نظارت والدین، شخصیت و بزهکاری: حمایت بیشتر برای نظارت مجدد مفهوم سازی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|38569||2009||11 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of Research in Personality, Volume 43, Issue 1, February 2009, Pages 49–59
Abstract Stattin and Kerr [Stattin, H., & Kerr, M. (2000). Parental monitoring: A reinterpretation. Child Development, 71(4), 1072–1085] suggested reconceptualizing “parental monitoring” and presented evidence from a Swedish sample that challenged current operational definitions. We replicate and extend their findings. Parental knowledge (“monitoring”) related more strongly to child disclosure than to parental solicitation of information in a more ethnically-diverse U.S. sample. We then addressed whether adolescents’ personalities accounted for the links between child disclosure, parental knowledge, and delinquency. Solicitation, knowledge, and disclosure generally did not predict delinquency when controlling for adolescent personality. Personality contributed significant incremental validity to the statistical prediction of delinquency above and beyond solicitation, knowledge, and disclosure; the reverse was generally not true. Adolescents’ personalities largely account for the “parental monitoring”-delinquency association, which supports reconceptualizing monitoring.
Introduction Researchers have long sought to understand juvenile delinquency because of its very clear social costs (Foster, Jones, & Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, 2006). One approach to understanding delinquency focuses on parenting behaviors, which are commonly labeled “monitoring.” Recently, however, there has been a call to reconceptualize the way the parental monitoring construct is operationally defined, and evidence has been presented in support of this argument (Kerr and Stattin, 2000 and Stattin and Kerr, 2000). A second approach to understanding delinquency utilizes measures of personality (e.g., Krueger et al., 1994, Miller and Lynam, 2001 and Miller and Lynam, 2003). To our knowledge, these two lines of research—parental monitoring and personality—have not yet been integrated. In the current study, we pursue this integration. A synthesis of the parental monitoring and personality approaches to understanding delinquency is needed because both monitoring and personality are well-known correlates of delinquency, but we lack an understanding of how they work together. Does the previous evidence supporting a reconceptualization of parental monitoring replicate in an ethnically-diverse U.S. sample? Are parental monitoring (and other related parent and adolescent behaviors discussed in the literature) and personality traits independent constructs or are they systematically related? If they are indeed related, what are the implications for the proposed reconceptualization of parental monitoring? We begin by reviewing parental monitoring and then discuss what is known about the prediction of delinquency by parental monitoring and personality separately. 1.1. The parental monitoring construct Although parental monitoring has been linked to various forms of delinquency in the empirical literature (e.g., Biglan et al., 1995, Dishion et al., 1995 and Metzler et al., 1994), the exact nature and meaning of the parental monitoring construct and related measures has come under close scrutiny in recent years. Dishion and McMahon (1998) defined parental monitoring in terms of “parenting behaviors involving attention to and track of the child’s whereabouts, activities, and adaptations” (p. 61). This conceptualization, which has been utilized by many researchers over the years, focuses on activities in which parents actively engage, such as tracking the child. However, as Stattin and Kerr (2000) note, the measures of parental monitoring utilized by researchers typically have assessed the amount of knowledge parents have about their children rather than the active parenting behaviors in the definition above. For instance, common items determine how much information a parent knows but not the process by which the parent discovered this information. Thus, the historical construct of “parental monitoring” might be better understood as “parental knowledge.” 1.2. The sources of parental knowledge There are several means by which parental knowledge of their children’s lives could be acquired. One possibility is that parents simply solicit information from their children. A second possibility is that parents set rules and boundaries with their children, and, through this control of their children, they obtain knowledge. For instance, if a parent does not allow a child to leave the house after sunset, the parent could respond positively to a “parental monitoring” questionnaire item such as “I know where my child is at night.” These knowledge-acquisition processes of parental solicitation and parental control both represent active parenting behaviors and thus seem congruent with the definition of parental monitoring given by Dishion and McMahon (1998). However, a third possibility exists by which parents