Longitudinal associations among routine disclosure,the parent–child relationship,and adolescents’ prosocial and delinquent behaviors

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to explore whether routine child disclosure to parents was longitudinally related to adolescent prosocial and delinquent outcomes via the parent–child relationship (parental knowledge, parental autonomy granting, and parental warmth/support). The participants included 463 adolescents (48% male, 73% European American, 37% single parent families) and their mothers and fathers who completed questionnaires across three waves from early to late adolescence (M age of adolescent at Time 1 = 13 years old, Time 3 = 17 years old). The results showed that routine child disclosure was longitudinally associated with prosocial behavior toward family via greater parental warmth. Child disclosure was negatively related to delinquency via parental knowledge. Implications regarding the role of child disclosure on the parent–child relationship and the development of adolescent behavior are discussed.

Keywords

Child disclosure delinquency longitudinal parent–child relationship prosocial behavior

Children increasingly spend time outside of their home and away from parental supervision during adolescence (Kerr, Stattin, & Burk, 2010), and as autonomy and privacy increase, parents’ abilities to directly control their children diminish. For this reason, parents often need to rely on children’s own reports in order to obtain knowledge about their activities and whereabouts (Kerr & Stattin, 2000). In other words, adolescents choose whether or not and how much information they will reveal to their parents. Recent scholars have referred to children’s willingness to share information with their parents about their daily activities, whereabouts, and companions as routine disclosure (Tilton-Weaver, Marshall, & Darling, 2014). By being informed about children’s daily activities, the parent–child relationship may be improved as parents are able to provide guidance and support in adolescents’ schoolwork, interactions with peers, and use of unsupervised time. Indeed, parents can continue to scaffold their children during adolescence by giving scripts for safe, normative trajectories, and offering praise and encouragement where adolescents are displaying healthy choices. Thus, routine disclosure possesses potential to both raise parental awareness of their child’s use of free time and improve parent–child relationships (Kerr, Stattin, & Trost, 1999).

Many recent studies have informed how child disclosure functions within the context of family by examining various predictors (e.g., parent–child conflict; Chan, Brown, & Von Bank, 2015), moderators (e.g., parental trust; Laird & Marrero, 2010), and outcomes of child disclosure (e.g., delinquency; Keijsers, Frijns, Branje, & Meeus, 2009). While research has consistently assessed a link between child disclosure and child outcomes, few studies have explored the parent–child mechanisms through which these processes might be connected (Laird & Zeringue, in press). One notable exception to this is parental knowledge, which has been found to consistently mediate the link between routine child disclosure and delinquent behavior (e.g., Lippold, Greenberg, Graham, & Feinberg, 2014). In addition to parental knowledge, we expected other aspects of parent–child relationships to function as mechanisms through which child routine disclosure promotes child outcomes (Crouter & Head, 2002). While many studies have documented the influence of parental socialization on child disclosure, more attention is needed to explore the likelihood that children’s behaviors also shape parenting and parent–child relationships (Padilla-Walker, Carlo, Christensen, & Yorgason, 2012).

Child disclosure not only influences parent–child dynamics but also has significant implications for adolescent behavioral development. In fact, child disclosure to parents is a protective factor against various externalizing (Keijsers et al., 2009) and internalizing problems (Laird & Marrero, 2010). Despite the extensive research on child disclosure and negative outcomes, less is known about its impact on positive developmental outcomes. Routine disclosure to parents may not only prevent negative behavior but may also promote positive behavior as parents assist their children in navigating daily activities based on the information that they have received. To extend our understanding of the benefit of child disclosure on the parent–child relationship and adolescent behaviors, the present study (a) explored the longitudinal link between adolescents’ routine disclosure and multiple aspects of the parent–child relationship and (b) explored how child disclosure and the parent–child relationship might, in turn, be associated with both positive and negative child behavioral outcomes.

The benefit of routine disclosure on the parent–child relationship

Theoretical and conceptual models of parenting (e.g., Grusec & Goodnow, 1994) have long encouraged researchers to explore the bidirectional nature of the parent–child relationship. Specifically, theory suggests that although parents certainly have an influence on children’s behaviors, children also influence parenting. A growing number of empirical research articles support these theoretical assumptions, suggesting that parenting is shaped by children’s behaviors, including infant sleep patterns (Philbrook & Teti, 2016), childhood aggression (Brinke, Dekovic, Stoltz, & Cillessen, 2017), and adolescent prosocial behavior (Padilla-Walker et al., 2012), to name a few. In the current study, we argue that adolescents’ routine disclosure might be another aspect of adolescent behavior that influences parenting, which in turn influences adolescent behavior.

Routine disclosure is one of the various ways that adolescents manage information in the parent–child relationship (Darling, Cumsille, Caldwell, & Dowdy, 2006), and adolescents’ strategies for managing information may be understood in the context of adolescent privacy and autonomy development. As noted above, routine child disclosure has been well established as a predictor of parental knowledge (Kerr et al., 2010), and parental knowledge obtained through child disclosure has consistently been found to be negatively associated with externalizing problems (Crouter & Head, 2002). While it is established that delinquent adolescents generally do not engage in high levels of disclosure (Padilla-Walker, Son, & Nelson, 2017), disclosure of activities increases parental knowledge and enables parents to address behavioral concerns (Kerr & Stattin, 2000). A parent becoming aware of their child’s activities may also lead to conversations about values and teachings that help deter teens from delinquency and promote engagement in prosocial behavior. Thus, it is well established that child disclosure is associated with increases in parental knowledge.

However, in this study, we sought to understand whether additional aspects of the parent–child relationship might also mediate the relationship between child disclosure and child outcomes. Self-determination theory may shed some light on how adolescents’ routine disclosure can foster positive parent–child relationships and adolescent behavior. Self-determination theory posits that autonomy, relatedness, and competence make up basic human psychological needs, and as these needs are met, humans are motivated more autonomously and intrinsically to behave according to values being taught (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Based on self-determination theory, we identified aspects of parenting that would promote these basic psychological needs and lead to positive behavioral outcomes. Namely, we explored how parenting that fulfills an adolescent’s need for autonomy (i.e., autonomy granting) and relatedness (i.e., warmth/support) might be shaped by routine disclosure, and in turn influence adolescent behavior.

Frequent routine disclosure helps parents to develop greater trust in their children because parents are aware of how children are behaving outside of home (Kerr et al., 1999). Greater parental trust may in turn motivate parents to grant more autonomy to their children because they are confident in their child’s ability to make autonomous decisions consistent with family values. Children may also perceive their parents as more supportive and warm because they feel understood by parents to whom they disclose and who then engage them in conversations about their lives. Previous cross-sectional studies have found that routine disclosure is related to positive parent–child relationship quality including paternal warmth (Cumsille, Darling, & Martínez, 2010) and autonomy granting (Darling et al., 2006). While it is certainly likely that positive parenting fosters disclosure, it is also possible that child disclosure promotes changes in parenting behavior. Building upon these cross-sectional findings, we expected that routine disclosure would longitudinally promote parental autonomy granting and warmth/support.

