Understanding youth well-being in the family context: the role of democracy, warmth, and disclosure

ABSTRACT

This study applies a nonexperimental quantitative design to investigate youth well-being within the family context. Structural equation model analyses of information from 1883 seventh grade youths revealed: Democratic parenting (β = 0.43, p < .001), maternal warmth (β = 0.23, p < .001), and paternal warmth (β = 0.43, p < .05) were positively associated with youth disclosure, which in turn was associated with academic (β = 0.44, p < .001), emotional (β = 0.13, p < .05), and social (β = 0.43, p < .001) well-being the following year; paternal warmth and emotional well-being were directly linked (β = 0.16, p < .01); and youth disclosure and emotional well-being were associated stronger for girls (β = 0.33, p < .001) compared to boys (β = 0.11, p > .05). Future well-being research should consider parent–youth relationships, and youths could be involved in family policy-making and fostering supportive family environments.

KEYWORDS:

• Youth well-being
• family context
• parent–youth relationships
• youth disclosure
• democratic parenting
• parental warmth

Introduction

The parent–youth relationship within the family context matters for youth well-being. Parenting theory and research has predominantly focused on the role parents play for their youths’ well-being. Building on the earlier theoretical frameworks, of the likes of Baumrind (1971), Lewis (1981), and Maccoby and Martin (1983), Steinberg (2001) argued that authoritative parents – those demonstrating high warmth, maturity demands, and psychological autonomy granting – were most optimal for the well-being of youths because they combined demands for conduct with being responsive to their children’s needs and feelings, and involving them in decisions. Another area of parenting that has received much attention is parental monitoring, which assumes that youths are more likely to be doing well if parents know a lot about them (Kerr & Stattin, 2000; Stattin & Kerr, 2000). A limitation with such conceptualizations is that youths are portrayed as passive recipients within the family context.

Other and more recent perspectives have presented parent–youth relationships as reciprocal, recognizing the agency of youths and their role as active participants in parenting and the family context. For example, Bornstein’s (2009) transactional perspective depicted parenting as a complex and dynamic process situated in context and time where parents and their children influence and are influenced by the relationship. Also, Lerner and colleagues (Lerner & Hilliard, 2019; Lerner et al., 2002) expanded the notion of parenting and defined it as a relational process between members of differing generations embedded within cultural, historical, and social contexts. Over a decade ago, Trost et al. (2007) recognized the importance of the role of parenting with youths rather than parenting for youths. They noted, for example, that youths who desired parental involvement reported greater well-being compared to youths who desired low parental involvement, even if their parents desired to be involved. Along similar lines of youths’ importance for parenting, Tilton‐Weaver et al. (2014) noted that how parents gain information about their youths, which in turn can matter in how parents’ parent, could depend on what type of information their youths tell them. This also suggested that the dynamic relationship of parent-youth behaviours plays an important role in youth well-being or lack thereof. Such research raises the importance of looking into other aspects of the relationship that go beyond what the parents are doing in understanding youth well-being.

Contemporary research has pointed to specific characteristics of the parent–youth relationship that are promising: Democratic and warm parenting, and youth disclosure. Recent studies have reported that youths are more likely to routinely disclose information about their lives to their parents when they perceive their parents as democratic (Trost et al., 2020) and warm (Liu et al., 2020), and are more likely to report feeling well in such family contexts (Elsharnouby & Dost-Gözkan, 2020). However, little is known about how parent-youth relationships characterized by democracy, warmth, and disclosure are associated with youth well-being across multiple domains. The present study therefore explores, from the perspectives of youths, the role of democratic parenting, maternal warmth, paternal warmth, and youth disclosure for youths’ academic, emotional, and social well-being in Swedish families. The Swedish cultural context is also considered and discussed because the parent–youth relationship is understood as being embedded in a cultural context and regulated and shaped by cultural beliefs in the form of explicit laws, and implicit ideas and norms (Harkness & Super, 2020). In Swedish policy, youth is defined as individuals aged 13–25 years (Swedish Government, 2014), and in this study youth will be delimited to individuals in their early teens (approximately 13–14 years).

Youth well-being in the family context

According to the developmental niche theoretical framework (Harkness & Super, 2002, 2020), the family context is considered important for youth well-being, where youths are understood as active protagonists in their own well-being. Youth well-being is complex, multidimensional, and embedded in social and cultural contexts (Ben-Arieh et al., 2014; Lippman et al., 2011; Wyn et al., 2015). For example, Lippman and colleagues (Lippman et al., 2011; Lippman et al., 2014) suggest in their positive indicators framework that youth well-being is best understood when considering a variety of characteristics of youths, and their relationships with people and resources in their contexts.

By drawing from these frameworks, Mansoory (2020) has conceptualized youth well-being as a multidimensional phenomenon, covering a wide range of academic/cognitive, emotional/psychological, physical, recreational, and social characteristics. For example, academic and cognitive well-being covers academic and cognitive skills, such as being motivated and performing successfully in school; emotional and psychological well-being includes being happy, confident, and an active participant in one’s own well-being; social well-being comprises interpersonal competence and prosocial behaviours. Considering such a conceptualization, the present study explored youth well-being in the family context based on youth reports of the parent–youth relationship in relation to self-evaluations of academic, emotional, and social well-being.

