520451

research-article2014
JBPXXX10.1177/0095798413520451Journal of Black PsychologyPollock et al.

Article
Journal of Black Psychology
1­–26
Family Functioning © The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
and Stress in African sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0095798413520451
American Families: jbp.sagepub.com

A Strength-Based
Approach

Elizabeth Davenport Pollock1, Josh B. Kazman1,

and Patricia Deuster1

Abstract
Having social support substantially reduces the effects of stressful
experiences. Family relationships are central components of social support
for African Americans. In a community-based sample of African Americans
(n = 255), the relationship between family functioning and stress was
examined, as well as possible mediators of this relationship, independent
of demographic variables. Using multiple regression analysis, close and
flexible family relationships were linked to lower perceived stress levels. The
association of family functioning and stress operated through the internal
processes of anxiety, depression, daily hassles, and higher hardiness and
explained more than half of the variance in stress levels. These findings also
remained above and beyond the known stressor of discrimination and the
known stress reducer of spirituality. These findings suggest that expanding
traditional stress management programs to include strategies for bolstering
family functioning could have significant benefits.

Keywords
family systems, stress, anxiety, depression, hardiness

1Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, USA

Corresponding Author:
Elizabeth Davenport Pollock, Department of Military & Emergency Medicine, Uniformed
Services University of the Health Sciences, 4301 Jones Bridge Road, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA.
Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from jbp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 19, 2016

2 Journal of Black Psychology 

Social support substantially reduces the negative effects of stressful experi-

ences (Barrera, 2000; Uchino, 2006), and family relationships are central
components of social support for African Americans (Hill, 1998a, 1998b).
From childhood through adulthood, having positive support decreases an
individual’s risk for negative outcomes, such as academic issues (Crosnoe &
Elder, 2004) and excessive drinking (Jennison & Johnson, 2001); it also pro-
motes well-being (Taylor, 1995). Conversely, not having social support is
linked to increased depressive symptoms (Barrera, 2000; Glass, De Leon,
Bassuk, & Berkman, 2006) and higher rates of mortality in adulthood
(Uchino, Cacioppo, & Kiecolt-Glaser, 1996).
Although families can both increase stress and help individuals deal with
stress better (Neighbors, 1997), African American families have been
described as “stress absorbing systems” (McAdoo, 1982, p. 479). Yet few
studies have specifically examined the association between family function-
ing and stress in African American families. Traditionally, studies examining
family factors and stress in African American families have focused on spe-
cific aspects of family functioning or on specific populations. For example,
relationship stress was linked with smoking among low-income African
American women (Budescu, Taylor, & McGill, 2011). Additionally, having
social and emotional support from extended family moderated the impact of
family stressors on children’s externalizing behavior and stressful feelings
such that when children had support, family stressors were no longer associ-
ated with acting out or emotional adjustment (McCabe, Clark, & Barnett,
1999); similarly, family support was linked to decreases in life stress in spe-
cific populations, such as emerging adults (Brody, Chen, Kogan, Smith, &
Brown, 2010), low-income single parents (McCreary & Dancy, 2004), and
college students (Chapman, Kertz, & Woodruff-Borden, 2009). Furthermore,
families that functioned well helped families with a child with sickle cell
disease adjust (Barbarin, Whitten, Bond, & Conner-Warren, 1999). Also,
women who were HIV positive who were from well-functioning families
were less affected by changes in their CD4 count (an indicator of immune
system strength; Robbins et al., 2003). Other findings depict African
American family functioning as either solely positive or solely negative
(Gabalda, Thompson, & Kaslow, 2010; Littlejohn-Blake & Darling, 1993;
Murry, Brown, Brody, Cutrona, & Simons, 2001), which provides a global
picture of family functioning and stress but does not capture the impact of
relationship quality. The quality rather than quantity of relationships often
engenders positive results (Brody et al., 2010; Taylor, Tucker, Chatters,
Jayakody, & Jackson, 1997). Below, the principles of family functioning are
discussed, followed by a discussion of the broader role of the context in fam-
ily functioning. The key principles of family functioning include flexibility

Downloaded from jbp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 19, 2016

Pollock et al. 3

and cohesion, while the broader context includes cultural, psychological, and
psychosocial factors. The focus throughout is on applications to African
Americans in particular.

Family Functioning
The present study is informed by family systems theory, which views the
family as an identifiable system and not just a collection of individuals: It is
an interacting system and an entity itself. A key component of systems theory
is that “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts” (Whitchurch &
Constantine, 2004, p. 328). Thus, one must examine systemic concepts that
demonstrate interactions within the system. Constructs such as flexibility and
closeness demonstrate systemic interactions that form overall family
functioning.
As a system, families function with two predominant characteristics: flex-
ibility (moving from rigid to flexible) and cohesion (from distant to close;
Olson, 2000). Optimal family functioning is considered to be a balance of
cohesion and flexibility, with suboptimal functioning at the extremes (i.e., too
close or too disengaged; too chaotic or too rigid; Kane, 2000; Olson, 2000).
Flexible families who remain close tend to have the highest functioning mem-
bers (McCreary & Dancy, 2004). Balanced levels of cohesion and flexibility
help stabilize family systems. According to the concept of homeostasis from
systems theory, individuals strive for stability through balancing the system
(Whitchurch & Constantine, 2004). Cohesion pulls families close while flex-
ibility allows them to adapt to change, simultaneously stabilizing the system.
If systems are not balanced, then they can cause stress as they strive to resta-
bilize (Whitchurch & Constantine, 2004), or conversely, systems that are bal-
anced could help protect its members from extra stress. This is the main
premise of our study. Families that are able to adapt and change while remain-
ing close are theoretically better able to meet the challenge of stressors.
Being close and flexible also tends to be key characteristics of African
American families (Hill, 1998b; Pinderhughes, 2002). For example, rights
and responsibilities in the household tend to be shared with children, and kin-
ship obligations can shift from parents to other family members or close
friends (McLoyd, Cauce, Takeuchi, & Wilson, 2000). Indeed, African
Americans tend to have a more expanded definition of family that demon-
strates flexibility. Hill (1998b) defines African American families as “con-
stellations of households related by blood or marriage or function that
provides basic instrumental and expressive functions of the family to the
members of those networks” (p. 18). These characteristics also lend to family
systems that value interdependence or collectivism (Karenga, 2007; McLoyd
et al., 2000), which theoretically protect family members and reduce stress.

Downloaded from jbp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 19, 2016

4 Journal of Black Psychology 

On the other hand, family relationships can also be direct sources of stress
(Neighbors, 1997). Kasper et al. (2008) examined persistent family stress
over 30 years and found that family stress predicted physical health, pain, and
depression among African American women, independent of socioeconomic
status. Additionally, a majority of respondents to the National Survey of
Black Americans Panel Study cited interpersonal difficulties as a major
source of stress (Neighbors, 1997). These findings show a significant link
between family functioning and individual outcomes.

