Bidirectional Relations Between Authoritative Parenting and

Adolescents Prosocial Behaviors

Laura M. Padilla-Walker
Brigham Young University
Gustavo Carlo
University of Missouri
Katherine J. Christensen and Jeremy B. Yorgason
Brigham Young University
This study examined the bidirectional relations between authoritative parenting and adolescents prosocial behavior
over a 1-year time period. Data were taken from Time 2 and 3 of the Flourishing Families Project, and included reports
from 319 two-parent families with an adolescent child (M age of child at Time 2 = 12.34, SD = 1.06, 52% girls). Cross-
lag analyses supported bidirectional relations between parenting and prosocial behavior with particular emphasis on
the role of the adolescents prosocial behavior on subsequent parenting. Results also varied as a function of the repor-
ter. Discussion focuses on the implications for understanding the multifaceted nature of prosocial development in
adolescence.
Theoretically, bioecological models of human
development suggest a dynamic process in which
children inuence their environment, and are in
turn inuenced by that environment (Bronfenbren-
ner & Morris, 2006). Reconceptualizations of par-
enting have also argued that the relations between
parents and their children may be more bidirec-
tional than unidirectional (Bell, 1968; Grusec &
Goodnow, 1994), and recent empirical research has
supported this idea. For example, a longitudinal
study examining adolescent problem behavior and
parentchild conict found a bidirectional model to
represent the data better than a unidirectional
model (Maggs & Galambos, 1993), indicating the
reciprocal inuences of parent and child behaviors.
Bidirectional effects were also found between ado-
lescent sexual risk behaviors and parental knowl-
edge and family activities (Coley, Votruba-Drzal, &
Schindler, 2009), and a longitudinal study by Eisen-
berg et al. (1999a) suggested that while parental
reactions inuence child behavior, child tempera-
ment and behavior also inuence subsequent
parental reactions. Indeed, it appears that the
complexity of parentadolescent interactions is best
understood by examining behaviors in a bidirec-
tional manner.
Despite increased understanding of how parents
and adolescent children inuence one another,
most previous work has focused on externalizing
and problem behaviors in adolescence, with rela-
tively less work examining adolescents prosocial
behaviors. Prosocial behavior refers to actions
intended to benet others, including sharing,
donating, providing emotional support, helping,
and volunteering (Eisenberg, Fabes, & Spinrad,
2006). Children who exhibit high levels of prosocial
behavior tend to evidence positive personal and
social characteristics such as high levels of perspec-
tive taking, moral reasoning, sympathy, self regula-
tion, trustworthiness, lower aggression, and good
parentchild relationships (Carlo, 2006; Eisenberg
et al., 2006). Although most studies of prosocial
behavior focus on such actions toward strangers or
peers, there is growing recognition of the impor-
tance of studying prosocial behavior in the home
or family context (Eberly & Montemayor, 1998;
Padilla-Walker & Christensen, 2011). Prosocial
behaviors toward family members are particularly
important to study during adolescence since this
age period is marked by renegotiating the parent-
adolescent relationship (Steinberg & Silk, 2002),
which includes redening the adolescents role in
household duties and responsibilities and change
in associated parental expectations. Prosocial
behavior toward family members is also important
We thank the Family Studies Center at BYU, the School of
Family Life, and the College of Family Home and Social Science
at BYU, and we recognize the generous support of the many pri-
vate donors who provided support for this project. We also
thank those families who were willing to spend valuable hours
with our team in interviews, and the many students who
assisted in conducting the interviews.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Laura Padilla-Walker,
Brigham Young University, 2097 JFSB, School of Family Life,
Provo, UT 84602. E-mail: laura_walker@byu.edu
2012 The Authors
Journal of Research on Adolescence 2012 Society for Research on Adolescence
DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2012.00807.x
JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON ADOLESCENCE, 22(3), 400408
to study bidirectionally because children who are
more helpful toward parents and other family
members on a daily basis may elicit more positive
reactions from parents, while childrens prosocial
behaviors toward strangers may not elicit a similar
reaction. Thus, the present study was designed to
examine the bidirectional, longitudinal relations
between parenting and adolescents prosocial
behaviors toward family members.
Several aspects of parenting have been linked to
adolescents prosocial behaviors including parent-
ing styles and practices (e.g., disciplining tech-
niques). Scholars have noted, for example, that
aspects of authoritative parents (i.e., a combination
of high levels of support and control) are most con-
sistently associated with adolescents prosocial
behaviors (Carlo, McGinley, Hayes, Batenhorst, &
Wilkinson, 2007b ; Steinberg, Lamborn, Darling, &
Mounts 1994), suggesting that providing justica-
tions for rules and discussing the feelings of others
in a warm environment promotes adolescents pro-
social behavior (Krevans & Gibbs, 1996). More
specically, research suggests that the level of con-
nection or warmth in the parentchild relationship
has been positively related to adolescents prosocial
behavior (Robinson, Zahn-Waxler, & Emde, 1994)
and prosocial involvement (Kerr, Beck, Shattuck,
Kattar, & Uriburu, 2003). In addition to connection,
parents regulation of adolescent behaviors through
reasoning and induction has been positively linked
to adolescent prosocial outcomes (Krevans & Gibbs,
1996; Zahn-Waxler, Radke-Yarrow, & King, 1979),
and autonomy supportive parenting helps children
to internalize values and voluntarily engage in pro-
social behavior (Frensch, Pratt, & Norris, 2007;
Roth, 2008). Indeed, self-determination scholars
assert that parents who encourage autonomy (as
compared to conditional warmth) are likely to have
children who internalize regulation, which leads to
other-oriented prosocial behaviors (Gagne, 2003;
Roth, 2008).
Despite supportive evidence that parenting
behaviors are concurrently related to adolescents
prosocial behavior, few studies have attempted to
replicate these ndings employing a longitudinal
design. Existing research has found that parents
emotional expressivity was longitudinally related
to adolescents prosocial behavior (Michalik et al.,
2007), and parental warmth in early adolescence
predicted prosocial behavior 2 years later (Carlo,
Mestre, Samper, Tur, & Armenta, 2011). Given the
relative dearth of longitudinal studies examining
parenting and adolescents prosocial behavior, the