From the perspective of youths, parents’ emotionally supportive behaviours, such as affection and communication are considered important (McNeely & Barber, 2010). Self-determination theory suggests that parents who are caring and emotionally supportive foster youth well-being. According to self-determination theory, individuals have fundamental psychological needs – the needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness – and the satisfaction of these needs are essential for well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2000, 2017). For example, youths’ need for relatedness is satisfied when they feel appreciated and loved by important people in their lives, such as their parents (Soenens et al., 2019), and it promotes a sense of connectedness and understanding within relationships (Vansteenkiste et al., 2010). Thus, from a self-determination theoretical perspective, parents who are caring and emotionally supportive demonstrate involvement, and promote the well-being of youths by satisfying their need for relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2017; Soenens et al., 2019). Considering these perspectives, and recent research literature, the present study investigates two promising aspects of parents’ emotionally supportive behaviours in relation to youth well-being: Democratic parenting and parental warmth.

The importance of democratic and warm parents for youth well-being

Democratic parenting – parents’ openness, willingness to listen, and respect for the opinions of their children even when they disagree – is increasingly understood as important for the well-being of youths. For example, empirical research has indicated that democratic family contexts are linked with higher social trust (Wray-Lake & Flanagan, 2012), and associated with better health outcomes compared to youths from families with high levels of psychological control (Luyckx et al., 2011; Rassart et al., 2014). Furthermore, youths who perceived their parents’ attitudes as democratic – that is, being autonomy granting, making demands, and being responsive to needs – were also less violence-oriented compared to youths with punitive or protective parents (Kulakci-Altintas & Ayaz-Alkaya, 2019). However, youths with authoritarian parents – characterized by high control, and low affection, communication, and autonomy-support – were more likely to experience punitive parenting and in turn to victimize or to be victimized in school (Gómez-Ortiz et al., 2016). Overall, parents’ democratic behaviours appear to be important for youth well-being.

Another characteristic of the parent–youth relationship that is considered important for youth well-being is accepting and warm parents. Parental warmth, evaluated as the responsiveness shown generally by both parents, was in recent meta-analyses reported being associated positively with youths’ academic performance, and associated negatively with their internalizing distress and externalizing behaviours (Pinquart, 2016, 2017a, 2017b). When studied separately, both maternal and paternal warmth were positively linked with youths’ academic engagement and performance (Cruz et al., 2020; Kramer, 2012; Wang et al., 2019), positive beliefs (Suizzo et al., 2017), and prosocial behaviours towards family and friends (Padilla-Walker et al., 2016). Furthermore, maternal warmth and paternal warmth were identified as being associated positively with various emotional and psychological strengths (e.g., self-esteem, emotional responsiveness, optimism), and associated negatively with aggressive and hostile behaviours (Khaleque, 2013) and depressive symptoms (Del Barrio et al., 2016; Stanik et al., 2013). Also, low maternal warmth and paternal warmth were recently reported as being associated with various youth difficulties, such as emotional symptomology (Miranda et al., 2016) and school dissatisfaction (Jaureguizar et al., 2018). In a recent study, Chung et al. (2020) reported that even with high parental involvement, low maternal and paternal warmth were associated with poorer academic performance compared to their counterparts who reported high maternal and paternal warmth. Thus, maternal and paternal warmth are both important to consider when studying youth well-being in the family context.

Considering this recent research, democratic and warm parenting appear to be important for youth well-being. However, because these studies focused on parents’ behaviours the role of youths in relation to youth well-being was overlooked, and even unintentionally interpreted as being a parent-driven process. The importance of considering not only parents’ behaviours, but also youths’ agency and behaviours in parent–youth relationships when studying youth well-being are highlighted by alternative theoretical perspectives (Lerner & Hilliard, 2019) and empirical studies (Trost et al., 2020; Xia et al., 2020). Youth can naturally demonstrate their agency in parent–youth relationships in myriad ways and by applying different strategies. For example, youths can demonstrate their agency through active management of the amount and type of information they provide their parents (Soenens et al., 2019). A specific information management strategy and characteristic of agency within parent–youth relationships that shows great potential in relation to youth well-being is youth disclosure.

Youth disclosure and well-being

Youth disclosure is increasingly considered as an important characteristic of agency in the parent–youth relationship. While there are many different forms of disclosure (e.g., self-disclosure, and routine disclosure), the focus of this study is youths’ tendency to routinely share information to their parents about their lives and the activities they engage in (Kerr & Stattin, 2000; Stattin & Kerr, 2000; Tilton‐Weaver et al., 2014). Youths can also engage in other information management strategies that aim to conceal or distort information from their parents, such as secrecy and lying (Laird et al., 2013). One needs to also bear in mind that disclosure practices may differ based on age and developmental differences among individuals. Youths generally disclose less information to their parents compared to younger children, with disclosure declining among early teenagers (Keijsers et al., 2009; Laird et al., 2013). Nevertheless, on average youths engage in information management strategies aimed at revealing information through disclosure more than secrecy and lying strategies aimed at concealing or distorting information (Laird et al., 2013; Soenens et al., 2019).

