Authoritative Parenting and Adolescents’ Digital Citizenship Behaviors: Sequential Mediation of Parental Fairness and Self-Disclosure

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3093585/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Authoritative Parenting and Adolescents’ Digital Citizenship Behaviors: Sequential Mediation of Parental Fairness and Self-Disclosure

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3093585/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background.

Parenting-related factors are associated with adolescents’ online behavior. However, the relationship between the adopted parenting style and digital citizenship behaviors, as well as the variables underlying this relationship, needs to be clarified. Hence, this study examined the relationship between authoritative parenting and digital citizenship behaviors and explored the mediating roles of perceived parental fairness and self-disclosure in adolescents.

Methods.

A total of 709 Mexican (52% female, M = 14.6, SD = 1.90) middle and high school students in northwest and southwest Mexico were recruited for this study. Latent structural equation modeling was performed to assess the direct and indirect relationships between variables controlling for gender.

Results.

The results showed a positive association between authoritative parenting, parental fairness, self-disclosure, and digital citizenship behavior. In addition, parental fairness, self-disclosure, and digital citizenship behaviors. In addition, parental fairness and self-disclosure partially mediated the association between authoritative parenting and digital citizenship.

Conclusions.

These findings suggest that authoritative parenting and adolescents’ perceptions of parental fairness play an important role in adolescents' self-disclosure and development of digital citizenship behaviors.

Authoritative parenting

parental fairness

self-disclosure

digital citizenship

adolescent

Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) have a high penetration into adolescents’ lives; therefore, how they behave online has attracted the attention of many scholars [1, 2]. Mexico has approximately 96.8 million Internet users, representing an Internet penetration ratio of 74% of the total population [3]. However, Mexican adolescents are reported to be the most active population, with about 90% of them using the Internet for diverse activities and more than 60% accessing the Internet from home [4].

Adolescents use the Internet for communication, learning, and fun [5, 6]. Although Internet use has several benefits for adolescents, including the development of intellectual skills, better performance in academic and research activities, and leisure and social activities [7, 8, 9, 10], its misuse can also have detrimental consequences. Recently, the exponential growth of Internet use has raised concerns about the mental health of users, especially adolescents [2, 11], as they are typically the targets of Internet misuse [11]. According to multiple scholars, Internet misuse is highly related to anxiety, depression, substance abuse, and academic problems [12, 13, 14]. As a result, Internet misuse is considered a public health problem [15].

In this context, the value and usefulness of digital citizenship remain essential for raising awareness of the importance of respectful and socially responsible Internet use in adolescents [16, 17]. Digital citizenship is a protective factor against problematic Internet use [15], such as online hate, unwanted sexual content [18], and cyberaggression [19, 20, 21, 22]. Digital citizenship has been positively associated with happiness [15], defending intervention in cyberbullying [20, 23], and citizenship [24, 25].

Digital citizenship is a multidimensional construct comprising various aspects of how individuals engage with digital technology and how their behavior influences themselves and others. Some aspects of digital citizenship focus on personal responsibility and self-regulation, while others emphasize treating others with respect and kindness in digital environments [16, 17, 20, 25, 26]. However, throughout the literature, online ethical behaviors and online civic engagement behaviors are considered two critical aspects of digital citizenship for adolescents. Online ethical behaviors indicate respect for and interest in the well-being of people or groups with similar or different perspectives and opinions, whereas online civic engagement behaviors include behaviors aimed at promoting and achieving community welfare such as volunteering and charity [20, 23, 27].

Despite the multiple positive influences of digital citizenship on adolescent development, empirical research on its associated variables is scarce. Additionally, these studies have addressed personal factors, such as social media use [5, 7, 15], and school factors, such as curriculum design and intervention strategies [19, 28, 29]. Limited studies examining parenting practices that influence adolescents’ online behavior have focused on risky rather than positive digital behaviors. Then the need for more research on parenting-related factors associated with digital citizenship behavior in adolescents is particularly notable.

Parenting and adolescents’ digital behaviors

During the last few years, notable efforts have been made to educate and re-educate adolescents to engage in civic online behaviors. Nonetheless, these efforts have left aside the family, despite being the influential socialization agent [30, 31, 32]. According to several scholars [1, 33, 34], the most effective approach to promoting digital citizenship among adolescents should consider parenting practices.

Parenting practices are a critical aspect of family socialization that involve parental behaviors aimed at socializing specific goals and behaviors in children [35, 36, 37]. To date, few studies have examined the influence of family factors on adolescents’ digital citizenship development. Furthermore, these studies do not focus on parenting or lack a solid theoretical framework [1, 38, 39, 40, 41]. To our knowledge, only one work uses a theoretical framework to explore the influence of parenting on digital citizenship [27]. Wang and colleagues found that parental autonomy support was positively related to adolescents’ digital citizenship behaviors.

Although an authoritative parenting framework may contribute to explaining the relationships between parenting practices and adolescents’ prosocial behavior [27, 42, 43, 44], no study has used this framework to examine the relationships between parenting practices and digital citizenship. Authoritative parenting involves practices that privilege parent-child dialogue to reach agreements and assertively communicate expectations about children’s expected behavior and firm behavioral control [37, 45]. Authoritative practices include three essential conditions. First, warmth and involvement refer to the availability and willingness of parents to fulfill children’s emotional needs. Second, reasoning and induction refers to setting consistent limits and rules, as well as fair consequences for children behavior. Third, granting autonomy encourages children to make autonomous decisions within certain established limits [46, 47].