current study employed cross-lag analysis to exam-
ine the bidirectional relations between authoritative
parenting (connection, regulation, and autonomy
granting) and adolescents prosocial behavior over
a 1 year time period.
Bioecological models suggest that although ado-
lescents are impacted by the contexts in which they
develop, biological and behavioral characteristics of
the individual also shape his or her environment,
or in this case, the parents reactions to the child.
Prior research has indicated that prosocial behavior
is a stable characteristic in individuals, who
therefore demonstrate similar prosocial tendencies
across time and situations (Carlo et al., 2007a;
Eisenberg et al., 1999b). Furthermore, analysis of
genetic and environmental inuences on prosocial
behavior found substantial genetic and non-shared
environmental inuences on prosociality (Gregory,
Light-Hausermann, Rijsdijk, & Eley, 2009; see also
Knafo & Plomin, 2006), and relatively less inuence
of shared environmental inuences. Thus, given
the stability of prosocial behavior, especially during
adolescence (Gregory et al., 2009), it is likely that
prosocial behavior, specically toward family
members, may also inuence how parents respond
to their adolescent child over time.
Taken together, the current study sought to
examine the bidirectional relations between author-
itative parenting and adolescents prosocial behav-
ior toward family over time. Based on existing
research (Carlo et al., 2011; Gregory et al., 2009) we
expected that authoritative parenting would be
related to prosocial behavior over time, and that
adolescents prosocial behavior would be related to
parenting over time. The current study utilized
adolescents self-reports of prosocial behavior,
mothers and fathers reports of their childs proso-
cial behavior, and observational ratings of adoles-
cents prosocial behavior in an attempt to gain a
more complete picture of these relations.
METHOD
Participants and Procedures
The participants for this study were from Time 2
and Time 3 of the Flourishing Families Project
(FFP). The FFP is a longitudinal study of family life
involving families with a child between the ages of
11 and 15 at Time 2 (M age of child = 12.34,
SD = 1.06, 52% girls). At Time 2 this study
included 319 two-parent families, 96% of which
had complete data for Time 3 (which was ~1 year
later). Regarding ethnicity, 79% of the participants
were European American, 5% were African American,
PROSOCIAL BIDIRECTIONALITY 401
5% were Asian American, 2% were Hispanic, and
9% indicated that they were mixed/biracial or of
another ethnicity. Ninety-ve percent of mothers
and 90% of fathers reported being biological par-
ents, 4% of mothers and 5% of fathers reported
being adoptive parents, and 1% of mothers and 5%
of fathers reported being step-parents. Fourteen
percent of families reported an income less than
$25,000 per year, 16% made between $25,000 and
$50,000 a year, and 70% made more than $50,000
per year; with 21% of mothers and 5% of fathers
reporting being unemployed.
Participants for the FFP were randomly selected
from targeted census tracts in a large northwestern
city, and were identied using a purchased
national telephone survey database (Polk Directo-
ries/InfoUSA). Families were interviewed in their
homes, with each interview consisting of a video
task and questionnaires completed by the child,
mother, and father. Our overall response rate of eli-
gible families (families in the database with a child
between the ages of 10 and 14) at Time 1 was 61%
(for more information on the procedures and sam-
ple, see Padilla-Walker, Harper, & Bean, 2011). The
most frequent reasons cited by families for not
wanting to participate in the study at both time
points were lack of time, and concerns about pri-
vacy. It is important to note that there were very
little missing data. For each question used in the
current statistical analyses, there were fewer than
four individual response items missing for each.
We used the Full Information Maximum Likeli-
hood feature of AMOS to handle missing data.
Measures
Authoritative parenting. Mothers and fathers
connection, regulation, and autonomy granting
were measured at Time 2 and Time 3 using the
three subscales of the authoritative parenting scale
from the Parenting Styles and Dimensions Ques-
tionnaire-Short Version (PSDQ; Robinson, Man-
dleco, Olsen, & Hart, 2001). Adolescents, mothers,
and fathers were asked how often their parents
(they) did certain behaviors characteristic of con-
nection (ve items, e.g., My parent is/I am
responsive to my/my childs feelings and needs),
regulation (ve items, e.g., My parent empha-
sizes/I emphasize the reasons for rules) and
autonomy granting (ve items, e.g., My parent
takes/I take my desires/my childs desires into
account before asking me/my child to do some-
thing). Responses ranged on a 5-point Likert-type
scale from 1 (never) to 5 (always), with higher scores
indicating higher levels of positive parenting.
Latent variables were created (separately for child
and parent models) using connection, regulation,
and autonomy granting at Time 2 and Time 3,
which represented mothers and fathers authorita-
tive parenting. Reliability and factor loadings for
adolescents reports of mothers and fathers (respec-
tively) were: connection (a = .82; a = .83; factor
loading Time 2 = .87, .89; Time 3 = .88, .88), regula-
tion (a = .80; a = .83; factor loading Time 2 = .76,
.76; Time 3 = .72, .76), and autonomy granting
(a = .82; a = .84; factor loading Time 2 = .86, .88;
Time 3 = .87, .87). Reliability and factor loadings
for mothers and fathers (respectively) reports of
their own parenting were: connection (a = .78;
a = .78; factor loading Time 2 = .84, .75; Time
3 = .82, .78), regulation (a = .82; a = .84; factor
loading Time 2 = .75, .87; Time 3 = .71, .85), and
autonomy granting (a = .75; a = .79; factor loading
Time 2 = .66, .68; Time 3 = .70, .72).
Prosocial behavior. Adolescents prosocial
behavior toward family members was measured at
Time 2 and Time 3 using both questionnaire and
observational ratings. First, prosocial behavior was
measured using a modied version of the Kindness
and Generosity subscale of the Values in Action
Inventory of Strengths (Peterson & Seligman, 2004).
The original measure was designed to assess
behavior toward strangers, and the current study
adapted these items to target prosocial behavior
toward family members (nine items, e.g., I/my
child really enjoy(s) doing small favors for my fam-
ily) on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not
like me/my child at all) to 5 (very much like me/my
child). Latent variables were created using child-,
mother-, and father-reports of prosocial behavior at
Time 2 and Time 3 for both child and parent mod-
els. Reliability and factor loadings for prosocial
behavior were: child-report (a = .91; factor loading
Time 2 = .56; Time 3 = .58), mother-report (a = .90;
factor loading Time 2 = .82; Time 3 = .80), and
