EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

Links Between Adolescents’ Expected Parental Reactionsand Prosocial Behavioral Tendencies: The Mediating Roleof Prosocial Values

Sam A. Hardy Æ Gustavo Carlo Æ Scott C. Roesch

Received: 23 September 2008 / Accepted: 19 December 2008 / Published online: 7 January 2009! Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Abstract The purpose of the present study was toexamine relations between adolescents’ social cognitions

regarding parenting practices and adolescents’ prosocial

behavioral tendencies. A mediation model was testedwhereby the degree to which adolescents perceived their

parents as responding appropriately to their prosocial and

antisocial behaviors was hypothesized to predict adoles-cents’ tendencies toward prosocial behavior indirectly

by way of adolescents’ prosocial values. Adolescents

(N = 140; M age = 16.76 years, SD = .80; 64% girls;91% European Americans) completed measures of proso-

cial values and of the appropriateness with which they

expected their parents to react to their prosocial and anti-social behaviors. In addition, teachers and parents rated the

adolescents’ tendencies for prosocial behaviors. A struc-

tural equation model test showed that the degree to whichadolescents expected their parents to respond appropriately

to their prosocial behaviors was related positively to their

prosocial values, which in turn was positively associatedwith their tendencies to engage in prosocial behaviors (as

reported by parents and teachers). The findings provideevidence for the central role of adolescents’ evaluations

and expectancies of parental behaviors and of the role of

values in predicting prosocial tendencies. Discussionfocuses on the implications for moral socialization theories

and on the practical implications of these findings in

understanding adolescents’ prosocial development.

Keywords Parenting ! Social cognition !Prosocial behavior ! Values

Introduction

Much theory and evidence supports the everyday notion

that parents are a key influence on the prosocial behaviorand development of children and adolescents (Baumrind

1991; Eisenberg and Valiente 2002; Grusec 2006;

Maccoby and Martin 1983). Although some moral devel-opment theorists such as Kohlberg (1969) sought to

de-emphasize the role of parental socialization, others have

argued for the importance and uniqueness of the parent–child relationship in prosocial and moral development

(Bandura 1986; Eisenberg and Valiente 2002; Grusec2006; Hoffman 2000). However, we know relatively little

about the mediating mechanisms by which parenting and

parent–child relationships affect prosocial behaviors,especially in adolescence (Carlo et al. 1999; Eisenberg and

Valiente 2002). In addition to parents’ behaviors, and the

characteristics of the parent–child relationship, adoles-cents’ social cognitions seem to play an important role

(Grusec and Goodnow 1994; Nelson and Crick 1999;

Wyatt and Carlo 2002; Padilla-Walker and Carlo 2004,2006). Social cognitive theory posits that anticipated con-

sequences of future actions influence the motivation for

such actions (Bandura 1986). Further, anticipated successor failure at a given course of action leads to more or less

valuing of that action (Eccles and Wigfield 2002).

S. A. Hardy (&)Department of Psychology, Brigham Young University, Provo,UT, USAe-mail: sam_hardy@byu.edu

G. CarloDepartment of Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln,Lincoln, NE, USA

S. C. RoeschDepartment of Psychology, San Diego State University,San Diego, CA, USA

123

J Youth Adolescence (2010) 39:84–95

DOI 10.1007/s10964-008-9383-7

Of particular interest in the present study was the conse-

quences or reactions adolescents expect from their parentsfollowing prosocial and antisocial action, and the relation

of these expected parental reactions to prosocial values and

behaviors. More specifically, this study tested a modelwhereby adolescents’ expected parental reactions to pro-

social and antisocial behavior predicted adolescents’

prosocial behavioral tendencies indirectly by way of ado-lescents’ prosocial values.

Expected Parental Reactions

According to social cognitive theory, consequences influ-

ence antecedent behaviors by creating expectations that, in

the future, acting in similar ways will produce similar out-comes (Bandura 1986). Specifically, anticipated rewards

will increase the likelihood of a particular behavior, while

anticipated punishments will decrease the likelihood of thebehavior. Thus, as opposed to behaviorism, social cognitive

theory posits that responses do not automatically follow

from stimuli, but mediational cognitive processes areinvolved. In support of this, research based on social

information-processing theory suggests that children and

adolescents mentally generate possible consequences oftheir antisocial (Crick and Dodge 1994) and prosocial

(Nelson and Crick 1999) actions in the process of making

behavioral decisions. Hence, for example, parentingbehaviors do not automatically elicit responses from ado-

lescents, but rather adolescents have social cognitions that

mediate relations between their parents’ behaviors and theirown actions.

Parents issue many consequences for their adolescents’

behaviors, and these parental reactions are evaluated byadolescents and may play an important role in behavioral

decisions (Wyatt and Carlo 2002; Padilla-Walker and

Carlo 2004, 2006, 2007). For example, when reflectingback on their parents’ reactions to situations in the past

where they (the adolescents) have acted antisocially (e.g.,

lied), teens tend to see yelling (e.g., ‘‘He freaked out andyelled at me!’’) as less appropriate than talking (e.g., ‘‘She

sat me down and talked to me about what I had done and

how to fix it) as a parental reaction (Padilla-Walker andCarlo 2004). Similarly, teens see verbal praise (e.g., ‘‘She

congratulated me and gave me a hug.’’) as a more appro-

priate parental response to prosocial behavior (e.g., helpingsomeone in need) than simply talking or even yelling (e.g.,

‘‘She told me I should be worrying about my problems and

not other peoples’;’’ Padilla-Walker and Carlo 2004). Overtime, adolescents develop general expectancies about their

parents’ reactions to prosocial and antisocial behaviors

(i.e., perceptions of how appropriately their parents willlikely respond) that might affect their own future prosocial

or antisocial behaviors. Such anticipated parental reactions

are predictive of teens’ behaviors, with more appropriateexpected parental reactions to antisocial behavior being

negatively related to delinquency and aggression, and more

appropriate expected parental reactions to prosocialbehavior being linked positively to prosocial behavior and

negatively to delinquency and aggression (Wyatt and Carlo

2002). Thus, over time adolescents develop generalexpectancies about their parents’ reactions to prosocial and

antisocial behaviors that might affect their own futureprosocial or antisocial behaviors.

Expected Parental Reactions and Adolescents’Internalization of Values

Adolescents’ expectancies about their parents’ reactions to

their prosocial and antisocial behaviors may also be linked

to the internalization of parental values. For adolescents tointernalize their parents’ values they must accurately per-

ceive their parents’ values and they must accept those

values; this has been both theoretically (Grusec andGoodnow 1994) and empirically (Padilla-Walker 2007)

demonstrated. Grusec and Goodnow (1994) argue that

expected parental reactions are important to both of thesecomponents of internalization. In terms of accurate per-

ception, adolescents might be more likely to attend to

parental value messages if they attribute positive intentionsto their parents; such perceptions may be based on a history

of their evaluations of the ways in which their parents have

responded to their behaviors. Teens who perceive theirparents as responding appropriately to their prosocial and

antisocial behaviors are more likely to attribute caring

and helping intentions to their parents than inhibiting andcontrolling intentions (Padilla-Walker and Carlo 2004).

