Parental Solicitation, Parental Control, and Child Disclosure in Relation to Disruptive Behaviour amongst Immigrant and Native Dutch Adolescents
L. Maas
Universiteit van Amsterdam
Pedagogische wetenschappen en Onderwijskunde Naam: Lisa Maas (10002932)
Onder begeleiding van: H. Creemers
Masterthesis Forensische Orthopedagogiek Amsterdam, 13-07-2016
Abstract
The main aim of the present study was to elucidate the relation between parental solicitation, parental control, and child disclosure with disruptive behaviour amongst immigrant and native Dutch adolescents in the Netherlands. In addition, it was examined whether the relations between the various sources of parental knowledge and disruptive behaviour were equal for native and immigrant adolescents and whether the relations were equal for native and immigrant male and female adolescents. This study reports on immigrant and native Dutch adolescents (N = 374; Mage = 16.52; SD = 0.80; 53.3% female; 81.1% immigrant background) who participated in the i4culture study. Data were collected through self-report questionnaires and analyzed using multiple linear regression models. Results indicate a strong negative relation between child disclosure and disruptive behaviour, and no interaction effects for ethnic background or gender, which indicates that found relationships are equal for native and immigrant adolescents and for native and immigrant male and female adolescents. This implies that existing prevention and intervention protocols based on the reduction of disruptive behaviour do not need to differentiate in their approach between native and immigrant populations or between native and immigrant male and female adolescents.
Keywords: parental solicitation, parental control, child disclosure, disruptive
Parental solicitation, parental control, and child disclosure in relation to disruptive behaviour amongst immigrant and native Dutch adolescents
An important developmental task for adolescents is to achieve autonomy and identity (Rigter, 2013). Although adolescents tend to show some mildly difficult behaviours in their quest for autonomy, it is worrisome when these behaviours worsen and get a persistent character (Bongers, Koot, Van der Ende, & Verhulst, 2008; Rigter, 2013). The present study focuses on behaviours within an externalizing frame. Externalizing behaviour is
conceptualized as behavioural problems displayed as outward conduct and acting in negative ways towards the external environment (Eisenberg et al., 2001). These behavioural problems can range from rule breaking behaviours to aggression and delinquency (Rigter, 2013). Externalizing behaviour is, among other things, expressed in tantrums, aggressive behaviour, rebellious behaviour, bullying, antisocial behaviour, and delinquency (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). The DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association, 2013) distinguishes three externalizing disorders: attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), and conduct disorder (CD). All three disorders develop before the age of eighteen. The present study focuses on oppositional defiant and conduct behaviours, together known as disruptive behaviour. Adolescents with persistent disruptive behaviours have an increased risk for delinquency, psychopathology, and other deviant outcomes when they reach adulthood (Bongers et al., 2008). Because of these severe possible outcomes it is necessary to research the risk factors of disruptive behaviour. This yields knowledge that can be used to review, enhance, and possibly improve existing prevention and intervention protocols. The present study focuses on parental knowledge in relation to disruptive behaviour. Several studies have found lower levels of externalizing behaviour in relation to higher levels of parental knowledge (Marceau et al., 2015; Reitz, Prinzie, Decović, & Buist, 2007). In their quest for autonomy, adolescents will increasingly spend time without the supervision of their
parents, causing them to more or less break away from the parental nest as it existed in their childhood (Keijser, 2010; Rigter, 2013). If not from direct supervision, how do parents get knowledge about their children, their whereabouts and their activities? Literature describes three potential sources of parental knowledge: parental solicitation, parental control, and child disclosure (Kerr & Stattin, 2000; Stattin & Kerr, 2000). Parental solicitation and parental control are active parental efforts, and consist of ways to track the whereabouts and activities of children, doing so in an active way (Kerr & Stattin, 2000). Parental solicitation is the active gathering of information about the child’s activities by asking the child itself, and having contact with their friends and their friends’ parents (Kerr & Stattin, 2000). Parental control is the controlling of the child’s freedom to do as they please, by letting children need permission for activities first or making children explain afterwards what they have been up to (Kerr & Stattin, 2000). Parental solicitation and parental control are operationalized as two distinct parental monitoring behaviours (Keijsers, 2010; Kerr & Stattin, 2000; Stattin & Kerr, 2000). These active parental efforts may provide leads for prevention and treatment of disruptive behaviour problems among adolescents. Beside the parental sources to gain parental knowledge, child disclosure is another important source of parental knowledge. Child disclosure is initiated by children and includes the children’s own willing and spontaneous disclosure of information to their parents (Kerr & Stattin, 2000). Compared to parental solicitation and parental control, child disclosure is found to be the main source of parental knowledge (Keijsers, Branje, Van der Valk, & Meeus, 2010; Stattin & Kerr, 2010). When the various sources of parental knowledge (parental solicitation, parental control, and child disclosure) are linked to adolescents’ externalizing behaviour, it appears that child disclosure is negatively linked to adolescents’ delinquency (Kerr & Stattin, 2000; Stattin & Kerr, 2000) and influences externalizing behaviour problems as much as, if not more than, parental monitoring behaviours (Keijsers, 2010; Stattin & Kerr, 2000). This suggests that during
adolescence active parental efforts to obtain knowledge may be less important than assumed (Keijsers et al., 2010). However, when adolescents spend more time unsupervised, parental solicitation is assumed to have the most important relation with antisocial behaviour (Laird, Marrero, & Sentse, 2010). Because of the links with externalizing behaviour, it is important to not only research parental knowledge or the active parental efforts to gain parental
knowledge, but also child disclosure.