father-report (a = .91; factor loading Time 2 = .79;
Time 3 = .81).
Prosocial behavior was also assessed using two
codes (one for prosocial behavior toward mother,
one for prosocial behavior toward father) from
dyadic interaction scales, which were created by
coding observed interactive in-home video tasks.
Specialized coders watched each video task and
coded for a variety of individual and dyadic codes.
Tasks consisted of a 12-min interaction between the
mother and child (from which prosocial behavior
toward mother was taken; inter-rater reliability
402 PADILLA-WALKER, CARLO, CHRISTENSEN, AND YORGASON
at Time 2 = .81; Time 3 = .86; assessed via ICC;
Choukalis, Melby, & Lorenz, 2000), and a 12-min
interaction task with the father and child (from
which prosocial behavior toward father was taken;
inter-rater reliability at Time 2 = .83; Time 3 = .89).
During the motherchild and fatherchild interac-
tion task, the target child and his or her parent dis-
cussed a number of issues presented on discussion
cards (e.g., What do you think have been your
childs biggest accomplishments in the last year?
and What does your mom/dad do when you do
something she/he doesnt like?). These video tasks
followed the protocol established by the Iowa State
Coding Lab and were coded using the Iowa Family
Interaction Rating Scales (Melby et al., 1998). On a
scale ranging from 1 (not at all characteristic) to 9
(mainly characteristic), prosocial behavior was
assessed by the degree to which the child demon-
strated helpfulness, sensitivity, cooperation, sympa-
thy, and respectfulness toward the other individual
(mother or father) in the interaction. Both verbal
and nonverbal behavior was assessed, so prosocial
behavior could be represented by a child being
kind to their parent during the interaction or treat-
ing or referring to them in a positive way (e.g., as a
hero), versus a child who was very indifferent or
was making derogatory comments about the parent.
Other examples include adolescents who displayed
prosocial maturity by listening and not cutting their
parent off at inappropriate times in the discussion,
or who made references to helping their parent or
to being cooperative or empathic.
RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
Means and standard deviations of all study vari-
ables are presented in Table 1. A number of t-tests
were conducted to determine if mean values of the
variables of interest differed signicantly as a func-
tion of parent gender. As shown in Table 1, most
variables differed as a function of parent gender,
with the exception of parent-reported autonomy
granting and observed prosocial behavior. In all
cases, mothers were reported as having higher lev-
els of parenting than fathers, and mothers reported
higher levels of the childs prosocial behavior than
did fathers. Although not explicitly shown in
Table 1, t-tests were also conducted to examine
whether or not mean values on variables of interest
differed signicantly from Time 2 to Time 3. It is
of note that with the exception of mother- and
father-reported autonomy granting, all aspects of
authoritative parenting, by all reporters, decreased
from Time 2 to Time 3. It is also of note that
mother- (t = 4.80, p < .001) and father- (t = 3.89,
p < .001) reports of the childs prosocial behavior
decreased from Time 2 to Time 3. Bivariate correla-
tions were also conducted between all study vari-
ables (see Table 2), and they revealed that all
aspects of child-reported parenting were signi-
cantly correlated with all reports of prosocial
behavior at both time points. However, at Time 2,
mother-reported regulation and autonomy granting
were not correlated with observed prosocial behav-
ior toward mother; at Time 3 mother-reported con-
nection was not correlated with child-reported
prosocial behavior, and all three aspects of mother-
reported parenting were not correlated with
observed prosocial behavior. For fathers, at Time 2
and Time 3, father-reported parenting was not cor-
related with child-reported or observed prosocial
behavior, with the exception of a signicant corre-
lation between Time 3 paternal autonomy granting
and Time 3 observed prosocial behavior.
To determine bidirectional effects, cross-lagged
models were conducted using structural equation
modeling with Analysis of Moments Structure
(AMOS) software (Arbuckle, 2007). Because child-,
mother-, and father-reported prosocial behavior
was directed toward family in general, and
observed prosocial behavior was directed toward
individual parents; taken together with preliminary
analyses suggesting that observed reports of proso-
cial behavior did not load signicantly on a latent
TABLE 1
Differences in Study Variables as a Function of Parent Gender
Variable
Mother Father
T-test M (SD) M (SD)
Connection T2 (CR) 4.09 (.72) 3.91 (.74) 7.85***
Regulation T2 (CR) 3.65 (.79) 3.58 (.81) 3.45***
Autonomy T2 (CR) 3.56 (.86) 3.52 (.87) 2.15*
Connection T3 (CR) 3.87 (.76) 3.67 (.81) 8.24***
Regulation T3 (CR) 3.37 (.83) 3.29 (.88) 3.63***
Autonomy T3 (CR) 3.39 (.84) 3.34 (.87) 1.99*
Connection T2 (PR) 4.28 (.46) 4.00 (.56) 8.05***
Regulation T2 (PR) 4.08 (.57) 3.89 (.69) 4.28***
Autonomy T2 (PR) 3.71 (.58) 3.63 (.65) 1.92
Connection T3 (PR) 4.21 (.48) 3.86 (.61) 8.58***
Regulation T3 (PR) 4.00 (.61) 3.72 (.69) 5.54***
Autonomy T3 (PR) 3.71 (.61) 3.57 (.66) 3.19**
Prosocial behavior T2 (PR) 3.68 (.74) 3.57 (.74) 3.07**
Prosocial behavior T3 (PR) 3.56 (.81) 3.46 (.82) 2.50*
Prosocial behavior T2 (OB) 5.28 (1.35) 5.26 (1.31) 0.16
Prosocial behavior T3 (OB) 5.11 (1.14) 5.16 (1.11) 0.65
Note. CR = child report; PR = parent report; OB = observed.
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
PROSOCIAL BIDIRECTIONALITY 403
variable consisting of child-, mother-, and father-
reported prosocial behavior, models were run sepa-
rately for reported prosocial behavior versus
observed. Thus, a total of four models were con-
ducted. For the child-reported parenting models,
the rst model assessed bidirectional paths
between latent variables of child-reported authori-
tative mothering and fathering, and a latent vari-
able of prosocial behavior made up of child-,
mother-, and father-reported prosocial behavior
(see Figure 1); and the second model assessed bidi-
rectional paths between child-reported latent vari-
ables of authoritative mothering and fathering, and
observed prosocial behavior toward mother and
father (see Figure 2). Parent-reported models were
identical, save that latent variables of mothering
and fathering were based on parents reports of
their own authoritative parenting.
Cross-Lag Models of Child-Reported
Authoritative Parenting and Adolescents
Prosocial Behavior
As preliminary analyses revealed no gender or age
differences when gender and age were used as
T
A
B
L
E
2
C
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
B
e
t
w
e
e
n
a
l
l
S
t
u
d
y
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
1
.
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
t
i
m
e
2
(
C
R
)