Socialization research suggests that children's perceptions of parenting are critical in explaining their behaviors [31, 36]. However, despite their significance, a gap remains in the existing literature. No studies have specifically analyzed how adolescents' perceived parenting practices mediate the relationships between parenting practices and their subsequent behaviors. Understanding these mediating processes can provide valuable insights into the mechanisms through which parenting practices influence adolescent behavior, particularly in the context of their online activities, shedding light on the complex dynamics that underlie the parent-child relationship during this critical developmental stage.

Mediation through perceived parental fairness

Social cognitive theory [48] asserts that the evaluation of others’ reactions influences the decision to take action in the future. Consequently, parents’ reactions critically influence children’s behavior [49, 50]. Children’s perceptions of the appropriateness of parenting practices are known as parental fairness, a concept often related to children’s behavior throughout the literature [49, 51, 52, 53, 54].

Scholars found a negative association between loneliness and victimization and children’s perception of warmth and parental support [55]. Other scholars [56, 57] have also reported a positive association between children’s perceptions of parental responsiveness and involvement with self-disclosure. A possible explanation for these associations is a positive association between parental inductiveness and the internalization of values [37]. Thus, we expected that adolescents’ perceptions of parenting fairness would mediate the association between parenting practices and online behaviors.

Mediation thought adolescent self-disclosure

Parents’ knowledge of children’s activities and whereabouts remain crucial during socialization [31]. Empirical evidence suggests that parental knowledge about their children’s whereabouts is negatively associated with adolescents’ risky behaviors [1, 58], Internet addiction [59, 60], and interaction with strangers [61]. Although parents may obtain this information differently, it has been suggested that adolescents’ self-disclosure is an essential source of parental knowledge [62, 63, 64]. Scholars suggested that children’s self-disclosure is the most valuable mechanism for information exchange between parents and children; therefore, it is essential during socialization [65].

Adolescents' self-disclosure is defined as their willingness to spontaneously share information with parents about different activities without being asked to do so [66, 67]. Self-disclosure has been positively related to psychological well-being [68] and behavioral adjustment [69] in adolescents. It is also found to have a negative association with antisocial behaviors [70, 71, 72] and a positive association with offline prosocial behaviors [71, 73].

Self-disclosure is critical regarding digital aspects given that teenagers usually surpass their parents' digital skills. Parents struggle to monitor their children's digital activities [33], often leading them to be unaware of online behaviors [1, 74]. Although, to our knowledge, no study has explored the predictors of adolescents' self-disclosure of their online behaviors with parents, some related studies [51, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81] suggest that authoritative parenting and adolescents' perception of the appropriateness of parenting are associate with adolescents' self-disclosure of offline behaviors as well [76, 77, 80].

The present study

There is a significant lack of research on adolescents’ civic online behaviors, given that the current research has focused on risky digital behaviors rather than positive ones. Although research interest in explaining digital citizenship has increased in recent years, gaps remain, especially in the relationship between parenting practices and digital citizenship among adolescents. To address these gaps, the present study examined the relationship between authoritative parenting and adolescents’ digital citizenship behaviors statically control for adolescents’ gender. Furthermore, it attempts to identify the mediating roles of perceived parental justice and self-disclosure in Mexican adolescents. The hypothesized model is illustrated in Fig. 1.

Figure 1

Hypothesized model of relations among authoritative parenting, parental fairness, adolescent’s self-disclosure, and digital citizenship behavior

Based on previous findings, we propose the following hypotheses. H1: Authoritative parenting was positively associated with parental fairness, self-disclosure, and digital citizenship behavior. H2: Parental fairness is positively associated with self-disclosure and digital citizenship behavior. H3: Self-disclosure is positively related to digital citizenship behavior. H4: Parental fairness mediates the relationship between authoritative parenting and digital citizenship behavior. H5: Self-disclosure mediates the association between authoritative parenting and digital citizenship behavior; H6. Parental fairness and self-disclosure are sequential mediators of authoritative parenting and digital citizenship behavior.

Participants and procedure

Convenience sampling was used to recruit the participants. This study included 709 Mexican students from 20 urban schools in Sonora, Sinaloa, and Tabasco, Mexico. Participant ages ranged from 11 to 18 years (M = 14.6, SD = 1.90; 52% males), and they attended middle school (n = 359) and high school (n = 350). Similar to most urban public schools in Mexico, participating students came from low and middle socioeconomic backgrounds [82].

The study protocol was designed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the university’s ethics committee where the authors were affiliated (official letter 168). Multiple school principals were invited via email to participate in this study. We met with school authorities from schools that were accepted to participate. The parents were informed about the purpose of the study and the nature of their children´s participation. Parental approval for the children’s participation was obtained through written informed consent. Only 5% denied permission. The student participants were also informed about the purpose of the study and the nature of their participation. Data confidentiality was also ensured. Data were collected using pencil-and-paper questionnaires, with the assistance of teachers and trained research assistants. The average time required to complete the questionnaire was approximately 25 min.

