parenting 2011

PS62CH12-Sandler ARI 11 November 2010 12:43

Long-Term Impact ofPrevention Programs toPromote Effective Parenting:Lasting Effects but UncertainProcessesIrwin N. Sandler, Erin N. Schoenfelder,Sharlene A. Wolchik, and David P. MacKinnonPrevention Research Center, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287-6005;email: [email protected]

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2011. 62:299–329

First published online as a Review in Advance onSeptember 7, 2010

The Annual Review of Psychology is online atpsych.annualreviews.org

This article’s doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131619

Copyright c© 2011 by Annual Reviews.All rights reserved

0066-4308/11/0110-0299$20.00

Key Words

parenting, prevention, promotion, mediation, long-term effects

Abstract

This article reviews findings from 46 randomized experimental trials ofpreventive parenting interventions. The findings of these trials provideevidence of effects to prevent a wide range of problem outcomes andto promote competencies from one to 20 years later. However, thereis a paucity of evidence concerning the processes that account for pro-gram effects. Three alternative pathways are proposed as a frameworkfor future research on the long-term effects of preventive parentingprograms: (a) through program effects on parenting skills, perceptionsof parental efficacy, and reduction in barriers to effective parenting;(b) through program-induced reductions in short-term problems ofyouth that persist over time, improvements in youth adaptation to stress,and improvements in youth belief systems concerning the self and theirrelationships with others; and (c) through effects on contexts in whichyouth become involved and on youth-environment transactions.

299

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

011.

62:2

99-3

29. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Nev

ada

- R

eno

on 1

2/01

/11.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Contents

INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300DEFINING KEY

CONSTRUCTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302Parenting Interventions . . . . . . . . 302Effective Parenting . . . . . . . . . . . . 302Youth Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKOF THE PROCESSES THATACCOUNT FOR THELONG-TERM EFFECTS OFPARENTINGINTERVENTIONS . . . . . . . . . . 302Proposition 1:

Intervention-InducedImprovements in Parentingare Causally Related to theDevelopment of YouthCompetencies and ProblemOutcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303

Proposition 2: The Long-TermEffects ofIntervention-InducedChanges in Parenting areDue to Changes in Social,Cognitive, Behavioral, andBiological Processes inParents and Youth and in theTransactions Between Youthand Their Social Contexts . . 303

Changes in Parents . . . . . . . . . . . . 303Changes in Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304Changes in Youth-Environment

Transactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305REVIEW OF EXPERIMENTAL

TRIALS OF PROGRAMS TO

PROMOTE EFFECTIVEPARENTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305Infancy and Toddlerhood . . . . . . 306Early Childhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308Middle Childhood. . . . . . . . . . . . . 310Adolescence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311Resilience Promotion Programs

for Youth in StressfulSituations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313INTEGRATING

THEORETICALPROPOSITIONS ABOUTTHE LONG-TERMEFFECTS OF PARENTINGINTERVENTIONS INTOTHE ANALYSIS OFPREVENTION TRIALS . . . . . 314Proposition 1: The Long-Term

Effects of ParentingInterventions are Due toProgram Effects to ImproveParenting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314

Proposition 2: The Long-TermEffects ofIntervention-InducedChanges in Parenting areDue to Changes in Social,Cognitive, Behavioral, andBiological Processes inParents and Youth and in theTransactions Between Youthand Their Social Contexts . . 321

FINAL SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322

INTRODUCTION

This review addresses two issues concerning theeffects of preventive parenting programs. Whatare the long-term effects of such programson child outcomes? What processes accountfor these long-term effects? The review goes

beyond prior reviews of the efficacy of parent-ing interventions (Kaminski et al. 2008, Taylor& Biglan 1998) in three ways. First, it focusesexclusively on long-term outcomes, defined asthose assessed one year or longer after the pro-gram. Second, it focuses on a broad array of out-comes across developmental periods, including

300 Sandler et al.

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

011.

62:2

99-3

29. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Nev

ada

- R

eno

on 1

2/01

/11.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


promoting competencies as well as preventingproblem outcomes. Third, because of the focuson prevention and health promotion, the reviewonly includes programs for families of youthwho were not selected on the basis of experi-encing clinical levels of problems at programentry. This review does not provide a quantita-tive summary of the effect sizes of interventions.Rather, it describes the range of parenting in-terventions that have been employed across de-velopmental levels, provides a summary of theresearch on long-term program effects and ofmediating processes that account for programeffects, and provides a conceptual framework toguide future research on alternative pathwaysthat may mediate long-term effects of preven-tive parenting programs.

The review addresses a critical but some-what neglected question: What are the path-ways by which parenting interventions bringabout long-term change in youth outcomes?Understanding the pathways through whichparenting programs have long-term effectsdraws on theory from normal development anddevelopmental psychopathology and has impli-cations both for advancing theory and for en-hancing the long-term effects of future pro-grams. Prevention scientists and developmentalresearchers have recognized the scientific op-portunity of integrating theoretical and inter-vention research (Cicchetti & Hinshaw 2002,Rutter et al. 2001). For example, Cicchetti &Hinshaw (2002) proposed that “preventive in-tervention research can be conceptualized astrue experiments in modifying the course of de-velopment, thereby providing insights into theetiology and pathogenesis of disordered out-comes” (pp. 667–668). Similarly, Collins et al.(2000) articulated research designs that addressrecent critiques of the causal effect of parentingon child socialization, particularly as comparedwith the alternative causal explanations, suchas genetic or peer influences. They proposedthat studies that demonstrated that a programled to a change in parenting, which in turn wasassociated with a subsequent change in youth

outcomes, provide particularly strong evidencefor the causal effect of parenting.

Preventive intervention researchers have ina complementary fashion proposed that well-specified theoretical models of developmentalprocesses provide the foundation on which ef-fective preventive interventions are built (Coieet al. 1993, Mrazek & Haggerty 1994). In theprevention research cycle (Mrazek & Haggerty1994), a “small theory” is specified concerningthe putative mediating processes that lead to theproblems to be prevented, and a preventive in-tervention is designed to change these putativemediators and thus prevent the problems. A re-cent report on prevention from the NationalResearch Council and Institute of Medicine(NRC/IOM 2009) extended this model tomental health promotion in which theoreticalmodels about the development of competen-cies “inform the development of interventionsto promote mental, emotional and behavioralhealth” (p. 110). Randomized prevention trialsprovide experimental tests of whether chang-ing these processes accounts for reductions inproblem outcomes and increases in competen-cies, and this knowledge in turn should leadto the design of more effective and efficientinterventions.

Below, we define some key constructsused in the review and present a conceptualframework of alternative theoretical pathwaysthrough which parenting interventions mightlead to long-term effects on youth outcomes.We then review findings of the effects ofrandomized experimental trials with a mini-mum of one-year follow-up. The studies arediscussed by developmental level during whichthe intervention was delivered. Studies thatfocus on families in stressful situations andinclude youth in more than one developmentallevel are discussed in the final section. Wethen discuss those studies that formally testparenting as a mediator of program effectson long-term outcomes. Finally, using ourconceptual framework, we describe directionsfor future research.

www.annualreviews.org • Long-Term Effects of Parenting Programs 301

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

011.

62:2

99-3

29. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Nev

ada

- R

eno

on 1

2/01

/11.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


DEFINING KEY CONSTRUCTS

Parenting Interventions

We define parenting interventions as thosein which at least one component of theintervention involved activities designed topromote some aspect of effective parenting.Because most problem outcomes are associatedwith multiple risk and protective factors,many interventions that included a parentingcomponent also included one or more othercomponents designed to change other potentialmediators (e.g., children’s coping skills) or toreduce barriers to using effective parenting(e.g., parental depression, economic strain).

Effective Parenting

We define parenting to include a broad rangeof functions that parents engage in to promotetheir offspring’s accomplishment of culturallyand age-appropriate developmental tasks andto reduce problem behaviors. These functionsinclude having a positive affective relationshipwith the child, providing advice and informa-tion, being aware of the youth’s activities and in-teractions, supporting behaviors that promoteeffective adaptation (e.g., homework), and dis-couraging behaviors that hinder positive adap-tation (e.g., association with deviant peers). Ef-fective parent-child relationships are most oftencharacterized as ones that include high levelsof nurturance, use of effective control strate-gies, and support of children in accomplishingnormative developmental tasks (e.g., Bornstein2002, Collins et al. 2002). However, there aredifferences across researchers about which as-pect of parenting is most responsible for af-fecting youth developmental outcomes, withsome researchers emphasizing attachment andself-regulatory capabilities (Dozier et al. 2002),some emphasizing positive exchanges (Zisser &Eyberg 2010), and others emphasizing a coer-cive reinforcement cycle (Patterson & Fisher2002).

Given that the critical developmental taskschange over time, the content of effective

parenting differs across development. Further,effective parenting involves facilitating chil-dren’s ability to meet the demands of social con-texts beyond the family, including the schooland peer environments, and to avoid poten-tially dangerous and high-risk situations, so thatthe characteristics of effective parenting andthe difficulty of being an effective parent differacross the social contexts in which families live(e.g., Mason et al. 1996). The effects of parent-ing may also differ as a function of biologicaldifferences in children, including genetic riskfor development of problem outcomes (e.g.,Edwards et al. 2010, Kaufman et al. 2004, Kim-Cohen et al. 2006).

Youth Outcomes

We use the term “problem outcomes” to referto the problems that have been targeted by pre-vention programs such as mental health prob-lems, substance use and abuse, high-risk sex-ual behavior, and delinquency. There is also agrowing focus on promotion interventions de-signed to increase positive outcomes. A recentreport on the state of prevention research de-fined mental health promotion as “efforts toenhance individuals’ ability to achieve devel-opmentally appropriate tasks (developmentalcompetence), increase a sense of self-esteem,mastery, well-being, and social inclusion, andstrengthen their ability to cope with adversity”(p. 74). We use the term “competencies” to re-fer to the positive outcomes targeted by pro-motion programs.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKOF THE PROCESSES THATACCOUNT FOR THELONG-TERM EFFECTS OFPARENTING INTERVENTIONS

Our conceptualization of the processes thatmight account for the long-term effects of par-enting interventions is guided by two com-plementary propositions. The first is thatintervention-induced improvements in parent-ing are causally related to youth competencies

302 Sandler et al.

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

011.

62:2

99-3

29. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Nev

ada

- R

eno

on 1

2/01

/11.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


and problem outcomes. The second is that thelong-term effects of program-induced changesin parenting are due to social, cognitive, behav-ioral, and biological processes that occur in par-ents and youth and in the transactions betweenyouth and their social contexts.

Proposition 1: Intervention-InducedImprovements in Parenting areCausally Related to the Developmentof Youth Competencies and ProblemOutcomes

Similar to other researchers, we use the term“cause” (e.g., Kraemer et al. 1997) to denotethat experimentally induced changes in par-enting lead to improvements in youth out-comes. This is the central hypothesis of the“small theory” that underlies parenting inter-ventions. However, as noted above, researchershave challenged inferences concerning causalrelations between parenting and youth out-comes that are based on correlational stud-ies and have proposed randomized interventiontrials as a way to disentangle the effects of par-enting from alternative explanations (Collinset al. 2000, Rutter et al. 2001). Several stepshave been proposed in the design of these trials(Patterson & Fisher 2002). First, the theoreticalprocesses should be specified a priori in whichthe intervention effects on youth outcomes aremediated through their effects on parenting.Second, both parenting and youth outcomesshould be measured with reliable and valid mea-sures that are sensitive to change. Third, the in-tervention should improve both parenting andthe youth outcomes. Fourth, experimentally in-duced changes in parenting must be shown tomediate (or account for) the changes in youthoutcomes. Although there are limitations onthe causal mediation inferences that can bedrawn based on the findings of randomized tri-als (MacKinnon 2008), these trials have the dis-tinct methodological advantage of ruling outrival explanations such as shared pre-existingthird variables including genetic factors.

Proposition 2: The Long-TermEffects of Intervention-InducedChanges in Parenting are Due toChanges in Social, Cognitive,Behavioral, and Biological Processesin Parents and Youth and in theTransactions Between Youth andTheir Social Contexts

Although mediational analyses provide evi-dence that changes in parenting are involved inimproving youth outcomes, they do not identifythe processes through which parenting inter-ventions affect child outcomes over time. Theo-retically, these processes may involve program-induced changes within parents and youth andin the transactions between youth and theirenvironment (see Figure 1), and research isneeded to test which of these alternative path-ways account for intervention effects.

Changes in Parents

The most parsimonious change in parents thatmay account for long-term effects of parent-ing programs is that parents learned new skillsthrough participating in the program and theuse of these skills is maintained by positive re-sponses from children. A second, related changein parents that may maintain positive parentingand lead to improvements in youth outcomesover time involves parenting self-efficacy. Par-enting self-efficacy refers to parents’ beliefsin their ability to influence their children inways that foster their development and success(Ardelt & Eccles 2001). Theoretically, a highersense of parental self-efficacy leads parents tobe more persistent in the use of parenting skillsthat are associated with desirable outcomes. Al-though the causal nature of the relations be-tween parental self-efficacy and parenting be-haviors is not established, several researchershave found that higher levels of parental self-efficacy are associated with more effective par-enting and lower child mental health problems(e.g., Jones & Prinz 2005). It is also possiblethat reduction of barriers to effective parenting,


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

011.

62:2

99-3

29. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Nev

ada

- R

eno

on 1

2/01

/11.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Short-term changes

Use of paren�ng skills

Paren�ng self-efficacy

Reduce barriers to effec�ve paren�ng

a. Parent model

Program

Long-term changes

Problemoutcomes

Developmentalcompetencies

b. Youth model Short-term changes

Long-term changes

Reduced problem behaviors

Strengthened Program Paren�ng

Problemoutcomes

Reduced problem behaviors

Strengthened

Use of paren�ng skills

Paren�ng self-efficacy

Reduce barriers to effec�ve paren�ng

gability to adapt to stress

Changes in belief systems

Program Paren�ngchanges


Strengthened ability to adapt to stress

Changes in belief systems

c. Youth-environment transac�ons model

Short-term changes

Long-term changes

Youth ac�ons on environment

Environment reac�ons to youth

Youth selec�on of environment

Paren�ngchanges

Problemoutcomes


Youth ac�ons on environment

Environment reac�ons to youth

Youth selec�on of environment

Program

Figure 1Alternative conceptual models of processes by which parenting affects long-term program impact on childcompetencies and problems.

[e.g., parental depression (e.g., Brennan et al.2003)] enables parents to implement and main-tain the skills they learned in the programs.

Changes in Youth

One explanation for the long-term effects ofparenting programs on youth outcomes isthat improvements in parenting cause short-term changes in youth problem behavior, andthese changes persist over time. For exam-

ple, externalizing problems are stable fromearly childhood to adolescence (Loeber & Hay1997), thus, intervention-induced reductionsin externalizing problems that occur at earlystages of development are maintained later indevelopment.

Program-induced changes in parenting mayalso affect youth’s cognitive, biological, or af-fective processes involved in adapting to stress.For example, there is considerable research

304 Sandler et al.

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

011.