In the past few decades, youth routine disclosure has become part of many parenting studies that explore what is happening within the parent-youth relationship and in turn, intended to understand youth well-being. Indeed, youth who have reported that they regularly disclose information with their parents, and reported low secrecy, also reported higher psychological well-being – in terms of confidence, life satisfaction, and low anxiety – compared to youths who reported low disclosure and high secrecy (Elsharnouby & Dost-Gözkan, 2020). Another recent study identified youth disclosure as being positively linked with youths’ academic engagement and identity cohesion (Trost et al., 2020). In different studies, youths’ disclosure about who they were with, what they were doing, and how they were doing in school was consistently found being negatively associated with youths’ externalizing behaviours (Keijsers et al., 2010; Kerr & Stattin, 2000; Stattin & Kerr, 2000). Moreover, these studies identified some gender differences as well. For instance, boys were identified as more secretive than girls (Elsharnouby & Dost-Gözkan, 2020; cf.; Smetana et al., 2006). Furthermore, besides perceiving their parents as more controlling and soliciting more information, girls also reported more disclosure compared to boys (Keijsers et al., 2010; Kerr & Stattin, 2000; Stattin & Kerr, 2000). In their study, Trost et al. (2020) noted that girls reported more youth disclosure, and less problematic behaviours and peer relationships than boys. Hence, one cannot ignore that youth disclosure does appear to be an important aspect of youths’ agency towards youth well-being in the family context, and that gender could be a potential moderator when studying these associations.

In most research youth disclosure is studied in relation to parent-focused control behaviours characterized by rules and regulations, and parental solicitation for information. Until recently, little was known about if democratic or warm parenting facilitated youth disclosure or not. More recent studies indicate that youth disclosure may be facilitated by parenting characterized by democracy and warmth. For example, current research has demonstrated that youths were more likely to disclose information to parents whom they perceived as being democratic (Trost et al., 2015, 2020) and warm (Dotterer & Day, 2019; Garthe et al., 2015). Meta-analyses also have found that youths who perceived their parents as warm also disclosed more information to them, both in cross-sectional and longitudinal studies (Liu et al., 2020). A potential explanation could be that youths who perceive their parents as warm, feel more connected to them, and therefore disclose more information to them, as demonstrated longitudinally (Tilton-Weaver et al., 2010). These studies, however, do not report gender differences. Except for the aforementioned studies, we know little about how democracy, warmth, and disclosure work together in relation to youth well-being from the parenting literature. In other words, there is a gap in the research literature about if and how youth routine disclosure acts as a mechanism that links democratic and warm parenting with youth well-being across different domains. By considering what we know so far, one could expect that youths are more likely to disclose information about their daily lives to their parents when in a democratic and warm family context. This could in turn enable youth to do and feel well.

The Swedish cultural context of youths and their parents

As the interactions between youths and their parents could be understood as being regulated and shaped by cultural beliefs in the form of explicit laws, and implicit ideas and norms (Harkness & Super, 2020), the Swedish cultural context is important to consider. For example, previous studies have found that Swedish parents generally reported democratic and permissive attitudes (Bornstein et al., 2011; Sorbring & Gurdal, 2011), and that they informed being engaged in parenting behaviours that are less authoritarian and more democratic (Trifan et al., 2014). When asked about their perceptions of youth well-being, Swedish fathers and mothers emphasized socio-emotional characteristics (e.g., happiness, social competence, confidence, connection, care), indicating that autonomy and self-expression along with constructive relationships characterized by communication and prosocial behaviours of youths were valued the most (Mansoory, 2020; Mansoory et al., 2019). Furthermore, Swedish youths reported that their parents generally demonstrate high levels of communication, and moderate levels of control and warmth (Trost et al., 2015), and that they are often involved in family decisions (Ferrer-Wreder et al., 2012).

The relationship between youths and their parents in Sweden may be affected by certain distinctive aspects of Swedish culture. Relative to other countries, Sweden is often ranked highest on self-expression values with individual agency and autonomy being emphasized (Inglehart, 2018). Furthermore, the rights and perspectives of youths are prominent in Sweden. For instance, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child was ratified by Sweden in 1990, and made law as of 2020 (Swedish Parliament, 2018). Moreover, a current policy seeks to empower youths to shape their own lives and to influence socioeconomic development by taking into account their perspectives and engagements in civic and political life (Swedish Government, 2014). These features of Swedish culture, in the form of explicit laws and implicit norms, might be embedded in the family life experiences of youths.

