Longitudinal associations between parenting practices and children’s later decision-making competence

Figures & data

Table 1. Pooled correlations for study variables.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15
1. T1 Monitoring/Involvement	(.90)
2. T1 Firm Control	.07*	(.90)
3. T1 Psy Control	−0.04	−0.07	(.95)
4. T2 Monitoring/Involvement	.43**	.10*	−0.12**	(.92)
5. T2 Firm Control	.12*	.36**	.00	.18**	(.87)
6. T2 Psy Control	−0.14**	.00	.61**	−0.18**	−0.14**	(.93)
7. Neighborhood Disadvantage	−0.09*	−0.09*	.21**	−0.14**	−0.14*	.25**	–
8. # SUD + parents	−0.13**	−0.07	.16**	−0.20**	−0.19**	.17**	.14**	–
9. Sex (male = 0)	.05	−0.07	−0.18**	.04	−0.04	−0.08*	−0.02	−0.01	–
10. RTF	.04	.07	−0.08*	.09	.04	−0.12*	−0.15**	−0.12*	.00	–
11. CRP	.03	.07	−0.12**	.10*	−0.02	−0.08	−0.24**	−0.10**	.03	.18**	–
12. ADR	.04	.04	−0.27**	.10	.08	−0.28**	−0.29**	−0.10**	.08	.21**	.24**	–
13. OC	−0.01	.08	−0.22**	.14**	.02	−0.19**	−0.31**	−0.09*	−0.01	.23**	.23**	.34**	–
14. RSN	−0.02	.05	−0.07	−0.03	.05	−0.11**	−0.15**	−0.08	.00	.07	12*	.25**	.12**	–
15. YDMC-Total	.02	.10*	−0.27**	.14**	.06	−0.27**	−0.39**	−0.16**	.03	.54**	.59**	.72**	.68**	.46**	–

Note. Reported values are pooled estimates from 5 imputed datasets. RTF: Resistance to Framing; CRP: Consistency in Risk Perception; ADP: Applying Decision Rules; OC: Over/underconfidence; RSN: Recognizing Social Norms; YDMC-Total: DMC composite index, calculated by regression score for a one-factor PCA solution. *p < .05; **p < .01. Cronbach’s alpha in parentheses.

Table 2. Associations between DMC and parenting practices, mother and father separately.

	RTF	CRP	ADP	OC	RSN	YDMC- Comp.
Time 1 (age 10–12 years)
Monitoring/Involvement—F	.02	.02	.05	−0.02	.00	.02
Firm Control—F	.07	.07	.04	.06	.07*	.10*
Psychological Control—F	−0.08	−0.12**	−0.27**	−0.23**	−0.05	−0.27**
Monitoring/Involvement—M	.05	.03	.02	.00	−0.04	.02
Firm Control—M	.05	.04	.03	.08	.03	.08
Psychological Control—M	−0.07	−0.13**	−0.26**	−0.21**	−0.08	−0.26**
Time 2 (age 12–14)
Monitoring/Involvement—F	.10	.10*	.09	.14**	.00	.15**
Firm Control—F	.04	.01	.09	.00	.10*	.08
Psychological Control—F	−0.12	−0.06	−0.29**	−0.21**	−0.06	−0.26**
Monitoring/Involvement—M	.07	.08	.09	.10**	−0.04	.11**
Firm Control—M	.02	−0.04	.04	.04	−0.03	.02
Psychological Control—M	−0.09*	−0.08*	−0.23**	−0.13**	−0.14*	−0.23**

Note. Reported values are pooled estimates from 5 imputed datasets. RTF: Resistance to Framing; CRP: Consistency in Risk Perception; ADP: Applying Decision Rules; OC: Over/underconfidence; RSN: Recognizing Social Norms; YDMC-Total: DMC composite index, calculated by regression score for a one-factor PCA solution. *p < .05; **p < .01.

Figure 1. SEM analysis results.

Table 3. Parameter estimates-SEM.

Measurement model—YDMC	Unstd. estimate	S.E	Std. estimate	S.E
Resistance to framing	0.56**	.09	0.36**	.05
Consistency in risk perception	0.56**	.09	0.40**	.05
Applying decision rules	–	–	0.63**	.05
Over/underconfidence	0.06**	.01	0.57**	.06
Recognizing social norms	0.10**	.02	0.30**	.06
Covariates
Neighborhood disadvantage	−0.22**	.04	−0.40**	.06
Number of SUD + parents	−0.08	.05	−0.08	.05
Sex (male = 0)	0.00	.08	0.02	.05
Monitoring/Involvement	0.00	.01	0.02	.05
Psychological control	−0.08**	.02	−0.29**	.05
Firm control	0.01	.02	0.03	.05

Note. **p < .001. CFI = .947, TLI = .926, RMSEA = .031. Parallel SEM for each assessment can be found in online Supplementary Information (SI2).

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available through upon reasonable request to Joshua Weller (email: [email protected]).