Mothers’ Explicit and Implicit Moral Identity, Parenting and by … · 2015-06-22 · Mothers’ Explicit and Implicit Moral Identity, Parenting and Adolescent Moral Development

Mothers’ Explicit and Implicit Moral Identity, Parenting and

Adolescent Moral Development

by

David O'Neill

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements

for the degree of Master of Arts

Graduate Department of Psychology

University of Toronto

© Copyright by David O'Neill 2014

Mothers’ Explicit and Implicit Moral Identity, Parenting and Adolescent Moral Development

David O'Neill

Master of Arts

Department of Psychology

University of Toronto

2014

Abstract

Grusec and Goodnow (1994) proposed a framework wherein children’s internalization of values

depends upon the accurate perception and acceptance of parents’ values. The present research

attempted to demonstrate the utility of the proposed framework. Using a longitudinal approach

with measures taken at two time points, reasoning, directiveness and ignoring misbehaviour were

examined as potential moderators of the relation between maternal moral identity, explicit and

implicit, and adolescents’ internalization of moral values. Two measures of adolescent

internalization were used: mother-adolescent value congruency and adolescent relative autonomy.

The results indicated that higher levels of reasoning moderated the relation between maternal

implicit moral identity and adolescent moral values, lower levels of directiveness moderated the

relation between maternal explicit moral identity and adolescent moral values, and lower levels

of ignoring misbehaviour moderated the relation between maternal explicit moral identity and

adolescent relative autonomy. The theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

ii

Table of Contents

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... ii

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. vi

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... vii

List of Appendices ....................................................................................................................... viii

Mothers’ Explicit and Implicit Moral Identity, Parenting and Adolescent Moral Development ... 1

Parenting Styles vs. Strategies .................................................................................................... 1

Parenting Strategies and Internalization of Values ..................................................................... 2

Moral Identity .............................................................................................................................. 3

Explicit vs. Implicit Moral Identity ............................................................................................. 4

Adolescent internalization ........................................................................................................... 6

Parenting as a Moderator between Moral Identity and Internalization ....................................... 7

Reasoning ................................................................................................................................ 7

Ignoring misbehaviour ............................................................................................................. 8

Directiveness ........................................................................................................................... 9

Summary of Hypotheses ........................................................................................................... 10

Methods......................................................................................................................................... 12

Participants ................................................................................................................................ 12

Measures .................................................................................................................................... 12

Mother explicit moral identity ............................................................................................... 12

Mother implicit moral identity .............................................................................................. 14

Adolescent internalization ..................................................................................................... 14

iii

Parenting ................................................................................................................................ 15

Procedure ................................................................................................................................... 16

Time 1 .................................................................................................................................... 16

Time 2 .................................................................................................................................... 17

Results ........................................................................................................................................... 18

Preliminary analyses ................................................................................................................. 18

Data screening ....................................................................................................................... 18

Mothers’ Parenting as Moderator .............................................................................................. 19

Mothers’ Explicit Moral Identity and Adolescent Moral Values .............................................. 21

Reasoning .............................................................................................................................. 21

Directiveness ......................................................................................................................... 21

Ignoring misbehaviour ........................................................................................................... 22

Mothers’ Implicit Moral Identity and Adolescent Moral Values .............................................. 22

Reasoning .............................................................................................................................. 22

Directiveness ......................................................................................................................... 23


Mothers’ Explicit Moral Identity and Adolescent Relative Autonomy .................................... 24

Reasoning .............................................................................................................................. 24

Directiveness ......................................................................................................................... 24


Mothers’ Implicit Moral Identity and Adolescent Relative Autonomy .................................... 25

iv

Summary ................................................................................................................................... 25

Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 27

Explicit versus Implicit Moral Identity ..................................................................................... 27

Reasoning .................................................................................................................................. 28

Directiveness ............................................................................................................................. 30

Ignoring Misbehaviour .............................................................................................................. 32

Implications for Parenting ......................................................................................................... 33

Limitations and Future Directions ............................................................................................. 34

Future Directions ................................................................................................................... 36

Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 37

Appendices .................................................................................................................................... 44

v

List of Tables

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics for All Study Variables ………….……………………….19

Table 2: Correlations among Mother Moral Identity, Parenting and

Adolescent Moral Outcomes …………………………………………...……….20

Table 3: Non-Significant Moderation Models Predicting

Adolescent Moral Outcomes …….………………………………………...……44

Table 4: Moderation Model with Directiveness as the Moderator………………………..48

Table 5: Moderation Model with Reasoning as the Moderator…….……………………..49

Table 6: Moderation Model with Ignoring Misbehaviour as the Moderator………………………………………………………………………..50

vi

List of Figures

Figure 1: Features of parenting behaviors promoting accurate perception and acceptance (internalization) of a parent’s message ………………………….3

Figure 2: The conditional effect of mother explicit moral identity at time 1 on adolescent moral values at time 2 as a function of mother directiveness at time 1 …………………………………………………………...22

Figure 3: The conditional effect of mother implicit moral identity at time 1 on adolescent moral values at time 2 as a function of mother reasoning at time 1 ………………………………………………………………23

Figure 4: The conditional effect of mother explicit moral identity at time 1 on

adolescent relative autonomy at time 2 as a function of mother ignoring misbehaviour at time 1 ………………………………………………...25

vii

List of Appendices

Appendix A: Tables of Moderation Models …………………………………………………...44

Appendix B: List of PVQ Items ……………………………………………………………….51

Appendix C: Prosocial Self-Regulation Questionnaire (PRQ-P) …………………………...…53

Appendix D: Consent Forms …………………………………………………………………..54

viii

1

Mothers’ Explicit and Implicit Moral Identity, Parenting and Adolescent Moral Development

Grusec and Goodnow (1994) proposed a reconceptualization of the effect of parenting on

the child’s internalization of values, stating that the child’s internalization of values may depend

on the parent’s characteristics and childrearing practices, with the former influencing the

accurate perception of the parent’s values, and the latter influencing the acceptance of the

parent’s values. Parent characteristics refer to attributes that mediate the meaning of parenting

behaviors (Grusec & Goodnow, 1994). The present research examined the combined effect of

one parent characteristic, specifically maternal moral identity, and parenting practices on

adolescent internalization of moral values. Moral identity refers to the extent to which a person

believes being a moral person is important to his or her identity (Hardy & Carlo, 2011). Using a

longitudinal approach, with measures taken at two time points, parenting practices were

examined as potential moderators of the relation between maternal moral identity and

adolescents’ internalization of moral values.

Parenting Styles vs. Strategies

In the research literature, two dimensions of parenting figure prominently: the first is

labelled warmth/responsiveness; the second is labelled demandingness (Maccoby & Martin,

1983). Warmth/responsiveness refers to the degree to which the parent expresses affection

towards the child as well as the degree to which the parent is responsive and sensitive to the

needs of the child. Demandingness refers to the degree to which the parent attempts to control

the child as well as to the level of expectations from the parent (Maccoby & Martin, 1983).

Though the dimensions approach to parenting styles has been invaluable to developmental

research, Darling and Steinberg (1993) proposed that it is only by making a distinction between

parenting styles and parenting practices that researchers are able to address questions of

2

socialization. Parenting practices refer to specific behaviors that are defined by content and

socialization goals and/or values, whereas parenting styles refer to the constellation of attitudes

towards the child that the parent communicates to the child by various means: behaviors, tone of

voice, body language, etc. (Darling & Steinberg, 1993). Parenting styles, which encompass

parenting practices, can be displayed over a wide range of parent-child interactions. Furthermore,

previous research has demonstrated that, although parents may be prone to use a particular

overall parenting style, the parenting strategies used in any given situation will vary according to

the nature of that situation. For example, a mother may use a combination of power assertive

and reasoning in response to the child’s antisocial behavior, such as lying or stealing, whereas

she may only use reasoning in the case of the child’s failure to be prosocial (Grusec & Goodnow,

1994). Thus, the present research focused on the potential moderating effects of specific

parenting practices rather than overall parenting styles.

Parenting Strategies and Internalization of Values

Using an information-processing framework, Grusec and Goodnow (1994) proposed a

reconceptualization and expanded formulation of the effects of parenting, particularly parental

discipline methods, on the child’s internalization of values. They argued that internalization is

dependent upon the child’s accurate perception and acceptance of the parenting message (see

Figure 1). Parent characteristics, such as moral identity, have features that influence the accurate

perception of the parent’s message, including the clarity and consistency of the parent’s message.

Parenting practices, on the other hand, have features that influence the child’s acceptance of

values, such as being perceived as appropriate, motivating the child to accept the parenting

message, and facilitating feelings of self-generation (Grusec & Goodnow, 1994). However, it is

not enough that the child either accurately perceives or accepts the parenting message; it is only

3

through the combination of accurate perception and acceptance that the child will come to

internalize the parent’s values. The present research was an attempt to demonstrate the utility of

the proposed framework.

Figure 1. Features of parenting behaviors promoting accurate perception and acceptance

(internalization) of a parent’s message. NOTE: figure taken from Grusec and Goodnow (1994)

Moral Identity

As noted previously, the present research examined maternal moral identity as a parent

characteristic that may influence the accurate perception of maternal moral values. The notion of

moral identity stems from the concept of self-identity. People may hold certain beliefs and

4

values as important and identify themselves based on these positive or negative traits (Blasi,

1983). Moral identity, then, is the extent to which a person believes being a moral person is

important to his or her identity (Hardy & Carlo, 2011). An important source of moral motivation

may stem from moral identity, as an individual who believes being a moral person and acting in

moral ways is important, it is argued, is more likely to actually perform moral actions when the

opportunity arises (Hardy & Carlo, 2011).

Mothers who are high in moral identity may be more likely to want to teach these values

to their children and, therefore, have the teaching of moral values as an important parenting goal.

Through their actions and behaviors, they would be expected to consistently demonstrate and

teach their children about the importance of moral values and behaviour. For example, mothers

who hold values of honesty, kindness and/or generosity may volunteer within the local

community or donate to charity and encourage their children to do similarly. These behaviors

and encouragement give the child a clear and consistent message as to the importance of moral

values to the mother, thereby facilitating the accurate perception and possible internalization of

her values.

Explicit vs. Implicit Moral Identity

The most common approach to assessing moral identity has focused on explicit measures.

