G IRLS B OYS W AVE 1 P REDICTORS Never Pregnant Mean (SD) Pregnant Mean (SD) t-value Never Pregnant Mean (SD) Pregnant Mean (SD) t-value Child’s age (years) M (1.43)13.27 (1.21)-8.80***12.12 (1.38)13.12 (1.42)-5.66*** M ATERNAL P ARENTING P REDICTORS Maternal home-based school involvement A 3.82 (1.15) 3.48 (1.17) 3.00** 3.91 (1.01) 3.64 (1.15) 2.09* Maternal Harsh Punishment A 1.79 (0.69) 1.98 (0.76)-2.74** 1.83 (0.65) 1.84 (0.69)-0.10 Mother/Child Anger & Alienation A 3.52 (0.86) 3.38 (0.81) (0.78) 3.47 (0.75) 1.43 Mother/Child Trust & Communication A 4.27 (0.76) 4.05 (0.85) 2.89** 4.21 (0.65) 4.10 (0.66) 1.25 Parental Knowledge A 0.89 (0.12) 0.86 (0.14) 2.66** 0.87 (0.13) 0.82 (0.16) 2.58* Curfew A 0.67 (0.20) 0.62 (0.22) 2.13* 0.66 (0.19) 0.57 (0.16) 3.87*** Parenting Style M 3.43 (0.32) 3.40 (0.38) (0.34) 3.37 (0.32) Family Routines M 2.82 (0.67) 2.65 (0.72) 2.56* 2.82 (0.66) 2.53 (0.71) 3.30** Cognitive Stimulation M (25.56)79.23 (27.21) 2.26*82.94 (26.55)76.80 (23.70) P ATERNAL P ARENTING P REDICTORS Father/Child Anger & Alienation A 2.48 (0.92) 2.68 (1.03) (0.87) 2.15 (0.86) Father/Child Trust & Communication A 3.47 (1.26) 2.98 (1.41) 3.34** 3.62 (1.17) 3.36 (1.33) 1.57 Father Involvement A (0.87) (0.83) (0.86)-0.27 (0.94) 1.14 C HILD B EHAVIOR & A TTITUDE P REDICTORS Internalizing Problems A (CBCL) 8.78 (7.47)10.75 (8.20)-2.60** 8.88 (8.08) 8.91 (7.80)-0.02 Externalizing Problems A (CBCL) 9.48 (8.45)12.76 (9.93)-3.74***10.84 (9.40)12.41 (9.79)-1.28 Social Competence M 4.10 (0.74) 3.92 (0.74) 2.49* 4.00 (0.73) 3.86 (0.78) 1.40 Internalizing Symptoms A (BSI-18) 6.74 (9.55)10.74 (11.59)-3.72*** 6.36 (8.69) 6.05 (8.35) 0.27 Delinquent Activities A (0.30) 0.04 (0.43)-5.27***-0.08 (0.33) 0.07 (0.40)-2.95** Grades M 5.90 (1.59) 5.22 (1.94) 3.80*** 5.25 (1.81) 4.47 (1.92)-2.97** Educational aspirations A 5.56 (1.66) 5.14 (1.63) 2.64** 5.29 (1.63) 5.27 (1.53) 0.07 N EIGHBORHOOD P REDICTORS Neighborhood problems M (6.03)20.57 (6.17) (5.81)20.30 (6.38)-0.11 Collective Efficacy M (9.49)26.01 (9.25) (9.54)26.73 (10.09)-0.24  Mothers of adolescents reported on: Parenting style (Raising Children Checklist, Shumow et al., 1998; higher values indicate more positive parenting) Cognitive stimulation (Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment-Short Form, Caldwell & Bradley, 1984) Family routines (Boyce et al., 1983) Neighborhood problems and collective efficacy (based on Sampson, 1997) Children’s internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors (Child Behavior Checklist, Achenbach, 1991) Children’s social competence (scale developed for the New Chance Study, Quint et al., 1997) Children’s grades (single item; 1= mostly failing to 8 = mostly As)  Adolescents were interviewed about: Relationships with their parents (Anger & Alienation subscale and Trust & Communication subscale; Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment, Armsden & Greenberg, 1987) Maternal Harsh Punishment (McLoyd et al., 1994). Maternal home-based school involvement (child supplement interviews from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, Hofferth et al., 1999) Parental Knowledge & Curfew (Behavior Control scale, Lamborn et al., 1991; higher scores indicate greater knowledge of child activities and a later curfew) Educational aspirations (single item, 1 = not finish high school to 7 = go to a professional school after college) Internalizing Symptoms (Brief Symptom Inventory-18, Derogatis. 2000) Involvement in delinquent activities (modified items from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth, Borus et al., 1982; Youth Deviance Scale, Gold, 1970)  All measures had adequate to strong psychometric properties.  Data came from three waves of the Welfare, Children and Families: A Three-City Study, a sample of 2,402 families living in low-income urban areas (45% African American, 46% Hispanic American; 9% Caucasian or other ethnicities).  Analyses focused on girls (n = 485) and boys (n = 415) aged years at Wave 1 and who participated at Wave 2 and 3 (Wave 3 occurred about 5 years later; 79.7% retention rate).  In 2009, national rates of adolescent pregnancy declined to its lowest point in nearly 70 years (39.1 births per 1, year olds) but rates remain quite high among African American (59 births per 1, year olds) and Hispanic American adolescents (70.1 births per 1, year olds; Hamilton et al., 2010).  Several individual, family, and neighborhood factors have been suggested to influence female adolescents becoming pregnant (Coley & Chase-Lansdale, 1998).  Yet, little research has considered factors involved in male adolescents impregnating their sexual partners.  This study seeks to extend the adolescent pregnancy literature by prospectively examining the influence of multiple factors on adolescent pregnancy among a sample of low-income male and female adolescents. Prospective Predictors of Adolescent Pregnancy in Low-Income Urban Settings Nicole J. Holmberg, Christine R. Keeports, & Laura D. Pittman Northern Illinois University Participants Measures Analyses  A dichotomous variable was created based on adolescents’ reports at each Wave indicating whether they had ever been pregnant (32% of females) or gotten someone pregnant (18% of males).  