Further, affectionate parenting (high warmth and respon-

siveness, with low indifferent, indulgent, and autocraticparenting practices) is predictive of adolescents’ accurate

perception of parental values. Hence, in positive parent–

teen relationships where teens attribute good will to theirparents’ intentions, teens may be more likely to tune into

parental messages, and this greater attentiveness to parental

messages generally leads to more accurate understandingof parental values.

Expected parental reactions may play an even more

important role in whether or not adolescents accept theirparents’ values. There are at least two potential mecha-

nisms involved. First, the acceptance of values is strongly

influenced by the degree to which the child believes his orher parents’ reactions are appropriate to the deed or mis-

deed and that ‘‘the parent’s intervention has truth-value and

that due process has been observed…’’ (Grusec andGoodnow 1994, p. 14). By ‘‘truth-value’’ they mean that if

J Youth Adolescence (2010) 39:84–95 85

123

adolescents get in trouble for doing something wrong it is

something that they actually did—rather than a falseaccusation. ‘‘Due process’’ here is referring to the notion

that the parents use appropriate and tactful procedures and

interactions when responding to their adolescent’s behav-iors. In other words, adolescents are more accepting of

parental socialization when they see their parents as deal-

ing fairly with them in response to their positive andnegative behaviors.

The second way in which adolescents’ expected parentalreactions may be linked to their acceptance of parental

values is by affecting the subjective value that adolescents

place on certain behaviors. Anticipated success or failure ata given behavior influences the perceived value of that

behavior (Eccles and Wigfield 2002). Similarly, perceived

expectations for prosocial behavior have been linked toprosocial goals (i.e., internalized valuing of prosocial

behavior). So, if an adolescent is praised by his or her

parents for behaving prosocially, he or she may come tosee more value in prosocial behavior. On the other hand, if

prosocial behavior goes unrewarded, it may not be seen as

having as much value. Thus, expected parental reactionsconvey information about the anticipated success or failure

of the adolescents’ behaviors, and these expectancies seem

important for how much adolescents value such behaviorsand are motivated to enact them in the future.

The Role of Values in Prosocial Behavior

In line with prior social sciences conceptualizations, valueswere defined as ‘‘(a) concepts or beliefs, (b) about desirable

end states or behaviors, (c) that transcend specific situa-

tions, (d) guide selection or evaluation of behavior andevents, and (e) are ordered by relative importance’’

(Schwartz and Bilsky 1987, p. 551). More simply, ‘‘values

convey what is important to us in our lives’’ (Bardi andSchwartz 2003, p. 1208). Once appropriated into one’s

sense of self, values have a motivational dimension that

provides impetus and direction for volitional behaviors(Manstead 1996; Ryan and Connell 1989; Verplanken and

Holland 2002). This is likely due to value-consistent

behaviors being rewarding and fulfilling a need for self-consistency (Bardi and Schwartz 2003). The strength of

relations between social cognitions (such as values) and

behaviors is dependent on the specificity of the socialcognitions and behaviors involved (Ajzen and Fishbein

2005). Thus, prosocial values (such as kindness) should be

expected to have their strongest impact on prosocialbehavior.

Research has demonstrated significant relations between

values (or similar constructs such as personal norms andpersonal goals) and behaviors, including specific links

between prosocial values and prosocial behaviors

(Bardi and Schwartz 2003). Much of this work has beendone with adults. For example, participants who reported

higher salience of prosocial values (e.g., helpful, equality)

donated more to a charitable organization than those whoreported lower salience of these values in an experimental

condition that primed their self concept (Verplanken and

Holland 2002). Similarly, Bardi and Schwartz (2003)demonstrated correlations between what they categorize as

‘‘benevolence values’’ (i.e., defined as values relevant to‘‘preservation and enhancement of the welfare of people

with whom one is in frequent personal contact’’; p. 1208)

and prosocial behaviors in adults. Research involvingadolescents has also shown links between prosocial values

and prosocial behaviors (e.g., Padilla-Walker 2007; Padil-

la-Walker and Carlo 2007; Pratt et al. 2003).

The Present Study

Much research has examined correlates of various parent-

ing styles and practices (Bornstein 2002). However, we stillknow little about mechanisms by which parenting might

influence adolescent outcomes. Thus, the present study

makes a contribution by examining the role two aspects ofadolescent social cognition might play in linking parenting

to adolescents’ behaviors: (a) adolescents’ perceptions of

the appropriateness of their parents’ reactions to theirprosocial and antisocial behaviors, and (b) adolescents’

prosocial values. In the present study, we positioned pro-

social values as a mediator or indirect link betweenexpected parental reactions and adolescents’ prosocial

behavior, largely because research on attitudes suggests

domain-specific social cognitions are more strongly linkedto similar domain-specific behaviors (Ajzen and Fishbein

2005).

More specifically, the purpose of the present study wasto test a mediation model whereby adolescents’ expected

parental reactions to prosocial and antisocial behaviors

would be linked to adolescents’ prosocial behaviors indi-rectly by way of prosocial values. This model is founded on

social cognitive theory (Bandura 1986) and its implications

for parenting (Grusec and Goodnow 1994). Specifically,over the course of time adolescents learn about prosocial

values and behaviors partly by the way in which their

parents respond to their antisocial and prosocial behaviors.Prior focus has generally been on the role of parental

responses to negative child behaviors, so, we sought to also

examine the role of parental responses to positive actions.When parents are seen as responding appropriately to

antisocial and prosocial behaviors, teens are more attentive

to parental prosocial value messages, and more open toaccepting such messages. Further, when parents respond

86 J Youth Adolescence (2010) 39:84–95

123

appropriately to their adolescent’s behaviors, it is more

reinforcing of positive behaviors, leading teens to placegreater value on such actions. As teens internalize prosocial

values, these serve to guide and motivate prosocial actions.

Therefore, we sought to test the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1 We hypothesized that adolescents who

perceived their parents’ responses to prosocial and antiso-cial behaviors as more appropriate would place greater

importance on prosocial values. The social cognitive

framework allows for parental reactions in both prosocialand antisocial contexts to affect adolescents’ motivation

toward positive behaviors. However, a prior study reported

that expected parental reactions to prosocial behaviorswere typically more strongly related to adolescents’ pro-

social behaviors than expected parental reactions to

antisocial behaviors (Wyatt and Carlo 2002).