Individuals are typically asked to imagine a person with a moral trait and report how important it

is for them to be like this person or to rate moral and non-moral traits in terms of their

importance to their sense of self (Aquino & Reed, 2002; Arnold, 1994; Johnston, Sherman, &

Grusec, 2013; Krettenauer & Mosleh, 2013). However, there has been a growing concern that

explicit measures of moral identity are susceptible to self-presentational biases as well as the

individual’s introspective limitations. Thus, it is argued that a distinction should be maintained

5

between explicit and implicit moral identity (Schnabel, Asendorpf, & Greenwald, 2008).

Implicit moral identity is primarily assessed using the Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald,

McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998). The test uses reactions times as a measure of the strength of

associations between the individual’s self-identity and moral traits. Previous research suggests

that implicit measures of identity are better at predicting real-life responses than explicit

measures (Johnston et al., 2013) as well as reduce the possibility of self-presentational biases.

Therefore, the present research utilized both explicit and implicit moral identity measures in

order to assess their effects on the choice of parenting strategies as well as their effect on the

internalization of adolescent moral values.

Since implicit moral identity is argued to be a better predictor of real-life reactions and

behaviors, it was expected that mother implicit moral identity would also lead, overall, to greater

internalization on the part of adolescents. It is possible that implicit moral identity would more

likely lead to actions and parenting behaviors that facilitate the accurate perception of the

parent’s moral values. A mother acting in moral ways on a regular basis, such as donating to

charity, volunteering in the community, etc., leaves little doubt as to her values; in this case,

concern for others. However, in the case of maternal explicit identity, it may be that, though

mothers may report higher levels of explicit moral identity, this is not what is being perceived by

the adolescent. For example, Smetana (1995) found that adolescents tended to view parents as

more authoritarian and permissive than parents viewed themselves, while parents viewed

themselves as more authoritative than did adolescents. Since explicit measures do not relate to

behavior to the same extent that implicit measures are argued to relate to behavior, mothers high

in explicit moral identity may talk about moral values and discuss them with their children but

will not model the behavior to the same extent as mothers who are high in implicit moral identity.

6

Simply put, mothers high in implicit moral identity may be better at fostering the adolescent’s

accurate perception of their moral values. Therefore, overall it was expected that high implicit

moral identity would better predict adolescent’s internalization of values than explicit moral

identity due to the greater possible accuracy of perception.

Adolescent internalization.

The longitudinal nature of the present research provides a means of assessing

determinants of adolescents’ internalization of moral values. Adolescent internalization was

measured in two ways. The first was to determine the extent to which mother and adolescent

moral values are congruent. Greater congruency between mothers’ self-report moral values at

time 1, a measure of explicit moral identity, and adolescents’ moral values at time 2 is expected

if it is the case that adolescents are accurately perceiving, accepting and, hence, internalizing

their mothers’ moral values. Therefore, the degree to which mother moral values at time 1

predicts adolescent moral values at time 2, while controlling for adolescent moral values at time

1, is an indication of the level of adolescent internalization of values at time 2.

The second method of assessing adolescents’ internalization of moral values involved the

extent to which the reasons they gave for moral action were internalized. The perceived locus of

causation (PLOC), that is, the locus relative to the self of variables that determine behavior

(Ryan & Connell, 1989), has long been a measure of the degree to which an action is performed

for reasons that have been internalized by the individual. When asked why the individual would

engage in certain moral behavior or refrain from engaging in immoral behavior, the individual

may give reasons for acting that range along a continuum of autonomy: external reasons refer to

external authority, fear of punishment or rule compliance; introjected, or partially internalized,

reasons refer to self- or other-approval orientations as well as avoidance of shame or guilt; and

7

identified, or internalized, reasons refer to individual’s own goals or values (Ryan & Connell,

1989). Thus, the closer individuals are to “identified” on the autonomy continuum, the more

internalized are their reasons for engaging in certain behaviors. Therefore, by asking adolescents

their reasons for engaging in moral behavior or refraining from engaging in immoral behavior,

we are able to assess their level of relative autonomy, that is, how much of their behavior is done

for reasons that are internalized. The extent to which maternal moral identity and parenting

practices at time 1 predict adolescent relative autonomy at time 2, while controlling for

adolescent relative autonomy at time 1, is an indication of adolescents’ accurate perception and

acceptance of maternal moral values. No differences are expected between predictions of

adolescent moral values and relative autonomy as indications of adolescent internalization.

Hereafter, the general term “internalization” is used to refer to both adolescents’ moral values

and relative autonomy. Should a distinction between these two measures of internalization be

necessary, then the actual terms will be used.

Parenting as a Moderator between Moral Identity and Internalization

Reasoning. Grusec and Goodnow (1994) have put forth a number of parenting variables

proposed to influence the acceptance of the parent’s message (see Figure 1.) One way mothers

might increase the child’s acceptance of values is through parenting behaviors that are perceived

as appropriate, such as reasoning. Parents may use reasoning to inform children of their

expectations and explain the necessity of rules as well as the norms and principles governing

those rules. It may also be used to highlight the importance of moral values and to illustrate the

consequences of the child’s actions (Hastings, Utendale, & Sullivan, 2007). Thus, so long as the

rationale is appropriate to children’s developmental level and makes sense to them, reasoning

may facilitate mother-adolescent value congruence and adolescent relative autonomy.

8

Overall, positive communication between parent and adolescent is generally predictive of

greater congruence between parent and adolescent moral thinking (White, 2000; White &

Matawie, 2004). Mothers high in reasoning may be more likely to communicate the rationale

and importance of moral values to their adolescent and thus facilitate greater congruence of

moral values. Therefore, it may be the case that mother moral identity and reasoning in and of

themselves are not predictive of adolescent internalization; the former may promote accurate

perception but not necessarily promote acceptance, while the reverse may be true for the latter.

Thus, it is only when coupled with higher levels of reasoning that mothers high in moral identity

may have had the added effect of being accurately perceived and promoting the acceptance of

moral values, thus facilitating internalization. Therefore, it was expected in the present study

that reasoning would moderate the relation between mother moral identity at time 1 and

adolescents’ moral values and relative autonomy at time 2. Specifically, it was expected that

mothers’ moral identity at time 1 would positively predict their children’s moral values and

relative autonomy at time 2, but only when mothers were high in their use of reasoning.

Ignoring misbehaviour. Though appropriate, consistent, parenting may facilitate

adolescents’ internalization, the opposite may be true of inappropriate, inconsistent, parenting.

Mothers who engage in parenting practices that involve ignoring misbehaviour are not stressing

the importance they place on moral values. Though mothers may be high in moral identity, their

ignoring misbehaviour may lead children to infer that their mother places little importance on

moral values, thereby negatively influencing children’s motivation to accept and internalize

maternal moral values. However, though Grusec and Goodnow (1994) have proposed the

possibility of perceived importance of values influencing the acceptance of the parental message,

there has, as yet, been little empirical research to validate this association. Previous research has

9

demonstrated the influence of perceived parental intent and appropriateness of parental reactions

to prosocial and antisocial behavior on adolescent internalization (Padilla-Walker & Carlo, 2004)

as well as the mediating role of values in this association (Hardy, Carlo, & Roesch, 2010), but

not the influence of perceived importance of parent values. Nonetheless, research using a

narrative methodology has hinted that the importance parent’s place on values and behaviour

may indeed affect the adolescent’s internalization of values (Mackey, Arnold, & Pratt, 2001).

For example, one adolescent’s narrative described the importance his mother placed on being

respectful as he recalled an event of teasing someone for their appearance. The present research

aimed to provide some evidence to suggest that such an association may indeed exist. Therefore,

it was expected that ignoring misbehaviour would moderate the relation between mother moral

identity at T1 and adolescents’ internalization at T2. Specifically, it was expected that mothers’

moral identity at time 1 would positively predict adolescent moral values and relative autonomy

at time 2, but only when mothers were low in their use of ignoring misbehaviour.

Directiveness. Another factor that may influence the child’s acceptance and

internalization of moral values involves the child feeling that the value is self-generated.

Previous research has demonstrated that children need to feel that their behaviors are self-

generated and that they are not impelled by external forces over which they have no power

(Grolnick, Deci, & Ryan, 1997; Grusec & Davidov, 2007). Power assertive parenting, such as

directiveness, threatens children’s sense of autonomy and may lead to the active rejection of the

parent’s point of view as well as a desire to act counter to their parent’s values (Grolnick et al.,

1997). Through autonomy-supportive parenting, that is, parenting that recognizes that children

are distinct individuals with their own needs and goals (Bureau & Mageau, 2014), children come

to feel as though they are behaving morally of their own accord, with this feeling then

10

reinforcing future moral behavior. Thus, it may be the case that mothers who do not utilize

autonomy-supportive parenting may be doing so to the detriment of their child’s internalization

of moral values. Previous research suggests that strictly controlling actions may hinder

children’s internalization of moral values, whereas parenting that allows children to have a sense

of control over their own course of action does not (Bureau & Mageau, 2014). This is not to say

that the child should be granted unlimited autonomy, as research has demonstrated that too much

autonomy is just as detrimental as not enough. However, the way in which parents use control

influences the moral development of the child (Grolnick et al., 1997; Grusec & Davidov, 2007).

Appropriate use of structure and demands for mature, competent behavior have generally been

found to promote moral development, whereas strict and rigid control has shown negative

relations to child moral development (Hastings et al., 2007). Therefore, the present research

examined mother directiveness, that is, parenting that involves scolding, criticizing and directing

the adolescent’s behavior, as a potential moderator of the relation between mother moral identity

at T1 and adolescent internalization of values at T2. Specifically, it was expected that mothers’

moral identity at time 1 would positively predict their children’s moral values and relative

autonomy at time 2, but only when mothers were low in their use of directiveness.

Summary of Hypotheses

It was expected that mother moral identity would facilitate the accurate perception of

maternal moral values and that parenting strategies would influence their acceptance. As

internalization is dependent on both the accurate perception and acceptance of maternal values, it

was expected that the relation between mother moral identity at Time 1 and adolescent

internalization of values at aTime 2 would be moderated by parenting strategies while

controlling for adolescent internalization at T1. Specifically, it was hypothesized that at higher

11

levels of mother reasoning and lower levels of mother directiveness and ignoring misbehaviour,

the association between mother moral identity at time 1 and adolescent internalization at time 2

would be positive.

