Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A critique of parental monitoring using Bandura's social cognitive learning theory as framework Easterbrook, Adam 2007

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_2007-0389.pdf [ 2.92MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0302410.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0302410-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0302410-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0302410-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0302410-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0302410-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0302410-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0302410-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0302410.ris

Full Text

A CRITIQUE OF P A R E N T A L MONITORING USING B A N D U R A ' S SOCIAL COGNITIVE L E A R N I N G THEORY AS A F R A M E W O R K by A D A M M A T T H E W EASTERBROOK B.A. Psychology and Sociology, The University of British Columbia, 2003 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL F U L F I L L M E N T OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF M A S T E R OF ARTS in THE F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES (Family Studies) UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH C O L U M B I A July 2007 © Adam Matthew Easterbrook, 2007 i i Abstract This study tests competing hypotheses that examine the relationship between adolescents' perception of disclosure of information in the parent-adolescent relationship and adolescents' perception of their friends as prosocial or deviant. The first hypotheses are based on previous research on monitoring. They posit that parental efforts to obtain information about adolescents' activities, whereabouts and friends w i l l influence adolescents' choice of either prosocial or deviant friends. The competing hypotheses are developed using Bandura's (2001) social cognitive learning theory as a framework. These hypotheses argue that adolescents' perception of their friends as either prosocial or deviant may determine how much information adolescents' w i l l give to parents regarding activities, whereabouts and friends. To test the hypotheses, data was used from waves one and two of a three-year longitudinal study that is exploring adolescent life among high school students. Results offer partial support for the monitoring hypotheses. Maternal desire to know about adolescents' activities, whereabouts and friends is positively associated with adolescents' perception of friends as prosocial, but is not associated with adolescents' perception of friends as deviant. In contrast, paternal desire to know about adolescents' activities, whereabouts and friends is negatively associated with adolescents' perception of friends as deviant, but is not associated with adolescents' perception of friends as prosocial. The competing hypotheses developed using Bandura's (2001) social cognitive learning theory as a framework, were supported. Adolescents' perception of friends as prosocial is positively associated with adolescents' willingness to give information regarding activities, whereabouts and friends to parents, whereas adolescents' perception of friends as deviant is negatively associated with adolescents' willingness to give information to parents regarding activities, whereabouts and friends. These findings contribute to a growing body of literature (e.g., Kerr & Stattin, 2000; Stattin & Kerr, 2000) that questions monitoring as a useful and effective strategy for parental peer management. These results also underscore the need to examine adolescents as agentic beings who work to balance parent and peer relationships. IV TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract i i Table of Contents iv List of Tables v Acknowledgments v i Dedication v i i Introduction 1 Parental Peer Management 2 Monitoring 3 Social learning theory 9 Reinterpreting Monitoring Using Bandura's Social Cognitive Learning Theory 15 Research Questions 18 Methods 19 Participants 19 Procedures 20 Measures 21 Plan for data analysis 23 Results 24 Discussion 43 References 55 Appendix 1 63 Appendix 2 65 Appendix 3 66 Appendix 4 67 Appendix 5 68 V LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations between Sex, Age, Maternal Desire to Know, Maternal Knowledge, Information to Mother, Friends as Prosocial, and Friends as Deviant 25 Table 2 Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations between Sex, Age, Paternal Desire to Know, Paternal Knowledge, Information to Father, Friends as Prosocial, and Friends as Deviant 26 Table 3 Hierarchical Regression Predicting Adolescents' Perception of Friends as Prosocial from Maternal Knowledge 28 Table 4 Hierarchical Regression Predicting Adolescents' Perception of Friends as Prosocial from Paternal Knowledge 29 Table 5 Hierarchical Regression Predicting Adolescents' Perception of Friends as Deviant from Maternal Knowledge 31 Table 6 Hierarchical Regression Predicting Adolescents' Perception of Friends as Deviant from Paternal Knowledge 32 Table 7 Hierarchical Regression Predicting Adolescents' Perception of Friends as Prosocial from Maternal Desire to Know 34 Table 8 Hierarchical Regression Predicting Adolescents' Perception of Friends as Prosocial from Paternal Desire to Know 35 Table 9 Hierarchical Regression Predicting Adolescents' Perception of Friends as Deviant from Maternal Desire to Know 36 Table 10 Hierarchical Regression Predicting Adolescents' Perception of Friends as Deviant from Paternal Desire to Know 37 Table 11 Hierarchical Regression Predicting Information Given to Mother from Adolescents' Perception of Friends as Prosocial 39 Table 12 Hierarchical Regression Predicting Information Given to Father from Adolescents' Perception of Friends as Prosocial 40 Table 13 Hierarchical Regression Predicting Information Given to Mother from Adolescents' Perception of Friends as Deviant 41 Table 14 Hierarchical Regression Predicting Information Given to Father from Adolescents' Perception of Friends as Deviant 42 v i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Dr. Dan Perlman and Dr. Shelley Hymel for their assistance and valuable insights while helping me complete my thesis. I would also like to thank Dr. Sheila Marshall, who has challenged me and taught me more in the past two years than I thought possible. I appreciate the enormous amount of time you have given in helping me develop as a scholar. V l l DEDICATION I would like to dedicate this project to those closest to me, your support and encouragement has been invaluable. Doug, thank you for the immeasurable amount of help and patience you have given me. I appreciate all you have done more than you will ever know. Casson, Dom and Jason, thank you for all the phone conversations and meetings over a cup of tea. Finally, thanks Mom, for always being able to say exactly what I needed to hear. This would have been an arduous and lonely project without all of you. 1 A Critique of Parental Monitoring Using Bandura's Social Cognitive Learning Theory as a Framework This study examines the relationship between adolescents' perception of their friends as prosocial or deviant, and disclosure of information regarding activities, whereabouts and friends in the parent-adolescent relationship. Parent-adolescent and adolescent-peer relationships are both important influences on adolescents and their interactions (Bronfenbrenner, 1970; Collins & Steinberg, 2006; Hartup, 1979). However, a current research focus posits that it may be the parent-adolescent relationship that is influential in shaping adolescents' friendships (Tilton-Weaver & Galambos, 2003; Mounts, 2004), including the choice of either prosocial or deviant friends. Part of this research is focused on monitoring, which is parental behaviors used to track and survey adolescents as a way to manage adolescents' peer relations and problem behaviors (e.g., Beck, Boyle, & Boekeloo, 2003; 2004). Although this area has received much research attention and has been cited as important in the development of policy and interventions (e.g., Shillington et al., 2005), the monitoring literature is flawed conceptually, methodologically and theoretically (Kerr & Stattin, 2000; Stattin & Kerr, 2000). Specifically, the concept of monitoring is often vaguely and inconsistently defined, and many measures of monitoring do not appear to actually be measuring the construct of monitoring. Additionally, much of the literature appears to be using unidirectional models and based on an outmoded version of social learning theory (Bandura, 1977). Thus, the use of the monitoring concept and results from these studies remain questionable. I argue that by using the newer version of Bandura's (2001) social cognitive learning theory as a framework, the monitoring literature may be investigated in a way that allows for the development of a model that examines adolescents' agentic actions with their parents. This allows for some correction of the theoretical and methodological problems 2 inherent in research on monitoring as well as gleaning information regarding how adolescents may balance parental and peer relationships. This study w i l l test two sets of competing hypotheses; the first set of hypotheses wi l l be developed using the previous findings in the monitoring literature and the second, and competing, set of hypotheses w i l l be developed using Bandura's (2001) social cognitive learning theory as a framework. Parental Peer Management Parental peer management is how parents attempt to manage their children's peer relationships (Parke & Ladd, 1992), using both direct and indirect methods (Parke & Ladd, 1992; Tilton-Weaver & Galambos, 2003). For several reasons, parental peer management behaviors change as children enter adolescence. First, autonomy becomes an increasingly important goal for adolescents (Steinberg, 2001; Collins & Steinberg, 2006), so parental peer management behaviors may need to allow for adolescents' attempts to achieve greater autonomy. Second, and related, adolescents spend more time away from parents and with friends than do younger children (Csikzentmihalyi & Larson, 1984). Thus parents may have to rely more on engaging in peer management through communicating with adolescents than direct supervision (Tilton-Weaver & Galambos, 2003). Communication as a means of parental peer management is possible once individuals reach adolescence because of improved abilities in perspective taking and reasoning (Keating, 1990). Third, as adolescents age, problem behaviors tend to increase (Ketterlinus & Lamb, 1994) which may influence how parents attempt to manage peer relationships. This investigation w i l l focus on a small area of parental peer management; specifically, parents' tracking of their children's activities, whereabouts and friends. This type of parental peer management is called monitoring. According to a large portion of the extant monitoring 3 literature, parental behavior is not a reaction to children's behavior, but rather a major influence on adolescent behaviors. Monitoring Parental monitoring has generally been defined as "a set of correlated parenting behaviors involving attention to and tracking of the child's whereabouts, activities, and adaptations" (Dishion & McMahon, 1998, p. 61). Monitoring involves active efforts by parents to manage adolescents' peer relationships and activities through structuring adolescents' environment and attempting to obtain information about activities, whereabouts and friends. This concept has received much attention, including arguments that it should inform policy and intervention (Shillington et al., 2005), because it has been associated with unsafe activities and injury, antisocial behavior, substance use, and poor academic performance (Crouter, MacDermid, McHale , & Perry-Jenkins, 1990; Dishion & McMahon, 1998). Monitoring first appeared in the literature in the late 1960s and early 1970s (e.g., Cortes & Gatti, 1972; Hirschi, 1969), when correlational studies found that parents of antisocial youths had limited awareness of their children's activities, whereabouts, and friends. M c C o r d (1979) found that monitoring was negatively associated with delinquency and parental conflict as well as a positively associated with mother affection. Later, Patterson (1982) found that parents of clinically antisocial children did not appear to track or monitor their children. This information was then used by Patterson and colleagues (e.g., Patterson & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1984) to develop a measure of parental monitoring. A major problem with this early literature was the use of antisocial children as participants (Patterson 1982; Patterson & Bank, 1987; Patterson & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1984), thus no information was obtained about what parents of typical children do or i f monitoring of typical children is beneficial. Many of the samples 4 used in the monitoring literature continue to report high levels of antisocial behaviors (e.g., Beck, Boyle, & Boekeloo, 2003, 2004). Unlike the previous studies (Cortes & Gatti, 1972; Hirschi, 1969; Patterson, 1982), Patterson and Stouthamer-Loeber (1984) examined parental use of monitoring with a non-clinical sample of boys who were not all deviant. Results were correlational and showed a negative association between monitoring and delinquency. Moreover, the authors found that, compared to parental use of discipline, problem solving, and reinforcement, monitoring appeared to explain the most variance in delinquency. Monitoring was also the only variable that could differentiate between moderate and chronic offenders. Based on this research, Patterson and Bank (1987) developed a multimode and multiagent assessment measure of parental monitoring and discipline. Four indicators were used, including a child interview, interviewer impressions, hours spend with the child, and family agreement on the child's behavior. Later, Dishion and McMahon (1998) defined monitoring by developing a broad conceptualization of parental monitoring as well as strategies for its measurement. Their definition includes structuring children's environment (home, school and community) and tracking children. The authors claim that parental monitoring is relevant to children's adaptations and is