could obtain information about their children’s lives, which requires little to no activity on the part of the parent: child disclosure. It is possible that children simply tell their parents information about their lives, and, through this disclosure, parents learn more about their children (and thus increase their parental knowledge). These three processes—parental solicitation, parental control, and child disclosure—all represent means by which parents can possess knowledge about their children, although they differ with regard to how active (if at all) a parent must be to acquire the knowledge. Certainly, if a relatively parentally-passive means of obtaining information (i.e., child disclosure) serves as the major source of parental knowledge, the definition of “parental monitoring” as an active process, and potentially as a parenting behavior with causal implications for lessening delinquency, must be reevaluated, as was suggested by Stattin and Kerr (2000)1. A series of studies has recently examined the role of solicitation, control, and children disclosure in parents’ acquisition of knowledge about their children. In one study, a large sample of 14-year-old Swedish adolescents and their parents completed measures of parental solicitation, control, and knowledge (the latter being akin to historical assessments of “parental monitoring”) as well as adolescent disclosure and normbreaking (Stattin & Kerr, 2000). Correlations of parental knowledge with solicitation, control, and disclosure in both child- and parent-report data revealed that parental knowledge showed markedly stronger associations with child disclosure than with either active parental behavior (i.e., solicitation or control), although all of these correlations were significant. The conclusion that parental knowledge is more strongly related to child disclosure than solicitation or control was bolstered further by hierarchical regression analyses, which indicated that adolescent disclosure alone predicted 44% of the variance in parental knowledge in child-report data (and 38% in parent-report), and the addition of solicitation and control to the regression model in a second step yielded a significant, but relatively quite small, increase in R2 (3% increase in child-report and 5% increase in parent-report). Additional research has investigated the importance of adolescent disclosure (e.g., Kerr, Stattin, & Trost, 1999). In one study, solicitation, control, disclosure, and adolescent delinquency data for over 1000 Swedish 14-year-olds and their parents highlighted again the strong relation between child disclosure and parental knowledge (Kerr & Stattin, 2000). As in previous research, the correlation between disclosure and parental knowledge (r = .70 in child-report data, for instance) was markedly higher than the correlations between solicitation and knowledge (r = .23) and between control and knowledge (r = .32). Again, this research supports the notion that adolescents’ free disclosure of information, rather than active parenting behaviors, is more strongly associated with the type of parental knowledge (i.e., “parental monitoring”) that has been linked previously to both positive and negative outcomes for children. 1.3. Solicitation, control, and disclosure predicting delinquency Numerous studies have linked “parental monitoring” broadly conceived to delinquent behaviors. Youths who experience low levels of monitoring have been shown to have increased use of drugs and tobacco (Biglan et al., 1995, Fletcher et al., 1995 and Martins et al., 2008). Poorly monitored adolescents tend to have delinquent peers (Dishion et al., 1995). These youths also engage in risky sexual behaviors to a greater degree than their more monitored counterparts (Metzler et al., 1994). As noted above, however, the “parental monitoring” measures that yielded many such findings seemingly assessed parental knowledge rather than active parenting behaviors. In addition, parental knowledge is more strongly related to child disclosure than parental efforts such as solicitation or control. These findings draw into question the exact nature of the association between “parental monitoring” and delinquency. For example, it might be that the link between parental knowledge and delinquency is accounted for largely by adolescent disclosure (seemingly the largest source of parental knowledge) and only minimally by parents themselves. The links among active parenting behaviors of solicitation and control, the child behavior of disclosure, and adolescent delinquency have been investigated. Stattin and Kerr (2000) found that child disclosure alone predicted 15% of the variance in normbreaking; the addition of solicitation and control to the regression model yielded a small increase in R2 (3%). Similarly, another study regressed a wide variety of measures of child adjustment on solicitation, control, and child disclosure ( Kerr & Stattin, 2000). Across these models, solicitation and control tended to have relatively small and typically non-significant effects in the statistical prediction of the adjustment variables, whereas child disclosure showed markedly stronger associations with better adjustment and was significant across all but one case. The results of these studies highlight the importance of child disclosure, not only as the prime source of parental knowledge, but also as a stronger predictor of delinquency than the active parenting behaviors of solicitation and control. 