12

Methods

Participants

The present research was conducted over two time points, approximately 2 years apart.

Data collection was paced in order to keep the difference between time 1 and time 2 as constant

as possible between mother-adolescent dyads. At the time of the current study, 48 mother-

adolescent dyads had participated in both time points. Mother-adolescent dyads were recruited

from Toronto, Ontario, Canada and the surrounding area through a database of family contact

information maintained by the Child Study Centre at the University of Toronto. Mothers at T1

(mean age at T1 = 45.92 years), were primarily of European ethnic origin (62.5%), while the

remaining mothers reported Asian ethnic origins (10.4%), multiple ethnic origins (12.5%) or

other backgrounds (14.6%). All mothers had completed high school, 54.2% had completed

college or university and 39.6% had some or complete graduate school; the majority of mothers

(83.3%) were employed. With regards to family composition, at T1 83.3% of mothers were

married and 87.5% reported that they were living with the biological father of the adolescent

participating in the study; at T2, 87.0% of mothers were married and 89.1% reported that they

were living with the biological father of the adolescent participating in the study. For

adolescents at T1 (mean age = 13.5; 35.4% female) 87.5% reported having siblings, 62.5% of

which reported having one sibling, 20.8% reported having two siblings, and 4.2% reported

having 3 or more siblings. For adolescents at T2 (mean age = 15.3) no change in the number of

siblings was found. Data collection is still ongoing.

Measures

Mother explicit moral identity. In order to assess explicit moral identity, mothers and

adolescents completed the 21-item Portrait Values Questionnaire (PVQ; Schwartz & Boehnke,

13

2004) which assesses respondents’ endorsement of ten basic human values (power, achievement,

universalism, benevolence, tradition, security, conformity, self-direction, hedonism and

stimulation). Each item presents a gender-matched description of an individual and asks the

respondent to rate on a 6-point scale from 1 (not like me at all) to 6 (very much like me) how

similar they are to the individual described. Each value has two items, except for universalism

which has three items. In order to determine the relative importance of each value, scores for

each value are first obtained by averaging the scores of the items comprising each value.

Thereafter, the overall mean of all 21 items is obtained. This overall mean is then subtracted

from each of the averaged value scores to obtain their relative importance to respondents. The

explicit moral identity measure was computed by summing the relative importance scores of

benevolence and universalism. The two benevolence items were: “It's very important to him to

help the people around him. He wants to care for other people”, and “It is important to him to be

loyal to his friends. He wants to devote himself to people close to him.” The three universalism

items were: “He thinks it is important that every person in the world be treated equally. He wants

justice for everybody, even for people he doesn’t know”, “It is important to him to listen to

people who are different from him. Even when he disagrees with them, he still wants to

understand them” and “He strongly believes that people should care for nature. Looking after the

environment is important to him.”

The reliability and validity of the PVQ has previously been established (Hinz, Brähler,

Schmidt, & Albani, 2005; Schwartz & Boehnke, 2004; Verkasalo, Lönnqvist, Lipsanen, &

Helkama, 2009). For the present sample, Cronbach’s alphas at T1 were .81 (mothers) and .85

(adolescents). At T2, Cronbach’s alphas were .87 (mothers) and .89 (adolescents).

14

Mother implicit moral identity. The Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald et al.,

1998) was used to assess mothers’ moral identity. The IAT is a computer-based procedure

requiring participants to sort a stimulus word at the center of the screen as quickly and accurately

as possible into one of two possible categories. The categories were created using a target

dimension (moral vs. immoral) and a category dimension (self vs. other). The stimulus words

were: sincere, modest, honest, faithful and altruist (moral); and cheater, dishonest, deceptive,

arrogant, and pretentious (immoral) as well as pronouns referring to the self or others (Perugini

& Leone, 2009; Johnston, Sherman, & Grusec, 2013). In the critical phase of the task,

participants were required to sort stimulus words into categories composed of the two

dimensions, thus creating two types of combinations. One combination paired “moral” with

“self” and “immoral” with “other”; the other combination paired “immoral” with “self” and

“moral” with “other”. A difference score was computed based on the participant’s reaction times

to the different combinations. This is based on the notion of strengths of association; stronger

associations lead to faster reaction times. Thus, mothers with higher levels of implicit moral

identity should react faster to sorting “moral” and “self” words during the “moral/self” phase of

the task. Using the D600 algorithm for IAT scoring (Greenwald, Nosek, & Banaji, 2003),

mother implicit moral identity scores were calculated as the difference in average response

latency between the two combination phases.

Adolescent internalization. Two measures were used to assess adolescent

internalization of moral values. The first used the same measure of explicit moral identity as

mothers, namely the Portrait Values Questionnaire (see above). The second used the Prosocial

Self-Regulation Questionnaire (PRQ-P) which requires participants to rate five reasons why he

or she engages in moral behavior or refrains from immoral behavior (Ryan & Connell, 1989).

15

The five behaviors are: “Why do you keep a promise to friends?”, “Why do you not make fun of

another child for making a mistake?”, “Why don’t you hit someone when you’re mad at them?”,

“Why do you try to be nice to other kids?” and “Why would you help someone who is in

distress?” For example, when asked why they would help someone who is in distress,

respondents rate the following five reasons: “Because I think it’s important to give help when it’s

needed”, “Because I could get in trouble if I didn’t”, “Because I’d feel bad about myself if I

didn’t”, “Because I want people to like me”, and “Because it is satisfying to help others.” The

five reasons are based on three forms of regulation: external (behavior is regulated by others),

introjected (behavior is regulated by partial internalization) and identified (behavior is accepted

as personally important). Mean scores for each type of regulation are obtained by averaging

scores of each type of reasoning across all items. A relative autonomy score was obtained by

weighting the scores on all types of regulation and summing; extrinsic (-2), introjected (-1) and

identified (+2). The validity of the PRQ-P is well established and scores on this scale have been

shown to predict empathy, moral judgement and positive relatedness to others (Ryan & Connell,

1989).

Parenting. Parenting was assessed using the Parenting Styles and Dimensions

Questionnaire (PSDQ; Robinson, Mandleco, Olsen, & Hart, 2001). The full 62-item scale

assesses 11 parenting strategies, though only three were used in the present research

Reasoning. The reasoning subscale includes 7 items: “I explain the consequences of my

child’s behavior to him/her,” “I give my child reasons why rules should be obeyed,” “I

emphasize the reasons for rules to my child,” “I help my child to understand the impact of his/her

behavior by encouraging him/her to talk about the consequences of one’s actions,” “I tell my

child my expectations regarding behavior before he/she engages in an activity,” “I talk it over

16

and reason with my child when the child misbehaves,” and “I explain to my child how we feel

about the child s good and bad behavior.”

Ignoring Misbehaviour. The ignoring misbehaviour subscale includes 4 items: “I

withhold scolding and/or criticism even when my child acts contrary to my wishes,” “I allow my

child to annoy someone else,” “I ignore my child's misbehaviors,” and “I allow my child to

interrupt others.”

Directiveness. The directiveness subscale includes 4 items: “I tell my child what to do,”

“I demand that my child do things,” “I scold and criticize to make my child improve,” and “I

scold or criticize when my child’s behavior doesn’t meet my expectations.”

The reliability and validity of the PSDQ and its subscales have been demonstrated in

previous research (Robinson et al., 2001). In the present sample, the Cronbach’s alphas for the

three subscales were as follows: .79 (reasoning), .58 (ignoring misbehavior), and .70

(directiveness).

Procedure

Time 1. At T1, mothers were contacted by telephone and given a description of the study.

Mother and child dyads who agreed to participate were scheduled for an on-campus session.

Upon arrival at the lab, mothers and adolescents were greeted by two interviewers and briefed

about what the visit entailed. Interviewers explained that there were no right or wrong answers

to any of the questions being asked of them, that their responses would remain confidential, and

informed the dyads of their right to refrain from answering any questions they did not wish to

answer as well as their right to withdraw from the study at any time. Mothers and adolescents

read and signed informed consent and were taken into separate rooms for the first portion of the

study.

17

Adolescent procedure. Adolescents completed questionnaire assessments of

demographics, the Prosocial Self-Regulation Questionnaire, the Portrait Values Questionnaire

and other measures not analyzed in this research.

Mother procedure. Mothers were taken into a room apart from their adolescent and left

in private to complete questionnaire measures of demographics, parenting practices, the Portrait

Values Questionnaire, as well as the IAT measure of implicit moral identity and additional

measures not analyzed in this research. Once completed, both interviewers entered the room to

fully debrief the mother and adolescent pairs and asked if they would be willing to participate in

future research.

Time 2. Mothers from T1 who had agreed to participate in future research were

contacted by telephone and/or email and asked to confirm their continued willingness to

participate. Those who agreed were sent an email containing a description of the study, a

consent form, and a link to the online questionnaire packages. Mothers were asked to complete

an online questionnaire package containing measures of demographics, parenting practices,

values, and child behavior over the last six months or school year. Adolescents were asked to

complete an online questionnaire package containing measures of moral reasoning, values and

self-report antisocial behavior. Not all measures were used in the current study.

18

Results

Preliminary analyses

Data screening. Prior to hypothesis testing, all variables were screened for normality.

Means, standard deviations and ranges are presented in Table 1. None of the variables showed

considerable deviation from a normal distribution. Correlations among mother explicit moral

identity, implicit moral identity, parenting and adolescent moral outcomes and adolescent gender

can be found in Table 2. Mother explicit moral identity was correlated with adolescent moral

values at T1 (r = .37, p < .05) and T2 (r = .34, p < .05) but not with adolescent relative autonomy

at T1 or T2. Mother implicit moral identity was not correlated with explicit moral identity,

parenting or adolescent outcomes. Mother ignoring misbehaviour was positively correlated with

adolescent internalization at T1 (r = .37, p < .05). Furthermore, gender differences were found

for adolescent moral values at time 2 (rpb = -.39, p < .01); females were found to be higher in

moral values than males. Therefore, gender was used as a control variable for all analyses

involving adolescent moral values.