Study aim and hypotheses

To better understand youth well-being in the family context, the current study aimed to explore the role of democracy, warmth, and disclosure within parent–youth relationships. More specifically, the present study investigated how democratic parenting, maternal warmth, paternal warmth, and youth disclosure could be associated with each other, and how these associations in turn were linked with youths’ academic, emotional, and social well-being a year later. The study was guided by two hypotheses: First, youths who perceived their parents as democratic and warm would more likely disclose information about their lives to their parents. Second, youths from family contexts characterized by high democracy, warmth, and disclosure would more likely demonstrate higher academic, emotional, and social well-being. Differences between boys and girls were assessed in an exploratory fashion, and the moderating role of gender was also studied. Although research results are mixed, gender was considered a potential moderator when studying parent–youth relationships and was therefore included in the analyses.

Materials and methods

Participants and procedures

The present study applied a nonexperimental quantitative research design with short-term longitudinal data from two time points, one year apart. The study included information provided by youths within the initial cohort from the first (time 1 [T1]; seventh grade) and the second waves (time 2 [T2]; eighth grade) of the KUPOL project (Galanti et al., 2016). The project was approved by the Stockholm Ethics Review Board (approval reference numbers 2012/1904–31/1, and 2016/1280–32). The participant recruitment process is illustrated in Figure 1. For further information about the project data collection procedures and ethics approval, see Galanti et al. (2016). The initial cohort consisted of 1951 youths (approximately 13 years at T1). Written active informed consent was provided by youths and parents on behalf of their children. Parents also provided their demographic information. Of the youths’ parents, the majority were born in Sweden (72%), were living together with a second legal guardian (72%), were employed (75%), and either one or both had a university degree or some college training (61%). Youths who provided no information were excluded from further analyses (3% of initial cohort), leaving a total of 1883 youths (52% girls) as the final group of participants in the study.

Figure 1. Participant recruitment process of the KUPOL project. Adapted from Galanti et al. (2016).

Measures

The present study used a composite survey containing various validated instruments to measure democratic parenting, maternal and paternal warmth, youth disclosure, and youth well-being characteristics, all based on information provided by youths.

Democratic parenting

Democratic parenting was measured by questions that assessed the degree to which youths perceived their parents as being open, willing to listen, and respectful towards their opinions, even if they disagree (Fuligni & Eccles, 1993). Three questions were used that included: ‘In our family, we take the time to listen to each other’s views’; ‘My parents let me have my say even if they disagree’, and ‘My parents respect my opinions’. All responses were assessed based on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always; Wray-Lake & Flanagan, 2012). In the present study, internal reliability (α) for this measure equalled .86 at T1 and .87 at T2.

Maternal and paternal warmth

Maternal and paternal warmth refers to how much youths perceive that their mothers and fathers accept, love, and support them (e.g., ‘Your mother/father: Always shows her/his love to you without a cause – almost regardless of what you do’). Maternal and paternal warmth were measured, respectively, by six items on a 3-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 3 (usually; Tilton-Weaver et al., 2010). The current study identified acceptable reliability for both maternal warmth (T1: α = .79; T2: α = .82) and paternal warmth (T1: α = .83; T2: α = .84).

Youth disclosure

In the present study, the term youth disclosure is used synonymously with the term youth routine disclosure, which refers to the degree to which youths regularly share information about their routines or daily lives to their parents (e.g., ‘Do you talk at home about how you are doing in the different subjects at school?’). Youth disclosure was measured using an instrument with five questions on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always; Kerr & Stattin, 2000). The present study found the reliability of this measurement to be adequate (T1: α = .75; T2: α = .76).

Youth well-being

Youth well-being was measured across three domains: Academic, emotional, and social well-being. Academic well-being was operationally defined as being academically engaged. It was measured with the future aspirations and goals subscale of the Student Engagement Instrument (Appleton et al., 2006). These five items measured the extent youths were academically engaged as an important strategy for their future from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree; e.g. ‘School is important for achieving my future goals’). In the present study, the reliability was identified as acceptable (T1: α = .79; T2: α = .81).

Emotional well-being and social well-being were measured with the aid of two subscales from the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; Goodman et al., 1998). The two subscales comprised five items each, evaluated with a 3-point scale from 1 (not true) to 3 (certainly true). Emotional well-being was operationally defined as experiencing emotional health. The construct was measured with the emotional symptoms subscale of the SDQ. Emotional symptoms characterize the general tendency of experiencing negative affect and psychological difficulties (e.g., ‘I am often unhappy, down-hearted or tearful’). In the present study, all items were reversed, with higher scores indicating higher emotional well-being. In the present study, an adequate reliability was noted for this measure (T1: α = .74; T2: α = .74).

Social well-being was operationally defined as being a prosocial person who treats others well with care and support. It was measured with the aid of the prosocial behaviours subscale of the SDQ. Prosocial behaviours refer to a general tendency of being caring and helpful towards others (e.g., ‘I try to be nice to other people. I care about their feelings’; Goodman et al., 1998). In the present study, the alpha coefficient was identified at T1 as .67, and at T2 as .68. These psychometric properties of the SDQ are considered acceptable according to earlier research with Swedish youths (see Lundh et al., 2008).

