EMPI RI CAL RESEARCH

Links Between Adolescents Expected Parental Reactions

and Prosocial Behavioral Tendencies: The Mediating Role
of Prosocial Values
Sam A. Hardy Gustavo Carlo Scott C. Roesch
Received: 23 September 2008 / Accepted: 19 December 2008 / Published online: 7 January 2009
Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009
Abstract The purpose of the present study was to
examine relations between adolescents social cognitions
regarding parenting practices and adolescents prosocial
behavioral tendencies. A mediation model was tested
whereby the degree to which adolescents perceived their
parents as responding appropriately to their prosocial and
antisocial behaviors was hypothesized to predict adoles-
cents tendencies toward prosocial behavior indirectly
by way of adolescents prosocial values. Adolescents
(N = 140; M age = 16.76 years, SD = .80; 64% girls;
91% European Americans) completed measures of proso-
cial values and of the appropriateness with which they
expected their parents to react to their prosocial and anti-
social behaviors. In addition, teachers and parents rated the
adolescents tendencies for prosocial behaviors. A struc-
tural equation model test showed that the degree to which
adolescents expected their parents to respond appropriately
to their prosocial behaviors was related positively to their
prosocial values, which in turn was positively associated
with their tendencies to engage in prosocial behaviors (as
reported by parents and teachers). The ndings provide
evidence for the central role of adolescents evaluations
and expectancies of parental behaviors and of the role of
values in predicting prosocial tendencies. Discussion
focuses on the implications for moral socialization theories
and on the practical implications of these ndings in
understanding adolescents prosocial development.
Keywords Parenting Social cognition
Prosocial behavior Values
Introduction
Much theory and evidence supports the everyday notion
that parents are a key inuence on the prosocial behavior
and development of children and adolescents (Baumrind
1991; Eisenberg and Valiente 2002; Grusec 2006;
Maccoby and Martin 1983). Although some moral devel-
opment theorists such as Kohlberg (1969) sought to
de-emphasize the role of parental socialization, others have
argued for the importance and uniqueness of the parent
child relationship in prosocial and moral development
(Bandura 1986; Eisenberg and Valiente 2002; Grusec
2006; Hoffman 2000). However, we know relatively little
about the mediating mechanisms by which parenting and
parentchild relationships affect prosocial behaviors,
especially in adolescence (Carlo et al. 1999; Eisenberg and
Valiente 2002). In addition to parents behaviors, and the
characteristics of the parentchild relationship, adoles-
cents social cognitions seem to play an important role
(Grusec and Goodnow 1994; Nelson and Crick 1999;
Wyatt and Carlo 2002; Padilla-Walker and Carlo 2004,
2006). Social cognitive theory posits that anticipated con-
sequences of future actions inuence the motivation for
such actions (Bandura 1986). Further, anticipated success
or failure at a given course of action leads to more or less
valuing of that action (Eccles and Wigeld 2002).
S. A. Hardy (&)
Department of Psychology, Brigham Young University, Provo,
UT, USA
e-mail: sam_hardy@byu.edu
G. Carlo
Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln,
Lincoln, NE, USA
S. C. Roesch
Department of Psychology, San Diego State University,
San Diego, CA, USA
1 3
J Youth Adolescence (2010) 39:8495
DOI 10.1007/s10964-008-9383-7
Of particular interest in the present study was the conse-
quences or reactions adolescents expect from their parents
following prosocial and antisocial action, and the relation
of these expected parental reactions to prosocial values and
behaviors. More specically, this study tested a model
whereby adolescents expected parental reactions to pro-
social and antisocial behavior predicted adolescents
prosocial behavioral tendencies indirectly by way of ado-
lescents prosocial values.
Expected Parental Reactions
According to social cognitive theory, consequences inu-
ence antecedent behaviors by creating expectations that, in
the future, acting in similar ways will produce similar out-
comes (Bandura 1986). Specically, anticipated rewards
will increase the likelihood of a particular behavior, while
anticipated punishments will decrease the likelihood of the
behavior. Thus, as opposed to behaviorism, social cognitive
theory posits that responses do not automatically follow
from stimuli, but mediational cognitive processes are
involved. In support of this, research based on social
information-processing theory suggests that children and
adolescents mentally generate possible consequences of
their antisocial (Crick and Dodge 1994) and prosocial
(Nelson and Crick 1999) actions in the process of making
behavioral decisions. Hence, for example, parenting
behaviors do not automatically elicit responses from ado-
lescents, but rather adolescents have social cognitions that
mediate relations between their parents behaviors and their
own actions.
Parents issue many consequences for their adolescents
behaviors, and these parental reactions are evaluated by
adolescents and may play an important role in behavioral
decisions (Wyatt and Carlo 2002; Padilla-Walker and
Carlo 2004, 2006, 2007). For example, when reecting
back on their parents reactions to situations in the past
where they (the adolescents) have acted antisocially (e.g.,
lied), teens tend to see yelling (e.g., He freaked out and
yelled at me!) as less appropriate than talking (e.g., She
sat me down and talked to me about what I had done and
how to x it) as a parental reaction (Padilla-Walker and
Carlo 2004). Similarly, teens see verbal praise (e.g., She
congratulated me and gave me a hug.) as a more appro-
priate parental response to prosocial behavior (e.g., helping
someone in need) than simply talking or even yelling (e.g.,
She told me I should be worrying about my problems and
not other peoples; Padilla-Walker and Carlo 2004). Over
time, adolescents develop general expectancies about their
parents reactions to prosocial and antisocial behaviors
(i.e., perceptions of how appropriately their parents will
likely respond) that might affect their own future prosocial
or antisocial behaviors. Such anticipated parental reactions
are predictive of teens behaviors, with more appropriate
expected parental reactions to antisocial behavior being
negatively related to delinquency and aggression, and more
appropriate expected parental reactions to prosocial
behavior being linked positively to prosocial behavior and
negatively to delinquency and aggression (Wyatt and Carlo
2002). Thus, over time adolescents develop general
expectancies about their parents reactions to prosocial and
antisocial behaviors that might affect their own future
prosocial or antisocial behaviors.
Expected Parental Reactions and Adolescents
Internalization of Values
Adolescents expectancies about their parents reactions to
their prosocial and antisocial behaviors may also be linked
to the internalization of parental values. For adolescents to
internalize their parents values they must accurately per-
ceive their parents values and they must accept those
values; this has been both theoretically (Grusec and
Goodnow 1994) and empirically (Padilla-Walker 2007)
demonstrated. Grusec and Goodnow (1994) argue that
expected parental reactions are important to both of these
components of internalization. In terms of accurate per-
ception, adolescents might be more likely to attend to
parental value messages if they attribute positive intentions
to their parents; such perceptions may be based on a history
of their evaluations of the ways in which their parents have
responded to their behaviors. Teens who perceive their
parents as responding appropriately to their prosocial and
antisocial behaviors are more likely to attribute caring
and helping intentions to their parents than inhibiting and
controlling intentions (Padilla-Walker and Carlo 2004).
