mothers’ explicit and implicit moral identity, parenting and by … · 2015-06-22 · mothers’...
Post on 23-Apr-2020
3 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Mothers’ Explicit and Implicit Moral Identity, Parenting and
Adolescent Moral Development
by
David O'Neill
A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements
for the degree of Master of Arts
Graduate Department of Psychology
University of Toronto
© Copyright by David O'Neill 2014
Mothers’ Explicit and Implicit Moral Identity, Parenting and Adolescent Moral Development
David O'Neill
Master of Arts
Department of Psychology
University of Toronto
2014
Abstract
Grusec and Goodnow (1994) proposed a framework wherein children’s internalization of values
depends upon the accurate perception and acceptance of parents’ values. The present research
attempted to demonstrate the utility of the proposed framework. Using a longitudinal approach
with measures taken at two time points, reasoning, directiveness and ignoring misbehaviour were
examined as potential moderators of the relation between maternal moral identity, explicit and
implicit, and adolescents’ internalization of moral values. Two measures of adolescent
internalization were used: mother-adolescent value congruency and adolescent relative autonomy.
The results indicated that higher levels of reasoning moderated the relation between maternal
implicit moral identity and adolescent moral values, lower levels of directiveness moderated the
relation between maternal explicit moral identity and adolescent moral values, and lower levels
of ignoring misbehaviour moderated the relation between maternal explicit moral identity and
adolescent relative autonomy. The theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
ii
Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... ii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. vi
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... vii
List of Appendices ....................................................................................................................... viii
Mothers’ Explicit and Implicit Moral Identity, Parenting and Adolescent Moral Development ... 1
Parenting Styles vs. Strategies .................................................................................................... 1
Parenting Strategies and Internalization of Values ..................................................................... 2
Moral Identity .............................................................................................................................. 3
Explicit vs. Implicit Moral Identity ............................................................................................. 4
Adolescent internalization ........................................................................................................... 6
Parenting as a Moderator between Moral Identity and Internalization ....................................... 7
Reasoning ................................................................................................................................ 7
Ignoring misbehaviour ............................................................................................................. 8
Directiveness ........................................................................................................................... 9
Summary of Hypotheses ........................................................................................................... 10
Methods......................................................................................................................................... 12
Participants ................................................................................................................................ 12
Measures .................................................................................................................................... 12
Mother explicit moral identity ............................................................................................... 12
Mother implicit moral identity .............................................................................................. 14
Adolescent internalization ..................................................................................................... 14
iii
Parenting ................................................................................................................................ 15
Procedure ................................................................................................................................... 16
Time 1 .................................................................................................................................... 16
Time 2 .................................................................................................................................... 17
Results ........................................................................................................................................... 18
Preliminary analyses ................................................................................................................. 18
Data screening ....................................................................................................................... 18
Mothers’ Parenting as Moderator .............................................................................................. 19
Mothers’ Explicit Moral Identity and Adolescent Moral Values .............................................. 21
Reasoning .............................................................................................................................. 21
Directiveness ......................................................................................................................... 21
Ignoring misbehaviour ........................................................................................................... 22
Mothers’ Implicit Moral Identity and Adolescent Moral Values .............................................. 22
Reasoning .............................................................................................................................. 22
Directiveness ......................................................................................................................... 23
Ignoring misbehaviour ........................................................................................................... 23
Mothers’ Explicit Moral Identity and Adolescent Relative Autonomy .................................... 24
Reasoning .............................................................................................................................. 24
Directiveness ......................................................................................................................... 24
Ignoring misbehaviour ........................................................................................................... 24
Mothers’ Implicit Moral Identity and Adolescent Relative Autonomy .................................... 25
iv
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 25
Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 27
Explicit versus Implicit Moral Identity ..................................................................................... 27
Reasoning .................................................................................................................................. 28
Directiveness ............................................................................................................................. 30
Ignoring Misbehaviour .............................................................................................................. 32
Implications for Parenting ......................................................................................................... 33
Limitations and Future Directions ............................................................................................. 34
Future Directions ................................................................................................................... 36
Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 37
Appendices .................................................................................................................................... 44
v
List of Tables
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics for All Study Variables ………….……………………….19
Table 2: Correlations among Mother Moral Identity, Parenting and
Adolescent Moral Outcomes …………………………………………...……….20
Table 3: Non-Significant Moderation Models Predicting
Adolescent Moral Outcomes …….………………………………………...……44
Table 4: Moderation Model with Directiveness as the Moderator………………………..48
Table 5: Moderation Model with Reasoning as the Moderator…….……………………..49
Table 6: Moderation Model with Ignoring Misbehaviour as the Moderator………………………………………………………………………..50
vi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Features of parenting behaviors promoting accurate perception and acceptance (internalization) of a parent’s message ………………………….3
Figure 2: The conditional effect of mother explicit moral identity at time 1 on adolescent moral values at time 2 as a function of mother directiveness at time 1 …………………………………………………………...22
Figure 3: The conditional effect of mother implicit moral identity at time 1 on adolescent moral values at time 2 as a function of mother reasoning at time 1 ………………………………………………………………23
Figure 4: The conditional effect of mother explicit moral identity at time 1 on
adolescent relative autonomy at time 2 as a function of mother ignoring misbehaviour at time 1 ………………………………………………...25
vii
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Tables of Moderation Models …………………………………………………...44
Appendix B: List of PVQ Items ……………………………………………………………….51
Appendix C: Prosocial Self-Regulation Questionnaire (PRQ-P) …………………………...…53
Appendix D: Consent Forms …………………………………………………………………..54
viii
1
Mothers’ Explicit and Implicit Moral Identity, Parenting and Adolescent Moral Development
Grusec and Goodnow (1994) proposed a reconceptualization of the effect of parenting on
the child’s internalization of values, stating that the child’s internalization of values may depend
on the parent’s characteristics and childrearing practices, with the former influencing the
accurate perception of the parent’s values, and the latter influencing the acceptance of the
parent’s values. Parent characteristics refer to attributes that mediate the meaning of parenting
behaviors (Grusec & Goodnow, 1994). The present research examined the combined effect of
one parent characteristic, specifically maternal moral identity, and parenting practices on
adolescent internalization of moral values. Moral identity refers to the extent to which a person
believes being a moral person is important to his or her identity (Hardy & Carlo, 2011). Using a
longitudinal approach, with measures taken at two time points, parenting practices were
examined as potential moderators of the relation between maternal moral identity and
adolescents’ internalization of moral values.
Parenting Styles vs. Strategies
In the research literature, two dimensions of parenting figure prominently: the first is
labelled warmth/responsiveness; the second is labelled demandingness (Maccoby & Martin,
1983). Warmth/responsiveness refers to the degree to which the parent expresses affection
towards the child as well as the degree to which the parent is responsive and sensitive to the
needs of the child. Demandingness refers to the degree to which the parent attempts to control
the child as well as to the level of expectations from the parent (Maccoby & Martin, 1983).
Though the dimensions approach to parenting styles has been invaluable to developmental
research, Darling and Steinberg (1993) proposed that it is only by making a distinction between
parenting styles and parenting practices that researchers are able to address questions of
2
socialization. Parenting practices refer to specific behaviors that are defined by content and
socialization goals and/or values, whereas parenting styles refer to the constellation of attitudes
towards the child that the parent communicates to the child by various means: behaviors, tone of
voice, body language, etc. (Darling & Steinberg, 1993). Parenting styles, which encompass
parenting practices, can be displayed over a wide range of parent-child interactions. Furthermore,
previous research has demonstrated that, although parents may be prone to use a particular
overall parenting style, the parenting strategies used in any given situation will vary according to
the nature of that situation. For example, a mother may use a combination of power assertive
and reasoning in response to the child’s antisocial behavior, such as lying or stealing, whereas
she may only use reasoning in the case of the child’s failure to be prosocial (Grusec & Goodnow,
1994). Thus, the present research focused on the potential moderating effects of specific
parenting practices rather than overall parenting styles.
Parenting Strategies and Internalization of Values
Using an information-processing framework, Grusec and Goodnow (1994) proposed a
reconceptualization and expanded formulation of the effects of parenting, particularly parental
discipline methods, on the child’s internalization of values. They argued that internalization is
dependent upon the child’s accurate perception and acceptance of the parenting message (see
Figure 1). Parent characteristics, such as moral identity, have features that influence the accurate
perception of the parent’s message, including the clarity and consistency of the parent’s message.
Parenting practices, on the other hand, have features that influence the child’s acceptance of
values, such as being perceived as appropriate, motivating the child to accept the parenting
message, and facilitating feelings of self-generation (Grusec & Goodnow, 1994). However, it is
not enough that the child either accurately perceives or accepts the parenting message; it is only
3
through the combination of accurate perception and acceptance that the child will come to
internalize the parent’s values. The present research was an attempt to demonstrate the utility of
the proposed framework.
Figure 1. Features of parenting behaviors promoting accurate perception and acceptance
(internalization) of a parent’s message. NOTE: figure taken from Grusec and Goodnow (1994)
Moral Identity
As noted previously, the present research examined maternal moral identity as a parent
characteristic that may influence the accurate perception of maternal moral values. The notion of
moral identity stems from the concept of self-identity. People may hold certain beliefs and
4
values as important and identify themselves based on these positive or negative traits (Blasi,
1983). Moral identity, then, is the extent to which a person believes being a moral person is
important to his or her identity (Hardy & Carlo, 2011). An important source of moral motivation
may stem from moral identity, as an individual who believes being a moral person and acting in
moral ways is important, it is argued, is more likely to actually perform moral actions when the
opportunity arises (Hardy & Carlo, 2011).
Mothers who are high in moral identity may be more likely to want to teach these values
to their children and, therefore, have the teaching of moral values as an important parenting goal.
Through their actions and behaviors, they would be expected to consistently demonstrate and
teach their children about the importance of moral values and behaviour. For example, mothers
who hold values of honesty, kindness and/or generosity may volunteer within the local
community or donate to charity and encourage their children to do similarly. These behaviors
and encouragement give the child a clear and consistent message as to the importance of moral
values to the mother, thereby facilitating the accurate perception and possible internalization of
her values.
Explicit vs. Implicit Moral Identity
The most common approach to assessing moral identity has focused on explicit measures.