Measures

Authoritative parenting

Drawing on previous work, we developed a scale of authoritative parenting practices relative to Internet use [35, 46]. The scale includes 12 items that measure: (a) warmth and involvement (4 items, e.g., “My parents are interested in my needs regarding Internet use”; Omega coefficient ω = 0.87 [95% CI = 0.85, 0.88]; average variance extracted AVE = 0.68); (b) reasoning and induction (4 items, e.g., “My parents explain to me the reasons for the rules they set about the use of the Internet”; ω = 0.90 [95% CI = 0.89, 0.91], AVE = 0.76), and autonomy support (4 items, e.g., “My parents allow me to choose my Internet activities, within certain limits”; ω = 0.87 [95% CI = 0.86, 0.89]; AVE = 0.67). The items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale, where 0 = never and 4 = always. Confirmatory Factorial Analysis (CFA) indicated that the model fit the data (SBX² = 82.73, df = 51, p = 0.003; CFI = 0. 99; TLI = 0.99; RMSEA = 0.03, CI 90% [0.02, 0.04]), SRMR = 0.02). Given that the values of the correlations between dimensions were high (warmth – reasoning and induction r = .88; reasoning and induction – autonomy support r = 0.78; warmth – autonomy support r = 0.84), a global score was calculated for further analyses.

Parental Fairness

Based on previous studies [83, 84], we developed a scale to measure children’s perceptions of the appropriateness and reasonability of parental disciplinary rules and behaviors regarding Internet use. This scale has a unidimensional internal structure (8 items, e.g., “My parents set fair rules about Internet use in my home”; ω = 0.92 [95% CI = 0.91, 0.93]; AVE = 0.63), with a 5-point Likert scale (0 = Strongly Disagree to 4 = Strongly Agree). The CFA confirmed the model’s acceptable fit (SBX² = 46.53, df = 20, p < 0.001; CFI = 0. 99; TLI = 0.99; RMSEA = 0.04, CI 90% [0.03, 0.06]); SRMR = 0.02).

Adolescents’ Self-Disclosure

We used a subscale of the Parental Knowledge Sources Questionnaire [85] to measure how often adolescents spontaneously share information with their parents about their digital activities and relations. This subscale was composed of eight items (e.g., “I voluntarily talk to my parents about what I do on the Internet during my free time or in the evenings”; ω = 0.89 [95% CI = 0.88, 0.90]; AVE = 0.70). Responses ranged from 0 (never) to 4 (very frequently). CFA supported the model’s fit to the data (SBX² = 6.51, df = 5, p = 0.26; CFI = 0.99; TLI = 0.99; RMSEA = 0.02, CI 90% [0.01, 0.06]); SRMR = 0.01).

Digital Citizenship

We use the Digital Citizenship Scale [20]. A back-translation procedure was used to translate the scale from English to Spanish. The scale comprises 11 items that measure: online respect, behaviors that consider the diversity of opinions, perspectives, and well-being when interacting with other Internet users (7 items, e.g., “If I disagree with people online, I watch my language so it does not come across as mean”; ω = 0.85 [95% CI = 0.83, 0.87]; AVE = 0.51); and online civic engagement, actions aimed at improving their community (4 items, e.g., I have used the Internet to learn how I can help a friend or help other persons in general). The scale comprises five responses ranging from 0 (never) to 4 (very frequently). CFA supported the model’s fit to the data (SBX² = 248.62, df = 86, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.99; RMSEA = 0.05, CI 90% [0.04, 0.06]), SRMR = 0.06).

Control variables

Given that previous studies reported gender differences in adolescents’ citizenship behaviors [1, 20, 23], reported gender was included in the model as a control variable.

Data analyses

Statistical analyses were performed using the JASP software package (version 0.17). There were no missing data for this study. Means, standard deviations, symmetry, kurtosis, and Spearman’s correlations were calculated between the variables. To evaluate the practical implications of the correlations, we used the cutoff point proposed in the literature: r > 0.10, small effect size; r > 0.20, medium effect size; and r > 0.30, large effect size [86].

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) with latent variables was performed. We used Robust Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLR) to perform well under departures of multivariate normality [87]. To test goodness-of-fit we followed the thresholds suggest in the literature [88, 89]: Satorra-Bentler scaled chi-squared statistic with its associate probability (SBX² with p < 0.001), Comparative Fit Index (CFI ≥ 0.95), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI ≥ 0.95), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA ≤ 0.08), and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR ≤ 0.08).

Preliminary analyses

Descriptive and correlation analyses are presented in Table 1. Means suggest that adolescents perceive that their parents use authoritative parenting practices and their practices as fair only sometimes. They also reported that they occasionally shared voluntary information about their Internet activities with their parents. Finally, adolescents refer to their occasional engagement in online respectful and civic engagement behaviors. Spearman's correlation coefficient showed that authoritative parenting, parental justice perceived, self-disclosure, and digital citizenship were positively associated. Being female was positively correlated with the perception of parents' use of authoritative parental practices, perception of parental fairness, adolescents’ self-disclosure, and digital citizenship. The effect size of these correlations suggests theoretical and practical implications; therefore, we included all variables in the structural model.

Table 1

*Means, standard deviations, and correlations by gender between variables study variables*
Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4
1. Authoritative parenting	2.60	0.99	-
2. Parental fairness	2.72	0.99	0.75^***	-
3. Self-disclosure	2.34	1.16	0.66^***	0.67^***	-
4. Digital citizenship	2.50	0.76	0.50^***	0.48^***	0.49^***	-
5. Gender			0.18***	0.16***	0.30***	-

^*** p < 0.001.