Further, affectionate parenting (high warmth and respon-
siveness, with low indifferent, indulgent, and autocratic
parenting practices) is predictive of adolescents accurate
perception of parental values. Hence, in positive parent
teen relationships where teens attribute good will to their
parents intentions, teens may be more likely to tune into
parental messages, and this greater attentiveness to parental
messages generally leads to more accurate understanding
of parental values.
Expected parental reactions may play an even more
important role in whether or not adolescents accept their
parents values. There are at least two potential mecha-
nisms involved. First, the acceptance of values is strongly
inuenced by the degree to which the child believes his or
her parents reactions are appropriate to the deed or mis-
deed and that the parents intervention has truth-value and
that due process has been observed (Grusec and
Goodnow 1994, p. 14). By truth-value they mean that if
J Youth Adolescence (2010) 39:8495 85
1 3
adolescents get in trouble for doing something wrong it is
something that they actually didrather than a false
accusation. Due process here is referring to the notion
that the parents use appropriate and tactful procedures and
interactions when responding to their adolescents behav-
iors. In other words, adolescents are more accepting of
parental socialization when they see their parents as deal-
ing fairly with them in response to their positive and
negative behaviors.
The second way in which adolescents expected parental
reactions may be linked to their acceptance of parental
values is by affecting the subjective value that adolescents
place on certain behaviors. Anticipated success or failure at
a given behavior inuences the perceived value of that
behavior (Eccles and Wigeld 2002). Similarly, perceived
expectations for prosocial behavior have been linked to
prosocial goals (i.e., internalized valuing of prosocial
behavior). So, if an adolescent is praised by his or her
parents for behaving prosocially, he or she may come to
see more value in prosocial behavior. On the other hand, if
prosocial behavior goes unrewarded, it may not be seen as
having as much value. Thus, expected parental reactions
convey information about the anticipated success or failure
of the adolescents behaviors, and these expectancies seem
important for how much adolescents value such behaviors
and are motivated to enact them in the future.
The Role of Values in Prosocial Behavior
In line with prior social sciences conceptualizations, values
were dened as (a) concepts or beliefs, (b) about desirable
end states or behaviors, (c) that transcend specic situa-
tions, (d) guide selection or evaluation of behavior and
events, and (e) are ordered by relative importance
(Schwartz and Bilsky 1987, p. 551). More simply, values
convey what is important to us in our lives (Bardi and
Schwartz 2003, p. 1208). Once appropriated into ones
sense of self, values have a motivational dimension that
provides impetus and direction for volitional behaviors
(Manstead 1996; Ryan and Connell 1989; Verplanken and
Holland 2002). This is likely due to value-consistent
behaviors being rewarding and fullling a need for self-
consistency (Bardi and Schwartz 2003). The strength of
relations between social cognitions (such as values) and
behaviors is dependent on the specicity of the social
cognitions and behaviors involved (Ajzen and Fishbein
2005). Thus, prosocial values (such as kindness) should be
expected to have their strongest impact on prosocial
behavior.
Research has demonstrated signicant relations between
values (or similar constructs such as personal norms and
personal goals) and behaviors, including specic links
between prosocial values and prosocial behaviors
(Bardi and Schwartz 2003). Much of this work has been
done with adults. For example, participants who reported
higher salience of prosocial values (e.g., helpful, equality)
donated more to a charitable organization than those who
reported lower salience of these values in an experimental
condition that primed their self concept (Verplanken and
Holland 2002). Similarly, Bardi and Schwartz (2003)
demonstrated correlations between what they categorize as
benevolence values (i.e., dened as values relevant to
preservation and enhancement of the welfare of people
with whom one is in frequent personal contact; p. 1208)
and prosocial behaviors in adults. Research involving
adolescents has also shown links between prosocial values
and prosocial behaviors (e.g., Padilla-Walker 2007; Padil-
la-Walker and Carlo 2007; Pratt et al. 2003).
The Present Study
Much research has examined correlates of various parent-
ing styles and practices (Bornstein 2002). However, we still
know little about mechanisms by which parenting might
inuence adolescent outcomes. Thus, the present study
makes a contribution by examining the role two aspects of
adolescent social cognition might play in linking parenting
to adolescents behaviors: (a) adolescents perceptions of
the appropriateness of their parents reactions to their
prosocial and antisocial behaviors, and (b) adolescents
prosocial values. In the present study, we positioned pro-
social values as a mediator or indirect link between
expected parental reactions and adolescents prosocial
behavior, largely because research on attitudes suggests
domain-specic social cognitions are more strongly linked
to similar domain-specic behaviors (Ajzen and Fishbein
2005).
More specically, the purpose of the present study was
to test a mediation model whereby adolescents expected
parental reactions to prosocial and antisocial behaviors
would be linked to adolescents prosocial behaviors indi-
rectly by way of prosocial values. This model is founded on
social cognitive theory (Bandura 1986) and its implications
for parenting (Grusec and Goodnow 1994). Specically,
over the course of time adolescents learn about prosocial
values and behaviors partly by the way in which their
parents respond to their antisocial and prosocial behaviors.
Prior focus has generally been on the role of parental
responses to negative child behaviors, so, we sought to also
examine the role of parental responses to positive actions.
When parents are seen as responding appropriately to
antisocial and prosocial behaviors, teens are more attentive
to parental prosocial value messages, and more open to
accepting such messages. Further, when parents respond
86 J Youth Adolescence (2010) 39:8495
1 3
appropriately to their adolescents behaviors, it is more
reinforcing of positive behaviors, leading teens to place
greater value on such actions. As teens internalize prosocial
values, these serve to guide and motivate prosocial actions.
Therefore, we sought to test the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1 We hypothesized that adolescents who
perceived their parents responses to prosocial and antiso-
cial behaviors as more appropriate would place greater
importance on prosocial values. The social cognitive
framework allows for parental reactions in both prosocial
and antisocial contexts to affect adolescents motivation
toward positive behaviors. However, a prior study reported
that expected parental reactions to prosocial behaviors
were typically more strongly related to adolescents pro-
social behaviors than expected parental reactions to
antisocial behaviors (Wyatt and Carlo 2002).
Hypothesis 2 It was anticipated that adolescents who
more strongly endorsed prosocial values would also have
greater tendencies towards prosocial behaviors.