developmentally, contextually, and culturally appropriate. They also argue that parental monitoring is a broad construct composed of specific, but correlated, parenting behaviors and beliefs, which are important for child development. Finally, positive parental cognitions regarding the use of monitoring are argued to be necessary for successful monitoring. There are three problems with the majority of the research on monitoring (e.g., Dishion & McMahon , 1998; Patterson & Bank, 1987; Patterson & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1984). First, 5 definitions of monitoring are inconsistent, unrefined and vague. This may be because conceptualizations of monitoring (Patterson & Bank, 1987; Patterson & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1984; Shilling et al., 2005) are based on previous research that has been conceptually and methodologically flawed (e.g., Kerr & Stattin, 2000; Stattin & Kerr, 2000). For example, Forehand, Mi l le r , Dutra and Chance (1997) define monitoring as "the extent to which parents know where an adolescent is and what she or he is doing" (p. 1036). This appears to be about parental knowledge, not parental behaviors used to track and survey adolescents. Related, Shillington and colleagues (2005) define monitoring as parental knowledge regarding children's whereabouts, friends and activities. Finally, Dishion and McMahon ' s (1998) definition, though touted to be a clearer reformulation, is not clear and remains vague and ambiguous. Generally, the problem is that parental monitoring is conceptualized as parental tracking, surveillance and structuring of adolescents activities, whereabouts and friends, yet it remains operationalized in a way that is closer to parental knowledge about activities, whereabouts and friends. The second problem is that measures of monitoring are problematic, perhaps due to the issues with conceptualizing monitoring. For example, many measures of monitoring seem to be measuring parental knowledge, not parental efforts to monitor through tracking and surveillance (Kerr & Stattin, 2000; Stattin & Kerr, 2000; Kerr, Stattin, & Trost, 1999). For example, Patterson and Bank (1987) asked children how much information they share with parents (Patterson & Bank, 1987). Similarly, Shillington and colleagues (2005) asked adolescents to rate how often their guardians knew where they were, who they were with or what they were doing. Monitoring is purported to be a method through which parents are able to obtain information about children's activities, whereabouts and friends. However, instead of assessing parental efforts to obtain information, these measures appear to be measuring 6 children's spontaneous disclosure to parents (Stattin & Kerr, 2000). Even when measures use parents reports, the measures tend to focus on parental knowledge, not parental behaviors used to monitor (e.g., Patterson & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1984). Another problem is that assessments are often biased. For instance, in one study (Patterson & Bank, 1987) an interviewer interviewed a child then gave their impression about how well supervised the child is. This type of assessment is problematic because the interviewers' impressions are influenced by expectations and assumptions (Pehazur & Schmelkin, 1991), not results from precise observations. Related, few researchers directly observe parental monitoring behaviors; instead, they typically rely on the child or adolescents' reports (Dishion, Nelson, & Bullock, 2004). Measures of monitoring also often incorporate both parental action and belief (Patterson & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1984). It cannot be assumed that i f parents believe monitoring is useful, that they actually monitor. The third problem is that, even though much of the developmental perspectives have moved to bidirectional models of parent-child relationships (Kuczynski, Marshall, & Schell, 1997), much of the monitoring literature continues to use a unidirectional model of the parent-adolescent relationship. Specifically, much of the monitoring literature (e.g., Beck et al., 2003; 2004; Dishion and McMahon , 1998; Shillington et al., 2005) has assumed parents are the most important influence on adolescents' friendship choices. Thus, the monitoring research has tended to examine parental influences on adolescents, without examining how adolescents may simultaneously be influencing parents. It is possible that while parents are engaging in peer management behaviors adolescents may be selectively interpreting or disclosing to parents, consequently asserting their agency over how much control and information parents have. Simplistic unidirectional models fail to examine how adolescents' may use their agency within the parent-adolescent relationship. 7 Through failing to adequately define and measure monitoring, and by using simplistic unidirectional models, many of the conclusions regarding the merits and benefits of parental monitoring on children and adolescents may be erroneous and unfounded (Kerr & Stattin, 2003). For example, Patterson and Stouthamer-Loeber (1984) argued that monitoring "can be conceptualized as almost a prerequisite for effective family management (p. 1301)." This assertion is unfounded since, without clearly defining or measuring monitoring, the authors cannot say it is almost a prerequisite for family management. Similarly, Forehand and colleagues (1997) conclude that "monitoring, as assessed here and in other studies, may actually be a far more complex parenting skill consisting of components such as involvement, limit setting, consistent consequences and gradual granting autonomy (p. 1040)." However, the four item monitoring measure Forehand and colleagues (1997) used does not measure any of these constructs and implying it does, or even that the previous measures do, is completely unfounded. In summary, much of the monitoring literature (e.g., Dishion & McMahon , 1998; Patterson & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1984) may be challenged on the grounds that the conceptualizations of parental monitoring used are incommensurable with the methods used to measure it. In fact, it may not be monitoring that is related to lower levels of delinquency, but rather parental knowledge that is related to lower levels of delinquency. Moreover, some evidence suggests that parental knowledge comes from adolescents' own spontaneous disclosure, not parental efforts to solicit the information (Kerr & Stattin, 2000; Stattin & Kerr, 2000. Kerr et al., 1999). Further, adolescents' own disclosure is more strongly linked to delinquency than parental solicitation or control, evidence contradictory to what previous research on monitoring shows (Kerr et al., 1999; Kerr & Stattin, 2000). Thus, it may not be parental monitoring, but rather adolescents' free disclosure that is related to lower levels of 8 deviance. Adolescents' choice to disclose may be an agenctic action, based on adolescents' perception of friends and how they predict parents may react to information regarding activities, whereabouts and friends. In fact, monitoring may inhibit adolescents' sense of agency and increase feelings of being controlled. For example, monitoring is only found to be related to good adjustment when the adolescents' feelings of being controlled, which are linked to poor adjustment, were partialled out (Kerr & Stattin, 2000). This is supported by Mount 's (2004) finding that autonomy granting as a method of peer management was related to lower levels of delinquency, drug use and conflict with friends. The sex of the parent and adolescent is an important influence on monitoring, parental knowledge, adolescent disclosure and adolescents' peer relationships; however, sex is not always adequately addressed in the research. For instance, Forehand and colleagues (1997) only examined maternal monitoring, thus ignore paternal efforts to monitor. This is problematic because parental monitoring and/or knowledge may be different for mothers and fathers (Crouter, Helms-Erikson, Updegraff, & McHale , 1999; Stattin & Kerr, 2000). Mothers are more knowledgeable about adolescents' peer relationships than fathers, and mothers and their daughters report the most peer-orientated activities (Updegraff, McHale , Crouter, & Kupanoff, 2001). The sex of the adolescent is also related to how much adolescents tell parents as well as to which parent they give information to. Adolescents are more likely to talk to the same-sex parent and daughters generally disclose more than sons (Updegraff et al., 2001). Girls may also be given less autonomy than boys during adolescence, especially in more traditional families (Bumpus, Crouter, & McHale , 2001). Boys are more likely to have problems with peers, such as being rejected (Bierman, 2003; Coie, Dodge, & Kupersmidt, 1990), and to associate with deviant peers (i.e., Toro, Urberg, & Heinze, 2004). 9 The influence of sex of the parent and adolescent on monitoring, parental knowledge and peer relationships may be due to the effects of gender socialization. There is evidence that adults, parents and teachers treat and label boys and girls differently, even from birth (e.g., Rubin, Provenzano, & Laura, 1974; Stern & Karraker, 1989). For instance, even though newborn boys and girls do not differ in length, weight and Apgar scores, adults rate sons as larger, firmer, more coordinated, alert, stronger and hardier and girls as softer featured, delicate, more awkward and less attentive (Rubin et al., 1974). Sex typing and labeling of behaviors continues throughout childhood, with parental values often differing for boys (achievement, competitiveness, emotional control) and girls (warmth, ' ladylike' behaviors, close supervision) (Block, 1983; Turner & Gervai, 1995). In fact, parents are more likely to buy a toy for a child i f it is gender-typed appropriate than not (Etaugh & Liss, 1992), especially for boys (Fisher-Thompson, 1993). Even the way parents converse with boys and girls is different, with mothers more often labeling emotions with girls and explaining them to boys. This may be a method for teaching girls to tune into others' emotion and boys to control expression of emotions (Cervantes & Callanan, 1998; Fivush, 1989). A s children age, parents tend to give or expect greater independence from boys than girls (Rothbart & Rothbart, 1976). Fathers tend to encourage gender-appropriate behavior more than mothers and place more expectations on sons than daughters (Gervai, Turner, & Hinde, 1995). Taken together, there appears to be expectations on children, throughout development, to adhere to socially created notions of masculinity and femininity, which may explain the sex differences found regarding monitoring, parental knowledge, parental solicitation of information and peer relationships. Social Learning Theory Monitoring is an attempt to guide or influence adolescents' behavior through parental action. Patterson and Stouthamer-Loeber (1987) argue that it is through parental action that 10 adolescents are taught how to avoid engagement with deviant peers and develop positive characteristics and relationships. For example, through mainly correlational studies it has been argued that a failure to adequately monitor adolescents increases adolescents' chance of engaging in antisocial and risky behaviors, such as under-aged drinking (Beck et al., 2003, 2004; Cottrell et al., 2003; Shillington et al., 2005), drug use (Cottrell et al., 2003; Shillington et al., 2005), sexual activity (Cottrell et al., 2003), smoking (Shillington et al., 2005) and poor school performance (Crouter et al., 1990). These problem behaviors are behaviors which adolescents often initiate or engage in with their peers (Beck et al., 2003; 2004). Research on the relationship between monitoring and delinquent behavior is based on the premise that parents act as teachers and adolescents as passive recipients. The mechanisms through which monitoring is touted to influence adolescent behavior may be understood as founded upon Bandura's (1977) social learning theory. Social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) is a theory about how people come to acquire various behaviors through interaction with the environment. Bandura (1977) generally discusses two main methods through which environmental factors influence behavior: response consequences and modeling. Only response consequences w i l l be discussed here. Response consequences are the positive or negative consequences of actions. Bandura (1977) posits that people's responses are shaped by response consequences, or the immediate consequences of their actions. Response consequences are consequential for future behaviors because they motivate certain behaviors over others. Thus, response consequences give information which can be used to develop or shape behaviors as well as motivate the likelihood those behaviors w i l l be engaged in in the future. Monitoring incorporates the concept of response consequence. This is exemplified by Patterson and Stouthamer-Loeber's (1987) assertion that a "lack of parental 11 monitoring.. .ensures the possibility of numerous unpunished trials of.. .delinquent behavior" (p. 1305). The assumption here is that parents teach adolescents appropriate behavior through giving consequences. However, this assertion assumes that through monitoring parents are able, or even desire, to give consequences to children and adolescents for engaging in deviant behaviors or with deviant peers. This assumption exists in much of the monitoring literature (i.e., Beck et al., 2003, 2004; Cottrell et al., 2003; Dishion & McMahon , 1998; Forehand et al., 1997; Shillington et al., 2005) and is problematic because the monitoring literature does not examine whether or not parents actually do give consequences. Dishion and McMahon (1998) take the concept, and assumption, of response consequences further by arguing that in order to effectively teach children to avoid deviant activities and peers, parents must adapt their monitoring strategies as children develop. For instance, the authors argue that once children enter primary school parents should begin to track and structure what happens in school and, once adolescence is reached, what happens within the neighborhood and community. This assumes that in order for parents to engage in appropriate response