Child disclosure and prosocial behavior

While a vast amount of research has focused on the links between routine disclosure and poor adjustment outcomes, only a handful of studies have evaluated positive behavioral outcomes, including positive coping strategies (Almas, Grusec, & Tackett, 2011) and school performance (Criss et al., 2015). While these outcomes are all adaptive, none of them could be considered prosocial in nature. Examining adolescents’ prosocial behavior (i.e., voluntary actions intended at benefiting another; Eisenberg, Spinrad, & Knafo-Noam, 2015) is important because displays of helping actions indicate development of social competence (e.g., Eisenberg et al., 1996) and morality (Padilla-Walker, Carlo, & Nielson, 2015). To our knowledge, only one study has examined prosocial behavior in relation to child disclosure. Chaparro and Grusec (2015) found that adolescents’ distress-related disclosure to parents was positively related to teacher ratings of adolescent prosocial behavior in the classroom. The authors of the study speculated that child disclosure fostered an environment wherein parents taught their children about positive behaviors. Indeed, disclosure about daily activities such as what happened at school presents opportunities for parents to not only talk about appropriate behaviors but also teach children to be concerned for others’ well-being. Child disclosure during adolescence may predict not only the absence of negative behavior but also the presence of prosocial behavior.

Although research often considers global prosocial behavior to be an adaptive outcome, prosocial behavior has been found to differ meaningfully as a function of the recipient of the behavior (Padilla-Walker et al., 2015). Prosocial behavior toward strangers may be motivated by a child’s relatively stable temperamental characteristics (Knafo & Plomin, 2006) that show somewhat consistent patterns of prosocial behavior throughout adolescence. A relational theoretical approach, on the other hand, explains that prosocial behavior toward those with whom adolescents have relationships is influenced by the quality of those relationships. In this approach, prosocial behavior can be seen as a type of social norm in order to maintain positivity in relationships (Lewis, 2014). Consistent with this view, research has found that positive parent–child relationships are particularly salient as they relate to prosocial behavior toward family, although the parent–child relationship has also been found to promote prosocial behavior toward other recipients (Frensch, Pratt, & Norris, 2007). Thus, in this study, we distinguished targets of prosocial behavior (strangers and family) to examine the influence of child disclosure on types of prosocial behavior that might be differentially motivated.

Taken together, the current study proposes that child disclosure impacts the parent–child relationship, which in turn shapes behavior. Given previous findings, we expected that routine disclosure would be positively associated with parental knowledge, which would then be associated with lower levels of delinquent behaviors (Racz & McMahon, 2011). While it is possible that parental knowledge might also lead to increases in adolescents’ prosocial behaviors, we thought this less likely, as parental knowledge does not likely lead to the same pressure to engage in prosocial behavior as it may to avoid delinquent behavior. On the other hand, studies have found parental autonomy granting to be linked to both lower levels of delinquent behaviors (Pinquart, 2017) and higher levels of prosocial behavior in children (Frensch et al., 2007). Thus, we expected high levels of parental autonomy granting to be associated with lower levels of delinquency and higher levels of prosocial behavior. Previous research has also found that parental warmth is associated with low levels of delinquent behavior (Fletcher, Steinberg, & Williams-Wheeler, 2004) and high levels of prosocial behavior toward both strangers (Hastings, Rubin, & DeRose, 2005) and family (Padilla-Walker et al., 2015) during adolescence. Thus, we expected parental warmth/support to be associated with lower levels of delinquency and higher levels of prosocial behavior toward both targets. That being said, as ongoing interactions within parent–child relationships shape future expectations and behavior within the relationship (Lewis, 2014), we expected that parental warmth/support would be particularly influential for adolescents’ prosocial behavior toward family.

Current study

This study extends the literature on child disclosure by (a) examining the link between adolescent routine disclosure and positive aspects of parent–child relationships (parental knowledge, parental autonomy granting, and parental warmth/support) and (b) exploring how these parent–child relationships may in turn be associated with adolescent prosocial and delinquent behaviors. Research on child disclosure has also found differences based on parent gender, with mothers reporting more knowledge about their children’s daily activities (Updegraff, Delgado, & Wheeler, 2009). In addition, given that adolescents report engaging in more prosocial behavior toward mothers than fathers (Eberly & Montemayor, 1999), the impact of child disclosure on prosocial behavior may be stronger for mothers than for fathers. On the other hand, based on the findings that fathers take on a regulatory role of preventing children from negative behavior (Day & Padilla-Walker, 2009), we expected that paternal knowledge would be a stronger predictor for delinquency than maternal knowledge.

Research has also found meaningful differences in disclosure and parental knowledge as a function of reporter. More specifically, Kerr et al. (2010) have used single-rater models (youth-report; parent-report) and cross-rater models (youth- and parent-reports combined) to examine the links among child disclosure, parental knowledge, and delinquency and found that while child disclosure significantly predicted parental knowledge and delinquency in all four models, the child-reported model did not show significant association between knowledge and delinquency (although parent-reported models did). Given these differences and similarities in child- and parent-reports, we included mother-, father-, and child-report of child disclosure and parent–child relationship variables, and for all models, we used latent variables consisting of mother-, father-, and child-reported behavioral outcomes when available from all reporters. Given the previous findings on parent–child discrepancies (Dyer, Day, & Harper, 2013; Kerr et al., 2010) and on mother–father differences in views on their own parenting (Dyer, Day, & Harper, 2014), we thought it would be possible that child-, mother-, and father-reported models would differ from each other in meaningful ways.

Method

Participants

Participants were 463 adolescents and their mothers and fathers from Waves 3, 5, and 7 of a larger (N = 500) longitudinal study of family life where families participated once a year every summer starting in 2007. These waves were chosen because of available data and in an attempt to explore these associations from early through late adolescence. For parsimony, hereafter, we will refer to Waves 3, 5, and 7 as Times 1, 2, and 3 (M age of adolescents at Time 1 = 13.32, Time 2 = 15.29, Time 3 = 17.28; M age of mother was 45.14, 47.23, and 49.52; M age of father was 47.32, 49.51, and 51.01). At Time 1, 48% of adolescents were male, and 73% of families were European American, 13% African American, 8% multi-ethnic, and 5% other. In terms of family structure, 63% of parents were married, 15% divorced, 10% single never married, and 12% cohabiting, remarried, or single widowed. Average yearly income at Time 1 was approximately $60,000 per year, although 30% of families made less than $40,000 per year. Longitudinal retention from Time 1 to Time 3 was over 95%, and no differences were found on variables of interest between those who stayed in the study and those who did not.