Statistical strategy and analyses

Initial analyses were conducted using SPSS (IBM, 2020) to clean and prepare data, to extract descriptive and comparative statistics for boys and girls, and to extract Cronbach alphas for each measurement. Then, Mplus version 8.2 (Muthén & Muthén, 2018) was used to test measurement and structural models. All model estimations were conducted with robust maximum likelihood estimation procedures, and partially missing data were estimated with robust full information maximum likelihood. Measurement models were tested using confirmatory factor analyses to study whether the measures of the latent constructs were consistent with the nature of construct factors (Bollen, 1989; Jöreskog, 1969). The factor structures of the relevant index scales demonstrated similar loadings and acceptable internal consistency for boys and girls. Response scales were adjusted and all scales showing a higher value represented higher levels of that construct. Short-term longitudinal associations between each latent construct from T1 to T2 were tested. Structural models of direct and indirect associations between parenting behaviours, youth disclosure, and youth well-being characteristics were analysed cross-sectionally and compared using structural equation modelling. The hypothesized model assumed that democratic parenting, maternal warmth, and paternal warmth (i.e., predictors) were through youth disclosure (i.e., mediator) at T1 indirectly linked with youths’ academic, emotional, and social well-being (i.e., outcomes) at T2. To study gender differences, multi-group analyses were conducted on the baseline model with varied model estimations (Baron & Kenny, 1986).

Model fit was determined based on multiple global assessments: The chi-square (χ²) test, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), comparative fit index (CFI), and Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), adjusted Bayesian information criterion (ABIC), and Akaike information criterion (AIC; Byrne, 2012). Recommended cut-offs of < .06 for RMSEA, < .08 for SRMR, > .95 CFI and TLI were used (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Chi-square difference tests (S-B Δ χ²; Satorra & Bentler, 2001) were conducted to compare alternative models and to identify the baseline model. In other words, the direct association between the parenting behaviours and youth well-being characteristics were also tested as alternative models, followed by chi-square difference tests to identify the final model.

Results

Descriptive and comparative statistics for boys and girls

Descriptive statistics were studied and independent t-tests of possible gender differences in means across dimensions were analysed. In Table 1, descriptive and comparative statistics are presented separately for boys and girls at T1 and T2. Generally, boys and girls reported having democratic and warm parents. Youths also informed that they routinely disclosed information about their daily activities to their parents. This tendency was, however, more prevalent among girls than boys. Youths generally responded doing well academically and socially, with girls reporting higher levels of social well-being compared to boys. Furthermore, boys were generally reporting higher emotional well-being compared to girls. Thus, there were no significant differences between boys and girls with regard to the parents’ democratic and warm behaviours, and academic well-being. Significant gender differences were instead found between youth disclosure, emotional well-being, and social well-being.

Table 1. Descriptive and comparative statistics for democratic and warm parenting behaviours, youth disclosure, and youth well-being characteristics.

	Total				Boys		Girls			Gender differences
	n	M	SD	n	M	SD	n	M	SD	t	df	p	d
Democratic parenting T1	1807	4.24	0.83	861	4.25	0.81	946	4.23	0.84	0.51	1805	.611	0.02
Democratic parenting T2	1703	4.22	0.87	818	4.23	0.85	885	4.21	0.88	0.51	1701	.608	0.03
Maternal warmth T1	1798	2.57	0.40	856	2.57	0.39	942	2.58	0.42	−0.45	1796	.652	−0.02
Maternal warmth T2	1701	2.57	0.42	814	2.57	0.42	887	2.58	0.43	−0.62	1699	.538	−0.03
Paternal warmth T1	1760	2.50	0.45	841	2.50	0.43	919	2.49	0.47	0.82	1758	.415	0.04
Paternal warmth T2	1665	2.48	0.47	802	2.48	0.44	863	2.47	0.50	0.62^a	1658^a	.536	0.03
Youth disclosure T1	1814	3.95	0.75	865	3.89	0.75	949	4.01	0.74	−3.43	1812	.001	−0.16
Youth disclosure T2	1705	3.88	0.77	817	3.82	0.75	888	3.94	0.77	−3.21	1703	.001	−0.16
Academic well-being T1	1804	4.43	0.64	855	4.40	0.69	949	4.45	0.60	−1.51^a	1700^a	.132	−0.07
Academic well-being T2	1700	4.38	0.68	817	4.36	0.73	883	4.40	0.64	−1.19^a	1632^a	.236	−0.06
Emotional well-being T1	1816	2.44	0.48	866	2.63	0.36	950	2.27	0.50	17.64^a	1725^a	.000	0.82
Emotional well-being T2	1719	2.42	0.48	829	2.62	0.38	890	2.24	0.49	18.14^a	1663	.000	0.87
Social well-being T1	1807	2.57	0.37	858	2.48	0.38	949	2.65	0.33	−9.52^a	1699^a	.000	−0.45
Social well-being T2	1719	2.59	0.36	829	2.51	0.38	890	2.67	0.33	−9.02^a	1650^a	.000	−0.44

n varies because missing values were excluded per variable; ^a Equal variances not assumed; T1 = time 1, seventh grade; T2 = time 2, eighth grade.