consequences, and hence train their children to engage in appropriate behaviors, parents must use various developmentally appropriate monitoring methods. In fact, it is argued that a failure to teach appropriately throughout childhood w i l l make individuals less receptive to being taught during adolescence, therefore increasing the chances of engagement in antisocial behaviors. Similarly, Shillington and colleagues (2005) propose that parental monitoring may prove useful as a prevention or intervention method parents can use with adolescents, but this should begin while children are young so they can be trained to be receptive to parental monitoring efforts. The argument that monitoring should be implemented early is similar to Bandura's (1977) link between motivation and response consequence. Specifically, the monitoring literature appears to be assuming that through learning the 12 consequences of their actions, as children age they w i l l become motivated to avoid behaviors that lead to negative consequences and engage in behaviors that lead to positive consequences. Conversely, much of the monitoring literature argues that inept parental monitoring allows peers to influence adolescents' behavior through reinforcing deviant behavior (i.e., Beck et al., 2003, 2004; Cottrell et a l , 2003; Forehand et al., 1997; Shillington et al., 2005). For example, Fletcher, Darling, and Steinberg (1995) argue that "strong parental monitoring helps to deter adolescents from using alcohol and drugs themselves and.. .from association with drug using peers" (p. 270). These authors make the same assumption that a failure to monitor adolescents may allow adolescents' peers to have the opportunity to give positive response consequences for deviant behaviors, thus teaching adolescents to engage in less desirable activities. A s shown, some of the assumptions that the monitoring literature appears to be based on have roots in Bandura's (1977) social learning theory. Specifically, this literature is based on the premise that the environment, which includes both parents and peers, influence adolescents' behavior through response consequences and motivation. Problematic, however, is that monitoring does not incorporate the more recent formulation of Bandura's social cognitive learning theory, which takes into account agency, cognitions, and bidirectionality (i.e., Bandura, 1986; 2001; 2002; 2006). Since Bandura (1977) first developed his social learning theory, human agency has become an important tool for understanding human behavior (Bandura, 2001; 2002; 2006). Agency is the ability to intentionally make things happen through one's own actions (Bandura, 2001). Bandura's updated theory is still premised on the argument that response consequences, modeling and motivation are important in learning behaviors. However, Bandura (2001) has come to realize that "it is not just exposure to stimulation, but agentic action in exploring, 13 manipulating, and influencing the environment that counts (p. 4)." This is an acknowledgement that in order to understand behavior one must look at both the environment and human agency. Bandura's theory (2001) is based on emergent biopsychological research on the brain, including the role agency plays in shaping the neurology and functioning of the brain. This is significant since, according to Bandura (2001), "the human mind is generative, creative, proactive, and reflective, not just reactive (p. 4)." Thus, contrary to much prior behavior research that ignores the 'black box' or mind, Bandura is embracing the idea that the mind gives people agency. This leads Bandura to assert that people are not passive recipients of others' influences, but rather can use their own actions to influence outcomes and affect their life course. Bandura went further by arguing that cognitions allow for four core properties of personal agency, including intentionality, forethought, self-reactiveness and self-reflectiveness (2001; 2006). Intentionality is anything done with intention, including plans and methods for achieving goals. Forethought is thinking about and anticipating the future, including the consequences of actions, and ways to produce or avoid various outcomes. This also allows for self-motivation and the ability to guide actions. Self-reactiveness is the ability to create plans and to motivate and regulate the execution of them. Finally, self-reflectiveness is examining one's own actions and making adjustments as needed. Bandura's theory has also moved from a unidirectional to a bidirectional theory, which has been a major shift in much of developmental perspectives on socialization (Kuczynski et al., 1997). It is inadequate and inappropriate to conduct research with the assumption that the parent-child/adolescent relationship is unidirectional since such a model is too simplistic. Children and adolescents' interactions with parents are bidirectional. Adolescents use agency and cognitions as well as information about the immediate situation, past experiences and expectation or goals about the future, to guide their actions. The idea that children and parents 14 influence one another is exemplified by Bandura's (2001) assertion that "It is not just exposure to stimulation, but agentic action in exploring, manipulation, and influencing the environment that counts (p. 4)." Later, he argues, "people are contributors to their activities, not just onlooking hosts of subpersonal networks autonomously creating and regulating their performances" (Bandura, 2006, p. 168). The concepts of agency and bidirectionality, as found in Bandura's (2001; 2002; 2006) social cognitive learning theory, have typically not been addressed in the monitoring literature. Specifically, much of the monitoring literature (i.e., Beck et al., 2003; 2004; Dishion & McMahon , 1998; Shillington et al., 2005) fails to examine how adolescents may use their agency as a method for controlling how much information parents receive regarding adolescents' friends, whereabouts and activities (notable exceptions are Darling, Cumsille, Caldwell , & Dowdy, 2006; Smetana, Metzger, Gettman, & Campione-Barr, 2006). It is assumed that when parents ask, adolescents w i l l tell all . Moreover, the four properties of agency are typically not addressed in the monitoring literature since much of the monitoring literature (i.e., Beck et al., 2003, 2004; Patterson & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1987) only examines how parents influence adolescents' behaviors, without examining how adolescents interpret, perceive, or influence what parents do and say. O f particular interest, the concept of forethought is generally overlooked. Forethought is important in understanding monitoring since it is through forethought that adolescents may anticipate the consequences of telling parents about their activities as well as methods through which to avoid negative outcomes. It is extremely unlikely adolescents w i l l simply divulge their deviant actions to their parents because they are aware that doing so may get them into trouble; in fact, divulging too much may actually be a sign of inappropriate social skills development (Marshall, Tilton-Weaver, & Bosdet, 2005). Finally, much of the monitoring literature (i.e., Beck et al., 2003; 2004; Dishion 15 & McMahon , 1998) continues to use unidirectional models, assuming that parents directly influence adolescents' behaviors without examining how adolescents may at the same time be acting agentically or influencing parents' behaviors. In summary, the monitoring literature (e.g., Dishion & McMahon , 1998; Beck et al., 2003; 2004) has failed to include the concepts of agency and bidirectionality in its model of parent-adolescent relationships. This means that in most of the monitoring literature only the influence of parents has been examined, not how adolescents may influence parental behaviors (exceptions are Darling et al., 2006; Kerr & Stattin, 2000; Marshall et al., 2005; Smetana et a l , 2006; Stattin & Kerr, 2000). Research on monitoring appears to be using a very simplistic input-output model in which parents present a message and the child passively accepts and internalizes it. This model is outdated and has been replaced by Bandura's cognitive social learning model (2001). B y failing to use Bandura's more recent reformulations of social cognitive learning, much of the monitoring literature is based on assumptions that have been supplanted. Reinterpreting monitoring using Bandura's social cognitive learning theory A s demonstrated, current measures of monitoring are flawed in that they often measure parental knowledge, not how much parents are actually tracking and surveying their adolescents (Kerr & Stattin, 2000; Stattin & Kerr, 2000). Moreover, research has demonstrated that parental behaviors may also be shaped by the adolescents' behaviors (Kerr & Stattin, 2003). This implies that adolescent disclosure to parents may be based on more than just parents' efforts. It is possible that adolescents' perceptions of their friends are influential in adolescent disclosure to parents. Since the monitoring literature has been using Bandura's (1977) outmoded social learning theory, this research has typically not examined possible adolescent influences on parental behavior. However, reinterpreting monitoring using 16 Bandura's (2001) more recent social cognitive learning theory it is possible to examine how adolescents' perceptions of their peers may influence how much information adolescents give to parents. During adolescence, parents and peers are both influential and complementary socializing agents (Bronfenbrenner, 1970; Hartup, 1979), with time with family decreasing and time with friends increasing during this period (Larson, Richards, Moneta, Holmbeck, & Duckett, 1996). By complementary it is meant that both the parent-adolescent and adolescent-peer relationships are interrelated with overlapping and distinct functions (Collins & Steinberg, 2006). Throughout this period adolescents also experience increased autonomy, so are better able to choose who to spend more time with as well as what activities to engage in (Kerr, Stattin, & Ferrer-Wreder, 2006; Patterson & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1984). Accordingly, the parent-adolescent relationship can influence adolescent-peers relationships through the adolescents' perceptions of the relationship as well as the autonomy granted. For example, if adolescents feel parents are too strict or intrusive, they can choose friends who they believe lack these characteristics (Kerr et al., 2006). Conversely, the friends adolescents choose can influence the parent-adolescent relationship through agency and the activities they engage in. For example, if adolescents' friends behave prosocially then adolescents will most likely disclose information to parents about activities and friends. However, if adolescents' friends are antisocial the adolescent may withhold or give false information to parents (Marshall et al., 2005). By using Bandura's (2001) social cognitive learning theory I am able to reinterpret the monitoring literature in two ways. First, Bandura's theory allows for the examination of how adolescent-peer relationships may influence the parent-adolescent relationship. Through the concept of bidirectionality, it can be argued that while the parent-adolescent relationship is 17 influencing adolescent-peer relationships, adolescent-peer relationships are also influencing the parent-adolescent relationship. Second, this reinterpretation gives adolescents agency, including intentionality, forethought, self-reactiveness and self-reflectiveness. Since adolescents and parents have been interacting over a long period of time, adolescents are familiar with the cues their parents give as well as parental expectations about interactions and the relationship (Hinde & Stevenson-Hinde, 1987). This means adolescents may be able to estimate what parents do and do not approve of as well as ways to control what they tell their parents. Thus, adolescents may intentionally tell parents certain things while not telling other information based on forethought about how parents may react. Through withholding information adolescents are also engaging in self-reactiveness and self-reflectiveness because they are motivating themselves to withhold or tell information through planning and examining the situation, and making adjustments as necessary. It is possible that because of adolescents' use of agency, their perception of their friends influence what adolescents w i l l disclose to parents about whereabouts, activities and friends. Specifically, adolescents who have prosocial friends are likely to tell parents what they do and with whom they do it, since parents are likely to approve. In contrast, adolescents with friends engaging in deviant behavior are unlikely to tell parents what they do and with whom they do it, since it is likely their parents w i l l disapprove. There is some evidence that adolescents do engage in information control with parents. For example, i f adolescents believe that their activities or whereabouts may lead to parental punishment, restriction, upset or concern they w i l l withhold information from parents (Darling et al., 2006; Kerr et a l , 1999; Marshall et a l , 2005; Simpkins & Parke, 2002). However, adolescents may be more likely to disclose when their safety or wellbeing is in jeopardy 18 (Marshall et a l , 2005). This is also the case when the parent-adolescent relationship is open and based on trust and/or when the information w i l l be deemed acceptable (Kerr et al., 1999). Research questions According to the vast majority of the monitoring literature, parents may be able to manage their adolescents' peer relationships through parental peer management. Specifically, the more parents attempt to directly gain information from adolescents regarding their activities, whereabouts and friends, the less likely adolescents w i l l be to engage with antisocial peers. Accordingly, i f parents increase their desire to know about adolescents' activities, whereabouts and friends there should be a corresponding increase in prosocial friends and a decrease in deviant friends. Conversely, i f parents decrease their desire to know there should be a decrease in prosocial friends and an increase in deviant friends over time. There is