Procedures

Participants for the study were selected from a large northwestern city in the U.S. and were recruited using a purchased national telephone survey database (Polk Directories/ InfoUSA). This database claimed to contain 82 million households across the U.S. and had detailed information about each household, including presence and age of children. Families identified using the Polk Directory were randomly selected from targeted census tracts that mirrored the socioeconomic and racial stratification of reports of local school districts. All families with a child between the ages of 10 and 14 years living within targeted census tracts were deemed eligible to participate in the study. Of the 692 eligible families contacted, 423 agreed to participate, resulting in a 61% response rate. In an attempt to more closely mirror the demographics of the local area, a limited number of families were recruited into the study through other means (e.g., referral, fliers; n = 77, 15%), resulting in 500 total families participating at the initial time point. For the first five waves, families were visited in their homes by undergraduate research assistants. Questionnaires were completed by each family member (where available) and video data of family interaction tasks were also collected (but not used in the current study). The last five waves were completed using online questionnaires. Thus, for the current study, Times 1 and 2 took place in the family’s home, while Time 3 was completed online. There were very few incidences of missing data (< 5%), but the Full Information Maximum Likelihood feature of MPLUS was used to deal with missing values.

Measures

Child disclosure and parental knowledge

Adolescents and parents responded to 4 items adapted from well-established measures (Kerr & Stattin, 2000) assessing routine child disclosure (Time 1, α range = .71–.92; e.g., “My child/I tells me/my parent about his/her/my day at school”) and 4 items assessing parental knowledge (Times 1 and 2, α range = .70-.89; e.g., “I/my parents know who my child’s/my friends are”). Responses were based on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Higher mean scores represent higher levels of child disclosure and parental knowledge.

Parental warmth and autonomy granting

Adolescents and parents responded to 5 items at Times 1 and 2 from the PSDQ (Robinson, Mandleco, Olsen, & Hart, 2001) assessing parental warmth/support (α range = .77–.86; e.g., “I/my parent am responsive to my child’s/my feelings and needs”) and 5 items assessing parental autonomy granting (α range = .77–.89; e.g., “I/my parent show respect for our child’s/my opinions by encouraging our child/me to express them”). Responses were given on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always), with higher mean scores indicating higher levels of the respective parenting behavior.

Prosocial behavior

Adolescents’ prosocial behavior toward strangers and family members were assessed at Times 1 and 3 using a modified version of the Kindness and Generosity subscale of the Values in Action Inventory of Strengths (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Adolescents responded to 9 items assessing prosocial behavior toward strangers (α range = .83–.86; e.g., “I help people I don’t know, even if it isn’t easy for me”) and adolescents and parents responded to 9 items assessing prosocial behavior toward family members (α range = .91–.92; e.g., “I/my child really enjoy doing small favors for my family”) on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not like me at all) to 5 (very much like me). Higher mean scores were indicative of more prosocial behavior toward strangers and family.

Delinquency

Adolescents and parents reported on adolescents’ delinquency (9 items, α range = .66–.83; e.g., “I/my child steal things from places other than home.”) at Times 1 and 3 (Barber, Stolz, Olsen, & Maughn, 2005). Responses ranged from 0 (not true) to 2 (often true), with higher mean scores representing higher levels of delinquent behavior.

Results

Descriptive statistics and correlations

Descriptive statistics and correlations between all study variables are represented in Tables 1 and 2. Table 1 includes correlations between parent-reported parenting and child behavioral outcomes, while Table 2 includes correlations between child-reported parenting and child behavioral outcomes. It is of note that in both parent- and child-reported models, child disclosure was positively associated with prosocial behavior and negatively associated with delinquency in almost every case. Also in both parent- and child-reported models, parental knowledge was more consistently associated with delinquency, while parental warmth and autonomy granting were more consistently associated with prosocial behavior.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics and correlations for parent-reported study variables.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	M	SD
1. Disclosure1	–	.38*	.41*	.60*	.35*	.47*	.28*	.32*	.15*	.45*	.18*	.26*	.17*	.29*	.25*	−.39*	−.26*	−.31*	−.23*	−.22*	−.23*	3.6	.94
2. Knowledge1	.63*	–	.56*	.31*	.33*	.24*	.20*	.24*	.22*	.28*	.18*	.19*	.22*	.11	.13^†	−.32*	−.24*	−.29*	−.32*	−.15*	−.28*	4.0	.77
3. Knowledge2	.40*	.55*	–	.34*	.47*	.27*	.33*	.18*	.09	.24*	13*	.16*	.04	.14*	.16*	−.33*	−.26*	−.25*	−.25*	−.11	−.25*	3.6	.86
4. Warmth1	.59*	.44*	.30*	–	.59*	.77*	.51*	.35*	.20*	.44*	.20*	.27*	.14*	.26*	.22*	−.27*	−.15*	−.20*	−.11^†	−.14^†	−.13^†	3.6	.87
5. Warmth2	.39*	.28*	.20*	.54*	–	.46*	.70*	.23*	.28*	.34*	.32*	.24*	.13*	.24*	.27*	−.14*	−.17*	−.20*	−.20*	−.06	−.17*	3.5	.86
6. Autonomy1	.49*	.36*	.30*	.78*	.47*	–	.58*	.36*	.21*	.39*	.19*	.26*	.16*	.26*	.19*	−.28*	−.11^†	−.22*	−.16*	−.22*	−.18*	3.3	.93
7. Autonomy2	.29*	.22*	.21*	.45*	.69*	.57*	–	.23*	.28*	.23*	.29*	.20*	.14*	.21*	.22*	−.11^†	−.13*	−.16*	−.22*	−.10	−.20*	3.2	.91
8. PBstranger1	.38*	.28*	.18*	.42*	.23*	.41*	.23*	–	.48*	.55*	.25*	.27*	.17*	.27*	.17*	−.28*	−.17*	−.24*	−.20*	−.26*	−.22*	3.1	.74
9. PBstranger3	.22*	.17*	.08	.30*	.27*	.28*	.25*	.48*	–	.26*	.46*	.18*	.17*	.17*	.13^†	−.17*	−.19*	−.11*	−.17*	−.08	−.23*	3.6	.75
10. PBfamily1CR	.47*	.31*	.24*	.48*	.31*	.43*	.25*	.55*	.25*	–	.41*	.44*	.33*	.44*	.29*	−.24*	−.14*	−.16*	−.13*	−.20*	−.18*	4.0	.81
11. PBfamily3CR	.25*	.15*	.07	.27*	.29*	.26*	.27*	.25*	.46*	.41*	–	.28*	.42*	.34*	.38*	−.10^†	−.17*	−.06	−.12*	−.16*	−.23*	4.1	.77
12. PBfamily1MR	.28*	.15*	.18*	.31*	.23*	.29*	.21*	.27*	.18*	.44*	.28*	–	.61*	.66*	.53*	−.16*	−.11^†	−.26*	−.17*	−.28*	−.24*	3.6	.83
13. PBfamily3MR	.21*	.07	.10*	.22*	.27*	.22*	.28*	.17*	.17*	.33*	.42*	.61*	–	.49*	.62*	−.11^†	−.20*	−.13*	−.33*	−.23*	−.2*	3.5	.91
14. PBfamily1FR	.28*	.16*	.24*	.27*	.21*	.31*	.18*	.27*	.17*	.44*	.34*	.66*	.49*	–	.68*	−.18*	−.12^†	−.27*	−.19*	−.38*	−.21*	3.5	.82
15. PBfamily3FR	.22*	.10	.18*	.22*	.23*	.21*	.21*	.17*	.13*	.29*	.38*	.53*	.62*	.68*	–	−.09	−.16*	−.20*	−.32*	−.26*	−.36*	3.3	.95
16. Del1CR	−.37*	−.42*	−.34*	−.24*	−.18*	−.26*	−.11^†	−.28*	−.17*	−.24*	−.10^†	−.16*	−.11^†	−.18*	−.09	–	.42*	.54*	.32*	.41*	.39*	.18	.24
17. Del3CR	−.23*	−.22*	−.18*	−.14*	−.16*	−.08	−.08	−.17*	−.19*	−.14*	−.17*	−.11*	−.20*	−.12^†	−.16*	.42*	–	.24*	.53*	.33*	.60*	.35	.32
18. Del1MR	−.29*	−.31*	−.27*	−.22*	−.27*	−.20*	−.22*	−.24*	−.11*	−.16*	−.06	−.26*	−.13*	−.27*	−.20*	.54*	.24*	–	.45*	.68*	.43*	.11	.20
19. Del3MR	−.17*	−.22*	−.20*	−.11^†	−.21*	−.11^†	−.22*	−.20*	−.17*	−.13*	−.12^†	−.17*	−.33*	−.19*	−.32*	.32*	.53*	.45*	–	.35*	.79*	.20	.30
20. Del1FR	−.19*	−.19*	−.20*	−.13^†	−.10	−.20*	−.08	−.26*	−.08	−.20*	−.16*	−.28*	−.23*	−.38*	−.26*	.41*	.33*	.68*	.35*	–	.44*	.08	.13
21. Del3FR	−.19*	−.17*	−.23*	−.14^†	−.15^†	−.16*	−.11^†	−.22*	.23*	−.18*	−.23*	−.24*	−.32*	−.21*	−.36*	.39*	.59*	.43*	.79*	.44*	–	.18	.25
M	3.8	4.4	3.8	3.8	3.7	3.3	3.3	3.1	3.6	4.0	4.0	3.6	3.5	3.5	3.3	.18	.35	.11	.20	.08	.18	–	–
SD	.87	.63	.97	.82	.82	.88	.89	.74	.75	.81	.77	.83	.91	.82	.95	.24	.32	.20	.30	.13	.25	–	–