Hypothesis 3 We proposed that prosocial values would
mediate relations between expected parental reactions (to
prosocial and antisocial behaviors) and prosocial
behaviors.
Method
Participants
Participants were 140 adolescents (M age = 16.76 years,
SD = .80; 64% girls; 91% European American), their
parent, and their teachers from a public high school in a
mid-size city (approximate city population was 250,000) in
the Midwestern region of the United States. In terms of
mothers education, 71% of the mothers of the adolescents
in the present sample had at least a 4-year degree from
college or university (mothers education level is often
used as a proxy for socioeconomic status; Bornstein et al.
2003). Further, 82% of teens had parents who were married
and had never been divorced or separated.
Procedure
Participants were recruited through a local public high
school during spring semester. First, we identied a group
of four teachers willing to participate in the study; they
taught in psychology (male), family and consumer sci-
ences (female), computer technology (female), and
biology (female). Second, we went into the classrooms
and presented the study, and interested students took
home a packet that included a letter to their parents, the
parental consent form, and a parent-report measure of the
adolescents tendencies to engage in prosocial behaviors
across a range of contexts. Only the psychology courses
offered extra credit, and thus those courses had the
highest rates of participation (approximately 95%). Other
courses ranged from 25 to 75% participation. Third, stu-
dents who returned the parental consent form were asked
to sign the student assent form, and to complete the
adolescent questionnaires. Most students who took home
packets returned the consent form. Fourth, a teacher-
report measure of adolescents prosocial behavior was
obtained for each of the students who participated in the
study.
Measures
Expected Parental Reactions
Adolescents perceptions of the appropriateness with which
they expected their parents to react to their prosocial and
antisocial behaviors were assessed using the 16-item
expected parental reactions (EPR) questionnaire (Wyatt
and Carlo 2002). Adolescents were presented with 16
scenarios where they have hypothetically done something
antisocial or prosocial and asked to Please rate each of the
following statements on how appropriately your parent
might react to the situation on a ve-point scale (ranging
from 1 = not at all appropriately to 5 = very appropri-
ately). Adolescents with more than one parent were asked
to respond in terms of the parent they felt closest to. There
were 8 items for expected parental reactions to prosocial
behaviors (a = .78; sample item, If I were to lend
someone money for lunch, my parent would react), and
8 items for expected parental reactions to antisocial
behaviors (a = .90; sample item, If I had to stay after
school for starting a ght, my parent would react; for
additional information on measurement design, reliability,
and validity, see Wyatt and Carlo 2002).
Prosocial Values
We used three items from the Values-in-Action Inventory
of Strengths for youth (VIA-youth; Peterson and Seligman
2004) to assess the extent to which the adolescents valued
and enjoyed helping and being kind to others. The
VIA-youth assesses 24 different values (e.g., bravery,
creativity). For the present study, we used the three items
(a = .65) from the kindness subscale that seemed most in
lined with the denitions of values presented earlier (other
items seemed to be assessing behaviors more than values).
Adolescents rated statements, using a scale from 1
(very much unlike me) to 5 (very much like me), according
to how much the statements described them personally
J Youth Adolescence (2010) 39:8495 87
1 3
(sample item: I enjoy being kind to others). The
VIA-youth has demonstrated adequate validity and reli-
ability across adolescent samples (e.g., Hardy and Carlo
2005; Peterson and Seligman 2004).
Prosocial Behavioral Tendencies
The prosocial tendencies measure (PTM-R; Carlo et al.
2003) was used to assess six different prosocial behavioral
tendencies that vary in terms of situations (e.g., emergency
situations) and motives (e.g., altruism). We modied this
original self-report measure for use as a parent- and tea-
cher-report measure by retaining the highest loading items
from each subscale (based on a prior dataset that used the
self-report version) and by modifying the stem of the
statements. We decided to use two independent reporters
for several reasons. First, using other-report measures such
as from teachers and parents helps reduce social desir-
ability and shared method biases (Nederhof 1985). Second,
getting varying perspectives on an individuals behavior
can be helpful, particularly when the different reporters
tend to observe the individuals in different contexts and
social roles (e.g., teachers versus parents; Noland and
McCallum 2000). Prior researchers have reported adequate
reliability and validity (including convergent validity) on
the PTM (e.g., Carlo et al. 2003; Carlo and Randall 2002;
Hardy and Carlo 2005).
For the 24-item parent-report version (PTM-P), parents
rated (using a scale from 1 = very unlikely to 5 = very
likely) their adolescents likelihood of exhibiting six types
of behaviors to someone else (6 items), to a teacher
(6 items) and to another student (6 items). The six
subscales were (with sample items): compliant (a = .65;
when they ask for help), anonymous (a = .77;
without people knowing he/she helped.), dire
(a = .82; when there is an emergency situation.),
emotional (a = .85; when the situation is emotionally
evocative.), altruism (a = .81; when there might be a
cost to him/herself.), and public (a = .77; when other
people are watching.).
For the 12-item teacher-report version (PTM-T), teach-
ers rated (using a scale from 1 = very unlikely to 5 = very
likely) their students likelihood of exhibiting six types of
behaviors to you (the teacher; 6 items) and to another
student (6 items). The six subscales were (with sample
items): compliant (a = .91; when they ask for help),
anonymous (a = .93; without people knowing he/she
helped.), dire (a = .86; when there is an emergency
situation.), emotional (a = .92; when the situation is
emotionally evocative.), altruism (a = .94; when
there might be a cost to him/herself.), and public
(a = .92; when other people are watching.).
Results
Descriptive Statistics, Gender Differences,
and Interrelations among Study Variables
Means and standard deviations for all the observed study
variables are presented in Table 1, and bivariate correla-
tions in Table 2. Expected parental reactions to prosocial
Table 1 Descriptive statistics
for all observed variables
included in SEM models
Sample sizes ranged from
n = 131 to 140
Variables Range M SD
Expected parental reactions to antisocial behavior 15 3.31 .83
Expected parental reactions to prosocial behavior 15 4.44 .49
Prosocial values item 1 (I really enjoy doing small favors for friends.) 15 4.22 .70
Prosocial values item 2 (I love to make other people happy.) 15 4.47 .66
Prosocial values item 3 (I enjoy being kind to others. 15 4.46 .64
Parent-report prosocial behavioral tendenciescompliant 15 4.50 .46
Parent-report prosocial behavioral tendenciespublic 15 4.36 .54
Parent-report prosocial behavioral tendenciesanonymous 15 4.37 .57
Parent-report prosocial behavioral tendenciesdire 15 4.75 .41
Parent-report prosocial behavioral tendenciesemotional 15 4.06 .67
Parent-report prosocial behavioral tendenciesaltruistic 15 3.85 .67
Teacher-report prosocial behavioral tendenciescompliant 15 4.15 .75
Teacher-report prosocial behavioral tendenciespublic 15 4.13 .74
Teacher-report prosocial behavioral tendenciesanonymous 15 4.10 .76
Teacher-report prosocial behavioral tendenciesdire 15 4.60 .60
Teacher-report prosocial behavioral tendenciesemotional 15 4.11 .76
Teacher-report prosocial behavioral tendenciesaltruistic 15 3.97 .92
88 J Youth Adolescence (2010) 39:8495
1 3
behavior were positively correlated with one of the pro-
social values items (item 3). Further, at least one of the
prosocial values items was positively correlated with
parent-report compliant and altruistic prosocial behavioral
tendencies, and with all of the teacher-report prosocial
behavioral tendencies. Analyses of variance (ANOVAs)
by gender found girls to be signicantly higher on two of
the prosocial values items (item 2 and item 3) and ve of
the six forms of teacher-report prosocial behavioral ten-
dencies (compliant, public, anonymous, emotional, and
altruistic).
