The Relationship Between Parental Knowledge and Adolescent

International Journal about Parents in Education 2011, Vol. 5, No. 1, 46-55

Copyright 2011 by European Research Network about Parents in Education ISSN: 1973 – 3518

The Relationship Between Parental Knowledge and Adolescent Delinquency: a Longitudinal Study Panayiotis Stavrinides Department of Psychology University of Cyprus Nicosia, Cyprus

The purpose of the present study was to test the direction of effect in the relationship between parents’ sources of knowledge (parental monitoring and child disclosure) and adolescents’ delinquency. The participants were 157 8th and 9th grade students and their mothers, randomly selected from urban and rural areas in Cyprus. A six-month, twotimepoint longitudinal design was used in which adolescents completed the delinquency scale while mothers completed the parental knowledge questionnaire. The results of this study showed that child disclosure at Time 1 predicted a decrease in both major and minor delinquency at Time 2 whereas adolescent major delinquency at Time 1 predicted a decrease in child disclosure and parental monitoring at Time 2. Contrary to previous wideheld assumption, parental monitoring at Time 1 did not significantly predict a decrease in delinquency at Time 2. Keywords: Parental knowledge, Monitoring, Disclosure, Adolescent delinquency.

Introduction. While children go through the adolescent years their parents increasingly feel that in order to protect their youth they should try and gain more knowledge about their socialization. During the past decade however, several authors shifted their emphasis on the various facets of this knowledge gaining process (Stattin & Kerr, 2000; Crouter & Head, 2002; Laird, Pettit, Bates, & Dodge, 2003). In what ways do parents consciously try to gain knowledge about their children’s whereabouts? How is active parental monitoring different from other sources of knowledge such as child disclosure? And more importantly, what kind of developmental outcomes (i.e. socialization outcomes, emotional and behavioural adjustment) do these different sources of knowledge produce? Thus, it is not surprising that adolescent delinquency has been linked to low or ineffective parenting practices. Parents´ knowledge about their children’s behaviour, and especially about what their children do outside of the safe

environment of home, may not directly decrease risk-taking behaviour on the part of the adolescent. Such knowledge however, could act as a buffer against behaviours that would escalate into antisocial levels (Mounts, 2001; Sullivan, Kung & Farrell, 2004). Parents gain knowledge about their children from two main sources: one is parental monitoring and the other is child disclosure. Parental monitoring is a critical source of parental knowledge and it reflects the parents’ effort to find out directly and through their own observation how their child behaves. It is defined as “a set of correlated parenting behaviours involving attention to and tracking of the child’s whereabouts, activities and adaptation” (Dishion & McMahon, 1998, p.66). Weintraub and Gold (1991) add that monitoring refers to the extent and the quality of communication, and the surveillance that parents exercise over their children’s life. In general, research suggests that parents who systematically monitor their children’s behaviour have adolescents who are less likely to engage in delinquency (Buchanan Maccoby, & Dornbusch, 1996; Jacobson &

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Panayiotis Stavrinides, e-mail: [email protected]

