14678624, 2005, 4, Downloaded from https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00883.x by Universidad De Cadiz, Wiley Online Library on [05/12/2022].

See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Child Development, July/August 2005, Volume 76, Number 4, Pages 869 – 882

How Do Parents Learn About Adolescents’ Experiences?

Implications for Parental Knowledge and Adolescent Risky Behavior
Ann C. Crouter Matthew F. Bumpus
The Pennsylvania State University Washington State University

Kelly D. Davis and Susan M. McHale

The Pennsylvania State University

Cluster analysis was used to identify groups defined by the patterning of fathers’ and mothers’ sources of
knowledge about adolescents’ experiences in a sample of 179 families with adolescents (M 5 16.5 years). Three
clusters emerged for fathers (relational, relies on spouse, relies on others) and mothers (relational, questioners,
relies on others). Cluster membership was associated with socioeconomic status, work hours, personal char-
acteristics, and parent – child relationship quality. Longitudinal path analyses revealed that knowledge sources
predicted levels of knowledge, which in turn predicted risky behavior 1 year later, indirect paths that were more
consistent for fathers than for mothers. Although direct associations between sources of knowledge and sub-
sequent risky behavior were scant, when fathers relied on spouses, youth engaged in less risky behavior.

There is widespread consensus in the fields of de-
velopmental and clinical psychology, family studies,
and public health that parental knowledge of chil-
dren’s and adolescents’ daily experiences is an im-
portant correlate of problem behavior: Children
whose parents are not well informed about their day-
to-day activities, whereabouts, and companions are
more likely to engage in delinquency and other
forms of problem behavior (see review by Crouter
& Head, 2002). Traditionally, parents’ day-to-day
knowledge of their children’s experiences has been
referred to by researchers as parental monitoring,
defined by Dishion and McMahon (1998) as ‘‘a set of
correlated parenting behaviors involving attention to
and tracking of the child’s whereabouts, activities,
and adaptations’’ (p. 61). Studies in this genre have
tended to equate parental monitoring or parental
knowledge with parents’ tracking and surveillance.
This research was supported by a grant from the National In-
stitute for Child Health and Human Development (R01-HD32336),
Susan McHale and Ann Crouter, co-principal investigators. The
authors are grateful to their collaborators: Christina Chhin, Aryn
Dotterer, Melissa Fortner, Heather Helms, Kristen Johnston, Marni
Kan, Ji-Yeon Kim, Mary Maguire Klute, Jaime Marks, Ashleigh
May, Carolyn Ransford, Lilly Shanahan, Cindy Shearer, Corinna
Jenkins Tucker, Kim Updegraff, Shawn Whiteman, and Megan
Winchell and to the dedicated families who participated in the
research.
Correspondence concerning this articles should be addressed to
Ann Crouter, Center for Work and Family Research, 105 White
Building, The Pennysylvania State University, University Park,
PA, 16802. Electronic mail may be sent to ac1@psu.edu.
Recently, researchers have questioned whether
parental knowledge is driven by parents’ own be-
haviors or whether it is the product of a more com-
plex array of contextual, relational, and individual
forces. Crouter, MacDermid, McHale, and Perry-
Jenkins (1990) conceptualized parental monitoring as
a dyadic phenomenon, requiring interest and atten-
tiveness on the part of the parent and a willingness to
share information and experiences on the part of the
child. Stattin and Kerr (2000; Kerr & Stattin, 2000,
2003) argued that parental knowledge develops in
the context of a trusting parent – child relationship
and has more to do with the child’s willingness to
confide than with the parent’s disposition or ability
to track and monitor the child. Laird, Pettit, Bates,
and Dodge (2003), using data from four annual as-
sessments of parental knowledge and adolescent
delinquent behavior, found evidence for cross-lag-
ged associations in both directions: More knowledge
predicted subsequent lower levels of delinquency,
but lower levels of delinquency predicted higher
levels of knowledge.
Unraveling the meaning of parental knowledge
requires focusing on how parents learn about their
children’s daily lives, a topic that has only recently
received attention (Kerr & Stattin, 2000, 2003; Stattin
& Kerr, 2000; Waizenhofer, Buchanan, & Jackson-
Newsom, 2004). In this study, we investigated how
parents acquire information about their children’s
experiences, using a pattern-analytic approach.
r 2005 by the Society for Research in Child Development, Inc.
All rights reserved. 0009-3920/2005/7604-0008

870 Crouter, Bumpus, Davis, and McHale
Specifically, we performed cluster analysis to identify
distinct groups of fathers and mothers who varied in
the patterning of their sources of knowledge. We then
explored the correlates of the groups and examined
whether, over time, parental knowledge is a potential
mechanism that links parents’ strategies for acquiring
information to their adolescents’ subsequent levels of
participation in risky behavior.
Sources of Parental Knowledge About Offspring’s Daily
Experiences
The literature points to several ways mothers and
fathers may acquire knowledge about their off-
spring’s experiences. In a large survey of Swedish
14-year-olds, Stattin and Kerr (2000) focused on three
sources: child self-disclosure, parental solicitation,
and parental control (i.e., parents have rules in place
that structure children’s behavior, making it easy for
parents to keep abreast of what is going on). Of these
three, child self-disclosure was the strongest corre-
late of parental knowledge and of adolescents’ de-
linquent behavior. When youth self-disclosed more,
parents were better informed and offspring engaged
in fewer delinquent behaviors. In a set of related
analyses, Kerr and Stattin (2000) found that child
self-disclosure fully or partially mediated the asso-
ciation between parents’ knowledge and a wide
range of indexes of adolescent adjustment. Parental
solicitation and parental control, in contrast, did not
explain the association between parental knowledge
and adolescent outcomes.
One limitation of Stattin and Kerr’s (2000; Kerr &
Stattin, 2000) research is that they did not differentiate
between mothers and fathers but asked questions
about parents generically. Blurring the identity of the
focal parent is problematic because mothers and fa-
thers often have distinctly different roles and ap-
proaches to parenting (Parke, 2002). Differences
between maternal and paternal roles can be seen in a
study of dual-earner families raising two school-age
children (Crouter, Helms-Erikson, Updegraff, &
McHale, 1999). Overall, mothers were better informed
about their school-age children’s daily experiences
than were fathers. Moreover, in families with sons and
daughters, fathers were relatively more knowledgea-
ble about sons than daughters, and mothers were
more informed about daughters than sons.
Waizenhofer et al. (2004) compared mothers’ and
fathers’ sources of knowledge, using a sample of 95
families with adolescent offspring ages 10 to 17. They
identified four methods of acquiring knowledge: (a)
the active method combined asking others (includ-
ing the adolescent) about the adolescent’s activities
14678624, 2005, 4, Downloaded from https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00883.x by Universidad De Cadiz, Wiley Online Library on [05/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
and actively participating in activities with the ado-
lescent, (b) the passive-child method involved re-
ceiving unsolicited information from the adolescent
(akin to Stattin & Kerr’s, 2000, notion of ‘‘child self-
disclosure’’), (c) the passive-spouse method involved
receiving unsolicited information about the adoles-
cent’s day from the spouse, and (d) the passive-other
method involved extrapolating from general rou-
tines to the specific (e.g., today is Tuesday so he must
have had soccer practice) and receiving unsolicited
information from other people such as teachers and
parents of friends. Note that the active method and
the passive-other method combined different sourc-
es into one category, yet each source may have dif-
ferent implications for parental knowledge. Mothers
relied more on active and passive-child methods of
acquiring knowledge than did fathers, whereas fa-
thers relied more on the passive-spouse method than
did mothers. Parents knew more about daughters
than sons, and parents of daughters relied more on
the passive-child method than did parents of sons.
For mothers in dual-earner families, relying on the
active method and the passive-other method pre-
dicted higher levels of knowledge. For fathers, rely-
ing on the active method and the passive-other
method predicted higher levels of knowledge, re-
gardless of the family’s earner status. Sources of
knowledge, however, were not associated with ado-
lescent deviance.
Taking a Pattern-Analytic Approach
The slim body of research that has examined the
sources of parent knowledge has taken a variable-
oriented approach. That is, the focus has been
on ascertaining the relative importance of various
sources of knowledge as predictors of parental
knowledge or adolescent outcomes. Results from
such variable-oriented approaches are informative,
but they may obscure interesting subgroups of par-
ents for whom patterns look different. In this study,
we adopted a pattern-analytic approach (Bergman,
Cairns, & Kagan, 1998) to identify distinct groups of
fathers and mothers defined by their sources of pa-
rental knowledge. In an effort to examine a broad
range of potential sources of parents’ knowledge, we
examined sources identified by Stattin and Kerr
(2000; Kerr & Stattin, 2000) and by Waizenhofer et al.
(2004), and we added some of our own. Specifically,
we examined six potential sources: adolescent self-
disclosure, parent solicitation, a subtler form of pa-
rental surveillance that we call ‘‘parental listening
and observing,’’ relying on spouse, relying on sib-
lings, and relying on others outside the family (e.g.,