Family Functioning in Context

It is also important to understand the context outside of the family system
(McLoyd et al., 2000). In family systems theory, context is a hierarchical
suprasystem that interacts with the family system (Whitchurch & Constantine,
2004). Examining the context in which a family operates helps create a more
complete understanding of both family and individual functioning. For
example, in this study, a key contextual factor is being African American.
Earlier research tended to pathologize African American family functioning
(as discussed in Hill, 1998b); however, the past decade has seen an emphasis
on diversity and cultural competence in social science so the processes within
specific ethnic/racial groups need to be understood to further cultural compe-
tence (Kane, 2000). Although research has begun to focus on positive, pro-
tective, and resilient factors of African American families (Kane, 2000;
Littlejohn-Blake & Darling, 1993; McAdoo, 1982), gaps in the understand-
ing of family functioning exist, particularly relating to positive family func-
tioning and stress in relatively healthy populations (Murry, Brown, et al.,
2001; Murry, Bynum, et al., 2001). These contextual variables include cul-
tural, psychological, and psychosocial factors.
Drawing from family systems theory and previous research, there are
many positive and protective factors of African American families (Boyd-
Franklin, 1989; Hill, 1998a; Kane, 2000; McAdoo & Younge, 2009). In addi-
tion to a strong reliance on the family (McAdoo, 1982; McAdoo & Younge,
2009; Stack & Burton, 1993), strengths include extended kinship networks, a
strong reliance on religion (Pinderhughes, 2002), and support against dis-
crimination (Littlejohn-Blake & Darling, 1993; McAdoo & Younge, 2009;
Murry, Brown, et al., 2001). For a concept such as stress, multiple levels of
factors (individual, family, and external) could combine to enhance or help
relieve stress. Although our focus is on family functioning as a key influential
factor, it is important to use a holistic perspective to account for multiple
dimensions of African American lives (Hill, 1998a; Pinderhughes, 2002);
therefore, the present study also focused on additional levels of influence

Downloaded from jbp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 19, 2016

Pollock et al. 5

related to stress: discrimination, spirituality, and individual processes (depres-

sion, anxiety) and appraisals (hardiness, daily hassles).

Discrimination.  African American families have been shaped by the cultural

and social context of being Black in America (Hammack, 2003; Hill, 1998b;
Murry, Brown, et al., 2001). African Americans frequently experience racial
discrimination. In an earlier study on the frequency of discrimination, 98% of
African American families reported experiencing racism in the past year
(Landrine & Klonoff, 1996). Whereas discrimination appears to amplify
reactivity to other stressors, such as negative family functioning (Murry,
Brown, et al., 2001), close family relationships can mitigate the effects of
discrimination (Cutrona et al., 2003). Nonetheless, it is well established that
discrimination induces stress (Jackson, Inglehart, Hobfoll, & deVries, 1995;
Jackson & Stewart, 2003; Murry, Brown, et al., 2001) and predicts psycho-
logical distress more than negative life events (Utsey, Giesbrecht, Hook, &
Stanard, 2008).

Spirituality.  Many scholars have highlighted the importance of religion (McA-

doo, 1995) and the church for African Americans (Hill, 1998b; Krause,
2006). The church has historically played a significant role in buffering soci-
etal stress (Mosley-Howard & Burgan Evans, 2000), as well as promoting
health among African Americans, and operates as a larger system that inter-
acts with families. Specifically, support from relationships within the church
decreases stressful feelings (Krause, 2006).

Depression and Anxiety.  Stress responses induce depression and anxiety (Kes-
sler, 1997), and correlates of anxiety and depression likely vary by racial
group, along with various cultural, contextual, and family variables (Anesh-
ensel, 2009; Hunter & Schmidt, 2010; McGuire & Miranda, 2008). For
instance, Herman, Ostrander, and Tucker (2007) reported that low family
cohesion was related to depression among African American adolescents.
Dearing (2004) also found racial differences in a study of parenting styles
and depression and reported that whereas restrictive parenting had negative
effects among Caucasian children, it had positive effects among African
American children. Last, in a theoretical review of depression in African
American urban youth, Hammack (2003) highlighted the importance of the
quality of social interactions in combination with individual factors for a
more integrated model to better understand depression.

Hardiness.  How one views life and events has a significant impact on stress
levels. For example, having a positive outlook on life and perceiving to be in

Downloaded from jbp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 19, 2016

6 Journal of Black Psychology 

control of one’s life (a concept called cognitive hardiness) positively affects

one’s ability to deal with stress (Cutrona, Russell, Hessling, Brown, & Murry,
2000). For the purposes of examining stress, we focus on cognitive hardiness,
which has some theoretical and empirical overlap with constructs such as
internal control, self-efficacy, and neuroticism, but it is distinguished by the
ability to buffer individuals from the negative effects of stress. Hardiness is
often defined as having three components: commitment, control, and chal-
lenge (Kobasa, 1979; Maddi, 2002). Hardy individuals find meaning in life
and everyday tasks (commitment), actively take control of experiences and
problems (control), and view difficulties as challenges (Maddi, 2002). Hardy
individuals are more likely to be stress resistant and therefore resilient in the
face of hardship (Beasley, Thompson, & Davidson, 2003; Kobasa, 1979).
Thus, hardiness appears to be a crucial stress-reduction characteristic and
process and is important to include when examining stress. The relationship
between hardiness and family functioning remains unknown, but it is of
interest, given its link with stress.

Daily Hassles.  The accumulation of hassles tends to increase stress. Dealing

with general life stress increases distress and primes individuals to be more
reactive to additional stress (Grote, Bledsoe, Larkin, Lemay, & Brown,
2007; Pieterse & Carter, 2007). These daily hassles can be found in the
family, in the daily management of life, or through individual processes
such as forgetfulness, tardiness, and indecision (Kanner, Coyne, Schaefer,
& Lazarus, 1981).

Hypotheses
As described above, multiple factors may be related to family functioning
and stress. We currently have a better understanding of the strengths related
to African American family functioning, how different aspects of family
functioning are related to individual outcomes, and of some factors associ-
ated with elevated (or reduced) risk for stress in African Americans. What
remains unknown and the primary aim of this article is to understand how
family functioning affects stress for African Americans. We hypothesized
that flexible and close family functioning would be negatively related to indi-
vidual perceived stress. Furthermore, we speculated that the relationship
between family functioning and stress levels would be influenced by selected
mediator variables: depression, anxiety, daily hassles, and hardiness. Through
examining these mediational hypotheses, we expected to gain a better under-
standing of how family functioning is linked to individual perceived stress in
African American families. We tested our hypotheses by controlling for mul-
tiple factors that can influence family functioning and stress, such as gender,

Downloaded from jbp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 19, 2016

Pollock et al. 7

Table 1.  Demographic Characteristics (n = 255).

Variables Percentage
Age, years 43.9 (11.1)
Females 63
Number of childrena 4.2 (1.9)
College degree 34.1
  Marital status: Separated 24.7
  Marital status: Married 20.8
Participant definition of family
  Family of origin 65.1
  Partner and/or kids 49.4
 Sibling 48.2
  Nonbiological kin 29.8
  Extended biological family 30.2

Note: Values are percentages except mean (SD); afor families with six or more children,
coded 6, therefore, the mean reported is lower than the actual.

age, education, number of children, and marital status. Additionally, given

the well-known stress buffering resource of spirituality, and the stress-induc-
ing factor of discrimination, additional models testing the above hypotheses
and controlling for discrimination and spirituality were examined to under-
stand the net effect of family functioning.