1.4. Toward a reconceptualization of parental monitoring These studies indicate that for Swedish adolescents and their parents, child disclosure relates more strongly to parental knowledge than does either parental solicitation or control. In addition, it is adolescent disclosure that appears to drive the historical association between “parental monitoring” (typically measures of parental knowledge) and delinquency. Such findings have prompted Stattin and Kerr (2000) to call for a reconceptualization of parental monitoring. They suggest reserving the term “parental monitoring” for active parenting behaviors and paying increased attention to the reasons why parental knowledge is so strongly related to delinquency. Several research groups have attempted to refine further the parental monitoring construct and its relations with delinquency (e.g., Fletcher et al., 2004 and Lahey et al., 2008), and the examination of child disclosure dynamics seems particularly worthwhile in investigating delinquency. Soenens et al. (2006) utilized structural equation modeling to determine the role that parenting might play in child disclosure and found that parenting behaviors relate to parental knowledge through direct as well as indirect effects. These findings suggest that child disclosure may be facilitated by certain parenting behaviors, and they thus reaffirm the importance of parents in the monitoring-delinquency association. There is a continued need, however, to understand better the dynamics of child disclosure and to identify other pathways which facilitate it. Stattin and Kerr (2000) suggested several hypotheses to account for the association between disclosure and normbreaking behaviors, including the notion that child temperament could be a third variable that links child disclosure and delinquency. While the authors’ contend that temperament will likely not account for the entirety of the observed relation between disclosure and normbreaking, the temperament hypothesis is a compelling one that deserves empirical investigation, especially in light of previous personality research and its potential to inform the proposed reconceptualization of parental monitoring. Given this temperament-related hypothesis, researchers must consider the possibility that variation in adolescent disclosure (and thus likely parental knowledge, due to their strong association) may reflect an underlying individual difference variable (i.e., propensity to disclose information to parents) and that this individual difference may largely drive the link between child disclosure, parental knowledge, and delinquency. It is conceivable, for example, that personality traits such as conformity in adolescents could lead adolescents both to disclose more information to their parents (to avoid parental punishment) and to refrain from delinquent behaviors (to avoid legal punishment or physical harm). If adolescents’ personalities do indeed underlie the association between disclosure, knowledge, and delinquent behaviors, any putative causal link between increasing disclosure/knowledge and decreasing delinquency might be spurious. In such a scenario, the relation between disclosure/knowledge and delinquency might reflect an intervening third variable—adolescent personality. Indeed, like parental monitoring, personality has a long history of being investigated with regard to delinquency, as discussed in the following section. 1.5. Personality and delinquency Personality traits have been associated with delinquent and antisocial behaviors in many previous studies. Research in this area has illustrated that models of normal personality such as the Big Three, as assessed by the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ; Tellegen, 1982), and the Big Five predict delinquency (e.g., Heaven, 1996, Krueger et al., 1994 and Miller and Lynam, 2003). A recent meta-analysis conducted by Miller and Lynam (2001) found that, across different inventories, similar personality traits underlie these associations. Miller and Lynam identified 59 studies that examined relations between antisociality and four structural models of personality (including the three-factor model proposed by Tellegen (1985) which is utilized in the present study). They conceptualized the eight personality dimensions found to relate moderately to antisocial behavior in these studies as measures of either agreeableness or conscientiousness. These findings further support the notion that normal personality traits assessed via omnibus personality measures are linked to delinquent and antisocial behaviors. In addition to the negative behavioral tendencies assessed in the studies above, researchers have also found significant relations between