Structural modeling

The structural model fit the data (SBX² = 402.08, df = 143, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.95; TLI = 0.95; RMSEA = 0.065, CI 90% [0.059, 0.070]; SRMR = 0.04). The model accounted for 68% of the variance in digital citizenship behaviors. Regarding perceived parental fairness and self-disclosure, the model explained 0.69 an 0.59 of variance, respectively.

As shown in Fig. 2, the estimates indicate that authoritative parenting was positively associated with parental fairness (β = 0.83, 95% CI [0.68, 0.85], p < 0.001) and adolescent disclosure (β = 0.42, 95% CI [0.27, 0.58], p < 0.001). Parental fairness was linked to adolescent disclosure (β = 0.38, 95% CI [0.25, 0.57], p < 0.001). Finally, positive links were found between authoritative parenting (β = 0.24 95% CI [0.02, 0.29], p < 0.01), parental fairness (β = 0.27, 95% CI [0.02, 0.28], p < 0.05), and adolescents’ self-disclosure (β = 0.17, 95% CI [0.03, 0.22], p < 0.01) with digital citizenship behaviors.

Moreover, the results indicated that parental fairness mediates the link between authoritative parenting and digital citizenship behaviors (β = 0.22, 95% CI [0.02, 0.23], p < 0.05). Similarly, adolescents’ disclosure was a significant mediator of the association between authoritative practices and digital citizenship behaviors (β = 0.08, 95% CI [0.01, 0.09], p < 0.01). Additionally, we confirmed that parental fairness and adolescents’ self-disclosure were sequential mediators of authoritative practices’ influence on digital citizenship (β = 0.06, 95% CI [0.01, 0.07], p < 0.05).

Finally, adolescents’ reported gender was positively associated with digital citizenship behavior (β = 0.28, 95% CI [0.18, 0.34], p < 0.001) but was not significantly associated with parental fairness or adolescents’ disclosure.

The development of digital citizenship in adolescents is attracting the attention of scholars, given its potential role as a protective factor against several risky digital behaviors [15, 18, 19, 20], and is positively related to active civic participation [5, 24, 25, 90]. Although the study of school-related factors associated with adolescents’ digital citizenship behaviors is well advanced, little is known about family-related factors, particularly regarding the role of parenting practices. This study aimed to examine the relationship between authoritative parenting and adolescents’ digital citizenship behaviors and further explore the mediating roles of parental fairness and self-disclosure underlying the association between authoritative parenting and digital citizenship behaviors in Mexican adolescents.

Direct relationships

According to the expected authoritative parenting practices, there was a positive association between adolescents' perceptions of parental fairness and self-disclosure about Internet activities and whereabouts. These findings are consistent with previous studies that report that authoritative practices are perceived as appropriate and fair by adolescents for handling misbehaviors [31, 36, 91] and that these practices improve adolescents’ confidence in their parents to self-disclose their activities and relationships [56, 57]. These results suggest that authoritative parenting positively influences adolescents' perceptions of parental socialization strategies and encourages their disposition to communicate with parents. Both are critical aspects of parental socialization goals.

In line with most other studies, our findings showed that authoritative parenting practices were positively associated with digital citizenship behaviors [27, 42, 43, 44]. The positive influence of authoritative parenting is likely due to the modeling of a positive strategy to manage interpersonal relations (e.g., open communication, reasoning and induction, empathy responsiveness, and support) and creating a warm context in which adolescents feel emotionally secure.

A hypothesis regarding the direct relationship of parental fairness was supported. Adolescents' perceptions of parental fairness were expected to have a positive relationship with their self-disclosure to parents. The study found similar to those reported in the literature, further supporting that adolescent's perception about appropriated and fair parent practices and reactions are associated with adolescents' confidence in their parents and disposition to share information about their activities, relationships, and whereabouts [49, 51]. Moreover, adolescents' perceptions of parental fairness were significantly associated with digital citizenship behaviors. This result is consistent with previous studies that associate adolescents’ expectations of parents’ reactions to offline prosocial and antisocial behaviors [49, 50].

Indirect relationships

As predicted, parental fairness and adolescents’ disclosure were individual and sequential mediators of authoritative parenting linked with digital citizenship behaviors. These results are in line with socialization research and cognitive social theory, which suggests that children’s perception of parental practices impacts the effectiveness of parental socialization efforts. One may suppose that children’s perception of parental practices as fair is associated with attachment and close emotional bonds with their parents, which improves their internalization of values and behaviors encouraged by their parents.

Furthermore, our results confirm that self-disclosure mediates the positive influence of authoritative parenting practices on digital citizenship behaviors. Although diverse factors may influence self-disclosure with parents, our study underscores the value of parental practices and how adolescents interpret these practices to explain this behavior.

Limitations

Despite the relevance of our findings, certain limitations should be addressed when interpreting the results of this study. One limitation is the use of a cross-sectional design, which does not allow for the establishment of a causal relationship between the variables. Therefore, future studies should adopt experimental and longitudinal designs. Likewise, although we considered the sample to be sufficiently robust, it came from only three regions of Mexico. Therefore, future studies should include a more diverse sample of Mexican students (e.g., rural and indigenous). In addition, it is worth noting that the study used self-report measures, which carry a risk of bias in the responses. However, further research should adopt a multi-method approach to obtain more accurate information from adolescents’ parents, teachers, and peers.