The existing literature on parental solicitation, parental control, and child disclosure in relation to disruptive behaviour among adolescents shows in general an underrepresentation of immigrants. The present study aims to contribute to the improvement of prevention and intervention protocols of disruptive behaviour, and if found necessary to the cultural attuning of these protocols. In general, levels of parental solicitation and parental control differ between various ethnic groups. For instance, when looking at parental control in the Netherlands, immigrant parents deviate from native Dutch parents by using more
authoritarian forms of parental control (Nijsten, 2000; Pels & De Gruijter, 2005; Wissink, 2006). Although there are notable differences within each ethnic group, existing literature indicates that on average the difference in parental control between immigrant and native Dutch parents seems to focus around the occurrence of more authoritarian control in
immigrant families (Pels, Distelbrink, & Postma, 2009). The same study found lower levels of parental supervision in immigrant families compared to native Dutch families (Pels et al., 2009). A different study found lower reported levels of parental solicitation among immigrant adolescents compared to native Dutch adolescents, and no significant differences on levels of parental control and child disclosure between immigrant and native adolescents (Delforterie et al., 2016). The finding that immigrant and native adolescents report equivalent levels of child disclosure corresponds to other research on sources of parental knowledge among immigrant populations in the Netherlands (Deković,Wissink, & Meijer, 2004; Wissink, Deković, &
Meijer, 2006). Besides differences in levels of parental solicitation and parental control, there are indications that the associations between sources of parental knowledge and disruptive behaviour differ as well between native and immigrant samples. The cultural-ecological model (Ogbu, 1981) suggests that it is possible ethnic differences exist in the influence of aspects of the parent-child interaction on maladaptive behaviours. Although native and immigrant parents have similar goals for their children, they may use different strategies to achieve these goals (Ogbu, 1981). This could indicate that the associations between parental solicitation, parental control and disruptive behaviour differs between native and immigrant families. For example, an authoritarian parenting strategy as well as an authoritative parenting strategy may have different effects in western and non-western immigrant families (Kotchick & Forehand, 2002). Authoritarian parenting, which is high in control, may be related to positive outcomes in non-western immigrant families, but not in native families, and vice versa for authoritative parenting (Kotchnick & Forehand, 2002). It has been suggested that it is possible that parental control, including authoritarian parenting, is negatively related to warmth and support in native Dutch families, but positively related to warmth and support in immigrant families (Pels et al., 2009). This assumed relation suggests that it is plausible that parental control may relate differently to externalizing behaviour among immigrant and native Dutch adolescents, but further research is needed (Pels et al., 2009).
In contrast to the cultural-ecological model, the no group differences hypothesis (Rowe, Vazsonyi, & Flannery, 1994) indicates that although mean levels of traits may differ, the associations between these traits are similar between native and immigrant groups. Since all members of a society are exposed to the same factors within that society, the associations are not expected to differ based on culturally specific environmental experiences (Rowe et al., 1994). This is in line with previous studies that found supporting results for similar relations between parenting practices and various adolescent outcomes (Amato & Fowler, 2002;
Delforterie et al., 2016; Steinberg, Lamborn, Darling, Mounts, & Dornbusch, 1994; Wissink et al., 2006), including disruptive behaviour (Eichelsheim et al., 2010).
In addition to potential differences between immigrant and native Dutch adolescents in the associations of the sources of parental knowledge with disruptive behaviour, it is also unknown whether the associations between sources of parental knowledge and disruptive behaviour vary between immigrant and native male and female adolescents. In general, adolescent boys and girls differ in the relationships with their parents, as well in their problem behaviour (Keijsers, Frijns, Branje, & Meeus, 2009). Also, levels of parental knowledge are generally higher for female than for male adolescents (Reitz et al., 2007). Furthermore, lower levels of child disclosure are associated with higher levels of delinquency for boys when compared to girls (Finkenauer, Engels, & Meeus, 2002; Mofitt & Caspi, 2001). Lower levels of child disclosure can cause male adolescents to be more exposed to (deviant) peers and therefore show higher levels of disruptive behaviour (Reitz et al., 2007). Specific literature on gender differences describes some dissimilarities between the upbringing of male and female adolescents in immigrant and native Dutch families. The upbringing of male and female adolescents differs considerably in the native countries of the immigrant families (Pels et al., 2009). For instance, it seems that within immigrant families especially male adolescents have a relatively high degree of freedom among peers, and are overall less supervised (Pels et al., 2009). On average, immigrant parents use less parental monitoring on their sons than native Dutch parents (Junger, Terlouw, & Van der Heijden, 1995; Stevens, Vollebergh, Pels, & Crijnen, 2006). Although migration to the Netherlands has caused some changes in the gender-specific upbringing, immigrant parents continue to differentiate in the upbringing of their sons and daughters (Pels et al., 2009). In previous research immigrant females reported higher levels of parental control, but lower levels of parental solicitation and child disclosure than native Dutch females (Delforterie et al., 2016). No differences were found in sources of
parental knowledge between native and immigrant males. Despite these clear sex differences, literature suggests that the associations between parental solicitation, parental control, child disclosure and delinquency are similar for adolescent males and females (Kerr & Stattin, 2000; Soenens, Vansteenkiste, Luyckx, & Goossens, 2006; Waizenhofer, Buchanan, & Jackson-Newsom, 2004). In addition, when looking at adolescent gender differences,
associations between parents’ and adolescents’ behaviours were similar for male and female adolescents, which indicates that in spite of mean level differences in parenting, child
disclosure, and delinquency, underlying processes are similar for male and female adolescents (Keijsers et al., 2010). Whether these findings hold true for immigrant samples has yet to be investigated.