62:2

99-3

29. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Nev

ada

- R

eno

on 1

2/01

/11.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


indicating that parental support and consis-tent discipline are associated with children’semotion-regulation skills, such as active cop-ing, social support seeking, attentional con-trol, and cognitive reappraisal (Eisenberg et al.2010), which in turn are related to mental healthand physical health outcomes in childhood(Eisenberg et al. 2010) and adulthood (Lueckenet al. 2009). Biological processes underlyingemotion regulation, such as hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis functioning, alsomay be affected by parenting and influence thedevelopment of youth internalizing and exter-nalizing problems (Blair et al. 2008).

Changes in parenting may also lead to im-proved youth outcomes through their effectson youth belief systems, such as beliefs in self-worth, control beliefs, and beliefs concern-ing the parent-child relationship. For exam-ple, parental warmth and contingent responsesto youth are related to youth beliefs in theirability to control their environment (Bandura1997). Beliefs about the parent-child relation-ship may be particularly important in explain-ing the long-term effects of parenting inter-ventions. Rosenberg & McCullough (1981)defined the construct of “mattering” as the be-lief that one is noticed, is an object of concern,and is needed by significant others. Researchhas demonstrated that children’s belief thatthey matter to their parents is related to theirinternalizing and externalizing problems (e.g.,Schenck et al. 2009). The related construct offear of abandonment refers to children’s beliefsthat their parents may not want to or be ableto take care of them in the future. Researchhas found that fear of abandonment mediatesthe relation between mother-child relationshipquality and children’s internalizing and exter-nalizing problems (Wolchik et al. 2002a) in asample of children following parental divorce.

Changes in Youth-EnvironmentTransactions

Parenting interventions may lead to long-termeffects on youth outcomes by influencing theenvironmental contexts in which youth become

involved or youth transactions within thesecontexts. Caspi et al. (1989) used the concept ofinteractional continuity to refer to the processin which parenting affects child behaviorsduring one developmental period, these behav-iors in turn affect the responses the childrenreceive from others in different social contexts,(e.g., schools and peer groups), and theseresponses maintain the changes in behavior.For example, parenting involving ineffectivecontingencies for child noncompliance canlead to increases in the child’s aggressive andnoncompliant behavior, which in turn leads tomore aversive behavior on the part of the parent(Patterson & Fisher 2002). Children who areaggressive and noncompliant may experiencerejection by peers and teachers in the schoolcontext, leading them do more poorly in thiscontext (Patterson & Fisher 2002). Similarly,Masten et al. (2005) referred to “cascadingpathways,” in which change in one area of func-tioning triggers a progression of consequencesthat can have extensive effects on other areasof adaptation in later developmental periods.

The concept of “cumulative continuity”(Caspi et al. 1989) refers to the process by whichyouth select into contexts that reinforce theirbehavior. Kaplan (1983) proposed that adoles-cents who are devalued in groups that hold con-ventional values find esteem and value in theirrelationships in deviant groups and engage inantisocial behavior or drug use behaviors thatare valued by these groups. Longitudinal re-search has shown that adolescents with conductdisorder or depression as compared to thosewho do not have such problems are likely tospend less time in conventional contexts andhave greater exposure to contexts that maintaintheir problem behaviors into young adulthood(e.g., Bardone et al. 1996).

REVIEW OF EXPERIMENTALTRIALS OF PROGRAMS TOPROMOTE EFFECTIVEPARENTING

We identified 46 randomized experimental tri-als of parenting interventions that met the


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

011.

62:2

99-3

29. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Nev

ada

- R

eno

on 1

2/01

/11.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


following three criteria: (a) Participants wererandomly assigned to a program that includedan intervention component to promote effec-tive parenting versus a comparison condition;(b) there was a minimum of one year follow-upduring which there was no intervention; and(c) the trial could be considered a universal, se-lective, or indicated prevention or promotionintervention (NRC/IOM 2009).

Many of these programs focused onhelping parents to facilitate their offspring’saccomplishment of developmental tasks. Thus,we organize our review by developmentalperiod: infancy and toddlerhood (0–3), earlychildhood (4–7), middle childhood (8–12),and adolescence (13–18). Several programsthat focused primarily on helping families dealwith stressful situations and targeted childrenacross developmental periods are describedseparately. In each section, we first describe therole of effective parenting in promoting accom-plishment of the tasks for healthy adaptation.We then describe the interventions, includingthe population that was targeted, the goals andobjectives of the interventions, the programcomponents, and the formats used in theinterventions. We then summarize the findingsconcerning outcomes achieved by the inter-ventions, with an emphasis on long-term youthoutcomes. Finally, we more fully describe oneintervention and its long-term impact.

Infancy and Toddlerhood

Interventions that target parenting during theprenatal period, infancy, or toddlerhood teachparents to support their infant in achieving thedevelopmental tasks of healthy physical devel-opment, early cognitive development, and be-havior and emotional regulation. The first threeyears of life are a time of great physical growthand development, and during this time, par-ents play a key role in providing appropriatecare and nutrition and ensuring their infant’ssafety. Abuse, neglect, and accidents are lead-ing causes of death for infants and toddlers (U.S.Dept. Health Human Serv. Children’s Bureau2009), making parent education about basic

child-care tasks, developmental milestones, andways to create a safe home environment cru-cial to promoting healthy development. Infancyand toddlerhood are also marked by the devel-opment of functional language, cognitive skillssuch as representational thinking, and basicself-regulation skills such as following rules, fo-cusing attention, and appropriately expressingemotion (NRC/IOM 2000). The developmentof each of these skills is facilitated by parentalbehaviors, including engaging in warm and sup-portive social interactions, cognitively stimu-lating the infant, and supporting the infant’sunderstanding of their environment (Bornstein2002).

The 13 experimental trials that met our cri-teria involved mothers who were pregnant orparents whose offspring were 3 years old oryounger. The majority of programs targetedfamilies who were low income or were experi-encing another risk factor, such as being a singleteenage mother (e.g., Olds et al. 2004b). Halfof the programs included primarily ethnic mi-nority families (e.g., Olds et al. 2004a). Morethan half of the interventions included a com-ponent consisting of home visitation by nursesor professionals (e.g., Brooks-Gunn et al. 1994),with a majority of these interventions beginningin pregnancy. Other formats included mul-tilevel interventions with self-directed com-ponents, individual family appointments withpractitioners, and parenting groups. Most ofthese programs were designed to educate par-ents about child development and to teach par-enting behaviors that promote healthy devel-opment and home safety. One-third of theprograms also included child-based compo-nents, such as educationally enriched daycareor socioemotional training. Comparison condi-tions were typically no-intervention conditions,brief (one- to three-session) interventions, orscreening and referring families to communityresources.

Three-quarters of the studies reportedimprovements in parenting skills within oneyear after the intervention ended, includingincreases in positive parenting and respon-siveness (Sanders et al. 2000), reductions in

306 Sandler et al.

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

011.

62:2

99-3

29. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Nev

ada

- R

eno

on 1

2/01

/11.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


coercive or corporal discipline, increases ineffective discipline (Gross et al. 2003), in-creases in the safety of the home environment(Kitzman et al. 1997, Olds et al. 1994a) andreductions in the incidence of child abuse andneglect (Kitzman et al. 1997; Olds et al. 1994a,2004b), Researchers also reported programeffects on factors that might influence positiveparenting, including increases in parentingself-efficacy, parenting satisfaction, positiveaffect (Gross et al. 2003, Plant & Sanders2007), parenting competence (Sanders et al.2000), and reductions in parenting stress(Cowan et al. 2007) and interparental conflictor domestic violence (Olds 2002, Sanders et al.2000). Approximately one-third of the studiesreported long-term program effects on par-enting, including increased father involvement18 months later (Cowan et al. 2009), higher lev-els of maternal sensitivity two years later (Oldset al. 2004b), and parenting competence andpositive affect three years later (Sanders et al.2007), as well as reduced rates of child abusebetween two and thirteen years later (Olds et al.2007). In addition, studies reported long-termeffects on factors that affect parenting, such asfewer subsequent pregnancies, higher maternalemployment, less maternal involvement withthe law, longer romantic relationships (Oldset al. 1997, 2007), and improvements inparental adjustment (Sanders et al. 2007).

A majority of the studies reported programeffects to reduce child behavior problems be-tween one and two years after the interven-tion ended (e.g., Gross et al. 2003, Sanderset al. 2000). Other effects included fewer childinjuries or ingestions of hazardous substances(Koniak-Griffin et al. 2003), improved cog-nitive and emotional behaviors ( Johnson &Breckenridge 1982), higher executive function-ing (as evidenced by the ability to sustain at-tention, inhibit motor control, and display lessoverly sensitive emotional behavior), more ad-vanced language skills, and greater social com-petence (Olds et al. 2004a,b) for those in theintervention versus control condition. Severalfollow-ups in early childhood found programeffects to improve child behavior at home and in

the classroom one year later (Gross et al. 2003,Plant & Sanders 2007) and to reduce the in-cidence of diagnosis of externalizing disorders(Gross et al. 2009; Sanders et al. 2000, 2007).Two studies that followed their samples frominfancy to adolescence found reduced risk be-haviors, such as involvement in the legal systemand risky sexual behavior (Olds et al. 1997), andgreater language and math skills (McCormicket al. 2006) in the intervention as compared withthe control condition.

The Nurse Family Partnership, a home-visiting intervention for first-time mothers, hasbeen tested in three large-scale randomizedtrials. Nurses visited mothers at home duringpregnancy and/or during the first two yearsof the child’s life to provide education abouthealthy prenatal behaviors, competent earlychild care, and strategies to improve thematernal life-course, such as planning futurepregnancies and seeking education and employ-ment. In the first trial, all first-time pregnantwomen in the area were invited to participate inthe study. Women were randomly assigned toone of four conditions: screening and referralonly; screening/referral and free transportationto child care; screening/referral with freetransportation to child care and home visits bya nurse during pregnancy; or all of the formerservices plus home visits by a nurse until thechild was 2 years old (Olds et al. 1994a). Whenthe children were 4 years old, nurse-visitedmothers were found to have lower rates ofabuse and neglect and home environmentsthat were safer and more supportive of childlearning in comparison with mothers who werenot visited (Olds et al. 1994a). Children bornto nurse-visited mothers who smoked duringpregnancy had less of a decline in IQ by age4 than did control children of mothers whosmoked during pregnancy (Olds et al. 1994b).Follow-up assessments showed that adolescentswhose mothers were visited by nurses duringpregnancy and/or infancy, in comparison withthose in the other conditions, were less likelyto have been abused, neglected, or arrested; touse drugs or alcohol regularly; or to participatein risky sexual behavior (Olds et al. 1998).


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

011.

62:2

99-3

29. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Nev

ada

- R

eno

on 1

2/01

/11.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Program effects were stronger for youth bornto low-income, unmarried teenage mothers.At age 19, daughters of low-income motherswho were visited by nurses had fewer arrestsand convictions, less Medicaid use, and fewerchildren themselves (Eckenrode et al. 2010)than did those in the other conditions. A secondtrial, which recruited primarily low-incomeAfrican American first-time mothers who weremostly adolescent and unmarried, assignedmothers to receive prenatal nurse home-visits,postnatal nurse home visits for two years, orno nurse visits (Olds et al. 2004a). Four yearslater, when the children were 6 years old,nurse-visited mothers had fewer subsequentbirths, longer romantic relationships, and lessreliance on welfare than the mothers in thecontrol conditions. Children whose motherswere in the nurse-visited condition had agreater ability to mentally process informationand provide coherent stories in response tostems, had higher receptive vocabulary, andfewer behavior problems in the borderlineor clinical range at age 6 (Olds et al. 2004a).When the children were 9 years old, thosein the nurse-visited condition had higherGPAs and achievement test scores in math andreading than those in the control conditions(Olds et al. 2007). A third trial compared theeffects of home visits by paraprofessionals tohome visits by nurses. When the childrenwere 4 years old, nurse-visited mothers weremore sensitive, provided safer and morelearning-supportive home environments, andwere involved in less domestic violence thanthe mothers visited by paraprofessionals (Oldset al. 2004b). Further, children of nurse-visitedmothers showed a greater ability to sustainattention, inhibit motor control and adapt theirbehavior and control their emotions duringbehavioral tasks, and used more advancedlanguage than children whose mothers werevisited by paraprofessionals (Olds et al. 2004b).

Early Childhood

The acquisition of self-regulation skills, suchas paying attention, appropriately expressing

emotions, planning, and problem solving, anddeveloping social competencies such as jointplay with peers and perspective taking are de-velopmental task of early childhood (ages 4through 7) (NRC/IOM 2000). Critical devel-opmental tasks also include adapting success-fully to school and developing nonaggressiverelations with peers (Hinshaw 1992). Childrenwho have difficulty regulating their behavior orwho are aggressive toward others are at elevatedrisk for a wide range of problems throughoutchildhood and into adulthood, including aca-demic failure, conduct disorder, delinquencyand criminality, and substance abuse (Broidyet al. 2003, Fergusson & Horwood 1998). Acommon theme of interventions during earlychildhood is the promotion of parenting prac-tices that decrease aggression and facilitatehealthy transition into school.

We identified eight experimental trials thatwere for parents of children ages 4 through7 and that met our criteria. One of these in-terventions was universal and was designed topromote a healthy transition to kindergarten(Cowan et al. 2005); several targeted parentsin high-risk families [e.g., poor, lived in high-crime areas, or had a child who was incar-cerated (e.g., Brotman et al. 2008)]; otherstargeted children whose parents rated themas having high levels of externalizing behav-ior problems (e.g., August et al. 2001). Roughlyhalf of these programs included primarily eth-nic minority families. The majority of the pro-grams used a group format, and many includedadditional components for parents designed toincrease parental involvement in school (e.g.,McDonald et al. 2006), help parents obtainhealth or family services (August et al. 2001,Tolan et al. 2004), or help parents manageliving in a neighborhood with high levels ofviolence (Tolan et al. 2004). Some includedcomponents for children, such as skills trainingor academic tutoring (e.g., August et al. 2001,Bernat et al. 2007). Control conditions typi-cally consisted of no-intervention conditions,brief informational parent sessions, or mailingsof printed information on behaviorally orientedparenting skills.

308 Sandler et al.

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

011.

62:2

99-3

29. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Nev

ada

- R

eno

on 1

2/01

/11.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


About half of the studies assessed pro-gram effects on parenting within one yearof completing the program. These studiesfound that the programs improved aspects ofpositive parenting such as responsiveness (e.g.,Brotman et al. 2008) and warmth (Cowan et al.2005), as well as increased the use of effectivediscipline strategies (e.g., Bernat et al. 2007,Brotman et al. 2008, Reid et al. 2001, Tolanet al. 2004). Several interventions increasedparents’ support for a positive transition toschool by teaching strategies to support childlearning at home (Brotman et al. 2008) orto become more involved in school (Reidet al. 2001; Tolan et al. 2004, 2009). Aboutone-third of the studies found that programeffects on parenting practices were maintainedbetween one and six years after the programended [e.g., improved discipline (Brotmanet al. 2008), increased parental support of childlearning (Brotman et al. 2008), and increasedsupervision (Tremblay et al. 1995)]. In two-thirds of the studies, researchers did not reporton long-term program effects on parenting.