Structural Equation Modeling
We used structural equation modeling (SEM) to test the
hypothesized mediation model whereby adolescents
expected parental reactions to prosocial and antisocial
behavior were proposed to predict adolescents prosocial
behavioral tendencies indirectly by way of adolescents
prosocial values. The model involves four variables:
adolescents expected parental reactions to prosocial
behavior, adolescents expected reactions to antisocial
behavior, prosocial values, parent-report adolescents
prosocial behavioral tendencies, and teacher-report ado-
lescents prosocial behavioral tendencies. However, given
the modest sample size, it was not feasible to create
latent variables in the SEM mediation model for all the
study variables. Rather, latent variables were only cre-
ated for the endogenous variables (the mediator and
outcomes). The two predictor variables (expected
parental reactions to prosocial and antisocial behaviors)
each involved eight items, and thus creating latent
variables would have required item parceling; therefore,
rather than creating latent variables, composite scores
were computed taking the mean of the eight items for
each variable.
One key benet of SEM is that it allows researchers to
simultaneously estimate all the model parameters for
complex models such as the mediation model hypothesized
in the present study. The structural portion of the mediation
model involved a number of paths between study variables.
First, there were paths from the predictors (expected
parental reactions to prosocial and antisocial behavior) to
Table 2 Bivariate correlations among all observed variables included in the SEM models
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
EPRAnti
EPRPro .38*
Pro values 1 .05 .11
Pro values 2 .08 .05 .35*
Pro values 3 .10 .21* .32* .49*
P-R compliant .09 .10 .15 .16 .19*
P-R public -.02 -.04 .09 .07 .05 .71*
P-R anon .10 .08 .01 .04 .16 .75* .72*
P-R dire -.06 .09 .08 .05 -.003 .36* .35* .33*
P-R emotional .06 .08 .06 .07 .15 .40* .47* .44* .38*
P-R altruistic .13 -.04 .10 .21* .13 .56* .57* .68* .27* .52*
T-R compliant .003 .09 .24* .18* .19* .13 .11 .07 .07 -.06 .004
T-R Public .02 .07 .26* .18* .19* .12 .10 .07 .07 -.06 .04 .97*
T-R Anon .02 .08 .27* .17 .19* .12 .09 .06 .10 -.05 .01 .96* .97*
T-R Dire -.04 .05 .16 .17* .23* .06 .10 .08 .10 .04 .05 .61* .61* .58*
T-R Emotional .03 .08 .26* .20* .20* .13 .10 .06 .10 -.05 .05 .96* .97* .97* .59*
T-R Altruistic .04 .05 .24* .21* .23* .11 .08 .07 .03 -.05 .02 .91* .91* .93* .52* .92*
Sample sizes ranged from n = 129 to 140; * p \.05
(EPRanti), expected parental reactions to antisocial behavior; (EPRpro), expected parental reactions to prosocial behavior; (pro values 1),
prosocial values item 1; (pro values 2), prosocial values item 2; (pro values 3), prosocial values item 3; (P-R compliant), parent-report prosocial
behavioral tendenciescompliant; (P-R public), parent-report prosocial behavioral tendenciespublic; (P-R anon), parent-report prosocial
behavioral tendenciesanonymous; (P-R dire), parent-report prosocial behavioral tendenciesdire; (P-R emotional), parent-report prosocial
behavioral tendenciesemotional; (P-R altruistic), parent-report prosocial behavioral tendenciesaltruistic; (T-R compliant), teacher-report
prosocial behavioral tendenciescompliant; (T-R public), teacher-report prosocial behavioral tendenciespublic; (T-R anon), teacher-report
prosocial behavioral tendenciesanonymous; (T-R dire), teacher-report prosocial behavioral tendenciesdire; (T-R emotional), teacher-report
prosocial behavioral tendenciesemotional; (T-R altruistic), teacher-report prosocial behavioral tendenciesaltruistic
J Youth Adolescence (2010) 39:8495 89
1 3
the mediator (prosocial values).
1
Second, there were paths
from the mediator to the two outcomes (parent-reports and
teacher-reports of adolescents prosocial behavioral
tendencies).
Within SEM, models are evaluated at two levels: overall
model t and individual parameters subsumed within the
model. Because of the limitations of the v
2
-square likeli-
hood ratio test statistics, many researchers have suggested
using multiple measures of descriptive model t to deter-
mine overall model t (e.g., Hoyle 2000). In the current
study, the following indices were employed in addition to
the Yuan-Bentler Scale v
2
test: (a) the Comparative Fit
Index (CFI; Bentler 1990), with values greater than .93
indicating reasonable model t; and (b) the standardized
root mean residual (SRMR), with values less than .08
indicating reasonable model t (Hu and Bentler 1999). In
evaluating the statistical signicance of individual model
parameters [e.g., factor loadings, structural (path) coef-
cients], an alpha level of .05 was employed. For all models,
parameters were estimated using the full-information
maximum likelihood missing data estimation procedure
employed by EQS (Bentler 2008). In addition, the robust
procedure provided by EQS was used to correct for mul-
tivariate non-normality in the data.
The estimated mediation model t well according to
descriptive t indices, Y-Bv
2
(N = 140, df = 116) =
136.88, p = .09, CFI = .99, SRMR = .04. All standard-
ized parameter values appear in Fig. 1. Moreover, all factor
loadings were large, positive, and statistically signicant;
suggesting viable latent prosocial values and prosocial
behavioral tendencies variables.