46

PARENTAL KNOWLEDGE AND ADOLESCENT DELINQUENCY

number of studies have shown that perceived maternal monitoring is associated with an increase in adolescent problem behaviour such as alcohol use (e.g. Webb, Bray, Getz & Admas, 2002). Thus, the relationship between active parental monitoring and children’s problem behaviour is a matter of some debate. Furthermore, some authors have argued that the relationship between parental monitoring and children’s rule-breaking should be re-interpreted as a two-way rather than a one-way (parent to child) process (e.g. Kerr & Stattin, 2000; Stattin & Kerr, 2000). Other studies also demonstrate a dynamic view of family systems in which parents and children influence each other in a reciprocal way that allows parental actions to influence child development and at the same time the child’s actions to influence parental behaviour (Crouter, MacDermid, McHale & Perry-Jenkins, 1990; Waizenhofer, Buchanan & Newsom-Jackson, 2004; Caldwell, Beutler, Ross & Silver, 2005). This raises the question of whether child disclosure might be a more important source of parental knowledge than active parental monitoring. Child disclosure is the children’s free, willing information providing to their parents about where they are during their free time, how they do in school, whether they keep secrets from them, who they socialize with, and what they do when they go out at night. Kerr, Stattin and Trost (1999) found that parents tend to trust their children more when their children disclose information to their parents about their activities and socialization. Further, Stattin and Kerr (2000) documented the relationship between child disclosure and adolescents’ adjustment by showing that child disclosure predicts less normbreaking behaviour. More recently, Stavrinides, Georgiou, & Demetriou (2010) also showed that child disclosure predicts less alcohol use while neither parental control nor solicitation showed any significant benefits. Research on the development of adolescent delinquency uses multiple research and statistical methods in order to estimate bidirectional parentchild relations (Crouter & Booth, 2003; O’ Connor, 2002; Wood, Read, Brand, & Mitchell, 2004). In this line of research, Laird et al. (2003) found that lower levels of parental monitoring predicted greater delinquent behaviour the following year and that lower levels of delinquent behaviour predicted higher levels of monitoring. From a parent-effects perspective, adolescent delinquency tends to decrease in response to parental efforts.

Crockett, 2000; Pettit, Laird, Dodge, Bates, & Criss 2001, Weintraub & Gold, 1991), low levels in substance use (Biglan, Duncan, Ary, & Smolkowski, 1995; Dishion, Capaldi, Spracklen, & Li, 1995; Fletcher, Darling, & Steinberg 1995), premature sexual activity (Longmore, Manning, & Giordano, 2001; Metzler, Noell, Biglan, Ary, & Smolkowski, 1994) and involvement in delinquent peer groups (Biglan et al., 1995; Metzler et al., 1994, Snyder, Dishion, & Patterson, 1986). Additionally, there is a large body of research in the relevant literature showing consistently that a negative correlation exists between authoritarian and neglectful parenting style and undesirable behaviour of adolescents. For example, Steinberg, Fletcher and Darling (1994) found that adolescents that were raised by authoritative parents (i.e. high in both responsiveness and demandingness) are less likely to engage in delinquent behaviours. Even though both parental monitoring and parenting style appear to be closely related terms, a clear theoretical and conceptual distinction exists between the two. Unlike the parental monitoring construct, the notion of parenting style does not imply any active effort on the parents’ behalf to control their youths. Parenting style merely reflects the emotional climate in which parents raise their children (Steinberg, Elmen, & Mounts, 1989). This climate is reflected through the two main dimensions of parenting style; responsiveness (the general tendency to respond to the child’s needs) and demandingness (parental expectations that are related to the child’s behaviour and socialization). Thus, it is not yet clear whether children of authoritative parents tend to show less problem behaviour because of behaviour initiated by the parents or because of children’s tendency to disclose information about their behaviour and socialization efforts. The balance between the two may be the most important contributing factor to the favorable outcomes observed in children. In fact, although many studies have shown a negative relationship between parental monitoring and child problematic behaviour, some authors argue that the opposite is true. Steinberg and Silverberg (1986), for example, argue in favour of the autonomy-granting perspective. According to this, reductions in monitoring are followed by reductions in delinquent behaviour as parents grant more autonomy to well adjusted adolescents. At the same time, well adjusted adolescents cause less parental control as a result of their psychosocial maturity. Furthermore, a

47


parental monitoring and child disclosure can predict adolescent delinquency, or whether adolescent delinquency predicts parental monitoring and child disclosure. To address these questions, we tested longitudinal associations between parental knowledge and adolescent delinquency in order to determine the sequence of events-actions and reactions between parents and youths. Our hypothesis is that child disclosure will have the strongest impact in the reduction in adolescent delinquency. That is because as previous studies have shown children who disclose freely are more likely to reduce problem behaviour in the future (Kerr, Stattin, & Trost, 1999; Stattin & Kerr, 2000, Stavrinides et al., 2010). Based on a transactional approach, we also hypothesize that an opposite direction of effects will be observed. That is, we expect that adolescent delinquency will reduce the child’s tendency to disclose information to their parents, and therefore a significant source of parental knowledge will be affected negatively. Accordingly, we expect that adolescent delinquency will reduce parental monitoring, confirming what Patterson and Dishion (1985) and Patterson et al. (1992) have found. On the other hand, we expect no effect of parental monitoring on adolescent delinquency.