.
6
4
*
*
.
7
2
*
*
.
2
8
*
*
.
1
0
.
1
8
*
.
5
2
*
*
.
2
8
*
*
.
2
2
*
*
.
6
3
*
*
.
5
3
*
*
.
5
6
*
*
.
1
8
*
.
1
0
.
1
3
.
4
2
*
*
.
2
6
*
*
.
2
0
*
*
2
.
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
t
i
m
e
2
(
C
R
)
.
6
7
*
*

.
6
4
*
*
.
2
0
*
*
.
1
7
*
.
0
7
.
4
6
*
*
.
2
5
*
*
.
2
6
*
*
.
4
4
*
*
.
6
0
*
*
.
4
4
*
*
.
0
7
.
1
1
.
1
1
.
3
6
*
*
.
1
5
*
.
2
5
*
*
3
.
A
u
t
o
n
o
m
y
t
i
m
e
2
(
C
R
)
.
7
3
*
*
.
6
4
*
*

.
1
9
*
*
.
1
1
.
1
7
*
.
5
3
*
*
.
2
3
*
*
.
2
8
*
*
.
5
5
*
*
.
5
0
*
*
.
6
8
*
*
.
0
8
.
0
2
.
1
8
*
*
.
4
0
*
*
.
1
6
*
.
2
9
*
*
4
.
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
t
i
m
e
2
(
P
R
)
.
3
1
*
*
.
2
0
*
*
.
1
9
*

.
6
2
*
*
.
5
7
*
*
.
1
7
*
*
.
4
0
*
*
.
1
6
*
.
2
7
*
*
.
1
8
*
.
3
0
*
*
.
7
2
.
4
9
*
*
.
5
0
*
*
.
1
4
.
3
7
*
*
.
1
4
5
.
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
t
i
m
e
2
(
P
R
)
.
2
0
*
*
.
1
7
*
.
1
1
.
6
3
*
*

.
5
6
*
*
.
1
3
.
3
1
*
*
.
1
2
.
2
2
*
*
.
2
0
*
*
.
2
2
*
*
.
5
0
*
*
.
6
7
*
*
.
4
7
*
*
.
1
5
.
2
8
*
*
.
0
9
6
.
A
u
t
o
n
o
m
y
t
i
m
e
2
(
P
R
)
.
1
9
*
*
.
0
7
.
1
7
*
.
5
7
*
*
.
5
1
*
*

.
1
8
*
.
3
3
*
*
.
1
3
.
2
4
*
*
.
2
1
*
*
.
3
5
*
*
.
5
0
*
*
.
4
6
*
*
.
7
0
*
*
.
1
5
.
3
1
*
*
.
1
4
7
.
P
r
o
s
o
c
i
a
l
t
i
m
e
2
(
C
R
)
.
5
6
*
*
.
4
6
*
*
.
5
3
*
*
.
2
4
*
*
.
2
0
*
*
.
2
1
*
*

.
4
0
*
*
.
3
2
*
*
.
4
2
*
*
.
3
7
*
*
.
4
1
*
*
.
1
2
.
0
6
.
1
5
.
6
5
*
*
.
3
8
*
*
.
2
5
*
*
8
.
P
r
o
s
o
c
i
a
l
t
i
m
e
2
(
P
R
)
.
3
4
*
*
.
2
5
*
*
.
2
3
*
*
.
4
2
*
*
.
3
5
*
*
.
4
1
*
*
.
4
4
*
*

.
2
2
*
*
.
3
1
*
*
.
2
1
*
*
.
2
8
*
*
.
3
8
*
*
.
2
5
*
*
.
2
9
*
*
.
4
0
*
*
.
7
8
*
*
.
2
8
*
*
9
.
P
r
o
s
o
c
i
a
l
t
i
m
e
2
(
O
B
)
.
3
0
*
*
.
2
6
*
*
.
2
8
*
*
.
1
9
*
*
.
1
3
.
0
7
.
3
3
*
*
.
3
6
*
*

.
2
0
*
*
.
1
9
*
*
.
2
3
*
*
.
1
5
.
0
7
.
1
0
.
3
4
*
*
.
3
0
*
*
.
3
5
*
*
1
0
.
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
t
i
m
e
3
(
C
R
)
.
6
3
*
*
.
4
4
*
*
.
5
5
*
*
.
3
1
*
*
.
2
1
*
*
.
2
2
*
*
.
4
3
*
*
.
3
7
*
*
.
3
6
*
*