Note. All correlations below the diagonal are for mother-reports of child disclosure and parenting, above the diagonal are for father-reports. Numbers after variable names represent the time point at which the variable was measured. PB = prosocial behavior; Del = delinquency; CR = child-report; MR = mother-report; FR = father-report.

^† p < .05; *p < .01.

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics and correlations for child-reported study variables.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	M	SD
1. Disclosure1	–	.49*	.44*	.49*	.47*	.37*	.38*	.25*	.10	.30*	.16*	.34*	.26*	.54*	.34*	−.26*	−.10	−.27*	−.13^†	−.41*	−.13^†	3.8	.64
2. Knowledge1	.46*	–	.64*	.40*	.31*	.29*	.19*	.09	−.02	.08	.04	.10	.08	.25*	.14^†	−.33*	−.17*	−.23*	−.10	−.38*	−.14^†	4.5	.44
3. Knowledge2	.44*	.21*	–	.32*	.37*	.23*	.25*	.06	−.06	.12^†	.05	.11	.09	.27*	.24*	−.26*	−.16*	−.27*	−.16*	−.28*	−.23*	4.3	.54
4. Warmth1	.34*	.32*	.21*	–	.76*	.66*	.58*	.06	.005	.16*	.13^†	.30*	.15*	.45*	.34*	−.04	−.04	−.08	.06	−.24*	−.03	3.9	.61
5. Warmth2	.30*	.18*	.32*	.64*	–	.50*	.64*	.06	.02	.12^†	.14^†	.25*	.21*	.42*	.39*	−.02	−.04	−.10	−.04	−.21*	−.09	3.8	.61
6. Autonomy1	.26*	.22*	.18*	.56*	.48*	–	.63*	.08	.03	.17*	.22*	.22*	.10	.38*	.23*	−.05	−.01	−.08	.004	−.21*	−.06	3.6	.66
7. Autonomy2	.20*	.17*	.22*	.42*	.56*	.67*	–	.11	.06	.09	.11	.12^†	.10	.32*	.24*	.001	.07	−06	.02	−.18*	.04	3.6	.61
8. PBstranger1	.27*	.13*	.14*	.09	.05	.11^†	.13*	–	.48*	.55*	.25*	.27*	.17*	.27*	.17*	−.28*	−.17*	−.24*	−.20*	−.26*	−.22*	3.1	.74
9. PBstranger3	.17*	.08	.13*	.04	.07	.06	.09	.48*	–	.26*	.46*	.18*.	.17*	.17*	.13^†	−.17*	−.19*	−.11*	−.17*	−.08	−.23*	3.6	.75
10. PBfamily1CR	.23*	.03	.16*	.17*	.23*	.19*	.13*	.55*	.25*	–	.41*	.44*	.33*	.44*	.29*	−.24*	−.14*	−.16*	−.13*	−.20*	−.18*	4.0	.81
11. PBfamily3CR	.13*	−.03	.11^†	.15*	.22*	.16*	.11^†	.25*	.46*	.41*	–	.28*	.42*	.34*	.38*	−.10^†	−.17*	−.06	−.12*	−.16*	−.23*	4.1	.77
12. PBfamily1MR	.48*	.25*	.27*	.38*	.36*	.32*	.29*	.27*	.18*	.44*	.28*	–	.61*	.66*	.53*	−.16*	−.11^†	−.26*	−.17*	−.28*	−.24*	3.6	.83
13. PB family3MR	.33*	.03	.25*	.30*	.38*	.25*	.28*	.17*	.17*	.33*	.42*	.61*	–	.49*	.62*	−.11^†	−.20*	−.13*	−.33*	−.23*	−.2*	3.5	.91
14. PBfamily1FR	.32*	.04	.13^†	.22*	.33*	.24*	.22*	.27*	.17*	.44*	.34*	.66*	.49*	–	.68*	−.18*	−.12^†	−.27*	−.19*	−.38*	−.21*	3.5	.82
15. PBfamily3FR	.24*	.03	.20*	.16*	.30*	.18*	.21*	.17*	.13*	.29*	.38*	.53*	.62*	.68*	–	−.09	−.16*	−.20*	−.32*	−.26*	−.36*	3.3	.95
16. Del1CR	−.27*	−.25*	−.29*	−.01	−.05	−.05	−.04	−.28*	−.17*	−.24*	−.10^†	−.16*	−.11^†	−.18*	−.09	–	.42*	.54*	.32*	.41*	.39*	.18	.24
17. Del3CR	−.11^†	−.07	−.22*	.02	−.06	.04	.05	−.17*	−.19*	−.14*	−.17*	−.11*	−.20*	−.12^†	−.16*	.42*	–	.24*	.53*	.33*	.60*	.35	.32
18. Del1MR	−.38*	−.40*	−.38*	−.07	.00	−.10^†	−.07	−.24*	−.11*	−.16*	−.06	−.26*	−.13*	−.27*	−.20*	.54*	.24*	–	.45*	.68*	.43*	.11	.20
19. Del3MR	−.24*	−.17*	−.41*	.05	−.05	.001	−.07	−.20*	−.17*	−.13*	−.12^†	−.17*	−.33*	−.19*	−.32*	.32*	.53*	.45*	–	.35*	.79*	.20	.30
20. Del1FR	−.35*	−.15*	−.22*	−.09	−.22*	−.15*	−.15*	−.26*	−.08	−.20*	−.16*	−.28*	−.23*	−.38*	−.26*	.41*	.33*	.68*	.35*	–	.44*	.08	.13
21. Del3FR	−.24*	−.07	−.29*	.01	−.10	−.04	−.06	−.22*	.23*	−.18*	−.23*	−.24*	−.32*	−.21*	−.36*	.39*	.59*	.43*	.79*	.44*	–	.18	.25
M	3.9	4.6	4.4	4.3	4.2	3.8	3.8	3.1	3.6	4.0	4.1	3.6	3.5	3.5	3.3	.18	.35	.11	.20	.08	.18	–
SD	.66	.42	.54	.51	.54	.64	.66	.74	.75	.81	.77	.83	.91	.82	.95	.24	.32	.20	.30	.13	.25