Nearly all of the studies found programeffects on child outcomes assessed one yearor more after the intervention ended. Severalstudies reported reduced externalizing prob-lems (Bernat et al. 2007, Strayhorn & Weidman1991), decreased internalizing problems (e.g.,Cowan et al 2005, Strayhorn & Weidman1991), higher academic achievement and en-gagement in school (e.g., Cowan et al. 2005,Tremblay et al. 1995), and increased socialcompetence (e.g., Brotman et al. 2008). Whenassessed in middle childhood (two or moreyears after the intervention), children whoseparents received the programs were found tohave fewer externalizing problems (e.g., Tolanet al. 2004, 2009), fewer delinquent behaviors(McCord et al. 1994), fewer internalizing prob-lems (Cowan et al. 2005), and better school ad-justment (McDonald et al. 2006; Tolan et al.2004, 2009) compared to children whose par-ents were in the control conditions. When as-sessed in adolescence, youth whose parents re-ceived early childhood parenting interventionshad fewer behavior problems (Cowan & Cowan

2006), less substance use (Tremblay et al. 1995),and engaged in less delinquent behavior (Trem-blay et al. 1995) than those whose parents werein the control conditions. Several studies foundthe effects of the programs were greater forhigh-risk families that had high levels of familyproblems or child behavior problems at pro-gram entry (e.g., Reid et al. 2001).

The Incredible Years (IY) program wasdesigned to reduce child behavior problemsthrough parent training, which focuses on im-proving parent competencies, parent involve-ment in school, and effective managementof child behavior problems (Webster-Stratton1987). The program also focuses on helpingparents support effective behavioral regulationskills and social competencies, which are seenas important for preventing the developmentof child externalizing problems. Although theprogram has primarily been tested with parentsof children whose behavior problems exceededthe clinical threshold, adapted versions of thisprogram have been incorporated in several pre-vention trials (Bernat et al. 2007, Brotman et al.2008, Gross et al. 2009).

One of the prevention trials of the IY pro-gram included 634 low-income mothers witha child enrolled in a Head Start program (Reidet al. 2001). Mothers were randomly assigned toan 8- to 12-session parenting program or a no-intervention control condition. One year later,mothers who received the program showedmore positive parenting practices, used fewercritical statements and commands, were moreconsistent in their interactions with their chil-dren, and reported greater parenting compe-tence than those in the control group. Childrenwhose mothers received the program showedfewer behavior problems and more positive be-haviors at one-year follow-up as compared tothose in the control group. A program for par-ents with preschoolers (age 4) whose older sib-lings were incarcerated included an adaptionof the IY (Brotman et al. 2008). Families wererandomly assigned to the intervention (i.e., 22parent group sessions, 20 child group sessions,10 home visits over eight months, and threemonthly booster sessions) or a no-intervention


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

011.

62:2

99-3

29. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Nev

ada

- R

eno

on 1

2/01

/11.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


control condition. Sixteen months after theprogram ended (one year after the booster ses-sions), parents in the intervention conditionused more responsive parenting and less harshparenting and provided more stimulation forlearning in interactions with their children thanthose in the control condition. Children whoseparents participated in the intervention had fivetimes fewer aggressive acts than those whoseparents were in the control condition.

Middle Childhood

Middle childhood (ages 8 to 12) is marked bygrowth in cognitive competencies (e.g., prob-lem solving, perspective taking), social relation-ships, self-concept, self-regulation, and socialresponsibility (Collins et al. 2002). Childrenin this age range increasingly deal with influ-ences beyond the family such as bullying, vio-lence, and peers who use substances. Relativeto parenting at earlier ages, effective parentingincludes greater effort to have children regu-late their own behavior; greater monitoring ofchildren’s behavior; more emphasis on help-ing children to increase goal-directed behav-iors, develop a sense of social responsibility, andengage in prosocial behavior; and greater atten-tion to decreasing antisocial behavior (Collinset al. 2000).

We identified 11 trials that met our criteria.The majority of the studies were designed toprevent adolescent substance use and conductproblems or delinquency. The programsincluded parent components such as parentinggroups (e.g., Kosterman et al. 1997), mailed ed-ucational materials (e.g., Jackson & Dickinson2003), or in-home family visits (e.g., Hostetler& Fisher 1997). Nearly all of the interventionsalso included a classroom-based, family-based,or group-based youth component that includededucation about drugs, tobacco, and alcohol;anger management; social problem solving; orfamily communication. Some studies found thatthe child component increased the programeffects on child behavior relative to the parentcomponent (Lochman & Wells 2004, Schinkeet al. 2004), but one study found that the addi-

tion of a teen group component to the parentgroup was associated with an iatrogenic effect(Dishion & Andrews 1995). About one-thirdof the studies were universal interventions;close to half were selected interventionstargeting youth at risk because of poverty, andone-quarter were indicated interventions thattargeted youth with externalizing behaviorproblems or low grades. Comparison con-ditions included no-intervention conditions,mailed information on adolescent develop-ment, or monetary payments to control schools.

Three-quarters of the evaluations reportedeffects on parenting within one year afterthe intervention was completed, includingimprovements in family communication(Kosterman et al. 1997), family problemsolving (DeGarmo & Forgatch 2005), manage-ment of child behavior (Redmond et al. 1999),discipline (Lochman & Wells 2004), and qual-ity of parent-youth relationships (Dishion &Andrews 1995, Kosterman et al. 1997) as wellas parent attitudes about youth substance use( Jackson & Dickinson 2003). Only one studyfound effects on parenting more than a yearafter the program ended. This study found thatparents who participated in a substance-useprevention program as compared to those inthe control condition strengthened their normsagainst substance use across the two years afterthe program ended (Park et al. 2000).

As assessed one or more years after partici-pation, positive program effects were found onyouth delinquency (Eddy et al. 2003, Lochman& Wells 2004), substance use (Dishion et al.2002, Hostetler & Fisher 1997, Spoth et al.1999), and social competence and appropriatebehavior at school (Lochman & Wells 2004). Anumber of the studies also found program ef-fects in adolescence (from three to seven yearsafter the intervention), including decreases indelinquency, conduct problems, internalizingproblems (Mason et al. 2007, Trudeau et al.2007), risky sexual behavior (Brody et al. 2008),and substance use (e.g., Connell et al. 2007,DeGarmo et al. 2009); reductions in suscepti-bility to negative peer influence (Brody et al.2008, Schinke et al. 2004); and increases in

310 Sandler et al.

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

011.

62:2

99-3

29. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Nev

ada

- R

eno

on 1

2/01

/11.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


academic success (Spoth et al. 2008, Stormshaket al. 2009). Several studies found the interven-tion effects were greater for sub-groups includ-ing youth who were at risk because of existingbehavior problems or family stressors (Brodyet al. 2008, Connell & Dishion 2008) andfor preadolescent aggressive boys (Lochman &Wells 2004).

The Iowa Strengthening Families Program(ISFP; Molgaard & Spoth 2001) was designedto prevent substance use and other risky behav-iors during the transition to adolescence. Theprogram consists of six separate sessions for par-ents and children and one joint session for par-ents and children. One universal trial of sixth-graders compared the ISFP and another familyintervention (Preparing for the Drug FreeYears; Park et al. 2000) to a control group thatreceived materials via mail. One year after theprogram, parents in the ISFP condition werefound to have improved skills to manage childbehavior and improved parent-child relation-ship quality as compared to those in the controlcondition (Redmond et al. 1999). Six years afterthe program, adolescents whose parents were inthe ISFP condition also initiated substance uselater (Spoth et al. 2006) and had fewer internal-izing disorders (Trudeau et al. 2007), greateracademic engagement and success (Spoth et al.2008), and less delinquent behavior (Spothet al. 2000) than those in the control condition.

The ISFP was adapted for rural AfricanAmerican youth and tested with 284 11-year-old rural African American youth andtheir parents (Brody et al. 2004). The StrongAfrican American Families program (SAAF)was designed to prevent adolescent substanceuse and early sexual behavior by promotingvigilant parenting, which involves increas-ing parental involvement in the child’s life,parent-child communication about alcohol andsex, use of inductive and consistent discipline,and parental monitoring. The program alsoincluded a component to promote racialsocialization of the youth by the parents.At the end of the program, parents in theintervention condition had better adaptiveparenting in terms of limit setting, monitoring,

inductive discipline, racial socialization, andcommunication about sex and alcohol thandid parents in the no-intervention controlgroup. Twenty-nine months later, youthwhose families participated in the interventionwere less influenced by peers, engaged in lessrisky sexual behaviors, and showed a decreasein conduct problems over time compared withthose in the control group (Brody et al. 2008). Aparticularly intriguing aspect of the evaluationinvolved testing a program × gene interaction.The program reduced growth in risky behavior(drug or alcohol use or sexual intercourse) over29 months for youth who were at genetic riskdue to a polymorphism in the HTTLPR gene.Those at genetic risk in the control group hadtwo times the increase in risky behavior com-pared with those at genetic risk whose familiesparticipated in SAAF (Brody et al. 2009).

Adolescence

Adolescence marks a period of sexual and physi-cal maturation, which in turn affects how youthsee themselves and are seen by their parentsand peers (Steinberg & Silk 2002). Adolescentsthink more abstractly and hypothetically thanthey did when in middle childhood, and theyare developing an increased sense of auton-omy and identity. Adolescents are increasinglyinfluenced by peers and are exposed to moreopportunities for risky behavior. Despite theincreasing salience of these influences outsidethe family and the challenges that the adoles-cent’s physical, social, and cognitive changespose for parents, adolescents continue to begreatly influenced by their parents (for a review,see Steinberg & Silk 2002).

We identified six trials that met our criteria,all of which focused on preventing adolescentsubstance use or risky sexual behavior by edu-cating parents about such risks and promotingparent-adolescent communication about thesetopics. The programs included components forparents, such as parent groups (e.g., Villarruelet al. 2008) or mailed information (Ennett et al.2001), and components that included teens,such as family sessions (Pantin et al. 2009)


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

011.

62:2

99-3

29. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Nev

ada

- R

eno

on 1

2/01

/11.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


or adolescent group sessions (e.g., Goldberget al. 2000). Comparison conditions were no-intervention control groups, self-administeredprograms, or a combination of existing com-munity programs or English classes for nativespeakers of languages other than English. Fourof the six studies measured program effects onparenting and reported that parents who re-ceived an intervention as compared to controlswere more likely to discuss drugs, alcohol, to-bacco, and sex with their teenagers (Ennett et al.2001), had better overall communication withtheir teenagers (Pantin et al. 2009, Villarruelet al. 2008), and reported more positive parent-ing up to one year following the intervention(Prado et al. 2007). One year after the interven-tion, teens whose families participated were lesslikely to drink alcohol, smoke, or participatein unsafe sexual behavior (Pantin et al. 2009),and reported less intention to use illegal drugs(Goldberg et al. 2000) than those whose fami-lies did not receive an intervention. Two yearslater, programs were found to reduce drug use(Prado et al. 2007), decrease favorable attitudesabout substance use (Haggerty et al. 2007), in-crease safe sexual practices (Pantin et al. 2009),and reduce the rate of externalizing disorders(Pantin et al. 2009) relative to the controlconditions.

Familias Unidas is an intervention for His-panic families that targets facilitating parent-adolescent communication and bonding, sup-porting parental involvement in extrafamilialcontexts in which adolescents participate, andbuilding supportive relationships between par-ents to reduce their isolation (Pantin et al.2003). The program includes parent groupsthat meet weekly over a nine-month period andhome visits focused on implementing the skillstaught in the program. The program has beentested with both selected and indicated sam-ples of eighth-graders with at least one parentborn in a Spanish-speaking country. In the se-lected trial, families were randomly assigned tothe Familias Unidas program combined with anHIV prevention program that promoted parentcommunication about HIV risk, English lan-guage classes for Spanish-speaking parents and

the HIV prevention program, or to languageclasses plus another health intervention (Pradoet al. 2007). Families that participated in Fa-milias Unidas combined with the HIV preven-tion program showed improvements in positiveparenting and parent-adolescent communica-tion at posttest. Adolescents whose parents re-ceived this intervention reported less cigaretteuse compared with those in the other two con-ditions and less illicit drug use relative to theother health intervention across 24 months fol-lowing the intervention. The indicated preven-tion trial targeted families of eighth-graderswith adolescents who had high behavior prob-lems as reported by parents (Pantin et al. 2009).The intervention was found to improve pos-itive parenting, parent-teen communication,and parental monitoring at six months after theprogram relative to the control group that wasreferred to community services. Youth whoseparents participated in the program had less ofan increase in substance use approximately twoyears after the study, had fewer symptoms ofexternalizing disorders, and were more likelyto use condoms than youth whose parents didnot receive the intervention (Pantin et al. 2009).

Resilience Promotion Programs forYouth in Stressful Situations

Seven trials evaluated the effects of parentinginterventions with families of children span-ning multiple developmental periods who wereexposed to stressful situations. Most of theseprograms were designed to help families fac-ing a specific stressor such as parental divorceor separation (Braver et al. 2005, DeGarmoet al. 1999, Wolchik et al. 2002b), parentalmethadone treatment (Catalano et al. 1999),parental depression (Beardslee et al. 2003), orparental bereavement (Sandler et al. 2010a).Based on empirical support for parenting as aresilience resource (Luthar 2006), these pro-grams taught parents to use effective parentingtechniques and to deal with stressor-specific is-sues (e.g., reducing interparental conflict fol-lowing divorce, Braver et al. 2005; dealingwith parental grief following death of a spouse,

312 Sandler et al.

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

011.

62:2

99-3

29. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Nev

ada

- R

eno

on 1

2/01

/11.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Sandler et al. 2010b; dealing with depressionof a parent, Beardslee et al. 2003). Severalof the programs also included a child-focusedcoping enhancement component (e.g., Beard-slee et al. 2003, Sandler et al. 2010a, Wolchiket al. 2002a). Typical comparison conditionsincluded no-treatment control groups, mailedliterature concerning how to adapt to thestressful situation, or a brief lecture-only con-dition. One program targeted schoolchildrenand adolescents exposed to multiple sources ofstress in an economically impoverished com-munity with a high crime rate and high ratesof substance abuse (LoSciuto et al. 1997). Theparenting program consisted of monthly par-enting classes and home visits to encourageparent participation in other aspects of themulticomponent community-focused program(LoSciuto et al. 1997). Evaluations of these pro-grams have shown program effects on multipleaspects of parenting, including improvementsin the quality of the parent-child relation-ship, increases in effective discipline (DeGarmoet al. 1999, Sandler et al. 2003, Wolchik et al.2007), and improvements in family rule-setting(Catalano et al. 1999, Ennett et al. 2001). Sev-eral programs reported that improvements inparenting lasted one year following programcompletion (e.g., Forgatch et al. 2009). Theinterventions reduced a wide range of childand adolescent problems between two and nineyears after the program, including diagnosedmental disorder (Wolchik et al. 2002a), exter-nalizing behavior problems (DeGarmo et al.1999, Sandler et al. 2010a, Wolchik et al.2002a), police arrests (Forgatch et al. 2009),internalizing problems (Braver et al. 2005;Sandler et al. 2010a; Wolchik et al. 2002a,2007), substance use (Wolchik et al. 2002a),cortisol dysregulation (Luecken et al. 2010),and grief (Sandler et al. 2010b). A few pro-grams reported long-term effects on school per-formance, self-esteem, and active coping (e.g.,Sandler et al. 2003, 2010a; Wolchik et al. 2002a,2007).