Hypothesis 2 It was anticipated that adolescents who

more strongly endorsed prosocial values would also havegreater tendencies towards prosocial behaviors.

Hypothesis 3 We proposed that prosocial values would

mediate relations between expected parental reactions (toprosocial and antisocial behaviors) and prosocial

behaviors.

Method

Participants

Participants were 140 adolescents (M age = 16.76 years,SD = .80; 64% girls; 91% European American), their

parent, and their teachers from a public high school in a

mid-size city (approximate city population was 250,000) inthe Midwestern region of the United States. In terms of

mothers’ education, 71% of the mothers of the adolescentsin the present sample had at least a 4-year degree from

college or university (mothers’ education level is often

used as a proxy for socioeconomic status; Bornstein et al.2003). Further, 82% of teens had parents who were married

and had never been divorced or separated.

Procedure

Participants were recruited through a local public highschool during spring semester. First, we identified a group

of four teachers willing to participate in the study; they

taught in psychology (male), family and consumer sci-ences (female), computer technology (female), and

biology (female). Second, we went into the classrooms

and presented the study, and interested students tookhome a packet that included a letter to their parents, the

parental consent form, and a parent-report measure of the

adolescents’ tendencies to engage in prosocial behaviorsacross a range of contexts. Only the psychology courses

offered extra credit, and thus those courses had the

highest rates of participation (approximately 95%). Othercourses ranged from 25 to 75% participation. Third, stu-

dents who returned the parental consent form were asked

to sign the student assent form, and to complete theadolescent questionnaires. Most students who took home

packets returned the consent form. Fourth, a teacher-report measure of adolescents’ prosocial behavior was

obtained for each of the students who participated in the

study.

Measures

Expected Parental Reactions

Adolescents’ perceptions of the appropriateness with whichthey expected their parents to react to their prosocial and

antisocial behaviors were assessed using the 16-item

expected parental reactions (EPR) questionnaire (Wyattand Carlo 2002). Adolescents were presented with 16

scenarios where they have hypothetically done something

antisocial or prosocial and asked to ‘‘Please rate each of thefollowing statements on how appropriately your parent

might react to the situation’’ on a five-point scale (ranging

from 1 = not at all appropriately to 5 = very appropri-ately). Adolescents with more than one parent were asked

to respond in terms of the parent they felt closest to. There

were 8 items for expected parental reactions to prosocialbehaviors (a = .78; sample item, ‘‘If I were to lend

someone money for lunch, my parent would react…’’), and

8 items for expected parental reactions to antisocialbehaviors (a = .90; sample item, ‘‘If I had to stay after

school for starting a fight, my parent would react…’’; for

additional information on measurement design, reliability,and validity, see Wyatt and Carlo 2002).

Prosocial Values

We used three items from the Values-in-Action Inventory

of Strengths for youth (VIA-youth; Peterson and Seligman2004) to assess the extent to which the adolescents valued

and enjoyed helping and being kind to others. The

VIA-youth assesses 24 different values (e.g., bravery,creativity). For the present study, we used the three items

(a = .65) from the kindness subscale that seemed most in

lined with the definitions of values presented earlier (otheritems seemed to be assessing behaviors more than values).

Adolescents rated statements, using a scale from 1

(very much unlike me) to 5 (very much like me), accordingto how much the statements described them personally

J Youth Adolescence (2010) 39:84–95 87

123

(sample item: ‘‘I enjoy being kind to others’’). The

VIA-youth has demonstrated adequate validity and reli-ability across adolescent samples (e.g., Hardy and Carlo

2005; Peterson and Seligman 2004).

Prosocial Behavioral Tendencies

The prosocial tendencies measure (PTM-R; Carlo et al.2003) was used to assess six different prosocial behavioral

tendencies that vary in terms of situations (e.g., emergencysituations) and motives (e.g., altruism). We modified this

original self-report measure for use as a parent- and tea-

cher-report measure by retaining the highest loading itemsfrom each subscale (based on a prior dataset that used the

self-report version) and by modifying the stem of the

statements. We decided to use two independent reportersfor several reasons. First, using other-report measures such

as from teachers and parents helps reduce social desir-

ability and shared method biases (Nederhof 1985). Second,getting varying perspectives on an individual’s behavior

can be helpful, particularly when the different reporters

tend to observe the individuals in different contexts andsocial roles (e.g., teachers versus parents; Noland and

McCallum 2000). Prior researchers have reported adequate

reliability and validity (including convergent validity) onthe PTM (e.g., Carlo et al. 2003; Carlo and Randall 2002;

Hardy and Carlo 2005).

For the 24-item parent-report version (PTM-P), parentsrated (using a scale from 1 = very unlikely to 5 = verylikely) their adolescent’s likelihood of exhibiting six types

of behaviors to ‘‘someone else’’ (6 items), to a ‘‘teacher’’

(6 items) and to ‘‘another student’’ (6 items). The six

subscales were (with sample items): compliant (a = .65;‘‘…when they ask for help’’), anonymous (a = .77;

‘‘…without people knowing he/she helped.’’), dire

(a = .82; ‘‘…when there is an emergency situation.’’),emotional (a = .85; ‘‘…when the situation is emotionally

evocative.’’), altruism (a = .81; ‘‘…when there might be a

cost to him/herself.’’), and public (a = .77; ‘‘…when otherpeople are watching.’’).

For the 12-item teacher-report version (PTM-T), teach-ers rated (using a scale from 1 = very unlikely to 5 = verylikely) their student’s likelihood of exhibiting six types of

behaviors to ‘‘you’’ (the teacher; 6 items) and to ‘‘anotherstudent’’ (6 items). The six subscales were (with sample

items): compliant (a = .91; ‘‘…when they ask for help’’),

anonymous (a = .93; ‘‘…without people knowing he/shehelped.’’), dire (a = .86; ‘‘…when there is an emergency

situation.’’), emotional (a = .92; ‘‘…when the situation is

emotionally evocative.’’), altruism (a = .94; ‘‘…whenthere might be a cost to him/herself.’’), and public

(a = .92; ‘‘…when other people are watching.’’).