The present study is conducted in the Netherlands, a country known for its
multicultural composition, and focuses on native and immigrant adolescents from the five largest ethnic groups in the Netherlands (Dijkstra, Delforterie, Huizink, & Creemers, 2015). The Surinamese, Antilleans, and Indonesian-Asians were already familiarized with the Dutch culture and language because they were part of former Dutch colonies. This in contrast to the Moroccans, Turks and Chinese-Asians, who were less familiar with the Dutch culture and language because they immigrated to the Netherlands for economic reasons later in time. The main aim of this study is to elucidate the relation between various sources of parental
knowledge and disruptive behaviour amongst immigrant and native Dutch adolescents in the Netherlands. First, it will be researched whether there is a relation between parental
solicitation, parental control, and child disclosure and disruptive behaviour. Based on the existing literature it is hypothesized that particularly child disclosure, rather than parental solicitation and control, is negatively associated with disruptive behaviour. The second aim is to examine whether the relation between the various sources of parental knowledge and disruptive behaviour is equal for native and immigrant adolescents. It is expected that child
disclosure is negatively related to disruptive behaviour in both native and immigrant adolescents. Since literature on associations between parental solicitation, parental control, and child disclosure in relation to disruptive behaviour is inconclusive about ethnic
differences, directional hypotheses will not be established. Nevertheless, the suggestion that is plausible that parental control relates differently to externalizing behaviour among immigrant and native Dutch adolescents will be taken into account. Lastly, it will be examined whether the relation between various sources of parental knowledge and disruptive behaviour is equal for native and immigrant male and female adolescents. Although literature indicates similar associations between sources of parental knowledge and disruptive behaviour for male and female adolescents in a native population, these associations need to be researched in immigrant populations.
Method Participants
The research questions were analyzed in the existing dataset from the Dutch i4culture study (Dijkstra et al., 2015). Recruitment in the i4culture study resulted in 2156 (15-24 years old) participants who gave informed consent. Thirty participants in this group could not be contacted or did not get approval from their parents to continue their participation in the study, resulting in sending the self-report questionnaire to 2126 participants. Of these 2126 participants, 989 participants completed the self-report questionnaire. The present study focuses on younger adolescents, since only they filled in questions about sources of parental knowledge. From the 989 participants, 399 participants filled in the questionnaire aimed at 15-17 year olds. The data of 11 participants who were older than 18, but who filled in the questionnaire targeted at 15-17 year olds, were omitted from the dataset. Lastly, because of the focus on non-Western immigrants, the 14 immigrant youths with Western backgrounds were excluded. This resulted in a sample of 374 participants.
The present study reports on these 374 Dutch adolescent participants (age range 13.89 – 17.97, Mage = 16.52, SD = 0.80, 53.3% female, 81.1% immigrant background) from
Surinamese (n = 71, 19%), Moroccan (n = 78, 20.8%), Turkish (n = 39, 10.4%), Antillean (n = 32, 8.6%), Asian (n = 45, 12%), native Dutch (n = 68, 18.2%) or combined/other ethnic non-western (n = 41, 11%) backgrounds. Participants from other ethnic non-western
backgrounds originate from Congo, Iran, Afghanistan, Egypt, Pakistan, Thailand, and India. Ethnic background was determined by country of birth of the participant, or (one of) their parents, or both grandparents from one side of the family. All participants live in or around the most urban area in the Netherlands, known as the Randstad.
In the sample, gender was distributed equally across immigrant and native Dutch participants (χ²(1) = 0.71, p > .05). Average age did not differ between immigrant and native Dutch adolescents (t(363) = -0.30, p >.05). Immigrant participants did significantly differ in religiousness (77.5% was religiously affiliated) compared to native Dutch participants (11.8% was religiously affiliated; χ²(1) = 107.26, p < .001). Also, immigrant participants were often lower educated (59.5%) than native Dutch participants (30.9%; χ²(1) = 18.39, p < .001). Procedure
Participants from the i4culture study were recruited by research assistants and trained students at high schools, youth organizations, on the streets, and by asking participants to invite their peers to participate as well. If the approached adolescents were interested in participating in the study, they were either sent an email with directions to an online questionnaire, were sent a printed questionnaire by regular mail or completed the
questionnaires in their classrooms. All participants in the present study gave informed consent and had parental approval to participate. All data were collected via self-reports. When
participants completed the questionnaire they received a gift voucher (with a maximum value of €15,-).
Measures
Disruptive behaviour. To measure disruptive behaviour, the DSM-oriented scale from
the Youth Self Report (YSR), developed by Achenbach (1991), was used. The present study reports α = 0.81 for the Disruptive behaviour scale. This scale consists of 20 items (e.g., I do not stick to the rules, at home, at school, or anywhere else) and is composed of the DSM-oriented scales Oppositional Defiant Problems and Conduct Problems (Achenbach, Dumenci, & Rescorla, 2003). The Oppositional Defiant Problem scale consists of 5 items (e.g., I am disobedient at school) and the Conduct Problems scale consists of 15 items (e.g., I do not feel guilty when I did something I should not have done). Response options for all items ranged from (0) not true to (2) very true or often true. Mean scores for the Disruptive Behaviour Scale were calculated.