teachers, parents of friends). We examined fathers
and mothers separately, reasoning that the resulting
typologies and correlates of the typologies may differ
for mothers and fathers, and that we could juxtapose
the father and mother groups to examine possible
interparental congruence.
What Contextual and Personal Conditions Underlie
Parents’ Source of Knowledge?
After identifying groups of parents defined by the
patterning of their sources of parental knowledge,
we investigated the correlates of group membership
to understand better the groups. The literature on
parental knowledge and parental monitoring sug-
gests five domains of possible correlates. The first
pertains to socioeconomic and background charac-
teristics of the family. Parents who are less educated,
less affluent, or who have more children may find it
more challenging to stay informed about their chil-
dren’s daily experiences or may have different
strategies for attaining that knowledge than do par-
ents with more resources (Crouter & Head, 2002).
We included mothers’ and fathers’ work hours as
a second domain because Crouter et al. (1999) re-
ported that, although mothers’ own levels of
knowledge did not vary as a function of their work
hours, fathers exhibited higher levels of knowledge
about their children’s daily experiences when their
spouses worked longer hours. Crouter et al. found
no associations between fathers’ work hours and
parents’ knowledge, but it is possible that fathers
who work long hours favor certain knowledge-
acquisition strategies, such as relying on their spouse.
A third domain pertains to the personal qualities
adolescents and parents bring to the parent – child
relationship (Auhagen & Hinde, 1997). For youth,
these include gender (Crouter et al., 1999; Wai-
zenhofer et al., 2004); expressivity or stereotypically
feminine qualities, such as friendliness and sensi-
tivity (Crouter et al., 1999); and children’s openness
to supervision (Kerns, 2001). Adolescents who are
more expressive and open to supervision may keep
their parents better informed or simply be easier to
track than other children. Fathers’ and mothers’
personal qualities may matter as well (Belsky, 1984).
Adults’ expressive characteristics are positively
linked to closer relationships (Auhagen & Hinde,
1997) and thus may be associated with how mothers
and fathers learn about their children’s experiences.
For example, expressive parents may inspire trust in
children that results in more self-disclosure (Kerr,
Stattin, & Trost, 1999). Another potentially important
parental characteristic is depressive affect given ev-
14678624, 2005, 4, Downloaded from https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00883.x by Universidad De Cadiz, Wiley Online Library on [05/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Sources of Fathers’ and Mothers’ Knowledge 871
idence that depression may interfere with parents’
abilities to interact positively and constructively with
their children (Downey & Coyne, 1990).
A fourth domain is marital quality. Bumpus,
Crouter, and McHale (1999) found that parents in
families characterized by high paternal work de-
mands knew less about their children’s daily expe-
riences when the marital relationship was less
happy. In contrast, when happily married fathers
held demanding jobs, parents’ knowledge did not
suffer. Parents in happier marriages may rely more
on one another for knowledge than parents in less
happy unions, and children may feel more comfort-
able self-disclosing to parents who present a happy,
united front.
Kerr and Stattin’s (2000) research suggests that an
important fifth domain is the quality of the parent –
child relationship. Children may be more willing to
self-disclose to parents when they enjoy a close
relationship with the parent. We examined two di-
mensions of the parent – child relationship: accept-
ance and conflict.
How Are Parents’ Sources of Knowledge Related to Levels
of Knowledge and Adolescent Problem Behavior?
One criterion for the utility of the profiles gener-
ated here is whether they are related to how much
parents know about their children’s daily lives and
to adolescent problem behavior. As mentioned ear-
lier, Stattin and Kerr (2000) found that youth self-
disclosure was the strongest predictor of parental
knowledge and problem behavior. Waizenhofer et al.
(2004) found links between sources of knowledge
and parents’ levels of knowledge, although they did
not find links between sources of knowledge and
adolescent problem behavior. We tested one possible
longitudinal mechanism for how these constructs
may be interrelated: Parents who have different ap-
proaches to obtaining knowledge about their off-
spring’s experiences acquire different levels of
knowledge, and knowledge in turn mediates the link
between knowledge-acquisition strategies and ado-
lescent risky behavior. Some would argue, however,
that risky behavior is as much an antecedent of
parents’ knowledge acquisition methods as an out-
come because youth hold back information when
they engage in risky behavior (Darling, 2001; Kerr &
Stattin, 2003; Laird et al., 2003; Stattin & Kerr, 2000).
To address this concern, we used path analysis to
examine the links among risky behavior at age 13,
sources of knowledge at age 16, parents’ levels of
knowledge at age 16, and offspring risky behavior at
age 17.