The New Beginnings Program (NBP;Wolchik et al. 2000, 2002a) is an 11-sessionprogram designed to improve parenting by the

residential mother following divorce. One ofthe two experimental trials of the NBP com-pared the NBP to the NBP plus a child cop-ing program and a literature control condition.No significant additive effects were found forthe child coping component as compared tothe NBP-only condition at posttest or short-or long-term follow-ups. At six-year follow-up, youth whose mothers participated in theNBP had lower rates of meeting criteria of diag-nosed mental disorder, fewer internalizing andexternalizing problems, less substance use andrisky sexual behavior, and higher self-esteemand school grades (Wolchik et al. 2002a) thanthose in the literature control condition, withstronger effects occurring for those who wereat higher risk at program entry. The Family Be-reavement Program (FBP; Sandler et al. 2003)is a 12-session program that included a care-giver group that was based on the NBP pro-gram, a child coping group, and two individualsessions for the caregivers. At six-year follow-up, youth in the FBP as compared to thosein the literature control condition had loweryouth, caregiver, and teacher reports of exter-nalizing problems, lower teacher report of in-ternalizing problems, higher self-esteem, lowerproblematic grief, and less HPA axis dysregu-lation as assessed by evening cortisol (Lueckenet al. 2010; Sandler et al. 2010a,b). Spousallybereaved caregivers in the FBP as comparedto those in the control condition had lowerlevels of depression and general mental healthproblems and were less likely to be above thecut point for moderate or higher levels of de-pression at six-year follow-up (Sandler et al.2010a).

Summary

The findings of the 46 randomized trials pro-vide evidence that interventions that includea parenting component led to improvementsacross a broad range of youth problem out-comes and competencies from 1 to 20 yearsfollowing the intervention. The outcomes thathave been changed include problems withhigh individual and societal costs, such as


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

011.

62:2

99-3

29. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Nev

ada

- R

eno

on 1

2/01

/11.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


mental disorder, child abuse, substance use,delinquency, risky sexual behaviors, and aca-demic difficulties. The content of the parent-ing interventions differed across developmentperiods to address differences in the key de-velopmental tasks facing youth, and long-termprogram effects have been demonstrated for in-terventions that were delivered during each de-velopmental period. Teasing out the specific ef-fects of the parenting components of these pro-grams is complicated by the fact that 25 of the 46studies included components in addition to par-enting. To date, few researchers have used ex-perimental designs such as sequential disman-tling designs that would allow the assessment ofthe independent effects of the parenting com-ponents or the additive effects of other compo-nents (West & Aiken 1997). In several studies,researchers have compared the effects of theirparenting component to those of other inter-vention conditions and have demonstrated thepositive contribution of the parenting compo-nents (e.g., Bodenmann et al. 2008, Cowan et al.2007, Prado et al. 2007), and some have foundthat adding other components to the parent-ing component did not yield additional ben-efits (e.g., Wolchik et al. 2002a). Given dif-ferences in costs for single- versus multiple-component programs and the importance ofidentifying combinations of components withmaximal effects, additional research is neededto examine the effects of parenting versus othercomponents.

Twenty studies tested the long-term effectsof a parent intervention when used withoutother components, of which 8 found support forlong-term effects to strengthen parenting and13 found support for long-term effects on youthoutcomes, such as behavior problems (Sanderset al. 2007, Wolchik et al. 2002a), delinquency(Eckenrode et al. 2010, Forgatch et al. 2009),substance use (Pantin et al. 2009, Wolchiket al. 2002a), and academic performance(McDonald et al. 2006, Olds et al. 2007,Wolchik et al. 2002a). These findings supportthe efficacy of parenting interventions to im-prove long-term outcomes for youth. However,

they tell us little about how these programs havetheir effects, including whether their effects aredue to the skills taught in the program or tononspecific effects of the intervention (Shapiro& Shapiro 1997).

INTEGRATING THEORETICALPROPOSITIONS ABOUT THELONG-TERM EFFECTS OFPARENTING INTERVENTIONSINTO THE ANALYSIS OFPREVENTION TRIALS

In this section, we describe research on thepathways by which these programs have long-term effects on youth outcomes. The discussionis structured along the lines of the two theoret-ical propositions about factors that account forthe long-term effects of the parenting programsdiscussed above.

Proposition 1: The Long-TermEffects of Parenting Interventions areDue to Program Effects to ImproveParenting

This proposition can be tested by mediationanalysis in which the program is the exoge-nous variable, change in parenting is the pu-tative mediator, and the analysis tests whetherthe program effects on parenting account forprogram effects on the outcomes. Ten ofthe trials reported analysis of mediation (seeTable 1). Nearly half of the studies that in-cluded meditation analyses involved interven-tions that took place during middle childhood,and one-quarter were stressor-specific inter-ventions delivered to parents with offspring atmultiple developmental periods. The parentingvariables that were found to mediate programeffects on youth outcomes included parentalwarmth (Zhou et al. 2008), authoritative par-enting (Cowan et al. 2005), effective and con-sistent discipline (Bernat et al. 2007, Lochman& Wells 2002, Zhou et al. 2008), parental mon-itoring (Dishion et al. 2003), and good fam-ily communication and problem solving (Brody

314 Sandler et al.

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

011.

62:2

99-3

29. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Nev

ada

- R

eno

on 1

2/01

/11.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


et al. 2008, DeGarmo et al. 2009). Parentingwas found to mediate program effects on a va-riety of youth outcomes, including academicsuccess (Spoth et al. 2008, Zhou et al. 2008),substance use (Dishion et al. 2003, Pantinet al. 2009, Prado et al. 2007), delinquency(DeGarmo & Forgatch 2005, Forgatch et al.2009), internalizing and externalizing prob-lems (Zhou et al. 2008), and conduct problems(Brody et al. 2008). There is a pattern of find-ings across studies for parenting to mediate pro-gram effects on externalizing problems and/orsubstance abuse, a complex of problems that hasbeen labeled “problem behaviors” (Biglan et al.2004).

Although these findings provide someevidence that supports parenting as a mediatorof the long-term effects of parenting programson youth outcomes, limitations in these studiespresent serious barriers to aggregating findingsacross studies. Most prominently, only 10 ofthe 46 studies reported findings on mediation.None of the 13 programs delivered to infantsor toddlers reported results of mediationanalyses. Ten of the 46 studies did not evenreport on whether program effects occurredon the parenting variables targeted in the pro-gram. Only 23 studies reported on long-termprogram effects on parenting variables oneyear or longer following the program, withsignificant effects reported in 17 studies. Also,the intervention components varied widelyacross the programs, including the presence ofcomponents to change other aspects of parents’behavior (e.g., mental health problems, use ofsocial services) or children’s behavior (e.g., cop-ing, academic performance). There were alsodifferences across studies in the measures ofparenting and youth outcomes and in the timelags between the variables in the meditationmodels.

In addition, there was considerable variabil-ity in the methods used in the mediation anal-yses. Many studies tested for mediation by as-sessing whether a program effect became non-significant after the mediator was included inthe analysis. This test is not ideal because a me-

diated effect may be present whether or not theprogram effect is nonsignificant after adjust-ment for the mediator. The difference in theprogram effect coefficient before and after themediator is added is an estimator of the medi-ated effect that is appropriately tested for sig-nificance, called a difference in coefficients test,and is equivalent to a product of coefficient testfor normal theory models. Similarly, mediationeffects may be present even when there is not aprogram effect on the outcome, which may berare but can occur. More accurate tests are ob-tained by testing the significance of the programon the mediator and the mediator to outcomeafter adjustment for the program, known as ajoint significance test (MacKinnon et al. 2002).The joint significance test is easy to conduct butdoes not explicitly estimate the mediated effectand its standard error to compute confidenceintervals for the mediated effect. The product ofcoefficients test provides an estimate of the me-diated effect and its standard error. A few studiesreported the statistical significance of the prod-uct of coefficients estimate of the mediated ef-fect using its standard error. Tests with the bestbalance of statistical power and Type I errorrates are product of coefficients tests based onthe distribution of the product and tests basedon resampling methods; software is availablefor conducting these more accurate tests (fora complete review of methods to test mediationwith examples, see MacKinnon 2008).

Optimally, tests of mediation would presenteffect-size measures of the relation of the inter-vention to the mediator, the effect size for themediator to the outcome variable adjusted forthe program variable, and the effect size for therelation of the program variable to the outcomeadjusted for the mediator. With this informa-tion, effect-size measures could be combinedacross studies to yield quantitative evidence fora mediation relation. Additional estimates ofmediated effects, effect sizes, and confidencelimits would improve comparisons across stud-ies. Reporting estimates and standard errorsof mediation relations in each study for eachpotential mediator would allow for a richer


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

011.

62:2

99-3

29. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Nev

ada

- R

eno

on 1

2/01

/11.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Tab

le1

Med

iati

onan

alys

isof

long

-ter

mpr

ogra

mef

fect

son

child

prob

lem

san

dco

mpe

tenc

ies

Pro

gram

and

sam

ple

Con

diti

ons

com

pare

din

med

iati

onal

mod

elP

rogr

amef

fect

son

med

iato

r(s)

Med

iato

ref

fect

son

outc

ome(

s)T

est

ofm

edia

tion

Scho

olch

ildre

nan

dT

heir

Fam

ilies

Pro

ject

To

faci

litat

ech

ildtr

ansi

tion

tosc

hool

n=

100

fam

ilies

with

child

prep

arin

gto

star

tkin

derg

arte

n(m

ean

age

=5)

Pro

gram

sin

clud

ed16

-wee

kco

uple

sgr

oups

focu

sed

eith

eron

mar

itals

kills

(mar

ital

inte

rven

tion)

orpa

rent

ing

skill

s(p

aren

ting

inte

rven

tion)

com

pare

dto

cont

rolg

roup

rece

ivin

gye

arly

pare

ntco

nsul

tatio

n(C

owan

etal

.200

5)

Mar

itali

nter

vent

ion

vers

usco

ntro

lP

aren

ting

inte

rven

tion

vers

usco

ntro

l

Pos

ttes

t:re

duce

dm

othe

ran

dfa

ther

auth

orita

rian

pare

ntin

gP

ostt

est:

redu

ced

fath

erau

thor

itari

anpa

rent

ing

1ye

ar:r

educ

edm

arita

lco

nflic

t1

year

:red

uced

mot

her

and

fath

erau

thor

itari

anpa

rent

ing

Pos

ttes

t:R

educ

edfa

ther

auth

orita

rian

pare

ntin

g

1ye

ar:m

edia

ted

effe

cts

onch

ildre

n’s

perc

eive

dac

adem

ican

dso

cial

com

pete

nce

1ye

ar:m

edia

ted

effe

cts

onin

crea

sed

child

acad

emic

achi

evem

ent(

Pea

body

Indi

vidu

alA

chie

vem

entT

est)

1ye

ar:m

edia

ted

effe

cts

onin

crea

sed

teac

her-

repo

rted

acad

emic

com

pete

nce

2ye

ars:

med

iate

def

fect

son

incr

ease

dso

cial

com

pete

nce

and

high

erac

adem

icac

hiev

emen

t1

year

:med

iate

def

fect

son

redu

ced

child

exte

rnal

izin

gan

din

tern

aliz

ing

prob

lem

s

Tes

ted

whe

ther

the

prog

ram

affe

cted

the

med

iato

rsan

dw

heth

erth

em

edia

tors

wer

ere

late

dto

the

outc

ome

Ear

lyR

iser

s“S

kills

for

Succ

ess”

prog

ram

To

prev

entc

ondu

ctdi

sord

eran

dag

gres

sion

n=

151

at-r

isk

first

-gra

ders

with

high

leve

lsof

teac

her-

rate

dag

gres

sion

Pro

gram

incl

uded

3co

mpo

nent

sde

liver

edto

allf

amili

esin

inte

rven

tion

cond

ition

(i.e.

,su

mm

erpr

ogra

m,c

hild

grou

p,fa

mily

skill

spa

rent

grou

ps)a

nd2

com

pone

nts

deliv

ered

asne

eded

byfa

mili

es(i.

e.,s

choo

lsu

ppor

tpro

gram

,fam

ilysu

ppor

tpro

gram

)(B

erna

teta

l.20

07)

Ear

lyR

iser

sve

rsus

no-i

nter

vent

ion

cont

rol

3ye

ars:

incr

ease

def

fect

ive

disc

iplin

e3

year

s:im

prov

edso

cial

skill

s

6ye

ars:

med

iate

dto

decr

ease

dop

posi

tiona

l-de

fiant

sym

ptom

s6

year

s:m

edia

ted

tode

crea

sed

oppo

sitio

nal-

defia

ntsy

mpt

oms

Join

tsig

nific

ance

test

and

test

ofm

edia

ted

effe

ct(B

aron

&K

enny

1986

,Mac

Kin

non

1994

,Sob

el19

82)

316 Sandler et al.

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

011.