personality traits and a broad range of other delinquent behaviors. For example, Hundleby (1986) found that illicit drug use could be predicted by personality traits. Elkins, King, McGue, and Iacono (2006), utilizing the MPQ, extended this finding to include nicotine and alcohol use in adolescents. Delinquent sexual behaviors and maladaptive sexual attitudes (e.g., attraction to sexual aggression) also show significant correlations with personality traits (Bogaert, 1993). Finally, one study by Martins et al. (2008) found significant links of adolescent substance abuse to sensation-seeking personality and parental monitoring. These findings indicate that personality and parental monitoring are related to similar manifestations of adolescent delinquency. Such similarities highlight the importance of understanding how personality, parental monitoring, and delinquency relate to one another. 1.6. The current study Parental monitoring (i.e., parental knowledge) has been conceptualized as having a negative association with adolescent delinquency. It is clear from the extant literature, however, that parental knowledge and personality are both related to similar domains of delinquency, such as criminality, substance use, and sexual behaviors. One compelling theory to account for these similarities integrates the notion that child disclosure is the primary source of parental knowledge: certain adolescent personality traits may be associated with both child disclosure (and thus parental knowledge) and delinquency. Such a result could support the notion that adolescent disclosure, parental knowledge, and delinquency may be related through, and possibly may emerge from, the personality traits of adolescents. Indeed, the putative relationship between “parental monitoring” and delinquency might itself be a reflection of both variables’ associations with personality. If, on the other hand, personality does not account for the disclosure/knowledge-delinquency relationship, it seems plausible that parental knowledge and/or child disclosure have relationships to delinquent behaviors distinct from those of personality, and that increasing levels of disclosure or knowledge may in fact be independently associated with decreased delinquency. To address this theoretical ambiguity, we investigated the interplay of an active parenting behavior (i.e., solicitation), a passive parental/active child behavior (i.e., child disclosure), parental knowledge, and personality simultaneously to determine their interrelations and their respective utilities for understanding and predicting delinquency. In the present study, we first attempted to replicate the previous finding (Kerr and Stattin, 2000 and Stattin and Kerr, 2000) that parental knowledge was more strongly associated with a passive parenting behavior (i.e., child disclosure) than with an active parenting behavior (i.e., parental solicitation) in a large and ethnically-diverse sample of American adolescents. Such a replication would further bolster the authors’ call for a reconceptualization of “parental monitoring” and our understanding of the sources of parental knowledge. Second, we hypothesized the existence of significant interrelations between parental solicitation, parental knowledge, child disclosure, and personality traits in our sample due to the general tendency of personality traits to relate to a broad array of constructs (Roberts & Jackson, 2008) as well as the conceptual similarity between some parental monitoring behaviors and personality traits (e.g., child disclosure and extraversion). Third, we predicted that solicitation, knowledge, disclosure, and personality would all significantly correlate with delinquency in our sample based on the findings of previous research reviewed above. Fourth, we hypothesized that the inclusion of personality in a regression with solicitation, knowledge, and disclosure would reduce or remove the ability of the latter three to predict delinquency. This hypothesis is based on the notion that solicitation, knowledge, and disclosure are sufficiently a function of adolescent personality (and parental response thereto) that personality will account for the association between these constructs and delinquency. Finally, based on the above reasoning, we hypothesized that personality would contribute incremental validity to the prediction of delinquency above and beyond solicitation, knowledge, and disclosure, but the reverse would not generally be true.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