Alternatively, from a child-effects perspective, high levels of delinquent behaviour cause a decrease of parental monitoring, depending on whether one supports the abdicating or the autonomy-adjusting parenting model (Crouter et al., 1990; Laird et al., 2003). Dishion, Nelson & Bullock (2004) have proposed a bidirectional model, which they call “premature autonomy” model, suggesting that parents tend to disengage from their children that lean towards deviant behaviours. Similarly, other studies have shown that adolescent engagement in delinquency predicts relative declines over time in the parent-adolescent relationship (Laird et al., 2003; Smetana & Daddis, 2002). Also, Patterson and Dishion (1985), describe a process by means of which parents give up their parental responsibilities and disengage in the face of adolescent problem behaviour. As a result, the now abandoned adolescent has enhanced opportunities for even more delinquent behaviour, which in turn affects negatively the parenting practices (Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1992). Despite the fact that transactional models in their original conception emphasized both directions of causality (for example Patterson & Dishion, 1985) some proponents of these models assert that the causal pathway from children to parents is more influential, in that adolescent deviant behaviour predicts parental monitoring efforts much more strongly than parenting predicts delinquent behaviour (Jang & Smith, 1997; Kerr & Stattin, 2003). In summarizing, prior research indicates that delinquent behaviour is likely to predict reductions in parental knowledge. As Crouter and Head (2002) conclude, children who engage in problem behaviour are more likely to avoid sharing information with their parents that is related to their actions and whereabouts. From a child effects perspective, as Laird et al. (2003) have emphasized, this is a critical distinction because it shows that parental knowledge is influenced not only by the parents’ active effort to control their children (parental monitoring) but by the child’s engagement in problem behaviour or adjustment difficulties which lead to unwillingness to disclose their personal activities to their parents.

Method. Participants. The initial sample of the first phase of this study was 232 adolescents and their mothers. On the second phase, however, 75 mothers (32.3%) did not return the questionnaire, or they returned it incomplete and they were, therefore, excluded from the final sample. The participants of the two phases of this study were 157 adolescents and their mothers. Children’s mean age was 14.04 years with a standard deviation of .64 years. All children attended eighth and ninth grade during the 2009 academic year. Both genders were relatively equally represented in the sample with 87 (55.4%) females and 70 males (44.6%). Students were randomly selected in order to generate a sample of students from all socioeconomic groups and geographic areas. In fact, 10.2% of the families come from low socioeconomic status, 80.9% from middle, and 8.9% from high socio-economic status. Such a distribution is consistent with the sociodemographic characteristics of the Cyprus population.

The present study. The purpose of the present study is to examine the interrelations between the two main sources of parental knowledge and adolescent problem behaviour. Specifically we aim to examine whether

48


friends what they will do on a Saturday evening?’, ‘If your child stays out until late one night, do you require that he/she explains what he/she has been doing and who he/she was with?’, ‘Do you always require that your child tells you where he/she has been at night, who he/she was with, and what they did together?’, and ‘Before your child goes out on a Saturday night, do you require him/her to tell where he/she will be at and with whom?’. Answers on this and the subsequent subscales were given on a five-point scale (1= never, 5=always).