Associations between parental warmth, democratic parenting, youth disclosure, and youth well-being

As demonstrated in Table 2, model fit of the measurement models were identified as acceptable. Short-term longitudinal associations between each factor from T1 to T2 – democratic parenting, maternal warmth, paternal warmth, youth disclosure, and youth well-being characteristics – were studied. The overall fit of the model was acceptable (χ² [2244] = 4486.71, CFI = .954, RMSEA = .023), and as demonstrated in Figure 2 the temporal stability coefficients of all associations varied from .61 to .86 (p < .001). Such findings gave support to continue by testing the hypothesized model, with democratic and warm parenting being associated indirectly with the youth well-being characteristics through youth disclosure. The hypothesized model, with youth well-being characteristics at eighth grade as an outcome variable, fit the youth reports well, χ² (538) = 1222.18, CFI = .967, RMSEA = .026. As previously posited in the literature, parents’ emotionally supportive behaviours could also be directly associated with youth well-being, and chi-square difference tests revealed that this was the case. More specifically, paternal warmth and emotional well-being were found to have a direct relationship (S-B Δ χ² [1] = 10.12, p < .01). This model was therefore identified as the baseline model, χ² (537) = 1209.88, CFI = .968, RMSEA = .026. Furthermore, when tested separately, the baseline model fitted well for boys (χ² [537] = 797.15, CFI = .973, RMSEA = .023), and girls (χ² [537] = 945.08, CFI = .964, RMSEA = .028).

Figure 2. Associations between each factor at T1 (seventh grade) and T2 (eighth grade), all statistically significant at p < .001.

Table 2. Fit indices of measurement models based on confirmatory factor analyses.

Model	df	χ^2	p	RMSEA	SRMR	CFI	TLI	ABIC	AIC	n total observations	n (%) with partially missing data
Democratic parenting T1	0	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	1807	33 (1.83%)
Maternal warmth T1	9	11.95	.216	.013	.010	.999	.998	15363.03	15321.32	1798	74 (4.12%)
Paternal warmth T1	9	26.41	.002	.033	.015	.993	.989	15915.18	15873.85	1760	85 (4.83%)
Youth disclosure T1	3	5.14	.162	.020	.007	.999	.996	23316.63	23277.08	1814	74 (4.08%)
Academic well-being T2	4	25.03	.000	.056	.013	.988	.988	18346.80	18310.61	1700	48 (3.47%)
Emotional well-being T2	4	24.80	.000	.055	.018	.985	.962	16098.97	16062.61	1719	54 (3.14%)
Social well-being T2	5	16.25	.006	.036	.017	.987	.974	12504.89	12470.81	1719	72 (3.98%)

Fit statistics are estimated with robust maximum likelihood and partially missing data are estimated with robust full information maximum likelihood. For youth disclosure two error covariances and for academic well-being and emotional well-being respectively one error covariance were included in the models.

The baseline model is illustrated by Figure 3. As demonstrated in Figure 3, democratic parenting, maternal warmth, and paternal warmth were all positively associated with youth disclosure at seventh grade, and youth disclosure was in turn positively associated with academic, emotional, and social well-being, respectively, a year later. Furthermore, paternal warmth was also directly associated with emotional well-being. In other words, youths with democratic and warm parents were more likely to disclose information to their parents, and parent–youth relationships characterized by democracy, warmth, and disclosure increased the likelihood of youths also doing well academically, emotionally, and socially 1 year later. Moreover, youths who perceived their fathers as warm were also more likely to feel emotionally well the following year. As noted in Table 3, further analyses revealed that apart from the direct association between paternal warmth and emotional well-being, democratic, and warm behaviours were indirectly associated with youth well-being through youth disclosure. Except for paternal warmth and emotional well-being, these results indicate that youth disclosure acts, at least partially, as a mechanism that links democratic and warm parenting with youths’ academic, emotional, and social well-being.

Figure 3. Standardised parameter estimates of statistically significant paths for baseline model, * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

T1 = time 1, seventh grade; T2 = time 2, eighth grade.

Table 3. Indirect associations of baseline model for both boys and girls.

			Indirect
Predictor	Mediator	Outcome	β	95% CI B-CB
Democratic parenting T1	Youth disclosure T1	Academic well-being T2	0.19***	[0.13, 0.25]
		Emotional well-being T2	0.05*	[0.01, 0.11]
		Social well-being T2	0.18***	[0.13, 0.24]
Maternal warmth T1	Youth disclosure T1	Academic well-being T2	0.10***	[0.05, 0.15]
		Emotional well-being T2	0.03*	[0.01, 0.06]
		Social well-being T2	0.10***	[0.05, 0.15]
Paternal warmth T1	Youth disclosure T1	Academic well-being T2	0.05*	[0.01, 0.10]
		Emotional well-being T2	0.02	[0.00, 0.04]
		Social well-being T2	0.05*	[0.01, 0.10]

95% CI _B-CB = 95% bias-corrected bootstrapped confidence interval; * p < .05; *** p < .001; T1 = time 1, seventh grade; T2 = time 2, eighth grade.