. Results 3.1. The associations among solicitation, knowledge, and disclosure across sex and reporters Our first aim involved exploring the associations between solicitation, knowledge, and disclosure to determine whether previous findings (Kerr and Stattin, 2000 and Stattin and Kerr, 2000) would replicate in a large and ethnically-diverse sample of American adolescents. The correlations among the parental monitoring scales based on either adolescent- or mother-report, given separately for male and female adolescents in Table 1, highlight the strong relations among the three parental monitoring scales when they are rated by the same rater. Patterns of correlations found in male and female adolescent-report data resembled each other, with all intercorrelations among the three monitoring scales showing significance at the p < .01 level for both sexes. Consistent with previous research, parental knowledge was more highly correlated with child disclosure than parental solicitation in both female (r = .812 vs. r = .492, difference significant at p < .05) and male (r = .730 vs. r = .499; p < .05) adolescents, according to the adolescents’ reports. Table 1. Correlations between adolescent- and mother-report solicitation, knowledge, and disclosure variables in female and male adolescents. ASK-A TELL-A KNOW-A ASK-M TELL-M KNOW-M ASK-A — .581∗∗ .499∗∗ .411∗∗ .271∗∗ .209∗ TELL-A .510∗∗ — .730∗∗ .241∗∗ .334∗∗ .311∗∗ KNOW-A .492∗∗ .812∗∗ — .240∗∗ .387∗∗ .361∗∗ ASK-M .099 .041 .015 — .439∗∗ .272∗∗ TELL-M .109 .209∗∗ .219∗∗ .483∗∗ — .774∗∗ KNOW-M .037 .167∗ .233∗∗ .321∗∗ .695∗∗ — Correlations for females are listed below the diagonal; correlations for males are listed above the diagonal. ASK: parental solicitation; TELL: child disclosure; KNOW: parental knowledge. -A suffix indicates adolescent-report data; -M indicates mother-report data. ∗p < .05, ∗∗p < .01. Cell sizes (Ns) range from 173 to 334. Table options Mother-report parental monitoring followed largely similar correlational patterns. All correlations among the three mother-report scales were significant at the p < .01 level for both male and female adolescents. Again, parental knowledge was correlated to a greater degree with child disclosure than with parental solicitation in both female (r = .695 vs. r = .321; p < .05) and male (r = .774 vs. r = .272; p < .05) adolescents. These results indicate that the mothers in this study believed that their level of knowledge was more closely related (especially in the case of male adolescents) to information disclosed by their adolescent children than to their own efforts to obtain information through direct questioning, which replicates previous research. Markedly different patterns of correlations appeared when agreement between the adolescent- and mother-reports of each of the parental monitoring scales was examined separately by adolescent sex. In male adolescents, all combinations of adolescent- and parent-report solicitation, knowledge, and disclosure scales produced significant correlations and relatively high levels of agreement (r = .33 to .41). For female adolescents, agreement between mothers and their daughters ranged from r = .10 to .23; the level of agreement between mothers and daughters was not significant for parental solicitation (but was significant for parental knowledge and child disclosure). The level of parental solicitation agreement was significantly higher for mothers and sons than for mothers and daughters (p < .001). Levels of agreement in parental knowledge and child disclosure were higher in magnitude in males than females, and these differences themselves trended toward significance (p < .1 for both comparisons). 3.2. The associations among solicitation, knowledge, disclosure, and personality Our second aim involved exploring the associations among solicitation, knowledge, disclosure, and personality. The interrelations among solicitation, knowledge, disclosure, and personality traits were complex, as can be seen in Table 2. In females, none of the personality scales correlated significantly with adolescent-reported parental solicitation or mother-reported parental solicitation. For females, adolescent reports of child disclosure and parental knowledge were, however, significantly correlated with all six personality traits. Mother-reported adolescent disclosure by their daughters correlated significantly with harm avoidance and control, and mother-reported parental knowledge correlated significantly with harm avoidance, control, and aggression as well. Table 2. Correlations between personality traits, delinquency, and adolescent- and mother-report solicitation, knowledge, and disclosure variables in female and male adolescents. ASK-A TELL-A KNOW-A ASK-M TELL-M KNOW-M DBI Well-being Females .103 .192∗∗ .160∗∗ −.004 .107 .053 −.153∗ Males .008 .143∗ .176∗ −.014 −.015 −.012 −.063 Stress reaction Females −.083 −.131∗ −.175∗∗ .026 −.015 −.024 .228∗∗ Males .117 −.115 −.106 .067 −.035 −.024 .170∗ Harm avoidance Females .054 .134∗ .149∗ −.018 .161∗ .154∗ −.232∗∗ Males .006 .006 −.074 −.022 .109 .119 −.213∗∗ Control Females .030 .237∗∗ .264∗∗ .014 .235∗∗ .219∗∗ −.400∗∗ Males .128 .283∗∗ .193∗∗ −.073 .219∗ .213∗ −.403∗∗ Alienation Females −.079 −.207∗∗ −.219∗∗ .089 −.079 −.051 .357∗∗ Males .013 −.123 −.148 −.043 −.098 −.103 .150∗ Aggression Females −.096 −.226∗∗ −.208∗ .057 −.061 −.155∗ .436∗∗ Males −.028 −.092 −.175∗ .016 −.038 −.033 .413∗∗ Delinquency Females −.145∗ −.283∗∗ −.327∗∗ .042 −.152∗∗ −.253∗ — Males .013 −.119 −.295∗ −.158 −.430∗∗ −.476∗∗ — ASK: parental solicitation; TELL: child disclosure; KNOW: parental knowledge. -A suffix indicates adolescent-report data; -M indicates mother-report