Measures. The Delinquency Scale consists of 17 questions that measure how often the respondent had engaged in a series of delinquent acts during the past year (Miller, Melnick, Barnes, Sabo & Farrell, 2007). These 17 delinquent acts comprise two five-point Likert-type subscales. The 9-item Minor Delinquency Subscale includes questions related to academic cheating (‘copied answers from someone else’s exam or test paper in school’), cursing (‘used dirty language or swear words’), parental conflict (‘argued or fought with your mother’ and ‘argued or fought with your father’), lying for personal gain (‘tried to get something by lying to a person about what you would do for him or who you were’), binge drinking (‘drank 5 or more cans of beer, drinks of wine or drinks of liquor’), violating curfew (‘stayed out later than your parents said you should’), sexual activity (‘had sexual relations with someone’), and truancy (‘skipped a day of school without a real excuse’). The 8-itemMajor Delinquency Subscale includes more severe behaviours, such as physical assault (‘beat up someone on purpose’ and ‘got involved in a physical fight with a gang or group of friends’), drug use (‘used drugs other than marijuana to get high or for kicks’), vandalism (‘purposely damaged or messed up something not belonging to you’), theft (‘took something of value which didn’t belong to you’ and ‘took money from someone in your family without the person knowing about it’), unauthorized financial transactions (‘used a credit card or check without the owner’s permission’), and breaking and entering (‘broke into a house, business or car to take something or look around’). Parental knowledge was measured by means of an adaptation of Stattin and Kerr’s (2000) questionnaire. There are two main sources from which parents can learn about their adolescents’ activities: parental monitoring (parental control and parental solicitation) and child disclosure. Based on this assumption, a 15-item instrument was created as follows. In a recent study Stavrinides et al. (2010) had adopted the questionnaire into Greek with satisfactory psychometric properties.

Parental solicitation. This subscale also consists of five items. The participating parents were asked to answer on a five-point scale the following questions: ‘How often do you talk to your child’s friends when they come over to your house?’, ‘During the past month, have you talked to the parents of your child’s friends?’, ‘During the past month, have you talked to your child about how he/she spends his/her free time?’, ‘How often do you talk with your child about things that happen during a usual day?’, and ‘Do you usually ask your child how he/she spends his/her free time?’. Child disclosure. The child disclosure subscale consists of five items as well. These were the following questions: ‘How often does your child talk to you about his/her achievement in various school subjects?’, ‘How often does your child talk do you about a usual day at school?’, ‘Does your child keep many secrets from you regarding his/her free time?’, ‘Does your child keep many secrets about what he/she does during nights and weekends?’, and ‘If your child goes out one night, does he/she tell you the following day what he/she has done during that time?’. Procedure. Both adolescents and their mothers were given a sealed envelope that contained the respective measures for children and parents. The adolescents completed the Delinquency Scale during 15 min of one teaching hour and returned it immediately to the researcher. Once the adolescents returned their questionnaire, a unique code number was placed on each one and a sealed envelope with the parent’s questionnaire was matched and sent to the mother of each child. The same procedure was repeated six months later using the same matching system. Thus, data were

Parental control. This subscale consists of the following five items: ‘Does the child need to have your permission to stay out late on a weekday evening?’, ‘Does your child need to ask for your permission before he/she decides with his/her

49


collected in two phases, which were termed Time 1 (T1) and Time 2 (T2). Exploratory factor analysis with direct Oblimin rotation was computed in order to examine the factor structure of the parental knowledge questionnaire. This analysis yielded a solution with variance explained of 46.3% at Time 1 and 24% at Time 2. On both occasions, the items loaded on to two distinct factors representing parental monitoring (parental control and solicitation), and child disclosure (eigenvalues > 1). Cronbach alphas for the two subscales were between .80 and .83 at Time 1 and Time 2. Similarly, factor analysis on the Delinquency Scale yielded a solution with a variance explained of 32.8% at Time 1 and 46.3% at Time 2. On both times, the items loaded as predicted onto two

factors representing Minor Delinquency Subscale and Major Delinquency Subscale (eigenvalues > 1). Cronbach alpha reliabilities for the Minor Delinquency Subscale were .72 at Time 1 and .86 at Time 2 while for the Major Delinquency Subscale the alphas were .84 and .62 at Time 1 and Time 2 respectively. Results. Since the parental knowledge and the Delinquency factors showed strong internal consistencies, we computed a composite variable for each construct, which represents the mean score for each case on the items that compose each factor. Table 1 shows the means and standard deviations for each latent construct.