19

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for All Study Variables

Variable N Min. Max. Mean SD

Mother Variables Time 1

Mother Explicit Moral Identity 48 -.61 2.75 1.36 .852

Mother Implicit Moral Identity 48 -728.13 720.70 -67.48 321.334

Mother Reasoning/Induction 48 3.00 5.00 4.25 .435

Mother Directiveness 48 1.75 4.00 2.82 .652

Mother Ignoring Misbehavior 48 1.00 2.75 1.88 .425

Adolescent Variables Time 1

Adolescent Relative Autonomy 48 -1.85 2.45 .58 .995

Adolescent Moral Values 48 -2.90 2.70 -.17 1.383

Adolescent Variables Time 2

Adolescent Relative Autonomy 48 -1.38 3.96 .71 1.198

Adolescent Moral Values 48 -3.30 3.50 .04 1.650

Mothers’ Parenting as Moderator

In order to test the hypothesis that the relation between mother moral identity at T1 and

adolescent internalization at T2 would be moderated by parenting practices, moderation models

were assessed using the PROCESS macro for SPSS. PROCESS is a computational tool for path

analysis-based moderation and mediation analysis (Hayes, 2013). Twelve models were tested,

one for each of the two adolescent outcomes (moral values and relative autonomy) at each of the

two types of mother moral identity (explicit and implicit) at each of the three parenting strategies

(reasoning, directiveness and ignoring misbehaviour). For each test, predictor variables were

20

Table 2. Correlations among Mother Explicit Moral Identity, Implicit Moral Identity, Parenting and Adolescent Moral Outcomes (N = 48 mother-adolescent dyads)

MIMI MR MD MIM AMV ARA AMV2 ARA2 G

MEMI .13 .16 -.17 .18 .37* .26 .34* .19 -.05

MIMI .11 .09 .23 -.11 .23 -.03 .05 -.02

MR -.04 .16 .02 -.13 .04 .05 -.05

MD .08 -.13 -.04 -.12 -.13 .13

MIM .03 .37* .11 .10 -.29*

AMV .27 .55** .10 -.22

ARA .16 .41** -.13

AMV2 .14 -.39**

ARA2 -.08

* = correlation is significant at the .05 level; ** = correlation is significant at the .01 level

MIMI = Mother Implicit Moral Identity; MEMI = Mother Explicit Moral Identity; MR = Mother

Reasoning; MD = Mother Directiveness; MIM = Mother Ignoring Misbehaviour; G =

Adolescent Gender; ARA = Adolescent Relative Autonomy; AMV = Adolescent Moral Values;

ARA2 = Adolescent Relative Autonomy T2; AMV2 = Adolescent Moral Values T2

21

mean centered prior to conducting analyses and adolescent time 1 internalization measures were

used as control variables. For the present research, due to the relatively small sample size and

ongoing collection of data, any interaction term with a p-value greater than .05 but less than .15

was considered marginally significant and deserving of further investigation. Significant

interactions between mother moral identity and parenting were probed using the Johnson-

Neyman technique (Hayes & Matthes, 2009; Preacher, Curran, & Bauer, 2006), a method that

defines regions of significance that represent the range of z-scores within which the simple slope

of Y on X is significantly different from zero at a chosen level of significance (α). In the present

analyses, α = .05 was used to identify significant effects.

Mothers’ Explicit Moral Identity and Adolescent Moral Values.

Reasoning. For reasoning, the only significant predictors were adolescent moral values

at T1 and adolescent gender (see Table 3). Thus, mother reasoning did not moderate the relation

between mother explicit moral identity at T1 and adolescent moral values at T2.

Directiveness. Mothers’ explicit moral identity and the interaction between explicit

moral identity and directiveness were marginally significant predictors of adolescent moral

values at T2. Adolescent gender and moral values at T1 were also significant predictors (see

Table 4). Further analysis using the Johnson-Neyman technique suggested a region of

significance: scores below -.49 on the mean-centered mother directiveness. The 95% confidence

interval for the conditional effect of mother explicit moral identity on adolescent moral values as

a function of directiveness does not include 0 at values of directiveness below -.49 (see Figure 2).

Thus, mother explicit moral identity was predictive of adolescent moral values at T2, but only

when mother directiveness was low.

22

Figure 2. The conditional effect of mother explicit moral identity at time 1 on adolescent moral

values at time 2 as a function of mother directiveness at time 1.

Ignoring misbehaviour. For ignoring misbehaviour, the only significant predictors were

adolescent moral values at T1 and adolescent gender (see Table 3). Thus, mother ignoring

misbehaviour did not moderate the relation between mother explicit moral identity at T1 and

adolescent moral values at T2.

Mothers’ Implicit Moral Identity and Adolescent Moral Values

Reasoning. Mother implicit moral identity and mother reasoning were themselves not

significant predictors of adolescent moral values at T2. However, the interaction between

mother reasoning and mother implicit moral identity was a significant predictor (see Table 5).

Further analysis using the Johnson-Neyman technique suggested a region of significance: scores

above .43 on mean-centered mother reasoning. The 95% confidence interval for the conditional

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5

Con

ditio

nal E

ffec

t of M

othe

r E

xplic

it M

oral

Iden

tity

on A

dole

scen

t Mor

al

Valu

es

Mother Directiveness (centered)

Point Estimate95% CI Lower Limit95% CI Upper Limit

23

effect of mother explicit moral identity on adolescent moral values as a function of mother

reasoning does not include 0 at values of mother directiveness above .43 (see Figure 3). Thus,

mother implicit moral identity was predictive of adolescent moral values at T2, but only when

mother reasoning was high.

Figure 3. The conditional effect of mother implicit moral identity at time 1 on adolescent moral

values at time 2 as a function of mother reasoning at time 1.

Directiveness. For directiveness, the only significant predictors were adolescent moral

values at T1 and adolescent gender (see Table 3). Thus, directiveness did not moderate the

relation between mother implicit moral identity at T1 and adolescent moral values at T2.

Ignoring misbehaviour. For ignoring misbehaviour, the only significant predictor was

adolescent moral values at T1; adolescent gender was only marginally significant (see Table 3).

The results would suggest that ignoring misbehaviour did not moderate the relation between

mother implicit moral identity at T1 and adolescent moral values at T2.

-0.008

-0.006

-0.004

-0.002

0

0.002

0.004

0.006

-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1

Con

ditio

nal E

ffet

of M

othe

r Im

plic

it M

oral

iden

tity

on A

dole

scen

t Mor

al

valu

es

Mother Reasoning (centered)

95% CI Upper LimitPoint Estimate95% CI Lower Limit

24

Mothers’ Explicit Moral Identity and Adolescent Relative Autonomy.

Reasoning. For reasoning, the only significant predictor was adolescent moral values at

T1 (see Table 3). The results indicated that reasoning did not moderate the relation between

mother explicit moral identity at T1 and adolescent relative autonomy at T2.

Directiveness. For directiveness, the only significant predictor was adolescent moral

values at T1 (see Table 3). The results suggested that directiveness did not moderate the relation

between mother explicit moral identity at T1 and adolescent relative autonomy at T2.

Ignoring misbehaviour. The moderation model predicting adolescent relative autonomy

from mother explicit moral identity and mother ignoring misbehaviour is presented in Table 6.

The results indicated that mother ignoring misbehaviour and mother explicit moral identity were

themselves not predictive of adolescent relative autonomy at T2, but the interaction between

ignoring misbehaviour and mother explicit moral identity was a marginally significant predictor.

Further analysis using the Johnson-Neyman technique indicated a significance region: scores

below -.47 on the mean centered mother ignoring misbehaviour. The 95% confidence interval

for the conditional effect of mother explicit moral identity on adolescent relative autonomy as a

function of mother ignoring misbehaviour does not include 0 at values of mother ignoring

misbehaviour below -.47 (see Figure 4). Thus, mother explicit moral identity was predictive of

adolescent relative autonomy at T2, but only when mother ignoring behaviour was low.

25

Figure 4. The conditional effect of mother explicit moral identity at time 1 on adolescent

relative autonomy at time 2 as a function of mother ignoring misbehaviour at time 1.

Mothers’ Implicit Moral Identity and Adolescent Relative Autonomy.

For the moderation models predicting adolescent relative autonomy from mother implicit

moral identity and parenting variables, the only significant predictor was adolescent relative

autonomy at T1. None of the three parenting variables, mother implicit moral identity or

interactions between mother implicit moral identity and parenting variables were significant (see

Table 3). Therefore, reasoning, directiveness and ignoring misbehaviour did not moderate the

relation between mother implicit moral identity at T1 and adolescent relative autonomy at T2.

Summary

The results indicated mother explicit moral identity at time 1 was a significant predictor

of adolescent moral values at time 2, but only when directiveness was low. Mother explicit

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1

Con

ditio

nal E

ffet

of M

othe

r E

xplic

it M

oral

iden

tity

on A

dole

scen

t Rel

ativ

e A

uton

omy

Mother Ignoring Misbehaviour (centered)

95% CI Upper LimitPoint Estimate95% CI Lower Limit

26

moral identity at time 1 was also a significant predictor of adolescent relative autonomy at time 2,

but only when ignoring misbehaviour was low. Mother implicit moral identity at time 1 was a

significant predictor of adolescent moral values at time 2, but only when reasoning was high. No

other associations were found.

27

Discussion

Despite the small sample size, the present research does provide some promising support

for the idea that parenting practices moderate the association between parents’ moral identity and

adolescents’ internalization of moral values. Three parenting strategies, namely reasoning,

directiveness and ignoring misbehaviour were examined as potential moderators between mother

moral identity and adolescent internalization of values. The findings with respect to reasoning

were the closest to what was expected, that is, maternal implicit moral identity in association

with higher levels of reasoning was predictive of increases in adolescent’s moral values over

time, albeit not their relative autonomy and not when reasoning was associated with maternal

explicit moral identity. We expected that maternal implicit moral identity would yield stronger

effects than maternal explicit moral identity in association with parenting practices to predict

adolescent moral values and relative autonomy, yet the results did not support this claim.

Maternal explicit moral identity in association with low directiveness was predictive of increases

in adolescent’s moral values over time, but not their relative autonomy. Similarly, maternal

explicit moral identity in association with low ignoring misbehaviour was predictive of increases

in adolescent’s relative autonomy over time, albeit not for their moral values. The theoretical

and practical implications are discussed below.