data. ∗p < .05, ∗∗p < .01. Cell sizes (Ns) range from 105 to 329. Table options Fewer personality traits showed significant relationships to solicitation, knowledge, and disclosure in males, although the general pattern of trait control showing the strongest correlations with solicitation, knowledge, and disclosure continued. Similar to females, neither adolescent- nor mother-report parental solicitation scales were significantly correlated with personality traits. Male adolescent-report child disclosure showed significant correlations with well-being (r = .143; p < .05) and control (r = .283; p < .01). The same pattern held for male adolescent-report parental knowledge, with the addition of aggression (r = −.175; p < .05). Mother-reported child disclosure for males was only significantly correlated with control (r = .219; p < .05); control was also the only significant correlate of mother-reported parental knowledge in males (r = .213; p < .05). 3.3. The associations among solicitation, knowledge, disclosure, and delinquency Our next aim first involved exploring the associations among solicitation, knowledge, disclosure, and delinquency. Table 2 reports the correlations between the adolescent- and mother-report solicitation, knowledge, and disclosure scales and the DBI for both boys and girls. In general, solicitation, knowledge, and disclosure, regardless of data source or adolescent sex, were negatively related to delinquency (i.e., greater solicitation, knowledge, or disclosure being linked to lower levels of delinquency) and often significantly so. There were some differences between females and males, however. In females, each of the three adolescent-report solicitation, knowledge, and disclosure scales correlated significantly with delinquency; in the males, only parental knowledge significantly correlated with delinquency. Mother-reports of the links between solicitation, knowledge, disclosure, and delinquency also showed gender differences. Mother-report of the association between child disclosure and delinquency was significantly higher in males than females (r = −.430 vs. r = −.152; p < .05); similarly, the correlation between parental knowledge and delinquency in mother-report data was significantly higher in males than females (r = −.476 vs. r = −.253; p < .05). These results replicate previous “parental monitoring” research that found associations between parental knowledge (“monitoring”) and delinquency; these findings also replicate previous research (e.g., Kerr & Stattin, 2000) that found the link between child disclosure and delinquency was of greater magnitude than the link between parental solicitation and delinquency. 3.4. The associations among personality scales and delinquency We hypothesized that, like solicitation, knowledge, and disclosure, personality traits would also show significant associations with delinquency. Table 2 reports the correlations between the adolescent- and mother-report MPQ personality scales and the DBI for both boys and girls. Personality traits in general were related to delinquency. In females, all six personality scales correlated significantly with delinquency. In males, five of the six personality scales correlated significantly with delinquency; only well-being did not show a significant delinquency correlation in males. Trait aggression and control were the best predictors of delinquency in males and females (all significant at p < .01). Females also showed a notable association between alienation and delinquency (r = .357), which was markedly higher than this correlation in males (r = .150) and almost significantly different (p = .055). 3.5. Brief summary A brief summary of the results discussed up to this point with regard to the study’s hypotheses is warranted. We first attempted to replicate previous findings (Kerr and Stattin, 2000 and Stattin and Kerr, 2000). We found that solicitation, knowledge, and disclosure scales, reported by both adolescents and mothers, did indeed replicate this previous research by showing expected patterns of interrelationship as well as negative associations with delinquency. Second, we hypothesized the presence of significant interrelations between parental solicitation, parental knowledge, child disclosure, and personality traits. This hypothesis was largely supported in that some personality traits were significantly related to parental knowledge and child disclosure, although these patterns differed between male and female adolescents as well as between adolescent- and mother-report data. Third, we hypothesized that parental solicitation, parental knowledge, child disclosure, and personality would show significant links to delinquency. Our results broadly supported this hypothesis, but again there was some variability across reporters and adolescent sex. 3.6. The role of personality in the parental monitoring-delinquency association The results of the analyses above supported the possibility that solicitation, knowledge, disclosure, and personality were interrelated, and thus their associations with delinquency may not have been independent