Individuals are typically asked to imagine a person with a moral trait and report how important it
is for them to be like this person or to rate moral and non-moral traits in terms of their
importance to their sense of self (Aquino & Reed, 2002; Arnold, 1994; Johnston, Sherman, &
Grusec, 2013; Krettenauer & Mosleh, 2013). However, there has been a growing concern that
explicit measures of moral identity are susceptible to self-presentational biases as well as the
individual’s introspective limitations. Thus, it is argued that a distinction should be maintained
5
between explicit and implicit moral identity (Schnabel, Asendorpf, & Greenwald, 2008).
Implicit moral identity is primarily assessed using the Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald,
McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998). The test uses reactions times as a measure of the strength of
associations between the individual’s self-identity and moral traits. Previous research suggests
that implicit measures of identity are better at predicting real-life responses than explicit
measures (Johnston et al., 2013) as well as reduce the possibility of self-presentational biases.
Therefore, the present research utilized both explicit and implicit moral identity measures in
order to assess their effects on the choice of parenting strategies as well as their effect on the
internalization of adolescent moral values.
Since implicit moral identity is argued to be a better predictor of real-life reactions and
behaviors, it was expected that mother implicit moral identity would also lead, overall, to greater
internalization on the part of adolescents. It is possible that implicit moral identity would more
likely lead to actions and parenting behaviors that facilitate the accurate perception of the
parent’s moral values. A mother acting in moral ways on a regular basis, such as donating to
charity, volunteering in the community, etc., leaves little doubt as to her values; in this case,
concern for others. However, in the case of maternal explicit identity, it may be that, though
mothers may report higher levels of explicit moral identity, this is not what is being perceived by
the adolescent. For example, Smetana (1995) found that adolescents tended to view parents as
more authoritarian and permissive than parents viewed themselves, while parents viewed
themselves as more authoritative than did adolescents. Since explicit measures do not relate to
behavior to the same extent that implicit measures are argued to relate to behavior, mothers high
in explicit moral identity may talk about moral values and discuss them with their children but
will not model the behavior to the same extent as mothers who are high in implicit moral identity.
6
Simply put, mothers high in implicit moral identity may be better at fostering the adolescent’s
accurate perception of their moral values. Therefore, overall it was expected that high implicit
moral identity would better predict adolescent’s internalization of values than explicit moral
identity due to the greater possible accuracy of perception.
Adolescent internalization.
The longitudinal nature of the present research provides a means of assessing
determinants of adolescents’ internalization of moral values. Adolescent internalization was
measured in two ways. The first was to determine the extent to which mother and adolescent
moral values are congruent. Greater congruency between mothers’ self-report moral values at
time 1, a measure of explicit moral identity, and adolescents’ moral values at time 2 is expected
if it is the case that adolescents are accurately perceiving, accepting and, hence, internalizing
their mothers’ moral values. Therefore, the degree to which mother moral values at time 1
predicts adolescent moral values at time 2, while controlling for adolescent moral values at time
1, is an indication of the level of adolescent internalization of values at time 2.
The second method of assessing adolescents’ internalization of moral values involved the
extent to which the reasons they gave for moral action were internalized. The perceived locus of
causation (PLOC), that is, the locus relative to the self of variables that determine behavior
(Ryan & Connell, 1989), has long been a measure of the degree to which an action is performed
for reasons that have been internalized by the individual. When asked why the individual would
engage in certain moral behavior or refrain from engaging in immoral behavior, the individual
may give reasons for acting that range along a continuum of autonomy: external reasons refer to
external authority, fear of punishment or rule compliance; introjected, or partially internalized,
reasons refer to self- or other-approval orientations as well as avoidance of shame or guilt; and
7
identified, or internalized, reasons refer to individual’s own goals or values (Ryan & Connell,
1989). Thus, the closer individuals are to “identified” on the autonomy continuum, the more
internalized are their reasons for engaging in certain behaviors. Therefore, by asking adolescents
their reasons for engaging in moral behavior or refraining from engaging in immoral behavior,
we are able to assess their level of relative autonomy, that is, how much of their behavior is done
for reasons that are internalized. The extent to which maternal moral identity and parenting
practices at time 1 predict adolescent relative autonomy at time 2, while controlling for
adolescent relative autonomy at time 1, is an indication of adolescents’ accurate perception and
acceptance of maternal moral values. No differences are expected between predictions of
adolescent moral values and relative autonomy as indications of adolescent internalization.
Hereafter, the general term “internalization” is used to refer to both adolescents’ moral values
and relative autonomy. Should a distinction between these two measures of internalization be
necessary, then the actual terms will be used.
Parenting as a Moderator between Moral Identity and Internalization
Reasoning. Grusec and Goodnow (1994) have put forth a number of parenting variables
proposed to influence the acceptance of the parent’s message (see Figure 1.) One way mothers
might increase the child’s acceptance of values is through parenting behaviors that are perceived
as appropriate, such as reasoning. Parents may use reasoning to inform children of their
expectations and explain the necessity of rules as well as the norms and principles governing
those rules. It may also be used to highlight the importance of moral values and to illustrate the
consequences of the child’s actions (Hastings, Utendale, & Sullivan, 2007). Thus, so long as the
rationale is appropriate to children’s developmental level and makes sense to them, reasoning
may facilitate mother-adolescent value congruence and adolescent relative autonomy.
8
Overall, positive communication between parent and adolescent is generally predictive of
greater congruence between parent and adolescent moral thinking (White, 2000; White &
Matawie, 2004). Mothers high in reasoning may be more likely to communicate the rationale
and importance of moral values to their adolescent and thus facilitate greater congruence of
moral values. Therefore, it may be the case that mother moral identity and reasoning in and of
themselves are not predictive of adolescent internalization; the former may promote accurate
perception but not necessarily promote acceptance, while the reverse may be true for the latter.
Thus, it is only when coupled with higher levels of reasoning that mothers high in moral identity
may have had the added effect of being accurately perceived and promoting the acceptance of
moral values, thus facilitating internalization. Therefore, it was expected in the present study
that reasoning would moderate the relation between mother moral identity at time 1 and
adolescents’ moral values and relative autonomy at time 2. Specifically, it was expected that
mothers’ moral identity at time 1 would positively predict their children’s moral values and
relative autonomy at time 2, but only when mothers were high in their use of reasoning.
Ignoring misbehaviour. Though appropriate, consistent, parenting may facilitate
adolescents’ internalization, the opposite may be true of inappropriate, inconsistent, parenting.
Mothers who engage in parenting practices that involve ignoring misbehaviour are not stressing
the importance they place on moral values. Though mothers may be high in moral identity, their
ignoring misbehaviour may lead children to infer that their mother places little importance on
moral values, thereby negatively influencing children’s motivation to accept and internalize
maternal moral values. However, though Grusec and Goodnow (1994) have proposed the
possibility of perceived importance of values influencing the acceptance of the parental message,
there has, as yet, been little empirical research to validate this association. Previous research has
9
demonstrated the influence of perceived parental intent and appropriateness of parental reactions
to prosocial and antisocial behavior on adolescent internalization (Padilla-Walker & Carlo, 2004)
as well as the mediating role of values in this association (Hardy, Carlo, & Roesch, 2010), but
not the influence of perceived importance of parent values. Nonetheless, research using a
narrative methodology has hinted that the importance parent’s place on values and behaviour
may indeed affect the adolescent’s internalization of values (Mackey, Arnold, & Pratt, 2001).
For example, one adolescent’s narrative described the importance his mother placed on being
respectful as he recalled an event of teasing someone for their appearance. The present research
aimed to provide some evidence to suggest that such an association may indeed exist. Therefore,
it was expected that ignoring misbehaviour would moderate the relation between mother moral
identity at T1 and adolescents’ internalization at T2. Specifically, it was expected that mothers’
moral identity at time 1 would positively predict adolescent moral values and relative autonomy
at time 2, but only when mothers were low in their use of ignoring misbehaviour.
Directiveness. Another factor that may influence the child’s acceptance and
internalization of moral values involves the child feeling that the value is self-generated.
Previous research has demonstrated that children need to feel that their behaviors are self-
generated and that they are not impelled by external forces over which they have no power
(Grolnick, Deci, & Ryan, 1997; Grusec & Davidov, 2007). Power assertive parenting, such as
directiveness, threatens children’s sense of autonomy and may lead to the active rejection of the
parent’s point of view as well as a desire to act counter to their parent’s values (Grolnick et al.,
1997). Through autonomy-supportive parenting, that is, parenting that recognizes that children
are distinct individuals with their own needs and goals (Bureau & Mageau, 2014), children come
to feel as though they are behaving morally of their own accord, with this feeling then
10
reinforcing future moral behavior. Thus, it may be the case that mothers who do not utilize
autonomy-supportive parenting may be doing so to the detriment of their child’s internalization
of moral values. Previous research suggests that strictly controlling actions may hinder
children’s internalization of moral values, whereas parenting that allows children to have a sense
of control over their own course of action does not (Bureau & Mageau, 2014). This is not to say
that the child should be granted unlimited autonomy, as research has demonstrated that too much
autonomy is just as detrimental as not enough. However, the way in which parents use control
influences the moral development of the child (Grolnick et al., 1997; Grusec & Davidov, 2007).
Appropriate use of structure and demands for mature, competent behavior have generally been
found to promote moral development, whereas strict and rigid control has shown negative
relations to child moral development (Hastings et al., 2007). Therefore, the present research
examined mother directiveness, that is, parenting that involves scolding, criticizing and directing
the adolescent’s behavior, as a potential moderator of the relation between mother moral identity
at T1 and adolescent internalization of values at T2. Specifically, it was expected that mothers’
moral identity at time 1 would positively predict their children’s moral values and relative
autonomy at time 2, but only when mothers were low in their use of directiveness.
Summary of Hypotheses
It was expected that mother moral identity would facilitate the accurate perception of
maternal moral values and that parenting strategies would influence their acceptance. As
internalization is dependent on both the accurate perception and acceptance of maternal values, it
was expected that the relation between mother moral identity at Time 1 and adolescent
internalization of values at aTime 2 would be moderated by parenting strategies while
controlling for adolescent internalization at T1. Specifically, it was hypothesized that at higher
11
levels of mother reasoning and lower levels of mother directiveness and ignoring misbehaviour,
the association between mother moral identity at time 1 and adolescent internalization at time 2
would be positive.
12
Methods
Participants
The present research was conducted over two time points, approximately 2 years apart.