currently some evidence (i.e., Kerr & Stattin, 2000; Stattin & Kerr, 2000) against this argument, yet it continues to be suggested in both research and practice. Guided by the monitoring literature, which assumes parents ask for and receive information which, in turn, guides adolescents' behavior, the following hypotheses were developed (controlling for age and sex): H I : When parents increase what they want to know about adolescents' activities, whereabouts and friends, adolescents w i l l perceive their friends to be more prosocial. H2: When parents decrease what they want to know about adolescents' activities, whereabouts and friends, adolescents w i l l perceive their friends to be more deviant. In contrast, by using Bandura's social cognitive learning theory as a framework and coupling it with the critique that measures of monitoring are really measuring parental knowledge (i.e., Kerr & Stattin, 2000; Stattin & Kerr, 2000), allows for the creation of competing hypotheses. It may be that it is characteristics of adolescent-peer relationships that 19 influence parental knowledge, not parents' engagement in monitoring. This may be, according to Bandura's (2001) social cognitive learning theory, because adolescents use their agency to decide what, and how much, information to give to parents based on the activities and friends they engage with. B y using Bandura's (2001) social cognitive learning theory as a framework the following competing hypotheses were developed (controlling for age and sex): H3 : When there is an increase in adolescents' perception of friends as prosocial, adolescents w i l l increase the amount of information given to parents about activities, whereabouts and friends. H4: When there is an increase in adolescents' perception of friends as deviant, adolescents w i l l decrease the amount of information given to parents about activities, whereabouts and friends. Methods Participants Data was used from the first two waves of a three-year longitudinal study that explores adolescent life among high school students. Each wave of the study is one year apart. The high school students are in grades 8 to 12. The school is situated in Vancouver, an urban center on the west coast of Canada. In wave one, 483 students (213 males, 270 females) participated. In wave two, 475 students (213 males, 270 females) participated. The final sample for this study consisted of 233 students who gave valid responses in both waves 1 and 2. O f these students, 231 students gave responses for mothers and 226 gave responses for fathers. Reduction in sample size was due primarily to two main factors. First, grade twelve students in wave one graduated so were not in wave 2. Second, students entering grade eight in wave two were not 20 included in this study since they had no previous data. Attrition was also due to students moving out of the school district. The final sample consists of 90 (38.6%) male and 143 (61.4%) female students ranging in age from 12 to 17, with a mean age of 14.16 (SD = 1.12). Respondents were asked to indicate their ethnicity. One hundred and forty one (60.5%) students indicated their ethnicity as Caucasian/European, 3 (1.3%) as Latino/Hispanic, 54 (23.4%) as East Asian, 6 (1.6%) as South/South East Asian, 2 (0.9) as First Nation/Native, 1 (0.4%) as African, 15 (9.4%) listed more than one ethnicity, and 13 (5.6%) did not list any ethnicity. Respondents also indicated their l iving situation. One hundred and sixty six (68.7%) reported l iving with both parents who are married, 28 (21.1%) with a single parent, 25 (10.7%) with a parent who had repartnered, and 20 (8.9%) lived in some other family form. Procedures The Vancouver School Board approved the proposed study, as did the secondary school administration. In order to participate, students were required to have their parents provide informed consent. For both waves one and two a pizza party was used as incentive for students to return consent forms, irregardless of whether parents authorized adolescents' involvement in the study. O f the 1179 consent forms distributed in wave one, 772 (65.5%) were returned with 585 (49.6% of those sent) giving consent. O f those who consented, 499 (42.3%) gave data. However, 16 cases were deemed invalid either due to lack of seriousness or the respondent not completing enough of the survey. Overall, 41.0% (483, 213 males, 270 females) of the student population participated and gave valid responses. The survey was completed on computers during regular class time. Students attended a computer lab to complete the survey with their classmates. The researcher and two research assistants were in the room while the students completed the survey. Trained researchers 21 explained assent to the participants and highlighted issues of confidentiality along with the purpose of the survey. Students were given approximately one hour and twenty minutes to complete the survey. Once data collection was complete it was downloaded to the principal investigator's computer and kept in a secure file. A plan was developed to deal with missing data that avoided having to imputing means. This was done by calculating means using 80% of the items for each measure. Thus, as long as a student answered 80% or more of the items, a score could be computed. This was done to avoid removing cases in which a student missed or ignored one or two items. Measures Demographics. The adolescents reported their age (self-reported age and birth date were cross checked for accuracy) l iving situation, ethnicity and sex (see Appendix 1) for the purpose of describing the sample. Parental knowledge. The parental knowledge scale measures how much adolescents' parent(s) actually know, according to the adolescents, about adolescent's activities, whereabouts and friends. This measure was included for a preliminary analysis that w i l l examine the link between parental knowledge and adolescents' perception of friends as either prosocial or deviant. Parental knowledge was measured separately for mothers and fathers. O f the seven items in this measure, five items were developed in previous studies to measure parental monitoring (Dornbusch et al., 1985; Dornbusch, Ritter, Leiderman, Roberts, & Fraleigh, 1987). However, as shown (Kerr & Stattin, 2000; Stattin & Kerr, 2000), these measures appear to measure parental knowledge, not monitoring. Two items were added for this survey, and focus on text messaging and internet chat use with friends. A n example item is, ' H o w much does your mother (fathers) really know how you spend your money?' (see Appendix 2). The adolescent answered on a 5 point likert-type scale ranging from 'doesn't 22 know much' to 'knows a lot.' Means were generated for each student and range from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating the adolescent gives more information to his or her parents about his or her activities, whereabouts and friends. Cronbach's alpha is .83 for information to mothers in wave 1, .84 for mothers in wave 2, .89 for fathers in wave 1 and .90 for fathers in wave 2. Parental desire to know. The parental desire to know scale measures adolescents' perceptions of how much their parent(s) want to know about their activities, whereabouts and friends. Desire to know was measured using seven questions, asked separately for fathers and mothers. The seven items parallel the questions used in the parental knowledge measure. A n example question is, ' H o w much does you mother (father) really want to know what you do with your free time?' The adolescents answered on a 5 point likert-type scale ranging from 'does not want to know' to 'wants to know in detail' (see Appendix 2). Means were generated for each student and range from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating the parent has more desire to know about the adolescent's activities, behaviors and friends. For mothers, Cronbach's alphas are .85 in wave 1 and .87 in wave 2. For fathers, Cronbach's alphas are .90 for wave 1 and .91 for wave 2. Willingness to tell parents. The willingness to tell scale is a measure of how much information adolescents' tell their parent(s) about their activities, whereabouts and friends. The amount adolescents tell was measured separately for mother and father. Seven questions were asked, which parallel the items in the parental knowledge measure. Students were instructed to indicate 'how much do you tell your mother (father) of the following?' A n example items is, ' H o w you spend your free time' (see Appendix 3). Adolescents' answered on a 5 point likert-type scale ranging from 'no information' to 'a lot of information.' Means were generated for each student and range from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating the adolescent gives more 23 information to his or her parents about his or her activities, behaviors and friends. In wave 1, Cronbach's alphas were .86 and .91 for mothers and fathers respectively. In wave 2, Cronbach's alphas were .88 and .91 for mothers and fathers respectively. Adolescents' perception of friends as prosocial or deviant. This scale is a measure of how prosocial or deviant adolescents perceive their friends to be. The adolescents were given 7 statements and asked to indicate how true each statement is about their friends. Adolescents answered all statements on a 5 point likert-type scale ranging from 'not at all true' to 'very true' (see Appendix 5). Four questions focused on prosocial characteristics of the adolescents' friends, and they were derived form a prosocial friendship scale used by Tilton-Weaver and Galambos (2003). A n example question is, "Most of my friends would help other people without being asked." Three questions asked about deviant characteristics of adolescents' friends, originally developed by Galambos and Maggs (1991). A n example question is, "I know many kids who have stolen something." In this analysis two separate scores were created, one from the prosocial items and the other from the deviant items. Mean scores were generated and range from 1 to 5. For the prosocial measure, higher scores indicate the adolescent perceives friends to be more prosocial. For the deviant measure, higher scores indicate the adolescent perceives friends to be more deviant. Cronbach's alphas are .76 and .80 for adolescents' perception of friends as prosocial in waves 1 and 2 respectively. For adolescents' perception of friends as deviant, Cronbach's alphas are .73 and .76 for waves 1 and 2 respectively. Plan for data analysis The data was analyzed using hierarchical ordinary least squares (OLS) regression. Through using a 3 step hierarchical regression it was possible to control for change over time. The control variables, sex and age of the adolescents, were entered in step 1. In step 2, both the 24 independent and dependent wave 1 variables were placed. Finally, in step 3, the wave 2 independent variable was placed. This allowed for an examination of how the independent variable influences the dependent variable while controlling for how each variable changes from time 1 to time 2. Separate analyses were run for mothers and fathers since mothers are more knowledgeable about adolescents' peer relationships than fathers, and mothers and their daughters report the most peer-orientated activities (Updegraff, McHale , Crouter, & Kupanoff, 2001). A s discussed previously, the sex of the adolescent is related to how much adolescents tell parents as well as to which parent they give information (Bumpus et al., 2001; Crouter et al., 1999; Stattin & Kerr, 2000; Toro et al., 2004; Updegraff et a l , 2001). However, there is no evidence that the sex of the adolescent w i l l moderate the hypothesized relationships, thus the sex of the adolescents w i l l be used as a control variable. Age wi l l also be used as a control variable. For each hypothesis a separate analysis was run for adolescents' perception of friends as prosocial and deviant. There are two methods through which the assumptions for regression w i l l be checked. First, a correlation matrix w i l l be constructed that w i l l show the intercorrelations between all variables. Second, errors (e) versus predicted y value (y) plot w i l l be created for all regressions. Together, these w i l l allow for examining of whether the assumptions have been met. Results The means, standard deviations and intercorrelations for all variables are presented in Table 1 for mothers and Table 2 for fathers. A s expected, findings differed for mothers and fathers (Crouter et al., 1999; Stattin & Kerr, 2000). For waves one and two, mean maternal desire to know, knowledge, and adolescent willingness to tell mother was higher than paternal desire to know, knowledge, and adolescent willingness to tell fathers. The correlation matrix Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations between Sex, Age, Maternal Desire to Know, Maternal Knowledge, Information to Mother, Friends as Prosocial and Friends as Deviant Wave 1 Wave 2 Variable Mean S.D. Sex Age Desire Know Tell Pro Dev Desire Know Tell Pro Sex .62 .49 Age 14.2 1.1 .00 Wave 1 Desire to know 3.64 .73 .21** -.18** Knowledge 3.68 .84 .15* -.09 4 g * * * Willingness to tell 3.47 .84 .18** -.15* .58** g 2 * * * Prosocial friends 3.74 .81 2 7 * * * .18** 3 3 * * * 4 3 * * * 42*** Deviant friends 2.38 1.00 -.15* .03 -.26*** _ 4 0 * * * . 4 2 * * * _ 4 3 * * * Wave 2 Desire to know 3.63 .78 .22** -.10 g 3 * * * 3 5 * * * 4 0 * * * .26*** -.22** Knowledge 3.59 .87 .20** -.09 31 * * * .62*** go*** 31 * * * 32*** 51 * * * Willingness to tell 3.27 .91 .20** -.06 3 7 * * * gi *** g7*** 3 3 * * * . 4 3 * * * .58*** g 4 * * * Prosocial friends 3.77 .85 2 g * * * .15* .18** 3 3 * * * .26*** 5 7 * * * _ 4 1 * * * 2 4 * * * 4 7 * * * 4 3 * * * Deviant friends 2.49 1.03 -.21** -.08 -.08 _ 3 5 * * * _ 3 1 * * * _ 3 5 * * * 6 7 * * * -.17* _ 4 0 * * * _ 3 9 * * * _ 5 1 * * * Note: Sex was coded as 0 = male, 1 = female * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 Table 2 Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations between Sex, Age, Paternal Desire to Know, Paternal Knowledge, Information to Fathers, Friends as Prosocial and Friends as Deviant Variable Mean S.D. Sex Age Wave 1 Wave 2 Desire Know Tell Pro Dev Desire Know Tell Pro Sex .62 .49 Age 14.2 1.1 .00 Wave 1 Desire to know 3.25 .85 .13 -.19** Knowledge 3.01 1.04 .01 -.09 Willingness to tell 3.06 .97 .04 -.15* 7 3 * * * go*** Prosocial friends 3.74 .81 2 7 * * * .18** 24*** 2 9 * * * .26*** Deviant friends 2.38 1.00 -.15* .03 _ 2 4 * * * . 