Results

Descriptive Statistics, Gender Differences,

and Interrelations among Study Variables

Means and standard deviations for all the observed study

variables are presented in Table 1, and bivariate correla-

tions in Table 2. Expected parental reactions to prosocial

Table 1 Descriptive statisticsfor all observed variablesincluded in SEM models

Sample sizes ranged fromn = 131 to 140

Variables Range M SD

Expected parental reactions to antisocial behavior 1–5 3.31 .83

Expected parental reactions to prosocial behavior 1–5 4.44 .49

Prosocial values item 1 (‘‘I really enjoy doing small favors for friends.’’) 1–5 4.22 .70

Prosocial values item 2 (‘‘I love to make other people happy.’’) 1–5 4.47 .66

Prosocial values item 3 (‘‘I enjoy being kind to others.’’ 1–5 4.46 .64

Parent-report prosocial behavioral tendencies—compliant 1–5 4.50 .46

Parent-report prosocial behavioral tendencies—public 1–5 4.36 .54

Parent-report prosocial behavioral tendencies—anonymous 1–5 4.37 .57

Parent-report prosocial behavioral tendencies—dire 1–5 4.75 .41

Parent-report prosocial behavioral tendencies—emotional 1–5 4.06 .67

Parent-report prosocial behavioral tendencies—altruistic 1–5 3.85 .67

Teacher-report prosocial behavioral tendencies—compliant 1–5 4.15 .75

Teacher-report prosocial behavioral tendencies—public 1–5 4.13 .74

Teacher-report prosocial behavioral tendencies—anonymous 1–5 4.10 .76

Teacher-report prosocial behavioral tendencies—dire 1–5 4.60 .60

Teacher-report prosocial behavioral tendencies—emotional 1–5 4.11 .76

Teacher-report prosocial behavioral tendencies—altruistic 1–5 3.97 .92

88 J Youth Adolescence (2010) 39:84–95

123

behavior were positively correlated with one of the pro-

social values items (item 3). Further, at least one of theprosocial values items was positively correlated with

parent-report compliant and altruistic prosocial behavioral

tendencies, and with all of the teacher-report prosocialbehavioral tendencies. Analyses of variance (ANOVAs)

by gender found girls to be significantly higher on two of

the prosocial values items (item 2 and item 3) and five ofthe six forms of teacher-report prosocial behavioral ten-

dencies (compliant, public, anonymous, emotional, and

altruistic).

Structural Equation Modeling

We used structural equation modeling (SEM) to test the

hypothesized mediation model whereby adolescents’

expected parental reactions to prosocial and antisocialbehavior were proposed to predict adolescents’ prosocial

behavioral tendencies indirectly by way of adolescents’

prosocial values. The model involves four variables:adolescents’ expected parental reactions to prosocial

behavior, adolescents’ expected reactions to antisocial

behavior, prosocial values, parent-report adolescents’prosocial behavioral tendencies, and teacher-report ado-

lescents’ prosocial behavioral tendencies. However, given

the modest sample size, it was not feasible to createlatent variables in the SEM mediation model for all the

study variables. Rather, latent variables were only cre-

ated for the endogenous variables (the mediator andoutcomes). The two predictor variables (expected

parental reactions to prosocial and antisocial behaviors)

each involved eight items, and thus creating latentvariables would have required item parceling; therefore,

rather than creating latent variables, composite scores

were computed taking the mean of the eight items foreach variable.

One key benefit of SEM is that it allows researchers to

simultaneously estimate all the model parameters forcomplex models such as the mediation model hypothesized

in the present study. The structural portion of the mediation

model involved a number of paths between study variables.First, there were paths from the predictors (expected

parental reactions to prosocial and antisocial behavior) to

Table 2 Bivariate correlations among all observed variables included in the SEM models

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

EPR–Anti

EPR–Pro .38*

Pro values 1 .05 .11

Pro values 2 .08 .05 .35*

Pro values 3 .10 .21* .32* .49*

P-R compliant .09 .10 .15 .16 .19*

P-R public -.02 -.04 .09 .07 .05 .71*

P-R anon .10 .08 .01 .04 .16 .75* .72*

P-R dire -.06 .09 .08 .05 -.003 .36* .35* .33*

P-R emotional .06 .08 .06 .07 .15 .40* .47* .44* .38*

P-R altruistic .13 -.04 .10 .21* .13 .56* .57* .68* .27* .52*

T-R compliant .003 .09 .24* .18* .19* .13 .11 .07 .07 -.06 .004

T-R Public .02 .07 .26* .18* .19* .12 .10 .07 .07 -.06 .04 .97*

T-R Anon .02 .08 .27* .17 .19* .12 .09 .06 .10 -.05 .01 .96* .97*

T-R Dire -.04 .05 .16 .17* .23* .06 .10 .08 .10 .04 .05 .61* .61* .58*

T-R Emotional .03 .08 .26* .20* .20* .13 .10 .06 .10 -.05 .05 .96* .97* .97* .59*

T-R Altruistic .04 .05 .24* .21* .23* .11 .08 .07 .03 -.05 .02 .91* .91* .93* .52* .92*

Sample sizes ranged from n = 129 to 140; * p \ .05

(EPR–anti), expected parental reactions to antisocial behavior; (EPR–pro), expected parental reactions to prosocial behavior; (pro values 1),prosocial values item 1; (pro values 2), prosocial values item 2; (pro values 3), prosocial values item 3; (P-R compliant), parent-report prosocialbehavioral tendencies—compliant; (P-R public), parent-report prosocial behavioral tendencies—public; (P-R anon), parent-report prosocialbehavioral tendencies—anonymous; (P-R dire), parent-report prosocial behavioral tendencies—dire; (P-R emotional), parent-report prosocialbehavioral tendencies—emotional; (P-R altruistic), parent-report prosocial behavioral tendencies—altruistic; (T-R compliant), teacher-reportprosocial behavioral tendencies—compliant; (T-R public), teacher-report prosocial behavioral tendencies—public; (T-R anon), teacher-reportprosocial behavioral tendencies—anonymous; (T-R dire), teacher-report prosocial behavioral tendencies—dire; (T-R emotional), teacher-reportprosocial behavioral tendencies—emotional; (T-R altruistic), teacher-report prosocial behavioral tendencies—altruistic

J Youth Adolescence (2010) 39:84–95 89

123

the mediator (prosocial values).1 Second, there were paths

from the mediator to the two outcomes (parent-reports and

teacher-reports of adolescents’ prosocial behavioraltendencies).

Within SEM, models are evaluated at two levels: overall

model fit and individual parameters subsumed within themodel. Because of the limitations of the v2-square likeli-

hood ratio test statistics, many researchers have suggested

using multiple measures of descriptive model fit to deter-mine overall model fit (e.g., Hoyle 2000). In the current

study, the following indices were employed in addition to

the Yuan-Bentler Scale v2 test: (a) the Comparative FitIndex (CFI; Bentler 1990), with values greater than .93

indicating reasonable model fit; and (b) the standardized

root mean residual (SRMR), with values less than .08indicating reasonable model fit (Hu and Bentler 1999). In

evaluating the statistical significance of individual model

parameters [e.g., factor loadings, structural (path) coeffi-cients], an alpha level of .05 was employed. For all models,

parameters were estimated using the full-information

maximum likelihood missing data estimation procedureemployed by EQS (Bentler 2008). In addition, the robust

procedure provided by EQS was used to correct for mul-

tivariate non-normality in the data.

