Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2009 Sep;45(5):1241-56.
doi: 10.1037/a0014850.

Intergenerational continuity in parenting behavior: mediating pathways and child effects

Tricia K Neppl  1 , Rand D Conger, Laura V Scaramella, Lenna L Ontai
Affiliations

Intergenerational continuity in parenting behavior: mediating pathways and child effects

Tricia K Neppl et al. Dev Psychol. 2009 Sep.

Abstract

This prospective, longitudinal investigation examined mechanisms proposed to explain continuities in parenting behavior across 2 generations (G1, G2). Data came from 187 G2 adults, their mothers (G1), and their children (G3). Prospective information regarding G2 was collected both during adolescence and early adulthood. G1 data were collected during G2's adolescence, and G3 data were generated during the preschool years. Assessments included both observational and self-report measures. The results indicated a direct relationship between G1 and G2 harsh parenting, and between G1 and G2 positive parenting. As predicted, specific mediators accounted for intergenerational continuity in particular types of parenting behavior. G2 externalizing behavior mediated the relationship between G1 and G2 harsh parenting, whereas G2 academic attainment mediated the relationship between G1 and G2 positive parenting. In addition, the hypothesized mediating pathways remained statistically significant after taking into account possible G2 effects on G1 parenting and G3 effects on G2 parenting.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The Intergenerational Continuity Hypotheses.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The Individual Differences Hypotheses.
Figure 3
Figure 3
G1 harsh parenting to G2 harsh parenting, G1 positive parenting to G2 positive parenting. Standardized regression coefficients; t-values in parentheses; N=187; χ2 (51) = 69.12; p = .05; CFI = .99; RMSEA = .04; pclose = .64; *p < .05; **p < .01, ***p<.000.
Figure 4
Figure 4
SEM for the harsh parenting model. Standardized regression coefficients; t-values in parentheses; N=187; χ2 (84) = 128.90; p = .001; CFI = .98; RMSEA = .05; pclose = .36; *p < .05; **p < .01, ***p<.000.
Figure 5
Figure 5
SEM for the positive parenting model. Standardized regression coefficients; t-values in parentheses; N=187; χ2 (39) = 92.15; p = .000; CFI = .93; RMSEA = .08; pclose = .01; *p < .05; **p < .01, ***p<.000.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Allison PD. Missing data techniques for structural equation modeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2003;112:545–557. - PubMed
    1. Ambert AM. The effect of children on parents. New York: The Haworth Press; 1992.
    1. Arbuckle JL. AMOS user’s guide version 3.6. Chicago: Small Waters; 1997.
    1. Arbuckle JL. AMOS 5.0 update to the AMOS user’s guide. Chicago: Small Waters; 2003.
    1. Bank L, Forgatch M, Patterson G, Fetrow R. Parenting practices of single mothers: Mediators of negative contextual factors. Journal of Marriage and Family. 1993;55:371–385.

Publication types

MeSH terms