3 4 * * * _ 4 2 * * * _ 4 3 * * * Wave 2 Desire to know 3.14 .93 .06 -.05 ^ 7 * * * 4 9 * * * g l *** .15* -.17* Knowledge 2.93 1.09 .-.04 -.01 4 7 * * * .62*** 5 4 * * * .15* -.20** g l * * * Willingness to tell 2.89 1.00 .04 -.05 5 4 * * * .65*** 71 *** 17** - 28*** 7 5 * * * g 2 * * * Prosocial friends 3.77 .85 2 g * * * .15* 2 7 * * * 24*** 19** 5 7 * * * . 4 i * * * 2 3 * * * 2 4 * * * 2 7 * * * Deviant friends 2.49 1.03 -.21** -.08 19** . 1 9 * * _ 2 5 * * * _ 3 5 * * * g 7 * * * -.24* -26*** -32*** - 51*** Note: Sex was coded as 0 = male, 1 = female * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 27 also demonstrates that the correlations remain low to moderate with absolute r values ranging from .08 to .43. This suggests that multicollinarity may not be a significant problem for regression analyses. Finally, the e versus j) plot for each regression indicate that there are no influential cases, the relationship is linear, there is a normal residual distribution, and homoscedasticity. Before testing the two competing hypotheses, the associations between parental knowledge regarding adolescents activities, whereabouts and friends, and adolescents' perception of friends as either prosocial or deviant were examined. This was an attempt to replicate previous findings indicating that parental knowledge is associated with adolescents' problematic activities (e.g., Kerr & Stattin, 2000). Based on previous research, it is hypothesized that an increase in parental knowledge regarding adolescents' activities, whereabouts and friends, w i l l be associated with an increase in adolescents' perception of their friends as prosocial. In contrast, a decrease in parental knowledge regarding adolescents' activities, whereabouts and friends, w i l l be associated with an increase in adolescents' perception of their friends as deviant. First, the associations between parental knowledge and adolescents' perception of friends as prosocial was examined. Results of O L S regressions are reported in Tables 3 (mothers) and 4 (fathers). The overall model is significant for both mothers, F(5, 227) = 35.58, p < .001, and fathers, F(5, 224) = 25.79, p < .001. In step 3, F A is significant for both mothers, FA(1 , 227) = 35.18,p < .001, and fathers, FA(1 , 224) = 25.79,p < .001. From step 2 to step 3, wave two maternal and paternal knowledge respectively account for 9% and 2% of the variance in adolescents' perception of friends as prosocial. The association between parental knowledge and perception of friends as prosocial is significant and in the expected direction for both mothers ((3 = .38,p < .001) and fathers (p = .21, p < .01). 28 Table 3 Hierarchical Regressions Predicting Adolescents' Perception of Friends as Prosocial from Maternal Knowledge (N = 233) Variable B SEB J L Step 1 Sex Age Step 2 Sex Age Knowledge Wave 1 Friends as Prosocial Wave 1 Step 3 Sex Age Knowledge Wave 1 Friends as Prosocial Wave 1 .48 .12 .23 .06 .13 .49 .17 .08 .10 .47 .69 .05 .20 .04 .06 .07 .09 .04 .07 .06 27*** .15* .13* .08 .12* 4 7 * * * .10 .10 -.10 4 5 * * * Knowledge Wave 2 .37 .06 .38* ** Note: R 2 = .10 for Step 1; A R 2 = .26*** for Step 2 and .09*** for Step 3. *p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 29 Table 4 Hierarchical Regressions Predicting Adolescents' Perception of Friends as Prosocial from Paternal Knowledge (N = 230) Variable B SEB Step 1 Sex Age Step 2 Sex Age Knowledge Wave 1 Friends as Prosocial Wave 1 Step 3 Sex Age Knowledge Wave 1 Friends as Prosocial Wave 1 .46 .12 .25 .06 .09 .51 .26 .05 -.04 .52 .11 .05 .10 .04 .05 .06 .10 .04 .07 .06 .26*** .15* .14* .08 .11 .15** .06 -.05 .50 *** Knowledge Wave 2 .17 .06 .21 ** Note: R 2 = .09 for Step 1; A R 2 = .25*** for Step 2 and .02** for Step 3. * p < .05, **p< .01, *** p < .001 30 Next, the association between parental knowledge and adolescents' perception of friends as deviant was examined. Results from the OLS regressions are displayed in Tables 5 (mothers) and 6 (fathers). The overall model is significant for both mothers, F(5, 227) = 47.15, p < .001, and fathers, F(5, 224) = 44.87,/? < .001. In step 3, FA is significant for both mothers, FA(1, 227) = 13.57,/? < .001, and fathers, FA(1, 224) = 15.06,/? < .001. Both maternal and paternal knowledge at wave two account for 3% of the variance in adolescents' perception of friends as deviant. The association between parental knowledge and perception of friends as deviant is significant and in the expected direction for both mothers (P = -.22, p < .001) and fathers (p = -.27, p < .001). Results replicate previous findings (Kerr & Stattin, 2000; Stattin & Kerr, 2000; Kerr et al., 1999) by demonstrating that parental knowledge is associated with adolescents' perception of friends. Specifically, increased parental knowledge is associated with adolescents' perception of friends as more prosocial and less deviant whereas decreased parental knowledge is associated with adolescents' perception of friends as less prosocial and more deviant. Though this model has been replicated, it remains theoretically flawed. Specifically, parental knowledge may be based on adolescents' spontaneous disclosure to parents, not parental efforts to solicit information (Kerr et a l , 1999). Moreover, adolescents' spontaneous disclosure may be a product of adolescents' decision to disclose, as based on perception of friends and predicted parental reaction to information regarding activities, whereabouts and friends. Next, the competing hypotheses were tested, beginning with the hypotheses based on the monitoring literature. Hypotheses 1 predicted that an increase in parental desire to know about adolescents' activities, whereabouts and friends will be associated with an increase in adolescents' perception of their friends as prosocial. Results of OLS regression are displayed in 31 Table 5 Hierarchical Regressions Predicting Adolescents' Perception of Friends as Deviant from Maternal Knowledge (N = 233) Variable B SEB Step 1 Sex Age Step 2 Sex Age Knowledge Wave 1 Friends as Deviant Wave 1 Step 3 Sex Age Knowledge Wave 1 Friends as Deviant Wave 1 Knowledge Wave 2 -.46 -.06 -.24 -.09 -.12 .63 -.19 -.10 .03 .62 -.26 .84 .06 .10 .04 .06 .05 .10 .04 .08 .05 .07 _ 2 2 * * * -.07 -.11* -.10* -.10 .62*** -.09 -.11* .03 2 2 * * * Note: R 2 = .05 for Step 1; AR 2 = .43*** for Step 2 and .03*** for Step 3. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 32 Table 6 Hierarchical Regressions Predicting Adolescents' Perception of Friends as Deviant from Paternal Knowledge (N = 230) Variable B SEB J l Step 1 Sex Age Step 2 Sex Age Knowledge Wave 1 Friends as Deviant Wave 1 Step 3 Sex Age Knowledge Wave 1 Friends as Deviant Wave 1 Knowledge Wave 2 -.42 -.06 -.23 -.08 -.01 .67 -.26 -.07 .18 .67 -.25 .14 .06 .10 -.05 .05 .05 .10 .04 .07 .05 .07 -.20** -.06 -.11* -.09 -.01 .65*** -.12** -.08 .18* *H _ 2 7 * * * Note: R 2 = .04 for Step 1; A R 2 = .42*** for Step 2 and .03*** for Step 3. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 33 Tables 7 (mother) and 8 (father). The overall model was significant for both mothers, F(5, 226) = 24.92,/? < .001, and fathers, F(5, 221) = 25.64,/? < .001. In step 3, FA is significant for mothers, FA(1, 226) = 5.11,/? < .05, but not fathers, FA(1, 221) = 2.14,/? = .15. Maternal desire to know in wave two accounts for 2% of the variance in adolescents' perception of friends as prosocial. Though both the maternal and paternal associations are in the expected direction, results are significant for mothers (P = .16,/? < .05), but not fathers (p = .11,/? = .15). Hypothesis 2 predicted that a decrease in parental desire to know about adolescents' activities, whereabouts, and friends will be associated with an increase in adolescents' perception of their friends as deviant. Results of OLS regressions are displayed in Tables 9 (mother) and 10 (father). The overall model is significant for both mothers F(5, 226) = 23.49,/? < .001, and fathers, F(5, 221) = 22.71,/? < .001. In step 3, FA is significant for fathers, FA(1, 221) = 5.89,/? < .05, but not mothers, FA(1, 226) = 3.5,/? = .06. Paternal desire to know in wave two accounts for 1% of the variance in adolescents' perception of friends as deviant. Though both the maternal and paternal associations are in the expected direction, results are significant for fathers (P = -.16,/? < .05), but not mothers (P = -.12,/? = .06). However, maternal results were nearing significance. Hypotheses 1 and 2 offer limited support for the monitoring literature. Specifically, increased maternal desire to know is associated with an increase in prosocial friends, and increased paternal desire to know is associated with a decrease in deviant friends. However, increased maternal desire to know was not associated with a decrease in deviant friends and increased paternal desire to know was not associated with prosocial friends. Results are not consistent with much of the monitoring literature, thus generalization about the utility of monitoring remain unfounded. Moreover, the variance explained by each model is small, ranging form 1% to 2%. 34 Table 7 Hierarchical Regressions Predicting Adolescents' Perception of Friends as Prosocial from Maternal Desire to Know (N = 232) Variable B SEB Step 1 Sex Age Step 2 Sex Age Desire to Know Wave 1 Friends as Prosocial Wave 1 Step 3 Sex Age Desire to Know Wave 1 Friends as Prosocial Wave 1 .48 .12 .24 .04 .02 .56 .22 .04 .13 .55 .11 .05 .10 .04 .07 .06 .10 .04 .08 .06 .15* .14* .06 -.02 53*** .13* .06 -.11 52*** Desire to Know Wave 2 .17 .08 .16s1 Note: R 2 = .10 for Step 1; A R 2 = .25*** for Step 2 and .02* for Step 3. *p< .05, **p < .01, *** p < .001 35 Table 8 Hierarchical Regressions Predicting Adolescents' Perception of Friends as Prosocial from Paternal Desire to Know (N = 227) Variable B SEB J l Step 1 Sex Age Step 2 Sex Age Desire to K n o w Wave 1 Friends as Prosocial Wave 1 Step 3 Sex Age Desire to K n o w Wave 1 Friends as Prosocial Wave 1 Desire to K n o w Wave 2 .45 .12 .20 .08 .15 .51 .21 .07 .08 .52 .10 .11 .05 .10 .04 .06 .06 .10 .04 .08 .06 .07 .26*** .16* .12* .10 .15** 49*** .12* .09 .08 49*** .11 Note: R 2 = .09 for Step 1; A R 2 = .27*** for Step 2 and .01 for Step 3. *p< .05, **p < .01, *** p < .001 36 Table 9 Hierarchical Regressions Predicting Adolescents' Perception of Friends as Deviant from Maternal Desire to Know (N = 232) Variable B SEB Step 1 Sex Age Step 2 Sex Age Desire to K n o w Wave 1 Friends as Deviant Wave 1 Step 3 Sex Age Desire to K n o w Wave 1 Friends as Deviant Wave 1 -.47 -.06 -.30 -.07 .14 .70 -.28 -.07 .24 .69 .14 .06 .10 .04 .07 .05 .10 .04 .09 .05 - 22*** -.07 -.14** -.08 .10* .68*** -.13** -.08 1 y** gy*** Desire to K n o w Wave 2 -.15 .08 -.12 Note: R 2 = .05 for Step 1; A R 2 = .43*** for Step 2 and .01 for Step 3. *p< .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 37 Table 10 Hierarchical Regressions Predicting Adolescents' Perception of Friends as Deviant from Paternal Desire to Know (N = 227) Variable B SEB JL Step 1 Sex Age Step 2 Sex Age Desire to Know Wave 1 Friends as Deviant Wave 1 Step 3 Sex Age Desire to Know Wave 1 Friends as Deviant Wave 1 -.43 .07 -.22 -.09 -.07 .66 -.23 -.08 .06 .67 .14 .06 .11 .05 .06 .05 .10 .05 .08 .05 -.21** -.07 -.11* -.10* -.06 -.11* -.09 .05 .64 Desire to Know Wave 2 -.18 .07 -.16* Note: R 2 = .05 for Step 1; A R 2 = .42*** for Step 2 and .01* for Step 3. */><.05, **/?<.01, ***/?<.001 38 The hypotheses developed to critique the monitoring literature using Bandura's (2001) social cognitive learning theory as a framework were examined next. Hypothesis 3 predicted that adolescents perception of their friends as prosocial is associated with giving more information to each parent regarding activities, whereabouts and friends. Results from the OLS regressions are shown in Tables 11 (mother) and 12 (father). The overall model is significant for both mothers F(5, 227) = 20.20, p < .001, and fathers, F(5, 223) = 24.00, p < .001. In step 3, FA is significant for both mothers FA(1, 227) = 36.94,p < .001, and fathers, FA(1, 223) = 14.00, p < .001. Adolescents' perception of friends as prosocial in wave two explains 8% of the variance in information to mother and 3% of the variance in information to fathers. The association between adolescents' perception of friends as prosocial and information given to parents is significant and in the expected direction for both mothers (P = .34,/? < .001) and fathers (p = .21, p < .001). Hypothesis 4 predicted that adolescents' perception of their friends as deviant is associated with giving less information to each parent regarding activities, whereabouts and friends. Results from OLS regression are in Tables 13 (mothers) and 14 (fathers). The overall model is significant for both mothers F(5, 227) = 23.88,/? < .001, and fathers, F(5, 223) = 24.00,/? < .001. In step 3, FA is significant for both mothers, FA(1, 227) = 16.86,/? < .001, and fathers, FA(1, 223) = 11.78,/? < .001 for fathers. Adolescents' perception of friends as deviant in wave two explains 4% of the variance in information to mother and 3% of the variance in information to fathers. The association between adolescents' perception of friends as deviant and amount of information given to parents is significant and in the expected direction for both mothers (p = -.27,/? < .001) and fathers (p = -.22, p < .001). Hypotheses 3 and 4 support the reinterpretation of the monitoring literature using Bandura's (2001) theory as a framework. Results were supported for both mothers and fathers, Table 11 Hierarchical Regressions Predicting Willingness to Tell Mother from Adolescents' Perception of Friends as Prosocial (N = 233) Variable B SEB Step 1 Sex Age Step 2 Sex Age Willingness to Tel l Wave 1 Friends as Prosocial Wave 1 Step 3 Sex Age Willingness to Tel l Wave 1 Friends as Prosocial Wave 1 Friends as Prosocial Wave 2 .34 -.05 .12 .02 .70 .04 .02 -.00 .69 -.15 .36 .12 .05 .10 .04 .06 .06 .09 .04 .06 .07 .06 .18** -.07 .06 .03 .65*** .03 .01 -.00 .63*** -.14 3 4 * * * Note: R 2 = .04 for Step 1; A R 2 = .42*** for Step 2 and .08*** for Step 3. *p< .05, **p < .01, *** p < .001 40 Table 12 Hierarchical Regressions Predicting Willingness to Tell Father from Adolescents' Perception of Friends as Prosocial (N = 229) Variable B SEB J l Step 1 Sex Age Step 2 Sex Age Willingness to Tell Wave 1 Friends as Prosocial Wave 1 Step 3 Sex Age Willingness to Tell Tear 1 Friends as Prosocial Wave 1 Friends as Prosocial Wave 2 .03 -.05 .00 .05 .74 -.04 -.06 .03 .73 -.17 .25 .14 .06 .10 .04 .05 .06 .10 .04 .05 .07 .07 .02 -.06 .00 .06 7 3 * * * -.04 -.03 .04 71 *** -.14* 2i*** Note: R2 = .00 for Step 1; AR2 = .50*** for Step 2 and .03*** for Step 3. *p< .