Data collection was paced in order to keep the difference between time 1 and time 2 as constant
as possible between mother-adolescent dyads. At the time of the current study, 48 mother-
adolescent dyads had participated in both time points. Mother-adolescent dyads were recruited
from Toronto, Ontario, Canada and the surrounding area through a database of family contact
information maintained by the Child Study Centre at the University of Toronto. Mothers at T1
(mean age at T1 = 45.92 years), were primarily of European ethnic origin (62.5%), while the
remaining mothers reported Asian ethnic origins (10.4%), multiple ethnic origins (12.5%) or
other backgrounds (14.6%). All mothers had completed high school, 54.2% had completed
college or university and 39.6% had some or complete graduate school; the majority of mothers
(83.3%) were employed. With regards to family composition, at T1 83.3% of mothers were
married and 87.5% reported that they were living with the biological father of the adolescent
participating in the study; at T2, 87.0% of mothers were married and 89.1% reported that they
were living with the biological father of the adolescent participating in the study. For
adolescents at T1 (mean age = 13.5; 35.4% female) 87.5% reported having siblings, 62.5% of
which reported having one sibling, 20.8% reported having two siblings, and 4.2% reported
having 3 or more siblings. For adolescents at T2 (mean age = 15.3) no change in the number of
siblings was found. Data collection is still ongoing.
Measures
Mother explicit moral identity. In order to assess explicit moral identity, mothers and
adolescents completed the 21-item Portrait Values Questionnaire (PVQ; Schwartz & Boehnke,
13
2004) which assesses respondents’ endorsement of ten basic human values (power, achievement,
universalism, benevolence, tradition, security, conformity, self-direction, hedonism and
stimulation). Each item presents a gender-matched description of an individual and asks the
respondent to rate on a 6-point scale from 1 (not like me at all) to 6 (very much like me) how
similar they are to the individual described. Each value has two items, except for universalism
which has three items. In order to determine the relative importance of each value, scores for
each value are first obtained by averaging the scores of the items comprising each value.
Thereafter, the overall mean of all 21 items is obtained. This overall mean is then subtracted
from each of the averaged value scores to obtain their relative importance to respondents. The
explicit moral identity measure was computed by summing the relative importance scores of
benevolence and universalism. The two benevolence items were: “It's very important to him to
help the people around him. He wants to care for other people”, and “It is important to him to be
loyal to his friends. He wants to devote himself to people close to him.” The three universalism
items were: “He thinks it is important that every person in the world be treated equally. He wants
justice for everybody, even for people he doesn’t know”, “It is important to him to listen to
people who are different from him. Even when he disagrees with them, he still wants to
understand them” and “He strongly believes that people should care for nature. Looking after the
environment is important to him.”
The reliability and validity of the PVQ has previously been established (Hinz, Brähler,
Schmidt, & Albani, 2005; Schwartz & Boehnke, 2004; Verkasalo, Lönnqvist, Lipsanen, &
Helkama, 2009). For the present sample, Cronbach’s alphas at T1 were .81 (mothers) and .85
(adolescents). At T2, Cronbach’s alphas were .87 (mothers) and .89 (adolescents).
14
Mother implicit moral identity. The Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald et al.,
1998) was used to assess mothers’ moral identity. The IAT is a computer-based procedure
requiring participants to sort a stimulus word at the center of the screen as quickly and accurately
as possible into one of two possible categories. The categories were created using a target
dimension (moral vs. immoral) and a category dimension (self vs. other). The stimulus words
were: sincere, modest, honest, faithful and altruist (moral); and cheater, dishonest, deceptive,
arrogant, and pretentious (immoral) as well as pronouns referring to the self or others (Perugini
& Leone, 2009; Johnston, Sherman, & Grusec, 2013). In the critical phase of the task,
participants were required to sort stimulus words into categories composed of the two
dimensions, thus creating two types of combinations. One combination paired “moral” with
“self” and “immoral” with “other”; the other combination paired “immoral” with “self” and
“moral” with “other”. A difference score was computed based on the participant’s reaction times
to the different combinations. This is based on the notion of strengths of association; stronger
associations lead to faster reaction times. Thus, mothers with higher levels of implicit moral
identity should react faster to sorting “moral” and “self” words during the “moral/self” phase of
the task. Using the D600 algorithm for IAT scoring (Greenwald, Nosek, & Banaji, 2003),
mother implicit moral identity scores were calculated as the difference in average response
latency between the two combination phases.
Adolescent internalization. Two measures were used to assess adolescent
internalization of moral values. The first used the same measure of explicit moral identity as
mothers, namely the Portrait Values Questionnaire (see above). The second used the Prosocial
Self-Regulation Questionnaire (PRQ-P) which requires participants to rate five reasons why he
or she engages in moral behavior or refrains from immoral behavior (Ryan & Connell, 1989).
15
The five behaviors are: “Why do you keep a promise to friends?”, “Why do you not make fun of
another child for making a mistake?”, “Why don’t you hit someone when you’re mad at them?”,
“Why do you try to be nice to other kids?” and “Why would you help someone who is in
distress?” For example, when asked why they would help someone who is in distress,
respondents rate the following five reasons: “Because I think it’s important to give help when it’s
needed”, “Because I could get in trouble if I didn’t”, “Because I’d feel bad about myself if I
didn’t”, “Because I want people to like me”, and “Because it is satisfying to help others.” The
five reasons are based on three forms of regulation: external (behavior is regulated by others),
introjected (behavior is regulated by partial internalization) and identified (behavior is accepted
as personally important). Mean scores for each type of regulation are obtained by averaging
scores of each type of reasoning across all items. A relative autonomy score was obtained by
weighting the scores on all types of regulation and summing; extrinsic (-2), introjected (-1) and
identified (+2). The validity of the PRQ-P is well established and scores on this scale have been
shown to predict empathy, moral judgement and positive relatedness to others (Ryan & Connell,
1989).
Parenting. Parenting was assessed using the Parenting Styles and Dimensions
Questionnaire (PSDQ; Robinson, Mandleco, Olsen, & Hart, 2001). The full 62-item scale
assesses 11 parenting strategies, though only three were used in the present research
Reasoning. The reasoning subscale includes 7 items: “I explain the consequences of my
child’s behavior to him/her,” “I give my child reasons why rules should be obeyed,” “I
emphasize the reasons for rules to my child,” “I help my child to understand the impact of his/her
behavior by encouraging him/her to talk about the consequences of one’s actions,” “I tell my
child my expectations regarding behavior before he/she engages in an activity,” “I talk it over
16
and reason with my child when the child misbehaves,” and “I explain to my child how we feel
about the child s good and bad behavior.”
Ignoring Misbehaviour. The ignoring misbehaviour subscale includes 4 items: “I
withhold scolding and/or criticism even when my child acts contrary to my wishes,” “I allow my
child to annoy someone else,” “I ignore my child's misbehaviors,” and “I allow my child to
interrupt others.”
Directiveness. The directiveness subscale includes 4 items: “I tell my child what to do,”
“I demand that my child do things,” “I scold and criticize to make my child improve,” and “I
scold or criticize when my child’s behavior doesn’t meet my expectations.”
The reliability and validity of the PSDQ and its subscales have been demonstrated in
previous research (Robinson et al., 2001). In the present sample, the Cronbach’s alphas for the
three subscales were as follows: .79 (reasoning), .58 (ignoring misbehavior), and .70
(directiveness).
Procedure
Time 1. At T1, mothers were contacted by telephone and given a description of the study.
Mother and child dyads who agreed to participate were scheduled for an on-campus session.
Upon arrival at the lab, mothers and adolescents were greeted by two interviewers and briefed
about what the visit entailed. Interviewers explained that there were no right or wrong answers
to any of the questions being asked of them, that their responses would remain confidential, and
informed the dyads of their right to refrain from answering any questions they did not wish to
answer as well as their right to withdraw from the study at any time. Mothers and adolescents
read and signed informed consent and were taken into separate rooms for the first portion of the
study.
17
Adolescent procedure. Adolescents completed questionnaire assessments of
demographics, the Prosocial Self-Regulation Questionnaire, the Portrait Values Questionnaire
and other measures not analyzed in this research.
Mother procedure. Mothers were taken into a room apart from their adolescent and left
in private to complete questionnaire measures of demographics, parenting practices, the Portrait
Values Questionnaire, as well as the IAT measure of implicit moral identity and additional
measures not analyzed in this research. Once completed, both interviewers entered the room to
fully debrief the mother and adolescent pairs and asked if they would be willing to participate in
future research.
Time 2. Mothers from T1 who had agreed to participate in future research were
contacted by telephone and/or email and asked to confirm their continued willingness to
participate. Those who agreed were sent an email containing a description of the study, a
consent form, and a link to the online questionnaire packages. Mothers were asked to complete
an online questionnaire package containing measures of demographics, parenting practices,
values, and child behavior over the last six months or school year. Adolescents were asked to
complete an online questionnaire package containing measures of moral reasoning, values and
self-report antisocial behavior. Not all measures were used in the current study.
18
Results
Preliminary analyses
Data screening. Prior to hypothesis testing, all variables were screened for normality.
Means, standard deviations and ranges are presented in Table 1. None of the variables showed
considerable deviation from a normal distribution. Correlations among mother explicit moral
identity, implicit moral identity, parenting and adolescent moral outcomes and adolescent gender
can be found in Table 2. Mother explicit moral identity was correlated with adolescent moral
values at T1 (r = .37, p < .05) and T2 (r = .34, p < .05) but not with adolescent relative autonomy
at T1 or T2. Mother implicit moral identity was not correlated with explicit moral identity,
parenting or adolescent outcomes. Mother ignoring misbehaviour was positively correlated with
adolescent internalization at T1 (r = .37, p < .05). Furthermore, gender differences were found
for adolescent moral values at time 2 (rpb = -.39, p < .01); females were found to be higher in
moral values than males. Therefore, gender was used as a control variable for all analyses
involving adolescent moral values.