Method
Participants included 255 self-identified African Americans men and women
aged between 18 and 60 years of age. They were recruited through newspaper
ads and community bulletins for a larger experiment addressing health dis-
parities in a large metropolitan city in the mid-Atlantic region. The study was
approved by the university’s institutional review board and written informed
consent was obtained from all participants. Sample characteristics are pre-
sented in Table 1. Most participants were African American (82.9%), fol-
lowed by African (8.9%) and African Caribbean (2.2%). Most participants
were female (63%), and mean age was 44.1 ± 11.1 years. Responses to “who
did you include in your definition of family” were grouped into five catego-
ries (see bottom of Table 1). Most participants included parents/stepparents
(65.1%), but many also included extended biological family (30.2%) and
nonbiological kin (29.8%). These categories of family members were not
mutually exclusive, and 59.6% of participants included individuals from two
or more of the categories.

Downloaded from jbp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 19, 2016

8 Journal of Black Psychology 

Table 2.  Questionnaire Mean (SD) Scores, Range, and Reliability Coefficient
(n = 255, Except Where Noted).

Questionnaire Mean (SD) Reliability Scale range Study range

Family Adaptability Cohesion Evaluation Scale-IV
Total circumplex ratioa 1.6 (0.6) 0-4 0.4-3.8
Balanced cohesion 26.2 (6.5) .84 7-35 7-35
Balanced flexibility 23.9 (6.3) .81 7-35 7-35
Disengaged 18.4 (6.2) .77 7-35 7-35
Enmeshed 15.3 (5.1) .68 7-35 7-34
Rigid 19.0 (5.1) .64 7-35 7-33
Chaotic 15.6 (6.0) .79 7-35 7-34
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory 38.0 (10.3) .91 20-80 20-77
(Trait Anxiety)b
Beck Depression Inventory-IIc 7.1 (7.3) .89 0-63 0-37
Daily Hassles Scale 40.7 (26.9) .97 0-118 0-117
(Frequency Score)
Dispositional Resilience Scale 29.8 (6.1) .73 0-45 9-45
(Total Hardiness)
Perceived Stress Scale 4.9 (3.2) .78 0-16 0-14
General Ethnic Discrimination 46.3 (20.8) .95 17-102 17-102
(Appraisal)
Daily Spiritual Experiencesd 12.6 (6.0) .90 6-36 6-36
a. No reliability coefficient because ratio comprises dimension scores.
b. n = 192.
c. Higher scores indicate more severe depressive symptoms; clinical cutoffs are 0 to 13
minimal depression, 14 to 19 mild, 20 to 28 moderate, and over 29 severe.
d. n = 206.

Measures
The questionnaires for family functioning (independent variable), stress (the
dependent variable), four potential mediators (depression, anxiety, hassles,
hardiness), and additional covariates of interest (discrimination, spirituality)
are described below. Mean values for psychological questionnaires, along
with Cronbach’s alpha, are presented in Table 2.

Family Functioning (Independent Variable).  Family functioning was measured

using the most recent version of the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Eval-
uation Scale (FACES) (Gorall, Triesel, & Olson, 2006). Previous versions of
the FACES scale have been used in clinical settings for 25 years, in around
1,200 research studies (Kouneski, 2001), including studies with African
Americans (Utsey et al., 2008). The fourth version of the scale, FACESIV

Downloaded from jbp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 19, 2016

Pollock et al. 9

consists of 62 questions assessed on a 5-item Likert-type scale, ranging from

1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. It comprises two types of scales,
those which assess a family’s balanced versus unbalanced traits. There are
two balanced scales: cohesion (e.g., “Family members are involved in each
other’s lives”) and flexibility (e.g., “In solving problems, children’s sugges-
tions are followed”) and four unbalanced scales: disengaged (e.g., “Family
members feel closer to people outside the family than to other family mem-
bers”), enmeshed (e.g., “Family members feel pressured to spend most free
time together”), rigid (e.g., “There are strict consequences for breaking rules
in our family”), and chaotic (e.g., “There is no leadership in our family”). The
Total Circumplex Ratio (TCR), which is equivalent to a total score, measures
the level of “functional versus dysfunctional behavior perceived in the family
system” (Gorall, 2006, p. 16). The ratio is calculated by dividing the average
of the two balanced scales by the four unbalanced scales, with high scores
indicating healthy or balanced family functioning and low scores indicating
unhealthy/unbalanced family functioning. The present study used the TCR as
an overall measure of family functioning, although mean raw scores from the
six FACESIV subscales are presented as a more detailed representation of
family functioning in the present sample, and to allow for comparison with
other studies.

Individual Stress Levels (Dependent Variable). The main outcome variable,

stress, was measured using the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), Short Form,
which is a 4-item 5-response Likert-type scale questionnaire that measures
the “degree to which situations in one’s life over the past month are appraised
as stressful”—developed by Cohen, Kamarck, and Mermelstein (1983,
p. 385). This scale reports on individuals’ overall view of their own stress
level. Low scores indicate low levels of perceived stress and high scores indi-
cate high levels of perceived stress (scores range from 0 to 16).

Mediating and Contextual Variables

Hardiness.  Individual hardiness was measured with the Dispositional Resil-
iency Scale (DRS) by Bartone (Bartone, 1995). This 15-item scale (rated on
a 4-point scale from 0 indicating not true to 3 completely true) measures
personality hardiness, or the manner in which a person approaches and inter-
prets experiences. It contains three subscales—commitment (e.g., “Most of
my life gets spent doing things that are worthwhile”), challenge (e.g., “I
enjoy the challenge when I have to do more than one thing at a time”), and
control (e.g., “When I make plans I’m certain I can make them work”)—
which combine to yield a total hardiness score. The present study used the

Downloaded from jbp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 19, 2016

10 Journal of Black Psychology 

total score. The scale has good reliability (reliability coefficient = 0.83) and
internal consistency (Bartone, 1995).

Depression.  Depression was measured with the Beck Depression Inventory-II

(BDI; Beck, Steer, & Brown, 1996), which is commonly used to assess
depression in clinical and research settings. The BDI is a valid and reliable
scale, and it has been used in a variety of patient groups and validated across
ethnic groups including African Americans (Beck et al., 1996; Sashidharan,
Pawlow, & Pettibone, 2012).

Anxiety.  Anxiety was measured with the State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI,
Form Y; Speiberger, 1983). The STAI consists of 40 questions, answered on a
4-point Likert-type scale. Half of the items assess state or transitory feelings of
anxiety, and half of them assess trait or stable individual differences in anxiety.
This widely used scale has demonstrated adequate reliability across different
ethnic groups (Novy, Nelson, Goodwin, & Rowzee, 1993; Speiberger, 1983).
Since the STAI was added to the study after it began, 27% of the participants
do not have STAI data. For analyses involving the STAI, demographics of
participants with and without STAI data are compared with each other.

Daily Hassles.  Levels of everyday stressors were assessed using the Daily
Hassles Scale (DHS; Kanner et al., 1981), a 117-item inventory of everyday
hassles (e.g., “too many responsibilities,” “care of pets,” etc.). Participants
rate whether they experienced each hassle in the past week, and if they did,
then they rate the hassle’s severity on a 3-point scale (somewhat, moderately,
or extremely severe). The DHS produces a frequency score (a count of has-
sles that were endorsed), along with severity (sum of the severity ratings) and
intensity (severity divided by frequency) scores. The present study used the
frequency score as a measure of daily stressors.