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 41 Table 13 Hierarchical Regressions Predicting Willingness to Tell Mother from Adolescents' Perception of Friends as Deviant (N = 233) Variable B SEB JL Step 1 Sex Age Step 2 Sex Age Willingness to Tell Wave 1 Friends as Deviant Wave 1 Step 3 Sex Age Willingness to Tell Wave 1 Friends as Deviant Wave 1 Friends as Deviant Wave 2 -.34 -.05 .12 .03 .68 -.07 .04 .00 .67 .08 -.24 .12 .05 .09 .04 .06 .05 .09 .04 .06 .06 .06 .18** -.07 .06 .03 -.08 .02 .00 .62*** .09 27*** Note: R 2 = .04 for Step 1; A R 2 = .42*** for Step 2 and .04*** for Step 3. *p < .05, **p< .01, *** p < .001 42 Table 14 Hierarchical Regressions Predicting Willingness to Tell Father from Adolescents' Perception of Friends as Deviant (N = 229) Variable B SEB Step 1 Sex Age Step 2 Sex Age Willingness to tell Wave 1 Friends as Deviant Wave 1 Step 3 Sex Age Willingness to Tel l Wave 1 Friends as Deviant Wave 1 Friends as Deviant Wave 2 .03 -.05 -.03 .04 .71 -.06 -.08 .02 .702 .08 -.21 .14 .06 .10 .04 .05 .05 .10 .04 .05 .06 .06 .02 -.06 -.02 .05 70*** -.06 -.04 .03 go,*** .08 . 2 2 * * * Note: R 2 = .00 for Step 1; A R 2 = .50*** for Step 2 and .03*** for Step 3. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 43 and for both prosocial and deviant friends. In contrast, hypotheses based on the monitoring literature were partially supported. When examining the amount of variance accounted for, results based on monitoring account for between 1 % and 2% of the variance whereas results from the reinterpretation of monitoring account for between 3% and 8% of the variance. Discussion This study developed and tested competing hypotheses regarding the relationship between adolescents' perception of friends as prosocial or deviant and transmission of information in the parent-adolescent relationship. The first set of hypotheses were based on previous monitoring research and predicted that parental efforts to obtain information from adolescents regarding activities, whereabouts and friends wi l l increase adolescents' perception of friends as prosocial and decrease adolescents' perception of friend as deviant. However, the monitoring research has been criticized as being both theoretically and methodologically flawed (Kerr & Stattin, 2000; Stattin & Kerr, 2000). Moreover, the foundations of the monitoring literature appear to be based on Bandura's (1977) social learning theory, not Bandura's (2001) more recent social cognitive learning theory. Thus, much of the monitoring research fails to conceptualize adolescents as agentic. Through using Bandura's (2001) social cognitive learning theory as a framework, the monitoring literature was reinterpreting in a way that allowed for the development of a set of competing hypotheses which examined how adolescents' agency may influence information disclosure to parents. The competing hypotheses predicted that when adolescents perceive friends to be prosocial, adolescents w i l l give more information to parents regarding activities, whereabouts and friends, than when adolescents perceive friends to be deviant. Results from this investigation offered limited support for the monitoring hypotheses. First, knowledge was found to be positively associated with adolescents' perception of friends 44 as prosocial and negatively associated with perception of friends as deviant, which is similar to previous findings (Kerr & Stattin, 2000; Kerr et al., 1999; Stattin & Kerr, 2000). However, when the associated between desire to know and adolescents' friendships were examined, the associated was not as strong. Maternal desire to know was positively associated with adolescents' perception of friends as prosocial, but was not associated with adolescents' perception of friends as deviant. In contrast, paternal desire to know was negatively associated with adolescents' perception of friends as deviant, but was not associated with adolescents' perception of friends as prosocial. The competing hypotheses developed using Bandura's (2001) social cognitive learning theory as a framework, were supported. Adolescents' who perceived their friends to be prosocial gave more information to parents than adolescents who perceived their friends to be deviant. Many researchers (e.g., Beck et al., 2003, 2004) continue to support monitoring as a form of parental peer management, even though monitoring has been inconsistently and unclearly defined (Dishion & McMahon, 1998), measured using invalid measures (Kerr & Sattin, 2000; Stattin & Kerr, 2000), and based on assumptions that have not been tested. Two hypotheses based on the previous monitoring literature were developed in the current study. The first hypothesis predicted that the more parents desire to know about adolescents' activities, whereabouts and friends, the more prosocial adolescents w i l l perceive their friends to be. This is based on the assumption that through monitoring their children, parents are able to teach them to develop prosocial friends and engage in prosocial activities. The second hypothesis is that the less parents desire to know about adolescents' activities, whereabouts and friends, the more deviant adolescents w i l l perceive their friends to be. This is because, according to much of the monitoring literature (e.g., Cottrell et al., 2003; Patterson & 45 Stouthamer-Loeber, 1987), a failure to monitor adolescents allows adolescents to engage with deviant peers and in deviant activities. The hypotheses that parental monitoring is associated with adolescents' perception of friends as either prosocial or deviant were partially supported, with results differing for mothers and fathers. Maternal desire to know about adolescents' activities, whereabouts and friends is positively associated with adolescents' perception of their friends as prosocial, but is not associated with adolescents' perception of their friends as deviant. In contrast, higher paternal desire to know is not associated with adolescents' perception of their friends as prosocial, but is negatively associated with adolescents' perception of their friends as deviant. It should be noted that the non-significant results were in the expected directions. The positive association between maternal desire to know and adolescents' perception of friends as prosocial supports previous research that argues parental monitoring is beneficial. However, the non-significant association between maternal desire to know and adolescents' perception of friends as deviant is problematic and may indicate that factors other than parental monitoring are influencing the association. For instance, results may be due to parental reaction to adolescents' friends. Specifically, it has been found that when adolescents begin to engage in deviant behaviors, parents may refrain from attempting to gain information from the adolescents (Kerr & Stattin, 2003). Thus, for mothers, it may not be the attempts to gain information that are influencing adolescents' friendship choice, but rather mothers' perception of the adolescents' friends that is influencing how much mothers want to know. Related, Tilton-Weaver and Galambos (2003) examined parental perceptions regarding adolescents' friends, and found that parental concerns about adolescents' friends mediated the relationship between adolescents' problem behaviors and parental communication of disappointment. Parental peer management was mainly a reaction to parental perception that 46 adolescents' friends were having a negative influence on adolescents. Thus, it seems that parents may not attempt to gain information when adolescents' are engaging in deviant behaviors (Kerr & Stattin, 2003), though parents may still express disapproval i f they perceive the adolescents' friends to be having a negative influence on the adolescent (Tilton-Weaver & Galambos, 2003). The communication of disapproval may be a form of indirect peer management (Parke & Ladd, 1992; Tilton-Weaver & Galambos, 2003). The above explanation is not congruent with results found for fathers, since paternal desire to know is associated with adolescents' perception of friends as deviant, but not prosocial. This finding may be due to the differing roles mothers and fathers have within the family. For example, many researchers have found that mothers tend to discuss peer relationships more than fathers, particularly with daughters (Larson et al., 1996; Updegraff, 2001). It may be that mothers are seeking more information than fathers regarding adolescents' friends, who, for the most part, appear to be prosocial. Thus it would be expected that there would be a stronger association between parental desire to know and prosocial friends for mother than fathers. In contrast, when problems arise, such as having deviant friends, fathers may be called upon to step in and discourage adolescents from engaging with deviant friends and in deviant activities. This is not incongruent with the finding that parents tend to disengage when adolescents' become more deviant (Kerr & Stattin, 2003) because 73.4% of the respondents in Kerr and Stattin's (2003) study were mothers and the authors grouped both mothers and fathers into the category of parents. It is possible that since the majority of respondents were mothers, potential differences in fathers were missed or suppressed. Moreover, findings for fathers offer support to Tilton-Weaver and Galambos' (2003) finding that parental peer management may be a reaction to parental perception that adolescents' friends are having a negative influence on adolescents. For fathers, though not mothers, the 47 perception that adolescents' peers are having a negative influence on adolescents may increase the likelihood of parental intervention. However, for both mothers and fathers, it appears that parents' perceptions of adolescents' friends are important in understanding parental behaviors regarding adolescents' friendships. Nevertheless, maternal and paternal reactions to, and perhaps perceptions of, adolescents' friends appear to be quite different. Future research might attempt to ascertain the differing roles of mother and fathers in managing adolescents' peer relationships. A s discussed, the monitoring literature appears to have foundations in Bandura' (1977) social learning theory. This is problematic because Bandura (2001) has developed a newer social cognitive learning theory, which takes into accounts people's agentic actions within their environment. This represents a shift from the view that people are passive recipients of environmental stimuli, to a theory that envisions people as active, agentic beings that influence the environment and actively interpret stimuli. Using Bandura's (2001) social cognitive learning theory as a framework to reinterpret the monitoring literature allowed for the development of a model that examines how adolescents' use agency to decide how much information to disclose in the parent-adolescent relationship. This reinterpretation led to the development of two competing hypotheses. The first hypothesis proposed that the more prosocial adolescents perceive their friends to be, the more wil l ing adolescents w i l l be to give information to parents regarding activities, whereabouts and friends. The second hypothesis predicted that the more deviant adolescents perceive their friends to be, the less wil l ing they w i l l be to give information to parents regarding activities, whereabouts and friends. These hypotheses were based on the premise that adolescents may use their agency and information about their friends to decide how much information to give to parents regarding activities, whereabouts and friends. Specifically, adolescents may use forethought to predict the 48 consequences of giving information to parents about prosocial or deviant activities, whereabouts and friends, and then use intentionality to act in a way that either leads to, or avoids, the predicted consequences. Adolescents who perceive their friends to be prosocial are unlikely to predict that parents w i l l give negative consequences when information is given, thus adolescents w i l l l ikely give information to parents. In contrast, adolescents who perceive their friends to be deviant may be less likely to give information to parents about activities, whereabouts and friends because parents would be more likely to give negative consequences, such as punishment or degradation of friends. The hypotheses developed using Bandura's (2001) theory as a framework were supported. Results from this study indicate that, for both mothers and fathers, the more prosocial adolescents perceive their friends to be, the more wil l ing adolescents are to give information to parents regarding activities, whereabouts and friends. In contrast, the more deviant adolescents perceive their friends to be, the less wil l ing adolescents are to give information about activities, whereabouts and friends to parents. Results seem to indicate that adolescents' perception of their friends as either prosocial or deviant is influencing how much information they are wil l ing to give to parents. The next steps in understanding this process should involve obtaining information about adolescents' reasons for deciding how much information to give to parents. These findings demonstrated the importance of friendships in understanding adolescents' behavior with other members of adolescents' environment, specifically parents. This has extended previous research showing adolescents' well-being and socialization is strongly associated with adolescents' development of friendships (Bronfenbrenner, 1970; Collins & Laursen, 2004; Hartup, 1979; Parker, Rubin, Price, DeRoiser, 1995), by demonstrating that adolescents' friendships also influence disclosure of information in the 49 parent-adolescent relationship. Thus, prosocial friends may be able to benefit adolescents' well-being, socialization and communication with parents whereas deviant friends may be a detriment to theses. However, such a