Note. All correlations below the diagonal are for child-reports of disclosure to mother and mothers’ parenting, above the diagonal are for child-report of disclosure to father and fathers’ parenting. Numbers after variable names represent the time point at which the variable was measured. PB = prosocial behavior; Del = delinquency; CR = child-report; MR = mother-report; FR = father-report.

^† p < .05; *p < .01.

Child disclosure, parent–child relationship, and adolescents’ positive and negative behaviors

To reduce shared method variance, we planned to create latent variables of all parenting and outcome variables consisting of child-, mother-, and father-reports, where data were available from all reporters. However, because adolescents’ and parents’ reports of child disclosure and parenting would not load together on latent variables, four separate structural equation models were conducted with different reporters of disclosure and parenting behavior (mother-report, father-report, child-report of mother, child-report of father), while outcome variables for each model (prosocial behavior toward family and delinquency) were latent variables consisting of mother, father, and child-reports of behavior. It is of note that prosocial behavior toward strangers was available only from adolescent reports. Each model examined the role of child disclosure at Time 1 on parental knowledge, warmth, and autonomy granting at Time 2 (after controlling for these three aspects of parenting at Time 1). In turn, parenting variables at Time 2 predicted child outcomes (prosocial behavior toward family and strangers, and delinquency) at Time 3 (with outcomes controlled for at Time 1). Direct paths from child disclosure to child outcomes were also explored. Gender and family income were used in all models as control variables (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Longitudinal associations between child disclosure and adolescent outcomes χ² (148) = 253.62–329.73, p < .001, CFI = .95–96, RMSEA = .04–.05. Standardized betas are reported in the order of MR = mother-report; FR = father-report; CM = child report of mother; CF = child-report of father. Nonsignificant coefficients (ns), covariances, and error correlations are not shown in the figure for parsimony. All variables measured at Time 2 and Time 3 were controlled at Time 1, but stability paths are also not shown in the figure. ^† p < .07; *p < .05; **p < .01; *** p < .001.

Mother-report

The mother-reported model had adequate model fit, χ² (148) = 309.26, p < .001, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .05 [.047–.061]. None of the direct effects from disclosure at Time 1 to child outcomes at Time 3 were statistically significant. Mother-report of child disclosure at Time 1 was positively associated with maternal knowledge (β = .22, p < .001) and maternal warmth (β = .10, p < .01) at Time 2. In turn, maternal knowledge at Time 2 was negatively associated with delinquency (β = −.26, p < .01) while maternal warmth was positively associated with prosocial behavior toward family (β = .17, p < .001). Gender (males had the higher coded value) was negatively associated with prosocial behavior toward family (β = −13, p < .05) and strangers (β = −.28, p < .001). It is also of note that stability paths from Time 1 to Time 2 for maternal knowledge (β = .47, p < .001), warmth (β = .59, p < .001), and autonomy granting (β = .64, p < .001) were significant. In all models, stability paths from Time 1 to Time 3 for prosocial behavior toward family (β = .66, p < .001) and strangers (β = .38, p < .001) and delinquency (β = .54, p < .001) were also statistically significant.

To examine indirect effects, we conducted bootstrapping analyses based on 2000 bootstrap resamples and a 95% CI. Results suggest that child disclosure at Time 1 was indirectly associated with prosocial behavior toward family (indirect effect = .02, CI = .004–.03, p < .05) at Time 3 via maternal warmth at Time 2; and was associated with delinquency (indirect effect = −.06, CI = −.09 to–.02, p < .01) at Time 3 via maternal knowledge at Time 2.

Father-report

The father-reported model also had adequate model fit, χ² (148) = 253.62, p < .001, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .04 [.031–.047]. None of the direct effects from disclosure at Time 1 to child outcomes at Time 3 were statistically significant. Father-report of child disclosure at Time 1 was positively associated with paternal knowledge (β = .17, p < .001), paternal warmth (β = .18, p < .001), and parental autonomy granting (β = .21, p < .001) at Time 2. In turn, paternal warmth at Time 2 was positively associated with prosocial behavior toward family at Time 3 (β = .17, p < .01) and paternal autonomy granting was positively associated with delinquency at Time 3 (β = .18, p < .05). Gender (males had the higher coded value) was negatively associated with prosocial behavior toward strangers (β = −.20, p < .001). It is also of note that stability paths from Time 1 to Time 2 for paternal knowledge (β = .60 p < .001), warmth (β = .66, p < .001), and autonomy granting (β = .57, p < .001) were significant.

To examine indirect effects, we conducted bootstrapping analyses based on 2,000 bootstrap resamples and a 95% CI. Results suggest that child disclosure at Time 1 was indirectly associated with prosocial behavior toward family (indirect effect = .03, CI = .01–.05, p < .05) at Time 3 via paternal warmth at Time 2; and was associated with delinquency (indirect effect = .04, CI = .01-.07, p = .05) at Time 3 via paternal autonomy granting at Time 2.

Child-report of mother

The child-report of mother model had adequate model fit, χ² (148) = 329.73, p < .001, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .05 [.042–.057]. None of the direct effects from disclosure at Time 1 to child outcomes at Time 3 were statistically significant. Child-report of child disclosure at Time 1 was positively associated with maternal warmth (β = .13, p < .01) at Time 2. In turn, maternal warmth was marginally positively associated with prosocial behavior toward family (β = .09, p = .069) and strangers (β = .09, p = .065). Gender (males had the higher coded value) was negatively associated with prosocial behavior toward strangers (β = −.29, p < .001). It is also of note that stability paths from Time 1 to Time 2 for maternal knowledge (β = .77, p < .001), warmth (β = .44, p < .001), and autonomy granting (β = .52, p < .001) were significant. Indirect effects were examined, but none were statistically significant.