19
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for All Study Variables
Variable N Min. Max. Mean SD
Mother Variables Time 1
Mother Explicit Moral Identity 48 -.61 2.75 1.36 .852
Mother Implicit Moral Identity 48 -728.13 720.70 -67.48 321.334
Mother Reasoning/Induction 48 3.00 5.00 4.25 .435
Mother Directiveness 48 1.75 4.00 2.82 .652
Mother Ignoring Misbehavior 48 1.00 2.75 1.88 .425
Adolescent Variables Time 1
Adolescent Relative Autonomy 48 -1.85 2.45 .58 .995
Adolescent Moral Values 48 -2.90 2.70 -.17 1.383
Adolescent Variables Time 2
Adolescent Relative Autonomy 48 -1.38 3.96 .71 1.198
Adolescent Moral Values 48 -3.30 3.50 .04 1.650
Mothers’ Parenting as Moderator
In order to test the hypothesis that the relation between mother moral identity at T1 and
adolescent internalization at T2 would be moderated by parenting practices, moderation models
were assessed using the PROCESS macro for SPSS. PROCESS is a computational tool for path
analysis-based moderation and mediation analysis (Hayes, 2013). Twelve models were tested,
one for each of the two adolescent outcomes (moral values and relative autonomy) at each of the
two types of mother moral identity (explicit and implicit) at each of the three parenting strategies
(reasoning, directiveness and ignoring misbehaviour). For each test, predictor variables were
20
Table 2. Correlations among Mother Explicit Moral Identity, Implicit Moral Identity, Parenting and Adolescent Moral Outcomes (N = 48 mother-adolescent dyads)
MIMI MR MD MIM AMV ARA AMV2 ARA2 G
MEMI .13 .16 -.17 .18 .37* .26 .34* .19 -.05
MIMI .11 .09 .23 -.11 .23 -.03 .05 -.02
MR -.04 .16 .02 -.13 .04 .05 -.05
MD .08 -.13 -.04 -.12 -.13 .13
MIM .03 .37* .11 .10 -.29*
AMV .27 .55** .10 -.22
ARA .16 .41** -.13
AMV2 .14 -.39**
ARA2 -.08
* = correlation is significant at the .05 level; ** = correlation is significant at the .01 level
MIMI = Mother Implicit Moral Identity; MEMI = Mother Explicit Moral Identity; MR = Mother
Reasoning; MD = Mother Directiveness; MIM = Mother Ignoring Misbehaviour; G =
Adolescent Gender; ARA = Adolescent Relative Autonomy; AMV = Adolescent Moral Values;
ARA2 = Adolescent Relative Autonomy T2; AMV2 = Adolescent Moral Values T2
21
mean centered prior to conducting analyses and adolescent time 1 internalization measures were
used as control variables. For the present research, due to the relatively small sample size and
ongoing collection of data, any interaction term with a p-value greater than .05 but less than .15
was considered marginally significant and deserving of further investigation. Significant
interactions between mother moral identity and parenting were probed using the Johnson-
Neyman technique (Hayes & Matthes, 2009; Preacher, Curran, & Bauer, 2006), a method that
defines regions of significance that represent the range of z-scores within which the simple slope
of Y on X is significantly different from zero at a chosen level of significance (α). In the present
analyses, α = .05 was used to identify significant effects.
Mothers’ Explicit Moral Identity and Adolescent Moral Values.
Reasoning. For reasoning, the only significant predictors were adolescent moral values
at T1 and adolescent gender (see Table 3). Thus, mother reasoning did not moderate the relation
between mother explicit moral identity at T1 and adolescent moral values at T2.
Directiveness. Mothers’ explicit moral identity and the interaction between explicit
moral identity and directiveness were marginally significant predictors of adolescent moral
values at T2. Adolescent gender and moral values at T1 were also significant predictors (see
Table 4). Further analysis using the Johnson-Neyman technique suggested a region of
significance: scores below -.49 on the mean-centered mother directiveness. The 95% confidence
interval for the conditional effect of mother explicit moral identity on adolescent moral values as
a function of directiveness does not include 0 at values of directiveness below -.49 (see Figure 2).
Thus, mother explicit moral identity was predictive of adolescent moral values at T2, but only
when mother directiveness was low.
22
Figure 2. The conditional effect of mother explicit moral identity at time 1 on adolescent moral
values at time 2 as a function of mother directiveness at time 1.
Ignoring misbehaviour. For ignoring misbehaviour, the only significant predictors were
adolescent moral values at T1 and adolescent gender (see Table 3). Thus, mother ignoring
misbehaviour did not moderate the relation between mother explicit moral identity at T1 and
adolescent moral values at T2.
Mothers’ Implicit Moral Identity and Adolescent Moral Values
Reasoning. Mother implicit moral identity and mother reasoning were themselves not
significant predictors of adolescent moral values at T2. However, the interaction between
mother reasoning and mother implicit moral identity was a significant predictor (see Table 5).
Further analysis using the Johnson-Neyman technique suggested a region of significance: scores
above .43 on mean-centered mother reasoning. The 95% confidence interval for the conditional
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
Con
ditio
nal E
ffec
t of M
othe
r E
xplic
it M
oral
Iden
tity
on A
dole
scen
t Mor
al
Valu
es
Mother Directiveness (centered)
Point Estimate95% CI Lower Limit95% CI Upper Limit
23
effect of mother explicit moral identity on adolescent moral values as a function of mother
reasoning does not include 0 at values of mother directiveness above .43 (see Figure 3). Thus,
mother implicit moral identity was predictive of adolescent moral values at T2, but only when
mother reasoning was high.
Figure 3. The conditional effect of mother implicit moral identity at time 1 on adolescent moral
values at time 2 as a function of mother reasoning at time 1.
Directiveness. For directiveness, the only significant predictors were adolescent moral
values at T1 and adolescent gender (see Table 3). Thus, directiveness did not moderate the
relation between mother implicit moral identity at T1 and adolescent moral values at T2.
Ignoring misbehaviour. For ignoring misbehaviour, the only significant predictor was
adolescent moral values at T1; adolescent gender was only marginally significant (see Table 3).
The results would suggest that ignoring misbehaviour did not moderate the relation between
mother implicit moral identity at T1 and adolescent moral values at T2.
-0.008
-0.006
-0.004
-0.002
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
Con
ditio
nal E
ffet
of M
othe
r Im
plic
it M
oral
iden
tity
on A
dole
scen
t Mor
al
valu
es
Mother Reasoning (centered)
95% CI Upper LimitPoint Estimate95% CI Lower Limit
24
Mothers’ Explicit Moral Identity and Adolescent Relative Autonomy.
Reasoning. For reasoning, the only significant predictor was adolescent moral values at
T1 (see Table 3). The results indicated that reasoning did not moderate the relation between
mother explicit moral identity at T1 and adolescent relative autonomy at T2.
Directiveness. For directiveness, the only significant predictor was adolescent moral
values at T1 (see Table 3). The results suggested that directiveness did not moderate the relation
between mother explicit moral identity at T1 and adolescent relative autonomy at T2.
Ignoring misbehaviour. The moderation model predicting adolescent relative autonomy
from mother explicit moral identity and mother ignoring misbehaviour is presented in Table 6.
The results indicated that mother ignoring misbehaviour and mother explicit moral identity were
themselves not predictive of adolescent relative autonomy at T2, but the interaction between
ignoring misbehaviour and mother explicit moral identity was a marginally significant predictor.
Further analysis using the Johnson-Neyman technique indicated a significance region: scores
below -.47 on the mean centered mother ignoring misbehaviour. The 95% confidence interval
for the conditional effect of mother explicit moral identity on adolescent relative autonomy as a
function of mother ignoring misbehaviour does not include 0 at values of mother ignoring
misbehaviour below -.47 (see Figure 4). Thus, mother explicit moral identity was predictive of
adolescent relative autonomy at T2, but only when mother ignoring behaviour was low.
25
Figure 4. The conditional effect of mother explicit moral identity at time 1 on adolescent
relative autonomy at time 2 as a function of mother ignoring misbehaviour at time 1.
Mothers’ Implicit Moral Identity and Adolescent Relative Autonomy.
For the moderation models predicting adolescent relative autonomy from mother implicit
moral identity and parenting variables, the only significant predictor was adolescent relative
autonomy at T1. None of the three parenting variables, mother implicit moral identity or
interactions between mother implicit moral identity and parenting variables were significant (see
Table 3). Therefore, reasoning, directiveness and ignoring misbehaviour did not moderate the
relation between mother implicit moral identity at T1 and adolescent relative autonomy at T2.
Summary
The results indicated mother explicit moral identity at time 1 was a significant predictor
of adolescent moral values at time 2, but only when directiveness was low. Mother explicit
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
Con
ditio
nal E
ffet
of M
othe
r E
xplic
it M
oral
iden
tity
on A
dole
scen
t Rel
ativ
e A
uton
omy
Mother Ignoring Misbehaviour (centered)
95% CI Upper LimitPoint Estimate95% CI Lower Limit
26
moral identity at time 1 was also a significant predictor of adolescent relative autonomy at time 2,
but only when ignoring misbehaviour was low. Mother implicit moral identity at time 1 was a
significant predictor of adolescent moral values at time 2, but only when reasoning was high. No
other associations were found.
27
Discussion
Despite the small sample size, the present research does provide some promising support
for the idea that parenting practices moderate the association between parents’ moral identity and
adolescents’ internalization of moral values. Three parenting strategies, namely reasoning,
directiveness and ignoring misbehaviour were examined as potential moderators between mother
moral identity and adolescent internalization of values. The findings with respect to reasoning
were the closest to what was expected, that is, maternal implicit moral identity in association
with higher levels of reasoning was predictive of increases in adolescent’s moral values over
time, albeit not their relative autonomy and not when reasoning was associated with maternal
explicit moral identity. We expected that maternal implicit moral identity would yield stronger
effects than maternal explicit moral identity in association with parenting practices to predict
adolescent moral values and relative autonomy, yet the results did not support this claim.
Maternal explicit moral identity in association with low directiveness was predictive of increases
in adolescent’s moral values over time, but not their relative autonomy. Similarly, maternal
explicit moral identity in association with low ignoring misbehaviour was predictive of increases
in adolescent’s relative autonomy over time, albeit not for their moral values. The theoretical
and practical implications are discussed below.
Explicit versus Implicit Moral Identity
One possible explanation for the difference in findings between explicit and implicit
moral identity may be that these govern very different areas of morality. Though the two are not
necessarily mutually exclusive, the present and previous research (Johnston et al., 2013) would
suggest that there is little association between them, as evidenced by the non-significant
correlation (see Table 2). Smetana (1999) proposed that children’s moral development is
28
influenced by affective and cognitive components of the parent-child interaction. The affective
component, she argues, may influence the child’s motivation to listen and respond to the parent,
while the cognitive component provides reasoning and feedback on the child’s moral interactions.
Greene (2013) argues that the human brain is analogous to a dual-mode camera; the pre-set,
automatic functions are akin to emotions, while the manual mode is similar to deliberate thought
and reasoning. The two are complimentary processes that are part of the same overall moral
system. The same can be said of moral identity. Previous research has demonstrated that
implicit moral identity is predictive of moral emotions and reactions, such as moral outrage
(Johnston et al., 2013), whereas explicit moral identity is predictive of moral deliberation, such
as responding to hypothetical vignettes or conscious, deliberative decision-making (Perugini &
Leone, 2009). This may explain the lack of association between the two constructs as they are
tapping into two different areas of moral behaviour. Therefore, the combination of maternal
moral identity and parenting practice may be complimentary or redundant, depending upon their
features. The present research findings are discussed with this explanation in mind for each of
the three parenting strategies.