crude prosocial-friends-are-good and deviant-friends-are-bad interpretation is far too simplistic. With regards to the impact of adolescents' friendships on communication with parents, both parental reaction to information about deviance and parental tolerance for deviant activities may influence how much information adolescents w i l l give. If parents react negatively or have no tolerance for adolescents' engagement in deviant activities, whereabouts and friends, adolescents may not give information to parents (Kerr & Stattin, 2003). However, i f parents are receptive to such conversations and have tolerance for engagement in some deviance, adolescents may continue giving information to parents. This is significant because engagement with deviant peers or in deviant activities may not be problematic; rather, it may be purposeful action aimed to meet normative goals, such as socialization. For example, Maggs and colleagues (1995) found that underage engagement in drinking at college was associated with feelings of acceptance and belonging. Even though underage binge drinking has detrimental effects, it is still a useful way for adolescents to engage with peers and develop friendships. Similarly, evidence suggests that adolescents' reasons for engaging in deviant behavior are because it is fun (Maggs et al., 1995). The problem, or paradox, is that friends, including deviant friends, are vital to adolescents' wellbeing (e.g., Collins & Laursen, 2004), yet i f parents react negatively and do not approve of adolescents' friends, the potential benefits of having the friends are lost. Moreover, i f adolescents then begin to limit information to parents due to parental reactions, parents w i l l not be privy to information that may be important in ensuring adolescents remain safe. 50 Findings from this study demonstrate an important connection between the sociology of friendships and the study of parent-child relationships. According to the literature on the sociology of friendships (e.g., A l l an & Adams, 2007), friendships exist within individuals' environment, and allow people to structure and organize their lives how they see fit, though within the confines of class, sex, sexuality and ethnicity. Thus, through personal agency people can shape their environment to fit with their desires or goals. This means people may actively develop friendships as a means through which to create particular social identities. Relating these concepts to this study, adolescents with deviant friends may be attempting to gain life experience that they cannot gain with parents, so they agentically choose friends who allow for those experiences (Kerr et al., 2006) while also limiting how much information is given to parents so that these relationships can continue. This is similar to Erikson's (1968) argument that during adolescence, adolescents being to question who they are and what they mean to others, with questions of identity coming to the forefront for resolution. Hence, adolescents begin to explore various social identities. Peer are important in this process in that friends provide a source of exploration and self-validation during times when identity may be uncertain during the individuation process from parents (Erikson, 1968). In contrast to the argument that friendship choice is agentic and related to issues of identity formation, much of the literature on parenting, including monitoring (e.g., Beck et al., 2003; 2004; Dishion & McMahon, 1998), appears to assumes adolescents' engagement with deviant peers is due to failures or shortcomings in parenting. This usurps agency from adolescents and gives it to parents. For example, in much of the literature on delinquency, including the general theory of crime, parenting behaviors are often cited as important influences on the development of antisocial behaviors (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1986). M u c h of the research in this area argues that the major influences 51 of adolescents' engagement in deviant activities and with deviant peers are negative parenting characteristics (Loeber & Farrington, 1998; Patterson, Forgatch, Yoerfer, & Stoolmiller, 1988), rejecting and harsh parenting (Barnow, Lucht, & Freyberger, 2001), rejecting parents who offer little emotion support and have aggression and delinquency problems themselves (Asher, Parkhurst, Hymel , & Williams, 1990; Kumpfer & Turner, 1990). Though this literature appears to implicate parents in adolescents' choice of friends, the sociology of friendships literature (e.g., A l l a n & Adams, 2007) and Erikson's (1968) work on identity would argue that parental peer management strategies may not be effective at influencing adolescents' friendship choice since adolescents are choosing friends as a means for gaining particular experiences, not entirely because parents have failed to teach them to engage in prosocial activities with prosocial peers. Thus, friendship choice may not be fully due to failures (or successes) of parenting, but rather adolescents' rational choice to explore various identities. Another possibility, developed by Kerr and colleagues (2006) is that since adolescents' have little choice about parents and the parenting context, they may evoke choice in friends and the context in which their friends exists. Thus, friendship choice may be about adolescents creating, at least from their own perspective, a desirable environment that may not be attainable within the parenting environment. Taken together, this raises questions about why adolescents engage with, and befriend, deviant peers. Research should be devoted to developing a better understanding of the etiology of adolescents' choice of friendships. Not only is this information important for the development of models and research relating to adolescents' friendships and development, but this research is vital for the creation of intervention and prevention programs. For example, i f friends are chosen as a means for exploring identity or creating an environment unattainable with parents, then this necessitates interventions that focus on adolescents' identities, not parenting practices. 52 This study has challenged much of the monitoring literature by demonstrating that parental efforts to monitor adolescents may have only limited influence on adolescents' friendships, whereas adolescents' friendships appear to more strongly influence how much information adolescents give to parents. This extends Kerr and colleagues (1999) findings by showing that not only is parental monitoring ineffective at gaining information from adolescents, but that monitoring does not seem to strongly influence adolescents' friendship choices. In fact, other factors, such as parental perception of adolescents' friends, may be causing the associations between parental desire to know and adolescents' perception of friends. Reinterpreting the monitoring literature through developing a model that examines adolescents' agency and the environment in which the parent-adolescent relationship is embedded, allows for a better understanding of how adolescents' parents and friends influence one another. This study is an important demonstration of the limitations of research on monitoring that uses unidirectional models and assumes parents have agency whereas adolescents do not. A s mentioned, this study has assumed that adolescents are agentic and use information about their friendships and parents to decide whether or not to give information to parents. Previous researchers (Darling et al., 2006; Marshall et al., 2005) have examined adolescents' own accounts of why they decided to either disclose or withhold information form parents. However, these studies did not look at how adolescents' accounts related specifically to friendships. Adolescents' accounts of how and why they manage information to parents based on their friendships should be examined to enhance understanding of adolescents' disclosure to parents. This would allow researchers to examine adolescents' strategies and rationale for regulating information to parents. Investigation of information management about friends would be valuable in understanding the relationship between parental knowledge and 53 adolescents' spontaneous disclosure to parents. This is particularly important since adolescents' spontaneous disclosure of information, not parental efforts to obtain information, appears to be associated to engagement in deviant activities (Stattin & Kerr, 2000). Thus, understanding how and why adolescents decide to give information to parents allows for a better understanding of how adolescent disclosure may be linked to adolescents' engagement with deviant peers. A limitation of this study is that only a single source was used to collect data. A l l information came from adolescents' own perspectives. It cannot be assumed that adolescents' accounts accurately represent parents' actions or behaviors. However, this is not a major shortcoming since the variables examined should be examined through adolescents' perspectives. For example, the relationship between adolescents' perception of friends and friendship choice is best understood through adolescents' perspectives, since parental accounts may be inaccurate. More problematic, is that by using a single source for data collection, only an individual level of analysis is being examined even though this study is attempting to examine a bidirectional relationship. Examining parent-adolescent and adolescent-peer relationships is best done through a dyadic level of analysis, since these relationships are the product of interactions. This study adds to the current debates around monitoring by showing that monitoring does not offer a good explanation of adolescents' choice of either prosocial or deviant friends. In contrast, it appears that adolescents' perception of friends offers a much better explanation of adolescents' choice to disclose information to parents. This is a significant move from a model of parental peer management that has failed to include adolescents' agentic actions, to a reinterpretation that examines adolescents as agentic beings. Through demonstrating the importance of adolescents' agency within parent and friend relationships, this study has also 54 demonstrated the current shortcoming in much of our understanding of why adolescents may choose either prosocial or deviant friends. Most of the previous literature has assumed that parenting is the major influence on adolescents' choice of friends (e.g., Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). However, the current study challenges this literature on the grounds that adolescents' friendship choice may be based on adolescents' choice to befriend either prosocial or deviant peers, perhaps as a means for exploring identity. Though this study has added to the criticisms of the monitoring literature, the most significant contribution is building a model of adolescents' use of agency within the context of peer and parent relationships. This type of research w i l l be a catalyst for developing a better understanding of how adolescents balance the overlap between the parent and peer domains. 55 References Al lan , G . , & Adams, R. (2007). Sociology of friendships. In C. Bryant & D . Peck (Eds.), 21st Century Sociology: A Reference Handbook, Vol. 2 (pp. 123-131). Thousand Oaks, C A : Sage. Asher, S., Parkhurst, J., Hymel, S., & Williams, G . (1990). Peer rejection and loneliness in childhood. In S. Asher (Ed.), Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 253-273). N e w York: Cambridge University Press. Bandura, A . (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, N J : Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A . (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, N J : Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A . (2001). Social cognitive theory: A n agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1-26. Bandura, A . (2002). Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 52 (2), 269-290. Bandura, A . (2006). Towards a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1 (2), 164-180. Barnow, S., Lucht, M . , & Freyberger, N . (2001). Influence of punishment, emotional rejection, child abuse, and broken home on aggression in adolescents: A n examination of aggressive adolescents in Germany. Psychopathology, 34, 167-173. Beck, K . , Boyle, J., & Boekeloo, B . (2003). Parental monitoring and adolescent alcohol risk in a clinical population. American Journal of Health Behavior, 27(2), 108-115. Beck, K . , Boyle, J., & Boekeloo, B . (2004). Parental monitoring and adolescent drinking: Results of a 12-month follow-up. American Journal of Health Behavior, 28 (3), 272-279. 56 Bierman, K. L. (2003). Peer Rejection: Developmental processes and intervention strategies. New York: The Guilford Press. Block, J. H. (1983). Another look at sex differentiation in the socialization behaviors of mother and fathers. In J. Sherman & F. L. Denmark (Eds.), Psychology of women: Future directions for research (pp. 29-87). New York: Psychological Dimensions. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1970). Two world of childhood: U.S. and U.S.S.R. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Bumpus, M., Crouter, A., & McHale, S. (2001). Parental autonomy granting during adolescence: Exploring gender differences in context. Developmental Psychology, 37 (2), 163-173. Cervantes, C. A., & Callanan, M. A. (1998). Labels and explanations in mother-child emotion talk: Age and gender differentiation. Developmental Psychology, 34, 8-98. Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Kupersmidt, J. G. (1990). Peer group behavior and social status. In S. R. Asher & J. D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 17-59). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Collins, W. A., & Laursen, B. (2004). Parent-adolescent relationships and influences. In R. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (2nd ed., pp. 331-361). New York: Wiley. Collins, W. A., & Steinberg, L. (2006). In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed., pp. 1003-1067). