Parenting goals and perceived shared and non-shared agency among kirogi mothers of a youth

Figures & data

Figure 1. Mean levels of kirogi mothers’ ratings of importance for their youth’s life goals by domain (N = 153).

Note: Error bars represent standard errors.

Figure 2. Item level ratings of importance by kirogi mothers (N = 153) on the Life Goal Inventory.

Notes: Letter within parentheses after each goal indicates the subscale for that item: A = Educational and occupational achievement; S = Educational and occupational self-development; H = Humanistic; M = Mate selection; F = Familistic.

Table 1. Correlations between parenting life goals and perceived shared and non-shared agency for educational goals with youth.

	Importance of life goals for youth (mother’s report)
		Ed./occ. achievement	Ed./occ. self development	Humanistic	Traditional mate selection	Familistic
Shared agency	Accommodation	−.11	.24**	.24**	−.02	−.05
	Support	.27***	.15	.01	.08	.07
	Collaboration	.33***	.10	.09	.14	.23**
Non-shared agency	Noninvolvement	−.23**	−.13	.05	−.02	.02
	Directing	.40***	−.11	−.13	.27**	.29**

* p < .05

** p < .01

*** p ≤ .001.

Table 2. Intercorrelations between shared and non-shared agency with youth for educational goals and outcome variables among kirogi mothers of a youth.

	M (SD)	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Accommodation	3.02 (.54)	.32***	.24**	.24**	−.14	.27**	.47***	−.09	.33***
2. Support	3.17 (.49)	1	.55***	−.25**	.22**	.06	.24**	.01	.29***
3. Collaboration	3.11 (.49)		1	−.06	.36***	.01	.21**	.09	.31***
4. Noninvolvement	2.14 (.58)			1	−.17*	.05	.05	.19*	−.05
5. Directing	2.70 (.52)				1	−.10	−.21*	.26**	.11
6. Grades	4.07 (1.15)					1	.42***	−.17*	.13
7. Satisfaction with education	3.07 (.48)						1	−.21*	.45***
8. P-C conflict	1.70 (.54)							1	.03
9. P-C relationship satisfaction	4.51 (.88)								1

* p < .05

** p < .01

*** p < .001.

Table 3. Shared and non-shared agency for educational goals regressed onto indicators of adjustment in education and within parent–child relationship.

	Educational goal progress				Mother–youth relationship quality
	Grades		Satisfaction		Conflict		Satisfaction
	B (SE)	ß	B (SE)	ß	B (SE)	ß	B (SE)	ß
Country of residence	1.08 (.17)	.47***	.03 (.07)	.03	.01 (.09)	.01	−.01 (.14)	−.01
Accommodation	.60 (.20)	.21*	.34 (.07)	.39***	−.14 (.09)	−.14	.47 (.15)	.29**
Support	−.02 (.25)	−.03	.07 (.09)	.07	.08 (.11)	.07	.10 (.18)	.06
Collaboration	−.08 (.24)	−.01	.16 (.09)	.17^†	.00 (.11)	.00	.34 (.17)	.19^†
Noninvolvement	−.12 (.16)	−.06	−.04 (.07)	−.05	.28 (.08)	.29**	−.13 (.13)	−.01
Directing	−.35 (.18)	−.16^†	−.23 (.08)	−.24**	.29 (.09)	.27**	.09 (.15)	.05
ΔR^2 Step 1 to Step 2	.070*		.280***		.137**		.178***
Step 2 R^2	.286***		.281***		.140**		.179***
Step 2 Adj. R^2	.255***		.251***		.103**		.144***

Notes: Coefficients from Step 2 are displayed.

^† p < .10

* p < .05

** p < .01

*** p < .001.