Discrimination. Discrimination was assessed with the General Ethnic Dis-

crimination Scale (GED), which consists of 18 contexts in which people may
experience racial/ethnic discrimination (e.g., by neighbors, institutions, etc.;
Landrine, Klonoff, Corral, Fernandez, & Roesch, 2006). For each context,
participants provide three ratings: the frequency of discrimination within the
past year (rated on a scale of 1 to 6, with 1 = never and 6 = almost all the
time), over entire life (same scale as over past year), and how stressful the
discrimination was (6-point scale, 1 = not at all stressful to 6 = extremely
stressful). The GED is a reliable scale (reliability coefficient = .93), and it has
been adapted for a variety of contexts (Landrine et al., 2006). The present
study used the scale based on the stressfulness ratings, which is called the
appraisal discrimination scale.

Downloaded from jbp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 19, 2016

Pollock et al. 11

Spirituality. Spirituality was assessed with the Daily Spiritual Experiences

(DSE, Short Form), a measure of spirituality that focuses on everyday feel-
ings (e.g., “I feel God’s presence”) and experiences (e.g., “I find strength and
comfort in my religion”) rather than explicit religious beliefs (Fetzer Insti-
tute/National Institute on Aging, 1999). Participants rate the frequency of six
experiences on a 6-point scale (ranging from many times a day to never or
almost never), with lower scores indicating higher spirituality. The Fetzer
Institute/National Institute on Aging (1999) originally developed a 16-item
DSE questionnaire, and later studies used a 6-item version (Davis, Smith, &
Marsden, 2004), which was also studied and found to be reliable (reliability
coefficient = .85) in a large African American sample (Loustalot et al., 2011).

Covariates and Controls.  Since a large body of previous research in African

Americans has focused on discrimination and spirituality, it was important to
determine whether the mediational analyses were affected by these two vari-
ables, in addition to studying their main effects. Participants also completed
a demographics questionnaire. In order to understand the association between
family functioning and stress independent of demographic variables that
could possibly influence our main variables of interest (Cain & Combs-
Orme, 2005; Johner, 2007; Kasper et al., 2008; Keith, 1997; McAdoo, 1995;
McLoyd et al., 2000; Petterson & Albers, 2001; Pinderhughes, 2002; Wil-
liams, Yu, Jackson, & Anderson, 1997), we controlled for age, gender, mari-
tal status, education, and number of children.

Analysis
Mean values and psychometric properties are reported for each question-
naire, along with participant demographics, with a focus on family structure
(or which participants are considered to be in their family). Multiple regres-
sion analysis was used to test the relationship between family functioning
(FACESIV, TCR) and stress (PSS). All reported regressions controlled for
demographics, which included age, gender, education level, number of chil-
dren in family, and marital status. Education was used to represent socioeco-
nomic status instead of income, because 11.4% of participants preferred not
to report income. Since there can be significant differences between catego-
ries, we wanted to examine the association of our main variables of interest
above and beyond the control variables; therefore, we dichotomized demo-
graphic variables to indicate participants with a college degree or higher,
marital status of divorced or married (coded separately), and last, number of
children was coded as 0 to 5, or, for families with six or more, 6.
Analyses were conducted to determine potential mediators of the relation-
ship between family functioning and stress, which included depression

Downloaded from jbp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 19, 2016

12 Journal of Black Psychology 

(BDI), anxiety (STAI), hardiness (DRS), and hassles (DHS). Mediation was
tested using Baron and Kenny’s (1986) steps: (1) the independent variable (in
this case, family functioning) was regressed onto the dependent variable
(stress); (2) in a separate model, the independent variable was regressed onto
the mediator (in this case, hardiness, depression, anxiety, and hassles); (3) in
yet another model, the mediator was regressed onto the dependent variable;
and (4) in a final model, the independent variable was regressed onto the
dependent variable while controlling for the mediator. The Sobel test (Sobel,
1982) was used to assess whether the mediation effect was statistically sig-
nificant based on the coefficients and standard errors from Steps (2) and (3)
above. If the effect was significant (based on the Sobel test), the percentage
of the relationship explained by the mediator was assessed based on the find-
ings from Steps (1) and (4) above (Szklo & Nieto, 2006). Last, discrimination
(GED) and spirituality (DSE) were assessed as covariates, in order to deter-
mine whether they affected the mediation analysis above. Additionally, their
relationship to family functioning and stress was also assessed.

Results
Family Functioning and Stress
Family functioning was negatively associated with stress, β = −.32, t(255) =
−5.00, p < .001, R2 = .12, when controlling for demographics variables (age,
sex, education, family structure, and marital status). Regression results are
presented in Table 3.

Mediator Variables
Mediation was assessed by determining (1) whether family functioning was
associated with the mediator variable, (2) whether family functioning was asso-
ciated with the dependent stress levels, and (3) when adding the mediator vari-
able into the model with the family functioning and stress, whether the mediator
variable was associated with the dependent variable. The following mediators
were tested: depression, anxiety, daily hassles, and hardiness. Summary results
from mediation analyses are graphically depicted in Figure 1.

Anxiety
Out of the 255 participants, 63 did not complete the measured of anxiety
(STAI). Compared with the rest of the sample, participants with missing anx-
iety data did not differ along the other psychological questionnaires, but they

Downloaded from jbp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 19, 2016

Pollock et al. 13

Table 3.  Regressions Examining the Association of Family Functioning and

Perceived Stress: Mediation Models, Independent of Control Variables (n = 255).

Mediation by Anxiety → DV R2 b SE beta t

 a Family Functioning → Stress 0.093 −1.596 0.319 −0.316 −4.997**
 a Family Functioning → Stress^ 0.119 −1.731 0.374 −0.334 −4.629**
 b Family Functioning → Anxiety^ 0.142 −4.417 1.191 −0.264 −3.709**
 c Anxiety → Stress^ 0.419 0.205 0.018 0.661 11.290**
a2  Family Functioning → Stress^ 0.441 −0.888 0.309 −0.172 −2.877**
Sobel = −3.526, p < .001, V explained by Mediation: 30.87%, ^n = 192
Mediation by Depression → DV R2 b SE beta t
 a Family Functioning → Stress 0.093 −1.596 0.319 −0.316 −4.997**
 b Family Functioning → Depression 0.109 −3.104 0.727 −0.267 −4.271**
 c Depression → Stress 0.402 0.282 0.022 0.647 12.866**
a2  Family Functioning → Stress 0.420 −0.774 0.265 −0.153 −2.924**
Sobel = −4.051, p < .001, V explained by Mediation: 31.66%
Mediation by Daily Hassles → DV R2 b SE beta t
 a Family Functioning → Stress 0.093 −1.596 0.319 −0.316 −4.997**
 b Family Function → Daily Hassles 0.085 −9.610 2.734 −0.223 −3.515**
 c Daily Hassles → Stress 0.251 0.060 0.007 0.509 9.062**
a2  Family Functioning → Stress 0.287 −1.073 0.290 −0.212 −3.697**
Sobel = −3.252, p < 0.001, V explained by Mediation: 20.15%
Mediation by Hardiness → DV R2 b SE beta t
 a Family Functioning → Stress 0.093 −1.596 0.319 −0.316 −4.997**
 b Family Functioning → Hardiness 0.105 3.137 0.616 0.319 5.091**
 c Hardiness → Stress 0.189 −0.224 0.030 −0.436 −7.564**
a2  Family Functioning → Stress 0.218 −0.986 0.312 −0.195 −3.161**
Sobel = −4.207, p < .001, V explained by Mediation: 23.50%

Note: “DV” = dependent variable; “→” indicates which DV is used; n = 255 unless noted
(^n = 192 for models involving Anxiety), independent of control variables, demographics
(age, gender, number of children, marital status), and education level. **Significant at p < .001.
Each line represents a unique regression model. Labels are as follows in the diagram: a = the
association of family functioning (FF) and stress, independent of control variables; b = FF and
mediator; c = mediator and stress; a2 = the association of FF and stress, including the impact
of the mediator. Sobel equation used to determine mediation significance.