Reasoning
Mothers high in reasoning were expected to facilitate the acceptance of values by
providing the adolescent with explanations as to the necessity of rules and the consequences of
their actions. The results suggested that reasoning moderates the association between mother
implicit moral identity and adolescent moral values but only when mother reasoning was high.
No pattern was found for mother explicit moral identity or adolescent relative autonomy.
As mentioned previously, one possible explanation for why reasoning moderates the
relation between maternal implicit, but not explicit, moral identity and adolescent moral values
29
may be that the combination of maternal explicit moral identity and reasoning is redundant.
Reasoning is already highly explicit and deliberative. Thus, when combined with maternal
explicit moral identity, which is predictive of moral deliberation, the one may not be adding
anything above and beyond the other. On the other hand, since maternal implicit moral identity
is a better predictor of real-life behavior and reactions and assuming that the mother is
responding in appropriate ways to the child’s behavior, it may be providing an affective
component that compliments reasoning’s cognitive component. Mothers high in implicit moral
identity and reasoning may be providing both an example to follow as well as providing
appropriate feedback and explanations, which may facilitate both the accurate perception and
acceptance of moral values.
Though the preceding provides a plausible explanation as to the difference in predicting
adolescent moral values between maternal explicit and implicit moral identity when combined
with reasoning, there is no reason why the same argument should not hold for adolescent relative
autonomy. That is, of course, if we assume that there is no difference between moral values and
relative autonomy. Relative autonomy, in this case, has more to do with the extent to which the
individual’s reasons for moral behavior are self-determined (Grolnick et al., 1997), whereas
moral values are simply the extent to which an individual finds being a moral person to be
important. Although one would expect that the more importance an individual placed on moral
values, the more self-determined their moral behavior would become. However, the present
research provides little support for this claim, as evidenced by the non-significant correlations
between adolescent moral values and relative autonomy. Thus, there is evidence to suggest that
there is a distinction to be made between adolescent moral values and relative autonomy as
measured in the present study.
30
In the case of relative autonomy, one possible explanation for the present findings has
less to do with the compatibility between mother moral identity and parenting practices, as
proposed earlier, and more to do with how the parenting practices are being used. In the case of
reasoning, other-oriented reasoning can be used in autonomy-supportive ways, such as
minimizing pressure, listening to the child’s opinion and acknowledging the child’s feelings, or it
can be used in more controlling ways, such as emphasizing that the child should not act in ways
that harm others (Grolnick et al., 1997). Though reasoning and induction often lead to greater
internalization, such is not always the case. As proposed by Grusec and Goodnow (1994)
internalization is still heavily dependent upon the adolescent’s acceptance of parental moral
values. Thus, the way in which mothers used reasoning in the present study may have been
perceived by adolescents as more controlling than autonomy-supportive. However, as
adolescents’ perception of mothers’ reasoning was not measured in the present research, this
explanation is, at best, speculative.
Directiveness
Directiveness, similar to the explanation as to why maternal moral identity and reasoning
were not together predictive of adolescent internalization, falls under the jurisdiction of threats to
the adolescent’s feelings of autonomy. It was expected that mothers low in directiveness would
minimize the salience of external pressures to behave in accordance with moral values, thereby
making intrinsic motivation for moral behavior more salient and facilitate internalization of
moral values. The results would suggest that mother directiveness did moderate the relation
between mother explicit moral identity and adolescent moral values, but only when mother
directiveness was low; no association was found when directiveness was combined with mother
implicit moral identity or when predicting adolescent relative autonomy.
31
One possible explanation for why directiveness moderates the relation between maternal
explicit, but not implicit, moral identity and adolescent moral values may be that maternal
explicit moral identity may provide adolescents with a better understanding of the mother’s
moral values. As noted earlier, explicit moral identity is associated with deliberative behaviors,
such as careful decision-making, whereas implicit moral identity is associated with spontaneous,
less deliberative behaviors, such as moral reactions (Perugini & Leone, 2009); the former may be
more conducive to explicit statements of moral values and behavior than the latter. This
rationale was the same as that put forward to explain why the combination of maternal explicit
moral identity and reasoning was redundant; both make maternal moral values explicitly salient.
In the case of directiveness, when maternal explicit moral identity was combined with low levels
of directiveness, which leads to the adolescent being less likely to actively resist and reject the
mother’s attempts to socialize the adolescent (Grolnick et al., 1997), the combination may have
made maternal moral values salient in such a way that mothers high in implicit moral identity
were not. However, the underlying mechanism that drives this association still remains largely
unknown; the idea that explicit ways of making maternal moral values salient is more conducive
to adolescent internalization of moral values than implicit ways is largely speculative. Further
investigation is needed to determine the actual underlying mechanisms in this association.
However, if it is the case that maternal explicit moral identity made maternal moral
values salient in such a way as to facilitate the internalization of moral values, then the same
should hold true for maternal explicit moral identity predicting adolescent relative autonomy
when directiveness is low. Previous research demonstrates that providing clear expectations,
providing the rationale behind the expectations as well as outlining the consequences of meeting
32
or not meeting those expectations are conducive to greater relative autonomy (Grolnick et al.,
1997). Yet the results of the present study did not support this.
Ignoring Misbehaviour
Mother ignoring misbehaviour was examined as a possible parenting behavior that could
be interpreted by the adolescent as a lack of caring about moral values on the part of the parent.
It was expected that when ignoring misbehaviour was low, there would be a positive association
between mother moral identity and adolescent moral outcomes. The results would suggest that
ignoring misbehaviour did moderate the relation between mother explicit moral identity and
adolescent relative autonomy, but only when ignoring misbehaviour was low; no association was
found for mother implicit moral identity or adolescent moral values. Therefore, the present
findings provide some evidence to suggest that perceived importance of moral values may play a
role in the adolescent’s motivation to accept maternal moral values, if indeed that is what is
happening in this case. However, further research using measures that assess the child’s
perception of parental importance of values is needed to fully understand the associations at
work.
Regardless of whether or not parental importance of values is indeed affecting
adolescents’ internalization, previous research has demonstrated that indulgent/indifferent
parenting, such as ignoring misbehaviour, is likely to provide no clear articulation of parental
values and provide no clear standards and expectations from which the adolescent might infer the
parents’ values (Knafo & Schwartz, 2003). The results indicated that, when ignoring
misbehaviour was low, mothers high in explicit moral identity may have been able to provide the
structure necessary for the adolescent to accurately perceive their moral values and foster the
development of the adolescent’s relative autonomy. Similar to the explanation given for
33
directiveness, one possible explanation as to why ignoring misbehaviour moderates the
association between maternal explicit, but not implicit, moral identity and adolescent relative
autonomy is that explicit moral identity may provide clearer standards and expectations. As
argued previously, maternal implicit moral identity may only provide an example to follow from
which the adolescent may infer maternal expectations. Thus, the difference may simply lie in the
clarity or explicitness of the parenting message.
In the case of adolescent moral values, one possible explanation for the observed results
may be rooted in the fact that the parenting practice in question deals specifically with how the
parent deals with adolescent transgressions and not necessarily with moral values. Thus, since
relative autonomy also deals specifically with reasons for engaging in moral behaviour or
refraining from immoral behaviour, a stronger association may be found between ignoring
misbehaviour and adolescent relative autonomy than for adolescent moral values. The results of
the present research would seem to confirm this possibility. As seen in Table 2, there was a
surprisingly significant positive association between ignoring misbehaviour and adolescent
relative autonomy at time 1. No such association was found between adolescent moral values
and ignoring misbehaviour. Thus, it may simply be the nature of the parenting practice in
question that is driving the present findings. Further research is needed in order to validate this
explanation.
Implications for Parenting
The associations found between mother moral values, parenting behaviors and adolescent
internalization is largely consistent with the existing literature. Previous research has generally
agreed on a consistent parenting profile that exemplifies the socialization of moral development:
these parents are usually moral themselves, using an authoritative parenting style which includes
34
providing guidance and explanations for expected behaviors. They eschew rigid strictness, harsh
punishments and expressions of hostility or rejection. They are warm towards their children,
providing more praise than criticism and enjoying shared activities. They typically encourage
their children to be moral as well (Hastings et al., 2007).
In the present study, mothers high in implicit moral identity and reporting high use of
reasoning had adolescents who reported higher relative autonomy. As well, it was argued that a
mother high in explicit moral identity may have been better suited to provide explicit reasons for
why it is she places such a high importance on being a moral person. This illustrates the
importance of explaining the rationale behind rules and expectations in order to facilitate the
adolescent’s acceptance and internalization of moral values. Also, mothers reporting low
directiveness had adolescents reporting higher levels of moral values. This finding adds to the
growing literature suggesting that mothers who promote feelings of self-determination and self-
generation of moral behavior have adolescents who are more likely to hold moral values later on.
Mothers reporting low ignoring misbehaviour had adolescents reporting higher relative
autonomy. This may suggest that appropriate levels of mother involvement, structure and
discipline are conducive to the socialization of moral values in the adolescent. In sum, mothers
who are high in moral identity and who hold internalization goals for their child need to be aware
of the effects of parenting strategies in order to better attain their goals.
Limitations and Future Directions
One significant limitation of the present research is the small sample size; only 48
mother-adolescent dyads have, thus far, participated in both time points of the current study. In
order to keep the difference between time points as constant as possible between mother-
35
adolescent dyads, data collection was paced based on when mothers and adolescents participated
at time 1. Data collection is still ongoing.
Another limitation is the biased sample. To date, only 35.4% of the adolescents who
have participated in both time points of the study are female. Thus, any gender differences may
be biased due to the uneven proportion of male and female adolescent participants. The families
in the current study are also from high socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds, the majority of
which are well-educated and intact. There is evidence to suggest that higher education changes
the level of importance individuals place on values. For example, one study found that
universalism and security values increased in importance after three years of higher education
(Myyry, Juujärvi, & Pesso, 2013). As well, the present research has looked only at the mother-
child relationship; fathers have not been included in the analyses. Thus, the findings of the
current study cannot be assumed to generalize beyond this population. Further research is
required to examine the effect of the preceding parenting strategies on parent moral identity and
adolescent internalization for fathers or parents from lower SES backgrounds.