Child-report of father

The child-report of father model had adequate model fit, χ² (148) = 294.16, p < .001, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .04 [.038–.058]. None of the direct effects from disclosure at Time 1 to child outcomes at Time 3 were statistically significant. Child-report of child disclosure at Time 1 was positively associated with paternal knowledge (β = .26, p < .001) at Time 2. In turn, paternal knowledge at Time 2 was negatively associated with delinquency at Time 3 (β = −.16, p = .01). Gender (males had the higher coded value) was negatively associated with prosocial behavior toward strangers (β = −.20, p < .001). It is also of note that stability paths from Time 1 to Time 2 for paternal knowledge (β = .46, p < .001), warmth (β = .50, p < .001), and autonomy granting (β = .57, p < .001) were significant.

Discussion

The purpose of this longitudinal study was to examine links between child disclosure and aspects of the parent–child relationship (parental knowledge, parental autonomy granting, parental warmth/support), and explore how parenting was associated with adolescents’ prosocial and delinquent behaviors. While past studies on child disclosure have focused on the prevention of negative outcomes rather than the promotion of prosocial outcomes (Laird & Zeringue, in press), the current study extends existing research by longitudinally assessing the role of child disclosure on prosocial behavior as well as delinquency and by identifying aspects of the parent–child relationship that account for these associations. Consistent with hypotheses, child disclosure was longitudinally associated with parental knowledge and parental warmth, which were in turn associated with delinquency and prosocial behavior toward family members. In addition, patterns were somewhat different as a function of the reporter. These findings build on past research by suggesting that the parent–child relationship is an important mechanism through which child disclosure impacts outcomes during adolescence.

Child disclosure and prosocial outcomes

While past research suggests that child disclosure is related to positive behavioral outcomes (e.g., positive coping; Almas et al., 2011), prosocial behavior has not been consistently considered as an outcome in the literature on child disclosure. Given past research that has found a link between child disclosure and the parent–child relationship (Cumsille et al., 2010), as well as a link between the parent–child relationship and prosocial behavior (Eisenberg et al., 2015), we thought it possible that child disclosure might also indirectly promote adolescent prosocial behavior. Consistent with hypotheses, our findings indicated that child disclosure was longitudinally and indirectly associated with prosocial behavior toward family (mother- and father-reported models), but generally not significantly associated with prosocial behavior toward strangers. As reconceptualizations of parental monitoring have distinguished child disclosure from parental monitoring efforts (Kerr et al., 2010), studies on child disclosure have mainly focused on negative outcomes (e.g., Criss et al., 2015). Our results are among the first to show the role of children’s routine disclosure in the development of positive behavior in adolescents. This finding has important implications for intervention efforts and parenting education, as it suggests that helping parents to facilitate child disclosure can both deter negative outcomes and promote positive outcomes.

Furthermore, we found that child-disclosure (mother- and father-reported models) was indirectly related to prosocial behavior toward family via parental warmth. Through parent–child discourse, parents become aware not only of youth’s daily activities but may also engage in conversations with their children that build trust and understanding, both of which may help foster positive parent–child relationships (Cumsille et al., 2010). Parent–child warmth and support are in turn protective, suggesting that disclosure is positive in part because it strengthens the parent–child relationship. Based on self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000), child disclosure may be understood as a process through which children enjoy greater connection with their parents (Frijns & Finkenauer, 2009) and thus are motivated to behave more prosocially in order to maintain that relationship (Lewis, 2014). This suggests that child disclosure may be viewed as a relational construct rather than mere reports of a child’s activities to their parents. Establishing a home environment wherein adolescents frequently and willingly share information about their unsupervised activities can enhance parent–child relationships and promote positive behavior at home. The general lack of significance between disclosure to parents and prosocial behavior toward strangers may be explained by the relational approach to prosocial behavior (Lewis, 2014). While prosocial behavior toward an unspecified target may be driven by temperamental characteristics (Knafo & Plomin, 2006), prosocial behavior toward family is motivated primarily by the quality of the relationship. Thus, our findings support the relational approach in that positive parent–child relationships promote prosocial behavior for that specific dyad, not across all general targets. Future research should continue to distinguish the targets of prosocial behavior to capture the multidimensionality of prosocial behavior.

Child disclosure and delinquency

Routine child disclosure was also longitudinally and indirectly associated with delinquency, which is consistent with past findings regarding the protective role of child disclosure against delinquent outcomes (e.g., Keijsers et al., 2009). Our results also suggested that one of the reasons child disclosure protects against delinquency is because it is associated with increase in parental knowledge (mother- and child-report of father models). These findings are consistent with past research that parental knowledge plays a regulatory role in keeping adolescents from engaging in harmful behavior because it facilitates effective parental monitoring (Lippold et al., 2014). It is also of note that father-reports of parental autonomy granting mediated the associations between child disclosure and delinquency, but contrary to our hypothesis autonomy granting predicted increased levels of delinquency. This positive association between parental autonomy granting and delinquency was not evident in bivariate correlations, so this finding should be interpreted with caution. This is especially important because this finding conflicts with past research suggesting parental autonomy granting is associated with lower levels of delinquency (Pinquart, 2017).

Differences as a function of reporter

As family members often perceive and experience their relationships differently, data from multiple reporters can provide meaningful disparities and similarities that better capture the complexity of family dynamics (Holmbeck, Li, Schurman, Friedman, & Coakley, 2002). While past research on disclosure has utilized both parent- and child-reports, distinguishing the influence of reporter has been difficult because the majority of the parent-report was actually from mothers (e.g., 70%; Kerr et al., 2010); child disclosure and behavioral outcomes were reported only by children while parenting measures were only reported by parents (Almas et al., 2011), or parent- and child-reports were combined into one construct (Criss et al., 2015). Our study sought to add to this understanding by examining reports from mother, father, and child on child disclosure, parenting, and child behaviors (with the exception of prosocial behavior toward strangers). Our findings showed that general patterns of child-reported models differed from parent-reported models, although we were unable to test this statistically because separate models were used. However, these patterns are consistent with other studies reporting child-reports vary from parent-reports (Laird & LaFleur, 2016). Specifically, while parent-reported models (both mother and father) suggested significant indirect effects via parental warmth, child-reported models did not, which is consistent with previous results finding significance in parent-reported models but not in child-reports (Kerr et al., 2010).