Downloaded from jbp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 19, 2016

14 Journal of Black Psychology 

Figure 1.  The association of family functioning and stress: Percent mediated by
anxiety, depression, daily hassles, and hardiness, independent of demographics.
Note: Percent mediation determined by Sobel equation, presented in %; in parentheses, next
to percent mediation, is the standardized regression coefficient for the association of family
functioning and stress, including the mediator and control variables; in standardized regression
coefficients for the relationship between the variables, the arrow is moving from and pointing
toward is in italics.

were on average younger (41.2 ± 11.6 vs. 44.7 ± 10.9, t = 2.2, p < .05), were
more likely to have a college degree (46% vs. 30%, χ2[1, N = 255] = 5.3, p <
.05), and were more likely to be married/living together (35% vs. 16%, χ2[1,
N = 255] = 10.2, p < .05). Within this sample, family functioning was related
to anxiety (β = −.37, t[192] = −4.63, p < .001), and anxiety was related to
stress (β = .61, t[192] = 11.3, p < .005). Anxiety was a significant mediator

Downloaded from jbp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 19, 2016

Pollock et al. 15

(Sobel test = −3.53, p < .001), and after controlling for anxiety, the relation-
ship between family functioning and stress decreased (β = −.17, t[255] =
−2.88, p < .005, R2 = .47), mediating 30.9% of the relationship.

Depression
Family functioning was related to depression (β = −.27, t[254] = −4.27, p <
.001), and depression was related to stress (β = 0.65, t[254] = 12.87, p <
.001). Depression was a significant mediator (Sobel test = −4.85, p < .001),
and after controlling for depression, the relationship between family func-
tioning and stress decreased (β = −.15, t[254] = −2.92, p < .05, R2 = .44),
mediating 31.7% of the relationship.

Hassles
Family functioning was related to daily hassles (β = −.22, t[254] = −3.52, p <
.001), and daily hassles were related to stress (β = .51, t[254] = 9.06, p <
.001). Daily hassles was a significant mediator (Sobel test = −3.25, p < .001),
and after controlling for daily hassles, the relationship between family func-
tioning and stress decreased (β = −.21, t[254] = −3.70, p < .001, R2 = .31),
mediating 20.1% of the relationship.

Hardiness
Family functioning was related to hardiness (β =.32, t[254] = 5.09, p < .001),
and hardiness was negatively related to stress (β = −.44, t[254] = −7.6, p <
.001). Hardiness was a significant mediator (Sobel test = −4.2, p < .001), and
after controlling hardiness, the relationship between family functioning and
stress decreased (β = −.20, t[254] = −3.16, p < .002, R2 = .22), mediating
23.5% of the relationship.

Discrimination
Mean scores on the GED scale (46.3 ± 20.8; past year: 41.6 ± 15.8; lifetime:
41.6 ± 15.8) were comparable to those reported from other African American
samples (Landrine et al., 2006). Controlling for demographic variables,
appraised discrimination was not related to family functioning (β = −.12, p =
.06). As expected, appraised discrimination was related to perceived stress
(β = .24, p < .001), and controlling for discrimination somewhat reduced the
effect size of family functioning on stress (from β = −.32 to β = −.28, p <
.005), indicating that it accounted for some, but not much, of the relationship

Downloaded from jbp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 19, 2016

16 Journal of Black Psychology 

between family functioning and stress. Adding discrimination did not signifi-
cantly alter any of the mediation analyses above. Discrimination emerged as
a significant predictor of stress in the hassles (β = .12, p < .05) and hardiness
(β = .20, p < .005) mediational models, but this had a minimal effect on the
effect sizes of the other variables within those models.

Spirituality
Spirituality was related to both stress (β = .22, p < .001) and family function-
ing (β = −.16, p < .01; Note: low scores indicate high spirituality). Similar to
appraised discrimination, controlling for spirituality somewhat reduced the
effect size of family functioning (β = −.32 to β = −.29, p < .005), indicating
that it accounted for some but not much of the relationship between family
functioning and stress. When it was added to the mediational analyses, the
DSE did not have a significant effect on the model. It did come out as a sig-
nificant predictor of stress in the hassles mediational model (β = 0.13, p <
.05), but this had a minimal effect on the effect sizes of the variables within
that model.

Discussion
Following a family systems approach, the association of family functioning
and individual stress levels was examined, as were factors that could influ-
ence this relationship. Findings from the current study build and extend pre-
vious research (Barbarin et al., 1999; Kane, 2000; Littlejohn-Blake &
Darling, 1993; McAdoo, 1982; Robbins et al., 2003), which has found that
specific aspects of family functioning influence individual outcomes (Johnson
& Jennison, 1994; McCabe et al., 1999). As hypothesized, we found that
close and flexible family relationships were linked to lower individual per-
ceived stress levels. This relationship also remained above and beyond the
known stress maximizer of discrimination and the known stress reducer of
spirituality. Our findings also provide an additional understanding of the
pathway from family functioning to stress levels, taking into account indi-
vidual processes, as our hypotheses were supported for mediation.
Specifically, the impact of family functioning on stress operated through the
internal processes of anxiety, depression and daily hassles, and the buffering
of hardiness.

Families as Stress Absorbing Systems

Previous research highlights being flexible and close as common protective
characteristics of African American families (Gabalda et al., 2010; McCreary &

Downloaded from jbp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 19, 2016

Pollock et al. 17

Dancy, 2004; Robbins et al., 2003). Our findings also suggest that closeness and
flexibility are important stress-reducing properties for African Americans. The
relationship between positive (i.e., close and flexible) family functioning and
stress highlights the positive impact that specific characteristics of family rela-
tionships can have on individual stress levels. Family relationships can provide
valuable support (i.e., closeness) while adapting to changes (i.e., flexibility),
whereas families that are more distant and rigid do not confer these helpful
stress-reducing functions. Our findings clearly support that family relationships
can be “stress-absorbing systems” for African Americans (McAdoo, 1982, p.
479)—when balanced with closeness and flexibility.
Our measure of family functioning (FAVESIV) covered a continuum of
functioning, allowing for the distinction between those individuals from fam-
ilies with balanced levels of closeness and flexibility and those from families
with apparently distant and rigid family dynamics. This spectrum offers a
more thorough understanding of family functioning than dichotomizing as
positive versus negative family functioning and shows that family function-
ing and relationships can have both positive and negative effects on stress
(Neighbors, 1997). Respondents in our study who reported being from a fam-
ily with more balanced levels reported lower stress. Indeed, other research
has defined positive or “effective” family functioning within African
American families as being affectionate, communicative (sharing, advising,
and encouraging), doing things as a family, helping each other, and appropri-
ate parenting (McCreary & Dancy, 2004)—characteristics of closeness and
flexibility. Hill (1998a) emphasizes that positive communication, social
engagement, and flexible functioning are key resilience-building characteris-
tics for African American families.