The estimated mediation model fit well according to

descriptive fit indices, Y-Bv2 (N = 140, df = 116) =

136.88, p = .09, CFI = .99, SRMR = .04. All standard-ized parameter values appear in Fig. 1. Moreover, all factor

loadings were large, positive, and statistically significant;

suggesting viable latent prosocial values and prosocialbehavioral tendencies variables.

As hypothesized, perceptions of appropriateness of

expected parental reactions to prosocial behavior was sig-nificantly related to prosocial values (R2 = .04), which in

turn, was significantly and positively related to both parent-

(R2 = .04), and teacher-reports (R2 = .08) of adolescents’prosocial behavioral tendencies (Fig. 1). MacKinnon’s

asymmetric confidence interval was calculated to deter-

mine if this mediated effect was statistically significant(MacKinnon et al. 2002). The mediated effects for both

parent- and teacher-report of adolescents’ prosocial

behavioral tendencies were .01–.08 and .02–.11, respec-tively. Because neither confidence interval contained 0,

mediation is supported. However, the direct relation

between expected parental reactions to antisocial behaviorsand prosocial values was not significant.

We ran a second model that included direct paths from

the expected parental reactions predictor variables to theprosocial behavioral tendencies outcome variables. This

model fit well according to the descriptive fit indices,

Y-Bv2 (N = 140, df = 112) = 134.23, p = .08, CFI =.99, SRMR = .04. However, neither of the additional

direct effects from expected parental reactions to the pro-

social behavioral tendencies outcome variables wasstatistically significant (bs ranged from -.03 to .05, all

ps [ .05). This reinforces the hypothesized mediated effect

between expected parental reactions and prosocial behav-iors through kindness.

ProsocialValues

Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 compliant

emotionalanonymous

publicdire

altruism

.18*

.50* .67* .71*

.73*/

.93*

.83*/

.98*.41*/.60*

.82*/

.98*

.55*/

.98*

.89*/

.98*

.21*/.31*

.06

ExpectedParentalReactions to ProsocialBehavior

ExpectedParentalReactions to AntisocialBehavior

ProsocialBehavioralTendencies

.38*

Fig. 1 Factor loadings and structural path coefficients for themediating role of prosocial values on the relations between expectedparental reactions to prosocial and antisocial behaviors and parent-reported and teacher-reported prosocial behavioral tendencies. For allmodel parameters involving the prosocial behavioral tendencies latent

variable, the first number represents the parent-reported prosocialbehavioral tendencies latent variable and the second number repre-sents the teacher-reported prosocial behavioral tendencies latentvariable. All reported model parameters are standardized values(*p \ .05)

1 A direct link from the predictor to outcome was necessary forearlier conceptions of mediation (Baron and Kenny 1986). However,more recently MacKinnon et al. (MacKinnon et al. 2002, 2007) haveargued that a significant direct link be should not be a necessarycriteria for mediation, as long as the indirect path is significant. Infact, they state that such cases of significant indirect but not directrelations between predictors and outcomes are quite common, anddemonstrate that most of the links between the predictors andoutcomes are mediational. Moreover, requiring a significant directeffect reduces the power to detect true mediation effects.

90 J Youth Adolescence (2010) 39:84–95

123

Finally, the invariance of both the measurement and

structural parameters of the model was tested across genderusing the LaGrange multiplier of constraints. The LaGrange

multiplier is a multivariate test that tests for the statistical

significance of each constraint, controlling for the otherconstraints. This model fit well according to descriptive fit

indices, Y-Bv2 (N = 140, df = 468) = 697.12, p \ .05,

CFI = .92, SRMR = .07. Moreover, all model parameterswere invariant across gender (all ps [ .05). Thus, there

were no differences in the relations between variablesacross boys and girls.

Discussion

The purpose of the present study was to test a mediationmodel whereby adolescents’ perceptions of the appropri-

ateness with which they expected their parents to respond

to their prosocial and antisocial behaviors was posited torelate to the adolescents’ tendencies to engage in prosocial

behaviors—but indirectly by way of adolescents’ prosocial

values. In general the results supported the hypothesizedmediation model. Adolescents who perceived their parents

as responding appropriately to their prosocial behaviors

placed greater value on such behaviors, and in turn ado-lescents who valued prosocial behaviors more were

perceived by parents and teachers as more likely to engage

in prosocial behaviors. However, adolescents’ perceptionsof the appropriateness of parental responses to antisocial

behaviors were not predictive of their prosocial values.

These findings provide support for the social cognitiveframework suggesting importance of adolescents’ social

cognitions such as expectancies and values in understand-

ing adolescents’ prosocial responding (Bandura 1986;Eccles and Wigfield 2002; Nelson and Crick 1999).

In partial support of Hypothesis 1, adolescents who

perceived more appropriate parental reactions to prosocialbehaviors (but not reactions to antisocial behaviors) more

strongly valued and enjoyed prosocial behaviors. This

pattern of findings is similar to prior work on expectedparental reactions (e.g., Wyatt and Carlo 2002). These

results suggest that parental reactions in prosocial behav-

ioral contexts, and perhaps more importantly adolescents’perceptions and evaluations of these parental reactions,

might play a role in the process by which values are

internalized in adolescence (Grusec and Goodnow 1994). Itseems that when adolescents see their parents as respond-

ing fairly and conveying reasonable values messages they

are more open to listening to and accepting such messages.Consistent with this notion, a prior study revealed that

adolescents who expected their parents to react appropri-

ately to their prosocial and antisocial behaviors were morelikely to view their parents’ intentions as caring and

helpful, and to report that their parents tended to express

more positive affect, and use less yelling and more talking(Padilla-Walker and Carlo 2004).

It is unclear why adolescents’ perceptions of the

appropriateness of their parents’ reactions to their antiso-cial behaviors did not significantly predict their prosocial

values. A prior study looking at expected parental reactions

and youth outcomes similarly found expected parentalreactions to prosocial situations, but not expected parental

reactions to antisocial situations, to be predictive of teens’prosocial behavioral tendencies, while both were nega-

tively associated with teens’ aggression. It seems possible

that the reinforcement of prosocial behaviors that comeswhen parents appropriately respond to such behaviors is a

more salient influence on teens’ values and motivations

than punishment for negative behaviors. In a sense, thesedifferential findings for parenting in prosocial and antiso-

cial contexts are interesting because while most prior

theory and empirical work on the internalization of valuesand the socialization of moral behaviors has emphasized

discipline situations (e.g., Grusec 2006; Hoffman 2000),

the present findings support arguments for consideringparenting in prosocial contexts (e.g., where teens have done

something positive; Eisenberg et al. 2006; Staub 1979;

Wyatt and Carlo 2002). Taken together with other recentfindings (Padilla-Walker and Carlo 2004, 2006, 2007;

Wyatt and Carlo 2002), the present results add to the

growing evidence that contrasts with psychoanalytic andconscience internalization theorists who emphasize trans-

gressive, discipline contexts as the primary socialization

contexts for facilitating moral development (e.g., Grusec2006; Hoffman 2000; Kochanska 1993). These traditional

approaches suggest that discipline contexts are most sig-

nificant for inculcating moral values because of the oftenintense emotional climate that makes those encounters

salient and memorable to the child. However, more

recently, scholars have noted the need for greater attentionto the effects of parenting in prosocial behavior contexts on

moral development (Eisenberg et al. 2006; Grusec 2006).