.
6
6
*
*
.
7
7
*
*
.
2
5
*
*
.
2
3
*
*
.
2
5
*
*
.
4
9
*
*
.
2
9
*
*
.
2
9
*
*
1
1
.
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
t
i
m
e
3
(
C
R
)
.
5
1
*
*
.
6
0
*
*
.
5
0
*
*
.
2
4
*
*
.
2
2
*
*
.
1
2
.
3
6
*
*
.
2
8
*
*
.
3
3
*
*
.
6
1
*
*

.
6
5
*
*
.
1
6
*
.
1
8
*
.
1
2
.
3
9
*
*
.
2
0
*
*
.
2
4
*
*
1
2
.
A
u
t
o
n
o
m
y
t
i
m
e
3
(
C
R
)
.
5
9
*
*
.
5
9
*
*
.
6
8
*
*
.
2
6
*
*
.
2
0
*
*
.
2
3
*
*
.
4
4
*
*
.
3
4
*
*
.
3
5
*
*
.
7
6
*
*
.
6
0
*
*

.
2
9
*
*
.
1
9
*
*
.
3
2
*
*
.
4
5
*
*
.
2
7
*
*
.
3
2
*
*
1
3
.
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
t
i
m
e
3
(
P
R
)
.
1
3
*
.
0
7
.
0
8
.
5
9
*
*
.
4
8
*
*
.
4
2
*
*
.
0
6
.
3
2
*
*
.
1
4
*
.
2
8
*
*
.
1
4
*
.
2
5
*
*

.
6
4
*
*
.
6
5
*
*
.
1
3
.
4
4
*
*
.
1
5
1
4
.
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
t
i
m
e
3
(
P
R
)
.
0
8
.
1
1
.
0
2
.
4
8
*
*
.
6
5
*
*
.
4
0
*
*
.
0
7
.
2
5
*
*
.
1
0
.
1
2
.
2
0
*
*
.
0
9
.
5
9
*
*

.
5
9
*
*
.
0
8
.
3
2
*
*
.
1
0
1
5
.
A
u
t
o
n
o
m
y
t
i
m
e
3
(
P
R
)
.
1
5
.
1
1
.
1
8
*
.
5
1
*
*
.
4
6
*
*
.
6
9
*
*
.
1
5
*
.
3
4
*
*
.
1
3
.
2
2
*
*
.
1
6
*
.
3
1
*
*
.
5
7
*
*
.
4
8
*
*

.
1
5
.
3
5
*
*
.
1
8
*
1
6
.
P
r
o
s
o
c
i
a
l
t
i
m
e
3
(
C
R
)
.
4
5
*
*
.
3
6
*
*
.
4
0
*
*
.
2
4
*
*
.
2
2
*
*
.
1
7
*
.
6
5
*
*
.
4
4
*
*
.
2
5
*
*
.
5
4
*
*
.
3
9
*
*
.
4
8
*
*
.
1
2
.
1
6
*
.
2
1
*
*

.
4
3
*
*
.
3
3
*
*
1
7
.
P
r
o
s
o
c
i
a
l
t
i
m
e
3
(
P
R
)
.
2
6
*
*
.
1
5
*
.
1
6
*
.
3
4
*
*
.
2
8
*
*
.
3
3
*
*
.
3
4
*
*
.
8
2
*
*
.
2
5
*
*
.
3
4
*
*
.
1
8
*
*
.
3
0
*
*
.
3
5
*
*
.
2
2
*
*
.
3
3
*
*
.
4
2
*
*

.
3
0
*
*
1
8
.
P
r
o
s
o
c
i
a
l
t
i
m
e
3
(
O
B
)
.
2
5
*
*
.
2
5
*
*
.
2
9
*
*
.
0
8
.
0
9
.
0
6
.
3
2
*
*
.
2
8
*
*
.
3
6
*
*
.
3
5
*
*
.
2
7
*
*
.
3
4
*
*
.
1
3
.
0
5
.
1
0
.
2
8
*
*
.
3
0
*
*