872 Crouter, Bumpus, Davis, and McHale
Research Questions
To summarize, toward the end of understanding
how parental knowledge works as a family process
that facilitates positive youth development, we ad-
dressed the following research questions:
1. Are there distinct groups of fathers and moth-
ers defined by the patterning of their sources of
knowledge about their offspring’s experiences?
Is there within-family concordance in fathers’
and mothers’ group membership?
2. How is group membership associated with
socioeconomic status and family background
characteristics, parents’ work hours, adoles-
cents’ and parents’ personal characteristics,
and the quality of marital and parent – child
relationships?
3. Does parental knowledge mediate the cross-
time association between parents’ group
membership and subsequent risky behavior?
Method
Participants
Most of the data for these analyses were drawn
from Year 6 of an ongoing longitudinal investigation
of development in middle childhood and adoles-
cence. We focused on Year 6 because it was the only
year in which we asked about sources of knowledge.
Firstborns (the focus of this study) were, on average,
16.5 years old. The path analyses examined associa-
tions across a 4-year period, specifically, the links
among risky behavior at age 13.5, sources of
knowledge (when offspring were age 16.5), levels of
parental knowledge (when offspring were age 16.5),
and risky behavior at age 17.5.
To recruit the original sample of 203 families, let-
ters were sent home from school that described the
study and asked families to return a self-addressed
postcard if they were interested and met the criteria.
We sought nondivorced, two-parent families in
which the firstborn was in the fourth or fifth grade
and there was at least one other sibling 1 to 4 years
younger. Between Years 1 and 6, 10 families dropped
out of the study. Of the 193 families who participated
in Year 6, we omitted 13 families because we lacked
data from one of the parents because of: father de-
clined to participate (4), father deceased (5), and di-
vorce (4). In addition, one family was dropped
because of missing data on a clustering variable.
Thus, the sample on which most of the analyses were
based consisted of 179 families. The longitudinal
path analyses were based on a sample size of 171.
14678624, 2005, 4, Downloaded from https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00883.x by Universidad De Cadiz, Wiley Online Library on [05/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
The 179 families who are our primary focus re-
sided in small cities, towns, suburban areas, and
rural communities and were working and middle
class. All families were European American except
one in which there were two adopted Asian Ameri-
can children. In Year 6, fathers were on average 44.52
years old (SD 5 5.05) and had received 14.80 years of
education (SD 5 2.44). Their spouses were on aver-
age 42.36 years old (SD 5 3.97) and had received
14.84 years of education (SD 5 2.18). The sample in-
cluded 87 firstborn boys and 92 firstborn girls, and
family size, including children and parents, aver-
aged 4.63 (SD 5 .86).
Our sampling procedure did not allow us to com-
pute a response rate because we could not determine
how many eligible families did not respond to the
invitation to participate. Comparisons of our original
sample of 203 families with 1990 U.S. Census data on
families from the same counties, however, revealed
that the parents in our sample were slightly older and
considerably better educated than their dual-earner
Census counterparts. We also compared the 24 fami-
lies who either had dropped out of the study or were
omitted from the analyses with the 179 participating
families on Year 1 data on parents’ education, income,
and family size. The nonparticipants differed signifi-
cantly in only one way: Fathers in nonparticipating
families were less educated (M 5 13.63, SD 5 2.30)
than fathers in participating families (M 5 14.80,
SD 5 2.44), F(1, 201) 5 5.10, po.05.
Procedures
In Years 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7, a team of interviewers
made home visits and conducted separate interviews
with the mother, father, and firstborn and second-
born siblings. These interviews took approximately 2
hr. Families received a $100 honorarium in Years 1, 2,
and 3, and a $200 honorarium in Years 6 and 7. In
Years 4 and 5, a period when the project was between
funding cycles, families returned mailed surveys.
Because data were less complete in those 2 years, we
do not rely on them here. With the exception of three
measuresFparents’ expressivity (asked only at Year
1), parents’ perceptions of their children’s openness
to supervision (asked only at Year 3), and adolescent
risky behavior (data from Years 3 and 7 were used in
the longitudinal analyses)Fwe relied on Year 6 data.
Measures
Sources of knowledge. Mothers and fathers com-
pleted six scales about how they acquired informa-
tion about their child’s activities, whereabouts, and

companions. We borrowed two measures from Stat-
tin and Kerr (2000): a six-item measure of child self-
disclosure (e.g., ‘‘Does your child spontaneously tell
you about what he/she has been doing with
friends?’’) and a five-item measure of parental soli-
citation (e.g., ‘‘Do you start conversations with your
child about his/her free time activities?’’). Both
measures used 5-point scales ranging from 1 (almost
never) to 5 (almost always). The other four source
measures were developed for this study, borrowing
from the approaches used by Stattin and Kerr (2000)
and Waizenhofer et al. (2004). Specifically, each of the
other four sources was tapped with three items.
Parents were asked three general questions: ‘‘How
do you usually learn about when your child has
misbehaved in some way, e.g., disobeyed, broken a
rule?’’ ‘‘How do you usually learn about how your
child has been spending his/her free time?’’ ‘‘How
do you usually learn about what homework assign-
ments your child has?’’ For each question, using a 5-
point scale ranging from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost
always), parents indicated how often they used each
of four different approaches: (a) ‘‘I can usually tell
about this by observing and listening to my child’’;
(b) ‘‘My spouse usually keeps me informed about
this’’; (c) ‘‘My child’s sister(s) and brother(s) usually
keeps me informed about this’’; and (d) ‘‘People
outside the family (e.g., teachers, neighbors, child’s
friends) usually keep me informed about this.’’
Cronbach’s alphas ranged from .79 to .85 for fathers
and from .66 to .84 for mothers. (The .66 alpha was
for listen and observe.) We did not ask adolescents to
report on how much their parents listened and ob-
served, relied on spouse, relied on sibling, or relied
on others because we did not think youth would be
able to report accurately on these processes. Youth
did complete the measures of child self-disclosure
and parent solicitation, however, and parents’ and
adolescents’ reports were significantly correlated
(r 5.45, po.001; r 5.25, po.001; r 5 .53, po.001;
r 5.37, po.001 for self-disclosure to mother, mother
solicitation, self-disclosure to father, and father soli-
citation, respectively).
Family background. Mothers and fathers reported
their ages, educational attainment, occupations
(coded for prestige using the NORC system; Nakao &
Treas, 1994), annual wages from jobs, and family size.
Parents’ work hours. Mothers and fathers reported
the number of hours they worked per week and the
number of hours they spent on work-related activi-
ties at home, which were summed to create an index
of total weekly work hours.
Personal characteristics. In addition to gender and
age, we had access to adolescents’ reports of their
14678624, 2005, 4, Downloaded from https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00883.x by Universidad De Cadiz, Wiley Online Library on [05/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Sources of Fathers’ and Mothers’ Knowledge 873
own expressivity and parents’ reports of children’s
openness to supervision (asked at Year 3). Express-
ivity was measured using the 6-item expressivity
scale from the Antill Trait Questionnaire (Antill,
Russell, Goodnow, & Cotton, 1993), which consists of
six female-typed characteristics on which youth rate
themselves. A sample item is ‘‘Gentle: This is the sort
of person who is careful not to hurt other people. Are
you like that?’’ Adolescents used a 5-point scale
ranging from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always);
Cronbach’s alpha was .78. In Year 3, parents com-
pleted the Children’s Openness to Supervision
Measure, a 12-item scale adapted from the Child
Check-in Scale (2001; K. A. Kerns, personal com-
munication, October 1996) that taps how amenable
children are to parental efforts to keep track of their
activities. Using a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not at
all) to 5 (very often), parents indicated how often, for
example, their child ‘‘volunteers information about
plans’’ and ‘‘can be relied upon to return at the
agreed upon time.’’ Cronbach’s alphas were .92 and
.90 for fathers and mothers, respectively.
In Year 1, parents completed the Bem Sex Role
Inventory (Bem, 1974) which includes 60 adjectives,
20 of which are considered feminine or expressive
(e.g., warm, friendly, likes children), using a 7-point
scale ranging from 1 (never or almost never true) to 7
(always or almost always true). Cronbach’s alphas were
.69 for mothers and .76 for fathers. In Year 6, mothers
and fathers completed the 10-item Center for Epi-
demiological Studies Depression Scale (Devins &
Orme, 1985) that measures depressive symptoms
experienced during the past week (e.g., ‘‘I felt that
everything I did was an effort’’) on a scale from 1
(rarely or none of the time) to 4 (most of the time).
Cronbach’s alphas were .82 for fathers and .84 for
mothers.
Quality of the marital relationship. Using a 9-point
scale, mothers and fathers completed the nine-item
marital love (e.g., ‘‘How committed do you feel to-
ward your partner?’’) and five-item conflict (e.g.,
‘‘How often do you and your partner argue with one
another?’’) scales from the Relationships Question-
naire (Braiker & Kelley, 1979). Cronbach’s alphas
were .93 and .94 for the love scale, and .71 and .72 for
the conflict scale, for fathers and mothers, respec-
tively.
Parent – adolescent relationship. Mothers and fa-
thers completed a 24-item subscale of the parent
version of the Child’s Report of Parental Behavior
Inventory (CRPBI; Schwarz, Barton-Henry, &
Pruzinsky, 1985; Schaefer, 1965) to tap feelings of
warmth and acceptance in the parent – child rela-
tionship. Using a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (not