Family Factors Influential of Individual Processes

Since family relationships do not operate in a vacuum, our findings provide
an additional understanding of the path from family functioning to stress,
taking into account individual processes that can influence stress. Specifically,
the impact of family functioning on stress operated through the internal pro-
cesses of anxiety, depression, daily hassles, and hardiness, independent of
control factors. Flexible and close family relationships were associated with
lower levels of anxiety, depressive symptoms, and daily hassles and higher
levels of hardiness. These findings follow family systems theory suggesting
that family functioning is a key factor influencing individual processes and
outcomes. This builds on previous findings that an individual’s relationship
with his or her intimate partner help them be less likely to become depressed
or anxious, thus highlighting the positive effect relationships can have on
individual processes (Murry, Brown, et al., 2001).

Downloaded from jbp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 19, 2016

18 Journal of Black Psychology 

Our findings provide additional context from a systemic perspective.

Flexible and close family functioning is linked to better individual processes
and outcomes—and taken together, they predict half of the variance in stress
levels. These findings underscore the importance of the link between positive
family functioning and lower levels of depression, anxiety, and daily hassles.
Having loved ones who support and adapt with you through life’s challenges
appears to exert a calming effect that is linked to lower levels of anxiety,
depression, daily hassles, and, ultimately, to less stress. Of note, the associa-
tion between family functioning and stress operated through each individual
process similarly. For example, family functioning was negatively associated
with the negative processes of depression, anxiety, and daily hassles (and
stress) and positively associated with the positive process of hardiness.
Our finding that flexible and close family functioning is linked to higher
hardiness levels is an addition to the literature. Having a positive outlook on
life and perceiving to be in control of one’s life (key factors of hardiness) are
well known to positively impact one’s ability to deal with stress (Grote et al.,
2007). Extensive research shows the protective effect that feeling in control
has on individual stress levels (Cutrona et al., 2000; Grote et al., 2007). Our
findings extend this research to link hardiness with family functioning and
stress. Individuals who have a positive outlook on life and feel more in con-
trol of life are more likely to be proactive in dealing with stressful feelings,
thereby mitigating them (Grote et al., 2007). It is also likely then that these
characteristics of hardiness would apply to family functioning—as our study
found. In our sample, individuals who reported more flexible and close fam-
ily relationships reported higher levels of hardiness, which, in turn, were
linked to less stress. However, caution in generalizing this finding should be
exercised as causal references cannot be made because of the cross-sectional
nature of our study. Whether hardy individuals are less sensitive to negative
aspects of family functioning, or whether positive family functioning begets
greater hardiness, remains to be explored. However, Black, McBride,
Cutrona, and Chen (2009) found a complimentary finding by using a similar
mediation model, which showed that mothers who were involved in their
church, community, and family activities reported lower anxiety and depres-
sive symptoms and, in turn, better physical health than mothers who were
not involved. In addition to engagement in external and family activities,
Black et al. found that feeling more in control (one aspect of hardiness) was
associated with lower depressive and anxiety symptoms, which linked to
better physical health. Their findings, similar to ours, demonstrate how
external factors operate through individual processes to influence individual
outcomes.

Downloaded from jbp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 19, 2016

Pollock et al. 19

Controlling for Discrimination and Spirituality

Last, the relationship between family functioning and stress remained above
and beyond the known stress maximizer of discrimination and the known
stress reducer of spirituality. This supports and extends previous research.
Historically, spirituality has played a significant role in buffering societal
stress (Mosley-Howard & Burgan Evans, 2000), and discrimination in
increasing stress for African Americans (Murry, Smith, & Hill, 2001); this is
reflected in our findings. Interestingly, family functioning was the most
influential external factor we examined, as our findings remained significant
after taking into account the relationship of discrimination and spirituality,
respectively, with stress. This further suggests that close and flexible family
relationships are important stress-reducing resources and serves as a unique
resource that remains effective in the face of discrimination for individuals
above and beyond spirituality.

Practical Applications
Our findings identify key factors related to stress that can be focused on for
programming and practical applications. First, positive family functioning
can have multiple benefits, given that it was related to many individual pro-
cesses. It could be helpful to expand traditional stress management programs
and psycho-education about stress to include the potential positive effect of
family functioning. Second, family functioning may act through individual
processes as well. Helping families balance flexibility and closeness might
confer valuable stress-buffering qualities that are twofold—help individual
and family processes. And since families operate as a system, the stress-
reduction properties could reverberate throughout the family—providing
stress relief for more than one individual. Indeed, Brody et al. (2010) sug-
gested that positive, supportive relationships can help “block the effects of
life stress” by helping individuals be able to downregulate negative emotions,
increase positive emotions, and work toward goal accomplishment. Close
and flexible family relationships can be fostered through focusing on the fol-
lowing behaviors/aspects: being emotionally nurturing and affectionate to
each other; sharing, advising, and encouraging each other verbally or behav-
iorally; doing activities as a family; being helpful in tangible ways; and par-
enting children effectively (McCreary & Dancy, 2004). Practitioners who
work with families can focus on building positive functioning through these
enhancing behaviors.
Last, multiple levels of stressors and resources were examined in our
study. Our findings that hardiness and family functioning are linked highlight

Downloaded from jbp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 19, 2016

20 Journal of Black Psychology 

a possible intervention point building on previous research. Grote et al.

(2007) suggested that stressed individuals can learn how to identify stressors
that are changeable and those that are nonmodifiable. This bodes well for
family relationships as oftentimes family relationships can be modifiable,
fostered, and enhanced through skill acquisition (e.g., communication train-
ing) and outside assistance, as needed (e.g., Marriage & Family Therapists;
Hawkins, Blanchard, Baldwin, & Fawcett, 2009). Additionally, given how
family relationship quality conferred significant positive benefits to individu-
als above and beyond the impact of stressors such as discrimination, low
educational attainment, and typical family stressors, such as number of chil-
dren, could indicate that regardless of the type of external stressor, positive
family relationships could bestow important stress-reduction properties.

Limitations
Our findings should also be considered within the context of the study’s limi-
tations. Since our sample is community based, it is not a representative sam-
ple and only generalizable to African Americans in our large, metropolitan
area. Additionally, examining multiple individuals in the same family would
help us better examine family functioning from multiple perspectives. Also,
what is unknown, and possibly a topic for future research, is how multiple
positive resources, such as family relationships and spirituality, work together
to impact individual processes and combat stressors in daily life.

Strengths and Conclusion

Our study has many strengths. First, in order to apply a culturally sensitive
lens to better understanding family functioning, our respondents self-identi-
fied who they considered to be in their family—through blood, adoption,
kinship ties, and/or friendship. Previous research has found that African
Americans tend to have an expanded definition of family, which is some-
times overlooked in studies that limit the definition to nuclear family and/or
biological or legal ties (Hill, 1998b; Kane, 2000). In fact, the traditional defi-
nition of family has been replaced by a more inclusive definition in concert
with the African American definition. Therefore, our measure of family func-
tioning asked open-ended questions related to who respondents considered to
be in their family, and it is consistent with Hill’s (1998b) definition of African
American families. Second, our sample consisted of individuals not screened
for a particular disease or criterion variable, thus representing a relatively
healthy sample. Third, by examining family functioning as a whole, we
gained a better understanding of the entire family system rather than focusing

Downloaded from jbp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 19, 2016

Pollock et al. 21

on a specific dyad within the family system. Our findings indicate that close
and flexible family relationships are linked to lower stress levels, whereas
individuals from distant and rigid families report higher stress levels.
Additionally, the association of healthy family functioning on lower stress
operated through internal processes—lower anxiety, depression, and daily
hassles and higher hardiness—independent of control factors. By examining
individual, family, and contextual factors, we were able to have a better
global understanding of how family functioning affects individual processes
that in turn affect stress levels. Our findings suggest that expanding tradi-
tional stress management programs to include bolstering and enhancing fam-
ily relationships could have significant benefits. Last, our study fills a gap in
the literature with regard to increasing the understanding of family function-
ing within African American families from a strength-based perspective.