One might argue that parental reactions to adolescents’prosocial behaviors are also emotionally salient and thus

equally important moral socialization contexts. For

instance, an adolescent may feel joy and pride at beingpraised for a prosocial act, or feel embarrassment or dis-

appointment if the prosocial act is not acknowledged and

positively reinforced. Although transgressive contextspresent opportunities to emphasize what parents prohibit

and consider morally wrong, prosocial behavior contexts

present opportunities for parents to emphasize what iscondoned and considered morally correct.

In support of Hypothesis 2, prosocial values significantly

predicted parents’ and teachers’ reports of adolescents’prosocial behavioral tendencies. In other words, adolescents

J Youth Adolescence (2010) 39:84–95 91

123

who placed more value on prosocial behaviors also were

perceived by their parents and teachers as more likely toengage in prosocial behaviors across a variety of contexts.

This is in line with prior work showing links between values

and behaviors (for reviews, Bardi and Schwartz 2003; Hitlinand Piliavin 2004; Rohan 2000), including several studies

focused on prosocial functioning during adolescence

(Padilla-Walker 2007; Padilla-Walker and Carlo 2007; Prattet al. 2003), and provides additional support for the notion

that valuing a given course of action can provide personalmotivation to pursue that course of action (Bardi and Sch-

wartz 2003; Manstead 1996; Ryan and Connell 1989;

Verplanken and Holland 2002). In contrast to prior studiesexamining the relations among parental expectancies, val-

ues, and prosocial behaviors, the present findings were

based on multiple reports of adolescents’ prosocial behav-ioral tendencies, which reduces problems with social

desirability and shared method variance biases.

In line with Hypothesis 3, expected parental reactionsto prosocial behavior was indirectly related to prosocial

behavioral tendencies via adolescents’ prosocial values

but was not directly related to prosocial behavioral ten-dencies. These findings are consistent with work on the

internalization of values which suggests that parental

socialization processes work to influence teen behaviorsvia the transmission of moral values and traits (Eisenberg

et al. 2006; Grusec and Goodnow 1994; Padilla-Walker

and Carlo 2007). The fact that parental socializationpractices did not directly predict teens’ prosocial behav-

ioral tendencies might help explain individual differences

in prosocial behaviors. That is, as Grusec and Goodnow(1994) noted, there are individual differences in children’s

openness and acceptance of parental moral messages and

these translate into individual differences in the extent towhich children internalize moral values. In a recent study,

investigators found support for this notion such that

accurate perception and acceptance predicted internaliza-tion of values, which in turn, predicted prosocial

behaviors—more importantly perhaps was that there were

no direct paths between acceptance and accurate percep-tion and prosocial behaviors (Padilla-Walker 2007; see

also Carlo et al. 2007). Thus, the meditational effect of

values on the relations between expected parental reac-tions and prosocial behavioral tendencies in the present

study was consistent with other reported meditational

effects in recent studies on the socialization of prosocialbehaviors and suggest that there are differences in the

extent to which children internalize moral values even

when parents might use similar parenting practices. Fur-ther research should examine the possible mediating

effects of other social cognitions (e.g., moral reasoning)

and moral emotions (e.g., sympathy) on the relationsbetween parenting and prosocial behaviors.

In summary, the results suggest that adolescents who

perceive their parents as responding appropriately to theirprosocial behaviors might place more value on prosocial

behaviors, and adolescents with more internalized proso-

cial values might engage in prosocial behaviors morefrequently. In other words, one route by which parenting

practices may influence adolescents’ prosocial behaviors is

by way of two facets of their social cognition: the way theyperceive of and evaluate their parents’ behaviors, and the

value they place on prosocial behaviors. Thus, researchersand parents should not only attend to what parents do, but

to how adolescents perceive of and respond to such par-

enting behaviors, and the impact of these social cognitionson adolescents’ motivations and behaviors. In other words,

in some cases it may not be what the parent actually does

that is at issue, but the adolescents’ interpretations.One additional interesting pattern of results worth

mentioning was the lack of correlation between parents’

and teachers’ reports of adolescents’ prosocial behavioraltendencies. Recent evidence supports the value and validity

of using multiple informant reports in addition to or in

place of self-reports (Vazire 2006). However, it should notbe assumed that informant reports will always agree. Par-

ents and teachers observe adolescents in different social

contexts, and play different roles in their lives. Thus, it isnot surprising that they have different perceptions of the

youth. Further, some argue that personality does not nec-

essarily entail consistent responding across contexts(Cervone 2005). However, the fact that the valuing of

prosocial behavior was positively related to both reports of

adolescents’ prosocial behavioral tendencies suggests thatthese disparate reports may both be tapping a similar

construct.

Although we found support for the proposed mediationmodel, there are several important limitations to the

present study. First, a rigorous examination of the role of

values will require the need to more confidently establishdirection of causality through more sophisticated study

designs (e.g., longitudinal design, experimental manipula-

tion). There is growing recognition that there are reciprocalinfluence paths such that children also impact parenting

practices (Kuczynski et al. 1997). Furthermore, there is

evidence that parents also have expectancies about theirchildren’s moral actions, and that those expectancies are

likely to influence their actions and reactions (Sigel and

McGillicuddy-De Lisi 2002; Smetana 1997). Second, thepresent sample was largely white, middle-class families,

and thus, the study findings might be specific to that

demographic. Prior research has found that parenting stylesand practices and their relation to adolescent outcomes

often differ across cultures and even across ethnic groups

in the US (for a review, see Arnett 2007). It is possible thatthe mechanisms in our model function similarly across

92 J Youth Adolescence (2010) 39:84–95

123

various demographic groups, but, what is seen as appro-

priate might differ. However, future research needs toexplore these mechanisms across different cultures and

ethnicities. Third, the path coefficient effect sizes ranged

from small to medium (using Cohen’s classificationscheme; Cohen and Cohen 1983); thus, necessitating future

research on other potential important predictors. Specifi-

cally, more needs to be done to elucidate other mediators(e.g., attachment style) and moderators (e.g., parent–ado-

lescent relationship quality) involved in the socialization ofprosocial values and behaviors. Additionally, obviously

parents are not the only influence on prosocial development;

thus, research is needed comparing and contrasting parentalinfluence to that of other socialization agents such as peers,

religion, and schools. Fourth, when adolescents were asked

to report on their perceptions of the appropriateness of theirparents’ reactions to their prosocial and antisocial behav-

iors, they were only required to respond regarding the

parent to whom they felt closest. While this could poten-tially be problematic (e.g., the parent they feel closest to

might not be the parent who is most influential in terms of

their values and behaviors), in most cases we think it wasthe same parent who also completed the measure of their

adolescents’ prosocial behavioral tendencies. Thus, there

was likely some consistency across the measures.