Gender as a moderator in the model

The moderating role of gender was tested by means of a multi-group model. In the first model, the path estimates were constrained to be equal between boys and girls, and in the second model all paths were unconstrained. When the paths were constrained to be equal between the groups of boys and girls the model fit deteriorated. A chi-square difference test demonstrated a significant worsening of the overall model fit by restrictions in the baseline model (S-B Δ χ² [63] = 209.36, p < .001). Individual constraining of the paths showed that one path significantly differed between boys and girls, the pathway between youth disclosure and emotional well-being. More specifically, the association between youth disclosure and emotional well-being was found to be significantly stronger for girls (β = 0.33, p < .001) than for boys (β = 0.11, p > .05; S-B Δ χ² [1] = 11.31, p < .001). In other words, compared to boys the link between youth disclosure and emotional well-being at baseline was stronger for girls.

Discussion

Based on information provided by youths, the present study explored how parents’ democratic and warmth behaviours and youths’ tendencies to routinely disclose information to their parents were associated with youths' academic, emotional, and social well-being the following year, and whether these associations were moderated by gender. As expected, the present study found that youths who perceived their parents as democratic and warm also disclosed more information to them. These results are coherent with earlier studies (Dotterer & Day, 2019; Garthe et al., 2015; Liu et al., 2020; Trost et al., 2020). Empirical research indicates that youths who perceive their parents as warm, feel more connected to them, and routinely disclose more information to them (Tilton-Weaver et al., 2010). Moreover, the present study also found as hypothesized that youths who disclosed information to their parents at seventh grade also demonstrated higher academic, emotional, and social well-being at eighth grade. These results also align with earlier studies that have found youth disclosure to be associated with better academic engagement (Trost et al., 2020), and psychological well-being (Elsharnouby & Dost-Gözkan, 2020). From a self-determination theoretical perspective, parents who are caring and emotionally supportive strengthen a sense of connectedness and understanding within the parent–youth relationship and foster the well-being of youths by satisfying their basic need for relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2017; Soenens et al., 2019; Vansteenkiste et al., 2010).

The present study extends this body of research by demonstrating that youth routine disclosure partially acts as a mechanism that links democratic and warm parenting with youth well-being where parent–youth relationships characterized by democracy, warmth, and disclosure increases the likelihood of youths doing well in academic, emotional, and social domains. As such, youth routine disclosure can be understood as an information management strategy and characteristic of agency within parent–youth relationships (Soenens et al., 2019), with great potential towards youth well-being in the family context. From a developmental niche theoretical perspective (Harkness & Super, 2002, 2020), youths are understood as active protagonists in their own well-being within the family context, and the overall findings of the present study highlight the importance of reciprocal intergenerational relationships between youths and their parents. Rather than being a parent-driven process, youth well-being in the family context appear to involve fathers, mothers, and youths as important actors within relational developmental systems (cf. Lerner & Hilliard, 2019).

Surprisingly, youths’ emotional well-being in eighth grade was not only associated directly with youth disclosure, but also with paternal warmth at seventh grade. Previous research has identified both maternal warmth and paternal warmth as being positively related with youths’ academic engagement and performance (Cruz et al., 2020; Kramer, 2012; Wang et al., 2019), emotional responsiveness (Khaleque, 2013), and prosocial behaviours (Padilla-Walker et al., 2016). The present study only identified maternal warmth as being indirectly associated with youths’ academic, emotional, and social well-being, and paternal warmth being directly related with emotional well-being. This could perhaps indicate that the functionality of paternal warmth in relation to emotional well-being differs from academic and social well-being. Future longitudinal studies involving more time points might clarify these points. Furthermore, because the measurement of youth routine disclosure used in the current study focused on youths sharing information about their academic and recreational/social lives to their parents, future research could also consider including youths’ self-disclosure of emotional experiences, and to differentiate disclosure practices in relation to fathers and mothers to better understand these relationships.

Gender differences, between boys and girls, were assessed in an exploratory manner in the present study. Few gender differences were observed. When compared to boys, girls demonstrated indeed poorer emotional well-being, but more social well-being. A recent literature review on well-being studies with Swedish children and youths noted that girls generally report higher emotional and psychological difficulties than boys, and that future research needs to better understand the underlying reasons to these differences (Forte: Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, 2021). In the present study, girls also reported more routine disclosure than boys, which is consistent with earlier studies (Keijsers et al., 2010; Kerr & Stattin, 2000; Stattin & Kerr, 2000). The present study also found that the positive relationship between youth disclosure and emotional well-being was stronger for girls than for boys, which indicates that gender moderates this relationship. Against this background, more research is needed to clarify the reasons for the gender differences identified by the present study.