62:2

99-3

29. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Nev

ada

- R

eno

on 1

2/01

/11.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Cop

ing

Pow

erT

opr

even

tagg

ress

ion

and

beha

vior

prob

lem

sn

=18

3fif

th-g

rade

boys

,pr

imar

ilylo

win

com

e,ra

ted

asag

gres

sive

byte

ache

rsP

rogr

amco

nsis

ted

ofC

opin

gP

ower

child

grou

ps(8

sess

ions

infir

stye

aran

d20

sess

ions

inse

cond

year

)or

Cop

ing

Pow

erch

ildgr

oups

plus

pare

ntpr

ogra

m(1

6m

onth

lygr

oups

).In

anal

yses

,2in

terv

entio

nco

nditi

ons

wer

eco

mbi

ned

and

com

pare

dto

ano

-int

erve

ntio

nco

ntro

lgro

up(L

ochm

an&

Wel

ls20

02)

Chi

ldpr

ogra

mw

ith/w

ithou

tpa

rent

prog

ram

vers

usco

ntro

l

Pos

ttes

t:im

prov

edpa

rent

and

yout

hpr

ogra

mta

rget

s(fi

ve-f

acto

rm

odel

cons

istin

gof

pare

ntal

inco

nsis

tent

disc

iplin

e,yo

uth

attr

ibut

ions

,out

com

eex

pect

atio

ns,i

nter

nal

cont

rol,

and

perc

eptio

nsof

othe

rs)

Pos

ttes

t:im

prov

edpa

rent

and

yout

hpr

ogra

mta

rget

s(fi

ve-f

acto

rm

odel

,see

abov

e)P

ostt

est:

impr

oved

pare

ntan

dyo

uth

prog

ram

targ

ets

(five

-fac

tor

mod

el,s

eeab

ove)

1ye

ar:3

vari

able

sm

edia

ted

tose

lf-re

port

edyo

uth

delin

quen

cy:p

aren

tal

inco

nsis

tent

disc

iplin

e,yo

uth

outc

ome

expe

ctat

ions

,and

yout

hin

tern

alco

ntro

l1

year

:med

iate

dto

decr

ease

dyo

uth

repo

rts

ofsu

bsta

nce

use

(no

indi

vidu

alm

edia

tor

was

sign

ifica

nt)

1ye

ar:m

edia

ted

toim

prov

edte

ache

r-ra

ted

scho

olbe

havi

or(n

oin

divi

dual

med

iato

rw

assi

gnifi

cant

)

Tes

tofw

heth

erth

epr

ogra

mef

fect

onou

tcom

ebe

cam

eno

nsig

nific

antw

hen

adju

sted

for

med

iato

ran

dm

edia

tor

toou

tcom

ere

latio

ns;d

idno

tcite

any

test

ofm

edia

tion

Pro

ject

LIF

T:L

inki

ngth

eIn

tere

stof

Fam

ilies

and

Tea

cher

sT

ore

duce

the

risk

ofde

linqu

ency

n=

361

fifth

-gra

ders

insc

hool

sw

ithin

neig

hbor

hood

sw

ithhi

ghra

teof

juve

nile

delin

quen

cy10

-wee

kpr

ogra

min

clud

eda

clas

sroo

m-b

ased

soci

alsk

ills

and

prob

lem

-sol

ving

curr

icul

um,p

layg

roun

dbe

havi

or-m

odifi

catio

npr

ogra

m,a

ndgr

oup

pare

nttr

aini

ngse

ssio

nsw

eekl

yfo

r6

wee

ksve

rsus

noin

terv

entio

nsfo

rsc

hool

and

$2,0

00in

unre

stri

cted

fund

s(D

egar

mo

etal

.200

9)

LIF

Tpr

ogra

mve

rsus

cont

rol

Pos

ttes

t:im

prov

edfa

mily

inte

ract

ions

duri

ngob

serv

edpr

oble

m-s

olvi

ngta

skP

ostt

est:

impr

oved

fam

ilypr

oble

mso

lvin

gan

dre

duce

dob

serv

edag

gres

sive

play

grou

ndbe

havi

orP

ostt

est:

redu

ced

obse

rved

aggr

essi

vepl

aygr

ound

beha

vior

7ye

ars:

part

ially

med

iate

dre

duct

ions

inav

erag

eto

bacc

ous

e7

year

s:pa

rtia

llym

edia

ted

effe

cts

ongr

owth

ofto

bacc

ous

eov

er7

year

s7

year

s:pa

rtia

llym

edia

ted

effe

cts

onre

duct

ions

inac

cele

ratio

nof

illic

itdr

ugus

e

Pat

hm

odel

,joi

ntsi

gnifi

canc

ete

stof

prog

ram

onm

edia

tor

and

med

iato

ron

outc

ome

and

boot

stra

pte

stof

med

iate

def

fect

(Mac

Kin

non

&D

wye

r19

93,P

reac

her

&H

ayes

2004

)

(Con

tinue

d)


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

011.

62:2

99-3

29. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Nev

ada

- R

eno

on 1

2/01

/11.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Tab

le1

(Con

tin

ued

)

Pro

gram

and

sam

ple

Con

diti

ons

com

pare

din

med

iati

onal

mod

elP

rogr

amef

fect

son

med

iato

r(s)

Med

iato

ref

fect

son

outc

ome(

s)T

est

ofm

edia

tion

Stro

ngA

fric

anA

mer

ican

Fam

ilies

(SA

AF)

To

prev

ents

ubst

ance

use

inA

fric

anA

mer

ican

yout

hsn

=66

7A

fric

anA

mer

ican

child

ren,

age

11,f

rom

sem

irur

also

uthe

rnU

nite

dSt

ates

Pro

gram

cons

iste

dof

7-se

ssio

npa

rent

grou

pan

dse

para

te7-

sess

ion

yout

hgr

oup

com

pare

dto

no-i

nter

vent

ion

cont

rolg

roup

(Bro

dyet

al.2

004,

2008

)

SAA

Fpr

ogra

mve

rsus

cont

rol

Pos

ttes

t:in

crea

sed

regu

late

d,co

mm

unic

ativ

epa

rent

ing

(var

iabl

eco

nsis

ted

ofin

volv

ed-v

igila

ntpa

rent

ing,

com

mun

icat

ion

abou

tsex

,ra

cial

soci

aliz

atio

n,an

dex

pect

atio

nsfo

ral

coho

luse

)P

ostt

est:

impr

oved

scor

eson

prot

ectiv

epa

rent

ing

inde

x(c

onsi

sted

ofre

gula

ted

com

mun

icat

ive

pare

ntin

gva

riab

les;

see

abov

e)P

ostt

est:

impr

oved

yout

hpr

otec

tive

fact

orin

dex

(con

sist

edof

acad

emic

com

pete

nce/

enga

gem

ent,

self-

este

em,f

utur

ego

als,

risk

attit

udes

)

Pos

ttes

t:m

edia

ted

incr

ease

sin

yout

hpr

otec

tive

fact

ors

(con

sist

edof

goal

-dir

ecte

dfu

ture

orie

ntat

ion,

nega

tive

imag

esof

drin

kers

,neg

ativ

eat

titud

esab

outa

lcoh

ol/s

ex,a

ndac

cept

ance

ofpa

rent

alin

fluen

ce)

(Bro

dyet

al.2

004)

7ye

ars:

part

ially

med

iate

dre

duct

ions

inco

nduc

tpro

blem

sfo

rhi

gh-r

isk

yout

hsw

ithde

vian

tpee

rgr

oup

orlo

wse

lf-co

ntro

latp

rete

st(B

rody

etal

.200

8)7

year

s:pa

rtia

llym

edia

ted

redu

ctio

nsin

cond

uctp

robl

ems

for

high

-ris

kyo

uth

(Bro

dyet

al.2

008)

Bar

on&

Ken

ny’s

(198

6)4

cond

ition

sfo

rm

edia

tion,

test

ofjo

ints

igni

fican

ce(B

rody

etal

.200

4)B

aron

&K

enny

’s(1

986)

4co

nditi

ons,

join

tsi

gnifi

canc

e,an

dFr

eedm

an-S

chat

zkin

test

ofm

edia

ted

effe

ct(B

rody

etal

.200

8)

Iow

aSt

reng

then

ing

Fam

ilies

Pro

gram

(ISF

P)

To

prev

ents

ubst

ance

use

and

othe

rpr

oble

mbe

havi

ors

n=

667

fam

ilies

ofsi

xth-

grad

ers

from

low

-inc

ome

rura

lare

as,

238

assi

gned

toIS

FP,2

08to

cont

rol,

and

221

toan

othe

rfa

mily

inte

rven

tion

(Pre

pari

ngfo

rth

eD

rug-

Free

Yea

rs;

findi

ngs

repo

rted

else

whe

re)

Pro

gram

cons

iste

dof

vide

o-ad

apte

dve

rsio

nof

ISFP

prog

ram

that

incl

uded

6pa

rent

and

6ch

ildse

ssio

nsan

d1

join

tse

ssio

nco

mpa

red

toco

nditi

onw

ithm

aile

dm

ater

ials

abou

tsu

bsta

nce

use

(Spo

thet

al.2

008)

ISFP

vers

usco

ntro

lM

ultip

lelin

kage

mod

elP

ostt

est:

impr

oved

pare

ntin

gco

mpe

tenc

y(c

onsi

sted

offa

mily

rule

s,pa

rent

alin

volv

emen

tofc

hild

infa

mily

activ

ities

and

deci

sion

s,pa

rent

ange

rm

anag

emen

twith

inth

epa

rent

-chi

ldre

latio

nshi

p,co

mm

unic

atio

n)2

year

s:im

prov

emen

tsin

pare

ntin

gco

mpe

tenc

ym

edia

ted

incr

ease

sin

acad

emic

enga

gem

ent

6ye

ars:

acad

emic

enga

gem

enta

t2

year

sm

edia

ted

incr

ease

sin

acad

emic

succ

ess

Pat

hm

odel

with

join

tsi

gnifi

canc

ete

stan

dte

stof

med

iate

def

fect

318 Sandler et al.

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

011.

62:2

99-3

29. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Nev

ada

- R

eno

on 1

2/01

/11.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Fam

ilias

Uni

das

To

prev

ents

ubst

ance

use

and

risk

yse

xual

beha

vior

for

His

pani

cad

oles

cent

sn

=21

3H

ispa

nic

eigh

th-g

rade

rsra

ted

bypa

rent

sas

atle

ast1

SDab

ove

nonc

linic

alm

ean

onR

evis

edB

ehav

ior

Pro

blem

sC

heck

list

Pro

gram

cons

iste

dof

92-

hour

pare

ntgr

oup

sess

ions

and

101-

hour

fam

ilyvi

sits

plus

1-ho

urbo

oste

rse

ssio

nsat

10,1

6,22

,and

28m

onth

saf

ter

the

prog

ram

com

pare

dto

no-i

nter

vent

ion

cont

rolg

roup

(Pan

tinet

al.2

009)

Fam

ilias

Uni

das

vers

usco

ntro

lP

ostt

est:

impr

oved

fam

ilyfu

nctio

ning

(con

sist

edof

posi

tive

pare

ntin

g,pa

rent

/tee

nco

mm

unic

atio

n,pa

rent

alm

onito

ring

)

30m

onth

s:pa

rtia

llym

edia

ted

togr

owth

traj

ecto

ryof

past

30-d

aysu

bsta

nce

use

acro

ssth

e30

-mon

thpe

riod

Join

tsig

nific

ance

test

and

test

ofw

heth

erpr

ogra

mef

fect

beca

me

nons

igni

fican

taft

erad

ding

med

iato

r

Fam

ilias

Uni

das+

Pre

adol

esce

ntT

rain

ing

for

HIV

Pre

vent

ion

(PA

TH

)T

opr

even

tsub

stan

ceus

ean

dri

sky

sexu

albe

havi

orfo

rH

ispa

nic

adol

esce

nts

N=

268

His

pani

cei

ghth

-gra

ders

and

thei

rpr

imar

yca

regi

vers

Fam

ilias

Uni

das

prog

ram

cons

iste

dof

92-

hour

pare

ntgr

oup

sess

ions

and

101-

hour

fam

ilyvi

sits

.PA

TH

prog

ram

cons

iste

dof

43-

hour

pare

nted

ucat

ion

sess

ions

and

1pa

rent

-chi

ldse

ssio

n.T

wo

prog

ram

sto

geth

erw

ere

com

pare

dto

PA

TH

+E

nglis

hfo

rSp

eake

rsof

Oth

erL

angu

ages

(ESO

L)

clas

ses

for

pare

nts

orE

SOL

clas

ses

+H

eart

Pow

er!F

orH

ispa

nics

prog

ram

(edu

cate

spa

rent

sab

out

adol

esce

ntca

rdio

vasc

ular

heal

th)

(Pra

doet

al.2

007)

Fam

ilias

Uni

das+

PA

TH

vers

usE

SOL

+P

AT

HFa

mili

asU

nida

s+

PA

TH

vers

usE

SOL

+H

eart

Pow

er!

Pos

ttes

t:im

prov

edfa

mily

func

tioni

ng(p

ositi

vepa

rent

ing,

pare

nt-t

een

com

mun

icat

ion)

Pos

ttes

t:im

prov

edfa

mily

func

tioni

ng(p

ositi

vepa

rent

ing,

pare

nt-t

een

com

mun

icat

ion)

36m

onth

s:pa

rtia

llym

edia

ted

topa

st90

-day

ciga

rett

eus

e36

mon

ths:

part

ially

med

iate

dto

past

90-d

ayci

gare

tte

use

and

past

90-d

aydr

ugus

e

Con

trol

led

for

each

med

iato

rin

pred

ictin

gou

tcom

esan

dde

term

ined

that

path

sre

duce

dto

nons

igni

fican

cew

ere

med

iate

dpa

ths.

No

test

ofm

edia

ted

effe

ct

(Con

tinue

d)


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

011.

62:2

99-3

29. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Nev

ada

- R

eno

on 1

2/01

/11.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Tab

le1

(Con

tin

ued

)

Pro

gram

and

sam

ple

Con

diti

ons

com

pare

din

med

iati

onal

mod

elP

rogr

amef

fect

son

med

iato

r(s)

Med

iato

ref

fect

son

outc

ome(

s)T

est

ofm

edia

tion

New

Beg

inni

ngs

Pro

gram

To

prev

entm

enta

lhea

lthpr

oble

ms

inch

ildre

nw

hoex

peri

ence

dpa

rent

aldi

vorc

en

=24

0ch

ildre

nfr

omdi

vorc

edfa

mili

es,a

ges

9–12

,pr

imar

ilyno

n-H

ispa

nic

Cau

casi

anP

rogr

amco

nsis

ted

of11

-ses

sion

mot

her

grou

pw

ithor

with

out1

1-se

ssio

nch

ildgr

oup.

Inte

rven

tion

cond

ition

sw

ere

com

bine

dan

dco

mpa

red

toco

ntro

lgr

oup

that

rece

ived

liter

atur

eab

outc

hild

ren

and

divo

rce

(Bon

dset

al.2

010,

Zho

uet

al.

