Whom to ask? Whom to trust? Parents’ preferences for sources of advice on social-emotional parenting issues

Figures & data

Table 1. Main categories and questions used in the Semi-Structured Interview.

Categories	Questions
A. Questions on sources of advice and reasons
Sources of advice (open) Reasons (open)	Now I would like to know whom you would talk to if your child showed this behavior. Whom would you turn to? Why would you turn to this person?
B. Questions on reference groups
The following questions were all asked for each reference group: (a) friends, (b) parents/parents-in-law, (c) teachers, (d) pediatricians, (e) formal counseling service, and (f) evidence-based counseling service
Behavioral intention (closed) Reasons (open)	How likely on a scale from 1–4 are you to contact someone from this group of people? Why would you/wouldn’t you contact them?
Trust (closed)	How would you rate your trust in that person on a scale of 1–4?
ABI dimensions (closed)	How would you rate this person’s ability on a scale of 1–4? How would you rate this person’s benevolence on a scale of 1–4? How would you rate this person’s values on a scale of 1–4?
	In the case of ability, you could have the impression that this person is, in your opinion, able to give you advice based on his/her own experience with children and education. Or, in your opinion, you may think the person is giving you advice based on expert theoretical knowledge. What is crucial for you in this person?

Table 2. Challenging parenting situations.

Situation		Mentions (N and % of participants)
Power struggles		25 (78%)
Anger/Tantrums		23 (72%)
Refusal/Ignoring		20 (62%)
Resource conflicts		16 (50%)
Physical aggression		16 (50%)
(Excessive) crying		14 (44%)
Frustration		13 (41%)
Parental requests/rules		12 (38%)
Separation anxiety		10 (31%)

Table 3. Main reasons for or against contacting someone.

Reason	Example
Trust Referring to trust or lack of trust	“I trust her.”
New Perspectives Referring to fresh opinions, range of advice, or a different angle	“They see him in a completely different way and in another context.”
Familiarity/relationship Referring to relationship between contact and parent or child	“She knows [the child].”
Expertise Referring to professional competence/education or lack of it	“They are the professionals and have learned about stuff like that.”
Values Referring to similar or different ideals	“I just know that he sees things differently, comes from another time, where parenting was handled differently.”
Practical effort Referring to extra effort, dates, schedule	“We see each other every day anyways.”
Experience Referring to parenting experience, (not) having children of their own	“She has already successfully raised children.”
Prior experiences Referring to prior experiences with advice from that contact	“When I’ve had a situation like this before, I’ve already realized that it’s no use asking them about it.”
Level of suffering Referring to the severity of the situation	“It’s just not that bad, other people have much worse problems.
Stigma Referring to social stigma, negative concepts about needing help	“I feel like I’m going to be judged there.”

Additionally, some parents mentioned unspecific reasons (such as “I would rather not”/“That’s just how I do it”/“I would talk to others first”).

Figure 1. Spontaneously mentioned sources of advice.

Table 4. Mean behavioral intention, trust, ability, benevolence, and integrity for reference groups.

	Friends	Family	Teachers	Pediatrician	Counseling Service	Evidence-based counseling
	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)
Intention	3.38 (.94)^a	3.00 (.95)^ac	2.94 (.98)^ac	1.88 (.87)^bc	1.56 (.95)^b	2.41 (1.04)^c
Trust	3.66 (.65)^ac	3.81 (.40)^a	3.19 (.74)^bd	3.47 (.62)^bc	2.66 (.79)^d	2.97 (.65)^d
Ability	3.12 (.75)	3.00 (.76)^a	3.19 (.64)	3.06 (.80)	3.50 (.62)^b	3.41 (.71)
Benevolence	3.84 (.37)^a	3.81 (.54)^ac	3.47 (.67)	3.53 (.51)	3.19 (.69^)b	3.41 (.62)^bc
Integrity	3.31 (.78)	3.41 (.67)^a	3.09 (.69)	2.94 (.72)^b	3.03 (.86)	3.16 (.72)

Different letters mean statistically significant differences at p < .05. Scores with different letters are significantly different (p < .05).

Table 5. Main pro and contra reasons (for or against contacting someone).

Reasons for contacting someone (N of participants)
	friends	family	pediatricians	teachers	counseling service	evidence-based counseling	total
Npro^1	26	22	8	20	6	14
experience	24	16	4	8	0	2	56
expertise	7	2	8	6	3	11	40
familiarity/relationship	10	6	7	10	0	0	36
new perspectives	4	6	0	13	3	2	30
trust	4	8	0	5	0	0	21
prior experiences	3	0	4	6	2	0	17
practical effort	11	0	1	0	2	0	16
values	2	0	1	0	0	0	4
level of suffering	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
stigma	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Reasons against contacting someone (N of participants)
Ncontra^1	6	10	24	12	26	18
level of suffering	0	0	7	0	20	13	40
practical effort	3	4	5	2	9	5	25
expertise/competence	0	0	17	5	0	0	22
familiarity/relationship	3	0	0	0	15	2	17
values	0	10	2	2	0	1	16
stigma	0	0	0	1	9	4	14
experience knowledge	2	1	0	2	0	2	5
prior experiences	0	5	0	0	1	0	6
trust	0	0	3	1	0	0	4
new perspectives	0	1	0	0	0	0	1

¹total number of participants who opted for contacting the specific group2 total number of participants who opted for not contacting the specific group.

Figure 2. Different sources of perceived ability.

Data availability statement

The data that support the quantitative findings of this study are available in the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/vtsqc/?view_only=129eb45e1b9a4c08adb5a8d799525e3b, blinded for review.