The results of the present study could be culturally situated, where the relationship between youths and their parents are understood as being shaped by explicit and implicit beliefs and norms within their cultural contexts (Harkness & Super, 2020). Democratic parenting attitudes and behaviours appear to be a salient feature of family contexts in Sweden (Sorbring & Gurdal, 2011; Trifan et al., 2014), where Swedish parents generally engage in high communication with their youths (Trost et al., 2015), and include them in making family decisions (Ferrer-Wreder et al., 2012). These family context characteristics may be facilitated by policies that seek to strengthen the rights of youths (Swedish Parliament, 2018), and seek to empower their autonomy to shape and influence their lives (Swedish Government, 2014). These aspects of Swedish culture might have affected the relationships between youths and their parents in the current study, considering that youths generally reported family contexts characterized by high democracy, warmth, and youth disclosure.

Limitations and strengths

This study has limitations. Considering that the study design is nonexperimental with variable associations being analysed cross-sectionally, it is not possible to draw any causal conclusions. Furthermore, although warmth behaviours of fathers and mothers were assessed separately, democratic parenting was not, and neither was youth disclosure in relation to fathers and mothers, respectively, evaluated. Sociodemographic characteristics of parents were not included in the analyses either. Future research could consider such characteristics of parents and youths to be able to better understand their similarities and differences in relation to youth well-being. Moreover, the measurement of youth routine disclosure used in the current study focused on youth sharing information about their lives within academic and recreational/social domains, whereas self-disclosure on the emotional experiences of youths and other information management strategies, such as secrecy, were not studied. By studying youths’ routine disclosure, self-disclosure, and other information management strategies we may perhaps gain a better understanding of how these are linked with democratic and warm parenting, and different aspects of youth well-being. The present study analysed self-evaluated disclosure practices of seventh-grade youths and considering that disclosure practices may differ based on age and developmental differences among individuals, more longitudinal research is needed to understand the relationship between youth disclosure and youth well-being over time. Moreover, although representative of the Swedish population, one may find the cohort lacking cultural and socioeconomic diversity from an international perspective, considering that most of the youths’ parents reported being born in Sweden, employed, and having a university degree or some college training. Hence, care must be taken in generalizing the results of the present study to family contexts that differ from those studied here. Furthermore, the youths in this study were mainly from households where both parents live together, but also included households where parents live apart. Future research could investigate if and how these and other family structures affect the relationships between democratic and warm parenting behaviours, youth disclosure, and youth well-being.

Despite these limitations, the present study has several strengths. The study applied rigorous statistical strategies and analyses, including multiple global assessments to determine model fit, and estimated partially missing data to mitigate limitations with data deletion or imputation. Furthermore, youth well-being was measured across multiple domains that covered academic, emotional, and social characteristics. Also, rather than studying parental warmth as the general responsiveness shown by both parents, the present study assessed the warmth of fathers and mothers separately and in relation to youth disclosure and youth well-being. By doing so, it was possible to demonstrate how maternal and paternal warmth were associated with various youth well-being characteristics, either directly or indirectly through youth disclosure. These and other strategies allowed the present study to explore how parent–youth relationships characterized by democracy, warmth, and disclosure work together towards youth well-being.

Future directions

The results of the present study could have formal and informal implications for youth well-being in relation to the family context. Policymakers would benefit from the perspectives of youths when establishing or revising policies that affect families that include all actors in the relationship rather than focusing on parents only or youths only. Also, youth disclosure could be understood as a marker of youths’ social well-being, as suggested by fathers and mothers (Mansoory, 2020; Mansoory et al., 2019). Along similar lines, parents and practitioners that wish to facilitate the well-being of youths can consider how to create, practice, and learn from a respectful and loving family environment that invites and encourages youths to communicate with their parents, where all participate and contribute to such dynamic relationships.

Future research could consider youth disclosure when studying youth well-being in the family context. By also considering other aspects of the parent–youth relationship richer insights may be achieved, for example, youths’ perceived connection with their parents, youths’ sense of autonomy, and parents’ autonomy support and involvement in youths’ academic, emotional, and social domains of life. Longitudinal research designs could potentially identify how democratic parenting, maternal warmth, paternal warmth, and youth disclosure are associated with youth well-being characteristics over time and if they are reciprocally related. Future research could even consider if and how democracy, warmth, and disclosure in other important social contexts for youths, such as at school, with peers, and in recreational activities, might matter to youth well-being.

Acknowledgments

The author thanks participating youths and their parents, as well as the administrative and healthcare staff of the participating schools in the KUPOL study. The author also wishes to thank Professor Rosaria Galanti for her support and for opening the door to KUPOL, and acknowledges the professional work of the KUPOL study’s experts and operative staff, in particular, Filip Andersson and Elin Arnö. The author also thanked Dr Kari Trost for her comments on earlier manuscript drafts.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Shahram Mansoory

Shahram Mansoory is a doctor of Child and Youth Studies. His research interests concern studying youth well-being by using both qualitative and quantitative research methods to further theoretical and empirical understanding of what well-being is in relation to youths and how it can be promoted.