European backgrounds. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 34, 491–499. doi:10.1177/ 0165025409360303. Garcia Coll, C. G., Crnic, K., Lamberty, G., Wasik, B. H., Jenkins, R., Garcia, H. V., et al. (1996). An integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in minority children. Child Development, 67, 1891–1914. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.ep9706060144. Germa´n, M., Gonzales, N. A., Bonds McLain, D., Dumka, L., & Millsap, R. (2013). Maternal warmth moderates the link between harsh discipline and later externalizing behaviors for Mexican American adolescents. Parenting: Science and Practice, 13, 169–177. doi:10.1080/15295192.2013.756363. Gil, R. M., & Vazquez, C. I. (1996). The Maria paradox: How Latinas can merge old world traditions with new world selfesteem. New York, NY: Perigee. Guarini, T. E., Marks, A. K., Patton, F., & Garcia-Coll, C. (2011). The immigrant paradox in sexual risk behavior among Latino adolescents: Impact of immigrant generation and gender. Applied Developmental Science, 15, 201–209. doi:10.1080/ 10888691.2011.618100. Halgunseth, L. C., Ispa, J. M., & Rudy, D. (2006). Parental control in Latino families: An integrated review of the literature. Child Development, 77, 1282–1297. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006. 00934.x. Killoren, S. E., Updegraff, K. A., & Christopher, F. S. (2011). Family and cultural correlates of Mexican-origin youths’ sexual intentions. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 707–718. doi:10. 1007/s10964-010-9587-5. Kincaid, C., Jones, D. J., Sterrett, E., & McKee, L. (2012). A review of parenting and adolescent sexual behavior: The moderating role of gender. Clinical Psychology Review, 32, 177–188. doi:10. 1016/j.cpr.2012.01.002. Kotchick, B. A., Shaffer, A., Miller, K. S., & Forehand, R. (2001). Adolescent sexual risk behavior: A multi-system perspective. Clinical Psychology Review, 21, 493–519. doi:10.1016/S02727358(99)00070-7. Lee, J., & Hahm, H. C. (2010). Acculturation and sexual risk behaviors among Latina adolescents transitioning to young adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 414–427. doi:10.1007/s10964-009-9495-8. Maccoby, E. E. (1998). The two sexes: Growing up apart coming together. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Manlove, J., Terry-Humen, E., & Ikramullah, E. (2006). Young teens and older sexual partners: Correlates and consequences for males and females. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 38, 197–207. doi:10.1363/3819706. Markham, C. M., Lormand, D., Gloppen, K. M., Peskin, M. F., Flores, B., Low, B., et al. (2010). Connectedness as a predictor of sexual and reproductive health outcomes for youth. Journal of Adolescent Health, 46, S23–S41. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.11.214. McElhaney, K. B., Allen, J. P., Stephenson, J. C., & Hare, A. L. (2009). Attachment and autonomy during adolescence. In R.

123

J Youth Adolescence M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 358–403). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Miller, B. C., McCoy, J. K., Olson, T. D., & Wallace, C. M. (1986). Parental discipline and control attempts in relation to sexual attitudes and behavior. Journal of Marriage and Family, 48, 503–512. doi:10.2307/35203. Murphy-Erby, Y., Stauss, K., Boyas, J., & Bivens, V. (2011). Voices of Latino parents and teens: Tailored strategies for parent–child communication related to sex. Journal of Children and Poverty, 17, 125–138. Muthe´n, L. K., & Muthe´n, B. O. (1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthe´n & Muthe´n. Parke, R. D., & Buriel, R. (1998). Socialization in the family: Ethnic and ecological perspectives. In W. Damon (Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology. Social, emotional, and personality development (3rd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 463–552). New York: Wiley. Perper, K., Peterson, K., & Manlove, J. (2010). Diploma attainment among teen mothers. Washington, DC: Child Trends, Fact Sheet Publication #2010-01. Raffaelli, M., Iturbide, M. I., Azmitia, M., & Cabrera, N. J. (2009). Sexuality and sexual risk taking behaviors among Latino adolescents and youth adults. In F. A. Villarruel, G. Carlo, J. M. Contreras Grau, & T. J. Chahin (Eds.), Handbook of US Latino psychology: Developmental and community based perspectives (pp. 399–413). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Raffaelli, M., Kang, H., & Guarini, T. (2012). Exploring the immigrant paradox in adolescent sexuality: An ecological perspective. In C. Garcia Coll & A. K. Marks (Eds.), The immigrant paradox in children and adolescents: Is becoming American a developmental risk? (pp. 109–134). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Raffaelli, M., & Ontai, L. L. (2001). Gender socialization in Latino/a families: Results from two retrospective studies. Sex Roles, 50, 287–299. doi:10.1023/B:SERS.0000018886.58945.06. Rodgers, K. B. (1999). Parenting processes related to sexual risktaking behaviors of adolescent males and females. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 99–109. doi:10.2307/353886. Ryan, S., Franzetta, K., & Manlove, J. (2005). Hispanic teen pregnancy and birth rates: Looking behind the numbers (publication #2005-01). Child Trends Research Brief. Available at: www.childtrends.org. Schwartz, S. J., Unger, J. B., Zamboanga, B. L., & Szapocnik, J. (2010). Rethinking the concept of acculturation: Implications for theory and research. American Psychologist, 65, 237–251. Scott, M. E., Wildsmith, E., Welti, K., Ryan, S., Schelar, E., & Steward-Streng, N. R. (2011). Risky adolescent sexual behaviors and reproductive health in young adulthood. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 43, 110–118. doi:10.1363/ 4311011.

123

Smetana, J. G., Campione-Barr, N., & Metzger, A. (2006). Adolescent development in interpersonal and societal contexts. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 255–284. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych. 57.102904.190124. Steinberg, L. (2001). We know some things: Adolescent–parent relationships in retrospect and prospect. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 11, 1–19. doi:10.1111/1532-7795.00001. Trejos-Castillo, E., & Vazsonyi, A. T. (2009). Risky sexual behaviors in first and second generation Hispanic immigrant youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 719–731. doi:10.1007/s10964008-9369-5. Upchurch, D. M., Aneshensel, C. S., Mudgal, J., & McNeely, C. S. (2001). Sociocultural contexts of time to first sex among Hispanic adolescents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 1158–1169. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.01158.x. Updegraff, K. S., McHale, S. M., Whiteman, S. D., Thayer, S. M., & Crouter, A. C. (2006). The nature and correlates of MexicanAmerican adolescents’ time with parents and peers. Child Development, 77, 1470–1486. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006. 00948.x. Updegraff, K. A., Wheeler, L. A., & Delgado, M. Y. (2009). Exploring mothers’ and fathers’ relationships with sons versus daughters: Links to adolescent adjustment in Mexican immigrant families. Sex Roles, 60, 559–574. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9527-y. US Census Bureau. (2010). 2008 American community survey 1-year estimates. US Census Bureau News. Retrieved May 6, 2010, http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/pdf/cb10ff08_cincodemayo.pdf. US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2008). The NLSY97. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www. nlsinfo.org/content/cohorts/NLSY97. Villarruel, A. M. (1998). Cultural influences on the sexual attitudes, beliefs, and norms of young Latina adolescents. Journal of the Society of Pediatric Nurses, 3, 69–79.

Author Biographies Sarah E. Killoren is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Human Development and Family Studies at the University of Missouri. Her research focuses on family relationships, culture, and Latino adolescents’ adjustment. Arielle R. Deutsch is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Missouri. Her research interests include the underlying mechanisms and ecological contexts of risk taking behavior and developmental trajectories in adolescence.