This study has several implications. First, in line with socialization theorists [35, 36], this study underscores the value of the influence of parental practices, perceptions of parental parenting practices, and self-disclosure on adolescents' social behaviors. Second, it confirms the suitability of the authoritative parenting theoretical framework [27, 42, 43, 44] for studying the influence of parenting practices on adolescents' prosocial online behaviors. Third, it evinces the role of social cognition in explaining the relationship between parenting practices and prosocial online behaviors. Research on adolescents' perceptions of parental fairness is relatively unexplored, even though the construct is vital in the social cognitive model [48, 49]. Fourth, adolescent disclosure is essential to explain the link between parenting practices and prosocial online behaviors. In other words, the positive effect of authoritative parenting is related to adolescents' disposition to share voluntary information with their parents.

Our findings have practical implications for promoting positive and responsible online behaviors among adolescents. The above results suggest that parents should adopt authoritative parenting as well as actions to foster adolescents’ perception of their parenting practices as fair (e.g., involving adolescents in decision-making, explaining decision-making, reflecting on parenting practices, and model fairness). Parents should also create a context that favors self-disclosure on adolescents about what happen on the Internet (e.g., no-judgmental environment, practicing active listening, and avoiding criticism).

ICT Information and Communication Technologies

CI Confidence Interval

AVE Average Variance Extracted

CFA Confirmatory Factorial Analysis

df Degrees of Freedom

CFI Comparative Fit Index

TLI Tucker-Lewis Index.

RMSEA Root Mean Square Error of Approximation.

SRMR Standardized Root Mean Square Residual.

SEM Structural Equation Modeling

MLR Robust Maximum Likelihood Estimation.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was conducted in agreement with the Helsinki Declaration for Human Studies. Organizational ethic approvals were obtained from the Technological Institute of Sonora ethical committee review (approved with number 168). Informed consent was obtained from all subjects and their legal guardian(s). All students were informed that participation was voluntary. To maintain the principle of confidentiality, the collected data were anonymized.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Funding

This study was supported by the Program of Research Strength (Profapi) of the Technological Institute of Sonora (Grant: PROFAPI 2023_004), 01/03/2023. The funding has no role in the design of the study, analysis, and interpretation of data and in the publication.