Conclusions

There are several important implications of the present

study. First, this research further demonstrates the centralrole of adolescents’ social cognitions in understanding the

links between parenting and prosocial behaviors. Work on

adolescents’ expectancies (such as expected parental reac-tions) is surprisingly sparse, even though the notion is well-

grounded in social cognitive theory (e.g., Bandura 1986;

Grusec and Goodnow 1994). Additionally, in the moraldevelopment literature, moral values tend to be overshad-

owed by an emphasis on moral reasoning and moral

emotions (Lapsley 1996). But, more research on the social-ization of values is warranted given increased scholarly

interest in examining moral development constructs other

than moral reasoning and moral emotions (Hart 2005;Lapsley and Narvaez 2004), and given the increasing focus

of values and virtues in many moral and character education

programs (Lapsley and Narvaez 2006). Second, while mostprior work on parenting behaviors has emphasized how

parents respond to negative behaviors (e.g., discipline;

Grusec 2006; Hoffman 2000), the present findings upholdarguments for also considering how parents respond to

positive behaviors (Eisenberg et al. 2006; Staub 1979; Wyatt

and Carlo 2002). These prosocial situations may be just assalient as discipline situations in providing opportunities to

guide youth in the right direction. Third, research on ado-

lescents’ perceptions of appropriateness of parentalreactions emphasizes the active, interpretive role of children

in their development (Smetana 1997) and suggests an alter-

native research venue (to the traditional research onparenting styles and practices) for studying the impact of

parental socialization. In other words, rather than focus

simply on what the parents do, researchers should furtherexample adolescents’ social cognitions relevant to parental

behaviors. Finally, although much of the prior work on moralsocialization has indeed focused on childhood (for reviews,

see Eisenberg et al. 2006; Eisenberg and Valiente 2002), the

evidence points towards continued prosocial development(Colby and Damon 1992; Eisenberg and Valiente 2002) and

parental influence (Padilla-Walker et al. 2008) into adult-

hood. There is a clear need for more theoretical and empiricalwork targeted at understanding the processes of moral

socialization and prosocial development across adolescence.

Acknowledgments Funding support was provided by a grant fromthe Values-In-Action Institute to Gustavo Carlo. The authors wouldlike to thank the teachers, staff, parents, and students at LincolnSoutheast High School for their generous cooperation and assistance.Data for this project was collected while Sam Hardy was at theUniversity of Nebraska-Lincoln. Correspondence may be addressed toSam Hardy, Department of Psychology, Brigham Young University,Provo, UT 84602, sam_hardy@byu.edu.

References

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2005). The influence of attitudes onbehavior. In D. Albarracı́, B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.),The handbook of attitudes (pp. 173–221). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Arnett, J. J. (2007). Adolescence and emerging adulthood: A culturalapproach (3rd ed.). Upper Sadle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: Asocial cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bardi, A., & Schwartz, S. H. (2003). Values and behavior: Strengthand structure of relations. Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 29, 1207–1220. doi:10.1177/0146167203254602.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediatorvariable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual,strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173.

Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescentcompetence and substance abuse. The Journal of Early Adoles-cence, 11, 56–95. doi:10.1177/0272431691111004.

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models.Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238.

Bentler, P. M. (2008). EQS 6 structural equations program manual.Encino, CA: Multivariate Software, Inc. (www.mvsoft.com) (inpress).

Bornstein, M. H. (Ed.). (2002). Handbook of parenting. Vol 1:Children and parenting. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Bornstein, M. H., Hahn, C., Suwalksy, J. T. D., & Haynes, O. M.(2003). Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child development:

J Youth Adolescence (2010) 39:84–95 93

123

The Hollingshead four-factor index of social status and thesocioeconomic index of occupations. In M. H. Bornstein & R. H.Bradley (Eds.), Socioeconomic status, parenting, and childdevelopment (pp. 29–82). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Carlo, G., Fabes, R. A., Laible, D., & Kupanoff, K. (1999). Earlyadolescence and prosocial/moral behavior II: The role of socialand contextual influences. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 19,133–147. doi:10.1177/0272431699019002001.

Carlo, G., Hausmann, A., Christiansen, S., & Randall, B. A. (2003).Sociocognitive and behavioral correlates of a measure ofprosocial tendencies for adolescents. The Journal of EarlyAdolescence, 23, 107–134. doi:10.1177/0272431602239132.

Carlo, G., McGinley, M., Hayes, R., Batenhorst, C., & Wilkinson, J.(2007). Parenting styles or practices? parenting, sympathy, andprosocial behaviors among adolescents. The Journal of GeneticPsychology, 168, 147–176. doi:10.3200/GNTP.168.2.147-176.

Carlo, G., & Randall, B. A. (2002). The development of a measure ofprosocial behaviors for late adolescence. Journal of Youth andAdolescence, 31, 31–44. doi:10.1023/A:1014033032440.

Cervone, D. (2005). Personality architecture: Within-person struc-tures and processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 423–452.doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070133.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correla-tion analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Colby, A., & Damon, W. (1992). Some do care: Contemporary livesof moral commitment. New York: The Free Press.

Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation ofsocial information-processing mechanisms in children’s socialadjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74–101. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.115.1.74.

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, andgoals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109–132. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153.

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2006). Prosocialdevelopment. In W. Damon & R. Lerner (Series Eds.), N.Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3.Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp.646–718). New York: Wiley.

Eisenberg, N., & Valiente, C. (2002). Parenting and children’sprosocial and moral development. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.),Handbook of parenting: Vol. 5. Practical issues in parenting (2nded., pp. 111–142). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Grusec, J. E. (2006). The development of moral behavior andconscience from a socialization perspective. In M. Killen & J.Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (pp. 243–265).Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Grusec, J. E., & Goodnow, J. J. (1994). The impact of parentaldiscipline methods on child’s internalization of values: Areconceptualization of current points of view. DevelopmentalPsychology, 30, 4–19. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.30.1.4.

Hardy, S. A., & Carlo, G. (2005). Adolescent religiosity, prosocial values,and prosocial behaviors: A mediational analysis. Journal of MoralEducation, 34, 231–249. doi:10.1080/03057240500127210.