To measure various sources of parental knowledge, including parental solicitation,
parental control, and child disclosure as perceived by the adolescent, scales developed by
Kerr and Stattin (2000; Stattin & Kerr, 2000) were used. Each source of parental knowledge was measured separately for mother and father, with six items for each subscale per parent. To check if all items had satisfactory loadings on the three subscales factor analyses were conducted. The factor analyses showed that the items of all three subscales had satisfactory loadings in both the immigrant and total sample. In both samples all components loaded higher than .40, and had four or more loadings above .60, or had at least three loadings above .80, which indicated all three sources as reliable factors and resulted in maintaining all six items per source of parental knowledge (Van Peet, 2007). Mean item scores were calculated and since the data about mother and father on all three sources of parental knowledge
correlated highly in both the immigrant sample and the total sample (correlations ranged from 0.68 to 0.81), scores pertaining to maternal and paternal sources of parental knowledge were
averaged. The averaged mean item scores resulted in the three separate subscales parental solicitation, parental control, and child disclosure.
Parental solicitation. This source of parental knowledge is conceptualized by Kerr &
Stattin (2000) as the gathering of information about the child’s activities in an active way by asking the child itself, and having contact with their friends and their friends’ parents (e.g., During last month, has your father/mother talked to the parents of your friends?). Response options for parental solicitation ranged from (1) never to (5) always. In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha for the subscale parental solicitation is α = 0.84 for both the immigrant sample and the total sample.
Parental control is the controlling of the child’s freedom to do as they please (Kerr &
Stattin, 2000). Parental control was measured with six items (e.g., Do you need permission from your father/mother to stay out late on a weeknight?) and had an additional response option besides the 1-5 scale: (6) I do not do this. The additional response option was coded as missing in the data. The present study reports α = 0.87 on the subscale parental control in the immigrant sample and α = 0.86 in the total sample.
Child disclosure is the child’s unconstrained and willing disclosure of information to
its parents (Kerr & Stattin, 2000). The level of child disclosure was measured with six items (e.g., Do you keep many secrets from your father/mother about your activities during your free time?) . Response options for child disclosure ranged from (1) never to (5) always. The present study reports α = 0.78 for the subscale child disclosure for both the immigrant and the total sample.
Covariates. Age (continuous), education (0 = low or no education, 1 = average or high
education), and religiousness (0 = not religious, 1 = religious) were measured by self-report and included as covariates to account for their influence on the association between the sources of parental knowledge and disruptive behaviour.
Analysis plan
Statistical analyses were performed using the Statistical Package of Social Sciences (SPSS, version 22) for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). For descriptive purposes, means and standard deviations (SD) of disruptive behaviour and the various sources of parental knowledge were calculated, overall and for native and immigrant adolescents separately. In addition, differences between native and immigrant adolescents were tested using t-tests. Furthermore, correlations between the variables were calculated, for natives and immigrant adolescents separately. Then the main research questions were examined. First, it was tested if there is a relation between the sources of parental knowledge (parental solicitation, parental control, and child disclosure) and disruptive behaviour with a multiple linear regression model. The covariates religiosity, education, and age were added to the model. Second, to test if there are differences between immigrant and native Dutch participants in the associations between the sources of parental knowledge and disruptive behaviour, a second multiple regression analyses was performed. In step 1 of the analysis all main effects, including ethnicity, were tested. In step 2 of the analysis interaction effects (source*ethnicity) were examined. Lastly, to see if the relations between the various sources of parental knowledge and disruptive behaviour are equal for male and female immigrant versus native adolescents, a third multiple regression analysis was performed. In this analysis, all main effects, including gender, were added in step 1. In step 2, interaction effects (source*ethnicity) were examined. In step 3, three way interactions (source*ethnicity*gender) were added to the regression model.
Results Descriptive information
As shown in Table 1, native Dutch adolescents scored significantly higher on
parental knowledge (Table 1), native Dutch adolescents reported significantly higher levels of parental solicitation, while immigrant adolescents reported significantly higher levels of parental control. No difference was found for child disclosure. The correlations between the constructs for the immigrant and native sample are presented in Table 2. In both samples, the three sources of parental knowledge correlated positively (p = < 0.01 on all correlations, except for the correlation between child disclosure and parental control in the native sample, where p = < 0.05). In the immigrant sample, parental solicitation and child disclosure had strong negative correlations with disruptive behaviour. In the native sample this only holds true for child disclosure.
Associations between sources of parental knowledge and disruptive behaviour Results of the relation between the various sources of parental knowledge and
disruptive behaviour are presented in Table 3. To test the independent contribution of each of the sources of parental knowledge, main effects of the various sources of parental knowledge were tested, while taking religiosity, education, and age into account. Results show that child disclosure had a strong negative relation with disruptive behaviour (β = - 0.44, p = < .001). Parental solicitation had a significant positive relation with disruptive behaviour (β = 0.14, p = < .05). No significant results were found for parental control in relation to disruptive
behaviour.
To test the contribution of ethnicity, the main effect of ethnicity was added to a second regression model, which showed no significant relation with disruptive behaviour (β = - 0.11,
p = 0.07). In the next step, interaction effects of sources of parental knowledge*ethnicity were
added to the model. As shown in Table 3, the interaction effects with ethnicity were not significant, indicating that the associations between sources of parental knowledge and disruptive behaviour are not different for native and immigrant adolescents.