Authors’ contributions

AMA and AAVC contributed to the study conception and design. Data collection was performed by AMA and CSGQ analysis were performed by AMA, CSGQ and LGPP. The first draft of the manuscript was written by AMA and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Martin F, Hunt B, Wang C, Brooks E. Middle school student perception of technology use and digital citizenship practices. Comput Sch. 2020;37(3):196–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2020.1795500.
Paulus FW, Joas J, Gerstner I, Kühn A, Wenning M, Gehrke T, et al. Problematic internet use among adolescents 18 months after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Children. 2022;9(11):e1724. https://doi.org/10.33 90/children9111724.
We Are Social. Digital 2023: Mexico. 2023. https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2023-mexico Accessed 21 March 2023.
National Institute of Statistic and Geography. National survey on availability and use of technologies in homes (ENDUTIH) 2021]. 2021 https://www.inegi.org.mx/contenidos/saladeprensa/boletines/2022/OtrTemEcon/ENDUTIH_21.pdf Accessed 12 January 2023.
Contreras C, Rivas J, Franco R, Gómez-Plata M, Luengo-Kanacri BP. Digital media use on school civic engagement: A parallel mediation model. Comunicar. 2023;31(75):91–102. https://doi.org/10.3916/C75-2023-07.
Saputra M, Al Siddiq IH. Social media and digital citizenship: The urgency of digital literacy in the middle of a disrupted society era. Int J Emerg Technol Learn. 2020;15(7):156–61. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v15i07.1323 9.
Avcı Ü, Yıldız Durak H. Examination of digital citizenship, online information searching strategy and information literacy depending on changing state of experience in using digital technologies during COVID-19 pandemic. J Inf Sci. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515221114455. Advance online.
Çakmak FH. Factors associated with problematic internet use among children and adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. North Clin Istanb. 2017;5(4):302–13. https://doi.org/10.14744/nci.2017.92668.
Livingstone S, Mascheroni G, Staksrud E. European research on children’s internet use: Assessing the past and anticipating the future. New Media Soc. 2018;20(3):1103–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816685930.
Ilesanmi OS, Afolabi AA, Adebayo AM. Problematic internet use (PIU) among adolescents during COVID-19 lockdown: A study of high school students in Ibadan, Nigeria. Afr J Inf Commun. 2021;27:1–22. https://doi.o rg/10.23962/10539/31373.
Gansner M, Nisenson M, Lin V, Pong S, Torous J, Carson N. Problematic internet use before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in youth in outpatient mental health treatment: App-based ecological momentary assessment Study. JMIR Ment Health. 2022;9(1):e33114. https://doi.org/10.2196/33114.
Gansner M, Belfort E, Cook B, Leahy C, Colon-Perez A, Mirda D, et al. Problematic internet use and associated high-risk behavior in an adolescent clinical sample: Results from a survey of psychiatrically hospitalized youth. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2019;22(5):349–54. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2018.0329.
Liu S, Zou S, Zhang D, Wang X, Wu X. Problematic Internet use and academic engagement during the COVID-19 lockdown: The indirect effects of depression, anxiety, and insomnia in early, middle, and late adolescence. J Affect Disord. 2022;309:9–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2022.04.043.
Twenge JM, Campbell WK. Associations between screen time and lower psychological well-being among children and adolescents: Evidence from a population-based study. Prev Med Rep. 2018;12:271–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2018.10.003.
Si E, Lee G. Moderating effects of digital citizenship on problematic digital media use and children’s happiness: A cross-sectional study. J Sch Health. 2023;93(6):485–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.13275.
Choi M, Glassman M, Cristol D. What it means to be a citizen in the internet age: Development of a reliable and valid digital citizenship scale. Comput Educ. 2017;107:100–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2016.1210549.
Ribble M. Digital citizenship in schools. 3rd ed. International Society of Technology in Education; 2015.
Setty E. Young people’s perspectives on online hate, unwanted sexual content, and ‘unrealistic’ body- and appearance-related content: Implications for resilience and digital citizenship. Youth. 2022;2(2):195–216. https://doi.org/10.3390/youth2020015.
Brandau M, Dilley T, Schaumleffel C, Himawan L. Digital citizenship among Appalachian middle schoolers: The common sense digital citizenship curriculum. Health Educ J. 2022;12(2):157–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/0 0178969211056429.
Jones LM, Mitchell KJ. Defining and measuring youth digital citizenship. New Media Soc. 2016;18(9):2063–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448155 77797.
Phillips AL, Anderson A. Cyberbullying, digital citizenship, and youth with autism: LIS education as a piece in the puzzle. Libr Q. 2020;90(3):264–82. https://doi.org/10.1086/708957.
Vlaanderen A, Bevelander KE, Kleemans M. Empowering digital citizenship: An anti-cyberbullying intervention to increase children’s intentions to intervene on behalf of the victim. Comput Hum Behav. 2020;112:e106459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106459.
Valdés-Cuervo AA, Morales-Álvarez A, Parra-Pérez L, G, García-Vázquez FI. Assessment of an Adolescent Digital Citizenship Scale: Examining dimensionality, measurement invariance and external validity. Revista Electrónica de Investigación y Evaluación Educativa. In press.
Kim S, Han Y. Different trajectories of citizenship across latent classes of adolescent online risk behavior. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2020;109:e104731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104731.
LeCompte K, Blevins B, Riggers-Piehl T. Developing civic competence through action civics: A longitudinal look at the data. J Soc Stud Res. 2020;44(1):127–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2019.03.002.
Choi M. A Concept analysis of digital citizenship for democratic citizenship education in the internet age. Theory Res Soc Educ. 2016;44(4):565–607. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2016.1210549.
Wang H, Geng J, Liu K, Wei X, Wang J, Lei L. Future time perspective and self-control mediate the links between parental autonomy support and adolescents’ digital citizenship behavior. Youth Soc. 2022;54(6):1077–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X211020778.
Bickham DS, Moukalled S, Inyart HK, Zlokower R. Evaluating a middle-school digital citizenship curriculum (screenshots): Quasi-experimental study. JMIR Ment Health. 2021;8(9):e26197. https://doi.org/10.2196/26197.
Magis-Weinberg L, Muñoz Lopez DE, Gys CL, Berger EL, Dahl RE. Short Research Article: Promoting digital citizenship through a school‐based intervention in early adolescence in Perú (a pilot quasi‐experimental study). Child Adolesc Ment Health. 2023;28(1):83–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/camh. 12625.