In addition, adolescents’ reports on the outcomes of disclosure varied by parent’s gender, with child-report of mother promoting prosocial behavior toward family via greater maternal warmth (at the trend level), while child-reports of father predicted delinquency via higher paternal knowledge. Children may perceive mothers to be more influential in fostering helping behaviors through maternal warmth since mothers express more emotions than fathers in parent–child conversations (Fivush, Brotman, Buckner, & Goodman, 2000). On the other hand, as fathers take on a regulatory role in helping children avoid problem behaviors (Day & Padilla-Walker, 2009), children may perceive parent–child communication as a father’s way of monitoring their behaviors. Previous research has also suggested that fathers may view their own parenting differently than do other family members (Dyer et al., 2014). As father-reports on child disclosure and developmental outcomes are scarce, future search should continue to use multisource data that include father-reports to better capture the influence of reporter. In addition, future research that includes both parent and child reports in the same model should test for statistical significance of different patterns in an attempt to better understand how associations between disclosure, parenting, and child outcomes differ as a function of reporter.

Limitations and conclusions

It is of note that there are limitations of the study that need to be addressed. The sample in the current study consisted mainly of middle-class, White families, so generalization to other populations should be made with caution. Future research should examine whether these results differ based on various demographic factors, including income and ethnicity. In addition, although the current study benefitted from a longitudinal design and controlled for all parenting and behavioral outcomes at the initial time point, we are unable to determine the direction of effects. As research has shown that adolescent behavior and parenting are bidirectional (e.g., Padilla-Walker et al., 2012) and that children’s delinquency predicts disclosure, it would be important for future research to conduct studies on the reciprocal relationships between parenting, child disclosure, and developmental outcomes. While it was a strength that the current study considered the perspective of multiple reporters, and that outcome variables were measured using all three reports of behavior, additional methodology (e.g., observations, teacher-report) would be beneficial in future research to reduce the bias of self-report. We also did not have a sufficient sample size to explore child gender as a moderating factor in these relationships, which will be an important avenue for future research as potentially meaningful patterns between parent and child gender are explored. Furthermore, our study only included a measure of routine disclosure. Building upon a study that found routine disclosure and self-disclosure (i.e., revealing private information) to be highly correlated and similarly associated with parenting practices (Milaković, Glatz, & Pećnik, 2018), it would be important to empirically examine the conceptual difference in the definitions and functions of self- versus routine disclosure (Tilton-Weaver et al., 2014). For example, we might expect self-disclosure to be even more strongly associated with improvement in the parent–child relationship than was routine disclosure given the personal nature of self-disclosure. Similarly, several studies on disclosure have explored various domains (e.g., prudential; Smetana et al., 2009), and found that examining disclosure in these different domains is important for capturing the meaningful complexities of disclosure. Unfortunately, we were not able to account for domain of disclosure in the current study, but future research should continue to assess both routine and self-disclosure in multiple contexts.

Despite these limitations, this study extends the research on child disclosure and adolescent behavior in several notable ways. Using data from multiple reporters, this study is among the first to longitudinally explore the processes through which disclosure is linked to prosocial and delinquent behavior by examining parent–child warmth, parental knowledge, and parental autonomy granting as mechanisms. Findings highlighted links between child disclosure and prosocial behavior as a function of parental warmth, whereas links between child disclosure and delinquency were a function of parental knowledge. These mechanisms are important to consider because of the implications they have for parental education and intervention efforts involving family process and child outcomes. The present findings also are among the first to examine the longitudinal links between child disclosure and prosocial behavior toward different targets. While previous literature on disclosure has mainly focused on negative behaviors as outcomes, our findings also demonstrate the importance of disclosure in the development of prosocial child outcomes. This is of particular importance because adolescents develop increasing cognitive capacities (e.g., perspective taking; Fabes, Carlo, Kupanoff, & Laible, 1999) to engage in helpful behavior and prosocial behavior is a strong indication of social competence during adolescence (Wentzel, 2014). Future research should explore various additional positive and moral outcomes that might be associated with child disclosure and the subsequent parent–child relationship.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Almas

A. N.

Grusec

J. E.

Tackett

J. L.

(2011). Children’s disclosure and secrecy: Links to maternal parenting characteristics and children’s coping skills. Social Development, 20, 624–643. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2010.00602.x

Barber

B. K.

Stolz

H. E.

Olsen

J. A.

Maughn

S. L.

(2005). Parental support, psychological control, and behavioral control: Assessing relevance across time, culture, and method. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 70.

Brinke

L. W.

Deković

Stoltz

S. J.

Cillessen

A. N.

(2017). Bidirectional effects between parenting and aggressive child behavior in the context of a preventive intervention. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 45, 921–934. doi:10.1007/s10802-016-0211-3

Chan

H. Y.

Brown

B. B.

Von Bank

(2015). Adolescent disclosure of information about peers: The mediating role of perceptions of parents’ right to know. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44, 1048–1065. doi:10.1007/s10964-015-0261-9

Chaparro

M. P.

Grusec

J. E.

(2015). Parent and adolescent intentions to disclose and links to positive social behavior. Journal of Family Psychology, 29, 49–58. doi:10.1037/fam0000040

Criss

M. M.

Lee

T. K.

Morris

A. S.

Cui

Bosler

C. D.

Shreffler

K. M.

Silk

J. S.

(2015). Link between monitoring behavior and adolescent adjustment: An analysis of direct and indirect effects. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24, 668–678. doi:10.1007/s10826-013-9877-0

Crouter

A. C.

Head

M. R.

(2002). Parental monitoring and knowledge of children. In Bornstein

M. H.

(Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 3. Being and becoming a parent (2nd ed., pp. 461– 483). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cumsille

Darling

Martínez

M. L.

(2010). Shading the truth: The patterning of adolescents’ decisions to avoid issues, disclose, or lie to parents. Journal of Adolescence, 33, 285–296. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.10.008

Darling

Cumsille

Caldwell

L. L.

Dowdy

(2006). Predictors of adolescents’ disclosure to parents and perceived parental knowledge: Between-and within-person differences. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35, 659–670.

10.

Day

R. D.

Padilla-Walker

L. M.

(2009). Mother and father connectedness and involvement during early adolescence. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 900–904. doi:10.1037/a0016438

11.

Dyer

W. J.

Day

R. D.

Harper

J. M.

(2013). Wrestling Proteus: Assessing the varying nature of father involvement across contexts. Journal of Marriage and Family, 75, 837–857. doi:10.1111/jomf.12036

12.

Dyer

W. J.

Day

R. D.

Harper

J. M.

(2014). Father involvement: Identifying and predicting family members’ shared and unique perceptions. Journal of Family Psychology, 28, 516–528. doi:10.1037/a0036903

13.

Eberly

M. B.

Montemayor

(1999). Adolescent affection and helpfulness toward parents: A 2-year follow-up. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 19, 226–248. doi:10.1177/0272431699019002005

14.

Eisenberg

Fabes

R. A.

Karbon

Murphy

B. C.

Wosinski

Polazzi

… Juhnke

(1996). The relations of children’s dispositional prosocial behavior to emotionality, regulation, and social functioning. Child Development, 67, 974–992.

15.

Eisenberg

Spinrad

T. L.

Knafo-Noam

(2015). Prosocial development. In Lerner

R. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science (7th ed., pp. 184–207). New York, NY: Wiley. doi:10.1002/9781118963418.childpsy315

16.