874 Crouter, Bumpus, Davis, and McHale
like you) to 4 (a lot like you), respondents rated what
they were like as parents (e.g., ‘‘I am a parent who
seems to see my child’s good points more than his/
her faults’’). Cronbach’s alphas were .92 and .93 for
mothers and fathers, respectively. The measure of
conflict between parents and adolescent offspring,
adapted from Smetana (1988), assessed the frequen-
cy of conflict in 11 domains: chores, appearance,
homework and schoolwork, social life, dating and
romantic relationships, bedtime and curfew, health,
choosing activities, money, behavior and personality,
and relationships with brothers and sisters. Mothers
and fathers answered each item using a 6-point
Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 6
(several times a day) to represent how often they had
conflicts in these areas during the previous year.
Cronbach’s alphas were .84 and .85 for mothers and
fathers, respectively.
Parental knowledge. Parents provided estimates of
how much they knew about their adolescents’ daily
experiences using a measure developed by Stattin
and Kerr (2000). This nine-item measure (e.g.,’’How
often do you know what (your child) does in his/her
free time?’’) asked how much the parent knew about
the adolescent’s daily activities, whereabouts, and
companions on a scale from 1 (almost never) to 5 (al-
most always). Cronbach’s alphas were .85 and .83 for
fathers’ and mothers’ reports, respectively. Parents’
reports of knowledge were positively correlated with
adolescents’ estimates of their parents’ knowledge
(r 5.37, po.001; r 5.32, po.001, for mothers and fa-
thers, respectively).
Adolescents’ risky behavior. Youth completed an 18-
item measure adapted from Eccles and Barber’s
(1990) Risky Behavior Scale assessing involvement in
behaviors such as drinking, using drugs and tobacco,
and skipping school. On a 4-point scale (1 5 never,
2 5 once, 3 5 2 – 10 times, 4 5 more than 10 times),
adolescents indicated how often they had engaged in
the activities over the past year. Cronbach’s alphas
were .82 (Year 3), .89 (Year 6), and .88 (Year 7).
Results
Parents’ Sources of Knowledge: Descriptive Analyses
We performed a 2 (parent)  6 (source)  2 (ado-
lescent gender) mixed model analysis of variance
(ANOVA) to examine mean differences in sources
of knowledge. Parent and source were treated as
within-group factors, and gender was treated as
a between-group factor. This analysis revealed a
main effect for source, F(5, 885) 5 364.12, po.001,
and significant Source  Parent, F(5, 885) 5 94.64,
14678624, 2005, 4, Downloaded from https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00883.x by Universidad De Cadiz, Wiley Online Library on [05/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
po.001, and Source  Parent  Gender, F(5, 885) 5
4.83, po.001, interactions. We followed up in two
ways. First, we conducted a series of 6 (source)  2
(gender) ANOVAs separately for each source of
knowledge. As can be seen in Table 1, mothers’ mean
scores on child self-disclosure, listen and observe,
and solicitation were significantly higher than fa-
thers’, but fathers relied on mothers significantly
more than mothers relied on them for self-disclosure,
F(1, 177) 5 63.18, po.001; listen and observe, F(1,
177) 5 31.07, po.001; solicitation, F(1, 177) 5 68.85,
po.001; and relies on spouse, F(1, 177) 5 159.40,
po.001. Mothers and fathers did not differentially
rely on siblings or others. Gender differences were
apparent only for self-disclosure, F(1, 177) 5 6.17,
po.05, and relying on others, F(1, 177) 5 5.22, po.05.
Girls (M 5 32.72, SD 5 5.34) self-disclosed more than
did boys (M 5 30.67, SD 5 4.65), and parents of boys
(M 5 8.95, SD 5 2.92) relied more on others for in-
formation than did parents of girls (M 5 7.84,
SD 5 2.99). The only significant Parent  Gender
interaction emerged for relies on spouse, F(1,
177) 5 10.03, po.02. Fathers relied more on mothers
than mothers relied on fathers overall, but parents
each relied more on spouses for knowledge about
offspring of the other sex. Thus, fathers relied more
on mothers about daughters (M 5 11.46, SD 5 2.39)
than sons (M 5 10.44, SD 5 2.51), whereas mothers
relied more on fathers about sons (M 5 7.49,
SD 5 3.06) than daughters (M 5 6.54, SD 5 3.16).
We also computed t tests for dependent samples
to compare each parent’s use of particular sources of
knowledge. Fathers were most likely to report rely-
ing on their spouse, followed by solicitation (see
Table 1). Mothers were most likely to favor solicita-
tion, followed by child self-disclosure. For both
parents, relying on others outside the family was the
least common source of knowledge.
Table 1
Means (and Standard Deviations) for Fathers’ and Mothers’ Sources of
Knowledge
Variable Father (n 5 179) Mother (n 5 179)
Child self-disclosure 3.23 (0.61)a,y 3.64 (0.70)a,z
Listen/observe 3.22 (0.74)a,y 3.61 (0.68)a,z
Solicitation 3.61 (0.56)b,y 4.10 (0.57)b,z
Spouse 3.66 (0.83)b,y 2.34 (1.05)c,z
Siblings 2.37 (0.89)c 2.40 (0.87)c
Other 1.76 (0.74)d 1.91 (0.88)d
Note. Subscripts a, b, c, and d indicate significant (po.05) within-
parent source differences (i.e., source means that differ within
columns); subscripts y and z indicate significant (po.05) mother –
father differences (i.e., source means that differ within rows).
 14678624, 2005, 4, Downloaded from https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00883.x by Universidad De Cadiz, Wiley Online Library on [05/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Sources of Fathers’ and Mothers’ Knowledge 875

Table 2
Correlations Between Sources of Knowledge for Mothers and Fathers (N 5 179)

1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Disclosure .44 .29 .03 .12 .36

2. Listen/observe .41 .36 .29 .20 .01
3. Solicitation .40 .30 .07 .06 .06
4. Spouse .23 .20 .05 .47 .36
5. Sibling .03 .13 .02 .27 .43
6. Other .13 .01 .03 .04 .27

Note. Mothers’ data are above, and fathers’ data are below the diagonal.
po.05. po.01. po.001.

We next computed bivariate correlations among
the six sources of knowledge separately for mothers
and fathers (see Table 2). For both parents, child self-
disclosure, listening and observing, and solicitation
were positively correlated, and relying on spouse
was positively related to listening and observing and
relying on siblings. For fathers, but not mothers, re-
lying on spouse was also positively related to ado-
lescent self-disclosure. For fathers, the only
significant correlate of relying on others outside the
family was relying on siblings. For mothers, relying
on others was significantly and positively associated
with relying on spouse and on siblings, and nega-
tively associated with self-disclosure.
Identifying Father and Mother Clusters
Each cluster analysis was conducted on stand-
ardized variables reflecting the target parent’s six
sources of knowledge. We used an agglomerative
hierarchical approach (Blashfield, 1976; Blashfield &
Aldenderfer, 1978, 1988); the similarity index was
cosine (Cronbach & Gleser, 1953), and average was
specified as the cluster linkage method (Sneath &
Sokal, 1973). For both fathers and mothers, the three-
cluster solution produced interesting groups with
reasonable cell sizes. The cluster solutions were
replicated by splitting the sample randomly in half,
conducting a cluster analysis on each half, and ex-
amining the q correlations between the newly
formed clusters. For mothers, q correlations between
the similar clusters ranged from .85 to .92; for fathers,
q correlations ranged from .89 to .94 (all pso.05).
176) 5 8.22, po.001; solicitation, F(2, 176) 5 5.41,
po.01; spouse, F(2, 176) 5 47.30, po.001; and others,
F(2, 176) 5 6.14, po.01. A nonsignificant trend was
found for siblings, F(2, 176) 5 2.52, po.10. Tukey
follow-up tests revealed that, compared with other
fathers, Cluster 1 (n 5 62) fathers reported high levels
of child self-disclosure, parental solicitation, and
listen and observe, and relatively low scores on re-
lying on spouse, siblings, and others. Because Clus-
ter 1 fathers learned about their children’s daily
experiences by relating directly to their children, we
called this cluster relational. Fathers in Cluster 2
(n 5 56) had mid-range scores on all sources except
spouse. Because these fathers relied heavily on their
spouses as sources of information as compared with
the other groups, we called this cluster relies on
spouse. Fathers in Cluster 3 (n 5 61) had the lowest
scores on self-disclosure, listen and observe, solici-
tation, and spouse, and the highest scores on siblings
and others. Because the mean differences between
clusters were more striking for others than for sib-
lings, we called Cluster 3 relies on others.
1
0.5
0
−0.5