of one another. Our fourth aim addressed this possibility. We attempted to uncover the ways in which the solicitation/knowledge/disclosure-delinquency association changed with the consideration of personality traits. To accomplish this, we ran a series of regressions with varying sets of predictors. The first regression in a group of analyses (e.g., investigating adolescent-report parental solicitation and personality) consisted of the solicitation, knowledge, or disclosure scale (in this example, adolescent-report parental solicitation) predicting delinquency, which yielded a standardized regression weight for the scale in addition to a model R2. The next analysis included the solicitation, knowledge, or disclosure scale as well as the six MPQ personality scales (in this example, the six MPQ scales in addition to adolescent-report parental solicitation) estimating delinquency. This analysis yielded a new standardized regression weight for the solicitation, knowledge, or disclosure scale—in a model where personality was included—and a new model R2. This process was repeated for all combinations of solicitation/knowledge/disclosure scales and personality. Table 3 includes the standardized regression weights for each of the solicitation, knowledge, and disclosure scales when estimating delinquency alone as well as the weights for each of these scales when all six personality scales were also included to predict delinquency. The regression weights and R2 for each model are organized by adolescent sex as well as by whether the solicitation, knowledge, or disclosure scale utilized in the model resulted from adolescent- or mother-report. For example, the standardized regression weight for female adolescent-reported parental solicitation alone predicting delinquency was −.145 (p < .05; model R2 = .02). When female adolescent-reported parental solicitation and the six MPQ scales were used simultaneously to estimate delinquency, the standardized regression weight for female adolescent-reported parental solicitation fell to −.095 (not significant; n.s.) and the model R2 increased significantly to .29 (p < .05). Table 3. Standardized regression weights and R2 of solicitation, knowledge, and disclosure variables predicting delinquency with and without personality. Females Males Adolescent-report data Mother-report data Adolescent-report data Mother-report data Weight Model R2 Weight Model R2 Weight Model R2 Weight Model R2 Model ASK −.145∗ .02 .042 .00 .013 .00 −.158 .03 ASK + PER −.095 .29† .065 .29† .053 .26† −.082 .26† TELL −.283∗∗ .08 −.152∗∗ .02 −.119 .01 −.430∗∗ .19 TELL + PER −.115 .29† −.044 .29† −.027 .26† −.327∗∗ .37† KNOW −.327∗∗ .11 −.253∗ .06 −.295∗ .09 −.476∗∗ .23 KNOW + PER −.156∗ .30† −.070 .29† −.188 .28† −.388∗∗ .41† ASK: parental solicitation; TELL: child disclosure; KNOW: parental knowledge; PER: all six personality scales. For regression weights: ∗p < .05 and ∗∗p < .01. †Significant change in R2 (p < .05) between a baseline model (i.e., ASK, TELL, or KNOW alone) and a model also including personality. Cell sizes (Ns) range from 94 to 186. Table options As can be seen in Table 3, when personality was included in the regressions of the solicitation, knowledge, or disclosure scales predicting delinquency, the standardized regression weights of the solicitation, knowledge, or disclosure scales were often reduced from significant to non-significant levels. For female adolescents, the standardized regression weights for adolescent-reported parental solicitation, parental knowledge, and child disclosure all were reduced in significance (p-values changed from <.05 to n.s., <.01 to n.s., and <.01 to <.05, respectively) when personality was included in the regression models. A similar trend held for female adolescents’ mother-reported child disclosure (p < .01 to n.s.) and parental knowledge (p < .05 to n.s.). The presence of the personality scales in the analyses also yielded significantly increased model R2 values in all cases. For example, in females, when delinquency was regressed only on mother-report parental solicitation, the resulting model R2 was less than .01. The model R2 increased to .29, a significant improvement, when this parental solicitation scale and all six personality scales were used to predict delinquency. Of the male adolescent-report solicitation, knowledge, and disclosure scales, only parental knowledge significantly predicted delinquency originally. The inclusion of the six personality scales into the regression lowered this parental knowledge scale regression weight to non-significance when predicting delinquency, while the model R2 significantly increased from .09 to .28. Male adolescents’ mother-reported child disclosure and parental knowledge scales showed large reductions in their standardized regression weights with the inclusion of the personality scales (e.g., −.430 to −.327). Although there was no reduction in statistical significance for these variables, the model R2 of both sets of analyses increased significantly with the inclusion of the six personality scales (i.e., R2 = .19 to .37, and R2 = .23 