N
o
t
e
.
C
R
=
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
p
o
r
t
;
P
R
=
p
a
r
e
n
t
r
e
p
o
r
t
;
O
B
=
o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d
.
M
o
t
h
e
r
s
a
r
e
b
e
l
o
w
t
h
e
d
i
a
g
o
n
a
l
,
f
a
t
h
e
r
s
a
r
e
a
b
o
v
e
.
*
p
<
.
0
1
;
*
*
p
<
.
0
0
1
.
Authoritave
Fathering
T2
Authoritave
Fathering
T3
.65*
.70*
Authoritave
Mothering
T2
Authoritave
Mothering
T3
Prosocial
Behavior
T2
Prosocial
Behavior
T3
.58*
.20*
.27*
FIGURE 1 Cross-lag associations between child-reported
authoritative mothering and fathering and child-, mother-, and
father-reported prosocial behavior toward family. Note. All beta
weights are standardized. Only signicant paths are shown.
Latent mothering and fathering consist of connection, regulation,
and autonomy. Latent prosocial behavior consists of child-,
mother-, and father- reports of prosocial behavior toward family.
Covariances are not shown in gure for parsimony.
v (89) = 220.36, p < .001; CFI = .977, RMSEA = .066.
*p < .05.
404 PADILLA-WALKER, CARLO, CHRISTENSEN, AND YORGASON
controls or when models were run separately for
gender and age (1012 year-olds vs. 1315 year-
olds), these variables were not included in further
analyses. A measurement model was estimated for
each of the two models (reported vs. observed
prosocial behavior, respectively), and they were
determined to t the data well if they produced
values of CFI > .95 and RMSEA < .06 (Hu &
Bentler, 1999). Both measurement models yielded
adequate t, v (87) = 221.54, p < .001, CFI = .976,
RMSEA = .068; v (68) = 163.27, p < .001, CFI = .979,
RMSEA =.065; with all factor loadings on latent
variables statistically signicant at .52 and above.
Next, structural models were conducted (See
Figures 1 and 2) and both models had adequate t,
v (89) = 220.36, p < .001; CFI = .977, RMSEA =
.066; v (72) = 183.98, p < .001; CFI = .976,
RMSEA = .068. For the rst model, authoritative
mothering and fathering at Time 2 were not signi-
cantly related to prosocial behavior at Time 3, but
prosocial behavior at Time 2 was related to higher
levels of authoritative mothering and fathering at
Time 3. For the second model, authoritative moth-
ering at Time 2 was related to higher levels of
observed prosocial behavior toward mother (but
not father) at Time 3, but authoritative fathering
was not related to either prosocial outcome a year
later. In turn, observed prosocial behavior toward
mother at Time 2 was related to higher levels of
authoritative mothering and fathering at Time 3,
but observed prosocial behavior toward father at
Time 2 was not related to authoritative mothering
or fathering a year later.
Cross-Lag Models of Parent-Reported
Authoritative Parenting and Adolescents
Prosocial Behavior
Again, preliminary analyses revealed no gender or
age differences when these variables were used as
controls or when models were run separately for
gender and age, so they were not included in further
analyses. A measurement model was estimated for
each of the two models, and both measurement
models yielded adequate t, v (87) = 177.11,
p < .001; CFI = .972, RMSEA = .056; v (68) = 89.59,
p < .05; CFI = .990, RMSEA = .031; with all factor
loadings on latent variables statistically signicant at
.50 and above.
Next, structural models were conducted, and
both models had adequate t, v (89) = 180.66,
p < .001; CFI = .972, RMSEA = .056; v (72) =
109.99, p < .01; CFI = .982, RMSEA = .040. In both
models, the standardized coefcients from mother-
and father-reported authoritative parenting at Time
2 to mother- and father-reported authoritative par-
enting at Time 3 were .84 and .79, respectively.
However, parent-reported authoritative parenting
was not signicantly associated with prosocial
behavior in either model, and prosocial behavior
was not signicantly associated with parenting in
either model. Thus, the parent-reported models are
not represented in the gures.
DISCUSSION
Traditional theories (Baumrind, 1991; Bronfenbren-
ner & Morris, 2006; Hoffman, 2000) posit the cen-
tral socializing role of parents in childrens
prosocial development and suggest that youth are
equally likely to inuence parenting, although evi-
dence to support the latter assertion is relatively
scarce. The present ndings support such bidirec-
tional relations during adolescence, with the most
consistent evidence favoring the role of adoles-
cents behavior on subsequent parenting. Speci-
cally, for both reported and observed behavior,
adolescents prosocial behavior at Time 2 positively
predicted authoritative parenting a year later. This
Authoritave
Fathering
T2
Authoritave
Fathering
T3
.76*
.26*
Authoritave
Mothering
T2
Authoritave
Mothering
T3
.71*
.10*
.15*
Prosocial to
Mother T2
Prosocial to
Father T2
Prosocial to
Mother T3
Prosocial to
Father T3
.27*
.49*
FIGURE 2 Cross-lag associations between child-reported
authoritative mothering and fathering and observations of pro-
social behavior toward mother and father. Note. All beta weights
are standardized. Only signicant paths are shown. Covariances
are not shown in gure for parsimony.
v (72) = 183.98, p < .001; CFI = .976, RMSEA = .068.
*p < .05.
PROSOCIAL BIDIRECTIONALITY 405
nding highlights the continued interplay between
parents and children into adolescence, and suggests
that although prosocial behavior is relatively stable
by adolescence, parenting is still changing and
adapting as a function of the childs behavior. It is
likely that as adolescents experience the changes
inherent of this developmental time period (Stein-
berg & Silk, 2002), the parentchild relationship
transitions or adapts accordingly. Indeed, current
ndings suggest parents may be somewhat more
supportive and autonomy granting toward children
who display more prosocial behavior within the
family. Other studies have found more consistent
bidirectional relations during adolescence when
examining risk behaviors (Coley et al., 2009; Eisen-
berg et al., 1999a,b), so it is possible that parental
inuence on prosocial development becomes less
salient during the early teen years because of the sta-
bility of this particular behavior. Future research will
need to examine the developmental implications of
the bidirectional relations between parenting and
child outcomes as a function of both type of parent-
ing, and type of child behavior. Taken together, such
ndings suggest the need for more dynamic models
of prosocial development that account for bidirec-
tional inuences of parents and youth. However, the
fact that the models were equivalent across early to
middle adolescence suggests that these bidirectional,
dynamic mechanisms function equivalently across
these age periods.
In addition to the role of prosocial behavior on
parenting, authoritative mothering at Time 2 was
related to prosocial behavior toward mother at
Time 3 (observed behavior only). These ndings
add to the mounting evidence on the importance
of parenting in adolescents prosocial development,
despite the increasing presence of peers during this
age period (e.g., Carlo et al., 2007a,b; Eberly &
Montemayor, 1998; Michalik et al., 2007), and sug-
gest that perhaps mothers are uniquely important
in this regard during adolescence. As has been
found in most other studies of parenting styles (Ei-