To describe the clusters, we conducted a series of

one-way ANOVAs separately for each parent, with −1
the focal parent’s clusters as the independent varia- Child Disclose Listen Solicit Spouse Sibling Others

ble and the sources of knowledge as the dependent Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3
variables. For fathers (see Figure 1), significant Figure 1. Fathers’ three-cluster solution defined by six standard-
cluster differences were found for self-disclosure, ized measures of sources of knowledge about adolescent offspring
F(2, 176) 5 20.56, po.001; listen and observe, F(2, experiences.

876 Crouter, Bumpus, Davis, and McHale
1 mothers’ Cluster 3 relies on others to signal its simi-
0.5
0 po.01 (see Table 3).
−0.5
−1
Child Disclose Listen Solicit Spouse Sibling
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3
Figure 2. Mothers’ three-cluster solution defined by six standard-
ized measures of sources of knowledge about adolescent offspring
experiences.
For mothers (see Figure 2), there were significant
cluster effects for self-disclosure, F(2, 176) 5 31.56,
po.001; listen and observe, F(2, 176) 5 10.63, po.001;
solicitation, F(2, 176) 5 3.26, po.05; spouse, F(2,
176) 5 36.14, po.001; siblings, F(2, 176) 5 20.55,
po.001; and others, F(2, 176) 5 30.88, po.001. Cluster
1 mothers (n 5 78) stood out in terms of high levels of
child self-disclosure and listen and observe, leading
us to call them relational because they resembled fa-
thers’ Cluster 1. Cluster 2 (n 5 48) had no counter-
part among the father clusters: These mothers
reported relatively low levels of all sources of
knowledge except parental solicitation. Because this
was the only cluster with above average scores on
solicitation, we called this group questioners (but note
that the follow-up test did not reveal significant
mean differences on maternal solicitation). Cluster 3
mothers (n 5 53) relied heavily on other people, but
unlike the relies-on-others father cluster, these
mothers relied on their spouses, other children in the
family, and others outside the family. In other words,
for mothers, unlike fathers, spouses did not stand
out as a special source of knowledge. We called
Table 3
Within-Family Concordance in Fathers’ and Mothers’ Cluster Membership (N 5 179)
1 2
Mother clusters Relational
1 30
Relational 48%
2 17
Questioners 27%
3 15
Relies on others 24%
Total 62
Note. w2(4, n 5 179) 5 15.35, po.01; percentages refer to columns.
14678624, 2005, 4, Downloaded from https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00883.x by Universidad De Cadiz, Wiley Online Library on [05/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
larity to fathers’ Cluster 3. A 3 (father clusters)  3
(mother clusters) chi-square analysis revealed sig-
nificant parental concordance, w2(4, n 5 179) 5 15.35,
Correlates of Father and Mother Clusters
Others Demographic correlates. We next explored the cor-
relates of the clusters. Our first step was to examine
associations among cluster membership, adolescent
gender, and family background characteristics. First
we conducted two 3 (cluster)  2 (adolescent gender)
chi-square analyses. A significant association was
found for fathers, w2(2, n 5 179) 5 8.42, po.02. We
performed follow-up chi-square analyses separately
for each cluster to pinpoint significant gender dif-
ferences. Relational fathers were equally likely to
have daughters (n 5 31; 50%) and sons (n 5 31; 50%),
w2(1, n 5 62) 5 .00, ns. Fathers who relied on spouses
were significantly more likely to have daughters
(n 5 37; 66%) than sons (n 5 19; 34%), w2(1,
n 5 62) 5 5.79, po.02. There was a trend for fathers
who relied on others to be more likely to have sons
(n 5 37; 61%) than daughters (n 5 24; 39%), w2(1,
n 5 61) 5 2.77, po.10. The overall chi-square analysis
for mothers revealed that the association between
cluster membership and adolescent gender was at
the level of a trend, w2(2, n 5 179) 5 4.74, po.10, but
follow-ups performed separately for each cluster
revealed no significant gender differences, leading
us to conclude that gender and cluster were not as-
sociated for mothers.
We next conducted a series of one-way ANOVAs
separately for fathers and mothers, focused on the
measures reflecting socioeconomic status (i.e., edu-
cation, occupational prestige, income) and back-
ground characteristics (i.e., parents’ and adolescent’s
Father clusters
3
Relies on spouse Relies on others Total
29 19 78
52% 31%
18 13 48
32% 21%
9 29 53
16% 48%
56 61 179