Authors’ Note
The opinions and assertions expressed herein are those of the authors and should not
be construed as reflecting those of the Uniformed Services University of the Health
Sciences or the Department of Defense.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article: The project was funded by NCMHD,
National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, Establishing Exploratory NCMHD
Research Centers of Excellence (P20), RFA-MD-07-001.

References
Aneshensel, C. S. (2009). Towards explaining mental health disparities. Journal of
Health and Human Behavior, 50, 377-394.
Barbarin, O., Whitten, C., Bond, S., & Conner-Warren, R. (1999). The social and cul-
tural context of coping with sickle cell disease: III. Stress, coping tasks, family
functioning, and children’s adjustment. Journal of Black Psychology, 25, 356-377.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction
in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical consider-
ations. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Barrera, M. (2000). Social support research in community psychology. In J. S. Rappaport
& E. Seidman (Eds.), Handbook of community psychology (pp. 214-247). New
York, NY: Kluwer Academic.

Downloaded from jbp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 19, 2016

22 Journal of Black Psychology 

Bartone, P. T. (1995). A short hardiness scale. Paper presented at the Annual

Convention of the American Psychological Society, New York.
Beasley, M., Thompson, T., & Davidson, J. (2003). Resilience in responses to
life stress: The effects of coping style and cognitive hardiness. Personality &
Individual Differences, 34, 77-95.
Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). Manual for the Beck Depression
Inventory-II. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Black, A. R., McBride, V. M., Cutrona, C. E., & Chen, Y.-F. (2009). Multiple roles,
multiple lives: The protective effects of role responsibilities on the health func-
tioning of African American mothers. Women Health, 49, 144-163.
Boyd-Franklin, N. (1989). Black families in therapy: A multisystems approach. New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Brody, G., Chen, Y., Kogan, S., Smith, K., & Brown, A. (2010). Buffering effects of
a family-based intervention for African American emerging adults. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 72, 1426-1435.
Budescu, M., Taylor, R., & McGill, R. (2011). Stress and African American women’s
smoking/drinking to cope: Moderating effects of kin social support. Journal of
Black Psychology, 37, 452-484.
Cain, D., & Combs-Orme, T. (2005). Family structure effects on parenting stress
and practices in the African American family. Journal of Sociology & Social
Welfare, 32. Retrieved from http://web.utk.edu/~orme00/articles/Cain_Combs-
Orme_2005.pdf
Chapman, L., Kertz, S., & Woodruff-Borden, J. (2009). A structural equation model
analysis of perceived control and psychological distress on worry among African
American and European American young adults. Journal of Anxiety Disorders,
23, 69-76.
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived
stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 385-396.
Crosnoe, R., & Elder, G. H. (2004). Family dynamics, supportive relationships, and
educational resilience during adolescence. Journal of Family Issues, 25, 571-602.
Cutrona, C. E., Russell, D. W., Abraham, W. T., Gardner, K. A., Melby, J. M., Bryant,
C., & Conger, R. D. (2003). Neighborhood context and financial strain as pre-
dictors of marital interaction and marital quality in African American couples.
Personal Relationships, 10, 389-409.
Cutrona, C., Russell, D., Hessling, R., Brown, P., & Murry, V. (2000). Direct and
moderating effects of community context on the psychological well-being of
African American women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79,
1088-1101.
Davis, J., Smith, T., & Marsden, P. (2004). General social surveys: Cumulative code-
book, 1972-2004. Chicago, IL: National Opinion Research Center.
Dearing, E. (2004). The developmental implications of restrictive and supportive
parenting across neighborhoods and ethnicities: Exceptions are the rule. Applied
Developmental Psychology, 25, 555-575.

Downloaded from jbp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 19, 2016

Pollock et al. 23

Fetzer Institute/National Institute on Aging. (1999). Multidimensional measurement

of religiousness/spirituality for use in health research. Kalamazoo, MI: Fetzer
Institute/National Institute on Aging.
Gabalda, M., Thompson, M., & Kaslow, N. (2010). Risk and protective factors
for psychological adjustment among low-income, African American children.
Journal of Family Issues, 31, 423-444.
Glass, T. A., De Leon, C. F. M., Bassuk, S. S., & Berkman, L. F. (2006). Social
engagement and depressive symptoms in late life. Journal of Aging and Health,
18, 604-628.
Grote, N., Bledsoe, S., Larkin, J., Lemay, E., & Brown, C. (2007). Stress exposure
and depression in disadvantaged women: The protective effects of optimism and
perceived control. Social Work Research, 31, 19-33.
Hammack, P. (2003). Toward a unified theory of depression among urban African
American youth: Integrating socioecologic, cognitive, family stress, and biopsy-
chosocial perspectives. Journal of Black Psychology, 29, 187-209.
Hawkins, A., Blanchard, V., Baldwin, S., & Fawcett, E. (2009). Does marriage and
relationship education work? A meta-analytic study. Journal of Consulting
Clinical Psychology, 76, 723-734.
Herman, K., Ostrander, R., & Tucker, C. (2007). Do family environments and nega-
tive cognitions of adolescents with depressive symptoms vary by ethnic group?
Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 325-330.
Hill, R. B. (1998a). Enhancing the resilience of African American families. Journal
of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 1(2), 49-61.
Hill, R. B. (1998b). Understanding Black family functioning: A holistic perspective.
Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 29, 15-25.
Hunter, L. R., & Schmidt, N. B. (2010). Anxiety psychopathology in African
American adults: literature review and development of an empirically informed
sociocultural model. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 211-235.
Jackson, J., Inglehart, M., Hobfoll, S., & deVries, M. (1995). Reverberation theory:
Stress and racism in hierarchically structured communities. New York, NY:
Kluwer.
Jackson, P., & Stewart, Q. (2003). A research agenda for the Black middle class:
Work stress, survival strategies, and mental health. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 44, 442-455.
Jennison, K. M., & Johnson, K. A. (2001). Parental alcoholism as a risk factor for
DSM-IV-defined alcohol abuse and dependence in American women: The pro-
tective benefits of dyadic cohesion in marital communication. American Journal
of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 27, 349-374.
Johner, R. L. (2007). Allostatic load: Single parents, stress-related health issues, and
social care. Health & Social Work, 32(2), 89-94.
Johnson, K. A., & Jennison, K. M. (1994). Stressful loss and the buffering effect
of social support on drinking behavior among African-Americans: Results of a
national survey. Journal of Alcohol & Drug Education, 39(2), 1-24.