Hart, D. (2005). The development of moral identity. In G. Carlo & C.P. Edwards (Eds.), Moral motivation through the lifespan Vol.51. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. 165–196). Lincoln:University of Nebraska Press.

Hitlin, S., & Piliavin, J. A. (2004). Values: Reviving a dormantconcept. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 359–393. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.30.012703.110640.

Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and moral development: Implica-tions for caring and justice. Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Hoyle, R. H. (2000). Confirmatory factor analysis. In H. E. A. Tinsley& S. D. Brown (Eds.), Handbook of applied multivariatestatistics and mathematical modeling (pp. 465–497). San Diego,CA: Academic Press.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes incovariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus newalternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

Kochanska, G. (1993). Toward a synthesis of parental socializationand child temperament in early development. Child Develop-ment, 64, 325–347. doi:10.2307/1131254.

Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive develop-mental approach to socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.),Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347–480).Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

Kuczynski, L., Marshall, S., & Schell, K. (1997). Value socializationin a bidirectional context. In J. E. Grusec & L. Kuczynski (Eds.),Parenting and children’s internalization of values: A handbookof contemporary theory (pp. 23–50). New York: Wiley.

Lapsley, D. (1996). Moral psychology. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Lapsley, D. K., & Narvaez, D. (2004). A social-cognitive approach to

the moral personality. In D. K. Lapsley & D. Narvaez (Eds.),Moral development, self and identity (pp. 189–212). Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum.

Lapsley, D. K., & Narvaez, D. (2006). Character education. In W.Damon & R. Lerner (Series Eds.), K. A. Renninger & I. E. Sigel(Vol. Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Childpsychology in practice (6th ed.; pp. 248–296). New York: Wiley.

Maccoby, E., & Martin, J. (1983). Socialization in the context of thefamily: Parent–child interactions. In P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.),E. M. Hetherington (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology:Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social development (pp. 1–101). New York: Wiley.

MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediationanalysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 593–614.doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085542.

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., &Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediationand other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7,83–104. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.83.

Manstead, A. S. R. (1996). Attitudes and behaviour. In G. R. Semin &K. Fiedler (Eds.), Applied social psychology (pp. 3–29).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Nederhof, A. J. (1985). Methods of coping with social desirabilitybias: A review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15,263–280. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420150303.

Nelson, D. A., & Crick, N. R. (1999). Rose-colored glasses:Examining the social information-processing of prosocial youngadolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 19, 17–38.doi:10.1177/0272431699019001002.

Noland, R. M., & McCallum, R. S. (2000). A comparison of parentand teacher ratings of adaptive behavior using a universalmeasure. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 18, 39–48.doi:10.1177/073428290001800104.

Padilla-Walker, L. M. (2007). Characteristics of mother–child interac-tions related to adolescents’ positive values and behaviors. Journalof Marriage and the Family, 69, 675–686. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00399.x.

Padilla-Walker, L. M., & Carlo, G. (2004). ‘‘It’s not fair!’’ Adolescents’constructions of appropriateness of parental reactions to antisocialand prosocial situations. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33,389–401. doi:10.1023/B:JOYO.0000037632.46633.bd.

Padilla-Walker, L. M., & Carlo, G. (2006). Adolescent perceptions ofappropriate parental reactions in moral and conventional socialdomains. Social Development, 15, 480–500. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2006.00352.x.

94 J Youth Adolescence (2010) 39:84–95

123

Padilla-Walker, L. M., & Carlo, G. (2007). Personal values as amediator between parent and peer expectations and adolescentbehaviors. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 538–541. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.21.3.538.

Padilla-Walker, L. M., Nelson, L. J., Madsen, S., & Barry, C. M.(2008) The role of perceived parental knowledge on emergingadults’ risk behaviors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37,847–859.

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths andvirtues: A handbook and classification. Washington, D.C:American Psychological Association.

Pratt, M. W., Hunsberger, B., Pancer, S. M., & Alisat, S. (2003). Alongitudinal analysis of personal value socialization: Correlatesof moral self-ideal in adolescence. Social Development, 12, 563–585. doi:10.1111/1467-9507.00249.

Rohan, M. J. (2000). A rose by any name? the values construct.Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 255–277. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0403_4.

Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality andinternalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 749–761.doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.749.

Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psycholog-ical structure of human values. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 53, 550–562. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.550.

Sigel, I. E., & McGillicuddy-De Lisi, A. V. (2002). Parental beliefsare cognitions: The dynamic belief systems model. In M. H.Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting Vol. 3: Status and socialconditions of parenting (pp. 485–508). Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.

Smetana, J. G. (1997). Parenting and the development of socialknowledge reconceptualized: A social domain analysis. In J. E.Grusec & L. Kuczynski (Eds.), Parenting and children’sinternalization of values: A handbook of contemporary theory(pp. 162–192). New York: Wiley.

Staub, E. (1979). Positive social behavior and morality: Socializationand development. New York: Academic Press.

Vazire, S. (2006). Informant reports: A cheap, fast, and easy methodfor personality assessment. Journal of Research in Personality,40, 472–481. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2005.03.003.

Verplanken, B., & Holland, R. W. (2002). Motivated decisionmaking: Effects of activation and self-centrality of values onchoices and behavior. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 82, 434–447. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.3.434.

Wyatt, J. M., & Carlo, G. (2002). What will my parents think?relations among adolescents’ expected parental reactions, pro-social moral reasoning and prosocial and antisocial behaviors.Journal of Adolescent Research, 17, 646–666. doi:10.1177/074355802237468.

Author Biographies

Sam Hardy is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Psy-chology at Brigham Young University. He received his Ph.D. inDevelopmental Psychology from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.His major research interests include moral development, identity,religion and spirituality, and internalization of values in adolescence.

Gustavo Carlo is the Carl A. Happold Professor of Psychology inthe Department of Psychology at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.He received his Ph.D. in Developmental Psychology from ArizonaState University. His research interests focus on individual, parenting,and cultural correlates of positive social and moral behaviors inchildren and adolescents.

Scott Roesch is an Associate Professor in the Department of Psy-chology at San Diego State University. He received his Ph.D. inSocial Psychology from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Hismajor research interests include trait-state models of stress and cop-ing; coping with physical illness, and particularly cancer; cultural,ethnic, and acculturation differences in stress and coping; cross-ethnicmeasurement equivalence; structural equation modeling; and meta-analysis.

J Youth Adolescence (2010) 39:84–95 95

123

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: Links Between Adolescents’ Expected Parental Reactionsand Prosocial Behavioral Tendencies: The Mediating Roleof Prosocial Values

SOURCE: J Youth Adolesc 39 no1 Ja 2010

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and itis reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article inviolation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher:http://www.springerlink.com/content/1573-6601/