ages, family size). For fathers, cluster main effects
emerged for education, F(2, 176) 5 7.54, po.001; oc-
cupational prestige, F(2, 173) 5 4.25, po.02; and age,
F(2, 175) 5 3.13, po.05. Relational fathers were better
educated, held jobs with higher prestige, and were
slightly older than fathers in the other clusters. For
mothers, a main effect for cluster emerged for edu-
cation, F(2, 176) 5 7.26, po.001. Mothers in Cluster 2
(questioners) were better educated than other
mothers.
The background correlates of the father clusters
were consistent, and all appeared to reflect socio-
economic status. Given that education emerged as an
important cluster correlate for both fathers and
mothers, that education is frequently used as a
marker for family socioeconomic status (Hughes &
Perry-Jenkins, 1996), and that maternal and paternal
education were correlated (r 5.47, po.001), we
computed the mean of both parents’ education and
treated it as a covariate in the remainder of the
analyses. In addition, because adolescent gender was
confounded with the father clusters and was likely to
be related to some of the correlates of interest, we
included adolescent gender as a factor in subsequent
analyses.
In a series of 3 (cluster)  2 (adolescent gender)
analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs), treating parent
education as a covariate, we examined correlates of
cluster membership in four domains: parents’ work
hours, adolescents’ and parents’ personal qualities,
marital quality, and parent – child relationship. Sig-
nificant cluster differences were followed up with
Tukey tests (all means reported are adjusted means).
To streamline results, we report only main effects or
interactions involving cluster; we do not report main
effects for adolescent gender or parent education.
Correlates of father clusters. A main effect for clus-
ter was found for fathers’ work hours, F(2,
171) 5 4.55, po.05. Fathers in Cluster 2 (relies on
spouse) worked significantly longer hours
(M 5 53.11 hr per week, SE 5 1.51) than fathers in
Clusters 1 (relational; M 5 47.22, SE 5 1.36) or 3 (re-
lies on others; M 5 48.52, SE 5 1.44).
With respect to child characteristics, cluster effects
emerged for adolescents’ reports of their (concur-
rent) expressive qualities, F(2, 171) 5 4.27, po.05,
and fathers’ (Year 3) perceptions of children’s open-
ness to supervision, F(2, 171) 5 4.58, po.05. Off-
spring of fathers in Cluster 1 (relational; M 5 23.97,
SE 5 0.45) rated themselves as more expressive than
did offspring of fathers in Cluster 3 (relies on others;
M 5 22.30, SE 5 0.47); the mean for offspring of fa-
thers in Cluster 2 (relies on spouse; M 5 22.33,
SE 5 0.49) did not differ from the other two groups.
14678624, 2005, 4, Downloaded from https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00883.x by Universidad De Cadiz, Wiley Online Library on [05/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Sources of Fathers’ and Mothers’ Knowledge 877
Similarly, fathers in Cluster 1 (relational; M 5 50.98,
SE 5 0.89) saw their offspring as more open to su-
pervision than did fathers in Cluster 3 (relies on
others; M 5 47.02, SE 5 0.94). The mean for fathers
who relied on spouses (M 5 48.56, SE 5 0.99) did not
differ from the other groups.
Fathers’ personal characteristics (i.e., expressivity,
depressive symptoms) were not associated with the
father clusters, nor were significant correlates found
with regard to the quality of the marital relationship.
With respect to the father – adolescent relationship,
a significant main effect for cluster emerged for
conflict, F(2, 170) 5 7.41, po.001. Fathers in Cluster 3
(relies on others; M 5 29.49, SE 5 0.88) reported sig-
nificantly more concurrent conflict with their ado-
lescents than did fathers in either Cluster 1
(relational; M 5 25.55, SE 5 0.83) or Cluster 2 (relies
on spouse; M 5 24.93, SE 5 0.92); the latter groups
were not significantly different from one another. No
group differences were found in the analysis of
warmth and acceptance.
Correlates of mother clusters. The only domain that
produced significant correlates was adolescents’
personal characteristics. Significant cluster effects
were found for expressivity, F(2, 171) 5 3.63, po.05,
and mothers’ prior reports of their offspring’s
openness to supervision, F(2, 171) 5 13.24, po.001.
Specifically, offspring of Cluster 2 mothers (ques-
tioners; M 5 24.11, SE 5 0.52) described themselves
as significantly more expressive than did offspring of
Cluster 3 mothers (relies on others; M 5 22.16,
SE 5 0.51). The mean for Cluster 1 (relational;
M 5 22.88, SE 5 0.41) was not significantly different
from either group. All three groups differed signifi-
cantly on the child’s openness to supervision. Rela-
tional mothers (M 5 55.03, SE 5 0.65) saw their
children as most open to supervision, followed by
questioners (M 5 52.34, SE 5 0.83) and mothers who
relied on others (M 5 49.86, SE 5 0.82).
Are the Clusters Related to Parental Knowledge and to
Adolescent Risky Behavior?
One test of the utility of a typology defined by
parents’ sources of knowledge is whether group
membership is related to parents’ levels of knowl-
edge and adolescent risky behavior. To explore this
issue, we conducted 3 (cluster)  2 (adolescent gen-
der) ANCOVAs separately for fathers and mothers,
treating parental education as a covariate and pa-
rental knowledge and concurrent adolescent risky
behavior as the dependent variables. For fathers,
cluster membership was associated with knowledge,
F(2, 172) 5 14.51, po.001, and risky behavior, F(2,
 14678624, 2005, 4, Downloaded from https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00883.x by Universidad De Cadiz, Wiley Online Library on [05/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
878 Crouter, Bumpus, Davis, and McHale

177) 5 4.21, po.05. Relational fathers (M 5 36.27, .41***

SE 5 0.59) and fathers who relied on spouses
(M 5 35.43, SE 5 0.65) knew significantly more than Relational
−.30 (16 yrs) .39***
fathers who relied on others (M 5 31.79, SE 5 0.62). Risky Paternal Risky
−.22**
Means for Clusters 1 and 2 were not significantly Behavior Knowledge Behavior
(13 yrs) .06 .34*** (16 yrs) (17 yrs)
different from one another. Consistent with this
Spouse
pattern, offspring of fathers who relied on others (16 yrs)
−.19*
(M 5 29.03, SE 5 1.02) reported significantly higher
levels of risky behavior than offspring of relational −.14*
fathers (M 5 25.33, SE 5 0.96) and fathers who relied Figure 3. Path analysis depicting connections among adolescent
on spouses (M 5 25.36, SE 5 1.06); the latter groups risky behavior at age 13, fathers’ sources of knowledge, paternal
did not differ significantly from one another. knowledge, and adolescent risky behavior at age 17 (coefficients
For mothers, cluster membership was associated are standardized regression coefficients).
with knowledge, F(2, 172) 5 6.38, po.01, but not
risky behavior. Relational mothers (M 5 40.32,
was considerable stability in adolescent risky be-
SE 5 0.50) reported that they knew significantly
havior from ages 13 to 17, cluster membership was
more than questioners (M 5 38.48, SE 5 0.64) or
also important. Compared with the relied-on-others
mothers who relied on others (M 5 37.62, SE 5 0.62);
group, relational fathers and those who relied on
the latter two groups were not significantly different.
spouses knew significantly more about their ado-
lescents’ experiences, and higher levels of knowl-
Longitudinal Pathways Linking Sources of Knowledge, edge predicted lower levels of adolescent risky
Levels of Knowledge, and Adolescent Risky Behavior behavior 1 year later. A significant direct path also
emerged between the relies-on-spouse group and
In our final set of analyses we explored one pos-
risky behavior at age 17; controlling for prior risky
sible scenario for how sources of knowledge, levels
behavior, youth whose fathers relied on their
of knowledge, and risky behavior may be linked
spouses for information were less involved in risky
over time, using path analysis. In a series of regres-
behavior 1 year later. Sobel tests revealed that pa-
sion analyses, we examined the links between risky
ternal knowledge mediated the connections between
behavior at age 13, parents’ sources of knowledge
membership in the relational group and adolescent
(i.e., cluster membership) at age 16, levels of parental
behavior at age 17 (z 5 6.29, po.001), and member-
knowledge at age 16, and risky behavior at age 17. By
ship in the relies-on-spouse group and risky be-
separating in time the outcome variable from the
havior (z 5 6.24, po.001).
source clusters and parental knowledge, we reduced
As was the case for fathers, adolescent risky be-
the possibility that parents and offspring had been
havior at age 13 did not predict mothers’ sources of
jointly affected by a common event that inflated as-
knowledge (see Figure 4). Risky behavior at age 13,
sociations, such as the adolescent recently getting
however, did predict maternal knowledge at age 16,
into trouble. We anchored the path analysis with
as well as subsequent risky behavior: The more ad-
risky behavior at age 13 (Year 3), a time when risky
olescents engaged in risky behavior at age 13, the less
behavior begins to increase. Adding this step al-
their mothers knew about their experiences 3 years
lowed us to examine the connections, if any, between
prior risky behavior and parents’ sources of knowl-
edge (for this step we used multinomial regression .38***
because sources of knowledge is a categorical vari-
able), as well as the link between prior risky behavior Relational
−.04 (16 yrs) .28**
and parents’ levels of knowledge. These analyses Risky Maternal Risky
−.30***
controlled for parental education and adolescent Behavior Knowledge Behavior
(13 yrs) .14 (16 yrs) (17 yrs)
gender. .09
Questioners
Beginning with fathers, as can be seen in Figure 3, (16 yrs)
risky behavior at age 13 did not predict membership
in either the relational or the relies-on-spouse cluster −.27***
(compared with the reference group: relies on oth-
Figure 4. Path analysis depicting connections among adolescent
ers), but the more youth engaged in risky behavior at risky behavior at age 13, mothers’ sources of knowledge, maternal
age 13, the less fathers knew about their offspring’s knowledge, and adolescent risky behavior at age 17 (coefficients
experiences at age 16. In addition, although there are standardized regression coefficients).