Downloaded from jbp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 19, 2016

24 Journal of Black Psychology 

Kane, C. M. (2000). African American family dynamics as perceived by family mem-

bers. Journal of Black Studies, 30, 691-702.
Kanner, A., Coyne, J., Schaefer, C., & Lazarus, R. (1981). Comparison of two modes
of stress measurement: Daily hassles and uplifts versus major life events. Journal
of Behavioral Medicine, 4, 1-39.
Karenga, M. (Ed.). (2007). The Nguzo Saba and the Black family: Principles and
practices of well-being and flourishing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kasper, J., Ensminger, M., Green, K., Fothergill, K., Juon, H., Robertson, J., &
Thorpe, R. (2008). Effects of poverty and family stress over three decades on the
functional status of older African American women. Journals of Gerontology:
Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 63, S201-S210.
Keith, V. (1997). Life stress and psychological well-being among married and unmar-
ried Blacks. In R. J. J. Taylor, J. S. Jackson, & L. M. Chatters (Eds.), Family life
in Black America (pp. 95-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kessler, R. (1997). The effects of stressful life events on depression. Annual Review
of Psychology, 48, 191-214.
Kobasa, S. (1979). Stressful life events, personality, and health: An inquiry into hardi-
ness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1-11.
Kouneski, E. (2001). Circumplex model and FACES: Review of literature. Retrieved
from www.facesIV.com
Krause, N. (2006). Exploring the stress-buffering effects of church-based and secular
social support on self-rated health in late life. Journals of Gerontology: Series B:
Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 1, S35-S43.
Landrine, H., & Klonoff, E. (1996). Traditional African-American family practices:
Prevalence and correlates. Western Journal of Black Studies, 20, 59-62.
Landrine, H., Klonoff, E., Corral, I., Fernandez, S., & Roesch, S. (2006).
Conceptualizing and measuring ethnic discrimination in health research. Journal
of Behavioral Medicine, 29, 79-94.
Littlejohn-Blake, S., & Darling, C. (1993). Understanding the strengths of African
American families. Journal of Black Studies, 23, 460-471.
Loustalot, F., Wyatt, S. B., Sims, M., Ellison, C. G., Taylor, H. A., & Underwood,
L. (2011). Psychometric testing of the daily spiritual experiences scale among
African Americans in the Jackson Heart Study. Journal of Religion & Health,
50, 675-685.
Maddi, S. (2002). The story of hardiness: Twenty years of theorizing, research, and
practice. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 54, 173-185.
McAdoo, H. P. (1982). Stress absorbing systems in Black families. Family Relations,
31, 479-488.
McAdoo, H. P. (1995). Stress levels, family help patterns, and religiosity in mid-
dle-and working-class African American single mothers. Journal of Black
Psychology, 21, 424-449.
McAdoo, H., & Younge, S. (2009). Black families. In H. Neville, B. Tynes, &
S. Utsey (Eds.), Handbook of African American psychology (pp. 103-115).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Downloaded from jbp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 19, 2016

Pollock et al. 25

McCabe, K., Clark, R., & Barnett, D. (1999). Family protective factors among urban
African American youth. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 28, 137-150.
McCreary, L. L., & Dancy, B. L. (2004). Dimensions of family functioning:
Perspectives of low-income AA single-parent families. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 66, 690-701.
McGuire, T. G., & Miranda, J. (2008). New evidence regarding racial and ethnic
disparities in mental health: policy implications. Health Affairs (Millwood), 27,
393-403.
McLoyd, V., Cauce, A., Takeuchi, D., & Wilson, L. (2000). Marital processes and
parental socialization in families of color: A decade review of research. Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1070-1093.
Mosley-Howard, G. S., & Burgan Evans, C. (2000). Relationships and contemporary
experiences of the AA family: An ethnographic case study. Journal of Black
Studies, 30, 428-452.
Murry, V., Brown, P., Brody, G., Cutrona, C., & Simons, R. (2001). Racial dis-
crimination as a moderator of the links among stress, maternal psychological
functioning, and family relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63,
915-926.
Murry, V., Bynum, M., Brody, G., Willert, A., & Stephens, D. (2001). African
American single mothers and children in context: A review of studies on risk and
resilience. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 4, 133-155.
Murry, V., Smith, E., & Hill, N. (2001). Race, ethnicity, and culture in studies of
families in context. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 911-914.
Neighbors, H. (1997). Husbands, wives, family, and friends: Sources of stress, sources
of support. In R. Taylor, J. Jackson, & L. Chatters (Eds.), Family life in Black
America (pp. 279-294). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Novy, D., Nelson, D., Goodwin, J., & Rowzee, R. (1993). Psychometric comparabil-
ity of the STAI for different ethnic subpopulations. Psychological Assessment,
5, 343-349.
Olson, D. (2000). Circumplex model of marital and family systems. Journal of Family
Therapy, 22, 144-167.
Olson, D. (2011). FACESIV and the circumplex model: Validation study. Journal of
Marital and Family Therapy, 3(1), 64-80.
Petterson, S., & Albers, A. (2001). Effects of poverty and maternal depression on
early child development. Child Development, 72, 1794-1813.
Pieterse, A., & Carter, R. (2007). An examination of the relationship between gen-
eral life stress, racism-related stress, and psychological health among Black men.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54, 101-109.
Pinderhughes, E. (2002). African American marriage in the 20th century. Family
Process, 41, 269-282.
Robbins, M., Szapocznik, J., Tejeda, M., Samuels, D., Ironson, G., & Antoni, M.
(2003). The protective role of the family and social support network in a sample
of HIV-positive African American women: Results of a pilot study. Journal of
Black Psychology, 29, 17-37.

Downloaded from jbp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 19, 2016

26 Journal of Black Psychology 

Sashidharan, T., Pawlow, L., & Pettibone, J. (2012). An examination of racial bias
in the Beck Depression Inventory-II. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority
Psychology, 18, 203-209.
Sobel, M. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural
equation models. In S. Leinbardt (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290-312).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Speiberger, C. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Form Y). Menlo
Park, CA: Mind Garden.
Stack, C., & Burton, L. (1993). Kinscripts. Journal of Comparative Family Studies,
24, 157-170.
Szklo, M., & Nieto, F. (2006). Epidemiology: Beyond the basics (2nd ed.). Boston,
MA: Jones & Bartlett.
Taylor, R. (1995). Kinship support and maternal and adolescent well-being in eco-
nomically disadvantaged African-American families. Child Development, 66,
1585-1597.
Taylor, R., Tucker, M., Chatters, L., Jayakody, R., & Jackson, J. (1997). Recent demo-
graphic trends in African American family structure. In R. Taylor, J. Jackson, &
L. Chatters (Eds.), Family life in Black America (pp. 14-62). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Uchino, B. (2006). Social support and health: A review of physiological processes
potentially underlying links to disease outcomes. Journal of Behavioral Medicine,
29, 377-387.
Uchino, B., Cacioppo, J., & Kiecolt-Glaser, J. (1996). The relationship between social
support and physiological processes: A review with emphasis on underlying
mechanisms and implications for health. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 488-531.
Utsey, S., Giesbrecht, N., Hook, J., & Stanard, P. (2008). Cultural, sociofamilial and
psychological resources that inhibit psychological distress in AA exposed to
stressful life events and race-related stress. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
55, 49-62.
Whitchurch, G., & Constantine, L. (2004). Systems theory. In P. Boss, W. Doherty,
R. LaRossa, W. Schumm, & S. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories
and methods: A contextual approach (pp. 325-352). New York, NY: Springer.
Williams, D., Yu, Y., Jackson, J., & Anderson, B. (1997). Racial differences in physi-
cal mental health: SES, stress, and discrimination. Journal of Health Psychology,
2, 335-351.

Downloaded from jbp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 19, 2016