Table 1. Means and standard deviations for the composite scores on the factors of parental knowledge and adolescent delinquency. Time 1

Time 2

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Minor Delinquency

1.13

.31

1.35

.77

Major Delinquency

1.09

.34

1.07

.27

Parental Monitoring

4.62

.55

4.57

.58

Child Disclosure

3.88

.76

3.82

.74

Construct Delinquency

Parental Knowledge

Before examining the predictive significance of parental monitoring (parental control and child solicitation), child disclosure, and delinquency we computed bi-variate correlations between all scores at Times 1 and 2 in order to identify associations among parents’ sources of knowledge and adolescent delinquency. Table 2 shows details of these correlations. The next step in the data analysis was to compute a hierarchical regression analysis in order to examine (a) whether parental knowledge at Time 1 predicts a decrease in adolescent delinquency at Time 2, controlling for the variance

explained by delinquency at Time 1 and (b) whether adolescent delinquency at Time 1 predicts a decrease in parental knowledge at Time 2, controlling for the variance explained by parental knowledge at Time 1. Hierarchical regression analysis is a rather robust statistical method which allows investigating theoretical models in a linear order (Howell, 2009). For example, in our study, it is both rationally and theoretically sound to assume that adolescent delinquency at Time 2 is primarily predicted by delinquency at Time 1 and then examine any possible effects of either parental monitoring or child disclosure.

50


Table 2. Correlation coefficients between parental knowledge and adolescents’ delinquency at Time 1 and Time 2.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Time 1 1. Minor Delinquency 2. Major Delinquency 3. Parental Monitoring 4. Child Disclosure

-

.40** -

-.25** .02 -

-.28** .01 .37** -

Time 2 5. Minor Delinquency 6. Major Delinquency 7. Parental Monitoring 8. Child Disclosure * p < .05, ** p < .01

.75**

.36**

-.19*

-.16**

.41**

.82**

-.44**

-.28**

-.29**

-.07

.76**

.23**

-.38**

-.10

.46**

.79**

-

.45** -

-.13

-.17*

-.49**

-.39**

-

.36** -

As Table 3 shows, only child disclosure at Time 1 negatively predicted minor and major delinquency at Time 2 whereas parental monitoring at Time 1 has no significant effect on adolescent delinquency at Time 2. Furthermore,

adolescent delinquency at Time 1 decreases child disclosure and parental monitoring at Time 2. Specifically, adolescent major delinquency at Time 1 negatively predicts child disclosure and parental monitoring at Time 2 (Table 4).

Table 3. Hierarchical regression analysis predicting adolescent delinquency at Time 2 from Time 1 measures. Dependent measures Minor delinquency Step 1

β

R²

Minor delinquency

.75**

Major delinquency

.14*

.69

β

∆R²

Step 2 Parental monitoring Child disclosure

R²

.83**

.71

β

∆R²

.02 .03

** p < .01 Note: adolescent delinquency at time 1 is controlled for in step 2.

51

β .17*

.04 -.14**

major delinquency

-.12*

.03


Table 4. Hierarchical regression analysis predicting parental knowledge at Time 2 from Time 1 measures. Dependent measures parental monitoring child disclosure Step 1 Parental monitoring Child disclosure

β .75** .13*

R²

Step 2 Minor delinquency

β -.10 -.35**

∆R²

Major delinquency

.59

.16

β .11* .80**

R²

β -.08 -.27**

∆R²

.73

.10

** p < .01 Note: adolescent delinquency at time 1 is controlled for in step 2.

adolescent’s involvement into problem behaviour which is typical of a give-up parental reaction to their feelings of helplessness to change their child’s maladaptive socialization choices. In conclusion, our study as some of the earlier studies shows that probably the best way to gain knowledge from adolescents is by creating the environment in which they will feel comfortable to express their feeling, concerns, and even misbehaviours without fear of extreme punishment by their parents. Ultimately, what parents can do is to consciously foster an authoritative style avoiding either the complete give-up of the neglectful parent or the fearsome role of the authoritarian style.