Grusec JE. Parental socialization and children’s acquisition of values. In: Bornstein MH, editor. Handbook of parenting: Practical issues in parenting. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 2002. pp. 143–68.
Grusec JE. Socialization processes in the family: Social and emotional development. Annu Rev Psychol. 2011;62:243–69. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131650.
Smetana JG, Robinson J, Rote WM. Socialization in adolescence. In: Grusec JE, Hasting PD, editors. Handbook of socialization theory and research. 2nd ed. New York: The Guildford Press; 2015. pp. 85–108.
Burns T, Gottschalk F. Educational research and innovation. Education in the digital age: Healthy and happy children. OECD; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1787777/b7f33425-en.
Byrne J, Kardefelt-Winther D, Livingstone S, Stoilova M. Global kids online research synthesis, 2015–2016. UNICEF Office of Research. https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/67965/ Accessed 23 November 2022.
Darling N, Steinberg L. Parenting style as context: An integrative model. Psychol Bull. 1993;13(3):487–96. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.113.3.
Maccoby EE. Historical overview of socialization research and theory. In: Grusec JE, Hasting PD, editors. Handbook of socialization theory and research. 2nd ed. New York: The Guildford Press; 2015. pp. 3–34.
Mounts NS, Allen C. Parenting styles and practices: Traditional approaches and their application to multiple types of moral behavior. In: Laible DJ, Carlo G, Padilla-Walker LM, editors. The Oxford handbook of parenting and moral development. New York: Oxford University Press; 2019. pp. 41–56.
Harrison T, Polizzi G. (In)civility and adolescents’ moral decision making online: drawing on moral theory to advance digital citizenship education. Educ Inf Technol. 2022;27(3):3277–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10710-0.
Hollandsworth R, Donovan J, Welch M. Digital citizenship: You can’t go home again. TechTrends. 2017;61(6):524–30. https://doi.org/10.100 7/s115 28-017-0190-4.
Peraza-Balderrama JN, Urías-Murrieta M, Valdes-Cuervo AA, Álvarez-Zamora AK, Parra-Pérez LG. Parental media mediation and digital security in adolescent students. In: 2022 XII International Conference on Virtual Campus (JICV). IEEE; 2022. p. 1–3.
Wang X, Xing W. Exploring the influence of parental involvement and socioeconomic status on teen digital citizenship: A path modeling approach. Educ Technol Soc. 2018;21(1):186–99.
Lan X, Wang W. Is early left-behind experience harmful to prosocial behavior of emerging adult? The role of parental autonomy support and mindfulness. Curr Psychol. 2022;41(4):1842–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12 144-020-00706-3.
Lan X, Marci T, Moscardino U. Parental autonomy support, grit, and psychological adjustment in Chinese adolescents from divorced families. J Fam Psychol. 2019;33(5):511–20. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000514.
Padilla-Walker LM, Christensen KJ. Empathy and self-regulation as mediators between parenting and adolescents’ prosocial behavior toward strangers, friends, and family. J Res Adolesc. 2011;21(3):545–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00695.x.
Kuppens S, Ceulemans E. Parenting styles: A closer look at a well-known concept. J Child Fam Stud. 2019;28(1):168–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10 826-018-1242-x.
Robinson CC, Mandleco B, Frost Olsen S, Hart Ch. Authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive parenting practices. Psychol Rep. 1995;77(3):819–30. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1995.77.3.819.
Wu P, Robinson CC, Yang C, Hart CH, Olsen SF, Porter CL, et al. Similarities and differences in mothers’ parenting of preschoolers in China and the United States. Int J Behav Dev. 2002;26(6):481–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250143000436.
Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. New Jersey: Prentice Hall; 1986.
Hardy SA, Carlo G, Roesch SC. Links between adolescents’ expected parental reactions and prosocial behavioral tendencies: The mediating role of prosocial values. J Youth Adolesc. 2010;39(1):84–95. https://doi.org/10.1 007/s10964-008-9383-7.
Wyatt JM, Carlo G. What will my parents think? Relations among adolescents’ expected parental reactions, prosocial moral reasoning, and prosocial and antisocial behaviors. J Adolesc Res. 2002;17(6):646–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/074355802237468.
Almas AN, Grusec JE, Tackett JL. Children’s disclosure and secrecy: Links to maternal parenting characteristics and children’s coping skills. Soc Dev. 2011;20(3):624–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2010.00602.x.
Padilla-Walker LM, Carlo G. It’s not Fair!” Adolescents’ constructions of appropriateness of parental reactions. J Youth Adolesc. 2004;33(8):973–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-011-9698-7.
Patrick RB, Gibbs JC. Inductive discipline, parental expression of disappointed expectations, and moral identity in adolescence. J Youth Adolesc. 2012;41(8):973–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-011-9698-7.
Rote WM, Flak SR. Perceptions of parenting and moral development. In: Killen M, Smetana JG, editors. Handbook of moral development. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge; 2022. pp. 373–88.
Domitrovich CE, Bierman KL. Parenting practices and child social adjustment: Multiple pathways of influence. Merrill-Palmer Q. 2001;47(2):235–63. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2001.0010.
Jiang LC, Yang IM, Wang C. Self-disclosure to parents in emerging adulthood: Examining the roles of perceived parental responsiveness and separation–individuation. J Soc Pers Relat. 2017;34(4):425–45. https://doi.o rg/10.1177/0265407516640603.
Tokić A, Pećnik N. Parental behaviors related to adolescents’ self-disclosure: Adolescents’ views. J Soc Pers Relat. 2011;28(2):201–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407510382320.
Khurana A, Bleakley A, Jordan AB, Romer D. The protective effects of parental monitoring and internet restriction on adolescents’ risk of online harassment. J Youth Adolesc. 2015;44(5):1039–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-014-0242-4.
Lin CH, Lin SL, Wu CP. The effects of parental monitoring and leisure boredom on adolescent’ internet addiction. Adolescence. 2009;44(176):993–1004.
Xu Z, Turel O, Yuan Y. Online game addiction among adolescents: Motivation and prevention factors. Eur J Inf Syst. 2012;21(3):321–40. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.56.
Cho CH, Cheon HJ. Children’s exposure to negative internet content: Effects of family context. J Broadcast Electron Media. 2005;49(4):488–509. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem4904_8.
Bleakley A, Ellithorpe M, Romer D. The role of parents in problematic internet use among us adolescents. Media Commun. 2016;4(3):24–34. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v4i3.523.
Hayes L, Hudson A, Matthews J. Parental monitoring: A process model of parent-adolescent interaction. Behav Change. 2003;20(1):13–24. https://doi.org/10.1375/bech.20.1.13.24844.