To test if the relation between various sources of parental knowledge and disruptive behaviour is equal for native and immigrant male and female adolescents, a third multiple regression analysis was performed. First, gender was added as a main effect to the regression model, which showed no significant relation with disruptive behaviour (β = 0.06, p = 0.27). In addition to source*ethnicity interactions, three way interactions of sources of parental
knowledge*ethnicity*gender were added to the regression model. As presented in Table 3, the three way interactions were not significant, indicating that the associations between sources of parental knowledge and disruptive behaviour are equal for native and immigrant male and female adolescents.
Discussion
The main aim of the present study was to elucidate the relation between parental solicitation, parental control, and child disclosure with disruptive behaviour amongst immigrant and native Dutch adolescents in the Netherlands. In addition, it was examined whether the relations between the various sources of parental knowledge and disruptive behaviour were equal for native and immigrant adolescents and whether the relations were equal for native and immigrant male and female adolescents.
The first hypothesis predicted that particularly child disclosure, rather than parental solicitation and parental control, would be negatively associated with disruptive behaviour. In accordance with existing literature, results showed that child disclosure has indeed a strong negative relation with disruptive behaviour (Keijsers, 2010; Kerr & Stattin, 2000; Stattin & Kerr, 2000). In other words, children who disclose more seem to show less disruptive behaviour. This could possibly be explained by the quality of the parent-child relationship, whereby child disclosure is an indicator of the quality. The quality of the parent-child relationship seems more important than parenting behaviours when looking at adolescent outcomes like aggressive and delinquent behaviour (Wissink et al., 2006). This could explain
the result that child disclosure shows the strongest negative relation with disruptive behaviour, compared to parenting behaviours like parental solicitation and parental control. Since the present study is based on a cross-sectional design, no conclusions regarding causality can be made. Thus, it is also possible that adolescents who show disruptive behaviour are less likely to self-disclose. In contrast to expectations, a small but significant positive relation was found for parental solicitation and disruptive behaviour. This is a surprising finding, since no
relation was found in the univariate analysis for the native sample and a negative relation was found for the immigrant sample. This indicates the presence of a suppressor effect
(Delforterie et al., 2016): when excluding child disclosure and parental control, parental solicitation was not related to substance use, while interaction effects did show a relation between parental solicitation and substance use. It is plausible that in the present study a similar suppressor effect exists. This could mean that only when child disclosure is included, a positive relation will be found for parental solicitation and disruptive behaviour. McNemar (1945) addresses the paradoxical quality associated with a suppressor in that it is possible to increase prediction with a variable (in this study parental solicitation) that has a negative correlation with the dependent variable (disruptive behaviour), provided there is a high correlation with another variable (child disclosure) that does have correlation with the dependent variable. In addition to this, a longitudinal study conducted in the Netherlands showed that child disclosure is intertwined with parental solicitation (Keijsers et al., 2010), which possibly supports the existence of a suppressor effect. It is also a possibility that the moment parents notice an increase in disruptive behaviour in their adolescents, they use more parental solicitation to obtain knowledge about their whereabouts and activities. The finding that the relation between parental control and disruptive behaviour is not significant, suggests that during adolescence active parental efforts (like parental control) to obtain knowledge may be indeed less important than assumed (Keijsers et al., 2010).
The second hypothesis was based on the aim concerning possible differences in the associations between sources of parental knowledge and disruptive behaviour among native and immigrant adolescents. Although differences were observed between native and
immigrant Dutch adolescents in mean levels of disruptive behaviour, parental solicitation, and parental control, the associations between sources of parental knowledge and disruptive behaviour are equal for immigrant and native Dutch adolescents. These findings support the no group differences hypothesis (Rowe et al., 1994) and are in line with previous research regarding sources of parental knowledge and externalizing behaviour in immigrant samples (Amato & Fowler, 2002; Eichelsheim et al., 2010; Steinberg, Lamborn, Darling, Mounts, & Dornbusch, 1994; Wissink et al., 2006). No support was found for the cultural-ecological model (Ogbu, 1981) or for the suggestion that parental control may relate differently to externalizing behaviour among immigrant and native Dutch adolescents. These findings indicate that parental strategies are similar between native and immigrant parents and that culturally specific environmental experiences do not cause differences in the associations between sources of parental knowledge and disruptive behaviour. In addition, it was predicted that child disclosure would be negatively related to disruptive behaviour in both the native and immigrant sample. The finding that native and immigrant adolescents reported equivalent levels of child disclosure corresponds to previous research on sources of parental knowledge among immigrant populations in the Netherlands, where child disclosure is related to
disruptive behaviour in both native and immigrant samples (Delforterie et al., 2016; Pels et al., 2009; Wissink, Deković, & Meijer, 2006; Deković, Wissink, & Meijer, 2004). Besides equivalent levels of child disclosure, research also reveals that adolescents from different cultural backgrounds generally disclose for similar reasons and in similar patterns (Hunter, Barber, Olsen, McNeely, & Bose, 2011).