Explicit versus Implicit Moral Identity

One possible explanation for the difference in findings between explicit and implicit

moral identity may be that these govern very different areas of morality. Though the two are not

necessarily mutually exclusive, the present and previous research (Johnston et al., 2013) would

suggest that there is little association between them, as evidenced by the non-significant

correlation (see Table 2). Smetana (1999) proposed that children’s moral development is

28

influenced by affective and cognitive components of the parent-child interaction. The affective

component, she argues, may influence the child’s motivation to listen and respond to the parent,

while the cognitive component provides reasoning and feedback on the child’s moral interactions.

Greene (2013) argues that the human brain is analogous to a dual-mode camera; the pre-set,

automatic functions are akin to emotions, while the manual mode is similar to deliberate thought

and reasoning. The two are complimentary processes that are part of the same overall moral

system. The same can be said of moral identity. Previous research has demonstrated that

implicit moral identity is predictive of moral emotions and reactions, such as moral outrage

(Johnston et al., 2013), whereas explicit moral identity is predictive of moral deliberation, such

as responding to hypothetical vignettes or conscious, deliberative decision-making (Perugini &

Leone, 2009). This may explain the lack of association between the two constructs as they are

tapping into two different areas of moral behaviour. Therefore, the combination of maternal

moral identity and parenting practice may be complimentary or redundant, depending upon their

features. The present research findings are discussed with this explanation in mind for each of

the three parenting strategies.

Reasoning

Mothers high in reasoning were expected to facilitate the acceptance of values by

providing the adolescent with explanations as to the necessity of rules and the consequences of

their actions. The results suggested that reasoning moderates the association between mother

implicit moral identity and adolescent moral values but only when mother reasoning was high.

No pattern was found for mother explicit moral identity or adolescent relative autonomy.

As mentioned previously, one possible explanation for why reasoning moderates the

relation between maternal implicit, but not explicit, moral identity and adolescent moral values

29

may be that the combination of maternal explicit moral identity and reasoning is redundant.

Reasoning is already highly explicit and deliberative. Thus, when combined with maternal

explicit moral identity, which is predictive of moral deliberation, the one may not be adding

anything above and beyond the other. On the other hand, since maternal implicit moral identity

is a better predictor of real-life behavior and reactions and assuming that the mother is

responding in appropriate ways to the child’s behavior, it may be providing an affective

component that compliments reasoning’s cognitive component. Mothers high in implicit moral

identity and reasoning may be providing both an example to follow as well as providing

appropriate feedback and explanations, which may facilitate both the accurate perception and

acceptance of moral values.

Though the preceding provides a plausible explanation as to the difference in predicting

adolescent moral values between maternal explicit and implicit moral identity when combined

with reasoning, there is no reason why the same argument should not hold for adolescent relative

autonomy. That is, of course, if we assume that there is no difference between moral values and

relative autonomy. Relative autonomy, in this case, has more to do with the extent to which the

individual’s reasons for moral behavior are self-determined (Grolnick et al., 1997), whereas

moral values are simply the extent to which an individual finds being a moral person to be

important. Although one would expect that the more importance an individual placed on moral

values, the more self-determined their moral behavior would become. However, the present

research provides little support for this claim, as evidenced by the non-significant correlations

between adolescent moral values and relative autonomy. Thus, there is evidence to suggest that

there is a distinction to be made between adolescent moral values and relative autonomy as

measured in the present study.

30

In the case of relative autonomy, one possible explanation for the present findings has

less to do with the compatibility between mother moral identity and parenting practices, as

proposed earlier, and more to do with how the parenting practices are being used. In the case of

reasoning, other-oriented reasoning can be used in autonomy-supportive ways, such as

minimizing pressure, listening to the child’s opinion and acknowledging the child’s feelings, or it

can be used in more controlling ways, such as emphasizing that the child should not act in ways

that harm others (Grolnick et al., 1997). Though reasoning and induction often lead to greater

internalization, such is not always the case. As proposed by Grusec and Goodnow (1994)

internalization is still heavily dependent upon the adolescent’s acceptance of parental moral

values. Thus, the way in which mothers used reasoning in the present study may have been

perceived by adolescents as more controlling than autonomy-supportive. However, as

adolescents’ perception of mothers’ reasoning was not measured in the present research, this

explanation is, at best, speculative.

Directiveness

Directiveness, similar to the explanation as to why maternal moral identity and reasoning

were not together predictive of adolescent internalization, falls under the jurisdiction of threats to

the adolescent’s feelings of autonomy. It was expected that mothers low in directiveness would

minimize the salience of external pressures to behave in accordance with moral values, thereby

making intrinsic motivation for moral behavior more salient and facilitate internalization of

moral values. The results would suggest that mother directiveness did moderate the relation

between mother explicit moral identity and adolescent moral values, but only when mother

directiveness was low; no association was found when directiveness was combined with mother

implicit moral identity or when predicting adolescent relative autonomy.

31

One possible explanation for why directiveness moderates the relation between maternal

explicit, but not implicit, moral identity and adolescent moral values may be that maternal

explicit moral identity may provide adolescents with a better understanding of the mother’s

moral values. As noted earlier, explicit moral identity is associated with deliberative behaviors,

such as careful decision-making, whereas implicit moral identity is associated with spontaneous,

less deliberative behaviors, such as moral reactions (Perugini & Leone, 2009); the former may be

more conducive to explicit statements of moral values and behavior than the latter. This

rationale was the same as that put forward to explain why the combination of maternal explicit

moral identity and reasoning was redundant; both make maternal moral values explicitly salient.

In the case of directiveness, when maternal explicit moral identity was combined with low levels

of directiveness, which leads to the adolescent being less likely to actively resist and reject the

mother’s attempts to socialize the adolescent (Grolnick et al., 1997), the combination may have

made maternal moral values salient in such a way that mothers high in implicit moral identity

were not. However, the underlying mechanism that drives this association still remains largely

unknown; the idea that explicit ways of making maternal moral values salient is more conducive

to adolescent internalization of moral values than implicit ways is largely speculative. Further

investigation is needed to determine the actual underlying mechanisms in this association.

However, if it is the case that maternal explicit moral identity made maternal moral

values salient in such a way as to facilitate the internalization of moral values, then the same

should hold true for maternal explicit moral identity predicting adolescent relative autonomy

when directiveness is low. Previous research demonstrates that providing clear expectations,

providing the rationale behind the expectations as well as outlining the consequences of meeting

32

or not meeting those expectations are conducive to greater relative autonomy (Grolnick et al.,

1997). Yet the results of the present study did not support this.

Ignoring Misbehaviour

Mother ignoring misbehaviour was examined as a possible parenting behavior that could

be interpreted by the adolescent as a lack of caring about moral values on the part of the parent.

It was expected that when ignoring misbehaviour was low, there would be a positive association

between mother moral identity and adolescent moral outcomes. The results would suggest that

ignoring misbehaviour did moderate the relation between mother explicit moral identity and

adolescent relative autonomy, but only when ignoring misbehaviour was low; no association was

found for mother implicit moral identity or adolescent moral values. Therefore, the present

findings provide some evidence to suggest that perceived importance of moral values may play a

role in the adolescent’s motivation to accept maternal moral values, if indeed that is what is

happening in this case. However, further research using measures that assess the child’s

perception of parental importance of values is needed to fully understand the associations at

work.

Regardless of whether or not parental importance of values is indeed affecting

adolescents’ internalization, previous research has demonstrated that indulgent/indifferent

parenting, such as ignoring misbehaviour, is likely to provide no clear articulation of parental

values and provide no clear standards and expectations from which the adolescent might infer the

parents’ values (Knafo & Schwartz, 2003). The results indicated that, when ignoring

misbehaviour was low, mothers high in explicit moral identity may have been able to provide the

structure necessary for the adolescent to accurately perceive their moral values and foster the

development of the adolescent’s relative autonomy. Similar to the explanation given for

33

directiveness, one possible explanation as to why ignoring misbehaviour moderates the

association between maternal explicit, but not implicit, moral identity and adolescent relative

autonomy is that explicit moral identity may provide clearer standards and expectations. As

argued previously, maternal implicit moral identity may only provide an example to follow from

which the adolescent may infer maternal expectations. Thus, the difference may simply lie in the

clarity or explicitness of the parenting message.

In the case of adolescent moral values, one possible explanation for the observed results

may be rooted in the fact that the parenting practice in question deals specifically with how the

parent deals with adolescent transgressions and not necessarily with moral values. Thus, since

relative autonomy also deals specifically with reasons for engaging in moral behaviour or

refraining from immoral behaviour, a stronger association may be found between ignoring

misbehaviour and adolescent relative autonomy than for adolescent moral values. The results of

the present research would seem to confirm this possibility. As seen in Table 2, there was a

surprisingly significant positive association between ignoring misbehaviour and adolescent

relative autonomy at time 1. No such association was found between adolescent moral values

and ignoring misbehaviour. Thus, it may simply be the nature of the parenting practice in

question that is driving the present findings. Further research is needed in order to validate this

explanation.

Implications for Parenting

The associations found between mother moral values, parenting behaviors and adolescent

internalization is largely consistent with the existing literature. Previous research has generally

agreed on a consistent parenting profile that exemplifies the socialization of moral development:

these parents are usually moral themselves, using an authoritative parenting style which includes

34

providing guidance and explanations for expected behaviors. They eschew rigid strictness, harsh

punishments and expressions of hostility or rejection. They are warm towards their children,

providing more praise than criticism and enjoying shared activities. They typically encourage

their children to be moral as well (Hastings et al., 2007).

In the present study, mothers high in implicit moral identity and reporting high use of

reasoning had adolescents who reported higher relative autonomy. As well, it was argued that a

mother high in explicit moral identity may have been better suited to provide explicit reasons for

why it is she places such a high importance on being a moral person. This illustrates the

importance of explaining the rationale behind rules and expectations in order to facilitate the

adolescent’s acceptance and internalization of moral values. Also, mothers reporting low

directiveness had adolescents reporting higher levels of moral values. This finding adds to the

growing literature suggesting that mothers who promote feelings of self-determination and self-

generation of moral behavior have adolescents who are more likely to hold moral values later on.

Mothers reporting low ignoring misbehaviour had adolescents reporting higher relative

autonomy. This may suggest that appropriate levels of mother involvement, structure and

discipline are conducive to the socialization of moral values in the adolescent. In sum, mothers

who are high in moral identity and who hold internalization goals for their child need to be aware

of the effects of parenting strategies in order to better attain their goals.