Discussion. Our findings show that one source of parental knowledge at Time 1, which is child disclosure, predicts less delinquency behaviour at Time 2. This finding is in line with studies that show that child disclosure is the most important source of parental knowledge (Stavrinides et al., 2010; Stattin & Kerr, 2000). However, parents’ active efforts to control their youths or to gain information through solicitation do not appear to be related with adolescents’ less delinquency behaviour. Results of this study support the opposite relationship, that is, adolescent delinquency behaviour is associated with children’s less tendency to reveal information about their whereabouts and their social interactions. This is in line with a recent study in which Stavrinides et al. (2010) found that adolescent alcohol use at Time 1 negatively predicted child disclosure and parental monitoring at Time 2. Adolescents do not stop getting into trouble because they feel that their parents monitor them. They might reduce delinquent behaviour however, if they feel that they belong to an accepting and supportive family environment that allows them to talk freely about the trouble (less or more severe) they might find themselves into. Moreover, as Patterson and Dishion (1985) and Patterson et al. (1992) argue, monitoring is more likely to be reduced as a result of the

Limitations of the present study. Despite this study being longitudinal, the results should be interpreted with caution. The six-month time gap between the two measurements might not reflect entirely the changes in both adolescent delinquency and parental knowledge and the long-term relationship between the two. Furthermore, as much of the literature in this area, this study uses only selfreporting instruments allowing space for selfserving bias both from the mothers and the adolescents. Even though adolescent delinquency is difficult to measure objectively, future studies could focus in cases that were officially reported to the school administration or the police. Especially important to that, is our finding which shows

52

major delinquency to be related with parental knowledge rather than minor delinquency.

disclosure in the parent-child relationship. Experts from developmental psychology, counselling, and clinical psychology may also benefit from this evidence that shows how ineffective parenting practices may not lead to expected developmental outcomes while the effort could be placed upon developing an environment in which children feel comfortable to share information with their parents.

Contribution of the present study. This study provides further evidence to the existing body of literature that support the argument that parental monitoring might not be as effective as previously thought. At the same time this study shows how significant is child

References. Biglan, A., Duncan, T. E., Ary, D. V., & Smolkowski, K. (1995). Peer and parental influences on adolescent tobacco use. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 18, 315–330. Buchanan, C. M., Maccoby, E. E., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1996). Adolescents after divorce. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Caldwell, R. S., Beutler, J. E., Ross, S. A., & Silver, N. C. (2005). Brief report: An examination of the relationships between parental monitoring, self-esteem and delinquency among Mexican American male adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 3, 461-483. Crouter, A. C., & Booth, A. (2003). Children’s influence on family dynamics. The neglected side of family relationships. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Crouter, A. C., & Head, M. R. (2002). Parental monitoring and knowledge of children. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook on parenting (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Crouter, A. C., MacDermid, S. M., McHale, S. M., & Perry-Jenkins, M. (1990). Parental supervision and perceptions of children’s school performance and conduct in dual- and single-earner families. Developmental Psychology, 26, 649–657. Dishion, T. J., & McMahon, R. J. (1998). Parental monitoring and the prevention of child and adolescent problem behaviour: A conceptual and empirical formulation. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 1, 61-75. Dishion, T. J., Capaldi, D., Spracklen, K. M., & Li, F. (1995). Peer ecology of male adolescent drug use. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 803–824. Dishion, T. J., Nelson, S. E., & Bullock, B. M. (2004). Premature adolescent autonomy: Parent disengagement and deviant peer process in the amplification of problem behaviour. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 515-530. Fletcher, A. C., Darling, N. E., & Steinberg, L. (1995). Parental monitoring and peer influences on adolescent substance use. In J. McCord (Ed.), Coercion and punishment in long-term perspective (pp. 259-271). New York: Cambridge University Press. Howell, D.C. (2009). Statistical methods for psychology (7th Ed.). Australia: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. Jang, S. J., & Smith, C. A. (1997). A test of reciprocal causal relationships among parental supervision, affective ties, and delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34, 307-336. Jacobson, K. C., & Crockett, L. J. (2000). Parental monitoring and adolescent adjustment: An ecological perspective. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 10, 65-97. Kerr, M., Stattin, H., & Trost, K. (1999). To know you is to trust you: parents’ trust is rooted in child disclosure of information. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 737-752. Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2000). What parents know, how they know it, and different forms of adolescent adjustment: Further evidence for a reinterpretation of monitoring. Developmental Psychology, 36, 366-380.