The third and final hypothesis concerned the role of gender in the relation between various sources of parental knowledge and disruptive behaviour amongst native and immigrant male and female adolescents. Since findings indicated a similar relationship for native and immigrant male and female adolescents, no influence of gender seems to be apparent. The finding that there are no overall gender differences corresponds to the suggestion that the associations between parenting practices, adolescent disclosure, and delinquency are similar for adolescent males and females (Keijsers et al., 2010; Kerr & Stattin, 2000; Soenens et al., 2006; Waizenhofer et al., 2004). The present study also found these results for disruptive behaviour in an immigrant sample, which is a considerable contribution to the existing body of literature.
Although the present study granted valuable findings, the study has several limitations that need discussion. First, an important limitation is the cross-sectional design of the
i4culture study. By using a cross-sectional design, differentiating cause and effect from simple association is not possible and no remarks about causal relationships can be made (Mann, 2003). Second, since all participants originated from an urban background, it is
questionable whether the results can be generalized to different (more rural) populations in the Netherlands. Third, all data in this study are based on self report measures, which are subject to recall bias and are possibly influenced by social desirability (Fan et al., 2006). Fourth, the analysis of the last research question required splitting the sample in such way that some groups ended up having a relatively small sample size, which can cause Power issues. Lastly, the Disruptive Behaviour Scale that was used in this study is based on the DSM-IV, which is not the newest DSM version available. Although the scale is based on this older version of the DSM, it is supposed not to be a problem for interpretation, because the classification of oppositional behaviour, conduct problems, and therefore disruptive behaviour is very similar in the newest DSM, the DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association, 2013).
In conclusion, compared to parental solicitation and parental control, child disclosure seems to have the strongest association with disruptive behaviour. Higher levels of child disclosure resulted in lower levels of disruptive behaviour and elevated levels of parental solicitation resulted in a small increase in disruptive behaviour. No significant associations were found for the relation between parental control and disruptive behaviour. This study showed that the relation of parental solicitation, parental control, and child disclosure with disruptive behaviour does not differ between immigrant and native Dutch adolescents and is similar between male and female immigrant and native adolescents.
Above discussion outlines some implications that should be taken into account. First and foremost it is necessary to acknowledge the importance of child disclosure in relation to disruptive behaviour. Because of its strong relation with lower levels of disruptive behaviour, it is essential to stimulate child disclosure among adolescents. Whether enhancing child disclosure among adolescents is an effective strategy in reducing disruptive behaviour should be a topic for future research. Previous research puts emphasis on the relational side of parenting when it comes to adolescents’ willingness to self-disclose (Kerr & Stattin, 2003). In addition, it seems that parental responsiveness is a strong predictor of adolescents’
self-disclosure (Soenens et al., 2006). Apparently, if parents are able to organize a warm, understanding, and personal relationship with their adolescents, this results in more self-disclosure from adolescents (Soenens et al., 2006). This indicates that parents can use strategies to influence the amount of child disclosure of their adolescents (Tilton-Weaver et al., 2010). Thus, prevention and intervention protocols need not only focus on the adolescent and the improvement of their disclosure, but also on teaching their parents to provide
structure, apply proper levels of behavioural control and develop a trusting and nonintrusive parent-child relationship (Crouter & Head, 2002; Soenens et al., 2006). It is recommended that future research focuses on the development and effectiveness of methods aimed at
stimulating adolescent self-disclosure and previously mentioned parental strategies and characteristics. It is important to explore how child disclosure can be encouraged in
adolescents and how parents can play an optimal part in this process. Since the present study used a cross-sectional design, it is recommended future research consists of a longitudinal setting with cross lagged designs (Soenens et al., 2006). This design would be ideally suited to reveal reciprocal causal relations among parenting, adolescent self-disclosure, and problem behaviours (Soenens et al., 2006). To conclude, no differences were found for sources of parental knowledge in relation to disruptive behaviour between native and immigrant
adolescents, which implies that existing prevention and intervention protocols do not need to differentiate in their approach between native and immigrant populations. Additionally, since there is no evidence for a main effect on the relation of gender with disruptive behaviour, and the relations between sources of parental knowledge and disruptive behaviour are equal for native and immigrant male and female adolescents, there also seems to be no need to
differentiate on this account in interventions based on the reduction of disruptive behaviour. To emphasize, the present study as well as previous studies, indicate that family processes that affect adolescent development show high universality across gender and ethnicity (Eichelsheim et al., 2010; Vazsonyi, Trejos-Castillo, & Huang, 2006).
References
Achenbach,T. M., Dumenci, L., & Rescorla,L. A. (2003). DSM-Oriented and empirically based approaches to constructing scales from the same item pools. Journal of Clinical Child
and Adolescent Psychology, 32, 328-340. doi:10.1207/S15374424JCCP3203_02
Amato, P. R. & Fowler, F. (2002). Parenting practices, child adjustment, and family diversity.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 703-716. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00703.x
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.
Bongers, I. L., Koot, H. M., Ende, J. van der, & Verhulst, F. C. (2008). Predicting Young adult social functioning from developmental trajectories of externalizing behaviour.
Psychological Medicine, 38, 989-999. doi:10.1017/S0033291707002309
Crouter, A. C., & Head, M. R. (2002). Parental monitoring and knowledge of children. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 3. Being and becoming a parent (2nd ed., pp. 461–483). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Deković, M., Wissink, I. B., & Meijer, A. M. (2004). The role of family and peer relations in adolescent antisocial behaviour: Comparison of four ethnic groups. Journal of
Adolescence, 27, 497-514.