Analyses were run separately by gender.  T-tests examined whether those who had ever been pregnant/gotten someone pregnant differed on multiple variables at Wave 1 from those who had never been pregnant/gotten someone pregnant.  Variables yielding significant t-test differences were entered into a logistic regression simultaneously to determine which factors contributed uniquely to the pregnancy outcome. Background T- Test Results + p <.10, *p <.05; **p <.01; ***p <.001; A = adolescent report, M = maternal report Logistic Regression Results Discussion G IRLS B OYS BSEExp.BBSEExp.B Constant Child’s age (years) 0.57*** ** M ATERNAL P ARENTING Maternal Home-Based School Involvement Maternal Harsh Punishment Mother/Child Trust & Communication Parental Knowledge Curfew * Family Routines Cognitive Stimulation P ATERNAL P ARENTING Father/Child Trust & Communication C HILD B EHAVIOR & A TTITUDE Internalizing Problems (CBCL) Externalizing Problems (CBCL) Social Competence Internalizing Symptoms (BSI-18) 0.04** Delinquent Activities 0.83* Grades (maternal report) * Educational aspirations -0.18* x2x *** *** + p <.10, *p <.05; **p <.01; ***p <.001; Exp.B = exponentiated B.  Results from regression analyses reveal that significant predictors of adolescent pregnancy are different for girls and boys.  Several child behavior and attitude predictors were significant for girls but not boys; more severe adolescent-reported internalizing symptoms (BSI-18), more involvement in delinquent activities, and lower educational aspirations were associated with becoming pregnant.  Poorer relationships with their fathers significantly predicted adolescent pregnancy for girls at a trend level, but no maternal parenting predictors were significant for girls.  For boys, only having later curfews and poorer grades significantly predicted that they would impregnate someone.  Please contact Nicole J. Holmberg with comments, questions, or feedback about this poster at or Psychology Department, Northern Illinois University, Dekalb, IL  When examining each predictor individually, multiple factors were significant in predicting adolescent pregnancy. However, when considered simultaneously, fewer significant factors emerged.  Specifically, unique significant predictors for girls were behavioral and attitudinal in nature (i.e., more self-reported internalizing symptoms, more involvement in delinquent activities, and lower educational aspirations), but parenting did not make a difference.  However, unique significant predictors for boys included both parental factors (i.e., later curfews) and behavioral and attitudinal factors (i.e., poorer grades).  Surprisingly, neighborhood factors were not significant, even when considered individually. Perhaps these factors are more likely to be associated with delinquency more broadly, but not with adolescent pregnancy.  T-test results indicate that both girls who had been pregnant and boys who had gotten someone pregnant, compared to those who had not, had an earlier curfew, were involved in more delinquent activities based on self reports, had worse grades based on parent reports and had mothers who were less involved with school work at home and knew less about what they were doing.  For girls only, t-test results also indicated that those who were ever pregnant had mothers who used harsher punishments, had poorer relationships with their mothers and fathers, had more externalizing symptoms based on maternal reports and internalizing symptoms based on both self and maternal reports. They also had lower social competence based on maternal reports and lower educational aspirations based on self-reports.  No significant differences were found between groups based on the neighborhood environment or the level of father involvement.  Generalizability of these findings is limited to low-income urban populations. Additional studies with other populations are needed to consider whether these factors universally predict adolescent pregnancy.  In general, parents may also want to become more involved in their children’s lives, such as by knowing more about their children’s activities or providing structure for their adolescents by enforcing curfews. These parenting behaviors may help curb adolescent behaviors that have been shown to predict adolescent pregnancy.  In addition, for girls their psychological functioning as indicated by their internalizing symptoms and delinquent behaviors were predictive of becoming pregnant, but this was not true for boys. This suggests girls may become sexually active and/or want to become pregnant when they have lower self-esteem and more negative self-perceptions.  These findings suggest that adolescents’ behaviors (e.g., grades) and attitudes (e.g., educational aspirations) regarding school may influence non-academic behaviors, such as sexual activity. These findings suggest that in order to help prevent adolescent pregnancy, parents of adolescents living in low-income urban areas may want to cultivate their children’s interest and in school and monitor their academic performance.  This study has several strengths including longitudinal data which allows for prospective predictor identification and dual sources of data (i.e., adolescents and mothers).