53

Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2003). Parenting of adolescence: Action or reaction? In A. C. Crouter & A. Booth (Eds.), Children’s influence on family dynamics: The neglected side of family relationships (pp. 121-151). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Laird, R. D., Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., & Dodge, K. A. (2003). Parent’s monitoring-relevant knowledge and adolescents’ delinquent behavior: Evidence of correlated developmental changes and reciprocal influences. Child Development, 74, 752–768. Longmore, M. A., Manning, W. D., & Giordano, P. C. (2001). Preadolescent parenting strategies and teens’ dating and sexual initiation: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 63, 322–335. Metzler, C. W., Noell, J., Biglan, A., Ary, D., & Smolkowski, K.(1994). The social context for risky sexual behavior among adolescents. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 17, 419–438. Miller, K. E., Melnick, M. J., Barnes, G. M., Sabo, D., & Farrell, M. P. (2007). Athletic involvement and adolescent delinquency. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 36, 711–723. Mounts, N. S. (2001). Young adolescents’ perceptions of parental management of peer relationships. Journal of Early Adolescence, 21, 92-122. O’Connor, T. G. (2002). Annotation: The ‘effects’ of parenting reconsidered: Findings, challenges, and applications. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43(5), 555–572. Patterson, G. R. & Dishion, T. J. (1985). Contributions of families and peers to delinquency. Criminology, 23, 63-79. Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. B., & Dishion, T. J. (1992). Antisocial boys: A social interactional approach (Vol.4). Eugene, OR: Castalia. Pettit, G. S., Laird, R. D., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Criss, M. M. (2001). Antecedents and behavior-problem outcomes of parental monitoring and psychological control in early adolescence. Child Development, 72, 583–598. Smetana, J.G., & Daddis, C. (2002). Domain-specific antecedents of parental psychological control and monitoring: The role of parenting beliefs and practices. Child Development, 73, 563-580. Snyder, J., Dishion, T. J., & Patterson, G. R. (1986). Determinants and consequences of associating with deviant peers during preadolescence and adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 6, 29–43. Stattin, H., & Kerr, M. (2000). Parental Monitoring: A Reinterpretation. Child Development, 71, 1070-1083. Stavrinides, P., Georgiou, S., & Demetriou, A. (2010). Longitudinal associations between adolescent alcohol use and parents` sources of knowledge. Journal of Developmental Psychology, 28, 643-655. Steinberg, L., Elmen, J. D. & Mounts, N. S. (1989). Authoritative parenting, psychosocial maturity, and academic success among adolescents. Child Development, 60, 1424-1436. Steinberg, L., Fletcher, A., & Darling, N. (1994). Parental monitoring and peer influences on adolescent substance use. Pediatrics, 93(6), 1060–1064. Steinberg, L., & Silverberg, S. B. (1986). The Vicissitudes of Autonomy in Early Adolescence. Child Development, 57, 841–851. Sullivan, T. N., Kung, E. M., & Farrell, A. D. (2004). Relation between witnessing violence and drug use initiation among rural adolescents: Parental monitoring and family support as protective factors. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33(3), 488–498. Waizenhofer, R. N., Buchanan, C. M., & Newsom-Jackson, J. (2004). Mothers` and fathers` knowledge of adolescents’ daily activities: Its sources and its links with adolescent adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 18(2), 348-360.

54

Webb, J. A., Bray, J. H., Getz, J. G., & Adams, G. J. (2002). Gender, perceived parental monitoring and behavioral adjustment: Influences on adolescent alcohol use. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 2, 392-400. Wood, M. D., Read, J. P., Brand, N., & Mitchell, R. E. (2004). Do parents still matter? Parent and peer influences on alcohol involvement among recent high school graduates. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 18, 19-30. Weintraub, K. J., & Gold, M. (1991). Monitoring and delinquency. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 1, 268-281.

55