As hypothesized, perceptions of appropriateness of
expected parental reactions to prosocial behavior was sig-
nicantly related to prosocial values (R
2
= .04), which in
turn, was signicantly and positively related to both parent-
(R
2
= .04), and teacher-reports (R
2
= .08) of adolescents
prosocial behavioral tendencies (Fig. 1). MacKinnons
asymmetric condence interval was calculated to deter-
mine if this mediated effect was statistically signicant
(MacKinnon et al. 2002). The mediated effects for both
parent- and teacher-report of adolescents prosocial
behavioral tendencies were .01.08 and .02.11, respec-
tively. Because neither condence interval contained 0,
mediation is supported. However, the direct relation
between expected parental reactions to antisocial behaviors
and prosocial values was not signicant.
We ran a second model that included direct paths from
the expected parental reactions predictor variables to the
prosocial behavioral tendencies outcome variables. This
model t well according to the descriptive t indices,
Y-Bv
2
(N = 140, df = 112) = 134.23, p = .08, CFI =
.99, SRMR = .04. However, neither of the additional
direct effects from expected parental reactions to the pro-
social behavioral tendencies outcome variables was
statistically signicant (bs ranged from -.03 to .05, all
ps [.05). This reinforces the hypothesized mediated effect
between expected parental reactions and prosocial behav-
iors through kindness.
Prosocial
Values
Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 compliant
emotional anonymous
public dire
altruism
.18*
.50*
.67*
.71*
.73*/
.93*
.83*/
.98*
.41*/
.60*
.82*/
.98*
.55*/
.98*
.89*/
.98*
.21*/.31*
.06
Expected
Parental
Reactions to
Prosocial
Behavior
Expected
Parental
Reactions to
Antisocial
Behavior
Prosocial
Behavioral
Tendencies
.38*
Fig. 1 Factor loadings and structural path coefcients for the
mediating role of prosocial values on the relations between expected
parental reactions to prosocial and antisocial behaviors and parent-
reported and teacher-reported prosocial behavioral tendencies. For all
model parameters involving the prosocial behavioral tendencies latent
variable, the rst number represents the parent-reported prosocial
behavioral tendencies latent variable and the second number repre-
sents the teacher-reported prosocial behavioral tendencies latent
variable. All reported model parameters are standardized values
(*p \.05)
1
A direct link from the predictor to outcome was necessary for
earlier conceptions of mediation (Baron and Kenny 1986). However,
more recently MacKinnon et al. (MacKinnon et al. 2002, 2007) have
argued that a signicant direct link be should not be a necessary
criteria for mediation, as long as the indirect path is signicant. In
fact, they state that such cases of signicant indirect but not direct
relations between predictors and outcomes are quite common, and
demonstrate that most of the links between the predictors and
outcomes are mediational. Moreover, requiring a signicant direct
effect reduces the power to detect true mediation effects.
90 J Youth Adolescence (2010) 39:8495
1 3
Finally, the invariance of both the measurement and
structural parameters of the model was tested across gender
using the LaGrange multiplier of constraints. The LaGrange
multiplier is a multivariate test that tests for the statistical
signicance of each constraint, controlling for the other
constraints. This model t well according to descriptive t
indices, Y-Bv
2
(N = 140, df = 468) = 697.12, p \.05,
CFI = .92, SRMR = .07. Moreover, all model parameters
were invariant across gender (all ps [.05). Thus, there
were no differences in the relations between variables
across boys and girls.
Discussion
The purpose of the present study was to test a mediation
model whereby adolescents perceptions of the appropri-
ateness with which they expected their parents to respond
to their prosocial and antisocial behaviors was posited to
relate to the adolescents tendencies to engage in prosocial
behaviorsbut indirectly by way of adolescents prosocial
values. In general the results supported the hypothesized
mediation model. Adolescents who perceived their parents
as responding appropriately to their prosocial behaviors
placed greater value on such behaviors, and in turn ado-
lescents who valued prosocial behaviors more were
perceived by parents and teachers as more likely to engage
in prosocial behaviors. However, adolescents perceptions
of the appropriateness of parental responses to antisocial
behaviors were not predictive of their prosocial values.
These ndings provide support for the social cognitive
framework suggesting importance of adolescents social
cognitions such as expectancies and values in understand-
ing adolescents prosocial responding (Bandura 1986;
Eccles and Wigeld 2002; Nelson and Crick 1999).
In partial support of Hypothesis 1, adolescents who
perceived more appropriate parental reactions to prosocial
behaviors (but not reactions to antisocial behaviors) more
strongly valued and enjoyed prosocial behaviors. This
pattern of ndings is similar to prior work on expected
parental reactions (e.g., Wyatt and Carlo 2002). These
results suggest that parental reactions in prosocial behav-
ioral contexts, and perhaps more importantly adolescents
perceptions and evaluations of these parental reactions,
might play a role in the process by which values are
internalized in adolescence (Grusec and Goodnow 1994). It
seems that when adolescents see their parents as respond-
ing fairly and conveying reasonable values messages they
are more open to listening to and accepting such messages.
Consistent with this notion, a prior study revealed that
adolescents who expected their parents to react appropri-
ately to their prosocial and antisocial behaviors were more
likely to view their parents intentions as caring and
helpful, and to report that their parents tended to express
more positive affect, and use less yelling and more talking
(Padilla-Walker and Carlo 2004).
It is unclear why adolescents perceptions of the
appropriateness of their parents reactions to their antiso-
cial behaviors did not signicantly predict their prosocial
values. A prior study looking at expected parental reactions
and youth outcomes similarly found expected parental
reactions to prosocial situations, but not expected parental
reactions to antisocial situations, to be predictive of teens
prosocial behavioral tendencies, while both were nega-
tively associated with teens aggression. It seems possible
that the reinforcement of prosocial behaviors that comes
when parents appropriately respond to such behaviors is a
more salient inuence on teens values and motivations
than punishment for negative behaviors. In a sense, these
differential ndings for parenting in prosocial and antiso-
cial contexts are interesting because while most prior
theory and empirical work on the internalization of values
and the socialization of moral behaviors has emphasized
discipline situations (e.g., Grusec 2006; Hoffman 2000),
the present ndings support arguments for considering
parenting in prosocial contexts (e.g., where teens have done
something positive; Eisenberg et al. 2006; Staub 1979;
Wyatt and Carlo 2002). Taken together with other recent
ndings (Padilla-Walker and Carlo 2004, 2006, 2007;
Wyatt and Carlo 2002), the present results add to the
growing evidence that contrasts with psychoanalytic and
conscience internalization theorists who emphasize trans-
gressive, discipline contexts as the primary socialization
contexts for facilitating moral development (e.g., Grusec
2006; Hoffman 2000; Kochanska 1993). These traditional
approaches suggest that discipline contexts are most sig-
nicant for inculcating moral values because of the often
intense emotional climate that makes those encounters
salient and memorable to the child. However, more
recently, scholars have noted the need for greater attention
to the effects of parenting in prosocial behavior contexts on
moral development (Eisenberg et al. 2006; Grusec 2006).