senberg et al., 2006), the positive role of authorita-
tive parenting is likely due to socialization
mechanisms such as modeling and the use of prac-
tices (e.g., the use of social rewards, moral conver-
sations) that parents use to promote and encourage
prosocial development. Interestingly, there were no
signicant ndings regarding fathers parenting.
These ndings add to mounting evidence that
mothers parenting more so than fathers parenting
is signicantly linked to prosocial behaviors (Carlo,
Roesch, & Melby, 1998; Carlo et al., 2011; Day &
Padilla-Walker, 2009; see Hastings, McShane, Par-
ker, & Ladha, 2007). The lack of more signicant
direct ndings for fathers might result from indi-
rect inuences during adolescence; however, addi-
tional research is needed to replicate and examine
these ndings. Moreover, future research should
examine possible bidirectional mediators of proso-
cial development, such as adolescent empathy,
which may result from parental socialization in
childhood (e.g., Padilla-Walker & Christensen,
2011). Thus, although prosocial behavior is quite
stable by adolescence (Carlo et al., 2007a,b; Eisen-
berg et al., 1999a), the present ndings suggest that
authoritative mothering still impacts how prosocial
adolescents are, specically toward their mothers.
There were several additional ndings of inter-
est. First, as expected, evidence for the stability of
prosocial behaviors was revealed. Interestingly, sta-
bility coefcients (or the strength of the paths
between prosocial behavior at Time 2 and Time 3)
were somewhat stronger for reported than for
observed prosocial behavior. This could be due to
personal response biases that remain constant over
time that may be less likely when using different
coders in the observational tasks. Alternatively,
observational tasks that assess behavior during a
relatively brief period of time may not fully cap-
ture overall prosocial behavior, and may be a func-
tion of current mood, or even parentchild
interactions that occurred in the days or weeks
prior to observation, thus resulting in lower stabil-
ity coefcients. Nonetheless, the ndings yield evi-
dence that individual differences in prosocial
behaviors are relatively stable across adolescence,
which is quite possibly due to genetic and
relatively stable environmental factors (Knafo &
Plomin, 2006). Second, prior research on the sociali-
zation of prosocial behavior in adolescence has
often relied on questionnaire measures of the main
constructs. However, in the present study, the nd-
ings based on behavioral observations showed the
most consistent bidirectional relations relative to
the ndings based on reported behavior. Perhaps
bidirectional ndings in the coded task reveal rela-
tions that are less susceptible to social desirability
demands. Alternatively, more consistent relations
may have been revealed because the observational
task assessed prosocial behavior specically toward
the target parent rather than assessing relations to
the broader family (as assessed in the reported
measures). These ndings are consistent with the
need for measures of prosocial behavior toward
specic recipients (Eberly & Montemayor, 1998;
Padilla-Walker & Christensen, 2011). In addition,
although the observational task assessed prosocial
406 PADILLA-WALKER, CARLO, CHRISTENSEN, AND YORGASON
behavior toward a specic target, it also might
have captured prosocial behavior more generally
than did the reported measure. For example, some
aspects of the observational denition (e.g., show-
ing maturity by listening) may tap broader aspects
of social competence, which could contribute to the
disparate ndings between questionnaire and
behavioral observation. Finally, the fact that child
reports but not parent reports of parenting were
consistently linked to prosocial behaviors suggest
that child report of parenting may be relatively
more predictive of child outcomes. This is consis-
tent with the suggestion that adolescent reports of
parenting may be more valid than parent reports
(Gonzales, Cauce, & Mason, 1996) and supports the
notion that the childs perceptions, interpretations,
and reactions to parental practices signicantly pre-
dict the childs moral internalization (Grusec &
Goodnow, 1994).
The relatively homogenous White, European
American sample hinders our ability to generalize
the present ndings to other ethnic and racial
groups. For example, it is important to note that
other scholars (e.g., Chao, 2001) have shown that
parenting styles are related to youth outcomes in
different ways in ethnic minority samples; thus, it
remains to be seen whether or not the present nd-
ings extend to other ethnic and racial groups. Fur-
thermore, the present sample consisted of mostly
well-educated parents, thereby limiting the general-
izability to less educated families. Finally, although
longitudinal studies help establish causal sequen-
tiality, experimental manipulations allow for the
more stringent tests of causality. However, such
study designs pose ethical and practical issues given
the concerns of experimentally manipulating parent-
ing practices. In summary, however, one must be
cautious to infer causal direction of effects and to
generalize to other more representative populations
without further replication. Despite these limita-
tions, the present ndings support bioecological
models of development that emphasize bidirectional
relations and extend our understanding of the com-
plex links between parenting and adolescents pro-
social development. Findings also place particular
emphasis of the role of the adolescents prosocial
behavior on subsequent parenting, and suggest the
need for future research to determine whether this
is a developmentally unique feature of adolescence
given the changes that occur in the parentchild
relationship during this age period and the relative
stability of prosocial behavior, or whether similar
patterns are seen at younger and older ages, and
across a variety of adolescent outcomes.
REFERENCES
Arbuckle, J. L. (2007). Amos 16.0 users guide. Chicago, IL:
SPSS, Amos Development Corporation.
Baumrind, D. (1991). The inuence of parenting style on
adolescent competence and substance abuse. Journal of
Early Adolescence, 11, 5695.
Bell, R. (1968). A reinterpretation of the direction of
effects in studies of socialization. Psychological Review,
75, 8195.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioeco-
logical model of human development. In R. M. Lerner
& W. Damon (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol.
1, Theoretical models of human development (6th ed., pp.
793828). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
Carlo, G. (2006). Care-based and altruistically based
morality. In M. Killen & J. G. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook
of moral development (pp. 551579). Mahwah, NJ: Law-
rence Erlbaum.
Carlo, G., Crockett, L., Randall, B., & Roesch, S. (2007a).
A latent growth curve analysis of prosocial behavior
among rural adolescents. Journal of Research on Adoles-
cence, 17, 301324.
Carlo, G., McGinley, M., Hayes, R., Batenhorst, C., &
Wilkinson, J. (2007b). Parenting styles or practices?
Parenting, sympathy, and prosocial behaviors among