Aside from the sample-based limitations, there are also limitations inherent in the design
of the study. First of all, mothers are not the only agents of socialization; other adults, such as
teachers, as well as peers, siblings, the media, etc., may all play a role in the child’s moral
development. Secondly, it should be recognized that the present research is essentially
correlational, albeit with longitudinal data. Thus, causal inferences are not warranted. Thirdly,
both measures of adolescent internalization, namely moral values and prosocial self-regulation,
are both explicit and cognitive measures of moral development. Such indications of moral
development do not tap into other important aspects of moral development, such as moral
emotions or implicit measures of moral identity. The extent to which parental moral identity
36
interacts with parenting strategies to predict adolescent moral development in these areas is still
to be determined.
Future Directions. As previously noted, there is little, if any, research examining the
effect of adolescent perception of the importance of parent values on the adolescent’s acceptance
of parent values. The present study has indicated that such an association may exist but further
research is needed to fully understand the underpinnings of this relation.
The current research has only looked at the effect of mother values and parenting on
young adolescents. Thus, some possibly interesting future directions may be to attempt to
replicate the present findings with fathers, as mothers and fathers may have different
socialization goals which may lead to interesting differences in choice of parenting strategies.
Another possibility is to attempt to replicate the current findings with other child age groups,
possibly older adolescents/emerging adults or younger children. Furthermore, it may also be
beneficial to include non-traditional families, such as families with same-sex parents.
Other possible lines of research include extending the current findings with other parent
values. The current study looked only at Schwartz’s self-transcendence values of benevolence
and universalism, which still leaves Schwartz’s values of self-enhancement, openness to change
and conservation with which to further our understanding of the association between parental
values and parenting practices and their effects on adolescent internalization of values. The
present research also only used adolescent moral outcomes, namely moral values and relative
autonomy. Thus, another possible line of future research may be to investigate the socialization
of antisocial values and behaviours to see if they benefit from positive parenting values and
practices or are exacerbated by negative parenting values and practices. Furthermore, since there
is evidence to suggest that beliefs about values and parenting are culturally structured (de
37
Guzman, Brown, Carlo, & Knight, 2012) it may also be interesting to attempt to replicate the
current findings cross-culturally.
Conclusions.
Despite these limitations, the present research moderately supports the model proposed
by Grusec and Goodnow (1994). Parenting strategies which are perceived as appropriate,
minimize threats to the adolescent’s autonomy and stress the importance parents place on moral
values appear to promote the acceptance and internalization of moral values. Thus, it is not
enough for parents to simply be high in moral identity, either explicit or implicit – parents need
to be aware of the effects that their parenting practices have on adolescents’ internalization of
values in order to better promote their moral development.
38
References
Aquino, K., & Reed, A.,II. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1423-1440.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1423
Arnold, M. L. (1994). The place of morality in the adolescent self. Dissertation Abstracts
International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, . (618958298; 1996-73683-001).
Blasi, A. (1983). Moral cognition and moral action: A theoretical perspective. Developmental
Review, 3(2), 178-210. doi:http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1016/0273-
2297(83)90029-1
Bureau, J. S., & Mageau, G. A. (2014). Parental autonomy support and honesty: The mediating
role of identification with the honesty value and perceived costs and benefits of honesty.
Journal of Adolescence, 37(3), 225-236.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.12.007
Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model.
Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 487-496. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.113.3.487
de Guzman, M., Brown, J., Carlo, G., & Knight, G. (2012). What does it mean to be prosocial? A
cross-ethnic study of parental beliefs. Psychology and Developing Societies, 24(2), 239-268.
doi:10.1177/097133361202400207
Greene, J. (2013). Moral tribes: Emotion, reason, and the gap between us and them. New York,
NY, US: Penguin Press, New York, NY.
39
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual
differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464-1480.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464
Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). "Understanding and using the implicit
association test: I. an improved scoring algorithm": Correction to greenwald et al. (2003).
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 481.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1037/h0087889
Grolnick, W. S., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1997). Internalization within the family: The self-
determination theory perspective. Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc, Hoboken, NJ.
Grusec, J. E., & Davidov, M. (2007). Socialization in the family: The roles of parents. New York,
NY, US: Guilford Press, New York, NY.
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(1), 4-19. doi:http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1037/0012-
1649.30.1.4
Hardy, S. A., & Carlo, G. (2011). Moral identity: What is it, how does it develop, and is it linked
to moral action? Child Development Perspectives, 5(3), 212-218.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00189.x
40
Hardy, S. A., Carlo, G., & Roesch, S. C. (2010). Links between adolescents’ expected parental
reactions and prosocial behavioral tendencies: The mediating role of prosocial values.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(1), 84-95.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1007/s10964-008-9383-7
Hastings, P. D., Utendale, W. T., & Sullivan, C. (2007). The socialization of prosocial
development. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A
regression-based approach. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Hayes, A. F., & Matthes, J. (2009). Computational procedures for probing interactions in OLS
and logistic regression: SPSS and SAS implementations. Behavior Research Methods, 41(3),
924-936. doi:http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.3758/BRM.41.3.924
Hinz, A., Brähler, E., Schmidt, P., & Albani, C. (2005). Investigating the circumplex structure of
the portrait values questionnaire (PVQ). Journal of Individual Differences, 26(4), 185-193.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1027/1614-0001.26.4.185
Johnston, M. E., Sherman, A., & Grusec, J. E. (2013). Predicting moral outrage and religiosity
with an implicit measure of moral identity. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(3), 209-
217. doi:http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.01.006
Knafo, A., & Schwartz, S. H. (2003). Parenting and adolescents' accuracy in perceiving parental
values. Child Development, 74(2), 595-611.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1111/1467-8624.7402018
41
Krettenauer, T., & Mosleh, M. (2013). Remembering your (im)moral past: Autobiographical
reasoning and moral identity development. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and
Research, 13(2), 140-158.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1080/15283488.2013.776497
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child
interaction. In P. H. Mussen, & E. M. Hetherington (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology:
Vol. 4. socialization, personality, and social development (pp. 1-102). New York: Wiley.
Mackey, K., Arnold, M. L., & Pratt, M. W. (2001). Adolescents' stories of decision making in
more and less authoritative families: Representing the voices of parents in narrative. Journal
of Adolescent Research, 16(3), 243-268.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1177/0743558401163001
Myyry, L., Juujärvi, S., & Pesso, K. (2013). Change in values and moral reasoning during higher
education. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 10(2), 269-284.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1080/17405629.2012.757217
Padilla-Walker, L. M., & Carlo, G. (2004). "It's not fair!" adolescents' constructions of
appropriateness of parental reactions. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33(5), 389-401.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1023/B:JOYO.0000037632.46633.bd
Perugini, M., & Leone, L. (2009). Implicit self-concept and moral action. Journal of Research in
Personality, 43(5), 747-754.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.03.015
42
Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interactions
in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of
Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31(4), 437-448. doi:10.3102/10769986031004437
Robinson, C. C., Mandleco, B., Olsen, S. F., & Hart, C. H. (2001). The parenting styles and
dimensions questionnaire (PSDQ). In B. F. Perlmutter, J. Touliatos & G. W. Holden (Eds.),
Handbook of family measurement techniques, vol. 2: Instruments and index (pp. 190).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization:
Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
57(5), 749-761. doi:http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1037/0022-
3514.57.5.749
Schnabel, K., Asendorpf, J. B., & Greenwald, A. G. (2008). Using implicit association tests for
the assessment of implicit personality self-concept. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage
Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Schwartz, S., & Boehnke, K. (2004). Evaluating the structure of human values with confirmatory
factor analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 38(3), 230-255. doi:10.1016/S0092-
6566(03)00069-2
Schwartz, S. H., & Boehnke, K. (2004). Evaluating the structure of human values with
confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 38(3), 230-255.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00069-2
43
Smetana, J. G. (1995). Parenting styles and conceptions of parental authority during adolescence.
Child Development, 66(2), 299-316.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.2307/1131579
Smetana, J. G. (1999). The role of parents in moral development: A social domain analysis.
Journal of Moral Education, 28(3), 311-321.
Verkasalo, M., Lönnqvist, J., Lipsanen, J., & Helkama, K. (2009). European norms and
equations for a two dimensional presentation of values as measured with schwartz's 21-item
portrait values questionnaire. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(5), 780-792.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1002/ejsp.580
White, F. A. (2000). Relationship of family socialization processes to adolescent moral thought.