Limitations and Future Directions

One significant limitation of the present research is the small sample size; only 48

mother-adolescent dyads have, thus far, participated in both time points of the current study. In

order to keep the difference between time points as constant as possible between mother-

35

adolescent dyads, data collection was paced based on when mothers and adolescents participated

at time 1. Data collection is still ongoing.

Another limitation is the biased sample. To date, only 35.4% of the adolescents who

have participated in both time points of the study are female. Thus, any gender differences may

be biased due to the uneven proportion of male and female adolescent participants. The families

in the current study are also from high socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds, the majority of

which are well-educated and intact. There is evidence to suggest that higher education changes

the level of importance individuals place on values. For example, one study found that

universalism and security values increased in importance after three years of higher education

(Myyry, Juujärvi, & Pesso, 2013). As well, the present research has looked only at the mother-

child relationship; fathers have not been included in the analyses. Thus, the findings of the

current study cannot be assumed to generalize beyond this population. Further research is

required to examine the effect of the preceding parenting strategies on parent moral identity and

adolescent internalization for fathers or parents from lower SES backgrounds.

Aside from the sample-based limitations, there are also limitations inherent in the design

of the study. First of all, mothers are not the only agents of socialization; other adults, such as

teachers, as well as peers, siblings, the media, etc., may all play a role in the child’s moral

development. Secondly, it should be recognized that the present research is essentially

correlational, albeit with longitudinal data. Thus, causal inferences are not warranted. Thirdly,

both measures of adolescent internalization, namely moral values and prosocial self-regulation,

are both explicit and cognitive measures of moral development. Such indications of moral

development do not tap into other important aspects of moral development, such as moral

emotions or implicit measures of moral identity. The extent to which parental moral identity

36

interacts with parenting strategies to predict adolescent moral development in these areas is still

to be determined.

Future Directions. As previously noted, there is little, if any, research examining the

effect of adolescent perception of the importance of parent values on the adolescent’s acceptance

of parent values. The present study has indicated that such an association may exist but further

research is needed to fully understand the underpinnings of this relation.

The current research has only looked at the effect of mother values and parenting on

young adolescents. Thus, some possibly interesting future directions may be to attempt to

replicate the present findings with fathers, as mothers and fathers may have different

socialization goals which may lead to interesting differences in choice of parenting strategies.

Another possibility is to attempt to replicate the current findings with other child age groups,

possibly older adolescents/emerging adults or younger children. Furthermore, it may also be

beneficial to include non-traditional families, such as families with same-sex parents.

Other possible lines of research include extending the current findings with other parent

values. The current study looked only at Schwartz’s self-transcendence values of benevolence

and universalism, which still leaves Schwartz’s values of self-enhancement, openness to change

and conservation with which to further our understanding of the association between parental

values and parenting practices and their effects on adolescent internalization of values. The

present research also only used adolescent moral outcomes, namely moral values and relative

autonomy. Thus, another possible line of future research may be to investigate the socialization

of antisocial values and behaviours to see if they benefit from positive parenting values and

practices or are exacerbated by negative parenting values and practices. Furthermore, since there

is evidence to suggest that beliefs about values and parenting are culturally structured (de

37

Guzman, Brown, Carlo, & Knight, 2012) it may also be interesting to attempt to replicate the

current findings cross-culturally.

Conclusions.

Despite these limitations, the present research moderately supports the model proposed

by Grusec and Goodnow (1994). Parenting strategies which are perceived as appropriate,

minimize threats to the adolescent’s autonomy and stress the importance parents place on moral

values appear to promote the acceptance and internalization of moral values. Thus, it is not

enough for parents to simply be high in moral identity, either explicit or implicit – parents need

to be aware of the effects that their parenting practices have on adolescents’ internalization of

values in order to better promote their moral development.

38

References

Aquino, K., & Reed, A.,II. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1423-1440.

doi:http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1423

Arnold, M. L. (1994). The place of morality in the adolescent self. Dissertation Abstracts

International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, . (618958298; 1996-73683-001).

Blasi, A. (1983). Moral cognition and moral action: A theoretical perspective. Developmental

Review, 3(2), 178-210. doi:http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1016/0273-

2297(83)90029-1

Bureau, J. S., & Mageau, G. A. (2014). Parental autonomy support and honesty: The mediating

role of identification with the honesty value and perceived costs and benefits of honesty.

Journal of Adolescence, 37(3), 225-236.

doi:http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.12.007

Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model.

Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 487-496. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.113.3.487

de Guzman, M., Brown, J., Carlo, G., & Knight, G. (2012). What does it mean to be prosocial? A

cross-ethnic study of parental beliefs. Psychology and Developing Societies, 24(2), 239-268.

doi:10.1177/097133361202400207

Greene, J. (2013). Moral tribes: Emotion, reason, and the gap between us and them. New York,

NY, US: Penguin Press, New York, NY.

http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1423

http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1016/0273-2297(83)90029-1

http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1016/0273-2297(83)90029-1

http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.12.007

39

Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual

differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464-1480.


Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). "Understanding and using the implicit

association test: I. an improved scoring algorithm": Correction to greenwald et al. (2003).

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 481.

doi:http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1037/h0087889

Grolnick, W. S., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1997). Internalization within the family: The self-

determination theory perspective. Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc, Hoboken, NJ.

Grusec, J. E., & Davidov, M. (2007). Socialization in the family: The roles of parents. New York,

NY, US: Guilford Press, New York, NY.

Grusec, J. E., & Goodnow, J. J. (1994). Impact of parental discipline methods on the child's

internalization of values: A reconceptualization of current points of view. Developmental

Psychology, 30(1), 4-19. doi:http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1037/0012-

1649.30.1.4

Hardy, S. A., & Carlo, G. (2011). Moral identity: What is it, how does it develop, and is it linked

to moral action? Child Development Perspectives, 5(3), 212-218.

doi:http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00189.x


http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1037/h0087889



http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00189.x

40

Hardy, S. A., Carlo, G., & Roesch, S. C. (2010). Links between adolescents’ expected parental

reactions and prosocial behavioral tendencies: The mediating role of prosocial values.

Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(1), 84-95.

doi:http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1007/s10964-008-9383-7

Hastings, P. D., Utendale, W. T., & Sullivan, C. (2007). The socialization of prosocial

development. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press, New York, NY.

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A

regression-based approach. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press, New York, NY.

Hayes, A. F., & Matthes, J. (2009). Computational procedures for probing interactions in OLS

and logistic regression: SPSS and SAS implementations. Behavior Research Methods, 41(3),

924-936. doi:http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.3758/BRM.41.3.924

Hinz, A., Brähler, E., Schmidt, P., & Albani, C. (2005). Investigating the circumplex structure of

the portrait values questionnaire (PVQ). Journal of Individual Differences, 26(4), 185-193.


Johnston, M. E., Sherman, A., & Grusec, J. E. (2013). Predicting moral outrage and religiosity

with an implicit measure of moral identity. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(3), 209-

217. doi:http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.01.006

Knafo, A., & Schwartz, S. H. (2003). Parenting and adolescents' accuracy in perceiving parental

values. Child Development, 74(2), 595-611.

doi:http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1111/1467-8624.7402018

http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1007/s10964-008-9383-7

http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.3758/BRM.41.3.924


http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.01.006

http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1111/1467-8624.7402018

41

Krettenauer, T., & Mosleh, M. (2013). Remembering your (im)moral past: Autobiographical

reasoning and moral identity development. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and

Research, 13(2), 140-158.

doi:http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1080/15283488.2013.776497

Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child

interaction. In P. H. Mussen, & E. M. Hetherington (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology:

Vol. 4. socialization, personality, and social development (pp. 1-102). New York: Wiley.

Mackey, K., Arnold, M. L., & Pratt, M. W. (2001). Adolescents' stories of decision making in

more and less authoritative families: Representing the voices of parents in narrative. Journal

of Adolescent Research, 16(3), 243-268.

doi:http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1177/0743558401163001

Myyry, L., Juujärvi, S., & Pesso, K. (2013). Change in values and moral reasoning during higher

education. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 10(2), 269-284.

doi:http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1080/17405629.2012.757217

Padilla-Walker, L. M., & Carlo, G. (2004). "It's not fair!" adolescents' constructions of

appropriateness of parental reactions. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33(5), 389-401.

doi:http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1023/B:JOYO.0000037632.46633.bd

Perugini, M., & Leone, L. (2009). Implicit self-concept and moral action. Journal of Research in

Personality, 43(5), 747-754.

doi:http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.03.015

http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1080/15283488.2013.776497

http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1177/0743558401163001

http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1080/17405629.2012.757217

http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1023/B:JOYO.0000037632.46633.bd

http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.03.015

42

Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interactions

in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of

Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31(4), 437-448. doi:10.3102/10769986031004437

Robinson, C. C., Mandleco, B., Olsen, S. F., & Hart, C. H. (2001). The parenting styles and

dimensions questionnaire (PSDQ). In B. F. Perlmutter, J. Touliatos & G. W. Holden (Eds.),

Handbook of family measurement techniques, vol. 2: Instruments and index (pp. 190).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization:

Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

57(5), 749-761. doi:http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1037/0022-

3514.57.5.749

Schnabel, K., Asendorpf, J. B., & Greenwald, A. G. (2008). Using implicit association tests for

the assessment of implicit personality self-concept. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage

Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Schwartz, S., & Boehnke, K. (2004). Evaluating the structure of human values with confirmatory

factor analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 38(3), 230-255. doi:10.1016/S0092-

6566(03)00069-2

Schwartz, S. H., & Boehnke, K. (2004). Evaluating the structure of human values with

confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 38(3), 230-255.

doi:http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00069-2



http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00069-2

43

Smetana, J. G. (1995). Parenting styles and conceptions of parental authority during adolescence.

Child Development, 66(2), 299-316.


Smetana, J. G. (1999). The role of parents in moral development: A social domain analysis.

Journal of Moral Education, 28(3), 311-321.

Verkasalo, M., Lönnqvist, J., Lipsanen, J., & Helkama, K. (2009). European norms and

equations for a two dimensional presentation of values as measured with schwartz's 21-item

portrait values questionnaire. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(5), 780-792.

doi:http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1002/ejsp.580

White, F. A. (2000). Relationship of family socialization processes to adolescent moral thought.

The Journal of Social Psychology, 140(1), 75-92.