2008

)

Mot

her

prog

ram

with

/with

outc

hild

prog

ram

vers

usco

ntro

l

Pos

ttes

t:im

prov

edm

ater

nal

disc

iplin

e;n/

sfo

rim

prov

edm

othe

r-ch

ildre

latio

nshi

pqu

ality

Pos

ttes

t:im

prov

edm

othe

r-ch

ildre

latio

nshi

pqu

ality

;n/s

for

impr

oved

disc

iplin

eM

ultip

lelin

kage

mod

elP

ostt

est:

incr

ease

dm

othe

r-ch

ildre

latio

nshi

pqu

ality

3m

onth

san

d6

mon

ths:

led

tode

crea

sed

child

inte

rnal

izin

gpr

oble

ms

Mul

tiple

linka

gem

odel

Pos

ttes

t:in

crea

sed

effe

ctiv

edi

scip

line

3m

onth

s,6

mon

ths:

led

tode

crea

sed

child

exte

rnal

izin

gpr

oble

ms

6ye

ars:

med

iate

def

fect

son

grad

e-po

inta

vera

ge6

year

s:fo

rhi

gh-r

isk

grou

p(e

xter

naliz

ing

prob

lem

san

dfa

mily

adve

rsity

atba

selin

e),p

artia

llym

edia

ted

effe

cts

onex

tern

aliz

ing,

inte

rnal

izin

g,an

dsy

mpt

oms

ofm

enta

ldis

orde

rs(e

spec

ially

adol

esce

ntre

port

s)(Z

hou

etal

.20

08)

6ye

ars:

led

toin

crea

sed

self-

este

eman

dde

crea

sed

inte

rnal

izin

gsy

mpt

oms

6ye

ars:

led

tole

sssu

bsta

nce

use,

bett

erac

adem

icpe

rfor

man

ce(B

onds

etal

.201

0)

Tes

ted

med

iate

def

fect

usin

gco

nfide

nce

inte

rval

s(M

acK

inno

net

al.2

002)

Mul

tiple

linka

gem

odel

;did

nots

peci

fical

lyte

stm

edia

tion

Par

entin

gT

hrou

ghC

hang

eT

opr

even

tmen

talh

ealth

prob

lem

sfo

ryo

uth

who

expe

rien

ced

pare

ntal

divo

rce

n=

238

divo

rced

/sep

arat

edm

othe

rsof

boys

ages

6–9,

maj

ority

Cau

casi

anP

rogr

amco

nsis

ted

of16

-ses

sion

pare

ntm

anag

emen

ttra

inin

g(la

ter

cond

ense

dto

14se

ssio

ns)

com

pare

dto

no-i

nter

vent

ion

cont

rolg

roup

(DeG

arm

oet

al.2

004,

DeG

arm

o&

Forg

atch

2005

,Fo

rgat

ch&

DeG

arm

o19

99,

Forg

atch

etal

.200

9)

Par

entin

gT

hrou

ghC

hang

eve

rsus

cont

rol

6m

onth

s:in

crea

sed

posi

tive

pare

ntin

g(c

onsi

sted

ofpo

sitiv

ein

volv

emen

t,sk

ills

enco

urag

emen

t)1

year

:im

prov

edpo

sitiv

epa

rent

ing

1ye

ar:d

ecre

ased

mat

erna

land

child

depr

essi

on1

year

:im

prov

edpo

sitiv

epa

rent

ing

1ye

ar:i

mpr

oved

posi

tive

pare

ntin

gM

ultip

lelin

kage

mod

el:

1ye

ar:i

mpr

oved

posi

tive

pare

ntin

g8

year

s:le

dto

decr

ease

das

soci

atio

nw

ithde

vian

tpee

rsac

ross

8ye

ars

1ye

ar:m

edia

ted

effe

cts

onch

ild,

mot

her,

and

teac

her-

repo

rted

adju

stm

ent(

Forg

atch

&D

eGar

mo

1999

)30

mon

ths:

med

iate

def

fect

son

child

prob

lem

beha

vior

s(D

eGar

mo

etal

.200

4)30

mon

ths:

med

iate

def

fect

son

child

prob

lem

beha

vior

s(D

eGar

mo

etal

.200

4)36

mon

ths:

med

iate

def

fect

sto

redu

ced

delin

quen

cy(D

eGar

mo

&Fo

rgat

ch20

05)

9ye

ars:

med

iate

def

fect

onde

crea

sed

adol

esce

ntde

linqu

ency

(For

gatc

het

al.2

009)

9ye

ars:

decr

ease

dde

linqu

ency

(For

gatc

het

al.2

009)

Pat

hm

odel

;no

expl

icit

men

tion

ofm

edia

tion

(For

gatc

h&

DeG

arm

o19

99)

Tes

ted

join

tsig

nific

ance

ofpr

ogra

mto

med

iato

ran

dm

edia

tor

toou

tcom

e(D

eGar

mo

etal

.200

4)T

este

dw

heth

erth

epr

ogra

mef

fect

was

nots

igni

fican

tw

hen

med

iato

rw

asad

ded

(DeG

arm

o&

Forg

atch

2005

)T

este

dw

heth

erth

epr

ogra

mef

fect

was

nots

igni

fican

tw

hen

med

iato

rw

asad

ded

(For

gatc

het

al.2

009)

320 Sandler et al.

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

011.

62:2

99-3

29. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Nev

ada

- R

eno

on 1

2/01

/11.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


integration of the mediation results acrossstudies and is an important task for futurestudies. Although the aggregation of evidencefor mediation across studies is only beginning,methods for conducting meta-analyses forprogram effects on outcomes can be extendedto mediation effects in parenting programs(MacKinnon & Brown 2010).

There are many critical theoretical issuesthat could be probed using meditation analy-sis. Four issues should be given high priority forfuture research. First, researchers should inves-tigate the specificity of such effects, includingwhether a mediated effect occurs for one aspectof parenting but not another, whether an inter-vention effect is specific to one intervention andnot another, and whether the mediated effectoccurs for some outcome variables but not oth-ers. To date, very few researchers have testedwhether different aspects of parenting accountfor changes in different outcomes (see Zhouet al. 2008 for an exception). Second, becausemany of the programs are designed to changemultiple putative mediators, researchers shouldinvestigate multiple mediator models in whichthe effects on each potential mediator are testedwithin the same model. Only a few researchershave assessed multiple mediator models (e.g.,Lochman & Wells 2002). Third, researchersshould examine whether there are multiplelinkages in the meditation chain across devel-opment, such that a program has an immediateeffect on parenting and that changes in parent-ing affect problem behaviors at a subsequenttime point, and that changes in the problem be-havior affect a different problem behavior (e.g.,substance use, delinquency) as well as parent-ing at a later time point. To date, only threeresearch groups have investigated multiple link-age models (Bonds et al. 2010, Forgatch et al.2009, Spoth et al. 2008). Fourth, given that pro-gram effects on outcomes are often moderatedby other conditions (e.g., level of youth prob-lems at baseline, gender), it is likely that the me-diated effect might also be moderated. To date,very few researchers have investigated moder-ated mediation models (Zhou et al. 2006).

Proposition 2: The Long-TermEffects of Intervention-InducedChanges in Parenting are Due toChanges in Social, Cognitive,Behavioral, and Biological Processesin Parents and Youth and in theTransactions Between Youth andTheir Social Contexts

Although the mediation findings reviewedabove provide evidence that program effectson parenting account for long-term outcomesof some interventions, they do not address theintervening processes between improvementsin parenting within one year of completing aparenting program and reductions in youthproblem outcomes or improved competenciesyears later. Theoretically, understanding theseprocesses goes beyond the question of whetherthere is a causal effect of parenting on child out-comes (Collins et al. 2000, Rutter et al. 2001) toshed light on more basic developmental issuesconcerning how competencies and disorderdevelop over time. Practically, understandingthese intervening processes should facilitatethe development of more effective and efficientinterventions by focusing interventions morestrongly on processes that are most likely tomaintain program effects over time.

In the first section of this review, we describea three-level conceptual framework of the pro-cesses by which parenting programs mightbring about long-term effects on competen-cies and problem outcomes; processes withinparents, processes within youth, and transac-tions between youth and their social contexts(see Figure 1). Below, we use this frameworkas a guide to a research agenda and describesome findings that begin to shed light on theseprocesses.

We propose that processes that occur withinparents might involve changes in parentingbehaviors, parents’ sense of efficacy of their par-enting, and reductions in barriers to effectiveparenting. Although none of the studies testedthese processes as mediators of long-termchild outcomes, a number of studies demon-strated that programs effectively changed these


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

011.

62:2

99-3

29. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Nev

ada

- R

eno

on 1

2/01

/11.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


processes more than one year followingprogram delivery. Of the 46 trials, long-termeffects were reported to change parenting(17 studies), parental efficacy (4 studies), andbarriers to effective parenting, such as parentalmental health problems (7 studies), financialstress (2 studies) and quality of the maritalrelationship (5 studies). Intervention trialsprovide a unique opportunity to study theinterrelations between long-term changes onthese variables and how they impact childlong-term outcomes. For example, it wouldbe interesting to test how program-inducedreductions in barriers to parenting, such as eco-nomic stress, impact subsequent parenting andwhether such changes lead to improvements inchild outcomes. Alternatively, it may be thatprogram-induced improvements in parentingset off a cascade of effects involving improve-ments in youth behavior problems, which thenleads to reductions in parental depression,which further improves parenting and leads tolong-term effects on youth problem behaviors.

We propose that the child pathway might in-volve program effects on problem behaviors andcompetencies, stress response processes, andbelief systems. Almost all of the studies reportedshort-term effects to reduce child problemsand/or to improve competencies, and a largenumber of studies reported significant long-term effects on both these outcomes. Illustra-tively, Bonds et al. (2010) found that programeffects to improve parental discipline at posttestled to reduced externalizing problems up to sixmonths later, which in turn led to improvedgrades six years later. Although researchers havenot yet investigated whether stress responseprocesses act as mediators of the effects of par-enting interventions on youth outcomes, sev-eral studies provide evidence that parenting in-terventions affect the biological and psycholog-ical processes involved in adapting to stress. Forexample, several studies have found that par-enting interventions modified children’s dys-regulated cortisol responses immediately afterthe intervention (Brotman et al. 2008, Dozieret al. 2006) and up to six years following theintervention (Luecken et al. 2010). One study

(Velez et al. 2010) found that program effectsto improve the mother-child relationship qual-ity mediated program effects to improve chil-dren’s active coping and coping efficacy at six-year follow-up. Several studies have reportedpositive program effects on children’s beliefsabout the self (Brody et al. 2008, LoSciutoet al. 1999, Sandler et al. 2010a, Wolchik et al.2007), beliefs about substance use or risky sex-ual behavior (Brody et al. 2004, Goldberg et al.2000, Haggerty et al. 2007, Jackson & Dickin-son 2003), attitudes toward their parent’s men-tal illness (Beardslee et al. 2003), and attitudestoward ethnic diversity (LoSciuto et al. 1997,1999). Theoretically, it would be important tostudy whether program effects on parentingmediate changes in stress responses and beliefs,which in turn lead to long-term effects on chil-dren’s problem behaviors and competencies.

We hypothesized a contextual pathway bywhich program effects on parenting lead tochanges in children’s involvement in risky orcompetence-promoting contexts or to changesin the transactions between children and theircontexts. Illustratively, Forgatch et al. (2009)found that program effects to strengthen par-enting at one-year postintervention led to de-creased association with deviant peers eightyears later, which in turn led to decreased like-lihood of delinquency. For many studies, inaddition to the parenting component, othercomponents of the intervention were designedto improve the community or school con-text through multicomponent interventions inhigh-poverty neighborhoods and schools (e.g.,LoSciuto et al. 1999). Future studies might bedesigned to more systematically assess programeffects on such contexts and to experimentallytest the effects of these different componentson youth outcomes over time (for a reviewof methodological approaches to testing com-ponents of multicomponent interventions, seeWest & Aiken 1997).

FINAL SUMMARY

This article can be seen as a tale of twoliteratures. The first literature consists of 46

322 Sandler et al.

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

011.

62:2

99-3

29. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Nev

ada

- R

eno

on 1

2/01

/11.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


randomized experimental trials that includeda parenting component. Our review of thelong-term effects of these programs providedimpressive support for the ability of parentinginterventions to affect mental, emotional, andbehavioral disorders as well as the successfulachievement of developmental competence.A robust program of implementation and dis-semination research is needed to integrate theprograms shown to be effective in experimentaltrials into health, education, and communityinstitutions so they can have a significant publichealth impact (NRC/IOM 2009).

The second literature consists of studiesinvestigating the processes by which parent-ing programs have long-term effects. Becauselittle research has systematically investigatedthis issue, our knowledge of the processes bywhich they have their long-term effects is at

a rudimentary stage. In this review, we pro-posed a multilevel theoretical framework forresearch on these processes. We highlightedthe few studies that have used meditation anal-ysis to investigate the processes that accountfor the long-term effects of parenting pro-grams. These studies demonstrate the feasi-bility of research that uses randomized pre-vention trials of theoretically grounded inter-ventions to probe the pathways by which par-enting influences healthy and pathological de-velopment. Research that systematically teststhe processes through which parenting inter-ventions improve long-term youth outcomeshas great promise to advance developmentaltheory and to lead to a new generation ofmore effective approaches to prevent disor-ders and promote the healthy development ofchildren.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

The authors are not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings thatmight be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Work on this review was supported by NIMH grants P30 MH06868 and R01 MH071707 andNIDA grant DA09757.

LITERATURE CITED

Ardelt M, Eccles JS. 2001. Effects of mothers’ parental efficacy beliefs and promotive parenting strategies oninner-city youth. J. Fam. Issues 22:944–72

August GJ, Realmuto GM, Hektner JM, Bloomquist ML. 2001. An integrated components preventive in-tervention for aggressive elementary school children: the Early Risers program. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol.69:614–26

Bandura A. 1997. Self Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: FreemanBardone AM, Moffitt T, Caspi A, Dickson N. 1996. Adult mental health and social outcomes of adolescent

girls with depression and conduct disorder. Dev. Psychopathol. 8(4):811–29Baron RM, Kenny DA. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research:

conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 51:1173–82Beardslee WR, Gladstone TRG, Wright EJ, Cooper AB. 2003. A family-based approach to the prevention of

depressive symptoms in children at risk: evidence of parental and child change. Pediatrics 112:e119–31Bernat DH, August GJ, Hektner JM, Bloomquist ML. 2007. The Early Risers preventive intervention: testing

for six-year outcomes and mediational processes. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 35:605–17Biglan A, Brennan PA, Foster SL, Holder HD. 2004. Helping Adolescents at Risk: Prevention of Multiple Problem

Behaviors. New York: Guilford. 318 pp.


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

011.

62:2

99-3

29. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Nev

ada

- R

eno

on 1

2/01

/11.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Blair C, Granger DA, Kivlighan KT, Mills-Koonce R, Willoughby M, et al. 2008. Maternal and child contri-butions to cortisol response to emotional arousal in young children from low-income, rural communities.Dev. Psychol. 44:1095–109

Bodenmann G, Cina A, Ledermann T, Sanders MR. 2008. The efficacy of the Triple P-Positive ParentingProgram in improving parenting and child behavior: a comparison with two other treatment conditions.Behav. Res. Ther. 46:411–27

Bonds D, Wolchik SA, Winslow EB, Tein J-Y, Sandler IN, Millsap RE. 2010. Developmental cascade effectsof the New Beginnings Program on adolescent adaptation outcomes. Dev. Psychopathol. In press

Bornstein MH. 2002. Parenting infants. In Handbook of Parenting: Children and Parenting, ed. MH Bornstein,Vol. 1, pp. 3–43. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 2nd ed.