The Journal of Social Psychology, 140(1), 75-92.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1080/00224540009600447
White, F. A., & Matawie, K. M. (2004). Parental morality and family processes as predictors of
adolescent morality. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 13(2), 219-233.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1023/B:JCFS.0000015709.81116.ce
44
Appendix A: Tables of Moderation Models
Table 3. Non-Significant Moderation Models Prediciting Adolescent Moral Outcomes
Predictor coeff SE t p
Outcome: Adolescent Moral Values T2
Model: R2 = .20, F(4, 43) = 2.0275, p = .1075
Constant .8816 .2789 3.1614 .00
Mother Reasoning -.0460 .4090 -.1126 .91
Mother Explicit Moral Identity .2565 .1881 1.3639 .18
MRxMEMI .1113 .5036 .2210 .83
Adolescent Moral Values T1 .5002 .1695 2.9514 .01
Adolescent Gender -.7273 .3215 -2.2621 .03
Model: R2 = .18, F(4, 43) = 1.4549, p = .2326
Constant .9243 .3005 3.0763 .00
Mother Ignoring Misbehaviour -.0319 .4698 -.0680 .95
Mother Explicit Moral Identity .2532 .1963 1.2898 .20
MRxMEMI -.2456 .6252 -.3928 .70
Adolescent Moral Values T1 .5071 .1739 2.9154 .01
Adolescent Gender -.7649 .3678 -2.0798 .04
Model: R2 = .18, F(4, 43) = 1.4549, p = .2326
Constant .7837 .2855 2.7453 .01
Mother Ignoring Misbehaviour .0164 .4728 .0346 .97
Mother Implicit Moral Identity .0000 .0004 -.0379 .97
MRxMIMI .0008 .0016 .5052 .62
45
Adolescent Moral Values T1 .5856 .1550 3.7772 .00
Adolescent Gender -.6822 .3567 -1.9125 .06
Model: R2 = .18, F(4, 43) = 1.9385, p = .1213
Constant .8106 .2763 2.9340 .01
Mother Directiveness -.0627 .1836 -.3416 .73
Mother Implicit Moral Identity .0000 .0005 -.0451 .96
MDxMIMI .0004 .0006 .6020 .55
Adolescent Moral Values T1 .5759 .1578 3.6494 .00
Adolescent Gender -.6862 .3250 -2.1110 .04
Outcome: Adolescent Relative Autonomy T2
Model: R2 = .21, F(4, 43) = 2.8038, p = .0373
Constant .1587 .2418 .6564 .52
Mother Directiveness -.1916 .3531 -.5427 .59
Mother Explicit Moral Identity .0465 .3139 .1482 .88
MDxMEMI .4615 .4288 1.0762 .29
Adolescent Relative Autonomy T1 .4531 .1904 2.3801 .02
Model: R2 = .18, F(4, 43) = 1.9385, p = .1213
Constant .1244 .2348 .5298 .60
Mother Directiveness -.2814 .3536 -.7957 .43
Mother Implicit Moral Identity -.0002 .0010 -.1783 .86
MDxMIMI -.0001 .0016 -.0712 .94
Adolescent Relative Autonomy T1 .4905 .2294 2.1385 .04
Model: R2 = .20, F(4, 43) = 1.8956, p = .1286
46
Constant .1149 .2430 .4726 .64
Mother Lack of Follow-Through -.4459 .6005 -.7425 .46
Mother Explicit Moral Identity .2174 .3516 .6185 .54
MLFTxMEMI -.3429 .9289 -.3692 .71
Adolescent Relative Autonomy T1 .4276 .2113 2.0237 .05
Model: R2 = .18, F(4, 43) = 1.9588, p = .1180
Constant .0876 .2266 .3868 .70
Mother Lack of Follow-Through -.4187 .5198 -.8056 .42
Mother Implicit Moral Identity -.0002 .0010 -.2290 .82
MLFTxMIMI .0014 .0029 .4732 .64
Adolescent Relative Autonomy T1 .4675 .2197 2.1281 .04
Model: R2 = .18, F(4, 43) = 1.4948, p = .2206
Constant .1667 .2849 .5852 .56
Mother Ignoring Misbehaviour -.1301 .6897 -.1886 .85
Mother Implicit Moral Identity -.0002 .0012 -.1276 .90
MIMxMIMI -.0013 .0026 -.5043 .62
Adolescent Relative Autonomy T1 .5117 .2436 2.1002 .04
Model: R2 = .20, F(4, 43) = 2.0275, p = .1075
Constant .1769 .2262 .7818 .44
Mother Reasoning .3741 .5399 .6929 .49
Mother Explicit Moral Identity .0764 .2855 .2678 .79
MRxMEMI -.0821 .7841 -1.0229 .31
Adolescent Relative Autonomy T1 .5391 .1982 2.7204 .01
47
Model: R2 = .18, F(4, 43) = 1.4549, p = .2326
Constant .1253 .2734 .4585 .65
Mother Reasoning .4513 .6270 .7197 .48
Mother Implicit Moral Identity -.0003 .0011 -.2989 .77
MRxMIMI .0002 .0036 .0449 .96
Adolescent Relative Autonomy T1 .5217 .2343 2.2264 .03
48
Table 4. Moderation Model with Mother Directiveness as the Moderator
Predictor coeff SE t p
Outcome: Adolescent Moral Values T2
Model: R2 = .35, F(4, 43) = 6.5370, p < .001
Constant .8868 .2756 3.2179 .00
Mother Directiveness -.0598 .1842 -.3246 .75
Mother Explicit Moral Identity .3380 .1914 1.7662 .08
MDxMEMI -.3183 .1975 -1.6119 .11
Adolescent Moral values T1 .4436 .1666 2.6621 .01
Adolescent Gender -.7197 .3174 -2.2671 .03
Conditional effect of Mother Explicit Moral Identity (X) on Adolescent Moral Values at time 2 (Y) at values of Mother Directiveness (M)
M Effect SE t p LLCI ULCI -1.0677 0.6778 0.3339 2.0301 0.0487 0.0040 1.3516 -0.9552 0.6420 0.3153 2.0364 0.0481 0.0058 1.2783 -0.8427 0.6062 0.2972 2.0399 0.0477 0.0065 1.2059 -0.7302 0.5704 0.2797 2.0397 0.0477 0.0060 1.1348 -0.6177 0.5346 0.2628 2.0339 0.0483 0.0041 1.0650 -0.5052 0.4988 0.2469 2.0202 0.0498 0.0005 0.9971 -0.4929 0.4949 0.2452 2.0181 0.0500 0.0000 0.9897 -0.3927 0.4630 0.2320 1.9957 0.0525 -0.0052 0.9312 -0.2802 0.4272 0.2183 1.9567 0.0571 -0.0134 0.8678 -0.1677 0.3914 0.2061 1.8986 0.0645 -0.0246 0.8074 -0.0552 0.3556 0.1957 1.8166 0.0764 -0.0394 0.7506 0.0573 0.3198 0.1874 1.7064 0.0953 -0.0584 0.6979 0.1698 0.2840 0.1814 1.5653 0.1250 -0.0821 0.6500 0.2823 0.2481 0.1780 1.3940 0.1706 -0.1111 0.6074 0.3948 0.2123 0.1773 1.1973 0.2379 -0.1456 0.5702 0.6198 0.1407 0.1842 0.7638 0.4492 -0.2311 0.5125 0.8448 0.0691 0.2010 0.3439 0.7326 -0.3364 0.4747 0.9573 0.0333 0.2123 0.1569 0.8761 -0.3952 0.4618 1.1823 -0.0383 0.2397 -0.1598 0.8738 -0.5220 0.4454
49
Table 5. Moderation Model with Mother Reasoning as the Moderator
Predictor coeff SE t p
Outcome: Adolescent Moral Values T2
Model: R2 = .37, F(4, 43) = 5.5263, p < .01
Constant .7832 .2671 2.9321 .01
Mother Reasoning .0236 .3833 .0616 .95
Mother Implicit Moral Identity .0001 .0005 .1372 .89
MRxMMI .0026 .0012 2.1899 .03
Adolescent Moral Values T1 .6192 .1599 3.4439 .00
Adolescent Gender -.6685 .3063 -2.1821 .03
Conditional effect of Mother Implicit Moral Identity (X) on Adolescent Moral Values (Y) at values of Mother Reasoning (M)
M Effect SE t p LLCI ULCI -1.2470 -0.0032 0.0017 -1.9174 0.0620 -0.0065 0.0002 -1.1470 -0.0029 0.0015 -1.8908 0.0656 -0.0061 0.0002 -1.0470 -0.0027 0.0014 -1.8590 0.0700 -0.0056 0.0002 -0.9470 -0.0024 0.0013 -1.8205 0.0758 -0.0051 0.0003 -0.8470 -0.0021 0.0012 -1.7730 0.0835 -0.0046 0.0003 -0.7470 -0.0019 0.0011 -1.7134 0.0940 -0.0041 0.0003 -0.6470 -0.0016 0.0010 -1.6372 0.1091 -0.0036 0.0004 -0.5470 -0.0014 0.0009 -1.5374 0.1317 -0.0032 0.0004 -0.4470 -0.0011 0.0008 -1.4037 0.1678 -0.0027 0.0005 -0.3470 -0.0008 0.0007 -1.2203 0.2292 -0.0022 0.0006 -0.2470 -0.0006 0.0006 -0.9642 0.3405 -0.0018 0.0006 -0.1470 -0.0003 0.0005 -0.6069 0.5472 -0.0014 0.0007 0.0530 0.0002 0.0004 0.4531 0.6528 -0.0007 0.0011 0.1530 0.0005 0.0004 1.0401 0.3043 -0.0004 0.0014 0.3530 0.0010 0.0005 1.8466 0.0719 -0.0001 0.0021 0.4349 0.0012 0.0006 2.0181 0.0500 0.0000 0.0024 0.4530 0.0012 0.0006 2.0469 0.0470 0.0000 0.0025 0.5530 0.0015 0.0007 2.1640 0.0362 0.0001 0.0029 0.6530 0.0018 0.0008 2.2313 0.0311 0.0002 0.0034 0.7530 0.0020 0.0009 2.2697 0.0284 0.0002 0.0038
50
Table 6. Moderation Model with Mother Ignoring Misbehaviour as the Moderator
Predictor coeff SE t p
Outcome: Adolescent Relative Autonomy T2
Model: R2 = .28, F(4, 43) = 4.1112, p < .01
Constant .2511 .2254 1.1143 .27
Mother Ignoring Misbehaviour -.1853 .6187 -.2995 .77
Mother Explicit Moral Identity .1751 .2901 .6035 .55
MDxMPV -1.6884 .8694 -1.9420 .06
Adolescent Relative Autonomy T1 .6012 .1995 3.0131 .00
Conditional effect of Mother Explicit Moral Identity (X) on Adolescent Relative Autonomy (Y) at values of Mother Ignoring Misbehaviour (M)
M Effect se t P LLCI ULCI -0.8802 1.6612 0.7948 2.0902 0.0426 0.0584 3.2640 -0.7927 1.5135 0.7244 2.0892 0.0426 0.0525 2.9744 -0.7052 1.3657 0.6554 2.0839 0.0432 0.0440 2.6874 -0.6177 1.2180 0.5881 2.0712 0.0444 0.0320 2.4039 -0.5302 1.0703 0.5231 2.0458 0.0469 0.0152 2.1253 -0.4707 0.9698 0.4809 2.0167 0.0500 0.0000 1.9396 -0.4427 0.9225 0.4617 1.9983 0.0520 -0.0085 1.8535 -0.3552 0.7748 0.4051 1.9124 0.0625 -0.0423 1.5918 -0.2677 0.6271 0.3560 1.7614 0.0853 -0.0909 1.3450 -0.1802 0.4793 0.3176 1.5090 0.1386 -0.1613 1.1199 -0.0927 0.3316 0.2943 1.1266 0.2662 -0.2620 0.9252 -0.0052 0.1839 0.2897 0.6346 0.5291 -0.4005 0.7682 0.0823 0.0361 0.3047 0.1185 0.9062 -0.5783 0.6506 0.1698 -0.1116 0.3366 -0.3316 0.7418 -0.7904 0.5672 0.2573 -0.2594 0.3812 -0.6803 0.5000 -1.0282 0.5095 0.3448 -0.4071 0.4347 -0.9365 0.3542 -1.2837 0.4695 0.4323 -0.5548 0.4941 -1.1229 0.2677 -1.5513 0.4416 0.6073 -0.8503 0.6239 -1.3629 0.1800 -2.1085 0.4079 0.6948 -0.9980 0.6922 -1.4418 0.1566 -2.3940 0.3979 0.7823 -1.1458 0.7620 -1.5037 0.1400 -2.6824 0.3909 0.8698 -1.2935 0.8329 -1.5531 0.1277 -2.9731 0.3862
51
Appendix B: List of PVQ Items
BENEVOLENCE
It's very important to him to help the people around him. He wants to care for other people.