adolescents. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 168, 147176.
Carlo, G., Mestre, M. V., Samper, P., Tur, A., & Armenta,
B. E. (2011). The longitudinal relations among dimen-
sions of parenting styles, sympathy, prosocial moral
reasoning and prosocial behaviors. International Journal
of Behavioral Development, 35, 116124.
Carlo, G., Roesch, S. C., & Melby, J. (1998). The multipli-
cative relations of parenting and temperament to pro-
social and antisocial behaviors in adolescence. Journal
of Early Adolescence, 18, 266290.
Chao, R. (2001). Extending research on the consequences
of parenting style for Chinese Americans and Euro-
pean Americans. Child Development, 72, 18321843.
Choukalis, C. G., Melby, J. N., & Lorenz, F. O. (2000).
Technical report: Intraclass correlation coefcients in SPSS.
Ames, IA: Institute for Social and Behavioral Research,
Iowa State University.
Coley, R., Votruba-Drzal, E., & Schindler, H. (2009).
Fathers and mothers parenting predicting and
responding to adolescent sexual risk behaviors. Child
Development, 80, 808827.
Day, R. D., & Padilla-Walker, L. M. (2009). Mother and
father connectedness and involvement during early
adolescence. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 900904.
Eberly, M. B., & Montemayor, R. (1998). Doing good
deeds: An examination of adolescent prosocial behav-
ior in the context of parent/adolescent relationships.
Journal of Adolescent Research, 13, 403432.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R., Shepard, S., Guthrie, I., Murphy,
B., & Reiser, M. (1999a). Parental reactions to chil-
drens negative emotions: Longitudinal relations to
quality of childrens social functioning. Child Develop-
ment, 70, 513534.
PROSOCIAL BIDIRECTIONALITY 407
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2006). Pro-
social development. In N. Eisenberg, W. Damon, & R.
M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3.
Social, emotional and personality development (6th ed., pp.
646718). New York, NY: Wiley.
Eisenberg, N., Guthrie, I. K., Murphy, B. C., Shepard, S.
A., Cumberland, A., & Carlo, G. (1999b). Consistency
and development of prosocial dispositions: A longitu-
dinal study. Child Development, 70, 13601372.
Frensch, K. M., Pratt, M. W., & Norris, J. E. (2007). Foun-
dations of generativity: Personal and family correlates
of emerging adults generative life-story themes. Jour-
nal of Research in Personality, 41, 4562.
Gagne, M. (2003). The role of autonomy support and
autonomy orientation in prosocial behavior engage-
ment. Motivation and Emotion, 27, 199223.
Gonzales, N. A., Cauce, A. M., & Mason, C. A. (1996). In-
terobserver agreement in the assessment of parental
behavior and parent-adolescent conict: African Amer-
ican mothers, daughters, and independent observers.
Child Development, 67, 14831498.
Gregory, A. M., Light-Hausermann, J. H., Rijsdijk, F., &
Eley, T. C. (2009). Behavioral genetic analyses of proso-
cial behavior in adolescents. Developmental Science, 12,
165174.
Grusec, J. E., & Goodnow, J. J. (1994). Impact of parental
discipline methods on the childs internalization of val-
ues: A reconceptualization of current points of view.
Developmental Psychology, 30, 419.
Hastings, P., McShane, K., Parker, R., & Ladha, F. (2007).
Ready to make nice: Parental socialization of young
sons and daughters prosocial behaviors with peers.
Journal of Genetic Psychology, 168, 177200.
Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and moral development:
Implications for caring and justice. Cambridge, UK: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for t indi-
ces in covariance structure analysis: Conventional cri-
teria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 6, 155.
Kerr, M., Beck, K., Shattuck, T., Kattar, C., & Uriburu, D.
(2003). Family involvement, problem and prosocial
behavior outcomes of Latino youth. American Journal of
Health Behavior, 27, S55S65.
Knafo, A., & Plomin, R. (2006). Prosocial behavior from
early to middle childhood: Genetic and environmental
inuences on stability and change. Developmental Psy-
chology, 42, 771786.
Krevans, J., & Gibbs, J. C. (1996). Parents use of induc-
tive discipline: Relations to childrens empathy and
prosocial behavior. Child Development, 67, 32633277.
Maggs, J., & Galambos, N. (1993). Alternative structural
models for understanding adolescent problem behav-
ior in two-earner families. The Journal of Early Adoles-
cence, 13, 79101.
Melby, J., Conger, R., Book, R., Rueter, M., Lucy, L.,
Repinski, D., . . . Scaramella, L. (1998). The Iowa fam-
ily interaction rating scales. In P. Kerig & K. Lindahl
(Eds.), Family observational coding systems: Resources for
systematic research (5th ed., pp. 1351). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Michalik, N., Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T., Ladd, B.,
Thompson, M., & Valiente, C. (2007). Longitudinal
relations among parental emotional expressivity and
sympathy and prosocial behavior in adolescence. Social
Development, 16, 286309.
Padilla-Walker, L. M., & Christensen, K. J. (2011). Empa-
thy and self-regulation as mediators between parenting
and adolescents prosocial behaviors toward strangers,
friends, and family. Journal of Research on Adolescence,
21, 545551.
Padilla-Walker, L. M., Harper, J. M., & Bean, R. A.
(2011). Pathways to parental knowledge: The role of
family process and family structure. Journal of Early
Adolescence, 31, 604627.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character
strengths and virtues: A handbook and classication. Wash-
ington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Robinson, C. C., Mandleco, B., Olsen, S. F., & Hart, C. H.
(2001). The parenting styles and dimensions question-
naire (PSQD). In B. F. Perlmutter, J. Touliatos, & G. W.
Holden (Eds.), Handbook of family measurement tech-
niques: Vol. 3. Instruments & index (pp. 319321). Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Robinson, J. L., Zahn-Waxler, C., & Emde, R. N. (1994).
Patterns of development in early empathic behavior:
Environmental and child constitutional inuences.
Social Development, 3, 125145.
Roth, G. (2008). Perceived parental conditional regard
and autonomy support as predictors of young adults
self- versus other-oriented prosocial tendencies. Journal
of Personality, 76, 513533.
Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Darling, N., & Mounts, S.
(1994). Over-time changes in adjustment and compe-
tence among adolescents from authoritative,
authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child
Development, 65, 754770.
Steinberg, L., & Silk, J. S. (2002). Parenting adolescents.
In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 1:
Children and parenting (2nd ed., pp. 103133). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Zahn-Waxler, C., Radke-Yarrow, M., & King, R. A.
(1979). Child rearing and childrens prosocial initia-
tions toward victims of distress. Child Development, 50,
319330.
408 PADILLA-WALKER, CARLO, CHRISTENSEN, AND YORGASON
This document is a scanned copy of a printed document. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy.
Users should refer to the original published version of the material.