Stattin H, Kerr M. Parental monitoring: A reinterpretation. Child Dev. 2000;71(4):1072–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00210.
Hayes L, Hudson A, Matthews J. Understanding parental monitoring through analysis of monitoring episodes in context. Int J Behav Consult Ther. 2007;3(1):96–108. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100172.
Frijns T, Keijsers L, Branje S, Meeus W. What parents don’t know and how it may affect their children: Qualifying the disclosure-adjustment link. J Adolesc. 2010;33(2):261–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.05.
Lionetti F, Keijsers L, Dellagiulia A, Pastore M. Evidence of factorial validity of parental knowledge, control and solicitation, and adolescent disclosure scales: When the ordered nature of Likert scales matters. Front Psychol. 2016;7:e941. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00941.
Lippold MA, McHale SM, Davis KD, Kossek EE. Day-to-day inconsistency in parent knowledge: Links with youth health and parents’ stress. J Adolesc Health. 2015;56(3):293–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.11.017.
Wang M-T, Dishion TJ, Stormshak EA, Willett JB. Trajectories of family management practices and early adolescent behavioral outcomes. Dev Psychol. 2011;47(5):1324–41. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024026.
Ahmad I, Smetana JG, Klimstra T. Maternal monitoring, adolescent disclosure, and adolescent adjustment among Palestinian refugee youth in Jordan. J Res Adolesc. 2015;25(3):403–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12 133.
Chan HY, Brown BB, Von Bank H. Adolescent disclosure of information about peers: The mediating role of perceptions of parents’ right to know. J Youth Adolesc. 2015;44(5):1048–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-02. 61 – 9.
Wang B, Stanton B, Li X, Cottrell L, Deveaux L, Kaljee L. The influence of parental monitoring and parent-adolescent communication on Bahamian adolescent risk involvement: A three-year longitudinal examination. Soc Sci Med. 2013;97:161–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.08.013.
Chaparro MP, Grusec JE. Parent and adolescent intentions to disclose and links to positive social behavior. J Fam Psychol. 2015;29(1):49–58. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000040.
Symons K, Ponnet K, Emmery K, Walrave M, Heirman W. Parental knowledge of adolescents’ online content and contact risks. J Youth Adolesc. 2017;46(2):401–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0599-7.
Cheung CSS, Pomerantz EM, Dong W. Does adolescents’ disclosure to their parents matter for their academic adjustment? Child Dev. 2013;84(2):693–710. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01853.x.
Jiménez-Iglesias A, Moreno C. La influencia de las diferencias entre el padre y la madre sobre el ajuste adolescente. An Psicol. 2015;31(1):367–77. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.31.1.158081.
Kearney J, Bussey K. The longitudinal influence of self-efficacy, communication, and parenting on spontaneous adolescent disclosure. J Res Adolesc. 2015;25(3):506–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12148.
Laird RD, Marrero MD, Sentse M. Revisiting parental monitoring: evidence that parental solicitation can be effective when needed most. J Youth Adolesc. 2010;39(12):1431–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-00994535.
Laird RD, Zeringue MM. Between- and within-person predictors of children’s information management following rule violations. Soc Dev. 2019;28(1):234–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12324.
Rote WM, Smetana JG. Acceptability of information management strategies: adolescents’ and parents’ judgments and links with adjustment and relationships. J Res Adolesc. 2015;25(3):490–505. https://doi.org/10.11 11/jora.12143.
Urry SA, Nelson LJ, Padilla-Walker LM. Mother knows best: psychological control, child disclosure, and maternal knowledge in emerging adulthood. J Fam Stud. 2011;17(2):157–73. https://doi.org/10.5172/jfs.2011.17.2.157.
National Institute for the Evaluation of Education. Educational overview of Mexico. Indicators of the national education system 2018 basic and upper secondary education. ; 2019 https://www.inee.edu.mx/wp-content/uploads/20 19/08/P1B117.pdf Accessed 10 December 2022.
Dalbert C, Stoeber J. The personal belief in a just world and domain-specific beliefs about justice at school and in the family: A longitudinal study with adolescents. Int J Behav Dev. 2006;30(3):200–7. https://doi.org/10.117 7/0165025406063638.
Loeser MK, Whiteman SD, McHale SM. Siblings’ perceptions of differential treatment, fairness, and jealousy and adolescent adjustment: A moderated indirect effects model. J Child Fam Stud. 2016;25(8):2405–14. https://doi.or g/10.1007/s10826-016-0429-2.
Morales-Álvarez A, Valdés-Cuervo AA, Parra-Pérez LG. Psychometric properties of the Parental Knowledge Scale in Mexican adolescents. Manuscript submitted for publication. Department of Education, Technological Institute of Sonora.
Funder DC, Ozer DJ. Evaluating effect size in psychological research: Sense and nonsense. Adv Methods Pract Psychol Sci. 2019;2(2):156–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919847202.
Mueller RO, Hancock GR. Structural equation modeling. In: Hancock GR, Stapleton LM, Mueller RO, editors. The reviewer’s guide to quantitative methods in the social sciences. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge; 2019. pp. 445–56.
Brown TA. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. 2nd ed. The New York: Guilford Press; 2015.
Byrne BM. Structural equation modeling with AMOS. Basic concepts, applications, and programming. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge; 2016.
Manca S, Bocconi S, Gleason B. Think globally, act locally”: A glocal approach to the development of social media literacy. Comput Educ. 2021;160:e104025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104025.
Grusec JE, Goodnow JJ. Impact of parental discipline methods on the child’s internalization of values: A reconceptualization of current points of view. Dev Psychol. 1994;30(1):4–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.30.

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Authoritative Parenting and Adolescents’ Digital Citizenship Behaviors: Sequential Mediation of Parental Fairness and Self-Disclosure

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Background.

Methods.

Results.

Conclusions.

Figures

Background

Parenting and adolescents’ digital behaviors

Mediation through perceived parental fairness

Mediation thought adolescent self-disclosure

The present study

Hypothesized model of relations among authoritative parenting, parental fairness, adolescent’s self-disclosure, and digital citizenship behavior

Methods

Participants and procedure

Measures

Authoritative parenting

Parental Fairness

Adolescents’ Self-Disclosure

Digital Citizenship

Control variables

Data analyses

Results

Preliminary analyses

Structural modeling

Discussion

Direct relationships

Indirect relationships

Limitations

Conclusions

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1