One might argue that parental reactions to adolescents
prosocial behaviors are also emotionally salient and thus
equally important moral socialization contexts. For
instance, an adolescent may feel joy and pride at being
praised for a prosocial act, or feel embarrassment or dis-
appointment if the prosocial act is not acknowledged and
positively reinforced. Although transgressive contexts
present opportunities to emphasize what parents prohibit
and consider morally wrong, prosocial behavior contexts
present opportunities for parents to emphasize what is
condoned and considered morally correct.
In support of Hypothesis 2, prosocial values signicantly
predicted parents and teachers reports of adolescents
prosocial behavioral tendencies. In other words, adolescents
J Youth Adolescence (2010) 39:8495 91
1 3
who placed more value on prosocial behaviors also were
perceived by their parents and teachers as more likely to
engage in prosocial behaviors across a variety of contexts.
This is in line with prior work showing links between values
and behaviors (for reviews, Bardi and Schwartz 2003; Hitlin
and Piliavin 2004; Rohan 2000), including several studies
focused on prosocial functioning during adolescence
(Padilla-Walker 2007; Padilla-Walker and Carlo 2007; Pratt
et al. 2003), and provides additional support for the notion
that valuing a given course of action can provide personal
motivation to pursue that course of action (Bardi and Sch-
wartz 2003; Manstead 1996; Ryan and Connell 1989;
Verplanken and Holland 2002). In contrast to prior studies
examining the relations among parental expectancies, val-
ues, and prosocial behaviors, the present ndings were
based on multiple reports of adolescents prosocial behav-
ioral tendencies, which reduces problems with social
desirability and shared method variance biases.
In line with Hypothesis 3, expected parental reactions
to prosocial behavior was indirectly related to prosocial
behavioral tendencies via adolescents prosocial values
but was not directly related to prosocial behavioral ten-
dencies. These ndings are consistent with work on the
internalization of values which suggests that parental
socialization processes work to inuence teen behaviors
via the transmission of moral values and traits (Eisenberg
et al. 2006; Grusec and Goodnow 1994; Padilla-Walker
and Carlo 2007). The fact that parental socialization
practices did not directly predict teens prosocial behav-
ioral tendencies might help explain individual differences
in prosocial behaviors. That is, as Grusec and Goodnow
(1994) noted, there are individual differences in childrens
openness and acceptance of parental moral messages and
these translate into individual differences in the extent to
which children internalize moral values. In a recent study,
investigators found support for this notion such that
accurate perception and acceptance predicted internaliza-
tion of values, which in turn, predicted prosocial
behaviorsmore importantly perhaps was that there were
no direct paths between acceptance and accurate percep-
tion and prosocial behaviors (Padilla-Walker 2007; see
also Carlo et al. 2007). Thus, the meditational effect of
values on the relations between expected parental reac-
tions and prosocial behavioral tendencies in the present
study was consistent with other reported meditational
effects in recent studies on the socialization of prosocial
behaviors and suggest that there are differences in the
extent to which children internalize moral values even
when parents might use similar parenting practices. Fur-
ther research should examine the possible mediating
effects of other social cognitions (e.g., moral reasoning)
and moral emotions (e.g., sympathy) on the relations
between parenting and prosocial behaviors.
In summary, the results suggest that adolescents who
perceive their parents as responding appropriately to their
prosocial behaviors might place more value on prosocial
behaviors, and adolescents with more internalized proso-
cial values might engage in prosocial behaviors more
frequently. In other words, one route by which parenting
practices may inuence adolescents prosocial behaviors is
by way of two facets of their social cognition: the way they
perceive of and evaluate their parents behaviors, and the
value they place on prosocial behaviors. Thus, researchers
and parents should not only attend to what parents do, but
to how adolescents perceive of and respond to such par-
enting behaviors, and the impact of these social cognitions
on adolescents motivations and behaviors. In other words,
in some cases it may not be what the parent actually does
that is at issue, but the adolescents interpretations.
One additional interesting pattern of results worth
mentioning was the lack of correlation between parents
and teachers reports of adolescents prosocial behavioral
tendencies. Recent evidence supports the value and validity
of using multiple informant reports in addition to or in
place of self-reports (Vazire 2006). However, it should not
be assumed that informant reports will always agree. Par-
ents and teachers observe adolescents in different social
contexts, and play different roles in their lives. Thus, it is
not surprising that they have different perceptions of the
youth. Further, some argue that personality does not nec-
essarily entail consistent responding across contexts
(Cervone 2005). However, the fact that the valuing of
prosocial behavior was positively related to both reports of
adolescents prosocial behavioral tendencies suggests that
these disparate reports may both be tapping a similar
construct.
Although we found support for the proposed mediation
model, there are several important limitations to the
present study. First, a rigorous examination of the role of
values will require the need to more condently establish
direction of causality through more sophisticated study
designs (e.g., longitudinal design, experimental manipula-
tion). There is growing recognition that there are reciprocal
inuence paths such that children also impact parenting
practices (Kuczynski et al. 1997). Furthermore, there is
evidence that parents also have expectancies about their
childrens moral actions, and that those expectancies are
likely to inuence their actions and reactions (Sigel and
McGillicuddy-De Lisi 2002; Smetana 1997). Second, the
present sample was largely white, middle-class families,
and thus, the study ndings might be specic to that
demographic. Prior research has found that parenting styles
and practices and their relation to adolescent outcomes
often differ across cultures and even across ethnic groups
in the US (for a review, see Arnett 2007). It is possible that
the mechanisms in our model function similarly across
92 J Youth Adolescence (2010) 39:8495
1 3
various demographic groups, but, what is seen as appro-
priate might differ. However, future research needs to
explore these mechanisms across different cultures and
ethnicities. Third, the path coefcient effect sizes ranged
from small to medium (using Cohens classication
scheme; Cohen and Cohen 1983); thus, necessitating future
research on other potential important predictors. Speci-
cally, more needs to be done to elucidate other mediators
(e.g., attachment style) and moderators (e.g., parentado-
lescent relationship quality) involved in the socialization of
prosocial values and behaviors. Additionally, obviously
parents are not the only inuence on prosocial development;
thus, research is needed comparing and contrasting parental
inuence to that of other socialization agents such as peers,
religion, and schools. Fourth, when adolescents were asked
to report on their perceptions of the appropriateness of their
parents reactions to their prosocial and antisocial behav-
iors, they were only required to respond regarding the
parent to whom they felt closest. While this could poten-
tially be problematic (e.g., the parent they feel closest to
might not be the parent who is most inuential in terms of
their values and behaviors), in most cases we think it was
the same parent who also completed the measure of their
adolescents prosocial behavioral tendencies. Thus, there
was likely some consistency across the measures.