White, F. A., & Matawie, K. M. (2004). Parental morality and family processes as predictors of

adolescent morality. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 13(2), 219-233.

doi:http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1023/B:JCFS.0000015709.81116.ce


http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1002/ejsp.580


http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1023/B:JCFS.0000015709.81116.ce

44

Appendix A: Tables of Moderation Models

Table 3. Non-Significant Moderation Models Prediciting Adolescent Moral Outcomes

Predictor coeff SE t p

Outcome: Adolescent Moral Values T2

Model: R2 = .20, F(4, 43) = 2.0275, p = .1075

Constant .8816 .2789 3.1614 .00

Mother Reasoning -.0460 .4090 -.1126 .91

Mother Explicit Moral Identity .2565 .1881 1.3639 .18

MRxMEMI .1113 .5036 .2210 .83

Adolescent Moral Values T1 .5002 .1695 2.9514 .01

Adolescent Gender -.7273 .3215 -2.2621 .03

Model: R2 = .18, F(4, 43) = 1.4549, p = .2326

Constant .9243 .3005 3.0763 .00

Mother Ignoring Misbehaviour -.0319 .4698 -.0680 .95


MRxMEMI -.2456 .6252 -.3928 .70



Model: R2 = .18, F(4, 43) = 1.4549, p = .2326

Constant .7837 .2855 2.7453 .01

Mother Ignoring Misbehaviour .0164 .4728 .0346 .97

Mother Implicit Moral Identity .0000 .0004 -.0379 .97

MRxMIMI .0008 .0016 .5052 .62

45



Model: R2 = .18, F(4, 43) = 1.9385, p = .1213

Constant .8106 .2763 2.9340 .01

Mother Directiveness -.0627 .1836 -.3416 .73

Mother Implicit Moral Identity .0000 .0005 -.0451 .96

MDxMIMI .0004 .0006 .6020 .55



Outcome: Adolescent Relative Autonomy T2

Model: R2 = .21, F(4, 43) = 2.8038, p = .0373

Constant .1587 .2418 .6564 .52


Mother Explicit Moral Identity .0465 .3139 .1482 .88

MDxMEMI .4615 .4288 1.0762 .29

Adolescent Relative Autonomy T1 .4531 .1904 2.3801 .02

Model: R2 = .18, F(4, 43) = 1.9385, p = .1213

Constant .1244 .2348 .5298 .60


Mother Implicit Moral Identity -.0002 .0010 -.1783 .86

MDxMIMI -.0001 .0016 -.0712 .94


Model: R2 = .20, F(4, 43) = 1.8956, p = .1286

46

Constant .1149 .2430 .4726 .64

Mother Lack of Follow-Through -.4459 .6005 -.7425 .46


MLFTxMEMI -.3429 .9289 -.3692 .71


Model: R2 = .18, F(4, 43) = 1.9588, p = .1180

Constant .0876 .2266 .3868 .70

Mother Lack of Follow-Through -.4187 .5198 -.8056 .42


MLFTxMIMI .0014 .0029 .4732 .64


Model: R2 = .18, F(4, 43) = 1.4948, p = .2206

Constant .1667 .2849 .5852 .56



MIMxMIMI -.0013 .0026 -.5043 .62


Model: R2 = .20, F(4, 43) = 2.0275, p = .1075

Constant .1769 .2262 .7818 .44

Mother Reasoning .3741 .5399 .6929 .49


MRxMEMI -.0821 .7841 -1.0229 .31


47

Model: R2 = .18, F(4, 43) = 1.4549, p = .2326

Constant .1253 .2734 .4585 .65



MRxMIMI .0002 .0036 .0449 .96


48

Table 4. Moderation Model with Mother Directiveness as the Moderator



Model: R2 = .35, F(4, 43) = 6.5370, p < .001

Constant .8868 .2756 3.2179 .00



MDxMEMI -.3183 .1975 -1.6119 .11

Adolescent Moral values T1 .4436 .1666 2.6621 .01


Conditional effect of Mother Explicit Moral Identity (X) on Adolescent Moral Values at time 2 (Y) at values of Mother Directiveness (M)

M Effect SE t p LLCI ULCI -1.0677 0.6778 0.3339 2.0301 0.0487 0.0040 1.3516 -0.9552 0.6420 0.3153 2.0364 0.0481 0.0058 1.2783 -0.8427 0.6062 0.2972 2.0399 0.0477 0.0065 1.2059 -0.7302 0.5704 0.2797 2.0397 0.0477 0.0060 1.1348 -0.6177 0.5346 0.2628 2.0339 0.0483 0.0041 1.0650 -0.5052 0.4988 0.2469 2.0202 0.0498 0.0005 0.9971 -0.4929 0.4949 0.2452 2.0181 0.0500 0.0000 0.9897 -0.3927 0.4630 0.2320 1.9957 0.0525 -0.0052 0.9312 -0.2802 0.4272 0.2183 1.9567 0.0571 -0.0134 0.8678 -0.1677 0.3914 0.2061 1.8986 0.0645 -0.0246 0.8074 -0.0552 0.3556 0.1957 1.8166 0.0764 -0.0394 0.7506 0.0573 0.3198 0.1874 1.7064 0.0953 -0.0584 0.6979 0.1698 0.2840 0.1814 1.5653 0.1250 -0.0821 0.6500 0.2823 0.2481 0.1780 1.3940 0.1706 -0.1111 0.6074 0.3948 0.2123 0.1773 1.1973 0.2379 -0.1456 0.5702 0.6198 0.1407 0.1842 0.7638 0.4492 -0.2311 0.5125 0.8448 0.0691 0.2010 0.3439 0.7326 -0.3364 0.4747 0.9573 0.0333 0.2123 0.1569 0.8761 -0.3952 0.4618 1.1823 -0.0383 0.2397 -0.1598 0.8738 -0.5220 0.4454

49

Table 5. Moderation Model with Mother Reasoning as the Moderator



Model: R2 = .37, F(4, 43) = 5.5263, p < .01

Constant .7832 .2671 2.9321 .01


Mother Implicit Moral Identity .0001 .0005 .1372 .89

MRxMMI .0026 .0012 2.1899 .03



Conditional effect of Mother Implicit Moral Identity (X) on Adolescent Moral Values (Y) at values of Mother Reasoning (M)

M Effect SE t p LLCI ULCI -1.2470 -0.0032 0.0017 -1.9174 0.0620 -0.0065 0.0002 -1.1470 -0.0029 0.0015 -1.8908 0.0656 -0.0061 0.0002 -1.0470 -0.0027 0.0014 -1.8590 0.0700 -0.0056 0.0002 -0.9470 -0.0024 0.0013 -1.8205 0.0758 -0.0051 0.0003 -0.8470 -0.0021 0.0012 -1.7730 0.0835 -0.0046 0.0003 -0.7470 -0.0019 0.0011 -1.7134 0.0940 -0.0041 0.0003 -0.6470 -0.0016 0.0010 -1.6372 0.1091 -0.0036 0.0004 -0.5470 -0.0014 0.0009 -1.5374 0.1317 -0.0032 0.0004 -0.4470 -0.0011 0.0008 -1.4037 0.1678 -0.0027 0.0005 -0.3470 -0.0008 0.0007 -1.2203 0.2292 -0.0022 0.0006 -0.2470 -0.0006 0.0006 -0.9642 0.3405 -0.0018 0.0006 -0.1470 -0.0003 0.0005 -0.6069 0.5472 -0.0014 0.0007 0.0530 0.0002 0.0004 0.4531 0.6528 -0.0007 0.0011 0.1530 0.0005 0.0004 1.0401 0.3043 -0.0004 0.0014 0.3530 0.0010 0.0005 1.8466 0.0719 -0.0001 0.0021 0.4349 0.0012 0.0006 2.0181 0.0500 0.0000 0.0024 0.4530 0.0012 0.0006 2.0469 0.0470 0.0000 0.0025 0.5530 0.0015 0.0007 2.1640 0.0362 0.0001 0.0029 0.6530 0.0018 0.0008 2.2313 0.0311 0.0002 0.0034 0.7530 0.0020 0.0009 2.2697 0.0284 0.0002 0.0038

50

Table 6. Moderation Model with Mother Ignoring Misbehaviour as the Moderator


Outcome: Adolescent Relative Autonomy T2

Model: R2 = .28, F(4, 43) = 4.1112, p < .01

Constant .2511 .2254 1.1143 .27



MDxMPV -1.6884 .8694 -1.9420 .06


Conditional effect of Mother Explicit Moral Identity (X) on Adolescent Relative Autonomy (Y) at values of Mother Ignoring Misbehaviour (M)

M Effect se t P LLCI ULCI -0.8802 1.6612 0.7948 2.0902 0.0426 0.0584 3.2640 -0.7927 1.5135 0.7244 2.0892 0.0426 0.0525 2.9744 -0.7052 1.3657 0.6554 2.0839 0.0432 0.0440 2.6874 -0.6177 1.2180 0.5881 2.0712 0.0444 0.0320 2.4039 -0.5302 1.0703 0.5231 2.0458 0.0469 0.0152 2.1253 -0.4707 0.9698 0.4809 2.0167 0.0500 0.0000 1.9396 -0.4427 0.9225 0.4617 1.9983 0.0520 -0.0085 1.8535 -0.3552 0.7748 0.4051 1.9124 0.0625 -0.0423 1.5918 -0.2677 0.6271 0.3560 1.7614 0.0853 -0.0909 1.3450 -0.1802 0.4793 0.3176 1.5090 0.1386 -0.1613 1.1199 -0.0927 0.3316 0.2943 1.1266 0.2662 -0.2620 0.9252 -0.0052 0.1839 0.2897 0.6346 0.5291 -0.4005 0.7682 0.0823 0.0361 0.3047 0.1185 0.9062 -0.5783 0.6506 0.1698 -0.1116 0.3366 -0.3316 0.7418 -0.7904 0.5672 0.2573 -0.2594 0.3812 -0.6803 0.5000 -1.0282 0.5095 0.3448 -0.4071 0.4347 -0.9365 0.3542 -1.2837 0.4695 0.4323 -0.5548 0.4941 -1.1229 0.2677 -1.5513 0.4416 0.6073 -0.8503 0.6239 -1.3629 0.1800 -2.1085 0.4079 0.6948 -0.9980 0.6922 -1.4418 0.1566 -2.3940 0.3979 0.7823 -1.1458 0.7620 -1.5037 0.1400 -2.6824 0.3909 0.8698 -1.2935 0.8329 -1.5531 0.1277 -2.9731 0.3862

51

Appendix B: List of PVQ Items

BENEVOLENCE

It's very important to him to help the people around him. He wants to care for other people.