Braver SL, Griffin WA, Cookston JT. 2005. Prevention programs for divorced nonresident fathers. Fam.Court Rev. 43:81–96

Brennan PA, Le Brocque R, Hammen C. 2003. Maternal depression, parent-child relationships, and resilientoutcomes in adolescence. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 42:1469–77

Brody GH, Beach SRH, Philibert RA, Chen Y-F, Lei M-K, et al. 2009. Parenting moderates a geneticvulnerability factor in longitudinal increases in youths’ substance use. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 77(1):1–11

Brody GH, Kogan SM, Chen Y-F, Murry VM. 2008. Long-term effects of the strong African Americanfamilies program on youths’ conduct problems. J. Adolesc. Health 43:474–81

Brody GH, Murry VM, Gerrard M, Gibbons FX, Molgaard V, et al. 2004. The Strong African AmericanFamilies Program: translating research into prevention programming. Child Dev. 75:900–17

Broidy LM, Nagin DS, Tremblay RE, Bates JE, Brame B, et al. 2003. Developmental trajectories of childhooddisruptive behaviors and adolescents delinquency: a six-site, cross-national study. Dev. Psychol. 39:222–45

Brooks-Gunn J, McCarton CM, Casey PH, McCormick MC, Bauer CR, et al. 1994. Early intervention inlow-birth-weight premature infants: results through age 5 years from the Infant Health and DevelopmentProgram. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 272:1257–62

Brotman LM, Gouley KK, Huang K-Y, Rosenfelt A, O’Neal C, et al. 2008. Preventive intervention forpreschoolers at high risk for antisocial behavior: long-term effects on child physical aggression and par-enting practices. J. Clin. Child Adolesc. Psychol. 37:386–96

Caspi A, Bem DJ, Elder GH. 1989. Continuities and consequences of interactional styles across the life course.J. Pers. 57:375–406

Catalano RF, Gainey RR, Fleming CB, Haggerty KP, Johnson NO. 1999. An experimental intervention withfamilies of substance abusers: one-year follow-up of the Focus on Families project. Addiction 94:241–54

Cicchetti D, Hinshaw SP. 2002. Prevention and intervention science: contributions to developmental theory.Dev. Psychopathol. 14:667–71

Coie JD, Watt N, West SG, Hawkins D, Asarnow J, et al. 1993. The science of prevention: a conceptualframework and some directions for a national research program. Am. Psychol. 48:1013–22

Collins WA, Maccoby EE, Steinberg L, Hetherington EM, Bornstein MH. 2000. Contemporary research onparenting: the case for nature and nurture. Am. Psychol. 55:218–32

Collins WA, Madsen SD, Susman-Stillman A. 2002. Parenting during middle childhood. In Handbook ofParenting. Volume 1: Children and Parenting, ed. MH Bornstein, pp. 73–101. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 2nded.

Connell AM, Dishion TJ. 2008. Reducing depression among at-risk early adolescents: three-year effects of afamily-centered intervention embedded within schools. J. Fam. Psychol. 22:574–85

Connell AM, Dishion TJ, Yasui M, Kavanagh K. 2007. An adaptive approach to family intervention: linkingengagement in family-centered intervention to reductions in adolescent problem behavior. J. Consult.Clin. Psychol. 75:568–79

Cowan CP, Cowan PA, Heming G. 2005. Two variations of a preventive intervention for couples: effectson parents and children during the transition to elementary school. In The Family Context of Parentingin Children’s Adaptation to Elementary School, ed. PA Cowan, CP Cowan, JC Ablow, VK Johnson, JRMeaselle, pp. 227–312. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum

Cowan CP, Cowan PA, Pruett MK, Pruett K. 2007. An approach to preventing coparenting conflict anddivorce in low-income families: strengthening couple relationships and fostering fathers’ involvement.Fam. Process 46(1):109–21

324 Sandler et al.

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

011.

62:2

99-3

29. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Nev

ada

- R

eno

on 1

2/01

/11.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Cowan PA, Cowan CP. 2006. Group interventions for parents of preschoolers: 10-year impact on family functioningand teen’s adaptation. Paper presented at SRA Bienn. Meet., San Francisco, CA

Cowan PA, Cowan CP, Pruett MK, Pruett K, Wong JJ. 2009. Promoting fathers’ engagement with children:preventive interventions for low-income families. J. Marriage Fam. 71:663–79

DeGarmo DS, Eddy JM, Reid JB, Fetrow RA. 2009. Evaluating mediators of the impact of the Linking theInterests of Families and Teachers (LIFT) multimodal preventive intervention on substance use initiationand growth across adolescence. Prev. Sci. 10(3):208–20

DeGarmo DS, Forgatch MS. 2005. Early development of delinquency within divorced families: evaluating arandomized preventive intervention trial. Dev. Sci. 8:229–39

DeGarmo DS, Forgatch MS, Martinez CR Jr. 1999. Parenting of divorced mothers as a link between socialstatus and boys’ academic outcomes: unpacking the effects of socioeconomic status. Child Dev. 70:1231–45

DeGarmo DS, Patterson GR, Forgatch MS. 2004. How do outcomes in a specified parent training interventionmaintain or wane over time? Prev. Sci. 5(2):73–89

Dishion TJ, Andrews DW. 1995. Preventing escalation in problem behaviors with high-risk young adolescents:immediate and 1-year outcomes. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 63:538–48

Dishion TJ, Kavanagh K, Schneiger A, Nelson S, Kaufman NK. 2002. Preventing early adolescent substanceuse: a family-centered strategy for the public middle school. Prev. Sci. 3(3):191–201

Dishion TJ, Nelson SE, Kavanagh K. 2003. The family check-up with high-risk young adolescents: preventingearly-onset substance use by parent monitoring. Behav. Ther. 34:553–71

Dozier M, Albus K, Fisher P, Sepulveda S. 2002. Interventions for foster parents: implications for develop-mental theory. Dev. Psychopathol. 14:843–60

Dozier M, Peloso E, Lindheim O, Gordon MK, Manni M, et al. 2006. Developing evidence-based interven-tions for foster children: an example of a randomized clinical trial with infants and toddlers. J. Soc. Issues62:767–85

Eckenrode J, Campa M, Luckey DW, Henderson CR Jr, Cole R, et al. 2010. Long-term effects of prenataland infancy nurse home visitation on the life course of youths: 19-year follow-up of a randomized trial.Arch. Pediatr. Adolesc. Med. 164:9–15

Eddy JM, Reid JB, Stoolmiller M, Fetrow RA. 2003. Outcomes during middle school for an elementaryschool-based preventive intervention for conduct problems: follow-up results from a randomized trial.Behav. Ther. 34:535–52

Edwards AC, Dodge KA, Latendresse SJ, Lansford JE, Bates JE, et al. 2010. MOAO-uVNTR and earlyphysical discipline interact to influence delinquent behavior. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 51:679–87

Eisenberg N, Spinrad TL, Eggum ND. 2010. Emotion-related self-regulation and its relation to children’smaladjustment. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 6:495–525

Ennett ST, Bauman KE, Pemberton M, Foshee VA, Chuang Y-C, et al. 2001. Mediation in a family-directedprogram for prevention of adolescent tobacco and alcohol use. Prev. Med. 33:333–46

Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ. 1998. Early conduct problems and later life opportunities. J. Child Psychol.Psychiatry 39:1097–108

Forgatch MS, Degarmo DS. 1999. Parenting Through Change: an effective parenting intervention for singlemothers. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 67(5):711–24

Forgatch MS, Patterson GR, DeGarmo DS, Beldavs ZG. 2009. Testing the Oregon delinquency model with9-year follow-up of the Oregon Divorce Study. Dev. Psychopathol. 21:637–60

Goldberg L, MacKinnon DP, Elliot DL, Moe EL, Clarke G, Cheong J. 2000. The ATLAS program: pre-venting drug use and promoting health behaviors. Arch. Pediatr. Adolesc. Med. 154:332–38

Gross D, Fogg L, Webster-Stratton C, Garvey C, Julion W, Grady J. 2003. Parent training of toddlers in daycare in low-income urban communities. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 71:261–78

Gross D, Garvey C, Julion W, Fogg L, Tucker S, Mokros H. 2009. Efficacy of the Chicago Parent Programwith low-income African American and Latino parents of young children. Prev. Sci. 10:54–65

Haggerty KP, Skinner ML, MacKenzie EP, Catalano RF. 2007. A randomized trial of Parents Who Care:effects on key outcomes at 24-month follow-up. Prev. Sci. 8(4):249–60

Hinshaw SP. 1992. Externalizing behavior problems and academic underachievement in childhood and ado-lescence: causal relationships and underlying mechanisms. Psychol. Bull. 111:127–55


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

011.

62:2

99-3

29. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Nev

ada

- R

eno

on 1

2/01

/11.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Hostetler M, Fisher K. 1997. Project C.A.R.E. substance abuse prevention program for high-risk youth: alongitudinal evaluation of program effectiveness. J. Commun. Psychol. 25(5):397–419

Jackson C, Dickinson D. 2003. Can parents who smoke socialize their children against smoking? Results fromthe smoke-free kids intervention trial. Tob. Control 12:52–59

Johnson DL, Breckenridge JN. 1982. The Houston Parent-Child Development Center and the primaryprevention of behavior problems in young children. Am. J. Commun. Psychol. 10:305–16

Jones TL, Prinz RJ. 2005. Potential roles of parental self-efficacy in parent and child adjustment: a review.Clin. Psychol. Rev. 25:341–63

Kaminski JW, Valle LA, Filene JH, Boyle CL. 2008. A meta-analytic review of components associated withparent training program effectiveness. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 36:567–89

Kaplan HB. 1983. Psychological distress in sociological context: toward a general theory of psychologicalstress. In Psychological Stress: Trends in Theory and Research, ed. HB Kaplan, pp. 195–264. New York:Academic

Kaufman J, Yang B-Z, Douglas-Palumberi H, Houshyar S, Lipschitz D, et al. 2004. Social supports and sero-tonin transporter gene moderate depression in maltreated children. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101:17316–21

Kim-Cohen J, Caspi A, Taylor A, Williams B, Newcombe R, et al. 2006. MAOA, maltreatment, and gene-environment interaction predicting children’s mental health: new evidence and a meta-analysis. Mol.Psychiatry 11:903–13

Kitzman H, Olds DL, Henderson CR Jr, Hanks C, Cole R, et al. 1997. Effects of prenatal and infancy homevisitation by nurses on pregnancy outcomes, childhood injuries, and repeated childbearing: a randomizedcontrolled trial. JAMA 278:644–52

Koniak-Griffin D, Verzemnieks IL, Anderson NLR, Brecht M-L, Lesser J, et al. 2003. Nurse visitation foradolescent mothers: two-year infant health and maternal outcomes. Nurs. Res. 52(2):127–36

Kosterman R, Hawkins JD, Spoth R, Haggerty KP, Zhu K. 1997. Effects of a preventive parent-trainingintervention on observed family interactions: proximal outcomes from Preparing for the Drug-FreeYears. J. Community Psychol. 25:337–52

Kraemer HC, Kazdin AE, Offord DR, Kessler RC, Jensen PS, Kupfer DJ. 1997. Coming to terms with theterms of risk. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 54:337–43

Lochman JE, Wells KC. 2002. Contextual social-cognitive mediators and child outcome: a test of the theo-retical model in the Coping Power Program. Dev. Psychopathol. 14:945–67

Lochman JE, Wells KC. 2004. The Coping Power Program for preadolescent aggressive boys and theirparents: outcome effects at the 1-year follow-up. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 72:571–78

Loeber R, Hay D. 1997. Key issues in the development of aggression and violence from childhood to earlyadulthood. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 48:371–410

LoSciuto L, Freeman MA, Harrington E, Altman B, Lanphear A. 1997. An outcome evaluation of theWoodrock Youth Development Project. J. Early Adolesc. 17:51–66

LoSciuto L, Hilbert SM, Fox MM, Porcellini L, Lanphear A. 1999. A two-year evaluation of the WoodrockYouth Development Project. J. Early Adolesc. 19:488–507

Luecken LJ, Hagan M, Sandler IN, Tein J-Y, Ayers T, Wolchik SA. 2010. Cortisol level six-years afterparticipation in the Family Bereavement Program. Psychoneuroendocrinology 35:785–89

Luecken LJ, Kraft A, Appelhans BM, Enders C. 2009. Emotional and cardiovascular sensitization to dailystress following childhood parental loss. Dev. Psychol. 45(1):296–302

Luthar SS. 2006. Resilience in development: a synthesis of research across five decades. In DevelopmentalPsychopathology: Risk, Disorder, and Adaptation, ed. D Cicchetti, DJ Cohen, Vol. 3, pp. 739–94. Hoboken,NJ: Wiley. 2nd ed.

MacKinnon DP. 2008. Introduction to Statistical Mediation Analysis. Mahwah, NJ: ErlbaumMacKinnon DP, Brown CH. 2010. Combining results across studies of parenting as a mediator prevention programs

for problem behaviors. Paper presented at Soc. Prev. Res., Denver, ColoradoMacKinnon DP, Dwyer JH. 1993. Estimating mediated effects in prevention studies. Eval. Rev. 17(2):144–58MacKinnon DP, Lockwood CM, Hoffman JM, West SG, Sheets V. 2002. A comparison of methods to test

mediated and other intervening variable effects. Psychol. Methods 7:83–104

326 Sandler et al.

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

011.

62:2

99-3

29. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Nev

ada

- R

eno

on 1

2/01

/11.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Mason CA, Cauce AM, Gonzales N, Hiraga Y. 1996. Neither too sweet nor too sour: problem peers, maternalcontrol, and problem behavior in African American adolescents. Child Dev. 67:2115–30

Mason WA, Kosterman R, Hawkins JD, Haggerty KP, Spoth RL, Redmond C. 2007. Influence of a family-focused substance use preventive intervention on growth in adolescent depressive symptoms. J. Res.Adolesc. 17:541–64

Masten AS, Roisman GI, Long JD, Burt KB, Obradovic J, et al. 2005. Developmental cascades: linking aca-demic achievement and externalizing and internalizing symptoms over 20 years. Dev. Psychol. 41(5):733–46

McCord J, Tremblay RE, Vitaro F, Desmarais-Gervas L. 1994. Boys’ disruptive behavior, school adjustment,and delinquency: the Montreal Prevention Experiment. Int. J. Behav. Dev. 17:739–52

McCormick MC, Brooks-Gunn J, Buka SL, Goldman J, Yu J, et al. 2006. Early intervention in low birthweight premature infants: results at 18 years of age for the Infant Health and Development Program.Pediatrics 117:771–80

McDonald L, Moberg DP, Brown R, Rodriquez-Espiricueta I, Flores NI, et al. 2006. After-school multifamilygroups: a randomized controlled trial involving low-income, urban, Latino children. Child. Sch. 28:25–34

Molgaard V, Spoth R. 2001. The Strengthening Families Program for young adolescents: overview andoutcomes. Residential Treat. Child. Youth 18(3):15–29

Mrazek PJ, Haggerty KP. 1994. Reducing Risks for Mental Disorders: Frontiers for Prevention Research.Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press

Natl. Res. Counc., Inst. Med. (NRC/IOM). 2000. From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early ChildhoodDevelopment, ed. JP Shonkoff, D Phillips, Comm. Integrating Sci. Early Child Dev., Board on Children,Youth and Families (2000). Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press

Natl. Res. Counc., Inst. Med. (NRC/IOM). 2009. Preventing Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral DisordersAmong Young People: Progress and Possibilities. ME O’Connell, T Boat, KE Warner, eds. Comm. Prev.Mental Disord. Substance Abuse Among Children, Youth, Young Adults: Res. Advances & PromisingInterventions, Board on Children, Youth, & Families, Div. Behav. Soc. Sci. Educ. Washington, DC:Natl. Acad. Press