later, and the more involved youth were in risky
behavior youth at age 17. In addition, relational
mothers knew more about offspring than mothers
who relied on others (the reference group), and the
more mothers knew, the less their offspring engaged
in risky behavior at age 17. Sobel tests revealed that
the indirect path from membership in the relational
group to risky behavior at age 17 through maternal
knowledge was significant (z 5 3.64, po.001), but the
indirect path linking membership in the questioners
group to risky behavior was not (z 5 1.59, ns).
Discussion
This study identified distinctive groups of fathers
and mothers as a function of the patterning of their
sources of knowledge about their adolescent off-
spring’s daily experiences. In our concluding re-
marks, we compare fathers’ and mothers’ clusters
and address the possible mechanisms through which
sources of knowledge are linked to adolescent risky
behavior.
Comparing Fathers’ and Mothers’ Sources of Knowledge
Although the father and mother clusters resem-
bled one another in some striking ways, there were
interesting differences in the clusters themselves and
in their correlates. Fathers fell into three groups.
Fathers in the relational cluster learned about their
children’s experiences in direct ways: Youth self-
disclosed, fathers asked questions, and fathers
observed and listened. These fathers had highly ex-
pressive children, whom fathers saw as open to su-
pervision, suggesting that child effects may be part
of what drives fathers’ knowledge acquisition (Kerr
& Stattin, 2000, 2003; Stattin & Kerr, 2000).
A second group of fathers relied on their spouses
for information. These men worked longer hours
than other fathers, a circumstance that may help
explain why they relied on their spouses to provide
knowledge about what their adolescent offspring
were doing. Fathers in this group were also more
likely to have daughters than sons. The mother –
daughter relationship has been characterized as the
closest of the four parent – child dyads, and the fa-
ther – daughter relationship as the most distant
(Youniss & Smollar, 1985). Having a daughter may
be one life circumstance that sets fathers on a path
toward relying on mothers for the inside story on
daughters’ daily experiences.
The third group of fathers relied on others (people
outside the family as well as siblings) for informa-
tion. These fathers saw their offspring as less open to
14678624, 2005, 4, Downloaded from https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00883.x by Universidad De Cadiz, Wiley Online Library on [05/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Sources of Fathers’ and Mothers’ Knowledge 879
supervision, and their children described themselves
as less expressive. These father – adolescent dyads
were also more conflictual than the other groups.
These correlates suggest that relying on others is the
most problematic strategy for attaining information
and may be a last resort for fathers for whom the
father – adolescent relationship is not going well.
Turning to the mother clusters, as was the case for
fathers, a relational group emerged. The largest of
the three mother clusters, this group was high on
child self-disclosure and on listening and observing
but, unlike the fathers, was not high on parental
solicitation, suggesting that asking questions may be
part of a relational package for fathers but not for
mothers. Adolescents may interpret questions from
fathers, who tend to be less involved in parenting
overall than mothers, as signs of engagement and
interest, but interpret questioning from mothers less
positively. Mothers in the relational group had de-
scribed their children as very open to supervision 3
years before, suggesting again that children’s char-
acteristics may play an important role in shaping
parents’ knowledge acquisition strategies.
The second group of mothers had no father
counterpart. We called them questioners because
their solicitation scores were relatively high. Off-
spring of these mothers described themselves as
more expressive (stereotypically feminine) than
youth whose mothers relied on others. Note, how-
ever, that although membership in the relational
group was related to mothers being more knowl-
edgeable, membership in the questioners group was
not.
The third group of mothers relied on other people
(i.e., sibling, spouse, people outside the family) for
information. These mothers described their offspring
as less open to supervision compared with relational
mothers. Recall that a large group of fathers relied on
their spouses for information, and this group gen-
erally had positive correlates. In contrast, for moth-
ers, relying on fathers was part of a pattern of relying
on others (i.e., siblings, people outside the family), a
constellation of sources that had negative correlates.
What Role Do Sources of Knowledge Play in Adolescents’
Risky Behavior?
Our path-analytic findings suggest that how par-
ents acquire their information about their adoles-
cents’ experiences matters (Kerr & Stattin, 2000;
Stattin & Kerr, 2000) but that the linkages are gen-
erally indirect. That is, parents’ sources of knowl-
edge are related to how much they know about their
children’s lives, and knowledge in turn predicts ad-

880 Crouter, Bumpus, Davis, and McHale
olescents’ involvement in risky behavior. For both
fathers and mothers, levels of risky behavior at age
13 did not predict cluster membership. This was
surprising given that, at least for fathers, there were
significant associations between cluster membership
and concurrent risky behavior, and previous re-
search had found that risky behavior predicted
subsequent parental knowledge, and vice versa
(Laird et al., 2003). Our null finding may be due to
the 3-year gap. Much may have happened between
ages 13 and 16 to make risky behavior at age 13
unconnected to parents’ knowledge acquisition
strategies at age 16. Note, however, that risky be-
havior at age 13 did predict fathers’ and mothers’
levels of knowledge at age 16, suggesting that early
risky behavior is not inconsequential. Sources of
knowledge may shift with changing circumstances,
making concurrent or recent behavior more relevant
than past behavior.
The path analysis for fathers suggested that both
risky behavior at age 13 and sources of knowledge
predicted fathers’ knowledge, and that fathers’
knowledge in turn was related to adolescents’ en-
gagement in risky behavior at age 17. Specifically,
compared with fathers who relied on others for in-
formation (the reference group), relational fathers
and fathers who relied on their spouses knew more
about their children’s experiences, and being more
knowledgeable in turn predicted relative declines in
adolescents’ levels of engagement in risky behavior.
These indirect paths were significant. In addition,
there was a direct path between membership in the
relies-on-spouse group and risky behavior, suggest-
ing that offspring whose fathers relied on mothers
for information became less involved in risky be-
havior over time compared with adolescents whose
fathers relied on other people for information. Be-
cause this was a direct path that did not go through
paternal knowledge, other processes appeared to be
at work. Parents’ effective teamwork may be the
unmeasured phenomenon that explains this link, or
perhaps this association can be attributed to moth-
ers’ effective monitoring and knowledge acquisition.
The path analytic results for mothers, although
sparse, were generally consistent with the father
findings. There was a significant indirect effect of
membership in the relational cluster on adolescents’
risky behavior at age 17 through maternal knowl-
edge. Compared with mothers who relied on others,
mothers in the relational group knew more about
their offspring’s experiences, and maternal knowl-
edge in turn was linked to relative declines in risky
behavior, but this indirect effect was not apparent for
mothers in the questioners group.
14678624, 2005, 4, Downloaded from https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00883.x by Universidad De Cadiz, Wiley Online Library on [05/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Our findings suggest that parental knowledge
may best be thought of as a property of the family
system because it depends not only on the parent –
adolescent relationship, as we argued in an earlier
study (Crouter et al., 1999), but on the ways parents
keep themselves and one another informed about
their children’s experiences. Parents acquire knowl-
edge in different ways, ways that, for mothers, have
a lot to do with what youth are like, and ways that,
for fathers, reflect youth characteristics, work de-
mands, and father – adolescent relationship quality.
The roots of parental knowledge in adolescence
probably reflect the cumulative history of parents’
relationships with their children. Those who have
been able to construct close relationships (in part
because of the personal qualities their children bring
to the relationship) are able to rely on adolescent self-
disclosure and listening to and observing offspring.
Those with less positive relationships, on the other
hand, may have to rely on others for information
about their offspring, a style of knowledge acquisi-
tion that, our data suggest, is linked to lower levels of
knowledge and, ultimately, higher levels of adoles-
cent risky behavior.
Directions for Future Research
Our results suggest that a pattern-analytic ap-
proach offers a useful complement to what can be
learned from variable-oriented approaches to the
study of parental knowledge. One drawback of our
data was that we had information about parents’
sources of knowledge only at one time point. In fu-
ture research, it would be useful to assess parents’
sources of knowledge at different points in their
children’s development, including the preschool
years (for children in day care or preschool), the
school-age years, and continuing into and through
adolescence. With such data, one could ask: Do the
same groups emerge at each developmental period?
If not, which emerge early and which emerge later in
development? Is group membership stable over
time? What individual, contextual, and relational
phenomena predict changes in group membership?
Future research would benefit from larger, more
heterogeneous samples. This study focused on a
working and middle-class, predominately European
American, two-parent sample. It remains to be seen
whether the same clusters would emerge in other
racial or ethnic groups or in single-parent families.
Siblings, for example, may take on special impor-
tance as a source of parental knowledge in single-
parent families or in cultural groups in which sib-
lings are highly involved in caregiving.