It is important to him to be loyal to his friends. He wants to devote himself to people close to him.
UNIVERSALISM
He thinks it is important that every person in the world be treated equally. He wants justice for everybody, even for people he doesn’t know.
It is important to him to listen to people who are different from him. Even when he disagrees with them, he still wants to understand them.
He strongly believes that people should care for nature. Looking after the environment is important to him.
SELF-DIRECTION
Thinking up new ideas and being creative is important to him. He likes to do things in his own original way.
It is important to him to make his own decisions about what he does. He likes to be free to plan and to choose his activities for himself.
STIMULATION
He likes surprises and is always looking for new things to do. He thinks it is important to do lots of different things in life.
He looks for adventures and likes to take risks. He wants to have an exciting life.
HEDONISM
Having a good time is important to him. He likes to “spoil” himself.
He seeks every chance he can to have fun. It is important to him to do things that give him pleasure.
ACHIEVEMENT
It is very important to him to show his abilities. He wants people to admire what he does.
Being very successful is important to him. He likes to impress other people.
POWER
52
It is important to him to be rich. He wants to have a lot of money and expensive things.
It is important to him to be in charge and tell others what to do. He wants people to do what he says.
SECURITY
It is important to him to live in secure surroundings. He avoids anything that might endanger his safety.
It is very important to him that his country be safe from threats from within and without. He is concerned that social order be protected.
CONFORMITY
He believes that people should do what they're told. He thinks people should follow rules at all times, even when no-one is watching.
It is important to him always to behave properly. He wants to avoid doing anything people would say is wrong.
TRADITION
He thinks it's important not to ask for more than what you have. He believes that people should be satisfied with what they have.
Religious belief is important to him. He tries hard to do what his religion requires.
53
Appendix C: Prosocial Self-Regulation Questionnaire (PRQ-P)
These questions are about the reasons you do things. Different kids have different reasons. We want to know how true each of these reasons is for you.
1 = not at all true 2 = not very true 3 = sort of true 4 = very true
Why do you keep a promise to friends?
1. So my friends will like me. (introjected) 2. Because I’d feel like a bad person if I didn’t. (introjected) 3. Because my friends will get mad at me if I don’t. (external) 4. Because I think it’s important to keep promises. (identified) 5. Because I don’t like breaking promises. (identified)
Why do you not make fun of another child for making a mistake?
1. Because if I do, I’ll get in trouble. (external) 2. Because I think it’s important to be nice to others. (identified) 3. Because I’d feel ashamed of myself after I did it. (introjected) 4. Because other kids won’t like me if I do that. (introjected) 5. Because I don’t like to be mean. (identified)
Why don’t you hit someone when you’re mad at them?
1. Because I’ll get in trouble if I do. (external) 2. Because I want other kids to like me. (introjected) 3. Because I don’t like to hit others. (identified) 4. Because I wouldn’t want to hurt someone. (identified) 5. Because I’d feel bad about myself if I did. (introjected)
Why do you try to be nice to other kids?
1. Because if I don’t, other kids won’t like me. (introjected) 2. Because I’ll get in trouble if I don’t. (external) 3. Because I think it’s important to be a nice person. (identified) 4. Because I will feel bad about myself if I don’t. (introjected) 5. Because I don’t like being mean. (identified)
Why would you help someone who is in distress?
1. Because I think it’s important to give help when it’s needed. (identified) 2. Because I could get in trouble if I didn’t. (external) 3. Because I’d feel bad about myself if I didn’t. (introjected) 4. Because I want people to like me. (introjected) 5. Because it is satisfying to help others. (identified)
54
Appendix D: Consent Forms
Information Sheet/Consent Form Time 1: Mother
Thank you for agreeing to participate in our research! The questionnaires and activities you are about to complete are about the way parents and adolescents interact in different situations that arise in daily family life and also about your own personal thoughts and beliefs. It should take you about an hour to complete the whole study from start to finish.
Your participation, as well as that of your child and his/her father is completely voluntary, and you may stop the study at any time if you wish to. You may also refrain from answering any of the questions if you don’t want to answer them. Also, there are no right or wrong answers to any of the questions you will be asked in this study.
All the information given by you, your child, and his/her father will be kept strictly confidential. The information you provide will not be discussed with your child or his/her father. Your name will not appear on any of the data files so that you remain anonymous and only persons authorized by the researcher will have access to the data. Ultimately, we intend to publish the results of this study in an academic journal and in reporting these results, participants will not be identified in any way.
If you have any questions while you are completing the study, or after you have completed the study, you can contact the researcher, Megan Johnston, at the Child Study Center, 416-978-5373 or megan.johnston@utoronto.ca. You can also contact Professor Joan Grusec, the research supervisor, at 416-978-7610. For information regarding your rights as a research participant, please contact the University of Toronto Office of Research Ethics, at 416-946-3273 or ethics.review@utoronto.ca.
Please sign below to indicate that you have read the above information and that you consent to participate in this study. This will also indicate your consent for your child to participate in this study. If you would like a copy of this consent form for your records, please don’t hesitate to ask for one.
I, ________________________, consent to participate in the research study described above,
and also consent to my child’s participation in this study.
____________________________ _____________________
Signature Date
55
Information Sheet/Consent Form Time 1: Adolescent
Thank you for agreeing to participate in our research! The questionnaires and activities you are about to complete are about the way parents and adolescents think about different situations that arise in daily family life and also your personal thoughts and beliefs. It should take you about an hour to complete the study from start to finish. As you may know, your mother and your father are also participating in this study.
Your participation is completely voluntary, and you may stop the study at any time if you wish to. You may also refrain from answering any of the questions if you don’t want to answer them. Also, there are no right or wrong answers to any of the questions you will be asked in this study.
All the information given by you, your mother, and your father will be kept strictly confidential. The information you provide will not be discussed with your mother or your father. Your name will not appear on any of the data files so that you remain anonymous and only persons authorized by the researcher will have access to the data. Ultimately, we intend to publish the results of this study in an academic journal and in reporting these results, participants will not be identified in any way.
If you have any questions while you are completing the study, or after you have completed the study, you can contact the researcher, Megan Johnston, at the Child Study Center, 416-978-5373 or megan.johnston@utoronto.ca. You can also contact Professor Joan Grusec, the research supervisor, at 416-978-7610. For information regarding your rights as a research participant, please contact the University of Toronto Office of Research Ethics, at 416-946-3273 or ethics.review@utoronto.ca.
Please sign below to indicate that you have read the above information and that you provide your assent to participate in this study. If you would like a copy of this consent form for your records, please don’t hesitate to ask for one.
I, ________________________, consent to participate in the research study described above.
____________________________ _____________________
Signature Date
56
Information Sheet/Consent Form Time 2: Mother
Thank you for agreeing to participate in our research! The questionnaires you are about to complete are about the way parents and adolescents interact in different situations that arise in daily family life and also about your own personal thoughts and beliefs. It should take you less than half an hour to complete the whole study from start to finish. Your participation, as well as that of your child and his/her father is completely voluntary, and you may stop the study at any time if you wish to. There are no physical risks to participating in this study. If you feel any discomfort or distress, you may choose not to answer specific questions, and you will not be penalized in any way if you do this; simply proceed to the next question. Also, there are no right or wrong answers to any of the questions you will be asked in this study. All the information given by you, your child, and his/her father will be kept strictly confidential. The information you provide will not be disclosed to your child or his/her father. We ask that you complete the questionnaire by yourself and allow your child and his/her father to complete it by themselves to ensure confidentiality as well as to avoid influencing their responses. Your name, contact information and electronic traces such as IP address will not be collected through the online questionnaire and will not appear on any of the data files so that you remain anonymous. Only persons authorized by the researcher will have access to the data. Ultimately, we intend to publish the results of this study in an academic journal and in reporting these results, participants will not be identified in any way. If you have any questions while you are completing the study, or after you have completed the study, you can contact the researcher, David O’Neill, at the Child Study Center, 416-978-5373 or david.oneill@mail.utoronto.ca. You can also contact Professor Joan Grusec, the research supervisor, at 416-978-7610. For information regarding your rights as a research participant, please contact the University of Toronto Ethics Review Office, at 416-946-3273 or ethics.review@utoronto.ca. Please click “Yes” below to indicate that you have read the above information and that you consent to participate in this study. This will also indicate your consent for your child to participate in this study. If you would like a copy of this consent form for your records, please print one now.
57
Information Sheet/Consent Form Time 2: Adolescent
Thank you for agreeing to participate in our research! The questionnaires you are about to complete are about the way parents and adolescents interact in different situations that arise in daily family life and also about your own personal thoughts and beliefs. It should take you less than half an hour to complete the whole study from start to finish. Your participation, as well as that of your mother and father is completely voluntary, and you may stop the study at any time if you wish to. There are no physical risks to participating in this study. If you feel any discomfort or distress, you may choose not to answer specific questions, and you will not be penalized in any way if you do this; simply proceed to the next question. Also, there are no right or wrong answers to any of the questions you will be asked in this study. All the information given by you, your child, and his/her father will be kept strictly confidential. The information you provide will not be disclosed to your mother or father. We ask that you complete the questionnaire by yourself and allow your mother and father to complete it by themselves to ensure confidentiality as well as to avoid influencing their responses. Your name, contact information and electronic traces such as IP address will not be collected through the online questionnaire and will not appear on any of the data files so that you remain anonymous. Only persons authorized by the researcher will have access to the data. Ultimately, we intend to publish the results of this study in an academic journal and in reporting these results, participants will not be identified in any way. If you have any questions while you are completing the study, or after you have completed the study, you can contact the researcher, David O’Neill, at the Child Study Center, 416-978-5373 or david.oneill@mail.utoronto.ca. You can also contact Professor Joan Grusec, the research supervisor, at 416-978-7610. For information regarding your rights as a research participant, please contact the University of Toronto Ethics Review Office, at 416-946-3273 or ethics.review@utoronto.ca. Please click “Yes” below to indicate that you have read the above information and that you consent to participate in this study. If you would like a copy of this consent form for your records, please print one now.
top related