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Cortes, J. B., & Gatti, F. M. (1972). Delinquency and crime: A biopsychological approach. New York: Seminar Press. Cottrell, L . , L i , X . , Harris, C , D'Alessandri, D . , Atkins, M . , Richardson, B . , & Stanton, B . (2003). Parent and adolescent perceptions of parental monitoring and adolescent risk involvement. Parenting: Science and Practice, 3 (3), 179-195. Crouter, A . , MacDermid, S., McHale , S., & Perry-Jenkins, M . (1990). Parental monitoring and perceptions of children's school performance and conduct in dual- and ingle-earner families. Developmental psychology, 26 (4), 649-657. Crouter, A . , Helms-Erikson, H . , Updegraff, K . , & McHale , S. (1999). Conditions underlying parents' knowledge about children's daily lives in middle childhood: Between- and within-family comparisons. Child Development, 70, 246-259. Csikzentmihalyi, M . , & Larson, R. (1984). Being adolescent: Conflict and growth in the teenage years. N e w York: Basic. Darling, N . , Cumsille, P., Caldwell, L . L . , & Dowdy, B . (2006). Predictors of adolescents' disclosure to parents and perceived parental knowledge: Between- and within-person differences. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35(4), 659-670. Dishion, T. J., & McMahon , R. J. (1998). Parental monitoring and the prevention of child and adolescent problem behavior: A conceptual and empirical formulation. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 1(1), 61-75. Dishion, T. J., Nelson, S. E . , & Bullock, B . M . (2004). Premature adolescent autonomy: Parent disengagement and deviant peer process in the amplification of problem behavior. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 515-530. Dornbusch, S. M . , Carlsmith, J. M . , Bushwall, P. L . , Ritter, P. L . , Leiderman, P., Hastorf, A . H . , et al. (1985). Single parents, extended households, and the control of adolescents. Child Development, 56, 326-341. 58 Dornbusch, S. M . , Ritter, P. L . , Leiderman, P. H . , & Roberts, & Fraleigh, M . J. (1987). The relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child Development, 58, 1244-1257. Erikson, E . (1968). Identity, youth and crisis. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Etaugh, C , & Liss, M . B . (1992). Home, school, and playroom: Training grounds for adult gender roles. Sex Roles, 26, 129-147. Fisher-Thompson, D . (1993). Adult toy purchase for children: Factors affecting sex-typed toy selection. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 14, 385-406. Fivush, R. (1989). Exploring sex differences in the emotional content of mother-child conversations about the past. Sex Roles, 20, 675-691. Fletcher, A . , Darling, N . , & Steinberg, L . (1995). Parental monitoring and peer influences on adolescent substance use. In J. McCord (Ed.), Coercion and punishment in long-term perspectives (pp. 259-271). New York: Cambridge University Press. Forehand, R., Mi l le r , K . S., Dutra, R., & Chance, M . W. (1997). Role of parenting in adolescent deviant behavior: Replication across and within two ethnic groups. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65(6), 1036-1041. Galambos, N . L . & Maggs, J. L . (1991). Out-of-school care of young adolescents and self-reported behavior. Developmental Psychology, 27, 644-655. Gervai, J., Turner, P. J., & Hinde, R. A . (1995). Gender-related behavior, attitudes, and personality in parents of young children in England and Hungary. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 18, 105-126. Gottfredson, M . R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford University Press. 59 Hartup, W . W. (1979). The social worlds of childhood. American Psychologist, 34, 944-950.. In D . Cicchetti & D . Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Vol 2. Risk, disorder, and adaptation (pp. 96-161). New York, Wiley. Hinde, R. A . , & Stevenson-Hinde, J. (1987). Interpersonal relationships and child development. Developmental Review, 7, 1-21. Hirschi, L . (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press. Keating, D . (1990). Adolescent thinking. In S. S. Feldman, & G . R. Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 54-89). Cambridge, M A : Harvard University Press. Kerr, M . , Stattin, H . , & Trost, K . (1999). To know you it to trust you: Parents' trust is rooted in child disclosure of information. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 737-253. Kerr, M . , & Stattin, H . (2000). What parent know, how they know it, and several forms of adolescent adjustment: Further support for a reinterpretation of monitoring. Developmental Psychology, 36(3), 366-380. Kerr, M . , & Stattin, H . (2003). Parenting of adolescents: Action or reaction? In A . C. Crouter & A . Booth (Eds.), Children's influence on family dynamics: The neglected side of family relationships (pp. 121-151). Mahawah, N J : Lawrence Erlbaum. Kerr, M . , Stattin, H . , & Ferrer-Wreder, L . (2006). In R. M . Lerner, M . A . Easterbrooks, & J. Mistry (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology: Vol 6. Developmental psychology. N e w York: Wiley. Ketterlinus, R. D . , & Lamb, M . E . (1994). Adolescent problem behaviors. Hillside, N J : Relbaum. 60 Kuczynski , L . , Marshall, S., & Schell, K . (1997). Value socialization in a bidirectional context. In J . Grusec & L . Kuczynski (Eds.), Parenting and children's internalization of values (pp. 23-50). N e w York, N Y : John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Kumpfer, K . , & Turner, C. (1990). The social ecology model of adolescent substance abuse: Implications for prevention. International Journal of Addiction, 25, 435-463. Larson, R. W. , Richard, M . H . , Moneta, G. , Holmbeck, G. , & Duckett, E . (1996). Changes in adolescents' daily interactions with their families from ages 10-18: Disengagement and transformation. Developmental Psychology, 32, 744-754. Loeber, R., & Ferrington, D . (1998). Serious and violent juvenile offenders. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M . (1986). Family factors as correlates and predictors of juvenile conduct problems and delinquency. In M . Tonry & N . Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice: An annual review of research (Vol . 7, pp. 29-149). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Maggs, J., Almeida, D . , & Galambos, N . (1995). Risky business: The paradoxical meaning of problem behavior for young adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15 (3), 344-362. Marshall, S. K . , Tilton-Weaver, L . C , & Bosdet, L . (2005). Information management: Considering adolescents' regulation of parental knowledge. Journal of Adolescence, 28, 633-647. M c C o r d , J. (1979). Some child-rearing antecedents of criminal behavior in adult men. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 1477-1486. Mounts, N . (2004). Adolescents' perceptions of parental management of peer relationships in an ethnically diverse sample. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19(A), 446-467. 61 Parke, R. D . , & Ladd, G . W. (1992). Family-peer relationships: Modes of linkage. Hillsdale, N J : Erlbaum. Parker, J. G . , Rubin, K . H . , Price, J. M . , & DeRoiser, M . E . (1995). Peer relationships, child development and adjustment: A developmental psychopathological perspective. Patterson, G . R. (1982). Coercive family process. Eugene, OR: Castalia. Patterson, G . R., & Bank, L . (1987). When is a nominological network a construct. In D . R. Peterson & D . B . Fishman (Eds.), Assessment for decision (pp. 249-279). N e w Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Patterson, G . , & Stouthamer-Loeber, M . (1984). The correlation of family management practices and delinquency. Child Development, 55, 1299-1307. Patterson, G . , Forgatch, M . , Yoerger, K . , & Stoolmiller, M . (1988). Variables that initiate and maintain an early-onset trajectory for juvenile offending. Developmental Psychopathology, 70,531-547. Pedhazur, E.J . , & Schmelkin, L . P. (1991). Measurement, design and analysis: An integrated approach. Hillsdale, N J . Chapter 6: Selected approaches to measurement in sociobehavioral research (pp. 118-146). Rothbart, M . K . , & Rothbart, M . (1976). Birth-order, sex of child and maternal help giving, Sex Roles, 2, 39-46. Rubin, J. Z . , Provenzano, F. J., & Laura, Z . (1974). The eye of the beholder: Paernts' views on sex of newborns. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 44, 512-519. Shillington, A . , Lehman, S., Clapp, J., Hovell , M . , Sipan, C , & Blumberg, E . (2005). Parental monitoring: Can it continue to be protective among high-risk adolescents? Journal of Child and Adolescent Substance Abuse, 15 (1), 1-15. 62 Simpkins, S. D . , & Parke, R. D . (2002). Maternal monitoring and rules as correlates of children's social adjustment. Merill-Palmer Quarterly, 48, 360-377. Smetana, J. G . , Metzger, A . , Gettman, D . C , & Campione-Barr, N . (2006). Disclosure and secrecy in adolescent-parent relationships. Child Development, 77(1), 201-217. Stattin, H . , & Kerr, M . (2000). Parental monitoring: A reinterpretation. Child Development, 71, 1072-1085. Steinberg, L . (2001). We know some things: Parent-adolescent relationships in retrospect and prospect. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 11, 1-19. Stern, M . & Karraker, K . K . (1989). Sex stereotyping of infants: A review of gender labeling studies. Sex Roles, 20, 201-522. Tilton-Weaver, L . C . & Galambos, N . L . (2003). Adolescents' characteristics and parents' beliefs as predictors of parents' peer management behaviors. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 13(3), 269-300. Toro, P., Urberg, K . , & Heinze, H . (2004). Antisocial behavior and affiliation with deviant peers. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33 (2), 336-346. Turner P. J., & Gervai, J. (1995). A multidimensional study of gender typing in preschool children and their parents: personality, attitudes, preferences, behavior, and cultural differences. Developmental Psychology, 31, 759-772. Updegraff, K . , McHale , S., Crouter, A . , & Kupanoff, K . (2001). Parents' involvement in adolescents' peer relationships: A comparison of mothers' and fathers' roles. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 655-668. 63 Appendix 1 Demographic Information Tel l us about yourself: Are you make or female? (select) o Male o Female What is your age? (years) What is your birth date? (month) (day) ( v e a r ) What is your cultural background? (check all that apply): o First Nations/Native o Caucasian/European o Latino/Hispanic o African o South Asian (e.g., India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka) o East Asian (e.g., China, Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Vietnam) o South East Asian (e.g., Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand) Who do you live with most or all of the time? o I live with both of my parents, who are married to each other and/or l iving together 0 I live with homestay parents. ( A l l questions about parents in this survey should be answered about your homestay parents). 1 live with one of my parents only, most of the time. I mostly live with (select one): o M o m o Dad 64 I live with my mom and her partner (a person married or l iving with my mom). M y mom's partner is (select one): o Male 0 Female 1 live with my dad and his partner (a person married or l iving with my dad). M y dad's partner is (select one): o Male 0 Female 1 live with my mom and her partner (a person married or l iving with my mom). M y mom's partner is (select one): o Male o Female o I do not live with either of my parents. I live with another family member. Who? o I live in a situation different than any of the ones listed. 65 Appendix 2 Where I am Choose the rating you feel best describes each of your parents. (1 = doesn 't know much, 3 = knows some, 5 = knows a lot) o H o w much does your mother (father) really know where you go at night? o H o w much does your mother (father) really know where you are most afternoons after school? o H o w much does your mother (father) really know about how you spend your money? o H o w much does your mother (father) really know what you do with your free time? o H o w much does your mother (father) really know who your friends are? o H o w much does your mother (father) really know who you talk to on text or instant messaging, in chat room, on email? o H o w much does your mother (father) really know how much time you spend on text or instant messaging, in chat room, on email? 66 Appendix 3 Parental Desire to know Choose the rating you feel best describes each of your parents. (1 = does not want to know, 3 = wants to know some, 5 = wants to know in detail) o H o w much does your mother (father) really want to know where you go at night? o H o w much does your mother (father) really want to know where you are most afternoons after school? o H o w much does your mother (father) really want to know about how you spend your money? o H o w much does your mother (father) really want to know what you do with your free time? o H o w much does your mother (father) really want to know who your friends are? o H o w much does your mother (father) really want to know who you talk to on text or instant messaging, in chat rooms, on email? o H o w much does your mother (father) really want to know how much time you spend on text or instant messaging, in chat rooms, on email? 67 Appendix 4 Amount of Information Adolescents Give to Parents H o w much do you tell your mother (father) the following (1 = no information, 3 = some information, 5 = a lot of information) o Where you are going at night, o Where you are going after school, o H o w you spend your money, o H o w you spend your free time, o Who your friends are. o Who you talk to on text or instant messaging, in chat rooms, on email, o H o w much time you spend talking on text or instant messaging, in chat rooms, on email. Appendix 5 Adolescents' Perception of Friends as Prosocial or Deviant M y Friends (1 = not true at all, 3 = somewhat true, 5 = very true) o Most of my friends would help other people without being asked, (prosocial) o The people I hang out with are liked by parents and teachers, (prosocial) o I know many kids who have stolen something, (deviant) o In general, my friends are fairly honest, (prosocial) o M y friends often do things their parents say not to do. (deviant) o M y closest friend almost always show responsible behavior, (prosocial) o M y friends often get into trouble, (deviant) 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0302410/manifest

Comment

Related Items