Delforterie, M. J., Verweij, K. J. H., Creemers, H. E., Lier, van, P. A. C., Koot., H. M., Branje, S. J. T., & Huizink, A. C. (2016). Parental solicitation, parental control, child
disclosure, and substance use: Native and immigrant Dutch adolescents. Ethnicity &
Health, 30-12-2015, 1-16. doi: 10.1080/13557858.2015.1126562
Dijkstra, S., Delforterie, M. J., Huizink, A. C., & Creemers, H. E. (2015). The i4culture study: An overview of study design, recruitment and sample charachteristics (Manuscript). Eichelsheim, V. I., Buist, K. L., Deković, M., Wissink, I. B., Frijns, T., Van Lier, P. A. C., …
aggression and delincuency in different ethnic groups: A replication across two Dutch samples. Social Pyschiatry and Pyschiatric Epidemiology, 45, 293-300. doi:
10.1007/s00127-009-0071-z
Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., Spinrad, T. L., Fabes, R. A., Shepard, S. A., Reiser, M., & Guthrie, I. K. (2001). The relations of regulation and emotionaility to children’s externalizing and internalizing problem behavior. Child Development, 72, 1112-1134. Fan, X., Miller, B. C., Park, K-E., Winward, B. W., Christensen, M., Grotevant, H. D., & Tai,
R. H. (2006). An exploratory study about inaccuracy and invalidity in adolescent self-report surveys. Field Methods, 18, 223-244. doi: 10.1177/152822X06289161
Finkenauer, C., Engels, R. C. M. E., & Meeus, W. (2002). Keeping secrets from parents: Advantages and disadventages of secrecy in adolescence. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 31, 123-136.
Hunter, S. B., Barber, B. K., Olsen, J. A., McNeely, C. A., & Bose, K. (2011). Adolescents’ self-disclosure to parents across cultures: Who discloses and why. Journal of
Adolscent Research, 26, 447-478. doi: 10.1177/0743558411402334
Junger, M., Terlouw, G. J., & Heijden, P. G. M. van der (1995). Crime, accidents and social control. Criminal Behavior and Mental Health, 5, 386-410.
Keijsers, L. G. M. T. (2010). Does your mother know? Parent-child communication about adolescent daily activities. Utrecht University (Dissertation).
Keijsers, L., Branje, S. J. T., Van der Valk, I., & Meeus, W. (2010). Reciprocal effects between parental solicitation, parental control, adolescent disclosure and adolescent
delinquency. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20, 88-113.
Keijsers, L., Frijns, T., Branje, S. J. T., & Meeus, W. (2009). Developmental links among parenting practices, adolescent disclosure, and delinquency: Moderation by parental support. Developmental Psychology, 45, 1314-1327.
Kerr, M. & Stattin, H. (2000). What parents know, how they know it, and several forms of adolescent adjustment: Further support for a reinterpretation of monitoring.
Developmental Psychology, 36, 366-380. doi:10.1037//0012-1649.36.3.366
Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2003). Parenting of adolescents: Action or reaction? In A. Booth & A. Crouter (Eds.), Children's influence on family dynamics: The neglected side of family
relationships (pp. 121–151). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kotchick, B. A. & Forehand, R. (2002). Putting parenting in perspective: A discussion of the contextual factors that shape parenting practices. Journal of Child and Family Studies,
11, 255-269.
Laird, R. D., Marrero, M. D., & Sentse, M. (2010). Revisiting parental monitoring: Evidence that parental solicitation can be effective when needed most. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 39, 1431-1441.
Mann, C. J. (2003). Observational research methods. Research design II: Cohort, cross sectional, and case-control studies. Emergency Medicine Journal, 20, 54-60. doi: 10.1136/emj.20.1.54
Marceau, K., Narusyte, J., Lichtenstein, P., Ganiban, J. M., Spotts, E. L., Reiss, D., & Neiderhiser, J. M. (2015). Parental knowledge is an environmental influence on adolescent externalizing. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 56, 130-137. doi:10.1111/jcpp.12288
McNemar, J. (1945). The mode of operation of suppressant variables. American Journal of
Psychology, 58, 554-555.
Moffitt, T. E., & Caspi, A., (2001). Childhood predictors differentiate life-course persistent and adolescent-limited antisocial pathways among males and females. Development and
Nijsten, C. (2000). Opvoedingsgedrag. In. T. Pels (red.), Opvoeding en integratie. Een
vergelijkende studie van recente onderzoeken naar gezinsopvoeding en pedagogische afstemming tussen gezin en school (pp. 56-88). Assen: Van Gorcum.
Ogbu, J. U. (1981). Origins of human competence: A cultural-ecological perspective. Child
Development, 52, 413-429.
Peet, A. A. J. van (2007). Principale componentenanalyse. In: A. A. J. van Peet. Syllabus
geavanceerde analysetechnieken (pp. 81-94). Amsterdam: Universiteit van
Amsterdam.
Pels, T., Distelbrink, M., & Postma, L. (2009). Opvoeding in de migratiecontext. Review van
onderzoek naar de opvoeding in gezinnen van nieuwe Nederlanders. Utrecht:
Verwey-Jonker Instituut.
Pels, T., & Gruijter, M. de (red.) (2005). Vluchtelingengezinnen en Integratie. Opvoeding en
ondersteuning in Iraanse, Irakese, Somalische en Afghaanse gezinnen in Nederland.
Assen: Van Gorcum.