Olds DL. 2002. Prenatal and infancy home visiting by nurses: from randomized trials to community replication.Prev. Sci. 3:153–72

Olds DL, Eckenrode J, Henderson CR Jr, Kitzman H, Powers J, et al. 1997. Long-term effects of home visi-tation on maternal life course and child abuse and neglect: 15-year follow-up of a randomized controlledtrial. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 278:637–43

Olds DL, Henderson CR, Cole R, Eckenrode J, Kitzman H, et al. 1998. Long-term effects of nurse homevisitation on children’s criminal and antisocial behavior. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 280:1238–44

Olds DL, Henderson CR Jr, Kitzman H. 1994a. Does prenatal and infancy nurse home visitation have enduringeffects on qualities of parental caregiving and child health at 25 to 50 months of life? Pediatrics 93:89–98

Olds DL, Henderson CR Jr, Tatelbaum R. 1994b. Prevention of intellectual impairment in children of womenwho smoked during pregnancy. Pediatrics 93:228–33

Olds DL, Kitzman H, Cole R, Robinson J, Sidora K, et al. 2004a. Effects of nurse home-visiting on maternallife course and child development: age 6 follow-up results of a randomized trial. Pediatrics 114:1550–59

Olds DL, Kitzman H, Hanks C, Cole R, Anson E, et al. 2007. Effects of nurse home visiting on maternal andchild functioning: age-9 follow-up of a randomized trial. Pediatrics 120:e832–45

Olds DL, Robinson J, Pettitt L, Luckey DW, Holmberg J, et al. 2004b. Effects of home visits by paraprofes-sionals and nurses: age 4 follow-up results of a randomized trial. Pediatrics 114:1560–68

Pantin H, Coatsworth JD, Feaster DJ, Newman FL, Briones E, et al. 2003. Familias Unidas: the efficacy ofan intervention to promote parental investment in Hispanic immigrant families. Prev. Sci. 4(3):189–201

Pantin H, Prado G, Lopez B, Huang S, Tapia MI, et al. 2009. A randomized controlled trial of FamiliasUnidas for Hispanic adolescents with behavior problems. Psychosom. Med. 71:987–95

Park J, Kosterman R, Hawkins JD, Haggerty KP, Duncan TE, et al. 2000. Effects of the “Preparing for theDrug Free Years” curriculum on growth in alcohol use and risk for alcohol use in early adolescence. Prev.Sci. 1(3):125–38

Patterson GR, Fisher PA. 2002. Recent developments in our understanding of parenting: bidirectional effects,causal models, and the search for parsimony. In Handbook of Parenting: Practical Issues in Parenting, ed.MH Bornstein, Vol. 5, pp. 59–88. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

011.

62:2

99-3

29. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Nev

ada

- R

eno

on 1

2/01

/11.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Plant KM, Sanders MR. 2007. Reducing problem behavior during care-giving in families of preschool-agedchildren with developmental disabilities. Res. Dev. Disabil. 28:362–85

Prado G, Pantin H, Briones E, Schwartz SJ, Feaster D, et al. 2007. A randomized controlled trial of a parent-centered intervention in preventing substance use and HIV risk behaviors in Hispanic adolescents. J.Consult. Clin. Psychol. 75:914–26

Preacher KJ, Hayes AF. 2004. SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediationmodels. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 36(4):717–31

Redmond C, Spoth R, Shin C, Lepper HS. 1999. Modeling long-term parent outcomes of two universalfamily-focused preventive interventions: one-year follow-up results. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 67:975–84

Reid MJ, Webster-Stratton C, Beauchaine TP. 2001. Parent training in Head Start: a comparison of programresponse among African American, Asian American, Caucasian, and Hispanic mothers. Prev. Sci. 2:209–27

Rosenberg M, McCullough BC. 1981. Mattering: inferred significance and mental health among adolescents.Res. Commun. Mental Health 2:163–82

Rutter M, Pickles A, Murray R, Eaves L. 2001. Testing hypotheses on specific environmental causal effectson behavior. Psychol. Bull. 127:291–324

Sanders MR, Bor W, Morawska A. 2007. Maintenance of treatment gains: a comparison of enhanced, standard,and self-directed Triple P-Positive Parenting Program. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 35:983–98

Sanders MR, Markie-Dadds C, Tully LA, Bor W. 2000. The Triple P-Positive Parenting Program: a com-parison of enhanced, standard, and self-directed behavioral family intervention for parents of childrenwith early onset conduct problems. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 68(4):624–40

Sandler IN, Ayers TS, Tein JY, Wolchik SA, Millsap R, et al. 2010a. Six-year follow-up of a preventiveintervention for parentally-bereaved youth: a randomized controlled trial. Arch. Pediatr. Adolesc. Med. Inpress

Sandler IN, Ayers TS, Wolchik SA, Tein J-Y, Kwok O-M, et al. 2003. The Family Bereavement Program: ef-ficacy evaluation of a theory-based prevention program for parentally-bereaved children and adolescents.J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 71:587–600

Sandler IN, Ma Y, Tein JY, Ayers TS, Wolchik SA, et al. 2010b. Long-term effects of the Family BereavementProgram on multiple indicators of grief in parentally bereaved children and adolescents. J. Consult. Clin.Psychol. 78:131–43

Schenck C, Braver SL, Wolchik SA, Fabricius WV, Saenz D, et al. 2009. Relations between mattering to step-and non-residential fathers and adolescent mental health. Fathering 7:70–90

Schinke SP, Schwinn TM, Di Noia J, Cole KC. 2004. Reducing the risks of alcohol use among urban youth:three-year effects of a computer-based intervention with and without parent involvement. J. Stud. Alcohol65:443–49

Shapiro AK, Shapiro E. 1997. The placebo: Is it much ado about nothing? In The Placebo Effect: An Interdisci-plinary Exploration, ed. A Harrington, pp. 12–36. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press

Sobel ME. 1982. Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In Socio-logical Methodology, ed. S Leinhardt, pp. 290–313. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Spoth R, Randall GK, Shin C. 2008. Increasing school success through partnership-based family competencytraining: experimental study of long-term outcomes. Sch. Psychol. Q. 23(1):70–89

Spoth R, Redmond C, Shin C. 2000. Modeling factors influencing enrollment in family-focused preventiveintervention research. Prev. Sci. 1(4):213–25

Spoth R, Reyes ML, Redmond C, Shin C. 1999. Assessing a public health approach to delay onset andprogression of adolescent substance use: latent transition and log-linear analyses of longitudinal familypreventive intervention outcomes. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 67:619–30

Spoth R, Shin C, Guyll M, Redmond C, Azevedo K. 2006. Universality of effects: an examination of thecomparability of long-term family intervention effects on substance use across risk-related subgroups.Prev. Sci. 7:209–24

Steinberg L, Silk JS. 2002. Parenting adolescents. In Handbook of Parenting. Vol. 1: Children and Parenting, ed.MH Bornstein, pp. 103–33. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 2nd ed.

Stormshak EA, Connell A, Dishion TJ. 2009. An adaptive approach to family-centered intervention in schools:linking intervention engagement to academic outcomes in middle and high school. Prev. Sci. 10(3):221–35

328 Sandler et al.

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

011.

62:2

99-3

29. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Nev

ada

- R

eno

on 1

2/01

/11.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Strayhorn JM, Weidman CS. 1991. Follow-up one year after parent-child interaction training: effects onbehavior of preschool children. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 30:138–43

Taylor TK, Biglan A. 1998. Behavioral family interventions for improving child-rearing: a review of theliterature for clinicians and policy makers. Clin. Child Family Psychol. Rev. 1(1):41–60

Tolan P, Gorman-Smith D, Henry D. 2004. Supporting families in a high-risk setting: proximal effects of theSAFEChildren Preventive Intervention. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 72:855–69

Tolan PH, Gorman-Smith D, Henry D, Schoeny M. 2009. The benefits of booster interventions: evidencefrom a family-focused prevention program. Prev. Sci. 10:287–97

Tremblay RE, Pagani-Kurtz L, Masse LC, Vitaro F, Pihl RO. 1995. A bimodal preventive intervention fordisruptive kindergarten boys: its impact through mid-adolescence. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 63(4):560–68

Trudeau L, Spoth R, Randall GK, Azevedo K. 2007. Longitudinal effects of a universal family-focused interven-tion on growth patterns of adolescent internalizing symptoms and polysubstance use: gender comparisons.J. Youth Adolesc. 36:725–40

U.S. Dep. Health Human Serv. Children’s Bureau. 2009. Child Maltreatment 2007. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm07/cm07.pdf

Velez C, Wolchik SA, Tein JY, Sandler IN. 2010. Protecting children from the consequences of divorce: alongitudinal study of the effects of parenting on children’s coping efforts and coping efficacy. Child Dev.In press

Villarruel AM, Cherry CL, Cabriales EG, Ronis DL, Zhou Y. 2008. A parent-adolescent intervention toincrease sexual risk communication: results of a randomized controlled trial. AIDS Educ. Prev. 20(5):371–83

Webster-Stratton C. 1987. Parents and Children: A 10-program Videotape Parent Training Series with Manuals.Eugene, OR: Castalia

West SG, Aiken LS. 1997. Towards understanding individual effects in multiple component prevention pro-grams: design and analysis issues. In New Methodological Developments in Prevention Research: Alcohol andSubstance Abuse Research, ed. KJ Bryant, M Windle, SG West, pp. 167–209. Washington, DC: Am. Psy-chol. Assoc.

Wolchik SA, Sandler I, Weiss L, Winslow EB. 2007. New Beginnings: an empirically-based program to helpdivorced mothers promote resilience in their children. In Handbook of Parent Training: Helping ParentsPrevent and Solve Problem Behaviors, ed. JM Briesmeister, CE Schaefer, pp. 25–62. New York: Wiley

Wolchik SA, Sandler IN, Millsap RE, Plummer BA, Greene SM, et al. 2002a. Six-year follow-up of a random-ized, controlled trial of preventive interventions for children of divorce. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 288:1874–81

Wolchik SA, Tein J-Y, Sandler IN, Doyle KW. 2002b. Fear of abandonment as a mediator of the relationsbetween divorce stressors and mother-child relationship quality and children’s adjustment problems.J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 30:401–18

Wolchik SA, West SG, Sandler IN, Tein J-Y, Coatsworth D, et al. 2000. An experimental evaluation of theory-based mother and mother-child programs for children of divorce. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 68:843–56

Zhou Q, King KM, Chassin L. 2006. The roles of familial alcoholism and adolescent family harmony inyoung adults’ substance dependence disorders: mediated and moderated relations. J. Abnorm. Psychol.115:320–31

Zhou Q, Sandler IN, Millsap RE, Wolchik SA, Dawson-McClure SR. 2008. Mother-child relationship qualityand effective discipline as mediators of the 6-year effects of the New Beginnings Program for childrenfrom divorced families. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 76:579–94

Zisser A, Eyberg SM. 2010. Treating oppositional behavior in children using parent-child interaction therapy.In Evidence-Based Psychotherapies for Children and Adolescents, ed. AE Kazdin, JR Weisz, pp. 179–93. NewYork: Guilford. 2nd ed.


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

011.

62:2

99-3

29. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Nev

ada

- R

eno

on 1

2/01

/11.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

PS62-FrontMatter ARI 15 November 2010 17:50

Annual Review ofPsychology

Volume 62, 2011 Contents

Prefatory

The Development of Problem Solving in Young Children:A Critical Cognitive SkillRachel Keen � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 1

Decision Making

The Neuroscience of Social Decision-MakingJames K. Rilling and Alan G. Sanfey � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �23

Speech Perception

Speech PerceptionArthur G. Samuel � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �49

Attention and Performance

A Taxonomy of External and Internal AttentionMarvin M. Chun, Julie D. Golomb, and Nicholas B. Turk-Browne � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �73

Language Processing

The Neural Bases of Social Cognition and Story ComprehensionRaymond A. Mar � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 103

Reasoning and Problem Solving

Causal Learning and Inference as a Rational Process:The New SynthesisKeith J. Holyoak and Patricia W. Cheng � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 135

Emotional, Social, and Personality Development

Development in the Early Years: Socialization, Motor Development,and ConsciousnessClaire B. Kopp � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 165

Peer Contagion in Child and Adolescent Socialand Emotional DevelopmentThomas J. Dishion and Jessica M. Tipsord � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 189

vi

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

011.

62:2

99-3

29. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Nev

ada

- R

eno

on 1

2/01

/11.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Adulthood and Aging

Psychological Wisdom Research: Commonalities and Differences in aGrowing FieldUrsula M. Staudinger and Judith Gluck � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 215

Development in the Family

Socialization Processes in the Family: Social andEmotional DevelopmentJoan E. Grusec � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 243

Psychopathology

Delusional BeliefMax Coltheart, Robyn Langdon, and Ryan McKay � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 271

Therapy for Specific Problems

Long-Term Impact of Prevention Programs to Promote EffectiveParenting: Lasting Effects but Uncertain ProcessesIrwin N. Sandler, Erin N. Schoenfelder, Sharlene A. Wolchik,

and David P. MacKinnon � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 299

Self and Identity

Do Conscious Thoughts Cause Behavior?Roy F. Baumeister, E.J. Masicampo, and Kathleen D. Vohs � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 331

Neuroscience of Self and Self-RegulationTodd F. Heatherton � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 363

Attitude Change and Persuasion

Attitudes and Attitude ChangeGerd Bohner and Nina Dickel � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 391

Cross-Country or Regional Comparisons

Culture, Mind, and the Brain: Current Evidence and Future DirectionsShinobu Kitayama and Ayse K. Uskul � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 419

Cognition in Organizations

Heuristic Decision MakingGerd Gigerenzer and Wolfgang Gaissmaier � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 451

Structures and Goals of Educational Settings

Early Care, Education, and Child DevelopmentDeborah A. Phillips and Amy E. Lowenstein � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 483

Contents vii

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

011.

62:2

99-3

29. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Nev

ada

- R

eno

on 1

2/01

/11.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Psychophysiological Disorders and Psychological Dimensionson Medical Disorders

Psychological Perspectives on Pathways Linking Socioeconomic Statusand Physical HealthKaren A. Matthews and Linda C. Gallo � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 501

Psychological Science on Pregnancy: Stress Processes, BiopsychosocialModels, and Emerging Research IssuesChristine Dunkel Schetter � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 531

Research Methodology

The Development of Autobiographical MemoryRobyn Fivush � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 559

The Disaggregation of Within-Person and Between-Person Effects inLongitudinal Models of ChangePatrick J. Curran and Daniel J. Bauer � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 583

Thirty Years and Counting: Finding Meaning in the N400Component of the Event-Related Brain Potential (ERP)Marta Kutas and Kara D. Federmeier � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 621

Indexes

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 52–62 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 000

Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 52–62 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 000

Errata

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Psychology articles may be found athttp://psych.AnnualReviews.org/errata.shtml

viii Contents

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

011.

62:2

99-3

29. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Nev

ada

- R

eno

on 1

2/01

/11.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

parenting 2011

Documents