In sum, we identified distinct groups of fathers
and mothers on the basis of how parents acquired
knowledge about their adolescent offspring’s expe-
riences. Sources of knowledge, parents’ levels of
knowledge about their children’s experiences, and
adolescent risky behavior were linked longitudinally
in interesting and meaningful ways, suggesting that
parents’ sources of knowledge predict how much
they know, which in turn is linked to offspring’s
subsequent involvement in risky behavior. A chal-
lenge for future research is to chart how parents ac-
quire information about their offspring in the early
years and to document continuities and discontinu-
ities in those processes over time, as well as to track
the dynamic individual, relational, and contextual
conditions underlying these family processes.
References
Antill, J. K., Russell, G., Goodnow, J. J., & Cotton, S. (1993).
Measures of children’s sex typing in middle childhood.
Australian Journal of Psychology, 45, 25 – 33.
Auhagen, A. E., & Hinde, R. A. (1997). Individual charac-
teristics and personal relationships. Personal Relation-
ships, 4, 63 – 84.
Belsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process
model. Child Development, 55, 83 – 96.
Bem, S. (1974). The measurement of psychological an-
drogyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42,
155 – 162.
Bergman, L. R., Cairns, R. B., & Kagan, J. (1998). Methods
and models for studying the individual: Essays in honor of
Marian Radke-Yarrow. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Blashfield, R. K. (1976). Mixed model tests of cluster
analysis: Accuracy of four agglomerative hierarchical
methods. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 377 – 388.
Blashfield, R. K., & Aldenderfer, M. S. (1978). The literature
on cluster analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 13,
271 – 295.
Blashfield, R. K., & Aldenderfer, M. S. (1988). The methods
and problems of cluster analysis. In J. R. Nesselroade &
R. B. Cattell (Eds.), Handbook of multivariate experimental
psychology (pp. 447 – 473). New York: Plenum.
Braiker, H. B., & Kelley, H. H. (1979). Conflict in the de-
velopment of close relationships. In R. Burgess & T.
Huston (Eds.), Social exchange in developing relationships
(pp. 135 – 168). New York: Academic Press.
Bumpus, M. F., Crouter, A. C., & McHale, S. M. (1999).
Work demands of dual-earner couples: Implications for
parents’ knowledge about children’s daily lives in
middle childhood. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61,
465 – 475.
Cronbach, L. J., & Gleser, G. C. (1953). Assessing simi-
larity between profiles. Psychological Bulletin, 50,
456 – 473.
14678624, 2005, 4, Downloaded from https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00883.x by Universidad De Cadiz, Wiley Online Library on [05/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Sources of Fathers’ and Mothers’ Knowledge 881
Crouter, A. C., & Head, M. R. (2002). Parental monitoring
and knowledge of children. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.),
Handbook of parenting: Vol. 3: Being and becoming a parent
(pp. 461 – 483). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Crouter, A. C., Helms-Erikson, H., Updegraff, K., &
McHale, S. M. (1999). Conditions underlying parents’
knowledge about children’s daily lives in middle
childhood: Between- and within- family comparisons.
Child Development, 70, 246 – 259.
Crouter, A. C., MacDermid, S. M., McHale, S. M., & Perry-
Jenkins, M. (1990). Parental monitoring and perceptions
of children’s school performance and conduct in dual-
and single-earner families. Developmental Psychology, 26,
649 – 657.
Darling, N. (2001, April). Adolescents’ decisions to share in-
formation with their parents and the development of maternal
knowledge and trust. Paper presented at the Society for
Research in Child Development biennial meeting, Min-
neapolis, MN.
Devins, G. M., & Orme, C. M. (1985). Center for Epide-
miological Studies Depression Scale. In D. J. Keyser & R.
C. Sweetland (Eds.), Test critiques (pp. 144 – 160). Kansas
City, MO: Test Corporation of America.
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, 61 – 75.
Downey, G., & Coyne, J. (1990). Children of depressed
parents: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin,
108, 50 – 76.
Eccles, J., & Barber, B. (1990). The risky behavior scale. Un-
published measure, University of Michigan.
Hughes, R., & Perry-Jenkins, M. (1996). Social class issues
in family life education. Family Relations, 45, 175 – 182.
Kerns, K. A. (2001). Parent – child attachment and moni-
toring in middle childhood. Journal of Family Psychology,
15, 69 – 81.
Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2000). What parents know, how they
know it, and several forms of adolescent adjustment:
Further support for reinterpretation of monitoring. De-
velopmental Psychology, 36, 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 ne-
glected side of family relationships (pp. 121 – 151). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Kerr, M., Stattin, H., & Trost, K. (1999). To know you is to
trust you: Parents’ trust is rooted in child disclosure of
information. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 737 – 752.
Laird, R. D., Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., & Dodge, K. A. (2003).
Parents’ monitoring-relevant knowledge and adoles-
cents’ delinquent behavior: Evidence of correlated de-
velopmental changes and reciprocal influences. Child
Development, 74, 752 – 768.
Nakao, K., & Treas, J. (1994). Updating occupational pres-
tige and socioeconomic scores: How the new measures
measure up. Sociological Methodology, 24, 1 – 72.

882 Crouter, Bumpus, Davis, and McHale
Parke, R. D. (2002). Fathers and families. In M. H. Bornstein
(Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 3: Being and becoming a
parent (pp. 27 – 73). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schaefer, E. S. (1965). Children’s reports of parental be-
havior: An inventory. Child Development, 36, 417 – 424.
Schwarz, J. C., Barton-Henry, M. L., & Pruzinsky, T. (1985).
Assessing child-rearing behavior: A comparison of rat-
ings made by mother, father, and sibling on the CRPBI.
Child Development, 55, 462 – 479.
Smetana, J. G. (1988). Concepts of self and social conven-
tion: Adolescents and parents’ reasoning about hypo-
thetical and actual family conflicts. In M. R. Gunnar &
W. A. Collins (Eds.), Minnesota Symposia on Child Psy-
14678624, 2005, 4, Downloaded from https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00883.x by Universidad De Cadiz, Wiley Online Library on [05/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
chology: Vol. 21. Development during the transition to ado-
lescence (pp. 79 – 122). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sneath, P. H., & Sokal, R. P. (1973). Numerical taxonomy. San
Francisco: Freeman.
Stattin, H., & Kerr, M. (2000). Parental monitoring: A re-
interpretation. Child Development, 71, 1072 – 1085.
Waizenhofer, R. N., Buchanan, C. M., & Jackson-Newsom,
J. (2004). Mothers’ and fathers’ knowledge of adoles-
cents’ daily activities: Its sources and its links with ad-
olescent adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 18,
348 – 360.
Youniss, J., & Smollar, J. (1985). Adolescent relations with
mothers, fathers, and friends. Chicago: University of Chi-
cago Press.