Conclusions
There are several important implications of the present
study. First, this research further demonstrates the central
role of adolescents social cognitions in understanding the
links between parenting and prosocial behaviors. Work on
adolescents expectancies (such as expected parental reac-
tions) is surprisingly sparse, even though the notion is well-
grounded in social cognitive theory (e.g., Bandura 1986;
Grusec and Goodnow 1994). Additionally, in the moral
development literature, moral values tend to be overshad-
owed by an emphasis on moral reasoning and moral
emotions (Lapsley 1996). But, more research on the social-
ization of values is warranted given increased scholarly
interest in examining moral development constructs other
than moral reasoning and moral emotions (Hart 2005;
Lapsley and Narvaez 2004), and given the increasing focus
of values and virtues in many moral and character education
programs (Lapsley and Narvaez 2006). Second, while most
prior work on parenting behaviors has emphasized how
parents respond to negative behaviors (e.g., discipline;
Grusec 2006; Hoffman 2000), the present ndings uphold
arguments for also considering how parents respond to
positive behaviors (Eisenberg et al. 2006; Staub 1979; Wyatt
and Carlo 2002). These prosocial situations may be just as
salient as discipline situations in providing opportunities to
guide youth in the right direction. Third, research on ado-
lescents perceptions of appropriateness of parental
reactions emphasizes the active, interpretive role of children
in their development (Smetana 1997) and suggests an alter-
native research venue (to the traditional research on
parenting styles and practices) for studying the impact of
parental socialization. In other words, rather than focus
simply on what the parents do, researchers should further
example adolescents social cognitions relevant to parental
behaviors. Finally, although much of the prior work on moral
socialization has indeed focused on childhood (for reviews,
see Eisenberg et al. 2006; Eisenberg and Valiente 2002), the
evidence points towards continued prosocial development
(Colby and Damon 1992; Eisenberg and Valiente 2002) and
parental inuence (Padilla-Walker et al. 2008) into adult-
hood. There is a clear need for more theoretical and empirical
work targeted at understanding the processes of moral
socialization and prosocial development across adolescence.
Acknowledgments Funding support was provided by a grant from
the Values-In-Action Institute to Gustavo Carlo. The authors would
like to thank the teachers, staff, parents, and students at Lincoln
Southeast High School for their generous cooperation and assistance.
Data for this project was collected while Sam Hardy was at the
University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Correspondence may be addressed to
Sam Hardy, Department of Psychology, Brigham Young University,
Provo, UT 84602, sam_hardy@byu.edu.
References
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2005). The inuence of attitudes on
behavior. In D. Albarrac , B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.),
The handbook of attitudes (pp. 173221). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Arnett, J. J. (2007). Adolescence and emerging adulthood: A cultural
approach (3rd ed.). Upper Sadle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A
social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bardi, A., & Schwartz, S. H. (2003). Values and behavior: Strength
and structure of relations. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 29, 12071220. doi:10.1177/0146167203254602.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderatormediator
variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual,
strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 51, 11731182. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.51.6.1173.
Baumrind, D. (1991). The inuence of parenting style on adolescent
competence and substance abuse. The Journal of Early Adoles-
cence, 11, 5695. doi:10.1177/0272431691111004.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative t indexes in structural models.
Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238246. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.
107.2.238.
Bentler, P. M. (2008). EQS 6 structural equations program manual.
Encino, CA: Multivariate Software, Inc. (www.mvsoft.com) (in
press).
Bornstein, M. H. (Ed.). (2002). Handbook of parenting. Vol 1:
Children and parenting. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Bornstein, M. H., Hahn, C., Suwalksy, J. T. D., & Haynes, O. M.
(2003). Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child development:
J Youth Adolescence (2010) 39:8495 93
1 3
The Hollingshead four-factor index of social status and the
socioeconomic index of occupations. In M. H. Bornstein & R. H.
Bradley (Eds.), Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child
development (pp. 2982). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Carlo, G., Fabes, R. A., Laible, D., & Kupanoff, K. (1999). Early
adolescence and prosocial/moral behavior II: The role of social
and contextual inuences. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 19,
133147. doi:10.1177/0272431699019002001.
Carlo, G., Hausmann, A., Christiansen, S., & Randall, B. A. (2003).
Sociocognitive and behavioral correlates of a measure of
prosocial tendencies for adolescents. The Journal of Early
Adolescence, 23, 107134. doi:10.1177/0272431602239132.
Carlo, G., McGinley, M., Hayes, R., Batenhorst, C., & Wilkinson, J.
(2007). Parenting styles or practices? parenting, sympathy, and
prosocial behaviors among adolescents. The Journal of Genetic
Psychology, 168, 147176. doi:10.3200/GNTP.168.2.147-176.
Carlo, G., & Randall, B. A. (2002). The development of a measure of
prosocial behaviors for late adolescence. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 31, 3144. doi:10.1023/A:1014033032440.
Cervone, D. (2005). Personality architecture: Within-person struc-
tures and processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 423452.
doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070133.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correla-
tion analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Colby, A., & Damon, W. (1992). Some do care: Contemporary lives
of moral commitment. New York: The Free Press.
Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of
social information-processing mechanisms in childrens social
adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74101. doi:10.1037/
0033-2909.115.1.74.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigeld, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and
goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109132. doi:10.1146/
annurev.psych.53.100901.135153.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2006). Prosocial
development. In W. Damon & R. Lerner (Series Eds.), N.
Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3.
Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp.
646718). New York: Wiley.
Eisenberg, N., & Valiente, C. (2002). Parenting and childrens
prosocial and moral development. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.),
Handbook of parenting: Vol. 5. Practical issues in parenting (2nd
ed., pp. 111142). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Grusec, J. E. (2006). The development of moral behavior and
conscience from a socialization perspective. In M. Killen & J.
Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (pp. 243265).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Grusec, J. E., & Goodnow, J. J. (1994). The impact of parental
discipline methods on childs internalization of values: A
reconceptualization of current points of view. Developmental
Psychology, 30, 419. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.30.1.4.
Hardy, S. A., &Carlo, G. (2005). Adolescent religiosity, prosocial values,
and prosocial behaviors: A mediational analysis. Journal of Moral
Education, 34, 231249. doi:10.1080/03057240500127210.
Hart, D. (2005). The development of moral identity. In G. Carlo & C.