Reitz, E., Prinzie, P., Decović, M., & Buist, K. L. (2007). The role of peer contacts in the relationship between parental knowledge and adolescents’externalizing behaviours: A latent growth curve modelling approach. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 623-634. doi: 10.1007/s10964-006-9150-6
Rigter, J. (2013). Handboek ontwikkelingspsychopathologie bij kinderen en jeugdigen. Bussum: Uitgeverij Couthino.
Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Luyckx, K, & Goossens, L. (2006). Parenting and adolescent problem behavior: An integrated model with adolescent self-disclosure and perceived parental knowledge as intervening variables. Developmental Psychology, 42, 305-318. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.42.2.305
Stattin, H. & Kerr, M. (2000). Parental monitoring: A reinterpretation. Child Development, 71, 1072-1085. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00210
Steinberg, L, Lamborn, S. D., Darling, N., Mounts, N. S., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1994). Over-time changes in adjustment and competence among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 65, 754-770. doi:10.2307/1131416
Stevens, G. W. J. M., Vollebergh, W. A. M., Pels, T. V. M., & Crijnen, A. A. M. (2007). Parenting and internalizing and externalizing problems in Moroccan immigrant youth in the Netherlands. Journal of Youth and Adolesence, 36, 685-695. doi:
10.1007/s10964-006-9112-z
Tilton-Weaver, L., Kerr, M., Pakalniskeine, V., Tokic, A., Salihovic, S., & Stattin, H. (2010). Open up or close down: How do parental reactions affect youth information
management? Journal of Adolescence, 33, 333-346.
Vazsonyi, A., Trejos-Castillo, E., & Huang, L. (2006). Are developmental processes affected by immigration? Family processes, internalizing behaviors, and externalizing
behaviors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35, 795-809. doi: 10.1007/s10964-006-9104-z
Waizenhofer, R. N., Buchanan, C. M., & Jackson-Newsom, J. (2004). Mothers’ and fathers’ knowledge of adolescents’ daily activities: Its sources and its links with adolescent adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 348-360.
Wissink, I. B. (2006). Parenting, friendship relations and adolescent functioning in different
ethnic groups. Amsterdam: Research Institute Child Development and Education (PhD
Wissink, I. B., Deković, M., & Meijer, A. M. (2006). Parenting behavior, quality of the parent-adolescent relationship, and parent-adolescent functioning in four ethnic groups. The Journal
Table 1
Descriptives for the total sample, native sample and immigrant sample including a comparison between native and immigrant adolescents
Total sample (n = 374) Native sample (n = 68) Immigrant sample (n = 306) Native and immigrant sample compared M SD M SD M SD N df t p Disruptive behaviour 0.29 0.23 0.37 0.27 0.28 0.21 374 86.447 2.70 < .01** Parental knowledge Parental solicitation 2.95 0.88 3.21 0.74 2.89 0.89 367 365 2.69 < .01** Parental control 3.17 1.04 2.81 0.93 3.26 1.05 341 339 3.21 < .01** Child disclosure 3.47 0.85 3.51 0.67 3.46 0.85 372 370 0.45 > .05
Table 2
Correlations between the Sources of Parental Knowledge for native Dutch (above diagonal) and Immigrant Adolescents (below diagonal).
Note: ** p < .01, * p < .05. Gender: 1 = male, 2 = female; Religiosity: 0 = non religious, 1 = religious; Education: 0 = none or low, 1 = average or high.
Parental solicitation Parental control Child disclosure Disruptive behaviour
Gender Religiosity Education Age
Parental solicitation - 0.41** 0.56** 0.03 0.17 -0.20 0.27* 0.06 Parental control 0.36** - 0.32** -0.12 -0.004 -0.12 -0.08 -0.41** Child disclosure Disruptive behaviour 0.62** -0.20** 0.31** -0.05 - -0.39** -0.31** - 0.31* -0.03 -0.21 -0.08 0.07 -0.29* 0.03 0.08 Gender -0.001 0.14* 0.000 0.11 - -0.01 -0.08 0.10 Religiosity 0.05 0.10 0.13* -0.11* 0.08 - -0.25* 0.04 Education 0.07 0.01 0.04 0.11 0.08 -0.25** - 0.27* Age 0.03 -0.05 0.04 -0.01 0.05 -0.01 0.08 -
Table 3
Multiple linear regression model (dependent variable: Disruptive Behaviour)
Aim 1 (𝑅𝑅2 = 0.17) Aim 2 (𝑅𝑅2 = 0.19) Aim 3 (𝑅𝑅2 = 0.21)
β p β p β p Parental solicitation 0.14 0.04* 0.76 0.03* 0.77 0.03* Parental control 0.02 0.75 -0.36 0.22 -0.38 0.20 Child disclosure -0.44 <0.001** -0.62 0.04* -0.65 0.03* Religiosity -0.09 0.15 -0.04 0.55 -0.04 0.50 Step 1 Education 0.13 0.02* 0.11 0.04* 0.10 0.06 Age -0.04 0.45 -0.05 0.39 -0.05 0.36 Ethnicity -0.06 0.40 -0.06 0.42 Gender 0.06 0.28 Solicitation * Ethnicity -0.64 0.07 -0.44 0.28
Step 2 Control * Ethnicity 0.39 0.17 0.25 0.44
Child disclosure * Ethnicity 0.20 0.52 -0.08 0.83
Solicitation * Ethnicity * Gender -0.26 0.25
Step 3 Control * Ethnicity * Gender 0.17 0.33
Child disclosure * Ethnicity * Gender 0.34 0.12