It is important to him to be loyal to his friends. He wants to devote himself to people close to him.

UNIVERSALISM

He thinks it is important that every person in the world be treated equally. He wants justice for everybody, even for people he doesn’t know.

It is important to him to listen to people who are different from him. Even when he disagrees with them, he still wants to understand them.

He strongly believes that people should care for nature. Looking after the environment is important to him.

SELF-DIRECTION

Thinking up new ideas and being creative is important to him. He likes to do things in his own original way.

It is important to him to make his own decisions about what he does. He likes to be free to plan and to choose his activities for himself.

STIMULATION

He likes surprises and is always looking for new things to do. He thinks it is important to do lots of different things in life.

He looks for adventures and likes to take risks. He wants to have an exciting life.

HEDONISM

Having a good time is important to him. He likes to “spoil” himself.

He seeks every chance he can to have fun. It is important to him to do things that give him pleasure.

ACHIEVEMENT

It is very important to him to show his abilities. He wants people to admire what he does.

Being very successful is important to him. He likes to impress other people.

POWER

52

It is important to him to be rich. He wants to have a lot of money and expensive things.

It is important to him to be in charge and tell others what to do. He wants people to do what he says.

SECURITY

It is important to him to live in secure surroundings. He avoids anything that might endanger his safety.

It is very important to him that his country be safe from threats from within and without. He is concerned that social order be protected.

CONFORMITY

He believes that people should do what they're told. He thinks people should follow rules at all times, even when no-one is watching.

It is important to him always to behave properly. He wants to avoid doing anything people would say is wrong.

TRADITION

He thinks it's important not to ask for more than what you have. He believes that people should be satisfied with what they have.

Religious belief is important to him. He tries hard to do what his religion requires.

53

Appendix C: Prosocial Self-Regulation Questionnaire (PRQ-P)

These questions are about the reasons you do things. Different kids have different reasons. We want to know how true each of these reasons is for you.

1 = not at all true 2 = not very true 3 = sort of true 4 = very true

Why do you keep a promise to friends?

1. So my friends will like me. (introjected) 2. Because I’d feel like a bad person if I didn’t. (introjected) 3. Because my friends will get mad at me if I don’t. (external) 4. Because I think it’s important to keep promises. (identified) 5. Because I don’t like breaking promises. (identified)

Why do you not make fun of another child for making a mistake?

1. Because if I do, I’ll get in trouble. (external) 2. Because I think it’s important to be nice to others. (identified) 3. Because I’d feel ashamed of myself after I did it. (introjected) 4. Because other kids won’t like me if I do that. (introjected) 5. Because I don’t like to be mean. (identified)

Why don’t you hit someone when you’re mad at them?

1. Because I’ll get in trouble if I do. (external) 2. Because I want other kids to like me. (introjected) 3. Because I don’t like to hit others. (identified) 4. Because I wouldn’t want to hurt someone. (identified) 5. Because I’d feel bad about myself if I did. (introjected)

Why do you try to be nice to other kids?

1. Because if I don’t, other kids won’t like me. (introjected) 2. Because I’ll get in trouble if I don’t. (external) 3. Because I think it’s important to be a nice person. (identified) 4. Because I will feel bad about myself if I don’t. (introjected) 5. Because I don’t like being mean. (identified)

Why would you help someone who is in distress?

1. Because I think it’s important to give help when it’s needed. (identified) 2. Because I could get in trouble if I didn’t. (external) 3. Because I’d feel bad about myself if I didn’t. (introjected) 4. Because I want people to like me. (introjected) 5. Because it is satisfying to help others. (identified)

54

Appendix D: Consent Forms

Information Sheet/Consent Form Time 1: Mother

Thank you for agreeing to participate in our research! The questionnaires and activities you are about to complete are about the way parents and adolescents interact in different situations that arise in daily family life and also about your own personal thoughts and beliefs. It should take you about an hour to complete the whole study from start to finish.

Your participation, as well as that of your child and his/her father is completely voluntary, and you may stop the study at any time if you wish to. You may also refrain from answering any of the questions if you don’t want to answer them. Also, there are no right or wrong answers to any of the questions you will be asked in this study.

All the information given by you, your child, and his/her father will be kept strictly confidential. The information you provide will not be discussed with your child or his/her father. Your name will not appear on any of the data files so that you remain anonymous and only persons authorized by the researcher will have access to the data. Ultimately, we intend to publish the results of this study in an academic journal and in reporting these results, participants will not be identified in any way.

If you have any questions while you are completing the study, or after you have completed the study, you can contact the researcher, Megan Johnston, at the Child Study Center, 416-978-5373 or [email protected]. You can also contact Professor Joan Grusec, the research supervisor, at 416-978-7610. For information regarding your rights as a research participant, please contact the University of Toronto Office of Research Ethics, at 416-946-3273 or [email protected].

Please sign below to indicate that you have read the above information and that you consent to participate in this study. This will also indicate your consent for your child to participate in this study. If you would like a copy of this consent form for your records, please don’t hesitate to ask for one.

I, ________________________, consent to participate in the research study described above,

and also consent to my child’s participation in this study.

____________________________ _____________________

Signature Date

mailto:[email protected]

55

Information Sheet/Consent Form Time 1: Adolescent

Thank you for agreeing to participate in our research! The questionnaires and activities you are about to complete are about the way parents and adolescents think about different situations that arise in daily family life and also your personal thoughts and beliefs. It should take you about an hour to complete the study from start to finish. As you may know, your mother and your father are also participating in this study.

Your participation is completely voluntary, and you may stop the study at any time if you wish to. You may also refrain from answering any of the questions if you don’t want to answer them. Also, there are no right or wrong answers to any of the questions you will be asked in this study.

All the information given by you, your mother, and your father will be kept strictly confidential. The information you provide will not be discussed with your mother or your father. Your name will not appear on any of the data files so that you remain anonymous and only persons authorized by the researcher will have access to the data. Ultimately, we intend to publish the results of this study in an academic journal and in reporting these results, participants will not be identified in any way.

If you have any questions while you are completing the study, or after you have completed the study, you can contact the researcher, Megan Johnston, at the Child Study Center, 416-978-5373 or [email protected]. You can also contact Professor Joan Grusec, the research supervisor, at 416-978-7610. For information regarding your rights as a research participant, please contact the University of Toronto Office of Research Ethics, at 416-946-3273 or [email protected].

Please sign below to indicate that you have read the above information and that you provide your assent to participate in this study. If you would like a copy of this consent form for your records, please don’t hesitate to ask for one.

I, ________________________, consent to participate in the research study described above.

____________________________ _____________________

Signature Date

mailto:[email protected]

56

Information Sheet/Consent Form Time 2: Mother

Thank you for agreeing to participate in our research! The questionnaires you are about to complete are about the way parents and adolescents interact in different situations that arise in daily family life and also about your own personal thoughts and beliefs. It should take you less than half an hour to complete the whole study from start to finish. Your participation, as well as that of your child and his/her father is completely voluntary, and you may stop the study at any time if you wish to. There are no physical risks to participating in this study. If you feel any discomfort or distress, you may choose not to answer specific questions, and you will not be penalized in any way if you do this; simply proceed to the next question. Also, there are no right or wrong answers to any of the questions you will be asked in this study. All the information given by you, your child, and his/her father will be kept strictly confidential. The information you provide will not be disclosed to your child or his/her father. We ask that you complete the questionnaire by yourself and allow your child and his/her father to complete it by themselves to ensure confidentiality as well as to avoid influencing their responses. Your name, contact information and electronic traces such as IP address will not be collected through the online questionnaire and will not appear on any of the data files so that you remain anonymous. Only persons authorized by the researcher will have access to the data. Ultimately, we intend to publish the results of this study in an academic journal and in reporting these results, participants will not be identified in any way. If you have any questions while you are completing the study, or after you have completed the study, you can contact the researcher, David O’Neill, at the Child Study Center, 416-978-5373 or [email protected]. You can also contact Professor Joan Grusec, the research supervisor, at 416-978-7610. For information regarding your rights as a research participant, please contact the University of Toronto Ethics Review Office, at 416-946-3273 or [email protected]. Please click “Yes” below to indicate that you have read the above information and that you consent to participate in this study. This will also indicate your consent for your child to participate in this study. If you would like a copy of this consent form for your records, please print one now.

57

Information Sheet/Consent Form Time 2: Adolescent

Thank you for agreeing to participate in our research! The questionnaires you are about to complete are about the way parents and adolescents interact in different situations that arise in daily family life and also about your own personal thoughts and beliefs. It should take you less than half an hour to complete the whole study from start to finish. Your participation, as well as that of your mother and father is completely voluntary, and you may stop the study at any time if you wish to. There are no physical risks to participating in this study. If you feel any discomfort or distress, you may choose not to answer specific questions, and you will not be penalized in any way if you do this; simply proceed to the next question. Also, there are no right or wrong answers to any of the questions you will be asked in this study. All the information given by you, your child, and his/her father will be kept strictly confidential. The information you provide will not be disclosed to your mother or father. We ask that you complete the questionnaire by yourself and allow your mother and father to complete it by themselves to ensure confidentiality as well as to avoid influencing their responses. Your name, contact information and electronic traces such as IP address will not be collected through the online questionnaire and will not appear on any of the data files so that you remain anonymous. Only persons authorized by the researcher will have access to the data. Ultimately, we intend to publish the results of this study in an academic journal and in reporting these results, participants will not be identified in any way. If you have any questions while you are completing the study, or after you have completed the study, you can contact the researcher, David O’Neill, at the Child Study Center, 416-978-5373 or [email protected]. You can also contact Professor Joan Grusec, the research supervisor, at 416-978-7610. For information regarding your rights as a research participant, please contact the University of Toronto Ethics Review Office, at 416-946-3273 or [email protected]. Please click “Yes” below to indicate that you have read the above information and that you consent to participate in this study. If you would like a copy of this consent form for your records, please print one now.

Mothers’ Explicit and Implicit Moral Identity, Parenting and by … · 2015-06-22 · Mothers’ Explicit and Implicit Moral Identity, Parenting and Adolescent Moral Development

Documents