P. Edwards (Eds.), Moral motivation through the lifespan Vol.
51. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. 165196). Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press.
Hitlin, S., & Piliavin, J. A. (2004). Values: Reviving a dormant
concept. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 359393. doi:10.1146/
annurev.soc.30.012703.110640.
Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and moral development: Implica-
tions for caring and justice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Hoyle, R. H. (2000). Conrmatory factor analysis. In H. E. A. Tinsley
& S. D. Brown (Eds.), Handbook of applied multivariate
statistics and mathematical modeling (pp. 465497). San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for t indexes in
covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new
alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 155.
Kochanska, G. (1993). Toward a synthesis of parental socialization
and child temperament in early development. Child Develop-
ment, 64, 325347. doi:10.2307/1131254.
Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive develop-
mental approach to socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.),
Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347480).
Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Kuczynski, L., Marshall, S., & Schell, K. (1997). Value socialization
in a bidirectional context. In J. E. Grusec & L. Kuczynski (Eds.),
Parenting and childrens internalization of values: A handbook
of contemporary theory (pp. 2350). New York: Wiley.
Lapsley, D. (1996). Moral psychology. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Lapsley, D. K., & Narvaez, D. (2004). A social-cognitive approach to
the moral personality. In D. K. Lapsley & D. Narvaez (Eds.),
Moral development, self and identity (pp. 189212). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Lapsley, D. K., & Narvaez, D. (2006). Character education. In W.
Damon & R. Lerner (Series Eds.), K. A. Renninger & I. E. Sigel
(Vol. Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Child
psychology in practice (6th ed.; pp. 248296). New York: Wiley.
Maccoby, E., & Martin, J. (1983). Socialization in the context of the
family: Parentchild interactions. In P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.),
E. M. Hetherington (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology:
Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social development (pp. 1
101). New York: Wiley.
MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediation
analysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 593614.
doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085542.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., &
Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation
and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7,
83104. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.83.
Manstead, A. S. R. (1996). Attitudes and behaviour. In G. R. Semin &
K. Fiedler (Eds.), Applied social psychology (pp. 329).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nederhof, A. J. (1985). Methods of coping with social desirability
bias: A review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15,
263280. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420150303.
Nelson, D. A., & Crick, N. R. (1999). Rose-colored glasses:
Examining the social information-processing of prosocial young
adolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 19, 1738.
doi:10.1177/0272431699019001002.
Noland, R. M., & McCallum, R. S. (2000). A comparison of parent
and teacher ratings of adaptive behavior using a universal
measure. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 18, 3948.
doi:10.1177/073428290001800104.
Padilla-Walker, L. M. (2007). Characteristics of motherchild interac-
tions related to adolescents positive values and behaviors. Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 69, 675686. doi:10.1111/j.1741-
3737.2007.00399.x.
Padilla-Walker, L. M., & Carlo, G. (2004). Its not fair! Adolescents
constructions of appropriateness of parental reactions to antisocial
and prosocial situations. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33,
389401. doi:10.1023/B:JOYO.0000037632.46633.bd.
Padilla-Walker, L. M., & Carlo, G. (2006). Adolescent perceptions of
appropriate parental reactions in moral and conventional social
domains. Social Development, 15, 480500. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9507.2006.00352.x.
94 J Youth Adolescence (2010) 39:8495
1 3
Padilla-Walker, L. M., & Carlo, G. (2007). Personal values as a
mediator between parent and peer expectations and adolescent
behaviors. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 538541. doi:
10.1037/0893-3200.21.3.538.
Padilla-Walker, L. M., Nelson, L. J., Madsen, S., & Barry, C. M.
(2008) The role of perceived parental knowledge on emerging
adults risk behaviors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37,
847859.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and
virtues: A handbook and classication. Washington, D.C:
American Psychological Association.
Pratt, M. W., Hunsberger, B., Pancer, S. M., & Alisat, S. (2003). A
longitudinal analysis of personal value socialization: Correlates
of moral self-ideal in adolescence. Social Development, 12, 563
585. doi:10.1111/1467-9507.00249.
Rohan, M. J. (2000). A rose by any name? the values construct.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 255277. doi:
10.1207/S15327957PSPR0403_4.
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, 749761.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.749.
Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psycholog-
ical structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 53, 550562. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.550.
Sigel, I. E., & McGillicuddy-De Lisi, A. V. (2002). Parental beliefs
are cognitions: The dynamic belief systems model. In M. H.
Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting Vol. 3: Status and social
conditions of parenting (pp. 485508). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Smetana, J. G. (1997). Parenting and the development of social
knowledge reconceptualized: A social domain analysis. In J. E.
Grusec & L. Kuczynski (Eds.), Parenting and childrens
internalization of values: A handbook of contemporary theory
(pp. 162192). New York: Wiley.
Staub, E. (1979). Positive social behavior and morality: Socialization
and development. New York: Academic Press.
Vazire, S. (2006). Informant reports: A cheap, fast, and easy method
for personality assessment. Journal of Research in Personality,
40, 472481. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2005.03.003.
Verplanken, B., & Holland, R. W. (2002). Motivated decision
making: Effects of activation and self-centrality of values on
choices and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 82, 434447. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.3.434.
Wyatt, J. M., & Carlo, G. (2002). What will my parents think?
relations among adolescents expected parental reactions, pro-
social moral reasoning and prosocial and antisocial behaviors.
Journal of Adolescent Research, 17, 646666. doi:10.1177/
074355802237468.
Author Biographies
Sam Hardy is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Psy-
chology at Brigham Young University. He received his Ph.D. in
Developmental Psychology from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
His major research interests include moral development, identity,
religion and spirituality, and internalization of values in adolescence.
Gustavo Carlo is the Carl A. Happold Professor of Psychology in
the Department of Psychology at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
He received his Ph.D. in Developmental Psychology from Arizona
State University. His research interests focus on individual, parenting,
and cultural correlates of positive social and moral behaviors in
children and adolescents.
Scott Roesch is an Associate Professor in the Department of Psy-
chology at San Diego State University. He received his Ph.D. in
Social Psychology from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. His
major research interests include trait-state models of stress and cop-
ing; coping with physical illness, and particularly cancer; cultural,
ethnic, and acculturation differences in stress and coping; cross-ethnic
measurement equivalence; structural equation modeling; and meta-
analysis.
J Youth Adolescence (2010) 39:8495 95
1 3
COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
TITLE: Links Between Adolescents Expected Parental Reactions
and Prosocial Behavioral Tendencies: The Mediating Role
of Prosocial Values
SOURCE: J Youth Adolesc 39 no1 Ja 2010
The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it
is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in
violation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/1573-6601/