Fabes

R. A.

Carlo

Kupanoff

Laible

(1999). Early adolescence and prosocial/moral behavior I: The role of individual processes. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 19, 5–16. doi:10.1177/0272431699019001001

17.

Fivush

Brotman

M. A.

Buckner

J. P.

Goodman

S. H.

(2000). Gender differences in parent–child emotion narratives. Sex Roles, 42, 233–253. doi:10.1023/a:1007091207068

18.

Fletcher

A. C.

Steinberg

Williams-Wheeler

(2004). Parental influences on adolescent problem behavior: Revisiting Stattin and Kerr. Child Development, 75, 781–796. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00706.x

19.

Frensch

K. M.

Pratt

M. W.

Norris

J. E.

(2007). Foundations of generativity: Personal and family correlates of emerging adults’ generative life-story themes. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 45–62. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2006.01.005

20.

Frijns

Finkenauer

(2009). Longitudinal associations between keeping a secret and psychosocial adjustment in adolescence. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 33, 145–154. doi:10.1177/0165025408098020

21.

Grusec

J. E.

Goodnow

J. J.

(1994). Impact of parental discipline methods on the child’s internalization of values: A reconceptualization of current points of view. Developmental Psychology, 30, 4–19. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.30.1.4

22.

Hastings

P. D.

Rubin

K. H.

DeRose

(2005). Links among gender, inhibition, and parental socialization in the development of prosocial behavior. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 51, 467–493. doi:10.1353/mpq.2005.0023

23.

Holmbeck

G. N.

S. T.

Schurman

J. V.

Friedman

Coakley

R. M.

(2002). Collecting and managing multisource and multimethod data in studies of pediatric populations. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 27, 5–18. doi:10.1093/jpepsy/27.1.5

24.

Keijsers

Frijns

Branje

S. J.

Meeus

(2009). Developmental links of adolescent disclosure, parental solicitation, and control with delinquency: Moderation by parental support. Developmental Psychology, 45, 1314–1327. doi:10.1037/a0016693

25.

Kerr

Stattin

(2000). What parents know, how they know it, and several forms of adolescent adjustment: Further support for a reinterpretation of monitoring. Developmental Psychology, 36, 366–380. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.36.3.366

26.

Kerr

Stattin

Burk

W. J.

(2010). A reinterpretation of parental monitoring in longitudinal perspective. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20, 39–64. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2009.00623.x

27.

Kerr

Stattin

Trost

(1999). To know you is to trust you: Parents’ trust is rooted in child disclosure of information. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 737–752. doi:10.1006/jado.1999.0266

28.

Knafo

Plomin

(2006). Prosocial behavior from early to middle childhood: Genetic and environmental influences on stability and change. Developmental Psychology, 42, 771–786. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.42.5.771

29.

Laird

R. D.

LaFleur

L. K.

(2016). Disclosure and monitoring as predictors of mother–adolescent agreement in reports of early adolescent rule-breaking behavior. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 45, 188–200.

30.

Laird

R. D.

Marrero

M. D.

(2010). Information management and behavior problems: Is concealing misbehavior necessarily a sign of trouble? Journal of Adolescence, 33, 297–308. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.05.018

31.

Laird

R.D.

Zeringue

M. M.

(in press). Parental knowledge and child disclosure as they relate to prosocial and antisocial behaviors. In Laible

Padilla-Walker

L. M.

Carlo

, (Eds.), Oxford handbook of parenting and moral development. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

32.

Lewis

M. E.

(2014). Parents as recipients of adolescent prosocial behavior. In Padilla-Walker

L. M.

Carlo

(Eds.), Prosocial development: A multidimensional approach (pp. 305–326). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

33.

Lippold

M. A.

Greenberg

M. T.

Graham

J. W.

Feinberg

M. E.

(2014). Unpacking the effect of parental monitoring on early adolescent problem behavior: Mediation by parental knowledge and moderation by parent–youth warmth. Journal of Family Issues, 35, 1800–1823. doi:10.1177/0192513x13484120

34.

Milaković

Glatz

Pećnik

(2018). How do parents facilitate or inhibit adolescent disclosure? The role of adolescents’ psychological needs satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 35, 1118–1138.

35.

Padilla-Walker

L. M.

Carlo

Christensen

K. J.

Yorgason

J. B.

(2012). Bidirectional relations between authoritative parenting and adolescents’ prosocial behaviors. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 22, 400–408. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2012.00807.x

36.

Padilla-Walker

L. M.

Carlo

Nielson

M. G.

(2015). Does helping keep teens protected? Longitudinal bidirectional relations between prosocial behavior and problem behavior. Child Development, 86, 1759–1772. doi:10.1111/cdev.12411

37.

Padilla-Walker

L. M.

Son

Nelson

L. J.

(2017). A longitudinal growth mixture model of child disclosure to parents across adolescence. Journal of Family Psychology. Advance online publication.

38.

Peterson

Seligman

M. E. P.

(2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Washington, DC: Oxford University Press.

39.

Philbrook

L. E.

Teti

D. M.

(2016). Bidirectional associations between bedtime parenting and infant sleep: Parenting quality, parenting practices, and their interaction. Journal of Family Psychology, 30, 431–441. doi:10.1037/fam0000198

40.

Pinquart

(2017). Associations of parenting dimensions and styles with externalizing problems of children and adolescents: An updated meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 53, 873–932. doi:10.1037/dev0000295

41.

Racz

S. J.

McMahon

R. J.

(2011). The relationship between parental knowledge and monitoring and child and adolescent conduct problems: A 10-year update. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 14, 377–398. doi:10.1007/s10567-011-0099-y

42.

Robinson

C. C.

Mandleco

Olsen

S. F.

Hart

C. H.

(2001). The parenting styles and dimensions questionnaire (PSDQ). In Perlmutter

B. F.

Touliatos

Holden

G. W.

(Eds.), Handbook of family measurement techniques: Vol. 3. Instruments & index (pp. 319–321). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

43.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.

44.

Smetana

J. G.

Villalobos

Tasopoulos-Chan

Gettman

D. C.

Campione-Barr

(2009). Early and middle adolescents' disclosure to parents about activities in different domains. Journal of Adolescence, 32, 693–713. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.06.010

45.

Tilton-Weaver

L. C.

Marshall

S. K.

Darling

(2014). What’s in a name? Distinguishing between routine disclosure and self-disclosure. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 24, 551–563. doi:10.1111/jora.12090

46.

Updegraff

K. A.

Delgado

M. Y.

Wheeler

L. A.

(2009). Exploring mothers’ and fathers’ relationships with sons versus daughters: Links to adolescent adjustment in Mexican immigrant families. Sex Roles, 60, 559–574. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9527-y

47.

Wentzel

K. R.

(2014). Prosocial behavior and peer relations in adolescence. In Padilla-Walker

L. M.

Carlo

(Eds.), Prosocial development: A multidimensional approach (pp. 178–200). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.