to .41, each significant at p < .05), thus highlighting the strong associations these personality traits have to delinquency. The male (and female) adolescents’ mother-reported parental solicitation scale did not significantly predict delinquency by itself, but the inclusion of personality in the prediction model led to a significant increase in R2 in this case as well. In summary, the regression weights of the solicitation, knowledge, and disclosure scales for estimating delinquency were often reduced in significance when personality was incorporated into the statistical model. The inclusion of personality also tended to increase the model R2 significantly. The weight reductions observed differed somewhat between adolescent- and mother-reported data as well as by the sex of the adolescent; that said, the overall pattern of regression weight decline was relatively generalized across these factors. Personality contributed incremental validity to the estimation of delinquency above and beyond the solicitation, knowledge, and disclosure scales as evidenced by the significant increases in model R2. 3.7. The incremental validity of solicitation, knowledge, and disclosure over personality in delinquency prediction The previous analyses have indicated that personality contributes incrementally to the prediction of delinquency over and above parental solicitation, parental knowledge, and child disclosure, as can be seen in the significant increases in model R2 values. To address our final hypothesis—that solicitation, knowledge, and disclosure would not contribute incremental validity to delinquency prediction over and above personality—we conducted analyses parallel to those above, with the exception that the six personality scales were entered into the regression equation first, and the solicitation, knowledge, and disclosure scales were entered as a second step. Entering the solicitation, knowledge, and disclosure scales separately and then simultaneously allowed for the discrimination of potential incremental validity of each of these scales as well as any incremental validity of a more inclusive “all monitoring-related variables” construct (that is, parental solicitation, parental knowledge, and child disclosure taken together). Table 4 presents the results of these analyses. In female adolescents, neither adolescent- nor mother-report individual solicitation, knowledge, or disclosure scales contributed to a significant increase in R2 above that of personality. In addition, the simultaneous inclusion of all three of these scales in the second step did not indicate they provided incremental validity in general above personality. For example, female adolescents’ personalities predicted 29% of the variance of delinquency; in the cases of both adolescent- and mother-report, the solicitation, knowledge, and disclosure scales (included simultaneously) increased this value by only 2% (a non-significant increase). In males, no single adolescent-report solicitation, knowledge, or disclosure scale led to a significant increase in R2 over and above personality. The inclusion of all three scales together, however, did lead to a significant increase in R2, which indicated some incremental validity of all three scales (when considered together) in males above personality. That said, the magnitude of this increase, though significant, was somewhat small (i.e., explanation of 26% vs. 32% of the variance), especially when compared with the increase seen when personality was added to the solicitation, knowledge, and disclosure scales in the previous analyses (e.g., for parental solicitation, explanation of 2% of the variance increasing to explanation of 29% of the variance with the addition of personality). Table 4. Model R2 values of personality predicting delinquency with and without solicitation, knowledge, and disclosure variables. Females Males Adolescent-report data Mother-report data Adolescent-report data Mother-report data Model R2 Model R2 Model R2 Model R2 Model PER .29 .29 .26 .26 PER + ASK .29 .29 .26 .26 PER + TELL .29 .29 .26 .37† PER + KNOW .30 .29 .28 .41† PER + ALL .31 .31 .32† .42† ASK: parental solicitation; TELL: child disclosure; KNOW: parental knowledge; ALL: all three scales (i.e., solicitation, knowledge, and disclosure); PER: all six personality scales. †Significant change in R2 (p < .05) between a baseline model (i.e., all personality scales) and a model also including solicitation/knowledge/disclosure. Cell sizes (Ns) range from 94 to 186. Table options Only mother-report data in males showed marked incremental validity of solicitation, knowledge, and disclosure scales over and above that of personality in the prediction of delinquency. The inclusion of child disclosure, parental knowledge, or the solicitation, knowledge, and disclosure scales together all led to significant increases in R2 values. In the latter two cases especially, this increase was striking: the prediction of 26% of the variance in delinquency versus 42% of the variance after the inclusion of all three of the solicitation, knowledge, and disclosure scales.